# Aversives questions......



## Bock (Jun 23, 2008)

Soo, just a simple question. Everyone talks about if they believe in aversives or don't use aversives. My question is WHAT aversives do you guys use? (collar pops, etc.) 

Take this situation for example- If a dog who knows sit does not sit and just walks away or does a down instead ( all this happening in your house so that means no new distractions, you have the dogs attention, no new smells, etc), what is your next move? 

For those of you who do NOT use aversives, what do you do instead? If the situation I described above happens, what is your next move?


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

What does it mean to you, for a dog to "know" a behavior?


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

I think if a dog "knew" the behavior but routinely didn't do it, then for me its back to the basics. 

I think a dog that really "knew' it would do it, because I see it as more of a reaction rather then a choice.

I know Lucky has tested boundries as a puppy...but I see even that as a "reaction" not a choice.

That's my opinion at the moment anyway.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

Oh...and I would use "adversives" as a way to control negative behavior which I see as integral to supplanting with postive behavior. If they are doing more negative then positive....well the negative will win.


----------



## Bock (Jun 23, 2008)

Okay, understood!!

change of question, while teaching sit, if a sit doesn't happen-do you ignore and try again later (clicker style) or use leash pop to put dog into sit position? Personally I use clicker style and ignore if a behavior isn't diplayed and the punishment is Tysen doesn't get a treat. Just wondering what the rest of the world does.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

Bock said:


> Okay, understood!!
> 
> change of question, while teaching sit, if a sit doesn't happen-do you ignore and try again later (clicker style) or use leash pop to put dog into sit position? Personally I use clicker style and ignore if a behavior isn't diplayed and the punishment is Tysen doesn't get a treat. Just wondering what the rest of the world does.


My training experienced is "Lucky based"... 

I would push his butt down because I expect him to follow my command. That is MY reaction. I'm sure it does no good.

and then I'd get the American cheese out and start training sessions...until he just sat whether I had it or not. It takes a few days of consistancy but eventually he just does it.

There are times he is slower then others at getting his butt down. But I don't quibble. 

He doesn't ignore me now except if his brain is wild because he sees a squirrel or something. That situation might need a leash pop though I don't know how to do it so it won't happen. I put the choke collar behind his ears and that gives me control and his focus.

Lucky is not in a lot of places that offer distractions. I'm sure someone in agility or preformance will use a method that works best for that situation.

Clicker training would have worked well for Lucky, but it was too much for me.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't think leash pops make good corrections. They're a little confusing if you use them that way. They're better for interrupting an unwanted behavior than for negatively reinforcing it.

I'll use a strong, low "no" for behavior that _must_ stop, and a quiet "no" as a way of being slightly more serious than ignoring noncompliance (if, for example, a dog is ignoring a command he understands).


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Bock said:


> Take this situation for example- If a dog who knows sit does not sit and just walks away or does a down instead ( all this happening in your house so that means no new distractions, you have the dogs attention, no new smells, etc), what is your next move?


In this specific example -- I'd interrupt the behavior of walking away the instant it started. In my world, that's done with a simple, "eh eh" and then I'd quickly re-focus the dog and cue the behavior. Similarly, the instant the dog started moving his entire body vs. just his butt to the floor (as in, performing a down vs a sit) I'd either interrupt it (much like in my no sit example) or if I missed the chance and he's already down, I'd turn away, giving a LRS, which is in alignment with most clicker trainers. 

Both of these reactions assume that I truly believe the dog "knows" the behavior. Frankly, most of the time, I find people think their dogs "know" something long before he really does. The dog may know it w/in a very specific context, but not in the general sense. Only when I have made the effort to help a dog generalize a behavior, am I comfortable saying he "knows" it.


----------



## Bogart'sMom (Sep 16, 2005)

I don't use pops or leash corrections with Bogart. Yes he had showed me the paw on several ocations but it's few and far apart usualy it's at our off leash doggy trail. In training he tries hard to do it right, when he lays down from a sit stay (he can down stays forever) sit stays are still a work in progress. I go to him and make him sit again. He didn't move away he just layed down. I know for formal obedience and RallyO exellent we have to get a grip on it but I don't yell at him or pop him or choke him I just make him sit again right now we do alot of off leash training in class anyway. Sometimes he is slow in laying down I don't repeat my Q but just look at him and he knows, he does lay down then. I think with positive reenforcement training you can't do wrong and the dog will enjoy training also. Bogart sees me grabing the training bag and he runs to the door. He LOVES to work and use his brain. 
All the best,


----------



## Bock (Jun 23, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Both of these reactions assume that I truly believe the dog "knows" the behavior. Frankly, most of the time, I find people think their dogs "know" something long before he really does. The dog may know it w/in a very specific context, but not in the general sense. Only when I have made the effort to help a dog generalize a behavior, am I comfortable saying he "knows" it.


