Experts versus the rest

[rushdoggie]

Crate training is management -- keeping the dog from being able to range around the house unobserved or far enough that a perception that he is "soiling the den" does not come into play. Sure, I do that too with a little pup. It's not training an alternate behavior, I agree. I also agree that most dogs will try not to soil their crate. But how does it cause the dog to "understand what is desired"? How does it teach the dog that slipping into the guest room is not "what is desired"?

 

Generally speaking by being rewarded for going where it is desired. If he gets praised and even occasionally treated for going outside then he is less likely to sneak off to the guest room.

 

Dogs usually sneak to the guest room for 2 reasons, 1. because they figure its not part of the living area so its an "outside equivalent" or 2. because they have been corrected for peeing in front of their human and so they figure you better hide when you do it.

 

So if he does, and you find it later, its unlikely any punishment you mete out would be effective, if you catch him in the act and correct, do you know that he understands which part of the equation he is being corrected for: being in the guest room, peeing on carpet, peeing in front of you?

 

So do I let his stand there and pee and do nothing? No, I scoop up puppy and rush him outside where he gets praised for peeing outside. I would probably then hang out with puppy in the spare room a bit to help him "get" that the house is the house no matter the room and we keep it all clean.

[d112358]

To take the most basic level of training, I would be interested to know how "extreme +R trainers" (which I now gather is the acceptable term for what many extreme +R trainers and others call purely positive trainers) approach housebreaking. I cannot imagine how to train a dog not to eliminate in the house without employing correction to let the dog know that eliminating in the house is unacceptable. I'm not talking about rolled-up newspapers or rubbing noses in it, I'm talking about a calibrated reproof that communicates the wrongness of what the dog is doing. I realize you can "train an alternate behavior" by bringing the dog outside at regular intervals or when you think it has to go and praising it for eliminating outside, but that is not an inconsistent alternate behavior -- the dog learns that eliminating outside is good, but does not learn that eliminating inside is bad. Establishing the habit of going outside only takes you so far -- there will be times when the convenience of going inside outweighs the habit of going outside from the dog's point of view. It seems to me that at some point you must communicate that eliminating inside is bad, and the most effective -- if not the only -- way to communicate that is with a correction. To seek to avoid such a correction seems to me not only inefficient but patronizing. In other threads I've read posts which say that a dog cannot really be considered housebroken until it's a year old. This is astonishing to me, and I can't help wondering if that's because a poor, convoluted and obscure means has been used to try to communicate a simple, crucial concept to the dog.

 

The most 'correction' I use with housebreaking is a verbal interruptor if I catch the dog in the act. Rewarding the dog when they go outside, providing that opportunity at regular intervals and crate management has worked heretofore. Using corrections means you need to be absolutely on top of your timing or the dog can make some bad associations - I've seen many dogs whose owners punished when they found something who learned to hide while pooping in the house.

[Mark Billadeau]

Using corrections means you need to be absolutely on top of your timing or the dog can make some bad associations...

This is also true for rewards.

 

IMO most pet training programs are mostly about teaching the owners better timing when trying to communicate their desires to their dogs.

[Maxi]

 

My dog did not feel remotely threatened or lose any of her confidence when I explained about the peeing and pooping in the house business. She did understand that it is bad. I mostly used positive methods and a pro-active approach but there came the time when it was not enough to tell her that going outside was good - I needed the bit about inside being CLEAR - not implied.

 

She only ever went in the house once. She was three months old and she didn't much like being told she was bad, really - but it did not traumatize her - it just made her understand.

 

That said, THAT could not have happened did I not employ positive methods in almost every aspect of our dealings. She trusted me.(my emphasis) That made the correction stand out. She still trusts me. But if she pees in the house again, I am definitely going to tell her that was bad and give her the stink eye.

 

 

 

To me the key word here is "TRUST". IMO a dog will only trust his human if that person is both fair and consistent. In many ways it doesnt matter what training method is used as long as this is the case.

 

In addition the working partnership I have with my dogs is built on mutual trust (and I imagine that most stockpersons feel the same ).

 

They trust me, I also have to trust them, this means that my dog had to do more than just obey commands (in fact in the obedience stakes, she would loose paws down to a lot of your dogs,) but she needs to be able to use her initiative without input from me.

