# The Problem with All-Positive Dog Training



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm just going to drop this link right here - http://leerburg.com/allpositive.htm?utm_source=nlist&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=05122014

And...discuss! op2:


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Okay, I'll bite. Probably shouldn't but I will. 

1. I don't think all positive exists. I should say that flat out first... I think it is more of a theoretical thing than anything else. I have only ever met one trainer that referred to themselves as all positive. and they used to be a member here but have sadly passed away. Most trainers I meet don't really label themselves at all. They're just... trainers. Or maybe specifically agility trainers. Haven't ever been to a box store training class so maybe they do? 

I do use corrections if needed. My trainer has also suggested corrections if needed. But corrections are not a part of our training program in general- aka there's no 'correction phase' like he talks about. Most corrections come in when you are dealing with a dog that has a very highly self rewarding behavior and that is hard to overcome. Particularly a dangerous or harmful behavior that needs to stop RIGHT NOW. It is very specific and tailored to that dog. It is not like- hey we just learned to do jumps and the dog ignored me so now I will correct him. 

I disagree with a lot he says though.



> They don’t understand that dog sport competitors who train with all positive methods need a very specific type of dog – they need dog’s that are compliant and have a very strong food or toy drive.


What sports is he talking about? I've seen all kinds of dogs run agility from northern breeds to mastiffs to border collies to terriers to a tiny 13 year old Chihuahua. I think he is underestimating the number of dogs and types that are being trained by these methods. Most agility is positive training just by the nature of the game and community. Is he only talking the big names? Because yeah they tend to stick to high food and toy drive and biddable dogs- namely BCs and shelties. But there's lots of success in the sport with lots of kinds of dogs. I don't profess to know how they're all trained though. 

Everything sounds very cookie cutter and that is not my experience. What the high drive dog needs is different than what the independent non drivey dog needs. And good trainers of a sport will realize that. My trainer has run a BC a sporting breed and a northern breed.... you just can't come at each dog the same way. And they don't.



> These same trainers could be given 10,000 pet dogs and they would be lucky to be able to train and compete at a high level with one of those dogs using all-positive methods in their respective dog sports much less be able to train that dog to be consistently compliant in off leash obedience.


I seriously doubt that because I see people doing this all the time. Like. All. The. Time. There's a chi mix here in masters in most venues- he was found in a dumpster. You can't get much less 'sport bred' than that. A girl I know just MACH'd her dog and he was not a sports bred dog or even a common breed in the sport.

Unless he's talking like world's team level? But that is the elite of the elite. I don't think you'd see random dogs often in ANY sport at that level. Could a schutzhund trainer take a random shelter dog to worlds? Of COURSE the elite people in agility and other 'positive' sports tend to have dogs bred for it and trained for it from an early age. I'm pretty sure the top ___fill in the blank sport_______ dogs do too.

It's illogical to really single out positive trainers in this to me. At the end of the day if the dog doesn't have it then it probably doesn't have it. Imo breed and lines and drives play a huge role in elite sports dogs. No, a good agility trainer is probably not going to make worlds with a random dog. Even if they are a fantastic trainer. But a person who uses corrections is not going to either. There's a reason you see the same breeds and lines over and over again in sports.

I see the article as saying 'Well look, they may be good at this one thing but they're only good because they cherry pick their dogs but we balanced trainers can do anything'. I guarantee you those patrol dogs he mentioned were cherry picked as well for the task they had planned for them. And trained since they were puppies for that task. Just like the sports people do with their pups. Only the method and style of dog is different.

Nothing wrong with that but it's what it is.

Imo you're going to see far more variety of dog type in the softer sports though than something as specialized as Schz.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I usually don't even bother debating with someone if they use the term "all-positive" or "purely positive," because I agree with Laurelin that it doesn't really exist. And if someone doesn't even know enough about the subject they're criticizing to get the terms right, it's just not worth it. I'll usually just give them a couple of links (like this one or this one) and ask them to do more research so that if they want to debate, we're both actually talking about the same thing. I can't do that with Ed because he's not a poster here, so, meh.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

> They don’t understand that dog sport competitors who train with all positive methods need a very specific type of dog – they need dog’s that are compliant and have a very strong food or toy drive.


First of all, that's really, really irrelevant to the 95% of pet owners who will not be participating in sports of any kind. The vast majority of pet owners need a dog that doesn't pull on a leash, doesn't bark all day and doesn't chew the furniture. If the same dog also fetches, that's just icing on the cake.

Secondly, of course random dogs are unlikely to participate in sports, much less at the elite level. Very few dogs have the proper physical build to compete at an elite level, in which case discussing drive and training is beside the point. Is this guy arguing that with a choke chain and a shock collar any dog anywhere could compete at an elite level in sports? I find that a tad . . . unlikely.

Leaving aside any other discussion about punishing dogs- and there are many discussions to be had- let's discuss fallout. I forget his name, but the guy who really pioneered extreme punishment in dogs (German, darn it, can't remember) was well known for having dogs that would compete for 3 to maybe 5 years before they simply would not perform. Why? Fallout. The dogs simply became completely "burnt out" on the constant punishments and gave up. Sure, for those three years, his dogs were flawless, but the average person is looking for a slightly longer lasting relationship. 

There's another issue with fallout and that's that most people training their dogs do it themselves and maybe they bother to read an internet article about it before they start. If you're lucky, they watch a video. So the margin for error in the training method needs to be huge. Punishment has a very small margin for error. Reward's margin for error is far bigger. I accidentally trained my dog to jump and bark in response to the cue "speak". His previous owners trained him to run away peeing if someone had a baseball cap in their hands. I'm thinking punishment just isn't what we should be encouraging for the general public.

Ed really makes me mad because he will not cull the links on his website. He knows a lot of that stuff is outdated and outright dangerous, but he won't spend a few hours taking the outdated stuff down. It's irresponsible.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I guess my main thought is that I doubt there is any trainer now or that has ever been around that could take any random dog and take them to the highest level in any random sport. Trainers are going to be specialized whether it be agility or police work or just pet training. There is too much to learn for someone to be top of the class at everything. 

And different dog communities will still be meticulously picking out dogs with traits that fit their part of the community's training style. It just... is what it is.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

In general, I think that Karen Pryor is all positive ... for training [previous SeaWorld type trainer]. I believe that she has no issues with 'punishment' in every day, non-training activities - If your dog runs into the street, you do what you need to... 

I don't know if Sue Ailsby is pure positive. Or Susan Garrett ...

Otherwise, I agree that pure positive requires superhuman patience .... I wonder if Turid Rugaas is all positive?


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

One problem I have with the entire thing is that he keeps saying "positive trainers".....when what he is actually talking about, and referring to (I believe) is that minority of positive trainers that insist on being "aversive free" trainers. I'm sure we've all run into the "ignore the bad, reward the good" mantra. Sure in theory it is a good idea, but it does allow for too much permissiveness in some cases (and with those who don't have the experience or ability to control enough training situations to work with gradually increasing distractions). This is the one thing that drives me up the wall about kikopup/Emily Yharlam, saying "no" or "uh uh" is bad and evil (don't get me wrong, I think she is incredible...I just don't agree with some of her philosophies). To the average joe on the street who hasn't before put any thought into dog training, or distractions, or any of the other plethora of things that many of us on the forum take for granted...."ignore the bad, reward the good" can cause a dog with issues to get WAAAAY out of hand, really fast, and the only tool available to distract a DA dog from the leashless dog running up the street is a bag of cookies (I'm talking about the absolute newbie who perhaps got a dog from the shelter, who had unknown issues...., or off of Kijiji or something and sat down and watched some kikopup rants about anti-prong, anti-aversive methods, which in the wrong hands equates with permissive).

I do agree that the absolute "pure positive" trainer doesn't truly exist, but there are several people who TRY to be (and I do think, a few have succeeded, reference to kikopup once again). I do see the Ed Frawley thing as a bit of a backlash against a lot of the anti-aversive sentiment that is out there....and that sentiment is understandable. I also thoroughly agree with Amaryllis that the margin for error with any kind of punishment is WAY smaller than with treats...I won't trash anyone for using an aversive if they are using it in an intelligent, informed way, and minimally as possible. I don't like to advise people to use aversives either. BUT (and I'm sure you've probably all noticed this), if someone seems intent on using it (like they've already bought a "shock" collar), I'll try to at least give them the information needed to use it properly, and when it is appropriate to use. 

I personally am not an Ed Frawley fan at all...I watched one of his videos once and even as someone who agrees with judicial use of some punishments/aversives in the right circumstances, it made me kind of sick. On the other hand, Mike Ellis is associated with Leerburg (WHY!!! I dunno!), and I think he is excellent and his aversive use is far more appropriate...though still a little more than I would regularly do....but it isn't cruel in my mind (especially keeping in mind the types of dogs he is training). 

Overall, I'm seeing a lot of demonizing (not necessarily here...I'm just talking all over the place in the general area of dog training) of both sides. People who are completely on the force free side, talking down about the use of aversives, and insisting that they are NEVER necessary, and the ones on the other side of the fence who do use aversives as a matter of course, demonizing the positive trainers (who unfortunately all get lumped into the same umbrella). 

Incidentally, there are a couple of blog posts that refer to the same kind of thing that Frawley is talking about that I'll throw into the fray (though they do specifically say force-free anti-aversive). It is another article that has points I disagree with, but far better explained than the Leerburg article, and the points are a bit more valid: A Silent Killer and the Followup blog


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

hanksimon said:


> In general, I think that Karen Pryor is all positive ... for training [previous SeaWorld type trainer]. I believe that she has no issues with 'punishment' in every day, non-training activities - If your dog runs into the street, you do what you need to...
> 
> I don't know if Sue Ailsby is pure positive. Or Susan Garrett ...
> 
> Otherwise, I agree that pure positive requires superhuman patience .... I wonder if Turid Rugaas is all positive?


I know I've at least seen videos where Turid Rugaas uses the turn-away method when a dog's jumping, which... is or is not a 'correction' depending on who you ask XD. I hope some day I'll be able to say more - with any luck I'll be living in Oslo in a few months, and she lives an easy drive away. Really hoping I can get to some of her lectures, when she's not touring internationally.


----------



## Chichan (Apr 1, 2014)

What is "all positive" really?
Like a lot of people mentioned it's just as positive as we can be.
Some people consider turning away from an excited dog as a correction.
Some people consider withholding play after a nip as a correction.
When my dog starts walking into my cat's litter box (there's plastic stairs that lead up into it) I say the "no" word and he stops. I guess I'm correcting his behavior.
I wouldn't consider any of this really negative.
People and animals of all kinds get told "no". If your dog touches a hot element, the burning sensation is a "no". The same goes for a child.
Life can't be all "yes".
That being said, I won't go for a trainer that practices dominant/aggressive training with dogs. To me a "positive trainer" means they clicker trainer, reward with praise/toys/treats and don't practice the old school dominance training.


