# Curious-Postive vs Balanced



## Breaker's mom (May 27, 2008)

My Shiloh pup (I know, not a real GS) is barking and lunging at strangers. He has nipped someone on the hand and had tried a few other times but I am managing him. ie he hit the end of the leash. He is 10 months old.

I have been going to a reactive dog class where is it all treat based. Like heavily treat based. Like bags of treats based. I am iffy on the effectiveness of this with him as I think it is getting worse and not better overall. I also have to wonder how often it turns out you are rewarding for the undesirable behavior in a class like this instead of rewarding for the behavior you want, if that makes sense. He has been getting better at class but I think it is simply acclimation to that environment and the dogs and people there (three others). Not sure. It does seem to be getting worse at home. Kind of like all this confidence building I have been trying to do with him is now working against me 

So today I read this comment by Gypsy Ghost.



> My suggestion would be to find a trainer that has experience with fearful and/or reactive dogs. Also, a trainer with GSD experience. This kind of behavior needs to be addressed ASAP so it doesn't become habit. Find someone who knows how to make it clear (in a fair way) that this is NOT acceptable. Don't rely on a trainer that encourages you to bribe with treats (I have no idea what methods your current trainer uses).


I am wondering what this means. Corrections for lunging? Corrections for barking? Fixating? I do believe that the type of correction is based on the reaction of the dog but I am wondering what exactly I should be correcting for should I change gears a bit.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

I think you should follow @GypsyGhost's advice and get a different trainer. Yes, one who uses balanced methods, and definitely one who knows GSDs. All force-free does is cut your toolbox down because it only deals in positive reinforcement and maybe negative punishment, versus using also positive punishment (I'm actually not sure how/if negative reinforcement is used in dog training, but I digress).

Google operant learning theory, in the meantime.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

Positive only does a great job of teaching your dog what you do want. What does it do for unwanted behaviors, though? Not much. I don't like to let nonsense behavior slide, even if it's a verbal "no" or a "knock it off" for a dog that responds to that. I'm not one of those people that chooses to ignore the bad and reward the good. That doesn't make sense to me.

It's difficult to give good training advice over the internet without seeing the actual behavior. What I will say is that at 10 months old, this behavior is probably pretty ingrained at this point. Not that it cannot be corrected, but it may take some undoing. There are many tools that a good trainer can use to put an end to this in a way that is fair (clear and unemotional) to a dog. Really, the best thing you can do is seek out a trainer that is familiar with working dogs. I found an awesome trainer who does IPO when I was dealing with this with my fearful/reactive male. I had dealt with reactive behavior before in dogs, but it was completely different with my GSD. I was struggling with managing him on my own until I got help. If I were to ever have to deal with that again, I think I would be in a much better position to stop it before it got too bad.


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

I think your feelings about your dog and this class on spot on.Time to change gears,so to speak.What you would be correcting for is noncompliance of whatever KNOWN command that he is refusing.Doesn't matter what behavior he's choosing to engage in instead.You're insisting he focus on you.
One example would be when you're walking down the sidewalk and another person is coming toward you.You say Heel,Look at Me.You correct for anything he does that isn't heeling and looking at you.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

If it were one of my dogs I would be correcting at the first sign of fixation. Leash pop and a leave it. The barking and lunging. I would give a pretty serious correction. What kind of collar are you using? 
Does your dog go crazy for balls or tugs. If so I would find his favorite and use it as a reward for ignoring other dogs. Keep it hidden and when he first starts to show interest present the toy as you briskly walk past. Once past give him the toy and celebrate big time.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

cdwoodcox said:


> If it were one of my dogs I would be correcting at the first sign of fixation. Leash pop and a leave it. The barking and lunging. I would give a pretty serious correction. What kind of collar are you using?
> Does your dog go crazy for balls or tugs. If so I would find his favorite and use it as a reward for ignoring other dogs. Keep it hidden and when he first starts to show interest present the toy as you briskly walk past. Once past give him the toy and celebrate big time.


