Valid Question

So we're not talking about leash corrections? Hitting the end of a lead is OF COURSE going to happen. Even those of us who NEVER use physical aversives don't wrap our dogs in bubble wrap.
You said leash JERKS, implying a correction applyed by the handler, something I would simply never do.
Every animal has a learning curve to travel down. When I studied primatology, even the smartest of apes would make mistakes, lots of them. This IS learning, but none of those mistakes came with a physical correction from any of us for TRAINING purposes. That would absolutely interrupted the learning process.

This has been very interesting and informative as well.
The only thing that I have taken exception to was the statement 'you people...' I don't think it was ment to be offensive but I would like to add a point or two.
I don't think that is fair, in my world I have a family, even though I feed the dogs, I train the dogs, I compete with the dogs (Title them too and in a large variety of events) and basically do almost everything with them. They are still our family dogs, short of having the dogs crated or kenneled ALL the time when I am not there, I can't control what happens when I am not at home.
All it takes is ONCE for a dog to self reward and if that reward is running amuck about the neighborhood and even if it only happened once. I may now have an issue with that dog, depending on the dog. Worse still is when I am not told the dog had this freedom and I head out the door with the same dog, GEZZZ he just took off!!!! Oh yeah Mom, forgot to tell you about what happened......
The damage is done, therefore it isn't always the case of letting a dog off leash without proper training and proofing for the training to hit a serious regression. BTW, proofing also included training with my family.

And before anyone jumps, THIS is not a personal attack, it is NOT ment to be offensive or defensive, its just giving an opinion and looking at a situation from the other side of the fence. And for the record, I don't even use Hey,hey, No or huh,huh with my dogs. I use PR, clickers, shaping and bridging. I am not a reformed NR person I just found methods that I like and methods that work for us. And its all a learning curve, upwards.
I figured out training horses over 30 years ago, that by education (to the animal and myself) and by not hurting them or confusing them and by ignoring behaviours that I didn't want and by rewarding for the ones that I did want and by having realistic expectations and training goals, that they learned faster and happier.....
But having said all that...........I felt about an inch high in the e-collar thread from the responses and for sharing my experience ONCE, even when explaining the hows and whys.
And I find it interesting that folks are imbracing the reformed trainer (police dog trainer) for now using PR instead of his older methods of harsh corrections etc. But folks *SEEM* to be unwilling to do the same for others on this forum for being in that same position now or the past...........


Take care
Lynn

AnimalCrackers- The first thing I did when I got my e-collar was charged it and went through every level on different parts of my body.

The first level .5, could only be felt on the palm of my hand when I pressed down on it hard. (This was the main level used with Roxy)

The second level, 1, could be felt faintly on every body part, some places more than others. (The other level used with ROxy)

The third level, 2, was a shock, no pun intended. Even if you know it's coming, it definitely shocked me, didn't scare me, or even hurt, but it was quite literally a shock.

The fourth level, 3, was uncomfortable. Not quite painful yet, but pretty uncomfortable. When I pressed it down on my palm it did hurt.

I don't know if I ever got to level 4 myself, but my bf went all the way, and agreed that level 4 and 5 HURT. It contracted all the muscles in his left side when he pressed it against his palm.

So by all means, if using low levels, not every level is PAINFUL or even uncomfortable. When I first put the collar on Roxy I refused to go above .5 level. I came to realize that it was pretty clear she couldn't even feel it. (Your supposed to do the collar up tightly so the prongs make a connection to their neck and I didn't want to have it on too tight) The few times it was clear she felt it in that one hour of wearing the collar, it was clear because 1) I got the behaviour I was looking for immediately (that a verbal correction could not and never caught in the same manner and 2) She had a slight ear twitch. No yelping, no crying.

As for choke/prong collars, I don't own a prong collar and the "choke" collar I have for obedience training, pretty much a slip lead, won't fit around my neck.

adjorts- I agree with the "self-rewarding" part of your post wholely. For months, close to a year, Roxy's behaviour was actually reinforced everytime a stranger gave her a treat and she snarled then they backed off. How great must she have thought that was! "That person gives me a treat, they don't have anymore, so BACK OFF! *snarl*" I never corrected for fear that next she'd bite, I'd try to softly tell her "No", but she could've cared less.

