Life is full of corrections

[Tea]

I am listening to both sides.

 

 

 

I read the article. But one thing I found difficult is the person talks like Mr Spock.

 

 

uh.....halters for dogs...gotta look that up?

 

 

Another thing is there is alot of talk about dogs running into things. This is not a problem I have ever incountered with my stock dogs or sled dogs as it would be a liability to have working dogs ramming things.

 

especially trees on a mountain trail on an icey down hill. Or a loose bull.

 

Perhaps these dogs need to have their eyes checked?

[Root Beer]

These positive/corrections training discussions are always the same because each side persists in promoting their own erroneous beliefs about the other camp: positive (or reinforcement-based) trainers do not work within parameters of acceptable behaviors, instead allowing their dogs to constantly just guess at what the trainer is trying to train with no meaningful consequences for the dog for incorrect behavior, while more traditional trainers use physical corrections to force their dogs to behave and the dogs acquiesce out of fear. Neither is correct for most trainers (of both sides) and in fact both are so far off the mark as to be complete straw men arguments, resulting in endless threads during which it seems few people even hear the other side.

 

I disagree. I am actually finding this particular discussion to be more objective than most of the discussions on this topic. And a lot of the "straw men" serve the purpose of bringing points of difference to light and create an opportunity for clarification.

 

I believe that these discussions are important, even if a lot of points - yes, some erroneous, but many quite valid - get repeated.

 

Those who are committed to incorporating correction into their training and those who are committed to training through techniques and approaches that do not include correction are always going to see certain things differently. And there will be some emotion on both sides because training is something that people tend to get passionate about.

 

I believe, though, that coming to understand as much as possible about what is actually true about those who choose a different approach, and finding whatever measure of common ground there is, can be a very useful and productive thing to do, even if there cannot be agreement.

 

We live and train in the same world. We compete in the same rings. We work with a lot of the same people who are just getting started in training. We post on the same lists and message boards. I think that honest and open communication, and clarification of those things that are erroneous, help us to co-exist better. And, please excuse me for being an optimist, might even serve to foster some measure of respect at times.

 

I think that's a good thing even if we will never agree completely.

[beachdogz]

Dogs understand fair corrections. They are very black and white in the dog world. Dogs take them, learn from them and move on.

 

You get growled at if you're pushing boundaries. Then you get snapped at if you don't heed the growling. It's unemotional and part of life. Humans tend to add emotion into correction and that's where things start to go south. "I'm going to teach him!" or "that dog did that to spite me" or "what do I do my dog growled at me - I thought he loved me". Uh, nope. Your dog is just being a dog. If he doens't listen, train him better. out of spite? Umm, hardly. Growled at you? fix the problem and become a leader! Don't add emotion into it!

 

I very, very, very rarely give physical corrections. They're usually more of the growly "hey, get out of that" (wanting to chase a cat or squirrel, get back off those sheep a ways etc). The dogs are sensitive enough and if I've done my job as leader they respond quite nicely. But when I do use a physical correction, I don't dwell on it. It's quick, to the point and we move on - "nope, you're not going to growl at me over a bone". Period. The dogs learn from them and move on. It works.

 

This is, by far, the most insightful post I have read. More pet owners and new trainers should read it and understand it...especially the part about emotion in correction. You can analyze and over-analyze correction to death...this says it all in just a few lines.

[Pam Wolf]

Donald I do see stressed dogs at trials, sometimes due to excitement sometimes due to other factors. And while most dogs at trials are more mannerly than those at the typical agility trial, some is expectations. Stock people tend to prefer things calm whereas in certain doggie circles things are expected to be 'exciting'.

 

Tea, what's wrong with how Mr. Spock talks? LOL!

[geonni banner]

Dogs understand fair corrections. They are very black and white in the dog world. Dogs take them, learn from them and move on.

 

You get growled at if you're pushing boundaries. Then you get snapped at if you don't heed the growling. It's unemotional and part of life. Humans tend to add emotion into correction and that's where things start to go south. "I'm going to teach him!" or "that dog did that to spite me" or "what do I do my dog growled at me - I thought he loved me". Uh, nope. Your dog is just being a dog. If he doens't listen, train him better. out of spite? Umm, hardly. Growled at you? fix the problem and become a leader! Don't add emotion into it!

 

I very, very, very rarely give physical corrections. They're usually more of the growly "hey, get out of that" (wanting to chase a cat or squirrel, get back off those sheep a ways etc). The dogs are sensitive enough and if I've done my job as leader they respond quite nicely. But when I do use a physical correction, I don't dwell on it. It's quick, to the point and we move on - "nope, you're not going to growl at me over a bone". Period. The dogs learn from them and move on. It works.

