# Training philosophy: Positive/Reward vs. Leadership/Dominance



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

An interesting side discussion developed in the Mouthing and Biting thread which I'd like to follow up here.

Here's the thought starter: What are the benefits and demerits of positive (reward-based) vs. leadership (dominance) training? Which do you follow and why? Are there valid points to each we should incorporate in our training, and if so, which are they?

Here are a couple of links in case you need to read up on the topic:
Dog Training: Positive Reinforcement vs. Alpha Dog Methods

Dog obedience training : Positive Reinforcement vs Dominance Based Training


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I think that there is an ethical responsibility to make sure that dogs actually understand expectations. I think that "leadership" style methods typically bypass or short-cut the "teaching and proofing" stages of behavior modification and just leap to the correction stage of things. In the end, I think that many dominance-style methods actually just shut a dog down rather than train it.

I am mostly an R+ trainer, but I am still the "dominant leader" in my home. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I just think that it is critical to always be fair to the dog. As a whole, most reward-based trainers concentrate on the teaching and proofing and many leadership/dominance trainers go straight to the shutting down model. I have a strong preference for the former. I want an impish, bright-eyed dog who trusts me.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

trainingjunkie said:


> I think that there is an ethical responsibility to make sure that dogs actually understand expectations. I think that "leadership" style methods typically bypass or short-cut the "teaching and proofing" stages of behavior modification and just leap to the correction stage of things. In the end, I think that many dominance-style methods actually just shut a dog down rather than train it.
> 
> I am mostly an R+ trainer, but I am still the "dominant leader" in my home. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. I just think that it is critical to always be fair to the dog. As a whole, most reward-based trainers concentrate on the teaching and proofing and many leadership/dominance trainers go straight to the shutting down model. I have a strong preference for the former. I want an impish, bright-eyed dog who trusts me.


That's a good way to put it. Would you say that when dominance goes awry it is a matter of degree, where one goes from assertive leading of the dog to [often times] a frustrated angry response that results in abuse?


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

esuastegui said:


> That's a good way to put it. Would you say that when dominance goes awry it is a matter of degree, where one goes from assertive leading of the dog to [often times] a frustrated angry response that results in abuse?


I think that the tendency to place responsibility on the dog rather than the handler invites escalation. I also think dominance-based stuff seems to get a little "mystical." Like, if you just stand straight, your dog won't pull... That's crap. And thinking that if "energy" is correct increases how personally a trainer/owner takes bad behavior. And THAT leads to heavy-handed responses to the dog. 

But what do I know?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I don't personally see any benefit to dominance based training. When there are parts of dominance training that do work, I don't think it's for the reasons dominance trainers claim. The entire theory that this training is based on has been disproved. So why would you train with a system that occasionally gets it right for the wrong reason? You're shooting in the dark. And so much of it is based on "energy" which is a completely vague and non-descriptive term that means nothing practically. I also agree with trainingjunkie that dominance based training is very light on actually teaching the dog what to do, and instead relies on shutting a dog down so they stop doing things.

I'm more interested in science based and relationship based training. Science based in the sense of understanding what you are rewarding or punishing in the moment and doing that mindfully. I lean towards positive reinforcement, but I have used all four sectors of the quadrant. I like to know why I'm doing something and why it works, and have something to fall back on explain why it's maybe not working in this situation. Animals, huamns included, respond to reinforcement and I'm going to use that to my advantage.

And relationship training as basically the extension of that, but also focusing on the dog's emotions and how we are interacting together. For me this is more for sports based stuff. If I need my dog to sit or stay or come in a real world situation, I'm not necessarily going to care if he's super happy and excited to do it, because he needs to do it sometimes. I've used an ecollar to proof recall because my dog needs to come when I call him and it's not negotiable. Even in those situations I am fair and my expectations are clear - I'm not just zapping the dog as hard as I can because he blew off my recall, and I spent months laying the foundation. If we're going to work on a sport together for fun, then it should actually be fun. I'm not interested in using punishment or compulsion based methods to train obedience or agility. I try to use my dog's enjoyment of the activity as a barometer for how I'm training.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

A related question I should have asked up front: does positive reinforcement/reward cover every scenario? From my perspective, the answer is rather obvious, and... negative.

Here's an article that ferrets out when positive reinforcement does not fully address a situation:


> Positive reinforcement without guidance, leadership and discipline does not work 100% of the time because you are missing some of the communication. You tell the dog if it does this good thing I will reward you, but you never tell the dog that you do not agree with the other behavior. How is the dog to know what he is not to do if he only knows he gets rewarded for one behavior but nothing is said about the unwanted behavior?


This seems to make sense at a very basic level. Positive reinforcement works best when you are encouraging a positive behavior. But how do you discourage an unwanted behavior with a treat or a "good girl"? As the quote above indicates, teaching the alternative behavior positively only communicates that this behavior is good, but not that the other is bad. If the two behaviors are physically mutually exclusive, job well done. But if the two can coexist (as in the example given before the quote), the issue still remains. You haven't discouraged it.

Now, the question, of course is how to discourage unwanted behavior without abuse or shutdown. With the dogs I've had, tone of voice, physical redirection (leash leading, etc.), and a stare-down usually get the point across. Then I follow up with a positive behavior and reward/praise to show we've made up and we're cool.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

It is a misunderstanding of +R based training that it is permissive. Positive != permissive. Any article claiming that +R trainers let their dogs get away with everything and only reward good things doesn't understand how it works, and therefore isn't really qualified to argue against it.

ETA: The vast majority of +R also make use of negative punishment, which means the removal of good things to discourage a behavior. Think of timeouts as a basic example of that.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

elrohwen said:


> ...so much of it is based on "energy" which is a completely vague and non-descriptive term that means nothing practically. I also agree with trainingjunkie that dominance based training is very light on actually teaching the dog what to do, and instead relies on shutting a dog down so they stop doing things.


If "energy" doesn't work for you, think in terms of pheromones/hormones--what you emit and your dog sniffs in spades depending on how you're approaching them. This is backed up by recent studies (one sample). "Energy" is just code for the mental posture (calmness, assertiveness, patience, *love*, etc.) that you have to assume in order for your body to emit the right chemical signals to your pooch. This works with positive reinforcement, too! When you are saying "good boy" and petting away, that's not all your dog is getting from you. So make sure you mean it, or he'll make you for a liar.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

elrohwen said:


> It is a misunderstanding of +R based training that it is permissive. Positive != permissive. Any article claiming that +R trainers let their dogs get away with everything and only reward good things doesn't understand how it works, and therefore isn't really qualified to argue against it.
> 
> ETA: The vast majority of +R also make use of negative punishment, which means the removal of good things to discourage a behavior. Think of timeouts as a basic example of that.


Then, by definition (and I hate to get overly semantic here) it isn't strictly positive. And we (again, simply and with straight-up common sense) can conjure up scenarios where the "_removal of good things_" can turn into abuse. As in: I don't feed you for days; I take away your freedom by chaining you to a tree (an extreme timeout); and so on... Which may show this debate isn't about negative vs. positive, but rather about the right balance of each?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't like dominance. I see no benefit in even framing my interactions with my dogs in such terms. I have thumbs. I open the doors, throw the balls and dispense the thumbs. I have the bigger brain; I joke sometimes but I am smarter than my dogs. I am automatically in possession of all resources and in charge of our relationship, just by nature of being a *human*. Furthermore framing that as 'dominance' just gets in my way and implies an adversarial relationship where no such thing exists. 

My dog is not 'out to get me' or to take over the household and take charge of me. They aren't wolves. Even wolves have family structure instead of dominance based hierarchy. 

I *don't* tell my dogs no - seriously, I rarely use so much as a no reward marker. I simply don't tell them yes. Oddly enough telling them yes and controlling the resources works just fine. It works for my 100lb GSD mix, it works for my terrier, it works for my deaf dog, it works for my BC and it works for my 12lb mix. High drive dogs. Low drive dogs. Hard dogs. Soft dogs. Fearful dogs. Excessively confident dogs. Dogs with toy drive. Dogs with food drive. Dogs who have no apparent drive for anything. Deaf dogs. Old dogs. Hyper dog. Slow dog. DOGS.

They don't jump up. They don't mouth. They don't door dash. They recall off any and everything. They don't chew my furniture or get into the trash. They walk nicely on leash. 4 of the 5 are sports dogs of various levels, albeit in different sports. Successfully completing complicated series of commands at speed and behavioral chains, with distractions and with for no reward. 

So, yeah. Positive works just fine for me. The rest of it? NOPE. It's damaging a relationship for no benefit, no reward, and no NEED. 

And, yes, anyone who thinks positive = permissive, or even reads my 'I don't even use a no reward marker' to imply that dogs get to do whatever they want really doesn't understand learning theory at all, much less positive training.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

I use a combination of reward based and dominance, though I hate the word dominant getting thrown around as if my dogs are scared of me. Scolding is definitely involved, and they understand my body language and assertiveness. They know the term "bad boy" and my "ah ah" noise that discourages them from doing what their about to do. I use a corrective collar (I hate the word choke chain) to teach them to heel by my side. Combined with the collar I use treats and praises, and my dogs have never reacted badly to it. I guess in my eyes as long as the dog doesn't fear you and what you are doing doesn't cause anxiety, then what is the harm in it? I have never let him get to the end of the leash or yanked on the collar. I've never had to do more than tighten the collar a couple of "clicks". The noise is always enough to get them to slack up. I've never made them choke or cough. 

Strictly positive reinforcement has not worked for me. All the treats and praises in the world are great, but without the other side to teach them what not to do it just doesn't work out. And any training, IMO, can get out of hand and go into abuse if not done correctly. I think it takes a good balance of both positive and negative reinforcement to make a dog understand what we want from them.

I WILL ALSO NOTE: I am not, under any circumstances, a certified trainer. The methods I use have always worked for me, but I would never profess to having all the answers when it comes to this debate. I just don't like the idea that some people would consider me a monster for using anything other than reward based methods.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> ...My dog is not out to get me ...I *don't* tell my dogs no - seriously, I rarely use so much as a no reward marker. I simply don't tell them yes. Oddly enough telling them yes and controlling the resources works just fine. It works for my 100lb GSD mix, it works for my terrier, it works for my deaf dog, it works for my BC and it works for my 12lb mix. High drive dogs. Low drive dogs. Hard dogs. Soft dogs. Fearful dogs. Excessively confident dogs. Dogs with toy drive. Dogs with food drive. Dogs who have no apparent drive for anything. Deaf dogs. Old dogs. Hyper dog. Slow dog. DOGS.


I'm really encouraged to read your response, coming as it does with so much varied experience. As a point of reference, have you raised all your dogs from puppies, or have you had an opportunity to employ your 100% positive approach with an older dog you've taken on, say, as a rescue, or out of a bad situation? I'm thinking of cases where the dog comes with "baggage" brought on by bad training and/or circumstances. If you haven't dealt with such dogs, can you imagine some scenarios where a dog with bad ingrained habits (maybe even bad enough to be out to "get you") requires more than 100% positive reinforcement?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

esuastegui said:


> I'm really encouraged to read your response, coming as it does with so much varied experience. As a point of reference, have you raised all your dogs from puppies, or have you had an opportunity to employ your 100% positive approach with an older dog you've taken on, say, as a rescue, or out of a bad situation? I'm thinking of cases where the dog comes with "baggage" brought on by bad training and/or circumstances. If you haven't dealt with such dogs, can you imagine some scenarios where a dog with bad ingrained habits (maybe even bad enough to be out to "get you") requires more than 100% positive reinforcement?


I have raised my youngest 3 from puppies, and the older 2 - 1 was a rescue from a farm (and deaf) where she ran wild her entire life with a bunch of boxers and the other came from a show home where he was compulsion trained for what he HAD to know and pretty shut down (but also still had some bad habits like marking, but mostly just wanted nothing to do with training). So the mix in here is about 50/50. Or, I guess, really, 60/40.

ETA: Both the older dogs were acquired at 4-5-ish years old. Well and truly adults.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also no, not really. 

I mean I DO use some very harsh negative training. That's basically down to 'things that will get you killed and must be fixed and fixed RIGHT NOW OR YOU WILL DIE' like snake training or serious car chasing or a large dog, slick conditions and a serious prey-drive lunging problem. In those cases I also 200% believe that a trainer/professional needs to be brought in, because if you do that crap wrong you will destroy your dog. Doing positive training wrong will not. It's safe.

Dog training isn't about 'fixing problems' for me. It isn't even about teaching them to do a command in response to a verbal cue, though my dogs certainly know lots of commands from the useful obedience stuff to cute tricks. Dog training, in my head, and my philosophy amounts to 'build relationship, trust, and communication'. That means learn to read the dogs. Help the dogs learn to read YOU. SHOW THEM very clearly what you want and don't want. That's all standard as heck. 

The only real difference is once the dog understands that working with you gets them stuff they want, you can communicate 'hey buddy, no way' by simply... not giving them the treat, resetting the exercise and letting them try it again. I promise. 98% of the time if you have a relationship with the dog and you are in possession of what the dog wants... that's enough. Not in the face of major distractions right away, maybe, and sometimes that outside stuff continues to be more rewarding, but none of that changes the basic principal of the thing.

Build a relationship, build trust, teach your dog how to 'read' your communication.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

esuastegui said:


> Then, by definition (and I hate to get overly semantic here) it isn't strictly positive. And we (again, simply and with straight-up common sense) can conjure up scenarios where the "_removal of good things_" can turn into abuse. As in: I don't feed you for days; I take away your freedom by chaining you to a tree (an extreme timeout); and so on... Which may show this debate isn't about negative vs. positive, but rather about the right balance of each?


Nobody on this post has claimed to be purely positive in the sense that there are zero consequences ever, and I doubt you will find anybody who thinks it's possible to train a dog without any consequences for behavior. So I'm not sure what you're arguing? Anybody who think positive training mean ignoring bad behavior and hoping it goes away just doesn't understand positive training. Therefore the author of that article doesn't understand it and really can't make a good argument against it.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> Nobody on this post has claimed to be purely positive and I doubt you will find anybody who thinks it's possible to train a dog without any consequences for behavior. So I'm not sure what you're arguing?


Yeah, this. Even my 'Not even no reward markers' doesn't mean there's no consequence. If the dog is doing something I don't like I either:
Remove the opportunity/rewarding thing
Manage and train some incompatible behavior
Both

The dogs aren't just... doing whatever with no consequence. The consequence is just 'lost opportunity for what they want, sans a verbal cue to accompany it. 

The dog pulls, I stop walking or turn another direction. The dog jumps, I walk away. The dog gets into the trash, the trash goes away. Dog blows a cue, the dog is reset, tries again. Dog comes back and catches up with me walking, we carry on. The dog stops jumping, I come back and give attention. Dog leaves the trash, they get a 'good dog'. Dog gets the cue second time around, reward. It is literally the same stuff as you'd see with someone saying 'no' or giving a leash correction and then praise/reward, minus the cue or correction. 

And it WORKS.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

I'm not 100% sure that esuastegui is actually arguing. I think it's a nice discussion about the benefits of different types of training and why we use different methods.

Or that we're all just interested in learning more about different methods and their benefits/damage.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MosinMom91 said:


> I'm not 100% sure that esuastegui is actually arguing. I think it's a nice discussion about the benefits of different types of training and why we use different methods.


Probably.

And for what it's worth, I have had radical changes in training philosophy through agility and dog sports in general. It's really made me realize there are things dominance and negative reinforcement simply can't do, and if the higher level activities requiring lots of training need to find another way to get solidly good performances out of all sorts of dogs, and that 'another way' is cookies and toys and play and praise... there's something to that.

And even if it wasn't, training MYSELF, in a sport that requires the dog read the handler accurately and quickly, requires YOU trust the dog to do their job while you do yours, well. It just makes 'communicate with your dog' more important to me as the center of dog training.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

MosinMom91 said:


> I'm not 100% sure that esuastegui is actually arguing. I think it's a nice discussion about the benefits of different types of training and why we use different methods.
> 
> Or that we're all just interested in learning more about different methods and their benefits/damage.


He was arguing that we weren't talking about purely positive. And I was saying that nobody ever was arguing for pure positive. That's all I meant.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

CptJack said:


> Probably.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I have had radical changes in training philosophy through agility and dog sports in general. It's really made me realize there are things dominance and negative reinforcement simply can't do, and if the higher level activities requiring lots of training need to find another way to get solidly good performances out of all sorts of dogs, well. There's something to that.
> 
> And even if it wasn't, training MYSELF, in a sport that requires the dog read the handler accurately and quickly, requires YOU trust the dog to do their job while you do yours, well. It just makes 'communicate with your dog' more important to me as the center of dog training.


I could agree with that. Any negative training that I use has always been for just basic obedience around the home and public. I could definitely see how if I was working in sport training I would want to look into different methods.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> He was arguing that we weren't talking about purely positive. And I was saying that nobody ever was arguing for pure positive.


Purely positive doesn't even EXIST. Your dog knows when they did something wrong. You get frustrated, you get tired, you look disappointed, you have effectively corrected your dog on a certain level. You remove a reward, you look stern, you make them try again, you step on a paw when they walk under your feet, you yell in panic because they're about to eat something dangerous - there is no way to be PURELY positive. It can't exist in the real world. It just can't.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

elrohwen said:


> He was arguing that we weren't talking about purely positive. And I was saying that nobody ever was arguing for pure positive. That's all I meant.


I guess I just meant it wasn't truly an argument as much as it was one person trying to continue the discussion and figure some things out in their own head. I truly think it wasn't meant to "argue", but to understand better what positive reinforcement really entails.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

MosinMom91 said:


> I could agree with that. Any negative training that I use has always been for just basic obedience around the home and public. I could definitely see how if I was working in sport training I would want to look into different methods.


I guess I have just come to realize if positive training can get me 20 obstacle performances with different criteria, discriminations, direction changes in 45 seconds, then it can work to teach sit - and honestly? It does. 

But yeah, it's been good for me.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

MosinMom91 said:


> I guess I just meant it wasn't truly an argument as much as it was one person trying to continue the discussion and figure some things out in their own head. I truly think it wasn't meant to "argue", but to understand better what positive reinforcement really entails.


Maybe argue was a bad word. But I wasn't sure what he was trying to discuss because nobody advocated purely positive anything like it. So I wasn't sure where he was going with it. The only one claiming pure positive training exists is the author of the article who doesn't really understand +R training. Haha ETA That's usually how those articles to. I don't know anybody really who would claim they are positive with their dogs 100% of the time and ignore all bad behavior. Yet I see lots of articles by people claiming that these trainers exist and are completely wrong.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

The discussion had gotten started about another thread when someone brought up Cesar Milan's methods in the use of training a dog against mouthing, so I think the OP just wanted a little more clarification on why some people are so adamantly against Milan's methods.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

MosinMom91 said:


> The discussion had gotten started about another thread when someone brought up Cesar Milan's methods in the use of training a dog against mouthing, so I think the OP just wanted a little more clarification on why some people are so adamantly against Milan's methods.


Yes, I know. I saw the thread. I'm really not trying to be argumentative here? I was jus questioning that one statement in response to my own post, wondering what he was trying to say. I'm on my phone and responses are brief so maybe it read differently than intended.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

elrohwen said:


> Nobody on this post has claimed to be purely positive in the sense that there are zero consequences ever, and I doubt you will find anybody who thinks it's possible to train a dog without any consequences for behavior. So I'm not sure what you're arguing? Anybody who think positive training mean ignoring bad behavior and hoping it goes away just doesn't understand positive training. Therefore the author of that article doesn't understand it and really can't make a good argument against it.