She got food, AND she intimidated that stranger to back off OR she got a reaction out of them, which with Roxy seems to please her as well.

I'm not sure that I understand exactly what your point is...honestly, not being confrontational at all, but I'm not sure what you're saying.

I guess I'm starting to feel that those of us who do not use physical correction in our tool box, AND spend many hours of our time trying to HELP others attain the same success without harsh tools, are not allowed to have passion for what we believe in without being considered full of ourselves.

Think of it in terms of the ways that children used to be 'managed'. And no, I'm not using a direct comparison merely the emotion behind it. How would/does the human population react when adults who can physically overpower children, choose that route. Do most responsible adults try to show others another way? Just because some people use harsh aversives with success, does that mean that I and others who disagree, based on experience to the contrary, bite our tongues? Wouldn't you rather that we explained how we've come to the point where we no longer need the physical stuff?

This is what I do every day. Of course I find it difficult to stay quiet when I KNOW and see all to often the consequences of physical punishment on dogs, and I see people defend the use of such methods when I'm very aware of what is possible without out them. This is also A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE to talk about success with such methods, better suited to a board full of dog trainers rather than one with a spattering of trainers and the majority very passionate dog lovers....some lurking and searching for quick solutions to training/behavior issues.


It's like some on this forum would like me to say that I agree with things that I absolutely do not.


I have to add that the bias slides both ways and in many cases it's those who don't use physical methods that end up on the recieving end of the nasty, personal attacks. Sometimes the passion behind what I know to be true may come accross as abrupt and even arguementative....have you read the flip side posts?

As for the police dog trainer and respect thrown his way... There can be no fair comparison drawn there, at least not when you look at the posts that I've read from people who use physical punishment.

This is a very emotional subject...for all of us. Believe me, if you've felt an inch high...you'd still be looking down at me many times with the way that I've been attacked for what I honestly believe and practice. I'll go back and look but not only do I not remember your mention of a shock collar in your post but I was not aware that anyone addressed you in any negative way. Sorry if the thread in general, or I specifically made you feel that way.

There's so much left for interpretation, when posting on the internet. I told someone that I believed their dog to be "pet quality" verses "show quality". Their response, "You're calling my dog ugly!?" I told someone that I felt they lacked the experience, as a 15 year old kid, to call themselves a proffessional trainer. Their response, "You're saying the way I train my dogs is terrible?!" I even once said that "I get a lot of clients coming to me from another local trainer that's unable to deal with more difficult dogs, serious behavioral problems and progress their training. That was due to her "one method only, purely positive program." Some trainers took offense to that, saying they were very experienced in dealing with behavioral modification using positive training methods. We get caught up in some of the wording in some of these posts. A dog hitting the end of his lead is not the same as the handler taking their upper body strength and jerking the dog back or sideways. A prong collar or choke chain only cause pain for the dog, if it's inflicted by the handler. I don't know about the types of e-collars being used, but mine did not give off a slight tingling sensation on any of it's 7 settings. I think it's obvious there are different levels of expertise in training dogs, here on this board. Some who do this for a living, some who train for a hobby. Some very serious owner/competitors with their own dogs. Some dog owners who, while they're not trainers, are very well read and apply these methods to their own dogs. There is a lot of knowlege, on all different levels here. I don't think we'll ever all agree on the "best" methods, the "do's and don'ts". I do believe we can all agree... dog training and the methods used have really progressed over the years and will continue to do so, much to the animals' advantage.

Otch1, wanna see how hard one of the puppies we work with can hit the end of the leash and spin itself completely around with only about 2-3 feet of leash??? It happens, and since when does a leash pop or jerk or whatever you want to call it have to be someone using their entire upper body to jerk back and spin a dog around?

Simple is simple, the dog or puppy learns something when it hits the end of the leash when leash training, I have never seen one not, have you? So why all the posts that puppies or dogs don't learn from this?

I could care less what someone thinks is best, what I don't like or agree with and is all the comments about advanced trainers and knowledgable trainers and scientific trainers etc do it this way.......everyone else is uneducated, blah, blah, blah, we're defending cruelty to animals and have poor relationships with our dogs, shame on us. It gets old real fast.



