# Physical corrections



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

When do you think it is ok to use physical corrections?

My trainer is always telling me to correct Cash more

He says that if he doesn't sit as soon as I say I should jerk his leash up.

If he lies down from a sit stay I should not just tell him to sit up but go grab his collar and pull him hard into a sit while saying 'NO'

I don't like to not do what he says but I don't like giving leash corrections if I don't have to.

What are your opinions on physical corrections?
Are they ok as long as they don't hurt the dog?
Or are they just not needed?


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

IMO opinion they are not needed. And I am totally against any jerking or tugging on the leash to get the dog to do what you want. It is perfectly fine to correct a dog, but there is no need to be nasty about it. If the dog isn't getting it right, it is because he doesn't know what he's supposed to be doing. He just needs more practice.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

foxthegoldfish said:


> When do you think it is ok to use physical corrections?
> 
> My trainer is always telling me to correct Cash more
> 
> ...


They are just not needed at all. Ignore your trainer or find a new one. What are your current methods of training sit? At 8 months old he is FAR from being well trained.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

I don't believe in the kind of corrections you're talking about. Just not needed, IMO. Cash knows you have what he wants - namely food. If you give a command that gets ignored, just stare at him (don't repeat the command!) until you get what you're looking for. The dog learns really quickly that what you ask for is what you want, and you will not accept anything less. Funny how much their ears open up when that happens!

I'll tell you the story of the one physical correction I eventually came to accept:
In agility class, Kit had a problem with excitement barking. At the start line, she'd bark to be released, and then she'd bark through the first few steps after the release. Not her normal bark, but more of an ear-piercing shriek: she was DEMANDING to do the equipment NOW. It was definitely a problem that I needed to get under control because she was so busy barking, she forgot to pay attention to my instructions on what came next. The trainer suggested a squirt bottle. I was initially against the idea (this just isn't how I train my dog), but I gave in and tried it. I only had to use it twice, and the problem stopped. It hasn't resurfaced, either.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I didn't think they were needed either, I have been ignoring my trainer, he is the trainer for this level at my club.

Can some one tell me a good reason I can tell my trainer why I don't want to use leash corrections?

He doesn't usually move out of a sit stay, just sometimes he will lay down when he gets bored.
If he does lay down I say 'no' and move back to him and get him to sit then step away again. He is catching on very fast.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

foxthegoldfish said:


> I didn't think they were needed either, I have been ignoring my trainer, he is the trainer for this level at my club.
> 
> Can some one tell me a good reason I can tell my trainer why I don't want to use leash corrections?
> 
> ...


You're not going to be able to convince your trainer to change his methods. But in general, you are paying for his service. Tell him to teach you a method that doesn't require correction. If he refuses to comply, then there's nothing you can do about it.

If what you're currently doing is working, and he is making progress, then no reason at all to correct him.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

The only time I use the leash is when he isn't paying close attention I give him a quick jingle/jerk to get his attention, but its not really a correction at all.

I think Ill just tell him I don't believe physical corrections are needed.
Cash is still at the top of the class 

Also one guy in our class has a dog that tends to run off playing you can't catch me lol
But the stupid guy yells at the dog when it does come back, no wonder it doesn't want to come to him.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

foxthegoldfish said:


> The only time I use the leash is when he isn't paying close attention I give him a quick jingle/jerk to get his attention, but its not really a correction at all.


You may be correct, but you don't get to make that call. It's completely up to the dog to decide what is, and what is not, a correction, and what is an effective correction.

If you are not comfortable with physically correcting your dog, then you shouldn't do it. If your trainer can't conceive of a way to train the dog without correction, then you need to find a new trainer.

Deciding whether corrections are necessary depends on what you want from your dog. They are not normally appropriate for bubble-brained pups.


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

I do physical corrections, however its far from "jerking" its more or less light pressure. I dont "reef" on leashes in anyway.
I'm a firm believer in asking once and only once. 
Treat training works just as well but with the amount of dogs I have around me while asking them to sit I can not be quick enough with the treats and clickers dont work in this situation either. For me, its just far easier to reach in and put pressure on the dog that is not doing what is asked.
One on one training sessions I do treat and clicker.
There are many methods to training dogs and chose the one that makes you most comfortable no matter what anyone says


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

I guess Im a a "harsh" trainer. I will jerk the leash. At age 7 Blaze KNOWS how to walk, and if he decides to over step his boundries that he knows, I will jerk his leash to correct it. Its only when on a leash. I dont use force or anything while off his leash. Aside from if he doesnt come when called the first time, I will go over and grabhim by his collar.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I will not say that I have never used corrections, for that would be dishonest. I will say that whenever I HAVE used a physical correction it was due to frustration on my part and I immediately felt that there is a better way and would take a break from training. It's not fair to the dog, especially a puppy, to yank him around simply because he jumped up or dropped into a down. If he jumped up I haven't worked enough on sit for greeting and if he slipped into a down from a sit stay I haven't built my duration gradually enough. This is MY failure as a handler and trainer, not the dog's.

So my questions to you Fox, are if the issue is not a speedy enough sit, how many repetitions have you done on that particular behaviour? When did you start and how did you work on "speeding" it up? Using the clicker I would start out with ANY sit, rewarding for at least ten reps (assuming dog KNOWS the cue) and then start looking for faster sits and only rewarding the faster ones and gradually building the speed of response. 

And regarding the sit stay. How long a sit stay are you working on? How much time did you take building the duration? If a dog drops into a down from a sit stay you either haven't been building your duration (setting dog up for success)gradually enough OR you may be pulling him up from the down, then rewarding the sit and developing a behaviour chain that includes the down, correction and then sit/reward. From a timing point of view, a No Reward Marker like "too bad" or ack JUST AS HE BEGINS THE MOVEMENT are much better than trying to get him back UP after he's already down. I personally watch very carefully for any small movement and release the dog PRIOR to him breaking. You also have to be careful that the dog doesn't start to wait for a collar/leash tug to respond. It can all become part of the cue.

Your trainer should respect your not liking to use corrections. If not, he's not a very good trainer.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I use physical corrections in the form of leash corrections at times. But it depends on the dog, what stage it is on leaning a command, the handler, etc. A leash correction does not need to be harsh to be effective. How forceful it is, depends on the dog and the situation.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I use physical corrections in the form of leash corrections at times. But it depends on the dog, what stage it is on leaning a command, the handler, etc. A leash correction does not need to be harsh to be effective. How forceful it is, depends on the dog and the situation.


Not really. It depends on the handler, not the dog, and what stage he is on learning to train.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I have a question, just out of curiosity. Would physical corrections from a leash (Popping, yanking, pulling them into position, etc.) make it more difficult to transition to off-leash training? A dog that doesn't know how to walk without being yanked into place with a leash surely isn't going to stick by your side once the leash is out of the picture, right?

When I train Basil, I try to train him the same way on a leash that I would without a leash. Instead of teaching him to walk on a loose leash by yanking him into place, I have him sniff and follow a treat in my hand. Instead of yanking him for not sitting, I lure him into sitting with a treat. I've read about dogs that behave perfectly on-leash but as soon as the leash comes off all bets are off. I haven't done a whole lot of off-leash training with Basil other than inside of my home (Don't have a yard) but I would like to teach him that there should be no difference between his behavior with a leash and without one.

Does what I'm saying make any sense?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Nargle said:


> I have a question, just out of curiosity. Would physical corrections from a leash (Popping, yanking, pulling them into position, etc.) make it more difficult to transition to off-leash training? A dog that doesn't know how to walk without being yanked into place with a leash surely isn't going to stick by your side once the leash is out of the picture, right?
> 
> When I train Basil, I try to train him the same way on a leash that I would without a leash. Instead of teaching him to walk on a loose leash by yanking him into place, I have him sniff and follow a treat in my hand. Instead of yanking him for not sitting, I lure him into sitting with a treat. I've read about dogs that behave perfectly on-leash but as soon as the leash comes off all bets are off. I haven't done a whole lot of off-leash training with Basil other than inside of my home (Don't have a yard) but I would like to teach him that there should be no difference between his behavior with a leash and without one.
> 
> Does what I'm saying make any sense?


Yup, you're right. Many people require a e-collar once the leash comes off. Unless the external stimuli is far higher than the reinforcement (not a problem if you manage the environment properly) you generally will have a dog that reacts the same way on and off leash.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Not really. It depends on the handler, not the dog, and what stage he is on learning to train.


I disagree..... Take a dog, not food motivated, not timid, not biddable........ You give the dog the que and he completely blows you off, because he can.... With your positive only method...... How are you going to get that dog to work?


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Thanks for all the advice 

I 100% agree that if he doesn't do what I want I haven't taught him well enough. 

He usually sits as soon as I say, we have practiced it 100s of times as I want it as a default response, the only times he doesn't sit when asked is if he is distracted, then I may give slight pressure on the collar to remind him I'm here (far from a jerk just a light pressure) then he remembers and sits. I am working on him responding faster and faster by only rewarding it when he does it fast enough. 

We have only just started work on the sit stays, if I tell him to sit and wait he will stay sitting until I return (or tell him what to do), but we are working on a sit stay as well.

I have used corrections when I have been very frustrated, but I always feel bad and need to remember that if he mucks up its more likely my fault.

My trainer also wants me to jerk his leash if he sniffs while we are doing heel work, or if he pulls to the side/ahead etc, i give him a quick tug but he says I need to be firmer with him. I don't think I do, if he isn't doing what I want I obviously havent trained it well enough, if he is getting distracted I need to be more animated. 
Any ideas on how to strengthen our heel work, he walks on a loose leash but its not a proper heel, he is by my side but not paying lots of attention, I don't want him to pay attention just so he doesn't get jerked I want him to want to pay attention.

In all reality Cash is awesome!
He is so well behaved 

I 100% agree!
I hate using leash corrections as it is harder to move to off leash work.
With Cash if I let him off leash at the park he sticks in the same place he was with the leash on until I tell him to go play. 
I don't feel the need to correct him as he is awesome and improving anyway.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I disagree..... Take a dog, not food motivated, not timid, not biddable........ You give the dog the que and he completely blows you off, because he can.... With your positive only method...... How are you going to get that dog to work?



use your big human grey matter that's capable of deductive reasoning and figure out what DOES motivate him.

could be anything. like with BJ(dog im training right now)..I am the Queen of Poop. All poop is mine and if he wants to smell it(he's a bluetick/pit mix..he's motivated by his nose) he's gotta listen to what im asking first.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Yay Queen of Poop!
lol Lucky for me Cash is very food motivated, but my trainer wont let me carry a treat in my hand while doing heel work anymore (fair enough) I still give Cash millions of treats!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> use your big human grey matter that's capable of deductive reasoning and figure out what DOES motivate him.
> 
> could be anything. like with BJ(dog im training right now)..I am the Queen of Poop. All poop is mine and if he wants to smell it(he's a bluetick/pit mix..he's motivated by his nose) he's gotta listen to what im asking first.


Why waste all that time, finding some exotic motivation when a simple leash correction will work? 
What about in the real world? do you walk around with poop in your pocket?


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I think that in the real world you would make them do something then let them sniff until you worked up to long walks before sniffing. That would be the reward.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Why waste all that time, finding some exotic motivation when a simple leash correction will work?
> What about in the real world? do you walk around with poop in your pocket?


why cause pain when i dont have to? why not strive to be a better trainer and a better thinker at the same time? and its not wasting time. spend a day or two in strict observation mode, identify motivations and contruct a variable reward scheme within a workable environment that suits your needs. if the dog likes to meet other dogs for example..go somewhere where there are lots of dogs to train and then branch out from there. 

and in the real world? there's poop everywhere...bird poop, dog poop, cat poop, horse poop and even people poop in the form of sewer vents. 

and in the real world...it works. just like it works with other scent motivation, prey drive, social desires, the desire to run/jump/exercise and even sexual drive.

like with BJ...works like this..

his main issue was hardcore pulling..he's half scenthound so its to be expected that he'd much rather follow his nose than anything else. he most often pulls when there's poop around. i noted the body language that usually preceeds this behavior and when i see it begin..i stop and ask him for a known cue. when he complies...he is released to poop sniff to his heart's content. its been one week and he hasnt pulled at all in our last three training sessions. instead he stops before i do and looks expectantly at me for what to do. at this point im taking the oppurtunity to teach him some new behaviors that will cover his other issues on walks.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Yay go Zim!


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

What pain though? A small leash correction is not painfull, a pop of the leash is not painful.

I have no problems with Blaze offleash. Aside formt he few times I have to call him more then once, when he has his nose deep in somthing. Blaze actually walks way better offleash then on, go figure lol


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Why waste all that time, finding some exotic motivation when a simple leash correction will work?


Because it's not about what works.



> What about in the real world? do you walk around with poop in your pocket?


Premacking occurs in the real world, does it not?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Tankstar said:


> What pain though? A small leash correction is not painfull, a pop of the leash is not painful.
> 
> I have no problems with Blaze offleash. Aside formt he few times I have to call him more then once, when he has his nose deep in somthing. Blaze actually walks way better offleash then on, go figure lol


when the dog speaks up and tells me that its not painful...then ill believe it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Tankstar said:


> What pain though? A small leash correction is not painfull, a pop of the leash is not painful.


IF they are not painful, then how are they effective? Fear/pain are the motivations with a leash correction. If they are not that, aren't you just nagging the dog? What good is that?


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I don't think its always painful, but it is designed to be uncomfortable, why would I want to make my dog uncomfortable?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

RBark said:


> Not really. It depends on the handler, not the dog, and what stage he is on learning to train.


Well I'm sorry I think everything depends on handler's ability to read the dog and correct/reward properly. Otherwise we put lead in dog's mouth and collar around handler's neck.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I only use a leash to make sure Cash doesn't run into the road.
I do not need a leash to control him and don't ever want to.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Fear/pain are the motivations with a leash correction.


Your evidence for this is...? If that has been your experience, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Well I'm sorry I think everything depends on handler's ability to read the dog and correct/reward properly. Otherwise we put lead in dog's mouth and collar around handler's neck.


it also depends on the handler's other attributes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


to clarify...

i think a lot of this is dependant on definitions. definitions of what pain is and definitions of what it means to strive to be a better trainer. 

my definition of pain is physical discomfort in any form.

to me..being a better trainer is not just being a faster trainer or a more effective trainer or a more human trainer or a more versatile trainer or a more humane trainer or a more fun trainer...

to me being a better trainer is striving for ALL OF THOSE THINGS. i want to be better, faster, more effective, more versatile, more humane and more fun trainer. this involves learning to use ALL my strengths and countering ALL my weaknessess. and its totally an unattainable goal. but if i try ill at least get part of the way there..if i dont try..ill never evolve as a trainer at all.

anyways...im sunburnt so imma go take a bath in a vat of aloe..have fun with this...argument thingy...


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> I don't believe in the kind of corrections you're talking about. Just not needed, IMO. Cash knows you have what he wants - namely food. If you give a command that gets ignored, just stare at him (don't repeat the command!) until you get what you're looking for. The dog learns really quickly that what you ask for is what you want, and you will not accept anything less. Funny how much their ears open up when that happens!
> 
> I'll tell you the story of the one physical correction I eventually came to accept:
> In agility class, Kit had a problem with excitement barking. At the start line, she'd bark to be released, and then she'd bark through the first few steps after the release. Not her normal bark, but more of an ear-piercing shriek: she was DEMANDING to do the equipment NOW. It was definitely a problem that I needed to get under control because she was so busy barking, she forgot to pay attention to my instructions on what came next. The trainer suggested a squirt bottle. I was initially against the idea (this just isn't how I train my dog), but I gave in and tried it. I only had to use it twice, and the problem stopped. It hasn't resurfaced, either.


In this case you read the dog and the trainer read the dog and you arrived at a solution to a problem that fixed expeditiously. With most people they want the quickest distance between two points.. and in this case it was the squirt bottle and it worked. In the world of pet dogs if you want to take the dog's entire life to train something, go for it. In the professional training world.. where someone wants you to train something.. you use the least amount of pressure necessary to get the job done as expeditiously as possible. If that involves a clicker then go for it. If it involves a squirt bottle, then go for it.



RBark said:


> You're not going to be able to convince your trainer to change his methods. But in general, you are paying for his service. Tell him to teach you a method that doesn't require correction. If he refuses to comply, then there's nothing you can do about it.
> 
> *If what you're currently doing is working, and he is making progress, then no reason at all to correct him*.


This is so true. IOW's you do what WORKS. It is also true that you will not change a person's mind. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> You may be correct, but you don't get to make that call. It's completely* up to the dog to decide what is, and what is not, a correction, and what is an effective correction.*
> If you are not comfortable with physically correcting your dog, then you shouldn't do it. If your trainer can't conceive of a way to train the dog without correction, then you need to find a new trainer.
> 
> Deciding whether corrections are necessary depends on what you want from your dog. They are not normally appropriate for bubble-brained pups.


Another bit of good reasoning. when it is said the dog decides that is true too.. it is not like the dog stays up nights and think about it either. It just means that you are looking for a response and it is the dog's decision to respond or not (and thereby get a reward or a correction). By correction you will note that MM did not say AVERSIVE correction. As a trainer there are many corrections that are not aversive. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> I use physical corrections in the form of leash corrections at times. But it depends on the dog, what stage it is on leaning a command, the handler, etc. A leash correction does not need to be harsh to be effective. How forceful it is, depends on the dog and the situation.


Oh yes. This is absolutely true. In training horses the ONLY time you bring out the crop and give the horse a smack right behind your leg is when the horse is being willfully disobedient (and oh yes it does happen). Same with a dog. If your dog is heeling and has been doing this for 8 years and on occaision decides he would rather do XYZ in a heeling pattern, a correction is appropriate. OTOH if the dog has never heeled in his life and you correct him that is not training anything. 

And remember.. correction is not always an aversive. 



wvasko said:


> Well I'm sorry I think *everything depends on handler's ability to read the dog *and correct/reward properly. Otherwise we put lead in dog's mouth and collar around handler's neck.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS!!!! 

I am going to wade in and then go away because I do not want to be part of a long drawn out discussion on aversives vs positive methods. 

Before Atka all dogs I owned were trained using averxie corrections and positive rewards. All dogs were trained and good dogs. After initial training we went on living day to day and all dogs were off leash dogs. Very infrequent tune ups to get any of these dogs to do as asked. All dogs lived long lives. Variety of breed mixes with two standard poodles and one German Bred GSD who herded cattle and did other work.

Took a break from dog ownership and then got Atka at 6 months old. Heard about clicker training and did that with her for months. It does work but it was not all it was cracked up to be for me and this dog. She took longer than any other dog I ever had to get off leash and she has been difficult to get consistant performance from. Finally I used an aversive correction on her and the difference was night and day. No more fiddling around.. and we got the job done. 

This is not to say I have abandoned positive training methods (they work) but I have also not abandoned aversive corrections. I have found I need to mix it up a bit _with this dog._

Ultimately I think we want a dog that is trained. Those of us who are into competitive dog stuff or who train for money usually need to get the job done expeditiously so we can go to the next level or collect the $$ from the person who is paying us to train the dog. IF the goals we seek can be attained using all positive methods then by all means go no further than that with that dog. However, if you need to up the ante and use an aversive correction to get the job done, then I do go there. 

In GottaLuvMutts thread she had an issue with Kit. Two squirt bottle sessions fixed it. No dogs died and the issue was resolved and both owner and dog are happy and competing.

In the case of the OP's dog, she is getting what she wants so far and has not needed a correction to do it. If that is working for that dog and for her, the keep doing what is working. If it ain't broke don't fix it. 

The point here is that dog training involves a tool box. If you can use the sniffing of poop as a reward and Premack it, then go for it. If you need an e collar to keep a dog reliable off leash (I believe RBark does with Kobe? If I am wrong, please correct me) and that is part of your program then I also say go for it. If you can get it all done petting the dog and talking softly (yes there are dogs like that) then go for it. 

The OP's trainer seems like a one method guy who is not reading the OP's dog. Lots of ppl say they are trainers and they really are not. If he tells you to do something that is not right for you or your dog by all means DON'T DO IT! Remember this: The dog is yours. You buy the food, you paid for the dog, you provide the vet care and the roof over your heads. The dog is yours. You do with your dog what you believe is right and what works.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> when the dog speaks up and tells me that its not painful...then ill believe it.





Curbside Prophet said:


> IF they are not painful, then how are they effective? Fear/pain are the motivations with a leash correction. If they are not that, aren't you just nagging the dog? What good is that?


When Blazes lunges on his leash at a motorcycle, that is a heck of alot more force then me pulling him back and placing him beside me. A quick yank ont he leash with out much force is as harmful as him pulling. It is not fear or pain, its getting his attanetion. As much as a mother grabs her child by a jacket to pull them back.
what good is it? it works, gets him back to place and makes him relize where he should be. I dont use it all the time, but when needed. Like any dog he sometimes forgets his training and tries to push buttons, I dont stand for that, a quick leash pull does no harm to him. 
Im not going to carry a crap load of treats on me every where I go to get his attention back with smell.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Your evidence for this is...? If that has been your experience, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


You're welcome to suggest whatever you like, but I'm not foolish enough to overlook the aversion of a leash correction. If you're looking to split hairs to justify your physical punishments, you'll waste your effort on me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> As a trainer there are many corrections that are not aversive.


Kinda confused on this point, like what?



Tankstar said:


> When Blazes lunges on his leash at a motorcycle, that is a heck of alot more force then me pulling him back and placing him beside me. A quick yank ont he leash with out much force is as harmful as him pulling. It is not fear or pain, its getting his attanetion. As much as a mother grabs her child by a jacket to pull them back.
> what good is it? it works, gets him back to place and makes him relize where he should be. I dont use it all the time, but when needed. Like any dog he sometimes forgets his training and tries to push buttons, I dont stand for that, a quick leash pull does no harm to him.
> Im not going to carry a crap load of treats on me every where I go to get his attention back with smell.


Humans are humans, and can rationalize far better than dogs can. 

Lunging at a motorcycle (heightened state of arousal) and corrections during low states of arousal are not really comparable at all.



> Your evidence for this is...? If that has been your experience, then I'd suggest you were doing it wrong.


Dogs avoid behaviors because it's aversive. What other evidence do you need?


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I will pull on Cashs leash to get his attention back when needed, and i will use it to keep him out of harms way. 
But when someone says that if your dog breaks a sit stay you should grab their collar and yank them back up into a sit while saying 'NO' so that they know they have done something wrong. That is different.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Tankstar said:


> When Blazes lunges on his leash at a motorcycle, that is a heck of alot more force then me pulling him back and placing him beside me. A quick yank ont he leash with out much force is as harmful as him pulling. It is not fear or pain, its getting his attanetion.


So you use a physical cue for attention? This is not what the OP is being taught with her dog. The trainer wants the dog to stay in sit with the leash jerk, not pay more attention. 



> As much as a mother grabs her child by a jacket to pull them back.
> what good is it? it works, gets him back to place and makes him relize where he should be.


Kids aren't dogs. This isn't a good argument. 




> Like any dog he sometimes forgets his training and tries to push buttons, I dont stand for that, a quick leash pull does no harm to him.
> Im not going to carry a crap load of treats on me every where I go to get his attention back with smell.


I don't carry treats(food rewards) or use leash jerks. What's my problem? Nevertheless, both are used in the acquisition of learning. Neither *should* be needed thereafter.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Its more if he doesn't do what is asked Im told I should jerk his leash to let him know he did something wrong. I don't understand why I should do that?
I carry treats everywhere with Cash, but its the way I train and he is still very young.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

foxthegoldfish said:


> Its more if he doesn't do what is asked Im told I should jerk his leash to let him know he did something wrong. I don't understand why I should do that?
> I carry treats everywhere with Cash, but its the way I train and he is still very young.


