# A little discussion about Positive Punishment



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

With a dog I had 10 years ago I decided to go to classes for the first time. This was after a few dogs, all well trained and really very good dogs. 

As part of that I studied the 4 quadrants of training/learning and went back to the Skinner rat box and some other things. In the end, I titled the dog in AKC obedience. I went to various R+ trainers and found out everyone interprets how to effectively use the quadrants to get a dog trained. I tried it all.. and just about ruined the dog in the process (mostly from ignorance on how to effecitvely use R+ and the non P+ quadrants and partly due to a lack of Pack Drive in this particular dog). 

Eventually I purchased another dog.. sired by a world class winner in the show ring (conformation) and this was my first IPO dog. Pretty dog, but not really cut out for IPO. Then end result is that I learned from her. Lessons that cannot be replaced.. she was difficult to engage as she was nervy and lacking in drive. She is a dog that worries and stresses over every little thing and a stern look or clearing your throat filled her with apologies. She was a good dog because she never ran out of TRY and I will always appreciate her for giving me all she had. It wasn't enough for an IPO 1, but giving me her best and all she had was simply fine. 

In comes dog #3 all working lines and sired by a world team dog and out of a solid and titles female line. I have her now. This dog doesn't much care if I clear my throat.. in fact, her idea of fun is to see how far she can push the boundaries. This is the dog that taught me that yes, indeed, positive punishment has its place and that you need to balance that with perfect timing and the dog's behavior. You also need to balance every correction with a Positive Reinforcement that is is three times greater than the correction. This is the dog that taught me about E-Collars. 

Now, in this sport there are trainers who will tell you that you teach the dog "how to" do a thing, like Sit in response to a sitz command. Next you get them to "want to" do that behavior. Some dogs this is where it ends. You never have to go to the next phase, which is "have to" do the behavior. How to and want to is taught best using R+. The dog responds and attitude shows happiness (dogs exhibiting stress lose points in my chosen sport!). 

"Have to" introduces the P+ quadrant, which is the smallest quadrant in dog training because it is used rarely. P+ cannot be used before the dog TOTALLY understands "how to" and "want to" and the task being requested. _Most dog owners do not realize their dog does not have the behavior down pat. Most dog owners have not proofed behaviors in "how to" and "want to." _ THIS very fact removes use of P+ from their dog training tool box. P+ MUST be countered with a positive reinforcement (R+) three times greater than the P+. MOST dog owners do not emphasize enough the dog "getting it right!" 

When training a TASK, the only time P+ is effective is when the dog totally completely KNOWS the task being asked AND clearly has elected to NOT respond. Again, *most dog owners are not good enough at reading dogs to know when this is happening and are not good enough at timing to clearly convey a P+ and have it effective*.  

If P+ is the option that is right for the dog and right for the situation, it must be effective. Nagging teaches the dog to ignore the handler (like repeating a command cue with out a response from the dog). Nagging teaches the dog you are not fair. The correction should be meaningful and be given ONCE at exactly the right time. Timing is HUGE. 

*P+ should NEVER be used out of anger or frustration.* *NEVER.* P+ is a tool that needs the right handler, the right dog, the right situation, careful management, perfect timing and be used infrequently. If you must use P+ more than once or twice for the same behavior, you are doing it wrong.  STOP. Go back and retrain using R+.

Willy Nilly pounding on a dog that does not understand suffices to do one thing: Destroy your relationship with the dog. The dogs sees you as unfair and unclear. Dogs thrive on black and white. Nagging and pounding on the dog are grey and simply confuse the dog who is often trying but does not understand. 

P+ Correctly used to fairly establish boundaries can actually clarify the relationship with the dog and, in some dogs (usually solid, confident dogs) be absolutely necessary.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

Theres alot of people out there who dont believe any dog should be subjected to any form of force or punishment. Had a discussion recently on another forum about this very topic. It was interesting but the thread was hard to read. I started the thread asking the positive only crowd about the philosophy of it and such. I was genuinely interested in what they had to say since I do believe truth can be found everywhere. In what I was reading, the argument against corrections and punishment starts to fall apart when you have a dog that wants to do what it wants to do more than anything you can offer to motivate it to do otherwise. I do use corrections, but I dont do sport or anything, so my corrections are pretty much limited to when I'm telling him to do something he's proven he knows how to do, but blatantly blows me off. The dog I have now is very biddable and a pleasure to train. But he's also pushy, confident, and strong willed...... There are the occasional times where a good correction is needed, he recovers almost instantly, gets rewarded for doing right, and life moves on. There are some things that would just take waaaaaay to long to sort out without the use of corrections. But if he were an easy going dog that didnt need the strict obedience for his own, and others safety, and I was able to indulge in taking a longer time to get that solid obedience, then by all means I'd do without punishment. But so far I havent owned a single gsd that I was able to get where I wanted to be without the use of some level of force or punishment. I guess for me, the idea of not having to use it sounds great. But either I'm just not good enough with my gsds to do that, or with some dogs its just not possible. I know I'm no great dog trainer, but after owning several gsds, none of which were ASL, and a couple dogs of a big powerful guarding breed, I tend to lean towards the opinion that some dogs need to be corrected at times. 
I've made a ton of training mistakes in the past, and I still do, but the dogs we've owned didnt seem to suffer for it. No mistakes were so bad they couldnt be undone fairly easily. This probably had more to do with the dogs temperament and genetics than my training ability. 
As far as certain training tools and collars....I would think that if my dogs were so terrorized and abused by them, they wouldnt get so excited when they see them come out. One collar in particular gets my current dog literally bouncing with excitement when he sees it in my hand. He sits happily, ears up, tongue hanging, bodily posture confident, and waits politely while I put it on him. Without being told to. 
I think any tool can be abused, I personally see more potential for bodily harm in a head halter than a prong collar, but I could be wrong in that opinion. 
I think your assessment of things is dead on the money and I cant disagree with anything youve said. 
You've titled your dogs, they obviously love what they do or you wouldnt have made it as far as you have, the proof is in the pudding. 
I put more faith in the opinions of someone who has walked the walk than in someone who just reads scientific studies and then sits at a computer and goes online to state their opinions as facts when they've never even successfully handled the kinds of dogs they're talking about. 
Its just different means of communication. No one method is going to work for every dog out there. Show me 99 dogs who do just fine with no corrections, and motivation only, theres still going to be that 1 dog who doesnt give a crap what you say, hes got his own ideas. And there is where that small piece of the quadrant comes in.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Interesting response and very clear as well.
Thank you for your personal insight.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Ian Dunbar has said this, in a succinct list, ages ago.

Good on you and your competition world. I still stand by the fact that a deliberate correction phase or P+ phase is not necessary for most pet owners out there. I wager it is not necessary with most dogs in competition either (looking at Fenzi, Garrett, Romanik, and many others). But I will speak to the world that I know most about. 

Also, I acknowledge that most people (including me) will use P+ at some point. The "HEY!" I shout out of frustration when I'm not thinking straight enough. When I accidentally step on the leash and 'leash pop' my dog unintentionally. When (despite building a foundation with R+) I misjudge and my dog runs in front of the bike, gets hit, and then learns not to. And many other examples. 

I would rephrase the idea that "some dogs need to be corrected" and instead replace it with a lengthier but more thorough phrase, "*some people would rather use corrections than find the time and motivation needed to achieve the same goal with R+ and P-*". Some goals are faster achieved with P+, I'll give you that. Some dogs are not damaged with some P+, I'll give you that. But to say that it is outright IMPOSSIBLE to achieve certain results, with some dogs, without P+... Well, of course not, with that kind of attitude 

I want to emphasize that most dog owners out there are pet owners. I have met PLENTY of dogs who, mentally and physically, could probably take a correction to extinguish an unwanted behavior like nipping, jumping, etc. But why the heck would I ever suggest that or try that with an owner who already has imperfect timing, who already jumps to corrections without reinforcing often enough, and does not have a solid understanding of basic training theory? And why would I suggest that when R+ and P- would also give them the results just fine, albeit maybe taking a little longer? 

Lastly, the way this whole thing will be interpreted by the average pet owner, who isn't even versed in basic dog body language, is people will start justifying their corrections. "Oh, my maltipoo definitely falls into this category! She is so strong willed and dominant, definitely the kind of dog who needs just a few corrections..." You know what I mean? Most people start out already wanting to use corrections. I appreciate this philosophical debate and I have no reason to believe that 3GSD is not a good trainer, based on objective proof that she has titled dogs with good scores and shows an understanding of learning theory. But really, (and maybe it's because I teach), most people still need to grasp 'how to use R+ effectively' before even considering this discussion.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Great insight from a great trainer: http://lauraromanik.com/my-training-evolution.html
http://lauraromanik.com/training-philosophy.html

I love this quote and it speaks to me: " I never realized how much I was hurting my goals by associating the skills with the stress of compulsion, nor how powerful positive reinforcement can be, until I stopped viewing aversives as anything but a last resort and a sign of weakness in my skills as a trainer. "

She is not being evangelical, not demonizing P+. But shifting her perspective from "needs corrections" to what she wrote above, made her a better trainer and opened up a world of possibilities. I fully agree with that.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

Canyx said:


> Ian Dunbar has said this, in a succinct list, ages ago.
> 
> Good on you and your competition world. I still stand by the fact that a deliberate correction phase or P+ phase is not necessary for most pet owners out there. I wager it is not necessary with most dogs in competition either (looking at Fenzi, Garrett, Romanik, and many others). But I will speak to the world that I know most about.
> 
> ...


I agree. There are experienced people out there like 3GSD who know how to effectively use corrections and know how to evaluate the dog in front of them, but 90% of dog owners out there can't. Most of them would never ever need to use corrections, anyway. I don't feel it is good advice when people give P+ training suggestions to new posters who clearly are not experienced with dog training, based on their questions about 'aggressive 3 month old puppy is biting me' or 'my herding breed dog is nipping at my heels' that are very normal and aspects of dog ownership, which would lead me to believe they may be brand new to the whole thing and probably have no idea how to time a correction, or how to evaluate their dog. (We've all been there, no shame.)

I also feel that P+ is not something that should be learned over the internet from a bunch of strangers...If I read instructions or watch a video on how to teach my dog something using R+, I give my dog a treat at the wrong time and he learns something he wasn't supposed to, but he's still happy about it and I can fix it fairly easily (I've done this, lol). If I mess up instructions for P+, my dog will learn something he wasn't supposed to, probably be scared about it, and it will take a long time to fix. I've done this too (Not with Ralphie, a previous dog) because I messed up a correction and then the dog was scared of leashes. It sat with me in a bad way, and I still think about it. I read about how to train a dog to loose leash walk using P+, mostly, and that's what it got me because I messed it up, and the dog I was teaching probably was not a dog that could handle corrections well, anyway. I was an inexperienced 16 year old kid who had been around dogs for my entire life, and I still messed it up. Most dog owners are probably just like that 16 year old me!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't believe most dogs are harmed, much less damaged by punishment - even harsh punishment. Heck, in some situations I even think it's the most appropriate (and kindest) decision that can be made - because one well time correction (a harsh one) can keep the dog safe and eliminate a longer, more stressful, process. I absolutely agree that 'purely positive' is a situation that cannot and does not and should not exist outside hypothetical thought situations because life.

I believe advising it online is irresponsible in the extreme.

I do think that anyone who believes it is a necessary part of the training process for any dog, much less every dog, is about as bright as a box of rocks and SERIOUSLY lacks training skills. PARTICULARLY when they're using a game they play with a dog as justification for it - and, yes, that includes IPO and obedience. It's still just a game you choose to play with the dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Oh, and no. 

It is most decidedly not a necessary part of the competition world. There are a few, shrinking, areas (sports) where positive punishment is still part of the competition CULTURE, but that has got not a thing to do with how necessary it is to effectively train the dog for competition.

If you are regularly using, and dependent upon, positive punishment to get competition behavior either you're a bad trainer who only knows how to use one training method and by god you're going to use that one, you are a fundamentally lazy trainer and if you recognize that you're using it because it's faster and easier for you, whatever man, we're all lazy sometimes, or you are trying to make a dog do a sport for which it is completely ill suited.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

If you read the original discussion (which it seems some of the comments indicate they did not) I have stated very clearly that P+ is a small quadrant of training and most pet dog people and quite a few people who have been in competition dog sports for years, do not have the skill or knowledge to effectively use. I even bolded it but will repeat is here "*most dog owners are not good enough at reading dogs to know when this is happening and are not good enough at timing to clearly convey a P+ and have it effective.* "

I am not one to try to control the behaviors of others out of fear they will take written words from me and use them incorrectly. There exist many (better known!) trainers/sources out there on the internet and in books on the use of P+ that go far and away beyond this academic discussion of the subject!!! 

To ignore and "be afraid" (really? fear?) to discuss an entire quadrant of training/learning seems a bit odd... like trying to control all outcomes by limiting knowledge or any possible thoughts!


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> Oh, and no.
> 
> It is most decidedly not a necessary part of the competition world. There are a few, shrinking, areas (sports) where positive punishment is still part of the competition CULTURE, but that has got not a thing to do with how necessary it is to effectively train the dog for competition.
> 
> If you are regularly using, and dependent upon, positive punishment to get competition behavior either you're a bad trainer who only knows how to use one training method and by god you're going to use that one, you are a fundamentally lazy trainer and if you recognize that you're using it because it's faster and easier for you, whatever man, we're all lazy sometimes, or you are trying to make a dog do a sport for which it is completely ill suited.


Did you read the post? I think not (or at least not with an open mind)! "Regularly use and dependent on Positive Punishment..." WHERE was that stated? 

I discussed four dogs. Two were not candidates for P+ and that was stated. 

You need to "read the dog" and most people cannot do that (this was also stated).


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

Peoples attitudes towards this are the same as anything else that has a percieved dangerous side to the coin....... Some people feel the need to protect others from themselves....since they believe other people arent capable enough. Short changing people in otherwords. I personally would rather see +p presented as just another tool in the box for people to educate themselves on, rather than just sweep a good tool under the rug, because some people believe that the majority arent capable human beings. 
Good lord, you can find instructions for building bombs on the internet, but we need to just do away with any open discussion on +p??
The bottom line to me is education. Just like anything else, people are going to use punishment and corrections with their dogs. Its not going away. 
So which is better, sweeping it under the rug, saying its something that shouldnt be done and closing down any conversation, making it harder for people to educate themselves on the proper use of something they're going to do anyway, or have open discussions and just accept that people need to be educated and actually try to help them. 
The war on drugs. Same type thing, and we see how well thats worked out....
Underage sex. Same type thing. Trying to just do away with it didnt work so well either. 
The list goes on and on. 
What next we make prong collars illegal like so many people would like to see? Then we make crates illegal because some people misuse them, keep their dogs locked up too often? Its already happened in certain places. 
Im going to say this, and then I'm done- go on some of the working dog forums where the use of +p and how to properly apply it is openly discussed.....and you'll see a forum full of people who have far far far less issues with their dogs than on the forums where it is not openly discussed. 
No offense meant to anyone, just giving my personal, limited experience opinion


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Eh, prongs and crating are already illegal in parts of the world. Not something I'd like to see happen in the US, but it doesn't hurt my feelings (and I have and occasionally use a prong - and am far from purely positive or thinking aversives in training are terrible). 

