# Don Sullivan's "The Perfect Dog"



## MansBestFriend

Okay, I just want to say that I ordered this Video for Bronco. My now 11 week old puppy. I know most members hate the idea of anything besides positive reinforcement but I'm old fashioned. I read reviews and opinions concerning Don's training methods and in all honesty..they made the man out to be a monster. Thats really not the case. He simply gets the dog to do as he asks and it seems to work. I've spent the last 3 weeks with Bronco working on clicker training and its been fine and hes improved in leaps and bounds..as long as there are treats. If I dont have treats on me..he just doesnt respond.

I purchased Bronco as a family dog. Just a companion that likes riding around in the truck, going to the lake, and camping. I want him to be part of the family and therefor..I need him to be obedient. Hes been pretty good so far. I mean..he is just a puppy. The problems arise when my wifes pomeranian is out..which is always. They play constantly..and fairly rough. Bronco does not listen in these situations AT ALL. No amount of calling, yelling, or food bribes can get his attention. The other downside is that now the pomeranian refuses to listen. If I take Bronco outside, she bolts outside with him without her collar. Catching a pomeranian is like catching a reflection in a pool. 

This is the main reason I chose to purchase the dvds and collars. I've been using the system now for a few days and the results have been remarkable. I can now tell "Foxy" the pomeranian "No!" at the door and open it up to allow only Bronco to go outside and vice versa. Neither of the dogs are acting skittish either. I make simple corrections using both Don's methods and the NILIF method. I couldnt be happier with the results. All this being said, I know we all love our pets and dont want to do the hard thing but in my case..a gentle but firm hand has made all the difference. I'm done bribing my dog to get a reaction..I want a mutual relationship and this is beginning to happen.


----------



## crown86

I had the same attention problem with my GSD Roscoe. If you look at the thread "confused" I wrote about what my trainer had me do for getting attention. "Look at Me" exercise was using food and treats as a temptation more than simple reward...patience was the key..man he was stubborn...but I never gave up and he broke.

This simple exercise I am finding was is the MAJOR foundation to attention. The first thing my trainer worked on was attention and recently told me without it you dog will pay attention to everything but you and therfore not be obdient. He is being trained to become a therapy dog.

My trainer uses a combination of postive einforcement and correction. The pinch collar made a HUGE difference in leash manners and barking at people and other dogs. I am currently transferring him to the flat collar and he has made night and day or I have made night day strides. I also have just begun being trained in using the e-collar for off leashe work.

I am a huge softy and was a little freaked intially with the pinch collar but now I swear by it and feel it's more humane than a flat collar. Same with the e-collar...LOL but thank god Roscoe reponds with a setting a hair below 20 on the Dogtra...I can barley feel it...the vibration mode is more.

Roscoe is my first GSD and I read and read about the breed. By making the decision to have him enter my home I was and am fully committed to learn what I need to learn as a handler to have an obdient healthy dog mentally and phyically. From what I learned with Roscoe...it all comes down to me. Over and over my trainer gets him to do things that takes me a week or so of practice...man it's a blast learning and then n
know your doing it right when Roscoe reponds the way I want him to

Good Luck


----------



## HarleyGirl52874

I just bought it also, Kaiser is a bit more hard headed then any of the others, and I have been very pleased with the results. 

When I would use treats, he would focus on the treat and not really what I wanted him to do. 

His method is a bit different from other things I have read, but when I apply them to Kaiser they make great scense and great results!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

What exactly is "The System"? :thinking: People talk about it like it's magic, but I can't find any actual information about it. Which I'm sure is the point, or otherwise why would anyone buy the package.


----------



## Samba

How does the system differ from other training methods and approaches?

I see he sells a plastic prong collar and lines. Those don't appear revolutionary in training? I wonder what makes the approach and methods unique?

What corrective methods are used on an 11 week old puppy?


----------



## onyx'girl

I watched a bit of his infomercial and when he said that giving treats is a no-no because an alpha would never give a lower level pack member food, we are to be looked at as the alpha...OK...sorry but I don't buy into his philosophy.


----------



## Samba

Oh, I see.


----------



## angelas

I have an old copy of his videos (free from a "relative"). His methods are typical correction based training. No need to buy the videos if you have cable. You just have to watch Brad Pattison and filter out the unqualified marriage counseling.


----------



## MansBestFriend

Cassidy's Mom said:


> What exactly is "The System"? :thinking: People talk about it like it's magic, but I can't find any actual information about it. Which I'm sure is the point, or otherwise why would anyone buy the package.