To go along with what Dogma said, though, I preferred to at least teach "leave it" before I started pairing it with a correction. In other words, it's only fair that my dog knows what "leave it" even means before I throw a collar pop at her for not doing it.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

cdwoodcox said:


> If it were one of my dogs I would be correcting at the first sign of fixation. Leash pop and a leave it. The barking and lunging. I would give a pretty serious correction. What kind of collar are you using?
> Does your dog go crazy for balls or tugs. If so I would find his favorite and use it as a reward for ignoring other dogs. Keep it hidden and when he first starts to show interest present the toy as you briskly walk past. Once past give him the toy and celebrate big time.


While I do think redirection has it's place, I do not think it would deliver long lasting results here. It would likely not translate without always carrying a tug or a toy. That's no different than having a dog that is reliant on treats. It's just another form of bribery.


----------



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

Breaker's mom said:


> I have been going to a reactive dog class where is it all treat based. Like heavily treat based. Like bags of treats based. I am iffy on the effectiveness of this with him as I think it is getting worse and not better overall. * I also have to wonder how often it turns out you are rewarding for the undesirable behavior in a class like this instead of rewarding for the behavior you want*, if that makes sense.


I know nothing about your particular instructor or this particular class, but that type of reactive dog class is based on counter-conditioning, which works on changing the dog's state of mind, not its behavior. The point is that the cause of the behavior is fear/stress/anxiety and if you can change that emotional response to the trigger/s there is no longer any need for reactive displays. So rather than just correcting behavior, you're removing the reason for the behavior. If your dog is fearful around other dogs do you want him to just stop barking and lunging at them while remaining tense and stressed, or do you want him to be relaxed and comfortable around them, in which case he's going to stop trying to scare them away? That's the general concept behind most reactive dog classes. A very important part is keeping dogs under threshold so they're capable of learning. You want to interrupt the dog BEFORE it erupts in a reactive display. A class can be helpful because the instructor can set up controlled situations, unlike the real world where you might encounter a trigger unexpectedly at any time. 

It can be very effective with the right kind of dog and a trainer who is good at evaluating dogs. Since your dog is getting worse, it's either not the approach for him, or it's not being implemented properly, or both. In any case, I'd be trying something different rather than keep on doing the same thing and hoping for better results. 

But I do agree with GypsyGhost, sometimes in addition to rewarding your dog for doing the right thing you also need to let them know what NOT to do. And that's where a skilled and knowledgeable trainer can be most beneficial, to evaluate the cause of the behavior and determine how best to deal with it. 

Cassidy was extremely leash reactive, and hers was definitely fear based. She had weak nerves and low confidence. She was okay with other dogs off leash at the park, but exploded when she was around them on leash. 

Keefer has improved greatly now that he's a senior but at one time he was pretty barky around other dogs when he was on leash too. His reactivity wasn't the slightest bit fear based, so our approach was different. Keef is extremely social and wants to go meet every dog he sees. When the leash prevented him from doing so, he got frustrated and he verbalized that frustration. He's also extremely resilient to corrections, so with him I can tell him to just knock it off. With Cassidy, that would probably have made things worse.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

GypsyGhost said:


> While I do think redirection has it's place, I do not think it would deliver long lasting results here. It would likely not translate without always carrying a tug or a toy. That's no different than having a dog that is reliant on treats. It's just another form of bribery.


 I agree with teaching leave it first. 
The dog could be weaned off of the toys. To an eventual atta boy to eventually it is ingrained enough that nothing needs to be done. 
I would probably incorporate both methods. Prong collar and if the dog acted out the biggest correction I could give with a no. 
Once it got a couple corrections and knew it wasn't supposed to then I would present the toy and give the dog the choice to either engage me and toy and have fun or engage the dog and get a come to Jesus correction. If the OP is a female and can't give that hard of a correction then an e-collar would be my collar of choice.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

cdwoodcox said:


> I agree with teaching leave it first.
> The dog could be weaned off of the toys. To an eventual atta boy to eventually it is ingrained enough that nothing needs to be done.
> I would probably incorporate both methods. Prong collar and if the dog acted out the biggest correction I could give with a no.
> Once it got a couple corrections and knew it wasn't supposed to then I would present the toy and give the dog the choice to either engage me and toy and have fun or engage the dog and get a come to Jesus correction. If the OP is a female and can't give that hard of a correction then an e-collar would be my collar of choice.


