# Curious



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

Poco, my Grandmother's Sheltie, learned from this place and he was one of the most obedient dogs I ever knew and I'm not just saying that because Poco was family. So after the dreadful training at PetsMart we had with Luke, I decided to take him to Nora's Dog Training Center. 

I did do research on the center (from what I could) and so Luke went there. While I wasn't a fan of everything she did, he did learn well there. So in Feb, when I went to the Boardwalk KC Dog Show, I asked another trainer there what he thought of her because he's heard of her. At first he wasn't too keen on saying what he thought, but I was curious and told him so.

So he cringed and said, "Well...I wouldn't have taken my dog there."  

So am asking again out of pure curiosity...what do you think of her methods?
http://norasdogtrainingcompany.com/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> You must catch the bad behavior in the act and correct them. Always praise good behavior. Nora uses praise, not food as a motivator. In some cases with puppies food is used, but only temporarily. Dogs love structure


Correct the dog in the act *how*? NOPE. Praising good behavior's nice and all but Praise isn't something most dogs work for. You sure as heck can't load a clicker with praise. 'Dogs love structure' may be true if they're talking about schedules and routine. It is not true if we're talking about 'authority' and 'respect' and 'rigid rules'. All of this after 'never punish'? Yeah, no. I promise that correction is some kind of aversive.



> Dogs don't forget what they have been taught once it's been taught to them.


/Snort.



> Q: I live far away from your school and would prefer not to drive that distance for my dog to get trained.
> A: Not to worry … Nora's Dog Training Company offers an optional round-trip transportation program for your dog so that you don’t have to travel at all. We will arrive at your door and pick-up your dog, transport them safely to school, and then return them back to your home after he/she has successfully completed our training program.
> 
> and
> ...


I don't trust ANYWHERE that does this board and train thing. That's just - No. Especially not as in the previous section they're talking about how most problem issues coming from inconsistency in the owners.



> Therefore we have found over years of dog training experience that the most effective training method is positive reinforcement – Not food or treats!


ORLY? Even IF the dog worked for praise, it is not likely working for the praise of somebody it has never met before and knows for a whole 2 weeks! In a strange environment!

Overall, this place sounds like an absolute typical 'old school' dog training place (e-collar, maybe? I'm not honestly sure what they've got going on, but I'm sure the alternative to getting praise is really unpleasant) and no, I would not go near it with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

First I'll say that I really don't like the idea of any kind of board and train, unless it is a behaviorist who is dealing with some specific significant problems that will take a fair bit of daily work (and even then I'm a little suspicious, but can see why it might be easier/better to do a board and train in that situation). That said, I won't bash anyone who really wants to do board and train (at a good facility), to each their own I guess....just something I wouldn't do. I think the owner is too important to the training to cut out of the equation. I also just don't trust someone to treat my dog the way I would, or that the things they are training would be tailored to the way I live or want to live with my dog...just me though. 

On first glance they don't look bad, then I noticed one thing in particular that REALLY jumped out at me (same as one thing Cpt Jack picked up on):


> the most effective training method is positive reinforcement – Not food or treats!


In your shoes, if I had been considering doing it with these people...this statement would make me RUN. To start with, positive reinforcement is something that (IMO) can and should include food and treats (if the dog responds to that). Not all dogs work on praise alone (which I assume, if their statements about no punishment are true, that means they are working on praise alone), so they are using a "one size fits all" method, using just praise (still making that assumption). My dog isn't someone else's dog, and in terms of Caeda, I KNOW she won't work for just praise alone, especially if one expected results in any timely manner. I wouldn't take Caeda there (perhaps for a training class with them, with me there, but I certainly wouldn't hand her over!).

That makes me not trust them, and makes me question every statement about not using punishment, treating the dogs fantastically, etc. I would personally make a point of dropping in unannounced to see how things are going if I used them, or maybe even spend an entire day there to watch (if that isn't allowed, I'd run away even faster personally!). It is great that the dog that went through this program was an excellently behaved dog, but I can't help but question why.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

I don't know a thing about this training school or their methods. But it's possible they're not big on using food because they've seen a lot of people have trouble "fading" food in training, or never getting past luring. Experienced trainers know how to do this, but novice dog owners tend to get stuck at the "He won't do anything unless I'm waving food in his face" stage. They may stress praising the dog as a way around this problem; if you're not using food, the dog can't get dependent on it. And you always have your voice with you to praise, whereas most people don't walk around with pockets full of cheese and hot dogs at all times.

I'm not saying I agree with this; I use tons of food in training. But at some point you have to learn how to stop using it as a visible lure and use it as a reward instead, and many people have a very hard time with this. 

Or, maybe the school is just a really bad one using outmoded training concepts. Don't know.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shep said:


> I don't know a thing about this training school or their methods. But it's possible they're not big on using food because they've seen a lot of people have trouble "fading" food in training, or never getting past luring. Experienced trainers know how to do this, but novice dog owners tend to get stuck at the "He won't do anything unless I'm waving food in his face" stage. They may stress praising the dog as a way around this problem; if you're not using food, the dog can't get dependent on it. And you always have your voice with you to praise, whereas most people don't walk around with pockets full of cheese and hot dogs at all times.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with this; I use tons of food in training. But at some point you have to learn how to stop using it as a visible lure and use it as a reward instead, and many people have a very hard time with this.
> 
> Or, maybe the school is just a really bad one using outmoded training concepts. Don't know.



Yeah, at some point you have to STOP. But these people have the dogs 2 weeks, total. In a boarding facilitiy. How much do you think they're accomplishing there without punishment OR food/treats even to start? Praise from a veritable stranger? No. If they're really not using food rewards, then they're using corrections. Which they admit. But that's not punishment, according to them.

