# How do I correct?



## JDK (Jul 30, 2011)

I'm not quite sure I understand what it means to "correct" your dog when you ask him to do something and he doesn't do it.

Lets say I tell him to "come" and he doesn't come, how would I correct that? Or if I tell him to sit and he doesn't sit?

I've been told countless times to not repeat my command cause it only teaches the dog that he doesn't have to do what he's told the first time he's told to do it, but nobody's every really explained to me what I'm suppose to do otherwise when he doesn't obey the command.

As of right now, if he doesn't do what I ask, I say "uh-oh, what did I say?". 50% of the time he'll do what I told him after I say that, but I don't know what I'm suppose to do when he doesn't listen. Do I wait a few seconds and say the command again?

Can somebody explain to me how to correct a dog and what they do to correct theirs? Thanks.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

My impression is you make them do the action. If I say "sit" twice to Koda I will push down on her bottom gently and say it again. Then reward. Or for come if she isn't coming I walk over to her, lightly grab her collar and lead her to where I was repeating the command "come". That way they see what they are supposed to do with that command.


----------



## mayapaya (Sep 28, 2011)

_I actually consulted with a personal trainer because of several issues I needed some help with. Maya's recall was 50/50. And yes, never repeat a command. Made that mistake sometimes out of sheer frustration, and it just makes the issue worse. With Maya, I have had to work in more training sessions on a long line. After a "come" command, if she doesn't respond immediately, give the line a tug, and bring her to you. Also working on praise instead of treats for a reward. Have worked on the same thing with down/stays on a long line. Her down stays are getting very good. On recall, it's still a work in progress!!! Good luck!_


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

^^ yes great advice with the long line. That is what we use outside. When i work on comes in the house I dont have a leash on her so that is when I go and guide her back to me.


----------



## BriGuy (Aug 31, 2010)

Just to add - our instructor always says that if your dog doesn't "do" the command after a few tries, then you have to make it easier for them to do it successfully. I think that most of the time dogs are doing the best they know how to do.


----------



## JDK (Jul 30, 2011)

So basically just give him a tug on the leash and if that doesn't work, show him what to do by physically making him do it. That's easy now. The only problem I can see with that is when we're working on his recall. Unless I put him in a "sit, stay" first, if I tell him to "come" and he doesn't, he'll run a few feet away if I walk towards him (keeping his eyes on me the whole time with an expression like "come get me"), thinking we're playing "keep away", even though he doesn't have a toy or anything to keep away from me. :doh:


----------



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

The only piece of advice that the breeder of golden #2 gave me that was worth anything was,"never use come when it is an option." Never call a dog when something else is more interesting.... My dogs know "here", "come", and "front"....


----------



## Joanne & Asia (Jul 23, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> The only piece of advice that the breeder of golden #2 gave me that was worth anything was,"never use come when it is an option." Never call a dog when something else is more interesting.... My dogs know "here", "come", and "front"....


That is the best advice I received too. Only use the Come command when you really mean it. We use "right here" and it works great...most of the time


----------



## toliva (Nov 24, 2011)

When I was training Zeke in recall, he won the treat lottery every time he came. We started out with short comes on a short lead, then on a longer lead, then across the yard, then with distractions.... I trained like this for weeks. When he would come he would get a jackpot - chicken, steak, liver.... a whole handful. This took about a month. Now he has the best recall of any dog his age I know personally! I don't have to reward like that anymore. I do though, every so often. I figure it's like playing the slots - he keeps coming because at some point he'll get that jackpot again. 

IMO if you recall your pup and he does not come, you need to work on it either with fewer distractions or with a lead or with whatever is needed. Also never use "come" for things he'd rather not do, like stop playing, get in trouble, get his ears cleaned, etc.

For your original question about corrections, I agree with the PPs. I never repeat a command, but I try to be careful not to say it unless I know he is attentive. If I say, "sit" and he does not sit, for example, I might tug his collar up or push his butt down. I try not to do the latter though, because sometimes I think touching him can be confusing for him. If I say "down" and he does not lay down, I will use a treat to guide him down, because that command is still hard for him sometimes, and we are working on that one with distance and distractions.


