What is the best method of.... [Archive]

dr2little

01-03-2007, 10:09 PM

with or with out correction?

Correction is a VERY broad term, as are consequence and punishment. In your original post, many of the methods that you asked for an either/or were one in the same.
Marker training is what clickers are all about. I love this method. This positive reinforcement method paired with a verbal negative marker (in certain circumstances to let the dog know when they're headed in the wrong direction) works extremely well. It has also been proven to be a quick (50% faster learning rate) and an effective method for training, desensitizing and in dealing with behavior issues if used correctly.

I don't believe in or ever use any intentional physical correction. This is one reason that I never use aversive collars such as choke chains, pinch/prong collars or shock collars. These aversive tools create an all to easy and common setting for poorly timed correction whether intentional or inadvertant. Control, when needed can be attained with pain free tools like no pull harnesses and newtrix collars, though I'm all for training first whenever possible without the use of special tools.

Although I work with extreme cases, I see no need or use for physical punishment in training at all. Consequence to me simply means a predictable cause and effect exchange, it does not ever have to mean anything physical.

So I guess to sum it up I would go with (from your original list) -

Marker trainer (click and treat - which is faded quickly)
with verbal negative markers.

By the way, during an Ian Dunbar seminar the three methods (positive only, positive with negative verbal marker and positive with positive punishment, (leash corrections and such) were demonstrated. The positive method with negative verbal marker was far and above the most effective method of the three. Postive only made for confusion and took considerably longer than with a verbal negative marker, and positive with positive punishment had the dogs shutting down..too affraid to throw new behaviors for fear of correction.

I have, over many years, used all three methods as well and find that positive reinforcement with verbal markers to be the most effective method that I have ever used. This method carries the least risk of negative effects, is extremely versitile - and is FUN as all get out:D ....I'll never go back!:)

oose

01-03-2007, 10:14 PM

It really varies what works best from dog to dog, but the general concensus as far as the forum goes is that positive methods are better. This means few to no collar corrections, and quite a few people frown upon using correction collars of any sort.

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't obedience....

Correcting your dog for something you do not want them to do and praising them for something you want them to do?

How does one correct without a correction collar? Do you not need both positive and negative for training to work? Not trying to jump on you....I have only heard this before and it concerns me.

RedyreRottweilers

01-03-2007, 10:16 PM

What a great post, and a learning experience for me, Dr.2, really enjoyed it.

GSDluver4lyfe

01-03-2007, 10:17 PM

It depends on the dog.

I prefer the most positive route possible. Most dogs do best with a combination of + reinforcement for the most part, with lots of rewards with food, toys, and praise, along with small judicious amounts of mild negative markers such as a verbal "Ah ah" or "uh oh", and the occasional light collar correction.

I agree 100%!!! All dogs are different. :)

I like the attitude of positively trained dogs, tail is always wagging and willing to do anything. My cousin who has Ryot's brother uses more negative training methods on his dog and it has really hidered his drive building. This dog gets corrected for EVERYTHING (and mind you the dog is only 9.5 months old) and is scared to "misbehave" while doing bitework. He will just sit there and you can tell he wants to play but doesnt want to get corrected. He is also very handler sensitive and looks terrified all the time.

Ryot on the other hand is doing really well with training and is ALWAYS happy. He never got corrected for jumping (on me), for walking in front of me, barking, nothing. I do use mild corrections now that he is older and do use a prong, only because I train in drive and he gets so crazy tha without it he would be unmanageble. Correcting a dog as a puppy will destroy their confidence. I WANT my dog to be happy and their is a time for corrections (if needed), not often, and not for stupid stuff. JMO

Dogs can be trained through pure compulsion but that leads to an unstable, fearful dog, IMO. If you review old Schutzhund videos (or any training videos) you can definately see what I am talking about when I refer to the dogs attitude when its pure compulsion to a more positive based training.

dr2little

01-03-2007, 10:21 PM

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't obedience....

Correcting your dog for something you do not want them to do and praising them for something you want them to do?

No, absolutely not. Providing an alternative default behavior works better and faster than physically correcting. Correcting a dog who had not been taught what is expected is the way things used to be done. This method has been found to be unnecessary and ineffective.

How does one correct without a correction collar? Do you not need both positive and negative for training to work? Not trying to jump on you....I have only heard this before and it concerns me.

What IS a correction collar? If you're referring to a choke collar then as I said above, they are unnecessary and in my opinion and in the opinion of many other trainers/behaviorist, they are also dangerous and inhumane.

GSDluver4lyfe

01-03-2007, 10:23 PM

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't obedience....

Correcting your dog for something you do not want them to do and praising them for something you want them to do?

How does one correct without a correction collar? Do you not need both positive and negative for training to work? Not trying to jump on you....I have only heard this before and it concerns me.

Dogs are opportunist. They do what works for them. MEaning they will work for a reinforcer (treat, toy, praise whatever your dog likes) or to avoid a correction. You do not need physical corrections to ensure that your dog will listen to you. At first you must reinforce every behavior but as time goes ont he dog doesnt get reinforced for each bahavior. Then they begin to work for the OPPORTUNITY of gettign the reinforcer, they dont know when its coming but know their is a possibility. It is actually proven that dogs work better for the POSSIBILITY of a reinforcer. Dont know if that makes any sense.

oose

01-03-2007, 10:30 PM

What IS a correction collar? If you're referring to a choke collar then as I said above, they are unnecessary and in my opinion and in the opinion of many other trainers/behaviorist, they are also dangerous and inhumane.

A correction collar in my opinion would be a choke collar, pinch collar, e-collar...

I am not trying to advocate the use of them but rather trying to understand alternatives. I do not understand how a dog knows what "no" is without some sort of negative connotation.

Where is the motivation? Only learning please do not take offensively

RedyreRottweilers

01-03-2007, 10:33 PM

How about this.

We prefer to tell the dog what to DO, and reward him for doing so,

rather than tell the dog what NOT to do, and punish him for doing so.

dr2little

01-03-2007, 10:41 PM

How about this.

We prefer to tell the dog what to DO, and reward him for doing so,

rather than tell the dog what NOT to do, and punish him for doing so.

Exactly!!! As I said above, teaching an alternative INCOMPATIBLE competing behavior to the problem behavior and then rewarding THAT. For example - instead of kneeing a dog in the chest or delivering a collar correction for jumping up, you turn your back, ask for a sit - then REWARD for compliance. Only paying attention for a sit, as jumping up is done (mainly) for attention. No correction necessary and it actually works much faster.:)

oose

01-03-2007, 10:42 PM

How about this.

We prefer to tell the dog what to DO, and reward him for doing so,

rather than tell the dog what NOT to do, and punish him for doing so.

Yes I understand that and I totally agree. What if you tell you dog to down and he breaks a down or if you tell your dog to come and he does not come. Do you repeat the command until it happens.

I think there is a big diffence between punishing and correcting. Correcting them would be telling them they are wrong and punishing would be making them do something because they dod something wrong. For example you correct your kids by telling them they did something wrong you punish them by grounding them or sending them to their room ( does not work for me they like theor room...lol).

dr2little

01-03-2007, 10:44 PM

A correction collar in my opinion would be a choke collar, pinch collar, e-collar...

I am not trying to advocate the use of them but rather trying to understand alternatives. I do not understand how a dog knows what "no" is without some sort of negative connotation.

Where is the motivation? Only learning please do not take offensively

I was being a bit silly in asking what a correction collar is. It's just one of my pet peves (not directed at you:) ) when trainers tell their clients that a choke chain is called a "training collar" or a "correction collar". I call em like I see em. Choke chains Choke, Pinch collars Pinch and Shock collars Shock...all are horrible in my opinion.

oose

01-03-2007, 10:45 PM

Exactly!!! As I said above, teaching an alternative INCOMPATIBLE competing behavior to the problem behavior and then rewarding THAT. For example - instead of kneeing a dog in the chest or delivering a collar correction for jumping up, you turn your back, ask for a sit - then REWARD for compliance. Only paying attention for a sit, as jumping up is done (mainly) for attention. No correction necessary and it actually works much faster.:)

Interesting! So if the dog jumps like crazy ranting and raving you turn your back and wait for it to sit? What do you do when the dog bits on your sleeve or jumps on a kid? Again only asking?

dr2little

01-03-2007, 10:51 PM

Yes I understand that and I totally agree. What if you tell you dog to down and he breaks a down or if you tell your dog to come and he does not come. Do you repeat the command until it happens.
In this case I would first assume that I haven't properly trained the behavior with distance, duration and distraction. It takes time and patience. I NEVER repeat myself when asking for behaviors once they have been learned, this is not the way to add speed of compliance. I do many position changes, keep sessions short and use removal of reward to speed compliance with great success.

I think there is a big diffence between punishing and correcting. Correcting them would be telling them they are wrong and punishing would be making them do something because they dod something wrong. For example you correct your kids by telling them they did something wrong you punish them by grounding them or sending them to their room ( does not work for me they like theor room...lol).

Of course, kids and dogs are like gorilla's and jelly beans....Ok, not really..but I don't train dogs with human reasoning. Correcting can be a simple as not rewarding for the wrong behavior and punishment can actually be the same. It just truly NEVER has to mean something that physically hurts. Our human need to inflict pain in order to send a message is...well..just that, very human. It doesn't translate well in the learning process of canids.

RedyreRottweilers

01-03-2007, 10:53 PM

Interesting! So if the dog jumps like crazy ranting and raving you turn your back and wait for it to sit? What do you do when the dog bits on your sleeve or jumps on a kid? Again only asking?

No, I think you are way on the other side of "just asking".

Let me save you some time. You won't convince any of us that it's necessary to use punishment or force to train dogs.

:D

Not even to do advanced exercises like retrieving and carrying articles.

;)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/RedyreRotties/Penny_basket10.jpg

oose

01-03-2007, 11:00 PM

No, I think you are way on the other side of "just asking".

Let me save you some time. You won't convince any of us that it's necessary to use punishment or force to train dogs.