I'm kinda wondering if they're an e-collar place at this point. Not that I think e-collars are the devil (have them, use them occasionally), but I wouldn't want it for separation anxiety, housebreaking, and sit. Especially not sneakily done, while calling themselves positive trainers.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

I just read the OP's post again, and...well, whatever they're doing, it seems to work. She says Poco was "one of the most obedient dogs I ever knew" and Luke "learned well there." As I said, I like to use lots of food (and toys, and praise) in training. This place doesn't, but apparently they're doing something right. 

I don't know, I'm probably old-fashioned, but to me the proof is in the pudding. I can't imagine sending my dog away for training. To me, the fun is in doing it myself. But if I ever did send a dog away, and he came back well-trained, I'd be happy. Unless of course, the dog also came back cringing and frightened and traumatized, and the OP didn't mention that happening.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shep said:


> I just read the OP's post again, and...well, whatever they're doing, it seems to work. She says Poco was "one of the most obedient dogs I ever knew" and Luke "learned well there." As I said, I like to use lots of food (and toys, and praise) in training. This place doesn't, but apparently they're doing something right.
> 
> I don't know, I'm probably old-fashioned, but to me the proof is in the pudding. I can't imagine sending my dog away for training. To me, the fun is in doing it myself. But if I ever did send a dog away, and he came back well-trained, I'd be happy. Unless of course, the dog also came back cringing and frightened and traumatized, and the OP didn't mention that happening.



For me proof is in the pudding, too (I use corrections, I use prongs, I use ecollars and no reward markers)- 

But that doesn't stop with obedience and not cringing. There has to be more to it than that, for me to get what I want with my dogs. That means the dog not only learns, it is HAPPY to learn, enjoys learning, and considers learning a game. 

Also honesty. Honesty's important. This place doesn't sound honest. They're a business. Lying to your customers isn't a good thing, and I can't come up with a single thing that will get you from 'positive' to 'we use corrections and never use food or treats, just praise' without lying about something.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

I am going to admit I trained my first dog with a choke chain and praise only (I might have used some of her food or treats really early on but I don't think much). I was 9-10 at the time using old books and whatever my parents would buy to train her. I never used anything more negative than the choke chain. She was one of the best trained dogs I've met (yes I'm sure being mine made me biased but she could hold a stay while I left the room and strangers walked around her, she could walk through a crowded city at formal heel, she was good). Sometimes while I am working with my dogs now I find myself very frustrated using clicker training and getting so so results when I had much better results with my first dog. I have to just keep telling myself that she was just easier to train and they will get it eventually or I will go crazy.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Shep said:


> I just read the OP's post again, and...well, whatever they're doing, it seems to work. She says Poco was "one of the most obedient dogs I ever knew" and Luke "learned well there." As I said, I like to use lots of food (and toys, and praise) in training. This place doesn't, but apparently they're doing something right.
> 
> I don't know, I'm probably old-fashioned, but to me the proof is in the pudding. I can't imagine sending my dog away for training. To me, the fun is in doing it myself. But if I ever did send a dog away, and he came back well-trained, I'd be happy. Unless of course, the dog also came back cringing and frightened and traumatized, and the OP didn't mention that happening.


The ends justify the means? Really?

So the fact that my dog was utterly broken when I got him is okay because he's obedient? The fact that cringed and froze when I said sit is okay because he doesnt pee on the rug? The fact that I will never get him okay enough to do agility because he simply won't offer behaviors is just fine? 

Okay, then.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Remaru said:


> I am going to admit I trained my first dog with a choke chain and praise only (I might have used some of her food or treats really early on but I don't think much). I was 9-10 at the time using old books and whatever my parents would buy to train her. I never used anything more negative than the choke chain. She was one of the best trained dogs I've met (yes I'm sure being mine made me biased but she could hold a stay while I left the room and strangers walked around her, she could walk through a crowded city at formal heel, she was good). Sometimes while I am working with my dogs now I find myself very frustrated using clicker training and getting so so results when I had much better results with my first dog. I have to just keep telling myself that she was just easier to train and they will get it eventually or I will go crazy.




A lot of it's just DOGS and individuality. Don't get me wrong, I have used aversive methods to get Thud to loose leash walk at all (though he's awesome off leash at at formal heel) and used some HARSH aversives to develop a forever fear of something -snakes - for all the dogs, though that's deliberately setting up a negative association I know I dont' want to ever, ever stop. Making the dog afraid of something is not generally helpful in most training. 

Kylie can stay 200 yards away from me, perform every command she knows at that distance, will walk at a formal heel past any and all distractions or situations, and knows literally dozens and dozens of tricks - on top of doing agility. She is the best trained dogs I've ever owned, or seen. The most aversive thing I've ever used with her, outside snake training, is a no reward marker. She's just SMART, biddable and has good focus. 

Dogs just... vary. I wouldn't write off aversives if I needed htem for a particular issue and particular dog, but I wouldn't assume they'd make training any easier, either. In some cases it can make it a lot worse. Jack has never had more than a 'NO" and compulsion training (being put into the physical position you want - like pushing on the dog's butt and saying sit then giving a treat) and he's so shut down and hates training so much that it's taken us two years to teach him 'sit' and 'down'. He's not stupid. He hates training and was shut down. It took him the better part of a year to learn no.

One size does NOT fit all for all dogs and all situations and all training methods.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

Amaryllis said:


> The ends justify the means? Really?
> 
> So the fact that my dog was utterly broken when I got him is okay because he's obedient? The fact that cringed and froze when I said sit is okay because he doesnt pee on the rug? The fact that I will never get him okay enough to do agility because he simply won't offer behaviors is just fine?
> 
> Okay, then.