A simple question was asked, can all dogs be trained to the same levels off leash with "positive only" I think the answer is overwhelmingly NO. I've heard Dr. Dunbar himself say that recently there has been a big drop in OB reliability, he won't attribute it to the postive only wave, but I think there's something to it. Especially when anyone that is winning the competitions that measures these things are overwhelmingly using motivational based teaching and use some sort of physical correction in the proofing stages. But I guess I just set myself up for another "how dare we subject our dogs to such torture for the sake of competition" rebuttals.

anyway, carry on

*raises hand* .. I have. I will admit I didn't put them around my neck. With the choke chain and the prong collar, I not only put them on my arm and yanked (HARD) on them myself, but in training classes I had another trainer do that to me. The choke chain, both times, hurt quite a bit and left a bruise completely around my arm. The prong collar also hurt but in a different way .. it didn't continue to ache afterwards, but it did leave little marks around my arm that lasted a few days. The e-collar .. well, mine has 100 levels, so there is a lot of control in the amount of shock. It went from no feeling, to a slight tingle, to a harder tingle (much like the TENS - transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation units used for arthritic conditions - feels), to an uncomfortable pounding feeling (like if you take two fingers and pound them on the back of your hand, over and over - one pound doesn't feel like much, continued pounds get pretty uncomfortable). I stopped at 25, so I know that the collar had a HUGE possibility for a great deal of pain. And when I tested Khana to see where her reaction would be, I got NO reaction from her until I hit 25. Then she flicked one ear but didn't even pick her head up from what she was sniffing. That's the training level I used on her.

And I did put it on Trick, just to assess the difference (I'll probably get lambasted for that, but at this point "you people" don't make any difference to me anymore after the things that have been said .. *L*). I started at zero, went up a couple of steps, and at EIGHT she yelped. This is a dog that cries when you try to pull out those loose tufts of hair when she's shedding. On the other hand, when we play one of her favorite games was being smacked by a section of hose as she barked and jumped and it and tried to grab it. I used to rev her up for agility by rough housing with her with her leash, smacking her and getting her all excited, before we'd do runs in practice. She would go through my legs, around me, leaping and jumping to get the leash and I'd smack her butt with it as she went by. She LOVED it. BUT .. if I scold her, she melts. She's a very contradictory dog.

By the way, the collar was on Trick that ONE time, just to see where her level of reactivity was. At a level of eight, I could barely tell there was a tingle. If I hadn't been trying to feel it, I doubt I would have. But for her, it was enough to give a yelp. I don't for a moment think it hurt her, but it certainly surprised her and surprise can also be a form of correction.

I don't think there's a dog out there who hasn't had some sort of correction/punishment in its life. A dog who runs to the end of the leash while the owner stops can get quite a jerk on the leash even if the owner doesn't jerk back. People may want to say it's postive, but that's a positive punishment not a positive reinforcement. But the +P stops the behavior, and then you have an opportunity to use +R, which is exactly what I did with my use of the e-collar. You can agree with it or not agree with it, but that's the truth.

I was about 6 or 7 years old when I decided to cross the highway to visit friends on the other side. I can still distinctly remember standing in my Mom's bedroom, crying as she searched through the closet for a belt to spank me with. I don't remember the actual spanking, but I DO remember the anticipation of the spanking .. *L* .. my Mom did not typically spank us kids, but I had done something potentially life-threatening and she was going to make darn sure I thought twice before I tried that again. Did it make me afraid of my Mom? No. Did it mess up our relationship? No .. it did make me more aware of my need to follow the rules, though. My Mom used corrections sparingly and because of that those corrections were actually more memorable and more effective than if she'd used a lot of correction. Mom was the one that spent the most time with us kids, gave us activities to do (she was an artist), guided us into responsibilities, loved us and yet taught us to think for ourselves.

I train much like my Mom raised us kids. I want my dogs to understand their boundaries but within those boundaries they have a huge amount of freedom. I want them to enjoy life but to understand that there ARE consequences at times. I want to use corrections sparingly and only for the most important things, and I trust that our relationship is strong enough to handle this because I have worked to make it strong. This doesn't make me a bad trainer. It does make me a responsible one as well as a realistic one. When it comes to potentially life-threatening behaviors, I have no qualms about making my dog safe by providing a consequence to that behavior.