 

I absolutely agree with this.

 

Also, I think that dogs benefit from knowing that corrections are on a continuum. If a dog never learns that a snap follows an unheeded growl, and a bite follows an unheeded snap, then why should he heed a growl? A growl doesn't hurt, and he still gets the big yummy chuck steak off the counter. The point being that once he is aware that such things as snapping and biting (or their human correlations, the "come to Jesus" talk and the sharp smack on the butt) occur, he listens and responds appropriately to the growl - snapping and biting are no longer needed. You don't normally see a dominant/leader dog thrashing his subordinates on a regular basis. He doesn't need to. They know what follows the direct stare, and the growl. They grew up seeing the continuum, and probably needed few trials to grasp that it applies to them.

 

Dogs and wolves may not be the same - or dogs may mentally be infantilized wolves, but a wolf has all this figured out when he is still quite young. And a dog, being a youngster even as an adult, can learn it anytime. Which is why you can teach an old dog new tricks.

 

I have no beef with positive training methods. I use 'em myself a good deal of the time. But every dog and every situation is different. I have seen silly, heedless dogs with no manners (and a great deal of positive reinforcement training) transformed by a few measured applications of "snapping" and "biting" into sensible, happy, mannerly dogs. Were those dogs trained by unskillful trainers? Probably. But if a dog's head is filled with enough silly notions and confusion by poorly applied "cookie" training, a change of venue can be just the thing. This works in reverse too. A sensitive dog that has been reduced to a state of fearful confusion by heavy-handed and badly timed correction training can be almost magically transformed by a thoughtful and careful application of reward-based confidence building.

 

A good trainer is a good trainer, regardless of their methods. But mother nature's methods are hard to improve upon.

[bc soul sista]

Thanks for replying to my post Rushdoggie..I enjoy your insightful posts here on the boards and am interested in your perspectives on training...

 

I think we agree on more than it may seem...my training, especially for compeition involves almost %98 precent motivational training(very similar to Denise actually)! Building drive and a relationship with your dog..one of the things I VERY much enjoy about compeitive obedience is it is almost entirley about your relationship with that dog, and working together as a team!!! The dog has to WANT to do it!! And that is NOT built by excessive or un-fair corrections!! I am JUST as disgusted as the next person watching a dog be jerked around, or bullied into behaving. I however, do feel, that at SOME POINT in training, there needs to be communication to the dog that what there doing isn't right, however you choose to train it.

 

For instance, I've been showing by bc for a few months now...the few points we are getting off are due to slightly crooked fronts and finishes. It was not from my dogs lack of trying, rather my fault for being afraid to communicate to him that what he was doing wasn't correct. I was so afraid it would hurt his enthusiasm to put in any kind of negative correction!!! He would come into front, he would sit a little off...I would tell him to "fix it"...he would and I would reward!!! He would do this over and over...thinking he was doing it right by fixing it on the second or third try, because I hadn't giving him the info that the way he was doing it wasn't right. We needed a strait front on the first shot!! I wasn't even giving him a chance to get it right!!! So...i took the plunge, came up with an idea...when he comes in and sits crooked..I give him a verbal correction "ah ah"...to let him know that wasn't quite right..I give him a stand command, have him back up a few steps and try again, if he is crooked..I repeat. When he gets it right I give him HUGE verbal praise and we start all over. If he gets the front right the first shot..THEN he gets a HUGE party of treats, praise and some times gets to TUG!!! Now that he is starting to understand what I want...we are progressing GREATLY ...so this is just an example..

 

 

I am aware of who Denise is and she is a VERY great trainer...awesome working Tervs...but I don't think I would go as far to say she is a "positive only" trainer...She is HUGE on creating drive to work for the handler, motivation, motivation, motivation!!! Same techniques alot of us use to create drive in dogs.. and she's got some really neat ideas!!! She does put ALOT of pressure on her dogs and teaches them to work through it...she even says about her young dog in her blog "as she grows more confident and sophisticated I will work harder to cause her to fail, followed by success" and gives examples of purposefuly bumping her into people during heeling or other examples..of trying to get her dog to make a mistake so they can work through it and build confidence.......so I wouldn't say she is "positive only"...

 

Her one quote I LOVE and I agree with %100..."I’m working to build a dog who chooses to pay attention because work is interesting and challenging rather than a dog who pays attention because she’s afraid of the consequences of looking away."

[bc soul sista]

Mumdog I do have two kids...and they get the same kind of practical principles of life applied...there are rewards and positive things in life for doing the right thing and being a good person, just as there are consequences for making bad decisions, I would feel I would be doing a GREAT dis-service to my children by not teaching them these simple things...