Um...I thought I said cringing was NOT okay. It certainly isn't. I would burst into tears if my dogs ever cringed away from me, and seeing any dog shut down is heartbreaking. No, the end does not justify the means. I want my dogs to be well-trained and HAPPY. You can train a dog to sit by luring with food every single time you ask it to sit for its whole life, and I suppose you can train it to sit by hitting it in the butt with a club, too (never tried that way). For heaven's sake, it doesn't have to be all one way or the other.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shep said:


> Um...I thought I said cringing was NOT okay. It certainly isn't. I would burst into tears if my dogs ever cringed away from me, and seeing any dog shut down is heartbreaking. No, the end does not justify the means. I want my dogs to be well-trained and HAPPY. You can train a dog to sit by luring with food every single time you ask it to sit for its whole life, and I suppose you can train it to sit by hitting in the butt with a club, too (never tried that way). For heaven's sake, it doesn't have to be all one way or the other.


Um. No. You don't train sit by luring with food every time. Nobody does that. Some people have trouble fading the lure and food sometimes, but the dog itself will generally work that one out by putting the verbal with the action pretty danged quick. (I have never, ever, seen this done, advised or suggested.)

And I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you, but I'm really sick and tired of people making these stupid assumptions about training with food - like the dog will only work if you have food, it sees food, or it gets food and isn't going to learn to pair command or signal with action as a means of getting the food and then putting the food on a variable reward schedule. It's NOT common for people to skip that step, just because of the way life works and it's certainly not how people who are training their dogs using food are doing it.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

CptJack said:


> For me proof is in the pudding, too (I use corrections, I use prongs, I use ecollars and no reward markers)-
> 
> But that doesn't stop with obedience and not cringing. There has to be more to it than that, for me to get what I want with my dogs. That means the dog not only learns, it is HAPPY to learn, enjoys learning, and considers learning a game.
> 
> Also honesty. Honesty's important. This place doesn't sound honest. They're a business. Lying to your customers isn't a good thing, and I can't come up with a single thing that will get you from 'positive' to 'we use corrections and never use food or treats, just praise' without lying about something.


I absolutely agree with you. I want a happy dog who is well-trained and enjoys learning. The last thing I want is a dog who does everything I say with his tail tucked and his ears pinned. And I don't know, maybe that's what the OP's dog did when he came back from this place. She didn't say what his attitude was, just that he was well-trained. If the school is turning out well-trained dogs who are traumatized, then obviously it's a bad school.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shep said:


> I absolutely agree with you. I want a happy dog who is well-trained and enjoys learning. The last thing I want is a dog who does everything I say with his tail tucked and his ears pinned. And I don't know, maybe that's what the OP's dog did when he came back from this place. She didn't say what his attitude was, just that he was well-trained. If the school is turning out well-trained dogs who are traumatized, then obviously it's a bad school.


Well, even if they're not traumatizing most of the dogs...

What are they actually doing? Do you see my difficulty figuring this out? "We train positively, but use corrections and only sometimes use food for young puppies, otherwise it's praise." What's the correction? What are you doing for dogs who don't care about your praise? There's a MAJOR disconnect in there that makes me go "Nope." and 'Pass" because it DOESN"T MAKE ANY SENSE and either they're lying outright, hiding what they actually do, or they have a high failure rate. If they dont' have a high failure rate: see 1 and 2. What are the corrections and what ist he handling of dogs who don't work from praise from somebody they just met? Never mind getting a well trained dog back in 2 weeks? Sometimes, with minor issues, maybe. Otherwise, something is going on that they're deliberately glossing over. I wouldn't care if they used choke chains, leash corrections or an e-collar, but they're not owning SOMETHING that they're doing and that makes me nope right the heck out.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Um. No. You don't train sit by luring with food every time. Nobody does that. Some people have trouble fading the lure and food sometimes, but the dog itself will generally work that one out by putting the verbal with the action pretty danged quick. (I have never, ever, seen this done, advised or suggested.)
> 
> And I'm sorry, I'm not picking on you, but I'm really sick and tired of people making these stupid assumptions about training with food - like the dog will only work if you have food, it sees food, or it gets food and isn't going to learn to pair command or signal with action as a means of getting the food and then putting the food on a variable reward schedule. It's NOT common for people to skip that step, just because of the way life works and it's certainly not how people who are training their dogs using food are doing it.


SIGH. I was trying to make a point. I KNOW no one lures a dog with food its whole life to get it to sit. I KNOW that. I don't think anyone hits dogs with clubs to make them sit, either, though many people certainly use harsh methods. I was simply trying to make the point that there is a middle ground between purely positive and purely aversive training. Amaryllis accused me of thinking that anything is okay as long as the dog gets trained. It isn't. You don't have to depend totally on food forever, but the sole alternative to that is not being a monster who likes to traumatize dogs. There is a middle ground, as I know you know, but some other people don't seem to.

I should know better by now than to ever, ever get into any thread on training methods. Ever, ever.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shep said:


> SIGH. I was trying to make a point. I KNOW no one lures a dog with food its whole life to get it to sit. I KNOW that. I don't think anyone hits dogs with clubs to make them sit, either, though many people certainly use harsh methods. I was simply trying to make the point that there is a middle ground between purely positive and purely aversive training. Amaryllis accused me of thinking that anything is okay as long as the dog gets trained. It isn't. You don't have to depend totally on food forever, but the sole alternative to that is not being a monster who likes to traumatize dogs. There is a middle ground, as I know you know, but some other people don't seem to.
> 
> I should know better by now than to ever, ever get into any thread on training methods. Ever, ever.


Well given that I started this saying that I use prongs, an e-collar, no reward markers and the odd leash correction.... and you keep avoiding the part where what I'm saying the problem with the place is in honesty and seeming lack of it.

Maybe the problem's not onesided.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Well given that I started this saying that I use prongs, an e-collar, no reward markers and the odd leash correction.... and you keep avoiding the part where what I'm saying the problem with the place is in honesty and seeming lack of it.
> 
> Maybe the problem's not onesided.