----------



## troglodytezzz (Oct 19, 2010)

The problem with the article is a lack of clear definitions of the words "positive" and "correction". Also, it is apparent that he does not understand the term "operant conditioning" at all.

I'm assuming that by "all positive" he means "using positive reinforcement exclusively". I don't believe that anyone actually does that. Simply using a lead is a management technique used to control the environment. It's the same as the small pool the dolphins are in. 

By "correction" I think he means "punishment" (making a behaviour less likely to reoccur). When teaching Eppy to hike off lead, I would call him occasionally. If he failed to come then I would calmly walk over to him and leash him up. This is a correction. In operant conditioning terms it's "Negative Punishment" - something is taken away so that a behaviour is less likely to reoccur. Failing to come means loss of freedom to roam around. 

I also believe that the skill of the individual trainer has a lot to do with the results of training regardless of what method is being used. I was actually very pleased to see that Leerburg now uses luring to initially teach a behaviour well before using corrections. I don't believe it used to be that way. You can teach old dog trainers new tricks after all!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I get really aggravated when people, for example, come in here and act like we're a bunch of push overs and the whole forum is going to come crashing down on them if they use aversives. That isn't even true for the FORUM, where we're most reluctant to give out advise involving aversives because we don't know the owner, dog or situation and the issues are either minor enough to deal with lower risk positive methods or severe enough that the only answer is 'trainer now' (and it isn't true here, how many certain members may like to feel themselves persecuted or in a minority for it - I've used prongs, leash corrections and shock collars without hiding it or backlash from the forum for years). It sure as heck isn't true in the greater training community. 

Acting like you're persecuted and special because you use leash corrections, while at the same time ranting, raving, and making nonsensical remarks based on utter misunderstanding and misinformation about positive training is frustrating, and frankly makes the person doing it look like an utter fool. Like this guy. I don't think he's bad or dumb for not being purely positive. I just think he's an idiot because he's trying to refute something that not only does he not understand, but that doesn't really exist! It's like these people want to imagine they're being attacked, so they can have something to work themselves up about.

So, basically, no. I don't want to discuss this guys ideas because his ideas are founded in ignorance and there's no point. He's flawed from go, because as others have said, ALL POSITIVE DOES NOT EXIST OUTSIDE THEORY. If he goes out and figures out what actual positive training is and isn't, or stops acting like there's something unique in what he's doing, that most people (and trainers!) aren't doing, or addressing actual issues in both aversives and positive training, great. Until then, it's a defensive guy spouting off nonsense about stuff he can't be bothered to understand. What's the point in bothering? (I'll discuss the misconceptions and ignorance and problems with this kind of attitude till the cows come home, though!)

He's not special because you use a prong, leash corrections, aversives, no reward markers, or whatever else. He's just like most other people in that. Just like agility people are just like everyone else in choosing dogs that are suited to the work - I mean look at how hard a time you had getting into a club with Sam and how much doubt you faced because he's not one of the 'typical breeds'. Same crap. People who are working at elite levels are going to choose their dogs to have what it takes. That's not cheating, that's NORMAL. People do it in every sport, including confirmation.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Pretty much agree with everyone else here. I'm just going to share some random thoughts that came to me while I read the article.

1. Purely positive training doesn't really exist and I've never personally met a trainer who would say they are purely positive. People who write articles like this are getting defensive over nothing.

2. Every time I've ever met a dog owned by a high level trainer, the dog was extremely well behaved in general, not just in their sport of choice. So not sure how Ed decided that positive trainers have success in their sport but poorly trained dogs at home. 

3. Sure people choose high drive biddable dogs if they want to compete at the highest level of the sport. I don't see Ed putting IPO titles on beagles, though I have seen people put high level agility and obedience titles on beagles. It's just a fact that people at the top levels are going to choose the dogs most well suited for their sport and style of training, but that doesn't mean that the positive trainers can't compete with lower drive or off breeds (or that correction is needed for these types of dogs). As Laurelin said, there are a ton of people having success with these "pet" dogs in agility every day. Denise Fenzi is known for positive training (including IPO/ring sports) and she is currently training a little terrier/chi type mix. He's certainly not the high drive purpose bred dogs she usually has, but she's doing quite well with him.

4. I'm not against aversives, I'm just against basing a training program on aversives and deciding that they are inevitable for every dog. To me it comes down to one thing - are you setting the dog up to succeed, or setting him up to fail? If you are setting the dog up to succeed, you will need very few aversives. If you are setting the dog up to fail on purpose so you can correct him, I don't consider that very thoughtful training. It's not easy to control the dog's environment and gradually build up what he is capable of, but then we are the ones in this partnership with the big brain.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> 4. I'm not against aversives, I'm just against basing a training program on aversives and deciding that they are inevitable for every dog. To me it comes down to one thing - are you setting the dog up to succeed, or setting them up to fail? If you are setting the dog up to succeed, you will need very few aversives. If you are setting the dog up to fail so you can correct him, I don't consider that very thoughtful training. It's not easy to control the dog's environment and gradually build up what he is capable of, but then we are the ones in this partnership with the big brain.



This is kind of my thing and the part I start objecting to corrections. I see it very, very rarely but I have seen situations where people not only set the dog up to fail but do so deliberately to manufacture a situation so that they can give the correction. It's akin to what I do with snake training 'LOOK SNAKE ZAP' only it's things like asking people to greet their dog so that when the dog jumps they can yank it down, or bringing a dog near their DA dog so the dog will get aggressive and they can jerk it off their feet so the dog will never do it again. 

But much like I rarely see someone who thinks positive means asking their dog nicely to sit and having a dog who won't perform without a cookie present, I rarely see people doing this crap either.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> But much like I rarely see someone who thinks positive means asking their dog nicely to sit and having a dog who won't perform without a cookie present, I rarely see people doing this crap either.


I think it used to be quite common though, at least in dog sport training. I was reading a Diane Bauman book the other day, published in the 90s I think, and half the book was about "proofing". The idea was that you teach the dog what to do "positively" (though her positive techniques were still fairly coercive, like holding a dog in heel position with a taught leash, or pushing the butt down for a sit), then you set them up to fail so you can correct them and make them do it right. 

I don't see a lot of pet dog trainers working like this, but it's definitely a thing in competition training. There is a line of thought that the dog will never fully understand the exercise and be able to do it around distractions unless you bring in punishment and corrections at a certain phase in training.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> I think it used to be quite common though, at least in dog sport training. I was reading a Diane Bauman book the other day, published in the 90s I think, and half the book was about "proofing". The idea was that you teach the dog what to do "positively" (though her positive techniques were still fairly coercive, like holding a dog in heel position with a taught leash, or pushing the butt down for a sit), then you set them up to fail so you can correct them and make them do it right.
> 
> I don't see a lot of pet dog trainers working like this, but it's definitely a thing in competition training. There is a line of thought that the dog will never fully understand the exercise and be able to do it around distractions unless you bring in punishment and corrections at a certain phase in training.



I'm not going to complain that I missed that stage of dog training. I mean I may sort of do that, but honestly my 'punishment' 95% of the time is a no reward marker and start over.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I don't think people who write articles like this really understand positive reward training. And one of my biggest pet peeves is people who bitch about positive rewards based training without really understanding it. 

First of all, because as others have already said, "all" positive really doesn't exist and I don't know many people who claim it does. My strong preference is to find a way to avoid corrections in my dogs and my go-to is positive reward, that doesn't mean I never have or never will use corrections or aversives. It means that those things aren't my go-to. 

Second of all, because punishment based training often happens reactively to a situation, I think a lot of people just cannot wrap their heads around how most positive reward based training happens long before that situation takes place, and so they completely mischaracterize/misunderstand it. It's the old "I'd like to see you recall your dog off chasing deer by waving a cookie in his face." Your dog has to already be chasing those deer in order to punish him for it, so it's hard for some people to grasp that with positive rewards based training, you've been laying groundwork for that recall all along with gradually increasing distractions, so calling the dog off the deer isn't primarily a training moment but a successful result of all your previous training. In the meantime, you don't set him up to chase deer. 

Third of all, conflating the general principle "ignore the bad, reward the good" to mean that positive = permissive really bugs me, too. So much. It doesn't mean let your dog run roughshod over you doing whatever he likes and just hoping for that moment you can reward. 

In my less generous moments, I think that it's just too much work for some people and requires too much forethought, thinking about situations, and effort towards management for certain people to be wiling to do it. It's not hard, just a lot more work and thought than yank and cranking. In my more generous moments I realize that it's a different enough paradigm that it can be hard to make the shift, but it still annoys me. If you don't want to use it, fine, but argue against what it actually is. Not what you think it is in your head.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Everyone has said what I've been thinking, so no need to repeat (especially since they said it so much better than I could have). I do want to address the "ignore the bad, reward the good" description of positive reinforcement-based training. It's short, sweet, and a nice catch phrase. However, it is woefully incomplete and inaccurate. Folks who criticize R+ either don't look further into the details of the techniques or do, but choose to misrepresent the techniques to further their goals. 

Those who use R+ understand nuances like managing the environment, training incompatible behaviors, setting up for success, etc. They also understand, as Sassafras said, that situations like a dog chasing a deer or running into the street (in many cases) isn't a training situation and training needs to occur before those situations arise.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Ed ??? the guy's an outdated, outmoded, bumbling, backwoods ignoramus, whose highly-biased arguments in favour of punishment-based methods are absolutely NON-compelling as far as I'm concerned. His perspective on force-free training has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese, and I really don't have the time, motivation, or inclination to pinpoint the obvious. 

The only reason I pay ANY attention to his rantings is for brief giggles and grins. And maybe, to give my neck muscles a lateral workout. Enough said.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm not super familiar with this guy beyond seeing his website every now and then.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I get really aggravated when people, for example, come in here and act like we're a bunch of push overs and the whole forum is going to come crashing down on them if they use aversives.


I get you there...though I will say, ages ago, when I first joined this forum I did get some pretty nasty stuff said when I was asking about aversives (and at that point, just asking about options, tools and trying to generally learn)....stuff that equated with "just considering aversives means you are cruel and lazy". There wasn't a TON of it, but there was enough, and they were insistent enough that being a newbie, it was pretty upsetting and difficult to weed out the good advice from the general meanness of some of the posts. I left the forum for quite some time because of that, and was glad to see when I returned the attitude had changed to "aversives aren't the best first option, and we're not giving advice on it", along with some more positive recommendations and a more respectful feel. 



sassafras said:


> Third of all, conflating the general principle "ignore the bad, reward the good" to mean that positive = permissive really bugs me, too. So much. It doesn't mean let your dog run roughshod over you doing whatever he likes and just hoping for that moment you can reward.


