# doesnt listen unless I have treats



## Msmaria

I have a 4 1/2 month old german shepherd. When I have treats he is the best dog. He will do anything under the sun, but when I dont have treats he could care less what i say. We go to obedience class that uses treats and positive reinforcement. is this normal at this age or is there something I am doing wrong?


----------



## MichaelE

That is the chance you take using treats to train a dog. I don't know what to tell you to get her to respond. I don't use treats for basic commands.

The only time I ever use treats is for recall and heel training. For recall, they can't tell if you have a treat or not so they come anyway. For heel training it's just easier because both of you are in motion and they _will_ follow you.

I wish I had some good advice for you.


----------



## Mrs.P

Once your pup knows the command you need to treat at random intervals -not after every single command. So ask for a sit then a down then treat then ask for a stand then treat ask for a sit down stand down treat ect ect keep them guessing and make it fun!


----------



## Mrs.P

MichaelE said:


> That is the chance you take using treats to train a dog.


???


----------



## gagsd

Very simplified version:

You need to wean off of the treats. (But still give food rewards intermittently). 

I generally start this by luring with food in hand, then next time lure with no food in hand (food in pocket)... "fake it." Immediately reward when dog performs the thing you have asked. Keep rewarding!
If the dog does not perform.... do not just reach and get out that treat.... break off, change positions and then try again.

Once the dog regularly does what is asked with no food in hand, then get the food out of your pocket and directly beside you. Repeat. Then move farther away from food.... but as soon as dog earns reward.... you and the dog run to the reward and dog gets it.


----------



## Merciel

Yep, wean off the treats.

Start by hiding them, then by keeping them within easy reach but not on your person (for example, in a jar on a shelf where you can run over and grab one to reward your dog for a performance well done). Markers, like clicks or verbal markers, indicate to your dog when a treat is coming, which buys you a little time to run over and grab the treat without confusing your dog about what exactly is earning the reward.

At the same time, build up alternate rewards: tug, ball tosses, a cued "jump for joy," tag with your hands, or whatever else your puppy enjoys. Some dogs take to this right away (and even prefer toys or play over food treats), while others need some practice and encouragement to think of play as fun. It's okay if your puppy doesn't go nuts for tug or tag right away -- just play and practice in short, lighthearted little sessions to build up your puppy's enjoyment. Then, when your dog is clearly enjoying them, use those as occasional reinforcers instead of treats.


----------



## mego

its worse when your dog doesnt like treats. lol, mine wont do anything outside even for steak, so I have to use general stuff like sniffing around, getting 3 more feet of leash, etc as reward. Try that. If you are in the yard, dont let him play til he does a trick, then release with a phrase (we say "go play") and then after a minute or two reel him back in, make him do something, re-release. That way everything is a reward


----------



## MichaelE

Mrs.P said:


> ???


Having the dog ignore you if you don't have a treat. I didn't realize it was that cryptic.


----------



## Lady Jenna

I never use treats, at all. I tried using treats very early on, and I didn't like how nippy it made Abby (my GSD), so I stopped. She does her obedience for praise and affection (which I never run out of).


----------



## MichaelE

I agree. Why make it tougher than it has to be. 

Training with treats is great. Then you get to train them again without treats which isn't so great.

Just cut out the middleman from the beginning and use praise. I give Lisl a treat just because. I still tell her to sit because NILIF, but she doesn't mind, and she didn't learn to sit by me dangling a treat over her head while pushing her butt down.


----------



## Mrs.P

MichaelE said:


> That is the chance you take using treats to train a dog. I don't know what to tell you to get her to respond. I don't use treats for basic commands.
> 
> The only time I ever use treats is for recall and heel training. For recall, they can't tell if you have a treat or not so they come anyway. For heel training it's just easier because both of you are in motion and they _will_ follow you.
> 
> I wish I had some good advice for you.



Just as any training method positive only -treats only, compulsion based methods, any tools/equipment you use ect it can be done incorrectly. 

Everything has the "chance" of not working when it is done incorrectly. Maybe it is not the method but how the individual is attempting the method.


----------



## AgileGSD

Using food rewards doesn't have to mean your dog won't listen without food. I've not really had problems with my dogs following commands with or without treats. It all depends on how the treats are used. If you use them only in a lure-reward fashion then your dog is unlikely to ever develop reliability. Unfortunately, that is about the extent of some trainers knowledge of the methods. 

Often the problem with rewards comes from the trainer showing the dog a treat before every cue. Or reaching for a treat before every cue. Dogs are very perceptive to body cues, intentional or otherwise and when treats are used in this manner, they become part of the cue to perform. The same thing often happens with people bending of kneeling before calling their dog then when they try standing straight, their dog no longer responds to the command. Same with bending over to get the dog to lie down, try standing up and the dog no longer responds. 

Another potential issue people have with reward based training is limiting their rewards to food only. Mix it up! Use food, toys, play and "life rewards" so your dog doesn't become too dependent on food being the only reward you provide. When I worked at a doggy daycare and Jagged was young, I taught him an extremely solid recall and stay using a release to play as the reward. In every day life my young dogs practice sit-stays every time they are released from a crate or go in or out doors or vehicles. No treats involved, the reward is being released to do something they want (if they don't hold their position, the door closes). I use chase-me games as a reward for my dogs pretty often too. Anything your dog wants is a potential reward and once you start using that in daily life, your dogs reliability will skyrocket.


----------



## llombardo

This is a 4.5 month old puppy and obedience is not solid at this point. Training is ongoing and so should the use of treats, until the dog knows the command 100%. I use treats and start fading them out at about 10 months or so and that is after 3 or 4 obedience classes. My dogs listen fine without treats, but they do love when a new dog comes in because they all get some training with treats


----------



## Merciel

+1 to everything AgileGSD and llombardo said.

I've never had to retrain anything to get my dogs to do desired behaviors "without treats." Teach, perfect, proof. You only have to go through the sequence once.


----------



## Swifty

Shadow would fetch the moon for treats if she could. At the pet store she'll sit patiently by the treat bowl that's just beyond reach for someone to give her one 

Using a clicker has definitely been a good thing in combination with the treats instead of treats alone. I can click as a marker then fumble around in my pockets for treats as she waits. I also like using treats because it has helped teach her the proper method of using her mouth on my hands; in the beginning she gave me nips as she tried to find the treat in my hand and now she uses her mouth more delicately to find the treat instead of my flesh. I hope to get her to the point my Golden is at, where she'll sniff to find exactly where the treat is in my hand and then _geeeeently_ lift it out before eating it.


----------



## Diesel and Lace

Right now we are doing a mix of treat and negative reinforcement training which seems to be working thus far. Treats as positive and when he does not do what is asked he has a consequence (tug on prong collar) to get him into the position he is suppose to be in followed by a treat for being in that position. He has started to become treat driven which is making the lay down and stay down command a little bit of a challenge. So now we are only giving him treats when he does it willingly now. If we have to force into lay he gets nothing but if we ask and he does it and stays in that position until next command we treat.


----------



## wolfy dog

llombardo said:


> This is a 4.5 month old puppy and obedience is not solid at this point. Training is ongoing and so should the use of treats, until the dog knows the command 100%. I use treats and start fading them out at about 10 months or so and that is after 3 or 4 obedience classes. My dogs listen fine without treats, but they do love when a new dog comes in because they all get some training with treats


(why would your dog be rewarded for the behavior of another dog???)
You fade out the treats when the dog performs the behavior 9 out of 10 times. This is dependent on skill and not on age. If you start fading out treats at 10 months you end up with just that problem.
Many trainers make the mistake of relying on treats way too long. I get clients from them who are at their wits end. The only thing that works then is to start at puppy 101 Dogs are so keen; they know if you have your hands in your pocket, there will be a reward so don't.
I have trained all my dogs with treats when they were young and for new behavior since the last 15 years and they have been the most obedient from all dogs I have had. And I don't have to use treats any longer. But still do once in a while, for fun but not to get them to perform. WD however has been corrected a few times in his land shark stage.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

wolfy dog said:


> (why would your dog be rewarded for the behavior of another dog???)


It sounds like the presence of another dog is being used as a cue to do redirect to the owner for some OB work for food, not that they are being rewarded for the behavior of the new dog. Nothing wrong with that, IMO!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

MichaelE said:


> Training with treats is great. Then you get to train them again without treats which isn't so great.


:thinking: That hasn't been my experience either, I've never had to retrain anything without food. I start out by "capturing" behaviors I like and want to encourage when I get a new puppy - no command is given, (because I haven't taught them what anything means yet), I just mark and reward things like attention, laying down, and coming towards me. The more I reinforce these things, the more the puppy offers them up, and at that point I can start to put them on cue by naming the behaviors "watch", "down" and "come". I teach name recognition by saying it and giving a treat. I teach a "whiplash" head turn to their name, and make a game out of it by tossing a treat across the room and then just when they get to it, calling their name. I mark the second the head turns, (with a clicker or "yes"!) and the puppy flies back for another treat. Rinse/repeat. 

I also lure, as gagsd describes, getting the food out of that hand as quickly as possible, and treating from the other hand. Once the puppy is reliably following an empty hand, I start to fade the movement to something more subtle and add a verbal cue right before I use the hand signal. I use a lot of happy and enthusiastic praise along with food rewards, and keep that up as I start to reduce the rate of reinforcement, and eventually phase out food rewards _for that particular behavior_. 

The rate of reinforcement should be based on the difficultly and newness, if you will, of what you're trying to train. I also use a lot of real life rewards, as AgileGSD mentions, and I build that into every day life, requiring sits with eye contact for access to things they value. So a sit at home gets a "good girl!" or the door opens to let them out or in, or I put the food bowl on the floor, or a release to take the bully stick I'm holding, or whatever, but a sit on a busy street corner is more challenging because it's in a much more distracting environment, and I will up the rate of reinforcement temporarily, as needed. 

If I'm training a new behavior, if I'm increasing difficultly for an old behavior by adding distance or distractions into the equation, or just working on generalizing learned behavior in a variety of circumstances, the rate of reinforcement goes up again. Once those behaviors become more reliable and generalized, I start to fade out the food rewards. Using a food lure too long, or keeping up the rate of reinforcement for longer than necessary by not moving to a random reinforcement schedule for learned behaviors can definitely backfire. The sight of food in your hand can become a secondary cue, and the expectation of being rewarded for every single instance and then suddenly stopping food rewards entirely can cause the dog to not want to work for you anymore. But those are errors of execution, not a failure of the technique itself.


----------



## DaniFani

I see what Michael is saying. My GSD is much better about obedience than my corgi. My GSD is so worried about not pleasing me (he's soft) that he will obey no matter what the distraction, simply to please me(he of course gets rewarded for obeying). 

My corgi? No way! He loves to play and please me and he loves his treats. BUT, if there is a higher value distraction around (kids playing across the street, a cat/squirrel running by) I am the LAST thing he *wants* to pay attention to. With him I have to have compulsion along with the reward. There are consequences for NOT listening to me (with Radar, my corgi, it's a pop-pop on his prong). He has to learn that when I say "platz," he has to go down(the most important obedience in my book).

Now, I am NOT saying put a prong on your PUPPY, but I don't think a small "pop-pop" on his flat collar to remind him, "hey, you have to listen," is a bad thing.

And just an anecdotal story, I met my first "positive-only" trained dog last weekend at training. The dog was four years old, hadn't ever seen any compulsion, only toys and treats. The dog *knew all kinds of obedience. But she was on a new field, and was WAY more interested in sniffing, than obeying. It was so obvious that this dog decided she had the choice to obey or not. She totally blew off her owner. He was exasperated, went on and on about how good she was at home and in her home-field, how he doesn't understand why she won't listen in a new place etc...

My TD had told me that she believed positive-only training only went so far, that it worked, but it took a LONG time, and wasn't very reliable (dog always believes it has a choice). I didn't fully believe her (I mean EVERYTHING is "positive this, positive, that, corrections are bad, compulsion isn't required, etc..."). 

