# Ivan Balabanov on punishment and E-collars



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

On FB

'Helloooooooo ?!
Punishment is effective!
Punishment has, and ALWAYS will play an irreplaceable part of learning as well as dog training. 
There are two general types of punishment, Negative Punishment and Positive Punishment
Punishment does NOT equal animal cruelty or abuse!
Puppies are punished by their moms as early as few weeks old.
Generally speaking by the age of only 4 weeks old ALL puppies have already experienced positive punishment as well as Negative Reinforcement (escape avoidance learning). These lessons are learned way before the Owner begins “training”.
In order for punishment to be effective it has to be strong enough to stimulate avoidance response.
When the trainer/dog team are against *Competitive Reinforcers* then Negative Punishment (withholding reward etc.) has much less application than Positive Punishment.
Many trainers continue to be misled to believe that they should “introduce” low level of aversive, and if not successful then go higher. Scientific experiments proofs otherwise. In order for punishment to work it has to be strong enough to stimulate avoidance response. Otherwise the dog will learn how to overcome high levels of aversive later on.
A behavior learned through Escape Avoidance Learning (Negative Reinforcement) will outlast/outperform a behavior learned through Positive Reinforcement only.
How did anyone get convinced that banning electric collar is actually going to prevent a dog from abuse?
When looking at a perfect picture of harmony between dog and handler while performing, One needs to be realistic and understand that to achieve this harmony an advanced, complete, sophisticated and time consuming teaching system was in place. Teaching methods is not complete if both forms of punishment are excluded from it!
If anyone *REALLY CARE* Instead of looking what type of collar is on the dogs neck, look at the dog itself, look inside and out, its demeanor, emotional and physical state, then you will know if something is wrong. Let’s protect only dogs from the people that abuse them and provide information to educate those that want to learn how to train dogs. Leave dog training, dog sports, dog breeding to us - the dog trainers, and dog breeders, after all we are the ones that REALLY CARE!!!
— at Ot Vitosha Malinois & Premier Protection Dogs.'

'Most Dog breeders are not criminals! There are also people who are against breeding dogs, because there are so many dogs in the shelters. I have to tell you that as a breeder I have not forced anyone to buy a puppy from me in fact I have people waiting for months before they can get one. I also have always taken responsibility in case a dog was not suited and helped with rehoming etc. I also have a rescue dog at home that is not Malinois, that was a problem dog for someone in the past. I have given 5 years of my life working with the worst of the worst in a shelter for funny salary because of the love for dogs, I have rehabilitated many (which I probably still can recall by names!) Part of what I do today is still rehabilitating dogs with issues and safe them from ending up at the shelters around the country! Why do I breed dogs? Because my dogs have proven to be excellent service dogs Search and Rescue Dogs, Excellent Police dogs, excellent family dogs that IMO they do not take away the dogs in the shelters, but give back to society! I have given my money for donations too. I have done more for the homeless dogs and dogs at shelters that the average dog lover and I still do! I also teach dog trainers how to be effective in training dogs for Police, SAR, Detection, Sport, Pet tricks you name it. I am fortunate I am able to live my life with and around dogs - all dogs, this is why I care!'

'I am NOT advocating or encouraging that we need to teach a dog “good behaviors” (sit, come, etc.) with punishment! New behaviors are thought by positive reinforcement. In case that positive reinforcement fails, and what we are teaching is of importance (let’s say for the well-being of that dog) negative reinforcement approach can also play a role in learning and should be considered. In some cases it is in best interest of the dog to learn a behavior trough one of the two approaches, in some case even a combination of both can be used. 
To help you look at "punishment" differently, try to also look at what is the goal of using it. Punishment is any consequence for (unwanted) behavior that when presented contingent on a behavior decreases the future probability of that behavior. 
Punishment is meant to strengthen avoidance responses. Meaning if we punish dog for chasing cars , it will not want to chase cars so it will avoid the punishment in the future.
Punishment is about seeking and wanting to engage in different behavior , instead of the unwanted behavior in order to avoid getting punished. 
If you are confused about it or simply like to learn more about how dogs learn, then I strongly encourage you to attend some “other type” seminars that will push you to learn something different than what you already know.
I am glad my post created some discussions. I want to say to those that my writing appeared awfully strong or without scientific backup that they are NOT my statements. They are described in every animal learning and cognition text book , and anyone who have studied them will agree 100% with each one. All positive trainers and animal rights activists Do not feel attacked, this was as a response to all misconceptions that have been spreading around for quite few years. Does punishment has a place in dog training and what is the difference between abuse and punishment? For over a decade I have been giving seminars around the world teaching dog trainers of all walks about the power of Positive Reinforcement. As I travel I’ve come to realize that now the knowledge has shifted so far towards one extreme that valuable education is missing. This what we are trying to do educate. I also have to say that not everyone who agrees with me on use of punishment will use it wisely, and it is still better to educate them than forbid them to use it, this never works …..'

'Part of the reason I also wrote my post on Punishment and posted the Pit Bull video is because of what is going on in Europe. 
The strange contrast and views in the world we live in ... PETA in Germany hides in bushes around the dog clubs to film and expose dog trainers using electric collars.
I wish the Pit Bull video wakes up some people over there to realize what CRUELTY and ABUSE is, and how far it really goes when people don't respect animals! 
IMO it is unfortunate that sport dog trainers all around Europe have to hide when training. When all these laws were being tossed around few years back, most Top Dog Trainers believed that this is no big deal and they can just keep on training dogs the way they did before ... but "hide a little bit". 
Well this proofed to be only a wishful thinking. Now unfortunately they really feel like criminals when training dogs. It is sad and I hope that they can still stand up, stop laying, stop back stabbing but instead support each other and reverse these laws on dog training equipment. One person voice will not do it but if all the membership is willing, they will find a way!
For all of us who train sport dogs in USA this is an important lesson as well. We should not take the path the European dog trainers did! Do you really want to hide before and during competitions and while training, because some people don't know what dog abuse is, and how to stop it, so they are going after the equipment for dog training and the dog sports instead?
People that know me are probably wondering by now why I am so concerned about electric collar use etc. since I don't use it much anyway. I guess because I truly believe banning dog training equipment will not prevent animal cruelty. 98% of my training does not need electric collar, but here is an example - let's imagine my dog decides to go on a wild chase after a rabbit during tracking. I do not see why I should not be able to stop him in a humane way using my electric collar instead of letting him hit the end of 10 meters long line and have the possibility to injure my dog neck and brake my fingers ... please don't get caught on the example, if needed I will give another one'


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

To me, it is scary the extent to which personal freedoms are limited in some countries. I'm glad to still live in a country where I can buy and use a dog crate, for example.

Our club does most of its training in a field that is built specifically for Schutzhund that is part of a large park, mostly woods with trails for bike riding, running, and cross country skiing in the winter. There is an archery range not far from the field and a trail that runs behind it and we do occasionally have people wander through. I can't help but wonder what a ScH 3 dog practicing protection with the helper thumping the dog on the side with a baton looks like to them. Watching it, I know the dog could care less about the baton as long as it is allowed to bite the sleeve and I know the dog has happily and eagerly done this a dozen times even just that I've seen and been just as eager each time, but I know to someone else, it could look like abuse.

I do think punishment is part of the toolbox when it comes to training. For me, it's the tool at the bottom of the box, the one that is seldom used and only used when the other tools just won't work for what I want or when I feel it is necessary. It isn't my favorite tool or one that I would use lightly, but it's in the box. I know not everyone else has it in their box and I'm ok with that. I do feel more comfortable owning the dog I have knowing that it is in my toolbox if I need it. I do think there is a big difference between punishment and abuse and that the same tools can be used for punishment can also be misused to abuse.

I do think there is a problem any time anyone at the far edge of an issue is allowed to dictate their point of view to everyone else, no matter which side of the extreme this position lies on. There needs to be room for gray areas and for people to make their own choices and ultimately I don't think you can legislate kindness or conscience.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Yeah punishment works, and it works fast.
But it creates a shy, fearful dog. A dog that fears his master's hand. He fears the hand that feeds him, and that is sad.

There are other, very affective ways to teach dogs and children without hurting them. so.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

HollowHeaven said:


> Yeah punishment works, and it works fast.
> But it creates a shy, fearful dog. A dog that fears his master's hand. He fears the hand that feeds him, and that is sad.


huh, and yet so many exquisitely trained and even tempered dogs, like those that compete at extremely high levels in various dog sports, have been trained with some degree of punishment. I generally avoid the use of positive punishment in dog training, so this is not something I take personally, but that's a pretty outlandish statement. 

It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that punishment _necessarily_ creates a "dog that fears his master's hand" or a "shy, fearful dog." Punishment CAN have fallout, yes, but dogs have been trained with punishment for hundreds (hell, THOUSANDS) of years and a great many of those dogs are and were secure, outgoing, and devoted to their handlers. We have several dogs that come to my work who have been trained by a local Koehler method trainer, which is exclusively punishment based, and while I would never train a dog like that, they're not puddles of puppy writhing on the floor. In fact, they're just... normal dogs. 

I can promise you that Ivan Balanbov's own dogs are neither shy nor fearful, lol. Have you trained a dog to the level he has? 