I'm not avoiding that part, or at least I didn't mean to be. I agree that the school should be a lot more direct about its methods. Actually, I think there should be a lot more honesty about dog training in general. I sometimes feel like almost every professional trainer lies to the public. Many claim to be "purely positive" when they certainly are not. Others say food is useless, and all any dog needs is a few hard pops on a choke chain. Then there's Cesar Milan, who says if you just have the right "energy" everything's cool. The world of dog training is filled with lies, half-truths, and people who say one thing and do another.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

CptJack said:


> A lot of it's just DOGS and individuality. Don't get me wrong, I have used aversive methods to get Thud to loose leash walk at all (though he's awesome off leash at at formal heel) and used some HARSH aversives to develop a forever fear of something -snakes - for all the dogs, though that's deliberately setting up a negative association I know I dont' want to ever, ever stop.


 I'm in agreement, and I've done the same thing with Caeda. I have no problem with careful and deliberate use of aversives. But a question for everybody (or at least those that aren't completely against aversives), how would you all feel about someone else using them on your dog? Curious to know what you think Cpt Jack, since we seem to be on similar ground when it comes to aversive use. I don't know about you, but there is ONE person other than myself that has touched an e collar controller for the collar Caeda wears, and that is DH and he knows well how to use it with her (though when it comes to actual training with it, he leaves that to me), I wouldn't let anyone (without my supervision especially) use any aversives on Caeda or any other dog I'll own. Especially a place that seems to be a bit of a one-size-fits-all training factory.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Greater Swiss said:


> I'm in agreement, and I've done the same thing with Caeda. I have no problem with careful and deliberate use of aversives. But a question for everybody (or at least those that aren't completely against aversives), how would you all feel about someone else using them on your dog? Curious to know what you think Cpt Jack, since we seem to be on similar ground when it comes to aversive use. I don't know about you, but there is ONE person other than myself that has touched an e collar controller for the collar Caeda wears, and that is DH and he knows well how to use it with her (though when it comes to actual training with it, he leaves that to me), I wouldn't let anyone (without my supervision especially) use any aversives on Caeda or any other dog I'll own. Especially a place that seems to be a bit of a one-size-fits-all training factory.


I would break somebody's FACE if they used an aversive on my dog. I use them in very, very, limited circumstances and for very, VERY specific issues. Somebody else deliberately using one on my dog for anything outside those very limited circumstances would absolutely enrage me. And there's no need for anybody else to be using them WITHIN those limited circumstances, since they're that specific. 

This does not apply to somebody who is protecting themselves or their dog (though this isn't an issue with my dog) but trying to train them with aversives? NOPE. My call when, and how, and IF they are going to be used. I don't trust them that much with my dog, and unlike positive training there CAN be serious damaging fallout.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I would break somebody's FACE if they used an aversive on my dog.................This does not apply to somebody who is protecting themselves or their dog (though this isn't an issue with my dog) but trying to train them with aversives? NOPE. My call when, and how, and IF they are going to be used. I don't trust them that much with my dog, and unlike positive training there CAN be serious damaging fallout.


Yeah, we are very much on the same page. If a bit of roughness is called for because my dog is being really difficult and I'm not there I'll accept it (which with me isn't too much of an issue either), but otherwise, absolutely not. I didn't even let others at Schutzhund touch Caeda's leash to demonstrate something, yeah, she had the prong on, yeah, I used it once or twice (under direction, in ways I did not like and did not continue), but I wasn't about to let someone else do it! The "trainer" at the doggy social we used to go to had a habit of twisting that flesh just in front of the rear leg to get a dog's attention who was misbehaving (I've said before, I wasn't a huge fan of that trainer, but options were limited). I wanted to get nasty at her for doing that to Caeda one time, would have if Caeda hadn't dealt with it herself (no broken skin, but a warning), I guess aversives worked on that trainer because she did eventually stop doing it to Caeda.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

*Cpt.Jack:* 
'Dogs love structure' may be true if they're talking about schedules and routine. 
^They are. All of us have a sit down and they discuss what they do with your dog. 

All of this after 'never punish'? 
^They do correct dogs. They give you a cd to show you how to continue when you go home and when you're there (when you go to pick up your dog) they show you how to correct your dog.

/Snort.
^I'm curious as to why you did that. Dogs do remember what commands they were taught. 

Especially not as in the previous section they're talking about how most problem issues coming from inconsistency in the owners.
^Maybe that's what they've seen?

Overall, this place sounds like an absolute typical 'old school' dog training place 
^No, it's not old school. They do do positive reinforcement and update you on how your dog is doing. The only thing I didn't like about it was they used choker chains. 

I'm kinda wondering if they're an e-collar place at this point.
^No e-collars, just choker chains. 

This place doesn't sound honest.
^They are when you meet them. Perhaps their website is out of date? 

like the dog will only work if you have food
^But that is how the PetsMart dogs work. I had a hell of a time breaking that with Luke and I'm serious when I say Luke didn't do a single command unless I gave him food. That's why I'm not a fan of people using treats as solely their ONLY way of training. And I know all dogs are different when it comes to training. 

What are the corrections 
^They give a short tug to the leash to correct and if I'm remembering, saying "no" too. 

Never mind getting a well trained dog back in 2 weeks? 
^If the dog isn't ready, they don't send them back in 2wks, they'll tell the owner and keep them longer. 

They do say you can go back if a problem arises, but I've decided to do it on my own. Not that there's anything wrong right now, but they were expensive and I don't want Luke away again. But as a young person just coming off PetsMart training and knowing that Poco was excellent coming off of there, can you see my train of thought? And keep in mind, Luke is my first dog. 

*Greater Swiss:*
makes me question every statement about not using punishment,
^Believe me, they correct those dogs with a tug to the leash. I've seen the trainer do it to Luke when he was acting up.

It is great that the dog that went through this program was an excellently behaved dog, but I can't help but question why. 
^Well Poco was very bright, perhaps that's why. ??

