# Positive Reinforcement training questions



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

All,
I have been doing some research on Positive Reinforcement training methods and I am curious on a few scenarios how this method works for certain things. I trained my dog certain commands (sit, down, stay, etc.) using +R only. But how does +R work to teach unwanted behaviors?

How would you train your dog to stop chewing on something using Positive Reinforcement only?
How would you use +R to stop your dog from play biting too hard with another dog?
What about high distraction situations, when the distraction (another dog, person, etc.) is more motivating to your dog than your treat? How do you handle those situations?

I am only asking because I am trying to learn and expand my training knowledge. I have successfully trained my dog in all of these situations, however, I have not used +R only. I am curious how +R would be used to train these situations.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Sp00ks (Nov 8, 2013)

Subscribing to this one as I'm curious about the scenarios you have outlined as well. I was about to contract my trainer with nearly these exact questions. (It's been 10 years since we last trained a pup)

I have seen people talk about +R and use prong collars or E collars. I'd like an explanation on that as well. It just doesn't seem like +R. I'm not saying I don't agree with some of the training tools but I don't see how they can be claimed as +R. 

In our case, a High distraction could be a stick or blowing leaf at this point


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

I hear ya. I would love to train +R only. Prong and E-collars are definetly not +R. I currently use Prong and E-collar and I do not enjoy using corrections with my dog, but it has worked very well.
I trying to understand how to use +R only to train this behaviors / situations instead of a Prong and E-collar. People always mention +R only and I am curious how they would handle this scenarios.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I think for most +R "only" exists only in the mind  

To take one scenario, dogs or other things being more highly prized than you and what to do about it.

First, you really need to know your dog and what it is ready for, next is managing that. You have to keep them from self rewarding on something that is higher value than you at that moment. I always use a drag line I can step on.

Not completely +R because if they try and leave, they do hit the end of the leash. It's more teaching them that they can't just check out and go do what they want and when they get frustrated, they come back and find great stuff still comes from me. That happens very infrequently because I don't put my dogs in that position.

You always have to be mindful of what is going on around you and how competing the distractions are. If you build it right, you don't have a dog that just checks out and goes for whatever it wants, but in the real world with real people and real dogs, you don't always get it "right" and there will be times you're in a situation that will call for something else.

Usually just by limiting what a dog can do during "learning" and building up to more and more competing distractions in a controlled environment, you can eliminate so much of what others struggle with all the time in training. 

Chewing on things? that's a management thing. puppies chew, give them appropriate things, remove other things and limit their options.

I don't know how you'd control play biting, that's not something I think is worth even trying to think thru how I'd simulate that and transfer it to dog/dog interactions. I can certainly stop play at any point by giving them another command i've taught thru +R interactions and then let them resume when they've calmed a bit. But I don't think that's what you're asking. 

+R only usually means +R "mostly" in the real world


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Remember what +R really means. You can't really talk about one quadrant of operant conditioning without understanding all four. "Reinforcement" means the behavior happens more frequently; "punishment" means the behavior happens less frequency, to the point of "extinction". So based on the actual theory behind the terms, you *can't* use +R to stop a dog from chewing shoes, etc. What you CAN do is simply manage the environment and/or reinforce incompatible behaviors. I can "reinforce" my puppy chewing a Nylabone and playing tug on a tug toy without having to "punish" him for chewing shoes.


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

> How would you train your dog to stop chewing on something using Positive Reinforcement only?


DW posted this vid in another thread.

Pretty interesting technique and perspective on training an off command with positive only methods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndTiVOCNY4M

A similar theory is to offer a new toy or ball or tug in return for dropping another.



> What about high distraction situations, when the distraction (another dog, person, etc.) is more motivating to your dog than your treat?...I am curious how +R would be used to train these situations.


The environment needs to be controlled and the dogs obedience or compliance needs to be built up introducing distractions over time. 

Also if you really build drive for a toy, the dogs desire to get it out weighs it's interest in distractions.

But still that is the theory, if your dog is staring at a cat and ready to chase a little negative reinforcement is needed.


----------



## Sp00ks (Nov 8, 2013)

> I can certainly stop play at any point by giving them another command i've taught thru +R interactions and then let them resume when they've calmed a bit. But I don't think that's what you're asking.


Personally, I have started doing just that. Too soon to tell how well it's working. I know he is amped up and doesn't want to do anything but continue playing. However, I make him sit until I can let him go and he remains sitting while the distraction is still present. When I can tell his heart rate and breathing have dropped, I'll let him resume play. "Free"


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

+R only is pretty impossible anyway. Anytime the dog doesn't perform a behavior or performs the wrong one and you withhold reward you're technically doing -P at that point.

I'll take a shot at it though.

In the case of getting the dog to stop mouthing something you teach the off command with the treat in the hand you want the dog to stop mouthing. There is a tab dog training video on YouTube if you need to see an example. When they stop messing with it you mark reward. You can generalize that with other objects. I know because I have.

In the case of the last two you don't use treats as the reward. You use what the dog wants in those scenarios as the reward. You wait until they do whatever you want from them before allowing them to do what they want to do. This of course assumes you can actually do that. They might want to hump some poor little old lady's leg. If you go this route you might need to set up scenarios to teach it. As before there are elements of negative punishment in there but I don't really think those are avoidable.

Liesje is technically correct though. You aren't stopping a behavior in those cases you are just creating an alternative incompatible behavior the dog could choose over the behavior you don't want.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

+R doesn't mean you should never punish your dog. Punishment in these newer techniques consist of withholding the payoff the dog is seeking. For instance: if your dog tries to bolt out the door as soon as you open it and you close the door in front him, he is punished and learns that when he acts this way, he is not going anywhere. Punishment doesn't have to equal choking, applying electric shocks, hitting, yelling or anything else people come up with. And yes, controlling the environment makes your job a whole lot easier. If a pup never has had the opportunity to chew on shoes he will not consider them toys when he is grown up.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

wolfy dog said:


> +R doesn't mean you should never punish your dog. Punishment in these newer techniques consist of withholding the payoff the dog is seeking. For instance: if your dog tries to bolt out the door as soon as you open it and you close the door in front him, he is punished and learns that when he acts this way, he is not going anywhere. Punishment doesn't have to equal choking, applying electric shocks, hitting, yelling or anything else people come up with. And yes, controlling the environment makes your job a whole lot easier. If a pup never has had the opportunity to chew on shoes he will not consider them toys when he is grown up.


I agree but people should be clear that this is not "positive reinforcement". -P is -P, not +R. I agree with previous posters that training a dog completely +R is basically impossible. There is also classical conditioning at play as well.


----------



## howlk9 (Jan 29, 2012)

"I agree but people should be clear that this is not "positive reinforcement". -P is -P, not +R. I agree with previous posters that training a dog completely +R is basically impossible. There is also classical conditioning at play as well. "
I think that's why you're starting to hear people talk about "force free" training instead of the _positive reinforcement _and the _all-positive _wording that was popular in recent years.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanks to all for your replies. These are very helpful.

A few comments:
I do not want to alter my environment to prevent my dog from chewing on something that she is not supposed to. I want to teach her not to chew on it. I have already done this, but not using +R techniques. 

I am not sure what toy or treat people are using for their dog, but my dog loves people and other dogs. She gets super excited when they are present. There is no food or toy to break her distraction for obeying a command, except for physical correction.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

wolfy dog said:


> +R doesn't mean you should never punish your dog. Punishment in these newer techniques consist of withholding the payoff the dog is seeking. For instance: if your dog tries to bolt out the door as soon as you open it and you close the door in front him, he is punished and learns that when he acts this way, he is not going anywhere. Punishment doesn't have to equal choking, applying electric shocks, hitting, yelling or anything else people come up with. And yes, controlling the environment makes your job a whole lot easier. If a pup never has had the opportunity to chew on shoes he will not consider them toys when he is grown up.


OK, so what do you do when they disobey a command during a distraction? How does the dog know that it did something wrong without any correction?


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> +R only is pretty impossible anyway. Anytime the dog doesn't perform a behavior or performs the wrong one and you withhold reward you're technically doing -P at that point.
> 
> I'll take a shot at it though.
> 
> ...


What if the dog chews on it only when you are not present? How do you teach the "off" command if you don't catch them in the act?

So for the scenario with my dog play biting with another dog, I keep removing my dog from playing everytime she bites? How does she know why she is being removed? How will she learn not to bite?

I am only asking for clarity, not trying to argue. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

dpc134 said:


> A few comments:
> I do not want to alter my environment to prevent my dog from chewing on something that she is not supposed to. I want to teach her not to chew on it. I have already done this, but not using +R techniques.


You can't do this using +R because it is a *reinforcer* meaning the behavior happens more often.

Many people train by management early on. Prevention can be a form of training (more like a tool used alongside training). All my dogs are OK being free in the house and won't destroy shoes but they were certainly not born that way.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

howlk9 said:


> I think that's why you're starting to hear people talk about "force free" training instead of the _positive reinforcement _and the _all-positive _wording that was popular in recent years.


I agree, I'm not a "force free" trainer but I think it's a more appropriate catch phrase.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Management in the early weeks is key. It is like turning a toddler loose in some old lady's house with a porcelain collection. They are not ready to listen/obey yet in front of all these temptations. And it is not fair to correct them either constantly.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Whenever you punish a dog for chewing on something you're essentially teaching them to not chew on it in your presence. Some dogs won't touch it again especially if you get them on the first time they mess with it but some just wait till you leave the room. To positive train or punish away the behavior you have to get tricky. You set up stings and redirect behaviors or punish the behavior you don't want. If you wanted to positive train it you'd need a hide or baby monitor or one of those devices that mark rewards with a sound by remote control. Whenever I have issues with that problem in particular I generally use bitter apple or management.

For the play biting thing you mark the behavior you don't want with a no, and then pull the puppy away for a 6 second time out or so then let the pup go to play again. The dog figures it out.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

As far as dog interactions go, personally I've only ever used management. I've never successfully "trained" a dog to behave a certain way around another dog. I do train them to perform incompatible behaviors (like, sit in heel position and look at me rather than run off and greet every dog within 100 yards). I let the dogs correct each other or invite/reward play by reciprocating. If one dog is really pesky/pushy and does not get the point from the other dog, then they just aren't put together. What is "play biting too hard" to one dog might be perfectly acceptable to another and a lot of this is based on genetics like breed and temperament. Of all the battles to pick with my dogs (so to speak) using +R to do that sort of behavior modification isn't high on my priority list and I don't know how well it would work as a permanent solution.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Just my humble opinion here....training a dog using +P requires patience on the handler's part in the beginning. Really pay attention to the puppy/dog and learn their unique body language. Find out what your dog/puppy considers high value (not what you think should be high value). Set up scenarios where the puppy/dog can succeed. Take baby steps and reward hugely. 

Again, in my experiance, I find a dog trained using +R, is really, really focused on the handler and complies because it wants to and is happy to, not because the dog doesn't want the correction. For me...that is the fun part of training. Not just a well trained dog, but a dog who is full of confidence, love of life and thinks I rock.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

dpc134 said:


> Thanks to all for your replies. These are very helpful.
> 
> A few comments:
> I do not want to alter my environment to prevent my dog from chewing on something that she is not supposed to. I want to teach her not to chew on it. I have already done this, but not using +R techniques.


You can only expect so much from puppies. Puppies chew, and they don't change overnight, as their attention span is so short. It takes a LOT of repetition for them to learn, so managing their environment to keep them safe is a must until they are older. Eventually they out-grow the chewing everything stage and learn to chew on their toys only. 



> I am not sure what toy or treat people are using for their dog, but my dog loves people and other dogs. She gets super excited when they are present. There is no food or toy to break her distraction for obeying a command, except for physical correction.


Not toys or treats, but the way I raised my dog so he believes I'm the best, funnest thing around. First year I had him, limited interaction with my other dog, very limited interaction with other dogs, tons and tons and tons of one-on-one play and training. He is outgoing and friendly and I have no problems with him wanting to play with other people, but I'm the best person to play with, and he drops everything and has nothing but focus on me if it's play time - or he thinks it's play time, when in reality, I'm training for obedience. Granted, part of it is his personality and breeding, but a big part of it is how he was raised. 

If your puppy would rather play with other dogs and other people, I would limit the time he gets with them, and up the time and intensity and fun with just the two of you.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> For the play biting thing you mark the behavior you don't want with a no, and then pull the puppy away for a 6 second time out or so then let the pup go to play again. The dog figures it out.


Why not just use an E-collar? In 30 seconds, the problem is corrected. Again, I am asking to learn, not trying to start an argument. 
My brother has a dog who does not listen when playing with another dog. He does not believe in prong or e-collar or any physical correction other than leash. His dog will ignore his commands when playing, he goes over and takes the dog by the collar and puts him in time out, then lets him play again after the dog calms down. The next command given, still dog doesnt obey and so he repeats. This has been going on for 3 years. The dog has patience and just waits it out. Why not use physical correction to make the dog uncomfortable and teach the dog that it is unacceptable to not obey my commands?