But I totally SAW it with this dog. She had been training with a club for 3 years, positive only, no compulsion. She could def do everything he asked, but it was completely up to her and I wouldn't trust it at all (he didn't even trust it).

Now, I am NOT talking about beating the crap out of your dog. I have watched dogs all over the Northwest train in the last half year, police academies, schH clubs, AKC obedience, and it seems that the dogs that are the most RELIABLY trained, have seen a balance of compulsion and reward(balance is key). These dogs didn't all have the most amazing genetics (some obviously did), and they came from all walks of life (house dogs, police dogs, farm dogs, etc). It was obvious that obedience was CLEAR to them. They knew what they had to do, it could be trusted. They knew they were to obey, or get a correction, and always rewarded (at some point) with play and maybe treats. But the correction blocked the higher value distraction and cleared up the dog's mind("okay, I can't use that option, guess I need to obey").

TLDR, treat-only-training is great for some dogs (softer ones, in my experience). But of the dogs I have met (anecdotal of course) the only ones I saw reliable obedience with, there was compulsion/correction used, along with rewards. It's all about balance. For OP's dog, obviously VERY young, I would stick to very basic training, with tiny pop-pops for choosing to not listen and positive reinforcement when performed correctly (doesn't always have to be treat, I'd try toy and praise). Everything depends on the dog.


----------



## MichaelE

"... I didn't fully believe her (I mean EVERYTHING is "positive this, positive, that, corrections are bad, compulsion isn't required, etc...")...

I have found that's pretty much the norm _here_.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

MichaelE said:


> "... I didn't fully believe her (I mean EVERYTHING is "positive this, positive, that, corrections are bad, compulsion isn't required, etc...")...
> 
> I have found that's pretty much the norm _here_.


Totally disagree. I think very few people here never use any kind of correction and/or believe that compulsion is never required. I do prefer to train motivationally as much as possible, partly because I believe it's clearer for the dog (there's only one right response to a command but numerous incorrect responses, so marking and rewarding the right response gets the point across faster than than correcting the various wrong responses), but also, the more my dog is a willing, enthusiastic partner in training, the less corrections I need to use. It's so fun to have a dog that WANTS to learn, that LOVES to train, that can't wait to see what we're going to work on next! Constantly telling the the no, no, no, no through corrections is not the best way to get that kind of happy compliance, IMO.


----------



## DaniFani

MichaelE said:


> "... I didn't fully believe her (I mean EVERYTHING is "positive this, positive, that, corrections are bad, compulsion isn't required, etc...")...
> 
> I have found that's pretty much the norm _here_.


Haha, yeah, I keep my mouth shut a lot in the training section. Any compulsion advice can be attacked pretty quick. But, until last weekend, I hadn't seen a dog that TRULY had ONLY seen treat-based, positive-only, training(for YEARS). And it struck me how UNRELIABLE the dog was. And it wasn't just genes, the dog KNEW how to do this stuff, she just hadn't been taught that she isn't allowed to pick any of her other options. 

And her owner is a good trainer, he did everything by the book, had taken plenty of positive-only classes, trained in tons of different locations, with all kinds of different distractions, but he was just conditioning her to THOSE distractions, not truly preparing her for real-world distractions (which, in my opinion you can't do, you can only make sure your dog has a clear understanding that NO other options are allowed)...in the end he wrote up, "not listening" to the dog's genetics, and that was that. 

I truly believe with a little CLEAR compulsion/positive reinforcement training, that his dog would be reliable and consistant. I could be completely wrong, but I did not see a dog in front of me with such bad genetics that it couldn't listen.

I think some people automatically assume if you use any compulsion in your training you are beating the crap out of the dog, every training session it is cowering, shaking, with it's tail between it's legs, that it hates training, and is basically a session of torcher. That couldn't be further from the truth, my corgi, is pretty darn hard, requires some compulsion, and he LOVES training. I just always take the pressure from compulsion off him be reinforcing the right behavior with toy and play. But, he needs corrections, because he will test his other options when first learning something new.

That treat-only dog I met, I would NEVER trust if it got out, slipped by the owner, or had higher value distractions around. I'd like to meet a positive-only dog, that is reliable under high distraction. And I'm not talking about set-up-sterile-training-distractions. I am talking, real-world, distractions(ex: front door is open, kid/animal is walking by...etc). And I think a lot of people that use positive-only training are, in fact, using a little compulsion. IE...the dog isn't paying attention on it's lead, and the owner gives a teeny tiny pop-pop-look-at-me, on the leash, and maybe the dog is soft enough that THAT is all it takes (wouldn't be the case for my corgi).

It's all about balance and the dog to me. Every dog is different, my corgi and my GSD are night and day and each require different levels of everything in training.


----------



## DaniFani

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Totally disagree. I think very few people here never use any kind of correction and/or believe that compulsion is never required. I do prefer to train motivationally as much as possible, partly because I believe it's clearer for the dog (there's only one right response to a command but numerous incorrect responses, so marking and rewarding the right response gets the point across faster than than correcting the various wrong responses), but also, the more my dog is a willing, enthusiastic partner in training, the less corrections I need to use. It's so fun to have a dog that WANTS to learn, that LOVES to train, that can't wait to see what we're going to work on next! Constantly telling the the no, no, no, no through corrections is not the best way to get that kind of happy compliance, IMO.


That's all well and dandy, but what about when the dog HAS to obey, or there are serious consequences. IE, running across a road when a car is coming. And by ONLY marking the right "option" your aren't teaching them that no other option is ALLOWED, you are just showing them that YOU like the one option.

And what if the result of the other option is of higher value than pleasing you. Again this goes back to the reliability of the command. My corgi doesn't need a single correction when we are in my sterile-house, no distractions, just me and the reward. But, in a field with friends, he has to be shown, not only is this the option that gets you a reward, but the other options are not ALLOWED. And if it is clear, and done correctly, the session should not be filled with, "no, no, no, no." 

Why wouldn't you want to show the dog that the other options aren't allowed? That's more CLEAR to me, than "okay that option gets a reward, but what if I want the reward of chasing the squirrel more than the reward. Mom let's ME decide what I want, and right now I want the squirrel more." A dog that has ONLY been taught with reward, will run for the squirrel, but what if a car is coming and the squirrel is on the other side of the road. My dog would DROP when I said, "platz" because he's been taught he is NOT allowed to take any other option. I know this because it happened three weeks ago, but it was a chicken on the other side of the road. ;-)

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## DaniFani

Oh and my corgi, who receives compulsion along with reward, JUMPS into his position for every command because he is so excited. I HATE it when people say that dogs trained with compulsion are sulky, hate the work, and aren't as excited as their treat-only counterparts.....ridiculous, and it's a scare tactic used to try and keep people from using any compulsion....smh


----------



## MichaelE

And a correct one in _my_ opinion.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

DaniFani said:


> That's all well and dandy, but what about when the dog HAS to obey, or there are serious consequences. IE, running across a road when a car is coming. And by ONLY marking the right "option" your aren't teaching them that no other option is ALLOWED, you are just showing them that YOU like the one option.


*sigh* Did I say anywhere that I won't use corrections? Did I say anywhere that I never teach my dogs that they have to obey? No I did not.  All I said was that when I'm _*training new skills*_ I find it clearer to reinforce what I WANT them to do, rather than correcting what I DON'T want them to do. An example: New puppy, doesn't know the sit command yet. I could say "sit", and then correct the puppy for not sitting (how many other things can you think of that a puppy could do that isn't a sit? I can think of a dozen without even trying) - do you think that's the fastest, clearest way to teach that puppy what sit IS? Or is the puppy just learning what sit ISN'T? Another example: I want to train my new puppy to walk on a loose leash without pulling. I could do that solely with a leash correction every time the puppy gets out of position. Some people do train it that way. Does that teach her what LLW IS? Not really. But I can shape exactly the behavior I want by reinforcing when she does it right, and she'll get it pretty darn fast! Does that mean that I will never correct her? No it does not, it just means that training and proofing are two different things, and I can show her best what I expect from her by rewarding the good, and then later, when she knows what I want, I can correct her for not doing it. 



> And what if the result of the other option is of higher value than pleasing you. Again this goes back to the reliability of the command. My corgi doesn't need a single correction when we are in my sterile-house, no distractions, just me and the reward. But, in a field with friends, he has to be shown, not only is this the option that gets you a reward, but the other options are not ALLOWED. And if it is clear, and done correctly, the session should not be filled with, "no, no, no, no."


That would be proofing a behavior, not teaching it from the very beginning. Keep in mind the context of this thread - the OP has a 4-1/2 month old puppy. It's extremely unlikely that he's at the proofing level with any command, and even with the commands that he "knows", I doubt they've been fully generalized yet.  



> Why wouldn't you want to show the dog that the other options aren't allowed?


Never said I wouldn't, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't allow my dogs to decide what they want, never said that either. And the prudent thing is to manage your dog's environment so they are not in a position to practice life threatening behavior like chasing squirrels into the road and getting hit by a car. Halo is off leash every weekend for flyball training and will be again this weekend, racing in a tournament in a HUGELY distracting environment with lots of other off leash dogs, but that doesn't mean I'd let her walk around off leash next to a street - that would be just dumb. Dogs are animals, and no animal is going to be 100% reliable and I'm not willing to gamble with my dogs' lives.


----------



## Merciel

DaniFani said:


> I'd like to meet a positive-only dog, that is reliable under high distraction. And I'm not talking about set-up-sterile-training-distractions. I am talking, real-world, distractions(ex: front door is open, kid/animal is walking by...etc).


Here's one: my cousin with her dog Kate, here winning the Eastern Regionals a couple of weeks ago to head off to nationals in the Purina Incredible Dog Challenge.





 
No force, no fear, no pain. She's a national-level competition dog in several sports (former world record holder in disc dog), and she is bombproof in real-world settings. Kate is as reliable as a dog can be. No problems holding a Stay at a 500-person outdoor wedding with a fireworks display going off overhead.

It can be done. I'm using Kate as an example because I know her owner/handler personally and I know how that dog was trained, but there are lots and lots of trainers who advocate the same.

It's fair to say "_I_ can't train a dog to as high a degree of reliability without compulsion" or "I haven't personally _seen_ it done" or "it is not how I personally prefer to train my dogs" but yes, absolutely, it is possible to get a reliably trained dog with force-free methods.


----------



## DaniFani

The OP wasn't asking about training a new behavior, his dog knows the drill, knows the correct response to the command. He is talking about "proofing," if you will. His dog ONLY does the command when the treat is around. 

When did I ever say compulsion should be used on a new command? Every example I used was a dog that knew all the commands, in one case, had been training for years. And you say you doubt OP's dog's commands have been fully "generalized" yet? So what does it take for you to believe the dog knows a command? To me, if he does it immediately for the treat, every time(the impression I got from OP), then he knows the command....but apparently I am wrong about this??

Don't put words in MY mouth, I never said that you should teach a new command with any compulsion. Of course the dog needs to know the command first (my example of my corgi doing everything properly in a sterile environment requiring no compulsion vs a field). No need to be obtuse, I have been talking about being clear the whole time, if the dog doesn't know the command in the first place, nothing is clear....so that wouldn't be the context I was talking about using compulsion in.

And the chicken on the other side of the road, we were training up in WA on a field, dog had a long line on, on the end of the field was a road and on the other side of the road appeared a freaking chicken lol. My dog saw it, acted like he was going to check it out, I gave him the down command and he dropped(I didn't touch the line). Another example, my friends SchH 1 titled rottie (who would LOVE to kill a chicken or two) was training with us at a friends farm. There was a lot of brush to the left of us. Owner had dog in a heel by a bush (about three feet away) and a rooster walked out from the bush. The dog glanced at the chicken, and went right back into a heel. THAT is control, I just honestly don't believe a dog with only treat-training, very little compulsion, and positive only, would be able to do that. I welcome someone to prove me wrong (not directing any of this to you Cassidy, I believe you would correct your dog on the line for being distracted at the chicken....but this dog didn't even need a correction, because it was clear.)

