# What do you think?



## Guest (Jul 9, 2013)

Just curious about other's feelings on this.
Recently a trainer caused a ruckus after posting a video of himself correcting a dog. 
In response to the controversy, one of the things he has said is:
"This issue of having the right to correct your dog your way is a principle we all should have"

What do you think? Do we have the right to correct our dogs however we see fit?
If not, what parameters would you put on "correction"? How would you define what is okay and what is not okay?
Would you want to see national laws changed or leave it up to governing bodies in the dog training profession?

I don't really know what I think honestly. I try to be live and let live about this sort of thing. I'm certainly not one to wish for more legislation. I don't really want to be told how I can and cannot train my dogs, so I feel like I have to extend that same courtesy to those who train differently than I do. 

For example, I hate to see dogs jerked around on choke chains, but I don't want to see them banned either as I don't think that really solves the problem. I'd much rather see folks choosing to no longer use them because they have learned and incorporated viable alternatives. 

IDK... Just thought it would make for a good conversation


----------



## egroeg (Apr 17, 2013)

Educating people is probably the best but slowest way to go. Banning things/actions makes is difficult and how could it be policed? Educating non enlightened trainers would be a good way to begin. Sadly, there are many well meaning trainers, along with bad ones, who are still in the dark ages.



> If not, what parameters would you put on "correction"? How would you define what is okay and what is not okay?


Personally, since I began clicker training, I feel bad for correcting with a sharp AHH AHH. I suppose it focuses me on what I need to work on. It's usually something like sniffing at food put on a low table for granddaughter. My fault for not having trained it "There" and generalised enough.

A loud "NO" or "ENOUGH" is as far as I go in disciplining my dogs and it works.

A no reward marker is my best ally, rather than a correction when training. Only used when I know the dog really knows the cue.

Popular, quick fix TV dog progs don't help the general publics' attitude to dog training.



> "This issue of having the right to correct your dog your way is a principle we all should have"


In response to this, I'd say he's a git :thumbdown:


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

I feel that whilst to me, this man went too far, even by punishment based dog training that was really hard for what it actually did considering he set it up to fail in the first place, he's still going to have better trained dogs than most people do. Not saying it's right, but his methods clearly work. Also the dog doesn't seem affected by the punishment afterwards at all. 

I think a lot of the reasons why some people don't like positive training is that it takes longer than traditional methods. 

I think it's too easy to forget that although he trains in a different way to most people on this forum, it doesn't mean he doesn't love his dogs. 

Then there's the argument of that maybe if more dogs were trained like this then there would be less behaviour issues. Which is similar to what people say about how children had more respect years ago because they were punished when they did something wrong. 

Fear is also commonly mistaken for respect I think too.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Sounds like something an American 'patriot' would say (no offence intended ouesi, it just reminds me of people going on about their rights all the damn time [even if they don't actually have them in reality]). One does not have a right to treat dogs how they like, just as they don't have the right to treat children as they like. Had that been a child who was picked up and thrown etc. and it was reported then social services would be involved. I think it reveals a lot more about the man than anything else really, i.e. his dog is his object not a being who has a loving and respectful relationship with him.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

dandogman said:


> I feel that whilst to me, this man went too far, even by punishment based dog training that was really hard for what it actually did considering he set it up to fail in the first place, he's still going to have better trained dogs than most people do. Not saying it's right, but his methods clearly work. Also the dog doesn't seem affected by the punishment afterwards at all.
> 
> I think a lot of the reasons why some people don't like positive training is that it takes longer than traditional methods.
> 
> ...


With all due respect you are young enough to not have been clipped around the ear when you didn't understand, because the teacher became frustrated with their inability to explain in a way you understood, or to be rapped across the knuckles with a ruler for making a mistake when learning the piano. The second happened to me, I learned to hate and fear my piano lessons and gave up. Respect is earned from not beaten into.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

There are lots of things, in all areas of life, other people do that I do not agree with, but I cant see that changing.

Who gets to decide what is right/wrong? what makes them the authority?

Did not see the clip so dont know what he did.


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

While I understand what the trainer means, the problem is it leaves 'wriggle room' for some folk to abuse their dogs.

I don't think any dog owner or trainer has a 'right' to hurt a dog or cause it psychological distress.

Parents could say the same thing, that they have a 'right' to 'discipline' their children their way - but I don't think we would agree that this should ever include parents being able to hit or thump or traumatise their kids.

So I personally feel there must be parameters. For the protection of dogs. That trainer is - ironically - the PROOF that there must be parameters, surely?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> With all due respect you are young enough to not have been clipped around the ear when you didn't understand, because the teacher became frustrated with their inability to explain in a way you understood, or to be rapped across the knuckles with a ruler for making a mistake when learning the piano. The second happened to me, I learned to hate and fear my piano lessons and gave up. Respect is earned from not beaten into.


I had huge respect for my parents who used the clip round the ear/slapped legs fairly and sparingly


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

rona said:


> I had huge respect for my parents who used the clip round the ear/slapped legs fairly and sparingly


Indeed. I think fear is when you would be punished unjustly, or without reason. My dad would do that, and thus I stopped respecting him and would hit him back, my mother would not hit and I have respect for her. My grandad would have only spanked you (actually over the knee and spank, nothing else :lol: ) if you had done serious wrong, which I never did, but I had immense respect for him. My cousin once started skipping school, so my grandad went into the school and spanked him (in the school nonetheless). He never skipped school, and it didn't damage the relationship. There are ways and means with children, but the reason I see the difference is you can sit a child down and explain to them in English what they did wrong so that they can learn not to do that again and understand why, you cannot do that with a dog.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I didn't seethe clip but I really don't know how I could define what is or isn't acceptable for everyonne, only myself. Obviously if an animal was being caused excessive pain & distress this may alreay be covered in the Animal Welfare Law. Same as parents disciplining their children, I'm not in favour of smaking but then again I don't see all forms of physical punishment as child abuse.

There are lots of things I don't like seeing owners do regarding disciplining their dogs, but then everyone is different, has different training techniques, etc & who I am to say that their dogs is suffering because of it. Some dogs maybe disciplined more than I would do with mine but still have fantastic lives & adore their owners.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

I think that, yes, people have the right to but that does not mean they should.

People have the right to freedom of speech but that doesn't mean they should go around being homophobic or abusive. 

Respect has to be earnt, it does not come with age, gender, or job description. You may be the highest manager in a company, but if you act like a dickweed then you shall be treated like one. That does not mean that I am not polite to my elders or management, but unless I have reason to respect them, politeness is as far as it will go imo.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I think it makes for a very contentious conversation so I'll say now before it gets locked  

I don't believe the comparison between parents smacking children and punishment of dogs holds, because when I was smacked as a child it was very rare and I was old enough to understand. The comparison would only work if the child was a baby and that's not appropriate for here. That's the only way I can see how a dog would understand why it was smacked - it doesn't have the level of understanding of a child who can read and write. Especially if it's a delayed retaliation by the human - the stupidity of hitting a dog three hours after it's chewed the sofa.

If I can digress a little. Educating children has a lot of mileage, I do voluntary work with a charity who support children affected by bullying and much of the focus on re-educating bullies stems from their background, it's almost inevitable that bullies are bullied themselves sadly. I had a death from a drunk driver in my immediate family and whilst I've not felt able to do it recently, I have spoken to drunk drivers through a police programme and the results of meeting someone grief struck has had a huge result. It's about reeducating not punishment and I think there is room for that. Show and tell what you want people or animals to do.

I agree *egroeg*. Training is the way forward, in a positive way for humans and dogs but I fear that we've created ourselves a society where I'm seen as a social outcast or lady of leisure because I don't use supermarkets. I'm not, I just have moral principles, prefer to grow my own veg and I work very hard running my own business which means I have little time but it makes it all the more important for me. In short, I think we've created a 'want it now' civilisation and the slow movement, training for dogs included is the preservation of the minority.

On the positive side I think forums like PF have a huge groundswell to change this. A lot of the posts here are outraged about an incident and whilst it's great to complain here, imagine the impact if everyone signed up to an official petition? I do wish that when someone posted about an incident, they might also seek out the person leading the protest and ask what can all these people on PF do if they wanted to so there is an official, recognised way that is not trolling on FB or other forums which will cause a business or trainer to rethink their ways. Look at the RSCPA. There are so many people appalled by them on here, don't you think that's worth looking at or raising with a site like 38 degrees?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm very much live and let live in most cases. Unless I see someone truly abusing their dog anyway. It sounds awful but people just don't want to hear what I have to say on the matter, especially not when they're angry with their dog and want to punish it. Others just have a different opinion and I'm not going to change their mind any more than they'll change mine so we agree to disagree.

At the sled dog meet I go to everyone is pro dominance except me. I cringe to see some of the corrections the dogs get but they're not what I'd consider abuse and the dogs are well loved, happy dogs who are, for the most part, treated well. The people who own the dogs Spen plays with outside the flat use food and toys to reward their dogs yet will give physical corrections, talk about dominance and force the dogs to do things if they disobey.

Me arguing with these people, calling them cruel or stupid or abusive isn't going to do anything is it? I train my dog my way, make my points about dog training in general discussion and leave it at that. 

At the end of the day, who would decide what is abusive? You have the obvious things like kicking, punching etc but what about the less obvious things? You could abuse a sound sensitive dog with training discs or a throw chain or a loud voice. You can intimidate and shut down a soft dog without ever laying a finger on it. Yet those same dogs may be able to take a swat on the butt or a check from a choke chain without being excessively hurt or afraid by it. Or vice versa.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I thought the bloke was a bit hard on the dog but in no way cruel. It was mild compared with a lot of 'corrections'.

I prefer to see a dog trained in a way that it understands. I cant get my head round people on here saying they have been trying for months to teach their dog something - I always think the dog must be so confused. I was taught, ask first time, tell the second time and make the third time and I think this works with kids as well. How you 'make' depends on the dog/child and on their understanding of what you have asked but I do NOT believe in nagging at them for months - if they are not doing it after the first couple of lessons then you are not teaching it right so go back to basics and find a method that suits the individual.

As for legislation on how you are allowed to train your dog - that is totally ridiculous.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Well here's my two cents... no doubt it will offend plenty but I'm afraid this is honest opinion.

There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER to use violence and intimidation in order to teach.
As such, any violence and intimidation is either used in ignorance, or as a deliberate act of cruelty. 
Yes you read that right - anyone who knows of alternatives and still chooses to use pain and fear is deliberately abusing their animal.

I am frankly disgusted that any decent human being - let alone a supposed dog lover - would consider lifting an animal by its ears, swinging it and shaking it around, before thumping it, etc to be anything other than abuse. :yikes:

I am equally disgusted by the obsession with human rights that suggests we should be allowed to treat animals (even kids according to some) in any way see fit - even if that causes unnecessary pain, fear and distress - or has the potential to cause serious emotional or physical damage.

Animal and child abuse should be illegal.
Animal abuse and child abuse ARE illegal in most civilsed countries.

Why on earth do we allow such abuses in the name of training? And why on earth would we want to protect the "rights" of those that do it?

Seriously, this whole debate makes me feel very sad, and a little bit sick....


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> As for legislation on how you are allowed to train your dog - that is totally ridiculous.


Out of curiosity - are you also against existing legislation on how to train your children or spouse?
Do you think we were wrong to ban parents from beating their kids black and blue, or husbands beating their wives, for misbehaving or disobeying or sturuggling to learn?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> With all due respect you are young enough to not have been clipped around the ear when you didn't understand, because the teacher became frustrated with their inability to explain in a way you understood, or to be rapped across the knuckles with a ruler for making a mistake when learning the piano. The second happened to me, I learned to hate and fear my piano lessons and gave up. Respect is earned from not beaten into.


Yes that's right. I've been physically punished by my parents though, never done me any harm. It was only when I was being deliberately naughty, not because I didn't understand something. Being clipped around the ear for not understanding is an example of poor teaching not punishment. how can someone justify punishment for not understanding something. In my opinion, punishment is only when there is deliberate wrong doing.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

dandogman said:


> how can someone justify punishment for not understanding something. In my opinion, punishment is only when there is deliberate wrong doing.


And yet that is what many, many people do to their dogs in the name of training, punish them for not understanding what is expected of them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> And yet that is what many, many people do to their dogs in the name of training, punish them for not understanding what is expected of them.


^This this this this this this this this this this this this this this!


----------



## Bagrat (Jun 4, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> With all due respect you are young enough to not have been clipped around the ear when you didn't understand, because the teacher became frustrated with their inability to explain in a way you understood, or to be rapped across the knuckles with a ruler for making a mistake when learning the piano. The second happened to me, I learned to hate and fear my piano lessons and gave up. Respect is earned from not beaten into.


I think Dandogman was just playing Devil's Advocate here, not saying older methods (for people or animals ) were a good thing.
I used to get rapped with a ruler at piano lessons too!! We had a school reunion a few years ago (50 years since we started secondary school) We all agreed we were fearful at school as we were never rewarded for good work only harangued when we didn't do well ( so werre we like the "shut down" dogs. In spite of this we all seemed OK successful adults. Who knows with a bit more encouragement we could have been even better.

So now do we have to consider old fashioned training versus not training at all?? I think it's slowly slowly catchee monkey and not everyone has the time and patience. We are all human trying to speak dog and some days are just frustrating and we may shout or yank as a reflex then feel awful. have just read dandogman's post re being clipped round the ear didn't do any harm - but it might have done as Sarah said everyone is different and so is every dog so we have to assume punishment is not a good thing to minimise damage,


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

dandogman said:


> I feel that whilst to me, this man went too far, even by punishment based dog training that was really hard for what it actually did considering he set it up to fail in the first place, he's still going to have better trained dogs than most people do. Not saying it's right, but his methods clearly work. Also the dog doesn't seem affected by the punishment afterwards at all.
> 
> I think a lot of the reasons why some people don't like positive training is that it takes longer than traditional methods.
> 
> ...


!!!!

Could picking a dog up by the ears/neck, swinging it backwards before dropping it on the ground and then whacking it _hard_ twice really be described as training? especially when the dog is purposely being set up to fail in order to be punished. That's not training to me - that is bullying and abuse.

There is also no comparison to be made between physically disciplining a child and a dog. You can verbalize the threat of imminent punishment to a child so it is able to avoid the punishment; you cannot do that to a dog. In dog training, people often hit their dogs out of frustration. Combined with poor time timing of the corrections, it isn't surprising the animal gets terribly confused and has no idea of what is expected of it.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Thing is people will take it to mean what suits them and the bad owners who just repeatedly smack the dogs for trivial things will just say 'well law says I have the right to train my dog as I see fit! ' 

I went to training class years ago with Inca and they used choke chains and dragged them up and down the field whats worrying is he was an ex-police dog handler/trainer so I guess that's how they trained the police dogs! 

After mastering 'the internet' (I was very new to it then!) I discovered all kinds of research and Clicker training and instead used that. it was much more effective and I had a much happier, less stressed dog. 

I don't use any 'cruel tools' such as the cans that spray air.. (I've seen one dog so terrified by it they would not return to owner, who was actually using it on a puppy who seemed oblivious to it!) 

And certainly would never use the Citronella spray collars or electric shock collars. 

I tried a crate.. Inca didn't like it but it was effective in the sense that she learned quickly if she didn't wreck the house when I was gone she didn't have to stay in it! .. it went in a cupboard under the stairs. 

My youngest loves it though he's had it from 8 weeks. It's left in corner of spare room for him to come and go as he pleases. It will stay there till he decides he's had enough of it and stops using it, but it's never used for punishment. 

if he pulls when out I stop dead, we don't move until he's relaised.. and he does... usually sits down or steps back so at side of me again and we set off again.. if he manages a few steps without pulling I click & treat and again if I see a car coming down from top of road.. I click and treat as its getting closer so then his attention is focused on me. It's taken a while and takes a long down to get down a short stretch of road but this morning he walked down main road beautifully and there was lots of cars kids walking past going to school etc and he didn't pull. Ok he still needs lots of verbal reassurance and reminding (he's only 10 months old) but we got down the road in half the time without dislocated shoulders! 

and I'm NOT a professional dog trainer or had any kind of 'proper instruction' in how to train a dog.. just a person who loves their dogs and doesn't believe in cruelty!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

labradrk said:


> !!!!
> 
> Could picking a dog up by the ears/neck, swinging it backwards before dropping it on the ground and then whacking it _hard_ twice really be described as training? especially when the dog is purposely being set up to fail in order to be punished. That's not training to me - that is bullying and abuse.
> 
> *There is also no comparison to be made between physically disciplining a child and a dog. You can verbalize the threat of imminent punishment to a child so it is able to avoid the punishment; you cannot do that to a dog. In dog training, people often hit their dogs out of frustration.* Combined with poor time timing of the corrections, it isn't surprising the animal gets terribly confused and has no idea of what is expected of it.


Without deviating too much from the thread, I don't think you can justify one form of physical punishment & not the other. Some children may know what the consequences are but whether they understand them is different, some may choose to disobey but does that still justify a physical punishment? What if the child continues to misbehave & is repeatedly smacked (as is often the case) this would suggest that the punishment is not effective.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Bagrat said:


> I think Dandogman was just playing Devil's Advocate here, not saying older methods (for people or animals ) were a good thing.
> I used to get rapped with a ruler at piano lessons too!! We had a school reunion a few years ago (50 years since we started secondary school) We all agreed we were fearful at school as we were never rewarded for good work only harangued when we didn't do well ( so werre we like the "shut down" dogs. In spite of this we all seemed OK successful adults. Who knows with a bit more encouragement we could have been even better.


The difference being that you got to move on from the fearful situation to a place of decisions and control and ultimately success. The dogs remain where they are living in fear.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Colette said:


> Out of curiosity - are you also against existing legislation on how to train your children or spouse?
> Do you think we were wrong to ban parents from beating their kids black and blue, or husbands beating their wives, for misbehaving or disobeying or sturuggling to learn?


Of course parents should not beat their children black and blue - I hardly think anyone has every thought that is right. A smack for misbehaving should not be banned though - I am very against legislation like that. Parents that want to beat their children will carry on doing so but decent parents who have a child that reacts better to a short sharp physical correction are breaking the law and maybe having to use methods that amount to mental abuse in that child.

Same with dogs, it is not legal or right to beat your dog up, but that is very different from correcting a dog that has broken a stay. That bloke was stupid to do it by picking the dog up by its ears and it was rather pointless but no way was it an offence!


----------



## Bagrat (Jun 4, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> The difference being that you got to move on from the fearful situation to a place of decisions and control and ultimately success. The dogs remain where they are living in fear.


Couldn't agree more. As time goes on J is getting better at choosing good decisions but in some situations I still have to choose for him!! I am his carer and there to prevent bad decisions on his part from causing him harm.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

Oh wow this took off! Darned time zone difference!
I'm gonna need a full cup of coffee in me to read through this 

But just quickly wanted to say that it's not at all true that punishment makes for a better behaved dog than force-free, rewards-based methods. 

There is a limit to what punishment can do, and with some dogs that limit is much smaller than others. With R+ the only limit is your imagination and your dog's physical abilities.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

Blitz said:


> Of course parents should not beat their children black and blue - I hardly think anyone has every thought that is right. A smack for misbehaving should not be banned though - I am very against legislation like that. Parents that want to beat their children will carry on doing so but decent parents who have a child that reacts better to a short sharp physical correction are breaking the law and maybe having to use methods that amount to mental abuse in that child.


I agree with you that legislation won't stop the behavior - which is interesting that you should say that because essentially what you're saying is that punishment (jail time) will not stop child beaters from beating their children. IOW, that for a certain demographic, punishment does not work. Interesting huh?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying punishment in general doesn't work, because it does. And well. But it doesn't do what we think it's doing. 
Punishment works to stop a behavior while the threat of punishment is there. Punishment does nothing to address why the person (or dog) would be doing that behavior to begin with. I bet some of those child beaters would not hit the frustration and anger levels to beat their kids if they had the tools to deal with frustration and anger.

Basically, punishment is a means of control. Nothing more, nothing less. When it comes to my kids, I don't want to 'control' them, I want to teach them and guide them. I want them to learn to control themselves, not because they fear some consequence, but because they feel empathy and compassion and they can think through a behavior to it's end result. I want their good behavior to be a free choice, not forces.

And I want the same for my dogs. Obviously the training will be different but the principle remains. Training is something you do WITH a dog, not TO a dog. We work together, we find reasons behind why they are or are not doing something, and we work from there. 
We have to remember too, that since dogs can't communicate with us like our children, very often what we think is deliberate misbehavior is anything but. Dogs get conflicted just like humans do, and often what looks like a dog blowing off a cue is instead a dog who is conflicted, or worried, or confused...
You can punish these blow offs all day long and it's not going to do you a lick of good because you haven't addressed the dog's emotional state first.



Blitz said:


> Same with dogs, it is not legal or right to beat your dog up, but that is very different from correcting a dog that has broken a stay. That bloke was stupid to do it by picking the dog up by its ears and it was rather pointless but no way was it an offence!


Just out of curiosity, if someone grabbed one of your dogs by the ears and smacked them in the bum, how would you react? Would you be upset that your dog was treated that way?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Colette said:


> Well here's my two cents... no doubt it will offend plenty but I'm afraid this is honest opinion.
> 
> There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER to use violence and intimidation in order to teach.
> As such, any violence and intimidation is either used in ignorance, or as a deliberate act of cruelty.
> ...


Hear bloody hear!

Well said!

And remember folks if you don't stand for something you'll fall for any bloody old thing!:yesnod:


----------



## Mulish (Feb 20, 2013)

moonviolet said:


> With all due respect you are young enough to not have been clipped around the ear when you didn't understand, because the teacher became frustrated with their inability to explain in a way you understood, or to be rapped across the knuckles with a ruler for making a mistake when learning the piano. The second happened to me, I learned to hate and fear my piano lessons and gave up. *Respect is earned from not beaten into*.


I think that was the point Dan was making with his last sentence about fear being mistaken for respect with the sort of trainers who use these methods. I completely agree that physical punishment - or fear in general - has no place in teaching. The best teacher I ever had was actually a manager in my second work place who spent a morning teaching me my new job and then asked me what I remembered. His exact words were, "if you don't know it's because I didn't teach you properly." It relaxed me so much I got everything right. I try and remember that every time I'm in a teaching position now, with children or animals or even other adults.