That's good to hear!  I must have misunderstood or extrapolated way too much when someone in this thread indicated they don't ever use the word "no." I suppose that's everyone's prerogative, excluding a perfectly good word of the English language from their lexicon. But I must scratch my head when I read stuff like that.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

esuastegui said:


> That's good to hear!  I must have misunderstood or extrapolated way too much when someone in this thread indicated they don't ever use the word "no." I suppose that's everyone's prerogative, leaving a perfectly good word of the English language out of their lexicon. But I must scratch my head when I read stuff like that.


NO doesn't tell your dog anything. No doesn't mean anything to your dog. It doesn't tell your dog what to DO. It might, if you work hard, eventually mean either:
Stop
Or "You're not getting a cookie for that thing you just did"

But it's not going to change behavior. It's not going to make them do something else. It's not going to make them less likely to do it next week. It is, at best, a way to INTERRUPT incorrect behavior. 

"Sit" tells your dog what to do. If your dog is jumping up and you say no, you have told them nothing. Tell them to sit and you have told them what to do when greeting people. 

That's really all.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

elrohwen said:


> Yes, I know. I saw the thread. I'm really not trying to be argumentative here? I was jus questioning that one statement in response to my own post, wondering what he was trying to say. I'm on my phone and responses are brief so maybe it read differently than intended.


No, I'm not trying to be argumentative either. Just trying to explain what might have been the other point of view. I will let it go though, as it apparently seems as though I am also trying to argue when I'm definitely not.

In fact, I've really been trying to watch my text tone because I feel like there are a lot of sensitive people that are easily offended sometimes on forums. Talking through text gets misconstrued so easily.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

MosinMom91 said:


> The discussion had gotten started about another thread when someone brought up Cesar Milan's methods in the use of training a dog against mouthing, so I think the OP just wanted a little more clarification on why some people are so adamantly against Milan's methods.


Not so much Milan, as the overall approach that argues for human leadership and assertiveness, and yes, negative correction. Let's not get bogged down with Milan (notice I left him out of the initial question in this thread!), as personalities often inflame arguments beyond facts, data, and logic.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

MosinMom91 said:


> No, I'm not trying to be argumentative either. Just trying to explain what might have been the other point of view. I will let it go though, as it apparently seems as though I am also trying to argue when I'm definitely not.


Haha. No worries. It's hard to read people over the Internet especially when people are posting from phones.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also "no, or nope, or whatever to mean 'no cookie for you' is probably not bad for 95% of dogs, but given that I own at least one that finds it pretty demotivating and I, again, need happy fast and confidence? Dropping it was a wise choice for me and my dogs. 

And it's not like it changes HOW I TRAIN or what the consequences are (ie: Not getting the treat). It just keeps that dog happier.


----------



## Moonstream (Apr 3, 2016)

(really good idea to start this thread, IMO)
I think it's a huge fallacy to think you can fake "energy", or teach it. I totally agree that dogs feed off of handler's energy, especially those bred to work closely with people. Adopting a certain posture isn't going to change the chemical signals your body is putting out. If you're stressed, you're still going to smell stressed.

Dogs respond to "energy" in the sense that they respond to body posture and the chemical signals our body put out when we experience different emotions, but these aren't as easily manipulated as dominance theory trainers seem to think they are. You can't fake being calm- your body is going to betray that you aren't. You can try to make yourself calm, yes, but that isn't always going to work. Nor is it entirely necessary to have a well behaved dog.

I totally agree with the things said about both R+ training and dominance theory by others. R+ =/= never correcting a dog and letting the dog do whatever it wants and not being the leader in the relationship. It means not using _physical_ correction. Very few R+ people don't believe in using verbal interrupters/verbal correction, and those that do are usually exception at controlling reinforcement (including functional reinforcement in the environment). I don't think it is good practice to advise people to never use any form of correction, ever. I don't think it is necessary harmful to avoid using physical correction, nor do I think it is necessary harmful to use physical correction on most dogs. For some dogs, yes, but not for all. 

At the end of the day, dominance theory is based on several false assumptions:
1) That wolves relate to one another through a linear series of gradually increasing hierarchical relationships (alpha, beta, omega, etc) that are primarily rooted in the assertive displays/behaviors of the higher ranking animals, and include a lot of physical correction/manipulation
2) That dogs can be best understood through the behavior of wolves, since dogs were domesticated from wolves
3) That there are strong inter-species applications of this kind of behavior relationship- that humans can take the things a wolf does to enforce its social status and easily apply them to dogs, and have the dogs understand
4) That dogs relate to us similarly to other dogs, and will understand us relating to them as if we were another dog

The falsehoods of these ideas:
1) CAPTIVE wolves relate to each other in this way. Captive wolf packs are not healthy wolf packs. Wild packs do not work this way. In wild packs, there may be a linear hierarchy, but it is enforced by voluntary appeasement displays of the lower ranking animals, NOT aggressive displays by the higher ranking animals that force appeasement behaviors by the lower ranking ones (such as forced rolls, for example). Given the likely process domestication seems to take, I don't think it is a good idea to assume that captive wolf packs function more similarly to dogs than do wild packs. (see below explanation of how it is thought dogs were likely domesticated for why. Spoiler alert: it seems likely that the early stages of domestication were put into motion through voluntary contact of early wolves with humans, not intentional efforts to take them into captivity and tame them).
2) Dogs are not wolves. Current estimates place the beginning of the domestication of the dog around 14-20,000 years ago. Certainly by 14,000 years ago there were dog-like animals with skeletal markers that distinguished them phenotypically from the wolves of that time. Pretty much, this means their skulls and skeletons displayed the things we associate with dogs, and not with wolves. It is possible domestication started very recently after that (a fox farm study done in the 1950's by Belyaev introduced evidence for the assertion that the physiological and phenotypic changes associated with domestication (such as neotony, curled tails, piebald coats, and "friendly" temperaments) can occur very quickly, within only a few generations, by selecting for a lower flight distance, or the distance at which a person can be to the animal before they start showing signs of aggression). However, that would require a pointed effort of domestication, which considering dogs were the first domesticated animal it seems unlikely early humans actually set out to domesticate them- it wasn't even an idea that was likely to exist. The leading theory right now is that grey wolves at the time probably followed human camps, searching for refuse, which would have indirectly selected for animals with a lower flight distance. Over time, these animals grew more and more unafraid of people and likely were taken into human homes. Eventually, they were a distinct population from other wolf packs and changed enough from other wolves that there wasn't a whole lot of cross breeding among the populations. 
- many thousands of years of divergence exist between dogs and wolves. In the early ages of domestication, it seems likely there wasn't any pointed effort, it was just animals finding a new ecological niche they could fit into and natural selective pressures being applied to those animals that differed from the selective pressures being places on wolves that did not associate with humans.
- the grey wolves that roamed the earth when dogs and wolves diverged are _common ancestors_ between the wolves of today and the dogs of today. They are not the wolves of today. What determines the best fit wolf in the modern age is NOT what likely determined the best fit wolf before the divergence between wolves and dogs. Dogs and wolves diverged either at the beginning of the advent of agriculture or before the advent of agriculture. The world has changed drastically since them- the agriculture revolution and global take over of our species have changed what makes an animal best fit in their environment. In fact, for quite some time, one of the main things that made a wolf best fit for its environment was a natural aversion to humans. We have no way of knowing whether that was true before dogs and wolves diverged.
3) There is actually evidence to the contrary- it seems likely there IS NOT strong inter-species applications.
4) The very fact that dog-dog and dog-human aggression are not linked behaviorally is, I think, a testament to the fact that dogs understand we are not another dog and do not actually relate to us in the way they do to other dogs.

Yes, dominance theory training does work. Sometimes. With some dogs. You can build a very well behaved dog following it. Sometimes. Depending on the dog. You can also ruin a perfectly good dog by using it on a dog that isn't suited to corrections for one reason or another, and it isn't going to build engagement. It might not kill engagement if the dog is naturally highly engaged, but it takes a very specific trained to build engagement using dominance based methods where there is none or little to start. IMO, it relies too heavily on shutting down behaviors (in the scientific sense of the term "shut down", not the colloquial sense meaning "stop). I prefer to avoid purposely shutting down anything in my training. You can very easily create a shut down animal that doesn't do anything unless told to do so because it is afraid of the punishment. It's not the handler/dog relationship I want to foster with my own animals or create between owners and their animals. I agree strongly with the assertion above that it works for reasons other than why the people using it thinks it does, though. I agree strongly that using scientifically proven methods- such as operant conditioning- should be the backbone of any good training program, no matter what species of animal you're working with. I think that training that does not purposely follow operant conditioning is bad training, even if there are very small aspects I like about it.

I _do_ think there are some small parts of dominance theory training that can be ultilized, but I also don't think the methods that are used to "create" these parts of the training are necessary to achieve these things. It's more that _there are assertions I don't disagree with, even if I disagree with the methods used_. I do think that a dog that has an owner who is in a strong leadership position is less likely to develop behavioral problems for _environmental_ reasons. That doesn't mean they are less likely to develop behavioral problems that are caused by _genetics_. Most behavioral problems exist because of a mix of environmental reasons (the behavior has been accidentally reinforced, the behavior problem arose because the dog was never taught alternative behaviors that were more desirable) and genetic reasons (the dog was predisposed genetically to develop the problem). Sometimes, you can over ride genetic predisposition with good training before the issue rears its head. Sometimes you cannot, and you then have to wait for the behavior to show and them modify that behavior after it has begun to be shown. Sometimes, no amount of training/behavioral modification will over ride genetic predisposition/genetic involvement, and medication may be necessary in the long or short term.

In my mind, there's a difference between behavioral problems being linked to bad leadership by the owner and the problem being caused by the dog trying to take on the leadership role. I do not think that behavioral problems *ever* arise because the dog is trying to take on the leadership role. Or close enough to never that I feel comfortable saying that as a generalization, even if 1 dog in 2,000 that is true of.

In my mind, training and leadership are pretty heavily intertwined. Most dogs can be trained manners by rewarding good behavior with attention/praise and play and maybe the occasional food reward and withholding or removing attention/play/engagement when they are practicing behavior you do not want to see increase or continue. I can't think of anything I believe *must* be taught through the use of physical correction. Some form of non-physical correction, sure. You do need to let the dog know when it isn't doing what you want, but you can do that with verbal interrupters, a non-reward marker, and/or verbal corrections. I also think a very exceptional trainer could train a dog by just redirecting the dog before it gets the chance to do the behavior they would then have to correct, but I don't think it's plausible to expect every pet dog trainer ever to be able to do this. I think mostly professional or high level hobby trainers are the ones who are going to be able to actually create a high aceiving dog through this kind of training, and I think that to do so you have to aquire all the knowledge and experience you need prior to getting the dog or very soon after, have a well lain out training plan, and have that be your utmost goal and not speedy training/proofing.

Pretty much, good leadership is always doing a good job of telling the dog what is and isn't allowed, helping the dog make good choices so that it is practicing the things that aren't allowed as infrequently as possible, and working hard to make sure the dog understands fully what you do want before you introduce any kind of pressure (corrections) to training, as well as having as much skill applying pressure/corrections as you do applying reward.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I just got (well, 2 months ago) a young dog who ran wild as a farm dog and had zero training. Seriously, he didn't even know "sit". So teaching him house behaviors has been a bit challenging. And, because I'm human and haven't managed to train myself not to yet , sometimes I'll jump up and yell "NO, don't eat my shoes!!", and because he can tell I'm mad he'll show his belly and smile and play bow, throw all kinds of appeasement behaviors, but it teaches him NOTHING. As soon as I'm not paying attention, he'll go right for those shoes again, because while he doesn't like it when I'm mad, he doesn't understand that chewing on the shoes is what makes me mad. As far as he knows, I'm just a person who randomly gets mad, while he's just innocently having a nice chew . What's working, so far, is dumping the entire Costco bag of rawhides in the toy box and praising heavily when he chews them, and when he has something I don't want him to have, take it away and hand him a rawhide, and praise him when he chews that. But "expressing disapproval" is not a thing that has ever worked for me in dog training.

Now, some people might manage to yell or hit or use other negative methods and get the dog not to chew shoes. Maybe the dog will be shut down enough to not chew anything. But it's kind of haphazard. The dog might understand what you want, or not. Everything in dog training comes down to communicating effectively with your dog. If they don't understand what you want, they can't do it, no matter what you do. 

I think that punishment in most contexts (dog training, parenting, management of employees, etc.) most of the time comes down to ego and revenge.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Willowy said:


> I think that punishment in most contexts (dog training, parenting, management of employees, etc.) most of the time comes down to ego and revenge.


Sorry, but if we really believed this, we wouldn't have a legal code nor courts and law enforcement. Retribution and restitution are part and parcel of any ordered social system. No social system works in the complete absence of punishment. That we should aim to make that a last resort is not the argument. But positing absence of it or even diminishing it into irrelevance is not dealing with the real natural world. And yes, we can get into arguments about the effectiveness of our current punitive system--that it isn't restorative enough--and we might agree we need to improve on things, add a little more positive reinforcement, perhaps. But that would not remove the logical necessity of punishment in each and every instance. Not even in a large number of them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

One could argue that there are a lot of countries that have legal systems that focus on restitution and rehabilitation, not retribution (revenge) and it works for them. Even better than the legal systems that are more vengeful. But that's OT . 

Even if punishment is occasionally necessary in a legal context, it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, those who punish are doing it out of anger, frustration, desire for revenge, and ignorance of alternative methods. 

There are some who use punishment fairly and thoughtfully, and as a last resort. But, uh, that's pretty rare.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Willowy said:


> One could argue that there are a lot of countries that have legal systems that focus on restitution and rehabilitation, not retribution (revenge) and it works for them. Even better than the legal systems that are more vengeful. But that's OT .
> 
> Even if punishment is occasionally necessary in a legal context, it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, those who punish are doing it out of anger, frustration, desire for revenge, and ignorance of alternative methods.


Well, we're going to have to disagree on that last point (punishment is demonstrably not "occasionally necessary" in a legal context--a walk through our jail system should show that). Without statistics and hard evidence to back it up, it is just an unsubstantiated assertion. That restorative systems work better can, however, be shown through data. But there, too, one must sift to separate the positive examples from cases where no amount of rehabilitation will suffice. At some point you are going to need jail cells that lock at night. And that's punishment--of the necessary kind.

ETA: I think it is also necessary that we differentiate between those to "R" words, revenge vs. restitution. One cannot understand the legal system and its need for punishment without appreciating the latter.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Lol, not going to argue about legal systems. 

Do you prefer: "in dog training, punishment (P+) is most often (but not always) motivated by ego and desire for revenge (and ignorance of alternatives)"?
(This does not mean that person is a terrible person or abusive. It just means their behavior is being motivated by ego and/or revenge. Nothing more nothing less. Many dog training books are quite open about their motive being "can't let a dog get the better of you"---that's ego)

Because I will argue for that one .


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> I'm really encouraged to read your response, coming as it does with so much varied experience. As a point of reference, have you raised all your dogs from puppies, or have you had an opportunity to employ your 100% positive approach with an older dog you've taken on, say, as a rescue, or out of a bad situation? I'm thinking of cases where the dog comes with "baggage" brought on by bad training and/or circumstances. If you haven't dealt with such dogs, can you imagine some scenarios where a dog with bad ingrained habits (maybe even bad enough to be out to "get you") requires more than 100% positive reinforcement?


I'm not CptJack and I think she's answered well and clearly but to add--

I haven't actually trained a dog that DIDN'T come with some sort of baggage. Ranging from mild like not being taught leash walking at full grown large dog, to medium like random stray with no training, to major like being crated 22 hours a day and given no training at all but lots of trauma. Several dog-aggressive dogs.

100% positive reinforcement doesn't happen in any situation. Dog training, horse training, kids, employees, whatever. 

I use mainly positive reinforcement (rewards) and negative punishment (timeout/remove a toy type thing) and yes, some positive punishment (ex. correction with a prong collar). 95% of issues fall into the first two categories AND the more the dog has "trauma" in the past? The more I avoided positive punishment. As in, a prong collar can serve well for a dog that is just over excited with major prey drive but does not serve well for a dog with fear aggression. The rougher the dog's past, the more rewards and TRUST matter. 

The thing is, none of that is because of dominance theory. It is strictly a practical approach to balancing the safety of the dog and I while on walks with the lowest possible form of correction. I start with harness walking, if that doesn't work, I move to a martingale or a no-pull harness, then if the safety issue is still a problem, I use corrections from the prong. Or, if the dog finds a no-pull harness stressful, the dog might prefer the prong as it changes their gait less.

I come from the horse training world, I don't recommend trying "dominance" tactics on a 1500 lbs animal 

And now I'm going to bring something over from the thread and context that started this-



> I've been thinking a lot of the concept of dominance itself and the applications that dominance theory trainers put it to. It would be stupid to argue that dogs have no concept of a dominance hierarchy at all. They do. It isn't always a linear hierarchy of A, then B, then C, etc, but there is substantial evidence for individual hierarchies existing between pairs and trios of dogs, though those are often in flux and may be more situational than fixed. That said, I think that the assumption that there are strong inter-species applications is a mistake. That is what dominance theory is based on entirely. The argument for the type of correction techniques they use in dominance theory training is that "dogs correct each other all the time, just like this." It is my belief that some individual dogs, breeds, and types are going to be more open to the concept of a human correcting them like a dog- often, these are breeds where in past decades, they were selected for something to do with training- leading to dogs able to "take a correction" without huge risk of fallout (unintended consequences such as redirected aggression, aggression to handler, severe escalation, etc). Only in the last decade and a half/two decades has positive reinforcement come to play the role it does in dog training. Before that, training methods were based heavily in physical manipulation and correction of behaviors. Being biddable also helps some. Some breeds are VERY poorly suited to this kind of training, and are more likely than not going to have fallout. I'm thinking particularly of northern breeds (Malamutes, Huskies) and a lot of the Asian and Asian-import breeds (Akitas, Shiba Inus, Shar Peis, Chow Chows). These are the breeds/dogs/types with higher than average defense drive, or a low pain threshold, mainly- dogs that are either going to meet pressure with equal pressure or shut down from the pressure.


Dominance theory doesn't have much to do with dog breeds in the sense that adherents to it think it applies across the board. It was based on flawed studies on captive wolves and the author of those studies has retracted them.

Humans aren't dogs, dogs know that. Like you note, hierarchy between dogs is fluid and not the same thing; dogs in homes are different than feral dogs are different than wolves. Just because a dog is open to the correction doesn't mean it is the best choice to training basically. 

Unintended consequences are one of the big risks, I mean, why choose something that can turn really bad when you can choose something that might at worst turn mediocre? 

Some of the trainers that have made their recent success with dominance type training are actually using some of the most biddable and emotionally soft type dogs around. Ever wondered why their demonstrations of training are with pit bulls types? It isn't because the bullies are physically tough or "need" a strong handler, but maybe consider it is because they are very human oriented and willing to put up with a lot of crap in order to continue working with their humans....


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

esuastegui said:


> An interesting side discussion developed in the Mouthing and Biting thread which I'd like to follow up here.
> 
> Here's the thought starter: What are the benefits and demerits of positive (reward-based) vs. leadership (dominance) training? Which do you follow and why? Are there valid points to each we should incorporate in our training, and if so, which are they?


I'll bite. I would describe my training philosophy as "force free, positive reinforcement based training" if I had to put it concisely. The benefits of reinforcing behaviors you like are: it works, the dog loves it, there is little to no risk of fallout if it's done improperly. The tradeoff is results may take longer compared to using corrections.