To me, proving a command is reliable doesn't happen in the sterile, conditioned environment of the flyball, schH, agility, AKC, course. It's a field, with a rooster popping out unexpectedly, or running past you to visit a neighbor, and downing mid-run at your command...Cassidy, you said you use compulsion in your training, so this is directed to AF trainers, or treat-only trainers, which is what OP said he is using right now for his dog. I honestly would love to see a successful AF trainer(that can PROVE their dog's reliability under higher-than-treat-value-distractions), I have yet to though.

You can talk about managing your environment all you want, but how many people on here are great owners, but their dog pushed past them, the leash broke, or a gate was accidentally left open. I think saying no dog is 100% reliable is kind of a cop out. Of course NOTHING is 100% reliable, but why use that as an excuse to have semi-reliable behavior. My dog has been proofed, on accident, with real-life, out of control, situations. I have yet (knock on wood) to have the down command disobeyed, and my dog is nine months old....when a command and the consequences are CLEAR, the dog knows what to do. 

And you absolutely did imply that a dog under compulsion/reward training can't have as much fun as a dog that is only using or has a huge majority of reward-based-only training. On this, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> Here's one: my cousin with her dog Kate, here winning the Eastern Regionals a couple of weeks ago to head off to nationals in the Purina Incredible Dog Challenge.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcP3eNcNlXs
> 
> No force, no fear, no pain. She's a national-level competition dog in several sports (former world record holder in disc dog), and she is bombproof in real-world settings. Kate is as reliable as a dog can be. No problems holding a Stay at a 500-person outdoor wedding with a fireworks display going off overhead.
> 
> It can be done. I'm using Kate as an example because I know her owner/handler personally and I know how that dog was trained, but there are lots and lots of trainers who advocate the same.
> 
> It's fair to say "_I_ can't train a dog to as high a degree of reliability without compulsion" or "I haven't personally _seen_ it done" or "it is not how I personally prefer to train my dogs" but yes, absolutely, it is possible to get a reliably trained dog with force-free methods.


To me this is not the type of reliability-test I am talking about. This is a dog doing an agility course. And if your friend has NEVER used a correction(pop pop on a lead, stern verbal "no," negative body posturing towards the dog, I would definitely be impressed. I have found that a lot of AF trainers, actually do use compulsion, only in lesser degrees (because the dog is soft enough that that's all it takes), ie body posturing, verbal, or light pops on a line attached to a flat collar. And if they, like the man who brought his "well-trained" dog to a new field, encounter a dog that isn't performing under the AF training, they blame it on the genetic make up of the dog, and that's that.


----------



## Merciel

DaniFani said:


> Owner had dog in a heel by a bush (about three feet away) and a rooster walked out from the bush. The dog glanced at the chicken, and went right back into a heel. THAT is control, I just honestly don't believe a dog with only treat-training, very little compulsion, and positive only, would be able to do that.


Again: it's doable. I've recalled Pongu off chasing a stray cat that bolted from right under his nose and fled down a busy city street. That cat was _running_, not just strutting out from behind a bush, and Pongu yanked his leash out of my hand before I could react. But he stopped on a dime and recalled immediately (although not before my heart jumped into my throat and I lost ten years off my life!). I hope never to have to test that again, but in that moment, when I really needed an immediate and reliable response from my dog, I got it.

I'm not going to argue that compulsion is any less effective in getting reliability. Positive punishment works. In fact, it is often a considerably faster method, which is no small consideration for a lot of people. If you want to take a mixed approach, that's fine; I'm not here to convert anyone away from their own informed choices.

But it is flat-out wrong to say that it's not possible for anyone, ever, to get a reliable response from a dog trained without force.

I don't have a clip of the incident with the cat, of course. It wasn't exactly set up for the benefit of video recording. And I'm at work right now, so going out to make a new video is sadly not going to happen right away. But here's Pongu playing Freeze Tag with me a year ago in a crowded dog park, ignoring other uncontrolled (even actively interfering) dogs and tennis balls and people to hold a Stand-Stay on a split-second's notice, and then heeling back away with me on cue.





 
It's a brief clip because I wasn't really making it to illustrate this particular point, but again: it is possible to get reliability without force.


----------



## Merciel

DaniFani said:


> To me this is not the type of reliability-test I am talking about. This is a dog doing an agility course. And if your friend has NEVER used a correction(pop pop on a lead, stern verbal "no," negative body posturing towards the dog, I would definitely be impressed. I have found that a lot of AF trainers, actually do use compulsion, only in lesser degrees (because the dog is soft enough that that's all it takes), ie body posturing, verbal, or light pops on a line attached to a flat collar. And if they, like the man who brought his "well-trained" dog to a new field, encounter a dog that isn't performing under the AF training, they blame it on the genetic make up of the dog, and that's that.


It's an agility course with loudspeakers and giant video screens and a pretty big crowd pressed right up against the ring gates. That's a higher-distraction environment than most dogs are ever going to be expected to work in. And, again, that's a dog that belongs to a family member. I was at the wedding I mentioned in my last post. Kate isn't just good on agility courses.

I didn't say she never _corrected_ her dog. Body posture and verbal corrections are certainly in the repertoire (as they are for my dogs). Physical force is not. No prong collars, no chokes, no swats, no shocks.

It can be done.


----------



## gagsd

DaniFani said:


> His dog ONLY does the command when the treat is around.


I would hazard the statement then that the dog does not, after all, know the command.
Dogs pick-up on situational cues.... and many learn quickly to be "lured" but never really understand the WORD. One must teach that.
I choose to teach it much as Cassidy's mom has explained.
.... and I can call my intensely prey driven positively trained dog off of a cat with just my voice. But that is not just a training issue, it has to do with the relationship between dog and handler, I admit.


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> I
> I didn't say she never _corrected_ her dog. Body posture and verbal corrections are certainly in the repertoire (as they are for my dogs). Physical force is not. No prong collars, no chokes, no swats, no shocks.
> 
> It can be done.


I didn't know this debate was about physical force, or force in general?? I thought it was about compulsion? Which is what body posture, verbal, etc...is. If that is enough for a certain dog, than great. Whatever it takes to show a dog it's options. A good trainer will never do more than they have to, if verbal, body posture, etc, works...then that's all you use.

For every video of a dog performing using a method of training I can show you a dog that wouldn't respond to only that level of compulsion. Comparing dogs is like comparing people, they all have different threshold, different hardness levels, different drives...I am simply saying, compulsion is a tool that can be used for dogs. YOU use it...still haven't talked to anyone on here that doesn't use compulsion....I was referencing AF, positive only, because OP said that's what they use. Just giving him examples and opinions on the other options.

By saying you do use body language, verbal, etc...then you DO use compulsion, just to the level THAT dog requires. Some dogs need more (pop on a prong, etc). It's all about the dog. Just like there are dogs that only need a TINY bit of compulsion (a stern "No") there are dogs that require more....your example of the agility dog and your dog are dogs that compulsion has been used on (your own admittance, just a low level) so they were given clear direction. Not every dog requires this "force" that you talk about. But everyone you've showed me, defending positive only, positive punishment...whatever, training, HAS seen compulsion. So I guess I am missing your point? That not every dog needs a prong? I completely agree....but SOME do.


----------



## AgileGSD

I'm not sure what "all positive" means. All training has consequences. When I talk about dogs having to sit and wait to be released from their crate, even with the door open the consequence for not doing so is the door closes. They have to control themselves in order to get what they want. this is an uncued behavior for my dogs, it's just part of life and they know it is expected and are reliable. Just one example of many. Again... If your (general) knowledge of positive training is solely using a treat to lure the dog then giving the treat and ignoring behavior you don't want you will not be very successful with most dogs. 

As for this one positively trained dog who did poorly at a competition. IME sniffing at trials is most often caused by stress, not because "the dog knows he has a choice and is blowing off his handler". Trial stress isn't unusual and can happen regardless if the methods used to train the dog. Have you ever seen compulsion trained dogs fail to perform properly? Does it make you think that using correction in training doesn't work? 

When it comes to competition, the dog always has a choice. I have seen countless compulsion trained dogs have chronic issues at trials. Problems with stays despite correction...sometimes harsh correction being used. Problems with heeling once the leash comes off, even though the dog has been proofed with compulsion for heel work. And yep, problems with stress behaviors like sniffing and become unresponsive. 

Improper use of positive training can led to unreliable performance if the dog realizes that there is no possibility for a reward in a given scenario and/or the handler can't prevent them from self rewarding. The dog knows theres nothing in it for them or finds something Else more reinforcing. Improper use of complusion in training can result in unreliable performance if the dog realizes there is no possibility of a correction in a given scene rio and/or the handler can't stop them from self reinforcing. The dog knows the handler can't "get them" and finds something else more reinforcing. Everyone wants to point out the flaws in everyone else's methods but the truth is, no method is fail proof. The dog always has a choice. They can choose something more reinforcing then the handler. They can opt to risk correction for something they highly value.


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> It's a brief clip because I wasn't really making it to illustrate this particular point, but again: it is possible to get reliability without force.


Just because you can train a dog on this level of compulsion does not mean you can apply it to every dog. I never said you can't get reliability without FORCE....I said you couldn't without compulsion...which you yourself(and everyone else so far) use, to some degree...just not to the degree some others may require or use. 

On that note, I think we are disagreeing on what an acceptable LEVEL of compulsion is. So to that point I ask, why is a stern "no" okay, but a prong not? On a soft dog, a stern "no" can be just as "terrifying, scary, etc.." as you think a prong has on a harder dog....I guess we just disagree on this. 

Some dogs could care less about verbal and posturing...they react to a prong the same way a softer dog reacts to a stern "no." BUT this is all about reading your dog, having a clear relationship with your dog, knowing how to properly use the tools...etc. I think people jump on the "no prongs, no electric, no whatever" because they are scared it will be misused, and obviously the consequences of misusing a prong/ecollar is worse than a "no." BUT that is another debate, and no reason to say it doesn't work or isn't needed. Or that every dog would respond to only verbal/posturing compulsion.


----------



## Merciel

Argh, I lost my post. Oh well, here's a second attempt:



DaniFani said:


> I didn't know this debate was about physical force, or force in general?? I thought it was about compulsion?


I think you're shifting the goalposts here.

Previously you said:

"THAT is control, I just honestly don't believe a dog with only treat-training, very little compulsion, and positive only, would be able to do that."

So okay, here are some dogs who have had "very little compulsion" and "only treat-training." And they do fine in both real-world settings and on the trial field, with very high degrees of reliability indeed.


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> I'm not sure what "all positive" means. All training has consequences. When I talk about dogs having to sit and wait to be released from their crate, even with the door open the consequence for not doing so is the door closes. They have to control themselves in order to get what they want. this is an uncued behavior for my dogs, it's just part of life and they know it is expected and are reliable. Just one example of many. Again... If your (general) knowledge of positive training is solely using a treat to lure the dog then giving the treat and ignoring behavior you don't want you will not be very successful with most dogs.
> 
> *As for this one positively trained dog who did poorly at a competition. IME sniffing at trials is most often caused by stress, not because "the dog knows he has a choice and is blowing off his handler".* Trial stress isn't unusual and can happen regardless if the methods used to train the dog. Have you ever seen compulsion trained dogs fail to perform properly? Does it make you think that using correction in training doesn't work?
> 
> When it comes to competition, the dog always has a choice. I have seen countless compulsion trained dogs have chronic issues at trials. Problems with stays despite correction...sometimes harsh correction being used. Problems with heeling once the leash comes off, even though the dog has been proofed with compulsion for heel work. And yep, problems with stress behaviors like sniffing and become unresponsive.
> 
> * Improper use of positive training can led to unreliable performance if the dog realizes that there is no possibility for a reward in a given scenario and/or the handler can't prevent them from self rewarding. The dog knows theres nothing in it for them or finds something Else more reinforcing. Improper use of complusion in training can result in unreliable performance if the dog realizes there is no possibility of a correction in a given scene rio and/or the handler can't stop them from self reinforcing. The dog knows the handler can't "get them" and finds something else more reinforcing. Everyone wants to point out the flaws in everyone else's methods but the truth is, no method is fail proof. The dog always has a choice. They can choose something more reinforcing then the handler. They can opt to risk correction for something they highly value.*


First bolded: Read my post again, the dog was training on a club field....not a trial. And she was ABSOLUTELY blowing off the handler, no signs of stress at all.