I wouldn't jump to an ecollar for this issue. And honestly a prong correction, unless it was extremely well timed and given before a reaction occured could just make things worse. These are things that a trainer familiar with the tools can teach you how to use properly so that the dog doesn't end up associating the trigger with the correction.
@cdwoodcox, I do absolutely agree that an ecollar or a prong collar used responsibly for general obedience can be great tools. But disobeying a command because the dog would just rather do something else is very different than a dog reacting to other stimuli and then disobeying commands. Completely different mindsets.


----------



## cdwoodcox (Jul 4, 2015)

Idk @gypstghost, you don't think the dog barks or lunges the dog gets a big time correction it won't quickly associate lunging or barking at dogs with the correction and not want any part of that. And if the dog somehow associates the correction with the other dog instead of the action then make it a big enough correction that he doesn't want any part of other dogs then. 
My oldest dog that fence fights the neighbors dogs. I would bet my truck that I could put his e-collar on him and give him a mild correction when he started posturing and a leave it and he would quickly decide that he didn't wanna fence fight anymore. Now if I missed the posturing and he was into it heavy I may have to up the stim bit he would get the point.


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

I know that Ma Shiloh (Tina Barber, founder of the Shiloh breed) was NOT a fan of all positive training. It works fine as long as the dog is more interested in the treat than he is in whatever the distraction is. But if you have a high-drive dog that really wants to go after another dog/person, etc. treats and cookies and kisses are NOT going to stop it. The dog needs to learn the word 'NO', linked with whatever correction is enough to get its attention off the distraction.

And as cd says above, the correction needs to happen the second he begins to focus on the other dog, NOT when he lunges at the other dog! Of course, the dog gets rewarded immediately for switching his focus to his handler.

Believe me, been there, done that. Had a very aggressive GSD that would attack other dogs. Got her to the point where she was great on leash, but couldn't be trusted at all off leash, so had to euthanize her.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

cdwoodcox said:


> Idk @gypstghost, you don't think the dog barks or lunges the dog gets a big time correction it won't quickly associate lunging or barking at dogs with the correction and not want any part of that. And if the dog somehow associates the correction with the other dog instead of the action then make it a big enough correction that he doesn't want any part of other dogs then.
> My oldest dog that fence fights the neighbors dogs. I would bet my truck that I could put his e-collar on him and give him a mild correction when he started posturing and a leave it and he would quickly decide that he didn't wanna fence fight anymore. Now if I missed the posturing and he was into it heavy I may have to up the stim bit he would get the point.


Well, if you want to do that with your dogs, by all means go ahead. But for a dog that doesn't fully understand what an ecollar correction means just slapping an ecollar on them and blasting them for lunging at another dog or a person, no I don't think that's a good idea. I wouldn't recommend using an ecollar to someone who hadn't been taught how to use one correctly, and I wouldn't recommend using one at all unless I knew where the reactivity was coming from in the dog.

Also, fence fighting is not the same as fear reactivity. Frustration and fear are very different things.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

GypsyGhost said:


> Positive only does a great job of teaching your dog what you do want. What does it do for unwanted behaviors, though? Not much. I don't like to let nonsense behavior slide, even if it's a verbal "no" or a "knock it off" for a dog that responds to that. I'm not one of those people that chooses to ignore the bad and reward the good. That doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> It's difficult to give good training advice over the internet without seeing the actual behavior. What I will say is that at 10 months old, this behavior is probably pretty ingrained at this point. Not that it cannot be corrected, but it may take some undoing. There are many tools that a good trainer can use to put an end to this in a way that is fair (clear and unemotional) to a dog. Really, the best thing you can do is seek out a trainer that is familiar with working dogs. I found an awesome trainer who does IPO when I was dealing with this with my fearful/reactive male. I had dealt with reactive behavior before in dogs, but it was completely different with my GSD. I was struggling with managing him on my own until I got help. If I were to ever have to deal with that again, I think I would be in a much better position to stop it before it got too bad.