I agree, I hate the positive=permissive assumption that is often made. I have unfortunately met people who were permissive, and did just ignore the bad (and ignored some REALLY bad), it didn't end up in the nightmarish type of scenarios suggested in the articles I posted, but the dog was definitely allowed to do FAR too much, and the concept of "no" didn't exist to the owners. An overall annoying dog to be around (and did RG, which hadn't resulted in bites, but was worrying). It is like they didn't realize that there is a way to work on these things other than to "work around it". It is rare though, and the anti-positive articles tend to overblow stuff like this into making it sound like every dog trained positively ends up being a nightmare....annoying, wrong, and sends out a ton of disinformation, but strong anti-aversive statements do the same.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

do feel the general public is so confused to not understand where the line is with so much being put out there and many trying to put a " catchy spin on it" . I gave up when I met a gal constantly talking about positive negative and negative positive.. Too much information owners shut down...


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm a big fan of Michael Ellis and I'd classify him as a "balanced trainer." Ed, to me, seems much more like a business owner and salesman and I think it's good that more and more they're bringing in other trainers to do videos and such.

I thought this was interesting because I often do find myself in between the two extremes and constantly trying to find my own balance that works for me and my dog and I'm betting I'm not the only person there. It's been a big test of my own confidence to weather both the dirty looks I get from giving my dog a correction in public from people who've likely only been to a Petsmart class as well as ignore the urging of people in my Schutzhund club to just put an e-collar on my dog and "fry" him for something. I'm really lucky in that I do have a few people in my club that I admire and respect who do find their balance in the middle and that when I do ignore some suggestions it's not met with more than a shrug.

I feel like that balance is likely different for every dog and owner, just like every human relationship has a different give and take. What works for Sam and I likely won't work the same with nextdog or might not even work with Sam and someone else. It's finding that balance that I find a big challenge, particularly as he fills out and matures.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> I thought this was interesting because I often do find myself in between the two extremes and constantly trying to find my own balance that works for me and my dog and I'm betting I'm not the only person there. It's been a big test of my own confidence to weather both the dirty looks I get from giving my dog a correction in public from people who've likely only been to a Petsmart class as well as ignore the urging of people in my Schutzhund club to just put an e-collar on my dog and "fry" him for something.


You are definitely not the only person looking for that balance. I've had the tests to confidence as well. My Schutzhund club is a bit different from yours, an e collar is "resorting to" something (ie, they seem to think you have to fry the dog with it all of the time), ignoring suggestions seemed to produce a bit of an eye roll, I'm not going any more, between (relatively minor) training disagreements and (the big one) distance to travel/time. Either way, I'm happy to say I've just about found my balance, and Caeda's balance (which I've found can even shift depending on circumstances). The balance I had working with our fosters was different, and the balance my DH has with Caeda is a bit different as well.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Every so often, I get sick up to my eyeballs with people insuinating that if I don't either fry my dog with an e-collar regularly or try to choke the life out of him on a regular basis, he is going to grow up to either be a killer or completely nonproductive on the field.

1. He actually reacts FAR better to positive reinforcement and becomes much less high strung or aggressive when I rely mostly on that.
2. I don't really care about how far we go in Schutzhund as long as we're both enjoying the ride. Really. Schutzhund 3? Yeah, it would be nice, but I'm not going to breed him, so if we never make it there...I don't care. We do this for our own reasons and I'm not going to be overly harsh with my dog just to get a title. If he never does a perfect foss or any other thing...that's ok with me as long as we both enjoy working together.

Sam is turning into a great dog and I find it's most helpful to focus on how far we've already come together rather than beat myself up with how far we'd need to go to get to the level some people are working toward. We're on our own unique path and it just isn't the same as some of the people who bought specially bred dogs for this sport and for whom it is their only hobby...and that is ok.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I am alarmed and saddened that there is any sport in which people think it is acceptable to fry a dog or try to choke the life out of him. I know hunters do it but I think they're mostly average shmoes with little training experience; I would have liked to think better of someone who engages in an actual dog sport . Too bad.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I am alarmed and saddened that there is any sport in which people think it is acceptable to fry a dog or try to choke the life out of him. I know hunters do it but I think they're mostly average shmoes with little training experience; I would have liked to think better of someone who engages in an actual dog sport . Too bad.


I am exaggerating a bit. By "frying" I mean using an e-collar high enough to get a yelp when a correction is given, not electrocution. By "choking the life out of a dog" I mean pulling a dog up off its feet during a collar correction. And, of course, not everyone who trains in Schutzhund does either of these, but there are those who do and those that do firmly believe that this is the only way to have the kind of control they want over their dogs.

There are completely positive Schutzhund trainers, balanced Schutzhund trainers, and very harsh aversive Schutzhund trainers...and everything in between. I'm betting that's true of almost any dog sport as well.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But it is apparently allowed, perhaps even encouraged? I would think that people involved with a sport such as Schutzhund that gets bad press anyway might be more mindful not to add to the negativity. And then they whine that people think badly of them .


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Buy from Leerburg and not from PetSmart. This is the message to me. The rest of it, well, is fodder.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> But it is apparently allowed, perhaps even encouraged? I would think that people involved with a sport such as Schutzhund that gets bad press anyway might be more mindful not to add to the negativity. And then they whine that people think badly of them .


I don't really see much press about Schutzhund out there, bad or good, nor do I hear many Schutzhund people that are too concerned about what others think of them.

Yes, corrections are allowed. Corrections are allowed in training for most dog sports, considering the bulk of any training goes on at home. Corrections are not allowed during Schutzhund trials. Different clubs have different training philosophies, so what is allowed or encouraged can vary widely although, for the most part, I've seen little interference by other people in how someone handles their own dog. It's a little different from training classes in that the format is pretty much people working with their own dogs and asking others to pitch in with advice or distractions as needed, not a formal class where there is an instructor and students.

There is no "schutzhund" police following every handler around enforcing some kind of uniform training philosophy, at least not where I live.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If someone is willing to do something (using an e-collar so high it makes the dog cry, holding a dog off the ground with a choker) in public, it makes me really really concerned about what they do in private . I would hope others would interfere if they saw abusive handling, but I know the culture does not support that in a lot of cases. Whatever. Clearly not a sport I would be comfortable in.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> If someone is willing to do something (using an e-collar so high it makes the dog cry, holding a dog off the ground with a choker) in public, it makes me really really concerned about what they do in private . I would hope others would interfere if they saw abusive handling, but I know the culture does not support that in a lot of cases. Whatever. Clearly not a sport I would be comfortable in.


What different people consider abusive can vary widely. As an example, I'd never spank my kids. It just makes no sense to me and I'd never do it myself. Would I interfere with someone else spanking their own kids? No. I wouldn't be comfortable being around it, but I wouldn't feel like I had some right to interfere.

Even if I'm uncomfortable with someone else's handling, I do not see that as giving me a right to interfere, just as I wouldn't want someone slapping an e-collar on my dog and going to town simply because they disagreed with my handling.

And yeah...I doubt it is an environment you'd enjoy. No problem with that. I don't think I'd enjoy other sports, either and to each their own.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Still makes me sad that people treat their dogs like that . And it's people who say they like dogs, not some random dog-kicking yahoo. Ugh.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Still makes me sad that people treat their dogs like that . And it's people who say they like dogs, not some random dog-kicking yahoo. Ugh.


And there are plenty of people who say they love kids whose parenting practices would make me cringe. They most likely believe they are doing what is best for their kids, much like these dog owners most likely believe they are doing what is best for their dogs.

In the end, my control ends at the end of my own leash(es).


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I always put harsh treatment more in the ego category (or frustration and lack of self-control, for most parents and regular pet owners. In "higher level" people with better self-control it's ego) vs them truly believing they're doing their best. . .you're way more charitable than I am .


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Well, I'm by no means an expert on dog training, and have had to seek the help of a trainer a few times with some of the issues my dogs have had, so take what I say for whatever it is. I find positive reinforcement training is usually the way to go, but isn't sure fire for everything, particularly with dogs who are more hard headed. And when it fails, issuing corrections within reason usually does work. Treat training has done virtually nothing with Ma'ii, who goes into a tunnel vision and completely ignores everything when in the back of the truck or when he sees other dogs on leash, but has done great things for his day to day manners and tricks. I try to use it when I can.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> I don't really see much press about Schutzhund out there, bad or good, nor do I hear many Schutzhund people that are too concerned about what others think of them.


The guy that was getting rid of Diesel (a large, black GSD), knew that I took Caeda to Schutzhund. He said he didn't want Diesel taken there (shocked he cared), because according to him "people take their dogs to that to make them fight to the death". No kidding. I've also run into many people who assumed it meant that Caeda was a trained attack dog.....um no lol. The people at Schutzhund (well, one), warned me about liability with Diesel (who did have a bite history....for reason I gotta say), and they didn't want me to bring him and train him there in case he bit someone in the future and it reflected badly on them. They did let me bring him round once or twice just to meet people for socialization purposes, but no training involved. 



packetsmom said:


> Different clubs have different training philosophies, so what is allowed or encouraged can vary widely although, for the most part, I've seen little interference by other people in how someone handles their own dog.


VERY different. My club used prongs, and almost only prongs, their opinion of e collars was (oddly enough) close to what much of the general public thinks of them...they are pain causing and high stim, and only for extreme circumstances. I use a low-stim approach, and prefer the low stim to a solid yank on a prong (I've tried both on myself, the low stim I personally don't consider painful in comparison), although prongs do have the bonus of being able to indicate the desired direction with a bit more pressure than a flat collar. The club seemed to talk to me like I was a newbie to training, as opposed to a newbie to just Schutzhund, and the training director seemed quite intent on me using his techniques rather than my own, it wasn't pushed too hard, but the attitude was there and I didn't like it much. 

Of course, those who are uncomfortable with the e collar and prong use in Schutzhund, keep in mind some of these dogs are REALLY high drive, and pretty hard headed. Caeda is pretty hard headed, and the prong and e collar have been indispensable in her training (used judiciously, and minimally as possible), but I've seen some dogs that are WAAAAAYYYYY beyond her hard headedness and drive, and some of them in drive it takes a pretty strong correction just to get their attention back, and having a dog in Schutzhund that gets into the habit of ignoring you can turn into bad news. 

All of that said, I actually had the opportunity to do a short try as a helper (the person wearing the protective gear and the sleeve!). One of the dogs I was helping with had the harshest handler there (and that dog needed a pretty firm handler, he had some crazy drive). I will NEVER forget, for the rest of my life, standing in the blind with the sleeve on, having that 100lb+ working bred GSD barking at me (as he is supposed to at that point), I could smell his breath! You know what, for all of the harsh handling, and how aggressive he may seem to the general observer, I looked into his face and I've rarely seen a happier dog, he LOVED what he was doing, and being subject to some corrections, that helped make him controllable enough in drive to be able to do that sport didn't do any lasting damage to him, he was always eager to work and I will always remember the excitement and exuberance in that dog's face, only surpassed by the look on his face when his owner released him to take the sleeve....when I finally released the sleeve to him, he did the typical "proud prance" that any dog does when it has something it likes. It may seem harsh to some on the surface, but not all dogs can be controlled enough to do the sport without some correction, and after that day, I'd bet, if you could ask those dogs if they would give up the sport to avoid the corrections, they'd say "Heck NO".


