# Positive only versus a Balanced approach



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

A great video discussion of PO training versus a balanced approach to training by an expert.

‪Positive Reinforcement Vs. Corrections Part 1‬‏ - YouTube


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I watched parts 1 & 2 and they reflect my views and what I did with my present dog. He is very stable and happy. In my dogs case I think his genetics had a lot to do with him being pretty easy.

The guy said something very important about the middle of the first part. That is about dogs in real life situations. When we train in class or at home it is not the same as out in the world with many distractions. Regardless of the training approach if my dog can't do the same thing in public that he does at home he is not really trained.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Good video. Thanks for posting. A balanced approach has always been my prefered method of training.

I get kinda tired of people telling me over the internet that if my dog is loose in a field and I have a hot dog, that my dog will choose the hot dog over a sprinting rabbit, that there is no need to proof his recall with anything other than "positive only" training.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

A quote from the video clip:


> But the majority of dogs out there, realistically speaking, unless you spend a year and a day, doing 'sitting' for rewards over and over again- for literally, like a year straight- most dogs are not going to consistently get the behavior.


I think it's unfair to knock the method because you aren't interested in putting in the time. That's not a valid argument at all.

This guy has some good things to say, in general though. My issue is that (at least as far as I can tell) people who argue against positive reinforcement training think that the method ends at "positive reinforcement." In reality, that's not accurate. Just like this guy says (I am pretty sure he said it), there needs to be a balance. All PP trainers know this. That's why they aren't really "pure positive" trainers. They use both positive reinforcement and negative punishment. They simply choose not to employ positive punishment in their training techniques.

When a "Pure Positive" trainer needs to address a problem behavior, they do so by using negative punishment, i.e., they remove the stimulus. They don't ignore it (well, the good ones don't). I would posit that the owners who choose to ignore a behavior in hopes that it will go away simply don't understand the training technique. They don't understand how to apply negative punishment in all situations. Sure, PP trainers _will_ choose to ignore some _minor_ behaviors in hopes that the lack of reinforcement will decrease the behavior. However, _problem behaviors_ are not, and cannot be ignored. It is required that the reinforcement be redirected or removed. It is not ignored. I think this guy has "missed the boat" in his example of asking guest to ignore a dog jumping on them as an illustration of PP training techniques.

I do agree with this guy- there should be a balance. Not everyone _can_ train in PP techniques. I, for one, have very little patience and often stray from the techniques out of frustration. But that's my fault, not the fault of the training technique.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Wildo.

How would you keep a dog from jumping on guests?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

wildo said:


> A quote from the video clip:
> I think it's unfair to knock the method because you aren't interested in putting in the time. That's not a valid argument at all.
> *Who said it was an argument? Just a fact! Even fanatical PO trainers (some at least that I have met) will agree that it can take a lot longer to train a dog with their method.*
> 
> ...


*Just like with all training methods, you will run into good trainers and also bad (ineffective!) ones.*

When I told this one trainer I used to use about my dog counter surfing for things to eat, you know what she told me? "Keep the counters clean of anything he might like to eat!!!" Great training advice, right?

And the time it takes to train a dog to do something (or probably more so to NOT do something) is a factor - some behaviors it won't make too much difference, but some behaviors are much more important and need to be corrected as soon as possible and thus the time it takes (and the reliability one achieves) are important.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

What is negative punishment? Is that the opposite of positive punishment?


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

codmaster said:


> A great video discussion of PO training versus a balanced approach to training by an expert.
> 
> ‪Positive Reinforcement Vs. Corrections Part 1‬‏ - YouTube


This guy actually says that dogs will not continue to obey unless they "are getting paid" to do it. Or they will only stop jumping on you if you either "pay" them to stop or use negative reinforcement. He says if you stop "paying' them they will stop working for you. I think we all know that is false. Once my dog knew how to sit she didn't forget and she no longer needed treats. The same with COME and other actions. As for jumping, once she got to the age where it pleased her to obey me and/or she understood and responded to NO (without a treat or negative reinforcement), the jumping stopped.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Hunter Jack said:


> Wildo.
> 
> How would you keep a dog from jumping on guests?



Hmmm... well I am just learning the training techniques myself. What I would likely do is:



Start buy employing the concepts of "Ruff Love" in order to make it clear that ALL good things come from me.
When I got to stage 2 of the program (the proofing stage), I would start having a friend come over and knock on my door. I'd expect the dog to bark, but I'd immediately recall them and reward for leaving it. I'd work this for a while until the dog was able to disregard the knock at the door (after alerting, of course) and come to my reinforcement zone. If the dog did not make the choice to stop barking and come to my reinforcement zone- then I would understand that I am not the most rewarding thing in the environment in that situation. I would remove the reinforcement (the person knocking) by sending the dog into the crate for a time-out. I would also move back to stage one of the program where I would be building value for *me*.
Repeat step #2 until passing...
Once passing, I'd move to opening the door and perhaps greeting the person with a handshake. If the dog fails- I'd got back to step #2.
I'd continue to shape the behavior until I got what I was wanting.

It wouldn't be easy especially for a dog that likes to jump. But it's hardly impossible. When I come to grips with the reality that my dog (in this hypothetical situation) is finding more reinforcement in jumping than in me- then I am able to work on my reinforcement and build a better relationship with the dog. In the end, I would want to be the single most reinforcing thing- always.

I'll end that by saying- dogs aren't machines. Can I _always_ be the most reinforcing? Of course not. But I _can_ set a foundation of being incredibly rewarding. When my dog makes a poor choice, they could be handled appropriately by modifying the reinforcement, e.g., "Yo dog, I'm over here... and I am full of reinforcement!"


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

PaddyD said:


> What is negative punishment? Is that the opposite of positive punishment?




*Positive reinforcement* (Reinforcement): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus that is appetitive or rewarding, increasing the frequency of that behavior. In the Skinner box experiment, a stimulus such as food or sugar solution can be delivered when the rat engages in a target behavior, such as pressing a lever.
*Negative reinforcement* (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus, thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. In the Skinner box experiment, negative reinforcement can be a loud noise continuously sounding inside the rat's cage until it engages in the target behavior, such as pressing a lever, upon which the loud noise is removed.
*Positive punishment* (Punishment) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
*Negative punishment* (Penalty) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal"): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.
Operant conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## crisp (Jun 23, 2010)

Wouldn't a time-out in a crate for not following a command be considered punishment?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I train with positive methods for the most part but will use verbal corrections. My dogs do not jump on people. They are not that type of dog, if they were, I would teach them to sit, and only praise four on the floor. But I would NOT have my guest ignore it. My guest could be over eighty, am I going to allow a seventy pound GSD jump on an eighty year old woman? She could break a hip and die. No way! 

If you have a jumper, you meet the dog at the door and leash him. Tell him to sit before they enter, reward him when sitting and prevent him from jumping on the guest. Nothing wrong with Eh! OFF! You do not need to yank him with his prong collar or roll him on his side. 

I do not know anyone who will not use a verbal correction. But then, around here, most people are still stuck in compulsion land, and have never gotten to the purely positives. 

I guess there is more of a continuum of training styles. I like telling the dog to DO something BEFORE I have to tell them not to: before opening the door, SIT, STAY; Before the dog goes after a cat or a rabbit, COME/HEEL. It is not so hard. If the dog is performing a task, they will have to break their stay or break their heel to do the undesirable behavior. And that is fine if you see the distraction before the dog is aware of it. I think it is important to not put dogs in situations that are dangerous. That does not mean NEVER going off lead, but only going off lead in so far as your recall is strong enough.

I disagree whole heartedly that behaviors will stop if the treats or rewards give out. I think it is far more likely for a behavior learned with compulsion or punishment will become unlearned if the punishment is inconsistent. So if you want the dog to stay on the porch, occasionally, you give the dog a good boy when he stays even though there is a white fluffy dog walking along down there. Eventually if the dog never hears another word of praise for staying on the porch, will he go off the porch. No. Once that behavior is trained, it will stick with the dog, so long as you are out there with the dog. If you put the dog on the porch and then go to work for the 10 hours, I do not care how you trained the dog, I doubt the dog would be safe. But dogs do extremely well with boundaries. Pip was not allowed in the basement. The only time he ever was down there is when there was a tornado and we had to carry him down there. All day long, no way was he going down the basement. We NEVER praised him for not going down there. We just blocked it off, body blocked the basement doorway when he was a puppy, same with Cujo. Worked just fine, no correction, no punishment, and really no praise or rewards. Just a clear limit. 

And I have taken a dog after six or eight months of no training at all, into the ring with NO TREATS, and got the dog to do everything required. I rarely use anything but praise. Treats are used in the very beginning and then phased out. If getting a "yes, yes, yes!" or "good girl!" is getting paid, then I do not know why anyone would want to cut off the pay check. 

So I guess I am all for a balanced approach if balanced means verbal praise with good timing balanced with a verbal correction with good timing. Occasional parties with jumping up (on the dogs part), high praise and petting; and occasional blocking or restricting access (leash) of something that holds its own rewards. 

I do not think a dog needs to be physically corrected, hit, jerked, rolled, popped.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Codmaster- when you reply inline _within_ a quote of someone else, it makes it extremely difficult to quote you. My personal preference (take it for what it's worth) is to break up the quote like this:



wildo said:


> A quote from the video clip:
> I think it's unfair to knock the method because you aren't interested in putting in the time. That's not a valid argument at all.


*Who said it was an argument? Just a fact! Even fanatical PO trainers (some at least that I have met) will agree that it can take a lot longer to train a dog with their method.*



wildo said:


> This guy has some good things to say, in general though.