:D

Not even to do advanced exercises like retrieving and carrying articles.

;)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a22/RedyreRotties/Penny_basket10.jpg

Not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am only asking questions, is that wrong?

dr2little

01-03-2007, 11:02 PM

Interesting! So if the dog jumps like crazy ranting and raving you turn your back and wait for it to sit? What do you do when the dog bits on your sleeve or jumps on a kid? Again only asking?

All interaction would immediately end in this situation. Then I would enter and exit again and again until the dog sits and greets politely.

One thing that also needs to be undersood is that the very nature of effective physical punishment requires that the first time the punishment is delivered it has to be severe enough to stop the behavior immediately and harsh enough in order to be remembered (stop the behavior from happening in the future). That's one reason that physical punishment is so ineffective. Usually, people deliver a correction, lets say a leash correction, and then have to keep increasing the intensity as the dog continually habituates to that sensation. It's a pretty horrible proposition. Not something that most dog owners would want to engage in.

Of course it takes consistency to use any method and positive with negative markers is no execption....it also requires everyone's participation in the training process.

Zoom

01-03-2007, 11:04 PM

Interesting! So if the dog jumps like crazy ranting and raving you turn your back and wait for it to sit? What do you do when the dog bits on your sleeve or jumps on a kid? Again only asking?

Exactly. I'm working with a fairly insane Golden Retriever right now that has absolutly no concept of proper greeting habits. Her idea of 'hello" is to launch herself full force at your face and continue jumping and nipping until she gets a response. I have already taught her what "sit" means and when I see her coming, I first tell her to "sit" before she reaches me and has an opportunity to jump. If she doesn't listen, I turn my back, fold my arms and wait her out. She loves attention and treats more than she loves jumping, so in relatively short order she will sit and I can turn and reward her. She gets my back again if she breaks her sit and jumps up. I will give a verbal marker, both negative "ah-ah" and positive "good!" to back up what my body language is telling her.

Physical correction has no place with this dog and would only serve to "amp" her up, as any confusion seems to trip something in her head and she goes ballistic. I've tried the knee in the chest, mainly in self-defense, and it did absolutely nothing to correct the behavior. She simply dodged the knee and resumed jumping.

So if the dog bites my sleeve, which she does often (I haven't been working with her that long) she gets a negative verbal marker and I turn my back until she sits. This is not a dog that needs to be around any sort of children off-leash. Her former owners kept her locked in a seperate room because of her behaviors around their children. Which in turn has contributed to many of the neurosis I'm having to deal with.

You'd be surprised at how much you can accomplish simply with the removal of all attention. I use this method to get dogs to quit demanding attention, jumping, barking...I take away their motivation for doing those things. They want attention, they will "ask" for it polietly by sitting.

oose

01-03-2007, 11:17 PM

Exactly. I'm working with a fairly insane Golden Retriever right now that has absolutly no concept of proper greeting habits. Her idea of 'hello" is to launch herself full force at your face and continue jumping and nipping until she gets a response. I have already taught her what "sit" means and when I see her coming, I first tell her to "sit" before she reaches me and has an opportunity to jump. If she doesn't listen, I turn my back, fold my arms and wait her out. She loves attention and treats more than she loves jumping, so in relatively short order she will sit and I can turn and reward her. She gets my back again if she breaks her sit and jumps up. I will give a verbal marker, both negative "ah-ah" and positive "good!" to back up what my body language is telling her.

Physical correction has no place with this dog and would only serve to "amp" her up, as any confusion seems to trip something in her head and she goes ballistic. I've tried the knee in the chest, mainly in self-defense, and it did absolutely nothing to correct the behavior. She simply dodged the knee and resumed jumping.

So if the dog bites my sleeve, which she does often (I haven't been working with her that long) she gets a negative verbal marker and I turn my back until she sits. This is not a dog that needs to be around any sort of children off-leash. Her former owners kept her locked in a seperate room because of her behaviors around their children. Which in turn has contributed to many of the neurosis I'm having to deal with.

You'd be surprised at how much you can accomplish simply with the removal of all attention. I use this method to get dogs to quit demanding attention, jumping, barking...I take away their motivation for doing those things. They want attention, they will "ask" for it polietly by sitting.

Very kewl and thank you! That does make some sense. I do have one question for you....is your dogs name Zoom? The only reason I ask is because my last dogs name was zoom and I had never heard it before or again.

Zoom

01-03-2007, 11:22 PM

No, my dog's name is Sawyer. He was in the middle of doing some zoomies when I was registering on here though, and I wanted a "Z" name anyway. :)

GSDluver4lyfe

01-03-2007, 11:37 PM

Very kewl and thank you! That does make some sense. I do have one question for you....is your dogs name Zoom? The only reason I ask is because my last dogs name was zoom and I had never heard it before or again.

My trainer has a GSD puppy named Zoom. His original name was Zeke but he acts just like a Mali (always on the go) so Zoom was a better fit, lol.

Doberluv

01-03-2007, 11:41 PM

I totally agree with Dr2little. Yup...no reward marker helps speed things along. It's like, "woops, that's not it. Try this." It is not physical aversives.

If you want to learn the ins and outs of training, such as how to prevent a dog from breaking a stay and how to come when called the first time, I recommend you read some good training books. My favorite is Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson. There are other good ones too, but I'd start with that.

oose

01-04-2007, 07:39 PM

dr2little

01-04-2007, 09:06 PM

Thank you just ordered the book on amazon.

Did you make sure to get the second edition? :)

happydog

01-04-2007, 10:37 PM

I feel positive & disipline training work extremely well when training your dog. Persistance & repetition is the key to success to understanding your dog & visa versa.

dr2little

01-04-2007, 10:39 PM

I feel positive & disipline training work extremely well when training your dog. Persistance & repetition is the key to success to understanding your dog & visa versa.

And by disipline training you mean......

bubbatd

01-04-2007, 11:15 PM

Dr2 ... I hoping to take Ollie to obedience soon and I'm scared to death ! He's good around me and other dogs , but I really don't know how he will handle it ! He's strong willed when forced to do anything he doesn't understand . Being your size at 73 .... Hmmmmm !!!! guess I'll go and see how he and the trainer treats both of us . I don't want anything forced on him . He responds so well with me ......but I know he needs additional training . Treats will help !! I'm chicken !!

Rubylove

01-04-2007, 11:54 PM

I clicker train and heartily agree with Dr2 and others here who have posted. There is no need to ever physically intimidate or `correct' your dog, positive reinforcement is highly effective, makes learning fun and easy, your dog is interested, you bond, you both feel great - altogether entirely rewarding and satisfying for both the dog and you.

Unfortunately like many things, people want their dogs to learn to `behave' with the minimum amount of effort. So jerking a collar or yelling or smacking is just quicker and easier than actually taking the time to train dogs in a meaningful, effective and long-lasting way through understanding and appropriate responses to behaviours. Unfortunately, more haste makes less speed and `quick-fix' efforts usually result in loooong-fix cures.

Take the time to do it properly the first time and you will spend considerably less time training your dog and banging your head in frustration, you'll end up with a beautifully behaved, well adjusted and confident dog, and you'll feel like a champion!! :D

dr2little

01-05-2007, 12:15 AM

Grammy - Can you go and visit the class to just observe first?
You are pretty tiny and I know how hard a big excited dog can be to control. If you're concerned about control while in class, the front clip harnesses really do work very well. I can send you a link if you think it may help.
I know that in my adult classes, some pretty teeny people come in with large exuberant adult dogs so I keep a few loaners on hand for them. It really does make a world of difference for them. It can be exhausting trying to keep a very social friendly dog under control for the first few classes. Once the dogs become more comfortable and the training kicks in, the owners are encouraged to go back to their regular buckle collar.

Rubylove - :hail: So true..

silverpawz

01-05-2007, 12:49 AM

I use a lot of positive reinforcement in my training, and I also use some fair physical corrections if needed. This way works for me and I like the results I get from it.

There are many ways to train a dog, and just because someone praises one way doesn't make it the ONLY way. All dog trainers think they're right, and very few will admit they aren't. I think I'm right, and I'm sure those who attempt to practice purely positive training think they're right as well.

Bottom line, let your dog tell you what works and go from there. The proof that a method is the 'right way' is a happy, well adjusted and obedient dog.
If you have that, then keep right on doing what you're doing and ignore those who may disagree. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Asking a room full of a dog trainers what method is 'right' is like asking room full of people if the war is 'right'. You'll get a ton of different answers and everyone won't agree.

Rubylove

01-05-2007, 04:39 AM

That's very true, and it always depends on the dog, always. However, I am pretty dogmatic over one aspect of training (and it doesn't matter what your preference is, the clicker or not) and that is that physical correction is NEVER necessary, if you're good at what you do and you have a true understanding of the nature of the beast.

Again, like you said Ann, everyone thinks they are right and I am no different in that regard. I am open to other methods of training but I will never agree with or accept that physical force/correction/punishment or however it's euphemised is necessary. It might have some affect but I don't think it needs to be part of any training regimen. But that's just me :)

Oh, and yeah, I'm on a couple of political forums and I reckon the trainers here could give some of those people a run for their money! LOL!

silverpawz

01-05-2007, 07:18 AM

and that is that physical correction is NEVER necessary, if you're good at what you do and you have a true understanding of the nature of the beast.

Being good at applying positive methods doesn't mean that negatives are never needed. I think I'm quite good at using positves, they get me good results. But so do negatives in the right situation. As you said, it all depends on how that dog reacts to certain methods.

Again, like you said Ann, everyone thinks they are right and I am no different in that regard. I am open to other methods of training but I will never agree with or accept that physical force/correction/punishment or however it's euphemised is necessary.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm not trying to pull you over to the dark side. I'll never agree wth you either, but that doesn't mean we can't have a good discussion. :)

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 10:18 AM

with or with out correction?

any physical correction would come much later, under the proofing stage, and that too would be dictated by the dog.