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Acting like you're persecuted and special because you use leash corrections, while at the same time ranting, raving, and making nonsensical remarks based on utter misunderstanding and misinformation about positive training is frustrating, and frankly makes the person doing it look like an utter fool. Like this guy. I don't think he's bad or dumb for not being purely positive. I just think he's an idiot because he's trying to refute something that not only does he not understand, but that doesn't really exist! It's like these people want to imagine they're being attacked, so they can have something to work themselves up about.


I don't mean to pick on you, because our views on many things are actually very similar lol, however this statement goes both ways. how many people on this forum threw a FIT when someone here posted a link to "the naughty dog" ? ranting that she's horrible and doesn't understand positive training at all and it clearly just an idiot blowing smoke etc..?? because she wrote on article on giving feedback to your dog. when anyone who'd bothered to READ a single thing she's ever written would realize that she's a positive trainer and a good one at that.


I myself am very much a positive trainer, however I tend to parade the negative stuff I do in forums because that's just my instinctive response to the tar and feather reactions I see toward anyone who dares question anything that falls under the umbrella of "positive" lol. I have pinned my dogs, I have used prongs(breifly, because i dont like relying "tools" nothing again the collar itself), I own a shock collar(though I dont even know where the transmitter is.), I use leash corrections, I have used spray bottles and thrown things at my dogs, I have given smacks on the nose etc.. yup..and I also clicker train, free shape, and use loads of cookies, toys and praise, and frankly I think the positive training club I train with is too harsh lol


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Your post makes me wish there was a "love" button. 

I've seen harsher corrections given with a fur-saver collar than a e-collar in some instances, so it isn't always the tool that's being used, but how it's being used. In my club, I can not think of a handler that doesn't use some form of corrective collar. Fur-saver's (a chain collar that can either be set to "dead" or tighten) are the most popular, followed by e-collars which are particularly favored in older dogs at higher levels doing protection. Flat collars are most commonly used for tracking and protection and for puppies. There are 2 or 3 handlers that are REALLY into their e-collars and use them liberally and a few handlers never use them at all, with a couple falling somewhere in between. I'm actually the only one using a prong right now and most of the club seems to agree that a fur-saver is more corrective than a prong for most handlers.

And yeah, I've seen the hard headed-ness and the joy. I don't think I could handle Sam without some corrections and that's not because of laziness or ego on my part, but simply a function of his size and temperment combined. I also carefully consider where I want to use those corrections and I sometimes learn just as much from watching someone correcting their dog in ways I would not as I do from watching handlers correct in a way I do admire. My favorite handler and the one I most admire is also very gentle with his dogs 90% of the time. He does not give corrections often at all, however, when he does, they are memorable to the dog and timed very precisely. It happens rarely enough that other handlers will remark on it. He's not a nagger and is primarily positive and only gives a strong correction when it is absolutely something that he can't have his dog(s) doing, usually for safety reasons.

That's how _I_ like to see strong corrections used. Seldom, with a lot of thought behind them, and only where they are necessary. So, trying to bite someone outside of a command to bite in protection? Harsh correction. Dog not in just the right position for a heel? No harsh correction and patience to keep working with the dog. Blowing off the owner's commands to try to get to the helper? Harsh correction. Dog still learning commands and confused? No correction.

What I _hate_ seeing is a dog that is clearly confused being corrected left and right, often with small nagging corrections or over-reacting corrections. I saw a handler pick a dog off its front legs by the leash because it wouldn't give up its ball on command. Meanwhile, another handler instead just traded the dog a treat for the ball to reinforce the command.

Guess which one I copied?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Ed Frawley (owner of Leerburg) tends to spark emotion. He is very type A... Pushy bold and brash and HIGHLY opinionated. But few people that have spent much of their lives in the company of and training the Highest of High drive dogs are not similar. I am sure people might say some of the same things about me. But if you are going to play with dogs that are not happy unless they are going mach 2 with their hair on fire, you really need to be that way yourself. 

Some people in the high drive dog world love him and some hate him. But he tends to get a reaction one way or another.

I am not one to be a disciple of anyone... In fact Laurelin asked me not long ago if there were any well known trainers out there that I thought a lot of.. 

I will say this.... I have known four Ed Frawley trained dogs personally... And have seen several others work.... I have seen nothing but Excellence.


----------



## Zorro13 (Nov 11, 2013)

I've always found it interesting that the 2 things humans are ok with correcting physically are small children and animals.

One thing I've learned since I really started focusing on training is that timing is everything. With positive reinforcement the worse case scenario is that I miss an opportunity to reinforce a behavior. With aversive corrections I run the chance of scaring my dog and damaging our relationship if my reaction is mistimed. Obviously you can train a dog with negative reinforcement but for the general public that won't execute training techniques perfectly I think the former is the better option.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> That's how _I_ like to see strong corrections used. Seldom, with a lot of thought behind them, and only where they are necessary. So, trying to bite someone outside of a command to bite in protection? Harsh correction. Dog not in just the right position for a heel? No harsh correction and patience to keep working with the dog. Blowing off the owner's commands to try to get to the helper? Harsh correction. Dog still learning commands and confused? No correction.nd.


We're completely on the same page!!
There was one guy I managed to "silence" who gave me flack for the e collar. In the long down, if his dog got up, he would walk over to it, grab it by the collar and lead it fairly roughly back to the spot, then push it HARD down to the ground (his dog yelped during this once or twice), then walk back. Caeda broke her long down once, the guy said "you'd better go get your dog, and put her back" I gave her a quick vibration on the collar (which if she is distracted, she doesn't even notice), she laid back down, instantly, no yelp, not even a head shake. He said I shouldn't do that. My answer; she broke her down, and wanted my attention. Giving it to her, even negatively is counterproductive to getting her to do what I want, I don't want her coming to me for negative attention either. You go and give your dog attention and he gets something "good" out of the deal, even if it is rough, later, the correction might have to be harder to override the "good" factor of getting the attention. I pressed a button, she knew what to do, she didn't get anything good out of it. That is the only time any of them seemed to accept my use of it at all (even if it was just with a nod). 



Zorro13 said:


> I've always found it interesting that the 2 things humans are ok with correcting physically are small children and animals.


I'm not ok with it at all, except when necessary. If I had a kid (I don't) and it was about to walk out onto the road when a car was coming (for example), I wouldn't hesitate to grab them by the arm, and not worry at that point about it hurting their arm....the alternative of being hit by a car is FAR worse. At least with a child, at a certain age you can explain to them why it is dangerous to walk out on the road. A dog....not so much. You can create a habit of not going on the road, using positive methods, but sometimes the habit can be overcome by instinct, or just plain old urge for whatever is across the road. The only way to teach the dog that there is a consequence (bigger than not getting a treat) to walking out on the road (since they won't understand if you explain it) is some kind of correction...and it doesn't have to be large. Some people don't find they need to reinforce it that strongly, either for lifestyle reasons or for personal reasons. I reinforce it with a correction (after creating the habit with positive methods), because ideology wise, I feel it is better to be sure, if my girl gets off leash, she won't go on the road. Actually, a better comparison is snake training. I consider some things just as potentially fatal as snakes...You do have a point though, there does seem to be a general attitude that correcting dogs (and sometimes children) as more ok, than using physical means in other situations.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I will say this.... I have known four Ed Frawley trained dogs personally... And have seen several others work.... I have seen nothing but Excellence.


I don't care how Ed trains his dogs. But if he's going to go on a rant, I want him to rant about what reward-based training actually IS, not about what his strawman of it is. And I rarely, rarely see rants about what reward-based training actually is from people who are likely to rant about it. (To be fair, I also commonly see poorly-reasoned rants about aversives but not to the same degree IME).


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I am not one to be a disciple of anyone... In fact Laurelin asked me not long ago if there were any well known trainers out there that I thought a lot of..
> 
> I will say this.... I have known four Ed Frawley trained dogs personally... And have seen several others work.... I have seen nothing but Excellence.


Haha I don't remember that but I probably did.

I do think it's best to go off of real life experience and trainers vs just theory. Videos can be helpful but remember they can be edited and skewed too. 

The more I train dogs (and I'm a baby at this) the more I realize the 'best way' is not always the 'best way' for another dog. I've been very frustrated watching DVDs and the techniques just not working. What I've realized is that my dog is not the dog on the video and I am not the trainer in the video. I can emulate the trainer as much as possible but that's no guarantee that the dog will work in the same way as the example dogs. And believe me my two have come up with creative ways to totally not do what the videos are saying they should. 

Weaves have been the bane of my existence with Summer and it wasn't until I started teaching them in a way I was told absolutely not to that they worked. She doesn't have the drive to do some of the other methods. Crate Games was another hilarious attempt at getting her to settle in the crate. And Summer is a VERY easy little dog but good lord it just did not work. Parts would work but others wouldn't. It did not help that the video was of a GSD who behaved in almost the exact opposite of how Summer did (aka that dog was calm and mine was flailing and screaming). 

I see a lot of criticism going both ways and some is fair and other is not. There was a thread a while back about crate barking on another board that is 100% positive and you cannot even discuss the aversive side of things. I told the poster flat out that I had to use an aversive to get Summer to settle in the crate. Immediately there were threads and posts about how the only reason a purely positive approach wouldn't work for ANYTHING is because you're doing it wrong or lazy. 

I dont' think that is true. There's several limitations that you need to think about when training a dog- you as a trainer and your abilities to time things or set things up successfully, your dog's abilities/drive levels and understanding, and also just plain time. Some things need to be dealt with very quickly and that just is what it is. Dogs that are very high drive or even meek tiny dogs like mine that have very highly self rewarding behaviors... well good luck with fixing those in a reasonable amount of time. 

I am very comfortable with where I am now with training. I am sure I will keep learning and changing as I get more dogs and tasks trained under my belt. I have a lot of problem with the way a lot of people train dogs. Like many of my relatives ascribe to the alpha rolling, shoving their nose in pee, spanking them when they act up, etc. That is awful. But that type of training being awful doesn't mean all aversives are. I think it's silly the swing to the few that won't even say the word no or use a no reward marker because it's 'cruel'/negative.

But yes most training here is done via clicker and treats. It works for my dogs.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Zorro13 said:


> I've always found it interesting that the 2 things humans are ok with correcting physically are small children and animals.
> 
> One thing I've learned since I really started focusing on training is that timing is everything. With positive reinforcement the worse case scenario is that I miss an opportunity to reinforce a behavior. With aversive corrections I run the chance of scaring my dog and damaging our relationship if my reaction is mistimed. Obviously you can train a dog with negative reinforcement but for the general public that won't execute training techniques perfectly I think the former is the better option.


I think you have to know your dog, your own personality, and what is going to work for both of you. To me, there's definitely a spectrum and most dogs and handlers will fall somewhere between the two extremes.

