# Puppy showing aggression



## m4gnum (Jan 6, 2017)

Hello. I have an issue with my 5 months old Pom. He is showing aggression in certain situations. Most of the time he is a great, gentle, lovely puppy but when it comes to putting the harness on or off (even worse) he gets very aggressive, he holds the harness with his legs strongly and resists taking it off/on, when I keep doing it he snaps and then bites very hard with every occasion. The same thing happens with any kind of "clothing", harness, collar, shirt. He comes to me when I hold it but as it touches his head he gets aggressive. Not always, sometimes he is calm when I do it. Today I wanted to try to put a shirt on, just to see his reaction and he bit me twice pretty hard and left a puncture, when I raised my voice he snapped, as a punishment he is left in his ex-pen at home for few hours until I come from work, normally he would be sitting with me right now, I got late because of him. I always praise him when I put it on but its a lottery when he remains calm and when he does not want it. I had the same issue with long-lasting treats. When he got it he did not want to give it back, he moved to other place and did not listen at all, when I wanted to take his treat for not listening and running away he would snap and become aggresive. And like I said before there are times when he just hands me the treat, it also depends on what kind of treat is that. Normally he listens to me, he does the commands like sit or lap everything I say so so I think he is not the alpha but he is still confused in some situations. The other thing, maybe its associated with his aggression somehow, he does not like to be petted, he takes his head anytime someone tries to pet him. And again I mostly pet him only while giving a treat, again I think he know its means good but he just does not like it. Maybe its normal but he might have some sexual problems, he humps on his toy few times a day, he is pretty aggressive when he does that, he tried it at me and couldn't resist, when I tries to stop him he would try to bite me or pull my clothes. After few isolations it stopped and he only does that to his toy. I did not want it but I guess I will need to neuter him.
Could you give me some instructions on how to react and how to stop it? Its a very bad behavior and could get very dangerous with kids around.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

For one thing, this will probably be a slower process... Remember that if you are not consistent, it will not work. I would suggest trying to get him used to being touched, offering him a reward (whatever is his favorite,) when he lets you touch him. Don't try to force a harness or anything on him yet. I would say to use a collar when you take him out, and otherwise just leave him be until he is okay with you touching him. Keep rewarding him when you touch him. Also, I don't know how you are about corrections, but it is necessary to find some sort of correction for when he bites you. Being that he's a 5 month Pom, I don't know if I'd use a training collar yet, but there are other things you could do like take a toy (or even use the old method of a squirt of water... It doesn't harm the dog, and as long as he doesn't get immune to it it can work...) Just make sure that he gets rewarded when you touch him, and something he doesn't like happens when he gets aggressive. Eventually using this process you should be able to completely eliminate the aggression and be able to put the harness on and take it off. Whatever specifically you choose to do, just make sure you're consistent.  Hope this helps!


----------



## LeoRose (Aug 20, 2015)

I think you need to work with a good, positive based trainer to deal with his issues. This is one place to start looking. http://www.ccpdt.org/dog-owners/certified-dog-trainer-directory/ and this is another https://apps.apdt.com/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=TrainerSearch He needs to be be desensitized to being handled, and have his resource guarding addressed. 

What kind of breeder did he come from? Were his parents mentally sound dogs with good temperaments? Did he receive lots of early handling an socialization? Genetics and early experiences play a huge role in shaping a dog's temperament.


----------



## m4gnum (Jan 6, 2017)

Thank you. I will keep up with the process as you said. Water squirting does not work too good because it looks like he likes it. Isolation is the thing that he hates the most, he always needs to be close to human. When I am getting myself done he is always on the bath rug waiting, when I doing something he always gets his toys to my feet and plays with it, when he comes to me I am able to pet him and he likes it but when I want to pet him when I want to he turns his back on me. When he is tired he likes to be held on laps or hand. He has his moments and its even harder to keep up with what he likes and what he doesnt like. As a punishment I was thinking about some kind of non irritating lemon sprays, I think I seen something like this somewhere. Have you heard about it? 

LeoRose, I want to try to train him myself before getting him to a professional trainer. He came from a very good breeder. His father is a champion and a very calm socialized dog, his mother however does not like other people and she bards very much so I could not get to know her better. My puppy loves people and is happy any time someone is even looking at him but he just does not like to be petted too much. He barks only when someone opens the door and thats the only time he barks, but he shows his aggression in certain situation.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

This is really not a situation where punishment is appropriate.

You have a tiny dog who is afraid of being handled when putting on gear, and is lashing out in an attempt to protect itself. This is not an uncommon issue with small dogs, to them we're GIANT and scary!

Instead, you should think of it from the mindset of you needing to make your dog comfortable with these situations. Go slow, lots of rewards and soft gentle praise, lots of baby steps.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Yeah, this dog sounds afraid and insecure - neither of which are going to improve with any kind of punishment! It's very rare for a puppy to be truly aggressive, but it's unfortunately common for small dogs to get used to having their "please stop, I don't like that" signals ignored (because they're small and easy for us to manhandle, and because we figure they're less dangerous than a big dog so it's 'safer' to ignore warning signs). Many small dogs learn the only thing people listen to is a bite, because they've been forced to escalate that much. He's not being dominant; dog-human dominance does not exist in the way you're thinking. He's scared and communicating in the only way that he can that he wants the scary thing to stop.

I agree with the others who are saying with reintroducing a harness in tiny baby steps, and in the meantime leave a collar on him so he doesn't have to go through the scary process of getting it put on more often than necessary. And when I say baby steps, I mean: put the harness on the floor. Reward him for looking at it, approaching it, interacting with it. When he seems calm and comfortable with that, pick up the harness. Reward for looking, sniffing, etc. when the harness is in your hand. Keep doing this in tiny increments (bringing your hand closer, reaching towards him with the hand without the harness, reaching towards him with the hand with the harness, etc.) until he's learned that the harness is a fun thing to be around and is calmer and more confident around it. This is called counterconditioning, and if you search around for it, there's a lot of helpful videos on Youtube and descriptions online. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7edMjwEY1c (this trainer uses a clicker when the dog does something good, but you can also just say 'yes' or similar to mark the behavior).

For the resource guarding, do NOT take his treat away if he guards unless it's a safety issue! This just teaches him that his fears are right: you WILL take his food, so next time he has to guard more, sooner. Start dropping tiny tasty nibbles near him when he has a high-value treat. Don't look at him or get in his space, just toss the treat over as you pass by. You want to teach him that you being near his food is good and not to be feared. You can also look into 'trading up' - when he gives you a good treat, he gets something better in return! I highly recommend the book Mine! by Jean Donaldson if you can get it - it's about $10 and a short read, but full of good information on just this one issue.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

LeoRose said:


> I think you need to work with a good, positive based trainer to deal with his issues. This is one place to start looking. http://www.ccpdt.org/dog-owners/certified-dog-trainer-directory/ and this is another https://apps.apdt.com/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=TrainerSearch He needs to be be desensitized to being handled, and have his resource guarding addressed.
> 
> What kind of breeder did he come from? Were his parents mentally sound dogs with good temperaments? Did he receive lots of early handling an socialization? Genetics and early experiences play a huge role in shaping a dog's temperament.


I agree with LeoRose. Working with a trainer sooner rather than later is the best thing you can do for your pup, especially considering that his mother had temperament issues. 

Pet Professional Guild is another good directory. Also, you can look for graduates of Pat Miller and Jean Donaldson's schools.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Also, humping in puppies is almost never sexual (with the _possible_ exception of if there's a female in heat around, but most males that young wouldn't be interested). It is, however, often a sign of overexcitement, frustration, and/or anxiety. It sounds like your little guy is pretty high-stress, and consulting a certified, force-free behaviorist (remember, no dominance theory! That's hogwash) would probably be a good idea. Look at the APDT and CCPDT for qualified people in your area, if you're interested.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

This is serious. Not going for walks because he won't cooperate with his harness is annoying but if he's that touchy can you groom him? Can you handle his feet? Bucky came here in pain from claws grown into his feet and had heavy mats hanging all over his body. If you cannot brush his teeth they will rot, cause pain and even shorten his life.

Get some help! I have good enough training chops to know how to use treats and work slowly so Bucky came to trust me. Inside a month he was mat free and I was able to keep his nails short after a visit to the vet to get them cut out of his pads.


----------



## LeoRose (Aug 20, 2015)

m4gnum said:


> LeoRose, I want to try to train him myself before getting him to a professional trainer. He came from a very good breeder. His father is a champion and a very calm socialized dog, his mother however does not like other people and she bards very much so I could not get to know her better. My puppy loves people and is happy any time someone is even looking at him but he just does not like to be petted too much. He barks only when someone opens the door and thats the only time he barks, but he shows his aggression in certain situation.


I do think you need to get a trainer involved sooner rather than later. The trainer is for _YOU_, by the way. They will be teaching _you _how to handle him, not doing all the training themselves with you watching from the sidelines. 

If he's from a good breeder, you need to contact them, and let them know the issues you are having.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> This is really not a situation where punishment is appropriate.
> 
> You have a tiny dog who is afraid of being handled when putting on gear, and is lashing out in an attempt to protect itself. This is not an uncommon issue with small dogs, to them we're GIANT and scary!
> 
> Instead, you should think of it from the mindset of you needing to make your dog comfortable with these situations. Go slow, lots of rewards and soft gentle praise, lots of baby steps.


I agree with this. The focus should definitely not be on corrections, but the dog also needs to learn that biting is unacceptable. I would focus on rewarding, with some non-threatening corrections as time goes on... That's just what I would do...


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> I agree with this. The focus should definitely not be on corrections, but the dog also needs to learn that biting is unacceptable. I would focus on rewarding, with some non-threatening corrections as time goes on... That's just what I would do...


I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here: there should be NO corrections. Biting is communication. Inappropriate communication, but communication nonetheless. When a dog is biting out of fear, using punishment is not going to change that fear. Imagine if some huge guy was staring at you, getting into your space, moving in strange ways and generally making you really nervous and uncomfortable. He ignores your body language as you try to politely avoid him, ignores your polite "can you please back up, you're in my space." He gets you in a corner and you don't know what he's going to do. So you do something rude or confrontational: shout at him to back off, or shove him. 

Then he slaps you.

Are you less afraid? ...probably not. In fact, you now may be too terrified to try doing anything again. So yes, maybe the dog will learn not to bite when it's corrected, but is being frozen in fear but not biting really the ideal solution? Especially when there's lots of humane techniques to teach the dog that the trigger isn't scary, and that they don't need to bite to communicate with people because they'll listen to the polite signals they're sending and respect the dog's space.


----------



## m4gnum (Jan 6, 2017)

I appreciate all your response. I think Im doing everything that you said here. 
I do not have issue with grooming, I always put a bully stick in front of me and I am brushing him every 2-3 days while he enjoys his treat, when he does not want it I take the stick and put it in front of me again, there is no aggression. 
He does not like getting his nails trimmed but there is also no aggression either. 
When he is taking bath and than drying with a blower he mostly sleeps. 
He shows signs of aggression when I want to get his treat after he gets it in a place he should not be i.e. under the bed. Thats just an example.
He is not afraid that I am going to take his food because he always brings it to my leg and enjoys it on my feet or hand.
Because he is afraid to take off the harness I do not put it on him right now. I mostly carry him on hands and he likes it so he is not afraid of the touch either.

I agree that I should reward good behaviours but I think there also should be some kind of punishment if he is getting dangerous. I raised 2 german shepherds, one of them had a very high temperament, but there was never such thing as snapping or any sign of aggression towards family members no matter what situation they were. Thats why I am little confused on what to do and how to react.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

m4gnum said:


> I agree that I should reward good behaviours but I think there also should be some kind of punishment if he is getting dangerous. I raised 2 german shepherds, one of them had a very high temperament, but there was never such thing as snapping or any sign of aggression towards family members no matter what situation they were. *Thats why I am little confused on what to do and how to react.*


No there should not be punishment - all of his behaviors sound fear-based to some extent and punishment will just make things worse. The comment is bold is why you need someone in-person to see what is going on and advise you on the best methods to work through it safely. The directories mentioned previously will help you find someone to do just that.


----------



## m4gnum (Jan 6, 2017)

cookieface said:


> No there should not be punishment - all of his behaviors sound fear-based to some extent and punishment will just make things worse. The comment is bold is why you need someone in-person to see what is going on and advise you on the best methods to work through it safely. The directories mentioned previously will help you find someone to do just that.





DaySleepers said:


> I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here: there should be NO corrections. Biting is communication. Inappropriate communication, but communication nonetheless. When a dog is biting out of fear, using punishment is not going to change that fear. Imagine if some huge guy was staring at you, getting into your space, moving in strange ways and generally making you really nervous and uncomfortable. He ignores your body language as you try to politely avoid him, ignores your polite "can you please back up, you're in my space." He gets you in a corner and you don't know what he's going to do. So you do something rude or confrontational: shout at him to back off, or shove him.
> 
> Then he slaps you.
> 
> Are you less afraid? ...probably not. In fact, you now may be too terrified to try doing anything again. So yes, maybe the dog will learn not to bite when it's corrected, but is being frozen in fear but not biting really the ideal solution? Especially when there's lots of humane techniques to teach the dog that the trigger isn't scary, and that they don't need to bite to communicate with people because they'll listen to the polite signals they're sending and respect the dog's space.


Sorry but I dont agree too much. Those are two different things. The situation you are talking about is about a stranger, I am not a stranger I am his family. Its all about trust, the dog should learn to know that I would not do any harm to him. For me, biting or even snapping at a family member is unacceptable.

What should I do after my dog bit me? 
a) ignore the fact that his gear is half off, leave it on and act like nothing happened
b) take the gear off which is possible that I will get bitten and act like nothing happened
c) take the gear off, raise my voice as the dog tries to bite, than isolate and ignore him so he knows that biting/snapping means - bad (I am going to be alone if I do this)
For me only option c is right. If I wouldn't punish my puppy for biting so hard he would understand that its acceptable and if he gets something he doesnt like it stops when he bites.

Biting is not an option for a way out of some scary situation. For example if I took him to a vet and he would do something what the doggie is scared of, he would bite me for holding him. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Trust is a thing that's earned, and frankly, from what you've described? You haven't earned it yet, at least not in certain highly stressful situations. The dog can't help that he's afraid, he can't comprehend why you have to put a harness on him, and he can't speak English (or any other human language for that matter), so all he has is his body language. If that's ignored, all they can do is escalate to growling, snapping, and finally biting. 

Ideally, you'd be seeing the signals your dog is giving you *before* the bite, and thus be able to back off, give the dog space and time, or slow down and avoid the bite altogether. These early signals can be hard to catch for people not used to looking for them, but a professional could help you with that. Which, again, I'd highly recommend you look into. Elsewise, this graphic is a very basic description of the escalation most dogs go through before a bite:

http://www.thebluedog.org/userfiles/images/bdcartoons/transparant/laddero***gression.png

Some dogs, however, have learned through repeat experience that humans ignore one or more of these signals, and may skip straight to the 'extreme' measures, like snapping or biting. We can't tell you if this is what your dog is doing over the internet, I'm afraid.

