# Interesting thoughts on Reward Based Training



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I think my only problem with the "purely positive" mentality comes exactly from that list above.  

I use corrections with both my goldens, but absolutely none of those items apply. And being involved with 2 training clubs and surrounded by many talented trainers who go very far in obedience using some corrections - even while they may be mostly positive. I know no dogs or trainers who that list would apply to. 

I think my feeling is that that list applies to those police dog type or admirer trainers who do use rougher methods to drill what they want into the dogs heads. I have never met anyone whose dog shows signs of being handled that way though. And I would be the first person to suggest that people steer clear of K9 type trainers who claim to "fix" your dogs in 3 weeks or whatever. I guarantee you though - those people are not mainstream or everyone who uses corrections!

And actually even the term "punishment" is incorrect. Corrections are not punishments. They generally if your timing is right - stop an incorrect action. Even your more positive trainers use corrections when they take a rambunctious dog and put him back in his crate to STOP incorrect actions. Most common corrections that people use are verbal (no or ah-ah) or collar/leash pops. 

My Monday-class instructor demonstrated correct leash corrections for people, because a lot of what she sees are people hauling on their dogs or nagging at their dogs. Leash corrections need to be quick, precise, and only sharp enough to get the dog's attention. Depending on the size and tolerance of the dog, this could be nothing more than chain rattling for some. There is no such thing as one universally used leash correction. 

Take the standard correction for a pulling dog on a walk - when you make like a tree, you are giving your dog a leash pop. And actually it is a strong leash pop considering you are using your whole body as opposed to fingers. 

Even scruff shakes or side pinches are not necessarily going to lead to the dog shutting down or becoming traumatized for longer than it takes for the trainer to mark/reward a correct behavior. 

There are trainers who use scruff shakes and side pinches as positive or play reinforcement. That somewhat tells you about the "harshness level". When I release Jacks from X, I may sometimes grab his scruff and pop him upwards and rough him up a little. With some dogs this is just HORRIBLE abuse (our collie). With goldens they thrive on rough play. And actually Jacks is my boy who when he is feeling at his best while training is grabbing my clothes or arm. That's essentially what the scruff grab means to him. With Bertie, I use the side pinches or butt tags as a "gotcha" when he's forging and not paying attention. It usually is accompanied with me dropping the leash and running backwards. Again nothing that's going to send a dog into abuse therapy.  

There are harsher trainers out there, but what generally happens is people do not want to go through all that with their dogs and they simply find instructors who suit their sensibilities better. You do not have to be absolute harsh-police dog trainer or purely positive fluff in training - and it preferable for results and the sanity of your home and dog that you are not. Most people float in the middle where it applies to their training.


----------



## dgmama (Nov 29, 2012)

I really like Emily Larlham. I love her videos. But I wonder where I would be if I was purely positive.

I have had great success with training Diego to no react around other dogs. Before he would go crazy, and I felt like I was about to be dragged off my feet, he looked like a monster. We used positive reinforcement, clicker training. We would click treat click treat click treat from a distance, and then close the gap. So now all we are working on is him being able to walk past another dog head on. That's his only problem.

Though, I do use leash corrections, but only on his front clip harness. We would never correct him on a collar. I also use my voice a lot. And if Diego is getting a little over the top I say a firm HEEL. But that is only for around other dogs, same with the corrections, very rare. When just out on a normal walk I only use my voice. And if he doesn't listen, I stop, and then we get back into heel position and move on. The reason I get really firm with him is for so long he's been doing everything on his terms, and walked all over me. So boy is he a different dog now. I remember a little while before I started his training he literally pulled me into my neighbor's yard to go toward her dog. Now, just a few days ago, I practiced Diego's obedience in a pet store full of other large dogs.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

I was going to just leave this one alone..but I can't. I am not one way or the other and every dog is different on what it needs, whether it be training or just manners. 
That stuff listed in that above makes me ill.. Why do we have to be one or the other?
I would never treat my dogs like that....EVER! and I am showing at the top level of obedience and have stayed there for years. I have never had either one of my dogs afraid of me or of what we were doing. Have I corrected ...yes usually followed right up with praise and rewards when I get the behaviours.. Both of my dog offer up fun behaviours and neither is afraid to try something. I believe letting a dog be wrong over and over with no feedback is incredibly mean. I train both dogs with a pinch collar because I refuse to tug or pull at their necks! One slight lifting of a finger has the desired results..so if that lumps me in with the crazies.. whatever.. There are alot of us somewhere in the middle of this mess and that is where I am staying. My dogs love me and that is enough for me. They are animated with happy natural movement in the ring and love to show. I take my time and let the dog tell me when they are ready. Mighty may be 5 before he matures enough to be in the ring and that is just fine with me. Showing is fun but my dogs are family and more important. BTW.. I raised my two boys that same way and the 1st thing every teacher has told me is that they are very respectful and nice kids..I do believe I used the same ideals for them that I do the dogs.. Until they are old enough to make the good decisions I am there to guide but keep encouraging the choices. By the time they are grown, they should have the confidence to make the right choice. Do they still make mistakes.. yep and I am there to help them.
Okay off soapbox...Wow I think that is most I have posted in forever..


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

That is great feedback, and very thoughtful.

I am also interested in people who are likeminded with Emily Larlham, but who are not APDT Pet dog trainers or veterinary behaviorists. 

What is the best way to rehabilitate/train a shelter dog with a history of fearful biting? 
What is the best practice/protocol for teaching community wide puppy K?
What is the best response to Bark Busters and other chains? 
What are the most humane techniques to teach people with pet dog problems?




What is Possible? | Denise Fenzi

What is Possible?

Recently I heard an interview with a very well known competitor/trainer. He said “positive training works with dolphins…..it is not possible to train a dog without physical contact; it’s a lie…”.

Physical contact means pain compliance.

My first thought was, “How egotistical is THAT? If you can’t do it, no one can?” Let’s call that my irritable reaction.

My irritation was soon replaced by sadness, however, because if positive reinforcement training is “not possible”, then what sane person would attempt it? If a “top trainer” ridicules the possibility, then the message to thousands of less experienced trainers is clear: do what is proven to work, regardless of the outcome for the dog, or the sport. If a young trainer decides to attempt positive training anyway, the blatant ridicule, followed by subtle sabotage, will usually drive them away from the sport or into the hands of tradition soon enough. It takes a strong and courageous person to do something that others say is impossible, and few individuals want to play the fool, especially if they are relative novices themselves.

If you want to be a successful competitor, the safest route is the known one. Many of the most accomplished competitors have very little to offer outside of their method, which often crams every dog into exactly the same hole they’ve been crammed into for thirty years. Yes, these folks win. If winning is the most important element for you, then it makes sense to go with what is proven to work. But, when well regarded trainers or competitors state that a progressive method is “not possible”, you discourage innovation and set dog sports in the wrong direction.

Wouldn’t it be better to say, “In my experience, positive training does not work.”? That phrase opens up a place for dialogue and the possibility that you may be confronted with evidence, which might, over time, allow you to change your perspective and try something new.

If the world of today had been described to me thirty years ago, I would have been unable to process what I was hearing. I would have had no way to reconcile such unbelievable information with what I now know to be real and true. The possibility of video telephones, computers, internet – I would have laughed at you. If you had told me that athletes were breaking records that were considered physically impossible, that science had taken us inside of cells and DNA and into the very heart of what makes us human – I could not have heard you. Big Science was a test tube baby, not Dolly the cloned sheep.

If you had told me that I could use food to train a dog; that a plastic toy called a clicker could help me with my training, that I could wait for a behavior to occur and then name it rather than creating each behavior… I would have made fun of the waste of time and the “stupidness” of it all. I was young and opinionated. I knew it all, and if I wasn’t doing it, then it wasn’t worth doing.

While it’s sad to see such a close minded attitude on a thirteen year old, it’s relatively harmless since no one is listening anyway, but coming from a well known trainer with excellent skills and insight to offer… it’s damaging and cause for great concern.

The world of today was NOT POSSIBLE just thirty years ago. Outside the realm of comprehension. Yet it’s here, not only possible, but now reality. So if the not possible can become reality, isn’t it better to try and stay away from absolutes in our thoughts and speech as much as we can? There are so many places to throw up barriers and argue that something is not possible. Honestly, it makes me tired even thinking about it, which is why I have waited a while to broach this topic. The words that come out of our mouths frame the reality in our heads. Close your mind to new possibilities and you are right, it will not happen for you.

I cannot predict where a changed mindset will take you, any more than I could have predicted that Dolly the Sheep was possible. The possibilities suggest, however, that the dog/human relationship can be so much more than what tradition and prior experience may have led us to believe.

I made the change to positive training techniques many years ago, but it was only two or three years ago, when Cisu began failing in the ring, that I made a complete change in philosophy to dog as partner rather than dog as subject. I can’t wait to see what I’m doing in five years, because really, I’ve just begun to explore the avenues of possibility that are appearing in front of me, and they seem endless. There is so much to learn.

Training is a journey, not a destination. If you think you’ve arrived, you’ve already missed out.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

My statement was from a facebook forum a couple weeks ago and it was a quote from a purely postive trainer. I am not naming names on a public forum. 
I am just saying I get tired of being labeled. I believe everyone has the right to train the way they see fit. Every dog is different, same as children. Jill you were a teacher.. you know some young people need more structure when others don't and thrive on it.
I hate labels! I think they are unfair. While I don't train purely positive I also don't swing the other way. If you want to have a discussion about purely positive training.. have at it.. I will bow out but the manifesto is insulting to those of us that have tried to find that balance and I believe that is what we are all trying to achieve.
Done.. no more from me... my fingers are officially retired..


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

*What is the best way to rehabilitate/train a shelter dog with a history of fearful biting?* 

- You do not necessarily have to be one thing or another with a shelter dog or even a dog with fear aggression problems. Our first golden had some aggression issues that we learned to handle via "clean up" methods. Had we been equipped when he was a puppy on how to recognize his temperament and appropriately correct his behaviors early, could be he would have grown up as sound and as mild tempered as any golden retriever. As it was, a lot of his behaviors were instilled by the time he was a year old and we did not find our way to a balanced type trainer until he was 2. About then we learned how to train him properly to manage his behaviors and basically take the bite out of them. He always was a "grumpy old man" but not an attack threat as he may have been otherwise. 

That is why the best advice to any new dog trainer whether that's with a puppy or with a rescue dog, they need to locate a GOOD instructor and training club to help them identify issues early and either correct them or manage them. 

*What is the best practice/protocol for teaching community wide puppy K?*

Puppy K is vastly different than boot camp. It is very important to recognize that. 

Very few corrections are necessary with a 12 week old puppy. Some corrections are needed with a 6 month old. 

You understand why there are a lot of people who decide to skip puppy K, simply because many puppy K's are geared towards "catching dog owners" while they can. Some of those places I looked at with Bertie, even at the club I train at, list off discussion of neutering/spaying as a training topic! Same thing with playtime. That is not training, even though it may be appropriate while working with new puppy owners.

*What is the best response to Bark Busters and other chains?* 

Best suggestion is always tell people to either stay away from those places or review them on a trainer to trainer basis. 

*What are the most humane techniques to teach people with pet dog problems?*

Teach the people to understand they own dogs. Teach them to understand their dogs. Why their dogs DO things. Why their dogs won't listen. Teach them how to communicate (through training and handling) with their dogs.

This does not necessitate taking a "no corrections" stance or "no treats or praise" stance. Or anything like that. It primarily means that both instructors and trainers need to recognize each dog needs to be treated on an individual case by case. Instructors need to be flexible as far as how to address problems. Trainers need to be open to doing a lot more work themselves as opposed to just taking their dogs to class and hoping the problem will be fixed in 6 to 8 weeks. There's a lot of homework and daily and lifetime maintenance when it comes to dog training.

A very awesome example I saw last training session was a woman freshly retired who decided to take her 9 year old dog to class to brush up on a few things, but also have something fun and bonding to do with her dog. Her dog went from being anxious and uncertain about being in a class with 10 other dogs to looking absolutely happy about being out there with her owner. The owner was going through a hard time losing one of her other dogs to renal failure, so I believe having this special time with this other dog helped her as well. 

So dog training isn't just to "fix" problem dogs or train puppies.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Titan1 said:


> I was going to just leave this one alone..but I can't. I am not one way or the other and every dog is different on what it needs, whether it be training or just manners.
> That stuff listed in that above makes me ill.. Why do we have to be one or the other?
> I would never treat my dogs like that....EVER! and I am showing at the top level of obedience and have stayed there for years. I have never had either one of my dogs afraid of me or of what we were doing. Have I corrected ...yes usually followed right up with praise and rewards when I get the behaviours.. Both of my dog offer up fun behaviours and neither is afraid to try something. I believe letting a dog be wrong over and over with no feedback is incredibly mean. I train both dogs with a pinch collar because I refuse to tug or pull at their necks! One slight lifting of a finger has the desired results..so if that lumps me in with the crazies.. whatever.. There are alot of us somewhere in the middle of this mess and that is where I am staying. My dogs love me and that is enough for me. They are animated with happy natural movement in the ring and love to show. I take my time and let the dog tell me when they are ready. Mighty may be 5 before he matures enough to be in the ring and that is just fine with me. Showing is fun but my dogs are family and more important. BTW.. I raised my two boys that same way and the 1st thing every teacher has told me is that they are very respectful and nice kids..I do believe I used the same ideals for them that I do the dogs.. Until they are old enough to make the good decisions I am there to guide but keep encouraging the choices. By the time they are grown, they should have the confidence to make the right choice. Do they still make mistakes.. yep and I am there to help them.
> Okay off soapbox...Wow I think that is most I have posted in forever..


Hard to argue with your results....

I'm also trying to ignore snarky comments about the use of various collars and training techniques, but it's getting increasingly difficult to do. Especially when many of those comments are made by those who have no problem strapping a harness around their dog's snout, and somehow think that's more humane than using a prong collar.


----------



## Ohiomom9977 (Jul 27, 2012)

Personally I have found a combination of approaches works best for us. We are using a prong collar & I believe he is a MUCH happier dog for it. Walks were few & far between with him choking almost the whole time. Harnesses didn't help us either. He is so excited now when I get that collar out & we are getting by with less correction every day. Im hoping to transition him to a regular collar soon. Of course we are also using tons if praise with him. I went in to his training open minded about suggestions that would be given & none has been wrong yet. Different strokes for different folks...


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Nairb said:


> Hard to argue with your results....
> 
> I'm also trying to ignore snarky comments about the use of various collars and training techniques, but it's getting increasingly difficult to do. Especially when many of those comments are made by those who have no problem strapping a harness around their dog's snout, and somehow think that's more humane than using a prong collar.


Or withhold food in the name of "positive" training. If one doesn't feed their dog before they train to make sure they are hungry, and then doesn't feed the dog during training because they didn't like what they got from the dog, I really don't think the dogs see that as very positive. I am certain that my dog would rather me tell him "no" when something is incorrect than not let him have food when he's hungry.

I do agree with the idea that the dog decides what is rewarding, but not with the idea that if your dog doesn't do a command you just need better treats. Wow, what a well trained trainer. Dog wants something better than kibble, so holds out for a hot dog. Then wants something better than hot dogs, so when he doesn't respond, he is offers some cheese. Before long nothing is good enough for the dog unless it is home cooked roast beef (unless, of course, you have the dog skip meals so he is so hungry he'll be willing to take anything).

I strongly dislike extremes.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I too was going to stay far away from this thread .. but …

Honestly, I have had a high scoring dog using compulsion based training. I have had a stressed out dog using compulsion based training who never overcame his anxiety with the dumbbell. Beautiful heeler but froze when the dumbbell came out in trials.

Is compulsive training the reason my King did so well ? Nope. He was well rewarded for getting things right. He was corrected when he was blowing me off – and yes he blew me off when he felt he had a choice or better things to do.

So why did he score better than what I currently expect from my dogs? Dedication to training. King and I trained most days for at least an hour. I went to matches and classes and Run Thrus.I was a daily sight here, there and everywhere – my dog and I getting prepared for something. I badgered everyone I saw with a beautifully behaved golden on how they did it, where they trained and if they would work with me. I gave the bird to those trainers who said my King would never amount to anything since he was so out of control. I WORKED and enjoyed that dog on a daily basis. I judged matches and stewarded and taught classes. I learned obedience from all angles and I loved every minute I spent with my King. I still have his collars, his regular training collars, his show ‘choke’ collars (2 collars made of gold, almost like jewelry) and his prong collar – oh I also had a fur saver collar.

I now look at most obedience exercises as tricks. Not really useful in real life but fun to train and teach – a wonderful bonding and just a blast! But recalls are critically important with or without a front and in real life chances are a dog needing to be recalled is not patiently sitting there watching you, nor does a straight front matter. Does it really matter (in real life) if your dog retrieves 3 gloves at once instead of just one? Etc. Please don’t get me wrong, I love obedience but consider it a beautifully choreographed dance and far removed from real life. 

So training methods rely on where you are in life, what type of dog you have and what your other plans are J Off my soap box now…..

Oops, not quite. Training positively does *not* equal withholding food. The standard rule is if your dog fails something twice, you simplify so he can be rewarded. My dogs are fed at their normal times, before training – always! To do otherwise is just plain mean. Training treats are not their food – sometimes I have high quality treats like chicken or liver, but other times I will use whipped cream (contacts), Beef a Roni (weaves) and even mini-ritz sandwiches. I certainly would not consider any of those as part of their daily nutrition. Other times we play, tug, chase balls whatever. I think both sides of the issue are much closer than we often think.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I went to an informal heeling "boot camp" a few weeks ago. During the session she taught us to do correction "games" -- basically condition the dog to think of corrections as a good thing. We would give gentle leash pop or collar pop (for off leash heeling corrections) and then treat. When we popped the leash we would use our happy voice and say "bounce!" I think the idea was to be able to use leash and collar pops to get their attention and stop an incorrect behavior without it being considered negative.

Any thoughts on this?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It is intriguing to me how opposite the majority view on the forum here is from the majority view of the shelter staff, behaviorists at Tufts, and pet dog trainers in my real( as opposed to virtual) life. You can count on five fingers the the people who fit in both worlds philosophically. The one thing I don't really understand is the defensiveness right now(?)- bc you are all the vast majority on this forum who use e collars, prong collars and corrections, whereas positive training has been called everything from Disney training to Romancing The Cookie. The forum here thinks one way ( mainly that a balanced approach is needed and most equipment has a useful time and place) and then the people certifying pet dog trainers CPDT-KA and the APDT, along with vet school behaviorists think a completely different way and do not feel corrections, pain, e collars, prong collars etc have a place is modern, enlightened animal training. There are only about five forum members who are both pet dog trainers or practitioners of purely positive training who also compete in any AKC events. There's not much overlap.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I went to an informal heeling "boot camp" a few weeks ago. During the session she taught us to do correction "games" -- basically condition the dog to think of corrections as a good thing. We would give gentle leash pop or collar pop (for off leash heeling corrections) and then treat. When we popped the leash we would use our happy voice and say "bounce!" I think the idea was to be able to use leash and collar pops to get their attention and stop an incorrect behavior without it being considered negative.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> ...


Sounds interesting. I was taught to immediately praise after a correction. It sounds like that technique takes it a step further. I may give it a try.

On corrections....Bella actually ignores a lot of corrections. I either don't do it right, or she has a tough neck. She does wear her prong collar for class (more for control around other dogs), but that's it. I train her on her flat collar at home. I think it depends on the individual dog and handler.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I went to an informal heeling "boot camp" a few weeks ago. During the session she taught us to do correction "games" -- basically condition the dog to think of corrections as a good thing. We would give gentle leash pop or collar pop (for off leash heeling corrections) and then treat. When we popped the leash we would use our happy voice and say "bounce!" I think the idea was to be able to use leash and collar pops to get their attention and stop an incorrect behavior without it being considered negative.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> ...


That's how I train starting from day one. I use very few corrections that the dog doesn't see as just part of the game (not saying i dont use any, just few and not often). Honestly it's the nonphysical corrections that bother and upset my dogs more than the physical ones. Right now if my dog leaves me while we're working in the backyard I walk right out of the gate and leave him back there (for about twenty seconds). That is pure emotional TORTURE to him and it's not something he views as positive or pleasant. It's why I only do it for twenty seconds, not five or ten minutes or longer. I consider what I'm doing now stepping up the correction a level to him. He would much much rather me run up and tap his butt when he's not looking and then we play a game. That's fun for him and keeps him engaged with me. But for some reason the first method is more generally seen as a "positive" method and the 
second a "correction" method, but I don't think the dog sees it that way at all. And just likes dog decides what is rewarding to him, the dog decides what is punishment to him. If I had left my Lhasa Apso in the backyard when he left me he would have said good!

I don't understand why touching your dog in training became a bad thing.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I went to an informal heeling "boot camp" a few weeks ago. During the session she taught us to do correction "games" -- basically condition the dog to think of corrections as a good thing. We would give gentle leash pop or collar pop (for off leash heeling corrections) and then treat. When we popped the leash we would use our happy voice and say "bounce!" I think the idea was to be able to use leash and collar pops to get their attention and stop an incorrect behavior without it being considered negative.
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


We will apparently be learning something like that in Bertie's classes.... I have no idea what to expect? So it should be interesting.... 

My old instructor back when we got our dog training on the right track - would always teach pop corrections on the same basis of gotcha games. The instant your dog responded to and looked at you, you were jumping back and having a party like "THERE you are!" 

That is why leash corrections can be positive, because the dog connects them to rewards/play/praise. 

That instructor, btw, was very emphatic on using "happy voice" and pleasant face while working with the dogs, as well as soft hands on the leash. 

Many of my current instructors are wonderful and I think there have been many people in my life who have been a huge influence on what I do while training, but I always go back to that first instructor because of course what she trained made a lot of sense as far as getting through to golden puppies especially. 

That instructor, btw, was one of those who limited the use of treats to infrequent jackpots once you were into competition level classes. That is one huge difference between her and a lot of balanced instructors/trainers today who use both corrections and treat/lure methods to train obedience.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Sunrise said:


> Training positively does *not* equal withholding food.


Oh and I wasn't trying to imply it was....just like not everyone who chooses not to train like the trainer in the blog is out there kicking and beating their dog. But there are some people who withhold meals in the name of positive training and that never made much sense to me. 