 

The other day I was asked go help someone whose flock of sheep had got out of their field. The land the sheep had strayed on was undulating and overgrown with bracken. Once we'd gathered the flock & I counted the sheep, I realised some were still missing. I stayed holding the main flock with my younger dog and sent my more experienced bitch on a 'look back' .

 

She knew she had to find sheep, I couldn't direct her, I didn't really know where the stock were and because of the bracken & terrain, I couldn't see her most of time. I just had to wait and trust that she would find them, gather them together and bring them safely to me. She managed this.

 

Stockdogs around the world are doing things like this and more on a daily basis.. I know that when compared to what other working dogs can do, mine is pretty mediocre. But we are a team, we have a bond. It is only because we trust each other that we get the jobs done.

 

My dogs and I would never develop that bond if I was unfair in the way I treated or trained them.

[JohnC]

I've been dog-less for about five years until recently getting a BC puppy. I live in a community where there are miles of walking trails and the people are educated, white-collar types. The types one would think of as responsible owners, interested in their dogs well-being. On every walk, we see many dogs and since I last walked these trails, there is a noticeable change. More than half the dogs are out of control on their leash – barking, and lunging at other dogs. While there's no way to prove it, I can't help but think it's correlated to the change in dog training philosophy.

 

My neighbors Golden Retriever, that they've raised from a pup, is a perfect example of this. A fine dog, raised with kindness, well socialized, not fearful - but a nightmare when on a walk because no one has ever said NO to this dog and really meant it. People have been told “Your dog only wants to make you happy!”, it's wrong to raise your voice to your dog and physical correction is beyond the pale. While all this is fine for some dogs, many have their own agenda and are determined to pursue it. Barking and lunging at other dogs is fun and if there's no downside, then why not? Perhaps with enough time and effort, you could change this behavior without resorting to corrections. But even then, the vast majority of people will be unable or unwilling to expend that much time and effort.

 

The “all positive” (or whatever) training fad will someday be seen for what it is - an over-reaction to the harsh methods of the past. Then people will be writing books on “Balanced Training” or some such thing. In the meantime, I believe it's creating a lot of badly behaved dogs and unhappy owners.

[Root Beer]

Well, if you google "purely positive," I think you will find many more people using it in a positive context, including as a name for their training business or a description of their training philosophy, than in a negative context. Even those saying it's a misnomer outnumber those using it as an insult. Of course you should use a different term if you prefer, but I don't think it's accurate to say that it's only used as "a term of insult" or "to debunk +R training."

 

Google is only representative of those who come up in the Google search - you would not get a sampling of +R trainers who reject the term from a Google search. I know many, many, many +R trainers, both through internet networking and in real life. Not one uses the term "purely positive" to describe their training. All agree that it is almost always used as a term of derision. All have had it thrown at them to try to discredit their work at some point or other.

 

Yes, there are some who still use the term, but if you took a representative sample of a vast population of +R trainers, you would find that most reject the term on the basis that I stated.

 

If you would like to get a feel for the prevailing perspective of +R trainers on the term, check this out:

 

http://eileenanddogs.com/2013/07/08/purely-positive-all-positive/

 

 

 

Crate training is management -- keeping the dog from being able to range around the house unobserved or far enough that he doesn't feel he is "soiling the den."

 

It is temporary management. As the territory that the dog understands to be the "den" increases, the use of the crate decreases. Eventually the whole house is the "create", in a sense, along with all indoor spaces.

 

It's not "management" in the sense of "put a prong on the dog forever and never train loose leash walking". The use of the crate actually does train the dog, so something a bit different is happening.

 

 

But how does it cause the dog to "understand what is desired" over the course of this time that "accidents happen"? How does it teach the dog that slipping into the guest room is not "what is desired"?

 

Because by the time the guest room door is open to the dog, he or she does understand that outside is the place to soil. The dog is no longer looking for places to go inside. I have never had to address every single room individually with any dog. By the time he or she understands not to go in the main area of the house, access to bedrooms is given naturally.

[Eileen Stein]

 

Generally speaking by being rewarded for going where it is desired. If he gets praised and even occasionally treated for going outside then he is less likely to sneak off to the guest room.

 

Dogs usually sneak to the guest room for 2 reasons, 1. because they figure its not part of the living area so its an "outside equivalent" or 2. because they have been corrected for peeing in front of their human and so they figure you better hide when you do it.