----------



## Dubuque dog trainer (Mar 9, 2012)

JDK said:


> I'm not quite sure I understand what it means to "correct" your dog when you ask him to do something and he doesn't do it.
> 
> Lets say I tell him to "come" and he doesn't come, how would I correct that? Or if I tell him to sit and he doesn't sit?
> 
> ...


Don't correct - use clicker training! If you have to correct, then there is something that needs modification in your training plan. In clicker training we add the cue (not command) once the dog understands the behavior we are teaching and is performing it correctly. We always set the dog up for success rather than look for mistakes to correct. This way we get much more reliable behavior and a much happier dog that not only loves to learn but learns to learn!


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

JDK said:


> So basically just give him a tug on the leash and if that doesn't work, show him what to do by physically making him do it. That's easy now. The only problem I can see with that is when we're working on his recall. Unless I put him in a "sit, stay" first, if I tell him to "come" and he doesn't, he'll run a few feet away if I walk towards him (keeping his eyes on me the whole time with an expression like "come get me"), thinking we're playing "keep away", even though he doesn't have a toy or anything to keep away from me. :doh:


Firstly make sure he is paying attention to you. If he doesn't 'come' don't go to him, run away from him and make yourself more exciting, make some noise, clap, whistle, dance, squeak a toy. When he does get to you- no matter how hard it was for him or how long it takes have a 20 second party - lots of treats and praise. Let him know he is the best dog EVER! Always reward 'come' bigtime.
For position commands: When you are 'correcting' with 'uhuh' are you also 'marking' with a yes! and rewarding when he does get it right? For example: if I ask my dog for a sit, and he stands there, I say 'Wrong' and wait for him to try something else, when he does get it right, no matter many 'wrongs' he gets - I mark it with 'Yes' and reward bigtime. Letting him figure out what I want helps speed the process next time. Also consider whether you have 'proofed' the command. Have you taught him (from square one) to generalize? that sit means sit regardless where you are? If you change the context (location/situation or even your body position) it is a new ball game for the dog.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dubuque dog trainer said:


> Don't correct - use clicker training! If you have to correct, then there is something that needs modification in your training plan. In clicker training we add the cue (not command) once the dog understands the behavior we are teaching and is performing it correctly. We always set the dog up for success rather than look for mistakes to correct. This way we get much more reliable behavior and a much happier dog that not only loves to learn but learns to learn!



What do you do when a dog presents the wrong behaviors for the cue though? 

You repeat without any click/sound and withold reward, right?


That is a correction. 


Clicker training does work, although I prefer using verbal markers instead (yes). It cuts through a lot of confusion and manipulating that you otherwise would have to do with a dog. 


For competition obedience training - watch and touch - are two very important behaviors that the dog presents naturally. If you can really connect those behaviors to rewards, they offerthose behaviors readily and often. 

Let me say I was THRILLED when my dog learned "touch" in a single day using this method. And my dog knows that the "YES" word means treats means whatever he did was right. 


Heel position is another thing that you would use clicker/verbal marker type training with. When you have a young dog or a puppy, you are not going to be correcting that dog. You do want to jump in with a SOUND and rewards the instant the dog presents the behavior you want. 


Where corrections are necessary is to prevent confusion and polish up the behaviors the dog presents.


I'm not sure about your dogs, but when I'm introducing something new and am trying to get my guy to do something I can mark and reward, he will be going through his repertoire of tricks and skills trying to earn the reward. 


Witholding treats and repeating the cue is my correction. 


Down the road after he will immediately do what I want when I present the cue word or hand signal, that is the point where I would probably correct him when he makes mistakes. 


And a correction is not always a pop or scruff shake. Depending on your dog, the correction could be as simple as gently grabbing the collar and taking the dog right back to the original spot to repeat what exercise. 


"NO" is a verbal cue I use to stop an incorrect behavior completely before it builds up to a bad habit with my dog. 


"NO" is not tied in with scruff shakes or pops or yelling at my dog. "NO" means "stop what you are doing". 


