# Positive reinforcement vs harsher methods



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Please can someone remind me why positive methods are better than the lead jerks pulls etc of the other gang?

Do you know what writing that I know the answer to my own question, beacuse I am not cruel, I chose to have my dog and I shoudnt punish her everytime she doesnt do exactly as I ask cos lets face it I dont do it exactly as she wants me to do every time!!

But right now I feel so negative, Willow has only ever been treated with sweetness and treats, right now she is being a complete buggar (see my other thread)
Whereas Samba who has been bought up with pet corrector spray , a half check and now bum pushing etc and on the face of it at this current moment in time is a much better behaved dog.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Its very simple - you have a TEENAGER on your hands 

As I said on your other thread, not all dogs get it so bad but some really turn into a proper Kevin! This is NORMAL!!! They are going through all the things teenage kids go through, wacky hormones, new motivations, becoming more independant, etc.

You just need to remember that Willow is not doing this to p!$$ you off - dogs don't do spite! She is confused, hormonal, and just being a dog. If you haven't done so already, consider getting the book "Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson. It goes a long way to explain why your dog may not be doing what you ask, and will probably make you fel very differently about your dogs' behaviour. Best book I've read so far.

As a reminder though - perhaps you were lucky with Samba. Some dogs would have reacted badly to such techniques - he could have become aggressive, or emotionally shut down, or noise-phobic... he didn't. But so many dogs suffer serious emotional and behavioural fallout from harsh training that it really isn't worth the risk.

Harsh methods are NOT more effective - in fact, positive reinforcement is actually more effective in the long term, and far more effective at teaching detailed work or behaviours you can't force (such as barking or blinking on cue).

And at the end of the day - if you can train WITH pain and fear, or train WITHOUT pain and fear, which should you choose??? No brainer as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Babycham you are doing great - keep up the good work, it _will_ pay off. You need a little positive reinforcement yourself and you will get it.

I have just been writing about kind ways of stopping unwanted behaviours and such here: Sometimes we just need a quick fix… « pawsitive dogs
I have also posted lots and lots of stuff in your other thread - all dog-friendly 

The problems with using aversive methods is that aversives come with fallout. Aversives are incredibly difficult to use properly so fallout is almost guaranteed. Here is a super article on the fall out associated with aversive training: What are the Implications of Using Training Techniques Which Induce Fear or Pain in Dogs?

The biggest piece of advice i can give you is that adolescence is a tough time for Willow too - bad experiences she has now will likley have a detrimental and traumatic effect on her in the future and will be waaaaay harder to deal with then.
I seriously recommed that you get Control Unleashed as this will really help you.
Best of luck and keep the faith  we're here for support - any help let me know


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Thanks to both of you
I know how I feel about those methods, and you have helped me so much in realising that it is ALWAYS the right path to choose.:thumbup:

Re : Samba I have never agreed with the methods used with her but she is not my dog so I have no say, even now when I pipe up about I dont see bum pushing as teaching to sit I get told to shut up and 'ill listen to the people at training not you'
Collete - She is the same age as Willow so there is still time for negative impacts to show 


I have looked up culture clash, I loved pavlow to premack to pinkner, in fact i shall get that back out again now.
I can order that now
The one you speak of Tripod seems to be very hard to get hold of here, I shall keep searching


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Here you go babcham, Control UNleashed from a UK supplier for £17.50: http://www.positiveanimalsolutions.co.uk/cul.html

Hopefully its in stock and not too expensive to ship

I get mine for clients from CleanRun.com as it works out cheaper but we are in Ireland so hopefully the above will be cheaper for you. If not here it is on Clean Run: http://www.cleanrun.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=1328&ParentCat=180


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Well, probably going against the grain, but I do use corrections (albeit rarely) alongside mainly positive reinforcement. However, and this really is the main issue, for the most part, it is not a case of the dog messing about, but the dog is insufficiently trained - it does not completely understand what is expected/is not sufficiently proofed etc - and in this case aversives or corrections have no place and are of no benefit.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Well, probably going against the grain, but I do use corrections (albeit rarely) alongside mainly positive reinforcement. However, and this really is the main issue, for the most part, it is not a case of the dog messing about, but the dog is insufficiently trained - it does not completely understand what is expected/is not sufficiently proofed etc - and in this case aversives or corrections have no place and are of no benefit.


Me too, and I do check my dogs, I don't count that as cruel, I'm not yanking their heads off, it's just an 'oi', reminder, to get them to walk back to heel. I also have a game with Tau where I swing the lead handle over and tap her on the bum, someone watching me might think oh that dreadful woman, smacking her dog, but it's not hard at all, I'd do it on my own hand or bare leg, what it does do, is get her focussed on walking to heel, if she gets it right, she gets to hold the lead handle. I also 'kick her off', which is shoving my knee into her, again, anyone watching might think what a horrible dog owner is, but actually, done right (and it has to be done right) pushing a dog away like this, gets them to come back into you nicely.

If mine break a sit stay, I physically put them back (not pick them up, they're too big for that, but shove their bum back where it was if necessary, right on the spot) where they were and ask for the sit stay again, I don't fuss them when I'm doing that. They need to learn that's what I've asked you to do, you know what I'm asking (that last bit is important, I'd only correct them like this if they know and seem to have conveniently forgotten).

When they get it right, that's when they get the fuss and the rewards. I think you have to be careful about what YOU feel as negative or a punishment, in human terms, as opposed to how a dog actually thinks and learns. Tau doesn't think I'm punishing her when I swing the lead over and tap her backside, she immediately pricks her ears up and knows it's game on. You also have to be aware that all dogs are different, so what works for one, may not necessarily work with another, and all learn at different rates.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Me too, and I do check my dogs, I don't count that as cruel, I'm not yanking their heads off, it's just an 'oi', reminder, to get them to walk back to heel. I also have a game with Tau where I swing the lead handle over and tap her on the bum, someone watching me might think oh that dreadful woman, smacking her dog, but it's not hard at all, I'd do it on my own hand or bare leg, what it does do, is get her focussed on walking to heel, if she gets it right, she gets to hold the lead handle. I also 'kick her off', which is shoving my knee into her, again, anyone watching might think what a horrible dog owner is, but actually, done right (and it has to be done right) pushing a dog away like this, gets them to come back into you nicely.
> 
> If mine break a sit stay, I physically put them back (not pick them up, they're too big for that, but shove their bum back where it was if necessary, right on the spot) where they were and ask for the sit stay again, I don't fuss them when I'm doing that. They need to learn that's what I've asked you to do, you know what I'm asking (that last bit is important, I'd only correct them like this if they know and seem to have conveniently forgotten).
> 
> When they get it right, that's when they get the fuss and the rewards. I think you have to be careful about what YOU feel as negative or a punishment, in human terms, as opposed to how a dog actually thinks and learns. Tau doesn't think I'm punishing her when I swing the lead over and tap her backside, she immediately pricks her ears up and knows it's game on. You also have to be aware that all dogs are different, so what works for one, may not necessarily work with another, and all learn at different rates.


I would say this was pretty much how i am. Firm but fair i like to think. Oscar is a wilful beggar though


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

If you use harsher methods, be prepared to end up with a dog like Gina.

Gina, lived in Switzerland, was I think of an uncommon (here) Italian breed, looked a bit like a small version of a GSD. She would shrink away and cower from her master, would generally avoid him if possible.

On the other hand, she became a velcro dog, to his wife's sister's boy friend who treated her consistently, and would take her on mountain walks. Noone else could, because Gina was scared of being picked up and lifted, only the BF was trusted to carry her over stiles. If she crossed the BF's track, she would follow the scent running away from her owner's, one time gaining entry into a restaurant, and being found lying at the BF's feet.

Can you imagine how that looked to family and friends at social events, with the dog so obviously voting with it's feet?


Corrections can be subtle, showing disagreement "you're getting that wrong" and don't need to be dramatic, once you've built the bond with your dog. So until you have that really solid bond and respect of the dog, so it does care bout pleasing you, just being positive makes sense.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> If you use harsher methods, be prepared to end up with a dog like Gina.
> 
> Gina, lived in Switzerland, was I think of an uncommon (here) Italian breed, looked a bit like a small version of a GSD. She would shrink away and cower from her master, would generally avoid him if possible.
> 
> ...


I hate seeing dogs physically flinch, but, I do know some dogs that would grovel without even raising a hand at them. Tau will down and roll over sometimes if I hold my hands up, not because I am ever hard on her or hit her (except once a day with a big stick that I make her fetch  ), but because she rolls around waiting for a tummy rub  I think people have to be very careful about their interpretation of body language between individual handler and dog cases, some working Labradors I've seen are born grovellers. Me putting Tau back on the spot because she's blatantly disobeyed the sit, is a reminder, I wouldn't ever do it to punish or hurt her, but allowing her to get away with it isn't an option during training. I am possibly never going to get to compete with her to a low standard, never mind a high standard, but as a handler, I also need to learn consistency, if I ever get another dog or breed from Tau, to be able to improve on what me and Tau have achieved so far. I count these type of corrections as positive, I am letting her know in no uncertain terms, that this is what I want from her, there's no punishment, or negative, but the idea that all positive training involves the dog getting it right, and getting a fuss and/or reward, is, in my view, wrong. Positive is also about teaching the dog when it hasn't got it right, and doing it in a way that gives it the option of then getting it right, if that makes sense? In some situations, it's even worthwhile setting the dog up to get something wrong, if it is consistently getting something wrong, so you can correct the situation, and then reward for the right outcome. None of that to me is negative and certainly doesn't need to be hard on the dog, but correction certainly does have it's place, I think.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes, I agree about the submissive body language displays.