For me, there is nothing wrong with saying 'if you need to do this you need a professional'. You give advice about how to use management or rewards that's either not expressed clearly, or misunderstood, or not 'quite right' because of missing detail, misunderstanding (either on the part of the person presenting the problem or of the person reading it), or the owner's handling, timing, understanding, or skill level is just not good and you get slightly more ingrained issues or (if they really go overboard) a fat dog. Your advice involves pain or physical manipulation someone can gets hurt.

There ARE REASONS that dog trainers do NOT train 'blind' and at minimal want video before giving advice and, likewise, reasons like even the very, very, good balanced trainers (like Ellis) will absolutely not use punishment or corrections on all dogs. Not even all dogs with the same behavioral problem. Because some dogs? Will learn. Some will come back at the owner harder. Some will shut down, freak out, and/lose all desire to work and trust. Dogs are not universally the same and I, at least, can't tell which kind of dog a poster has based on some words on a screen.

And these are well proven professionals, not a bunch of yahoos screwing around a dog forum.

(And as an aside: Hang out on any forum where people are actively competing or working with dogs regularly and the number of issues drops almost zero, regardless of method. Including those places where suggesting positive punishment is straight up taboo. That is nature of actually TRAINING the dog and working it - as opposed to a novice pet owner or just pet owner who just wants the dog not to pee in the house and to stop eating garbage - not the function of method used to do it.)


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

I find it interesting the number of people who go to Ellis (and I have used some of his ideas too because I am interested in getting the dog to do what I want). One thing I cannot find on Ellis are titles on dogs. I don't think he has actually titled a dog. 

This does not make him a bad trainer, but when you go to title a dog there are nuances you miss if you have never stepped on the trial field and titled a dog. He makes money training dogs much like Parelli training horses. When you are getting ready to trial at higher levels I can tell you from experience, you want trainers eyes on you and the dog as a team from someone who has walked that walk. It's a points game.. so you train to maximize your points and minimize battles trying to get something "perfect" that has low point value. That is the competitor thinking! 

When training you can no longer (as in the old days) "crank on the dog." This creates conflict and conflict creates uncertainty and uncertainty comes out as stress. You can drop an entire category or even be excused if your dog shows stress on the trial field. Such things as a dog that is in a long down putting his head down between his paws. That is interpreted by the judge as stress (even if the dog naturally does this and always has). You have to teach the dog to keep his head up and do the down in a sphinx position and be happy about it. When it is 95 degrees out, and your dog is in the long down first, he has to look at the end of 10 minutes as happy as he did at the beginning of that 10 minutes. Then he has to do his routine and be happy and show energy and positive attitude. This takes a tough dog with a ton of drive!! You cannot get that by hammering it into the dog. This is WHY P+ is a small quadrant and managing P+ is so important. 

OTOH if you have that dog.. with the drive and power and desire.. there is likely a day in that dog's life where you are going to have that "have to" discussion. 
All of the quadrants of training are used for these high drive dogs. Most of it is rewarding to the dog. Sometimes, a dog in drive will NOT listen. He or She gets out there and it can be like "WOO HOO! I am gonna do what I want to!" and then you have an issue. You cannot squash the dog's drive, but you need obedience. This is where P+ comes into play. The instant the dog complies he HAS to be rewarded and you can see the light bulb come on. Dog is like, "Ohhh.. NOW I get it.. if I do X then I get Y and I REALLY want Y so I will do X!!" The result is clarity and the dog truly is happy to have that.


----------



## Kaber (Dec 11, 2017)

I'm just curious why you decided to pursue IPO with an ASL ? Not saying that it can't be done but the odds are not in your favor.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Pardon the interruption, but getting back to this for a moment. 



3GSD4IPO said:


> When training a TASK, the only time P+ is effective is when the dog totally completely KNOWS the task being asked AND clearly has elected to NOT respond.


When one of my dogs blows off a command or behaviour that I believe he fully knows and understands, I IMMEDIATELY STEP BACK and assess the situation calmly, slowly, thoughtfully, and in detail. First, I'll consider if there is a medical or physical reason for the refusal. Just for example, when practicing Retrieve Over High Jump, dog goes over jump, but "refuses" to pick up dumbbell. It would be easy enough to quickly conclude the dog 'knows this' and apply a correction. But what if the dog has broken a tooth recently, and that's the reason for refusal. What if, the dog has suffered acute pain in his shoulder on the way over and it hurts too much to jump back. What if, the ring is set up in such a way that the direction of the ribs in the rubber mats are not providing adequate traction for my dog. Well, I guess I could kiss his fair say goodbye with one foolish assumption and a hasty correction. Not to mention doing a tremendous disservice to my dog, by way of negligence in varying degrees. But. These are the things that MUST be considered, first and foremost, and there's no possibility they can be ascertained in the micro-second between refusal and immediate or timely correction. The way I train, my dog has a say in _everything_. Assuming the dog "knows the task" and thereby resorting to a correction in haste can be just plain selfish, regardless of whether one's anger is internalized or suppressed. It's certainly not allowing a dog to have their fair say.

Aside form that. I tend to accept full responsibility for all training failures myself, rather than push any blame onto the dog, which is exactly what occurs when you correct or punish. Chances are extremely high that virtually all refusals stem from either .. 1) I* haven't created a strong enough reinforcement history and / or 2) I* haven't proofed the behaviour sufficiently. Those are the two major culprits, in my experience. And those are two issues that fall squarely onto my shoulders and mine alone. 

*Note my use of the term "I", not she he or even we.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> Aside form that. I tend to accept full responsibility for all training failures myself, rather than push any blame onto the dog, which is exactly what occurs when you correct or punish. Chances are extremely high that virtually all refusals stem from either .. 1) I* haven't created a strong enough reinforcement history and / or 2) I* haven't proofed the behaviour sufficiently. Those are the two major culprits, in my experience. And those are two issues that fall squarely onto my shoulders and mine alone.
> 
> *Note my use of the term "I", not she he or even we.



Yep, and this is by far the most common 'attitude' in agility - where performances must not only be correct and precise but happy (you do NOT want to make a dog careful in agility). And I know, personally, quite a few dogs who HAVE "refused" to do things wherein the fundamental problem was physical. Check that, respect the dog, look at your handling, look at the environment, and then back up and train it. You correct, particularly in agility, and create caution around an obstacle or behavior, and the dog's doing it because it has no say? Your performance tanks. 

And I fail to understand the appeal of working with a dog who is not happy.

I think that anyone who claims that you can't do without punishment in a performance dog needs to sit down and look at agility very objectively and think. Surely, to goodness, if I can get speed, precision, independence, impulse control, rapid responses, in behavioral chains often 40 behaviors long, without applying a correction, surely for the love of god it is not some necessary part of learning and training.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I find it interesting the number of people who go to Ellis (and I have used some of his ideas too because I am interested in getting the dog to do what I want). One thing I cannot find on Ellis are titles on dogs. I don't think he has actually titled a dog.
> 
> This does not make him a bad trainer, but when you go to title a dog there are nuances you miss if you have never stepped on the trial field and titled a dog. He makes money training dogs much like Parelli training horses. When you are getting ready to trial at higher levels I can tell you from experience, you want trainers eyes on you and the dog as a team from someone who has walked that walk. It's a points game.. so you train to maximize your points and minimize battles trying to get something "perfect" that has low point value. That is the competitor thinking!
> 
> ...


Ellis has titles. His personal competition dog (Pi) got his MR 3 in 2010. http://loupsdusoleil.com/our-dogs/pi/

Pi's father (Fiest) was MR 3, SchH 3, and FR 3, but I don't know if he was trained by Lisa Maze or Michael Ellis. 

I am pretty sure Ellis has titles in Schutzhund as well. I don't think ME competes anymore though.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> Theres alot of people out there who dont believe any dog should be subjected to any form of force or punishment. Had a discussion recently on another forum about this very topic. It was interesting but the thread was hard to read. I started the thread asking the positive only crowd about the philosophy of it and such. I was genuinely interested in what they had to say since I do believe truth can be found everywhere. In what I was reading, the argument against corrections and punishment starts to fall apart when you have a dog that wants to do what it wants to do more than anything you can offer to motivate it to do otherwise. I do use corrections, but I dont do sport or anything, so my corrections are pretty much limited to when I'm telling him to do something he's proven he knows how to do, but blatantly blows me off. The dog I have now is very biddable and a pleasure to train. But he's also pushy, confident, and strong willed...... There are the occasional times where a good correction is needed, he recovers almost instantly, gets rewarded for doing right, and life moves on. There are some things that would just take waaaaaay to long to sort out without the use of corrections. But if he were an easy going dog that didnt need the strict obedience for his own, and others safety, and I was able to indulge in taking a longer time to get that solid obedience, then by all means I'd do without punishment. But so far I havent owned a single gsd that I was able to get where I wanted to be without the use of some level of force or punishment. I guess for me, the idea of not having to use it sounds great. But either I'm just not good enough with my gsds to do that, or with some dogs its just not possible. I know I'm no great dog trainer, but after owning several gsds, none of which were ASL, and a couple dogs of a big powerful guarding breed, I tend to lean towards the opinion that some dogs need to be corrected at times.
> I've made a ton of training mistakes in the past, and I still do, but the dogs we've owned didnt seem to suffer for it. No mistakes were so bad they couldnt be undone fairly easily. This probably had more to do with the dogs temperament and genetics than my training ability.
> As far as certain training tools and collars....I would think that if my dogs were so terrorized and abused by them, they wouldnt get so excited when they see them come out. One collar in particular gets my current dog literally bouncing with excitement when he sees it in my hand. He sits happily, ears up, tongue hanging, bodily posture confident, and waits politely while I put it on him. Without being told to.
> I think any tool can be abused, I personally see more potential for bodily harm in a head halter than a prong collar, but I could be wrong in that opinion.
> ...


LOL, I think I know which threat/forum you are talking about.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Who is refusing to discuss P+? I think no one is trying to shove it under a rug here.

3GSD, I agree with most of your OP except for...


3GSD4IPO said:


> "Have to" introduces the P+ quadrant


Somewhat agree. Yes, you can use P+. But P- will also work. And with enough R+ for some dogs, the "want to" is strong enough, as you've stated.



3GSD4IPO said:


> and, in some dogs (usually solid, confident dogs) be absolutely necessary.


I would have agreed with "be effective without being detrimental to relationship or performance"
I do not agree with "absolutely necessary."



3GSD4IPO said:


> The correction should be meaningful and be given ONCE at exactly the right time.


I totally agree. Except.... Where are these balanced trainers who correct once for a behavior and then don't need the prong/e-collar/correction again? If this truly was how P+ works, P+ trainers would all eventually become trainers who no longer use P+. Yet, here we are. There is always something to correct, isn't there? There is always those missing points...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm just going to leave this here.

https://denisefenzi.com/2015/12/28/have-to-vs-want-to/

And, well, also this:
Quote from the comments (by Denise - referencing, in part, the fact that you're taking neither cookies nor the ability to correct into the ring with you)



> The better your training, the better it will hold up. Train how you wish – but the phrase “the dog has to understand that they have no choice…” that phrase makes no sense. They are beings who have a choice. The fear overwhelms them? I hear people say “Make them more afraid of you than of everything else”. The distractions overwhelm them? I hear “Make sure they know that getting distracted isn’t an option”
> 
> And all of that is meaningless. When you get in the ring, either your training holds up or it does not. At that point, your dog has a choice. Their emotions matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Thanks for the Fenzi article. I was trying to find hers too and didn't have the time to dig it out. I really, really like her style.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Kaber said:


> I'm just curious why you decided to pursue IPO with an ASL ? Not saying that it can't be done but the odds are not in your favor.


The dog I started with in IPO is WGSL and she was the dog I had. I asked my training group "should I get another dog?" and they said NO!! Learn from this one!! The group consisted of members who qualified multiple dogs to National Level and two were world qualifiers (alternate). I learned from watching them as well as from my dog. As one person said, "Learn to drive on the family sedan. After you learn to drive, then go get a sports car." Yes to that idea!!

The 3/4 ASL I had was AKC Ob with zero pack drive. She was a ride!! Tough to train because she was both smart and not driven! 

I respect Fenzi dog training and also the Naughty Dogge. I will say that mostly they have it right. You step on the field with no reward and no equipment and your training holds or it does not. Totally true! 

Interesting side note.. you can have training that is perfect. Then you step out on the field and there is a crowd watching and it can all come apart (and this is NOT where you need any "have to!!"). Your dog can do great at the club field, but when you go to a different club and a different decoy it can all come apart too. The level of stress you get in a trial is often not something you can repeat or show the dog (or yourself) in training. Again, stressful situations is not the time or place for P+ (usually). _SOMETIMES_ you can get an older, experienced trial wise dog that understands that in that situation you have no reward. THAT dog may suddenly decide, "Nope. Not tracking today because there is no reward" or "Nope, not doing a send away because there is no ball out there" or "Nope. I am having too much fun so I am not going to Out today!." This dog is the hardest one to "fix" and this is why it is important to train a LOT of places but trial not a lot (at least in IPO). 

AKC Ob is different and the dogs that OTCh and so forth are also different because they almost always need to find self reward in the work itself. Also, AKC jusdges do not typically hit you on points if the dog shows stress. I have seen dogs that lick lips, blink and show eye white through their entire AKC ob routine near their handler due to too much P+ and score high. That does not happen (at least not anymore) in IPO. 

IPO has three phases and a good dog usually finds self reward in some of it (or it would not work). I have a dog that has hunt drive over the top and will track for the sake of tracking (this is genetic). Her comfort in the blind for the bark and hold is very different and she finds that stressful and disconcerting. I can correct her on the track for a slow indication at an article and she still likes to track but I cannot EVER correct her for anything in the Bark n Hold or I will lose her there. This is where you need to know the dog and the dog's drives. 

As I said at the outset.. there are venues and dogs that never need to see P+ and there are (far more) owners who should never use P+ but to remove it entirely from a tool box is unreasonable. 

Sort of like a mechanic not having a 5/16ths socket in his tool box. He can live without it using adjustable wrenches or vise grips or water pump pliers.. but there are times when the dang 5/16ths socket is the best tool for the job at hand.


----------



## Kaber (Dec 11, 2017)

3GSD4IPO said:


> The dog I started with in IPO is WGSL and she was the dog I had.


WGSL makes sense. I was just thinking because you mentioned the dog's sire was a conformation world champion I was thinking an ASL. Lots of WGSLs do well in schutzhund/IPO obviously but the only conformation champ I know of that was a VA, SCHH3 and Sieger to compete in a conventional conformation show was Zamp at Crufts and took best of breed I believe. Zamp's blood is all over the place, 30K plus descendants in first three generations.