That's on my good days, though. On bad days I get angry and frustrated and impatient and don't always do things the way I should. Extra legislation won't change that and it likely won't change the people who think it's their right to bully their dogs into submission. Education will help those that want to learn but there won't ever be a perfect system as nobody is perfect.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I agree with you that legislation won't stop the behavior - which is interesting that you should say that because essentially what you're saying is that punishment (jail time) will not stop child beaters from beating their children. IOW, that for a certain demographic, punishment does not work. Interesting huh?
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying punishment in general doesn't work, because it does. And well. But it doesn't do what we think it's doing.
> Punishment works to stop a behavior while the threat of punishment is there. Punishment does nothing to address why the person (or dog) would be doing that behavior to begin with. I bet some of those child beaters would not hit the frustration and anger levels to beat their kids if they had the tools to deal with frustration and anger.
> ...


But, at times, isn't control something that is is needed? Even if it doesn't maybe address the root cause?

In a dog training sense I would relate this to Roxy's chasing behaviour, I know why she has done this (it's fun!) & know that I need to make a toy as fun to stop this .... easier said than done though! Personally I do not think I will achieve this so need to control this behaviour (or manage it better). It may not be what others would do but she is no longer allowed to look at an animal now or she gets told off. This (IMO) has been more successful than anything so far, & she was able to play with me in a field a few weeks ago with deer nearby & did not fixate on them.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I must be the worst dog owner ever, my poor dog must live in terror of me setting foot anywhere near him. The poor confused abused animal :laugh: :laugh:

I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated. :yikes:

It's contact, getting his attention when he's intent on something else. Doesn't have to be hard and it certainly isn't what any sensible person would class as cruel.

When I got him at 20 months he flinched.........he doesn't now!!

Different stroke for different folks as long as there is no cruelty involved

When creeping up on wildlife a high pitched silly voice or rummaging for treats would have the subject running for cover


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

OMG

I've even used a stick on him :lol::lol:


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

I can't reconcile this:



rona said:


> Different stroke for different folks as long as there is no cruelty involved


With this:



rona said:


> I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him,* hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated.* :yikes:


And this:



rona said:


> OMG
> 
> I've even used a stick on him :lol::lol:


I'm rather shocked, to be honest. I guess you never can tell..


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

labradrk said:


> !!!!
> 
> Could picking a dog up by the ears/neck, swinging it backwards before dropping it on the ground and then whacking it _hard_ twice really be described as training? especially when the dog is purposely being set up to fail in order to be punished. That's not training to me - that is bullying and abuse.
> 
> There is also no comparison to be made between physically disciplining a child and a dog. You can verbalize the threat of imminent punishment to a child so it is able to avoid the punishment; you cannot do that to a dog. In dog training, people often hit their dogs out of frustration. Combined with poor time timing of the corrections, it isn't surprising the animal gets terribly confused and has no idea of what is expected of it.


you've conveniently ignored the first paragraph


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rona said:


> I must be the worst dog owner ever, my poor dog must live in terror of me setting foot anywhere near him. The poor confused abused animal :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated. :yikes:
> 
> ...


Under what circumstances would you need to hit or kick a dog for "not listening or concentrating"?


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

Just goes to show you never know who you are trusting to walk your dog.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Threads like this scare me frankly. Places where you find out that those you thought were kind and on the same wavelength are not. Is anyone taking bets on how many pages it runs to before it's closed?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Wow I'm utterly shocked and really saddened by some of the responses on here....

Strangely was working on heel work with Cian last night, and was saying to OH that when I look back on when I first started my Army Dog training, I'm ashamed of how we *used * to check our dogs to heel my only saving grace was that we used flat collars not choke chains like the RAF and Police did at the time.... We were not allowed to use treats as training aids, but after my basic training, I did my own thing, and used treats and reward based training.

There is NO excuse to be hitting, kicking, checking really doing anything physical on a dog, and ask them tell them make them is archaic  If your dog is not listening to you, YOU are at fault, not the dog, so why should the dog pay for you not getting your dog to understand what you want......

I don't care what excuse anyone uses you don't need to use any kind of force to train a dog..

This thread has saddened me.........


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> But, at times, isn't control something that is is needed? Even if it doesn't maybe address the root cause?
> 
> In a dog training sense I would relate this to Roxy's chasing behaviour, I know why she has done this (it's fun!) & know that I need to make a toy as fun to stop this .... easier said than done though! Personally I do not think I will achieve this so need to control this behaviour (or manage it better). It may not be what others would do but she is no longer allowed to look at an animal now or she gets told off. This (IMO) has been more successful than anything so far, & she was able to play with me in a field a few weeks ago with deer nearby & did not fixate on them.


Yes, absolutely, sometimes you have to have control. When a child is about to run across the street you grab their arm and prevent them from doing so. If you're freaked out, you might even grab the child roughly and maybe even yell. That's not training or discipline or anything other than taking control of the situation to keep life and limb together.
If my dogs get in to a fight, I'm going to yell and grab and yank and stop it however I need to. But I'm not training them not to fight. I'm just keeping life and limb together. And if I were paying better attention, I would have prevented the situation from escalating to begin with. 
The training, the b-mod, that happens later. After everyone is checked for injuries and the adrenaline quits flowing.

IMO there is never any need to use force, fear, pain, or intimidation to train a dog or a child. And often these tactics backfire anyway. But that is how *I* feel and I don't know that I have a right to force my beliefs on others. I can share, yes, but force in the way of legislation? IDK that I'm comfortable with that... It seems a bit of a slippery slope...


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Phoolf said:


> Sounds like something an American 'patriot' would say (no offence intended ouesi, it just reminds me of people going on about their rights all the damn time [even if they don't actually have them in reality]). One does not have a right to treat dogs how they like, just as they don't have the right to treat children as they like. Had that been a child who was picked up and thrown etc. and it was reported then social services would be involved. I think it reveals a lot more about the man than anything else really, i.e. his dog is his object not a being who has a loving and respectful relationship with him.


I've found that people who are very hot on their own personal 'rights' often seem to have no concepts of their own personal 'responsibilities'.

We may have a right to train a dog in any way we wish, but we have a responsibility to our animals not to be cruel to them.

The problem with rights is that if everyone has unlimited rights, sooner or later there is going to be friction.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

myshkin said:


> I can't reconcile this:
> 
> With this:
> 
> ...


Same here!


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

How a propos  Look what showed up in my newsfeed this morning 

Can you train a police dog using only positive reinforcement? | Positive Police Dogs

Surely if police dogs can be trained without force, a pet dog can be?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I find it very sad that some seem to feel the need to brag about how much physical force they use or have used with their dogs. I look back on the times I used those sort of methods with regret, not pride.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> How a propos  Look what showed up in my newsfeed this morning
> 
> Can you train a police dog using only positive reinforcement? | Positive Police Dogs
> 
> Surely if police dogs can be trained without force, a pet dog can be?


That's the point I was making too lol I started in the early 90's doing my Army guard dog training, working with right arm true dogs, while we "checked" them the training still wasn't based round force, these were dogs who were trained to bite, some had been gifted by rescues as they would be PTS otherwise, not once did I have to punch, kick or hit any dog I worked with. I have always had big bolschy male Rottweilers and GSD's not once have I had to use force to get them trained, they IS NO excuse for it..

I was once told by a Vet Corp Dog Trainer, that a bad workman always blames his tools, so if your dog isn't doing it right, your doing it wrong, never blame the dog for YOUR mistakes :sad:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Just out of curiosity, if someone grabbed one of your dogs by the ears and smacked them in the bum, how would you react? Would you be upset that your dog was treated that way?


One of my dogs I would be furious. The other one it would not affect badly but it would depend on the reason why. I think I would be annoyed if someone else did it because it would be up to me to assess whether it was appropriate. Laughable at the thought of Toffee attacking another dog but if she did and it was an appropriate way to deter her then fair enough. If someone else told her to to do a down stay then it would be inappropriate as she has not been and will not be trained to do a down stay that really matters - with my collies it was important.



rona said:


> I must be the worst dog owner ever, my poor dog must live in terror of me setting foot anywhere near him. The poor confused abused animal :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated. :yikes:
> 
> ...


I think Rona has summed it up here. It is horses for courses.
I also think the problem here is that someone who trains dogs for a proper job , be it a police dog, gun dog or sheep dog, has a different aim. The dog has to be focused, it has to obey instantly or it is a danger. There is a huge difference between kicking the **** out of a dog or even slapping it and making sure it does as it is told when it is told - once it understands what is wanted.
Forget about training by fear or using force - this is not the issue. Some people seem to think that making a dog do as you ask is intimidating it. Of course it is not, it is showing it clearly what is wanted and backing up your command in a way that that particular dog understands. A warning voice could be too much for one dog and a jerk on a choke chain could be too little for another dog.
I would never advocate beating a dog into submission either literally or otherwise but I do believe in making sure the dog understands what is wanted in a clear way and then backing up your verbal command if the dog does not respond. If you find clicker training works for your dog and you can get that response then that is your choice, but it is not good to assume that everyone who uses other methods is cruel.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> One of my dogs I would be furious. The other one it would not affect badly but it would depend on the reason why. I think I would be annoyed if someone else did it because it would be up to me to assess whether it was appropriate. Laughable at the thought of Toffee attacking another dog but if she did and it was an appropriate way to deter her then fair enough. If someone else told her to to do a down stay then it would be inappropriate as she has not been and will not be trained to do a down stay that really matters - with my collies it was important.
> 
> I think Rona has summed it up here. It is horses for courses.
> I also think the problem here is that someone who trains dogs for a proper job , be it a police dog, gun dog or sheep dog, has a different aim. The dog has to be focused, it has to obey instantly or it is a danger. There is a huge difference between kicking the **** out of a dog or even slapping it and making sure it does as it is told when it is told - once it understands what is wanted.
> ...


No they don't, I trained my work dogs, and my pet dogs with the same aim to be obedient and capable of what I asked them to do... I didn't have to smack, kick or ask them tell them and then make them, come to think of it, I would have like to have seen someone try that method with my work dogs... they would have only done it once.........


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

Colette said:


> Well here's my two cents... no doubt it will offend plenty but I'm afraid this is honest opinion.
> 
> There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER to use violence and intimidation in order to teach.
> As such, any violence and intimidation is either used in ignorance, or as a deliberate act of cruelty.
> ...


this, exactly, although far better put that I would of managed.

I am shocked at the admissions on this thread, I don't know why I always assumed that members on here used non violent positive reinforcement.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh get over yourselves.  

Some of you, sitting on your high horses, treat your dogs worse than I do.

As I said Alfie has never flinched from me, so work out how hard I've done any of this 

A small tap, a light shove, a stick because he was out of arms length to tap.

I really have started to despair of this forum and holier than thou attitude of the pack


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

crud I have several long replies in my head but have to run off to dog training in 3 minutes... Please everyone behave so I can get a reply in when I get back and the thread not get closed?


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Meezey said:


> That's the point I was making too lol I started in the early 90's doing my Army guard dog training, working with right arm true dogs, while we "checked" them the training still wasn't based round force, these were dogs who were trained to bite, some had been gifted by rescues as they would be PTS otherwise, not once did I have to punch, kick or hit any dog I worked with. I have always had big bolschy male Rottweilers and GSD's not once have I had to use force to get them trained, they IS NO excuse for it..
> 
> I was once told by a Vet Corp Dog Trainer, that a bad workman always blames his tools, so if your dog isn't doing it right, your doing it wrong, never blame the dog for YOUR mistakes :sad:


I'd like to see one of these prehistoric gundog men try doing what that bloke did to that Springer to a drivey working Mal, GSD or Rott. Something tells me they wouldn't dare. They like a dog they can intimidate, and sadly Spaniels, Labs and other 'soft' dogs are just the perfect target.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rona said:


> Oh get over yourselves.
> 
> Some of you, sitting on your high horses, treat your dogs worse than I do.
> 
> ...


You must have wanted a reaction, which is presumably why you said you hit, kicked and used a stick to correct your dog. It just seems like a strange thing to say.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> Oh get over yourselves.
> 
> Some of you, sitting on your high horses, treat your dogs worse than I do.
> 
> ...


I don't know what's rattled your cage today, but your earlier posts suggest the kind of punishment I consider cruel and pointlessly ineffective in training. That's my opinion, I don't require the backing of a "pack" to hold that opinion or express it on a forum. So no, I won't "get over myself" because there isn't anything to get over.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

labradrk said:


> I'd like to see one of these prehistoric gundog men try doing what that bloke did to that Springer to a drivey working Mal, GSD or Rott. Something tells me they wouldn't dare. They like a dog they can intimidate, and sadly Spaniels, Labs and other 'soft' dogs are just the perfect target.


Exactly, and I wouldn't do it to any other dog I was training out of respect for the dog ( no matter what the breed) . I wonder if so many people would be so hands on with their dogs if they thought for one minute that dog could and would use the same kind of force back at them :sad: Force is often met with force.. I don't think it's a holier than thou attitude, I just respect the dogs I trained and I wouldn't lay my hand or feet on my dogs in a forceful manner, unless it was to stop them putting themselves in harms way.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

rona said:


> Oh get over yourselves.
> 
> Some of you, sitting on your high horses, treat your dogs worse than I do.
> 
> ...


Maybe they do, maybe they don't but they aren't the ones posting, quite frankly gleefully, about it. And the "I might do this but you do something worse" defence is no defence at all. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that jazz.

Why do you need to tap, shove, kick, hit, with a stick or without one? What does that bring to your training and how does it improve your relationship with your dog?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

labradrk said:


> You must have wanted a reaction, which is presumably why you said you hit, kicked and used a stick to correct your dog. It just seems like a strange thing to say.


Just pissed of with the gangs on here. Like to give them a shake up every now and then 

Seems you are bad if you don't train completely positive or if you don't feed raw.

Doesn't matter that your dog is virtually always happy, has eyes that are alive because of the stimulation/variation you give it or that you actually skint yourself to give your dog the medicine/care it requires.
If you give it a tap with your toe or a stick or feed it cheapish food, you are the worst owner ever


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Just pissed of with the gangs on here. Like to give them a shake up every now and then
> 
> Seems you are bad if you don't train completely positive or if you don't feed raw.
> 
> ...


"I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, *hit him and even kicked him* when he hasn't listened or concentrated."

You said tapped, and then followed it with hit and kick........

I don't care what people feed their dogs but I strongly disagree with Hitting or kicking. The odd tap is a bit different than a hit or a kick....


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rona said:


> Just pissed of with the gangs on here. Like to give them a shake up every now and then
> 
> Seems you are bad if you don't train completely positive or if you don't feed raw.
> 
> ...


I get what you are saying but I don't think that is strictly true. No one is perfect and we have all probably done things training wise that we regret.

I doubt anyone here is 'completely positive', either. I don't even know how you could be completely positive? that would be a strange state to be in - positive ALL the time. I'm certainly not. I'll shout at my dogs like a fishwife sometimes (I'm human, sorry dogs) and I also have.....gasp.......a dreaded Pet Corrector spray. Yes, that dreaded spray that is a cop out and a sin.  I very rarely use it but I still have it.

BUT.....I think 99% of us can agree that what that gundog man did was way OTT. I would have way more respect if he held his hands up and said "I'm wrong" rather than desperately try to justify his actions by any means.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Personally I don't really care whether someone trains with completely positive methods, I will agree to disagree and have done many times in real life. But when someone is gloating about what they've done to their dog in the name of training I find that very, very sad. Regardless of what "the pack" (whatever/whoever that may be ) thinks.

And no, I'm not perfect. I've had moments where I've flapped the leash in frustration or yelled at my dog but I do not hit, kick or grab him.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

myshkin said:


> I don't know what's rattled your cage today, but your earlier posts suggest the kind of punishment *I consider cruel and pointlessly ineffective in training.* That's my opinion, I don't require the backing of a "pack" to hold that opinion or express it on a forum. So no, I won't "get over myself" because there isn't anything to get over.


I didn't mention that I used it in training


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> Personally I don't really care whether someone trains with completely positive methods, I will agree to disagree and have done many times in real life. But when someone is gloating about what they've done to their dog in the name of training I find that very, very sad. Regardless of what "the pack" (whatever/whoever that may be ) thinks.
> 
> And no, I'm not perfect. I've had moments where I've flapped the leash in frustration or yelled at my dog but I do not hit, kick or grab him.


*I didn't say training*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Proves my point :thumbsup:


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

If not for training then Y vvere you kicking the dog?? For $hit$ and giggle$?


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

So why mention it on a thread about training methods? Maybe elaborate on why you are doing it or tbh it just seems like you are trying to deliberately wind people up without actually adding anything to the debate. That's called trolling.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> I didn't mention that I used it in training


You mentioned the context of working, from what I can see......does the dog know the difference? Not sure what the point is, and I'm surprised at the game-playing going on here. I think there are probably more enjoyable ways to distract myself from work today.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

rona said:


> *I didn't say training*


So you did it why? For the sake of it? Because it would save his life? Why hit him? Why kick him?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I did explain in my first post on the subject but you all missed that of course in your hurry to create a pack 
When creeping up on wildlife to "*PHOTOGRAPH*" it, you need to go with stealth. To get a dogs attention you prod, poke, push, pull. You do not talk, you do not go rustling in a pocket or bag for treats.

I'm sure Alfie would rather that than plodding around some boring playing field


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Also, he's been an invalid dog for 5 years, who I have spent a great deal of money on.
Sure I'm going to treat him rough


----------



## foxyrockmeister (May 30, 2011)

Werehorse said:


> If not for training then Y vvere you kicking the dog?? For $hit$ and giggle$?


Ppfffffftttt!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, that made me :lol: I promised myself I was going to stay out of this thread as I could see where it was headed and I didn't want to be accused of being someone rather unsavoury again!! But I had to like your post, brilliant!


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

rona said:


> I must be the worst dog owner ever, my poor dog must live in terror of me setting foot anywhere near him. The poor confused abused animal :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated. :yikes:
> 
> ...


Hardly very clear what you meant tbh. Why take him to photograph wildlife if you can't adequately control him?

And the jibe about playing fields? Very adult.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

rona said:


> I did explain in my first post on the subject but you all missed that of course in your hurry to create a pack
> When creeping up on wildlife to "*PHOTOGRAPH*" it, you need to go with stealth. To get a dogs attention you prod, poke, push, pull. You do not talk, you do not go rustling in a pocket or bag for treats.
> 
> I'm sure Alfie would rather that than plodding around some boring playing field


Sorry but I can touch my dog to get his attention and give a body signal to get him to do something. I don't need to pull, push, hit or kick him for not listening or concentrating.

I'm in no hurry to create a pack, I have my own opinion and am happy to give it regardless of whether or not people agree with me.

Oh, and if you think training with positive reinforcement means you have to go rustling around in a treat packet every time you want your dog to do something you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

L/C said:


> Hardly very clear what you meant tbh. Why take him to photograph wildlife if you can't adequately control him?
> 
> And the jibe about playing fields? Very adult.


Only because you don't read all the post, just the bit you need to attack someone.

Why? It's true. He's much rather be out and about than plodding around a playing field. Don't know what's wrong with that statement 

PS. I have adequate control thanks but I am taller than him and often see the subject before he does.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

I've been told to be harsher on Pippa, as in slapping her, hanging her up with a slip lead, ear pinching etc... I didn't follow that obviously. At most I will give her a check on the slip lead - just to say 'oi! listen'. 

I do think that different dogs may need different training though. Some dogs need more boundaries I think, whereas others are happy to go with the flow. Obviously even the strongest dog doesn't need picking up 3ft off the ground by it's ears though! 

I honestly don't think a tap (which I'm taking as literally a tap rather than a slap) as Rona as described does any harm at all.

I do gundog training without treats now as Pippa isn't a pup anymore. Her reward is the retrieve. She did go through a period of taking the piss and running off when we were supposed to be doing heel work. I was firm with her but fair - definitely not harsh. She now walks really well off lead as she knows I'll give her a retrieve at the end of it... we're still working on other dogs...

Pippa isn't field trial level, and I don't pretend she is, but I know that if she would focus more around other dogs (hoping that will come with age and working with Molly as a distraction) she would be a good working dog. I do hope to get her out into the real working world in a few years time when she chills out a bit around other dogs, maybe even into some working tests. After all it's bred into her. Her Sire is FTCH Dipplelodge Raven Of Riversway, and she has lots of famous FTCH dogs in her pedigree. 

I know people are talking about the training of police dogs, it would actually be detrimental to be physically harsh on a police dog as it required to be confident and shy away from violent people, with sticks, guns etc...


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

$eem$ a bit har$h; kicking your dog $o that you can do $omething you enjoy that ha$ zero added benefit for him. Vhy not ju$t take him for an enjoyable for dog$ vvalk and do the photography $eperately if you are having to re$ort to phy$ical violence to get vhat you vant.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> Also, he's been an invalid dog for 5 years, who I have spent a great deal of money on.
> Sure I'm going to treat him rough


This is very much the point - you appear to have quite deliberately suggested you would in your earlier posts, just to provoke a reaction. Mostly that reaction was shock that you would hit and kick your dog, as *you said* you did.

What's been achieved here, other than fooling us all, in order to gain our honest opinions? I'm lost


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

dandogman said:


> I've been told to be harsher on Pippa, as in slapping her, hanging her up with a slip lead, ear pinching etc... I didn't follow that obviously. At most I will give her a check on the slip lead - just to say 'oi! listen'.
> 
> I do think that different dogs may need different training though. Some dogs need more boundaries I think, whereas others are happy to go with the flow. Obviously even the strongest dog doesn't need picking up 3ft off the ground by it's ears though!
> 
> ...


Good luck.

There's nothing like working with your dog :thumbsup:


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

labradrk said:


> I'd like to see one of these prehistoric gundog *men* try doing what that bloke did to that Springer to a drivey working Mal, GSD or Rott. Something tells me they wouldn't dare. They like a dog they can intimidate, and sadly Spaniels, Labs and other 'soft' dogs are just the perfect target.


It's not just men btw.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

rona said:


> Only because you don't read all the post, just the bit you need to attack someone.
> 
> Why? It's true. He's much rather be out and about than plodding around a playing field. Don't know what's wrong with that statement
> 
> PS. I have adequate control thanks but I am taller than him and often see the subject before he does.


Nope - read all the post, even quoted it. Didn't respond until you said that it wasn't so bad because the people who were criticising you treated their dogs worse then you do.

But seeing as how you deliberately made the post ambiguous and how everyone seems to have mis-read it I can't see any other motivation for posting then to wind people up and de-rail the thread. So as I said before, you're trolling.

I'm going to bow out of this now because I suspect this furore is exactly what you want and I don't want to get ouesi's thread closed.


----------



## kat&molly (Mar 2, 2011)

dandogman said:


> It's not just men btw.