To answer your question specifically, if the dog did escalate to a bite I would prefer to do a), at least until you can let the dog calm down and have a strategy for getting the harness off with less strife (smear peanut butter on the fridge for the dog to lick as you unbuckle it, work on one buckle at a time while you - or a helper - feed high-value treats in rapid succession.) The exception being if the bite happened and the harness was almost off, and I could quickly remove it and disengage from the dog in one motion.

If your dog was biting you in play, as most puppies do at some point? I'd happily suggest you remove your attention as a form of negative punishment - for a few seconds, until he calms down, not for several hours. This isn't play. And since dogs don't speak English, using a harsh tone and then isolating him is only going to make him more fearful. After all, the scary harness-removal process is now a lead-up to a scary and/or upsetting isolation period. Dogs often don't make the connections we want them to, or expect them to, especially if we're treating them as if they're being deliberately naughty or 'defiant' when they're really frightened and insecure.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

It sounds to me that you haven't done much to earn his trust and a number of things to discourage trust.

What should you do if he bites you? Pretty much what DaySleepers said. Ideally, you would be mindful of his body language and past behavior to _prevent_ a bite in the first place. If that fails and he does, pay attention to the situation - what was he doing? what were you doing? where were you? describe as much of the situation as possible so that you can prevent future bites by changing your approach and his emotions.

Leaving him in his ex-pen alone does nothing to improve the situation.

Also, since there are some very specific triggers - petting, collars, harnesses - I'd get a vet check just to rule out medical causes.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> Also, I don't know how you are about corrections, but it is necessary to find some sort of correction for when he bites you.


I strongly disagree with this. How many dogs have you worked with? What are your qualifications?
Have you ever successfully rehabilitated an aggressive dog or a dog sensitive to handling?



m4gnum said:


> I agree that I should reward good behaviours but I think there also should be some kind of punishment if he is getting dangerous.


Again, I strongly disagree. I think positive reinforcement through desensitization and counter conditioning are ALL you need to modify handling issues. Punishment may suppress the unwanted behavior but it will not help your dog's confidence with the situation or with you. It also increases the chances of aggression in the future, if not with you then with others. 

I am a CPDT working full time training in a shelter. I have seen the results when owners apply correction to 'fix' reactivity or aggression. ESPECIALLY for handling issues. Dead dog. Surrendered dog. Dangerous dog.

Yeah, I am aware that for some dogs punishment will work and you won't see any fallout. But WHY would you want to go that route when it has been proven that using positive reinforcement for this issue would work? I can only think of a few kinds of owners who would choose to do this: the misinformed, the ignorant, the lazy, and the cruel. Find a reputable trainer to help you with this. It is an 'easy' fix but the subtleties of body language, and the order of events (action versus reinforcement), can be hard to recognize.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> DogInfo101 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with this. The focus should definitely not be on corrections, but the dog also needs to learn that biting is unacceptable. I would focus on rewarding, with some non-threatening corrections as time goes on... That's just what I would do...
> ...


I understand what you're saying. However, fear is not the only cause of aggression. Either way, lets say it is. You don't have to use a sort of punishment that makes he dog fear you. You could use negative reinforcement methods like taking a toy away as a punishment for that "inappropriate" action of biting. If you don't use any type of correction, the dog will never understand that it is not acceptable to bite people.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

You can work under threshold and train to the point where the dog is confident, trusting, and does not feel the need to bite at all. If you are training at a level where the dog is demonstrating the unacceptable behavior, for this SPECIFIC issue as described by the OP, you are training wrong. This isn't hippie dippie nonsense. It is actually how you're supposed to do counter conditioning and desensitization.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Canyx said:


> You can work under threshold and train to the point where the dog is confident, trusting, and does not feel the need to bite at all. If you are training at a level where the dog is demonstrating the unacceptable behavior, for this SPECIFIC issue as described by the OP, you are training wrong. This isn't hippie dippie nonsense. It is actually how you're supposed to do counter conditioning and desensitization.


This is dog training. I posted my opinions on the best way to train the dog in this situation. There is no black and white in dog training. There are more than one way to do things. And in my opinion, yeah, that's great if the dog doesn't feel the need to bite anymore, but the dog still doesn't know that biting is unacceptable, all he's learned is that when he bites, he receives a certain reaction that he doesn't mind. This doesn't teach the dog not to bite. And to say someone with a different training method is "wrong" is just to be ignorant of the fact that it can be done more than one way. Sometimes your way works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes my way works, sometimes it doesn't. That's how dog training works. It's different for each dog. So with this forum, people can get suggestions and decide based on their dog which one would be most effective and they can try it.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> This is dog training. I posted my opinions on the best way to train the dog in this situation. There is no black and white in dog training. There are more than one way to do things. And in my opinion, yeah, that's great if the dog doesn't feel the need to bite anymore, but the dog still doesn't know that biting is unacceptable, all he's learned is that when he bites, he receives a certain reaction that he doesn't mind. This doesn't teach the dog not to bite. And to say someone with a different training method is "wrong" is just to be ignorant of the fact that it can be done more than one way. Sometimes your way works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes my way works, sometimes it doesn't. That's how dog training works. It's different for each dog. So with this forum, people can get suggestions and decide based on their dog which one would be most effective and they can try it.


Again, care to share your experience and credentials with us?

As I've stated over and over on this forum... It's one thing to use positive punishment (and I never said it doesn't work), it's one thing to suggest it on a public forum to someone you have no knowledge of - their timing, their consistency, their ability to read body language... If they don't have a clear understanding, make a mistake and need to get stitches, that really would suck. If someone times a reward wrong, at least aggression isn't likely to escalate.

The 'teaching dogs that biting isn't acceptable' through positive punishment crowd baffles me. I have a dog that is a severe resource guarder, probably would have bitten a person had I not done DS/CC, and a ton of management. How is it that I've managed to live 10 years with this dog with complete ease and NO damage to people? I certainly didn't do this by putting my dog IN a situation to bite just to teach him how unacceptable it is. Again, what is your experience in behavior modification with dogs?


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

m4gnum said:


> The same thing happens with any kind of "clothing", harness, collar, shirt. He comes to me when I hold it but as it touches his head he gets aggressive. Not always, sometimes he is calm when I do it. Today I wanted to try to put a shirt on, just to see his reaction and he bit me twice pretty hard and left a puncture,


 Why are you putting a shirt on your dog? 

1) he doesn't like it. 2) shirts aren't necessary, at all. 

Dogs are not Barbie dolls. Stop trying to dress him up like one.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> I understand what you're saying. However, fear is not the only cause of aggression. Either way, lets say it is. You don't have to use a sort of punishment that makes he dog fear you. You could use negative reinforcement methods like taking a toy away as a punishment for that "inappropriate" action of biting. If you don't use any type of correction, the dog will never understand that it is not acceptable to bite people.


Removing something to decrease the likelihood of a behavior is negative punishment, not negative reinforcement. And ineffective negative punishment at that. Dogs aren't human children, they're not going to understand "I bit someone when they were removing my harness, therefore they took my favorite toy". The consequence doesn't have anything to do with the action, and dogs cannot make that kind of logical leap. Removing a toy because the dog was guarding the toy is _still_ ineffective, because it's reinforcing the exact thought process that causes guarding in the first place (I'm afraid this person will take my toy! Person took my toy! Must guard more, maybe bite next time instead of growl!). I do, however, use negative punishment when my dog is, say, gleefully trying to destroy his bed. I remove the bed. Then I hand him a chew toy that's more appropriate to destroy (assuming he's been well-exercised and trained that day, and the destruction isn't a manifestation of my shortcomings in that department). But _my dog is not fearful._

Flat out, telling someone to punish a fearful dog is _dangerous._ Yes, yes, this is a Pomeranian and probably not likely to kill anyone (though there's a lot of delicate tendons and nerves in hands, and it doesn't take a big dog to do permanent damage), but I firmly believe that toy dogs should be treated and trained the same as big dogs as much as possible. Punishing fear _increases_ fear, while decreasing the _outward signs_ of fear. This is how you wind up with a dog who blows straight from "looks fine" to "puncturing someone multiple times". And everything this person describes suggests that this dog is reacting out of fear. 

Dogs do learn biting for the sake of biting is inappropriate, by teaching bite inhibition. Puppies bite out of excitement and because they don't know teeth hurt, so we remove our attention and/or our presence briefly, teaching them all play and interaction stops when teeth meet skin. When a dog is biting out of fear, they're doing so because _they feel they have no other choice._ You need to teach them that there ARE other choices that DO work, not try to take away their last resort attempts to communicate. If a dog is biting out of genuine, bonafide human aggression (which I might mention is RARE, especially outside of working-line livestock or property guardians), you need professional help from a qualified, certified behaviorist (not a trainer), preferably one who's had professional education in animal behavior or has gotten their certification from a reputable third-party, like a CBCC-KA from the CCPDT.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

In this situation, based on what the OP has described, the dog is reacting out of fear - it's a reflex, not a conscious choice. This isn't a situation in which the dog can be taught that biting is wrong, this is a situation in which the dog needs to be made to feel safe and confident with his owner. If that can be achieved, the dog won't have a need to bite. 

I still recommend an in-person qualified trainer / behavior consultant for this owner and dog.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> Removing something to decrease the likelihood of a behavior is negative punishment, not negative reinforcement. And ineffective negative punishment at that. Dogs aren't human children, they're not going to understand "I bit someone when they were removing my harness, therefore they took my favorite toy". The consequence doesn't have anything to do with the action, and dogs cannot make that kind of logical leap. Removing a toy because the dog was guarding the toy is _still_ ineffective, because it's reinforcing the exact thought process that causes guarding in the first place (I'm afraid this person will take my toy! Person took my toy! Must guard more, maybe bite next time instead of growl!). I do, however, use negative punishment when my dog is, say, gleefully trying to destroy his bed. I remove the bed. Then I hand him a chew toy that's more appropriate to destroy (assuming he's been well-exercised and trained that day, and the destruction isn't a manifestation of my shortcomings in that department). But _my dog is not fearful._
> 
> Flat out, telling someone to punish a fearful dog is _dangerous._ Yes, yes, this is a Pomeranian and probably not likely to kill anyone (though there's a lot of delicate tendons and nerves in hands, and it doesn't take a big dog to do permanent damage), but I firmly believe that toy dogs should be treated and trained the same as big dogs as much as possible. Punishing fear _increases_ fear, while decreasing the _outward signs_ of fear. This is how you wind up with a dog who blows straight from "looks fine" to "puncturing someone multiple times". And everything this person describes suggests that this dog is reacting out of fear.
> 
> Dogs do learn biting for the sake of biting is inappropriate, by teaching bite inhibition. Puppies bite out of excitement and because they don't know teeth hurt, so we remove our attention and/or our presence briefly, teaching them all play and interaction stops when teeth meet skin. When a dog is biting out of fear, they're doing so because _they feel they have no other choice._ You need to teach them that there ARE other choices that DO work, not try to take away their last resort attempts to communicate. If a dog is biting out of genuine, bonafide human aggression (which I might mention is RARE, especially outside of working-line livestock or property guardians), you need professional help from a qualified, certified behaviorist (not a trainer), preferably one who's had professional education in animal behavior or has gotten their certification from a reputable third-party, like a CBCC-KA from the CCPDT.


Yes, oops I meant negative punishment not negative reinforcement... Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality. What happens? The dog will likely be put down because of the lack of discipline it received. The dog never learned that biting is unacceptable. Sure, this Pom isn't going to kill anyone, but it still needs to know that biting a human will not be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.

I'm not going to keep having this conversation... All I'm saying is that positive reinforcement should definitely be used, and negative punishment should be balanced in as well. This way the dog learns to feel comfortable when being touched, and he learns that no matter what, biting a human is unacceptable. That way, it won't even enter his mind as something that would work. He knows that _he_ doesn't like what happens when he bites, and he won't do it next time.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> Yes, oops I meant negative punishment not negative reinforcement... Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality. What happens? The dog will likely be put down because of the lack of discipline it received. The dog never learned that biting is unacceptable. Sure, this Pom isn't going to kill anyone, but it still needs to know that biting a human will not be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.
> 
> I'm not going to keep having this conversation... All I'm saying is that positive reinforcement should definitely be used, and negative punishment should be balanced in as well. This way the dog learns to feel comfortable when being touched, and he learns that no matter what, biting a human is unacceptable. That way, it won't even enter his mind as something that would work. He knows that _he_ doesn't like what happens when he bites, and he won't do it next time.


Why are you dodging my question? For someone who claims to know things and claims to have done the research, you are offering some very strong opinions here and I just want to know:

1. How many dogs have you successfully done behavior modification with?
2. What are your training credentials?

Anyone can come onto the internet and claim to know things. I've been here for many years and I've even seen people try to bring Koehler methods back. You suddenly appear and are talking like you talk the talk. How far have you walked down the path of dog training and modification?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DogInfo101 said:


> Yes, oops I meant negative punishment not negative reinforcement... Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality. What happens? The dog will likely be put down because of the lack of discipline it received. The dog never learned that biting is unacceptable. Sure, this Pom isn't going to kill anyone, but it still needs to know that biting a human will not be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.
> 
> I'm not going to keep having this conversation... All I'm saying is that positive reinforcement should definitely be used, and negative punishment should be balanced in as well. This way the dog learns to feel comfortable when being touched, and he learns that no matter what, biting a human is unacceptable. That way, it won't even enter his mind as something that would work. He knows that _he_ doesn't like what happens when he bites, and he won't do it next time.


I'm going to tell you a story about a similar situation where a dog was taught that biting was "unacceptable" by using punishment and corrections. 

My friend is currently fostering a dog who was mishandled by his owners and not listened to when he tried to tell them he was uncomfortable with the way he was being handled. He bit multiple times and now is outwardly aggressive to anyone he doesn't know because he thinks everyone is out to get him and do things to him that he doesn't want. "Get them before they get you" as it were. 

He is one bite away from being put down, and she has spent a year trying to counter condition him and rehab him to be safe around people. He is better. He still needs to be muzzled around people he doesn't know well.

This is the potential damage that can be done by following the methods you're suggesting. Think before you type.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Canyx said:


> DogInfo101 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, oops I meant negative punishment not negative reinforcement... Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality. What happens? The dog will likely be put down because of the lack of discipline it received. The dog never learned that biting is unacceptable. Sure, this Pom isn't going to kill anyone, but it still needs to know that biting a human will not be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.
> ...