I don't even think dominance training is an accurate term, but assuming it means those who use positive punishment, the benefit is when done correctly the results should be attained very quickly. The tradeoff is if done improperly it can increase the chances of fear, anxiety and aggression, it does not work for every dog, the dog does not enjoy it, and if it becomes the foundation of your training then your training program is based on fear. 

I don't think the latter should be used often at all. But it works for a lot of people. I understand why people do it. I don't think people who punish are horrible people or even horrible trainers in many cases. But corrections are often applied improperly, and the potential consequences are very real. 

Here are points from GENERAL dog training I think should apply in every case:
-An understanding of the dog's motivators
-Looking out for subtle canine body language and not just "is my dog doing what I want"
-Proper timing
-An efficient schedule of reinforcement OR punishment
-Realistic expectations


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

I'm on the positive training boat. Main reason for that is because once I used a choke chain on a very sensitive dog when I was young and didn't know much about dog training. The dog was scared of the leash for about a month after that experience and I had work really hard to fix it. It made me rethink how I was training my dog, and realize there are different ways to train that are unlikely to ruin your dog.

My current dog is so sensitive I have to be very careful about my voice and body language. He will shut down, or flail at the end of his leash in a panic. He knows when I'm about to take him to a "time out" no matter how passive I try to make my body look when I'm approaching. I don't know about the "energy" thing, I think it's more body language that the dog is picking up on than your actual "aura." He knows when I'm frustrated with him, or at life in general, and it reflects in his behavior. 

I try to be positive all the time, but like CptJack said there are times when you scream when your dog is about to eat something bad, or runs out on the street, or when you trip over him because he ran in front of you. But he also has to do what I want for everything he wants, like treats, his meals, outside time, walks.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Lillith said:


> I don't know about the "energy" thing, I think it's more body language that the dog is picking up on than your actual "aura." He knows when I'm frustrated with him, or at life in general, and it reflects in his behavior.


But you just said you settle your body language down as much as you can, and he still knows you're upset. It's not magic we're talking about when we say "energy." There are chemical processes going on inside you, yes, driven by real energy (calories being burned by those processes), and resulting scents emitting from you. Remember your dog experiences life in large part through his nose.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Okay so I'll bite.

I got my dog as a 3 year old adult from a shelter. My dog chased my cats, pulled my arm out on leash, and didn't know more than 'sit' and kind of knew a rough 'stay'.

My dog no longer chases my cats, she walks nicely on leash, and has competed in several dog sports, winning ribbons and excelling with high scores. 

She is also a strong and powerful dog, that many would assert I need to "show who's boss". 

I have never used 'no' with my dog as a correction, I have never physically corrected my dog. Of course we all have those moments where it's all too much and we lose our temper and yell or what have you. *That's not training*, that's me failing in that situation.

I have trained with people who primarily use corrections in their training. What I see in their dogs is not what I want to see in my dogs. Yes, they can do the thing. Can even do it well. But the dog is not happy to be there. They are trying to avoid a correction. 

I have seen puppies (yes, multiple) who barked at other dogs turned into lunging, snarling, snapping adult dogs that are now, IMO, a danger to the public, by the owner choosing to use corrections to 'correct' the behaviour.

I want a happy, working partner. I can only achieve that by having a dog who -chooses- to work with me. I swear to god I always get multiple comments on how much Luna's tail wags when we're working together. 

I don't want my dog afraid to try things and make mistakes because she might get corrected.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Sorry, but if we really believed this, we wouldn't have a legal code nor courts and law enforcement. Retribution and restitution are part and parcel of any ordered social system. No social system works in the complete absence of punishment. That we should aim to make that a last resort is not the argument. But positing absence of it or even diminishing it into irrelevance is not dealing with the real natural world. And yes, we can get into arguments about the effectiveness of our current punitive system--that it isn't restorative enough--and we might agree we need to improve on things, add a little more positive reinforcement, perhaps. But that would not remove the logical necessity of punishment in each and every instance. Not even in a large number of them.


Oh yea, I wanted to respond to this too.

The difference between punishing humans and punishing dogs is that the human can be explained to about how what they did was wrong because xyz, and that this punishment is the consequence of that action.

It is not the same thing as punishment used in dog training. At all.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

esuastegui said:


> But you just said you settle your body language down as much as you can, and he still knows you're upset. It's not magic we're talking about when we say "energy." There are chemical processes going on inside you, yes, driven by real energy (calories being burned by those processes), and resulting scents emitting from you. Remember your dog experiences life in large part through his nose.


In that case, though, you can't really control your "energy", can you? If you're stressed because of a work matter, you can't change that. I mean, it's good to teach people how their "energy" can affect their dog and how to work with that, but if you can't control it, it seems pretty silly to base one's training methods around it.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

esuastegui said:


> That's good to hear!  I must have misunderstood or extrapolated way too much when someone in this thread indicated they don't ever use the word "no." I suppose that's everyone's prerogative, excluding a perfectly good word of the English language from their lexicon. But I must scratch my head when I read stuff like that.


You can scratch away, because I'm another person on this forum who never uses the word "no". For any reason, under any circumstances. I do not use verbal corrections or even NRMs because I decided a while ago that their use decreased engagement and increased the likelihood a dog is responding out of fear of consequence. 

"No" can't mean a bunch of different behaviors. Dog's brains don't work that way. When you use "no" for "get off the counter", "don't run out the door", "don't pee on the floor", "drop that right now", "come back here", "stop moving so I can put the leash on you", "don't jump", "don't bite", etc... It poisons the word, removes the chance the dog is responding because it understands what you want and instead instills a fear punishment. I'm pretty sure it's Ian Dunbar who says that punishing a dog for doing something that it hasn't been trained not to do is abuse. If you haven't actively trained your dog to not jump on the counter, or to stay at the back door, or to drop something, and you simply yell "no" when those behaviors are performed, then that's psychologically damaging to the dog and to your relationship. 

I've trained quite a few dogs now. Ranging from a 2 year old Shepherd with high prey drive who had killed multiple animals, a 7 month old Shepherd mix with severe child aggression, dog aggression, resource aggression and reactivity issues, a 3 year old Shepherd mix with a bite history, a Rott mix with severe resource aggression and a Great Dane from 9 weeks of age, and a Great Dane from 7 months of age with nervous/fearful issues.

I used to train with CM's methods, as embarrassing as that is to admit. I didn't do the alpha rolling, or dangle a dog from a collar until it choked, but I certainly did the forceful glares, the jabs with my fingers, the 'ssshhhtt' noise and used choke chains with leash corrections. And oddly enough, I never saw much improvement with most of those behaviors with those training methods. Because I was applying force to already aggressive and reactive dogs, and surprise, I was getting more aggression and reactivity as a result. Patricia McConnell says "Violence begets violence. Aggression begets aggression." And boy, is she right. 

Because I saw no improvement, I joined a dog forum quite a few years back. And I read and read and read some more about positive training. And my initial reaction was "holy crap, that would never work, dogs have to be shown that a misbehavior is WRONG". And I rolled my eyes. But then I decided to give it a shot. I phased out the weird sshhh-ing noises, all physical contact, leash corrections and glares. I phased in treats, patience, counter conditioning, rewards for good behaviors and massive rewards for really good behaviors. And miraculously, after months of work, my reactive dogs would hold a "look at me" and maintain eye contact instead of freaking out over another dog walking nearby. And my dogs who resource guarded were willingly dropping their high value treats when I asked. And they were door dashing, they were waiting at the back door for cheese because they stayed inside.

Each year, my training methods have become more R+. I use no +P whatsoever. And the -P I use is minimal (I turn and walk away when a dog jumps on me, for instance). I'm absolutely not "purely positive", but I'm pretty darn close. And my dogs have never been happier, as engaged, or more excited about training. My Dane, Titan, who has not been corrected in his entire life, is well mannered, well trained, and overall a truly great dog. My other Dane, Zephyr, who was constantly yelled at by his previous owners, is coming out of his shell each and every day. Little Dog, my Rott mix, has made steady improvement with his resource guarding and didn't growl at me not too long ago when I accidentally touched him while he was eating.

I guess the tl;dr version is this: If you haven't tried it, don't roll your eyes or scratch your head and say it doesn't work. If you've only ever participated in one form of training, and that form of training relies upon corrections, you have no place or knowledge to comment on correction-less training or its effectiveness. That's a lesson I had to learn the hard way, because I did the same thing when I first encountered the idea. But from someone who has worked with six dogs of varying ages and breeds, dogs who ranged from very hard to very soft, and dogs who have multiple reported human bites, and very young puppies, I can tell you that my methods have had positive results with each and every dog I've owned.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> It poisons the word, removes the chance the dog is responding because it understands what you want and instead instills a fear punishment.


This is an important point that often gets over looked. Yes, it does communicate something to the dog if used consistently. It is, in fact, the opposite of a 'Yes' verbal marker or loaded clicker. However, what it means to most dogs when used broadly is 'I am about to get in trouble for something I am doing right now, and something I hate is going to happen'. If that dog were capable of having you explain WHAT they were doing that was going to result in the bad thing you might teach them something - maybe, your dog would still be made unhappy, but maybe. Since they aren't, it just means 'incoming trouble, ack!'. And if you haven't paired it with an unpleasant consequence to the dog consistently, it means nothing more than shouting 'HUFFLEPUFF' because they're dogs and dogs don't speak English. 

And obviously I remember you and I doing talking about NRMs and my revelation about how they didn't actually change anything in training but helped the dog stay engaged and confident. 

Also, I'm going to toot my own horn here and beat a dead horse. 

Molly started losing her crap at 4-5 months old, around strange people, dogs, and situations. She at one point was losing her crap (barking, lunging, growling, behaving aggressively) at people who lived in our house when they did things like wear a different hat, at cakes turning up on counters unexpectedly, reflections in windows, and animals through car windows. She. Was. A. Wreck. 

Could've used corrections and shut her behavior down enough to make her act decent, absolutely (and made a time bomb out of her). Didn't. 


















This was Molly last night. She's the black and white one. Those other dogs aren't mine, and I'm wearing black - the one she's furthest away from or who isn't even in the picture. She's laid eyes on them (dogs and person) once before. There was FOOD lying around, she played frisbee with the aussie - politely and comfortably and confidently. 

Don't tell me positive doesn't work for difficult dogs.

Prozac also helped granted, but don't try to tell me dogs with behavior or temperament issues can't benefit from positive training.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

Leading works for me, being bossy or domineering doesn't.

Sassy came here a crazy 1 year old apparent lab mix. No positive training, all jerk and praise. When she was 4 years old I discovered positive training. The method for getting attention in j/p? Walk backward to get dog facing you and hold head up with leash jerking when dog looked away. Never got a single eye on me. One exercise in positive training is dog zen. Hold a treat in your fist and dog gets it when dog stops chewing on your fist, then when dog backs away. Well once I got to the stage I was waiting for eyes on me I got them. Easily and happily. Turns out looking into your eyes is extremely difficult for dogs and attempting to force it just plain cannot work. My lack of success wasn't due to giving up. She was trialing successfully in agility and was trained to be reliable with most of the open obedience exercises. An interesting little problem late in her agility career came up. She started to jump over the up contacts on the A frame and dogwalk. I used a clicker and treats and after a few sessions with precise clicks when she hit the spot lower she did not jump one in competition for the rest of her career. One doesn't use corrections in agility but this showed me the power of accurate and positive training for a clicker savvy dog.

Controlling sniffing on walks changed my POV. Rather than being irritated by dogs rushing to and not wanting to leave those spots I stopped and simply praised leaving the sniffy place. The dogs stopped rushing and left the spots faster. I was acting as if the glass was half full rather than half empty and got a glass that was 7/8 full in the end. Max would have nose down when feeling a bit stressed. Me getting bossy about that would have only shut him down. 

Reason I learned about positive training in the first place was I adopted a Jack Russell who matched energy. If I corrected him he would have corncobbed my arm. Working around whatever he was doing that couldn't continue worked, correcting wouldn't have.

I've gone much further these days. Dogs don't know the word no and I rarely use my game show buzzer sound to interrupt bad behavior. I manage and when something seems to be better just doing that I work on training the issue. If a dog knows a cue but cannot perform I wait for the behavior. If waiting makes dog confused I reduce the stress by moving and try again. 

One does need to be a strong leader. The way to do that is to understand dogs, have the shape of your well mannered dog in your mind and work to that point. That's not easy and it's difficult to see the nugget of good when a dog is misbehaving but it is there. Good leaders see that nugget and work with it. Bad ones only see the obnoxious stuff.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> And obviously I remember you and I doing talking about NRMs and my revelation about how they didn't actually change anything in training but helped the dog stay engaged and confident.


That conversation is probably my biggest training revelation in many years. And it came at the right time, because both of my Danes are SUPER soft. To the point where one of them stepped on my broken foot a few weeks ago, and I said "ahhh" in a moderately loud tone of voice, and they both ran for cover like the world was ending. 

NRMs absolutely would shut both of them down and cause them to lose engagement with me, especially Zephyr, who was obviously manhandled and hit by his last owners. But because I don't use NRMs (and I do use copious treats), despite his horrible start in life, Zephyr is engaged and likes to train. Even if he's so enthusiastic than it's hard to get things done. I'd far rather work to calm enthusiasm than work to build engagement.

ETA: I've actually taken things a step further with Zephyr and I've started using minor rewards for effort, even if he's not doing exactly what I ask. If I ask for a "sit" and I get a "down and then sit", I reward him. I understand that this wouldn't work for very intelligent dogs who chain commands and who would then think the new expected behavior for "sit" was "down and then sit", but for Zephyr, who has never been trained, the goal for me is to teach him that I say words, and he does things or gives it his best effort, and he gets rewards. Eventually I'll phase out the rewards for incorrect responses while maintaining rewards and jackpots for correct responses, but right now, I'm just working on training foundations with a fearful and soft dog who has been through some hardship in his very young life. I don't want him to put effort in, even if it's effort into not doing exactly the right command, and not receive a reward or think he did something wrong. 

So yup, I'm rewarding even for incorrectly performed commands and jackpotting for correctly performed ones. And he's learning. Quickly. It's a joy to watch him realize that I'm on his side and that we're working on things together. 

I'd argue that +P is far more likely to work on easy/stable dogs than difficult/unstable ones, so it really bothers me when people say "yeah, well, being permissive works on normal dogs, but how about super aggressive or reactive ones that need to be shown that what they're doing is wrong?!" There are definitely easy/stable dogs out there who would "stand up" to +P training and not shut down or experience significant fallout. Try to apply +P to an already anxious, fearful, aggressive, reactive or otherwise difficult/unstable dog and it's only going to worsen the instability. To the point of shutting down the dog entirely or shutting the dog down until all of that pent up stress/anxiety/fear/aggression explodes outwards in the form of sudden unwanted behaviors or even aggression.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> That conversation is probably my biggest training revelation in many years. And it came at the right time, because both of my Danes are SUPER soft. To the point where one of them stepped on my broken foot a few weeks ago, and I said "ahhh" in a moderately loud tone of voice, and they both ran for cover like the world was ending.
> 
> NRMs absolutely would shut both of them down and cause them to lose engagement with me, especially Zephyr, who was obviously manhandled and hit by his last owners. But because I don't use NRMs (and I do use copious treats), despite his horrible start in life, Zephyr is engaged and likes to train. Even if he's so enthusiastic than it's hard to get things done. I'd far rather work to calm enthusiasm than work to build engagement.
> 
> I'd argue that +P is far more likely to work on easy/stable dogs than difficult/unstable ones, so it really bothers me when people say "yeah, well, being permissive works on normal dogs, but how about super aggressive or reactive ones that need to be shown that what they're doing is wrong?!" There are definitely easy/stable dogs out there who would "stand up" to +P training and not shut down or experience significant fallout. Try to apply +P to an already anxious, fearful, aggressive, reactive or otherwise difficult/unstable dog and it's only going to worsen the instability. To the point of shutting down the dog entirely or shutting the dog down until all of that pent up stress/anxiety/fear/aggression explodes outwards in the form of sudden unwanted behaviors or even aggression.


Dropping No Reward Markers has gotten Jack back into training some, which is remarkable. Dog's never, ever, wanted anything to do with training and suddenly he's interested in the food and the game because he can't 'lose'. Probably more importantly, neither one of them shut down anymore and both are more resilient to the real world stuff like 'OW!'s or the kids fighting with each other or whatever. It's like they are no longer depleting their reserves of resilience in training. Their GLOBAL confidence is much higher. 

Molly, man. I don't know. She's actually both really soft and really not. She'll submissively grin and sneeze and slink into your lap if she thinks you're upset or upset at her, but before changing she'd take "Nope, not right" without being outwardly upset by it, but it wasn't adding anything either and her engagement's better without. BUT, by god, had I tried corrections with her for behaving aggressively she'd have behaved very nicely for a while. And then she would have blown up and someone would have gotten seriously hurt. When you're dealing with an emotional problem, you deal with the EMOTIONAL STATE OF THE DOG, not the behavior that's telling you what the emotional state is. Telling them to stop acting in a particular way doesn't change the feeling and sooner or later self-control is going to go and something BAD is going to happen.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Willowy said:


> In that case, though, you can't really control your "energy", can you? If you're stressed because of a work matter, you can't change that. I mean, it's good to teach people how their "energy" can affect their dog and how to work with that, but if you can't control it, it seems pretty silly to base one's training methods around it.


OK, fair enough. So long as we're agreeing that energy is real (physical) rather than "than your actual 'aura'", which dismisses it as a mystical thing. As for whether it can be controlled, we'll have to disagree there. No, we don't have control over what happens to us, but yes, we have a choice in how we react, internally and externally. After all, isn't that what we're trying to teach our dogs? "Yes, that car alarm is annoying, but don't lunge for it or go berserk with barking..."


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> "No" can't mean a bunch of different behaviors. Dog's brains don't work that way. When you use "no" for "get off the counter", "don't run out the door", "don't pee on the floor", "drop that right now", "come back here", "stop moving so I can put the leash on you", "don't jump", "don't bite", etc... It poisons the word, removes the chance the dog is responding because it understands what you want and instead instills a fear punishment. I'm pretty sure it's Ian Dunbar who says that punishing a dog for doing something that it hasn't been trained not to do is abuse. If you haven't actively trained your dog to not jump on the counter, or to stay at the back door, or to drop something, and you simply yell "no" when those behaviors are performed, then that's psychologically damaging to the dog and to your relationship.


Perhaps we can illustrate by example. How do you go about teaching a dog not to jump on a counter?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

esuastegui said:


> OK, fair enough. So long as we're agreeing that energy is real (physical) rather than "than your actual 'aura'", which dismisses it as a mystical thing. As for whether it can be controlled, we'll have to disagree there. No, we don't have control over what happens to us, but yes, we have a choice in how we react, internally and externally. After all, isn't that what we're trying to teach our dogs? "Yes, that car alarm is annoying, but don't lunge for it or go berserk with barking..."


Ah, but as with dog you can change your behavior more easily than your emotional state. You can absolutely change that as it relates to dogs, but it is not the same as not lunging and barking (or yelling in frustration/irritation). It's truly changing the emotional state behind that reaction that is necessary to diffuse it in a way that matters. Sitting there staring at the car alarm and quivering (panting, drooling, yawning, whale eyeing, lip licking, sniffing) is no more 'desirable' than gritting your teeth, seething quietly, and handing the dog a treat while you grind out, "GOOD DOG."


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> Oh yea, I wanted to respond to this too.
> 
> The difference between punishing humans and punishing dogs is that the human can be explained to about how what they did was wrong because xyz, and that this punishment is the consequence of that action.
> 
> It is not the same thing as punishment used in dog training. At all.