I wish we could all get off the positive-only horse. Training should be 90-95% positive, not balanced at all. But not giving that negative marker, "no" or "eh!" means half of your available communication is just gone. So no, I do not agree with ignoring incorrect behavior. 

Further, in this instance, a sharp, No! and even a correction with a prong collar if you are correcting, when the dog begins to aggress might be a lot more humane. It may let the dog know in no uncertain terms that that behavior is not going to work period. And if done correctly with proper timing it can get the dog out of a bad place a lot quicker and a lot easier for everyone involved including the dog.

But to suggest that positive training does not do anything for unwanted behaviors is also incorrect. With positive training methods, we motivate the dog to learn a number of commands, for which he is rewarded with treats or toys and praise and eventually just praise. And we have a dog that will do certain things regardless of distractions, etc. And then if your dog begins to develop some behavior you do not want, you give the dog a command or a series of commands that you do want, and praise for compliance with those commands. If the dog is barking in certain situations, you train the dog outside of those situations to SPEAK, and to Quiet. And then in the situation, you can use the Quiet command, that the dog knows and is reliable with. And you can praise him for it. Rather than just giving the dog a jerk and a "knock it off!" 

And when you are in a dicey situation you are proactive rather than reactive. You tell your dog what you want him to do, and then praise; rather than waiting to see what your dog decides to do so you can clobber him for doing it.

Good training is good training. It requires communication, which means good timing to mark a behavior. It requires consistency, it requires reasonable expectations. It requires following through. The problem with positive training methods is the same as with every other training method. People aren't consistent, they do not communicate well, have unrealistic expectations, and lack of following through. Dogs do not learn any quicker by avoiding negative consequences than they do by training with positive methods. In fact, I have found that a good foundation with positive training builds confidence in the puppy and between the trainer and puppy both ways, and the training lasts longer than training which is done with leash pops, which, if you lay the dog by for a while, the training goes down the tubes. 

There is purely positive training (pretty much non-existent) praise good behavior, ignore all bad/incorrect behavior. 

There is compulsion training (becoming a thing of the past) corrections are used to train and proof a dog's obedience, enforcing the fact that the guy with the club better be obeyed. 

The rest of us fall somewhere in between. Those who use training collars are as likely if not more likely to stuff treats in their dog's face as those who don't. Some use 90-95% praise -- setting the dog up to succeed and praising, and after a correction, whether physical or verbal, again setting the dog up to succeed so that the dog will be praised, several more times before training is over. Others are a little heavier handed and set the dog up to fail so they can correct the failure so the dog will get it and do better next time. But again they still do better than balanced when it comes to working with the dog to succeed and be praised, if their training is any good at all. 

Training should not be a chore. Don't train when you are in a rush or when you are irritated/in a bad mood, skip the day instead. Training should be fun for you and the dog. It should be filled with praise and successes. It builds respect between the dog and the handler -- two ways.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I know nothing about your particular instructor or this particular class, but that type of reactive dog class is based on counter-conditioning, which works on changing the dog's state of mind, not its behavior. The point is that the cause of the behavior is fear/stress/anxiety and if you can change that emotional response to the trigger/s there is no longer any need for reactive displays. So rather than just correcting behavior, you're removing the reason for the behavior. If your dog is fearful around other dogs do you want him to just stop barking and lunging at them while remaining tense and stressed, or do you want him to be relaxed and comfortable around them, in which case he's going to stop trying to scare them away? That's the general concept behind most reactive dog classes. A very important part is keeping dogs under threshold so they're capable of learning. You want to interrupt the dog BEFORE it erupts in a reactive display. A class can be helpful because the instructor can set up controlled situations, unlike the real world where you might encounter a trigger unexpectedly at any time.
> 
> It can be very effective with the right kind of dog and a trainer who is good at evaluating dogs. Since your dog is getting worse, it's either not the approach for him, or it's not being implemented properly, or both. In any case, I'd be trying something different rather than keep on doing the same thing and hoping for better results.
> 
> ...