Jerking the leash is not going to let a dog know they did something wrong. At 8 months old, the dog doesn't reliably know their commands. Not complying with a cue could be due to a million things, not least of which "not enough proofing".


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> why cause pain when i dont have to? why not strive to be a better trainer and a better thinker at the same time? and its not wasting time. spend a day or two in strict observation mode, identify motivations and contruct a variable reward scheme within a workable environment that suits your needs. if the dog likes to meet other dogs for example..go somewhere where there are lots of dogs to train and then branch out from there.
> 
> and in the real world? there's poop everywhere...bird poop, dog poop, cat poop, horse poop and even people poop in the form of sewer vents.
> 
> ...



What pain are you talking about? There is no pain involved in a leash correction I give. (if the dog is timid, young, weak, ill, been abused, etc I ain't going to give it.)

As far as being a better trainer..... Adding leash correction to ones "bag of tricks" in the right places and the right doses, makes a more complete trainer. 

There are times and places where a trainer or handler cannot rely on treats, props, etc to train. Just them, the dog and a lead (or off lead). Treats, toys, props, and other external motivators are great for teaching, shaping, and building reliability. But eventually there needs to come a day when the dog and handler has to work reliably without those things.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I agree, if he doesn't do what i asked he either doesn't understand or he is distracted.
He is an amazing dog, he very rarely pulls, will follow my commands over 90% of the time, he has a drop on recall down to 70-80% reliable, He can hold a down stay for 2minutes while other dogs get up and run around him, he returns 99% of the time when i call even at the dog park.
His only problems are jumping on strangers and crying in his crate sometimes. 
Not much more i could ask for


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What pain are you talking about? There is no pain involved in a leash correction I give. (if the dog is timid, young, weak, ill, been abused, etc I ain't going to give it.)
> 
> As far as being a better trainer..... Adding leash correction to ones "bag of tricks" in the right places and the right doses, makes a more complete trainer.
> 
> There are times and places where a trainer or handler cannot rely on treats, props, etc to train. Just them, the dog and a lead (or off lead). Treats, toys, props, and other external motivators are great for teaching, shaping, and building reliability. But eventually there needs to come a day when the dog and handler has to work reliably without those things.


What lack of pain are you talking about? Again, why is the dog complying if it is not painful in some way. 

It doesn't make one a more complete or "balanced" trainer. 

There are times and places where a trianer or handler cannot rely on e-collars, leash corrections, props, etc to train. Eventually there needs to come a day when the dog and handler has to work reliably without those things. 

Kinda silly argument now isn't it?



foxthegoldfish said:


> I agree, if he doesn't do what i asked he either doesn't understand or he is distracted.
> He is an amazing dog, he very rarely pulls, will follow my commands over 90% of the time, he has a drop on recall down to 70-80% reliable, He can hold a down stay for 2minutes while other dogs get up and run around him, he returns 99% of the time when i call even at the dog park.
> His only problems are jumping on strangers and crying in his crate sometimes.
> Not much more i could ask for


That sounds like a phenomenally trained dog at 8 months old.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> IF they are not painful, then how are they effective? Fear/pain are the motivations with a leash correction. If they are not that, aren't you just nagging the dog? What good is that?


 Leash corrections done properly are not meant to hurt. Just a spark to bring the dog back to focus. 

If dog's necks were so sensitive that a leash correction hurt, you would not see dogs all over the place pulling their owners down the street.



RBark said:


> Jerking the leash is not going to let a dog know they did something wrong. At 8 months old, the dog doesn't reliably know their commands. Not complying with a cue could be due to a million things, not least of which "not enough proofing".


At 8 months old doesn't know their commands? There are dogs that get their first titles in Rally and obedience by that age. Conformation dogs that are well handled know their in ring commands and some are finished champions prior to 8 months old.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Leash corrections done properly are not meant to hurt. Just a spark to bring the dog back to focus.
> 
> If dog's necks were so sensitive that a leash correction hurt, you would not see dogs all over the place pulling their owners down the street.


Again, overstimulated dogs cannot be compared to understimulated dogs. In andrealine rushes, our ability to withstand pain increases thousandfold. I've had my hand drilled through while working, and it hurt but not too badly because I was in a rush. I've had, while relaxed, a pin pricked on my arm and jumped 10' and it was sore for a hour. That's faulty logic.

A "spark" is not going to "bring a dog back" unless there was incentive to do so. That incentive is either pain or pleasure.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

He is very well trained, not perfect, but he is an easy dog.
He is not perfect, and is turning into a teenager who doesn't always listen, but truly he is amazing.
We need lots of work on not jumping on people mainly.
he wont always hold his stays, but almost always.
Were going to be obedience champions of the world! lol


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> What lack of pain are you talking about? Again, why is the dog complying if it is not painful in some way.
> 
> It doesn't make one a more complete or "balanced" trainer.
> 
> ...


No it is not a silly argument. Any more than the methods you use.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> At 8 months old doesn't know their commands? There are dogs that get their first titles in Rally and obedience by that age. Conformation dogs that are well handled know their in ring commands and some are finished champions prior to 8 months old.


You're inserting words in my mouth. I said reliably, not "doesn't know".



JohnnyBandit said:


> No it is not a silly argument. Any more than the methods you use.


If it's not a silly argument, then how are you going to debunk the reworded argument that i sent right back at you?


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I think you can give a leash pop without pain. If I give Cash a quick pop on his leash it is very gentle pressure that truly doesn't hurt. But its not really needed anyway, except maybe to help get his attention back.


----------



## Tankstar (Dec 30, 2006)

Really a light tug on a leash is painful? lmao...Ok.

I guess Im a dog beater, and make blaze submit in pain with my light leash jerks.
Well Im off to walk and abuse my dog. take care...lol


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> This is so true. IOW's you do what WORKS.


eeeeehhhh......there are things that work...but i wont do them. i learned how to use an e collar...but beyond the initial learning experience..i will not use a shock collar again(as a shock collar anyways...i disabled the shock part to use as a vibrating clicker for deaf dogs)



> When Blazes lunges on his leash at a motorcycle, that is a heck of alot more force then me pulling him back and placing him beside me. A quick yank ont he leash with out much force is as harmful as him pulling. It is not fear or pain, its getting his attanetion. As much as a mother grabs her child by a jacket to pull them back.
> what good is it? it works, gets him back to place and makes him relize where he should be. I dont use it all the time, but when needed. Like any dog he sometimes forgets his training and tries to push buttons, I dont stand for that, a quick leash pull does no harm to him.
> Im not going to carry a crap load of treats on me every where I go to get his attention back with smell.


no..it doesnt make the kid realize anything other than mommy got mad at him usually. 

pain is equated in my mind with ANY physical discomfort or extreme mental discomfort..which you can tell if a dog is experiencing these things based on context. a leash correction is physical discomfort..there is no way to argue around that. in the long run..i see it being counterproductive...the more you expose any creature to discomfort..the less of an effect it has....which is in of itself...psychologically dysfunctional.

ETA:

i will say that i make ONE exception to my rule...disengaging a dog from an attack on another dog, a cat or any human. this is where i move into the other quadrants....for obvious reasons.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> You're inserting words in my mouth. I said reliably, not "doesn't know".
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not a silly argument, then how are you going to debunk the reworded argument that i sent right back at you?


Pardon me, so a titled dog does not reliably know its commands?


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I think by reliably you mean in all situations at all times?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

And there is nothing to debunk.....


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> At 8 months old doesn't know their commands? There are dogs that get their first titles in Rally and obedience by that age. Conformation dogs that are well handled know their in ring commands and some are finished champions prior to 8 months old.


but at what cost?

their puppyhood?

erm. that's all i gotta say about that.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

foxthegoldfish said:


> I think by reliably you mean in all situations at all times?


Yes...... And in a trial is when reliability is most important. The handler is going to be stressed, nervous, something, there are lots of distractions, people all over the place, other dogs, new smells, etc. That is a GREAT place to test reliability.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> but at what cost?
> 
> their puppyhood?
> 
> erm. that's all i gotta say about that.


How does training and competing rob a dog of their puppyhood? I would really love to hear that one.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Cash knows his commands well, he didn't lose his puppyhood.
I don't understand what you mean Zim?
I got him at 4months and we only train 4-5 times a week (plus walks) he is just very easy to train.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

foxthegoldfish said:


> Cash knows his commands well, he didn't lose his puppyhood.
> I don't understand what you mean Zim?
> I got him at 4months and we only train 4-5 times a week (plus walks) he is just very easy to train.


i meant the dogs with titles by 8 months. to me that speaks of nothing but an obsessive win crazy owner. im not impressed at all with a dog with gobs of titles by 8 months. wasnt talking about you.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> Dogs avoid behaviors because it's aversive. What other evidence do you need?


Dogs avoid behaviors if they result in averse consequences. Nobody is aguing otherwise. That's the entire point of using them. Aversive = pain/fear is rather a significant leap, however. The squirt bottle is a good example. It is neither painful nor fear-inducing (for most dogs). It is merely sufficiently unpleasant (for some dogs) to interrupt a behavior and condition the dog to avoid it. Did I miss something?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i meant the dogs with titles by 8 months. to me that speaks of nothing but an obsessive win crazy owner. im not impressed at all with a dog with gobs of titles by 8 months. wasnt talking about you.


What is wrong with it? The owner and the dog having fun together. Spending time training, going places, etc.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Pardon me, so a titled dog does not reliably know its commands?


Ummmmmm of course. They got the title in a very controlled environment. That doesn't prove reliability in uncontrolled environments.



> And there is nothing to debunk.....


So if there's nothing to debunk, then what does this paragraph mean:



> There are times and places where a trainer or handler cannot rely on treats, props, etc to train. Just them, the dog and a lead (or off lead). Treats, toys, props, and other external motivators are great for teaching, shaping, and building reliability. But eventually there needs to come a day when the dog and handler has to work reliably without those things.


If it applies to all training methods. It's either a redundant statement that applies to both correction and positive training, or a logical fallacy.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

And no one said anything about gobs of titles. I said first titles. Such as RN, CD, etc



RBark said:


> Ummmmmm of course. They got the title in a very controlled environment. That doesn't prove reliability in uncontrolled environments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A trial is a controled environment? There are a HUGE amount of distractions there.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Dogs avoid behaviors if they result in averse consequences. Nobody is aguing otherwise. That's the entire point of using them. Aversive = pain/fear is rather a significant leap, however. The squirt bottle is a good example. It is neither painful nor fear-inducing (for most dogs). It is merely sufficiently unpleasant (for some dogs) to interrupt a behavior and condition the dog to avoid it. Did I miss something?


Squirt a water nozzle at a dog once. Then aim it without squirting. See that tension in the face? The bracing for impact? That's fear. Maybe people don't recognize dog pain or avoidance behavior. That would explain why so many people don't seem to see it. 

Look at your dog and pop the collar. Then fake the pop while watching the face. That same fear, bracing for impact is there. The fact they don't do it when they are distracted means they are distracted, not that they don't feel it. When they know it's coming, they brace for it.



JohnnyBandit said:


> A trial is a controled environment? There are a HUGE amount of distractions there.


But a known set of distractions. People, dogs, and noises. If you train for those, and nothing else, you will have a dog socialized to those. Then a rabbit runs by, bye bye dog!


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> If it applies to all training methods. It's either a redundant statement that applies to both correction and positive training, or a logical fallacy.


Of course it applies to all training methods, that is why I said there is nothing to debunk. I made that statement in reference to the poop post. One day you ain't going to have poop to reward the dog with. Then what are you going to do?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Of course it applies to all training methods, that is why I said there is nothing to debunk. I made that statement in reference to the poop post. One day you ain't going to have poop to reward the dog with. Then what are you going to do?


The same thing you do with every trianing method in the world- rely on it's history of reinforcement or punishment.

The point of all training methods is to eventually fade it, be it treats or corrections.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> What is wrong with it? The owner and the dog having fun together. Spending time training, going places, etc.


training training training training...makes one wonder exactly how much time those dogs got to spend just being puppies.

basically its a puppy. with my upcoming puppy..im not even going to begin to train her for anything competative until she is over a year of age. she will be CGCd and get a therapy dog certification and well will work on rock solid basic obedience until that point. puppy conformation is ridiculous...formal obedience is eh...other competative events that young? sorry..i find it borders on unethical...you cannot ascertain total physical and mental soundness until the dog is a full grown adult. and until you can ascertain reasonable assurance of total physical and mental soundness...you shouldnt be competing with a dog. Dogs should be allowed to be puppies. they should have the chance to grow normally and be watched for signs of unfitness during that time. there is plenty that you can do with a young pup/dog that will prepare them for competition without pushing them.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i meant the dogs with titles by 8 months. to me that speaks of nothing but an obsessive win crazy owner. im not impressed at all with a dog with gobs of titles by 8 months. wasnt talking about you.


Not impressed is one thing. Disapproving is another. If the dog is being trained using your preferred methods, he is presumably choosing the perform the behaviors and having a great time with it. What's the different between learning a fabulous heel (something some dogs find more natural than others), and teaching a dog a myriad of other tricks, like shake with all four paws, roll both ways, etc.? 



Marsh Muppet said:


> Dogs avoid behaviors if they result in averse consequences. Nobody is aguing otherwise. That's the entire point of using them. Aversive = pain/fear is rather a significant leap, however. The squirt bottle is a good example. It is neither painful nor fear-inducing (for most dogs). It is merely sufficiently unpleasant (for some dogs) to interrupt a behavior and condition the dog to avoid it. Did I miss something?


I think, and I could be wrong, that some folks are saying that corrections are used that end the behavior and prevent it from reoccurring but which the dog doesn't find aversive...and others are saying that if it's ending the behavior and preventing it in the future, it is by definition aversive is some way since the dog is doing the right thing now to avoid it...




Not that this is anything new, but an aversive doesn't necessarily equate beating the dog and causing permanent physical harm...just as using reinforcers doesn't always mean food and trembling, mincing owners begging their sweet doggies to _pllllleeeeeez_ sit. And neither consequence works unless the dog has some idea as to what behavior it is linked to in the first place. 

Same argument, and for the most part, same players. Here's to hoping someone new shows up with breathtaking insights that change the face of dog training and bring everyone together as one big happy family.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> The same thing you do with every trianing method in the world- rely on it's history of reinforcement or punishment.


You have been wrapped up on this for three pages now. Sometimes I think I am better off to stay quiet and go about my business like Wavsko. I have never once said, that the methods you use are wrong. 

This all started because I was the dummy that answered the OP's question. Again I am liking Wavsko more and more each day. 

I did say if you add leash corrections to your "bag of tricks" it makes you a more complete trainer. And I believe that. No method is perfect and no method is foolproof. I assume RBark you train professionally at least part time. So I am sure you have worked with dogs and owners that had you wanting to beat your head against the wall.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> training training training training...makes one wonder exactly how much time those dogs got to spend just being puppies.
> 
> basically its a puppy. with my upcoming puppy..im not even going to begin to train her for anything competative until she is over a year of age. she will be CGCd and get a therapy dog certification and well will work on rock solid basic obedience until that point. puppy conformation is ridiculous...formal obedience is eh...other competative events that young? sorry..i find it borders on unethical...you cannot ascertain total physical and mental soundness until the dog is a full grown adult. and until you can ascertain reasonable assurance of total physical and mental soundness...you shouldnt be competing with a dog. Dogs should be allowed to be puppies. they should have the chance to grow normally and be watched for signs of unfitness during that time. there is plenty that you can do with a young pup/dog that will prepare them for competition without pushing them.



If someone has to TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN to get a RN or CD maybe dogs are not for them. Those are beginning titles. You should be training your puppy basic commands anyway. So why not compete if you and the dog both like it? 

Your statement is about like saying an 8 year old should not play on a baseball team.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I think there is no true need for harsh physical corrections.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> If someone has to TRAIN TRAIN TRAIN to get a RN or CD maybe dogs are not for them. Those are beginning titles. You should be training your puppy basic commands anyway. So why not compete if you and the dog both like it?
> 
> Your statement is about like saying an 8 year old should not play on a baseball team.


no its not. Its like...well..using your analogy...ever seen those parents of little league players...or tiny tot beauty pageant moms? the ones who live vicariously through their children and their kids pretend to like it despite all the pressure because its soooo dang important to their parents?

yeah. that. if you have to use aversion to get a beginner's title in something...id surmise that its not just about having fun. to me...if it's a puppy..and its not complying and you're using aversives to get it comply because YOU want to compete..there's something wrong with that. 

puppies should be allowed to be puppies. when they become adults is when they should be expected to take on bigger responsibilities if that is their purpose.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Im unsure Zim, what if Cash and I wanted to compete?
What would be wrong with that?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no its not. Its like...well..using your analogy...ever seen those parents of little league players...or tiny tot beauty pageant moms? the ones who live vicariously through their children and their kids pretend to like it despite all the pressure because its soooo dang important to their parents?
> 
> yeah. that. if you have to use aversion to get a beginner's title in something...id surmise that its not just about having fun. to me...if it's a puppy..and its not complying and you're using aversives to get it comply because YOU want to compete..there's something wrong with that.
> 
> puppies should be allowed to be puppies. when they become adults is when they should be expected to take on bigger responsibilities if that is their purpose.


Guess you missed the part about me saying I would NEVER use leash corrections on puppies. About three pages back. Go look. 

You know.... The other day you made a statement about me being extreme on the thread with the comments about farmers. You were right.... I took it too personal.

Now you are the one taking things to the extreme.



foxthegoldfish said:


> Im unsure Zim, what if Cash and I wanted to compete?
> What would be wrong with that?


There is nothing wrong with it. Go have fun with your dog.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

haha I don't think we could compete right now, he is a total teenager atm. 
But its expected


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Guess you missed the part about me saying I would NEVER use leash corrections on puppies. About three pages back. Go look.
> 
> You know.... The other day you made a statement about me being extreme on the thread with the comments about farmers. You were right.... I took it too personal.
> 
> Now you are the one taking things to the extreme.


you sure? because on this particular topic..im not speaking SPECIFICALLY ABOUT YOU. im speaking generally. generally speaking..titles on an 8 month old dont impress me because....



Zim said:


> makes one wonder exactly how much time those dogs got to spend just being puppies.


that is a questioning statement. it is not a definative statement. the implication is that when i hear of a 8 month old with multiple titles...the things i outlined in successive posts...pop into my head as questions. i hear "titled at 8 months", am immediately not particularly impressed and its because i think "so? what does that prove? what did you have to do to get those titles?'

not "OH YOU EVIL PERSON YOU HORRIBLE JOHNNYBANDIT YOU HOW DARE YOU!?!?!?!?!?!?"

lol...which one of us was being extreme again?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

> > As a trainer there are many corrections that are not aversive.
> 
> 
> Kinda confused on this point, like what?


Not rewarding as you up the ante is a correction. Leaving the room (often used if a dog nips too hard) is a correction. Not marking and Not rewarding for unwanted behavior is a correction. Turning your back to a jumping dog is a correction. Holding the crate door closed until the dog does what you want is a correction. 

Not one is a physical aversive. When speaking of corrections everyone ASSUMES a physical correction. Not necessarily so. 

I am off this thread. I have beaten this dead horse to death. I think the Admins ought to have a special forum for these learning theory discussions for those who love this sort of debate. I no longer do.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I think I know what you mean Zim,
is it like its fine to title a young dog, but one with heaps of titles seems silly?
It may not be that bad but it seems unneeded


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Shaina said:


> I think, and I could be wrong, that some folks are saying that corrections are used that end the behavior and prevent it from reoccurring but which the dog doesn't find aversive...and others are saying that if it's ending the behavior and preventing it in the future, it is by definition aversive is some way since the dog is doing the right thing now to avoid it...


Some dogs will go into a white panic if you squirt them with a water bottle. Others (and I have some experience with this type) think it's the best game evah!




Shaina said:


> Not that this is anything new, but an aversive doesn't necessarily equate beating the dog and causing permanent physical harm...just as using reinforcers doesn't always mean food and trembling, mincing owners begging their sweet doggies to _pllllleeeeeez_ sit. And neither consequence works unless the dog has some idea as to what behavior it is linked to in the first place.


Yup. Any damned fool can beat a dog into submission. Likewise, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to get a dog to perform by hanging food in front of his face. Training--as in: real training--isn't difficult, but it takes some thought and some skill to do it right--regardless of the method used.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you sure? because on this particular topic..im not speaking SPECIFICALLY ABOUT YOU. im speaking generally. generally speaking..titles on an 8 month old dont impress me because....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I knew you were not talking about me. Because I have never titled a dog that young. 

And..... No one ever said anything about piling a bunch of titles until you brought it up. I mentioned titles and specifically said beginning titles. Beginning titles are things such as Rally Novice and CD in Obedience. RN is baby pee to get. Heck it is set up for novice handlers and young dogs. Most dogs can get it after an eight week group obedience class that many people take with their puppies. CD takes a little more work but still nowhere near enough to rob a dog of its puppyhood. And certainly not comparible to the parents of an eight year old beauty queen.

So yea, it is you taking things to the extreme. But it did not start there and you are not alone. It pretty must started as soon as I said " I sometimes use leash corrections" Almost immediately you and RBark take things right off the extreme end. 

You know the really sad thing in all of this...... Anytime a training topic comes up on this forum, everyone digs their heels in. The thing is..... We can all learn from each other. Even if we don't agree 100 percent on methods, there is always something to learn.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I agree with that, we can all learn from each other, we all know different things


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Almost immediately you and RBark take things right off the extreme end.


My first response to you had nothing to do with leash corrections. I said it's the handler's training skill that decides the method, not the dog.

Nor did I ever say anyone was wrong/bad for using corrections. I disagree with physical corrections but I never said it was wrong or bad to use them. 

What I object to is the implication that physical corrections are not aversive. They *must* be aversive to work. Things Elana mentioned (leaving the room, withholding rewards) are aversive. What i am *not* objecting to, but disagreeing with, is the use of leash pops on 8 month old dogs and for trivial commands like sit. 

I am also not saying people who leash pop are abusing their dogs. I am unsure how that is getting interpreted from my comments. Learning Theory tells us that things must be reinforcing or punishing to learn. It's one or the other. For it to be a punishment, it would have to be something aversive. I am unsure why people object to that so much.

When I use a e-collar on Kobe, I am using an painful aversive on him. I justify this with the fact that the recall is a life or death cue, and that his life is enriched (not mine) by this. Is it a big deal to be honest?



> Some dogs will go into a white panic if you squirt them with a water bottle. Others (and I have some experience with this type) think it's the best game evah!


Right, I agree with that. Some find it pleasurable, others find it aversive. The ones who find it aversive (because it is painful or scary) will find it aversive and work to avoid it. The ones that find it the best game evah will find it reinforcing (here, reinforcing the behavior you're trying to stop, or if you're lucky, replace the behavior with seeking attention from you).