But fact is, if your own dog never wants to be near you, and dotes on a regular visitor, it must be very humiliating. There's no room for interpretation there.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Yes, I agree about the submissive body language displays.
> 
> But fact is, if your own dog never wants to be near you, and dotes on a regular visitor, it must be very humiliating. There's no room for interpretation there.


Not disagreeing, just widening the debate


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> If you use harsher methods, be prepared to end up with a dog like Gina.


Corrections don't have to be harsh or even physical. When one of my dogs ignores a stop whistle at 150yards (which I KNOW they know and understand that command) they get a correction. Believe me, I am no Usain Bolt, so a verbal correction it is , but a correction nonetheless. The main danger, and something that is very common, is that a correction is used when the dog doesn't fully understand, or hasn't been fully proofed with the command given.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Watching Andy Nickless's sheepdog training DVD, you see the same process.

He makes the point, that if he sounds harsh to the dog with some of the vocal corrections, that there is a good reason, and that is the welfare of the sheep. By being decisive, he can usually prevent the dog from biting, despite it being excited and chasing around, with it's modified Predatory-Chase behaviour a small flock of sheep.

I really cannot see, how to avoid giving negative feedback, as well as positive reiforcement, in those situations. It's just too complicated and fast, not to inform the dog of errors, but wait for them to experiment to find how to be rewarded with praise. After all, the undesirable behaviours can have their own rewards, like catching a sheep.

The other point I wonder about in the debate, is the idea I've read on one Positive Reinforcement advocates page, was that there are very few positive behaviours. So the suggestion was to teach the dog to settle down and watch TV with you, and basically not do anything, because you've had a long day, and the dog would be exuberant now you've returned.

Fair enough if the dog's fulfilled & tired, but in those circumstances, I suspect active Dog's are going to vote for the "Dog Wrestler" and his emphasis on activity.


----------



## Fyfer (Jan 23, 2010)

> Please can someone remind me why positive methods are better than the lead jerks pulls etc of the other gang?


1. It creates a better bond between you and your dog.

2. Positive training makes training enjoyable for your dog -- you end up with a happy animal.

3. Using force teaches the dog that using force and aggression is ok... When will HE decide to use force? ...

4. Positive methods help YOU to grow -- in understanding your dog, your own reactions and possible anger/aggression, and finding kinder alternatives. It helps you feel better about yourself and the choices you make.

5. It's easier in the long term. For both of you.

Re: corrections, I don't see verbal corrections as punishment. It's helpful information. An 'uh-uh' tells the dog he's walking too far ahead, should not eat the plant, is looking for the ball in the wrong place, etc.

As for physical corrections, I don't use them. The few times I have (mostly in training classes at the instruction of the trainer -- choose your classes carefully!!) I saw the look of surprise and shock in my dog's eyes. The cost to our relationship (diminished trust) was far greater than the short-term behaviour correction.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Fyfer said:


> 1. It creates a better bond between you and your dog.
> 
> 2. Positive training makes training enjoyable for your dog -- you end up with a happy animal.
> 
> ...


I'm gonna disagree with you here, in the nicest possible way, not about using positive ways to train your dog, but about having a 'physical' relationship with your dog. I can roll around on the floor with my two, they grab my hands/arms in their mouths and we play, I fuss them, clean them, brush them, check them over for lumps and bumps, they jump up at me and I grab their paws or scruff to stop them knocking me over, and they do it again, AND I also correct them. I don't hit them, but I will put their bum where I want it, and it isn't a punishment, it's a simple, 'no, THAT'S where I want you'. If they're not doing heelwork nicely enough, I'll 'kick' them off, as described above, push them away with my knee so they will come back at me - and, just so people really understand what that is, you place your knee against the dog, and push, you don't knee them in the ribs, so there's no impact and follow through, it's like placing your hands on something heavy to push it across the floor, if that makes sense? I actually think my growly voice is much worse for them than me putting their backsides where I want them, it certainly elicits much more lip smacking and ears back than me *physically* correcting them. Dogs have a physical relationship with each other, not that I'm equating us to dogs, but dogs do understand a physical correction, as long as it isn't done as a punishment, in a negative way, then it doesn't damage the relationship or bond with your dog. Of course the important thing is you gauge just what that individual dog can withstand, some dogs are just too soft for even a *light* verbal correction, some will bound around after you've plonked their bum down for the fourth time, and eventually go 'oh alright then, so here's where you want my bum, gotcha'. I think it would be a great shame not to have that sort of relationship with your dog, or to limit yourself to tiny bits of a relationship because you're scared of being accused of following CM, or other such methods, when there is a world of difference.


----------



## Fyfer (Jan 23, 2010)

> dogs do understand a physical correction, as long as it isn't done as a punishment, in a negative way, then it doesn't damage the relationship or bond with your dog.


I might have misunderstood, but I think the original poster WAS talking about physical correction done in a negative way. OP talked about jerking leads and pulling in the original post.

The kinds of physical correction I'm talking about are shock- or fear-inducing. The methods I've witnessed and/or been pressured into using in classes include spraying water in a dog's face, pinning the dog up against a wall, and throwing a rock-filled bottle at a group of dogs staked into the ground.

These shock- and fear-inducing methods were not helpful for a young, sensitive collie cross puppy.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

There is a tremendous difference between training using positive methods and appeasing your dog, which is what a lot of inexperienced owners do. If you train a dog in a distance sit and the dog moves, you go and put the dog back, wait a bit then reward. Putting the dog back is the correction. So a correction doesn`t necessarily mean being hard. It does mean you are firm and consistent. 
I have never hit my dogs so when I shout it`s not something to fear, but it is unusual. Remember dogs don`t know shouting = anger until someone shouts + hurts them. So yes, I may shout as an interruptor if I see a dog about to roll in fox poo. But the shout is not a punishment, it`s a signal. Like a loud bark. 
I think most training problems come when the behaviour hasn`t been captured in enough different situations. Your dog may sit-stay in the training club, but if you never do it in the Park he doesn`t know he is meant to do it there. Behaviour is quite site-specific. 
So you can use positive methods and raise your voice, and be firm. Provided you don`t use negative consequences - if he moves, hit him - then you can train without aversives.


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

Personally I use both methods depending upon the 'crime' for want of a better word. 

Lead pulling etc is normal, I stop and refuse to move or i turn around and walk the other way. Seems to work for me. 

But painful mouthing, or any antisocial behaviour i want stopped I discipline, I would never striike a puppy/dog but I do physically make them submit by laying them on the floor, as mum would. I then offer them my hand again and should they lick or sniff without teeth contact I follow it up with serious over the top praise. 

None of my dogs cower from me, and still push the boundaries. My Ridgeback is the biggest food theif in the world. so if anyone has any tips on how to stop her stealing food out of my closed larder or the kitchen worktops.... lol

So I suppose what I am saying is if it is a behaviour I can afford to spend time on positively correcting I will. But some behavious (especially my breed) need to be nipped in the bud before they become serious problems.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lucy1012 said:


> I do physically make them submit by laying them on the floor, as mum would. I then offer them my hand again and should they lick or sniff without teeth contact I follow it up with serious over the top praise.


That I do remember that style working fine with a number of dogs, but then you get a young dog, which reacts very badly to that approach which is at heart confrontational.

Then you find it responds well to an interruptor combined with positive-reinforcement, and later responds well to negative feedback as it accepts fully the benevolent guidance. But you earn the dogs respect, not force it physically.


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That I do remember that style working fine with a number of dogs, but then you get a young dog, which reacts very badly to that approach which is at heart confrontational.
> 
> Then you find it responds well to an interruptor combined with positive-reinforcement, and later responds well to negative feedback as it accepts fully the benevolent guidance. But you earn the dogs respect, not force it physically.


Sorry, i have read and read this reply and don't understand it, can you dumb it down a bit for me please ;-)


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Lucy1012 said:


> So I suppose what I am saying is if it is a behaviour I can afford to spend time on positively correcting I will. But some behavious (especially my breed) need to be nipped in the bud before they become serious problems.


There is always more than one way to solve a problem.

If you want to see how things were done 30 years ago, then read Barbara Woodhouse's book "No Bad Dogs". It's a paradoxical title because the final chapter is dedicated to what she calls mentally unstable dogs... i.e. those who don't respond to her training methods, if you read between the lines, and which she recommended be PTS.

When I first trained inthe early 80's our instructor was ex-police and it was all choke chains and jerk. There were some dogs I saw there who came to class for months and years but got to a certain level and never progressed and were still 'difficult' - a certain male GSD, Caesar, for instance. He would never submit to the training methods used and just refused to co-operate. I don't think it was the owner as he was as firm and more firm (as told by instructor) and still this dog refused... but the owner was blamed of course.

Now, a few years before that, he might have been one of Barbara W's 'mental case dogs'. A decade or so later and Caesar might have been able to go to a class that taught more positive methods, and could have blossomed. I always think of that lovely dog who was most likely misunderstood by his owners and as a result, directed into the only type of training that existed at the time, and thus labelled useless (and his owner rubbished too!).

No dogs are written off nowadays as they used to be - we have a lot more understanding and a lot more methods at our disposal. I hope there aren't as many Caesars out there as there once were.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

I don't know why I'm replying here cos I feel myself being sucked in but here I go again  ....

There seems to be lots of misunderstandings about corrections, positive reinforcement, punishers, interrupters.

Positive reinforcement based training is not about personal opinions - its based in what we know about the way that dogs learn, but more than that, it takes a functional look at the way environment operates on the animal i.e. feedback.
Behaviours are carried out, some are associated with nices things happening and some are associated with bad things happening.

Behaviours that are likely to be followed by bad things happening we try to manage and prevent as these are the ones that cause trouble for people. These behaviours are usually normal, natural and necessary for dogs but clash with human life. So we manage to prevent them from becoming a problem. 
We provide acceptable outlets so that dogs can get their jollies without clashing.

