# Training Methods - philosophical discussion?!



## Purley (Sep 7, 2009)

I have noticed that when I search around on the Internet, most of the people on various boards advocate the clicker type of training.

I belong to our local Kennel Club which is affiliated to the Canadian Kennel Club. We have many trainers with many, many years of experience and many of them have had clicker training. Some years ago Sue Ailsby came to the club to teach a clicker class.

But the fact remains, that the philosphy of our club is reward AND correction. That does not mean beating a dog with a stick. But it does mean that if the dog is told to sit and the dog gets up, the dog is put down in a sit again, often by tucking their bum under or else if its the down - by pushing on the shoulders. Treats can be anything: food, toy, or just saying "good dog".

I am of, I guess, the old school and I believe that you need both rewards and corrections, in the form of "no" or time outs in a crate or something if the dog is, for the want of a better word "bad" i.e. the behaviour is unwanted. But it seems nowadays lots of people believe in no corrections. 

Maybe it has nothing to do with dogs, but I wonder if the "no correction" attitude has something to do with the lack of respect of authority/other people's property etc. etc, in youth nowadays.

So, I just wonder what others on this board think of the reward good behaviour and ignore the bad - type of training.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

I use a clicker in my training, but I wouldn't say I'm a "clicker training" -- I don't know what I am. I don't use physical or verbal corrections in my training, because I personally find it more valuable to have a dog who does what I ask because the dog loves doing what I ask as opposed to a dog who does what I ask because he knows if he doesn't, there will be a penalty that involves pain (or, if that's too strong of a word, discomfort). There's more to it than that, but that's the basic idea. 

I haven't trained as many dogs as some people (I am up to 14). I foster for a local humane society, and each dog leaves knowing basic commands (sit, down, stay, loose leash walking) as well as general house rules, like potty training, waiting at open doors, being calm in the house, not jumping up, etc. I have never found it necessary to use corrections, or that the dogs are less well trained because they haven't had them. Because they're not necessary, I don't know why I would ever use them. 



Purley said:


> But it does mean that if the dog is told to sit and the dog gets up, the dog is put down in a sit again, often by tucking their bum under or else if its the down - by pushing on the shoulders.


This I personally choose not to use because I believe I remember reading a study or a book somewhere that indicated that an animal who learns by being physically manipulated (responding to pressure) learns slower than an animal who's asked to work through the problem themselves and chooses the correct position on its own. If I'm working with a dog, I ask for a sit, and the dog breaks the sit-stay, I've just received some valuable information about my training -- the dog doesn't understand what's being asked of him, the dog is in an environment that has too many distractions for him to deal with currently, or the dog doesn't find doing what I ask to be more rewarding than his other choices. 



Purley said:


> Maybe it has nothing to do with dogs, but I wonder if the "no correction" attitude has something to do with the lack of respect of authority/other people's property etc. etc, in youth nowadays.


This is just silly. A lot of trainers who choose to train without physical and verbal corrections are older. Susan Garrett is in her 50's. Susan Ailsby, Ian Dunbar, Patricia McConnell, Jean Donaldson, and Karen Pryor are all (I believe, although I'm not positive and didn't want to google everyone's age) somewhere in their 40's+. The point is that I wouldn't really call them "youth." The "no correction attitude" likely has more to do with the fact that people are learning that it works and that, and this is a personal opinion, training without corrections is WAY more enjoyable than training with corrections. 



Purley said:


> So, I just wonder what others on this board think of the reward good behaviour and ignore the bad - type of training.


And this is a common misconception. Sometimes you "ignore the bad behavior" -- but this ONLY works if the bad behavior is happening because the dog wants your attention. Then, you're taking away the reward for the behavior, which will cause it to extinguish. If you ignore a dog who chases squirrels (you're not the source of reinforcement for that behavior), you're a bad trainer. If you ignore a dog who barks at other dogs on walks (you're not the source of reinforcement for that behavior), you're a bad trainer. If you ignore a dog who is pawing at you for attention (you ARE the source of reinforcement for that behavior), then you'll get a decrease in the behavior.

Susan Garrett is one of my favorite "clicker" or "positive reinforcement" trainers, largely due to how she deals with behaviors she doesn't want without correction. I really like this blog post for explaining her concept: http://susangarrettdogagility.com/2011/08/the-possibilities-in-dog-training/


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I reward good work and correct bad work, no more, no less. Of course I'm real old school, actually I was there before the school was built.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Purley said:


> Maybe it has nothing to do with dogs, but I wonder if the "no correction" attitude has something to do with the lack of respect of authority/other people's property etc. etc, in youth nowadays.
> 
> So, I just wonder what others on this board think of the reward good behaviour and ignore the bad - type of training.


There are, essentially, two ways to correct a behavior...1) communicate to the being they've done something wrong, or 2) communicate to the being what behavior you want instead. There is no such thing as "no correction", unless you're inadvertently reinforcing the incorrect behavior. I, like others, do prefer to not rely on aversion, or be as minimally aversive as possible. I also feel if you communicate to the being too much about what they've done wrong, they think about not making the error, instead of figure out the right behavior (my opinion only). 

The lack of respect in children has more to do with the lack of attention in parenting. It has little to do with the form of correction IMO. 

Now, you can only get behavior through reinforcement, so, I don't see an argument as to why I should choose aversion when it isn't necessary. I have the time, patience, and creativity, why do I need aversion, is my question in training.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Purley said:


> Maybe it has nothing to do with dogs, but I wonder if the "no correction" attitude has something to do with the lack of respect of authority/other people's property etc. etc, in youth nowadays.


Now you went and done it! I wouldn't necessarily make that leap (I try to be careful about linking correlation to causation) but I will admit I've had my suspicions. I will say that is perversely amusing that so many of the "never inconvenience the dog/child" camp are so ready, willing, and eager to use social disapprobation and/or the police power of the state against anyone who doesn't share their ethos.

Talk amongst yourselves.....


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

CricketLoops said:


> I don't use physical or verbal corrections in my training, because I personally find it more valuable to have a dog who does what I ask because the dog loves doing what I ask as opposed to a dog who does what I ask because he knows if he doesn't, there will be a penalty that involves pain (or, if that's too strong of a word, discomfort).


The choice the dog makes is not exclusively between one or the other.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Older people have been whining about the "lack of respect, etc." in the youth of their times at least since Socrates. I don't think that has anything to do with anything. I guarantee you my parents (who were beaten regularly) had absolutely zero respect for other peoples' property, the police, or their parents, they just tried harder not to get caught. The stories they tell of their youth are really very shocking to me. I guess I was raised to have some respect.

Anyhoo, when one's position is based on misconceptions, I don't really know how to respond. Positive training (of children or dogs) is not permissive. Permissive "training" (or lack thereof) is.


----------



## Purley (Sep 7, 2009)

With respect to the previous post, I guess this is my thread so we are allowed to sort of get off topic. I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s and in those days parents were the boss. We were not consulted about things such as shall we move house etc? We were not ASKED if we wanted to move. We were TOLD - we are moving! We were brought up to respect the cops, our grandparents, teachers etc. If I went home and told my Mom that I got in trouble at school, I would get it again at home!! At school we had Miss Rendell, who used the wood ruler on the forearm. We had Mr Campbell who used the wood ruler on the back of the leg. It hurt. It wasn't torture. But honestly, at the time I bore no resentment towards them. I just figured I better shut my mouth the next time! The host on my local talk radio station commented sort of the same thing growing up. He said if they were up to mischief, one look from an "old guy" made them think twice and slink off home, whereas nowadays if an "old guy" gave a mischief maker "the look", the best they could expect was a stream of abuse -- the worst would be getting beaten up.

I just wonder whether the same thing might relate to a dog. If you ASK a dog to do something, does he respect you less than if you TELL him he has to do it? I honestly think I respected my parents More for their strictness and when I did get the odd "backhander" as my Dad called it, again, I just thought I had better smarten up and stop the back answers! Being a "friend" to your child or your dog, rather than "the boss" maybe is not such a good idea. 

Luring a dog who constantly yaps might, eventually, get the dog to stop yapping. But, as my friend says, a squirt in the face with a stream of water does the job much quicker. And I tend to agree with her that water in the face never hurt anyone - child or dog!

I have taken clicker classes. I really enjoyed them. But I have to admit that it took a lot longer to achieve certain things. We were told "no corrections" - a couple of us had taken the non-clicker classes before. I just wonder - if one quick snap of the leash gets the dog to stop charging after another dog, is that preferable to weeks and weeks of luring the dog back and giving it a treat??


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Water in the face may not hurt physically, but what about the emotional effect it could have on the dog? Is this not weighed? Or is it only a time factor that concerns you? And what about your humanity? Certainly you chose not to use a brick across the dog's head to effect a down, why not? It could have the most lasting effect on down. 

I guess I don't see the point in weighing the time factor so much, more than you CAN get the behavior you want. Efficiency is relative to the handler after all.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The choice the dog makes is not exclusively between one or the other.


Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking about that after I wrote it a little, and especially after you pointed this out. I think a better description of my philosophy is that I don’t want fear of physical or verbal corrections to ever be a motivation for the dogs I train. I definitely don’t believe that a dog trained with corrections will never demonstrate a desire to work with its trainer or enjoyment of following commands, especially when rewards are also incorporated into the training.




Purley said:


> I just wonder whether the same thing might relate to a dog. If you ASK a dog to do something, does he respect you less than if you TELL him he has to do it? I honestly think I respected my parents More for their strictness and when I did get the odd "backhander" as my Dad called it, again, I just thought I had better smarten up and stop the back answers! Being a "friend" to your child or your dog, rather than "the boss" maybe is not such a good idea.



Woah! This is some pretty severe anthropomorphizing you've got going on here. You're basically making the argument that as a child, you "respected" strict authority figures more than less strict ones, therefore dogs will also respect authority figures who are strict. Do you see the holes that are in your logic? You’re missing the stuff in the middle, where you need to make the case that dogs and humans are motivated by the same things, that they learn in the same ways, that they “respect” other beings in the same way that humans “respect” them. You’re making the argument that dogs are capable of interpreting and internalizing punishment for behavior in the same way that humans are, and I don’t think we can know that. 


Being backhanded worked on you and didn’t, you feel, damage your relationship with your father likely because (and I’m making assumptions) you knew you’d done something wrong, you were likely completely aware of the consequences when you made the choice, and you felt as though it was fair – as though you deserved the punishment you got for your bad behavior. And if you resented your father at the time of the punishment, or at any time associated his presence with pain, you were able to interpret the situation at a later date when you were more mature and realize that you agreed with his punishment, or at least thought it was appropriate. How would you feel if you’d been punished if you didn’t know you did something wrong, you weren’t aware there would be consequences to your choice, or you had no concept of “deserving” punishment, or guilt to evaluate your actions and take responsibility for your incorrect behavior?


I, personally, don’t like using the term “respect” when talking about dog training. It’s not something I think about when I’m training dogs (I never worry about whether or not the dog respects me). What does it even mean, anyway? The important thing is evaluating whatever behavioral goal you’ve set for your training, like – does the dog sit every time you ask him to? If not, why? Is it because of a lack of respect? How would you determine that? If it is, does that affect how you deal with the situation? What does a dog without respect for his owner look like? Can you create the same respect by showing the dog that the only way to access all of the reinforcing things in life is through you? Are corrections necessary for this nebulous “respect”? 




Purley said:


> Luring a dog who constantly yaps might, eventually, get the dog to stop yapping. But, as my friend says, a squirt in the face with a stream of water does the job much quicker. And I tend to agree with her that water in the face never hurt anyone - child or dog!



Again, if you have a trainer who tells you to lure a yapping dog with treats, fire the trainer. The trainer is a bad trainer. The only time I use luring (or the affectionately termed “waving treats in a dog’s face”) is if I’m counter-conditioning from a distance with a dog who isn’t reacting to the stimulus. Luring a dog who constantly yaps will not eventually get the dog to stop yapping. 




Purley said:


> I have taken clicker classes. I really enjoyed them. But I have to admit that it took a lot longer to achieve certain things. We were told "no corrections" - a couple of us had taken the non-clicker classes before. I just wonder - if one quick snap of the leash gets the dog to stop charging after another dog, is that preferable to weeks and weeks of luring the dog back and giving it a treat??



First, luring the dog back and giving the dog a treat to teach it not to charge after another dog is, for lack of a more educated way to say it, really stupid. It’s likely to teach a behavior chain of Charge – See treat – Come back for treat – Get treat. 


For training alternate responses or fixing behavior problems, clicker training often does take longer. For others, like teaching new behaviors, clicker training is MUCH faster. If you believe that the only difference between using corrections to fix bad behavior and using reinforcement to fix bad behavior is the time in which it takes to accomplish this, it’s easy to see why someone would use corrections. The difference in opinion is when you believe there’s something great that happens when you train with positive reinforcement that doesn’t happen when you correct (I do) or that there’s something terrible that happens when you correct that doesn’t happen when you train with positive reinforcement (I sometimes do, depending on the type and severity of the correction). 


I believe that, for a dog, making a choice between two rewarding options is a lot more difficult than making a choice between a reward and a punishment – hence the increased learning time! When you take the time to develop those ideas in a dog (“I’m not going to chase the squirrel because I like tugging more” or “I’m not going to chase the squirrel because if I wait to be told to chase the squirrel, I can chase the squirrel AND tug”) develops a “smarter” dog, or a dog that’s a better learner, or a dog with amazing impulse control. If I take the time as a trainer to master the environmental motivator (the squirrel), I believe it creates a LOT more value for me and for working with me than other options, like using corrections, even if it takes longer. It creates enthusiasm that a water bottle in the face doesn’t. I like a dog who’s enthusiastic about not yapping and enthusiastic about doing other things instead of yapping.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Purley said:


> With respect to the previous post, I guess this is my thread so we are allowed to sort of get off topic. I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s and in those days parents were the b oss. We were not consulted about things such as shall we move house etc? We were not ASKED if we wanted to move. We were TOLD - we are moving! We were brought up to respect the cops, our grandparents, teachers etc. If I went home and told my Mom that I got in trouble at school, I would get it again at home!! At school we had Miss Rendell, who used the wood ruler on the forearm. We had Mr Campbell who used the wood ruler on the back of the leg. It hurt. It wasn't torture. But honestly, at the time I bore no resentment towards them. I just figured I better shut my mouth the next time! The host on my local talk radio station commented sort of the same thing growing up. He said if they were up to mischief, one look from an "old guy" made them think twice and slink off home, whereas nowadays if an "old guy" gave a mischief maker "the look", the best they could expect was a stream of abuse -- the worst would be getting beaten up.
> 
> I just wonder whether the same thing might relate to a dog. If you ASK a dog to do something, does he respect you less than if you TELL him he has to do it? I honestly think I respected my parents More for their strictness and when I did get the odd "backhander" as my Dad called it, again, I just thought I had better smarten up and stop the back answers! Being a "friend" to your child or your dog, rather than "the boss" maybe is not such a good idea.
> 
> ...


Way to go Purley, I got one up on you I spent 8 years Catholic grade school with the nuns. I survived and knew right from wrong. Years later when our son was in a public grade school we got a call from teacher who said our son and a friend decided that bullying/picking on kids was cool, We went to school and when talking to the teacher she told us it was all she could do to not smack our kid, at that time I said no problem if she wanted I would hold him so he couldn't run a way. Anyway the bullying stopped. 

It's a different world now, we just had a 17 yr old who beat his parents to death (Chicago area) allegedly because he was growing pot in the parents home (in the basement) and he got caught. I know it's very popular to raise a child and never say no and give the child whatever he/she wants eventually reality will step in and it's possible when the 1st no arrives strange things can happen. 

Now is it possible that the same program with dogs could have strange things happening, I wonder.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purley said:


> So, I just wonder what others on this board think of the reward good behaviour and ignore the bad - type of training.


I don't know anyone who is effective who "ignores" unwanted behavior. I know many who will address unwanted behavior in ways that keep it from being reinforcing to the dog (i.e., manage it so it cannot be self-reinforcing, give an alternate incompatable behavior that WILL be reinforced, make it clear to the dog that it will not be reinforced). Frequently in an attempt to punish unwanted behavior, people actually reinforce it by giving their energy/attention to it. 

I suspect that the children who don't respect authority and the dogs who don't have decent manners has less to do with people believing in "no corrections" (whatever that means) and more to do with the fact that no effective learning has taken place. Some people use the excuse of "purely positive" (which doesn't actually exist) because they don't want to have to make or reinforce rules. That's not training. I assure you that the good clicker trainer has just as much idea of what they want as any other effective trainer - except maybe if they are free shaping, and even then they intelligently build something useful.

As far as giving reward (reinforcement) and corrections (whatever that means), one of the great powers of clicker training is that the dog uses his own initiative to discover what will be reinforced. If I do that work for him, he'll never learn to do for himself, never develop self-control, never think of things he can try. Shaping is a powerful method, and can get me stuff I can't get by physically manipulating the dog.


And worse, if I encourage him to offer up stuff, and then I punish some of what he does offer (however non-abusively) he becomes leery of offering me things, because he now has a reason to be concerned that he might make a mistake. If you have to push your dog into a sit or down, chances are you never actually taught him the behavior. It is a short cut, and a sloppy one at that.


----------



## katielou (Apr 29, 2010)

Purley said:


> With respect to the previous post, I guess this is my thread so we are allowed to sort of get off topic. I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s and in those days parents were the boss. We were not consulted about things such as shall we move house etc? We were not ASKED if we wanted to move. We were TOLD - we are moving! We were brought up to respect the cops, our grandparents, teachers etc. If I went home and told my Mom that I got in trouble at school, I would get it again at home!! At school we had Miss Rendell, who used the wood ruler on the forearm. We had Mr Campbell who used the wood ruler on the back of the leg. It hurt. It wasn't torture. But honestly, at the time I bore no resentment towards them. I just figured I better shut my mouth the next time! The host on my local talk radio station commented sort of the same thing growing up. He said if they were up to mischief, one look from an "old guy" made them think twice and slink off home, whereas nowadays if an "old guy" gave a mischief maker "the look", the best they could expect was a stream of abuse -- the worst would be getting beaten up.
> 
> I just wonder whether the same thing might relate to a dog. If you ASK a dog to do something, does he respect you less than if you TELL him he has to do it? I honestly think I respected my parents More for their strictness and when I did get the odd "backhander" as my Dad called it, again, I just thought I had better smarten up and stop the back answers! Being a "friend" to your child or your dog, rather than "the boss" maybe is not such a good idea.
> 
> ...


You don't think that treatment you received absolutely destroys some people? We only have to look the military and its massive drop out rates for dogs to realize that that kind of training ruins a huge amount of dogs. Why anyone would take that risk when there are plenty of other ways that take the dog into consideration and not just your ideals is beyond me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purley said:


> With respect to the previous post, I guess this is my thread so we are allowed to sort of get off topic. I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s and in those days parents were the boss. We were not consulted about things such as shall we move house etc? We were not ASKED if we wanted to move. We were TOLD - we are moving! We were brought up to respect the cops, our grandparents, teachers etc. If I went home and told my Mom that I got in trouble at school, I would get it again at home!! At school we had Miss Rendell, who used the wood ruler on the forearm. We had Mr Campbell who used the wood ruler on the back of the leg. It hurt. It wasn't torture. But honestly, at the time I bore no resentment towards them. I just figured I better shut my mouth the next time! The host on my local talk radio station commented sort of the same thing growing up. He said if they were up to mischief, one look from an "old guy" made them think twice and slink off home, whereas nowadays if an "old guy" gave a mischief maker "the look", the best they could expect was a stream of abuse -- the worst would be getting beaten up.
> 
> I/QUOTE]
> 
> I also grew up in the 50s and 60s. My grandmother swatted me with a switch. My parents spanked me. None of which I would consider abusive. They were good and loving family, doing the best that they knew how to do. But, also none of which made that much of an impression. In school, teachers were allowed to paddle and use other forms of corporal punishment. It was sort of a badge of honor if you could provoke some of them into a swat (negative attention). I don't think any of that made me a better person. I was a wild, wild teenager. Am lucky to have survived the drugs and not gotten accidently pregnant. I knew there was punishment if I got caught. I just made it a point not to get caught. (I'm much better and have learned to be responsible for myself now). Some kids will respect corporal punishment. Others will make it a game to avoid it. Depends on the kid. And again, aversives work better for some dogs than others. If you pop a dog and reel him in for a recall, some dogs will learn a recall. Others will learn to take notice when the leash is not on. If a dog has a strong reinforcement history for a recall, it won't matter if he has a leash on or not, because you've never used the leash that way.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purley said:


> I just wonder - if one quick snap of the leash gets the dog to stop charging after another dog, is that preferable to weeks and weeks of luring the dog back and giving it a treat??


If this is what you got that clicker training is, I'm not surprised you think it is probably not effective.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I know it's very popular to raise a child and never say no and give the child whatever he/she wants eventually reality will step in and it's possible when the 1st no arrives strange things can happen.
> 
> Now is it possible that the same program with dogs could have strange things happening, I wonder.


I'm probably misunderstanding your intentions in saying this, but if you're relating that to the use of clicker training or training without physical/verbal corrections, I don't think it applies. A good trainer, no matter what strategy they choose to employ, does not allow the dog to have uncontrolled access to reinforcement if they're trying to change a behavior, and good "clicker training" isn't about giving them whatever they want. Impulse control is a huge part of successful training.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Purley said:


> With respect to the previous post, I guess this is my thread so we are allowed to sort of get off topic. I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s and in those days parents were the boss. We were not consulted about things such as shall we move house etc? We were not ASKED if we wanted to move. We were TOLD - we are moving! We were brought up to respect the cops, our grandparents, teachers etc. If I went home and told my Mom that I got in trouble at school, I would get it again at home!! At school we had Miss Rendell, who used the wood ruler on the forearm. We had Mr Campbell who used the wood ruler on the back of the leg. It hurt. It wasn't torture. But honestly, at the time I bore no resentment towards them. I just figured I better shut my mouth the next time! The host on my local talk radio station commented sort of the same thing growing up. He said if they were up to mischief, one look from an "old guy" made them think twice and slink off home, whereas nowadays if an "old guy" gave a mischief maker "the look", the best they could expect was a stream of abuse -- the worst would be getting beaten up.
> 
> I just wonder whether the same thing might relate to a dog. If you ASK a dog to do something, does he respect you less than if you TELL him he has to do it? I honestly think I respected my parents More for their strictness and when I did get the odd "backhander" as my Dad called it, again, I just thought I had better smarten up and stop the back answers! Being a "friend" to your child or your dog, rather than "the boss" maybe is not such a good idea.
> 
> ...


I grew up in the 80s/90s and was raised in such a manner at home, and it had a very negative psychological effect. I was always viewed as a "good" kid, did well in school, respected elders, and as an adult there are very few people who I don't get along well with, however psychologically the effects of my upbringing are pretty severe. Until 2-3 years ago (when I sought treatment) I was constantly living in a state of anxiety regarding "disappointing" other people to the extreme that I would do things that were detrimental to me in order to keep others happy and avoid confrontation. I had/have little to no self esteem. The thought of doing something wrong and the fear of consequences will make me physically ill, even though I know my supervisor can't hit me and my husband won't hit me. Some children are absolutely fine with being raised using "harsher" methods (most of my siblings turned out just fine) but with some children there are severe after effects that will follow them throughout their life. The same can definitely be said about dogs as well. This is why one size fits all methods of child and dog rearing are absolutely wrong.

My relationship with my parents is viewed as "good" from the outside. I talk to them on the phone daily, visit them every weekend, and generally am a good child. I don't trust my parents, especially my mom who was the main disciplinarian. I will not seek out her advice or discuss problems with her. There is no real intimate relationship between us, it is more of a "I am doing this because you are my parents and I love you unconditionally and want you in my life, however I do not have a deep emotional bond with you." How does this relate to my life with my dogs? I want my dogs to go to me when they feel threatened or have a problem rather than feel they have to deal with it themselves. A dog's way of dealing with it themselves involves teeth on flesh 99% of the time. I want them to come to me when they feel uncertain about a new situation/person/dog so I can show them how I want them to react instead of letting them make their own, usually bad decisions. I think you can bond with a dog that you use punishment based methods on, however like in my relationship with my parents, there may not be 100% trust between you and the dog if there is an element of fear to your relationship. 

A squirt in the face may not send a kid or dog to the hospital, however let's say you have a child who is afraid of needles. If you squirted the child in the face every time they had to have blood drawn or get a shot, do you think the child will be more or less afraid of going for procedures with needles? Some children may stop crying when they go to the doctor's because they do not want to be sprayed in the face. They will still be terrified, probably more than before the water was introduced however they will not express it. You are never addressing the true issue and you are not teaching any real ways of coping with a stressful situation for the child. Do you think the situation might become so stressful for some other children, they'll escalate their reaction so where they originally cried (yapped) when going to the doctor's that they will physically fight you now when they are in the parking lot. A good amount of yapping in dogs is fear based. If you punish the yapping hoping that it will suppress the behavior, sometimes you will get that result however you are not addressing the true issue and it may manifest itself in other ways. Best case scenario, you get a neurotic shut down dog that doesn't yap. Worst case scenario, you get a dog who is so terrified of the consequences of yapping but has no idea how to deal with the fearful stimuli that they need to physically act out to voice their displeasure. Once again, most of the time dogs decide to solve their problems by putting flesh to teeth when not shown what else to do. Now you have turned an annoying habit into a big problem. Quicker is not always better. Would you rather your surgeon do an operation quicker because he's terrified of being reprimanded for tying up the operating room (fewer surgeries = less money for hospital = less money for surgeon), or would you rather he take his time and make sure everything is done properly, which he can do if he doesn't have pressure from the higher ups to get a certain number of cases in per day?

Also.. I have never worked with a trainer who said "reward the good ignore the bad." This is a common misconception of people who do not fully understand the principles behind non-adversive training. You want to reward the behaviors that you want the dog to display and interrupt undesirable behaviors so you can show the dog what you wish for them to do instead. 

As an example, One of my dogs came to me with a great deal of reactivity towards men of a certain description. When we would see these men on a walk, he would turn from a happy goofy puppy into a snarling lunging monster. First thing I wanted to do was change the emotional association with these men. We started at a distance where I knew he saw the man, but he didn't feel pressured to react. Whenever he calmly looked at the men he got a reward. Eventually, whatever negative association he had with seeing these men turned into a positive association where he expected something good to happen when he saw the men instead of something bad. This allowed us to progressively get closer to the men without a reaction, however he would not allow these men to interact with him. He would approach them for petting, then he would quickly become uncomfortable and not know how to escape so he would begin to growl. Instead of "correcting" the dog for growling by giving him a leash pop, I learned how to read his signals so I could interrupt the behavior before it turned into a growl. At the first sign of him becoming uncomfortable, I called him back to me and rewarded him heavily. Coming to me is incompatible with continuing to be petted and escalating to the growl, so the undesirable behavior was interrupted (growling) and a "good" behavior was replaced (coming back to me.) Eventually, he began turning away from the attention and coming to me on his own without any cue when he became uncomfortable. This stopped the growling and allowed him to have more completely positive encounters with the men he was afraid of and now, after a year he is 100% comfortable with every single human he comes into contact with. I can't think of a way to get these results (dog actually loving and seeking out petting from the types of men he was afraid of) using correction based methods. I think this is preferable to a quick snap of the leash to get the dog to stop charging at the men, but he doesn't know what to do after that.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Older people have been whining about the "lack of respect, etc." in the youth of their times at least since Socrates. I don't think that has anything to do with anything. I guarantee you my parents (who were beaten regularly) had absolutely zero respect for other peoples' property, the police, or their parents, they just tried harder not to get caught. The stories they tell of their youth are really very shocking to me. I guess I was raised to have some respect.
> 
> Anyhoo, when one's position is based on misconceptions, I don't really know how to respond. Positive training (of children or dogs) is not permissive. Permissive "training" (or lack thereof) is.


I'm in agreement. My wife talks a lot about how 'bad things have gotten', as compared to our youth. We disagree on this. Since I'm only 40 this isn't too long ago, but with the introduction of the Internet, a lot has happened in the last 20 years. My wife talks about how you never used to hear about this or that, and so the world has gone downhill. My response is that you never used to hear about it because we didn't have access to near real-time updates from around the world. I don't believe things have gotten worse - we just know more about it now. 

Fear of consequence is a necessary part of society, but only as the very last resort. I say that because it's the least effective manner in which to control behavior (long-term that is, it's the quickest in the short-term). To support this claim, I recall working as a data-entry clerk while working through college. The owners of the company were very controlling. Start of work was at 8:00 a.m. At 8:01 they were upset if you weren't in the door. I couldn't stop by a coworker's desk and ask how they were doing, couldn't have drinks at my desk, had to take breaks at very specific times, etc. They were constantly having to hassle people to improve productivity, and weren't ever successful at it. Why? Because people didn't like being treated as if they were irresponsible children, and resented this environment. I now work as a programmer in a company that is far more permissive. I can show up at 6:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., can take lunch whenever I want, leave when I want, and talk when I want. Interestingly, we don't have productivity problems here. People get their work done, and often will work longer hours if necessary (we're on salary, so no over-time). 

The point is that, whenever possible, I believe that the best way to get the behaviors you want is to motivate the dog (or person) to also want to offer this behavior. As a next step, you can take away certain things if necessary, like not paying attention to a dog that's jumping up, and as a _very _last resort you can use some form of punishment. I view punishing my dogs in the same way I view firing an employee or locking someone up in prison. It's only for when things have gone *seriously* wrong. If I come home and my dogs have dug through the trash can, the only thing I smack is my forehead, because I should not have left the trash where they could get to it. If I'm doing training and my dog doesn't sit when I want them to, I reflect if there's a reason this might be happening, and adjust what I'm doing. I never force my dogs into any position, partly for fear that I could do them some harm, and partly from concern that I'd set up a cycle of fear in them. I should add, however, that I'm not an expert trainer and my dogs aren't perfectly trained. They're very good, but still do funky things. This is just my opinion on the subject.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

wil.wish said:


> I'm in agreement. My wife talks a lot about how 'bad things have gotten', as compared to our youth. We disagree on this. Since I'm only 40 this isn't too long ago, but with the introduction of the Internet, a lot has happened in the last 20 years. My wife talks about how you never used to hear about this or that, and so the world has gone downhill. My response is that you never used to hear about it because we didn't have access to near real-time updates from around the world. I don't believe things have gotten worse - we just know more about it now.
> 
> Fear of consequence is a necessary part of society, but only as the very last resort. I say that because it's the least effective manner in which to control behavior (long-term that is, it's the quickest in the short-term). To support this claim, I recall working as a data-entry clerk while working through college. The owners of the company were very controlling. Start of work was at 8:00 a.m. At 8:01 they were upset if you weren't in the door. I couldn't stop by a coworker's desk and ask how they were doing, couldn't have drinks at my desk, had to take breaks at very specific times, etc. They were constantly having to hassle people to improve productivity, and weren't ever successful at it. Why? Because people didn't like being treated as if they were irresponsible children, and resented this environment. I now work as a programmer in a company that is far more permissive. I can show up at 6:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., can take lunch whenever I want, leave when I want, and talk when I want. Interestingly, we don't have productivity problems here. People get their work done, and often will work longer hours if necessary (we're on salary, so no over-time).
> 
> The point is that, whenever possible, I believe that the best way to get the behaviors you want is to motivate the dog (or person) to also want to offer this behavior. As a next step, you can take away certain things if necessary, like not paying attention to a dog that's jumping up, and as a _very _last resort you can use some form of punishment. I view punishing my dogs in the same way I view firing an employee or locking someone up in prison. It's only for when things have gone *seriously* wrong. If I come home and my dogs have dug through the trash can, the only thing I smack is my forehead, because I should not have left the trash where they could get to it. If I'm doing training and my dog doesn't sit when I want them to, I reflect if there's a reason this might be happening, and adjust what I'm doing. I never force my dogs into any position, partly for fear that I could do them some harm, and partly from concern that I'd set up a cycle of fear in them. I should add, however, that I'm not an expert trainer and my dogs aren't perfectly trained. They're very good, but still do funky things. This is just my opinion on the subject.


I really like this post. Out of personal curiosity, in what sort of situation would you choose to use punishment with your dogs?


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

Purley said:


> With respect to the previous post, I guess this is my thread so we are allowed to sort of get off topic. I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s and in those days parents were the boss. We were not consulted about things such as shall we move house etc? We were not ASKED if we wanted to move. We were TOLD - we are moving! We were brought up to respect the cops, our grandparents, teachers etc. If I went home and told my Mom that I got in trouble at school, I would get it again at home!! At school we had Miss Rendell, who used the wood ruler on the forearm. We had Mr Campbell who used the wood ruler on the back of the leg. It hurt. It wasn't torture. But honestly, at the time I bore no resentment towards them. I just figured I better shut my mouth the next time! The host on my local talk radio station commented sort of the same thing growing up. He said if they were up to mischief, one look from an "old guy" made them think twice and slink off home, whereas nowadays if an "old guy" gave a mischief maker "the look", the best they could expect was a stream of abuse -- the worst would be getting beaten up.
> 
> I just wonder whether the same thing might relate to a dog. If you ASK a dog to do something, does he respect you less than if you TELL him he has to do it? I honestly think I respected my parents More for their strictness and when I did get the odd "backhander" as my Dad called it, again, I just thought I had better smarten up and stop the back answers! Being a "friend" to your child or your dog, rather than "the boss" maybe is not such a good idea.
> 
> ...


This was much the way my father raised me. Actually, not to lug out a sob story, but screaming and hitting were a regular part of my childhood. It did NOT create a system of respect. It only showed me that my opinions didn't matter and that I wasn't a part of the family. I was an object that was moved around at whim. I don't talk to my father anymore, as he never seemed to grow out of this behavior. I don't believe that refusing to discuss things with kids, and instead just 'telling them how it is' promotes respect in any way. I also don't believe that getting slapped around does much for respect or behavior modification (in a good way). 

This part isn't merely my opinion. Many studies have been done on how to achieve higher levels of productivity out of workers. What was found is that workers who felt that their opinion mattered and their contributions were appreciated far exceeded those who were "told how it is". People that were strictly controlled produced at the lowest end of the scale. 

I remember leather belt strappings to the backs of my legs, slaps to the face, and being treated as if my opinions didn't matter. I was never 'injured', never had to go for treatment or anything, but it destroyed my sense of 'home'. There was no safe haven where I belonged. I hated the environment of fear and complete lack of respect for me because I was a child and they were the adults, and found every possible way around every restriction my parents put on me. None of this was necessary.

Now I know that dogs aren't people. There are fundamental differences in the way our minds and instinct work. But there are a lot of similarities in the way we learn and adapt. It's true that I can stop a dog from doing something quicker with a smack on their nose than I can with positive reinforcement. I don't deny this. But it doesn't last. The behavior will come back, and have to be addressed again. Due to the fact that humans and dogs both adapt to fear and pain, it usually requires a harsher response the next time. And the next time. 

My dogs are my best friends. They _never _turn away from me and are always overjoyed when I come home. Like kids, dogs need boundaries to be set, but then so do adults. I sure don't have my friends over and slap one of them across the face because they said something I don't like. I won't go on anymore. I just think it's very sad when people feel that it's not only necessary, but correct to cause fear or pain in order to gain compliance from creatures that depend on us and want to please us anyway.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

CricketLoops said:


> I really like this post. Out of personal curiosity, in what sort of situation would you choose to use punishment with your dogs?


I'm not sure. Actually, I don't know that it ever seems like a good idea. I guess if one of my dogs was being truly obnoxious, I might put them in another room until they calmed down. This would be a punishment, because they _really _love being with us. Even in this circumstance, I would wonder why there were being so obnoxious. Were they not getting enough attention, or exercise, or did I do something to set it all off? Actually, I've never had to put one of my dogs in another room, but I've put myself in another room. I used to try to stop them from jumping up by smacking them on the nose when they did it. Yeah, I know it wasn't good, but I was ignorant and I learned better ways. I went through a stage where just ignoring the behavior wasn't enough, because multiple dogs jumping up at you simultaneously can irritate the paint off of a car. So, I'd go into another room for a few minutes and return after they'd calmed down. 

OK, I did actually think of a 'punishment' situation. If I was walking my dog, and another dog attacked my dog, I might consider it necessary to intervene physically, if the fight seemed dangerous. In this instance I would advocate the use of physical force as a deterrent to the attacking dog, possibly a lot of physical force.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I think many people misunderstand how correction is properly used. The idea is to develop a conditioned response by contrasting reward and punishment in a completely predictable fashion. There is a foundation to be laid before correction is formally introduced. Emotion has no place in it--which is easy because dogs are morally neutral actors: neither good nor bad. If a dog is strumming on your last nerve, it is not the appropriate time to correct.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't know anyone who is effective who "ignores" unwanted behavior. I know many who will address unwanted behavior in ways that keep it from being reinforcing to the dog (i.e., manage it so it cannot be self-reinforcing, give an alternate incompatable behavior that WILL be reinforced, make it clear to the dog that it will not be reinforced). Frequently in an attempt to punish unwanted behavior, people actually reinforce it by giving their energy/attention to it.
> 
> [...]
> 
> As far as giving reward (reinforcement) and corrections (whatever that means), one of the great powers of clicker training is that the dog uses his own initiative to discover what will be reinforced. If I do that work for him, he'll never learn to do for himself, never develop self-control, never think of things he can try. Shaping is a powerful method, and can get me stuff I can't get by physically manipulating the dog.


^ Whole post was well done but I especially liked these parts.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

To me, putting the dog back in position isn't a "correction", and I wouldn't consider that harsh at all. Personally I don't do it, although I tried it for a very short period, but I didn't like feeling like I had forced them to do something, so I stopped. But if people want to do that, I'm not gonna tell them they're being cruel.

To me, a "correction" is physically punishing the dog for doing wrong, like a check on the chain, or using an e-collar etc. Not that there's anything wrong with those things, but personally I would only use them as a last resort, and only for something that the dog's life depended on. I know trainers who reach for the prong collar as a first and only resort, and that's just wrong.

And to me, positive punishment doesn't seem to do anything except to suppress behaviour. It stops the dog doing it, because he knows he will get punished, but he still WANTS to do it. And that means that if you're ever in a position where you can't punish the dog, the dog quickly learns to take the opportunity to do the behaviour anyway. By using clicker training and positive reinforcement, you can change how the dog feels about something, and make him want to do what you want him to do, which seems a lot more pleasant for everyone.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

What if someone does both? I correct bad behavior & introduce an alternate behavior instead. Before I "punish" I always make sure the dog knows what I want/what is expected of them. It all comes down to preference I guess, here, if you screw up, its time out/loss of privlages for you.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

lil_fuzzy said:


> To me, putting the dog back in position isn't a "correction", and I wouldn't consider that harsh at all. Personally I don't do it, although I tried it for a very short period, but I didn't like feeling like I had forced them to do something, so I stopped. But if people want to do that, I'm not gonna tell them they're being cruel.
> 
> To me, a "correction" is physically punishing the dog for doing wrong, like a check on the chain, or using an e-collar etc. Not that there's anything wrong with those things, but personally I would only use them as a last resort, and only for something that the dog's life depended on. I know trainers who reach for the prong collar as a first and only resort, and that's just wrong.