That's a fair point, too. Now... how do moms in litters correct their pup's unruly behavior? Not talking about wolves here, but actual domesticated dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

esuastegui said:


> Perhaps we can illustrate by example. How do you go about teaching a dog not to jump on a counter?


Me first!

A-) Dont' allow it to be self-rewarding, ever. That means you make sure you don't leave food out unattended so the dog never has a history with jumping on the counter leading to reward . You especially make sure it doesn't happen on a 'variable schedule' because then you've made counter surfing gambling for the dog and they're just waiting on the jackpot and will keep trying to get it. 

B-) Teach the dog Sit. 

C-) Every time your dog approaches the counter ask for a sit. Give the dog a cookie for sitting.Randomize the reward. Phase out the verbal command so salking toward the counter becomes a cue to sit. Phase out the reward. Sitting in front of the counter becomes a default behavior. 

D-) Boom, done, no counter surfing, ever. 

Sit can be replaced with down, go to mat, or just plain respecting a boundary and staying out of the kitchen.

When you DON"T want a behavior there is always a behavior you DO want. Teach what you do want and what you *don't* goes away.



esuastegui said:


> That's a fair point, too. Now... how do moms in litters correct their pup's unruly behavior? Not talking about wolves here, but actual domesticated dogs.


They mostly don't, quite frankly. Or they yelp and remove themselves. Negative punishment. Removal of a desired thing. Not punishment/correction. That is ALSO why dogs who are rude are 'corrected' by an air snap and distance being created. By the time physical contact happens it's because the other dog has become persistent in pursuit of being obnoxious and the dog issuing the correction can't escape. 

Also, I'm not a dog. My dogs are perfectly aware of that. They're not idiots. Neither am I. Hence my ability to think more critically and problem solve better than a DOG.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> Ah, but as with dog you can change your behavior more easily than your emotional state. You can absolutely change that as it relates to dogs, but it is not the same as not lunging and barking (or yelling in frustration/irritation). It's truly changing the emotional state behind that reaction that is necessary to diffuse it in a way that matters. Sitting there staring at the car alarm and quivering (panting, drooling, yawning, whale eyeing, lip licking, sniffing) is no more 'desirable' than gritting your teeth, seething quietly, and handing the dog a treat while you grind out, "GOOD DOG."


You do that (the unauthentic praise), and they'll know you don't mean it. They'll eat the treat, but in my experience, you don't get the same benefit. I think your response also belies the flaw in much behavioral modification thinking: that we can change the outside without working on the inside. If you're stressed out and need to count to one thousand before dealing with your dog, by all means do. If you want to ignore that they can read all your cues, internal and external, do so at your own peril.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

esuastegui said:


> You do that (the unauthentic praise), and they'll know you don't mean it. They'll eat the treat, but in my experience, you don't get the same benefit. I think your response also belies the flaw in much behavioral modification thinking: that we can change the outside without working on the inside. If you're stressed out and need to count to one thousand before dealing with your dog, by all means do. If you want to ignore that they can read all your cues, internal and external, do so at your own peril.


You missed my point entirely.

My point is that when you're doing behavior modification with a dog it's not really the behavior you need to change - as opposed to actually training a command - you have to change the dog's emotional state. Do you think you can punish or correct an emotional state into changing? You're angry/afraid/aroused. I'm going to do something unpleasant to you until it changes. 

That doesn't work for people OR dogs in this scenario. 

Teaching behavior is fine, whatever, you are teaching behavior there, but things like reactivity, aggression, prey-drive issues, fearfulness, you change the emotional state in the dog UNDER the behavior. Otherwise you've corrected nothing. And you're not going to punish a dog into a better, calmer, or more confident state of mind.

I am perfectly aware being frustrated/angry/upset in dog training serves no purpose and is self-defeating. That's true for the owner and ALSO TRUE FOR THE DOG.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> They mostly don't, quite frankly. Or they yelp and remove themselves. Negative punishment. Removal of a desired thing. Not punishment/correction. That is ALSO why dogs who are rude are 'corrected' by an air snap and distance being created. By teh time physical contact happens it's because the other dog has become persistent in pursuit of being obnoxious and the dog issuing the correction can't escape.
> 
> Also, I'm not a dog. My dogs are perfectly aware of that. They're not idiots. Neither am I. Hence my ability to think more effectively than a dog.


Oh, so many issues here... First, you must not be around the dogs I've been around. I've seen plenty of moms get physical with their pups. Even saw one break up a fight among her litter, take out the offender by the scruff of the neck, and set him aside. It wasn't mean or abusive, but she applied discipline after her own fashion. And I've seen growling, too, not just the yelping we're told works so well (and doesn't, by the way--sometimes it only encourages more misbehavior).

As for us not being dogs, I'm afraid that flips the logic on its head. Aren't we trying to talk _their_ language? Communicate in ways that _they_ understand? Low and behold, I don't see dogs giving each other treats and praise as a matter of general practice. Hmm.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Me first!
> 
> A-) Dont' allow it to be self-rewarding, ever. That means you make sure you don't leave food out unattended so the dog never has a history with jumping on the counter leading to reward . You especially make sure it doesn't happen on a 'variable schedule' because then you've made counter surfing gambling for the dog and they're just waiting on the jackpot and will keep trying to get it.
> 
> ...


I mean, all of these things Cpt Jack said.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

esuastegui said:


> Oh, so many issues here... First, you must not be around the dogs I've been around. I've seen plenty of moms get physical with their pups. Even saw one break up a fight among her litter, take out the offender by the scruff of the neck, and set him aside. It wasn't mean or abusive, but she applied discipline after her own fashion. And I've seen growling, too, not just the yelping we're told works so well (and doesn't, by the way--sometimes it only encourages more misbehavior).
> 
> As to for us not being dogs, I'm afraid that flips the logic on its head. Aren't we trying to talk _their_ language? Communicate in ways that _they_ understand? Low and behold, I don't see dogs giving each other treats and praise as a matter of general practice. Hmm.


...You can't read dogs at all, is all I can come up with. 

I have seen mom's carry puppies, yes, but apply anything more aversive than removing from a situation? No. Have I see dogs remove themselves and therefore the 'reward' of engaging and playing with other dogs, yep! 

And no, I'm not trying to communicate like a dog - ever - and never said I was. I respect the way dogs think, which is as scavengers and what they have been or longer than they were ever 'wolves'. That means they do what works. They return to places that get them food or shelter or safety or play. They hang out with dogs and other animals that provide those things. They repeat behaviors - even strays and feral dogs on streets - that gets them those things. 

But um. No. I'm not trying to communicate like a dog. I'm training my dogs to read MY communication. "When I say sit, you put your butt on the ground." "When I lift my arm above my head, you lie down really fast." And I am learning to read my DOGS (if they're yawning a lot or sniffing a lot, they're stressed, whatever), but that doesn't mean I'm growling at them, rolling them over, or airsnapping in their faces! LOL. That's just idiotic. 

How many dogs are you around and at what level? What kind of objective success do you have with dog training? Have you ever titled a dog in a performance/training based activity judged by someone else?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> As for us not being dogs, I'm afraid that flips the logic on its head. Aren't we trying to talk _their_ language? Communicate in ways that _they_ understand? Low and behold, I don't see dogs giving each other treats and praise as a matter of general practice. Hmm.


No, I'm not trying to communicate to my dog as though I'm another dog. Dogs have been living domestically with humans for thousands of years. They understand our body language, our facial expressions, etc.

I can communicate to my dog without trying to do it the same way as another dog would do it. Especially since I'm -not- another dog.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

ireth0 said:


> No, I'm not trying to communicate to my dog as though I'm another dog. Dogs have been living domestically with humans for thousands of years. They understand our body language, our facial expressions, etc.
> 
> I can communicate to my dog without trying to do it the same way as another dog would do it. Especially since I'm -not- another dog.


Yep. Dogs understand humans pretty darn well. We don't need to "speak their language" because they already speak ours.


Here's an interesting portion of an article discussing social cognition in dogs-- (emphasis mine)

_For decades, scientists have been studying "social cognition" in dogs. This simply refers to how well dogs read cues in the behaviour of others. As humans, we do this automatically. For instance, we know that when the person we are talking to starts glancing at his or her watch, we had best get to the point quickly. All social mammals have evolved remarkably discriminating ways of reading the signals sent to them by their group members, normally members of the same species. However recent research shows that dogs are surprisingly good at reading certain types of social cues in humans.

The experimental set-up used to test for such perception in animals is quite simple. Start with two inverted bucketlike containers. Place a morsel of food under one of them while the subject of the test is out of sight. Of course you must make sure that both containers have been rubbed with the food so that there is no scent difference. Now bring the subject in and give some sort o social cue to indicate which bucket actually contains the food. The most obvious cue would be to tap the container with the food. Less obvious would be to point your finger toward it. An even more muted signal would be to tilt your head or body toward it without pointing. The subtlest signal of all would be not to move your head or body but to simply look with your eyes toward the correct container. If the subject chooses the right container he gets the food. Simple, huh? Don't bet on it.

Surprisingly, Daniel J. Povinelli, a psychologist at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, found that our closest animal relatives, chimpanzees, were initially quite poor at this task. (Actually, so were three-year-old human children, though they were better than the apes.) However, both the chimps and the kids could quickly learn to read the correct cues. The real surprise came when a team led by Robert Hare of Harvard University ran the same test on dogs. *The dogs could immediately interpret the signals indicating the location of the food four times better than the apes, and more than twice as well as the young children, even if the experimenter was a stranger.*
_

http://moderndogmagazine.com/articles/how-dogs-read-human-body-language/278


Here's an interesting blog post on dogs vs wolves and human communication 
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/dogs-but-not-wolves-use-humans-as-tools/


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Honestly that's one of the remarkable things about the dog/human relationship to me.

She can speak dog, and I can speak human, and we can understand each other perfectly.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> Honestly that's one of the remarkable things about the dog/human relationship to me.
> 
> She can speak dog, and I can speak human, and we can understand each other perfectly.


Except for the word "no"--apparently that one didn't bridge the evolutionary human-canine divide.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Whenever people bring up "communicate with them like other dogs do" I always wonder if they go around humping their dogs or peeing on top of their pee or something. Or if they "act like a mother dog" by licking their dog's bum to stimulate potty behavior. 

Dogs are pretty smart. They know we're not other dogs.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Except for the word "no"--apparently that one didn't bridge the evolutionary human-canine divide.


That's not one I've tried to teach her, because of all the reasons previously stated. 

And I did say 'human' not 'English' 

Were you planning on adding anything constructive to the discussion or just continuing to diss the methods of others without backing yourself up?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

No is a CONCEPT, anyway. 

I could teach no to mean 'stand on your head' or 'freeze in place' or 'sit' or 'go lie down somewhere else' or 'go to your crate'. if I wanted to. What I *can't* make it mean is 'stop whatever you're doing, no matter what that is, and do something I consider appropriate/desirable instead. Is 'stop that' viable as a meaning for no that I do can learn? Yep. 

But you know what? "stop that" doesn't mean 'do this" so if I "no' (after teaching her it means generally 'not that thing you're doing, which is hard from go) my dog for, I don't know, getting on the counters, she might immediately go get into the trash. Or chase the cat. Or steal the paper-towels to shred. If I tell my dog to sit when she's about to jump on the counter you know what she does? She sits. Interaction over on a positive note, behavior managed, start of consistent behavioral change accomplished.

If I'm going to say 'no' (not that), and then follow up with 'sit' - 

Why would I even bother with the NO? What does it achieve? Dog is now working on putting their butts down in front of the counter as the proper behavior. What does saying no add to that, exactly? Letting the dog know you don't like that thing/making it feel bad? Okay... how does THAT add to changing the dog's behavior to something you want? (Tip It doesn't. It's making the dog feel bad for the sake of making it feel bad. It doesn't make it more likely to now sit in front of the counter, at best, and if it's a very soft dog you have now made the dog consider YOU aversive. Yay....)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

esuastegui said:


> Except for the word "no"--apparently that one didn't bridge the evolutionary human-canine divide.


People don't understand "no" until they've been taught either  (and aren't capable of understanding the concept before a certain age anyway). Verbal language is not exactly universal. 

I know how NOT to train a dog to counter-surf, because we tried it with our first dog. The dog training books said to slap the counter top and yell at the dog (mostly "no" and "bad"). She was thoroughly intimidated and looked submissive whenever we did that. . .but she still counter-surfed, up until she was too old to get up on her hind legs. Never did break her of that. Now I just keep yummy things where animals can't get them (also due to naughty cats). 

So, how would YOU advise training a dog not to counter-surf?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> behavior managed


Mischief managed.

Oh god I'm so sorry I just couldn't resist.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Mischief managed.
> 
> Oh god I'm so sorry I just couldn't resist.


Thud is Sirius.
Kylie is James
Molly is Remus
Jack is Peter

Bug's just all left out  Lily? I can make her Lily.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I guess I live in sort of a middle land. I LOVE R+ training and I train virtually everything as force-free as possible. I learn so much by studying motivational training, marker training, choice-based training. I adore it.

However, there are some things I am pretty old-school about. They are rare, but they exist. I will also use NRMs with two of my dogs. They are both durable and love to work for the sake of work, and they just don't mind being told that they made an error. My other dog is highly sensitive to them though, so I don't use them with her.

For counter surfing, I just don't leave anything in reach. I just manage it. The two dogs that I raised don't do it, but the dog I got as a adult is SERIOUS about it, so I simply manage it. 

The places I use old-school behavior: If we're camping and my dogs start to bark at a critter or something. I will tell them to knock it off. One of my dogs came with a lovely habit of sitting calmly beside me and then leaping at other dogs in agility class. I stopped that with some old-school handling because it didn't seem fear-based. 

I try very, very hard to always be fun and fair to my dogs. IN GENERAL: "Leadership/dominance" models discount training and the dog's experience too much for my liking. The whole "ForceFree/R+" world is nicer for dogs in general and is more about decent training. However, getting zealous about anything seems counter-productive. I think zealotry tends to alienate people more than draw them in.

I'm not in the middle, but my training isn't a religion to me either. I love kind, smart training and the wise use of management. But if there's an important issue that I am passionate about in regards to safety, I can bring out my old-school background and deal with it.

I am old enough that I used to train everything with correction. I trained multiple dogs without ever giving them a treat or anything beyond a "good dog." I assure you, the new training is far, far better for everyone.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Honestly, this whole no thing irritates me. It's being spun as though I'm letting my dogs do whatever they want and am somehow allergic to the word. 

That isn't the case. 

In dog training you have two views you can choose to take:

Seeing dogs as problems and the purpose of training to be to eliminate undesirable behaviors

or

Seeing dogs as partners and the objective of training to be to teach the dog what you do want them to do.

I don't let my dog counter surf. They go lie down at the doorway to the kitchen. I don't let my dogs jump on people, I teach them to sit to meet people. I don't let my dogs door dash, I sit them to wait at the door. EVERY NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR CAN BE ELIMINATED BY TEACHING THEM AN ALTERNATIVE. 

And I, for one, don't choose to view my dogs as problems and the objective of my training is not to play whack-a-mole with behaviors I don't like and just accept whatever's left over.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Honestly, this whole no thing irritates me. It's being spun as though I'm letting my dogs do whatever they want and am somehow allergic to the word.
> 
> That isn't the case.
> 
> ...


YES to all of this! YES.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also as trainingjunkie said: With most things. 

I have absolutely used e-collars cranked up to snake train and create fear, and I've used a prong on one of my dogs. I've also shut down some car chasing tendencies pretty hard and if I more faith in my ability to differentiate and remember not to use NRMs with my softer dogs I'd probably use them more with the ones that aren't. But, basically, those are exceptions not rules and the consequences of not having the luxury of time to properly train them or the tools/environment to manage things that could be life ending. For the dogs. With professional guidance. 

But 'Don't ever say no!!!' is not some uber dippy soft fuzzy feel good thing. It's a conscious choice made on practical information and does not in any way translate into my dogs walking on me or not having boundaries or rules.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> But 'Don't ever say no!!!' is not some uber dippy soft fuzzy feel good thing. It's a conscious choice made on practical information and does not in any way translate into my dogs walking on me or not having boundaries or rules.


These words yo. I don't not say no because I'm afraid to hurt my dog's feelings or something. I don't say it because it's not a helpful tool in training my dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm biased because, with my first dog, I read every dog training book at the library (all quite old and decidedly negative) and took classes at 4H and did what they told me. Nothing worked. Seriously none of it. It scared her and frustrated me and just sucked all around. It made me and my dog enemies, fighting against each other. I mean, that stuff must "work" for some dogs, or they wouldn't write books about it. Right? Haha, might be overestimating people there . 

I'm not into high-level training or even any particular training other than house manners. . .but whatever R+ methods I've used have worked. Even inconsistently and lazily applied. And it doesn't make us enemies.

So, uh, well, there's one "average dog owner"'s experience, FWIW.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Effisia said:


> Whenever people bring up "communicate with them like other dogs do" I always wonder if they go around humping their dogs or peeing on top of their pee or something. Or if they "act like a mother dog" by licking their dog's bum to stimulate potty behavior.
> 
> Dogs are pretty smart. They know we're not other dogs.


LOL, well, touche. Got me there. But this is turning into having it both ways, isn't it? OK, so let's *not* communicate like dogs. Let's do it like humans. Do we train our children exclusively by feeding them treats? Is there no time when we apply corrective actions?

I'm afraid that by continuing to ask these questions I'm sounding like I don't believe in positive reinforcement. That's not the case. It's the preferred way to go, and by far.

I just can't logically fathom it is the _only_ way to go. Some (OK, let's hope _rare_) circumstances will require redirection and correction. When the dog has already planted both front paws on the counter or the dinner table, enticing them away with a treat will only reinforce that if they do that again next time, they'll get another treat. At that point, you're out of positive bullets. You can't even click your way out of that one. You have to get him/her off the counter or table and wait till another time to teach the proper behavior you want (sit, go to the mat, etc.).


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

Honestly, I think that me saying my dog's name or making my noise of disapproval could be looked at as another version of "No", but I don't ever mean it that way. I never give a command without knowing that I have their attention, so my "ah ah" noise that I make when I see them on the counter or whatever they happen to be doing that I disapprove of, is mostly to get them to know that I am there, watching, and going to give an appropriate command. Is that a correction? Possibly. But I also know that my dog looks at me as a partner. When we go outside he looks at me to tell him what's next. Not out of fear, but out of respect for our relationship. But I have used some old school methods sometimes. Do I try and always lean towards positive reinforcement? Of course. I have a dad that has never given me a bit of praise in my life. It sucks. If I were a dog, and my dad were my "master" I would just be looking at him trying to figure out why in the world I can't do anything right. So I try not to do that do my dogs. But do I occasionally use correction? Yes. In place I always try and show them what I would like them to do. I think it's a nice balance. 

I try not to use too many negative words in general though. My Catahoula is SUPER timid so if I look at her cross-eyed she acted like I wasgoing to beat the ever living hell out of her. Super fun when I would take her in stores when I first got her. But she WAS abused. Shot at, left in a crate for up to 24 hours at a time, beaten, you name it. I would never want her to look at me with fear in her eyes because I know she's had enough fear in her life. And my CO definitely reacts horribly to any negative reinforcement. If I even push his behind to get him to walk up the stairs faster when I'm behind him he cries and acts as if the world is ending, and I have never laid a hand on him in my life. That being said, he responded very well with the corrective collar combined with his beef liver treats. I never have thought that my dogs obey me because they fear me. Only because of respect for our relationship. But they do understand a mild level of correction. If that makes me a horrible doggie mama, then I guess I'll take my lumps. I'm willing to hear constructive criticisms, as I understand that I'm not a professional, but I don't like it when people assume my dogs don't look at me like a partner because I use correction occasionally.