I know that people want to talk about all the happy-happy training and avoid talk of corrections, but the reality is that people DO use corrections. It's good to encourage people to use as much positive as possible. But if they are going to use aversives, it's best that they understand the responsibility and how to use them with the least possibility for problems. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away. If people aren't educated on the corrections, they will continue to use them in a harmful fashion and create more problems in their dogs. Corrections are not necessarily a bad thing. They are a natural part of being alive. We ALL get corrections. Animals in the wild get corrections. My dogs, if they were to run off, would get huge corrections if they got hit by a car or kicked by a moose. I prefer to control the corrections they get.

The things said on this forum about how to use corrections (and specifically the shock and prong collars) are SO minor compared to what is often said on other forums. Most of the advice on using corrective collars (by those who use them) has been to use them sparingly and logically, and not willy-nilly for every little behavior. If you go to other forums (such as a German shepherd one I post on occasionally) you'll find that a large number of people - maybe even the majority - use corrective collars on a regular basis and for teaching ALL behaviors. No one here is saying that. People are not being encouraged to use an unreasonable amount of force. But people ARE being told they're bad trainers (maybe not directly, but the insinuations are very obvious) because they choose to use a physical aversive, and that's pretty darn ridiculous.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

I'm just going to say, What she said!!!:hail:

I've also tried all three. I agree with Melanie about the Choke chain being the most painful and leaving the worst bruising. The prong collar I tried on my thigh and had a small but very dark bruise at each contact point.

As for the shock collar, to be fair there are several models at different price ranges. We played with a few at the clinic not that long ago and I can honestly say that even level one was very uncomfortable. Most people do not purchase the ones with the huge level options simply because they're more expensive. I know this because I see them quite often when I do home visits. I live on the outskirts of town and many of my clients have either the electric fense or other e-collars. People pull out these devices and I've only met a few who even took the time or had enough concern to see how they felt before using them on their dogs.

I can't comment on the one with 100 levels because as I've never tested one with that many levels. The ones that I most commonly see have far fewer levels and the shock can not be described a tingle at the lowest level.

Interesting post, Melanie, about the differences between your dogs.

I know you're probably sick of me *g* but I do want to comment on this. Some of the best stockdog trainers I know of use physical aversives on a regular basis. I don't think using physical correction in training makes someone a bad trainer. I don't think anyone is saying you are a bad trainer.

I don't even like to think about how I started out. Yank'n'crank. I've used e-collars and prong collars and choke chains. After I got a dog that wouldn't respond to that kind of training, I switched tactics and found that shaping behaviors with positive reinforcement was easier and not as stressful.

I don't think anyone is denying that dogs learn from aversives. Whatzmatter's mention of a dog walking on a leash is a good example. My puppy is learning this lesson every time we go for a walk - she hits the end of the leash, she gets an unpleasant jerk. If she approaches the angry cat, she gets a face full of claws. If she gets under my feet while I'm walking, she gets stepped on. I don't worry about what this is doing to her emotional psyche... Not all positive trainers want to shield their dogs from life.

I would, however, feel horrible if I used an e-collar on a dog ever again. This is MY temperament. I'm not sure what I would do in a situation like Melanie's with Khana. Hope I never have to make that decision.

Btw - I've used a pinch collar, an e-collar and a choke collar on myself. I recently tried out a really expensive e-collar with 120-something levels. The low levels weren't even noticable. However, the cheap e-collars had like 5 levels. Mild shock, moderate shock and electrocution. Do you think people wanting a quick fix are going to pay $500 for the better collar or $150 for the cheap one?

It's interesting that you should bring this up. Not long ago a group of us were discussing the lack of obedience we're seeing overall in the competition rings. I was at a trial in March and several dogs ran wild around the ring during off-leash healing. I can't remember EVER seeing that 15 years ago. There was a much higher level of consistency in obedience back then, and it's easy to see that the competitive obedience mirrors the practical everyday obedience levels. If we're seeing more disobedience in competition, you can pretty much be assured there's more disobedience in the pet dog world overall.