Once a dog is entrenched in this behavior, I think it makes sense to go this route. But for a young dog who is just starting to act like an ass when he sees another dog, a quick significant Knock it off! with whatever level of correction the dog is accustomed to, might knock the behavior off before it becomes a habit. And after the Knock It Off! you continue to move the dog along and out of the situation. 

There is more than one thing going on here. For the young dog, that begins this, is corrected strongly enough to cut out the behavior, it will generally find with every encounter that he is not attacked by another dog, that he need not be afraid of other dogs. 

But if the dog gets into the zone of barking and lunging and we remove the dog from the situation without a correction, the dog wins. It has made barking and lunging do what he wanted to have happen -- distance between him and scary dogs. It worked. So we start bringing him around other dogs but far enough away to try not to have a reaction. And so long as we can continue to work under that threshold and slowly decrease that bubble, eventually we have a dog that is ok for the most part around other dogs. 

The dog that was corrected, is around other dogs without being attacked and he also feels more and more comfortable. This is a good place for classes. The dogs are not pack members, but are not different every week. So the dog does get used to them. Six weeks later the class changes and the dog gets used to the new dogs and it is easier each time the changes happen. 

Letting the dog remain in the bad place, where he reacts like a nut, works himself into a state, is far worse than a good solid well-timed correction, and moving on. Either way it takes skill, keeping a dog under its threshold and following its body language being being hyper-sensitive to the environment. Or, being calm and assertive, correcting unwanted behavior and moving on without any fan fare -- not waiting around to apologize to the other owner, not berating the dog after the original correction, maybe adjusting the path to keep distance, without moving backwards and away from due to the bad behavior. 

If that makes any sense.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

selzer said:


> I wish we could all get off the positive-only horse. Training should be 90-95% positive, not balanced at all. But not giving that negative marker, "no" or "eh!" means half of your available communication is just gone. So no, I do not agree with ignoring incorrect behavior.
> 
> Further, in this instance, a sharp, No! and even a correction with a prong collar if you are correcting, when the dog begins to aggress might be a lot more humane. It may let the dog know in no uncertain terms that that behavior is not going to work period. And if done correctly with proper timing it can get the dog out of a bad place a lot quicker and a lot easier for everyone involved including the dog.
> 
> ...


I wish we could all get off the PO horse, too. Unfortunately, there are a ton of trainers out there who promote this nonsense, and it does no one any good. I have no problem with motivational training. It's what I prefer. It's a good way to teach things. 

I agree with you that training should be mostly positive. And training should be fun. When I talk about balance, I'm simply talking about using all available tools, and picking the right ones for the job at hand. I don't mean go hog wild with corrections, as long as half of what you are doing is praise. That would be ridiculous. Balance means using appropriate corrections when they are called for. Not making sure that half of your training is positive punishment or anything like that.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

GypsyGhost said:


> I wish we could all get off the PO horse, too. Unfortunately, there are a ton of trainers out there who promote this nonsense, and it does no one any good. I have no problem with motivational training. It's what I prefer. It's a good way to teach things.
> 
> I agree with you that training should be mostly positive. And training should be fun. When I talk about balance, I'm simply talking about using all available tools, and picking the right ones for the job at hand. I don't mean go hog wild with corrections, as long as half of what you are doing is praise. That would be ridiculous. Balance means using appropriate corrections when they are called for. Not making sure that half of your training is positive punishment or anything like that.


Well than I am am one of those nut cases. I won't use prong collars or e-collars. I will use a slip-lead on a trained dog, but not for training. I don't use clickers or jars of pennies either. No citronella collars, no head halters, no harnesses. 

Balance means that if you have a scale, half is on one side, half on the other. _Balanced Training_ is just another buzz word for people who want to make the use of corrections sound politically correct. I mean, who can have a beef with something that is balanced? You'd have to be un-balanced to object to balanced training. I have no problem with corrections. I don't like the term balanced training, because it suggests your training is out of balance if you aren't using these _tools_. And you can make the case for training being half-compulsion and half positive. Half&Half, balanced.