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> Whenever you punish a dog for chewing on something you're essentially teaching them to not chew on it in your presence. Some dogs won't touch it again especially if you get them on the first time they mess with it but some just wait till you leave the room.


Why wouldn't the dog do the same with +R? Why would the dog only chew on it when the owner is not present with punishment, but not +R? 
If you aren't there to re-direct, will the dog not chew on it? If you do a "stake out" and wait for the dog to chew on it when you are in "hiding" and then use +R when you catch your dog in the act, can't you do the same, but use physical correction?
I am just trying to understand the "correction" method with +R method.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

I don't have issue with physical corrections for that kind of thing, I was just giving you an example of how it can be done not necessarily how I would do it. This thread was about +r and your questions seemed focused on that.

As long as you are marking your punishments and rewards and being clear and consistent with the dog do what you gotta do, within reason ofc.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Lilie said:


> Just my humble opinion here....training a dog using +P requires patience on the handler's part in the beginning. Really pay attention to the puppy/dog and learn their unique body language. Find out what your dog/puppy considers high value (not what you think should be high value). Set up scenarios where the puppy/dog can succeed. Take baby steps and reward hugely.
> 
> Again, in my experiance, I find a dog trained using +R, is really, really focused on the handler and complies because it wants to and is happy to, not because the dog doesn't want the correction. For me...that is the fun part of training. Not just a well trained dog, but a dog who is full of confidence, love of life and thinks I rock.


I 100% agree with you. But this doesn't answer how to train using +R with the scenarios mentioned.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

dpc134 said:


> Why wouldn't the dog do the same with +R? Why would the dog only chew on it when the owner is not present with punishment, but not +R?
> If you aren't there to re-direct, will the dog not chew on it? If you do a "stake out" and wait for the dog to chew on it when you are in "hiding" and then use +R when you catch your dog in the act, can't you do the same, but use physical correction?
> I am just trying to understand the "correction" method with +R method.


I think I wasn't clear. The dog will be taught about the owner being present whether or not positive reinforcement or punishment is used. Using the stake out method both +r and +p methods work.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> I don't have issue with physical corrections for that kind of thing, I was just giving you an example of how it can be done not necessarily how I would do it. This thread was about +r and your questions seemed focused on that.
> 
> As long as you are marking your punishments and rewards and being clear and consistent with the dog do what you gotta do, within reason ofc.


Makes sense, thanks.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

dpc134 said:


> Why not just use an E-collar? In 30 seconds, the problem is corrected. Again, I am asking to learn, not trying to start an argument.


An e-collar can be used for -R, +P, even +R (as a marker on tone or vibrate) so it's not as simple as "use an e-collar". The collar is just a tool; it doesn't imply the theory/method being used or the step-by-step implementation.



> My brother has a dog who does not listen when playing with another dog. He does not believe in prong or e-collar or any physical correction other than leash. His dog will ignore his commands when playing, he goes over and takes the dog by the collar and puts him in time out, then lets him play again after the dog calms down. The next command given, still dog doesnt obey and so he repeats. This has been going on for 3 years. The dog has patience and just waits it out. Why not use physical correction to make the dog uncomfortable and teach the dog that it is unacceptable to not obey my commands?


Good question. This is not training and the dog has not been proofed. He has proven he doesn't know the command, or, at least doesn't understand it in this context. The dog needs to be *trained*, not just expected to know the command and obey. A physical correction is one of many ways to do that.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> I think I wasn't clear. The dog will be taught about the owner being present whether or not positive reinforcement or punishment is used. Using the stake out method both +r and +p methods work.


Ok, that makes sense. I do like your idea of a "stake out" to try and catch the dog in the act. They are smart and hard to catch. Funny thing is, I know exactly when she did something wrong as soon as I walk in because she has that look on her face. They know when they are doing wrong, the hard part is convincing them that it isnt worth it.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

There's a balance to be struck there. I've seen dogs trained on prong collars using +p and -r and -p only and once they figured out how to avoid the pressure they were confident, happy, and did the behaviors with enthusiasm. Figure that one out. The behavior itself can be made a reward. Tact is key. Dog training is an art. Training with pressure is just as much of an art as positive reinforcement based methods.

You can reward with a tug, you can punish with that same tug without ruining the way a dog thinks about that tug. 

What a lot of people won't tell you. You know how you make a dog perform behaviors super quick and flashy? It isn't the +r that does it (normally). It's the -r layered over it.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Baillif said:


> There's a balance to be struck there. I've seen dogs trained on prong collars using +p and -r and -p only and once they figured out how to avoid the pressure they were confident, happy, and did the behaviors with enthusiasm. Figure that one out. The behavior itself can be made a reward. Tact is key. Dog training is an art. Training with pressure is just as much if an art as positive reinforcement based methods.
> 
> You can reward with a tug, you can punish with that same tug without ruining the way a dog thinks about that tug.
> 
> What a lot of people won't tell you. You know how you make a dog perform behaviors super quick and flashy? It isn't the +r that does it. It's the -r layered over it.


Yes, look at Bart Bellon videos. He does "NePoPo" meaning a negative paired with two positive (so I guess for any correction or -R avoidance, the dog gets double the reward/praise). IMO, operant conditioning works best when most or all of the quadrants are used (I struggle with -P). However this assumes that the dog is a very stable dog, not overly handler soft, and enjoys training. Some dogs have issues that inform what tools and methods are appropriate regardless of their effectiveness "on paper".


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

Sp00ks said:


> I have seen people talk about +R and use prong collars or E collars. I'd like an explanation on that as well. It just doesn't seem like +R. I'm not saying I don't agree with some of the training tools but I don't see how they can be claimed as +R.


Are they referring to prong collars and e-collars as "reinforcement?" Because that could be accurate. You can use those tools to reinforce behaviors by taking away negative stimulus. In operant conditioning terms that would be called negative reinforcement. You could also use the e-collar the same way as a clicker on vibrate, which is what some people do with deaf dogs.

Side note: I had a discussion with a positive trainer once about the appropriate use of aversives to prevent dangerous or psychologically damaging situations from occurring (i.e. better to suppress bad behavior than have it cause a dog fight). They ended up agreeing with me that it was appropriate but disagreed that it constituted training. For them, it constituted management and they didn't believe the dog would learn anything from the situation. So yeah, even a positive trainer might resort to aversives in a pinch, they will just deny that they are training and say that it was an emergency management technique. You can see this in Sophia Yin's videos where she is jerking a dog around on a head halter. So that's how some people get around it, philosophically.

There are some extreme people out there that even believe that a "no reward" marker is damaging to a dog. I don't really get it. I understand that if you use NRMs incorrectly, you will kill the desire to learn quickly, but I don't see how their use itself is a bad thing. That is one side of positive only training. But I think that's very extreme and most people would agree even if they use +R that bad behavior still has to have consequences, it just doesn't merit physical punishment.

I have had the same issues vis a vis distraction proofing that you are describing. I think +R is most effective when you can control the environment, because then you can always set the dog up for success and control the level of distraction. If you can't control the environment, it will still work but it will take a lot longer. For your example of being distracted by other dogs or people, you have to find the "thinking and learning zone," the distance at which your dog is still deciding whether or not to pay attention to you, and reward them consistently when they do pay attention (sometimes with prompting). Then you can gradually decrease the distance. Yes, it is possible to teach reliable behaviors this way. For example, in an environment I *can* control (the kitchen) I can work with my dog with tasty food all over the floor and she won't touch it, because we started with her leaving food alone in my hand, then leaving food alone in my open hand, then leaving food alone on the floor. She learned that making the choice to leave it alone would more consistently result in a reward in the long run than trying to get the food. In fact, leaving the food alone results in a reward 100% of the time, lunging for the food results in a reward 0% of the time. You can apply this principle to anything, but_ only if you can control the environment._ 

BTW this did not take long to teach because it was easy to set the dog up for success. Much harder to do this when you can't control the movement of other people or dogs. So in your case, paying attention to you instead of the other people/dogs needs to result in a reward 100% of the time, and losing focus needs to result in some kind of negative punishment. It should never result in the dog gaining attention from the people or other dogs (good luck with that! This is why +R in a skinner box works much better than +R in real life). Usually withdrawing from the distraction is negative punishment, but I haven't had much luck with that because I don't have the same problem. For my dog, retreating is actually a functional reward because she is uncomfortable.

Anyway that was just a really long-winded way of explaining how you can handle distraction-proofing. It's just showing the dog that certain behaviors are more rewarding than others. Will it work off-lead with squirrels and cats? I doubt it. I used a prong collar for cat-proofing and I'm really glad I did.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

dpc134 said:


> I 100% agree with you. But this doesn't answer how to train using +R with the scenarios mentioned.


You posted in another thread how you were having problems with your pup obeying the comand sit for more than a few seconds. Try to consider the 'why?'. 

Scenairo: You are standing. You ask your dog to 'sit'. It fronts and sits right in front of you. Your reward the behavior. 

....and then what do you do?

Do you stare at your dog and keep saying "Sit" (or stay) ? Nagging. Your dog is saying, "What the hec? You asked me to sit, you rewarded and now you keep saying it? What am I supposed to do? She's lost her head! She's making me nervous. I'm going to go get a toy and see if I can fix this!" and off it goes. 

Do you reward "Good sit!!!" and give a treat, then walk off? Your dog thinks, "Yea, I'm the boss. I got the reward! I want something else! Hey! Mom!" and off it goes. 

The question is why is your dog not remaining in the sit command. The answer is you haven't taught it. At least not to the level your dog understands what it is you want. 

Make it a game. Sit on the floor. Go through a few of the easy commands and reward. Make sure your dog is focused on you. Ask it to sit. reward. (you stay in sitting on the ground). "Good sit!" reward. (pause) "Good sit!" reward. (pause) "Good sit!" reward. Stop the game before your dog breaks. Baby steps. 

Next training session, still make it a game. You sitting on the floor with your dog. Just have a longer pause between rewards. Build from that. You stand up, do exactly what you did in the beginning sitting on the floor on the first session. Make sure your dog understands. Then take a few steps....then leave the room...ect. 

BTW - I'm not saying I've never corrected any of my dogs. I can say that I won't correct a dog for a behavior that it has no idea is wrong. If my dog chews on my kitchen table, I should be corrected for not supervising.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Super soft dogs just mean more tact needs to be used. It's really why to become really really good at training you need to train a crap ton of dogs under the supervision of someone who is a great trainer and instructor. All the reading and theory in the world can't give you the ability to "feel" what needs to be done with a dog. It can't give you the consistency and the timing. You learn to be empathetic with the dogs when you're training them as you're being trained. You're on the dog about his behaviors and someone else is in you about yours.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

I think the idea behind nrm's being potentially bad depends a lot on how you use it and the dog. If you punish a dog when you're saying no frequently then no carries some past baggage with it and shouldn't be used as an nrm. The word no in that case was used as a conditioned punisher. It predicts punishment for the dog and if the dog is learning something new and all of a sudden hears no which predicts punishment the dog starts to get iffy about the situation quickly. You should use one that carries less weight like wrong or uh oh. Something more neutral.

The other factor to be worried about is motivation if a dog is wrong too often. Lots of dogs out there hate being wrong and get frustrated easily. In those cases they might quit working but that really isn't the nrm's fault. It is generally errors made on the part of the trainer. A frustrated dog can potentially fall apart and be wrong more often because of its emotional state.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Lilie said:


> You posted in another thread how you were having problems with your pup obeying the comand sit for more than a few seconds. Try to consider the 'why?'.
> 
> Scenairo: You are standing. You ask your dog to 'sit'. It fronts and sits right in front of you. Your reward the behavior.
> 
> ...


I am not sure what thread you are referring to. 
I have no issues with my dog in sit command.


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

Kaimeju said:


> Side note: I had a discussion with a positive trainer once about the appropriate use of aversives to prevent dangerous or psychologically damaging situations from occurring (i.e. better to suppress bad behavior than have it cause a dog fight). They ended up agreeing with me that it was appropriate but disagreed that it constituted training. For them, it constituted management and they didn't believe the dog would learn anything from the situation. So yeah, even a positive trainer might resort to aversives in a pinch, they will just deny that they are training and say that it was an emergency management technique. You can see this in Sophia Yin's videos where she is jerking a dog around on a head halter. So that's how some people get around it, philosophically.
> 
> There are some extreme people out there that even believe that a "no reward" marker is damaging to a dog. I don't really get it. I understand that if you use NRMs incorrectly, you will kill the desire to learn quickly, but I don't see how their use itself is a bad thing. That is one side of positive only training. But I think that's very extreme and most people would agree even if they use +R that bad behavior still has to have consequences, it just doesn't merit physical punishment.
> 
> ...


I like your post.