I am not asking for you or anyone else to condone the use of positive punishment in dog training, but perspective, realism, and humility go a long way in discussing such issues. Ivan's dogs have great performances at VERY high levels and with excellent attitudes. It is simply an untrue generalization that dogs trained with any degree of punishment are fearful or shy.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Because the ones that don't respond well to punishment get killed :/. But hey. Whatever floats yer boat.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Emily1188 said:


> huh, and yet so many exquisitely trained and even tempered dogs, like those that compete at extremely high levels in various dog sports, have been trained with some degree of punishment. I generally avoid the use of positive punishment in dog training, so this is not something I take personally, but that's a pretty outlandish statement.
> 
> It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that punishment _necessarily_ creates a "dog that fears his master's hand" or a "shy, fearful dog." Dogs have been trained with punishment for hundreds (hell, THOUSANDS) of years and a great many of those dogs are and were secure, outgoing, and devoted to their handlers. We have several dogs that come to my work who have been trained by a local Koehler method trainer, which is exclusively punishment based, and while I would never train a dog like that, they're not puddles of puppy writhing on the floor. In fact, they're just... normal dogs.
> 
> ...


I also think it's dangerous when caring, very thoughtful dog trainers and owners have to start taking their training "underground" because some people on one extreme as far as training theories decide for everyone what is to be allowed under the law. I think it's dangerous for the dogs as well as the trainers when one part of the dog community (or heck, probably most of those lobbying for such legislation weren't even part of the dog community) get to tell everyone how they have to train.

As an example. Say a group decides that prong collars should be outlawed. Then, a rescue comes along that can't be handled without one, but they are illegal to buy so that rescue is then put down. Or, say a trainer "goes underground" with their training and becomes more extreme in their punishments because, after all, the e-collar they are using is already illegal and no one is watching, so...

I'd prefer people have an open dialogue about different training methods and tools, out in the open and that people be able to train out in the open. I think it encourages more thoughtfulness over the use of aversives and punishments where they are used and more tolerance where they aren't.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Emily1188 said:


> huh, and yet so many exquisitely trained and even tempered dogs, like those that compete at extremely high levels in various dog sports, have been trained with some degree of punishment. I generally avoid the use of positive punishment in dog training, so this is not something I take personally, but that's a pretty outlandish statement.
> 
> It's inaccurate and misleading to assert that punishment _necessarily_ creates a "dog that fears his master's hand" or a "shy, fearful dog." Punishment CAN have fallout, yes, but dogs have been trained with punishment for hundreds (hell, THOUSANDS) of years and a great many of those dogs are and were secure, outgoing, and devoted to their handlers. We have several dogs that come to my work who have been trained by a local Koehler method trainer, which is exclusively punishment based, and while I would never train a dog like that, they're not puddles of puppy writhing on the floor. In fact, they're just... normal dogs.
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Where's the "like" button?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Because the ones that don't respond well to punishment get killed :/. But hey. Whatever floats yer boat.


Who is killing dogs?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

We could ask ol' Ivan what he'd do with a dog that became a piddling puddle of puppy when he zapped it and see what he'd do to it. I don't think it would end well. But I'm sure he has a method for picking out dogs he thinks will tolerate his handling methods and who cares what happens to the rest of 'em.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> We could ask ol' Ivan what he'd do with a dog that became a piddling puddle of puppy when he zapped it and see what he'd do to it. I don't think it would end well. But I'm sure he has a method for picking out dogs he thinks will tolerate his handling methods and who cares what happens to the rest of 'em.


So...if I intentionally choose dogs with a temperment I prefer, I am dooming the other puppies to death? Or, if Ivan rehomes a dog that he finds doesn't respond well to his training methods, he's killing it? (Ignoring for a moment that not even ring sport trainers use e-collars on puppies, so the image of a puppy being "zapped," is pretty out there.)

I guess I'm really not getting your point here. I know sport dog owners who will rehome a pup that doesn't turn out. I don't equate that to killing a dog, since they go to a pet dog home. Service dog handlers also do this as well...are they equally to blame for the deaths of dogs?


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Willowy said:


> We could ask ol' Ivan what he'd do with a dog that became a piddling puddle of puppy when he zapped it and see what he'd do to it. I don't think it would end well. But I'm sure he has a method for picking out dogs he thinks will tolerate his handling methods and who cares what happens to the rest of 'em.


What information are you basing this on? To me, this is just like the "balanced" trainers who cry that "when cookies don't work, the dog gets killed." How do you know what he would do with a softer dog, and why have you already determined that he's incapable of being flexible in his handling methods? 

You must know him much better than the rest of us. Like those people who look at me and say I must be cookie clicker cult hippy and would just kill a "real" dog who couldn't be "bribed."

BTW, Ivan breeds and competes with some very high drive and strong tempered Malinois BUT... he also titled a relatively "low drive" (for bite sports) showline GSD in IPO and brought the absolute best of out the dog from what I can tell. He is not a one-trick pony.

But hey, you know him best.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I know the kind of guy who says "you gotta fry them good the first time so they know you mean business". Maybe he's different. . .I don't know him personally. But he doesn't sound different.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I know the kind of guy who says "you gotta fry them good the first time so they know you mean business". Maybe he's different. . .I don't know him personally. But he doesn't sound different.


Is this really any better, as Emily has suggested, than the other side, where someone will accuse positive trainers of never providing structure for their dogs or trying to use "cookies and clickers" to break up dog fights?

I don't think this kind of extremism in either direction helps dogs or helps owners become better trainers. It only increases the divide and leads to further misunderstanding.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Willowy, your statements are ridiculous. Maybe you should check out his seminars (the E collar is not his first go to tool) and actually KNOW who he is before you decide he's some random dog killer.

Punishment does work. You CAN'T always convince a dog that x is worth doing for y.

As I've mentioned many times, I have dogs that I have to trust with my life. Compliance to commands is NOT optional. Loch had a humane but not so pleasant experience with an ear pinch to learn that he HAD to pick up metal objects (keys specifically). He now picks up keys consistently, and very very happily. You would never be able to tell we had to use a force fetch method on him (for an extremely short period of time).

I think he's probably the happiest dog I have ever owned


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Xeph said:


> I think he's probably the happiest dog I have ever owned


Nonsense, he's shy and fearful.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Punishment works. It can be used without ruining dogs. Mr. Balabanov is extremely talented. I know that he can use punishment without significant fallout.

My problem with punishment and e-collars has nothing to do with Balabanov or other talented trainers. I absolutely mourn for all of the innocent dogs who are subjected to e-collars and ugly corrections by handlers who have no clue how to train a dog. If you can't teach "sit" without a prong or an e-collar, the problem is YOU. I am confident that Balabanov and other talented trainers TEACH skills before proofing them and adding correction.

I rarely use corrections, but this weekend, I did. My dog "forgot" how to do signals. So, I firmly grasped his flat collar and pulled him into the correct position. My very soft dog was mortified because I almost never use force. Because it is so unlike me, the power of punishment was amplified. It was pretty soft by most standards, but it's still punishment. If I did it a lot, it would lose its effectiveness. 

I have no significant issues with punishment except when it's paired with ignorance. It's still not my preferred method, but in the right hands I guess it's none of my business. 

I own terriers and hounds. If I relied on punishment, I'd get stranded.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> Punishment works. It can be used without ruining dogs. Mr. Balabanov is extremely talented. I know that he can use punishment without significant fallout.
> 
> My problem with punishment and e-collars has nothing to do with Balabanov or other talented trainers. I absolutely mourn for all of the innocent dogs who are subjected to e-collars and ugly corrections by handlers who have no clue how to train a dog. If you can't teach "sit" without a prong or an e-collar, the problem is YOU. I am confident that Balabanov and other talented trainers TEACH skills before proofing them and adding correction.
> 
> ...


Nicely said.  and it touches on the important point (to me at least) than not all punishment is created equally.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just want to know why I know this guy's kennel name....Ot Vitosha... Does someone have a dog from him? Maliraptor maybe? Why do I recognize it? lol

I think there's some serious gross misconstruing going on on both sides. 'Hey all you clicker people, what are you going to do when your dogs fight? Wave cookies at them? Ha! I'd like to see you try'

vs 'Any positive punishment is abuse and creates terrified dogs'


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I just want to know why I know this guy's kennel name....Ot Vitosha... Does someone have a dog from him? Maliraptor maybe? Why do I recognize it? lol
> 
> I think there's some serious gross misconstruing going on on both sides. 'Hey all you clicker people, what are you going to do when your dogs fight? Wave cookies at them? Ha! I'd like to see you try'
> 
> vs 'Any positive punishment is abuse and creates terrified dogs'


One of the dogs juliemule just posted is Ot Vitosha bred. You might have seen the name on that thread? Blossom has Ot Vitosha dogs behind her.


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

I can honestly say that I do not know this Mr. Balabanov personally or have never met him. Saying this I can not say a thing about his training style. I do know that in the 70's punishment and corrections were the way most dogs were trained. Treats was a rarity. I can remember only seeing one dog that seemed terrified of its owner. I think the owner stomping of his feet seemed to scare the dog the most. This guy would stomp his feet when he stopped and the dog would cower every time. 