I have done my research and I am offering my suggestions. I am not a "certified trainer" but that doesn't mean I couldn't be. If I had the time, money, and circumstances, I would be a professional dog trainer certified with the CCPDT, the ABC, the APDT, and more if I wanted to. Anyone can claim to be a dog trainer, and certification does not prove anything. Knowledge and understanding, along with common sense are what counts. I understand the methods I choose, you understand yours. Again, I'm not continuing this conversation further. The dog needs to feel comfortable and understand that even when he's not comfortable, biting is not okay.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DogInfo101 said:


> I understand the methods I choose, you understand yours.


I believe that you know what you've read about them. I do not believe that you actually -understand- them, or that you have ever used them yourself effectively.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality.





> He knows that he doesn't like what happens when he bites, and he won't do it next time.


OK, so say this pit bull has the same problem the Pom does. You do something unpleasant to the dog to "teach him that biting is unacceptable". Maybe you beat him or hang him or just give a really hard collar jerk. So now he knows that you'll hurt him if he bites someone (or hey, if that bothers you we'll say that you took his toy away or whatever). You think you've successfully trained him not to bite people, but really you're only suppressing his reactions. One day a kid is annoying him and he gets to the point where he can't suppress his reaction anymore. He knows he won't like what you do to him if he bites, but he just can't hold it in. So he attacks the kid, possibly resulting in a fatality. 

What makes you think that + punishment makes a dog more reliable?


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> DogInfo101 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the methods I choose, you understand yours.
> ...


Believe what you choose to believe. I understand what I know, and I could say the same about you. (I won't, but I know what I know.) Question my knowledge if you wish, I simply have a different method. I will not post again in this thread, the owner of the Pom should consult a professional that tailors their methods to the dog's individual personality and needs. The dog should feel comfortable when being touched and learn not to resort to being aggressive when he doesn't like something. That is my stand on the topic, I respect that you have yours. Goodbye


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> The dog should feel comfortable when being touched


Yes, this is the point everyone is trying to make. The dog will never feel comfortable when being touched if the owner uses + punishment.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DogInfo101 said:


> Believe what you choose to believe. I understand what I know, and I could say the same about you. (I won't, but I know what I know.) Question my knowledge if you wish, I simply have a different method. I will not post again in this thread, the owner of the Pom should consult a professional that tailors their methods to the dog's individual personality and needs. The dog should feel comfortable when being touched and learn not to resort to being aggressive when he doesn't like something. That is my stand on the topic, I respect that you have yours. Goodbye


Unfortunately what you are suggesting is dangerous and could results in the dog being put down, or severe injury to a person. So, no, I can't respect that opinion. 

The fact that you don't realize that is what indicates that you do not fully understand the potential results from the method you're suggesting.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> > You do something unpleasant to the dog to "teach him that biting is unacceptable". Maybe you beat him or hang him or just give a really hard collar jerk. So now he knows that you'll hurt him if he bites someone ... What makes you think that + punishment makes a dog more reliable?
> 
> 
> Just had to say this real quick - I didn't say to use + punishment. I said to use negative punishment. Take the toy away when he bites so he eventually doesn't want to bite. That's my opinion. I guess depending on the dog, your way could work my way could work. The owner is the only one who knows the dog. It's not necessary to argue about methods here. The owner should consult a professional and/or decide based on the conversation here what would work best for their dog.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> > The dog should feel comfortable when being touched
> 
> 
> Yes, this is the point everyone is trying to make. The dog will never feel comfortable when being touched if the owner uses + punishment.


Exactly. Don't use positive punishment on this Pom. Negative punishment doesn't make the dog "uncomfortable" though. That would help teach the dog. Training is a teaching process.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

How will the dog link his behavior to someone taking away a toy ("Hey, Fluffy, I'm going to put your rawhide on the top of the bookshelf for a week so you learn not to bite me")? How will that make him feel less upset about people putting a harness on him?


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> Knowledge and understanding, along with common sense are what counts.


Since you are lacking all three of these qualities in this particular thread, I'd highly recommend that you leave the advice-giving to the people who are legitimate professional trainers on this forum.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality. What happens? The dog will likely be put down because of the lack of discipline it received. The dog never learned that biting is unacceptable.


You know what else is unacceptable? Children climbing all over a dog and "irritating" it. What's even more unacceptable is leaving a dog alone with a child who has not shown themselves to be trust worthy and respectful around dogs. And yet, it's always the dog that gets punished for the human's unacceptable behaviour.



DogInfo101 said:


> I have done my research and I am offering my suggestions. I am not a "certified trainer" but that doesn't mean I couldn't be. If I had the time, money, and circumstances, I would be a professional dog trainer certified with the CCPDT, the ABC, the APDT, and more if I wanted to. Anyone can claim to be a dog trainer, and certification does not prove anything. Knowledge and understanding, along with common sense are what counts. I understand the methods I choose, you understand yours. Again, I'm not continuing this conversation further. The dog needs to feel comfortable and understand that even when he's not comfortable, biting is not okay.


_Anyone_ with enough time, money, and the right circumstances, could be come a professional trainer. But it takes time, practice, and actually working with hundreds of dogs to become an effective trainer. Somehow I doubt you've actually done your research; if you had, you would know the potential fallout that can come from using punishment-based methods, and that punishment more often than not simply suppresses a behavior (which is not the same as modifying it).

Dogs are not robots, they are living beings, and should be allowed to defend themselves. Sure, biting humans isn't "acceptable". Neither is pushing someone, but if someone is laying hands on me and ignoring my signals to leave me alone (including walking away) I am going to physically push them away. And if that doesn't work I'm definitely going to escalate to protect myself. Sure "pushing" is unacceptable, but my "bad" action doesn't make the "bad" actions of the other party okay.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> How will the dog link his behavior to someone taking away a toy ("Hey, Fluffy, I'm going to put your rawhide on the top of the bookshelf for a week so you learn not to bite me")? How will that make him feel less upset about people putting a harness on him?


The dog will learn that each time he bites, his toy is taken away for a certain amount of time, (maybe 10 minutes...) He may not make the connection at first, but as the owner trains him using this method and positive reinforcement, he will eventually be able to make the connection between biting and the unpleasant action of his toy being taken away. There are four main training methods that a balanced trainer understands: Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, and Negative Punishment. They are all training methods, and they all work when used in the proper situation. A good trainer can determine which ones and how they should be used in a given situation. Usually, in my opinion, there should be one choice of reinforcement and one form of punishment if the dog is doing a bad behavior. No one needs to argue with me about this. This is my opinion. It is not wrong, (as no opinion is), and I respect other's opinions.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm no professional trainer but I feel like maybe you've never trained a dog at all, not even a pet. There's no way that a dog is going to associate you taking his toy away with him biting you. Even a little kid wouldn't understand that kind of thing until they're older, maybe 7 or 8. You can't use an unrelated punishment like that without extensive explanation.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> No one needs to argue with me about this. This is my opinion. It is not wrong, (as no opinion is), and I respect other's opinions.


You can have the opinion that the world is flat. Are you allowed to have that opinion? Yes. Is that opinion wrong? Yes. 



DogInfo101 said:


> The dog will learn that each time he bites, his toy is taken away for a certain amount of time, (maybe 10 minutes...) He may not make the connection at first, but as the owner trains him using this method and positive reinforcement, he will eventually be able to make the connection between biting and the unpleasant action of his toy being taken away.


This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. And it perfectly illustrates that you know absolutely zero about training, and specifically about working with dogs with aggression issues and bite histories.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> Since you are lacking all three of these qualities in this particular thread, I'd highly recommend that you leave the advice-giving to the people who are legitimate professional trainers on this forum.


Again, a matter of opinion. I will not argue with you, but I also will not hold back from sharing my opinions and respectfully disagreeing with the ones I disagree with and explaining my reasons. This isn't black and white. It's dog training, and everyone thinks they know what's best. I just want to share my opinions just like everyone else here. We can all say they're "proven true," what that really means is debatable. Either way, all dog training is is opinions really. No certain way is actually "proven" to work all the time, and therefore it's a matter of opinion which way is best. (Also, what a "professional trainer" exactly is is also a matter of opinion, specifically one that I am not choosing to discuss now.)


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> You can have the opinion that the world is flat. Are you allowed to have that opinion? Yes. Is that opinion wrong? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. And it perfectly illustrates that you know absolutely zero about training, and specifically about working with dogs with aggression issues and bite histories.


Still opinion. I have done research to support my opinions, no doubt you have done research that has led you to disagree with them. My opinions on this have worked for some dogs, or they obviously wouldn't be called "training methods." You can say that I know nothing, that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> Again, a matter of opinion. I will not argue with you, but I also will not hold back from sharing my opinions and respectfully disagreeing with the ones I disagree with and explaining my reasons. This isn't black and white. It's dog training, and everyone thinks they know what's best. I just want to share my opinions just like everyone else here. We can all say they're "proven true," what that really means is debatable. Either way, all dog training is is opinions really. No certain way is actually "proven" to work all the time, and therefore it's a matter of opinion which way is best. (Also, what a "professional trainer" exactly is is also a matter of opinion, specifically one that I am not choosing to discuss now.)


The thing is, this is a public forum, and opinions about issues that are dangerous (like a dog with a bite history) are powerful and potentially harmful. Not all dog training is "opinions". It is scientific fact (and has been repeatedly proven) that P+ training methods elicit violent responses from dogs. As Patricia McConnell puts it, "Violence begets violence, aggression begets aggression." (http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/confrontational-techniques-elicit-aggression)

You should probably also step back for a second and wonder why *everyone* on this thread is disagreeing with you. You are the outlier. And we all disagree on many topics, so don't think we're a group of people who see eye to eye on everything. We don't. But what we do see eye to eye on is that your advice is clearly rooted in a lack of experience and knowledge, and it is potentially dangerous advice to be giving.

ETA: What research have you done? What credentials do you have? How many aggressive dogs have you worked with and in what capacity? Were they pets, shelter dogs, last chance dogs, etc? You seem to be avoiding these questions, but anyone with the experience you claim to have would be very comfortable in answering them. You DO have to justify your opinion with examples of your experience and knowledge on this forum. Or you WILL be called out. Repeatedly.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> There are four main training methods that a balanced trainer understands: Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, and Negative Punishment.


Just as a small quibble---these aren't training methods. Those are the quadrants of learning theory, and it's how all learning happens, all the time. A good trainer does need to understand the quadrants but they aren't methods in and of themselves.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> The dog will learn that each time he bites, his toy is taken away for a certain amount of time, (maybe 10 minutes...) He may not make the connection at first, but as the owner trains him using this method and positive reinforcement, he will eventually be able to make the connection between biting and the unpleasant action of his toy being taken away. There are four main training methods that a balanced trainer understands: Positive Reinforcement, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, and Negative Punishment. They are all training methods, and they all work when used in the proper situation. A good trainer can determine which ones and how they should be used in a given situation. Usually, in my opinion, there should be one choice of reinforcement and one form of punishment if the dog is doing a bad behavior. No one needs to argue with me about this. This is my opinion. It is not wrong, (as no opinion is), and I respect other's opinions.


Balanced trainers are not the only ones that understand the four quadrants of operant conditioning. No one with a background in science-based training would argue that only some of the quadrants work; the issue is that the side-effects of some of the quadrants (namely P+ but also R- depending on how it's used) can have additional side-effects. The other issue is that I have met a lot of so-called "balanced" trainers who try to apply P+ to a behavioural issue with an emotional cause, which indicates a clear lack of understanding of operant conditioning.

Also, opinions can absolutely be wrong, especially if they are based on biased, incomplete, or incorrect information.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> I'm no professional trainer but I feel like maybe you've never trained a dog at all, not even a pet. There's no way that a dog is going to associate you taking his toy away with him biting you. Even a little kid wouldn't understand that kind of thing until they're older, maybe 7 or 8. You can't use an unrelated punishment like that without extensive explanation.


I am surprised at how little credit you give to animal understanding. After repeated actions, an animal can associate things. I trained our Jack Russel Terrier using a similar method, I actually use a training collar and occasionally an e-collar to train him. I went to a professional to learn how to properly use them, as well as done lots of research on them. I know for a fact that training a dog with positive punishment can work, and my dog isn't "scared" of me at all. I know a lot of people here don't like these methods, but that doesn't mean they're ineffective. Dogs are very smart. So are little children. If they can figure out the best way to escape the fenced yard, do you really think they can't figure out that when they bite, something they don't like happens?


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

For me, a 5-month-old is a baby, I don’t expect a baby to perform any desirable behavior without spending the time to teach him first. I will share how I raised my Malinois (she just turned 3 years old).

1) Putting on clothes/harness/collars……I started desensitization a few days after we got her. Everything from examining/wiping her paws, touching her ears, instilling eye drops, brushing, petting her on the head, kissing her on the forehead, opening/looking into her mouth, brushing her teeth, putting on/taking off a harness.. I spent several months, a little bit every day, with LOADS of yummy treats and praises, just so that she would either tolerate or enjoy these activities. I even taught her to tolerate getting her tail pulled just in case a crazy kid run out of nowhere and pulled on her tail while we are at a park. 

2)	From day 1, I always gave her high value treats if I were to take something away from her, even if I didn’t think she was going to have a problem with it in the first place. If she is chewing on a bone, I wait until she has gotten bored with it, then throw a handful of yummy treats to another part of the room, when she runs to eat the treats, I throw a second handful of treats into another corner while I pick up her bone and walk away. 

3)	A dog getting petted on the head is not natural to him. Have you seen a dog going up to another dog and pet him on the head? Some dogs don’t mind being petted, but I wouldn’t fault a dog for not tolerating/enjoying it. Spend the time to desensitize him. Someone already mentioned it, a Pom is tiny, imagine when you were a little kid, someone who is 10-20+ times bigger than you, towering over you. Even if the person is just trying to shake your hand, you are going to be a little intimidated just because of the size difference/mental immaturity/lack of life experiences. What if this giant tries to pet your head or rub your ears? Would you not freak out a little bit and try to back off or run away? Remember this is a tiny baby, not an mature adult full of life experiences. 

4) I agree with a previous poster, the humping is probably due to over-excitement, anxiety, or frustration, something beyond what the puppy is able to handle emotionally. 

5)	Biting…..yes, I did get nipped when my Mal was a puppy….many times, but hey, that’s how puppies communicate. The way I see it, babies cry because they are babies, I don’t get mad over it. When she nipped me, I either re-directed her, if that wasn't successful, then I didn’t react, no flinching, no moving, no yelling, just calmness and no reaction (yes yes yes, it did hurt, but I didn’t show it). The second she let go, I marked and treated her (I always had treats with me, I also hid them in different parts of our house just in case). It didn’t happen overnight, but slowly she learned nipping/biting didn’t get her anywhere, running to me and sitting in front of me, big rewards!

By the way, we currently own two German shepherds and have fostered for a couple of German shepherd rescues before. Back in the old days a lot of GSDs were trained with old fashioned Koehler’s method and did just fine (not that I am promoting Koehler’s method), they are in general a lot more forgiving. We’ve never had a Pom before, but if we were to get one, I wouldn’t compare the two breeds or expect them to behave/respond to training in a similar fashion. 