As far as the original topic regarding operant conditioning, I believe it's hard to use the same percentages of "ingredients" with any two dogs generally. My current GSD is incredibly hard when it comes to physical correction but a cupcake when it comes to my verbal and attitudinal corrections, a combination I have never dealt with before, so it's all a new adventure at times.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> _SOMETIMES_ you can get an older, experienced trial wise dog that understands that in that situation you have no reward. THAT dog may suddenly decide, "Nope. Not tracking today because there is no reward" or "Nope, not doing a send away because there is no ball out there" or "Nope. I am having too much fun so I am not going to Out today!." This dog is the hardest one to "fix" and this is why it is important to train a LOT of places but trial not a lot (at least in IPO).


 Ring wise dogs can also refuse or fail to execute because they realize there's no possibility of punishment under trial conditions. And in my experience, a dog who's been trained with P+ is by far the hardest one to "fix" in ring wise situations. 

A P+ ring wise dog will require extensive rebuilding, if at all. Some if not most people might even consider such a dog to be simply DONE, like dinner. Those determined enough to take on the task will soon realize the road to recovery, ironically enough, involves abandoning punitive techniques altogether. And that can be a pretty tough row to hoe, if a person has become dependent on them during daily training.

Overcoming a reward-based issue is comparatively easy, by going back to square one and implementing a proper delayed gratification protocol. No biggie.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> Ring wise dogs can also refuse or fail to execute because they realize there's no possibility of punishment under trial conditions. And in my experience, a dog who's been trained with P+ is by far the hardest one to "fix" in ring wise situations.
> 
> A P+ ring wise dog will require extensive rebuilding, if at all. Some if not most people might even consider such a dog to be simply DONE, like dinner. Those determined enough to take on the task will soon realize the road to recovery, ironically enough, involves abandoning punitive techniques altogether. And that can be a pretty tough row to hoe, if a person has become dependent on them during daily training.
> 
> Overcoming a reward-based issue is comparatively easy, by going back to square one and implementing a proper delayed gratification protocol. No biggie.


 Bingo.

I mean I suspect the 'difficulty' or ease of fixing problem is down to the skill level of the trainer (and strengths and familiarity of method); someone who doesn't understand R+ is going to find fixing that near impossible (and not because it's actually hard. It's not. People -even very new people - 'fix' the situation all the time.

But the whole point is actually really - dogs are not complete freaking morons, they do realize there is a difference between being in the ring and being in practice and that while in the ring, in a trial, there is absolute no reward OR correction.

There is no 'have to' in trial - and the dogs KNOW IT, because of ALL the MANY differences between trial and practice or training. 

That said, I could take my two already competing dogs out and trial every single weekend - and at points of the year, we definitely do back to back weekends. I could probably pull off several days a week - because theY LIKE trials in spite of the delayed gratification aspect. Because a lot of reward history has been built up in the activity itself. 

Heck, I've FORGOTTEN to reward my dogs at ALL post run more than once thanks to something happening to interfere with no degradation in their enthusiasm or love of the game. I would eventually start seeing it, I've no doubt, but it'd take a bit.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

CptJack said:


> I do think that anyone who believes it is a necessary part of the training process for any dog, much less every dog, is about as bright as a box of rocks and SERIOUSLY lacks training skills. PARTICULARLY when they're using a game they play with a dog as justification for it - and, yes, that includes IPO and obedience. It's still just a game you choose to play with the dog.


Yes. It's one thing if you absolutely right now need the dog to stop putting itself or others at risk. And I leave the training of no-joke working dogs (e.g. guide dogs, real guard dogs, drug sniffers, etc.) to those professionals. But if someone's having to regularly use positive punishment (and I mean purposeful, substantial positive punishment, not the whole "Gotcha, you're not a positive trainer, because you accidentally tripped on your dog when it was underfoot, and occasionally take a harsh tone of voice!" type of technical-but-inevitable P+) to get a dog to basically do a series of tricks...I mean, it's time to consider you might need to improve your skills, and to ask yourself why it's so dang important to you that the dog do a series of tricks.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I want to add that there was a time when I was very concerned with what category of trainers I fell into, but I am not so hung up on the words anymore. Loosely speaking, I believe in positive reinforcement based training. Motivation based training. Reward based training. Whatever you want to call it. But "based" is the key word here. I believe in the concept of LIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive), and I think that is as realistic as it's gonna get.

I am not "purely positive" nor do I think that exists. I have never heard a credible trainer, or any trainer, call themselves that either, so I truly wonder who actually came up with that term. (really, please link me to the website of a "pure positive trainer" if you know one, just to show me they exist).

I am not "force free". I don't force dogs into positions and I train in a way that requires zero contact for my dogs to behave (unless it's a handling specific exercise). But I will, for example, firmly and gently lead a reactive dog away from a trigger (though in a perfect scenario that wouldn't be happening). I will step on a leash to prevent jumping. There is a fine line between forcing and preventing, I think. But either way, I am not allowing the dog to make the choice of jumping up. However, this is a last resort, real-life-situation-took-us-by-surprise thing. Not because it is horrible, but because it doesn't really teach anything. What actually happens in teaching a dog not to jump up is rewarding appropriate behaviors while gradually reducing distance of the stimulus and gradually increasing intensity/distraction. But my point is... It's grey. And I don't just jump to 'making' a dog do the thing I want immediately because that's not how training works. That's what real life necessitates, on rare occasions. But that's like .001% of what's happening with a dog.

I am not "correction free". I put Brae into a stay this morning and he shifted position. I went back to him and reset him using verbal cues. Brae went for Soro's toy during his turn (or vice versa) and I put him back where I wanted him to be. I do this verbally, but I have used collar grabs to lead them too (both dogs love collar grabs). Brae got overexcited and was not clear headed during a training exercise. I sent him to his crate and ignored him so that he could calm down. These are all corrections. What I don't do is I don't use aversive tools, actions, or intimidation to correct behavior. 

I am not "anti-aversive tools". Because I support the use of e-collars to train deaf dogs and I have no issue with the idea of using vibration or stim with dogs when it is conditioned as a marker or secondary reinforcer (which is what some e-collar trainers are doing these days). I think it's redundant and I am not going to do that, but I am not "anti" that. I don't see a purpose for prong collars or choke chains. Maybe I am lucky but I have never met a strong puller who couldn't be managed and trained in a timely manner with a good H-harness and/or head halter. And even then, it's a 'right tool, right dog, right training' situation. I don't like step-in harnesses or easy-walk harnesses even though they generally fall under the 'humane' category.

I am not "anti aversives" in general. In a pinch, for certain dogs/owners I have recommended things like bitter apple spray to stop leash chewing in that instant. Again, it's not my go-to and I do recommend positive training to permanently stop that issue over time. But that's in my tool kit. In play groups, I do carry a corrector spray or something just in case a bad fight breaks out. I personally have never had to use an aversive in play groups, my colleagues have. But the use is for safety and then separation of the dogs, not to 'teach' the dogs to coexist. And before any of that, I strive to make good matches based on history, size, body language, etc. so that the chances of fights are as low as possible.

I use "punishments". P- is firmly something I am comfortable with using. But again, R+ outweighs it. Some of the stuff I wrote above technically falls into P+.

I use "R-". Very, very rarely, but for example if my dog Soro (MY confident, no handling issues, dog-I-know-and-trust dog) happens to struggle a tiny bit for paw handling, in that moment I will hold that paw more firmly until he stops, then release. That is NOT how I approach handling in general though and after that I will back it up and reward more appropriate behaviors. This did not work at all with Brae and he was a dog I taught handling with virtually all R+. And R- is never something I show or recommend to clients' dogs because I don't know them as well nor can I guarantee the owners can make the right judgments and perform it safely. I have used R- for growly, fearful dogs. I never intend on pushing them that far to begin with, but if I happen to be passing by a fear-reactive dog's kennel and he is exploding at the door. I will stay there (depending on the dog) until he stops, then reward the calmer behavior with my departure. But really what should be happening is CC/DS to reduce fear, and therefore reactivity (back to R+).


Hey look, I wrote a novel again. But my point is, yes I call myself a positive trainer (and many like me do). But I use all the quadrants. As do people like 3GSD. But I get the feeling my training is drastically different than hers. I think the big difference is if you made a pie chart of how much of each quadrant is used, 'positive trainers' would have tiny, tiny slivers in the P+, R- area. And 'balanced' trainers would have more. Unfortunately, in my experience balanced trainers are not just trainers who simply believe in using all four quadrants. Everyone uses all 4 quadrants whether they like it or not, know it or not. But balanced trainers believe that P+ is crucial to successful training and the use of that quadrant is sooner and higher than I believe is necessary.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> But the whole point is actually really - dogs are not complete freaking morons


You have a way with words, and I appreciate you a lot


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> You have a way with words, and I appreciate you a lot


I have moments ;-)

My big realization through this whole conversation is that the method someone uses isn't a thing I actually care (much) about. If they appear to understand that dogs have personalities, temperaments, drives, emotions and, you know, are capable of thought. 

If they seem to think dogs are basically toasters, I want to rip my hear out.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx, we might find our training methods are not all that different. We may be training different kinds of dogs and THAT makes the training different. IOW's a high drive, confident German shepherd is quite different from a high drive Labrador Retriever (and yes, the latter do exist in hunting lines). The drives are different.. and so we match the training to the dog. Each dog is different (my OP talks about this) and breeds are different as their original purpose is different so the drive developed genetically are different with some breeds having low drives in one area and a high drive in another area. 

We need to figure out the dog's needs and balance our training accordingly. And so we do. 

I use very little P+ and even less R- (I think that is the one.. where you use an aversive until the dog does the right thing.. like a shock collar and invisible fence.. dog gets zapped near the fence and learns to turn the collar off by going the other way as an example) (BTW I do not use invisible fences and if I did it would be along the perimeter of a physical fence but that is another discussion for another day). 

My point in this post is those quadrants exist and to never use them at all on some dogs is a disservice to that particular dog. There are other dogs that should never see those sectors (or maybe "almost never" since dog training is rarely an "always" or "never" operation). There are many trainers (pet dog owners for the most part) who would take those to the realm of abuse.. and that is unacceptable (of course!). 

I am off to do some dog letting out.. gotta run. Y'all have a fine day and go train some dogs!


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

FWIW I think this is an important discussion on a forum where R+ training is (mostly) considered the "only" way to go. I mean that in a general sense of course... There are countless threads here where ANY sort of aversive is likened to abuse by some. Whatever your choice in training methods, it is helpful to gain an understanding of the different quadrants and the reasons why a trainer would elect to use one over another - as well as learning about potential consequences of such methods. It's nice to see a reasonable discussion with various interpretations of where the lines are between them all.


----------



## huskylove1995 (Oct 19, 2017)

I don't believe positive only is the way to go. 
My huskies are stubborn they love to push boundaries and have a very high drive. Sometimes the only way to get through their thick heads is get all up in their face about it. 
When I'm training a husky not to go after a horse I will try only the positive way first which is a lunge line a Kong squeaker. If that doesn't work I start poking them in the butt with a stick it works. Then I can let the dog go around horses with no issue and it's all fine and dandy. Sure they don't enjoy it but it's a punishment what part of that was suppose to be enjoyable. 
Its not impossible to do all positive but it takes so long to take all of those steps for something when you could do one thing change the dogs attitude about it and everything go smoothly. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## huskylove1995 (Oct 19, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> Theres alot of people out there who dont believe any dog should be subjected to any form of force or punishment. Had a discussion recently on another forum about this very topic. It was interesting but the thread was hard to read. I started the thread asking the positive only crowd about the philosophy of it and such. I was genuinely interested in what they had to say since I do believe truth can be found everywhere. In what I was reading, the argument against corrections and punishment starts to fall apart when you have a dog that wants to do what it wants to do more than anything you can offer to motivate it to do otherwise. I do use corrections, but I dont do sport or anything, so my corrections are pretty much limited to when I'm telling him to do something he's proven he knows how to do, but blatantly blows me off. The dog I have now is very biddable and a pleasure to train. But he's also pushy, confident, and strong willed...... There are the occasional times where a good correction is needed, he recovers almost instantly, gets rewarded for doing right, and life moves on. There are some things that would just take waaaaaay to long to sort out without the use of corrections. But if he were an easy going dog that didnt need the strict obedience for his own, and others safety, and I was able to indulge in taking a longer time to get that solid obedience, then by all means I'd do without punishment. But so far I havent owned a single gsd that I was able to get where I wanted to be without the use of some level of force or punishment. I guess for me, the idea of not having to use it sounds great. But either I'm just not good enough with my gsds to do that, or with some dogs its just not possible. I know I'm no great dog trainer, but after owning several gsds, none of which were ASL, and a couple dogs of a big powerful guarding breed, I tend to lean towards the opinion that some dogs need to be corrected at times.
> I've made a ton of training mistakes in the past, and I still do, but the dogs we've owned didnt seem to suffer for it. No mistakes were so bad they couldnt be undone fairly easily. This probably had more to do with the dogs temperament and genetics than my training ability.
> As far as certain training tools and collars....I would think that if my dogs were so terrorized and abused by them, they wouldnt get so excited when they see them come out. One collar in particular gets my current dog literally bouncing with excitement when he sees it in my hand. He sits happily, ears up, tongue hanging, bodily posture confident, and waits politely while I put it on him. Without being told to.
> I think any tool can be abused, I personally see more potential for bodily harm in a head halter than a prong collar, but I could be wrong in that opinion.
> ...


I know what thread your talking about LOL it was asked about three times and no one could answer it in the positive only crowd. Haha

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Sometimes, as in chasing livestock inappropriately (vs herding live stock as a job) whatever quickly gets the dog to stop is what you do. If you have a high prey drive sdog with little to no impulse control you can end up with cattle through a fence (or off a cliff) or sheep piling on each other etc. Most stock fence (such as strands of barbed wire or board fencing) are not effective in keeping a dog out. If your $300 shelter rescue runs a $350,000 Thoroughbred Broodmare through a fence (or said dog bites such a horse) you are going to have more trouble than that dog is worth. 

While leashing the dog seems the obvious answer, on farms it is not always practical. In such situations "clickers and cookies" may not change the dog's mind. In my State if a dog is harassing livestock the farmer is within her rights to shoot the dog without any questions asked. Both times I trained dogs to stay off stock I used P+ and I was not a sissy about it. Once with with the use of a long line and a prong collar and the other time was with an E Collar. Both were effective tho the former took more than one episode. 

Interestingly for those that use P+ and prongs and e collars the use of prongs tends to be more personal while the correct use of an e-collar is more impersonal. I am not a big fan of prongs and collar corrections because those ARE personal to the dog and can be relationship damaging. The e collar used at the proper moment at the right level is impersonal and actually can be cleaner for that reason. The dog is often like, "Oh right.. I was supposed to be paying attention and heeling over here not looking at the cute poodle in the crowd." 

The one thing that is imperative if you need to go to P+ is to reward hugely and with 3X more energy than the P+ used the instant the dog does the right thing (immediately after the correction to GET the right thing). The bigger the punishment the BIGGER THE REWARD. 

This way the dog has two distinct pieces of information. Take a dog that is well trained in focused heeling. The dog is heeling and focused. He looks away (cute poodle) and immediately gets corrected (the information for the dog is looking away gets an aversive). The dog looks back and should be IMMEDIATELY.. and I mean as the dog is part way through the movement of looking back immediately.. be rewarded with something really REALLY great. This is more than dropping the ball from under your arm. This is dropping the ball and then kicking it and following up with a game of tug where the dog wins. The information is Looking and focusing where you are supposed to gets you a fabulous reward. 