My trainer summed it up as basically this: training needs to be balanced. To _teach_ something _new_, positive reinforcement is best. You teach the dog what thing earns a reward. 
But the other half of the picture comes in in proofing...what happens when the bigger reward is chasing the squirrel across the yard and blowing you off? Positive reinforcement definitely has its place in puppies and new behaviors, but when your dog KNOWS a command and can do it reliably in a non-distracting environment, it's either 1) control the environment, or 2) be at a constant battle to find rewards better than everything else (squirrels, dogs walking by, etc), or 3) Go through a correction phase. Doesn't mean it needs to be harsh, just means the command has two sides: you do it, bonus - you get rewarded, you dont do it, boo - you get a correction. For my dog the correction phase doesn't last long, and it becomes very clear to her that commands are not something that are a choice, and if she just does them and 'gets them over with' I'm happy, and then she is released to go back and do whatever she wants.
She likes doing them a lot more now too because its very clear to her exactly what I want


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

dpc134 said:


> I am not sure what thread you are referring to.
> I have no issues with my dog in sit command.


Ooops...sorry. Knocked on the wrong door. Guess that's why I wasn't rewarded...


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

mego said:


> I like your post.
> 
> My trainer summed it up as basically this: training needs to be balanced. To _teach_ something _new_, positive reinforcement is best. You teach the dog what thing earns a reward.
> But the other half of the picture comes in in proofing...what happens when the bigger reward is chasing the squirrel across the yard and blowing you off? Positive reinforcement definitely has its place in puppies and new behaviors, but when your dog KNOWS a command and can do it reliably in a non-distracting environment, it's either 1) control the environment, or 2) be at a constant battle to find rewards better than everything else (squirrels, dogs walking by, etc), or 3) Go through a correction phase. Doesn't mean it needs to be harsh, just means the command has two sides: you do it, bonus - you get rewarded, you dont do it, boo - you get a correction. For my dog the correction phase doesn't last long, and it becomes very clear to her that commands are not something that are a choice, and if she just does them and 'gets them over with' I'm happy, and then she is released to go back and do whatever she wants.
> She likes doing them a lot more now too because its very clear to her exactly what I want


Great explanation! This is exactly how I train my dog. I use Positive Reinforcement to teach the command/behavior, and when the command/behavior is understood and the puppy is at least 16-20 weeks old (depending on the puppy), I begin proofing, with distraction and corrections when necessary.


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

Baillif said:


> I think the idea behind nrm's being potentially bad depends a lot on how you use it and the dog. If you punish a dog when you're saying no frequently then no carries some past baggage with it and shouldn't be used as an nrm. The word no in that case was used as a conditioned punisher. It predicts punishment for the dog and if the dog is learning something new and all of a sudden hears no which predicts punishment the dog starts to get iffy about the situation quickly. You should use one that carries less weight like wrong or uh oh. Something more neutral.
> 
> The other factor to be worried about is motivation if a dog is wrong too often. Lots of dogs out there hate being wrong and get frustrated easily. In those cases they might quit working but that really isn't the nrm's fault. It is generally errors made on the part of the trainer. A frustrated dog can potentially fall apart and be wrong more often because of its emotional state.


I have definitely seen this happen. :thumbup: my dog hates being wrong, needs tons of encouragement to try new behaviors. I liked what you said about it being important to read the dog and develop empathy rather than stick to theory. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

> I'm the best, funnest thing around.


That is the key to +R. If your dog always look into your mouth just waiting for your words to fly out, watches your every motion at all times out of the corner of his eye - your training could be easy and +R only. Which shoes does your puppy chew? Your slipper while you are sitting now and typing a new post in this forum, or your shoe down in the corridor? There is a huge difference between two: in the first case he is trying to involve you in something and it is easy to redirect him to some toy to chew, in the second case your puppy is deprived of this "togetherness" and tries to amuse himself being left alone. 
Make your puppy ball mad and it will be the best tool in training with +R only. Have a ball in your pocket during your walks. If you see some dog your puppy is ready to run for - just flash the ball out of your pocket and start to walk in opposite direction. Repetition of such builds impression for him that, if he runs forward - the result would be you walking back with his ball, and he would face necessity to turn back after you instead of moving forward towards distracting object. You may say, here could be a problem to pass this dog with your puppy at your heel off leash. No problem, if he knows that his initiative to continue the motion forward unavoidably leads to divertion of the route for both of you. No verbal correction is required, no commands or recalls, everything is done in a complete silence with a use of the ball. Here you can pronounce only one command "Sit" if you want him to meet the dog, letting that dog to approach him in a sitting position. If he gets up - start walking away immediately.
Though, I'd put aside this biting. Use recall if you see him biting other dog too hard. It is not because he really wants that dog to cry, but up to his uncontrolable developing jaws. Don't wait when dog signals to him by crying, but signal yourself with your recall. Stop the play by recalling at the hottest moment.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

David Taggart said:


> Though, I'd put aside this biting. Use recall if you see him biting other dog too hard. It is not because he really wants that dog to cry, but up to his uncontrolable developing jaws. It is not that dog should signal to him by crying, but you signalling with your recall. Stop the play by recalling at the hottest moment.


Good advice. Thanks.
I don't have issues with my dog chewing. I was only using that as an example. 
For the play biting with the other dog: What do you do when the dog does not obey the recall command? What if the dog values playing more than coming to you? 
What if you have a dog with a play/prey drive so high that no matter how valuable and loving the dog sees you, they still just want to play rather than obey a recall. Why not use correction?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

OK I have such a dog. He is going on 8 years old. You CANNOT recall him when he's playing with another dog, or at the dog park, or doing anything he thinks is fun really. My answer is....I just don't bring him to play with other dogs if I need to recall him, or if I think there may be a safety issue and he needs to be recalled, he drags a thin check cord so I can "reel" him in. Again we just use this form of management where there are set times that he is playing with other dogs, not attempting to do obedience beyond his level of proofing. I want him to have fun with other dogs because he has always enjoyed it. He is a low drive dog, doesn't care about toys, doesn't care about food when other dogs are around, no motivation for training just for the sake of it. If a dog comes over for a play date, I know that I can't recall him so I don't keep yelling his name. I either let him play in a fully enclosed, safe space or I have a line on him so I can still control him.

Regardless of what method or tool is being used, you MUST set the dog up for success. It's not fair to keep trying to recall a dog who is blowing off the recall if you already know he won't do it. I don't call my dog unless I think he will obey, or I have a way of reinforcing my command ("reeling" him in).

The flip side is, anytime he "checks in" with me on his own, I throw him a little praise party and then give him the release word to go back and play with the other dogs. That way he's not associating me or the recall with being taken away from the play. He gets praise AND he gets to keep playing. Win win for him.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Don't recall dogs that are play fighting when stuff is about to get serious. You open the dog you recall up to retaliation or just an unexpected hit. They get punished for obeying you. Not good.

Recall is to me non negotiable. Once they know it through+r and -r and I know they know I punish for having it blown off.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Liesje said:


> OK I have such a dog. He is going on 8 years old. You CANNOT recall him when he's playing with another dog, or at the dog park, or doing anything he thinks is fun really. My answer is....I just don't bring him to play with other dogs if I need to recall him, or if I think there may be a safety issue and he needs to be recalled, he drags a thin check cord so I can "reel" him in. Again we just use this form of management where there are set times that he is playing with other dogs, not attempting to do obedience beyond his level of proofing. I want him to have fun with other dogs because he has always enjoyed it. He is a low drive dog, doesn't care about toys, doesn't care about food when other dogs are around, no motivation for training just for the sake of it. If a dog comes over for a play date, I know that I can't recall him so I don't keep yelling his name. I either let him play in a fully enclosed, safe space or I have a line on him so I can still control him.
> 
> Regardless of what method or tool is being used, you MUST set the dog up for success. It's not fair to keep trying to recall a dog who is blowing off the recall if you already know he won't do it. I don't call my dog unless I think he will obey, or I have a way of reinforcing my command ("reeling" him in).
> 
> The flip side is, anytime he "checks in" with me on his own, I throw him a little praise party and then give him the release word to go back and play with the other dogs. That way he's not associating me or the recall with being taken away from the play. He gets praise AND he gets to keep playing. Win win for him.


Have you tried E-collar or prong collar correction to train recall?


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Having tools is great but you don't need them in that case. You can punish independently of the collars and the dog should know this. They don't recall because they have a prong on or a leash on or a long line or an e collar. They recall because if they don't something bad will happen, and if they do something great will happen everytime.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> Recall is to me non negotiable. Once they know it through+r and -r and I know they know I punish for having it blown off.


I agree. A solid recall could save a dog's life. This is one command that I expect to be followed regardless of what is happening around them. I do not want to manage or control their environment in order to set them up for success when I recall them. I expect my dog to obey everytime and anytime and anywhere that I recall.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

dpc134 said:


> I agree. A solid recall could save a dog's life. This is one command that I expect to be followed regardless of what is happening around them. I do not want to manage or control their environment in order to set them up for success when I recall them. I expect my dog to obey everytime and anytime and anywhere that I recall.


I agree, so I just DONT let him off lead and then recall him repeatedly when I know he won't do it. He is not off leash in open spaces. In fact, the only places he is allowed off lead is in my yard and at one baseball field. Other fields/yards, even fenced, he is still tethered while free to play and run, if that's why we are there. If we are there to train, he's on a short lead with a prong and high value food rewards working at a fair distance from other dogs/distractions. I don't need to prove I can spend 200 hours attempting to achieve a perfect recall when I can just keep him on a line and have full control 100% of the time. My GSDs are a completely different story, mostly off leash from day one, learning recalls from day one (but they don't have the "history" that the other dog has).

I guess I don't understand where you're coming from asking how to train a dog completely +R but suggesting prong and e-collars?


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

dpc134 said:


> I do not want to manage or control their environment in order to set them up for success when I recall them.


So what, you want to set them up for failure?


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

A reliably trained dog using +R only is a pipe dream unless you have a really soft dog that lives only to please you. I personally dont like that type of dog, I might pay money to watch someone train my current pup with +R only..lol.
I find a lot of people tell stories on the internet about how they trained the dog completly with plusR then in reality you find the dog is not reliable under distraction or even trained well period. Watching a lady do this at my club its amusing and frustrating because the dog gets nowhere and achieves nothing in the end.


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

> What if you have a dog with a play/prey drive so high that no matter how valuable and loving the dog sees you, they still just want to play rather than obey a recall. Why not use correction?


It will depend on what you use your recall for. Try to put yourself in his hide, or, bring up a similar situation with yourself. Say, you are playing football with your friends, the game is amazing and you cannot hear recalls ... Of whom? Here I want to stress. If it was your coach, who simply wants to tell you something unimportant as he always does - it would be one story, but the story would be different if it was a coach who tells you something very important, then you definitely would come to him, you would be aware of his presence on the field during the game. So is with the dogs, the only person they suppose to value, love and respect simply dissapears out of their mind when they play. Don't let it happen. He must know that you can recall at any time, your recall should sound at the back of his head. And, you can train him of this awareness. Start recalling in some mild situations, walk together with him some distance from other dogs, crouch in front of him and murmur or whisper some words in a soft voice into his ear, then play ball at the spot, or war-and-tug, ask him to "Sit", "Down" couple of times, then come back to the dogs. When you start seeing that he runs to you eagerly, then train recall in hot situations, but not too often. *He must get that you recall for something, not for nothing*. Finally it would be enough to recall and simply ask him to sit for a minute just stroking him. Try to hide behind a tree in the distance to recall him from there, try to make your recall interesting for him, use your imagination. 
Corrections in a vigorous dog play make dogs obedient out of fear of punishment (whether soft verbal or hard physical), not out of love to you. Punishment also makes dogs even more agressive, because your dog would never blame you who punishes him, but that dog he just 10 minutes ago was biting.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

dpc134 said:


> I do not want to alter my environment to prevent my dog from chewing on something that she is not supposed to.


Why not? I'm guessing that maybe you think if you do this you'll have to do it forever, but usually if you are willing to manage the environment for awhile, many behaviors will eventually extinguish, without having to do anything in particular to train it. 

For example, when we have a new puppy I never leave shoes on the floor so puppy never has the opportunity to chew them. But I provide plenty of other things that are appropriate to chew, and usually within a few months the puppy is perfectly happy playing with his/her own toys, bones, and balls, and we don't need to be so diligent about picking up our things anymore. 

Our shoes are safe from being destroyed, the puppy is safe from ingesting things that could harm him/her, and a pattern of appropriate chewing vs inappropriate chewing is well established, with very little training effort. For things that can't be picked up and moved so easily, like rugs and furniture, that can be managed by always either directly supervising the puppy, or confining him/her in a crate or puppy safe place.


----------



## Sp00ks (Nov 8, 2013)

We don't pick up our shoes. We redirect. He will pick on my wife and run off with her slipper once in a while. But pretty much leaves our shoes alone. He has plenty of toys. Too many really. We know we should probably limit his toys but he isn't chewing on shoes or furniture or electrical cords, etc. 





Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Nothing wrong with a little management


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Why not? I'm guessing that maybe you think if you do this you'll have to do it forever, but usually if you are willing to manage the environment for awhile, many behaviors will eventually extinguish, without having to do anything in particular to train it.
> 
> For example, when we have a new puppy I never leave shoes on the floor so puppy never has the opportunity to chew them. But I provide plenty of other things that are appropriate to chew, and usually within a few months the puppy is perfectly happy playing with his/her own toys, bones, and balls, and we don't need to be so diligent about picking up our things anymore.
> 
> Our shoes are safe from being destroyed, the puppy is safe from ingesting things that could harm him/her, and a pattern of appropriate chewing vs inappropriate chewing is well established, with very little training effort. For things that can't be picked up and moved so easily, like rugs and furniture, that can be managed by always either directly supervising the puppy, or confining him/her in a crate or puppy safe place.


So very true and my experience as well. If you are not willing to manage the environment during the puppy months, you will have to continue doing whatever you have to do for the rest of the dog's life, (except the last two maybe) because he never developed the habit of not chewing. Realize that every time a pup chews at something the behavior has been practiced and it goes on the "hard drive".


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

The training vs. management thing is interesting b/c my friends often comment on how "well trained" my dogs are because they never steal food off the counter. I always have to admit that I've never trained a dog to NOT counter surf, I just keep a pretty spotless house and don't have food on the counter unless we're standing there cooking or eating!

Same for having guests over. People say my dogs are well mannered and calm. Well, yes and no. Some are, some aren't. The ones that have self control are allowed to be out when people come in. The ones that aren't are gated in the basement and after things have settled down, they can come up and visit. I don't allow dogs to jump on my guests and pester them. I'm not going to let them try it so I can correct them. That's just annoying for my guests. Some dogs are adults that have proven to me they won't do this either because they just never did or have been trained and proofed to have some self control. The younger dogs still working on this are simply not permitted access to guests until they can act properly.

There's always a balance between the training, proofing, management. Most importantly, the dog needs to be setup for success so that the desired behavior happens and gets rewarded whether the dog chose it or not.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Never underestimate the power of rituals and habits too. If I walk into a room with my dog and there is a crate there that belongs to him he darts into it then stares at me from it. I never trained him to do that, but often when I first get into the room when he was younger I crated him so I didn't have to worry about watching him and doing other things. He came to expect it and did it without prompting.

Same thing when I walk into the bedroom with food. He darts for the crate. I never trained that it was just a management habit I had when he was younger and he does it because that's what happens.


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

I forgot to point out stage 3 in training your dog playing with other dogs. It could happen, that he might start doing well both - and coming back with your recall, and biting. You recall - he runs happily to you, you let him run back to dogs - he bites even harder. Use a type of a muzzle I recommend absolutely to everyone. It is adjustable under the chin, and equally good for your vet visits (you can close the jaws completely), and for any of your walks. Your dog can receive treats and breath properly in hot weather, it is easy to tighten it if you need. It is also good for training recall in the doggy park during dog play. You may find a cheaper nylon one, I use this one: Royal Soft Nappa Adjustable Anti-Barking Leather Dog Muzzle [M63##1073 Nappa Padded Muzzle] - $79.00 : Dog harness , Dog collar , Dog leash , Dog muzzle - Dog training equipment from Trusted Direct Source - Home, Dog Supplies 
*As everything with +R, you don't stop certain behaviour, but train something else in order to build up a new stereotype*. Dogs mainly play hunt during their play, that's why their teeth is their major tool. If you train your dog Schutzhund - it would be wrong to stop him biting at the stage when he is young. Instead, let him learn to play with his paws and to use his whole body. Plus to this, by putting a muzzle on him would allow you to train recall in living situations. Muzzling your dog should never be understood as a punishment.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Liesje said:


> I guess I don't understand where you're coming from asking how to train a dog completely +R but suggesting prong and e-collars?


I was asking how to train these circumstances using only +R. I do not use only +R, I use prong and e-collar with my training. I do not believe that I could achieve the same level of taining with my dog during high distraction using only +R. I was asking what others were doing to learn and expand my training knowledge.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Merciel said:


> So what, you want to set them up for failure?


No - I want to set them up to train them. I don't do this in a way that they fail constantly. I make sure the dog already knows, understands, and obeys the command prior to letting them off leash. I do not believe that this damages their self confidence or bond with the owner. 
If I had a kid that wants to play baseball and I know that they suck at it, do I not let them play baseball because they might fail at it? It doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> A reliably trained dog using +R only is a pipe dream unless you have a really soft dog that lives only to please you. I personally dont like that type of dog, I might pay money to watch someone train my current pup with +R only..lol.
> I find a lot of people tell stories on the internet about how they trained the dog completly with plusR then in reality you find the dog is not reliable under distraction or even trained well period. Watching a lady do this at my club its amusing and frustrating because the dog gets nowhere and achieves nothing in the end.


I agree. I think that +R only can work with certain dogs only to a certain level of training and under certain "controlled" circumstances. I am happy to see that it isn't just me that thinks this way. I just read so many books on training that talks about +R only and I can't figure out how it works in the scenarios that I described.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Why not? I'm guessing that maybe you think if you do this you'll have to do it forever, but usually if you are willing to manage the environment for awhile, many behaviors will eventually extinguish, without having to do anything in particular to train it.
> 
> For example, when we have a new puppy I never leave shoes on the floor so puppy never has the opportunity to chew them. But I provide plenty of other things that are appropriate to chew, and usually within a few months the puppy is perfectly happy playing with his/her own toys, bones, and balls, and we don't need to be so diligent about picking up our things anymore.
> 
> Our shoes are safe from being destroyed, the puppy is safe from ingesting things that could harm him/her, and a pattern of appropriate chewing vs inappropriate chewing is well established, with very little training effort. For things that can't be picked up and moved so easily, like rugs and furniture, that can be managed by always either directly supervising the puppy, or confining him/her in a crate or puppy safe place.


I do manage their environment when they are puppies. However, when they reach a certain age, I would rather they not be crated during the day and have the freedom to roam without chewing on stuff. So I train this behavior out of them. That is just me. I give them training, they obey, they have freedom. 
Again, I do not have issues with my dog chewing on stuff, I was asking how others trained this behavior with +R only. It sounds like it is mostly just preventing the dog from the opportunity to chew on something.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

David Taggart said:


> I forgot to point out stage 3 in training your dog playing with other dogs. It could happen, that he might start doing well both - and coming back with your recall, and biting. You recall - he runs happily to you, you let him run back to dogs - he bites even harder. Use a type of a muzzle I recommend absolutely to everyone. It is adjustable under the chin, and equally good for your vet visits (you can close the jaws completely), and for any of your walks. Your dog can receive treats and breath properly in hot weather, it is easy to tighten it if you need. It is also good for training recall in the doggy park during dog play. You may find a cheaper nylon one, I use this one: Royal Soft Nappa Adjustable Anti-Barking Leather Dog Muzzle [M63##1073 Nappa Padded Muzzle] - $79.00 : Dog harness , Dog collar , Dog leash , Dog muzzle - Dog training equipment from Trusted Direct Source - Home, Dog Supplies
> *As everything with +R, you don't stop certain behaviour, but train something else in order to build up a new stereotype*. Dogs mainly play hunt during their play, that's why their teeth is their major tool. If you train your dog Schutzhund - it would be wrong to stop him biting at the stage when he is young. Instead, let him learn to play with his paws and to use his whole body. Plus to this, by putting a muzzle on him would allow you to train recall in living situations. Muzzling your dog should never be understood as a punishment.


David, great stuff. Thanks.
Typically, how old is your dog before you get a really reliable recall (in highly distracting environments)? My dog is currently 14 months old, she listens very well, but her recall is at about 95% in normal environment and about 75% in highly distracted environment. I am still working on her recall, putting her in all types of situations and it is getting stronger everyday. I am curious if I should do something different or keep doing what I am doing?
I will try some of the methods that you mentioned to see how she reacts to this method. 
Also, when she comes to me during her recall, she seems very happy, ears up, tail wagging, licks my hand. So, I don't think that my corrections during recall training has affected her willingness, happiness, and bond with me.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

David Taggart said:


> I forgot to point out stage 3 in training your dog playing with other dogs. It could happen, that he might start doing well both - and coming back with your recall, and biting. You recall - he runs happily to you, you let him run back to dogs - he bites even harder. Use a type of a muzzle I recommend absolutely to everyone. It is adjustable under the chin, and equally good for your vet visits (you can close the jaws completely), and for any of your walks. Your dog can receive treats and breath properly in hot weather, it is easy to tighten it if you need. It is also good for training recall in the doggy park during dog play. You may find a cheaper nylon one, I use this one: Royal Soft Nappa Adjustable Anti-Barking Leather Dog Muzzle [M63##1073 Nappa Padded Muzzle] - $79.00 : Dog harness , Dog collar , Dog leash , Dog muzzle - Dog training equipment from Trusted Direct Source - Home, Dog Supplies
> *As everything with +R, you don't stop certain behaviour, but train something else in order to build up a new stereotype*. Dogs mainly play hunt during their play, that's why their teeth is their major tool. If you train your dog Schutzhund - it would be wrong to stop him biting at the stage when he is young. Instead, let him learn to play with his paws and to use his whole body. Plus to this, by putting a muzzle on him would allow you to train recall in living situations. Muzzling your dog should never be understood as a punishment.


David, I don't need a muzzle for my dog. I was using "biting hard" during playing as an example. My dog used to play rough with another dog, which was not accepted by the dog's owner, so I trained my dog to play gently with this dog. I did not use +R to train this behavior out of my dog. I was asking how others would use +R to train this behavior out of their dog.
I think you answered my question with:*As everything with +R, you don't stop certain behaviour, but train something else in order to build up a new stereotype*


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

dpc134 said:


> Again, I do not have issues with my dog chewing on stuff, I was asking how others trained this behavior with +R only. *It sounds like it is mostly just preventing the dog from the opportunity to chew on something.*


Yes and no. As I said, it's not necessarily forever, but it also totally depends on the dog. Some dogs are very determined chewers and some are not, even from a young age. I've had both kinds. 

Dena would ignore shoes on the floor by the time she was 3 months old, and I can't recall anything she ever destroyed. She earned a lot of freedom because she proved she was trustworthy, and there was no training involved. Keefer was never a bad chewer either. Sneaker and Cassidy both went through chewing phases that lasted up to a year or a year and a half old. It would have been stupid to leave them to their own devices during that time. Cassidy literally couldn't be left unsupervised for more than a minute or two until she outgrew the chewing phase, and even then she had a secondary chewing phase months after she'd stopped chewing stuff, and ate a quarter sized hole on the edge of my favorite rug.

Halo, sigh.  She's 5 years old and will NEVER be completely trustworthy. While she won't chew things left on the floor, she used to steal eyeglasses, TV remotes, the kitchen towel, and she will still steal and chew potholders, she stole several kitchen knives off the counter - basically anything that tastes like food, looks like food, or was ever in contact (or even in the vicinity!) of food. Could we train her out of that so she was completely trustworthy when we're not around? Maybe, but the level of aversives we'd probably need to use would border on abuse, and that's not hyperbole. Or we can just be smart about limiting her access to her preferred chewables and call it a day.

As someone mentioned, (paraphrasing), behavior that's practiced becomes more ingrained and more difficult to get rid of, so it's best not to let bad habits form in the first place. A puppy that doesn't have access to the "bad" stuff when you're there and plenty of "good" stuff to play with and chew, and is safely confined when you're not there, is less likely to start the habit of chewing your things. Or you could end up with a Halo.  :wub:


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

Liesje said:


> I guess I don't understand where you're coming from asking how to train a dog completely +R but suggesting prong and e-collars?


I"m not sure it's understanding he's looking for or just validation of how he "thinks" it is. I can see the same thought processes and examples and questions I had 15 years ago. Maybe he does keep an open mind and does learn, or maybe he just looks for what reinforces his view of things???

I don't care to get into debates that litter every dog message board and all go basically the same way. Tell me I can only use an ecollar, I can train a well rounded dog, Tell me I can only use a flat collar and leash, I can train a well rounded dog. Give me nothing but a hunk of cheese, I can train the dog. GIve me absolutely nothing but the dog, I can train it to pretty high levels.

I'm confident enough now to know I can train any dog with any tool and do it in a way that builds a happy, healthy relationship.

I remember the day I took my young dog tracking and the fields all around me were flooded with soccer teams kicking balls around. My dog went nuts, i gave her a chance to track then pulled her back to the car and went home. She didn't eat till the next time we tracked. Guess who's not distracted on a track anymore.

I"ll never forget they guy that said "you're just managing and avoiding the problem" you "must correct her down the track to teach her she must track". 

2 years later I see that same guy at a trial and his dog puts its nose down and missed the corner, had no intention of looking for the track because you could see he got his ass kicked for every mistake and the judge let him go another 100yds just to see how far he'd go. I laid the track and no matter what, this dog wasn't picking his nose up or changing direction because his handler "taught" him not to  

I"m also quite certain this handler never put 2 and 2 together either. According to him, there must have been a deer trail out there


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

I think this video explains when and why corrections are necessary in training. 

