# Old vs New Training Styles



## basedinberlin (Aug 5, 2012)

Hi there,

I've just brought a six month old puppy home, and we're now starting to get into training. Lots of fun so far! I have lots of the Leerburg and Cesar Millan DVDs as well as other books, so it's good to take lots of things from different people; one thing isn't going to work for every dog! 

A question came up when I was training today, though: when people advocate either dominance theory or positive reinforcement training, why is dominance labeled 'old' style (normally in a negative sense)? Does that make it any less effective? It seems to take quite a lot of arrogance in modernity to go against dominance simply because it isn't the latest thing. If it didn't work, then how have thousands of dogs before this point been successfully trained - both for working and as companions?

I'm not saying that positive isn't the way to go - I'm just curious why there's such a sea change when an alternative surely must have worked. Is it just catering to a consumerist individuality? I get the 'humane' arguments, but they can't possibly undo all of dominance's advantages? Ultimately it still works, and if you prefer to moderate its corrective elements somewhat, then it can still work well. But why is doing that sold as anything more than a slight, common sense adaption to an already tested formula? Is 'modern' training really SO much better, or is it just oversold?

The conclusion I've come to is: try positive first, then add corrections when necessary. Seems balanced, and I'm pleased to take specific tips from individual trainers. But it also doesn't seem that far away from how people have probably always dealt with things, even if positive wasn't always first to the same degree. Aren't the differences are a little overstated? Why the massive need for changes when something already works - and any of its flaws can be limited through moderation?

Apologies if this isn't too clear/has already been discussed! I also get that I might be overstating the difference - but today it seemed that so many training styles were being offered as something 'radically new'. The reasons for that didn't quite add up. 

Thanks!


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Because people deduced after a time of observation of training styles, that newer methods were not only kinder, they were much more effective.

The best training TEACHES a dog what you want it to do.
"Old style" punishes the dog for doing something, such as pulling on a leash, until (theoretically) it learns to not do it any longer. 
Instead the better method is to get the dog doing what you want (not pulling) and reward that behavior. 

Think of how you potty train a child. Do we let the child walk around, playing, and never tell it to go potty in a toilet, then spank it for pottying in it's pants?
Or do we proactively show it where to go potty, and reward it for pottying there?

Dog training is just like that. They are gonna go potty somewhere. It's up to humans to show it the correct spot, not wait until it pees in the house and beat the tar out of it, or rub it's nose in it.
Can you imagine how confused the puppy is when punished for doing an act nature intended it to do??

Reward behavior you want to see, ignore bad behavior - and prevent bad behavior by locking up temptations such as your brand new shoes, trash, etc. 
That's it, in a nutshell.


----------



## basedinberlin (Aug 5, 2012)

Thanks msvette2u! That's a great answer!

You're convinced it's that way because it's simply more effective? In the past, the same results were achieved - but just slower? I'm happy to go with that. 

A few follow-ups, though:

i. Why do you think that dominance was so strong for so long? If positive is so effective, surely it would have caught on earlier? It's not that much of a radical break that I can't imagine people having used it previously (even if it was only to become successful in one part of the world, for example) - so why has it only become more mainstream now?

ii. Why do you think Cesar Millan etc. see so much success with dominance-based theories? Is it because they do work (just slower than positive) and sell/become mainstream because they fit with people's ideas of 'how to treat a dog'? I'm just thinking: if positive was that effective, wouldn't there be no arguments for dominance? I see that a mix of the two is probably best, but they often seem so polarised in training materials.

iii. When Millan etc. rationalise their results with 'pack mentality' etc., is that just putting empty excuses on an outdated training method? If there's some logic to 'treating a dog like a dog' etc., then shouldn't that have some power when it comes to training - or are such ideas just, once again, 'how people think' a dog should be?

Thanks so much!