These discussions always seem to turn into wars of semantics. Correcting a dog, by definition, is just righting an error...doesn't mean it's cruel. Though defining what's cruel to a being who can't articulate his/her opinion is in itself an exercise in futility.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I think many people misunderstand how correction is properly used. The idea is to develop a conditioned response by contrasting reward and punishment in a completely predictable fashion. There is a foundation to be laid before correction is formally introduced. Emotion has no place in it--which is easy because dogs are morally neutral actors: neither good nor bad. If a dog is strumming on your last nerve, it is not the appropriate time to correct.


I can tell you that I don't misunderstand how different kinds of training work. I trained my first dog in 1978, and have only been clicker training since the late 1990s. I hesitate to use the word "correction" because it basically is a meaningless term. It has no behavioral meaning. It can be anything from clearing your throat or repositioning a paw to a very strong aversive. When someone talks about correction being "properly used" I have no idea what they mean.

I think a lot of people don't understand that the reason an effective clicker trainer doesn't use aversives when the dog is doing the "wrong thing" (considering that it is something I might want sometime, but not just now) is not just because they think it's not friendly, or they want to be "nice". It's because when you are depending on the dog to work through things and offer things, telling him that he's "wrong" is counterproductive. Because it makes the dog less willing to keep trying. The more doubt I put in a dog's mind, the less enthusiastic he's going to be about experimenting. And I'm to the point where I find having to tell a dog what to do all the time dead dull.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


When you shape behaviour, you reward whatever the dog is offering that works towards the behaviour you want. But once the behaviour is on cue, I expect the dog to do as it's told, not go through it's repertoire until it gets the behaviour I asked for.

So I don't understand this argument. Of course the goal is for the dog to do as it's told, it's just teaching the behaviour in the first place that's different. And my dogs only offer behaviours when I have a clicker and we are doing a training session, they don't spend all day offering me stuff in the hopes of a reward, and when I ask for a sit or a down, I get a sit or a down.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors


Then your starting point is in some entirely different reality. To me, a lot of the joy of living with other beings is learning about them and exploring the limits of communication and creativity with them. They absolutely must feel free to offer behaviors for that to be possible. That doesn't mean there aren't parameters...obviously there are limits and rules, but they are taught and enforced with the mindset that offering and trying are above all else Good.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


Really? Shaping is so much fun! When shaping, I'd never try to correct any behavior I got - only ignore those I don't like - because I don't want the dog to stop offering me behaviors.

Physical corrections are something I try to avoid, because I've found that they don't work for the most part. In the OP's first post, she gave the example that the dog would be physically placed back into a sit or down if it got up. I don't find this method particularly useful because the dog is not thinking for itself. It's only learning that it must not resist physical pressure when applied. Much better would be to reward the sit at a rate high enough for the dog to want to maintain it. 

Now, a punishment in the form of withholding something wonderful is fine with me, and I apply this type of punishment occasionally. Dog flies off the end of the dogwalk even though it knows to hit the contact and wait there until released? I'd end the fun (running the course) immediately and down the dog. I deal with a lot of impulse control issues with Kit, and I find time outs to be effective here. Essentially, it's an extension of NILIF (you only get to do the fun stuff if you play by my rules). But physical corrections, no matter how gentle/innocuous, aren't for me.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


I don't think you really understand "offering behaviors." My dogs do what I tell them to do. It's just a different way of getting the dog to the point where the behavior is on cue. So tell me - if Izze sees that you are getting ready to be charged by a bull, do you REALLY want her to wait to be told what to do?


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


I am incapable of understanding this point of view. Like people have said, if you don't have a dog that's willing to offer behaviors in a training session, you can't shape that dog. Shaping is, in my opinion, the single most effective training method. I can't understand how someone could know that shaping is a valuable training tool and then decide that they don't want to be able to use it.

As Pawz and lil_fuzzy said, offering behaviors doesn't mean the dog isn't waiting to be told what to do. In fact, I only see dogs really start offering me lots of behaviors when it's "game on" and I haven't given them a clear instruction. The offering happens because the dog is basically thinking "I know that reinforcement is in the picture, but I'm not being told how to get it. What if I try THIS?" etc.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

What a great thread ... Miss Mandy is my first ever dog, but I am a teacher and a mother of three (now adult, with higher educated and upstanding members of society despite lack of spanking) children. I was also born and grew up in Sweden where spanking was outlawed in the early 70s. I was never spanked, and considering that it was outlawed when my children was born I wasn't going to spank them either. There's no need for harsh punishments ... it's so much more effective to "fit the punishment to the crime" and make consequences that are logical to both people and animals. 
I've quit three different trainers because I won't "yank" my dog around in order to "teach" her ... I rather play with her and offer her treats for the correct behavior to teach her what I want. 




wil.wish said:


> <snip>
> The point is that, whenever possible, I believe that the best way to get the behaviors you want is to motivate the dog (or person) to also want to offer this behavior. As a next step, you can take away certain things if necessary, like not paying attention to a dog that's jumping up, and as a _very _last resort you can use some form of punishment. I view punishing my dogs in the same way I view firing an employee or locking someone up in prison. It's only for when things have gone *seriously* wrong. If I come home and my dogs have dug through the trash can, the only thing I smack is my forehead, because I should not have left the trash where they could get to it. If I'm doing training and my dog doesn't sit when I want them to, I reflect if there's a reason this might be happening, and adjust what I'm doing. I never force my dogs into any position, partly for fear that I could do them some harm, and partly from concern that I'd set up a cycle of fear in them. I should add, however, that I'm not an expert trainer and my dogs aren't perfectly trained. They're very good, but still do funky things. This is just my opinion on the subject.


Exact! What do I want to do when I work with my dog? For me it has to be fun for us both or I'm not going to do it. I laugh and she runs and skips around when we practice, we're having a ball! 
I'm far from an expert trainer, but since I have an awesome dog she's getting herself trained ... despite me:wink: I actually had a judge tell me it would be better for some dogs if they could come in without a handler. lol. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> I think many people misunderstand how correction is properly used. The idea is to develop a conditioned response by contrasting reward and punishment in a completely predictable fashion. There is a foundation to be laid before correction is formally introduced. Emotion has no place in it--which is easy because dogs are morally neutral actors: neither good nor bad. If a dog is strumming on your last nerve, it is not the appropriate time to correct.


If my rottie is going after another dog, or a person, I might correct her if *I need to in order for her to stop* ... and then I'd set up a counter conditioning plan to work on the problem. If she doesn't want to sit one day when I ask her I won't correct ... but I will show her the treat and eat it myself (cheese or pepperoni, no liver here) Or I'll play with her favorite toy while I jump, laugh, and show her how fun I have. Her face absolutely falls and she's offering what I was asking so fast I don't have time to finish playing before she's doing what I want. That won't do, of course, I have to ask again so she can do it and I can give her the treat or the toy to play with.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


Boy, that just takes ALL the fun out of having a dog for me. I love, love, love seeing my girl try to figure things out. She can be such a clown! And when she gets it right? Woo-hoo! It's a party. That is just the most fun I can think of having with my dog, seriously. If she just sat there like a rug until I told her what to do, she would be, well, a rug.



Shaina said:


> Then your starting point is in some entirely different reality. To me, a lot of the joy of living with other beings is learning about them and exploring the limits of communication and creativity with them. They absolutely must feel free to offer behaviors for that to be possible. That doesn't mean there aren't parameters...obviously there are limits and rules, but they are taught and enforced with the mindset that offering and trying are above all else Good.


++++++^^^^^^This.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

There are a lot of excellent posts here.



dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


As several people have already said(this is my paraphrase) there's a time and a place for everything.

Jumping on the shaping and "reward based" training bandwagon is the best thing I ever did. Kaki invents her own tricks now. She is a CREATIVE, thinking, feeling creature and our constant dialogue has made for the best relationship I have EVER had with a dog. This dialogue was forged through shaping and I cannot fathom coming any closer to bridging the communication gap between two beings(that goes for humans too).

And she still turns on a dime when I call her off a fleeing critter.


That being said, I really don't know where you stand. Your posts are so inconsistent. You learned that spanking Jo was pointless and became "a treat dispensing human...". Sometimes, you're a bigger hard*ss than Izze and other times you're all about the positive reinforcement. I'm not trying to be rude at all but it is something that I noticed once and have continued to see in your posts.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tofu_pup said:


> Jumping on the shaping and "reward based" training bandwagon is the best thing I ever did. Kaki invents her own tricks now. She is a CREATIVE, thinking, feeling creature and our constant dialogue has made for the best relationship I have EVER had with a dog. This dialogue was forged through shaping and I cannot fathom coming any closer to bridging the communication gap between two beings(that goes for humans too).


It really is amazing, isn't it? I had no idea how brilliant and intuitive dogs could be when I just "trained em." Ray does a much better job choroegraphing freestyle routines than I do. Once a dog knows how to shape, they can come up with brilliant stuff very quickly. And it teaches me to really "listen" and learn to communicate better myself.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I am incapable of understanding this point of view. Like people have said, if you don't have a dog that's willing to offer behaviors in a training session, you can't shape that dog. Shaping is, in my opinion, the single most effective training method. I can't understand how someone could know that shaping is a valuable training tool and then decide that they don't want to be able to use it.


I think there are many who don't understand other points/views and want/do go their own way through life and dog training. Like the old indian chief said if everybody loved the same thing they would all want to be in my tent with my squaw. I know kind of silly


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I think there are many who don't understand other points/views and want/do go their own way through life and dog training. Like the old indian chief said if everybody loved the same thing they would all want to be in my tent with my squaw. I know kind of silly


This ^^^ We all have to do things that fits our personality and teaching style as well as our dogs'. For me though, the main point is that training should be FUN for both me and my dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> And to me, positive punishment doesn't seem to do anything except to suppress behaviour.


Suppressing specific behaviors is the goal.



lil_fuzzy said:


> It stops the dog doing it, because he knows he will get punished, but he still WANTS to do it.


Maybe, but we don't know that.



lil_fuzzy said:


> And that means that if you're ever in a position where you can't punish the dog, the dog quickly learns to take the opportunity to do the behaviour anyway.


If that happens, then you're doing it wrong. The objective of any type of training is to inculcate the habit of correct behavior (i.e., "robot dog") to the point the dog doesn't even consider alternative options. [ETA: Otherwise, it would be like saying the dog won't perform without a treat. I seriously doubt the dog makes a conscious choice every time, and chooses your reward over his current activity.] Heavily reward based training creates specific paterns that are rewarded. "Balanced" training methods do the same but correct/punish incorrect behaviors.

Ex: dog is directed to run 100 feet to the end of a hedgerow and turn right. **We are talking about a dog who knows the cues and sequences here.** Without P+, the dog turns left and receives no reward. After some number of attempts, he turns right and is rewarded. With P+, the dog begins to turn left, is corrected before he's fully facing the wrong way, and returns to complete the sequence as directed. He is rewarded.


Why did he turn the wrong way? We can't know if he forgot, or was distracted, or if he really wanted to turn left. We just know he did. We can pretty well tell if he wasn't fully comprehending the sequence he was directed to perform. Both types of training produce happy dogs who know what they're about.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Marsh, you could also take secret option number three and give the dog a no reward marker before he's fully facing the wrong way. Dog corrects his mistake and I don't have to spend 15 minutes ignoring the wrong behavior waiting for the right one.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> For me, I dont like a dog to offer behaviors, I like for them to wait to be told what to do.


I could get an electronic dog from the store to match this criteria.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

purley a wvasko, where is the "like" button.


screaming and hitting were a regular part of my childhood.>>>>>

i dont think that is the type of parenting that purley and wvasko were talking about


----------



## zdonBGSU (May 7, 2011)

I think correction is fine as long as it is followed with redirection. The main reason why positive reinforcement works in animal learning is because it teaches animals what to do rather than what not to do. So I think there may be a mixture of feeling regarding correction, the pure positive reinforcement camp may say, never correct a behavior, only award positive behavior. The more middle ground may say, you can correct but you must redirect to a positive behavior, never correct without redirection. The other extreme is just to punish all bad behavior until they are all gone, but I don't think thats practiced anywhere anymore. Most of the theory in animal behavior literature is a much older than its application in dog training... I'm no behaviorist so I'm not saying this as a fact FYI.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Tofu_pup said:


> Marsh, you could also take secret option number three and give the dog a no reward marker before he's fully facing the wrong way. Dog corrects his mistake and I don't have to spend 15 minutes ignoring the wrong behavior waiting for the right one.


Ok, I'm on a horse traveling north and my dog is on a hedgerow on my right side 300 yards (3 football fields) away and the field marshal (course director) tells me to turn northwest but my dog is still heading up the hedgerow straight north and we are slowly getting further apart, so I yodel to dog to attempt to handle him around the course and he's not responding, what kind of a No Reward Marker do I use as he and I are rapidly parting company. I'm just curious. I wonder what kind of treats I could use that would overcome the prey drive and get him back in front of me eventually.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> Marsh, you could also take secret option number three and give the dog a no reward marker before he's fully facing the wrong way. Dog corrects his mistake and I don't have to spend 15 minutes ignoring the wrong behavior waiting for the right one.


Yup, there are numerous techniques for separating a feline from his dermal covering. Each has advantages and limitations compared to others. But the choice between a dog "obeying out of fear" vs. obeying "because he wants to", or hurting vs. bribing the animal, are false choices set up by partisans for their particular training style--or by people who don't completely understand what's being accomplished.

'Zall I'm sayin'.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

Suppressing behaviors isn't my goal in training my dogs. Suppressed behaviors aren't really modified. They're temporarily subdued. And yes, we do know that the dog still wants to engage in the behavior, or at least it's common sense to assume so. Getting grounded for watching TV when I wasn't supposed to didn't cure me of the urge, and getting 'corrected' isn't going to suddenly rewire desires in your dog. 

A lot of this discussion is like trying to travel to a destination, and decrying other paths because you were able to get there. I'm sure a lot of people wind up with well-behaved dogs through punishment-based training. I find this approach dangerous, because any living thing tends to respond to pain and fear with resentment. It's why parents that are overly strict with their kids often end up with mentally unbalanced teenagers. 

I find the idea of a robot dog extremely creepy. And I also find the idea that a dog would ever 'have no choice' a bit ludicrous. Training behaviors isn't the same as removing the ability to make cognitive choices. When I get out the bag of treats, wherever my dogs are in the house, they come running and plop their butts down around me. They don't do this because there's some fear reflex in place. In fact, I've never trained them to do this at all (directly). But they know that they get treats and praise if they're sitting by me when I have the treats, so to they choose to offer this behavior. If I had punished them for not coming and sitting by me when I got the treats out, I might also have been able to achieve this behavior. However, they would still be making a choice. In one instance they're choosing to pursue happiness, and in the other they're choosing to avoid pain/fear. I'm not overly fond of the second route.

In the end, although dogs are not people, I often think of their training in respect to how I would react to the same training. If my boss verbally berated me at work and threatened to fire me if I didn't perform well... well, I have a mortgage and dependents, so I'd suck it up and work hard. And I'd harbor a deep resentment for the ill treatment and start looking for another job immediately. If I was treated well, I'd work harder without the resentment. So even though dogs aren't people, I've found through personal experience that I get much better results and happier dogs with training that does not include corrections and punishments.


----------



## wil.wish (Sep 6, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Ok, I'm on a horse traveling north and my dog is on a hedgerow on my right side 300 yards (3 football fields) away and the field marshal (course director) tells me to turn northwest but my dog is still heading up the hedgerow straight north and we are slowly getting further apart, so I yodel to dog to attempt to handle him around the course and he's not responding, what kind of a No Reward Marker do I use as he and I are rapidly parting company. I'm just curious. I wonder what kind of treats I could use that would overcome the prey drive and get him back in front of me eventually.


I've found that attempting to train recall on the spot when prey drive is high is a waste of time. You have to train that beforehand, and then it works. I've had an occasion when my dog with the highest prey drive went tearing off after a cat. I called him and he broke off and returned. Six months earlier he'd never have even paused. Whatever the case, neither punishment nor encouragement will get a dog to return to you in such a situation if it isn't already an established behavior. Recall is the behavior I train the most, for fear that one of my dogs would somehow get away from me and run into the street. It's never happened, but it only takes once, right?


----------



## Purley (Sep 7, 2009)

OK. I am finding this really interesting, but now some have a specific questions. 

I have a step over gate by the front door. Whenever the door bell rang, there was this hideous barking from the three Shih-tzus. You couldn't talk to the person at the door for the noise. I decided to use Cesar Milan's interruption method. I touched the ringleader on the side and I said "hey" and after a while, now all I have to do is point at the dogs and say "hey" and they stop the racket. 

Do you consider this the wrong way to achieve silence?

I also have an 18 month old Miniature Poodle. I find her kind of hyper, but perhaps that is because I have had Shih-tzus for ages and they are not all that active. The poodle is the one I have squirted with water because her constant barking was driving us nuts. Now, I have to admit, we do not have a very active lifestyle, and we are probably not going to start now being more active. We have a large yard and when its not winter and 30 below, we are outside most of the time. But we are not out there leaping hurdles and things like that. We hardly ever take the dogs for a walk and again, we are probably not about to start now. If Mini poodles have to have walks in order to not be hyper and over-excited, then possibly getting a Mini was a mistake. 

So - how would I stop her yapping at everything if I don't use the squirt bottle? Before I tried the bottle, I had to go outside or stop what I was doing and call her in. She would come in because I gave her treats to come in. Then I shut her in the house. When you are painting the fence, you don't want to have to stop every five seconds to stop the dog barking.

The other thing is when I come in the front door she leaps up and down like a Min Pin - all four feet off the ground. I am happy for all the dogs to put their front feet on me. I just don't like over-excited behaviour. How do I stop this behaviour when I come in - sometimes I have bags of groceries too?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Ok, I'm on a horse traveling north and my dog is on a hedgerow on my right side 300 yards (3 football fields) away and the field marshal (course director) tells me to turn northwest but my dog is still heading up the hedgerow straight north and we are slowly getting further apart, so I yodel to dog to attempt to handle him around the course and he's not responding, what kind of a No Reward Marker do I use as he and I are rapidly parting company. I'm just curious. I wonder what kind of treats I could use that would overcome the prey drive and get him back in front of me eventually.


Well, since apparently (by your description) you are in a trial situation, and your dog isn't wearing an ecollar, and you probably can't go "get" him without blowing the run, I'd say you are pretty well sunk. You probably need to go back and train for the situation so you can do better the next time. The no reward marker (and the treats) and any aversives you'd be using would be part of the TRAINING situation, right? If your dog can't listen by the time you've entered him, you've probably blown your entry fee.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

There are parallels we can draw to human behavior and feelings but it is a mistake to think dogs are the same as humans. Resentment and spite are human emotions. [Some] dogs may feel them, but it is not generally helpful to consider them. The idea of robotic obedience may creep you out. If it does, then you shouldn't think about it. If you believe your dog breaks off a chase because he considers a chicken strip preferable to killing a cat, then you have to admit you can't train a dog that prefers killing cats to eating chicken. And we know that's not true. Returning to your side becomes reflex or habit, or it doesn't happen. How you get there is up to you.

Emotional disturbance in dogs is created by the arbitrariness of punishment than by its harshness--within limits, of course.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

wil.wish said:


> I've found that attempting to train recall on the spot when prey drive is high is a waste of time. You have to train that beforehand, and then it works. I've had an occasion when my dog with the highest prey drive went tearing off after a cat. I called him and he broke off and returned. Six months earlier he'd never have even paused. Whatever the case, neither punishment nor encouragement will get a dog to return to you in such a situation if it isn't already an established behavior. Recall is the behavior I train the most, for fear that one of my dogs would somehow get away from me and run into the street. It's never happened, but it only takes once, right?


The recall is not a problem as if dog is within earshot the dog should return, but it's the handling of the course as I want my dog (out on the limb) running high wide and handsome finding birds. A recall to me is not gonna do the job as the dog returning to me from 3 or 400 yards away is wasted time that should be applied to producing birds. Anyway it was just a hypothetical problem. Not a big deal.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purley said:


> Now you are being ridiculous! Don't try and tell me that if you got squirted in the face with water it would be the same as being clumped across the head with a brick!!


Not the same. But for some dogs it would be an aversive, and could still have fallout. Something worth considering. For one thing, if I ever have to use something in a spray bottle on my dog, I don't want him to see it as punishment. Tossing a can full of rocks is not the same as being hit in the head with a brick either. But it can still have fallout. A person who does our Therapy dog evaluations has used a shake can as a noise distraction. So we get the dogs used to that sound. Had one lovely golden retriever (who hadn't come through my beginner class, but had trained elsewhere) who absolutely shut down if the can was dropped gentley (on matting) on the other side of the ring. IMO it really shouldn't be necessary to hurt a dog OR frighten/intimidate them to train him.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wil.wish said:


> OK, I did actually think of a 'punishment' situation. If I was walking my dog, and another dog attacked my dog, I might consider it necessary to intervene physically, if the fight seemed dangerous. In this instance I would advocate the use of physical force as a deterrent to the attacking dog, possibly a lot of physical force.


Yeah. But that would be damage control, not training.


----------



## Purley (Sep 7, 2009)

I didn't realize I had posted and so I changed my post with some specific questions. I guess I should post them separately as we have gone past that now!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Purley said:


> OK. I am finding this really interesting, but now some have a specific questions.
> So - how would I stop her yapping at everything if I don't use the squirt bottle? Before I tried the bottle, I had to go outside or stop what I was doing and call her in. She would come in because I gave her treats to come in. Then I shut her in the house. When you are painting the fence, you don't want to have to stop every five seconds to stop the dog barking.
> 
> The other thing is when I come in the front door she leaps up and down like a Min Pin - all four feet off the ground. I am happy for all the dogs to put their front feet on me. I just don't like over-excited behaviour. How do I stop this behaviour when I come in - sometimes I have bags of groceries too?


So basically, the first thing she has to do to get you to call her and give her a treat is bark. Right? Congratulations, you have just created a behavior chain. As to the jumping at the door, does she know sit? Another alternative (and one that would work for your first scenario (barking at door) is place a marker several feet back from the door (area rugs work well for this, and teach the dog to go to their place. Lots of rewards for having your butt on the rug. Train it solidly. If they come forward, body block them until they are on the rug. If they are thinking about plopping their butts on their place, they are not thinking about charging/leaping/barking. This, of course you TRAIN. You don't try to make it suddenly happen when you are standing in the doorway loaded down with groceries.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Purley said:


> OK. I am finding this really interesting, but now some have a specific questions.
> 
> I have a step over gate by the front door. Whenever the door bell rang, there was this hideous barking from the three Shih-tzus. You couldn't talk to the person at the door for the noise. I decided to use Cesar Milan's interruption method. I touched the ringleader on the side and I said "hey" and after a while, now all I have to do is point at the dogs and say "hey" and they stop the racket.
> 
> Do you consider this the wrong way to achieve silence?


It's not a method I would ever use, but if it works for you consistently, I don't think it's the "wrong way." If you have to keep reminding the dogs not to bark (touching them and saying "hey") I would consider the method flawed and look for an alternative way to create automatic silence at the door bell sound, probably through counterconditioning/desensitization and rewards for silence. But that's just because I don't like to have continuously remind the dog how to react to the same stimulus over and over again -- I'd prefer to build the association that doorbell = go sit on your bed quietly and stay there until I give you the cue to get up and interact with the guests.



Purley said:


> I also have an 18 month old Miniature Poodle. I find her kind of hyper, but perhaps that is because I have had Shih-tzus for ages and they are not all that active. The poodle is the one I have squirted with water because her constant barking was driving us nuts. Now, I have to admit, we do not have a very active lifestyle, and we are probably not going to start now being more active. We have a large yard and when its not winter and 30 below, we are outside most of the time. But we are not out there leaping hurdles and things like that. We hardly ever take the dogs for a walk and again, we are probably not about to start now. If Mini poodles have to have walks in order to not be hyper and over-excited, then possibly getting a Mini was a mistake.


Yeah, big mistake. Mini Poodles need exercise. I would never get one without planning to give at least a 15-30 minute walk every day. I know several mini poodles that compete in agility or obedience -- they are SMART little dogs and they don't just need physical exercise, they need mental exercise. They also need to be taught that you expect calmness from them, or sitting for greetings, etc. They are not shih-tzus. 



Purley said:


> So - how would I stop her yapping at everything if I don't use the squirt bottle? Before I tried the bottle, I had to go outside or stop what I was doing and call her in. She would come in because I gave her treats to come in. Then I shut her in the house. When you are painting the fence, you don't want to have to stop every five seconds to stop the dog barking.


First, she needs exercise. If you're using punishment to fix behavior problems that are a result of you not meeting the needs of your dog... does that seem okay to you? If I have barking dog problems, I teach a speak and quiet command to the dog to redirect barking to other times of the day that are more appropriate, and I teach a dog that silence is highly rewarding in the situations that would normally cause her to bark. I haven't had this fail yet, but I also haven't trained very many dogs. If the squirt bottle is an effective tool to stop the barking, then you should see yourself having to use it less and less. If it stops the behavior but doesn't cause the behavior to decrease (and eventually extinguish) then it's not an effective deterrent.



Purley said:


> The other thing is when I come in the front door she leaps up and down like a Min Pin - all four feet off the ground. I am happy for all the dogs to put their front feet on me. I just don't like over-excited behaviour. How do I stop this behaviour when I come in - sometimes I have bags of groceries too?


You work on greetings when you don't have bags of groceries. You teach a dog that the only way to get your attention when you come home is to greet you calmly, either sitting or standing, waiting for you to give them attention.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Not the same. But for some dogs it would be an aversive, and could still have fallout. Something worth considering. For one thing, if I ever have to use something in a spray bottle on my dog, I don't want him to see it as punishment. Tossing a can full of rocks is not the same as being hit in the head with a brick either. But it can still have fallout. A person who does our Therapy dog evaluations has used a shake can as a noise distraction. So we get the dogs used to that sound. Had one lovely golden retriever (who hadn't come through my beginner class, but had trained elsewhere) who absolutely shut down if the can was dropped gentley (on matting) on the other side of the ring. IMO it really shouldn't be necessary to hurt a dog OR frighten/intimidate them to train him.


You have to be very careful and know what you are teaching the dog. A spray bottle could train a dog to never come back to you if you have any kind of cylinder in your hand. Rattle-cans can create an aversion to all kinds of sounds. Aversive correction can have unintended consequences if you haven't thought it through fully. E-collars can be enormously useful tools, but people can create more problems than they solve when they think it is an "easy button".

_And the dog decides what he considers an aversive._ I have a Golden, so a spray bottle means THE BEST GAME EVER!!!!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> You have to be very careful and know what you are teaching the dog. A spray bottle could train a dog to never come back to you if you have any kind of cylinder in your hand. Rattle-cans can create an aversion to all kinds of sounds. Aversive correction can have unintended consequences if you haven't thought it through fully. E-collars can be enormously useful tools, but people can create more problems than they solve when they think it is an "easy button".
> 
> _And the dog decides what he considers an aversive._ I have a Golden, so a spray bottle means THE BEST GAME EVER!!!!


The thing is, shake cans and spray bottles are generally used as a quick fix by people too clueless or lazy to actually train the behavior they want. So, we can't really expect them to think it through fully.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> The thing is, shake cans and spray bottles are generally used as a quick fix by people too clueless or lazy to actually train the behavior they want. So, we can't really expect them to think it through fully.


Hey we used to have a "dog behavior expert" on local TV, and he used rattle-cans. He was a PhD behaviorist and had all kinds of wacky ideas. I used to watch him purely for the joy of yelling at the television. He was quite popular for a time so I've no doubt he deepened the pile of BS considerably. He was opposed to any use of force BTW. Cranks come in all flavors, and all levels of academic achievement.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

>>> Marsh Muppet wrote: I have a Golden, so a spray bottle means THE BEST GAME EVER!!!! 

I never thought of that - Spray bottle or water hose equals REWARD for retrievers. With the water bucket 10 feet away, my retriever will offer all kinds of behaviors if I suggest that I'll go turn on the water hose for a drink.

I have no problem with 'touching' a dog to provide a distraction from currently undesired behavior. But the touch has to be gentle enough that the dog can ignore it (non-aversive)... So I don't agree with a slap, a kick in the kidney or ribs regardless of how gentle, or a tap on the nose... All of those are the equivalent of poking a person in the eye or slapping them in the face - regardless of how gentle, they are all aversive. I will tap my dog's tail if he 'forgets' to sit when I stop, while we are walking... usually this is because he is focused on something else. And, I tapped the side of his tail or his rump with two fingers to teach him to turn right or left. Of course, he's a family pet, so he doesn't need to obey this cues 100%.

I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think that Karen Pryor originally said to click on the desired behavior and ignore behaviors that don't lead to the goal during the training session. Furthermore (and I do NOT have a reference for this), I think that she said that if her dog ran out towards the busy street, she would do whatever was necessary to stop the dog. You ignore behavior during specific (clicker) training sessions ...


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Hey we used to have a "dog behavior expert" on local TV, and he used rattle-cans. He was a PhD behaviorist and had all kinds of wacky ideas. I used to watch him purely for the joy of yelling at the television. He was quite popular for a time so I've no doubt he deepened the pile of BS considerably. He was opposed to any use of force BTW. Cranks come in all flavors, and all levels of academic achievement.


Yes, I too sometimes enjoy the yelling program at my TV and sometimes even at my PC screen.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Me too, esp concerning a certain "dog behavior expert" with a great dentist


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> >>> Marsh Muppet wrote: I have a Golden, so a spray bottle means THE BEST GAME EVER!!!!
> 
> I never thought of that - Spray bottle or water hose equals REWARD for retrievers. With the water bucket 10 feet away, my retriever will offer all kinds of behaviors if I suggest that I'll go turn on the water hose for a drink.
> 
> ...


Caeda thinks a squirt bottle and the hose is fun (heck, she likes the shower too....she jumped in with me once or twice! Weirdo lol). We use the squirt bottle as a distraction from something. We're having a hard time training her to not chase the cats (though she is improving), the squirt bottle as a distractor works great, she waits for another spray (we figured this one out thanks to her reaction to the hose when we turned it on to get her some water one day). 

Also, someone mentioned (Marsh Muppet I believe) that the dog decides what is aversive....I completely agree. I've heard of puppies cowering if you shake your finger at them with a mean face, others (like Caeda) will bite your finger. I've met people who if you tap them on the shoulder will consider it an attack, others you can punch them hard in the arm and they consider it a greeting.....it all depends. 

That is something that I'm noticing isn't being directly addressed in this thread.....that it depends on the dog. For instance: I've got a dog that it takes a LOT of force to make Caeda move. Being a tree......heh, yeah right, backing up and pulling her in the other direction. The only way to do that is to get some momentum with a big yank (I hate doing it, but sometimes its a choice between a yank to get some purchase, let her go or inure myself worse) . I can positive reinforce all I want, carry steaks, some days she'll want what is over there instead, and want it NOW. The amount of pressure that she puts in her collar or harness all by herself would be considered cruel and unusual by the standards of considering even a touch on the nose (no matter how gentle) to be the equivalent of poking someone in the eye. This is why I don't want to use the prong collar on her....it either hurts or it doesn't, there's no "gentle reminder". If your dog is smaller, or was easy to train to walk, the gentle tap on the tail is all fine, but not all dogs are the same. But let me just say that, I'm not looking for hints on teaching her to walk, this is a slightly exaggerated example, she is hard to train to walk, but we're getting there slowly. The attitude of absolute gentleness with all physical contact works fantastic for some dogs, but not for others. 

I agree with what you said that Karen Pryor said (or sort of said). If my dog is running towards a busy street I'll do anything too. BUT the question is, why wait until the dog DOES run right for the busy street, shouldn't a person do everything to ensure that there is a rock solid recall, no matter what form of training that would require (including aversive if necessary). Yes, one could say don't let your dog off leash if you don't have a good recall....but what if they get off leash despite best efforts....which is why I am in favour of using a balanced approach, which includes some aversives, as minimal as possible, but when called for.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> Caeda thinks a squirt bottle and the hose is fun (heck, she likes the shower too....she jumped in with me once or twice! Weirdo lol). We use the squirt bottle as a distraction from something. We're having a hard time training her to not chase the cats (though she is improving), the squirt bottle as a distractor works great, she waits for another spray (we figured this one out thanks to her reaction to the hose when we turned it on to get her some water one day). .


For cats. I wouldn't say this will work if the dog is highly predatory towards cats (don't want to recommend something that would get a kitty killed) but if a dog is just interested in messing with cats - teach a "leave it" teach a whiplash turn. So when you say "leave it" dog immediately reorients on you. Start with the dog on a long line (for safety) on the other side of the room from the cat (if it is a running type of cat, put it in a crate). As soon as dog glances at cat, "leave it" click and treat. Continue to allow the dog a little more leash until the dog is near the cat. "Leave it" will orient the dog back on you. The clicker will bring the dog back for a treat. This may or may not carry over to situations where you are not present to cue "leave it". But "leave it is useful for many situations. Always worth teaching




Greater Swiss said:


> Also, someone mentioned (Marsh Muppet I believe) that the dog decides what is aversive....I completely agree. I've heard of puppies cowering if you shake your finger at them with a mean face, others (like Caeda) will bite your finger. I've met people who if you tap them on the shoulder will consider it an attack, others you can punch them hard in the arm and they consider it a greeting.....it all depends.
> 
> That is something that I'm noticing isn't being directly addressed in this thread.....that it depends on the dog. For instance: I've got a dog that it takes a LOT of force to make Caeda move. Being a tree......heh, yeah right, backing up and pulling her in the other direction. The only way to do that is to get some momentum with a big yank (I hate doing it, but sometimes its a choice between a yank to get some purchase, let her go or inure myself worse) . I can positive reinforce all I want, carry steaks, some days she'll want what is over there instead, and want it NOW. The amount of pressure that she puts in her collar or harness all by herself would be considered cruel and unusual by the standards of considering even a touch on the nose (no matter how gentle) to be the equivalent of poking someone in the eye. This is why I don't want to use the prong collar on her....it either hurts or it doesn't, there's no "gentle reminder". If your dog is smaller, or was easy to train to walk, the gentle tap on the tail is all fine, but not all dogs are the same. But let me just say that, I'm not looking for hints on teaching her to walk, this is a slightly exaggerated example, she is hard to train to walk, but we're getting there slowly. The attitude of absolute gentleness with all physical contact works fantastic for some dogs, but not for others.
> 
> I agree with what you said that Karen Pryor said (or sort of said). If my dog is running towards a busy street I'll do anything too. BUT the question is, why wait until the dog DOES run right for the busy street, shouldn't a person do everything to ensure that there is a rock solid recall, no matter what form of training that would require (including aversive if necessary). Yes, one could say don't let your dog off leash if you don't have a good recall....but what if they get off leash despite best efforts....which is why I am in favour of using a balanced approach, which includes some aversives, as minimal as possible, but when called for.


It always depends on the dog's perception. I have seen more than one person mention that the dog decides what is reinforcement - and what is punishment. The laws of behavior always work, but the dog decides what is important enough to create a change in behavior. As to your question about Karen Pryor's statement - I think she is saying that in an emergency, you do what is necessary. But it is management, not training. Nowhere in there do I think she suggest that you wait until there is an emergency to get a solid recall on your dog. And aversives aren't necessary to teach that. In fact, they are frequently counterproductive to the kind of trust and enthusiasim that creates a really solid. really reliable recall.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> Yes, one could say don't let your dog off leash if you don't have a good recall....but what if they get off leash despite best efforts....which is why I am in favour of using a balanced approach, which includes some aversives, as minimal as possible, but when called for.


This would probably be my view about dog training if I thought there were situations when aversives were called for. I believe there are a lot of situations where aversives/corrections can be used effectively to create solid behavior in a dog a lot faster than a positive reinforcement approach does, but I don't think there are any situations where an aversive is necessary to change or create behavior. Just ways where it's easier. 

I think there are a lot of times when a person or trainer gets stuck using positive reinforcement and isn't seeing results with the method any more, or isn't waiting long enough for the method to be effective, and the conclusion they've drawn is that it's the method that's flawed, not the way they're applying it. 

Of course, I try my very hardest to remain completely open to the idea that a dog will come along one day who WILL need aversives to be well-trained, or in order to have a better quality of life, and I may need to reevaluate my beliefs based on that experience.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> the busy street, shouldn't a person do everything to ensure that there is a rock solid recall, no matter what form of training that would require (including aversive if necessary). Yes, one could say don't let your dog off leash if you don't have a good recall....but what if they get off leash despite best efforts....which is why I am in favour of using a balanced approach, which includes some aversives, as minimal as possible, but when called for.


Why would a recall trained with aversives be quicker or more reliable than one trained without aversives. Aversives teach a dog to avoid. That's what they are good for. If your dog doesn't know a solid recall (by whatever means it is trained) the dog doesn't have a recall. I'd personally rather have a dog who is willing to come when I can't "get" her.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well as discussed on another thread (forget which one) there is no 100% recall, whatever method is used. I personally think the %s are better with a dog that has to come than a dog who is willing to come. 

A dog that is willing to come is great till not willing to come for whatever reason. A dog that has to come, has no will of his own he/she has to come it's not open for discussion. As stated above neither way is 100%.

Don't shoot the messenger, this is just my method (right or wrong) used since early 60's.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Well as discussed on another thread (forget which one) there is no 100% recall, whatever method is used. I personally think the %s are better with a dog that has to come than a dog who is willing to come.
> 
> A dog that is willing to come is great till not willing to come for whatever reason. A dog that has to come, has no will of his own he/she has to come it's not open for discussion. As stated above neither way is 100%.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger, this is just my method (right or wrong) used since early 60's.


But, any dog has the choice to recall or not, regardless of methods used, unless he's on a long line. No dog HAS to come. They can even ignore an e-collar if they want to. There's no difference in a dog that's willing to ignore a treat vs a dog that's willing to take punishment for sufficient temptation. . .if they don't want to come, they don't have to. Better to do something to make them want to come. I guess punishing the dog after the fact just makes the person feel like they're "doing something about it". But it doesn't make a more reliable recall.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Don't shoot the messenger, this is just my method (right or wrong) used since early 60's.


Disclaimer: it's understood that "it stands to reason" does not satsfy the requirements of scientific inquiry.

When you've squeezed the last bit of goodness from reward-based recall training, it stands to reason that applying corrective measures--for the rare occasions of noncompliance--will provide the extra motivation that brings you that much closer to theoretical perfection. No separate "emergency recall" procedures required.


----------



## Purley (Sep 7, 2009)

OK. "I'd prefer to build the association that doorbell = go sit on your bed quietly and stay there until I give you the cue to get up and interact with the guests." 

So how do you train this?

And this?

"I teach a speak and quiet command to the dog to redirect barking to other times of the day that are more appropriate, and I teach a dog that silence is highly rewarding in the situations that would normally cause her to bark."

How do you teach a dog that is not barking at the moment -- to bark? My shih-tzus seldom bark, but I would like them to bark a couple of times when the doorbell rings, but then stop when I tell them to. I really don't want to use treats because one of my Shih-tzus tends to be overweight. And I am not crazy about food treats anyway.