 
I understand this, and I probably should have made my question more into a "when in the reinforcement stage of training and the dog doesn't sit on command what do you do....." That probably would have been a better way of getting my question across.

Like I said in my PM to you Flyingquizini (your name escapes me), I have ideas about training, but on my first dog, I am still trying to find out what I truly believe in and what I don't believe in. So that's why I'm asking for specific techniques more so than just basic philosphies. Thanks for the help guys.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Bock said:


> I understand this, and I probably should have made my question more into a "when in the reinforcement stage of training and the dog doesn't sit on command what do you do....." That probably would have been a better way of getting my question across.
> 
> Like I said in my PM to you Flyingquizini (your name escapes me), I have ideas about training, but on my first dog, I am still trying to find out what I truly believe in and what I don't believe in. So that's why I'm asking for specific techniques more so than just basic philosphies. Thanks for the help guys.


I hear ya. I don't mean to harp on the "does he KNOW it" thing. It's just that it's sort of a pet peeve of mine b/c I see so many dogs that are, IMO, unfairly exposed to aversives for a perceived failure to perform a behavior that they "know" when in reality, they don't know it. I guess the sentence "... a behavior he knows..." really gets my hackles up! 

Did you by chance check out my post on Educational Opportunity? The APDT conference library on MP3 is a wonderful thing.

So, thus far, in your search for methods you are comfortable with, are their any particular trainers, authors, speakers, etc. that you tend to gravitate toward?

-Stephanie


----------



## Bock (Jun 23, 2008)

I have not checked that post, but I will search for it.

I haven't got that deeply as to do that much research. I work at a doggie daycare which has training at night, which is where Tysen was trained when I first got him. I don't necessarily agree with it though so I'm having to listen and hear about that training while at work and do something different when I'm at home. That training is mainly positive but use pop correction w/ prong collar to correct sit and stepping on leash to correct when the dog is not going down. I just don't agree with it, although I knew no better at the time.

So, no extensive research yet, I just figured what better place to start then here right? Care to recommend any trainers or authors I should look up? I am familiar with Karen Pryor and her philosophy and am quite confident using a clicker, but am unaware of other trainers or philosophies to use.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

Bock said:


> Okay, understood!!
> 
> change of question, while teaching sit, if a sit doesn't happen-do you ignore and try again later (clicker style) or use leash pop to put dog into sit position? Personally I use clicker style and ignore if a behavior isn't diplayed and the punishment is Tysen doesn't get a treat. Just wondering what the rest of the world does.


If I can, I would like to make a comment. You really need to define what aversives are. Aversives are things that are unpleasant, but they DO NOT have to be physical. I use an aversive all the time for correcting, and I RARELY ever have to pop a dog. _

Making a dog repeat a behavior is an aversive, and something that I use about 80% of the time, especially when a dog is testing me. (This comes from working with killer whales and dolphins). _

It's OK for something to be unpleasant when your does something incorrectly. Think of this....If the dog does something incorrectly and you make him repeat the behavior, would he rather have not repeated the behavior? Of course. Then it is something that is unpleasant. 
_
Gently manipulating_ the dog back into a sitting position is also considered an aversive as well... and something that I am a huge fan of. But yelling at the dog and pushing the dog back into the sitting position is not at all my style.

As far as ignoring the dog when the dog does something incorrectly, as a trainer of both dogs and marine mammals, I will tell you that there is a huge difference in these animals in that ignoring works great with marine mammals. There is a reason that this works with marine mammals and that is because you have no choice. You can't make a dolphin or killer whale do something. Dogs are different. You are in their element, and because of that you have a luxury of being able to gently manipulate, or guide the animal to a place or certain position. 

But remember that when you are working with a dog that is testing you, _he would rather not do the behavior_. If you ignore him, guess what? He got what he wanted.... and that is to not do the behavior. That is why especially in your situation that you mentioned, you either make him repeat the behavior or gently manipulate him back into the sitting position. If he gets up, make him repeat it. Don't stop, and you must win. But just do it in a gentle and mellow way. You don't have to yell, and you don't have to be physical... and you don't have to "pop" the dog.