We see the same shift in the behaviors and obedience of children, too. When the fad in child rearing turned more to worrying about children's feelings of self-worth and less about making sure they have manners, we seem to be seeing more children chosing to be brats. As a child I would have NEVER acted like you see some kids act in a grocery store. I would never have talked back to my parents, either. I've had students - both in horse riding lessons and in music lessons - who talked back to their parents in front of me. And I told them that they weren't to do that when I was around because I wouldn't accept it. I had some shocked looks from parents but EVERY SINGLE ONE of the kids fell right into line with me and gave me respect - and worked hard for me. We had a lot of laughs and fun, but the bottom line was that they knew the boundaries with me and that I wouldn't accept any crap. And I got more respect from them than they gave their parents who didn't set boundaries.

I like seeing a good working dog that is obviously happy - head up, ears forward, eyes bright, tail up and wagging as it heels along. This is accomplished with a high level of positive reinforcement. But that same dog very likely received some physical aversives along the way and it didn't affect the dog's attitude. It simply showed the dog where the limits were and told the dog that it didn't have the right to choose its behavior ALL the time. That's one of the biggest problems I see with the "all positive" type of training (or even "99% positive"). The DOG chooses the behavior and if, at any point, something appears that motivates the dog more than what the person has to offer, the dog has the right to choose a behavior other than what the person may want. This is where the whole off-leash problem comes in. A dog that's never been given a consequence really has no true reason to resist a better motivator if it appears. And since I'm not God, I have no way of providing all possible motivators to my dog. I can do the best I can, in my limited way as a human, but the reality is that we can't necessarily predict all motivating factors.

But if you have a situation where a dog has been strongly motivated and yet also has learned a consequence to the opposite behavior (i.e. a huge variety of positive reinforcement for coming when called, but a consequence for not coming when called) you have just provided a higher likelihood that your dog will come when its called regardless of what else may motivate them not to.

And of course, it all depends on the nature of the particular dog. If you have a dog that is highly self-motivated to stay with you, and you reinforce that, you may very well end up with a dog that is unlikely to run off even when something really exciting is offered. If you have a dog that is not highly self-motivated to stay with you, you will raise the likelihood that it will stay with you by using a big variety of motivating reinforcements, but that dog will still be very likely to run off when presented with something more exciting. These dogs benefit from having a consequence paired with that action - for their own safety, if nothing else.

I'm teaching a competition behaviors class right now and all the dogs that came this week were in flat collars. We talked about reinforcements and everyone is using treats/toys and praise. But we also discussed consequences and some are using verbal corrections, some are using "crowding" techniques, some are using hands-on corrections, etc. The level of reinforcements to corrections is probably 95:5. This is not harsh. This is not cruel. This is reality. None of those dogs are suffering. None of them are scared or hurt or offering avoidance behaviors. They are simply learning boundaries and the owners are providing the boundaries in a consistent way while still using primarily positive reinforcement to encourage the "right" behaviors.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Hi whatzmatter... you read something into my post that wasn't there. That was my point in the first place. It's been happening all over this thread and in many others. No one's really able to know what another is actually doing unless you hand that person a dog. Certainly, we can't accurately access this in an internet post. Your question "so why all of the posts about a puppy not learning from this", is inaccurate. I did not say they don't learn from certain things. The debate is how they learn and is that the best method. Remember, I'm the one stating that certain types of equipment, chains, prongs, ect, do not cause pain... the handler does. I've put a prong collar on the forearm of several men in my classes, over the years, when I see them using them incorrectly. It really does change their opinion, when I then hand the lead to one of their kids and let them take him around the room. Having said that, I remember a time when I had 2 GSD's and had to train for 2 weeks at a public boarding facility after these dogs took a rider and horse down in an open pasture. Opening up the flank of the horse, seriously injuring the rider. These were beloved family pets, the owners finally fulfilling their dream of owning a riding stable and having no idea their dogs would respond this way. (They were introducing them slowly to this business and horses, but someone left a door unlatched.) Back then, I would never have taken those dogs off leash to proof them after that 2 weeks training, without my electric collar. I have every type of training equipment that's been on the market, over a 24 yr. period. Did I some of it, yes! Do I now, no. Does that make someone who does, an abusive or ineffectual trainer, no. I am not saying that. I simply find the average dog owner does not use certain equipment properly. (Hence, the reason some owners have 2 and 3 yr old dogs still on prong collars verses being reliable and back on a buckle collar.) I find that there are some trainers who use this equipment as a "short cut." Way back when, I learned a forced retrieve, a very aggressive method of drop on recall and other things I would not use today. Ian Dunbars' is one of the first clinic/workshops I'd ever attended. Even he has changed a great deal over the years. I don't know who has called who a bad trainer but apparently "method' has been an ongoing debate. I'm simply saying dog training has changed and progressed over the years and I don't find that that's a bad thing.

