# Training a working dog with positive methods?



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

This was brought up on another board I frequent and I was just sort of curious as to the opinions of working/SchH GSD owners. It seems a handful of the people there are under the impression that working line (Czech, DDR, etc.) dogs, police K-9s, and top-SchH dogs cannot be successfully trained using positive reinforcement methods alone. (I do not believe 100% positive training exists but for lack of a better qualifier, I will use positive reinforcement training.)

Firstly, I want to state that I am not looking to start a debate about the various training methods one can use. We don't need another clicker/prong/whatever debate. I'm just curious as to whether or not you feel aversives are a necessary part of proofing a dog for SchH, police work, or other working jobs. That these dogs require a different approach than the average pet dog when it comes to training.

I'll be the first to admit I do not know a lot about Schutzhund. I am fairly certain one could train a dog for a BH and the OB portions of Schutzhund with just a clicker and treats. I assume that one could also do the same for the tracking portion. However I am not as well-versed in the protection phase so I'm not sure I can make a judgement there.

I know there are some K-9 trainers and SchH enthusiasts who do train with positive reinforcement methods, though they are in the minority. I don't see why it can't be done. But I also do not own a GSD so perhaps I am missing something.

Thoughts?


----------



## eberesche (Aug 4, 2007)

For me, same tools, same basic methods working or pet. Some type of compulsion/adversives at some point yes. What, when, and how much depends on the dog.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I am a newbie in SchH, but I believe the pups foundation should be positive training for confidence building, then maybe go w/ some compulsion depending on the dog. It all depends on the dog, IMO.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

There are people out there training to a very high level of competition using primarily positive reinforcement. It CAN be done. Most people don't do it, however, and I think in part it's because they don't really have the knowledge to work through the difficult parts and they don't want to take the time to learn it - it's easier just to go with the corrections that they already have had success with. 

There's a guy training police dogs who has switched to primarily positive methods and he's had great success with them. And there have been a couple of people who have trained dogs (one was a Tervuren) to obedience trial championships using +R. But unfortunately, going by a competition obedience email list I'm on, most still use a high level of corrections.

I think nearly all "positive" trainers use some corrections - even a verbal "no" is a correction. But those who have chosen to go the positive route try to avoid corrections as much as possible. My Service Dog hasn't had much in the way of correction, and she's wonderful.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I've never trained a dog in Schutzhund but have worked with dogs from the same lines. I don't see why you couldn't train at least all the obed and tracking with positive reinforcement. Clicker training and e-collar training work on pretty much the same (if inverse application) principles after all. I think people invoke aversives a lot sooner than they need to claiming "it's a tough dog" but actually because they don't understand how to use positives correctly and effectively (or typically do a good job with aversives either). 

You didn't mention SAR. I don't have a lot of experience there but I did almost all positive training when we were working on that as did most of the other handlers. I did have to go to aversives to deal with crittering however.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I think one needs to first determine what constitutes "positive methods". Does that mean primarily positive or all positive with no corrections, verbal or physical ever being given? Big difference between primarily and all.

Also, one needs to look very closely beyond the surface, because frankly some of the things I've seen done in the name of "purely positive/no correction" training for competition churn my stomach... like starving a dog for 2-3 DAYS to make sure he's hungry enough to do anything for food. Cruel, IMO. But it's considered all positive! And proponents of it will brag that they've titled X number of dogs in Y number of venues without ever needing a collar or so much as a verbal "no".

Likewise, one needs to determine what constitutes non-positive training. If you have on the one hand a verbal "no" and on the other a pinch collar pop, most would say the first is "positive" training and the second is "compulsion" or "force training". But to really know which is which, you need to look at the dog. I've seen softer dogs completely shut down by a simple "no". And lots of harder, higher drive dogs getting pinch collar pops with absolutely no loss of drive, enthusiasm or attitude whatsoever. So before passing judgment on any training method, tool, or anything else, look beyond the surface and see what else is there. And most importantly, look at the dog. He'll tell you through his attitude and performance quite honestly what he thinks of the training in terms of it's "positiveness" or "negativeness".

Can SchH and just about any other form of training be done using primarily positive reinforcement? Absolutely. And in fact most SchH people do use primarily positive methods. There are a few old school types out there, sure, just as there are in any training venue. But the vast majority of training is positive utilizing food and prey drive.

But can SchH, or anything else, be done *reliably* with all positive methods and without any corrections? No, I don't think so. There may be the odd case here or there that is the exception, but in general no. Well, maybe with things like the starvation method, but I don't consider that positive. I don't think my dogs would either. Bet they'd rather here the occasional "no" or get the occasional collar pop than be forced to skip meals for days on end. But at some point there is going to come a time when a competing, higher motivator is present and the cookie, clicker, praise, toy or whatever else the handler offers is not going to be enough. This is when correction is necessary. Admittedly, this sort of scenario is more likely to happen in some training venues than in others (or in every day pet life) which can lead to the perception that some venues are more compulsion oriented than others.


----------



## Brightelf (Sep 5, 2001)

We don't get to choose what our dogs need. So, my mind has been forced open by my first workingline dog.









It really depends on the dog. How would you feel if you met a dog, began "charging the clicker," and as you were doing this, he was cataloging your secondary weaknesses, because he had already mapped out your primary weaknesses? Some dogs have towering dominance agendas. Many workingline dogs are not dominant. Many are very dominant. It depends on the dog. Even without the dominance agenda, drivey dogs have drive.. "gotta do, gotta get, gotta have!".. compulsions that help the dog love working with and for us, make the dance one of mutual cooperation and shared joy. But, compulsions that must be seen as such. Sometimes a "high value" treat can't compete with such a compulsion in some situations where that drive is being brought out, tweaked.

What about relaxing? We want our dogs to relax. I have a dog who can only relax when he is given firm boundaries, and some corrections are a part of that. "Oh, like, kewl! Yer the boss, Ma! I'll just chill out and enjoy the sunshine, then!"

The person who taught me positive methods was the president of a Schutzhund club, a police officer. ALL the dogs in the club were trained with positive motivation since puppyhood, if possible, AND corrections when needed. The dogs were balanced dogs who were so eager to work (cookies and toys are involved!! YEA!) in the sport, and yet stable and calm (corrections when needed.. guess the boss is looking out for me!) under loving, strong leadership. The clicker and treats speeded up responses, amde the dogs eager to work, and the use of food or ball without the clicker LURED the dogs into the positions the trainers wanted. Cool! 

There are also situations in which NOTHING that you have for a "high value" reward will EVER compete with what a strong-minded, drivey, CONFIDENT dog wants to do. This may be more common in dogs with strong drive, in a setting that can be highly charged, such as on a training field (or in a neighborhood!). 

Nothing beats going to the training field and seeing people using treats, or the ball or tuggy to lure the puppies into positions for sits, downs, heelwork. The dogs grow into dogs eager to enjoy and participate in this sport. But I think dogs with strong minds, high drives, (intense urges/compulsions) may need corrections to be able to learn boundaries that they otherwise would ignore -- because ignoring a cookie in favor of a powerful, nearly irresistable stimulus that tweaks drives, can happen more easily for strong, drivey dogs.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

I don't believe you can train ANY dog "successfully" or "reliably" without corrections/compulsion..


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

My "working line" dog is soft and will work based on her pack drive and earning food. No major corrections needed and they will in fact shut her down. My "show line" dog is much drivier and because of that, he is definitely obsessed with certain objects like balls and tugs. It's not just that he has drive, but he has drive to work FOR that special object. To me that's really what I want from a dog's drive. I don't care if a dog is "drivey" if he is just going to be bullheaded and never actually want to work for anything. At Nikon's age and his level in training, some corrections are becoming necessary. How appropriate they are depend on what you are trying to achieve and how they effect the dog. For example, if Nikon does not out his ball you can lift him off his front feet by the prong collar and he still won't let go (not how he is being taught), but if I lifted Kenya off the ground by a prong collar she would probably scream, run away, and never look at me again.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

The people at my schutzhund club advocate the method of following up a correction (for example, a sharp pop on the prong) with click/treats/big praises if the puppy rights himself from the correction.