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

I am going to admit I did not read any of this past the second page and this one, so page 3 probably has all sorts of bickering and "holier than thou" rants. However,
I may just be way to "horse person" here bringing this up, but when more than one dog are together playing and one "steps out of line" what will the more dominant dog do? Physical correction no?
Sure there are body language signs that preceed the physical but if the dog had never been set straight by another dog it will ignore the body language until the physical follows through.
I know most here would never let dogs do their own things to keep peace but here with 6 dogs, there is a pecking order, the dogs have peacefully worked it out and sometimes one dog will pin another with no biting further proving their place in their social group.
Me adding slight pressure (not popping leashes, but giving a que) is by far NOTHING in comparison to what the other dogs would do to said dog for being rude in their little "pack' ( I hate using that word)
I would guarantee that the same people who are insistant that there is absolutely no need to properly physically correct would be the same people who have problems with handlers striking a horse.
When it comes to 6 large dogs ( or even one 1500 pound horse) I am going to make it crystal clear where I stand with them, I do not want to be killed or hurt by either of them.
Do I run around with sticks beating my dogs because they dont sit as soon as say the command? NO but I will reach over and apply pressure to make it clear when I say sit they are to sit.
I'm not going to negotiate with them, having a bombproof sit, down, or come may very well save their life in the event of a distraction and my dogs running towards a road.
Last thing I want is my dogs running towards a road because their leash let go and that being a time where we are negotiating the "come" command.
But to each their own.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I knew you were not talking about me. Because I have never titled a dog that young.
> 
> And..... No one ever said anything about piling a bunch of titles until you brought it up. I mentioned titles and specifically said beginning titles. Beginning titles are things such as Rally Novice and CD in Obedience. RN is baby pee to get. Heck it is set up for novice handlers and young dogs. Most dogs can get it after an eight week group obedience class that many people take with their puppies. CD takes a little more work but still nowhere near enough to rob a dog of its puppyhood. And certainly not comparible to the parents of an eight year old beauty queen.
> 
> So yea, it is you taking things to the extreme. But it did not start there and you are not alone. It pretty must started as soon as I said " I sometimes use leash corrections" Almost immediately you and RBark take things right off the extreme end.


actually i jumped in to answer this:



> I disagree..... Take a dog, not food motivated, not timid, not biddable........ You give the dog the que and he completely blows you off, because he can.... With your positive only method...... How are you going to get that dog to work?


not because you said you use corrections. but because you asked how does a positively focused trainer deals with an unbiddable dog.

as for my comments towards titling



> At 8 months old doesn't know their commands? There are dogs that get their first titles in Rally and obedience by that age. Conformation dogs that are well handled know their in ring commands and *some are finished champions prior to 8 months old.*


i dont think finished champions = beginning titles...maybe i misread that though.



> You know the really sad thing in all of this...... Anytime a training topic comes up on this forum, everyone digs their heels in. The thing is..... We can all learn from each other. Even if we don't agree 100 percent on methods, there is always something to learn.


leash corrections are unnessecary. physical aversion is unnessecary.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> My first response to you had nothing to do with leash corrections. I said it's the handler's training skill that decides the method, not the dog.
> 
> Nor did I ever say anyone was wrong/bad for using corrections. I disagree with physical corrections but I never said it was wrong or bad to use them.
> 
> ...


This post is a softened stance from most of your other posts on this matter. I never said a leash correction was not aversive. It is. I said it was not painful if administered properly. 

And for the record I agree with you on the 8 month old puppy. If you read back through my posts, as well as posts on other threads I have made on the topic, you will see that I specifically mentioned it was a bad idea to use leash corrections on a puppy.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> This post is a softened stance from most of your other posts on this matter. I never said a leash correction was not aversive. It is. I said it was not painful if administered properly.
> 
> And for the record I agree with you on the 8 month old puppy. If you read back through my posts, as well as posts on other threads I have made on the topic, you will see that I specifically mentioned it was a bad idea to use leash corrections on a puppy.


Right, I am saying it is aversive *because* it is painful, or discomforting in some way. It *has* to be, in order to be an aversive. Leaving a room is aversive because abandonment is painful for puppies, though that is more psychological than physical. Leash corrections are physical, so it must be painful or discomforting. It doesn't mean the dog is in so much pain that he wants to die. It means he experienced pain. When people pinch you, it's painful. When people poke you in the throat, it's painful. These are why it works. Yeah, those things won't render you crying, whining, fearful, and limping, but it's still pain.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> actually i jumped in to answer this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually you jumped in with your "grey matter" post prior to my post you just referenced. 

Finished conformation Champions is a different ball game. The dog needs about 4 commands in a conformation ring. In the puppy classes, a LOT is forgiven. If you can get the puppy to stand still for the judge to look at it and move around the ring nicely, nothing else is a big deal as long as the puppy does not growl at the judge. And a dog can conceivably finish in three shows. (one weekend and another saturday, or a three day cluster) Doesn't happen with most dogs but it does happen. 
The added bonus of conformation shows is they are great socialization tools. 

As for your statement that leash corrections being unnessessary, well...... That is your opinion and you have a right to it.



RBark said:


> Right, I am saying it is aversive *because* it is painful, or discomforting in some way. It *has* to be, in order to be an aversive. Leaving a room is aversive because abandonment is painful for puppies, though that is more psychological than physical. Leash corrections are physical, so it must be painful or discomforting. It doesn't mean the dog is in so much pain that he wants to die. It means he experienced pain. When people pinch you, it's painful. When people poke you in the throat, it's painful. These are why it works. Yeah, those things won't render you crying, whining, fearful, and limping, but it's still pain.


I disagree. Things can be uncomfortable without being painful. Aversion = discomfort with does not have to mean pain. Under your definition, everything that is done that is aversive to someone or something is painful. That is simply not the case. 

I don't use a water bottle. Because every dog I have tried it on treated it like a game. But to some dogs it is aversive. But you cannot tell me it is painful. If you put a collar and leash on me, and gave me a leash correction, I would not call it painful.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

*sighs*

this is post 16



> I disagree..... Take a dog, not food motivated, not timid, not biddable........ You give the dog the que and he completely blows you off, because he can.... With your positive only method...... How are you going to get that dog to work?


this is post 18..my first post in this thread..quoting post 16



> use your big human grey matter that's capable of deductive reasoning and figure out what DOES motivate him.
> 
> could be anything. like with BJ(dog im training right now)..I am the Queen of Poop. All poop is mine and if he wants to smell it(he's a bluetick/pit mix..he's motivated by his nose) he's gotta listen to what im asking first.


my point stands.


as for the titles thing..i misread you..so what? i know what's involved in a conformation title, obedience title etc..i do have mentors you know..

the point STILL stands...im STILL not impressed by titles on an 8 month old puppy. RBark gave a good description why in this post



> Ummmmmm of course. They got the title in a very controlled environment. That doesn't prove reliability in uncontrolled environments.


but then again im pretty hard to impress.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Well I guess you can disagree with the definition of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pain


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Painful is relative I guess. I want to know how you can assume that a good firm leash correction placed on a dogs neck/spinal column (not just a "come this way" tug) cannot cause pain or damage? Dogs are pretty damn stoic creatures in general (though there are exceptions) when it comes to physical discomfort, so how are we to really know whether we are not creating pain either with the original correction or over time?

Since aside from xraying the dog at different stages of his life, or actually accruing an injury we cannot know for sure, I prefer to assume that it WILL cause pain and or damage and hence try my very best not to use corrections of this type, ever. 

The quadrants define punishment as something applied or removed to reduce the frequency of a behaviour. In order for this reduction to occur they must be negative to the dog in SOME WAY. Aversives for some dogs can be as simple as withdrawing your attention (negative punishment) and for others a squirt of water or a leash correction (Positive punishment). Each dog decides what is aversive, or rewarding for themselves. BUT I believe, IMO, that using physical aversives in the sense of leash pops on animals is not necessary and there are better ways to apply *training. * 

And yes, Wimble woof, I also would not agree with smacking a horse. I also do not work with horses, so my knowledge there is limited. In addition the argument that dogs correct each other physically is a straw man argument. WE ARE NOT DOGS and dogs know it, we have a larger and more effective cerebral cortex and we SHOULD use that to our advantage.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

I will just say I've trained my 4 Great Pyrenees & my Akbash/Maremma cross without a leash pop ever...I barely raise my voice to them & still have managed to have 5 well trained dogs...I like to train in a way that my dog is an active & willing participant in the training.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

It is possible to train without them (as Gypsy said) so why are they needed at all?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

foxthegoldfish said:


> It is possible to train without them (as Gypsy said) so why are they needed at all?


Some people believe they are, that's about it.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

So you could train two dogs to the exact same level.
One without any physical corrections (dog A) and one that used some physical corrections (dog B).
The amount of discomfort suffered by dog A is less than that suffered by dog B.
Why feel the need to cause any physical discomfort to a dog when it is really not needed.


----------



## Wimble Woof (Jan 16, 2007)

Cracker said:


> Painful is relative I guess. I want to know how you can assume that a good firm leash correction placed on a dogs neck/spinal column (not just a "come this way" tug) cannot cause pain or damage? Dogs are pretty damn stoic creatures in general (though there are exceptions) when it comes to physical discomfort, so how are we to really know whether we are not creating pain either with the original correction or over time?
> 
> Since aside from xraying the dog at different stages of his life, or actually accruing an injury we cannot know for sure, I prefer to assume that it WILL cause pain and or damage and hence try my very best not to use corrections of this type, ever.
> 
> ...


I just would like to suggest you never work around a young untouched horse then... back to dogs,
How does applying pressure ( Like I have said over and over the physical I am talking about is NOT jerking or popping leashes but applying pressure) cause them pain???
Every animal moves from pressure, we do it, dogs do it, horses do it... I cant think of one animal that enjoys pressure and would force into it more.
So... applying slight pressure to the dogs collar clarifying what we are asking creates fear and pain how?
If I poke a finger into your rib cage under your arm with slight pressure and you move away from the discomfort, have I caused you any irreprable pain and suffering?
Not likely, however it was still a physical correction.
Like I have said eariler I am not talking about your typical trainer told leash jerks here, but I do use physical with my dogs, there are variations to force each person uses, and I would hardly call what I do with my dogs harsh or painful.
I'm just saying that there is no need to paint all physical corrections with the same brush as the dog loving world always does with everything. There are a million different brushes out there for every topic we can imagine. One persons interpretation of physical may not be the same as the next


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Well I guess you can disagree with the definition of the word. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pain


Since you are throwing out definitions... We were talking about Aversion.... Where in the definition is pain mentioned. 

2 results for: Aversion
aversion | nounaversion therapy | noun 
Main Entry: aversion u-!vur-zhun
Pronunciation: \ ə-ˈvər-zhən, -shən \ 
Function: noun
Date: 1596
Results

1. 1obsoletethe act of turning away

2 a. 2 aa feeling of repugnance toward something with a desire to avoid or turn from it - regards drunkenness with ∼b. ba settled dislike : antipathy - expressed an ∼ to partiesc. ca tendency to extinguish a behavior or to avoid a thing or situation and especially a usually pleasurable one because it is or has been associated with a noxious stimulus

3. 3an object of aversion - inconstancy is my ∼ - Jane Austen



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> *sighs*
> 
> this is post 16
> 
> ...


I stand corrected on my order of posts. 

And no one said you had to be impressed with titles on puppies. My point is putting a title or two on a pup does not rob them of their puppyhood.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

foxthegoldfish said:


> So you could train two dogs to the exact same level.
> One without any physical corrections (dog A) and one that used some physical corrections (dog B).
> The amount of discomfort suffered by dog A is less than that suffered by dog B.
> Why feel the need to cause any physical discomfort to a dog when it is really not needed.


Most people (not all, don't beat me over a qualifier) who use aversives as a major motivational factor in their training would attest that you cannot achieve the same level of training (or at least, achieve it as fast) if you do not use those aversives.

"Proving" the theory, regardless of which camp you are in, is somewhat problematic.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Since you are throwing out definitions... We were talking about Aversion.... Where in the definition is pain mentioned.
> 
> 2 results for: Aversion
> aversion | nounaversion therapy | noun
> ...


Er, pain is aversive.

Maybe you didn't know what "noxious" means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noxious


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And no one said you had to be impressed with titles on puppies. My point is putting a title or two on a pup does not rob them of their puppyhood.


oh here we go..

i never suggested one was speaking to myself in particular. you brought up titled puppies as if they were some kind of gold standard. they're not.

i personally have a..ehhh...not sure what to call it but...ob titles...they're cool...but they dont really tell you much...and i feel like if you are doing it for fun..and you have to introduce the not fun(aversion)..then you arent really doing it for fun..but then again..if my dog isnt having fun....neither am i...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Er, pain is aversive.
> 
> Maybe you didn't know what "noxious" means. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noxious


I know what Nozious means. And it does not neccessarily translate to pain. 

I guess we can play this silly game all night. 

Results1. a dislike so strong as to cause stomach upset or queasiness <I simply have this ingrained aversion to the sight of bloodshed> - see disgust 
2. a strong feeling of not liking or approving <couldn't overcome her aversion to cucumbers and excused herself to the bathroom when they were served> - see dislike 1 
3. something or someone that is hated <clichés should be the pet aversion of every good writer> - see hate 2


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Okay you have me lost. Are you saying pain is not aversive? You don't avoid pain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversives


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Here's my quick short stance.

I use leash corrections, and I don't feel bad about it. Never will. With the work my dog(s) does, niceties aren't always the way to go, unfortunately. I HATE a forced retrieve, but I MIGHT have to put one on my next service dog to get the dog to pick up objects I need.

I can also admit I hate premacking, because I usually have to allow the dog to do something I don't want it to do, and that is unacceptable to me. If it works for others, great, but for me, it's just not doable.

I try to use methods as positive as possible first, but I have no problem using aversives. Heck, Mirada's already experienced a few leash pops because that's the way it works in conformation. You correct a puppy for gaiting incorrectly. Not harshly, but you do (especially with Shepherds that move way out in front).

When Strauss goes down on a sit, you bet I pop him back up. But he doesn't cry or scream, or anything of the like. Yeah, his ears go back and he gives the patented "oops, I'm sorry" look, but honestly, that doesn't bother me. He knows he should be sitting, so I'm going to put him back into one. He recovers from the correction just fine, and when I return, his tail is wagging and his ears are forward, and I've got excellent attention.

I'm done.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Okay you have me lost. Are you saying pain is not aversive? You don't avoid pain?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversives


Of course I avoid pain. But I also avoid things that are not painful. I avoid radishes and coconut but they don't cause me pain.

I am going to make this real easy and declare you the winner. It is pointless to continue to go on. 

We have been going back and forth over a training technique that I feel has a place and you don't. 

I would imagine our training techniques are far more alike than they are different. I am sure we have both titled numerous dogs and trained dog owners to titles as well. 

It goes back to my statement a couple of pages back, we could learn more from each other. But it seems folks always seem to get hung up on very minor things. 

Anyway its all good and I wish you well in all of your training endeavors.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Here's a fix to all our problems. May peace and training success rain upon us all.









http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/on-sale/cf8b/


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Of course I avoid pain. But I also avoid things that are not painful. I avoid radishes and coconut but they don't cause me pain.
> 
> I am going to make this real easy and declare you the winner. It is pointless to continue to go on.
> 
> ...


*boggle* I'm unsure why there has to be a "winner". If you learn something, we both win, if I learn something, we both win. This is a win-win situation from the beginning.

Pain is aversive, but aversive is not only pain. Things you dislike due to taste buds are aversive. It's still discomfort, unpleasant, and so on.

We're getting hung up on minor things because without a common language, there can be no real understanding. If your definition of pain and aversion is different than mine, how can we communicate? Until we figure that out, there's no understanding. Since you do not wish to come upon a understanding, that makes us both losers.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Well we can all agree that my trainer was wrong and my 8month pup does not need to be yanked by both sides of his collar and yelled at if he breaks a sit stay to lie down.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Wimble Woof said:


> I just would like to suggest you never work around a young untouched horse then.. .


There are just as many positive horse trainers as there are positive dog trainers, and I'm sure there are also some not-quite-100%-positive horse trainers who wouldn't use any aversives on a young untouched horse. And I'm sure the training discussions get just as. . .interesting on the horse forums as well. Arguing that all horse trainers would use aversives isn't very convincing.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Willowy said:


> There are just as many positive horse trainers as there are positive dog trainers, and I'm sure there are also some not-quite-100%-positive horse trainers who wouldn't use any aversives on a young untouched horse. And I'm sure the training discussions get just as. . .interesting on the horse forums as well. Arguing that all horse trainers would use aversives isn't very convincing.


Would have to agree with you 100%
I know a trainer who catches wild horses and trains them with only positive methods, has never hit a horse in his life.
These horses are amazing


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Wimble Woof said:


> I just would like to suggest you never work around a young untouched horse then... back to dogs,
> How does applying pressure ( Like I have said over and over the physical I am talking about is NOT jerking or popping leashes but applying pressure) cause them pain???
> Every animal moves from pressure, we do it, dogs do it, horses do it... I cant think of one animal that enjoys pressure and would force into it more.
> So... applying slight pressure to the dogs collar clarifying what we are asking creates fear and pain how?
> ...


Pressure I don't have a problem with in the sense of guiding pressure, ie "leading the dog or horse somewhere" and yes I use social pressure to work with animals that are sensitive to it as well. It IS slightly aversive and I would only use it on dogs that are not finding it too aversive or frightening, but I use it in body blocking or to prevent jumping up in some dogs. I also use it regularly at the dog park to prevent one dog from harassing another (I work as a dogwalker and many walkers have little or no control over the dogs under their care). 

About the horses, yes I agree. LOL. My one horse experience involved a trail ride on a horse big enough that I (at almost six feet tall) needed a picnic table to saddle up, a broken girth and a long fall with a rolling end. Thank dog I'm a klutz to begin with..I learned a long time ago to tuck and roll..lol.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> *boggle* I'm unsure why there has to be a "winner". If you learn something, we both win, if I learn something, we both win. This is a win-win situation from the beginning.
> 
> Pain is aversive, but aversive is not only pain. Things you dislike due to taste buds are aversive. It's still discomfort, unpleasant, and so on.
> 
> We're getting hung up on minor things because without a common language, there can be no real understanding. If your definition of pain and aversion is different than mine, how can we communicate? Until we figure that out, there's no understanding. Since you do not wish to come upon a understanding, that makes us both losers.



I have tried to express myself. My attempts have thus far been in vain. Everything I have said has been countered. Everything that is aversive is not painful it is as simple as that. You continue to go back to pain every time. Well everything that is aversive is not painful. Lots of techniques can be aversive without being painful.

Frankly I have yet to witness a trainer that does not use adversive techniques. Even those that claim they are 100 percent positive. 

I have been training, handling and working dogs over thirty years. I am not going to be convinced that a leash correction is painful. Do dogs like it? No. Does it hurt? Not unless you get carried away with it. Which is why I never teach leash corrections to novices. 
I don't teach E Collar to anyone for the same reason. Too many folks have happy fingers with E Collars. (And yes I will agree that e collars cause some pain) I was taught to use an e collar in a very interesting manner to say the least. 

As far as winners and losers. I declared you the winner because that seemed to be your goal. 
I don't see that I have lost anything.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

foxthegoldfish said:


> Well we can all agree that my trainer was wrong and my 8month pup does not need to be yanked by both sides of his collar and yelled at if he breaks a sit stay to lie down.


I can agree that your trainer was wrong, and your 8 month old puppy does not need to be yanked and yelled at. I will say, I use mild leash corrections because I can't use verbal, but that's not what you asked. If you REALLY want to compete, and NOTHING else works, you may, at some point, need to consider another way, but at 8 months old, with you happy, there's no reason to do it if you don't like it.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

Thats what I wanted to hear, not looking forward to telling my trainer I don't want to use the methods he wants me to use. But I feel no need to do it with Cash. He thinks he is the best as he has a champion dog, which is awesome but doesn't mean much to me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I have tried to express myself. My attempts have thus far been in vain. Everything I have said has been countered. Everything that is aversive is not painful it is as simple as that. You continue to go back to pain every time. Well everything that is aversive is not painful. Lots of techniques can be aversive without being painful.
> 
> Frankly I have yet to witness a trainer that does not use adversive techniques. Even those that claim they are 100 percent positive.
> 
> ...


I have never claimed that I am 100 percent positive. Everyone uses some kind of aversion. I guess you see popping the dog's neck as "discomfort". I see it as physical pain. Not *your* definition of pain. You seem to define what is pain and what is aversive by the level of discomfort caused. Or so I'm guessing. I go by Psychology's definition of pain, and aversion. It's pretty all-encompassing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain. 

What you consider discomfort falls under my definition of pain. That doesn't make you wrong, nor does it being called pain make it inherently immoral, nor does it mean you're abusing your dog. When I look at a dog being leash popped, it's clear as day pain to me, by my definition. Whether it's an acceptable amount of pain or not depends on your comfort level. If you're comfortable with the level of pain you're administering, and do not feel it is excessive, then that is your judgement call.



> I declared you the winner because that seemed to be your goal.


That's your assumption. It makes me look like an ass. My goal is a good discussion that hopefully someone can learn from. It gets silly and petty at some parts, but that's not personal.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

I wouldn't look forward to it, anyway. I'm open to suggestion with mine, because I'm at a loss, but I do what I'm comfortable with. I will gently tug / correct her with the leash if she's not looking, as verbal doesn't work. But I will not shake my finger at her for anything, because she cowers. I would just tell him, and be prepared to find a different trainer if necessary. I don't think anyone should do anything that makes them uncomfortable, and I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just whatever you think is right, is what you should do, within reason, (not at you fox) like not if you think beating is right, just clarifying what I meant there.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Leash corrections done properly are not meant to hurt. Just a spark to bring the dog back to focus.


Again, unless you're using the jerk to cue "focus", you are not using it as a punisher. These are different things. 



> If dog's necks were so sensitive that a leash correction hurt, you would not see dogs all over the place pulling their owners down the street.


This would agree with what I said earlier. In order for the punisher to be effective, it must be severe enough to reduce the frequency of whatever behavior you're trying to reduce. The fact you don't see fewer dogs pulling is a result of ineffective leash corrections. IMO, it's silly to shy away from the fact that a leash correction is meant to painful/fearful enough to reduce the behavior from occurring again in the future. The argument that it's meant for something else would not follow. Acknowledging what it is, and being humane with its use is more prudent IMO. 

This is not to say you should jerk the dog harder to make the punishment more effective, no. But if you're using leash corrections, and if we are to be humane, darn straight you better prove your leash corrections are effective. To use them just to use them is tantamount to abuse. This talk about just getting the dog's attention with them is not punishment, and not what the trainer is trying to accomplish with the corrections.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> I have never claimed that I am 100 percent positive. Everyone uses some kind of aversion. I guess you see popping the dog's neck as "discomfort". I see it as physical pain. Not *your* definition of pain. You seem to define what is pain and what is aversive by the level of discomfort caused. Or so I'm guessing. I go by Psychology's definition of pain, and aversion. It's pretty all-encompassing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain.
> 
> What you consider discomfort falls under my definition of pain. That doesn't make you wrong, nor does it being called pain make it inherently immoral, nor does it mean you're abusing your dog. When I look at a dog being leash popped, it's clear as day pain to me, by my definition. Whether it's an acceptable amount of pain or not depends on your comfort level. If you're comfortable with the level of pain you're administering, and do not feel it is excessive, then that is your judgement call.
> 
> ...


Everyone's pain threshold is going to be different. The examples you gave about pinching someone or poking them in the neck would not fall under my definition of pain. If someone pinched me with their fingers I would not consider it painful. Pinch me wih a pair of pliers I would. It is the same with dogs. As a trainer that has to be realized. You cannot give a leash correction with the same force to a small dog as you can to a large. A dog's temperment and drive plays a role as well. 

I never stated that I thought you were a 100 percent positive trainer. I was just pointing out an observation I have seen over the years. 

As far as the assumption.... I am okay with looking like an ass. Won't be the first or last time. But that is only half the saying about assumptions..... It goes you and me....


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Everyone's pain threshold is going to be different. The examples you gave about pinching someone or poking them in the neck would not fall under my definition of pain. If someone pinched me with their fingers I would not consider it painful. Pinch me wih a pair of pliers I would. It is the same with dogs. As a trainer that has to be realized. You cannot give a leash correction with the same force to a small dog as you can to a large. A dog's temperment and drive plays a role as well.


