# The use of food in Competition Training



## hotel4dogs

thanks, that's the article!


----------



## GoldenSail

I really like this article and I can't remember where I first saw it. 

As a trainer I think teaching a dog what not to do is just as important as teaching a dog what to do.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Interesting article.... I have one question right off the bat, though. The author says:


> I've learned not to base behaviors on types of reinforcement that I can never deliver during performance.


Makes sense. But how is this scenario changed by adding "corrections" (some mix of positive punishment/negative reinforcement, I'd imagine)? You cannot correct in the ring any more than you can reward.


----------



## GoldenSail

Jersey's Mom said:


> Makes sense. But how is this scenario changed by adding "corrections" (some mix of positive punishment/negative reinforcement, I'd imagine)? You cannot correct in the ring any more than you can reward.


I think the idea lies in the word 'base.' So while food/toys and physical corrections may be used they are not primarily used and not the main motivator. And you can reward in the ring between exercises just not with food and toys. You can say good dog and pet your dog. If your training is 'based' on you being the motivator instead of lots of food or physical corrections your dog will probably do better in the ring when all he has to motivate him is you.

I know Janice Gunn in her DVDs talks about smiling at the dog while heeling. I think this subtle thing can be motivating/rewarding to some dogs if you train for it. I know mine perks up just by me looking and talking to her while heeling...(can't do the talking in the ring, but I can certainly smile).


----------



## RedDogs

With this being almost 15 years old, does anyone know if the author has provided any recent revisions/follow up on the article?


----------



## tippykayak

I've seen this article a number of times. According to her own account, Ms. Koutsky made the classic mistake that some food based trainers make (bribing instead of reinforcing) and then wrote off the power of positive training. 

The logic used here is "she won't do it for a cookie, so I should correct her." That's not how good positive training works. The dog should not be working for a cookie in the first place. The dog should be working for the trainer.

I'm not a PO trainer, but I believe the writer of this article really misunderstands the use of positive reinforcement.


----------



## Loisiana

RedDogs said:


> With this being almost 15 years old, does anyone know if the author has provided any recent revisions/follow up on the article?


Linda Koutsky now has a regular column in Front and Finish (I believe called Balance Point?) based around those ideas.


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I've seen this article a number of times. According to her own account, Ms. Koutsky made the classic mistake that some food based trainers make (bribing instead of reinforcing) and then wrote off the power of positive training.
> 
> The logic used here is "she won't do it for a cookie, so I should correct her." That's not how good positive training works. The dog should not be working for a cookie in the first place. The dog should be working for the trainer.
> 
> I'm not a PO trainer, but I believe the writer of this article really misunderstands the use of positive reinforcement.


I didn't get that from the article. The point wasn't that "she won't do it for a cookie," it's more the dog is going to figure out the cookie won't be there in the ring. At first the dog did fine, but the more a dog is shown the more it starts to figure out that cookies and toys don't magically appear in the ring at a trial.

Linda's big point in her writing and her seminars is making herself the biggest reward to the dog. She does still use some food and toys, but she wants the dogs to light up for HER, not for other items. She makes the point that a five or ten minute training session will leave her exhausted because of the energy she puts into training. She tries to put in as much energy as she expects her dogs to give.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

GoldenSail said:


> I think the idea lies in the word 'base.' So while food/toys and physical corrections may be used they are not primarily used and not the main motivator. And you can reward in the ring between exercises just not with food and toys. You can say good dog and pet your dog. If your training is 'based' on you being the motivator instead of lots of food or physical corrections your dog will probably do better in the ring when all he has to motivate him is you.
> I know Janice Gunn in her DVDs talks about smiling at the dog while heeling. I think this subtle thing can be motivating/rewarding to some dogs if you train for it. I know mine perks up just by me looking and talking to her while heeling...(can't do the talking in the ring, but I can certainly smile).





Loisiana said:


> I didn't get that from the article. The point wasn't that "she won't do it for a cookie," it's more the dog is going to figure out the cookie won't be there in the ring. At first the dog did fine, but the more a dog is shown the more it starts to figure out that cookies and toys don't magically appear in the ring at a trial.
> 
> Linda's big point in her writing and her seminars is making herself the biggest reward to the dog. She does still use some food and toys, but she wants the dogs to light up for HER, not for other items. She makes the point that a five or ten minute training session will leave her exhausted because of the energy she puts into training. She tries to put in as much energy as she expects her dogs to give.


Interesting responses. *What I love about them is that they both talk about the trainer "being the reward" and centering training on the relationship between dog and handler. *I completely agree! *But neither of them addresses where or how corrections foster that. *If anything, it sounds to me like an argument for smarter positive training - incorporating a cookie or a toy as needed but never losing focus on that relationship. *That is exactly what positive training should be, even if the author was unable to see or achieve that.

Cookies and toys do not magically appear in the ring... though as you both noted, reinforcement to some extent does/can. *Punishment, whether in the form of a collar or verbal correction never appears there. *We've all heard the term "ring wise." *In my experience, it's generally used to describe dogs who act up in the ring, figuring out what they can get away with as no correction is coming. *Same can be said of field dogs who are said to become "collar wise." *Now I suppose one could argue that the author's dog was equally "ring wise" having discovered no cookies were coming. *But if training is done as you both stated, with the handler as the basis for reward (instead of "the cookie"), wouldn't this entire scenario be avoided without the use of correction? *

I got much the same impression as Tippy from this article. *A lot of common errors/misunderstandings about what positive training is and how it works. She refers to herself as nothing more than a cookie dispenser (to paraphrase) during her run with positive training... that's not the fault of the theory, it's the result of improper methods. *I do not understand how adding corrections to training makes the handler more rewarding. *I like the idea of not basing your training around a treat or a toy... but see no reason that this implies tossing positive training out the window and stepping back into traditional training. *Knowing what she does now, would the author put any less energy into her training if she didn't use corrections? *Did she even try a more handler focused positive approach? *She doesn't imply that she did. *Seems to me this author just threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Julie and Jersey
-- Sent from my Palm Pre


----------



## hotel4dogs

I think a lot of it depends on your definition of corrections, too.
*Normally* with Tito, a correction is "uh uh" or some other similar sound. Sometimes it's as harsh as "NO. Come back", which gives him information that he has made a wrong choice. I've even gone as far as "knock it off right now". 
All of those things can be said in the ring....once you've already NQ'd , which makes the ring a decent learning experience.
Caveat, I am referring ONLY to competition obedience, not to field training nor to every day life.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Further to the thought about ring corrections, and training corrections. For the most part, mine are verbal.
Here's the problem I have with not giving them (which I call "negative feedback"). If, for example, I give Tito the command to take the high jump on directed jumping, and he heads toward the bar jump, I do NOT want him to go ahead and take the high jump. He's made the wrong choice, and needs immediate feedback to know it. So I will say, "uh uh, wrong jump" and stop him in his tracks. I will go to him, have him heel with me back to the place he started from, and attempt the exercise again. If he gets the correct jump, LOTS of praise.
To me, although that's negative and/or corrections, it's very necessary information to the dog. 
Same with gloves, if he heads toward a wrong glove I will stop him as soon as he makes forward progress to the glove with "UH UH" and re-do the exercise, rather than have him pick up the wrong one. 
And so on.
JMO of course, but I do think it's necessary information for the dog to know when he's made a wrong choice rather than letting him complete the exercise and then withhold the reward.


----------



## Megora

> I think a lot of it depends on your definition of corrections, too.


Also impression and application. 

I think some people do have a negative view of correction (leash and verbal) because they have seen people doing a horrible job of it and 'breaking' their dogs. 

Positive reinforcement is a quick correction that is immediately replaced with a food/praise reward when the dog adjusts his behavior and does exactly what you want. <- The object is not to break the dog down (similar to what happens in horse training when you work a young horse until he gives to the bit). The object is to encourage the dog to work for the food and praise. And then work for just the praise. 

By the same token, I still tend to look at people funny when they are preparing for show and they are still stuffing their dogs with treats at every turn. In theory, they should be weaning off all treats and crutches (whatever training devices they are using, including prong collars etc) except for the jackpots at the end of training. This retrains the dog so instead of anticipating treats at the end of each exercise, he's getting excited with you and charging into the next one. 

You are allowed to treat outside the ring. And nobody pats you down before you enter the ring (although you can get nq'd if you are caught chewing gum - and yes I'm embarrassed that happened), so you can have treats in your pocket, ready to throw a party with the instant you leave the ring. You are allowed to praise your dog after each successful exercise (between exercises) and generally allowed to chirp and talk to your dog between exercises. And there are little physical cues you can give your dog when in the ring that won't get you nq'd. Like smiling at your dog as mentioned above. But in order for those to work, your dog has to be honed in on you (instead of your magic treat spouting mouth or hands) and paying attention.


----------



## RedDogs

Megora said:


> A
> Positive reinforcement is a quick correction that is immediately replaced with a food/praise reward when the dog adjusts his behavior and does exactly what you want.


I have to jump in here and say that while in some groups that might be a definition of 'positive reinforcement', it is not the textbook definition of positive reinforcement.

I will also say that 'weaning off of treats' is not the current line of thought with many professionals. Ultimately it's the cues holding the behavior chains together, cues taught with positive reinforcement function as a reinforcer. And food can be used to reinforce pieces of the chain that are being perfected before competing. And for that reason, it is important to have a plan if an error is made early on the chain. Once the chain is interupted ( for me, that's me moving away and my dog will follow), the 'broken' piece can be worked on before put back into a chain. 

Jodie, thanks for the comment. I don't currently subscribe to Front and Finish but eagerly went to look at the online sample copy and find her article. It was interesting that she used a lot of the same phrasing as in the posted article here. Is that typical for her F+F articles? And, if I can ask, reading through some of the other articles in there, it seems that while many use food/toys in training, there's an underlying theme that 'corrections' and 'errors' (....for lack of a better term!) are necessary and people shouldn't get too caught up in food/toys. Is that typical of the publication?


----------



## Megora

> I will also say that 'weaning off of treats' is not the current line of thought with many professionals. Ultimately it's the cues holding the behavior chains together, cues taught with positive reinforcement function as a reinforcer. And food can be used to reinforce pieces of the chain that are being perfected before competing. And for that reason, it is important to have a plan if an error is made early on the chain. Once the chain is interupted ( for me, that's me moving away and my dog will follow), the 'broken' piece can be worked on before put back into a chain.


*nods* I understand - and definitely I recognize treats in addition to verbal praise, are great for positive reinforcement (after the correction, it's the reward for the good behavior). By 'weaning' I meant that when you go to a competition level training class, you shouldn't be relying so much on food. And your dog should be able to perform each exercise without losing interest in you because you're not spitting food at him. 

I did train with somebody who got in my face and told me that I was not going to get the desired behavior out of my dog without using food. That my dog was not going to do anything special just for me. Even though that was exactly the case (especially since my golden at the time refused to eat anything in public and hilariously spit out even her irresistible liver/salmon/whatever treats). This was at a time when I was prepping for shows and I came to her class without any treats or toys.  

I moderated my training somewhat through her classes and recognize that treats help with teaching puppies and young dogs and then reinforcement later on (particularly when you have to go back to square one with something your dog is consistently messing up on), but I've always felt that treats become a crutch if you don't learn how to train your dog without them. If you can't do a full ring routine without popping treats into your dogs mouth to hold his attention. 