 

I agree, although in addition some dogs have an innate modesty that inclines them toward the equivalent of going behind a bush. In my experience, though, the principal reason is 1.

 

 

So if he does, and you find it later, its unlikely any punishment you mete out would be effective, if you catch him in the act and correct, do you know that he understands which part of the equation he is being corrected for: being in the guest room, peeing on carpet, peeing in front of you?

 

Well, I certainly wouldn't punish him if I found it later! That would be idiotic. If I catch him in the act and correct, he may or may not understand which part of the equation he is being corrected for. Just as if I am told my work was bad in some respect, I might know immediately what was meant, or I might need to ask a clarifying question. But since the essence of training is communication/dialogue, and since no correction I'm going to give is going to be scary to the dog, it won't be the end of the world if further clarification is necessary. But at the least I will have taken a step toward giving him the information he needs, and I may well have given him all the information he needs, to come to the right conclusion.

So do I let his stand there and pee and do nothing? No, I scoop up puppy and rush him outside where he gets praised for peeing outside. I would probably then hang out with puppy in the spare room a bit to help him "get" that the house is the house no matter the room and we keep it all clean.

That all sounds good to me. The only thing that sounds odd to me is that you think it would be preferable to maintain an inscrutable silence while scooping him up, rather than using a corrective word or gesture to let him know that what he did was wrong not desired.

[Laurelin]

While I'm not opposed to the concept of corrections (and do use them) I have noticed in SAR dog training that corrections are often used when there is foundation training failure. Too many distractions introduced too quickly. Expecting the dog to generalize too quickly. Not backing up a few steps when adding in major distractions or training in a new area. With that in mind, I am becoming much slower to correct and quick to look for areas where there has been training error. I think solid training can eliminate the need for many corrections - especially strong ones.

 

That has been my experience in pet and agility as well. And I am not sure how to say this nicely but... some people just can't read dogs at all and they time things (reward or correction) very poorly. The correction comes way after the fact and the dog has no idea what it is being punished for. Or the trainer moved too fast and punishes the dog for a training failure. Especially with pet people or beginners... People just aren't dog savvy and they don't know what they're reinforcing or punishing.

 

I think a lot of the internet discussions come from not understanding what other people mean by words such as 'I give him a correction'. What does that mean? Are we spanking the dog? Telling him no? Removing him from the situation? Showing the dog an alternate behavior? E-collar? Collar pop? I find (depending on who you're talking to) that words like 'correction' get loaded one way or another... I remember once using the term 'come to Jesus' with Mia's tennis ball obsession and people getting up in arms.

 

There are very very few purely positive trainers out there. I don't think it is possible to be honest. I have met one trainer who really strived to be purely positive without any verbal corrections at all. Most trainers are in between and fit somewhere in the middle.

 

I see a lot of assumptions that whenever someone says they utilize clickers or some form of positive method that they are 'purely positive' trainers. And that is most certainly false.

 

I do not try to label myself anymore. It is pointless to me. My go to method is clicker training, however I have come across instances where positive punishment works best in the time frame needed for that specific dog and circumstance- especially self-rewarding behaviors or dangerous behaviors. It's hard to really recommend those on the internet when you can't see the dog, the handler and what is going on in person. At any rate I am too positive for the 'balanced trainers' and too harsh for the 'positive trainers'. Oh well...

 

My main concern is that a lot of people seem to jump straight to punishment first and they place a lot of the blame on the dog when in actuality they never even tried teaching the dog the correct action first. It comes back to dog savvy I believe... Those same people that resort to ineffective punishment also are the kind that tend to not reward enough or reward the wrong thing. When that happens positive methods surely won't work. I don't think you can teach dog savvyness online. It can only be done in person and through a lot of experience. And really it helps to have a knack for it too.

 

At any rate I tend to be skeptical when people say they tried positive methods and they didn't work because so often people do a poor job trying positive methods or they don't have a good grasp or understanding of the methods. I believe there's a lot of misunderstanding and people get a bit defensive when they feel like they are being told their way is wrong.

 

ETA: And there were like 6 posts by the time I type that out haha.