If you are consistent, the dog will realize that it is better just to sit and stay there, because when he does, he is loaded with rewards, and when he gets up, you keep making him sit.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Bock said:


> So, no extensive research yet, I just figured what better place to start then here right? Care to recommend any trainers or authors I should look up? I am familiar with Karen Pryor and her philosophy and am quite confident using a clicker, but am unaware of other trainers or philosophies to use.


I have a laundry list of fave trainers who, while not all are clicker trainers, they all subscribe to the science of learning theory and are reward-based trainers:

Kathy Sdao
Ken Ramirez
Steve and Jen White
Pia Silvani
Morten and Cecile Egtvest (sp?) from Norway (BRILLIANT CLICKER TRAINERS.)
Bob Bailey - AN ANIMAL BEHAVIOR GENIUS, IMO.
Pat Miller
Dr. Pam Reid - Ex-Celerated Learning is one of my fave books.
Patricia McConnell
Jean Donaldson
Ian Dunbar

If you are uncomfortable with the use of positive punishment and negative reinforcment as staples in a training program, I would recommend reading anything you can get your hands on (or attend seminars) by any of the above listed trainers -- I think you'd enjoy it.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

This of course comes down to a lot of personal opinions, here's mine.
NOTHING works for ALL dogs.
You have to consider the personality of the dog involved. One of my goldens, the female, needed some pretty strong adversives (i.e., collar pops) whereas my current pup just shrinks to the floor if you even use a strong "uh uh" with him.
I can't say it enough. There is NO "one size fits all" method of training"!!
So my own personal opinion...
There are 3 phases of training, which are learning, proofing, and practicing behaviors the dog already knows. You use different methods for each.
I would never use an adversive, even a mild one, for the learning phase. 
The proofing phase is where you help the dog solidify the knowledge, and you also learn yourself whether or not the dog truly "knows" it. Unless he can do it consistently, in every situation, with all distractions, he doesn't truly "know it". 
The practice stage is where the adversives come in and the level of adversive depends on the dog. For example, I KNOW my Tito knows "sit". He's been totally proofed on it. He will sit while running away from me toward a bunch of other dogs he wants to play with. There is NO question he knows "SIT".
So if I decide to practice his SIT command, and he doesn't sit, he deserves an adversive. In his case, a simple tap on his rump is plenty. He didn't want to sit, I "made" him sit, and we're happy. My female, a collar pop would be more appropriate. Sometimes a pretty strong collar pop.
A well known trainer in her book says that dogs don't perform a command for one of only 4 reasons:
Dog was confused
Dog was unconfident
Dog was distracted
Dog chose not to
The ONLY times you correct the dog is in the last 2 situations, and the correction is different in each of those.
Sheesh we could go on for hours here....


----------



## GRZ (Dec 4, 2008)

JoelSilverman said:


> Don't stop, and you must win.


I don't know if I'd use the word "win," but I know what you mean. That said, I think you must "win" every single time a command is given. I try to never use a command (sit, down, stay, come, etc) if I can't enforce it. This is something I'm trying to teach my kids - that if you're going to say sit or leave it then you have to make sure that that's what happens 100% of the time no matter what. I'm hoping eventually Ziggy will understand ALL of us mean business ALL of the time when we call upon certain behaviors from him. I don't pop the leash or otherwise use what would be thought of as traditional aversives.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

GRZ said:


> I don't know if I'd use the word "win," but I know what you mean. That said, I think you must "win" every single time a command is given. I try to never use a command (sit, down, stay, come, etc) if I can't enforce it. This is something I'm trying to teach my kids - that if you're going to say sit or leave it then you have to make sure that that's what happens 100% of the time no matter what. I'm hoping eventually Ziggy will understand ALL of us mean business ALL of the time when we call upon certain behaviors from him. I don't pop the leash or otherwise use what would be thought of as traditional aversives.


Agreed... I do use the word "win"... and it is essential that the new pet owner understand that.....and you said it.. _you must win each time a command is given_.. Having said that, that is why it is so important what people define as an aversive.. And who says what is or what is not a "traditional" aversive? Who made those rules? For some reason, people get so startled when they hear that word. Aversives are not a bad thing, and the reason your kids and dogs know and understand and behave is that you have drawn out the parameters, and they simply know the consequences. 