E-collars in the right hands can be wonderful training tool. It can bring a dog further along in training (especially off-leash) with great results. I have also seen first hand the destruction an e-collar can do if used incorrectly. A rescue who put a bark collar on a new foster and the dog attacked the guy. The guy spent a couple of days in the hospital for that. An owner who brought in one of her dogs for bite wounds. She was using the e-collar to stop the dogs from fighting. The e-collar backfired that plan. The dog growled at other dog, got zapped, yelped and attacked her other dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> vs 'Any positive punishment is abuse and creates terrified dogs'


I'm not even saying that abuse always creates terrified dogs. One of my mom's dogs was absolutely abused in her last home---the man of the house hated her and would beat the snot out of her on a regular basis. And she has no ill effects from it. Well, she's a weird dog; who knows how much of that was caused by the abuse, but no _obvious_ ill effects. She is not terrified, she doesn't cower even if you pretend to hit her, she loved that man with all her heart, even now she adores men who look like him (and hates my dad who has never been mean to her and looks nothing like her previous owner ). But I'm not going to say that what he did to her was right or excusable or that beating a dog is super yay if there are no ill effects from it. I don't think you can judge the rightness of an action by the effect it has.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Ah, yet another post from jiml re: promoting punishment. Well alrightee then.

Here's how I see the great divide. If someone (ie: Shiela Booth) can take a dog to SchH III with V-ratings through the exclusive use of purely positive training, way back prior to 1998, why on earth would anyone still insist in this day and age that there is any REAL need to use compulsion and aversives ??? Doesn't make sense to me. 

Unless, of course ... "Yeah punishment works, and it works fast." .. speed is of the essence.

Just my .02


----------



## MaDeuce (Sep 5, 2013)

Willowy said:


> We could ask ol' Ivan what he'd do with a dog that became a piddling puddle of puppy when he zapped it and see what he'd do to it. I don't think it would end well. But I'm sure he has a method for picking out dogs he thinks will tolerate his handling methods and who cares what happens to the rest of 'em.


You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you seem to have any clue about what Ivan actually does, how he trains and what he was trying to say with his post. If you had the slightest clue about who he is and what he does, you would know that Ivan does not "zap a dog" so hard that it would turn into a "piddling puddle of puppy".


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> Ah, yet another post from jiml re: promoting punishment. Well alrightee then.
> 
> Here's how I see the great divide. If someone (ie: Shiela Booth) can take a dog to SchH III with V-ratings through the exclusive use of purely positive training, way back prior to 1998, why on earth would anyone still insist in this day and age that there is any REAL need to use compulsion and aversives ??? Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> ...


Crazy talk, I say!


----------



## MaDeuce (Sep 5, 2013)

petpeeve said:


> Ah, yet another post from jiml re: promoting punishment. Well alrightee then.
> 
> Here's how I see the great divide. If someone (ie: Shiela Booth) can take a dog to SchH III with V-ratings through the exclusive use of purely positive training, way back prior to 1998, why on earth would anyone still insist in this day and age that there is any REAL need to use compulsion and aversives ??? Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> ...


Because not every dog is the same! 

There is no "One fits all" training method.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

MaDeuce said:


> Because not every dog is the same!
> 
> There is no "One fits all" training method.


Methods, perhaps, but we should already know this is trainer dependent. What works for me may not work for you, with the SAME dog. The laws of learning (punishment, rienforcement) don't change from dog to dog, or from slug to killer whale for that matter.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

petpeeve said:


> Ah, yet another post from jiml re: promoting punishment. Well alrightee then.
> 
> Here's how I see the great divide. If someone (ie: Shiela Booth) can take a dog to SchH III with V-ratings through the exclusive use of purely positive training, way back prior to 1998, why on earth would anyone still insist in this day and age that there is any REAL need to use compulsion and aversives ??? Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> ...



You dont like my posts? LOL

Im just providing BALANCE

Mr Balabanov I believe is one of the best sport dog trainers in the world. But if I post what he says as opposed to the plethora of strictly Positive Im ridiculed? maybe you rather watch mconnell teach her dog to hump? I think this is an important subject in training. By the way Im prob 80% positive. Its always where Id start and sometimes where Id end.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Methods, perhaps, but we should already know this is trainer dependent. What works for me may not work for you, with the SAME dog. The laws of learning (punishment, rienforcement) don't change from dog to dog, or from slug to killer whale for that matter.


I agree, every situation, dog, and trainer is different. This is exactly the point i make continuously. The laws may not change but we are dealing with living creatures in the real world. Learning is more complex than learning theorys black/white.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I don't think there is a "one size fits all" training methodology, either. Heck, even in our small club, one way of teaching focused heeling may work for one dog and completely flop for another and we have to try other methods. Dogs are individuals just as much as people and they have their own personalities. A huge part of the battle is simply getting to know your dog to a point where you are in tune with where they are and have some clue as to why something is or isn't working for them.

We had a great example last night in practice of what I thought was a good use of punishment. We have a dobie who is a "dirty biter." By this, I mean he will try to bite off the sleeve when working with a helper in order to try to get the helper to give up the sleeve. It is not an issue of the dog not knowing that he isn't supposed to bite off the sleeve. This is an IPO 2 dog and he's been well trained to know where it's ok to bite and he only does it when he becomes frustrated. When he does it, he will go for a leg or even the face. This is plain dangerous and the handler has only a few options here, particularly since he lives with this dog and the dog needs to be safe with people. This is a situation that, if not handled quickly and decisively, could lead to a human being seriously injured and/or the dog being PTS.

They set up a situation where the dog was likely to get frustrated with the helper and go for a dirty bite, based on his behavior when he's done this before. He was wearing an e-collar and a third person held the transmitter. The handler sent him to the helper as usual and, when he didn't immediately get the sleeve, he went for the helper's face. The third person hit the button on the e-collar and the dog did yelp and stopped the bite in mid-air. They did not want to correct the dog multiple times, so they intentionally set it at a level they would not normally use. They did it just quickly enough to stop the dog and then the scenario was set up again. The dog went for the leg this time. Another hit from the e-collar and another yelp. The third time, the dog went straight for the sleeve and did not attempt anything dirty and he stayed on the sleeve even when the helper would not give it up. They put him in other scenarios where he might try a dirty bite and he did not and he was showered with praise and rewards.

Now...it could very well be that a mistake in training, maybe even way back when he was first being taught to go for the sleeve, started all this and it might have been prevented, but at that point, the e-collar was the quickest, safest way to stop this behavior, which was dangerous for both the dog and any humans. A point needed to be made to this dog and made very clear, for the safety of everyone involved.

I would rather see a dog punished and live and for the people around them to be safe than a dog not punished and PTS. I'm not saying that every dog would need this. I'm not saying that positive only trainers in any way lead to dogs being PTS, but with some dogs, I do think you need that tool in the toolbox and be ready to use it when it is necessary. I do think you need to be darn sure it is necessary before you pull it out and you need to be very careful how you use it. In this situation, with this dog and these people, I felt comfortable that it was being used properly. I still winced when I heard the dobie yelp and I felt bad that it had gotten to that point with him, but I was glad when I saw him doing better and I saw that he was still engaged and happy in the training.

Just a note - this was a dog that had been trained without a Schutzhund club in the man's backyard without a trained helper to assist him. A good reason why it's usually discouraged for people to train on their own without a good helper and a club to support them as well as keep an eye on what they are doing to make sure the dog isn't becoming unsafe. This man has started flying from across the state to train with us and they are trying to help him fix these issues after the fact. It's always preferable to nip them in the bud earlier or simply prevent them from happening to begin with!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

jiml said:


> You dont like my posts? LOL
> 
> Im just providing BALANCE
> 
> Mr Balabanov I believe is one of the best sport dog trainers in the world. But if I post what he says as opposed to the plethora of strictly Positive Im ridiculed? maybe you rather watch mconnell teach her dog to hump? I think this is an important subject in training. By the way Im prob 80% positive. Its always where Id start and sometimes where Id end.


Jiml, what do you train your dogs in? I'm assuming a sport? I am not asking with any kind of snark at all, just genuinely curious. I see your posts in the training section all the time but don't know anything about your dogs.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

HollowHeaven said:


> Yeah punishment works, and it works fast.
> But it creates a shy, fearful dog. A dog that fears his master's hand. He fears the hand that feeds him, and that is sad.
> 
> There are other, very affective ways to teach dogs and children without hurting them. so.


This is completely untrue. Abuse causes fearful dogs. Corrections when given properly and at the exact moment creates a confident, obedient dog.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Because the ones that don't respond well to punishment get killed :/. But hey. Whatever floats yer boat.


Ivan doesn't kill his dogs. Where did you get that?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I know the kind of guy who says "you gotta fry them good the first time so they know you mean business". Maybe he's different. . .I don't know him personally. But he doesn't sound different.


That is not the type of guy ivan is at all lol.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

jiml said:


> maybe you rather watch mconnell teach her dog to hump?


It was Jean Donaldson...