I couldn't have said this better. Good post. Consequences to actions and behaviours will not scar a dog for life ... they are a natural step in evolving, and how humans and other animals learn - be the consequenses positive or negative. Yes, if you can, and if the situation calls for it, positive is obviously the better choice of the two, but as stated above, negative can have positive effects in the end. Touch your finger to a hot stove - you get a burn - and are more than likely not going to touch it again. The outcome is positive that you will not burn yourself again. Are you afraid of the stove? No, but will you be more careful next time? Yes. I'm not trying to say dogs learn the same way as humans but this is a good example of negatives having a positive outcome.
I don't think that anyone is putting down the positive only approach, and I think most people on here use mainly positve training, however, I think the issue here is that some people will not open their mind to other options, or are at least not willing to admit "yes this did work in this situation, and I understand your reasons and respect them", and are perhaps in denial (this may be a bit of a harsh word, but I could not describe it any other way ... this is not meant to offend - I appologise if it does) that positive may not work for all dogs in all situations, with different temperments and different personalities. Hence, the answer to the original question. We are not talking about abusing a dog during training, we are talking about different methods, and as long as there is no abuse (or injury caused to the dog) involved, I believe that everyone should at least have respect for others methods, and realize that they can and do work. Training is not an exact science, we are not doing long division here, a+b will not always equal c in dog training and behaviour modification.

Erm... not sure this was for me. I never mentioned anything of the sort.

Thanks, everyone, for answering my question. Those were really helpful, and I learned a lot, especially about the e-collars and how the cheaper ones (with less levels) administer much more discomfort and pain. RD made a good point about the average person choosing between a $150 and $500 e-collar, making e-collar education doubly important.

Sorry Animalcrackers. I got you mixed up with Savedthebullybreeds.

I don't think people who don't agree with the use of the e-collar are in denial, honestly. I haven't seen the dog in question perform but it sounds like it did work. And yes, i will totally agree that training with an e-collar is better than the dog being hit by a car or lost and starving to death. I don't think any 'positive' trainers are in denial about the way dogs learn.

I've trained sighthounds to, without the use of physical punishment, come reliably when called, offlead, in a field where rabbits DO occasionally dart out. If offlead reliability is not possible without physical punishment, then why do these dogs mind me so well? I honestly do think it's possible... and I have never met a dog that wouldn't respond to my training. Not bragging at all, lol I'm not even sure why, with all my stupid newbie mistakes, positive training works for me and experienced trainers like melanie run into difficulties with it. I'm lucky I guess, maybe I've gotten sighthounds with border collie brains.

I personally don't like causing my dog pain. Morals differ from person to person, so what I see as wrong might be perfectly acceptable to someone else. To each his own. I just hope the way I train continues to work so I never have to make a decision to use aversive tools.

:hail: :hail: :hail:

You're no newbie, first of all. Why some people insist that consequences are only consequences when they're in the form of a choke, prong or shock collar is beyond comprehension. You're right about morals. I think IN GENERAL, the human race is lucky enough as it is to have dogs as companions, where they were once a wild animal. What a gift and privelege. To use the level of force that is so often used in the name of "obedience" or show rings on another species because we can doesn't sit right with me.

Dogs shouldn't be left off leash in dangerous places anyhow. So, they can be trained to a degree and managed to a degree. If it's so important that the dog comes 100% of the time, then they oughtn't be off leash. For me, where I let my dog off leash, he could run into a bear or moose. I run that risk myself everytime I step outside my door. But I'll never let my dog off leash near a dangerous road and he's got a terrific recall. I'm not all that worried about those animals, at least in certain seasons.