 

I can't remember reading a single parenting book(and I read MANY as I was a very young mom) that didn't say you shouldn't discipline your children and I feel the same way about my dogs. I expect alot and they give alot...there are of course ALOT more severe consequences for things I consider to be a "safety issue"..like holding hands while crossing the treat for my kids...and coming when called for my dogs, etc. I don't mess around there...I'm not going to play some game where I allow my dog to "look" at something it wants and choose to come to me when it wants to...ugh ugh...not happening here..

 

I would also like to point out about using a correction...I do NOT believe it is fair to correct or discipline UNLESS they understand what it is for. This I believe is CRUEL, period. This is where good training comes in and communicating what you expect to your dog..or kid or whatever...I might of brought the kid thing to into it but I REALLY feel strongly about it so.....

[terrecar]

I also think Maralynn's points regarding fair corrections and keeping the emotions in check are good ones.

 

I think Pam hit on something as well. It is likely that the confusion Mr. McCaig is seeing at these events is the result of stress rather than training methods. Dog shows/events, particularly those held in indoor arenas, can be very stressful on dogs (and people as well). I could be wrong.

 

I have never been to a USBCHA trial, but I wonder if it might be a much more natural environment, allowing for more autonomy for the dog? I do know that the very nature of most dog show and sports events requires that the dog is under the handler's control. I'd hate to see the sighthounds loose among the toy breeds.

 

I may have the wrong idea about sheepdog trials. I'm just speculating. But I am under the impression that the very nature of those trials requires more instinctual responses from the dog. I read your comments about a dog's stock sense and I can't think of a comparable concept in sports events. So it seems it would make more sense that the stockdog is not overly controlled by the handler.

 

I guess I could also make more sense out of hearing that a dog has "more sense of autonomy" than "sense of self", but that may be my own prejudicial fixation on the epistemic implications of the word "self".

 

 

 

ETA: Alligande is right about the author of that piece having a disagreement with the certification org. regarding use of shock collars. That helps to explain her perspective, but I also think her arguments should be evaluated on their own merit, motivation aside.

[simba]

I also think Maralynn's points regarding fair corrections and keeping the emotions in check are good ones.

Agreed.

 

Another point could be that some tend to think of a 'correction' as involving a physical act. But anything that brings the dog discomfort, and stops it doing what it's doing, will be a correction. For a sensitive dog a harsh word could be too much.

 

There are plenty of kids and dogs out there who were raised without any need of 'spanking' etc, and it may be true that there are some individuals in some particular situations who will respond to nothing else. But used incorrectly it can do harm.

 

Edit: like everything else.

[Root Beer]

I think Pam hit on something as well. It is likely that the confusion Mr. McCaig is seeing at these events is the result of stress rather than training methods. Dog shows/events, particularly those held in indoor arenas, can be very stressful on dogs (and people as well). I could be wrong.

 

No, you aren't wrong. And level of stress can vary from event to event and location to location. It can depend on the number of dogs entered, the collection of individual humans and/or dogs at the event, who the judges are and how they are judging, and even things like weather.

 

I've seen correction trained dogs that are stressed in competition situations, as well as reinforcement trained dogs that are stressed and vice versa. There are far too many factors in play at a given event to really know what the source of an individual dog's stress might be, unless you happen to know the dog and handler well and the handler has a good sense of what is causing the dog to be stressed. Some handlers are attuned to such things and others are not. Sometimes an onlooker simply does not have enough information to know why a dog is stressed, or even why a dog is relaxed!

 

So, I would say you are spot on with that observation.

[shysheperdess]

As someone who competes in both sheepdog trials and dog sports...I would have to say that dogs are generally more calm at sheepdog trials because most handlers are pretty "old school" with there approach to dogs. VERY no non-sense, black and white.

 

Sheepdog training/handling is the most natural kind of work there is for these dogs. And there is NO sheepdog training void of corrections, wethere someone is aware of it or not..there is being pressure put on these dogs and it is being released whether it's by the handler or the sheep. Cause and effect. It makes SENSE to the dog. It's natural, not an artificial environment. If the dog barks, is being a jerk or in other ways being a general pain..it learns pretty darn quickly the consequences for such. I know many well respected sheepdog trainers/handlers where there pups first lessons are learning to be quiet on a tie out, learning to be quite in a crate, call off of sheep, come when called...all teaching self control and good manners..