Is that positive or negative?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I call that "ending on a good note". Personally, I would give a sharp pop to a puppy, you want to set the dog up to succeed. However in some situations I do what you describe. For example if I catch my dog counter surfing I sneak up and SLAM my hand on the counter which startles the dog in a corrective sort of way. Then I ask the dog to sit and stay while I put away whatever he was snooping in, and at the end he gets a biscuit. Also if my dog is just not doing well with something, I stop training it and switch to something else I know he can do in order to end the session on a positive note.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

On what side would you place *isolation*?
Only out of the crate for work.
I don't consider this positive, but it's not a correction or compulsion.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

The situation was last week we were working with Obie and another 10 months old pup on basic stuff like coming when called when they are in highly aroused, distracted state. So the trainer had me called out "Obie, hier", wait a sec to see if he responds. If there is no sign of response 
(no head turn), do a quick pop of the leash (which always get him come running to me), and start hopping a few steps backwayd, then when he comes, act like I haven't seen him in months, click/treat/reward.

His reasoning is that you only use correction on occasions when you feel your dog "knows better". You never correct mistake. You correct disobedience, and even then you always want to, like you said Lies, end on a good note.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

http://www.schutzhund-training.com/training_theory.html has alot of GREAT info....


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Jason LinThe situation was last week we were working with Obie and another 10 months old pup on basic stuff like coming when called when they are in highly aroused, distracted state. So the trainer had me called out "Obie, hier", wait a sec to see if he responds. If there is no sign of response
> (no head turn), do a quick pop of the leash (which always get him come running to me), and start hopping a few steps backwayd, then when he comes, act like I haven't seen him in months, click/treat/reward.
> 
> His reasoning is that you only use correction on occasions when you feel your dog "knows better". You never correct mistake. You correct disobedience, and even then you always want to, like you said Lies, end on a good note.


Oh that makes more sense. I was invisioning a 4 month old puppy with a prong or something like that. Quick pop as an attention getter when the dog is already aroused makes sense.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLeehttp://www.schutzhund-training.com/training_theory.html has alot of GREAT info....


Great info. Thanks!

So what the trainer was doing with Obie qualifies as NEPOPO

_NEPOPO®: This is a method developed by renowned trainer Bart Bellon, using negative reinforcement together with positive reinforcement. It is an extremely effective method of training and uses very low levels of electric collar stimulation applied as a command is given (-ve NE), the stimulation is continued until the dog performs the behavior (+ve PO), once the behavior is performed, the dog is rewarded (+ve PO). So the dog is essentially reinforced twice for the behavior, once by the cessation of the stimulation, and then again by the reward._

I am interested in what people think about isolation. Do you consider that a negative method? Everyone in my club sings the praise of isolation and I have seen first hand that it does make a huge difference. But part of me kind of feel bad for the dogs that they can't just get happy go lucky silly house pets, that they end up spending so much of their days by themselves just so that they will be sharp when it's time for them to work (sometimes for as little as 5-10 minutes).


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Deejays_OwnerOn what side would you place *isolation*?
> Only out of the crate for work.
> I don't consider this positive, but it's not a correction or compulsion.


Good question.

I don't use it and will admit I am uncomfortable with it (though perfectly comfortable with short periods of crating after working and during training anytime it's not our turn).


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

I wonder how to reliably train a strong willed dog that is not food motivated and not toy motivated but can and will work because he is bonded to his owner and wants to make him happy? The harsh corrections may destroy this bond and the dog will see no reason to mind anymore.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Oksana my Kenya is not toy motivated, food motivated enough to train new commands but not really get the focus, flashy obedience I'm looking for in competition. She has a terribly strong bong (I say "terribly" because it sometimes does interfere, she literally won't function if I leave for a weekend). I have made up these little reward games I play with her that look ridiculous but they mean a lot to her and motivate her far more than food and toys. One is called the "Ok up!" game where I release her ("ok") and open my arms so she is allowed to jump all over me. She used to jump up on me when she was insecure, so I put it on cue and now use it as a reward and motivational game. I get her all revved up this way, and use it at the end of a heeling pattern, long down, rally course....same way I'd throw a ball or whip out a tug toy for Nikon.

If the dog has a strong bond and strong pack drive to work with you, get creative with it. It is harder to motivate a dog that is not at all interested in toys and only somewhat interested in food, but it can be done.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: I am interested in what people think about isolation. Do you consider that a negative method? Everyone in my club sings the praise of isolation and I have seen first hand that it does make a huge difference. But part of me kind of feel bad for the dogs that they can't just get happy go lucky silly house pets, that they end up spending so much of their days by themselves just so that they will be sharp when it's time for them to work (sometimes for as little as 5-10 minutes).


I don't consider it a "negative method" from the point of view of learning theory but I have a HUGE problem with it as a practice. I don't believe that dogs are pieces of sporting equipment to be taken out, played with, and then put back in the closet. I think you can boost performance via better training anyway, but even if you couldn't, I don't think the ends justify the means, especially for something that is not a life or death endeavor. And I'm not talking about a little quiet time in the crate before an activity - I'm talking about the widespread practice of leaving dogs kenneled or crated all the time that they're not working. 

Going back to the general topic of the thread, after thinking about it more, I've come to the conclusion that I think a good trainer can almost always train a dog _to do _something using positive reinforcement. Aversives seem to me to be more useful when trying to train a dog _not to do _something. Like I taught Grace to search and trained her indication using her ball drive. I taught her basic obedience using the clicker. But to train her not to chase deer, I needed aversives because she had to be reliable off leash and I didn't have any rewards that compared to the joy of pursuing a deer. We actually didn't get very far with it because shortly after it became a problem we stopped SAR and moved here and she's already off lead reliable enough for being a pet, but had we stayed, that's where I think something like an e-collar might have been necessary. 

Maybe that's my failure as a trainer but that seems to be how my training breaks down - When I'm training an activity I'm pretty much all positive but when it comes to proofing breaks or eliminating undesirable behavior, that's when I use more negatives (sometimes just an "eh!" or "no!" but it's not longer purely positive training).


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: Deejays_OwnerOn what side would you place *isolation*?
> Only out of the crate for work.
> I don't consider this positive, but it's not a correction or compulsion.


Creating drive through deprivation has been used for a very long time. IMO it is cruel.


----------



## angelaw (Dec 14, 2001)

I've known people who have multiple dogs that are together all day as a family and when they'd come out to the field, be oh well. Owner now crates them in the afternoon for a few hours before training. I don't consider that cruel. It's no more cruel than people who work and leave dogs in a crate for the day, imo.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Angela_WI've known people who have multiple dogs that are together all day as a family and when they'd come out to the field, be oh well. Owner now crates them in the afternoon for a few hours before training. I don't consider that cruel. It's no more cruel than people who work and leave dogs in a crate for the day, imo.


I don't have a problem with that. My dog is essentially crated a few hours before training b/c that's how long it takes us to drive there and he's crated in the car and waiting his turn. I don't let him do a lot of play before we leave either because I want him rested, but for me it's more to do with being rested than having to isolate him for drive.

Someone suggested to me that I kennel or crate him ANY time I was not "working" him, not let him play with my other dogs, and only use toys when *I* had them for training purposes. I won't do that. If I had to do that for him to make any progress I'd say the sport is not for him and do something else.


----------



## angelaw (Dec 14, 2001)

that i don't agree with. most dogs can differentiate between regular casual play and work.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

Lisa, I agree 100% that it's cruel!!!

Even when I have been in a show or trial my dog is never crated.
He is my pal & always by my side, walks around to talk to people or watch.
And yes he shares my food from the food stands too!!
I do a very short warm up with him, just to let him know that it's time to go work.
We just did a Competition obedience trial last weekend, a Steward ran outside to get me. 
The person that was up next was not around, so I would be next if they did
not show up. I did a short warm up with him, got to the ring to find the dog before
us had shown up. So I walked him to the side of the ring asked for a down.
After about 8-10 Min's, some people walked by & I hear "man that's just beautiful".
I look down, & he is focus looking up at me. That made me feel so proud!!!