Why is it that Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson and so many others are able to train thousands of dogs and other animals that are far less bidable than dogs without the use of those kinds of aversives? There are more tricks in the bag besides "burning your finger on the stove."

This is where part of the problem comes in, RD. I certainly didn't say that off-lead reliability is not possible without physical punishment - and in fact, I've indicated that in some dogs it is. But I WILL say that off-leash reliability is not possible in EVERY dog without consequences being offered at a certain point. Some dogs learn great with positives only (or close to only). Some dogs require more. If your sighthounds have a high level of prey drive (some do, some don't - not all are the same, of course) and a group of rabbits explodes out from under their feet, you won't have any motivator that equals that unless you have your own rabbits to toss out for the sighthounds to chase. You've been lucky .. I'm guessing that the ones you've trained are not that high in prey drive and that multiple rabbits aren't jumping out from directly under their feet (especially since you say rabbits occasionally dart out). Can a high prey drive dog be trained to a predictably reliable recall (at a distance, off-leash) with only positive reinforcement? Well, a truly high prey dog .. probably not .. what motivator would be high enough to over-ride a truly high prey drive? And if you're not close enough to grab them, the prey drive will kick in at a point where anything you say is not even heard.

Sometimes it's hard to gauge what your "tone" is (as it is for all posts, I'm sure) and so when you say things like "experienced trainers like melanie run into difficulties with it" it can easily sound quite sarcastic and rude. And when you say "morals differ from person to person" it can easily sound judgemental and sanctimonious - as if others don't have near the morals you do just because they've chosen to use a training method you say you won't use.

To everyone: I used 99.9% positive training with Trick for about the first two years of her life - so I'm talking 1996-1998. This was after spending a couple of years studying and learning about the concepts of behavior and training with the use of +R (and understanding +P, -R, -P). I had already switched to high-positives with my more compulsive-trained dogs and done some re-training with good results. With Trick, I tried to even avoid verbal "no" type aversives. I wanted to really see what happened with a purely positive trained dog. Much of what I did was wonderful with her, but it finally took adding some minor consequences to behaviors to really solidify her choices. I spent time learning and exploring the differences, working with other people and their dogs as well, and I came to a conclusion that +R is absolutely wonderful but there is a place for the other concepts of training too. And each dog has to be trained according to that dog's particular needs. Some dogs need more boundaries (like Khana). Some dogs require less (like Trick). In my current class I have two shibas and an akita as well as my chow - all being worked on flat collars, but all needing a certain level of correction too. If any of these people choose to use a positive punishment, physical aversive, whatever people want to call it - it does NOT make them bad, nor does it mean they WANT to cause pain to their dogs, nor does it mean they have less morals than someone who wants to believe that +P is never necessary. What it does mean is that they have assessed the behavior of their dogs, tried to direct them with the use of +R, and now are including a consequence to set boundaries so that their dogs will be more well-mannered and responsive. And that's a good thing.

You know, in this day and age people appear to be more down on positive trainers than they are on trainers like Cesar Millan. And I truly think it's because positive trainers can be highly judgemental of those who use aversives. Alienating those who are 90-95% positive just because they occasionally use a physical aversive is cutting off a huge number of people who are really on the side of positive training but are tired of hearing how bad they are just because they aren't as "perfect" as those who are 99% positive. (And I'm using the word "perfect" in a sarcastic way .. just making a point with it).

We're pretty much all on the same side .. let's try to keep it that way.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Using the same example as above, rabbits darting out of in front of a dog, would a shock collar set at an extremely low level be effective?

Happens on this board all the time.

I just got back from class now and it was a 30 minute long discussion about the trial this weekend, in Kingston I think. The woman who took HIT in the Novice class, literally knelt down and baited her dog into a down for the long sits and downs, as well as lifting his front legs and sliding them down. In the recall the dog had wandered around the whole ring before he came to her front.

The topics been brought up before by my trainer and others about how obedience matches USED to be. How you see things now that you never would've a decade or two ago. People in open with dogs that break sit/down stays, use huge sweeping arm motions for finishes etc.

It just came to mind when reading the posts about how seemingly leniant obedience has become with these seemingly un-obedient dogs! LOL