Its mostly correction based using commands and hand signals. You dont bribe the dog with food but you do give lots of praise when they listen. I've started on the basics with Bronco and I've already noticed a big change. Hes actually watching me in anticipation of my next move. Its not out of fear for a correction though. Hes simply focusing and wanting to learn more now which was our problem before. I never got that with the clicker training because he would simply lose interest too quickly. I wouldnt call it a dominance system but its more of a "I'm the captain of this ship and you're just a sailor." type thing. Its mutually beneficial for both you and the dog to know your places. I would recommend it to anyone that isnt seeing results with positive reinforcement.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> You dont bribe the dog with food but you do give lots of praise when they listen.


One of the problems when we clicker train and leap right in before really reading up and learning..............is we totally muck it up (go figure? )

The treats aren't bribes, if you are using them to lure and bribe then you are NOT clicker training. 

Next vital step in any reward based program is to not talk at all when starting, then add a word for the command when they are getting it, and then (this is the important part we REALLY muck up) WE MUST START RANDOM REINFORCEMENT with the treats/toys/reward. 

If you don't read up well and learn a method before starting it, chances are it won't work. 

Some of the best obedience dogs in the world are trained primarily with positive reinforcement because though handlers need to learn something new and then teach the dog (correction based training is WAY easier for the handler). Am I saying they never get a correction? No. But they know it's better to have a willing partner who WANTS to train and work with them, then have a dog doing something cause they know they have to.

I train in agility so I guess we get into knowing positive training works best in the long run cause it's all off leash with only a 3' fence around the ring with a dog we WANT running at top speed. If your pup doesn't want to run agility, they just won't. So we know the enthusiasm and joy needs to come from them from WANTING to work with us, not running around a course cause they know they are in trouble if they do not.

Look at this dog of Susan Garrett's, you think he's on this aframe cause he was corrected if he did it wrong or avoided it? Or he was rewarded and treated and toy tugged? Need Your Input | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog My first dog was raised 100% with corrections and no treats and I will never do that again. The difference between the attitude when it's training time between that poor dog and my next 3 would have to be seen to be believed.


----------



## Ucdcrush

I'm no expert but.. 

I cannot imagine training a dog for agility by using corrective methods, but this "system" is not about training agility, it's about basic obedience and getting the dog to mind at all times even off leash. The behavioral problems people (including me) have is that the dog is doing what it wants instead of what we want, e.g. barking/lunging toward a cat instead of walking in a heel. This DVD set supposedly addresses how to get control of the dog in all these situations, and yes it uses corrections and praise to do it. It is about 5 hours worth of material and I've barely gotten an hour in and want to study all the material before doing anything with it.

So the question is -- can a correction/praise system be used to train obedience ("minding", submission to the owner, following, whatever you want to call it) and will the dog still be willing to try new things as in agility? I don't see why not.

While I have not used this "system" as I've just started watching it, I have used corrections with my dog and have done beginner positive-based agility with her. She is more than willing to jump up on the balance board, even with a ball under it, when all the other dogs were hesitant to even put a paw on it with no ball. She is the best in our little class about doing things "right", and is used by the teacher to "go first" to show other dogs that it's ok to run through tunnels etc.

So in my (admittedly limited) experience, my dog's willingness to do new things i.e. agility obstacles has not been sapped by my using corrections for not obeying obedience commands. And also in my experience, once a dog learns that they MUST obey the command, they just get in the habit of doing it and I think it makes life easier for them since there aren't constant struggles of will with the human. The dog is subordinate, and does as it's told, period. Whether it obeys because it gets praise or because it knows the consequence of disobeying -- not sure, probably a mixture of both and I don't personally feel its any worse in terms of a persons "relationship" with a dog.

While I can't (because I don't know) describe the entire system, it does look similar so far to the Dikeman tapes (which I have seen) in that you teach commands through physically positioning the dog. Then once the dog "knows it" -- I know this is controversial -- , if they decide not to obey within 2 seconds, apply corrections that will get the dog to obey. Don't repeat the commands. Give it once, wait 2 seconds, then correct, and praise once the command has been completed. The stated goal of the system is off leash freedom, which starts with a 10' line, then a shorter line (3'?) and then a 6" stub, again a lot like Dikeman's method.


----------



## new_wind

I got the video and I like it, I would say in my humble point of view, this is the best video that I have seen for the common pet owner.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> So the question is -- can a correction/praise system be used to train obedience ("minding", submission to the owner, following, whatever you want to call it) and will the dog still be willing to try new things as in agility? I don't see why not.