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: Angela_WI've known people who have multiple dogs that are together all day as a family and when they'd come out to the field, be oh well. Owner now crates them in the afternoon for a few hours before training. I don't consider that cruel. It's no more cruel than people who work and leave dogs in a crate for the day, imo.


I am not talking about crating for a few hours before training. I am talking dogs that live in their crates so the only joy they have is coming out to work. Of course I am used to dog that can run the fields with me for several hours and be more than ready to train in the evenings.


----------



## jesusica (Jan 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildBut can SchH, or anything else, be done *reliably* with all positive methods and without any corrections? No, I don't think so...But at some point there is going to come a time when a competing, higher motivator is present and the cookie, clicker, praise, toy or whatever else the handler offers is not going to be enough. This is when correction is necessary. Admittedly, this sort of scenario is more likely to happen in some training venues than in others (or in every day pet life) which can lead to the perception that some venues are more compulsion oriented than others.


This...110% to the 110th power. You cannot convince me that correction is not needed to make things absolute. We (me and dog) do things because they are fun and we enjoy working together but you do this not only because it's fun, you do this because I said so. There is no choice. Period.

Just one example, one day my dog's life may depend on his recall and I need to know with absolute certainty that he will be halfway back to me before I even finish the command, that he won't give me the paw because I don't have a toy on me and that rabbit he's chasing is oh so rewarding, because we haven't done our "warm up" routine that tells him he is on. If that means using the big bad prong or e-collar, so be it. 

I've been a million times harder on Flash than I've ever been on any other dog and guess what? We have the strongest bond I've ever had with a dog. He adores me. He wants to be with me. He wants to work for me and with me. He respects me. He does not shy away from me. The biggest compliment I've ever gotten about my dogs is "You have a tremendous bond with him" and I've received that compliment many times over with Flash.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Can you raise a child with never ever send him to his room, with never ever holding his pocket money? With never saying no for permission to a party? Without forcing them to do their homework instead of going to play. You can raise children without ever putting a finger over him, but without corrections, without using what is an "aversive method" for the child...

Same with dogs. Too many spoiled kids around... and too many spoiled dogs too.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Catu, you will(are) be a very good parent!








and I've always told my kids to question authority-don't know if that advice would be good to tell my dogs...


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

Firstly, I think anyone who needs to starve their dog (of food or attention) to get them to work needs to rethink their relationship with that dog. And maybe even their reason for having one entirely.

As I said, I do not think 100% positive training is possible or feasible. However, in my own training, I focus on the positive. Meaning that I focus on rewarding Risa for behaving correctly rather than correcting her for acting inappropriately. That being said, I still use aversives when necessary though they are generally verbal and not physical. I also follow the aversive with an alternative behavior command so the aversive almost serves more as an interrupter of the behavior I don't want before I cue her to do something more appropriate. 

While I'm training a new behavior (or series of behaviors), I generally avoid using aversives of any kind. Also when we're working (be it rally, general focus, her reactivity, freestyle) I rarely correct the inappropriate behavior. To me, it's more important to keep her up and happy and trying her best rather than squash her drive when she doesn't do as I have asked. Risa is a soft dog and the physical corrections I have used on her in the past have been a detriment to our relationship. Even if I use something like a no reward marker (ie. "That's not right") she tends to get frustrated and her performance suffers. Usually, if she is not performing as I'd like, I need to look at what I'm doing (or what I should have done) to prepare her better. Risa and I don't compete in Schutzhund (probably the best she could attain might be a BH) but we do canine freestyle. Precision and attention to the handler are vital in this event though I know it doesn't have the same 'pressure' as Schutzhund. I also know that Risa is not a Schutzhund-caliber dog nor have I worked with one. Which is why I questioned whether or not aversives are truly necessary. Seems I will have to wait and find out for myself.









Honestly, I do not feel a dog can be 100% reliable no matter what training method you use. Ultimately, they are still dogs and may still chose to do something against your desires. Even dogs behind e-fences will run through the shock to pursue prey if they're so inclined. Sometimes the self-rewarding barking behavior will outweigh the corrections you issue on a prong collar. And I know treats are not always more rewarding than that smell on the ground.









Thanks for the input, everyone.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: onyx'girlCatu, you will(are) be a very good parent!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No kids by now. Not sure if ever









But you want your kids defying the OTHERS authority, not yours LOL!
Again, same with working dogs, you want them to complain to you no matter what, but you teach them to question the helper authority.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

There ARE some dogs out there who can be trained beautifully using little or no correction .. but it takes an exceptional trainer, too, as that person has to have an infinite amount of patience and understanding. Most people don't fit that category.

As far as the long-term crating or starving .. those are techniques that I've heard associated with compulsive training, not positive training. Positive trainers often use the dog's meal for training instead of just handing out food, but that couldn't be considered cruel.

There just aren't any true definitions to "positive training", etc. We each have our own ideas of what they mean. To me, a positive trainer is one that tries to train without corrections and manages to use minimal corrections at most. They focus on what the dog is doing right, not what the dog is doing wrong. And if it means earning a ribbon or using harsh corrections to "fix" a problem, they skip the ribbon. Harsh corrections would only be used for life-threatening problems, not for competition. 

Of course, that's MY OPINION and MY DEFINITION. After seeing many of the terrible things that can and have been done just to win a ribbon, I decided I would never mistreat my dog in the name of competition. Sheesh, world-class schutzhund competitors actually boast about using sharpened prong collars and laugh about how their dogs bled! (Well, one competitor that I took a clinic from once, anyhow). And top-winning obedience competitors still use ear pinches for retrieves, still smack dog's toes with wood dowels to make them even up their feet, etc. I think too much abuse happens in the name of winning.

Ack, end of rant .. *L* .. I still say that there are dogs that can be trained with primarily positive and learn to be reliable, but again most people aren't patient enough to learn and implement the training.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
.. with reliable Trick, who never even heard "no" until she was at least six months old; and a chow as a Service Dog, taught to bring things using 98% positive training.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje I have made up these little reward games I play with her that look ridiculous but they mean a lot to her and motivate her far more than food and toys.


 Thanks for your reply, Lies! You understood what I meant. I also start developing my own system of rewarding (even though I still try to develop retrieve for fun and tugging) and will try to become more creative.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: jesusica
> I've been a million times harder on Flash than I've ever been on any other dog and guess what? We have the strongest bond I've ever had with a dog. He adores me. He wants to be with me. He wants to work for me and with me. He respects me. He does not shy away from me. The biggest compliment I've ever gotten about my dogs is "You have a tremendous bond with him" and I've received that compliment many times over with Flash.


 What about you? Do you adore him, want to spend time with him and respect him even though you need to correct him heavily often? (it's really a generalized question to understand handler-dog relationship, I don't mean to be personal). I wouldn't bond to the dog in this case, and his adoring me would just annoy me.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest To me, a positive trainer is one that tries to train without corrections and manages to use minimal corrections at most. They focus on what the dog is doing right, not what the dog is doing wrong. And if it means earning a ribbon or using harsh corrections to "fix" a problem, they skip the ribbon. Harsh corrections would only be used for life-threatening problems, not for competition.


I agree with this definition completely. Also I don't consider 'no' or 'ack' a 'correction' or a 'compulsion' but hanging on a prong collar or snapping hard to get a yelp I do. 

I was in a class when a trainer taught down stay by forcing a dog in the down position, then wait when the dog gets up and choke him back into down, and keep doing it until the dog gave up to get up. Effective method, yes, but I didn't procede like this with my dogs, didn't feel right to me. 

Or a behaviourist and an accomplished trainer whose only method for anything is correct the dog, and if he doesn't comply correct harder and harder. She claimed that all dogs love her and would leave with her after the training session leaving their owners behind even though she was very harsh with them and caused them so much pain.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

I agree jesusica.