[Alchemist]

 

The original post asked why 'experts' seemed to give different advice from the rest', It's not that stock workers are necessarily more expert than non stock workers in training dogs ....it's just that they also have their stock consider.

 

Even though I'm only a novice handler, so take anything I say with a grain of salt, I agree completely with this - echoed by what Mark said. I have personal experience with something that Eileen said, as well, related to the differences in pressures (or temptations) in working stock vs other activities. One of my dogs is as anxious to please ('biddable') as anything off stock. I can even utter the phrase "I need you", and he looks around for a log or rock to jump up on, because he knows I'm trying to pose him for a photograph. But put him on stock? He mostly wants to please himself. The same correction ("ahem!") that would drop him like a rock if he'd failed to lie down when asked goes in one ear and out the other if he's on sheep. He would have benefited from a more experienced handler than me.

 

The other point - and one that I don't think has been voiced yet in this discussion - is that "correction" usually means different things as used by people training dogs to work stock than it might mean to your average pet owner. With many dogs working stock, even "lie down" can (perhaps should) be viewed by the dog as a correction ("oh, I was going too fast?"). What correction should mean is "make another choice!".

 

With some dogs, "YOU lie down!" is enough to get them to change their behavior. With others, you may need to shake a bottle full of pebbles, smack your hat or a jacket against your thigh, or even charge up the field at them and use your pressure to move them off the sheep. Don't assume that a "correction" automatically means someone is charging up and lifting the dog by its collar.

 

I try to give my dogs some clues: I'll say "NO", then repeat the flank (after first telling the dog to lie down) if it's taken a wrong flank. (And pray I haven't mixed them up myself). If they don't lie down the first time asked, I'll say "YOU lie down!" (and if that isn't working with the hard-headed one, consider upping the ante). And if they slice a flank, I'll say "GETOUTTATHAT!" or "What are you doing in here???" It's to help them understand what they did wrong so that they can make a better choice.

 

A good article on corrections can be found here.

 

Finally - the "ask the expert" section is mainly for people having trouble with some aspect of training on stock work - it's why you need to go to the experts! It's safe to assume that the "easy answers" aren't working, and the handlers are looking for ways to get their dogs to make the right choices - which may well include appropriate corrections.

[Laurelin]

I've been dog-less for about five years until recently getting a BC puppy. I live in a community where there are miles of walking trails and the people are educated, white-collar types. The types one would think of as responsible owners, interested in their dogs well-being. On every walk, we see many dogs and since I last walked these trails, there is a noticeable change. More than half the dogs are out of control on their leash – barking, and lunging at other dogs. While there's no way to prove it, I can't help but think it's correlated to the change in dog training philosophy.

 

I live in a similar area and I see the same behavior. I don't think it is to do with positive training at all. All the agility dogs I know and dog sports people I know tend to be exceptionally well behaved on a leash. And most are mostly positive trainers- or at least pretty close to it.

 

I think with pet people in the suburbs a lot is just coming down to dog savvy and wanting a quick fix. Most people I see with lunging out of control dogs actually are attempting to 'punish' the dog and are nagging more than anything. It goes back to timing of reward/punishment.

 

My neighbors also have a golden who is hellish to walk. I've had to take her back to them a few times and you will end up bloodied and bruised because she's so boisterous. I think it's a case of them just not working with her or assuming one petsmart class is enough and not working outside of it.

 

People don't spend as much time with their dogs as they used to and also people have different lifestyles than they used to. A lot more dogs are living in town with no yard or small yards and have to be walked by owners who don't have a clue how to train.

[rushdoggie]

My main concern is that a lot of people seem to jump straight to punishment first and they place a lot of the blame on the dog when in actuality they never even tried teaching the dog the correct action first.

Yep.

 

I work hard trying to teach this to people, and it far harder than training dogs.

At any rate I tend to be skeptical when people say they tried positive methods and they didn't work because so often people do a poor job trying positive methods or they don't have a good grasp or understanding of the methods. I believe there's a lot of misunderstanding and people get a bit defensive when they feel like they are being told their way is wrong.

Yep.

[rushdoggie]

That all sounds good to me. The only thing that sounds odd to me is that you think it would be preferable to maintain an inscrutable silence while scooping him up, rather than using a corrective word or gesture to let him know that what he did was wrong not desired.