This is a reach, but it is the same as training with a leash on. Some people feel safe and confident with that leash keeping their dog at their side and under control but get frazzled when it comes to removing the leash. 

That's just my personal opinion based on what I've learned along the way.


----------



## GoldenSail

If you did not read the whole article carefully here is why she supports the use of corrections.



> First, because the focus was always on correct behavior, my dog never learned what wasn't an option. Yes, she tends to escalate those behaviors that bring reinforcement. But she still explored other options, and she learned some interesting things from that exploration. She learned that the environment is jam packed with it's own wonderful array of reinforcers. She learned that if she chose not to do the behavior I requested, because something else was more reinforcing, that her choice carried no negative consequence. Sure, I withheld the cookie, but she was reinforced anyway. Besides, she could always earn a cookie later whenever she wanted one. She actually learned that the environment was more reinforcing at times, than I was. Because our training was correction free, we encountered problems in training when she would refuse to do a behavior. I only had two options, one was to abort the exercise, the other was to bribe her through it. Neither are acceptable. I watched her like a hawk, for any sign of stress. Whenever she showed the slightest sign of aversion, I would work around it. I had not taught my dog to deal with stress, to learn that she could be successful when presented with a challenge, I had not given her the confidence that achievement brings.


This is not about training with only correction--this is about finding a balance between correction and motivation to support a behavior on two ends instead of just one. Linda is not the only successful trainer who feels this way--if you haven't read some of Terri Arnold (who adopted the clicker into her training along with a prong).


----------



## GoldenSail

And I think you can 'correct' in the ring subtly as well. I know a monkey trainer I once talked to mentioned how the general public would never know when he gave a correction on stage. It could be as simple as a look. Dogs are very good at picking up on subtle body language and they often know the difference between "sit?" "Sit." and "SIT!"

And if the correction is coming from you--you can take yourself in the ring.


----------



## Loisiana

Megora said:


> And nobody pats you down before you enter the ring (although you can get nq'd if you are caught chewing gum - and yes I'm embarrassed that happened), so you can have treats in your pocket, ready to throw a party with the instant you leave the ring.


Keep in mind this really is against the rules, and if a judge suspects you of having food in your pockets they can ask to see in your pockets. And if you step out of the ring and start pulling treats out of your pocket for your dog you will have everyone in your area watching your every move from then on out.

Not to say I haven't accidentally left a treat in my pocket before, but I made sure that I did not take it out of my pocket when exiting the ring because people _will_ notice.


----------



## Megora

Loisiana said:


> Keep in mind this really is against the rules, and if a judge suspects you of having food in your pockets they can ask to see in your pockets. And if you step out of the ring and start pulling treats out of your pocket for your dog you will have everyone in your area watching your every move from then on out.
> 
> Not to say I haven't accidentally left a treat in my pocket before, but I made sure that I did not take it out of my pocket when exiting the ring because people _will_ notice.


I'm glad I know that now and didn't have to learn that the hard way - like I did with the chewing gum. :doh:


----------



## Loisiana

RedDogs said:


> Jodie, thanks for the comment. I don't currently subscribe to Front and Finish but eagerly went to look at the online sample copy and find her article. It was interesting that she used a lot of the same phrasing as in the posted article here. Is that typical for her F+F articles? And, if I can ask, reading through some of the other articles in there, it seems that while many use food/toys in training, there's an underlying theme that 'corrections' and 'errors' (....for lack of a better term!) are necessary and people shouldn't get too caught up in food/toys. Is that typical of the publication?


Well F&F is known for having authors that have been extremely successful in competition. Lori Drouin, Linda Koutsky, Laura Rominik (sp?), Diane Bauman, to name a few, are all multiple OTCH trainers. And when it comes down to it, there have been no trainers that have been able to perform at that level without using more "balanced" methods. So in the end, most people want to read about what has really worked to bring about success, rather than what someone thinks should work in theory.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> I didn't get that from the article. The point wasn't that "she won't do it for a cookie," it's more the dog is going to figure out the cookie won't be there in the ring. At first the dog did fine, but the more a dog is shown the more it starts to figure out that cookies and toys don't magically appear in the ring at a trial.
> 
> Linda's big point in her writing and her seminars is making herself the biggest reward to the dog. She does still use some food and toys, but she wants the dogs to light up for HER, not for other items. She makes the point that a five or ten minute training session will leave her exhausted because of the energy she puts into training. She tries to put in as much energy as she expects her dogs to give.


I would still regard that as an over-reliance on food, not a need for corrections. I can go whole training sessions without producing a cookie, or I might go through dozens in a few minutes. When you're working towards a situation in which you can't use a food reward, you don't continue using food rewards all the way through your practice sessions up to the no-food situation.

I 100% agree that the goal is to get the dog working for YOU, not for the reward (and not for food in particular). However, I do not regard that as proof that pain, fear, intimidation, discomfort, or an correcting voice (which is intimidation) need to be part of the regimen. I 100% agree that you have to be putting in at least as much as your dog is. Most training problems are the person's fault, not the dog's. Dogs are amazingly consistent and predictable. We just don't always think like they do, so we get surprised by things they do.

The need for aversives is also not supported in behavioral research. Behavior that is negatively reinforced degrades much more quickly than behavior that's positively reinforced. This is a basic truth of conditioning. Positive reinforcement is simply more durable once the reinforcement is removed. So the idea that you have to use negative reinforcement to achieve consistency in the ring is simply not supported in the research nor in my personal experience (which is less than the writer's).

Dogs change in the ring because they don't generalize well. The situation is significantly different, so the dog's behavior isn't going to work along the lines of the habits formed during training. If the dog can figure out that he won't be rewarded during a ring performance (or, more accurately, is distracted from his habit by the new situation), then he can certainly figure out that he won't be punished.

There is more to positive training than pure Skinnerian conditioning. Dogs obey because of relationships and habits, not just because of the low-brain expectation of rewards. There may be a place for some kinds of negatives in dog training, and I don't advocate for positive-only training. However, the logic established in this well-tread article does not pan out.


----------



## Loisiana

I think it's really two seperate ideas that she's writing about, not directly linking them together

idea 1: food should not be the primary reinforcer b/c it won't be in the ring

idea 2: at some point the dog needs to know that other options are not allowed

I don't think she's saying "Because of Idea 1, that means Idea 2 is true." I think she believes that they are true independent of each other. The focus of this particular article was that both ideas were absent in her previous training methods, and adding one "Idea" without the other is better than not having either of them, but she found the most success by incorporating both of them. If you read most of Linda's writings, they usually focus on Idea 1, but she still believes in idea 2.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> I think it's really two seperate ideas that she's writing about, not directly linking them together
> 
> idea 1: food should not be the primary reinforcer b/c it won't be in the ring
> 
> idea 2: at some point the dog needs to know that other options are not allowed
> 
> I don't think she's saying "Because of Idea 1, that means Idea 2 is true." I think she believes that they are true independent of each other. The focus of this particular article was that both ideas were absent in her previous training methods, and adding one "Idea" without the other is better than not having either of them, but she found the most success by incorporating both of them. If you read most of Linda's writings, they usually focus on Idea 1, but she still believes in idea 2.


I see that. However, this article really seems to send the message that she tried positive training, but because there won't be cookies in the ring, you need to use aversives to show the dog what's not allowed. It's often posted in that context, as proof that PO training won't work at higher levels.

I agree with statement one for sure. I don't think statement two has really been demonstrated.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> The need for aversives is also not supported in behavioral research. Behavior that is negatively reinforced degrades much more quickly than behavior that's positively reinforced. This is a basic truth of conditioning. Positive reinforcement is simply more durable once the reinforcement is removed. So the idea that you have to use negative reinforcement to achieve consistency in the ring is simply not supported in the research nor in my personal experience (which is less than the writer's).


Please point me in the direction of these studies so that I can read them. Most of the ones I've seen are testing extremes but do not test the middle ground as advocated by this thread. Could it be that using both methods instead of one could strengthen a behavior over a longer period than just one alone? :curtain:



tippykayak said:


> There is more to positive training than pure Skinnerian conditioning. Dogs obey because of relationships and habits, not just because of the low-brain expectation of rewards. There may be a place for some kinds of negatives in dog training, and I don't advocate for positive-only training. However, the logic established in this well-tread article does not pan out.


How does it not pan out? As mentioned, after writing this article Linda went on to attain multiple OTCHs--something most of us only dream about. She is not alone. I have been reading Terri Arnold's first book and she has had similar experiences and then acclaimed success after finding a balance between positive and negative. (I am sure there are others too, but I am not well versed in them all yet)

Also, as she writes in the article she did have a great deal of success for a long time--early on placing 3rd among OTCH trainers. After the UD, however, behaviors started to break down.

What part of this quote sounds like she didn't know what she was doing?



> To obtain my goal, I embarked on a quest for knowledge, that continues today. I attended every motivational seminar, watched every video, read every book, even joined the clicker list on the Internet. My vocabulary expanded, and I learned the difference between a lure and a reward, between positive and negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment, between primary and secondary reinforcers. I studied schedules of reinforcement, and knew that variable schedules with a variety of reinforcers, produced the best results. I developed both verbal and physical Conditioned Reinforcers for use in the ring. I put my heart and soul into learning as much as I could about learning theory itself. BF Skinner became a household name, and Operant Conditioning was the game.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> Please point me in the direction of these studies so that I can read them. Most of the ones I've seen are testing extremes but do not test the middle ground as advocated by this thread. Could it be that using both methods instead of one could strengthen a behavior over a longer period than just one alone? :curtain:


Actually, I haven't read them directly myself. I'm essentially paraphrasing my psych 101 textbook.

And I understand your point about mixing stimuli. However, if the first premise (that positive reinforcement is more durable) is true, then the aspects of the behavior that rely on negatives would degrade fairly quickly unless you continually used the negatives.



GoldenSail said:


> How does it not pan out?


The logic that using food led to unreliable ring behavior therefore corrections are necessary is the piece I don't think follows. One doesn't follow logically from the other. Loisiana pointed out that she didn't think the article claimed that, and I think the article sort of suggests it, so it's often posted by people who want to justify their use of corrections. That's the context I've seen it in before.



GoldenSail said:


> As mentioned, after writing this article Linda went on to attain multiple OTCHs--something most of us only dream about. She is not alone. I have been reading Terri Arnold's first book and she has had similar experiences and then acclaimed success after finding a balance between positive and negative. (I am sure there are others too, but I am not well versed in them all yet)


I'm not really against this idea of balance, and I'm not a PO trainer. However, I think there are some unproven claims that are often made when people want to justify using prongs, toe hitches, ear pinches, and shock collars on their dogs.

Negative stimuli often give the human the opportunity to prevent the dog from receiving undesired reinforcement. I think that's why they're so effective. I don't think the dog learns that something is "unacceptable" or "inappropriate." I also don't think they learn just to pursue rewards. I see food misused very often, even by very experienced trainers. I think there's a chance she was one of them.



GoldenSail said:


> Also, as she writes in the article she did have a great deal of success for a long time--early on placing 3rd among OTCH trainers. After the UD, however, behaviors started to break down.
> 
> What part of this quote sounds like she didn't know what she was doing?


I never said she didn't know what she was doing, simply that she makes some assumptions I don't believe are necessarily true.