Second bolded: Couldn't agree more. I'm talking about compulsion-free training (OP made it sound like the only training they were considering is positive, no compulsion at all). No one on here has given an example of a compulsion-free dog...only low compulsion training...which I completely agree is possible...I HAVE a dog like that. I PREFER a low-compulsion-requiring dog. I also have a very tough dog that I need to put a prong on, because he requires a slightly higher level of compulsion. 

I just get annoyed when people act like they are "positive only" trainers when they DO use compulsion, it's just their dog only requires a low-dose, and they judge and accuse the people who use higher levels, of creating fearful dogs that are FORCED into doing something. Just because you(general you) FORCED your dog with a verbal command and I FORCED my dog with a prong, does not mean I am terrible, both dogs react to it the same way....both dogs require that level to be "clear."


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> Argh, I lost my post. Oh well, here's a second attempt:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're shifting the goalposts here.
> 
> Previously you said:
> 
> "THAT is control, I just honestly don't believe a dog with only treat-training, very little compulsion, and positive only, would be able to do that."
> 
> So okay, here are some dogs who have had "very little compulsion" and "only treat-training." And they do fine in both real-world settings and on the trial field, with very high degrees of reliability indeed.


Sorry, shouldn't have said "very little" should have said "below that dog's true required level OR zero." The dog I saw that was positive only, probably has seen a little compulsion through a stern "no." But, obviously it wasn't enough for that dog. The dog blew off his handler through almost the whole thing, the handler was exasperated....My stance: a dog (even the examples shown) require their own level of compulsion, it is different for every dog. I don't believe you can achieve the utmost reliability of obedience without using the proper amount of compulsion along with reward. I think some dogs require more compulsion than others, but ALL need compulsion to be clear. Does that make sense?


----------



## DaniFani

gagsd said:


> I would hazard the statement then that the dog does not, after all, know the command.
> Dogs pick-up on situational cues.... and many learn quickly to be "lured" but never really understand the WORD. One must teach that.
> *I guess we are all making assumptions about OP's dog when we shouldn't be. I can only go by what the OP says, which is that his dog knows the commands. If the dog doesn't than that is a whole other issue*
> I choose to teach it much as Cassidy's mom has explained.
> .... and I can call my intensely prey driven positively trained dog off of a cat with just my voice.
> *A dog can be intensely prey driven and still soft enough to respond to a verbal "no" as compulsion. *
> But that is not just a training issue, it has to do with the relationship between dog and handler, I admit.*I agree, a dog CARING about listening to it's handler, also needs to come into play. It's all about the big picture and balance.*


Response in bold.


----------



## llombardo

wolfy dog said:


> (why would your dog be rewarded for the behavior of another dog???)
> .


 
I never said the dog is rewarded for the behavior of the other dog...we do group obedience and everyone gets treats. Its not needed but I do it because we all have fun together.


----------



## Merciel

DaniFani said:


> My stance: a dog (even the examples shown) require their own level of compulsion, it is different for every dog. I don't believe you can achieve the utmost reliability of obedience without using the proper amount of compulsion along with reward. I think some dogs require more compulsion than others, but ALL need compulsion to be clear. Does that make sense?


I understand your position.

I don't even know that I disagree, except that I'd flip it the other way: I don't think it's primarily the _dog_ who needs a particular level of "compulsion" (however we're defining that) to achieve the goals that the handler wants. I think it's the _trainer._

If you're really good at motivating dogs, and/or you have a dog who is wired to be very motivated by the handler's approval (or food, or toys, or some other easily controlled reward), you don't need much compulsion. You might not need anything that looks like "compulsion" as opposed to no-reward markers saying "nope, sorry, try again."

If you're not as good at motivating dogs, especially dogs who aren't especially easy to motivate or are easily self-rewarded independently, then you will probably need a heavier dose of correction, and perhaps some amount of force, to get the dog to do what you want -- because it's harder to make the _dog_ want to do it.


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> I understand your position.
> 
> *I don't even know that I disagree, except that I'd flip it the other way: I don't think it's primarily the dog who needs a particular level of "compulsion" (however we're defining that) to achieve the goals that the handler wants. I think it's the trainer.*
> 
> If you're really good at motivating dogs, and/or you have a dog who is wired to be very motivated by the handler's approval (or food, or toys, or some other easily controlled reward), you don't need much compulsion. You might not need anything that looks like "compulsion" as opposed to no-reward markers saying "nope, sorry, try again."
> 
> If you're not as good at motivating dogs, especially dogs who aren't especially easy to motivate or are easily self-rewarded independently, then you will probably need a heavier dose of correction, and perhaps some amount of force, to get the dog to do what you want -- because it's harder to make the _dog_ want to do it.


Agreed! And I completely UNDERSTAND why so many people advocate against compulsion (or certain higher levels of it). I believe people know that it can be misused, that emotions (anger) can be attached to using it, etc...and that it can be abused. I agree, it can be abused, and the human has to be just as "clear headed" in giving the correction as the dog does in understanding what the correction was for(however, if a human isn't able to be clear headed enough to do that I don't know that they should even own dogs...another discussion). Like ANY tool used, there are misuses and improper ways for it to be used and abused. So, while I UNDERSTAND why people are so hesitant to support higher levels of compulsion...I believe that humans are capable of learning how and when to use these tools appropriately AND that some dogs require higher levels to clearly obey.

It's easy to say it's the handlers fault, the handler isn't motivating the dog enough, the handler isn't being fun enough....while I believe that a LOT of things are the handlers fault...I believe this is a poor excuse to support compulsion. Compulsion makes it clear to the dog what is not acceptable. The dog is unique, and free-thinking (in some ways), it naturally tests boundaries...correcting it for testing those boundaries isn't a lack of the handlers ability to "be fun and motivate." A chicken is way more fun to chase than a treat in my hand or a ball under my arm....that isn't MY fault. So a correction, to continue obeying, is required (in my opinion). I have seen so many people trying to regain the attention of their dog, "hey hey hey, look ball, ball, leave it, play, hey" and the dog is so uninterested in the ball because something of higher value is there. If the dog obeys it's not because the handler is more fun than the dog's prey drive for the chicken...it's because it knows it isn't ALLOWED to take that option.

Where I disagree with others(in general), is when they say higher levels of compulsion aren't necessary, and because THEY have a dog that small levels of compulsion worked on, they then generalize that all dogs are like that, and say, "SEE it CAN be done!". I agree, it can be done at low levels...but there are times/individual dogs, where it needs to be upped.


----------



## Merciel

DaniFani said:


> Where I disagree with others(in general), is when they say higher levels of compulsion aren't necessary, and because THEY have a dog that small levels of compulsion worked on, they then generalize that all dogs are like that, and say, "SEE it CAN be done!". I agree, it can be done at low levels...but there are times/individual dogs, where it needs to be upped.


Yeah, that is where we disagree.

I won't rule out as a theoretical possibility that there exists a dog somewhere in the world that I would have to use a prong collar to reach. But I haven't encountered that dog yet, and I've trained a fair number of them -- more than some people on this board, fewer than others -- all across the spectrum of temperaments, from ultrasoft spaniels who'd wilt at a glance to pitties who wouldn't bat an eyelash at having a ton of bricks dropped on their heads.

I have certainly been faced with dogs that would probably have learned things a lot _faster_ with positive punishment, particularly newly-arrived foster dogs with whom I had no real relationship yet. Most of those dogs would have been tough enough to recover from a certain amount of positive punishment without suffering permanent damage. I could have put a prong on them and popped them a few times and they'd probably have been fine.

But I choose not to do that, because I'm philosophically of the view that it is never the dog who "needs" punishment. If that situation arises, _I'm_ the one who "needs" to use that because I don't have a better way of communicating my goals and persuading the dog to go along with them. And there have been times when it's really taken me a while to figure out how to motivate a dog to _want_ to do something instead of forcing it just because I said so. I enjoy that challenge, but not everyone does.

And I think at this point in my life I have come to accept that it's okay for people to choose different priorities. If using a certain calculated amount of force is what enables you to have an otherwise enjoyable and safe relationship with your dog, fine, that's a fair choice to make. Your dogs are not my dogs; your life is not my life.

But yes, I do disagree that it's the dog who "needs" the heavy hand. It's the trainer. And I think that is an important point, because it puts the moral responsibility where it belongs: on the person's end of the leash.


----------



## DaniFani

I guess we will agree to disagree. In animal packs around the world there is no "persuading" a member to WANT to do something and waiting over and over again for it to happen correctly. It's, do it, and we move on. And you can give me the "communication between species is different" lecture, but it's very clear to my dog(over-simplified example), you don't sit, you get a correction, you sit, you get a reward and praise and we get to move on to more things.

And lots of horrible trainers/owners boast about how many dogs they've trained/owned...so how many dogs someone has "trained" doesn't mean much to me. Their titled, certified, working, tested dogs, speak for themselves along with seeing them work and train.

I will choose the fastest, clearest, route(tailored to each dog's thresholds, drives, etc) so that the dog and I can move on to bigger and better things. The dog is fine and happy, I am fine and happy, and instead of spending a ton of time on one simple, silly, mind-numbing, command, I can challenge my dog at higher and higher levels in shorter amounts of time, getting into more and more fun things for the dog. With everything being, clear, fun, and quick. If something is taking a very long time, in my opinion, other options need to be explored, because the dog isn't clear and understanding. To each their own. It's been a nice debate, although, like most debate conclusions, I think all sides are just further entrenched in their opinions, oh well. Have a nice night ;-)


----------



## Merciel

DaniFani said:


> I guess we will agree to disagree.
> 
> I will choose the fastest, clearest, route(tailored to each dog's thresholds, drives, etc) so that the dog and I can move on to bigger and better things.


I don't think we disagree at all, actually. 

The second sentence gets at exactly what I was trying to say: what road you choose depends on who you are as a trainer and what works best for you. That's the fastest and clearest route for you, and it works, so that's what you do. And that's _absolutely fine_.

I know it sounds patronizing for me to even say it that way, but I don't know how else to phrase it -- I seriously, honestly, absolutely do not have any issue with you doing things in the way that works best for you. Nobody's abusing their dogs here; no one is hurting their dogs unnecessarily out of anger or ignorance. We all want what is best for our own pets, and I do not doubt that your chosen techniques are effective in getting you where you want to go.

But the whole reason I got into this discussion, even though I generally try to stay out of training debates, is because earlier in the thread you were making the argument that dogs "need" forcible compulsion, and it's not possible to get any "positive only" dog to do things effectively or well without it. And I don't think that's true. Some _trainers_ need it. But the _dogs,_ by and large, can travel many different roads to reach their destinations.

"And lots of horrible trainers/owners boast about how many dogs they've trained/owned...so how many dogs someone has "trained" doesn't mean much to me. Their titled, certified, working, tested dogs, speak for themselves along with seeing them work and train."

Yes, that's why I posted the example clips that I did. Because talk, especially on the Internet, means nothing without at least a little proof.


----------



## MichaelE

Most of us will have to agree to disagree in threads such as these. What works for me and my dog(s) may or may not work you you and yours.

Techniques, personalities, and temperaments all vary and different methods must be applied for each variant.


----------



## AgileGSD

Danifani did you see my question... Have you ever seen a dog trained with compulsion fail to perform properly? Did it make you feel that complusion in training doesn't work? 