I am not a force-free trainer, however, I believe in training with minimal conflict, especially with puppies, you want to build confidence in puppies and making them believe that the owner is always a source of joy/happiness. All the issues you mentioned can be resolved with reward-based training, make it fun for him. In fact, training, learning, and interacting should be fun for both of you!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> I am surprised at how little credit you give to animal understanding. After repeated actions, an animal can associate things. I trained our Jack Russel Terrier using a similar method, I actually use a training collar and occasionally an e-collar to train him. I went to a professional to learn how to properly use them, as well as done lots of research on them. I know for a fact that training a dog with positive punishment can work, and my dog isn't "scared" of me at all. I know a lot of people here don't like these methods, but that doesn't mean they're ineffective. Dogs are very smart. So are little children. If they can figure out the best way to escape the fenced yard, do you really think they can't figure out that when they bite, something they don't like happens?


No one is saying P+ doesn't work. What we're saying is why would you actively choose to punish your dog when other methods work, too? It is your CHOICE to cause pain, but don't mistake making that choice means that it's necessary. Because it's not.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> The dog will learn that each time he bites, his toy is taken away for a certain amount of time, (maybe 10 minutes...) He may not make the connection at first, but as the owner trains him using this method and positive reinforcement, he will eventually be able to make the connection between biting and the unpleasant action of his toy being taken away.


Going back to this, it may work (because you said the owner would be working on it with positive reinforcement too, which might actually do something), but there is simply no way a dog is ever going to make the association with his toy going away with his biting behavior. The absolute only reason for someone to take the dog's toy away is to make themselves feel better, to feel like they're "doing something about it". But it's a useless gesture. And kind of absurd---I'm going through scenarios in my head and giggling. . ."Fluffy, it's unacceptable to bite. So to teach you a lesson, I'm going to put your chewy in the cupboard for 10 minutes", and of course, make sure he's paying attention when you put the toy away, because he probably wouldn't notice otherwise .


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

gingerkid said:


> Balanced trainers are not the only ones that understand the four quadrants of operant conditioning. No one with a background in science-based training would argue that only some of the quadrants work; the issue is that the side-effects of some of the quadrants (namely P+ but also R- depending on how it's used) can have additional side-effects. The other issue is that I have met a lot of so-called "balanced" trainers who try to apply P+ to a behavioural issue with an emotional cause, which indicates a clear lack of understanding of operant conditioning.
> 
> Also, opinions can absolutely be wrong, especially if they are based on biased, incomplete, or incorrect information.


Positive punishment should not be used in every situation, but it can be effective in the right situations. I mainly used positive punishment and negative reinforcement, (along with positive reinforcement) to train my dog. I gave him treats (he was very food motivated) when he behaved, and when he misbehaved, (for example running ahead of me when I told him to heel,) I would give him a slight pop with the training collar. It didn't make him "shut down" or "go crazy," it just taught him not to run ahead. (It also didn't give him any health problems, it never does when it's done right...) When we trained him to stay out of the dining room, we used the e-collar. The second he stepped in, he got the vibrate until he got out. The vibrate was enough for him, we didn't need to use the pulse much, but that was negative reinforcement. When he got out of the dining room, the unpleasant vibration stopped. And from that training, I can confidently say that he doesn't live in fear at all. He also hasn't gone into the dining room for a long time, and when I tell him to heel he listens with no problem and no fear. I know that these methods can work. I'm not saying everyone should use them. I'm not saying they're the only way. I'm just saying that I know they can work when the trainer knows how to use them. I know how to use them, that's the only reason I'm suggesting them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Of course punishment works. Sometimes there's future fallout, sometimes not. But even if it were fallout-free all the time, why would you want to cause pain (or "discomfort", or anything causing avoidance) to your dog if you don't have to?



> I can confidently say that he doesn't live in fear at all. He also hasn't gone into the dining room for a long time


Hate to break it to ya, but avoidance is fear.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

DogInfo101 said:


> I'm not saying everyone should use them. I'm not saying they're the only way. I'm just saying that I know they can work when the trainer knows how to use them. I know how to use them, that's the only reason I'm suggesting them.


You are, however, recommending this stuff to some random person on the internet. And for anyone lurking and reading this. You have NO idea about their skill level or whether they can properly use these... techniques. When it comes down to it, recommending pain and discomfort based methods to people who potentially have no experience is a lot more dangerous than recommending force-free methods.



Willowy said:


> Of course punishment works. Sometimes there's future fallout, sometimes not. But even if it were fallout-free all the time, why would you want to cause pain (or "discomfort", or anything causing avoidance) to your dog if you don't have to?


This. Very strongly this.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Dogs are very smart. So are little children. If they can figure out the best way to escape the fenced yard, do you really think they can't figure out that when they bite, something they don't like happens?


Dogs are smart, yes. But they aren't people. There is no point in lecturing a dog or trying to explain why you're taking his toy away. Unless the cause/effect is immediately obvious, he isn't going to make the association. Dogs don't have that ability (and neither do small children, because that part of their brain hasn't fully developed yet). It has nothing to do with how smart they are. It's just not part of their brain.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Teaching your dog not to go in the dining room can pretty easily be accomplished with positive reinforcement, just sayin.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> (It also didn't give him any health problems, it never does when it's done right...)


And that's not true at all. Many small breeds can get a collapsed trachea from ANY pressure on their necks.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Teaching your dog not to go in the dining room can pretty easily be accomplished with positive reinforcement, just sayin.


Yep.

Though it also helps if you change the mental equation: "What do I want the dog TO do?" Rather than trying to stop a behavior. Which means you can teach something in a positive method without thinking about making the dog 'quit stuff' with nothing to replace it. That's playing whack a mole. Great, the dog doesn't go in the dining room. Now he... Howls? Uses the opportunity to get into the trash. Sits in the door way and whines. Asks to go out. Steals the toilet paper - all while we're trying to eat. 

KNow what prevents THAT stupid game? "While we eat and say so, you go lie down on this mat, where cookies and/or bones magically appear and is therefore an awesome place to be." 

One and done.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> Positive punishment should not be used in every situation, but it can be effective in the right situations. I mainly used positive punishment and negative reinforcement, (along with positive reinforcement) to train my dog. I gave him treats (he was very food motivated) when he behaved, and when he misbehaved, (for example running ahead of me when I told him to heel,) I would give him a slight pop with the training collar. It didn't make him "shut down" or "go crazy," it just taught him not to run ahead. (It also didn't give him any health problems, it never does when it's done right...) When we trained him to stay out of the dining room, we used the e-collar. The second he stepped in, he got the vibrate until he got out. The vibrate was enough for him, we didn't need to use the pulse much, but that was negative reinforcement. When he got out of the dining room, the unpleasant vibration stopped. And from that training, I can confidently say that he doesn't live in fear at all. He also hasn't gone into the dining room for a long time, and when I tell him to heel he listens with no problem and no fear. I know that these methods can work. I'm not saying everyone should use them. I'm not saying they're the only way. I'm just saying that I know they can work when the trainer knows how to use them. I know how to use them, that's the only reason I'm suggesting them.


Again, no one has said that they don't work. They do work. But that doesn't mean they don't have very real risks associated with them, or that they're necessary. Honestly, that you don't know how to train those things without using P+ speaks loads about your supposed "understanding" about dog training. You can justify your methods to yourself as much as you want, but stop using anecdotal stories of your own dog(s) as a counterpoint to multiple scientific studies that have linked P+ methods to increases in aggression.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> And that's not true at all. Many small breeds can get a collapsed trachea from ANY pressure on their necks.


Yep. Including a regular old flat collar. 

Look, DogInfo, I am very sorry that you are so uneducated and inexperienced that the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, but every problem is not a nail. Learn more. Get more tools. . Sometimes it might be the best option, but only sometimes and not always and advising people to whack at a problem with a hammer because that's all you've got is dangerous and irresponsible. 

Because, again: Not every problem is a nail. Sometimes you don't need the freaking hammer, and you can resolve your issues far more effectively and with less damage if you stop arguing about how screwdrivers don't work and aren't necessary because hammers are great!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> I have done my research and I am offering my suggestions. I am not a "certified trainer" but that doesn't mean I couldn't be. If I had the time, money, and circumstances, I would be a professional dog trainer certified with the CCPDT, the ABC, the APDT, and more if I wanted to. Anyone can claim to be a dog trainer, and certification does not prove anything. Knowledge and understanding, along with common sense are what counts. I understand the methods I choose, you understand yours. Again, I'm not continuing this conversation further. The dog needs to feel comfortable and understand that even when he's not comfortable, biting is not okay.


Oh, you're one of those people. Where's that Koehler thread with the last person who 'did research' and felt like they knew everything...
Let me 'do my research' and lecture people on a chemistry forum. Or 'do my research' and start recommending parenting advice on a parenting forum. Because I guess it's that easy?

You absolutely would not be certified with the CCPDT because you lack the understanding and you also do not adhere to their humane hierarchy.

Yes, anyone can claim to be a dog trainer. Thankfully certifications are gaining popularity so that people such as yourself who might just pop out of the woodwork and claim to be, might not gain as much ground to ruin dogs in the near future.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm just gonna leave this here...

People need to be taught that pushing a dog to the point where it feels the need to bite is not okay.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> No one is saying P+ doesn't work. What we're saying is why would you actively choose to punish your dog when other methods work, too? It is your CHOICE to cause pain, but don't mistake making that choice means that it's necessary. Because it's not.


YES.

This is exactly how I feel. Sure, P+ works. I don't think anybody here is denying that. What I don't understand, why would you CHOOSE to cause your dog harm when there are other methods available? Unless it's a life or death or pressing someone-could-get-really-hurt situation and you need immediate results, why? Teaching a small dog to heel or not enter a certain room is not a life or death or someone is going to get hurt situation and is easily modified with positive reinforcement.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> Yes, oops I meant negative punishment not negative reinforcement... Say you have a pit bull with the same problem as this Pom... You think you have successfully trained him using only positive reinforcement, but one day, (say a child is alone with the dog or with an irresponsible adult,) the child is irritating the pit bull, and the pit bull attacks, possibly resulting in a fatality. What happens? The dog will likely be put down because of the lack of discipline it received. The dog never learned that biting is unacceptable. Sure, this Pom isn't going to kill anyone, but it still needs to know that biting a human will not be tolerated, no matter what the circumstances are.
> 
> I'm not going to keep having this conversation... All I'm saying is that positive reinforcement should definitely be used, and negative punishment should be balanced in as well. This way the dog learns to feel comfortable when being touched, and he learns that no matter what, biting a human is unacceptable. That way, it won't even enter his mind as something that would work. He knows that _he_ doesn't like what happens when he bites, and he won't do it next time.


Personally, I would be absolutely furious with whoever allowed my fearful dog to interact unsupervised with a child and/or totally ignored all of the pre-bite warning stress signs my dog was giving before the bite happened. Myself included, if I had somehow managed to be that utterly irresponsible. NO dog deserves to be harassed by a human, child or adult, even if that dog is utterly bombproof. And a large part of living with a dog with fear issues is careful management - whatever method you use! - which means not putting the dog in a situation that is clearly and unnecessarily stressful. A vet trip, for example, may be necessarily stressful, so you do what you can to reduce the stress and muzzle the dog to protect the vet, but you can't avoid it entirely. There's no situation where sitting idly by and letting someone harass my dog for their own entertainment is necessary.

Say you have a Lab with the same problem as this dog. You think you've trained him using positive punishment/negative reinforcement, but one day, a child or irresponsible adult is alone with the dog and irritates the lab. The lab in that moment feels the risk of punishment is not as bad as getting the child/jerk to stop, and attacks. Possibly resulting in a fatality. How is that any different? It's still a grave failure of management, exactly the same as with R+.

No dog with severe fear issues is ever going to be turned into a bombproof pile of mush tolerant of any and all scenarios. Most dogs _without_ severe fear issues will never be that. No matter what the method used. And no dog, even the mushiest, most bombproof, tolerant lovebugs deserve to be irritated and harassed. It's our responsibility to keep our pets out of those situations as much as humanly possible.

You sound young. You sound inexperienced. I'm glad you've had success with training your one family dog, but many, many dogs in the world will not be so tolerant of P+ methods, especially those who already have fear issues. A dog needs a resiliant temperament to handle corrections without fallout, and anxious or fearful dogs by definition do not - a leash pop or collar vibration will be a much bigger deal to them than they were to your dog, beyond just being unpleasant enough to change behavior.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: operant conditioning is how behaviors are learned. It tells us very little of the internal state of the animal and how it changes based on the quadrants we chose to impliment in any situation, and that makes a WORLD of difference in the long-term.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> Of course punishment works. Sometimes there's future fallout, sometimes not. But even if it were fallout-free all the time, why would you want to cause pain (or "discomfort", or anything causing avoidance) to your dog if you don't have to?
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to break it to ya, but avoidance is fear.


I think you mean about going in the dining room? The entire point was to teach him that he was not _allowed_ in the dining room and that if he did, there would be consequences. That's part of the learning process. Would you feel comfortable being taught only what was good, but not knowing what you were expected _not_ to do? He isn't afraid of the dining room. He isn't afraid of us. However, he knows that dining room means something unpleasant, and just because he chooses to avoid it doesn't mean he's afraid of it. Again, I know _my_ dog, and I can tell when he's fearful. We took him to the vet today and he was terrified and he hates it. He was better than usual because I tried to stay calm while controlling him, but that's fear. He is rarely fearful in other situations. He has territorial aggression towards other animals, which I am working on, but that's not fear-based either. Avoiding an unpleasant situation doesn't always mean fear, and in this case it doesn't.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> I think you mean about going in the dining room? The entire point was to teach him that he was not _allowed_ in the dining room and that if he did, there would be consequences. That's part of the learning process. Would you feel comfortable being taught only what was good, but not knowing what you were expected _not_ to do? He isn't afraid of the dining room. He isn't afraid of us. However, he knows that dining room means something unpleasant, and just because he chooses to avoid it doesn't mean he's afraid of it. Again, I know _my_ dog, and I can tell when he's fearful. We took him to the vet today and he was terrified and he hates it. He was better than usual because I tried to stay calm while controlling him, but that's fear. He is rarely fearful in other situations. He has territorial aggression towards other animals, which I am working on, but that's not fear-based either. Avoiding an unpleasant situation doesn't always mean fear, and in this case it doesn't.


Hate to break it to you, but he is avoiding punishment by avoiding the dining room. Because he is afraid to go into the dining room. Because going into the dining room means he gets zapped.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Hate to break it to you, but he is avoiding punishment by avoiding the dining room. Because he is afraid to go into the dining room. Because going into the dining room means he gets zapped.


Yep. 

That's. How. Punishment. Works. 