We know that


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

rona said:


> Good luck.
> 
> There's nothing like working with your dog :thumbsup:


...and when Dan used an E-collar you're right, that was *NOTHING* like working WITH his dog.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rona said:


> Only because you don't read all the post, just the bit you need to attack someone.
> 
> Why? It's true. He's much rather be out and about than plodding around a playing field. Don't know what's wrong with that statement
> 
> PS. I have adequate control thanks but I am taller than him and often see the subject before he does.


Do you know about setting a dog up for success? The more you give them situations in which they are bound to fail, then the more frustrating it gets.

I have to say this is what I meant in my first post, that education counts for much more than harsh techniques whether human or animal - it's a common respect. If he is going to fail each time you go out taking photographs, don't take him! Just because it's what you want to do, doesn't mean it's what the dog wants. I take a lot of photographs for my design business but I rarely take Molly, it hinders my success and hers too.

I don't know if you are posting to get a response or you are brutally honest. By all accounts I am confounded. And saddened too by these threads. I don't expect people to be perfect, who is? But I'd expect people to be honest and say I got it wrong. I've done that on the WAYWO thread before now as have others since there is always something to learn.

Not setting up for success and repeatedly clouting the dog reminds me of this...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> Do you know about setting a dog up for success? The more you give them situations in which they are bound to fail, then the more frustrating it gets.
> 
> I have to say this is what I meant in my first post, that education counts for much more than harsh techniques whether human or animal - it's a common respect. If he is going to fail each time you go out taking photographs, don't take him! Just because it's what you want to do, doesn't mean it's what the dog wants. I take a lot of photographs for my design business but I rarely take Molly, it hinders my success and hers too.
> 
> ...


OMG.

I haven't got it wrong.

You lot have.

*MY DOG IS NEVER MISTREATED.....GET IT?*


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> ...and when Dan used an E-collar you're right, that was *NOTHING* like working WITH his dog.


Thanks so much for bringing that up. I've made it clear in the past that it's no longer used and went in the bin months ago. We all make mistakes and follow stupid so called experts opinions. What matters is that I've realised it wasn't right and changed my ways.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

rona said:


> OMG.
> 
> I haven't got it wrong.
> 
> ...


Nope. You $ay you've kicked him. You can be a$ nice a$ pie to him the re$t of the time, in my vievv kicking him i$ $till overly har$h. Your perogative for $ure but my opinion i$ that a kick i$ an overly har$h action. GET IT?


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

dandogman said:


> Thanks so much for bringing that up. I've made it clear in the past that it's no longer used and went in the bin months ago. We all make mistakes and follow stupid so called experts opinions. What matters is that I've realised it wasn't right and changed my ways.


If army dogs , police dog etc can be trained without punishment or harsh handling I fail to see why the biddable , born with a desire to retrieve breeds need to be harsh handled.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> If army dogs , police dog etc can be trained without punishment or harsh handling I fail to see why the biddable , born with a desire to retrieve breeds need to be harsh handled.


When did I say they did?


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

dandogman said:


> When did I say they did?


According to the thread the other day UK gundogs were popping out almost trained.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> According to the thread the other day UK gundogs were popping out almost trained.


I honestly don't have the faintest idea what you're going on about...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm utterly gobsmacked why someone would say they hit and kicked their dog? Then blame everyone else for reacting. I fail to see how because people don't agree with someone kicking and hitting their dog that they are being a gang or pack, and tbh if it seems like that I for one am glad that people do react like it.........

I have my own mind, I know what I think is right and what I think is wrong, I don't need words on a screen from people I haven't met to agree with me, I will voice my opinion even if no one else agrees with me ( let me see were was the thread I got a kicking in?), no one is ganging up or having the pack mentality you just happen to have said something where the majority disagree..

Also working dogs can and are trained in the same way as pet dogs no difference imho and experience... And those that say they can't be are talking out of their butts and are just in to old school methods...


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Crikey. First the Great Pet Forums Hedgehog Debate, and now this thread 

What's happening, is it the heat?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Crikey. First the Great Pet Forums Hedgehog Debate, and now this thread
> 
> What's happening, is it the heat?


it must be the heat.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

A couple of points I want to comment on...



> Some people seem to think that making a dog do as you ask is intimidating it. Of course it is not, it is showing it clearly what is wanted and backing up your command in a way that that particular dog understands. A warning voice could be too much for one dog and a jerk on a choke chain could be too little for another dog.


There are several issues with this idea. For one thing it assumes that the dog fully understands the command and is fully capable (meaning mentally and emotionally as well as physically) of obeying. Thus using any correction when teaching a new cue, in a new environment, around new distractions, etc is unfair and unnecessary.

Secondly, it is perfectly possible to train without using these aversives or "back up" as you call them. They are simply unnecessary - people use them because they want to NOT because they have to.

Thirdly - referring to the dog who may find a choke chain jerk too little... so where do you draw the line? If you have a dog with a high pain threshold, or one who is simply overaroused or terrified, do you just keep being more forceful? At what point do you reach the line between a correction and abuse? Clearly you seem to have no problem with suspending a dog's entire body weight from it's ears (which must be agonisingly painful) and thumping it hard. If a choke chain jerk doesn't work - what next? String the dog up until it turns blue? It's a slippery slope... not to mention a good excuse for treating some dogs with disgusting cruelty.



> If you find clicker training works for your dog and you can get that response then that is your choice, but it is not good to assume that everyone who uses other methods is cruel.


It is YOU who makes that assumption about some of us.

As it happens I do not find people who train differently to me inherently cruel - that's absurd. There must be a thousand tools and methods to train a dog. People can use...

Clickers or other reward markers, non-reward markers, training discs, vibrating collars, spray collars (with no scent!), flat collars, half-checks, headcollars, various harnesses, water squirts, food, toys, play, petting, praise, life rewards, premack, puppy pads or newspaper, crates, dog gates, long lines, extending leads, tethering, umbilical training, NILIF to any extent, luring, targetting, freeshaping, negative punishment, extinction, BAT, habituation, systematic desensitisation, counter conditioning, verbal cues, hand signals, touch cues, situational cues, verbal reprimands, etc etc etc

.... so many methods, several I do not use myself - some I WILL not use out of choice. But not one I would consider cruel.

But when we are talking about dogs being yanked around by the throat, hanged, wrestled, rolled, pinned, hit, kicked, lifted by the scruff - or worse - the ears, pinched with steel spikes, and so on YES I do consider this cruelty, and frankly to suggest it is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable form of "training" would be laughable if not for the suffering that attitude causes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

rona said:


> I must be the worst dog owner ever, my poor dog must live in terror of me setting foot anywhere near him. The poor confused abused animal :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated. :yikes:
> 
> ...





rona said:


> OMG
> 
> I've even used a stick on him :lol::lol:


You are vile whether these statements be true or whether you are just lying for a reaction.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

rona said:


> I must be the worst dog owner ever, my poor dog must live in terror of me setting foot anywhere near him. The poor confused abused animal :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, *hit him and even kicked him* when he hasn't listened or concentrated. :yikes:
> 
> ...





rona said:


> OMG.
> 
> I haven't got it wrong.
> 
> ...





rona said:


> Oh get over yourselves.
> 
> Some of you, sitting on your high horses, treat your dogs worse than I do.
> 
> ...


To many of people on here it's the bit in bold that concerns. That's not a gang mentality but general concern. No, in answer to your last post I don't get it. But to be fair you must, in accusing PF of being holier than thou (and I do understand that ) in saying you have kicked and hit, then it's playing to the gallery somewhat. It's inevitably going to be highlighted. I do very much agree that it's different strokes for different folks, just for many not the ones that end with lashes 

Which leads me to this...



ouesi said:


> crud I have several long replies in my head but have to run off to dog training in 3 minutes... Please everyone behave so I can get a reply in when I get back and the thread not get closed?


Really ouesi, best will in the world, what did you expect when this thread started?

It's not the heat but a argument that will always rattle on forever as long as there are different methods to educate a dog.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Crikey. First the Great Pet Forums Hedgehog Debate, and now this thread
> 
> What's happening, is it the heat?


Don't ask me!! I know Nothing!!:yikes:


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

labradrk said:


> I get what you are saying but I don't think that is strictly true. No one is perfect and we have all probably done things training wise that we regret.
> 
> I doubt anyone here is 'completely positive', either. I don't even know how you could be completely positive? that would be a strange state to be in - positive ALL the time. I'm certainly not. I'll shout at my dogs like a fishwife sometimes (I'm human, sorry dogs) and I also have.....gasp.......a dreaded Pet Corrector spray. Yes, that dreaded spray that is a cop out and a sin.  I very rarely use it but I still have it.
> 
> BUT.....I think 99% of us can agree that what that gundog man did was way OTT. I would have way more respect if he held his hands up and said "I'm wrong" rather than desperately try to justify his actions by any means.


Just a matter of order and gobblydook but training positive is by no means training without force, as positive just means adding something to the situation instead of taking away, that thing you add can be horrible or nice. I think the best way to term it is force free training, not 'positive', because then it gets a bit confused.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Don't ask me!! I know Nothing!!:yikes:


I personally believe its all SDHs fault. First the hedgehogs now this. Yup blame this one


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm trying to be serious, but werehorse's posts are cracking me up with her keyboard issues.  
I'm going to be honest, I kind of skipped over the arguments, just because I want to hurry up and post before it gets too ugly 

Okay... 
The whole "certain dogs" or "certain jobs" require different handling is bunk. Enough trainers in enough areas with multiple dogs have proven that to be false. Over and over folks are showing without a doubt that police dogs, military dogs, gun dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs etc. can be trained to the same (and often higher) levels with rewards-based methods than punitive ones.

So the question then becomes, if you *can* achieve the same and better results with rewards-based, force-free methods, why do people still choose to use force? I don't think it's as simple an answer as we like to think. 

For one, like the article I posted states, you can't just substitute a treat for what you formerly used to punish. It doesn't work that way. Force-free, rewards-based training requires an entire paradigm shift in how you view your dog. You have to re-set your brain to see things differently, and solutions are going to require an entirely different skill-set.

Just like any kind of training, force-free training is a skill set acquired over time. You have to work at it, and in the beginning, you're going to screw up a lot as you fumble your way along. For someone who has had a lot of success with other methods, a screw up on the path to becoming force free is huge incentive to fall back on old ways. "I tried clicker training and it didn't work for this dog" and the trainer goes back to what they know and what has worked for them in the past. 

I empathize with folks who try R+ and get stuck. I empathize with folks who feel like they have no choice but to resort to P+, I get it. 
All I know is that the further you go on this path, the easier it gets. To me, it's worth it. And that's all I hope for for anyone with their dog, for them to find more and more success with R+ methods.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> Really ouesi, best will in the world, what did you expect when this thread started?


Honestly I didn't think it would become this contentious since pretty much everyone on that other thread seemed to think that trainer's actions were unacceptable! I really thought we would all be on the same page - or at least in the same book!
I thought there might be disagreement about what to legislate, but I didn't think I'd see anyone trying to condone such rough handling... 
Oh well, live and learn. 

I have a cute dane picture to post maybe that will serve as my repentance


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

I thought werehor$e had gone all Gang$ta!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Pupcakes said:


> I personally believe its all SDHs fault. First the hedgehogs now this. Yup blame this one


Nothing to do with me. Im not qualified for the Mary Poppins Training Club.

Its a Bit like APDT but where ADPT's slogan is Kind Fair Training theirs is practically perfect in every way.:001_tt2: :laugh:


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Because I can't keep out of a good argument.. however, I'm not sure I want to read all the posts here to know where to jump in... so I'll just address the first post.

If, as an expert, in any field ( they call me the Scarecrow.. because I am outstanding in my field.. boom boom ) if you want to argue your techniques based on your rights to practice them.. rather than their merits.. then you're not the expert you think you are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

diefenbaker said:


> Because I can't keep out of a good argument.. however, I'm not sure I want to read all the posts here to know where to jump in... so I'll just address the first post.
> 
> If, as an expert, in any field ( they call me the Scarecrow.. because I am outstanding in my field.. boom boom ) *if you want to argue your techniques based on your rights to practice them.. rather than their merits.. then you're not the expert you think you are.*


Very well said :thumbsup:


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

diefenbaker said:


> Because I can't keep out of a good argument.. however, I'm not sure I want to read all the posts here to know where to jump in... so I'll just address the first post.
> 
> If, as an expert, in any field ( they call me the Scarecrow.. because I am outstanding in my field.. boom boom ) *if you want to argue your techniques based on your rights to practice them.. rather than their merits.. then you're not the expert you think you are*.


Nail. Head. Innit?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I have to admit I've skipped a few pages 

Like Rona, I'll have to admit I'm not perfect, I get a very grumbly (considering I'm not very big) voice out, which I can vouch scares my niece quite literally, poopless. I use the end of the lead and swing it over onto the back end of the dog, just to get a reaction, I put my dog back on the spot if it moves and put it's bum down with my hand if it lifts, I use my foot to move them, and my knee to *kick them off* ie get a reaction where they come in closer to you. 

But my dogs are happy, they're not wary or uncertain around me, and I think I give them a balanced interpretation of this is ok, this is not. I don't, and I personally can't for the life of me see how I could ever do the same job, just saying 'this is ok', without the 'this is not' version to balance that out; ie, if I sit Rhuna up for some steadiness training I will tell her to sit, perhaps blow the stop whistle to reinforce that, and even perhaps use a hand signal as well. If at any point she looks like she's going to lift her bum up, she will get a very loud and grumbly 'Oi', followed by a sit command to reinforce what I want her to do. In my mind, she's not sure what to do, so before she breaks I catch her attention and tell her breaking the sit is not acceptable, and then reinforce that the sit is what I want. Of course we get huge fusses at the end of it, because I don't set my dogs up to fail. 

I'm sure I'll now get lots of responses telling me how it's entirely possible to train a dog without ever doing a grumbly voice, but to be perfectly honest, I'm happy with my dogs, I'm happy with their training, and my dogs are happy with me which is the ultimate endorsement for me. Of course I threaten to beat them with a big stick at least twice a day, and pull their ears off (no dog needs two big soft floppy ears), and I'm sure they take it all to heart 

Ooooh, and edited to add, I wouldn't like to see rules being introduced or enforced, I believe the animal welfare laws should cover any training methods. My personal threshold, is that my dogs are also my best friends, I don't want that to change because of how I treat them.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I have to admit I've skipped a few pages
> 
> Like Rona, I'll have to admit I'm not perfect, I get a very grumbly (considering I'm not very big) voice out, which I can vouch scares my niece quite literally, poopless. I use the end of the lead and swing it over onto the back end of the dog, just to get a reaction, I put my dog back on the spot if it moves and put it's bum down with my hand if it lifts, I use my foot to move them, and my knee to *kick them off* ie get a reaction where they come in closer to you.
> 
> ...


Do you kick or hit your dogs?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Meezey said:


> Do you kick or hit your dogs?


I push them, hit them, and tap them with my feet every day; I hit them harder during play, ie make a noise like a drum when I'm patting them hard and you get that really hollow sound, than anything I do during training.

I don't think you can say *hitting* a dog is wrong, because I pretty much do that to all of mine, I also sit on Tau every day, because her favourite fuss is to walk through my legs and wriggle while I sit (not completely) on her back, and grab the skin on her back legs while she grunts and lifts each back leg at a time. I now sound like a complete dog pervert but there you go, I interact *physically* with my dogs, and I use that for training as well. My boundary is where I don't feel like I'm teaching, more just bullying my dogs, they are my best friends, and I want to keep that relationship.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2013)

Revisiting a few things I didn't mean to ignore the first time around.


dandogman said:


> I think a lot of the reasons why some people don't like positive training is that it takes longer than traditional methods.


Not true. All training takes as long as it takes for that dog. However all things being equal, I can teach a basic sit in probably 3 to 5 reps with a clicker and a treat, and I know you're not going to get that kind of response with escape/avoidance training. I know because I've done both.


dandogman said:


> Then there's the argument of that maybe if more dogs were trained like this then there would be less behaviour issues. Which is similar to what people say about how children had more respect years ago because they were punished when they did something wrong.


Ah, the rose colored glasses of dogs and children of yesteryear 
Wanna guess who said this and when?:
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
That was Socrates, around 400BC 

I don't remember the dogs (or kids) of yesteryear being any better behaved than the dogs of today. I think that's just nostalgia speaking (and forgetting). Don't forget too, that 'back in the day' dogs who did not conform to the training regime were shot. There was no behavior modification, there was a bullet or a bucket.



dandogman said:


> In my opinion, punishment is only when there is deliberate wrong doing.


How do you measure "deliberate wrongdoing"? Seriously? How do you *know* the dog is deliberately defying you or that there is something else going on?
I went to a seminar recently where we watched several videos of conflicted behavior in dogs. It really looks a lot like the dog is deliberately blowing off the handler, but with the aid of technology, slowing down and zooming in, you see... The dog might have conflicting reinforcers; ("I want to work for mom but BIRDS!") the dog might feel too much pressure, worry about not being right, and suddenly that clump of grass becomes the most interesting thing on earth. There are ALL sorts of reasons why dogs miss cues that have absolutely nothing to do with disobedience. Can it even be called 'disobedience' if the doesn't fully understand the task? Smart dogs especially will lie to you. They make lucky guesses and happen to guess right, but do they *really* understand the exercise? This is where the good rewards-based trainer starts putting in internal checks to make sure the dog knows what you think he knows. And even after checking, you don't assume a mistake is disobedience. It's information that you use in your training plan.



MollySmith said:


> If I can digress a little. Educating children has a lot of mileage, I do voluntary work with a charity who support children affected by bullying and much of the focus on re-educating bullies stems from their background, it's almost inevitable that bullies are bullied themselves sadly. I had a death from a drunk driver in my immediate family and whilst I've not felt able to do it recently, I have spoken to drunk drivers through a police programme and the results of meeting someone grief struck has had a huge result. It's about reeducating not punishment and I think there is room for that. Show and tell what you want people or animals to do.


:thumbsup::thumbsup:



Blitz said:


> Same with dogs, it is not legal or right to beat your dog up, but that is very different from correcting a dog that has broken a stay. That bloke was stupid to do it by picking the dog up by its ears and it was rather pointless but no way was it an offence!


If picking the dog up by the ears was pointless, (and the dog clearly disliked it) why would it not be an offense?
FWIW, there are literally thousands of dogs out there with rock-solid stays that have been taught those stays without any physical correction or in many cases without even a verbal "no". And I'm not talking only pet dogs. I'm talking dogs with those "real" jobs like gundogs and police dogs 



rona said:


> Seems you are bad if you don't train completely positive or if you don't feed raw.
> 
> Doesn't matter that your dog is virtually always happy, has eyes that are alive because of the stimulation/variation you give it or that you actually skint yourself to give your dog the medicine/care it requires.
> If you give it a tap with your toe or a stick or feed it cheapish food, you are the worst owner ever


Well, to be fair, I don't feed raw, I feed horrid kibble 
I also smack my dogs around and beat them with rolled up magazines - they think it's a grand game especially when they get to shred the magazine afterwards  
As for the dog being happy - honestly, dogs don't require much to be happy, not that you don't go above and beyond, just saying it's not the best litmus test. Go to any developing nation and you'll see mangy street dogs who are regularly chased off and mistreated, half of them starving and sick, and they'll still play and be happy. That's part of the appeal of dogs isn't it? No matter how bad it gets, they'll still loll a tongue and wag their tail.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

It'$ too late at night and my keyboard i$ too annoying for me to properly go into it but, $L, I vould argue that if Rhuna i$ going (a$ in making a move) to break her $tay to the point vhere you feel the need to verbally correct her then you *have* $et her up to fail and then are puni$hing the fail vith a verbal correction. For me $etting up for $ucce$$ mean$ the dog doe$ vhat i$ vanted to the extent that it can and get$ hi$ revvard. No puni$her$ needed. Then the extent that it can do the thing get$ gradually larger.

But yeah - I give up at thi$ point. $$$$$$$$$$$ argh. :lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> It'$ too late at night and my keyboard i$ too annoying for me to properly go into it but, $L, I vould argue that if Rhuna i$ going (a$ in making a move) to break her $tay to the point vhere you feel the need to verbally correct her then you *have* $et her up to fail and then are puni$hing the fail vith a verbal correction. For me $etting up for $ucce$$ mean$ the dog doe$ vhat i$ vanted to the extent that it can and get$ hi$ revvard. No puni$her$ needed. Then the extent that it can do the thing get$ gradually larger.
> 
> But yeah - I give up at thi$ point. $$$$$$$$$$$ argh. :lol:


Your keyboard has had me chuckling on a few threads, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Probably not easy to explain on here. But when you train for steadiness, if you sat your dog and threw a dummy directly over it's head, yes, you're setting your dog up to fail. If you sit your dog, watch it, take your time, and throw a dummy away from your dog, a few yards, so you are between your dog and the dummy and you are giving that dog every signal stay sat where you are, then you are setting it up to stay sat. But, dogs aren't robots, if she moves her @rse, I tell her that's not what I want. She understands that, and isn't offended by it, and also learns that if we get through the steadiness bit, we get to do more fun training. I do believe being able to reprimand as well as praise your dog, in a balanced manner without damaging the relationship you have, *can be* a vital part of training your dog. I've stuck the *can be* bit in asterisks, because I know some would disagree and say you don't need to ever reprimand your dog, you can do it all with positive training, but I just don't see the benefit in having a dog that you can't have a whole relationship with. Dogs reprimand each other, and still have good relationships, it forms a very small part of their interactions, in the same way when I tell my dogs what I want, if their behaviour or actions are not what I want at that point in time, then I tell them.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

And I vould $ay that if $he move$ you have a$ked for too much too $oon.

Right, at the moment O$car i$ utterly $hite at $teadine$$ vhen a toy i$ throvvn - he ju$t goe$. I don't a$k for a vait co$ there i$ entirely no point co$ it von't vork. I'll $ee if I can train in $ome $teadine$$ vithout any correction - I'll take it a$ a challenge and $ee hovv vve get on.

Not $ure about the 'vhole relation$hip' thing either - I don't feel I am denying my$elf anything by not puni$hing my dog$ vhen they get $omething vvrong. 

I mu$t point out that I do, in fru$tration, get grumpy vith the boy$ $ometime$ - but I alvay$ feel a$hamed of my$elf and vovv to do better rather than ju$t accepting or ju$tifying it and I find it odd that people $hout and poke and prod and variou$ other thing$ a$ a matter of fact part of training. I've ju$t never thought about training that vay, $orry but I haven't.