*Etc...*


Inline responses are cool and all, I use them daily in work emails, but on this forum- it makes it very difficult to reply. Just an FYI... 
______


Because I don't feel like breaking out all your inline questions- I'll just respond to the first.

"Who said it was an argument?"

They guy is giving his opinion on why PP training doesn't work. Since other people believe that PP training _does_ work- he has made an argument. So who says it was an argument? How about the dictionary...

*ar·gu·ment/ˈärgyəmənt/Noun*

2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

crisp said:


> Wouldn't a time-out in a crate for not following a command be considered punishment?


I assume this is directed at me. Yes, time-out in a crate is punishment, specifically "negative punishment." That's my point. My take is that when people think of "pure positive" training, they think that there is "absolutely, irrevocably, without question" _*NO*_ corrections. In watching at least one pro trainer/behaviorist/advocate of PP training- I don't believe that perspective is correct. PP trainers _do_ implement negative punishment. They just choose to _not_ implement positive punishment.


----------



## PaddyD (Jul 22, 2010)

The word NO, even said in a quiet voice, seems to work for me. But then, me and my dog are both simple-minded.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I use crates when moving dogs around, sometimes for feeding, sometimes for sleeping, I do not use them as punishment. For puppies I will use one if I cannot supervise, but not as punishment. they go right in and none of them act like it is a correction. It is a comfortable safe place, often where they have their dinner or their bone.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

PaddyD said:


> The word NO, even said in a quiet voice, seems to work for me. But then, me and my dog are both simple-minded.


Me too, that works for me. 

I think sometimes people train their dogs to require a more harsh correction, like riders train horses to require a tougher bit. Repeating, nagging, raising the voice and not following through to prevent the behavior, all train dogs not to listen. If you just use a simple No, or Eh, and then get the dog to do what you want him to do, and then praise, it is amazing how it works. The less frequent you use any type of correction, the more effetive it is when you do use one.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

PaddyD said:


> The word NO, even said in a quiet voice, seems to work for me. But then, me and my dog are both simple-minded.


For some reason, that reminds me of this classic:
Hyperbole and a Half: Dogs Don't Understand Basic Concepts Like Moving


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

wildo said:


> Hmmm... well I am just learning the training techniques myself. What I would likely do is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To me that just seems like an awful lot of steps. If your dog understands "sit" and "no", it is a much easier approach to tell your dog to sit when a visitor comes, they get up you correct with "no, sit". I dont like the idea of using the crate for a punishment, either.

Also, ALL good things (in my dog's opinion) dont come from me. Squirrels, cats, birds, bike riders, motorcycles, and other dogs all dont come from me. Treats and praise may come from me, but in my dog's mind, their value dimishes when compaired to some of those other good things mentioned.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

A lot of trainers use some isolation as a technique inndog training. It can utulize a crate. It is not like telling a kid to go stand in the corner though! Used consistently, the dogs understand.

I see that the video and others comments are the same as I have said in orevious discussions. Positive training can work and should not be criticized as ineffective. It certainly can work in many situations. The major reasons I see it not work are due to incomplete understanding on the part of the trainer (it is simple but its not easy) and lack of patience. But, people do use it effectively and theirvresults show. 

If one looks more deeply into positive training, the judgemental attitude it receives often decreases with understanding. To me positive training is far from all fun flowers, and rainbows. As Wildo mentions there is negative punishment. There is blocking of drive fulfillment. There is control of the dog's access to reinforcers also. Not laissez faire or permissive at all.

A person can utilize it. They can have much success with it. Most people lack the dog skills or patience to pursue it. It has its advantages and disadvantages as does any effective approach.

I guess I am not balanced in my training as I use much more reward based training than corrections. But, that is because the training results in much less need for correction as the foundation is in postive work creates both desire and understanding on the part of the dog.

I don't use much punishment and generally do not get after a dog for doing something the first time. If I see a behavior I don't want to recur, I make a plan to teach the dog about that. To get onto a dog or punish for something it does not know is not permitted... I probably am not going to do much of that. There is potential fallout due to associative learning. This unfortunately occurs in the life of many pets and is often complicated with inconsistency.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

ShatteringGlass said:


> Also, ALL good things (in my dog's opinion) dont come from me. Squirrels, cats, birds, bike riders, motorcycles, and other dogs all dont come from me. Treats and praise may come from me, but in my dog's mind, their value dimishes when compaired to some of those other good things mentioned.


That's a perspective issue. You'll wish "all good things came from you" if your dog chases a squirrel across the road and is hit by a car because they didn't respond to your recall.

It's just a concept... The concept is that if you are more reinforcing than the stimulus in the environment- then your dog will choose you over the environment.

You might say that you give your dog a firm "No! Down!" or a "No! Come!" as they get to the road and they respond with a down or recall. That's excellent! It just shows that the dog can associate your command with reinforcement; that's the entire goal of training. Perhaps in this case though, the "Down!" isn't complied because of happy things, it's complied to because a snap-pop-tug is followed by non-compliance. They're both reinforcement- one is positive reinforcement, one is positive punishment. They both accomplish the same end compliance; it's just that they may accomplish a different motivation for the compliance.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

wildo said:


> They guy is giving his opinion on why PP training doesn't work.


Actually he didn't say it didn't work. He merely said. (short version) if it works great but there may be times when you do need some type of correction.

Also time is a factor when training. My dog has strong prey drive for various critters. I could spend hours working on him not chasing squirrels only to find that deer are a greater value than what was taught about squirrels.

My choice is to not give him the opportunity.
Schutzhund and police dogs have many hours of training. Unless you have unlimited time the average pet owner is probably fine with the basics.

I love my dog but I hope that he is an addition to my life not my whole life.
For him, I hope that I am an addition to his life.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Any one with a pet dog, who interacts with them at all, is training to a large degree. Dogs learn and we can't really stop them. They may not be being trained in police work, but they are getting plenty of house life training, in a way.

Wildo mentioned the behaviors being the result of reward history, whatever form that takes.....reward, correction etc. I think there is also the component that done enough, it becomes the dog's habit to "come", "down", etc on cue. Much like playing the piano...at first you have to think about the notes bur eventually it flows out of you without conscious thought. Dog responses to cues get this way...so practice with positive reward can result in these habits.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

wildo said:


> That's a perspective issue. You'll wish "all good things came from you" if your dog chases a squirrel across the road and is hit by a car because they didn't respond to your recall.
> 
> It's just a concept... The concept is that if you are more reinforcing than the stimulus in the environment- then your dog will choose you over the environment.
> 
> You might say that you give your dog a firm "No! Down!" or a "No! Come!" as they get to the road and they respond with a down or recall. That's excellent! It just shows that the dog can associate your command with reinforcement; that's the entire goal of training. Perhaps in this case though, the "Down!" isn't complied because of happy things, it's complied to because a snap-pop-tug is followed by non-compliance. They're both reinforcement- one is positive reinforcement, one is positive punishment. They both accomplish the same end compliance; it's just that they may accomplish a different motivation for the compliance.


Its not really a perspective. My dog thinks squirrels are freaking awesome. He likes squirrels more than food. I can give him food, but I cant give him a squirrel.

I know my dog, and without using some type of correction for not responding to a recall off of a darting bunny, I would worry about my dog getting hit by a car. No amount of hot dogs is better in my dog's opnion than a Peter Cottontail hoping down the bunny trail. That is why in his training I have incorporated a balance in training his "Here" command. I used and e-collar to get his attention back to me, I dont make him yelp or cry out in pain, I use the appropriate level stim depending on his distraction level. He learned to beat the annoyance of the stim by getting back to me as fast as possible, where of course, he gets rewarded. Similar as in the video where the trainer talks about light pressure on the collar and teaching the "sit".

I have had great success with this training, and I find it hard to believe I would get the same results with ONLY reinforcing when he comes and no other methods used. Some dogs that may work, and thats great for you, but it doesnt work for every dog.

I recalled him off a wild Coyote pup no more than 20 feet from us while walking off leash just last week.

I just find it scarey that in most pet classes, and people online tell pet owners all they need to do to make sure their dog comes is give them a treat, because using any type of correction is mean to the poor doggie. Then these people go off into the world, let their dogs off leash and I have to deal with them when Im out walking my dog. These unreliable dogs are annoying, rushing me and my dogs, running all over while the owner is being ignored "FLUFFY COME, FLUFFY COME!"


----------



## High5 (Apr 21, 2011)

With dogs I've had in the past I've always used a balanced approach. This time with Katie I wanted to try something new figuring if it didn't work we could go back to a balanced approach. We just finished level two of a complete no touch positive approach class. By no touch I mean not even light pressure on her rear end to make her sit. I'm very impressed with the class and for 8 months she amazes me, even with her recall. Mind you in busy areas we still use a 30 foot training lead(more for my own peace of mind) but it allows for practice and in the event she doesn't listen she can't go very far. Most of the time I just let her drag it around. Even for times when she is persistently stubborn, ie chewing on something she is not supposed to and a redirect doesn't work then it's a time out in the front hall by herself. She hates that. It sounds funny thinking a bout it but it honestly has worked for us. I dunno maybe cause we started when she was a puppy and didn't know any better.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

wildo said:


> That's a perspective issue. You'll wish "all good things came from you" if your dog chases a squirrel across the road and is hit by a car because they didn't respond to your recall. *Wouldn't you also feel bad if your dog thought something else was more interesting at the moment than your treat or other reward? *
> 
> *Or are you claiming 100% recall with the PO method?*
> 
> ...


Who cares what a dog's motivation is at the time of obedience - whjat matters is the result (esp. in the case of a life saving "Recall" or "Wait").