Telling your dog "no" or "eh" is intimidation? Physical contact means pain compliance? Those are the extremes that make me sad, just as much as the extremes of physically abusing a dog. I understand not everyone wants to use more traditional corrections like collar pops, ear pinches, etc and I don't see a problem with that, like I said those are something I don't use all that often in my own training and everyone should make a call on what they are comfortable with. But I think some people are taking it to the extreme when they say you should never touch a dog when training (and I'm not meaning "corrections", I mean not touch your dog at all) or never tell a dog he is wrong (I don't yell at my dog or speak meanly to him, but I provide information to let him know he didn't make the correct choice and he should try again). And it confuses me why some of those same people don't seem to take into consideration the emotional punishment to the dog, even if it's not physical or verbal.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> It is intriguing to me how opposite the majority view on the forum here is from the majority view of the shelter staff, behaviorists at Tufts, and pet dog trainers in my real( as opposed to virtual) life. You can count on five fingers the the people who fit in both worlds philosophically. The one thing I don't really understand is the defensiveness right now(?)- bc you are all the vast majority on this forum who use e collars, prong collars and corrections, whereas positive training has been called everything from Disney training to Romancing The Cookie. The forum here thinks one way ( mainly that a balanced approach is needed and most equipment has a useful time and place) and then the people certifying pet dog trainers CPDT-KA and the APDT, along with vet school behaviorists think a completely different way and do not feel corrections, pain, e collars, prong collars etc have a place is modern, enlightened animal training. There are only about five forum members who are both pet dog trainers or practitioners of purely positive training who also compete in any AKC events. There's not much overlap.


I actually have friends who foster/train for rescues - using the same methods our instructor's do. 

Something I've found out too is different rescue groups limit the style of training used on dogs fostered or adopted from them. This is mandated by the people running the rescues. 

Same thing is likely true of most organizations. There probably is a mandate in place which tells the instructors that you will train this way, teach this method, use these tools or you may not work for us.

I don't believe that truly shows that is where the results are or how majority of trainers who spend their whole lives with rehabilitating dogs or competing with their dogs choose to train when they are on their own time.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

My dogs know 'no', 'uh uh', 'wrong', 'break', 'try again' etc  as I mentioned, I think other than the extremes (which I did not mention) i believe most trainers are actually closer to both sides than they might think. And hey, running my hand down the leash to allow me to walk backwards is a correction aimed at reducing the likelihood that my dog will ?? Fill in the blank but an example might be that wide on an about turn. Extremes are bad, but in the end it is dedication and vision that creates the teams that send shivers down our spine when we get to watch them. Not neccesarily the training techniques when there is a bond.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I would love to hear some ideas from people who have actual experience in purely positive training. So far I think we just have one responder with experience. Is there anyone here who is either a dyed-in-the-wool positive training expert or even someone who has made a wholehearted attempt to train purely positively?


----------



## Bentleysmom (Aug 11, 2012)

I taught Ky on my own since she wasn't allowed in any class. She had been so abused I couldn't even use the word no. Everything was positive with her. If she wasn't getting something we would call it a day and try again later.
I used (still do) a noise EHH instead of telling her she was doing it wrong. I don't know if it's her background or the training but she is the best trained dog I've ever had.
Bentley has heard no a lot. I've also snapped his leash as a correction. Of course he's a puppy so I'm still not sure what works best for him.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I'm a "crossover trainer" of the opposite variety. I started pure positive, clicker training, until I found a way I liked better. I didn't care for the hands-off, scientific feel of clicker training. I don't see the fact that any good trainer should be able to replace the current trainer and it not effect the animal as a good thing. I can see where it would be beneficial for people like shelter workers, but I want to be able to be a bigger part of the training process. I want to tell my dog when he's right, in a tone that makes his butt wiggle. I want to be able to tell him he's wrong if it will help him figure out how to be right. I want my hands on him. I want to feel him. If I decided I never wanted to use another traditional type correction for the rest of my life as a trainer, I still would not want to go back to that scientific type training. I love going out to train my dog because of the fun we have together. When I was clicker training it was cool seeing a dog learn things, but it wasn't the same connection between me and the dog.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Jodie, that is a really cool post, and I get that. While I have that great feeling of connection to Tally and Lush, I agree that most dogs in class simply work best for the person with the best skills. Good point, and an original one too. I am not sure I have ever heard that before, but I can see it.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> I would love to hear some ideas from people who have actual experience in purely positive training. So far I think we just have one responder with experience. Is there anyone here who is either a dyed-in-the-wool positive training expert or even someone who has made a wholehearted attempt to train purely positively?



I train/trained purely positively and am a bit of a positive training nerd. I work with my own dog and rescues in the area with dogs that have shut down. I think I have mentioned on here before that I don't even like NILIF and other forms of hierarchy training. Kathy Sdao would probably be one of the most truly positive, non-compulsion trainers (ACAAB, not CPDT-KA) I can think of if you want to look into her work for some examples. I admire some cross-over trainers as well, Michael Ellis and Kevin Behan come to mind. Kevin Behan in particular influenced a lot of my dog training philosophy, but even he profoundly believes in becoming something your dog is attracted to first and foremost.

I do honestly believe that no dog _needs_ to be trained with compulsion methods. Truly. But I also understand that training a dog using purely positive and even non-hierarchical methods of training is a unique road to travel and most dog owners do not have the time, flexibility, personal motivation, or luxury of being able to train their dog that way. I think if dogs could only go to homes that practiced 100% positive training, we would have a lot of homeless dogs and I don't think that's a battle I want to wage. I accept that I have a personal drive to explore this and I do believe it is the "right" way to train, but I also have to understand that we live in a world where thousands of dogs are still being euthanized every day and if an appropriately used prong or shock collar keeps one more dog out of that system and living functionally with a family instead, then I suppose I can respect the needs of that particular family that has that particular dog even if I think there is a better way. Obviously I'm armed and ready to push my views with families that are not having much luck with more traditional methods :

For what it's worth, I love the results of how I train. I have a big teenage boy and he has a lot of drive. We have issues, sure. But every day, I see so much progress because of how we train and my dog is distinctly involved and engaged in his little world in a way that I do not normally see from other dogs. I love that he is brave, independent, and strong-willed. I accept that he is not easy and he could be "easier" if I was willing to train differently. But I'm not willing to train differently, and I think I have different desires from dog ownership than most people do.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I love obedience but consider it a beautifully choreographed dance and far removed from real life.


Sharon.... can you name one obedience exercise which would not be helpful or useful in "real life"? 

I use every single one with my guys around the house. The more they know, the easier it is to get them to pose for the camera, stand nicely for grooming, sit or stand on that scale at the vet, fetch their toys, walk nicely on command, not sniff the girls, etc....

I do ask my dogs to go out into the yard and fetch things. They also need to have the control to fetch what I want them to fetch and ignore things (like bunnies) that I did not send them to retrieve. 

I was joking about scent discrimination even - when I throw sticks in the yard. The dogs are sniffing around for my scent, particularly if the stick lands where there are a bunch of sticks. Even the puppy quickly learned this game. 

I wanted to thank your comment because I definitely do agree with everything else you say and feel its reasonable, but ack - obedience is not just tricks and performance. That's freestyle for you. Which, I might add, also takes a lot of training and control over your dogs every move.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Grins - okay here goes. Please be aware that when I speak of obedience or rally I am talking way beyond qualifying scores, but rather fairly high scores.

Recalls - when does your dog patiently wait for you to call him while facing you if not in obedience. A straight front & finish are not truly needed in everyday living.

Heeling - close and moving with you in a precise dance including nice focus - loose lead heeling with a natural head position as well as heeling on the right is more beneficial in real life I believe.

Retrieve on the flat - the dogs stays in heel position waiting for permission to retrieve and then fronts and finishes. Even in field, the retrieval object is not tossed by the handler and fronts are not preferred.

Retrieve over the High Jump -same as retrieve on the flat but the added complexity of jumping. This I think is designed to simulate retrieving a bird and jumping a fence - now we have goldens but what about say a maltese ? What do they retrieve and why wouldd they jump fences when they can go under them?

Broad Jump - is intended to somehow emulate a dog jumping a stream I believe. But he is set up in the middle of said stream to land in the middle of the stream before turning and returning to front - and then finishes on the stream bank??

Scent articles - dogs really do know how to discriminate scent but I cannot see where I would have them do this in real life. Working dogs, rescue dogs, assistance dogs yes. My dogs , not so much.

Directed Jumping - other than setting the dog up to jump, what does the Send Away really accomplish - again using field, the turn and sit is used to give directions so I suppose that portion is valid for a hunter 

Directed retrieve - I think if I dropped something while out on a hike, I'd prefer my dog to pick up all the objects before returning them to me.

Moving Stand for Exam - hmmm. Not sure when I would use that one in real life.

Signals in an emergency situation but in an emergency I am pretty sure I'd be very loud too. 

The stand itself is definitely useful. 

As I mentioned, I do love obedience but the exercises are part of a dance to me - a joyous dance and one I look forward to teaching, but not in the same category (to me) as house manners, polite greetings, walking nicely on leash etc

Oh and lest I forget, the group stays!! Both in sight and out of sight. Yes, my dogs are expected to stay in all kinds of scenarios, but in a line up with other dogs?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Recalls - *when does your dog patiently wait for you to call him* while facing you if not in obedience. A straight front & finish are not truly needed in everyday living.


Believe me, there are possible times where you want a dog to sit somewhere while you take pictures or whatever or there may be something else going on and you want them to hold that position until you call them. The sit at the end of the front is necessary to be able to grab the dog and get a collar and leash on him. 



> Heeling - *close and moving with you* in a precise dance including nice focus - loose lead heeling with a natural head position as well as heeling on the right is more beneficial in real life I believe.


You want a dog to be exactly at your side and moving with you. This is primarily helpful in stores or social situations where you want your dog focused only on you and alert for your commands. I use this all the time in stores when I do not want my dogs visiting other people or dogs. I do not require people to keep their dogs away from mine, because at least the older ones will ignore other dogs on command and weave right around them. 



> Retrieve on the flat - *the dogs stays in heel position waiting for permission to retrieve and then fronts and finishes.* Even in field, the retrieval object is not tossed by the handler and fronts are not preferred.


You do not want the dog anticipating a send to retrieve an object until you have had time to direct him properly and it is safe to send him. Front is sitting with a presented object close enough for you to grab, finish is cycling around to your side to get ready for the next send.



> Retrieve over the High Jump -same as retrieve on the flat but the added complexity of jumping. This I think is designed to simulate retrieving a bird and jumping a fence - now we have goldens but what about say a maltese ? What do they retrieve and why wood they jump fences when they can go under them?


I use this one when hiking and going across pretty jumbled terrain. You will have down trees and certain spots where I tell Jacks to jump on command and he can handle it.

Same thing when getting out of water up a steam bank. Some of the lakes we swim at are "carved" out and depending on the time we go out there, there is a jump down and back up. The dogs need to jump their height or twice to get up on the higher land. I can ask this of Jacks because he does have that training. 



> Broad Jump - is intended to somehow emulate a dog jumping a stream I believe. But he is set up in the middle of said stream to land in the middle of the stream before turning and returning to front - and then finishes on the stream bank??


Same as the previous.



> Scent articles - dogs really do know how to discriminate scent but I cannot see where I would have them do this in real life. Working dogs, rescue dogs, assistance dogs yes. My dogs , not so much.


Your dogs are not your little minions around the house? Goldens LOVE having jobs to do - whether that's cleaning up after themselves or finding favorite toys based on their own scent or yours. Scent discrimination just goes the step beyond that - going through it for the first time, it is absolutely awesome. 

And yes, I still am planning to get Jacks into tracking because I know he would love it. 



> Directed Jumping - other than setting the dog up to jump, what does the Send Away really accomplish - again using field, the turn and sit is used to give directions so I suppose that portion is valid for a hunter


Again, have you ever been in the position where you need to take pictures of the dogs and they insist on sitting on your toes? What about if you just need your space and want the dogs to go to a spot and sit or lie down. 

And again, jumping is helpful for getting a dog out through rough terrain while hiking and get them up to safety. 



> Directed retrieve - I think if I dropped something while out on a hike, I'd prefer my dog to pick up all the objects before returning them to me.


But wouldn't you want your dog to know how to fetch something on direction and retrieve to hand on command? Again, making that dog's natural instincts useful as far as cleaning up after himself. 



> Moving Stand for Exam - hmmm. Not sure when I would use that one in real life.


Exam part - not sniffing people who are petting him, not visiting dogs who are sniffing him, standing still while you groom or the vet looks him over. 



> *Signals in an emergency situation* but in an emergency I am pretty sure I'd be very loud too.





> Oh and lest I forget, the group stays!! Both in sight and out of sight. Yes, *my dogs are expected to stay in all kinds of scenarios*, but in a line up with other dogs?


You never know the kind of distraction that would happen that would require your dog to stay. 



***** The over and above parts of competing in the obedience ring are necessary for the level of competition. You have to have a EXACT level of performance for everyone to aspire to, otherwise you would have a mess in the ring and/or the obedience titles would be as meaningless as the CGC certificate where it is very basic obedience skills that most people can pass with enough training and practice, no extraordinary requirements. <<<<- And fwiw, this is sad, because I do know people and dogs, even GRF members here, who work very hard to pass the test and get that certificate on their dogs. It should be a thing that shows they put the training in as they did, vs people being able to pull up youtube videos of people with subpar performances passing CGC tests. As far as I know there is no scoring in a CGC test, it's pass or fail. Unlike with a CD title, where you can go for high scores to show how hard you worked for that title. 

That's my thought as somebody who loves the sport and feels that - hey if you are into it, you should recognize how these tools work for you. They aren't just little tricks you pull out on a blue moon to impress the relatives. There are every day uses for each element in the ring. 

After my Danny retired after his CD, I still used his obedience every day the rest of his life. These things stick with the dogs if you keep them fresh.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't think there's necessarily much carry over between the obedience ring and real life. I said a few weeks ago that I thought conformation had moved away from its original purpose of choosing the best breeding stock, and I believe obedience doesn't really measure what the regs say its purpose is either. Doesn't mean its not fun to train for and paticipate in, but I'd say the only things the typical pet dog would need in daily life that I train for the obedience ring is sit and stay. Training exercises for the ring itself isn't going to cause dogs not to jump on people, or come when off playing. For the majority of dogs out there, ring heeling and not pulling on a leash are two totally separate ideas. I love competition obedience, but I consider it a game I play with my dogs. Manners and such are something else that has to be taught.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Megora said:


> I use this one when hiking and going across pretty jumbled terrain. You will have down trees and certain spots where I tell Jacks to jump on command and he can handle it.
> 
> Same thing when getting out of water up a steam bank. Some of the lakes we swim at are "carved" out and depending on the time we go out there, there is a jump down and back up. The dogs need to jump their height or twice to get up on the higher land. I can ask this of Jacks because he does have that training.


Just curious -- Jacks would not jump in those situations if you don't tell him to?

Molly is a trailblazer.. nothing stops her, and she'd probably jump off a cliff if it meant she'd land in a lake.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> I don't think there's necessarily much carry over between the obedience ring and real life. I said a few weeks ago that I thought conformation had moved away from its original purpose of choosing the best breeding stock, and I believe obedience doesn't really measure what the regs say its purpose is either. Doesn't mean its not fun to train for and paticipate in, but I'd say the only things the typical pet dog would need in daily life that I train for the obedience ring is sit and stay. Training exercises for the ring itself isn't going to cause dogs not to jump on people, or come when off playing. For the majority of dogs out there, ring heeling and not pulling on a leash are two totally separate ideas. I love competition obedience, but I consider it a game I play with my dogs. Manners and such are something else that has to be taught.


Molly can do a stand for exam but she still wants to jump on people wanting to pet her in real life. That's why_ I _don't think obedience titles necessarily mean good manners..


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Ljilly28 said:


> It is intriguing to me how opposite the majority view on the forum here is from the majority view of the shelter staff, behaviorists at Tufts, and pet dog trainers in my real( as opposed to virtual) life. You can count on five fingers the the people who fit in both worlds philosophically. The one thing I don't really understand is the defensiveness right now(?)- bc you are all the vast majority on this forum who use e collars, prong collars and corrections, whereas positive training has been called everything from Disney training to Romancing The Cookie. The forum here thinks one way ( mainly that a balanced approach is needed and most equipment has a useful time and place) and then the people certifying pet dog trainers CPDT-KA and the APDT, along with vet school behaviorists think a completely different way and do not feel corrections, pain, e collars, prong collars etc have a place is modern, enlightened animal training. There are only about five forum members who are both pet dog trainers or practitioners of purely positive training who also compete in any AKC events. There's not much overlap.


I pay my bills teaching pet classes. I train and compete with my own dogs for fun.

I really like the line Denise Fenzi draws - not using pain or fear/intimidation. What defines "intimidation" will depend largely on the relationship you have with your dog. If Quiz blew me off in the park and decided to go visit my friend rather than come when called when off leash, I'd walk over to him, take his collar, give it a little tug toward me and repeat my "here" cue. That would cause some dogs to shut down, but our *relationship* easily withstood the very rare instance where I needed to do that. (And when it did happen, it was a reminder to me that I needed to go back and re-visit training recalls around difficult - for him - distractions.)

I won't put an e-collar on a dog. I choose to no longer use pinch collars (tho, I did at one time). I don't do an ear pinch. Likewise, if a Gentle Leader appears to cause a dog great distress, I won't use that either. 

I tell my dogs to knock it off when they're being buttheads. I interrupt unacceptable behavior. But at the core of my training - I want my dogs to be correct and I feel it's my responsibility to set them up to succeed. The term "correction match" makes my skin crawl. I can't stand the idea of someone going to a match b/c they *want* the opportunity to correct their dog in a trial setting. I don't *want* to correct my dog. I want to make it easy enough for my dog to be right so I can reward that. 

Steve White has said something to the effect of, "I'm not a purely positive trainer. I'm just not that good...." I totally respect that. Yes. Sometimes even the best trainers who have their feet firmly planted in a positive camp, will use punishment -- but I far prefer when it's doled out as a last resort in emergency-type settings vs a go-to tool for training.

Extreme ideas - at either end of the spectrum - are unfortunate b/c they usually result in people bickering in an attempt at defending their actions.

At the end of the day, I want to enjoy the time I spend with my dogs. It's just not fun for me to issue a leash pop (or what not) so I choose to seek out other ways to train.

And here's the thing - like I said earlier -- the relationship you have with your dog has A LOT to do with how he handles pressure in training. The best trainers who use any degree of compulsion still, for the most part, have happy, animated dogs who relish the training time b/c of the relationship. That's what complicates this "discussion." BUT - I think it's safe to say that for every GOOD trainer/exhibitor who uses compulsion, there are are at least twice as many who do it in a way that creates stress ... as evidenced by the slow, mopey, stress-yawning dogs one often sees in training clubs or the obedience ring. 

For THOSE poor dogs, I think it's especially important to respect the more R+ methods, even if your personal methodology is somewhat different.

JMHO... in a bit of a rambling post.

Dammit. I miss working a dog. #RIPQuiz


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Vhuynh2 said:


> Just curious -- Jacks would not jump in those situations if you don't tell him to?
> 
> Molly is a trailblazer.. nothing stops her, and she'd probably jump off a cliff if it meant she'd land in a lake.


Jumping trees and up cliffs - nope. 

He's a smart chicken little and will look at a situation and go around vs over if it looks safer to him. Which honestly, in most cases is good because otherwise he probably would have killed himself in our backyard which has an alpine hill carved out with a rocky side. 

If I feel it's safe and it's the best route, I usually ask him to jump. And it usually is him trusting me that I'd never ask him to jump somewhere where it would hurt him. I guess? I had to gradually train the high jump height by height to assure him I'd never ask him to do something scary or painful. If he ever got hurt or scared while jumping, that would be the absolute end. 

I think because I have Jacks, that's the primary reason why I think that list of statements in the first post are so ridiculous and meaningless as they apply to real dogs. I own a soft dog who definitely can't handle stress or SCARY (to him) things. I also use corrections and train him in places where he sees corrections or sometimes is put in corrective drills. He loves all this. I told friends at class on Thurs that it broke my heart leaving Jacks home, because he knew I was going to class and right up to the last second was doing his darndest to convince me to bring him with. Even when training, he has that Hermione temperament thing going on. Whatever I ask Bertie to do, Jacks is just waving his little dog arm around and falling out of his desk trying to tell me he knows how to do it. LOL. 

@stand for exam - do you train her not to visit and hold still (on command) when people do an exam with her? That really does help. 

With Bertie the reinforcing commands I'm doing while teaching the stand stay + exam is leave it and no sniff.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

BTW - regarding the first item in the R+ manifesto:

1) Without perfect timing, intensity, and consistency, the “training” amounts to nothing more than abuse.

I think "abuse" is a bit of a loaded word - and a clear indication of her bias.

As a pet trainer, what I see far more often is that intended punishment is more about nagging. Unless the intended punishment actually 'changes unwanted behavior' it's not really effective. MOST people only succeed in temporarily stopping an unwanted behavior, not CHANGING it.

Dog pulls on leash > owner leash pops > dog walks nicely 5 paces > dog pulls again > owner repeats process.

To me, that's nagging, not training. And it's a huge reason why attempts to "punish" or "correct" many unwanted behaviors are ineffective.

In the words of the great Bob Bailey ... "If what you're doing isn't working, CHANGE *YOUR* BEHAVIOR!"


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Megora said:


> Jumping trees and up cliffs - nope.
> 
> He's a smart chicken little and will look at a situation and go around vs over if it looks safer to him. Which honestly, in most cases is good because otherwise he probably would have killed himself in our backyard which has an alpine hill carved out with a rocky side.
> 
> ...


Yes, I was thinking it would've been great if she didn't jump off such high places when she was a pup. I always tried to redirect her to jump from a lower height. But jumping over logs and downed trees on her own -- I have no problem with that. She's a good problem solver and I just let her figure it out on her own. I was wondering if Jacks would need the command to jump if he couldn't go around something.

For the stand for exam, I stand her and tell her to stay, and she will not break when someone comes over and examines her. However, I am hesitant to do the same in real life, because if she starts breaking stand stays in reality, she may start doing that in the ring. I do tell her to sit and wait when someone greets her, but it is still a battle sometimes.. it must be that darn baby voice that so many people use when speaking to her.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

FlyingQuizini said:


> BTW - regarding the first item in the R+ manifesto:
> 
> 1) Without perfect timing, intensity, and consistency, the “training” amounts to nothing more than abuse.
> 
> ...


^ YES. 

If you are going to stop a behavior, you have to mark when/what the dog did right. 

Otherwise like with walking around the block you just have a tug of war with the leash with your dogs and hoping sooner or later they get tired of you yanking on them and just walk at your side. 