Anyvay bed for me! I really can take no more.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> And I vould $ay that if $he move$ you have a$ked for too much too $oon.
> 
> Right, at the moment O$car i$ utterly $hite at $teadine$$ vhen a toy i$ throvvn - he ju$t goe$. I don't a$k for a vait co$ there i$ entirely no point co$ it von't vork. I'll $ee if I can train in $ome $teadine$$ vithout any correction - I'll take it a$ a challenge and $ee hovv vve get on.
> 
> ...


The very start of steadiness training for mine, starts in the house, with them sat, me knelt on the floor, tapping a tennis ball on the floor and removing it if they move, getting them to sit back on the same spot or as close as possible, and building it up again.

I'm intrigued to know why anyone would think it's damaging to do a grumbly 'Oi you, SIT' to a dog, to reinforce that actually, after we've built up lots of sitting while things are thrown/moved around you, that sit I told you to do at the beginning, still means Sit, and it's not acceptable to move just yet.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm intrigued to know why anyone would think it's damaging to do a grumbly 'Oi you, SIT' to a dog, to reinforce that actually, after we've built up lots of sitting while things are thrown/moved around you, that sit I told you to do at the beginning, still means Sit, and it's not acceptable to move just yet.


Depends on the dog though and why they're getting up.

A drivey retriever who wants the ball really badly getting up is very likely not going to be bothered much by a grumbly verbal correction.
I still contend it's not necessary, but damaging? Eh... not likely.

My friend's shy whippet rescue who breaks a sit to go to mom when he gets too stressed out? The last thing he needs is a correction, as it's just going to shatter his confidence even more.

To me, you should have more than just one trick up your sleeve when working with dogs. If you're only tool is a hammer (correction - however fair) then everything you see is going to be a nail (disobedience). 
Not every dog is a drivey, hard retriever, not every dog is a soft whippet. You need to be able to cater to each and everything in between. That's where not correcting forces you to find other ways and broaden the scope of what you can achieve.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Depends on the dog though and why they're getting up.
> 
> A drivey retriever who wants the ball really badly getting up is very likely not going to be bothered much by a grumbly verbal correction.
> I still contend it's not necessary, but damaging? Eh... not likely.
> ...


I think your post highlights exactly why I think you can't judge every single phrase or situation in exactly the same way.

Rhuna is quite soft, but she takes correction very well, added to that she's extremely driven and actually, she's not too difficult a dog to deal with. You train for what you want, and it's rare you have to say that's not what I want.

I have lots of tricks up my sleeve, but you have to admit, you either tell a dog yes, that's what you want, or no, that's not what you want. If you don't want to do the latter, then the only way to train is to always say, this is what I want, and only train for that. That can leave very little room to train the dog in front of you, and as you posted, it can depend very much on the individual dog.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

As long as it isn't training with cruelty I think we should all continue to have the right to do it our way - if it works of course. Certain tools, like choke chains and prong collars have been around for years and used wrongly are far worse than a few harsh words. 

So many nasty dogs and kids about now that I wonder if we've done any favours to each by being too PC. I don't like physical punishment at all but I sometimes yell at the dogs if need be and they usually stop on a sixpence. 

Definitely being too soft doesn't work with all dogs, some do need a firmer more forceful approach. I think the reason the Mals don't listen when out is because they have been babied in doors and know they can push you to the limit but the little dogs, raised in exactly the same way, are far more attentive. 

I def wouldn't want to see legislation on how we as individuals raise our dogs - its done enough damage with raising children and from some that I see puts me right off ever being a granny.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> you have to admit, you either tell a dog yes, that's what you want, or no, that's not what you want. If you don't want to do the latter, *then the only way to train is to always say, this is what I want, and only train for that.* That can leave very little room to train the dog in front of you, and as you posted, it can depend very much on the individual dog.


That is a huge misconception about rewards-based training. There are many, MANY ways of giving dogs very clear, very black and white parameters, none of which involve even having to verbally correct.

Susan Garrett's crate games DVD is a fabulous example of how she builds a foundation with crystal clear criteria, and the dogs know exactly what is expected of them, without ever once needing to reprimand the dog in any way.


----------



## Jobeth (May 23, 2010)

I don't see how going 'ah' as a verbal correction/prompt is a 'reprimand '. I've used it for my yorkie instead of a leave when needed and she isn't traumatised by it. My older dog gives her 'verbal corrections' as well and it is part of their communication. A quick 'ah' is no different to saying 'leave it' if the dog understands what it means. I don't 'reprimand' my dogs and my older one walks beautifully to heel on a loose leash and knows a wide range of commands. My yorkie is younger and getting there. Reprimand means telling them off and is different to giving them commands.


----------



## Bryxy (Jun 6, 2013)

Personally I think the line is drawn when there is physical pain and discomfort to the dog. Though I wouldn't personally do it, I don't see the problem in a "tap" for attention, I've seen owners use it and the only reaction I noted from the dog is to give back focus on them. Also verbal reprimands don't bother me either, it's when pain is inflicted that I would completely lose respect for the owner. 

I haven't seen the video but from the sounds of it what that trainer did was beyond a tap and honestly for me borders on abuse at the least.
If people did these things like kicking or hitting their dog outside of training, would no one call it abuse? Why does the element of training make this ok? 

I'm quite sensitive on this as Roxy was smacked by her previous owners as a puppy when they were trying to house train her. From the moment we got her she was very insecure and nervous which is really disheartening to see from such a young dog. Training her wasn't easy at first because all she'd do is flinch at any authoritative tone, and I did worry what her old owners may have done to her outside the eyes of the rescue centre staff. I had to stop telling her and start asking her (repeatedly), thankfully her love of food got her there in the end and now she's much more confident and content in her training. 
It upsets me to think of other dogs being treated as she was because it's not just the initial hit that's the problem it's the whole after effect on the dog. George was also a rescue and we don't know about his previous owners but initially if I was exasperated with him during training he would start to back off and be quite wary of me to the point of bowing his head down as though preparing for a hit.
If a dog didn't mind being hit, why would they flinch? And as for saying some dogs can take it better than others, how on earth do you test for that? Hit the dog once and see how they take it? When there are so many rewarding options for training out there for owners, I don't understand why people would resort to hitting, kicking, picking up by the ears etc. Of course I understand people have their frustrated moments, I've had difficulty keeping myself in check at times but if I hadn't it would only have made my dogs worse.
I just really don't understand the reasoning behind that sort of training, it feels unnecessary to me when there are so many other options that wouldn't damage the dog emotionally or physically.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm intrigued to know why anyone would think it's damaging to do a grumbly 'Oi you, SIT' to a dog, to reinforce that actually, after we've built up lots of sitting while things are thrown/moved around you, that sit I told you to do at the beginning, still means Sit, and it's not acceptable to move just yet.


I've seen a lot of dogs highly stressed by the stay exercise at class because of being corrected for getting it wrong. Not necessarily physical corrections, just a "No, STAY!" sort of thing. As the dog gets more anxious it begins to creep forwards more, the owner gets more annoyed and frustrated, the dog picks up on that and gets more anxious and more likely to creep forwards which frustrates and annoys the owner (who often resort to physically grabbing and shoving the dog back into position) and so on. Honestly, I think the stay was probably the most stressful exercise at class for the dogs. Very, very few were truly comfortable with it and most broke it regularly.

I'm not someone who follows the whole "never say no" thing. I can't live like that, I lose my temper at times, I tell my dog not to do certain things rather than ask for an alternative behaviour. I do use punishment, I'm not sure it's even possible to live with a dog without doing so, but I aim as much as possible to use positive reinforcement.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Depends on the dog though and why they're getting up.
> 
> A drivey retriever who wants the ball really badly getting up is very likely not going to be bothered much by a grumbly verbal correction.
> I still contend it's not necessary, but damaging? Eh... not likely.
> ...


That is why each dog should be trained as an individual. There is no one way to train a dog.



Sarah1983 said:


> I've seen a lot of dogs highly stressed by the stay exercise at class because of being corrected for getting it wrong. Not necessarily physical corrections, just a "No, STAY!" sort of thing. As the dog gets more anxious it begins to creep forwards more, the owner gets more annoyed and frustrated, the dog picks up on that and gets more anxious and more likely to creep forwards which frustrates and annoys the owner (who often resort to physically grabbing and shoving the dog back into position) and so on. Honestly, I think the stay was probably the most stressful exercise at class for the dogs. Very, very few were truly comfortable with it and most broke it regularly.
> 
> I'm not someone who follows the whole "never say no" thing. I can't live like that, I lose my temper at times, I tell my dog not to do certain things rather than ask for an alternative behaviour. I do use punishment, I'm not sure it's even possible to live with a dog without doing so, but I aim as much as possible to use positive reinforcement.


I quite agree with the stay and a good class instructor should notice what is happening. If a dog is getting anxious then go back to it, stand beside it with a quiet word or praise, tell it to stay and leave it again. If it is about to move because of a distraction, whether one you have set up or on that has appeared then tell it sharply to stay.
When I took classes every dog was treated differently and I had a cat that paraded up and down the stay line as a distraction (little sod, you could see him grinning to himself, he would sleep in a corner till stay time and then stroll over).


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

You see I find simply repeating the cue in a level tone if I feel necessary works just fine. Any sharpness in my voice sends Hugo into a frenzy of appeasement and Oscar switches off and gets more distracted. I know this because I'm a dick and shout at them sometimes when it gets frustrating. I catch myself doing it, break off the training session and have a word with myself quite frankly because it is unnecessary and unpleasant.

I find that not getting a reward is enough of a "punisher" for these two - they know they haven't got it right so they try something else. Ideally that is how I go about training.

No I don't think that someone having a sharp word with their dog is the end of the world for the dog or for the relationship - dogs are mostly resilient creatures (especially the happy go lucky gundog types) they bounce back. I just don't think it is needed, it is a training choice and you can, if you want, choose not to do it. I think physical punishments are even more un-called for. Just doesn't seem fair, to me, to do that to someone who 99% of the time is desperate to interact with you and play whatever game you want to play today.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Werehorse, I liked your post for its content, but just one complaint......your posts aren't as much fun without the vs and dollar signs!


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Managed to get onto OH's computer so have a working keyboard for now! :lol: I'll be back to being a vampire snake later.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I quite agree with the stay and a good class instructor should notice what is happening. If a dog is getting anxious then go back to it, stand beside it with a quiet word or praise, tell it to stay and leave it again. If it is about to move because of a distraction, whether one you have set up or on that has appeared then tell it sharply to stay.
> When I took classes every dog was treated differently and I had a cat that paraded up and down the stay line as a distraction (little sod, you could see him grinning to himself, he would sleep in a corner till stay time and then stroll over).


The classes I went to the dog was punished for "disobeying". Whatever the reason for the "disobedience" was, the dog should stay when told to stay no matter what. Very old school way of thinking. The poor dogs stress levels were through the roof :nonod:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

I haven't read through the whole thread, and it's a while so can't remember the details of the video, but the impression I got was that he was using these methods to train the dog, not correct it.

I use corrections, verbal is usually sufficient, however, I class these as corrections not training. If using corrections you need to be absolutely sure the dog knows what is being asked of it and just sticking two fingers up. 
However, the reality is that positive reinforcement is a more powerful way of training.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> The classes I went to the dog was punished for "disobeying". Whatever the reason for the "disobedience" was, the dog should stay when told to stay no matter what. Very old school way of thinking. The poor dogs stress levels were through the roof :nonod:


I agree that a stay is a stay until told to do something different, but this needs to be built up slowly - I think in most cases people rush training and the dog does not fully understand what is expected of it and to 'correct' it for that is counterproductive (not to mention unfair on the dog).


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> I agree that a stay is a stay until told to do something different, but this needs to be built up slowly - I think in most cases people rush training and the dog does not fully understand what is expected of it and to 'correct' it for that is counterproductive (not to mention unfair on the dog).


Stay means stay to me too, it would be a fairly pointless exercise if stay meant stay until you feel like not staying  But as you say, it needs to be built up to stay means stay no matter what is going on and punishing a dog for not understanding is unfair. It really does seem to be an exercise people want to rush for some reason. More so than anything else 

And under some circumstances I've felt my dog justified in breaking a stay despite understanding what stay means. Rupert broke his to come to me when another dog at class broke its stay and bounded up to him. Given his feelings towards other dogs I actually rewarded him for coming to me. Better than him trying to beat it to death with his muzzle. But I was told he should have been punished for breaking the stay. Which would likely have guaranteed that if it happened again he would have resorted to fight rather than flight.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> That is a huge misconception about rewards-based training. There are many, MANY ways of giving dogs very clear, very black and white parameters, none of which involve even having to verbally correct.
> 
> Susan Garrett's crate games DVD is a fabulous example of how she builds a foundation with crystal clear criteria, and the dogs know exactly what is expected of them, without ever once needing to reprimand the dog in any way.


I think you're missing the point completely. Whilst there may be ways to train a dog without ever giving any sort of reprimand in any way whatsoever, why? Why on earth would you want to be such a *false* person??

I treat my dogs the same way I treat my friends, and yes, I know they're not human, but they interact with each other and me in the same way, which is what I do with them, ie they see me tell them yes, I love you, that's brilliant and wonderful, or no, not like that, pay attention. I let them know when I don't want them to do something in a way that I know gets their attention, whether that's prodding them, swinging the lead handle over so it lands on their bum, which is to get Rhuna's attention when she's obsessing about the beginning of the walk, or even an 'Oi' - they get plenty of praise for getting it right but I'm not going to ever treat my dogs in what I consider a false way. I'm not treating them in a way that's cruel, in the same way I don't consider that my dogs are being awkward if, when I'm trying to do something like examine a wound that's a bit sore they wriggle about and try and get away, they're showing me they don't like what's happening and please can we do it another way or not at all for now. Indie's starting to have a bit of a grump if any of the other dogs knock her poorly knee, she's not at all being nasty, she's telling them 'that hurts don't do it', and they respect that, the same way that I say 'Oi, leave your bum where it was'.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

A"false" person? Cos I try not to shout at my dogs? Eh?

I generally don't shout at, hit, slap, kick my friends either to be honest. I try to be nice to my friends as a rule.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> You see I find simply repeating the cue in a level tone if I feel necessary works just fine. *Any sharpness in my voice sends Hugo into a frenzy of appeasement and Oscar switches off and gets more distracted. * I know this because I'm a dick and shout at them sometimes when it gets frustrating. I catch myself doing it, break off the training session and have a word with myself quite frankly because it is unnecessary and unpleasant.
> 
> I find that not getting a reward is enough of a "punisher" for these two - they know they haven't got it right so they try something else. Ideally that is how I go about training.
> 
> No I don't think that someone having a sharp word with their dog is the end of the world for the dog or for the relationship - dogs are mostly resilient creatures (especially the happy go lucky gundog types) they bounce back. I just don't think it is needed, it is a training choice and you can, if you want, choose not to do it. I think physical punishments are even more un-called for. Just doesn't seem fair, to me, to do that to someone who 99% of the time is desperate to interact with you and play whatever game you want to play today.


Understanding your dog is key.

A sharp 'oi' with a dog when it is in high drive mode at a 100m away may be the only way to get it's attention. Yes, it demonstrates that you need to go back a few steps, but at that same time, I don't want a dog to learn that it is ok to ignore me either.


----------



## GingerRogers (Sep 13, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you're missing the point completely. Whilst there may be ways to train a dog without ever giving any sort of reprimand in any way whatsoever, why? *Why on earth would you want to be such a *false* person?? *
> 
> I treat my dogs the same way I treat my friends, and yes, I know they're not human, but they interact with each other and me in the same way, which is what I do with them, ie they see me tell them yes, I love you, that's brilliant and wonderful, or no, not like that, pay attention. I let them know when I don't want them to do something in a way that I know gets their attention, whether that's prodding them, swinging the lead handle over so it lands on their bum, which is to get Rhuna's attention when she's obsessing about the beginning of the walk, or even an 'Oi' - they get plenty of praise for getting it right but *I'm not going to ever treat my dogs in what I consider a false way. * I'm not treating them in a way that's cruel, in the same way I don't consider that my dogs are being awkward if, when I'm trying to do something like examine a wound that's a bit sore they wriggle about and try and get away, they're showing me they don't like what's happening and please can we do it another way or not at all for now. Indie's starting to have a bit of a grump if any of the other dogs knock her poorly knee, she's not at all being nasty, she's telling them 'that hurts don't do it', and they respect that, the same way that I say 'Oi, leave your bum where it was'.


I really dont understand what you mean 

What is false about aiming to be positive with your dogs. What is false about not setting the dog up to fail by asking for an action they are incapable of doing at that time, in that situation. Because by needing to shout 'Oi sit down' or whatever at your dog you have clearly asked for more than they can manage at that moment for whatever reason, take a step back and start again. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right in our training ethos, but wheres the 'falseness'?

Do you really mean 'unrealistic', because I hope it isn't, we have to believe it is entirely possible otherwise we have nothing to aim for. And we might as well fall back to the dark ages

I am not saying I never correct my dog either, I try not to but at the moment theres lots of No's, Oi's and Ahah's going on as she makes a remarkable recovery from her spay and tries to get up to mischief  and I should be saying Sit instead of No! when she tries to jump on my lap but again I am only human.

Do you really treat your friends like your dogs, I would be pretty miffed if mine Oi'd me or slapped me with their bag handles or prodded me to get my attention, frankly, thats not the way I expect my friends to treat me.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Thankfully myself or none of my friends consider hitting and kicking each other acceptable to get each others attention, it's not acceptable! We all might lose our rag, and get frustrated and raise our voices, but hitting or kicking a dog to get it's attention is not on no matter how you want to try and dress it up, no of course no one is perfect, don't believe anyone stated they were, but kicking and hitting a dog is not acceptable, and neither is ask it, tell it MAKE IT, even the use of it in this does my but in. If dogs are doing things wrong, we are either teaching it wrong or going to far to fast!


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

I didn't even realise I was manhandling Gruff until a trainer pointed it out 

The nearest class for me is an hour's drive, so I don't get there regularly, but try to go when I can as I've learned so much and seen such big improvements there.

Anyway, was trying to do a sit/stay, and Gruff was very excited (he loves training class) and wouldn't keep his bum on the floor. I pulled him round to the front of me with his lead, then pushed his bum on the floor. The trainer came over to point out that manhandling my dog and shoving him around like that was pointless because it wouldn't get results in a dog like Gruff. Not because he's afraid, or being physically hurt, but because he was desperate to appease and my body position was the most important thing for me to learn when I was giving him a command - my position and arm/hand movements were giving him the opposite message of what I was verbally telling him.

So my aversion to physical correction isn't because I think that milder forms are necessarily cruel or abusive, but that _for my dog_ they are not only pointless, but tend to add to his confusion about what I want. I wasn't harming him mentally or physically, but physical corrections from me were purely as a result of my frustrations and inadequacies - not how I want to be, it's as simple as that.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I learnt it was a bad way to train when working with dogs who would have met any type of physical force with physical force, and stopped checking pretty quick sharp when my second dog told me to f off in no uncertain terms, then spent 9 blissfull years in the job, and only one in the lines who was never bitten, because I was the only one who did not use any force on their dog, it's an eye opener watching people realise bullying their dogs in to position is not an option when the dog bite in protest!


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

I have a genuine question:

When Alfie is approaching other dogs, he can get himself a little worked up and tends to start whining, which usually increases in volume the closer he gets, or the longer it takes to actually meet the dog. It can end up with him pretty much screaming if not checked. He doesnt lunge, or pull or do anything untoward except make a bit of racket.

Now, in the past, i could just tell him to quiet, a command he knows/knew, or i could just distract him and break his focus, usually by putting him a sit, this also helped with his crappy body language which always borders of defensive and could put dogs at unease.

Now that he is deaf, i find i have to physically correct him, usually by a short (NOT sharp) tug on his lead to get his attention and break his focus, and end the noise, and to get him to look at me (although his eyesight is a bit naff these days, which makes matters worse, as he gets nervous and whiny at silly things like bollards, tree stumps and people with carrier bags).

So if i cant, or shouldnt, physically correct him, what can or should i do? Bear in mind that not doing anything is not an option as he can sound quite scary, and im not prepared to allow people to A) think he is aggressive when i know he is nothing but scared/nervous/unsure , or B) allow people to be frightened.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Hugo and Oscar started their steadiness training just now. No voices raised or hitting. I don't seem to have a needing to get their attention issue. I think cos since they were pups I've rewarded eye contact, they offer it regularly and I can reward it.

"sit" *place toy* *wait for eye contact* "check" (which is our clicker-word) *pick up toy* *feed biscuit* And repeat ad nauseum, gently increasing to a thrown toy. Ramped it up a notch by throwing the treat reward away from the toy/article to get the excitement (and reward) level up a bit. But kept the energy and distance of the throw low key for now. Misjudged once with Oscar but he had his lead on (attached to harness) so he wasn't rewarded for running in and we stepped it back down before moving it back up again; and he didn't run in again.

Hugo found it quite hard and was practically vibrating with anticipation but was convinced enough by the biscuits to hold his nerve. :lol: I had to put the toy down very, very gently for the first couple but he soon got it. 

I may try and get a video later.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> That is why each dog should be trained as an individual. There is no one way to train a dog.


Do you think force-free, rewards-based methods are "one way"? That's the thing, I can be force-free and still train 100 dogs 100 different ways.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you're missing the point completely. Whilst there may be ways to train a dog without ever giving any sort of reprimand in any way whatsoever, why? Why on earth would you want to be such a *false* person??


Oh my goodness! That is really the oddest thing I've ever heard regarding force-free training! Why is it being a false person to not verbally reprimanding your dog?
I don't think your analogy of treating your dogs like they treat each other is appropriate either - JMO  For one, you're not a dog. You're the human, you supply the food and water, you're responsible for health and well being, you make sure they don't go running in the street etc. 
Secondly, dogs don't train each other to wear leashes and not pull on them, and hold steady while you shoot a gun, then go retrieve the dead ducks only when you say so. What you're asking of your dogs is something they would never ask of each other, so you can't use the "be a dog" analogy to justify force.

Now, I do play with my dogs, and I am just as rough on them as they are on me. And certainly if there is an out and out fight, I'm not going to be gentle or quiet about breaking it up. But I don't feel that gives me the right to be rough on them when I ask them to retrieve a plastic dumbbell, or do a precision heel.

FWIW, I do tell my dogs no, and that's enough, etc. But, in a training session, if a dog makes a mistake, I re-evaluate what *I* am doing, I don't punish (or reprimand, or correct) the dog. In my way of thinking, if I train it right the first time, I shouldn't have to correct mistakes, because there won't be any. Obviously there always are, and each mistake is dealt with on an individual basis. Sometimes I re-cue. Sometimes I re-set. Sometimes I back up a few steps and try again, sometimes I back up 12 steps and re-lay a foundation that wasn't as solid as I though.