I have had her in two obedience classes, but she didn't seem to enjoy it. I had trouble getting her to put her tail up. She is now in her third agility class. She really seems to like agility. She started off leash agility last week. We were doing table, two jumps, and then round a cone and back over the two jumps. But when we got to going round the cone, she ran off and went to see the instructor. When he folded his arms and turned his back on her, she ran off to visit a Goldendoodle. I called and called and said "here Lucy, cookie, cookie" in as excited a voice I could manage, but the Goldendoodle was WAY more interesting than me or treats. And usually she is a treataholic. I am going to try taking her squeaky next week, because she did the rest of the off leash class on the leash.

Any suggestions for this?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> When you've squeezed the last bit of goodness from reward-based recall training, it stands to reason that applying corrective measures--for the rare occasions of noncompliance--will provide the extra motivation that brings you that much closer to theoretical perfection. No separate "emergency recall" procedures required.


I absolutely love the "theoretical perfection" cause that's kinda what we're stuck with, our personal theory on what our dogs should do or not do.

Here's a true adventure I might have mentioned before, 3 bird dog trainers meet on a Friday to work their dogs on birds prior to running in a field trial the next 2 days. Between the 3 trainers there were 13 dogs worked, 12 of these dogs made disqualifying mistakes during training and the 13th dog was perfect. Needless to say with the 12 dogs there were aversives flying around left and right during the training programs. 

Now the trainer who worked the 13th dog did get a couple free beers Friday night and was pretty full of himself especially since he had only worked 1 dog.

Funny part was the next 2 days 12 of the 13 dogs placed in the week end trial, the perfect 13th training dog did not. It's not a big deal, sometimes you get the bear sometimes the bear gets you. It was just something that happened "a peculiarity" so to speak. 
.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well as discussed on another thread (forget which one) there is no 100% recall, whatever method is used. I personally think the %s are better with a dog that has to come than a dog who is willing to come


I agree with you alot on this, I'm not going to shoot the messenger although I may end up in the line of fire for this......
If a dog is truly well conditioned to the word "come" or "here" it should not feel that it has any choice other than to turn around and return to their owner. This kind of conditioning is probably possible without using aversives. For some dogs, but not for others. There is also the owner to consider and the way they interact with their dog. 

IMO recall is a matter of safety for the dog and anyone in the vicinity. An owner or trainer can talk until they are blue in the face that they would do anything necessary if their dog got off leash and went running towards a busy highway. What can you do in that situation? Most dogs are faster than people, if your dog is 50feet away, you aren't going to catch them before they get to the highway. Everything that could be done to stop the dog from getting there has to be done BEFORE the hand comes off of the leash (whether that happens intentionally or not). This isn't just the safety of the dog! I've almost gone off the road because a dog ran on the highway, and I know how badly going off the road can end up. For commands other than "come" I would never demand the highest % of success, if she wants to down instead of sit....fine, but for recall, it is crucial. 

The question then is if an aversive needed, what gets used? How does it get used? I am a strong believer that if an aversive is used it has to be the right one, as minimally aversive as possible and should by no means be used haphazardly. 

I will admit, this is coming from someone who does not have good recall yet but appreciates the importance.....and it bothers me a lot. The only aversive we've found to use so far is to stop play and go inside if she doesn't come, not working terribly well. Every reinforcement has been tried, and only one works, but it doesn't work all of the time. It does take time to get a good recall no matter what is used, and we are lucky that we live in the middle of nowhere and most of the distractors are right in our shared yard. The decision to use aversives is a hard one, and not one to take lightly.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Greater Swiss said:


> The question then is if an aversive needed, what gets used? How does it get used? I am a strong believer that if an aversive is used it has to be the right one, as minimally aversive as possible and should by no means be used haphazardly.


Well, you can force a dog to do a great many things, but you can't force him to like it. Ideally (to my way of thinking) you start with a newly minted puppy and play games that passively reinforce the association that coming to you is a great thing (e.g., hide 'n' seek). You proceed to rewarding proper recall in a more formalized training environment, and introduce correction for noncompliance after you've achieved the most reliable recall you think you can get via rewards. Starting with an adult dog is tougher (especially the first part), but the program still works. Dogs that have been broken by arbitrarily heavy-handed methods are a special case.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, but what would the "proper" aversive be for noncompliance on a recall? All I've seen (mainly from hunters) is beating the dog upon its arrival back to the owner, but that hardly seems like the right way to do it. A collar jerk wouldn't do any good unless the dog is on a long line, but in order for the dog to be on the line you'd have to still be in the process of training, that wouldn't help in the case of occasional non-compliance from an already trained dog. I suppose you could zap him with an e-collar, but what do you do if the dog isn't wearing the collar? Honestly, I have no idea how aversives could properly be used in recall training. All aversives depend on you having physical control over the dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> The question then is if an aversive needed, what gets used? How does it get used? I am a strong believer that if an aversive is used it has to be the right one, as minimally aversive as possible and should by no means be used haphazardly.


Yes the above is what separates the men from the boys, or to be more politically correct let's just say some persons from other persons. Once I know that a dog knows what is expected on a recall, I am not as interested in minimal aversive as much as I am in getting the job done properly and that's where it goes back to reading the dog. The problem is that the average owner lacks reading experience needed having worked only one or maybe just a few dogs.


> Yeah, but what would the "proper" aversive be for noncompliance on a recall? All I've seen (mainly from hunters) is beating the dog upon its arrival back to the owner


Yes that's pretty stupid and then turn the dog loose and people wonder why so many dogs get lost on opening day of hunting seasons. I know if I get beat up I am not coming back for a long time if ever.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Well as discussed on another thread (forget which one) there is no 100% recall, whatever method is used. I personally think the %s are better with a dog that has to come than a dog who is willing to come.
> 
> A dog that is willing to come is great till not willing to come for whatever reason. A dog that has to come, has no will of his own he/she has to come it's not open for discussion. As stated above neither way is 100%.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger, this is just my method (right or wrong) used since early 60's.


Or..... one could say that the dog who has to come is great until he realizes that there is nothing forcing him to come, and you're not in position to "make him." With either method, the goal is to get the dog to the point where he's no longer weighing options ("Is the cookie better than the rabbit?" or "can the person get me if I don't?") but responding in a reflexive manner to the cue or command. At some point, I don't want to be dependent on treats and a clicker, and I'm sure at some point you don't want to be dependent on an ecollar - which is probably the only equipment that can compel a dog to come without being incredibly obvious or poorly timed. Personally, having done both compulsion and positive reinforcement recalls, I'd put my money on the dog who is really, really willing to come. (Plus I want a dog who has a will of his own - but is using that will in a cooperative manner) But like you said, neither method is 100%


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I think the only non e-collar aversive would have to be on the long line and tugging it, with or without a prong collar, then of course you're looking at proofing under heavy distraction (a scary thought but necessary). With an e-collar, the dog has to be wearing it all of the time if off leash, which seems a pain in the butt, but considering we put haltis, collars, harnesses and such on, whenever the dog is on leash, it isn't that much of a stretch. Although when it comes to any kind of aversive in teaching recall I personally think beating the dog on return or "zapping" (with unnecessarily high stimulation) is also wrong. I'll admit we've considered an e-collar for recall training, and have read up on the way they are used to be well informed about it (hooo boy, I'm going to get shot for this aren't I, I should stop my fingers from typing right now, give me a break please, just trying to educated on as much as I can). They can be used with low stimulation, or a vibrate or beep function just to get the dog's attention. The last two are really cool options, but again, those two likely don't work on all dogs, but at least there are options aside from old-school high-voltage zaps. You can consider an e-collar to be some degree of physical control over the dog though. Again though, it isn't a decision to take lightly....and requires a lot of thought and education, just like any kind of aversive. 

Marsh Muppet, you mention dogs that have been broken by heavy handed methods.....I can't help but think that was the case for my neighbor's dog (who is no longer with us). That dog had flawless recall (when the owner bothered to use it). It could be playing hard, but if he said "come" it came, no question, no pause. It was crazy. This dog was thoroughly hand-shy and skittish. It took 2 weeks for it to come anywhere near me, and if I went to pat it, it skittered away. A sweetheart when it let you get close though! Unfortunately he wasn't around to recall the dog most of the time it was off leash, and it took off one day, he went outside to bring it in, heard a yelp in the distance and never saw his dog again. His attitude, when we asked about how he trained the recall "she just does it....I'm not going to train her to do something that she should instinctively know how to do". I can't wrap my head around how someone with that attitude could get such a good recall! Aversives involved or not! Seriously how did that (sort of) work for him!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Disclaimer: it's understood that "it stands to reason" does not satsfy the requirements of scientific inquiry.
> 
> When you've squeezed the last bit of goodness from reward-based recall training, it stands to reason that applying corrective measures--for the rare occasions of noncompliance--will provide the extra motivation that brings you that much closer to theoretical perfection. No separate "emergency recall" procedures required.


I'm not sure anyone has squeezed the last bit of goodness from positive reinforcement base training yet. In fact, we've pretty much just scratched the surface. In casual theory it may make sense that adding in aversives would make the behavior stronger, but in fact, it only muddies the waters. Responding to something highly pleasurable comes from a different part of the brain (and produces different neurochemicals) than avoiding something unpleasant. The dog can't be anticipating pleasure and worrying about aversives at the same time. What you get is weaker behavior, confusion and poisoned cues. Sometimes that's not obvious until later.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

If you don't want to use treats, or another type of reinforcer that your dog will work for, sorry, can't help. With a clicker and treats, teaching a dog to go to their bed and lie down takes just a few repetitions. I suppose you could drag the dog to his bed enough times and he might get it. Then you make the door bell a cue to go to your bed. Here's information on teaching a dog bark and quiet, but again, not something you can easily do with traditional training. http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1125 As to overweight dogs and food treats - at home I use my dogs' dinner for training.




Purley said:


> OK. "I'd prefer to build the association that doorbell = go sit on your bed quietly and stay there until I give you the cue to get up and interact with the guests."
> 
> So how do you train this?
> 
> ...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> A dog that is willing to come is great till not willing to come for whatever reason. A dog that has to come, has no will of his own he/she has to come it's not open for discussion. As stated above neither way is 100%.


Well, I'd rather have a non-as-close-to-possible 100% recall than to even risk submitting Wally back to "no will of his own" mentality. I'd just keep him on a leash.

I've come too far in 3 years to get him OUT of that mentality.

But, luckily, Wally is willing to come, so he CHARGES at me, so I never had to worry about it. 

*shrug* I guess I prefer shaping because it uses more of Wally's brain and developed an overall thought pattern in him that we can carry to the next new thing. Make him think it's his idea, he's doing it on his own and that he can be proactive in the world around him. Then again, confidence-building was and still is my #1 goal in training him and a nice side effect is that he's learning problem solving and "Try try try again" instead of sitting and looking and feeling helpless and scared.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Greater swiss>> I sooo like your post! You put into words what I would have wanted to say but never comes out right about my breed as well. For (most I mean) Izze is the same way, either it hurts or it doesnt & sometimes (more often when she was a younger) unless the adversive is strong enough, nothing will deture her from doing whatever. 

For Jo, who is softer its more "either you stop or a time out is in your future) time outs work very well because she is very us/fun motivated, she can't stand not being part of whatever it is we are doing. I dont use harsh adversives with her, she mentally can't take it, time outs work for us.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I agree with you alot on this, I'm not going to shoot the messenger although I may end up in the line of fire for this......
> If a dog is truly well conditioned to the word "come" or "here" it should not feel that it has any choice other than to turn around and return to their owner. This kind of conditioning is probably possible without using aversives. For some dogs, but not for others. There is also the owner to consider and the way they interact with their dog.
> 
> IMO recall is a matter of safety for the dog and anyone in the vicinity. An owner or trainer can talk until they are blue in the face that they would do anything necessary if their dog got off leash and went running towards a busy highway. What can you do in that situation? Most dogs are faster than people, if your dog is 50feet away, you aren't going to catch them before they get to the highway. Everything that could be done to stop the dog from getting there has to be done BEFORE the hand comes off of the leash (whether that happens intentionally or not). This isn't just the safety of the dog! I've almost gone off the road because a dog ran on the highway, and I know how badly going off the road can end up. For commands other than "come" I would never demand the highest % of success, if she wants to down instead of sit....fine, but for recall, it is crucial.
> ...


I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest that a recall is not crucial. Or that you shouldn't teach one. Or that you should wait until there is an emergency before you do (and I don't think that was what Karen Pryor was saying either). If the dog is truly conditioned to have a recall (by whatever method) the dog is not considering choices, but responding as an almost involuntary reflex. When you see a red light, do you pause and think about whether or not you should put your foot on the brake (assuming you are not a scofflaw) or does your foot automatically go to that pedal? If you drive home the same route every day, do you still have to think about which street you need to turn on? Do those responses come as an expectation of punishment or reward, or do you do them because it is habit? I have called dogs off a fleeing bunny or cat. I didn't need aversives to teach them that. Just a strong history of positive reinforcement for easier recalls. Then when I needed it, it was there. And I'd never actually practiced with live prey. Is it possible that I might misjudge my dog's level of training and it would be "aw, poor Thumper". It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. Now, at some stages along the training process, I HAVE been known to use just a bit of negative punishment - leave the room of the dog finds something else more interesting, eat the dog's food (loudly) or feed it to another dog. That's about as aversive as I get. And the result from the dog's point of view is "hey, wait! Let me over there!" instead of worrying about something unpleasant he needs to avoid. If he is thinking about avoidance, that thought may include me. And with a recall that's the LAST thing I want.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm not sure anyone has squeezed the last bit of goodness from positive reinforcement base training yet.


"Maximum" is subject to practical reality. Will I train another 3 months to get an extra fraction of % of reliability, or a millisecond faster response? No, I won't.



Pawzk9 said:


> In casual theory it may make sense that adding in aversives would make the behavior stronger, but in fact, it only muddies the waters.


I don't accept that as fact. I see it as providing greater clarity. 



Pawzk9 said:


> Responding to something highly pleasurable comes from a different part of the brain (and produces different neurochemicals) than avoiding something unpleasant. The dog can't be anticipating pleasure and worrying about aversives at the same time. What you get is weaker behavior, confusion and poisoned cues. Sometimes that's not obvious until later.


If you've built a strong positive association to recall, you only break it with inappropriate correction. The dog is corrected for behavior _other than_ returning on command/cue. The dog stops doing things he's corrected for, and doesn't worry about it anymore. I've met some thickwitted dogs, but no normally intelligent dogs so dumb that they can't tell the difference. I can't take responsibility for people who screw it up because they cherish their ignorance and anger overmuch. There are no magical powers required; just adherence to proven practices.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Greater swiss>> I sooo like your post! You put into words what I would have wanted to say but never comes out right about my breed as well. For (most I mean) Izze is the same way, either it hurts or it doesnt & sometimes (more often when she was a younger) unless the adversive is strong enough, nothing will deture her from doing whatever.


Actually, some of the dogs I see who really shine with positive reinforcement based training are often the harder minded dogs who wonder what's in it for them. (They get to see what is in it for them.) Sometimes the reason you have to use strong aversives with a dog like that is because, as Nietzsche said "That which does not kill us, makes us stronger." So, you do something unpleasant, dog temporarily stops behavior. Dog tries behavior again in another situation and when you rpeat that aversive, dog knows it's not that deadly, and no longer that scary, and you have to escalate to something harsher. Generally when there is a battle of wills between a dog and a human, it's the human who started it. I'd just rather not.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> "Maximum" is subject to practical reality. Will I train another 3 months to get an extra fraction of % of reliability, or a millisecond faster response? No, I won't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All I can say is that our experiences are quite different. And I HAVE experience training both ways. Can you define "correction" for me, please?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Originally Posted by Pawzk9 
I'm not sure anyone has squeezed the last bit of goodness from positive reinforcement base training yet.



Marsh Muppet said:


> "Maximum" is subject to practical reality. Will I train another 3 months to get an extra fraction of % of reliability, or a millisecond faster response? No, I won't.
> .


This response makes no sense to me. Well, it might, since you edited out part of the thought.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't accept that as fact. I see it as providing greater clarity.


I think it depends on the dog and the aversive.

Wally will go straight to appeasement if I so much as even use a deeper pitch to my voice. So I stay with more postural signals like turning my head away, body blocking, or just "neutral" sounds like snapping my fingers or "atttttt" type stuff to redirect him.

I can't imagine what "traditional" aversives would do to clear up the picture for him. Probably would scare him more than help him learn, considering just me getting upset can be enough to turn on the shakes drop the tail and have him walking like someone lopped off 3 inches of his height.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> All I can say is that our experiences are quite different. And I HAVE experience training both ways. Can you define "correction" for me, please?


Different methods can have greater or lesser success for reasons that have nothing to do with the dog. You cannot remove the trainer from the equation (though clicker probably does better at that than other techniques). And the dog knows what you're thinking.

Correction can be anything from calling the dog back for a do-over (depending) to a prong collar pop or an e-collar stim.  Dogs have superb hearing so I don't yell. If I find my volume increasing, I call it a day.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> This response makes no sense to me. Well, it might, since you edited out part of the thought.


If I edited (don't recall doing so) it's not because I'm keeping secrets, but to clarify. I was responding to _"I'm not sure anyone has squeezed the last bit of goodness from positive reinforcement base training yet."_. My point was I get all the good out of R+ that I can...within my perceived limits of practical reality. I think my limits are fairly broad 'cause I get a reliable off-leash recall--at a dead run--before introducing correction.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

That's why im picky bout the animals I adopt/purchase, hey have to match my personality, i wouldn't bring a very soft/timid dog here with me that couldn't handle social pressure or me with my fwd personality/ADD self lol. It wouldn't be fair to the animal.


----------



## CocoAndMarley (Aug 17, 2011)

I have not read all of the thread but I gotta say I love clicker training. It makes things easier IMO anyways. And if I tell Marley to sit and he stands up straight away I tell him again until he stays down. I do not force him down..

And with offering behaviours..Coco is soo funny about this XD Every time we are giving the dogs food we tell them to sit and wait for it. Well now when I am eating Coco will come over and stare at me with her tail wagging. After a minute of ignoring her she will sit down and just stare! It is funny. And then I feel bad and will give her something =P


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I haven't seen anyone on this thread suggest that a recall is not crucial. Or that you shouldn't teach one. Or that you should wait until there is an emergency before you do (and I don't think that was what Karen Pryor was saying either). If the dog is truly conditioned to have a recall (by whatever method) the dog is not considering choices, but responding as an almost involuntary reflex. When you see a red light, do you pause and think about whether or not you should put your foot on the brake (assuming you are not a scofflaw) or does your foot automatically go to that pedal? If you drive home the same route every day, do you still have to think about which street you need to turn on? Do those responses come as an expectation of punishment or reward, or do you do them because it is habit? I have called dogs off a fleeing bunny or cat. I didn't need aversives to teach them that. Just a strong history of positive reinforcement for easier recalls. Then when I needed it, it was there. And I'd never actually practiced with live prey. Is it possible that I might misjudge my dog's level of training and it would be "aw, poor Thumper". It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. Now, at some stages along the training process, I HAVE been known to use just a bit of negative punishment - leave the room of the dog finds something else more interesting, eat the dog's food (loudly) or feed it to another dog. That's about as aversive as I get. And the result from the dog's point of view is "hey, wait! Let me over there!" instead of worrying about something unpleasant he needs to avoid. If he is thinking about avoidance, that thought may include me. And with a recall that's the LAST thing I want.


I didn't mean to imply that anyone suggested recall isn't important...just that whatever necessary method to condition it thoroughly should be taken. If a dog doesn't respond to food for conditioning under higher drive circumstances other options are worth exploration. 
Not thinking about the avoidance is the point of the conditioning....which should remove the thinking about avoidance (once the conditioning is complete. Which may be conditioning using positive reinforcement or aversives. Which is why I think it is great that there are e-collars with such things as a vibrate or page function, which really should act like an attention getter and a conditioning agent rather than a punishment. Vibrating and beeping, can be annoying to the dog, so technically aversive, but not intrusive and damaging like the hunter hitting his dog. Some dogs (and some circumstances) take more or less. You do mention "aw poor Thumper" but what if Thumper went running across the highway? Potentially more than poor thumper! That is where I get worried. And you can't ever find out for sure until it happens, which is a risk in every kind of training.
I stop at stoplights and watch my driving, partially from habit/conditioning, but thanks to someone else's mistake I have the continual expectation in my subconscious of severe punishment if I don't take the extra care. I drive more carefully because of it, but with a certain level of fear, which is the problem with an aversive that is too extreme. I the "punishment" had been less aversive I think I would have taken the lesson to heart and been better driver, but with less damage and without the level of fear. Then on the other hand you have people like the one who was driving the vehicle I was in for the accident. He had a couple of minor bruises, but his driving habits haven't changed. People and dogs both take different levels and types of stimuli (both positive and negative) to be conditioned to something. 



Pawzk9 said:


> Generally when there is a battle of wills between a dog and a human, it's the human who started it. I'd just rather not.


I agree with you there......so again, it is a matter of picking the appropriate stimuli, whether it be positive or negative. But isn't all training a battle of wills to a point? If it is positive reinforcement and the dog is being manipulated into doing something for food, it is still using what they want to get what you want. It is just adding good things rather than negative and isn't adversarial in any way, which I think should be a goal no matter what kind of training is used. I personally prefer positive reinforcement, but I am open and educating myself on what kind of aversives are appropriate and how to use them, which I believe is really important.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Generally when there is a battle of wills between a dog and a human, it's the human who started it. I'd just rather not.


Therein lies the rub, You don't want a battle of wills and that is exactly as it should be, I can't speak for others but my experience with a bunch (but not all) of the dogs dropped off for training the battle of wills began long before drop-off occurred and had nothing to do with trip to the trainer, it had to do with the programs used before trip to trainer. The owners do not have a clue what to do and if they did don't want to do it. All our experiences are different, as different as all the dogs trained are, I never minded the battle of wills because that's why I was being paid.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Greater Swiss said:


> Which may be conditioning using positive reinforcement or aversives. Which is why I think it is great that there are e-collars with such things as a vibrate or page function, which really should act like an attention getter and a conditioning agent rather than a punishment. Vibrating and beeping, can be annoying to the dog, so technically aversive, but not intrusive and damaging like the hunter hitting his dog.


Another case where the dog decides. Some dogs really dislike the vibating function on the collar, but will take a moderate electric stim in stride. I can relate. When my cell phone goes off on "vibrate", I start slapping my leg like there's a bee in my pants. How embarasskin.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Different methods can have greater or lesser success for reasons that have nothing to do with the dog. You cannot remove the trainer from the equation (though clicker probably does better at that than other techniques). And the dog knows what you're thinking.
> 
> Correction can be anything from calling the dog back for a do-over (depending) to a prong collar pop or an e-collar stim. Dogs have superb hearing so I don't yell. If I find my volume increasing, I call it a day.


I've been successful with both types of training. See, if a "correction" is anything from calling the dog back to a prong collar pop or ecollar stim, to me that's not a term with a useable definition. When you say it, I don't know where in that very broad spectrum you are talking about.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I didn't mean to imply that anyone suggested recall isn't important...just that whatever necessary method to condition it thoroughly should be taken. If a dog doesn't respond to food for conditioning under higher drive circumstances other options are worth exploration.
> Not thinking about the avoidance is the point of the conditioning....which should remove the thinking about avoidance (once the conditioning is complete. Which may be conditioning using positive reinforcement or aversives. Which is why I think it is great that there are e-collars with such things as a vibrate or page function, which really should act like an attention getter and a conditioning agent rather than a punishment. Vibrating and beeping, can be annoying to the dog, so technically aversive, but not intrusive and damaging like the hunter hitting his dog. Some dogs (and some circumstances) take more or less. You do mention "aw poor Thumper" but what if Thumper went running across the highway? Potentially more than poor thumper! That is where I get worried. And you can't ever find out for sure until it happens, which is a risk in every kind of training.


The page function (if other features have been used on the collar) is more than just an attention getter. It's a threat. It reminds the dog what will happen next if they don't stop what they are doing. However, it only works if the collar is on and the battery is active. As to "poor Thumper" you are ignoring the fact that it hasn't happened (if I was present to call the dog back. If I'm not, dead bunny - Ian Dunbar did suggest to me that rabbit stew is delicious). I won't say that my recall is 100% reliable. Few things in life are. But you're talking like it's failed me. It hasn't yet. But there is always a chance. Which is why I take other precautions as well. As you state, it's not 100% no matter what kind of training you use. But I choose to use training which builds trust and a strong desire to be with me instead of training that teaches a dog to avoid. And, because a dog's thought process is different enough from a human's (they live in the now without thinking about past events or long term consequences) that unless something is truly nasty enough to make them afraid to ever try it again, I'm not sure the threat of mangling and dismemberment, or fear of prison or black and whites has the same effect on them as it does on us. Shoot. I've known dogs who have been hit by cars and survived to chase cars or run into traffic again.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> But isn't all training a battle of wills to a point? If it is positive reinforcement and the dog is being manipulated into doing something for food, it is still using what they want to get what you want. It is just adding good things rather than negative and isn't adversarial in any way, which I think should be a goal no matter what kind of training is used. I personally prefer positive reinforcement, but I am open and educating myself on what kind of aversives are appropriate and how to use them, which I believe is really important.


With positive reinforcement, you arrange things so what you want and what the dog wants are compatible. You are giving each other what the other wants. So, no. No battle of wills. Is there manipulation involved? Yeah. By both me and the dog. That's a feature, not a bug. 
When I was training with aversives, my dogs did what I wanted, and they were good dogs. And pretty nearly as reliable as the dogs I have now (though a lot of time was wasted having battles of wills, and they clearly were able to figure out just how long my arms were) And while I thought at the time that I had a great relationship with my dogs, there's a huge difference. As to educating yourself on what kind of aversives are appropriate and how to use them - well, once you do that, you pretty much are going to use them, whether you really need to or not. It will become the "easy" answer instead of searching for better ways to explain things to your dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> See, if a "correction" is anything from calling the dog back to a prong collar pop or ecollar stim, to me that's not a term with a useable definition. When you say it, I don't know where in that very broad spectrum you are talking about.


That's about as precise as it gets, I'm afraid. As Potter Stewart famously said about pornography:_"I shall not today attempt further to define [it]. But I know it when I see it...."_ 

The call-back/do-over can stress out a dog if it's overdone. An example is a dog who's highly driven to retrieve. Being denied the retrieve can cause some considerable anxiety. Maybe that doesn't meet the definition of P+, but some dogs will take it pretty hard. If the dog is confused about the specific task, and doing his best to comply, that form of "punishment" may shut him down. An e-collar stim that would flip one dog like a tiddly wink might not cause another dog to break stride.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> But I choose to use training which builds trust and a strong desire to be with me instead of training that teaches a dog to avoid.


If you couldn't get that when using aversives, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If you couldn't get that when using aversives, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


My results said I was doing it right.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If you couldn't get that when using aversives, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


How do aversives teach a dog that you're trustworthy and make them want to be with you (especially for dogs who hold grudges instead of forgiving dogs like Goldens tend to be)? Didn't you just say that the point of aversives was to teach avoidance?

I'll grant you, yes, I was doing it wrong. Pretty much everything I've even done in dog training was wrong. But philosophically, I don't see how aversives demonstrate trustworthiness, or make somebody/a dog want to be with you.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> That's about as precise as it gets, I'm afraid. As Potter Stewart famously said about pornography:_"I shall not today attempt further to define [it]. But I know it when I see it...."_ .


Cute saying. But it doesn't really make for everyone being on the same page. As an ex-art student, I hardly notice nudity except for looking for lines and contrast. I prefer to use terms which have a definition we can all agree on. Behavioral science does provide definitions, even if it's too objective for some people.



Marsh Muppet said:


> The call-back/do-over can stress out a dog if it's overdone. An example is a dog who's highly driven to retrieve. Being denied the retrieve can cause some considerable anxiety. Maybe that doesn't meet the definition of P+, but some dogs will take it pretty hard. If the dog is confused about the specific task, and doing his best to comply, that form of "punishment" may shut him down. An e-collar stim that would flip one dog like a tiddly wink might not cause another dog to break stride.


I would consider the call-back more like negative punishment than positive if the dog is highly driven to retrieve. Though I suspect that the considerable anxiety might be caused by artificial means, though - like an ear pinch or an ecollar. Otherwise I'd expect no more than frustration. The problem is that sometimes we don't know which dog will flip like a tiddly wink and which will not break stride until after the fact.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Therein lies the rub, You don't want a battle of wills and that is exactly as it should be, I can't speak for others but my experience with a bunch (but not all) of the dogs dropped off for training the battle of wills began long before drop-off occurred and had nothing to do with trip to the trainer, it had to do with the programs used before trip to trainer. The owners do not have a clue what to do and if they did don't want to do it. All our experiences are different, as different as all the dogs trained are, I never minded the battle of wills because that's why I was being paid.


I think maybe the difference is that you do board and train and I'm involved directly with people who want to be able to work with their own dogs. So, I'm being paid to help people learn how to avoid that battle of wills.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> The page function (if other features have been used on the collar) is more than just an attention getter. It's a threat. It reminds the dog what will happen next if they don't stop what they are doing. However, it only works if the collar is on and the battery is active. As to "poor Thumper" you are ignoring the fact that it hasn't happened (if I was present to call the dog back. If I'm not, dead bunny - Ian Dunbar did suggest to me that rabbit stew is delicious). I won't say that my recall is 100% reliable. Few things in life are. But you're talking like it's failed me. It hasn't yet. But there is always a chance.


I'm not talking about the tone as a threat, I'm talking it can be used alone, as the vibrate can. I've read some interesting stuff about it being fantastic for training deaf dogs, especially for recall. 
As for "poor thumper", I don't mean necessarily you, sorry if it came across that way! I'm thinking there are many people in general terms who think they have a perfect recall,maybe because the dog always comes in the house or in the enclosed yard, but when it comes down to a new situation, that they may not realize is new to the dog (that they haven't proofed or trained with any method), poof! poor thumper and perhaps poor dog if they run in the wrong direction. I've got about 50% recall right now, so I still count myself among the people that could get their dog killed, but I'm working on it the best I can. 


Pawzk9 said:


> As to educating yourself on what kind of aversives are appropriate and how to use them - well, once you do that, you pretty much are going to use them, whether you really need to or not. It will become the "easy" answer instead of searching for better ways to explain things to your dog.


You are assuming that I haven't tried to find better ways to explain things to her, and you would be wrong. Your opinion is dually noted. I've tried many methods, and some have worked perfectly for some things, but failed for others. Most of what she has learned has been without aversives or minimal ones like denying attention or bitter apple. 
As for using aversives because they are the "easy" way, the way I read you might as well say the lazy way. I'm educating myself on all of them so I understand the concepts of aversion and various methods used, including things I would never use, such as alpha rolls or kicking. I want to know the variety of aversives, how and why they affect the dog before it becomes necessary to use any.
Walking was the reason for exploring aversives. I have a pretty bad neck and shoulder injury and she can easily make it hurt, much more and I'll end up in spasms for days. She is growing faster than the non-aversive methods are working. Yes, aversive methods are easier than landing myself in the hospital and out of work for six months again It could be easier to just not walk her or take her outside at all. Even easier would be to give her away.Not planning on any of those. I'm trying to educate myself so I don't use them unnecessarily, inappropriately or excessively. Your statements suggest that you believe I would do otherwise. You are entirely entitled to your opinion.
I still believe that not all dogs respond with success to purely positive training, and that being educated on all options (and how they affect the dog) is better than picking one method that may not be working. All dogs are different, as are all owners, and one size fits all training doesn't work. Just my opinion.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Re: Battle of Wills

I don't think there's a battle of wills going on when I train Wally. It's more "can I explain it to him in a way that he gets it."

He wants to do it - I need to explain it to him. If he doesn't want to do it, my job it is to make it either enticing for him to do, or make him think it's his idea and he wanted to it the whole time. Enter shaping and the whole "me doing things gets me stuff" mentality. Then I can use that to get him going in the direction I want.

I don't want to "make" him do it. That's just going to shut him down. So a battle will accomplish nothing. 

If I would have to battle dogs constantly - I'm glad I'm not a pro trainer. That's just not my style. I want to explain things to dogs so they can learn, not have to beat them down to about the way Wally was (no will, drive, or initiative of his own)...then teach them stuff.

I WANT a will of his own. My job as his trainer is to manipulate that energy, not clash with it, imo.

If such things can only be achieved with super soft and fearful dogs, then I guess they are my calling, because I love how I can communicate with Wally, not clash with him.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I'm not talking about the tone as a threat, I'm talking it can be used alone, as the vibrate can. I've read some interesting stuff about it being fantastic for training deaf dogs, especially for recall. .


The vibrate or the page has to mean something to the dog. You can condition the vibrate to be a cue, or even a positive reinforcer. I've even seen an exceptionally creepy and twisted "Sit Means Sit" video where they were attempting to condition a high level shock to be positive reinforce (for gods' sake why?) But it doesn't magically mean something to the dog. And it sounds to me like your intention is to use it as either positive punishment or negative reinforcement, which are the most common uses. It doesn't mean anything to the dog (except surprise/aversive) unless you intentionally work to make it mean such. You can also make other things as meaningful if you try.




Greater Swiss said:


> As for "poor thumper", I don't mean necessarily you, sorry if it came across that way! I'm thinking there are many people in general terms who think they have a perfect recall,maybe because the dog always comes in the house or in the enclosed yard, but when it comes down to a new situation, that they may not realize is new to the dog (that they haven't proofed or trained with any method), poof! poor thumper and perhaps poor dog if they run in the wrong direction. I've got about 50% recall right now, so I still count myself among the people that could get their dog killed, but I'm working on it the best I can. .


There are people who use aversives who don't have a perfect recall. There are also people who use positive reinforcement who don't. I can tell you from experience that it is at least as easy to get a reliable (90%+) recall with positive reinforcement as the other way. I'd venture to say it is easier (at least it was for me)



Greater Swiss said:


> You are assuming that I haven't tried to find better ways to explain things to her, and you would be wrong. Your opinion is dually noted. I've tried many methods, and some have worked perfectly for some things, but failed for others. Most of what she has learned has been without aversives or minimal ones like denying attention or bitter apple.
> As for using aversives because they are the "easy" way, the way I read you might as well say the lazy way. I'm educating myself on all of them so I understand the concepts of aversion and various methods used, including things I would never use, such as alpha rolls or kicking. I want to know the variety of aversives, how and why they affect the dog before it becomes necessary to use any.
> Walking was the reason for exploring aversives. I have a pretty bad neck and shoulder injury and she can easily make it hurt, much more and I'll end up in spasms for days. She is growing faster than the non-aversive methods are working. Yes, aversive methods are easier than landing myself in the hospital and out of work for six months again It could be easier to just not walk her or take her outside at all. Even easier would be to give her away.Not planning on any of those. I'm trying to educate myself so I don't use them unnecessarily, inappropriately or excessively. Your statements suggest that you believe I would do otherwise. You are entirely entitled to your opinion.
> I still believe that not all dogs respond with success to purely positive training, and that being educated on all options (and how they affect the dog) is better than picking one method that may not be working. All dogs are different, as are all owners, and one size fits all training doesn't work. Just my opinion.


I do think that using aversives is the "lazy way". I also think that if you mix and match (squirt your dog with bitter apple for some things, and reward other things, it's a mish-mash and you can't judge the effectiveness of the results of the positive reinforcement by that. All dogs are different. Different things motivate them. But all dogs can be motivated by what is important to them. Just my opinon. For the loose leash walking, while you are teaching the dog to pay attention, and that only a loose leash results in moving towards their goal, have you also looked at a front attach harness, a harness with two points of attachment or (not my favorite) a head halter?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Bob Bailey is pretty well known among the clicker community. Bob Bailey doesn't consider himself a clicker person. Bob Bailey, in his history, was responsible for training mine detecting dogs. I'm going to assume that's a pretty high demand behavior because, you wouldn't want all your training to go to waste with one false step. I recall Bob Bailey stating he rarely used punishment during training, and only then to preserve life and limb. That, to me, is the bar, and I see no reason for punishment, in the mostly mundane things we ask of our dogs. :/


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I do think that using aversives is the "lazy way". I also think that if you mix and match (squirt your dog with bitter apple for some things, and reward other things, it's a mish-mash and you can't judge the effectiveness of the results of the positive reinforcement by that. All dogs are different. Different things motivate them. But all dogs can be motivated by what is important to them. Just my opinon. For the loose leash walking, while you are teaching the dog to pay attention, and that only a loose leash results in moving towards their goal, have you also looked at a front attach harness, a harness with two points of attachment or (not my favorite) a head halter?


We tried positive reinforcement for pretty much everything at the beginning, and for recall and leash walking it didn't matter much (especially when we stepped outside). Different things are important at different times to Caeda. The only thing that we've found so far that motivates her really well for recall is the laser. She is about 98%. She ignores cats, other dogs, cars, etc. if it is laser-play time. This one is useless for walking....and of course during the day. Without the laser her recall isn't the greatest. When we are out and about other times, what is important to her is the dog across the yard. He hates her and has snapped at her several times although he is otherwise a sweet dog to people (the "owner" would likely put him down if I asked him to do anything about him wandering)...giving her play with him is not a safe reward for good behaviour, although another dog that used to live next door we could do that with. Nothing that we have is important to her if she sees the other dog or any of the neighbours. 
We tried a head halter.....once. She bolts, so the head twist was scary. Never using it again, I'd rather slap a prong on and let her yelp until she figures it out (sounds cruel, but the chance for permanent damage is less). The front halter seems to be a game for her most of the time. It does lessen her pressure on the leash a bit, but doesn't do much otherwise....although she did get frustrated once and take a nip at me. We haven't tried the harness with two attachments, but haven't seen that they would give much more benefit. I've tried silky lead and about 10 other methods. They aren't too bad until the big distractions come, clicker flying treats scattered and me hoping like heck that I don't end up in hospital again. 
As for a loose leash resulting in moving forward.....her bolting, or pulling results in moving forward thanks to my neck and shoulder problems, she has gotten away from me once already. She is 50lbs at almost 7 months, though small for her age apparently, and is a breed bred for replacing horses! There is one trainer in town and I've heard one good review, the rest were that she was ineffective and a waste of time and money. I am by no means a highly experienced dog owner, but we have tried positive reinforcement for everything, and the things it fails at, it continues to fail at. Maybe it is our actual timing or technique that is causing it for particular things, I'm not going to suggest we are perfect in our training, but no matter how we look at it, she is getting too big to manhandle on a leash and all of the motivators for positive reinforcement are useless in certain circumstances. Handling her under any distraction is starting to become a health risk. Which is the reason for considering aversives, its that or give her up (I'll opt for an intelligently applied aversive thanks). It seems most of the people around here don't even train their dogs to sit properly and will hit them if they don't come. My landlord seems to think it is cruel that we have her on a tether or leash all of the time and have her sleep inside (and use a crate)....according to him dogs are "outside animals" and don't need that stuff. How is that for a training philosophy. She's better off with a mild aversive than getting that kind of treatment. Again, every dog is different, and ours just doesn't care about certain things when she wants something else.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I really, really, really, really admire the people who only use positive reinforcement and no adversives, and I'm using both terms very loosely here (I've seen the beast of a thread discussing P+ and watnot )
I'm by no means a trainer and my current dog is my first dog, so that says a lot about my experience. But my opinion right now, to a certain degree, is an "ends justify the means" one, which I know many people won't agree with. This isn't to say I agree with beating a dog so that it's so scared that it'll never dare run from you (recall problem solved, tada!). But I do believe that most dogs will still grow up to be great dogs even if you've used bitter sprays, prongs, e-collars... 