You cannot use a tiny bit P+ in your program if you do not use an awful lot of R+ first and foremost.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I am not a big fan of prongs and collar corrections because those ARE personal to the dog and can be relationship damaging.


You walk your 8 month old puppy on a prong.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

huskylove1995 said:


> I don't believe positive only is the way to go.
> My huskies are stubborn they love to push boundaries and have a very high drive. Sometimes the only way to get through their thick heads is get all up in their face about it.
> When I'm training a husky not to go after a horse I will try only the positive way first which is a lunge line a Kong squeaker. If that doesn't work I start poking them in the butt with a stick it works. Then I can let the dog go around horses with no issue and it's all fine and dandy. Sure they don't enjoy it but it's a punishment what part of that was suppose to be enjoyable.
> Its not impossible to do all positive but it takes so long to take all of those steps for something when you could do one thing change the dogs attitude about it and everything go smoothly.
> ...


Okay, I've said numerous times that I am NOT refusing to talk about P+ or label P+ as abuse.

But... Going from using a toy to positively train a dog not to go after a horse, to literally.... POKING IT WITH A STICK UNTIL THEY STOP.... Seems pretty drastic. Like let's say I live in a theoretical world where out of laziness or necessity I needed my dog to be off leash around horses this very instant. Heck, I would rather use an e-collar than poking a dog with a stick. One, negative association with stick-like objects can develop. Two, negative associations with the handler. 

Going from 'omg can you believe those R+ people' to bragging about how you can make your dog stop doing things by poking it with a stick, is not winning you any arguments.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

huskylove1995 said:


> I don't believe positive only is the way to go.


Also, again, NO ONE, not even R+ trainers, are "positive only". 

Again, *someone please link me to a trainer who claims to be positive only*. As an R+ trainer, I have never met or heard of one.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Sometimes, as in chasing livestock inappropriately (vs herding live stock as a job) whatever quickly gets the dog to stop is what you do. If you have a high prey drive sdog with little to no impulse control you can end up with cattle through a fence (or off a cliff) or sheep piling on each other etc. Most stock fence (such as strands of barbed wire or board fencing) are not effective in keeping a dog out. If your $300 shelter rescue runs a $350,000 Thoroughbred Broodmare through a fence (or said dog bites such a horse) you are going to have more trouble than that dog is worth.


Here's my problem with these theoretical scenarios. In this day and age, who has these super expensive livestock and *OUT OF NECESSITY* to their livelihood or whatever, needs their dog to do this work immediately. Like, no way can they spend the time or money on taking a little more time to train the dog to herd. Better risk it all with a $300 shelter dog, huh? 

Very, very rarely (not never), do people *NEED* dogs to do tasks anymore. I mean totally objectively and statistically speaking, the primary purpose of dogs is companionship. From rural to urban, this is a fact. I lived on a buffalo ranch. You know what they used to herd the buffalo? Trucks. They had dogs on the ranch for recreational bird hunting, and horses for recreational riding. Again, I am not saying that dogs are never needed because I know this is not true either. But these scenarios are taken from a time when there was a true necessity for performance.

Also in this day and age, there IS a good number of breeders breeding for good herding instincts, or protective instincts, or whatever. Look at all the members on this forum who are successfully herding with their dogs without the use of P+, and doing it for fun/competition. 

I want to emphasize again that I am not 'anti P+'. But my point is, stop masking the use of P+ under the guise of urgency or necessity. It's a choice people make. It's a choice people make when they think nothing else will work, or if they lose their patience.




3GSD4IPO said:


> This way the dog has two distinct pieces of information. Take a dog that is well trained in focused heeling. The dog is heeling and focused. He looks away (cute poodle) and immediately gets corrected (the information for the dog is looking away gets an aversive). The dog looks back and should be IMMEDIATELY.. and I mean as the dog is part way through the movement of looking back immediately.. be rewarded with something really REALLY great. This is more than dropping the ball from under your arm. This is dropping the ball and then kicking it and following up with a game of tug where the dog wins. The information is Looking and focusing where you are supposed to gets you a fabulous reward.


Here's another perfect example.

Although I agree that technically speaking, if you punish something you should be rewarding something much more....
Why do you need to correct in heeling? Again... NEED... Here is a dog partaking in a recreational sport. The dog gets distracted, as dogs tend to do... My go-to would not be to pop the dog then reward for more good heeling. My go-to would be to back up my training, and reward more around the distraction, then gradually reduce distance. With a dog that already has a solid foundation in training, this would not take long at all. Not days or weeks, but minutes. Sometimes, seconds. 

So, why correct in these situations? At some point the trainer decides they want to. The trainer who uses leash corrections to fix lack of focus in that second has decided it is not worth the time (or the trainer lacks the skill) to own the fact that THEY did not proof their dog under those distractions. The fault is put on the dog for getting distracted. The dog gets corrected (and then rewarded for good behavior, I get it).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Two quick things before I get moving toward my trial.

1-) Herding can be pretty heavily rewards based, but almost always involves punishment. It isn't always harsh (depending on trainer and dog/dog breed) but it's almost always there in some regard. the better trainers read the dog, don't over correct or unnecessarily correct, but it's there. The reason for that is primarily the danger to the livestock. I'm actually okay with it in that scenario because you really can't train herding from distance or by making the dog disinterested in the stock which means untrained and excited dog close to other animals that it often wants to bite. Which means the fast answer is safer for some number of animals involved in the situation. 

2-) a lot of people who do obedience and IPO like to pretend their dogs are doing useful work. Particularly IPO people. Not all but they seem to think it's serious business instead of a game mimicking serious work. Ironically? Agility is also a game based on mimicking old police dog training so I mean. Yeah, no, it's not.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx said:


> Here's my problem with these theoretical scenarios. In this day and age, who has these super expensive livestock and *OUT OF NECESSITY* to their livelihood or whatever, needs their dog to do this work immediately. Like, no way can they spend the time or money on taking a little more time to train the dog to herd. Better risk it all with a $300 shelter dog, huh?
> 
> Very, very rarely (not never), do people *NEED* dogs to do tasks anymore. I mean totally objectively and statistically speaking, the primary purpose of dogs is companionship. From rural to urban, this is a fact. I lived on a buffalo ranch. You know what they used to herd the buffalo? Trucks. They had dogs on the ranch for recreational bird hunting, and horses for recreational riding. Again, I am not saying that dogs are never needed because I know this is not true either. But these scenarios are taken from a time when there was a true necessity for performance.
> 
> ...


In the case of a dog knowing that focused heeling is the requirement (and it is when competing and I can show you the point deductions when it is not!) the dog looks away and there is a consequence for that (after the dog is solid on the exercise). There is also a consequence for returning focus or not losing focus in the first place and that is a R+ reward be it food, toy etc. 

Do not think for an instant that dogs heel for hours with no reward. That is unfair training. Dogs need a paycheck. Enslavement does not work well! They do need to learn to do 50 paces out, focus when figure 8 in group and during the rest of the heeling phase of the exercise. It is obedience. Is it useful? It is in a competition. It is also useful elsewhere simply because it focuses the dog on the handler (a dog cannot be obedient if his mind is over there on the cute poodle.. he may not even hear you and there was actually a study on this but I forget where).

So, we heel to check in. If the dog is doing that heeling nicely I may reward in training for that (but not always and not in the same place.. as a random reward thing). We are checking in. Loss of focus at check in could result in a dog interaction (you know nothing about the person and their dog you check in with). So you practice that.. and sometimes you reward for a focus at check in and sometimes you correct for loss of focus at check and then reward when focus returns (of course with a young dog in early training there is no second dog there and you never start with correcting, only rewards when the dog returns focus if he loses it and most young dogs learning will lose focus). Now we go to the start line and set up. Again, may be a reward there randomly for good work but loss of focus here will be corrected unless it is a young dog learning in which case you reward for focus. if the dog breaks focus I will do other things too at this stage.. suddenly run away, take the ball out and turn away and essentially let the dog know "haha! You MISSED IT so pay attention" and when the dog is correct and focused he gets the reward. No P+. That is how you start. At the start line I sometimes reward. Start line can be a pain as the judge is watching the other dog walking to the long down. I reward start line focus quite a lot because sometimes this sitting and focusing can take awhile. Then we step off. In early stages of training I reward for focus for the first step, the first three steps and so forth. A seasoned dog? This dog has been trained and we do 50 paces. We have been doing 50+ paces and the dog knows that anywhere in those 50 paces the reward may come. Because that is how we train. Look away? Correct the dog and reward the instant focus returns. This dog has been heeling like this for two years and it is entirely appropriate to correct for dropping focus. It is also entirely necessary to reward for focus. And that is how we train. 

I will not pretend to tell you that all we do in Obedience routine is for pet dog stuff or real world or any of that. What it does test is the dog's pack drive and it really tests it. It also tests you as a trainer for those dogs who have lower pack drive. Remember, all this started as a breed worthiness test for the GSD. It can still work like that although it has morphed into how good a trainer you can be and a sport. Some of the best dogs are not necessarily great dogs to breed to but that is a whole different discussion. 

Is it "necessary" to compete with my dog? No. It is what I do. It is no more necessary that training a horse to competition dressage, hunter pace, grand prix jumping or weight pull. I compete because I want to and I insure my dog likes it and likes the training. So it is what we do and even the dog seems to strive for perfection in hopes of that reward which he has been trained to expect "at any time."

Herding
As to the livestock and that rescue dog I can only say this. A LOT of farms have adopted dogs from shelters. A few end up with dogs dumped on their farms (I had them dumped on my farm and I ALWAYS took them to the shelter). I had adopted dogs too. Some wanted to chase stock and if they could not learn to NOT chase stock then they went back to the shelter. In those days it was all high kill and 14 days to get adopted. I used P+ to extinguish the behavior and it worked and I think if the dog understood the alternative was probably euthanasia (in those days) the dog would have readily agreed. My first rescue dog was from a farm and went with me to my farm.. and she was a mix of golly knows what but a great dog. I see rescue dogs on farms to this day. They may or may not herd depending on genetic predisposition. 

I also had a dog I trained to herd from a puppy from a herding breed (the instinct was there). She was my right hand but there was a P+ learning curve because the stock took precedence over the dog. Once she realized that obedience to my request led to drive satisfaction she was without a doubt the most obedient dog you could ever want. Interestingly, the obedience carried over to every other aspect of her life and everywhere we went because she had great pack drive too.


----------



## huskylove1995 (Oct 19, 2017)

Canyx said:


> Okay, I've said numerous times that I am NOT refusing to talk about P+ or label P+ as abuse.
> 
> But... Going from using a toy to positively train a dog not to go after a horse, to literally.... POKING IT WITH A STICK UNTIL THEY STOP.... Seems pretty drastic. Like let's say I live in a theoretical world where out of laziness or necessity I needed my dog to be off leash around horses this very instant. Heck, I would rather use an e-collar than poking a dog with a stick. One, negative association with stick-like objects can develop. Two, negative associations with the handler.
> 
> Going from 'omg can you believe those R+ people' to bragging about how you can make your dog stop doing things by poking it with a stick, is not winning you any arguments.


I wasn't talking directly to you. I was just saying it in general. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## huskylove1995 (Oct 19, 2017)

Canyx said:


> Also, again, NO ONE, not even R+ trainers, are "positive only".
> 
> Again, *someone please link me to a trainer who claims to be positive only*. As an R+ trainer, I have never met or heard of one.


Oh my goodness relax it wasn't directed at you. I was just saying it general. Take a few deep breaths your good  haha 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Kaber (Dec 11, 2017)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Interestingly for those that use P+ and prongs and e collars the use of prongs tends to be more personal while the correct use of an e-collar is more impersonal. I am not a big fan of prongs and collar corrections because those ARE personal to the dog and can be relationship damaging. The e collar used at the proper moment at the right level is impersonal and actually can be cleaner for that reason. .


Personal versus "impersonal" corrections, hmmmmm, depends on the situation. Corrections you are suggesting that are "impersonal" ( e-collar, invisible fence, dominant dog collar etc,) should be viewed as environmental consequences such as a dog getting kicked by a horse or getting a mouthful of quills from a porcupine, amazingly effective generally. "Personal" corrections associated with the handler might run the risk of damaging the relationship or just as likely strengthening the relationship, it all depends on the dog and the ability of the handler to administer the correction properly. Both can be used effectively. Bottom line is a dog gets to make choice that involves consequence vs. reward.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

I am also curious to see these theoretical scenarios where DOG MUST BE OFF LEASH RIGHT NOW around livestock...I mean, if your dog doesn't know that livestock are not to be chased, put it on a leash until it learns. I thought we all understood the, "If your dog can't be trusted to make the right choice, take away the opportunity to make the wrong choice." Leash. I really don't understand why livestock means that you have to use P+. Or poke it with a stick until it stops....


----------



## huskylove1995 (Oct 19, 2017)

Lillith said:


> I am also curious to see these theoretical scenarios where DOG MUST BE OFF LEASH RIGHT NOW around livestock...I mean, if your dog doesn't know that livestock are not to be chased, put it on a leash until it learns. I thought we all understood the, "If your dog can't be trusted to make the right choice, take away the opportunity to make the wrong choice." Leash. I really don't understand why livestock means that you have to use P+. Or poke it with a stick until it stops....


You don't poke with a stick tell it stops just when it goes after it. Huskies have high prey drive and if you have more then one husky with the idea that going after a horse is good very bad. I always do the lunge line and Kong squeaker first it's when they don't react to the squeaker that it becomes a problem. They like the sound of the squeaker reminds them of a mouse I guess. They will come to it. I will use the squeaker to some times call them back to the car or truck when I need to go. I pet them praise them. I also if they have it mastered they get an extra bone or something at the end of the night. Most will respond to the squeaker and come to you and not chase the horse. Usually when off the lunge line and they have it down you don't need the squeaker just call there name. 
I don't beat them with the stick or anything. It was actually a freak accident I even figured out this worked. I just poke them with it. It's not very hard just enough to get there attention. I usually only have to do it twice then they get the picture come to the squeaker. 
Duke the last husky I trained on this only needed a lunge line and the Kong squeaker. Easy really. took me a month but that's not a long time. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

huskylove, I know it wasn't directed at me. But it is a broad, general concept that 'balanced' trainers throw around all the time, these 'positive only' trainers. And I just want to see it substantiated.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD, not sure what the point of your post is other than to further demonstrate you use P+ out of choice, not because R+ has necessarily failed at that point but because you decided it was a 'worthy' time to introduce P+.
I'm not saying your dog doesn't like training. I'm not saying you are making your dog heel for hours on end (I know how the heeling portion looks). 

Like I keep saying, I am not anti-P+. But is your point for people to see your training and agree with it? Nod and say 'this is a great trainer'? Agree and say 'oh yes, P+ is absolutely required in that scenario and 3GSD chose the fairest time to introduce P+?" Because I will never agree with your training protocol. It might be EFFECTIVE. I am NOT saying it's abuse. You do you.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> 2-) a lot of people who do obedience and IPO like to pretend their dogs are doing useful work. Particularly IPO people. Not all but they seem to think it's serious business instead of a game mimicking serious work. Ironically? Agility is also a game based on mimicking old police dog training so I mean. Yeah, no, it's not.