In my book I write, _"the art to animal training and good communication is giving the best aversive or correction that is least likely to jeopardize your relationship with your dog, yet gets the message across". 
_
Aversives are all based on the person working the dog and their judgment of what is the best correction for that particular dog with that particular behavior at that particular time. 

You can put a chain collar in a person's hand that knows what they are doing, and it can be a great and very effective tool. At the same time, you can put it in the hand of an abusive person that can ruin and hurt the animal.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I teach my dogs the concept of 'leash guiding.' Essentially, where the leash goes they go. They learn through treats, praise, toys, etc. that following the _gentle_ movement of the leash is a good thing. In the initial stages of training, such as the sit, I pull gently up on the leash and use a lure combo then treat the dog. The dog learns that when I gently move the leash up, s/he sits. When the dog knows the command, I do not guide it anymore. If the dog needs a correction I simply pull gently up on the leash to cue him/her to sit. This does not work if you do not teach your dog to go with the leash--instead, you will end up pulling on your dog with no success.

I use the martingale style collars because they do not choke endlessly, but they do give your dog some good feedback with where you are going with the leash. Plus, these types of collars are harder for dogs to slip out of then flat buckle collars. Leash guiding is not the same as popping. Instead, the movements should be fluid and smooth instead of jerky and popping.


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

Bock said:


> Soo, just a simple question. Everyone talks about if they believe in aversives or don't use aversives. My question is WHAT aversives do you guys use? (collar pops, etc.)


*The Right Approach to Aversives in Retriever Training*

By Evan Graham

Among the best-recognized and most successful trainers whose work is for the development of performance retrievers, i.e. retrievers that hunt, or run AKC Field Trials and/or AKC or UKC Hunt Tests, the word “Aversive” is universally recognized as the physical tools used both for the formalizing of training, as well as implements of force or pressure in other applications. The use of pressure in training retrievers has more than one application, and is often misunderstood.

Before focusing on aversive tools, I think it would be helpful to clarify the role of force in the training and maintaining of trained skills for working dogs. Bearing in mind that a majority of the acts and skills we train for, as well as the ways in which we want our dogs to use them in the field, are _our_ idea, we must keep in mind that dogs will tend to resist many of them, just to varying degrees. While some dogs accept many aspects of training with little trouble, it seems nearly all of them have some area of retriever skills they don’t like as well as others. When we maintain an understanding of the unnatural aspects of these skills, we are more apt to have a healthy empathy as trainers.

Natural vs. Unnatural 

In order to appreciate the unnatural character of many standard retrieving skills, we should first get a clear idea of what dogs tend to do naturally. That’s the easy part. Functionally, retrievers chase after motion and honor their noses. Virtually all else that we desire of them is imposed upon them in some form of training.

Some examples of the standard skills are:


The Basic Obedience commands; i.e. “Here” (or “Come”), “Sit”, “Stay”, “Down”, “Kennel” and so on.
Steadiness to wing and shot
The Trained Retrieve, which involves fetching on command, holding the fetch object in a uniform manner, and readily dropping it as directed by the trainer/handler. 
In modern methods this also includes the developmental exercises and drills that teach a dog how to properly run Blind Retrieves.
Add to that all that goes into multiple Marked Retrieves and all variations of Diversion training.
If a retriever has ample natural prey drive, the last thing they want to be is steady. It is opposite of the nature of a dog that really wants to go. They don’t naturally want to wait for permission to retrieve what they just saw fall. This skill must be carefully trained, and constantly maintained.

Likewise, it’s certainly unnatural for a dog to be headed for a bird or bumper and then stop to a single whistle blast in preparation for being given a hand signal. All of that is clearly a set of manmade functions, and it takes time and considerable effort the put together in a high functioning state.

It’s truly marvelous what these dogs can be trained to do, and how well they can do it. Even more marvelous is they way they learn to become teammates with their owner/handlers in the process.

Teaching with Pressure, as opposed to Training with Pressure

A pervasive misunderstanding among dog lovers is that trainers who regularly use aversive instruments in their work must be using pressure as a teaching tool. “A dog that has to be forced to work is the wrong type of dog”, someone will say. Or, “You must be a pretty bad trainer if you have to shock your dog to get him to do what he’s bred for”, go the oft repeated accusations. I suppose it’s meant to reflect empathy for the dogs. But what it really reflects is a lack of understanding of, and/or knowledge about the training process.
Aversive: Tending to avoid or causing avoidance of noxious or *punishing* stimulus
(per Webster’s)

This definition comes fairly close to describing what aversive tools do in certain parts of retriever training. But it surely needs clarifying. Let’s take a look at the training cycle.