However, as I said way at the beginning of this thread, I don't think it's my place (or anyone's) to tell someone else they should train. I certainly am not going to look askance at someone grumbling at their dog over a broken stay (unless the dog is quivering in fear or something). You asked what's 'wrong' with a verbal reprimand, and I stated *my* position, and *my* views. That doesn't mean I think you should feel the same way 

The point of this thread was not to have a discussion on whether to correct or not, but more, at what point would you draw the line, and what, if anything, would you like to see enforced. Obviously saying "no" to your dog isn't even going to be on the radar. But someone lifting their dog by the ears definitely is since that video caused such a ruckus. So the question then becomes, where is the upper limit. Saying no is fine, lifting by ears is not, what in between is okay?


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> I have a genuine question:
> 
> When Alfie is approaching other dogs, he can get himself a little worked up and tends to start whining, which usually increases in volume the closer he gets, or the longer it takes to actually meet the dog. It can end up with him pretty much screaming if not checked. He doesnt lunge, or pull or do anything untoward except make a bit of racket.
> 
> ...


I would do a combination of two things. One, whenever possible, keep the distance he is comfortable at. Personally I would gage his comfort by whether he is taking treats or not. If he's happy to have a small tidbit, he's probably feeling safe enough to make associations and learn new behaviors.

With this kind of reactivity your main factors are how close the other dog is, how long Alfie has to share space with the dog, and how the other dog is behaving. Keeping those three in mind, try to make it really, really, easy for Alfie whenever possible. Keep Alfie far enough away that he is comfortable. Keep moving so he doesn't have to tolerate the other dog for long, and if the other dog is also reactive, know that Alfie's usual safe distance and tolerable duration are going to have to be greater.

I know it's not always possible to maintain a certain distance, but the more you are able to keep him comfortable in the presence of other dogs, the easier it will be for him.

When it's not possible to maintain a comfortable distance, I'd use the treat magnet trick. Get a super yummy, high value treat, place it between your palm and your thumb, and kind of cup your hand so that he has to press in to your hand with his nose to get at the treat. You're going to get him rooting in to your hand before he starts reacting, and then you lead him by the other dog keeping his nose 'stuck' in your cupped hand (because he's pushing in to your hand, not you grabbing his muzzle). 
There are variations to the treat magnet trick, but the main idea is that the dog is so focused on what you have that he simply doesn't have to deal with the other distractions, then your hand also acts like a blinder of sorts.

You can (and probably should) practice the treat magnet thing at home under low distractions so you can get him used to rooting in your hand and yourself used to how you need to hold the treat.

These are just two things to try, there's actually a lot of different options and combinations of things you can work on


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I would do a combination of two things. One, whenever possible, keep the distance he is comfortable at. Personally I would gage his comfort by whether he is taking treats or not. If he's happy to have a small tidbit, he's probably feeling safe enough to make associations and learn new behaviors.
> 
> With this kind of reactivity your main factors are how close the other dog is, how long Alfie has to share space with the dog, and how the other dog is behaving. Keeping those three in mind, try to make it really, really, easy for Alfie whenever possible. Keep Alfie far enough away that he is comfortable. Keep moving so he doesn't have to tolerate the other dog for long, and if the other dog is also reactive, know that Alfie's usual safe distance and tolerable duration are going to have to be greater.
> 
> ...


Alfie wont touch food outside of the house, and the distance the other dog is seems to have no major bearing. They could be 200 meters away and if he can see them/smell them, he'll do it. Infact, he does seem to be worse the further away the dog is, and the longer it takes to meet them. Once he has met the dog, he is fine (of course this depends on whether a meeting is possible and that the other dog is friendly) and usually just mooches off once he realises they are no threat to him. He isnt really interested in interacting with other dogs, just seems to be more in fear for his life.

He also exhibits the behaviour if he can smell another dog, or in areas/places where he has met other dogs before (in these instances i dont do anything as he is not going to set another dog off, or upset/scare anybody). He does it every time going through a stable yard where he knows and gets on with all the dogs, even when no one is there.

I should also point out Alfie has never eaten outside of the house, so ive never used food as a reward. He has always been highly motivated by verbal praise, which worked perfectly until he lost his hearing after reacting to ear drops. Our lines of communication have been pretty much severed. He isnt a dog for eye contact, or even really looking at people. He tends to blink a lot, and close, squint his eyes, to getting his attention focally is a tough one.

He doesnt do toys either.

Maybe i should also point out that the correction is given via a harness, not a collar.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> How a propos  Look what showed up in my newsfeed this morning
> 
> Can you train a police dog using only positive reinforcement? | Positive Police Dogs
> 
> Surely if police dogs can be trained without force, a pet dog can be?


I read the link - it's salutary.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Nonnie said:


> Alfie wont touch food outside of the house, and the distance the other dog is seems to have no major bearing. They could be 200 meters away and if he can see them/smell them, he'll do it. Infact, he does seem to be worse the further away the dog is, and the longer it takes to meet them. Once he has met the dog, he is fine (of course this depends on whether a meeting is possible and that the other dog is friendly) and usually just mooches off once he realises they are no threat to him. He isnt really interested in interacting with other dogs, just seems to be more in fear for his life.
> 
> He also exhibits the behaviour if he can smell another dog, or in areas/places where he has met other dogs before (in these instances i dont do anything as he is not going to set another dog off, or upset/scare anybody). He does it every time going through a stable yard where he knows and gets on with all the dogs, even when no one is there.
> 
> ...


If he won't take food outside the house, or make eye contact, then that is where I would start. I have a rescue here who was the same and whether or not he was taking food was my indicator of his mental well-being.

In the meantime, I'd research massage techniques, especially some of the T-Touch techniques and use those to help calm him down and keep him not just focused on you, but teach him to turn to you for help coping instead of disconnecting.

This may sound silly, but if the vocalizing embarrasses you (because it sounds like that's all he's doing), sing a song to yourself - sing it out loud  If you're not a singer, recite your favorite poem or IDK... say the lord's prayer  Basically, YOU vocalize somehow. While it may not do anything for Alfie, it tends to change your demeanor. Added bonus, you get to chuckle at folks' reactions to you singing along with your dog


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

The 'toughest' thing I do with Dex is a very loud, stern verbal command or warning. For instance today he looked as though he was going to enter a field I didn't want him going into - he knows he's not allowed in, and on every other day he doesn't try. Today another dog went running in and Dex looked set to follow. My loud 'Don't You Dare' was sufficient to stop him - he then came to me and got big fuss and treats. Did I yell the command? Yep, probably. Did he like it? Doubt it. But did it stop him potentially getting into trouble? Yes. 

I rarely have to be stern with him, he responds really well to verbal praise and food.

I don't use any other aversive, though in the past I did try squirting water (before I knew better). It didn't work at all. I feel bad now that I even tried it.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

I suck air in through my teeth, dunno what the hell it is about it, all my dogs react to it, and cats, and my Mum's dogs too, they stop dead or stop what they are doing straight away, all except Issy the cat  Worse Cian gets is a "Ah-Ah" 

I will only yell or shout if my dogs, someone elses dogs, or people are in danger. I think tone of voice wins every time over volume.. It's all about the tone


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

Meezey said:


> I suck air in through my teeth, dunno what the hell it is about it, all my dogs react to it, and cats, and my Mum's dogs too, they stop dead or stop what they are doing straight away, all except Issy the cat  Worse Cian gets is a "Ah-Ah"
> 
> I will only yell or shout if my dogs, someone elses dogs, or people are in danger. I think tone of voice wins every time over volume.. It's all about the tone


That is true; when Kilo isn't in the mood for doing what he is asked first time I whisper the command - makes his ears perk up and he concentrates on listening and does it. Only works when he's on the lead and close to me outside, obviously!!!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Owned By A Yellow Lab said:


> Crikey. First the Great Pet Forums Hedgehog Debate, and now this thread
> 
> What's happening, is it the heat?


Oi OBAYL.

Ive solved the mystery. It is the heat more specifically Prickly Heat. Other symptoms are breaking out in brown spikey growths on your back and having an all consuming and overwhelming urge to eat slugs.

:devil::devil:


----------



## Golden6 (Mar 2, 2013)

Colette said:


> Well here's my two cents... no doubt it will offend plenty but I'm afraid this is honest opinion.
> 
> There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER to use violence and intimidation in order to teach.
> As such, any violence and intimidation is either used in ignorance, or as a deliberate act of cruelty.
> ...


This exactly! What that man did was abuse plain and simple!! There is no excuse and neither claiming that it is training or saying that he has the right to train his dog the way he wants is not justification. If he did that to a child he would have been arrested.

I never have and never will lift a hand to my children and will not to my dog either. No one has the right to cause pain and fear to another living being, "you" included!!!


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

I agree tone of voice is key. Today required a bit of a yell as it was vital Dex didn't enter this particular field. I try to keep the shouting to a minimum


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

GingerRogers said:


> I really dont understand what you mean
> 
> What is false about aiming to be positive with your dogs. What is false about not setting the dog up to fail by asking for an action they are incapable of doing at that time, in that situation. Because by needing to shout 'Oi sit down' or whatever at your dog you have clearly asked for more than they can manage at that moment for whatever reason, take a step back and start again. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right in our training ethos, but wheres the 'falseness'?
> 
> ...


What's negative about being honest with your dog? And what's positive about never telling your dog you're not happy with something in terms they can understand?

Yes, I do treat my dogs like my best friends, and yes, my best friends do poke me in the arm, whack me across the back of the head, give me an 'Oi' etc, etc. As I said in a previous post, I actually whack my dogs harder when I'm petting them than anything I do to tell them that's not what I want you to do right now. Edited to add, for anyone thinking I really hit my dogs, or cause them any pain at all, I am seriously shaking my head. Swinging a lead handle over so it pretty much falls on a dog's bottom, it's pretty much a game I use that when I see enough of their bum, the lead handle comes over, and we stop and go back to heel.

There's nothing wrong with aiming to be positive with your dogs, but I see being positive as giving a whole range of responses, not just praise for getting things right, although they get lots of that; perhaps I value having dogs that I can just say 'Oi' to, and because I have a good relationship with my dogs, generally, they're not mortally offended or wounded, and actually, once I get their attention, and we then start working together it normally all falls into place, but just occasionally that initial reminder of 'Oi, listen to me' is what gets them into the right frame of mind to listen, and then reap the rewards of a really good fun training session, or in their terms, a whole heap of fun with mum.


----------



## Supasilvfoxy (Apr 6, 2013)

I saw that video and think that sort of 'training?' should be banned. It's perfectly black and white to me, it was abuse pure and simple. I also reported it to the RSPCA who said that they were aware of the issue and were investigating it.

The following is what I sent:

I belong to a forum called Petforums. Someone has posted a link to Utube where there is a video of a man in Saltash gundog training a springer spaniel. About 1 min into the video he picks up the spaniel by its ears and throws it then hits it repeatedly. This is the Utube link Dog 'trainer' - YouTube. This is supposed to be a gun-dog training video, it is animal abuse and disgusting.

Sent 06/07/2013, 22:25:07

The following is the reply I got:

Thank you for contacting the RSPCA. with your concerns.

We confirm that we are aware of the situation and there is currently an ongoing investigation into this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards

RSPCA National Control Centre

0300 1234 999


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What's negative about being honest with your dog? And what's positive about never telling your dog you're not happy with something in terms they can understand?
> 
> Yes, I do treat my dogs like my best friends, and yes, my best friends do poke me in the arm, whack me across the back of the head, give me an 'Oi' etc, etc. As I said in a previous post, I actually whack my dogs harder when I'm petting them than anything I do to tell them that's not what I want you to do right now. Edited to add, for anyone thinking I really hit my dogs, or cause them any pain at all, I am seriously shaking my head. Swinging a lead handle over so it pretty much falls on a dog's bottom, it's pretty much a game I use that when I see enough of their bum, the lead handle comes over, and we stop and go back to heel.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with aiming to be positive with your dogs, but I see being positive as giving a whole range of responses, not just praise for getting things right, although they get lots of that; perhaps I value having dogs that I can just say 'Oi' to, and because I have a good relationship with my dogs, generally, they're not mortally offended or wounded, and actually, once I get their attention, and we then start working together it normally all falls into place, but just occasionally that initial reminder of 'Oi, listen to me' is what gets them into the right frame of mind to listen, and then reap the rewards of a really good fun training session, or in their terms, a whole heap of fun with mum.


The point made about hitting and kicking was that people admitted doing it and were fine about doing it...

Question though, why don't you just ask them to heel?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

:yikes:

I pulled him rather hard by his neck/collar today, he wasn't upset at all

I prodded him with a finger and he turned to look at me 

Kicked him with my foot, he thought it was great fun

Also hit him with a stick, he turned in surprise then attacked it 

I pulled him hard cos the silly old fool had gone down a bank to water and didn't have the strength in his old back legs to get back up

I prodded him because he's deaf, he was walking in front on a single track path and I needed his attention

I kicked him when he was rolling around the floor this morning and it was all part of the game

I hit him with a stick and then we had a tug of war.

He's so badly treated


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

ouesi said:


> How a propos  Look what showed up in my newsfeed this morning
> 
> Can you train a police dog using only positive reinforcement? | Positive Police Dogs
> 
> Surely if *police dogs can be trained without force*, a pet dog can be?


If this is the case, then why some police dogs wear choke chains?


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

dandogman said:


> If this is the case, then why some police dogs wear choke chains?


The same reason you get normal dog owners with dogs on choke chains, slip leads and E-collars, not everybody is so well informed or they use that age old "it works" shite.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> If this is the case, then why some police dogs wear choke chains?


Dan come on now, just googled Police Dogs and you will see most if not all have flat collars on  :hand:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Meezey said:


> The point made about hitting and kicking was that people admitted doing it and were fine about doing it...
> 
> Question though, why don't you just ask them to heel?


Because dogs don't speak English, they're not solely verbal creatures, so why not make it into a game, and introduce an interaction that they are more likely to understand?

When I watch my dogs interacting, they don't just verbally interact, it's not all nicely, nicely, they push, shove, bite, nibble, body slam each other and they have fun together. Why can't we do the same, as long as we have the right intent, and don't want to hurt our dogs, why can't we be physical with them?


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

rona said:


> I prodded him because he's deaf, he was walking in front on a single track path and I needed his attention


I know you're just doing this for a reaction, and not a serious argument for the use of force, but the above in particular I felt needs addressing.

I know many deaf dogs, a friend does SchH with her deaf white pit bull, another friend has 3 rescue danes, all deaf and one also sight impaired. None of them need to use force on their dogs. Even during SchH, my friend uses nothing but hand signals and her relationship with her dog.

Sorry, just not comfortable using a dog's disability as a justification for the use of force, however jokingly meant...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because dogs don't speak English, they're not solely verbal creatures, so why not make it into a game, and introduce an interaction that they are more likely to understand?
> 
> When I watch my dogs interacting, they don't just verbally interact, it's not all nicely, nicely, they push, shove, bite, nibble, body slam each other and they have fun together. Why can't we do the same, as long as we have the right intent, and don't want to hurt our dogs, why can't we be physical with them?


Exactly :thumbup:

Hit the nail on the head :thumbsup:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> Exactly :thumbup:
> 
> Hit the nail on the head :thumbsup:


If you saw Tau and Zasa, you would wonder what all the fuss is all about. I'm talking full headlong cropping at speed with body rolls down steep hills. If I did that, or the equivalent to my dog, would I be labelled cruel??


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

dandogman said:


> If this is the case, then why some police dogs wear choke chains?


You didn't read the article did you?


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because dogs don't speak English, they're not solely verbal creatures, so why not make it into a game, and introduce an interaction that they are more likely to understand?
> 
> When I watch my dogs interacting, they don't just verbally interact, it's not all nicely, nicely, they push, shove, bite, nibble, body slam each other and they have fun together. Why can't we do the same, as long as we have the right intent, and don't want to hurt our dogs, why can't we be physical with them?


Because we are not dogs? so we don't need to treat our dogs like we are dogs?
:lol:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

LurcherOwner said:


> Because we are not dogs? so we don't need to treat our dogs like we are dogs?
> :lol:


Ah, so your dogs understand you're a different species, and that you will treat them accordingly 

Gotcha!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

I think we're getting off track a bit.
Playing roughly with your dog, smacking him around in play, thumping his sides in excitement, is not the same as picking your dog up by the ears and walloping him across the back because he broke a stay that you failed to teach properly to begin with. 
And there is no way anyone is going to convince ME that dogs playing rough with each other justifies that sort of treatment. Entirely up to you of course if you choose to use it as justification for how you treat your own dogs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Because dogs don't speak English, they're not solely verbal creatures, so why not make it into a game, and introduce an interaction that they are more likely to understand?
> 
> When I watch my dogs interacting, they don't just verbally interact, it's not all nicely, nicely, they push, shove, bite, nibble, body slam each other and they have fun together. Why can't we do the same, as long as we have the right intent, and don't want to hurt our dogs, why can't we be physical with them?


I have no issue with it in play but we are not DOGS, and we can't reprimand a dog like another dog would, we can't correct like another dog would?

I'm a human, my dogs are dogs and I will interact with them as such... 

So you are saying you would physically correct you dog because that's what another dog would do?

Also I've never seen a dog make another dog to walk to heel?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I think we're getting off track a bit.
> Playing roughly with your dog, smacking him around in play, thumping his sides in excitement, is not the same as picking your dog up by the ears and walloping him across the back because he broke a stay that you failed to teach properly to begin with.
> And there is no way anyone is going to convince ME that dogs playing rough with each other justifies that sort of treatment. Entirely up to you of course if you choose to use it as justification for how you treat your own dogs.


I think we're getting side tracked as well, I'd never pick my dogs up by the ears, shake them, or thump them like the guy in the video did. It achieved nothing, the dog didn't learn anything. What I object to is the way people are almost afraid to have physical contact with their dogs. There seems to be am emphasis on clicker training, or positive training everything to death, when really, honestly the way I interact with my dogs on a day to day basis is that I do reprimand them when I see them doing something they *shouldn't* be doing. That is something they have been trained not to do, and temptation gets the better of them, whether that's just generally during the day pottering, or in a training session.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I have no issue with it in play but we are not DOGS, and we can't reprimand a dog like another dog would, we can't correct like another dog would?
> 
> I'm a human, my dogs are dogs and I will interact with them as such...
> 
> ...


Ah, so the dog is fine about it in play, but not in training? 

Don't you use play in training?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> Ah, so the dog is fine about it in play, but not in training?


I wouldn't hit or kick my dog in training or play.

I do rough house with my dog so physical contact , but that doesn't involved kicking him or hitting him....

As I said before you can dress it up as many ways as you want, with as many excuses as you want hitting or kicking a dog is not acceptable.

I have no issue with a tap. Trust me, I'm an ex kick boxer, you would know the difference if I tapped you or gave you a hit or kick...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Meezey said:


> I have no issue with it in play but we are not DOGS, and we can't reprimand a dog like another dog would, we can't correct like another dog would?
> 
> I'm a human, my dogs are dogs and I will interact with them as such...
> 
> ...


But all the training I do is essentially play, but it's play with rules if you like.

I'm obviously human too, but I do interact with my dogs and in some ways, we both mimic each other.

I have seen dogs walk to heel with each other, in fact if I walk three of my dogs together, they walk nicely to heel without any cues from me, rather than one to heel who will try to pull (Zasa). So yes, dogs do, I think, take cues from each other.

Slightly the other way round, but no, I'm not saying it's because that's what another dog would do, I'm saying that's the *honest* relationship I have with my dogs. I train, as much as possible, for them to get it right, when they don't, if I think it is appropriate, and it will work, then I get the grumbly voice out etc. But even during play, I wind them up with a grumbly voice, it's a tool to use, as long as you don't abuse it.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm not afraid of physical contact with my dog. I just don't see that it's a necessary part of training. I play rough with Spen, I shove him, smack him with his tug toy, kick him, slap his shoulders and ribs when playing tug etc. But they're not stupid, they know when it's play and when it's not play and that makes all the difference in the world. If I were to hit Spen with his tug toy in anger I have no doubt he'd cower and be afraid. Rupert was my cross over dog and I slipped up a few times in the early days, he was terrified of a hand raised in anger, a hand raised in play however was another matter. So for me justifying it by saying the dog loves rough play just doesn't cut it.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Dan come on now, just googled Police Dogs and you will see most if not all have flat collars on  :hand:


I'm watching Send In The Dogs on youtube and 2/3 of the GSD's/Mals so far are wearing chains...


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But all the training I do is essentially play, but it's play with rules if you like.
> 
> I'm obviously human too, but I do interact with my dogs and in some ways, we both mimic each other.
> 
> ...


They might do, but they don't MAKE each other walk to heel or tap the other with a lead if they walk out of heel or break a sit..

SL I'm sorry I really have no issue with your methods, or what you do none at all, but no one is going to convince me that kicking or hitting a dog in training is acceptable, no matter how it's dressed up, that is... I will often listen to people and accept that I'm wrong, but I can't and won't accept that kicking and hitting a dog is acceptable..


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Who's afraid to have physical contact with their dogs?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

dandogman said:


> I'm watching Send In The Dogs on youtube and 2/3 of the GSD's/Mals so far are wearing chains...


Dan I worked dogs, trust me some forces do use chains still, most don't...


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> I'm not afraid of physical contact with my dog. I just don't see that it's a necessary part of training. I play rough with Spen, I shove him, smack him with his tug toy, kick him, slap his shoulders and ribs when playing tug etc. But they're not stupid, they know when it's play and when it's not play and that makes all the difference in the world. If I were to hit Spen with his tug toy in anger I have no doubt he'd cower and be afraid. Rupert was my cross over dog and I slipped up a few times in the early days, he was terrified of a hand raised in anger, a hand raised in play however was another matter. So for me justifying it by saying the dog loves rough play just doesn't cut it.


But training isn't done in anger


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Who's afraid to have physical contact with their dogs?


You tell me!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Meezey said:


> I wouldn't hit or kick my dog in training or play.
> 
> I do rough house with my dog so physical contact , but that doesn't involved kicking him or hitting him....
> 
> ...


So.........your physical contact suits you and your dog....doesn't mean you can tell everyone else how to play with their dog


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

rona said:


> But training isn't done in anger


For a hell of a lot of people physical corrections (to kids as well as dogs) ARE done in a moment of anger and frustration. And embarrassment too. And even when it's a thought about, deliberate physical correction there is a huge difference in how the dog perceives it compared to how they see you doing the same thing in play in my experience.

Would just like to clarify that I don't kick or hit my dog with anywhere near full force in play. That would not be acceptable even in play.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I pulled him rather hard by his neck/collar today, he wasn't upset at all
> 
> ...