A 'correction' is punishment for doing something 'wrong'. EVENTUALLY, if we are good at correcting cause our dogs are wrong all the time..........so we can teach them fast............................... we have gotten a whole lot of 'wrong' dogs in the mix of the teaching.

While I'm all about the prong collar for corrections for pulling and safety issues, and getting attention, it's NOT my preferred way to TEACH my dogs. And I don't want the primary way for my dog to learn be that she is *wrong wrong wrong wrong* so I can *correct correct correct correct correct*.........................

I PREFER to set my dogs up to succeed. I prefer my dogs to keep trying/thinking/learning (maybe being 'wrong') and NOT CARING cause they will keep thinking/learning/figuring out how to be 'right'. Cause only 'right' is getting the treat. Which later fades away to just praise. 

I personally feel using corrections is the lazy handler way to train in many situations. It's super easy for my silly puppy to be clueless with what I'm training so I can just pop pop pop pop pop the darn collar until she's freaked enough to stop moving and go WHOA MOM'S MAD OR SOMETHING! 

This dog is just 6 months old, heeling offleash. It probably took WAY more time to train this than just popping a jerking a 6 month old on a prong, but look at the attitude and excitment from a puppy that WANTS to heel. Not 'has' to heel.


----------



## TxRider

MaggieRoseLee said:


> A 'correction' is punishment for doing something 'wrong'. EVENTUALLY, if we are good at correcting cause our dogs are wrong all the time..........so we can teach them fast............................... we have gotten a whole lot of 'wrong' dogs in the mix of the teaching.
> 
> While I'm all about the prong collar for corrections for pulling and safety issues, and getting attention, it's NOT my preferred way to TEACH my dogs. And I don't want the primary way for my dog to learn be that she is *wrong wrong wrong wrong* so I can *correct correct correct correct correct*.........................
> 
> I PREFER to set my dogs up to succeed. I prefer my dogs to keep trying/thinking/learning (maybe being 'wrong') and NOT CARING cause they will keep thinking/learning/figuring out how to be 'right'. Cause only 'right' is getting the treat. Which later fades away to just praise.
> 
> I personally feel using corrections is the lazy handler way to train in many situations. It's super easy for my silly puppy to be clueless with what I'm training so I can just pop pop pop pop pop the darn collar until she's freaked enough to stop moving and go WHOA MOM'S MAD OR SOMETHING!
> 
> This dog is just 6 months old, heeling offleash. It probably took WAY more time to train this than just popping a jerking a 6 month old on a prong, but look at the attitude and excitment from a puppy that WANTS to heel. Not 'has' to heel.
> 
> YouTube - Heeling; 6 month old puppy "Feature" & Susan Garrett


Which is awesome when raising a puppy, and you can develop that well.

A little different with a 3yr old rescue dog with issues and already well established and well reinforced behavior.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Which is awesome when raising a puppy, and you can develop that well.
> 
> A little different with a 3yr old rescue dog with issues and already well established and well reinforced behavior.


The original poster was talking about their 11 week old puppy....

And I have to say, in some ways, starting out purely positive with a 3 yr old rescue with alot of issues may still be the way to go in many of the initial training steps. I am not saying I'm against the prong, I have one for all my dogs! But not as my primary training gear.

My #1 training gear I try to have as my brain. How can I 'make' my dogs WANT to do something, not HAVE to do something. How can I teach them so they are a willing part of the teamwork I like to build with my dogs?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

MaggieRoseLee said:


> My #1 training gear I try to have as my brain. How can I 'make' my dogs WANT to do something, not HAVE to do something. How can I teach them so they are a willing part of the teamwork I like to build with my dogs?


:thumbup:


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Ucdcrush said:


> I'm no expert but..
> 
> I cannot imagine training a dog for agility by using corrective methods, but this "system" is not about training agility, it's about basic obedience and getting the dog to mind at all times even off leash. .


Agility is obedience on steroids. If you can train a dog to run off lead around other dogs and peope, up and down, over and through, on command, stop, down, stay...using positive methods...to me that is really proofy that it would work for regular good dog obedience.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

MaggieRoseLee said:


> The original poster was talking about their 11 week old puppy....
> 
> And I have to say, in some ways, starting out purely positive with a 3 yr old rescue with alot of issues may still be the way to go in many of the initial training steps. I am not saying I'm against the prong, I have one for all my dogs! But not as my primary training gear.
> 
> My #1 training gear I try to have as my brain. How can I 'make' my dogs WANT to do something, not HAVE to do something. How can I teach them so they are a willing part of the teamwork I like to build with my dogs?