Where I've seen confusion and messy training is when you have trainers who are unsure of how to correct their positive-only trained dog who has developed bad habits. I know of somebody who is an awesome trainer, but she has a brilliant dog. 

And that brilliant dog pops up on his stays and goes wandering around the ring and showing off. 


On one hand, I know of a lot of dogs trained the regular way who get ring-smart - they know that there will never be a correction in the ring, so they blow off the trainer. 


On the other hand, this dog has learned to obey only when he wants to. 

I know that isn't the case with all clicker trained positive only dogs, but it certainly happens with a lot of them that I've seen.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Don't say "come" when you're training "come" until _after_ the dog is coming. Otherwise, it's just a word. It needs an associated habit before it's actually a command. Don't say it when you're not sure he's going to come. If a dog is distracted and you don't have a strong recall command, you've already made your mistake. Saying "come" repeatedly just makes your mistake worse. You need 10-100 successful repetitions to erase the damage done by each blown command.

Yes, you can "correct" your dog (i.e., make disobedience unpleasant). Lots of people do it, and it's been a lynchpin of traditional dog training for a long time. Over the years, I've come to question how important it is to make disobedience unpleasant. It doesn't seem to help make things more reliable nearly as much as repetition and reward do, and it can have negative side effects in a dog's attitude and personality.

I also question how effective it is to force a dog through the obedience. If you're reeling a dog in as part of "come," then he's not really making the choice you want to reward. You're preventing him from receiving an alternate reward (i.e., he ignores you and then rewards himself by chasing squirrels). That prevention is an important part of training reliability, but if he's not making the right choice himself, you're not getting a chance to reward him for the right choice. I'd use a long line to prevent undesired rewarding, but I wouldn't reel a dog in with it.

It's like pushing a dog's butt down to teach him sit. Because he'll naturally resist your hand, when you finally get the butt down and try to reward him, you're sending a mixed message that can confuse him. If you can figure out how to get him to offer a sit himself and then reward that, your training will move more quickly.

Set your dog up to succeed. For example, play "post office." A few people spread out and take turns attracting the dog by making noise, running away, stomping their feet, etc. When the dog runs toward you, say "come" and reward him when he arrives. Then become still and boring while somebody else gets the dog's attention and then says "come" once he's committed to coming, and again rewards when he arrives. Always vary the intensity and type of reward (e.g., praise, treats, toys, jumping around, etc.). Play for 5-10 minutes, and always stop playing _before_ the dog loses interest.

Once a dog has been trained that "come" means to go to the person, then you can say it as part of the post office game. But if he ignores the word, that means he doesn't yet know the word, so you have to go back a step and retrain.

It's much easier and nicer to set a dog up to be successful and to be rewarded for that success than it is to set a dog up to fail and then punish him for disobeying. Dogs don't ignore you because they're bad dogs who need to be punished. They ignore you because you haven't developed the habit of taking a break in their attention and then following through on a command. If a dog doesn't come when you say "come," that's on the trainer, not the dog.

So I don't think you need to be good at correcting to be a good dog trainer. In fact, over the years, as I've learned new ways to reduce my reliance on correcting, I've felt like a better and better trainer.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Most people seem to mean "punish" when they say "correct," but because punishment carries such negative connotations, there are all kinds of other terms that pop up. If you mean "withhold reward," that's a pretty different definition. Withholding reward is actually a kind of punishment (negative punishment in operant conditioning terminology), but it's not what most people seem to mean when they say "correct."

When people talk about "correcting," they're typically referring to something the dog doesn't enjoy, like being compelled to do the behavior they're not doing or receiving a leash pop, scruff shake, ear pinch, toe hitch, etc.

An NRM (non-reward marker) or other reward withholding technique should probably be kept as a distinct piece of terminology separate from a traditional correction. They're very different in operant condition (-P vs. +P) for a reason.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Tippy - I think you need to come training where I do. You seem to have a very set opinion of how other people train their dogs, or how unhappy or unpleasant the training process is. You would be _enlightened_.  