I consider myself a primarily positive trainer. My dogs are taught competition obedience without the use of corrective collars and while I'm not really an obedience person, they do well when I trial them. However like I said, all training involves consequences. And in everyday life, I use prongs, head collars, no pull harnesses and bark collars. For dogs who's owners need my help with problem behaviors, I will use whatever tool I think best fits the situation, owners needs and individual dog. This is not because I think those tools are the only options though. For myself, it's because I'm not interested in the sort if strict lifestyle required to go without them. And most pet owners I work with are even less interested in that. I certainly could stop my dog's inappropriate barking without bark collars...but bark collars allow me to not have to drastically change my lifestyle (or the lifestyle if my dogs) to do so. And provides a quick solution to keep other members of the household happy. If they caused any problems for my dogs, I'd not use them. But TBH the only side effects I've seen have been positive -the dogs remain calmer, have less tendencies towards territorial aggression and separation issues while wearing bark collars. While not wearing them, they are uninhibited about barking and carrying on


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

DaniFani said:


> I guess we are all making assumptions about OP's dog when we shouldn't be. I can only go by what the OP says, which is that his dog knows the commands. If the dog doesn't than that is a whole other issue


Yes, but the point here is that just because the OP THINKS their 4-1/2 month old puppy KNOWS the commands, that doesn't mean that he actually does. And the fact that he only responds when the OP has treats shows that the presence of food is very likely an additional cue that the puppy is relying on. No food: puppy doesn't have to comply. So as gagsd said, he probably doesn't really know the commands as well as the OP thinks he does. 

I trained the crap out of Halo from the time I got her at 10 weeks old - she was a rock star in all her classes, and I trained her in huge variety of different places and situations, but I can say for sure that she hadn't fully generalized all those commands by 4-1/2 months old and was still very much a work in process.


----------



## Merciel

AgileGSD said:


> And most pet owners I work with are even less interested in that. I certainly could stop my dog's inappropriate barking without bark collars...but bark collars allow me to not have to drastically change my lifestyle (or the lifestyle if my dogs) to do so.


Yep, and that is a very good point.

Doing things "positive only" (as I've defined it: no force, no pain, no fear, always choosing motivation over compulsion) is _hard_ sometimes. It can be slow, depending on the dog and the issue and your skill level. Not everyone can do it and not everyone _wants_ to do it.

I used to be really militant about my preferred path being the One True Way of doing things. I think a lot of people go through that phase with regard to whatever their favored training philosophy is. It's like religion: yours is the right one and everybody else ought to be burned at the stake.

What eventually made me get over it was working with the public. The general public, on average and in my experience, means well and loves their dogs but doesn't have a lot of skill and doesn't have a strong interest in developing that skill. (I could say "time" but I'm not convinced it's about time, not if I can do it with everything else that's on my plate. It's about interest. You _make_ time for the things that really interest you.)

The general public wants whatever method will get them an acceptable result in the shortest time possible, requiring as little effort as possible, and without hurting or scaring their dog beyond whatever personal boundaries they've set. If that's treats, great! Most people love feeding their dogs treats. If it's toys, great! That's fun too!

But it's hard and slow to solve some problems with treats and toys (particularly since in most cases the owners have to alter their _own_ behavior as much or more than the dog's in order to solve the issue), and in those situations a lot of people will resort to positive punishment because, for them, it's faster and it gets the job done and then everybody can go on acceptably with their lives, and the dog doesn't wind up dumped in a shelter or stuck alone in the backyard.

I'm still not a huge fan of that -- it's one of the main reasons I don't take training clients from the general public anymore (also I'm just not a very good teacher in general) -- but that's the reality of the imperfect world in which we live. Sometimes the less touchy-feely alternative is what gets the job done, and sometimes it's a whole lot better than a "nice" solution that just isn't working for that person.

So I don't judge anymore, or at least I try not to.

But I do think that it is very important to recognize that the decision to use positive punishment is a decision that _the handler chooses_, always. Every single time. Because that is a weighty moral responsibility and it should not be used lightly, and I think being mindful of that causes people to use it more cautiously.

If the owner blames the dog, and says "the dog _needs_ to be forcibly compelled" or "the dog is _making me do it_," then in my opinion that is wrong. Don't try to absolve your own sense of guilt by putting it on the dog. Own the choice to do things that way. Because it _is_ a choice.

If the owner blames the technique, and says "positive only/force free does not work," then I think that is also wrong. Again, it's an attempt to avoid full responsibility for making that decision by pretending that there is no other choice. There's always a choice.

It's always fair to say "this is how I want to do things, because of XYZ considerations" or "I am not personally able to achieve this result in another way." That's fine. That's honest. Assuming the technique is even remotely reasonable, I have no issue with somebody taking that approach.

It's neither honest nor fair to say "the dog _made me_ hurt him" or "positive training just doesn't work," though.


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> Danifani did you see my question... Have you ever seen a dog trained with compulsion fail to perform properly? Did it make you feel that complusion in training doesn't work?
> 
> *Sorry, I thought I answered this question but maybe it was only in my head lol. Yes, I have seen a dog trained with compulsion fail to perform properly. In all cases it was only a few times throughout the whole session, not consistently for the entire session. But, I know that high level obedience dogs, trained with compulsion, have crappy days and don't perform. I just haven't personally seen it(to the level I saw that day with the dog that came to our club).
> 
> The reason I was so taken aback by the dog I described is because he had been training this dog for YEARS and was still not getting more than 7-10 steps in heeling when new distractions were around(and you CANNOT condition and prepare a dog for every new distraction in the world). He was trying to lure, treat, everything...but she wanted to sniff the ground, walk off to some trees, etc...He tried several other obedience commands...nothing, every now and then she'd come over and perform a command, when SHE wanted to, but she was not under control at all. He came off exasperated and said, "this ALWAYS happens, every time I think we've made strids, I try to test it in other venues and it all falls apart."
> 
> Honestly, I have not seen a dog that was trained with compulsion/reward for YEARS(and I have seen LOTS of dogs train, from police academies, protection trainers, different SchH clubs, and my own), that out of control, on such a consistent basis(according to the owner).
> 
> There were much more experienced trainers there that have had dogs on world SchH teams, trained police k9's, military k9's etc...and they agreed with my thoughts on what I saw(that this behavior was pretty typical of no compulsion training or not giving the dog as much as the individual dog needs). I just mention their history to show they know dog behavior, and they would have not hesitated to disagree with me if they thought what I was seeing was wrong. They didn't see a stressed dog, or a confused dog, they saw a dog completely blowing off it's handler.
> 
> Of course this is an anecdotal story, and could be completely wrong, and maybe it DOES take years to get something as difficult as "foos" down if you are using that method and that method only. I don't know, I haven't trained that way, and I have only seen this one example that was so close to truly being positive only/NO compulsion(when training at least, he did not use negative verbal or body posturing to correct the dog. There is NO correction). I say that because a lot of people that say they are compulsion free use negative verbal and body posturing to get their correction across, and to me that is compulsion.
> 
> I also agree with your previous post, that EVERY training method has it's failings. And every dog requires it's own training plan, almost always with a mixture of all plans. I just believe compulsion does have to play a role in all the plans. And apparently everyone here agrees that SOME compulsion has to be used, including yourself, because everyone is using at least the lowest level of it....I see the word "force" being thrown around by a lot by people who USE compulsion to correct their dog, but accuse me of saying "Force" has to be used when they believe it doesn't.
> 
> Is a negative verbal "no" not forcing a dog to not do something, especially if the dog is extremely sensitive to it's owner. Or negative posturing? Is that not forcing a dog not to do something through negative body intimidation? But apparently there is a threshold that becomes "forcing" and verbal/posturing is below that threshold???....I disagree with that, especially if you have a very sensitive/soft dog. No one here has said that they don't use compulsion to some degree or another...and I never said every dog needs to go right to prong, electric, etc...if anything I said EVERY DOG IS DIFFERENT, it's all about BALANCE, reading your dog, and a good trainer never uses more compulsion than is necessary and ALWAYS starts out with the lowest level. I DO think some don't use it to the level the dog requires...unless, you want to take a very long time (years in some cases)to train something using positive only with too low a level of compulsion. That's fine though, if that's what YOU(general you) want to do.*
> 
> I consider myself a primarily positive trainer. My dogs are taught competition obedience without the use of corrective collars and while I'm not really an obedience person, they do well when I trial them. However like I said, all training involves consequences. And in everyday life, I use prongs, head collars, no pull harnesses and bark collars. For dogs who's owners need my help with problem behaviors, I will use whatever tool I think best fits the situation, owners needs and individual dog. This is not because I think those tools are the only options though. For myself, it's because I'm not interested in the sort if strict lifestyle required to go without them. And most pet owners I work with are even less interested in that. I certainly could stop my dog's inappropriate barking without bark collars...but bark collars allow me to not have to drastically change my lifestyle (or the lifestyle if my dogs) to do so. And provides a quick solution to keep other members of the household happy. If they caused any problems for my dogs, I'd not use them. *But TBH the only side effects I've seen have been positive -the dogs remain calmer, have less tendencies towards territorial aggression and separation issues while wearing bark collars. While not wearing them, they are uninhibited about barking and carrying on *


I don't mean to go off topic, but I am so glad you brought this up(second bolded part). My mother's corgi is a huge stress-anxiety-barker. When I was in Michigan last month I got a bark collar for her to help my mother. The first day the dog wasn't barking at everything anymore and honestly seemed so much happier and calmer. I couldn't believe it, I was worried that it would stress her out more, but she honestly seemed SO relaxed and happy. That was over a month ago now, and my mom said she is like a different dog. Not nearly as anxious, or stressed. I was so happy to help my mom and the dog out(at the advice of some experienced trainers). Very pleasantly surprised that it had that effect. Glad to hear another positive experience from the bark collars. 

Whew, I keep responding, but honestly I don't think much more can be said that hasn't been said already. I think everyone's stance on everything is clear. I think most? can agree no one is abusing their dogs. Everyone is doing what's best for them and their dogs, and that's all that matters.  But if anyone has anymore questions about my opinion, I'll still chat ;-)


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> Yep, and that is a very good point.
> 
> Doing things "positive only" (as I've defined it: no force, no pain, no fear, always choosing motivation over compulsion) is _hard_ sometimes. It can be slow, depending on the dog and the issue and your skill level. Not everyone can do it and not everyone _wants_ to do it.
> 
> I used to be really militant about my preferred path being the One True Way of doing things. I think a lot of people go through that phase with regard to whatever their favored training philosophy is. It's like religion: yours is the right one and everybody else ought to be burned at the stake.
> 
> What eventually made me get over it was working with the public. The general public, on average and in my experience, means well and loves their dogs but doesn't have a lot of skill and doesn't have a strong interest in developing that skill. (I could say "time" but I'm not convinced it's about time, not if I can do it with everything else that's on my plate. It's about interest. You _make_ time for the things that really interest you.)
> 
> The general public wants whatever method will get them an acceptable result in the shortest time possible, requiring as little effort as possible, and without hurting or scaring their dog beyond whatever personal boundaries they've set. If that's treats, great! Most people love feeding their dogs treats. If it's toys, great! That's fun too!
> 
> But it's hard and slow to solve some problems with treats and toys (particularly since in most cases the owners have to alter their _own_ behavior as much or more than the dog's in order to solve the issue), and in those situations a lot of people will resort to positive punishment because, for them, it's faster and it gets the job done and then everybody can go on acceptably with their lives, and the dog doesn't wind up dumped in a shelter or stuck alone in the backyard.
> 
> I'm still not a huge fan of that -- it's one of the main reasons I don't take training clients from the general public anymore (also I'm just not a very good teacher in general) -- but that's the reality of the imperfect world in which we live. Sometimes the less touchy-feely alternative is what gets the job done, and sometimes it's a whole lot better than a "nice" solution that just isn't working for that person.
> 
> So I don't judge anymore, or at least I try not to.
> 
> But I do think that it is very important to recognize that the decision to use positive punishment is a decision that _the handler chooses_, always. Every single time. Because that is a weighty moral responsibility and it should not be used lightly, and I think being mindful of that causes people to use it more cautiously.
> 
> If the owner blames the dog, and says "the dog _needs_ to be forcibly compelled" or "the dog is _making me do it_," then in my opinion that is wrong. Don't try to absolve your own sense of guilt by putting it on the dog. Own the choice to do things that way. Because it _is_ a choice.
> 
> If the owner blames the technique, and says "positive only/force free does not work," then I think that is also wrong. Again, it's an attempt to avoid full responsibility for making that decision by pretending that there is no other choice. There's always a choice.
> 
> It's always fair to say "this is how I want to do things, because of XYZ considerations" or "I am not personally able to achieve this result in another way." That's fine. That's honest. Assuming the technique is even remotely reasonable, I have no issue with somebody taking that approach.
> 
> It's neither honest nor fair to say "the dog _made me_ hurt him" or "positive training just doesn't work," though.