The dog may not be living in fear but the mechanism of it working is that it makes the dog avoid consequences of the behavior and reduces the behavior as a result. If the dog wasn't afraid of the consequence, they wouldn't stop doing it. Kind of like R+ does, yes, work, by making the dog go "THIS GETS ME GOOD THINGS SOMETIMES" . It's a thing. Called learning theory. It is actual science. This one isn't debatable.


----------



## Sprocket2016 (Feb 14, 2017)

I have taught my two older dogs they are not allowed in the kitchen unless I ask them to come in all I did was block with a baby gate tell them to wait then opened it up starting to close it every time they tried to come thru if they stay there after I had the gate all the way opened they got a treat it worked very quickly and no causing fear at all 
Yes your way worked as well but I think all people are saying is there is a better way than causing pain or discomfort I'm sure there are more ways to teach the same thing maybe better ways than the way I did but my dogs know to stay out of the kitchen and they are not afraid of the kitchen or of me which is a win win 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> I think you mean about going in the dining room? The entire point was to teach him that he was not _allowed_ in the dining room and that if he did, there would be consequences. That's part of the learning process. Would you feel comfortable being taught only what was good, but not knowing what you were expected _not_ to do? He isn't afraid of the dining room. He isn't afraid of us. However, he knows that dining room means something unpleasant, and just because he chooses to avoid it doesn't mean he's afraid of it. Again, I know _my_ dog, and I can tell when he's fearful.


Learning doesn't HAVE to involve pain or consequences. Cpt Jack gave this example a very long time ago, and I'm sure I'm not going to do it justice, but it has really stuck with me. Consider these two scenarios:

Student is struggling with the math problem 2+2.

Teacher: What is 2+2. 
Student: 5? 
Teacher: WRONG. *smacks student's desk with ruler* What is 2+2?!
Student: *now stressed because they got it wrong* I don't know.
Teacher: WRONG. *smacks student with ruler* What is 2+2?!
Student: *shutting down due to fear* I don't know.
Teacher: WRONG. *smacks student harder with ruler*

You get the idea. Or consider this scenario?

Teacher: What is 2+2?
Student: 5?
Teacher: No, that's not correct, but let's try it again, you'll get it, don't worry.
Student: 6?
Teacher: No, that's also not correct, but we'll get there. Let's try what is 1+2?
Student: 3.
Teacher: Great job! Now what's 2+2? It's one more than 1+2!
Student: 4!

This is the difference between P+ and R+. The student in the first example suffers and is afraid to continue interacting due to fear of punishment. The student AVOIDS giving the wrong answer but doesn't know what the right answer is (cough cough, just like your dog avoids the dining room). 

The second student is supported and lead through the process in such a way that the student doesn't shut down and continues to guess at the right answer. Which leads to a better working relationship between the student and the teacher, AND the student eventually discovers the answer to the problem.

So which teacher would you rather have for your children or your dogs? Because you are teacher #1.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Learning doesn't HAVE to involve pain or consequences. Cpt Jack gave this example a very long time ago, and I'm sure I'm not going to do it justice, but it has really stuck with me. Consider these two scenarios:
> 
> Student is struggling with the math problem 2+2.
> 
> ...



This is close but I think I took it one step further because what I was illustrating was actually that 'no' doesn't even have to be part of the equation to learning - like not even no reward markers. 

Ie: 

What's 2+2 - 
Five?
Nope. What's 2+2? 
3? 
Wrong. What's 2+2
I don't know, and I give up. 

Versus

What's 2+2?
3?
What's 2+1? 
3!
Right, now what's 3+1
4!
BINGO! Good job.

That's not quit as applicable as yours here, since it's a different circumstance, but the absolute fact of the matter in that teaching behavior you never really need to tell the dog they're wrong. Break it down until they get it right. YEah, they know, because they're not getting the reward, but they'll keep trying and they only get it wrong ONCE. When you simplify the question enough they become right and you can build toward what you want. Which means building confidence and keeping an engaged dog.

Adding even stronger negative consequences just means the dog's more likely to opt out sooner and really just means you spend forever training something than you need to - with more stress than you and the dog. 

Dogs do not need to hear 'no' and certainly don't need negative consequences to teach. You MIGHT get me around to believing they need it to stop undesirable behavior, if only as much as not getting a reward, but fortunately nearly everything that's 'undesirable' can be gotten rid of by teaching what you DO want.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> So which teacher would you rather have for your children or your dogs?


I do think, unfortunately, there are plenty of people who LIKE being Teacher #1 in that scenario. I know some of them personally. :/ 
Using P+ on dogs is R+ for the trainer. Learning theory works with people, too!


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Canyx said:


> Oh, you're one of those people. Where's that Koehler thread with the last person who 'did research' and felt like they knew everything...
> Let me 'do my research' and lecture people on a chemistry forum. Or 'do my research' and start recommending parenting advice on a parenting forum. Because I guess it's that easy?
> 
> You absolutely would not be certified with the CCPDT because you lack the understanding and you also do not adhere to their humane hierarchy.
> ...


Sorry, I should have clarified, "I have done research for years." This is my life. My only hobby, my only interest. I honestly strongly disagree with the "new" methods people are coming up with. Some of them are great, I like the idea of clicker-training, but the whole "no-corrections" thing is absurd! People are trying to be more "humane" with animals, while what they don't realize is that they aren't teaching the dog what is bad, only the good. Nothing good comes from that. Just like anyone else, a dog needs to know both what it _should_ do and what it _should not_ do. Abuse is wrong, discipline in the form of punishment is natural. It should be tailored to the needs of the dog, but it has always been around, and for people to try to ignore it or say that it's bad is crazy. It's worked forever, the only thing that's changed is people.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Why do think a dog understands "what is bad"? What natural process makes a dog understand human morals like that? How does a dog learn what is bad and what is good?

Positive reinforcement training is hardly new. Americans went through a particularly harsh period in the 1910s-1950s, when child and spousal abuse were common and accepted, and animal abuse was certainly included. But this isn't true of the entire world.

Also, you're misunderstanding. A lot. There's no way to train without "corrections", because anything you do to correct anything is a correction. It is possible to train without using positive punishment or negative reinforcement.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Why do think a dog understands "what is bad"? What natural process makes a dog understand human morals like that? How does a dog learn what is bad and what is good?


Because things that are 'good' get them rewards and things that are 'bad' get them hurt and they become afraid to do them - or just don't care, depending. That's just. 

Look, basic learning theory for every creature on this planet from goldfish to bees to dogs to humans is: "What gets me the thing I need/want?" And when a behavior does, it is repeated. When it does not, it is extinguished. GOLDFISH and BEES learn to play games like putting balls in hoops or circles with this. SERIOUSLY. BEES can learn with being rewarded. Are you telling me your dog is dumber than a bee? 

Also basic learning theory on the other side is 'if I do a thing and it results in me being hurt/scared/in danger' I will do less of it/not do it. 

You CAN utilize either one of these. What I want an explanation for is what in the world you would choose the second option for, when dealing with issues that aren't dangerous/safety risks. Why in the world would the 'scare or hurt the dog' become the FIRST option on your list?


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> Why do think a dog understands "what is bad"? What natural process makes a dog understand human morals like that? How does a dog learn what is bad and what is good?
> 
> Positive reinforcement training is hardly new. Americans went through a particularly harsh period in the 1910s-1950s, when child and spousal abuse were common and accepted, and animal abuse was certainly included. But this isn't true of the entire world.


That's exactly my point. Part of the training process includes teaching the dog what is bad, what he is not allowed to do. Just like we teach what we want him to do by rewarding him for doing it, we also teach him what we don't want him to do by correcting him when he does it. Then it's not just a matter of "Would I rather have the reward or not?" It's a matter of "Would I rather have the reward or the correction?" where the answer is obviously the reward.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But you can usually do that without the punishment part. Why would you choose to punish if you don't have to?

It's hard to communicate "don't do this thing". What thing? Did you just jerk his collar because he growled at a dog or because he just peed on a tree or because he just sniffed a squirrel scent? A dog is doing a zillion things a minute, what exactly didn't you like? It's a lot easier to show them the right thing to do than to than to try to communicate what you don't want.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> That's exactly my point. Part of the training process includes teaching the dog what is bad, what he is not allowed to do. Just like we teach what we want him to do by rewarding him for doing it, we also teach him what we don't want him to do by correcting him when he does it. Then it's not just a matter of "Would I rather have the reward or not?" It's a matter of "Would I rather have the reward or the correction?" where the answer is obviously the reward.


No. Seriously. This is the thing. 

Dogs don't (usually) do things that are bad if they have been taught what is good. You don't want the dog in the dining room? You teach them to go to their mat and reward them. You don't want them to jump up? You teach them to sit when they meet people and they get rewarded. You don't want them to pee in the house, you teach them TO go outside. You don't want them pulling the leash you teach them to walk at loose leash and reward that. Loose leash (or staying on a mat or sitting) get them what they want, unlike the alternatives so they do the thing you want. If you teach the RIGHT behavior the wrong behavior goes away ANYWAY and the 'good' behavior becomes habit. No punishment required. They learn what is not desirable by the *lack* of reward. You don't need to add aversive stimulus to that to get the result you want, because, hey, do you just want the dog to stop jumping on people or do you actually want a specific other behavior? Probably the second and if not you can come up with a thing they can do instead to get you the result. At which point - Teach them the thing and REWARD 'EM FOR DOING IT. 

Boom, done.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Why in the world would the 'scare or hurt the dog' become the FIRST option on your list?


I can think of several reasons, none of them good.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> Sorry, I should have clarified, "I have done research for years." This is my life. My only hobby, my only interest. I honestly strongly disagree with the "new" methods people are coming up with. Some of them are great, I like the idea of clicker-training, but the whole "no-corrections" thing is absurd! People are trying to be more "humane" with animals, while what they don't realize is that they aren't teaching the dog what is bad, only the good. Nothing good comes from that. Just like anyone else, a dog needs to know both what it _should_ do and what it _should not_ do. Abuse is wrong, discipline in the form of punishment is natural. It should be tailored to the needs of the dog, but it has always been around, and for people to try to ignore it or say that it's bad is crazy. It's worked forever, the only thing that's changed is people.


If *you* are incapable of training without inflicting pain or fear, then it absolutely is "natural" for you to train with the only tools in your toolkit.

Fortunately, most of the people on this forum have far more developed toolkits than yours. I do not use P+ when I train. I don't even use NRMs (which are No Reward Markers, since we've established you know little about training terminology). My dogs don't get told 'no'. I use very mild P-, for instance if a puppy nips, I redirect and praise and then if the puppy continues to nip I get up and walk away. Or if a dog demand barks, I ignore it. Or if a dog doesn't sit when I ask, I withhold a treat, reset and ask for the behavior again. 

Seriously. Titan has never been yelled at, told 'no', physically hit or manipulated into performing a behavior. Nothing of that sort. Titan also happens to be a 140 lb Great Dane who could kill and eat me if he wanted to. And what do you know? He's a perfectly well behaved and stable dog. 

"Blah blah, Great Danes are easy, sometimes you have to use P+ with dogs who have behavioral issues or have harder temperaments." Just to prepare for the next argument I usually hear. I also happened to have two last chance GSD mix rescues at one point in time. One of them had bitten a child severely. One would kill anything that wasn't a person or another dog and had been beaten by his previous owners. I used the same training methods to "rehabilitate" and manage both of them.

You know what's crazy? That we're all sitting here telling you that you don't HAVE to punish your dog. You don't HAVE to hurt him. There are other ways. And you're saying 'no, there aren't other ways, and instead of trying to figure out how to do things differently, I'm going to call you all crazy and keep hurting my dog!' (Thanks, ireth0 )


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Hey man, I've even used positive reinforcement behaviour modification to teach my dog NOT to chase my cats using no corrections, verbal or physical. It's doable.

You don't understand it, and that's okay. But hat doesn't mean it isn't a thing, because it absolutely is.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

I also want to point out that, uh. People train lions, tigers, bears, wolves, _orcas_ with R+/P- alone. To do things like offer a paw or tail and keep still as _they are stabbed with a needle to have blood drawn._ No, they don't sleep in our beds or walk through downtown with us (okay, some idiots do this but it's a horrible, stupid idea), but reputable, accredited zoos and sanctuaries would never dream of using P+ on these animals; the consequences are much too dire. Why, then, use it on dogs? Because they're domesticated and have been bred for thousands of years to work with us, so they only attack us as an absolute last resort? I've no wish to bully and intimidate an animal just because I can get away with it.

By the way, people who work with exotics have use force-free training for years. It's hardly new. On the other hand, one really old-school method of dog-breeding was "breed lots and lots of puppies, keep the ones with the looks/temperament/drive/health we want, kill the rest." And you know what? It worked. It's how a lot of breeds were developed, and in the days before genetic health testing we didn't have a ton of options. That doesn't mean that modern methods of pre-screening for illness and temperament testing, then 'culling' by spaying/neutering/selling on a no-breeding contract aren't the more humane option.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Hey man, I've even used positive reinforcement behaviour modification to teach my dog NOT to chase my cats using no corrections, verbal or physical. It's doable.
> 
> You don't understand it, and that's okay. But hat doesn't mean it isn't a thing, because it absolutely is.


Like Effisia said, R+ works with all animals. How do you think I trained my husband to help with the dishes? (Surprise - it wasn't by constantly nagging him!)


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> I also want to point out that, uh. People train lions, tigers, bears, wolves, _orcas_ with R+/P- alone. To do things like offer a paw or tail and keep still as _they are stabbed with a needle to have blood drawn._ No, they don't sleep in our beds or walk through downtown with us (okay, some idiots do this but it's a horrible, stupid idea), but reputable, accredited zoos and sanctuaries would never dream of using P+ on these animals; the consequences are much too dire. Why, then, use it on dogs? Because they're domesticated and have been bred for thousands of years to work with us, so they only attack us as an absolute last resort? I've no wish to bully and intimidate an animal just because I can get away with it.
> 
> By the way, people who work with exotics have use force-free training for years. It's hardly new. On the other hand, one really old-school method of dog-breeding was "breed lots and lots of puppies, keep the ones with the looks/temperament/drive/health we want, kill the rest." And you know what? It worked. It's how a lot of breeds were developed, and in the days before genetic health testing we didn't have a ton of options. That doesn't mean that modern methods of pre-screening for illness and temperament testing, then 'culling' by spaying/neutering/selling on a no-breeding contract aren't the more humane option.