A lot of IPO people think they're bada$$ hardcore the bees knees. I actually brought up on the Dutch FB page I'm on, in a polite way, why EVERY. SINGLE. bitework video had that heavy rock/metal music attached to it. I think it's become an inside joke to people in that world as well. But yeah, the ego and arrogance in MANY sports turn me off. (Same with non-dog things, like butchery). Don't get me wrong... I love watching IPO, Agility, Obedience, etc. I think people should celebrate their victories. But ego can be quite overwhelming.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

huskylove1995 said:


> You don't poke with a stick tell it stops just when it goes after it. Huskies have high prey drive and if you have more then one husky with the idea that going after a horse is good very bad. I always do the lunge line and Kong squeaker first it's when they don't react to the squeaker that it becomes a problem. They like the sound of the squeaker reminds them of a mouse I guess. They will come to it. I will use the squeaker to some times call them back to the car or truck when I need to go. I pet them praise them. I also if they have it mastered they get an extra bone or something at the end of the night. Most will respond to the squeaker and come to you and not chase the horse. Usually when off the lunge line and they have it down you don't need the squeaker just call there name.
> I don't beat them with the stick or anything. It was actually a freak accident I even figured out this worked. I just poke them with it. It's not very hard just enough to get there attention. I usually only have to do it twice then they get the picture come to the squeaker.
> Duke the last husky I trained on this only needed a lunge line and the Kong squeaker. Easy really. took me a month but that's not a long time.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Why do you go from "Squeaker toy" to "poke with stick"? That certainly escalated quickly. Why don't you try food? Or backing up to a distance where the dog can not react to the horse?

I lived on a farm. I trained dogs to leave livestock alone (unless told to herd them, in the case of our cow dog). I put them on a leash, we kept them with us, rewarding for good behavior, until they learned that the livestock are to be generally ignored. If they began lunging and freaking out, then we were too close and backed up and continued training from a safe distance. Sometimes we just went and sat in the barn, dog on leash, and watched the livestock for hours. Only when they were ready did we let them off the leash around the livestock. It generally took a month for livestock to become old news. I trained my current dog, who had never seen a horse or a cow, to leave livestock alone in a single visit to the farm. He's an Aussie/Collie mutt dog, and although he is far lower drive than the farm dogs we had, he likes to chase. He sat by them and ate grass with them. Looked really stupid. In the nearly 15 years I have been actively working dogs, and the multiple decades my father and grandfather have worked dogs, not a single one has chased any livestock through fences when introduced slowly and properly contained, prevented from making the wrong decision.

If your squeaker toy is not working, then back up. You're too close to the distraction. Or use food. It may be more rewarding to the dog. There really is absolutely no reason to us P+ in a "dog chasing livestock" scenario, especially when you absolutely cannot have them drawing a negative association with the livestock/you when you need them to either work the livestock or be comfortable around livestock.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> A lot of IPO people think they're bada$$ hardcore the bees knees. I actually brought up on the Dutch FB page I'm on, in a polite way, why EVERY. SINGLE. bitework video had that heavy rock/metal music attached to it. I think it's become an inside joke to people in that world as well. But yeah, the ego and arrogance in MANY sports turn me off. (Same with non-dog things, like butchery). Don't get me wrong... I love watching IPO, Agility, Obedience, etc. I think people should celebrate their victories. But ego can be quite overwhelming.


Well, here. Have the opposite of ego and arrogance in sport video  (needs sound)






I could post video of her absolutely slaughtering a course and going fast, but nah. This is a cute little relationship moment that makes happy. (And is, actually, a 'correction' - though not P+ - and relevant to this discussion because the dog was 'made correct' but was not in any way made unhappy. Win/win.)


----------



## huskylove1995 (Oct 19, 2017)

Lillith said:


> Why do you go from "Squeaker toy" to "poke with stick"? That certainly escalated quickly. Why don't you try food? Or backing up to a distance where the dog can not react to the horse?
> 
> I lived on a farm. I trained dogs to leave livestock alone (unless told to herd them, in the case of our cow dog). I put them on a leash, we kept them with us, rewarding for good behavior, until they learned that the livestock are to be generally ignored. If they began lunging and freaking out, then we were too close and backed up and continued training from a safe distance. Sometimes we just went and sat in the barn, dog on leash, and watched the livestock for hours. Only when they were ready did we let them off the leash around the livestock. It generally took a month for livestock to become old news. I trained my current dog, who had never seen a horse or a cow, to leave livestock alone in a single visit to the farm. He's an Aussie/Collie mutt dog, and although he is far lower drive than the farm dogs we had, he likes to chase. He sat by them and ate grass with them. Looked really stupid. In the nearly 15 years I have been actively working dogs, and the multiple decades my father and grandfather have worked dogs, not a single one has chased any livestock through fences when introduced slowly and properly contained, prevented from making the wrong decision.
> 
> If your squeaker toy is not working, then back up. You're too close to the distraction. Or use food. It may be more rewarding to the dog. There really is absolutely no reason to us P+ in a "dog chasing livestock" scenario, especially when you absolutely cannot have them drawing a negative association with the livestock/you when you need them to either work the livestock or be comfortable around livestock.


I don't give treats much after 6 months huskies are smart and that's my breed. I train they will use the treat against you. We start out in a far corner of the pasture. Where I do it is kind of in a valley they can see the horses but the horses aren't close they are usually by the pond it's about 1500 ft away from each other. Its a 50 ft lunge line. When they start going and I see they want to chase I will squeak the squeaker and call their name. Most of them will come they like praises and being petted hug lovers anyway. It's when they completely ignore the squeaker that I have a problem. I don't take huskies out there that I don't have trained on recall already. The squeaker is used as a recall to call them back. They know what it means. It means come to me. If they don't and they try and pull me and the line completely ignoring the squeaker then I poke them with the stick it's not hard. And it's the same kind of stick they chew on. It's just enough to get there attention. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

huskylove1995 said:


> I don't give treats much after 6 months huskies are smart and that's my breed. I train they will use the treat against you. ...It's when they completely ignore the squeaker that I have a problem.


So there is either a misunderstanding of basic training theory or a blatant refusal to work with your dog here.

"Use the treat against you"? More like, you probably don't know how to effectively use treats and fade them over time. And on top of that, you are insisting on using a cue or reward that loses value over time, then applying punishment when that doesn't work. Kind of sad. The dog determines what is motivating, not the owner.

I've met plenty of husky owners who say similar things. I've been told they are stubborn, they can't be trained with treats, they are destructive, they are dominant, they need a firm hand, etc. I was told all of this from the owner who surrendered the last husky we had in the shelter. She was very hard to motivate with anything and could nearly clear the slick kennel walls. She literally flailed and bit the leash any time someone tried to take her out. She went to a first-time husky owner who had zero of the issues described (except escaping, which was fixed by keeping the dog inside when he wasn't home) and he even hikes off leash with the husky. Guess what the guy did... Trained with treats and a tug toy. I should say, trained THOUGHTFULLY with treats and a tug toy. This dog would spit out hot dogs and jerky at the shelter. There is a way to train with food that makes it effective.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

huskylove1995 said:


> I don't give treats much after 6 months huskies are smart and that's my breed. I train they will use the treat against you. We start out in a far corner of the pasture. Where I do it is kind of in a valley they can see the horses but the horses aren't close they are usually by the pond it's about 1500 ft away from each other. Its a 50 ft lunge line. When they start going and I see they want to chase I will squeak the squeaker and call their name. Most of them will come they like praises and being petted hug lovers anyway. It's when they completely ignore the squeaker that I have a problem. I don't take huskies out there that I don't have trained on recall already. The squeaker is used as a recall to call them back. They know what it means. It means come to me. If they don't and they try and pull me and the line completely ignoring the squeaker then I poke them with the stick it's not hard. And it's the same kind of stick they chew on. It's just enough to get there attention.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


...You need to talk to the husky owner we have here who runs agility with huskys - and uses, you know, mostly treats and doesn't claim her dogs are special unicorns that positive reinforcement doesn't work for. (Tip: Positive reinforcement works on everything from people to gold fish. If it doesn't work for your dogs, they're either dumber than a box of rocks or you're doing something wrong with the application.)

I mean use punishment if you want, but much like saying 'punishment won't teach a dog anything BECAUSE SPECIAL DOG', saying rewards/treats won't is... also stupid. May or may not be the fastest, easiest way, but saying 'won't work' is pure nonsense. There are fundamental laws in how things learn - all things, ALL THINGS, and two of those are: "Repeat behaviors that lead to rewards" and "avoid behaviors that cause unpleasantness". 

So again: You're doing it wrong or you need to get your dogs involved in some kind of study because they're the only dogs EVER who can't be trained with rewards (and since they 'use it against you' I'm willing to bet, yeah, it is not a case of stupid dogs. More like handler error. Or dogs smarter than handler. But not unique special dogs who are incapable of learning the same way literally everything with a nervous system learns)


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

huskylove1995 said:


> I don't give treats much after 6 months huskies are smart and that's my breed. I train they will use the treat against you. We start out in a far corner of the pasture. Where I do it is kind of in a valley they can see the horses but the horses aren't close they are usually by the pond it's about 1500 ft away from each other. Its a 50 ft lunge line. When they start going and I see they want to chase I will squeak the squeaker and call their name. Most of them will come they like praises and being petted hug lovers anyway. It's when they completely ignore the squeaker that I have a problem. I don't take huskies out there that I don't have trained on recall already. The squeaker is used as a recall to call them back. They know what it means. It means come to me. If they don't and they try and pull me and the line completely ignoring the squeaker then I poke them with the stick it's not hard. And it's the same kind of stick they chew on. It's just enough to get there attention.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


You poke the dog with a stick when it is at the end of a 50ft lunge line? What kind of sticks do you have? Huskies aren't some sort of special magical creature that won't respond to food or rewards...you're the human, you have the opposable thumbs, you control their resources. You're also not the only person to have owned or trained a husky...

Again, if they're ignoring your squeaker or your recall or whatever, back up. You are too close. The distance will be different for every dog, regardless of breed or specialness. If they are not responding to your recall, it indicates they really are not as proofed as you think, which is fine, but you have to recognize that and set the exercise up for the dog to succeed. If you have to use a stick to get your dog's attention, something isn't working...


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

huskylove1995 said:


> When they start going and I see they want to chase I will squeak the squeaker and call their name. Most of them will come they like praises and being petted hug lovers anyway. It's when they completely ignore the squeaker that I have a problem. I don't take huskies out there that I don't have trained on recall already. The squeaker is used as a recall to call them back. They know what it means. It means come to me.


If I was a husky ... and I had a choice between a squeaky mouse that never really materializes, or a horse that most certainly is right before my eyes ... I'd be highly tempted to choose the horse.

Find something to motivate your dog that you can actually GIVE to them once they comply. Use a "continuous reinforcement schedule" in the beginning, and eventually apply it on a "random reinforcement schedule". Squeaking a toy for recall and then handing out pets and praises time and time again is merely a false promise that will get mediocre responses at best. Simply put, it's deceptive and it's just not satisfying.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Well, here. Have the opposite of ego and arrogance in sport video  (needs sound)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Love it! I love the 'character showing' videos too. The TDCH one I submitted for Soro, he goofed big time but it was so him.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx said:


> A lot of IPO people think they're bada$$ hardcore the bees knees. I actually brought up on the Dutch FB page I'm on, in a polite way, why EVERY. SINGLE. bitework video had that heavy rock/metal music attached to it. I think it's become an inside joke to people in that world as well. But yeah, the ego and arrogance in MANY sports turn me off. (Same with non-dog things, like butchery). Don't get me wrong... I love watching IPO, Agility, Obedience, etc. I think people should celebrate their victories. But ego can be quite overwhelming.


I have posted videos once in awhile on FB and privately on YouTube. I _never_ add music. I am amazed when I trial and we get good scores and I am always striving to get better scores. 

The point of the post is to discuss something that often is given a huge taboo. Older posts on this forum got anyone posting about P+ in hot water (sometimes with the Mods!!). I find it interesting that there has been a shift and there is a better understanding of P+. 

The Ego thing is a PIA. It matters not the sport (including human sports). I find it tiresome. We were all somewhere else before doing something really WELL. 

One thing that needs to be clarified. In the IPO protection phase the fight with the helper is very real to the dog. For us? It's a game and a sport but for the dog, especially a good dog, that fight is real. It is important to remember that. There are times when the handler needs to help the dog and encourage but more often than not the handler needs to stay out of it when the dog is engaged with the decoy (a good training decoy that is and these people are few and far between). 

The fact of the matter is that I have traveled hundreds of miles to make sure my dog is on a good training decoy. I have driven past closer clubs and easier trainers to train with good decoys. If I cannot get my dog on a good training decoy I will quit the sport in a heart beat because it is that important. 

I think that when training or trialing dogs the ego needs to be left home. In a box. In the basement. Sealed up behind a block wall Edgar Allen Poe style! Dogs can humble you so fast, especially in front of a crowd at a trial. No room for ego.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

The second horse trainer that was fired faster then the first horse trainer that lasted 10 minutes.. He brought a stick to poke the horse with??? said to poke the horse in the head when the horse was wrong?? didn't make it up the driveway... nothing to add to the discussion but I thought it was interesting to see a stick mentioned after 14 years since meeting that horse trainer.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Love it! I love the 'character showing' videos too. The TDCH one I submitted for Soro, he goofed big time but it was so him.


ME TOO!

Also how about recall off prey? DURING a trial. Video is blurry, but that is a pigeon that was hanging out in the ring. 






Don't tell me you need punishment


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Clearly chasing pigeons has a higher reward to the dog than doing all that agility trained for. 
Like I said.. ego does not belong in the trialing of dogs. They will take it away in a heartbeat and you get to stand there and wonder what happened to that nicely trained dog you brought with you.. who is this IMPOSTER? LOL


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Clearly chasing pigeons has a higher reward to the dog than doing all that agility trained for.
> Like I said.. ego does not belong in the trialing of dogs. They will take it away in a heartbeat and you get to stand there and wonder what happened to that nicely trained dog you brought with you.. who is this IMPOSTER? LOL


She's a border collie and there was movement back there - from something I don't think she's ever seen before (pigeons are not part of our normal lives). Of COURSE it had higher value than the agility just then. I knew she was locked onto that pigeon from the second we stepped into the ring . She's a VERY young, VERY green dog. I COULD have absolutely forced her to keep doing agility, yep. Know what I did instead? Watched her hold a really good stay while locked onto a live animal, released her to chase it to reward that stay (notice I made no immediate attempt to call her, even, or so much as verbally stop her), called her back, watched her recall, put her in a sit, had her stay and - Walked off and reset and went on to do the agility course and do it well - though the chance to Q on it was gone and my cameraman didn't realize I was working on a reset so shut the camera down.