If someone is pinching you hard enough with their fingers that you start attempting to avoid getting pinched, would that start to become painful under your definition?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

foxthegoldfish said:


> What are your opinions on physical corrections?
> Are they ok as long as they don't hurt the dog?
> Or are they just not needed?


Don't use them. Never will on Wally, if ever at all on a dog in the future.

Wally is a soft, once-fearful, still somewhat-shy dog. No reason to do anything like this to him.

If they don't hurt the dog - that's fine, but they have to be sharp enough to break the behavior chain he's on (i.e. redirection). Otherwise it's a waste of energy. If popping him with the leash doesn't work - stop doing it. If jerking just makes him pull harder - it's not working, etc. Personally, I prefer to us my voice or a sound I train as a stop-what-you-are-doing-and-look-at-me to redirect, but then, I have a soft dog that's attentive to me and communicates/wants to work with me.

I think if you have a soft dog, find another way other than physical correction. If you have a dog that communicates/works with you - utilize that if at all possible. Use physical correction only if nothing else will work. 

Consider the dog and the task at hand, but for me personally, I will always favor shaping or R+/P- combination to physical corrections and the like if at all possible.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> If someone is pinching you hard enough with their fingers that you start attempting to avoid getting pinched, would that start to become painful under your definition?


We just are not going to get past this pain definition thing are we? 

And unless you used your nails in the pinch and I started bleeding I would not describe the feeling as painful. But that is just me.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> We just are not going to get past this pain definition thing are we?
> 
> And unless you used your nails in the pinch and I started bleeding I would not describe the feeling as painful. But that is just me.


Getting interesting though:

How about if he used this:


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Getting interesting though:
> 
> How about if he used this:


That would probably hurt.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> We just are not going to get past this pain definition thing are we?
> 
> And unless you used your nails in the pinch and I started bleeding I would not describe the feeling as painful. But that is just me.


We are going to get past it, at least now we are, because we continued to discuss the terminology until we both have an understanding of it. That statement basically sums up the confusion we're having. Because that is how you define pain, I can't understand your posts with my own definition. No, I don't think leash pops are painful by your definition of it.

It is painful by my definition, however.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> We are going to get past it, at least now we are, because we continued to discuss the terminology until we both have an understanding of it. That statement basically sums up the confusion we're having. Because that is how you define pain, I can't understand your posts with my own definition. No, I don't think leash pops are painful by your definition of it.
> 
> It is painful by my definition, however.


But here is the thing... With the pinching thing.... That is on me. My threshold is high. Very high actually and there are reasons behind that. But.... My thresholds have nothing to do with a dogs. 
Similarly, your definition of pain has nothing to do with a dog's pain threshold either.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> But here is the thing... With the pinching thing.... That is on me. My threshold is high. Very high actually and there are reasons behind that. But.... My thresholds have nothing to do with a dogs.
> Similarly, your definition of pain has nothing to do with a dog's pain threshold either.


Yes however you can communicate your level of pain. The dogs can't.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> The dogs can't.


Then what is a yelp/cry/scream? Really?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Yes however you can communicate your level of pain. The dogs can't.


Of course they can.... Not verbally but if you pay attention to the dog, it will tell you.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Of course they can.... Not verbally but if you pay attention to the dog, it will tell you.


dont you mean "it will sometimes give you a vague idea?'


Bolo had a hairline fracture and torn tendon for several days before she actually started to show pain. acted totally fine before i poked it one day. i check her regularly now.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> dont you mean "it will sometimes give you a vague idea?'
> 
> 
> Bolo had a hairline fracture and torn tendon for several days before she actually started to show pain. acted totally fine before i poked it one day. i check her regularly now.


No I said what I meant.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Then what is a yelp/cry/scream? Really?


We know dogs are masters at hiding pain. If they are yelping/crying/screaming, in most cases (not all) you've gone far beyond the point it was painful, and nearly abusive if not well into it.



> Of course they can.... Not verbally but if you pay attention to the dog, it will tell you.


The criteria of "it will tell you" seems to really vary. When a dog cowers from something (can be as much as a head duck, closing eyes shut, tension, bracing body), or tries to avoid something, that falls under pain to me.

It may be something else, "discomfort", "annoying", or a million other things. He can't tell me which one it is. So I have to assume it is painful, in order to be humane and make a conscious decision on whether it is justified.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No I said what I meant.


i pay quite close attention to her. i watch her every move. she has a high high threshold for pain. doesnt mean she doesnt FEEL it though. no one...NO ONE who saw her in that time noticed anything out of the ordinary. yet on the xray..the bone showed signs of remodeling...which meant the fracture had been there for some time.

FEELING...and SHOWING pain are two different things.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i pay quite close attention to her. i watch her every move. she has a high high threshold for pain. doesnt mean she doesnt FEEL it though. no one...NO ONE who saw her in that time noticed anything out of the ordinary. yet on the xray..the bone showed signs of remodeling...which meant the fracture had been there for some time.
> 
> FEELING...and SHOWING pain are two different things.


I don't disagree that feeling and showing are two different things. 

But do you really think that a dog that spent who knows how long with a torn tendon and a fracture would actually be bothered by a leash correction?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Of course I avoid pain. But I also avoid things that are not painful. I avoid radishes and coconut but they don't cause me pain.
> 
> I am going to make this real easy and declare you the winner. It is pointless to continue to go on.
> 
> ...


After I jump on with a reply or 2, I watch and see where thread is going and then jump off to avoid the pain that will follow. I prefer to save stamina and patience for the actual training of dogs not egos.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

wvasko said:


> After I jump on with a reply or 2, I watch and see where thread is going and then jump off to avoid the pain that will follow. I prefer to save stamina and patience for the actual training of dogs not egos.


I love this. I laughed when I read this.. so hard it caused me pain.. or was that aversion? or maybe it was just noxious? 

I declareWVasko the TRUE winner. LOL. 

This has been a very amusing thread.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I don't disagree that feeling and showing are two different things.
> 
> But do you really think that a dog that spent who knows how long with a torn tendon and a fracture would actually be bothered by a leash correction?


this particular dog will lay down on the ground and play dead if you try to use a leash correction on her.

but that's beside the point.

the point is that you may THINK you know what the dog thinks of your correction...but you CANT know. you have NO objective method of assessing whether or not the dog is actually in pain.

the statement "Corrections arent painful" is ridiculous because YOU as a human CANT KNOW FOR SURE.

me? i err on the side of caution as a result.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> Er, pain is aversive.


From there, you construct the syllogistic fallacy that *aversive = painful*. There is a continuum on which exist aversive stimuli that are sufficient to create avoidance without inflicting pain. I had a co-worker who thought it was the height of comic genius to emit noxious farts in confined spaces. This habit was neither fear-inducing nor painful, but I learned to avoid his company. Frankly, I don't know which I found more annoying; his gaseous emissions, or his triumphal glee at his successful ambush.

Whether most dogs could be trained to the same level without the use of aversives is a whole other question, that I strongly doubt will be settled here. Then we get into the mire of whether a given trainer is using aversive techniques as "as a major motivational factor". Or, the motivational factor. And on and on.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Unsure if you read my posts....

I never said pain and aversive is the same thing. I said pain is aversive.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> From there, you construct the syllogistic fallacy that *aversive = painful*. There is a continuum on which exist aversive stimuli that are sufficient to create avoidance without inflicting pain. I had a co-worker who thought it was the height of comic genius to emit noxious farts in confined spaces. This habit was neither fear-inducing nor painful, but I learned to avoid his company. Frankly, I don't know which I found more annoying; his gaseous emissions, or his triumphal glee at his successful ambush.
> 
> Whether most dogs could be trained to the same level without the use of aversives is a whole other question, that I strongly doubt will be settled here. Then we get into the mire of whether a given trainer is using aversive techniques as "as a major motivational factor". Or, the motivational factor. And on and on.


Aaaahhhhh yes, which came 1st, the chicken or the egg.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Aaaahhhhh yes, which came 1st, the chicken or the egg.


 The larger question is if it is okay to administer a leash correction to the chicken and can the egg feel pain.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this particular dog will lay down on the ground and play dead if you try to use a leash correction on her.
> 
> but that's beside the point.
> 
> ...


You can choose to err any way you choose..... Whatever gets you through the night.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The larger question is if it is okay to administer a leash correction to the chicken and can the egg feel pain.
> 
> 
> 
> You can choose to err any way you choose..... Whatever gets you through the night.


Just saying...your argument about dogs not feeling pain from a leash correction AND the argument that they do...are ultimately both bullhooey. There's no way to be sure.

Me...I'd rather not risk it. I can't see how a tightening of something around one's neck does not at least cause discomfort. There are quite a few nerve bundles in that area on any animal. There is also the major arteries there that pressure would cause dizzyness and disorientation, however brief it may be. There may b no definative measure but the biological structure of the dog hints at there being pain.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Just saying...your argument about dogs not feeling pain from a leash correction AND the argument that they do...are ultimately both bullhooey. There's no way to be sure.
> 
> Me...I'd rather not risk it. I can't see how a tightening of something around one's neck does not at least cause discomfort. There are quite a few nerve bundles in that area on any animal. There is also the major arteries there that pressure would cause dizzyness and disorientation, however brief it may be. There may b no definative measure but the biological structure of the dog hints at there being pain.


On the biological structure thing. Dogs are carnivores, They are not wolves but descended from wolves. Canine's offensive and defensive tool for food precurement, fighting over territory, breeding rights, etc is the head and jaws. The supporting body part is the neck.

All I can go on is my experiences. Having hunted with actual catch dogs, Having played and trained in bite work, and having trained in general for over thirty years, my opinion is that the neck of a dog is pretty tough and likely the strongest part of their body. I have worked with countless dogs over the years. Nothing has ever led me to believe that a leash correction done properly causes the dog pain. Do they like it? No... Is it painful? no.....

It is a tool that you and some others say you do not need. A more correct statement is that you have not needed it yet. Yesterday you mentioned that I should use my grey matter to figure out what motivates the dog. Different things motivate different dogs. Food, toys, play time, as you mentioned sniffing around, etc. There are dogs out there that are motivated by being willfully disobedient. If you have not come across such a dog yet, if you continue training, you probably will.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I use physical corrections in the form of leash corrections at times. But it depends on the dog, what stage it is on leaning a command, the handler, etc. A leash correction does not need to be harsh to be effective. How forceful it is, depends on the dog and the situation.


Agreed 100%. A leash pop would probably shut Tag down, but get Auz revved up. If I want to leash pop Auz enough to subdue a behavior (hopefully so I can get a rewardable one), I would have to jerk pretty dang hard.



Tankstar said:


> When Blazes lunges on his leash at a motorcycle, that is a heck of alot more force then me pulling him back and placing him beside me. A quick yank ont he leash with out much force is as harmful as him pulling. It is not fear or pain, its getting his attanetion. As much as a mother grabs her child by a jacket to pull them back.
> what good is it? it works, gets him back to place and makes him relize where he should be. I dont use it all the time, but when needed. Like any dog he sometimes forgets his training and tries to push buttons, I dont stand for that, a quick leash pull does no harm to him.
> Im not going to carry a crap load of treats on me every where I go to get his attention back with smell.


I think the times I've done a leash jerk on my own dogs was a gut reaction. Auz goes to dart (because I didn't have his attention) and I reflexively yanked the leash back. Another dog charged up to Tag a few weeks ago; I reflexevly pulled his leash back. 
I think, even on "hard" dogs, a leash correction when the dog is passive is a lot more aversive than when they're already tuned out. When my parents were getting divorced, mom was loading the kitchen table by herself into my truck. Solid wood, seats 8 people, the thing is HUGE. And HEAVY. She was so PO'ed at my dad that she managed to lift and THROW the thing in the truck. (A day or so later, her shoulders and back had her in so much pain she could barely stand it; but in the heat of the moment she swore she didn't feel a thing). I think this is why Auz can run into the fence at top speed while chasing birds and not even act like it hurt, but will scream out if I accidently step on his tail when he's lying, passively, on the floor.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

foxthegoldfish said:


> I don't think its always painful, but it is designed to be uncomfortable, why would I want to make my dog uncomfortable?


Because it is an effective way to train?

Why only use part of learning theory and operant conditioning, when you might be able to train more effectively using the full options open to you?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> Because it is an effective way to train?
> 
> Why only use part of learning theory and operant conditioning, when you might be able to train more effectively using the full options open to you?


Contrary to a mistaken belief, using only one part of Learning theory doesn't mean you're limiting yourself or training uneffectively. Using one part the four quadrants means the dog is learning, using two parts means the dog is learning, using three parts means the dog is learning, and so on. Not "learning better" or "learning more complete". All four quadrants are learning.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Me...I'd rather not risk it. I can't see how a tightening of something around one's neck does not at least cause discomfort. There are quite a few nerve bundles in that area on any animal. There is also the major arteries there that pressure would cause dizzyness and disorientation, however brief it may be. There may b no definative measure but the biological structure of the dog hints at there being pain.


If this is the case then you never ever allow a dog to pull, like your Coonhound cross. You do not use a martingale collar (ever). You do not use a flat buckle collar either. You do not use a leash if, in fact, you do use a collar.... because any time the dog chooses to hit the end of the leash for ANY reason you are inadvertantly inflicting pain _eeven if the dog is the one doing the pulling and you are standing perfectly still_.

By this argument you would never stand perfectly still and no dog under your care would ever ever move in such a manner as to tighten the leash. Even if YOU do not use collar pops and you do use a leash, there are those dogs who will hit the end of that leash much much MUCH harder than any pop you would ever administer. 

Now this is not to say it cannot be done. I have trained dogs w/o a collar or a leash and there are those who train w/o either and use a clicker. Others do train w/o and do not use a clicker. 

So, by this statement you are saying all your training and handling of dogs is off leash. Always. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> All I can go on is my experiences.* Having hunted with actual catch dogs*, Having played and trained in bite work, and having trained in general for over thirty years, my opinion is that the neck of a dog is pretty tough and likely the strongest part of their body. I have worked with countless dogs over the years. Nothing has ever led me to believe that a leash correction done properly causes the dog pain. Do they like it? No... Is it painful? no.....


Imagine that.. actual dogs.. 



> It is a tool that you and some others say you do not need. A more correct statement is that you have not needed it yet. Yesterday you mentioned that I should use my grey matter to figure out what motivates the dog. *Different things motivate different dogs*. Food, toys, play time, as you mentioned sniffing around, etc. There are dogs out there that are motivated by being willfully disobedient. If you have not come across such a dog yet, if you continue training, you probably will.


Different things motivate different dogs.. I just love this statement. It is just so true. True of other species as well. 

Carry on... I am going back to my Observation Enclosure. LOL


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Dogs avoid behaviors if they result in averse consequences. Nobody is aguing otherwise. That's the entire point of using them. Aversive = pain/fear is rather a significant leap, however. The squirt bottle is a good example. It is neither painful nor fear-inducing (for most dogs). It is merely sufficiently unpleasant (for some dogs) to interrupt a behavior and condition the dog to avoid it. Did I miss something?


Nope, using a leash and collar is method to communicate to the the dog. The key is effective communication the dog understands that decreases a behavior. If used well in that manner I have no issue with it. My dog used to lunge into her leash until her front feet were 2 feet off the ground, hit it with all her force, if that didn't hurt and wasn't painful, a little leash pop certainly wouldn't be.

But painful or uncomfortable etc. is beside the point. The point is does it communicate something to the dog that the dog understands. If so it is useful if not it is useless.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Of course they can.... Not verbally but if you pay attention to the dog, it will tell you.


Sure they can, it's called a "yelp".. dogs usually vocalize this "yelp" when they feel pain. Pull a thorn from a paw, step on a dogs tail or toe, poke em with a stick... They are quite good at vocally telling you that hurt.



RBark said:


> Contrary to a mistaken belief, using only one part of Learning theory doesn't mean you're limiting yourself or training uneffectively. Using one part the four quadrants means the dog is learning, using two parts means the dog is learning, using three parts means the dog is learning, and so on. Not "learning better" or "learning more complete". All four quadrants are learning.


I didn't say better, or more complete, I didn't even mention the dog learning.. I said you might train more effectively, maybe more efficiently, by using the full range of learning theory that our brains are evolved and adapted to use. Why limit yourself to only part of it?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> I didn't say better, or more complete, I didn't even mention the dog learning.. I said you might train more effectively, maybe more efficiently, by using the full range of learning theory that our brains are evolved and adapted to use. Why limit yourself to only part of it?


You did mention the dog learning when you cited "learning theory". Learning theory is about learning. Learning Theory is not a training method. You can't use the "full range of learning theory". You either understand it or you don't, and it teaches you *why* and *how* dogs learn, but not how to train a dog.

As such, you cannot "limit" yourself to one part of it. You are always, no matter what method you use, using the learning theory. The dog might not be learning the thing you are trying to teach, but he is still learning. Using nothing but R+ is not "limiting". Because if you are using R+, the dog learns. if you are using P+, the dog learns. 

The discussion of using aversive techniques are a issue of humanity, not effectiveness. An extreme analogy would be, I can make a man dig all day for free with a gun aimed at his head. Hiring a man, paying him a fair wage, employing him in humane conditions would cost me a lot more. Why do we do the latter? Because it's humane, fair, and right.

You are seeing Learning Theory as a percentage. That R+ trainers use 25% of it. Others use 100% of it, and that's more effective. But that's wrong. Using R+ is using 100% of it, using all four is using 100% of it.


----------



## JiveDadson (Feb 22, 2010)

RBark said:


> They are just not needed at all. Ignore your trainer or find a new one. What are your current methods of training sit? At 8 months old he is FAR from being well trained.


Correction: Ignore your trainer AND find a new one.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> The discussion of using aversive techniques are a issue of humanity, not effectiveness. An extreme analogy would be, I can make a man dig all day for free with a gun aimed at his head. Hiring a man, paying him a fair wage, employing him in humane conditions would cost me a lot more. Why do we do the latter? Because it's humane, fair, and right.


So I suppose I should pay a man fairly not to rob me when he says gimme your wallet, or repeatedly beats his wife, and repeatedly abuses his kids I guess... Because it is humane and fair and right... That'll change his behavior for sure..



> You are seeing Learning Theory as a percentage. That R+ trainers use 25% of it. Others use 100% of it, and that's more effective. But that's wrong. Using R+ is using 100% of it, using all four is using 100% of it.


Not at all, your missing me entirely. Each is a tool, one can be more efficient for a specific training goal than another. Excluding one or two simply can make some training tasks more difficult.. Why limit the tools in the box, why not apply the best learning method for the specific purpose?

A trainer using nothing but R+ (which I don't believe exist in reality), is using 100% of one way of learning, but the brain is adapted specifically to learn from them all for very good reasons that have helped animals survive and adapt. Nature provides a whole heck of a lot of the total range of learning theory, why should I handicap myself?

I mean I could probably get an axle nut off with a screwdriver with a lot of effort, I'd rather just use a wrench.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

> The discussion of using aversive techniques are a issue of humanity, not effectiveness. An extreme analogy would be, I can make a man dig all day for free with a gun aimed at his head. Hiring a man, paying him a fair wage, employing him in humane conditions would cost me a lot more. Why do we do the latter? Because it's humane, fair, and right.


Nope. Nothing to do with humane, fair and right. 

It is illegal to hold a gun to someone's head (in the US where I live) and as the boss I do not want to go to jail.....

It is also likely the guy won't show up the next day for work with the gun method. You will get about one good day.. so you better have the amount he can dig well planned. 

If you need more than one day you best have a bunch of guys all fenced up so you will hve a fresh supply for the next day. Of course occaisionally you will have to pull the trigger or they will run out of the cage the minute you turn one loose to dig. You also need two guys with guns because one might need to have a bathroom break and the digging guy will run away. Now you have an extra guy and the digger and you got to pay the extra guy...

Oh my... with fences and extra help is is probably more profitable to just hire the guy to dig and be done with it. 

Actually, here in the US we DO use both methods to get someone to work. The guy with the gun is the guy who takes part of your wages for taxes to support the guy NOT digging... So you dig harder and longer so maybe he won't take it all and you get to keep some.

Or you could just put a prong collar on the guy and yank it once in awhile when he slacks off and then pay him at the end of the day...


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Imagine that.. actual dogs..


I read a book about 'em. I think I actually met one once.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I read a book about 'em. I think I actually met one once.


Love it.. HAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I wont be changing trainers as this is free 
You pay for the first course then the rest is free for the rest of the year.
This is our second course, its with a different trainer.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> So I suppose I should pay a man fairly not to rob me when he says gimme your wallet, or repeatedly beats his wife, and repeatedly abuses his kids I guess... Because it is humane and fair and right... That'll change his behavior for sure..


This is a silly argument. If you pay a man to not rob you, you are reinforcing his robbing you. If you pay a man for beating his wife, you are reinforcing his wife beating. If you pay a man for beating his kids, you are reinforcing the beating of the kids. Duh. If you reward bad behavior, the bad behavior will continue. R+ training is not about rewarding bad behavior. It is about rewarding good behavior.




> Not at all, your missing me entirely. Each is a tool, one can be more efficient for a specific training goal than another. Excluding one or two simply can make some training tasks more difficult.. Why limit the tools in the box, why not apply the best learning method for the specific purpose?


I would take difficulty over inhumanity any day.



> A trainer using nothing but R+ (which I don't believe exist in reality), is using 100% of one way of learning, but the brain is adapted specifically to learn from them all for very good reasons that have helped animals survive and adapt. Nature provides a whole heck of a lot of the total range of learning theory, why should I handicap myself?


We are not nature. We are intelligent enough to choose the methods we use to teach. You make it sound like we're helplessly without choice.



> I mean I could probably get an axle nut off with a screwdriver with a lot of effort, I'd rather just use a wrench.


An more proper analogy would be you could use a wrench to get it off properly, or use a hammer and whack it right off. Whacking it right off might be easier and faster, but silly.



Elana55 said:


> Nope. Nothing to do with humane, fair and right.
> 
> It is illegal to hold a gun to someone's head (in the US where I live) and as the boss I do not want to go to jail.....


It is illegal because it is unfair, inhumane, and wrong.



> It is also likely the guy won't show up the next day for work with the gun method. You will get about one good day.. so you better have the amount he can dig well planned.


Wonder what your dog would think if he had a choice to not show up the next day and knew there were more humane treatment elsewhere. I know you're going to throw in the usual "my house, my rules, etc etc" argument. I don't find it being my house and my rules a justification for inhumanity.



> Actually, here in the US we DO use both methods to get someone to work. The guy with the gun is the guy who takes part of your wages for taxes to support the guy NOT digging... So you dig harder and longer so maybe he won't take it all and you get to keep some.


We use both methods to make someone work, but humans have a choice. Dogs don't.


----------



## JiveDadson (Feb 22, 2010)

Dog trainers are pretty much the only people who still refer to the P/R +/- grid. Those "quadrants" are not created equal. They affect future behavior in very different ways, and have very different "proofing"requirements. Unless you are training an attack police-dog, I think it's a very good idea to stick with R+ as much as possible, and P- when necessary.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Oh no. I would never hold a gun to my dog's head. That is PETA that does that and then they say that it was humane for the dog (after they pull the trigger) because the dog was enslaved (Man I so NEED a good Roll Eyes smiley here.. they REALLY help this stuff). 

Besides, my dog has seen the treatment I give the hired guy and has helped me. She gets to use her prey drive.. on real bonafide live prey that cannot run faster than she can! 

The hired guy on the farm? There have been times... LOL It is those times that make it illegal.... Of course the issue is what to do with the body. 

I am just not taking this whole thread seriously as it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now I am having fun with it. 

I suggest a lightening up here. 