**** as far as dogs exhibiting boredom, confusion, and stress during training.... This past week I heard about one trained by somebody who is purely positive and won't allow any corrections on her dog. I met her dog only briefly in those trials where we shared rally or BN class rings.... her dog was about 6 months younger than Jacks and very hyper for his age. She also commented that he had nuts for brains - more or less. That was about the only thing I noticed out of the ordinary as I did quick ringside exams with her before she went into the ring. While I could attend classes with her closer to home, I opted not to because I do use corrections in my training and I don't believe she allows them. Definitely, she will not allow choke chains or prongs in her facility, which I use. People were talking about her golden at the last trial and basically her quitting obedience for a while until her dog sorts things out. He still hasn't gotten his CD despite her really working on it and training him through utility. This because of stay problems, I believe, though there may be other things going on. This dog comes from performance lines and definitely has the obedience lineage behind him. The trainer is very experienced and knows her stuff - she has titled in everything she teaches, the way she teaches. I just think it goes to show you get those dogs that need something different or maybe they just need time and space to relearn things all over again instead of tuning it out. I don't always think it goes back to the trainer or the method.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Megora said:


> ^ YES.
> 
> If you are going to stop a behavior, you have to mark when/what the dog did right.
> 
> Otherwise like with walking around the block you just have a tug of war with the leash with your dogs and hoping sooner or later they get tired of you yanking on them and just walk at your side.


Well, I would say, scientifically, to stop an unwanted behavior, you have to make something ELSE more rewarding.

Dogs only change their behavior for two reasons:

1. Make something bad stop
2. Make something good happen

W/ leash walking, most people don't make "not pulling" rewarding enough in the dog's mind when compared to the fun he has walking faster and sniffing, etc.

Polite leash walking for a dog means walking slower than he wants to go on his own. That's HARD! Take your 96 year old Granny out for the day and walk alongside her if you want to really realize how hard it is to walk slower than your natural pace! :


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Oh, but I think the CGC is much more applicable to everyday life. These are life skills that dogs should know and understand.

Obedience exercises on the other hand, are truly a blast to train but do not generally carry over into real life. They are skills that perhaps started in real life but have morphed into the dance.

I do not heel my dogs on a walk or in a crowd. They are on a lets go where they are still fairly close but are free to be checking out the environment. 

I actually kind of cringe when I hear of people heeling their dogs while out on walks since to me, that is a very precise position where my dog is expected to focus 100% on me - not the surroundings. If I am walking through a crowd, I have my dogs nose cupped in my hand while I take over being alert to anything that may endanger him/her - heeling is reserved for environments when it is safe for my dog to not have worries. 

Even the stand, which I do use in real life (although not the Moving Stand For Exam); I do not say STAY since if I want my dog to stand for the vet, my dog can move his head to watch the vet and he will probably move his feet when that thermometer goes in. The Stand Stay would have points deducted  The vet just appreciates a well behaved dog.

In field the dog usually auto finishes to deliver his bird so he is set up for the next retrieve. More points off in obedience as I learned the hard way with Faelan in Open. I think he finally has it relearned that no bird, no auto finish !

These are just a few of the examples. I suspect some the original obedience exercises were closer to the CGC precision levels not the beautiful teams we see in the rings today. Look at how police dogs work - their requirements are far tougher overall but less precise/polished.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Well, I would say, scientifically, to stop an unwanted behavior, you have to make something ELSE more rewarding.
> 
> Dogs only change their behavior for two reasons:
> 
> ...


Stephanie, how do you know I walk like a 96 old Granny? You watching us?  

I always mark with praise and play - that's the good thing that's supposed to happen. <- Even though, I gotta admit, while I'm doing it all fresh with Bertie going through teenage "MUST GET OVER THE NEXT HILL NOW MOM!" phase of walking, I forgot how patient and persistent you have to be in making like a tree or nudging the leash with verbal reminder and praising when he checks his pace.


----------



## Tsaile's Mom (Apr 26, 2013)

I haven't read all the comments - but I am a very positive reinforcement type trainer. HOWEVER, I also believe in setting a dog up for success rather then failure - and do not see things such as crating a dog that's to wound up as punishment - just a reminder they need to settle down. I also agree that punishment really depends on the dog, and I think any dog to be well trained needs correction in some form at some point. I like corrections to come from the environment - such as a verbal "Uh-Uh" or shake from a penny can - intensity depends on the dog. Even a penny can shake would shut her down. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I do not heel my dogs on a walk or in a crowd. They are on a lets go where they are still fairly close but are free to be checking out the environment.


I do sometimes - it helps when you have people who just stand in your way or let their dogs lunge at you and your dog. Heel position as precise as it is keeps your dog safe at your side and under control while you get past whatever without having to stop and visit. If your dog is looking up at you and focused and you are focused on your dog, people generally don't try visiting. If your dog is looking at them and wagging their tails, you can expect people approaching and trying to get their hands on your dog. People are funny and weird. 

I do not heel dogs long term - like on walks or situations where it would be unreasonable and downright mean to ask a dog to maintain position and focus that long.  That's a good way to introduce lagging to your heeling, for one thing. 



> Even the stand, which I do use in real life (although not the Moving Stand For Exam); I do not say STAY since if I want my dog to stand for the vet, my dog can move his head to watch the vet and he will probably move his feet when that thermometer goes in. The Stand Stay would have points deducted  The vet just appreciates a well behaved dog.


I normally have my hands on my dogs (belly and neck) and tell them to stay. It's easy to reinforce stay that way - and this is a good use for it if your dog knows stay. 

Staying on the scale too. 

I just ask for a "steady" with my dogs while grooming at home - because I don't expect them to hold position and I'm not going to reinforce it as I go over them with a brush. But still the idea with the "steady" is they are up on all four feet and I don't want them walking away or sitting down.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Something that's always bugged me.....even though I use an occasional correction, I consider my training "reward based." It seems as though that term was selected to make it sound as though the use of any corrections disqualifies a handler from using it to describe how they train their dogs. Propaganda, or just good marketing? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Nairb said:


> Something that's always bugged me.....even though I use an occasional correction, I consider my training "reward based." It seems as though that term was selected to make it sound as though the use of any corrections disqualifies a handler from using it to describe how they train their dogs. Propaganda, or just good marketing?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Part of the problem, IMO, is that there isn't a clear definition of what constitutes reward-based training. Someone can have a cookie in one hand, and the remote to an e-collar in the other, and still call themselves "reward based," though, I think there are many other "reward based" trainers who would object. It's very subjective.

That's also why I recommend people dig deeper when looking for a trainer. Don't just accept an apparent "label" -- ask what the person MEANS when they describe themselves as a reward-based trainer.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Part of the problem, IMO, is that there isn't a clear definition of what constitutes reward-based training. Someone can have a cookie in one hand, and the remote to an e-collar in the other, and still call themselves "reward based," though, I think there are many other "reward based" trainers who would object. It's very subjective.
> 
> That's also why I recommend people dig deeper when looking for a trainer. Don't just accept an apparent "label" -- ask what the person MEANS when they describe themselves as a reward-based trainer.


The opposite of "reward" is "punish." So, when "reward based training" is used to describe training without a single correction, it leaves the impression that those who correct are abusive. I don't think it's an accident. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Nairb said:


> The opposite of "reward" is "punish." So, when "reward based training" is used to describe training without a single correction, it leaves the impression that those who correct are abusive. I don't think it's an accident. Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Guess it's how I'm wired, but my mind goes to "not reward" if you ask me the opposite of reward.

I don't think the average trainer assumes corrections *are* abusive. (Though, I'd say some certainly can be.) IMO, the impression you are referring to is more likely at the extreme end of the spectrum - more the people who call themselves "pure positive" vs "reward based."

But, there are problems with "pure positive" as a descriptor as well. By scientific definition, that would be someone who only uses the + side of the 4 quadrants -- meaning positive reinforcement and positive punishment.

Yet again - terminology is confusing and misleading when not accompanied by thoughtful explanation.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Guess it's how I'm wired, but my mind goes to "not reward" if you ask me the opposite of reward....


Fair enough, but everyone in this thread who uses corrections DOES reward. I personally reward and praise a lot. But I don't believe my training techniques meet the OP's definition of "reward based."


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Nairb said:


> Fair enough, but everyone in this thread who uses corrections DOES reward. I personally reward and praise a lot. But I don't believe my training techniques meet the OP's definition of "reward based."


I'm not sure the manifesto that was posted is the same as the OP's definition of "reward based." 

Your techniques might not meet Emily Larlam's (sp?) definition of 'reward based' training. (The manifesto is hers.) BUT - her definition is not the end all be all. 

This is the perfect example of why, again, explanation is needed. The term "reward based" is very subjective.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

I just wanted to chime in that I've always loved everything FQ has to say about training...any dog that teams up with you is a lucky furkid indeed


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Mirinde said:


> I just wanted to chime in that I've always loved everything FQ has to say about training...any dog that teams up with you is a lucky furkid indeed


Aw, shucks... thank you! What a lovely thing to say. Appreciate the kind words.

Can't wait to see whose partner I get to be next... (I have a couple feelers out there...)


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I pay my bills teaching pet classes. I train and compete with my own dogs for fun.
> 
> I really like the line Denise Fenzi draws - not using pain or fear/intimidation. . . I won't put an e-collar on a dog. I choose to no longer use pinch collars (tho, I did at one time). I don't do an ear pinch. Likewise, if a Gentle Leader appears to cause a dog great distress, I won't use that either. . .
> The term "correction match" makes my skin crawl. I can't stand the idea of someone going to a match b/c they *want* the opportunity to correct their dog in a trial setting. I don't *want* to correct my dog. I want to make it easy enough for my dog to be right so I can reward that.
> ...


I really love this post and agree with it.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I tell my dogs to knock it off when they're being buttheads. I interrupt unacceptable behavior. But at the core of my training - I want my dogs to be correct and I feel it's my responsibility to set them up to succeed.


Not to be picking and choosing which sentences or words *I* liked in Stephanie's comment, but this is what I especially liked and I think that every dog owner working with their teenage pups and anyone who hopes to do obedience competitively should holler behind. 

If people in the positive camp threw away the quoted cwap in that first post and stuck to the basics in what they themselves train and are successful in training, how they teach, willingness to acknowledge that it's not the methods which cause problems but incorrect performance of those methods and that's true when people incorrectly apply positive only training methods to how they work with their dogs... I doubt there would be any arguments here.

You will find in most training places there is a healthy "I'll use this, but not this" type of mentality out there when it comes to corrections that people will teach in their classes, tools they will recommend, and even what they want to promote in their students. 

Those are the "positive" type people I've been exposed to. Even that "purely positive" instructor who I opted not to take classes from because I didn't really see the sense in limiting my training that way, she trains with people who use corrections in their training and takes what she likes and doesn't use what she doesn't. There's even a trainer in my area who has been namelessly promoted here on GRF by members because she's very positive and successful with her goldens.... I have seen her teaching and when push comes to shove, she will quickly bring the hammer down on a dog who is acting up. She did this at a fun match (ie correctional match, lol) and everyone stopped what they were doing and paid attention. This lady is very sweet and always smiling and chirping at the dogs, but she does not let them walk all over her. 

When you get to some extreme ends - where you have people making untruthful generalizing statements about other training methods, or spend their time lecturing other people on how they train or insinuating that the other trainers are abusive and their dogs beaten down.... that's what causes problems.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Part of it is getting in common parlance good definitions so people may choose trainers according to their own lights. People who opt to use corrections should not then sell themselves as positive trainers.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Ljilly28 said:


> Part of it is getting in common parlance good definitions so people may choose trainers according to their own lights. People who opt to use corrections should not then sell themselves as positive trainers.


It's so tricky! Even the idea that, "people who opt to use corrections should not then sell themselves as positive trainers" ... how do you define corrections? Or rather, WHO gets to define "corrections?"

My personal interpretation would be that corrections = anything that involves physical discomfort/pain and/or fear/intimidation. But what happens when the Karen Pryor-trained clicker trainer next door feels that using a no reward marker constitutes a correction?

Sooo challenging! Education really is the key.

I always remember a really cool thing Denise Fenzi said to me during an interview for WDJ... "A dog is not a motorcycle. It's not about what the dog can do *for* you. It's about who you are as a team when you're together." I want to approach my training (of my own dogs and my clients') that way. If people really understood that, many would naturally shift away from some of the more commonly used 'corrections' that fall w/in the intimidation/discomfort realm. I want to do things WITH my dog ... not TO my dog. Rewarding my dog is a joyful *process* we *both* enjoy. Corrections are something I do *to* my dog.

Maybe it's a subtle distinction ... and somewhat off topic ... but it means something to me. 

AND - to be clear, I am not, at all, suggesting that people who "correct" their dogs using methods I disagree with don't love their dogs. 

</ramblings>


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> Part of it is getting in common parlance good definitions so people may choose trainers according to their own lights. People who opt to use corrections should not then sell themselves as positive trainers.


I believe you've watched at least one of the training videos I've posted here. I probably rewarded a little too much in the videos because i wanted her to look good, but other than that, it's a pretty good snapshot of how I train. Very positive. 

A correction is sometimes needed early in a session because she will often goof off or not pay attention until we get warmed up. It needs to be made clear that its not playtime. Other than that, corrections are rarely needed. 

Very "positive" and "reward based"........




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## MarieP (Aug 21, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> Part of it is getting in common parlance good definitions so people may choose trainers according to their own lights. People who opt to use corrections should not then sell themselves as positive trainers.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I was soooo going to stay out of this whole thing, but this makes me sad to hear. So you want all people who use corrections to "sell themselves" as what? "Correction trainers?" I can't imagine that positive training can really only mean no corrections. I am a positive trainer. I love my dog, I love my relationship with my dog, but gosh, he can be a jerk sometimes. I'm not even talking about competitive training. I'm talking about random, everyday things. Head in the trashcan: Hey! get your little butt out of there. Jumping up on the couch without being invite: No, get off. And after he does what I want: Thank you, good boy, what a cute puppy! 

I don't think most trainers are trying to sell themselves as anything. I am what I am and I train how I train. Is my dog happy? Yup. Could he be happier if he lived without corrections? Nope, don't think so.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It would be helpful for me in choosing seminars and people with whom to train if there were a term for trainers who use both corrections and rewards (balanced trainer, motivational trainer), and a different term for trainers who are purely positive to the point of eshewing no reward makers etc. People who do train without aversives call themselves positive trainers, but then so do people who train with corrections, so it gets confusing to know who stands for what methods in their training.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 21, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> It would be helpful for me in choosing seminars and people with whom to train if there were a term for trainers who use both corrections and rewards (balanced trainer, motivational trainer), and a different term for trainers who are purely positive to the point of eshewing no reward makers etc. People who do train without aversives call themselves positive trainers, but then so do people who train with corrections, so it gets confusing to know who stands for what methods in their training.


I totally agree on this point. I don't think one can really sum up their methods with just a few words. I think it needs to be an essay  It does make it very hard, especially with seminars, where you might not get to talk to the person at length beforehand.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I always remember a really cool thing Denise Fenzi said to me during an interview for WDJ... "A dog is not a motorcycle. It's not about what the dog can do *for* you. It's about who you are as a team when you're together." I want to approach my training (of my own dogs and my clients') that way. If people really understood that, many would naturally shift away from some of the more commonly used 'corrections' that fall w/in the intimidation/discomfort realm. I want to do things WITH my dog ... not TO my dog. Rewarding my dog is a joyful *process* we *both* enjoy. Corrections are something I do *to* my dog.
> Maybe it's a subtle distinction ... and somewhat off topic ... but it means something to me.


I really admire this cogent, clear paragraph. You write very well.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I don't think there's necessarily much carry over between the obedience ring and real life. I said a few weeks ago that I thought conformation had moved away from its original purpose of choosing the best breeding stock, and I believe obedience doesn't really measure what the regs say its purpose is either. Doesn't mean its not fun to train for and paticipate in, but I'd say the only things the typical pet dog would need in daily life that I train for the obedience ring is sit and stay. Training exercises for the ring itself isn't going to cause dogs not to jump on people, or come when off playing. For the majority of dogs out there, ring heeling and not pulling on a leash are two totally separate ideas. I love competition obedience, but I consider it a game I play with my dogs. Manners and such are something else that has to be taught.


I was thinking about this and Sharon's comments for a while today because they really confused me.... I guess, if you train your dog in obedience, you have to believe in the results of that training reaching beyond the very brief period of time you show them. If you show them. :uhoh: 

I mean I do understand that people are still going back to the very literal interpretation of obedience exercises being useful in real life - meaning they are imagining people trying to keep their 200 points when they walk around the block or call their dogs to front across the lawn.... lol. 

But like I said anything and everything can apply in real life.... if you wanted to use it. 

My Danny never got the titles that your four wonderful dogs have, but my goodness he kept those skills all his life. How they applied in a real life sense was always different than the actual time I set aside to train with him (and yes, he insisted on me training with him right up to the very last week of his life while he still felt happy and good). When he heard his choke chain rattle, that little-big dog came running and would be all shiny excitement about training. That's the part that was the game we played together. 

When I set time aside to train Jacks and now "little" Bertie.... I see the same excitement when they hear the choke chain rattling when I pull it out of the training bag. Again, while we are actively "training" or going through a routine - that's the game or performance part. Even if it's just at home. <- And yes, I absolutely love it when I pull the choke chain out and Bertie comes running up to do a perfect front-sit with his head up and waiting for me to slip his jewelry on around his neck. That collar means treats, treats, and more treats to the little guy. 

But I still think it must be true for you guys too - again with your more advanced dogs - the actual exercises are tools that will be there if you ever need them?


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Hmmm... My first golden, whom I was given in 1990 was so soft,,that I never ever snapped her collar. I literally said"heel" one day and she instantly stayed at the seam of my pants. She heeled with her head straight ahead and was beautiful. I never corrected her as looking at her with unhappiness made her turn inside out. She showed in a choke collar that I never yanked on.. So then there was Laney, Golden #2. Bred to show in obedience. She was a machine. My trainer friend had only used micro prong collars, so that is how we trained her to heel... Collar pops only made her heel better...timing and reward are key for that. For open and utility, I only used positive training. Never used the prong again..she got her CD and CDX in three straight shows each. She got her CDX at four and I would have to look in her notebook for how long it took to get her UD... Although she was either first or second in her qualifying scores in Utility A... Then my next girl, Cookie was only positively trained for her CD and CDX. She learned a lot from watching,Laney train. ,and Cookie's kids, George(CD RN CGC) and beauty queen Mantha(CD CGC) were also,only positively trained. I think the most important question is to ask how far have you gotten, using only positive training methods. Have you only gotten a CD or do you have an OTCH?


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

In my very limited experience, you can listen all day to what everyone has to say about positive training versus using corrections but at the end of the day it depends not only on whether or not your dog is able to take corrections and recover from them -- it also depends on you. 

I bought a prong to see if I could improve Molly's heeling when she already had several months of a good heeling foundation behind her. Even though I was very open to the idea of using a prong, my true feelings about it showed when it was time to use it. A dog can only love to heel when their handler loves to heel. I didn't enjoy training with the collar on, and it made Molly's heeling worse because I am sure she could feel my hesitation. I ditched it and never looked back. It's at the bottom of my training bag sitting with the treat crumbs. I probably could've put a prong on her early on and gotten quicker results, but I honestly don't care how quickly we get anywhere. I am told all the time that she is a natural heeler, and truly, I am happy that I did not need a prong for her to become a beautiful heeler. I "fell" into obedience because she's a natural.. not because of a prong collar for heeling or for keeping her attention in class, etc. If I had a dog that wasn't so easy, well, I wouldn't be doing this because Molly is my first dog and I didn't know anything about dog sports before her. I do love obedience but I have no idea how I will approach the sport with my next dog, because they can't all be like my perfect girl. In the end, I am okay with using less corrections and investing more time in training. 

Now that we are doing field work, I find myself in the same situation in a different sport where the corrections can be much. more. harsh. People in field tell me that one harsh correction is better than many small ones. I don't agree with that. If I have to spend many months teaching force fetch because I don't want to use a lot of pressure, that's fine with me. I had this conversation with our field trainer and what it comes down to is what I am comfortable with. Even though my dog might be able to do it, I might not. I *really* want to stick to it, but I have to be honest with myself. And it's much harder because we didn't fall into field work like we did with obedience. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Vhuynh2 said:


> In my very limited experience, you can listen all day to what everyone has to say about positive training versus using corrections but at the end of the day it depends not only on whether or not your dog is able to take corrections and recover from them -- it also depends on you.
> 
> I bought a prong to see if I could improve Molly's heeling when she already had several months of a good heeling foundation behind her. Even though I was very open to the idea of using a prong, my true feelings about it showed when it was time to use it. A dog can only love to heel when their handler loves to heel. I didn't enjoy training with the collar on, and it made Molly's heeling worse because I am sure she could feel my hesitation. I ditched it and never looked back. It's at the bottom of my training bag sitting with the treat crumbs. I probably could've put a prong on her early on and gotten quicker results, but I honestly don't care how quickly we get anywhere. I am told all the time that she is a natural heeler, and truly, I am happy that I did not need a prong for her to become a beautiful heeler. I "fell" into obedience because she's a natural.. not because of a prong collar for heeling or for keeping her attention in class, etc. If I had a dog that wasn't so easy, well, I wouldn't be doing this because Molly is my first dog and I didn't know anything about dog sports before her. I do love obedience but I have no idea how I will approach the sport with my next dog, because they can't all be like my perfect girl. In the end, I am okay with using less corrections and investing more time in training.
> 
> ...


I can relate. I've given it some thought, and don't know if I could use lots of pressure in field training either. I've only browsed a few articles on force fetch, so I don't know a lot about it at this point. But I've heard about the ear pinch. That one probably isn't for me.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

We have an old lab pro in Maine who does force fetch with a can opener.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Sally's Mom said:


> Have you only gotten a CD or do you have an OTCH?


I do believe someone with the passion and skill and time to have an OTCH dog has excellent credentials to speak in any conversation about dog training. However, so does Sue Sternburg training shelter dogs and Dr. Karen Overall/Dr.Nick Dodman. People with OTCH dogs have ideas that differ from each other anyway. Denise Fenzi has different ideas from Bridget Carlsen. Can I say someone has an invalid opinion on the ethics involved in showing dogs because they have never owned or bred a champion? Many kinds of people have ideas about dog training who will never get an OTCH. 

* Trainers who rehabilitate dogs for shelters
* Trainers who teach community-based puppy class in inner cities
* Trainers whose students win in agility at a national level
* People studying animal behavior at Cornell Vet school
* People who train guide dogs or service dogs
*Ian Dunbar, Pam Dennison, Jean Donaldson, Karen Overall, Nicholas Dodman etc
* People who regard the CPDT-KA as more relevant to training idea than an AKC title 
* etc
* That Dog Whisperer CM, lol


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

> Mirinde said:
> 
> 
> > I do honestly believe that no dog _needs_ to be trained with compulsion methods. Truly. But I also understand that training a dog using purely positive and even non-hierarchical methods of training is a unique road to travel and most dog owners do not have the time, flexibility, personal motivation, or luxury of being able to train their dog that way. I think if dogs could only go to homes that practiced 100% positive training, we would have a lot of homeless dogs and I don't think that's a battle I want to wage. I accept that I have a personal drive to explore this and I do believe it is the "right" way to train, but I also have to understand that we live in a world where thousands of dogs are still being euthanized every day and if an appropriately used prong or shock collar keeps one more dog out of that system and living functionally with a family instead, then I suppose I can respect the needs of that particular family that has that particular dog even if I think there is a better way. Obviously I'm armed and ready to push my views with families that are not having much luck with more traditional methods :
> ...