The quote you've cited does make me think she doesn't (or didn't) really understand the application of Skinnerian theory in dog training. If she pursued PO training purely as a matter of operant conditioning, she missed the point. Therefore, when she gave up on it, she may have given up on it without doing it really, really well.


----------



## Megora

> However, I think there are some unproven claims that are often made when people want to justify using prongs, toe hitches, ear pinches, and shock collars on their dogs.


Prongs do not belong in the same group as those others... if they are used by an experienced and sensitive trainer, taught how to use them, and only uses them in a training setting. 

When people advocate using corrections in training, they are not talking about pinching, hitting, kicking, grabbing, and pinning dogs. Ditto screaming at a dog, using zap collars (including those for invisible fencing, ahem), and misusing training collars like the choke and prong. People misused choke chains so much (for example, putting them on backwards so they would get stuck in the tight position around the dog's neck), that most training clubs and facilities have moved on to only flat collars.

The problem is that people get confused and think that all corrections are cruel and extreme... when that isn't the case. That's why some trainers use the term 'positive reinforcement', including appropriate verbal and leash corrections and use of prongs and choke chains. If you want to build proper groundwork for advanced training or have a great pet, you need to correct bad behavior. And this doesn't mean chasing the dog with a broom and beating it.


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> Prongs do not belong in the same group as those others... if they are used by an experienced and sensitive trainer, taught how to use them, and only uses them in a training setting.
> 
> When people advocate using corrections in training, they are not talking about pinching, hitting, kicking, grabbing, and pinning dogs. Ditto screaming at a dog, using zap collars (including those for invisible fencing, ahem), and misusing training collars like the choke and prong. People misused choke chains so much (for example, putting them on backwards so they would get stuck in the tight position around the dog's neck), that most training clubs and facilities have moved on to only flat collars.
> 
> The problem is that people get confused and think that all corrections are cruel and extreme... when that isn't the case. That's why some trainers use the term 'positive reinforcement', including appropriate verbal and leash corrections and use of prongs and choke chains. If you want to build proper groundwork for advanced training or have a great pet, you need to correct bad behavior. And this doesn't mean chasing the dog with a broom and beating it.


I can only speak for myself, but I'm not the slightest bit confused about what corrections are mainstream. Ear pinching is common, as is collar popping with all collar types. More than one of this forum's most accomplished trainers advocates for repeatedly striking a dog across the face ("jaw slaps") as part of training. E-collars are routinely defended as not just ethical but absolutely essential for success at high levels. 

And I don't understand this need to place pinch collars in a non-aversive context. They work because they don't feel good. If not, how do they work? They may be a nicer, more controlled aversive than a beating, but they still function on in the principle of negative reinforcement, and thus I put them in that category. 

A verbal or leash correction would not properly be termed "positive reinforcement," and anybody using that term to apply to a positive punishment is simply muddying the waters.


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I'm not the slightest bit confused about what corrections are mainstream. Ear pinching is common, as is collar popping with all collar types. More than one of this forum's most accomplished trainers advocates for repeatedly striking a dog across the face ("jaw slaps") as part of training. E-collars are routinely defended as not just ethical but absolutely essential for success at high levels.


But just because corrections _can_ mean those things don't mean the person using the term automatically means it to include those. And if by the "jaw slaps" you are referring to the field trainer on this board, that has nothing to do with this article the thread is about. The article doesn't state specifically what corrections she is referring to, just that she did not find the "pure positive" approach of absolutely no corrections (which includes no negative verbal feedback) to have been successful for her. The majority of "corrections" I have seen used by good trainers have been conditioned to have a positive association with them (collar bounces and happy pops). This would certainly be true of Linda, who is a pretty hard core Silvia Bishop follower. Silvia is the trainer who brought the collar bounce to trainers here in America.


----------



## Megora

> And I don't understand this need to place pinch collars in a non-aversive context. They work because they don't feel good. If not, how do they work? They may be a nicer, more controlled aversive than a beating, but they still function on in the principle of negative reinforcement, and thus I put them in that category.


Like choke chains, they are especially geared for dogs who need a little extra handling. I'm not under any delusions that they do not hurt if misused (which is why I don't think they are for everyone, particularly inexperienced trainers) and they are not necessary for all dogs (which is why I ignored my instructor when she suggested I switch over from my evil choke chain collar to the prong). 

With a choke chain it hangs loose around your dog's neck. This is perfect if you have a soft dog who may need a very slight correction but does not need the constant contact of a prong or even a regular well-fitted buckle collar. When you put a chain on properly, it releases immediately after a correction and like I said the dog does not feel any pressure around his neck at all when he's doing everything right. 

What I don't like about prong collars is they are constant pressure on your dog's neck - especially if you put it on properly (high on the neck behind the ears and tight). If you have a sensitive or thin skinned dog, it will cause them a lot of discomfort - and really it would be cruel to put that thing on them. 

But it is still possible to use a prong collar without causing outright pain to the dog. Ideally, a correction will just be a slight squeeze of a finger to get a dog to immediately respond. This is why so many people prefer it to the choke chain.

It does not cause pain or fear like a shock collar.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> But just because corrections _can_ mean those things don't mean the person using the term automatically means it to include those. And if by the "jaw slaps" you are referring to the field trainer on this board, that has nothing to do with this article the thread is about. The article doesn't state specifically what corrections she is referring to, just that she did not find the "pure positive" approach of absolutely no corrections (which includes no negative verbal feedback) to have been successful for her. The majority of "corrections" I have seen used by good trainers have been conditioned to have a positive association with them (collar bounces and happy pops). This would certainly be true of Linda, who is a pretty hard core Silvia Bishop follower. Silvia is the trainer who brought the collar bounce to trainers here in America.


We don't know which specific corrections she uses, because she isn't specific, but the article is frequently posted (as it has been on this board) as a defense of mainstream aversive methods.

The "jaw slap" was defended by more than one person, and individuals who objected to it were ridiculed for being inexperienced, again by more than one person.

I'm using "correction" to mean to use an aversive stimulus to interrupt an undesired behavior with the hope that it teaches the dog that the undesired behavior is unpleasant. That could be a fairly gentle "no" or a collar pop all the way up to a jaw slap or e-collar burn. 

If the "correction" is a secondary positive reinforcer, it's not a correction by the definition that I'm using, nor the one I think most people use. The bounce, as you've described it elsewhere on the forum, doesn't seem like an aversive to me. Nor would jingling the dog's tags with the leash if you've positively conditioned it.

I know all kinds of positive _interruptors_ that I've trained my dogs with. The primary one is the name. I wouldn't call it a correction when I say "Comet" to refocus his attention on me. If Comet wanders away from the heel and I say "Comet" in a light tone to get his attention and remind him of what we're doing, I wouldn't consider that a correction. 

And I don't know who you watch, but I've seen plenty of successful trainers who jaw slap and use the e-collar as part of the proofing process, if not the teaching process too. There's nothing positive about it. The dogs are typically used to it, so I haven't seen a lot of dogs look shy or really startle at the e-collar, but the stimuli certainly aren't positive in any way, and they aren't supposed to be.


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> But it is still possible to use a prong collar without causing outright pain to the dog. Ideally, a correction will just be a slight squeeze of a finger to get a dog to immediately respond. This is why so many people prefer it to the choke chain.
> 
> It does not cause pain or fear like a shock collar.


Given how stoic Goldens are with things like broken legs, open wounds and advanced cancer, I can't imagine that a little gentle pressure is what the prong provides if it works. If it was just a gentle squeeze, a martingale would be perfect. 

It's a series of blunt spines positioned over a dog's windpipe. Just because the dog acts calmly doesn't mean that he's not uncomfortable. I agree that there's probably less potential for injury than a choke chain (which I also don't like as a tool for correction), but don't fool yourself into thinking it works on any other principle than discomfort.

I believe somebody in an earlier thread compared it to the lip twist that's used on horses. The horses settle right down, but that doesn't mean that it's because the lip twist is providing a gentle squeeze. They settle down because it hurts and they don't want to injure themselves further.

It's clearly aversive, or it wouldn't work. It's less painful than many other things you can do to a dog, but it sure can't feel good.


----------



## tippykayak

PS - people who use e-collars will make similar arguments that it doesn't really hurt, that it's just a surprising sensation to interrupt them. However, I'm sure when these people go to the movies, they switch their cell phones to vibrate. They don't strap them to their necks and set them to "shock."


----------



## Megora

> I believe somebody in an earlier thread compared it to the lip twist that's used on horses. The horses settle right down, but that doesn't mean that it's because the lip twist is providing a gentle squeeze. They settle down because it hurts and they don't want to injure themselves further.


OMG - no, it's not anything like that. That's an extreme example.

With the 'nose twist' in horses (it's a tool that you clamp around the horse's lip). Considering their lip discolors, I imagine it is extremely painful for them. I get frustrated with horse people who claim it releases endorphins that calm the horse. As if! When I trim my horse's ears, I just take a little longer to complete the job, waiting for him to settle down. And I will not let anyone use that tool on him.

With the prong, I can see more likelihood of injury of the neck because there are protrusions poking into the neck. But like I said, that is an extreme possibility and generally it is do to inexperience and stupidity of the owner yanking on the collar.

Definitely - it is intended to be uncomfortable, especially when that finger tightens up in a correction. It is why I seriously don't think it should be on every dog and some hardhanded/impatient/careless people should never be allowed to use them on any dog. 

The choke chain is the same way - as I said, some people do not understand how to correct their dogs properly. They pull or yank, which only builds their dogs tolerance up so they are unmanageable. If you want to see me flip my wig, just try walking your dog with a training collar on, with the dogs pulling away. <- That is how all of the windpipe injuries occur. Because of casual use in ignorant hands.


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> OMG - no, it's not anything like that. That's an extreme example.
> 
> With the 'nose twist' in horses (it's a tool that you clamp around the horse's lip). Considering their lip discolors, I imagine it is extremely painful for them. I get frustrated with horse people who claim it releases endorphins that calm the horse. As if! When I trim my horse's ears, I just take a little longer to complete the job, waiting for him to settle down. And I will not let anyone use that tool on him.
> 
> With the prong, I can see more likelihood of injury of the neck because there are protrusions poking into the neck. But like I said, that is an extreme possibility and generally it is do to inexperience and stupidity of the owner yanking on the collar.
> 
> Definitely - it is intended to be uncomfortable, especially when that finger tightens up in a correction. It is why I seriously don't think it should be on every dog and some hardhanded/impatient/careless people should never be allowed to use them on any dog.
> 
> The choke chain is the same way - as I said, some people do not understand how to correct their dogs properly. They pull or yank, which only builds their dogs tolerance up so they are unmanageable. If you want to see me flip my wig, just try walking your dog with a training collar on, with the dogs pulling away. <- That is how all of the windpipe injuries occur. Because of casual use in ignorant hands.


I pretty much agree with you, though I do think there's potential for injury even in experienced hands if a moment of inattention on the handler's part is combined with an unexpected lunge from the dog. It's not just idiots that injure their dogs. Both chokes and prongs are designed in such a way that a lunge could seriously injure a dog if the owner stops paying attention for a moment.


----------



## Megora

*if the owner stops paying attention for a moment*

Exactly. If you are not actively training with a choke chain, you put it on the 'dead ring'. Experienced trainers will only put the choke chains on the live ring when they are training. 