 

I guess I figure scooping the puppy up mid pee is enough of a communication to say "pee here not here?"

[Maxi]

 

 

The other point - and one that I don't think has been voiced yet in this discussion - is that "correction" usually means different things as used by people training dogs to work stock than it might mean to your average pet owner. With many dogs working stock, even "lie down" can (perhaps should) be viewed by the dog as a correction ("oh, I was going too fast?"). What correction should mean is "make another choice!".

 

A good article on corrections can be found here.

 

Finally - the "ask the expert" section is mainly for people having trouble with some aspect of training on stock work - it's why you need to go to the experts! It's safe to assume that the "easy answers" aren't working, and the handlers are looking for ways to get their dogs to make the right choices - which may well include appropriate corrections.

 

Well said

[Eileen Stein]

Google is only representative of those who come up in the Google search - you would not get a sampling of +R trainers who reject the term from a Google search. I know many, many, many +R trainers, both through internet networking and in real life. Not one uses the term "purely positive" to describe their training. All agree that it is almost always used as a term of derision. All have had it thrown at them to try to discredit their work at some point or other.

 

Yes, there are some who still use the term, but if you took a representative sample of a vast population of +R trainers, you would find that most reject the term on the basis that I stated.

 

Actually, you DO get a sampling of +R trainers who reject the term from a google search (why wouldn't you, they post on the internet too), but that's not the point. I'm not disputing that some influential +R trainers, like you, deplore the term "purely positive." What I'm disputing is your statement that it's only used in derision, or as an insult, or to disparage +R training. If you search the term you see that many, many, many +R trainers are using it as a positive self-description. Therefore, it is not used only (or even primarily) as an insult or to disparage +R training. QED.

[CMP]

I'm with Maxi. At the end of the day it's about trust. I have asked dogs to jump from helicopters, leap over chasms so deep that they made me nauseous, climb hills I could not navigate, go alone into scary places and on and on ... and they all did it when I asked. I believe that is because they have a very deep trust in me and have an understanding that I am ALWAYS offering a choice on such matters - but the decision I WANT is for the trust.

 

I'm pretty old school. I don't use crates very often because dogs don't like them as much as they like roaming - it takes a lot more effort and time to teach a dog to respect its home (the thing around its den) - but it's worth it to me - and I don't think I could do that without corrections. I don't use fences and leashes a lot because there is not that sort of safety issue here and they don't like them as much as they like roaming around. I could not do that without correction either. They have to understand, in no uncertain terms, that is is BAD to go under the dike fencing or down on the beach by themselves. I haven't the time to train that except how I know - you try aversive and when the inevitable puppy-gamble happens you be there to catch and correct.

 

My dogs are very much not pets - even if they are - they are all "farm dogs" who do not all do farm work so I deal with them that way, I suppose.

 

There is no right way, only a right way for each individual person and dog, I think.

[Eileen Stein]

I guess I figure scooping the puppy up mid pee is enough of a communication to say "pee here not here?"

Maybe. But do you ever scoop your pup up for other reasons, or for no reason at all? If so, than ISTM he might not think it meant anything, or would think "Wonder what she meant by that." If not, then maybe I'm the only one who scoops.

 

I do understand not wanting to be harsh to your dog or to risk a harmful miscommunication. What I don't understand is the apparent recoiling from one of the ways to effectively communicate with your dog. You must know -- I certainly know -- that if you said, "No, don't do that" to your dog as you scooped him up, you wouldn't be harming him. You'd be adding to his vocabulary, to your possible ways of communicating with one another. It just seems so dogmatic to reject that. But at this point I'm just going round and round again, so I'll desist.

[CMP]

Laurelin is correct. Semantics and word understanding/usage plays a part here.

 

When I say "correction" I mean a negative phrase or word or tone, as in "No, no, no peeing there silly. We pee outside ... (carrying puppy) ... (dropping puppy) ... good girl!"

 

My corrections include:

 

Phrases/words like:

 

No, No.

NO!

Stop.

Slow/Easy/Quiet

 

Tethering for going places they ought not to go

Banishment for putting teeth places they ought not to go

Crate time out - for being a general dork (stealing food, trying to rough up a smaller dog or a cat, not listening to a clear command, out of control zoomies, being persistently determined to make someone play with them, barking too much, chewing on anything they know they are not supposed to)

 

Those things are done very kindly. As kindly as is possible while a puppy is gripped onto your forearm, I mean They're very "Ah well, you goof, you have to get tethered for a while - you stay here and think about yourself for a bit, eh?" Almost regretful in tone, I would say.