The other thing is, I fully agree with Pawzk9 in that adversive methods are the lazy way. But I'm okay with being lazy, if the ends justify the means. And if in the end you don't get a totally shut down or fearful dog. 

To use "Leave it" and food on the ground as an example, the way I see it I can get Soro to ignore food on the ground in many different ways:
-Adversives: I can beat him senseless whenever he even thinks about sniffing out food on the ground.
-Positive: I can teach him "Leave it" using NILIF. In a variety of different environments, different distances away from me, off leash and on leash, with different lures... Until he habitually learns not to touch any food on the ground anywhere.
-Removing the problem: I can keep him at a heel at all times, or any other form of simply removing him from any situation where he can get food off the ground.

Till this day, Soro's "Leave it" is shaky. It works very well when he's within a certain distance from me, but otherwise I've learned just to calmly walk over to him and ask him to Sit if he finds something far away. Here's why:
-I've tried adversive methods before (but definitely not "beating him senseless," god no!). But all that got me was a dog that was scared whenever I approached him eating stuff on the ground, and gulping ensues. 
-I'm lazy. I don't have the time or resolution to proof him to that degree.
-Yet I still want to let him offleash. And in fact he does well enough off leash.

The way I see it, it's a balance between an owner's time, patience and resources... the dog's (softness?), and the end result. You want a dog that will come when called. You want a happy dog that trusts you. You want results fast, or you don't have the time to do it any other way. I do believe that it is possible to shut some dogs down with something like e-collars or even prong collars. I also believe that some dogs are so thick-skinned that such tools don't have any effect on them. I fully believe that all dogs can be taught without the use of adversives. At the same time, I believe that "thick-skinned" (hard? not-soft) dogs trained with adversives can still be happy, trusting dogs. I see no problems with owners being lazy if in the end the dog can still be happy, and I'd rather see an e-collar trained dog stop at the edge of a busy road rather than a dead dog that's otherwise never had to know pain or discomfort. There are so many things wrong with this example (like why an untrained dog would be offleash to begin with) but I hope you get my drift.

ALL THIS SAID, I will never use an e-collar. I admit to using adversive methods in the past but I'm also incredibly lucky to have such a forgiving dog. I don't enjoy the negative reaction that comes with using adversives. I'm too lazy to go and learn how to use an e-collar. And I'm too stubborn to give in. 
I'm fine with Soro sometimes getting tidbits on the ground, me slapping myself on the forehead when he does, and us working on minimizing distance offleash in the meantime to minimize him getting food on the ground. But this is just my experience with the one dog I've ever owned. Other people know their dogs so only they can understand the benefits and consequences to what they choose to do. 

It's taking me nearly an hour to write this post. I know this is a touchy topic and I still don't think I'm being very clear... But my final thought is that even though people tell me Soro is "one of the happiest dogs they have ever seen," if I could rewind the clock I would have done things differently. I've learned so much about dog training these last few years and I can't possibly begin to describe how that's impacted my life. But just knowing what I do now, I would do things differently simply because I will know that I _can_ achieve certain results through more positive means. It wouldn't be for Soro, it would be for me.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> How do aversives teach a dog that you're trustworthy and make them want to be with you (especially for dogs who hold grudges instead of forgiving dogs like Goldens tend to be)? Didn't you just say that the point of aversives was to teach avoidance?


This point ignores the fact that people have done it. A lot. For quite a long time. Did every obedience dog before 1980 (generously) only stay with the owner in the ring under threat? What brought hunting dogs back before the day of the variable stim e-collar? I guess all those German Shepherd never noticed they were the fence, and were free to just keep trotting away. 

The question is not "Can a dog be trained to a standard and pleasing picture using adversives?" It can. This is, historically, the default situation. That is not to say people can't do a darn good job of ruining a dog, but it's not really under debate that it's possible.

Likewise, the question is not "Can a dog be trained to a standard and pleasing picture without the use of adversives?" It can. While the evidence is more sparse, this is due in part to a younger technology and lower profile activity (lots of clicker trainers leave Obedience and go play triebball, for example). That is not to say people can't do a darn good job of ruining a dog, but it's not really under debate that it's possible.

The question is, what gets the best picture, faster, stronger, more resilient, *better.* The emotional/moral argument is ineffective, because it equates use of a choke chain to the guy who kicked that little dog across the elevator, and invited him back to kick him again. 

Effective correction based training and effective clicker training are remarkably similar. Timing, criteria, rate of reinforcement.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Problem is, you won't know if a certain method will make your dog shut down or fearful until you've tried it. At which point it's too late, the damage may never be undone. A poor risk, IMO, especially if it's only because you were being lazy. What's more, the aversive (no d ) method may not even work (particularly if your timing is off or you allowed your anger to dictate your actions--and usually that's what physical punishment is driven by), so now you've beaten your dog senseless, with all the related blowback from that, and he _still_ doesn't have a reliable "leave it". 

I guess I've never believed that ends justify means anyway. But even if they did, what if the "ends" didn't turn out the way you wanted? Are the means not justified then? Do results really justify or vilify actions? If you beat your dog and everything turns out OK, it's justified, but if you beat your dog and he turns into a quivering pile of nerves (and you won't know what happens until after), it's not justified? It's the same action, after all.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Problem is, you won't know if a certain method will make your dog shut down or fearful until you've tried it. At which point it's too late, the damage may never be undone. A poor risk, IMO, especially if it's only because you were being lazy. What's more, the aversive (no d ) method may not even work (particularly if your timing is off or you allowed your anger to dictate your actions--and usually that's what physical punishment is driven by), so now you've beaten your dog senseless, with all the related blowback from that, and he _still_ doesn't have a reliable "leave it".
> 
> I guess I've never believed that ends justify means anyway. But even if they did, what if the "ends" didn't turn out the way you wanted? Are the means not justified then? Do results really justify or vilify actions? If you beat your dog and everything turns out OK, it's justified, but if you beat your dog and he turns into a quivering pile of nerves (and you won't know what happens until after), it's not justified? It's the same action, after all.


That's the thing. I think the people who use aversive methods successfully knew from the beginning that their dog wouldn't be shut down from it. That's success. Everything else is trial and error and I don't agree in that case. 
D'oh! "Adverse" the adj. threw me off. But I'm too lazy to go back and correct my mispellings, so I'll just let people think I'm an idiot :rockon:



RaeganW said:


> *The question is, what gets the best picture, faster, stronger, more resilient, better. The emotional/moral argument is ineffective, because it equates use of a choke chain to the guy who kicked that little dog across the elevator, and invited him back to kick him again.
> 
> Effective correction based training and effective clicker training are remarkably similar. Timing, criteria, rate of reinforcement.*


This was everything I was trying to say. Except you actually said it and you said it better.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> This point ignores the fact that people have done it. A lot. For quite a long time. Did every obedience dog before 1980 (generously) only stay with the owner in the ring under threat? What brought hunting dogs back before the day of the variable stim e-collar? I guess all those German Shepherd never noticed they were the fence, and were free to just keep trotting away.
> 
> The question is not "Can a dog be trained to a standard and pleasing picture using adversives?" It can. This is, historically, the default situation. That is not to say people can't do a darn good job of ruining a dog, but it's not really under debate that it's possible.


 I'm not sure which way you're going here the second paragraph seems to contradict the first, unless I'm reading it wrong. . .before e-collars, yes, the dogs WERE free to keep trotting away, and even with e-collars, they still are. I suppose effective training would manage to convince the dog that he's not free to do so, but in reality he is, and always will be, because working dogs can't be kept tied up. And I guess if you're saying that nobody used reward-based training before 1980, then, yes, if that's true all the dogs did stay in the ring under threat. But I would assume that something made it rewarding to them, whatever that was. 

And if we go by modern people using "old-school" training methods, well, I've never seen good results from them. Either dogs changed or people got worse at using aversives, or maybe "old-school" training wasn't as aversive as we think. Or the bar was lower for reliability, or they didn't care at all if their dog was "bouncy" or "stylish" or whatever in the ring, if the dog was shut down it was OK with them. Or they just killed any dog who didn't do well with aversive methods (as many hunters do now, even). Or any number of other variables.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> Problem is, you won't know if a certain method will make your dog shut down or fearful until you've tried it. At which point it's too late, the damage may never be undone. A poor risk, IMO, especially if it's only because you were being lazy. What's more, the aversive (no d ) method may not even work (particularly if your timing is off or you allowed your anger to dictate your actions--and usually that's what physical punishment is driven by), so now you've beaten your dog senseless, with all the related blowback from that, and he _still_ doesn't have a reliable "leave it".
> 
> I guess I've never believed that ends justify means anyway. But even if they did, what if the "ends" didn't turn out the way you wanted? Are the means not justified then? Do results really justify or vilify actions? If you beat your dog and everything turns out OK, it's justified, but if you beat your dog and he turns into a quivering pile of nerves (and you won't know what happens until after), it's not justified? It's the same action, after all.


Shoot, you got me on the d. Chrome doesn't recognize aversive as a word and since aversion and adverse are both words, if I can't remember I just pick one.

Just as there is more to clicker training than pointing it at the dog and pressing down, there is more to traditional training than pinching an ear or popping a collar.

Clicker training does not need traditional training to be evil to "win" the philosophical debate. Admitting it's flaws and short comings does not discredit it. In fact, _more needs to be said about them._ It is only through understanding that we can work around them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Canyx said:


> That's the thing. I think the people who use aversive methods successfully knew from the beginning that their dog wouldn't be shut down from it. That's success. Everything else is trial and error and I don't agree in that case.


I don't know how a regular dog owner could know this. Maybe a professional trainer who's trained so many dogs (and quite likely ruined plenty, too, in the learning process) he can read exactly what each dog can handle can do it, but the average dog owner who will have/train maybe 5-10 dogs in their lifetime doesn't have any way to gauge that kind of thing. Having personally ruined at least one dog (maybe 2) by clumsy use of "traditional" aversive methods---and I don't think that I was too far from average---I honestly don't think an average dog owner has any other way other than trial and error to know whether a training method will work on his/her dog or not.

Or at least the hunters I've known who attempt to train their own dogs certainly aren't any better at it than I was.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I'm not sure which way you're going here the second paragraph seems to contradict the first, unless I'm reading it wrong. . .before e-collars, yes, the dogs WERE free to keep trotting away, and even with e-collars, they still are.


But the dogs _don't._ Sure, Joe Hunter has probably lost a dog or two that way, but Joe Hunter (based on anecdotal stories and the caliber of retriever training books I have read) is a barely competent dog trainer and wouldn't fare any better with a clicker in his hand than an e-collar remote. 



> I suppose effective training would manage to convince the dog that he's not free to do so, but in reality he is, and always will be, because working dogs can't be kept tied up. And I guess if you're saying that nobody used reward-based training before 1980, then, yes,* if that's true all the dogs did stay in the ring under threat. *


1980 would be (roughly) around the time Karen Pryor brought clicker training from dolphins to dogs. Certainly people were using food by that time, in varying amounts, and probably a fair number of dogs were trained without choke chains. But I doubt anyone was deliberately refusing to use aversives in their training (barring the outlying dogs that were truly exceptionally soft, and I would hazard most of those dogs were traumatized in some way).

As for the bold, that is absurd thinking.



> But I would assume that something made it rewarding to them, whatever that was.


(Excepting behavior modification training that uses SOLELY classical conditioning) *ALL TRAINING INVOLVES REINFORCEMENT.* Behavior comes from reinforcement. If the dog is performing some behavior, that behavior has been reinforced at some point. The reinforcement can come from food, a toy, interaction with the handler, or the handler's hand off his ear, but ALL (voluntary) BEHAVIOR COMES FROM REINFORCEMENT.



> And if we go by modern people using "old-school" training methods, well, I've never seen good results from them. Either dogs changed or people got worse at using aversives, or maybe "old-school" training wasn't as aversive as we think. Or the bar was lower for reliability, or they didn't care at all if their dog was "bouncy" or "stylish" or whatever in the ring, if the dog was shut down it was OK with them. Or they just killed any dog who didn't do well with aversive methods (as many hunters do now, even). Or any number of other variables.


Most people who were _successful_ with traditional methods were not as aversive as they are often painted. 

I like being in a training class. I have been in many classes where choke chains and no food were the norm. The students were not very good at training dogs, and many of the student's dogs were confused, frightened, and subdued. The instructors dogs were quite pleasant, although I could still see places for improvement. Mostly stemming from faults of inconsistency.

I have been in much more progressive classes too, and the students sucked at training dogs just as much.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Willowy said:


> I don't know how a regular dog owner could know this. Maybe a professional trainer who's trained so many dogs (and quite likely ruined plenty, too, in the learning process) he can read exactly what each dog can handle can do it, but the average dog owner who will have/train maybe 5-10 dogs in their lifetime doesn't have any way to gauge that kind of thing. Having personally ruined at least one dog (maybe 2) by clumsy use of "traditional" aversive methods---and I don't think that I was too far from average---I honestly don't think an average dog owner has any other way other than trial and error to know whether a training method will work on his/her dog or not.
> 
> Or at least the hunters I've known who attempt to train their own dogs certainly aren't any better at it than I was.


This is one reason I advocate teaching positive methods to new dog trainers. It's often easier for them to pick up, it makes for a better dog-owner relationship (because the owner is looking for the good things their dog does, instead of always waiting for the dog to be "bad"), and if they do make a mess of things, there is less fallout and risk of ruining the dog.

People need to be _taught_ to train dogs. There is a difference between a person training a dog, and a Dog Trainer.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> 1980 would be (roughly) around the time Karen Pryor brought clicker training from dolphins to dogs. Certainly people were using food by that time, in varying amounts, and probably a fair number of dogs were trained without choke chains. But I doubt anyone was deliberately refusing to use aversives in their training.


Hmm, I guess I don't understand the principles of training well enough to know about avoiding all aversives. I wouldn't even know how to begin trying to avoid everything a dog might find kinda sorta annoying. When I think of aversives, I only think of blatant aversives like physical punishment, choke/prong collars, e-collars, and stuff like that. What milder aversives might be, I can't even guess. So I would consider someone using a reward-based system and not using a choke collar (or other blatant aversive) to be a positive trainer, in general. The subtleties escape me.

And, yeah, I just wouldn't recommend a normal dog owner use aversive methods in training a recall, a "leave it", or loose-leash walking, or for discouraging excessive barking (examples given in this thread). The side effects can be bad, and unknown until it's too late.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If you couldn't get that when using aversives, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


Say it again, please say it again.

10 years ago I trained a Pomeranian, the standard obedience course that I do with all dogs. No more no less. 6 months after training was done owner called to board the dog. They pulled into yard got out of car as I was walking out of home, the driveway is 150 ft from home and I called dog and owner let of of lead and this rascal came full speed across yard and leaped up into my arms barking etc. Usually when owners come for board I am getting a lot of tail wagging and pulling on leads to get to me. (owners not turning them loose) Now I hate people who say "trust me" but I'm gonna say it anyway, "trust me" anybody who has read any of my replies/posts etc knows I am a confessed user of aversives when needed. Done properly, trust/like etc can be there.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

My dog has been trained with positive methods, including some clicker training, or other sound like the word "yes." When I was certain he knew what I was asking of him, he started to get corrected for not following commands. For instance with "stay," if he broke the stay, he got told "no" and got taken back and the stay reinforced. Lots of treats and positive reinforcement were also used. He was a hard dog and needed lots of training, but he listens to me better than any dog I've had in the past. My previous dogs did not need much correction, but this one sure did. I would say the amount of correction or lack of correction needed depends on the dog.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> That, to me, is the bar, and I see no reason for punishment, in the mostly mundane things we ask of our dogs. :/


Not even negative punishment?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Say it again, please say it again.
> 
> 10 years ago I trained a Pomeranian, the standard obedience course that I do with all dogs. No more no less. 6 months after training was done owner called to board the dog. They pulled into yard got out of car as I was walking out of home, the driveway is 150 ft from home and I called dog and owner let of of lead and this rascal came full speed across yard and leaped up into my arms barking etc. Usually when owners come for board I am getting a lot of tail wagging and pulling on leads to get to me. (owners not turning them loose) Now I hate people who say "trust me" but I'm gonna say it anyway, "trust me" anybody who has read any of my replies/posts etc knows I am a confessed user of aversives when needed. Done properly, trust/like etc can be there.



Does that mean that aversives could be used on a fearful dog to gain trust if done properly? A dog that already thinks you're out to kill it and runs/pees on sight of you?

Because based on this, it's sounding like if I couldn't have gotten where I am now with using aversives, that just means I'd just be doing it wrong, not that aversives are the wrong choice.

Or that I just made my life harder than it needed to be by refusing the idea and instead trying to gain trust by convincing the dog that his life is not in mortal danger when I show up by using classical conditioning instead of aversives when he ran/backed away from me.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> How do aversives teach a dog that you're trustworthy and make them want to be with you (especially for dogs who hold grudges instead of forgiving dogs like Goldens tend to be)? Didn't you just say that the point of aversives was to teach avoidance?


Correction can't teach the dog to trust you. The relationship/bond is built in other ways. Correction reduces/extinguishes behaviors _other than the specific behavior being asked for_. Ideally, the dog sees the consequence as a natural result of his behavior and not as the handlers unhappiness with the dog. Dogs compartmentalize these things better than humans do.

*I send the dog 100 ft. and direct him to turn right. He turns left and is corrected.* The dog understands the correction occurred, not because he turned left, but because he did not turn right. The dog understands the difference or you've failed in teaching the drill. You'll know that if the dog hesitates or balks the next time he's sent left.



RaeganW said:


> Clicker training does not need traditional training to be evil to "win" the philosophical debate.


If only......

One source of confusion, I believe, is colloquial terminology. We (myself included) often refer to "correction/punisment based training". It's acceptable shorthand, and I have no problem with the term, but it can be misleading. If my dog isn't being rewarded way way way more frequently than he is being corrected, then I'm definitely doing something wrong. Good traditional training is still reward-based, but also uses correction/force in certain situations. 

Hey, I know people who brag about how "well trained" their dog is. You see the extent of training involves screaming at the dog to make him flatten himself on the floor. That ain't training, and those jerks ain't riding on my bus.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Does that mean that aversives could be used on a fearful dog to gain trust if done properly? A dog that already thinks you're out to kill it and runs/pees on sight of you?
> 
> Because based on this, it's sounding like if I couldn't have gotten where I am now with using aversives, that just means I'd just be doing it wrong, not that aversives are the wrong choice.
> 
> Or that I just made my life harder than it needed to be by refusing the idea and instead trying to gain trust by convincing the dog that his life is not in mortal danger when I show up by using classical conditioning instead of aversives when he ran/backed away from me.


You know that what you did with 'The Wally" is correct or he would not have turned into "the Wally" Understand that dogs like Wally I don't train because nobody out there is going to pay the fees necessary. You don't train that type of dog in 30 to 45 days or even 90 days. Think about it, the dog would have to be trusting of me but then when sent back to owner would magically have to be trusting of owner. I have had scared/fearful dogs that I have worked through the years but dogs that by your description of "The Wally" I would refuse and send them to a behaviourist or if I knew a good go to home trainer. Which I don't because there are more charlatans than good competent trainers out there doing the in-home thing. At least that's what I have found/seen/heard of through the years. Please I know somewhere out there are good in home trainers, I have just never met one in real life that I thought was the real thing.

Truth be told I don't even know a competent behaviourist to recommend, I just tell people to Google it in their area to get them off my phone. 

Please don't ever think what I post is in anyway trying to tell people to train this way or train that way or even sillier to train the way I do. Develop the method that works for you and your dog. 

I have weapons that can't be transferred over to others, almost 50 years of training dogs and watching other trainers working dogs and believe it or not I'm still learning the trade.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JuneBud said:


> My dog has been trained with positive methods, including some clicker training, or other sound like the word "yes." When I was certain he knew what I was asking of him, he started to get corrected for not following commands. For instance with "stay," if he broke the stay, he got told "no" and got taken back and the stay reinforced. Lots of treats and positive reinforcement were also used. He was a hard dog and needed lots of training, but he listens to me better than any dog I've had in the past. My previous dogs did not need much correction, but this one sure did. I would say the amount of correction or lack of correction needed depends on the dog.


Se, again, I guess it depends on terminology. I would not consider taking a dog back to the start of when he broke a stay to be "aversive". A correction, yes, but not aversive. It might frustrate the dog, or annoy him, or something, but does not fit my definition of aversive (which would be causing pain/"discomfort", mental or physical). If you smacked him or jerked his collar when taking him back to the starting place, then I would consider it aversive. 

Really, I think dog training needs standardized language. People say they use negative reinforcement-(or aversive- or correction-) based training, and that can evidently mean anything from the hunter who beats his dog every other second, to someone who takes their dog back to where he broke a stay and makes him do it again (still not sure how that's aversive). I would not allow a trainer who said he/she used aversives to touch my dog. If I found out those "aversives" were do-overs or saying "no" occasionally, I'd be somewhat peeved at the lack of clarity, because I would have had it in my mind that the trainer would be "popping" my dog with a prong collar or zapping him with an e-collar (which I do think may have a place in training stuff like snake avoidance, but I wouldn't allow it for basic things like housedog or hunt training).


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Please I know somewhere out there are good in home trainers, I have just never met one in real life that I thought was the real thing.


I found one by me. The guy has trained 2 National Obedience Champion dogs (a Border Collie and a Golden) and some OTCH dogs. The "real deal" charges $200/hr for an in-home visit though. I found it money well spent, just the same.

That guy is the basis for one of my all-time favorite dog stories. I had him come over to help me get a handle on Rusty when I was hobbled with a bad knee. The pup was reverting to feral and I was losing ground. Within a couple of minutes, Rusty had wrapped the trainer's legs in his leash, taken him to the ground, and stolen the gloves out of his jacket pocket. The guy was mortified, but I told him it was worth $200 to learn that I wasn't the idiot the dog was making me think I was. The trainer composed himself and got the pup acting right. Showed me some extremely useful tricks. He made me promise I'd to talk to him first if I ever decided to get rid of the Red Tornado.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Se, again, I guess it depends on terminology. I would not consider taking a dog back to the start of when he broke a stay to be "aversive". A correction, yes, but not aversive. It might frustrate the dog, or annoy him, or something, but does not fit my definition of aversive (which would be causing pain/"discomfort", mental or physical). If you smacked him or jerked his collar when taking him back to the starting place, then I would consider it aversive.


It depends on the dog. I have a high-drive retriever and being denied the retrieve can be more effective "punishment" than a collar pop to prevent breaking. I throw a mark, and as he waits to be sent, he will start shaking like a paint mixer in anticipation. He REALLY wants to go. P+ has its effect, but he wants the reward of a retrieve more than he wants air. In that case P- can be harsher.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I found one by me. The guy has trained 2 National Obedience Champion dogs (a Border Collie and a Golden) and some OTCH dogs. The "real deal" charges $200/hr for an in-home visit though. I found it money well spent, just the same.
> 
> That guy is the basis for one of my all-time favorite dog stories. I had him come over to help me get a handle on Rusty when I was hobbled with a bad knee. The pup was reverting to feral and I was losing ground. Within a couple of minutes, Rusty had wrapped the trainer's legs in his leash, taken him to the ground, and stolen the gloves out of his jacket pocket. The guy was mortified, but I told him it was worth $200 to learn that I wasn't the idiot the dog was making me think I was. The trainer composed himself and got the pup acting right. Showed me some extremely useful tricks. He made me promise I'd to talk to him first if I ever decided to get rid of the Red Tornado.


Oh my, I love it because there are dogs that will absolutely make a fool out of a trainer and these stories (Thank you very much) should be shared.

I'm gonna keep mine secret, as the details of such silliness or as I prefer to call it, dogs abusing a trainer who did not know near as much as he thought he did are on a need to know basis only. To the best of my knowledge there is nobody on DF that needs or wants to know my silliness adventures.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It depends on the dog. I have a high-drive retriever and being denied the retrieve can be more effective "punishment" than a collar pop to prevent breaking. I throw a mark, and as he waits to be sent, he will start shaking like a paint mixer in anticipation. He REALLY wants to go. P+ has its effect, but he wants the reward of a retrieve more than he wants air. In that case P- can be harsher.


I still don't know that I consider that punishment. If it is, then my dogs are constantly being punished, because I won't let them loose to eat the bratty squirrels who tease them. And even if a dog doesn't feel a collar pop at the time because he's in drive mode (Willow wouldn't have noticed having her leg gnawed off by rabid muskrats if she thought fetching was going to be involved) doesn't mean that it won't have later consequences.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It depends on the dog. I have a high-drive retriever and being denied the retrieve can be more effective "punishment" than a collar pop to prevent breaking. I throw a mark, and as he waits to be sent, he will start shaking like a paint mixer in anticipation. He REALLY wants to go. P+ has its effect, but he wants the reward of a retrieve more than he wants air. In that case P- can be harsher.


With negative punishment, even if the dog is not happy about the situation, it doesn't set up a pattern of avoidance. Because there is nothing to avoid. The dog is still thinking about getting what he wants. So, yeah. It can be powerful, but it doesn't carry the same sort of fallout positive punishment does..


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> We tried positive reinforcement for pretty much everything at the beginning, and for recall and leash walking it didn't matter much (especially when we stepped outside). Different things are important at different times to Caeda. The only thing that we've found so far that motivates her really well for recall is the laser. She is about 98%. She ignores cats, other dogs, cars, etc. if it is laser-play time. This one is useless for walking....and of course during the day. Without the laser her recall isn't the greatest. When we are out and about other times, what is important to her is the dog across the yard. He hates her and has snapped at her several times although he is otherwise a sweet dog to people (the "owner" would likely put him down if I asked him to do anything about him wandering)...giving her play with him is not a safe reward for good behaviour, although another dog that used to live next door we could do that with. Nothing that we have is important to her if she sees the other dog or any of the neighbours.
> We tried a head halter.....once. She bolts, so the head twist was scary. Never using it again, I'd rather slap a prong on and let her yelp until she figures it out (sounds cruel, but the chance for permanent damage is less). The front halter seems to be a game for her most of the time. It does lessen her pressure on the leash a bit, but doesn't do much otherwise....although she did get frustrated once and take a nip at me. We haven't tried the harness with two attachments, but haven't seen that they would give much more benefit. I've tried silky lead and about 10 other methods. They aren't too bad until the big distractions come, clicker flying treats scattered and me hoping like heck that I don't end up in hospital again.
> As for a loose leash resulting in moving forward.....her bolting, or pulling results in moving forward thanks to my neck and shoulder problems, she has gotten away from me once already. She is 50lbs at almost 7 months, though small for her age apparently, and is a breed bred for replacing horses! There is one trainer in town and I've heard one good review, the rest were that she was ineffective and a waste of time and money. I am by no means a highly experienced dog owner, but we have tried positive reinforcement for everything, and the things it fails at, it continues to fail at. Maybe it is our actual timing or technique that is causing it for particular things, I'm not going to suggest we are perfect in our training, but no matter how we look at it, she is getting too big to manhandle on a leash and all of the motivators for positive reinforcement are useless in certain circumstances. Handling her under any distraction is starting to become a health risk. Which is the reason for considering aversives, its that or give her up (I'll opt for an intelligently applied aversive thanks). It seems most of the people around here don't even train their dogs to sit properly and will hit them if they don't come. My landlord seems to think it is cruel that we have her on a tether or leash all of the time and have her sleep inside (and use a crate)....according to him dogs are "outside animals" and don't need that stuff. How is that for a training philosophy. She's better off with a mild aversive than getting that kind of treatment. Again, every dog is different, and ours just doesn't care about certain things when she wants something else.


I understand that you really aren't sold on positive reinforcement. And I also have to say that I'm betting an adolescent Swissy is not the easiest breed (never worked with one, but have worked with several young Berners who were quite similar to what you describe). I'm not sure why people with strength issues insist on getting molossers and draft dogs, but it does seem to be a trend, as everyone I've had who brought in a Berner would have had difficulty holding on to a 40 lb. dog. If you understand the basics of clicker training, before you go to an ecollar, at least read the book "Control Unleashed". It sounds to me like you are throwing treats and equipment at the situation without really understanding the underlying issues, and how to work on them without overwhelming the dog.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I understand that you really aren't sold on positive reinforcement. And I also have to say that I'm betting an adolescent Swissy is not the easiest breed (never worked with one, but have worked with several young Berners who were quite similar to what you describe). I'm not sure why people with strength issues insist on getting molossers and draft dogs, but it does seem to be a trend, as everyone I've had who brought in a Berner would have had difficulty holding on to a 40 lb. dog. If you understand the basics of clicker training, before you go to an ecollar, at least read the book "Control Unleashed". It sounds to me like you are throwing treats and equipment at the situation without really understanding the underlying issues, and how to work on them without overwhelming the dog.


I agree wholeheartedly with this post. I would LOVE to have a swissy and could probably fulfill all of its needs except for the fact that a breed bred for pulling would not be a good match for me (tiny with strength issues). 

I will be traveling two hours one way to work with Pam Dennison with one of my dogs because I can not find a local trainer willing to work with him without aversives. IMO, the bond between Brody and me is worth a considerable expenditure of time and money. Some may say I am willing to go too far to avoid aversives. I feel many people are too quick to say "tried it, didn't work, bring on the prong."


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I like Wvasko am a Reward/Correction trainer. I use no corrections or aversives during shaping a command. I simply ignore behaviors I don't want and reward what I do want. 

Once the dog has a clear understanding of the command he has two choices. perform the command that is asked of him and get rewarded or don't and receive a correction. 

I am a firm believer in not asking what I cannot enforce once shaping is complete and until the behavior has been proofed in multiple distracted situations.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I understand that you really aren't sold on positive reinforcement. And I also have to say that I'm betting an adolescent Swissy is not the easiest breed (never worked with one, but have worked with several young Berners who were quite similar to what you describe). I'm not sure why people with strength issues insist on getting molossers and draft dogs, but it does seem to be a trend, as everyone I've had who brought in a Berner would have had difficulty holding on to a 40 lb. dog. If you understand the basics of clicker training, before you go to an ecollar, at least read the book "Control Unleashed". It sounds to me like you are throwing treats and equipment at the situation without really understanding the underlying issues, and how to work on them without overwhelming the dog.


Didn't research the breed too much before getting her...yup, idiots right. Were first told they are mild gentle dogs and easy to train, sounded like a good match. Apparently this applies to adults, not puppies. Look further "belidgerent, stubborn, difficult" was what we found, but we had her already. Certainly didn't do it because of any trend, before hearing of Caeda's litter I'd never even heard of a Swissy, and when 10 doctors say "you'll be fine soon" there tends to be some belief there. We went on a campaign to educate ourselves (which I don't think is a bad thing to do) on what we needed to do on ALL kinds of training methods, positive to aversive. We started out with positive, and the mild aversive of refusing attention/play for nips (as in the Bite Stops Here). Again, this kind of thing works for some things, not for others. We tried a method, didn't work, we tried a tool (harness or whatever) didn't work well. We didn't just haphazardly throw things at the problem without trying each one thoroughly. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> Correction can't teach the dog to trust you. The relationship/bond is built in other ways. Correction reduces/extinguishes behaviors _other than the specific behavior being asked for_. Ideally, the dog sees the consequence as a natural result of his behavior and not as the handlers unhappiness with the dog. Dogs compartmentalize these things better than humans do.


This is what I'm considering when thinking of aversives, and it takes being well versed in the methods I think to be sure that the dog understands the difference. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> *I send the dog 100 ft. and direct him to turn right. He turns left and is corrected.* The dog understands the correction occurred, not because he turned left, but because he did not turn right. The dog understands the difference or you've failed in teaching the drill. You'll know that if the dog hesitates or balks the next time he's sent left.


Out of curiosity Marsh Muppet, how do you ensure that your dog understands this difference, that the correction was for NOT turning right vs. for turning left. I'm guessing it is a very subtle thing. This is one of the shortcomings that I'm seeing with using some corrections and aversives. The possibility of doing it wrong. To me the use of aversives is a higher stakes game, requiring some delicacy and precision, since the dog can be ruined if it is done wrong.

My philisophical issue, (aside from what we may or may not do) is the insistence that all dogs can and should be trained perfectly with purely positive reinforcement. Also the impression that I get that many think that any aversive counts on the level of beating a dog and will be used cruelly by ignorant owners and trainers who only want to scare the dog into compliance. This is certainly true in some cases, but is not the way to do it. I don't believe that one size fits all, pure positive for everybody won't always work, and I certainly think that aversives can be used cautiously and intelligently without destroying a dog or its trust (although using aversives on a scared, timid dog is a BAD idea....again, depends on the dog). 
There are resources out there that talk about using aversives in a low level way. It just seems like positive reinforcement advocates don't read these things at all with an open mind. If it is aversive it is therefore considered bad, and there is no reason to read it because well....that means that they might use it. I personally believe being educated on all methods, even if those others won't be used is a good thing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Greater Swiss said:


> Also the impression that I get that many think that any aversive counts on the level of beating a dog and will be used cruelly by *ignorant* owners and trainers who only want to scare the dog into compliance.


As I said, I have no idea about low-level aversives (not even sure I would recognize one), but this part I'm not sure of. Most people (IME) who use aversives cruelly are not ignorant. Those who use aversives clumsily are usually ignorant. Sometimes the clumsiness is inadvertently cruel, but usually it's just ineffective. Those who use aversives cruelly are, unfortunately, usually very effective. Which is what makes them feel justified in their cruelty. 

One problem (speaking personally) with an average dog owner using aversives is escalation. A low-level aversive works once, but the next time you use it, it doesn't work. So you escalate with a more aggressive aversive. And keep escalating, as the aversives stop working. One would have to be very aware of this tendency and make a concerted effort not to allow oneself to escalate too far. Especially with a stubborn/hard dog.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> As I said, I have no idea about low-level aversives (not even sure I would recognize one), but this part I'm not sure of. Most people (IME) who use aversives cruelly are not ignorant. Those who use aversives clumsily are usually ignorant. Sometimes the clumsiness is inadvertently cruel, but usually it's just ineffective. Those who use aversives cruelly are, unfortunately, usually very effective. Which is what makes them feel justified in their cruelty.
> 
> One problem (speaking personally) with an average dog owner using aversives is escalation. A low-level aversive works once, but the next time you use it, it doesn't work. So you escalate with a more aggressive aversive. And keep escalating, as the aversives stop working. One would have to be very aware of this tendency and make a concerted effort not to allow oneself to escalate too far. Especially with a stubborn/hard dog.


I completely agree with the issue of escalation (hence the reason for thorough education before going the aversive route). But, couldn't escalation occur with rewards as well? For instance Caeda usually sits when asked even without a treat BUT when she is distracted or under any kind of drive it requires a treat. It used to be a generic dog-treat tidbit would work, but after a while it didn't it would take something juicier, hotdog slice, piece of chicken whatever. And just to clarify, I'm not trying to justify escalations, or aversives over positive, just pointing out that it can happen in both cases (though a hotdog is far less damaging than an escalated aversive!). 

Regarding a low level aversive, I'm saying for instance something a little irritating to the dog, light tap on the tail or nose, or if one went an e-collar route a vibrate or tone (or even a mild stimulation if the dog isn't sensitive at all and assuming there isn't the knowledge of a high level blast of electricity as a threat) as opposed to blasting a dog on 99 out of 100, or yanking as hard as possible on a prong collar. It appears that whether aversive or positive, it takes different levels of motivation depending on the dog's state of mind at the time.

Using aversives I agree can involve clumsiness, ignorance and cruelty. It is a dangerous situation in terms of keeping the dog safe, happy, healthy, it is a delicate balance requiring a great deal of thought and understanding before any application. There is also the question of what different aversives do to a dog. If indeed a dog differentiates (as Marsh Muppet suggests) that a correction is a consequence of their behaviour, and not the unhappiness of the handler, wouldn't aversives, such as denying attention, or yelping at a dog, reflect the handler's displeasure more than some other corrections, potentially damaging a relationship? Again, not trying to justify aversives, especially not painful ones, but questioning the philosophies of both, which is what I've been trying to do throughout my reading.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Greater Swiss said:


> I completely agree with the issue of escalation (hence the reason for thorough education before going the aversive route). But, couldn't escalation occur with rewards as well? For instance Caeda usually sits when asked even without a treat BUT when she is distracted or under any kind of drive it requires a treat. It used to be a generic dog-treat tidbit would work, but after a while it didn't it would take something juicier, hotdog slice, piece of chicken whatever. And just to clarify, I'm not trying to justify escalations, or aversives over positive, just pointing out that it can happen in both cases (though a hotdog is far less damaging than an escalated aversive!).


Maybe. . .although the intention is to eventually condition the response so that you phase out the treats. . .but as you say, moving up to hot dogs is far less damaging than cranking up the e-collar or yanking harder on the prong! 

As for dogs recognizing that a punishment is a consequence of a behavior. . .wow, I think someone would have to be an incredibly good trainer to be able to communicate that effectively. I mean, most children don't understand that! At least I never did, and the younger children I know don't seem to understand that. It requires a lot of complex reasoning, I think. Or extremely precise timing on the part of the punisher.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am a firm believer in not asking what I cannot enforce once shaping is complete and until the behavior has been proofed in multiple distracted situations.


Do you treat your friends this way?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Or extremely precise timing on the part of the punisher.


Does this mean a trainer using an aversive shall now become known as the "*Punish-er*" 

Yes, timing is important, the dog knowing exactly what/why is happening is important, also the art of not "under correcting" is important, aversive type trainers sometimes call that nagging. That's main reason that aversive advice given online is not a good thing.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> My philisophical issue, (aside from what we may or may not do) is the insistence that all dogs can and should be trained perfectly with purely positive reinforcement. Also the impression that I get that many think that any aversive counts on the level of beating a dog and will be used cruelly by ignorant owners and trainers who only want to scare the dog into compliance. This is certainly true in some cases, but is not the way to do it. I don't believe that one size fits all, pure positive for everybody won't always work, and I certainly think that aversives can be used cautiously and intelligently without destroying a dog or its trust (although using aversives on a scared, timid dog is a BAD idea....again, depends on the dog).
> There are resources out there that talk about using aversives in a low level way. It just seems like positive reinforcement advocates don't read these things at all with an open mind. If it is aversive it is therefore considered bad, and there is no reason to read it because well....that means that they might use it. I personally believe being educated on all methods, even if those others won't be used is a good thing.


No such thing as "purely positive". I'm quite aware of how aversives work. And I've never stated that they are *all* abusive. I've never even hinted at it. I haven't seen anyone here say that. I DO think they are unnecessary and can often be counterproductive to producing a thinking and confident dog (which, granted, not everyone wants) They are only necessary to train a dog if one believes they have to use them. "One size doesn't fit all" is more about actually paying attention to your dog and finding the RIGHT reinforcers. You can sublimate behavior with subversives. But that only changes the situation on the surface. I suppose for some people that's all they are looking for.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Do you treat your friends this way?