Funny that you mentioned about those exotic animals... One thing you probably forgot: this isn't natural. These animals are in captivity, being forced to live in a small area, where they may not be "mistreated," but they definitely aren't given the freedom that they deserve. It is cruel how people think it's okay to lock these types of animals up and pretend they're domesticated and "happy," while really they're suffering. They're not free. And do you really think an animal that's supposed to live in a whole ocean can be happy to do tricks for people in exchange for a little fish? It's abuse. So using those as examples for dog training really makes about as much sense as the people who claim that dominance in the wolf pack is how dogs should be trained. In both cases, the animals are not in their natural habitats, and they shouldn't have interference from humans. If what you say is correct about people training these wild animals with "R+/P-" and that dogs should therefore be trained the same way, there is just as much credibility in saying that "There is video footage of wolves trying to establish the role as 'top dog' in the pack, the 'alpha,' and making the other wolves be submissive, so that's the same way dogs should be trained." Both of those things are ridiculous. They're not natural. Further, it's abuse to compare domesticated dogs to captive and practically abused orcas and wolves in captivity and things like that, and then to take those methods and try applying them to a completely different species, who, further, are in their habitat: our homes. It's crazy to say they should be trained like orcas or wolves, they aren't either one, and have fun training a wild wolf or a wild orca with any methods while allowing them to keep their freedom. (Meaning they just have to come do what you say, or they can go free half-way across the ocean if they choose.) It's not natural. So why compare training wild animals to training domesticated pets? They're totally different things, and what's more, the wild animals practically undergo abuse, so how does their mental state factor into their actions? Sorry for this rant, I just think it's necessary when people think the training these animals go through is okay, or even think that it "works" is just sad... We may get the desired action, but that doesn't mean that it's anything short of abuse. Dogs are completely different animals, and should be treated as such.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

gingerkid said:


> Like Effisia said, R+ works with all animals. How do you think I trained my husband to help with the dishes? (Surprise - it wasn't by constantly nagging him!)


I know it's a thing, and I know it can work, but saying it always works is ridiculous. There is no "one size fits all" in dog training. +R is not a "one size fits all" deal. It might work some of the time, even most of the time, but there are always times when it doesn't work. And congrats on training your husband to do the dishes!  lol


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> Funny that you mentioned about those exotic animals... One thing you probably forgot: this isn't natural. These animals are in captivity, being forced to live in a small area, where they may not be "mistreated," but they definitely aren't given the freedom that they deserve. It is cruel how people think it's okay to lock these types of animals up and pretend they're domesticated and "happy," while really they're suffering. They're not free. And do you really think an animal that's supposed to live in a whole ocean can be happy to do tricks for people in exchange for a little fish? It's abuse. So using those as examples for dog training really makes about as much sense as the people who claim that dominance in the wolf pack is how dogs should be trained. In both cases, the animals are not in their natural habitats, and they shouldn't have interference from humans. If what you say is correct about people training these wild animals with "R+/P-" and that dogs should therefore be trained the same way, there is just as much credibility in saying that "There is video footage of wolves trying to establish the role as 'top dog' in the pack, the 'alpha,' and making the other wolves be submissive, so that's the same way dogs should be trained." Both of those things are ridiculous. They're not natural. Further, it's abuse to compare domesticated dogs to captive and practically abused orcas and wolves in captivity and things like that, and then to take those methods and try applying them to a completely different species, who, further, are in their habitat: our homes. It's crazy to say they should be trained like orcas or wolves, they aren't either one, and have fun training a wild wolf or a wild orca with any methods while allowing them to keep their freedom. (Meaning they just have to come do what you say, or they can go free half-way across the ocean if they choose.) It's not natural. So why compare training wild animals to training domesticated pets? They're totally different things, and what's more, the wild animals practically undergo abuse, so how does their mental state factor into their actions? Sorry for this rant, I just think it's necessary when people think the training these animals go through is okay, or even think that it "works" is just sad... We may get the desired action, but that doesn't mean that it's anything short of abuse. Dogs are completely different animals, and should be treated as such.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> I know it's a thing, and I know it can work, but saying it always works is ridiculous. There is no "one size fits all" in dog training. +R is not a "one size fits all" deal. It might work some of the time, even most of the time, but there are always times when it doesn't work. And congrats on training your husband to do the dishes!  lol


The only times I have seen/heard of R+ not working was when the trainer didn't know what they were doing.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm not going to lie. I take issue with a lot of aspects of the way wild animals are treated in captivity.

But... clicker training to avoid getting knocked out for simple medical procedures isn't one of them.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You can use R+ to train BEES. 

I mean COME ON. http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/201...ccer-queen-mary-university-study-sje-orig.cnn


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> Funny that you mentioned about those exotic animals... One thing you probably forgot: this isn't natural. These animals are in captivity, being forced to live in a small area, where they may not be "mistreated," but they definitely aren't given the freedom that they deserve. It is cruel how people think it's okay to lock these types of animals up and pretend they're domesticated and "happy," while really they're suffering. They're not free. And do you really think an animal that's supposed to live in a whole ocean can be happy to do tricks for people in exchange for a little fish? It's abuse. So using those as examples for dog training really makes about as much sense as the people who claim that dominance in the wolf pack is how dogs should be trained. In both cases, the animals are not in their natural habitats, and they shouldn't have interference from humans. If what you say is correct about people training these wild animals with "R+/P-" and that dogs should therefore be trained the same way, there is just as much credibility in saying that "There is video footage of wolves trying to establish the role as 'top dog' in the pack, the 'alpha,' and making the other wolves be submissive, so that's the same way dogs should be trained." Both of those things are ridiculous. They're not natural. Further, it's abuse to compare domesticated dogs to captive and practically abused orcas and wolves in captivity and things like that, and then to take those methods and try applying them to a completely different species, who, further, are in their habitat: our homes. It's crazy to say they should be trained like orcas or wolves, they aren't either one, and have fun training a wild wolf or a wild orca with any methods while allowing them to keep their freedom. (Meaning they just have to come do what you say, or they can go free half-way across the ocean if they choose.) It's not natural. So why compare training wild animals to training domesticated pets? They're totally different things, and what's more, the wild animals practically undergo abuse, so how does their mental state factor into their actions? Sorry for this rant, I just think it's necessary when people think the training these animals go through is okay, or even think that it "works" is just sad... We may get the desired action, but that doesn't mean that it's anything short of abuse. Dogs are completely different animals, and should be treated as such.


Never mind that R+ can be used for literally any species on the planet, you should google Bob Bailey, who has successfully clicker trained wild (as in, living free in the ocean) dolphins. As in dolphins living in their "own habitat". Which, to be clear, is the ocean.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DogInfo101 said:


> I know it's a thing, and I know it can work, but saying it always works is ridiculous. There is no "one size fits all" in dog training. +R is not a "one size fits all" deal. It might work some of the time, even most of the time, but there are always times when it doesn't work. And congrats on training your husband to do the dishes!  lol


So in what cases, specifically, would you say it doesn't work? Can you describe a scenario where R+ would not work, but punishment would? And why do you choose to use punishment when R+ works "even most of the time?"


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> You can use R+ to train BEES.
> 
> I mean COME ON. http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/201...ccer-queen-mary-university-study-sje-orig.cnn


But that's abuse. Look at those poor suffering bees.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

gingerkid said:


> The only times I have seen/heard of R+ not working was when the trainer didn't know what they were doing.


And I can say the same about +P. It shouldn't always be used, but when a trainer knows what they're doing and that it's an okay situation to use +P, the results are fine. It's only when the trainer doesn't know what they're doing that there's even a problem.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> And I can say the same about +P. It shouldn't always be used, but when a trainer knows what they're doing and that it's an okay situation to use +P, the results are fine. It's only when the trainer doesn't know what they're doing that there's even a problem.


This is true. It works in most things - or rather it works to remove undesired behavior, you cannot train new behavior via punishment very well, it's just too imprecise. 

The question is - Punishment works by hurting or scaring the dog. Reward + works without risk of fallout to the dog. Why is using it 'okay' when there's another method that does not rely on causing the dog distress. THAT is what we want an answer for.. Not 'does it work'? Everyone here knows it WORKS, though often with consequences that are horrible, but it does work to eliminate behavior. But SO DOES TRAINING WITH METHODS THAT ARE POSITIVE TO THE DOg, without the risk of negative consequences. So, why the heck would use punishment? 

Like. Do you enjoy hurting dogs? 

Because that's pretty much what the alternative to 'needs to stop now because dangerous' and 'I don't know how to do anything else, and also I'm lazy'.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Lillith said:


> So in what cases, specifically, would you say it doesn't work? Can you describe a scenario where R+ would not work, but punishment would? And why do you choose to use punishment when R+ works "even most of the time?"


Positive reinforcement doesn't work when the dog is under such extreme distractions and cares more about, say, chasing a squirrel, than whatever reward you are offering. I know people claim that these things can be worked past, but some dogs will eventually face a scenario where they prefer what they want than what their owner wants. Punishment is part of training. It's part of teaching. And I said "most of the time" to humor the people who would like to argue that it's not just "some of the time"...


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah I was gonna say that I've heard of people training wild animals (in the wild) to do various things. They freely make the choice. The bee thing is super cool. 

But you're saying that humans can't live with animals in their houses without using punishment to manage their behavior? That's sad . Doesn't say anything good about humans if it's true.



> Positive reinforcement doesn't work when the dog is under such extreme distractions and cares more about, say, chasing a squirrel, than whatever reward you are offering


What about a dog trained with punishment who cares more about chasing a squirrel than whatever punishment the owner can give? What makes punishment more compelling than reward?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

DogInfo101 said:


> Funny that you mentioned about those exotic animals... One thing you probably forgot: this isn't natural. These animals are in captivity, being forced to live in a small area, where they may not be "mistreated," but they definitely aren't given the freedom that they deserve. It is cruel how people think it's okay to lock these types of animals up and pretend they're domesticated and "happy," while really they're suffering. They're not free. And do you really think an animal that's supposed to live in a whole ocean can be happy to do tricks for people in exchange for a little fish? It's abuse. So using those as examples for dog training really makes about as much sense as the people who claim that dominance in the wolf pack is how dogs should be trained. In both cases, the animals are not in their natural habitats, and they shouldn't have interference from humans. If what you say is correct about people training these wild animals with "R+/P-" and that dogs should therefore be trained the same way, there is just as much credibility in saying that "There is video footage of wolves trying to establish the role as 'top dog' in the pack, the 'alpha,' and making the other wolves be submissive, so that's the same way dogs should be trained." Both of those things are ridiculous. They're not natural. Further, it's abuse to compare domesticated dogs to captive and practically abused orcas and wolves in captivity and things like that, and then to take those methods and try applying them to a completely different species, who, further, are in their habitat: our homes. It's crazy to say they should be trained like orcas or wolves, they aren't either one, and have fun training a wild wolf or a wild orca with any methods while allowing them to keep their freedom. (Meaning they just have to come do what you say, or they can go free half-way across the ocean if they choose.) It's not natural. So why compare training wild animals to training domesticated pets? They're totally different things, and what's more, the wild animals practically undergo abuse, so how does their mental state factor into their actions? Sorry for this rant, I just think it's necessary when people think the training these animals go through is okay, or even think that it "works" is just sad... We may get the desired action, but that doesn't mean that it's anything short of abuse. Dogs are completely different animals, and should be treated as such.



You say it's impossible to use force free methods on a wild animal that has the ability to simply run away? Monty Roberts would very much disagree with you, as he's DONE it.

http://www.montyroberts.com/horses/shy-boy/


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> Positive reinforcement doesn't work when the dog is under such extreme distractions and cares more about, say, chasing a squirrel, than whatever reward you are offering. I know people claim that these things can be worked past, but some dogs will eventually face a scenario where they prefer what they want than what their owner wants. Punishment is part of training. It's part of teaching. And I said "most of the time" to humor the people who would like to argue that it's not just "some of the time"...


A dog that is under those conditions isn't learning with punishment either. Because his brain is in an emotional/chemical state that prevents learning period.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> Positive reinforcement doesn't work when the dog is under such extreme distractions and cares more about, say, chasing a squirrel, than whatever reward you are offering. I know people claim that these things can be worked past, but some dogs will eventually face a scenario where they prefer what they want than what their owner wants. Punishment is part of training. It's part of teaching. And I said "most of the time" to humor the people who would like to argue that it's not just "some of the time"...


You're claiming P+ works in situations with extreme distractions. So why isn't P+ fixing your aggressive dog? Why are some of us sitting here saying we don't use P+ and we've rehabbed dogs with R+ methods? While you're sitting here telling us P+ works, yet on a separate thread it's clearly NOT working for you.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> A dog that is under those conditions isn't learning with punishment either. Because his brain is in an emotional/chemical state that prevents learning period.


Nope. It's learning nothing. It's just getting hurt. Dogs can't learn when overaroused, or super scared or - Really any super high emotional state. Neither can people. Or monkeys. Or fish. Or -

Anything with a central nervous system.



Hiraeth said:


> You're claiming P+ works in situations with extreme distractions. So why isn't P+ fixing your aggressive dog? Why are some of us sitting here saying we don't use P+ and we've rehabbed dogs with R+ methods? While you're sitting here telling us P+ works, yet on a separate thread it's clearly NOT working for you.


Shhh, it's working (according to them). I mean the fact that well done P+ means it should have worked in one, maybe 2 sessions, arguing that they don't know what they're doing there, either, but hey.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Hahahaha okay, an animal rights debate is getting pretty off-topic so I'll try to keep this brief. Just to say that I'd add doing some research to what _reputable, certified_ (AZA in the States) facilities do for their animals in terms of care, enrichment, and humane treatment to your list of things to look into. And what they do for the wild populations through research and breeding programs, many of which are meant to produce young to release back into the native ranges where the populations are suffering. And what they do for public awareness through outreach and education programs. We've come a long, long way from the days of tiny cages and concrete floors. Even if you wanted to argue that none of that is worth captivity of any kind, I'd like to ask if you'd be okay with hundreds of thousands of zoo and sanctuary animals being euthanized because they're unreleasable (due to health, fitness, or habituation to humans) and more dying, even going extinct, because their native habitats are no longer robust enough to support a thriving population. If you're okay with those ultimate consequences inherent in your stance, groovy. I can respect that. I don't agree, but I can respect that. But try understanding a little more about these massively complex and nuanced issues before swallowing the nonsense that extreme animal groups spew whole-cloth. There's parts of the field I'm uncomfortable with and disagree with, but I'm not wiling to condemn everything because of that and campaign to tear down all the good its done.

My point was, force-free training works on everything. Domestic animals, from chickens and guinea pigs to horses and dogs. Wild animals. Insects. Reptiles. Humans. If you're so concerned about humane and natural treatment of animals, perhaps consider how humane and natural choke chains and shock collars are.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

CptJack said:


> This is true. It works in most things - or rather it works to remove undesired behavior, you cannot train new behavior via punishment very well, it's just too imprecise.
> 
> The question is - Punishment works by hurting or scaring the dog. Reward + works without risk of fallout to the dog. Why is using it 'okay' when there's another method that does not rely on causing the dog distress. THAT is what we want an answer for.. Not 'does it work'? Everyone here knows it WORKS, though often with consequences that are horrible, but it does work to eliminate behavior. But SO DOES TRAINING WITH METHODS THAT ARE POSITIVE TO THE DOg, without the risk of negative consequences. So, why the heck would use punishment?
> 
> ...