But management is important to the learning process. Eliminating the reward for a particular behaivour can contribute to extinction - the animal discontinues this behaviour.



> The other point I wonder about in the debate, is the idea I've read on one Positive Reinforcement advocates page, was that there are very few positive behaviours. So the suggestion was to teach the dog to settle down and watch TV with you, and basically not do anything, because you've had a long day, and the dog would be exuberant now you've returned.


This is a major misunderstanding or perhaps misinterpretation Rob. In any given situation there is usually only one behaviour we want our dogs to do. We might want a sit, or loose leash walking or yes, sitting calmly. Dog-friendly dog training works on teaching the behaviour we want rather than the behaviours (and there are many) we don't want in that given situation.
So if its sit that we want, the alternatives the dog might offer include a loooooong list e.g. standing, lying down, running, jumping, barking etc.etc.
This has NOTHING to do with making sure that the dog is sufficiently stimulated or not greeting you.

Nobody can avoid aversives in life - its not possible. BUT we have to take responsibility if we do introduce them as they come with side effects that can be very damaging known as fallout. This is very well documented as a result of using aversives especially incorrectly which is likely in most cases.

Punishers are not necessarily horrid things - they are things that cause a reduction in a behaviour, that's all. Reinforcers are things that cause an increase in a behaviour.
If a following event is not reducing a behaviour then its not a punisher. If you have to keep using an interrupter on a behaviour, which seems to be a favourite here  , than its not working.
Manage, provide acceptable outlets, and teach what you want (an incompatible desired behaviour) - thats how behaviour modification works.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That I do remember that style working fine with a number of dogs...


i must admit i find this very confusing, also, rob -  
are U supporting Alpha-rolls or pinning a dog, or are U cautioning against it? 
[i really cannot tell, in this context, sorry  ] 


RobD-BCactive said:


> ...then you get a young dog, which reacts very badly to that approach which is at heart confrontational.
> 
> Then you find [the young dog?] responds well to an interruptor combined with positive-reinforcement,
> and later responds well to negative feedback as it accepts fully the benevolent guidance.
> But you earn the dogs respect, not force it physically.


i try to re-direct vs interrupt, if at all possible - having the dog Do Something Else, a preferred behavior, 
instead of *STOP doing whatcher doing... * which leaves a behavioral vacuum, and the dog 
*must* do Something - breathe, at the minimum. 

interruptors in an emergency are fine, but if U are able to substitute an acceptable behavior, 
i find it more effective, especially if the behavior occurs repeatedly - *jump to greet strangers,* 
for instance.

cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> The other point I wonder about in the debate, is the idea I've read on one Positive Reinforcement advocates page, was that *there are very few positive behaviours.* So the suggestion was to teach the dog to settle down and watch TV with you, and basically not do anything, because you've had a long day, and the dog would be exuberant now you've returned.


i would disagree, rob - 
we WANT dogs to interact; we want dogs to use their noses for a task; we want dogs to play with us, accompany us, 
to come when called, to engage with us, to fetch, to herd, to play with other dogs, to LEARN with us... 
those are activities, not lying-about like a lump. 

i always ask my clients to think, _*what do U want the dog To Do?*_ 
if the only answer is, *lie-around and be quiet - * i would strongly-suggest they NOT get a dog, 
or if they already have one, i would suggest they re-home the dog as soon as possible.

for anyone who wants a *full-time sofa-spud* for a dog, get a SENIOR from a shelter or rescue - 
they are love-sponges, most have some manners + training already, they desperately need homes, 
and they are far less active than pups or younger dogs.

all my best, 
--- terry


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

playing devils advocate here... 

But I have Rhoedesian Ridgebacks, adult male 40kg.. and this is purely hypothetical. 

5-6 month old dog 20kg plus, gone through puppy classes and have had successful recall. Over the field one day off a lead. Mother and her small child enter. Puppy gets distracted as they do and makes a dash for them. He doesn't come back to recall which with a distracted youngster is highly probable. He reaches the mother and child before you do, as lets face it he is quicker than you. He jumps up, knocks the child flying and mouths her arm, leaving the poor child and mother distraught, scratched and bitten all be it only in an excitable puppy way. I then respond to the very angry (and rightly so mother) it's ok, I praise the positive and ignore the negative, he'll get it one day. Being a mother of small children myself. I would have to refrain for giving myself a slap and would be reporting the dog to the police to have it put down. Some behaviours need to be dealt with promptly and my experience of positive correction did not offer quick results. Behaviours that pose no risk to either human or the dog itself, great find a hands off approach to deal with it. But otherwise sometimes harsher methods are required. Never in the form of painful punishment, but in physical constraint.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> playing devils advocate here...
> 
> But I have Rhoedesian Ridgebacks, adult male 40kg.. and this is purely hypothetical.
> 
> 5-6 month old dog 20kg plus, gone through puppy classes and have had successful recall. Over the field one day off a lead. Mother and her small child enter. Puppy gets distracted as they do and makes a dash for them. He doesn't come back to recall which with a distracted youngster is highly probable. He reaches the mother and child before you do, as lets face it he is quicker than you. He jumps up, knocks the child flying and mouths her arm, leaving the poor child and mother distraught, scratched and bitten all be it only in an excitable puppy way. I then respond to the very angry (and rightly so mother) it's ok, I praise the positive and ignore the negative, he'll get it one day. Being a mother of small children myself. I would have to refrain for giving myself a slap and would be reporting the dog to the police to have it put down. Some behaviours need to be dealt with promptly and my experience of positive correction did not offer quick results. Behaviours that pose no risk to either human or the dog itself, great find a hands off approach to deal with it. But otherwise sometimes harsher methods are required. Never in the form of painful punishment, but in physical constraint.


Well, I don't have ridgebacks, but that aside -

Firstly, from the time they are a puppy I make sure I am the most important thing in their lives. I am the source of all good things and most important of all, I am the source of their fun.

I wouldn't class a 5-6 month old puppy that has been to puppy classes as having a successful recall. Yes, in the puppy class and maybe in the garden and sometimes when out and about without distractions, but that does not mean a good recall. My pups are let of lead from the word go. As young pups, they will not go far, so it is a perfect time to teach them. I would not consider I had a good recall until I could recall against all distractions. This needs to be built on slowly and until that time, I have eyes in the back of my head when out. I preempt any situation such as the one you describe and simply do not allow it to happen. In other words - I will have seen the mother and child before the puppy has - and will distract it - possibly recall it back. I may go elsewhere, or I may put the pup on a lead and take it to greet in a controlled manner.

Quite simply, my priority is to never allow a puppy (or dog) that has not been fully trained to get into a situation where they need correcting.


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> Well, I don't have ridgebacks, but that aside -
> 
> Firstly, from the time they are a puppy I make sure I am the most important thing in their lives. I am the source of all good things and most important of all, I am the source of their fun.
> 
> ...


Running off and not coming back is not the problem, it is the response the dog gives once it reaches its destination that is. My first importance is to ensure a dog causes no physical harm to any human and considering at 14 weeks some can be as big as a springer, jumping up, mouthing etc needs to be fully addressed at a young age. Don't get me wrong I am a true beliver of the hands off approach, but sometimes is does not offer the results i need with some dogs. I will not have a dog jump up at me, nor mouth me, no sooner would i allow a horse to kick me, a cat to scratch me or a child to hit me. There is sometimes a need for harsher methods.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Running off and not coming back is not the problem


I disagree - you set yourself up for failure before the dog has even got there.



> it is the response the dog gives once it reaches its destination that is.


The jumping up and mouthing is a separate issue as far as training goes - each thing has to be trained separately.



> My first importance is to ensure a dog causes no physical harm to any human


Absolutely, because anyone who allows their dog to cause harm to any human is falling foul of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

The issue is that this situation has been allowed to happen (hypethetically of course) because of a poor recall and insufficient training - naturally - he's a puppy - it doesn't require harsher methods - simply more training and managing till trained. The puppy at this stage does not understand or has not been sufficiently proofed. It is not disobeying it is simply acting like a puppy or dog (without training), therefore corrections are not the way to go IMO.


----------



## cpatel (Nov 3, 2007)

Hi

I dont think its just about the good Vs. bad ways to train. I think we have a tool box of options based on two types of reinforcers and two types of punishers which if used "properly" all modify behaviour.

However saying this, to use these tools effectively one needs to be good at using them. In my opinion most of us can't even apply positive reinforcement properly or effectively and this is probably least likely to cause any harm or damage to a dog so...

We don't live or train dogs in isolated bubbles, each animal is an individual and different things are going to be rewarding or punishing to them and at different intensities (like humans). This means that our punishments may have "side effects". Eg. Dog jumps on visitors and gets spayed with say a "pet corrector" spray which it finds punishing. It may also have made the association between strange men being present and something nasty happening. So may be the dog learns that they have to be wary of strangers?

I think the other thing to consider is; What are you trying to communicate with the dog? So many owners want to tell their dog "No" somehow. Isn't it more useful from a learning perspective to find out whats wanted from you in the first place? If a dog doesn't get to practice the behaviour we don't want or we minimise the chances of its occurrence and instead teach an alternative to "replace" the undesirable behaviour...?

Not saying use one and not the other etc... (Also because we don't train in bubbles, its never usually one thing or the other, both punishment and reinforcement are occurring). Obviously you specifically are 9other you would not have asked this question), but as a general comment: consider what you are doing and why, most importantly is it actually changing your dogs behaviour and how? What impacts could this have on your dog at an emotional level?

I also found this on another forum which you might find interesting:

"Rules of Punishment...food for thought...

Mom ran across Steve White's 8 Rules of Punishment from last year's Clicker Expo...and has been pondering it lately. It's next week's discussion for puppy class too. Here is the list...more thoughts on this later.