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

mlopez said:


> I totally agree on this point. I don't think one can really sum up their methods with just a few words. I think it needs to be an essay  It does make it very hard, especially with seminars, where you might not get to talk to the person at length beforehand.


I guess this is the functional part of all this for me. I would love to read a big fat book of personal essays from all kinds of trainers about what methods they use, why they choose them, and what they consider "best practice" right here and now. 


I find my head spins from the strong opinions all around, not just on methods but on the credentials of people espousing them. I went to a seminar for trainers at a local shelter- wow, a grand canyon from the discussion on the forum; I went to a seminar in NH on obedience- a vast ideology difference from the next week spending the day with Dr. Dodman at Tufts. People have different centers of expertise. Someone who trains one or two personal dogs to a huge accomplishments, someone who works in the trenches at a bigger animal shelter, someone who trains pet people and their pet dogs, someone who trains agility teams at a national level, someone who not only has an OTCH but successfully coaches a lifetime of students, the field trainer, the show handler- there are simply so many windows on the world.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I've been reading along with great interest for the last few days, and I can't really figure out how to write a post that tackles all the issues I've found interesting.

However, I did want to say this: I don't think that training without aversives takes any longer, at least in household obedience. When people have jumpers, barkers, nippers, lungers, and dogs who ignore them off leash, corrections—at least in my experience—don't accelerate the process. I'm defining correction here as the addition of an aversive stimulus with the intent of making the dog stop doing something undesired.

When the owner has been saying "no" fairly sternly to the jumper (and you can see that the dog doesn't like that tone of voice but jumps anyway) or has been kneeing him in the chest (hard enough to be unpleasant, but not hard enough to risk injury), and it still doesn't work, and then that selfsame dog tries jumping on me a few times and then gives up permanently, I feel pretty confident in the force-free method there. 

When we're talking about real-world problems that people commonly have with their pet dogs, typical corrections—stern voices, leash pops, mild physical aversives, etc.—just seem to add bad energy into a situation that's typically too energetic in the first place. I say this as someone who used to use mild aversives with some success (stern voice, scruff shake, leash pop, etc.). You can certainly intimidate a dog into stopping jumping or stopping barking, and you can make him feel like if he ignores the command, it'll have unpleasant consequences. It's just not as fast or reliable as rewarding him. And combining the two (it's unpleasant when you blow me off and pleasant when you listen to me) is slower and less reliable than careful non-rewarding and rewarding.

So when I see a dog ignoring the handler's command or jumping on the handler, I no longer think it makes any sense to make that disobedience unpleasant. The thing that's going to make the desired behavior reliable in the long run is a rewarded, reinforced habit, so let's build that. The thing that's going to end the undesired behavior is preventing the self-reward, so let's do that. Unless we cannot prevent the self-reward without it, let's skip the aversive.

In training clients whose dogs have problem behaviors, the fastest I've been able to have success is identifying the accidental rewarding of the problem behavior and removing that reward. If the client is accidentally doing it (e.g., the dog loves to be pushed off more than he hates being yelled at), teaching the client to stop rewarding is the key; the yelling was useless at best and counterproductive at worst. If the dog is self-rewarding (e.g., getting close to the face, amusing himself while ignoring that he's hurting the handler, etc.), preventing the jump and rewarding the alternative is the key. There's nowhere in that equation where it helps to make something unpleasant for the dog. It _seems_ like it would, but jumpers are typically overstimulated in the first place, and mild aversives just add nervous energy to a situation that already has too much energy in it.

I'm not an ideological purist about correction. There are some behaviors where it's very hard to see how you might train what you want and train away what you don't without something unpleasant. However, the vast majority of the time in practical training, I think they're unnecessary or even counterproductive.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My comment was only made in terms of what is considered successful training and is it measured by the titles you achieve? Or is it measured by the well behaved pets you help train? I have worked with dogs for 27 years in practice. I have trained my own dogs for showring obedience for over twenty years and have been involved in conformation less than half that time. I have seen the evolution of dog training. As a former member and past president of a now defunct obedience club that practiced the yank and jerk method of training, I am glad that things have changed. Although, our head trainer knew I wouldn't snap Sally's collar and I respected him for that. He was a master at teaching obedience showring etiquette. He helped me get a CD with Sally and then helped me get a CDX, even though he had never competed in Open. He was one of those that taught really well.
But he also had an aggressive side and would string dogs up when they showed aggression.
Never understood the reasoning behind that... Years ago, I had a woman (who had many OTCH's on her BC 's) tell me that I would never have a reliable retrieve without using compulsion. Well, my Goldens proved her wrong...

And I have to agree with a previous poster that a good obedience show dog does not always equal well trained.

One of the problems I see with the pet dogs that I see is that many owners mistake feeding food with positive training. So they bring in their dog and the minute the dog is on the table, it is a constant feeding frenzy... I am never sure what they think they are reinforcing.

And Dr. Dodman has evolved as well, from my anesthesiology teacher who was studying cribbing in horses when I was in school to the animal behaviorist he is today.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> We have an old lab pro in Maine who does force fetch with a can opener.


Not sure the point of this comment to the thread? I also know someone who fed their dog so much his stomach dragged on the ground. I still feed my dogs. I know people who let their dogs swim in ponds known to have alligators. I still let my dogs swim. I know people who use sticks to beat their dogs. I still have sticks. There's someone who uses a can opener for force fetch, i still force fetch my dog, but using the pads of my fingers, not a can opener, a screw, or even my fingernails. I think we all agree there are methods and ideas out there that we don't agree with, but I don't think listing them all serves much purpose within this thread other than to stir up negative feelings.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

The comment above it considering ear pinching made me think of the guy, and wonder what his essay on his methods might read and why that is his training choice. It is the other polarity from the "Manifesto". Presumably he loves dogs - he has been a lab guy for decades.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> Can I say someone has an invalid opinion on the ethics involved in showing dogs because they have never owned or bred a champion?


Jill, does this mean that if Sue Sternberg sat down to have a cup of coffee with you and decided to tell you all about how she thinks that the creative grooming that occurs in the conformation ring is very detrimental to the breed, providing her educated opinions why she thinks that goldens should be shown naturally without their owners clipping their whiskers off or removing any fur from their necks or shoulders.... 

Would you agree her opinion is valid? 

Or would you degree check and treat her more civilly and with less hostility than you would perhaps an average person who made a similar comment? 

/teasing


Seriously speaking - 

I think you could make a point it really isn't necessary for somebody to have an OTCH in order to teach pet obedience to somebody who just wants to walk around the block without being dragged. 

I would hope you are directing people to take classes from people who are not antagonistic to competition obedience though..... 

Or antagonistic to competition trainers in the area who are very good at helping people go from 0 to hero in the ring using very basic corrections. 

Where the title checking starts happening is when you have people who are giving advice or criticism where they have never competed. 

That doesn't mean they should be told to shove off, but their opinions do not trump those of people who compete at those levels, etc.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I competely agree many people think removing whiskers is cruel, and I get a squirmy feeling in my stomach when confronted about it even though I know my dogs show no distress about it no matter who it is. That is a perfect example! 

Dog people are in such a predicament in terms of truly respecting each other/ live and let living each other/ finding other people's practices indefensible. It is hard for dog people to feel on the same team, even though most truly DO love their dogs. 


No, Kate, I would never send clients to someone claiming they could help someone go from zero to hero in the ring using corrections, lol. 

These are just a few controversial issues that get people really hostile to each other. The question becomes how to interact with respect with a person who uses a tool or method you might find cruel. It is tough. 

Clipping Whiskers on show dogs
Using Prozac/ Xanax/ Acepromazine to train fearful, shy, or DA dogs
Using NILF/ Deprivation methods
Keeping Outdoor Dogs
Force Fetch
Alpha Rolling
Keeping Kennel Dogs
Buying Purebred Dogs instead of rescue
Using E Collars
Using Prong Collars
Using a Professional Handler- field or show
Using No Reward Markers
"Cuffing"
Crating & Rotating for DA breeds


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> No, Kate, I would never send clients to someone claiming they could help someone go from zero to hero in the ring using corrections, lol.


Forget claims, Jill - what if we are talking about a very solid and respected trainer who has the results in her program for helping those completely new to obedience to get into the ring and excel? 

A good example would be one of my instructors - Adele Yunck. 

Are you saying that since she uses a prong on her dogs, has used ecollars on her dogs, does force fetch for field, and does include corrections in her toolbox as far as helping people train their dogs.... you would never recommend a client go to her? 

She has books out there and videos, so you can see how she trains and works with her own dogs. Definitely having trained with her for 2+ years, I see her as very positive handling. And no, she has never had me use force fetch on Jacks. She's actually the only instructor who has come close to helping me stop his dumbbell mouthing problem - and all without any corrections.

The misunderstanding by a lot of people who judge instructors based on what tools they use to train X or Y with their own dogs, is they immediately assume that that person is going to be all gungho about making regular new trainers use those stronger corrections on their dogs. That's without ever auditing any of that person's classes.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Those are all very devisive topics in dog training, such as the whisker example you mentioned. When people have strong feelings that using one of these methods or tools is cruel and unethical, then conflicted is created.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> Ok I give up. Can you explain the list?


Looks to me like a list of dog-related things a large group of people finds totally normal and an equally large group of people might find totally indefensible.

Like Jill, I'm live-and-let-live about a lot of stuff, but some things where I hold a minority view, it's hard to agree to disagree when it seems like dogs or owners are going through hardships when they don't have to.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Megora said:


> Jill,
> I think you could make a point it really isn't necessary for somebody to have an OTCH in order to teach pet obedience to somebody who just wants to walk around the block without being dragged.
> 
> I would hope you are directing people to take classes from people who are not antagonistic to competition obedience though.....
> ...



For the rest of this, I am not sure where you are coming from. Are you saying you have higher titles than me in obedience that make Megora comments more meaningful than LJilly comments on all dog related topics? (Because I do not think you do??)


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> Are you saying you have higher titles than me in obedience that make Megora comments more meaningful than LJilly comments on all dog related topics?


Er, I was responding to your own comment (see what I quoted). Which I probably misunderstood - LOL. 

I thought you were saying that all kinds of people are worth listening to as far as what they say re/training dogs. Not just OTCH people.

My comment is that I actually agree it isn't necessary for pet training. Though I would hope that those providing the pet training are not antagonistic to competition level training or mulishly unwilling to help their students find trainers they can be successful training with. 

As you mentioned OTCH people and seemed to indicate that people were title-checking, I then said that was only necessary based on topic. 

Here on GRF - those members who have titled at the levels I'm looking for help in - I listen to their advice first. And definitely have. ! GRF was a huge help for figuring out how to build my Open jumps and train my guys to jump. And there were other things I picked up as far as Open and Utility (levels I have not titled in) from people like Anney, Jodie, Michelle, Barb, etc.... bless all them!


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Hey!! What about me? 

Feeling in a WAM mood, but just would like to remind folks I have earned UD, EXc Agility etc. So there!!!!!!

ETA: And with very limited showing.



Megora said:


> Here on GRF - those members who have titled at the levels I'm looking for help in - I listen to their advice first. And definitely have. ! GRF was a huge help for figuring out how to build my Open jumps and train my guys to jump. And there were other things I picked up as far as Open and Utility (levels I have not titled in) from people like Anney, Jodie, Michelle, Barb, etc.... bless all them!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sunrise said:


> Hey!! What about me?


Dang.... I was going to sneak in to add your name and Richard as well before either of you noticed. 

/Oscar speech fail 

:


In full disclosure - I modeled my high and broad jumps after a combination of Laura's and AmbikaGR's homemade jump examples. So bless them too.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Sunrise said:


> Hey!! What about me?
> 
> Feeling in a WAM mood, but just would like to remind folks I have earned UD, EXc Agility etc. So there!!!!!!
> 
> ETA: And with very limited showing.


Lol, yes! And have heard you are a wonderful teacher and very genrous with your time.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> Lol, yes! And have heard you are a wonderful teacher and very genrous with your time.


LOL - you may have heard that from other folks too, but I know you have heard it repeatedly from me, as Sunrise has been quite, quite generous in sharing her expertise, time, and rental space with me on many occasions, and I have babbled on about how much I respect her more than once in your presence.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I was staying out of this....until field was brought into the discussion.
Paradoxically, the use of modern, good e-collars has made field training a lot more humane. But that's a debate for another thread.
Tito's successes speak for my training methods WITH THIS PARTICULAR DOG, which are "predominately positive" in obedience and around the house, and as close to totally positive as one can get in agility. 
But you can't compare field.
If Tito makes a *mistake* in obedience or agility, (probably because I haven't taught something well enough, or gave an unclear message, but that's beside the point) he's a few feet away from me and no harm is done. Just, "oops! silly boy! let's try that again!"
But if he makes a *mistake* in the field, probably because we tripped a hardwired instinct that's in his DNA since Goldens first came to be, he risks his life. Literally. 
One correction. A serious correction for a life threatening bad choice. I need to make a fast, permanent impression on him. I love my dog too much to risk his life by taking months to teach him that when I blow a sit whistle, it means NOW, no matter what is going on around you. When he's 400 yards away from me moving 35 mph it's not the same as in an obedience ring or in my house.
(to the OP---force fetch falls into a totally different category than what I'm referring to) 




Vhuynh2 said:


> Now that we are doing field work, I find myself in the same situation in a different sport where the corrections can be much. more. harsh. People in field tell me that one harsh correction is better than many small ones. I don't agree with that. If I have to spend many months teaching force fetch because I don't want to use a lot of pressure, that's fine with me. I had this conversation with our field trainer and what it comes down to is what I am comfortable with. Even though my dog might be able to do it, I might not. I *really* want to stick to it, but I have to be honest with myself. And it's much harder because we didn't fall into field work like we did with obedience.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

You have often said this- that Tito is not a dog you could safely train in the field without an e collar. Do you think that people must make a philosophical choice between doing field work or using aversive-free methods? No one who believes in purely positive training should try field work? I am interested in your thoughts. I know two MH dogs trained without an e collar but none trained without any aversives. Are these two worlds that can never overlap?


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

hotel4dogs said:


> I was staying out of this....until field was brought into the discussion.
> Paradoxically, the use of modern, good e-collars has made field training a lot more humane. But that's a debate for another thread.
> Tito's successes speak for my training methods WITH THIS PARTICULAR DOG, which are "predominately positive" in obedience and around the house, and as close to totally positive as one can get in agility.
> But you can't compare field.
> ...


I was also going to stay out of this (I think most everyone who is participating was at one point  but couldn't help myself when hotel4dogs posted the above comment. My family had a golden retriever growing up who had a tendency to bolt on us. As much as I hate to say it she wasn't the brightest and not at all trainable. She was very sweet though. Anyways we took her to professional trainer after professional trainer. Some all positive, some not (one of them owned her sister and trained police dogs and service dogs). She sometimes would spend months at the trainers house and still you took her outside without a leash and she was gone. If someone was not really careful to not let her out the door when anyone left the house she would bolt out the door. The only we thing we didn't try was a shock collar. Looking back I think it really would have helped, if not stopped the problem. We refused to use a shock collar because we thought it was cruel. But by trying to not be cruel, the dog ended up getting killed (she was hit by a car at age 9). 
So which is crueler? Using a shock collar, or sentencing a dog to a leash and/or potentially letting them get killed? I know it's extreme, but it's something to think about.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> I was staying out of this....until field was brought into the discussion.
> Paradoxically, the use of modern, good e-collars has made field training a lot more humane. But that's a debate for another thread.
> Tito's successes speak for my training methods WITH THIS PARTICULAR DOG, which are "predominately positive" in obedience and around the house, and as close to totally positive as one can get in agility.
> But you can't compare field.
> ...


I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to the e-collar. I am not even comparing obedience with field (because that would be ridiculous). I was only explaining how I have to be honest with myself -- whether or not I want to continue in a sport where I will need to be comfortable with using tougher corrections. I can get away with not using harsh corrections in obedience, but in the field, it is a different story. 

Since what I had written previously was taken out of context, I will say what corrections I was thinking about when I wrote it (to prove I am not talking about the e-collar) -- whipping the dog with their leash or heeling stick, and physically dragging them by their skin to get them to heel properly to the line. I saw that happen two weeks ago. It wasn't life or death. I even wondered then, why couldn't they have given the dogs a nick with the collar rather than hurting the dog?

Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Vhuynh2 said:


> (the) corrections I was thinking about when I wrote it (to prove I am not talking about the e-collar) -- whipping the dog with their leash or heeling stick, and physically dragging them by their skin to get them to heel properly to the line. I saw that happen two weeks ago. It wasn't life or death. I even wondered then, why couldn't the corrections be given with the collar instead of hurting the dog?
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I think a lot of people would agree that there is a huge difference between leash corrections and use of ecollars and prongs.... and what you describe here. 

And I'm sure that is one of those cases where a lot of people draw a line that they will not cross with their dogs. 

As opposed to lumping all corrections in as the same exact mortal sin.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Megora said:


> I think a lot of people would agree that there is a huge difference between leash corrections and use of ecollars and prongs.... and what you describe here.
> 
> And I'm sure that is one of those cases where a lot of people draw a line that they will not cross with their dogs.
> 
> As opposed to lumping all corrections in as the same exact mortal sin.


I hope you're not saying I'm lumping all corrections together. I'm not. I use corrections! Jeez!

Hotel4dogs thought I was talking about the e-collar so I had to clear that up. And I see a lot of "rough handling" out there in the field. I know I don't have to do it to my dog, but I'm just not sure if that's the type of environment I want to be in regularly. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

Vhuynh2 said:


> whipping the dog with their leash or heeling stick, and physically dragging them by their skin to get them to heel properly to the line. I saw that happen two weeks ago.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


That's just abuse. There is a big difference between a correction and abuse. And in my opinion anyone who would do that to a dog shouldn't own a dog.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

By the way -- I also don't consider the e-collar as a harsh correction, if used correctly. And if it is a life or death situation, by all means, do what you have to. But I personally have not seen an example of that yet, and people generally handle their dogs a lot rougher for what I consider to be little things like cheating the bank, etc..


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Kylie said:


> That's just abuse. There is a big difference between a correction and abuse. And in my opinion anyone who would do that to a dog shouldn't own a dog.


I was told that those "stubborn labs" needed it that way. Also, they (the handlers) don't believe they are hurting the dog..


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to the e-collar. I am not even comparing obedience with field (because that would be ridiculous). I was only explaining how I have to be honest with myself -- whether or not I want to continue in a sport where I will need to be comfortable with using tougher corrections. I can get away with not using harsh corrections in obedience, but in the field, it is a different story.
> 
> Since what I had written previously was taken out of context, I will say what corrections I was thinking about when I wrote it (to prove I am not talking about the e-collar) -- whipping the dog with their leash or heeling stick, and physically dragging them by their skin to get them to heel properly to the line. I saw that happen two weeks ago. It wasn't life or death. I even wondered then, why couldn't they have given the dogs a nick with the collar rather than hurting the dog?
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I highly doubt those corrections were necessary, so I wouldn't let that weigh on your mind. Molly obviously wouldnt need to be dragged by the skin, nor would you need a stick. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I hope you're not saying I'm lumping all corrections together. I'm not. I use corrections! Jeez!
> 
> Hotel4dogs thought I was talking about the e-collar so I had to clear that up. And I see a lot of "rough handling" out there in the field. I know I don't have to do it to my dog, but I'm just not sure if that's the type of environment I want to be in regularly.
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I'm curious what Barb has to say about how prevalent that style of training is in field? 

I guess how I'm looking at it - my instructor and a group of other local field trainers that I know of.... I can't imagine any of them dragging their dogs around by the skin or beating them. 

I do know they use force fetch and ecollars, which when you made your comment earlier - that's what I assumed you were talking about when I read your earlier comment.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Megora said:


> I'm curious what Barb has to say about how prevalent that style of training is in field?
> 
> I guess how I'm looking at it - my instructor and a group of other local field trainers that I know of.... I can't imagine any of them dragging their dogs around by the skin or beating them.
> 
> I do know they use force fetch and ecollars, which when you made your comment earlier - that's what I assumed you were talking about when I read your earlier comment.


The people who are particularly harsh are the ones who have labs and only do field work. My own obedience trainer did field work when she had goldens and I cannot imagine her doing any of those harsher corrections. She's the one who taught me to make leash corrections a good thing, and she wouldn't correct a dog without conditioning the leash pop to be positive. 

There are two people I regularly see on the field who also do obedience. It may be because they have goldens but they definitely don't mishandle their dogs. I see one of them in obedience as well, and she is somewhat harsher in her leash corrections in class than all of the other handlers. 

Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I was going to stay out of this since I am still confused about the whole point of the thread. 
A heeling stick is not to be used for beating the dog. What is the difference between a tap on the chest with the heeling stick or watching a pup drool while looking at a hot dog I keep in my hand or mouth?


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


I'm guessing that not all field people do that stuff. There's a woman with two Goldens (one an MH, the other a JH working toward MH) who trains and teaches at our training facility. She helps out a little with our Monday class. I haven't seen her in the field, but I would shocked if she does any of that. Since her dogs have such a solid obedience foundation, they likely don't need that.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Claudia M said:


> I was going to stay out of this since I am still confused about the whole point of the thread.
> A heeling stick is not to be used for beating the dog. What is the difference between a tap on the chest with the heeling stick or watching a pup drool while looking at a hot dog I keep in my hand or mouth?


If that is how a heeling stick should be used, I have absolutely no problem with it. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Claudia M said:


> I was going to stay out of this since I am still confused about the whole point of the thread.
> A heeling stick is not to be used for beating the dog. What is the difference between a tap on the chest with the heeling stick or watching a pup drool while looking at a hot dog I keep in my hand or mouth?


I'm more confused about the point of your question, than you are about the point of the thread.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 21, 2011)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group.


I can answer this one. Find another group. The problem is, I don't know if I can say that SOME of these unnecessary adversives are not the used by SOME field trainers. Field training has been around a long time, and I'm not sure some trainers have evolved as much as trainers in other venues. This is just MY (limited) personal opinion, mostly based from talking at length with trainers who have been field training longer than I have been alive. 



Vhuynh2 said:


> If that is how a heeling stick should be used, I have absolutely no problem with it.


I don't use a heeling stick in field. I do use one in obedience. I rarely tap my dog with it. It just gives a lane for the dog to stay in. Also, no one in my field training group uses a heeling stick. We don't do stick fetch either.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Find another group. It sounds like they are not training their dogs in the obedience aspect and are relying on these harsh methods to cover the holes in the training. Not a group you want to associate with most likely. 