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> Ah, yet another post from jiml re: promoting punishment. Well alrightee then.
> 
> Here's how I see the great divide. If someone (ie: Shiela Booth) can take a dog to SchH III with V-ratings through the exclusive use of purely positive training, way back prior to 1998, why on earth would anyone still insist in this day and age that there is any REAL need to use compulsion and aversives ??? Doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> ...


Some dogs are easy. I would like to see her compete with as many dogs on the same level as Ivan using positive only.

Yes i have an Ot Vitosha bitch. i have another one reserved for next summer as well.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

juliemule said:


> This is completely untrue. Abuse causes fearful dogs. Corrections when given properly and at the exact moment creates a confident, obedient dog.


Well, if we're splitting hairs, I believe the dog doing what the dog enjoys builds 'his' confidence, not the correction. Obedience is for the human, not the dog, so corrections don't create this for the dog either.

And it's not necessarily abuse that can cause fear in a dog. A one time event can cause fear, and it may not necessarily be evident to the human, and sometimes an "appropriate" correction can be that event. It is more prudent and humane to understand this, than 'just' accept corrections in training. But I understand not everyone has had 'that' dog.


----------



## aiw (Jun 16, 2012)

Like everything else, it depends on the dog and the specific methods. I don't think _all_ positive punishment is abusive or ineffective, but an aversive-based program would definitely do serious damage to Pete. I also think its very hard to get a dog excited to work with you and problem solving with mostly +P tactics. The difference was night and day when switching from CM style to clicker, there is a big difference between a dog wanting to get it right and a dog just worried about getting it wrong.

So, it can be abusive but isn't necessarily so. It all depends on how punishment is used and on what dog.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Well, if we're splitting hairs, I believe the dog doing what the dog enjoys builds 'his' confidence, not the correction. Obedience is for the human, not the dog, so corrections don't create this for the dog either.
> 
> And it's not necessarily abuse that can cause fear in a dog. A one time event can cause fear, and it may not necessarily be evident to the human, and sometimes an "appropriate" correction can be that event. It is more prudent and humane to understand this, than 'just' accept corrections in training. But I understand not everyone has had 'that' dog.


Dogs live with humans, so being obedient creates a happy environment.

If a correction caused the dog enough fear to damage him, then that would not be an appropriate correction for that dog.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Positive punishment is effective at reducing behavior; it's right there in the definition of punishment. However, it's very often not implemented correctly or with much thought. Using a prong collar for every walk or an e-collar for a lifetime of "bark training" isn't punishment; one might call it poor training, annoying to the dog, or even abusive, but it's not punishment. 

I suspect that a number of folks here don't have an issue with P+ when it's used appropriately and thoughtfully. Currently, I can't foresee a situation where I'd use P+ with my own dog and I'd suggest that P+ should be used when all other options have failed or are impractical, by someone skilled in the use of P+ methods, and with a dog who will not be negatively affected. The arguments against P+ arise when a person with little previous training experience asks about using an e-collar to stop a dog with separation anxiety from barking or prong collar to teach a puppy to sit. 

I'm not really sure what your point is with creating this thread. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Methods, perhaps, but we should already know this is trainer dependent. What works for me may not work for you, with the SAME dog. The laws of learning (punishment, rienforcement) don't change from dog to dog, or from slug to killer whale for that matter.


And this ^^^ The basic laws of learning don't change from dog to dog anymore than the law of gravity changes from person to person.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Again, I think there are different dogs with different personalities. Yes, some dogs simply cannot handle corrections. Many, however, can and do thrive with them.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

cookieface said:


> And this ^^^ The basic laws of learning don't change from dog to dog anymore than the law of gravity changes from person to person.


Different humans have different learning styles. I am a visual learner, so to learn something best, I need to be able to see it. I know another person who learns best by reading. Yes, the mechanics of conditioning are universal, but dogs still have individual personalities and I find that I have to tailor my training style to the dog in front of me.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Btw, the Ivan once got in trouble for having a Kong in his pocket during a competition, he forgot it was in there. The majority of the time he uses positive. When he needs to correct he will. 

There are some trainers who use other methods. To the general population, it looks positive. Puppies hunting like crazy for odor during training. Food and praise reward. What wasn't obvious though, is that those pups were not fed for four days before this.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> Different humans have different learning styles. I am a visual learner, so to learn something best, I need to be able to see it. I know another person who learns best by reading. Yes, the mechanics of conditioning are universal, but dogs still have individual personalities and I find that I have to tailor my training style to the dog in front of me.


Well, there is some question about the reality of learning styles, but that aside, the basic principles of learning don't change. However, the implementation of teaching/training strategies can (and _should_) change based on a number of factors. For example, my dog is extremely food motivated, but doesn't care for tug. It would be losing battle to try to use tug as a reinforcer. She's also prone to frustration, so I try to increase her chances for success. I know that my timing sucks, so I would never attempt to use P+ techniques because it simply wouldn't work. Teaching according to learning styles would be an example of using different methods, not different principles.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

cookieface said:


> Well, there is some question about the reality of learning styles, but that aside, the basic principles of learning don't change. However, the implementation of teaching/training strategies can (and _should_) change based on a number of factors. For example, my dog is extremely food motivated, but doesn't care for tug. It would be losing battle to try to use tug as a reinforcer. She's also prone to frustration, so I try to increase her chances for success. I know that my timing sucks, so I would never attempt to use P+ techniques because it simply wouldn't work. Teaching according to learning styles would be an example of using different methods, not different principles.


There are definitely instances, though, at least in the training I'm doing with my club, where P+ is necessary. Some behaviors simply either can't be taught a competing behavior or we simply can't allow the behavior to continue long term. I can think of fewer examples in day to day life, but I can think of a couple. For example, those of us who have dogs who can pull us off our feet and have winter approaching, with icy walks. Yes...loose leash training can be done in a positive manner, but it very often takes more time and if you're not there yet before the ice hits? A prong collar could keep both dog and owner safe in the meantime.

I have also seen dogs (Sam isn't one of them) that are just so hard and so determined and drivey that I'm not sure they could be trained using positive only techniques. These dogs are strong and powerful and driven and NEED to be kept control of for their safety as well as the safety of others and if P+ is a tool that allows that dog to be a pet rather than PTS, I can't really see the evil in it. We have a couple of dogs in the club that are this way and will push boundaries until they are punished and then will calm down, as if they are looking for that line in the sand and looking for the handler to stick to it.

I think you have to be flexible and willing to become the trainer the dog needs rather than being rigid and religious in your adherence to any one training philosophy. I think the people who are religious in their adherence to the Monks of New Skete or CM or Koehler are just as fanatical and out there as those who insist that P+ is abuse and should never, ever be used.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think necessary in theory and necessary in practice are two separate things. I have seen P+ work effectively and in those instances I can definitely think of 'positive' ways around them. Now, am I saying that the R+/N- way would be better as far as realism in THAT situation, with whatever time constraints you have present? No of course not. I am also not saying that its abuse to go there but I'm not so sure it is _necessary_ because there are ways around it. Those ways might not be realistic and in all honesty a one and done (if possible) using P+ might be more humane in the long run.

Note: Not talking about the IPO dogs as I have zip/zero experience there.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> I have also seen dogs (Sam isn't one of them) that are just so hard and so determined and drivey that I'm not sure they could be trained using positive only techniques. These dogs are strong and powerful and driven and NEED to be kept control of for their safety as well as the safety of others and if P+ is a tool that allows that dog to be a pet rather than PTS, I can't really see the evil in it. We have a couple of dogs in the club that are this way and will push boundaries until they are punished and then will calm down, as if they are looking for that line in the sand and looking for the handler to stick to it.


As you guys know...I have a dog who is hard, drivey and determined. I greatly agree with Packetmom's post. These past several months...I have set some rules with Lars that I am being consistent with. And some of these are house rules like you will NOT barge into me and push me out of the way to get to something you want. Wait really does mean wait. I am the keeper of all resources and of what is important to him. Those rules are working and he did push the rules envelope to see if I was going to walk the walk versus just talk the talk. That's all I'm really going to get into this thread.


----------



## Cattledogfanatic (Sep 18, 2011)

I generally stay out of discussions like these. I consider myself a positive reinforcement trainer. I would go so far as to say hearing the word correction makes me cringe. I've been really struggling with this as I'm working on getting my CPDT certification. I feel as a trainer I need to have all sorts of tools in my tool box. 

I think have finally formed my opinion over the last week. I'm mentoring under someone who is a primarily positive trainer but will use correction when necessary. I think the corrections she administers are fair and not over the top harsh. I have also trained my own dog for the last 8 weeks in a training school that puts a prong on every dog in the door, and pins puppies to the floor until they stop struggling. I strive to be a trainer/handler like the first person mentioned and the latter made me cry as walked out of my last class. 