The problem I have with Dunbar's example given by the Dr is that it takes dogs in the learning phase, and yes some may shut down, in which case, they shouldn't have been doing that in the first place, the dog wasn't at a level when they should have been used, the dog was too soft to have physical corrections and probably didn't need them, so all in all I'd say a pretty poor example.

I"ve got one that I could write out a hundred just like, just changing the handlers name and dogs name, but one in particular comes to mind. 3 year old bitch, handler's first dog, and it was a very strong dog, all the way around. She had a lot of difficulty in the dog doing what it wanted, when it wanted. Regardless of what some of you might say, this dog was trained, an experienced handler took the leash, adminsitered a perfectly timed and appropriate level correction for a command the dog did know and this dog performed flawlessly for a 15 minute OB routine and then bitework

after distractions and into proofing, i've seen many dogs that respond to verbals only, and i've seen many dogs that after a collar correction, their compliance and attention would go up 100%, no shutting down, no loss of enthusiasm or any of the other things that people say will happen if you use them. Its a dog by dog and level of training decision.

Everything in life takes balance, why is dog training different?

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 10:25 AM

Take the time to do it properly the first time and you will spend considerably less time training your dog and banging your head in frustration, you'll end up with a beautifully behaved, well adjusted and confident dog, and you'll feel like a champion!! :D

You know the same could be said for aversive as well. Take the time, use them properly the first time and you'll spend considerably less time training your dog and banging your head in frustration. You'll end up with a beautifully behaved, well adjusted and confident dog, and you'll feel like a champion.

What's the difference? I've seen more than a few people that wanted to do "positive only" doing it incorrectly and end up giving up the dog, beating themselves up over not being able to train, and overall had a really really bad picture of dog and handler relationship. Just as I've seen people that didn't know when, how, or what level physical or VERBAL correction to a dog and ended up with still an ugly picture.

So really what's the difference?

dr2little

01-05-2007, 11:15 AM

You know the same could be said for aversive as well. Take the time, use them properly the first time and you'll spend considerably less time training your dog and banging your head in frustration. You'll end up with a beautifully behaved, well adjusted and confident dog, and you'll feel like a champion.

What's the difference? I've seen more than a few people that wanted to do "positive only" doing it incorrectly and end up giving up the dog, beating themselves up over not being able to train, and overall had a really really bad picture of dog and handler relationship. Just as I've seen people that didn't know when, how, or what level physical or VERBAL correction to a dog and ended up with still an ugly picture.

So really what's the difference?

The difference is that it isn't necessary to use physical correction if training is done right in the first place. I keep hearing arguments FOR physically correcting and it just baffles me. It's not an either or. It's learning how to train a behavior properly without physical aversives. If the need arises for physical aversives, its the TRAINERS short comings, NOT the dogs.

Take an HONEST look at risk assessment between the two methods. Yes, it takes time and practice to learn how to properly train with any method, positive with verbal marker included. I have to ask you though, how many trainers are faced with retalliation/fear bites due to this method and how many are put at risk using physical correction....not even a comparison.
As far as timing goes, the damage caused by poor timing of a physical correction compared to that of a poorly time click and treat, again...no comparison.

Who would choose to use physical punishment over no physical correction if it's possible (and I and MANY other trainers/behaviorists do it successfully every day) to train with only verbal negative markers?

This isn't just an 'I'm right/your wrong' philosophy or who's method is better. It's about a level of understanding and skill which takes physical correction out of the equation. Saying that one uses physical correction because it works rather than learning how to train without the use of pain.....I just don't understand that arguement.

I know that for some of you my views seem arrogant, but before you jump to judgement..think about it. Why do I feel no need to lay my hands on a dog or use aversive tools. I've done things the other way. I used to use mild aversives, I don't anymore because I've learned how to train much more effectivly and with more predictable results without them.

I really think that suggesting to anyone that it's OK to train with physical correction when you know that the alternative is done everyday is very irresponsible.
Oh, and some people on this forum are familiar with my work, have seen it first hand, and know the kinds of high risk, difficult cases that I work with on a daily basis, so I'm not blowing smoke saying that I don't physically correct.

Rubylove

01-05-2007, 11:28 AM

That's EXACTLY my view. Why, why would you continue to use aversive methods when it has been proven over and over that it's just not necessary? How is aversive ever superior to positive? Why would you ever choose to smack a child if they can learn just as well with no potential negative outcome from purely positive methods? I cannot see that once you know this works and you know it to be true that the use of aversive training could ever be a part of your training repertoire again.

There is no correlation and unfortunately I have to believe it's because purely positive takes a little longer to learn, a little longer to master, requires more understanding of the subject. Not everyone wants to put in the time to do this; training is a multi-facted occupation and there are always variables and a quantity of the unknown. Once you have your way you don't want to change it - it takes many years of experience and work to get to the levels that good trainers are at.

I'm not saying that all trainers who use aversives are lazy and don't want to learn and expand, although the implication is there; we are all loyal to the methods that work for us. But I am baffled when there is a clearly proven and working alternative to aversive methods and people aren't jumping to embrace it. I just don't get it. A little hardship may be essential for character building in humans but we don't need this for our dogs. They will learn whatever we teach them - whatever we teach them, if we take the time to teach it well, and kindly, and meaningfully. If that option is available to us, why on earth would we not use it to it's fullest potential.

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 11:31 AM

To correct (with aversive) or not to correct. That is the question. LOL.

It all boils down to something that I think is important. And that is understanding dogs from what science has told us. If you anthropomorphize a dog, if you're still stuck in that rut, you will see nothing wrong with correcting. You think the dog "knows" and is just not doing it, he's being "stubborn" or "not listening," so he deserves a correction. Yes, he straightens up and flies right. "It works." It works because physical pain at the right moment will shut down the target behavior on account of avoidance. Of course it works. However, the dog isn't thinking to himself about the imorality of what he did wrong and why he had the pain administered. It is confusing to him as to why he received pain. Yes, it works, (cause and effect) if your definition of "works" is only about the target behavior that you're correcting. My definition of "it works" is much more encompassing.

If you have gotten past the anthropomorphizing rut, you see the dog for what he is.....you see the nature of the dog. That is that his attention is drawn to the most interesting thing in his environment because that's how an animal must operate to survive in nature. These instincts are still with our dogs to a degree, some more than others. He must be alert to prey so he doesn't starve, threats so he isn't killed. He's very aware of his environment. And if you believe that it's more fair and more in line with his nature to become or have as a motivator, the most important and interesting thing in his environment, to out-do the competing motivator, that's where the "positive training" believers are going with this.

I beg to differ that it works on some dogs and not others. I know that's the popular cliche. "All dogs are different." But they're not. Sure, there are some differences in personality and temperament. But they're still canids and mammals and all mammals learn basically the same way. Yes, there may be needed some variations and tricks to use, various motivators, different ways to set a dog's environment up so he can succeed. But the learning concepts are the same with all dogs.

I do not believe that physical punishment is ever needed. When you learn more than the basics of operant/classical conditioning based training devoid of aversives, there are ways to tackle all kinds of stumbling blocks. I'm still learning, but I see that there are. I would bet money that any objection someone has about something that they feel "needs" a correction, there is a remedy for that problem where a "positive" method would work.

Dogs appear happy to work even when they get some pain. It's better than doing nothing. It's a chance for some approval and some good interaction with their owner. They're very happy when they get praise....it looks like they're super happy because praise indicates to them that they won't get an aversive this time. But when you train using no corrections and are able to give clear, concise communication to your dog by taking full advantage of positive reinforcement, there is soemthing else which is hard to describe which transforms the bond between owner and dog. There are also a lot of extra beneficial side effects to using no physical corrections.

Using positive reinforcement methods without physical aversives and then throwing in corrections here and there is actually not a good idea. It is thought that this is hard on a dog...more confusing than one or the other.

Anyhow, that's my gut feeling when I haven't had all my coffee for the morning.

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 11:33 AM

Oh, oh, oh.....you guys beat me to it. I was typing along when you posted. Now, I gotta go read your two posts. It must sound funny when you read a post which makes no referrence to the more recent ones. LOL.

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 11:45 AM

I think from now on, i'm just going to keep keep posting these over and over again. Then you can't argue with me with your opinions and phD references, and scientific claims etc. This is from the one of the most respected, and is often called the most complete book ever written on dogs and dog behavior. ask Ian, Jean, Patricia, what they think of this book, then go argue with Stephen Lindsay, instead of me.

Here's a quote from Stephen Lindsay, "properly understood, reward and punishment are morally neutral, the one being neither better nor worse thatn the other. Both outcomes serve equally vital functions in perfecting an animal's adaptation ot the social and physical environment. Lerning to respond and cope appropriately with the treats and trials of life is an important part of normal development for dogs... Although punishment is unpleasant, precisely what aspect makes it so beneficial and useful."

He also says about punishment, "not only is punishment often poorly misunderstood as a behavioral procedure, it is just as often bogged down in dire warnings of serious side effects and, more importantly, the false view that it does not work."

I like this one the best. " .... the pedulum has swung from a stubborn rliance on punishment and negative reinforcement to an equally unnatural extreme in which the use of punishment and negative reinforcement (in some quarters) is shunned to embrace a so-called "positive" approach to training and behavioral control. Extrememe positions, whether based on good intention or not, are typically based on irrational beliefs and assumptions,- not scientific knowledge and experience. The adoption of an exclusive reliance on punishment or reward alone reflects a core of misunderstanding about how dog behavior is most effeciently modified."

Because people misunderstand or abuse punishment doesn't make "positive only" methods somehow superior to everything else. and for some of you on here to be spouting that mantra every chance you have, well, is about the same thing as 50 years ago when people told you that you had to force your dog to do everything.

because the writers of new books lace tons and tons of human emotion into the pages of the book to explain why they're "superior", does not make it new, advanced or superior in anyway.

dr2little

01-05-2007, 12:13 PM

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 12:24 PM

Yes, dogs receive punishment in their natural state. They try to take down a deer and get hit with an antler. They're very resiliant and will try again because they HAVE to eat. If they give up from being pronged a little bit, they'd starve. I don't want to be a deer to my dog. I don't want pain to be associated with coming from me.