----------



## Kazel (Nov 29, 2016)

selzer said:


> Well than I am am one of those nut cases. I won't use prong collars or e-collars. I will use a slip-lead on a trained dog, but not for training. I don't use clickers or jars of pennies either. No citronella collars, no head halters, no harnesses.
> 
> Balance means that if you have a scale, half is on one side, half on the other. _Balanced Training_ is just another buzz word for people who want to make the use of corrections sound politically correct. I mean, who can have a beef with something that is balanced? You'd have to be un-balanced to object to balanced training. I have no problem with corrections. I don't like the term balanced training, because it suggests your training is out of balance if you aren't using these _tools_. And you can make the case for training being half-compulsion and half positive. Half&Half, balanced.


Balanced doesn't have to mean exactly half and half. A feather and a brick don't weigh the same and you can't take the same amount to balance them. Instead you take a feather and a very small piece of a brick. 

Training is training is training. Focus on the dog and what works for the dog(and you) to create a happy healthy stable pooch. If positive only works then great! If positive only doesn't work then try something else and keep trying until you find something that works for the dog in front of you. A big correction works for some dogs and doesn't for others, or it works for some trainers and doesn't for other. Don't knock others methods just because they aren't what you use. If Mary Sue needs a prong to get her dog to walk with her at least she is trying instead of just giving up and abandoning the dog. If John Doe can train a dog to jump through a ring of fire without any tools good for him! Not all trainers are equal, some are better than others and some get the same results with different methods. 

OP if positive only training isn't working and that's the only way your trainer does it, it may be a good idea to find a new trainer who can help guide you and your dog. Find what works for your dog and hopefully he can get over this, or you can learn to manage it.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Quality training is limited by lack of, knowledge and tools. Show me a person with limited knowledge or limited tools and I'll show you a person who can only effectively train limited dogs. I think the OP should seek a more experienced trainer, who can not only pinpoint causation, but also use best approach based on the causation.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

selzer said:


> Balance means that if you have a scale, half is on one side, half on the other. _Balanced Training_ is just another buzz word for people who want to make the use of corrections sound politically correct. I mean, who can have a beef with something that is balanced? You'd have to be un-balanced to object to balanced training. I have no problem with corrections. I don't like the term balanced training, because it suggests your training is out of balance if you aren't using these _tools_. And you can make the case for training being half-compulsion and half positive. Half&Half, balanced.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

WateryTart said:


> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


:laugh2:


----------



## GatorDog (Aug 17, 2011)

selzer said:


> Well than I am am one of those nut cases. I won't use prong collars or e-collars. I will use a slip-lead on a trained dog, but not for training. I don't use clickers or jars of pennies either. No citronella collars, no head halters, no harnesses.
> 
> Balance means that if you have a scale, half is on one side, half on the other. _Balanced Training_ is just another buzz word for people who want to make the use of corrections sound politically correct. I mean, who can have a beef with something that is balanced? You'd have to be un-balanced to object to balanced training. I have no problem with corrections. I don't like the term balanced training, because it suggests your training is out of balance if you aren't using these _tools_. And you can make the case for training being half-compulsion and half positive. Half&Half, balanced.


Why do you assume corrections mean compulsion?


----------



## Breaker's mom (May 27, 2008)

Debbie you are right, that is exactly the class it is and it makes a lot of sense, 

Class is a regular collar or a head halter. I have to admit the primary reason I joined this class was the controlled environment. I live on a farm and while it is perfect for a dog like this in many ways, it is not good when you are trying to help them out .It is too much of a natural bubble…until someone comes over. That said, I have taken him on a couple of field trips to work on this as well. To a gas station actually where we could sit and watch people come and go.