I looked at Ivan's site and actually it seems he has a lot of common sense in his approach to dogs. I think if you can teach dogs primarily using positive reinforcement. However, like poeple, I think there are some dogs that you really need to draw a hard line and no means no. My cocker probably would die if he used the training methods on him that he uses on his Mals, but my dog is also not a high drive dog, is fairly soft and extremely biddible. I can pretty much stop him with an uh uh every time and that's all he needs.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing with here. Teaching with any of the four quadrants is still using learning theory, it's not that there is one set of principles for some dogs and another for different dogs. 



packetsmom said:


> There are definitely instances, though, at least in the training I'm doing with my club, where P+ is necessary. Some behaviors simply either can't be taught a competing behavior or we simply can't allow the behavior to continue long term. I can think of fewer examples in day to day life, but I can think of a couple. For example, those of us who have dogs who can pull us off our feet and have winter approaching, with icy walks. Yes...loose leash training can be done in a positive manner, but it very often takes more time and if you're not there yet before the ice hits? A prong collar could keep both dog and owner safe in the meantime.


The example of using a prong collar to teach loose leash walking to a large dog, especially as winter approaches is exactly the scenario I had in mind in my first post. There are situations where thoughtful use of P+ is appropriate. For me, there's a huge difference between using a prong or e-collar in that situation (and probably for a short time) and using a prong on a puppy who's never been taught the basics of LLW or using a prong because it's easier and/or faster than using R+. If I had a large, powerful dog, I'd probably consider using prong to keep everyone safe.



> I have also seen dogs (Sam isn't one of them) that are just so hard and so determined and drivey that I'm not sure they could be trained using positive only techniques. These dogs are strong and powerful and driven and NEED to be kept control of for their safety as well as the safety of others and if P+ is a tool that allows that dog to be a pet rather than PTS, I can't really see the evil in it. We have a couple of dogs in the club that are this way and will push boundaries until they are punished and then will calm down, as if they are looking for that line in the sand and looking for the handler to stick to it.


Again, I don't have a problem with thoughtful, appropriate, and skilled use of P+. What I would have a problem with is someone saying, "my dog is drivey, so I can't ever use R+ on him" or "breed x can't learn with R+." Yes, sometimes learning needs to happen fast or safety is an issue or there is some other scenario where P+ is be the best way to achieve desired outcomes. 



> I think you have to be flexible and willing to become the trainer the dog needs rather than being rigid and religious in your adherence to any one training philosophy. I think the people who are religious in their adherence to the Monks of New Skete or CM or Koehler are just as fanatical and out there as those who insist that P+ is abuse and should never, ever be used.


I'm not sure why you think I'm being inflexible or rigid. I'll admit that my training philosophy is based, in part, on using the least aversive method possible. The other part is what I currently know about learning theory and dog cognition (for want of a better term). I won't use P+ for initial training, I probably wouldn't use it for proofing or reducing behavior because, as I said, my timing sucks and my dog responds well to redirection. If recognizing my own ethical and physical boundaries makes me rigid and inflexible, so be it. 

If I needed a dog to go through snake training or quickly learn LLW or have near perfect recall and who would respond well to P+ / R-, I'd certainly consider contacting someone with the knowledge, skills, and experience who could provide that type of training.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

(This post is not specifically directed at the post above mine or any specific post really. Just to be clear.)

It is absolutely true that the laws of learning do not change; however, what serves as reinforcement and punishment vary between individuals, as does the lifestyle and skill set of the human end of the equation. (Some reinforcers are difficult if not impossible to access as a human being, like, I don't know, a fleeing rabbit.) I actually don't agree that P+/R- are "necessary" or "irreplaceable" in dog training, but I do believe that sometimes what is possible and is feasible are two different things.

I have made choices to utilize +P in certain instances because I absolutely felt it was ultimately in the best interests of the dog. I have recently chosen to utilize a R- protocol (one I have previous experience with and feel comfortable applying) and I can tell you it has absolutely been to the benefit of my dog. It means both more freedom _and_ safety for her, and more security for me.

Whether or not another handler would have made the same choice does not matter, because she is my dog and I am secure in my choice.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Emily1188 said:


> It is absolutely true that the laws of learning do not change; however, what serves as reinforcement and punishment vary between individuals, as does the lifestyle and skill set of the human end of the equation. (Some reinforcers are difficult if not impossible to access as a human being, like, I don't know, a fleeing rabbit.) *I actually don't agree that P+/R- are "necessary" or "irreplaceable" in dog training, but I do believe that sometimes what is possible and is feasible are two different things*.


Ah yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

For the other part I mentioned this briefly in another thread but throwing a tennis ball at Mia = +R. Throwing a tennis ball at Summer = +P.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Emily1188 said:


> (This post is not specifically directed at the post above mine or any specific post really. Just to be clear.)
> 
> *It is absolutely true that the laws of learning do not change; however, what serves as reinforcement and punishment vary between individuals, as does the lifestyle and skill set of the human end of the equation. (Some reinforcers are difficult if not impossible to access as a human being, like, I don't know, a fleeing rabbit.) I actually don't agree that P+/R- are "necessary" or "irreplaceable" in dog training, but I do believe that sometimes what is possible and is feasible are two different things.*
> 
> ...


That's exactly what I have been trying to say. The principles don't change, but implementation (methods, strategies, techniques, whatever) does and, yes, implementation is based on circumstances.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

cookieface said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing with here. Teaching with any of the four quadrants is still using learning theory, it's not that there is one set of principles for some dogs and another for different dogs.
> 
> *I think we are actually in agreement here. I'm not arguing that the four quandrants work different with different dogs, just that different dogs respond differently to actual training methods, particularly P+, depending on temperment.*
> 
> ...


/Too short


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> We have a couple of dogs in the club that are this way and will push boundaries until they are punished and then will calm down, as if they are looking for that line in the sand and looking for the handler to stick to it.


I wonder how much of that is created by the owners, though? I used to babysit a little girl who could NOT calm herself enough to go to sleep without a spanking. Obviously, I wouldn't hit her, so she'd stay awake until her parents got home, they'd smack her a couple times, she'd cry a bit and toddle right off to bed. I'm pretty sure this was an emotional dependence on punishment THEY created, not a function of her personality. It's not hard to develop that dependence on punishment, from what I've seen.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> I wonder how much of that is created by the owners, though? I used to babysit a little girl who could NOT calm herself enough to go to sleep without a spanking. Obviously, I wouldn't hit her, so she'd stay awake until her parents got home, they'd smack her a couple times, she'd cry a bit and toddle right off to bed. I'm pretty sure this was an emotional dependence on punishment THEY created, not a function of her personality. It's not hard to develop that dependence on punishment, from what I've seen.


I don't want to get too far into this debate, I do have huge opinions on it as many of you know. But there is something I thought I would mention, I do agree with Willowy to a point here (sorry willowy, I don't agree with most of your posts in this thread, but you make an excellent point here). I saw a video when I was first snoodging around at the varieties of training styles. There was a woman explaining how to create drive using a prong collar. Her first step was to get a prong on the dog, yard it as hard as you could (lifting the dogs legs in the video!) then give it a really awesome treat. Yes, this bizarre dependence on punishment can be created. I personally found the whole thing pretty sick. Though I do also find it a bit off to insist that a prong or e collar is abusive and completely unnecessary. No, I don't want to take 2 years to get my dog to learn a perfect recall, because if it doesn't respond to whatever other motivations I've got, it may have seen something across the road, pulled the leash out of my hands and gotten hit by a car because she is strong.

Here you go. I consider myself a balanced trainer (start stoning me now please), though I consider myself on the positive side of that balanced. My dogs wear e collars like pants, they don't leave the house without it. They were both conditioned to it carefully. Caeda has no fear of me. I can pretend to hit her and stop my hand two inches from her face, and she'll just blink. Dexter was hand shy when he came to us, now if I swing my hand towards him (and I've never smacked him, except hard petting, or a touch on the side to get attention) he will move his head back a tiny bit, when previously he used to cower. Both him and Caeda have remarkable recall and have no fear of either myself or my husband. On the e collar we usually just use the tone, but the stim is there if we need it (really low for Dexter, and only for recall). Maybe they recall so well because they are scared I'll do something to them, but hey, I'm equally scared they'll get hit by a car, but they still get their treats when they get to me. 

Anyway, if anybody wants to get angry about that, go ahead, I'm not likely to respond to it because quite frankly I don't want to bother raising my blood pressure by reading how horrid I am (read it before thanks). Feel free though to use me as either a good or bad example. Its bad enough I was told (not on this forum thankfully), that I'm a bad negligent dog owner because Dexter isn't neutered. But hey, if this balanced trainer here has happy looking dogs that are secretly cowering when I'm not home dreading the moment I get here ok....I'm fine with that. They certainly seem excited to see me when I get here, and won't leave my side (or my husbands). However if anyone has any reasonable questions about the methods I use, I'm happy to respond.
By the way, I'm a fan of Ian Balabanov, Mike Ellis and Bart Bellon. I'm sure some of you list them in the list of demons walking the earth, but hey, I've found them as useful, and sometimes more than Kikopup, whose training methods I'm also a fan of (aside from her political views).


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I don't like punishment, b/c I usually have the time to anticipate and prevent. However, I agree with the need for a pinch collar for walking on ice, and I used an invisible fence next to the wooden fence to keep my 6 mos puppy from digging or chewing his way through the fence.