I unfortunately can not read my dogs mind to accurately determine what his "motivation" might be at any one time or for any of his actions. I would guess that he, like most dogs, are looking to see "what is in it for me?".

Do you think, like some folks, that your dog is "looking to please you"? Then in that case the only "training" that would be required would be to devise a way to let him know when you want him to do something and just exactly what it is that you are asking him to do.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

High5 said:


> Even for times when she is persistently stubborn, ie chewing on something she is not supposed to and a redirect doesn't work then it's a time out in the front hall by herself. She hates that. It sounds funny thinking a bout it but it honestly has worked for us. I dunno maybe cause we started when she was a puppy and didn't know any better.


The time out is another thing I don't understand. I started a thread asking how long is too long in a crate. I was floored at the amount of people who crate a high energy dog like a GSD for sometimes 12 hours. So if you put your dog in the front hall or a crate. How is the dog supposed to know the difference. Your dog is chewing so you put her in the hall. Another persons dog is lying on the living room floor and they put the dog in the crate for ten hours while they are at work. Does there dog then stay away from living rooms. Of course not but to me the ideology is the same.


----------



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

Samba said:


> ...(it is simple but its not easy)...


That is my favorite explanation of dog training, one that I use often! The basic concepts ARE actually very simple, but no - that does NOT mean that it's always easy. As our trainer likes to say about dog training: "There are a lot of moving parts". :rofl:

I didn't watch the video, but what wildo said is correct, you don't simply ignore problem behavior, you manage the situation so the dog is not able to practice it and be reinforced by it. In the meantime, you would train an alternate, incompatible behavior, but that alone would not be enough if the dog were allowed to continue practicing self rewarding behavior. In the jumping on guests example that means that while you train the dog what you DO want them to do when guests arrive, you must also make sure that they can't do what you DON'T want them to do.

As far as timeouts, I don't see them as punishment, and I don't use them as punishments. It's simply a little break, a chance for the dog to cool it's jets. If my dogs get all worked up all I have to do is say "that's it - timeout!" and they run to their crates and wait for me to close the door. I don't have to do it often, but it is very handy. Since they love their crates and in addition to sleeping there every night, they choose to nap there at other times, or just hang out and chill, it's obvious that THEY don't see it as a punishment either.


----------



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

Samba said:


> Any one with a pet dog, who interacts with them at all, is training to a large degree. Dogs learn and we can't really stop them. They may not be being trained in police work, but they are getting plenty of house life training, in a way.


As Suzanne Clothier says, every minute you spend with your dog, you're training it. What your dog is learning may not be what you want to be teaching it, however! What she says is that if you don't have the time to be mindful of what your dog is picking up from any particular interaction with you then you should put the dog away until you do have time. 



> Wildo mentioned the behaviors being the result of reward history, whatever form that takes.....reward, correction etc. I think there is also the component that done enough, it becomes the dog's habit to "come", "down", etc on cue. Much like playing the piano...at first you have to think about the notes bur eventually it flows out of you without conscious thought. Dog responses to cues get this way...so practice with positive reward can result in these habits.


Absolutely, hence - default behaviors. The stronger the history of reinforcement in the past, the stronger the default behavior is, even without any reinforcement at all. It becomes a habit. 

Why do I quote you so much?  Oh yeah - you rock! :thumbup:


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

And so many people don't bother to train their dogs at all. At most they take them to a puppy class and then never reinforce anything at home. Tyler (the trainer in the video) lives very close to me. He has a mali boy named Dante. He gets all kinds of dogs in for training who have simply never been trained or who have effectively trained their humans to accommodate all of their problem behaviors. Someone might call that training "positive" but it just means they didn't use coercion or physical force...or any other kind of training! :crazy:

It's not the same as truly training your dog with positive reinforcement.


----------



## Packen (Sep 14, 2008)

A trainer is a person that adjusts training methods to suit the dog. The dog benefits. Whether you stay positive only or use a certain combination of all 4 quadrants really depends on the dog. 

Knowing how to identify what you need and then using it effectively is the distinction between great trainers and wannabe's


----------



## High5 (Apr 21, 2011)

Hunter Jack said:


> The time out is another thing I don't understand. I started a thread asking how long is too long in a crate. I was floored at the amount of people who crate a high energy dog like a GSD for sometimes 12 hours. So if you put your dog in the front hall or a crate. How is the dog supposed to know the difference. Your dog is chewing so you put her in the hall. Another persons dog is lying on the living room floor and they put the dog in the crate for ten hours while they are at work. Does there dog then stay away from living rooms. Of course not but to me the ideology is the same.


How is the dog suposed to know the difference? (Keep in mind i am no expert on the subject and i am still learning).Well i personaly dont use a crate for time out or punishment. At this point in time i feel my dog does know right from wrong in however they understand that. She knows not to go the bathroom in the house, she knows not to chew on shoes, etc. We went though a short period recently were Katie would jump up on my wife trying to get her to play or maybe just for attention. So what Katie needed to learn was she doesnt get attention that way. We started with a off or sit comand, if she was persistant and didnt listen or jumped back up then it was a time out. The spot we were using for that is only used for a time out and i think its just the dog being alone is what works. (being removed from the pack mentality? I dunno) It wasnt a time out for being in the living room it was a time out for jumping up. So say in somebody elses method they might use a knee to the chest when the dog jumps up. When that happens does the dog think they are getting a knee to the chest for being in the living room?


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

ShatteringGlass said:


> I just find it scarey that in most pet classes, and people online tell pet owners all they need to do to make sure their dog comes is give them a treat, because using any type of correction is mean to the poor doggie. Then these people go off into the world, let their dogs off leash and I have to deal with them when Im out walking my dog. These unreliable dogs are annoying, rushing me and my dogs, running all over while the owner is being ignored "FLUFFY COME, FLUFFY COME!"


 Dogs who are off leash with unreliable recalls are not the fault of the method but the fault of the trainer. If you are encountering these loose, unreliable dogs on walks and the such, I question how you know what methods they were trained with (or even if the owner attempted to train them)? I assume most pet dogs I encounter with no recalls have no or next to no training and owners who assume their dog will just understand that they are supposed to come when called. I assume that because that is the mindset of many average pet owners. 

No one is saying all you have to do to train a recall is to give the dog a treat. If you have heard an instructor tell their students this, I'd say the instructor was not very good. But not much different than the instructors who teach formal recalls to pet owners using leash corrections and let those owners believe that such will transfer to a real life recall. Recall training using _any _method requires time, consistency and proofing.




Hunter Jack said:


> The time out is another thing I don't understand. I started a thread asking how long is too long in a crate. I was floored at the amount of people who crate a high energy dog like a GSD for sometimes 12 hours. So if you put your dog in the front hall or a crate. How is the dog supposed to know the difference. Your dog is chewing so you put her in the hall. Another persons dog is lying on the living room floor and they put the dog in the crate for ten hours while they are at work. Does there dog then stay away from living rooms. Of course not but to me the ideology is the same.


 The crate or confinement used for a "time out" is not meant to be punishment in itself. It is simply meant to remove the dog from good stuff - toys, food, people, attention, etc. It is generally most effective when only used for short periods of time (5 minutes or so) and obviously, you don't want there to be toys or chews or whatever in the crate during a time out. It can be _very_ effective for certain behaviors but the reason it won't work for most people is the reason most people struggle with any sort of training - it requires consistency. For the first day or so that you use a time out for X behavior, you would have a hard time believing it will work. You will be up and down, up and down putting the dog away and letting the dog out. But if you stick with it, you'll see how effective it can be.



ShatteringGlass said:


> Its not really a perspective. My dog thinks squirrels are freaking awesome. He likes squirrels more than food. I can give him food, but I cant give him a squirrel.


 He doesn't have to like food more than squirrels (this woman's dogs are all terriers FWIW).:

 http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/archives/steps.txt

It seems a common misconception about positive training is that you just treat the dog and hope the dog always wants the treat more than anything else. That really isn't the case and if that is how someone is training, they aren't likely to be all that successful.


----------



## High5 (Apr 21, 2011)

The way we were taught to teach the recall comand is was to break of into pairs of owner/dogs. On their leads the dogs were aloud to play with each other and have fun. Then we would give the come comand and the first few times us their leads to lure them to us. Then we would put them in a sit give them a treat/reward and release them to go play agin. That is a reward in itself also. The though is for the dog to learn that the recall doesnt meen the end of play time and it almost becomes a game to them. It does take time and being consistent and down the road it can be used to get them out of a situation that might be harmful to them. I dont know what the next level of "stepping it up" would be as that is working for us. I notice it even on walks when we meet other leashed dogs. We let the dogs meet and then i say OK Katie lets go, she doesnt put up a fight or anything, onto the next fun thing.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

AgileGSD said:


> No one is saying all you have to do to train a recall is to give the dog a treat. If you have heard an instructor tell their students this, I'd say the instructor was not very good. But not much different than the instructors who teach formal recalls to pet owners using leash corrections and let those owners believe that such will transfer to a real life recall. Recall training using _any _method requires time, consistency and
> 
> http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/archives/steps.txt
> 
> It seems a common misconception about positive training is that you just treat the dog and hope the dog always wants the treat more than anything else. That really isn't the case and if that is how someone is training, they aren't likely to be all that successful.


Liked that short write up. It is about the habit. The ability to play a piano piece without thinking thing.