BTW no dogs or hired diggers died in the creation of this response. (Again.. NO good smiley... ).


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Going back to my statement earlier. I think its time to ad some visual examples.

Take a look at the dog in the video below. Does anyone actually think they can put anywhere near as much stress on a dog's neck with a leash correction as the dog below is willingly putting on its own neck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAT247sLAXo



RBark said:


> Contrary to a mistaken belief, using only one part of Learning theory doesn't mean you're limiting yourself or training uneffectively. Using one part the four quadrants means the dog is learning, using two parts means the dog is learning, using three parts means the dog is learning, and so on. Not "learning better" or "learning more complete". All four quadrants are learning.


I am going to ask a question or two here.... Not meant as a crack on you. I think it is a valid question based on some of your responses....

Have you by chance recently taken some sort of dog training coursework? 
How long have you trained dogs?
How many dogs have you trained?

The reason this comes into my mind is that sometimes your responses are very textbook? I hang around with other trainers all the time and we just don't talk like that.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Erm, for what it's worth, my dog will run through brush and thorns and brambles after a mark and tear herself to bits. That doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

^^^  This ^^^^^
Just because they do it doesn't mean it doesn't hurt
Dogs just have a high pain tolerance 
Jemma had a large gash in her leg but you would never have known by looking at her.
You could be doing something that hurts and not even know it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> Oh no. I would never hold a gun to my dog's head. That is PETA that does that and then they say that it was humane for the dog (after they pull the trigger) because the dog was enslaved (Man I so NEED a good Roll Eyes smiley here.. they REALLY help this stuff).
> 
> Besides, my dog has seen the treatment I give the hired guy and has helped me. She gets to use her prey drive.. on real bonafide live prey that cannot run faster than she can!
> 
> ...


All you are doing is being passive aggressive and mocking people that are trying to have a civil discussion. And yelling fire where there is no fire. If you find the discussion ridiculous, there's no reason to partake into it, and no reason to mock it. I enjoy these discussions, even if you do not.



> The reason this comes into my mind is that sometimes your responses are very textbook? I hang around with other trainers all the time and we just don't talk like that.


That just means the people you associate with are of like mind. Much like that, I don't generally associate with people who train and think like you do. (also not a crack or a snide remark, I know how it sounds). I also don't explain learning theory to everyone I try to help with training. But when discussions such as this happen, it tends to get enough depth that for any sense of clarity it is better to have a mutual language.

When I talk to other people who train like I do, I don't need to go into 1% the depth I have gone here, and we don't get bogged down in definitions of words because we both define words the same way.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> If this is the case then you never ever allow a dog to pull, like your Coonhound cross. You do not use a martingale collar (ever). You do not use a flat buckle collar either. You do not use a leash if, in fact, you do use a collar.... because any time the dog chooses to hit the end of the leash for ANY reason you are inadvertantly inflicting pain _eeven if the dog is the one doing the pulling and you are standing perfectly still_.
> 
> By this argument you would never stand perfectly still and no dog under your care would ever ever move in such a manner as to tighten the leash. Even if YOU do not use collar pops and you do use a leash, there are those dogs who will hit the end of that leash much much MUCH harder than any pop you would ever administer.
> 
> ...


actually no. not in the slightest. by this suppostion(not an argument)...there is some concern with using certain tools. there's nothing definative to support any kind of statement as to whether or not dogs feel pain in a way that we can reliably measure. the statement you quoted is merely a speculation.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> If this is the case then you never ever allow a dog to pull, like your Coonhound cross. You do not use a martingale collar (ever). You do not use a flat buckle collar either. You do not use a leash if, in fact, you do use a collar.... because any time the dog chooses to hit the end of the leash for ANY reason you are inadvertantly inflicting pain _eeven if the dog is the one doing the pulling and you are standing perfectly still_.
> 
> By this argument you would never stand perfectly still and no dog under your care would ever ever move in such a manner as to tighten the leash. Even if YOU do not use collar pops and you do use a leash, there are those dogs who will hit the end of that leash much much MUCH harder than any pop you would ever administer.
> 
> ...


Technically I don't put my dog on a collar, EVER. He walks on a harness and there is never any pressure put on his neck. I don't want him to damage his neck and trachea. Basil is a small dog, and doesn't have the benefit of a good breeder who cared about his genetics, so the less chances for him to recieve damage to his neck, the better. I've known dogs with Collapsing Trachea, and it's not a pretty sight. 

@ The argument that dog's put more pressure on their neck than a leash pop, therefor do not feel pain from leash pops: It's already been stated that in a moment of intense arousal where the body is filled with adrenalin, pain can be ignored for the time being. Seeing a squirrel, having an aggressive response, or even merely being overwhelmed by excitement can cause a dog to go into a completely different world. Ever heard of a hound running into a busy road following a scent? Surely that means that if a hound would willingly step in front of a truck, it's perfectly humane to toss him in front of one. Also, isn't the purpose of a leash pop to regain focus and bring them back to planet Earth? If that's the case, you're causing them to exit their state of intense arousal, where pain is a lot more noticeable. I will agree that a gentle tug to communicate to your dog that he needs to check back with you is not painful or cruel, but yanking a dog around harshly or using devices to inflict pain, like choke chains, prong collars, or electric collars IS painful and I do not consider them to be humane. 

@TXrider: If the mose effective method of learning is to use every single quandrant of learning theory, does that mean you can't learn not to jump off a bridge by hearing that it will kill you, you actually have to go try it out for yourself? 

I've learned things by getting an adversive experience, sure. The whole grabbing something hot is a good example. But I've also learned things using only positive methods. For instance, I've learned not to be homeless and continue to work for money because every time I get money, I get a nice reward like a home or food. I've never flunked a course in school because getting good grades was rewarding enough to keep me motivated not to fail. You don't see me struggling with homelessness and poor grades because nobody ever punished me into behaving. 

A dog doesn't have to be punished to learn. For some dogs, the thought of the reward is motivating enough to get them to learn, and they can learn darn efficiently. Efficency is measured by how motivated the dog is, be it from desiring a valuable treat or fearing pain. I actually could argue that using a "complete" training method with involves both rewarding and punishment could be LESS efficient for a dog who is anxious and shuts down when punished.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Nargle said:


> *It's already been stated that in a moment of intense arousal where the body is filled with adrenalin, pain can be ignored for the time being. Seeing a squirrel, having an aggressive response, or even merely being overwhelmed by excitement can cause a dog to go into a completely different world*.


The same argument was used by Suzanne Clothier about schutzhund or PP dogs's muscles locking in preparation of bite work (and being flung around a bit), vs. a dog wearing a head collar and "accidently" hitting the end. The muscles have no time to prepare for the jolt in the latter case. I guess that if a dog sees a squirrel, they're already so tense and in that different world that they honestly don't feel a normal collar pop; vs. if you tell them sit and they don't and they get a collar pop that makes them screech, "listen", or comply.


----------



## JiveDadson (Feb 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Going back to my statement earlier. I think its time to ad some visual examples.
> 
> Take a look at the dog in the video below. Does anyone actually think they can put anywhere near as much stress on a dog's neck with a leash correction as the dog below is willingly putting on its own neck?
> 
> ...


 No one's credentials are on trial. There are plenty of trainers who have been around for decades whom I would not allow near my dogs.

If we are going to look at videos, let's compare the demenors of dogs that are trained with positive only methods to those that are jerked around. I have done that. The difference is night and day. I got nowhere with jerking my dogs. I regret that I got off to a bad start. Didn't know better. I have made tremendous progress with my rescued strays since I completely stopped all punishment and correction, and I am happier to boot.

Here's a jerker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg79NBOS8es
Here's a clicker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFgtqgiAKoQ

I tried using the jerker's methods for a month with no improvement. When I used the clicker's methods, I saw huge improvement in a few minutes. Most importantly, my dogs are waggy, bouncy when we go out. They do not lower their heads, ears, and tails and try to appear invisible like the "amazing" man's dogs do.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

> All you are doing is being passive aggressive and mocking people that are trying to have a civil discussion. And yelling fire where there is no fire. If you find the discussion ridiculous, there's no reason to partake into it, and no reason to mock it. I enjoy these discussions, even if you do not.


Oh Good Grief Charlie Brown.. I am finding this amusing and very amusing that people take themselves so seriously. This is the internet and the DF is for entertainment (tho I do learn a thing or two here). I am entertained. I sure hope I don't take myself that serious.. ever. 

If you find my remarks 'passive aggressive' (whatever the H that is and no I do not care what it is) then that makes it even more fun. 

I find these threads highly entertaining and I, for one, am glad you enjoy these discussions and partaking in them. It is part of what I find so very entertaining. One person says collar corrections hurt, another says not, another says they NEVER use them, then there are post about what Aversive means and what Pain is and whether or not a dog is suffering psychological pain.. and then someone compares it to what you would do with a child.. and another person says dogs are not children...

And ultimately learning theory is what it is and should prove out regardless of the species... 

and on 
and on

If that is NOT entertaining, I do not know what is. This is as good as anything Abbott and Costello have done. 

Smile. It is FUN. What makes it fun is NO ONE concedes... EVER... well, JohnnyBandit did but then y'all would not let him. 

I took a break awhile ago... to train my dogs and walk them.. and came back to see how the dust was doing here. The rodeo is still going on. LOL 
I am looking forward to seeing that video if I can tomorrow (have time for it). 

To the OP.. I hope you are amused. As I said at the start, do what works with your dog. Read your dog and if what you are doing works, you are allowed to be disobedient in class. I doubt you will be flogged at dawn or expelled from dog school. REMEMBER: Your dog. You paid to get him. You buy the food. You provide the roof. You walk him. You are his entertainment. You train your dog as you see fit. 

And please please PLEASE keep on smilin' cuz w/o that it just isn't fun. It should all be fun.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

JiveDadson said:


> No one's credentials are on trial. There are plenty of trainers who have been around for decades whom I would not allow near my dogs.


No such thing or intent. I feel it is a legitimate question. Many of his answers look to be straight out of a text book. And that is not a knock in any way. But there is a difference between academic knowledge and practical hands on knowledge. I have been hiring and training recent college graduates for different positions for years. Fresh out of school and full of knowledge but no practical experience applying what they have learned. It takes time to learn how to apply academic knowledge. In most cases that knowledge when mixed with real life experience, is molded, modified and changed. People learn to use what is important and store the rest away. 

There is not passive aggressiveness in me. If I wanted to challenge credentials, I would have. But there is no point in seeing who can pee farther. 
The person I asked is under no obligation to answer if they don't wish to. 

As far as your videos... Well....

In your case you used the method that worked for you. Other methods would have worked as well. 

Me, I have a method of teaching a dog to walk nicely on a loose leash that typically works in a matter of minutes. At most it takes a few sessons. The great thing about my method is two fold. The dog makes its own decision to walk nicely and it comes on fast. You can do it with any kind of collar you like or even a harness.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> No such thing or intent. I feel it is a legitimate question. Many of his answers look to be straight out of a text book. And that is not a knock in any way. But there is a difference between academic knowledge and practical hands on knowledge. I have been hiring and training recent college graduates for different positions for years. Fresh out of school and full of knowledge but no practical experience applying what they have learned. It takes time to learn how to apply academic knowledge. In most cases that knowledge when mixed with real life experience, is molded, modified and changed. People learn to use what is important and store the rest away.
> 
> There is not passive aggressiveness in me. If I wanted to challenge credentials, I would have. But there is no point in seeing who can pee farther.
> The person I asked is under no obligation to answer if they don't wish to.
> ...


The passive agressive comment wasn't directed at you. 

Credentials don't really mean much in the world of dog training because there's no standard. There are bajillions of R+ trainers out there with far more credentials. Honestly aside from Cesar Milan, who we can all agree has absolutely no credentials, I can't think of a punishment-based trainer with as many or as qualified credentials as Patricia McConnell. And she speaks like she's talking from a textbook.

My point is, it doesn't really matter what your qualifications are. If you really cared, then you would try to find someone more qualified than McConnell who has a Ph.D in Zoology on the subject of communication between trainers and domestic animals. She talks, in general, like I do, and trains like I do. Not to mention her extensive work on rehabilitating aggressive dogs.

If that doesn't matter to you, then credentials in general don't really matter.

My answers are straight out of a textbook because it's the simpliest way to communicate an idea, nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> The passive agressive comment wasn't directed at you.
> 
> Credentials don't really mean much in the world of dog training because there's no standard. There are bajillions of R+ trainers out there with far more credentials. Honestly aside from Cesar Milan, who we can all agree has absolutely no credentials, I can't think of a punishment-based trainer with as many or as qualified credentials as Patricia McConnell. And she speaks like she's talking from a textbook.
> 
> ...


I will agree that "credentials" don't mean a lot. IF!!!!! We are talking about training certifications, etc. I get offers nearly every week from this association or that to become a "Certified" etc. And while some have requirements or even required some sort of documentation of proficiency, basically most of them are about the money. Just like CM's new "service dog" Jr. And frankly certifications might look good on the wall to clients that don't know any better. But I don't need them.

Credentials that are important to me lie in the dogs a trainer has worked with. What have those dogs accomplished? How well trained they are, etc. And I don't think a dog needs titles to be a great well trained dog. But you can tell when you look at the dogs. 

And frankly I don't know a trainer or handler that is worth a crap that does use a combination of techniques. R+ just don't get it done in all situations and all dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> On the biological structure thing. Dogs are carnivores, They are not wolves but descended from wolves. Canine's offensive and defensive tool for food precurement, fighting over territory, breeding rights, etc is the head and jaws. The supporting body part is the neck.
> 
> All I can go on is my experiences. Having hunted with actual catch dogs, Having played and trained in bite work, and having trained in general for over thirty years, my opinion is that the neck of a dog is pretty tough and likely the strongest part of their body. I have worked with countless dogs over the years. Nothing has ever led me to believe that a leash correction done properly causes the dog pain. Do they like it? No... Is it painful? no.....
> 
> It is a tool that you and some others say you do not need. A more correct statement is that you have not needed it yet. Yesterday you mentioned that I should use my grey matter to figure out what motivates the dog. Different things motivate different dogs. Food, toys, play time, as you mentioned sniffing around, etc. There are dogs out there that are motivated by being willfully disobedient. If you have not come across such a dog yet, if you continue training, you probably will.


ive dealt with several such dogs..including this exact moment where a 100 pound lab/pit mix named Richard Parker is currently trying to rip the shoe straight off my foot.

i dont need it. because im open to experimentation. im open to observing, testing and not just using those things that ive been taught. im open to to trying to find my own way. the things that ive been taught, they serve as a basis for exploration. but established training methods are not the end all of training. if you only rely on things that have been proven..imo..you arent a very sophisticated trainer. i dont need most aversion because i use reasoning and observational skills and practice patience.


Richard...now that he's calmed down a little

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqGV_f0-C8c


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ive dealt with several such dogs..including this exact moment where a 100 pound lab/pit mix named Richard Parker is currently trying to rip the shoe straight off my foot.
> 
> i dont need it. because im open to experimentation. im open to observing, testing and not just using those things that ive been taught. im open to to trying to find my own way. the things that ive been taught, they serve as a basis for exploration. but established training methods are not the end all of training. if you only rely on things that have been proven..imo..you arent a very sophisticated trainer. i dont need most aversion because i use reasoning and observational skills and practice patience.


Who ever said that established methods were the end all to training? And an assumption that someone is a slave established methods is just that.... An assumption. 

The trick in dog training is to always be learning, be creative and thinking outside the box. ignoring an aspect that works and works well in some situations is limiting yourself.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Who ever said that established methods were the end all to training? And an assumption that someone is a slave established methods is just that.... An assumption.
> 
> The trick in dog training is to always be learning, be creative and thinking outside the box. ignoring an aspect that works and works well in some situations is limiting yourself.


everything i say isnt a response to something else per se...i relate my own observations..usually observations im reminded of because of the discussion. 

what ive observed..is that out of the people ive met in RL who've done serious training..there's a tendancy to...stonewall i guess. like ive met some really prong collar/etc type trainers who seem to have some sort of mental block preventing them from accepting such ideas as "treats dont always mean food". others of a more positive type spin stonewall at "aversives dont work"

my thing is i really dont need them. just feel like maybe in this thread there's a bit of stonewalling when it comes to the idea that training isnt just getting behavior out of a dog..its getting behavior out of the trainer too. 

just things to think about...granted im often quite spastic in delivery and i have a short attention span...i often blurt. personality quirk. *shrugs* workin on it.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

IMO: Some posters here seem to be on the extreme side of the spectrum.

I think leash-jerking can hurt if it's done hard enough, but a light jerk isn't going to hurt. I try to look at it from a common-sense point of view. I think it's a little silly to say that dogs can only react to something with feelings of pain or pleasure. If someone pokes your shoulder to get your attention, do you get feel happiness or pain? I mean, if they poke hard enough, I'm sure it hurts, but if they're just trying to get your attention I'm sure it's not going to. Your reaction would probably be: "Huh? Who's poking me and why?" I'm sure that's how the dog feels when you LIGHTLY jerk or pull the leash to get their attention. But that's just my opinion. I have no scientific proof, and obviously can't ask every dog how they feel about it, but I don't think dogs can only feel pleasure or pain as a reaction to stimuli. Maybe I'm giving dogs too much credit, but it's just my opinion.

IME: I walk Willow with a no-pull harness. If I try to tell her 'no'(etc) several times for something (such as when she is trying to eat food off the ground, trying to roll in poop, trying to chase after a chipmunk or squirrel, etc), I will tug on the leash if she doesn't listen. Usually in these situations, it's for the benefit of her safety, and I'm confident it doesn't hurt her to tug because of the harness. Obviously this is different in comparison to the situations you guys are talking about because I'm sure most of you use collars, but it's similar in that I do jerk the leash but only if verbal corrections don't work, and I don't feel that it's wrong. She walks next to me with the same posture as the "clicker" video posted above. I don't think it's wrong for someone to pull or yank lightly on the leash to get a dog's attention if nothing else works.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> The reason this comes into my mind is that sometimes your responses are very textbook? I hang around with other trainers all the time and we just don't talk like that.


I wonder if the rocket science people talk to other rocket science people differently than they do with the every day people. I suppose they do.

As a young child I read some of the Bobbsey Twins books (so long ago memory fails a tad) but one of the twins got a cut and had to have iodine put on it and they said it was better to have a little hurt now than a big hurt later. (infection) I have always trained dogs the same way and I have gone from the extremes of "kissing their butts to no-nonsense corrections" whatever was necessary to get job done. Just thought I would jump in a tad as I am enjoying this thread, It makes no difference to me whether I understand it all


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> The passive agressive comment wasn't directed at you.


 Nope. It was directed at me. Lets keep this straight. I want to be sure we keep this directed at the right evil here!!! 



> I can't think of a punishment-based trainer with as many or as qualified credentials as Patricia McConnell.


and when she could not solve a dog problem she gave the dog away to a 'wonderful farm' (and now that she has I bet more dogs will be dropped on farms.. ).

NO TRAINER/BEHAVIORIST IS PERFECT. 



> My point is, it doesn't really matter what your qualifications are. If you really cared, then you would try to find someone more qualified than McConnell who has a Ph.D in Zoology on the subject of communication between trainers and domestic animals. She talks, in general, like I do, and trains like I do. Not to mention her extensive work on rehabilitating aggressive dogs.


 until she gave a dog away..... so not any one trainer has all the answers. Never a horse that couldn't be rode and never a cowboy couldn't be throwed. 



> My answers are straight out of a textbook because it's the simpliest way to communicate an idea, nothing more and nothing less.


IME (not saying this is the case with you RBark) most people who talk like text books do so because they either wrote them and teach from them (like McConnell has) or they have only text book learning to go on.. not actual experience. BTW this includes other subject in addtion to dog training. 



JohnnyBandit said:


> I will agree that "credentials" don't mean a lot. IF!!!!! We are talking about training certifications, etc. I get offers nearly every week from this association or that to become a "Certified" etc. And while some have requirements or even required some sort of documentation of proficiency, basically most of them are about the money. Just like CM's new "service dog" Jr. And frankly certifications might look good on the wall to clients that don't know any better. But I don't need them.


This is very very true. 



> Credentials that are important to me lie in the dogs a trainer has worked with. What have those dogs accomplished? How well trained they are, etc. And I don't think a dog needs titles to be a great well trained dog. But you can tell when you look at the dogs.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^This!!!!



JLWillow said:


> IMO: Some posters here seem to be on the extreme side of the spectrum.
> 
> I try to look at it from a common-sense point of view.


Now don't be bringing in common sense. If you do that it will ruin the entire thread!!!! Yowzer!!!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

JLWillow said:


> I think leash-jerking can hurt if it's done hard enough, but a light jerk isn't going to hurt. I try to look at it from a common-sense point of view. I think it's a little silly to say that dogs can only react to something with feelings of pain or pleasure. If someone pokes your shoulder to get your attention, do you get feel happiness or pain? I mean, if they poke hard enough, I'm sure it hurts, but if they're just trying to get your attention I'm sure it's not going to. Your reaction would probably be: "Huh? Who's poking me and why?" I'm sure that's how the dog feels when you LIGHTLY jerk or pull the leash to get their attention.


It is not silly to say dogs behave to avoid future aversion (in this case physical aversion)...it's a fundamental law of learning theory, and that's all that is being said here. But if someone can explain how that physical aversion is not pain or fear, I'm willing to listen. No one has attempted to, other than to explain they use the leash jerk differently. Either we are talking about punishment or we're not, and as I stated previously, the aversion MUST BE severe enough to be an effective punishment...this is the law. How severe the jerk is depends on the handler's mechanical skill and the dog (not just the dog). Some have questioned if those defining the learning theory have met that dog who needed physical punishment...I'd question those who've met that dog, how well their mechanical skill is. Because IMO, mechanical skill trumps the need for physical corrections in likely all cases and phases of training. Those familiar with Bob Bailey can appreciate this point. No one will be able to question his credentials. More should be done to perfect mechanical skill, than accept the status quo in dog training, but the show/trial world is a strange sort in terms of progressive training. Using the leash to get the dog's attention is something else, it certainly is not intentional punishment, though it can be punishing to some dogs. I don't use my leash to gain the dog's attention, or at least I don't want to, because I don't want to rely on it, nor do I want to guess if it is a physical punishment or a cue because, I work with all types of dogs, who frankly, don't have the time to be my guinea pig in this regard. That's my personal choice, and I've met few dogs who could not learn from my non-physical handling.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> Nope. It was directed at me. Lets keep this straight. I want to be sure we keep this directed at the right evil here!!!


Dramatic, much? Egads. 

I am starting to wonder if you (general you, the people you agree with, or who agree with you) seem to think I have a beef with you guys or the way you train. Discussing disagreements doesn't mean I think you are evil, discussing leash pops doesn't mean I think you are abusive, discussing learning theory doesn't mean I think you're an idiot.

Ultimately I train how I train, you train how you train, and I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. It really sounds like you need to lighten up. This is what, the third time you've showed up in this thread, made a comment on something I said, and when I respond to it you tell me I'm taking it too seriously. I really don't get that. If you don't want me to respond then just.. tell me you don't want a response or something. I have no clue what you are trying to achieve. I know it's not "lightening up the thread" or "telling people to not take it seriously" because if you wanted to do either, you would not respond to my points.



> and when she could not solve a dog problem she gave the dog away to a 'wonderful farm' (and now that she has I bet more dogs will be dropped on farms.. ).
> 
> NO TRAINER/BEHAVIORIST IS PERFECT.
> 
> until she gave a dog away..... so not any one trainer has all the answers. Never a horse that couldn't be rode and never a cowboy couldn't be throwed.


Not sure what this is all about. Her giving the dog away had nothing to do with inability to train the issue.