I have a dog that needs aversive corrections. He doesn't need them as often as other dogs, but he needs them at times to help him focus and settle in. Other times he honestly needs them because he weighs almost as much as me and can have a desire to be in charge. A quick, decisive correction helps him snap to and also helps him relax and follow my lead. I also use aversive corrections when it is something that is a matter of safety and I think safety issues become bigger when the dog becomes bigger. There are a lot of things I would likely let slide more with him if he was smaller, but with his size and weight, he is safer and we are safer if he knows, with absolute certainty, that some things just are not allowed...at all...ever.

That being said, corrections for us are the exception to the rule and I don't use them at all when training a new behavior. Being willing to use those corrections, though, when needed, I think has made the difference between me being able to keep a dog that does have a less than ideal temperment and a huge size, when I've seen his littermates up on CL because they "bit" or their owners just couldn't handle them.

I'd rather give the occasional, strong correction and keep my dog, happy and safe, with me. I love him to pieces, but sometimes that love has to be tempered with doing what is best for him, even if I don't feel like it.

I never spanked or laid a hand on my kids, but then I had kids who were very easily corrected with timeouts and withdrawing privileges. I used the least aversive tools with them that worked to correct their behavior and stopped at the level that worked. I do the same with my dog.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

When we are mushing, Maisy physically corrects Squash all the time. She is super focused and if he tries to drift off the trail she will body block, hip check, or drag him back on track. I call her my enforcer. That has sort of softened my view of using a similar level of physical correction with him, because as far as I can see he literally does not care at all. 

I've therefore come to view his harness somewhat as a handle to be used as needed on those occasions when his brain leaks out his ears and I think he literally is not hearing me. If I did that to HER, though, her heart would break into a million tiny pieces. She just needs verbal instructions and interrupters, the running/pulling is a very motivating reward for her... and honestly she's such a natural and so driven that she rarely needs any guidance from me whatsoever anyway.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

I have a child who cannot be reasoned with. I actually have two. One has no impulse control. He wants to do the right thing but he quickly forgets and just does whatever thing clicks into his brain at that moment. Constant repetition helps (yes like training a dog) and modeling proper reactions but sometimes he is going to do what he always does. He gets corrections, verbal, and we move on until next time. My youngest is a different sort of animal altogether. I swear I thought he would be the death of me. He could look you in the eye while you explained not to dart into a busy parking lot because the cars couldn't see him and he might get hurt, smile and yank his hand right out of yours to take off at a run across that very same parking lot. It wasn't impulse, though he lacks impulse control as well, he wanted to do what you didn't want him to do because you didn't want him to do it. Punishment does not work, he laughs. We spent the first 7 years of his life in a state of hyper vigilance. This is why Duke is trained the way he is. 

I know I have mentioned before that I trained my first dog with a choke chain. I don't feel at all like it was inhumane. She needed very few corrections to learn to walk at heel and I didn't hang her by her collar or anything. All of her other training was positive, she was an easy dog to train and we enjoyed working together. I have tried the positive training and admit I often find kikopup videos frustrating to watch because she does seem very extreme. She is an amazing trainer and perhaps she does not intend to come off the way she does but she seems to imply that correcting your dog at all, even with a simple "eh, eh" when they are doing something you don't like to interrupt them will ruin them forever. I was quite turned off watching her stay video attacking ZakGeorge who I would also consider to be a "positive trainer" because he was correcting a dog in his stay video by saying "no" when it came out of stay *GASP . I think seeing that sort of thing can cause confusion in the general public when trying to watch these videos and train from them. What are you supposed to do then if not ignore everything and just focus on the positive? If you ever say no to your dog you are ruining them. I am looking for a balance in my training. Some dogs aren't as simple to train. Duke sure, he will do stuff without even trying to teach him. Freyja has bad habits and I'm sorry but the "positive interrupter" isn't the perfect way to break it. All she is learning is to jump on the door then run back to me to get a treat, rinse and repeat. It has been a month and she is still at it. Yeah I'm going to have to try something new.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Remaru said:


> I have a child who cannot be reasoned with. I actually have two. One has no impulse control. He wants to do the right thing but he quickly forgets and just does whatever thing clicks into his brain at that moment. Constant repetition helps (yes like training a dog) and modeling proper reactions but sometimes he is going to do what he always does. He gets corrections, verbal, and we move on until next time. My youngest is a different sort of animal altogether. I swear I thought he would be the death of me. He could look you in the eye while you explained not to dart into a busy parking lot because the cars couldn't see him and he might get hurt, smile and yank his hand right out of yours to take off at a run across that very same parking lot. It wasn't impulse, though he lacks impulse control as well, he wanted to do what you didn't want him to do because you didn't want him to do it. Punishment does not work, he laughs. We spent the first 7 years of his life in a state of hyper vigilance. This is why Duke is trained the way he is.
> 
> I know I have mentioned before that I trained my first dog with a choke chain. I don't feel at all like it was inhumane. She needed very few corrections to learn to walk at heel and I didn't hang her by her collar or anything. All of her other training was positive, she was an easy dog to train and we enjoyed working together. I have tried the positive training and admit I often find kikopup videos frustrating to watch because she does seem very extreme. She is an amazing trainer and perhaps she does not intend to come off the way she does but she seems to imply that correcting your dog at all, even with a simple "eh, eh" when they are doing something you don't like to interrupt them will ruin them forever. I was quite turned off watching her stay video attacking ZakGeorge who I would also consider to be a "positive trainer" because he was correcting a dog in his stay video by saying "no" when it came out of stay *GASP . I think seeing that sort of thing can cause confusion in the general public when trying to watch these videos and train from them. What are you supposed to do then if not ignore everything and just focus on the positive? If you ever say no to your dog you are ruining them. I am looking for a balance in my training. Some dogs aren't as simple to train. Duke sure, he will do stuff without even trying to teach him. Freyja has bad habits and I'm sorry but the "positive interrupter" isn't the perfect way to break it. All she is learning is to jump on the door then run back to me to get a treat, rinse and repeat. It has been a month and she is still at it. Yeah I'm going to have to try something new.



I will come back to this later, but I am giving myself the note here to remind myself-

But you sound like you really, really, don't understand what positive training actually is and how it works, and are frustrated and looking for faster answers. I'm somebody who uses no reward markers, leash corrections, prong and electric-collars, but... you're missing what positive training is and is about, by miles.

And I'll give more in depth information in about a half hour when I've gotten my kid off the bus.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

CptJack said:


> I will come back to this later, but I am giving myself the note here to remind myself-
> 
> But you sound like you really, really, don't understand what positive training actually is and how it works, and are frustrated and looking for faster answers. I'm somebody who uses no reward markers, leash corrections, prong and electric-collars, but... you're missing what positive training is and is about, by miles.
> 
> And I'll give more in depth information in about a half hour when I've gotten my kid off the bus.


No, trust me 12 years raising an autistic child and 8 with a bipolar child I am well versed in no fast answers. I was simply saying that if you watch videos by "positive trainers" it is easy to see how the average person becomes confused and frustrated. I'm one of those people who really doesn't like to be told "if you do this you are ruining your dog". That may or may not be the intention of what is being said, but that is how many of those videos come off and I realize they are far from the entire philosophy as a whole. It is very similar to peaceful parenting (which has a similar issue and people rant the same way against it). I am really just watching them for a few hints. Yes, I've admitted many times it is frustrating to work for months on something that I trained my first dog to do in a few weeks and she did it better than any of my other dogs do it (with the exception of Duke). I do have to give allowances for the fact that Kecha was a sheltie and they are just pretty darn easy to train and eager to please, nothing like working with Mr. Look a squirrel. Duke trained entirely with freeshaping, hand signals, a clicker and treats. He trained him self for most things. It was unnecessary to think about a training philosophy because he was easy. I don't know that even now I care so much about philosophy as what works for the dogs and I am training two completely different dogs so different things work. I am prepared to try something for a certain amount of time and if it does not work throw it out and move on assuming whatever it is is not somehow harmful.


----------



## Zorro13 (Nov 11, 2013)

2 things I think you're missing: She doesn't say that saying "no" or "eh-eh" will "ruin your dog." All she says is that during the learning process you may suppress your dog's desire to offer new behavior because it is worried it may get a negative reaction. She doesn't think it's mean or inhumane at all, just that you want your dog to try everything when figuring out what you want. 

As for the positive interrupter at the end of the video she specifically mentions the issue you're having. If you just use the interrupter to stop unwanted behavior then the dog will figure out that doing that thing gets a reward. If you also use it to get his attention for good behavior then it just becomes a neutral "look at me." At that point it really serves the same purpose as a gate blocking the door for example in that it just stops them from performing the unwanted behavior and move on to something else.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Like I said, I am just trying to give an idea of why some people may get the feeling that they can't ever say no or anything else negative to their dog. I in general like Kikopup videos but she does rub me the wrong way in this. It may just be me and I own that, I have a defiance issue and don't like being told what to do/not do. She comes off very extreme and even criticizes other positive trainers in her videos for their use of "no". 

As for the positive interrupter thing, we use it for all sorts of things. She does say that if you only pay attention to your dog when they are acting negatively the dog will start acting up to get attention but all of the dogs get attention all day long, I homeschool and am home with them all day. I train with Freyja several times a day including a long walk where we work on her loose leash walking and her down/stay. I take her out and run her in the yard, we play with toys ect. I probably shouldn't have even tacked that on here she just happened to have been lunging at the door again because my boys are outside with Dove. The fact is it isn't working in this situation and it is time to move on. In one month we have gone from something a puppy did a couple of times to a really bad habit and I don't think that is ok. She has moved to jumping on other things as well, like the cabinets in the kitchen and the table. She has also started barking at me if I don't feed her treats when she is laying next to me, she never barked before. This system is not working. It has turned into some form of bribery, we will work out something else like body blocking at the door or gating her off until she can control herself.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Well, I've got 13 with an autistic kid, so we're similar in that regard.

You're still missing something though, and that's the basic mindset of positive training. Yes, you absolutely CAN train tricks with it, but that doesn't mean you understand how to use it to train basic manners and to prevent unwanted behavior, and what you're saying here? Leads me to believe that you very much don't.

Look, you can approach dog training one of two ways, at any level:

1.) I will stomp out/eliminate/train to stop unwanted behavior.

2.) I will train the dog what I want it to do.

The problem is people don't seem to understand that in 95% of cases, training 2 accomplishes one, and 1 is the only one that really requires the use of aversives. Some situations, dogs, behaviors, YES absolutely it's needed and at that point aversives and punishments are good things - because you're trying to get the dog to stop doing something. The thing is, if you flip the equation around and ask yourself 'what do I want the dog to do instead' you have something you can positively train and still eliminate the behavior you don't want.

That isn't 'ignore the bad and reward the good' in a passive way, it's deliberately teaching the dog what you want it TO do, instead of just using a process of elimination until you get to what you don't.

And Zorro kind of hit on what you're missing with Kikopup. Your situation here? It's easily resolved. Teach the DOG WHAT TO DO AND REWARD IT. Instead you've given it a month, seem to not know what an exitinction burst is and are ready to move on to using punishment on a puppy for a basic manners issue.