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I've kind of trained in both. I've noticed the "old" ways work faster to correct certain behaviors that you don't want to see or maybe don't have the time to redirect the dog. The "new" way creates a better bond with your dog. If you plan on trialing/titling this way creates a dog that wants to do things for the handler rather than just not mess up things. There is a huge difference in the way the dog works when you see the two training styles side by side. The new ways will create a happy, energetic dog, that will do anything you want for you, the old ways tend to make great house pets, very obedient dogs, but not dogs that do it happily. It tends to kill their drive and their "puppy" so to speak.

Don't worry about the ways though...do what works best for you. A good balance is what works best for most people.


----------



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

basedinberlin said:


> It seems to take quite a lot of arrogance in modernity to go against dominance simply because it isn't the latest thing.


Ah, but people aren't going against the dominance theory simply because it's not the latest thing.  Sometimes the old way of doing things is abandoned, or is at least adapted, because we have new, better ways of doing those things. We've learned a lot about behavior and how dogs learn in the past few decades.


----------



## doggerel (Aug 3, 2011)

Personally, I think the dominance theory has held clout for so long because it makes sense to us power-hungry humans. It pleases our egos to feel that we are in control of a dog and we are its ultimate "master." We like to be in control, particularly of dumb animals. If we can browbeat a dog into doing what we want, we feel more powerful. 

Dominance-based training gets results, as you point out, because fear and pain are powerful training techniques. But we can actually _teach_ a dog, with respect and clarity, and get a solid relationship in the process--without ever having to lay a hand on them or force them to realize that we are "the alpha."

I feel like the positive training movement has been so immensely _liberating _to human-dog relationships. Rejecting dominance-theory training is freeing to both the dog AND the human. Now, under this positive paradigm, dogs don't have to operate purely out of fear of reprisal; humans don't have to be obsessed with "being the alpha," frantically running around to make sure they are dominant in all things. 

I believe better, healthier bonds result from a training relationship that is founded on trust and mutual respect, rather than on power, coercion, and control. And I have a feeling that, if dogs could communicate in this way, they'd agree, too.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> i. Why do you think that dominance was so strong for so long?


Because it does work (eventually), and people are set in their ways. They poo poo new things, and call positive training folks "peta people" and believe GSDs are meant to take this sort of "abuse" in the name of training. 

Newer methods make dogs HAPPY and a HAPPY dog wants to learn. He isn't doing things because he was punished if he didn't do them.

We base our interactions with our dogs on THIS - Mind Games (version 1.0) by M. Shirley Chong

Not necessarily a training method, but a lifestyle.  I don't believe you have to be alpha, or "dominant" over your dog. But I do believe in being a dog's leader


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

basedinberlin,

Since you live in Berlin, there is an excellent trainer in this area that you may want to consult. His English is really good and he is also frequently traveling to the US to work with kennels out there. 

You can't find any better and more balanced trainer out in Berlin. Take advantage of it. Here is his contact information. Impressum - VPG/IPO Hundesport Video Blog


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Very well said, doggerel! I agree with many of your points, especially the need/desire for humans to dominate and control "lessor" creatures.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

His private lessons for bitework are 20 Euros per 45 minutes, he is also excellent in obedience, since that comes first. Go to the Berlin-Brandenburg VDH Club. 

Privates Schutzdienst Training - VPG/IPO Hundesport Video Blog

You are absolutely lucky to have him in your area. I wish I was close to him and could take advantage of his training. He is very well respected in Germany, he also trains Detection (Drug Dogs etc.).


----------



## basedinberlin (Aug 5, 2012)

Mrs. K.,

Thanks so much! We've been looking for one for a while, but not really had any recommendations to go on. We're in Gatow (lots of forest and fun in the Havel!), so he's just a short trip away. Really couldn't be better.

(I'll PM you later in German if that's okay? A few DE-specific things that I don't think I should clutter up the forum with  )

Thanks again!
Ashley


----------



## Ares0311 (Apr 26, 2012)

The way I understand it is that by using dominant theory training we are forcing the dog to make the correct decision. There is less teaching in this manner and more correction. This can lead to the dog making the wrong decision when you (the alpha) aren't around to correct it. 