> IME (not saying this is the case with you RBark) most people who talk like text books do so because they either wrote them and teach from them (like McConnell has) or they have only text book learning to go on.. not actual experience. BTW this includes other subject in addtion to dog training.


It goes both ways. Most dog trainers don't talk like this because they have no education on the subject. (Not saying that's the case with you). When a trainer doesn't have a basic grasp of what is going on in the dog's mind, I start wondering what they even know at all.

For a workplace analogy, I frequently meet people in my line of work who learned HVAC installation on their own. Or they were taught by someone who learned on their own, who was taught by someone who learned on their own. These tend to be the worst workers. They make mistakes they don't even know are mistakes, see a finished, sloppy product and think it looks beautiful. I have to go out there and correct them, tell them to forget everything they've ever learned and re-train them.

Sure, every once in a while these guys end up with a beautiful installation, but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of them suck and that the installation is only beautiful because the jobsite was set up to accommodate their poor installation.

That's my experience with uneducated and overexperienced trainers. The people who come to me fresh out of HVAC school are bewildered and don't know how to apply their knowledge, but hey, at least they have the knowledge base to find out what they are doing wrong rather than spending the rest of their life, as most trainers do, seeing what they want to see, believeing what they want to believe, and experiencing what they want to experience.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> That's my experience with uneducated and overexperienced trainers.


Ouch, I resemble that description.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

It is not silly to say dogs behave to avoid future aversion (in this case physical aversion)...it's a fundamental law of learning theory, and that's all that is being said here>>> Im usure why anyone is arguing with you on this?????????

I use corrections. I think the level of correction one is comfortable giving varies. For one person its the pressure of a flat collar or head collar and for another a pinch or an E-collar. but they all work because they restrain and cause discomfort.

<<<most trainers do, seeing what they want to see, believeing what they want to believe, and experiencing what they want to experience.>>>>>

I think this is often evident esp in discussion groups regardless of a trainers "philosophy"


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It is not silly to say dogs behave to avoid future aversion (in this case physical aversion)...it's a fundamental law of learning theory, and that's all that is being said here.


That is the point of physical correction.




Curbside Prophet said:


> But if someone can explain how that physical aversion is not pain or fear, I'm willing to listen. No one has attempted to, other than to explain they use the leash jerk differently. Either we are talking about punishment or we're not, and as I stated previously, the aversion MUST BE severe enough to be an effective punishment...this is the law.


Where you go wrong--and you are wrong--is assuming that if it works, it must be painful or fear-inducing. A correction can be effective without being either. There is more at work than merely punishing a dog into compliance--which would produce crappy results anyway. Example: dog refuses known "sit" command. He'd rather go greet the 10 year old girls walking up the block. Dog is firmly corrected and placed in position (using biomechanically correct pressure). The dog: a) experiences brief/minor discomfort; b) doesn't get the gratification of greeting his squeaky-voiced friends, and; c) doesn't get rewarded for compliance. If he sits, he experiences no discomfort or frustrated desires, and is rewarded. Given the choice between the two results, choosing the latter is a no-brainer that even a brainless Golden can understand.

That's not to say that correction is never painful, just that it is not necessarily so. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I wouldn't completely rule out the appropriateness of a painful correction in extreme circumstances. If my dog were hectoring a black bear cub, and refused my call, I'd turn his e-collar up to the "flip him like a tiddly-wink " setting, and get his attention back to me.

As to the fear thing, I've seen no evidence that most dogs even remember one-off events. A dog who gets smacked by a car is not likely to be more circumspect about running across the road in the future. Fear is conditioned through repetition--like any other trained response. A dog avoids a correction by avoiding the behavior associated with it (refusing the known command). He doesn't fear "the whip"; he just deletes the associated behaviors from his repertiore, and goes about his comparitively careless existence. Properly done, a dog needs few corrections to extinguish a behavior.

I'm not agitating for people to like it, or even agree with it. But when many here discuss it, they are announcing to the world that they really don't understand it at all. Accept it, or reject it for what it is, not for some counterfactual, self-validating drivel you read somewhere. Note: I'm using the generic "you" in all cases.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

it must be painful or fear-inducing. A correction can be effective without being either. >>>>>


I think this is a argument of the definition of PAIN. I think CP would define any discomfort as pain.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> As to the fear thing, I've seen no evidence that most dogs even remember one-off events. A dog who gets smacked by a car is not likely to be more circumspect about running across the road in the future. Fear is conditioned through repetition--like any other trained response. A dog avoids a correction by avoiding the behavior associated with it (refusing the known command). He doesn't fear "the whip"; he just deletes the associated behaviors from his repertiore, and goes about his comparitively careless existence.


 I dunno. My grandpa once beat his Lab with a riding crop, I'm pretty sure it was a one-off event because my grandma really got mad at him for it (and maybe aversives work better on old men), and forever after, the dog was scared of: riding crops, things that look like riding crops such as sticks, guns (they look like sticks, plus I think he was beaten for something related to hunting), and loud noises. I suppose you could say the dog went back to a comparatively carefree existence, at leastuntil he caught sight of something that might have been a stick, or heard a loud noise. Then he turned into a quivering mass of dog-lump, and nothing could snap him out of it. So, if sufficiently traumatic, a one-off event can ruin a dog forever.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I dunno. My grandpa once beat his Lab with a riding crop, I'm pretty sure it was a one-off event because my grandma really got mad at him for it (and maybe aversives work better on old men), and forever after, the dog was scared of: riding crops, things that look like riding crops....


There is room for exceptions to every rule. In my childhood, there was a neighborhood dog who roamed freely, and knew to look both ways before crossing the road. He was never hit by a car; he just figured it out on his own. Shepherds...whattyagonna do?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Ouch, I resemble that description.


Despite any differences we have in method, I respect you and your methods, for what it's worth. 



> a) experiences brief/minor discomfort


Which is why we spent so much time discussing the petty definitions of words. That meets Curb's criteria of being severe enough to reduce a behavior. You call it discomfort, I call it pain, others call it tickle, others call it poking. We're all talking about the same thing.



> That's not to say that correction is never painful, just that it is not necessarily so. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I wouldn't completely rule out the appropriateness of a painful correction in extreme circumstances. If my dog were hectoring a black bear cub, and refused my call, I'd turn his e-collar up to the "flip him like a tiddly-wink " setting, and get his attention back to me.


I don't think anyone is arguing the use of aversives to save a dog's life. I would do it too. When the dog's life is at risk, a lot goes out the window.



> I'm not agitating for people to like it, or even agree with it. But when many here discuss it, they are announcing to the world that they really don't understand it at all.


Not really. They are announcing to the world that they have a different understanding of it. 



> I think this is a argument of the definition of PAIN. I think CP would define any discomfort as pain.


This is pretty much correct, and mine as well. You can disagree with how I define the word. You make it sound like leash pops don't meet our criteria of fear and pain. It does, it just doesn't meet *your* definition of it. You call it discomfort, I call it pain, we're talking about the same thing, you just think that "discomfort" is a word that justifies the use of leash correction, where someone in my place would say "that level of pain/fear is justified because it is worth the results we get from it" Same thing, different words.

I know that leash pops work because it is a painful physical correction that the dog learns to avoid out of fear so it is an effective Punishment (behavior reducing, not the dictionary definition) tool.

You know that leash pops work because it causes mild discomfort and the dog wants to avoid it so it is an effective (correction/nudge/poke) tool.

(both sentences mean the exact same thing).


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I just don't understand how someone can decide something is painful if it's almost less than a poke (some dogs don't need anything more than that). Just doesn't seem realistic to me.

This is one of those things where I don't understand how anybody could use any definition outside of the dictionary for pain.

Maybe it's because I'm so literal. I use the dictionary defition...it's painful if it hurts. It's not if it's only annoying.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

"pain-a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leading to evasive action"

leaves room for all the interpretations given i think. Although I see how the word can be used to provoke or anger those who use aversives.

The effect of any a aversive is highly dependent on the dog. Some dogs stop pulling the instant a pinch or head collar are used others not so much. What one dog perceives as punishment another may not even acknowledge


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Where you go wrong--and you are wrong--is assuming that if it works, it must be painful or fear-inducing.


What is the aversion? I'm still waiting for the "magic" behind your non-fear/pain inducing physical correction. Until you can explain that, I would resist making any foolish conclusions on my statements.



> Example: dog refuses known "sit" command. He'd rather go greet the 10 year old girls walking up the block.


We have a difference of opinion in this regard. I would say the dog does not know the cue, considering the antecedent, he isn't refusing anything. 



> The dog: a) experiences brief/minor discomfort;


Brief/minor discomfort? Is this how you want to massage the terms behind the magic, instead of calling it pain/fear inducing? There's no reason to get stuck on the semantics to understand my original point. It's more prudent IMO, to understand that a physical correction IS pain/fear inducing, because there's more going on than OC; rather than minimize it so that everyone is comfortable with the terms...or so that you are comfortable with the terms. 



> As to the fear thing, I've seen no evidence that most dogs even remember one-off events.


My dog fears the e-mail notification on my cell phone because it coincided with a picture falling off the wall. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean CC is absent. Classical conditioning always rules and is always present. The dog doesn't choose to feel pain or be fearful...it just happens. 



> A dog who gets smacked by a car is not likely to be more circumspect about running across the road in the future. Fear is conditioned through repetition--like any other trained response.


Um, no, now this is where you're wrong. Fear is respondent behavior...it's involuntary. It does not follow the rules of operant conditioning. A dog who is fearful of cars is always fearful of cars (on some level). You can change his observable behavior and association to the cars, but not his fear. That's why it's so important to protect the associations we make with our dogs because once we've entered the CC world, OC bets are off. OC is ultimately what we want to peacefully coexist with our dogs.



> A dog avoids a correction by avoiding the behavior associated with it (refusing the known command). He doesn't fear "the whip"; he just deletes the associated behaviors from his repertiore, and goes about his comparitively careless existence.


If the aversion is severe enough, yes, the dog will reduce the frequency of the behavior in the future...this is the definition of punishment, of course. But you can not say the antecedent does not produce a fear response...the dog has no control over his emotions, and neither do you...yours or the dog's. But I can say it produces fear/pain, because that's what Pavlov used to help define the laws of learning theory...this is the evidence you are seeking, and that which has been repeated billions of times outside of the lab in "the real world."


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> I just don't understand how someone can decide something is painful if it's almost less than a poke (some dogs don't need anything more than that). Just doesn't seem realistic to me.
> 
> This is one of those things where I don't understand how anybody could use any definition outside of the dictionary for pain.
> 
> Maybe it's because I'm so literal. I use the dictionary defition...it's painful if it hurts. It's not if it's only annoying.


Scientists tend to speak in foreign languages. What I mean is, when you are talking about science, it is imperative that we are accurate in our definitions. 

A simple example is "Positive Punishment". Ask most people what they mean, they will probably tell you a punishment (like grounding!) that is not physical. But Punishment doesn't mean "the consequence" like it does in the dictionary. Punishment means "a behavior reducing as a consequence of". The Positive/negative is the application/removal of it, not Negative = mean! hateful! painful! and Positive = Good, wonderful, loving.

Another example is dominance. You say the word dominance, some people will interpret it as "control" others will interpret it as "leader" others will interpret it as "ruling with a iron fist beating the shit out of their dog". You never know how the person is going to interpet it because all of those definitions are in some way correct.

To scientists, dominance has one meaning, the winner of the resource contest.

As in, if a leash pop was not punishing, then the behavior would not be reducing. It would not be increasing either. So obviously that means the leash pop is doing... nothing. When someone disagrees with me that leash pop is a punishment, I wonder what it *is* then. If it's not meeting it's goal of reducing a behavior, what are they trying to accomplish?

Words are FAR more literal in science than in the dictionary.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Despite any differences we have in method, I respect you and your methods, for what it's worth.


That's cool, everybody likes to have some respect thrown their way.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

To scientists, dominance has one meaning, the winner of the resource contest.>>>>

yes and at its core NILF IS by definition exerting dominance (or leadership if you like)


----------



## waterbaby (Jan 20, 2009)

I think, perhaps, CP and RBark are thinking of pain like this? And a leash pop would fall somewhere around a 2? Maybe? I think 6 is where people start medicating.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

waterbaby said:


> I think, perhaps, CP and RBark are thinking of pain like this? And a leash pop would fall somewhere around a 2? Maybe? I think 6 is where people start medicating.


Yes and no, but it's a good explanation. 0.5 on that would be pain, but as you can see by the super duper smiley faces there, it's not extreme.

If 0.5 is all you need for an effective punishment on a leash pop, then that's all you need. It's still pain, just not 6+ pain on that scale that people seem to imagine when I say "pain".


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> yes and at its core NILF IS by definition exerting dominance (or leadership if you like)


Not from my perspective. NILIF is nothing more than the practice of the ABCs of learning theory (Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence). Ironically, if you exert your control over the resource you control the dog's behavior.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

NILIF is nothing more than the practice of the ABCs of learning theory (Antecedent - Behavior - Consequence). Ironically, if you exert your control over the resource you control the dog's behavior. >>>

true but by definition you are also exerting dominance by controlling resources.

Yes and no, but it's a good explanation. 0.5 on that would be pain, but as you can see by the super duper smiley faces there, it's not extreme.>>>

I use these charts every day. Its also important to note that the perception of pain is individualized. One persons, or dogs, 2 is another's 10


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> true but by definition you are also exerting dominance by controlling resources.


Whose definition? You're presuming I want to sniff that other dog's butt, or chew on an antler, or un-stuff a Kong with my tongue? I don't want to win or lose these resources...there is no contest.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

You're presuming I want to sniff that other dog's butt, or chew on an antler, or un-stuff a Kong with my tongue? >>>>

I was wrong? LOL


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> I was wrong? LOL


Well, this one time at band camp...oh, nevermind.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Scientists tend to speak in foreign languages. What I mean is, when you are talking about science, it is imperative that we are accurate in our definitions.
> 
> A simple example is "Positive Punishment". Ask most people what they mean, they will probably tell you a punishment (like grounding!) that is not physical. But Punishment doesn't mean "the consequence" like it does in the dictionary. Punishment means "a behavior reducing as a consequence of". The Positive/negative is the application/removal of it, not Negative = mean! hateful! painful! and Positive = Good, wonderful, loving.
> 
> ...


The thing is.... The act of dog training is an art, much more so than a science. 

When you are discussing theories of how and why dogs learn the way they do. That is science. 

The act of actually training a dog is an art. 

Over the years I have known many people over the years that were extremely knowledgable on the theories of dog training. But could not train a dog to save their life. 
I have also known people that are very gifted dog trainers that have never cracked a book. 

I started out as the latter. Well sort of. I began by assisting my father and grandfather. I had a "knack" early on and really liked it. As time went on, I started developing my own style. I kept what I learned from my elders and dumped the rest. I started competing and meeting other handlers and trainers. I got involved in 4H and learned more there. Keep in mind that there was no internet, etc and resources were not as free as they are today. The first book I actually read on dog training was Koehler's. I found his methods generally too harsh. I did take some things away from the book. 

By the time I learned knew the meanings of the quadrants of dog training, I had been practicing them for many years. In fact I was already training professionally. For a time I built discussions on Positive and negative re enforcement as well as Positive and negative punishment into the coursework I was covering with my beginning and mid level students. But I soon found out, most people don't want you to know a bunch of technical stuff, they just want you to show them how to teach their dogs to sit, stay and walk nice on a leash. 

Did learning how and why dogs learn help me as a trainer? Of course it did. Did it completely change the way I trained? Far from it. Because my real source of knowledge in training had and always will come from the dogs themselves. 
Cesar and McConnell have been mentioned on this thread. I disagree with a great many of Cesars methods. I like some of McConnells but she is far from the end all in my opinion. The thing is..... It is as important to watch and learn from trainers you do not care for as it is trainers you like. You can always learn something. Even if it is what not to do. 

If someone is really a dog trainer, they are an artist not a scientist. And you have to be able to speak of training in simple common language. Because most of the time you are going to be working with dog owners that are not going to grasp or do not care to learn textbook definitions and lessons. Or the dogs which don't even know what a text book it.

A dog trainer is a teacher of men and a student of dogs....


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

It is as important to watch and learn from trainers you do not care for as it is trainers you like.>>>

I agree 100%


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

except that science is also an art.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

so now we have to go into the definitions of "art" and "science"


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

jiml said:


> so now we have to go into the definitions of "art" and "science"


not really. because pretty much everything that has an intellectual basis is intertwined.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Hands-on + theory > Hands-on - theory. You may do it differently, it will not change the equation.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> The thing is.... The act of dog training is an art, much more so than a science.


You're talking about different things. In this thread we are not talking about timing, reading dog body language, and so on. All those are a skill that needs to be trained and learned, and can be an art form (in the sense that Michael Jordan's skills are art, anyway.)

If we were talking about how to train a dog, then yes, I would be talking in a far simplier language. It may surprise you but, I don't tell people that they are doing Positive Punishment or Reinforcement or whatever, nor do I quote Learning Theory when teaching people how to train their dogs. I teach them how to do it, and that's all. There's not enough time or inclination to train everyone to become professional trainers.



> When you are discussing theories of how and why dogs learn the way they do. That is science.
> 
> The act of actually training a dog is an art.


We are discussing the theories of how dogs learn because that is what is being called into question- "why leash popping works". I said pain, you said discomfort, and disagreement due to terminology resulted of that. That is a discussion of science, not art.

If you wanted to talk about how to use a prong properly and the timing, that is discussing the skill. I doubt I would challenge you on the timing or use of it. But since it was an issue of *why*, it became science.




> Over the years I have known many people over the years that were extremely knowledgable on the theories of dog training. But could not train a dog to save their life.
> I have also known people that are very gifted dog trainers that have never cracked a book.


I agree there.



> I started out as the latter. Well sort of. I began by assisting my father and grandfather. I had a "knack" early on and really liked it. As time went on, I started developing my own style. I kept what I learned from my elders and dumped the rest. I started competing and meeting other handlers and trainers. I got involved in 4H and learned more there. Keep in mind that there was no internet, etc and resources were not as free as they are today. The first book I actually read on dog training was Koehler's. I found his methods generally too harsh. I did take some things away from the book.


Right, I know the world of dog training has changed significantly due to increased access of information. I know the way they trained 20 years ago is far different than the way we train now. A lot of things in life has changed now that proper information and education is far more readily accessible.



> By the time I learned knew the meanings of the quadrants of dog training, I had been practicing them for many years. In fact I was already training professionally. For a time I built discussions on Positive and negative re enforcement as well as Positive and negative punishment into the coursework I was covering with my beginning and mid level students. But I soon found out, most people don't want you to know a bunch of technical stuff, they just want you to show them how to teach their dogs to sit, stay and walk nice on a leash.


Just a nitpick, you had always been using the four quadrants when you train. And yes, I agree, most people don't want to hear the details or why it works. I don't tell people either, but we are not most people. Consequently, discussion gets more complex and scientific. As a trainer, I use what I know about Learning Theory to support and understand why what I am doing works, and to develop new training methods. From that work, I only tell most people the results. 

Which is why I find it important to understand how leash popping works. Understanding that it is a device which invokes pain (please remember my references to what I mean by it, not your definition of it) and it's presence causes fear (again, also not eyes wide, whimpering, shut down fear.) that is used as an aversive in order to punish (reduce the behavior) the dog.

Do the people I teach care about that? Not at all. But since I am the trainer, *I* care about it because it clarifies *why* things work and how it can be used effectively. Like the saying goes, the problem with most physical corrections is that it is not severe enough to reduce the behavior. You know what I mean, the people who use a prong collar for the dog's entire life and can't get him to walk loose lead at all. The people who try to correct prey drive with a e-collar by zapping the dog when he begins chasing. Yeah, it stopped the dog, but it didn't reduce the behavior because the aversive wasn't strong enough.

Understanding things like that is how I can modify the training for each dog. I can see where in the process things went wrong. Many trainers know a lot of skills but since they don't know how it works and why it's not working, they change methods constantly until they find a method that works, rather than adjusting the method they were already using. But again, that's for me as a trainer, not the people I teach.



> Did learning how and why dogs learn help me as a trainer? Of course it did. Did it completely change the way I trained? Far from it. Because my real source of knowledge in training had and always will come from the dogs themselves.
> Cesar and McConnell have been mentioned on this thread. I disagree with a great many of Cesars methods. I like some of McConnells but she is far from the end all in my opinion. The thing is..... It is as important to watch and learn from trainers you do not care for as it is trainers you like. You can always learn something. Even if it is what not to do.


No disagreement there. I like McConnell, and in general agree with her training philosophy. I also own 4 seasons of Milan's DVD, because it helped me learn what fear looks like in dogs, and how to recognize signs of dogs shutting down, and so on. I didn't learn much from his methods but, I learned a lot from the dogs he used his methods on.



> If someone is really a dog trainer, they are an artist not a scientist. And you have to be able to speak of training in simple common language. Because most of the time you are going to be working with dog owners that are not going to grasp or do not care to learn textbook definitions and lessons. Or the dogs which don't even know what a text book it.


Here I disagree. I believe that trainers should master both art and science. They don't work independently of each other, no matter how artistic you are, you are still using science. Mastering one but not the other is ignoring half of training. That goes for people who only know how to do it textbook too. 

If your art works, the science will support it. If the science works, your art will become more complex, more concise, more understandable. Win win situation there. There's really no reason why a trainer should not strive to understand Learning Theory. It doesn't mean teaching the clients Learning Theory. You could be a trainer that understands Learning Theory but still use aversives. Just means you will use aversives more efficiently. Understanding Learning Theory does have a nasty habit of turning people into scary R+ trainers, however


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> except that science is also an art.


I would disagree....


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> The first book I actually read on dog training was Koehler's. I found his methods generally too harsh. I did take some things away from the book.


I love it as Koehler's book was also one of my 1st, I even remember the papyrus it was written on. (or was that a stone tablet) I kind of thought his explanation of the helper who he thought should have the dirty unkempt look with runny nose was just special. 

After all these years of training and poop-scooping and I find out I could be an artist in disguise. What will my wife say when I tell her. Hmmmmmm, maybe I'll just keep that to myself.

Oh, very good reply Bandit, I liked it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> After all these years of training and poop-scopping and I find out I could be an artist in disguise. What will my wife say when I tell her.


More to Rbark's point, science can explain the ways of your art (see my sig).


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

There can be no honest discussion without mutually agreed upon definitions. Two income couples frequently have strong disagreements about what constitutes a fair share of the childcare and housework. Putting your own coffee cup in the dishwasher may be admirable, but it is not "pulling your weight".

If a tree falls in the forest........

If the definition of pain (even if technically correct) includes sensations that the "victim" failed to notice, then we are just spinning wheels. I've already explained how a correction works on more than the level of pain/discomfort/whachimicallit.

And yes, a 12 year old Dachshund with a slipped disk might experience excruciating pain from a leash correction that a hard headed Coonhound would laugh at.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> There can be no honest discussion without mutually agreed upon definitions. Two income couples frequently have strong disagreements about what constitutes a fair share of the childcare and housework.
> 
> If a tree falls in the forest........
> 
> If the definition of pain (even if technically correct) includes sensations that the "victim" failed to notice, then we are just spinning wheels.


If the victim failed to notice it then he would not respond to it? If I don't feel something I don't turn to look at it. If it doesn't make me want to stop whatever is causing it, then it is not punishment.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I would disagree....


why? science requires imagination to thrive. it requires an ability to conceptualize, move beyond the accepted forms, work within a framework to discover something new.

scientists are the world's consummate artists. their art is the art of discovery and learning.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> why? science requires imagination to thrive. it requires an ability to conceptualize, move beyond the accepted forms, work within a framework to discover something new.
> 
> scientists are the world's consummate artists. their art is the art of discovery and learning.