Play comes are a definite must for puppies. 

Reeling a dog in for a come is incorrect as well. I would not advise anyone do that. That's not teaching the dog anything. 



> When people talk about "correcting," they're typically referring to something the dog doesn't enjoy, like being compelled to do the behavior they're not doing or receiving a leash pop, scruff shake, ear pinch, toe hitch, etc.


And this is what I'm touching on here - a correction stops an incorrect behavior. Everyone uses corrections in their training. You have to in order to select and polish the behaviors you want. 

When you "make like a tree" while training loose lead walking with your dog, you are doing a leash correction. The stop movement causes a pop to the dog's collar. 

People like using "corrections" like this dirty word that causes dogs pain and fear and anxiety... and what you are really doing is lumping all trainers in with the bad ones. 

I know somebody who has really top scoring goldens in obedience. I do not train with her, but she shows up for matches and she's at every show. I've watched her train her dogs and yes, she uses corrections - leash corrections, prong collars, crating (she crates her dogs so they can see her working and playing with the other dogs). This woman's dogs are fabulous. They LOVE her. When she's working with them, their tails don't stop wagging once. There may be other people and dogs around them, but their focus is only on her. 

That is the type of output that happens when you use balanced training. You are focused on keeping your dogs happy and excited while training, while polishing them to the point where they do not offer less than what she asks of them.

And I've seen her working her dogs at shows when in the next ring you have people whooping it up and dogs barking and stuff going on. Her dogs will be right on the task and focused on working - with their heads up and tails wagging the entire time.

That is a balanced trainer. And there are a lot of trainers in our area who use similar training styles. 

All of these people are instructors - private or through clubs. That means that a lot of other people new to the sport or continuing are moving up through the levels using these same methods. 

************

Now. 

We are talking about household obedience here on this thread. And a lot of the time these threads are for the benefit of people who expect to do all of the dog class and training work in the first 6-7 months of a dog's life. And I'll be honest here - I would not recommend people use too many corrections with these dogs.

With puppy classes you are going to be 100% positive. 

Boot camp there are some corrections - but honestly, we are not talking about scruff shakes or ear pinches. 

Very rarily will you have a dog ever need a correction as unpleasant as a scruff shake or an ear pinch. And I hope that none of your "homeschooling trainers" EVER try doing these corrections at home. 

When done by somebody who knows what they are doing, they are exact and to the point. 

When done by somebody who is angry and upset and has no control over their emotions, that is abuse. 

The reason why I commented at all about corrections is you have these people floating around threads and telling people never to use corrections and they oversimplify what is actually a pretty dificult and precise way of training. 

It's not that different than those other threads where you have people telling others to put a different collar on a dog to fix a problem. Which leads to two things - (1) the collar only working for a short while before the dog adjusts to it and (2) the dog only behaving with that collar on. If you have an instructor whose only way of fixing pulling problems is selling a collar, then they are not worth the money you are paying for their classes. You could have saved money just by going to a store!  

I'm ranting, but yeah - these things need to be said. Again. And again. And again.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> @Tippy - I think you need to come training where I do. You seem to have a very set opinion of how other people train their dogs, or how unhappy or unpleasant the training process is. You would be _enlightened_.


I wasn't commenting on how _you_ train your dogs, but simply on what training techniques are common. Scruff shakes, leash pops, ear pinches, and toe hitches are all part of mainstream training, and they're typically referred to as "corrections." I wasn't saying they were part of _your_ training. I don't have a set opinion of any given trainer on GRF, but I do have set opinions about the training methods of people who write books and articles about their training methods.



Megora said:


> And this is what I'm touching on here - a correction stops an incorrect behavior. Everyone uses corrections in their training. You have to in order to select and polish the behaviors you want.


That's a fine definition if you want to use it, but I think there's an important distinction between a correction that relies on making something unpleasant and a correction that relies on removing a reward. They're different terms in operant conditioning, and I think the distinction is important in dog training. That's why I don't refer to -P as "correction."