Positive training teachs the dog to make the correct choice by allowing the dog to problem solve the situation and come up with the correct behavior and is then rewarded for it. So when you aren't there the dog still chooses to do the right thing.


----------



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

Ares0311 said:


> The way I understand it is that by using dominant theory training we are forcing the dog to make the correct decision.


I think there's more to it than that, though. A major problem with "dominance theory" training is the assumption that whenever your dog doesn't obey it's due to dominance. That's just not true. Often, dogs don't obey because we haven't been clear in our training or consistent in our expectations, and our dogs are confused. 

Labeling a dog "dominant" makes it the dog's fault. But sometimes there's nothing wrong with the dog, it's our training that's at fault.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

It is my belief that nothing is really a dog's fault, since they are just animals. They do dog things. Including pottying in the house (if not shown the proper place to do it, or if left inside too long without a break), chewing on things - if a shoe is lying next to a toy, why shouldn't the dog chew it? It knows no difference. Digging? Not a dog's fault. Dogs need to release energy and if an owner doesn't give proper outlets, that is the result. 

ETC. There's not much dogs do that are "their" fault, or that make them a bad dog. Rather they are just a dog. It's the humans who need to teach and show the dog what is expected, not give unceasing corrections for the dog doing _dog_ things.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

I am not sure what is meant by "dominance" training. There is "positive" or reward-based training, and there is training that uses punishment or aversion. You can use both, and they do not cancel each other out. Neither have a lot to do with dominance; both use principles of behavior and learning. Both are effective in certain situations, with certain dogs. The key is finding out what works for YOUR dog.

Dogs generally respond very well to positive, reward-based training when you're teaching them to do something. For example, to teach "sit", you give the command, ease the dog into a sit, and then reward him. Pretty soon he associates the act of sitting with a reward, and so he's more likely to repeat the action when given the command.

Normally, you wouldn't use a punishment-based method to teach a specific behavior. For example, giving the command "sit" and then applying pain or pressure until the dog sits, then releasing. In this case, the release of pain or pressure becomes the reward. Generally, with a few exceptions, this method is not as effective as reward-based training to teach a dog to do something. It may work with some very hard, high drive, very resilient dogs, but may absolutely ruin a dog of soft, sensitive temperament.

Corrections can be effective to sharpen a behavioral response that was created by reward. For example, after you have taught the "sit" command using rewards and the dog knows it well, you could apply a leash pop if the dog refuses to obey the command. So now the dog learns that he will not only get a reward if he obeys the command, he'll get a correction if he doesn't. So it strengthens and sharpens the obedience. Of course, if the correction is too harsh, timed poorly, or given before the dog understands the exercise completely, it can be counterproductive.

Correction/punishment methods can also be effective at diminishing behaviors like pulling on leash, jumping up, barking, etc. The dog learns to associate whatever he is doing with a correction, so he's less likely to do it in the future.

You can also diminish unwanted behaviors with positive methods, by giving the dog an alternative thing to do and then rewarding THAT. This can also be effective, but takes a bit more skill on the part of the handler. The reward has to be greater than the reward the dog gets from the unwanted behavior. If that makes sense. It can be tricky to get the dog's attention focused on you so that he can consider an alternative to what he's doing. For example, say he's jumping up on you. Old-school punishment based methods would have you put your knee into the dog's chest. This hurts, so the dog is less likely to jump up next time if he thinks he'll get a knee in the chest. Another way would be to tell the dog "sit" when he's getting ready to jump up, then rewarding the sit. 

Some people think no dog should ever receive a correction, no matter what he does. They argue that there is always a positive-based solution to any behavior problem. I do not necessarily agree with this. While a very talented, experienced, and knowledgable trainer may be able to train the right kind of dog using nothing but positive reinforcement and no corrections... not everyone is that that talented, experienced, and knowledgable. 