Eight Rules for Using Punishment:

1. The punishment must be something the animal dislikes and something the animal does not expect.

2. The punishment must suppress behavior. (This is, in fact, the very definition of something that is a punisher.) If something is being used for punishment, but it does not suppress behavior, its ineffective and often just plain abuse.

3. The punishment must be of the perfect intensity. Too much and there will be negative fallout. Youll end up hurting your relationship with the animal and loosing more than just that behavior. Too little and the punishment will only serve to desensitize the animal and build resistance.

4. The punishment must happen immediately after the behavior it is to be associated with. Otherwise, a clear enough association between the wrong behavior and the punishment will not be made.

5. The punishment must be associated with the behavior, but not with the trainer. Otherwise, the trainer becomes part of the punishment and the animal starts fearing and disliking the trainer.

6. The punishment must happen every time the behavior occurs. If punishment does not happen every time the behavior occurs, the behavior gets put on a variable schedule of reinforcement. Depending on the behavior and how often the punishment actually occurs, the animal could decide that performing the behavior was worth the risk of getting punished.

7. There must be an alternative for the animal.

8. Punishment must never be used to the extent that punishment outweighs positive reinforcement (from the animals perspective, not yours!)

If you cant follow all 8 of these rules, youre probably better off avoiding the use of punishment. Heck, even if you can follow all 8 rules, youre probably better off avoiding the use of punishment, as punishment can result in so many unintended and undesirable side effects."

Chirag

Chirag Patel BSc (Hons), DipCABT, CPDT
San Francisco SPCA Certificates in Training & Behaviour and Dog Aggression
Member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers #00923 (UK) #71093 (US)
Pets as Therapy Assessor

Dog Star Daily Blogger  Please check out Dog Star Daily for loads of free puppy & dog training articles, videos and blogs.

Telephone: 077 2531 0204
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.domesticatedmanners.com

(BSc (Hons) = Bachelor of Science in Veterinary Science from the Royal Veterinary College, London)
(DipCABT = Advanced Diploma in Practical Aspects of Companion Animal Behaviour & Training from the Centre of Applied Pet Ethology)
(CPDT = Certified Pet Dog Trainer with the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers)


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

cpatel said:


> If you cant follow all 8 of these rules, youre probably better off avoiding the use of punishment. *Heck, even if you can follow all 8 rules, youre probably better off avoiding the use of punishment*, as punishment can result in so many unintended and undesirable side effects.


And doesn't that sum it up nicely... Thanks Chirag


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I disagree - you set yourself up for failure before the dog has even got there.
> 
> The jumping up and mouthing is a separate issue as far as training goes - each thing has to be trained separately.
> 
> ...


What I said the running off is not a problem, I meant not the one that would concern me the most. We would all like to think that our dogs will come back us 100% of the time no fail and although some dog owners may well have a dog that does, there is always the possibility that this living thing with a mind of it's own one day might not listen. I had a Boxer Bitch that took 4 years to respond to a recall and even nowat 7 it is only 95% certain she will listen. I would feel more confident with a dog if I knew it's response to different things it will come accross in life.

I suppose this is one of these situations where people will have to agree to disagree and as long as no pain is caused to a dog, then we all do the best we can to acheive the same outcome. I just personally beleive that some behaviours require results quicker that what I have previous had with positive reinforcement. Heck, maybe I need some more training in it lol. I have a new puppy at the moment and will be going to classes again with a lady that supports positive reinforcement for a refresher course as it has been a while. Always open to new concepts.... but still will not have a 5 month old mouth me or jump up a dog that size hurts.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Skip reading and posting here, because I've got a busy day ahead, but to the person who queried that the op had posted about harsh methods, yes they did, but it's brought up a few points that I felt worth debating, and others obviously did too. 

The word punishment has been brought up a few times, this is something I don't view the way I train my dogs, as using. I don't see a correction and punishment as the same thing, to me a punishment means a dog must understand there are consequences to them doing something *wrong*, and I think that's beyond the understanding of dogs. They may understand there are consequences for certain actions, but I don't think the link is there that they can define good and evil, if that makes sense?

Back to correcting them, the way I do it, is to either encourage the behaviour that I want, to stop them doing something I don't want. So using the lead handle, swiping it over their butt as we're walking along, not as a punishment, but to get their attention, which then gets turned into an exercise, get it right and you get to hold the lead. I make that lead handle something worth having, hold it in my hands, turning it over, it's the best lead handle in the world, so I have their attention, and if they are then distracted, I try and swipe the handle over their butt again, or even tap them on the top of their head with it, so it becomes a game, and I pretend at some point that they have won, and they get to hold it in their mouth as we're walking along. 

When putting them back on the spot if they've moved when they shouldn't, it has to be done before they've then got something right. So for example, if I'm doing steadiness training, throwing things around them, if they move it has to be an instant, Oi and get their backside down. IF I mistime it, and they get to the ball or dummy and do a nice retrieve, there is absolutely no point in pinning their butt to the floor, I start again, and make sure the exercise is a little easier, so they can't make the mistake, or if they do I'm close enough to correct them. MOST importantly, if I've corrected them, they get it bang on right the next time, LOADS of praise, and I usually end a training session at that point, even if I'd planned to do more, and give them loads of fuss and run in fun retrieves. 

In both of those examples, I give the dog the option of getting it right, there's no point in correcting a dog, and then not allowing it to get something right, it won't learn as easily what is expected from it.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

The big problem here is that whatever you _intend_ to do doesn't actually matter - the animal's/learner's perception does and therefore its effects on behaviour.
If you are using an aversive, and this isn't directed at anyone specific, and its use is not reducing that behaviour there is something wrong - its not working.

If something reduces a behaviour its a punisher - doesn't matter what you want to call it.

If the animal finds it unpleasant its an aversive - doesn't matter what you want to call it.

All punishers are aversive but not all aversives are punishers. This is why I hate the word 'correction' as its euphemistic and imprecise.

There has been another intersting thread on this sort of thing on here before; I will try to find the link...
Got it: http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-behaviour/93774-any-need-verbal-corrections.html


----------



## Fyfer (Jan 23, 2010)

What a great video link in that thread. 
Here it is again for those of us who missed it the first time:

YouTube - How to stop unwanted behavior- the positive interrupter- dog training clicker training


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

tripod said:


> The big problem here is that whatever you _intend_ to do doesn't actually matter - the animal's/learner's perception does and therefore its effects on behaviour.
> If you are using an aversive, and this isn't directed at anyone specific, and its use is not reducing that behaviour there is something wrong - its not working.
> 
> If something reduces a behaviour its a punisher - doesn't matter what you want to call it.
> ...


That's like saying you can call evil pink and fluffy if you want, doesn't matter what you call it, it's what it is. My perception of the word 'punish' is different to yours. I much prefer the word correction, because I am not punishing 

Horses for courses I think, we could go round in circles explaining the meaning of words and their use in relation to dogs and training, what actually matters is what you do, and the outcome of your action on a particular dog, at least that's what matters to me.

I don't see a correction the same way as you do, punishment to me, is a judgment that the dog has done wrong, and is punished for it. When I correct my dog for moving, I don't have it in mind 'you bad dog, you knew you weren't supposed to do that so I'm going to physically punish you by shoving your bum back on the ground where it's meant to be', I am simply correcting the dog, letting it know that actually, that's where I want your bum, and then giving it chance to get that bit right, and rewarding it, possibly repeating a few times to really get it right.

We may have to agree to difer though on our interpretations


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

But that is like saying that black means white or something...words have definitions so that we all understand them : 
I can't agree to disagree here, just disagree


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

tripod said:


> But that is like saying that black means white or something...words have definitions so that we all understand them :
> I can't agree to disagree here, just disagree


Doesn't mean to say we don't have different interpretations along similar lines, words are just words, it is, as I said, our actions and the consequences of those that matter 

Black isn't always black, it can be very dark grey, and there are many shades of white, chuff, you'd be surprised if you go into an art shop the amount of different blacks and whites you can buy!

There's a very useful exercise in art, to show the contrast between different colours and shades, slightly off on a tangent, but as an example, it shows that what you thought of as a very dark colour or shade, suddenly put in contrast against a different colour or shade, shows it up in a completely different *light*, as it were.

In a similar way, your interpretation of correction is different to mine, I can explain till I'm blue in the face to you why I view it differently, you can explain till you're blue in the face why you view it differently, although I can see why you view it differently, and you can possibly see why I view it differently, we will still probably hold the same views. The reason why I *agree to differ*, is that I don't think there is a 100% right answer, the vast, vast majority of dog ownership is people doing things how they perceive is best, sometimes with a lot of research, help and experience, sometimes just bumbling along, making mistakes as we go along (who doesn't). Unless of course, you disagree because you think you're 100% right, and therefore I'm 100% wrong??


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

That's kinda why I don't use or like the term 'correction' - because its open to so much broad interpretation.
However, the term punisher has a very precise, scientific definition and when used correctly describes a specific outcome to behaviour.

How people use terms in common, everyday language is often very different - I am an anal scientist  and as such see it from that point of view. If we use words and people misinterpret them because their definition/understanding is different to ours it causes problems for those reading. Or worse, for those taking or relying on the advice.

If we don't stick to the actual meanings of words it becomes more and more complicated as the meanings change as we go along.

Perhaps my example of colours was a bad idea because colour/light by its very nature is open to perception. However, a punisher, in learning terms is a punisher 

Its not about being right or bludgening you with a specific point of view - it is about understanding, especially difficult when using the written word.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

tripod said:


> That's kinda why I don't use or like the term 'correction' - because its open to so much broad interpretation.
> However, the term punisher has a very precise, scientific definition and when used correctly describes a specific outcome to behaviour.
> 
> How people use terms in common, everyday language is often very different - I am an anal scientist  and as such see it from that point of view. If we use words and people misinterpret them because their definition/understanding is different to ours it causes problems for those reading. Or worse, for those taking or relying on the advice.
> ...