I guess the long and the short of it is this: as much as you hate that it seems like your lack of the word "NO" makes you a puppy coddling ninny, I hate that my use of a correction makes me a wrong wrong wrong monster. Lol.

Can't there be a camp for the middle man? The ones that use mostly positive reinforcement with occasional correction?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> Honestly, I think that me saying my dog's name or making my noise of disapproval could be looked at as another version of "No", but I don't ever mean it that way.


This isn't a correction. The official word here is 'interruptor'. That's a whole different thing, and is intended to, yeah, be followed up by telling the dog what to do - instead of just leaving things at 'Don't do THAT'. It's a completely separate concept.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> LOL, well, touche. Got me there. But this is turning into having it both ways, isn't it? OK, so let's *not* communicate like dogs. Let's do it like humans. Do we train our children exclusively by feeding them treats? Is there no time when we apply corrective actions?
> 
> I'm afraid that by continuing to ask these questions I'm sounding like I don't believe in positive reinforcement. That's not the case. It's the preferred way to go, and by far.
> 
> I just can't logically fathom it is the _only_ way to go. Some (OK, let's hope _rare_) circumstances will require redirection and correction. When the dog has already planted both front paws on the counter or the dinner table, enticing them away with a treat will only reinforce that if they do that again next time, they'll get another treat. At that point, you're out of positive bullets. You can't even click your way out of that one. You have to get him/her off the counter or table and wait till another time to teach the proper behavior you want (sit, go to the mat, etc.).


So in that situation (dog is already on the counter) I would just calmly move them off or call them away, ask for an alternate behaviour (sit, down, go to mat, etc) and reward. 

The dog having been on the counter would indicate to me that I had failed in some aspect of my management, and I would then take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.

No punishment or corrections (verbal or physical) involved.

Also I'll say it once more for the people in the back, punishing a child who you can explain to what they did wrong, and why, and that this is the consequence of their actions, is just not something you can do with a dog. It's not an equivalent example for why punishing dogs is appropriate or necessary.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> No is a CONCEPT, anyway.


I think we're overthinking this. "No" denotes disapproval. Every dog I've partnered with has been smart enough to get that. You are right, however, that one must follow up to teach the acceptable behavior. Some of the discussion here seems stuck on the non-sequitur that you can't have one without the other. In fact, this whole discussion seems too bent on treating things as mutually exclusive when they aren't logically or necessarily so.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

esuastegui said:


> I just can't logically fathom it is the _only_ way to go. Some (OK, let's hope _rare_) circumstances will require redirection and correction. When the dog has already planted both front paws on the counter or the dinner table, enticing them away with a treat will only reinforce that if they do that again next time, they'll get another treat. At that point, you're out of positive bullets. You can't even click your way out of that one. You have to get him/her off the counter or table and wait till another time to teach the proper behavior you want (sit, go to the mat, etc.).


What can you do negatively to "correct" them in the moment? Legitimately curious. No, you can't train in the moment. 

You manage the situation and work on the skills at some other time.

If one were to apply it to raising children (not a great analogy, because you have to raise kids to be confident adult humans instead of forever dependent like dogs, but OK), it would have to be compared to raising small children. Dogs are comparable in understanding to a 3-4 year old child. And while I know (unfortunately too well) there are people who hit and otherwise punish babies and small children, I like to hope most people try to keep it positive when dealing with little ones. Redirect, teach coping skills, teach self-management skills, etc.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> So in that situation (dog is already on the counter) I would just calmly move them off or call them away, ask for an alternate behaviour (sit, down, go to mat, etc) and reward.
> 
> The dog having been on the counter would indicate to me that I had failed in some aspect of my management, and I would then take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.
> 
> No punishment or corrections (verbal or physical) involved.


Yeah, this. If the dog's already on the counter, I screwed up somewhere. It happens, but it's my fault (for leaving food up there or otherwise not supervising an untrained dog, or catching it fast enough to tell the dog to do something else). At that point it's a matter of getting the dog away/off (and here, come, whatever) all work, then you give the alternate command and move on. 

"No" doesn't tell the dog to get down. It might tell them you're mad, but at what? That they're in the kitchen? That they're on the counter? That you had a bad day at work? That they ate the food? What? It's just's noise.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> LOL, well, touche. Got me there. But this is turning into having it both ways, isn't it? OK, so let's *not* communicate like dogs. Let's do it like humans. Do we train our children exclusively by feeding them treats? Is there no time when we apply corrective actions?
> 
> I'm afraid that by continuing to ask these questions I'm sounding like I don't believe in positive reinforcement. That's not the case. It's the preferred way to go, and by far.
> 
> I just can't logically fathom it is the _only_ way to go. Some (OK, let's hope _rare_) circumstances will require redirection and correction. When the dog has already planted both front paws on the counter or the dinner table, enticing them away with a treat will only reinforce that if they do that again next time, they'll get another treat. At that point, you're out of positive bullets. You can't even click your way out of that one. You have to get him/her off the counter or table and wait till another time to teach the proper behavior you want (sit, go to the mat, etc.).


I don't think anyone here is suggesting training dogs *exclusively* by feeding treats. Pretty much everyone uses some form of negative punishment (taking away something) and good management to prevent the behaviors to begin with which creates good habits. 

Example- potty training. You don't punish the dog (verbal or physical correction) for peeing inside. You a)reward heavily for peeing outside which is the positive reinforcement part, b)take away free access to the house by crating or x-pen which is the negative punishment part and c)take the dog out regularly on a schedule so that they practice the action of peeing outside and avoid developing the habit of peeing inside which is the management part.

Sure you can use rewards for a dog that already has planted paws on the table; its a reward, not a lure. You call the dog to you and reward for "come" or "come, sit" 
You request a non-compatible behavior and reward that, then you take away access to the food to prevent practicing bad habits. 
The longer a dog goes without the chance to get food off the table, the stronger the habit of -not- doing so becomes.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> I think we're overthinking this. "No" denotes disapproval. Every dog I've partnered with has been smart enough to get that.


it is more likely that they were responding to your tone of voice and body posture and knowing you were mad/angry/upset, rather than understanding WHY you were mad/angry/upset and equating it to an action they had done.

Rather than knowing what that word specifically meant.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> So in that situation (dog is already on the counter) I would just calmly move them off or call them away, ask for an alternate behaviour (sit, down, go to mat, etc) and reward.


See... I would be nervous to do that. Perhaps we are banking on them having very short memory, but I'd be concerned they would associate the entire chain (stand on the counter + get called away + sit/lay down = treat), and expect to repeat it next time. I don't like to offer any treat or reward that close to a "fail." I would at least wait for a few minutes of good behavior (sitting, laying down) before rewarding. And I would administer zero edible treats in the vicinity of the dinner table. That only creates other dynamic: annoying begging.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> it is more likely that they were responding to your tone of voice and body posture and knowing you were mad/angry/upset, rather than understanding WHY you were mad/angry/upset and equating it to an action they had done.
> 
> Rather than knowing what that word specifically meant.


Yep. Again, I say 

GOOD DOG in an angry tone, the dog gets it - as you (OP) agreed with. The word there means nothing. My 'I don't approve of this' is down to not giving the dog the cookie and asking them to try again. Or closing the door they wanted out/thought about dashing through. Or removing access to the person they wanted to greet so much they jumped instead of sat. Or not taking a step when we're walking. They earn everything they want and get through giving me what I DO want, and they lose access for engaging in behaviors I don't. 

"No" doesn't change that. Not using it or using it changes absolutely nothing. Except in the case of a couple of my dogs making them overly cautious. They still get the same practical consequence, just without the bridge word.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> it is more likely that they were responding to your tone of voice and body posture and knowing you were mad/angry/upset, rather than understanding WHY you were mad/angry/upset and equating it to an action they had done.
> 
> Rather than knowing what that word specifically meant.


I'm entirely sure the same applies to "good girl!!!!!!!!" -- so what did we just prove?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Yes, there is a very short window in which the dog associates the reward/punishment. You have about 2-4 seconds max to reward or punish and have the dog associate it with the thing that happened 2-4 seconds ago.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> I'm entirely sure the same applies to "good girl!!!!!!!!" -- so what did we just prove?


That dogs understand tone of voice and body posture? And not the sometimes complex meaning of specific words to mean generalized concepts unless/until they are specifically taught?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> That dogs understand tone of voice and body posture? And not the sometimes complex meaning of specific words to mean generalized concepts unless/until they are specifically taught?


Yep. That. Exactly. 

Well that and you being completely out of shape based on other people not using one particular word is ridiculous. Hopefully that, too.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I dunno man, we're saying that we don't use the word 'no' in our dog training, and you seem to be insisting that it is somehow necessary to do so.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> I dunno man, we're saying that we don't use the word 'no' in our dog training, and you seem to be insisting that it is somehow necessary to do so.



Dogs respond to 'energy' in their owners. 

Dogs know when you're frustrated/angry/upset/their emotional state and respond to it. 

Dogs... absolutely must have no to have disapproval conveyed to them in order to train them. Not saying no means you never, ever, in any way convey to the dog that you don't like a behavior. Ever. 

I'm missing some steps in there. Or logic is missing. One of the two.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> And I would administer zero edible treats in the vicinity of the dinner table. That only creates other dynamic: annoying begging.


Whereas I might do the opposite--
Ask for a down near enough to the table to provide a reward but far enough that I have a reaction time to give a command if they break the down/stay.

Throughout the meal, as long as they are in a down/stay, I toss a small reward. Break the stay, no reward. Come up and beg, get removed from the dining area (which means no rewards AND not getting to be in the same room). 

Soon they learn that begging doesn't get them anywhere but being quiet does.

Just a different take on the example situation but what I'm illustrating is that one thing (rewards near the human table) does not need to lead directly to another (begging)


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> That dogs understand tone of voice and body posture? And not the sometimes complex meaning of specific words to mean generalized concepts unless/until they are specifically taught?


So why don't we just leave all words out of it altogether, rather than singling out "no"? If all that matters is body posture, why "sit" or "fetch" or ...? Why is it wrong to have a word to communicate displeasure? That is, after all, how humans communicate. And we've seen we should keep on talking like humans, no?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Shell said:


> Whereas I might do the opposite--
> Ask for a down near enough to the table to provide a reward but far enough that I have a reaction time to give a command if they break the down/stay.
> 
> Throughout the meal, as long as they are in a down/stay, I toss a small reward. Break the stay, no reward. Come up and beg, get removed from the dining area (which means no rewards AND not getting to be in the same room).
> ...


Yep. We do a version of this. 

She wants some of what we got? She goes to her bed and lays down and may occasionally get tossed small bits. She begs or tries to steal? She gets nothing.

Result is a dog who auto-gets out of the way when people are eating.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> Whereas I might do the opposite--
> Ask for a down near enough to the table to provide a reward but far enough that I have a reaction time to give a command if they break the down/stay.
> 
> Throughout the meal, as long as they are in a down/stay, I toss a small reward. Break the stay, no reward. Come up and beg, get removed from the dining area (which means no rewards AND not getting to be in the same room).
> ...


This is *exactly* what I did and the default of behavior during meal times here is now my dogs asleep in another room. Go figure. Not even something I reward them for any more, not even variably. It's now A Habit, which means it's just what they do, without being told, rewarded, or corrected.

...Again: How many performance titles - titles earned through training - have you manage, esuastegul? Because you seem to be missing a lot of basic information about how long you have to reward or punish a behavior, dog psychology, training method and science, and emotional/social interactions and competence. 

That's not even meant as an insult. You are missing a LOT of info that's pretty vital. Ian Dunbar's a pretty good place to start reading, if you're interested. Or I'm sure there's a lot out there if you want to start with all the books and studies and retractions by the guy who introduced us to dominance theory in the first place.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What good does it do for the dog for you to express displeasure?

ETA for clarity: if they learn that you want them to lie down on their mat during human meals, how does it improve things if they also learn that you disapprove of them getting too close during meals?


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I mean, you can say to your dog "Look at your stupid face! Look at it! You vacant poo head!" and if you say it in a happy upbeat voice, they think it's great. Dogs don't speak English... They can learn that certain sounds we make mean that if they do a certain behavior they get rewards, but if you teach a dog to sit using "sit" or using "shmoopie" or "kla***le" you're still going to get a dog sitting.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> So why don't we just leave all words out of it altogether, rather than singling out "no"? If all that matters is body posture, why "sit" or "fetch" or ...? Why is it wrong to have a word to communicate displeasure? That is, after all, how humans communicate. And we've seen we should keep on talking like humans, no?


It is entirely possible to train a dog without any words. 

It isn't that we have to _talk_ like humans, we're saying that we need to _communicate_ as humans. It isn't wrong per se to have a word to communicate displeasure, it is just basically unnecessary. 

Humans communicate with a lot more than words BTW.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> So why don't we just leave all words out of it altogether, rather than singling out "no"? If all that matters is body posture, why "sit" or "fetch" or ...? Why is it wrong to have a word to communicate displeasure? That is, after all, how humans communicate. And we've seen we should keep on talking like humans, no?


Okay, so sit and fetch- as examples- are very specific behaviours. Sit only means one thing, put your butt on the ground. Fetch means go get that thing and bring it back to me. Very specific.

"No" can, again as has already been talked about but I'll do it again, mean a variety of different things. Get down? Move? Let go? Come here? 

And also runs the risk of poisoning the cue.

ALSO (which I don't think has been talked about, someone correct me if I'm wrong) 'No' from a human perspective tends to lend itself when the trainer is angry or frustrated, and that isn't a good frame of mind to be in for training. You start to do things out of frustration/anger rather than from a place of patience and understanding. A place of sober second thought, if you will.

So removing 'no' is one more step away from -getting angry at your dog-, and instead helps to keep you focused on a solution, rather than the problem.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> It is entirely possible to train a dog without any words.
> 
> It isn't that we have to _talk_ like humans, we're saying that we need to _communicate_ as humans. It isn't wrong per se to have a word to communicate displeasure, it is just basically unnecessary.
> 
> Humans communicate with a lot more than words BTW.


I have a deaf dog. Trust me, we have no issues communicating. Without words. 

I communicate sit because I need her to be able to sit. I don't communicate my displeasure verbally because there *is no point* and there *are* potentially negative affects in doing so with some of my dogs. No positive + potential negatives = Why would I want to? If I can get my dog to stay off the counter by asking and teaching an automatic sit, wtf is the point of saying "NO". She's never going to be on the counter to start with!


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

It's just easier to teach a dog to do the things you want them to do than the things you want them not to do. Basic concept. "Don't jump" leaves a huge host of other things the dog could do instead. Okay, I won't jump, I'll hip-check the guests. Sit on their feet. Bit their handbags. You end up with a lot of "no, don't do that. don't do that. don't do THAT" when you simply could have taught them to sit instead. Why go through all those corrections at all?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> It's just easier to teach a dog to do the things you want them to do than the things you want them not to do. Basic concept. "Don't jump" leaves a huge host of other things the dog could do instead. Okay, I won't jump, I'll hip-check the guests. Sit on their feet. Bit their handbags. You end up with a lot of "no, don't do that. don't do that. don't do THAT" when you simply could have taught them to sit instead. Why go through all those corrections at all?


Whack-A-Mole while hoping you like the behavior they are eventually left with. 

It is *such* an enormous waste of time. Even with dogs who don't care one way or the other. It's just a complete. waste. of. time.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Also yes, what these folks are saying. It's so easy to teach what you want instead, why do you insist on the need for 'no' or other verbal correction?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Another point for consideration;

Punishment only works in the presence of the punisher. So if you're punishing or correcting your dog for being on the counter by correcting them, saying 'no', etc that's only effective -when you're present-. You can bet that as soon as you're gone out, in another room, etc that dog is going to go right back to what it was doing.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Let me share a little parable with you all:

I used to spend ages trying to teach 'don't pull on the leash'. I mean ages. It was a pain in my butt. Even in the absence of the dog who had crazy prey drive and was big. It was hard. It was annoying. I was a tree when they pulled. I turned and walked the other direction. I used penalty yards. I did every freaking common method out there and I guess I made some progress but not the progress I would have liked. 

Then? I got fed up and started to teach the dogs to walk in a particular 3 Sq ft range around me, at my side. It was 'the reward zone'. when they were in that zone, I said yes, I told them they were good, I gave them treats. when they went out of that zone I did NOTHING. I'd still be a tree or change directions if they hit the end of the leash, but mostly there was this other space allowed by the leash without pulling. that didn't get them rewarded. Being there got them nothing. 

It took LESS TIME for me to teach my dogs TO walk in that one particular area *and* completely phase treats out of the picture than I all the other methods designed to teach them what NOT to do (pull). Clear. Criteria. Matters. 

"Don't do that thing!" is not clear criteria.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Here's another real world example.

I volunteer at an animal shelter. When I come home it's important that I change clothes before touching my own pets to prevent any spread of illness. 

If my dog approaches me when I come in the door, instead of saying 'no' I say "back" and "stay" to tell her exactly what I want her to do.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

Words should be taken out of the discussion entirely. Dogs definitely understand body language. I can shake my head at my dog with a stern face or waggle my finger and it will convey "no" without me having to say it. I have one dog that knows commands entirely in Russian, and another in English. The words themselves mean nothing. I think that is the point that some people are trying to convey and others are missing entirely. The LACK of WORDS doesn't mean a LACK of UNDERSTANDING in what we want from them. And I agree, you can not train a dog by correction alone. If my dog mouths at me during playtime, I make a noise and stop playing entirely. If he plays appropriately, he gets his favorite chewy. No is not involved. Nor is body language really. Just the absence of what he wants, which is to play.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

esuastegui said:


> But you just said you settle your body language down as much as you can, and he still knows you're upset. It's not magic we're talking about when we say "energy." There are chemical processes going on inside you, yes, driven by real energy (calories being burned by those processes), and resulting scents emitting from you. Remember your dog experiences life in large part through his nose.


"Body language" and "energy" are not the same thing, at least not how I'm understanding them in this particular discussion. I do not see how "energy" can be used to describe a scent emitted from your body, and I don't think people are referring to scents when they use that term in the context of dog training. Even if I feel like I'm trying to make calm movements, my dog has known me long enough (and because he's a dog whose ancestors have spent generations taking cues from humans) to understand the set of my shoulders, the lines in my face, or the shape of my eyes when I am angry. These are all cues that I am barely aware of, but my dog picks up on.

Perhaps my dog can smell those subtle chemical changes in my body, but scent can be masked by perfume, your clothing, the scent of other people and dogs clinging to you and floating around you, your own sweat (think stinky I just ran 2 miles sweat), or any other number of factors. Scent is flighty and unsure, whereas body language is concrete. You can't fake it. It is pretty unmistakable to body language experts like dogs.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Lillith said:


> "Body language" and "energy" are not the same thing, at least not how I'm understanding them in this particular discussion.


Yes, you understand the point correctly. I was responding to a claim that the dog had read body language (of being upset/stressed) when in the previous sentence stated that the human had restrained body language. The point, then, is that _the dog read something else_, not so much "energy", but what it produces--the scents we emit for various emotional states. My previous point is that these scents (earlier in the thread I posted a reference to a scientific study) are powerful cues our dogs read, as well as everything else (words/sounds, body language) if not more so. This is what some have bucketed (I believe) into that ephemeral sounding "energy," which in practice represents our internal state (emotional, assertiveness, caring/love, etc.) that leads to those scents. IOW, it's not magic or immeasurable. Scientists have shown it to be a real thing.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Reading another thread, I ran across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9CEfwXLpA

Notice what is most effective (if not the final solution) to get the dog to stop jumping or nipping? Hint: it's not "taking away" (turn-ignore when jumped) or yelping (when nipped). And the praise that close to a fail simply tells the dog, "OK, let's go again!"