It is okay, and negative punishment doesn't hurt the dogs at all. Positive punishment when used properly may cause up to five seconds of pain, not un-bearable pain, but pain nonetheless. Really though, is a little bit of pain not worth the distraction-proofing? It's not abuse. It's not harmful to the dogs. If it is used on the wrong dog, it can cause harm, so a good trainer has to be careful, but positive reinforcement doesn't do it all. There's nothing wrong with using positive punishment, it doesn't leave the dog with lasting harm, and it works to cement in the good behavior that is achieved through R+ and prevent bad behavior. You could encounter so many behavioral problems just using R+, and it would take practically forever to train the dog in a way that he will eventually prefer due to habit. Instead, you could correct the behavioral problem with +P and completely eliminate it easily. (Not all dogs, but again, a good trainer can tell...) So no, obviously I don't enjoy hurting dogs. But I want to provide them with discipline so they know that what they're doing is not okay. I would absolutely use +P (on a dog that it's okay with) to teach him to stay away from cars if he had a problem with that! Not doing that training, or trying to take your time with R+ could result in the dog getting hit by a car and maybe dying. Is it really worth it?


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Shhh, it's working (according to them). I mean the fact that well done P+ means it should have worked in one, maybe 2 sessions, arguing that they don't know what they're doing there, either, but hey.


Right? I mean... It just boggles the mind. I don't even know what to say any more because everything we're saying is just in one ear and out the other.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Right? I mean... It just boggles the mind. I don't even know what to say any more because everything we're saying is just in one ear and out the other.


Honestly, I kind of get it. It's making me nuts, but I get it. 

What we're saying amounts to 'you hurt your dog because you want to - and also you probably created or worsened his issue, and also also you don't really know what you'e doing'. Most people don't respond well to that. 

But for god's sake, don't ask questions you dont' want answered and LISTEN to the answers if you do!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> There's nothing wrong with using positive punishment, it doesn't leave the dog with lasting harm, and *it works to cement in the good behavior*


Of course, whether there's anything wrong with it is fully subjective. There is also no way to know if it will cause a dog lasting harm, until it has actually caused lasting harm---oops, too late. But for the bolded part---how does it do that, in your opinion? What makes punishment more compelling than reward?


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

CptJack said:


> Nope. It's learning nothing. It's just getting hurt. Dogs can't learn when overaroused, or super scared or - Really any super high emotional state. Neither can people. Or monkeys. Or fish. Or -
> 
> Anything with a central nervous system.
> 
> ...


Alright. My dog has improved significantly using mainly P+ methods with dog-based aggression. I don't take him on walks often, we mostly play inside. However, the other day our neighbor's dog came out and was about 2 yards away from my dog, and I successfully handled the situation so as to not get one growl out of him, nor did he seem to want to show aggression. That in itself is proof that what I have done is working. I wanted to see if people on here could come up with another way, and a couple people had good ideas, but I'm still not so sure they'd work under extreme distractions.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> It is okay, and negative punishment doesn't hurt the dogs at all. Positive punishment when used properly may cause up to five seconds of pain, not un-bearable pain, but pain nonetheless. Really though, is a little bit of pain not worth the distraction-proofing? It's not abuse. It's not harmful to the dogs. If it is used on the wrong dog, it can cause harm, so a good trainer has to be careful, but positive reinforcement doesn't do it all. There's nothing wrong with using positive punishment, it doesn't leave the dog with lasting harm, and it works to cement in the good behavior that is achieved through R+ and prevent bad behavior. You could encounter so many behavioral problems just using R+, and it would take practically forever to train the dog in a way that he will eventually prefer due to habit. Instead, you could correct the behavioral problem with +P and completely eliminate it easily. (Not all dogs, but again, a good trainer can tell...) So no, obviously I don't enjoy hurting dogs. But I want to provide them with discipline so they know that what they're doing is not okay. I would absolutely use +P (on a dog that it's okay with) to teach him to stay away from cars if he had a problem with that! Not doing that training, or trying to take your time with R+ could result in the dog getting hit by a car and maybe dying. Is it really worth it?


How is P+ working for you? You have an aggressive dog whose threshold is so low that it freaks out every time it HEARS another dog. 

Also, here's a really good list of what someone who chooses to employ P+ training should know. It summarizes Ian Dunbar's ideas on punishment in training: 



> 8 Rules of Punishment
> 
> 1. Punishment has to be effective. Dunbar believe if a punishment needs to be delivered more than once, then the punishment isn’t effective and is more abusive. He suggests that leash jerks, ineffective yelling, and dogs ‘still wearing’ a shock collar are dogs that suffering ineffective, abusive punishment.
> 
> ...


So. According to rule #1, you are abusing your dog. Your dog is still aggressive, so the punishment is clearly ineffective. 

There is something about someone who can so nonchalantly discuss causing another living animal pain for 5 seconds that I find highly disturbing.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

A little more on-topic, R+ is incredibly flexible. Rewards can be lots of different things in different situations - a treat, a toy, a chance to go play with a friend or sniff a good scent or swim in the river. Dinner. Getting to go out the door. Human attention. Sometimes even being able to perfom a favorite trick! The trick is knowing the right reward for the right scenario, and when to deliver it.

Positive punishment is... pain or discomfort. Might be physical, might be emotional (yelling, harsh tones, or even a no reward marker for some super soft dogs). But it's harder to tailor to an exact situation, because there just aren't as many options. Even negative punishment is limited; there's only so many things you can remove from the dog that the dog will actually awknowledge and understand as a punishment in any given situation.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> Of course, whether there's anything wrong with it is fully subjective. There is also no way to know if it will cause a dog lasting harm, until it has actually caused lasting harm---oops, too late. But for the bolded part---how does it do that, in your opinion? What makes punishment more compelling than reward?


I guess what I was saying is that it can cement the good behavior in even to the point of extreme distractions. When the reward you are offering through +R isn't worth as much as what your dog wants to go after, that's when the correction would come into play. You correct the dog, so he realizes he _can't_ have what he wants to go after, and after repeating this, he will realize that he has to listen no matter what distractions are around. He still gets rewarded for listening, but it's also not okay to not listen.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Of course, whether there's anything wrong with it is fully subjective. There is also no way to know if it will cause a dog lasting harm, until it has actually caused lasting harm---oops, too late. But for the bolded part---how does it do that, in your opinion? What makes punishment more compelling than reward?


Probably calling it proofing. It's a thing. 

It's not really an effective or necessary thing, but it's a thing. 

Also common misconception that if you don't reward every time the dog stops doing the desired behavior which just isn't true. If it were I wouldn't get 30+ behaviors on an agility course for a single reward at the end, and I'd still be giving my dogs treats for peeing outside.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

My favorite thing in the world is someone who acknowledges my dogs - all of them - are well trained and well behaved and/or I've resolved an issue and then insists that the way I trained them doesn't work. 

Like. Seriously?


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Option #1: Hurt/scare the dog
Option #2: Don't hurt/scare the dog

Both get results. I'm constantly amazed that this is still a debate.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> My favorite thing in the world is someone who acknowledges my dogs - all of them - are well trained and well behaved and/or I've resolved an issue and then insists that the way I trained them doesn't work.
> 
> Like. Seriously?


You just got super lucky and you have easy dogs. Duh.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> I successfully handled the situation so as to not get one growl out of him, nor did he seem to want to show aggression. That in itself is proof that what I have done is working.


Well, no, that's not proof that it's working, although it may depend on what you consider "working". That's proof that you have successfully suppressed his reactions. Proof that it worked would be him freely not reacting because he no longer feels the need to react. You standing over him ready to inflict punishment is not a sign of success. Now, if you define success as "he doesn't do stuff that annoys me when I'm here" I guess you could call it success.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> You just got super lucky and you have easy dogs. Duh.


Oh. Right. Clearly. I'll tell Molly and Thud. 

And cry into my cheerios and never own another dog, because JESUS.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> Alright. My dog has improved significantly using mainly P+ methods with dog-based aggression. I don't take him on walks often, we mostly play inside. However, the other day our neighbor's dog came out and was about 2 yards away from my dog, and I successfully handled the situation so as to not get one growl out of him, nor did he seem to want to show aggression. That in itself is proof that what I have done is working. I wanted to see if people on here could come up with another way, and a couple people had good ideas, but I'm still not so sure they'd work under extreme distractions.


Good for you! One day, maybe not today, maybe not this year, but some day, your dog will probably attack another dog without giving any warning signs at all. And everyone will wonder where it came from. And I'm going to tell you right now, where it came from: you punished the warning (growl) out of your dog. You did not make it more comfortable around other animals. You did not make it less likely to attack in the future. You've simply told him that voicing his discomfort means he gets hurt. So he'll stop voicing his discomfort.

(By the way, dogs that are truly dog aggressive without any fear-component generally don't growl. Growls are the dog's way of saying "back off" which isn't something you say to something you flat out want to kill.)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> You correct the dog, so he realizes he can't have what he wants to go after


But he CAN. A dog totally can blow off punishment. Lots of dogs run right through their collar zaps. They have that choice. I feel like you think punishment is some magic thing that automatically forces the dog to obey. They can blow off punishment just as easily as they can blow off reward.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Well, no, that's not proof that it's working, although it may depend on what you consider "working". That's proof that you have successfully suppressed his reactions. Proof that it worked would be him freely not reacting because he no longer feels the need to react. You standing over him ready to inflict punishment is not a sign of success. Now, if you define success as "he doesn't do stuff that annoys me when I'm here" I guess you could call it success.


Yeah. My measure of success and the only point I called it was when the dog was able to be off leash, working, and happy/confident in the presence of previous triggers. 

Also, honestly, and again, no one's claiming punishment doesn't work. It does. It's just unnecessary in almost all situations and mean.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Oh. Right. Clearly. I'll tell Molly and Thud.
> 
> And cry into my cheerios and never own another dog, because JESUS.


Hahaha, right? That's the argument I always hear from people. That my dogs are "easy" and that's why R+ works for me. 

Yeah. My 163 lb dog reactive Great Dane is easy. Right. I don't eat cheerios, but I'll go ahead and cry into my vodka


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> (By the way, dogs that are truly dog aggressive without any fear-component generally don't growl. Growls are the dog's way of saying "back off" which isn't something you say to something you flat out want to kill.)


DING DING DING. 

Yep. 

Every truly DA dog I have ever seen makes no noise. They lunge and attack. They'll still give warnings but barking, growling and hackles are *defensive* displays. "GO AWAY". The stuff you see in 'I want to kill you' minus the fear? It's what you see when you see a cat stalking a mouse, or a dog chasing a chicken to kill it. THIS IS NOT WHERE THEY BARK AND GROWL. Because they are HUNTING.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> How is P+ working for you? You have an aggressive dog whose threshold is so low that it freaks out every time it HEARS another dog.
> 
> Also, here's a really good list of what someone who chooses to employ P+ training should know. It summarizes Ian Dunbar's ideas on punishment in training:
> 
> ...


This is silly. Just because a punishment has to be repeated a few times until the dog understands exactly what it means or remembers about it, that doesn't mean that it's ineffective. Positive reinforcement through things like giving a treat for good behavior is the same in this way: It takes a few times before the dog makes the association. After the dog makes the association, everything goes quicker and is a lot easier! It's exactly the same. Very rarely should it be expected to only happen once, and the dog will never do that again.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DogInfo101 said:


> This is silly. Just because a punishment has to be repeated a few times until the dog understands exactly what it means or remembers about it, that doesn't mean that it's ineffective. Positive reinforcement through things like giving a treat for good behavior is the same in this way: It takes a few times before the dog makes the association. After the dog makes the association, everything goes quicker and is a lot easier! It's exactly the same. Very rarely should it be expected to only happen once, and the dog will never do that again.


For those of us who don't like causing other living things pain, having to repeatedly punish our dogs is something we actively choose to avoid.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> DING DING DING.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Every truly DA dog I have ever seen makes no noise. They lunge and attack. They'll still give warnings but barking, growling and hackles are *defensive* displays. "GO AWAY". The stuff you see in 'I want to kill you' minus the fear? It's what you see when you see a cat stalking a mouse, or a dog chasing a chicken to kill it. THIS IS NOT WHERE THEY BARK AND GROWL. Because they are HUNTING.


Yep. It's fricking scary. No noise, no nothing. Just omfg that dog now has another dog in it's mouth AHHHHHH.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

CptJack said:


> DING DING DING.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Every truly DA dog I have ever seen makes no noise. They lunge and attack. They'll still give warnings but barking, growling and hackles are *defensive* displays. "GO AWAY". The stuff you see in 'I want to kill you' minus the fear? It's what you see when you see a cat stalking a mouse, or a dog chasing a chicken to kill it. THIS IS NOT WHERE THEY BARK AND GROWL. Because they are HUNTING.


Again, it's territorial aggression. He lunges at the dog and is growling harshly. Yes, he is saying "GO AWAY," but it's not because he's afraid. It's because he views our neighborhood as "his domain" and he wants other animals to stay away. Like I said, he does better when we're not in our neighborhood. And he has no reason to be afraid of animals in our neighborhood and not in others...


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> This is silly. Just because a punishment has to be repeated a few times until the dog understands exactly what it means or remembers about it, that doesn't mean that it's ineffective. Positive reinforcement through things like giving a treat for good behavior is the same in this way: It takes a few times before the dog makes the association. After the dog makes the association, everything goes quicker and is a lot easier! It's exactly the same. Very rarely should it be expected to only happen once, and the dog will never do that again.


Then... then why not choose to do the option that doesn't require hurting your dog? One of the main things P+ or 'balanced' trainers claim as a benefit of P+ is that it's faster, but if it really isn't, why not chose the more humane option?


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

DogInfo101 said:


> Again, it's territorial aggression. He lunges at the dog and is growling harshly. Yes, he is saying "GO AWAY," but it's not because he's afraid. It's because he views our neighborhood as "his domain" and he wants other animals to stay away. Like I said, he does better when we're not in our neighborhood. And he has no reason to be afraid of animals in our neighborhood and not in others...


How exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that it's not fear - just because he goes after something and doesn't run away?


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DogInfo101 said:


> Again, it's territorial aggression. He lunges at the dog and is growling harshly. Yes, he is saying "GO AWAY," but it's not because he's afraid. It's because he views our neighborhood as "his domain" and he wants other animals to stay away. Like I said, he does better when we're not in our neighborhood. And he has no reason to be afraid of animals in our neighborhood and not in others...


Territorial aggression has a component of fear. That component is _fear_ that the other dog will take over it's territory. It's a form of resource guarding.


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> For those of us who don't like causing other living things pain, having to repeatedly punish our dogs is something we actively choose to avoid.


I respect that. I have a different opinion based on the research I have done and based on my experiences. I don't "like" causing other living things pain, but for me, I don't want my dog to think that it's okay for him to disobey me, your methods clearly work for you and that's great. I think that's a pretty good end note to leave on.  Bye!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I would like an answer before you go, though. What about punishment makes it more compelling than reward? A dog can make the choice to ignore punishment just as well as they can make the choice to ignore a reward. 