In addition, I believe in context differences. If you hit your dog, and it doesn't faze him, I don't consider that P+. I think that's where Rotts, Labs, and Pits may be similar. If you hit a Rott with a 2x4 (or a newspaper), then he may react like a Lab, looking at you and blinking, "Oh, did you want me?" I don't know what the Rott will do, but the Lab will then wag his tail, ready for fun. But, if you hit a large Pit with a 2x4, he may ignore you, or turn around to play tug with the board, unless you also wag you finger and say "bad dog"... then the Pit will crumble in shame  People regularly slap and wrestle with their 75 - 100lb dogs, and the dogs love it ... but if you tried this with many other dogs... it would be abusive.... It is all about the dog and context.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Greater Swiss said:


> By the way, I'm a fan of Ian Balabanov, Mike Ellis and Bart Bellon. I'm sure some of you list them in the list of demons walking the earth, but hey, I've found them as useful, and sometimes more than Kikopup, whose training methods I'm also a fan of (aside from her political views).


Not much to add here since I agree with what you wrote, except to add that I'm a big fan of Michael Ellis and I'm going to check out the other two now.  I do find that, very often, his advice and the advice of similar trainers seems to work better with my dog than kikopup or similar. The dogs he works with seem more similar in temperment to mine. I will also add that, he spends a LOT of time talking about using markers, training with food, and training with toy rewards and I'd definitely consider him balanced in his training approach, particularly when he talks about how to train puppies.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> There was a woman explaining how to create drive using a prong collar. Her first step was to get a prong on the dog, yard it as hard as you could (lifting the dogs legs in the video!) then give it a really awesome treat. Yes, this bizarre dependence on punishment can be created.


Wow, I never thought about someone doing it on purpose! Eek. 

I was thinking of it more as an inadvertent thing. If punishment is always used to make a dog (or child) calm down/control them, they'll become dependent on that punishment to calm down/create control all the time, and never learn to calm or control themselves. I suppose that's less of an issue in dogs than in children, as dogs don't need to grow up and become (ideally) emotionally healthy adults, but I bet it could be a problem if you weren't in the position to deliver that punishment at some point. I think there's a name for this in people but I can't remember what it is .


----------



## anglachanka (Sep 25, 2013)

I am an ex dog police handler and I can tell you that the working dogs from the police force I belonged to were never punished to teach them to behave. Everything is taught as a game and as a dog's main goal is to please his master, this is all the reward he needs for a job well done. We taught our dogs to stop, track and search as well as attack with a favourite toy, or failing that food treats...NEVER...punishment. Why should a dog do just what you want....they will anyway if they trust and respect you...but that works both ways.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

anglachanka said:


> I am an ex dog police handler and I can tell you that the working dogs from the police force I belonged to were never punished to teach them to behave. Everything is taught as a game and as a dog's main goal is to please his master, this is all the reward he needs for a job well done. We taught our dogs to stop, track and search as well as attack with a favourite toy, or failing that food treats...NEVER...punishment. Why should a dog do just what you want....they will anyway if they trust and respect you...but that works both ways.


That's very interesting. I mean, we train a few cop dogs at my club so I know that they are trained with reward based training, but I would not say most are "never" punished. To clarify, you never used a slip, prong, or electronic collar, and never verbally corrected (sharp word, "no!," etc) or popped/jerked the dog's collar/lead when they did not perform as expected or failed to perform a command? I'm not being smart or even doubting you, just looking for clarity. For the purposes of the discussion, all of those would qualify as "punishment" in the technical sense in which it's being discussed in this thread.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I am also a former police K-9 handler. The methods used on the dogs in my area were very, very aversive. Must change depending on region. 

My entire "foundation" in dog training was built on correction. I am wicked-good with a choke chain. I crossed over 5 years ago. However, 10 years ago, I was introduced to reward-based training when I learned how to train narcotics detection dogs. The actual "work" required reward-based method. However, all of the other handling was correction based. What my two detection dogs taught was fascinating. They would work like they were possessed to find dope to get their toy. However, despite toe-curling corrections that nearly made me puke, they would not be consistently obedient with heeling, recalls, or staying non-reactive. In my hands, the positive reinforcement was getting better results. My trainers insisted on correction-based training for non-searching behaviors. At the time, I was not wise enough to apply positive reinforcement outside of search work.

I wish I could go back and re-own my early dogs. They deserved a better handler.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> I am also a former police K-9 handler. The methods used on the dogs in my area were very, very aversive. Must change depending on region.
> 
> My entire "foundation" in dog training was built on correction. I am wicked-good with a choke chain. I crossed over 5 years ago. However, 10 years ago, I was introduced to reward-based training when I learned how to train narcotics detection dogs. The actual "work" required reward-based method. However, all of the other handling was correction based. What my two detection dogs taught was fascinating. They would work like they were possessed to find dope to get their toy. However, despite toe-curling corrections that nearly made me puke, they would not be consistently obedient with heeling, recalls, or staying non-reactive. In my hands, the positive reinforcement was getting better results. My trainers insisted on correction-based training for non-searching behaviors. At the time, I was not wise enough to apply positive reinforcement outside of search work.
> 
> I wish I could go back and re-own my early dogs. They deserved a better handler.


I have still seen a significant amount of this as well, especially regarding obedience behaviors, as you said, which is why I so curious about this post. That said, fortunately, I _think_ many K9 programs are at least introducing the idea of motivational-based obedience, even if they will apply force later. I always find it interesting that it's a given that you can't force a dog to bite or search, but in obedience force is the default?


----------



## anglachanka (Sep 25, 2013)

We never used correction methods, especially something as barbaric as an electronic collar. If you have to force a dog to do as you wish, you cannot rely on that dog to protect you when you are most vulnerable.
My dog would have willingly laid down his life for me, because he loved me and everything to him was a game...catch the criminal, search the building etc etc but do not let anyone dare to touch or threaten my handler. I knew my back was always protected ...not from a command or fear but because the dog was alert and looking out for me.

One only has to look at pack behaviour....the pack leader is like a god, eats first, exits first, does everything first and if you are your dog's pack leader, his whole pysche just wants to worship and please you...no punishment is ever required because an idiot trainer cannot help the do to understand what he wants and needs.

I now have 10 dogs all rescued from the street and not one would ever beg for my food or try to get through a door before me, because I am their leader and they are never ever punished. Ignored maybe for a little while if they insist on misbehaving...then the need to be back in my 'good graces' is so strong they will come begging forgiveness and calm down again.

There are no bad dogs, only bad owners and trainers it seems.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Where's HollowHeaven with her links?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

cookieface said:


> Where's HollowHeaven with her links?


I wouldn't know, but then, I'm a bad owner and trainer.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> I wouldn't know, but then, I'm a bad owner and trainer.


All because you want to get through the winter without major injury? Yeah, the worst kind of owner.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

cookieface said:


> All because you want to get through the winter without major injury? Yeah, the worst kind of owner.


You know, I'm perfectly ok with a stranger on the internet thinking I'm a bad owner or trainer. It's my dog's opinion that matters far more to me. As long as he's still eager to work with me and excited to see me when I come home, I'm good.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> When the trainer/dog team are against *Competitive Reinforcers* then Negative Punishment (withholding reward etc.) has much less application than Positive Punishment.


Maybe "in general" but for this trainer/dog team (Wally/me), positive punishment would just end the learning process and put him in appeasement. 

Negative punishment and/or no-reward markers work just fine. I don't need to use +P on him.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> You know, I'm perfectly ok with a stranger on the internet thinking I'm a bad owner or trainer. It's my dog's opinion that matters far more to me. As long as he's still eager to work with me and excited to see me when I come home, I'm good.


Oh, I know. But, I was able to fulfill my urge to comment without risking getting sent to banned camp.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm also a bad owner and trainer.    Well, we can start a club?


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Emily1188 said:


> I'm also a bad owner and trainer.    Well, we can start a club?


I'm in. We can alpha roll all the ones joining for initiation!


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I'm in. We can alpha roll all the ones joining for initiation!


And the secret "handshake" will be a neck jab.


----------



## Emily1188 (Jun 21, 2011)

juliemule said:


> I'm in. We can alpha roll all the ones joining for initiation!


LMAO!!! :clap2:


----------



## MaDeuce (Sep 5, 2013)

trainingjunkie said:


> I am also a former police K-9 handler. The methods used on the dogs in my area were very, very aversive. Must change depending on region.
> 
> My entire "foundation" in dog training was built on correction. I am wicked-good with a choke chain. I crossed over 5 years ago. However, 10 years ago, I was introduced to reward-based training when I learned how to train narcotics detection dogs. The actual "work" required reward-based method. However, all of the other handling was correction based. What my two detection dogs taught was fascinating. They would work like they were possessed to find dope to get their toy. However, despite toe-curling corrections that nearly made me puke, they would not be consistently obedient with heeling, recalls, or staying non-reactive. In my hands, the positive reinforcement was getting better results. My trainers insisted on correction-based training for non-searching behaviors. At the time, I was not wise enough to apply positive reinforcement outside of search work.
> 
> I wish I could go back and re-own my early dogs. They deserved a better handler.


Problem with K9 Handling is time, time and more time. How long do you have to go through the training and certify a dog? I know out here it is a month, whereas a Schutzhund handler can take his sweet time to actually go through the process. 