You're welcome to lump the two together by calling them both "corrections," but I don't think that helps preserve the clarity of the difference between them. I'm a huge fan of withholding reward. It's a great way to polish behaviors and create reliability. It's amazing for reducing unwanted behavior. But it's pretty different than adding something unpleasant—even something mildly unpleasant—for the dog.



Megora said:


> When you "make like a tree" while training loose lead walking with your dog, you are doing a leash correction. The stop movement causes a pop to the dog's collar.


That's not an accurate description of the kind of leash training I'd advocate. The idea is to _avoid_ popping the dog's collar or letting him come up short against the end of the leash. You don't need to add unpleasantness. You just remove the reward of moving forward. It's very, very different than a pop. Pop, however, is another word that has a muddy definition. People who haul up on their dogs with a choke or prong will call it a "pop" as will people who simply jingle the tags on a flat collar to get their dog's attention. Those are very, very different things in substance, not just degree.



Megora said:


> People like using "corrections" like this dirty word that causes dogs pain and fear and anxiety... and what you are really doing is lumping all trainers in with the bad ones.


Like it or not, using something that causes discomfort or intimidation carries a higher possibility of negative side effects than removing something rewarding. I don't make the argument that nobody should ever use anything unpleasant when training dogs. I don't know how to do that. I do make the argument that the less we rely on physical discomfort or intimidation, the better, and that laypeople (not necessarily you) commonly rely on discomfort when they don't have to.

I don't think correction is a dirty word, but I'd like it to be an accurate one that doesn't blur the line between two very different conditioning tools. Most people use it to mean positive punishment—adding something the dog doesn't like in order to reduce the unwanted behavior. I'm fine with that use of the term, and I'm not against it in every context. I think it's typically not the way to teach a new skill, and it's not always necessary to proof and polish a skill. That doesn't mean I think mild corrections are automatically bad or dangerous.



Megora said:


> I know somebody who has really top scoring goldens in obedience. I do not train with her, but she shows up for matches and she's at every show. I've watched her train her dogs and yes, she uses corrections - leash corrections, prong collars, crating (she crates her dogs so they can see her working and playing with the other dogs). This woman's dogs are fabulous. They LOVE her. When she's working with them, their tails don't stop wagging once. There may be other people and dogs around them, but their focus is only on her.


That's wonderful. I've seen lots of people who incorporate (+P) corrections who have lovely, stable dogs who work joyfully. I am, fact, one of those people. However, for teaching puppies recall or leash skills, I think +P correction is pointless and actually interferes. For teaching top obedience dogs precision and reliability, I'll leave the argument to somebody who's done it. I will say that crating a dog to watch you work isn't a correction by any definition I know.



Megora said:


> That is the type of output that happens when you use balanced training. You are focused on keeping your dogs happy and excited while training, while polishing them to the point where they do not offer less than what she asks of them.


I think we just disagree on what "balance" means. None of us would argue that it means 50% reward and 50% punishment. Most of us probably skew pretty hard towards reward, so while I grasp the euphemistic usefulness of "balanced" as a term, I think it's as big a misnomer as "pure positive" or "positive only" training. The question is where on the continuum you emphasize, which took you use at which point in development of a skill, and what's right for the individual dog. If you get the balance wrong, you can end up with a fearful, nervous, or dutiful dog.



Megora said:


> The reason why I commented at all about corrections is you have these people floating around threads and telling people never to use corrections and they oversimplify what is actually a pretty dificult and precise way of training.


And I mostly agree with you. I just don't like to lump +P in with -P. They work very differently.

Just think about all the people floating around these threads mystified as to why their dog is showing dog aggression, leash anxiety, resource guarding, learned helplessness, or other problem behaviors, and then you find out that they've been scruff shaking, alpha rolling, using an e-collar willy-nilly, or pulling their dog up on a prong. It doesn't always—or even often—take an angry, abusive person to create these problem behaviors, nor does it take a particularly strong aversive. All it takes an inexpert use of the tool and/or some poor communication with the dog. Obviously, those behaviors aren't always caused by training, but they're demonstrated side effects of miscalibrated +P, so I always wonder.