Yes, punishment is part of learning and part of life. But the difference I think is, that as human beings, we don't get it right. It's not exactly a natural thing we've got going. We don't understand what we're doing with it and it's much safer to use methods which work without using harsh aversives. For instance, look at Cesar Milan with his poking his fingers into a dog's neck, jab, jab, jab. He is convinced that this emulates another dog with his teeth grabbing the neck of another dog. How ridiculous is that? How stupid is that to put a dog on the defensive that way or to come across as a human attacking his dog? Does he get it right? Does the dog think he's another dog punishing him? For what? Is what the dog just did, (hurry to go out the door) something that he would do in the wild? Is this something another dog would punish him for? Hardly. What primates (humans) do as punishment when it's harsh, stern, painful is lost on dogs I think. But they do understand food as reward. They do understand praise. That's obvious to me.

Sure different scientific data is argueable. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And sometimes when something is discovered in science, it is later discounted. But the only thing we have is what is shown to be the most compelling at any given time. And at this time, I think the most compelling, the most widely accepted data is that harsh aversives, painful punishment does more harm than good and is not needed to train a dog.

I have trained both ways, using more compulsive methods, collar corrections and the like.... along with plenty of praise and in the later years without using physical punishment and so I see a distinct comparison. And I personally, prefer what I'm getting out of my dogs now as opposed to in the past.

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 12:46 PM

Again, why use it if it's NOT NECESSARY????? I could post quote apon quote to the contrary. Why use physical aversives when it has been PROVEN to be totally unnecessary? How about related to your own experience instead of the experience and OPINION of others.
Not that you're at all required to respond to anything in my post, but it would be nice to discuss this based on personal experience, things relative to the actual arguement.
Yes, some do still use and promote training with physical aversives......but why? Just because they can does not make it justifiable.:confused:

apparently my personal experience means nothing to you, my opinions mean nothing, the scientific ideaa and thoughts i've put out mean nothing, and I find it funny that since almost the first day i've been here, i put that previous quote up, by a guy that is considered the experts, expert, and every single time it gets deflected and ignored.

I've also put up my own experience with Patricia McConnel, and Ian dunbar. Patricia and her use of corrections, was about 8 years ago , you have your excuse, i'm outdated. I put up a conversation that was had with Ian Dunbar, how HE noticed a decrease in the reliability of obedience of dogs in competitions that were trained purely positive. They were his [mod edit-profanity] words, about 3 years ago, and you tell me i'm wrong. Email him and ask him yourself, i'm quite tired of it,[flaming-personal attack]
So I'm not going to use MY experience. I"m going to put up some quotes from arguably the most complete book written on dog behavior and modification ever written, you can argue against that. If you have the guts, email, Patricia, email, Ian, and email Jean, ask them what they think of this book by stephen lindsay. Then post their responses back here. I dare you. Try and discredit it then. But of course you'll probably just pick and choose and have excuses etc as to why you're right and everyone else is wrong. You're morally superior and we're not. you're a thinker and we're barbarians, etc, etc, etc.

Answer me this, Is his book highly regarded, even by those that you find to be experts?

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 01:06 PM

Can't you have a discussion of opinions without getting personal? What's the matter? There is no need to attack members here because you don't agree with what they write.

Here's how it works: You write your opinions, your information and someone else gives their reasons why those methods, according to their research or personal experience aren't as good. Then you come back with some more information or quotes and perhaps someone might be interested in discussing those. It's about information, science, different views, different points and examples....agreeing with perhaps some or none, or not all of anyones' views, even respected behaviorists'. It is NOT a fight to the finish, a competition or an attack on forum members' characters. Let us leave testosterone out of it.

dr2little

01-05-2007, 02:17 PM

apparently my personal experience means nothing to you, my opinions mean nothing, the scientific ideaa and thoughts i've put out mean nothing, and I find it funny that since almost the first day i've been here, i put that previous quote up, by a guy that is considered the experts, expert, and every single time it gets deflected and ignored.

I've also put up my own experience with Patricia McConnel, and Ian dunbar. Patricia and her use of corrections, was about 8 years ago , you have your excuse, i'm outdated. I put up a conversation that was had with Ian Dunbar, how HE noticed a decrease in the reliability of obedience of dogs in competitions that were trained purely positive. They were his [mod edit-profanity] words, about 3 years ago, and you tell me i'm wrong. Email him and ask him yourself, i'm quite tired of it,[flaming-personal attack]
So I'm not going to use MY experience. I"m going to put up some quotes from arguably the most complete book written on dog behavior and modification ever written, you can argue against that. If you have the guts, email, Patricia, email, Ian, and email Jean, ask them what they think of this book by stephen lindsay. Then post their responses back here. I dare you. Try and discredit it then. But of course you'll probably just pick and choose and have excuses etc as to why you're right and everyone else is wrong. You're morally superior and we're not. you're a thinker and we're barbarians, etc, etc, etc.

Answer me this, Is his book highly regarded, even by those that you find to be experts?

Wow....I don't even know how to respond to this:confused:

Again, I don't use physical punishment because I don't need to. I'm sorry that gets you so riled up. You've made it abundantly clear that we cannot have a mature discussion about why you find physical correction necessary. OK, I got it.:)

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 02:24 PM

oh I see, I write i'm tired of her attitude, but she can say those of us that use aversives are irresponsible. OK backhanded comments are the same as outright, and you, her and others use lots of 'em.

Telling those of us that use aversives are uneducated, unwilling to learn, outdated, barbaric, irresponsible etc isn't an attack on our character????? Please, I would hardly say that since I said i'm tired of her attitude that it was a "flaming personal attack" or an attack on someone's character anymore than words you yourself have written on this board numerous times. Forgive the testosterone, I have some. So now what's the difference between backhanded and inferred insults to my outright being sick of the attitude everytime this topic comes up?

Cheetah

01-05-2007, 02:27 PM

I haven't had to use any harsh, physical punishments with my two dogs, and I have been told how well-behaved they are by others. >O.o< I'm currently getting ready to go through the CGC test with my older one.

So I agree... that if it's not necessary, then why bother using it? I don't need it.

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 02:30 PM

Wow....I don't even know how to respond to this:confused:

Again, I don't use physical punishment because I don't need to. I'm sorry that gets you so riled up. You've made it abundantly clear that we cannot have a mature discussion about why you find physical correction necessary. OK, I got it.:)

Again, deflection and ignore. What's so hard. Some have made it abundantly clear they don't want to hear the words from me or others, so I challanged you to ask those you consider experts. The info we've put up of science and personal experience hundreds of times in this and other threads are always worthless or outdated so I asked you to simply email the people you consider experts and ask them some simple questions. Are you afraid of how they might answer?

Again, ask them about Stephen Lindsay. Ask them if his 3 volume work isn't considered the most complete work on dog behavior and modification that is out there. Then tell me the info i've gotten from there is wrong, outdated, or somehow makes me uneducated for using it?

Good you've found no use in using aversives, that's a far cry from saying they've been proven to be useless. It's your opinion I think it should be labeled as such and quit insulting everyone else thru backhanded comments that don't agree with you fully.

dr2little

01-05-2007, 02:35 PM

bubbatd

01-05-2007, 02:52 PM

Whew !!!! BTW Dr2 ... thanks for your input !

Buddy'sParents

01-05-2007, 02:54 PM

OK, I'll bite (CHOMP :D)...

there is no "BEST METHOD" it depends on every dog and their owner.

There are many, many sides to the issue of training.. some use corrective methods and others use clicker training and positive reinforcement.

It is clear that a wide spectrum of Chazzers do NOT believe in using physical corrective measures- deal with it.

Spouting off quotes from people who write books is good and all.. but we've got the real things right here. :)

Oh- and, clicker training-eh, but we used positive reinforcement to train our dominant dog with the help of Doberluv and all is well in this household. :)

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 04:29 PM

Thanks Buddy's parents. I'm so glad to hear that all is going so very well.

So now what's the difference between backhanded and inferred insults to my outright being sick of the attitude everytime this topic comes up?

#1) Inferred and outright. You've got it. Discussing ideas, critisizing ideas or methods or treatment of an animal is not the same thing as attacking the person writing about the ideas.

#2) Moderators. Moderators make those judgements and decisions.

http://www.chazhound.com/pictures/data//500/Zeena_tough_woman.jpg

silverpawz

01-05-2007, 04:36 PM

It is clear that a wide spectrum of Chazzers do NOT believe in using physical corrective measures- deal with it.

It's clear that some of us DO believe in using appropriate physical corrections - deal with it. ;)

I honestly can't add much to what Whatzmatter has already written. I agree with him (her?) very much on pretty much everything.

I too get very tired of being told I'm out of date, ignorant, and uneducated everytime a discussion like this comes up. It gets old really fast and name calling was never a valid part of debate or discussion. Attack the ideas if you wish, but please stop attacking the people behind them.

Saying those of us who use corrections do so because we haven't enough skill to do it the 'right way' is just an insult. I could come up with numerous insults for the positive trainers on this board, it would probably make me feel really good too. But I'm not going to stoop to that level of bickering.

Why is it so hard for us to have a good discussion on this subject without resorting to backhanded insults and side remarks?

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 05:53 PM

Why is it so hard for us to have a good discussion on this subject without resorting to backhanded insults and side remarks?

No one has personally attacked you or Whatszmatter. Giving opinions about a method of training or in general, the people who use those methods IS NOT THE SAME as directly attacking, flaming or insulting a named member here. If you feel insulted by someone explaining what they think is logical or illogical about training methods or people IN GENERAL who use them, then maybe it's best to stay out of the debate so you aren't hurt.

Moderators are moderators because they have been chosen by the administration to make those distinctions, judgemnt calls and decisions if and when they're observed. You are also welcome to p.m. a moderator or admin if you feel like you've been attacked and your issue will be looked into.