It's over an hour long. The part I'm referring to is at 33 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe0-oqqoXvw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

David Winners


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

crackem said:


> I"m not sure it's understanding he's looking for or just validation of how he "thinks" it is. I can see the same thought processes and examples and questions I had 15 years ago. Maybe he does keep an open mind and does learn, or maybe he just looks for what reinforces his view of things???
> 
> I don't care to get into debates that litter every dog message board and all go basically the same way. Tell me I can only use an ecollar, I can train a well rounded dog, Tell me I can only use a flat collar and leash, I can train a well rounded dog. Give me nothing but a hunk of cheese, I can train the dog. GIve me absolutely nothing but the dog, I can train it to pretty high levels.


I was simply asking how others would train +R only in the scenarios that I mentioned.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

crackem said:


> I"m not sure it's understanding he's looking for or just validation of how he "thinks" it is. I can see the same thought processes and examples and questions I had 15 years ago. Maybe he does keep an open mind and does learn, or maybe he just looks for what reinforces his view of things???
> 
> I don't care to get into debates that litter every dog message board and all go basically the same way.


This is pretty much what I'm thinking too.

(minus "15 years ago" since I haven't been doing this nearly that long  )


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

dpc134 said:


> I was simply asking how others would train +R only in the scenarios that I mentioned.


And quickly try and discredit any response, or respond with something along the lines of " why not just correct and be done in 30 seconds". 

BTW, I still see people that think corrections always fix it in 30 seconds yet 5 years later they're still corrcting for the same stuff


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

crackem said:


> And quickly try and discredit any response, or respond with something along the lines of " why not just correct and be done in 30 seconds".
> 
> BTW, I still see people that think corrections always fix it in 30 seconds yet 5 years later they're still corrcting for the same stuff


I am not discrediting any responses. Again, I am trying to learn. But I did ask why not use correction because I have seen this work in these scenarios. I have also seen several dogs that were trained using +R only and they are not trained well at all. I am only expressing my limited experiences and I know it goes both ways with untrained dogs (+R and correction based).
I am not well experienced with +R only training (other than what I have read) and so I was asking how to use +R for thoses specific scenarios along with the questions of "why not use correction" not understand the advantages and disadvantages.
You haven't explained to me how you would train +R only in these scenarios.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Instead of looking at it that way, change it up. What is a correction? And in your scenarios, what exactly do you want to do instead? Chewing is natural, and especially needed when teething, so give the pup what it needs. It doesn't need your shoes, but it needs something - so provide it. Redirecting and managing. So simple.

The scenario with going overboard with another dog is something that shouldn't even happen. Tearing a pup away from the good times isn't going to do anything except ramp it up for when it's released back to the other dog. I'm sure other people let the older dog correct the young pup, but I didn't. I redirected the pup to me so that the older dog wasn't a plaything. This is how I wanted it, for my puppy to look to me for fun and not the other dog. 

I don't ever expect other people's dogs to be trained to my expectations. If someone says their dog is trained, but it's obviously not, I don't fault whatever method they say they've used, lol. It just means their standards are very low when compared to mine.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

I got the impression dpc was just asking questions because he really wanted answers and to hear different sides of the debate. He should be picking apart why people do things the way they do them. The why is just as important as the how if you're really exploring dog training. I don't mind the line of questioning. It shows he's thinking.

Dpc if you want I can pm you some books you might find useful towards really getting into the nuts and bolts of different methods.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

If you have the discretionary cash and the time, the three volumes of:

The Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training

are packed full of great information.

David Winners


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

As people said waaaaaayyy back at the beginning of this thread, there is virtually no one who trains "using +R only." There are a fair number of people who train _without using physical correction_ (I'm one of them) but if they're honest and reasonably informed about what they're doing, they will acknowledge that they're still using all four quadrants, they're just choosing to do it in a way that does not employ certain specific tools and methods. Some of these trainers will still call themselves "purely positive" just as a shorthand way of distinguishing themselves from people who use prongs/e-collars/chokes, but in strictly defined terms they are generally not training using _just_ +R.

So right off the bat you're posing a hypothetical that does not exist. This leads me to believe that you're not particularly well-informed about what you're asking and/or are not really looking for information so much as confirmation that there is One True Way of Dog Training and yep you've got it.

If you actually _do_ want to learn about the training approaches and how they work and why people do them, there are lots and lots of places to find that information. It's not hard to locate.

But generally these threads are not motivated by a genuine desire to learn, any more than the "should I breed my dog??" threads are asking that question genuinely, and so -- fairly or not -- I tend to have a pretty jaundiced view of them right from the outset.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Blanketback said:


> Instead of looking at it that way, change it up. What is a correction? And in your scenarios, what exactly do you want to do instead? Chewing is natural, and especially needed when teething, so give the pup what it needs. It doesn't need your shoes, but it needs something - so provide it. Redirecting and managing. So simple.
> 
> The scenario with going overboard with another dog is something that shouldn't even happen. Tearing a pup away from the good times isn't going to do anything except ramp it up for when it's released back to the other dog. I'm sure other people let the older dog correct the young pup, but I didn't. I redirected the pup to me so that the older dog wasn't a plaything. This is how I wanted it, for my puppy to look to me for fun and not the other dog.
> 
> I don't ever expect other people's dogs to be trained to my expectations. If someone says their dog is trained, but it's obviously not, I don't fault whatever method they say they've used, lol. It just means their standards are very low when compared to mine.


Very good points. My correction is either leash pop with prong collar and I have used an E-collar for 1 session. I would prefer not to use any corrections at all, but I just don't see how to correct unwanted behaviors without using a form of correction to teach bad behavior from acceptable behavior. When a mother GSD corrects her pups from bad behavior, she gently bites them on the back of the neck and holds them down. That is a form of correction and it makes sense to teach that way. 
Sure I could remove my dog from the situation or control their environment, but I choose not to do that. My expectation is to have a dog trained so that she/he will obey my commands during any situation. 
I think my next step is to contact a professional +R trainer and set up a session with them. I am interested in hearing and seeing results from other methods. Again, I consider myself an inexperienced trainer and I value the input from others, but I also use common sense when I am thinking of these methods and I only question them to better understand them. Not to start arguments.
I think of it like this, I have 3 month old child, I do not set her by the hot stove and wait for her to try and touch it and then correct her, I simply do not put her in that situation (control their environment like a puppy). However, when that same child is 3 years old and she tries to touch the stove, I correct her so she understands that this is not acceptable behavior (leash pop an a young dog). I do not redirect the child with a piece of candy so she moves away from the hot stove.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes, we already determined that using +R (how it is actually defined) is not possible in many of the scenarios given, which is probably why it didn't work for other people.

I prefer "marker training". That is more of an envelope around all of operant conditioning. I rarely (maybe never?) use only +R or only one quadrant at a time. Corrections, aversions, and punishments are always paired with a marker and some reward to reinforce.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Baillif said:


> I got the impression dpc was just asking questions because he really wanted answers and to hear different sides of the debate. He should be picking apart why people do things the way they do them. The why is just as important as the how if you're really exploring dog training. I don't mind the line of questioning. It shows he's thinking.
> 
> Dpc if you want I can pm you some books you might find useful towards really getting into the nuts and bolts of different methods.


Baillif - you explained it exactly right. I am not trying to argue with anybody. I am asking questions to get a better understanding of "why". I am not the type of person to blindly follow recommendations by people on the internet just because they say so. I need to understand the "why" and the "how" so I can determine if it makes sense.
If you could PM some recommendations on books, that would be great. I would appreciate the references!
Thanks!


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

David Winners said:


> If you have the discretionary cash and the time, the three volumes of:
> 
> The Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training
> 
> ...


Wow - those are some expensive books. I certainly wouldn't mind paying for them if they are worth it. Have they helped you in your training? I have read alot of your posts and your explanations and words seem to make alot of sense. Are there any other books out there that you recommend reading? 
What are your thoughts on [ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Raising-Puppy-Revised-Edition/dp/0316083275/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390502558&sr=8-1&keywords=the+art+of+raising+a+puppy"]The Art of Raising a Puppy (Revised Edition)[/ame] by Monks of New Skete (Jun 29, 2011)?
I read this book along with several others, but this book made the most sense to me.


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

Just my input....no where in this thread has OP came across as being closed minded toward other training styles. All the questions and "why not just correct" seem like legit curiosity to me. Coming from a standpoint of someone who does use corrections and I have seen zero ill effects on my dog, sometimes I find myself a ski that but what I always bounce back to is the fact that some dogs aren't like mine. So they don't need it or it doesn't work well. I think this is one of the most balanced and unheated training discussions I've seen....

Also regarding recall in distraction with a correction...never bugs my girl. The correction is completely overshadowed by the reward "go play". If you teach your dog a release word then recall becomes positive reinforcement only after time. Now I don't have to correct and she gets the reward to run back to playing + me telling her how good she is for running back to check in. Enough recalls that are followed up by going back to play doesn't make recall dreaded at all, but I did have to use a correction to teach checking in is a non optional event followed up by fun


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

I guess I just don't think that a dog needs a physical correction every time it makes a wrong move. My pup understands vocal cues for misbehavior, and that's enough of a correction for me - in most cases. 

Plus, going this route (because I have used more aversive methods with previous dogs) has shown me that my pup will try new things. It's lots of fun to see what he thinks should part of our rituals - like running an obstacle course around our picnic table on a retrieve, lol.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Merciel said:


> There are a fair number of people who train _without using physical correction_ (I'm one of them)
> But generally these threads are not motivated by a genuine desire to learn, any more than the "should I breed my dog??" threads are asking that question genuinely, and so -- fairly or not -- I tend to have a pretty jaundiced view of them right from the outset.


I am asking these questions (genuinely) because I want to learn from others. I am sure that when you began training, you were not naturally born with the expertise of dog training. You must of asked others at some point. And I also understand that the internet / message boards are not the best place for this type of information, but there does happen to be some very knowledgable people on this board. This is why I ask the questions deeper to understand if what someone is telling me actually makes sense. 
So, I am curious how you would train a dog an unwanted behavior (such as the scenario with the dog biting too hard when playing) without using physical correction (prong, e-collar, choke)?


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

mego said:


> Just my input....no where in this thread has OP came across as being closed minded toward other training styles. All the questions and "why not just correct" seem like legit curiosity to me. Coming from a standpoint of someone who does use corrections and I have seen zero ill effects on my dog, sometimes I find myself a ski that but what I always bounce back to is the fact that some dogs aren't like mine. So they don't need it or it doesn't work well. I think this is one of the most balanced and unheated training discussions I've seen....
> 
> Also regarding recall in distraction with a correction...never bugs my girl. The correction is completely overshadowed by the reward "go play". If you teach your dog a release word then recall becomes positive reinforcement only after time. Now I don't have to correct and she gets the reward to run back to playing + me telling her how good she is for running back to check in. Enough recalls that are followed up by going back to play doesn't make recall dreaded at all, but I did have to use a correction to teach checking in is a non optional event followed up by fun


Thanks mego. It sounds like you and I have similar training methods. Your recall sounds exactly like mine. My dog also loves coming to me when I call her and I very rarely have to ever use physical corrections anymore.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Blanketback said:


> I don't ever expect other people's dogs to be trained to my expectations. If someone says their dog is trained, but it's obviously not, I don't fault whatever method they say they've used, lol. It just means their standards are very low when compared to mine.


So true, and it can also speak to their level of competence or dedication. The best techniques in the world can fail miserably if not fully understood, implemented properly, and/or used consistently.



dpc134 said:


> Have you tried E-collar or prong collar correction to train recall?


This was directed towards Lies, and I think you missed her point. I'm sure she COULD train a reliable recall using aversives, but with this particular dog it's not important to her that his recall is perfect because he's not ever put in situations where it would be an issue. 

Many people train to different standards depending on the dog and their goals (or lack thereof) for that dog. If you have a nice companion dog that you're never going to compete in anything with, whose obedience is "good enough", and you also have other dogs that you're actively training for a particular purpose, why waste any of your limited free time training perfection in the dog where it's not going to matter? Most of us have to work for a living, so we budget our training time where it's most needed or will be most used.

ETA: The type of methods used can also depend on the temperament of the dog. Some dogs are perfectly fine with a well timed and fair physical correction, where with a softer or less confident dog that might be the worst thing you could do.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

dpc134 said:


> So, I am curious how you would train a dog an unwanted behavior (such as the scenario with the dog biting too hard when playing) without using physical correction (prong, e-collar, choke)?


-- redirect to approved bitey object;
-- no reward marker + cessation of play + removal of my presence after each offense;
-- work on impulse control exercises generally;
-- work on Doggie Zen/soft mouth exercises specifically;
-- drink a lot of vodka and reflect on how bad puppies suck


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

It's kind of amazing how many people who consistently deal with puppies prefer to do so while under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

dpc134 said:


> Wow - those are some expensive books. I certainly wouldn't mind paying for them if they are worth it. Have they helped you in your training? I have read alot of your posts and your explanations and words seem to make alot of sense. Are there any other books out there that you recommend reading?
> What are your thoughts on The Art of Raising a Puppy (Revised Edition) by Monks of New Skete (Jun 29, 2011)?
> I read this book along with several others, but this book made the most sense to me.