Oh my, what a thread, now not only is there a chance I could be an artist, it could be a double bubble and I could also be a scientist. Yesterday I just thought I was world's best poop-scooper. (at least in top ten)


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Oh my, what a thread, now not only is there a chance I could be an artist, it could be a double bubble and I could also be a scientist. Yesterday I just thought I was world's best poop-scooper. (at least in top ten)


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Oh my, what a thread, now not only is there a chance I could be an artist, it could be a double bubble and I could also be a scientist. Yesterday I just thought I was world's best poop-scooper. (at least in top ten)


Your star is rising that is for sure....


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> Now don't be bringing in common sense. If you do that it will ruin the entire thread!!!! Yowzer!!!


This made me lulzy.



Curbside Prophet said:


> It is not silly to say dogs behave to avoid future aversion (in this case physical aversion)...it's a fundamental law of learning theory, and that's all that is being said here. But if someone can explain how that physical aversion is not pain or fear, I'm willing to listen. No one has attempted to, other than to explain they use the leash jerk differently. Either we are talking about punishment or we're not, and as I stated previously, the aversion MUST BE severe enough to be an effective punishment...this is the law. How severe the jerk is depends on the handler's mechanical skill and the dog (not just the dog). Some have questioned if those defining the learning theory have met that dog who needed physical punishment...I'd question those who've met that dog, how well their mechanical skill is. Because IMO, mechanical skill trumps the need for physical corrections in likely all cases and phases of training. Those familiar with Bob Bailey can appreciate this point. No one will be able to question his credentials. More should be done to perfect mechanical skill, than accept the status quo in dog training, but the show/trial world is a strange sort in terms of progressive training. Using the leash to get the dog's attention is something else, it certainly is not intentional punishment, though it can be punishing to some dogs. I don't use my leash to gain the dog's attention, or at least I don't want to, because I don't want to rely on it, nor do I want to guess if it is a physical punishment or a cue because, I work with all types of dogs, who frankly, don't have the time to be my guinea pig in this regard. That's my personal choice, and I've met few dogs who could not learn from my non-physical handling.


I think I understand what you are saying, and I do agree that of course dogs will avoid things that hurt them or feel negatively about, I just don't think that a leash jerk is either a punishment or not one at all. I believe it's all about the way it is used and what dog it is used with, like you said, and the way it is used and with which dog determines whether it is harsh or not. I don't think a leash jerk has to be used aversively, and can be used like a poke on the shoulder. (I know I'm kinda repeating myself, I'm just trying to make myself more clear.) I use it with my dog if I have to, and it works and she feels no fear, and that's all that matters to me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JLWillow said:


> This made me lulzy.
> 
> 
> I think I understand what you are saying, and I do agree that of course dogs will avoid things that hurt them or feel negatively about, I just don't think that a leash jerk is either a punishment or not one at all. I believe it's all about the way it is used and what dog it is used with, like you said, and the way it is used and with which dog determines whether it is harsh or not.


The definition of punishment that is being used is "to reduce a behavior as a consequence of." If we are training, we are either trying to increase a behavior or reduce a behavior. You use a leash pop to reduce a behavior (in this case, not paying attention to you is the behavior you are trying to reduce).

That's why it's either a punishment or not one at all. If it's not a punishment, then what are you teaching him? If you can't get attention from a "look at me" cue, then you are trying to use a leash pop to reduce the behavior of not paying attention.

If you don't have a "look at me" cue, then you may be training your dog to look at you with a leash pop, so he would ignore you until you give the only such cue he knows- the leash pop.


----------



## JLWillow (Jul 21, 2009)

RBark said:


> The definition of punishment that is being used is "to reduce a behavior as a consequence of." If we are training, we are either trying to increase a behavior or reduce a behavior. You use a leash pop to reduce a behavior (in this case, not paying attention to you is the behavior you are trying to reduce).
> 
> That's why it's either a punishment or not one at all. If it's not a punishment, then what are you teaching him? If you can't get attention from a "look at me" cue, then you are trying to use a leash pop to reduce the behavior of not paying attention.
> 
> If you don't have a "look at me" cue, then you may be training your dog to look at you with a leash pop, so he would ignore you until you give the only such cue he knows- the leash pop.


Oh, well, I didn't realize we agreed on a certain definition of punishment, because I certainly wasn't using it in that sense.... I was just posting my opinion.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

My point is that any number of things may be aversive to the point of creating avoidance, without being painful. Run approximately 3 miles on a non-displaced metatarsal fracture vs. sit and watch a Pauly Shore movie marathon. The former is physically painful (Boy! Howdy!); the latter is (to me) more aversive. If you are taking aversion in a vacuum, you could be right. But aversion works on a social level as well. Correction paired with reward, increases the value of both. A light correction may work as a non-reward marker. But if you're fixed on the concept that correction has to be painful to be effective, then I'll trouble you no more. Since nobody but the dog really knows, however, there should be no representation of scientific authority for what is nothing more than an article of faith.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> My point is that any number of things may be aversive to the point of creating avoidance, without being painful. Run approximately 3 miles on a non-displaced metatarsal fracture vs. sit and watch a Pauly Shore movie marathon. The former is physically painful (Boy! Howdy!); the latter is (to me) more aversive. If you are taking aversion in a vacuum, you could be right. But aversion works on a social level as well. Correction paired with reward, increases the value of both. A light correction may work as a non-reward marker. But if you're fixed on the concept that correction has to be painful to be effective, then I'll trouble you no more. Since nobody but the dog really knows, however, there should be no representation of scientific authority for what is nothing more than an article of faith.


I understand that there are more aversives that do not give pain (again, I never equated that aversion is only pain). But what other aversion is there in a leash pop? You don't feel that leash pops give any discomfort at all?

I've never heard the concept that both aversives and rewards increase the value of both, at least not with any evidence at all other than anecdotal data.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Since nobody but the dog really knows, however, there should be no representation of scientific authority for what is nothing more than an article of faith.


This is false. Since the effect of punishment is determined by frequency of observable behavior, faith is not required to quantify it. If you can count past ten, and you know the target of your punishment, you're good to go. This would presume, however, the handler is interested in the effect of his corrections...or whatever it is you do.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> I understand that there are more aversives that do not give pain (again, I never equated that aversion is only pain). But what other aversion is there in a leash pop? You don't feel that leash pops give any discomfort at all?


I was using the general, non-specific "you". Sorry for the confusion. Leash pops can be anything from barely preceptible, to injurious to the animal. My point about the contrast between reward vs. punishment is based on my surmise and experience. A dog may choose not to work for a low level reward. A dog may choose to ignore a low level leash correction. But when the choice is to avoid the low level leash correction, or receive a low level reward, the likelihood of the dog choosing the latter is much higher. My perception, but a strong one.



Curbside Prophet said:


> This is false. Since the effect of punishment is determined by frequency of observable behavior, faith is not required to quantify it.


We can quantify the frequency of behavior. We can correlate its diminishment to the effect of punishment. What we cannot know is what the dog senses. I have a big dog who is quite hard to pain. If I am holding a yard stick in my hand, the dog will back up to me and I am expected to whack him on the rump with it--and pretty hard, too. He apparently loves it. If I tapped him half as hard with a heeling stick, it had the effect of speeding up his respones to the sit command. So there seems to be a social context for correction to be optimally effective. For all I know, the dog may have been reacting to the heeling stick out of embarassment at my disapproval. I don't really know.

Unless you are Dr. Doolittle, you don't know either.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> We can quantify the frequency of behavior. We can correlate its diminishment to the effect of punishment. What we cannot know is what the dog senses. I have a big dog who is quite hard to pain. If I am holding a yard stick in my hand, the dog will back up to me and I am expected to whack him on the rump with it--and pretty hard, too. He apparently loves it. If I tapped him half as hard with a heeling stick, it had the effect of speeding up his respones to the sit command. So there seems to be a social context for correction to be optimally effective. For all I know, the dog may have been reacting to the heeling stick out of embarassment at my disapproval. I don't really know.
> 
> Unless you are Dr. Doolittle, you don't know either.


Unless I am missing something, the reason for that is fairly obvious. He obviously sees the yardstick as a source of pleasure, so it is reinforcing. Tapping him with the yardstick has the effect of speeding up his sits because it gets him excited and he is reinforced for the behavior. 

Basically, it's the same thing as how dangling treats in front of a dog magically makes them obedient and fast.

That's not really comparable to a leash correction unless the dog actively seeks it out.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Right, I know the world of dog training has changed significantly due to increased access of information. I know the way they trained 20 years ago is far different than the way we train now. A lot of things in life has changed now that proper information and education is far more readily accessible.


I think it is a safe bet that Dog training has evolved and changed over time as long as dogs have been around. I can only speak intelligently of the last 30 some odd years. And yes there have been some changes in that time. The biggest shift has been from more of a compulsive type to motivational type training. I remember a time when if you used treats many would say you were bribing your dog. Over time most came to realize there is a difference between a bribe and a positive re enforcer. I remember around 1987, I had four dogs. All intact males, a rottweiler, an APBT, and two Catahoulas. I could line them up in my living room, put them all in a sit, place a piece of meat on top of their muzzle and they would hold that until I gave the release word. (back then I used free and now I use okay, but that is really here nor there.) I had friends and family alike tell me I was being mean to my dogs. I just thought it was a cool trick. I was doing a couple of other things during that time. I was controling all the resources and activities of all the dogs. It was not until many years later did I hear the term Nothing in Life is Free. I also started using crates as dog management tools. I had to have a way of managing the movements of the dogs when I was not at home. It would have been playing with fire to leave that much drive alone together alone. Funny thing about crates, is that at the time I drew some criticism for using them. It was suggested I build a kennel. But I was young and had just bought my first house, I did not have the resources to build a proper kennel. But crates were cheap so I used them. But all in all..... IMO the shift with many in the dog community got too carried away with the all positive thing..... There has to be balance.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> Unless I am missing something, the reason for that is fairly obvious. He obviously sees the yardstick as a source of pleasure, so it is reinforcing. Tapping him with the yardstick has the effect of speeding up his sits because it gets him excited and he is reinforced for the behavior.


I don't think so. He doesn't sit when I whack him with a stick in play. He wiggles around and acts the fool. If the heeling stick were a pleasurable reinforcer, then I'd expect he'd grow less likely to speed up his sit response, and rather wait for the stick (i.e., it would be interpreted as a reward for not sitting). It is apparently two different responses to the same stimulus, based on different contexts.

Dogs are simple creatures compared to humans, but they are much more than basic I/O devices. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and my dog doesn't care to explain himself.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> IMO the shift with many in the dog community got too carried away with the all positive thing..... There has to be balance.


Time will tell that. All positive training already dominates several dog competitions. I believe it's only a matter of time for the rest of the older sports to follow. We will see.



Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't think so. He doesn't sit when I whack him with a stick in play. He wiggles around and acts the fool. If the heeling stick were a pleasurable reinforcer, then I'd expect he'd grow less likely to speed up his sit response, and rather wait for the stick (i.e., it would be interpreted as a reward for not sitting). It is apparently two different responses to the same stimulus, based on different contexts.
> 
> Dogs are simple creatures compared to humans, but they are much more than basic I/O devices. I don't pretend to have all the answers, and my dog doesn't care to explain himself.


He doesn't sit when you whack him in play because there's no cue given for it. (Remember the ABC's. Since the A is different, the B and C are different.)

As for waiting for the stick, that's not really true. Variable rate of reinforcement tends to strengthen a behavior far more than regular reinforcement. That's why we start with frequent reinforcement, then start a variable rate, slowly reducing the amount. The dog ends up working harder and faster because he never knows when the reinforcement comes.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> If your art works, the science will support it. If the science works, your art will become more complex, more concise, more understandable. Win win situation there. There's really no reason why a trainer should not strive to understand Learning Theory. It doesn't mean teaching the clients Learning Theory. You could be a trainer that understands Learning Theory but still use aversives. Just means you will use aversives more efficiently. Understanding Learning Theory does have a nasty habit of turning people into scary R+ trainers, however


I disagree here..... An artist can be a master without knowing the science behind the art. 
There was a guy born in the 1940's that never took a music lesson in his life. He taught himself to play a guitar. A left hander he played a right handed guitar upside down rather than learn to play right handed or getting a left handed guitar. That guy was Jimi Hendrix. I doubt few would argue that the man was not a master at his art. But he never learned the science behind his art. 

I have known some great trainers over the years that have never picked up a book. If you started talking about quadrants they would likely think you were talking about what the firemen hook the hose to down at the corner.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I disagree here..... An artist can be a master without knowing the science behind the art.
> There was a guy born in the 1940's that never took a music lesson in his life. He taught himself to play a guitar. A left hander he played a right handed guitar upside down rather than learn to play right handed or getting a left handed guitar. That guy was Jimi Hendrix. I doubt few would argue that the man was not a master at his art. But he never learned the science behind his art.
> 
> I have known some great trainers over the years that have never picked up a book. If you started talking about quadrants they would likely think you were talking about what the firemen hook the hose to down at the corner.


Yeah there just might be complete naturals to dog training. I don't really believe that because personally I've never seen one. Still, for the rest of us who are not up there with the likes of Hendrix (I certainly am not) knowing the science can only help.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Time will tell that. All positive training already dominates several dog competitions. I believe it's only a matter of time for the rest of the older sports to follow. We will see.


Actually I have seen a shift away from all positive to a more balanced. And I would like to know what dog competitions are dominated by all positive training?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> We can quantify the frequency of behavior. We can correlate its diminishment to the effect of punishment. What we cannot know is what the dog senses. I have a big dog who is quite hard to pain. If I am holding a yard stick in my hand, the dog will back up to me and I am expected to whack him on the rump with it--and pretty hard, too. He apparently loves it. If I tapped him half as hard with a heeling stick, it had the effect of speeding up his respones to the sit command. So there seems to be a social context for correction to be optimally effective. For all I know, the dog may have been reacting to the heeling stick out of embarassment at my disapproval. I don't really know.
> 
> Unless you are Dr. Doolittle, you don't know either.


I guess I'm Dr. Doolittle as this can be explained like Pavlov's dog would explain it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually I have seen a shift away from all positive to a more balanced. And I would like to know what dog competitions are dominated by all positive training?


Agility for one.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually I have seen a shift away from all positive to a more balanced. And I would like to know what dog competitions are dominated by all positive training?


Positive punishment or positive reinforcement? I'd say they are all dominated by positive reinforcement if these are our only two choices. You can only gain behavior through reinforcement.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Agility for one.


Are you involved with Agility?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> He doesn't sit when you whack him in play because there's no cue given for it. (Remember the ABC's. Since the A is different, the B and C are different.)
> 
> As for waiting for the stick, that's not really true. Variable rate of reinforcement tends to strengthen a behavior far more than regular reinforcement. That's why we start with frequent reinforcement, then start a variable rate, slowly reducing the amount. The dog ends up working harder and faster because he never knows when the reinforcement comes.


No, when commaded to sit, the stick comes down. If his butt is on the ground quickly enough, there is no stick. He apparently responds quickly to avoid the stick, but in the other context it is enjoyable. I can't see a dog responding to avoid what he perceives as a reward.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> IMO the shift with many in the dog community got too carried away with the all positive thing..... There has to be balance.


I'll re-use my bridge analogy. In order to learn that jumping off of a bridge is bad, could you just take someone's word for it or do you have to jump off the bridge to see for yourself? I've never had to jump off a bridge to figure out that living is much more rewarding. There is no need for "balanced" training in regards to using both positive reinforcement and punishment. It's entirely possible to train dogs completely efficiently and effectively using all positive reinforcement, no punishment. Claiming that your method of training is somehow better than someone who uses an "incomplete," all positive reinforcement based method is totally false. 

It's one thing to argue about whether or not it's fair to hurt dogs in training, another to put down a training method that obviously works, and works very well for many dogs. You're being blind and set in your ways.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> No, when commaded to sit, the stick comes down. If his butt is on the ground quickly enough, there is no stick. He apparently responds quickly to avoid the stick, but in the other context it is enjoyable. I can't see a dog responding to avoid what he perceives as a reward.


"Sit!"
*fast sit in anticipation of reward*
"Sit!"
*slightly slower sit* *whacks with reward* *dog gets excited*
"Sit!"
*fast sit in anticipation of reward*
Sit!
*fast sit in anticipation of reward*
Sit!
*slightly slower sit* *whacks with reward*

Rinse and repeat.

AKA the "bribe" method.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Are you involved with Agility?


Not personally, no. But I'm not sure how one would deny that it is dominated by R+ trainers. The evidence of that is kinda... overwhelming.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I just read an article about R+ (or as close to it as is possible, I guess) hunt trainers. They aren't yet sure if they can go all the way without using aversives, since hunt training is so opposite of a dog's natural behaviors, but some of them are determined to try. 

Johnnybandit, what exactly is wrong with R+ training, if that's what the trainer prefers? You make it sound like something awful, that being "more balanced" is so much more desirable. What does R+ training hurt? I can't figure out why there's so much hostility to R+. I've known dogs ruined by force-based training, I can't see that happening with R+-only training.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> "Sit!"
> *fast sit in anticipation of reward*
> "Sit!"
> *slightly slower sit* *whacks with reward* *dog gets excited*
> ...


So I guess I'm a R+ trainer after all. Whoda thunk?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Not personally, no. But I'm not sure how one would deny that it is dominated by R+ trainers. The evidence of that is kinda... overwhelming.


I am involved with it. Have been for years. I have not competed in quite some time. These days I am more involved with training and being involved with the events themselves. Both of my current dogs can run a course. Merlin can be lightning fast and will be competing. I use him for demo and he makes some full runs on a frequent basis. My other dog Buc makes runs because he loves it. But he is not put together well and has bad hips. So I will never push him. It is just fun. Merlin also herds but has not competed in that yet either. ( I am involved with herding in much the same ways as agility) also herd but has not competed in that either. I am making a last run with Merlin in conformation. He will compete in Conformation through early summer of 2011. With the goals of being invited to the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship for in 2011. After that he will be retired from conformation unless I choose to take him to Westminster in 2012. Two reasons I don't go multiple sports with him right now. Time and Money. 

And while training is largely done with positive reward techniques. Especially with working the obsticles. To start with you have to set the dog up for success, build excitement, and make it fun. I don't use much in the way for treats in agility. With most dogs anyway. If the handler makes it exciting enough, the game itself and verbal and physical praise is usually enough with a drivey dog. 
But when you are putting it all together, at times negative punishments are sometimes used. Especially in what I call course management. Once the dog really has the obsticles it is time to build a run. By this time the dog will REALLY be into it and a drivey dog is likely to go right over the top on you. You cannot work with a dog that is so jazzed up it is bouncing all over the place anymore than you can with a dog that is shut down. (which is something you never want to do in a performance sport or in any training. Correct the dog to the point of shutting down. But especially a high excitement sport like agility) And notice I used the term Negative Punishment. The obsticles themselves have likely become the positive re enforcement and now you have an excited drivey green dog on a course full of goodies. You have to bring the dog back down so you can work with him. In this scenarios something as simple as an extended down stay can become negative punishment because it is not what he wants to do. IF you can get it. Don't ask for something you cannot get in that situation. This is where knowing your dog comes in. You may have to use other things. Ignoring the dog, walking off the course, etc. 

To say the sport is dominated by R+ is not correct in my experience. It is loaded towards R+ but it takes balance.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Have you ever read Control Unleashed? It's basically developed to control dogs with too much or too little drive to keep them from going into overdrive on the course (or alternatively, drop off halfway).

I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by balance. If it is loaded towards R+ then that would make R+ the dominant method? That doesn't sound balanced to me. So I'm a bit unclear in that regard.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Johnnybandit, what exactly is wrong with R+ training, if that's what the trainer prefers? You make it sound like something awful, that being "more balanced" is so much more desirable. What does R+ training hurt? I can't figure out why there's so much hostility to R+. I've known dogs ruined by force-based training, I can't see that happening with R+-only training.


I don't have any issue with R+. And if it works for you and your dog use it. Nothing I have said should make you feel that I think it is aweful. Because I don't. But it doesn't work in all situations with all dogs. I firmly believe that a balance is better. I also don't believe that 100 percent R+ exists. Most times I see someone that claims to be 100% R+, they use adversive or negative methods without even realizing it. Especially Negative punishment. 

I do agree that being heavy handed can screw up a dog. Maybe not ruin, but create a mess that can take a long time (maybe even years) to work out.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Examples of balanced dog training.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> Have you ever read Control Unleashed? It's basically developed to control dogs with too much or too little drive to keep them from going into overdrive on the course (or alternatively, drop off halfway).
> 
> I'm going to have to ask you what you mean by balance. If it is loaded towards R+ then that would make R+ the dominant method? That doesn't sound balanced to me. So I'm a bit unclear in that regard.


To acheive balance ( at least in the context we are discussing) does not have to be 50/50. 

And R+ is the dominant method I use in most cases. In some cases I am 100% R+. Examples would be puppies, group basic obedience classes, etc. (I loath basic group obedience btw from a trainers point of view)


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> To acheive balance ( at least in the context we are discussing) does not have to be 50/50.
> 
> And R+ is the dominant method I use in most cases. In some cases I am 100% R+. Examples would be puppies, group basic obedience classes, etc. (I loath basic group obedience btw from a trainers point of view)


When I say R+ training it doesn't mean 100%. It means it's the primary method of motivation, and aversives are only used when absolutely must. I.e. I have no issues with things like turning your back to the dog when it jumps (though training a "sit" to replace the jump might be more effective). Nor with leaving the room when the pup bites. Heck, crate training we wait out screaming, wailing, dying puppies. None of that is R+. Most trainers who say they are +R trainers mean it that way. It's the dominant method and the first attempt.

I also have no issues when, dogs are so out of control on leash that they are pratically going blue and killing themselves, a prong collar is used as a temporary measure to get them in a state of mind that you can start a R+ training method. These things should, however, be the exceptions not the norm. The vast majority of dogs don't need a corrective collar at all. Heeling easily is trained using R+ methods.

That's all it really is. It's a mindset of going for a happy, reinforcing, training style that eliminates all unneccessary punishment. I also have no issues with using aversives for life-saving cues. I really doubt there are many R+ trainers who would say a e-collar is not justified if the dog might get hit by a car alternatively.

Drive control training for instance. Many trainers will absolutely insist you *have* to punish a dog in order to control a out of control dog. R+ trainers see it differently. They see it as a opportunity to teach the dog to control their drive by rewarding him for control. Many trainers have never tried the methods in Control Unleashed before they went to aversives.

Hopefully I am making sense.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

RBark said:


> When I say R+ training it doesn't mean 100%. It means it's the primary method of motivation, and aversives are only used when absolutely must. I.e. I have no issues with things like turning your back to the dog when it jumps (though training a "sit" to replace the jump might be more effective). Nor with leaving the room when the pup bites. Heck, crate training we wait out screaming, wailing, dying puppies. None of that is R+. Most trainers who say they are +R trainers mean it that way. It's the dominant method and the first attempt.
> 
> I also have no issues when, dogs are so out of control on leash that they are pratically going blue and killing themselves, a prong collar is used as a temporary measure to get them in a state of mind that you can start a R+ training method. These things should, however, be the exceptions not the norm. The vast majority of dogs don't need a corrective collar at all. Heeling easily is trained using R+ methods.
> 
> ...


Well this is where definitions and language come back into play. When some people use the terms R+ or positive only trainer, they mean just that. Remember this conversation started when I mentioned I used leash corrections in some situations. 