At least we can agree on one thing then 

I don't see it as bludgeoning people with an opinion, but I do enjoy debating the differences, and similarities, it is good to see things from different view points, even if you still then hold with your original perception and understanding.

I think the reasons why I'm against the term 'punisher', are twofold, firstly because it has entirely negative connotations for me, to punish implies you are rebuking *exacting punishment* - perhaps I'm old fashioned, but that's how the term comes across to me. The second, more importantly (to me at least) implies the dog understands wrong from right, when in fact you are at the teaching stage, and in any case, it isn't wrong vs right, it's a set of actions and consequences.

Correction to me is much truer to the type of situation I feel, in the way I use it, and it also implies an ongoing chain of events.

As an example, in a french lesson, I was asked to recite a sentence, and I got it wrong, the teacher, in stopping me, wouldn't be punishing me, but correcting me. At least I hope they wouldn't be punishing me, you never know nowadays :lol: Now if I'd forgotten to do my homework and got detention, that'd be a punishment. But interjecting, correcting, and then allowing the lesson to go back on, is, in my eyes, a correction, not a punishment, and equivalent of what I do with my dogs when I *try* to stop an action that I don't want, and/or encourage an action I do want, with a physical, and sometimes verbal interjection.

To me, punishment and correction are two very different things.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Yes, I find that quite common because the word punisher is used and misused soooo much that many have negative connotations with the word. But it doesn't have to be bad...


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

tripod said:


> Yes, I find that quite common because the word punisher is used and misused soooo much that many have negative connotations with the word. But it doesn't have to be bad...


Is it *misused* though? Without trying to be anal  I just quickly googled the dictionary definititions of both words, here are a quick couple of phrases, and guess which is which 

"a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
severe, rough, or disastrous treatment"

"bringing into conformity with a standard d : something substituted in place of what is wrong"

"Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person, for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, or for the omission of the performance of an act required by law, by the judgment and command of some lawful court."

"the act of offering an improvement to replace a mistake; setting right"

Thesaurus comparisons:

"abuse, admonishment, admonition, amercement, avengement, banishment, battering, beating, caning, cashiering, castigating, castigation, chastening, chastisement, chastising, comeuppance, compensation, correction, criticism, damage, desert, deserts, discipline, disciplining, dressing-down, electrocution, excommunication, execution, exile, fine, flogging, hanging, harm, imprisonment, incarceration, injury, just deserts, lashing, maltreatment, mauling, mulct, paddling, penal retribution, penalization, penalty, penance, price, punition, quittance, rebuke, recompense, reprisal, reproof, requital, retribution, revenge, reward, rod, scolding, scourging, sentence, sentencing, spanking, thrashing, torture, trouncing, "

"admonishment, admonition, amendment, amends, appraisal, appraisement, approximation, assessment, assize, assizement, calculation, castigation, chastening, chastisement, chiding, compensation, computation, condign punishment, corrigendum, deserts, determination, disciplinary measures, discipline, editing, emendation, estimate, estimation, evaluation, ferule, fixing, gauging, improvement, infliction, instrumentation, judgment, judicial punishment, lecture, lesson, making right, measure, measurement, measuring, mending, mensuration, metric system, nemesis, objurgation, overhaul, overhauling, pains, pains and punishments, pay, payment, penal retribution, penalty, penology, punishment, punition, quantification, quantization, rating, rebuke, recension, recompense, rectification, redaction, redress, remedy, repair, repairing, reparation, reprehension, reprimand, reproach, reprobation, reproof, reproval, rescript, rescription, retribution, retributive justice, revampment, revisal, revise, revised edition, revision, rewrite, rewriting, rod, satisfaction, scolding, scourge, sermon, spanking, survey, surveying, telemetering, telemetry, triangulation, troubleshooting, upbraiding, valuation, well-deserved punishment"

What was interesting to me (and I'm posting and dashing because I've got to get out with the girls and do some training), was that *within* the term "correction" were incorporated several terms referring to "punishment". Without delving hugely, deeply into the definitions of the words much more, because it must be boring quite a few people by now, just briefly, looking at the two terms, correction *to me* suits much more how I train my dogs, I feel, at least. Right, off to go and set my two up for some training, possibly with a bit of correction along the way, definitely no punishment


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I agree with more or less everything Sleeping Lion has said. I much prefer to show a dog what I want and then use a correction if it doesnt happen. The dog is clear then on what is wanted so long as your timing is correct. It doesnt matter how severe you are it wont work unless you get the timing right, which is why some dogs dont progress in their training. The owner might appear to be doing it right but the dog hasnt a clue what is wanted.

I really do not agree with some of the 'modern' methods of either dog training or children training. I think they lead to frustrated dogs/children who dont understand what is wanted of them and frustrated owners/parents who dont know where they have gone wrong.

Every dog is different though and your methods have to be flexible - and that is the bit that Barbara Woodhouse forgot.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Sleeping Lion, this is exactly what I mean by scientific terms being brought across to everyday language - general language dictionary definitions are based on how words are used in every day language. 
Scientific terms do not evolve in the same way as everyday language - and if we are talking about learning we are talking in scientific terms. I can't offer any more explanation to this and as you say this is boring and also off topic.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Scientific terms do not evolve in the same way as everyday language - and if we are talking about learning we are talking in scientific terms.


I completely agree with what you are saying, however, I would doubt most people using forums such as this one actually realise or understand the scientific definitions either so will use everyday meanings for words.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

tripod said:


> Sleeping Lion, this is exactly what I mean by scientific terms being brought across to everyday language - general language dictionary definitions are based on how words are used in every day language.
> Scientific terms do not evolve in the same way as everyday language - and if we are talking about learning we are talking in scientific terms. I can't offer any more explanation to this and as you say this is boring and also off topic.


But this is exactly what frustrates me, having a scientific secret handshake language, doesn't help the average every day person understand their dogs any better?

There seem to be oodles of new phrases and shortenings for dog training and the theories behind what/why/how our dogs think. Personally, I would much rather stick to my own every day definitions, that match their every day use and don't have any more meanings, and spend quality time with my dogs, without worrying whether I was more like Cesar Milan than Victoria Stillwell, and yes I make mistakes, but I also learn from them, I hope. Dogs are not such complex creatures that we have to make up whole new definitions about how they behave, the majority of dogs want a few very simple things, food, water, shelter, attention. The vast majority of them love interacting with humans, and we benefit hugely from that, and it is quite a simple thing to harness their desire to interact with us, and use it to train them. What's complicated about that, and why do we need all the positive/negative punishment/reinforcement, dominance (eek run a mile from that word) etc, etc language, I *personally* feel that it just makes it more difficult to understand our relationship with dogs, which is a very simple thing.

And, btw, I did forget one HUGE part of the whole correction thing, which came to me when I was out training Indie and Tau together, using Indie to train steadiness with Tau. So, situation is a couple of blinds that I've set out, and will send Tau for after her sitting steady to me throwing a few tennis balls around, and letting Indie have a couple of retrieves. First time I sent Indie by name, Tau went for a ball as well, why? Because I hadn't quite made it plain to her, what I wanted, and by then, it was too late to make any sort of correction. So sat her up again and Indie, sent Indie but (importantly) *corrected* my handling so that I was inbetween Tau and the ball, and gave a small verbal correction when she looked *shifty*, that was all it needed. The penny then dropped, bum stays on the floor till I am told to move, and after a couple more retrieves from Indie, Tau was lined up and sent for a blind, and she LOVES finding *stuff* so it is a great reward. The three of us had fun, we ended up with loads of fun run in retrieves, lots of interaction, and that to me, is what it is all about.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Is it *misused* though? Without trying to be anal  I just quickly googled the dictionary definitions of both words...
> [SNIP]...
> off to go and set my two up for some training, possibly with a bit of correction along the way, *definitely no punishment*


my dog is a 6 to 8-MO pup; she jumps-up in excitement when she sees the leash, and lands on my waist. 
i don't say a word; i lay down the coiled-leash, and walk into the kitchen for a cuppa, instead.

my dog is a 12-WO pup who adores tug; we are playing tug, he is having a blast, and he abruptly re-directs... 
drops the tug, grabs my pants, scratches my leg with his sharp milk-teeth on either side, and tugs wildly, 
puncturing my pants. 
i say, "oops!" in surprise, and leave the room - leaving the pup in a puppy-proofed room, alone, 
while i tend my scratches.

my dog is a 5-YO adoptee, uncertain about other dogs; she's OK when off-leash with savvy dogs, 
but she warns-off other leashed dogs needlessly when leashed herself. i am already doing B-Mod on this, 
making the presence of other dogs a plus and creating happy associations, but she reacts much too-far away 
for on-leash work; if she can see a dog, she will bark, hackle, stiffen, etc. 
i take her to an on-leash park - we don't want any off-leash surprises... 
she barks at the very-first dog she sees, 30-ft away and back-on to us. 
i immediately park her tied to a fencepost in the shade, and leave her there for about 30-secs, monitoring 
her from nearby, behind a tree. 
then i rejoin her, she greets me enthusiastically, and we walk on.

all of those are [highly-probable] punishers - none are painful, all involve the LOSS of something desirable.

* *punish* in conversation is utterly different from its use and *definition* in behavior-science - 
punish in behavior-science is reduce the frequency of the prior behavior

* *correct* is often PC-speak for *applied punishment* AKA *positive punishment* - 
_positive = ADD something; *punish = REDUCE the prior behavior.*_ 
what would one *add* that reduces the prior behavior? *something UNdesirable -* 
typically an aversive - tighten the choke/prong/slip collar, apply shock, shout an interruptor, etc.

* *negative punishment* is to *deduct or remove* something to reduce the frequency 
of the prior-behavior... what would U take away? *something desirable.* the game ends, 
social contact is taken-away, an opportunity is closed-off.