I personally use about 95% positive methods with my dogs, but I am not afraid to use corrections when needed. As long as the correction is fair and only enough to get the point across, I don't have a problem with it. It has to match the temperament of the dog. If it's a soft, sensitive, nervous dog, any corrections have to be mild (and honestly, that kind of dog seldom needs a physical correction). If it's a hard, stubborn, powerful dog that's in drive, corrections are probably going to have to be pretty firm before they even get the dog's attention. One good, firm correction is far more effective than a bunch of little nagging ones.

I am not sure how "dominance" gets into all this, unless you are focusing on proving to the dog that you're the boss and are to be respected. To me, that should go without saying, and does not require the use of corrections. The one who controls the resources is the boss, and dogs know it. However, problems can arise when the dog is given rewards for doing nothing, or, unwittingly, for misbehavior... this is commonly known as "spoiling".  But you do not necessarily have to use punishment-based methods with your dog to gain his respect and obedience. Personally, I think you gain more understanding and a better relationship with your dog if his interactions with you are mainly rewarding--but with definite limits and boundaries that are made clear to the dog.


----------



## sheep (Dec 2, 2011)

I agree a lot with Freestep. I also use both positive reinforcement and corrections, and I'm not afraid of using corrections when it's necessary and I can't use a positive method for it.

My dog is a confident dog. Unless I do know the right positive methods for every scenario, it's dangerous to just let him decide whatever he can do and not correct bad behaviors. Unfortunately, I have not mastered all the secrets of positive methods, and I don't have all the time in the world to dedicate so much time to deal with certain behaviors.

For example, due to some past situations with other dogs, my dog is now dog reactive. Ideally, we could do desensitizing exercises by gradual approach to stranger dogs so that when his reactivity is at minimum, he could start to interact with other dogs again. But in the real life, I could not find many dogs for us to do that during daily walks, nor I can avoid all the dogs at the streets so that I wouldn't screw up the desensitizing process with some unavoidable approach from other dogs.
So we went to a trainer, and we got him a pinch collar. Not only we are more able to control him, but it helps decreasing his reactivity that he can meet more friends when he behaves.
We could simply let him react all he want, while we try to figure out a way to deal with his reactivity in a positive only way. But is it really fair for him? He would just escalate, and some day it might become ugly aggression and he wouldn't have chance to socialize with other dogs so soon when we delay the intervention (and dog's life is short).
Before we went to the trainer, we've tried using sausages to get his attention, but it still didn't work.
Also, it's not just about his possibility of interacting with other dogs sooner... The fact that we can't control our dog is also something dangerous that we simply can't just overlook while we find a positive method.
But well, in any ways, my dog is still fine, he's a confident dog anyways. But if he were softer, a simply "NO" or some leash jerk with a flat collar, or the sausages might have been all that it takes to control him anyways.

IMO, I don't think that corrections, if applied correctly and not overdone, would really damage the dog-owner relationship. Dogs do know the difference between an owner correcting him coz he doesn't want him to do something or coz he forces him to do something, and simply being aggressed without reason (unless the relationship is not rewarding in any ways for the dog). They don't become fearful or traumatized just coz they get corrected for some things.
Also, it might be selfish not to use correction, if we don't really know of other way to deal with certain behaviors but needs to be dealt with. The behavior might escalate, and it could really affect the dog's quality of life in some situations. So that sometimes, it's better to correct a certain behavior so that it stops right there, instead of having it escalating 'till it affects the dog's freedom or stress levels (imagine dog reactivity, with it escalating if not dealt with soon, and so the dog gets more and more stressed every time he sees other dogs).


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

An interesting aside, the "new" style of positive reinforcement training has been around since the 1970's. It was just that after that time period, there was a resurgence of dominance theory training. So calling the positive reinforcement style "new" is kind of a misnomer.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

sheep said:


> Also, it might be selfish not to use correction, if we don't really know of other way to deal with certain behaviors but needs to be dealt with. The behavior might escalate, and it could really affect the dog's quality of life in some situations. So that sometimes, it's better to correct a certain behavior so that it stops right there, instead of having it escalating 'till it affects the dog's freedom or stress levels (imagine dog reactivity, with it escalating if not dealt with soon, and so the dog gets more and more stressed every time he sees other dogs).