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> Yes, you understand the point correctly. I was responding to a claim that the dog had read body language (of being upset/stressed) when in the previous sentence stated that the human had restrained body language. The point, then, is that _the dog read something else_, not so much "energy", but what it produces--the scents we emit for various emotional states. My previous point is that these scents (earlier in the thread I posted a reference to a scientific study) are powerful cues our dogs read, as well as everything else (words/sounds, body language) if not more so. This is what some have bucketed (I believe) into that ephemeral sounding "energy," which in practice represents our internal state (emotional, assertiveness, caring/love, etc.) that leads to those scents. IOW, it's not magic or immeasurable. Scientists have shown it to be a real thing.


But... 
Dogs can read body language of humans on video.

http://www.academia.edu/3267325/Suc...Projected_Human_Images_for_Signalling_to_Dogs

Scent isn't a required part of understanding human communication. 

I don't think anyone is totally disagreeing that one's mood or mindset can have an effect on the dog. Stress, happiness, sadness or sickness etc does convey to the dog (and to other domestic mammals like horses) but it isn't a TRAINING method really. A training method is something that can be consistently replicated and intentionally produced.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

esuastegui said:


> Reading another thread, I ran across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9CEfwXLpA
> 
> Notice what is most effective (if not the final solution) to get the dog to stop jumping or nipping? Hint: it's not "taking away" (turn-ignore when jumped) or yelping (when nipped). And the praise that close to a fail simply tells the dog, "OK, let's go again!"


Are you arguing that the person putting the dog in a choke hold and forcing it to the ground is the most effective solution to getting a dog to stop jumping? 

Your points have verged on ignorance of basic dog training concepts this entire thread, but that's above and beyond. Especially because the behavior doesn't stop even after the woman forces the dog to the ground with her hands around its neck.

Jumping is self-reinforcing (which means that the dog is rewarded simply by the act of performing the behavior), so turning and ignoring it will rarely stop the behavior from occurring. So the first mistake is trying to ignore a dog who is self-reinforcing while being ignored. Leg biting is also self-reinforcing, so walking back and forth and yelling at the dog in an attempt to stop the behavior is just idiocy.

The dog responded when it was asked to sit at multiple points in the video. At that point, the person training it said "good" and *got down in a crouch to pet the dog*. Why in the world would you crouch in front of an overexcited dog you JUST got to stop jumping on you? Oh, the only reason would be if you wanted the dog to start jumping again. This person is clearly baiting this dog to misbehave throughout the entire video. 

This person also states that they tried hitting her when she jumps, which "makes her growl angrily and get more aggressive". (Remember earlier in this thread when I said 'violence begets violence, aggression begets aggression'? Yeah, that.) Some day, and probably some day soon, this dog is not going to like being put in a choke hold and forced to the ground, and the dog is going to react. 

Training takes time, and effort, and patience. Negatively reinforcing with punishment as a large part of a training regimen is lazy. It's a quick fix. It's an easy out for a person who doesn't want to invest the time or effort into properly training a dog. It's easy to wait for your dog to make a mistake and to yell "no". It's NOT easy to plan ahead, train alternative behaviors and to set a dog up for success and be patient when they make a mistake. 

For instance, what takes more time - me to teach my dogs 'place', 'stay' and 'release' and then proof each cue with increasing distraction in the environment, or me yelling "no" when my dogs come into the kitchen? Clearly, yelling "no" takes far less time and effort. But what is more rewarding in the long run, what communicates better with my dogs, and what is successful even when I'm not present to yell "no"? 

I have two dogs who can reach my counters and drink out of my sinks while standing on all fours. And I have successfully taught them to not countersurf without *ever* correcting them for it to the point where I left a bag of chips open on the counter last week while I was out of the house for several hours and neither one touched it. And that's the long term success that positive training and reinforcing wanted behaviors brings.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Reading another thread, I ran across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9CEfwXLpA
> 
> Notice what is most effective (if not the final solution) to get the dog to stop jumping or nipping? Hint: it's not "taking away" (turn-ignore when jumped) or yelping (when nipped). And the praise that close to a fail simply tells the dog, "OK, let's go again!"


Nothing is...? I mean, the dog is still jumping and mouthing as the camera is turned off. Are you suggesting that the "No!" and the choking bit was the most effective? However, you can see demonstrated in that video exactly what people here are trying to tell you... you cue the dog to sit and work on teaching them to sit instead of jumping up. Dogs really can't sit and jump at the same time very well.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> The dog responded when it was asked to sit at multiple points in the video. At that point, the person training it said "good" and *got down in a crouch to pet the dog*. Why in the world would you crouch in front of an overexcited dog you JUST got to stop jumping on you? Oh, the only reason would be if you wanted the dog to start jumping again. This person is clearly baiting this dog to misbehave throughout the entire video.


Not to mention the fact that in at least one spot she actually encouraged the dog to jump on her while she was crouched down after the sit. And praised him for that (attention/pets/happy talk). How confusing for the poor dog!


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

esuastegui said:


> Reading another thread, I ran across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9CEfwXLpA
> 
> Notice what is most effective (if not the final solution) to get the dog to stop jumping or nipping? Hint: it's not "taking away" (turn-ignore when jumped) or yelping (when nipped). And the praise that close to a fail simply tells the dog, "OK, let's go again!"


You should try reading the comments on the video where the owner says she's tried smacking the dog before, like she shows in this video, and it made the dog growl and get more "aggressive". I tend to disagree that this dog is aggressive in any way, it may have been play growling or overarousal, but either way, it didn't work long term.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> Reading another thread, I ran across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9CEfwXLpA
> 
> Notice what is most effective (if not the final solution) to get the dog to stop jumping or nipping? Hint: it's not "taking away" (turn-ignore when jumped) or yelping (when nipped). And the praise that close to a fail simply tells the dog, "OK, let's go again!"


There are so many things wrong with that video.

Useless commands that the dog clearly doesn't know

Encouraging jumping sometimes but against it others

A dog that really wants to interact and play but isn't given the chance so frustration isn't surprising. I'd be tossing a ball or waving a flirt pole for a dog like that. 

Human body language that plays "bait" and encourages leaping/nipping, amps up an action and then punishes it

A human who doesn't understand asking for specific behaviors that counter the one she/he doesn't like.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

I'm not interested in really participating in any argument/discussion that supports or argues in favor of dominance based training because it is a simple fact that it is based on a theory that has been disproved. But I wanted to add that I've grown up with dogs that were trained with a very negative/dominance based style of training and it 100% shuts them down. They had no personalities and never had any fun for fear that they'd be told no, so instead they just did nothing. Very sad. I now have my own dog and have met a community of people who use positive methods (yes, with negative punishment occasionally) and it is simply amazing the difference in the dogs. They are happy, they work with their owners with joy and confidence. People with shut down dogs tend to think their dogs are fine, just really well behaved, etc. But that doesn't mean your dog isn't shut down, it just means you think you're right so that's what you see. 

I don't see why anyone would use negativity or dominance to train a dog when there are so many better ways. I see no valid argument. All you are doing is taking the quick way out. I understand when things are life threatening, totally serious, or in the moment kind of things, but really. Those are the only times I see those methods as even slightly acceptable. 

Yes, using a choke chain and shanking your dog into not jumping might get the job done faster than teaching your dog to sit and be calm around people. That doesn't mean it's the superior training method. That will get you a dog that doesn't understand what you really want, just what you don't want, a dog that is scared to try new things, a dog that doesn't know how to learn, only how to be told no.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

...and there is nothing aggressive about that dog's behavior.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> ...and there is nothing aggressive about that dog's behavior.


If that was real aggression, I think at least 6 or 7 fosters would have done me in by now

Unless someone is a small child or a frail adult, the only risk I see from that dog is being bruised by the wagging tail.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> If that was real aggression, I think at least 6 or 7 fosters would have done me in by now
> 
> Unless someone is a small child or a frail adult, the only risk I see from that dog is being bruised by the wagging tail.


Yep. That's a wildly hyped up, playful dog who hasn't been given enough reward and attention for doing things not involving jumping and mouthing and lots of attention for doing those things - as well as sometimes being encouraged to do them. Rocket Science.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> Yep. That's a wildly hyped up, playful dog who hasn't been given enough reward and attention for doing things not involving jumping and mouthing and lots of attention for doing those things - as well as sometimes being encouraged to do them. Rocket Science.


I wish I had a good video of foster Luna on her arrival. She exited the car of the rescue person, leaped up and tried to bite my nose. I'm 5 foot 9 inches. She was maybe 35 lbs. She almost made contact. 

She had zero human aggression and was very very responsive to training once given good exercise. I got her through her CGC before her adoption. 

She was kinda wild  Actually, they described her as almost feral when I agreed to foster her....

And as full disclosure, Chester is still a butt about jumping on people (no mouthing) because so many people I know have encouraged it because he's loveable and they like it. Grrr. But it also proves a point-- he's been rewarded for jumping, he jumps. 

(note, I can stop this with a verbal command, he just still tries his best to jump)


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Shell said:


> And as full disclosure, Chester is still a butt about jumping on people (no mouthing) because so many people I know have encouraged it because he's loveable and they like it. Grrr. But it also proves a point-- he's been rewarded for jumping, he jumps.
> 
> (note, I can stop this with a verbal command, he just still tries his best to jump)


Jumping's been a hard one for Titan and I, too. Because I used to allow him to jump up and put his paws on my shoulders and look me in the face. Doesn't bother me, he only does it when I'm facing him, he telegraphs so I know when it's coming, and I just kinda think it's cute. 

But he started doing it to other people and it stopped being cute. So now I have to go back to asking him to sit when he telegraphs that he's about to jump and rewarding the sit. It stinks. I'm hoping I can get to a place where I can differentiate between it being okay to jump on me and not okay to jump on anyone else, but we're not there yet. He's only 13 months old, so we still have a ways to go.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Reading another thread, I ran across this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9CEfwXLpA
> 
> Notice what is most effective (if not the final solution) to get the dog to stop jumping or nipping? Hint: it's not "taking away" (turn-ignore when jumped) or yelping (when nipped). And the praise that close to a fail simply tells the dog, "OK, let's go again!"


I don't feel the need to rehash everything everyone else has said. So I will just encourage you to actually read it and try to understand what everyone is saying.

At that point, actually respond instead of just jumping to another "but but but THIS OTHER THING" like a child. You've asked questions, we've answered you repeatedly, and you don't acknowledge it because it contradicts with your view. 

Look, the people here have a wealth of experience working with all kids of different dogs with all kinds of different issues. We're not newbies to training, many do it professionally and many have earned more titles on their dogs than you can count. 

You know, one of the things that always gets me when people refute reward based training is this. You say "I think I have to be mean and confrontational with my dog and make them submit in order to get them to be well behaved."
And then we come in all "No no! Hear the good news! You actually DON'T have to be mean and confrontational and can still have a well behaved dog!"
And your response isn't "Oh wow! That's so great! I'm so happy I don't have to do that any more! Tell me more!" 
Instead, it's "No, I say I still need to do those things because... well I just think I need to. Even though like 10 people are telling me I don't. I just do."

Why is that? What is this desire to hold onto needing to physically punish or correct your dog that you cling to so tightly?


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Why is that? What is this desire to hold onto needing to physically punish or correct your dog that you cling to so tightly?


The thing for me, when it came to switching from using negative punishment to very positive training was that it forced me to admit that I was CHOOSING to punish my dog, not out of necessity, but out of a mix of ignorance and desire for things to be easy.

I think that's what makes people who fight for the 'necessity' of punishment so uncomfortable when they talk to positive trainers. Because our way of training, and the fact that it works and produces results, means that their methods are a choice. And therefore, their choice is to continue to punish, to continue to use consequences, to continue to instill fear, versus to investing a ton of time and effort to learn how to do things a different way.

So they argue, and they say it can't work, because they don't want to face the reality of a world in which positive training DOES work, because that means that punishment-based training isn't the only option. And in fact, it's the inferior option.

And that's a really uncomfortable head space to be in. I get it. I was there at one point. And I felt really ashamed. Still do, in fact.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Hiraeth said:


> Jumping's been a hard one for Titan and I, too. Because I used to allow him to jump up and put his paws on my shoulders and look me in the face. Doesn't bother me, he only does it when I'm facing him, he telegraphs so I know when it's coming, and I just kinda think it's cute.
> 
> But he started doing it to other people and it stopped being cute. So now I have to go back to asking him to sit when he telegraphs that he's about to jump and rewarding the sit. It stinks. I'm hoping I can get to a place where I can differentiate between it being okay to jump on me and not okay to jump on anyone else, but we're not there yet. He's only 13 months old, so we still have a ways to go.


I think the hardest part for the dog is generalization when he isn't getting consistent cues from everyone. Chester never jumps on me, he never jumps on my mom etc. But because enough of my friends and acquaintances encourage jumping, he hasn't generalized that ALL people are off limits for jumping. If I tell him not to before he jumps, we're good so of course that's the way introductions are started.

I wouldn't even try to get him to understand OK to jump on you but not on others. In part because it can be a little hard for them and also because you don't know that a day won't come when him jumping on you is a big problem (say, you have an injury or illness or are carrying something fragile etc)


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Shell said:


> I think the hardest part for the dog is generalization when he isn't getting consistent cues from everyone. Chester never jumps on me, he never jumps on my mom etc. But because enough of my friends and acquaintances encourage jumping, he hasn't generalized that ALL people are off limits for jumping. If I tell him not to before he jumps, we're good so of course that's the way introductions are started.
> 
> I wouldn't even try to get him to understand OK to jump on you but not on others. In part because it can be a little hard for them and also because you don't know that a day won't come when him jumping on you is a big problem (say, you have an injury or illness or are carrying something fragile etc)


I'll probably apply a command to the behavior as soon as we've eliminated his desire to jump on strangers. And I'll also be working on a "four on the floor" command that will hopefully prevent any jumping at unwanted times. He's very good about not jumping if you turn to the side. It's just when you stand and face him with open arms that he thinks it's okay. I've worked on people approaching him with arms at their sides or crossed arms while he's in a sit and he hasn't tried to jump at all. 

And haha, I don't carry fragile things around adolescent Great Danes - they get put in the yard if I want to carry something delicate through the house


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

When I opened this thread and read the sentence, "What are the benefits and demerits of positive (reward-based) vs. leadership (dominance) training?" I knew that by a few pages in, the OP would be arguing in favor of useless, disproved dominance-based methods. Happens every time! I don't know why people even bother to start out pretending they're impartial.

Anyway. I don't have anything to add that all of the experienced, intelligent posters here haven't already said. I just want to say that "tell the dog what you want it to do instead of what you don't want it to do" is an incredibly simple concept and I don't understand how anyone could argue against it. It's common frickin' sense that giving a dog a command that's incompatible with whatever "bad" thing it's doing is 10,000 times more useful than yelling "no" at the dog and hoping it guesses what you want it to do instead.

Like, if my dogs jump on me every single time I come in the door, what works better: kneeing them in the chest while yelling "NO!", or teaching them a rock solid sit and asking for that the second I come in? It's not rocket science. You've got the bigger brain here; USE IT instead of expecting your poor dog to be a mind reader.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Shell said:


> There are so many things wrong with that video.
> 
> Useless commands that the dog clearly doesn't know
> 
> ...


lol first impression when the owner was walking over to the dogs my first impression was the owner was a jerk....


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Hiraeth said:


> I'll probably apply a command to the behavior as soon as we've eliminated his desire to jump on strangers. And I'll also be working on a "four on the floor" command that will hopefully prevent any jumping at unwanted times. He's very good about not jumping if you turn to the side. It's just when you stand and face him with open arms that he thinks it's okay. I've worked on people approaching him with arms at their sides or crossed arms while he's in a sit and he hasn't tried to jump at all.
> 
> And haha, I don't carry fragile things around adolescent Great Danes - they get put in the yard if I want to carry something delicate through the house


I wasn't specific to adolescent GDs, just speaking for the future. Heck though, I put the dogs up to carry anything actually fragile just cause I'm clumsy enough to trip over them  I meant just stuff like food on a plate or drink in a glass or even an armful of this and that when coming home that I don't want to have to pick up even if it is non-breakable. 

Yeah, the open arms vs closed arms or side facing works pretty well, but there still seems enough people who want to ask for jumping that I prefer to make no jumping the overall policy


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

The video. Note the lack of rewards for desirable behavior. There are brief moments to capitalize on there, but the handler is.. apparently oblivious to them.

It's amazing what a few well-timed verbal markers ie: "yes" and a few treats tossed on the ground can do. 

And jeez lady, stop holding your arms out like a scarecrow and waving them around. Talk about enticement. 

Someone mentioned rocket science ??? yep. lol


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't know what point you were trying to make about the video? Smacking the dog and holding her down didn't "work" (not sure what would constitute working because the owner was clearly encouraging the behavior); she was still tugging the owner's pants leg when the camera was turned off. And the owner never succeeded in training the dog not to do it---she apparently kept doing it until she got older and the owner got another dog (according to the comments). I also notice the owner said "no" a lot . 

The dog was jumping for attention, and stopped whenever she got attention. That's not rocket surgery . Finn does that all the time. I have a friend who pushes him away, sometimes roughly. He loves that, that's great fun! He thinks she's wrestling. I throw his toy or shove a stuffie in his mouth when he does that. So now he doesn't do it to me, he just brings me his toy to throw. He still does it to her though. Wrasslin' time!

Did you approve of the video or disapprove of the video? Do you think it shows good dog training or bad dog training? Add a little commentary .


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I don't know what point you were trying to make about the video? Smacking the dog and holding her down didn't "work" (not sure what would constitute working because the owner was clearly encouraging the behavior); she was still tugging the owner's pants leg when the camera was turned off. And she apparently kept doing it until she got older and the owner got another dog (according to the comments). I also notice the owner said "no" a lot .
> 
> The dog was jumping for attention, and stopped whenever she got attention. That's not rocket surgery
> 
> *Did you approve of the video or disapprove of the video? Do you think it shows good dog training or bad dog training? Add a little commentary *.


if this was for me... I only watched the first couple of seconds ( walking towards the dog (like a provoking idiot) and then coming out of the house again provoking ?) No need to watch more to see the owner is a jerk and is the problem for conditioning the dog to perform. dog is fine


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Lots of people use "No!" to mean "drop what you have in your mouth" and "keep all four feet on the ground" and "get off the sofa" and "stop barking" and "don't bite the cat" and ten thousand other things. I'm sure there are some dogs that are great at reading body language and can figure out what the human wants, but it's so much easier and more effective to just teach the dogs commands that mean what they mean. My dogs know words like "leave it" and "drop it" and "off" and "hush." These commands get a quick response because we all understand one another, so no one is frustrated and I don't have to be mean about it to get what I want. "No" is an inane command. No _what_?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

PatriciafromCO said:


> if this was for me... I only watched the first couple of seconds ( walking towards the dog (like a provoking idiot) and then coming out of the house again provoking ?) No need to watch more to see the owner is a jerk and is the problem for conditioning the dog to perform. dog is fine


Nah, not you . I mean the person who posted the video (I didn't want to go back a page and quote them ). I'm not sure what point they were trying to make.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

What was that video even supposed to demonstrate? That was such poor training I wouldn't even call it training, even the correction was not applied in an efficient way. Unless... The person was trying to train the dog to jump on her. In which case, excellent example of how to lead a dog into a rousing game of chase, nip and tug.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Canyx said:


> What was that video even supposed to demonstrate? That was such poor training I wouldn't even call it training, even the correction was not applied in an efficient way. Unless... The person was trying to train the dog to jump on her. In which case, excellent example of how to lead a dog into a rousing game of chase, nip and tug.


it seemed scripted ...from the start...