It is just it is insisted we use treats even for simple commands that I know he knows but is not listening and I think throwing treats on the ground every time they bark might not be a great idea either. It is not like they don't know where they are coming from and there is a part of me that thinks the behavior might be reinforced doing this. I would rather incorporate the touch command or look at me when he barks in class and distract and reward based on that (I was told not to do this) 

My other problem is rewarding for looking at the thing with sets him off. It is done quickly, so not after a fixated stare but it is to me rewarding the beginning of the fixated stare. It is not like he does not know the other dogs and people are there. I would rather reward when he chooses not to look at the other dogs or people there. The theory is that you are rewarding them for looking but not reacting. This is good. But I don't know what is running through his head so don't know if I am rewarding a look or the beginning of a reaction, or does it matter?


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

That fixated stare is the beginning of the lunge and bark. DO NOT REWARD IT!! You are right in your thinking. 

How can a trainer be SO ignorant of dog behaviour as to reward something like that??  You should be CORRECTING him for doing it! If he knows the 'look at me' command, use that, and if he ignores you, do a leash correction. If he responds to the 'look' command, immediately reward/treat.

_prolonged eye contact between two dogs is like a stand-off, a threat of aggression to come. The dog who looks away first is the submissive one, the dog who wins the staring contest is the dominant one. If neither dog looks away, a physical dogfight ensues._

The Dog Blog: Bad dog training advice: the staring game


----------



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

Breaker's mom said:


> It is just it is insisted we use treats even for simple commands that I know he knows but is not listening and I think throwing treats on the ground every time they bark might not be a great idea either.


From your description it sounds like they've taken a sound concept and executed it poorly. First off, you should be working on_ preventing_ reactions, not trying to distract the dog after it's already begun barking. Ideally, the instructor has talked about what signs to look for in your dog, where it's clear that it's aware of the presence of a trigger but hasn't started barking, or lunging, or hackling, or whatever, and THAT'S the moment to throw treats on the ground to distract the dog. You're not rewarding bad behavior because you've prevented him from reacting. Also, redirecting the dog's attention to the ground, where the treats are, means that he can't also be staring at the trigger.



> I would rather incorporate the touch command or look at me when he barks in class and distract and reward based on that (I was told not to do this)


Again, best if done before he starts barking, but I don't see any reason why you can't use whatever works best for you and your dog. If it were me I'd just go ahead and do that but I've taken a lot of classes and the instructors can tell that I know what I'm doing. As long as it's working nobody has ever told me no, you can't do that in this class. Keeping him occupied is going to help prevent him from reacting, so it seems dumb to not be able to use a method of engagement that you've been using and has been effective for you.



> My other problem is rewarding for looking at the thing with sets him off. It is done quickly, so not after a fixated stare but it is to me rewarding the beginning of the fixated stare. It is not like he does not know the other dogs and people are there. I would rather reward when he chooses not to look at the other dogs or people there. The theory is that you are rewarding them for looking but not reacting.


*sigh* This sort of sounds like misguided LAT! (Look At That!), from Leslie McDevitt's excellent Control Unleashed program. BUT - you don't reward the dog for looking at the trigger, you _allow_ the dog to check it out, briefly, and then immediately look back at you. The reasoning behind this is that the dog knows the scary thing is over there, and attempting to maintain constant focus on you and getting the dog to ignore it can be very difficult, and does not necessarily reduce the dog's stress. The scary thing is still there, the dog knows it's there, but he's not allowed to look at it and make sure he's still safe from it.

If your dog understands markers, you would tell him to look at the trigger, mark it (verbally or with a clicker) the second he sees it, and then he will redirect back to you for the reward. It's not about rewarding the dog for staring it's rewarding the dog for re-engaging with you after a brief glance at the scary thing. And because you would start training this around the house with a benign object (something held behind your back that you whip out and then put away again is one way of training LAT) he learns the game before you ever use it in the presence of a trigger. You've put looking at a trigger on cue, and you're using it to prevent prolonged staring that can lead to a reaction by interrupting after the briefest of glances and refocusing on you with a familiar game.

ETA: The LAT! game is always look but don't touch, you would use it in situations where the dog will not be interacting with the whatever, and the dog learns that.