It is the same with prong collars - though most experienced trainers have a flat collar on their dog in addition to the prong and switch the leash to that. 

When you are training your dog and working on the floor, you are focused in on your dog and should be able to anticipate any lunges and make the appropriate correction long before they happen. 

If you know what you are doing, it would be unheard of to injure your dog's neck, especially a thick-necked large breed like golden retrievers. 

Injuries happen because of lazy owners. <- And I'm mainly thinking about those people who refuse to train their dogs and permit them to pull against all of these collars like they are sled dogs on the mush. Switching to a halter collar does not fix the behavior, though it would at least spare a dog's throat.


----------



## Loisiana

I usually use two different leashes when I'm teaching heeling. One on a prong collar and one on a buckle collar. The one on the prong collar is to keep the dog in positon....there is no popping on that leash, the dog controls it. Some dogs have a tendency to want to pull into a buckle collar when learning to heel, which would make problems worse. For a loss of attention a quick reminder pop is given with the leash on the buckle collar. I only give collar pops for lack of attention. And again, those have been conditioned to be reminders that all the good stuff comes from looking at me, so the response to one of those collar pops is a dog that looks up with bright eyes and added bounce to their step. And I find that is typically how most of today's OTCH level trainers train heeling.


----------



## hotel4dogs

this thread has somehow morphed from it's original context, which was the use of food in *competition obedience*.
There are a lot of training methods, including prong collars, choke collars, e-collars, ear pinches, etc. that have no place at all in the hands of inexperienced pet owners and for the most part, people who are not planning to show in competition.
When you look at the level of precise skill required for OTCH and NOC dogs, however, I think you need to talk about different training methods than those that are useful for a casual pet owner who just wants an obedient dog. A lot of those methods, in the hands of experienced trainers, produce not only outstanding results but happy, confident dogs. If you doubt it, go watch them work.
It's sort of like discussing the difference between a kindergarten teacher's methods and teaching plans and a university graduate school professor's methods.


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs--yes I agree completely!

When it comes down to it I can have a very happy well-trained and bright-eyed dog and give corrections. I feel like well done corrections make the commands more reliable faster without necessarily sacrificing a happy and alert dog. I also think corrections are a way of communicating more clearly with my dog. So why shouldn't I use them?

I will agree that misplaced or too harsh corrections can cause undesired consquences. That doesn't mean, however, that all corrections in all contexts have negative effects.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> Actually, I haven't read them directly myself. I'm essentially paraphrasing my psych 101 textbook.


I am going to make a simple request then. If you cannot cite it and have not read the actual studies themselves, do no use them to back up your beliefs.



tippykayak said:


> And I understand your point about mixing stimuli. However, if the first premise (that positive reinforcement is more durable) is true, then the aspects of the behavior that rely on negatives would degrade fairly quickly unless you continually used the negatives.
> 
> The logic that using food led to unreliable ring behavior therefore corrections are necessary is the piece I don't think follows. One doesn't follow logically from the other. Loisiana pointed out that she didn't think the article claimed that, and I think the article sort of suggests it, so it's often posted by people who want to justify their use of corrections. That's the context I've seen it in before.


Fair enough. This is anecdotal so take what you will. However, you cannot say either that because supposedly (and I want to see the study myself) a study showed that a behavior lasted longer that was positively reinforced than negatively reinforced that means a mix of the two wouldn't last as long. Quite honestly, we don't officially know. It would be fascinating to do a study to find out. Also, to do it in proportions. Maybe 50/50, or 90/10 etc mixes.



tippykayak said:


> I'm not really against this idea of balance, and I'm not a PO trainer. However, I think there are some unproven claims that are often made when people want to justify using prongs, toe hitches, ear pinches, and shock collars on their dogs.


Well then let's you and I go out there and do a very good test and find out. We'll recruit the best of the best and we will be willing to accept what science says instead of letting emotion get in the way.

You might be interested to read this study published in a peer reviewed journal. I hate to veer too far off topic but I think this study is great. They used ecollars to _successfully_ treat aggression. They observed "complete and permanent elimination of aggression in all 36 dogs tested."

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1984-03181-001&CFID=7872469&CFTOKEN=51050078

http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/see-no-evil-read-no-evil-cite-no-evil/

The second link is someone else's analysis of the study if you don't want to spend the money to read it.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

As a novice dog trainer this is something I have been wondering about. I was watching some higher level obedience trainers practicing outside the ring this weekend and thier dogs had amazing focus. I noticed that some of them had choke chains or slip collars or something that they would snap if their dog broke focus. They also praised and rewarded thier dogs and the dogs I saw seemed very happy. 

All the classes I have taken have been purely based on positive reinforcement. They get rewarded if they do what they are supposed to be doing and don't get rewarded if they don't. Dodger knows that good things happen when he obeys a command but nothing bad will happen if he doesn't. (And I know that sometimes things like sniffing the ground can be more rewarding to him at times than my praise or rewards). 

I do use corrections (usually just a verbal "no" or "hey" with a stern tone) for innappropriate behaviour (like trying to steal something off the table or pulling on his leash) and I can see the need to use corrections to build perfect focus in service dogs or police dogs where it would be vital for safety reasons. I don't want to sound like I'm judging anyone (I know those trainers are much more knowledgeable about training than me), but I don't feel comfortable correcting Dodger to get him to perform well in competition. I just want it to be fun for both of us. If I was teaching a kid to play a sport I wouldn't punish them for making a mistake. 

Anyways, I know I need to do more distraction training with Dodger and build him up to working in more and more distracting situations, but am I doomed to never achieve that type of focus?


----------



## RedDogs

I don't have time to go through everything I want to say right now...

1) There has been one study looking at positive reinforcement and positive punishment, with the P+ added in after the dog "knew" the behavior. This is not in a peer reviewed journal and the first part (hundred some pages) is available online. The informal title is "The Poisoned Cue". What happened? Superstitious behavior developed. No, it hasn't been repeated in a ton of dogs, but they have looked at it in many scenarios. It's not a perfect study, but better than anything else that looks at this sort of thing (...which is not very many/much/of anything). The superstitious behavior did not stop even after the P+ did for ---dozens---- of trials. 
2) When looking at the 'enthusiasm' (for lack of a better word) and 'focus'.... you need a high level of reinforcement. Some can get this through R+, but you also can get the same thing with a high level of R-. Just because a dog looks "up" and "focused" and "responsive", it doesn't mean the dog is happy, relaxed, etc... [I'm not saying that stuff is or is not important...] It's about the strength of the reinforcement.
3) The "motiviational pops" are an interesting thing... trainers using them say they're R+. But if you're looking at textbook definitions...the loss of focus doesn't seem to increase...so it is not functioning as a reinforcer, it is functioning as a punishment.
4) Yes, things are different when you're talking about competition behaviors rather than pet training, but, competition people just as much as pet trainers and pet owners, and other professionals botch definitions more than they should. We don't need to create special training vocabularies for things that already exist and have standardized definitions. More than once =in this thread some of these have been used incorrectly. Maybe I've spent too long as a student... and I shouldn't care. 
5) Clicker training is very different in some ways than it was 15 years ago. I wasn't in the dog game then so I don't first-hand know the specifics. But there's a lot more info readily available, a lot more research done, a lot more proficient and skilled trainers to learn with/from/together.
6) I can't say I'm surprised that more "clicker training" people aren't in obedience. I LOVE obedience. I got a dog to do competition obedience with. My friends all hate it. It has a bad reputation.... some say it's boring, but it's more the connotation and the experiences with those involved in the sport. I try VERY HARD to tell people the stereotypes aren't true, that obedience people aren't snobby or mean or out to get you (nor are those in other activities!). And that it's a great and fun activity. And not many believe me. But it does wear me down to hear how positive/clicker training people are treated. Everyone needs to be sure we're being nice, esp to novices and those who aren't already in love with obedience..... I have to say I wimp out on going to many obed. seminars because I don't want to spend the whole weekend being picked on even as an auditor. The comments made at a few events have left me feeling very sad!


----------



## Megora

> I can't say I'm surprised that more "clicker training" people aren't in obedience. I LOVE obedience. I got a dog to do competition obedience with. My friends all hate it. It has a bad reputation.... some say it's boring, but it's more the connotation and the experiences with those involved in the sport. I try VERY HARD to tell people the stereotypes aren't true, that obedience people aren't snobby or mean or out to get you (nor are those in other activities!). And that it's a great and fun activity. And not many believe me. But it does wear me down to hear how positive/clicker training people are treated.


FWIW - I love competition obedience too. And if you know your dog, you do know when he is happy and excited to be out on the floor and training. Same thing when that dog is stressed or worried. The instant they stop having fun, you will know it's time to retire them. 

I joined the conversation and partially led it sideways (sorry about that) because I simply wanted to point out that people were lumping all corrections in with abusive behavior, implying that our dogs are good because they're terrified to be otherwise or whatever. And this isn't a fair generalization. 

There is a middle ground as people have said. And I guess some people prefer that middle ground, because clicker training just did not work out for them. Or they were a bust at clicker training without modifying it for their dogs.

Our puppy class and obedience 1 were with clicker training. I was not coordinated enough to click and treat and everything in time. It gave me the same muddled feeling that T footwork does. But I did adapt what I learned into the verbal version (saying YES!), so I learned something. Definitely, I do see a lot of people who clicker train going through obedience.

I was at a fun match last Friday with my golden and there was this pug who was clicker trained (at least I'm pretty sure, since the owner was using a clicker before going into the ring). I've never seen a pug train with so much vim. And he MARCHED, throwing his little short legs out in front. So yes, clicker training does work and there are plenty of people getting into the show rings who do it. It was fabulous to see a pug like that. A pug!

That same match - my golden broke the off leash heel because of a darned dumbell-chasing-corgi going past. :doh: And the nice thing was the 'judge' worked with us and kept sending me back in the same direction to proof and told me to verbally correct and reinforce. I was ready to correct my dog (saying 'no' or 'ah-ah') the instant he peered into the next ring and tried jumping for any dumbells, but as it was, I didn't have to make a single correction. I did revert to the "YES!" reinforcement as he did the about turn, halts, right, and left turns of that corner without taking his eyes off of me. And he pranced. So, ideally, you are pulling out all the stops to enthuse your dog and keep him engaged in the training and focused on you, but you are ready to do the little corrections if they are necessary. 

Anyway. :wavey:


----------



## GoldenSail

RedDogs said:


> The comments made at a few events have left me feeling very sad!


Here's the problem--the door swings both ways. While people who use corrections may 'pick' on those who don't, those who don't often are looking down their noses at those that do and calling their methods outdated, painful, intimidating...etc etc etc.

I am happy for you that you like clicker training. I really am!


----------



## GoldenSail

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I do use corrections (usually just a verbal "no" or "hey" with a stern tone) for innappropriate behaviour (like trying to steal something off the table or pulling on his leash) and I can see the need to use corrections to build perfect focus in service dogs or police dogs where it would be vital for safety reasons. I don't want to sound like I'm judging anyone (I know those trainers are much more knowledgeable about training than me), but I don't feel comfortable correcting Dodger to get him to perform well in competition. I just want it to be fun for both of us. If I was teaching a kid to play a sport I wouldn't punish them for making a mistake.
> 
> Anyways, I know I need to do more distraction training with Dodger and build him up to working in more and more distracting situations, but am I doomed to never achieve that type of focus?