For the questions the OP asked about "come" and "sit" and other household behavior, setting up rewarded repetition of success makes a lot more sense than trying to figure out how to make disobedience unpleasant.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> I wasn't commenting on how _you_ train your dogs, but simply on what training techniques are common.


Tippy, the way I train is fairly mainstream. I took puppy class and boot camp classes too. And I sit and watch classes much. 

I'm just saying don't lump all corrections in together. And try to understand that corrections also differ based on pressure and application. There are definitely milder corrections than those you mentioned above that work just fine with your average dogs.  

^ You are in luck, because I wrote up a whole essay about it and then it vanished before I could post it. Took the wind right out of my sails. :doh:


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

When I say to someone to correct their dog, I mean don't just stand there watching them be wrong - go make them be right! It amazes me how many people will just watch their dogs not doing what they want them to do. If you've told your dog to sit and they get up and wonder off, don't just watch them do it and say your dog doesn't know how to stay in a sit, make them sit!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> When I say to someone to correct their dog, I mean don't just stand there watching them be wrong - go make them be right! It amazes me how many people will just watch their dogs not doing what they want them to do. If you've told your dog to sit and they get up and wonder off, don't just watch them do it and say your dog doesn't know how to stay in a sit, make them sit!


Jodie, I was going to say too (in my whole vanished essay)... that I know of people who watch their dog wander around, and then either give them treats when they catch up to them (which teaches them what?) or strongly correct them when they catch the dog (which teaches them what?). 

There was a woman in our puppy classes who did this every time her poodle would take off. She'd catch him, lightly scold him, and then give him a treat. She was rewarding the dog for letting her catch him... :uhoh: 

There are various reasons why I think people on forums or other places get frustrated with training. It's not only because their dogs have turned aggressive or fearful. Careless or inconsistent or sloppy training methods create those dogs who are "untrainable" or "stupid".


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> I'm just saying don't lump all corrections in together. And try to understand that corrections also differ based on pressure and application. There are definitely milder corrections than those you mentioned above that work just fine with your average dogs.


I thought my post, at several points, was clear that many applications of corrections are only mildly unpleasant for the dog and not particularly dangerous in terms of side effects.

Leash pops and loud voices seem to be the most common aversive corrections I see. Are there any other besides those and the ones I mentioned in my previous post. Could you describe them? Perhaps I'm missing something.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> When I say to someone to correct their dog, I mean don't just stand there watching them be wrong - go make them be right! It amazes me how many people will just watch their dogs not doing what they want them to do. If you've told your dog to sit and they get up and wonder off, don't just watch them do it and say your dog doesn't know how to stay in a sit, make them sit!


I really don't agree that this approach works all that well. When you force a dog into the position of a sit, I don't think you teach them the association with the word "sit." I think being pushed into the sit position (and typically they naturally resist you) is very different in a dog's mind than volunteering to take the position. Saying "sit," pushing a dog into a sit, and then rewarding would probably confuse many dogs.

I should add that I do respect your accomplishments and your training very much. Just offering an alternative view on that particular method.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> Jodie, I was going to say too (in my whole vanished essay)... that I know of people who watch their dog wander around, and then either give them treats when they catch up to them (which teaches them what?) or strongly correct them when they catch the dog (which teaches them what?).


The first thing you describe sounds a little like "choose to heel," which works fabulously well. You show the dog that he can make rewards happen by heeling, and you negative punish non-heeling by ignoring it. It might look counterintuitive if you don't know the goals, and if the person is mis-executing it, it might look stupid, but there's a legitimate technique there.



Megora said:


> There was a woman in our puppy classes who did this every time her poodle would take off. She'd catch him, lightly scold him, and then give him a treat. She was rewarding the dog for letting her catch him... :uhoh:


That's just stupid. Scolding and then rewarding is entirely confusing. 



Megora said:


> There are various reasons why I think people on forums or other places get frustrated with training. It's not only because their dogs have turned aggressive or fearful. Careless or inconsistent or sloppy training methods create those dogs who are "untrainable" or "stupid".