So everything is cramped in within 4 to 6 weeks, whereas civilians can take their time to actually build a solid foundation and than go from there. I am not excusing it but I can understand why it's happening. Doesn't mean I condone or like it the least bit.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

anglachanka said:


> We never used correction methods, especially something as barbaric as an electronic collar. If you have to force a dog to do as you wish, you cannot rely on that dog to protect you when you are most vulnerable.


Interesting. This is the polar opposite to the usual statements made by K9 handlers, who typically claim that using positive methods leads to unreliability in vulnerable situations.

I'm wondering though, is the poster perhaps in _Mayberry_ by any chance ? lol


----------



## MaDeuce (Sep 5, 2013)

anglachanka said:


> We never used correction methods, especially something as barbaric as an electronic collar. If you have to force a dog to do as you wish, you cannot rely on that dog to protect you when you are most vulnerable.
> My dog would have willingly laid down his life for me, because he loved me and everything to him was a game...catch the criminal, search the building etc etc but do not let anyone dare to touch or threaten my handler. I knew my back was always protected ...not from a command or fear but because the dog was alert and looking out for me.
> 
> One only has to look at pack behaviour....the pack leader is like a god, eats first, exits first, does everything first and if you are your dog's pack leader, his whole pysche just wants to worship and please you...no punishment is ever required because an idiot trainer cannot help the do to understand what he wants and needs.
> ...


I've read all of your five posts and I am not sure if you are just trying to mess with us or seriously believe what you are saying. 

I have yet to see a police k9 handler that has NEVER corrected his dog. Especially when we talk about Patrol work. You never, never ever had to raise your voice to get the dog to out or pop the leash? Seriously? 

I am not trying to be wise, but I simply do not believe you! Everyone involved into Protection, Schutzhund or K9 Handling knows how dogs are and can be on a sleeve and suit...


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

anglachanka said:


> ...then the need to be back in my 'good graces' is so strong they will come begging forgiveness and calm down again.


Personally, I've never seen a dog "beg for forgiveness". But I do admit, it would make for one heck of a good youtube video. 

OK, well ... that's probably enough silliness for one day .....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

petpeeve said:


> Interesting. This is the polar opposite to the usual statements made by K9 handlers, who typically claim that using positive methods leads to unreliability in vulnerable situations.


Why would it lead to unreliability? What's the thought process they are using? It sounds like the reliability gained by any training would be due to the quality of the training, the traits of the dog's personality, and suitability for the job (breed purpose, ability to handle pressure/demands of the job, etc), and how strongly conditioned and practiced the behavior is regardless of method or aspects of operant and/or classical conditioning used. 

You can create an unreliable behavior using "correction training" or "positive training".


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I would also like to add that both of my detection dogs (who were not supposed to be protective) vigorously defended me despite my aversive methods. Not in theory, in real life. 

To MaDuece: I was only handling detection dogs. We had 6 weeks with them. If I had been smarter, I could have easily trained them to certification in that period of time with very limited correction.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> Why would it lead to unreliability? What's the thought process they are using? It sounds like the reliability gained by any training would be due to the quality of the training, the traits of the dog's personality, and suitability for the job (breed purpose, ability to handle pressure/demands of the job, etc), and how strongly conditioned and practiced the behavior is regardless of method or aspects of operant and/or classical conditioning used.
> 
> You can create an unreliable behavior using "correction training" or "positive training".


Oh I agree with you 100% KBLover, but the earlier comment was just not in line with the statements _often_ made. IME at least.


----------



## MaDeuce (Sep 5, 2013)

trainingjunkie said:


> I would also like to add that both of my detection dogs (who were not supposed to be protective) vigorously defended me despite my aversive methods. Not in theory, in real life.
> 
> To MaDuece: I was only handling detection dogs. We had 6 weeks with them. If I had been smarter, I could have easily trained them to certification in that period of time with very limited correction.


I agree, the Keyword is "limited" which would make you a balanced trainer and you don't claim that you would do it with positive methods only. 

Personally, I think either extreme is bad. Because you do get strong dogs in K9 Handling. My bitch is coming out of a German Police Dog Program and I was at a point where I believed that she is just too much for me because I did not correct her. There is nothing weak about that dog and my Helper asked "What are you afraid off? Give her a damn correction. Stop nagging, nagging will not get through to her." 

So I gave her that one good correction - Problem solved. 
I prefer positive reinforcement but I am no longer afraid to use corrections or believe that corrections will break my dog. Because it won't. Mine too have defended me when someone broke into the house while I was home. Sadly Police in this area did not believe there was an intruder and came EIGHT hours later when my husband called because we had a second break in that day. 
To this day I believe someone wanted to steal our dogs and not our other possessions.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

KBLover said:


> Why would it lead to unreliability? What's the thought process they are using? It sounds like the reliability gained by any training would be due to the quality of the training, the traits of the dog's personality, and suitability for the job (breed purpose, ability to handle pressure/demands of the job, etc), and how strongly conditioned and practiced the behavior is regardless of method or aspects of operant and/or classical conditioning used.
> 
> You can create an unreliable behavior using "correction training" or "positive training".


One, isolated example I can think of, and this isn't really training the dog so much as conditioning it to something, is in higher levels of Schutzhund where the dog is expected to hold onto the sleeve even if the helper/decoy hit's the dog's side with a baton (the stick is padded and the helper/decoy SHOULD be trained to hit the dog's side in a way that does NOT cause injury). To condition the dog to ignore being hit with it or a whip, they start off with giving the dog a firm chest thumb and praise while the dog is on the sleeve and work up from there. I know this isn't P+ since you're actually trying to associate that discomfort with a reward rather than using it as a correction, but I think it might be an example of where you're trying to get the dog to tolerate and work through aversive experiences.

I can think of far more difficult and even extremely painful experiences a SAR or police dog might be asked to work through. I wonder if using corrections (actual P+ versus what I described above) might help them do that? It's an interesting thought...


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

MaDeuce said:


> I agree, the Keyword is "limited" which would make you a balanced trainer and you don't claim that you would do it with positive methods only.
> 
> Personally, I think either extreme is bad. Because you do get strong dogs in K9 Handling. My bitch is coming out of a German Police Dog Program and I was at a point where I believed that she is just too much for me because I did not correct her. There is nothing weak about that dog and my Helper asked "What are you afraid off? Give her a damn correction. Stop nagging, nagging will not get through to her."
> 
> ...


My dog is like this. I was working with him on leash and he kept getting distracted and even annoyed when I would try to regain his attention with treats. A more experience handler observed, "You're nagging him and it's annoying him. I think he'd rather you just corrected him and got on with it." I gave him a leash correction and then rewarded for a command immediately after and he seemed a LOT less frustrated and we were able to continue on with training with positive reinforcement. The handler said, "A strong, decisive correction is a lot better than a lot of nagging small ones or even just nagging commands. It's less frustrating to the dog and less confusing."

If I could verbalize his internal dialogue, it might have been, "Dang it woman, quit nagging me and just show me what you want!!! Otherwise, I'm going to stare at that other dog because it's more interesting."


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

anglachanka said:


> One only has to look at pack behaviour....the pack leader is like a god, eats first, exits first, does everything first and if you are your dog's pack leader, his whole pysche just wants to worship and please you...no punishment is ever required because an idiot trainer cannot help the do to understand what he wants and needs.


Don't dogs in packs "correct" each other? Isn't that why there's calming signals and appeasement behaviors as well as things like air snaps and various growls and postures? 




anglachanka said:


> I now have 10 dogs all rescued from the street and not one would ever beg for my food or try to get through a door before me, because I am their leader and they are never ever punished. Ignored maybe for a little while if they insist on misbehaving...then the need to be back in my 'good graces' is so strong they will come begging forgiveness and calm down again.


Ignoring a dog as a result of his behavior is punishment. It's negative punishment, you're taking away something (negative) that the dog wants (your attention) in order to diminish the behavior the dog just performed (punishment). Like someone (I think Cpt Jack) said, it's like grounding a child. You didn't spank them (positive punishment), but you did punish them by taking something important to them away. 

As far as not going through the door - do dogs really put that much emphasis on doors to establish "who's in charge"? I mean, in the wild - what "doors" are there for them to file out of in pecking order? That would tell me that a pack of dogs in a field are determining leadership on a different criteria. Same for exiting first. 10 dogs in a field - sniffing in 10 different directions trying to track scent. Who's exiting where first? Who's the leader? The one who gets the scent first and the rest follow? 

Possibly - which would make leadership fluid and dynamic, not an absolute static hierarchy. You're right that dogs look out for each other in packs/social groups. They do bond with you if you let them and such. Just like if Wally's sniffing for something I want him to find - I can "be the leader" all I want, but I ain't got the nose. So he can lead me to where ever the object is. The dynamics of the situation dictate that he should be in charge because it makes the most tactical sense. Me staying in control would just get us lost/waste time. That is not effective leadership, imo, be it human "packs" or canine ones.



anglachanka said:


> There are no bad dogs, only bad owners and trainers it seems.


Bad, probably not. Mostly unsuitable for whatever task. Of course, that could be the same for owner/handler/trainers. I'd probably suck at training for protection, even if you could do it via shaping and primarily positive reinforcement. That wouldn't make me a bad trainer, inexperienced, yes, and one that should explore other fields until my skill set improves. 