I use punishments, aversives, and some a lot harsher than other people here and have no issue when they're used thoughtfully. That's not what you're doing. You've got a puppy acting like a puppy, you can't figure out how to apply the gentler methods correctly or consistently enough, you're frustrated and moving on.

Go... see an actual trainer - positive, traditional or balanced, I don't care - maybe? Because you're missing a TON of stuff that applies regardless of method. Like how dogs learn, which is pretty vital to ever getting a dog to do anything, with any method. I don't think you're being inhumane or cruel, by the way, and I don't think you're going to damage the dog. I think you'll have a lot less frustration if you get some hands on help from professionals and figure out what the methods are, why they work and how to apply them. Whatever the method is.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Actually I do understand, I just don't think I'm explaining it well. I must not be because you assume I intend to punish a puppy, I don't. I do not feel that what I am using is working because it is causing not only a continuation of the behavior I didn't want but far worse behaviors (jumping on other things, people and barking at me). Perhaps I don't know how to use this particular technique correctly though it did work well for dealing with barking with Dove so I don't know. I plan to lay out a strategy (I am a love and logic parent, I use a lot of strategy sessions with my kids and my dogs) and right now I am thinking I will teach her to down at the door combined with body blocking as needed when the others are outside or gating her into the entry way and rewarding when she lays down/is calm. I like the gating idea best as I am a firm believer in controlling the environment to help them succeed. I don't want to discourage her from going to the door because she has to let me know when she needs out but I don't want her lunging at the door constantly every time one of the other dogs or kids is outside and I certainly don't want her transferring that behavior onto everything else in the house. Like I said I probably shouldn't have worked this into the conversation as it really doesn't have anything to do with it she just happened to be doing it at the time. She is just now entering her "teen" phase so we are experiencing all kinds of fun new behaviors (she discovered squirrels today and she has become selectively hard of hearing in the back yard when she wants to continue playing oh joy) but generally she has been a real joy to train and I have done most of it by planning out what I want her to do vs what I would not like to have happening and training towards what I would like to see. I do experiment with techniques to see which work though, I think everyone does. I've tried different tools, different rewards, different cues, and different tones of voice just to see which worked for the dogs best. Some of it is just fun and some is more serious. I had to go through the same with the kids (ok well not so much different tools, I didn't buy collars and leashes for them LOL).

ETA: 
I was not just making a noise and expecting her to stop lunging at the door, I was actually trying to teach her to do something else. I was trying to teach her to lay next to the couch on the floor (I was sitting on the couch). Remus caught on, he is doing great. Freyja on the other hand did well for a while but now she lunges at the door, comes and gets a treat, maybe lays down for a while and then lunges again. Or she will sit and bark in my ear because I didn't feed her enough treats fast enough (I'm trying to wean off the treats, Remus just stays laying next to me). So she started lunging at other things and people as well. So I want to try something else. I don't know that it is an extinction burst, I really think this method may just not be right for her so I'm going to try something else. I have also been working on the "training calm" with her but she is also highly food focused so it has been a bit of an issue.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Remaru said:


> I was simply saying that if you watch videos by "positive trainers" it is easy to see how the average person becomes confused and frustrated.


I had SO much confusion and frustration when I first started trying to figure things out, so many schools of thought, and so very different in so many ways, and some seemed quite militant in some ways. That's why when it came down to it, I finally came into the concept of "balanced" training" (leaning well towards positive) before I even knew there was such a thing as balanced training.... it is so much more holistic, and I gave myself the freedom to use whatever tools (both theoretical/metaphorical tools, and physical tools) were necessary, fit for me, fit for my dog, AND were as pain and stress free as possible to us both. I later discovered that this balance differs for different dogs, but WOW, the journey to figure it all out, at least for myself, was a short, but thoroughly confusing one filled with mistakes and the constant fear of mistakes (as well as knowing that people on one side or the other of the "positive/aversive" debate would happily tell me I'm completely wrong). 



Remaru said:


> Like I said, I am just trying to give an idea of why some people may get the feeling that they can't ever say no or anything else negative to their dog. I in general like Kikopup videos but she does rub me the wrong way in this.


I came across Kikopup when I first delved seriously into figuring out how to train Caeda.....it took a while but eventually I decided that, although she is FANTASTIC with dogs, I had to disagree with her. It occurred to me that when it comes down to it, your dog doesn't know what those words mean, unless you attach a meaning to it, so she makes her cutesy kissey noise, fine. Well, that noise could be a horror to a dog if it is followed with a beating, but you could say "hey puppy, want to be euthanised today?" and the dog will dance with joy if it is always followed by treats (whether it was true or not! a sad and beautiful truth about dogs). There is no meaning until you give it one. 

This got me thinking about how the way a correction is delivered can cause issues too. When I give any correction (whether e collar, prong or even verbal), I don't draw it out, it lasts for one second and I try to be as calm as I can (can be hard if there is something crazy going on), and not to send off nasty body language, I think that has made a big difference in how she (and the fosters) dealt with any kind of correction. I keep it just strong enough to not be a useless nag, but mild enough that I'm causing the minimal discomfort that I can, and when it is over, it is over, there is no fear of continued or repeated discomfort (or pain), and the correlation between the correction and what happened is as direct as I can possibly make it. The dogs have never shown any fear of me (even though I admit, I've made plenty of mistakes, and have had wonderfully sweet and resilient dogs...especially Caeda). I think a big problem with corrections in many cases is how they quite often seem to be delivered with the human involved in a state of anger or frustration (heck, anger and frustration can affect positive training sessions badly too!), and tend to get more intense based on the level of the human's frustration (which often doesn't go away immediately), not based on the actual needed level of correction (or even verbal volume) to get the dog's attention. I do understand Kikopup's attitude towards the word "no", most people will deliver it in an angry way, but it is pretty hard to make a kissy noise sound angry....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

sassafras said:


> I don't care how Ed trains his dogs. But if he's going to go on a rant, I want him to rant about what reward-based training actually IS, not about what his strawman of it is. And I rarely, rarely see rants about what reward-based training actually is from people who are likely to rant about it. (To be fair, I also commonly see poorly-reasoned rants about aversives but not to the same degree IME).



I was not defending his rant.... Hell he is an opinionated egomaniac that thinks his farts smell like roses.....

I was simply stating he walks what he talks and has trained the dogs to prove it...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Zorro13 said:


> With aversive corrections I run the chance of scaring my dog and damaging our relationship if my reaction is mistimed. Obviously you can train a dog with negative reinforcement but for the general public that won't execute training techniques perfectly I think the former is the better option.


Obviously his thinking is one dimensional... Based on the temperaments and drives he normally works with, but he is not going to scare the types of dogs he is working with.....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Obviously his thinking is one dimensional... Based on the temperaments and drives he normally works with, but he is not going to scare the types of dogs he is working with.....


I think that's what bugs me though- his insistence that 'positive sport trainers' are picking out super special dogs to fit their training methods and yet he is not?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I think I get what you're trying to say, which isn't necessarily a criticism of positive trainers or positive training methods, but a criticism of how those trainers sometimes communicate.

I've seen a kikopup video where she criticizes verbal and leash corrections and yes, the message I did get from it is that she thinks any negative marker or leash correction is about as bad as beating your dog. Whether the message she was trying to get across was that far to the end of that spectrum, I'm not sure, but that's what I got from it and I did have to decide that, for my dog and I, I'd have to disagree with her.

I see most professional training resources, like videos and books, and other sources of information, including my own club or this forum...as a buffet. On that buffet, there will be things I'll want a big heaping helping of and other things I'll only want a little of and some things I may not want any of, whether it's because I don't like them or because I can't handle them. The person ahead or behind me will likely have a completely different plate depending on their own tastes and needs. I choose what works for me and my dog and leave the rest and I think all parts of the spectrum at least give me something to consider, even if I choose not to use it.

And that being said, my facebook feed today had someone posting a picture of damage done with an improperly applied prong collar with a title, "Let's get these dangerous collars BANNED!" _facepalm_


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

You are making me realize I'm starving.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I think that's what bugs me though- his insistence that 'positive sport trainers' are picking out super special dogs to fit their training methods and yet he is not?


Oh for the purposes he trains dogs for, he is DEFINITELY picking dogs.

I would not let what he says bother you.


----------



## wrykilx (May 16, 2014)

Perhaps it may be just a difference in interpretation. However, I think the underlying foundation of Mr. Frawley's rant/essay was that it is important to understand that not all dogs will respond to the same training methods equally.

I also interpreted the sole and primary target of his rant as those who promote ONLY pure positive training as the end all cure all of dog behavior and the use of any other tool is considered abusive and cruel. The type that would rather pull out the holier than thou "ethics" card and recommend to a dog owner that their dog be euthanized when the dog's dangerous behavior is not eliminated through food/drive positive training than allow the use of communication techniques with a prong collar or low level e-collar to establish a dialogue with a dog so it can learn to make good choices on their own but has otherwise shutdown.

Think of the Zak George or Victoria Stilwell types as his real targets and I feel his rant hits a bullseye then. 

Personally, I'd go a step further and put even more emphasis on how deadly this movement is for dogs.

The true reality is, *the large majority of dog owners do not have unlimited time and unlimited monetary resources to rid their dog of unwanted and/or dangerous behaviors.* 

Right or wrong, that's just the sad fact of it.

If after a certain amount of time has passed and the behavior is still continuing, owners are not hesitating to pound their dogs. We euthanize hundreds of thousands of dogs every year in the U.S. alone. Many of which are being sheltered or euthanized for many unwanted behaviors that can be eliminated, (not just corrected) in hours, days, weeks and not months or years. Peddling a movement, that is based on a very successful technique which is wrapped in feel good propaganda and protecting by two hired bodyguards named Fear and Misinformation, *as the only means* to modify a dog's life-threatening behavior only results in thousands of dogs being killed that could otherwise have been possibly rehabilitated.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

wrykilx, I won't say that I'm in complete wholehearted agreement, but I will say, you've got some really good points (several of which, I'll admit have passed through my head too to some degree).


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

wrykilx said:


> Personally, I'd go a step further and put even more emphasis on how deadly this movement is for dogs.
> 
> The true reality is, *the large majority of dog owners do not have unlimited time and unlimited monetary resources to rid their dog of unwanted and/or dangerous behaviors.*
> 
> ...


I will start with.. I agree that most owners need a quick fix and do not have the time, or understanding to fix SOME behaviors through positive methods. 

That being said.. right now I don't really see the movement except for in dog savvy people. Right now, I see way more negative. The dog gets booted into the shelter no matter which methods are used because the fact of the matter is people can't be bothered to train their dogs at ALL. What about the owners that use all aversive that could have saved dumping the dog if they would have tried another method? I think it works both ways. Some dogs are flat out ruined by aversive and then the next person to adopt that dog at the shelter has to put the dog back together. I'm not against correction, but I will always try positive first.