As far as the four quadrants utilization, I find that 
I can use all four without fallout in the better dogs. It is not so much that they need it, but they can do well with all approaches. With a challenging or less capable dog, I find the options may be more narrow to avoid fallout.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Packen said:


> A trainer is a person that adjusts training methods to suit the dog. The dog benefits. Whether you stay positive only or use a certain combination of all 4 quadrants really depends on the dog.
> 
> Knowing how to identify what you need and then using it effectively is the distinction between great trainers and wannabe's


:thumbup:


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> Dogs who are off leash with unreliable recalls are not the fault of the method but the fault of the trainer. If you are encountering these loose, unreliable dogs on walks and the such, I question how you know what methods they were trained with (or even if the owner attempted to train them)? I assume most pet dogs I encounter with no recalls have no or next to no training and owners who assume their dog will just understand that they are supposed to come when called. I assume that because that is the mindset of many average pet owners.
> 
> No one is saying all you have to do to train a recall is to give the dog a treat. If you have heard an instructor tell their students this, I'd say the instructor was not very good. But not much different than the instructors who teach formal recalls to pet owners using leash corrections and let those owners believe that such will transfer to a real life recall. Recall training using _any _method requires time, consistency and proofing.
> 
> ...


Well, I said most pet classes teach these methods (treat and praise only when dog comes). I didnt say anyone here was. And I know this because Ive been to these training places and witnessed classes. Heck, even Sydney passed and recieved a "Really Reliable Recall" certificate when I first got her and brought her to group classes. To earn this certificate all we did was a recall through an open door in an opposite room. She did not get a reliable recall from this training, trust me!

I can make a habit of training my dog to come on recall without using a correction, but the one time he may get the chance to pursue the squirrel or even catch the squirrel, where am I? He's now experienced nothing but amazing things by not coming when called. So what can I do with "positive only" methods to fix this problem for good?

With my e-collar, I can create an understanding that my dog has the power to turn off the annoyance of the stim by coming when called. With an e-collar, I can find that happy medium to where the stim is not painful, but annoying enough to where he makes the choice that the squirrel is just not worth it.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

ShatteringGlass said:


> I can make a habit of training my dog to come on recall without using a correction, but the one time he may get the chance to pursue the squirrel or even catch the squirrel, where am I? He's now experienced nothing but amazing things by not coming when called. So what can I do with "positive only" methods to fix this problem for good?





ShatteringGlass said:


> With my e-collar, I can create an understanding that my dog has the power to turn off the annoyance of the stim by coming when called. With an e-collar, I can find that happy medium to where the stim is not painful, but annoying enough to where he makes the choice that the squirrel is just not worth it.


And if the battery goes dead in the e-collar or the collar falls off, where are you then?

Recall has to be practiced and then proofed outside a training facility over and over again. I used Really Reliable Recall to train both of our dogs to come when called and they do come because that's what they've been conditioned to do. 

I don't see anything wrong with people using an e-collar or prongs when they train, but if the only time the dog comes back is when he's wearing the collar, and if the only time the dog walks good on a leash is when he's wearing a prong, that dog isn't trained, he's being managed.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Whiteshepherds said:


> And if the battery goes dead in the e-collar or the collar falls off, where are you then?
> 
> Recall has to be practiced and then proofed outside a training facility over and over again. I used Really Reliable Recall to train both of our dogs to come when called and they do come because that's what they've been conditioned to do.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with people using an e-collar or prongs when they train, but if the only time the dog comes back is when he's wearing the collar, and if the only time the dog walks good on a leash is when he's wearing a prong, that dog isn't trained, he's being managed.




Just like you condition your dog with the positive only method, I condition him with positive reinforcement when he comes, consequence when he doesnt. I didnt say I rely on the e-collar, and that he never obeys without the tool. 

My question is what do you do, when in training the positive only way, on a recall, when the dog decides not to come? Nothing happens. I like to stack the deck in my favor by teaching the dog that, yes great things happen when you come, but if you make the choice not to, there are consequences, you don't get anything out of a bad choice, like chasing the squirrel.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> And if the battery goes dead in the e-collar or the collar falls off, where are you then?
> 
> *Recall has to be practiced and then proofed outside a training facility over and over again.* I used Really Reliable Recall to train both of our dogs to come when called and they do come because that's what they've been conditioned to do.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with people using an e-collar or prongs when they train, but *if the only time the dog comes back is when he's wearing the collar, and if the only time the dog walks good on a leash is when he's wearing a prong, that dog isn't trained*, he's being managed.




*Absolutely true*, with any training approach the dog must be proofed under a varieety of environments and distractions.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> And if the battery goes dead in the e-collar or the collar falls off, where are you then?
> 
> Recall has to be practiced and then proofed outside a training facility over and over again. I used *Really Reliable Recall* to train both of our dogs to come when called and they do come because that's what they've been conditioned to do.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with people using an e-collar or prongs when they train, but if the only time the dog comes back is when he's wearing the collar, and if the only time the dog walks good on a leash is when he's wearing a prong, that dog isn't trained, he's being managed.




That must be a great method - I checked them out and here is a quote from them.

*"Once trained, the recall works immediately in any situation, no matter what your dog is doing. He doesn t think, he doesn t decide, he just comes to you."*

100% reliability = "Super". 

I will have to look into this method more. Never heard of any trainer who will claim absolute 100%.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

ShatteringGlass said:


> Also, ALL good things (in my dog's opinion) dont come from me. Squirrels, cats, birds, bike riders, motorcycles, and other dogs all dont come from me. Treats and praise may come from me, but in my dog's mind, their value dimishes when compaired to some of those other good things mentioned.


What reward does those things bring your dog? It makes you have to think a little harder. Your dog doesn't catch and eat the bike rider. What does your dog get from chasing the bike rider? What is it's self reward? How can you best that for your dog?


----------



## High5 (Apr 21, 2011)

I think Lilie explains it really well. Being new to the positive approach I can only give an example to how it works, tonight in the park using our 40 foot lead we were practicing positive reinforcement recalls. I was having Katie come sit front and then finish on my left. I would then put her in a sit stay, walk away the length of her line and repeat There were lots of dogs passing by us on the trail. I can honestly say after working on this for the past 6 weeks she came to me every time tonight . So what was her reward? First she got a good treat then it was either tug which she loves or we would walk calmly over to meet the other dogs. (which was easy as most were stopping to watch us). So in the end not only does she gets a treat but she also got to go over and meet the other dogs anyways. Which is a better reward than just taking off to go see the other dogs. Now if I could only convince some people to walk their cats through the park we would almost be good to go.lol the key is to be in control of the situation while training ie a long lead and in the end it feels really good knowing I accomplished this without harsh correction, shocking or punishing my dog in any way. I honestly think part of it comes from a strong bond with your dog and the fact they want to please you.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

ShatteringGlass said:


> My question is what do you do, when in training the positive only way, on a recall, when the dog decides not to come? Nothing happens. I like to stack the deck in my favor by teaching the dog that, yes great things happen when you come, but if you make the choice not to, there are consequences, you don't get anything out of a bad choice, like chasing the squirrel.


 If you really want to know more about training a reliable recall without an e-collar, check out the links I posted. Here's a couple more:

Recalls; a worthwhile investment | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog

Mixing Methodologies | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog

Sue Eh's Rules of Training

Our training philosophy

Teaching a trick is the least important part of teaching a trick

Positive training is a lot more than just giving the dog a treat and hoping for the best 



ShatteringGlass said:


> Heck, even Sydney passed and recieved a "Really Reliable Recall" certificate when I first got her and brought her to group classes. To earn this certificate all we did was a recall through an open door in an opposite room. She did not get a reliable recall from this training, trust me!


 I wouldn't imagine so.


----------



## TechieDog (Jan 13, 2011)

Whiteshepherds said:


> And if the battery goes dead in the e-collar or the collar falls off, where are you then?
> 
> Recall has to be practiced and then proofed outside a training facility over and over again. I used Really Reliable Recall to train both of our dogs to come when called and they do come because that's what they've been conditioned to do.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with people using an e-collar or prongs when they train, but if the only time the dog comes back is when he's wearing the collar, and if the only time the dog walks good on a leash is when he's wearing a prong, that dog isn't trained, he's being managed.




The e-collar is conditioned training just as your training is. A lot of people say that the e-collar tends to be more reliable than other methods and the conditioning is more consistent. So it is not a matter of not having the collar on or the batteries being dead being an issue.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

High5 said:


> I think Lilie explains it really well. Being new to the positive approach I can only give an example to how it works, tonight in the park using our 40 foot lead we were practicing positive reinforcement recalls. I was having Katie come sit front and then finish on my left. I would then put her in a sit stay, walk away the length of her line and repeat There were lots of dogs passing by us on the trail. I can honestly say after working on this for the past 6 weeks she came to me every time tonight . So what was her reward? First she got a good treat then it was either tug which she loves or we would walk calmly over to meet the other dogs. (which was easy as most were stopping to watch us). So in the end not only does she gets a treat but she also got to go over and meet the other dogs anyways. Which is a better reward than just taking off to go see the other dogs. Now if I could only convince some people to walk their cats through the park we would almost be good to go.lol the key is to be in control of the situation while training ie a long lead and in the end it feels really good knowing I accomplished this without harsh correction, shocking or punishing my dog in any way. I honestly think part of it comes from a strong bond with your dog and the fact they want to please you.


That is great that it works for you. Just out of curiosity, what did/do you do if she doesn't come running right to you when you call?


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Wonder how many people understand the limiting of access to other rewards involved in positive training. You set yourself and the dog up for success in the foundation. Far from a dog, a squurrel, a xookie and a prayer! Have a fruend who taught a positive reinforced recall. Very reliable. I am sure it might have failed somewhere but I never saw it fail.