I am not responsible for my friends safety and behavior.... Nor am I responsible in keeping others safe from my friends. 

Problems come when people think of themselves as friends of their dogs first.....

Dog owner first.... Always.... Friend Second....


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Maybe. . .although the intention is to eventually condition the response so that you phase out the treats. . .but as you say, moving up to hot dogs is far less damaging than cranking up the e-collar or yanking harder on the prong!
> 
> As for dogs recognizing that a punishment is a consequence of a behavior. . .wow, I think someone would have to be an incredibly good trainer to be able to communicate that effectively. I mean, most children don't understand that! At least I never did, and the younger children I know don't seem to understand that. It requires a lot of complex reasoning, I think. Or extremely precise timing on the part of the punisher.


The goal is absolutely to phase out treats, but I've noticed (at least for things where treats do work) the type of treat has to escalate with the amount of distraction, and possibly the adolescent stubbornness. 
It would take an incredibly good trainer to make sure the dog understands the difference, but it goes the same with giving treats. Timing is crucial to make sure the dog understands what they got the treat for, but again, the stakes are higher when talking aversives. Children don't get it, and neither do many adults lol, but Marsh Muppet suggests that dogs compartmentalize this kind of thing differently (I would love to know for curiosity's sake the source for this...experience or otherwise). IMO it takes less complex reasoning to go "hey, it sucks when I do this, so I'll do that instead" than to go, "my owner is mad because I didn't come so he made this happen,". But that's just me lol....The whole thing is a complex (and fascinating) issue that I am very interested in really understanding.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Do you treat your friends this way?


Wow, I just saw the above and had to hunt down original JB reply to see how JB's friends were involved in his training program. It's way over my head, of course as I have stated before "not brightest bulb in the box"



> I am not responsible for my friends safety and behavior.... Nor am I responsible in keeping others safe from my friends.
> 
> Problems come when people think of themselves as friends of their dogs first.....
> 
> Dog owner first.... Always.... Friend Second....


Oh now it makes some sense. I just did not understand how the friends and dog training got mixed together.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I won't say mine is 100% either but I do do a lot of practice recalling off chase in a safe environment (chasing thumper in a fenced yard


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not responsible for my friends safety and behavior.... Nor am I responsible in keeping others safe from my friends.
> 
> Problems come when people think of themselves as friends of their dogs first.....
> 
> Dog owner first.... Always.... Friend Second....


But friend still. I'll direct my dogs in the direction I need them to go. But I respect that they have brains, and opinions, and emotions, and fears, and even aches and pains. If I ask for something and they say "no" there is frequently a good reason. I'll be working for the "yes" response, but I'll be doing it in a respectful way. One of my dogs refused to take his scent article. Turns out he was having problems with TMJ. Got that adjusted and he was willing to take it again. Of course, I could have just ear pinched him and he probably would have taken it.


----------



## hast (Aug 17, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> <snip>
> Dog owner first.... Always.... Friend Second....


I disagree ... partner and best friend first ... Owner and 'reinforcer' second.

I made the mistake (twice!) to hand the leash over to a "great" trainer with numerous accomplishments ... and had them yank on my dog, with prong collar, to the point that with one the whole dog was off the ground and with the other she was screaming. I never went back to either trainer and hung the prong on a hook in my barn. 
Last summer I went to Sweden with my dog. There prong collars and e-collars are illegal. I watched people train all from Shutzhund to obedience (MUCH harder than AKC obedience) with positive methods. 
The dogs were eager to please, had FAST responses, and in general seemed ... quicker and "bouncier", if that makes sense. If that was the positive training or that they had developed new and different methods to get what they wanted, when prong collars and e-collars were off, I don't know, but it was very educational to see. 
After a year and a half I happened to be back at the building where the second trainer had yanked on Mandy. The trainer wasn't there, rings were set up so it looked differently than last time there. My dog tried her best to hide in the back of her crate ... she who is so eager to get out that I have made a habit of sitting in front of the crate when I open it so I don't have to nag her to stay until asked out ... she didn't want to come out. I had to tell her more than once. She remembered ... She's my buddy and my partner ... if I can't teach her something without force she doesn't need to know it.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Greater Swiss said:


> Out of curiosity Marsh Muppet, how do you ensure that your dog understands this difference, that the correction was for NOT turning right vs. for turning left. I'm guessing it is a very subtle thing. This is one of the shortcomings that I'm seeing with using some corrections and aversives. The possibility of doing it wrong. To me the use of aversives is a higher stakes game, requiring some delicacy and precision, since the dog can be ruined if it is done wrong.


I don't think the difference is subtle to the dog. Dogs need things broken down into simple packets of information. When combined in complex behavior chains, they appear to understand much more than they do. We get into trouble when we think dogs understand things that seem perfectly obvious to us. They don't think the same way we do.



Willowy said:


> One problem (speaking personally) with an average dog owner using aversives is escalation. A low-level aversive works once, but the next time you use it, it doesn't work. So you escalate with a more aggressive aversive. And keep escalating, as the aversives stop working.


There is no "low-level"; there is only suffucient and insufficient. More than sufficiently effective correction is abuse. Less than sufficiently effective corection is nagging.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> There is no "low-level"; there is only suffucient and insufficient. More than sufficiently effective correction is abuse. Less than sufficiently effective corection is nagging.


So, philosophically speaking, even "correction" that causes injury might not be abuse if it was of a level "necessary" to get results? I'm not sure I believe that.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> There is no "low-level"; there is only suffucient and insufficient. More than sufficiently effective correction is abuse. Less than sufficiently effective corection is nagging.


And that's a problem. Because finding the Goldilocks formula can require talent and experience that many people don't have. And even those with talent and experience sometimes get it wrong.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Greater Swiss said:


> The goal is absolutely to phase out treats, but I've noticed (at least for things where treats do work) the type of treat has to escalate with the amount of distraction, and possibly the adolescent stubbornness.
> It would take an incredibly good trainer to make sure the dog understands the difference, but it goes the same with giving treats. Timing is crucial to make sure the dog understands what they got the treat for, but again, the stakes are higher when talking aversives. Children don't get it, and neither do many adults lol, but Marsh Muppet suggests that dogs compartmentalize this kind of thing differently (I would love to know for curiosity's sake the source for this...experience or otherwise). IMO it takes less complex reasoning to go "hey, it sucks when I do this, so I'll do that instead" than to go, "my owner is mad because I didn't come so he made this happen,". But that's just me lol....The whole thing is a complex (and fascinating) issue that I am very interested in really understanding.


The higher the distraction the more difficult the exercise, the more difficult the exercise the higher value the reinforcer needs to be. Adolescents like Caeda are at a stage where the WORLD and all it's smells, moving objects etc are worth WAY more than a low level reinforcer. It is highly recommended to develop a Reinforcement Hierarchy when it comes to upping the ante in training. Like with Cracker, she's a critterer, big time. Squirrels, chippies, cats...I have a really good recall on her but when I had to work on proofing on critters there was no bloody treat in the world that compared to hunting and chasing. I myself could have been made of raw liver..wasn't gonna happen. So I premacked it, the squirrel BECAME the reward. Now I have a dog that ASKS to go hunt. No need for aversives there at all. Weaning off rewards is easy once you get through the easy stuff and then through adolescence, then you go to variable rewards etc etc.

As for purely positive, anyone who tells you that this is a possible thing is full of dogpoo. IF they do, you are reading or talking to people who just have no real experience. As to aversives AND to reinforcers..they are all up to the dog, so yes, it is about the individual dog..but it is also very often used as an excuse to up the punishment because the dog is "hard" or " a tough breed". I call bull pucky on that one too. It is quite simply, all about motivation. If you ARE going to use punishment it must be relevant to the dog, but is not an excuse for overly harsh or escalating punishments. Our rule in puppy class is this...if an aversive (of any kind) doesn't stop a behaviour from happening in THREE applications, you must try something ELSE, not escalate the severity of said punishment. For punishment of any kind to be effective it must be balanced like MM said...too severe it's abuse, too little it is nagging. 

The biggest problem in training dogs is not the dog. It is handler error, handler misinterpretations of behaviour and handler lack of understanding of basic learning theory, dog behaviour and the pitfalls of punishment.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

hast said:


> I disagree ... partner and best friend first ... Owner and 'reinforcer' second.
> 
> I made the mistake (twice!) to hand the leash over to a "great" trainer with numerous accomplishments ... and had them yank on my dog, with prong collar, to the point that with one the whole dog was off the ground and with the other she was screaming. I never went back to either trainer and hung the prong on a hook in my barn.
> Last summer I went to Sweden with my dog. There prong collars and e-collars are illegal. I watched people train all from Shutzhund to obedience (MUCH harder than AKC obedience) with positive methods.
> ...


You are welcome to disagree..... But the reality is.... You are the dog's owner. You have a responsibility to your dog, yourself, others, their property, etc. If your dog is harmed because of lack of training on your part, it is on you. Likewise if your dog destroys someone's property, injures someone etc, it is on you as well. Some people choose to take this responsibility seriously.... Some choose to ignore it.... The question you have to ask yourself..... If your dog's life is on the line, is it going to obey your commands? 

Frankly, I don't know where the discussion about the prong collar and E collar came from. Nothing in my statements have suggested the use of prong collars or e collars..... Those are both specialized pieces of equipment. If a person cannot train successfully without those items, they probably should either not own dogs or pay someone else to train them for them.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> But friend still. I'll direct my dogs in the direction I need them to go. But I respect that they have brains, and opinions, and emotions, and fears, and even aches and pains. If I ask for something and they say "no" there is frequently a good reason. I'll be working for the "yes" response, but I'll be doing it in a respectful way. One of my dogs refused to take his scent article. Turns out he was having problems with TMJ. Got that adjusted and he was willing to take it again. Of course, I could have just ear pinched him and he probably would have taken it.



Nothing in any statement I have said suggests that I don't respect my dogs feelings, intelligence etc...... 
All I said was......"I am a firm believer in not asking what I cannot enforce once shaping is complete and until the behavior has been proofed in multiple distracted situations." 

Now hast is talking about prongs and e collars and you are talking about ear pinches...... IF I have to start resorting to ear pinching to get a dog to do what I want, then I should quit messing with dogs and start playing bingo with the old folks.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You are welcome to disagree..... But the reality is.... You are the dog's owner. You have a responsibility to your dog, yourself, others, their property, etc. If your dog is harmed because of lack of training on your part, it is on you. Likewise if your dog destroys someone's property, injures someone etc, it is on you as well. Some people choose to take this responsibility seriously.... Some choose to ignore it.... The question you have to ask yourself..... If your dog's life is on the line, is it going to obey your commands?
> .


I don't give dogs commands. The point is, it's very possible to solicit dependable, safe, polite and socially acceptable behavior without putting it in "do it or else" terms.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Nothing in any statement I have said suggests that I don't respect my dogs feelings, intelligence etc......
> All I said was......"I am a firm believer in not asking what I cannot enforce once shaping is complete and until the behavior has been proofed in multiple distracted situations."
> 
> Now hast is talking about prongs and e collars and you are talking about ear pinches...... IF I have to start resorting to ear pinching to get a dog to do what I want, then I should quit messing with dogs and start playing bingo with the old folks.


Define enforce.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't give dogs commands. The point is, it's very possible to solicit dependable, safe, polite and socially acceptable behavior without putting it in "do it or else" terms.


So if you recall your dog and it decides it is going to mosey down the street.... You just let it go right? You go inside and watch tv figuring the dog will make the decision to come home sooner or later..... Right? 

Or do you go get the dog? 

BTW if you go get the dog if it wanders down the street..... The recall was a command.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Originally Posted by Pawzk9 
I don't give dogs commands. The point is, it's very possible to solicit dependable, safe, polite and socially acceptable behavior without putting it in "do it or else" terms.



JohnnyBandit said:


> So if you recall your dog and it decides it is going to mosey down the street.... You just let it go right? You go inside and watch tv figuring the dog will make the decision to come home sooner or later..... Right?
> 
> Or do you go get the dog?
> 
> BTW if you go get the dog if it wanders down the street..... The recall was a command.


I'm not sure how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote. I probably wouldn't call the dog if he didn't have a dependable recall and he had multiple other choices that he was likely to explore. But I do know a lot of tricks for enticing the dog my direction. I DO teach a recall, but it isn't a command. And my dog has never wandered down the street if I used it. And if my dog has accidently gotten out an open gate, if they are within earshot, they respond to my cue.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Originally Posted by Pawzk9
> I'm not sure how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote. I probably wouldn't call the dog if he didn't have a dependable recall and he had multiple other choices that he was likely to explore. But I do know a lot of tricks for enticing the dog my direction. I DO teach a recall, but it isn't a command. And my dog has never wandered down the street if I used it. And if my dog has accidently gotten out an open gate, if they are within earshot, they respond to my cue.


What I said, has everything to do with what you said. You said you don't give your dogs commands. But the thing is...... IF you "ask" your dog to do something with a reasonable expectation that the dog will comply.... Then regardless of how you word it.... You are giving a command. 


Let me start with my statement again....
I am a firm believer in not asking what I cannot enforce once shaping is complete and * until the behavior has been proofed in multiple distracted situations. *

You just said you would do the same thing I would..... Because if I was out in front of my house with a dog that did not have a reliable recall, I would not give the recall. Because I would KNOW the dog is loose and there is NO way for me to enforce it should the dog decide to not come when called.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Let me ask you this Pawz....... Do you start shaping and teaching the recall on a leash?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What I said, has everything to do with what you said. You said you don't give your dogs commands. But the thing is...... IF you "ask" your dog to do something with a reasonable expectation that the dog will comply.... Then regardless of how you word it.... You are giving a command.


As Dr. Roger Abrantes is fond of saying "a command is someting you give a computer." I don't give dogs commands.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Originally Posted by Pawzk9
> I don't give dogs commands. The point is, it's very possible to solicit dependable, safe, polite and socially acceptable behavior without putting it in "do it or else" terms.
> 
> 
> ...


I try to stay out of this stuff but I just got to ask, if it isn't a command/statement type etc when you do a recall, what is it, a question.

Rex Come or Rex would you please come.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Let me ask you this Pawz....... Do you start shaping and teaching the recall on a leash?


No. (but my message is too short)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> As Dr. Roger Abrantes is fond of saying "a command is someting you give a computer." I don't give dogs commands.


Potato - patato


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I try to stay out of this stuff but I just got to ask, if it isn't a command/statement type etc when you do a recall, what is it, a question.
> 
> Rex Come or Rex would you please come.


It's a cue. A cue means "congratulations! you have just earned the opportunity to score a very fine reinforcer if you make the right choice" Of course, after a certain point the reinforcer doesn't happen every time, but I try to keep enough money in that bank that the dog remains hopeful.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I try to stay out of this stuff but I just got to ask, if it isn't a command/statement type etc when you do a recall, what is it, a question.
> 
> Rex Come or Rex would you please come.


It is a command Wvasko..... It just feels better to say we are "asking". Even I am quilty of it. When teaching group class, I replace command with ask.....

But.... Webster's definition

1com·mand verb \kə-ˈmand\

Definition of COMMAND
transitive verb
1: to direct authoritatively : order


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> It's a cue. A cue means "congratulations! you have just earned the opportunity to score a very fine reinforcer if you make the right choice" Of course, after a certain point the reinforcer doesn't happen every time, but I try to keep enough money in that bank that the dog remains hopeful.


But I don't think Wvasko uses treats or other re enforcers.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> No. (but my message is too short)


Okay.... So how would you begin teaching the recall in a group class setting?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But I don't think Wvasko uses treats or other re enforcers.....


That's fine. Then he can issue commands if he wants to. I don't.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Okay.... So how would you begin teaching the recall in a group class setting?


I have ring gates.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> That's fine. Then he can issue commands if he wants to. I don't.


Your choice but its all a play on words.



Pawzk9 said:


> I have ring gates.


Ring gates? The ones that are like 24 inches tall?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> So, philosophically speaking, even "correction" that causes injury might not be abuse if it was of a level "necessary" to get results? I'm not sure I believe that.


You don't have to believe it 'cause it's not true. Crippling a dog has no training value. Some people shy from sufficient correction, and those people should find another way. If you are inflicting pain/discomfort that the dog doesn't immediately recover from, you should find another way.




Pawzk9 said:


> And that's a problem. Because finding the Goldilocks formula can require talent and experience that many people don't have. And even those with talent and experience sometimes get it wrong.


As I said: advantages vs. disadvantages, potential vs. limitations, pros vs. cons. All methods have all of 'em. You pays yer money and you picks yer poison.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Your choice but its all a play on words.
> 
> 
> 
> Ring gates? The ones that are like 24 inches tall?


I am right outside the gate. Haven't lost a dog yet. We actually do a great deal of work in the beginner classes without people holding the leash (it's also how we start the dog on walking with their person). A couple of dogs have worked while dragging a line. But it's not being held or being used to influence dog's behavior.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> You don't have to believe it 'cause it's not true. Crippling a dog has no training value. Some people shy from sufficient correction, and those people should find another way. If you are inflicting pain/discomfort that the dog doesn't immediately recover from, you should find another way.


So pain that doesn't cause permanent injury is okay?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I am right outside the gate. Haven't lost a dog yet. We actually do a great deal of work in the beginner classes without people holding the leash (it's also how we start the dog on walking with their person). A couple of dogs have worked while dragging a line. But it's not being held or being used to influence dog's behavior.


I was just making sure we were on the same page when you said Ring Gates. Amazing how dogs seem to rarely go over them. I don't agree that a drag line even if it is never held. We use drag lines all the time when introducing dogs to stock. Just the tiny bit of resistance dragging the line around has an effect. I have seen it happen all my life.... Last weekend we were working stock. One owner was just introducing her dog to sheep. The dog was hard, wound up and rough. Already hurt a sheep. (Cost the owner fifty bucks) I clipped a drag line to the dog, it never touched another sheep.... Settled the dog right down. Well at least to the point he never touched another sheep. 

I am not saying that in a bad way..... I teach the recall starting on a 6 foot leash, switching to a long line, etc. The leash is largely there for physcological reasons. And to keep the dog from running away, as I often teach in unfenced areas. Now I might have the owner give a tug or two on the leash if the dog refuses to respond. Or... to help keep the dog on track to the handler, etc. Which is what I meant by not asking for anything I cannot enforce. (for the life of me, I have no idea how my statement got taken to ear pinches, prongs and e collars) I have seen some folks "Reel" dogs all the way in, with a long line.... But if the dog does not come on its own or respond to mild encouragement with the long line to get it going, then reeling it in is not going to effectively solve anything. If the dog shuts down and/or refuses to comes it is time to be a trainer and figure out what is going on with the dog. 


So the dog is in the ring, ( I am assuming that some shaping was done in beginner class on leash) What happens if the handler cues the recall and the dog does not come? Do they keep asking for it over and over? Ask for it in another way?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> So pain that doesn't cause permanent injury is okay?


Causing any injury is unacceptable.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not saying that in a bad way..... I teach the recall starting on a 6 foot leash, switching to a long line, etc. The leash is largely there for physcological reasons. And to keep the dog from running away, as I often teach in unfenced areas. Now I might have the owner give a tug or two on the leash if the dog refuses to respond. Or... to help keep the dog on track to the handler, etc. Which is what I meant by not asking for anything I cannot enforce. (for the life of me, I have no idea how my statement got taken to ear pinches, prongs and e collars) I have seen some folks "Reel" dogs all the way in, with a long line.... But if the dog does not come on its own or respond to mild encouragement with the long line to get it going, then reeling it in is not going to effectively solve anything. If the dog shuts down and/or refuses to comes it is time to be a trainer and figure out what is going on with the dog.
> 
> 
> So the dog is in the ring, ( I am assuming that some shaping was done in beginner class on leash) What happens if the handler cues the recall and the dog does not come? Do they keep asking for it over and over? Ask for it in another way?


Like I said, it's rare that a dog drags a leash. We start with "follow the leader" (similar to Dawn Jecs' "Choose to Heel" where the dog (off leash) is reinforced for finding the moving owner. So, the dog has a history of reinforcement when he gets to owner before we start. AND THEN the handler doesn't cue the recall until the dog is engaged and headed their direction. They are allowed to say dog's name, pat leg, back up, make funny noises, etc. But no recall word until the dog has made the decision. (another way that a cue is different from a command - you name the behavior the dog is doing instead of telling the dog and then making it happen) Later, when we are proofing, if the dog decides to stay with me and my tasty string cheese instead of going to the owner, the owner says bye-bye, leaves the room and closes the door while me and the string cheese disengage. It rarely happens twice.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Causing any injury is unacceptable.


But causing pain is okay?


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Like I said, it's rare that a dog drags a leash. We start with "follow the leader" (similar to Dawn Jecs' "Choose to Heel" where the dog (off leash) is reinforced for finding the moving owner. So, the dog has a history of reinforcement when he gets to owner before we start. AND THEN the handler doesn't cue the recall until the dog is engaged and headed their direction. They are allowed to say dog's name, pat leg, back up, make funny noises, etc. But no recall word until the dog has made the decision. (another way that a cue is different from a command - you name the behavior the dog is doing instead of telling the dog and then making it happen) Later, when we are proofing, if the dog decides to stay with me and my tasty string cheese instead of going to the owner, the owner says bye-bye, leaves the room and closes the door while me and the string cheese disengage. It rarely happens twice.


What do you suggest your students do when they are proofing at home? If their dog is too engaged with the grass? You can't just leave because then the dog will take off. And you can't make the grass go away either. Without a long line, that dog would be long gone.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> But causing pain is okay?


In certain situations, absolutely. If my dog and I am in the big woods, and he refuses to come back in favor of hectoring a bear cub, I'd light him up like a Christmas tree. If he fails to "give paw", sarcasm would be excessive.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am a firm believer in not asking what I cannot enforce once shaping is complete and until the behavior has been proofed in multiple distracted situations.


A wise positive trainer follows this advice as well. Who here has ever not called a dog because you KNOW he's not going to pick his pretty little head out of the roses and come to you? You go and walk him down. This isn't a controversial tactic.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> What do you suggest your students do when they are proofing at home? If their dog is too engaged with the grass? You can't just leave because then the dog will take off. And you can't make the grass go away either. Without a long line, that dog would be long gone.


In that case, they drag a light long line (with knots - so if you step on it it doesn't slide from under your feet) But it's not used to teach them to come, simply limit options. And first I want them to have lots of repetitions in the house and in safe fenced areas. Again, not using the cue until the dog has decided to come (though they can do other things to interest the dog)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> A wise positive trainer follows this advice as well. Who here has ever not called a dog because you KNOW he's not going to pick his pretty little head out of the roses and come to you? You go and walk him down. This isn't a controversial tactic.



I never thought it was..... But as soon as I said it, visions of ear pinches, prongs, and e collars came up.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> (with knots - so if you step on it it doesn't slide from under your feet)


Stepping on a leash with a dog moving away would be a correction. And depending on how fast the dog is moving and the individual dog, it could be quite painful.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Stepping on a leash with a dog moving away would be a correction. And depending on how fast the dog is moving and the individual dog, it could be quite painful.


Not if the line isn't tight.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Not if the line isn't tight.


Dog is moving..... Sooner or later the leash is coming tight....


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Dog is moving..... Sooner or later the leash is coming tight....


It is your scenario that the dog is moving in the opposite direction? Not very likely, if you've built a strong reinforcement history in locations where the dog is off leash. If it were necessary for me to have my dog at distances in this situation, he's going to already know how to come. The line is only an additional safety feature (which I would not use as a training aid)


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

wvasko said:


> Wow, I just saw the above and had to hunt down original JB reply to see how JB's friends were involved in his training program. It's way over my head, of course as I have stated before "not brightest bulb in the box"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now it makes some sense. I just did not understand how the friends and dog training got mixed together.


Your not the only one, Wvasko. I am not sure what it means either lol can someone explain it to me? Perhaps I can relate :S.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> It is your scenario that the dog is moving in the opposite direction? Not very likely, if you've built a strong reinforcement history in locations where the dog is off leash. If it were necessary for me to have my dog at distances in this situation, he's going to already know how to come. The line is only an additional safety feature (which I would not use as a training aid)


If the dog is moving towards you, there is NO need to step on the line. It is not my scenario.... You responded that a knotted line was there that you could step on.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If the dog is moving towards you, there is NO need to step on the line. It is not my scenario.... You responded that a knotted line was there that you could step on.


you're aware, I imagine that there are a number of things between running away and running toward? IF I misjudged, and the dog WAS running away, I'd rather he be brought up short than become road pizza. However, that would NOT be something I would do as "training." Same thing, if I badly misjudged a situation with a dog on leash and the dog decided to attack me, I MIGHT hold the dog out at arms length. but that wouldn't be training, it would be damage control because I'd made an error in judgement.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But I don't think Wvasko uses treats or other re enforcers.....


Oh my, I believe that in past replies I have mentioned prong collars, gentle leader, Marti collars, also some e-collar work used only as last resort. Dog biscuits/fried spam etc used for rewards along with petting, good boy words and even if necessary kissing the dog's butt to get the job done properly. All of the above is put in a crock pot and stirred vigorously with a balance stick. How silly would I be not to use all of the tools in my bag to get a dog trained. 

Now I've never used a clicker and the last choke collar I used was when I was 18 yrs old. Questions anyone, I hope I've covered everything. Being a self-confessed Negative reinforcement trainer does not mean no balance is used it's just the way I describe my work.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Oh my, I believe that in past replies I have mentioned prong collars, gentle leader, Marti collars, also some e-collar work used only as last resort. Dog biscuits/fried spam etc used for rewards along with petting, good boy words and even if necessary kissing the dog's butt to get the job done properly. All of the above is put in a crock pot and stirred vigorously with a balance stick. How silly would I be not to use all of the tools in my bag to get a dog trained.
> 
> Now I've never used a clicker and the last choke collar I used was when I was 18 yrs old. Questions anyone, I hope I've covered everything. Being a self-confessed Negative reinforcement trainer does not mean no balance is used it's just the way I describe my work.


My bad..... I envisioned you more as a compulsion trainer.... Something gave me that vision.... Don't know what it was...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> you're aware, I imagine that there are a number of things between running away and running toward? IF I misjudged, and the dog WAS running away, I'd rather he be brought up short than become road pizza. However, that would NOT be something I would do as "training." Same thing, if I badly misjudged a situation with a dog on leash and the dog decided to attack me, I MIGHT hold the dog out at arms length. but that wouldn't be training, it would be damage control because I'd made an error in judgement.


Whichever, but if the dog gets its neck jerked he just might perceive it as a correction. Might do him some good too.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> My bad..... I envisioned you more as a compulsion trainer.... Something gave me that vision.... Don't know what it was...


My Bad not necessary, cause trust me on this if some compulsion is needed it also is sitting in the tool bag.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Whichever, but if the dog gets its neck jerked he just might perceive it as a correction. Might do him some good too.


The dog might perceive it as a correction, if it were to happen that way. A dog on leash might run to the end of the leash and perceive that as a correction. He might get under foot and I might step on his toes, and he might perceive that as a correction. There is a difference (while you may not see it) between an unintentional accidental aversive and a planned and set-up one.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> The dog might perceive it as a correction, if it were to happen that way. A dog on leash might run to the end of the leash and perceive that as a correction. He might get under foot and I might step on his toes, and he might perceive that as a correction. There is a difference (while you may not see it) between an unintentional accidental aversive and a planned and set-up one.


I see it... Just seems that you take great steps to avoid aversives.... I have no qualms about giving a correction if needed. Many times it can save a lot of time and stress for the dog... And frustration for a handler.

To me...... I realize, I only have so much time with the dog and the owner.....I also realize that all owners are not overly dedicated. If they do not see results quickly, they lose interest. So my goal is to give them results as quickly as possible in a human manner.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I see it... Just seems that you take great steps to avoid aversives.... I have no qualms about giving a correction if needed. Many times it can save a lot of time and stress for the dog... And frustration for a handler.
> 
> To me...... I realize, I only have so much time with the dog and the owner.....I also realize that all owners are not overly dedicated. If they do not see results quickly, they lose interest. So my goal is to give them results as quickly as possible in a human manner.


I do take the steps I can to avoid aversives. I also have the goal to give my students great results as quickly as possible, in a humane manner. I find life provides enough aversives, we don't have to intentionally add to them just to teach a dog. (And I'm still unclear on what it means when one talks about "corrections". It's such a nebulous term)


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Whichever, but if the dog gets its neck jerked he just might perceive it as a correction. Might do him some good too.


Now this I object to, the idea that "a good stiff correction" will "sort a dog out" and everything from there on out is just smooth sailing and rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I do take the steps I can to avoid aversives. I also have the goal to give my students great results as quickly as possible, in a humane manner. I find life provides enough aversives, we don't have to intentionally add to them just to teach a dog. (And I'm still unclear on what it means when one talks about "corrections". It's such a nebulous term)


A definition that I have found useful to work with is:

Punishment stops a behavior. (I believe something of this nature is in the first edition of Don't Shoot the Dog). An example is dog growls when you reach for his bone. You cuff him under the chin and the growling stops.
Correction is a punishment that makes the dog correct. An example is sitting in heel. You stop and tell the dog to sit. The typical pop upward on the collar pops the dog into a sit. 

Don't know how any of the correction trainers will feel about this, since I made it up as far as I can tell.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> It is a command Wvasko..... It just feels better to say we are "asking". Even I am quilty of it. When teaching group class, I replace command with ask.....


It's an antecedent. Or I call it a signal. Because I don't have to say it to use it. Plus, I use the environment. If the door is open - is the door commanding Wally to close it? No. The door is a signal to Wally to push it closed with his nose.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It depends on the dog.


+1

It's called operant conditioning.

Guess who the operant is? The dog. 

The dog decides what goes into what quadrant. The trainer's job is to use that info to teach the dog, imo.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Now this I object to, the idea that "a good stiff correction" will "sort a dog out" and everything from there on out is just smooth sailing and rainbows and unicorns.


Doesn't always work.... But I have seen it work Many times. But I said.... Might do him some good... As in settle him down. Nothing about rainbows and unicorns.

Done right.... Correct timing, etc.... A correction just refocuses the dog to the work at hand. 

90 percent of the time I don't introduce corrections until I add distraction to a dogs training. The correction simply causes the dog to focus on you rather than whatever is grabbing his attention.....

Example..... Say I am working on a command, say heeling on lead with a dog. The dog has a good grasp of the command, does it very well in an area of no distractions. So I take to the street with this dog. We are working..... All of a sudden a cat shows up on scene.... Now I could try to move away from the cat, or even end the session. But there is no way you can train for every distraction. So I decide to use the cat. Now unless I have a cat sitting on my head, it is doubtful that I could possibly have a reward that is of greater value to the dog. (if of course the dog has a high prey drive. VERY common with the dogs I work with) So when the dog is really focused on the cat, I give it a leash correction. How strong of a correction depends on the individual dog. All I am saying is... Hey pay attention... We are working here..... If the dog refocuses, I will make a turn or two and then reward the dog. JACKPOT! If the dog is so distracted he ignores the correction...... Then it is time to either move away from the cat and find a new threshold to begin working again. Or end the session. Because the dog is not ready.... There is no point in continuing to crank on the dog. If the first correction does not acheive a positive result, it is time to move on and try something else.

A majority of dogs need a correction at some point to maintain consistency in front of distraction. 

That being said......

I never teach or even introduce correction in a group class setting..... ( I don't regularly do group classes any more. But I do at times. )

In private lessons I don't teach corrections to all students. 

If someone is timid, soft hearted, etc and is going to feel guilty over a correction, I don't teach it. 

If someone comes across as overbearing, hard, a bully, etc. 

If the dog being trained is soft, timid, has fear issues, etc. 

The funny thing..... Is when you are talking and mention corrections people conjur up images of hard handed trainers with their fingers on the e collar remote. 
I go to dog shows, various trials, etc. Probably at least 26 a year. A lot more people than admit it, use corrections...... Some don't know they are using them. And a good percentage that don't, probably should. 

Can I or do I train without Corrections.... Absolutely.....I work with dogs that are soft or timid often. Same with owners. Right now I am working with a young ACD and his owner.... I have posted the dog's picture on this forum. Young dog and first time owner. This dog is AMAZING!!!! Brilliant! 15 weeks old.... He sits, downs, stays (within site of his owner at a distance of about 20 feet, we have not asked for more than about 30 seconds. A VERY long time for such a young guy), walks well on a leash, stands for examination (conformation), stacks up nice, and does a good high five. I started stacking this guy on a table at four weeks old and we started obedience training at 8 weeks. All has been done in very short, all positive, fun sessions. The little guy thinks he is playing games. However, I am under no illusion that there will not come a time when he needs corrections. He is a very drivey dog. Very much like his half brother. My dog Merlin. 

Corrections a just a tool.....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

KBLover said:


> It's an antecedent. Or I call it a signal. Because I don't have to say it to use it. Plus, I use the environment. If the door is open - is the door commanding Wally to close it? No. The door is a signal to Wally to push it closed with his nose.


Apples and Oranges....... If you have taught Wally to close, doors you have taught him a behavior triggered by external stimulous or situation. 
That scenario is different than standing in the middle of a field without any object or external stimulation, and asking for a sit. I don't know why you would want the dog to close open doors without a command or cue to do so. (He is going to lock you out of the house at some point)

Behaviors can be taught or instinctual. 

In any case..... All this is a play on words...
For example..... Lets say you are about to go to the store. You tell the dog to get in its crate. Something the dog does on command. Unless you are willing to leave the dog out, it does not matter whether the dog willingly goes in its crate or not. The dog is going in the crate. That is a command..... Call it whatever you like.... It is a command.... The only variable is how you get the dog in the crate.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Apples and Oranges....... If you have taught Wally to close, doors you have taught him a behavior triggered by external stimulous or situation.


Which isn't a command. So all triggers to behaviors are not commands, which is my point.

Antecedent covers this as well as cues/commands.



JohnnyBandit said:


> For example..... Lets say you are about to go to the store. You tell the dog to get in its crate. Something the dog does on command. Unless you are willing to leave the dog out, it does not matter whether the dog willingly goes in its crate or not. The dog is going in the crate. That is a command..... Call it whatever you like.... It is a command.... The only variable is how you get the dog in the crate.


Does the dog consider it a command? Do dogs think in terms of commands? Or do they think that a sound (say a word like "sit") is an external stimulus that triggered his behavior? (Dog hears a sound "sit", dog sits) created by an association established via conditioning?

Or do they think it's something different because the sound came from a human?

I'm not concerned what we humans call things. Like you said, we can play with words. I want to know how Wally considers things (i.e. what's happening in his mind) and use that - not that environmental sound isn't a command, but sound from human is a command because it came from the human, when in the dog's mind, he's just responding to an external sound in either case (neither chain of events is different from his point of view).

Perhaps the problem is I'm trying to answer an ethological question with an training answer?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Which isn't a command. So all triggers to behaviors are not commands, which is my point.
> 
> Antecedent covers this as well as cues/commands.
> 
> ...


I think you are over complicating things.... There was a time where I wanted to know the what and why to everything a dog did. But when it comes to ask/telling/ commanding the dog to do something, I don't think dogs think about it nearly as much and certainly in not as in depth terms as whether this is a command. The dog does make a decision on whether or not to obey. Training, history, distraction, temperament, personality, etc all play a part in the dogs decision.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Or do they think it's something different because the sound came from a human?
> 
> I'm not concerned what we humans call things. Like you said, we can play with words. I want to know how Wally considers things (i.e. what's happening in his mind) and use that - not that environmental sound isn't a command, but sound from human is a command because it came from the human, when in the dog's mind, he's just responding to an external sound in either case (neither chain of events is different from his point of view).
> 
> Perhaps the problem is I'm trying to answer an ethological question with an training answer?


I think dogs do consider things different when it comes from a human. Or, specifically, _their_ human. The relationship with the trainer is important and changes things. Like the Heisenberg principle, the act of observation impact that being observed.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

RaeganW said:


> An example is dog growls when you reach for his bone. You cuff him under the chin and the growling stops.


This example is of interest to me since it has happened (although is almost solved). Is this or is this not an inappropriate time to physically challenge a dog with a correction? The reason for my question is that if a dog is growling over its bone, that would suggest it is guarding, which if pushed with physical confrontation could be interpreted by the dog (and perhaps rightly so) as an attack, and escalate the situation. I'm not saying that the growling is ok by any means, it is something that is essential to address with a long-term solution, but wouldn't positive reinforcers be more appropriate in this case to make the presence of the person reaching for the bone (who I presume has a good reason for this) a positive thing, and not something to be worried about? Would it be safer for the handler to have an aversive option available in case the dog did become aggressive (by aggressive I mean actually attacking, more than teeth bearing and growling).

Since there seems to be two pretty distinct schools of thought here (aversives are good vs. aversives are bad) I think this particular issue of potential aggression might be an interesting point to consider both in terms of the way the dog would respond in the long run and the safety of the handler. I am very curious to hear from those who advocate for positive reinforcement and those who agree with the use of aversives.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Greater Swiss said:


> This example is of interest to me since it has happened (although is almost solved). Is this or is this not an inappropriate time to physically challenge a dog with a correction? The reason for my question is that if a dog is growling over its bone, that would suggest it is guarding, which if pushed with physical confrontation could be interpreted by the dog (and perhaps rightly so) as an attack, and escalate the situation. I'm not saying that the growling is ok by any means, it is something that is essential to address with a long-term solution, but wouldn't positive reinforcers be more appropriate in this case to make the presence of the person reaching for the bone (who I presume has a good reason for this) a positive thing, and not something to be worried about? Would it be safer for the handler to have an aversive option available in case the dog did become aggressive (by aggressive I mean actually attacking, more than teeth bearing and growling).
> 
> Since there seems to be two pretty distinct schools of thought here (aversives are good vs. aversives are bad) I think this particular issue of potential aggression might be an interesting point to consider both in terms of the way the dog would respond in the long run and the safety of the handler. I am very curious to hear from those who advocate for positive reinforcement and those who agree with the use of aversives.


My default is not to make -that moment- the staging ground. In -that moment-, the first time your dog growls at you for trying to take something away, I back off. If I really need what he's got, I'll bribe him off it. If it will kill him, I'll dive in if I have to, but if it's just I want to take the kong away, I'll let him keep it. If I can, I'll bribe him off, put him on a stay, and pick up the thing, then reward for the stay with a different reinforcer. 

After that, I would arrange training set ups where I am prepared and teach the lesson I want the dog to learn. In the case of resource guarding, that is usually the trading game, as well as leave its and self control games.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> Now this I object to, the idea that "a good stiff correction" will "sort a dog out" and everything from there on out is just smooth sailing and rainbows and unicorns.



Sometimes it works that way, some times it doesn't. Izze was like that, one pop & she was like "yes ma'am" of course it wasn't a jerk the dog off her feet pop, but it was enough to say "I want you to stop what your doing right NOW". It didn't damage Izze any, she is a happy, fulfilled dog that loves me. She just knows that her mommy won't take no cuff when it comes to bad behavior & if she is asked to do something she'd better do it.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> However, I am under no illusion that there will not come a time when he needs corrections.