 

While in dog sports it's all about building DRIVE to fuel an artificial game!! Don't want to "correct"..diminish drive or enthusiasm..etc. And that's just the way it is..there is virually NOBODY I know who uses any kind of correction for agility training, they need the dog to build speed, drive and confidence. And these are the atmospheres where I see the most crazed, revved up, barking dogs...except for flyball, it's part of the "game".

[alligande]

I also think Maralynn's points regarding fair corrections and keeping the emotions in check are good ones.

 

I think Pam hit on something as well. It is likely that the confusion Mr. McCaig is seeing at these events is the result of stress rather than training methods. Dog shows/events, particularly those held in indoor arenas, can be very stressful on dogs (and people as well). I could be wrong.

 

I have never been to a USBCHA trial, but I wonder if it might be a much more natural environment, allowing for more autonomy for the dog? I do know that the very nature of most dog show and sports events requires that the dog is under the handler's control. I'd hate to see the sighthounds loose among the toy breeds.

 

I may have the wrong idea about sheepdog trials. I'm just speculating. But I am under the impression that the very nature of those trials requires more instinctual responses from the dog. I read your comments about a dogs stock sense and I can't think of a comparable concept in sports events. So it seems it would make more sense that the stockdog is not overly controlled by the handler.

 

I guess I could also make more sense out of hearing that a dog has "more sense of autonomy" than "sense of self", but that may be my own predjudicial fixation on the epistemic implications of the word "self".

 

 

 

ETA: Alligande is right about the author of that piece having a disagreement with the certification org. regarding use of shock collars. That helps to explain her perspective, but I also think her arguments should be evaluated on their own merit, motivation aside.

 

I agree with all your points, I trial mostly indoors now (not my choice as much as the organizers choice) and I think the dogs are more stressed than outdoors, it just needs one or two yappy monsters to set everyone edge. There is group of corgis that I see often and together they never shut up, when they attend both my dogs become tense, for that matter so do I. I think the only reason they are tolerated by the organizers is the money 5 dogs equals a big chunk of change.

 

I raised the shock collars because I was curious as to why a trainer who advocates using them would be quoted on here, considering some of the debates re their use on Border Collies, it seemed like no one thought they were a good idea. I do think her motivation and prespective for writing the piece have to be included in any analysis.

[rushdoggie]

 

I am aware of who Denise is and she is a VERY great trainer...awesome working Tervs...but I don't think I would go as far to say she is a "positive only" trainer...She is HUGE on creating drive to work for the handler, motivation, motivation, motivation!!! Same techniques alot of us use to create drive in dogs.. and she's got some really neat ideas!!! She does put ALOT of pressure on her dogs and teaches them to work through it...she even says about her young dog in her blog "as she grows more confident and sophisticated I will work harder to cause her to fail, followed by success" and gives examples of purposefuly bumping her into people during heeling or other examples..of trying to get her dog to make a mistake so they can work through it and build confidence.......so I wouldn't say she is "positive only"...

 

Hmmm, I guess I would.

 

Re: the "fail" you refer to...does Denise physically correct her dog if she fails?

 

Denise taught me to fix my "crooked front problem" at a seminar by a completely different, no correction manner which worked beautifully. I simply stopped "fixing" and then rewarding the fixed front with the c/t. I quietly praised the "fixed" version and only c/t with the straight version. I had taught my dog the behavior included me fixing him. In less than 10 minutes I pretty much fixed the problem (to be fair, I had to continue that behavior or he would have reverted to crookedness) by changing ME, not by telling my dog he was wrong or physically correcting him in any way.

 

Could you say that's an aversive (not giving him the c/t)? Sure, but I wouldn't call it a correction. And I never once collar popped or "ah-ah'ed" my dog. I simply made it clearer to him what I wanted.

 

I love this blog post by her.

 

link

 

What is Possible?

Posted on December 15, 2011 by dfenzi

 

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

 

Physical contact means pain compliance.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

[terrecar]

I raised the shock collars because I was curious as to why a trainer who advocates using them would be quoted on here, considering some of the debates re their use on Border Collies, it seemed like no one thought they were a good idea. I do think her motivation and prespective for writing the piece have to be included in any analysis.

 

Well, in terms of evaluating the author's skill as a trainer (aside from her arguments here) you definitely have a point. She states in that particular piece that she is not arguing in favor of any specific equipment. However, elsewhere she specifically takes issue with the prohibition on using a shock collar on a puppy under the age of a year old.

 

I have to seriously question the skill (and judgement) of a trainer who feels the need to use a shock collar on a puppy.

 

 

 

ETA: To be fair, I do mean "question" and not "condemn". I don't have all of the information.