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Anyway, the reason I use vast majority R+ and force free methods (obviously not purely; the occasionally yoink on a collar or grumpy response or whatever is going to happen) is because a)it's effective at reliably producing the behaviors and responses I want and b)I'm pretty lazy and have zero desire to wrestle a dog or get all shouty. It's not a dogmatic thing for me, or sentimental. My one dog is so hard you could kick her in the ribs and she wouldn't care, so it's not like I need to coddle the squishy little milquetoast puppies. I just like how quick they are about performing and how easy they are to be around when they're trained with positive non-punitive methods. I've also found it much more effective at building up more complex chains of behaviors than the harsh methods that were in mainstream use when I was young. 

I trained a basically feral dog into a nice go-anywhere housepet with these methods, and I'm collecting performance titles on another dog with them as well, despite the fact that I'm not a very skilled or dedicated trainer. So it's kind of a no-brainer for me that a primarily R+ approach is broadly preferable to P+ and/or R-.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

esuastegui said:


> Well, we're going to have to disagree on that last point (punishment is demonstrably not "occasionally necessary" in a legal context--a walk through our jail system should show that). Without statistics and hard evidence to back it up, it is just an unsubstantiated assertion. That restorative systems work better can, however, be shown through data. But there, too, one must sift to separate the positive examples from cases where no amount of rehabilitation will suffice. At some point you are going to need jail cells that lock at night. And that's punishment--of the necessary kind.


If the purpose of locking someone up is purely to prevent them from committing additional crimes - e.g. containing someone who is currently demonstratively homicidal - it's really not punishment in any sense of the word that's relevant to the training or teaching of animals or humans. Introducing polysemy to a semi-technical discussion isn't generally productive.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

As someone who is genuinely open to learning all different sorts of training, I would like to thank everyone that has provided words of wisdom. This has been very interesting, though occasionally painful, to read. 

(I understand this picture quote says horses, but I think it applies for the dog world, no?)


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

MosinMom91 said:


> As someone who is genuinely open to learning all different sorts of training, I would like to thank everyone that has provided words of wisdom. This has been very interesting, though occasionally painful, to read.
> 
> (I understand this picture quote says horses, but I think it applies for the dog world, no?)


I think you'll find that people on this forum are exceptionally patient and willing to help beginners.

What most of us aren't willing to do is to entertain people who are arguing for the sake of arguing, and who aren't genuinely looking to improve or alter their methods. Despite several pages of discourse, the OP continuously brought up irrelevant and ambiguous information in order to confuse the issue and displayed an adamant resistance to the idea that the many people who use R+ with effectiveness on this forum know what we're talking about.

There's a difference between politely educating someone who is willing to learn and wasting our time trying to sway someone who is clearly not. And sure, I'll waste my time on someone who isn't willing to learn (although this thread wasn't really a waste of time, because as usual, CptJack and ireth0 brought up really great points that I've been turning over in my head), but I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to be polite to someone who is arguing for the sake of disagreement.


----------



## MosinMom91 (Aug 12, 2016)

Honestly, I agree with you. Do I like to admit when I am wrong? NO. Hell no. But is the safety, well being, and mental stability of my dogs way more important than my pride? Yes. Hell yes. And in this thread I was presented with so many "Huh" moments that made me stop and rethink some of my methods. Do I think I'm a complete bumbling idiot that is doing every single thing wrong? No. But I am willing to admit I could change a few things in my training to make things more consistent. And that's why this thread still wasn't a big waste of time for those involved, though it went on unnecessarily long because of the OP's resistance to those "huh" moments.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah, I think that most of us longtime regulars continue to reply to threads like this -- despite being tired from having had the same debate a hundred times -- because we know that there are literally thousands of lurkers reading this forum. The OP of a thread like this rarely changes their mind, but if the thread can help someone else, it's worth posting in. I'm glad it gave you some "huh" moments, MosinMom!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

MosinMom91 said:


> Honestly, I agree with you. Do I like to admit when I am wrong? NO. Hell no. But is the safety, well being, and mental stability of my dogs way more important than my pride? Yes. Hell yes. And in this thread I was presented with so many "Huh" moments that made me stop and rethink some of my methods. Do I think I'm a complete bumbling idiot that is doing every single thing wrong? No. But I am willing to admit I could change a few things in my training to make things more consistent. And that's why this thread still wasn't a big waste of time for those involved, though it went on unnecessarily long because of the OP's resistance to those "huh" moments.


Those "huh" moments are amazing. I've had quite a few of them on this forum, and they have immeasurably altered my training and my dog's lives in a positive way.

When we know better, we do better  Well, most of us, at least.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

And then the person who started the whole thing invariably just disappears and never comes back to answer to all of the information and responses to questions we've provided.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Those "huh" moments are amazing. I've had quite a few of them on this forum, and they have immeasurably altered my training and my dog's lives in a positive way.
> 
> When we know better, we do better  Well, most of us, at least.


Until you know too much, then you freeze up, second guess everything, try too hard and basically do nothing. Not that I've done that or anything (yes, yes I have).

...Just be nice and kind and fair to your dog. The rest usually shakes out.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> And then the person who started the whole thing invariably just disappears and never comes back to answer to all of the information and responses to questions we've provided.


Perhaps because the argument resorts to ad-hominem, as in your very response here? Turn and ignore applies to more than dogs.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

esuastegui said:


> Yes, you understand the point correctly. I was responding to a claim that the dog had read body language (of being upset/stressed) when in the previous sentence stated that the human had restrained body language. The point, then, is that _the dog read something else_, not so much "energy", but what it produces--the scents we emit for various emotional states. My previous point is that these scents (earlier in the thread I posted a reference to a scientific study) are powerful cues our dogs read, as well as everything else (words/sounds, body language) if not more so. This is what some have bucketed (I believe) into that ephemeral sounding "energy," which in practice represents our internal state (emotional, assertiveness, caring/love, etc.) that leads to those scents. IOW, it's not magic or immeasurable. Scientists have shown it to be a real thing.


I don't think he was "reading something else" so much as he was reading body language that I was not aware I was conveying, like I stated in my post. Which scientific article are you referring to? I only see one from The Puppy Institute, WebMD, and Dog Breed Info. Those are not scientific articles. I agree that certain emotions can be picked up on with scent. Take a look at this article: http://www.psychologicalscience.org...-chemosignals-communicate-human-emotions.html

This experiment is highly controlled, and it is difficult to replicate real-life situations with something that was conducted in a controlled environment. And they only tested fear and disgust (although disgust can be because they were smelling sweaty pads, soooo) Like I stated in my previous post, scent can be masked and distorted by perfume, deodorant, other scents floating around. It is uncertain at best. Body language is concrete.

Like Shell stated, scent as "energy" has no place in dog training. My dog smells I'm mad. So what? What am I mad about? How long is that "mad scent" persisting? How is my dog understanding it? Answer is, he's not. All he knows is I'm mad, but he doesn't know why. Dogs smelling our emotions is theoretical, at best, but I don't think it has a place when discussing training your dog for a certain behavior.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Shell said:


> There are so many things wrong with that video.
> 
> Useless commands that the dog clearly doesn't know


Not so fast. *Before* _any_ command was given, we see the *silent* turn-ignore, and when the nipping starts, a yelp ("Ouch!"). _Neither works_. The only thing that does work, eventually is "STOP" (whether the dog understands it or not) and the placement of hands on the dog. That is evident from the video. Now, we can agree this dog is probably carrying a host of bad baggage that has ingrained into him that bad behavior. But the fact remains, there, in living color: the "positive" or "take away" approach *did not work*. Correction ("STOP", hands on) was the only thing that marginally made a difference at that moment. And praise, too close to the offense, only promoted further bad behavior.

I'm sure we can all nit-pick the situation to death and point a number of things the person could improve on. Fact of the matter is, she handled that way better than most regular folks would when confronted with that scenario.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that the positive approach is where I want to be. My goal in a situation like that in the video would be to pivot from correction to a positive posture as soon as practically possible (once reward is sufficiently separated from misbehavior to not encourage it further). But man, getting pounded in the back because someone told me that "taking away" positively solves the jumping problem (boom!)--that just seems to fly in the face of common sense and personal safety.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> But man, getting pounded in the back because someone told me that "taking away" positively solves the jumping problem (boom!)--that just seems to fly in the face of common sense and personal safety.


There's your problem. Positive reinforcement based training doesn't work instantaneously. I'm not going to turn once and have my dog immediately stop jumping on me forever. 

However, it does work better in the sense that it provides long term results. My dog used to pull like crazy on leash. One or two sessions of +R based training didn't magically fix it. We worked on it consistently over a period of time and now the behaviour is basically non existent, without any further input required from me.

Corrections based training absolutely does provide immediate results in that moment. The dog is scared or startled or hurt into stopping -right then-. However, you will find that you keep having to employ those techniques every time, and the behaviours never really goes away (that's the best case scenario). Additionally, it bears the risk of unintended consequences. You dog becomes scared of you, hand shy, unwilling to offer behaviours, on the extreme end maybe even fearful, shutdown, or aggressive. (as mentioned by the woman in the video who owned the dog)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

The dog only stopped for like 3 seconds, because she was getting attention, which is what she wanted anyway. She started jumping again as soon as the owner let go of her. I don't see ANY effective training happening there, and that was confirmed by the owner in the comments (also that the only reason the owner "handled it better than regular people" is because they already tried hitting the dog and that only got her more amped up. Which is pretty normal). It definitely wasn't any sort of commentary on reward-based or non-force-based training because there was NO training going on, and with the owner flailing and yelling no there certainly were no rewards (besides getting the attention she wanted) and lots of (attempted) force.

I don't think any effective trainer would suggest ONLY ignoring the dog. That's pretty useless. The dog learns nothing from that, except that jumping doesn't get them attention (even hitting the dog would be reinforcing if the dog just wants attention. Negative attention is still attention). An effective trainer, after ignoring the dog long enough for the dog to get off them, would redirect the dog into something more desirable, then reward when the dog does that thing instead of jumping. That's what teaches the dog a better behavior. 

I guess I don't know why you would choose that video to hold up as an example of, well, anything, except maybe how to unintentionally reinforce unwanted behaviors.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Lillith said:


> This experiment is highly controlled, and it is difficult to replicate real-life situations with something that was conducted in a controlled environment. And they only tested fear and disgust (although disgust can be because they were smelling sweaty pads, soooo) Like I stated in my previous post, scent can be masked and distorted by perfume, deodorant, other scents floating around. It is uncertain at best. Body language is concrete.


I will agree that body language helps project your mood. In conjunction with tone of voice, etc., you can get your point across. But don't underestimate a dog's scent ability. 85x more powerful than humans, and with an ability to differentiate one scent from another with high fidelity, they are not so easily confused by perfume. For example, is it body language or body language that helps a dog predict an epileptic seizure in a person? Well, it might be "energy"... :rockon:


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> An effective trainer, after ignoring the dog long enough for the dog to get off them, would redirect the dog into something more desirable, then reward when the dog does that thing instead of jumping. That's what teaches the dog a better behavior.


Yes, this is an important part of it too. Along with ignoring for jumping you want to also be (as in, set up a training session to work on it) reinforcing 4 paws on the floor, or sit, or whatever you want your dog's greeting behaviour to be.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Willowy said:


> An effective trainer, after ignoring the dog long enough for the dog to get off them, would redirect the dog into something more desirable, then reward when the dog does that thing instead of jumping. That's what teaches the dog a better behavior.


Except when "ignoring the dog long enough" would result in personal harm, right? I get that none of this works instantaneously, but if patience means being knocked on the ground so the dog can chomp on me, that does not strike me as a tenable solution. I don't know this would have happened here, but pure withdrawal of attention didn't look like it was headed in the right direction. Things would have probably gone a lot better if after the dog stopped (OK, because it got attention), the human would have offered an alternative activity (other than jump and nip on me some more).



> I guess I don't know why you would choose that video to hold up as an example of, well, anything, except maybe how to unintentionally reinforce unwanted behaviors.


Well, if someone doesn't see it for a failed case of turn-ignore and yelp-when-nipped, I can't squint my way out of seeing that as anything other than willful, bias-entrenched disregard of rather obvious facts.

And at this point, I will stop participating in this thread, because I think we've crossed the line where folks are more interested in slamming the other person's point of view than in considering it with an open mind.

Perhaps those not interested in "shutting down" a dog should take a similar approach with humans.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Except when "ignoring the dog long enough" would result in personal harm, right? I get that none of this works instantaneously, but if patience means being knocked on the ground so the dog can chomp on me, that does not strike me as a tenable solution. I don't know this would have happened here, but pure withdrawal of attention didn't look like it was headed in the right direction. Things would have probably gone a lot better if after the dog stopped (OK, because it got attention), the human would have offered an alternative activity (other than jump and nip on me some more).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Other options for someone who isn't physically able to remain standing when a dog jumps on them would be to have the dog restrained on leash, or blocked by a barrier.

Willowy specifically said the withdrawal of attention would then be combined with teaching an alternate behaviour. It seems like you're the willfully ignoring one.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Yes, this is an important part of it too. Along with ignoring for jumping you want to also be (as in, set up a training session to work on it) reinforcing 4 paws on the floor, or sit, or whatever you want your dog's greeting behaviour to be.


Yep. 

You don't just let the dog continue to jump on you, you actively teach the dog what to do and reward it for that. Dog continues to do the thing that pays, which is ideally not jumping up on you but IS something better. I would also probably either step over a baby gate so the dog can't get to me or work with a leashed dog so I can move out of range when it tries so even the reward of jumping up (whee fun!) is removed along with active attention. Again: Not rocket science.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> I would also probably either step over a baby gate so the dog can't get to me or work with a leashed dog so I can move out of range when it tries so even the reward of jumping up (whee fun!) is removed along with active attention. Again: Not rocket science.


Get outta my head Cpt Jack.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Other options for someone who isn't physically able to remain standing when a dog jumps on them would be to have the dog restrained on leash, or blocked by a barrier.
> 
> Willowy specifically said the withdrawal of attention would then be combined with teaching an alternate behaviour. It seems like you're the willfully ignoring one.


Also seriously, I'm NGL. When the health and safety of human or dog are at risk, such as in rare cases (don't tell me they aren't) dealing with dogs big enough to be a serious problem to a healthy grown adult/can't be controlled by the adult at the end of their leash, I would probably use correction. Really, really, really, incredibly harsh, powerful, correction. That I would only have to use once, rather than 'nagging' with it. I would, in essence, go out of my way to make a lasting negative association in my dog and hope like heck the fallout wasn't that they decided new people/wanting to greet someone/me wasn't terrifying. To accomplish that, I'd probably use a professional because that crap is scary and intense and can go very, dangerously, wrong, fast.

You know how many times that happens? When you have a dog powerful enough to overcome an adult at the end of their leash so they can get to and jump on a child or elderly person (ie: can't be managed), or who are owned by someone who is frail enough that being jumped on themselves is dangerous? NOT. A. LOT. 




ireth0 said:


> Get outta my head Cpt Jack.


NO! I like it here!


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

And honestly? If you're pretty sure your dog is going to jump up on that frail/elderly/young child type person? Just... don't let them approach? If Luna is overexcited about guests I think she may jump on I just hold her until they get in the door. It's really not a difficult thing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If someone can't take the dog jumping on them, they can stop and pet the dog or take their collar and back them off or whatever. Even what the owner in the video did, which wasn't correction (because it didn't correct anything) and wasn't punishment (because it didn't make the dog less likely to jump). They just. . .held the dog's collar? The dog even liked it. I mean, that gives the dog attention so it'll slow down the process, but if they can't be jumped on, they should do something that gets the dog not to jump (something that's preferably not hitting or kicking the dog). But that's not training. That's management. You can't train when the dog is overexcited like that.

A video of a dog owner going *flail, smack, get off, no, off!* is not an example of failed positive methods. An example of the uselessness of flailing, yes .

I don't get the point of not arguing your point . Defending your position. That's the best part of forums!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> And honestly? If you're pretty sure your dog is going to jump up on that frail/elderly/young child type person? Just... don't let them approach? If Luna is overexcited about guests I think she may jump on I just hold her until they get in the door. It's really not a difficult thing.


Yeah, that's actually what makes it so rare because the dog's owner also has to be lacking the physical strength to manage the dog. Ie: To hold the dog to stop them from leaping. And it only applies like on the street since, lol, crates and closed doors are things! When it comes to guests.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> If someone can't take the dog jumping on them, they can stop and pet the dog or take their collar and back them off or whatever. I mean, that gives the dog attention so it'll slow down the process, but if they can't be jumped on, they should do something that gets the dog not to jump (something that's preferably not hitting or kicking the dog). But that's not training. That's management. You can't train when the dog is overexcited like that.
> 
> A video of a dog owner going *flail, smack, get off, no, off!* is not an example of failed positive methods. An example of the uselessness of flailing, yes .


Molly used to jump on my agility instructor hardcore. She handled it by crossing her arms, presenting her SIDE to the dog, ducking her head and waiting it out. Lady's like 100lbs soaking wet and maybe 5 feet tall. Took Molly about 3 class sessions to go "That... doesn't work." and then start sitting at her feet. And 'class sessions' as in Molly had about 3 minutes of interaction with the instructor per class, directly, and probably less than that with an opportunity to jump (ie: off leash).


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Except when "ignoring the dog long enough" would result in personal harm, right? I get that none of this works instantaneously, but if patience means being knocked on the ground so the dog can chomp on me, that does not strike me as a tenable solution. I don't know this would have happened here, but pure withdrawal of attention didn't look like it was headed in the right direction. Things would have probably gone a lot better if after the dog stopped (OK, because it got attention), the human would have offered an alternative activity (other than jump and nip on me some more).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See this is the frustrating thing. 

You're holding up this video as an example of why positive training doesn't work.

And we're all "but that video doesn't show positive training being applied/applied correctly, this is actually how you would do it"

But you still insist that this is why positive training isn't effective.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I could post links for days on positive methods working for this exact situation (jumping).

And the thing is, this isn't even a good example of using "no" or even harsh corrections, either! The dog was still jumping to the last frame of the video.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

If you actually are interested in learning how to stop jumping using positive methods, here is a good video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC_OKgQFgzw


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> . . .dealing with dogs big enough to be a serious problem to a healthy grown adult/can't be controlled by the adult at the end of their leash, I would probably use correction. Really, really, really, incredibly harsh, powerful, correction. That I would only have to use once, rather than 'nagging' with it. .


Does that even work with jumping, though? I've seen people kick their dogs across the room for jumping, just to have the dog come right back at them. Of course that would depend on the dog, and a professional ought to know the right way to handle it. . .but I don't think any aversive alone could work to end jumping. Training an alternate behavior is just the only way really.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> See this is the frustrating thing.
> 
> You're holding up this video as an example of why positive training doesn't work.
> 
> ...


That isn't even a training video, much less a positive one! The dog didn't learn a thing through the entire video!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Does that even work with jumping, though? I've seen people kick their dogs across the room for jumping, just to have the dog come right back at them. Of course that would depend on the dog, and a professional ought to know the right way to handle it. . .but I don't think any aversive alone could work to end jumping. Training an alternate behavior is just the only way really.