They're dogs. They do stuff. It's 'just behavior'. How you respond to that behavior is the important part. I also don't really do... embarrassment or upset with dog sports. It's a silly dog game I play, and spend obscene amounts of money to play. My time in the ring is mine, with or without being awarded points.

This is the same (young, green, so reactive she couldn't be in eyesight of another dog or even go on a walk a couple of years ago) dog, at a huge trial of more than 300 runs a day 2 days in a row, shortly after the first snippet of video (sorry it is a different run - the cameraman though I was going to leave the ring and shut the camera down) , in the same ring where she KNOWS birds are (and still were, actually, though they moved higher faster!) AND she got to chase them.






I could tell you what I think she learned from being able to/allowed to chase that bird (And it does involve value/what has value to her/what is more fun for her). But I don't think what she actually learned is nearly as important as the result I got.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

What, would you have punished the dog for chasing a pigeon once? Really _capitalize_ on that opportunity to teach the dog how wrong it is? (sarcasm) 

I would have recalled my dog and continued with the trial. I would have removed the dog from the trial if the chasing continued (P-) which, knowing a fair bit about Molly and CptJack, I imagine was not the case. I would then train around birds (R+) until they are no longer distractions.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> What, would you have punished the dog for chasing a pigeon once? Really _capitalize_ on that opportunity to teach the dog how wrong it is? (sarcasm)
> 
> I would have recalled my dog and continued with the trial. I would have removed the dog from the trial if the chasing continued (P-) which, knowing a fair bit about Molly and CptJack, I imagine was not the case. I would then train around birds (R+) until they are no longer distractions.


One release onto the bird - ONE - and then recalling back and getting to go on with the trial/agility? Was all it took. ONCE of deliberately letting her go do it, scamper around, realize she couldn't get it, and offering her an opportunity to come back and work with me and it was a non-issue for the entire rest of the time. 

/shrugs. 

So, basically, yeah, exactly what you said.

Also honestly this was... unusual circumstances all around We're usually outside and birds stay out of the ring. Or inside and the birds stay out of the arena. This weekend was brutally cold so the birds were coming into the heated space AND stopped caring about the dogs disturbingly fast so they'd sit there until a dog was on top of them. We ALSO had mice coming out of the woodwork (and bleachers) though those didn't get her attention. Good example of you can try to be prepared for anything but there's always SOMETHING.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Not surprised!

So you did some awesome Premack and Molly is well trained in general that you actually let your dog learn from this experience in an empowering way, and the distraction was no longer an issue in future situations. Go. Figure.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> Not surprised!
> 
> So you did some awesome Premack and Molly is well trained in general that you actually let your dog learn from this experience in an empowering way, and the distraction was no longer an issue in future situations. Go. Figure.


I know. Who would possibly have ever guessed? Inconceivable. Completely bizarre, almost even impossible 

I ALSO took the opportunity when there was a pigeon strutting around in the arena outside the ring to let Kylie go trotting up to it (she's not prey-driven or into chasing things but she does get curious). It took off and she came back and ceased to notice they existed. There ARE dogs where my response would have been different (getting out of the ring sans chase, and, if I thought this situation were even remotely likely to recur, worked on some CC/DS stuff, probably. But those two? Nah. I know my dogs AND their training levels and foundations. No chance Kylie was going to care once she figured out more or less what it was, or that Molly wasn't going to (quickly) decide playing with me was more fun.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Hey 3GSD and/or Dexter... How about some feedback on using sticks to prod dogs? Since we are all evaluating everyone's training methods and all.... It probably is no surprise that myself, Lillith, CptJack, etc. was not in support of huskylove's methods. But I'm noticing you decided to pick apart a pigeon chasing clip but have remained silent on a more balanced method that is working for that user. Does that fall under your definition of correct P+? Clearly, huskylove has it working well enough for her.

And I genuinely am not trying to disparage huskylove, though I don't agree with those methods. (And for the record, I have disagreed with CptJack, Lillith, and virtually everyone here at some point or another.) So out of curiosity, would love to hear your thoughts.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

I'd LOVE to see what happens when a groundhog mistakenly crosses the field during an IPO send-away. 

*anybody* got video? hehe.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx said:


> What, would you have punished the dog for chasing a pigeon once? Really _capitalize_ on that opportunity to teach the dog how wrong it is? (sarcasm)
> 
> I would have recalled my dog and continued with the trial. I would have removed the dog from the trial if the chasing continued (P-) which, knowing a fair bit about Molly and CptJack, I imagine was not the case. I would then train around birds (R+) until they are no longer distractions.


IF this is directed at me then you are 100% incorrect. If directed at another poster, then have at it. 

I DO laugh at my dogs. This is an eye rolling moment. It happens. They are dogs. Mine call off but that part is training. Mostly, because of all the positive, well rewarded focus work they would not chase things on the field.. because they are focused on the job and handler. That said, stuff happens. 

I recall a trial (I was watching, not entered). At the back side in the vicinity of where the first blind gets set up there was a large ponded area due to an unusually wet spring. There were ducks in that pond having a LOT of fun. A couple of dogs on the send away (in Ob routine) went for the ducks when they did not platz, did not find the ball that is usually out there and 'discovered' the ducks. Sadly, instead of accepting lost points (10!) some of the handlers got very angry at their dog. One of the angriest had to wade in and get the dog that immediately played keep away. Guess what that says to the judge, to the spectators and everyone else? It told the world that handler had a terrible relationship with their dog!! THOSE folks ought find another sport like race cars.. where emotions directed at a slow car don't matter. 

NONE of the dogs even saw the ducks for the blind search. The drive is different in the blind search.. they are in higher drive and want the decoy. Decoy (in most of the dogs in this sport) is the greatest reward and gives a far better drive satisfaction that any natural prey. 



Canyx said:


> Hey 3GSD and/or Dexter... How about some feedback on using sticks to prod dogs? Since we are all evaluating everyone's training methods and all.... It probably is no surprise that myself, Lillith, CptJack, etc. was not in support of huskylove's methods. But I'm noticing you decided to pick apart a pigeon chasing clip but have remained silent on a more balanced method that is working for that user. Does that fall under your definition of correct P+? Clearly, huskylove has it working well enough for her.
> 
> And I genuinely am not trying to disparage huskylove, though I don't agree with those methods. (And for the record, I have disagreed with CptJack, Lillith, and virtually everyone here at some point or another.) So out of curiosity, would love to hear your thoughts.


I really did not want to get too off track but I find that method off center. Not something I would use. I find yanking a dog's head off with a prong collar to be (usually) too personal as far as corrections go as well. I rarely use this and avoid it if possible. The stick thing? More of that. Or it would be with a GSD. Not useful. We DO us a dressage whip sometimes in heeling to keep the butt in and straight but it is not used as a whip or to hit the dog.. it is held as a guide.. the dog bumps into it.. just touches it really.. and moves over. I start that with a clicker and pedestal. Touch (and I do mean lightly touch) the hock and the dog moves away from the touch. 

I do not own huskies and never would. They are genetically different in their drives from German Shepherds (as are Malinois, Dutch Shepherds, Rottweilers and Dobermans). 



petpeeve said:


> I'd LOVE to see what happens when a groundhog mistakenly crosses the field during an IPO send-away.
> 
> *anybody* got video? hehe.


Never seen it happen. Never heard of it happening FWIW. The ducks? yes. 
Now, for some dogs the send away worries them (leaving the handler). Others it is a job and they stay focused on the job. Even others LOVE the send away (my current mature bitch is like that.. just LOVES to run and is the same about running blinds.. no woodchuck would deter her from her mission!) and these dogs would notice bu not chase (usually.. but then there is the video of the pigeon incident so you just _never really know until it happens_). 

We DID have a deer run through a training field once during protection. Dog on the field glanced but gave no further interest. Decoy _usually_ is a greater reward and leads to greater drive satisfaction. 

A dog can still fool you so it is best to recognize that ANY dog might do ANYTHING.

And not every misdeed should be punished... Training dogs should not be like being a private in the army!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> I'd LOVE to see what happens when a groundhog mistakenly crosses the field during an IPO send-away.
> 
> *anybody* got video? hehe.


No, but if you search youtube for bloopers of IPO and sch, you can find some real gold. Also some really sad stuff, but some of it's really straight up hysterically funny.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> No, but if you search youtube for bloopers of IPO and sch, you can find some real gold. Also some really sad stuff, but some of it's really straight up hysterically funny.


Happens if every sport. Some of the horse stuff is just great (unless someone gets hurt!). All animal sports have funny stuff. How about the JRT I saw in Lure Coursing who suddenly cut straight across the course and caught the lure.... Naughty little smart gotta admire him for that dog.... 

It is important to have a sense of humor in training dogs (and in talking about things on dog forums).


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

I want to add this link to the conversation
German-shepherdherding.com
Some of you have probably seen it before. Theres a page on there about Manfred Heyne selecting a puppy, and then training a professional gsd herding dog. Not trialing or hobby stuff, this was full time work. Very very interesting stuff. 
What may really contribute here, is the fact that he never used leash corrections.....but he was breeding, selecting, and training his dogs from birth, so I'm guessing that first rate genetics made a huge impact on the training he did......


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> I want to add this link to the conversation
> German-shepherdherding.com
> Some of you have probably seen it before. Theres a page on there about Manfred Heyne selecting a puppy, and then training a professional gsd herding dog. Not trialing or hobby stuff, this was full time work. Very very interesting stuff.
> What may really contribute here, is the fact that he never used leash corrections.....but he was breeding, selecting, and training his dogs from birth, so I'm guessing that first rate genetics made a huge impact on the training he did......


The woman who maintains that site is a personal friend of mine. 

If you really want to know what a German Shepherd should be.. read every word written there. She and I get together as often as we can. She is a wonderful lady with a ton of knowledge and many stories!! 

Manfred did not use leash but he did correct his dogs. His dogs worked because they had pack drive (so were partners but on equal terms) and because they were genetically predisposed to herd sheep. Their reward was to work which was self rewarding.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Not a lot to add re: P+ that hasn't already been said, but on the subject of livestock avoidance training using shock collars-

So shock collars are 99.9% illegal over here, but the ONLY thing they're still used for is exactly this (sheep avoidance in this area, mostly). You have to go to one of the handful of specially trained and certified trainers for it, but the dogs who are trained this way are NOT generally farm or just pet dogs. They're hunting dogs, specifically those used in rural areas that have sheep fields backing up to hunting areas. And while I agree that a slower, more positive approach to teaching dogs to ignore sheep is ideal, I can also see the importance of wanting to insure that an animal who may be tracking well out of the range of human intervention will quickly and reliably avoid interacting with sheep. For the dog's sake (farmers can shoot dogs worrying livestock legally, or have your dog euthanized after the fact if they know who was responsible), the sheeps' sake, and the sake of the local farmers' livelihoods. 

I'll also mention that it's a legal requirement for any hunting group to have access to a certified blood tracking dog, so some of these hunting dogs I'd consider "working" animals in the sense that they're necessary for the activity, and hunting in most areas is 100% necessary due to most of Norway's big predators being killed off or greatly reduced in numbers, so the seasonal hunting quotas on deer and moose are really important for keeping the wild populations healthy.

Would I do it to my own dogs? Well. I don't know. If I ever seriously consider training and certifying a blood tracking dog that I have reason to believe might go after livestock, maybe. Depending on the dog's temperament and the area we live in, and whether we have livestock ourselves at the time (I don't consider it fair to deliberately make an animal fearful of something, then make it live in relatively close contact with that thing). But I do understand why it's used in some circumstances over the more R+ focused methods as a way to protect the well-being (and possibly lives) of the dog and livestock.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

The woman who maintains that site is a personal friend of mine. 

If you really want to know what a German Shepherd should be.. read every word written there. She and I get together as often as we can. She is a wonderful lady with a ton of knowledge and many stories!! 

Manfred did not use leash but he did correct his dogs. His dogs worked because they had pack drive (so were partners but on equal terms) and because they were genetically predisposed to herd sheep. Their reward was to work which was self rewarding.

That is really really cool! The stuff I've read about him and his dogs fascinates the heck out of me.


----------



## Kaber (Dec 11, 2017)

Heyne's comments about genetic obedience being a drive is something which seems to have been lost over the decades. As Heyne's put it " There are two drives the German shepherd herding dog must have not only to succeed in practical, everyday sheep herding work, but also to excel in herding competitions which demand independent performance. The two drives are total attraction to the sheep and “genetic obedience”. These drives are genetic, can be selectively bred for and are expressions of the prey instinct. The higher and more balanced these drives are, the higher the level of performance the skilled shepherd can bring out in the dog *without compulsion training*."

I wonder if this even exists much any more today?


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Kaber said:


> Heyne's comments about genetic obedience being a drive is something which seems to have been lost over the decades. As Heyne's put it " There are two drives the German shepherd herding dog must have not only to succeed in practical, everyday sheep herding work, but also to excel in herding competitions which demand independent performance. The two drives are total attraction to the sheep and “genetic obedience”. These drives are genetic, can be selectively bred for and are expressions of the prey instinct. The higher and more balanced these drives are, the higher the level of performance the skilled shepherd can bring out in the dog *without compulsion training*."
> 
> I wonder if this even exists much any more today?


It does. In fact, I know of a dog (older and now spayed) with all of that from his lines. I also know that dog's son.. sadly untitled but very much intact. 
Yes. Such genetics do exist, but you have to hunt for them. 

The best way to get reliability in training is to be the gateway to satisfying the dog's drive. If P+ is used (and it is), it is not to compulse the dog to DO something but rather to get the dog to recognize the handler as the gate to get what the dog wants. It is the old game of "You do what I want and you get what you want." Most dogs catch on pretty fast to this game. If the dog has genetic obedience (which is pack drive) then they become a true working partner.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> The best way to get reliability in training is to be the gateway to satisfying the dog's drive. If P+ is used (and it is), it is not to compulse the dog to DO something but rather to get the dog to recognize the handler as the gate to get what the dog wants. It is the old game of "You do what I want and you get what you want."


So, Premack. 

Although I'm not sure how you're applying it, as there seems to be a contradiction of terms in your quote. Premack is based upon reinforcement, not punishment.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Premack is fine, and works well entirely on reinforcement. However, a dog in high drive is not listening (just think of the dog who sees a squirrel and wants to chase it.. is at the end of the leash trying to haul butt for that squirrel.. the owner is saying sit and the dog is NOT responding because he does not even HEAR the owner). That dog will get a correction just to listen.. remind him "hey dog! I am back here!" and (in the squirrel case) probably NOT be released to chase the squirrel after the owner gets the dog to sit (tree rats.. haha.. let the dog have at it IMO but most people think squirrels are cute and would not). 

In herding, the dog may get so driven that the signal from the shepherd is not heard (young dogs). Another dog or two already trained can help with this.. sometimes those dogs will correct the young dog. Sometimes the shepherd does. Correction can take many forms and leads up to the dog working independently with little or no direction from the shepherd (this is an over simplified explanation).