I guess I disagree, wholeheartedly, again lol. Sometimes I think some higher compulsion(pinch, ecollar, etc) IS what's best for the DOG, regardless of what the handler is comfortable with. And by the owner/handler NOT using the necessary compulsion they are putting the dog through unnecessary stress, anxiety, and confusion, because the HANDLER is uncomfortable or unable to handle, or doesn't know how, to properly administer the right level of correction/compulsion.

Take my mom's corgi, a total stress/anxiety barker. She tried everything, obedience, behaviorist, giving the dog a job, citrus-anti-bark-collar, low-compulsion (pop on the collar, negative verbal...etc). This dog was always barking at EVERYTHING, stress yawning, whining, pacing, had a hard time relaxing. The dog just wasn't happy and had anxiety through the roof if anything was out of place in the house. 

We got the dog an electric anti-bark collar. The dog became a different dog, that DAY! She relaxed, was happy, way more playful, no more pacing, barking, or stress yawning, even while my mother's kitchen was being worked on by strangers, something she never would have handled well before. My mother (and myself) were shocked at how fast the response was! The collar delivers a warning vibration, and a shock if the warning isn't heeded. According to your post....and correct me if I am wrong...there is probably a positive-training-theory to "fix" my mom's dog. According to you it may take longer, but you'd probably use it, because at least it isn't compulsion, right? 

How is that better for the dog? Letting them deal with the anxiety, stress, pacing, etc...until they figure out the training...than to put on the collar, have it correct her...and boom, she realizes, "I don't have to worry about this anymore." Because the option was taken away. Because I tell you what, saying that someone stating "'the DOG needs it', is an excuse for their guilt," is a scare tactic and an over-generalized, judgemental, statement, that I just disagree with. EVERY DOG IS DIFFERENT.

I can just as easily say I think someone NOT using compulsion in my mother's dog's case, to quickly take the dog out of a constant state of stress, anxiety, and duress, is the HANDLERS fault, and it is the handlers fault that that dog needs to continue to go through that, until the handler completes the training regimin they are most comfortable with. 

You are insinuating and generalizing that when someone makes a correction through compulsion if they don't view it how YOU think they should view it then they are covering up some kind of guilt. I don't know anyone who LIKES to make corrections. And if done properly, un-attached to some anger-emotion, I don't know anyone ever feeling guilt, and believe me I have asked....positive vs compulsion is interesting to me. If anything I have been told the opposite, handlers feel like their dog gets the clear message, fast, and they are both happy to be done with it and continue on.

If there is a fast way to show a dog something (without abusing, obviously) I think you are doing a diservice to the dog by turning it into a long, drawn, out process. I personally think it's worse for a dog to not have clear black and white instructions, as quickly as possible (tailored to the own dogs learning curve), than to give them minimal corrections (AFTER they already know the command) for trying options of not obeying the command. That's just my opinion. 

You and everyone here obviously love their dogs, I don't think anyone is abusing any dogs here. I got a little snippy in this post because you are judging and making generalized statements about what YOU think people who use compulsion are thinking, and that handlers that use compulsion aren't experienced enough or "interested" enough in taking the non-compulsive route....I disagree, I think with some dogs it IS better for the dog and the dog DOES need it to be a happy, healthy, clear, dog(which can be achieved by many avenues, but maybe not as fast), and maybe a trainer IS completely open to a low-than-needed-compulsive route(I just don't believe anyone here uses 100% compulsion-free training), but believes THAT dog will be happier and more clear with a little "positive punishment." And the fact that the dog will be happier, FASTER, makes the owner decide (with no guilt whatsoever) to use "positive punishment."

Anywhoo, it's night time here on the West coast and a busy weekend of dog training and family-fun coming up, have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend everyone! ;-)


----------



## G-burg

Msmaria said:


> I have a 4 1/2 month old german shepherd. When I have treats he is the best dog. He will do anything under the sun, but when I dont have treats he could care less what i say. We go to obedience class that uses treats and positive reinforcement. is this normal at this age or is there something I am doing wrong?


 
It's a 4 1/2 month old pup.. I wouldn't expect anything less right now.. Maybe when you finish with this class and your pup is a little older, you'll find another class that offers different training techniques and teaches you how to demand more out of your dog..


----------



## Msmaria

G-burg said:


> It's a 4 1/2 month old pup.. I wouldn't expect anything less right now.. Maybe when you finish with this class and your pup is a little older, you'll find another class that offers different training techniques and teaches you how to demand more out of your dog..


Yes you are right, I am looking into a more advanced OB class, I do want to keep it a positive class though. There were lots of good advise here and I started doing the sometimes treats sometimes not treats just praise. 
I noticed (as some mentioned) he was very good at telling if I was putting my hands in my pockets for treats. I did have to laugh though, when I didnt have a treat for the trick he did and he went and sat by the fridge (where I keep the treats). But at least its a step in the right direction. The major problem I have with him is "drop it" when he has poop or something in his mouth. If I show him a treat he drops it immediately . If I dont have a treat he runs off with it and I have to catch him to take it out of his mouth. 

I was told by my trainer that eventually I will need a pinch collar so to start researching now since she didnt like the ones sold at petsmart or petco. I will need her to show me how to use it. But for right now we are not using one.


----------



## AgileGSD

IME many trainers who routinely use a good amount of compulsion in training don't seem to notice stress in dogs in a training setting. I can't tell you how many street dogs I see at the local training club who's trainers (sometimes very experienced trainers) don't think are stressed at all. But rather they feel the dog is "trying to get away with it" or "blowing off" the commands. 

I have seen dogs trained with compulsion fail big time at trials. I watched a dog who's certainly been "made" to do things not only run out of the ring at an agility trial but run out of the building and away. They had to get in a truck to catch him. I have seen a fair number of dogs "made" to obey sit and watch while their handlers did a heeling pattern without them at a trial. 

I don't really think its fair to pass judgement on a whole training method after seeing one dog. Check out Denise Fenzi and Shade W's dogs.


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> IME many trainers who routinely *use a good amount of compulsion *in training don't seem to notice stress in dogs in a training setting. I can't tell you how many street dogs I see at the local training club who's trainers (sometimes very experienced trainers) don't think are stressed at all. But rather they feel the dog is "trying to get away with it" or "blowing off" the commands.
> 
> I have seen dogs trained with compulsion fail big time at trials. I watched a dog who's certainly been "made" to do things not only run out of the ring at an agility trial but run out of the building and away. They had to get in a truck to catch him. I have seen a fair number of dogs "made" to obey sit and watch while their handlers did a heeling pattern without them at a trial.
> 
> *I don't really think its fair to pass judgement on a whole training method after seeing one dog. Check out Denise Fenzi and Shade W's dogs.*


So in YOUR experience you've made a generalized opinion about people who use compulsion, and then ask me NOT to do that based on my experiences? And that was the first example I had seen in person, I have read about(a lot on this forum) and been told second hand about many similar situations. People's dogs getting out and charging into a fight (no recall, no "down" obedience), people's who's dogs won't listen without a cookie (OP, among others) etc....Don't make your own generalized judgements and then turn around and tell me I can't, just because it isn't something you agree with.

I agree that LOTS of people mis-read dogs. However, I think it happens on ALL ends of the spectrum, and even on the non-compulsion end, is bad for the dog. On the non-compulsion end, I believe VERY experienced, AF, positive only, trainers humanize dogs(aka anthropomorphizing--very interesting psychology behind the "types" of people that do this). These owners cannot take their own emotions and personalities out of the dog world. Because the HUMAN wouldn't like a crate, pinch collar, leash, etc...they decide their dog wouldn't either. Because a human neck would be in a lot of pain from a pinch/choke/ecollar etc..they decide their DOG's neck will feel the same.

Take crate training for example. I know several people, personally, that are completely against crates. They ALL go through the same problem, dogs DESTROYING the house while they are gone. They are all so shocked too. "But, why would Fido do this?! He must have been bored, but I left him treats, toys, bones....he had freedom...I don't understand. I KNOW he wouldn't want to be in the crate. I would hate to be locked in a mean old crate." 

That's great that YOU (general you) would "hate" to be locked in a crate...but, that is a HUMAN trait. Dog's are den animals. For *most, there is security and comfort in a crate (den). By leaving them in a huge open house, anxiety and stress rises, they aren't sure what to do, and they displace that into chewing(destroying) things. So because the OWNER wouldn't like the crate, the dog has to suffer through the stress and anxiety, on TOP of probably being punished for destroying whatever it was they destroyed....

I think people that are reading "an animal in distress" can be just as wrong as people who aren't reading the distress. Take a friend's dog for example. HATES getting her nails trimmed. Has NEVER had the quik hit, but hates it none-the less. I came to help her once and she put the nail clippers to the dogs foot and the dog SCREAMED. I was behind the dog and couldn't see, I said, "oh my gosh, did you hit the quik." She said, "nope, I haven't even TOUCHED her with the clippers." 

Most "experienced" dog people would have thought the dog was bleeding and injured. Because they weren't actually holding the clippers, they didn't know that that was the dog's reaction to the SIGHT of the clippers. Just because YOU see or hear something, doesn't mean what you think or feel is happening, is actually happening.

I think it is just as much a dis-service, and just as detrimental to the animal, to humanize it, as it is to use over-the-top compulsion. ALL ends of the spectrum, ALL types of training, ALL types of owners, ALL types of dogs, are different, bring their own pros and cons to the table, and when ANY of these things are in the extreme, the outcome is usually never good. It's all about balance and the individual dog. ;-)


----------



## AgileGSD

Well to be fair, I see a lot of people competing who seem oblivious to stress in their dogs. I see it at trials all the time and certainly some of them are "positive trainers". I am more talking about the "he's blowing you off" mentality that IME isn't as common with positive trainers (who aren't always without their own training blindness of course).

FWIW My personal experience is based on a lot more than one dog and one trainer though. 

Do check out the trainers I mentioned, who are successful at the highest levels if competition and don't force their dogs to obey.


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> Well to be fair, I see a lot of people competing who seem oblivious to stress in their dogs. I see it at trials all the time and certainly some of them are "positive trainers". I am more talking about the "he's blowing you off" mentality that IME isn't as common with positive trainers (who aren't always without their own training blindness of course).
> 
> FWIW My personal experience is based on a lot more than one dog and one trainer though.
> 
> Do check out the trainers I mentioned, who are successful at the highest levels if competition and don't force their dogs to obey.


There's that word "force" again....man oh man, I GUARANTEE those trainers use compulsion. Just very low levels of it(negative verbal and body posturing, depriving reward, food, play....). Please re-read this thread, not ONE person on here, positive or not, said they don't use compulsion to one degree or another. It's the LEVELS that everyone is discussing. You can just as easily "force" a soft dog to do something with negative verbal corrections. And as I was discussing with M, YES, these methods of very LOW compulsion, and positive training, does work, it just takes a much longer time. 

Again, please re-read the thread. It is my PERSONAL OPINION, that having a long, drawn out, not-very-clear(because if it was super clear the dog would get it right away), training plan, does just as much dis-service to the dog as it is your opinion, that a proper level of compulsion does. We will just have to agree to disagree on this point.

And I don't understand how you are seeing this at trials? There are no corrections, handler help(point deductions), or rewards at a trial (other than the finish-praise). I can see it being seen at training....but fail to see how you would see stress from a correction/compulsion at a trial? And of COURSE there is stress at a trial, a dog is usually uber stressed a lot of the time because the handler is so stressed they want to puke, I know I do, lol.


----------



## DaniFani

Agile, I looked into one of your trainers...denise....I read her most popular "Pressure" Blog(so yes, the trainer uses compulsion, just at low levels, as I suspected)...You shouldn't be throwing around trainers names that you claim use no pressure, compulsion, or "force" as you say. 