I can't imagine a positive trainer saying to put a dog down if it can't be taught with positive methods.. but most positive trainers I know of are not "above" correction when absolutely necessary.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I have never met a dog who was dumped in a shelter and/or killed for behavior problems whose owner did not use very negative tactics first :/. Those probably being the reason the dog didn't get better. I just reallyreally doubt there's a bunch of dogs being killed because their owners didn't want to use pain-causing techniques. Are they dying from lack of EFFECTIVE training of any kind, sure, but not lack of negative training.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> You are making me realize I'm starving.


Bwwwahahahaha!!!


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Willowy said:


> I have never met a dog who was dumped in a shelter and/or killed for behavior problems whose owner did not use very negative tactics first :/. Those probably being the reason the dog didn't get better. I just reallyreally doubt there's a bunch of dogs being killed because their owners didn't want to use pain-causing techniques. Are they dying from lack of EFFECTIVE training of any kind, sure, but not lack of negative training.


That's what I'm thinking.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> That's what I'm thinking.


Yep, add me to this list.

I'm not someone opposed to negative training - again, I've used it and I feel I need to keep stressing it here because otherwise someone's going to discount me out of hand- but 10 years in rescue (seriously hundreds of dogs) and I can tell you that most people do in fact try to train their dogs when serious issues come up, and outside of the very dog savvy circles and extreme minorities, the methods they are trying are still the old-school ones that involve yelling, choke chains or prong collars, leash corrections and 'spanking'. Those methods aren't effective for them anymore than positive ones would be because of lack of understanding of how dogs think, how they form associations, what they are capable of understanding and poor timing/implemention.

And let's be real, most people with a serious issue that needs stopped FAST? They need a dog TRAINER, because nothing they're going to do at home is going to work.

I also really want somebody to show me more than 3 examples of who these purely positive trainers who recommend positive methods for dogs engaging in dangerous behavior are, and where they are. Because frankly speaking? I'm not convinced they exist outside the minds of some people who want to feel persecuted for training methods that are, honestly, just about like everybody else. Or who want to think they're working with tougher dogs or just generally feel special.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I have never met a dog who was dumped in a shelter and/or killed for behavior problems whose owner did not use very negative tactics first :/. Those probably being the reason the dog didn't get better. I just reallyreally doubt there's a bunch of dogs being killed because their owners didn't want to use pain-causing techniques. Are they dying from lack of EFFECTIVE training of any kind, sure, but not lack of negative training.




And how do you know this? Mind Reading? the dog tell you? You do extensive research and follow up with previous owner?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> And how do you know this? Mind Reading? the dog tell you? You do extensive research and follow up with previous owner?


 Hmm, good questions. I'll ask you the same ones whenever you say something. Whatever you believe on this subject, how do you know? Mind reading? The dog tell you? You do extensive research and follow up with the previous owner?

The dogs I know who were killed or dumped for behavioral problems were kicked/smacked/jerked around a lot in attempts to "fix" the problem. Also all the dogs I know who have been adopted from shelters cringe when you move your hand too fast around them. I assure you they were not suffering from lack of negative training methods.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Hmm, good questions. I'll ask you the same ones whenever you say something. Whatever you believe on this subject, how do you know? Mind reading? The dog tell you? You do extensive research and follow up with the previous owner?
> 
> The dogs I know who were killed or dumped for behavioral problems were kicked/smacked/jerked around a lot in attempts to "fix" the problem. Also all the dogs I know who have been adopted from shelters cringe when you move your hand too fast around them. I assure you they were not suffering from lack of negative training methods.



Fact is... Unless you have personal past verifiable knowledge of the dogs in question, you have NO clue what training methods were used..d..


And moving on.... Bad training is bad training...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Hmm, good questions. I'll ask you the same ones whenever you say something. Whatever you believe on this subject, how do you know? Mind reading? The dog tell you? You do extensive research and follow up with the previous owner?
> 
> The dogs I know who were killed or dumped for behavioral problems were kicked/smacked/jerked around a lot in attempts to "fix" the problem. Also all the dogs I know who have been adopted from shelters cringe when you move your hand too fast around them. I assure you they were not suffering from lack of negative training methods.


And you are welcome to ask the same of me..

Only difference... I make no assumptions on dogs I have no prior knowledge of..


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> That's what I'm thinking.


Why are you thinking that? She does not know what methods were used on shelter dogs before they were turned in.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Being that I've known a fair number of dogs who met bad ends for behavioral problems, I'm not sure why you think I had "no prior knowledge" of how their owners treated them. Cuz I could kinda see it with my own eyes and stuff.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> Being that I've known a fair number of dogs who met bad ends for behavioral problems, I'm not sure why you think I had "no prior knowledge" of how their owners treated them. Cuz I could kinda see it with my own eyes and stuff.



You made a statement about shelter dogs as if you had knowledge of their training history


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I said that the dogs I've known who were dumped in shelters/killed BY THEIR OWNERS WHO I KNOW were all first treated harshly in an attempt to fix their behavioral problems. I thought my original wording was quite clear but apparently not.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> I said that the dogs I've known who were dumped in shelters/killed BY THEIR OWNERS WHO I KNOW were all first treated harshly in an attempt to fix their behavioral problems. I thought my original wording was quite clear but apparently not.



Actually no... 

You said



Willowy said:


> I have never met a dog who was dumped in a shelter and/or killed for behavior problems whose owner did not use very negative tactics first :/. Those probably being the reason the dog didn't get better. I just reallyreally doubt there's a bunch of dogs being killed because their owners didn't want to use pain-causing techniques. Are they dying from lack of EFFECTIVE training of any kind, sure, but not lack of negative training.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

For the record, 100% R+ trainers DO exist, we have a group of them in my area, I would not have known about it had they not invited my trainer to join their little club, she said heck no and was scoffing about them in class lol. She asked if they tried inviting me, nope but I can be vocal that I correct my dogs so why would they.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually no...
> 
> You said


I have read and re-read my original statement and am still not sure where you're confused. For the record, in order to meet a dog who is killed for behavioral problems, you sort of have to meet them _before_ they're killed. Kinda. Anyway, glad to know that I mean so much to you that you feel a need to pick apart everything I say .


----------



## Sarah~ (Oct 12, 2013)

I read it the same way as Johnny I took it to mean you work at a shelter or something and meet dogs that are dropped off there and then you were saying things about how they were treated before, but how could you know just from meeting a dog that was just left there. After you explained it I can read it the way you meant but I think it was just the wording.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Fact is... Unless you have personal past verifiable knowledge of the dogs in question, you have NO clue what training methods were used..d..


 If you know what you are looking for, I think you CAN tell with certainty what methods were used to train a dog, even without verbal 'confirmation' from the previous owners. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out - dogs that have been corrected, especially with a heavy hand, have a knack of *squealing* on people. From my perspective it's VERY easy to hear their pleas, if you're listening.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Some dogs flinch when you reach over their heads. Freyja has never been struck that I am aware of, she has lived here from 8 weeks and I don't believe her original owners struck the puppies (they did not seem the type to strike their animals at all). However she does flinch a bit when you reach over her head. I know for a fact no one has ever struck Blue because she has been here since she was a week old (I fostered her whole litter) and she will roll onto her back if you reach for her, particularly if you are trying to put a leash on her (she really hates going for walks). No one has ever done anything negative to Blue other than vet visits and telling her no when she got into the cat box (ewww). She is just a very passive dog. We keep things as calm as possible for her. It would be easy to read some of their cues as signs of heavy handed correction. Duke on the other hand used to cower when you looked at him let alone talked to him. He has been better for years but lately he is cowering again. I think he is sick. He is going to the vet.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> If you know what you are looking for, I think you CAN tell with certainty what methods were used to train a dog, even without verbal 'confirmation' from the previous owners. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out - dogs that have been corrected, especially with a heavy hand, have a knack of *squealing* on people. From my perspective it's VERY easy to hear their pleas, if you're listening.


I'd agree that you can usually see some things, and probably people with more experience than I have can see more.

But it's not always what people THINK it is, either. Lack of socialization and general temperament can lead to some freaking weird behaviors. I've had Kylie since she was 4 weeks old. Someone tries to pick her up and it's not me or my husband? She's growling and on her back with her legs in the air, yelping like she's been kicked. Most of the world thinks she's been abused. She hasn't been. Snake training aside the most negative thing she's experienced in her life are no reward markers (which she will wag her tail through) and people she didn't want to touch her giving her a treat. Which, for her, was WAY more negative than anything, INCLUDING snake training.

Thud, meanwhile, was trained with a prong all winter and has definitely heard some stern NO!s . He could not care less. You raise your hand like you're going to hit him and scream? He comes at you with his tail wagging and maybe licks at your hand/arm/whatever he can reach. He does. not. care.

That said, both of those two have one thing in common and why I'm not disagreeing that you can tell (just that what Joe Public thinks it is and it actually is are not necessarily always the same) Jack doesn't try new behaviors. He was compulsion trained. He doesn't like learning, he doesn't engaging in learning, he doesn't try new stuff without a lot of coaxing. THAT I believe is a result of training method. That he has ZERO fear issues doesn't change that. He never learned to problem solve. He waits for you to SHOW HIM what he's supposed to and then does it and does it well. I tried teaching him down with luring, capturing, and assorted other methods for a YEAR and got nowhere. Three times of gently putting him into a down and he had it forever. It's just really limiting, ineffective, and the opposite of useful. The dog does not know how to THINK. It's getting better but very, very slowly.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't think not offering behaviors means much either honestly, Happy won't offer any sort of behavior either and she will hide and sulk if you try to teach her anything new. Its just the way she is and always has been, she was born and raised on clicker shaping lol


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Miss Bugs said:


> I don't think not offering behaviors means much either honestly, Happy won't offer any sort of behavior either and she will hide and sulk if you try to teach her anything new. Its just the way she is and always has been, she was born and raised on clicker shaping lol


Maybe not, but I've also got the dog's son who was trained via different means and he will learn. I mean honestly, Jack just could be dumb as a post and not like training, but he really, absolutely, is both beautifully well behaved, capable of problem solving on his own and absolutely and utterly unwilling to be shaped, lured, captured, or anything else. You show it to him by physical manipulation (which is what he knows) and he has it really fast. Otherwise? NOPE. He will stand and stare at you or walk away. Period, the end. 

Though in fairness, he is a really into routine, doing things the way they've always been done, and stubborn dog, anyway. So he's not exactly receptive to 'let's try the new thing by a new method'.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

CptJack said:


> I'd agree that you can usually see some things, and probably people with more experience than I have can see more.
> 
> But it's not always what people THINK it is, either. Lack of socialization and general temperament can lead to some freaking weird behaviors. I've had Kylie since she was 4 weeks old. Someone tries to pick her up and it's not me or my husband? She's growling and on her back with her legs in the air, yelping like she's been kicked. Most of the world thinks she's been abused. She hasn't been. Snake training aside the most negative thing she's experienced in her life are no reward markers (which she will wag her tail through) and people she didn't want to touch her giving her a treat. Which, for her, was WAY more negative than anything, INCLUDING snake training.
> 
> ...