My take on this is that learning thoroughly or almost thoroughly, how to train effectively without the use of aversives takes work....takes a lot of work, study of behavioral science and practice. There are applied and other behaviorists who do not use aversives in training. It is done all the time. That is no debate or opinion.

The learning is not easy. It doesn't happen over night. Some of it is partially effective when only partially learned, but there's more. When one says that sometimes these methods don't work and an aversive is needed, it is very probable that there is more to it which hasn't been learned so to come up with an imaginative solution isn't always readily at hand. (I know this from personal experience)

Using a collar correction when the dog is straying, lets say....rather than to use the imagination and eductaion it takes to keep the dog attentive is easier if the other alternative hasn't been thoroughly learned. How much study, research and practice does it really take to yank a collar when the dog lags or forges or doesn't sit quickly enough or breaks a stay?

There are little tricks and exercises that you sometimes have to do at other times, not just at that moment that the dog is not giving a correct response. There are ways to set a dog up, set up his environment so that he WILL give the correct response in the first place and be reinforced for it (so it is repeated next time) rather than waiting for him to screw up and get punished for it. This precludes aversives. This takes education.

I think that's what Dr2little meant. She did not call or name anyone of you lazy. I'm guessing or I gathered that she meant using corrections was the easy way out because there is no particular skill involved. Oh...a little bit I guess; timing has to be good, the amount, the number etc. But it does not take a lot of education such as learning the science of operant and classical conditioning/clicker training where dogs in particular are concerned. I don't think so anyhow.

I trained my dogs in the past using collar corrections. I wasn't particularily educated in dog training. My dogs got trained. But like it's been said, there is a big, huge difference in how they learn now compared to then, how they partake in their learning, how the bond is with my dogs...much better than it was back then.

Sure, you can do what you want. No one cares.This is a debate or discussion about the virtues of various ways to train dogs and yes, critisizm of the different things done to dogs by people in general. That does not need to transform into a direct, personal, named attack on anyone here.

It is hopeful that some specific examples will be discussed for people who may be reading and want to find out more. If there is an objection, or a stumbling block where you feel that an aversive is needed, why not bring it up and see if there is way to correct the behavior without a collar jerk or some other aversive. There may be something to do to prevent that unwanted behavior in the first place.

A discussion should be just that.....exchanging ideas. If people who are successful without collar jerks resist trying a collar jerk, because they have another way to achieve results, I ask you what would be the point of giving a collar correction? If there is some point that I'm not thinking of or missing, if it would be better to give a collar correction instead of the non-aversive method which is achieving the wanted behavior, let us know, by all means.

Carry on.

silverpawz

01-05-2007, 06:40 PM

Sigh. My brain, it hurts.

I guess the big difference here is that I don't see a quick collar pop as a horrible event. I don't see it as abusive and I don't see the need to get all worked up over it.

I'm willing to bet the people who are so against it are more upset by seeing or discussing a correction, than most dogs would be receiving one.

Dogs are capable of taking a correction and moving on. They don't dwell.
I would rather a dog learn to deal with a quick and fair correction and move on, learn that it's not the end of the world, then to be so sheltered in life that a fair correction would make them crumple.

I don't tip toe around the dogs I train, I don't over anaylize every little thing I teach them and every little behavior I want to stop. If I give a correction I don't agonize over it for hours on end wondering if i did the right thing. I give it and move on. In short, a correction is not a big deal to me.

It doesn't have to equal abuse and I think far too many people assume that when one says the dreaded word "correction" they are yanking dogs into oblivion, shouting, yelling, smacking and hangining. There are too many mental images stuck in our heads that we associate with that word and they makes everyone who uses corrections out to be monsters stuck in the stonge age.

I believe that dogs learn best using all four quandrants of operant conditioning. I don't pick and choose which one I want to use and ignore the others. I use them all, they all have a purpose and they all mean something to the dog. To say a correction is not effective is to disregard that quadrant, to say it means nothing. And that is simply not true.

Giving opinions about a method of training or in general, the people who use those methods IS NOT THE SAME as directly attacking, flaming or insulting a named member here.

I think it's obvious that is open to interpratation. I often feel attacked here by certain people, even though they don't come right out and say YOU'RE UNEDUCATED!, it's quite obvious to anyone reading that that's the intent of the comments. I have a right to feel the the way I do. But that doesn't mean I have to take my ball and leave the playground.

whatszmatter

01-05-2007, 07:03 PM

No one has personally attacked you or Whatszmatter. Giving opinions about a method of training or in general, the people who use those methods IS NOT THE SAME as directly attacking, flaming or insulting a named member here. If you feel insulted by someone explaining what they think is logical or illogical about training methods or people IN GENERAL who use them, then maybe it's best to stay out of the debate so you aren't hurt.

it doesn't take much to read thru this thread or others and find where YOU and others have implied insults to others. I can find more than a handful in your following response. And I hardly find saying your sick of someone's attitude an attack, flaming etc.

My take on this is that learning thoroughly or almost thoroughly, how to train effectively without the use of aversives takes work....takes a lot of work, study of behavioral science and practice. There are applied and other behaviorists who do not use aversives in training. It is done all the time. That is no debate or opinion. nobody is debating that

So does using aversives in training, why do you think its just yank and crank. because the consequences of screwing up can be greater, why do you think it takes less work or intelligence to use? Those same applied behaviorists, it can be argued are doing a lot of their training and such in very sterile environments that aren't really mimicking the "real" world, and it is also a fact that many trainers, that have used aversives, have trained dogs to much higher levels of achivement in competition than these behaviorists have, that is no debate or opinion

The learning is not easy. It doesn't happen over night. Some of it is partially effective when only partially learned, but there's more. When one says that sometimes these methods don't work and an aversive is needed, it is very probable that there is more to it which hasn't been learned so to come up with an imaginative solution isn't always readily at hand. (I know this from personal experience)

the same can be said for aversives, when partially effective, it's probably only partially learned, or being applied incorrectly. and secondly it is an absolute truth that dogs learn from positive and negative, why is "imaginative" solution always the best. You know how hard it is to read a dog in the moment and know if it needs reward or correction, to not shut them down, to use the correction to make the behavior correct and bring drive up?? Do you know that it can be done? We do it all the time. Calling it easy, please you don't even know how.
How much study, research and practice does it really take to yank a collar when the dog lags or forges or doesn't sit quickly enough or breaks a stay?

To do it correctly, a lot. How hard is it to correctly time a "click" to mark a behavior? I'm not saying the answer is easy at all, so don't misunderstand, but the answer for marking and correcting is the same.

There are ways to set a dog up, set up his environment so that he WILL give the correct response in the first place and be reinforced for it (so it is repeated next time) rather than waiting for him to screw up and get punished for it. This precludes aversives. This takes education.

and of course we don't all live in a perfect world, things happen, why miss a training opportunity because you aren't educated enough to make a timely correction, and you can't read your dog well enough to give an appropriate correction. ( I just threw that in there cause i'm tired of your un-educated, etc blurbs as well, cause apparently the rest of us that use aversives at times don't have an education) Who says, just cause you use aversives you have to wait for you dog to screw up so you can punish it?? I think those of us that do use them, use them in a much different manner than that, but whatever makes you look better I guess.

But it does not take a lot of education such as learning the science of operant and classical conditioning/clicker training where dogs in particular are concerned. I don't think so anyhow.

It has everybit as much to do with it as proper timing and rewards. Operant/classical conditioning is a two way street and didn't appear when "clickers" came about.

I trained my dogs in the past using collar corrections. I wasn't particularily educated in dog training. My dogs got trained. But like it's been said, there is a big, huge difference in how they learn now compared to then, how they partake in their learning, how the bond is with my dogs...much better than it was back then.

Kind of like If I said, i tried clicker training, but wasn't very educated, didn't know what the click was for, thought when I clicked the dog was supposed to sit, and it didn't, but now I understand primary and secondary reinforcers, bridging and marking, and I use positive punishment after behaviors are learned to proof and make more reliable so the aversives were the difference? Not having experience or knowledge how to train dogs is just that, it doesn't matter what you're trying, if you don't know how to lure, you won't, if you don't know how to mark, you won't train very well, and if you don't know how to correct, you won't have a very good relationship either That's across the board, what's the difference?

Doberluv

01-05-2007, 08:45 PM

Why won't you or Silverpaws give two or three examples of situations....specific situations, specific skills where you feel a need to correct with a collar correction and where you think there is no other way? I'm talking about regular pet dogs since that's what the majority of the the people here on this forum have. What is the dog doing and what is it about his thinking that is making him do it (the incorrect resonse)....where you feel a need to give a collar correction (or some other kind of aversive?) to get the behavior or skill that you want? And why it is that positive reinforcment methods won't work. What specific technique in "positive method training" would you be talking about which will not work? I'd really like to know what it is which compells you and others in general to use collar corrections (for example) rather than not using collar corrections. I'm not trying to be a smarty pants...just really want to get all the information.

Buddy'sParents

01-05-2007, 09:23 PM

It's clear that some of us DO believe in using appropriate physical corrections - deal with it. ;)

I don't have a problem with it- people like that will never touch my dogs. :)

silverpawz

01-05-2007, 09:25 PM

I don't have a problem with it- people like that will never touch my dogs.

People like that? Like what? Is that supposed to imply that we're eeeevol?
I guess it's a good thing I'm not anywhere near your dog, so I won't be tempted to reach out and touch him.

oose

01-05-2007, 11:04 PM

WOW! Wut did I start?

Zoom

01-05-2007, 11:27 PM

The only three trainers can agree on is that the fourth one is wrong. :)

silverpawz

01-06-2007, 12:38 AM

Doberluv, you asked Why use corrections? Here's why.

I see dogs who have never "had" to do anything, have only ever been given the 'choice' with 'purely positive methods', lose it when they're made to instead of choosing to. Not a desirable effect and not what I'm going for.