I so, so agree. I can't tell you how many owners I've heard use the words "hyperactive" or "untrainable" or "slow" or "just can't learn." And then a skilled handler takes over the dog, motivates him properly, and he's suddenly a brilliant worker.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> The first thing you describe sounds a little like "choose to heel," which works fabulously well.


Choose to heel works very well when you do it correctly.

This generally is walking off with your dog off leash or on and when the dog chooses to come to heel position that is when you reward and walk off again without giving any command. Every time the dog chooses to come to heel position on its own, it is rewarded. At no point is the owner making an effort to engage the dog or encourage the dog when it's not in heel position.

What I described was not "choose to heel". It was more like watch the dog run around, go to catch the dog, and rewarding the dog for letting the owner catch up. 





> That's just stupid. Scolding and then rewarding is entirely confusing.


Yep, and this is what causes more problems than giving clear and precise correction. 



> Leash pops and loud voices seem to be the most common aversive corrections I see. Are there any other besides those and the ones I mentioned in my previous post. Could you describe them? Perhaps I'm missing something.


Whoops. I didn't see you put leash pops in there with the ear pinching and scruff shakes. :bowl: I would have said simply taking the dog by the collar and taking back where he came from and/or calmly and quietly telling him "no".


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Megora said:


> What I described was not "choose to heel". It was more like watch the dog run around, go to catch the dog, and rewarding the dog for letting the owner catch up.


Yes, we both agree that's garbage. I just really like a properly executed choose to heel, and I LOVE watching dogs heel when they've been trained that way. They seem to have such fun trying to get their positioning really precise. 



Megora said:


> Whoops. I didn't see you put leash pops in there with the ear pinching and scruff shakes. :bowl: I would have said simply taking the dog by the collar and taking back where he came from and/or calmly and quietly telling him "no".


I have no problem with "no." A quiet "no" is a very mild aversive, barely stronger than a true NRM. The more mild and the more clear the aversive, the less potential there is for trouble. I'd guess that you and I are actually very, very close in training style. 

I think maybe the disagreement arises because I'm so quick to advise against "correcting." It's because in so many of the new trainers I meet, especially in families with their first Goldens, I see an equation between "leadership" and harshness. They think being a "pack leader" is about intimidating the dog, and since Goldens can be so stoic, some new trainers end up being much harder on the dog than they need to be. And then they see a host of anxiety-related problems that really hurt their relationship with their dog, plus they don't have the obedience they need in order to enjoy their dog around family and friends.

So I'm a bit gunshy about how different one person's sense of correction can be from another. Too often people increase the harshness of a correction when what they need to do is increase their clarity with their dog.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I really don't agree that this approach works all that well. When you force a dog into the position of a sit, I don't think you teach them the association with the word "sit." I think being pushed into the sit position (and typically they naturally resist you) is very different in a dog's mind than volunteering to take the position. Saying "sit," pushing a dog into a sit, and then rewarding would probably confuse many dogs.


This thinking has always fascinated me.....when a dog is in a line up of dogs and breaks his sit to go somewhere else, what is the recommended follow up behavior of the handler? I have trouble wrapping my brain around how NOT putting them back in a sit is very effective. I know some people believe in just always withholding treats, but I've never bought that this is appropriate for breaking a stay line up.

But beside all that above, my initial purpose for my first post wasn't to debate training methods, but to give an example of my definition of correction. For me it doesn't always (I'd say rarely) mean something unpleasant. My dogs typically don't fight me when I am putting them in position, but then again I am usually approaching them as if we're playing a game.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I have no problem with "no." A quiet "no" is a very mild aversive, barely stronger than a true NRM.


I have a good friend that tends to get way too harsh in speaking to his soft dog. I told him he's no longer allowed to tell his dog "no" because it always comes out as too much. I told him instead his new word is "nope". It's a lot harder to make "nope" sound angry. Of course he doesn't actually ever take my advice, but I think it's good advice LOL.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> This thinking has always fascinated me.....when a dog is in a line up of dogs and breaks his sit to go somewhere else, what is the recommended follow up behavior of the handler? I have trouble wrapping my brain around how NOT putting them back in a sit is very effective. I know some people believe in just always withholding treats, but I've never bought that this is appropriate for breaking a stay line up.
> 
> But beside all that above, my initial purpose for my first post wasn't to death training methods, but to give an example of my definition of correction. For me it doesn't always (I'd say rarely) mean something unpleasant. My dogs typically don't fight me when I am putting them in position, but then again I am usually approaching them as if we're playing a game.