*pos-R* primarily uses *management* to prevent un-desired behavior, and *reinforcement* to increase the frequency 
of desired behavior; it uses *neg-P,* the removal of desirable things, to reduce the frequency 
of un-desired behaviors that occasionally arise, *despite good management.*

*aversive-based training* does not use effective management, but *reacts after the fact* to any 
*un-desired behavior - *by applying an aversive - choke-chain training in a group-class, tugging the dog 
along when lagging and jerking the dog back when out of position, is one example.

_*reacting after the fact* is inefficient - it allows the practice of undesired behaviors, and repetition 
makes them *More-Likely to recur - * praising desired-behavior is often insufficient to counter-balance
the *self-rewarding behaviors* that are not being *prevented by effective management.*_

the single most-common error of pet-dog owners? *ignoring desired behavior - * 
like when the pup is quiet, and lies chewing his bone contentedly? 
like when the dog is NOT pulling on-leash and a dog is in sight? 
like when a visitor arrives, and the dog does NOT jump-up? 
*failing to mark + reward desired behavior means it languishes + dies - this is extinction* 
of the behavior, and if that is a desired behavior, U have just **punished** the behavior - 
not by an applied-aversive, but by ignoring it till it dies of neglect.

happy training; be sure to NOTICE good behavior , 
--- terry


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But this is exactly what frustrates me, having a scientific secret handshake language, doesn't help the average every day person understand their dogs any better?
> 
> There seem to be oodles of new phrases and shortenings for dog training and the theories behind what/why/how our dogs think. Personally, I would much rather stick to my own every day definitions, that match their every day use and don't have any more meanings, and spend quality time with my dogs, <snip> Dogs are not such complex creatures that we have to make up whole new definitions about how they behave, the majority of dogs want a few very simple things, food, water, shelter, attention. The vast majority of them love interacting with humans, and we benefit hugely from that, and it is quite a simple thing to harness their desire to interact with us, <snip>


I am a biologist (by qualification, I happen to apply it to a biological applied science) and let me assure you that scientific language is not secret - in fact it is more easily accessible than ever before. If 'the everyday person' chooses not to use it, learn it etc. thats up to them.

These are not new phrases - learning theory and its language has been around for, in some cases a century. The greater our understanding of anything the more complex and detailed our study becomes. The reason language and semantics are so important in science is so that everybody knows exactly what is meant so as to reduce confusion. Its not about baffling people with bull***t  - its about furthering our understanding of dog behaviour, cognition and learning.

I totally agree with you that you can define and enjoy your relationship with your pet anyway that you like - you're dog will still love you for it - but if giving advice in public or otherwise then we have to be more careful about how we deliver that especially when writing it (where inflection, facial expression etc.), whether pet people care or not. In my position as a professional i have to know and understand more than my clients. I have to be able to analyse and apply this knowledge so as to communicate it effectively and turn this into actions that work for pets and people. I never use technical terms with the vast majority of clients but advice is based on an in-depth understanding. If the conversation turns technical than I can contribute and I will discuss this topic in detail so as to clarify inaccuracies.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Terry, I love your posts, but unfortunately, they are a prime example of what I find difficult and confusing to read. I can't for the life of me make sense of some of your sentences, and although I get the gist of what you're saying, it still seems to me, to over complicate things. Dogs, to me, are simple creatures, they have a few needs, and they love the interaction they get, the hardest part is actually learning how to be a dog handler, I think, to get the most from your dog, and be able to see where you are going wrong.  

Anne, I do honestly *get* what you are saying as well, and yes, you need to be able to explain things scientifically for a scientific environment, definitely. But that seems to leach out into the normal doggy world, and I find it highly confusing having to use a *different* definition of words just to apply it to dog training. And it was a very tongue in cheek comment about the secret handshake language, I do know that certainly isn't the case  Just trying to make a point about how it can feel to the *uninitiated* so to speak, can't remember if it's on this thread, but someone did ask for a dumbed down version of a training phrase. 

I am admittedly, a very simple person, and I just think of dog training in very simple terms, so to see essays of pos-R, pos-P, aversive this that and the other, it doesn't encourage me, to read and understand, it actually encourages me to go get a beer and sit and think about something else. And I know that not everyone will feel like that, but it is important to cater for us numpties, there might be more than just me out there  

Getting slightly back to the question originally asked, I think everyone's really in agreement, whether correction, pos-R or whatever you call it, done in the right way isn't *harsh*. Terry, absolutely spot on for me, most people ignore good behaviour, you see it with kids as well, the only time they get attention is when they're doing something they shouldn't be. I LOVE being with my dogs, and I LOVE training them, and just getting a fuss or fun retrieve is the best thing since sliced bread (if they ate it) for my dogs, how great is that! 

Right, off to go get a beer and think about something else :thumbup:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> we WANT dogs to interact; we want dogs to use their noses for a task; we want dogs to play with us, accompany us,
> to come when called, to engage with us, to fetch, to herd, to play with other dogs, to LEARN with us...
> those are activities, not lying-about like a lump.


I absolutely agree with you, but the example given was to teach the acceptable behaviour, and then just have the dog do that, as much simpler than "telling the dog off". I felt someone should buy one of those robo-dogs or an automatic vacuum cleaner rather than an animal.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Lucy1012 said:
> 
> 
> > I do physically make them submit by laying them on the floor, as mum would. I then offer them my hand again and should they lick or sniff without teeth contact I follow it up with serious over the top praise.
> ...


As I've been asked to be blunter.

Lucy the approach you recommend, works with many dogs, and may seem fine, then one day you have a dog where it doesn't!

I think fundamentally that approach is flawed, because it's confrontational and whilst you may be able to bully a puppy, it may grow up to be far stronger, more athletic and better armed than you.

The postive method, works just as quickly in young dogs, and seems to work for more of them, so why not just use that?

An interruptor lets you avoid practicing of the unwanted behaviour, then you can distract with an approved behaviour which is rewarding, and strive to keep things positive. It works very quickly.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I absolutely agree with you, but the example given was to teach the acceptable behaviour, and then just have the dog do that, as much simpler than "telling the dog off". I felt someone should buy one of those robo-dogs or an automatic vacuum cleaner rather than an animal.


Whats ironic about what your saying there Rob is that aversive training methods are far more likely and do create 'robot-dogs' that do not offer behaviours, other than those asked, for fear of being 'corrected'. Its known as shut-down and is likely fallout of the use of aversives.

My dog makes mistakes, not because he doesn't know what to do (sometimes that happens too  ) but because he offers lots of behaviour because he has learned how to operate the environment (me!). He earns things he likes by offering acceptable behaviours. He has been taught how to train me  The reason that most purist clicker trainers use few aversives is because it tends to make shaping more difficult - dogs are reluctant to offer behaviours.
This isn't some new fangled observation but well documented over the thousands if not millions of hours of studying the way animals learn.

I would argue with you that 'telling off' is simple or indeed quick or efficient. It requires such precision to use aversives and they are soooo easily incorrectly used that they prove to be far less inefficient. Don't get me wrong - all training tools (including methods) can be misused but the damage from aversives is much harder to put right.

I ask this question so often here, but why use aversives if you don't have to or if there is an alternative way?????
I have yet to get an answer to that that would jolt me up and make me go back to adding more aversives to my toolbox...


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> This is a major misunderstanding or perhaps misinterpretation Rob. In any given situation there is usually only one behaviour we want our dogs to do. We might want a sit, or loose leash walking or yes, sitting calmly. Dog-friendly dog training works on teaching the behaviour we want rather than the behaviours (and there are many) we don't want in that given situation.


That is true when you're actively engaged with the dog. However dogs can have a degree of freedom of choice, independance if you like, not simply obeying commands all the time.

There's more usually a range of activities very often which are acceptable, that the dog can do without any issue, and it can choose depending on mood.

Then there's times, where you want the dog to do something for you, and then you expect directions to be followed.

I just think if we're honest, most of the time we aren't demanding 1 thing from the dog, but just want the dog to "behave well", stay out of trouble, and get to be a dog, not a remote controlled toy.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> Whats ironic about what your saying there Rob is that aversive training methods are far more likely and do create 'robot-dogs' that do not offer behaviours, other than those asked, for fear of being 'corrected'. Its known as shut-down and is likely fallout of the use of aversives.


It would be better if I could post the webpage I read, but I tried in short post to paraphrase what they were saying.

Let's be clear; I feel uncomfortable about the example, because it was suggesting there was 1 acceptable behaviour for the dog, and in this case it was reasonable after being out all day to force (via command) the dog to "settle" so the owners could watch TV.

Personally I think those owners, having a dog, ought to be tending to it, rather than watching telly. I don't think that was a healthy example, and as you are pointing out, in actual fact by avoiding aversive, and simply & calmly substituting acceptable activities, and making clear in a mild way that a behaviour is displeasing, that the dog can actually do very many things that are allowed.

Anyway, this thread even with misunderstandings, does eventually make things clearer, because there's a discussion and frank exchange of points of view.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

I was saying I knew that you could turn out "good" dogs, in the 70's & 80's when that was the done thing.

But that I think you find dogs it really does not work with. Then as somone else has said, what do you do? I wonder how many perfectly good dogs were put down, as untrainable because of the methods employed.



> i try to re-direct vs interrupt, if at all possible - having the dog Do Something Else, a preferred behavior,
> instead of *STOP doing whatcher doing... * which leaves a behavioral vacuum, and the dog
> *must* do Something - breathe, at the minimum.
> 
> interruptors in an emergency are fine, but if U are able to substitute an acceptable behavior,


Well I tried re-directing, I viewed it as distracting, and with my BC pup, that didn't work, because it's too intelligent and focussed.