[bc soul sista]

Rushdoggie, the "fix" that Denise had you do for your dogs fronts...was exactly what I was doing originally that didn't work for my dog and me..there was not enough information for him to understand that he was not doing what I needed him to do....

 

And this is what is dangerous about trainers who refuse to look at anything other than there own "training philosphy", the best trainers I know are very creative, great at reading dogs, helping people and recognize that all dogs/people are individuals and therefore need different methods,fixes, etc...I don't agree with either extremes or people trying to make statements like "I will never train with a correction"...well sometimes one is needed...OR the opposite end.."I will not train a dog with treats"....both are close-minded views

 

 

I read that blog post of hers and although I think she is a talented trainer I would have to respectfully disagree what I think she trying to say. I don't believe more succesful obedience competitors don't use "postive only" methods because they aren't aware of them..or because they are a new "fad" or are un-afraid of change, etc....they don't use "positive only" dog training because they aren't as effective in training for that sport, period. I'm not saying that the right trainer and dog can't make it happen, but they are few and far between. We have a training facility not far from me that boasts they are a "positive only" dog training school, they don't implore ANY kind of corrections, verbal, etc...and NONE of the instructors there or any of the students that train there have gotten past a UD in obedience trials...out of the hundreds or so of people going through there doors, that's it. Not even close to obtaining the highest level of excellence in that given sport. Coincidence??

 

Now the place I train at ( and no we are FAR from a "correction based" training facility, but we do occasionaly use corrections)...have record amount of succesful students(we had 10 people compete at the National Obedience Invitational since they were ranked highest in there breed), multiple OTCH's, HIT's, HC'd, perfect 200's not to mention raving awesome reviews from pet people who are happy, working with there pets and get great results. Coincidence??

 

So it's easy to see why I think the way I do I guess, based on my experiences. Also, as someone who competes in USBCHA trials and has seen some of the most beatiful examples of human/dog partnership I have ever witnessed(and herding has corrections in it)...I have come to the conclusion that dogs do respond best to a language they best understand, one that's rooted in there own make-up. Cause and effect, pressure release, reward and YES...some form of correction....

[Root Beer]

...I don't agree with either extremes or people trying to make statements like "I will never train with a correction"...well sometimes one is needed...OR the opposite end.."I will not train a dog with treats"....both are close-minded views

 

Actually, I would say that is a good expression of a closed minded view.

 

It takes an open mind to consider what one regards as an "extreme", and to accept that there are those who adhere to a different point of view and find that it works for them.

 

I applaud Ms. Fezi for expressing such an open mind in the post that rushdoggie quoted. It is very refreshing, and I would not be at all surprised to find more such shifts of mindset in the traditional Obedience world over time.

 

....they don't use "positive only" dog training because they aren't as effective in training for that sport, period.

 

I don't believe that has actually been tested nearly adequately enough, and I concur with Ms. Fezi. What is possible is yet to be seen. Right now it is unknown. What is now thought to be not effective enough may well be what it takes to win in the future.

 

We have a training facility not far from me that boasts they are a "positive only" dog training school, they don't implore ANY kind of corrections, verbal, etc...and NONE of the instructors there or any of the students that train there have gotten past a UD in obedience trials...out of the hundreds or so of people going through there doors, that's it. Not even close to obtaining the highest level of excellence in that given sport. Coincidence??

 

Any facility can hang out a shingle and call itself "positive".

 

I'd be interested to know exactly what manner of "positive" method they are teaching. The fact that they don't "implore" corrections does not say anything about what they actually are doing. I know that you must know that "positive" training is not one single "method", but a vast spectrum of techniques, approaches, and methods. Which of those are they using? Who are their instructors? If students are having trouble beyond the UD, what is breaking down, exactly? How, exactly, are students working toward building skill beyond that point?

 

Without the answers to those questions, the fact they haven't gone beyond a UD really doesn't mean much of anything. Those people may well not have the desire and commitment needed to go further. Maybe they are lacking somewhere in technique. The students of one facility hardly speaks to the potential of any one type of training, especially since it sounds like they are not taking full advantage of what reinforcement based training has to offer.

 

So it's easy to see why I think the way I do I guess, based on my experiences.

 

Then it should be easy to see why others hold a different point of view based on their experiences, their success, and their understanding of what is possible.

[Tea]

I like Mr Spock...but man when I start to read something like that...boy...I just get tired!

 

 

 

Anyway....My kids...adopted....

 

Were teenagers...onery.

 

 

I made them work along side us, and work hard.

 

 

 

One time one of them said she was going to run away.....I smiled and said..."Honey...I can run you down." She laughed. Looked into my eyes and knew I was right. And she started to learn the magic thing...respect...not fear..just simple respect.