In her "pressure" blog she has a video and she is literally "forcing" the dog away with her body from the distraction. I thought the whole thing was silly, drawn out, and completely unclear to the dog (that's why, imo, everything went so horribly). And she goes on to say she would do this, ideally, a few times a day, for several WEEKS....just crazy to me. The dog is unclear, why would you keep doing something so unclear, until it finally clicks....I wasn't impressed, to say the least...but there's the low level compulsion example for you in a trainer you said doesn't "use force." 

The rest of her site and blog were full of humanizing (that anthropomorphizing thing I talked about early) statements about dogs and training....just isn't for me, a dog is a different species from a human...so I disagree with putting human emotions on them. She seems to get the work done(I assume she HAS titled dogs), so good on her, it just isn't anything that impresses me or anything I would consider implementing(due mostly to length and how unclear most of the dogs in her videos seem---both things I think are worse than fair corrections over much much shorter periods of time followed by positive reinforcement).

I have looked all over her site trying to find her records of dogs that SHE has titled and how long it took her to get those titles...that would be interesting...but, alas, that information isn't easy to find. You would think that someone who offers such extensive training courses and classes would put her resume smack dab on the front page. I guess most people are fine with the general, "Denise has titled many dogs in AKC, SchH, etc...with high scores in obedience." I, on the other hand, would rather you just put the proof of it on your site with HOT next to the dogs you titled (Handler Owned and Trained). I'd also like to see what dogs, the scores, and how long it took to get them. One shouldn't have to dig through all that stuff to find her credentials and resume(especially when she is asking to be paid for classes). I am curious though and will look her up, at least, in the IPO archives.


----------



## AgileGSD

Denise and Shade do not have soft dogs but working bred Tervs (long haired dogs from working Mal lines) and working bred GSDs. Denise has two OTCHs who she has never used correction collars, ear pinch, etc. 

It's not hard to see at local trials where I know the dogs/people and how the training was done. I have seen dogs trained with all different methods fail and fail big at trials. The arguement that compulsion must be used for reliability just doesn't hold water. Some dogs trained with complusion are reliable, some aren't. Some dogs trained with positive methods are reliable, some aren't. Some dogs trained with ______ method are reliable, some are not. This idea that there's only one reliable training method has been disproven over and over. The "youll never have ________ achievement without using xyz" has been disproven over and over again. There's endless possibilities with dog training


----------



## DaniFani

But Denise DOES USE COMPULSION!!!!!! I don't know how else to describe this....she just uses low levels of it, but she DOES USE IT, she says several times on her site that she does, only it's under the name of "pressure." lol, I honestly don't know what to tell you. And I never said you had to train a dog a certain way, I just said I think SOME LEVEL OF COMPULSION IS ALWAYS USED...and I have yet to see anyone point one out that doesn't. I just don't know how to stop this circle we are in, you say they don't use compulsion, but they admit themselves, on their website, that they DO...I can't really make it any more clear for you than that. I am seriously sitting here laughing, I just don't understand this.


----------



## AgileGSD

We mustve been posting at the sane time. You don't have to like her but she has no problems getting students or filling seminars. Actually she's in such high demand that when my local club contacted her she had no available dates for well over a year. If you're into AKC obedience I'm surprised you don't know the name. 

She may not have gotten her OTCHs quickly but sues in an area of the country where a 198 isn't even always worth points. And she has two young kids and doesn't trial as often S many OTCH people do. The bites ports are not her main sport and she doesn't try in them extensively like she does obedience AFAIK. 

It's funny though, everyone who wants to believe her accomplishments aren't possible always find reasons they don't count


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> It's funny though, everyone who wants to believe her accomplishments aren't possible always find reasons they don't count


Haha, alright, my last post about this, because I am starting to think it's impossible for you to get what I am trying to say, and I have already stated it several times. I do not NOT believe her accomplishments...I said "it seems to work for her, but I would never implement it." I see, what I told you I would see, in my FIRST RESPONSE TO YOU....a trainer who uses low compulsion(BUT STILL USES IT) and positive training. PLEASE show me where I said her methods don't work. You are putting words in my mouth and only seeing what you want to see, evidenced by the fact that you still think she doesn't use compulsion. 

I will never understand the accusation, "well you don't believe me because you asked for my papers...how dare you!?" I looked for her credentials because I don't just go by what people say, I'd like to SEE the credentials. The simple notion of me seeking them does not and should never imply that I don't believe they are there. I know a lot of people aren't like that, they don't want or care to see the proof, but I do. I'd like to see how many dogs she's titled, what they were titled in, and how long the training took(how old the dog was at start to finish, etc..)...I don't think that's too much to ask, and anyone paying her money should be at least curious about those things as well.

Her filling up classes and booking seminars means nothing to me....look at Cesar Milan, or freaking Petsmart...I bet you wouldn't go to a seminar of his, but back in the day it would have cost a pretty penny and been in high demand. There are popular trainers everywhere. Popularity isn't what seals the deal for some people, some people want to see proof.

You asked me to check her out, I honestly, truly, swear to you, I thought I would be a little more impressed. It's FINE that she trains her dogs that way, that YOU train your dogs that way, I don't care. I like faster, clearer, results through fair corrections/compulsion, positive rewards, and reinforcements. We just like different styles(that all include some type of compulsion, be it very low,negative verbal, negative body posturing, etc .

I will stand by my statement though, no one has shown me someone who doesn't use compulsion, at least at low levels. I do think it is used in every *successful method. Denise further supports this statement. She's a successful trainer(doesn't mean I'd follow her program or agree with her methods...just that she has titled dogs) who uses very low compulsion and positive reward/reinforcement(there, I think that's like two or three times I've said that). 

We just disagree on how to get to the end result. That's fine. Just don't say a trainer doesn't do something they do....


----------



## AgileGSD

This seems to have become a bit of a war of words and definitions. I said early on there are consequences in all training. If to you consequence = complusion/forcing then we have different ideas of what compulsion is. People will endlessly argue, round and round and round about these words and definitions. It never gets anywhere though.

I'm not sure how much I do or don't train like Denise. I've never give to seminars of her's or taken classes with her. I enjoy reading her blogs and posts. I love they she's so different from what I consider the norm in the competition obedience crowd. That she's become a voice for relationship and positive training in AKC obedience. I first knew if her as the working Terv breeder, I've never met her. I started following her online writings/videos because my youngest Belgian's, who has trained with her told me I train a lot like her after watching some of my videos. I'm not one to follow anyone's program though really. I get ideas from other trainers of course but I also do my own thing a lot too. Like I said earlier, I don't find competition stuff all that difficult to teach using positive methods. Orthat it takes all that long. It's life skills that are harder and helping people with their pet dog problems. 

I also think relationship between dog and owner makes a big difference in how successful someone will be. If you don't have a solid working relationship with your dog, you're going to struggle regardless of what methods you use. If you do have it everything else comes easier.


----------



## Merciel

AgileGSD said:


> It's funny though, everyone who wants to believe her accomplishments aren't possible always find reasons they don't count


Yes, and I always find it remarkable how they don't seem to have nearly as many of their own.

I like her a lot. If Denise Fenzi did not exist in the world, I'm not sure I'd have any interest in the protection sports at all. It is pretty much _only_ because she's out there, showing an alternative way, that it's even on my radar as a thing to consider.

And if you look at her dogs, it really didn't take her long to accomplish the titles she wanted. The Sprite Belgians page is a little out of date but it's not at all hard to find: Meet the dogs: Sprite Working Belgian Tervuren

Pulling off an OTCH at 9 is as impressive to me in its own way as earning a SchH 3 at 2 1/2 is. Most big dogs are not doing high-level jumps at that age. A dog who's doing that _and winning_ speaks well of its longevity and physical conditioning.

Which is a tangent for sure, but I've become a huge fan.


----------



## DaniFani

Merciel said:


> *Yes, and I always find it remarkable how they don't seem to have nearly as many of their own.*
> 
> I like her a lot. If Denise Fenzi did not exist in the world, I'm not sure I'd have any interest in the protection sports at all. It is pretty much _only_ because she's out there, showing an alternative way, that it's even on my radar as a thing to consider.
> 
> And if you look at her dogs, it really didn't take her long to accomplish the titles she wanted. The Sprite Belgians page is a *little out of date* but it's not at all hard to find: Meet the dogs: Sprite Working Belgian Tervuren
> 
> Pulling off an OTCH at 9 is as impressive to me in its own way as earning a SchH 3 at 2 1/2 is. Most big dogs are not doing high-level jumps at that age. A dog who's doing that _and winning_ speaks well of its longevity and physical conditioning.
> 
> Which is a tangent for sure, but I've become a huge fan.


This trainer has not put a SchH title on a dog since she started this method of training(hence the "outdated" meet-the-dogs-page....these dogs were imported and trained using traditional SchH methods). I don't give a rat's behind about popularity, or how well she can spin up a blog. The "proof is in the pudding" as they say. And she has NOT put a schH 3 title on any dog using her methods.

I disagree that OTCH is as impressive as SchH 3...SchH 3 is tracking, obedience, and high pressure bitework....there is a reason she has not taken any of her dogs to this level of titling....but, those who aren't hard to be impressed will be impressed by this much....

I commented on one of her blogs about humanizing animals (I have my bachelors in Organismal Biology and animal behavior was my focus...I know a little about it). Interesting that she has to approve the comment before it will post....convenient. And she posted about her dog not being able to perform with the distraction of a chicken around...interesting that we haven't seen a successful update on that either. Silly silly silly.  People will honestly follow anyone these days.


----------



## DaniFani

United Schutzhund Clubs of America - Schutzhund 3 Club Members

Oh, and here's the link from SchH of America....last time Denise took a dog from BH to SchH 3 was 2000.....so very very interesting. If her program was so successful she should be doing this left and right with her breedings and her training. But...she has not.... 

Proof.in.the.pudding.


----------



## Merciel

Well, then maybe Schutzhund's just not for me. 

I was starting to think that after going to the trial on Saturday, and I'm more convinced now. So, congratulations! Chalk up a win.


----------



## AgileGSD

Denise does Mondioring now. She did take time off of bite sports because she would not go back to using compulsion and needed a helper willing to work with the way she wanted to approach the training. I believe she got a Mondioring title on one of the dogs last year but bitesports are definitely not her main focus, high level competition is. Honestly, it's impressive she finds the time to do both at all, as bitesports and obedience at the level she competes at both tend to be pretty all consuming. Especially for someone who has a life outside of training and competing in dog sports. 

If you want an example of someone who competes at the highest levels in bitesports without using compulsion, you need to look at Shade Whitesel and Mario Verslype (with his current dog), not Denise Fenzi who has never claimed to be a top bitesport person. I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone thought she was? She also doesn't breed her dogs the way bitesport Mal people tend to (in a commercial way, with only consideration being how stylized they will be in bitesports, selling them to people who will keep them kenneled 24/7 unless they're working, etc).


But then again, I suspect no matter what facts there are, you will continue to be dismissive because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. That's how these discussions go because people tend to want to form opinions and stick to them no matter what.


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> Denise does Mondioring now. She did take time off of bite sports because she would not go back to using compulsion and needed a helper willing to work with the way she wanted to approach the training. I believe she got a Mondioring title on one of the dogs last year but bitesports are definitely not her main focus, high level competition is. Honestly, it's impressive she finds the time to do both at all, as bitesports and obedience at the level she competes at both tend to be pretty all consuming. Especially for someone who has a life outside of training and competing in dog sports.
> 
> If you want an example of someone who competes at the highest levels in bitesports without using compulsion, you need to look at Shade Whitesel and Mario Verslype (with his current dog), not Denise Fenzi who has never claimed to be a top bitesport person. *Yes she does, on her website...sigh....*I'm not sure where you got the idea that anyone thought she was? She also doesn't breed her dogs the way bitesport Mal people tend to (in a commercial way, with only consideration being how stylized they will be in bitesports, selling them to people who will keep them kenneled 24/7 unless they're working, etc)*This is such a crock of crap*.
> 
> 
> But then again, I suspect no matter what facts there are, you will continue to be dismissive because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. *That's a two way street there...have you been open to all opinions? I just showed you that the trainer you gave as a SUCCESSFUL example is NOT doing what she say's she's doing, she has been training her dog Lyra for 2+ YEARS and only JUST NOW was able to post a proof video of the dog in her FAMILY ROOM and just BARELY got the dog to pay attention..still wondering why we haven't seen that dog proofed with the chicken again?? ...now you try to go to the next trainer...Mario has taken ONE dog out of over 50+ dogs and used a successful low-compulsion methods..ONE time....you have to look at the trainers, and their history of success USING their methods, as well as the history of people they've trained. I guess other's aren't willing to dig deep enough to find the truth.*That's how these discussions go because people tend to want to form opinions and stick to them no matter what.