*Shep:*
Experienced trainers know how to do this, but novice dog owners tend to get stuck at the "He won't do anything unless I'm waving food in his face" stage.
^Yes! That's where I was! I couldn't get Luke to do anything without giving him a treat; it was so hard to reverse this when PetsMart was just treat this and that. 

I can't imagine sending my dog away for training. To me, the fun is in doing it myself.
^I trained Luke before taking him to PetsMart. PetsMart was a joke and I was trying to think of some other way to train him since I don't do it professionally. So we remembered where Poco went, researched that, and went there. I wasn't fond of leaving him either, but it sounded like the best thing at the time. 

If the school is turning out well-trained dogs who are traumatized, then obviously it's a bad school. 
^I haven't heard any one saying their dogs were traumatized after coming home, Luke certainly wasn't. And they're on Facebook too, so I see comments there all the time, never bad ones either. 

*Remaru:*
I find myself very frustrated using clicker training
^That's how PetsMart was and after that, I had the hardest time weening Luke off treats. It annoyed me, so when this place said they don't use it (only sometimes if I'm remembering correctly) I was pleased.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> ^No, it's not old school. They do do positive reinforcement and update you on how your dog is doing. The only thing I didn't like about it was they used choker chains.





> ^They give a short tug to the leash to correct and if I'm remembering, saying "no" too.


 Tugging the leash / saying no, and using praise-only for the 'positive reinforcement' part, IS old school training. In fact that's about as old school as it gets.



> ^No e-collars, just choker chains.


 There's not much difference between an e collar and a choke chain, fundamentally speaking. Just that one uses batteries and the other is 'powered' by manual means. Both work on the exact same principles and serve the same purpose. The danger of fallout is equal between the two.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I use a lot of treats training Kris but the one fun match I had her in, which was judged the way you would at an Obedience trial, she went through the whole course without a single treat so I cannot really understand how you get a dog that only works if you have a treat in their face. The same with Agility, when you first start, you reward heavily, then gradually ask for more before you treat and it has never been a problem.

Maybe because I started out many long years ago training dogs when you just used a choke collar and praise, not treats, I expect my dog to do what I ask without having treats in their face, giving treats just makes them happier to work for me but are not necessary once they have learned a command. They still get a treat but not every time.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Yes, you have to fade out treats. The agility thing is a good example. Summer and I were at a trial this weekend and so no treats in the ring at all. She has to do all 17-18 obstacles without any reward (and preferably run fairly fast and listen to my handling cues). Point being it's a lot of stuff for the dog to do in a highly distracting environment with no leash as a 'safety net'. But you don't start there. You start with one thing at a time and you reward heavily. Then you vary things up. They do two jumps before getting a treat, etc. You want the work to eventually be its own reward.

Any dog training works the same way. You have to start small then build up distractions/complexities and you have to vary and fade the reward. Or else you're going to end up with a dog that doesn't sit unless you have the treat, etc.

I think that site is a bit.... dishonest if they're saying they don't punish the dogs but then they use choke chains and leash corrections. A punishment is just something that lessens the unwanted behavior. A leash correction is a punishment. I feel like they're skirting around the less favorable sounding words to try to appeal to clients. Just call it what it is imo.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Oh and personally I am VERY skeptical of the 'we don't ever use treats' people. To me it speaks to a fundamental gap in dog training knowledge. Praise only as a reward just makes me wonder whyyy.

Also just throwing this out there but shelties tend to be pretty easy to train dogs. They're also typically pretty soft so in my experience they're a breed that can care a lot about corrections and also praise. Other dogs and breeds... not so much. My shelties were very well behaved but they came by that naturally and not because of any specific training. Mia on the other hand needs a much more substantial reinforcer than praise. Praise on its own is not meaningless per say but it's not going to have any lasting effect.

I also think using Petsmart as the example of 'positive dog training' is a bit... er... limited. Some petsmarts have great trainers and to be fair one of my favorite local trainers who has awesome dogs started as a petsmart trainer. But most good trainers move on and open up their own place.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

*petpeeve:*
There's not much difference between an e collar and a choke chain, 
^I thought the e-collar was an Elizabethan collar? And I don't use the choke chain although they do, when I got Luke home, he was taken off the choke chain within a week I would say. 

*Laurelin:*
A leash correction is a punishment.
^Maybe they think people think punishment means abuse? I know it's crazy, but maybe some people think this way. ?? 

Also just throwing this out there but shelties tend to be pretty easy to train dogs. 
^That's interesting, I didn't know that. Thank you for teaching me something.

Some petsmarts have great trainers
^No you're right, they do. I bet there are some awesome trainers at PetsMart, but the one we went to was horrible. The ones in NJ seem to be horrible b/c everyone I talk to that went to a NJ PetsMart didn't like the trainers there.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> Overall, this place sounds like an absolute typical 'old school' dog training place
> ^No, it's not old school. They do do positive reinforcement and update you on how your dog is doing.


So....what positive reinforcers are they offering? They've already said they don't do treats....do they use toys? What is it they are using for positive reinforcement. The only reinfocer I've heard directly used in conjunction with these guys is choke chain, and no treats, and the implied use of praise.



Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> It is great that the dog that went through this program was an excellently behaved dog, but I can't help but question why.
> ^Well Poco was very bright, perhaps that's why. ??


I wouldn't debate that Poco is bright, but what about the less bright dogs.....or those that are very food driven and would get results better with some training that started with treats (faded out eventually of course). The less bright dogs, or the ones that don't respond as well to praise will be corrected with the choke collar more often (perhaps constantly on some counts). It just seems like a miserable way to learn. Some dogs would absolutely do fine and thrive great in that environment and situations, others I can see getting shut down. So perhaps a great school for some dogs, but very bad for others. 



petpeeve said:


> Tugging the leash / saying no, and using praise-only for the 'positive reinforcement' part, IS old school training. In fact that's about as old school as it gets.