Just because you use corrections does not mean you are taking the fun out of it. It is about balance, IMO. Fair enough if you don't want to do it yourself. I felt that way but I found my heeling was very inconsistent and if I couldn't get my dog's attention on me I would either have to quit or practice bad heeling. Then I implemented a collar pop and it made a world of difference. A world of difference. And when I mean I implemented a pop, I mean she might get at max 3 collar pops in a session because I have otherwise trained the behavior well enough. I posted a video last week of me heeling with my pup if you did not see it--I think she looks pretty darn good in it. And guess what? She was wearing a prong collar and was having fun. I also didn't have to correct her in this session. Hmmm....


----------



## Loisiana

RedDogs said:


> 6) I can't say I'm surprised that more "clicker training" people aren't in obedience. I LOVE obedience. I got a dog to do competition obedience with. My friends all hate it. It has a bad reputation.... some say it's boring, but it's more the connotation and the experiences with those involved in the sport. I try VERY HARD to tell people the stereotypes aren't true, that obedience people aren't snobby or mean or out to get you (nor are those in other activities!). And that it's a great and fun activity. And not many believe me. But it does wear me down to hear how positive/clicker training people are treated. Everyone needs to be sure we're being nice, esp to novices and those who aren't already in love with obedience..... I have to say I wimp out on going to many obed. seminars because I don't want to spend the whole weekend being picked on even as an auditor. The comments made at a few events have left me feeling very sad!


I don't know, I've met many clicker trainers through obedience. And it doesn't bother me at all if someone chooses that as their preferred method of training - as long as they show me the same respect for choosing the methods I do. What I see most often is clicker trainers who get frustrated with the disconnect they get from training to trialing, and either add in other methods or quit the sport.

But the fact is nobody has yet figured out how to get long-term top performances using only clicker training methods. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it hasn't been done. And people are more often going to be drawn to methods that have proven results in the competition ring, not just results of studies and theories. Many have tried, been unsuccessful, and moved on to methods they were successful with. Others have stuck to their training beliefs and continue to look for the secret that will unlock whatever is blocking theory from reality. I can guarantee you that if someone is able to have long-term high level success with clicker training in the obedience ring, people will flock to their seminars and their books will become best sellers.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

GoldenSail said:


> Just because you use corrections does not mean you are taking the fun out of it. It is about balance, IMO. Fair enough if you don't want to do it yourself. I felt that way but I found my heeling was very inconsistent and if I couldn't get my dog's attention on me I would either have to quit or practice bad heeling. Then I implemented a collar pop and it made a world of difference. A world of difference. And when I mean I implemented a pop, I mean she might get at max 3 collar pops in a session because I have otherwise trained the behavior well enough. I posted a video last week of me heeling with my pup if you did not see it--I think she looks pretty darn good in it. And guess what? She was wearing a prong collar and was having fun. I also didn't have to correct her in this session. Hmmm....


I didn't mean to come off as judgemental, and like I said, the dogs I saw who were corrected looked very happy (enthusiastic and tails wagging). I'm very new to the whole world of competitive obedience. I had a lab that wore a choke chain/prong collar and competed in obedience with my mom years and years ago...he was a happy dog. 

I just don't feel comfortable with it at this point. I've also only been taught positive reinforcement methods. I wouldn't know the correct timing, force, frequency, etc., to use something like a leash pop. Dodger (and I) love going to his training school, and perfect precision isn't important enough to me to go seek out new trainers. I just want to have fun with it...but it's discouraging to feel like we won't achieve success without using other methods.


----------



## Selli-Belle

HMMMMM....I am currently with a trainer who has multiple OTCHs on Goldens and is working on a few more right now. She does not use physical corrections and she does use lots of food training even her UDX dogs. However, one of her mottoes is "Be the Cheese"

She will use "ah ah" and my favorite, when the dog takes too many steps after the command for the drop on recall, you run toward the dog with a treat evident in your hand saying "back, back, back, DOWN" in a very happy tone of voice until you get to the point where the dog should have gone down. Then you give the treat and praise the dog. Selli says she doesn't see that as punishment.

Selli is also an Excellent B dog in agility. Before we go in the ring we do tricks and things for treats. She doesn't expect treats in the ring, but our pre-run ritual gets us both in the spirit and builds our relationship. I also reinforce our contacts with treats when we are training. If it prompts her to stick a contact, why not? She works well in agility because she is enjoying herself not because of the treats.


----------



## Loisiana

Selli-Belle said:


> HMMMMM....I am currently with a trainer who has multiple OTCHs on Goldens and is working on a few more right now. She does not use physical corrections and she does use lots of food training even her UDX dogs. However, one of her mottoes is "Be the Cheese"
> 
> She will use "ah ah" and my favorite, when the dog takes too many steps after the command for the drop on recall, you run toward the dog with a treat evident in your hand saying "back, back, back, DOWN" in a very happy tone of voice until you get to the point where the dog should have gone down. Then you give the treat and praise the dog. Selli says she doesn't see that as punishment.


But this thread is (supposed to be) referring to pure positive, clicker purist training. And those ideas above still do not follow that theory of training.


----------



## Titan1

Okay...my head is spinning..LOL! I can tell we have some very strong opinions on how we each train our dogs ..


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> I am going to make a simple request then. If you cannot cite it and have not read the actual studies themselves, do no use them to back up your beliefs.


When something is completely accepted in a field, I think it's OK to read secondary or tertiary material (like a textbook) for factual information. I don't need to read all the pigeon and rat studies from the last fifty years. The text in question is Peter Gray's _Psychology_. Is that satisfactory?

I'm not using studies to back up my beliefs. My beliefs come from the material I've read on behavioral psychology, including that textbook.



GoldenSail said:


> Fair enough. This is anecdotal so take what you will. However, you cannot say either that because supposedly (and I want to see the study myself) a study showed that a behavior lasted longer that was positively reinforced than negatively reinforced that means a mix of the two wouldn't last as long. Quite honestly, we don't officially know. It would be fascinating to do a study to find out. Also, to do it in proportions. Maybe 50/50, or 90/10 etc mixes.


I'm sure this has been done, but perhaps not on dogs. I haven't read the direct source material. I'd be interested if anybody can find some material that indicates that a mix of positive and negative reinforcement is more durable than pure positive.



GoldenSail said:


> You might be interested to read this study published in a peer reviewed journal. I hate to veer too far off topic but I think this study is great. They used ecollars to _successfully_ treat aggression. They observed "complete and permanent elimination of aggression in all 36 dogs tested."
> 
> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1984-03181-001&CFID=7872469&CFTOKEN=51050078
> 
> http://smartdogs.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/see-no-evil-read-no-evil-cite-no-evil/
> 
> The second link is someone else's analysis of the study if you don't want to spend the money to read it.


Interesting stuff. I only read the blog entry, but it seems that the study covered dogs who were taught CDX exercises by professional trainers without the e-collar. Then, the dogs were transferred back to their owners who used e-collars for proofing. What it seems to demonstrate is that the e-collar doesn't always cause aggression, not that it helps eliminate it.

Teaching dogs skills and building relationships with humans helps eliminate insecurity and therefore aggression. The addition of the e-collar doesn't seem to be a necessary part of the aggression elimination.

I think it's pretty clear that lots of skilled trainers use e-collars without causing aggression. I'm not disputing that. I question how necessary and effective it is relative to other, more positive methods.

And, since you bring it up, there are certainly lots of studies that demonstrate different ways e-collars can engender fear and aggression. At the risk of getting called out for not citing, a couple are mentioned in the blog post you linked.

I don't really want to get caught up in an e-collar debate. There have been plenty on the forum. I think the original topic bears more discussion: can you achieve precision and durability without resorting to traditional aversives?


----------



## Loisiana

To look at studies showing the most effective results for competition training, wouldn't those studies have to be conducted in the competition ring to be valid? There are a lot of factors in competition to consider that I suspect were not present in those studies.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> To look at studies showing the most effective results for competition training, wouldn't those studies have to be conducted in the competition ring to be valid? There are a lot of factors in competition to consider that I suspect were not present in those studies.


Not necessarily. They can isolate aspects of training that we use in the competition ring, and we can draw strong conclusions based on that data.

Still, you make a good point. Actual, hands-on dog training has so many complex factors in it that we're not going to get a pure, unequivocal answer no matter how much research is done. The human dog relationship is really complicated, and dogs work for us and bond for us for reasons that go way beyond positive reinforcement.


----------



## GoldenSail

I would love to see these studies--but at the end of the day if they are based on rats and pigeons that doesn't hold a lot of weight, IMO. Rats and pigeons are very different creatures behaviorally than dogs.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> Still, you make a good point. Actual, hands-on dog training has so many complex factors in it that we're not going to get a pure, unequivocal answer no matter how much research is done. The human dog relationship is really complicated, and *dogs work for us and bond for us for reasons that go way beyond positive reinforcement.*


Yes I agree! I think behavior is very very complex.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Megora said:


> Prongs do not belong in the same group as those others... if they are used by an experienced and sensitive trainer, taught how to use them, and only uses them in a training setting.
> 
> When people advocate using corrections in training, they are not talking about pinching, hitting, kicking, grabbing, and pinning dogs. Ditto screaming at a dog, using zap collars (including those for invisible fencing, ahem), and misusing training collars like the choke and prong. People misused choke chains so much (for example, putting them on backwards so they would get stuck in the tight position around the dog's neck), that most training clubs and facilities have moved on to only flat collars.
> 
> The problem is that people get confused and think that all corrections are cruel and extreme... when that isn't the case. That's why some trainers use the term 'positive reinforcement', including appropriate verbal and leash corrections and use of prongs and choke chains. If you want to build proper groundwork for advanced training or have a great pet, you need to correct bad behavior. And this doesn't mean chasing the dog with a broom and beating it.


Okay, I'm way behind on this thread but it's been a long day. There's a few posts I wanted to address but this one jumped out at me first, so I'll start here and then try to get back into the flow with you guys. Nobody in this thread referred to hitting, kicking, grabbing, pinning or other cruel or extreme methods in this thread (like beating a dog with a broom). I know I for one wasn't thinking of any of those things during my posts, and I didn't get that impression from anyone else. (However, ear pinches are a mainstream and common tool used by traditional and balanced trainers alike to teach force fetch for obedience level retrieves... and if nothing else there's plenty of threads on this forum that prove just that.) But misusing the term positive reinforcement doesn't change what you are doing. Let's take the example used elsewhere in this thread of a dog that loses focus on the handler during heeling. That "motivational pop" or whatever you want to call it is simply one of three things:

1. It is positive reinforcement.... or rather a marker that positive reinforcement is coming, essentially the equivalent of a clicker. In this case, a few things would be necessarily true. For one, the collar pop would need to be conditioned just as the clicker is so that the dog understands exactly what it represents. Two, it would (I imagine) have to be light enough or predictable enough that the dog is not caused discomfort but rather just enough that he knows it has occurred. Most importantly, though, in order for the pop to truly be positive reinforcement the behavior immediately preceding it would need to be strengthened and more likely to occur in the future. Given that it's a loss of focus that elicited the pop, I have to believe that this is not the case.