This was not the impression you gave in the post where you declared, in a manner that your later posts suggested was a deliberate deceit, that you hit and kick your dog - you knew what you were doing with that post, it wasn't a misunderstanding. It seems to me that after yesterday's fiasco, people decided to forget it quickly, as it seemed so out of character. (Speaking only for myself, I assumed you were having a really shite day or something.)

Sorry, but this is all a bit disingenuous, and I really didn't think you played these sort of games. Let go of the rope, because you are really digging a hole.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You tell me!


Basically you're saying to me that you're not really reading my posts, just reacting to them.



ouesi said:


> Now, I do play with my dogs, and I am just as rough on them as they are on me. And certainly if there is an out and out fight, I'm not going to be gentle or quiet about breaking it up. But I don't feel that gives me the right to be rough on them when I ask them to retrieve a plastic dumbbell, or do a precision heel.





ouesi said:


> I also smack my dogs around and beat them with rolled up magazines - they think it's a grand game especially when they get to shred the magazine afterwards


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Basically you're saying to me that you're not really reading my posts, just reacting to them.


So basically, you're telling me you're allowed to ask a question, and I'm not allowed to post a hypothetical question in agreement?


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

rona said:


> So.........your physical contact suits you and your dog....doesn't mean you can tell everyone else how to play with their dog


Really?

"I've pulled him, pushed him, tapped him, hit him and even kicked him when he hasn't listened or concentrated.

It's contact, getting his attention when he's intent on something else. Doesn't have to be hard and it certainly isn't what any sensible person would class as cruel.

When I got him at 20 months he flinched.........he doesn't now!!

Different stroke for different folks as long as there is no cruelty involved

When creeping up on wildlife a high pitched silly voice or rummaging for treats would have the subject running for cover"

So now you were playing? See here you say it's contact when he isn't listening..

I have NO issue with people playing with their dog in what every way they want none. I do have issues when people kick ot hit their dog because isn't listening or concentrating..


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

myshkin said:


> This was not the impression you gave in the post where you declared, in a manner that your later posts suggested was a deliberate deceit, that you hit and kick your dog - you knew what you were doing with that post, it wasn't a misunderstanding. It seems to me that after yesterday's fiasco, people decided to forget it quickly, as it seemed so out of character. (Speaking only for myself, I assumed you were having a really shite day or something.)
> 
> Sorry, but this is all a bit disingenuous, and I really didn't think you played these sort of games. Let go of the rope, because you are really digging a hole.


It was, only you all decided that it wasn't. Yes I knew how you would all react and and you didn't disappoint.

It's not nice when you all huddle back slapping and sitting in judgment on perfectly reasonable people who do things *slightly* different to you perfect people.

AM I bothered ?
*NO*

The people I respect on here, got what I'd written.................


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I don't $ee y phy$ical contact vith a dog to get it'$ attention ha$ to be rough. A gentle hand on the rump or $houlder $eem$ to vork fine for me.

Dog$ knovv the difference betvveen other dog$ and human$. O$car love$ a good rough and tumble vith Hugo but vould be very up$et by phy$ical correction or rough attention $eeking from u$.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

rona said:


> It was, only you all decided that it wasn't. Yes I knew how you would all react and and you didn't disappoint.
> 
> It's not nice when you all huddle back slapping and sitting in judgment on perfectly reasonable people who do things *slightly* different to you perfect people.
> 
> ...


So absolutely no one at all then?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

rona said:


> It was, only you all decided that it wasn't. Yes* I knew how you would all react *and and you didn't disappoint.
> 
> It's not nice when *you all huddle back slapping and sitting in judgment* on perfectly reasonable people who do things *slightly* different to you perfect people.
> 
> ...


This just suggests paranoia....don't know how to answer that. You won't believe me whatever I say, you had decided the above was true before you set out to get a reaction. Whether you respect me or anyone else or not, I've always had a great deal of respect for you. This is a shame, really.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

myshkin said:


> This just suggests paranoia....don't know how to answer that. You won't believe me whatever I say, you had decided the above was true before you set out to get a reaction. Whether you respect me or anyone else or not, I've always had a great deal of respect for you. This is a shame, really.


Well having got a similar reaction describing the physical interaction between me and my dogs as hitting, shoving, kicking and slapping with their lead, which it is, just not at the degree that people think, then I can understand that level of paranoia to be honest!!

I've currently got Zasa next to me, Tau was a few seconds ago, upside down and I can bet you, if I started a game of what I call 'bitey face' ie nipping their bum and back leg muscles, they will join in and escalate it. But if I said I nip my dogs back and legs hard, without that explanation, I would probably be deemed cruel, I probably already am by some members.

I enjoy the physical reaction and relationship with my dogs, and I trust them as much as they trust me. I literally place body parts in their mouth and trust their judgement in responding to me playing with them, and I have yet to be proven wrong!


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

The thing that get$ me i$ that if your are choo$ing to u$e a puni$her in training you have to accept that in order for the puni$her to vork the dog ha$ to actually find it unplea$ent. El$e it i$n't a correction i$ it? $o all thi$ 'vell he like$ rough play' $tuff i$ null and void. If he like$ the correction then it i$n't a correction.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Werehorse said:


> The thing that get$ me i$ that if your are choo$ing to u$e a puni$her in training you have to accept that in order for the puni$her to vork the dog ha$ to actually find it unplea$ent. El$e it i$n't a correction i$ it? $o all thi$ 'vell he like$ rough play' $tuff i$ null and void. If he like$ the correction then it i$n't a correction.


My God, the dollars are getting to me 

And no, I disagree, you don't have to punish your dog, disagreeing with your dog isn't necessarily punishing them. My dogs want to please me, so how does telling them no, I don't want you to do that, I want you to do this, punish them? Surely by saying this is right, that's not punishing them, it's leading to rewarding them?? And then, once you've said, no, you can't do that, you then say yes, you can do this and that's when the fun becomes exponential.

(had to fit that last word into an argument somewhere.)


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well having got a similar reaction describing the physical interaction between me and my dogs as hitting, shoving, kicking and slapping with their lead, which it is, just not at the degree that people think, then I can understand that level of paranoia to be honest!!
> 
> I've currently got Zasa next to me, Tau was a few seconds ago, upside down and I can bet you, if I started a game of what I call 'bitey face' ie nipping their bum and back leg muscles, they will join in and escalate it. But if I said I nip my dogs back and legs hard, without that explanation, I would probably be deemed cruel, I probably already am by some members.
> 
> I enjoy the physical reaction and relationship with my dogs, and I trust them as much as they trust me. I literally place body parts in their mouth and trust their judgement in responding to me playing with them, and I have yet to be proven wrong!


I don't know that you did get a similar reaction - you have consistently described honestly what level of physical interaction you have, in context. Most of the reaction to me seemed to be to your (you must admit, pretty honed) skills in adding hyperbole and rhetoric to the argument...maybe that's just how I saw it? I wasn't on the receiving end 

One of my favourite games with Gruff involves pretending to punch his nose while he pretends to chew my hand, like most dogs he loves a good bum slapping. No-one has suggested that the physicality of dogs isn't a fun part of the relationship, I think. 
I haven't noticed anyone leaping to the conclusion that a difference in training style means you abuse your dogs.....because _you haven't suggested you do!_


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

myshkin said:


> I don't know that you did get a similar reaction - you have consistently described honestly what level of physical interaction you have, in context. Most of the reaction to me seemed to be to your (you must admit, pretty honed) skills in adding hyperbole and rhetoric to the argument...maybe that's just how I saw it? I wasn't on the receiving end
> 
> One of my favourite games with Gruff involves pretending to punch his nose while he pretends to chew my hand, like most dogs he loves a good bum slapping. No-one has suggested that the physicality of dogs isn't a fun part of the relationship, I think.
> I haven't noticed anyone leaping to the conclusion that a difference in training style means you abuse your dogs.....because _you haven't suggested you do!_


Dammit, I thought I'd been so more provocative!!!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

When I play with Florence and get physical with her, I put myself in a vulnerable position; she knows that; and she's very very gentle with me, far more gentle than she is when she plays with Freya. 

And when we're training Florence wouldn't randomly start playing roughly with me, she knows the difference.

I think trust is the key here, Florence wouldn't want to play or train with me if she didn't trust me, and she wouldn't trust me if I ever pushed her boundaries too far. Same goes for Freya, however she is a lot less physical than Florence and doesn't really enjoy any type of rough play.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My God, the dollars are getting to me
> 
> And no, I disagree, you don't have to punish your dog, disagreeing with your dog isn't necessarily punishing them. *My dogs want to please me*, so how does telling them no, I don't want you to do that, I want you to do this, punish them? Surely by saying this is right, that's not punishing them, it's leading to rewarding them?? And then, once you've said, no, you can't do that, you then say yes, you can do this and that's when the fun becomes exponential.
> 
> (had to fit that last word into an argument somewhere.)


My turn to attempt to get the last word in.

Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves. They are ultimately very selfish animals and the have no morals.

Have you reading any books by Jean donaldson? They might give you an insight into how canine's think.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My God, the dollars are getting to me
> 
> And no, I disagree, you don't have to punish your dog, disagreeing with your dog isn't necessarily punishing them. My dogs want to please me, so how does telling them no, I don't want you to do that, I want you to do this, punish them? Surely by saying this is right, that's not punishing them, it's leading to rewarding them?? And then, once you've said, no, you can't do that, you then say yes, you can do this and that's when the fun becomes exponential.
> 
> (had to fit that last word into an argument somewhere.)


Not to speak for werehorse, sorry, vverehor$e  But that's not what she's saying.

Punishment, by definition makes a behavior lessen in frequency. Technically, not giving a dog a treat can be punishment - negative punishment. What defines if something is punishing or not, is whether the behavior decreases.

So, if you say "no" to your dog for breaking a sit, yes, that's punishment, IF the dog lessens the behavior of breaking the sit.

It's impossible to train any creature without punishment. Rewards-based training includes punishment - not earning the reward. However, the premise of training being force-free is that the punishment need not be scary, painful, threatening, etc.

If you (general you, not directed at anyone on this thread), if you smack your dog for breaking a stay, the smack has to be unpleasant enough to the dog that the dog works to avoid being smacked. If the dog doesn't mind being smacked, then it wouldn't "work" to hold the stay. 
And truly, this is something you see often, lots of labs and retriever types do really like physical contact, and you see handlers smacking and thumping them around trying to get them to stop doing something, and it just makes it worse, because the dog *likes* being manhandled.

But that's not what we're talking about here....


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Thank$ oue$i. Vhat $he $aid, innit?


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ouesi said:


> But that's not what we're talking about here....


I think that might be the closest we get to answering your question. We've all spent days arguing the ins and outs of training styles. While my immediate reaction is "yes, there should be legislation restricting how far people can go in correcting their dog" the reality is that on a forum of dog lovers we can't agree on where the line is drawn. It's too complex, too contextual.

So my answer is yeah but, no but....I don't know!


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

rona said:


> I had huge respect for my parents who used the clip round the ear/slapped legs fairly and sparingly


The difficulty is, you are human, not dog. Humans can rationalize. Children can be explained to and so are able to understand why the punishment happened. They can have a verbal conversation about why it happened and reconcile, maintaining trust between kid/parent.
Dogs are unable to the above.

I don't want to generalize too much, but I do think there is a tendency in some cases for people who are reliant on corrections to not always have great timing too, which certainly doesn't help with the dog's learning and could in some ways go further towards securing a conflicted response around their handler/person.

For me personally, I don't see the need to use positive punishment, because if your overall training skills are good, you are good at shaping (preferably freeshaping), you have good timing, you understand the motivators for unwanted behaviour, you have realistic/practical solution for management to avoid rehearsal of unwanted behaviour, you shouldn't need to. You can tell the dog all you need to with good timing and an abundance of rewards for the right stuff, setting up for success and withdrawal of rewards when needed and management the rest of the time.
I generally regard the use of corrections as sloppy training (sorry JMO don't mean to offend) in general practice and the use of aversives/compulsion etc with fearful animals I have very strong opposition to on ethical/animal welfare grounds.

I think also to an extent, reliance on quick-fix sloppy training (corrections), desensitizes us to the emotional effect it may have on our dogs and their relationship with us.

Back on topic to the OP questions:



> What do you think? Do we have the right to correct our dogs however we see fit?


I'm also of the opinion that we should live and let live, if and only if, the employed correction seems to be at least semi-effective and is definitely not having having any significant negative emotional effect on the dog. 
I know several people for instance who use verbal corrections ("ahh, ahh" "noooo"), who's dogs aren't really bothered (being quite socially confident with good bounce back). The correction employed isn't really effective (to an extent some of these dogs are almost desensitized to the correction). This affects learning a bit and means that the behaviour isn't always super tightly proofed, but so long as the humans are happy with the result and the dogs equally contented; live and let live.

If it is clear that the use of correction is causing (with minor or otherwise) distress to the dog, then I think it should not be employed. And any trainer employed to help an owner should be able to tell them so. 
The difficulty with the "having the right to correct your dog" argument, is that it leaves room for people to take advantage, it lacks the acknowledgement that it allows people to get away with the use of tools that pose serious risks to animal welfare/safety/wellbeing.

ETA that I think this is important too:
http://reactivechampion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/thank-you-for-not-shaming-me.html

Being 'positive' teachers to the people is just as important otherwise we produce negative emotional responses in them too and leave them disheartened and I'd guess often continuing to do the same as before, in doubt. 
Helping them to learn themselves and decide what is best for them and their dogs whilst educating them about the use of force free methods, allows them to make force free choices themselves in understanding why they are doing so and the benefits for their dogs and themselves. All the best reasons.  Happy, confident people = happier, more confident dog.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2013)

myshkin said:


> I think that might be the closest we get to answering your question. We've all spent days arguing the ins and outs of training styles. While my immediate reaction is "yes, there should be legislation restricting how far people can go in correcting their dog" the reality is that on a forum of dog lovers we can't agree on where the line is drawn. It's too complex, too contextual.
> 
> So my answer is yeah but, no but....*I don't know!*


I don't either! That's why I asked!


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

I think if you tried to legi$late you'd end up vith $omething like the $macking lavv$ ve have here - not allovved to $mack hard enough to redden the $kin. and then it i$ like, redden the $kin for 10 minute$? an hour? a day? 5 $econd$?

I mean if you had $ome kind of phy$ical mark on the dog a$ your limit, vhat that guy did to that $pangle become$ legal, a$ it probably left no mark on it.

I think educate and vait for $ome people'$ morality to catch up vith the front end. Ve'll get there eventually, the vorld i$ becoming a le$$ and le$$ violent place and that vill extend into animal training by the majority eventually. I am encouraged to $ee many people round here valking dog$ on harne$$e$ and training vith revard$ than I u$ed to vhen ve fir$t got O$car, de$pite there $till being a $trong core of punitive trainer$ about thing$ are headed in the right direction. I do think punitive trainer$ are a dying breed.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

I have avoided this topic, I remember the somewhat hilarious reaction I received after saying Alfie had been sprayed with water three times, more like I had attacked him with the water cannon.

I also say 'ahh' and shock horror, he stops the unwanted behaviour and comes to me for a cuddle instead, really screwed up he is!



LurcherOwner said:


> My turn to attempt to get the last word in.
> 
> Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves. They are ultimately very selfish animals and the have no morals.
> 
> Have you reading any books by Jean donaldson? They might give you an insight into how canine's think.


That's a bit sad, dogs don't do anything to please us, only themselves?

Having had and known dogs who do things to please their owner alone and not themselves I find that statement a bit wrong. A dog doesn't sit by you when your ill for themselves, they could be off playing. There are many instances when dogs do things for their owners pleasure.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> That's a bit sad, dogs don't do anything to please us, only themselves?
> 
> Having had and known dogs who do things to please their owner alone and not themselves I find that statement a bit wrong. A dog doesn't sit by you when your ill for themselves, they could be off playing. There are many instances when dogs do things for their owners pleasure.


From a training point of view I find it very, very unfair to the dog when people expect the dog to do things just to please them. They're not Disney characters, they're living, thinking creatures who have their own desires and motivations, they do not live to please us. It's also unfair to the human because they hear that dogs should do what we want in order to please us and if their dog doesn't it can so easily lead to them feeling like they're useless and/or to feelings of resentment and anger towards the dog.

I know a hell of a lot of people who use punishment based training because that way the dog is "doing it to please them" rather than being "bribed" to do it. Not one of them will have it that the dog does things because if it doesn't it gets hurt.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Sarah1983 said:


> From a training point of view I find it very, very unfair to the dog when people expect the dog to do things just to please them. They're not Disney characters, they're living, thinking creatures who have their own desires and motivations, they do not live to please us. It's also unfair to the human because they hear that dogs should do what we want in order to please us and if their dog doesn't it can so easily lead to them feeling like they're useless and/or to feelings of resentment and anger towards the dog.
> 
> I know a hell of a lot of people who use punishment based training because that way the dog is "doing it to please them" rather than being "bribed" to do it. Not one of them will have it that the dog does things because if it doesn't it gets hurt.


I didn't mean in training, I meant in their life.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> I have avoided this topic, I remember the somewhat hilarious reaction I received after saying Alfie had been sprayed with water three times, more like I had attacked him with the water cannon.
> 
> I also say 'ahh' and shock horror, he stops the unwanted behaviour and comes to me for a cuddle instead, really screwed up he is!
> 
> ...


Of course they don't do it for our pleasure! Dog's don't have morals!

And Oh of course you never use training in real life do you?


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

A dog sitting with someone who is ill is probably doing it because they have been selectively bred for a long time to value human company. Plus an ill human might be running a temperature and be lovely and warm to snuggle in to . They find being in human company rewarding, yes, especially if that human feeds and plays with them - but they don't do things with the intention of pleasing us; while they might do things hoping to be rewarded with attention. If they find attention rewarding enough, which many dogs do.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> Of course they don't do it for our pleasure! Dog's don't have morals!
> 
> And Oh of course you never use training in real life do you?


I actually find this opinion really sad, if you have never seen a dog do something for the pleasure it gives their human then I don't know what to say.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> I didn't mean in training, I meant in their life.


Same applies though, they're not going to suddenly start doing things just to please you just because it's real life and not a training session 

I don't deny they sometimes appear to do things just because we like it. But I do wonder whether that is really the case. Rupert used to spend hours cuddled up to me after a seizure. Was that because it made me feel better or did he do it because my seizures frightened him and he got comfort from simply cuddling up to me after that fright? Spencer came and sat with me until I could get up when I fell and hurt my ankle. Again, was it because he knew I was hurt or was he simply confused about me sitting in the mud and figured it best for him to sit and wait with me? I'd like to think they both wanted to make me feel better but I can't say for sure.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Werehorse said:


> A dog sitting with someone who is ill is probably doing it because they have been selectively bred for a long time to value human company. Plus an ill human might be running a temperature and be lovely and warm to snuggle in to . They find being in human company rewarding, yes, especially if that human feeds and plays with them - but they don't do things with the intention of pleasing us; while they might do things hoping to be rewarded with attention. If they find attention rewarding enough, which many dogs do.


Next to the bed. Our other dog layed by my grandmother with cancer, so no temp and she couldn't interact with him.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Werehorse said:


> A dog sitting with someone who is ill is probably doing it because they have been selectively bred for a long time to value human company. Plus an ill human might be running a temperature and be lovely and warm to snuggle in to . They find being in human company rewarding, yes, especially if that human feeds and plays with them - but they don't do things with the intention of pleasing us; while they might do things hoping to be rewarded with attention. If they find attention rewarding enough, which many dogs do.


I find this interesting, because the same thing can be said about humans - all "moral" and kind actions are because they make us feel good: they are rewarding to us. I try to be ethical because I would feel bad if I didn't.......there's a word I'm looking for that means self-interest, but the heat has addled my holey brain :laugh:

So I think what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure it matters (to me) what the motivation is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> I actually find this opinion really sad, if you have never seen a dog do something for the pleasure it gives their human then I don't know what to say.


You may find my opinion sad, I too find yours sad, as it is unrealistic and old-fashioned. Your opinion is far to "Disney dog" for my liking.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> You may find my opinion sad, I too find yours sad, as it is unrealistic and old-fashioned. Your opinion is far to "Disney dog" for my liking.


Well it's a shame you need books to tell you how a dog behaves instead of just watching them and knowing for youself.

Yes we have always had dogs who will sit with the sick.

The dog I mentioned before, after my grandmother died and the day she died he clung to her husband, lay at his feet and followed him everywhere, he refused walks to stay with him and all the time for weeks just sat by his side.

There was nothing for him to gain from this, he missed out on fun for himself.

Disney it may be, but true it is too.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

myshkin said:


> I find this interesting, because the same thing can be said about humans - all "moral" and kind actions are because they make us feel good: they are rewarding to us. I try to be ethical because I would feel bad if I didn't.......there's a word I'm looking for that means self-interest, but the heat has addled my holey brain :laugh:
> 
> So I think what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure it matters (to me) what the motivation is.


Thinking the same myself.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

The dog will have found it rewarding for it to be doing the laying next to the bed - what was rewarding about it is difficult to determine but it would have been rewarding for the actual dog in some way. It is a lovely thing and dogs do these things and we do get a great deal from them doing it. But they do not have the moral or mental capacity to try to "please" us - they can end up doing things that make us happy because that in general leads to Good Things For Dogs. And they are very very sensitive to our moods and to how their actions influence our moods.

I think to Disneyfy them and say they are trying to please us is actually the sad thing - because the opposite side of of that coin leads to "he's being naughty/stubborn/he knows this/he's doing it to spite me/being a knobber" etc etc etc. Which is all just rather sad and pathetic.

Giving them attributes they aren't capable of does them a disservice and actually accepting them for what they are is far more productive and interesting than thinking they are little furry people whose sole aim is to try and please us.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> My turn to attempt to get the last word in.
> 
> Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves. They are ultimately very selfish animals and the have no morals.
> 
> Have you reading any books by Jean donaldson? They might give you an insight into how canine's think.


"Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves"

I disagree 100%


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Werehorse said:


> Giving them attributes they aren't capable of does them a disservice and actually accepting them for what they are is far more productive and interesting than thinking they are little furry people whose sole aim is to try and please us.


But not acknowledging what they are capable of also does them a disservice too.

There is no reward for following a grieving man or sitting by a dying woman, the dog didn't look happy, but couldn't be moved.

Books go a long way in explaining things, but that unexplainable thing they do for you and family is what make them great companions and to just believe everything they ever do is for themselves is empty of what they are in our lives for.