I have NO problem myself with giving a correction for *absolute disobedience.*
Be it verbal or a occasional collar pop (Flat, fur-saver or prong) that all will depend on the dog.
I have dropped my dog on a deer & rabbits with a verbal more than a few time.
But he has also had some heavy correction for not dropping in the past.
I can not remember what it was he was jack-up for, but do remember grabbing him by the fur-saver
with such force and put him down, that I cut my hand to **** with this dog tags.
I do have a problem with jacking-up a dog, up to a frenzy in drive, and then being heavy handed with a prong
or e-collar too keep them in position, so you can get a few more points.
Now I'm talking about in Heeling, recalls, send-out etc., not Protection.
And with holding food and/or total isolation is down right CRUEL.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: GSD07What about you? Do you adore him, want to spend time with him and respect him even though you need to correct him heavily often? (it's really a generalized question to understand handler-dog relationship, I don't mean to be personal). I wouldn't bond to the dog in this case, and his adoring me would just annoy me.


Not jesusica, but I have to say that this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Maybe I'm just not understanding the point, but I fail to see how much correction a dog needs having any bearing on the handler loving the dog, or how a dog adoring the handler would be annoying... or how a harder or more buttheaded dog adoring the handler would be more annoying than a softer or more compliant dog doing so? I just don't get it.


----------



## Betty (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: lhczth
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Deejays_OwnerOn what side would you place *isolation*?
> ...


Not only cruel but in my opinion downright stupid. Why own a dog?


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I used to really dive into these debates trying to validate my opinion with "facts", but i don't seem to do that much anymore, in the end they are all still just opinions.

But I believe dogs learn from all aspects of life, "good" and "bad", so I use them when I deem appropriate. I didn't know what was "appropriate" to get my desired outcome early on in training, although I believed I knew it all from reading books, message boards, and a couple videos. But i've learned since than as does anyone that sticks with it. 

To me, I have a relationship with my dog that I want. I don't care what person A, B, or C says my relationship "should" be, because it just doesn't matter. 

I like my dogs to perform well in trials, I also have my dogs first and foremost as companions and we live together. They get to interact with my family and friends, our cats, the other dogs in our family when I deem appropriate, outsider dogs when I see fit to do it. 

They also know the crate and are comfortable just laying around till I'm able to interact with them. it's not ideal for me, but it is a fact of life for us.

I base all my foundation and most training after all on marker and reward based training, because I like it. 

I use physical corrections too at times because I find them to be effective and useful. I know when I use too much or not enough, our relationship suffers because the message isn't clear, or fair. I've experienced what can happen from too much or not enough and learned how to make it work for the relationship I want with my dogs.

as I learn more, I find myself using them less often, but they are becoming more effective in their message and application. Are they becoming less frequent because i'm finding they don't work that well? or is it because i'm getting better at making the message clear when I do use them? I'd like to believe the latter, but also realize that my dogs are probably figuring out what I really want from all the foundation work too. 

I realize none of my dogs today will get me to the world stage, maybe if I did somethings different i'm sure I get eek some more out of them, but then I wouldn't be living with my dogs in a way that brings us all the best experience. In the end that's all that matters to me.

Others are "wired" a bit different, just like the dogs we train and have a different "ideal" situation.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Sorry I have this weird habit of playing the situation from different points of view, and the question wasn't really directed only to jesusica but to everybody. If the dog needs constant corrections because nothing else works and I always have to be prepared to give that correction because he never gets the point than I would not adore the dog because I would think that the dog is adoring me out of fear or consequences of immediate punishment if he doesn't comply, and I don't like to be feared. 

I maybe wrong so that's why I asked the question.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

^ That makes more sense but I don't think that's what she was saying. If the dog needs constant corrections then personally, I don't believe the dog even understands what behavior is being asked and he needs to be _trained_, not corrected. That's why I'm always a little confused when some people say they have a dog that is high drive, yet is "stubborn" and needs a lot of corrections in training. To me it seems that a high drive dog is relatively easy to train, just whip out the ball or toy or whatever gets him going. Sometimes I use a toy as a crutch much like people will use a prong as a crutch because I know that even if my dog is not totally proofed, I can distract him with his ball in half a second and have focus and control if there is another dog walking past barking and causing a ruckus that my dog would normally react to.

But, I can understand using correctings for disobedience, safety, and for proofing a behavior the dog has demonstrated he understands.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

I think you can train a working line dog (or any other) using very, very little in the way of corrections/compulsion IF....

1. you were able to set a strong foundation
for example--from puppyhood, all recalls done on longline with lots of positives for reward. The dog never learns that he can run the other way.

2. the handler has very good timing and ENERGY!
We call it "being the chihuahua." The handler is always exciting and fun and rewards are immediate. It is hard (at least for me) to keep up that level of enthusiasm.

When I first started competing, I was enamored of all the high-level competition dogs with their super fast recalls and focused heeling and flip finishes that you miss if you blink. 
But as I have learned what many, many people do to get there--and that it seems to be OK within the training community-- I certainly look at those dogs through different lenses now.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: GSD07Sorry I have this weird habit of playing the situation from different points of view, and the question wasn't really directed only to jesusica but to everybody. If the dog needs constant corrections because nothing else works and I always have to be prepared to give that correction because he never gets the point than I would not adore the dog because I would think that the dog is adoring me out of fear or consequences of immediate punishment if he doesn't comply, and I don't like to be feared.
> 
> I maybe wrong so that's why I asked the question.


Ok, that makes more sense.

Though I agree with Lies that if a dog is needing constant corrections, something is going wrong elsewhere. Dogs don't just choose disobedience for the heck of it on a regular basis. Dogs do what is in their best interest and it's just not in their best interest to do so, regardless of if the training is motivational or compulsion based. 

So if the dog is regularly failing to do as the handler wants, either the dog doesn't fully understand what is being asked, is being set up to fail (too much distraction, to high a drive level, etc.. for it's level of training and mental abilities), or the handler isn't communicating to the dog properly. In which case it's a training/handling issue, not a dog issue.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Great post, crackem!


----------



## new_wind (Oct 24, 2008)

Personally I don’t believe excellence can be achieved with only positive training unless you have the right formula. 
I was just talking to one of the class instructors who only teach positive training, observing how he works and achieve results I could see lots of interesting things.
Instruction with positive methods is not something that you wake up every morning take the dog to the park while you are waking up and practice some recall, go back to breakfast, shower, dress and go to work leaving your dog in the crate for 6 or 8hours.
Positive training is not for everyone, and is not something you can achieve in short run unless you have time to practice for hours every single day with the right state of mind and disposition from the dog.
I can see positive training working for TRAINERS and some percent of pet owners, but not for all of them, based on the attitude of every single day, base on the dedication, time, state of mind and many other factors...
Probably absurd, but I compare all those nice “Positive training” methods, books and videos to those motivational books for people, many people claim it works, but most people cant accomplish anything with them, it is the book?, It’s the person? Or is a balance in Book, Person, Timing and state of mind?
I think regardless of the information, The right state of mind from the trainer, good preparation for the environment and to know the dog very well could bring great success, otherwise we might get some small achievements’ but not a successful training.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: crackemAs I learn more, I find myself using them less often, but they are becoming more effective in their message and application. Are they becoming less frequent because i'm finding they don't work that well? or is it because i'm getting better at making the message clear when I do use them? I'd like to believe the latter, but also realize that my dogs are probably figuring out what I really want from all the foundation work too.


I think it's probably a combination of you getting better at making the message clear and the foundation work you've done with them. If a dog is trained with primarily marker and reward training the occasional firm correction is going to have a bigger impact than if a dog is trained with a lot of compulsion and gets corrections routinely, IMO. And I totally agree with your philosophy of living with your dogs in a way that brings you all the best experience. I don't compete in anything, but if I ever decide to train to that level, that's one thing I will not compromise on. My dogs' first and most important job is being "just" a pet. 



> Originally Posted By: gagsd_pup1We call it "being the chihuahua."


I LOVE that!


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: Savannah's DadProbably absurd, but I compare all those nice “Positive training” methods, books and videos to those motivational books for people, many people claim it works, but most people cant accomplish anything with them...