I can say it better discussion protection work. In IPO protection (usually) the dog can be in such high drive to go to the decoy that he does not hear sitz, fuss etc.. And so you correct and get the sitz or fuss and the instant you get what you want, you release the dog for the bite. Another area is the bark n hold. A LOT of young dogs go into barking and immediately want to bite (especially when they graduate to barking at a stationary decoy in the blind). They need to learn not to do that (it is called being 'dirty'). Because the drive is SO high, typically they are on a long line to a pinch collar and they get a correction for biting. A good line handler will also tap tap rhythmically with the long line to help the dog pattern bark (this saves the dog's energy and allows the dog to think and be more powerful engaging with the helper in the 'hold'). So the dog is corrected.. and starts to bark (what you want) and immediately gets the bite (what the dog wants). A good line handler will anticipate the dog being dirty (read the dog) and correct the dog just as he is going in TO bite and be dirty.. then the dog will bark and get rewarded. You need to know dogs.. really well. 

A clear headed dog will have a couple of corrections and then realize "Oh. THAT is the game" and go in and bark nicely and get the grip. Then you build barking duration. In a National competition that dog will bark close to 100 times before the call out.. so the dog needs that much drive and power to begin with!

The ONLY time the dog is EVER called out of the barking in blind to "here FUSS!" is in a trial. To train "her FUSS" you set the dog up in a platz along side the blind (where he cannot see the decoy) and you set up and call here FUSS. Again, a young dog may break or anticipate (because drive is so high) and go into the blind and bark INSTEAD of staying in a platz and then coming to FUSS as called.. A good helper will then relax, drop the sleeve and NOT give the dog what he wants (no need to reward incorrect behavior). When the decoy stops looking like a threat, the dog no longer engages (yes, that is right.. the dog KNOWS the difference). 

Now there is another kind of dog that will come into the blind and bite dirty out of poor nerve. That dog finds it "safer" to be dirty than to bark and hold. In fact, that dog rather not be in the blind barking at all. That dog is ready to LEAVE the blind but STILL wants the Bite. The way to help that dog is to practice the bark on a wide flat collar or harness so they don't get to bite and are held back so oppositional reflex comes into play. The dog has the drive to bite but is not clear in the head and is nervous about the hold.. so you hold him back. He cannot get dirty, learns to bark and still gets the bite. Eventually such a dog may need to be corrected, but this dog will be learning and working on barking a long long time before that happens. You use oppositional reflex creating/adding to desire (drive) and reward with a bite to teach this dog that is is OK to bark there.

The point is, P+ is used.. but not in every situation and not on every dog even though your end result may look the same (dog herding sheep, barking in the blind and so forth). 

This IPO stuff is a LOT more complex that it looks. It was originally a breeding test for German Shepherds. It has morphed into a sport and the breeding test is really in both the training AND the trialing. By the time you trial you know if your dog is breeding worthy. You see nerve, clear headedness and the rest. Your dog may do really well trialing with top drawer handling and training yet may not be the best dog to breed to. More food for thought...


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Premack is fine, and works well entirely on reinforcement. However, a dog in high drive is not listening (just think of the dog who sees a squirrel and wants to chase it.. is at the end of the leash trying to haul butt for that squirrel.. the owner is saying sit and the dog is NOT responding because he does not even HEAR the owner). That dog will get a correction just to listen.. remind him "hey dog! I am back here!" and (in the squirrel case) probably NOT be released to chase the squirrel after the owner gets the dog to sit


 Well then it's not really Premack, is it. If the dog is NOT released to chase the squirrel, it's just a basic correction for not sitting on cue when faced with a major distraction. The whole principle of "do what I want then we'll do WHAT YOU WANT" has gone right out the window. It hasn't even received a chance to materialize. 

Honestly I don't see the connection to being a gatekeeper, as you put it, once P+ has been introduced. Armed guard and buzz killer, maybe.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

petpeeve said:


> Well then it's not really Premack, is it. If the dog is NOT released to chase the squirrel, it's just a basic correction for not sitting on cue when faced with a major distraction. The whole principle of "do what I want then we'll do WHAT YOU WANT" has gone right out the window. It hasn't even received a chance to materialize.
> 
> Honestly I don't see the connection to being a gatekeeper, as you put it, once P+ has been introduced. Armed guard and buzz killer, maybe.


I do not think you read the rest of the post. I would absolutely release the dog to the squirrel (in a safe place). I agree the squirrel example was poor because there was no release (because most people save the squirrel). 

That said, the rest was absolutely valid training and showed what I was saying. Either you did not read it (because you stopped with the squirrel) or perhaps you did not understand it. 

Quite honestly, I never called training by "4 quadrants" or "Premack" or any academic names... I just trained the dog. Turns out a lot of that is what was being done (just did not call it anything? just did it). The academic labeling is somewhat interesting and better allows for discussion. 

Tell me this.. did you read the rest AFTER the squirrel? 

Today in training we had a dog doing "obedience for bites." Incremental steps.. and it is all about impulse control, high drive and high distraction. In this case a young dog very much in tune with his handler. So much so that a simple "no that's not it" is all he needs (and he has superior drive and clear headedness). He is an example of "genetic obedience" per Manfred Heyne. Today's exercise was for the dog to focus on the handler in stationary heel position (what she wanted) and the reward was to release the dog to the decoy (what the dog wanted). Of course, the dog wanted to look at the decoy but quickly learned that control of that impulse and focusing on the handler was what got him the decoy. 

The next step will be to take the first step out of "basic" (dog sitting focused in heel position) with the dog retaining both focus and position to earn the release to bite. Then this will be built to two or three steps and so forth until you have a dog you can heel on or off the field off leash and focused at a trial or training. 

How is that not "Premack?" Seems pretty clear to me. It was most certainly clear to the dog who is, as I said, a very nice, clear headed dog.

A different dog would need a different correction to return focus to the handler from the decoy when told fuss (heel). We had one today doing this and collar corrections simply increased the dog's drive and wound him up (he has a lot of fight drive and wants to fight.. would bite for real and call it a party!). That dog got a low level stim on his e collar and he settled better and paid better attention to be released to the decoy. The collar correction increased his fight drive. The e collar stim got his attention and showed him the way to get what he wanted (to engage the helper). He was heeling nicely for release to the helper by the end of the session. He was very energetic due to a lack of work over the holidays (like a kid at play ground first nice day in the spring.. if kids go to play grounds anymore!).


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Honestly, it's hard to relate. No disrespect to the sport or the animals in the IPO (or IGP, soon to be known) world. But I don't see your point in lecturing us on a topic nobody asked about, to frame training theory in a way that most pet owners don't know or care to know, and then using it to promote your ideals and viewpoints.

Come down from the pantheon for a second... What's your experience with pet dogs and 'normal' pet owners?


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

My experience with pet dog owners and pet dog trainers is that if they understood a bit more about dogs and drive that dogs would stand a better chance over all. So would owners. 

An awful lot of trainers don't help this because they do not know and most pet owners have no idea. This ignorance on the part of both sides of the equation is why we have so many dog bites in the US, why it is difficult to get insurance if you own a dog (and especially certain breeds). It is the MOST frustrating thing to go to pet dog training classes and see not only the lack of knowledge on the part of pet owners, but the same thing on the flip side with trainers! (BTW this is a general statement and not directed at anyone here on this forum and I really mean that). I am sure you have read Jean Donaldson. 

I see a beginner obedience class. In this class are usually a few pure bred dogs and a few rescues from shelters. I see people with no idea what that beast on the end of the leash is experiencing. Usually the dogs are totally disengaged from the handler. Usually one of the dogs in the class is reactive.. hackles up and maybe barking. Another couple are avoidance sniffing the floor. Maybe one is laying down totally ignoring everything. A couple are straining at the end of the leash trying to play with other dogs (and the hackled dog is getting worse as a result). Maybe one of the dogs is actually offering behaviors or looking at its handler and getting NO reward for doing so. 

The job of the trainer is to help this picture to improve using all quadrants of training. 

And what I often see is the trainer saying the hackled dog is aggressive and the owner saying it is protective (it is not.. it is SCARED and in defense drive). The sniffing dogs are interested in something on the floor from a previous class (they aren't.. they are stressed and relieving stress by sniffing), the dogs wanting to play are usually appropriately addressed by the trainer (they need to have a more interesting relationship with their handler) and the dog laying on the floor has the same issue (but a lot of trainers say he is lazy) and the dog looking at his handler will be just fine if the handler learns to reward the dog for focus by being interesting (food or play). 

Then there is the dog who has no boundaries or structure.. and the owner thinking love will fix it and a trainer thinking the dog is dangerous (and it will be if not given structure and boundaries but will be a great dog if given both!). 

Drives come in various flavors and intensities and mixed in with nerve. That dog in front of you is the sum of its genetics and somehow it needs to be trained. Being able to read that dog and understand its drives and addressing those drives using all the quadrants of training will lead to a LOT easier training path. 

I see trainers who cannot tell the difference between nerve and drive; leaking and drive; clarity and lack thereof in the dog. 

Do you know where the Bark and Hold (dog barking at a decoy in the blind) comes from in the rawest form of drive? Most do not. It is not about protecting the handler. It is the dog locating the prey. Carnivores do not typically chase stationary prey. If a single animal in a pack locates a large prey animal they will bark at that stationary animal to call the rest of the pack for help (listen to the barking.. the tone tells you so very much!). In a trial or in a police scenario, that is what a dog does and he is calling his handler to say, "Look what I found and I will just keep him here until I get some help!" 

The escape (where the dog tries to stop the handler) is prey drive.. stopping that prey. The drive is where the prey turns and tries to get rid of the dog and stick hits come in.. the dog switches to defense drive and fight drive here and the stick hits escalate the dog's drive (in a good dog). The ONLY "protection" test in the whole routine is the Courage test at the end.. where the dog is being charged by the prey and threatened.. and then the dog runs to the threat and tries to neutralize it. 

Now you would think that NONE of this is appropriate for pet dogs. Understanding this is TOTALLY appropriate for pet dogs. Understanding drives, where they come from and (most importantly) how they look and sound (through the barking) and clarity vs lack of clarity due to nerve is essential to understanding little Pooky in front of you who is not doing what that pet owner wants. With that understanding you elect to use training quadrants to help Pooky and his owner. Pooky may be fine with no P+ but Pooky may actually benefit at some point with P+ (you will find out as you move forward with training). It is a quadrant of training people do not discuss and seem to fear talking about. It should not be so.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

I'm not understanding how any of that relates to P+ or why it needs to be used. I would not expect the pet owners you are describing who have only a "general" knowledge of dogs to know enough about training or dogs to use P+ effectively, nor could I think of a scenario where they would have to...You can give a dog structure without punishment, boundaries without punishment beyond "if you don't do this thing, you don't get what you want". I can capitalize on my dog's drives without using P+. If most pet owners and trainers have "no idea", why would recommending P+ to them be beneficial? It sounds like a recipe for disaster. I don't think P+ in the average pet dog owner's toolbox is a good thing, nor is it necessary for basic house manners and obedience!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm just going to step in and say I resent the heck out of the division between 'pet owners' and 'performance homes' in this case. Not angry or anything, just - it's not necessary.

You don't need P+ for most performance sports, either - I'd say all but acknowledge I don't know a lot about IPO. I can only argue that from 'it's a game you play with your dogs, the stakes are not high enough to cause fear or pain'.

I suspect many sports dogs are better equipped to withstand/not be damaged by P+, but it's still no more necessary to training them to perform at high levels than it is basic pet manners and obedience. 

Working dogs, where there are life and death consequences, sure, but when a Q and some points or titles are what's on the line: No.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

CptJack said:


> I'm just going to step in and say I resent the heck out of the division between 'pet owners' and 'performance homes' in this case. Not angry or anything, just - it's not necessary.
> 
> You don't need P+ for most performance sports, either - I'd say all but acknowledge I don't know a lot about IPO. I can only argue that from 'it's a game you play with your dogs, the stakes are not high enough to cause fear or pain'.
> 
> ...


Right. I mean, I don't know squat about IPO, but for the more common competition things? No. P+ is not needed. I guess if someone chooses to do it (correctly and effectively and not just because), that's there choice. I don't agree with it, but....why? Has anyone ever tried to train their dog to do IPO without using P+?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Lillith said:


> Right. I mean, I don't know squat about IPO, but for the more common competition things? No. P+ is not needed. I guess if someone chooses to do it (correctly and effectively and not just because), that's there choice. I don't agree with it, but....why? Has anyone ever tried to train their dog to do IPO without using P+?


Yeah. I can't remember names right now but there's a whole track of IPO at the Fenzi Academy for it and I know several students are having a ton of success - and the instructors of course already have. I also know some big wig on an international level trained with rewards and removing access to them, but her name I WILL NEVER drag out.

But mostly: It's not necessary; it's a cultural thing.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I see a beginner obedience class. In this class are usually a few pure bred dogs and a few rescues from shelters. I see people with no idea what that beast on the end of the leash is experiencing. Usually the dogs are totally disengaged from the handler. Usually one of the dogs in the class is reactive.. hackles up and maybe barking. Another couple are avoidance sniffing the floor. Maybe one is laying down totally ignoring everything. A couple are straining at the end of the leash trying to play with other dogs (and the hackled dog is getting worse as a result). Maybe one of the dogs is actually offering behaviors or looking at its handler and getting NO reward for doing so.
> 
> The job of the trainer is to help this picture to improve using all quadrants of training.


ALL quadrants ? So in your opinion, which one of these dogs should receive P+ or R- in order to improve ? 

In my experience, all of these dogs can and will improve easily and quickly with knowledgeable application of P- and / or R+ . It's not that difficult.

Maybe the classes you're watching have trainers with inferior skills, who also wish to put punishment hastily into the hands of beginners. Really, it's the "job of the trainer" to convey to the students, especially entry level students, the least aversive most humane way to expediantly and effectively overcome common issues. That's where the skills, both people and dog skills, come into play.

And as far as Pooky one day benefiting from P+ somewhere down the line, that would be the unfortunate result of either inconsistent training to date or misapplication of R+ principles.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

petpeeve said:


> ALL quadrants ? So in your opinion, which one of these dogs should receive P+ or R- in order to improve ?


Maybe none of them will need any form of P+. Maybe they all will (unlikely). My point is don't toss out a quadrant simply because you don't like it



> In my experience, all of these dogs can and will improve easily and quickly with knowledgeable application of P- and / or R+ . It's not that difficult.
> 
> Maybe the classes you're watching have trainers with inferior skills, who also wish to put punishment hastily into the hands of beginners. Really, it's the "job of the trainer" to convey to the students, especially entry level students, the least aversive most humane way to expediantly and effectively overcome common issues. That's where the skills, both people and dog skills, come into play.


I have watched some long time, experienced trainers totally MISS the language the dog is conveying. Repeatedly. 



> And as far as Pooky one day benefiting from P+ somewhere down the line, that would be the unfortunate result of either inconsistent training to date or misapplication of R+ principles.


Actually, you don't know this (nor do I). 
All I am saying is if you throw away an entire quadrant of training you may have missed the mark.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

So your last big post... Was actually more looking down on pet owners and trainers. I am sure you didn't mean that, but really... You felt the need to talk about IPO and nerves and drives, to point out that most trainers you see are somehow clueless about dog behavior? 