No, it absolutely can work. I've seen it work, I've made it work in my past. The timing is a bear because it has to be clear what they're being punished for, and that's HARD with jumping (because if it's too early ou've punished for them being on the ground, too late and the dog's punished after they've been up a while), but if the timing is right, absolutely. Something like kneeing/kicking/hitting isn't going to do it. You can't get the timing right with them. At best they're going to be a hair too late. I'm also not going to post how TO do it here for obvious reasons (including but not limited to: there are ways to achieve that without the risk and almost no one needs it RIGHT NOW to stop them from DYING), but it requires special equipment an assistant and (again) some really precise timing. And the confidence and willingness to REALLY go hard so you don't have to do it more than once. 

What you can't use punishment to do well at all is teach new behavior.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

CptJack said:


> That isn't even a training video, much less a positive one! The dog didn't learn a thing through the entire video!


I know! It's just a video of a frustrated dog owner saying "I've already tried smacking the crap out of my dog for jumping and she still does it! What should I doooo?!? *flail*" And they never did fix the problem. It's just. . .not training.

Also, FWIW, I don't see any "shutting down" or attacking happening. Asking someone to clarify their position, or pointing out the weaknesses in their argument, is not shutting them down.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

esuastegui said:


> Not so fast. *Before* _any_ command was given, we see the *silent* turn-ignore, and when the nipping starts, a yelp ("Ouch!"). _Neither works_. The only thing that does work, eventually is "STOP" (whether the dog understands it or not) and the placement of hands on the dog. That is evident from the video. Now, we can agree this dog is probably carrying a host of bad baggage that has ingrained into him that bad behavior. But the fact remains, there, in living color: the "positive" or "take away" approach *did not work*. Correction ("STOP", hands on) was the only thing that marginally made a difference at that moment. And praise, too close to the offense, only promoted further bad behavior.
> 
> I'm sure we can all nit-pick the situation to death and point a number of things the person could improve on. Fact of the matter is, she handled that way better than most regular folks would when confronted with that scenario.
> 
> Finally, I'd like to reiterate that the positive approach is where I want to be. My goal in a situation like that in the video would be to pivot from correction to a positive posture as soon as practically possible (once reward is sufficiently separated from misbehavior to not encourage it further). But man, getting pounded in the back because someone told me that "taking away" positively solves the jumping problem (boom!)--that just seems to fly in the face of common sense and personal safety.


She didn't "handle" it at all. She flailed around giving useless commands and amping the dog up. 

As the others have said (repeatedly), things like turn-ignore and yelping aren't like clicking the EASY button and having everything fall into place. They are training methods that have to be consistently applied; in that video, she's not applying any method (even a correction based on) consistently and correctly.

Basically, she's not intentionally training anything and is actually reinforcing the jumping.

Here's an example of training not to jump--


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Also seriously, I'm NGL. When the health and safety of human or dog are at risk, such as in rare cases (don't tell me they aren't) dealing with dogs big enough to be a serious problem to a healthy grown adult/can't be controlled by the adult at the end of their leash, I would probably use correction. Really, really, really, incredibly harsh, powerful, correction. That I would only have to use once, rather than 'nagging' with it. I would, in essence, go out of my way to make a lasting negative association in my dog and hope like heck the fallout wasn't that they decided new people/wanting to greet someone/me wasn't terrifying. To accomplish that, I'd probably use a professional because that crap is scary and intense and can go very, dangerously, wrong, fast.
> 
> You know how many times that happens? When you have a dog powerful enough to overcome an adult at the end of their leash so they can get to and jump on a child or elderly person (ie: can't be managed), or who are owned by someone who is frail enough that being jumped on themselves is dangerous? NOT. A. LOT.


I'd probably argue that if an adult owns a dog powerful enough that they can't be controlled on a leash and the dog poses a danger, they either shouldn't have the dog in public, or they shouldn't have the dog period. And if a person is frail enough that the dog poses a danger to them, then they shouldn't own that dog.

I'm not a big fan of corrections, even one time, harsh, powerful ones. If given a one time, harsh, powerful correction, Titan would shut down. So would Zephyr. It would cause permanent trauma. So I hope that anyone who was using that method (and I'm sure this applies to you, CptJack), would first gauge the mental fortitude of the dog in question and whether the dog could stand up to that type of training.

I've worked with a lot of big dogs. And several big aggressive dogs. I've never run into a situation where hard work, distance counter conditioning and lots of praise and tons of close management would be trumped by a one time really harsh, powerful correction. I'm not saying that situation doesn't exist, of course, but I'd be really hard pressed to say that I'd rather harshly correct one time versus spend years cc-ing, no matter what I was up against.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> I'd probably argue that if an adult owns a dog powerful enough that they can't be controlled on a leash and the dog poses a danger, they either shouldn't have the dog in public, or they shouldn't have the dog period. And if a person is frail enough that the dog poses a danger to them, then they shouldn't own that dog.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of corrections, even one time, harsh, powerful ones. If given a one time, harsh, powerful correction, Titan would shut down. So would Zephyr. It would cause permanent trauma. So I hope that anyone who was using that method (and I'm sure this applies to you, CptJack), would first gauge the mental fortitude of the dog in question and whether the dog could stand up to that type of training.
> 
> I've worked with a lot of big dogs. And several big aggressive dogs. I've never run into a situation where hard work, distance counter conditioning and lots of praise and tons of close management would be trumped by a one time really harsh, powerful correction. I'm not saying that situation doesn't exist, of course, but I'd be really hard pressed to say that I'd rather harshly correct one time versus spend years cc-ing, no matter what I was up against.


Well, in that case I shouldn't own Thud. Because walking him was necessary (if nothing else to the vet and to get him to the car to get him anywhere else). As was walking him down 3 flights of wooden stairs in winter, sub-freezing conditions, and he absolutely could and nearly had pulled me down on my face. Risking my neck, him being lose to play in the street, and a car accident when he chased that bunny off into said street (because he didn't pull on leash, he leash LUNGED - randomly, at stimulus I could not control and random directions). Did I use a prong? You bet. Do I feel bad? Nope. 

In theory, I could have worked with him for an indefinite period of time and dealt with the issue. In the real world he had a behavioral issue that needed fixed NOW, for his safety, my safety, and the safety of others. Positive WOULD have worked there *eventually*, but possibly not before I'd broken something, he'd been hit by a car, or caused a car accident. Prong was a lazy, but instant, fix. Rehoming him for that? Pft, please. No one wanted this dog and even if they had we had one issue, not a dozen and it was fixable. I fixed it.

Would I ever advise that on a forum? No. I don't know the dog's temperament, the seriousness of the issue, whether it's fear motivated or the dog is soft and therefore how high the risk of fallout is. Get thee to a trainer who can evaluate hands on and provide help.

Will I ever recommend positive punishment to anyone as a training PHILOSOPHY/default? Oh heck no! Will it ever be mine? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 

Will I ever pretend there are situations that don't occur in the real world where the ideal positive solution isn't feasible for a variety of reasons? Nope. Positive punishment WORKS. There are situations where it's downright the safest and most humane thing you can do for your dog - I have had copperheads IN MY HOUSE. Know how I've avoided a snake bite? An e-collar cranked to high and creating a heck of an aversion to/fear of snakes, with some help from a professional. Can it be done positively? Apparently now it can, but there's question about how effective it is and it takes time. Time I'm not messing with while I have snakes that could kill them appearing in my yard and in my HOUSE. 

And re: the jumping/pulling/general thing: "Don't take the dog out in public!" isn't much of a solution. The vet is public. Training the dog requires public both for classes and being able to practice. Rehoming the dog? Not usually a great idea. For lots of reasons starting with 'how many people want a large mutt with behavioral issues' to "LIBABILITY". I'm sure as heck not going to fault someone for deciding to employ some positive punishment before rehoming. 

I just... For all my 'no no reward markers and cookie loving, peace loving, positive training soul, am never going to be in a position where I believe it is the answer for every problem with every single dog and owner pair face. MOST, absolutely, but not all. 

My line is when behavior risks the dog's life and safety or the life and safety and others.' And I'm never, ever, going to be someone saying 'then just never take your dog in public' (that is, IMO, a major drop in quality of life for the dog and just not practical). I will never suggest rehoming for a single behavioral issue that is dangerous but not a global misfit between owner and dog. A trainer, yes, but not rehome.

That's me, and my conscious. Where yours falls is where yours falls.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> If someone can't take the dog jumping on them, they can stop and pet the dog or take their collar and back them off or whatever. Even what the owner in the video did, which wasn't correction (because it didn't correct anything) and wasn't punishment (because it didn't make the dog less likely to jump). They just. . .held the dog's collar? The dog even liked it.


According to the owner's comment on the video, grabbing the collar made the dog "more aggressive" and caused it to growl. So it didn't even work remotely.

Not that I think the dog is aggressive, probably play/arousal growling. But still.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Well, in that case I shouldn't own Thud. Because walking him was necessary (if nothing else to the vet and to get him to the car to get him anywhere else). As was walking him down 3 flights of wooden stairs in winter, sub-freezing conditions, and he absolutely could and nearly had pulled me down on my face. Risking my neck, him being lose to play in the street, and a car accident when he chased that bunny off into said street (because he didn't pull on leash, he leash LUNGED - randomly, at stimulus I could not control and random directions). Did I use a prong? You bet. Do I feel bad? Nope.
> 
> In theory, I could have worked with him for an indefinite period of time and dealt with the issue. In the real world he had a behavioral issue that needed fixed NOW, for his safety, my safety, and the safety of others. Positive WOULD have worked there *eventually*, but possibly not before I'd broken something, he'd been hit by a car, or caused a car accident. Prong was a lazy, but instant, fix. Rehoming him for that? Pft, please. No one wanted this dog and even if they had we had one issue, not a dozen and it was fixable. I fixed it.
> 
> ...


I think I was imagining a much harsher punishment than a prong collar. I have no problem with people who know how to use them using a well-fitted prong on a dog they know it's not going to traumatize in order to prevent seriously injury or a fatality to the dog or person. 

My experience with +P is that it just doesn't work. Maybe I was applying it incorrectly? I don't think so, now knowing what I do about training. Maybe I wasn't applying enough +P for the punishment to be significant enough to take hold? Maybe. 

It didn't work on Loki. It didn't work on Atlas. Because I was dealing with reactivity/aggression, and prey drive. +P made the reactivity/aggression worse, and certainly didn't help curb the prey drive. 

But yeah, I dunno what I was thinking, honestly, but I definitely wasn't thinking of leash corrections with a prong as the pinnacle of aversive punishments.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> I think I was imagining a much harsher punishment than a prong collar. I have no problem with people who know how to use them using a well-fitted prong on a dog they know it's not going to traumatize in order to prevent seriously injury or a fatality to the dog or person.
> 
> My experience with +P is that it just doesn't work. Maybe I was applying it incorrectly? I don't think so, now knowing what I do about training. Maybe I wasn't applying enough +P for the punishment to be significant enough to take hold? Maybe.
> 
> ...


God, having this discussion makes me feel kind of scummy, because I really *don't* love P+ in any regard, but.

Never, ever, with anything fear motivated. Never with anything where the dog is insanely aroused. Timing has to be dead on. 

And for me it is only useful in creating an aversion in the dog, which is why the risk of fallout is so freaking big and it had better be life or death and darned close to it. Thud with the prong wasn't such a big deal. I put it on, he saw a rabbit or squirrel, he tore off to the end of his leash in a lunge, the prong did it's thing, and that was the start of the end and positive training was able to come back in and teach him what I did want without risk of serious injury anywhere. 

But something like car chasing or snake aversion, or even a dedicated huge jumper in a house with a frail old lady and stairs or (I don't know) what have you? It's one *BRUTAL* correction. There's no sugar coating that, but it is once, it is the e-collar cranked (re: snakes) or the prong yanked hard and the dogs screaming bloody murder so that they BECOME afraid of the thing and doing the thing. Less than that and you risk having hurt your dog for nothing, or even made the dog want the thing and being more prepared to work harder to get it. 

And... that's something people don't recognize about a lot of P+ When you're trying to stop behavior your goal is ultimately to make your dog afraid and then hope like HECK you made them afraid of the right thing. That's why it SHOULD, IMO, only be used for the life and death stuff when there's no time to do it 'right'. Those situations are, thank god, really rare. Really, really, REALLY rare. 

Because it sucks and it makes me feel gross.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

Honestly as long as you're consistent most dogs will figure out what you want regardless of what method you use. The problem with dominance theory is it misattributes a lot of friendly-but-inappropriate behaviors as dominance when really they're just attention-seeking or the results of a dog being overstimulated/understimulated. 

You can train dogs with correction-based methods and some dogs really do better with them but for most stable dogs reward-based with occasional corrections (of the letting the cat swat the dog variety) mixed in is fine. Reward-based isn't viable for every dog as some dogs really don't care about any motivator you could offer (my husky was like that). Correction-based methods don't work on every dog either because some dogs really don't care about any correction you could make (also my husky!). 

Just training your dog as if you're playing with them can work pretty well for a lot of dogs. And you don't *need* rewards for that because getting to keep playing the game is the reward. I'd bet most people use this method without realizing it. (the lady in the video)


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

esuastegui said:


> I will agree that body language helps project your mood. In conjunction with tone of voice, etc., you can get your point across. But don't underestimate a dog's scent ability. 85x more powerful than humans, and with an ability to differentiate one scent from another with high fidelity, they are not so easily confused by perfume. For example, is it body language or body language that helps a dog predict an epileptic seizure in a person? Well, it might be "energy"... :rockon:


I don't understand what this has to do with dog training. How do dogs sniffing out cancer and epilepsy relate to using "energy" to train your dog? According to the article, only 15% of the dogs tested where able to predict seizures. Also, they don't know what exactly the dogs are responding to, as evidenced in this sentence: _At present, the mechanism is unknown. But some researchers speculate that the dog could be using subtle visual or olfactory cues that occur before a seizure._ Dogs have been known to be able to sniff out cancer, however, so perhaps you will want to check out articles relating to that, although typically they are smelling urine (prostate cancer) or skin lesions (melanoma), and there is a story floating around somewhere about a dog that discovered her owner's breast cancer. 

Is methods of training not what the original discussion was about, or have we drifted into a discussion about service dogs? Also, where is the article you were referring to about scents being a powerful indicator to dogs of our emotions?


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

esuastegui said:


> A related question I should have asked up front: does positive reinforcement/reward cover every scenario? From my perspective, the answer is rather obvious, and... negative.
> 
> Here's an article that ferrets out when positive reinforcement does not fully address a situation:
> 
> ...


Ok whoa. Stop right there. I would not be quoting "dogbreedinfo" as some sort of authority on anything related to training. They're basically worshippers of a reality TV star and make things up as they go along.

That "example" does not even demonstrate real positive reinforcement training. No one would consider that training. That's simply trying to keep a dog's attention on you. And it's not the situation to do it. If you want to train the "ignore other things focus on me behavior" you start small, where there are not people around and then slowly add distractions until you can put your dog in a down or sit and people can walk all over around them and they won't move a muscle. But a constant stream of talking to a dog is not training. 

I have the dog that can sit or lay down calmly at the vet's office and ignore other dogs coming by (well, the older one; the younger is a work in progress!). I trained it by teaching her to lay down and then adding the "three d's" (distance, duration, and distraction). Bouncing balls near her, running near her, asking her to do it in the park as kids ran by her, asking people to tempt her with tasty treats, etc. But that took time and actual training.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Training is different from managing a dog in the moment. I don't understand why people can't grasp this concept. People are always saying things like, "If your dog bolts and is about to run into the street, how's your cookie gonna help?" In that situation, it's probably not! But in that situation, _you are not training_. You are going to jump on that dog, or grab its leash (if it's dragging it) and yank it back, or do whatever else you have to do to stop the dog before it gets hurt or killed. Training, on the other hand, is done in controlled environments where your dog is in no danger of being hurt. It's about preventing "bad" or dangerous behaviors in the first place. Spend time training that solid recall, and then your dog may never bolt into the street.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> People are always saying things like, "If your dog bolts and is about to run into the street, how's your cookie gonna help?"


Haha, come back with "if your dog bolts and is about to run into the street, how's your choke chain gonna help?" 

If my best friend or my nephew or, idk, MY MOTHER was about to step in front of a semi, I'd totally yank 'em out of the way by their hair if necessary. But if you go yanking people's hair in less emergent circumstances, you're not going to be too popular .


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

Crantastic said:


> Training is different from managing a dog in the moment. I don't understand why people can't grasp this concept. People are always saying things like, "If your dog bolts and is about to run into the street, how's your cookie gonna help?" In that situation, it's probably not! But in that situation, _you are not training_. You are going to jump on that dog, or grab its leash (if it's dragging it) and yank it back, or do whatever else you have to do to stop the dog before it gets hurt or killed. Training, on the other hand, is done in controlled environments where your dog is in no danger of being hurt. It's about preventing "bad" or dangerous behaviors in the first place. Spend time training that solid recall, and then your dog may never bolt into the street.


THIS THIS THIS.

When I first got my older dog, I discovered she liked to herd trucks. How did I discover this? I was standing in the grass near the road with her on leash when a UPS truck started up and started to move. She bolted IN FRONT of the truck to stop it and you bet I yanked her back HARD. She yelped. She cowered. It was AWFUL.

It was also not training.

After that we worked on the issue. With real positive training. She no longer herds trucks.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

crysania said:


> THIS THIS THIS.
> 
> When I first got my older dog, I discovered she liked to herd trucks. How did I discover this? I was standing in the grass near the road with her on leash when a UPS truck started up and started to move. She bolted IN FRONT of the truck to stop it and you bet I yanked her back HARD. She yelped. She cowered. It was AWFUL.
> 
> ...


Ah, no. What you've described isn't training because it's in the moment, there's no inherent lesson and it's just keeping your dog immediately being squashed. If you set that scenario up and shocked her with an ecollar every time she took off after a truck? hat actually can be training if you do it deliberately to teach the dog something. It is no longer management if it teaches the dog. You can hate the method - I sure do, even when I'm using it with snakes avoidance - but it is still training.

Management is 'keeps the dog from having access to cars to prevent the issue from occurring in the first place'. Like putting the kitchen trash under the sink or crating to stop the dog having bathroom accidents or to stop them eating your woodwork. Or keeping them on a long line instead of teaching a recall.

Negative reinforcement that is structured in a way to make doing a thing have a negative/bad association and reduce the likelyhood of it happening is as much training as it is training to create a scenario to make doing something more likely via positive association.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

Ok not sure what your post had to do with mine but...I said it wasn't training. And a lot of people who use harsh punishments in training will point out that a "cookie" wouldn't have stopped her. Which it wouldn't. But it's also not a training moment and what is done in the middle of a crisis situation isn't training. Ever. 

And yes, we managed it after that until she was trained to not chase. After that it was all management for a time. 

But the person before me was talking about crisis situations and so I responded to those, not management situations.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Maybe CptJack misread your post, because yeah, we all agreed that that's not training! "Reacting in the moment" would probably have been a better way for me to phrase it, though, as "management" is used in a different context in dog training. That's my bad, but I think the meaning was still clear -- you do what you have to do in the middle of a bad or dangerous situation, but that's not training!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Maybe CptJack misread your post, because yeah, we all agreed that that's not training! "Reacting in the moment" would probably have been a better way for me to phrase it, though, as "management" is used in a different context in dog training. That's my bad, but I think the meaning was still clear -- you do what you have to do in the middle of a bad or dangerous situation, but that's not training!


I did misread, and I'm sorry for that. It wasn't the writing it was 100% me being mostly asleep.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

Ha! No worries. I read too much crap with my eyes half open and do the same thing more often than I'd care to admit.


----------