Do _dogs_ really "need" corrections ? Or, do the _trainers_ "need" them ?




JohnnyBandit said:


> Corrections a just a tool.....


 Since you left it with a "...", let me finish that statement with my own words, if I could please. >>> "_... to compensate for fundamental flaws in the training regime_".




JohnnyBandit said:


> The little guy thinks he is playing games.


 Sadly, unfortunately, and unneccessarily .. that will likely come to an abrupt end on the day when corrections are first introduced. Why not put forth your best effort to retain that puppy/adolescent playfulness and innocence throughout his entire lifetime ?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Apples and Oranges....... If you have taught Wally to close, doors you have taught him a behavior triggered by external stimulous or situation.
> That scenario is different than standing in the middle of a field without any object or external stimulation, and asking for a sit. I don't know why you would want the dog to close open doors without a command or cue to do so. (He is going to lock you out of the house at some point)
> 
> Behaviors can be taught or instinctual.
> ...


So, if I'm tied up with something, and call out to my husband "honey, would you get me a glass of water?" is that a command? He has a choice. But because of the relationship we have, my expectation is that he would bring me a glass of water. And I might reinforce that behavior with a kiss, and a comment on how much I appreciated it. I'd expect similar if I asked my dog to go kennel, except I'd probably reinforce with a nicely stuffed Kong instead of a smooch.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I think you are over complicating things.... There was a time where I wanted to know the what and why to everything a dog did. But when it comes to ask/telling/ commanding the dog to do something, I don't think dogs think about it nearly as much and certainly in not as in depth terms as whether this is a command. The dog does make a decision on whether or not to obey. Training, history, distraction, temperament, personality, etc all play a part in the dogs decision.


Perhaps that natural curiosity about "what it is like to a dog" may be something that heavily influences how we train dogs, and how they respond. I have to say, when I was training more traditionally, I had no idea how smart and creative dogs actually were.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> This example is of interest to me since it has happened (although is almost solved). Is this or is this not an inappropriate time to physically challenge a dog with a correction? The reason for my question is that if a dog is growling over its bone, that would suggest it is guarding, which if pushed with physical confrontation could be interpreted by the dog (and perhaps rightly so) as an attack, and escalate the situation. I'm not saying that the growling is ok by any means, it is something that is essential to address with a long-term solution, but wouldn't positive reinforcers be more appropriate in this case to make the presence of the person reaching for the bone (who I presume has a good reason for this) a positive thing, and not something to be worried about? Would it be safer for the handler to have an aversive option available in case the dog did become aggressive (by aggressive I mean actually attacking, more than teeth bearing and growling).
> 
> Since there seems to be two pretty distinct schools of thought here (aversives are good vs. aversives are bad) I think this particular issue of potential aggression might be an interesting point to consider both in terms of the way the dog would respond in the long run and the safety of the handler. I am very curious to hear from those who advocate for positive reinforcement and those who agree with the use of aversives.


I think ignoring the dog's clear warning is a wonderful way to teach a dog that warning you doesn't work, but biting makes you back off pretty quick (which is a really bad thing for a dog to learn). Manage the situation by distracting the dog, and then prepare a training plan to deal with the issue by teaching leave it, trade, give when the dog is in a training state of mind.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

>>>Petpeeve said: Why not put forth your best effort to retain that puppy/adolescent playfulness and innocence throughout his entire lifetime ? 

Here, Here!!! For specific training, my dog still thinks training is fun and delicious. However, it is pet-level training, so I don't require 100% proofing. I do use some 'guidance' (non-aversive correction), when needed. It took me a long time to get here .... I remember when we used to have to go out in the field, if we wanted a clicker....

However, when we are walking in the playground off-leash, and he finds food (which isn't supposed to be in the playground), I do bellow at him. I'm not concerned (except that I look like an out of control fool  , because then he just runs off back to the path, with his tail held high.... looking like Dennis the Menace, with his slingshot held high in his back pocket...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, if I'm tied up with something, and call out to my husband "honey, would you get me a glass of water?" is that a command? He has a choice. But because of the relationship we have, my expectation is that he would bring me a glass of water. And I might reinforce that behavior with a kiss, and a comment on how much I appreciated it. I'd expect similar if I asked my dog to go kennel, except I'd probably reinforce with a nicely stuffed Kong instead of a smooch.


Re-read this. 
Allow me to clarify - tied up as in busy, not as in bondage.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Re-read this.
> Allow me to clarify - tied up as in busy, not as in bondage.


I was gonna say something but decided not to.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I was gonna say something but decided not to.


You're a gentleman.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Oh my, I love it because there are dogs that will absolutely make a fool out of a trainer and these stories (Thank you very much) should be shared.
> 
> I'm gonna keep mine secret, as the details of such silliness or as I prefer to call it, dogs abusing a trainer who did not know near as much as he thought he did are on a need to know basis only. To the best of my knowledge there is nobody on DF that needs or wants to know my silliness adventures.


Well, I need to know.

Here's one of those correction-trained dogs who was afraid to use his creative intelligence:

My Rottie "Mack" was not allowed on the furniture. My wife came home to find him lounging on the couch. She, in a state of high dugeon, commanded the dog off the couch and to his "place". Mack slid off the couch, went over to his mat, picked up the mat, walked back to the couch, tossed the mat on the couch, and climbed back up to resume his temporarily interrupted lounging. My wife swears he gave her a look that said: "I'm the smartest one in the room, and now we both know it".

That dog was the only person or critter who ever won an argument with my wife.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Well, I need to know.
> 
> Here's one of those correction-trained dogs who was afraid to use his creative intelligence:
> 
> ...


Well I do have one I will tell and in reality it had nothing to do with my training as I was a young bachelor living in a 2 room mud hut in Chicago and had purchased a 9 month old Weimie bitch (named Heidi) from a friend who had to sell her. She was housebroke and he had started her on paper as a puppy. Well she was loose in mud hut while I worked during the day and one day after work I had stopped for a couple beers etc and did not get home till about 8:00 something that I did not do. 

Normally I would go home right after work and get her out for dump/walk etc. Well I had a piece of furniture called a Hassock (I think that's what it was called) anyway the Sunday papers were on top of this hassock and Heidi jumped up on hassock and peed on the papers. Needless to say we had no more of that stuff as I decided any dog that smart had to be taken out early as it should have been. I was 18 and kinda stupid which I know is no excuse. 

This also was a correction trained dog that I even put a CD on (my one and only CD).

The obedience ring paled when compared to mounting a horse and turning loose a wide running bird dog that slams into a point 300 yards away or stops to a wild flush same distance or sometimes farther and watches a cackling pheasant fly away cause he/she's not allowed to chase. (yes I said not allowed, cause that's just the way it was)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's all very well to tell of well-trained dogs that were trained using aversives and still weren't "broken". Fine. I'm sure lots of people/dogs have gone through things that would break other people/dogs, and came out OK.

But if you've never tried non-aversive training, how do you know if they wouldn't have been just as well-trained without aversives? Seems to me, an effective trainer is an effective trainer, regardless of the methods they use. And if you're really good, you shouldn't need aversives (meaning pain-causing aversives, not sissy stuff like saying no or whatever random concept of aversives some people have). If someone else can train that dog just as well not using aversives, doesn't that say that the aversives were not necessary and you're just chickening out by using them? 

I'm sure someone, somewhere trains hunting dogs very well without using aversives (prong collar? E-collar? Whatever aversive was used to teach the dog in the above example to slam to a point and watch a pheasant fly away), therefore demonstrating that using aversives in that case is purely a matter of personal preference and not a necssary thing.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> But if you've never tried non-aversive training, how do you know if they wouldn't have been just as well-trained without aversives? Seems to me, an effective trainer is an effective trainer, regardless of the methods they use.


And that is true. For the level of obedience most people require, non-aversive training would be at least as effective. Plenty of working hunting dogs have been trained with no, or at least much reduced, aversive correction. When we get to other types of tasking, and at higher levels, we see greater differences develop. Retriever trialers stick with correction, not because they are sclerotic reactionaries clinging to a moribund philosophy, but because they do what wins. I guarantee that if "positive" trainers started taking home all the ribbons, correction would rapidly become a thing of the past. Any competitive edge would be immediately embraced. We probably won't ever see that for a similar reason to why we won't see Chessies pushing Labs out of the winner's circles.

Some things are more effectively trained with other methods, and we see those games dominated by non-aversive trainers. It's all about what you're trying to accomplish, how you define "good enough", and how you prefer to achieve it. If anyone doesn't like correction, they don't have to use it. But don't blow wind up my genechtagazoink telling me about my damaged relationship with my dog.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

petpeeve said:


> *1 )*Do _dogs_ really "need" corrections ? Or, do the _trainers_ "need" them ?
> 
> 
> *2)* Since you left it with a "...", let me finish that statement with my own words, if I could please. >>> "_... to compensate for fundamental flaws in the training regime_".
> ...



*1)* I assure you I don't correct dogs that do not need a correction or in a context in which they will not directly associate it with their behavior. To suggest otherwise is down right silly. 

*2)* There are no fundemental flaws in using corrections in training.

*3)* Who says the fun comes to an end because of the introduction of corrections? There are rules and corrections in life. We all face them. That does not mean the fun ends. Far from it.... The more well mannered, the more focused, the more self control a dog has, the more opportunity it has to experience new things. 

And..... If you actually believe the a dog retains innocence (not that a dog is actually capable of having innocence) then you a more than a bit naive. 


It seems to me that folks that are "anti correction: envision trainers that use corrections, yanking dogs around all day long. But as I said, it is a tool.... It has a time and a place. 

There are dogs in which you cannot use corrections on. But if a trainer is any good, they are going to read that dog.

There are dogs that shut down with correction.... 
Dog that are too soft.....
etc


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

To both Marsh Muppet and Willowy.....a question of curiosity, since you both seem to be very knowledgeable on both sides of the philosophical debate. Regarding the effectiveness of aversive and non aversive traininers. Would you or would you not agree that a trainer at least knowledgeable, if not somewhat experienced in both would be more valuable and effective with more dogs than one who is strictly from one preference or the other? Including cases where someone might be training more than a straightforward pet, such as a retriever, search and rescue, protection, police or other various degrees of working dogs (including say recreational hunters, but not using their dogs for competition). 

To put it in example form, would someone like Emily Ylarham (to whom I owe most of what I've been able to do with Caeda so far, she is very good) could effectively train, with her methods, a solid working dog like the ones I mentioned? And on the other side of things, could an experienced trainer of working dogs train a dogs to dance with their methods?

I have my own assumptions about this (obviously), but I'm curious as to what you both (and others) might have to say.....


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

A great trainer could train anything, with the caveat that the trainer has to have some interest in it. Someone who gets fired up about flyball and agility may find obedience to be mind numbingly dull. You'll find it hard to maintain the dog's focus if you can't maintain your own.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Greater Swiss said:


> To both Marsh Muppet and Willowy.....a question of curiosity, since you both seem to be very knowledgeable on both sides of the philosophical debate. Regarding the effectiveness of aversive and non aversive traininers. Would you or would you not agree that a trainer at least knowledgeable, if not somewhat experienced in both would be more valuable and effective with more dogs than one who is strictly from one preference or the other? Including cases where someone might be training more than a straightforward pet, such as a retriever, search and rescue, protection, police or other various degrees of working dogs (including say recreational hunters, but not using their dogs for competition).
> 
> To put it in example form, would someone like Emily Ylarham (to whom I owe most of what I've been able to do with Caeda so far, she is very good) could effectively train, with her methods, a solid working dog like the ones I mentioned? And on the other side of things, could an experienced trainer of working dogs train a dogs to dance with their methods?
> 
> I have my own assumptions about this (obviously), but I'm curious as to what you both (and others) might have to say.....


How are we to judge whether or not Emily Larlham would be any good training working dogs? She lives in California and we see brief videos training mostly her OWN dogs.

There are two big wig service dog companies in my area. One trains using +R and -P. The other uses a "balanced approach"(old school and new school). I imagine that they are not unlike JB. 
Guess which one I've been invited to train for? The balanced one.
In theory, I know how to use corrections but I never have, not effectively anyway.

While there's a risk that I'll go in there and make a right fool of myself, I also believe what MarshMuppet said(I think it was him): Using +P is not unlike +R. They both rely on timing(!), effective application(does it motivate a dog to repeat/never do a behavior again), etc.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tofu_pup said:


> How are we to judge whether or not Emily Larlham would be any good training working dogs? She lives in California and we see brief videos training mostly her OWN dogs.
> 
> There are two big wig service dog companies in my area. One trains using +R and -P. The other uses a "balanced approach"(old school and new school). I imagine that they are not unlike JB.
> Guess which one I've been invited to train for? The balanced one.
> ...


I decided to pass on a job with a national service dog organization (field trainer- they solicited me) when I found out their methods and tools. I don't know about Emily Larlham training working dogs, but she seems to have a good foundation in behavior mod. Behavior is behavior. I've trained dancing dogs (not to the highest level, though we're working on it - both dogs going into intermediate soon - so for one dog 6 legs to a championship, 7 legs for the other, but he's been laid up for a year) and sheep and cattle trialing dogs (not to the highest level) as well as Schutzhund dogs in a beginning level and Obedience dogs to the highest level. I know people who train service dogs (their own) to the highest level of reliability without ever using aversives. I've used aversives, and I've used no aversives. IMO no aversives creates a more motivated worker. Though of course I've seen (and owned) dogs who were good workers who had been subjected to aversives in training. Oh, and Greater Swiss, just because one choses not to use certain methods doesn't mean that person is unfamiliar with their use.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Great points, especially this, which really does sum it all up..


Marsh Muppet said:


> A great trainer could train anything, with the caveat that the trainer has to have some interest in it. Someone who gets fired up about flyball and agility may find obedience to be mind numbingly dull. You'll find it hard to maintain the dog's focus if you can't maintain your own.


Trainer's motivations and what works for them is a huge part of the equation that seems rarely considered, it seems often the methods and skill that seem to be called into account when a trainer's effectiveness is questioned. 



Pawzk9;1072837 Oh said:


> You are absolutely right on this, although I have noticed on both sides of the aversive/non-aversive debate (and not just here, reading elsewhere too) that there are often (but no, not always) pre-conceived notions about the "opposing" methods. It seems to me that most of what I've noticed while nosing around about various training philosophies is that there is a very heavy lean one way or the other. Either aversive with sparse praise or reward if the dog does REALLY well or non-aversive and only mild correction/aversion if the dog does something very bad. That said, it does make sense that most books on training dogs for the average joe would go for predominantly positive since aversives and corrections can be used badly and excessively especially if an owner gets frustrated (for instance yanking and cranking a prong collar for not sitting). Interestingly enough though the first book I picked up suggested a can full of pennies or rocks to startle a dog a puppy that is doing something wrong without mentioning that it could terrify a timid puppy instead of distracting.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> IMO no aversives creates a more motivated worker. Though of course I've seen (and owned) dogs who were good workers who had been subjected to aversives in training.


The organization that uses +R and -P proudly boasts that they have more dogs graduating the program than ever before. Fewer dogs are flunking out.
Of course I was shot down when I tried for a job with them which I had expected. I'll try again when I have the experience they want.

There happened to be a member of the board of directors for the other organization in the class I was teaching at the shelter. I did not know this until the end of our last class when he asked me to drop by if I'm interested. And I definitely would if I could find free time to squeeze it in. The experience could open many doors for me. As of right now, it seems I'm qualified for daycare, volunteering, and entry level shelter jobs which involve euthenasia...yay.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> You are absolutely right on this, although I have noticed on both sides of the aversive/non-aversive debate (and not just here, reading elsewhere too) that there are often (but no, not always) pre-conceived notions about the "opposing" methods. It seems to me that most of what I've noticed while nosing around about various training philosophies is that there is a very heavy lean one way or the other. Either aversive with sparse praise or reward if the dog does REALLY well or non-aversive and only mild correction/aversion if the dog does something very bad. That said, it does make sense that most books on training dogs for the average joe would go for predominantly positive since aversives and corrections can be used badly and excessively especially if an owner gets frustrated (for instance yanking and cranking a prong collar for not sitting). Interestingly enough though the first book I picked up suggested a can full of pennies or rocks to startle a dog a puppy that is doing something wrong without mentioning that it could terrify a timid puppy instead of distracting.


I have no "pre-conceived" notions. In the 1970s I started training dogs with modified Koehler Yank and Thank. No treats. Collar pops and praise. I trained dogs to titles doing that. Then we started adding in some treats and toys along with the collars, etc. We started thinking a bit differently about dogs. Going from dogs are out to be alpha and if you don't show them who is boss they'll take over the world. (an attitude still surprisingly prevalent, but then so is Koehler) to considering that dogs sometimes get confused and make honest mistakes. We also started using food and toys in training. I earned titles doing that. By the 1990s, I was using food, a flat buckle collar and lures. I earned titles doing that. By the late 1990s I was using a clicker. I've earned titles doing that. While I look back on how I trained some good and honest dogs and cringe (and apologize to their spirits) I consider myself lucky to have evolved over 30-some years of training, so I have seen both sides, what works best and what does not. I also understand that we do what we know how to do. When we know better, we do better. I understand that even harsh trainers frequently care as deeply for their dogs as people who eschew any form of physical aversive. And that they are not monsters or sadists. But it is no longer a way I would train a dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I understand that even harsh trainers frequently care as deeply for their dogs as people who eschew any form of physical aversive. And that they are not monsters or sadists.


As someone replied earlier in thread, each one could now be called "The Punisher" kinda of a catchy name/description.I guess that's much easier to say than "Negative Reinforcement Trainer" I'm just sayin'....


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I have no "pre-conceived" notions.


Not meaning you....it certainly seems that you've got some well rounded experience, and I envy that. I've just read so many things that that come through with the underlying message of "positive trainers can only get their dogs to do stuff if they wave food at them" or "trainers who use any corrections/negative reinforcements are cruel people". Black and white type sentiments that have no solid backup other than vagueries that seem to either over anthropomorphse or over objectify dogs (not necessarily here...I'm talking all over the place). I understand it is a passionate subject, but I'm trying to get a well rounded view of it to form my own solid opinion on it and wow it is frustrating!
The way it stands I'm just finding training philosophies not only relevant to training with Caeda, but thoroughly fascinating as well.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I would say that the majority of Positively based trainers that I know that are over the age of 25 are crossover trainers. Meaning they do have the tools in the toolbox, are familiar with punishment and how to apply it and simply choose from their own personal perspective and experience to no longer use those tools. As clicker training gains popularity a lot of the younger trainers learning how to train do not have those tools because they do not want to ever use them. I train pet dogs, some pushy, some hard, some soft and I choose to use the LIMA rule. Least invasive, minimally aversive with a strong base in R+P-. 
There are strong opinions on both sides of the spectrum where people dismiss one or the other...but this off the cuff disrespect is not necessary and does nothing to help anyone, only causes confusion. 
I just wish people would just agree on the science, stop the alpha crap and learn from good behaviour experts how to READ the dog, the situation and understand where the dog is coming from in different situations so that they can find a way to train, proof and encourage the dog to be the best they can be without causing HARM.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

What's the saying? "The only thing two dog trainers can agree on is what the third is doing wrong?"


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> As someone replied earlier in thread, each one could now be called "The Punisher" kinda of a catchy name/description.I guess that's much easier to say than "Negative Reinforcement Trainer" I'm just sayin'....


Would "the person who provides the punishment" feel better?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Would "the person who provides the punishment" feel better?


I guess it would depend on the individual person/punisher etc.



> What's the saying? "The only thing two dog trainers can agree on is what the third is doing wrong?"


And even then there may be a fistfight.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> *1)*Far from it.... The more well mannered, the more focused, the more self control a dog has, the more opportunity it has to experience new things.


Then, again, you really don't need to use aversives to get a dog with great manners, great focus and great self control.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Ok, firstly, I must admit I did not make through all 200 and something posts in this thread. I made it to the top of page 6 and find the discussion interesting but it has also raised some questions. Please forgive me and let me know if what I am about to ask about has already been discussed and I will gladly go back and look for it.

On the topic of aversives being used to train or to add to the training of recall... I am curious (not sarcastically curious, I am having trouble with recall training and am ACTUALLY curious)... What would be an example of how/when this would work? Here's why I ask:

When we first got and started training Jasper, I used strictly positive reinforcement for recall. I'd call, he'd come, he'd get a treat. He didn't come, or eventually came after taking his sweet @$$ time, he simply didn't get a treat. He did well for a long while and then there was a period where he started not coming more often than coming (it's been on and off, but he's still basically in this phase). There has been some accidental "punishment" that has taken place, i.e. he comes in, gets praised but then I have things to do so coming in = the fun stops and mom's ignoring me or leaving for work (worst punishment ever for him, being an acute separation anxiety sufferer). I also recently found out that there has occasionally been some punishment on purpose, on the part of my boyfriend - i.e. Jasper takes forever to come in or has to be "caught" and brought in and once inside he gets scolded or spanked (I am not happy with the surprise inconsistency in training, but that's another story) and this type of punishment started right around the same time the increasing difficulty with recall started (the chicken or the egg?).

So now we're at this point: If my boyfriend is home, he calls Jasper, he comes, goes inside and heads behind the couch (that's where he goes when he knows he's done something wrong, like when I come home and he's spent his time tearing through the trash) whether he comes immediately or it takes a while, he still hides as though he's been bad. When I call him he gets, for lack of a better term, confused. I know we can't truly know what a dog is thinking, but this one seems pretty obvious to me. He'll do one of two things when I try to call him back to the house. 1) He'll look at the house like he's not sure about what awaits him, then try all the things he knows are rewarding behaviors - he'll sit, lie down, if he has a stick or something he'll drop it, back away and sit, etc. But not come. 2) He'll just freeze, even in mid step, and stare blankly. He will do this until I go to him, put him on the leash and walk him inside. I let it go on the other day to see how long before he'd snap out of it - I gave up after over 20 minutes and just went and brought him in.

It seems to me that any punishment (accidental or otherwise) for NOT coming, when performed AFTER he's already come has simply taught him that coming inside can sometimes be a bad thing. As far as I can tell, he doesn't know what he's supposed to do and the confused-about-what-to-do behavior started only after the punishments began. 

So, when/how WOULD it be a good idea to use aversives to teach recall? Without an e-collar or some sort of long-range weapon, I don't see how I could potentially punish him whilst in the "naughty" act (there was sarcasm there - I don't truly intend to zap my dog OR shoot him with a crossbow) and punishing him afterwards seems to teach exactly the opposite of what I want. So what would be the correct way to use correction/aversives/etc in recall training???


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

missk4012 said:


> It seems to me that any punishment (accidental or otherwise) for NOT coming, when performed AFTER he's already come has simply taught him that coming inside can sometimes be a bad thing. As far as I can tell, he doesn't know what he's supposed to do and the confused-about-what-to-do behavior started only after the punishments began.


Many people make the mistake of assuming the dog refuses to come out of willfulness. Punishing the dog after he has obeyed is the worst possible outcome. The dog has to thoroughly understand what he is supposed to do before correction is even contemplated. Whether the punishment is ill considered or accidental matters not. It has the same effect on the dog.



missk4012 said:


> So, when/how WOULD it be a good idea to use aversives to teach recall? Without an e-collar or some sort of long-range weapon, I don't see how I could potentially punish him whilst in the "naughty" act (there was sarcasm there - I don't truly intend to zap my dog OR shoot him with a crossbow) and punishing him afterwards seems to teach exactly the opposite of what I want. So what would be the correct way to use correction/aversives/etc in recall training???


I'm going to follow Wvasko's policy of not detailing specific correction techniques. However, the methods have been established a long time. It was commonly done before e-collars were ever dreamed of. On a more basic level, the dog should not be be off the leash until he has pretty darned solid recall. I think everyone can agree that the key to training is to have control the of dog's environment and his available options, to the maximum extent possible.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

missk4012 said:


> It seems to me that any punishment (accidental or otherwise) for NOT coming, when performed AFTER he's already come has simply taught him that coming inside can sometimes be a bad thing.


Agreed 100%. Why on earth would a dog (or anyone for that matter) want to come to someone who might be angry and spank them once they've done what they were asked to do? I certainly wouldn't. 

What I would do at this point IF you want to stick with reward based training is simply change your cue for recall and start over teaching it. It sounds like it might be confusing for the dog, but I have a dog who was very scared and intimidated by recall when we first got him (clearly he'd learned the same lesson as your dog - that the results of coming when you're called are unpredictable at best and bad at worst). He would either just lie down and shut down or sort of mope towards us if any variation of "come" or "come here" came out of our mouths. We started using a squeaky toy for his recall cue which worked awesome, then gradually transitioned to a whistle, then eventually re-introduced the words. Now he'll recall to any of those cues (although he's sharpest for the whistle) and he has the best recall of any dog I've ever had (although part of that is that he just doesn't like to get too far away from his people).


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Please don't use a crossbow on your dog. They are quick and you will miss.... then the dog has a weapon 

I learned some of my early training from a man who learned directly from Koehler in the 60s or 70s. I still respect this trainer, greatly, because he has impecable timing, and his pop! is quick and nearly non-aversive, because it is just barely enough to get the dog's attention. Although he works well with hard dogs, I've seen amazing things with soft dogs. I disagree strongly with his methods, but I can't argue with his individual approach. But I don't have his timing, and he cannot teach other people to have his control, so their pops are clearly aversive. 

The 'aversive' method that he used for recall is based on training one parameter at a time, distraction or distance, and using increasingly long leads, until we were using 40 foot (or longer) horse leads (cheaper than dog leashes). At short distances, we'd call wait a fraction of a second, then snap the leash. At long distances, we'd call, then run up the leash, repeating come, like a wild man, then snap the leash at a short distance. We'd reduce the distance to the point where the dog had a reliable recall, then build back distance... I wasn't very good at this method.

On the other hand, I personally don't like click training either. There are many good click trainers, but i don't have the timing. My strength is having a smart pet 

>>> Cracker said: "I just wish people would just agree on the science"
The big problem that I see is that people know what works, but no one has a clearly defined theory that explains why it's working. Behaviorism only goes so far, but it doesn't explain Chaser... or the Rottie that moved his rug to the couch, when someone told him to leave the couch and get on his rug. Most people are trained in Behaviorism and that's where the money is. There's very little money devoted to Cognitive psychology or Education psychology, applied to dogs ... I think that's one thng that would help. Another would be more training for reading dogs, and a good proven theory that explains more of the calming signal type gestures...


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

> I'm going to follow Wvasko's policy of not detailing specific correction techniques. However, the methods have been established a long time. It was commonly done before e-collars were ever dreamed of. On a more basic level, the dog should not be be off the leash until he has pretty darned solid recall. I think everyone can agree that the key to training is to have control the of dog's environment and his available options, to the maximum extent possible.


I am aware that the methods predate modern technology, what I was saying is I don't know what said methods are. I can see why it might be problematic to detail your exact methods in an online forum. Unfortunately, I think that's one of the reasons many people have (often false) preconceived notions regarding "correction techniques" - I personally prefer reinforcement training, but even if I wanted to use other methods, I've never, in quite a few years been able to find someone who both understands these techniques and is willing to explain them to me. Oh well, such is life.

In regards to not being off leash until recall is trained - do you mean at any time? In a yard, for example? Just curious - Jasper is back on the leash anyway since he forgot how to come back and we don't have a fence, but hypothetically, if our yard was fenced would letting him off leash still be problematic in your opinion (or anyone else's opinion if you want to chime in)?



sassafras said:


> Agreed 100%. Why on earth would a dog (or anyone for that matter) want to come to someone who might be angry and spank them once they've done what they were asked to do? I certainly wouldn't.


That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to the boyfriend regarding his ocassional temper. If coming inside might mean he's in trouble, why would Jasper be quick to run on in?



> What I would do at this point IF you want to stick with reward based training is simply change your cue for recall and start over teaching it. It sounds like it might be confusing for the dog, but I have a dog who was very scared and intimidated by recall when we first got him (clearly he'd learned the same lesson as your dog - that the results of coming when you're called are unpredictable at best and bad at worst). He would either just lie down and shut down or sort of mope towards us if any variation of "come" or "come here" came out of our mouths. We started using a squeaky toy for his recall cue which worked awesome, then gradually transitioned to a whistle, then eventually re-introduced the words. Now he'll recall to any of those cues (although he's sharpest for the whistle) and he has the best recall of any dog I've ever had (although part of that is that he just doesn't like to get too far away from his people).


That sounds like my best option. He was actually doing rather well with one of those "silent" dog whistles until I lost it at the beach. And his recall is great AWAY from the house where I have typically used the whistle to call him back (I figured a whistle was preferable to trying to scream "Jasper, come!" across a meadow, forest or beach). When we actually leave the yard he's similar to how you describe your dog - I rarely have to even call him back because if he gets too far ahead and can't see me he runs back looking for me on his own.

Now if only I could find a new whistle in this podunk, mountain town rather than waiting for one to be shipped from some online store...


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> Please don't use a crossbow on your dog. They are quick and you will miss.... then the dog has a weapon


Oh dear, a large, stubborn pup with a weapon... I do not like the sound of that!



> The 'aversive' method that he used for recall is based on training one parameter at a time, distraction or distance, and using increasingly long leads, until we were using 40 foot (or longer) horse leads (cheaper than dog leashes). At short distances, we'd call wait a fraction of a second, then snap the leash. At long distances, we'd call, then run up the leash, repeating come, like a wild man, then snap the leash at a short distance. We'd reduce the distance to the point where the dog had a reliable recall, then build back distance... I wasn't very good at this method.


I tried, very briefly, a similar method a few months back. I didn't like it so I likely would have quit anyway, but it turned out to be a failure. My dog is a worse leash puller than even the husky I had growing up - he's one of those that can't be walked with just a collar or harness because he chokes himself, but keeps pulling anyway until passersby think we're abusing him. He's even managed to figure out how to put a great deal of force into pulling while wearing his head collar. Anyway, the "pop" meant next to nothing to him. He just pulled harder and broke the lead. Although once free he did come back.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

> The big problem that I see is that people know what works, but no one has a clearly defined theory that explains why it's working. Behaviorism only goes so far, but it doesn't explain...the Rottie that moved his rug to the couch, when someone told him to leave the couch and get on his rug.


The explanation is that dogs are capable of more complex emotions and sophisticated problem solving than we give them credit for. I'm a big one for warning people to "never underestimate your dog", but I do it all the time. Science can only conclude what the controlled-test evidence proves, but every once in a great while a dog will show you something that rocks your world. I know what the "couch incident" was, but I can't argue against all the possible alternative explanations.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The explanation is that dogs are capable of more complex emotions and sophisticated problem solving than we give them credit for. I'm a big one for warning people to "never underestimate your dog", but I do it all the time. Science can only conclude what the controlled-test evidence proves, but every once in a great while a dog will show you something that rocks your world. I know what the "couch incident" was, but I can't argue against all the possible alternative explanations.


I try not to get too serious with this stuff because the replies sometimes get pretty silly, cause the dog's gonna do what the dog's gonna do and we're pretty much just along for the ride. Most of the time we get a chance to steer, but not always.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

missk4012 said:


> That sounds like my best option. He was actually doing rather well with one of those "silent" dog whistles until I lost it at the beach. And his recall is great AWAY from the house where I have typically used the whistle to call him back (I figured a whistle was preferable to trying to scream "Jasper, come!" across a meadow, forest or beach). When we actually leave the yard he's similar to how you describe your dog - I rarely have to even call him back because if he gets too far ahead and can't see me he runs back looking for me on his own.
> 
> Now if only I could find a new whistle in this podunk, mountain town rather than waiting for one to be shipped from some online store...


I almost went back and edited my response because it was unclear, but I didn't mean using A whistle, I meant... just whistling. With my lips, because I was sick of carrying a squeaky toy around and didn't want to carry a whistle, too. 

But yea, your dog sounds a lot like Pip. He's an orbiter - doesn't like to get too far away from the gravitational pull of his people. Great for teaching recall, not so great for teaching stays.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

If " the dog's gonna do what the dog's gonna do " for professionals, then I'm much less humbled... because that means that I have a 100% perfectly trained dog 

I'm still happy that he's smarter than me, because just after I saw someone hit their dog, I said I would never hit my dog. Then, he ran around me to go eat something off the ground - I knew exactly what it was - and I bellowed at him not to, then ran after him, and popped him on the butt as he ran past me.... I felt so guilty... until he turned and looked at me, with his full belly... as if to say - _play, play? _


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I almost went back and edited my response because it was unclear, but I didn't mean using A whistle, I meant... just whistling. With my lips, because I was sick of carrying a squeaky toy around and didn't want to carry a whistle, too.
> 
> But yea, your dog sounds a lot like Pip. He's an orbiter - doesn't like to get too far away from the gravitational pull of his people. Great for teaching recall, not so great for teaching stays.


I got that you meant whistling - I think I may go to the actual dog whistle for a while though because seems like my usual whistling has been overdone and he kinda just answers to it when he feels like it nowadays. Hopefully I can eventually move from having to carry around an easily misplaced whistle to just my own lips.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> If " the dog's gonna do what the dog's gonna do " for professionals, then I'm much less humbled... because that means that I have a 100% perfectly trained dog


Oh sure spread it around and let everybody know. Geeeeze 

Actually when I was trialing the good amateur with one dog entered was to be feared.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Cracker said:


> I just wish people would just agree on the science, stop the alpha crap and learn from good behaviour experts how to READ the dog, the situation and understand where the dog is coming from in different situations so that they can find a way to train, proof and encourage the dog to be the best they can be without causing HARM.


I think that's really fascinating to watch. Effective (by which I mean they get results without turning dogs catatonic) traditional training is just as valid operant conditioning as R+. And when traditional trainers start looking more at what they are reinforcing rather than what they are correcting, I think they start seeing even better results.

Behavior comes from reinforcement. If you want the dog to do things, you need to use reinforcement of some kind.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

So if someone corrects a dog for an unwanted behavior, but then shows the dog the desired behavior instead? Cuz that's whys I do. If they are chewing on somdhing inappropriate, I will correct them for it, but I will also show hem somshing appropriate to chew.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> So if someone corrects a dog for an unwanted behavior, but then shows the dog the desired behavior instead? Cuz that's whys I do. If they are chewing on somdhing inappropriate, I will correct them for it, but I will also show hem somshing appropriate to chew.


What do you mean by correct them? A "correction" can be a lifted eyebrow. It can be physically removing the dog from the situation. It can be physically punishing the dog in the situation. "Correct" doesn't give any information, but it seems to be a huge part of some people's training vocabulary.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

missk4012 said:


> In regards to not being off leash until recall is trained - do you mean at any time? In a yard, for example?


If you need to get the dog next to you, and he won't come on his own, then he needs to be on a line. In the house, if need be.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If you need to get the dog next to you, and he won't come on his own, then he needs to be on a line. In the house, if need be.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> What do you mean by correct them? A "correction" can be a lifted eyebrow. It can be physically removing the dog from the situation. It can be physically punishing the dog in the situation. "Correct" doesn't give any information, but it seems to be a huge part of some people's training vocabulary.


Ok why is correction information needed, since nobody online would knows/reads the dog being corrected wouldn't that be on a need to know basis only. Suppose somebody described how they corrected their hard headed rascal and it wasn't used on right dog. Now I know we all know this but I just like to keep stirring the pot. I will have to try the eyebrow lift thing when I get the right dog, If it works it's going in my tool bag.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Ok why is correction information needed, since nobody online would knows/reads the dog being corrected wouldn't that be on a need to know basis only. Suppose somebody described how they corrected their hard headed rascal and it wasn't used on right dog. Now I know we all know this but I just like to keep stirring the pot. I will have to try the eyebrow lift thing when I get the right dog, If it works it's going in my tool bag.


 I have several dogs who respond to a stern glance...many who respond to a 'uh uh kiddo" and some who need an outright stern LEAVE IT. But I still look to management and prevention for 99 percent of the stuff that I don't want happening. IF you don't want a dog eating your shoes and you have not yet trained a leave it, then don't leave the shoes out. Period. When the leave it is going on, then you add the shoes into the training. 
If I want to eat less Haagen Dasz Peanut Butter and Chocolate, I must refrain from having it in my freezer. LOL


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Cracker said:


> I have several dogs who respond to a stern glance...many who respond to a 'uh uh kiddo" and some who need an outright stern LEAVE IT. But I still look to management and prevention for 99 percent of the stuff that I don't want happening. IF you don't want a dog eating your shoes and you have not yet trained a leave it, then don't leave the shoes out. Period. When the leave it is going on, then you add the shoes into the training.
> If I want to eat less Haagen Dasz Peanut Butter and Chocolate, I must refrain from having it in my freezer. LOL


Yes the wife does the stern look thing and I am putty in her hands, the eyebrow thing and I immediately leave the area.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The explanation is that dogs are capable of more complex emotions and sophisticated problem solving than we give them credit for. I'm a big one for warning people to "never underestimate your dog", but I do it all the time. Science can only conclude what the controlled-test evidence proves, but every once in a great while a dog will show you something that rocks your world. I know what the "couch incident" was, but I can't argue against all the possible alternative explanations.


This^^^ thisis what I have always believed as well.


----------



## missk4012 (Aug 28, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I will have to try the eyebrow lift thing when I get the right dog, If it works it's going in my tool bag.


I have this dog. If you so much as look a bit disappointed in Maynard's direction, he acts devastated and ashamed of whatever his "bad" behavior was.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

missk4012 said:


> I have this dog. If you so much as look a bit disappointed in Maynard's direction, he acts devastated and ashamed of whatever his "bad" behavior was.


A heavy sigh breaks Pip's heart into a million pieces.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Ok why is correction information needed, since nobody online would knows/reads the dog being corrected wouldn't that be on a need to know basis only. Suppose somebody described how they corrected their hard headed rascal and it wasn't used on right dog. Now I know we all know this but I just like to keep stirring the pot. I will have to try the eyebrow lift thing when I get the right dog, If it works it's going in my tool bag.


I guess I just figure, why mention it if it is meaningless? I prefer to know what people actually mean when they say something.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Then, again, you really don't need to use aversives to get a dog with great manners, great focus and great self control.


Depends on the dog..... It also depends on how much time you have to fool around with it....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Ok why is correction information needed, since nobody online would knows/reads the dog being corrected wouldn't that be on a need to know basis only. Suppose somebody described how they corrected their hard headed rascal and it wasn't used on right dog. Now I know we all know this but I just like to keep stirring the pot. I will have to try the eyebrow lift thing when I get the right dog, If it works it's going in my tool bag.


Perhaps so that it can be discovered if that's where the problem lies.

If I say "I'm using a correction and Wally won't stop doing whatever" people can't help me develop a better correction without knowing what I'm doing.

If I just say "Wally. Stop it." in some flat, monotone voice - that could be the problem. Maybe if I just get my voice to pierce his mind, problem solved. If I just stated that to begin with, people wouldn't have to waste time guessing or asking "what did you do/try?"

But that general "My correction didn't work. Why?" Is...hard to answer.

It's like trying to answer - why did my dog just bark? Who the heck knows without any more information?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Yes the wife does the stern look thing and I am putty in her hands, the eyebrow thing and I immediately leave the area.


If I do the curled down eyebrows look at Buc the Lab, he will go hide behind the couch....