Vhuynh2 said:


> I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App





> I was told that those "stubborn labs" needed it that way. Also, they (the handlers) don't believe they are hurting the dog..


I am with you. I started out very enthusiastic and excited about field training when I bought my Topbrass puppy, but have lost all interest both because of the brutal methods in the lab group I attended( which to be fair, I have since now heard most golden people avoid, and because of some of the attitudes toward alternative training methods on the field aspect of this forum( some people are great). I hunted with my grampa and his Tigathoe goldens as a kid, so I started out very open to keeping the retrieve in the retriever. However, it is more important to me not to use an e collar on my dog, or other aversives like the "cuffing" video we watched, by far. I went to several field trilas looking for a great pro, but I came away with the same view as Vhuynh2.

I am interested to hear if anyone thinks a purely positive trainer can also do field work, or if these are mutually exclusive- no room for both.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I am not sure if I would call it evolving. There are severe trainers in every group - obedience/agility/field - you name it. The fact is they will never get results because the dog will not enjoy his work. 
To use James Free Lamb's words from decades ago - "A hunting dog that is not keen for his job, and not supremely happy when doing it, is worthless. You can't beat a dog into doing all that a good retriever must do in the course of a day afield." I view his book as the Bible of the Retriever field training.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Claudia M said:


> I was going to stay out of this since I am still confused about the whole point of the thread.
> A heeling stick is not to be used for beating the dog. What is the difference between a tap on the chest with the heeling stick or watching a pup drool while looking at a hot dog I keep in my hand or mouth?


I think in many ways, it's a philosophical difference ... coupled with the danger of becoming a slippery slope.

If tapping the dog with the stick is intended to, for example, successfully make the dog stop forging, then it's being used as punishment ... scientifically speaking. And the problem with punishment is that it can, IMO, very easily become that slippery slope.

You're heeling ... dog forges ... you tap with the stick ... dog is extra "amped' that day, so he continues to forge ... you tap harder ... or you're kind of stressed out and, in your frustration, you 'tap' harder.

What I dislike most about many corrections (+ punishment, to use the correct term -- and yes, if the goal of a correction is to REDUCE an unwanted behavior, it's positive punishment) is that it's too easy for people to quickly escalate in their frustration.

Maybe not the "good" trainers .... but there are tons of novice people out there who don't have the timing, skill and emotional self control to issue what one might consider fair, punishing corrections.

If I misuse a hotdog in my training, I'll create a dog who is maybe FAT, and who fails to work in the absence of the reward. Yup. That can certainly happen. But at least in that case, I still haven't used intimidation/fear/discomfort, etc., which, if I do, I'd better be careful it doesn't negatively impact the relationship I share with my dog. 

Here's the thing: BECAUSE there are trainers who skillfully use punishment in training - and BECAUSE they are good enough at it - and invest enough in the relationship with their dogs - they continue to have HAPPY dogs ... it's going to be next to impossible to convince a large segment of the population that punishment (the type of things we're talking about) isn't a necessary part of training.

IMO, two things need to happen:

1. (Some of) the trainers who skillfully use punishment should be dealt a super soft dog who will melt under the pressure of a pinch collar, e collar or ear pinch, etc. (If we're being honest, the top trainers look for dogs who are most likely to withstand the methods they consider to be tried and true - which is part of why they - use of certain methods - continue); AND

2. More people need to get out there and SHOW not TELL what's possible. Denise Fenzi is a great start. She has two OTCH dogs with whom she did not use fear/intimidation/physical discomfort, etc. (Doesn't mean she doesn't sometimes 'correct.' Positive is not permissive... please let's not get into THAT discussion again! :doh Shade Whitsell is another great example - and she's doing high level protection work.

BUT AGAIN - it's a philosophical switch, too. For some people, it just doesn't *bother* them to pop a dog on a pinch, pinch the ear, nick the collar or whatnot. And these trainers dearly love their dogs - no doubt. If you are philosophically ok with punishment, it will be really hard to change your mind ... unless maybe you have a dog who simply can't stand that pressure and you're forced to try other things, can try them with someone who is skilled in the alternative, and realize they can work.

Everybody's own personal philosophy is just that: their own. I started my venture into competition obedience 12 years ago with a trainer who most of you would call "positive" in that she's highly motivating and doles out heaps of rewards ... but will also use a pinch collar, sometimes will ear pinch, will leash pop for attention, etc. I was OK with that for a while ... but at some point my mindset changed and I just didn't want to do those things. (Even though my dog, and our relationship could more than withstand it.)

I guess for me, it became about the idea of ... "Just b/c I *can* do this (issue XYZ correction and have my dog be none the flatter for it), doesn't mean that, to me, I SHOULD."

Whoops. More rambling... :uhoh:


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> I was going to stay out of this since I am still confused about the whole point of the thread.





> I am curious what others think who have real experience in using purely positive methods in training at least one dog.


The point of the thread was to ask other positive, reward-based trainers what they thought of Emily's "Manifesto". There are, to my count, 11 of these trainers on our forum. 7 wrote good PMs, which I hope someday the climate & culture of the forum will let them feel comfortable posting. A few positive trainers chimed in with their thoughtful opnions. Many people with no experience training a dog with purely positive methods also posted about different topics such as why they resent or disagree with Emily's "manifesto" or to say that they do use correction etc and sometimes why they do. The thread kept coming back to competition obedience and field training, though its target audience is more pet dog trainers and shelter staff. That is natural though bc of the constituency of a purebred golden retriever forum. I like hearing the different opinions.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

1. (Some of) the trainers who skillfully use punishment should be dealt a super soft dog who will melt under the pressure of a pinch collar, e collar or ear pinch, etc. (If we're being honest, the top trainers look for dogs who are most likely to withstand the methods they consider to be tried and true - which is part of why they - use of certain methods - continue); AND

**** Stephanie, which top trainers are you talking about? 

Because the people I know who use prongs, ecollars, or ear pinches or whatever else - they modify the corrections or level of corrections per dog. They vary the tools they use.

I know of some very soft field dogs who do great wearing ecollars and prongs. One in particular just got her OTCH.....


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> And the problem with punishment is that it can, IMO, very easily become that slippery slope.
> 
> You're heeling ... dog forges ... you tap with the stick ... dog is extra "amped' that day, so he continues to forge ... you tap harder ... or you're kind of stressed out and, in your frustration, you 'tap' harder.
> 
> ...


In the pet dog trainer aspect of my life with dogs& clients, this is central to my commitment to positive training. Dealing with mostly novice people, a few with short fuses or lacking emotional self control, I want to give them a set skills to reinforce appropriate behaviors as quickly as I can, so they have a sense of efficacy about themselves as trainers without using physical punishment. I need to facilitate communication between human and puppy, human and dog, quickly and effectively without granting "permission" to hit, kick, smack, pull, whack or whatever the puppy in frustration. That is why I am so glad positive training is so effective- it works so people become believers.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 21, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> The thread kept coming back to competition obedience and field training, though its target audience is more pet dog trainers and shelter staff. That is natural though bc of the constituency of a purebred golden retriever forum. I like hearing the different opinions.


I think this is because you posted in the "training for *competition*-all sports." So this is where the majority of people who are reading this are coming from. Just saying...


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Thank you Jill. Although I did not PM you, there is a real reticence on my part to discuss reward based training on thi sforum. There should not be really, but there is a divide and I think people get defensive when there is a real or perceived criticism about the way they have elected to train their dogs.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

You need to find another group!! The people I train with don't do any of that kind of stuff. One does (lab owner), and he's no longer invited because we don't want to watch him abuse his dog. One guy who runs a VERY talented lab never FF'd him, although he is collar conditioned.
Now remember, I'm new to field, and don't get around much. But I do not see abuse. I'm sorry that you do, because it sure would sour my opinion of field.




Vhuynh2 said:


> I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Megora said:


> 1. (Some of) the trainers who skillfully use punishment should be dealt a super soft dog who will melt under the pressure of a pinch collar, e collar or ear pinch, etc. (If we're being honest, the top trainers look for dogs who are most likely to withstand the methods they consider to be tried and true - which is part of why they - use of certain methods - continue); AND
> 
> **** Stephanie, which top trainers are you talking about?
> 
> ...


Meh. I'm not going to name names, b/c then it quickly becomes about defending why so and so does such and such with a dog ... and that person is successful and blah blah blah. (Look! A dead horse! Let's all beat on it!)

My point was, there's something to be said for the fact that people who train with punishment look for certain temperaments in their dogs (and certain breeds) -- and I suspect that's partly b/c they know that temperament will withstand the methods they consider to be tried and true. And when what you're doing is working, there's no real motivation to change.

Using 'less' punishment is still using punishment. 

I was saying that, IMO, to change some of these trainers' minds, they need to be put into a situation where the normal corrections (punishment) is not an option -- be it issued at a level 2 or a level 10. If they HAD to try something different (and had help in doing so ... b/c it's different and won't come natural to them), they might discover that it does work.

Heck. Go train a chicken. If you really want to go bare bones about concentrating on your timing and how you reinforce what you want (and you want to realize what's possible with skilled reinforcement), train a chicken. They don't give a rat's a** how much you praise them, and if you try and punish them, they'll just fly off!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Yes, I think I am saying that, IF you have a dog with a lot of drive and instinct unless you can train in a place that is 100% safe, and none really come to mind.
There is a term, which escapes me at the moment (GDGLI, where are you??) that explains it. It has to do with instinct being so strong that it overcomes training. It's in all animals. Sex drive is frequently cited as an example. The more/stronger the instinct, the more you find this. 

Edit to add....I am not thinking of dogs who have low level field titles like WC or JH. I'm thinking of the high powered dogs, especially those who are ** or *** dogs, who are trained to very high levels of performance. 
It's one thing to have a dog (including Tito) sit calmly at your side looking at a field with wingers in it, and then send him to pick up the (already dead) duck after it's thrown by a mechanical slingshot type device. I believe that can be accomplished by positive methods, and safely at that.
Where you will see the difference, I believe, is when you start using live birds and high instinct dogs, especially in a true hunting situation. When we are walking along hunting, and he suddenly flushes a pheasant, which takes off, a switch will flip in his head and instinct will overcome training. 
Tito, and I"ve been told this is true of many retrievers, has always turned back on a verbal command if he spooks a bunny, squirrel, etc. But a bird taking off just seems to trip some primitive DNA in his pea brain, and we're talking another whole situation. He has now been trained to be "steady to wing and shot", and he won't take off any more. But I truly don't believe it could have been done by all positive methods.




Ljilly28 said:


> You have often said this- that Tito is not a dog you could safely train in the field without an e collar. Do you think that people must make a philosophical choice between doing field work or using aversive-free methods? No one who believes in purely positive training should try field work? I am interested in your thoughts. I know two MH dogs trained without an e collar but none trained without any aversives. Are these two worlds that can never overlap?


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Ljilly28 said:


> The point of the thread was to ask other positive, reward-based trainers what they thought of Emily's "Manifesto". There are, to my count, 11 of these trainers on our forum. 7 wrote good PMs, which I hope someday the climate & culture of the forum will let them feel comfortable posting. A few positive trainers chimed in with their thoughtful opnions. Many people with no experience training a dog with purely positive methods also posted about different topics such as why they resent or disagree with Emily's "manifesto" or to say that they do use correction etc and sometimes why they do. The thread kept coming back to competition obedience and field training, though its target audience is more pet dog trainers and shelter staff. That is natural though bc of the constituency of a purebred golden retriever forum. I like hearing the different opinions.


Just to back up to the intended, original question... Regarding the manifesto, I agree with all it, short of using the term "abusive" in number 1 ... which, as I mentioned earlier, I think is an unnecessarily loaded word.

It certainly CAN be abuse, but more often than not, I think it's ineffective nagging.

And I agree both as a pet dog trainer and as someone who trains for competition sports.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> BUT AGAIN - it's a philosophical switch, too. For some people, it just doesn't *bother* them to pop a dog on a pinch, pinch the ear, nick the collar or whatnot. And these trainers dearly love their dogs - no doubt. If you are philosophically ok with punishment, it will be really hard to change your mind


I agree with this a whole lot. Philosophically, I want dogs not to be too intimidated or too hurt in the name of learning, and then more to become joyful learners and learn how to learn. I recognize learning has stress as a by product sometimes, and that dogs feel pressure sometimes- but how much is too much?I recognize many people are philosophically okay with correction, but I admire those who think and think and work to teach a dog with positive reinforcement without being permissive. I feel exhilerated by trainers who have a knack for training a dog with a light touch and come up with all kind of ways to teach something without aversives.


In my private thoughts, apart from the discussion, I equate using hefty equipment on a dog with someone who can't ride a particular horse on a snaffle bit, so they up the ante to the tom thumb, then the kimberwick, until the last resort is a twisted wire or bike chain bit. Maybe it is too much horse for them, so they tie the horse's head down with side reins. This does not apply to the good trainers, but more to the "shock Jock" trainers who put ads in the papers to train any dog in 7 days, and then burn the heck out of them with the e collar. We have at least five of these trainers in our area, and often receive the damaged, shut down or reactive results for retraining.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Just to back up to the intended, original question... Regarding the manifesto, I agree with all it, short of using the term "abusive" in number 1 ... which, as I mentioned earlier, I think is an unnecessarily loaded word.
> .


Here is the rest of it, for people wanting to read the whole thing: 



> The Need for a New Term:
> 
> A type of animal training exists that involves no forms of intimidation, confrontation, violence, reprimands, or domination.This non-violent type of training has gone under many names: “Clicker Training,” “Positive Training,” “Positive Reinforcement Training,” and “Reward Training,” among others. There is a need for a more specific, more accurate, more inspirational term. The above terms have been used so loosely in recent years that they have lost their original meanings. How has this happened? Trainers who use compulsion methods may incorporate a clicker (a noise maker to mark desirable behavior) and refer to themselves as a “Clicker Trainers.” Trainers who use painful or intimidating methods may include food or toy rewards in their training and refer to themselves as “Reward Trainers” or “Positive Reinforcement Trainers.” It is already possible that a member of the public may seek the guidance of a trainer who claims to be “Positive,” only to find out that this trainer routinely uses physical violence towards animals. I propose a new term that trainers and members of the general public can use to refer to this type of modern training – a training system that is not only humane, compassionate, and reliable, but is also based on the latest scientific studies. Because this form of training constantly incorporates the latest and most reliable scientific findings, and because it furthers an evolutionary progress toward a more harmonious relationship between humans and the animals who live with them, it shall be referred to as Progressive Reinforcement Training.
> Progressive Reinforcement Training essentially means teaching animals by rewarding desired behaviors and excluding the intentional use of physical or psychological intimidation.
> ...


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> I recognize many people are philosophically okay with correction, but I admire those who think and think and work to teach a dog with positive reinforcement without being permissive. I feel exhilerated by trainers who have a knack for training a dog with a light touch and come up with all kind of ways to teach something without aversives.
> 
> 
> Are you OK with the fact that some of the trainers you mentioned in an earlier post are fine with euthanizing dogs when medication and positive behavior modification doesn't work? Or do you think that aversives should be thrown into the mix in order to save a dog's life?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> Ljilly28 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you OK with the fact that some of the trainers you mentioned in an earlier post are fine with euthanizing dogs when medication and positive behavior modification doesn't work? Or do you think that aversives should be thrown into the mix in order to save a dog's life?
> ...


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> In the pet dog trainer aspect of my life with dogs& clients, this is central to my commitment to positive training. Dealing with mostly novice people, a few with short fuses or lacking emotional self control, I want to give them a set skills to reinforce appropriate behaviors as quickly as I can, so they have a sense of efficacy about themselves as trainers without using physical punishment. I need to facilitate communication between human and puppy, human and dog, quickly and effectively without granting "permission" to hit, kick, smack, pull, whack or whatever the puppy in frustration. That is why I am so glad positive training is so effective- it works so people become believers.



This is why I struggle with promotion of traditional training methods, although I will not engage in a "You're doing it wrong!" argument regardless. Do I think a good number of people have the self control, precision, and soft heartedness to apply positive punishment appropriately? I sure do! Do I think that is the majority of pet owners? Definitely not. We must take great care to understand that although x,y,z person was able to use positive punishment successfully and although "well I use my e-collar on the lowest possible setting and my dog is so happy" may be a perfectly true statement, _this is not the majority_. 

There are so many fabulous dog owners on this forum who use positive punishment and corrections appropriately and have well adjusted dogs, but by the very nature of being the sort of dog owner to seek and remain in the community of this forum, you are already not a typical dog owner! You are already more educated, more willing to handle criticism, and more in love with your dog than lots of other dog owners. And those other dog owners? They _are_ susceptible to the addictiveness of punishment and the control they feel when they yank on that leash and their dog snaps right back in line. Those of us who have experience with rescue especially can be particularly sensitive to the knowledge that although you may be using your prong collar correctly, the average joe is not and his dog is suffering for it. 

Reward based training can definitely create dogs that lack boundaries, dogs that only respond to a lure, dogs that never quite fully get a command because reward based training requires careful timing too, dogs that do not obtain titles and only pass for house pets, and all sorts of problems. But you won't create a fearful dog, or a defensive dog, or a shut down dog. So for the average dog owner that never even steps foot in a formal training class and is just going off what some guy on the internet says and what he sees on TV, I sure hope he comes across the information on reward based training first because there is a lot less to risk there. I think we all know that's true, and the defensiveness from both sides surrounding these discussions is really sad because ultimately we all want the same thing -- happy owners with happy dogs. It can be true that you are a loving owner who has had great success using positive punishment and corrections and you have a well adjusted dog AND be true that many owners can not use those methods without taking it too far. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

Ramble ramble ramble.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

FQ: What I dislike most about many corrections (+ punishment, to use the correct term -- and yes, if the goal of a correction is to REDUCE an unwanted behavior, it's positive punishment) is that it's too easy for people to quickly escalate in their frustration."

well - not sure if I would call that training though or the person a trainer (novice or otherwise). Corrections should always be done in a composed fashion. If you get frustrated it is time to quit; give the dog something you know he will perform, finish your session on a good note and get back to the drawing table.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Mirinde said:


> This is why I struggle with promotion of traditional training methods, although I will not engage in a "You're doing it wrong!" argument regardless. Do I think a good number of people have the self control, precision, and soft heartedness to apply positive punishment appropriately? I sure do! Do I think that is the majority of pet owners? Definitely not. We must take great care to understand that although x,y,z person was able to use positive punishment successfully and although "well I use my e-collar on the lowest possible setting and my dog is so happy" may be a perfectly true statement, _this is not the majority_.


This is such a great post, and so true. People come to class with an 11 week old puppy and they think it isnt housebroken yet bc it "hates" them, and they whack it with a newspaper bc that is what their parents did. This little girl pup has only been on earth for 11 weeks, and they already perceive she is motivated by spite. So there is just 6 weeks to give them a window into so much that the awesome dog owners on the forum already more than know about everything from dog husbandry to how they learn and are self rewarding or rewardable. You can make such a difference- people come to like and understand their own puppy IF they have some success. What is taught to them must be effective and work relatively quickly.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> TrailDogs said:
> 
> 
> > I truly do not believe aversives can work better in those cases.
> ...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Meh. I'm not going to name names, b/c then it quickly becomes about defending why so and so does such and such with a dog ... and that person is successful and blah blah blah. (Look! A dead horse! Let's all beat on it!)


I was just curious about the other side of the story - or if you meant field trainers or obedience trainers. And if you included other reasons why people may be very selective about temperament of training dogs? 

Good example would be my Jacks.... this dog is absolutely wonderful. When he was Bertie's age, he had people just stopping what they were doing to watch him. He had a very natural heel and very strong desire to please, and he was always my showboat. 

I'm very happy I'm training with Adele with him, because she's owned dogs with the same mental glitches. She recognizes them. Little things like her putting a cone next to the broad jump boards for other trainers to train the dogs to go around that cone instead of cutting the corner.... Jacks looked at that cone and refused to have ANYTHING TO DO with the broad jump until I removed the cone. Because the cone was scary.  That's my soft boy. I love him to death, but sometimes the things he flakes out about have me scratching my head. 

While taking utility classes and learning articles for the first time - I learned that I can not correct Jacks when he picks up the wrong article. Because that poisons the WHOLE PILE as far as he is concerned. <- Adele's had dogs like that too and knows how to handle all that silliness.

And I never thought I'd be able to get him to jump his height the way he is now.... and even last year we had a set back when my home jump fell over in the wind. And SCARED him. 

When I decided to get my next puppy, I looked for boldness, confidence, and even that "full of it" attitude. A harder headed puppy. 

If I were interested in field, btw.... soft little Jacks can't handle gun shots.




> In my private thoughts, apart from the discussion, I equate using hefty equipment on a dog with someone who can't ride a particular horse on a snaffle bit, so they up the ante to the tom thumb, then the kimberwick, until the last resort is a twisted wire or bike chain bit. Maybe it is too much horse for them, so they tie the horse's head down with side reins. .


Ha.... while showing my horse, I would train him with a bicycle chain bit. It's not about "too much horse". You just don't want your horse going out there looking like a hound dog. He was also one of those horses who sometimes needed a shoestring in his mouth to keep him from getting his tongue over the bit. We never used side reins, but would put a german martingale and noseband on him in training. I still have my german martingale, but really don't have much need for it as he's retired. There are a lot of demands on a show horse to get him into shape while you take him out into the ring so he shows well, a lot of that is the equipment that your horse trainer uses. 

For trail or just at home riding, that horse could be ridden with just a halter, no bit. I normally just rode him in a snaffle.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> Ljilly28 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very sad that anyone would take an animals life rather than try a more balanced training approach.
> ...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Just thinking out loud here....I think maybe dogs like soft little Jacks aren't as inclined to take off full steam ahead into brambles and ditches and rock fields after a bird that just flushed, gunners missed the shot....thus the more heavy handed training needed to keep a dog safe in that situation isn't necessary for the softer dogs. Maybe? Whereas the fearless, non-reactive dogs might have a different response to a flushed bird, and by their very nature are quite capable of handling a correction for having done it.



Megora said:


> If I were interested in field, btw.... soft little Jacks can't handle gun shots.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> Here is the rest of it, for people wanting to read the whole thing:


How do you stop a dog from chasing the cat, a squirrel or the neighbors' chickens (I believe you mentioned that problem while hiking) with nothing but "purely positive training"? 
I was at a loss couple months ago when Rose ran after the outdoor cat. I had to yell at her in such a tone that she knew I meant it and make her stop. 