"violence begins where knowledge ends"

Gotta agree that is very often the case.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

"And if the battery goes dead in the e-collar or the collar falls off, where are you then?"

Same place as if you don't have a treat? Or if the other thing is more interesting at the moment than you are? 
Heh! Heh!

Can happen with any training approach when they are off lead (or without a working e-collar).

That is exactly why you train with the tool, and then proof (eventually) without it!


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Lilie said:


> What reward does those things bring your dog? It makes you have to think a little harder. Your dog doesn't catch and eat the bike rider. What does your dog get from chasing the bike rider? What is it's self reward? How can you best that for your dog?


What does a high prey drive dog get from chasing a moving object?? THE CHASE! That is the reward, being allowed fun of the chase. Why do greyhounds run around chasing fake rabbits at race tracks over and over and over, when they NEVER get the satisfaction of actually getting and eating the fake rabbit??


----------



## High5 (Apr 21, 2011)

codmaster said:


> That is great that it works for you. Just out of curiosity, what did/do you do if she doesn't come running right to you when you call?


Well it was like that in the beginning. But being she was on a lead if she didn't come she didn't get anything. Her attempt to run at whatever was foiled cause she is on her lead and no reward for coming. Then I would lure her in with her line and try again. It's persistence and time and I must admit in the beginning gets discouraging and boring. Then it's like a light bulb turns on and it becomes a fun game. I'm not one to preach it and maybe it's not the way for everyone or every dog but it does feel rewarding in the end.


----------



## High5 (Apr 21, 2011)

ShatteringGlass said:


> What does a high prey drive dog get from chasing a moving object?? THE CHASE! That is the reward, being allowed fun of the chase. Why do greyhounds run around chasing fake rabbits at race tracks over and over and over, when they NEVER get the satisfaction of actually getting and eating the fake rabbit??


So then why not teach it with recall, praise, treat, attach a long line then let her go for the chase? Wouldn't that be more rewarding to the dog than just the chase alone?


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

I didnt watch all of the video (the susan garret one in the first link), i found the music too annoying. But hiding on your dog, making it anxious (they used this word) and stressed because it can't find you, that doesnt seem "positive" to me. 

anyways, no one really answered my question. I dont really want to muddle through links and articles. I want to know what YOU do or would do when you're dog decides something else is more interesting than you, and ignores a recall and gets self rewarded as a result.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

High5 said:


> So then why not teach it with recall, praise, treat, attach a long line then let her go for the chase? Wouldn't that be more rewarding to the dog than just the chase alone?


I dont want my dog chasing things, it dangerous. How can I expect the dog to NOT chase an animal that crosses a busy street if I allow it to chase animals all the time??


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

What does anyone do when their dog blows a recall? I curse a blue streak.

When teaching any recall the dog is on a line until a high degree of reliability is attained. If i took the leash off without enough proofing...my bad. If I was starting a recall with an ecollar, I would have a line on also.

I allow my hunting bred dogs to chase animals. I don't consider this a bad thing or expect them not to recall either. The Catahoula would be sad if he didn't get to hunt sometimes.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

ShatteringGlass said:


> I didnt watch all of the video (the susan garret one in the first link), i found the music too annoying. But hiding on your dog, making it anxious (they used this word) and stressed because it can't find you, that doesnt seem "positive" to me.
> 
> anyways, no one really answered my question. I dont really want to muddle through links and articles. I want to know what YOU do or would do when you're dog decides something else is more interesting than you, and ignores a recall and gets self rewarded as a result.


 I don't feel as though it's worth it to write a big long reply about recall training when it is obvious that you have no real interest in the methods. You seem fine with the way you teach your dogs the recall and  seem to think an e-collar is the only road to a reliable recall with a dog who has any prey drive. That's fine, it doesn't matter to me how you train your dogs. I do get tired of the constant comments on this board that positive training only works if your dog is low drive and only cares about food. It's not a fair or accurate portrayal of the methods. 



ShatteringGlass said:


> I dont want my dog chasing things, it dangerous. How can I expect the dog to NOT chase an animal that crosses a busy street if I allow it to chase animals all the time??


 You can actually make dogs much more reliable by training them to chase things when you tell them to, after they have "asked" you by performing a behavior. If you were interested in the methods, you'd have read about that in the first link I posted. I worked a lot with Jagger on this and can say he is super reliable being called off of prey because he believes that I can control his access to it and putting it on a cue. This doesn't require they always get to chase what they want, it's actually more effective when it's a variable reinforcement. Because of this training, Jagger actually abandoned chasing the lure at lure coursing to check back with me - even though he REALLY wanted to chase the lure. I didn't ask him to come back and told him he to get it but he wasn't sure once he started that he was really allowed. Once I permitted him to, he easily earned his first CAT leg - followed the lure closely and ran hard (you can see his "Whoops, maybe I wasn't allowed" moment in the video. : https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150228589525850 ). Same with sheep when I took him for an HIC, he had lovely instinct once told could interact with the sheep but prior to that he stood staring at them and glancing back at me. The truth is, the more your dog wants something the stronger the behavior will become for a chance to get it. Training is a wonderful thing - the possibilities are endless 



Samba said:


> I allow my hunting bred dogs to chase animals. I don't consider this a bad thing or expect them not to recall either. The Catahoula would be sad if he didn't get to hunt sometimes.


If this was FB I would so like this comment


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

codmaster said:


> That is exactly why you train with the tool, and then proof (eventually) without it!


If you can understand the concept behind an e-collar or any training tool, why is it so hard to understand that positive reinforcement, the praise and the treats are also tools? There's no reason to not praise a dog for following a command but the treats can be and are phased out. 
When's the last time you saw someone in an agilily trial throwing cheese at their dog ??


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

ShatteringGlass said:


> Its not really a perspective. My dog thinks squirrels are freaking awesome. He likes squirrels more than food. I can give him food, but I cant give him a squirrel.


You can give him the chance to chase a squirrel though (in a controlled safe environment.) Use Premack and he doesn't have to work for food. The opportunity to chase the squirrel can be the reward. If the dog can reliably be called off chasing, how is it dangerous?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

ShatteringGlass said:


> What does a high prey drive dog get from chasing a moving object?? THE CHASE! That is the reward, being allowed fun of the chase. Why do greyhounds run around chasing fake rabbits at race tracks over and over and over, when they NEVER get the satisfaction of actually getting and eating the fake rabbit??


That was the obvious.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i used a positive only training. meaning
i never raised (rarely) my voice when training.
i used treats but my dog reacted positive whether
i used treats or not. i also started training nd socializing
when my pup came home at 9 weeks old.
it was easier for me and him because no unwanted
behaviour was established. i had a trainer that use to talk
to her dogs like she was speaking to a person and her
dogs listened. she told me if you start out speaking
to them in a normal voice that's what they're going
to understand. when a firm tone was needed it wasn't
much. i think when you start out with a pup it's
so much easier to train. you have to "think ahead to 
stay ahead" when it comes to training and socializing.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

doggiedad; you have to "think ahead to
stay ahead" when it comes to training and socializing.[/QUOTE said:


> Amen, Brother!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I have seen trainers Premack "life rewards". I get the chance to do this occassionally and it works. This type of thing gets you in touch with what your dog really enjoys. It is not all cookies and toys that reward behavior. There is an extra burst of "happiness" in them when released to these things.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LOL, Babsy's favorite thing, was at the end of my training session to say "GO TO MY CAR." I was sorry, I trained this, because she would be waiting for the OK, Go to my car. And then dash across the street and around the buildings to get to my car. She occasionally started her dash on my OK, and, it is hard NOT to say OK in your conversation. So it was a mistake to train this. 

I only trained in the dead of night, and not much chance of cars anywhere. But safety is a factor. 

You can be VERY positive without many treats or toys at all. I am NOT worried about rabbits or squirrels keeping my dog from coming back to me. I agree that if the dog does not recall it is the trainer's fault for giving too much freedom too soon. But, I just haven't had that issue. The dogs all come immediately when I call.

I find it interesting that people who are against this type of training, and use aids like physical corrections, shock collars, are using recall through distractions as something that they think would be a problem. I wonder if they have a problem, and maybe their training methods are more likely to trend toward this. 

And the dogs aren't stupid. They KNOW I do not have a bit of steak or a hot dog in my pocket, because as I said, treats are used in a very basic class in the beginning of training and then they are gone. My instructor, where we have classes, uses corrections and prongs in her classes, and also tons of treats. I suppose she has a balanced approach, but I get good work from my dogs without the treats, or a tug/toy. 

My dogs work for a quiet Good Girl, or a pet on the head, or a yes, yes, yes! A party is where I throw up my arms saying, Yes! Good Girl! and let them jump up into my arms! 

But you have to have good timing, you have to not nag -- give a command once, and if when training it, they do not do it, you help them, not repeat the command, not correct. SIT, if the dog does not sit, you run the hand down to the waist, or tuck under them until they are in the proper position, Good Sit. 

I think too many people train their dogs to ignore commands by repeating commands, with higher voices, until the pitch of their voice is such that punishment is not far behind, and then "Oh, you wanted me to come." So instead, Come. Dog looks at you, NOW. In the tone not volume that suggests the sky will blow up if you do not. I rarely have to use the NOW, but it is in my tool box. 

If the dog comes right away, praise good girl, or just go on to the next job, the inconsistency of the reward actually works better than flooding praise all over the place like a broken record. If you had to use the NOW, when the dog comes, you always say good. Normal tone, not high praise for the absolute best responses, just an Ok, you did what I told you to, Good. And then quickly into some behaviors that the dog can do immedieately and receive proper praise for. 