Good point and I agree. In some cases, good firm correction can save a dog's life. Imagine the dog that has no recall. Teaching a solid, reliable recall with an e-collar can open up worlds and give the dog freedom that he could never have imagined. Imagine a dog slipping his collar, taking off into the street, and not coming back when called... we all know what can happen in this scenario.

And I don't think a fair correction ruins the dog-owner relationship. As always, we have to look to nature as a role model for what kind of "training" a dog is hard-wired to receive. Wild canids "correct" each other all the time... with tooth and claw. They don't hide pieces of meat in their paws and "train" their subordinates using positive methods. While humans can use positive methods to our advantage, it does not change the fact that dogs evolved to learn by harsher methods. I'm not saying we ought to get down on all fours and bite our dogs when they misbehave, just saying that a firm, fair, well-timed correction is not going to be a foreign concept to a dog's brain, and in most cases he will not resent you for it.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I think another thing to keep in mind is that more often than not (in my opinion) "positive reinforcement" training theory is lumped in with extremist "positive only" training techniques. As far as I know, the large majority of "positive reinforcement" trainers rely on both positive reinforcement (+R) and negative punishment (-P) modes of operant conditioning. In this way, the term "correction" can be a misnomer. To a lot of people, "correction" means the application of a perceived negative stimulus- or positive punishment (+P). Proponents of "positive reinforcement" training techniques do still give their dog corrections, though they do it through negative punishment. This means that the trainer removes a perceived reinforcer as a consequence to an action. In this way, a "positive reinforcement" trainer absolutely does correct the dog. They just do it in a way that does not inflict pain or elicit fear in the dog. This seems to be something that people calling for a "balanced" approach conveniently forget. There is nothing "unbalanced" about positive reinforcement training techniques; they rely both on +R and -P modes of operant conditioning.


----------



## jmdjack (Oct 2, 2009)

Good posts Freestep! I too do not believe a fair correction harms one's relationship with their dog, particularly when that correction is followed by a higher level of praise/reward when the dog responds by doing whatever it is "right." I would also add that how a dog responds to a correction can tell you a bit about the dog. Do you want a dog that shuts down in the face of adversity or one that responds to it by bearing down and trying harder? And, if the dog never sees any adversity, how will you know how it will respond when it does? Extrapolate this to breeding and maintaining resilience in future generations. 

Don't get me wrong. I think positive methods are great. However, I cannot help but wonder whether we are losing something with an _overemphasis_ on positive methods and the increasingly prevalent mindset that correcting a dog, for anything, is "wrong." In my view, a balanced approach is best.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Freestep said:


> Some people think no dog should ever receive a correction, no matter what he does. They argue that there is always a positive-based solution to any behavior problem. I do not necessarily agree with this. *While a very talented, experienced, and knowledgable trainer may be able to train the right kind of dog using nothing but positive reinforcement and no corrections... *not everyone is that that talented, experienced, and knowledgable.


This is the misnomer I'm talking about. You're right, Freestep, that some people do think that dogs should never receive a physical correction, but that hardly means that the dog is not corrected through other means, such and negative punishment.

Now if you want to use "correction" more generally- as in the dog is never had punishment techniques applied- then yes, it would take an _incredibly_ skilled trainer. There are probably no such trainers out there, as this would be a wholly unbalanced approach. Sadly, there are probably a majority of "positive reinforcement" trainers out there who also don't understand the application of negative punishment techniques. And because of this, they end up appearing exactly like what you describe- a person who simply doesn't correct. That is an unfortunate truth- but it's a problem with the skill of the trainer, not the training theory itself.

I know I bring up Susan Garrett a lot, but I kid you not- she is _by far_ the "hardest" trainer I've ever met or seen. Her skill in the application of negative punishment is through the roof. Sure, she's good at treating the dog when he does something right, but she'd a _master_ at correcting the dog when he does something wrong.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

The key is *BALANCE*.