Interruption seemed necessary, it responded well to the startle effect of stones being shaken, and then re-direction, then rapidly after I was able to have the pup do basic obedience and manage the excitement levels.

It was a very fast learner to, and seems to be a smashing good natured dog that is well liked by strangers.

Now I think, it would have been very easy to mis-train this dog and make it aggressive.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Can i gently point some of you in the diretion of the "Barking Cocker" thread as i feel some "positive" suggestions might be helpful


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I just think if we're honest, most of the time we aren't demanding 1 thing from the dog, but just want the dog to "behave well", stay out of trouble, and get to be a dog, not a remote controlled toy.


Ok I get you! Yes but what in one situation do you see as 'behaving well'? If I am watching TV (yeah right  ) behaving well might be lying quietly on his bed. (of course after he has been sufficiently stimulated during the day etc....)
My goal is to teach the dog to want to do these things that I consider good behaviour - and let's face it, this is the dog-human culture clash - what my dog considers 'good' behaviour not be my idea 

So, I provide acceptable outlets for those behaviours and teach him to want to carry out the behaviours that I consider acceptable. That is using dog-friendly methods so rewarding what I want. 
My dog is not following 'comands' all the time, in fact at this stage we both live pretty harmonously and are happy to spend time with one another.

I don't believe if you stick to that ethos (management to prevent mistakes, acceptable outlets for natural behaviour for jollies, and R+ teaching of desired behaviour) that you can create anything other than a dog that wants to carry out acceptable behaviour - and an owner who wants to keep their dog happy. Its mutual and a relationship so there is give and take.

What's wrong with a family wanting a calm dog during down time? Once that calmness is truly achieved and training is dog-friendly? What constitutes 'well-behaved'? Dogs don't do such concepts - they need clear advice on the behaviour/s to carry out?



> Anyway, this thread even with misunderstandings, does eventually make things clearer, because there's a discussion and frank exchange of points of view.


:thumbup:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

tripod said:


> Ok I get you! Yes but what in one situation do you see as 'behaving well'? If I am watching TV (yeah right  ) behaving well might be lying quietly on his bed. (of course after he has been sufficiently stimulated during the day etc....)
> My goal is to teach the dog to want to do these things that I consider good behaviour - and let's face it, this is the dog-human culture clash - what my dog considers 'good' behaviour not be my idea
> 
> So, I provide acceptable outlets for those behaviours and teach him to want to carry out the behaviours that I consider acceptable.


Heheheh, I watched Andy Nickless's sheepdog training DVD and the pup, sat up and watched it to! Good behaviour!!

How's this? Was in park and had fetch type chase type play, then walked along with a lady who had a terrier type dog. Got near exit, met someone, who then went off. The lady called her terrier back, and something odd happened, the dog who had pretty much ignored me before, now that my pup had gone ahead, came to me, not her, in response to her command.

OK, now I could tell she wasn't too happy about that really, but the dog wasn't going anywhere, she laughed and gave up, so then I gave her dog some of the attention I'd given mine; I just don't think the situation would crop up too often so didn't worry about rewarding disobedience.

Then I called my pup back, who always comes to me.. only this time, he looked up, saw me with the other dog, and went right up to the lady. He made her smile, wangled more fuss, and then went mental giving her the full cute puppy treatment, which really made her laugh and me to. The chagrin at her dogs faithless behaviour was forgotten, and she felt much better.

OK, so 2 disobedient dogs on face of it. Now I think I could have got my pup to me, if I'd insisted, but he seemed to behave almost telephatically, as I really did not mind him just coming near, returning to the lady under control and I'm sure he'd have come back straight to me, if I'd needed that.

What happened was spontaneously more pleasing and amusing than anything I could train, and I decided to credit my pup with emotional sensitivity, rather than worry about the slightly irregular recall (only time he's done it).


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

Yeah Rob, I don't see that as too different to what I would do - my dog makes me laugh all the time because sometimes his mess ups are more entertaining than his successes.
I guess its important to remember that they trainer shouldn't be a robot either


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

i would not term this 'blunt', rob - 


RobD-BCactive said:


> Lucy the approach you recommend, works with many dogs, and may seem fine, then one day you have a dog where it doesn't!
> 
> I think fundamentally that approach is flawed, because it's confrontational and whilst you may be able to bully a puppy, it may grow up to be far stronger, more athletic and better armed than you.
> 
> ...


i think it is much clearer, and far less-likely to allow for misunderstanding! :thumbup: 
thanks for that, 
- t


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

tripod said:


> ...aversive training methods are far more likely [to] create *'robot-dogs' [who] do not offer behaviours, other than those asked, for fear of being 'corrected'*. Its known as shut-down and is likely fallout of the use of aversives.


yes - that's a huge deterrent for me; i want dogs who are relaxed, willing to take a risk, open to novelty - 
a dog who only wants to do one of 10 behaviors is IMO a boring and somewhat neurotic animal, 
and very sad to see - they have a short-list of *safe things to do* and that's It, there are no open-ended 
behaviors, no exploration, novelty is scary, new experiences are fraught instead of fun...  


tripod said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> My dog makes mistakes [and] offers lots of behaviour because he has learned how to operate the environment (me!). He earns things he likes by offering acceptable behaviours. He has been taught how to train me  *...most purist clicker trainers use few aversives... because it tends to make shaping more difficult - dogs are [then] reluctant to offer behaviours.* This [is] well documented over the thousands if not millions of hours of studying the way animals learn.


*definitely - * shaping an otherwise-impossible or very-difficult behavior is a blast, and dogs can enjoy 
the process just as much as the human who is training - its a blast! :thumbup:

seeing *vikidobe* teach her dog to balance on a ball? 
YouTube - Teaching a New Trick Week One

it should be apparent that her dog is an enthusiastic learner, not easily discouraged, with a lot of rebound 
and resourcefulness - this confidence IME carries-over into real-life situations, where if something alarming happens, 
the dog is unlikely to be traumatized, but will shake it off and go on without much upset.

a dog who offers a paucity of any behaviors at all can be termed **frozen** - 
among the most-difficult B-Mod cases i have ever tackled, were frozen dogs; they are such sad-sacks, :nonod:
it is heartbreaking to see them, and takes weeks to make reliable progress without significant backsliding 
in any but the LEAST-threatening circumstances.

all my best, 
--- terry


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Can i gently point some of you [toward] the "Barking Cocker" thread as i feel some "positive" suggestions might be helpful


i was already there - unfortunately, having already spent 30-pounds on a spray-collar, pos-R suggestions now 
are very likely to be met with a shrug; the collar works, the dog shut-up, what's not to like? 

:thumbdown: ah, well. 
- t


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lucy1012 said:


> Running off and not coming back is not the problem, it is the response the dog gives once it reaches its destination that is. My first importance is to ensure a dog causes no physical harm to any human and considering at 14 weeks some can be as big as a springer, jumping up, mouthing etc needs to be fully addressed at a young age. Don't get me wrong I am a true beliver of the hands off approach, but sometimes is does not offer the results i need with some dogs. I will not have a dog jump up at me, nor mouth me, no sooner would i allow a horse to kick me, a cat to scratch me or a child to hit me. There is sometimes a need for harsher methods.


Oh my, I missed this part of the discussion before where you play devil's advocate on page 3, suffice it to say rocco33's response I agree with - Playing Devil's Advocate (Lucy's post)

What I will now say, is actually the anger dog owners with your attitude provoke in others who are faced with an exuberant dog coming out of nowhere, with no doggy manners, and effectively out of control of the handler. We don't want to lose rights to exercise our dogs in pleasant places, because irresponsible people allowing unpredictable or aggressive dogs to attack children; nor do people enjoy the worry of dog attacks. You won't often be shown these feelings, because people naturally want to move away and avoid an argument, but they do vent later from a distance.

The fact is, someone like myself, should *NOT* have to block a large dog, running at speed for my puppy that is apparently intent on a collision. Those I met in woods with adult dogs, also seethe faced by the same over excited young dog. Don't try and tell me, that nothing happens and the fast approaching dog will "only greet" because I've had past pups squealing like pigs, held in the teeth of a roaming dog, and had to fight the damn thing off.

Everyone agrees it is too late after the fact. You have to be there on the spot, and catch in the act to deter an undesirable behaviour, not retrospective.

Now if I had a dog that showed me the slightest hint of it running off out of range and bounding up to children, then I would have to let it run on a long line in one of the very many open grass areas. I don't set my Border Collie pup to fail, by letting him off lead around picnic-ing familes for example. It's only recently I've started calling him back, if he sets off to greet a jogger, or a passing lady, rather than distract or control with leash as appropriate.

What is doubly horrifying from your example, is you ignore the scientifically based behavoural findings, about redirected aggression, where your dog may behave as you wish to you, but then take it out on some weaker innocent party; a child innocently playing in a park perhaps.

Ignoring the current state of behavoural research, with a large non-docile dog, strikes me as extremely irresponsible.

The breed requiring expert handling, does not justify "harsh methods", it actually means you ought to be using the methods most likely to produce a gentle non-aggressive dog.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> But painful mouthing, or any antisocial behaviour i want stopped I discipline, I would never striike a puppy/dog but I do physically make them submit by laying them on the floor, as mum would.