If you really want to learn about how dogs learn, I can think of no better source than those 3 books. They helped me piece together the fragmented knowledge I had acquired over 20 years of working with dogs.

There are great authors out there that skip the science behind the scenes, which isn't necessary to get results. I want to know how these people come to the conclusions they do, so I want to review the studies and form my own opinion on what was demonstrated through the testing methods and results. If you don't need that, skip the year it will take you to read them.

When it comes to what books I read, I'm not very selective. I try and understand what the dogs and the author are experiencing through the training. If it's not something I agree with, I believe that information to be important too. I just reread the Koehler Book of Guard Dog Training again. Most people here would equate that to the satanic bible. 

On the other hand, I rarely recommend any book that contains techniques that could be abusive if implemented improperly. 

I enjoy and agree mostly with books by;

Dr. Dodman 
Dr. Sophia Yin
Patricia McConnell
Jean Donaldson
Ali Brown
And others...

Then I mash all of it up and do what I believe the dog needs. If it's a treat and scratch, so be it. If it's a hard correction on a prong, I'm perfectly ok with that too. I make mistakes and learn from them. I ask advice from others when I have conflicting options I'm considering. Basically I give it the most educated guess I can, and then let the dog tell me if it's working.

I'm sure you are more confused than before you read this, so I wish you luck. You will make mistakes and second guess yourself and be sure that you messed your dog up, and he will recover and love you and end up a great dog... If you honestly try.

David Winners


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

I have stuffed animals here that are well over a decade old. They've been passed down from one GSD to the next, and other than having to sew them up where the stitching's failed, they're still great toys for my current pup. 

I kept them from being torn apart by redirecting. When the dog was using it as a chew toy, I redirected to a rubber chew toy. When the rubber toy was in jeopardy of being eaten, I redirected to edible bone. They're so gosh darned smart, these GSDs! 

Since they're so smart, it's an interesting challenge to try to teach them something by letting them figure things out for themselves. To keep a game going, keep the rules consistent and they'll figure it out. If you let the pup chomp down too hard on your fingers even one time, you're on the road to setting the pup up for failure. I think people often forget this very important part - if you're not consistent, your pup won't learn.


----------



## Baillif (Jun 26, 2013)

Educated guess is all you have sometimes. It's why being well versed in the theory can help a lot.


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

@dpc 134 . I agree our styles seem similar.

I like the bringing up of goals with each dog. I don't correct for biting hard while playing or any tricks that are for fun. (Like shake, speak, etc) because that feels unfair to me since there is no practical advantage for that. The biting I just yell ow or no and stop the game. When she was a puppy I'd let her chew on my hands and when it started to hurt I'd say ow and rub my fingers on the roof of her mouth. That weird sensation was enough to make her stop chomping lol. Since I added a stimulus that wasn't pleasant, technically that's a correction that just isn't through any type of pain....but recall/ sit and stay are 100% necessary. My yard isn't fully fenced. Double gates from my apartment to the yard so no possibility of escape, but if I ever accidentally dropped a leash, it happened one time, she could bolt across a street if she wiggled through bushes, so I could not spend way more time teaching a positive only recall, competing against squirrels, and relying on myself or anyone who comes over to 100% of the time make sure she is not getting off that leash. In our situation corrections were absolutely necessary for my peace of mind. And she's happy. 

I judge how dog endures corrections based on her reactions to what does the correcting. She hid under the table when I would bring out the head collar (I NEVER would correct with that and don't use it anymore) she wags when I grab her prong. She DANCED with excitement when her e collar came out. I think people just need to focus on what works for your dog. My next puppy may hate corrections and shut down. In that case I wouldn't use them.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> This was directed towards Lies, and I think you missed her point. I'm sure she COULD train a reliable recall using aversives, but with this particular dog it's not important to her that his recall is perfect because he's not ever put in situations where it would be an issue.
> 
> Many people train to different standards depending on the dog and their goals (or lack thereof) for that dog. If you have a nice companion dog that you're never going to compete in anything with, whose obedience is "good enough", and you also have other dogs that you're actively training for a particular purpose, why waste any of your limited free time training perfection in the dog where it's not going to matter? Most of us have to work for a living, so we budget our training time where it's most needed or will be most used.
> 
> ETA: The type of methods used can also depend on the temperament of the dog. Some dogs are perfectly fine with a well timed and fair physical correction, where with a softer or less confident dog that might be the worst thing you could do.


Yes, sorry I never really answered that. Correct, with this particular dog, it's just not a priority. Safety first 100% of course, but for THIS DOG, safety simply means NOT being off leash. I'm not stupid, I know he has a habit of blowing recalls so I'm not going to put him at risk because I want to "train" him. This is not a GSD and not a dog I bought as a puppy. He has a history and what's important is that he is well cared for, he is very happy, he gets the appropriate level of exercise and mental stimulation *for him*, and he is safe. 

To specifically address the "use a prong" suggestion, I already have and do use a prong collar on this dog in certain situations. He's a collar-smart dog. I don't need a prong on him when doing are recall, just having ANY collar and leash attached keeps him compliant. When they come off, it's a different story. He's proven enough times that he is just not to be trusted running free without a proper fence or a long line. Again this is not a GSD. I train my GSDs and young dogs very differently to much, much higher standards and their training (including recalls) begins day 1 at 8 weeks of age. I have nothing against prong collars and own 4 of them.

I have several dogs that have been or are being trained in various things to different levels. I don't need to train a 100% solid recall on my old rescue dog to prove I know how to train a dog. My other dogs have titles, many titles, and some are very very good at what I've trained them to do. We have trophies, blue ribbons, "high in trial"....heck I could make a whole circus act with my own dogs performing off leash, lol.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

dpc134 said:


> Sure I could remove my dog from the situation or control their environment, but I choose not to do that. My expectation is to have a dog trained so that she/he will obey my commands during any situation.


But again, you're treating these as either/or scenarios, and it's just not that simple. Management and training are not mutually exclusive, and often removing the dog from the situation or controlling their environment _for a while_, will net you a dog who does obey, and whose behavior requires fewer corrections because he's learned that to get what he wants it's in his best interest to do what you want. 

Keefer had horrible manners around food when he was a puppy. He was impossible when I was in the kitchen making dinner, I couldn't turn my back to walk to the stove without him putting his paws on the counters. Since I was too busy cooking to deal with his bad behavior I would either crate him or put him in the garage pen for a few months. 

In addition, I worked on his training - "off", "leave it", etc., at times when I could give him my full attention. I trained these using motivational methods, not corrections. He learned to make good choices, because those would be rewarded, and I minimized his opportunities to make bad choices. And finally, once he was a bit older, more mature, had more training under his belt, and was more likely to listen and obey, I could leave him out while I was in the kitchen, and I could utilize those new commands I'd trained. If he put his paws up and didn't immediately obey the "off" command, I'd bump him off with a hip check.

Now he wouldn't DREAM of putting his paws on the counter to steal food. Could I have gotten there by putting a prong collar on him and yanking him to the floor each time he tried it? Well, he was just a puppy so I wouldn't have done that anyway, but sure, it might have worked. But I wonder if it would have been as durable, since there's always the risk he would have only learned he couldn't do it in my presence, when I was able to correct him for it.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

dpc134 said:


> Baillif - you explained it exactly right. I am not trying to argue with anybody. I am asking questions to get a better understanding of "why". I am not the type of person to blindly follow recommendations by people on the internet just because they say so. I need to understand the "why" and the "how" so I can determine if it makes sense.
> If you could PM some recommendations on books, that would be great. I would appreciate the references!
> Thanks!



I don't believe you 

again you ask how you'd train a scenario about a dog biting too hard without correction. People have told you and you discredit, meaning you say they didn't really train it to bite softer, just do something different. You say you can do it with a prong or choke, tell us how 

I'm guessing all you did was teach it that it when you say no or whatever word you use your dog thinks "**** I better stop everything immediately" I bet it has no idea you think it learned to "bite softer" when playing. I'm also certain you won't view it that way.

If a dog is playing too hard, I can just say leave it. I taught it without a collar or leash. I held food in my hand and put it in their face, when they avoided it, I marked it and rewarded.

doesn't take long and I have as solid of command as anybody i've ever seen correcting their dog everytime they throw piece of food in front of them. When my dogs are playing too rough, I can say leave it, or stop and they know. If they're looking at dogs that are too distracting, I say leave it, and they do. I didn't need a correction

why not use one? why? you think you get anywhere faster or more reliably than I do? I've been around the block more than once  If I thought it would get me to where I want to be better and more reliably, I have no problem using one.

If your question really is "why not just correct", well because dogs do a lot of **** wrong when they learn stuff. Keep jerking your dog around, those corrections start to mean a whole lot less over time. All these people running around with their "hard" dogs who have been habituated to withstand stupid stuff done by their handlers rather than be trained. I save my corrections for the important stuff, after I have done my job to train a well learned behavior that has been put on cue.

Shutting a dog down with a correction is easy. Doesn't mean you taught your dog a command. Giving your dog a chase command to a flock of turkeys then giving them a sit command to stop the chase, then calling back to you and sending out to chase again is training. SHocking them with an ecollar will stop them in their tracks. Not hard at all. 

That's not saying I can't use an ecollar and get the same behavior, but my first instinct in using it, isn't "why not just correct". The overwhelming majority of dogs I have seen over the years, who's handlers have been correction first or base training on it have dogs nowhere near as reliable as mine are now, nor the relationship I expect to have with them.

by managing my training environment I do end up with an incredibly reliable dog, where you think those of us that do manage and train accordingly can't have a dog that is trained in all situations is ill informed

.

I also have the Lindsay series are awesome. I have the Monks book and read it quite a while ago, it was fun to read, but hardly applicable to what I do today. Knowing what I know now it would not be on my recommended list


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

crackem said:


> I don't believe you
> 
> again you ask how you'd train a scenario about a dog biting too hard without correction. People have told you and you discredit, meaning you say they didn't really train it to bite softer, just do something different. You say you can do it with a prong or choke, tell us how
> 
> ...


Some valid points in here when commenting on training with extreme use of aversion but I don't think op ever said they jerked their dog around or corrected for commands that their dog doesn't know. Maybe they prong their dog for biting, I don't know, but you are making a lot of assumptions too. Corrections don't have to be harsh, plentiful, or painful. They are simply another form of communication and yes, can easily be abused or wildly imbalanced. I think you're thinking of people that use corrections for teaching phase and not only proofing phase. I also agree its ill advised to teach a brand new behavior with a correction. Just keeping the discussion rolling.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Merciel said:


> -- redirect to approved bitey object;
> -- no reward marker + cessation of play + removal of my presence after each offense;
> -- work on impulse control exercises generally;
> -- work on Doggie Zen/soft mouth exercises specifically;
> -- drink a lot of vodka and reflect on how bad puppies suck


This is almost exactly how I taught a soft bite. Except substitute red wine for vodka, and add "Pray for nap time to come early!"  My pup's awesome now, and uses a soft mouth on me while we're playing - or will sometimes just suck on my fingers, lol! Too cute.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

mego said:


> Some valid points in here when commenting on training with extreme use of aversion but I don't think op ever said they jerked their dog around or corrected for commands that their dog doesn't know. Maybe they prong their dog for biting, I don't know, but you are making a lot of assumptions too. Corrections don't have to be harsh, plentiful, or painful. They are simply another form of communication and yes, can easily be abused or wildly imbalanced. I think you're thinking of people that use corrections for teaching phase and not only proofing phase. I also agree its ill advised to teach a brand new behavior with a correction. Just keeping the discussion rolling.


well to be fair he did ask about the "teaching" and then asked why not just correct and be done in 30 seconds. It's not a stretch to think that is how he views dog training, he basically said as much.


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

> David, great stuff. Thanks.
> Typically, how old is your dog before you get a really reliable recall (in highly distracting environments)?