There are R+ trainers, and even CPDTs out there who I disagree with. A personal friend of mine had a negative experience with a CPDT that made me go, "really, she did that to your dog?!" and that is about someone who shares credentials with me. So I agree, that bad training is bad training. And if a trainer can't read body language, know what motivates the dog (which is what "drive" is in more technical terms), and communicate with a whole slew of different humans to boot... That trainer is going to have a really hard time. But I have never seen with my own eyes trainers who fail quite as miserably as you make them out to do. No one, *not even our somewhat-behavior-trained shelter FLOOR staff* would ever look at a snarling, lunging dog and say to an owner or adopter, "that dog is aggressive." Like, they'd be talked to if they spoke like that. Even our floor staff know most of the 'ugly' behavior is based in fear. So, you must be seeing some pretty poor trainers (which I know exist, regardless of methods). 

You write: "The job of the trainer is to help this picture to improve using all quadrants of training." Even your wording is jaded by your viewpoints. The job of a trainer is to help improve the dog-owner relationship. Period. "Using all quadrants of training" is not THE focal point. You spent many posts qualifying that P+ may sometimes not be necessary for certain dogs, and here is your big statement defining the role of trainers (which is a pretty big thing), and implying again that P+ is necessary in all training. And like I said, I am NOT anti punishment and I've given many examples. But it is so, so necessary in your world that it does affect how you view training as a whole. Maybe your statement wasn't meant to imply that P+ is necessary everywhere, because I know you don't actually believe that based on your previous posts. But your wording is affected by how you think. 

And I get the sense, that from your IPO experience you think you are better or are above the 'average' owners out there. Certainly you may know more about dog behavior than the average owner. But it is not *more special* and knowledge bearing than anything else (agility, dock diving, heck even the average owner who knows nothing else but delved into learning about reactivity to help their own dog). And again, I have a ton of respect for bite sports and I think it's super cool.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Lillith said:


> Has anyone ever tried to train their dog to do IPO without using P+?


Think I'll just post this right about now. https://www.amazon.com/Purely-Posit...15435073&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27:Sheila+Booth

Aside from any discrepancies regarding the book's title *ahem*. According to the introduction she took one of her GS dogs, Charra, (a dog of her own breeding, sold to an experienced trainer and then returned to her at 14 months for being 'stick shy') to a SchH III title with V ratings (Excellent - over 96 points) in every category (tracking, obedience and protection) and also earned a perfect score of 100 in tracking. And this was done prior to 1998, long before people started arguing over terms like purely positive, lol.

I suspect there have been many more teams to achieve the same or perhaps even better since then; it was over 20 years ago ! 

Which goes to show, within the current community of IPO people, old habits die hard for some.


PS. One of my personal favourite books of all time - highly recommended. Although not really an IPO manual per se, more geared towards AKC / CKC obedience and companion dogs as well.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

petpeeve said:


> Think I'll just post this right about now. https://www.amazon.com/Purely-Posit...15435073&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27:Sheila+Booth
> 
> Aside from any discrepancies regarding the book's title *ahem*. According to the introduction she took one of her GS dogs, Charra, (a dog of her own breeding, sold to an experienced trainer and then returned to her at 14 months for being 'stick shy') to a SchH III title with V ratings (Excellent - over 96 points) in every category (tracking, obedience and protection) and also earned a perfect score of 100 in tracking. And this was done prior to 1998, long before people started arguing over terms like purely positive, lol.
> 
> ...


Well that's good to know!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I don't have any personal connections with people in my Dutch group, but I am pretty sure there are a few (very few) trainers who also forgo corrections like leash/collar corrections and who I'd consider R+ trainers, who are doing well in the IPO world too. One is a CPDT and was first place in a national competition this year, with a 2yo dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

It really is cultural - and in fairness cultural in both directions. 

Agility trials, at least in NADAC, don't even allow correction type collars on the grounds of trials, and any 'harsh' treatment of a dog, or perceived unfairness to the dog and you're at LEAST going to be removed from the ring and quite possibly have a disciplinary action. 

And locally you show up to an agility class and use punishment you're probably not going to have a good time. Just not okay in the culture. 

Same thing only the complete reverse of what happens in IPO, some obedience, and field trials.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Sheila Booth did know dogs and did some amazing things. No question. 

My intent is not to "look down" on pet dog trainers or owners (I have a pet dog too who failed at IPO). Please do not go there. I do NOT think every dog needs P+ (sometimes I think their owners do!!) (some owners flat out need an E collar and their dogs need a medal for tolerating them and we aren't even talking competition dogs!). We all know those folks. I think. 

If anything, I respect those of you who daily train with shelter dogs of golly knows what temperament or breeding and people who have been so far removed from handling animals that they see dogs as humanized "fur babies." There was a time when I would have liked a job like that.. but at this age? Not so much (filter is completely blown out and patience with humanity tends to get thin!). 

This does not mean I agree with all you say or do anymore than you agree with what I say or do. I was told by a few training cohorts to not even bother with a forum like this one because of that "pet dog mind set." I thought maybe.. just maybe.. I could offer another point of view and it might be helpful (looks like I was wrong.. won't be the first or last time I am wrong!). 

Put 10 dog trainers is a room. Have one demonstrate teaching a recall and the other 9 will tell 'em how they could do it better! Meanwhile, to the credit of the dog, he recalls... sometimes in spite of us! 

Trust this much.. I make a LOT of mistakes. I often have two left feet and two hands that are all thumbs and my dog looks at me like what the HECK are YOU doing? That said, at least he looks at me and asks.. because, as you know (and stated), the relationship MUST be there first. I so agree with this. 

Again, I say it. P+ is not for all dogs and all situations. It is a training quadrant and should be understood and, _when appropriate_, used. Not every time out. Not every dog. Not for every thing trained. I think it bears discussion and should not be considered the big bad taboo to be pushed into a closet. There is no education in that? 

FWIW in IPO the dog's attitude has been judged and it is a big deal. The dog needs to look happy and like he is enjoying being out there with that handler. He cannot show pressure and most pressure is from P+ used wrong (but not always and not all dogs!). 

I recently watched a video of a dog in Germany from the 1990's doing an Ob routine at a National level competition. Oh the dog was obedient, but he looked like he was gritting his teeth and saying throughout, "I have to do this. I hate it but I will get killed if I do not." He won.. in that day.. but today he would have barely passed if he passed at all because he exhibited no relationship with the handler and a ton of pressure. Requirements have changed (and training, thankfully, has too). 

Currently (and off topic) I actually see more unhappy and disconnected dogs exhibiting pressure and stress in the AKC Obedience ring than in IPO.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> It really is cultural - and in fairness cultural in both directions.
> 
> Agility trials, at least in NADAC, don't even allow correction type collars on the grounds of trials, and any 'harsh' treatment of a dog, or perceived unfairness to the dog and you're at LEAST going to be removed from the ring and quite possibly have a disciplinary action.
> 
> ...


USCA rules do not allow any correction collars, heeling sticks etc. from the time you hand in your score book until you get it back. If competing, you cannot correct ANY dog at ANY time during that time frame. If a judge sees you correct a dog in the parking lot at the hotel you can get DQ'd (and they mean it). Just so you know.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I see your frustration here. And maybe it's because of this: "There was a time when I would have liked a job like that.. but at this age? Not so much (filter is completely blown out and patience with humanity tends to get thin!)."

Which I don't blame you for. I have those days too. You've given some really great advice to random strangers on this forum. I don't think your viewpoints are 'not welcome here' but I think you speak from a place that non-IPO folks might find hard to relate to. I have done similar things here, like I waver between very general advice and sometimes super intense, maybe too much, maybe a little irrelevant for that person's situation... kind of advice. We're all human. But I like this forum because of the wide range of experiences and backgrounds. As far as forums go, I find it very open and accepting. 

And even this thread is proof of that. I don't think anyone shut down positive punishment. We've debated it's necessity and application in certain situations. But no one has called you a dog abuser, a yank and crank trainer, or booed you off the stage.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx said:


> I see your frustration here. And maybe it's because of this: "There was a time when I would have liked a job like that.. but at this age? Not so much (filter is completely blown out and patience with humanity tends to get thin!)."
> 
> Which I don't blame you for. I have those days too. You've given some really great advice to random strangers on this forum. I don't think your viewpoints are 'not welcome here' but I think you speak from a place that non-IPO folks might find hard to relate to. I have done similar things here, like I falter between very general advice and sometimes super intense, maybe too much, maybe a little irrelevant for that person's situation... kind of advice. We're all human. But I like this forum because of the wide range of experiences and backgrounds. As far as forums go, I find it very open and accepting.
> 
> And even this thread is proof of that. I don't think anyone shut down positive punishment. We've debated it's necessity and application in certain situations. But no one has called you a dog abuser, a yank and crank trainer, or booed you off the stage.


Thank you for this. 
Let me know if you need to borrow an E Collar (for the OWNERS!!!!!!!). 

I would like to see everyone succeed. 

BTW IMO a dog trialing and titling at high levels of IPO at age 2 is too young. Too young physically (because it was jumping a meter wall very young, doing a full scaling wall very young and smacking into helpers very young) and too young mentally (so you can create a mess there.. remember that fight with the decoy is real to the dog). 

Our group is "no hurries no worries because hurries creates worries." We have a general idea of 4 years to train em. 4 years to compete em and 4 years of retirement. That varies of course but not a lot.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I checked... The dog is 2 yrs, 5 mo. Earned IPO3 at nationals. 84 tracking, 84 obedience, 92 protection. I can't wait to see this dog in another couple of years.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Maybe none of them will need any form of P+. Maybe they all will (unlikely). My point is don't toss out a quadrant simply because you don't like it


I don't like clams and I don't care much for tofu. But when it comes to advocating for something - anything - other than punishment, it's because I've seen the damage it can do firsthand. And at times it can be an atrocity.

It's not my personal taste at work here. It's simply a matter of trying to look out for the multitude of voiceless animals who often suffer at the hands of misguided AND UNNECESSARY training methods. That's why I've elected to take a stand, remain polite, and hopefully be informative in the process so others who may be less aware will be able to see the pitfalls and dangers that punishment can present. And also, the wonderment that training positively can provide. 

We can all use a whole lot less negativity in our lives. Dogs included.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I recently watched a video of a dog in Germany from the 1990's doing an Ob routine at a National level competition. Oh the dog was obedient, but he looked like he was gritting his teeth and saying throughout, "I have to do this. I hate it but I will get killed if I do not." He won.. in that day.. but today he would have barely passed if he passed at all because he exhibited no relationship with the handler and a ton of pressure. Requirements have changed (and training, thankfully, has too).
> 
> Currently (and off topic) I actually see more unhappy and disconnected dogs exhibiting pressure and stress in the AKC Obedience ring than in IPO.


Just an FYI and a noteworthy little anecdote, I think. A CKC OB judge / good friend of mine with a very keen sense of observation informed me that when he does a run-off for placements, he decidedly looks for attitude and subtle canine body language. Not micro-mistakes or anomalies in the exercise where points could possibly be deducted, as some judges likely do. 

It actually states in the official rulebook that when a judge encounters two relatively equal dogs, he or she shall choose the happier working dog over the more precise working dog. And I'd be willing to wager that for the majority of times, the victor is the one who has received little to no punishment during training.

Yet another reason to think long and hard, at least for comp OB dogs anyway.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

I can tell you this about my currently titled dog. In her three titles one thing all the judges mentioned was how darn happy she was (a little TOO happy in one of the trials!). In her IPO 2 the judge went so far as to say we were a great team out there and that is what he likes to see.. a truly happy dog and a team. This dog is no stranger to the e collar (which works better for her than a prong collar correction). 

I do find it bemusing how the pet owners give her wide berth after they find out she is IPO 3 (like she is out to get everyone and she is NOT). I also find it frustrating that they are appalled when I slam a ball on the ground next to my dog (creating excitement) when I reward her for something. She LOVES that.. but I think it scares some of the people there?

Last sho n go at least two dogs watched me playing with my dog and after I put her up and was just standing and watching, these two dogs came out of their crates to do their runs and they were more interested in ME than in their owners. I guess they were hoping I had that toy still? 

I have taken her to two AKC sho n go's and she is one of the happiest and most engaged dogs there. She cannot wait to work! 

They do not allow e collars at these events, but she is trained and likes to work so it is a non-issue at this point. I could make her a bit more precise with a little bit of e collar during the show and go but even if I did not do that she would score well in a trial without it. I have considered getting her CD and CDX.. all depends on time n money and time and time and more time.

It would be interesting to see if my happy and focused dog and I were competitive in that venue. Maybe we would be giant failures. Not tried it yet.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Slightly o/t but ... 

Most of the IPO dogs I've seen trialing in obedience lose a lot of points during heeling, mainly due to the differences in basic "style". Grossly incorrect position of the left hand, crowding, and execution of turns seem to be the biggest areas of concern. If a handler can re-program their dog to recognize the environment, and therefore the necessary shift in style, they can be very competitive. The remainder of exercises are pretty much a non-issue.

Proximity of other dogs working concurrently in adjacent rings can be distracting to some dogs as well, ie: dumbbell throw in Ring 1 during directed retrieve in Ring 2 etc., simply because they typically haven't had much exposure to those types of events. Although it's nothing a little extra proofing can't overcome.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

petpeeve said:


> Slightly o/t but ...
> 
> Most of the IPO dogs I've seen trialing in obedience lose a lot of points during heeling, mainly due to the differences in basic "style". Grossly incorrect position of the left hand, crowding, and execution of turns seem to be the biggest areas of concern. If a handler can re-program their dog to recognize the environment, and therefore the necessary shift in style, they can be very competitive. The remainder of exercises are pretty much a non-issue.
> 
> Proximity of other dogs working concurrently in adjacent rings can be distracting to some dogs as well, ie: dumbbell throw in Ring 1 during directed retrieve in Ring 2 etc., simply because they typically haven't had much exposure to those types of events. Although it's nothing a little extra proofing can't overcome.


Heeling in IPO seems to evolve to something else every year. Hopping is a no-no now, looking at the handler's face causes the dog to wrap and so they swing their butt out (points off) so now we get them to look at your shoulder.. more head up like Malinois.. and that was considered incorrect previously.. Hand outside the head, hand inside the head, hand stationary (arm stiff), Dog Crowding is now bad and it used to be not as big an issue.. the list goes on. Turns.. IPO military (flashy if done right but not many handlers can master the foot work and longer dogs have trouble with that turn) or go around about turn dog must be tight, focused and quick. If it was just "one way" it would be OK but it is like hitting a moving target at times. With a blind fold on. Haha! The main thing is to get good focus and a happy, relaxed dog and you cannot force it. You get it with good rewards. Once trained, P+ to correct inattentiveness can be useful if you have a dog with drive. 

Some use P+ to increase drive and focus. This is different and not well understood by most.. but light corrections followed by great rewards can actually build some dogs to be better. The light corrections (both e Collar and Prong) actually bring the dog UP in drive. My young dog may work this way at some point (he has the drive) but not yet. My older dog it does not work well for (or maybe it is my application of it). I know dogs where it does work VERY well. 

My young dog was at a sho n go and saw a DB toss in the ring next to us and he was all set to take care of that DB and bring it to me but we redirected..


----------