Do you not teach bite inhibition? Cannot see any benefit in physically making them submit by laying on the floor, and certainly not when teaching them not to mouth.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Lucy1012 said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> But painful mouthing, or any antisocial behaviour i want [to stop], I [use] discipline, I would never striike a puppy/dog
> but *I do physically make them submit by laying them on the floor, as mum would.* I then offer them my hand
> again and should they lick or sniff without teeth contact I follow it up with serious over the top praise.


hey, lucy! :--) 
:lol: shades of the Dawg-Wrassler,  if U can afford to fiddle-about, U use 'more positive[ly reinforcing] methods', 
but otherwise just wade-in and Alpha-roll em...  oh, my.

having worked with dogs who BITE seriously, and many dogs of guarding-breeds who had major mouthing-habits, 
i have yet to do this... ever.

and i have **never** seen any dam of any breed, Pin a Pup to punish or correct rough-play, 
or indeed for any puppy-misbehavior.  hard-stare, growl, air-snap, muzzle-punch rarely; no pinning, 
no rolling.

i hope U are aware that anyone who establishes dominance with physical-force must be prepared to defend 
their dominant-status with possibly-escalating force, in the future? 
and that those who CANNOT force the dog, are put at risk? 
just sayin - several studies have been done, researching the outcome of varied training-methods used 
by pet-owners retrospectively, and the odds of a bite in all cases were increased by coercion, force, 
punitive training, aversive tools, and confrontation -

the most recent one that i recall off-hand was done by Univ of Penna Vet-College, and the conclusion 
was basically that aggressive-behavior by humans vastly-increased aggro-behavior in the dog-recipient. 
i would suggest U might check Ur homeowners insurance re dog-bites, just in case.

all my best, 
--- terry


----------



## Fyfer (Jan 23, 2010)

I just want to say that with my pup, I have never rolled him, pinned him, struck him or anything like that in developing bite-inhibition.

After reading lots and lots on the subject, I made my response to stop whatever we were doing and ignore him for a while. Often I gave an 'OUCH!' and visibly 'nursed' my 'wound', with sometimes an incredulous look tossed in. 

Then an opportunity to do it right after a few minutes.

He had an incredibly soft mouth and amazing bite inhibition. AND he's my newest best friend.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this is a copy of a post from another list, posted WITH the authors permission - 
thanks, *wilma! :thumbup: 


> _Tue Jan 5, 2010 7:34 am
> 
> Re: vid-clip of jumping-dog learning alt-beh
> 
> ...


the 'jumping-dog' she refers to is the video-log of Layla, the guided-missile Golden Retriever :lol: on UTube. 
i found this to be a WONDERFUL story, especially the dogs collecting 25 AKC-event titles - so i asked to X-post, 
if that was allowed, and for the breeds of her dogs - here is her reply - 


> *bold added - *
> 
> _Our Terriers are *Charlie, a Westie* that came *from a from a pet-store, he was our first, and is now 9-YO;*
> then we have *Kayla, a Border Terrier who came from a "good breeder" - she is 4-YO. She was/is reactive and this sent me on a path to find a better way. Trainers in my area use and teach leash pops and the first night of a new class most/many dogs are fitted with a prong collar...*
> ...


i thought this was truly remarkable, and told *wilma so, too - :thumbup:

competing with a dog-reactive dog in an AKC-venue is a real challenge - and to have earned titles on that dog? 
amazing - her over-the-top Terrierrrist has obviously come a long, long way, and so have *wilma's handling 
and training skills.

do i think rolling or pinning would have accomplished the same? :scared: :lol: in a word - _*No.*_  
cheers, 
--- terry


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> this is a copy of a post from another list, posted WITH the authors permission -


I've been using the Look At That game with Merlin for about a month or so now, and it is remarkable. He is already clicker-trained so it's automatic to turn to me when he hears a click. It worked the very first time I tried it. He's nowhere near perfect and it doesn't work *every* time, but I now have a way to _successfully_ interrupt him before he starts to react. When reacting of course, he is like most dogs, not interested in food and focussed on what he's reacting to (other dogs/teenagers on bikes etc).

But on one or two occasions when he has started to react, I have even been able to say Look at that! and because he now also knows the verbal cue, he will stop barking/lunging enough for me to click him for looking, then orient himself to me for a treat... Then we walk quietly on.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

There is huge responsibility in using aversives and it is, to me, inexcusable to subject a dog to aversive treatment when the human has not sufficiently proofed appropriate behaviour (such as sitting to greet etc.).
That is what management is for - such dogs should not be off leash so as they don't injure people or scare people or otherwise cause a nuisance.

My choice to not use aversives is not absolute - I have just been able to develop an alternative without having to resort to aversives. My feeling and it is shared with many is that aversives are resorted to far too early. And once you have them in your toolbox it is all too easy to reach for them again and again.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

this is a post of mine from another list - a fellow-member claimed that **evolution was still being tested**, 
 which i found as amazing as black-holes and deep-ocean smokeholes, but much funnier.

s/he also said that *skinners research on behavior + reward is not used or seen as 'proven', anymore* - 
which i definitely disagree with, classical-conditioning AKA stimulus or context associations are constant, 
whether those associations are planned or accidental, traumatic or happy, deliberate or sheer coincidence. 


> _post: Dec 20, 2009; 4:19 pm
> 
> hey, XXXX :--)
> 
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> I've been using the Look At That game with Merlin for about a month or so now, and it is remarkable. He is already clicker-trained so it's automatic to turn to me when he hears a click. It worked the very first time I tried it. ...it doesn't work *every* time, but I now have a way to _successfully_ interrupt him before he starts to react. When reacting of course, he is like most dogs, not interested in food and focused on what he's reacting to (other dogs/teenagers on bikes etc).
> 
> But *on one or two occasions when he has started to react, I *_have even been able to *say Look at that! and* because he now also knows the verbal cue, *he will stop barking/lunging enough for me to click him for looking, then orient himself to me for a treat... Then we walk quietly on. *_


_
*yay, Merlin! :thumbup: that is great progress, good on ya, sue! :thumbsup: *_


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> *yay, Merlin! :thumbup: that is great progress, good on ya, sue! :thumbsup: *[/I]


Thank you 

Sunday will be a bit of a test for him, though. There's a fun dog show in our local park, which is probably his idea of hell with so many dogs around. I'm not going to enter him in the show, but I can approach the dog show from the other end of the park allowing a lot of distance, and we'll see how he goes and how his threshold holds out. Then I'll take him home, and go to the show by myself!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

MerlinsMum said:


> Sunday... There's a fun dog show in our local park... I'm not going to enter him in the show, but I can approach
> the dog show from the other end of the park allowing a lot of distance, and we'll see how he goes and how his threshold holds out. Then I'll take him home, and go to the show by myself!


go for it! :001_cool: good luck, hun - i hope he is brilliant.


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> I disagree - you set yourself up for failure before the dog has even got there.
> 
> The jumping up and mouthing is a separate issue as far as training goes - each thing has to be trained separately.
> 
> ...





leashedForLife said:


> hey, lucy! :--)
> :lol: shades of the Dawg-Wrassler,  if U can afford to fiddle-about, U use 'more positive[ly reinforcing] methods',
> but otherwise just wade-in and Alpha-roll em...  oh, my.
> 
> ...


So when my bitch holds her puppies mouth in hers, and places a paw on it's back when it nips at her is something i imagining on a daily basis is it.

Again just another example if you share different opinions, you are cruel and wrong. I appreciate your way may well work, but quite frankly, I am not prepared to take the risk of any of *MY (AND I REPEAT MY)* dogs to be put in a position where they will hurt anyone. As I said I will be going through classes again with my new pup and I will try the approaches, always open to better more effective methods. Think I actually posted that on an earlier post too, and are we forgetting that my theory was purely hypothetical. But know some poeple just like to pick a fight. I have never hurt my dog with physical corrections, never would.


----------



## Lucy1012 (May 23, 2010)

In defence of positive reinforcement, I have only tried it on 1 dog, 7 years ago and she didn't respond to it at all she was a nightmare, and I vowed not to rely soley on this method again. Whether the problem was me doing it wrong or the dog not getting it, whos to knows. Our last pup (now 3) again responded to some parts but not others and I tried the loud ouch, or the leaving the room tatics for biting she was still biting at 6/7 months which is way too old. I will try the hands off approach again, but if this pup doesn't cotton on quick enough. I will use alternative methods, proven to work in the past for me.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> Again just another example if you share different opinions, you are cruel and wrong.


Where has anyone said you are cruel?



> I am not prepared to take the risk of any of MY (AND I REPEAT MY) dogs to be put in a position where they will hurt anyone.


That's good, but I think you may be missing the point that the methods you used could well put them in that position even if not intended.



> But know some poeple just like to pick a fight.


Nobody's trying to pick a fight, but this is a public forum and advice is sought and these threads are read by many, not just those posting or those who are members and it is only responsible to point out the dangers when questionable advice is given.

Your methods may have worked for you, but, there are dangers associated with such methods - and as I don't have much of a way with words I will quote Terry


> hope U are aware that anyone who establishes dominance with physical-force must be prepared to defend
> their dominant-status with possibly-escalating force, in the future?
> and that those who CANNOT force the dog, are put at risk?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> There is huge responsibility in using aversives and it is, to me, inexcusable to subject a dog to aversive treatment when the human has not sufficiently proofed appropriate behaviour (such as sitting to greet etc.).
> That is what management is for - such dogs should not be off leash so as they don't injure people or scare people or otherwise cause a nuisance.
> 
> My choice to not use aversives is not absolute - I have just been able to develop an alternative without having to resort to aversives. My feeling and it is shared with many is that aversives are resorted to far too early. And once you have them in your toolbox it is all too easy to reach for them again and again.


Completely agree - great post.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lucy1012 said:


> So when my bitch holds her puppies mouth in hers, and places a paw on it's back when it nips at her is something i imagining on a daily basis is it.


The flaw in that justification, is that we *DO NOT* want dogs to behave with humans, as they do with other dogs without human supervision. You know that when dogs are feral, dogs do kill each other in the daily struggle for resources.

Do you see dogs, training other dogs to sit, stay, come on recall and leave food that's lying around on command? All unnatural behaviours.

Furthermore we have scientific animal behavoural research to inform us. Thanks to our intelligence and ability to share information culturally, we have far more tools available than a dog's dam. So we should use the best methods known, not blindly follow tradition.


----------