The dog will not always know the correct behavior to perform so he can be rewarded - such as the dog will not automatically know to sit when a visitor comes into the house.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> TrailDogs;2692642 I find it very sad that anyone would take an animals life rather than try a more balanced training approach. said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, many shelter dogs with human aggression arrived in that situation bc of those methods in the first place.
> ...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Claudia M said:


> How do you stop a dog from chasing the cat, a squirrel or the neighbors' chickens (I believe you mentioned that problem while hiking) with nothing but "purely positive training"?
> I was at a loss couple months ago when Rose ran after the outdoor cat. I had to yell at her in such a tone that she knew I meant it and make her stop.
> 
> The dog will not always know the correct behavior to perform so he can be rewarded - such as the dog will not automatically know to sit when a visitor comes into the house.


I would systematically teach a leave it, coupled with a chasing call-off ... and (the important part!) while doing so, I'd manage the environment so the dog couldn't practice unwanted behavior. I could call Quiz out of a full-force run after a tennis ball... or a squirrel... 

And the dog WILL know to automatically sit when a visitor comes into the house if that's what is taught - and again, if the dog isn't allowed to practice and gamble with unwanted alternatives.

And there's a difference between being caught off guard by something - dog takes off chasing an unexpected cat and so you yell as a sort of emergency brake - vs. saying you train with verbal punishment. When the **** hits the fan, yeah, I might also yell if I need to ... but then it's a reminder to me that I need to go fix a weak link in my training - and I'll fix it w/o yelling or other forms of +Punishment.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> TrailDogs said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, many shelter dogs with human aggression arrived in that situation bc of those methods in the first place.
> ...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> Just thinking out loud here....I think maybe dogs like soft little Jacks aren't as inclined to take off full steam ahead into brambles and ditches and rock fields after a bird that just flushed, gunners missed the shot....thus the more heavy handed training needed to keep a dog safe in that situation isn't necessary for the softer dogs. Maybe? Whereas the fearless, non-reactive dogs might have a different response to a flushed bird, and by their very nature are quite capable of handling a correction for having done it.


Barb, a family friend who unfortunately has since passed away.... he always loved telling us stories about his springer spaniel that he found in the woods. He took the dog home to his wife and they decided to keep him after no owner was found. He liked telling us about the time he took the dog with him on a job (he was a roofer). The dog went out in the woods and just came alive - really looked beautiful going after bushes and stirring up ducks and turkeys. The man got all excited and went running back to his truck to grab his gun. He was like "OMG I have a hunting dog!" all the way to his truck and then he start shooting turkeys and so forth. And then when he looked around for the dog, it had completely vanished. He searched the area all afternoon and into the evening hours - really spent his time looking for the dog. Didn't find him. So he finally grabbed his gun and went back to the truck to head home.... and the dog was in the backseat, curled up under his jackets back there, hiding.  

So yep, my Jacks wouldn't even see any birds that just got flushed or anything else. If I know him, he probably would be running for the nearest open car door and jumping in to hitch a ride to safety.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I would systematically teach a leave it, coupled with a chasing call-off ... and (the important part!) while doing so, I'd manage the environment so the dog couldn't practice unwanted behavior. I could call Quiz out of a full-force run after a tennis ball... or a squirrel...
> 
> And the dog WILL know to automatically sit when a visitor comes into the house if that's what is taught - and again, if the dog isn't allowed to practice and gamble with unwanted alternatives.
> 
> And there's a difference between being caught off guard by something - dog takes off chasing an unexpected cat and so you yell as a sort of emergency brake - vs. saying you train with verbal punishment. When the **** hits the fan, yeah, I might also yell if I need to ... but then it's a reminder to me that I need to go fix a weak link in my training - and I'll fix it w/o yelling or other forms of +Punishment.


Yes, but based on the article that started all this conversation laid out above rogressive Reinforcement Training does not mean:

1) The intentional use of physical or psychological intimidation.

Using your voice, touch, body language, a device, or the environment to intimidate an animal for the purpose of continuing, initiating or ending the animal’s behavior.

Examples: staring at an animal, intentionally leaning over him, poking, jerking, shocking, squirting with water, startling with a noise, or *using your voice in an intimidating way to suppress behavior (saying “no” or “eh!”)."*

Sorry there are cases where you have to do that. And yes I am in a defending mode. Does the training tell me that I need more work - yes but does that mean that I am being abusive to the dog and then say that the yelling in such situations "balanced training approach" will end up dogs in shelter and human aggressive does absolutely nothing but put me on defense. 

Yes, if I have to stop my dog from running after the cat in the street I will do so. I will not keep my dog on a leash and control absolutely every environment my dog will be in. After that yell - yup my dog knows what No means. 
Frankly I have been hesitant about e-collars. The more I read about them the more open I am to them - I have yet to make the decision to use one and find a good trainer to introduce me to it. 
Just like with kids dogs also need to know the very stern word NO. 

And with this I am out of this discussion!


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

I do like Emily's Manifesto. I do believe that the word abuse is a hot button word and may apply but not in all situations. 

I see many on here that I really admire that train differently than I do that from their posts and their videos have happy, healthy dogs that you can see have a absolutely great relationship with their owners. 

I learn something from all of you. I take what I can use and be true to myself and file the rest away as that knowledge may help guide me at some point later down the road. 

I have to say that Mirinde's post really resonates with me. I see so many new owners that truly use things that for "me" are very harsh tactics or unfair on young pups and new dogs that cannot possibly understand what is being asked of them. I try to give out information that will do the least damage to the dog and the relationship I can.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

while that's a cute story, anyone who has hunted either ducks or turkeys recognizes right away that "stirring up ducks and turkeys" is a bit of a tall tale. Quite a bit of one, LOL.



Megora said:


> Barb, a family friend who unfortunately has since passed away.... he always loved telling us stories about his springer spaniel that he found in the woods. He took the dog home to his wife and they decided to keep him after no owner was found. He liked telling us about the time he took the dog with him on a job (he was a roofer). The dog went out in the woods and just came alive - really looked beautiful going after bushes and stirring up ducks and turkeys. The man got all excited and went running back to his truck to grab his gun. He was like "OMG I have a hunting dog!" all the way to his truck and then he start shooting turkeys and so forth. And then when he looked around for the dog, it had completely vanished. He searched the area all afternoon and into the evening hours - really spent his time looking for the dog. Didn't find him. So he finally grabbed his gun and went back to the truck to head home.... and the dog was in the backseat, curled up under his jackets back there, hiding.
> 
> So yep, my Jacks wouldn't even see any birds that just got flushed or anything else. If I know him, he probably would be running for the nearest open car door and jumping in to hitch a ride to safety.


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

Ljilly28 (as well as anyone else here who trains pure positive/no corrections what so ever) Is it possible to train a super high drive golden like Gaylans dogs or Hootie or Push etc.? Can you name anyone who has trained a dog like this pure positively? Or a dog with the same drive level that was only positive? I just want to know that it can be done.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kylie said:


> Ljilly28 (as well as anyone else here who trains pure positive/no corrections what so ever) Is it possible to train a super high drive golden like Gaylans dogs or Hootie or Push etc.? Can you name anyone who has trained a dog like this pure positively? Or a dog with the same drive level that was only positive? I just want to know that it can be done.


We're back to definitions. What is pure positive?

Can you train a super high drive dog w/o the use of physical corrections or fear/intimidation? Yes. I think you can.

Would I do it by ONLY rewarding things I liked? (If that's what you mean by 'pure positive'.) Probably not. At some point, for some things, I would use loss of access to working as a consequence.


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

FlyingQuizini said:


> We're back to definitions. What is pure positive?
> 
> Can you train a super high drive dog w/o the use of physical corrections or fear/intimidation? Yes. I think you can.
> 
> Would I do it by ONLY rewarding things I liked? (If that's what you mean by 'pure positive'.) Probably not. At some point, for some things, I would use loss of access to working as a consequence.


Sorry, maybe I should have used Progressive Reinforcement Training instead of positive training.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Claudia M said:


> Yes, but based on the article that started all this conversation laid out above rogressive Reinforcement Training does not mean:
> 
> 1) The intentional use of physical or psychological intimidation.
> 
> ...


Yes. But in that example, I'm not using my voice in an intimidating manner to TRAIN my dog. I'm using it as an emergency brake ... and realizing there's a weak link in my training.

I'm not going to then go out and TRAIN my dog not to chase cats by turning him loose after one and yelling at him like an angry lumberjack to intimidate him into changing his behavior... or waiting around until he gives chase and yelling at him, etc.

That, to me, is the difference.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

TrailDogs said:


> Ljilly28 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any data to support this assumption?
> ...


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Yes. But in that example, I'm not using my voice in an intimidating manner to TRAIN my dog. I'm using it as an emergency brake ... and realizing there's a weak link in my training.
> 
> I'm not going to then go out and TRAIN my dog not to chase cats by turning him loose after one and yelling at him like an angry lumberjack to intimidate him into changing his behavior... or waiting around until he gives chase and yelling at him, etc.
> 
> That, to me, is the difference.


Since you can't practice on real cats, you don't know how your dog will respond until they're in mid chase. You may think you have all of your links covered beforehand, but if you're wrong, the consequences can be deadly. You obviously disagree with the tactic, but my dog hears, "beep, beep, beep" coming from her collar (along with my command) and stops dead in her tracks and runs back to me. Of course, that's still not a guarantee (nothing in life is), but I wouldn't let her off-leash without that ability. 

The above scenario hasn't happened with an actual cat, but I'm confident enough with where we're at to believe it would play out exactly as I described. Without the ecollar, all bets are OFF.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Mirinde said:


> TrailDogs said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like I'm having a socially dumb moment and not reading something I'm supposed to be reading but is there seriously such a high level of defensiveness going on that we are arguing over the validity that many dogs in the shelter are human aggressive because of harsh human handling? Because like...I don't think anyone accused anyone here of abusing their dog, but that doesn't negate that many dogs in the shelter _have_ suffered abuse from the hands of people who believed they were just "training" their dog (incorrectly! There is no accusation that anyone here is training incorrectly!) and are now irreparably fear aggressive because of it. Am I missing something?
> ...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Nairb said:


> Since you can't practice on real cats, you don't know how your dog will respond until they're in mid chase. You may think you have all of your links covered beforehand, but if you're wrong, the consequences can be deadly. You obviously disagree with the tactic, but my dog hears, "beep, beep, beep" coming from her collar (along with my command) and stops dead in her tracks and runs back to me. Of course, that's still not a guarantee (nothing in life is), but I wouldn't let her off-leash without that ability.
> 
> The above scenario hasn't happened with an actual cat, but I'm confident enough with where we're at to believe it would play out exactly as I described. Without the ecollar, all bets are OFF.


But I do train with real squirrels in the park ... and Quiz did stop dead in his tracks and run back to me. 

And the fact that there is no guarantee, even with an e-collar, is all the more reason I choose not to use one. It's a personal choice.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Mirinde said:


> Those of us who have experience with rescue especially can be particularly sensitive to the knowledge that although you may be using your prong collar correctly, the average joe is not and his dog is suffering for it. . .
> 
> So for the average dog owner that never even steps foot in a formal training class and is just going off what some guy on the internet says and what he sees on TV, I sure hope he comes across the information on reward based training first because there is a lot less to risk there. I think we all know that's true, and the defensiveness from both sides surrounding these discussions is really sad because ultimately we all want the same thing -- happy owners with happy dogs.


I love the point in here about the sadness about the defensiveness on both sides, along with the contention we all do know it is true reward-based training has less potential to do damage if the hands are unskilled. 

From where does all the defensivenss stem on the forum? I think that is one of the most resonant things about sharing one's dog life outside the private day to day- the sudden exposure to criticism. You trim your dog's whiskers off?? You shock your dog with that thing?? On the forum though, as opposed to real life, there is no self-evidently happy dog relating well with us. The other members have to supply that belief. 

The life I share with my four dogs is mine, our hikes, our early mornings training to lean forward over your stack, our roofball tournaments, our weekly gig having little kids read out loud bc they are struggling in school. To a large extent, the life I share within my training center, with my clients, our other instructors, and all the dogs is harmonious too- mainly without clashing ethics. 

However, the points of contact with the outside world require immense confidence and composure not to get defensive- a shelter meeting in which many are suspicious of purebred dog owners, say. It might be the trial you enter during which you see the doberman lady take her dog out of the judge's sight and give it twenty of the hardest collar corrections you have ever seen to get it ready to go in Novice B to compete against you and your client's PBGV. It could be a class you take during which someone harshly corrects the dog next to yours during long stay practice- suddenly, you are in the midst of a values conflict bc they have a right to correct their dog but you do not believe in corrections for yours. It could be a forum in which alliances shift over time and topic, creating mighty ambivalences between members as well as bonds that go on for a long time. 

I wonder if the things that divide dog people against each other are stronger or weaker than the glues that hold?



> Mirinde said:
> 
> 
> > And those other dog owners? They _are_ susceptible to the addictiveness of punishment and the control they feel when they yank on that leash and their dog snaps right back in line.
> ...


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I should probably add that Bella probably wouldn't chase the cat to begin with. Squirrels are a different story.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kylie said:


> Sorry, maybe I should have used Progressive Reinforcement Training instead of positive training.


OK. Just cruised the manifesto. As written, it still doesn't mean there aren't consequences (like I said earlier - removing the oppt'y to work) ... but in general, yes, I think you can train a high drive dog under that definition of 'positive training.'

Like I mentioned earlier - Denise Fenzi and Shade Whitsell and are doing exactly that ... along with people like Steve White who are doing it with police dogs.


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

FlyingQuizini said:


> OK. Just cruised the manifesto. As written, it still doesn't mean there aren't consequences (like I said earlier - removing the oppt'y to work) ... but in general, yes, I think you can train a high drive dog under that definition of 'positive training.'
> 
> Like I mentioned earlier - Denise Fenzi and Shade Whitsell and are doing exactly that ... along with people like Steve White who are doing it with police dogs.


I would love it if you could provide links of some of their dogs working.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Mirinde said:


> TrailDogs said:
> 
> 
> > I feel like I'm having a socially dumb moment and not reading something I'm supposed to be reading but is there seriously such a high level of defensiveness going on that we are arguing over the validity that many dogs in the shelter are human aggressive because of harsh human handling? Because like...I don't think anyone accused anyone here of abusing their dog, but that doesn't negate that many dogs in the shelter _have_ suffered abuse from the hands of people who believed they were just "training" their dog (incorrectly! There is no accusation that anyone here is training incorrectly!) and are now irreparably fear aggressive because of it. Am I missing something?
> ...


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Kylie said:


> Ljilly28 (as well as anyone else here who trains pure positive/no corrections what so ever) Is it possible to train a super high drive golden like Gaylans dogs or Hootie or Push etc.? Can you name anyone who has trained a dog like this pure positively? Or a dog with the same drive level that was only positive? I just want to know that it can be done.


It is far easier to train a high drive dog with purely positive methods than a lower drive dog. Denise Fenzi has a whole website with videos of her working belgians to watch. Micheal Ellis as a great lecture about how high drive dogs are the ones for whom positive training is a blessing as a method.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Since you can't practice on real cats,


Just for a moment of humor, I did attend a series of workshops with a well known OTCH trainer who very much does use corrections, but I still admire her and take what I can without giving corrections. Anyway, she did bring out kittens for our stays - lol, not one dog was distracted or moved. Tally got to practice on real cats.


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

Ljilly28 said:


> Just for a moment of humor, I did attend a series of workshops with a well known OTCH trainer who very much does use corrections, but I still admire her and take what I can without giving corrections. Anyway, she did bring out kittens for our stays - lol, not one dog was distracted or moved. Tally got to practice on real cats.


Just to make sure, she did take precautions to make sure they kittens couldn't get hurt if one of the dogs broke stay. Right??? :uhoh:


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

solinvictus said:


> I have to say that Mirinde's post really resonates with me. I see so many new owners that truly use things that for "me" are very harsh tactics or unfair on young pups and new dogs that cannot possibly understand what is being asked of them. I try to give out information that will do the least damage to the dog and the relationship I can.


Kind of like "to do no harm".


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Kylie said:


> I would love it if you could provide links of some of their dogs working.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

TrailDogs said:


> Mirinde said:
> 
> 
> > TrailDogs said:
> ...


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kylie said:


> I would love it if you could provide links of some of their dogs working.


One of my faves... dog so well trained he can work w/o the handler! 






But seriously ... check out denisefenzi.com for a brilliant blog with lots of great training advice, or cruise her YouTube at Denise Fenzi - YouTube.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

While we are posting videos of training methods, some of these are wonderful:

Bridget Carlsen - Competition Obedience Training

If I had to describe Bridget's training methods, I would say extremely motivational, but not by any wild stretch of the imagination purely positive. Watching her dogs work in any venue, be it field, agility, or obedience is a total joy. 
Scroll down the page and dont miss the Hootie videos, absolutely don't miss "Hootie's Fart Trick" and "Hootie fixes my hair".
(I'm not trying to make any point at all with those two videos, they just crack me up)


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I love her video and seminar notes, and I have used some small aspects without using aversives. I thought her latest facebook posts on judges finding her heeling style too extreme were interesting. Soupy is a cool dog and wow that Saucy is a lot of dog. 

Barb, I am very interested if you think the purely positive ideas in Emily's "manifesto" are incompatible with doing field training as a genre?


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> While we are posting videos of training methods, some of these are wonderful:
> 
> Bridget Carlsen - Competition Obedience Training
> 
> ...


She's a great example of what I mean when I say, when done well, and in conjunction with a great dog/handler relationship, you *can* incorporate punishment and still have an 'up' and happy dog. (Again, remember my philosophical approach ... and my idea that just b/c I can, doesn't mean I should.)

But my point has never been that it doesn't sometimes work out great for the dog and handler team. My point is that A. I don't think it's *needed* (as in, results can be accomplished w/o it) and B. Done poorly, or done to the 'wrong' dog, punishment can be a very sad thing.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

mlopez said:


> I think this is because you posted in the "training for *competition*-all sports." So this is where the majority of people who are reading this are coming from. Just saying...


Yes, I thought since it was posted in the training for competition forum you meant for it to apply to competition training. I actually kept wondering why pet raining and average dog owners kept being brought in the discussion!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Unfortunately, I think they are very incompatible with high level field training. Not the "novice titles", but the high level stuff.
I hugely dispute her statement (#11) that dogs who are trained with negative methods (not her wording) can't be taught high level skills.
When I go out and watch well trained field dogs run, I am totally awed. The skills, intelligence, and training involved totally dwarfs anything that I have ever seen in any obedience ring, anywhere, any time. In the field the dog has to think for himself, has to solve problems, and has to rely on instincts. In the obedience ring, it's plain and simple rote learning. Can rote learning be taught with positive methods? Of course. And these dogs in the field were all trained with aversives, so you can't tell me that they can't be taught high level skills that way! Watch the amazing teamwork between dog and handler running cold blinds in the field, and see the trust and belief the dog has in the handler. It's very, very different from obedience. 
I also couldn't find any record of Emily's dogs' titles, although I did note that field work isn't listed anywhere in her credentials. She specializes in rehabilitating shy or problematic dogs. That's not the same as training a dog to a FC, AFC, or heck even an OTCH. 
I think people who truly walk the walk, not just talk the talk, are people like Bridget, Janice (Gunn), Connie Cleveland, just to mention a couple. They have titled multiple dogs to extremely high levels in multiple venues.







Ljilly28 said:


> I love her video and seminar notes, and I have used some small aspects without using aversives. I thought her latest facebook posts on judges finding her heeling style too extreme were interesting. Soupy is a cool dog and wow that Saucy is a lot of dog.
> 
> Barb, I am very interested if you think the purely positive ideas in Emily's "manifesto" are incompatible with doing field training as a genre?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

hotel4dogs said:


> while that's a cute story, anyone who has hunted either ducks or turkeys recognizes right away that "stirring up ducks and turkeys" is a bit of a tall tale. Quite a bit of one, LOL.


I'm sure he embellished it and I was trying to remember exactly what he said.... : 

The dog was stirring some birds up that you could shoot and reacting properly apparently though. <- I don't hunt, so I have no clue what actual hunters do so he could have been talking about the dog digging up turkeys and I would have been going along with the story.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Jill, I think if you are interested in field work you should give it a try. Find some like minded people and see how far you can go. I don't know if one can train a field dog without aversives, but if nobody tries then nobody knows. I say go for it! Keep a blog about your training experiences.

People should train with what they're comfortable with. When I get defensive about training methods, it's not because I'm against other kinds of training, it's because I and my training methods have been attacked repeatedly. I've been told I'm immoral and I shouldn't be allowed to have children. Really, people who have never met me or my dogs, can base that opinion on the fact that my dog sometimes wears a prong collar? People who will say certain tools are abusive but won't recognize tools they use themselves like head halters and withholding food can be just as if not more uncomfortable for the dog. People who announce every time they see a dog worried in the ring that it's because they are afraid of what the handler will do to them (most dogs who show worry and stress in the ring do so because their education is not complete, they do not know what to do with the environment and lack of feedback from handler). (none of these examples were referring to specific people on this forum, just typical things I run into in these training discussions).

This is how I think of it. My dogs all wear colorful collars. I don't have black collars. I have nothing against black collars or people who choose to use one on their dogs. If that it what they like, great for them! It really doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But if someone who only uses black collars were to start going on about how colorful collars are gaudy and people should never use colorful collars because they don't look natural, I might get a little defensive. I would agree that sure, there's some really gaudy collars out there, but I happen to like mine and think they are beautiful!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My Laney was my only dog trained to heel with a micro prong collar. She was a gorgeous heeling dog. When the prong collar pops were applied with appropriate praise, she was "up"! After our novice title, never used it again... And the next two titles were achieved without that kind of handling. I think that some trainers with the proper timing can do anything with their dogs. Me, I am clumsy, and my timing is iffy... I use a clicker and food, but am not afraid to tell my guys that certain things are not negotiable. Nails, grooming, vet care, etc are non negotiable.

I have black leather show collars to accentuate their black pigment..oh so shallow!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sorry - I deleted a half-baked post.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

Vhuynh2 said:


> I would love it if someone would tell me what I had seen is not the norm and that I just need to find another group.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com App


After thinking about it, I should not have lumped the whole group together because of what I had seen from a few individuals. I have no problems with my trainer, which, I think, is the most important thing..


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

There is alot of innovation about using purely positive methods, or moving in that direction, in many dog sports- obviously agility, but also many are making their ways now in obedience. Pam Dennison put a UD on her dog a little while ago, lol. Here is Mario Verslype who did not use any e collar, prong, or pinch, and is trying to be progressive in protection.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Unfortunately, I think they are very incompatible with high level field training. Not the "novice titles", but the high level stuff.


This says that any retriever owner committed to purely positive training, believing in that science and that philosophy, should rule out the genre of field work? Since there is no way I am using an ear pinch, cuff/ e collar on a golden of mine, I can rule out field for my goldens. For people who have a drive to train without aversives, is there hope to keep field training alive to them as a possiblity? 