Both of your replies to my research on this breeder has been, "well, it's isn't for me ANYWAY....you just aren't going to believe anything...." Is that REALLY your argument FOR these breeders? Their success rate if you REALLY look into them, is very very low. Just because they sell out seminars does NOT PROVE their methods. There is a reason she isn't titling SchH dogs. Below I posted the best, most honest quote of hers I found. I think it sums up my feelings on her...and SHE said it  

“I take perfectly good dog training methods and refuse to follow them. Not because I necessarily think the method is wrong, but because I am temperamentally uninterested in achieving goals using the standard process.”


----------



## AgileGSD

Pretty much the reply I expected. Where does she claim to be a top level bitesport person?

And that is absolutely the case with many, many working Mal breeders. Mal rescue is over run and most are working bred dogs. It's really sad but IME so far, it seems many breeding working line Mal breeders don't care much about the breed, they care about them as ultimate bitesport prospects. A lot of people brag about breeding extreme dogs and state that Mals can't be kept in the house. Not all of course but it seems to be largely the attitude I have encountered. It is a different world from how working GSDs are bred. 



DaniFani said:


> “I take perfectly good dog training methods and refuse to follow them. Not because I necessarily think the method is wrong, but because I am temperamentally uninterested in achieving goals using the standard process.”


 Which is awesome. Imagine how stale things would get without people willing to question "the way it's always done". Plenty of people are followers and it's much easier to just do as others tell you, follow a formula exactly and get get results. It takes a lot more to be innovative though. If you follow the method of whoever you are following, you'll likely find somewhere down the line was someone who questioned how thing were always done and added their own spin to it. And so it goes.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Msmaria said:


> The major problem I have with him is "drop it" when he has poop or something in his mouth. If I show him a treat he drops it immediately . If I dont have a treat he runs off with it and I have to catch him to take it out of his mouth.


Of course, poop is yummy! (So Halo tells me anyway.)  At his age I would not expect a bombproof "leave it" or "drop it", but this is the kind of thing where proactive trading games can be very helpful. Rather than wait until he's got something he's not supposed to have, teach him leave it with food, teach him to bring you and give up his own things by trading them for other things. I started doing this with Halo when I first got her as a puppy. We played trading games every day - a toy for another toy, a bone for a treat and then she got the bone back, a ball for a treat and then I threw the ball again. 

There will still be times when you're going to have to force his mouth open and grab something out, but it's a lot easier if you've built a strong foundation of giving things up voluntarily, and making a game out of bringing you whatever he has. I did it a lot with Keefer too, when he was a puppy if he grabbed something he wasn't supposed to have I could easily get him to bring it to me in exchange for some happy praise. 

Halo made up her own game where she would bring me a bone to hold for her while she chewed it. I'd take it away and give it back a few times, then let her have it to to chew on her own. She does that with an Orbee ball sometimes too. She likes to lay on the floor and chew them, and she'll bring me one to take away and give back, and then she'll lay down to chew on it. She doesn't even expect me to throw it for her, she just seems to like the interaction. Training games like this build trust and can prevent guarding issues in the future.



AgileGSD said:


> This seems to have become a bit of a war of words and definitions. I said early on there are consequences in all training. If to you consequence = complusion/forcing then we have different ideas of what compulsion is. People will endlessly argue, round and round and round about these words and definitions. It never gets anywhere though.


There's definitely a semantics issue in this thread - people have different definitions of words like "force" and "compulsion", and unless everyone means the same things when they use those words it's just an exercise in pointlessness to continue the discussion.


----------



## AgileGSD

This is an excellent way to teach dogs to ignore food or toy distractions:

"It's Yer Choice" - YouTube


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

AgileGSD said:


> This is an excellent way to teach dogs to ignore food or toy distractions:
> 
> "It's Yer Choice" - YouTube



Yep, that's exactly what I did with Halo! I took the first week off work to stay home with her, and then I took a long lunch for the next month or so and came home to spend time with her mid-day. She ate part of her lunch kibble every day playing the It's Yer Choice game. It's great for teaching a default leave it, and also a default "watch" if you build in eye contact, which I did. (I am a HUGE fan of training default behaviors!)

I have a picture of Halo the second week of puppy class at 14 weeks old, in a down, off leash, with food on the floor in front of her, and another with me holding food in each hand, while she stares intently at me. :wub:


----------



## DaniFani

AgileGSD said:


> Pretty much the reply I expected*What? Examples of your trainers not being what they say they are? The only answer you would accept from me is "you're right...her methods are fool proof...and should be implemented and tried by eneryone." Why is me researching her success taken in such great offense by you?*. Where does she claim to be a top level bitesport person?
> 
> *You keep asking questions I have already answered....ON HER WEBSITE! She claims to be successful in SchH...she.is.not.*
> 
> And that is absolutely the case with many, many working Mal breeders. Mal rescue is over run and most are working bred dogs. It's really sad but IME so far, it seems many breeding working line Mal breeders don't care much about the breed, they care about them as ultimate bitesport prospects. A lot of people brag about breeding extreme dogs and state that Mals can't be kept in the house. Not all of course but it seems to be largely the attitude I have encountered. It is a different world from how working GSDs are bred.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is awesome. Imagine how stale things would get without people willing to question "the way it's always done". Plenty of people are followers and it's much easier to just do as others tell you, follow a formula exactly and get get results. It takes a lot more to be innovative though. If you follow the method of whoever you are following, you'll likely find somewhere down the line was someone who questioned how thing were always done and added their own spin to it*And if it works...great...her methods don't work well....just because someone makes something work one time does not mean it should be implemented or that it will work....if that were true, top scientists would only have to do one experiment, get some random result and then say, "AHA, I found the answer!!" But that's not how intelligent human beings functions...if the foundings can't be repeated several times over, then time to move on to something else...but, unfortunately, a lot of "trainer's" tend to follow the thing that makes the world go round...money....*. And so it goes.


Since this is the internet, there is no way to truly SEE something working on your end vs my end(videos from beginning to end). BUT,fortunately, she has video taped her dogs from beginning to current..... I watched a lot of her videos...her dogs are great in sterile, conditioned, environments, but falls to pieces under the distraction of a chicken in the middle of the field. I'm waiting for her dog to truly be proofed...not in her freaking family room with food....but on a foreign field, with a surprise element....chicken...cat...whatever. 

I am quite comforted that several people commented on her correction blog about how they tried her methods to exasperation, but their dogs were chasing cars, people, etc...and needed to have changes made...with a little fair correction and some positive praise and reinforcement, those dogs were saved from being put down...they were NOT and could NOT be saved by her methods. Thank GOODNESS they were open minded enough to consider other options, otherwise their dog may not have made it. 

It's all about CLARITY when I train, if I see training with a lack of clarity I would never, ever, implement it. It's all about the dog and balance. NO extreme will work...positive only OR too much compulsion. I think that is the only thing you and I will agree on...balance..


----------



## carmspack

no treats , highly stimulating environment All Things "Dog": POST 1 - Raising the Ideal K9 Partner and the Perfect Companion


----------



## AgileGSD

Well she has successfully competed in SchH...and more recently Mondioring. 

The funny thing is I said a few replies ago, I don't really have any vested interest in Denise. I've never been to her seminars, never trained with her and have no idea how similarly her and I train beyond using motivational training for competition stuff. I like her as a trainer, I enjoy reading her posts and what she has to say about training. I reccommend her articles about building drive fairly often. But I don't "follow" her, in that I don't try to find out everything she does and copy it. I don't do that with any trainer. I'm very much my own person when it comes to ideas about training and how I do things. I definitely read and learn all I can and incorporate new ideas (either that I have or that I have learned elsewhere). However, Denise has done what everyone said was impossible - trained an OTCH dog without the use of correction collars, ear pinches and forcing the dog to obey. And she's done it twice now. 

I will always question the "This can't be done" mindset that is so common in dog training. It was once widely believed you could never train a dog without a choke collar. Now plenty of trainers never use them. It was believe that you could never have a truly reliable retrieve without an ear pinch/toe pinch. Now plenty of dogs have been trained very reliable retrieves without those methods. It was believed that there would never been an OTCh dog trained with positive methods and without physical correction/force. Now there's at least two. It was believed there would never be a dog competing in bitesports at the very highest levels trained without a choke, e-collar or prong collar. Now there's one winning the highest level possible. There's endless possibilities in dog training, if people choose to open their mind to them. 

Which is the issue I had with your insistence that positive training can't work to produce reliability. Because you know, you watched one dog once who was trained using positive methods and the dog did poorly so that just proves it can't be done. And then you read on Denise's blog that some people tried it and weren't successful...just like you knew they wouldn't be. But this brings up the question - if a trainer uses X method and gets poor results, who's fault is it? The method's fault? The dog's fault? Or the trainer's fault?


----------



## DaniFani

carmspack said:


> no treats , highly stimulating environment All Things "Dog": POST 1 - Raising the Ideal K9 Partner and the Perfect Companion


Really like this Carm, thanks. His theme is balance balance balance....a little bit of everything. ;-)


----------



## AgileGSD

Here's my PyrShep at 7 months, showing impulse control work and stays (plus some fun tricks) when he would MUCH rather be doing something else (chasing). This is a good example of using rewards other than food, I had no treats on me at all for this session and instead of using the reward to get the behavior, the reward was a distraction. This was taught without physical correction beyond preventing him from self reinforcing for "stealing" a turn at chasing. 






A few months later at his first agility run thru, was not this dog's normal training place at the time:






Same dog's first ever agility trial at about 18 months I think. 






The runs are obviously not perfect but the imperfections are typical of figuring out handling with a new dog (miscues, wrong courses, refusals due to confusion...all handler issues, not dog issues). But...he's focused on work and doing what he believes I have asked him to do.

And yep, it's agility. Cause that's what I train in. I'll probably do some Rally with him this year and maybe regular obedience next. It's not that my dogs aren't ready as much as it's a matter of everything costs money 

Here is my current obedience dog, hope to get her CD in the next few months. Here's her getting her BN (and RN but I admit..._I'm _terrible at Rally LOL and I forgot to teach my dog down from heel :O ). We're a bit more polished now but again, our mistakes here were minor anyway. This trial was at a huge indoor exposition center with a 3 ring agility trial and large all-breed show, loudspeakers, tons of vendors and lots of general public coming with their kids to watch. A lot of people from the local training club won't trial at this show because they feel it's "too distracting". 






I'm not saying that I am a top level competitor. I don't really have the sort of drive and desire to be such. But like I said earlier, my dogs do well enough. Especially in obedience which isn't something I spend a lot of time working on (hence the "oh yeah, he have to drop from heel" and my dog's lack of experience with human posts on figure 8s LOL). 




DaniFani said:


> Really like this Carm, thanks. His theme is balance balance balance....a little bit of everything. ;-)


 Am I missing something? I tried to find a video on the page but couldn't?


----------



## erfunhouse

I have never used treats as a reward for this sole purpose. We adopted Metro as an adult and never used a treat. Tug toy, or praise/pets was all he got. Treats were given just because I felt like giving them (when he was quietly laying down or because I was in the mood to give them). Sabo has treats available in a "puzzle toy"...if he wants treats, he can play with the toy, but even then he has to work them out of the toy...no free treats, and no tricks for treats.


----------