 Completely agree there!


One thing about the PetSmart trainers and the treat use....the training there was bad because they didn't teach how to fade out the treats, probably didn't even mention it. I learned to clicker/marker train Caeda myself, quite successfully (not an expert trainer, never even trained a dog until her!), and for the commands she knows treats aren't required for her to perform (though I still give them occasionally, sometimes she just does awesome and deserves a reward for that!). Treats don't have to be in the dog's face, except perhaps early on in training a behavior using luring.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

E-collars in this context are electronic collars (zap collars), not elizabethan collars, which are used for post-op wound protection not training. So, yeah, no fundamental difference between an e-collar and a choker, except that pressing a zap button is easier than yanking a choke chain, so is more prone to causing ego-related zapping. Not that it never happens with chokers :/.

But, yes, I'm very much wondering what they use for "positive reinforcement" if treats are not used. A dog does not care if a stranger says "good dog". And shouldn't care. Unless they've learned that a stranger saying "good dog" means they aren't going to get yanked. While I guess a lot of people are fine with that kind of training, it's very dishonest for them to say they're using positive reinforcement.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm highly distrustful of board-and-trains. I'm sure there are good ones, but I lack the trust needed to hand my dog over to stranger for a few weeks with no real idea of their methods. 

I had taken Chester for a training class that was "positive reinforcement", mainly as something to do indoors during the winter. There were treats and praise and flat collars (or he wore his usual harness) and the human/dog interaction seemed fine. They also did board-and-train and claimed the exact same methods for those dogs. Except that once behind closed doors, it was shock collars and HARD leash corrections and basically enough punishment to shut the dogs down into being well behaved when the owners returned. To the point that some dogs were returned almost starved from not eating due to stress and in the worst case? A dog ended up dead. 

There's another trainer around here that is upfront about corrections, using chokes and prongs but with more moderation and the full knowledge of the owner. Not a class I want to take Chester to, but people know what they are getting and can make an informed decision.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Kyllobernese said:


> I use a lot of treats training Kris but the one fun match I had her in, which was judged the way you would at an Obedience trial, she went through the whole course without a single treat so I cannot really understand how you get a dog that only works if you have a treat in their face. The same with Agility, when you first start, you reward heavily, then gradually ask for more before you treat and it has never been a problem.
> 
> Maybe because I started out many long years ago training dogs when you just used a choke collar and praise, not treats, I expect my dog to do what I ask without having treats in their face, giving treats just makes them happier to work for me but are not necessary once they have learned a command. They still get a treat but not every time.


This is the struggle I am in with Remus right now. Admittedly Remus has many difficulties and this is not the only one but he will not work unless there is something in it for him. When he realizes you have nothing to give him but praise or "a job well done" he stops working and leaves. We are well past the learning stage, he has known "sit" for example, for over a year now. He just refuses to do it if there is no treat forth coming. I have tried the normal phasing out methods, tried intermittent rewarding or "jackpots" but nothing seems to work for him. I'm not saying positive reinforcement doesn't work, I have Duke who will work for nothing. Just knowing that I will pat him on the head and tell him he is a good boy is enough for him. Getting a treat one out of ten times is enough for him. He knows dozens of "tricks" (he is task trained to manage my youngest son who has special needs) some he taught himself and has never been actually rewarded for and sometimes punished for by a flailing angry child. He does his job stoically with a reward here and there when it occurs to me to work with him (I should really be better to him but he is cuddle driven more than anything). I'm beginning to think I have a broken dog because this should be so simple but it doesn't work right with him (and I have done this before, I'm doing it right now with another dog, it's just him).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Remaru said:


> This is the struggle I am in with Remus right now. Admittedly Remus has many difficulties and this is not the only one but he will not work unless there is something in it for him. When he realizes you have nothing to give him but praise or "a job well done" he stops working and leaves. We are well past the learning stage, he has known "sit" for example, for over a year now. He just refuses to do it if there is no treat forth coming. I have tried the normal phasing out methods, tried intermittent rewarding or "jackpots" but nothing seems to work for him. I'm not saying positive reinforcement doesn't work, I have Duke who will work for nothing. Just knowing that I will pat him on the head and tell him he is a good boy is enough for him. Getting a treat one out of ten times is enough for him. He knows dozens of "tricks" (he is task trained to manage my youngest son who has special needs) some he taught himself and has never been actually rewarded for and sometimes punished for by a flailing angry child. He does his job stoically with a reward here and there when it occurs to me to work with him (I should really be better to him but he is cuddle driven more than anything). I'm beginning to think I have a broken dog because this should be so simple but it doesn't work right with him (and I have done this before, I'm doing it right now with another dog, it's just him).



You need to randomize and slowly phase the treats out. Treat, treat, no treat, treat. Yes, you have to get him to perform again after the first no treat, but in that case even waving the treat you didn't give him in his direction to get him to come back for one more will work. Eventually he will learn that if he can see the treat or not they MIGHT be there. 

It works on the same premise as gambling. Maybe THIS TIME there will be food. You just have to leave him unsure if this is the time or not, and he'll keep playing the odds.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I have been "behind the scenes" at several "board and train" kennels. I will never, ever, ever send a dog to one.

I am sure that there are good ones. I just haven't seen one.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I would have asked the trainer for more details about why he "wouldn't send his dogs there". A local person, also a trainer, would have heard more details. 