I understand that this may not be positive only or pure positive, but I have not read anything on the pure positive approach, and have read a few books by some of the more positive trainers, and kind of use what works for me. Amichien bonding however that is spelled, read about that, and realized quickly, I just could not do that, not my personality and my group of dogs. 

But witholding praise can be punishment. The dog fouls up a finish, without a word, you step forward, and carefully use your voice and hand movements to repeat the command. The dog KNOWS he did it wrong the first time. I do not see the harm in saying, Eh-eh, Around. And stressing the second word, so long as the dog knows the command. 

And when the dog is loose on the porch, I see nothing wrong with reminding them, Don't Even Think About It, if there is a little dog walking along down there. Positive trainers would see some of that as intimidation. So perhaps it is not purely positive. A more positive trainer might redirect attention to themselves and give a treat or a play with the tug. And that works too I guess. 

So what happens if the dog decides he just has to go for the little dog? So far it hasn't happened, but Susie would probably turn into a Giant Ogre, crashing out of her chair and with two bounds would have the dog by the collar, pulling him up onto the porch and into the house, and he would probably NEVER do anything of the sort again. And I would be ousted from the Positive Trainers R Us Club. 

But I would then just continue on as if he and I never did the Bad Thing. He went off the porch which he is not allowed to do, I turned into a Giant Ogre which is not what I generally do. We both fell off the wagon so to speak, and start again with a positive approach. 

I believe in positive dog training. But I also realize that being human, there will be moments when I miss the mark. At that point, I have to just continue to go forward, kind of like dieting, that Chicken Parmesan Stack at Applebees last night is not a good reason to go on a total binge. Just move on. 

If something is hard or doesn't work when using corrections, or training collars, people do not give up on the approach. The adjust this or that and continue. And one needs to do the same with positive methods. If a stay is broken, than one moves closer and keeps it on line, and works through it. It is not a reason to give up on a positive approach. It just means more work is needed on this, so back up.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Great post! I use a lot of "you better think about it" when I see my dog start to focus on something that I know could cause a reaction if not checked. Like a dog walking down the street. When the dog turns to me at that point I'll say, "Cuz you're a good boy!" He doesn't recognize the words as much as he does the tone. 

I also use "Boy!" instead of 'now'. Boy! Means you better move it move it!


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Chicagocanine said:


> You can give him the chance to chase a squirrel though (in a controlled safe environment.) Use Premack and he doesn't have to work for food. The opportunity to chase the squirrel can be the reward. If the dog can reliably be called off chasing, how is it dangerous?


 
Is there a squirrel game farm?


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> I don't feel as though it's worth it to write a big long reply about recall training when it is obvious that you have no real interest in the methods. You seem fine with the way you teach your dogs the recall and seem to think an e-collar is the only road to a reliable recall with a dog who has any prey drive. That's fine, it doesn't matter to me how you train your dogs. I do get tired of the constant comments on this board that positive training only works if your dog is low drive and only cares about food. It's not a fair or accurate portrayal of the methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I dont think I ever said the only way to train a reliable recall is with an e-collar. I asked what people here would do in a situation, but I get links and videos. That's fine if you dont want to write what you would do, but rather post a bunch of links and when Im not interested in what other people say (remember I did ask "you" as in, members on this forum). And chuck it up to me not being interested. Then forget it.

Can I ask what is wrong about telling a dog "Yes" when it does something right, and "No" when it does something wrong? All these methods, let your dog chase something, hide behind a bush, etc etc. When I can put it into simple terms like "yes" and "no". That's what I dont get about all these methods. All these jumping through hoops all to avoid telling the dog he did something wrong. My dog understands corrections because he's a dog, its not foreign to him. His mother corrected him when he got out of line, his littermates corrected him when he got out of line, Sydney corrects him when he gets out of line, his dog friends correct him when he gets out of line, the CAT corrects him. And he understands these corrections. His feelings aren't hurt, he doesnt distrust the other animal, their "bond" isn't damaged, he doesnt fear them, he accepts the correction, learns from it and moves on.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

ShatteringGlass said:


> I dont think I ever said the only way to train a reliable recall is with an e-collar. I asked what people here would do in a situation, but I get links and videos. That's fine if you dont want to write what you would do, but rather post a bunch of links and when Im not interested in what other people say (remember I did ask "you" as in, members on this forum). And chuck it up to me not being interested. Then forget it.
> 
> Can I ask what is wrong about telling a dog "Yes" when it does something right, and "No" when it does something wrong? All these methods, let your dog chase something, hide behind a bush, etc etc. When I can put it into simple terms like "yes" and "no". That's what I dont get about all these methods.* All these jumping through hoops all to avoid telling the dog he did something wrong. My dog understands corrections because he's a dog, its not foreign to him. His mother corrected him when he got out of line, his littermates corrected him when he got out of line, Sydney corrects him when he gets out of line, his dog friends correct him when he gets out of line, the CAT corrects him. And he understands these corrections. His feelings aren't hurt, he doesnt distrust the other animal, their "bond" isn't damaged, he doesnt fear them, he accepts the correction, learns from it and moves on.*


*VERY TRUE! Well said!* 

Do dogs have feelings that would get hurt if you tell them "NO" in a strong tone?

Guess mine must be unusual because he sure doesn't seem like I hurt his feelings!

In fact I guess that I will have to watch his feelings closer because sometimes when I correct him with a firm "NO"; it appears that my dog is throwing me the bird as he obeys!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I have seen dog's careers damaged in competition obedience by strong verbal corrections. I think there is something to Susan Garrett's deire to minimize non reward markers. Not saying I have an abundance of knowledge on this, but am open to it. 

I was watching a dvd on jumping the other day. The trainer was careful to build the behaviors well before adding any "no" for incorrect performance. Because this trainer deals with softies...not at all. So, I am thinking that these people do note the effect of these cues on dogs in training. 

I just worked my female in obedience. She is a dog concerned with being correct and she can stress if she doesn 't get it right. So, I just repeated exercises rather than mark with non-reward marker. Now, if she splatters herself across the kitchen counter and I chide her, she doesn 't much mind! But, in training, high value rewards are at stake. She really wants to be right and can disconcerted in a way if she goofs.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

As far as dogs correcting other dogs, I think it's JUST like with people. You have fair, unfair, crazy, out of control, controlled, unable to, etc, etc. Just because they are doing it and the other dog is responding does not mean that they are doing it well or right. 

You can see that when you live in a true pack of dogs with a dog that is a clear leader. It is amazing to watch. 

And you can see how rarely the true leader gives a correction. No need - why - because they have a relationship with their packmates and because they usually have solved the problem before it has occurred. Fairly and without freaking the other dogs out - what good does that do to have one of your pack wanting to get you, or scared of you? 

It's so weird, because the people who use a lot of positives post so many good stories of their dogs _choosing_ to do well (surprisingly well to me as far as my dogs go - I am always stunned when it works) and the ones who pish tosh it...tell stories of _making_ their dogs do things that they don't want to do?

ETA - Recalls to me - I have a Schipperke mix - wow, so difficult and I swear I will get a reliable recall some day - *but because of the breed and the caution that goes with letting them off leash*, (see: http://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/schipperkes.html ) I do it by leashing him to another dog (cheater!) and like today, had him off leash in a stranger's house practiced there with distractions. I think sometimes you won't get what you want if it's not in your dog, and that is part of training too. BUT - since this is a GSD board - that's not so much the case here!


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

ShatteringGlass said:


> I
> 
> Can I ask what is wrong about telling a dog "Yes" when it does something right, and "No" when it does something wrong? All these methods, let your dog chase something, hide behind a bush, etc etc. When I can put it into simple terms like "yes" and "no". That's what I don't get about all these methods. All these jumping through hoops all to avoid telling the dog he did something wrong. My dog understands corrections because he's a dog, its not foreign to him. His mother corrected him when he got out of line, his littermates corrected him when he got out of line, Sydney corrects him when he gets out of line, his dog friends correct him when he gets out of line, the CAT corrects him. And he understands these corrections. His feelings aren't hurt, he doesnt distrust the other animal, their "bond" isn't damaged, he doesnt fear them, he accepts the correction, learns from it and moves on.


 I don't see it as jumping through hoops at all. I enjoy training my dogs with these methods and they enjoy it too  I like for my dogs to be willing partners, working with me because they want to and not because they have to. I like prey drive in my dogs, I work hard to build on it from puppyhood and play a lot of prey oriented games with the dogs. But I also need to be able to control it, so using it as a reward and to train self control seems ideal to me. There is a fundamental difference here too. When my dogs want to chase things, I don't look at it as being "out of line". I look at it as a normal dog behavior that can be useful or problematic, depending on how it's approached. If my dog fails to perform a cue as I had expected, I generally assume I haven't trained it thoroughly enough and the dog doesn't have a properly understanding. If I hit a roadblock in teaching something, I try to think of how I could better explain to the dog what I want. 

As for dogs correcting dogs, the result depends on the dog. All the dogs here pretty much fear my oldest Belgian girl and are very distrustful of her. If I'm not around, they are afraid to walk past her or get too close to her in the house. And that is a direct result of her "correcting" them and them not understanding why. And it only takes most dogs a few encounters with her to know they have to be extra, super careful around her. She hasn't really injured any of them but she sure scares them. 