 

Even if I pick a dog up who is pulling on a leash and cart her away, I am saying 'well, that's what happens when you act like that" not "bad bad bad dog!"

 

I like to think of my corrections as real life training. They are approximate to the response the world will give them for the same behaviors. A dog of mine that does not understand proper correction is waiting to be a neurotic mess. My dogs simply have too many people around them, people who will tip a dog on its ass if it decides to run up and bite them sort of people and who WILL ignore them totally/put them on a tether/send them home if they get annoying.

[Root Beer]

Actually, you DO get a sampling of +R trainers who reject the term from a google search (why wouldn't you, they post on the internet too), but that's not the point. I'm not disputing that some influential +R trainers, like you, deplore the term "purely positive." What I'm disputing is your statement that it's only used in derision, or as an insult, or to disparage +R training. If you search the term you see that many, many, many +R trainers are using it as a positive self-description. Therefore, it is not used only (or even primarily) as an insult or to disparage +R training. QED.

 

We can go around and around and around on this.

 

Being told, as a +R trainer, that most +R trainers do not consider "purely positive" to be a term of derision just because there are a handful out there who use the term to describe themselves, would be like me telling you that most stockdog trainers don't mind at all if you call Border Collies "borders" because I could find some out there who don't mind it at all. I've been around here long enough to know that most of you take issue with it because of the AKC connotations, even though a lot of people who say "borders" are ignorant of most things AKC and really don't mean anything by it.

 

Regardless of "most", the term is used as a term of derision by a decent population of those who advocate the use of correction in training (whether anybody on this forum uses it in that way or not)

 

It is, at best, outdated and a very poor descriptor of effective +R training.

[rushdoggie]

Maybe. But do you ever scoop your pup up for other reasons, or for no reason at all? If so, than ISTM he might not think it meant anything, or would think "Wonder what she meant by that." If not, then maybe I'm the only one who scoops.

Not generally in that context which would include taking him immediately outside.

I do understand not wanting to be harsh to your dog or to risk a harmful miscommunication. What I don't understand is the apparent recoiling from one of the ways to effectively communicate with your dog.

I think, probably because I have seen so many people not effectively communicate with their dogs?

 

You must know -- I certainly know -- that if you said, "No, don't do that" to your dog as you scooped him up, you wouldn't be harming him. You'd be adding to his vocabulary, to your possible ways of communicating with one another. It just seems so dogmatic to reject that. But at this point I'm just going round and round again, so I'll desist.

If I said it in a neutral way then yes, probably, I don't think thats an issue.

 

Its that I think human nature would be to have a little anger/urgency in the words which a sensitive dog would perceive as a correction (its even hard to not swoop up a peeing puppy without having anger on my face because inwardly I am thinking "gaaah! dammitt!") so being silent is a good thing for me to keep it emotionless.

 

My point is: you said somewhere up there how it would be less effective (I am paraphrasing) to not use a correction, and in absolute truth I think generally speaking corrections are far more likely to be detrimental for most people in a house training situation, mostly because they are often misused. It sounds like what you use works perfectly well for you.

 

Its not what I recommend for most people (because every week I still here how their puppies are trying to dominate them, or won't pee in front of them, or respond best to a firm whack on the head when the pee inside, or how they are mad because their 11 week old puppy can't hold it all day while they are at work - yes really) because in my experience corrections tend to be less effective.

 

Its not about a dogmatic ideology as I am sometimes accused of by people who feel differently than me, its about what is most effective for most people in my experience.

[Mark Billadeau]

Whether correct or not, I frequently get the feeling that training has been moving towards methods that are the least likely to do damage when used incorrectly by the untrained as opposed to teaching how to communicate/train. We seem to forget that humans are taught with negative and positive responses from those attempting to teach us. Now people can verbally correct me about my feeling.

[d112358]

This is also true for rewards.

 

IMO most pet training programs are mostly about teaching the owners better timing when trying to communicate their desires to their dogs.