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

myshkin said:


> I find this interesting, because the same thing can be said about humans - all "moral" and kind actions are because they make us feel good: they are rewarding to us. I try to be ethical because I would feel bad if I didn't.......there's a word I'm looking for that means self-interest, but the heat has addled my holey brain :laugh:
> 
> So I think what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure it matters (to me) what the motivation is.


I think the difference lies in that self-awareness and planning ahead thing. Dogs are in the moment, we are not, we can empathise and have a theory of mind, dogs do not.

I can sit with a dying relative because I love them or because I think they might write me into their will or out of a sense of duty or because I am rewarded by the approval of others. A dog can only reason that it finds doing this thing rewarding now in some way. Perhaps everyone who comes into the rooms speaks to the dog in a kind tone and gives it a pat because they are happy to see it there. Perhaps it is confused by the stillness of the patient and finds it comforting to keep watch.

The motivation matters, to me, because of the flip side as mentioned in my previous post.


----------



## GingerRogers (Sep 13, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Well it's a shame you need books to tell you how a dog behaves instead of just watching them and knowing for youself.
> 
> Yes we have always had dogs who will sit with the sick.
> 
> ...


There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence of dogs sticking to sick people and of course there are medical detection dogs.

I know someone whose husband had cancer, the dogs stuck to his side like glue, he was given the all clear, but a few months later the dogs became very clingy again, something niggled so they went back to the doctor and sure enough the cancer had returned, sadly terminally.

So here the dogs weren't doing it to comfort the human as you infer as he had no idea he was sick again.

I dont know what their motivation is but you can bet your bottom dollar its through some inbuilt/bred sense not through a desire to please us. Dogs do what pleases them, sometimes we can engineer it through training that their desires co-incide with ours .

For instance, a very trite instance , ninja loves to do rollovers, she will rollover and over with abandon even if we ask her to do something else entirely, this is because they make me and my husband laugh a lot.

She isn't doing it to make us laugh though, she doesn't sit there and think 'oh my humans are sad I know I will make them laugh' she does it because she gets reward from the laughter, it is a form of praise and she likes praise.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I like making my animals, children, family & friends happy.

I have just rescued another sorry little dog who needs a lot of work.

These can all be seen as 'altruistic' acts, but ultimately they make ME feel good, I like seeing my family & friends happy, it releases endorphins that make me feel good in myself & about myself.

The more cynical of you would possibly see it as trying to gain kudos from others perhaps, but does it make the actions any less than what they are, as they are benefitting others?

It's all deep psychology sh*t that I don't fully understand so I'll leave it at that.

It doesn't really matter whether we see our dogs as out to please themselves or out to please us, in doing something that pleases them which in turn pleases us the motivation becomes irrelevant.

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, awful night's sleep last night


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

dandogman said:


> "Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves"
> 
> I disagree 100%


Why? What makes you think dogs are out to please humans rather than themselves? Genuinely curious on this as none of my dogs have been big people pleasers. Spencer is more so than any of the others have been but even he knows what he wants to be doing and if his wants are different to my wants needs extra motivation to do what it is I want.


----------



## GingerRogers (Sep 13, 2012)

But we do need to know the motivation in order to get the best from a dog/person.

Just as we need to know if some one works for money or the pleasure it gives them, Eg in a dog kennel for example, if its money someone is after we can give them the shittiest jobs and they will (probably) do them well because they want the money but if the person works for the pleasure of interacting with the dogs then no matter how much you pay them they arent going to be interested in cleaning the kennels and washing the bedding all the time 'unless' you give them some motivation such as if you do this today you can do the walking tomorrow.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

Werehorse said:


> I think the difference lies in that self-awareness and planning ahead thing. Dogs are in the moment, we are not, we can empathise and have a theory of mind, dogs do not.
> 
> I can sit with a dying relative *because I love them or because I think they might write me into their will or out of a sense of duty or because I am rewarded by the approval of others*. A dog can only reason that it finds doing this thing rewarding now in some way. Perhaps everyone who comes into the rooms speaks to the dog in a kind tone and gives it a pat because they are happy to see it there. Perhaps it is confused by the stillness of the patient and finds it comforting to keep watch.
> 
> The motivation matters, to me, because of the flip side as mentioned in my previous post.


I see what you're saying in the self-awareness sense, but I don't accept that self-awareness alters the fact that the reasons for a chosen action are rewarding. Even in more complex, thought out situations, it could be argued that if we do something unpleasant out of a sense of duty, we have the reward of feeling we have done the right thing.



simplysardonic said:


> I like making my animals, children, family & friends happy.
> 
> I have just rescued another sorry little dog who needs a lot of work.
> 
> ...


Altruism! That was the word, (which doesn't mean self-interest, as I said, but the opposite, doh!). Thank you


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

Current research is giving dogs more credit for things like empathy than we formerly did. I don't feel like going back to look for it, but there was an article recently about rats and feeling empathy...

When I look at my own personal dogs, I do have trouble with the notion that there is nothing there but operant and classically conditioned responses. To me there IS more than that. I love seeing my dogs run and play, and race to the car, excited to go somewhere. I love seeing their reactions when they explore a new place or discover something new. And I kind of feel like they have similar feelings when it comes to us and their human family. Not in some altruistic Lassie fantasy, but in the sense that I think there is more to them than Pavlov and Skinner theorize.

It's all rather interesting really and I don't think any of us have all the answers. I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that everything falls out 

The "dogs don't want to please us" I believe comes from Jean Donaldson's The Culture Clash, and it's in response to our tendency to overly humanize our dogs and the mistakes (and abuse) that stems from analyzing their behavior this way. The mentality of: "I told him off for getting in the trash, so now he *knows* it's wrong." Then when the dog continues to get in the trash, he is now deliberately disobedient and from there we justify more punishment.

In the obedience world, I hear SO many handlers voicing some version of "you have to let the dog know you're not happy with him" as if that should somehow be motivation to the dog to perform a tighter heeling pattern. Which of course is completely ridiculous. Dogs perform better when we teach and proof and practice the behavior better. Has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they want to make you happy, and everything to do with your skill as a trainer.

Or simply this notion that "you have to tell the dog when he's wrong" as if there were some morality to sitting instead of downing or getting in to the trash. The reality that so many are proving over and over and over is that you can train to the same and very often greater reliability without ever chastising a dog for a "wrong" choice. One of my favorite examples was a friend at an obedience seminar who was working on back up in heel. Her dog kept sitting and she kept telling her "no" for every sit. The presenter finally said "stop telling her "no", she's not right, but she's not wrong either."


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Current research is giving dogs more credit for things like empathy than we formerly did. I don't feel like going back to look for it, but there was an article recently about rats and feeling empathy...
> 
> *When I look at my own personal dogs, I do have trouble with the notion that there is nothing there but operant and classically conditioned responses. To me there IS more than that. I love seeing my dogs run and play, and race to the car, excited to go somewhere. I love seeing their reactions when they explore a new place or discover something new. And I kind of feel like they have similar feelings when it comes to us and their human family. Not in some altruistic Lassie fantasy, but in the sense that I think there is more to them than Pavlov and Skinner theorize. *
> 
> ...


John Bradshaw (biologist, which for me holds more weight than a behaviourist's opinion - not to say that makes behaviourists unreliable sources of knowledge per se), mentions that even with his scientific approach he discusses emotions using the names humans give them, because although some basic emotions are deeply rooted in mammalian brains, we cannot truly conceptualise them because we aren't dogs.

He devotes a whole chapter of _In Defence of Dogs_ to arguing that dogs do love their families, albeit without the ability to rationalise their actions as (some!) humans do.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

myshkin said:


> I see what you're saying in the self-awareness sense, but I don't accept that self-awareness alters the fact that the reasons for a chosen action are rewarding. Even in more complex, thought out situations, it could be argued that if we do something unpleasant out of a sense of duty, we have the reward of feeling we have done the right thing.
> 
> Altruism! That was the word, (which doesn't mean self-interest, as I said, but the opposite, doh!). Thank you


I think, but could be wrong, the opposite word is 'individualism'


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Current research is giving dogs more credit for things like empathy than we formerly did. I don't feel like going back to look for it, but there was an article recently about rats and feeling empathy...
> 
> When I look at my own personal dogs, I do have trouble with the notion that there is nothing there but operant and classically conditioned responses. To me there IS more than that. I love seeing my dogs run and play, and race to the car, excited to go somewhere. I love seeing their reactions when they explore a new place or discover something new. And I kind of feel like they have similar feelings when it comes to us and their human family. Not in some altruistic Lassie fantasy, but in the sense that I think there is more to them than Pavlov and Skinner theorize.


oh I believe dogs are MUCH more than just conditioned responses  Mine certainly have been. I just don't believe that they have this huge desire to simply please humans some seem to think they do. I like to think mine have cuddled up to me when I've been ill coz they know I like it (and they may well do it for that reason) but I can't rule out that they do it for completely different reasons of their own.

And when it comes to doing what I want...well pleasing me is all very well as long as there's nothing more interesting to do. But if there is then they've all been more likely to please themselves :001_tongue: Unless of course they think there's something good in it for them to please me. But then the same can often be said of humans.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

Sarah1983 said:


> oh I believe dogs are MUCH more than just conditioned responses  Mine certainly have been. *I just don't believe that they have this huge desire to simply please humans some seem to think they do. * I like to think mine have cuddled up to me when I've been ill coz they know I like it (and they may well do it for that reason) but I can't rule out that they do it for completely different reasons of their own.
> 
> And when it comes to doing what I want...well pleasing me is all very well as long as there's nothing more interesting to do. But if there is then they've all been more likely to please themselves :001_tongue: Unless of course they think there's something good in it for them to please me. But then the same can often be said of humans.


Those people have clearly never owned a sight hound.


----------



## myshkin (Mar 23, 2010)

I have been sooo naughty about work this week, and I'm making a rod for my own back, as I'm self employed......might have to demand this thread be closed for its work avoidance dangers. Got to get some work done!


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

LurcherOwner said:


> Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves. *They are ultimately very selfish animals and the have no morals.*
> 
> Have you reading any books by Jean donaldson? They might give you an insight into how canine's think.





emmaviolet said:


> That's a bit sad, dogs don't do anything to please us, only themselves?
> 
> Having had and known dogs who do things to please their owner alone and not themselves I find that statement a bit wrong.


I just wanted to clarify a bit on the points you've both made here as it's an interesting discussion and is something that regularly comes up with training clients, when we are working on solving problem behaviours (chasing, jumping, barking, excitement etc).

I think people often feel disheartened as emmaviolet showed, when we talk about dogs being amoral. 
It's an unfortunate turn of the english language that when we say "*soandso* has no morals", it implies that they are bad people who choose to reject moral judgement and societal moral norms in order to pursue unethical self gratification or otherwise 'bad activities' that benefit themselves. 
For the above reason, it is perhaps more accurate (less risk of anthropomorphism) if we say that dogs are amoral and that they are naively selfish.
Both of these traits are subconscious, morality simply does not feature on the dog wavelength. The dog (or other animal with similar cognitive abilities) is not aware of making choices for these reasons. In fact, these cognitive characteristics are evolutionarily adaptive; that is to say, that from an evolutionary POV, producing behaviours associated with naive selfishness was important because they increased opportunities for survival, reproduction etc (survival of the fittest and all that).
Morality is something which is very specific to primates, more specifically homosapiens. There are a few studies which look into the possibility of moral judgement in other primate species but the results are difficult to judge in many ways, not least because as humans, we have a tendency for attribution (when we are looking to find something, we will make sure we find it), meaning that we may look at behaviours and assume they correlate with a certain type of cognition. The trouble is you cannot see or easily identify cognitions. 
What alot of the best studies seem to suggest now, is that in certain types of great apes (who share the vast majority of the same DNA as us) may show some kind of semi-morality/amorality. A bridge between amoral mammals and high morality animals/ with hyper complex cognitive abilities, such as humans.

Another issue is that when we say that dogs are amoral, many people take it that we are suggesting that they are simple/not cognitively advanced. This of course, couldn't be further from the truth, since dogs, are fascinating animals (not least from an evolutionary POV with regards to their preference and innate abilities at reading human features/faces etc). 
All it is, is that examples such as those cited by emmaviolet;



> A dog doesn't sit by you when your ill for themselves, they could be off playing. There are many instances when dogs do things for their owners pleasure.


- have different, but equally fascinating scientific explanations. 
I'll attempt to explain the one above:
Dogs are highly social animals, who are different from many other (wild related species) in that they have been selectively bred over thousands of years (with lots of variations in specific traits/behaviours that were bred for) as companions/work partners for humans. This means that, evolutionarily we are dogs' natural social companion. They are meant to be with us. This very fact means that subconsciously dogs are incredibly good at reading humans (they show enhanced abilities at reading human faces, better than any other non-human including other primates), interacting with us and navigating our urban/rural or otherwise environments. For this reason, they often form very strong attachments with their humans. 
Evolutionarily (this is the case with any animal), it is advantageous to form solid attachments with others in your social group (safety in numbers, from predators, emotional/social advantages/security etc). 
These members of their social group are incredibly important to them. They have formed solid attachments too them, they feel safe with this individual, they engage in positive/relationship strengthening activities/games and they rely on each for security, emotional support, guidance, safety and companionship. 
When your dog is accompanying you when you are ill, they are not doing so to please you (unless doing so might increase your chances of recovery/survival and again this would as before be subconscious; "pleasing"/rewarding others is not something that dogs are actively aware of doing); more likely they are doing so because they may be in some distress (sensing the illness) because you are "not right" and you are important to them, they need you (for a multitude of reasons). They are incredibly emotionally sensitive creatures (forming strong attachments) and form social groups, that evolutionarily were essential for the survival and emotional, psychological and physical wellbeing of the whole group. 
The "grass is greener on the other side" idea is not something that would be present in a dog, so they would not be capable of thinking "I'd rather be off playing" (a behaviour that is not even compatible with the situation they find themselves in). In fact, given that dogs are emotive and complex social creatures that ("live in the moment") and react (with a variation of responses) to the stimuli that are presented to them; if presented with the example given (an ill social companion); as a result of the distress/concern they felt for their pal, they wouldn't be able to consider incompatible behaviour choices. The physiological and other changes associated with the distress/stress make the range of compatible social/other behaviours inevitable (and highly predictable).

Dogs are amoral and naively selfish but that doesn't make them any less fascinating or complex. 
In fact, for me, knowing this (that they don't deliberately/maliciously make choices I don't like), makes me a better human, with more compassion/understanding and an increased ability to quickly forgive and work out how work things better for the animal so that the unwanted behaviour doesn't happen.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

lemmsy said:


> I think people often feel disheartened as emmaviolet showed, when we talk about dogs being amoral.


I don't feel disheartened or emotive, I will be honest and say I don't understand this new phrase of 'disneyfied' but there you go. 
I think it means living in fairyland, but I am a realist, I live in the real world and judge it on what I see not what I romanticise about. I don't believe in god or heaven or ghosts or goblins.

I also don't need sixty or so books to tell me what my dog feels, you just need to watch them.

All of this, saying dogs are 100% selfish, it is a theory, no one can possibly know that every single thing they do is all selfish in origin, these people are stating their theories and generalising every dog in them.

I think it a shame when people have said they used to believe their dog comforted them for their comfort but now think otherwise. I have seen some amazing things from dogs, I won't go into it here, it will be justified away. Seeing is believing though.

I suppose a dog who runs into his home barking and pulling on your clothes to go outside and then you discover a cat stuck in a roof slate in distress is selfish on the dogs part too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> I don't feel disheartened or emotive, I will be honest and say I don't understand this new phrase of 'disneyfied' but there you go.
> I think it means living in fairyland, but I am a realist, I live in the real world and judge it on what I see not what I romanticise about. I don't believe in god or heaven or ghosts or goblins.
> 
> I also don't need sixty or so books to tell me what my dog feels, you just need to watch them.
> ...


Sounds straight out of 'Lassie' that does, which coincidently is what I mean by 'Disneyfied'.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> Sounds straight out of 'Lassie' that does, which coincidently is what I mean by 'Disneyfied'.


But if it does happen in real life, which it has, what is the cause.

I get what it means, but I am a realist.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> I don't feel disheartened or emotive, I will be honest and say *I don't understand this new phrase of 'disneyfied'* but there you go.
> I think it means living in fairyland, but I am a realist, I live in the real world and judge it on what I see not what I romanticise about. I don't believe in god or heaven or ghosts or goblins.
> 
> I also don't need sixty or so books to tell me what my dog feels, you just need to watch them.
> ...


Jean Donaldson discusses it in her book 'The Culture Clash', about how Disney has altered our perception of dogs in the last 70 or so years by portraying them in anthropomorphic ways, but at the end of the day they all come with a basic set of hard wired instincts like the id described by Freud. In the case of humans, the ego & the super-ego may override the id as a result of indoctrinated moral codes of their specific culture.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> Jean Donaldson discusses it in her book 'The Culture Clash', about how Disney has altered our perception of dogs in the last 70 or so years by portraying them in anthropomorphic ways, but at the end of the day they all come with a basic set of hard wired instincts like the id described by Freud. In the case of humans, the ego & the super-ego may override the id as a result of indoctrinated moral codes of their specific culture.


Ah thank you!

I wondered where this new phrase was from, although I got the jist.

Thankfully none of my opinions on dogs have come from films, more life experience of living with them and being surrounded by them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> I suppose a dog who runs into his home barking and pulling on your clothes to go outside and then you discover a cat stuck in a roof slate in distress is selfish on the dogs part too.


Well, yeah, in the case of my dogs, it would be selfish because they'd want me to get the cat out so they could chase it 

Just the other day Bates came up to me all antsy and agitated. "Oh Lassie has Timmy fallen in the well?" I followed him in to the other room. His toy had fallen under the futon and he couldn't get it out 

I get what you're saying, it is all theory really, and I totally understand not wanting to think of dogs as selfish. 
Perhaps human language can't explain what it is that dog's feel simply because dogs are dogs and are NOT people. And I think that's the whole point. Putting human attributes on dogs can not only be damaging to them (and our relationship with them), but it also prevents us from seeing dogs in the depth that they deserve as the unique species they are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> But if it does happen in real life, which it has, what is the cause.
> 
> I get what it means, but I am a realist.


The dog could be barking because the cat is distressing it, the dog could be barking at you as in the same way it does when someone comes to the door (alarm barking), the dog does not think "There's a cat in trouble, I must tell my owner so it can be saved".

Spot on SS with that explanation!


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> I don't feel disheartened or emotive,


I didn't mean to suggest your response was emotive. Merely meant that you seemed disheartened at the thought that dogs are amoral, due to misinterpretation that this term implies that are deliberately so (it is subconscious and totally naive).



emmaviolet said:


> I will be honest and say I don't understand this new phrase of 'disneyfied' but there you go.
> I think it means living in fairyland, but I am a realist, I live in the real world and judge it on what I see not what I romanticise about. I don't believe in god or heaven or ghosts or goblins.


Not to speak for whoever posted about 'disneyfied' perceptions, but in the dog training/behaviour community; the 'disney-dog' idea is merely a way of describing common attitudes/expectations of dogs maybe 50 odd years ago and sometimes today. In Disney films, the dogs are moral animals, they bite the baddie to protect the goodie (and somehow sense magically who the bad egg is and who the goodie), they understand complex emotions such as betrayal and yet they are ready to reconcile with the baddie (and not bite him) when he sees the error of his ways and forgive and give him another chance. 'Disney dog' merely refers to the anthropomorphism (humanization/ false attribution of human characteristics to animals) of dogs, which isn't an accurate, realistic or fair way to represent them. Just to clarify.  


emmaviolet said:


> I also don't need sixty or so books to tell me what my dog feels, you just need to watch them.


You don't need to if you don't want to, no. But you may find it interesting to do so. We can always learn more. 
Yes you do just need to watch them, but your education is important. Observing complex behaviour chains with an inexperience and lack of understanding of behaviour science, often means you are likely to misdiagnosis or fall victim to attribution (attributing characteristics we identify with ourselves to the animal- not very accurate).



emmaviolet said:


> All of this, saying dogs are 100% selfish, it is a theory, no one can possibly know that every single thing they do is all selfish in origin, these people are stating their theories and generalising every dog in them.


It is theory yes. It is however, backed up by science. 
I do take your point though that cognitions are very hard to identify since we cannot see them. What many scientists have been able to do however, is measure physiological changes in humans (and other moral/semi-moral) animals; if similar changes take place in the animal being studied when they are presented with the same stimuli (dilemma) then that hints similar processes will be taking place in the studied animal, possibly hinted at the same advanced cognitions on moral level. Can we be 100% sure? No.

I still think you are taking the suggest that dogs are naively selfish as a negative. I actually see it is as a positive. 
Dogs do show a certain level of altruism amongst each-other and with their humans. Altruist behaviours not only helps the receiver but also the giver (that's the good thing about helping others- the giver gets stuff out of it too). Assuming here that the dog is the giver; when we see acts of spontaneous altruism, it's a wonderful sight to behold. I find there tend to be several key aspects that are always present:
1. The dog is trained to a very high level (with force free, understanding methods, often free-shaped)
2. The dog has an incredibly strong and balanced bond (attachment) with their human which is as a result of the time invested in their relationship and the dog. 
3. The latter makes, time spent and the relationship they have with their person very rewarding, leading the dog, never afraid to try new things and confident to use 'initiative' (for want of a better word). These same dogs are often also fantastic communicators too.

It's the sort of relationship we would all want to have with our dogs. Lovely.



emmaviolet said:


> I think it a shame when people have said they used to believe their dog comforted them for their comfort but now think otherwise.


You have misunderstood. A dog that is trying to "comfort" (or perhaps appease) his owner, is doing just that. They are trying to check they are ok (because they are worried about them) and to resolve the situation and make sure that they and their pal are "all good" because they value their relationship (and need them). They are not doing it because "they like to please". I always think the dog looking after ill person because "he likes to please" analogy implies/makes the dog out to be quite dense. 
They are far more complex, sentient, intelligent and emotive than that.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Well, yeah, in the case of my dogs, it would be selfish because they'd want me to get the cat out so they could chase it
> 
> Just the other day Bates came up to me all antsy and agitated. "*Oh Lassie has Timmy fallen in the well*?" I followed him in to the other room. His toy had fallen under the futon and he couldn't get it out
> 
> ...


I always say this to Rogue when she approaches me & play barks :w00t:

ETA: it's probably completely selfish on my part, but I find her cocked head in response amusing


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> The dog could be barking because the cat is distressing it, the dog could be barking at you as in the same way it does when someone comes to the door (alarm barking), the dog does not think "There's a cat in trouble, I must tell my owner so it can be saved".
> 
> Spot on SS with that explanation!