I'm not saying that no one should so much as say no to their dogs. I think in some cases telling the dog "nope that's not it try again" is beneficial. I'm not really a "purist" when it comes to training methods, although many of this forum would certainly label me as such. I think some self reinforcing behaviors are easier to get around if you use correction but I don't think that one _has_ to use it. One example of this is that I use bark collars on some of my dogs when they are outside. I don't _need_ to use bark collars but they are the easiest option. Of course, they only work when they are on the dog. That tends to be a catch with correction based methods - over time the dog figur out ways around the correction and the trainer has to figure out ways around the dog's way around the correction. An example of this is that "back in the day" it was a big deal to transition from on-lead to off-lead heeling. First, you'd loop the leash around your neck, then clip a lighter leahs on while unclipping the regular leash. Then use a shark line. All to try to trick the dog into thinking he can still be corrected even when he's "off leash". Instead of trying to figure out ways around what I want them to do or having conflict over what I want vs. what the dog wants, I try to train in a way encourages the dog to think that what I want is what they want too


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

As a very long time professional in training and teaching at the professional and also the University level, I like to think of positive only training sometimes in thinking about human training - wouldn't it be really nice when you are training someone to use just positive reinforcement? then the instructor would never have to criticise anyone in a negative manner whatsoever (just think no failed exams!)_ - just tell them when they did something right and basically ignore when they did something wrong (in the sense of not rewarding that wrong behavior or redirecting it if they did do something wrong or taking away the environment that caused them to fail).

OTOH, how long would it take to teach someone how to do something, even relatively simple like driving a car, for example, if the instructor could not tell them "NO" and then point out the right way to do something? Not to mention the risk to both the student and the in car instructor. Just a thought from an old instructor! 

But we wouldn't have any hurt feelings or resentment on the part of the student, would we?


OTOH2, the US military seems to have developed a pretty fast and very effective approach to *training* their new recruits to be soldiers, using perhaps just a touch of criticism once in a while along with a very positive approach and also teaching before using any negative stuff at all. As long as the student does the right thing at the right time and in the right way - NO Negatives or any corrections whatsoever. IT WORKS!


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I would not equate using corrections on a dog with teaching someone in a class, unless you routinely use physical punishment on people in class?

How long would it take to to teach someone to drive a car if whenever they did the wrong thing, you just said "NO!" and slapped their hand? Would they even want to learn from you after you did that a few times?

It is at least as effective to not use physical corrections in dog training and it generally comes without fallout, whereas physical corrections can produce many unwanted side effects. So why would I want to use them when using primarily positive reinforcement and negative punishment is effective?


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Too late to edit my post but I would like to clarify that I would not call myself a "positive only" trainer and I actually don't know any professional trainers who call themselves "positive only" trainers. I don't think it is possible to ONLY use positive reinforcement and NEVER use negative punishment at all so the term "positive only" is a misnomer. Usually when I see that term it is being used by someone trying to put down positive-based training methods.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

codmaster said:


> As a very long time professional in training and teaching at the professional and also the University level, I like to think of positive only training sometimes in thinking about human training - wouldn't it be really nice when you are training someone to use just positive reinforcement? then the instructor would never have to criticise anyone in a negative manner whatsoever (just think no failed exams!)_ - just tell them when they did something right and basically ignore when they did something wrong (in the sense of not rewarding that wrong behavior or redirecting it if they did do something wrong or taking away the environment that caused them to fail)


 If you want to bring human training into it:

*http://www.leagueoffans.org/pdf/Manifesto3.pdf*

or if you aren't interested enough to read that, a short article about it: Ralph Nader Says It?s Time to Bench Tyrannical Coaches in Sports

From the article:_ “John Gagliardi is the winningest coach in college football history and one of the most humane as well. He doesn’t carry a whistle or yell and scream. He has almost no physical contact in practices during the week, so his players are healthier and ready to play on Saturday. No blocking sleds, no wind sprints. His practices are limited to 90 minutes. Players love coming to practice and almost all of them graduate. He develops his athletes in a holistic, democratic, and humanistic way — and his teams win. He’s a positive example of what’s possible in the world of coaching.” _


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Chicagocanine said:


> I would not equate using corrections on a dog with teaching someone in a class, unless you routinely use physical punishment on people in class?
> 
> How long would it take to to teach someone to drive a car if whenever they did the wrong thing, you just said "NO!" and slapped their hand? Would they even want to learn from you after you did that a few times? Who said anything about "slapping their hand"? Nice "Straw Man" arguement! Very effective method of not answering a question! But more to the point, how would you use a POS ONLY approACH TO TEACHING SOMEONE TO DRIVE A CAR - no CORRECTIONS ALLOWED NOT EVEN JUST VERBAL ONES? Or are you saying that this wouldn't work for this training?
> 
> It is at least as effective to not use physical corrections in dog training and it generally comes without fallout, whereas physical corrections can produce many unwanted side effects. So why would I want to use them when using primarily positive reinforcement and negative punishment is effective?


Do whatever works for you!

BTW, the fallout of the method you describe is, in the words of many such advocates, is "less reliability and longer training times". But if it works for you and anyone else then by all means go for it! In most cases, a good trainer will get good results no matter what method that they may pick to use on most dogs.

(Hope that you never have a case of true dog/people aggression and/or a truely dominant dog(yes they do exist!). Should be fine otherwise!


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

codmaster said:


> (Hope that you never have a case of true dog/people aggression and/or a truely dominant dog(yes they do exist!). Should be fine otherwise!


The point you may be missing, it that not all dogs that are dog/people aggressive start out that way. It's not always genetics, sometimes it's owner error and it's avoidable.

I can think of multiple ways to make a dog aggressive towards people or other dogs using physical corrections but can't think of anyway this can happen using PR. If people use PR at least for basic training and at least for young dogs they can avoid a lot of problems.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

codmaster said:


> Do whatever works for you!
> 
> (Hope that you never have a case of true dog/people aggression and/or a truely dominant dog(yes they do exist!). Should be fine otherwise!


Except for the fact that I have and used methods that were "ahead of their time" in the 90's of systematic desensitization, emotional conflictors, and NILIF, and they worked. For a GSD/Chow (supposedly also Rottweiler) mix with human aggression, specific child/prey aggression, fear aggression and dominance aggression as evaluated and assisted by an experienced Rottweiler trainer/owner/breeder who had studied in Germany. 

Previously I had used more Kohler type methods mixed with a little Volhard (that's an odd mix but pre-internet) and that had not worked. 

I have used it with dogs since. It has worked. While I cannot say I am purely positive, it reduces the need for corrections immensely and lowers the level of correction needed.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Whiteshepherds said:


> The point you may be missing, it that not all dogs that are dog/people aggressive start out that way. It's not always genetics, sometimes it's owner error and it's avoidable.
> I can think of multiple ways to make a dog aggressive towards people or other dogs using physical corrections but can't think of anyway this can happen using PR. If people use PR at least for basic training and at least for young dogs they can avoid a lot of problems.


Nope, didn't miss anything. Absolutely true that DA/Human Aggression is not always genetic - most of the time I would say that there is certainly an environmental factor.

One major factor that I have seen is over permissivness from the owners! The dog is allowed to do whatever it wants to. Owners are afraid of taking something away from him, "Don't go near the dog, he is eating", or he growls when the owner shoos him off of the couch - so don't MAKE the dog do anything that he/she doesn't feel like doing. 

Never correct the dog as it may make him feel upset or resentful of his owner. Make him think of what he is supposed to do instead of telling him what to do and when.

Yea, I can really think of a number of ways that PO approach can be used to screw a dog up.

Even if some folks won't ever admit it - ANY training approach can be misused and not work!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Food aggression... The GSD breeders I know feel it has a large genetic component. They say they often see the potential for it before the pups are 8 weeks old. Sure, it matters how you handle their raising but it has some genetics generally. I am amazed how many behaviors in dogs have a large basis in their genes.

Also, I would caution against saying permissiveness and poor training skills having anything to do with the effevtiveness of positive training. They are far from the same thing though they appear to equate in your mind. I am not trying to insult you, but this bespeaks a general lack of knowledge on the subject. These same pet ownersvwould screw up another method if that was their chosen modality. They do it all the time!


----------



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

codmaster said:


> One major factor that I have seen is over permissivness from the owners! The dog is allowed to do whatever it wants to. Owners are afraid of taking something away from him, "Don't go near the dog, he is eating", or he growls when the owner shoos him off of the couch - so don't MAKE the dog do anything that he/she doesn't feel like doing.


Well, THAT, in a nutshell, is the problem - BAD training, not a failure of positive reinforcement training, which does not advocate permissiveness or allowing the dog to do whatever it wants to. This exact point has been made over and over and over again in these discussions and yet it's is still being ignored.


----------



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

Samba said:


> Also, I would caution against saying permissiveness and poor training skills having anything to do with the effevtiveness of positive training. They are far from the same thing though they appear to equate in your mind. I am not trying to insult you, but this bespeaks a general lack of knowledge on the subject. *These same pet owners would screw up another method if that was their chosen modality.* They do it all the time!


:thumbup:


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Well, THAT, in a nutshell, is the problem - BAD training, not a failure of positive reinforcement training, which does not advocate permissiveness or allowing the dog to do whatever it wants to. This exact point has been made over and over and over again in these discussions and yet it's is still being ignored.


And the only reason anyone continues to engage in these discussions is to be sure that this info is not left out there for people to believe in totality without considering other info.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Samba said:


> Food aggression... The GSD breeders I know feel it has a large genetic component. They say they often see the potential for it before the pups are 8 weeks old. Sure, it matters how you handle their raising but it has some genetics generally. I am amazed how many behaviors in dogs have a large basis in their genes.
> 
> *All behavior has both genetic and environmental components from the very little I claim to know about it. BUT - unless you happen to have a true "Pscho" dog, the training that they get will have a HUGE impact on their behavior.*
> 
> ...