 

The biggest difference between bad timing with rewards and bad timing with punishment is the fallout. Bad timing with reward leaves the dog confused and still behaving badly - but usually the fallout is increased pushiness or entitlement. Bad timing with punishment leaves the dog confused and can induce learned helplessness or aggressive behaviors. The downside is so much steeper with corrections that I think people should learn good timing with positive methods.

[Mark Billadeau]

The biggest difference between bad timing with rewards and bad timing with punishment is the fallout. Bad timing with reward leaves the dog confused and still behaving badly - but usually the fallout is increased pushiness or entitlement. Bad timing with punishment leaves the dog confused and can induce learned helplessness or aggressive behaviors. The downside is so much steeper with corrections that I think people should learn good timing with positive methods.

Bad timing on a reward when the dog is thinking about inappropriate behaviors can have just as bad a fall out as bad timing on a correction. How do you think bad habits are formed? Some bad habits can be deadly (like car chasing, counter surfing, darting out a door, dumpster diving, etc).

[CMP]

Whether correct or not, I frequently get the feeling that training has been moving towards methods that are the least likely to do damage when used incorrectly by the untrained as opposed to teaching how to communicate/train. We seem to forget that humans are taught with negative and positive responses from those attempting to teach us. Now people can verbally correct me about my feeling.[/size]

Haha

 

I agree - bad positive only training is much less likely to cause harm than bad corrective training. Bad corrections are terrible things. You know how it goes - for every person who thinks a correction is a "no, no" there are others who think it is a belt across the haunches several times. Or for every person who understands dominance to be gained through force there is one who understands it comes through respect. And then there are the ten who think every time you say "no" you are being abusive.

 

No winning this one - for anyone. Let's hope each individual dog is winning inside his own environment.

[Root Beer]

Its not about a dogmatic ideology as I am sometimes accused of by people who feel differently than me, its about what is most effective for most people in my experience.

 

Exactly!

 

In addition, it can be worthwhile to consider that what makes intuitive sense to you may not make intuitive sense in the least to someone else.

 

It makes no sense to me whatsoever to say "no" to my dog when I want him or her to stop doing something. "No" is very non-specific. In the housetraining example, which is "no"? No, don't pee in front of me? No, don't pee before I leave for work? No, don't pee in this particular room? It tells the dog absolutely nothing about what I actually want.

 

Completely different situation, but it illustrates the point for me. I was watching a handler run a sequence in an Agility class one time and the dog knocked the bar on a jump. The handler got the verbal correction out before the dog went up the A-Frame, but the dog really didn't have time to stop before going over. The verbal correction, from the human standpoint, clearly marked the dropped bar. The dog associated it with the A-Frame and refused to go over it again. After all, he had been told "no" very clearly and he wasn't falling for that "trick" again. There was no way for the handler to go back and make it clear that the A-Frame was not the issue.

 

And while it might not harm the dog, again, it makes no intuitive sense to me whatsoever.

 

If I want my dog to stop jumping up, I cue "off", which is a trained cue like "sit". If I want my dog to leave something alone, I cue "leave", which is also a trained cue, like "sit". If I want my dog to stop being outside, I call the dog in with his or her name or a recall. If I want my dog to walk by my side, I cue "heel".

 

It simply makes more sense to me to let the dog know what I want than to communicate "don't". Having to do that would be unnatural and burdensome to me.

[Laurelin]

Laurelin is correct. Semantics and word understanding/usage plays a part here.

-Snipped-

 

I think this is where a lot of the communication issues come up. Most people who would refer to themselves as positive trainers also use words like no, Nuh uh, Stop, etc. There are some more extreme people who do not use verbal corrections- like kikopup, but most will. Pretty well any positive trainer I know of utilizes time outs, removes dogs from bad situations and puts them in a down stay (or tether).

 

This is what happened when I used the words 'come to Jesus' in regards to my ball obsessed dog. To me that meant I drew a hard line, took the ball away, and put her in a down stay until she calmed down. If she broke the down/stay then she was right back until she stopped being a maniac. They were envisioning me zapping her with a collar or spanking her or something, I am sure.

 

I find generally people are doing very similar things and calling it different things more often than not. There are extremes of course- those who never say no and those who default to punishment first. A lot of people may refer to themselves as a positive trainer to indicate they don't use choke chains or e-collars or any other physical punishment.