2. It is a cue. I think this may be possible with the example I'm working with. I believe it was you that stated after the pop your dog looks at you with bright eyes and a bounce in his step. So given the general timeline in training you have cue --> behavior --> reward or in this case pop --> happy heeling --> praise, etc. The only caveat with this is that it may not be likely to decrease the problem behavior (becoming distracted), but only allow you a method of restarting the desired behavior after the fact.

3. It is a positive punishment (or as we've been referring to it in this thread, a correction). This doesn't make it cruel or extreme, but simply states that you've introduced an aversive stimulus to decrease the likelihood of the dog repeating a behavior. We don't get to decide what the dog finds aversive and following an aversive with praise after the dog offers another behavior (happy heeling) does not lessen the effect of the original pop as a punisher for distraction. If the goal is to decrease the frequency of the dog becoming distracted and popping the collar achieves that then it is punishment. 

Stating that you must correct bad behavior to achieve reliability (in the context that the word "correct" has been used in this thread) as undeniable fact is untrue, and completely contradicts your recounting of the wonderful pug you encountered at the fun match. Reliability can be reached without the use of corrections in this context. 

Actually, I think that leads me pretty much right where I want to be in this thread to get back into the flow so I'll just keep on going with that train of thought.

I think it's important in a discussion like this to distinguish between a correction/punishment, an interrupter, and a no reward marker (NRM). They are not one and the same. A person who uses ah "ah-ah" to stop the dog from taking the wrong jump has not necessarily punished the dog. If done in the right way, this can simply interrupt the dog from performing a self-reinforcing behavior (taking a jump, any jump, in this case the wrong jump... provided of course that the dog likes to jump). Again, we don't really get to decide what a dog finds aversive... so this could be a punishment for some dogs but if conditioned correctly can be nothing more than a cue for "stop what you're doing and look at me." Management is necessary in any form of training -- but none more so than positive training. Where as the traditional, or in this case balanced, trainer has the recourse of punishing the dog during the act of performing the wrong activity, the best (and sometimes only) bet a positive trainer has is to stop the wrong (yet intrinsically reinforcing) behavior before it starts.

The fact of the matter is that all training has some way of alerting the dog that he has made a wrong decision. Even Karen Pryor (who practices a far more pure form of positive training than pretty much anyone) uses negative punishment through the withdrawal or withholding of a reward. But as some folks here have alluded, positive training (clicker or not) has changed and grown a lot in the last 15 years since this article was written. It has become far less about "the cookie" and more about the relationship. Rewards have branched far and wide and the use of chaining and the incorporation of Premack have made long strings of behavior (such as those required in the obedience ring) more realistically achieved and maintained. Most of the people who use positive methods also incorporate the use of interrupters and NRMs to address exactly the types of problems this author experienced. Though there are many, Karen Pryor first among them, that strongly argue they are not necessary. I think most of these changes (focus on relationship, NRM) have been the product of a change in focus from training wild/marine animals (who couldn't care less about the human) and training dogs (who are deeply driven by relationships with us). Though a NRM may be useless with a whale, it certainly helps Jersey and I work out a kink here or there. 

I personally don't think there's a whole lot of point to focusing the entire debate on some mythical "pure positive" that no one is actually using. For that matter, I think it's disingenuous to force the debate to focus only on the most "pure" forms of positive training (those found in research labs or wild animal work but that I've never seen advocated/practiced by the folks on this forum) while insisting that those who disagree with you understand how kind and gentle your corrections can be. 

So I'll concede the fact that the author is correct -- "purely positive" training doesn't produce the type of consistency one needs in the obedience ring. But that does not in any way speak to the type of training that those of us on the "positive" side of this debate advocate. And I disagree that the logical conclusion to the breakdown in behavior that she experienced was that corrections are necessary. Clearly there are a number of options between "pure positive" and "correction" that she overlooked and/or discounted without apparently trying (based on her account in this article). Would she have been equally successful with one or more of those other options? Who can say....

If you actually read all of this... well... here's a cookie! LOL :

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Okay, I know my last post was ridiculously long (the downside of only being able to post once or twice a day)... but one more point I wanted to hit on separately and I promise this will be MUCH shorter -- positive trainers in the AKC obedience world. 

I think we overlook the fact that people tend to compete within the same circle in which they train. A pet owner who trains under an APDT trainer (to my mind, the most widely available source of experienced and proficient positive trainers) is most likely to compete in APDT events. Until and unless the AKC member clubs entertain the notion of offering classes based on more positive methods, you will continue to see a mirror of their chosen course in their rings. In my experience, these clubs subscribe to exactly the type of training described in this thread... and have for a good many years now. It is no surprise to me that the overwhelming majority of exhibitors (successful and otherwise) therefore train with these same methods. The odds are in their favor.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Loisiana

Jersey's Mom said:


> If you actually read all of this... well... here's a cookie! LOL :
> 
> Julie and Jersey


I'd like oatmeal and chocolate chip please :yummy:


----------



## Loisiana

My opinion in the end is train how _you_ want to train. The most important thing is that you are comfortable with what you are doing. I admire people who stick with what they truly believe in. It's those who don't just follow the norm that make the discoveries.


----------



## tippykayak

I love when Julie comes to these threads!


----------



## RedDogs

Great posts today... I can't wait to go re-read again tomorrow when I'm fully awake.

If any of you can access the online vet journals, the July/August Journal of Veterinary Behavior has some ---fabulous--- content. Where MANY of these issues are looked at, both theoretically and at the practical level in the ring. And though it's all on horses... it gave me a ton to think about and I'm happy to see that some of these questions are being asked by people who do research, even if it's not yet with dogs. Really great reading!


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> I would love to see these studies--but at the end of the day if they are based on rats and pigeons that doesn't hold a lot of weight, IMO. Rats and pigeons are very different creatures behaviorally than dogs.


There has been plenty of research on dogs too, and the fundamental response to reward/punishment is pretty similar. However, I totally agree that there's a ton about the human/dog relationship that transcends Skinner.


----------



## GoldenSail

Y'all make me want to sing "Why can't we be friends."

But seriously, we all love our dogs even though we may train differently and have different views. At the end of the day if someone has a generally happy dog then I am happy for them regardless of how that happy was accomplished--supplemented with or without the various types of corrections.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

I know I've probably strayed off the topic of this thread somewhat, but I just wanted to thank Selli-Belle and Jersey's Mom for thier posts which have given me some encouragement. I was somewhat put off when someone at a trial this weekend recommended that I go to another training facility (whose name has the complete opposite connotation of the name of the place I go to) - I looked up the site and it has pictures of dogs wearing choke chains so I'm guessing its quite different than my clicker-happy trainer. Then I read this article/thread which kind of drove in the spike in making me feel like my training methods are going to be ineffective if I continue with competition. Anyways, I've decided that I'm happy with how we've progressed so far (Dodger's the first dog I've really trained, and he's only just turning 2, and we haven't even taken the advanced course yet) and I'm not going to worry about it anymore.


----------



## Megora

> 2. It is a cue. I think this may be possible with the example I'm working with. I believe it was you that stated after the pop your dog looks at you with bright eyes and a bounce in his step. So given the general timeline in training you have cue --> behavior --> reward or in this case pop --> happy heeling --> praise, etc. The only caveat with this is that it may not be likely to decrease the problem behavior (becoming distracted), but only allow you a method of restarting the desired behavior after the fact.


Heehee. I did read through your post so I get a cookie too. And it was well said and thoughtful.  

The pop on the leash is generally given as reinforcement, if the ah-ah or no or 'pay attention' or other verbal cues are ignored. As you said in your post, in order for it to remain in positive turf, it has to be a quick pop and you have to be immediate with the reward and praise, and you have to praise and reward OTT when you do not have to use leash corrections _so the dog learns_. 

When you begin training using leash corrections, you do them at the same time as the verbal corrections - so the dog makes the connection and corrects his behavior. You use fewer and fewer leash corrections as you advance in your training, so by the time you are in a competition level class, you shouldn't be using any. I know my instructor from last year (she and her working dog went OTCH the same year, fwiw) emphasized from class to class that we had to learn how to get the behavior we wanted from our dogs without using food or leashes to guide them. For the most, this meant replacing the leash correction with a verbal correction or other form of body language. And she would watch us during the exercises and correct the trainers if she saw them reaching for the leashes to regain our dogs' attention. 

This is a side track, but I was going to say that last year's round of classes under that instructor were stress-haven, because she raised the bar so much and spent so much time on focus exercises. This included watches while dogs circled around you, balls were thrown past your dog's head, the instructor and other people came and patted and touched your dog - and your dog had to maintain a steady watch throughout. Your timing had to be fast and you couldn't resort to touching your dog. When you have a year old golden who has strong social and chase drives, this can be monstrous and UNFAIR. But they did teach my guy a solid watch.

The leash correction would not have helped me last Friday during the off leash heel, when my dog's chase/retrieve instincts took over. I had to use my voice to stop him from jumping the fence to retrieve the dumbell (I'm hoping he didn't intend to retrieve the corgi as well). I did not have treats in the ring either (though it's allowed), so my rewards were all verbal as well. 

As the above is the case in most situations when a dog takes off running, this is something that is useful for non-competition people. The main thing, I guess is that if you use verbal corrections - there is a lot of ground work behind them. In my case, it was leash corrections + food rewards. These transitioned into verbal corrections and praise + jackpot reward at the end.



> The fact of the matter is that all training has some way of alerting the dog that he has made a wrong decision. Even Karen Pryor (who practices a far more pure form of positive training than pretty much anyone) uses negative punishment through the withdrawal or withholding of a reward.


Something to remember is that every training club I've been at does teach the trainers to withold praise/food or any other kind of reward when the dog does not do what he's supposed to do. 

So, if your dog does a crooked front, you would not correct him - because he DID COME. But you would not reward or acknowledge that crooked front. You would immediately set up again and redo. Only rewarding the good behaviors. 

You never reward a bad behavior because that will then reinforce that bad behavior. 

The only difference is that for many of the exercises are _taught_ with certain corrections, generally for attention or quicker responses from dogs (even the come which can be taught on long line with a quick pop at the same time as the call, and then later just the call only reinforced with a quick pop when the dog does not immediately get up and come running for the big party + toys + treats where you are). And of course after the exercises are taught, then they are reinforced with _appropriate_ corrections and instant rewards intended to polish and perfect the groundwork the dog has.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Ok, I read every word, found it well written and interesting, and would like a white chocolate macadamia chunk cookie now. :



Loisiana said:


> I'd like oatmeal and chocolate chip please :yummy:


----------



## Selli-Belle

What Julie said!



Megora said:


> The pop on the leash is generally given as reinforcement, if the ah-ah or no or 'pay attention' or other verbal cues are ignored. As you said in your post, in order for it to remain in positive turf, it has to be a quick pop and you have to be immediate with the reward and praise, and you have to praise and reward OTT when you do not have to use leash corrections _so the dog learns_.


I don't think this qualifies as +R. To be +R you have to give a reinforcer to continue a behavior. If you are giving a leash pop to stop a behavior (not paying attention) then it is +P.



> When you begin training using leash corrections, you do them at the same time as the verbal corrections - so the dog makes the connection and corrects his behavior. You use fewer and fewer leash corrections as you advance in your training, so by the time you are in a competition level class, you shouldn't be using any. I know my instructor from last year (she and her working dog went OTCH the same year, fwiw) emphasized from class to class that we had to learn how to get the behavior we wanted from our dogs without using food or leashes to guide them. For the most, this meant replacing the leash correction with a verbal correction or other form of body language. And she would watch us during the exercises and correct the trainers if she saw them reaching for the leashes to regain our dogs' attention.