Anyway, let's define "positive reinforcement". In the very most basic terms, it means a behavior is reinforced because something good happens when you do it. This can be different things, depending what the individual thinks is positive. Some dogs like toys, some like their owner's approval, some like food (everybody has to eat so this is a good reinforcer for most dogs). A trainer saying they use positive reinforcement but no food/treats is confusing. If the dog does not find toys or approval from a stranger reinforcing (and many don't), what do they do? I know a lot of "old-school" (I don't like using that term because positive reinforcement has been in use since humans have existed, and positive dog trainers have existed since dogs first took up with humans,. Really negative training is more of a late-19th-and early-20th-century thing. But I can't think of a better term) trainers use lack of punishment as the reinforcer---if the dog does it right, he/she doesn't get "corrected" (also a term I hate since punishment rarely corrects anything). This is not positive reinforcement. It's all fine and dandy if that's what they want to do. But they should be honest about their methods, and not call them what they aren't. I'm not saying these people are being deliberately dishonest; I'm sure they're very nice people. But their terminology is misleading at best, and perhaps shows they don't fully understand training methods.

One thing I see in some training methods is the dog is given a very bad punishment. A super hard jerk on the leash, a massive zap on the e-collar, a full beating, whatever. It can be linked to a word, too. Then in the future, a smaller version of that punishment is used and it works, because it's basically a threat of the larger punishment. A slight tug on the leash, a minor zap, a light slap, saying the linked word, etc. They know what it means if they don't respond to the lighter punishment. This seems to work quickly so it's kind of what I automatically assume of a quick-train place like that.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

*Greater Swiss:*
what positive reinforcers are they offering?
^Praise is part of it, isn't it?

do they use toys?
^I don't know.

the training there was bad because they didn't teach how to fade out the treats, probably didn't even mention it.
^Exactly! 

*Willowy:*
I don't know if this helps, but one of the trainers that trained him there was also a K9 trainer, so he trained police dogs. I thought from that, that would mean they knew how to train a dog effectively. And thank you for telling me what an e-collar is. 

*Remaru:
*Just keep doing what you're doing. I had the longest/hardest time weening Luke off of treats to do his commands. But I finally broke through with him, he now gets praise and treats. So just keep at it! 

*trainingjunkie:*
I have been "behind the scenes" at several "board and train" kennels.
^What did you see?


Oh I just wanted to say I'm not really trying to defend where Luke goes, just answering your questions to the best of my abilities. I do know they crated them, took them outside to train and have fun. I do have to say I wasn't a fan of the crating part. Do you think this is why Luke still has some training problems?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ha, well, "no chainlink and no concrete" sounds nice, hmm? LOL. Crates are no different from chainlink. I'm starting to think they DO intend to deliberately mislead people :/. I have nothing against crating but they sure make it sound different on their website.

K9 trainers are usually effective, yes. Some have used not very humane methods though. My dad said he saw them doing terrible things to the military K9 dogs. . .not sure what he considers terrible but he doesn't even like dogs so I'm guessing something worse than a bit of a collar yank. I'm sure some have more humane methods. But I would not consider K9 training experience to be a plus in pet dog training.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Willowy said:


> trainers use lack of punishment as the reinforcer---if the dog does it right, he/she doesn't get "corrected" (also a term I hate since punishment rarely corrects anything). This is not positive reinforcement.


I agree with you completely....the only place I've seen punishment paired as being a positive reinforcer is in a slightly different context. It is Bart Bellon's NePoPo approach (ie: Negative, Positive Positive). If a prong collar is used for example, the negative is the tightening of the prong, a positive is the loosening of the prong (not the absence of a correction in the first place mind you), and the second positive is treat/toy/praise, etc (whatever works for the dog). In this case I can understand it being considered a positive, but without the use of a real positive reinforcer like the treat or whatever, I would call this purely punishment based. So if you are right and they consider not correcting as positive reinforcement, they have one twisted weird view of what positive means!



Willowy said:


> One thing I see in some training methods is the dog is given a very bad punishment. A super hard jerk on the leash, a massive zap on the e-collar, a full beating, whatever. It can be linked to a word, too.


I think the term for that (though I could be wrong) is a conditioned punisher. We used one with Caeda, but it wasn't paired with a physically harsh punishment, we paired it with removal of attention when she was nipping and mouthing hard. We would tell her no if she was nipping, and if she didn't stop we would say Baaad (not loud, just low pitched) and remove attention for a few seconds. She eventually started responding most of the time when we said "No", and if she kept going at all...if we said Bad, she stopped completely and instantly. Now both No and Bad will make her stop doing most things. The conditioned punisher is a handy tool, but I really hate that it is normally paired with extreme and nasty punishment....it isn't necessary!! (though I suppose, if a trainer is too in a hurry to take time to use treats and fade them, they're not going to take the kinder route on this either!).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Spirit_of_Cotons said:


> *Greater Swiss:*
> what positive reinforcers are they offering?
> ^Praise is part of it, isn't it?


Only if your dog highly values praise given by the person doing the training. Praise is minimally or not at all reenforcing for most dogs. Even fewer are going to find praise from a random stranger they don't know at all worth working for. And for most dog praise is like a click. It only means something if it's actively paired with something they want - like food, a toy, play or (much less rewarding) an ear scratch. On their own the words 'good dog' mean exactly nothing to a dog. They mean what we condition them to mean. I could coo 'good boy' at a dog then slap it on the butt and have the dog respond to 'Good boy!' by flinching.

Conditioned punisher sounds righ, Caeda.. It's the heart of snake training, either way. See a snake and GTFO before the pain comes. It could easily be used in other respects, like just saying 'no', but I'm not that person and regardless of what some people think there are basically no other situations at all where you want to ingrain that level of fear into the dog. Also yes to your other point. A low stim e-collar setting is basically a clicker to bug. As in the above it means what the dog is shown it means. In her cause it means "YAY FOOD".


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

CptJack said:


> there are basically no other situations at all where you want to ingrain that level of fear into the dog. Also yes to your other point. A low stim e-collar setting is basically a clicker to bug. As in the above it means what the dog is shown it means. In her cause it means "YAY FOOD".