----------



## Breaker's mom (May 27, 2008)

> And because you would start training this around the house with a benign object (something held behind your back that you whip out and then put away again is one way of training LAT) he learns the game before you ever use it in the presence of a trigger. You've put looking at a trigger on cue, and you're using it to prevent prolonged staring that can lead to a reaction by interrupting after the briefest of glances and refocusing on you with a familiar game.


That is it Debbie, thank-you.

I am working on the bark/speak training so that should help. He does not bark often during the day so I have to teach him to speak so I can teach him not too, if that makes sense. Besides, it amuses the men around here. And I will keep standing in my corner using hand signals for touch and look at me. She wanted him to learn to look at me by default first I think but it was too late as I was already training it. I do verbally commend him for looking for a me already. especially when out on loose leash walks. 

I have started using a clicker for some training like the "look at that". You have explained it well. Maybe I was just not listening well enough it can be difficult at times managing him and catching all the details of the instructions. She definitively had me treating at the wrong time in class. though. Shoving a treat in his mouth while he was still looking! I am going to add in the work at home you mentioned. Sounds perfect actually.

To the other comments..I do not believe this pup is a lost cause. I have seen glimmers of hope, then of course he promptly dashes it by lashing out but they have been there. Also because he nipped the hand of someone, I have to treat it like he will bite someone. There is however a chance that he would not. He had the opportunity before this and did not but of course he has put me in a position now that I cannot trust him. 

I would love to find an experienced GSD trainer but I have no idea where to find one. I did reach out to the president of the local club who used to breed shepherds but he did not reply. I have no idea where else to ask. Trainers are a dime a dozen but years of time could pass trying to find the right one and I think working at this right now is important. I do keep my ears open and keep investigating options but so far what I am doing is the best I can do.

I have ordered a muzzle for him and will muzzle train so I can take him to places in town, quiet parks etc. I just think the best way to keep people at a distance is a large sign, which a muzzle kind of is. 

I have had so much success with this pup on so many levels. I really do hope we can get through this issue too.


----------



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

Breaker's mom said:


> I have started using a clicker for some training like the "look at that". You have explained it well. Maybe I was just not listening well enough it can be difficult at times managing him and catching all the details of the instructions. She definitively had me treating at the wrong time in class. though. Shoving a treat in his mouth while he was still looking! I am going to add in the work at home you mentioned. Sounds perfect actually.



Yes, the click happens when the dog turns to look at the trigger, but the reward is delivered when he turns away and re-engages with you. And if he doesn't immediately look to you for a reward as soon as he hears a click (anywhere, for doing anything) then i'd be doing some more work there first. Keep in mind though, that even when he's doing it perfectly at home it's going to be more challenging in a distracting environment even before you introduce a trigger. 

With my hyper social boy Keefer I initially had to put the treat up to his nose and lure his head back around towards me before letting him take it. But the more you can practice this in a variety of places with a variety of different things, the better. One of the reasons it's so effective is due to the predictability. See a trigger = play this game with mom. And when he does he knows he will not have to interact with the trigger, which takes the pressure off.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

Breaker's mom said:


> That is it Debbie, thank-you.
> 
> I am working on the bark/speak training so that should help. He does not bark often during the day so I have to teach him to speak so I can teach him not too, if that makes sense. Besides, it amuses the men around here. And I will keep standing in my corner using hand signals for touch and look at me. She wanted him to learn to look at me by default first I think but it was too late as I was already training it. I do verbally commend him for looking for a me already. especially when out on loose leash walks.
> 
> ...


It's good you are not giving up. My boy sounds similar to yours, and management keeps everyone safe. To the bolded part of your post, I would start a thread asking for trainer suggestions near you. The other option would be to ask to visit an IPO club or GSD club. When you are there, talk with people and see who they use, and what methods they use.


----------



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

http://www.phillydogtraining.com/assets/Scully_JA11.pdf

I'm trying to post this link from my phone, hopefully it works. This is an excellent, very complete explanation of LAT! and the reasoning behind it.


----------