 

 

 

She came back all grown up.

 

 

 

And said, It had saved her.

 

 

 

It made me think.

[rushdoggie]

Rushdoggie, the "fix" that Denise had you do for your dogs fronts...was exactly what I was doing originally that didn't work for my dog and me..there was not enough information for him to understand that he was not doing what I needed him to do....

 

And, how exactly did you having to correct your dog offer him more information? For Ross, the lack of c/t told him he got it wrong. For your dog, you had to offer a verbal correction. I think that has more to do with your communication style than the "fix" being wrong.

 

I would REALLY encourage you to take a seminar with Denise or someone else of her caliber. I bet she would really challenge some of your assumptions about what you could do without a correction.

 

And this is what is dangerous about trainers who refuse to look at anything other than there own "training philosphy", the best trainers I know are very creative, great at reading dogs, helping people and recognize that all dogs/people are individuals and therefore need different methods,fixes, etc...I don't agree with either extremes or people trying to make statements like "I will never train with a correction"...well sometimes one is needed...OR the opposite end.."I will not train a dog with treats"....both are close-minded views

 

Indeed, and I would suggest that what you posted here is suggesting that only one way of training can be effective, which doesn't exactly sing "open minded."

 

 

they don't use "positive only" dog training because they aren't as effective in training for that sport, period.

 

Aagain, not exactly "open minded." I think Denise, my friend Joan, Deb Jones, Susan Garrett and a few other very successful trainers would disagree with you as well.

 

Not even close to obtaining the highest level of excellence in that given sport. Coincidence??

 

A coincidence that people training at the same facility have a similar lack of success (as you define it, ie getting advanced titles)? Hardly. But I would suggest there's more to that story than the methods they choose to use.

 

 

 

Now the place I train at ( and no we are FAR from a "correction based" training facility, but we do occasionaly use corrections)...

 

Wasn't it you who posted the video of the black lab being leash popped almost constantly while heeling?

 

have record amount of succesful students(we had 10 people compete at the National Obedience Invitational since they were ranked highest in there breed), multiple OTCH's, HIT's, HC'd, perfect 200's not to mention raving awesome reviews from pet people who are happy, working with there pets and get great results. Coincidence??

 

Again, probably as a result of more than the use of collar corrections than not.

 

But I can see where you get your POV from. I used to hold the same POV. I have been training dogs (usually second hand dogs with significant behavioral issues) for 20 years. I have owned an alarming number of dogs, and fostered even more. But over time, I learned more about how dogs learn, and think, and how I was training and what I was doing, and over time I stopped assuming I needed to create a pain response to get through to my dog if he was doing what I wanted. And after I eschewed collar corrections, prong collars and force, I even realized how my verbal responses affected my dogs. I got more confidence from my soft dogs, more attentiveness from my harder dogs. And I still get results. And when I don't, I can usually figure out why and its seldom because my dogs willingly chose to not do what I asked.

 

And Sista, I really have no issue with your POV, or your training method. But I have to say, I get very annoyed when I hear incorrect generalizations about training differences stated as FACTS. And when I get annoyed, I tend to argue.

 

After all, lets all keep in mind that this thread was started by someone making wild assumptions about "positive training" and being really rather insulting, not by the positive trainers insulting your camp.

[bc soul sista]

I apologize Rushdoggie if I offended you or ruffled your feather, i am feeling the same way...sigh, such is the nature of dogs and training, etc. People get all emotional...

 

I would LOVE to attend a Denise seminar, I'm always eager to learn other awesome trainers perspectives, and add more tools to my "bag o tricksA" when training!!! Like I said though, almost all of what I saw her doing in her videos is similar to how I and others raise and train...like I said, 98% motivational..building drive, etc.

 

I'm trying to tell you, without offending you, that what you were doing with your dog with the fronts IS WHAT I was doing with mine!! I don't use a clicker but a verbal marker "yes" and reward when he gets it right, especially for precision type training such has fronts and finished, crooked sits, and minor heeling issues I'm working on..OR..learning new behaviors. So, since I was trying to tweak the fronts I was using a verbal marker and treat when he got it right....he knew he wasn't right by me not saying anything because he would keep fixing himself. But the way the chain of behaviors played out he still wasn't getting that I needed him to get it right, the first shot. That it wasn't ok for him to come in, fix himself, etc..he needed a verbal marker at the exact right moment telling him.."nope" not it...would HELP him get it right...and repeat...ONLY getting the high value reward when he got it right the first shot....