I definitely agree that there are no other circumstances (in regards to snake training) where a dog should be ingrained with that level of fear! I've seen dogs who have that level of fear from a variety of mistreatment, and it is awful! I use the low stim for Caeda as well, and I always pair it with food as well, and with a "good girl" along with the food....she hasn't flinched from me ever.


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

*Willowy:*
But I would not consider K9 training experience to be a plus in pet dog training.
^Interesting. I always thought since it looks like their dogs are so behaved than that means they must be doing something right, interesting how you explained it. 

Crates are no different from chainlink.
^You mean chain link fences? I do have to admit once I saw the crates and knew the dogs weren't going to be free to roam, I had some misgivings. But I did go through with it. 

*Cpt.Jack:*
It's the heart of snake training
^What is snake training?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Snake training is sticking an e-collar on a dog at a VERY high level 'stim' so that it hurts like hell, introducing the dog to a snake and then shocking the SHIT out of it (with the help of a trainer re: timing and keeping you from getting bitten) so the dog associates with pain with the snake - and stays afraid of them. We had a copperhead in our KITCHEN last year. It's a safety thing.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I do not consider a well-behaved dog (or child) to be evidence of "doing something right" unless I know how that behavior was attained. There are lots of ways to get "good" behavior and I can't approve of most of them :/.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I was asked about what I saw behind the scenes at the board and trains that I am familiar with...

At one, I saw the trainer literally tie dogs to treadmills and run them to exhaustion. She would become furious when some of them defecated on the treadmill. She also would over-book and would double kennel large dogs from different households and leave them unattended. The dogs were kenneled with prong collars and/or e-collars on. She would promise that dogs would not be allowed to roam loose, but then would tie the dogs that weren't supposed to be loose to another dog and let it run while tethered to another. She was also really heavy with her e-collar use. 

Another trainer ran a decent operation, but when I got to go into her non-public areas, she had about 50 dogs in stacked crates. Many had collars embedded into them. The dogs had very pathetic lives. The owner was a hoarder and she had lost control.

At the final board and train I was at, I watched the trainer work a forced fetch. The dog laid down, rolled onto his back and urinated into the air, soaking himself. The trainer continued on and said that the dog was being defiant and was doing these things to avoid working. It was horrific.

I am certain that there are fabulous board and train facilities. These are the three I have seen. I am not sold on the concept and none of my dogs will ever attend one.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

My only thought is a dog truly in need of boarding at a trainers 14 days is not a lot of time, unless that is just to get you in the door and then ask for more time..... 30 days was barely enough time for a reactive dog to start calming down to be able to reach them to work with them for simple home structure routines. .


----------



## Jadesy (Mar 13, 2014)

CptJack said:


> Snake training is sticking an e-collar on a dog at a VERY high level 'stim' so that it hurts like hell, introducing the dog to a snake and then shocking the SHIT out of it (with the help of a trainer re: timing and keeping you from getting bitten) so the dog associates with pain with the snake - and stays afraid of them. We had a copperhead in our KITCHEN last year. It's a safety thing.


May I ask... dogs are so good at deciding classes of things are scary/bad, does doing snake training also make them scared of, say, sticks moving on the ground, wiggling rope, etc?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Jadesy said:


> May I ask... dogs are so good at deciding classes of things are scary/bad, does doing snake training also make them scared of, say, sticks moving on the ground, wiggling rope, etc?



Not if done correctly, with the help of a professional at such things, with proper timing. Sticks moving on the ground don't move like snakes and they don't smell like snakes. 

It is NOT something you want to do at home, on your own. Even if you could handle the snakes and had access to them, this isn't something to play with. 

But no, it's not an issue I've had with them being afraid of anything BUT snakes - and our local venomous snakes at that. We keep pet snakes without terrorizing the dogs, but if they see a copperhead, cotton mouth, or rattle snack, they get out of dodge in a hurry.


----------



## MrsBoats (May 20, 2010)

Shep said:


> SIGH. I was trying to make a point. I KNOW no one lures a dog with food its whole life to get it to sit. I KNOW that. I don't think anyone hits dogs with clubs to make them sit, either, though many people certainly use harsh methods. I was simply trying to make the point that there is a middle ground between purely positive and purely aversive training. Amaryllis accused me of thinking that anything is okay as long as the dog gets trained. It isn't. You don't have to depend totally on food forever, but the sole alternative to that is not being a monster who likes to traumatize dogs. There is a middle ground, as I know you know, but some other people don't seem to.
> 
> I should know better by now than to ever, ever get into any thread on training methods. Ever, ever.


I'm going to derail just for one post to point something out. 

Shep has put an AKC OTCH on a dog. That's an incredible feat not many obedience handlers accomplish even in a lifetime. I know the majority of people here cannot comprehend what it takes for a team to become an OTCH (Obedience Trial Champion) team but it takes an unbelievable amount of commitment and work with obedience. You don't get there by not understanding how to train a dog. She actually _might_ know something about training methods and using food as a reward versus a lure. 

(back to your regularly scheduled program...)


----------



## Kayla_Nicole (Dec 19, 2012)

trainingjunkie said:


> I was asked about what I saw behind the scenes at the board and trains that I am familiar with...
> 
> At one, I saw the trainer literally tie dogs to treadmills and run them to exhaustion. She would become furious when some of them defecated on the treadmill. She also would over-book and would double kennel large dogs from different households and leave them unattended. The dogs were kenneled with prong collars and/or e-collars on. She would promise that dogs would not be allowed to roam loose, but then would tie the dogs that weren't supposed to be loose to another dog and let it run while tethered to another. She was also really heavy with her e-collar use.
> 
> ...


This just made me literally sick to my stomach. Absolutely horrifying. Even if they aren't abusive like in the situations you mentioned, no one cares about your dog as much as you do. I don't even trust my dogs to a groomer for a few hours anymore. I could never do a board and train.


----------