*Teach*; the guiding of behavior and then rewarding it – the more passive stage
*Force*; the use of pressure to support previously taught behavior – the formalizing stage
*Reinforce*; structured exercises designed to support and uphold established skills and behavior – the maintenance stage
Aversives play a role in the formalizing stage of development, as well as both forcing and correcting certain behaviors. One of today’s favorite aversives for these purposes is the e-collar. It’s key advantages are timing, distance and broad variability. Other aversives, like heeling sticks, leashes, prong or choke collars and others, can be used with variations in amounts of pressure. But none can match the e-collar for distance or timing, with rare exception.

The flexibility issue is a key in adjusting the use of any aversive effectively for a variety of dogs without being overbearing about it. The e-collars of today can deliver stimulus in either a continuous or momentary manner, as well as a range of amounts (intensity) to suit the need and temperament of nearly any dog.

The key to aversive use

Essentially, we use pressure in dog training to change their behavior. As empathetic and effective trainers, we use amounts of pressure determined by the dog, and how we read the need in the moment. If a small amount achieves the change we seek, why use more?

If, however, a small amount of pressure does not result in the needed change, it can and should be increased to a point at which the dog shows an understanding of the requirement being made. He will show that in his changed behavior. A co-benefit in those situations is that most dogs will become so obedient as a result of pressure for one infraction that they become more conscientious about other tasks and behaviors.

With rare exception, most of today’s methods that involve the use of aversives as described here do not involve using those tools to do the teaching. Teaching for nearly all commands and skills is usually performed in more passive ways, so the dog learns clearly what act or acts should be performed as a result. This should be done again and again so that the dog demonstrates a clear understanding of each task before any aversives are used to raise performance standards to what we refer to as a formal level. 

A dog that has had his training formalized not only knows what to do, but will do it reliably, even when distracted, or is just not in the mood. And the trainer has a set of tools to reliably do this in a timely and temperate manner. That’s the right approach to the use of aversives in retriever training.

Work Smart!

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Evan, excellent article, thanks for posting it.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

It depends on the dog. I would never yank or pop my Whippet for not doing a sit. I'd simply say, "No treat for you!" and walk away. The dog didn't win- he wanted the food and tried to get it for "free" and he failed. Punishing him physically (even the most mild correction) in most Whippets is enough to turn them off of the training game completely- so much so that even food loses it's value (which again, to many Whippets, isn't all that high to begin with... all my two REALLY want is to sleep all day and be left alone to do their thing... they're barely playing my game anyway). 

I find with Goldens it's a different world. They WANT that food/toy/attention/activity... if they disobey, it's generally because they either have no clue what I am asking, or because they see something else they want even more (a leaf blew by! A person is walking 50 feet away!).

That is the advantage AND disadvantage to a dog that is motivated by *everything* (the Golden) as opposed to a dog that is motivated by virtually nothing (the Whippet). 

Giving a collar pop to most Goldens IMO isn't going to put them off of the training game. It just might serve to get their attention back on you, kind of like saying, "Hey! Focus! I have something better than that!" where as it very well could make the Whippet respond by completely shutting down and losing all interest in playing your game at all.

I think with the first type of dog, the Whippety personality, you have to keep the reward high value, the corrections practically non existant, and you need to stop before the dog starts showing loss of interest in the food. This, for my senior dog, is about five or ten rewards... before he starts turning away from the food/not caring about it anymore. For my other Whippet, it can be anything from five to twenty, and sometimes he will work for a few tosses of a toy, before he's bored with that. Once the reward loses value, the performance slides of course, and the only other way is force- which again, backfires badly in such dogs. These types of dogs rarely do more than just get bored with you... I've never, for example, had a problem with one of them biting at the leash, trying to grab things off the ground, and similar. That, again, is the lack of motivation- such things don't interest them. 

With the more typical Golden personality, if the dog becomes bored he's likely to start amusing himself- by chasing leaves, biting the leash, things of that nature- you need, in that case, to make yourself and your rewards more fun. That could mean playing tug as a reward in addition to treats. Corrections IMO can be used to stop the leash biting, and then you can immediately introduce a toy and say, "Tug!" and it won't take long before he learns, "Don't bite the leash... but if I do xyz, we play tug!"