Some posters on this thread are clearly describing 100 percent R+ when they talk about their thoughts on the subject. You are using a different definition of R+.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Well this is where definitions and language come back into play. When some people use the terms R+ or positive only trainer, they mean just that. Remember this conversation started when I mentioned I used leash corrections in some situations.
> 
> Some posters on this thread are clearly describing 100 percent R+ when they talk about their thoughts on the subject. You are using a different definition of R+.


I haven't seen anyone claim that they are 100% R+ without anything else. I may have missed it though because I wasn't paying attention to their posts. I do agree there's no such thing as 100% R+, I guess I assumed that was common sense.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually I have seen a shift away from all positive to a more balanced. And I would like to know what dog competitions are dominated by all positive training?


Number 1. Balance has always been very important and for those of you that weren't training 45 yrs ago, believe it or not it was as important then as now. It just wasn't the toy of choice for many trainers. There just might have been a trainer or two that thought reward was not a bad deal.



> I have known some great trainers over the years that have never picked up a book. If you started talking about quadrants they would likely think you were talking about what the firemen hook the hose to down at the corner.


This is why I have stayed out of a lot of the debating that goes on because by the time it takes me to find out what everybody is talking about the debating etc is over and done. 

If I tried to explain to people using the quadrants system it just would not fly. This is why I video tape dogs at end of training and actually show people on a DVD how to continue work with their dogs at home. It is a very simplistic basic video using down home langauge. This also keeps my training proper because nobody wants to see their abused dogs on a video. (very bad for business) So it has to be a happy, stylish dog that performs the basics. There is a member on DF that has actually seen one of these DVDs so it's not a fairy tale.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Number 1. Balance has always been very important and for those of you that weren't training 45 yrs ago, believe it or not it was as important then as now. It just wasn't the toy of choice for many trainers. There just might have been a trainer or two that thought reward was not a bad deal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you are the only one on here that is that long. I got started as seven when I got my Collie Laddie. Part of the deal was that I had to train him. (with help) I started doing 4H obedience with him at nine. So I have only been messing with it for 35 years give or take. 

I think you and me are....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMzuKHlYJv0



RBark said:


> I haven't seen anyone claim that they are 100% R+ without anything else. I may have missed it though because I wasn't paying attention to their posts. I do agree there's no such thing as 100% R+, I guess I assumed that was common sense.


There have been said they don't use any negatives. 
Frankly there are a lot of trainers out there that claim to be 100% R+.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I guess a mild tug may that may get attention of a dog that is fixated and just not hearing you may not be aversive but i think we are getting into the exception and not the rule.

I am on a few forums. 
common statement from an e-collar forum regarding aggression "most cases I see are failed pure positive trainers that made things worse" On the positive forums you get the opposite statement. fact is there are poor trainers/training on both sides. Dogs were not sniveling fearful aggressive creatures before the positive wave as some would have you believe, but that doesn't mean the wave was a bad thing. It added a very humane way of training that expanded training to more people/dogs


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

jiml said:


> I guess a mild tug may that may get attention of a dog that is fixated and just not hearing you may not be aversive but i think we are getting into the exception and not the rule.
> 
> I am on a few forums.
> common statement from an e-collar forum regarding aggression "most cases I see are failed pure positive trainers that made things worse" On the positive forums you get the opposite statement. fact is there are poor trainers on both sides. Dogs were not sniveling fearful aggressive creatures before the positive wave as some would have you believe, but that doesn't mean the wave was a bad thing. It added a very humane way of training that expanded training to more people/dogs


I agree wholeheartedly on the positive wave helping, I don't think there is anybody saying that positive stuff is bad. It's the 100% P+ that seems to add a spark to the thread.

JB
I turned pro in 1963


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> This is why I have stayed out of a lot of the debating that goes on because by the time it takes me to find out what everybody is talking about the debating etc is over and done.


I read a bit of the more technical literature, but I've learned more about it here. Technical jargon has a legitimate place. Every field from, car salesmen to nuclear physicists, has its own set terms for describing things. If I walk into a power plant and inform the engineer that "the coffee pot looking thing, with the big loopy thing coming out of it, is leaking" I'll get blank stares. Followed by irritation if I can't describe it better than that. If you are talking to a canine behavior researcher, you need to know his jargon. If you are talking to a retriever trainer, there is a different set of terms you need to know.

The problem with science in dog training is that a good scientist can't draw conclusions unless the experiment's results are repeatable. 

Much of dog training is art and intuition. Things don't always work in practice the way they do on paper. An experienced engineer or architect knows that and will give a fair hearing to operations/mainainence staff, when told that something in his design won't work. The fresh-out-of-college types will argue the point endlessly, go ahead with the installation, and then blame the mechanics when the unit fails.

The best trainers today are at least acquainted with the scientific literature. They also know what works from experience. Events like retriever trials are so competetive that the pro trainer who hasn't evolved in the last 20 years is getting his eye wiped by intermediate level amateurs. Pro trialer will use _any _advantage to get a leg up on the competition. If clickers worked better than e-collars (for that kind of training), e-collars would already be obsolete. Believe that.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> If clickers worked better than e-collars (for that kind of training), e-collars would already be obsolete. Believe that.


Worked better at what? As a secondary reinforcer? If e-collars worked better as secondary reinforcers, e-collars would be more prevalent in clicker training classes. Believe that.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

If e-collars worked better as secondary reinforcers, e-collars would be more prevalent in clicker training classes. Believe that>>> 

well there is that price difference.LOL truthfully a ecollar low stim / buzz / beaper whatever in my opinion is no diff than a clicker if used in that manner but is expensive and impractical in most instances


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I read a bit of the more technical literature, but I've learned more about it here. Technical jargon has a legitimate place. Every field from, car salesmen to nuclear physicists, has its own set terms for describing things. If I walk into a power plant and inform the engineer that "the coffee pot looking thing, with the big loopy thing coming out of it, is leaking" I'll get blank stares. Followed by irritation if I can't describe it better than that. If you are talking to a canine behavior researcher, you need to know his jargon. If you are talking to a retriever trainer, there is a different set of terms you need to know.
> 
> The problem with science in dog training is that a good scientist can't draw conclusions unless the experiment's results are repeatable.
> 
> ...


Johnny's rules of dog training.......

1) Be smarter than what you are working with.

2) Train at the dog's pace. *

3) If it ain't working, change it.

4) Don't let what you know overcome common sense.

5) Have FUN!

* By this I mean don't keep working at a stage or on a behavior once the dog has it. Some people will grind a que into the ground. Once the dog has it, move on and come back to it. I have seen a lot of clever dogs wash out or become a problem in group classes. Because they learn and get things faster than the pack. Which is why I hate group classes. I talented trainer can work around this. Which is the reason when I run a group class, I run mine very different than most folks.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Be smarter than what you are working with>>


so that is my problem

really i believe the hardest part of dog training is patience. it is what separates nearly every level of dog trainer regardless of technique. getting the info to me hasd always been the easy part, in fact most of it is common sense.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

jiml said:


> Be smarter than what you are working with>>
> 
> 
> so that is my problem
> ...


Geeze, that's most of our problems. Wait till you get older and the Alzheimers kicks in, it's hard to remember all those dog names.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Geeze, that's most of our problems. Wait till you get older and the Alzheimers kicks in, it's hard to remember all those dog names.


You know the brain is going when you call out names of dogs that have not been around in years. It is usually when you are worked up about something. I have gotten to where I say my dogs names very little. 

For a while I think Merlin though his name was Bandi! Bu! Do! who the hell are you! Merlin!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I have gotten to where I say my dogs names very little.


Whoa now that's scary, actually if I'm into a dog's training (30 to 45 day course depending on each dog) within 2 weeks the voice is less and less for anything because I like hand signals and just use name on a recall. I use to have an arm signal for recall but dropped it because it's kinda useless if dog is just out doing duty and not facing you etc. Verbal made more sense. It did look good on DVD though.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> There is a continuum on which exist aversive stimuli that are sufficient to create avoidance without inflicting pain. I had a co-worker who thought it was the height of comic genius to emit noxious farts in confined spaces. This habit was neither fear-inducing nor painful, but I learned to avoid his company.





Shaina said:


> Here's a fix to all our problems. May peace and training success rain upon us all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have learned much from this thread. (1) next dog I get, make sure to ask for the damn remote before heading for home and (2) farts can be an important learning tool. Who knew?!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> As to the fear thing, I've seen no evidence that most dogs even remember one-off events. A dog who gets smacked by a car is not likely to be more circumspect about running across the road in the future.


He might fear cars in general, though, which to me (having dealt with Wally's fearful nature) is near enough.

I know that would be the case with Wally (assuming he didn't die considering he's only 12 lbs vs tons of car). Even now that he's way more stable, something like that happen to him - he'll remember it, what it was, and where it happened. Let alone back when he was much more unstable.



TxRider said:


> A trainer using nothing but R+ (which I don't believe exist in reality), is using 100% of one way of learning, but the brain is adapted specifically to learn from them all for very good reasons that have helped animals survive and adapt. Nature provides a whole heck of a lot of the total range of learning theory, why should I handicap myself?


Just because nature might want to use P+ on my soft dog, doesn't mean I should.

R+/P- make Wally work to solve problems and allow us to work together. P+ would have him giving me nothing but calming signals. R- would likely do the same thing. So regardless of all the programs nature might have put in his brain, the ones I can use effectively is R+ and P-. 

Appeasement/calming signals are programmed in by nature. I just don't see them as being effective if I'm trying to shape a behavior, so triggering them would be counter-productive.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I know many many many (did I say many?) Good positive trainers and not one uses R+ exclusively nor claims to do so. Because anyone who understands the science of OC understands that it is physically impossible to not be using P- at some point, whether overtly or inadvertently. Anyone who claims to be 100 percent R+ doesn't know what they are talking about and could therefore be considered inferior trainers..there are many of these, as there are in any of the other types of training methods.

I consider myself an R+ trainer because behaviours are taught and reinforced with rewards, not R- and not P+ to the very best of my ability. But P- is built in. Witholding a click while shaping, using NRM's, turning your back on a jumper etc are all P-. Using social pressure to work on back ups etc could be considered P+ AND R-. Good positive trainers KNOW this, and choose to use R+ as much as possible. But we all know pure R+ doesn't exist and cannot be accomplished. Calling myself a positive trainer, does not imply I only use the one quad and it should be unecessary to have to explain that in every discussion between traditional trainers and positive trainers.

I believe all trainers would benefit from learning about the science of learning, I also think they would benefit from learning about health issues as related to behaviour and about human psychology so they are better able to relate with their clients. But that's just me. 

It is both an art AND a science.


----------



## JeanieStecher (May 26, 2010)

I think it depens upon the situation. If the dog realy need physical corrections, then so be it but not too harsh. There is an electronic dog repellent which could be turned into training mode. I think this is better.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Okay Jeanie...this is the second time in a thread you've mentioned an "electronic dog repellent"...can you PLEASE explain what the H E double hockeysticks you are talking about? I find this vague posting to be irritating.

And yeah, everyone, I'm cranky today. Forewarned is forearmed. LOL


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Cracker said:


> Okay Jeanie...this is the second time in a thread you've mentioned an "electronic dog repellent"...can you PLEASE explain what the H E double hockeysticks you are talking about? I find this vague posting to be irritating.
> 
> And yeah, everyone, I'm cranky today. Forewarned is forearmed. LOL


Well I don't have a clue either, I thought grab an electric cord and beating dog vigorously about the head and shoulders or maybe throwing batteries at the dog. This is what happens with no explanation, imaginations run amok.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I assume this refers to ultrasonic devices, which, if they work at all, dogs quickly learn to ignore. I could be wrong, but that so rarely happens it's hardly worth discussing (I'm kidding, okay?).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Have you ever seen that commercial for the...um, I forget the name, hold on a minute....must be the PetZoom: https://www.petzoompettrainer.com/?MID=783051

Now your dog is magically perfectly trained! The stoopid commercial always makes me LOL. Except it's sad that a lot of people will fall for that rot.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Inaudible to humans, but clearly heard by the animals! Aversive much? ahah works for me. Cheaper too.


----------



## yappypappymom (Oct 22, 2009)

I got one of those "bark off" things from Target. It was a $10 gamble. I was sooo curious if the darn thing would work, &, figured for $10, I would give it a try....DIDN'T WORK-at all!!(just like I imagined at the back of my mind when I bought it - DUH)!!! I was hoping that it would help calm the "explosion" when someone would come to the front door.

I couldn't hear a darn thing, &, neither could my living "security systems"...if you blow directly into the sensor area though, you can hear a chirp. Yeah,...oh-kay...anyone have any oceanfront property in Utah to sell??...(cuz, I'm interested)! LOL


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

In theory, the sonic dog trainer could work. But it would need some real power. An effective one would probably look like a hand-held bullhorn with about 50 watts of power. YIKES! That little key fob looking thing ain't gonna do nuthin'.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I assume this refers to ultrasonic devices, which, if they work at all, dogs quickly learn to ignore.>>>

bought something similar years ago to keep a cat off the stove. first time he ran. a couple days later he would lie right on top of it while it went off


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

My dog's e-collar has an audible pager on it. I can't hear it if I'm more than 10-15 feet away when I activate it. It interrupts him from doing certain things (assuming he's not focused on something important to him) and causes him to start looking for the source of the beeps. Some dogs would ignore it the first time, and others would learn to ignore it after a few times. I could easily integrate that function into his training. I haven't done so because his reaction is just too comical. That, and because I can't know if it's working if I can't hear it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> My dog's e-collar has an audible pager on it. I can't hear it if I'm more than 10-15 feet away when I activate it. It interrupts him from doing certain things (assuming he's not focused on something important to him) and causes him to start looking for the source of the beeps. Some dogs would ignore it the first time, and others would learn to ignore it after a few times. I could easily integrate that function into his training. I haven't done so because his reaction is just too comical. That, and because I can't know if it's working if I can't hear it.


Yes it's kind of tricky when doing any e-collar work, the dog and trainer should be on same page and both should know when/how/why the big button gets pressed. I once saw a young bird dog get ruined he had dove into some woods and was pointing a covey of quail on the edge but the handler who could not see the dog thought he had got on a deer. He never was the same. Old school collars were less forgiving than modern units.


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

I've been debating using an e-collar for training Hallie off leash. She's already very good about coming when I call but I don't let her get out of my sight because I don't believe her recall is reliable. 
I know that both Squeaker and Rbark (I believe but could be mistaken) have both used e-collars and had great success in training recall in breeds known to be quite independent and challenging as far as training recall goes. 
That said, I'm nervous that I would push the button at the wrong time and do something similar to what wvasko mentioned with the bird dog. It seems very hit and miss with the ecollars.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Hallie said:


> I've been debating using an e-collar for training Hallie off leash. She's already very good about coming when I call but I don't let her get out of my sight because I don't believe her recall is reliable.
> I know that both Squeaker and Rbark (I believe but could be mistaken) have both used e-collars and had great success in training recall in breeds known to be quite independent and challenging as far as training recall goes.
> That said, I'm nervous that I would push the button at the wrong time and do something similar to what wvasko mentioned with the bird dog. It seems very hit and miss with the ecollars.


Not advising you to use collar, but recall work is much different than what this trainer was trying to accomplish with his bird dog.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Hallie said:


> I've been debating using an e-collar for training Hallie off leash. She's already very good about coming when I call but I don't let her get out of my sight because I don't believe her recall is reliable.
> I know that both Squeaker and Rbark (I believe but could be mistaken) have both used e-collars and had great success in training recall in breeds known to be quite independent and challenging as far as training recall goes.
> That said, I'm nervous that I would push the button at the wrong time and do something similar to what wvasko mentioned with the bird dog. It seems very hit and miss with the ecollars.


I do use it, you should try to find a trainer that uses negative reinforcement. I don't advocate an e-collar until all +R methods have been exhausted and you intend to use it regularly. A lot of people cite that the use of e-collars on recall are important because of a million "what if" scenarios. An e-collar *may* help you with those "what if" scenarios, but +R recall is *FAR* more reliable.

I can use a e-collar in a controlled, or semi-controlled environment. I can recall him off deer, off bunnies, birds, and so on. But the most important part of recall is not the times you're in controlled areas. It's when they bolt out the door, when they lunge on a leash and you drop the leash, when they jump the fence or go under the fence before you can stop them. Unless you keep the e-collar on them 24/7 (bad, bad idea.) the e-collar will only help you in those situations if the dog is not collar smart.

Most dogs do become collar smart eventually, no matter how much preparation you put into it. Some dogs will keep their awesome recall even after becoming collar smart, many dogs start disminishing the strength of the recall. A +R recall is what will save your dog's life in those dangerous unprepared escapes.

So I really strongly advise trying the many forms of +R recall before a e-collar. Have you done "really reliable recall"? I can find a few more links later.


----------



## Hallie (Nov 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> I do use it, you should try to find a trainer that uses negative reinforcement. I don't advocate an e-collar until all +R methods have been exhausted and you intend to use it regularly. A lot of people cite that the use of e-collars on recall are important because of a million "what if" scenarios. An e-collar *may* help you with those "what if" scenarios, but +R recall is *FAR* more reliable.
> 
> I can use a e-collar in a controlled, or semi-controlled environment. I can recall him off deer, off bunnies, birds, and so on. But the most important part of recall is not the times you're in controlled areas. It's when they bolt out the door, when they lunge on a leash and you drop the leash, when they jump the fence or go under the fence before you can stop them. Unless you keep the e-collar on them 24/7 (bad, bad idea.) the e-collar will only help you in those situations if the dog is not collar smart.
> 
> ...


I've been doing positive training with treats on a 50ft training lead. It's the longest lead I have and she's doing great but I couldn't let her out in a field, park, or anywhere that distractive without her acting like she doens't hear me when I call her even though we've been training in a frisbee golf park. When she 'doesn't hear't I shake the treats and call her again and she usually comes. She has bolted out of the door before several times and and a sharp "Hallie" brought her back immediately. She's very sensitive to tones. I wish I could get her to the point where she can run in a field (within eyesight) and come when I call, but after a year of working on the 50ft lead it's not happening.. going back to square one, with a shorter lead and less freedom would help. At this point I have no idea what I'm doing wrong but there must be a better method for a food motivated tone sensitive dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> I do use it, you should try to find a trainer that uses negative reinforcement. I don't advocate an e-collar until all +R methods have been exhausted and you intend to use it regularly. A lot of people cite that the use of e-collars on recall are important because of a million "what if" scenarios. An e-collar *may* help you with those "what if" scenarios, but +R recall is *FAR* more reliable.


I agree completely that the foundational training for recall should be R+. I have no particular beef with the P- use of the collar, it's just not how I would generally train. 

It's the last bit I might quibble with. R+ may be better than P+ if we are talking about an either/or choice with no ability to integrate the other. Heck, I'll go out on a limb and agree, if those are the conditions of e-collar use. However, no such law exists, and I don't know how much more reliability you can achieve once you've obtained _complete reliability*_.

I got 90% + reliable off-lead recall (on a good day, at least 95%) without correction of any kind. _Note: I'm talking about training a Golden, which is a snap compared to many other types._ But, due to the wisdom of Murphy the Lawgiver, I consider 95% reliable recall to be nothing more than a good place to start. Murphy says: that 1, 3, or 5 percent non-compliance will always occur at the worst possible moment. That last 1, 3, or 5 percent is the more demanding to train.

*Defined in terms of dealing with a living, thinking creature, who has actual choices. The dog could be 100% for the last 5 years, and the next command may produce the canine equivalent of the middle finger. I occasionally put his e-collar on him, but he hasn't required a collar correction in ages. I haven't even seen his leash in over a year.

PS: none of the foregoing should be viewed as a recommendation to use an e-collar to train Hallie, or any other dog, living or dead.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I got 90% + reliable off-lead recall (on a good day, at least 95%) without correction of any kind. Note: I'm talking about training a Golden, which is a snap compared to many other types. But, due to the wisdom of Murphy the Lawgiver, I consider 95% reliable recall to be nothing more than a good place to start. Murphy says: that 1, 3, or 5 percent non-compliance will always occur at the worst possible moment. That last 1, 3, or 5 percent is the more demanding to train.


Read the above and then memorize it or do a copy/paste, it's very good stuff.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Hallie said:


> I've been doing positive training with treats on a 50ft training lead. It's the longest lead I have and she's doing great but I couldn't let her out in a field, park, or anywhere that distractive without her acting like she doens't hear me when I call her even though we've been training in a frisbee golf park. When she 'doesn't hear't I shake the treats and call her again and she usually comes. She has bolted out of the door before several times and and a sharp "Hallie" brought her back immediately. She's very sensitive to tones. I wish I could get her to the point where she can run in a field (within eyesight) and come when I call, but after a year of working on the 50ft lead it's not happening.. going back to square one, with a shorter lead and less freedom would help. At this point I have no idea what I'm doing wrong but there must be a better method for a food motivated tone sensitive dog.


You may want to start working with a trainer. It's really hard to give advice sometimes over the internet. I can tell you how to train, but often your application or interpretation of it will be different than how I am advising. I would hate to give potentially misinterpreted advice, especially when it's in regards to your dog's life. Having someone there who can actually see what you are doing makes a huge difference (assuming the trainer is competent.)

What kind of conditions (environment, leash length, etc) are you able to get a 10/10 recall on? The most important thing to remember is *every* time your dog fails a recall, the strength of the recall is degraded. If you train her and get 10/10 recall at home, then take her to the field and she's doing 3/10 recall, those 7/10 failed recalls are completely working against any progress you're possibly making. Conditions should be set up so that the recall is performed at least 9/10 times on the first outing.

Not trying to say you are doing it wrong or you weren't doing it, but one step at a time, etc. Knowing what you've done already helps with the advice given.



Marsh Muppet said:


> I agree completely that the foundational training for recall should be R+. I have no particular beef with the P- use of the collar, it's just not how I would generally train.


It's -R not -P. Not sure if that was a typo or if you're unsure of the method I'm referring to. I'm referring to starting the aversive before the cue, on continuous, and ending it when the dog has completed the recall.



> It's the last bit I might quibble with. R+ may be better than P+ if we are talking about an either/or choice with no ability to integrate the other. Heck, I'll go out on a limb and agree, if those are the conditions of e-collar use. However, no such law exists, and I don't know how much more reliability you can achieve once you've obtained _complete reliability*_.


Oh, I'm not giving an either-or choice. I'm saying that R+ should be the *primary* method of training. If that gets you to 99% recall everywhere under all distractions, then great! If that gets you to 95% and you can't figure out a way to get it to 99% with R+ training, then that would be acceptable as well.

The point mostly was, a 90% recall that works without a e-collar is *far* better than a 99% recall that only works with a e-collar for all the reasons stated- the times when you have to count on your recall tends to be the worst possible times when you are not prepared (in this case, no collar on the dog). If you need to mix in an e-collar to go from 90 to 99%, then that's what you gotta do, but I do recommend exhausting all other options first.



> I got 90% + reliable off-lead recall (on a good day, at least 95%) without correction of any kind. _Note: I'm talking about training a Golden, which is a snap compared to many other types._ But, due to the wisdom of Murphy the Lawgiver, I consider 95% reliable recall to be nothing more than a good place to start. Murphy says: that 1, 3, or 5 percent non-compliance will always occur at the worst possible moment. That last 1, 3, or 5 percent is the more demanding to train.
> 
> *Defined in terms of dealing with a living, thinking creature, who has actual choices. The dog could be 100% for the last 5 years, and the next command may produce the canine equivalent of the middle finger. I occasionally put his e-collar on him, but he hasn't required a collar correction in ages. I haven't even seen his leash in over a year.
> 
> PS: none of the foregoing should be viewed as a recommendation to use an e-collar to train Hallie, or any other dog, living or dead.


I agree with all that.


----------