You can, but you don't need to train like this to get a reliable attention heel. Why did you need to learn to get the behavior you wanted without using a leash or food to get them? Why is teaching them using a leash and verbal correction better than using a leash and food? And, I should note that I teach heeling with out a leash, but with treats.




> As the above is the case in most situations when a dog takes off running, this is something that is useful for non-competition people. The main thing, I guess is that if you use verbal corrections - there is a lot of ground work behind them. In my case, it was leash corrections + food rewards. These transitioned into verbal corrections and praise + jackpot reward at the end.


A reliable recall can be taught without a leash correction, one that can be as reliable as a recall taught by a leash correction.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Loisiana said:


> But this thread is (supposed to be) referring to pure positive, clicker purist training. And those ideas above still do not follow that theory of training.


The reason I brought this up was that someone was asking about the bias (?) of F&F and the answer was that its was biased (?) toward what worked as reflected by trainers having OTCH's. The suggestion was there that successful trainers used physical corrections. I did not want anyone to think that in order to be a successful (meaning having multiple OTCHs) trainer, you have to use physical corrections.


----------



## tippykayak

Selli-Belle said:


> A reliable recall can be taught without a leash correction, one that can be as reliable as a recall taught by a leash correction.


I'll second this. Reliable recall is all about building habits that are stronger than distractions, not creating a fear of punishment that's stronger than the distraction.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Megora said:


> The pop on the leash is generally given as reinforcement, if the ah-ah or no or 'pay attention' or other verbal cues are ignored.


Um.... what? This makes no sense to me. You escalate to a leash pop when the dog ignores your verbal or gestural cue and therefore, a leash pop = reinforcement? I can only assume you mean "reinforcement" in that it's *enforcing* what YOU wanted the dog to do vs. being a *reinforcer *for the dog.

I think part of why conversations like these become so long and complicated is because different people use the same words to mean different things. 

Thanks to Julie for the great post. I'm glad you referenced the whole PO training concept and the fact that pretty much NOBODY trains that way. That has to be my absolute least favorite term in animal training. It literally makes the hair stand on end on the back of my neck! For one thing, it's always used incorrectly. Scientifically, PO Training would mean R+ AND P+, yet people use it to mean "all cookies, all the time". Just my small pet peeve.

What bothered me about the original article is how it was never addressed that "what if" she'd have added more of herself (along with the copious use of food) to the earlier training with the dog? I don't see how lack of working to create a relationship = the need to use corrections?

I think pretty much every trainer will use corrections at one time or another - if we define "corrections" to mean something used to correct an unwanted behavior. I'll "EH EH!" Quiz to stop him from taking the incorrect jump. I'll run into him, "OH....DOWN>>>>>> DOWN...." if he travels on the DOR. I'll "EH EH! Leave it" from hiding behind a car if he's sniffing on OOS Groups. I won't ear pinch. 

I think part of why we don't see a lot of the truly "no corrections ever" people in obedience is b/c the environment is not conducive to making those people comfortable! It's hard to watch other people unfairly correcting their dog. And that's the problem with corrections. In the wrong hands, they = revenge! I'll fully admit that part of why I'm so against ear pinching is b/c of how many people I've seen do it so horribly, terribly wrong. It turns my stomach. If you're a Karen Pryor kind of trainer, you're not going to want to be around that. Sadly, obedience gets a bad rap because of those kinds of trainers.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Jersey's Mom said:


> I think it's important in a discussion like this to distinguish between a correction/punishment, an interrupter, and a no reward marker (NRM). They are not one and the same. A person who uses ah "ah-ah" to stop the dog from taking the wrong jump has not necessarily punished the dog. If done in the right way, this can simply interrupt the dog from performing a self-reinforcing behavior (taking a jump, any jump, in this case the wrong jump... provided of course that the dog likes to jump). Again, we don't really get to decide what a dog finds aversive... so this could be a punishment for some dogs but if conditioned correctly can be nothing more than a cue for "stop what you're doing and look at me." Management is necessary in any form of training -- but none more so than positive training. Where as the traditional, or in this case balanced, trainer has the recourse of punishing the dog during the act of performing the wrong activity, the best (and sometimes only) bet a positive trainer has is to stop the wrong (yet intrinsically reinforcing) behavior before it starts.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that all training has some way of alerting the dog that he has made a wrong decision. Even Karen Pryor (who practices a far more pure form of positive training than pretty much anyone) uses negative punishment through the withdrawal or withholding of a reward. But as some folks here have alluded, positive training (clicker or not) has changed and grown a lot in the last 15 years since this article was written. It has become far less about "the cookie" and more about the relationship. Rewards have branched far and wide and the use of chaining and the incorporation of Premack have made long strings of behavior (such as those required in the obedience ring) more realistically achieved and maintained. Most of the people who use positive methods also incorporate the use of interrupters and NRMs to address exactly the types of problems this author experienced. Though there are many, Karen Pryor first among them, that strongly argue they are not necessary. I think most of these changes (focus on relationship, NRM) have been the product of a change in focus from training wild/marine animals (who couldn't care less about the human) and training dogs (who are deeply driven by relationships with us). Though a NRM may be useless with a whale, it certainly helps Jersey and I work out a kink here or there.


Julie, I was thinking exactly the same thing yesterday evening when walking the pups. I almost think we get in trouble by thinking of "yes" as a reward marker and "no" or "ah ah" as a no-reward-marker. 

Selli understands the concept of "yes" as being "continue," "that is what I want," or the general affirmative meaning of "yes" and that "no" means "that is not what I want," "stop," or the general negative meaning of "no." When she is chasing bunnies, she looks to me for information, if she is going in the wrong direction, I will say "no" and she will turn in another direction and I will say "yes" and she will take off running in that direction. My use of "no" can be considered a correction in the same way turning the steering wheel to stay keep the car on the road can be considered a correction, but it is not a punishment. 

As further evidence that she sees the words "yes" and "no" as information/markers rather than as a reward or punishment is that when she has investigated an area and has come up without the sent of the bunny, she will look at me and wait for me to give her a direction, or if I say "no" and shake my head, she knows that I have no more information to give her.

Yes, this is all anecdotal, no scientific studies, but it works for Selli and me. 



> I personally don't think there's a whole lot of point to focusing the entire debate on some mythical "pure positive" that no one is actually using. For that matter, I think it's disingenuous to force the debate to focus only on the most "pure" forms of positive training (those found in research labs or wild animal work but that I've never seen advocated/practiced by the folks on this forum) while insisting that those who disagree with you understand how kind and gentle your corrections can be.


I agree, but it is a easy straw man. The problem is when you give up "pure positive" it is a slippery slope, not that I am PP. For competitive training, my stance is (and I am thinking this out as I write) no physical aversives and my goal is no verbal aversives (sometime I reflexively come out with a harsh word which do not help our training).



> If you actually read all of this... well... here's a cookie! LOL :


Can I have a homemade choc. chip with pecan.


----------



## Megora

I thought I should point out - everything I'm saying is coming out of my own wacky little mind after whatever experience I have training my dogs or watching other people training their dogs. 

It's my own spin, so it's highly likely to be incorrect or batty. Even to those people I actually train with. :doh:

But I do know what works with my dogs. 



> You can, but you don't need to train like this to get a reliable attention heel. Why did you need to learn to get the behavior you wanted without using a leash or food to get them? *Why is teaching them using a leash and verbal correction better than using a leash and food?* And, I should note that I teach heeling with out a leash, but with treats.


*nods* I taught heel off leash + treats/praise to my guy when he was a couple months old. It's easy, and at that point you are teaching your dog that your left side is a very good place to be. 

You use the corrections when the dog moves out of that heel position. And again, these aren't supposed to hurt or terrify the dog. 

There _are_ corrections that do hurt and terrify the dogs (grabbing their ears to force them to do anything or hitting their backsides to get faster sits). I find those appalling and would never do any of that junk to a golden retriever. The corrections_ I'm talking about_ are just reminders for the dogs to get back to work. 



> A reliable recall can be taught without a leash correction, one that can be as reliable as a recall taught by a leash correction.


*nods* And I taught my golden reliable and super enthusiastic comes without a leash correction. With food and toys. And I built on that and 'protected' those comes. 

And even my other golden who was not food orientated, it was easy to teach him solid comes and recalls, because he wanted to be with me. I was his all-powerful protector. And he did train with me because it was 'play' and he got special attention at my side. Even when he was a hobbly old man in his last year, he would go barging between me and the puppy when there was any training going on. 

*But it doesn't work that way for all dogs. I've seen other dogs out there who are not food orientated and who find other things more exciting than their owners and toys.* That's why I'm thinking the author of the article reached her opinion that the training has to be balanced and include more groundwork. Basically, one system is not for everyone. 





> "The pop on the leash is generally given as reinforcement, if the ah-ah or no or 'pay attention' or other verbal cues are ignored."
> 
> Um.... what? This makes no sense to me. You escalate to a leash pop when the dog ignores your verbal or gestural cue and therefore, a leash pop = reinforcement? I can only assume you mean "reinforcement" in that it's *enforcing* what YOU wanted the dog to do vs. being a *reinforcer *for the dog.


*laughs* Yes, my wording gets sideways, backwards, around and maybe I use different words than I should. 

The gist of what I meant to say -

Step 1. The pop on your leash is something you use when teaching your dog X. You will say "Pay attention" (or whatever your correction word is) at the exact same time as the pop and reward when the dog pays attention. 

Step 2. You wean off popping the leash and just use the verbal correction. If this works, you reward. And you reward every single time your dog does something right. 

If my golden is doing a clean heel pattern with total attention and focus, I will reinforce with "YES!" (which essentially is a cue like a clicker and is taught the same way).

Summary: 

Positive reinforcement (you throw a food and praise party) every single time your dog either fixes a behavior or does something without any mistakes. 

Negative reinforcement (leash or verbal correction) every single time your dog does something he shouldn't.


----------



## Loisiana

Well this is going to take this way off topic, but thought I'd respond anyway, just so people can get different views of training. Note that I don't think one way or another is the _right_ way, just a different way.



Megora said:


> The pop on the leash is generally given as reinforcement, if the ah-ah or no or 'pay attention' or other verbal cues are ignored. As you said in your post, in order for it to remain in positive turf, it has to be a quick pop and you have to be immediate with the reward and praise, and you have to praise and reward OTT when you do not have to use leash corrections _so the dog learns_.
> 
> When you begin training using leash corrections, you do them at the same time as the verbal corrections - so the dog makes the connection and corrects his behavior. You use fewer and fewer leash corrections as you advance in your training, so by the time you are in a competition level class, you shouldn't be using any. I know my instructor from last year (she and her working dog went OTCH the same year, fwiw) emphasized from class to class that we had to learn how to get the behavior we wanted from our dogs without using food or leashes to guide them. For the most, this meant replacing the leash correction with a verbal correction or other form of body language. And she would watch us during the exercises and correct the trainers if she saw them reaching for the leashes to regain our dogs' attention.