I'm all about resetting a dog who's broken a stay, but I don't think he learns that he was wrong to break when he's simply reset. I don't see that as a correction but rather as a restart. I might walk a dog back to position and reset him simply to prevent him from being rewarded with the opportunity to walk around and sniff everybody, but I wouldn't call that correcting the behavior. I'd just be mitigating the damage.

You're not really withholding treats in that situation. I mean, you're obviously not giving the dog a cookie for breaking the stay, but I don't think a no-treat moment has any -P power to reduce the stay-break behavior. 

If a dog breaks a stay, then his stay isn't reinforced strongly enough, and I need to go back and work on extending it. So my advice would be to reset the dog and then stay closer so you can reward him for maintaining the stay, since that works better in my book than punishing him when he breaks it.

So if a simple reset is what you're calling a correction, then our only disagreement is semantic. I don't call that a correction because I associate the word with reducing the problem behavior through making it at least mildly unpleasant. I'd just call it a reset.

The thing I came out against in my previous post was the idea that compelling a dog through a behavior helped the dog learn the behavior. If you weren't describing that, then it was my fault for misunderstanding and then arguing against a position you weren't actually taking.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I have a good friend that tends to get way too harsh in speaking to his soft dog. I told him he's no longer allowed to tell his dog "no" because it always comes out as too much. I told him instead his new word is "nope". It's a lot harder to make "nope" sound angry. Of course he doesn't actually ever take my advice, but I think it's good advice LOL.


This is the kind of thing I'm worried about when I advise families on this forum. People sometimes aren't as good at reading their dogs, so the dog they think is "ignoring" their "no" might actually be terrified of them. Or, on the flip side, they say "he knows he's a bad boy" but the dog has heard "no" so many times that it means nothing to him.

Some Goldens are very, very soft to verbal correction. You can make a sad, neurotic Golden without ever laying a hand on him, just as you _can_ use physical corrections without necessarily making your Golden neurotic. In both cases, though, I'd always pick an aversive-free option if I can find one and err on the side of a gentler correction if I can't.


----------



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

baumgartml16 said:


> My impression is you make them do the action. If I say "sit" twice to Koda I will push down on her bottom gently and say it again. Then reward. Or for come if she isn't coming I walk over to her, lightly grab her collar and lead her to where I was repeating the command "come". That way they see what they are supposed to do with that command.


This is the methods I took from trainers and it worked for both my dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

baumgartml16 said:


> My impression is you make them do the action. If I say "sit" twice to Koda I will push down on her bottom gently and say it again. Then reward. Or for come if she isn't coming I walk over to her, lightly grab her collar and lead her to where I was repeating the command "come". That way they see what they are supposed to do with that command.


Given the other problems you're having with Koda, I would not use compulsory methods like this. The other stuff you're seeing is exactly the type of side effects I keep mentioning.


----------



## Dubuque dog trainer (Mar 9, 2012)

Megora said:


> What do you do when a dog presents the wrong behaviors for the cue though?
> 
> You repeat without any click/sound and withold reward, right? The short answer is yes.
> 
> ...


Nope, my guess is that those supposed clicker trainers really do not understand the principles behind the training method/philosophy.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dubuque dog trainer said:


> Nope, my guess is that those supposed clicker trainers really do not understand the principles behind the training method/philosophy.


Well, it is a misapplication of the methods/philosophy. The method isn't fool proof and given it requires patience, persistence, and focus from both the trainer and the dog - it is a pretty difficult method to use successfully - particularly without mixing it with other methods (like I did). And I think the philosophy does get confused when people train on their own or take classes from people who barely understand it themselves.


----------