Are you familiar with Sheila Booth? http://www.puppyworks.com/speaker/booth.html 

http://leerburg.com/925.htm


----------



## new_wind (Oct 24, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Savannah's DadProbably absurd......
> ...


I saw her name, but i haven't read anything from her yet...
Does she use a different or particular method?


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Savannah's DadPositive training is not for everyone, and is not something you can achieve in short run unless you have time to practice for hours every single day


I don't understand this, why would it take hours every single day?


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: GSD07
> I agree with this definition completely. Also I don't consider 'no' or 'ack' a 'correction' or a 'compulsion' ...............


You may not consider "no" a correction, but most dogs do. There are many dogs that a "no" can be far worse in their minds than a little pop on the collar. I agree that "no" is not compulsion.


----------



## Colorado (Nov 25, 2007)

I think crackem probably gave the best advice. I don't think people on one side of this issue are going to be convinced and come over to the other side.

Personally, I feel most comfortable avoiding the extremes. Certainly I find techniques like deprivation, starvation, choking, and "yanking sharpened prong collars until blood is drawn" (yikes) to be abhorrent. I would never resort to such extremes and question whether anyone who would should own a dog.

On the other hand the opposite extreme of "purely positive" seems to me to be a silly, unrealizable goal. Dog training is (to me) all about communication. Imagine taking the purely positive mindset to relationship advice. How would you react to the following "advice":



> Quote:In a relationship, a person should use a purely positive approach when dealing with their SO. They should never use corrections (either physical or verbal) to elicit the behavior they want. For example, let's say that your partner hogs the remote and only tunes to shows they find interesting. Be patient. At some point they will randomly surf to a channel/show that you want to watch. Be ready with positive reinforcement. This could be clapping excitedly, giving them a snack, etc. Never correct them, even if they come into the room while you are in the middle of your favorite show, grab the remote from you, and change the channel.


If you don't read that and find it laughable, then I'd be shocked. Sometimes the direct communication of "Honey, I really hate it when you do that," is very effective and not cruel or inappropriate. Similarly, I find an "ah ah" to a dog or a quick tug on a leash to be equally effective and appropriate.

As to why physical and not verbal corrections, it is because dogs don't have language (beyond simply howling, growling etc.) If a dog lower in the hierarchy in the pack tries to eat out of turn, the alphas don't ask them not to or bark at them to stop. After a growl the next step is physical. If pups wander away from a mother, she doesn't ask them to come back--she goes over, picks them up, and brings them back. I would never knowingly hurt a dog but there is a huge difference between animal cruelty and communication via physical touch or contact.

My dog's prey drive is off the charts. If Nikita sees a rabbit while on a walk every muscle in her body gets rock-hard tense. If you can get her to sit, she still never takes her eyes off the rabbit and she visibly shakes with anticipation/drive/excitement. She will spit out even the tastiest of treats--the first time she spit a hot dog out into my hand was a wake up call for me. I've been working on physically picking her up (she's 45 pound GSD mix so I can handle that) and turning her away from the rabbit. I'll then ask her to focus on me. It is almost impossible for her to do so. She will keep trying to whip around "reacquire" the rabbit. When she does this I will either say "ah ah" or give a quick leash-tug correction. It takes time but eventually she relaxes down to 70% or so. At that moment I praise her for this--though I've read some theories that I should wait until she is back down to zero before lavishing her with praise/treats. But my point is that without a physical correction she would never even notice me as long as that rabbit was withing range.


----------



## jesusica (Jan 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: GSD07Sorry I have this weird habit of playing the situation from different points of view, and the question wasn't really directed only to jesusica but to everybody. If the dog needs constant corrections because nothing else works and I always have to be prepared to give that correction because he never gets the point than I would not adore the dog because I would think that the dog is adoring me out of fear or consequences of immediate punishment if he doesn't comply, and I don't like to be feared.
> 
> I maybe wrong so that's why I asked the question.


You misunderstood. He doesn't get constant corrections. When he does get corrected, though, it's a much stronger correction than I've had to give my other dogs. I love my dog and enjoy everything from training to sleeping in bed with him. I actually find my soft dog to be annoying. Everything is "too much" for her. I have to be ridiculously gentle in my tone, physical touch to her (just petting, forget wrestling with her like I do Flash), and mannerisms. And she is so gentle towards me. And needy. Whereas Flash adores me because WE HAVE FUN LET'S GO GO GO, she adores me because she is so freaking needy. I hate it. I freely admit Flash is the "favorite". My personality jives best with a dog like him.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

The problem is, in my opinion, that most people talk about "training". It's more complicated than that. There is _TEACHING_ (our part) then there is _LEARNING_ (the dogs part) and *THEN* there is _PROOFING_ (again - the dogs part).

Teaching CAN be done using 100% positive methods. This is where you communicate to the dog - for the first time - what you want them to do.

Once you are positive the dog understands your communication, then comes the PROOFING. You ask for a behavior and if the dog does not comply - there are consequences. It doesn't matter if it's a verbal or physicalk correction or withholding a reward - it's a consequence.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

That's a good explanation!







And very related to basically what I was dancing around with my using positive to teach something, using some negatives to stop them from doing something you don't want them to do (be that crittering or breaking a stay). 

What I see A LOT are people who simply aren't good trainers and they're being a lot more negative and harsh than they need to be, maybe not even with any better results, simply because that's all they know to do or all they believe will work. I can't tell you how many "impossible" dogs we've pulled from shelters who were simply the victims of poor teachers. Given the opportunity to succeed, the dog did so. And while it would be tempting (and at least partially accurate) to argue that the sort of people involved with high drive sport dogs are probably better trainers than the bulk of the ones surrendering them to our shelters, I've still seen a lot of shoddy training going on with working dogs as well and often from people who are supposed to be experts. 

Come to that - you see it with teaching children or anyone else. I think many of us can identify with using negatives in an attempt to change our kids or spouse's behavior and NOT getting the results we want, and yet continuing to use the same (or an escalating) approach. I see it in the schools all the time - even from supposedly experienced teachers. They use methods that ignore the fundamentals of reinforcement and expect to get good results. When they don't, it's the kid's fault. Same with a lot of handlers - dog doesn't perform well or quickly, the dog must be "stubborn", "hard headed", "dominant." Maybe. Often not though - I see a lot more handlers too stubborn to try a new approach than dogs unwilling to learn from one.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

Very true, Laurie and Pupresq! When corrections come during proofing stage than they are warranted.

jesusica, yes, I did misunderstand your post. Thank you for clarifying it, it does make a perfect sense. Next time I will have my coffee first and read more carefully before typing any answers.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

So many good things have been said since I last read through this thread! What I see overall (not everyone, but most) is that people really want to use positives as much as possible, but find that communicating to the dog that there ISN'T an option (like going after that moose!) usually means using corrections, at whatever level is necessary for their particular dog.

I think that pupresq was right on with "What I see A LOT are people who simply aren't good trainers and they're being a lot more negative and harsh than they need to be, maybe not even with any better results, simply because that's all they know to do or all they believe will work.". This is one of the problems I saw as a class instructor, especially with beginning students. Humans find it so much easier to notice when their dogs are doing something "wrong" than noticing when their dogs are doing something "right" (right and wrong being our definitions, not the dogs'). And because people tend to be wired that way, they find it easier to correct than to reward, since they're trying to stop a behavior instead of trying to teach one. When we can get people to change their mindset - and that's all it is, a mindset - then we get people who use a high level of positive reinforcement because they're now seeing all the things that their dog does RIGHT and can reward those.

It doesn't seem to be natural for people to praise and reward (I'm generalizing again - of course there are exceptions). Even between humans, we tend to tell someone else when they're wrong and forget to say "wow, that's great!" when they do something right. Doing "right" is expected, doing "wrong" means consequence. It's the way society is set up - heck, I never get a letter of thanks from law enforcement for maintaining the proper speed limit, but I sure get punished if I get caught speeding! Everything is based on corrections after the fact, not rewards for staying within certain boundaries or behaviors.