See Blue is this way and I don't know why. She is just soooooooo timid. Now I am going to own part of it, we didn't work with her a ton when she was a puppy because my youngest was a toddler (yep puppy and toddler is not a winning combo) and my oldest is who he is. He was actually at his best when she was younger, he is going through a far harder period now than he was then (I'm not loving puberty). I wanted a little dog that had reasonably good house manners and would sit in my oldest son's lap and love him. She is all of those things. She just doesn't like to do anything beyond that. She is afraid to go on walks and wants nothing to do with learning to do anything. She barely sits on command and mostly just rolls onto her back or stares blankly when you try to lure or free shape anything. At this point we've given up. Good manners is great and she is a lovely little lap dog. She is housebroken, doesn't bark excessively, has an off switch (she is always off) and is not at all demanding. I just always sort of feel guilty that she doesn't get to do things like the other dogs do and I know from her behaviors that other people would think she had been mistreated. Her mother was this way too though. I have to assume at least part of it is genetic.


----------



## dagwall (Mar 17, 2011)

CptJack said:


> But it's not always what people THINK it is, either. Lack of socialization and general temperament can lead to some freaking weird behaviors. I've had Kylie since she was 4 weeks old. Someone tries to pick her up and it's not me or my husband? She's growling and on her back with her legs in the air, yelping like she's been kicked. Most of the world thinks she's been abused. She hasn't been. Snake training aside the most negative thing she's experienced in her life are no reward markers (which she will wag her tail through) and people she didn't want to touch her giving her a treat. Which, for her, was WAY more negative than anything, INCLUDING snake training.
> 
> Thud, meanwhile, was trained with a prong all winter and has definitely heard some stern NO!s . He could not care less. You raise your hand like you're going to hit him and scream? He comes at you with his tail wagging and maybe licks at your hand/arm/whatever he can reach. He does. not. care.


I agree that some behaviors people like to jump to the assumption the animal was abused to make them act that way and I'd be willing to guess in a lot of cases it just isn't true. My new foster Bronson is scared of just about everything. Seems to be very movement and sound sensitive. Was scared of the TV at first, looks up at the shadows moving on the walls/ceiling suspiciously and sometimes runs away, he was barking at about every random house sound and my brother going up or down the stairs (he's mostly stopped that now thankfully). I really don't know anything about his history prior to the rescue pulling him last June, only info in his file basically said owner surrender in West Virginia. He loves all people, takes a few minutes to warm up sometimes but is very quickly happy to stand there and be loved on by complete strangers. Honestly I doubt he was abused in any way other than a significant lack of socialization. Who ever raised him got him very housebroken, non-destructive, very disinclined to get on furniture, no mouthing/biting takes treats extremely gently, and very easily spooked by most new sights and sounds. 

When I tell people about my new foster who is scared of just about everything almost every single one asks or assumes he was abused. While it's possible because really I have no information I really doubt it. He's just got a soft temperament and likely a huge lack of socialization when he really needed it. He's actually doing great after just over 2 weeks in a home with a nice routine and very little pressure to do much he doesn't want to. 

Things I've "forced" him into:
going up and down stairs (rather than crating him, day two he did the stairs himself)
pulling him into the kitchen at meal times so he can eat undisturbed by Jubel
Lifting him into the car (he climbed in himself this weekend on the fifth car trip I took him on)
A bath 
going where I want on walks while still accommodating his aversion to moving vehicles as much as possible (already doing much better around cars)
Into a crate for the two days I did crate him before trying him loose in the house, no issues so no more crate needed.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I have to admit, it gets really annoying and *old*. Kylie's socialization was something I messed up by pushing way too hard and cementing negative associations, but she's pretty fearless in most regards (places, equipment, activities). She just DOES NOT WANT TO BE TOUCHED BY STRANGE PEOPLE. She will over-react in every way possible to over-react if someone she doesn't know reaches for her. That this makes people coo and 'poor abused baby' at her actually does not help anything, because they're still trying to make friends.


And also because 'how long have you had her' and me answering 2 of 2 years gets me some funny looks.

I just... I don't even know what to say to these people. There's no one overwhelming bad experience, there's no abuse in her history, there's no neglect or enormous lack of socialization. There's her personality and me trying too hard to turn her into a golden retriever, personality wise, and that's way more than they want to hear. Worse, a lot of the time they don't even believe me.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Why are you thinking that? She does not know what methods were used on shelter dogs before they were turned in.


Well, I'm someone who pays close attention to the Joe Schmoe dog public. I work at a vet clinic and I volunteer in rescue. The vast majority of people I know use corrections and have no idea what they are doing training a dog. Many dogs that come into rescue lack training altogether (not housebroken, taught not to jump or even to sit) and others are far more likely to have been aversively trained based on my own anecdotal evidence (both from known dogs given up and assumed based on that being the more common option). When I say aversive, I don't necessarily mean in all circumstances. I'm talking the average person who will teach their dog to sit with a treat and use Cesar techniques for bad behavior.

Example: Dog wont stop mouthing no matter how much I smack him in the nose. Reason for surrender: Too much energy.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> Maybe not, but I've also got the dog's son who was trained via different means and he will learn. I mean honestly, Jack just could be dumb as a post and not like training, but he really, absolutely, is both beautifully well behaved, capable of problem solving on his own and absolutely and utterly unwilling to be shaped, lured, captured, or anything else. You show it to him by physical manipulation (which is what he knows) and he has it really fast. Otherwise? NOPE. He will stand and stare at you or walk away. Period, the end.


oh Happy is the same way, she's old now and most of her siblings are gone, but I know her niece(her litter mates daughter) and she could not be more different, SUPER eager and wanting to please all the time. Happy? try to shape, or even lure her to do something and she will cower like she's been beaten, and either leave or crawl into my lap. she is not a stupid dog, she is EXTREMELY intelligent. but she does not learn by being shaped, lured, etc.. just doesn't happen. period. as I said, she's was born and raised on clicker training, she understands it, but she does not respond well to it, or any type of encouragement type training, even so much as lavishing her with pets or praise just annoys her. I don't see it as "too stupid to understand" I see it as "I'm your partner, not your baby, don't insult me" lol


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Crystal hates shaping, too. Show her how to do something and she's got it in less than five repetitions. Make her figure it out, and she gets super frustrated -- she starts pawing at my hand and whining in this horrible high-pitched way. She gets almost manic. It really is a "JUST TELL ME HOW TO DO IT!" type of thing. If I show her exactly what I want, she does it and then bounces around super happily. She's also a very smart dog and she figures lots of stuff out on her own... she just doesn't want to learn new tricks through shaping.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

But Crystal is doing _something_. I totally understand the point being made, there are some dogs that just do absolutely nothing. Offer NO behaviors whatsoever, even "I don't like this game" or visibly acting frustrated. Just silent lumps who creep around hesitantly like they're walking on eggshells. It's like they're afraid to do something wrong, not that they don't understand what the game is about.



Oh, and I took Willowy's comments to mean dogs she had known/met personally.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

sassafras said:


> But Crystal is doing _something_. I totally understand the point being made, there are some dogs that just do absolutely nothing. Offer NO behaviors whatsoever, even "I don't like this game" or visibly acting frustrated. Just silent lumps who creep around hesitantly like they're walking on eggshells. It's like they're afraid to do something wrong, not that they don't understand what the game is about.


Yeah, this.

Jack notices an expectation of him and he goes blank. If he can walk away he will, but if not? He's mentally absent. Like 100% stand there and stare motionless until you show him precisely what to do, or give up. There's no frustration cues, no visible fear signals, there's NOTHING. It's actually creepy as heck.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Remaru said:


> Some dogs flinch when you reach over their heads. Freyja has never been struck that I am aware of, she has lived here from 8 weeks and I don't believe her original owners struck the puppies (they did not seem the type to strike their animals at all). However she does flinch a bit when you reach over her head. I know for a fact no one has ever struck Blue because she has been here since she was a week old (I fostered her whole litter) and she will roll onto her back if you reach for her, particularly if you are trying to put a leash on her (she really hates going for walks). No one has ever done anything negative to Blue other than vet visits and telling her no when she got into the cat box (ewww). She is just a very passive dog. We keep things as calm as possible for her. It would be easy to read some of their cues as signs of heavy handed correction. Duke on the other hand used to cower when you looked at him let alone talked to him. He has been better for years but lately he is cowering again. I think he is sick. He is going to the vet.


My dog flinches when you reach over his head. I got him at 5 1/2 weeks old and he has NEVER been hit. He's always been headshy. It isn't always abuse that causes symptoms like these.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

CptJack said:


> I have to admit, it gets really annoying and *old*. Kylie's socialization was something I messed up by pushing way too hard and cementing negative associations, but she's pretty fearless in most regards (places, equipment, activities). She just DOES NOT WANT TO BE TOUCHED BY STRANGE PEOPLE. She will over-react in every way possible to over-react if someone she doesn't know reaches for her. That this makes people coo and 'poor abused baby' at her actually does not help anything, because they're still trying to make friends.
> 
> 
> And also because 'how long have you had her' and me answering 2 of 2 years gets me some funny looks.
> ...


Yep. My dog hasn't been abused. He just doesn't really like people he doesn't know and he ESPECIALLY doesn't want them reaching over his head. He's never going to be a social butterfly.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I used to think that flinching was a good test for an abused dog .... until Shep started doing it 

He doesn't cringe, and you can see he's not fearful ... but he's learned that he doesn't like people to pat him on the head... or even scratch his ears. He likes his jaw and throat to be scratched, and will try to maneuver to get that done.

On the other hand, if I 'threaten' Shep by slapping at him, or using a newspaper .... he will just look at me, maybe blinking. ... And, if I toss a tennis ball to him, and he doesn't want to catch it, ... he will let it bounce off his head, effectively letting me know, 'No, I'm not in the mood ... I have a headache' ;-)


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Even Squash, who basically loves everyone and everything, does not like people to approach and try to pet him quickly. He will gladly approach anyone willingly but if someone comes at him too fast he sometimes does a tiny tail tuck and gets appease-y ears. 

And trust me, nothing bad has ever happened to that dog his entire life.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Here is a question, regarding the assumption some people make about dogs that flinch.....that they've been abused in some way (I don't assume that is the case, though paired with other stuff I'd consider it). But....what about a dog that starts out flinching, but after some work ends up like this:



hanksimon said:


> On the other hand, if I 'threaten' Shep by slapping at him, or using a newspaper .... he will just look at me, maybe blinking. ...


Would it suggest to you that they were abused and with work were desensitized, or that they were just a little timid and got over it with some work?

I'm basically describing the change Dexter went through, and despite the fact that I do know his owner loved him, I'm not positive he was light on the punishment sometimes...just curious how you all would interpret this (not to derail the thread...but it just came to mind).


----------