I do it to Merlin, he is Pfhht.... Up yours buddy.....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The explanation is that dogs are capable of more complex emotions and sophisticated problem solving than we give them credit for. I'm a big one for warning people to "never underestimate your dog", but I do it all the time. Science can only conclude what the controlled-test evidence proves, but every once in a great while a dog will show you something that rocks your world. I know what the "couch incident" was, but I can't argue against all the possible alternative explanations.


This is exactly why I want to go beyond OC and CC to really get inside his mind, not just stick with the basic tried-and-true answers and the rote "ignore it and just stick to OC" type answer.

I don't WANT to ignore it. I want to use it.

I know it's in there. I want to know how to access it so I can better teach Wally to do things. 

Instead of him trying to interpret what I want in my language or our common "shaping language", if I could explain it in "Canidese", he might could get it instantly. 

I want to learn more "Canidese" and how to access his real thoughts/perceptions. I know he's using them as you said, and OC doesn't explain it all the way, so I want the rest of the story. 

For example, how can I teach colors using his perceptions instead of doing it 100 times (or more?) with shaping or saying "blue" as he touches the blue card?

Or teach him color is important. Yellow cone <> blue cone? Things like that.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Depends on the dog..... It also depends on how much time you have to fool around with it....


Training without aversives, in my experience, tends to be quicker than training with aversives. Unless you trained the dog with aversives first.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I do it to Merlin, he is Pfhht.... Up yours buddy.....


LOL sounds like a fun dog to interact with  

As much as like Wally's softness (to a point), I wonder how I'd do with a dog that would "banter" with me.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

KBLover said:


> LOL sounds like a fun dog to interact with
> 
> As much as like Wally's softness (to a point), I wonder how I'd do with a dog that would "banter" with me.


He is..... Not an easy dog to live with at times...



Pawzk9 said:


> Training without aversives, in my experience, tends to be quicker than training with aversives. Unless you trained the dog with aversives first.


This can be true.... Assuming the the dog is fairly biddable and affable.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> This is exactly why I want to go beyond OC and CC to really get inside his mind, not just stick with the basic tried-and-true answers and the rote "ignore it and just stick to OC" type answer.
> 
> I don't WANT to ignore it. I want to use it.
> 
> ...


I think CC is pretty straightforward. Operant condition gives us a common language that can help us delve deeper into whom our dogs actually are. I know Ken Ramirez has done some interesting work with concepts like larger/smaller. When dealing with color recognition, I think you have to maybe look at the sorts of perceptions that are important to dogs. Since they are somewhat color blind, blue and yellow are the only colors we know they really see in detail. But since color isn't a big part of their life, maybe it's not an important differentiation to them. What about doing some match-to-sample, scent work or other things which make more sense in "dogish"?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> This can be true.... Assuming the the dog is fairly biddable and affable.


Or espeically useful if the dog is the type who wants to know "what's in it for me?" If the dog is fairly biddable and affable, he's going to go more than halfway to try to cope with whatever methods I choose. It's the difficult dogs who shine when you clearly show them how they profit from cooperation.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Perhaps so that it can be discovered if that's where the problem lies.
> 
> If I say "I'm using a correction and Wally won't stop doing whatever" people can't help me develop a better correction without knowing what I'm doing.
> 
> ...


I think part of it is the communication barrier (what is a correction, what is a pop, how does it differ from a jerk), and the political correctness of it all. I mean, if someone comes on here and says he's correcting his dog but it isn't getting better, what's the advice he gets (here)? This isn't the forum for refining correction techniques, and ones that are (and competent) are rare. At least I've never seen one that has more than one or two people I'd consider competent. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> He is..... Not an easy dog to live with at times...


If they were, that would take all the fun out of it.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> If they were, that would take all the fun out of it.


Merlin is a little too much fun sometimes.

My wife calls the new ACD Gemma, the Anti Merlin..... Because she is the most laid back ACD around.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

sassafras said:


> A heavy sigh breaks Pip's heart into a million pieces.


This is Kaki. 
What I find interesting is that this general sensitivity/softness only applies to me. 

We live with two roommates. One, we have lived with since March 2009; Kaki loves her. We've lived with the second since January 2010.
Roommate number two yelled at her. Kaki didn't even notice(but I did and about snapped his head off). 
They're lucky to get an ear twitch in their direction from Kaki. She becomes the "Pfft, up yours" dog(which I find quite amusing).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think CC is pretty straightforward. Operant condition gives us a common language that can help us delve deeper into whom our dogs actually are. I know Ken Ramirez has done some interesting work with concepts like larger/smaller. When dealing with color recognition, I think you have to maybe look at the sorts of perceptions that are important to dogs. Since they are somewhat color blind, blue and yellow are the only colors we know they really see in detail. But since color isn't a big part of their life, maybe it's not an important differentiation to them. What about doing some match-to-sample, scent work or other things which make more sense in "dogish"?


Yeah, I need to get back to the matching. He seemed to be getting the idea, but I either need to find a way to better keep the objects looking the same (i.e. the small stuff animal might not look the same way on the floor as it does in my hand), or, since my mom just got me like 20 tiny basketballs that all look the same, I can use those. 

I've also thought about trying to use scent as a "proxy" to color. Yellow cone smells like butter, blue cone smells like ham. Show him ham and let him eat the piece of ham that's under the blue cone if he finds it, but no piece of butter for the yellow cone.

Maybe "blue" then conjures up the scent of the ham, which then leads him to the cone that always had ham under it. Weird, I know, but...hey...

The few scent work things I've tried involved him trying to find a hidden treat. I'll let him sniff the treat in my hand, and then he has to go find the other piece. With that, I've noticed he'll go back to places the treat was before, but not scent to try to find it in a new place...at least not readily (he'll sniff the daylights out of those former places, though.

Location is a big indicator for him. He makes landmarks and that's probably why he remembers location and hunt based on it. I probably need to learn how to do it better...well, obviously I do.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Tofu_pup said:


> This is Kaki.
> What I find interesting is that this general sensitivity/softness only applies to me.
> 
> We live with two roommates. One, we have lived with since March 2009; Kaki loves her. We've lived with the second since January 2010.
> ...


I don't think Merlin would react well to someone outside his immediate circle fussing at him....


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

The problem with advising missk4012 is twofold. Firstly, the appropriate level of correction varies considerably between different dogs, and for the same dog in different situations. 

Secondly, the dog in question is nowhere near ready for off leash recall work. Why go into a discussion of techniques for more advanced work than the dog and owner can benefit from?


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I don't think Merlin would react well to someone outside his immediate circle fussing at him....


Mhm. Tell that to the scar on roommate number two's thigh.
I think he finally learned the lesson though.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> If I say "I'm using a correction and Wally won't stop doing whatever" people can't help me develop a better correction without knowing what I'm doing.


They can't help you develop a better correction without knowing Wally, no more, no less.

Well with you and "The Wally" any correction advice given would be thrown out the window by you if wrong advice was thrown at you online. With any aversive advice it's the other person reading it that says Gee! if it works for Wally or any other dog that the advice is given for it will work on my dog. Of course I would immediately be suspect of anybody that would attempt to give aversive options to use on "The Wally"


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Actually when I was trialing the good amateur with one dog entered was to be feared.


 
Is that still true today? My limited exposure to field(both hunt tests and trials) makes it seem as though one almost has to look hard for the owner/handler/trainer dogs buried amidst pro strings.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Shaina said:


> Is that still true today? My limited exposure to field(both hunt tests and trials) makes it seem as though one almost has to look hard for the owner/handler/trainer dogs buried amidst pro strings.


I don't have a clue as I am way to far out of the loop. I suspect that gas prices make it a better deal to send dog with a pro. I'm sure even today though there must be amateur trialing going on and if an amateur had the type of dog that could compete with the pros, they would get in the game, that's how I and most other pros back in the Jurassic era started.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Merlin is a little too much fun sometimes.
> 
> My wife calls the new ACD Gemma, the Anti Merlin..... Because she is the most laid back ACD around.


Jo ( the rescue) is the polar opposite of her "sister" Izze who is very (temperament wise) type A ACD, if she sees that she is going to lose a privilege if she co tinues set behavior. The words "time out" are enough to stop both dogs in their tracks . 

Their reward is for Jo is play foe Izze it is work, "do what I what I want & you get to play/work"


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I don't have a clue as I am way to far out of the loop. I suspect that gas prices make it a better deal to send dog with a pro. I'm sure even today though there must be amateur trialing going on and if an amateur had the type of dog that could compete with the pros, they would get in the game, that's how I and most other pros back in the Jurassic era started.


It still happens. I think you're right that the economics makes it attractive to send your dog to be trained and handled by a pro. One well known trainer (I forget who) made a comment about the amateurs having all the advantages, and that pros would be pretty well screwed if amateurs took advantage of them. The owner who enters his one or two personal dogs has 24 hours per day to spend--at least many more than the pro can devote--with the dog and get things right. The pros often have to push dogs harder than they would prefer to meet deadlines and to keep costs reasonable for their clients.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It still happens. I think you're right that the economics makes it attractive to send your dog to be trained and handled by a pro. One well known trainer (I forget who) made a comment about the amateurs having all the advantages, and that pros would be pretty well screwed if amateurs took advantage of them. The owner who enters his one or two personal dogs has 24 hours per day to spend--at least many more than the pro can devote--with the dog and get things right. The pros often have to push dogs harder than they would prefer to meet deadlines and to keep costs reasonable for their clients.


I can only comment on what I know best pointing dog trials, pups did not even have to point just run high, wide and handsome, 6 months to 15 months. Then they must enter derby trials and must at least do something called a flash point but still run high, wide and handsome, 15 months to 2 years. Actually pretty easy stuff. After that is when owner troubles occur as steadying a dog to wing shot and kill and retaining the pointing skill/style and the high wide and handsome race is time consuming. I believe that 95% of pups and derby dogs are never heard from again. Some owners just did want to go further and a lot of dogs were ruined in the steadying process etc etc etc. Percentages might be different now.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Tofu_pup said:


> This is Kaki.
> What I find interesting is that this general sensitivity/softness only applies to me.
> 
> We live with two roommates. One, we have lived with since March 2009; Kaki loves her. We've lived with the second since January 2010.
> ...


Izze is an "up yours" dog... Jo is too to ppl outside the family, she will come up for a pat (she is very sweet  ) I love "up yours" dogs, they are totally more loyal, BC of that I shape my training so every one of our dogs is an "up yours" dog


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Wally's a user LOL

If you have food, he sucker up to you, but once it's gone, he's back by my side. 

He's more a "who are you and why are you coming at me? Just stay over there and let me spy on you."

Voyeur-dog. Yeah, that's it.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Wally's a user LOL
> 
> If you have food, he sucker up to you, but once it's gone, he's back by my side.
> 
> ...


Kennedy is SUCH a "use 'em and lose 'em" type with everybody including her people. If she doesn't want your lovin and you don't have food, she's doing her own thing. Maybe it's a spaniel thing. I dunno.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Izze is an "up yours" dog... Jo is too to ppl outside the family, she will come up for a pat (she is very sweet  ) I love "up yours" dogs, they are totally more loyal, BC of that I shape my training so every one of our dogs is an "up yours" dog


So exactly how is it that you "shape" your training so your dogs are "up yours" dogs? Personally, having a rather "reserved with strangers" breed, I "shape" my training so that my dogs see strangers, if not as friends, at least as human pez dispensers (they might be good for something.) There are times I need my dogs to tolerate handling from strangers, and possibly even cooperate with them. For instance, I have a dog who has had a major health issue the past year. He's spent weeks in the ICU, had to tolerate manipulation and being taken away for xrays (and surgery). I was actually very pleased that he's warming up to the tech who is doing his physical rehab. Because he's not a dog who makes friends easily (though he'll mooch for cookies). And it's important to me that he feels comfortable doing what he needs to do when I'm not there. He's still enough fonder of me than them to pad my ego. And there is no question of his loyalty.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

If I want to eat less Haagen Dasz Peanut Butter and Chocolate, I must refrain from having it in my freezer. LOL>>>

have someone spike it w bitter apple. works even better as the craving leaves.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

jiml said:


> If I want to eat less Haagen Dasz Peanut Butter and Chocolate, I must refrain from having it in my freezer. LOL>>>
> 
> have someone spike it w bitter apple. works even better as the craving leaves.


There's almost nothing that can't be made better with a squirt of Tabasco...including vanilla Haagen Daz. I think bitter apple might work the same for me. I'll have to get some.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> If I want to eat less Haagen Dasz Peanut Butter and Chocolate, I must refrain from having it in my freezer. LOL>>>
> 
> have someone spike it w bitter apple. works even better as the craving leaves.


Well, if you never want to touch the stuff again. However, if you still wanted to be able to enjoy it as an occasional special treat with friends, management would work better. That's the problem with using positive punishment for behaviors you might want to access again.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

That's why I reserve positive punishment for things I never want them to touch/ do AGAIN. Look, I like positive reinforcement, great thing for puppies & sensitive dogs or dogs with low self esteem. But for a "normal" dog or a hard dog/stubborn dog I like positive punishment or balanced methods. Im not going to go telling anyone to do what I do... Its just the method I use & it works for me. Perfect way to mold an "F-You" dog


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Ya lost me.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Tofu_pup said:


> Ya lost me.


Let me help you... It was a gross generalization of little to no value.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> That's why I reserve positive punishment for things I never want them to touch/ do AGAIN. Look, I like positive reinforcement, great thing for puppies & sensitive dogs or dogs with low self esteem. But for a "normal" dog or a hard dog/stubborn dog I like positive punishment or balanced methods. Im not going to go telling anyone to do what I do... Its just the method I use & it works for me. Perfect way to mold an "F-You" dog


You may "like" positive punishment. But that doesn't mean it actually works better for "normal" dogs, or hard/stubborn dogs. In fact, if you don't want to spend all your time butting heads, it's much more effective to let the dog know "what's in it" for them. Of course, you do have to find something that motivates the dog. Me, I don't want a dog who is always telling me "F-you". I want a dog who is asking "what can we do next"?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

No, I meant an "up yours" dog (to everyone else, not me lol... I forgot what ppl where calling it on here) mine are always looking to mw for direction, not (buttint heads) of course there is a little of that in the beginning but it didn't last long.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hmm, I'm not sure what to think of someone who "likes" using positive punishment. . .


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I mean, I understand the feeling (it happened to me with my first dog). The release of frustration is amazing, the endorphins are addictive--and non-typ brains (with ADD, Asperger's, etc.) are extremely prone to endorphin addiction--and it makes you feel like you "did something". But, if you're able to look at it objectively, you can see that it rarely does anything good.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Willowy said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure what to think of someone who "likes" using positive punishment. . .


Interesting reply, I try pretty much to stay out of the "How everybody should train" train wreck threads cause sometimes they get pretty silly. I have never heard/read (could be I've missed it) any poster saying they enjoyed enjoyed using positive punishment. I'd like to know who enjoys it.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

dogdragoness said:


> But for a "normal" dog or a hard dog/stubborn dog I *like* positive punishment or balanced methods.


I was responding to this 

And there's no denying that giving vent to your frustration is satisfying. Highly reinforcing, in fact, due to brain chemistry (more reinforcing for some people). Whole Dog Journal just had an article about how to deal with frustration in dog training, and mentioned the "highly reinforcing" bit. . .so it can't be rare.

Or, in the words of my 5-year-old nephew, who was asked why he hits things when he's mad/frustrated (inanimate things. . .he knows not to hit people/animals), even when it results in him injuring his hand: "it makes my brain feel good".


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Cops may "like" a particular suspect for a group of serial murders. That doesn't necessarily mean they feel affection for him.

I "like" to use a gas powered auger for digging fence post holes (vs. a manual post hole digger), but I'd like it better if you dug the holes for me.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I was responding to this
> 
> And there's no denying that giving vent to your frustration is satisfying. Highly reinforcing, in fact, due to brain chemistry (more reinforcing for some people). Whole Dog Journal just had an article about how to deal with frustration in dog training, and mentioned the "highly reinforcing" bit. . .so it can't be rare.
> 
> Or, in the words of my 5-year-old nephew, who was asked why he hits things when he's mad/frustrated (inanimate things. . .he knows not to hit people/animals), even when it results in him injuring his hand: "it makes my brain feel good".


Smart kid. 

I'll be perfectly honest and say that I have my father's temper. Punching the wall or whatever feels good. The difference between the two of us is that I grew the f up and learned to deal with emotions. I'm not going to jump down the throats of people using +P but I don't need it with my dogs or the dogs I work with. My co-workers and the volunteers at the shelter don't see my temper. I like it that way. I was very pleased when a volunteer in my class said,"You have a very calm, meditative personality. It seems like you're suited for this line of work". That comment tells me I've come a long, long way.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Tofu_pup said:


> Smart kid.
> 
> I'll be perfectly honest and say that I have my father's temper. Punching the wall or whatever feels good. The difference between the two of us is that I grew the f up and learned to deal with emotions. I'm not going to jump down the throats of people using +P but I don't need it with my dogs or the dogs I work with. My co-workers and the volunteers at the shelter don't see my temper. I like it that way. I was very pleased when a volunteer in my class said,"You have a very calm, meditative personality. It seems like you're suited for this line of work". That comment tells me I've come a long, long way.


 Yeah, I think dealing with anger is a lot like any other addiction. . .you can't give in even a little or you'll fall off the wagon entirely. It's not safe for a person with anger issues to allow themselves to use any sort of physical punishment on a child or animal. Even a very mild punishment could escalate very quickly.

And, yeah, he's a smart kid. . .too smart. Very articulate. It's weird to hear a little kid tell you that kind of thing.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> But for a "normal" dog or a hard dog/stubborn dog I *like* positive punishment or balanced methods.


If I need positive punishment to train the dog (I also like it) If I start enjoying the act of using positive punishment (a sadist) I will get into another line of work.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But nothing is NEEDED. Another trainer could train that same dog just as effectively without using positive punishment. So it comes down to personal preference ("liking"). I suppose there's a difference between sadistically enjoying something and personally preferring it, though. But still, it's the choice they made.

But if someone doesn't have anger/impulse control/endorphin addiction issues, I guess they can use physical punishment effectively without escalating out of frustration. But that concept is difficult for me to comprehend.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> But if someone doesn't have anger/impulse control/endorphin addiction issues,


I agree,
If somebody has the issues noted above they should get into a different line of work, I'm sorry you find it difficult to comprehend that not all people have those issues.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Most people are not "in a line of work". . .they only live with/train/teach their own dogs (or children). I have never seen anyone get physical with a child or dog in a way I thought was rational, without escalating if it didn't work they way they wanted it to. But, as someone pointed out to me, if that person didn't have anger management issues, I wouldn't be seeing them punish their kid or dog in the first place . But I guess it's like an alcoholic who can't understand how other people can drink in moderation, who really has no concept of what drinking in moderation means (although he might intellectually know what it means, he has no actual concept of it).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well still no argument from me as I am in that line of work and in it long enough to know there is little chance of changing Joe 6 packs methods of training their dogs or raising their children. Actually part of my living was made straightening out their mistakes with dogs not kids.

Oh, one small addition, it's very hard to get mad at dogs that helps me pay our bills


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I mean, I understand the feeling (it happened to me with my first dog). The release of frustration is amazing, the endorphins are addictive--and non-typ brains (with ADD, Asperger's, etc.) are extremely prone to endorphin addiction--and it makes you feel like you "did something". But, if you're able to look at it objectively, you can see that it rarely does anything good.



You can't punish from frustration. IF you do, you will do more harm than good. Dogs, children, employees, both physical and non physical punishment has to be done objectively and without emotion.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I never "punish" from frustration, if I feel myself getting as so, then I step back & take a break. Im not addicted to pos punishment/balanced training, in fact I will switch to PR+ when it is appropriate.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You can't punish from frustration. IF you do, you will do more harm than good. Dogs, children, employees, both physical and non physical punishment has to be done objectively and without emotion.


I don't disagree with you, but I think we'll all recognize that it is a fine line to tread, not punishing from frustration, since often the behaviours that call for some kind of punishment (be it a "no" or a time out or whatever is being used) are often the behaviours that cause the most frustration. Sometimes this frustration is simply due to having to deal with the unwanted behaviour again (and again, and again). 
You are right that it needs to be done objectively, and it is often a matter of recognizing, even through frustration, whether the punishment (and its magnitude) is warranted. For instance a simple "no" may work in many cases, but after the 10th "no" it is tempting to give a time out instead, just to remove the need to say "no" the 11th and 12th time and it can lead to inconsistent punishments and confusion. A punishment/correction may be called for, but consistency is even more important.
Would you agree? Or is frustration caused by multiple corrections on a particular issue perhaps something to consider when determining whether the particular correction is effective enough if it is obviously having to be repeated endlessly without results?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> For instance a simple "no" may work in many cases, but after the 10th "no" it is tempting to give a time out instead, just to remove the need to say "no" the 11th and 12th time and it can lead to inconsistent punishments and confusion. A punishment/correction may be called for, but consistency is even more important.
> Would you agree? Or is frustration caused by multiple corrections on a particular issue perhaps something to consider when determining whether the particular correction is effective enough if it is obviously having to be repeated endlessly without results?


Thing is, I would think after the THIRD "no" didn't work, you'd be thinking about trying something different. And that something different might be positively reinforcing a behavior you like better. While it's probably better if the person who is meting out positive punishment out of a place of anger of frustration, the fact is, if the punishment is severe, it probably doesn't matter to the dog whether you are calm and collected or teed off when you deliver it. It's still going to create fear and avoidance.
Thing is, when you are looking for bad stuff the dog does instead of trying to formulate good stuff, your attitude in training is going to be more negative. Even if you aren't angry. What I really hate is the idea of teaching the dog with pleasant associations, and then at some time, deciding "they should know this" and then changing the rules and adding extra distractions to catch the dog off guard so you can punish honest mistakes (called proofing)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Repeating of the word "No" just builds immunity to the word "No"


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Thing is, I would think after the THIRD "no" didn't work, you'd be thinking about trying something different. And that something different might be positively reinforcing a behavior you like better. While it's probably better if the person who is meting out positive punishment out of a place of anger of frustration, the fact is, if the punishment is severe, it probably doesn't matter to the dog whether you are calm and collected or teed off when you deliver it. It's still going to create fear and avoidance.
> Thing is, when you are looking for bad stuff the dog does instead of trying to formulate good stuff, your attitude in training is going to be more negative. Even if you aren't angry. What I really hate is the idea of teaching the dog with pleasant associations, and then at some time, deciding "they should know this" and then changing the rules and adding extra distractions to catch the dog off guard so you can punish honest mistakes (called proofing)


I was just trying to make the point that frustration occurs in everyone, and whatever correction or punishment is chosen needs to be done with the perspective of why the frustration is occurring and how it is playing itself out in training. Maintaining consistency is important, but also recognizing when a particular method isn't working (be it positive or negative) also needs to be recognized without the lens of frustration fogging the issue. You suggest that the third one should be when something different should be applied I do not agree with. In my limited experience (and from what I've been told and read here repeatedly) is that it takes a while for things to sink in with a puppy, so replace the word "no" with a yelp if the puppy is nipping/mouthing for example, and it is going to take more than three times to get a significant decrease in biting (although yes, it may stop the nipping for the moment). It takes days or weeks and requires consistency. Even one day of having a puppy constantly nipping, and yelping at them in response can become frustrating to some, especially if it happens dozens of times that day, but it doesn't mean on day one that it should be escalated or changed. 
I wasn't trying to comment on the merits of positive vs. negative or pleasant or unpleasant associations, just JohnnyBandit's statement on frustration and punishment or correction. This frustration can even come through in positive training in the person's voice and body language, either way the frustration and the reason for it bears consideration. 
And you are right wvasko, repeating no can make it mean nothing, but I was using that as an example of a correction to avoid suggesting that I would consider the use of anything more aversive (and hopefully avoiding the resulting statements regarding the merits or lack thereof of training with any aversives, punishments or corrections).


----------



## fortnoq (Sep 25, 2011)

Two words to get your dog to do anything you want... "Peanut Butter" At 4 Months our dog was sitting, staying, heeling, speaking, and going pee all on command.

Try it out and check out this video to get an idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoa_Im1DMnY


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

fortnoq said:


> Two words to get your dog to do anything you want... "Peanut Butter" At 4 Months our dog was sitting, staying, heeling, speaking, and going pee all on command.
> 
> Try it out and check out this video to get an idea...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoa_Im1DMnY


Uhm... that is great but doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand. Carrying a spoon with PB on it is great for pet dog tricks and basic in home handling, however, with a dog 100 yards out, on point, how are you suppose to deliver?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

+two said:


> Uhm... that is great but doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand. Carrying a spoon with PB on it is great for pet dog tricks and basic in home handling, however, with a dog 100 yards out, on point, how are you suppose to deliver?


Wow, you don't have your own peanut butter delivery system


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Greater Swiss said:


> I was just trying to make the point that frustration occurs in everyone, and whatever correction or punishment is chosen needs to be done with the perspective of why the frustration is occurring and how it is playing itself out in training. Maintaining consistency is important, but also recognizing when a particular method isn't working (be it positive or negative) also needs to be recognized without the lens of frustration fogging the issue. You suggest that the third one should be when something different should be applied I do not agree with. In my limited experience (and from what I've been told and read here repeatedly) is that it takes a while for things to sink in with a puppy, so replace the word "no" with a yelp if the puppy is nipping/mouthing for example, and it is going to take more than three times to get a significant decrease in biting (although yes, it may stop the nipping for the moment). It takes days or weeks and requires consistency. Even one day of having a puppy constantly nipping, and yelping at them in response can become frustrating to some, especially if it happens dozens of times that day, but it doesn't mean on day one that it should be escalated or changed.
> I wasn't trying to comment on the merits of positive vs. negative or pleasant or unpleasant associations, just JohnnyBandit's statement on frustration and punishment or correction. This frustration can even come through in positive training in the person's voice and body language, either way the frustration and the reason for it bears consideration.
> And you are right wvasko, repeating no can make it mean nothing, but I was using that as an example of a correction to avoid suggesting that I would consider the use of anything more aversive (and hopefully avoiding the resulting statements regarding the merits or lack thereof of training with any aversives, punishments or corrections).


Well there in lies the rub..... And in my opinion the reason a lot of otherwise intelligent people are moderately successful or less than moderately successful. Controling emotion is a HUGE piece of the puzzle. Not that a trainer should be emotionless. Quite the contrary, emotion is another tool. But controling it, turning it on and off at will, huge. If a person cannot give a physical correction without frustration or anger, they should not be giving them at all. Other times showing and feeling emotion can be very beneficial. Especially when the dog does something or obeys a command that pleases you. 


Additionally.....
Repeating commands and corrections is not something to be doing... In a best case scenario..... There are thousands of dogs out there that think the que to "sit" is..... sit, sit! SIT! FIDO SIT!!!!
I might repeat a command to give the dog the benefit of the doubt. But if your cues, commands, verbal corrections, are not getting a response the first time, then you need to address that. 


Most people use no way too much. I am not big on the word no. In most cases I use a sound. EHHGH! but I don't use it that often either..... If a dog is doing something I don't want it to do, I would much rather, use a gue or series of ques that the dog knows that leads to a positive interaction.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Being an good actor/actress is a very handy tool to have in the dog training bag.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I never repeat I always say the command once with a treat in hand ( for initial learning) then if its sit, then lure them into the position in typical fashion, with pups i dont use correction or balanced/traditional methods. BUT once i am sure they KNOW what they are supposed to do then they are expected to do it simple as that, its not like i expect no mistakes, i mean im not perfect why in heck should i expect my dogs to not make one now that would be ludicrous IMO. What I dont like is when one of them disobeys a direct command to do something (& there is no reason why... Which is rare) they get let know that mom is not happy with them & they are always quick to make right BC they want to please me, as is dogs natural tendency.

Im not a bad person BC of the use of my training methods, my dogs are happy & healthy, they love me & are happy/want ro be with me. I am the keeper of the: food, water, shelter, treats, & most importantly... The FUN


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I agree, repeating and repeating a command is useless, although like you JohnnyBandit, I might give the dog the benefit of the doubt....there are times I know she is just TOO excited to hear me so I try to get her attention back and say it again. When I was talking about repeating commands I mean stuff like telling a puppy not to nip which succeeds for all of 5 minutes, so they have to be told not to again. It can get so frustrating!!
Instead of "no" I generally use "hey", and there is a particular way I say it that is reserved for Caeda....she knows the difference between when I say "hey you" to somebody and say "hey" all drawn out and low if she is doing something she shouldn't. I've slipped and said "no" but in the same tone, and she seems to respond more to the tone of voice (which is good for if I silp:doh. 
I absolutely agree with you too dogdragoness, positive all the way for initial learning/puppy. Once a dog knows a command and is just plain old refusing for no good reason at very least a "hey" or a nudge on the butt (in the case of a sit for example) is called for.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

So, here's a thing I have a question about... one of the things that Squash's trainer (who I really like a lot and we've been through 3 obedience classes with so she knows both of us quite well by this point) has taught me for ignoring sit specifically ("sit? never have I heard such a word! lalalala") is to calmly step right in front of him and take his collar in both hands (one on each side of his neck) and just gently use it to tip his chin up until he sits. It works pretty much every time (although it might have become its own cue by this time). 

So what is that? Punishment? Correction? Positive? Negative? My terminology is weak I can't keep the Ps and Rs straight.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Being an good actor/actress is a very handy tool to have in the dog training bag.


I was talking about this to one of my dogtraining friends...theatre (ie voice and body work), sports (spatial relations, reflex and response speed) and therapy (self control, insight) all come in very handy when working with dogs..lol

Regarding the repeating of corrections. I too do the "three strikes yer out" rule. This means I give the dog three opportunities to learn in that particular session/time that something is unwanted. Verbal interruption plus leash time out x 3...third time it's a "too bad" and a total removal from the activity. This of course is about behaviour modification, impulse control type work...not working on a cued behaviour like sit, stay or whatever. Those are without punishment, just no reward for sloppy performance. 

Repeating of cues is a bad training habit and unfortunately being verbal creatures we tend to over do it without it being even conscious. This is part of why having a good trainer to assist you in a class or in private makes a difference. They (we) work on helping the handler see what THEY do wrong so that they can be clear to the dog. Dogs learn very easily when the instruction is clear, concise and consistent. It's us that mess it up with bad body language, even more so than verbal miscuing. Dogs look to our bodies and faces for information BEFORE they look for the verbal. This is the reasoning in clicker training that they don't add the verbal cue until the behaviour itself is happening consistently...learning both the body cues, their own body movements AND being expected to learn the "word" for it all at once can actually make it harder.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Cracker said:


> It's us that mess it up with bad body language, even more so than verbal miscuing. Dogs look to our bodies and faces for information BEFORE they look for the verbal. This is the reasoning in clicker training that they don't add the verbal cue until the behaviour itself is happening consistently...learning both the body cues, their own body movements AND being expected to learn the "word" for it all at once can actually make it harder.


I've actually been thinking about body language a lot lately, especially when it comes to Caeda. It is my (somewhat) theory that Caeda reacts to me differently, and perhaps even gets more....hmmm.....lets call it bratty, with me because of my body language. I still can't turn my head to the left easily, and sometimes when I do it causes a bit of a jerk/twitch along with an odd tilt to the head. Would I be right in saying that she reacts to me differently because my body language is different than my DH? It shouldn't affect many of the physical cues we give (we have one for sit and one for down), but I'm sure it changes the way I move in general. If so, is it at all possible to compensate for this kind of thing (excluding of course just "get better" if only it were that easy).


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Yes, it is possible, if you work on getting to a verbal cue only AND condition her to movements that you may "have" to make. I think that doing something like Karen Overall's Relaxation protocol which deals with getting relaxation while the handler does some crazy movements can help. You also may have to EXAGGERATE your movements for stays etc to get her accustomed to them NOT meaning anything, if that makes sense.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I never repeat I always say the command once with a treat in hand ( for initial learning) then if its sit, then lure them into the position in typical fashion, with pups i dont use correction or balanced/traditional methods.


Well, that's gotta be about as sloppy a use of positive reinforcement as I've ever heard of. First, I don't have the treat in my hand when I give a cue. And then if the dog didn't respond (probably I wouldn't even say the cue unless I would bet money the dog is on the way to the behavior) the LAST thing I'd do would be lure with a treat. That creates a "show me the money" dog, who trains the owner to wave cookies in their face to get behavior. It's small wonder it has had limited use for you.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

wvasko said:


> Repeating of the word "No" just builds immunity to the word "No"


And, the third time the dog does the wrong thing, s/he's well on the way to forming a habit.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> So, here's a thing I have a question about... one of the things that Squash's trainer (who I really like a lot and we've been through 3 obedience classes with so she knows both of us quite well by this point) has taught me for ignoring sit specifically ("sit? never have I heard such a word! lalalala") is to calmly step right in front of him and take his collar in both hands (one on each side of his neck) and just gently use it to tip his chin up until he sits. It works pretty much every time (although it might have become its own cue by this time).
> 
> So what is that? Punishment? Correction? Positive? Negative? My terminology is weak I can't keep the Ps and Rs straight.


Depends. Does it make your dog more likely to sit without the physical prompt? Or does he wait to be "sat"?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> Im not a bad person BC of the use of my training methods, my dogs are happy & healthy, they love me & are happy/want ro be with me. I am the keeper of the: food, water, shelter, treats, & most importantly... The FUN


Nobody said you were a bad person or that your dogs were unhappy living with you.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Depends. Does it make your dog more likely to sit without the physical prompt? Or does he wait to be "sat"?


It is rare that he doesn't sit with a verbal cue, but I don't think using the physical prompt when he doesn't has made a difference in the frequency either way. If that makes sense. And he never seems to object to or try to avoid being "sat", either. (To be clear, we're not yanking hard on him, just using the collar to tip his chin up.)


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> It is rare that he doesn't sit with a verbal cue, but I don't think using the physical prompt when he doesn't has made a difference in the frequency either way. If that makes sense. And he never seems to object to or try to avoid being "sat", either. (To be clear, we're not yanking hard on him, just using the collar to tip his chin up.)


If you don't think it has made a difference in the frequency, it doesn't fit in any quadrant.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, that's gotta be about as sloppy a use of positive reinforcement as I've ever heard of. First, I don't have the treat in my hand when I give a cue. And then if the dog didn't respond (probably I wouldn't even say the cue unless I would bet money the dog is on the way to the behavior) the LAST thing I'd do would be lure with a treat. That creates a "show me the money" dog, who trains the owner to wave cookies in their face to get behavior. It's small wonder it has had limited use for you.


I was under the impression that at least the first few times you teach a dog to sit the best way to do it is luring....with a treat in hand? I think that may be what was being referred to. I've heard a few places that you shouldn't put the "word" to the action right away, but does that really cause a dog to be a "show me the money" dog? I'm just getting confused since initially it seemed like luring was the way to go in the early stages of teaching commands like sit and down.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> I was under the impression that at least the first few times you teach a dog to sit the best way to do it is luring....with a treat in hand? I think that may be what was being referred to. I've heard a few places that you shouldn't put the "word" to the action right away, but does that really cause a dog to be a "show me the money" dog? I'm just getting confused since initially it seemed like luring was the way to go in the early stages of teaching commands like sit and down.


Well, I very seldom lure. If I WERE to lure, I would not ask the dog for the behavior and then lure if the dog didn't do it. If I were a lure and treat trainer (ala Dunbar) I would give the cue and immediately get the behavior with a lure. And after a small number of repetitions, I would repeat the motion with my hand (sans treat) and produce the treat from somewhere else as a reward. I would not give the dog an unknown cue and expect him to do it without help. What causes a "show me the money" dog is A) using the lure for too long or B) producing the treat if the dog doesn't give you the behavior you asked for.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You can't punish from frustration. IF you do, you will do more harm than good. Dogs, children, employees, both physical and non physical punishment has to be done objectively and without emotion.


That is an interesting concept. I have only known one guy who physically punished his children and dogs without emotion. He was abusive (the kids were nearly removed from the home several times, and one time they came so close that his wife kicked him out rather than lose the kids. And he actually killed a few of the dogs), and I consider him a sociopath. I wouldn't have thought that that kind of thing is possible for a normal person. And if some of the "old-school" trainers who hang their dogs until they're blue and puking are doing so rationally, I would consider them to be sociopaths as well. I think I would rather that kind of thing come from a loss of self-control than from a rational thought process (not that a loss of self-control is good. But somehow it seems less. . .evil. Or something).

But of course those guys are abusive, hopefully that is not considered normal behavior. I'm sure milder aversives would be far more effective that way. I do think that kind of self-control is rare, though.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> That is an interesting concept. I have only known one guy who physically punished his children and dogs without emotion. He was abusive (the kids were nearly removed from the home several times, and one time they came so close that his wife kicked him out rather than lose the kids. And he actually killed a few of the dogs), and I consider him a sociopath. I wouldn't have thought that that kind of thing is possible for a normal person. And if some of the "old-school" trainers who hang their dogs until they're blue and puking are doing so rationally, I would consider them to be sociopaths as well. I think I would rather that kind of thing come from a loss of self-control than from a rational thought process.
> 
> But of course those guys are abusive, hopefully that is not considered normal behavior. I'm sure milder aversives would be far more effective that way. I do think that kind of self-control is rare, though.


No offense here Willowy..... But your concepts and thoughts on physical corrections, punisment, etc. Always come off as very skewed to say the least. As if you assume that everyone that hands out any sort of punishment is in the least cruel and more likely abusive. That is not the case. And a great many people can use physical corrections on dogs without frustration.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No offense here Willowy..... But your concepts and thoughts on physical corrections, punisment, etc. Always come off as very skewed to say the least. As if you assume that everyone that hands out any sort of punishment is in the least cruel and more likely abusive. That is not the case. And a great many people can use physical corrections on dogs without frustration.


Quite likely skewed, yes. The pack of "ladies" my mother hung out with when I was little would have put a sadist's convention to shame with what they did to their children. My mom resisted most (but unfortunately not all) of their ideas despite the peer pressure. I always thought that what they did was normal in the pro-physical-punishment crowd (some of my friends' parents were. . .yikes). And nobody I have met personally has demonstrated otherwise. Everybody online says that is not normal. . .but I just don't know; that doesn't match with what I see personally. 

And the dog trainers (not professionals, just "normal" dog owners/hunters) I have met seem to be the same. Either it is (at least) bordering on abuse or no physical aversives, a middle ground seems hard to find. When I was training Willow, nearly everybody I met on the street, at the park, at the boat dock (where everyone took their dogs to go swimming) would "you know you have to beat her or she'll never listen", and then give tips on what to beat her with (one guy carried a riding crop in his truck for this purpose. Leather leashes were most common). Other lovely suggestions on how to hurt a dog abounded. I have no reason to believe that most dog trainers use physical punishment reasonably.

I'm sure that a lot of people can give reasonable collar pops without emotion or abuse. Beyond that, I'm not so sure. Some of the things I read in the dog training books before I got Willow were pretty bad. And none of them mentioned a lack of emotion as a necessary thing in dog training (or at least aversive dog training). It's kind of a new concept to me.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Greater Swiss said:


> I was under the impression that at least the first few times you teach a dog to sit the best way to do it is luring....with a treat in hand? I think that may be what was being referred to. I've heard a few places that you shouldn't put the "word" to the action right away, but does that really cause a dog to be a "show me the money" dog? I'm just getting confused since initially it seemed like luring was the way to go in the early stages of teaching commands like sit and down.