I have a great lack of knowledge in many areas, (which one are you referring to specifically above? was it PO?).
I admit that I can't quite understand the basic concepts of Po training as they seems to change whenever I try to ask such an advocate about what they would do with certain situations with my and other dogs!
I am pretty sure that it is possible to be a poor trainer no matter what method that you choose - from following a strict Koehler approach to a very PO approach with no corrections at all even a verbal one. 

You are not saying that folks using a PO approach are always successful, and never do a poor job of training, *are you?* If so, that WOULD be a great method.

BTW, what I said was that owners who are too permissive will often have very poorly behaved dogs. Do you disagree with this also?

Not all PO advocates are necessarily too permissive, but I have seen many such people that do appear to me to be just that.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

codmaster said:


> BTW, the fallout of the method you describe is, in the words of many such advocates, is "less reliability and longer training times".


I disagree, I have not found it to take longer-- depending on the methods some things may take longer, some things take much less time. Actually I've also found it easier to get better reliability.



codmaster said:


> (Hope that you never have a case of true dog/people aggression and/or a truely dominant dog(yes they do exist!). Should be fine otherwise!


Actually there are trainers/behaviorists using these methods for aggression issues with great results. 

Positive does not equal permissive and I think saying that positive training doesn't work or is no good because some people are too permissive is like saying that training with corrections doesn't work because some people don't give a correction at the right time. Sure, if you implement ANY method . incorrectly it's most likely not going to work, and are likely to have dogs who are not well behaved.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Try these two Youtube videos for a very fair, even discussion on balance between correction and PO training from a very well known pro trainer.

"Tyler Muto has posted two videos where he explains his views on balanced training.
I found it very interesting and well explained.
Here is the links if you ever want to watch it:"
Part one:
http://youtu.be/xb8y4DWEr30

Part two:
http://youtu.be/hKS_XxQ3rwk

Worth a look!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Chicagocanine said:


> I disagree, I have not found it to take longer-- depending on the methods some things may take longer, some things take much less time. Actually I've also found it easier to get better reliability.
> 
> *That is great for you!*
> 
> ...


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

What is balanced? Why is "balance" needed? Does the word itself hold something inhetently noble in it? 

I own my weight in correction collars. Have a lovely 127 level e-stim collar. But, my training is overwhelmingly positive. On some things, I overlay corrections ( taught so that the dog understands them) to, hopefully, improve something. I am not sure they are necessary, but at this point it is what I have done.

Now, why is my training imbalanced toward positive reinforcement? Ease, quickness of learning, attitude and aptitude for continued learning, reliabilty...all these things are great benefits of positive training. Believe me people do not do this training because they are animal rights advocates all the time! They do it because they are fierce competitors looking for an incredible performance! Yes, some trainers comment on balance, but this does not mean it is necessary for great performance. Really, so much depends on the understanding of the method by the trainer.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Thanks for being so candid in your revelation of your experience and knowledge of PO training. I most certainly can tell that there is a lot of hearsay and opinion in your writings about it, less actual experience. 

I find incredulity about and even skepticism of it often. Usually from the experience of it wiith less than gifted trainers. I doubt that many people have the ability to deeply see what goes on in training. I mean go anywhere and dogs are learning behaviors. People persist, dogs are smart and then the owners think their training is pretty darn good! Any method can "work". 

Really, again, just because many trainers can not employ a method well it is not an indictmentbof the method.

People masacre compulsion training all the time. I know a few people who do it very well. 

Maybe much of the skepticism comes from those secretly a bit concerned that they have been physical when it was not needed with their best friend. I know I felt badly when I learned I was less than fair with some methods tried early on.Perhaps it come from a frustration with having employed methods they are taught only to find out there might be something else out there. 

I train dogs almost every day. It is always about learning on my part.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Chicagocanine said:


> I would not equate using corrections on a dog with teaching someone in a class, unless you routinely use physical punishment on people in class?
> 
> How long would it take to to teach someone to drive a car if whenever they did the wrong thing, you just said "NO!" and slapped their hand? Would they even want to learn from you after you did that a few times?
> 
> It is at least as effective to not use physical corrections in dog training and it generally comes without fallout, whereas physical corrections can produce many unwanted side effects. So why would I want to use them when using primarily positive reinforcement and negative punishment is effective?


 
well, that sounds like correction based training, which no one hear is defending or talking about. Balance (reward & correction) training is being discussed. If Im teaching my dog something new (compare this to me teaching someone to drive a car for the first time), I dont correct (slap) my dog for doing something wrong. I show him what I want by positive reinforcement until I he is solid on what is expected of him. So this is how I would teach someone to drive. Say we've been driving for a week, and I say "remember to use your blinker before you turn" and the student says "No way!!" and cuts someone off taking a turn without signaling, THAT'S when I tell them "NO. You did something wrong"


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Well, "no way" is something different than incorrect performance


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

codmaster said:


> BTW, the fallout of the method you describe is, in the words of many such advocates, is "less reliability and longer training times".


 I don't personally find that positive methods take longer or are less reliable. In fact, IME puppies who are raised with reward based methods seem to be "smarter" in that they learn things much quicker than dogs raised with correction based methods. I'm not sure who is saying reward based methods take longer but there are plenty of people out there who haven't found that to be the case. It took my collie forever to learn a stand for exam with correction/reward methods and honestly, he was never totally reliable on it and often lost points in competition for moving. My Dobe mix's off lead heeling was never great and he was trained with correction based methods. Using corrections doesn't guarantee reliability or fast learning or retention of skills.



Cassidy's Mom said:


> Well, THAT, in a nutshell, is the problem - BAD training, not a failure of positive reinforcement training, which does not advocate permissiveness or allowing the dog to do whatever it wants to. This exact point has been made over and over and over again in these discussions and yet it's is still being ignored.


 I totally agree. It makes no sense to use examples of poor or no training to prove that X method doesn't work.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Positive training has very real value. In most training circles, this is well known.

Now you might have to deal with why a dog did not do something. Occasionally it s lack of effort, but usually something else like not understanding what is wanted. When there s lack of effort, i often find distraction has entered in. Distractions can be dealt with in a corrective manner or in a positive manner. Both of these methods can work to address the issue. The positive approach can be highly effective. I am not sure why some people do not seem to want to believe this. Nonetheless, the methods still work and that is the true test. There are sometimes problems created with the corrective approach to distraction due to the fact that dogs are associative learners.

When I have a dogs attention and desire, really there is not much need for coorection. Engagement and desire solve a multitude of problems...and boy those positively trsined dogs can really bring the engagement and desire!


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

Samba said:


> Well, "no way" is something different than incorrect performance


My dog KNOWS what he's supposed to do when I say "Sit". The driving student KNOWS not to turn without signaling. They make the choice not to, so what's the problem with telling them, "No" that choice you made is wrong?


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I think if A person as not observed any issue with it then they are going to say What the heck? I can say No as non-reward marker. 

I know Susan G. As tried to get away from using the No or NRM so much. I think, in my experience, this may have some merit. Okay, it is just my experience and some other trainers. I seem to get better results if I minimize this NRM. It not about not hurting the dog's feeling either. I also understand the concept of not leaving the dog in limbo trying to guess. 

If I don 't get a sit it behooves me to figure out why I did not get it. Seldom is a collar correction the best answer. I am saying this not from a pure pos stance, but rather than from a best answer stance.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

This discussion has been good. It has made me really think about the value of positive training approach. 

Tonight at training I was more aware of the non-reward markers. We decided to lay off of those, especially in behaviors where the dogs were not completely fluent. There was improvement immediately in attitude and precision. This was a good example of why Susan G. Might try to avoid those NRMs. They can have affect that is not so desirable.

My youngster Hogan was really trying hard tonight. I decided not to use corrections or NRMs. He is still green at training. Why would I say No to a dog who is giving such effort. Keep in mind that for a dog who is really into the training, the NRM is no small thing! It was my perception that he stayed with the work longer than usual and made progress in precision even without negatives.

We were heeling along and he became distracted by the teeter. My inclination might have been to tell him No about it. But how would he know what the NRM was about for sure? He was prancing and in perfect heel position so I did not want to say No with all the good going on. I could have stopped the heeling and worked on the distraction seperately. Perhaps correct him for being distracted by the teeter. But, there would be some fallout. Some avoidance of the teeter, at least for awhile. So, I heeled him toward the teeter and helped him verbally to maintain focus. Then, released to teeter. The next heeling by it was great and no loss of focus. Lesson for him....if he wants to do something he likes, the most likely path to it is to perform the obedience. No fall out regards the teeter either.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

I agree, good thread. Training is rarely ever 100% one way or the other.

When heeling, if Shane gets a little distracted by something, most of the time I say "leave it", I dont think Ive ever told him "no" for looking at something and getting distracted. I realize I tend to use "no" more on things like breaking stays.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Good thread indeed. I want to thank everyone contributing. It really got me thinking again about what I know and what I need to earn aboit the Positive approach. 

The thread really helped me personally. My rescue female was stuck in getting those Open exercises to come together. During this thread, i tried my best to make our training consistent with a positive only approach. I removed all corrections and non reward markers even. Happy to say drastic improvement in confidence occurred and our first two legs with placements this weekend!

My friend had shown her Golden several times in Open. She just needed one leg but had a string of failures. She was utulizing gentle corrections to try and improve the dog's performance. I had her remove all corrections and we did intensive positive only work with her girl prior to the show. I had her change a few things in her handling during training along with no negatives, not even a NRM. Woohoo...last leg this weekend with score in the 190s!

Of course, this does not tell the entire story of these dog's training, but in a short personal experiment, at this specifuc point in training, great results.


----------