This is one of the reasons why I really try to promote positive training online. I KNOW that people are going to correct .. I want to give them options if I can so that they will have less need to correct, and therefore may have a more satisfying relationship overall with their dog.

I also think that those who view dogs are primarily competition animals (many of those who strive to be the "best") have a very different mindset than those of us who have companions first and competitive dogs second. I know that my relationship with my own dogs is different now than it was when I first started competing and first started having success. I wanted to WIN!! I pushed my dogs in ways that I would never do now. I used the ear pinch for retrieving because I was told "you will NEVER get a reliable retrieve for competition without a forced fetch!". Then I found, when I went back and retrained the retrieve using positive reinforcement instead, my dogs showed a much better attitude (ears forward, eagerly leaning in anticipation of being sent for the dumbbell, etc.). They WERE reliable retrievers with the forced fetch/ear pinch ... they became reliable and more enthusiastic with the positive reinforcement methods. And then I stopped using the ear pinch and found the +R methods worked great without that high level of compulsion.

The whole concept of +R works well with other species, too. I see it with kids .. when I gave music lessons, I could get kids to do all SORTS of practice just to earn another sticker on a chart or a tiny piece of candy! But if I tried to be stern to push them to practice, I just ended up with reluctant students.

A psychology major in the college I attended did a little experiment with his roommate (unbeknownst to the roommate at the time, of course). The man was learning about operant conditioning and the use of positive reinforcement, and he decided that every time his roommate picked up a book, he would suddenly be very attentive to his roommate - talking to him, smiling, joking, etc. - but when the roommate didn't hold a book, he would mostly ignore him. Within a very short amount of time, he had his roommate carrying around a book WITHOUT being aware of being manipulated. 

Yes, you CAN use these methods on the people around you .. *L* .. but it does take concentration and consistency on YOUR part, and that's where most people fail.

On the concept of proofing .. a dog with a really strong background in the desired behavior, one that has been taught consistently, fairly and been properly rewarded for the behavior, doesn't usually need much of a correction (if any) during proofing. Most dogs I've seen who needed really hard corrections for most behaviors (I'm talking competition behaviors mostly, like heeling, retrieving, drops on recall, jumps, etc.) didn't really have a good solid training phase. That's a human mistake, but the dogs end up paying for it. This is one of the problems I have with compulsion .. it's just too easy for people to blame the dog and then feel justified in giving hard physical corrections when it often isn't the dog's fault.

This has been a good conversation. I think most posting here are basically within the same realm of training - use lots of +R, teach your dogs an understanding of what you want, and then add consequences if necessary once the dog has firmly learned the behavior. And I think that most of us have companion dogs first, competition second. We love our dogs for the emotional bond more than we love them for the status they might bring through a ribbon or title. 

Time to go kiss my furry friends .. *L*

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Lauri, that was a great post. Great summary, I agree 100% even if I fall short at times.

I would like to say that before I got Nikon and got into SchH, I did a LOT of various training classes and competitions with Kenya and overall, I feel like there are good and bad trainers (and the "bad" are generally just people who are uninformed) across the board. I'm not trying to defend SchH, but so far it has *not* been my experience that SchH handlers use more corrections in training. At times, we use harsher corrections, but when I think back on all the training I've done, it's usually the people that come into basic obedience class at my "positive" club (actually it's called Pawsitive) that are jerking their dogs around on a choke chain, pushing their butts down into a sit. I have also seen people come to the SchH club that need to totally overhaul their training methods to incorporate the positive methods we use and are surprised when they are told that they need to learn to PLAY with their dogs and motivate their dogs before the dog is going to learn a thing worth repeating.

So, overall, in the most general sense I have not seen a difference in how dogs are trained at my "positive" club and my SchH club, only inexperienced people and/or people who are unwilling to change that are guilty of constantly correcting or over correcting their dogs.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Liesje I have also seen people come to the SchH club that need to totally overhaul their training methods to incorporate the positive methods we use and are surprised when they are told that they need to learn to PLAY with their dogs and motivate their dogs before the dog is going to learn a thing worth repeating.


Liesje, 

That is so true. I have always felt the obedience classes Obie and I went to were more negative (in method and in spirit) than the schutzhund people that we train with now. It just seemed like in those classes (again, just the ones we went to), so much emphasis was put on getting the dog to NOT do something: don't bark, don't jump, don't pull, don't play rough, don't do this, don't do that. The mood of the class may be "friendlier" and the setting more benign and they didn't have scary stuff like bite sleeves and agitation whips and _no one used prong collar_ but that doesn't change the fact the feel of the classes was boring, negative, and depressing.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I think a lot of classes are like that. I think good SchH trainers/helpers are GOOD trainers period. I wouldn't be allowing our helper to train and work my dog if I didn't agree with the methods or trust him with my dogs in general.

Thankfully, my "regular" positive trainer is not like that, only some of the people that show up. She has been very accommodating of Nikon and how we train and is interested in what he does in SchH. Last week in his class I was using his ball and another couple wanted to try with their dog so I gave them one of mine and the trainer didn't care.

But really there are so many "pet" people out there that still think you rub a dog's face in their accident, swat them on the nose with newspaper, throw chains in front of them, etc. Even when Nikon was a pup and I hired a student to come play with him while I was at work, she asked "so how should I discipline him if he has an accident?" She didn't mean anything by it, just wasn't informed. I told her to not react other than bringing him outside to finish, pour Nature's Miracle on the spot, and leave me a note saying where he peed. Instead I asked her to just focus on playing with him and giving him treats and I would clean up the messes later.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think trainers and handlers are a mixed bag almost across the board (no pun intended







).

At our clicker class, it really is ALL positive, to the point that I worry I'm going to slip up and use a correction out of habit and get the death stares! But the trainers are excellent and they really do get results. I have learned a LOT about better ways to train all sorts of things - including the basics, which I've been doing forever but their methods really are better. But I've also been to total crap basic classes and seen plenty of poor handling go on. On the other hand, Schutzhund and SAR are the only two places that I've encountered people who will tell you with pride that their dogs are crated or kenneled 100% of the time they're not working. That's certainly not all or even most working handlers, I'm just saying the times I've run across that practice it's always been in those venues. It's so sad! A couple of the dogs had visibly poor muscle tone in their haunches, I'm assuming from lack of exercise, and yet their handlers thought they were doing a far better job than those of us who treated the dogs like members of the family. 

But the more common issues are just handler errors and a tendency to blame the dog instead of trouble shooting what we as the person part of the equation could do better. I have seen an awful lot of "stubborn" dogs who were really just confused. You can sometimes do training exercises with the people where you give the person the same amount of feedback they give the dog and see if they can figure out what you want. That's a pretty eye-opening experience for a lot of people! 

I agree with Melanie though - this has been a good thread. It seems like people are more on the same page than not and that the posters all love their dogs and want to have good working relationships with them using techniques that are effective and no more negative than they need to be.


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

Thanks to everyone who has offered their input on this thread. I am SO happy we have all been so civil. There is a plethora of great information here that I can't even go through and single any out without making a huge quote post.


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

Jamie - You beat me to it, I was just going to post about how fabulous it is to have this thread be so civil - they often turn so ugly and this one hasn't


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> There's a guy training police dogs who has switched to primarily positive methods and he's had great success with them.


I'm pretty sure that I know who you're referring to. He's told me that he was NEVER able to train a dog completely with those methods. AND I have it on good authority that he purposefully selected soft dogs so that he could use those methods. I've been told that sometimes the handlers that he trained knew that their dogs would not handle certain circumstances (that dogs selected conventionally and trained with conventional methods could handle) and so refused to deploy them. Selecting dogs in this fashion is a dis–service to the police dog handlers and the public they serve.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Chris WildI think one needs to first determine what constitutes "positive methods". Does that mean primarily positive or all positive with no corrections, verbal or physical ever being given? Big difference between primarily and all.
> 
> Also, one needs to look very closely beyond the surface, because frankly some of the things I've seen done in the name of "purely positive/no correction" training for competition churn my stomach... like starving a dog for 2-3 DAYS to make sure he's hungry enough to do anything for food. Cruel, IMO. But it's considered all positive! And proponents of it will brag that they've titled X number of dogs in Y number of venues without ever needing a collar or so much as a verbal "no".