There is no way of knowing that it doesn't think that.

A theory suggests it doesn't.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> There is no way of knowing that it doesn't think that.
> 
> A theory suggests it doesn't.


Well then there is no way of knowing it DOES think that either EV. And only a theory (yours and whoever made Lassie) suggests that the dog does think that.

I mean what do you think of the Dominance theory? Do you believe it or not based on that is a theory?


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> There is no way of knowing that it doesn't think that.
> 
> A theory suggests it doesn't.


If there is no way of knowing that the dog does NOT think "there's a cat in trouble I must alert my owner in order to save the cat!" then by the same token you can argue that there is no way of knowing that the dog DOES think that.

But actually there are ways of narrowing down possibilities of what the dog may be thinking. And I can guarantee that if my dogs found a cat trapped somewhere and they couldn't get to it, and they came to me agitated about it, and I set that cat free, they would all gleefully pounce on the cat, and not in a "oh I'm so glad you're saved" way. So by that evidence alone, I know that if my dogs were to alert me to a distressed cat, it would not be the cat's welfare that was foremost in their mind.

Now, here's another scenario: Middle of the night, Bates nudges me awake. Thinking he has an upset tummy I go downstairs to let him out. In my half asleep stupor, I realize he hasn't followed me down, rather, he's standing at the top of the stairs. When I call up to him "it's okay, you can go out" he stays put, but pointedly looks towards the door of the kid's room. I go in and check, and one of the kids has a nosebleed and isn't awake enough to call me or come get me.

From past behaviors of his I can say with near certainty that, 1. he knew the child was in distress, 2. He knew to come get me to "fix" it, and 3. He deliberately communicated with me by pointedly looking at the door to the kid's room. 
What I can't extrapolate from any of this is WHY he did what he did. What his motivation was.


----------



## GingerRogers (Sep 13, 2012)

He wanted you to open the door for him using your opposable thumbs so he could drink the blood ???


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

GingerRogers said:


> He wanted you to open the door for him using your opposable thumbs so he could drink the blood ???


LOL  That gave me a good giggle 

Honestly, I don't know why he chose to alert me to that and not the countless other middle of the night distresses that happen to young kids. It wasn't even a very big deal, tiny nosebleed and the kid wasn't even that distressed. Obviously I'm very glad he altered me, but I'm not going to sign him up as head babysitter any time soon.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sarah1983 said:


> The classes I went to the dog was punished for "disobeying". Whatever the reason for the "disobedience" was, the dog should stay when told to stay no matter what. Very old school way of thinking. The poor dogs stress levels were through the roof :nonod:


What do you mean by 'punished'. Do you mean corrected with such timing that the dog is being trained by the correction or do you mean smacked or yelled at 3 seconds later which (even if smacking was a good idea) would be totally useless in helping the dog understand what it should have been doing.

As for old school - I started training dogs 45 years ago and, though I did then and always have 'corrected' dogs it has to be done with split second timing and in a way appropriate to that dog - so not sure that old school comes into it.



LurcherOwner said:


> My turn to attempt to get the last word in.
> 
> Dogs don't want to please us, they want to please themselves. They are ultimately very selfish animals and the have no morals.
> 
> Have you reading any books by Jean donaldson? They might give you an insight into how canine's think.


How sad that you think like that and have to read books to (not) understand how a dog's mind works.
Humans only do things to please themselves. Very few adults do anything they dont really want to. Even adults that are constantly helping others and maybe acting as a carer or whatever only do it because they want to. Children want to please adults because then life is more pleasant for them and the same goes for dogs. Except of course for children and dogs that are allowed to do what they like - then there is nothing in it for them.

I have been away overnight so am surprised how this thread has progressed.

We were away in the caravan for a night out with some friends and their dogs. As many of you know my dogs are seldom in a situation where they meet other dogs and the dog walk (shore path) that we went along with the dogs was very busy and we met lots of dogs. As you may also remember I have described Toffee as a thug - because she has no natural social manners and we so seldom are in a situation where she needs them training her is difficult. I just could not have a squealing lunging excited dog last night though so I set to and taught her it was not acceptable. At the end of the walk she was walking at heel off lead towards other dogs and people and sitting quietly and watching me when they went by. I certainly did not achieve this by kicking and hitting her (how pointless would that be) but equally I did not achieve it without correcting her and showing her what was wanted. We met several other dogs lunging around on leads but the majority were quiet and well mannered. Candy has never needed any manner training, she seemed to be born polite - though she has to be watched for going ahead of me and approaching on lead dogs which obviously is not acceptable.

There really does seem to be such a problem on here with quite a lot of posters thinking that either you beat your dog into submission or you never raise your voice or interact with your dog. To me training is all down to timing and reading your dog - correct/show what is wanted followed instantly by praise.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

LurcherOwner said:


> Well then there is no way of knowing it DOES think that either EV. And only a theory (yours and whoever made Lassie) suggests that the dog does think that.
> 
> I mean what do you think of the Dominance theory? Do you believe it or not based on that is a theory?


Mine and Lassie and quite a few others who watch and observe their own dogs as opposed to have others tell us.

No I don't believe in that either, for my own dogs thank you.

If there is no way of knowing, how comes you are so convinced dogs are 100% selfish?


----------



## lemmsy (May 12, 2008)

Blitz said:


> To me training is all down to timing and reading your dog - correct/show what is wanted followed instantly by praise.


Correcting does not equate to showing the dog what you DO want. 
Corrections (positive punishers) by definition do the opposite. Just FYI.
It tells the dog what you don't want but gives no clue as to what the desired option is.

The difficulty is that;

1. Many peoples' timing is appalling. 
2. They are unable/inexperienced enough to identify that a great many (the majority of) "corrections" are totally inappropriate because:
I) They are unpleasant (that is why positive punishment works) and so inevitably increase stress. 
II) Stressed dogs are less likely to be able to make better choices (particularly when the owner is naff at the "training conservation".
3. People become "reliant" on corrections and so get stuck in a rut of using them constantly instead of managing the dog so that he doesn't have to be corrected for somewhat inevitable behaviour, given the circumstances. 
4. They do not use a strong enough positive reinforcer to teach the appropriate/desired behaviour (and promptly drop the need for the PP)

Praise, for many dogs is a naff PR, especially when it comes from a handler with whom they have conflicted relationship (who is always around when corrections happen, constantly exposing them to situations when correction will happen, "praise" often follows correction and becomes part of the human behaviour chain). Etc.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

Blitz said:


> What do you mean by 'punished'. Do you mean corrected with such timing that the dog is being trained by the correction or do you mean smacked or yelled at 3 seconds later which (even if smacking was a good idea) would be totally useless in helping the dog understand what it should have been doing.


Punishment is a tough term in these conversations because for some of us punishment means the behavioral science term - anything that reduces the frequency of a behavior, and for others punishment is the colloquial term meaning a negative consequence for misbehavior regardless of the effect it has on the behavior.



Blitz said:


> There really does seem to be such a problem on here with quite a lot of posters thinking that either you beat your dog into submission or you never raise your voice or interact with your dog. To me training is all down to timing and reading your dog - correct/show what is wanted followed instantly by praise.


I believe you that your way works for you and your dogs, but I don't believe you that yours is the only way 
If I am clear enough in explaining to my dog what I want, the need to tell him what I don't want goes away.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> What do you mean by 'punished'. Do you mean corrected with such timing that the dog is being trained by the correction or do you mean smacked or yelled at 3 seconds later which (even if smacking was a good idea) would be totally useless in helping the dog understand what it should have been doing.
> 
> As for old school - I started training dogs 45 years ago and, though I did then and always have 'corrected' dogs it has to be done with split second timing and in a way appropriate to that dog - so not sure that old school comes into it.
> 
> ...


I have not seen anyone on this thread say anything about beating a dog in submission, BUT again I will say there is no place in training for kicking or hitting a dog, I will say it until I'm blue in the face, and there is NO one who will convince me other wise, and I will tell you why, I would take bets that I could show an easier way for both dog and human to get a dog to do what you want, and to not do what you don't want that you wouldn't even need to touch a dog for and I'm all for the path of least resistance 

So I'm interested how did you show her that what you wanted and how did you correct her?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Blitz said:


> What do you mean by 'punished'. Do you mean corrected with such timing that the dog is being trained by the correction or do you mean smacked or yelled at 3 seconds later which (even if smacking was a good idea) would be totally useless in helping the dog understand what it should have been doing.
> 
> As for old school - I started training dogs 45 years ago and, though I did then and always have 'corrected' dogs it has to be done with split second timing and in a way appropriate to that dog - so not sure that old school comes into it.


Both really. They'd be yelled at as they broke the stay and then handled roughly, smacked or scruffed when the owner got to them. They did learn not to break the stay eventually but it took quite a while and as I say, caused a hell of a lot of anxiety in the poor dogs. And a lot of the "corrections" were down to frustration on the handlers part rather than a deliberate effort to teach the dog anything.

I'm well aware that correction has to be done with split second timing, it's one of the reasons I'm against your average person using them, they don't have that timing and it's the dog who suffers for it. And again, they often use extremely badly timed physical ones through frustration, anger or embarrassment. (Not really counting things like "no" or "oi" in this by the way, I use those myself but follow them up with more info, it's things like physical corrections and noise aversion I don't feel are appropriate for many people to use due to bad timing)

I also think people often over do it. I know dogs who get physical corrections (whether collar corrections or smacks) for anything and everything they do wrong. These dogs all appear to be extremely attentive and eager to please to most people. I just see highly stressed dogs offering a hell of a lot of appeasement signals. I know other dogs who get the occasional smack and who come across as happy and carefree.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

It has already been said but "punishment" simply means something that reduces a behaviour. It may be negative punishment (eg removing attention when the dog jumps up) or positive punishment (eg hitting the dog for breaking a stay).

If by "correction" you simply mean putting the dog back into position, whether verbally or physically, then there may be no "punishment" involved.

If however, when you say "correction" you mean telling the dog off, scruffing, smacking etc - even with perfect timing - then you are using positive punishment.



> There really does seem to be such a problem on here with quite a lot of posters thinking that either you beat your dog into submission or you never raise your voice or interact with your dog.


Not at all - I think we would probably all agree that there are degrees; its not all black and white - 50 shades of grey if you will!

But the point is there are plenty of options... that many of us would consider acceptable even if we wouldn't necessarily use them ourselves. For example, we may use negative punishment, mild aversives like raised voices or water squirts that are uncomfortable or unpleasent but not painful, or startle, such as rattle cans.
You can still use punishments if you wish without actually causing pain or fear.

And that is the point. Nobody is saying you should never "correct" a dog, or that every aversive is abuse. But resorting to violence, pain and intimidation is completely unnecessary and cruel.



> As for old school - I started training dogs 45 years ago and, though I did then and always have 'corrected' dogs it has to be done with split second timing and in a way appropriate to that dog - so not sure that old school comes into it.


On the contrary, I would suggest that training the same way for 45 years is the very definition of old school!

There was a time when virtually every dog was trained using a choke chain for everything, where hitting dogs and rubbing their nose in pee was the norm, when after-the-fact "punishment" was considered perfectly reasonable, etc. These days we have plenty of reasons to change our ways. From scientific evidence on how animals learn and how certain methods may cause injury or behavioural fallout to the anecdotal evidence of every dog succesfully trained by gentler methods. We have new knowledge, new ideas, new methods and new equipment.

Why on earth would anyone want to ignore all that in favour of hurting and scaring their dog?

Nobody is perfect at anything, we can always improve in everything that we do. When it comes to dog training my goal is always to improve how quickly, effectively and humanely I can influence behaviour.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The guy in the video was abusing his dog not training and I cannot imagine any of the regular posters on this forum using methods that are even a tiny fraction of that severity.

Don't know why people keep referring to it as training!

Just cos he calls it training, doesn't make it so


----------



## Werehorse (Jul 14, 2010)

Meezey said:


> I have not seen anyone on this thread say anything about beating a dog in submission, BUT again I will say there is no place in training for kicking or hitting a dog, I will say it until I'm blue in the face, and there is NO one who will convince me other wise, and I will tell you why, I would take bets that I could show *an easier way for both dog and human* to get a dog to do what you want, and to not do what you don't want that you wouldn't even need to touch a dog for and I'm all for the path of least resistance
> 
> So I'm interested how did you show her that what you wanted and how did you correct her?


I 100% agree vith Meezy here. No place in training (or hovvever you vant to de$cribe any interaction vith a dog) for kicking or hitting. and the bit in bold... I think people are very quick to con$ider the ea$ie$t vay for the human and $lovv to con$ider the ea$ie$t vay for the dog.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

lemmsy said:


> Correcting does not equate to showing the dog what you DO want.
> Corrections (positive punishers) by definition do the opposite. Just FYI.
> It tells the dog what you don't want but gives no clue as to what the desired option is.
> 
> ...


I do agree that many people just cannot see timing at all. Which is why other methods have come about that can do no harm with a poor handler but probably do little good with the same handler. This has to be a good thing.



Meezey said:


> I have not seen anyone on this thread say anything about beating a dog in submission, BUT again I will say there is no place in training for kicking or hitting a dog, I will say it until I'm blue in the face, and there is NO one who will convince me other wise, and I will tell you why, I would take bets that I could show an easier way for both dog and human to get a dog to do what you want, and to not do what you don't want that you wouldn't even need to touch a dog for and I'm all for the path of least resistance
> 
> So I'm interested how did you show her that what you wanted and how did you correct her?


No one has actually said beating a dog into submission but the inference has been that any physical correction is totally wrong and is abuse (from some posters)

What did I do to show her. I started off sitting her a long way from approaching dogs, on the lead, and used the lead and voice together if she lunged forward. Praised like mad if she sat. There were so many dogs that I could build up quite fast so I was soon able to walk her on a loose lead, with correction if she lunged forward, and sit her just before reaching the other dog, again with correction if she moved and praise if she stayed looking at me. This soon became walking at heel off lead and sitting before we met the other dog. She almost got to walking by other dogs but found that one a bit too difficult. She was then walked again this morning and we met less dogs but she was very very attentive to me and was not needing to be corrected. It might be weeks or even months before she is in a similar situation so I am sure she will need reinforcing. We had been through it about a year ago in a controlled environment but it had not been reinforced since.



Sarah1983 said:


> Both really. They'd be yelled at as they broke the stay and then handled roughly, smacked or scruffed when the owner got to them. They did learn not to break the stay eventually but it took quite a while and as I say, caused a hell of a lot of anxiety in the poor dogs. And a lot of the "corrections" were down to frustration on the handlers part rather than a deliberate effort to teach the dog anything.
> 
> I'm well aware that correction has to be done with split second timing, it's one of the reasons I'm against your average person using them, they don't have that timing and it's the dog who suffers for it. And again, they often use extremely badly timed physical ones through frustration, anger or embarrassment. (Not really counting things like "no" or "oi" in this by the way, I use those myself but follow them up with more info, it's things like physical corrections and noise aversion I don't feel are appropriate for many people to use due to bad timing)
> 
> I also think people often over do it. I know dogs who get physical corrections (whether collar corrections or smacks) for anything and everything they do wrong. These dogs all appear to be extremely attentive and eager to please to most people. I just see highly stressed dogs offering a hell of a lot of appeasement signals. I know other dogs who get the occasional smack and who come across as happy and carefree.


That sort of correction/punishment sounds stupid and pointless. If you are constantly having to correct a dog with collar corrections (I do not believe that smacking is a useful tool) then it obviously is not working.



Colette said:


> On the contrary, I would suggest that training the same way for 45 years is the very definition of old school!
> 
> There was a time when virtually every dog was trained using a choke chain for everything, where hitting dogs and rubbing their nose in pee was the norm, when after-the-fact "punishment" was considered perfectly reasonable, etc. These days we have plenty of reasons to change our ways. From scientific evidence on how animals learn and how certain methods may cause injury or behavioural fallout to the anecdotal evidence of every dog succesfully trained by gentler methods. We have new knowledge, new ideas, new methods and new equipment.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree with you. If a method works for you why on earth would you want to change it.

When I said that the method someone described was not old school I meant that I had never hurt or scared my dogs, I had never hit a dog to train it or rubbed its nose in pee. That is bad training, not old school and there are plenty of bad trainers that still use those methods.
The only thing I have changed with is that I do not use choke chains - not that I ever would have done on my current dogs and I never did on my shelties that I did obedience with in the 70s. I have scruffed dogs and I think there is time and place for it but not ever to be done in temper.

I do though find, in common with a lot of horse owners, that being less assertive works well with a lot of horses and I have changed my handling methods quite a lot as I was brought up to be fairly hard.

I think the methods that rely totally on good timing are difficult for some people to use but they are still excellent methods if they work. Trouble is if you have terrible timing the odds are you are not going to be hugely successful with other methods either as timing is really only reading the dog.

Sorry, this is probably rather long.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I do agree that many people just cannot see timing at all. Which is why other methods have come about that can do no harm with a poor handler but probably do little good with the same handler. This has to be a good thing.
> 
> No one has actually said beating a dog into submission but the inference has been that any physical correction is totally wrong and is abuse (from some posters)
> 
> ...


Okay so two things what type of lead correction?

Secondly why on earth would you even need to scruff a dog? What is the time and place?


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> Mine and Lassie and quite a few others who watch and observe their own dogs as opposed to have others tell us.
> 
> No I don't believe in that either, for my own dogs thank you.
> 
> If there is no way of knowing, how comes you are so convinced dogs are 100% selfish?


How come you are so convinced that dogs aren't selfish if you also have no way of knowing!?

I think this is gonna have to be a Agree to Disagree thing me thinks. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I have to disagree with you. If a method works for you why on earth would you want to change it.


That's like a surgeon saying "I've always done knee surgeries this way, why should I change to laparoscopic surgery if I get perfectly good results with a full incision?"

As we gain new knowledge, doesn't it make sense to apply what we now know that we didn't before?

Much like laparoscopic surgery with new technology, newer training methods are less stressful on the "patient" and you can get more done with less potential damage.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> That's like a surgeon saying "I've always done knee surgeries this way, why should I change to laparoscopic surgery if I get perfectly good results with a full incision?"
> 
> As we gain new knowledge, doesn't it make sense to apply what we now know that we didn't before?
> 
> Much like laparoscopic surgery with new technology, newer training methods are less stressful on the "patient" and you can get more done with less potential damage.


I think this misses a very important point which is that whether full incision or laparoscopic is used has no bearing on the emotional state of the surgeon or the relationship between surgeon and patient ( which would be unethical but that's a different kettle of worms ). Whether it works or not I can't scruff or hit my dog. I would just feel like a git ( this may be another translation issue.. douchebag for our traitorous American cousins ).


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2013)

diefenbaker said:


> I think this misses a very important point which is that whether full incision or laparoscopic is used has no bearing on the emotional state of the surgeon or the relationship between surgeon and patient ( which would be unethical but that's a different kettle of worms ). Whether it works or not I can't scruff or hit my dog. I would just feel like a git ( this may be another translation issue.. douchebag for our traitorous American cousins ).


Come on dude, work with me here! 
I was trying to make as simple an analogy as possible! 

Besides I don't want to make ANYONE feel like a git (I do like that word, but it loses power as an insult if the insultee doesn't know what it means )


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Come on dude, work with me here!


It's not that I didn't like your analogy, but when I read books about the "new methods", the prime motivation of the authors isn't that the "old methods" didn't work it's more that they couldn't live with themselves for putting their dogs through them. Admittedly some of these cases were extreme. Sorry about the traitorous American comments. But I just can't get past that scandalous waste of tea in Boston. If I find out you had anything to do with it......


----------



## Owned By A Yellow Lab (May 16, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I have to disagree with you. If a method works for you why on earth would you want to change it.
> .


According to this 'logic', humankind would never have progressed at all!

A method might 'work' but might be unpleasant for the dog - surely that's a good reason for changing?


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2013)

diefenbaker said:


> It's not that I didn't like your analogy, but when I read books about the "new methods",* the prime motivation of the authors isn't that the "old methods" didn't work it's more that they couldn't live with themselves for putting their dogs through them.* Admittedly some of these cases were extreme. Sorry about the traitorous American comments. But I just can't get past that scandalous waste of tea in Boston. If I find out you had anything to do with it......


I used to crank and yank, but even then, I remember watching the top dogs train and thinking "if that's what I have to put my dog through to get to that level, forget it." I did tracking instead - because tracking has ALWAYS been force-free. You simply can't force a dog to sniff out a scent, it has to be a rewards-based method - which to me, highlights the limitations of force.

So while, yes, many of the escape/avoidance methods "work" for what they work on, they are also hugely limited. Escape/avoidance is basically negative reinforcement, removing something unpleasant when the dog makes the "right" choice. Example - pushing on the dog's bum to get a sit, the dog sits, you remove pressure, dog learns to sit to avoid/escape the pressure on his bum. Another common one is putting the leash under your foot and pulling so the dog is pulled down by the collar in to a down. Or pulling the front feet out when the dog is sitting... Those kind of methods.

Problem is, not all dogs respond well to escape/avoidance. It's no coincidence that 30 years ago, you would never have seen a basset hound or a whippet in the obedience ring. Dogs had to be carefully selected and specifically bred to tolerate the training. Tough enough to not shut down, but forgiving enough to not fight back, and with enough drive that harsh handling wouldn't stifle it. Hard balance to strike, and many dogs, even those bred specifically for the task, didn't make it.

The other thing is, like tracking, some things you simply can't train with escape/avoidance. There are dogs who have been trained to sneeze on cue with capturing. How cool is that? Tell me how you teach that with force? You just can't.


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

What I find sad about a lot of posts in this thread is that people subscribe to the theories of one researcher over another rather than reading and understanding several theories. Working with animals and training should be a continuing evolving process not one that is static and based upon a single theory. 


Personally I enjoy adding to my knowledge and evolving my techniques, not just throwing out the old and in with the new.


Much of our current animal behaviour and training theory comes from cetacean research and training, we all know how well that's gone at the moment!!!!!!!!!!

To discount dogs as beings who don't have a complicated range of emotions as well as behaviours does them and us a great disservice.

For those who subscribe to the theory that dogs are purely self serving selfish creatures, I suggest you need to expand your range of reading to psychology as well as behaviour. Or are you suggesting that all mammals including humans are purely self serving? I could possibly agree with you there but then that's just cynical.

There is a lot of talk of correction but nobody seems to be saying how they correct other than they don't smack or shake their dogs?

Personally I'm expecting some massive changes over the next 10 years to our current knowledge of animal emotion and behaviour and consequently our training techniques. 

Is the desire for love and companionship selfish? I don't think so its better described as mutually beneficial.


----------