A good blogg post on luring: http://afmdogs.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-to-lure.html


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> What I dont like is when one of them disobeys a direct command to do something (& there is no reason why... Which is rare) they get let know that mom is not happy with them





Greater Swiss said:


> Once a dog knows a command and is just plain old refusing for no good reason at very least a "hey" or a nudge on the butt (in the case of a sit for example) is called for.


This is what bothers me about switching to punishment when dogs "know" behaviors. The more dogs I train, the more I realize that there is, in fact, a reason the dog hasn't responded to a command. Situations where I honestly couldn't figure out why the dog wasn't obeying (he knows this!) two years ago, I now recognize a lot of different things that make behaviors completely different to a dog. Standing, sitting, eye contact or no eye contact, facing away, loud voice, soft voice, lack of gesture, addition of gesture, leaning only a few inches forward, contracting facial muscles, etc. Not to mention environment -- bathroom is different than kitchen is different than living room is different than yard. -- these are just a few of the things that dogs are almost always clued into and I am becoming much better about being clued into. 

I still have moments that completely stump me, but I hope in another five or ten years I’ll have gained the insight to analyze them better. When people decide a dog "knows" a behavior, I'm very skeptical. How do you determine this? Have you done, say, 35 reps of a learned behavior, every day for a week, and continued practicing the command sporadically, especially frequently "cold" (not in a training session) for up to a couple months? When a dog doesn't sit, have you gotten a sit from him in that same location in the same circumstances at least twenty times? How many repetitions do you feel is required for a dog to demonstrate knowledge? When was the last time you asked for that behavior in that location? Is it possible the dog has forgotten what is expected of him?

I guess the question is, what is it that makes you so sure your dog knows the behavior?

Sometimes there are situations where a dog's motivation to obey competes with distraction from the outside world -- he can't sit, say, because he's chasing ducks. You could potentially view this as the dog making the choice to "blow you off" even though "he knows what sit means" to chase the ducks instead. If you use punishment here correctly, you will likely see a decrease in duck chasing and an increase in sitting -- but that isn't because the dog knew he should sit in that instance and was choosing not to, and the punishment "reminds" him to sit, it's because now the motivation to pursue the distraction has substantially decreased and the dog is capable of responding to commands again – or that choosing the distraction has become a less appealing choice. I personally am not bothered when people choose to use punishment as a tool in this scenario, but I am bothered when people claim that the punishment is justified because the dog "knows" the command. Really? How many times have you called him off ducks before? 

Oftentimes using punishment when you’re sure a dog “knows” a behavior gets results. The dog is punished, doesn’t know why, so looks for behaviors that have earned praise/treats/reward/punishment avoidance for her in the past – sit just happens to be one of those behaviors! So, the dog sits, and the trainer assumes they “reminded” the dog what they expected of it in that situation, or the dog “remembered”. This type of thing can teach a dog to sit, too – every time the dog is punished and sits instead, the dog learns how to avoid punishment, so the dog chooses the behavior that avoids punishment in the first place. Now the dog has learned to always sit after you give your cue in that situation, because punishment is a teaching tool. 

I'm taking an e-class of Susan Garrett's and this issue came up in one of her videos -- the new puppy she's training was doing a poor job of listening to her in a training situation, and was "blowing her off" to go check out other things in the building. The puppy also "knew" the commands, and had even demonstrated them several times in the beginning of the training session -- same conditions, same environment, same everything. Still, he started not listening to her commands. Upon reflection, she realized it was because she had previously let the puppy run around wherever he wanted in the environment, and she had rewarded him for doing so -- she solved the problem by limiting his access to other sources of reinforcement and more, focused sessions in that environment.

What are you punishing, “not obeying”? What is that? How do you communicate to a dog that that’s what caused the punishment? Can you read your dog’s mind and clearly interpret the moment the dog considers his options and decides to disobey? Are you positive there’s a moment like this? Can you apply punishment so that the dog clearly associates the choice to disobey with the punishment? 

My point is, if you’ve decided to include positive punishment as a tool in your dog training “box”, then use it because you know it decreases behavior. Use it in situations where a dog disobeys because you want to make the distraction, or the “other choice” less appealing. Don’t use it because a dog “knows” a behavior and is “choosing to ignore for no reason” – that’s assuming that the dog is making a choice to disobey and so “deserves” the punishment for that choice, and it’s assuming he’s clearly able to connect the punishment to the choice, especially if the choice is “for no reason.” It’s highly likely that there IS a reason your dog is disobeying you.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I was talking about this to one of my dogtraining friends...theatre (ie voice and body work), sports (spatial relations, reflex and response speed) and therapy (self control, insight) all come in very handy when working with dogs..lol


Agree fully and I have said this (more) to myself for decades cause sometimes people just don't get it.
Isn't it better to have the use of "acting mad when not mad" being calm cool and collected inside while looking and acting mad on outside to me is a fantastic weapon on hand. Obviously in the kindergarten of dog training, when really mad all dog training immediately stops. Also the ability to act happy on outside when on inside you know/want dog to do better but confidence and ego need stroking.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I have no reason to believe that most dog trainers use physical punishment reasonably.


You need to get out more. It's entirely possible that you would consider my dog handling unreasonable, but if you met my dog, I doubt you could say with any certainty whether he was trained with physical correction. It's obvious to anybody that he's never been beaten.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But. . .I've known dogs who WERE definitely beaten who didn't act like it; I wouldn't have been able to tell if I didn't know. I'm not sure the dog's reaction determines the validity of the trainer's actions.

It is a philosophical discussion, and philosphically, I don't believe that causing physical pain to another living creature in the name of teaching something can ever be justified. Especially when there are alternatives.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It is a philosophical discussion, and philosphically, I don't believe that causing physical pain to another living creature in the name of teaching something can ever be justified. Especially when there are alternatives.


There's the crux of the matter. I have no argument that will change your mind, nor any interest in doing so. You're as right from your perspective as I am from mine.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I've known dogs who WERE definitely beaten who didn't act like it>>>

and Iv certainly met some dogs that acted as though they were abused and never were.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Especially when there are alternatives.


Alternatives don't always work. Yeah yeah yeah "You just weren't applying them correctly!"

Ok, fine. But not everybody can afford the bukko bucks trainer/behaviorist, and they work with what they got.

I never could get Strauss to quit crittering on rabbits through positive methods. Went to an E-collar. Don't regret it. I'd do it again to keep him from being road pizza.

Hopefully I'll have a new SD prospect soon, and I will be working to shape retrieves of objects with that puppy as soon as it comes home.

I hate free shaping with a large passion. It's highly frustrating to me, since I know what I want, and all the interim stuff doesn't amuse me. But for retrieves, I free shape.

With puppies, I do a lot of luring and the like, and try to fade toys/treats as quickly as possible. I find that method gets me what I want with the least frustration and stress on myself or the puppy.

That said, when the SD prospect gets older and can tolerate other methods, that's what I will implement. If that means I'm starting to get the finger in regards to retrieves, and I have to go to an ear pinch or E-Collar, I will. That dog MUST be able to pick up objects for me, and if it can't even handle an ear pinch (which I'm hoping will not even be necessary), it's probably not the best SD candidate, as worse things can/will happen to it while working.

When I got Strauss, I knew nothing about clicker training and the like. He was trained a bit more harshly than I would have liked with lots of aversives and collar pops.

You can't tell.

People that know this dog (some of them belong to this forum) know he is a happy, healthy, strong, (over)confident dog, and he can and does work through a lot of crap.

I'm as positive as possible where I can be, but there comes a point in every dog's life where they do decide they just don't want to, and I get sick of the "Oh, well he just didn't really understand well enough" excuse. Dogs are sentient, and sometimes they choose to disobey. No two ways about it.

If the dog has been performing a behavior consistently for months, and months, and months, and then one day you give the dog this command and it doesn't comply, I don't really think you can say "Oh, there was a breakdown in communication", or "He hasn't gotten it yet". I correct for that kind of thing.

My dogs know what sitz means, and they do it on the first command consistently. I'm not going to pretend my dog didn't hear me or made a mistake when we're looking right at each other, I say "sitz" and the dog doesn't do it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Alternatives don't always work. Yeah yeah yeah "You just weren't applying them correctly!"
> 
> Ok, fine. But not everybody can afford the bukko bucks trainer/behaviorist, and they work with what they got.
> 
> ...


Welcome to the dark side.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I've really never been on the light side, lol

It's just generally a futile discussion to enter into because "I must enjoy causing my dog pain" since I have no problem with aversive methods when applied correctly and not in excess of what the dog can handle.

I treat puppies as puppies should be treated. Kindly, and as ignorant fools who have yet to learn anything, lol. The only puppies that see choke collars are the show puppies, and they are not used to choke the dog, and I do not start them on a chain. I start them on slightly wider nylon collars.

I teach them proper head carriage while gaiting and to get them used to a collar high behind the ears, but nobody gets popped or dragged anywhere.

I was teaching Mirada a formal heel without using a leash. I'm still on the fence about the method. I liked it and hated it at the same time. I don't think I much like my dog to be able to have the choice to work with me or not, to be honest. It just frustrates me when the dog leaves to investigate something "better". I'd rather they not have the option and get in the habit of leaving heel position and the work they're doing because they're tired of it.

I think next puppy will be an "in between" sort of method. On leash so they can't really go anywhere, but marked and reward when they come into heel position. A "let them think it was their idea" sort of thing.

Lots of my thoughts and methodology have changed since I got Strauss. Lots of things I modified to fit my own personality and style, and of course, I am not completely inflexible...the way I train Strauss is not the way I train Mirada. I can't. I do adjust to the individual dog while staying within parameters I can accept and feel comfortable using on my animals.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> It's just generally a futile discussion to enter into because "I must enjoy causing my dog pain" since I have no problem with aversive methods when applied correctly and not in excess of what the dog can handle.


I pretty much stay out of the training cause since I use aversives, I have nothing that I can give hands-on training advice on and yes the Marquis De Sade label is pretty much what is pinned on that type of work. I would like to say that because I'm older I have more patience being labeled, but truth be told I really don't care.


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I was teaching Mirada a formal heel without using a leash. I'm still on the fence about the method. I liked it and hated it at the same time. I don't think I much like my dog to be able to have the choice to work with me or not, to be honest. It just frustrates me when the dog leaves to investigate something "better". I'd rather they not have the option and get in the habit of leaving heel position and the work they're doing because they're tired of it.


I don't disagree with your reasoning, as having a dog decide they're done doing what you're asking and they would rather do something else is annoying, but it IS possible to teach a dog to never leave work without involving physical punishment. Choosing to train without verbal/physical punishment doesn't mean you have to accept a dog that decides when they do and do not want to work for you.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Xeph said:


> I'm as positive as possible where I can be, but there comes a point in every dog's life where they do decide they just don't want to....


That doesn't get said often enough.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> but it IS possible to teach a dog to never leave work without involving physical punishment.


I'm not saying it isn't. I AM saying that I can admit (and not be ashamed of the fact) that I do not have that ability. And I would definitely say that this is not necessarily true for EVERY dog.

But I would like to reiterate that *when I am teaching* I leave punishment out of it. So when I train the next puppy to do a formal heel, while the dog will be on leash, they still have the choice to (learn) to find heel, or not....the choice is just more limited as to where they can go aside from being with me, which makes it less frustrating for me to teach and thus makes both myself and the dog more successful.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> That said, when the SD prospect gets older and can tolerate other methods, that's what I will implement. If that means I'm starting to get the finger in regards to retrieves, and I have to go to an ear pinch or E-Collar, I will. That dog MUST be able to pick up objects for me, and if it can't even handle an ear pinch (which I'm hoping will not even be necessary), it's probably not the best SD candidate, as worse things can/will happen to it while working.
> .


Interesting what marvelous service dog retrieves Sue Ailsby has on her dogs (they know exactly how to retrieve any object, including using lips only for credit cards and motel card keys so they don't perferate them. And she doesn't have to ear pinch them or shock them. She manages to do it with a clicker. Interesting how my click retrieve trained dogs are more consistent than dogs I force retrieved.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I'm not saying it isn't. I AM saying that I can admit (and not be ashamed of the fact) that I do not have that ability. And I would definitely say that this is not necessarily true for EVERY dog.
> .


It is true for every dog. But it's not true for every trainer if they're overly willing to fall back on force. There's no reason to think your training through if you're willing to just force it. As to the whole happy-happy with puppies, and then switiching horses midstream. I really don't get it. All it does is confuse the dog and put holes in the trust and attitude you've worked hard to create.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Interesting what marvelous service dog retrieves Sue Ailsby has on her dogs (they know exactly how to retrieve any object, including using lips only for credit cards and motel card keys so they don't perferate them. And she doesn't have to ear pinch them or shock them. She manages to do it with a clicker. Interesting how my click retrieve trained dogs are more consistent than dogs I force retrieved.


I am going to mention something that seems to keep getting skipped over. 

I will argue that the dogs Sue chooses to train play just as big a role as her methods.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well I had dogs that I force broke that when work was done would pick up a dime and there were no refusals. This was done only with dogs that later attained their FCs because certain drives were needed to get the job done and these dogs were chosen by me. I would hope that no one reading replies think that this stuff can be accomplished with all dogs. You pretty much only see the success stories not the failures.

I have said before that this type of training is not for the faint of hearts, dog or trainer.


----------



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

Xeph said:


> Alternatives don't always work. Yeah yeah yeah "You just weren't applying them correctly!"
> 
> Ok, fine. But not everybody can afford the bukko bucks trainer/behaviorist, and they work with what they got.
> 
> ...


I think it could also be argued, that a person who has little patience for long, drawn out teeny tiny baby steps that take a long time and where you have the dog offering a dozen different behaviors before coming to the one you want, is going to have less success with that method. The dog isn't stupid. They know the human is frustrated, impatient, whatever. Before Luke reached manhood, I can honestly say I trained so positive it almost made me puke. I was so set against even saying no...I wanted to be purely postive..ignore the bad, praise the good. BUT...he made that easy for me because he truly didn't do much wrong. He wasn't a high energy dog that was bouncing around, getting into everything, or one that would test me at every turn, nor hard to get to stand still long enough to teach him something. Even as a child helping to raise our dogs, and train them, I always believed in being positive, in rewarding the good and not waiting until they do something wrong to correct. I believe in making every day a training experience yet NOT in a training type atmosphere. I knew what motivated him, I knew that when he was done with his learning, it was time for me to give it up. I knew when he'd 'be receptive to learning and when he just wanted to be left alone and I respected that. As a result I had a pup that knew more in general by 12 weeks than many dogs do by six months or a year, and it was all done by using opportunities that came up throughout the day. And by the way, I'm not a strict dog owner with him. Cripes he just looks at me and I will probably give in. 
Fast forward till about 15 months and up, and the stubborn young man came out lol. I now knew that there were going to be times that a NO might need to be used, or a body block *when he wants to take on the cat*, or when he decides he's going to do what it is he wants despite knowing not to. This is rare because he truly is a good boy...but with him, all the praising of the good doesn't change those rare occasions when he will flat out refuse to do what I want at that moment, *no matter the incentive.* It has nothing to do with crossed wires or not understanding..it is a simple..."I don't feel like it. U gonna make me? Try it!" If there ever comes a time that he tries that attitude with me in a scenerio where he could be in danger..you can bet your bottom dollar I'm not going to care whether his feelings are hurt by a yell or a stern telling off, or even a leash jerk if ever needed. He's no fading flower and I'd much rather have an alive and safe dog, than not.
I will never believe that all training methods are a one size fits all and I think there are some cases where time is a luxury and the person doing the training doesn't have the right amount of patience it requires, making what should be a positive experience become stressful for the dog and the owner. Do I believe in using harsh methods? No. Unless they are absolutely warranted. And most of the time they probably aren't. But I neither do I believe that every dog who is told no, has his leash jerked or popped, is going to become a shivering mess of nerves and be ruined. You can use all the treats and praise in a happy voice while training, but if the person using them is actually frustrated, bored, or impatient, you can bet that dog isn't going to see it as a positive experience.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am going to mention something that seems to keep getting skipped over.
> 
> I will argue that the dogs Sue chooses to train play just as big a role as her methods.


Well, the recent dogs are PWDs. More medium in size and less intimidating as service dogs. But of course we all know that Giant Schnauzers are just a push-over breed. That's why so many people do obedience with them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Jenn~n~Luke said:


> I will never believe that all training methods are a one size fits all and I think there are some cases where time is a luxury and the person doing the training doesn't have the right amount of patience it requires, making what should be a positive experience become stressful for the dog and the owner. Do I believe in using harsh methods? No. Unless they are absolutely warranted. And most of the time they probably aren't. But I neither do I believe that every dog who is told no, has his leash jerked or popped, is going to become a shivering mess of nerves and be ruined. You can use all the treats and praise in a happy voice while training, but if the person using them is actually frustrated, bored, or impatient, you can bet that dog isn't going to see it as a positive experience.


This is a good point, in that not everyone who uses compulsion is a big meanie who abuses their dog. I've said that more than once, and really, I only ever see a few people so evangelical that they suggest it (thought there are a few people out there who do). As to one size fits all, I'm not sure what that means. Different dogs have different motivators - for one it may be a cookie, for another a toy, for another Premack to do what he really wants. I look for what motivates the dog. And I also look for fundamental issues. If a dog is fearful, he can't effectively learn. If he is so overstimulated he can't respond, he can't effectively learn. Those things have to be first priority, not learning a behavior. When they are fixed, then you progress to teaching behavior. 

But you can't tell me that you can train a chicken with a method, but not a dog. A fish, but not a dog. A wild animal, but not a dog. It's interesting to look back at Animal Behavior Enterprises and the variety of animals they trained to do very difficult and complicated tasks using positive reinforcement methods. I think it's more a matter of not all methods fit all trainers than not all methods fit all dogs. But, as the person chosing the lesson and the training, it behooves us to put our own little issues aside and meet the dog more than half way. If it's easier to jerk on the collar than think about how to get the dog to think about it, some people won't want to be bothered by the thinking part. I understand that not everyone has patience, or the ability to split behaviors fine (though through teaching your dog, you can learn that - and it's a useful skill in many situations) What I find even more puzzling than the people who opt for compulsion straight down the line because it is all they know how to do are the people who actually do some positive reinforcement work to establish behaviors, and then apparently trust their training so little that they switch horses in midstream. Set up difficult situations for the dogs (proofing) and then punish the dog for making mistakes. That's a superstition, not training.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> As to the whole happy-happy with puppies, and then switiching horses midstream. I really don't get it


You don't have to  I do what works for me.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm as positive as possible where I can be, but there comes a point in every dog's life where they do decide they just don't want to>>>>>

again where is that "like" button


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I do think it's pretty disingenuous (and even a bit insulting) to say that a dog just doesn't understand or what have you when a dog has been complying with a command for months and then the dog just doesn't do it.

Everything I do with my dogs, even the fun stuff, is a job in a respect. The dog should not be relieved of its responsibility when it understands just so WE can feel good/avoid correction (even a correction such as "no").


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I'm as positive as possible where I can be, but there comes a point in every dog's life where they do decide they just don't want to, and I get sick of the "Oh, well he just didn't really understand well enough" excuse. Dogs are sentient, and sometimes they choose to disobey. No two ways about it.


I wonder what other trainers, especially ones who are more positive than not (Pawz comes to mind), do in this situation? I find it incredibly hard to believe that a dog who was taught through positive methods only won't ever just refuse to do something. I don't know if positive trained dogs vs. aversive trained dogs (loose use of terms here) are _more_ likely to refuse, but I still maintain that everydog will refuse at some point. 

When that day comes when you get the bird from your dog, what do you do?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

+two said:


> When that day comes when you get the bird from your dog, what do you do?


Play with the antecedent and/or the consequence. Just like any other trainer. 

Nothing in that should suggest aversion is required, however.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Figure out why the dog is giving me the bird and adjust from there. Hudson was refusing to hold stays longer than 30 seconds, even though he was holding until release for a year before he suddenly decided to blow me off. We went back to the groundwork.. building up from shorter stays, he began to figure out that there's something good in it for him when he complied with my requests and the issue was remedied in 3 days. Could I have fixed it in a session or two if I used aversives? Of course I could. I am in no rush to do anything (my patience is almost unlimited) and am willing to take the extra time to do things in a manner I am comfortable with. If there was something that I absolutely could not accomplish over time without aversives, then I guess I would explore my other options. For now, nonaversive methods have not failed me or my dogs.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

So did you ACTUALLY figure out why he wasn't holding his stays besides the seeming "I really don't wanna, what's in it for me?"

P.S. I do not think that a dog trained with aversives would never break a stay or is less likely to break.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Actually, my best theory is that I may have unintentionally created an alternate release cue (subtle change in posture, slight movement of my hand, etc) because he would hold stays for my husband and our trainer and they don't work with him nearly as much. I was the only commonality for his broken stays. He would hold stays in all sorts of environments for anyone else. He would break stays in all sorts of environments for me. There's also the possibility I may have messed up and reinforced breaking a stay ONCE and Hudson, being an opportunist decided that he no longer had to do it for me.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

Xeph said:


> Alternatives don't always work. Yeah yeah yeah "You just weren't applying them correctly!"
> 
> Ok, fine. But not everybody can afford the bukko bucks trainer/behaviorist, and they work with what they got.
> 
> ...



:clap2: thank you! postive methodes work, but they do not work for all things for all dogs. I am so tired of "then your didnt do it right" you want Rusty? go right ahead, see how far you get after he attacks your other dogs at random, pees on everything in your house, barks at nothing non stop, and plays deaf whenever he feels like it, see just how much pateince you have left when you crate him so he cant get into trouble and have to give him a bath him and scrub the crate everytime you take him out because he marks the entire crate and lays in it, so you put him on a leash but now you cant get near your other dogs because he attacks them on sight and doesnt give 2 hoots of food or toys to redirect him, see how happy you are after you made so much progess he can be with your other dogs, only to have him wake up at 2am and start attacking your other dogs while they sleep. there is a REASON this dog bounced from home to home. I gave up on the postive mthodes, and went ceaser on him..he now has a 100% recall, plays with loads of other dogs and people comment on what a good dog he is when I take him out. he has only a few remaining issues we are working on, but he is now happy, confidant and relaxed. which is pretty far from a shut down ball of fear.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Play with the antecedent and/or the consequence. Just like any other trainer.
> 
> Nothing in that should suggest aversion is required, however.


What is/are the consequence/consequences? No possibility of reward? 

What if refusal is more rewarding than anything you could offer up?


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

+two said:


> When that day comes when you get the bird from your dog, what do you do?


I don't really think of it as "getting the bird". I think of it as needing a refresher course that responding to my cues is the most rewarding choice the dog can make. 

First, I interrupt the behavior so the dog doesn't get reinforcement from rehearsing it. Then, I take a break in training and try to figure out what could have caused that to happen. Later, I hold a training session with that behavior and start by asking for a behavior 2-3 "steps" below the behavior the dog failed at. Then, I build the behavior back up and continue to rehearse it in that type of way over however long it takes to get the behavior back where I want it, usually a week or two. I, personally, like to take the time to remind the dog that doing what I want is ALWAYS more rewarding than doing what he/she wants. 



+two said:


> What is/are the consequence/consequences? No possibility of reward?
> 
> What if refusal is more rewarding than anything you could offer up?


Then there is something about the refusal that the dog finds intrinsically rewarding -- meaning the dog is getting SOMETHING out of refusing the behavior that toys and treats or play can't compete with. Otherwise, barring mental issues or a mental state that's making the dog incapable of responding ("over-threshold"), the dog wouldn't choose refusal over reward. It's the trainer's job to figure out what about refusing is so reinforcing to the dog, and to not expose the dog to that situation until the dog is capable of choosing to work with the trainer instead of pursuing the reward (IF the trainer trains without physical/verbal punishment). 




Miss Bugs said:


> :clap2: thank you! postive methodes work, but they do not work for all things for all dogs. I am so tired of "then your didnt do it right" you want Rusty? go right ahead, see how far you get after he attacks your other dogs at random, pees on everything in your house, barks at nothing non stop, and plays deaf whenever he feels like it, see just how much pateince you have left when you crate him so he cant get into trouble and have to give him a bath him and scrub the crate everytime you take him out because he marks the entire crate and lays in it, so you put him on a leash but now you cant get near your other dogs because he attacks them on sight and doesnt give 2 hoots of food or toys to redirect him, see how happy you are after you made so much progess he can be with your other dogs, only to have him wake up at 2am and start attacking your other dogs while they sleep. there is a REASON this dog bounced from home to home. I gave up on the postive mthodes, and went ceaser on him..he now has a 100% recall, plays with loads of other dogs and people comment on what a good dog he is when I take him out. he has only a few remaining issues we are working on, but he is now happy, confidant and relaxed. which is pretty far from a shut down ball of fear.


I really strongly disagree with this -- you're asserting that the laws of behavior, which work for EVERYTHING, don't work for "some dogs." If you reward a behavior, that behavior will increase. If a behavior doesn't receive reinforcement, that behavior will decrease to the point of extinction. If you pair a neutral stimulus with an unconditional stimulus, it will become a conditional stimulus (classical conditioning). 

It's excellent that your dog has made that much progress -- good for you! I think it just shows that some people are a lot better at using some types of training than others. I don't think it means that the laws of behavior don't apply to Rusty.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

+two said:


> What is/are the consequence/consequences? No possibility of reward?


No reward would be one possibility. Controlling everything and anything that follows the target behavior would be the other possibilities. Sound complex? It can be exactly that, but usually changing the motivator and reinforcement frequency is enough. 



> What if refusal is more rewarding than anything you could offer up?


If the dog is charging more than I have available, I'd seriously consider the importance of the behavior. If the behavior is dearly important to me, well, the question becomes what other motivators can I find?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Xeph said:


> A
> I'm as positive as possible where I can be, but there comes a point in every dog's life where they do decide they just don't want to, and I get sick of the "Oh, well he just didn't really understand well enough" excuse. Dogs are sentient, and sometimes they choose to disobey. No two ways about it.


Well in that case, with Wally I either:


-Haven't hit that point
-Doesn't fit this profile
-His motivation overrides his desire to disobey
-Wally isn't sentient 
-Every time he disobeys, he does something I like so it gets rewarded and used later.
-I'm some magic man

I'll let you guys pick.

But personally, I'll stick with the "I haven't explained to him"/"I need to change the cue", since re-explaining and re-working it with him has yet to fail. If people want to call it an excuse - so be it.

It's gotten us a long way from where he was.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Obviously in the kindergarten of dog training, when really mad all dog training immediately stops. Also the ability to act happy on outside when on inside you know/want dog to do better but confidence and ego need stroking.


Oh yeah.

I remember doing this and still do, really, it's weird but when I'm working with Wally, I'm just all about keeping him going - my own emotion isn't even in my mind.

It's almost like - everything else just goes poof when it's me and him working on something and everything I do about keeping his confidence up and keeping him going and trying - even when he's starting to feel down about it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I do think it's pretty disingenuous (and even a bit insulting) to say that a dog just doesn't understand or what have you when a dog has been complying with a command for months and then the dog just doesn't do it.
> 
> Everything I do with my dogs, even the fun stuff, is a job in a respect. The dog should not be relieved of its responsibility when it understands just so WE can feel good/avoid correction (even a correction such as "no").


Sometimes dogs feel like they have a reason to disobey. And they may have a good one. Or they may be figuring out the rules. I don't have to take it personally if they do something other than what is asked. Because I am confident that in the end, they'll be willing to do it, if they are physically able to do it. For instance, today, was teaching a young Kelpie to bring the toy in all the way on a retrieve. She was doing great. Then she started dropping it at different distances. She was asking what the rules were. We explained those rules to her by clicking good approximations and waiting out bad ones - and then she brought it all the way in with greater understanding. Explaining clearly is my responsibility, not the dog's. And if we have a few glitches along the way, that's part of the learning process. I can either work with it or I can shut behavior down. I choose to work with it. I would no more shut that behavior down than I would punish a child who made a mistake on a math problem. (Because I'd like them to think of math as cool, instead of have bad associations with it)

And I don't train the way I train so I can feel good or avoid whatever a correction is. I do it because it works really, really well. I'm not sure that "no" is an aversive. Since there's no definition for correction, I can't say if it is a correction or not. It could be an interrupter or a "try something else" signal, depending on how the person uses it. Still, I seldom interrupt a dog when it's working through a problem. And if the dog says "no" to a behavior, I try to figure out what's wrong - confusion? a level of distraction the dog hasn't dealt with? a physical problem? But I am no longer such a control freak (used to be) that the fact that a dog doesn't immediately obey is met with force of any degree. If I want my dog's respect, I respect my dog enough to be willing to earn it.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

A dog just saying "No, I don't want to," is rarer that most people think. It's like the worry that a clicker dog is going to be throwing behaviors inappropriately. It's something people think is a problem but really isn't. If you're standing in the ring and throw the dumbbell and the dog say nope, not gonna retrieve today, your problem is not the retrieve. Yes, it is within the dog to say "don't hafta, not gunna," and you should be prepared to deal with it, but pick your battles. 

Keep in mind most dogs are not disobeying JUST to disobey (and if he is, your problem is not with the behavior). Look at where the reinforcement is coming from. Is he not coming when you call because a girl peed in the bushes ten minutes ago? Is he not fetching because he knows he'll get a rise out of you and that's fun to see? Is he not dropping on recall because the reward is coming from your hands? The (history of) reinforcement for doing the requested behavior must be stronger than the reinforcement for not doing the behavior, and that goes the same for if he'll get a cookie for a dumbbell, or an ear pinch.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> I wonder what other trainers, especially ones who are more positive than not (Pawz comes to mind), do in this situation? I find it incredibly hard to believe that a dog who was taught through positive methods only won't ever just refuse to do something. I don't know if positive trained dogs vs. aversive trained dogs (loose use of terms here) are _more_ likely to refuse, but I still maintain that everydog will refuse at some point.
> 
> When that day comes when you get the bird from your dog, what do you do?


I don't think there is ANY training method that produces dogs who never say "no". I do think that when I was training the dogs to avoid punishment, I "got the bird" a lot more often than I do now, because the dog was looking at my training as containing something worth avoiding. If I ask for behavior and don't get it, I ask myself (and the dog) why? The answer may be obvious - for instance, I've never ask for the behavior when a squirrel was taunting from the nearest tree, or I may be intentionally adding distractions and conditions I haven't trained the dog for. The answer may be subtle. If Alice won't take the directed jump to the left, I know it's time to get her pelvis adjusted again. But what I love most about clicker training is that it teaches us to break things down into basics, and to be patient. If I need to, I'll take the behavior back to a level where the dog is successful, and build towards the place where things went wrong. If it's a really dangerous situation, punishing disobedience probably isn't going to get me anywhere, but I will do what I need to do to get things under control. I won't kid myself into calling that training though. If it's not dangerous, it's not going to be a biggie if the dog says "no" once. I just adjust the situation so I get a "yes" the next time. I'm learning (slowly) that dog training goes smoothest when the human's ego is not overly involved in the process.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Xeph said:


> So did you ACTUALLY figure out why he wasn't holding his stays besides the seeming "I really don't wanna, what's in it for me?"
> 
> P.S. I do not think that a dog trained with aversives would never break a stay or is less likely to break.


Unless the answer is obvious, or it's a physical issue that can be checked out, figuring out WHY the dog wasn't holding his stay is guess work. The useful thing is teaching him to hold the stay.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> If I need to, I'll take the behavior back to a level where the dog is successful, and build towards the place where things went wrong.


This is what I did with Hudson when he was refusing to hold a stay. It worked perfectly because dogs are so forgiving of our mess ups. If I punished him for refusing, I don't know if he would be so willing to essentially re-learn what needed to be taught and I think I would have created more problems instead of coming to a relatively quick solution. 

I'm almost 90% sure that I was the root of the problem, so punishing the dog really wasn't a good option. Other than this example, I can't really think of another example where I felt a dog was "giving me the bird."


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Interesting what marvelous service dog retrieves Sue Ailsby has on her dogs (they know exactly how to retrieve any object, including using lips only for credit cards and motel card keys so they don't perferate them. And she doesn't have to ear pinch them or shock them. She manages to do it with a clicker. Interesting how my click retrieve trained dogs are more consistent than dogs I force retrieved.


She may not use ear pinches. But she does use physical corrections.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> She may not use ear pinches. But she does use physical corrections.


Can you explain?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> She may not use ear pinches. But she does use physical corrections.


Correction is such a weasel word. I've been to two seminars with her, had long conversations with her (got the job as her driver at one of the seminars), read her website, read her opinions on the Training Level forum. So please do tell us what physical forms of positive punishment she uses to teach a dog the retrieve. Thanks.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Correction is such a weasel word. I've been to two seminars with her, had long conversations with her (got the job as her driver at one of the seminars), read her website, read her opinions on the Training Level forum. So please do tell us what physical forms of positive punishment she uses to teach a dog the retrieve. Thanks.



I am not talking about the retrieve.... I am talking in general. She uses physical corrections in her training...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not talking about the retrieve.... I am talking in general. She uses physical corrections in her training...


Well, we were discussing retrieves, but whatever. Again, correction is not a behavioral term and has no exact meaning. Please tell us what physical form of positive punishment she uses in training.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not talking about the retrieve.... I am talking in general. She uses physical corrections in her training...


Can you give an example?


----------



## CricketLoops (Apr 18, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not talking about the retrieve.... I am talking in general. She uses physical corrections in her training...


Huh. If she does, or did, she is no longer endorsing or admitting to the use of such methods on her website or in her latest book.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

CricketLoops said:


> Huh. If she does, or did, she is no longer endorsing or admitting to the use of such methods on her website or in her latest book.


Like me, I think she is a crossover trainer. So no doubt at one time she probably used some physical form of positive punishment. Still waiting to hear what form of that she uses these days. But of course, sometimes it is easier to suggest something than to prove it.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Lindabert>> same here, I have unintentionally taught my dogs that, when I walk away in a "certain" way, they are not to follow me somewhere, didn't teach that on purpose, just happened.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Like me, I think she is a crossover trainer. So no doubt at one time she probably used some physical form of positive punishment. Still waiting to hear what form of that she uses these days. But of course, sometimes it is easier to suggest something than to prove it.


I didn't suggest it..... I opened my big mouth and said it..... 

I inserted my foot in my mouth at the same time.... 

I was wrong and I stand corrected. 

Actually I have been spending quite a bit of time reading her stuff in the last few days.... I have to say..... I like and agree with much of what she says....

Now..... Where did my comment come from..... I was watching a video that was touted as a class she was running. They were doing some pretty strong leash work, on a Portie no less. 

I assumed.... You know about what they say about assuming..... I thought I was watching her...


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I didn't suggest it..... I opened my big mouth and said it.....
> 
> I inserted my foot in my mouth at the same time....
> 
> ...


Thank you for clearing that up!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Thank you for clearing that up!


Woke ya'll up though.... Better than Coffee......


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

>>>Pawzk9:She was asking what the rules were. …
>>>I would no more shut that behavior down than I would punish a child who made a mistake on a math problem….

I really like this ... and plan to plagiarize it  I believe that dogs are learning via theories of cognitive psychology and educational theories, as opposed to the simpler methods of purely bahavioral theories. 

>>>RaeganW: A dog just saying "No, I don't want to," is rarer that most people think. 
I agree with this strongly. I think my dog flips me off, not to be contrary, but to take a sniff, or take a taste, or even to wait for me to calm down... when I ask him to Come. If it's not a critical Come, then he remembers when&where I've given him leeway, so he does come on his schedule. Sometimes, I wish that I didn't encourage him to think, but I never regret that he is able to solve problems and make decisions, without needing to velcro to me all the time.


----------



## barqui (Sep 6, 2011)

I'm really new to this dog training thing but would like to share what I've observed in my dog.

At 1st I used the 'old school' methods, like spanking when she's barking at someone or putting her nose in her potty mistakes. Whenever she messed up her confinement area with her pee and newspapers I would drag her to the mess and yell at her. I was so angry at that time and it got really stressful for me. When I'm at work I keep worrying about her chewing up stuff and creating a big mess at home. I realised that all this old school training is making me nuts and it's making training her even more difficult to accomplish as she soon began to fear me and would run away and hide once she saw me getting angry (I didn't even have to yell at her). All this made me feel really guilty and sad.

After visiting this forum and reading up on the threads here and there, I changed my tactic to a more reward-based system. I try to ignore her mistakes (her potty mistakes were the hardest for me to ignore). I learned to stay calm and relaxed while cleaning up her mess. 

Crate training was great esp. now that I feed her meals exclusively in the crate. When she sees my dad come home from work (he is her appointed chef) she runs to her crate to wait for her dinner. I also reinforce her with treats when she goes into her crate on her own, and reinforce again when she lies down in it. Now I can lock her in her crate for the whole night and not worry about waking up to her potty mistakes. 

I also reinforce her as much as possible when she pees and poos at the right spot. 

When she barks at the neighbours (she's a poodle but I guess she wants to be a GSD deep down... lol), I call her name so she comes to me instead. HOWEVER, if she gets very excited and when calling her name doesn't work, I'll correct it with a firm 'no' or 'shush'.

I don't do clicker training or the NILIF method, I just pick up bits and pieces here and there and see what works best for her. I must say a generic positive reinforcement method makes training a lot less stressful for both of us. I don't feel bad or guilty anymore. 

I would say training with positive reinforcements is good, though I can't help it but use the occasional 'no'.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> >>>Pawzk9:She was asking what the rules were. …
> >>>I would no more shut that behavior down than I would punish a child who made a mistake on a math problem….
> 
> I really like this ... and plan to plagiarize it  I believe that dogs are learning via theories of cognitive psychology and educational theories, as opposed to the simpler methods of purely bahavioral theories.
> ...


I don't really understand how anyone can watch a dog work through a shaping process and believe they are only being conditioned - that they are not actively participating and offering ideas. That's why I am such a junkie. I think operant conditioning is just the way we prompt them to get involved. 

"Come" is a behavior that I'm pretty adamant about. Because the dog may not realize whether it is a "Critical Come" or not. So they are all critical. If I just need him to check in, I'm going to give a more informal cue. If I think there's a chance he's involved with something I haven't trained for, and may not come from a distance, I will probably set the situation up so that it is easier for him to come. But if I cue come, and it doesn't happen, there's going to be a consequence. If it's safe to, I'll make a big deal of walking away, I will noisily pretend to eat their food - or noisily feed it to another dog. Then I'll get closer, get attention and the the recall. And positively reinforce it.

Oh, and I know you don't mean it this way, but I probably wouldn't call having a different priority "flipping you off" or "giving the finger" as those sort of suggest that it's a power struggle where the dog is sending you a "ha! up yours" sort of message. No. They simply have another priority. It happens all the time with people, and it's usually not personal. I mention this because the whole "flipping off"/"giving the finger" thorugh goes very much with dominance theory. And when people are thinking in those terms, they are sometimes thinking that they don't just have to address the behavior but an attitude that may not even be present.


----------