I had listed some videos of force fetch, collar conditioning that illustrate the level of punishment i personally have seen, but I think it is too inflammatory, and gets the discussion off the consideration of purely positive training methods and more toward an attack on traditional methods, so I took them off.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Duplicate post


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Jill - you may want to get the book by Lorie Jolly. While I believe Speaker did have an eCollar used for training it was a bare minimum and that was for field trial precision.

I would not give up on keeping the retriever in the golden, but rather look for like minded people, There are not that many success stories out there yet because this is an approach that is forging new paths and so suffers from both newness and some failures. Aim to be one of the forerunners in success


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Jill, I have been careful to say in every post that I don't think purely positive training can accomplish HIGH LEVEL titles (**, *** titles, maybe MH) in field, but that it certainly can be used for the lower levels like the WC, WCX, JH, and SH. For a lot of people, that's as far as they want to go anyway. Just like not everyone wants to pursue a GRCH in the breed ring, not everyone wants to pursue ** or *** in field. Those titles take an amazing amount of time and commitment.
I would encourage you to give it a try, and see how it goes. No one should say that they have ruled out an entire genre of dog sports unless they have given it a try. Then they can come back and say, yes, purely positive training works for low level field titles, or no, it does not.
BTW, Lorie Jolly does collar condition her dogs "for their own safety", according to her book.




Ljilly28 said:


> This says that any retriever owner committed to purely positive training, believing in that science and that philosophy, should rule out the genre of field work? Since there is no way I am using an ear pinch, cuff/ e collar on a golden of mine, I can rule out field for my goldens. For people who have a drive to train without aversives, is there hope to keep field training alive to them as a possiblity?
> 
> I had listed some videos of force fetch, collar conditioning that illustrate the level of punishment i personally have seen, but I think it is too inflammatory, and gets the discussion off the consideration of purely positive training methods and more toward an attack on traditional methods, so I took them off.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Agility has, to the best of my knowledge, always been pretty much as close to all positive as it's possible to be. But it can be a cruel sport, and even the "purely positive" people are guilty. I have seen MANY MANY dogs running agility that just plain ought to be retired because they are too old, too heavy, or not physically strong any more but the owners are seeking that "one last title" before they retire the dog. The dogs limp, refuse jumps, and so on, yet the owners continue to enter and run them. I think that's a terrible form of abuse. 
Obedience has made huge strides away from punitive training. 
Field, too, has become a lot more humane. But yes, there are still lots of people who learned the old way, and still believe you have to almost beat the dog into doing it right. 
While there are always going to be people who abuse their dogs and claim it's "training", there are people who don't do any competitions who abuse their dogs, too. 
I consider neglect a serious form of abuse, too. A dog who is alone all day, every day, tied up outside is IMO much more abused than a dog who lives in the house with the family, is doted on and loved, but is trained consistently by someone who uses a collar pop to get their point across. JMO of course. Training is a tiny part of a dog's life. What happens the rest of the time is pretty darned important.
There are lots of things that I consider much more abusive than a lot of the corrections I've seen. But I won't post them, because a whole lot of people would be offended. Everyone makes very personal decisions about their dogs, based on their own values and beliefs, and it's not my place to judge them.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@2 removed videos - the one thought I had watching them was that dog looked absolutely nothing like the "abused" dog described in the quoted text of the first post here. 

There is a huge difference between seeing that and seeing what I had when I had a much more negative view on field. This based on the corrections I saw field people apply to their dogs in the obedience classes I shared with them. One dog who was a 9 year old MH and CH dog was cowed by her owner's heavy handling. And I literally would see her shrink to the ground when she knew a correction was coming. 

I changed my mind on field based on positive impressions I've gotten from other trainers and their dogs - cases where corrections are adjusted for the dog. To the point I really did give some thought to getting Jacks into fieldwork just because I know he would love it. This despite Shelly's explanations on the actual complexity of fieldwork and why it isn't just a natural WIN for goldens who retrieve their toys and sticks over and over. Rotten birds? VERY long distance handling.... _Rotten birds....._ 

I think that if you want to get your dog into field, using the corrections that other people use as an excuse why you haven't done so is pretty weak. The corrections that other people use only matters if you are sending your dog out and having somebody else training your dog. If you train and work with your dog yourself, you will maintain control over what corrections are used on your dog, as well as making sure that your dog will go his entire life without ever cowering under a correction. 

Stating that field is at the extreme end from whoever wrote that quoted text in the first post is blind. The extreme end would be those trainers out there who believe in beating dogs into submission and denying them food, interaction, light anything good while breaking them. These trainers are out there. They do not teach at dog classes or whatever, but they are the ones who cause dogs to end up in shelters. They abuse animals until the animals are exactly what they want - whether that is a bait dog or a fighter. 

Every time you have birdbrains like that person talking about how every correction creates a dog who is fearful of human touch and reactive.... they are essentially lumping people who use pop corrections or even the guy in the videos you posted and hastily removed who smacked his dog in the chest and chin as a correction for mouthing the bird in with people who actually are abusing their dogs. 

It's dishonest and misleading - and definitely creates problems for people who are afraid to correct their dog for anything.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Jill,

With all due respect, you've told us over and over that training with zero corrections is more effective (even for high drive dogs), so why would that not transfer to the field?


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Jill, I think you have to really look at what Barb has said. She thinks that dogs that are trained as you train should be able to get the lower end titles. If you want it for your dogs you have to start somewhere and where there is training that doesn't match your training you will become innovative and use your skills to solve those problems. The only way to know is to not lump things all together and take it one step at a time. Is it all about the titles or is it all about the journey with your dog?

When I look at Barb and Tito it is all about the journey. I don't believe Barb would ever do anything to Tito or make Tito do things that he doesn't like to do. I think Barb is taking each step (not lumping) and at each step Tito is telling her that he is awesome and is happy and wants to do all that they do together and to keep on going.

Jill follow your heart and dreams as long as you and your dog are enjoying the journey. Stay true to your own personal confictions. You may one day be writing the book on how to train your golden to those higher level titles with the training system you make yourself. 

You won't know until you start that journey.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> Are you OK with the fact that some of the trainers you mentioned in an earlier post are fine with euthanizing dogs when medication and positive behavior modification doesn't work? Or do you think that aversives should be thrown into the mix in order to save a dog's life?


This wasn't directed at me, but I feel the need to respond to it. Any question that says "would you rather have the dog die than allow a method you don't believe works?" is really a trap designed to reveal how ideologically rigid somebody is, not a real question. If I failed to rehab a dangerous dog with the methods I believe can work, I would not prevent somebody else from trying with methods that I believe are counterproductive. However, I would not personally try to apply methods that I don't think will help.

I don't believe any of us has all the answers, but I also don't think it makes sense to ask somebody who believes e-collars are a bad way to handle reactivity if they'd use an e-collar to save a reactive dog from euthanasia. It's not a matter of being ideologically rigid and refusing to; it's just that you can't be effective with a method you don't believe will work and have no experience with.

So no, I wouldn't use an aversive method on a reactive dog if I wasn't able to save him with the training I believe works better than the aversive method. But it's not because my sense of my own expertise is of more value to me than a dog's life. It's because I don't think I can help the dog that way. But, like I said, if somebody else walked up with an alternative and any kind of credibility, I wouldn't stop them from trying.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> Any question that says "would you rather have the dog die than allow a method you don't believe works?" is really a trap designed to reveal how ideologically rigid somebody is.


You know.... I think part of the reason why that question is so difficult to answer.... is because I'm sure it's related to the CM equation. Where you have dogs with "temperaments" who have already crossed the line. 

My feeling as a dog person is that there are dogs out there who need to have strong owners so they never cross that line. We are golden people here and most of us do not anticipate having to deal with a dog who is very strong-willed and tyrannical in the home because its written in his genes. 

This doesn't mean an owner beating the dogs or abusing them. But it may include using so-called aversive methods like variations of alpha pins. 

I have a friend who rehomed a german shepherd who at maturity (female, spayed) began developing insane guard behaviors to protect that friend. This woman used positive training only, and it was not enough to be able to control that dog and keep that dog in her home. She was getting out of control with clear aggression showing towards other members of the family and people visiting the home. 

She gave the dog to a friend who did know how to raise german shepherds - this included corrections and boundaries - and that dog easily adjusted to her new people and is thriving. Her new family is her life.

I do not know anything about the people referenced above or what they said exactly about putting dogs to sleep as opposed to rehabilitating them, but in a more realistic sense I'm offering an example of how dogs are "saved" by appropriate training for them before they snap.

With goldens.... I still kinda go back to what I said yesterday. I would hope that if somebody attending a pet trainer's limited classes decides that they love training and want to go farther than basic levels.... the pet trainer hopefully is not so antagonistic to other styles of training that they'd rather see their students quit training rather than to see them go on to great things.


----------



## Mayve (Aug 21, 2012)

This has been an interesting topic to read from my perspective. I am not into obedience, field etc...I am a first time Golden owner looking to raise the best adjusted, confident, obedient sweet, goofy Dog I can, and possibly get into a venue with her, depending on what she and I seem to click at. And hopefully down the road we will do Therapy!!!

I believe in a more balanced approach that doesn't include physical or emmotional abuse. Yet I think where I am hung up is in what constitutes a correction, in the terms of it being negative. Removing a puppy who is trying to chew on a chair and telling it NO....is that considered an adversive? How about a time out for a dog that just isn't willing to do what you are asking, even though you know she knows what it is you are telling her you want...such as leave the cat alone etc....

I am not trying to be argumentative or start an argument amongst members here, I am merely trying to understand so that I know for me what is what. 

We attend a class at our local training facility and have learned a lot....we are still learning and they use what I would consider positive training. No pinch collars, no leash pops etc...We are a work in progress and I say WE because I know in this we are partners and if something isn't working it is most likely me who isn't communicating effectively, but sometimes it is her not willing to do what I want....


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> It would be helpful for me in choosing seminars and people with whom to train if there were a term for trainers who use both corrections and rewards (balanced trainer, motivational trainer), and a different term for trainers who are purely positive to the point of eshewing no reward makers etc. People who do train without aversives call themselves positive trainers, but then so do people who train with corrections, so it gets confusing to know who stands for what methods in their training.


Sorry jumping in here late....so you're saying you will quite literally judge a book by its cover and not attend a training seminar unless the instructor labels themselves as "positive only" or "no corrections"? Their value as a dog trainer is determined by the name you give them? You don't want to hear what 99.9% of the training world has to offer? Sorry I don't get it....

People are either good dog trainers, or they're not. We can learn something from all of them.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Here's how my training facility describes their training style.....

"We use motivational training methods to help your dog learn while keeping them eager and willing. We are as gentle as possible, and as firm as necessary. We believe training should be fun for dog and owner alike." 

Based on what I've seen over the past 9 months, if someone wants to train their dog without corrections, they'd be more than welcome. Conversely, abuse would not be tolerated. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

My goodness my brain cells have been crackling from the highly charged discussion here. 

I know that it's a highly passionate discussion, but there's some real ugliness too. And at the risk of making this all about me, I have a really hard time learning when there's such an undercurrent of unpleasantness.

But the truth of the matter is this--we should all be learning from each other. Every one of us, from the inexperienced idiots like me to the most learned trainer amongst us. I think we do all of our dogs a huge disservice when we argue and make personal attacks.

I'm going to go back to my corner now, before I start sounding like Rodney King.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> My feeling as a dog person is that there are dogs out there who need to have strong owners so they never cross that line. We are golden people here and most of us do not anticipate having to deal with a dog who is very strong-willed and tyrannical in the home because its written in his genes.


I just don't think you need to break the will of a strong-willed dog or somehow teach him that you're boss. Nor do I think that eschewing intimidation and physical discomfort is permissive, any more than I think mainstream aversives are abusive. Aversive correction isn't the key to teaching a strong-willed dog to listen to you. And those of us who teach pet dogs probably work with the largest number of dogs, and the widest range of breeds and temperament types.



Megora said:


> I have a friend who rehomed a german shepherd who at maturity (female, spayed) began developing insane guard behaviors to protect that friend. This woman used positive training only, and it was not enough to be able to control that dog and keep that dog in her home. She was getting out of control with clear aggression showing towards other members of the family and people visiting the home.
> 
> She gave the dog to a friend who did know how to raise german shepherds - this included corrections and boundaries - and that dog easily adjusted to her new people and is thriving. Her new family is her life.


I don't see this as any kind of proof of one method over another. When you take somebody who has failed at training a challenging dog and then give the dog to an experienced trainer, that second trainer stands a much better chance of training the dog. That's the same with soft Goldens as it is with hard GSDs and the same with force-free methods as it is with methods that integrate aversives.



Megora said:


> I do not know anything about the people referenced above or what they said exactly about putting dogs to sleep as opposed to rehabilitating them, but in a more realistic sense I'm offering an example of how dogs are "saved" by appropriate training for them before they snap.


I think dogs in these situations are "saved" by effective training. For every story of a positive-only amateur who failed, there's at least one (and in my experience, more like ten) stories of dogs who were made reactive, nervous, and even dangerous by "traditional," dominance-focused methods that relied on aversives that very few people would consider true abuse.



Megora said:


> the pet trainer hopefully is not so antagonistic to other styles of training that they'd rather see their students quit training rather than to see them go on to great things.


Speaking only for myself, if a client wants to pursue a venue in which I have little or no experience, I try to make sure that we're not doing anything that contradicts that training. I also don't try to encourage them to do things my way in that venue, nor do I discourage them from participating in successful training methods in that venue, even if those methods are something I'd never do to my own dog. Unless I have a plausible alternative that I'm confident could work for them, I won't push them either way. So if they're training for obedience with a prong, I won't tell them that their instructor is wrong, but I'll be honest that I don't have anything to teach them about how to use one and that I think it would be counterproductive for the work we're doing on real-world behavior.

That all goes out the window if I find out something that clearly crosses the line into abuse, of course. There are two lines, though, one between what I feel is good for dogs and what isn't, and I get to follow that line with my own dogs and with the lessons I choose to teach. So I skip the prong and the e-collar based on my evaluation of the evidence, but I recognize that there are dog lovers who came to a different conclusion and have great success with those tools. There's another line between that stuff and the stuff that's truly abusive. 

I might run into trouble even there, though, because there are some things I consider truly abusive that are still pretty mainstream, like cuffing, hitting a dog with an object (obviously I mean to cause pain, not guiding taps), using an e-collar on a setting that causes a dog to cry out, etc. I don't think those are acceptable under any circumstances, and if I found out somebody was doing that to a client dog, I'd encourage that client to find a more up-to-date, humane trainer for that venue.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

solinvictus said:


> Jill, I think you have to really look at what Barb has said. She thinks that dogs that are trained as you train should be able to get the lower end titles. If you want it for your dogs you have to start somewhere and where there is training that doesn't match your training you will become innovative and use your skills to solve those problems. The only way to know is to not lump things all together and take it one step at a time. Is it all about the titles or is it all about the journey with your dog?
> 
> When I look at Barb and Tito it is all about the journey. I don't believe Barb would ever do anything to Tito or make Tito do things that he doesn't like to do. I think Barb is taking each step (not lumping) and at each step Tito is telling her that he is awesome and is happy and wants to do all that they do together and to keep on going.
> 
> ...



Great sentiment which will fall on deaf ears.
This was the EXACT subject of a rather lengthy thread about 2 years ago which culminated in getting me banned for a week. 
At the time Jill had embarked on some field training with her young male golden. The dog quickly decided it liked birds more than treats and positive reinforcement and from her description, dragged her around like a rag doll in the field. She valued her dog training ideologies more than she valued the dog's enjoyment or her growth as a field trainer, so she put the kibosh on field training altogether. Guess she got a glimpse as to why all positive field training gets you nowhere fast. No training is better than training with a correction here or there.
Yet here we are with Jill asking the same questions about field training and getting the same answers. I'm not falling for it again.

And yes this is the TRAINING FOR COMPETITION forum...Great original topic but predictable dialogue on this forum...


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I have been soul searching trying to figure out why I, personally, have such an issue with "positive training" and it finally hit me this morning while driving to the grocery store. It was so screamingly obvious I don't know why it took me a while to figure it out.
I have absolutely no issue with people who truly TRAIN by positive methods. None whatsoever. I think there is a lot to be said for many of their methods.
My issue (remember, I work with hundreds of dogs) is so many people use the TERM "positive training methods" when what they really mean is "I don't train my dog at all". 
Here are the types of things that I encounter.
Customer will come into the pet hotel with the dog on a halti-collar. The dog is pawing at the collar, trying to get it off, clearly miserable. The owner tells me something to the effect of, "oh, I rarely use it on him because he hates it, but since we were going somewhere he had to wear it or I can't control him but I don't believe in cruel collars like chokes or pinch collars". At this point they explain that they are using "positive training methods", and they pause and wait, as if expecting me to genuflect. uh-huh. I will ask something like, "oh, how do you take him on walks?" pause......typical answer, "my husband has to walk him. I can't". Um...I see. So you can't take your dog anywhere with you?
Moving right along. Owner removes halti-collar. The dog jumps all over me. Big dog. Almost knocking me down. The owner grins sheepishly and offers Fido a cookie to get Fido off of me. Fido is having none of it, and continues to jump up, trying to lick my face and say hello. I have, honest to God, had an owner tell the dog, "Mommy doesn't LIKE it when you do that". 
So now the owner resorts to "Fido Sit. Fido Sit. Fido Please Sit. Please Sit Fido. Fido Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Do you want a cookie? Sit. You can have a cookie if you sit. Please Sit."
The owner *thinks* they are training the dog by positive methods, but the truth of the matter is, they are not training the dog at all. Someone has, somewhere along the line, told them that any corrections at all will ruin their dog. But they are missing the other half of the equation, if you choose to train without corrections, you still have to TRAIN.
Now you may think this is something I rarely encounter, but sadly, it's pretty much a daily occurance. I board a lot of dogs who don't even bother to acknowledge that I've called their name when I call them to come. If you put a leash on them, they pull as hard as possible in the opposite direction, or go dead-weight and drop onto their backs. When I put their food down, they sniff it distainfully as if it's not GOOD enough for them, and then they walk away from it.
And virtually all of these dogs belong to people who come in and brag about how their dog is being trained by "positive methods". 
Another favorite is when a dog walks into my lobby and lifts his leg on the furniture, and I say, "HEY! NO!" and the owner snaps at ME that they don't correct their dog, he's trained by "all positive methods". 
So you can see why I feel the way I do when people talk about "positive training methods". Because so many of them mean NO TRAINING METHOD. They are not people like Jill, or Brian, or Sharon, and others on here who truly believe in an idiology, practice it, analyze it, and work with the dogs regularly.
The same thing goes for "feeding raw", in which case most people mean "feeding randomly", not a well balanced diet of raw food, but that's for another thread.
I feel better now.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

WOOHOO Barb what a post and you hit the nail on the head!
It reminded me of one of my grooming clients who has a 3 year old golden female that is Fisher's daughter. Sweet dog, sweet owner, the dog is one of these who quickly figured out she's not allowed to jump on me so instead, comes up to me, says hi, then spins and LEAPS on her owner. Misplaced enthusiasm! The owner is like her punching bag. She took SIX MONTHS of PRIVATE LESSONS with the local "all positive" trainer (who is a lovely woman herself, but is 100% positive reinforcement -- I mean it). All those lessons got her was fitted with a no-pull harness. Which works great if the dog tries to jump on OTHER PEOPLE but does nothing if the dog wants to jump on the owner! It is also like WRESTLING AN ALLIGATOR to get it ON THE DOG. (Who made this stupid thing, anyhow? Why is the buckle under the dog's armpits????) You think the dog would act like this with some decent CORRECTIONS for BAD BEHAVIOR??


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have been soul searching trying to figure out why I, personally, have such an issue with "positive training" and it finally hit me this morning while driving to the grocery store. It was so screamingly obvious I don't know why it took me a while to figure it out.
> I have absolutely no issue with people who truly TRAIN by positive methods. None whatsoever. I think there is a lot to be said for many of their methods.
> My issue (remember, I work with hundreds of dogs) is so many people use the TERM "positive training methods" when what they really mean is "I don't train my dog at all".
> Here are the types of things that I encounter.
> ...


Although I haven't worked with very many dogs, I agree with your sentiments completely.


----------



## Ohiomom9977 (Jul 27, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have been soul searching trying to figure out why I, personally, have such an issue with "positive training" and it finally hit me this morning while driving to the grocery store. It was so screamingly obvious I don't know why it took me a while to figure it out.
> I have absolutely no issue with people who truly TRAIN by positive methods. None whatsoever. I think there is a lot to be said for many of their methods.
> My issue (remember, I work with hundreds of dogs) is so many people use the TERM "positive training methods" when what they really mean is "I don't train my dog at all".
> Here are the types of things that I encounter.
> ...


Very well said & I've seen this too. I really have no preference on training types as each dog is different, but I wish more people would teach their dogs some manners!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Mayve (Aug 21, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have been soul searching trying to figure out why I, personally, have such an issue with "positive training" and it finally hit me this morning while driving to the grocery store. It was so screamingly obvious I don't know why it took me a while to figure it out.
> I have absolutely no issue with people who truly TRAIN by positive methods. None whatsoever. I think there is a lot to be said for many of their methods.
> My issue (remember, I work with hundreds of dogs) is so many people use the TERM "positive training methods" when what they really mean is "I don't train my dog at all".
> Here are the types of things that I encounter.
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have been soul searching trying to figure out why I, personally, have such an issue with "positive training" and it finally hit me this morning while driving to the grocery store. It was so screamingly obvious I don't know why it took me a while to figure it out.
> I have absolutely no issue with people who truly TRAIN by positive methods. None whatsoever. I think there is a lot to be said for many of their methods.
> My issue (remember, I work with hundreds of dogs) is so many people use the TERM "positive training methods" when what they really mean is "I don't train my dog at all".
> Here are the types of things that I encounter.
> ...


Thank you! So true and very well stated. I have also seen a few members struggling with the same exact thing for the same exact reason.


----------



## Mirinde (Jun 8, 2011)

This is a more emotional statement and probably not super productive, but I wanted to say the attitude that I'm supposed to train using an aversive I'm uncomfortable with because my dog is a high energy kid and I need to crack down on him CRIPPLED my early dog training. Positive reinforcement training is responded to with such an air of "that stupid owner giving their dog no boundaries..." that it feels like you have to be PERFECT 100% of the time, right away and that is just not realistic. I think this results in a lot of owners not going into situations they should be proofing in because of the condescension (originally put condensation, lol!). I know Barb meant well in her post and I fully know what kinds of dogs she was talking about, but it also gave me that same anxious feeling in my stomach I'm so familiar with. It makes me feel like I'm not allowed to set my own parameters of patience, even when my dog is literally of no relevance to anyone else around. It makes you feel like you're wrong before you even get going.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> So you can see why I feel the way I do when people talk about "positive training methods". Because so many of them mean NO TRAINING METHOD. They are not people like Jill, or Brian, or Sharon, and others on here who truly believe in an idiology, practice it, analyze it, and work with the dogs regularly.