The truly bad owner/handler/trainers...I think training style is the least of the concerns for that tier. The rest simply seems like "bad is what you do that I don't think you should".


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> One, isolated example I can think of, and this isn't really training the dog so much as conditioning it to something, is in higher levels of Schutzhund where the dog is expected to hold onto the sleeve even if the helper/decoy hit's the dog's side with a baton (the stick is padded and the helper/decoy SHOULD be trained to hit the dog's side in a way that does NOT cause injury). To condition the dog to ignore being hit with it or a whip, they start off with giving the dog a firm chest thumb and praise while the dog is on the sleeve and work up from there. I know this isn't P+ since you're actually trying to associate that discomfort with a reward rather than using it as a correction, but I think it might be an example of where you're trying to get the dog to tolerate and work through aversive experiences.
> 
> I can think of far more difficult and even extremely painful experiences a SAR or police dog might be asked to work through. I wonder if using corrections (actual P+ versus what I described above) might help them do that? It's an interesting thought...


It is. I wonder if that's the underlying of what they are saying, or the why of what they are saying seems to bear true. 

Your example with the bite work in high Schutzhund is interesting as well - conditioning the dog to work through aversive experiences/circumstances. And it's also interesting what you said "...you're actually trying to associate that discomfort with a reward..." 

I wonder if K9 training works similarly where the work is the reward (as can happen, especially if the work speaks to the breeds instincts and purpose or with any activity that's well conditioned and rewarded but it seems like a self-rewarding factor is at work here that might not be in "normal" training). Or it's why "correction training" is used - not so much to "force the dog", but to get the dog used to working through and in spite of an aversive situation and keep his head in the game, so to speak.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

packetsmom said:


> My dog is like this. I was working with him on leash and he kept getting distracted and even annoyed when I would try to regain his attention with treats. A more experience handler observed, "You're nagging him and it's annoying him. I think he'd rather you just corrected him and got on with it." I gave him a leash correction and then rewarded for a command immediately after and he seemed a LOT less frustrated and we were able to continue on with training with positive reinforcement. The handler said, "A strong, decisive correction is a lot better than a lot of nagging small ones or even just nagging commands. It's less frustrating to the dog and less confusing."


This is a good point, too. 

Your feedback was clear after the handler's suggestion, and the dog got it and you gave feedback for that, too.

Makes sense to me, even if you don't use +P. Redirection, no-reward markers, etc. A "yes" signal and a "no" signal. Just seems like the "no" is always focused around "traditional" corrections so they seem "harsh" although there's tons of options (of course, same could be said where "yes" is always treats when it could be play or the work itself if the dog is so inclined).


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

For those interested, Steve White is turning out great stuff. His seminar, How Police Training Techniques Can Transform your Everyday Training, is worth the time.
http://www.dogwise.com/ItemDetails.cfm?ID=DTB946

He is a positive reinforcement trainer.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I don't want to totally come off as anti positive. there are some very gifted positive based trainers out there. I may disagree with aspects of some who preach but they are talented and have added a great deal of knowledge to training.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Many LE handlers are training using more and more positive. There is almost no reason to use corrections in detection training. Withholding reward is all that is needed if you select the right dog.

With apprehension and protection however, some dogs who are possessive will not out for a reward, as their ultimate reward is that bite. One of my dutch/mals is this way. Even during detection, when she gets her reward, no positive methods that i have found work. I can either do a harsh correction, or end the game, which in real life is not feasible. So I use a break stick (at this point it can even be a thick grass blade). The drive these dogs possess is unbelievable.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> If I could verbalize his internal dialogue, it might have been, "Dang it woman, quit nagging me and just show me what you want!!! Otherwise, I'm going to stare at that other dog because it's more interesting."


I've been told similar, and have experienced it. If a correction is going to be used, don't nag. Although what might be nagging to one dog is like a fist to the ribs for another....so that has to be VERY carefully taken into account, also to take into account is level of drive, if a dog is hyper and excited, or working hard, like a dog in Schutzhund holding the sleeve for example, many won't freak out because of the baton, but if you touched them with the baton with the same force while they were say....sitting watching grass grow, then it would be something else all together too much.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Greater Swiss said:


> I've been told similar, and have experienced it. If a correction is going to be used, don't nag. Although what might be nagging to one dog is like a fist to the ribs for another....so that has to be VERY carefully taken into account, also to take into account is level of drive, if a dog is hyper and excited, or working hard, like a dog in Schutzhund holding the sleeve for example, many won't freak out because of the baton, but if you touched them with the baton with the same force while they were say....sitting watching grass grow, then it would be something else all together too much.


The way I think about it is about human sports. If I were inclined to play rugby, I bet I would probably ignore a pretty hard hit because I'd be so focused on whatever it is rugby players do to win a game. However, if I were at work and a coworker slammed into me with similar force, I'm betting I would let out a string of words unfit for human ears as well as be very upset about it. Our brains also process pain differently depending on what all we're doing. I've hurt myself doing things active in ways that left big bruises, but yet later wondered where the heck they came from, not even remembering what the cause was, but then I've ran into a table at low speed when I wasn't expecting it and it hurt like crazy and didn't leave half the bruise.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

That's where using corrections does get tricky... they have to be done appropriate to the state the dog is in, NOT the state we THINK the dog is in, correct what the DOG thinks it is doing, not what WE think it is doing...plus timing has to be just right. That's where things can be damaging too....I mean if a correction is done too strong (or too nagging for that matter), or at the wrong time it can really make a horrible impact on a dog, and create some major problems. That's the biggest reason that I completely understand why people are (and very well should be) reluctant or even unwilling to suggest any kind of punishment (aversive punishment) on a forum like this. Positive advice makes complete sense, because really, the worst you can do is make your dog fat, or accidentally reinforce the wrong thing.
Overall....I don't think it is a good idea to swing a 2x4 when a tap on the shoulder will do, sometimes withholding a treat is tap on the shoulder enough for many dogs....heh, then there are the dogs that wouldn't even notice a 2x4.


----------



## MaDeuce (Sep 5, 2013)

juliemule said:


> Many LE handlers are training using more and more positive. There is almost no reason to use corrections in detection training. Withholding reward is all that is needed if you select the right dog.
> 
> With apprehension and protection however, some dogs who are possessive will not out for a reward, as their ultimate reward is that bite. One of my dutch/mals is this way. Even during detection, when she gets her reward, no positive methods that i have found work. I can either do a harsh correction, or end the game, which in real life is not feasible. So I use a break stick (at this point it can even be a thick grass blade). The drive these dogs possess is unbelievable.


Ditto. I have one like that too. Thankfully she did learn the out. She will not do it for anyone else and best is when you let her drop it so she cannot self reward. Even when you stop the game with the tug, you would stand there for an hour for her to let go. However, she will drop it on the ground. 
I do not like constant conflict at all. So I am glad there is none for the out. Once in her life she had an e collar on. It was a very low stimulation. One I barely could feel. It felt like the electrodes I get in my back for massaging. 
Anyhow, that low stimulation is what her teach the out. 
My friend had a finger stuck between a ball and her mouth...with a crazy driven and fast dog, there is no compromize. Only black and white. If you compromize, people get hurt! 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## luv mi pets (Feb 5, 2012)

To me training is a balancing act. Too much either way, throws the balance off and the dog stops listening. I find what works for me and the dogs is a little positive mixed with a correction when it is needed. Who does like to be nagged at. I don't, tell me what you want in a clear way and I will do it. Dogs seems to react the same way. 
It is not until you own one of those crazy possessed dogs that are so focused in training that you understand sugar coating training can get you into trouble. I found this out when I went to a trainer who would get calls from owners who had too much dog to handle and this guy would take them in. His kennel always had a Rottweiler and a Mal in it for 'boot camp.' He had a Briard there one time. That dog was plain just crazy. This guy did a wonderful job with that dog when it was all through with the program. I never did witness a cowering dog. I saw dogs who would not listen turn into dogs that listened, obeyed and seemed to enjoy it.


The pack thing. Just get through the door so I can shut it. The flies are inviting themselves in. The eating first. Not here. It is a free for all and those that linger miss out.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

luv mi pets said:


> To me training is a balancing act. Too much either way, throws the balance off and the dog stops listening. I find what works for me and the dogs is a little positive mixed with a correction when it is needed. Who does like to be nagged at. I don't, tell me what you want in a clear way and I will do it. Dogs seems to react the same way.
> It is not until you own one of those crazy possessed dogs that are so focused in training that you understand sugar coating training can get you into trouble. I found this out when I went to a trainer who would get calls from owners who had too much dog to handle and this guy would take them in. His kennel always had a Rottweiler and a Mal in it for 'boot camp.' He had a Briard there one time. That dog was plain just crazy. This guy did a wonderful job with that dog when it was all through with the program. I never did witness a cowering dog. I saw dogs who would not listen turn into dogs that listened, obeyed and seemed to enjoy it.
> 
> 
> The pack thing. Just get through the door so I can shut it. The flies are inviting themselves in. The eating first. Not here. It is a free for all and those that linger miss out.


I really need a new monitor. I thought the dogs in your sig were bed bugs.


----------