 

Yes it was me who posted my friend giving collar pops on a different post....it was to show that the dog was not dying and surely wasn't damaged mentally from having a tug on the collar...of course you know nothing about the history or this young dog or how she chooses to train 995 of the the other things she is teaching, but she is "Labeled" as a correction based trainer because she gives a few collar pops?? That doesn't even begin to describe how she trains...and fyi- the dog is off the prong and pops and coming along quite awesomely...

 

I choose to weed out the good trainer vs the bad based on the succes they have, with AAALLL the joe shmoes out there saying there dog traianers and trying to make a buck or what not these days....measures of success to me is the best way to tell who's credible and who's not. That's just how I choose to do it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to teach good manner, puppy classes, etc. But I'm looking for a more advanced trainer so naturally I will look at measures of success. And measures of success, to me, means attaining the highest level in that sport. For obedience, that would be an OTCH...and other than Denise and I'm sure a select few others.....that's it for trainers claiming to impose no correction, and still being succesful in the competitve obedience world.

 

And like I said, it simply doesn't exist with herding!!!

 

Trainers like Susane Garrett train for agility and I can UNDERSTAND why there is little to no correction in agility....completely.

 

The thing I DON'T understand about "positive only" trainers is...why?? I'm directing this to Rushdoggie....is it to prove a point, do you really think the dog is being harmed by being told or shown that it is wrong?? Would love some insight..

[rushdoggie]

The thing I DON'T understand about "positive only" trainers is...why?? I'm directing this to Rushdoggie....is it to prove a point, do you really think the dog is being harmed by being told or shown that it is wrong?? Would love some insight..

 

A very valid question, and I can only answer for myself. For me it was about the relationship. When I stopped looking for things my dog was doing wrong to correct her, and started looking for what she did right to reward (and I am speaking here of my 1st "crossover" dog, who was a very hard, I used to call stubborn and willful Golden Retriever bitch) my relationship with her changed. I realized that much of the time when I was sure she was deliberately disobeying me she in fact didn't understand what I wanted and when I corrected her she was shutting me off. She was a dog I did half-and-half with, and with each subsequent dog I got less and less inclined to correct them, and each dog trained better and easier. And I don't just mean ring work, I mean life. I just fostered a completely untrained, had lived outside in a kennel his whole life, not housetrained, 2 year Papillon. He was a cutie pie but had NO CLUE what I wanted him to do. He climbed us like a mountain goat if he smelled food, nearly made it to the mantel by climbing up a bookshelf and laid on top of a chewie or a food treat looking at us suspiciously as if we were going to take it. In three weeks, I got him pooping outside, peeing outside 90% of the time (he unfortunately was also intact and a marker), sitting quietly when we ate at the coffee table, walking on a leash, kenneling up, sitting and walking on a leash with zero corrections. I also taught him humans were not out to steal his food, what a "shoo" gesture meant and how to release a toy when asked. He is doing great in his adoptive home.

 

My question back to you would be, if you CAN teach your dog to do things without causing him physical discomfort, why wouldn't you?

 

I

[Root Beer]

The thing I DON'T understand about "positive only" trainers is...why?? I'm directing this to Rushdoggie....is it to prove a point, do you really think the dog is being harmed by being told or shown that it is wrong?? Would love some insight..

 

I understand you directed your question to rushdoggie, but I would still like to respond to this since I am one of the few other people on board who does not incorporate correction into training, and you will get more insight into "why" if you consider different perspectives.

 

For me that choice has nothing to do with proving a point to anyone. I actually made that decision long before I even knew that there were people who objected so strongly. There was certainly nobody that I was looking to prove anything to other than myself and my dog.

 

I train through reinforcement because it makes very logical good sense to me, I have found that it works, it is enjoyable to both myself and my dogs, I have watched clients dogs benefit from a switch from corrections to reinforcement, I like the strong working partnership that it forges between myself and my dogs, and I am 100% satisfied with the results.

 

And, frankly, I love the actual training process itself as much as I love enjoying the results. It is like creating a unique language between dog and handler that leads to a conversation where one can express his or her self to the other. I know that might not make a lot of sense, but that has been my experience. Through that conversation we do learn to play games as a team and we pursue and earn titles, but there is much more to it than that. A partnership is forged that we enjoy in every aspect of our lives together. And the challenges that we run into along the way only serve to make that partnership stronger and better. I am as much the learner as I am the teacher in this working partnership and I would not want it any other way.

 

I don't incorporate corrections because I do not find them to be necessary accomplish what I want to accomplish. There is nothing that I want from any of my dogs that I need to pop, shock, ah-ah, prong, etc. them to get.

 

So, I don't. It really is that simple.