A trainer I often debate with says that she'd starve a dog for "up to four days." She sees nothing wrong with this and claims that she's "all positive."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Jason Lin
> So what the trainer was doing with Obie qualifies as NEPOPO
> 
> _NEPOPO®: This is a method developed by renowned trainer Bart Bellon, using negative reinforcement together with positive reinforcement. It is an extremely effective method of training and uses very low levels of electric collar stimulation applied as a command is given (-ve NE), the stimulation is continued until the dog performs the behavior (+ve PO), once the behavior is performed, the dog is rewarded (+ve PO). So the dog is essentially reinforced twice for the behavior, once by the cessation of the stimulation, and then again by the reward._


Sorry for the off–topic departure but Mr. Bellon did not _"develop" _this. Knowledgeble Ecollar trainers have been doing it for decades. What Mr. Bellon did was to _"trademark" _ it. He's a good dog trainer but he didn't invent this, he just _"branded" _it. Clever marketing but nothing to do with dog training.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

I believe that good training, like just about everything in life, is best when it's balanced. Mixing reinforcement and punishment according to the needs of the dog. "Pure positive" training does not exist. Neither does "Pure punishment" training. 

I believe that it's impossible to train a working dog without using punishment at some point. But I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong. Just show me the dog!


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: LouCastleA trainer I often debate with says that she'd starve a dog for "up to four days." She sees nothing wrong with this and claims that she's "all positive."


This is an interesting topic. I was talking to a guy who competes in obiedence with his lab (I think they are going for their utility title this fall) and he said that he would fast his dog for one to two days (1 - 3 meals, roughly) before training. His argument was that when you have a dog with a strong food drive and you need to tap into that drive to make him sharp, that's what you have to do and that it is no different than trainer withholding toys and play from a dog with a strong prey drive in order to build up the dog's intensity/desire to work.

Thoughts?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Well, IMO if the dog has strong food drive it sure does NOT need to be starved to access that. If a dog has to be starved, it does not have strong food drive. 

Our dogs will occasionally skip *one* meal before tracking, but they never skip more than that. And with most of our dogs, we have found skipping that meal to be counterproductive because their natural food drive is so strong that if you add that extra hunger on top of it, they can become too hectic. So they tend to track best if they have had a meal than if they haven't. They can have just eaten 10 minutes before and they're more than willing to work for food. To me that is a dog who truly has food drive.

Though yes, I think it is along the same lines of using isolation and lack of play or social interaction to build up a dog's desire to work. My opinion on that is much the same. If a dog needs to be deprived of attention, play, toys, etc... in order for it to be willing to work for those things, than it doesn't have very strong drive in the first place.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Yeah, I would agree with Chris - if the dog has strong drives, they don't need to be deprived to that degree to tap into them. And I would argue there IS a big difference in depriving a dog of one of the basic necessities of life(ie food) and reserving a special toy for training sessions.









Anyway, I think it's a false choice to think that in order to use positive reinforcement you have to use deprivation of that type. Keep a special toy just for training, don't feed the dog right before you work them (a good idea from a bloat prevention standpoint anyway) - all that is fine. But starving the dog or keeping them crated all the time is the mark of a bad/lazy trainer IMO. There are better ways to accomplish the same goals.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Personally I don't withhold food (or anything) for the sake of performance. I may only give a half meal before SchH because I don't want the dog to be full and bloat b/c he's going nuts during bitework. In those situations is more common sense/safety. To me, if the dog doesn't have the drive then he doesn't have it, no sense is starving him just to get him to work. Sometimes I grab a cup of kibble and use the meal FOR training, but if I like what I see and have 2/3 left, I just give him the rest. So I might train or track AT a meal time, but I don't withhold that meal. And certainly not 2-3 meals or 2-3 DAYS at a time. I don't get as much drive or sharpness with food anyway. In training we use food to track or to introduce a new behavior and work on positioning when I don't necessarily want the dog in high drive. When we're working on being faster, more drive, flashier, etc we go to the toys. And along those lines, my dogs have toys all over the house and yard too. My SchH toys I keep away but that's b/c they will get constantly chewed and destroyed, not because I need to deprive the dog (he has balls galore, even the same balls he works for with the strings that came off, and it has no effect on his ball drive or using the ball for work).


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Jason Lin
> This is an interesting topic. I was talking to a guy who competes in obiedence with his lab (I think they are going for their utility title this fall) and he said that he would fast his dog for one to two days (1 - 3 meals, roughly) before training. His argument was that when you have a dog with a strong food drive and you need to tap into that drive to make him sharp, that's what you have to do


It seems to me that if the dog has a "strong food drive" that you don't need to starve him for "one to two days" to "tap into" it. If the dog has a medium food drive, this may be the case. 



> Originally Posted By: Jason Lin
> that it is no different than trainer withholding toys and play from a dog with a strong prey drive in order to build up the dog's intensity/desire to work.


If a dog has strong toy or play drive it's not necessary to withhold them from him to build them up. But so few people have seen a dog that truly has a "strong" drive (the term I use is "pronounced") that they really don't have any idea. 

But to address the difference directly, withholding a toy from a dog does not affect his nutritional needs, withholding food does. Dogs don't suffer because they lack a certain toy. They certainly do suffer if they're starved for long enough.


----------



## angelaw (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Chris Wildwe have found skipping that meal to be counterproductive because their natural food drive is so strong that if you add that extra hunger on top of it, they can become too hectic.



Most definitely!!


----------



## GSDBESTK9 (Mar 26, 2002)

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> It seems to me that if the dog has a "strong food drive" that you don't need to starve him for "one to two days" to "tap into" it.


So true!!! The 2 puppies I currently have have extreme food drives, I have fed them a full bowl of kibble (puppy bowl







) and then taken them tracking. Even with a full stomach they "CLEANED" the scent box! They kept at it non-stop.







They didn't leave one single piece of food behind! And they kept wanting to go back to the scent box after I had taken them away from it.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

^ Yep, I actually have to feed mine something before obedience (if using food) and tracking or he is just obsessed with the food and barely thinking/learning. Once he was doing his scent pad and a rabbit came leaping out, saw the dog and froze, then waited about 10 seconds before running back and he never saw it or cared. I've noticed some of the other dogs if they are not really hungry get really distracted when doing a scent pad or track, instead they are looking around, whining at other dogs, etc. Nope, not mine he sees the boots on my feet and he comes out of the crate with his nose stuck down vacuuming up anything that even resembles a kibble, only glances up to spot where the flag is.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Chris WildI think one needs to first determine what constitutes "positive methods". Does that mean primarily positive or all positive with no corrections, verbal or physical ever being given? Big difference between primarily and all.
> ...


She can claim anything she wants, but she's flat out wrong. There is nothing positive about starving your dog, it's abuse, plain and simple, and anyone using the term to describe that kind of training method is showing a complete misunderstanding of the concept. There's a HUGE difference between training before a meal vs after a meal or having your dog work for meals by using their kibble as a training treat, and skipping several meals to make them hungry enough to do anything. 

And as Chris said, a dog with strong food drive doesn't need to skip meals. Keefer will do backflips for food, and one of his classes started at noon. The facility was almost an hour away, and our usual off leash park, Point Isabel, was about halfway between there and home, so we brought both dogs with us. By the time we finished class, stopped at Point Isabel and ran the dogs for awhile, and got some lunch for us, it was late afternoon before we got home. So I fed him breakfast first thing in the morning, and still had his undivided attention at class because there pretty much is no amount of food that's "enough" that he's no longer interested in eating - he would eat until he exploded!