A correction can mean different things, it's not just a collar pop. Those are infrequently used here, hardly ever with my own dogs because they don't need it, and only on client dogs when the situation warrents it. Which is not often. But it does happen.

I might use placement instead for example if the dog doesn't sit on command, this is a 'correction' since it's positive punishment but it's far from being harsh or hostile with the dog. Being made to sit calmly with placement can speed along the learning process. Very useful. Use it a lot paired with rewards. Produces a happy and willing dog.

The argument can be made 'well you shouldn't have said sit unless the dog was %100 reliable already, you didn't practice enough, you didn't shape it correctly, you didn't, you didn't, you didn't." and to that I say....get real. Life happens, distractions happen, some folks would never make it out the front door if they had to wait to say every cue untill thier dog was reliable.

This is where placement is useful. Gives you something to do in order to help the dog along, and lets you use your commands when you need them instead of waiting untill they're perfect before you can utter the word SIT.

I can't count the number of times people have asked me if I clicker train an when I say yes, but it's not ALL we do, I can almost hear a sigh of relief. People get frustrated with purely positive because of the lack of consequences, they get frustrated because by nature we humans have to DO something in order to help a situation along if it hits a roadblock. Using gentle placement for certain commands gives them something they can do to help the dog learn and lets them see progress around actual distractions much faster.

Faster equals happy clients, and happy clients equal dogs that stay in their current home. That's why I use them, because they make it clearer for the dog and make it faster for the owners. People don't want to spend three months shaping their dog not to jump or ignoreing the dog by turning away while their back or legs get scratched up. It's just not practical.

There's learning theory, and then there's the real world.

Haven't ever had someone hang up after I've said I use other methods aside from positive. Not ever. That says a lot right there.

Zoom

01-06-2007, 01:19 AM

To me, shaping is not a correction. It causes them no pain if you help them to sit; all of us tell our clients to never give a command they can't enforce. I guess I have a different opinion of what "correction" and "purely positive" means.

silverpawz

01-06-2007, 01:46 AM

It causes them no pain if you help them to sit; all of us tell our clients to never give a command they can't enforce.

Exactly. However, the act of making the dog sit by placement can be considered by some as positive punishment.

Many also object because you're not letting the dog 'figure it out' on his own, or you're using 'force' by placing him gently. Apparently to some practically anything that involves touching the dog is 'force'. Which is think it ridiculous.

Zoom

01-06-2007, 01:56 AM

silverpawz

01-06-2007, 01:59 AM

There are some dogs I would hesitate to shape with, mainly the very nervous and the very dominent. Those dogs I would try to capture the behavior and then shape it with a verbal marker or clicker. Might take a little longer, but it beats being laid up for three weeks with a bad bite.

I think we're using different terms here. I don't consider placement to be shaping. When I think shaping, I think clicker, treats and then clicking for every behavior that is closer to your goal untill you finally reach it.

Zoom

01-06-2007, 02:07 AM

That could be part of the problem. :) Then again, I'm still fairly new at training and I think I might be making up my own definitions to terms.

Rubylove

01-06-2007, 03:17 AM

Shaping is what silverpawz said - clicking and treating closer and closer to the exact behaviour you want, and witholding clicks and treats for the behaviours you don't want, once the basic behaviour is learnt. I didn't explain that very well...

IliamnasQuest

01-06-2007, 04:16 AM

While I believe strongly in the use of positive reinforcement, I do believe there is a place for physical corrections.

Sitting back and reading this thread, I can see why people get so irritated with those who promote positive training (and I've been in that position, I fully admit it). There's seems to be a certain amount of "holier than thou" attitude when someone says that corrections are NEVER necessary and they would NEVER use them. It creates the feeling that anyone who does use a physical correction of any kind is just pond scum.

Just giving my gut feeling when I read all of this - and I got the same feeling on a previous thread about scruff shaking.

I've been training seriously since 1988. I started with a lot of correction, and that was definitely wrong. It created a fear relationship with the dogs.

I went to purely positive. My dogs LOVED me - but there was definitely a lack of consistent obedience with the dogs. It wasn't as easy to compete, that was for sure. Positive reinforcement training is a beautiful thing, but when the dog has no sense of consequence and something better comes along, you're going to lose the focus.

Now, before someone objects to that .. there are dogs that can be trained by positive reinforcement to the point where they think there is nothing better than doing what their owner wants. In those cases, you're not going to lose the focus of the dog because "something better" never comes along. Generally I've found that these are dogs that are of breeds who want to please their owners anyhow. My shepherds fall into this category, which is why Trick can be off-leash ANYWHERE and I trust her. I can heel her through town alongside of a four lane highway and I don't have any fear that she'll go out into traffic. We work regularly in the parking lot of a busy store, with her off-leash. This is the type of dog that doesn't need much in the way of corrections.

But when you have a dog that has an extremely strong level of independent thought, it's a whole different ball park. All three of my chows fall into this category. I have a huge background in training. I've studied and practiced and used my techniques on hundreds and hundreds of dogs. I've trained and shown to nearly 30 performance titles. One of my chows was the #1 chow two years in obedience in the U.S., and earned over 130 Delaney points in open level obedience (beating goldens, border collies, labs, etc.).

I train as far as I can with positive training with the chows. But the only way I've found to make them dependable off-leash is to fall back on some physical corrections. I know, I had the option to not ever let them off-leash. But if we're talking being able to train dogs using all positives, if it truly works as some claim then ALL dogs should be able to be trained to the same level of reliability using positives, and that's just not true. Overall, you are not going to get the same reliability off-leash with a chow using all positives than you are a German shepherd. It's just not as natural for the chow to want to please.

My young chow knows close to 70 commands consistently, and all were trained initially with positives. But off-leash outdoors? I spent 16 months doing a positive recall with her. EVERY time she came to me, she was reinforced and praised and treated. We started with little short recalls and played the recall game over and over. I ran from her and hid so she could find me. I used her meals, flavored with tasty meat, and worked on recalls both indoors and out. We did recalls everywhere - at home, at the lodge, in town, at classes, etc. She does a GORGEOUS competition recall where she leaps into the air and hits the ground running. It looks amazing.

And then she hit adolescence going into maturity and decided that there were places she had to explore. At unpredictable times she'd take off. I went back to a long line, re-trained her to a different command using all positives, best treats I could find, etc. After two straight months of this, I tried off-leash again and mid-play she tucked her butt and hauled off into the woods. Calling her didn't even result in a glance back.

So here's the positive trained dog who has had everything done right to this point - now we're at 18 months of training. I weighed my options carefully and felt I had the following options: never let her off-leash again, or give her some sort of consequence to the action of running off.

By the way, the total number of times she ran off was FOUR. It wasn't a hugely developed habit, but I was afraid she'd take on a moose when she ran off or someone would pick her up and keep her (she's so darn CUTE and friendly). I didn't want her hurt or lost.

I didn't just add in a correction when she ran - I went through a carefully planned set of exercises to teach her that there was a consequence and she could choose to avoid the consequence by responding to me quickly. It was very effective and because it was used sparingly, I have seen NO averse effects to our relationship.

I would love to believe that "no physical corrections" would work with all dogs, but in my experience that's just not true. It may work with a large number of dogs. I went through a lot of anguish over the choice to do this, but I also realize that if I'd done it earlier it would have been even better.

I live with a pack of bitches - four at this point - and there are things I do that others may consider physical corrections. If I'm walking across the floor, I run into them if they choose not to get out of my way. They HAVE to know to move. I have an auto-immune disease that attacks my joints and if I'm flared and trip over a dog, I'm in for a world of hurt (as are they, when I land on them!). I can't always see them to tell them to move. I suppose I could figure out a way to reinforce them for every time they move, but that would be extremely difficult given the circumstances here. So I take the lazy way out and I bump them out of the way with my legs. They don't yelp .. it's not designed to hurt .. but it's definitely a physical correction. If I'm clipping nails and my dog decides to get up and move, I push the dog back down and say "knock it off, I'm almost done". That's another physical correction.

I'm sorry if I insult anyone, but to say "there's NEVER a place for physical correction" is naive and wrong in my eyes. I don't recommend physical corrections for general day-to-day training and I never get on an online forum and say "your dog needs a big pop with a prong collar on". But I also never say "physical corrections are absolutely bad" because I'd be a hypocrite if I said so. I think almost everyone at some time uses a physical correction, and that correction does not have to equal abuse or pain.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

silverpawz

01-06-2007, 04:59 AM

Yep. What she said.

You go girl. ;)

Rubylove

01-06-2007, 05:14 AM

Melanie, that's got to be about the best argument I have ever seen with a valid, rational and logical explanation for reasons for occasional use of physical correction to get a message across. I feel that this particular viewpoint needed some better illumination, especially to people like me who are wholly on the `positive' side of the fence.

I am new to training and still learning, and am firmly in the positive camp and know I will stay there. However, whilst I intend to learn and practice and formulate my own methods, the input of knowledge and experience such as yours cannot be quantified in terms of its value. Thank you.

whatszmatter

01-06-2007, 08:46 AM

couldn't have been said better!

dr2little

01-06-2007, 11:53 AM

[QUOTE=IliamnasQuest;570342]While I believe strongly in the use of positive reinforcement, I do believe there is a place for physical corrections.

Sitting back and reading this thread, I can see why people get so irritated with those who promote positive training (and I've been in that position, I fully admit it). There's seems to be a certain amount of "holier than thou" attitude when someone says that corrections are NEVER necessary and they would NEVER use them. It creates the feeling that anyone who does use a physical correction of any kind is just pond scum.

You know Melanie, I can only be who I am and do what I do. I really DO NOT use physical aversives in training. If you'll read back you'll actually see who began with the defensive behavior you'll find that I NEVER begin having to defend WHAT I ACTUALLY DO until others changed the tone. This thread began with a very good exchange. My first "holier that thou":rolleyes: statement came when I stated that it was irresponsible to recommend physical correction in this forum. I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THAT and I think you're well aware of why that is.