I never give a verbal correction, reminder, or anything else verbal for lack of attention. Other than a gentle leash pop on a buckle collar, I will also poke the dog, goose his butt, a gentle push away from me, or some other kind of physical contact. This is NOT meant to hurt the dog or cause him discomfort, it is meant to get his attention in a startling way. As soon as the dog looks back at me I might say in a teasing voice "Where'd you go?" and praise him for the attention he is now giving me. It's all done in a very happy "looking at me is the funnest thing in the world!" type mood.






> Something to remember is that every training club I've been at does teach the trainers to withold praise/food or any other kind of reward when the dog does not do what he's supposed to do.
> 
> So, if your dog does a crooked front, you would not correct him - because he DID COME. But you would not reward or acknowledge that crooked front. You would immediately set up again and redo. Only rewarding the good behaviors.
> 
> You never reward a bad behavior because that will then reinforce that bad behavior.


I don't look at the result, I look at the effort. If most of my dogs came into front but couldn't get it lined up just right, I'd still reward him coming in and trying, and then go back and work fronts some more seperately. On the other hand, I know that Conner should be able to hit a straight front every time, so if he doesn't that means that either he wasn't putting in the effort to be straight or something was bothering him. If there were, for example, a distractor on the floor that he was trying so hard to avoid that it made him overcompensate and be a little off, that is still effort and I will still reward it.


One last note, I try to approach all "corrections" in a fun, light-hearted manner that changes the behavior but doesn't get the dog down, and instead makes them even more interested in playing the game. When my dogs see me walking in towards them, they are not thinking "oh crap, what's she coming to do?" They are wagging their tails thinking "oh yay! Here she comes, what are we about to do?"


----------



## Loisiana

Hey, nearly 1800 posts and I finally figured out how to split the quotes! :


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Megora said:


> *laughs* Yes, my wording gets sideways, backwards, around and maybe I use different words than I should.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Positive reinforcement (you throw a food and praise party) every single time your dog either fixes a behavior or does something without any mistakes.
> 
> Negative reinforcement (leash or verbal correction) every single time your dog does something he shouldn't.


I mean no disrespect, but IMO, if you're going to use proper scientific training terms, it helps when we use them correctly.

Yes, positive reinforcement would include food and praise. However, leash pops and verbal corrections are, according to the four quadrants of operant conditioning, considered to be punishers if they function to decrease unwanted behavior. (Doesn't make them awful or scary or evil, but they are punishers.)

The language behind the science of learning can get tricky sometimes.


----------



## Megora

FlyingQuizini said:


> I mean no disrespect, but IMO, if you're going to use proper scientific training terms, it helps when we use them correctly.
> 
> Yes, positive reinforcement would include food and praise. However, leash pops and verbal corrections are, according to the four quadrants of operant conditioning, considered to be punishers if they function to decrease unwanted behavior. *(Doesn't make them awful or scary or evil, but they are punishers.)*
> 
> The language behind the science of learning can get tricky sometimes.


I never knew that there were specific scientific terms until I started reading this thread. I always thought that reinforcement did include active training, testing, even correction if necessary. 

So reinforcing my dog's front so he doesn't anticipate my calling him includes a second call from the person acting as a judge, me taking longer to call - in order to set my dog up in case he breaks. The correction is a "no" and then me going up and taking him back to the spot. If he held the wait, then I would return to him and give treats before going back and calling him. 

From what you and the others have been saying, instead of being rolled up in one training method called "reinforcement", it is actually just training with both positive reinforcement and well... punishment. 



> And you must admit that 'punishment' sounds a lot more evil than what really happens. :uhoh:


Anyway, yeah... at least to avoid confusing the matter more than it is, I'll avoid referring to correctional backup as positive reinforcement.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

*So reinforcing my dog's front so he doesn't anticipate my calling him includes a second call from the person acting as a judge, me taking longer to call - in order to set my dog up in case he breaks. The correction is a "no" and then me going up and taking him back to the spot. If he held the wait, then I would return to him and give treats before going back and calling him.*

I think most would agree that what you're doing is "proofing" the front. I suppose you could make the argument that proofing makes behaviors stronger, and "reinforced" is synonymous with "stronger". But again, that's where the language of training/learning theory, etc. can get confusing.

If you're interested in learning the scientific language of learning theory and operant/classical conditioning, Ex-Celerated Learning by Pam Reid is a great book. IMO, anyone training an animal should at least be able to define the four quadrants and have a general understanding of how they work so that you can identify what it really is we're doing when we leash pop, ear pinch, verbally interrupt or feed a cookie to our training partner.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Megora said:


> I never knew that there were specific scientific terms until I started reading this thread. I always thought that reinforcement did include active training, testing, even correction if necessary.


In operant conditioning terms, positive and negative aren't supposed to imply good/bad or pleasing/adversive. Positive means your adding something. Negative means your taking something away. A reinforcement is something that makes the target behaviour more likely to occur. A punishment is something that makes the behaviour less likely to occur. 

Examples:

positive reinforcement - giving a dog a cookie when he sits following the sit comand makes him more likely to repeat this behaviour 

negative reinforcement - the annoying buzzing sound stops when I hit the "snooze" button on my alarm clock....so I'm more likely to repeat this behaviour

positive punishment - using a physical correction to make a behavoiur less likely to occur 

negative punishiment - hmmmm....maybe taking your attention away from a dog that is engaging in an innappropriate behaviour to try to get your attention (let say jumping up)....so that the jumping up behaviour will be less frequent


----------



## FlyingQuizini

*So reinforcing my dog's front so he doesn't anticipate my calling him includes a second call from the person acting as a judge, me taking longer to call - in order to set my dog up in case he breaks. The correction is a "no" and then me going up and taking him back to the spot. If he held the wait, then I would return to him and give treats before going back and calling him.*

And here's the other side of that coin.... Rather than try to set your dog up to fail so you can correct him, if, when you train, you avoid chaining the different behaviors together, you're WAYYYYYYYYY less likely to get the anticipation.

When I'm practicing the recall, I almost never do the full sequence of call dog > finish dog. I'll leave the dog, turn and face the dog, return to the dog. Or leave the dog, face the dog, call the dog, then reward. Finishes are worked separately. Maybe only 1 out of 20 trials will I do the whole thing like we're in the ring. As such, there hasn't really been much in the way of "corrections" needed for my dog to learn not to anticipate.


----------



## Megora

FlyingQuizini said:


> And here's the other side of that coin.... Rather than try to set your dog up to fail so you can correct him, if, when you train, you avoid chaining the different behaviors together, you're WAYYYYYYYYY less likely to get the anticipation.
> 
> When I'm practicing the recall, I almost never do the full sequence of call dog > finish dog. I'll leave the dog, turn and face the dog, return to the dog. Or leave the dog, face the dog, call the dog, then reward. Finishes are worked separately. Maybe only 1 out of 20 trials will I do the whole thing like we're in the ring. As such, there hasn't really been much in the way of "corrections" needed for my dog to learn not to anticipate.


*nods* We do that too. I'm going to visit a new place tonight (the current place won't have classes for a month, so I'm going to the next best option), so I'll see what they do there. But usually, we very rarely do a full complete exercise in class. Everything is broken up so that the little pieces are fully covered. 

The problem I'm finding with my golden in the fun matches is he's a smarty pants and a nerd. He hears the commands from the judge and reacts to that instead of waiting for ME. Nerd. And this is a behavior that does not present itself in class. :uhoh:


----------



## Loisiana

FlyingQuizini said:


> And here's the other side of that coin.... Rather than try to set your dog up to fail so you can correct him, if, when you train, you avoid chaining the different behaviors together, you're WAYYYYYYYYY less likely to get the anticipation.


And yet another viewpoint (I love summer, 6 hours of tutoring a week and the rest of the time I can spend doing stuff like this or whatever else I want! )

If you show a dog enough, they are going to figure out the order things happen in the ring. Take finishes for example. Taking into consideration how many finishes are in both open and uitility, a dog being campaigned long-term will be doing a thousand front and finish combos in the ring easy. I'm pretty sure those dogs know that a finish is most likely coming next after the front in the ring, no matter what the handler has done outside the ring.

So instead of having my dog figure that out while he's in the ring and start anticipating there, where I'm limited in what I can do about it, I'd rather teach him out of the ring that even if he thinks he knows what's coming next, this is not one of those exercises where I want him to go ahead and do it on his own (because there are certainly some exercises where we DO want them to anticipate). He should still wait for my command. And that doesn't mean that I put those behaviors together every time, but I do put them together enough that I expect him to anticipate at some point.

And since this is a thread on corrections and not anticipation, here's what I do when the dog anticipates a finish: tell him "no silly!," step to the side so he can't complete the finish, and set up again.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> There has been plenty of research on dogs too, and the fundamental response to reward/punishment is pretty similar. However, I totally agree that there's a ton about the human/dog relationship that transcends Skinner.


I don't want to go dig for the quote that specifically talks about Skinner. I just wanted to let you know (and anyone else reading this thread) that other behaviorists have criticized Skinner's work and his results.

http://books.google.com/books?id=T5ylLv5xUDQC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=%22safety+signal%22+learning&source=bl&ots=Ji7gkYYKk_&sig=XppWGslIwJA1TvLRbLdIHGehmrg&hl=en&ei=V_TWS_GTJYPkNeDCtecF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22safety%20signal%22%20learning&f=false

The whole section on punishment is a fantastic read for anyone who is interested in this stuff. It is a bummer though, that we only get to look at every other page--I am seriously thinking about buying the canine behavior books from this author. He has several and some more recent.

I want to point out that in Skinner's studies with the chicks that the punisher was very weak (being alone for 30 seconds). I think we all intuitively know that behavior is not going to last as long if trained with a weaker reinforcer vs a stronger one. I think the reverse is true with punishers--and we tend to call weak punishers 'nagging.' This book also mentions that there is a large body of studies that contradict Skinner's studies and support that punishment can be effective without the negative side effects depending on context.

A few highlights from the book



> Skinner's positive contribution to rational training cannot be overly praised and should be the object of intense and thorough study of anyone aspiring to become a professional dog trainer. However, and with all due respect for the accomplishments of both Skinner and Thorndike, some of their more extreme views about punishment must be questioned in the light of scientific advances and the empirical findings _derived from practical experience_.





> There can be little disagreement with the selection of training methods that utilize positive reinforcement whenever possible, but to exclude punishment arbitrarily from a trainer's armamentarium would be counterproductive and artificial.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> I don't want to go dig for the quote that specifically talks about Skinner. I just wanted to let you know (and anyone else reading this thread) that other behaviorists have criticized Skinner's work and his results.


Oh sure. Skinner is old school behavioral psych, and I was specifically addressing the initial article's discussion of Skinnerian reinforcement schedules. I don't think anybody believes that Skinner had it all figured out in animal training.

Still, there has been plenty of research on many species since that demonstrates that positive reinforcement of behavior is consistently more durable than negative once the stimuli are removed. I don't think that's really up for debate among serious behavioral psych professionals.

I want to be 100% clear that I don't believe that studies on behavior durability and positive stimuli explain everything about the human-dog relationship, and I don't think that dog training can be approached from a pure behavioral psychology standpoint. We're not training wild animals; we're training animals that have had at least 10,000 years to coevolve with us. That said, I do think the field can tell us a whole lot about what we might want to try with our dogs, and I think it does speak to some things we should be reconsidering that are part of the general practices of advanced dog trainers.


----------