For a dog with less food drive, I might either bring the morning meal with me and feed the dog in the car on the way home, or figure that the food the dog got in class would be enough to tide it over until we got home and I could feed a light supplemental meal. But most of the classes I've taken are early enough on a Saturday morning where it's not a big deal for them to eat breakfast a few hours late, or in the evening after work, and they got dinner a little later than usual. Heck, my hubby used to feed the morning meal, and on the weekends he sometimes wouldn't get around to it until 10:00 or 11:00 anyway, and their usual dinnertime varies from 6:30 to 8:30.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

You guys make a good point. The lab probably has medium food drive at best and not strong like his handler said. His whole attitude towards training struck me as kind of draconian. He is very anti-prong, e-collar, anti compulsion, a big believer in clicker training/shaping, but on the other hand is in favor of playing what seems to me like mind games with his dog when it comes to food: withholding food, feeding him on a random schedule so the dog doesn't know when his next meal will be, etc. Really makes you think about what people mean sometimes when they say they train using no compulsion, only positive encouragement.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

It is unfortunate this person is misrepresenting himself as a positive trainer because these are not appropriate positive methods any more than stringing a dog up in the air by its neck is an appropriate use of a choke collar. I guess there are these bullies in all aspects of dog training unfortunately.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

Funny, I could not believe my eyes seeing dogs jump out of a truck to go straight to attend without a command.
Then when I learned of some of the practices, it turned me off big time.
Dogs being held in isolation with no food, only food when working, then back in isolation.
Also seeing dogs being held back and fried on "E" collars to get faster recalls.
Using nail boards on jumps & on the ground to get straight sits, all just to get to National levels.
Things that people will do in the name of Sport, will blow your mind.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Agreed!


----------



## mjbgsd (Jun 29, 2004)

> Quote:Using nail boards on jumps & on the ground to get straight sits, all just to get to National levels


0_0
That is sooo wrong!!


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

I've worked with many MANY primarily positive trainers and NONE of them have recommended (nor do I think they do it themselves) any type of starvation of their dogs. They've recommended (as have I) to use a dog's meals as the reward for a training session, but starving a dog is a completely different concept.

For those who are thinking that positive trainers are mean and cruel because someone who starved their dog said they were a positive trainer - please, stop and re-think things. If you use the phrase "primarily positive trainer" and consider that to be someone who uses minimal corrections, focuses on the dog understanding a behavior without the use of corrections, only bringing in corrections after a dog shows he understands, and using techniques that are not based on making the dog uncomfortable or painful in any way (including hunger pains!) then you'll have a better idea of what positive training is. 

One of the problems with training dogs is that people tend to see well-trained dogs and to be immediately impressed without knowing what has gone on in training to provide that perfect attention and perfect response. When you start to see how much physical correction and force is used in some training venues, your impression of the trainer can certainly change. I thought our techniques back when I first started training were harsh, but I never resorted to some of the things that I've seen/heard people do in order to win. And these people feel justified in what they do - after all, they have the titles/certifications/ribbons to prove it!

The ends do NOT always justify the means. I would rather flunk every obedience trial I enter than to abuse my dog in the name of training.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> For those who are thinking that positive trainers are mean and cruel because someone who starved their dog said they were a positive trainer - please, stop and re-think things. If you use the phrase "primarily positive trainer" and consider that to be someone who uses minimal corrections, focuses on the dog understanding a behavior without the use of corrections, only bringing in corrections after a dog shows he understands, and using techniques that are not based on making the dog uncomfortable or painful in any way (including hunger pains!) then you'll have a better idea of what positive training is.


That's YOUR definition of what a positive trainer is. The problem is that the term is vague and ill–defined. Everyone uses the term differently. The trainer I mentioned who thinks it's OK to starve a dog for four days calls herself a "Positive Trainer" because she avoids corrections. People who go to her are MIS–led by this definition. I think it's nothing but clever marketing. 

When someone says that they're a "Positive Trainer" to find out what they REALLY do, it's necessary to ask in detail. But JQ Public doesn’t know what questions to ask.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: LouCastleWhen someone says that they're a "Positive Trainer" to find out what they REALLY do, it's necessary to ask in detail. But JQ Public doesn&#146;t know what questions to ask.


Holy Toledo Batman, we agree on something!


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> One of the problems with training dogs is that people tend to see well-trained dogs and to be immediately impressed without knowing what has gone on in training to provide that perfect attention and perfect response. When you start to see how much physical correction and force is used in some training venues, your impression of the trainer can certainly change. Melanie and the gang in Alaska


I went to a national level trial recently and the dogs looked amazing. Lovely obedience for the most part. 

BUT, at the same trial, one of the competitors was asked to leave the field during during practice for abusive training methods. He and the dog left, and left blood behind.
I watched 2 competitors come up to the gate before removing their e-collars, and another lady actually beat her dog upside the head right before their routine.

These people scored well and had many "GREAT JOB" posts on this and other forums. When this is what is going on, and what seems to be accepted and expected, you really have to wonder if the sport is serving the breed, or if the dog has just become a tool. 
I hope that a working line dog can be trained, and be successful, with much more positive methods.


----------



## GSD07 (Feb 23, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: gagsd_pup1
> These people scored well and had many "GREAT JOB" posts on this and other forums.


 Mary, you scared me with this statement. The accomplishments posted on this board are a great inspiration for me, and I hate to think that this is what is going on on the national level of competition...


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

Left blood on the field? WTH?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: gagsd_pup1
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> ...


Not quite as extreme but I'm always perturbed when at the Sieger shows (NASS and USA) during the performance tests, so many handlers have to give their dog a good YANK on the Fursaver before they start, like they can't even sit the dog and perform thirty odd paces of heeling without yanking the dog off his feet first. Then people in the crowd ask why is that dog crawling on his belly to the blind? And no one that knows is going to volunteer the answer even though they all know why....


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: gagsd_pup1
> BUT, at the same trial, one of the competitors was asked to leave the field during during practice for abusive training methods. He and the dog left, and left blood behind.
> I watched 2 competitors come up to the gate before removing their e-collars, and another lady actually beat her dog upside the head right before their routine.


This is one of the problems with competition and with trainers overall - people see the end result and think how wonderful it is to have such a responsive dog, and they don't know what's led up to that.

Not ALL competitive people are this rough, of course. I'm lucky to train with people who consider their dogs their best friends first and competition animals second (or third or fourth). But then again, we're not world-class competitors. If we flunk, we laugh it off and NEVER blame our dogs. We also train the dogs we have, not purchase dogs specifically with the goal of high-level competition in mind. Yet even with having "lower level" dogs, and not being ferociously competitive, we still manage to get lovely scores much of the time - and not that many non-qualifying scores too. 

I wish there was a "Top-Rank Trainer" title out there, where the judges came to your home - unannounced - and spent a full day with you and your dogs. They should observe the natural interactions between you and your dog, ask for obedience behaviors (at whatever level you're working at), and observe your training techniques. They'd look at where your dogs live (kennel? house? bedroom?) and where they're fed/how they're exercised. They would go to your training facility and at random ask people who train with you what you're like. They'd check with your students. They'd watch you teach a class of 10 beginning dogs/handlers, and then a class of 10 competition people. 

And then you'd be assessed on how you were as a trainer and how you treated your dogs. Your score would be posted on a website, with each rating explained, even if your score wasn't very good. A higher score would be given for those able to train successfully with a minimum of corrections and a minimum of corrective tools. And abusive methods (drawing blood, for instance, or making the dog cower or yelp, in addition to starving and long-term isolation) would drop your score WAY down.

This would be a much better way of assessing a trainer's true worth than simply what you see as an end result. Dogs CAN be trained successfully using a high level of correction, and I believe that one of the reasons so many top level competitors choose "hard" dogs is that they want to be able to use a high level of punishment and not have the dog give up on them.

Of course, this is all my personal opinion and no one is likely to agree with having judges come into your home and judge the way you treat your dogs .. *L* .. I'd get marked down because Tazer is cooped up a bit too much (destructive little monster that she is) and because I'm a bit of a push-over and my dogs talk me out of more cookies than they deserve. But we like the way we do things, so that's all the matters. And I don't think anyone could consider either my daily interaction or my training "cruel".

We should all support those top-ranked competitors who do treat their dogs with kindness and compassion. There aren't enough of them out there.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------