Using words like 'holier than thou' and pond scum'.....What do you and everyone else want me to say. I train EVERY breed and work with EVERY imaginable behavior problem and I do it successfully WITHOUT physical correction. And yes, even emergency recall with difficult breeds such as sight hounds..

I too began using physical correction, I did Schutz for goodness sakes in the late 70's and early 80, that was just about ALL that the groups that I worked with did. It was horrible. I did my best to evolve and continued to use aversives, while milder..with more and more positive reinforcement and found a beautiful difference in the dogs that I worked with.

I have never said that I use NO AVERSIVES, but rather NO PHYSICAL AVERSIVES...I do it very successfully and will not say otherwise...what do people want me to say???:mad:

Also, this is not about a dogs desire to please...not by a long shot. That's statement is something that you'll never hear me use for a reason. Nor is it about my desire for my dogs love, although I do admittedly want my dogs to love me and feel safe with me. Dog's do what works for them, certainly not what they think makes us happy.

Consequence does not have to mean something physical either. I use negative reward, short sessions, and I keep a few cards behind my back for when adolesence strikes so that I don't have to resort to physical correction. I give these tools to clients in puppy class with the "heads up" that they must anticipate and plan for this developmental stage that can shake training up to varying degrees and be very challenging at times.

Consequence by definition is really cause and effect, not cause and punishment. It's something that a dog can predict, period.

Again, I will not say that I use physical correction when I don't or that in some cases it's necessary when I find that in my own professional experience it is not. I find it very disheartening that anyone, particularly you, would chalk this up to a holier than thou attitude......

Doberluv

01-06-2007, 12:41 PM

You know Melanie, I can only be who I am and do what I do. I really DO NOT use physical aversives in training. If you'll read back you'll actually see who began with the defensive behavior you'll find that I NEVER begin having to defend WHAT I ACTUALLY DO until others changed the tone. This thread began with a very good exchange. My first "holier that thou" statement came when I stated that it was irresponsible to recommend physical correction in this forum. I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THAT and I think you're well aware of why that is.

Using words like 'holier than thou' and pond scum'.....What do you and everyone else want me to say. I train EVERY breed and work with EVERY imaginable behavior problem and I do it successfully WITHOUT physical correction. And yes, even emergency recall with difficult breeds such as sight hounds..

I too began using physical correction, I did Schutz for goodness sakes in the late 70's and early 80, that was just about ALL that the groups that I worked with did. It was horrible. I did my best to evolve and continued to use aversives, while milder..with more and more positive reinforcement and found a beautiful difference in the dogs that I worked with.

I have never said that I use NO AVERSIVES, but rather NO PHYSICAL AVERSIVES...I do it very successfully and will not say otherwise...what do people want me to say???

Also, this is not about a dogs desire to please...not by a long shot. That's statement is something that you'll never hear me use for a reason. Nor is it about my desire for my dogs love, although I do admittedly want my dogs to love me and feel safe with me. Dog's do what works for them, certainly not what they think makes us happy.

Consequence does not have to mean something physical either. I use negative reward, short sessions, and I keep a few cards behind my back for when adolesence strikes so that I don't have to resort to physical correction. I give these tools to clients in puppy class with the "heads up" that they must anticipate and plan for this developmental stage that can shake training up to varying degrees and be very challenging at times.

Consequence by definition is really cause and effect, not cause and punishment. It's something that a dog can predict, period.

Again, I will not say that I use physical correction when I don't or that in some cases it's necessary when I find that in my own professional experience it is not. I find it very disheartening that anyone, particularly you, would chalk this up to a holier than thou attitude......

I agree.

This "love thy owner" panacea is a myth. I do not agree that dogs do things to please their owner. And I think that is the very fulcrum from which dogs and humans stop connecting anywhere near their potential...where dogs get unfair and confusing messages, where communication breaks down and becomes incongruous and illogical.

kalija

01-06-2007, 01:53 PM

I just read over this whole thread, and I'm kinda new here I guess, haven't posted that much, but as a non-professional trainer this is a confusing topic.
I have 2 dogs. My GSD, Dutchess, is 11 years old. When I got her at 18 months she was on the way to the humane society because she destroyed her owners entire house. She couldn't sit, stay, heel was a joke. I never heard of positive methods at the time. I went to the library and picked up a couple of books, one by the Monks of New Skete - How to be your Dogs Best Friend,
the other was Good Dog, Bad Dog by Mordecai Siegal and Mathew Margolis. Both use corrections, and both are no longer recommended by people who use positive methods, I've noticed. But it was all I knew at the time. The result? Dutchess is a model of good behavior. A dog who was completely untrained and unsocialized has been completely turned around.
On the other hand, my 11 month old puppy Zuki, who has thus far only been trained using positive methods (clicker, treats, etc) is a complete train wreck! Maybe some of you are right, and I am just not doing it correctly, but I for one, have dug out my old copies of those books and started re-reading, in hope of finding an answer. I'm sorry, but this dog just seems to need something else. We are at the point now where my husband wants to send him to resident training somewhere. I need results NOW not another 2 years from now. So what do you tell owners when they have genuinely tried positive methods and its just not working? I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right, just that in my experience I can not deny that corrections worked for one of my dogs, and she seems none the worse for it. I'm not talking about beating your dog with a stick - but we did use a prong collar, at first and she did get leash corrections. It just seems like if you resort to a leash pop you are abusing your dog in some opinions here. I'm starting to feel, in some cases a correction is needed for some dogs. I mean, in some cases its the lesser of 2 evils, when you consider how many dogs are dumped off at the shelter. Dutchess for one, surely would have had trouble getting adopted at the shelter, I would be very surprised if she wouldn't have been euthanized there. She would not have passed their temperament tests for sure.

Just the ramblings from a dog owner torn and still on the fence.....carry on!

Doberluv

01-06-2007, 02:51 PM

Kalija,

Here's a link you might be interested in. It is in regards to rally O, a dog sport. However, it is absolutely applicable to training in general. If a dog owner says that positive reinforcement doesn't work then that owner is missing something and should take the opportunity to learn more about it. It isn't slower. I find that teaching a puppy to sit by luring is much faster than pushing his rear down. Dogs tend to a law of physics and that is to go against pressure....to press back. Force tends to not give a dog the opportunity to think. Thinking exercises the brain and helps a dog learn HOW to learn better. Another behavioral law is that dogs have a desire to give a correct response to avoid punishment. But the desire to give a correct response to earn a reward is stronger. This has great bearing on training. I'm not pushing this book...never read it. But scroll down and read the exerp. It's a good explanation.

You have to realize that trainers in all venues of dog training, all kinds of sports, duties like service dogs, search and rescue, therapy...movie actor dogs, circus dogs....use positive training devoid of physical aversives. A lot of them use clicker training. To say that it doesn't work means only that it doesn't work for some people who may not have learned all the tools available with learning theory. It's like me saying, "algebra formulas that everyone is raving about and uses don't work." Well....they don't. I can't make them work. LOL.

http://www.alpinepub.com/product_info.php?ref=9&products_id=104&affiliate_banner_id=9

IliamnasQuest

01-06-2007, 04:34 PM

dr2little and Doberluv -

While I was aware that my post would probably draw disagreement from you both, in all honesty I don't think either of you were the one I was thinking of who was using "NEVER". I'd have to go back and see which post it was that hit me that way and I just don't have time right now.

I respect both of you and am thankful that there are people out there promoting positive training like you do (and like I do). But these threads that end up sounding like a person is cruel beyond belief just because they use an occasional physical correction just get to me at times. I don't believe in using corrective collars for basic training (and you should have seen the arguments on another forum about shock collar training - two "professionals" were on there trying to say that shock collar training was the kindest training and they used it for every behavior, starting with the puppies at four months old). There are places to argue against physical corrections, but I just don't see in this particular thread that the arguments going on are viable because it's one group trying to make another group feel guilt for an occasional physical correction. And, sorry, but I'm not going to feel guilty and I'm not going to be hypocritical and claim I never put my hands on my dogs in a corrective way. Sometimes I do. It's minor, it's over quickly, my training isn't based on corrections, and it can be weeks or even months between physical corrections. But they DO happen, and the whole concept of "NEVER" makes it sound like anyone who does use corrections is a bad bad person.

Like I said, I've been training a long time and yes, there ARE dogs that want to please their owners more. They do it BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR THEM - but it's a natural trait, bred into them, to want to do what ever it is that their owner wants to do. Sorry, but I find that to be a fact. It's one of the huge differences between German shepherds and Chows. People are always wanting to change the terminology, make things sound so scientific .. but it doesn't change the reality, and the reality is that Trick hangs around me with this "what'd'ya want me to do for you NOW??" attitude, and Khana glances at me with a "yeah, I'll get to you when I have time" attitude. Anthropomorphizing? Definitely. But it's also true. I've simply put their basic inherent attitudes into human terms. When you have a dog like Trick, training is SO DARN EASY. When you have a dog like Khana, all those positives are a wonderful thing but when she doesn't feel like doing it - or something else comes along that is interesting - well, all those positives are not important enough to her for her to make the choice to do what I want when what SHE wants is something else.

To say that all positives work means to me that you can train EVERY dog to the same level of consistency on the same basic exercises (things that all dogs can physically perform). If you can get one dog to consistency off-leash then you should be able to get all dogs to consistency off-leash if the all positive concept works. I'm not sure that's what you're saying, though.

What exactly would you have done with Khana after all of those months of consistent, proper recall training? Remember I'm no beginner to training. I put in a huge effort from the time Khana was 9 weeks old to teach her an off-leash recall. It appeared to be successful until she got old enough to decide there were better things to do. I'm not one of these "stay at home" trainers, either. My dogs go everywhere and I train everywhere. I was consistent, rewarding, and positive at all times until I decided I needed a consequence, and a simple consequence of "NO" or "EHT" was useless as she knew perfectly well that she could just keep on running. I'd love to hear the all positive method of solving this problem.