I totally agree. An untrained or mistrained dog is hard to watch regardless of the label the owner uses for the mistraining. I cringe as much at that version of "positive" as I do when people talk about "pack leadership."


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Sweet dog, sweet owner, the dog is one of these who quickly figured out she's not allowed to jump on me so instead, comes up to me, says hi, then spins and LEAPS on her owner. Misplaced enthusiasm! The owner is like her punching bag.
> 
> [...]
> 
> You think the dog would act like this with some decent CORRECTIONS for BAD BEHAVIOR??


What correction did you use? Did you knee her in the chest? Did you say "no" in a loud or stern voice? Did you pop her collar when she did it? Did you scruff shake? Catch her paws during a jump and hold them until she was uncomfortable? What correction do you suggest as most likely to help an owner struggling with this behavior?

I ask because I've had exactly the same experience with training clients where their dog stops jumping on me relatively quickly (often after only a few tries) but still mauls the owner for a while. Usually it's because the owner is accidentally rewarding the behavior and it's hard to teach them to stop giving that reward. I usually get the dog to stop by folding my arms and looking away from the dog and then rewarding him with attention and/or a cookie when he puts four on the floor. How did you do it?

Or were you talking about the exact same kind of method but you're applying the term "CORRECTION" to the negative punishment of withdrawing the attention the dog is seeking?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I don't see this as any kind of proof of one method over another. When you take somebody who has failed at training a challenging dog and then give the dog to an experienced trainer, that second trainer stands a much better chance of training the dog.


Tippy, I do think it fell under the category of positive training failing that dog, if only because my friend is a positive trainer and attended classes with a positive trainer who essentially told her that the dog was dangerous and had no training suggestions for her. 

The dog was sent to a new home where the owner was experienced with the breed to the extent they attended classes with somebody who breeds german shepherds, competes with them, and recommends stronger handling with them to help them be balanced and trustworthy family pets. This means using corrections when necessary and setting boundaries for the dog. 

I'm not exactly shy about giving my opinion of alpha based training, so you can't imagine that is what I recommend at all with corrective/boundary based training. This dog definitely does sleep in bed with her people and curls up on the couch with them. And definitely this was not a case where they had to pin her for 10 minutes every day to break her will. 

My feeling is that people do not educate themselves as far as what else it out there. Even people who teach classes! Who should at least know what milder but effective corrections are useful in training a well-behaved family pet. What I see from some people - even elsewhere where correction/positive training is discussed.... you have people who get the impression that "correction based training" is all just corrections and no praise, no treats, no play, no fun for the dog.

**** BLESS you Barb for that rant<:


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

This is definitely off topic, but people keep referring to Barb. Is that Hotel4dogs? Or someone else? Thanks


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I am Barb! I am also Hotel4dogs!



Kylie said:


> This is definitely off topic, but people keep referring to Barb. Is that Hotel4dogs? Or someone else? Thanks


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Kylie said:


> This is definitely off topic, but people keep referring to Barb. Is that Hotel4dogs? Or someone else? Thanks


Yes - she is an absolute sweetheart and an encyclopedia of knowledge!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I'm sorry I made you feel that way. You are exactly the opposite of the type of person I am referring to. 
I also didn't mean to suggest that any of the people I actually am referring to should use aversives if they find them uncomfortable. My point is that they should pick SOME training method, and use it. And it is the people that I refer to who make it hard for people like you, who truly do practice positive TRAINING, to gain acceptance, because they call their lack of effort at training "positive training".
I hope that convoluted sentence made some sense. 



Mirinde said:


> This is a more emotional statement and probably not super productive, but I wanted to say the attitude that I'm supposed to train using an aversive I'm uncomfortable with because my dog is a high energy kid and I need to crack down on him CRIPPLED my early dog training. Positive reinforcement training is responded to with such an air of "that stupid owner giving their dog no boundaries..." that it feels like you have to be PERFECT 100% of the time, right away and that is just not realistic. I think this results in a lot of owners not going into situations they should be proofing in because of the condescension (originally put condensation, lol!). I know Barb meant well in her post and I fully know what kinds of dogs she was talking about, but it also gave me that same anxious feeling in my stomach I'm so familiar with. It makes me feel like I'm not allowed to set my own parameters of patience, even when my dog is literally of no relevance to anyone else around. It makes you feel like you're wrong before you even get going.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

<< I paid her to say this >> :



Claudia M said:


> Yes - she is an absolute sweetheart and an encyclopedia of knowledge!


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

hotel4dogs said:


> << I paid her to say this >> :


Isn't that what friends are for? Bribery and complements


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

> This is a more emotional statement and probably not super productive, but I wanted to say the attitude that I'm supposed to train using an aversive I'm uncomfortable with because my dog is a high energy kid and I need to crack down on him CRIPPLED my early dog training. Positive reinforcement training is responded to with such an air of "that stupid owner giving their dog no boundaries...


I agree that an attitude of contempt, rather than turning committed people off from positive training methods, sometimes just turn them off from a particular venue. There is no end of great things to do with dogs, and not enough dog time to do them in.


Awwww, Anney, always such a hater. Well, I am glad you decided to participate anyway. It is good to hear about the bad and the good in everyone's training, including yours.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Nairb said:


> Jill,
> 
> With all due respect, you've told us over and over that training with zero corrections is more effective (even for high drive dogs), so why would that not transfer to the field?


I want to answer that question you ask for myself. I myself am curious why, if training without corrections makes head way in many dog sports, why not this one. 

Micheal Ellis is the source for saying a high drive dog is easier to train with purely positive methods than a medium or low drive dog. 

I don't enjoy field work, or being around the the e collar culture of it, which is why I am not going to do it. (One of my goldens has a contract specifying e collars may never be used, even.).


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

solinvictus said:


> Jill follow your heart and dreams as long as you and your dog are enjoying the journey. Stay true to your own personal confictions.


That is great advice, and I am living my dream. I have close to a perfect dog life, and I am grateful for every second of it. 

I have no dream to do field work, but I do have curiosity about the hostility embedded in the culture toward positive training methods.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have been soul searching trying to figure out why I, personally, have such an issue with "positive training" and it finally hit me this morning while driving to the grocery store. It was so screamingly obvious I don't know why it took me a while to figure it out.
> I have absolutely no issue with people who truly TRAIN by positive methods. None whatsoever. I think there is a lot to be said for many of their methods.
> My issue (remember, I work with hundreds of dogs) is so many people use the TERM "positive training methods" when what they really mean is "I don't train my dog at all".
> Here are the types of things that I encounter.
> ...


So, if I understand correctly, your beef is with untrained dog, which, in the situations you describe, are more likely the result of lazy training (or lack of training) than about a particular method ("positive" training) failing to work.

I guess for me, it's sad to think that untrained dogs have colored your perception of what I think many of us on the thread (myself, Jill, Tippy, etc.) consider "positive" training. It feels like you've made a giant generalization - and the kicker, in my mind - is how is that any different than one of we positive trainers generalizing the use of an e-collar or an ear pinch or ... by saying it's "always horrible" or what not?

And back to the unruly pet dogs. OK. So now you have an out of control dog. I guess you could just start issuing corrections - or you could actually TRAIN with positive methods. Both can work - so we're back to the philosophical choice.

Oh - one more little point -- MEGORA: Did I read correctly that you were referring to Emily Larhlam (the author of the original 'manifesto' when you mentioned the "birdbrain who wrote the original list..." I hope not ... because ... REALLY? It's one thing to disagree with with how someone trains, but when we start the name calling, things go nowhere fast. Nevermind that she happens to be very well respected by some of the best animal behaviorists in the country. (Again, not that you have to agree - just hoping we can all avoid future name calling...)

And specific to her manifesto - it's also important to remember that she's not a competition trainer. Her info is targeting pet owners -- the often clueless souls with the dogs who are jumping up and mauling Barb in the kennel. If we consider a point I tried to make earlier - that punishment, when administered by unskilled hands is often problematic in many ways - her concerns are all that much more justified.

Someone mentioned earlier - (For the most part) WE are not your A.D.Os (average dog owners). When we use punishment, we're better at it - and when we use rewards, we're better at it. Being better at it affords us the ability to *NOT* fall prey to some of the fallout she's describing. BUT, as someone whose has made a living working with ADOs for the past 10 years, I can tell you, I've personally seen MUCH of what she's describing. (How about the dog who was advised to use an e-collar for barking ... and told to keep upping the stim when the dog barked through it ... and the dog ended up with horrible burns on her neck... I can list examples for days.) And it's sad.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Duplicate post


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Duplicate post


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> Tippy, I do think it fell under the category of positive training failing that dog, if only because my friend is a positive trainer and attended classes with a positive trainer who essentially told her that the dog was dangerous and had no training suggestions for her.


A trainer with no training suggestions for a hardheaded GSD is a bad trainer, not a "positive" trainer. GSDs are SO common right now, and they're frequently owned by people who think they're going to have an automatic Rin Tin Tin, so anybody who trains pet dogs is going to have hardheaded, untrained young GSDs coming out their ears. It sounds like the trainer is a inexperienced and/or bad trainer from the get-go. The positive part isn't necessarily what failed there.



Megora said:


> The dog was sent to a new home where the owner was experienced with the breed to the extent they attended classes with somebody who breeds german shepherds, competes with them, and recommends stronger handling with them to help them be balanced and trustworthy family pets. This means using corrections when necessary and setting boundaries for the dog.


Positive doesn't mean permissive. It's all about boundaries, just not aversives.



Megora said:


> Who should at least know what milder but effective corrections are useful in training a well-behaved family pet. What I see from some people - even elsewhere where correction/positive training is discussed.... you have people who get the impression that "correction based training" is all just corrections and no praise, no treats, no play, no fun for the dog.


But that's where we disagree. Mild corrections are unnecessary for so many of the things people use them for, like common behavioral problems and hardheaded young dogs. I don't see them as key or even useful for the vast majority of common issues.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Oh - one more little point -- MEGORA: Did I read correctly that you were referring to Emily Larhlam (the author of the original 'manifesto' when you mentioned the "birdbrain who wrote the original list..." I hope not ... because ... REALLY? It's one thing to disagree with with how someone trains, but when we start the name calling, things go nowhere fast. Nevermind that she happens to be very well respected by some of the best animal behaviorists in the country. (Again, not that you have to agree - just hoping we can all avoid future name calling...)


Stephanie, I have no idea who Emily Larhlam is. She may be a big name in whatever genre she exists, but I just haven't really spent a lot of time reading up on what people are saying in that whole behavior/dog psychology or whatever category/genre. I'm the same way about Cesar Mi, fwiw. I have no interest. Have never watched the show. I couldn't really have any opinion on what he says or does other than what people talk about w/regards to it. I think some of the things I've heard about him are terrible, even though I did actually agree with what he said in an interview that had been posted here on GRF about dogs and dog training. 

I recognize names of people in competition obedience - or some of them anyway. 

Overall, though pardon moi for my ignorance.  

Now, if she's the person who expressed the sentiments in the quoted text - posted here, apparently in the context of competition obedience, then well. I have no opinion of her. Sorry.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> A trainer with no training suggestions for a hardheaded GSD is a bad trainer, not a "positive" trainer.


So.... if a "positive" trainer/instructor runs out of ideas on how to fix a dog exhibiting dangerous behaviors, they no longer are allowed to call themselves "positive" trainers then, huh?


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Megora said:


> So.... if a "positive" trainer/instructor runs out of ideas on how to fix a dog exhibiting dangerous behaviors, they no longer are allowed to call themselves "positive" trainers then, huh?


Wait, what?

A trainer who has no ideas to offer vs a trainer who runs out of ideas -- aren't those two different things?

And how do either affect what you call yourself in terms of your chosen methodology?

I'm corn-fused...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> A trainer who has no ideas to offer vs a trainer who runs out of ideas -- aren't those two different things?
> 
> ...


That makes 2 of us.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> So.... if a "positive" trainer/instructor runs out of ideas on how to fix a dog exhibiting dangerous behaviors, they no longer are allowed to call themselves "positive" trainers then, huh?


You said "a positive trainer who essentially told her that the dog was dangerous and had no training suggestions for her." Not "ran out" but rather "had no."

And we haven't even dealt with the fact that they changed owners. If the owner is untrainable, there's no way to help the dog. So this "positive trainer" with either "no training suggestions" (or some failed ones) may simply have failed to train the owner. That doesn't say anything about the methods.

I just don't think your anecdote tells us anything about whether you have to use aversives on a hardheaded young GSD in order to have a well-behaved dog, and there are obviously plenty of hardheaded pet GSDs trained without the regular use of aversives.

Lastly, my point wasn't about what the trainer was allowed to call herself but rather that the key point of the story is that she failed as a trainer, not as a "positive" trainer.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Flying Quizini writes, "So, if I understand correctly, your beef is with untrained dog, which, in the situations you describe, are more likely the result of lazy training (or lack of training) than about a particular method ("positive" training) failing to work.

Absolutely correct. 

I guess for me, it's sad to think that untrained dogs have colored your perception of what I think many of us on the thread (myself, Jill, Tippy, etc.) consider "positive" training. It feels like you've made a giant generalization - and the kicker, in my mind - is how is that any different than one of we positive trainers generalizing the use of an e-collar or an ear pinch or ... by saying it's "always horrible" or what not?

Again correct, which was a revelation to me this morning that I was allowing that to be the case. I never stopped to think why I felt that way about "positive training" until then. And not only is it a giant generalization, it was pretty much an unconscious one. And it IS the same as a positive trainer generalizing that aversive methods are always horrible. And I've heard some say that.


And back to the unruly pet dogs. OK. So now you have an out of control dog. I guess you could just start issuing corrections - or you could actually TRAIN with positive methods. Both can work - so we're back to the philosophical choice.

No, we're back to please train your dogs. Pick ANY method that works for you (rhetorical you), and stick with it, but please train your dogs. 

Oh - one more little point -- MEGORA: Did I read correctly that you were referring to Emily Larhlam (the author of the original 'manifesto' when you mentioned the "birdbrain who wrote the original list..." I hope not ... because ... REALLY? It's one thing to disagree with with how someone trains, but when we start the name calling, things go nowhere fast. Nevermind that she happens to be very well respected by some of the best animal behaviorists in the country. (Again, not that you have to agree - just hoping we can all avoid future name calling...)

And specific to her manifesto - it's also important to remember that she's not a competition trainer. Her info is targeting pet owners -- the often clueless souls with the dogs who are jumping up and mauling Barb in the kennel. If we consider a point I tried to make earlier - that punishment, when administered by unskilled hands is often problematic in many ways - her concerns are all that much more justified.

Someone mentioned earlier - (For the most part) WE are not your A.D.Os (average dog owners). When we use punishment, we're better at it - and when we use rewards, we're better at it. Being better at it affords us the ability to *NOT* fall prey to some of the fallout she's describing. BUT, as someone whose has made a living working with ADOs for the past 10 years, I can tell you, I've personally seen MUCH of what she's describing. (How about the dog who was advised to use an e-collar for barking ... and told to keep upping the stim when the dog barked through it ... and the dog ended up with horrible burns on her neck... I can list examples for days.)"


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

That is one of the best statements I have ever seen on GRF!



tippykayak said:


> If the owner is untrainable, there's no way to help the dog.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> You said "a positive trainer who essentially told her that the dog was dangerous and had no training suggestions for her." Not "ran out" but rather "had no."


I think it's fairly ridiculous that you are arguing over words like this. 

Understand, this friend of mine (mom of 6 kids, etc) is one of those that spares no expense when it comes to dogs. This GSD came from Europe - specifically chosen because she wanted a healthier line than American bred shepherds. She got the health she wanted, but unfortunately was not equipped to handle the stronger working traits that these dogs have. 

She's also one of those that believes that you pay $$$ for private trainers to come to your home and work one on one with you and the family. She did this with one of those "positive" (and I'm using that term to describe a breed of trainer that will not use aversive training of any kind, even using the word "no") trainers. This woman worked with my friend for a while, but when that dog reached maturity and began showing increasing signs of behaviors issues, the woman had no suggestions that had not been tried already. And she warned the family that the dog was dangerous, as did their vet who would not go into the exam room with the family unless the dog was wearing a muzzle. 

As this applies to what you were responding to - putting a dog to sleep rather than using any aversive method, that is why I offered this example. Because unlike the cases with the CM dogs who may have been used for fighting or had already attacked, this was a very young dog who was just showing signs of becoming aggressive, and could actually be TRAINED yet. And again, no matter how you argue about corrections not working with dogs with issues, they actually DO work when applied CORRECTLY. Those positive methods were applied CORRECTLY, but did not work.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> And back to the unruly pet dogs. OK. So now you have an out of control dog. I guess you could just start issuing corrections - or you could actually TRAIN with positive methods. Both can work - so we're back to the philosophical choice.
> 
> No, we're back to please train your dogs. Pick ANY method that works for you (rhetorical you), and stick with it, but please train your dogs.


Train your dogs. Yes. Please!

But I still say, please don't think you *need* punishment to accomplish your goal. (And no, not all punishment is abuse and all that...) I feel as strongly about punishment in training as I do about the idea that dogs should live in the house and not be outdoor-only dogs. It's just who I am.

I get it. We R+ trainers need to SHOW not TELL how we think our methods work just as well as (if not better than) the use of punishment. THAT is what will help sway those with a foot still firmly planted in Punishment Land.

It's too bad you aren't local... I'd love for you to meet some of my dedicated students! ;-) They would 'wow' you, not maul you!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> I think it's fairly ridiculous that you are arguing over words like this.


You told your story two different ways, whether you meant to or not, then you complained that I was working with one version instead of the other.



Megora said:


> And again, no matter how you argue about corrections not working with dogs with issues, they actually DO work when applied CORRECTLY. Those positive methods were applied CORRECTLY, but did not work.


If you recall what I said, I would be totally OK with somebody else trying a different method on a dog if I had failed, including methods I myself wouldn't use. And I don't think your example illustrates much, since the dog was trained by two different people, the second of which was highly experienced with GSDs. I just don't see how it proves that the corrections were the key difference between the two situations.

You can say up and down that positive methods were applied "CORRECTLY," but how could you possibly say that with any confidence, especially since you haven't mentioned a single one of those methods?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Absolutely the case!

And I would love to meet some of your students who would wow me. I'd love to meet pretty much any dog that doesn't maul me, other than my own. 



FlyingQuizini said:


> _I get it. We R+ trainers need to SHOW not TELL how we think our methods work just as well as (if not better than) the use of punishment. THAT is what will help sway those with a foot still firmly planted in Punishment Land._
> 
> It's too bad you aren't local... I'd love for you to meet some of my dedicated students! ;-) They would 'wow' you, not maul you!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Not being a student of the quadrants, I will tell you how Tito was taught not to jump on people, and someone can tell me what method it is.
From the very first day he came home at 7-1/2 weeks old, whenever he would put his front feet up he was told "No, keep your feet on the ground" and gently (seriously) had his front feet placed back on the ground. Then he was told he was a good boy, and was petted and praised. It was done consistently. Feet were never allowed off the ground, no exceptions. 
(when it came time to show him in the breed ring I had to teach him to put his feet up on his handler, and that it was okay to do so).
Training method? Quadrant?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> You told your story two different ways, whether you meant to or not, then you complained that I was working with one version instead of the other.


Tippy - I'm scatterbrained when I'm typing on the fly. See the story I related to Barb about the hunting springer chasing ducks and turkeys out of bushes, LOL. 

I think the wording that was different was I said my friend attended classes when I typed earlier today when I was hurrying between assignments at work and I described the actual situation with the trainer now I'm at home and sitting in my comfy chair at leisure. 

Had you called me on that, I absolutely would have understood, LOL. But you were nitpicking about "had no ideas" vs "running out of ideas", and interpreting those two as having completely different definitions or meanings just seemed silly to me. As was declaring that the trainer was not a "positive" one because she was clueless (a "bad trainer" - which I agree, btw - considering how much she COST!).


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> But you were nitpicking about "had no ideas" vs "running out of ideas", and interpreting those two as having completely different ideas just seemed silly to me. As was declaring that the trainer was not a "positive" one because she was clueless (which I agree, btw - considering how much she COST!).


Well, if she had no ideas at all for a hardheaded young GSD, then she's _prima facie_ incompetent. If she ran out, then it's more plausible that aversive-free training failed to adapt to the dog. So it seemed like an important distinction.

And again, I didn't say she wasn't positive. I said it didn't matter if she was positive or not, since the key was that she was incompetent, at least as you initially described her.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Not being a student of the quadrants, I will tell you how Tito was taught not to jump on people, and someone can tell me what method it is.
> From the very first day he came home at 7-1/2 weeks old, whenever he would put his front feet up he was told "No, keep your feet on the ground" and gently (seriously) had his front feet placed back on the ground. Then he was told he was a good boy, and was petted and praised. It was done consistently. Feet were never allowed off the ground, no exceptions.
> (when it came time to show him in the breed ring I had to teach him to put his feet up on his handler, and that it was okay to do so).
> Training method? Quadrant?


It depends on whether the "no" or the hold on his feet was something he wanted to avoid. That would make it positive punishment (of the gentlest possible sort), followed with positive reinforcement.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I will gladly share more of my training stuff for people to pick apart. I'd like to hear what quadrants/methods it falls into. Please steer clear of whether it was right or wrong, I'm just learning the correct descriptions for it.
When Tiny and Toby were young, they would sometimes get into altercations that would start to escalate. I would put them both in a "down-stay", generally facing each other, and stand between them. I would make them focus on me, and remain in the stay for a couple of minutes (which feels like a couple of hours when you're standing between two dogs that you are annoyed at). 
Very effective in that situation with those two particular dogs.
Method?
Quadrant?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I didn't make myself clear. I didn't hold his feet, I just took them off me or whoever, and placed them back on the floor where they belonged.
I don't think that physically ever bothered him, but he didn't get what he wanted (to jump up), either.
Quadrant?
Thanks. Just trying to learn.



tippykayak said:


> It depends on whether the "no" or the hold on his feet was something he wanted to avoid. That would make it positive punishment (of the gentlest possible sort), followed with positive reinforcement.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> And again, I didn't say she wasn't positive. I said it didn't matter if she was positive or not, since the key was that she was incompetent, at least as you initially described her.


You said she was a bad trainer, not a positive one. Whether you intended it to have the meaning as I took it, I still had a good laugh when I read the comment. This is probably just me having a snerky sense humor when it comes to some things.


----------



## AlanK (Jun 28, 2008)

Many of you are my friends and this discussion does have some interesting conversation. I will admit I have learned a thing or two. Please keep this civil. 
Thanks


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Afrer reviewing 24 pages of this back and forth thread the mod team has decided to close it as everyone has made their points clear, and this is to prevent any heated arguments from starting.


----------

