What is the best method of....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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. >< 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.

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.

That's great! You'll have to let us know how your dog does on his exam.

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

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

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.

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


#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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.