I really don't understand how it is such a hard concept to understand that Balance is the most important thing in training. There is no such thing as only positive or only negative reinforcement. It has got to be balanced.


----------



## Ares0311 (Apr 26, 2012)

msvette2u - very well put. A dog is just an animal, how can it be the dogs fault if the human hasn't properly taught it?

Freestep - great post. I had a trainer that believed that all situations could be fixed through PR and since finding this forum I have learned that sometimes this just isn't the case. Prior to using a mixed method, I wouldn't even raise my voice or say NO to my dog. I have since started mixing up my training as needed, and found that she is much more receptive.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Because then human can absolve themselves and blame dog; it makes it "right" to ditch or dump the dog. Yah. I got jaded working in rescue


----------



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

jmdjack said:


> However, I cannot help but wonder whether we are losing something with an _overemphasis_ on positive methods and the increasingly prevalent mindset that correcting a dog, for anything, is "wrong."


I disagree that there is an increasingly prevalent mindset that correcting a dog for anything is wrong. While some people do feel that way it's been my experience that they are in the minority. As Wildo stated, most people do use corrections, even PR trainers, although there are certainly many types of corrections and the word often means different things to different people. 

This article takes some common behavior problems that can be blamed on dominance and gives an alternate explanation, along with suggestions for fixing the behavior. It's an excellent illustration of why "dominance theory" training can be a problem - everything is not always about dominance!

Dominance Myths and Dog Training Realities

This myth in particular is very pervasive:



> Dogs pull on leash so they can get out in front of you and be in charge of you and the walk.


_Or_, you've never trained your dog to walk politely on leash:



> If every time the dog gets to go on a walk, they pull you along without being taught any different, they reasonably understand that this is how walks are supposed to be!


That's basic dog training 101 - yet get what you reinforce, you don't get what you don't reinforce.

We see threads here all the time where the owner complains that their dog is stubborn or doesn't listen or they wonder if this behavior or that behavior is because the dog (or even the _puppy_!) is dominant and trying to be alpha over them. And yet, usually the explanation is much simpler - they have not actually trained their dog how to behave properly. 

When people get caught up in labeling behavior as dominance rather than examining the real reason why their dog doesn't behave the way they want it to, everybody loses - the dog still isn't getting clear and consistent messages from the owner, and the owner is getting increasingly frustrated with the dog.


----------



## jmdjack (Oct 2, 2009)

Cassidy's Mom, we can agree to disagree and all is well. My comment is based upon my experience. My comment did not refer to "dominance theory" - don't subscribe to it, don't know much about it, and don't really care for labels. I was referring to physical corrections, not the withholding of a reward. When it comes to physical corrections, I frequently see posts that seem to flow from the underlying notion that it is "wrong" to physically correct and "right" to click and reward. Again, I like positive training and I use positive training methods (including the withholding of the reinforcer), but I also think there is a time and place for physical corrections, particularly when it involves behavior that can be life threatening (going after cars, crittering, etc.). Furthermore, I think that how a dog responds to a physical correction tells something about a dog that withholding a reward will not which is why I wonder if we are losing something - not saying we are, but I wonder. Best regards.


----------



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

jmdjack said:


> Cassidy's Mom, we can agree to disagree and all is well. My comment is based upon my experience. My comment did not refer to "dominance theory" - don't subscribe to it, don't know much about it, and don't really care for labels.


The part about dominance theory wasn't addressed to you specifically, sorry if that wasn't clear, it was just further thoughts on the OP's question. I do get your point and I don't disagree with you in general, I just don't think the 'no correction of any kind whatsoever' mindset is really all that prevalent. 

I've been here on the board a long time (9+ years, egads!), we've had so many discussions about positive training and corrections, and I've noticed that very often any mention of "positive" training is instantly interpreted as "positive ONLY" (no corrections, not even verbal ones), even if that's not at all what someone is talking about.