I think the most important thing is figuring YOUR dog out, because my over all point is what works awesome in one of my dogs would be completely ridiculous/a joke in my other dog.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> Giving a collar pop to most Goldens IMO isn't going to put them off of the training game. It just might serve to get their attention back on you, kind of like saying, "Hey! Focus! I have something better than that!" where as it very well could make the Whippet respond by completely shutting down and losing all interest in playing your game at all.


I think "collar pop" is being used multiple ways in this thread. I was using it the way you are: as an interruption. In fact, I almost always say "hey!" when I do it. Not an angry "hey," but an excited one. Interrupting and redirecting behaviors is a lot more effective than trying to eliminate them through negative reinforcement. 

If my puppy bites my hand, interrupting his bite and giving him something appropriate to expend that urge on is simply a faster and less stressful way of eliminating the biting behavior. If _all_ I'm doing is making the biting unpleasant for the dog by saying "no" or gagging the dog with my finger, it'll take quite a while for him to drop the behavior. The urge to mouth and interact will still be there. Add redirection to a very mild negative, and the behavior should drop off rather quickly, since the dog can expend his urge to bite _and_ avoid the negative all at once.

Some of this argument is semantic, and I don't care what the names are, but in my head, I class them this way: 

positive reinforcement (food, praise, etc.). Most effective when the food reward is sporadic, rather than every time.
non-reinforcement (ignoring)
redirecting ("bite _this_, not my hand")
interruptions (a collar pop with a non-painful, non-pinch, non-choke collar, calling the dog's name, "hey," etc.)
negative interruptions (an interruption that is mildly unpleasant, like a prong collar pop)
negative reinforcement (an unpleasant sound or physical stimulus).

I'm not comfortable thinking of a prong collar as a pure interruption, when it certainly seems like it would be at least mildly unpleasant for a dog to receive a collar pop with one. Same thing with electric shocks. They don't have to hurt badly to be classed as "negative" in the little system I'm outlining here. Even Cesar Millan's pokes to the dog's ribs cross into "negative" rather than as pure interruptions, since he's intentionally violating the dog's personal space as a way of showing dominance. For a headstrong dog or one that distracts easily, more aggressive interruptions like these may be necessary, but it's important to remember that there's still a negative element to them and that it has to be managed carefully.

Negative reinforcement is an important training tool, but it can have unintended consequences. For behavior elimination (unwanted barking, biting, jumping, etc.), using negatives alone isn't as effective as actions that focus on redirection. Negative reinforcement can easily lead to confusion and anxiety if it's misapplied or if the dog is confused. It does not establish "dominance" or "authority" or "leadership" in a healthy way. How many people out there have undermined their dog's recall by yelling at it at the wrong time? How many have confirmed submissive urination in their dogs by punishing it? Bought a prong collar and then taught their dog to pull almost as hard on it as on a flat buckle? 

A training program should focus on rewarding and redirecting behavior wherever it's humanly possible and only resorting to negatives when absolutely necessary. Even then, negatives should be used in combination with redirection to minimize the dog's confusion and maximize the training opportunity. Catching a puppy peeing on the carpet and grabbing him (negative interruption) is crucial to housebreaking, but even more important is the redirection where you show him where he _should_ pee. Smacking the puppy or yelling loudly won't work nearly as well as praising him for peeing when he's in the right spot.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Just to clarify, since I didn't before, by collar pop I meant with a regular flat collar... I wasn't talking prong! The thought of a prong on a Whippet is utterly insane to me. Mine wince and tighten their skin if you even set one on their necks without a leash attached!!! A simple verbal "stop that" in a normal voice is all they need mostly.

Thanks for mentioning it though, since I didn't specify!!!

For removing unwanted behavior, like barking at another dog on a walk, I would give a pretty hard pop... with a prong if needed... but to me a dog that would bark at other dogs on walks is pretty freakin' obnoxious... and the type of dog with no prior training and no control who'd be a good candidate for a prong. I ABSOLUTELY think there's a huge difference between a "hey!" pop to get the attention of a dog that's just not sitting when told because he's watching leaves fall vs a real correction for a barking lunatic!!!


----------



## EvanG (Apr 26, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Evan, excellent article, thanks for posting it.


You're very welcome. As you may imagine, there is much more to know about this topic!

EvanG


----------