You are very welcome. It depends on a dog and your lifestyle. Your question requires a complex answer. You may ask: "What drives my dog to come back to me at all?" And, that is FEAR. A fear of losing you. That is a well known fact that some dogs die if their owner dies. The most horrible thing that could happen to your dog is that if you leave him. Dogs are pack creatures and it is not natural for them to lose a sight of their leader even for a minute, except times of mating ( when young leave the pack and strart their own pack). It is us who teach them unnatural by leaving them at home for hours alone. More time the dog spends with his owner - more attached he becomes, the only way to fill that gap is intensive training, when in a short period of time happens a lot. But people who leave their dogs alone for 8 hours a day shouldn't hope to achieve reliable recall, because their dogs learned to manage on their own for a long time, this fear melted in that loneliness.
I have read about it studying separation anxiety. The fear of losing the leader of the pack is inbuilt in the dog's brain and, it either could be developed into a behavioral complex, or swaped into alpha complex, or suppressed by circumstance of being caged in four walls.
If you systematically support and develop this fear in your dog - he would never forget about you for anything ever, not in a doggy play, not in other highly distracting environments. It starts with training your puppy following you on the grass and might continue in situations when the majority of dogs would panic. I remember a moment when I crossed the road with my dog, cars started to run again, and suddenly a tye burst right behind us. Its sound was so loud that I went deaf, lost the lead. Lucy dashed next few yards, looked back and continued to run across the fotball field. Such sounds cause pain in dog's ears, I can understand that. I recalled her several times, finally she stopped and CRAWLED back to me still shaking. But GSDs fought in wars, they were sent under the tanks to explode them, these dogs worked, and worked successfully under terrible stress - the worst of all distracting environments - when your dog tends to panic. Yet, they obeyed their owner's recall, because they feared to lose their leader.
Lucy has become my shadow after. I push her other side of the door for night, the bedroom is too warm for her (it is bad for her heart), otherwise she would pant all the night long unwilling to leave me. Some dogs start responding on recall fabulously well if run to other dog, didn't pay attention to numerous recalls and were bitten really badly, I know such cases. But you can train it by indicating your dog that you are a leader by walking away, hiding behind a tree, by keeping him waiting at the shop, I cannot name all situations when this fear is at work. Playing with this fear makes your recall more and more reliable with number of different situations. Because you touch the uttermost of your dog emotional field.


----------



## madis (Dec 21, 2013)

This thread has been so helpful! I have a 10 week old little monster that is responding really well with the "mostly positive" method. I too was wondering what to do when you need to tell them that what they are doing is wrong. Subscribing to this feed  


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

crackem said:


> well to be fair he did ask about the "teaching" and then asked why not just correct and be done in 30 seconds. It's not a stretch to think that is how he views dog training, he basically said as much.


Went back and saw that too. 
My answer for why not correct and be done in 30 sec: 
. Because a correction for hard biting isn't really good communication to a dog. Too confusing to pinpoint a behavior in play. Is the correction for biting hard, a play growl,Did the dog just paw you, or wag and hit something on the table at the same time. Far too hard to employ a correction in that case because it doesn't teach the target behavior (soft mouth) and doesn't allow the dog to distinguish exactly which action in an excited state was wrong. You could end up making the dog think excitement itself is what caused correction. 

That's why I use only toy removal or marking the pain with ow and stopping the game. My dog knows what no means, so if my hand is in her mouth and pressure starts, I can very calmly say no and pull my hand out. Then I put the hand back and tell her gentle and continue the game. Everything you don't want your dog to do you have to show what's okay.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

to confuse it even more, it was for dog/dog interaction  not dog/human


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

crackem said:


> I don't believe you
> 
> again you ask how you'd train a scenario about a dog biting too hard without correction. People have told you and you discredit, meaning you say they didn't really train it to bite softer, just do something different. You say you can do it with a prong or choke, tell us how
> 
> ...


I don't really care if you believe me. I am not here to make you believe me. 
This is how I trained my dog not to bite the other dog hard when playing. I would let them play and as soon as she bit hard, I walked over to my dog (prong collar and lead line is already attached), I correct with a leash pop and wait until she is calm, release her and wait until she does it again. I believe I had to correct 4 times in the first session and after that, she did not bite for the entire play session (about 30 minutes). I tried again 2 days later and had to correct another 1 time. Since then, she has not bit hard when playing.
I did not say "no" during the training because I did not want to have to say those words to get her to stop biting. I simply don't want her to do that behavior without me having to say anything. 
I trained my dog "Leave it", but again, I do not want to say those words to get her to not bite.
And you are correct, I am ill-informed, which is why I am asking these questions. Perhaps you could get off your high horse and explain your methods rather than judging me. Or just not respond to this thread.


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

crackem said:


> to confuse it even more, it was for dog/dog interaction  not dog/human


:shocked::crazy:
I'm an idiot lol.
I guess I leave dog-biting-dog to the other dog to correct if it hurts...if my dog is too rough and it won't stop I just make her have a time out. Every time my dog got too rough with another dog and made that dog yelp, she calmed down. They communicate pretty well for the most part I think :wild:


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

David Taggart said:


> You are very welcome. It depends on a dog and your lifestyle. Your question requires a complex answer. You may ask: "What drives my dog to come back to me at all?" And, that is FEAR. A fear of losing you. That is a well known fact that some dogs die if their owner dies. The most horrible thing that could happen to your dog is that if you leave him. Dogs are pack creatures and it is not natural for them to lose a sight of their leader even for a minute, except times of mating ( when young leave the pack and strart their own pack). It is us who teach them unnatural by leaving them at home for hours alone. More time the dog spends with his owner - more attached he becomes, the only way to fill that gap is intensive training, when in a short period of time happens a lot. But people who leave their dogs alone for 8 hours a day shouldn't hope to achieve reliable recall, because their dogs learned to manage on their own for a long time, this fear melted in that loneliness.
> I have read about it studying separation anxiety. The fear of losing the leader of the pack is inbuilt in the dog's brain and, it either could be developed into a behavioral complex, or swaped into alpha complex, or suppressed by circumstance of being caged in four walls.
> If you systematically support and develop this fear in your dog - he would never forget about you for anything ever, not in a doggy play, not in other highly distracting environments. It starts with training your puppy following you on the grass and might continue in situations when the majority of dogs would panic. I remember a moment when I crossed the road with my dog, cars started to run again, and suddenly a tye burst right behind us. Its sound was so loud that I went deaf, lost the lead. Lucy dashed next few yards, looked back and continued to run across the fotball field. Such sounds cause pain in dog's ears, I can understand that. I recalled her several times, finally she stopped and CRAWLED back to me still shaking. But GSDs fought in wars, they were sent under the tanks to explode them, these dogs worked, and worked successfully under terrible stress - the worst of all distracting environments - when your dog tends to panic. Yet, they obeyed their owner's recall, because they feared to lose their leader.
> Lucy has become my shadow after. I push her other side of the door for night, the bedroom is too warm for her (it is bad for her heart), otherwise she would pant all the night long unwilling to leave me. Some dogs start responding on recall fabulously well if run to other dog, didn't pay attention to numerous recalls and were bitten really badly, I know such cases. But you can train it by indicating your dog that you are a leader by walking away, hiding behind a tree, by keeping him waiting at the shop, I cannot name all situations when this fear is at work. Playing with this fear makes your recall more and more reliable with number of different situations. Because you touch the uttermost of your dog emotional field.


David - great advice! I will definetly try more of this with my dog. I have hid behind trees when she was a puppy to get her to pay more attention to me when she is occupied with a scent, squirrels, etc. And what a difference it has made. The very next day I noticed on our walk that she would continually look back at me to make sure I was in her sight. Very interesting theory about "why". It makes sense. Thanks again.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I'm still interested in the dog/dog interaction thing...what do others do? Do you actually "train" your dogs how to interact and play with other dogs, or do you allow dogs to set their own boundaries? CAN you train a dog to the point that you have control over how he interacts with dogs? I don't mean training your dog things like a recall to leave the dog and come back to you, or a "leave it" so you can interrupt play. I guess I've always handled the dog-dog interactions with management, not training. I find compatible playmates for the dog and leave it at that. If I have to constantly be interrupting and trying to correct the dog for his play style...what's the point?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I completely disagree with David's theory on recalls but I do agree with the practice...making it a fun game, running *away* from the dog so he is enticed to chase you.


----------



## Lucky Dog (Dec 1, 2012)

subscribed


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Liesje said:


> I'm still interested in the dog/dog interaction thing...what do others do? Do you actually "train" your dogs how to interact and play with other dogs, or do you allow dogs to set their own boundaries? CAN you train a dog to the point that you have control over how he interacts with dogs? I don't mean training your dog things like a recall to leave the dog and come back to you, or a "leave it" so you can interrupt play. I guess I've always handled the dog-dog interactions with management, not training. I find compatible playmates for the dog and leave it at that. If I have to constantly be interrupting and trying to correct the dog for his play style...what's the point?


Liesje - that's exactly what I have been doing with my dog. She will no longer play bite hard with this other dog who she regularly plays with. She runs around with her, they chase each other, roll around, chase toys, but she will longer play bites hard on the back of the other dog's neck. However, the method that I used was with a correction with prong. I was curious how non-correction (+R) methods would work in teaching this. And I also choose not to use a "correction word" like "no" or "leave it". I simply want the dog to not do that particular behavior.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess in a sense I use +R because I have dogs play who are compatible. They don't get corrections from me (they might from each other). The play style is "reinforced" because they like playing that way. I have a pit bull right now that has a very different play style than a lot of dogs so she is limited in what dogs she is allowed to have free interactions with. I don't want to have to "train" my dog how to play, lol. If they don't get along, they just aren't together. Right now I have a pack of 4 and everyone is OK together. They don't all play together but the younger dogs know that the older dogs aren't interested. It's not really an all or nothing thing, they can interact and live together even though they don't get alone, play-wise. They figure out for themselves who gets along with who and that's how they play. Legend plays with Indy, Coke plays with Nikon.

I like prongs in the right circumstance but for playing, I prefer the other dog to give the correction. They are better at communicating and controlling dog-dog interaction than me as a human having to intervene.


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

Yeah, play-style is one of those things I don't bother correcting. My dog doesnt get to play with other dogs often and the ones she does play with she just prefers chasing them. She does the ride up on the neck and biting thing sometimes, but usually the other dog just stops running or warns her if it gets too much and then she cuts it out. I pick her playmates too


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Liesje said:


> Do you actually "train" your dogs how to interact and play with other dogs, or do you allow dogs to set their own boundaries? CAN you train a dog to the point that you have control over how he interacts with dogs? I don't mean training your dog things like a recall to leave the dog and come back to you, or a "leave it" so you can interrupt play.


I don't, myself. I expect them to recall out of play when I ask, and I'll interrupt/redirect to decrease arousal when things are getting out of hand (Crookytail used to be really bad at controlling himself and would bodyslam other dogs excessively), but that's about the extent of my involvement.

Jean Donaldson has a pretty detailed protocol in her book "FIGHT!" for how to handle dogs whose overly rough play styles and lack of social savvy tend to cause fights. It's essentially a big, carefully structured impulse control program that (1) sets up controlled sessions with known dogs; (2) rewards the dog for appropriate play behavior by allowing the dog to continue play; and (3) penalizes inappropriate play behavior by terminating play. At the same time, in parallel, you work obedience/focus exercises in the presence of other dogs to reduce the subject dog's propensity to get over-excited around them. Eventually you can proceed to new/unfamiliar dogs late in the program.

I'm oversimplifying, but that's the gist of it. I've used some elements from the program with Crookytail (and for us it was reasonably successful), but I have never done the whole thing all the way through, so I can't speak to how well it works.

That's the only program I know of that is specifically directed at teaching dogs to play more appropriately with other dogs, and it seems to be about 50-50 between letting the other dog teach appropriate boundaries and human-led training.


----------



## JanaeUlva (Feb 5, 2011)

Modification of behavior is different than submission by suppression of a behavior. 

Example of suppression: forging - leash corrections suppress the dog's drive and thus it looks like it has submitted to proper position, but once drive comes up again the forging returns. 

Example of modification: forging - reward only proper position using the dogs drive for toy or food. 

And there may be instances where either is appropriate in training.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm not on a high horse. I told you how I did it. you don't think it's good enough. I let the dogs figure it out and if it gets too rough for me, I tell them to stop and they do. I didn't do it with a prong collar. I don't even know how I "taught" half my words in that scenario  I can say "hey" "easy" "leave it" "knock it off" and they seem to know what I want 

I told you I manage situations in training and build from there, I get the impression you think that is cheating and my dogs won't respond under any circumstances like yours will. At least that seems to be what you said.

There are 10,000 variables in any given situation for training, I can't get into all of them, so instead I give you principles. It requires you to think about "how" you might manage and build off something, but much like I don't "correct and teach it in 30 seconds" i like dogs to figure things out on their own. Seems to make a longer lasting impression but then dogs seem to be more willing participants

Example teaching a hold, for a food bowl. A lot of people would have had me choking my dog out to accept a dumbbell. I even did that with my first dog and quit it because it wasn't worth it to me. Instead, they had a chance to take it and hold it and they'd get food from their bowl. If not, they got put in their crate, the food got put out of their reach, but where they could see it and I went inside for at least 30 minutes and came back out and did it again. Of course I varied what I expected from them and how many chances I'd give them before quitting and built it from there, but there was no "correcting" though many would tell me I must do it to get a proper "hold". It wasn't all +R either. Plenty of -R going on as well.


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

JanaeUlva said:


> Modification of behavior is different than submission by suppression of a behavior.
> 
> Example of suppression: forging - leash corrections suppress the dog's drive and thus it looks like it has submitted to proper position, but once drive comes up again the forging returns.
> 
> ...


Don't a lot of people use both at once? What is your take on using suppression in the context of a bigger program of behavior modification?