Again - not directed at you.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

wildo said:


> This is the misnomer I'm talking about. You're right, Freestep, that some people do think that dogs should never receive a physical correction, but that hardly means that the dog is not corrected through other means, such and negative punishment.
> 
> Now if you want to use "correction" more generally- as in the dog is never had punishment techniques applied- then yes, it would take an _incredibly_ skilled trainer.


Yes, that is what I meant. No punishment at all.

Although, I did not think of the withdrawal of reward as punishment. It's a different type of punishment, but still a consequence to a behavior, so you're right.

As you can probably tell, I haven't been heavy on the book learnin' for a while... I can't remember the particulars of what each method and technique are called.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Yeah, I figured that's what you meant. Honestly- I _really_ think it's way more rare than what you might guess. However, I think a lot of positive reinforcement based trainers are really scared, or just plain don't have the skill, to apply negative punishment in a way that makes it truly a _correction_ to the dog. In this way, I maintain that "positive reinforcement" training techniques are actually quite a bit harder to be successful with than aversive conditioning techniques. (Though I still believe that the positive reinforcement based trained dog is a much more responsive dog, and therefore the difficulty in training technique application is worth it!)


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

wildo said:


> (Though I still believe that the positive reinforcement based trained dog is a much more responsive dog, and therefore the difficulty in training technique application is worth it!)


I don't know about that... I think dogs trained with corrections can be just as responsive. It depends on the dog, really. Most of the GSDs I have owned will try HARDER when given a correction. Then again, I've had some that get loaded in drive and a correction makes them overload, so in that case, corrections were counterproductive. And I've had some dogs that would pout when given a correction. Again, compulsion won't work as well as positive methods for those dogs.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

"That's basic dog training 101 - yet *get what you reinforce, you don't get what you don't reinforce."*

Can certainly be true BUT there is another VERY BIG factor in evaluating (and trying to change it) dog behavior.

*That is "self rewarding" behavior*. The dog does something, like counter surfing or even barking, or most any other behavior. They do it because it results in something the dog likes. Often they like something BETTER than the reward that we are trying to offer them to convince them to change their behavior.

My dog sometimes prefers to sniff the ground (esp. if a female in season just recently passed that way!) when we are out walking more than he wants any praise or even more than he wants a tasty treat (even the legendary "Higher Value Treat" so often touted by the Pos rein only advocates found in my local OB club). He doesn't want anything that I can offer him at that very moment. And please no one try the other legendary thing - that a dog "Wants to Pleae His owner" - sometimes maybe but at this moment he wants to "Please Himself!".

So then we have to have a *"conversation"* about why he will really prefer that he does do what I want, not what he wants! And usually we reach an amiable agreement.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

jmdjack said:


> Good posts Freestep! I too do not believe a *fair correction harms one's relationship with their dog, particularly when that correction is followed by a higher level of praise/reward* when the dog responds by doing whatever it is "right." I would also add that *how a dog responds to a correction can tell you a bit about the dog.* Do you want a dog that shuts down in the face of adversity or one that responds to it by bearing down and trying harder? And, if the dog never sees any adversity, how will you know how it will respond when it does? Extrapolate this to breeding and maintaining resilience in future generations.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I think positive methods are great. However, I cannot help but wonder whether we are losing something with an _overemphasis_ on positive methods and the increasingly prevalent mindset that correcting a dog, for anything, is "wrong." In my view, a balanced approach is best.





Mrs.K said:


> The key is *BALANCE*.
> 
> I really don't understand how it is such a hard concept to understand that *Balance* is the most important thing in training. There is no such thing as only positive or only negative reinforcement. It has got to be balanced.


As a novice, I really love both of the above responses and that is what I aim for.

There is just so much intuitive nature involved. My two littermate brothers have taught me far more than my older females (different breeds). They were easy in comparison. These GSD mix boys are not so easy. They're smarter. They test things. They would never learn purely one way or the other -- it has required a mix and they've taught me a lot along the way. 

They've taught me more than I've taught them.


----------