By the way, when I talked about the "holier than thou" attitude, I wasn't describing anyone as actually HAVING that attitude. I was just explaining how it appeared and felt as I read through the entire thread from beginning to end. I'm SURE that no one meant to come across that way. But that's how it felt, and I know that I have done the same thing and made people feel that way in the past (and may very well do it again in the future). When you're adamant about something it can come across badly.

Anyway, I'm off to a obedience run-through to see how distracted Khana will get in a new place .. trials are coming up in March, hopefully we'll be ready!

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

silverpawz

01-06-2007, 04:54 PM

If a dog owner says that positive reinforcement doesn't work then that owner is missing something and should take the opportunity to learn more about it.

I find it upsetting that some are so quick the blame the owner all the time. Sometimes it IS the dog. Sometimes the DOG doesn't respond well to a certain method up to a certain point. If you've never come across a dog that would rather do some "better" as Melenie stated, instead of responding to you, then thank your lucky stars. You've hit the doggie jackpot.

But that is not the case for a lot of owners.

kalija

01-06-2007, 05:40 PM

skyeboxer

01-06-2007, 05:46 PM

Melanie,

May I ask what were your next steps with Khana? I have read many of your posts on another forum and know you are very much on the side of positive training. I have no doubt you thought long and hard about how to deal with Khana's unreliable recall. Would you mind to share how you laid the new groundrules and how Khana responded to the change?

01-06-2007, 06:36 PM

Melanie, nice post and good point. I agree with Rubylove, that's been the best argument I've heard so far.

Honestly, I think the people who doubt that dogs do things to please their owners have never met a Border Collie. Dakota would bend over backwards for ME, not for what I have to give him. He loves treats too, but if I want to teach him a new command, I've realized that all I need to do is give him a hug and a belly rub when he gets it right. I have a very close relationship with him and perhaps this is why, but to him, my approval is a reinforcer. He has been the world's easiest and most fun dog to train because he wants approval soooo badly!

I also have a dog like Melanie's Khana. Ripley, quite plainly, doesn't give a rat's ass what I'm doing or what I have for him. Sometimes food rewards are good enough for him, but most of the time if there's something he wants to do, I'm chopped liver. He is independent and willful to the extreme and over the course of 3 years I have been unable to get 100% reliability from him - anywhere. I know this makes it sound like I'm a very crappy trainer, but to the contrary I have been able to take extremely hyper, ill-behaved shelter dogs and have them beautifully behaved and well-versed in basic obedience within a couple weeks. I'm far from a professional but for an amateur trainer I'm not too shabby. I'm sure I could get better results with mild physical aversives in addition to the pure positive training, but Ripley also has a very unstable temperament and I worry about the effect the correction would have on him. Plus he's tiny and fragile. I've just forced myself to be content with what responsiveness I *do* get from him, and keep him on leash and under control whenever we leave the house.

I don't think appropriately delivered collar corrections are cruel or abusive. I choose not to use them because I feel I can achieve the same or better results without inflicting pain on the dog. I also prefer not to "nag" at my dog with corrections as so many people do. Little light leash pops that are nothing more than an annoyance. I feel that if a dog does something that requires a leash correction, it should be significant enough to leave some impact on the dog, whether it be startling or painful. I certainly do not condone extremely painful or horrifying corrections but I'm just being realistic in my observation that most corrections rely on either startling or pain.

I don't see a need to use corrections while training my dogs and I certainly wouldn't dream of using them on shelter dogs or someone else's dog. I do agree with Melanie that they have their place, occasionally, but that place is with experienced trainers and a very small percentage of dogs. Not with Joe Shmoe, little Muffy and a choke chain.

Jynx

01-06-2007, 06:46 PM

all I can say is "WOW" LOL,,nice debate, and I will say I agree with melanie, silverpawz and whatz..

I'm curious, and forgive me if this has been asked or posted before, I dont recall it,,does anyone posting mind sharing what, if any titles, they've achieved with their own dogs and what training method you may have used on that particular dog?
Diane

Doberluv

01-06-2007, 07:03 PM

Honestly, I think the people who doubt that dogs do things to please their owners have never met a Border Collie.

The dogs I have, especially my Doberman looks like he's saying, "what do you want me to do next? I'm willing and waiting." This is what he was bred to do, to work for his owner.

But, think about it for a minute.....what good does it do a dog to please their owner? Do you think dogs first became domesticated because they were seeking out some human to please? Pleasing their owner is how they become pleased, how they survive.

Bottom line: They need to please themselves....and in order to please themselves, they need to please their owner or work for their owner. In a direct sense, they do not have an inherent desire to please, unselfishly their owner. They probably aren't thinking about our emotional state of mind in connection with them. "am I pleasing her by doing this. Is this making her happy?" More likely, "Am I going to get what I need if I do that? Like all the good stuff I always get?"

And of course, being social animals, they love to be with their owner and have a rich array of emotions. But when people think dogs just love their owner and they should do and understand all these human things because they love and want to please their owner.........and the dog doesn't do all these things because he hasn't been trained, the owner blames the dog and calls him stubborn and bad. Then the dog receives any number of aversives.

silverpawz

01-06-2007, 07:04 PM

Jinx, I'll bite.

I have three Collies. One has his UCDX and we're working on Utility exercises. I use a combonation of mild, fair corrections and positive rewards. I'd say my ratio with him is about 80% positive training, and 20% corrections. (with him it's a verbal correction that most often works, but I have been known to give him a tap to get his attention, use a light leash pop, and he was trained with the ear pinch to retrieve on the flat. I've since abandoned the idea of the ear pinch. It worked well with him and he has a happy and reliable retrieve, but I've been able to get the same results on other dogs without using it. It works, but I feel bad doing it. So I don't anymore.)

He is very advanced in his training and at this stange he rarely needs a correction for anything anymore. Attention and willingess to work even around distarctions is not a problem with him, so I knoe if he's not doing something right, he just doesn't get it yet and I have to find a better way to show him what I want. That's a lot different that having a dog ignore you to run off an sniff the ground.

The other Collie girl has her UCD. She was trained much the same way as the first one. With a combonation of positives and corrections. I'd say my ratio with her is about 95% positive and 5% corrections. She's a very soft dog and she doesn't have the temperament to take a strong correction without slinking down and pinning her ears back. So I only use verbal with her, a hand clap, body blocking, placeing, etc.

Bear has his CGC and he's working on UCD training. I use 100% positive training with him, I've never phycically corrected him with a collar pop because he just doesn't need it. He's a BC mix, he LIVES to be with me and nothing is better for him. There is no distraction he would choose over me and that is not something I trained. He's just that way. If he was in the mddle of a herd of deer with me on one side and the deer on the other, he'd choose to come when I called every single time instead of chaseing the deer.

I've actually had a chance to test this once when we were walking in the wooded trail behind the house.
This makes it super easy to train him for trials and such becasue he's very focused on his job regardless of what's going around him. So there's no need for phycial corrections with him.

All three dogs are happy to work with me, they all have great attention, and I honestly can't say that one is better trained or more reliable that the other due to the methods used or not used. They have different personalities and therfore I trained them all differently.

IliamnasQuest

01-07-2007, 02:32 AM

Doberluv, we're actually on the same page when we're talking about dogs and wanting to please - we're just looking at it from a bit different angles. I agree fully that they want to please only because it suits their purposes - pleasing us pleases them and gets them what they want. But regardless of why, the dogs with a high level of "pleasing" are easier to train because their focus is more naturally on their humans.

However - I also agree that too many people think that dogs should just do things because they should want to please their owners. This is a huge mistake in training. Dogs work in order to get something they want. If it's a dog that isn't really interested in your praise, then you have to back up that praise with something they DO want in order to supply the dog with the reinforcement it needs. People who don't do that are really not training. And falling back on corrections just because they have a dog that doesn't automatically want to please them is a bad thing, in my eyes. This is one of the reasons why I don't advise people to use corrections online. It's natural human tendency to want to correct because they see the problems but fail to see the good things - and so the problems get the attention but the dogs don't get reinforced for all the good things they do. So much can be turned around if a person is willing to really observe their dogs and reinforce whenever the dog is doing something they like (such as laying quietly while you're watching TV).

But even though you don't find me recommending physical corrections to people on a forum like this doesn't mean I don't use the occasional correction. I think people need to be careful in the use of corrections because they can truly backfire and create relationship problems with your dog. I've been there and didn't even realize it at the time (thought I had the best relationship possible). I absolutely believe in positive reinforcement and training with a ton of reinforcement, patience and consistency. It WORKS.

By the way, if someone is having no success with positive reinforcement, then they need to find someone well-versed in it to help them out. It's likely that there's a problem with timing, or reinforcing the wrong things, or not using things that the dog truly finds reinforcing. I truly believe that positive reinforcement works on EVERY dog. I've even used it on cats, horses and a wolf successfully. But it doesn't necessarily work to the same level of reliability for every animal. And that's the crux of the argument in this thread. While there are people who may have never used a physical correction, I think it's wrong to say "physical corrections are NEVER necessary and should NEVER be used".

If that's true, then Trick is in a huge amount of trouble because she uses a TON of physical corrections on Khana (who mostly shrugs them off). Khana is a tough girl, tougher than most dogs and yet with a sweet personality. She's definitely an enigma at times.

skyeboxer - I hesitate to explain the steps I used with Khana on a public forum like this. I don't recommend that anyone run out and do this. Believe me, I agonized over this. I contacted people who understood chows and were strong believers in positive reinforcement and asked their advice - and explained what we had done to that point and what I was considering. Not one of them could suggest anything I hadn't already tried, and they understood my dilemma. It took me MONTHS before I decided to try the aversive method. And I used a shock collar. I bought a new one with 100 levels of shock and I tested it on myself FIRST. I used the lowest possible level that would get any reaction (a flick of an ear) and I went through a set of pre-planned exercises to show her exactly how to turn off the aversive. We started on a long line. I never used the collar strictly as a correction (as in turning it up high to zap her when she didn't perform to my liking). It was a very structured training method and