I am still training my first dog but the above has been very helpful for us. Yet others would argue that the suppression slows learning and will shut down the dog. Is there any sort of consensus on how modification and suppression are related, behaviorally speaking?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

dpc134 said:


> She will no longer play bite hard with this other dog who she regularly plays with...the method that I used was with a correction with prong.


One aspect of dog training that I find interesting is the _why_ from a human standpoint. I'm not trying to provoke or ridicule when I ask why you did this to your dog, because I truly am curious.

It wouldn't occur to me to correct my dog in the middle of play. I have redirected him away from dogs I didn't want him pestering, and I have also recalled him from dogs when I could tell other owners found him annoying, lol. But generally his playmates are well matched to him, because I choose them.

I know this worked for you - I won't tell you that you imagined the whole thing, lol. But I wonder if you did your dog a disservice? Why remove the canine communication? I remember being almost jealous of my neighbor's lab puppy, lmao - my pup was introduced to her when she was 8 weeks old, but wasn't allowed to play off leash with her until she was almost 4 months old. Every time he rolled her she squealed, but you should have seen how incredibly delicate he was with his footing! Cripes, I wish he could be that graceful with me, lol. He was moving like a gymnast for her, but he's usually a bull in a china shop.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Merciel said:


> I don't, myself. I expect them to recall out of play when I ask, and I'll interrupt/redirect to decrease arousal when things are getting out of hand (Crookytail used to be really bad at controlling himself and would bodyslam other dogs excessively), but that's about the extent of my involvement.


For me, it's pretty much this, and what Lies said. I can't even imagine having to correct one of my dogs with a prong collar to teach them how to play nicely together! For one thing, as Lies pointed out, dogs are much better at correcting each other appropriately than we are since they "speak" the same language, but also, it could be dangerous for dogs to play (especially roughly) wearing a prong collar. 

If I had two dogs that couldn't be trusted to play nicely together I wouldn't let them play. But I do like to establish good behavior from the beginning, by interrupting play and having the dogs redirect to me for random OB exercises with food rewards, and then I release them back to play. I do this for several reasons - one, to stop things from getting too aroused, and two, because I want to establish a pattern of stopping what they're doing and paying attention to me, no matter how much fun they're having with each other.

I'll use timeouts in the crate too, and I actually only need to threaten a timeout (DO YOU WANT A TIMEOUT?!?!?! in my best "voice of god", lol), and they'll usually stop right away and look at me. If we're in the bedroom at the time, where their crates are, I can simply say "that's it, timeout!" and they run to their crates.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Blanketback said:


> One aspect of dog training that I find interesting is the _why_ from a human standpoint. I'm not trying to provoke or ridicule when I ask why you did this to your dog, because I truly am curious.
> 
> It wouldn't occur to me to correct my dog in the middle of play. I have redirected him away from dogs I didn't want him pestering, and I have also recalled him from dogs when I could tell other owners found him annoying, lol. But generally his playmates are well matched to him, because I choose them.
> 
> I know this worked for you - I won't tell you that you imagined the whole thing, lol. But I wonder if you did your dog a disservice? Why remove the canine communication? I remember being almost jealous of my neighbor's lab puppy, lmao - my pup was introduced to her when she was 8 weeks old, but wasn't allowed to play off leash with her until she was almost 4 months old. Every time he rolled her she squealed, but you should have seen how incredibly delicate he was with his footing! Cripes, I wish he could be that graceful with me, lol. He was moving like a gymnast for her, but he's usually a bull in a china shop.


Very good question. The owner of the other dog did not like the "rough play biting" from my dog because he said it is ruining his dog's confidence (which I know is not true, but I wasnt going to argue with them). So I wondered if I could train my dog to not play bite with just this dog. My dog also plays consistently with 2 other dogs (both GSD) and she play bites them and their owners understand that they are playing and establishing pack structure and so she plays with them with no corrections from me. But when she plays with the other dog, she will no longer play bite with that dog because of what I trained. I would agree that this would be a desservice to my dog if she wasnt allowed to play bite with any dog, but she still is able to do so, just not with that one dog. This particular dog is around alot, so that is another reason why I decided to train her out of that behavior rather than avoiding any interactions with her. They get along great and still act like best friends. My dog just plays differently with that dog.


----------



## mego (Jan 27, 2013)

dpc134 said:


> Very good question. The owner of the other dog did not like the "rough play biting" from my dog because he said it is ruining his dog's confidence (which I know is not true, but I wasnt going to argue with them). So I wondered if I could train my dog to not play bite with just this dog. My dog also plays consistently with 2 other dogs (both GSD) and she play bites them and their owners understand that they are playing and establishing pack structure and so she plays with them with no corrections from me. But when she plays with the other dog, she will no longer play bite with that dog because of what I trained. I would agree that this would be a desservice to my dog if she wasnt allowed to play bite with any dog, but she still is able to do so, just not with that one dog. This particular dog is around alot, so that is another reason why I decided to train her out of that behavior rather than avoiding any interactions with her. They get along great and still act like best friends. My dog just plays differently with that dog.


In that case it sounds like the other owner is the one that should do the situation controlling. GSDs, all the ones I have seen, play rough, and if he is worried his dog's confidence would be ruined, I'd expect HIM to remove his dog from the situation rather then telling you to train yours to play differently...
but if the training worked, that's pretty cool. I could understand wanting your dog to get along with a dog that's around a lot.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

crackem said:


> I'm not on a high horse. I told you how I did it. you don't think it's good enough. I let the dogs figure it out and if it gets too rough for me, I tell them to stop and they do. I didn't do it with a prong collar. I don't even know how I "taught" half my words in that scenario  I can say "hey" "easy" "leave it" "knock it off" and they seem to know what I want
> 
> I told you I manage situations in training and build from there, I get the impression you think that is cheating and my dogs won't respond under any circumstances like yours will. At least that seems to be what you said.
> 
> ...


Your previous post was making me out to be a trainer that knows nothing and is abusive with my training. And your dog is much better trained than mine.
I am not here to establish who's dog is better trained, rather, I am seeking how others would handle certain scenarios using no physical corrections. You have explained those methods, and I appreciate that. But when you start calling me a liar and judging my intentions, I simply have no need to continue conversing with you.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

mego said:


> In that case it sounds like the other owner is the one that should do the situation controlling. GSDs, all the ones I have seen, play rough, and if he is worried his dog's confidence would be ruined, I'd expect HIM to remove his dog from the situation rather then telling you to train yours to play differently...
> but if the training worked, that's pretty cool. I could understand wanting your dog to get along with a dog that's around a lot.


I totally agree. You are absolutely correct. If it was anybody elses dog, I would just avoid them. This is a situation that I felt could be handled with training my dog. Certainly not fair for my dog to be corrected for this, but I am confident that my dog is not mentally scarred. Also, training her was easier than I thought.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

All - I appreciate everybody's feedback and input. This information has been helpful. I have a few books that I ordered that I will be reading to help expand my training knowledge in +R methods. Thanks to those for the recommendations. 
Keep the thread going with other suggestions. I enjoy hearing peoples different methods and views.


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

dpc134 said:


> Your previous post was making me out to be a trainer that knows nothing and is abusive with my training. And your dog is much better trained than mine.
> I am not here to establish who's dog is better trained, rather, I am seeking how others would handle certain scenarios using no physical corrections. You have explained those methods, and I appreciate that. But when you start calling me a liar and judging my intentions, I simply have no need to continue conversing with you.


my initial post covered pretty much everything, and inferred none of what you got later. your very next post after me, and more than a few others basically said the same thing was excuses.

you had this to say



> I do not want to alter my environment to prevent my dog from chewing on something that she is not supposed to. I want to teach her not to chew on it. I have already done this, but not using +R techniques.


and 



> There is no food or toy to break her distraction for obeying a command, except for physical correction.


Sorry if it sounded like you posed a question, got some answers and then had a comeback stating you already knew the answer to your own question. Management wasn't an option and there was nothing that could break a distraction other than physical correction is what you said.

I tend to think someone really here for discussion and to "learn" as you say, would have taken those first posts and instead of meeting them with resistance and dismissal, would have asked a question maybe, like "how do you manage an environment and then build up the distractions so I can have reliable OB anywhere?" That's something I think a person wanting genuine learning to happen would have asked. 

People that have their mind made up and are looking for validation in what they already believe to be true tend to respond the way you did.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

crackem said:


> my initial post covered pretty much everything, and inferred none of what you got later. your very next post after me, and more than a few others basically said the same thing was excuses.
> 
> you had this to say
> 
> ...


I cannot explain my intentions anymore than I have already. I was asking questions to gain a better understanding. I am sure you are very experienced and your methods are better than mine. I just can't have a civil discussion with somebody on the internet that is calling me a liar and judging my intentions. I am not in 5th grade and do not feel the need to justify my intentions with you. Thanks for the information that you provided.


----------



## madis (Dec 21, 2013)

Since we are on this topic... My 10 week old puppy just humped his toy dinosaur. 

I know humping is a sign of not getting enough exercise. He hasn't had his 3rd parvo vac yet, so we can't take him on real walks yet. We went to Home Depot today on his first big adventure to get him some good social time in and some exercise. He also spent some time with my moms toy poodle mix which didn't go too well so they were separated. She isn't fixed and is usually really submissive and gentle with other dogs. I guess Alvin was the first dog she could boss around because she became an over-dominant bully. 

He came home fine and after dinner he became crazy hyper! Then the humping happened... 

What do I do to make this stop? We redirected him with a chew toy and took the dinosaur away... He's only 10 weeks old what the heck?!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## katdog5911 (Sep 24, 2011)

So glad I found this thread. I have a continual battle going on in my head about different training methods. (and unfortunately my dog is probably not as well trained as she could be due to my indecisiveness) At heart I prefer to use +R but I must be doing something wrong because it just doesn't work in all situations. It is definitely the way to go when teaching new behaviors or tricks but it is what comes after that is confusing to me.... 

As to dog play getting too rough... My 2 1/2 yr old 85 lb girl has been playing with my son's English Mastiff starting when the mastiff was 8 weeks. She was extremely gentle with the puppy, just needed a few reminders to be "easy". Of course now that puppy is 10 months and the play style has changed A LOT. There is a lot more biting and rough play, which I always worry about. But she definitely lets the big guy know when she has had enough. He doesn't always get it, and that is when I step in and make them take a break. A recall for one or the other, and both usually come running. Or if Stella is getting too bitey(is that a word?), I will ask her to go find a stick or toy. It seems better when they have something in their mouths. She knows what "easy" means. Now if only the mastiff would figure that out!!!


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

OP, here's another thing to think about. Know what my best correction is right now, that's all-powerful and most meaningful to my pup? You'll never guess...

Taking my fleece fuchsia hat off, lol! Yup, I put it on first, when I'm getting all bundled up to face the horrible weather conditions (that my pup doesn't notice) and I want him in his crate while I'm getting suited up. If he breaks his stay, and charges the door to rush us out, off the hat goes. You should see him fly back into that crate. Of course, he should be reliable. I could prong him into a stay and get him there faster. Oh well.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Blanketback said:


> OP, here's another thing to think about. Know what my best correction is right now, that's all-powerful and most meaningful to my pup? You'll never guess...
> 
> Taking my fleece fuchsia hat off, lol! Yup, I put it on first, when I'm getting all bundled up to face the horrible weather conditions (that my pup doesn't notice) and I want him in his crate while I'm getting suited up. If he breaks his stay, and charges the door to rush us out, off the hat goes. You should see him fly back into that crate. Of course, he should be reliable. I could prong him into a stay and get him there faster. Oh well.


It is funny how these dogs pick up on stuff. When I put on my hiking shoes, my dog goes crazy because she knows we are going for a walk. However, when I put my work shoes on, she knows I am leaving to go to work and so she just lays there watching me. Never thought a dog could be so smart to know the difference between what shoes you wear. 
I ordered a few books and am thinking of ordered a set of DVDs to learn more about the different training methods out there. At the end of the day, I think that all the different training methods work, depending on the level of training, the dog, and the owner, will dictate which method to use. As long as the dog is happy and your relationship is strong, I think its just splitting hairs.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

I know, they're incredible! My dogs know my wardrobe, and what each piece signifies, lol. 

I don't know it this interests you, but I use it:
BookFinder.com: New & Used Books, Textbooks, Rare Books & Out-of-Print Books

You can get great deals on used books here. I've got quite a collection, lol.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

Blanketback said:


> I know, they're incredible! My dogs know my wardrobe, and what each piece signifies, lol.
> 
> I don't know it this interests you, but I use it:
> BookFinder.com: New & Used Books, Textbooks, Rare Books & Out-of-Print Books
> ...


Thanks for the link. I usually buy from Amazon, but I will definitely check this out.


----------



## dpc134 (Jan 14, 2013)

David Winners said:


> I think this video explains when and why corrections are necessary in training.
> 
> It's over an hour long. The part I'm referring to is at 33 minutes.
> 
> ...


David - thanks for this link. I just watched the entire video. Outstanding information talked in the video. Hands down the best video that I have seen so far explaining the "why" and "how" between +R / physical correction. 
Thanks again!


----------