[bc soul sista]

That's great Rushdoggie...I'm really glad you've achieved what you wanted with your dogs!! Great that you foster also!! It's easy to get heated in the discussions but anybody who is working with there dogs and achieving that relationship I applaud Thanks for sharing, I really am curious about your perspective.

 

I think my views come mostly from rooting my philosophy in stockwork...I love it most over any activity with my dog. It's so natural and the act of completing tasks together with my dog, well it's just awesome!! I do competitive obedience with my one bc because we just have a cool reltionship and he LOVES to do something special with just me....but I mostly spend my time working sheep. This, to me, is very "natural" to the dog...the whole act of stock work, person..dog..working together...for countless years, so peaceful. And in stockwork there is no such thing as doing so with NO CORRECTION, whether it comes from the sheep or the handler...these dogs with such heart have can take amountain of pressure and still come back wanting more. So to say that corrections or not right or somehow can damage a relationship with your dog, would mean that I couldn't believe in what I was doing...

 

And like I said, from my experiences, and observations in life...that's just what makes sense to me...I couldn't imagine not dicsiplining my kids...or communicating to them in some way that what they are doing isn't ok?? That doesn't DEFINE me as a person..or as a trainer for choosing to correct my dogs...that doesn't or shouldnt erase the 99% of other positive things I do to motivate my dogs, encourage my kids, etc..

 

I can actually appreciate the people I know who take the time and energy to really teach dogs using "positive only" training....I just don't think it's the best way, and that's where we disagree

[terrecar]

I don't incorporate corrections because I do not find them to be necessary accomplish what I want to accomplish. There is nothing that I want from any of my dogs that I need to pop, shock, ah-ah, prong, etc. them to get.

So, I don't. It really is that simple.

 

And this, to me, is the mark of a talented and skillful trainer.

[rushdoggie]

And in stockwork there is no such thing as doing so with NO CORRECTION, whether it comes from the sheep or the handler...these dogs with such heart have can take amountain of pressure and still come back wanting more. So to say that corrections or not right or somehow can damage a relationship with your dog, would mean that I couldn't believe in what I was doing...

 

And I can appreciate that, and since I don't work stock I can't really understand that and therefore I will bow to your greater experience.

 

But I will say I think stockwork is somehow different that teaching any "in the ring" behaviors like obedience and agility. Thats work, and the other is play.

 

And like I said, from my experiences, and observations in life...that's just what makes sense to me...I couldn't imagine not dicsiplining my kids...or communicating to them in some way that what they are doing isn't ok??

 

And again, you are assuming that training with more positive techniques means that we don't communicate what we want. We do, just in different ways. And really, I do sometimes say No! and occasionally I lose my cool and even yell, although I immediately feel like shit after I do it because almost always its really not helpful and the dogs always look confused and slightly afraid my my temper.

 

I can actually appreciate the people I know who take the time and energy to really teach dogs using "positive only" training....I just don't think it's the best way, and that's where we disagree

 

And thats OK.

[juliepoudrier]

My question back to you would be, if you CAN teach your dog to do things without causing him physical discomfort, why wouldn't you?

I really was going to sit this one out because it really just seems like more of the same, but then Rushdoggie posted the statement above. Perhaps this is specific to the person to whom you addressed it (as in a response to a comment about leash pops)?

 

My biggest beef with the people who are anti-corrections in training is the apparent assumption that correction = punishment, when for most of us that is simply not the case. Most corrections are verbal or body-pressure based (this coming from a stockdog training POV).

 

Personally I train some things (like basic obedience stuff--sit, lie down, here) using treats and what I suppose would be considered positive methods. I also use corrections. I don't generally cause my dog(s) physical discomfort. In fact usually the only time I would get physical with them is if they are in the process of hurting some other animal, and even then you have to be able to administer the physical correction at the moment the infraction is occurring or it's pointless.

 

Kristine,

I'm probably going to regret saying this, but here goes anyway. I write and edit for a living and I realize that some people who post to this forum apparently don't have the same grammar and spelling skills that I have. I find it rather condescending when someone chooses to point out another's mistake by repeating the misused word in quotes. It's obvious you understood what the poster meant. Why diminish your own argument with such behavior? I'm not trying to be the posting police here, but here it struck me as petty. Your argument has sufficient merit on its own; there's no need to make fun of another person to prove your superiority (and yes, that's exactly what it looks like). I'm sure I've just managed the equivalent of kicking a hornet's nest--but I just wanted to point out that when I read something like that I start to think that the rest of what the person has to say isn't worth reading. That may not matter to you, but I felt compelled to say it.

 

Now heading back to sit on the sidelines and let y'all have at it....

 

J.