What about a dog trained without punishment means that he would think it's "OK" to do something, whereas a dog trained with punishment would somehow know that it's "not OK"? If they both don't do that thing, does it matter whether they think it's OK or not? How do you know if a dog thinks something is OK? 

A lot of (probably most) punishment is done for the emotional satisfaction of the person doing the punishing. I hope that's not the case.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DogInfo101 said:


> Positive reinforcement doesn't work when the dog is under such extreme distractions and cares more about, say, chasing a squirrel, than whatever reward you are offering. I know people claim that these things can be worked past, but some dogs will eventually face a scenario where they prefer what they want than what their owner wants. Punishment is part of training. It's part of teaching. And I said "most of the time" to humor the people who would like to argue that it's not just "some of the time"...


I taught my herding dog not to chase fast moving things (Bikers, joggers, animals, etc.) using positive reinforcement. I'm pretty sure I could teach your Jack Russel not to chase squirrels. I'm positive numerous people on this forum have used positive reinforcement to teach their dogs not to chase cats, horses, chickens, rabbits and numerous other creatures. 

So, any other examples?


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DogInfo101 said:


> I respect that. I have a different opinion based on the research I have done and based on my experiences. I don't "like" causing other living things pain, but for me, I don't want my dog to think that it's okay for him to disobey me, your methods clearly work for you and that's great. I think that's a pretty good end note to leave on.  Bye!


Hm. Demanding obedience through fear and intimidation. Reminds me of some human leaders.

I hope your dog's name isn't Brutus.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Lillith said:


> I taught my herding dog not to chase fast moving things (Bikers, joggers, animals, etc.) using positive reinforcement. I'm pretty sure I could teach your Jack Russel not to chase squirrels. I'm positive numerous people on this forum have used positive reinforcement to teach their dogs not to chase cats, horses, chickens, rabbits and numerous other creatures.
> 
> So, any other examples?


See also: Thud and Molly. 

Thud's very prey driven. We dealt. He's fine. Allowed off leash to romp in the woods even. Comes back/leaves things as asked. Molly's a freaking BC. She would chase ANYTHING that moved because it's wired Know what I did this morning? Called her off running deer. Reward history is valuable. 

Also I've seen LOTS of Jacks running agility, outside, without trouble with dogs and other things (like birds) around. Not because genetically it's what they do but because, hey, training. (Know how much punishment exists in agility training? Again: Basically none)


----------



## DogInfo101 (Jan 10, 2017)

Willowy said:


> I would like an answer before you go, though. What about punishment makes it more compelling than reward? A dog can make the choice to ignore punishment just as well as they can make the choice to ignore a reward.
> 
> What about a dog trained without punishment means that he would think it's "OK" to do something, whereas a dog trained with punishment would somehow know that it's "not OK"? If they both don't do that thing, does it matter whether they think it's OK or not? How do you know if a dog thinks something is OK?
> 
> A lot of (probably most) punishment is done for the emotional satisfaction of the person doing the punishing. I hope that's not the case.


I would love to answer that, but I'm really tired of this conversation and I have things I need to do. If you look back through the posts, you should be able to find the answer to that for yourself. And NO. It is not for the emotional satisfaction of the person doing the punishing. I don't "enjoy" hurting my dog, I enjoy seeing the good results of training him. I will not even look at this thread one more time, please no more questions. (It will be hard not to look again, but I have a life that isn't just on an online dog forum... I hope you all have success in your dog training.  Bye.  (And I appreciate that you are so firm in your beliefs. Who knows who's beliefs will change over time? Maybe mine?)


----------



## Sprocket2016 (Feb 14, 2017)

I think he doesn't understand how much time it takes to fix the issue he is working on with things like focus and touch 
Obviously if I try to tell my dog touch 10 ft away from another dog she's going to ignore me 
You work your way up to that 10 ft if your dog is reacting at all to the other dog you back up she's not ready to be that close 
So to say punishment works better is false if you do the touch or look at me or focus commands correctly and slowly (however long it takes your dog) then it absolutely works my Great Dane rescue is proof it works 
If your dog reacts to dogs on tv you have to start extremely small like dogs on tv with your dog in another room or the sound turned way down 
Sometimes it takes a really long time but I'd rather teach my dog a way they not only understand what I want but they should never ever be scared of me 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Another component to this is that with a scared or insecure dog, the most important thing is that they not be worried about you. That they trust you. This includes resource guarding and territorial or guarding behavior. "Yo, I've got this, it's okay" and having the dog believe that is important. 

Undermining it by making them worry about you is just putting up your own roadblocks.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> If you look back through the posts, you should be able to find the answer to that for yourself


Well, no, you never answered that, that's why I asked again . You never did say why you think a dog is less likely to blow off punishment than reward, or why a dog trained with punishment will be more reliably obedient than one trained without. 

Anyway, no hurry. Most of us go about our business and pop in whenever we have free time, no need to stay glued to the screen.


----------



## m4gnum (Jan 6, 2017)

Wow. I did not expect that many posts. I will try to keep up with it. In the mean time I will try to answer some of them.



Willowy said:


> I'm no professional trainer but I feel like maybe you've never trained a dog at all, not even a pet. There's no way that a dog is going to associate you taking his toy away with him biting you. Even a little kid wouldn't understand that kind of thing until they're older, maybe 7 or 8. You can't use an unrelated punishment like that without extensive explanation.


I dont agree with that. As an example, my dog is with me at work and he hates when I leave the office (bathroom or other needs) but he never goes after me, he is just waiting, why? I did not give him a treat for staying inside, I did however close the door when he crossed the door line, without even thinking that he was learning atm. Maybe it was a bad way to do it but it worked. As I understand this my puppy knew that when he crosses the line, I will close the door. I did something he doesnt like when he did something I did not want.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

I guess I'd rather not be a dictator. I grew up in a household that was run like that (obeying was all that mattered), and it sucked hard.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

m4gnum said:


> Wow. I did not expect that many posts. I will try to keep up with it. In the mean time I will try to answer some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont agree with that. As an example, my dog is with me at work and he hates when I leave the office (bathroom or other needs) but he never goes after me, he is just waiting, why? I did not give him a treat for staying inside, I did however close the door when he crossed the door line, without even thinking that he was learning atm. Maybe it was a bad way to do it but it worked.


That's not punishment, that's negative reward. (Removing a desired thing). Heck, actually, it's mostly just management and forming of habits in a neutral, learning but not actively being trained, way. It's fine.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DogInfo101 said:


> I respect that. I have a different opinion based on the research I have done and based on my experiences. I don't "like" causing other living things pain, but for me, I don't want my dog to think that it's okay for him to disobey me, your methods clearly work for you and that's great. I think that's a pretty good end note to leave on.  Bye!


I don't get it. You are still choosing to hurt your dog when YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I think that's what people are struggling with. "It's only for a little while" does not justify causing pain. Your experience with a single 5 year old dog who, according to you, had poor socialization and has aggression issues, is not much of a credit on your part. We've yet to see this research you've done. Many of the people commenting are professional trainers, successful dog sport competitors, and have overcome numerous behavioral issues, with a few decades of experience with numerous different dogs under their belt to your 17 years and 1 or 2 dogs, yet your singular "experience" and "research" somehow trump that?

But wait. Everyone's opinion is right whether its based on fact or not!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

m4gnum said:


> I dont agree with that. As an example, my dog is with me at work and he hates when I leave the office (bathroom or other needs) but he never goes after me, he is just waiting, why? I did not give him a treat for staying inside, I did however close the door when he crossed the door line, without even thinking that he was learning atm. Maybe it was a bad way to do it but it worked. As I understand this my puppy knew that when he crosses the line, I will close the door. I did something he doesnt like when he did something I did not want.


 I'm not sure which part of the post you quoted you don't agree with, because I was addressing the situation of using a completely unrelated punishment, as one poster recommended. The situation you describe is related to the behavior, so the dog could make an association. I will suggest, though, that if you trained the behavior using treats, he might not hate it so much when you leave, and will be more cheerful about staying.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

m4gnum said:


> Wow. I did not expect that many posts. I will try to keep up with it. In the mean time I will try to answer some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont agree with that. As an example, my dog is with me at work and he hates when I leave the office (bathroom or other needs) but he never goes after me, he is just waiting, why? I did not give him a treat for staying inside, I did however close the door when he crossed the door line, without even thinking that he was learning atm. Maybe it was a bad way to do it but it worked. As I understand this my puppy knew that when he crosses the line, I will close the door. I did something he doesnt like when he did something I did not want.


This is actually pretty classic force-free training. Dog moves towards door, door gets closed. Dog sits, door gets opened. Repeat until the dog sits until given a release cue to go out. Rewards don't have to be treats, they can be lots of things, including you coming back to the office, or him getting to watch the hall instead of being shut behind a solid door.

Unless you mean you closed the door _on_ him, IE the door made physical contact with the dog? I hope not, but it's getting late here and I'm probably parsing the sentence wrong.

Anyhow, the reward or punishment has to do with what the dog wants at any given time. If the dog is nowhere near a toy, not interacting with the toy, and the toy isn't the cause of the problem behavior, removing that toy isn't going to register as having anything to do with the actions the dog was performing in his mind. It's just a random event - if he notices at all.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

gingerkid said:


> I guess I'd rather not be a dictator. I grew up in a household that was run like that (obeying was all that mattered), and it sucked hard.


Yeah there's that too. I have kind of a visceral reaction to anyone expecting "obedience" from anyone, even a dog. Work with the dog to teach him what humans find acceptable? Sure. Demand obedience? Ick, get a robot.


----------



## m4gnum (Jan 6, 2017)

DaySleepers said:


> This is actually pretty classic force-free training. Dog moves towards door, door gets closed. Dog sits, door gets opened. Repeat until the dog sits until given a release cue to go out. Rewards don't have to be treats, they can be lots of things, including you coming back to the office, or him getting to watch the hall instead of being shut behind a solid door.
> 
> Unless you mean you closed the door _on_ him, IE the door made physical contact with the dog? I hope not, but it's getting late here and I'm probably parsing the sentence wrong.
> 
> Anyhow, the reward or punishment has to do with what the dog wants at any given time. If the dog is nowhere near a toy, not interacting with the toy, and the toy isn't the cause of the problem behavior, removing that toy isn't going to register as having anything to do with the actions the dog was performing in his mind. It's just a random event - if he notices at all.


I still did not read the whole tread because I am at work right now but I think I get it.
I think I am using positive reinforcement, i.e.
- treat on sit
- pen door opening after dog calms and sits
- treat on using the right spot for his needs and nothing for doing it on the carpet, he is going in the right spot 19/20 times so he prefers to do it right than do it without any action

But with him staying in the office after I leave is it negative punishment (door close after crossing the line) or positive reinforcement (door stay open when staying)? To be honest I thought I was doing the first one.

How should I react after the dogs bite? As I understand I should put him down, dont do anything and try again next time with a treat. But wouldn't it help if I would spray the dog with water (just an example) as soon as he snaps?
In my opinion he would associate putting the harness with something good and aggression with something bad.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

m4gnum said:


> How should I react after the dogs bite? As I understand I should put him down, dont do anything and try again next time with a treat. But wouldn't it help if I would spray the dog with water (just an example) as soon as he snaps?
> In my opinion he would associate putting the harness with something good and aggression with something bad.


The whole point is that if you're training properly, your dog will never feel threatened enough that he has to bite you. Spraying him with water is only going to increase his negative experiences with you handling him, which is going to increase the likelihood of a bite when you handle him in the future.

If you *start* with desensitizing him to the harness by giving him treats, you're going to put yourself on much better footing. Understand that he doesn't trust you now, however, and is used to feeling uncomfortable when you're handling him. So you're going to have to move very slowly and earn his trust.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> In my opinion he would associate putting the harness with something good and aggression with something bad.


But you don't know what association he'll make (and you have no control over that). He might associate aggression with something bad happening to him, or he might associate putting on a harness with something bad happening to him. He's only a baby. You should at least keep it positive while he's so young.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

m4gnum said:


> I still did not read the whole tread because I am at work right now but I think I get it.
> I think I am using positive reinforcement, i.e.
> - treat on sit
> - pen door opening after dog calms and sits
> ...


If you spray him with water when he bites you you're making yourself scary. He's biting because 1) he's scared, and 2) it's worked in the past (i.e., biting has stopped whatever it was he didn't like). Since it's not humane to him (and not comfortable for you!) to force him into his harness while he continues to bite you, your best bet is to avoid making him so scared that he feels the need to bite.

Same with taking away long-lasting toys - he is biting at you because he's scared that he'll never get it back. I would play trading games with him - practice trading low-value things that he doesn't care too much about for really yummy (but short-lasting) treats, and once he's finished the treat give the low-value thing (toy, probably) back to him. This method works really well - sometimes _too_ well, to the point where my dog now "steals" things and brings them to me to trade - but I'd rather have her willingly bring me the things she's stolen than have her run off with them and not want to give them to me, especially for things that might be dangerous to her.

You might want to also think about getting a new harness of a completely different style, one that goes on and comes off with minimal handling, like a step-in harness or a Julius K9-style (if they come in a small enough size), and train the dog to cooperate with putting the harness on (e.g., stepping into the leg holes for a step-in style harness, or willingly putting his head through the whole of an under-buckle harness), rather than fighting with you to avoid wearing it.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

m4gnum said:


> I still did not read the whole tread because I am at work right now but I think I get it.
> I think I am using positive reinforcement, i.e.
> - treat on sit
> - pen door opening after dog calms and sits
> ...


Sorry the thread blew up so much, but one poster was giving advice that was misinformed, misguided, and dangerous for your dog and potentially others reading this thread with similar concerns. We, as a community, could not let that slide. 

To summarize: all of us - the professional trainers, the dog behavior nerds, the dog sports competiters, the people who've dealt with fearful or aggressive dogs of their own, and even one poster who uses more corrections in their training than most of us here - agree that you should not punish your dog in this situation, and that doing so will make the problem worse.

To answer your question about closing/opening the door, I believe in this case the answer is both (though others can feel free to correct me). Closing the door is negative punishment, you're absolutely right. But I think opening the door again when he's back behind the line can be positive reinforcement, if he finds being able to see into the hall rewarding (and it sounds like he does?).

I think the concept you're struggling is that what your dog is doing is not just a behavior; it's an emotional response. And while punishment can modify just a behavior, it's not very useful for modifying emotional responses (except in creating fear). Therefore, the advice we're giving you is for changing the emotion causing the behavior, which will in turn make the behavior lessen and, with time and consistency, stop.

I promise that your dog doesn't want to hurt you, but in his mind, and his experiences, he's come to the conclusion that it's the only choice he has. By turning what used to be scary into a positive experience, and recognizing and respecting his boundaries, you'll teach him that he does have other options, and he will use those to communicate with you instead, rather than resorting to his teeth.


----------