Yes. That is exactly how I start out with rescues and fosters who are adults. They don't even know what the hey I'm talking about half the time! 

I used positives on my Nina for good behavior, ignored her bad. She went from being a bitey, undersocialized 8 year old to my sweet old lady who was able to lay in the middle of the Cornell ICU on a waterbed around all sorts of people with that kind of behavior shaping. 

Maybe not every dog is as extreme as she was in terms of her response to those methods but I am glad I didn't do anything else during her time with me.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

Just as a plug for agility and though it's not formal 'obedience' you need to REALLY watch what's going on. It's ALWAYS off leash. The dog NEVER knows where it's going except for the directionals we may give, and we don't know the course until that day of the trial. The dog has never been on this course until they get on it for real. The fencing around the ring is usually only 2' tall and easily can be jumped by our dogs if they wanted to leave the ring.

Watch the good agility dogs (and best obedience dogs really), they are on that course cause they WANT to be. They are doing in in the correct order cause they WANT to figure out what the handler is directing them to next. It's the epitome of 'team' work in the dog world (though can be seen in other excellent teams in other dog venues). 

Watch this run, do you think the skills were taught with a training collar, leash and corrections? (the answer is 'no' ) Yet look what a team they are...

Jumpers Run





 
Standard Run





 
It's not that I couldn't train my dogs using only (or primarily) corrections. I COULD! *No disagreement there.* But why SHOULD I if there is a smarter way to have my dogs be brilliant, suceed and be rewarded..............rather than having to set them up to fail, so I can correct, and THEN they learn by those corrections?????


----------



## Ucdcrush

MaggieRoseLee said:


> It's not that I couldn't train my dogs using only (or primarily) corrections. I COULD! *No disagreement there.* But why SHOULD I if there is a smarter way to have my dogs be brilliant, suceed and be rewarded..............rather than having to set them up to fail, so I can correct, and THEN they learn by those corrections?????


Corrections for DISOBEDIENCE are what this Sullivan system includes only after the dog has shown he knows the command. He does not TEACH a command by "corrections", he teaches the command like sit by positioning the dog then praising it.

I would not call that training with only or primarily with corrections, but everyone has their own definitions of things.

I have been using the corrections if the command isn't performed within 2 seconds, and I have noticed the dogs are obeying consistently, quickly.. I suppose whether they'd prefer to or not though they do get sincere praise for whatever it's worth to them. But it has not seemed to dampen their "spirits" in any way I can notice so I don't see any negatives of it. It is very convenient for the human, it is easy to be consistent with, with no yet-seen negative effect on the dogs.

For the video showing the enthusiastic look of the dogs, isn't that just "drive"? I have seen lots of videos of schutzhund dogs who appear to have this "drive" despite being taught using corrections probably harsher than any regular pet owner would consider. I can increase my dogs drive by getting them a bit excited before the obedience work, and they'll be obeying quickly and seemingly enthusiastically, despite having been corrected for disobedience.


----------



## onyx'girl

"Disobedience" is usually caused by a dog that is confused, because the trainer is not giving the dog clear instruction. So I wouldn't call it disobedience, but confusion.
A dog that doesn't obey a command is usually not sure what you want from him. 

Unfortunately Sullivan is bringing his methods to people who have puppies. Puppies with a clean slate, no disobedience, just a lack of a knowledgable owner and the owner chooses these methods over positive type training. I know a lady who has a goldendoodle(about 25#) She bought the DVD and has the command collar. 
This dog has the collar on 24/7! Why? 
Does the dog pull her so bad, she can't control the dog? I doubt it.
Not saying she is going strictly with his methods, because I didn't watch the DVD, but if he is "training" these people to use a pinch collar at all times, then that is just wrong. I was at the house today, and that collar is not soft, it has points, so I know the dog is feeling it constantly. 
I would rather go to a real human type hands on trainer than go with a DVD to help me manage my dog. 
That way I get real feedback and answers to my questions that pop up in real life. 
BTW I am not anti-prong collar, I use them, but use them correctly and when needed only.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> For the video showing the enthusiastic look of the dogs, isn't that just "drive"? I have seen lots of videos of schutzhund dogs who appear to have this "drive" despite being taught using corrections probably harsher than any regular pet owner would consider. I can increase my dogs drive by getting them a bit excited before the obedience work, and they'll be obeying quickly and seemingly enthusiastically, despite having been corrected for disobedience.


You can 'suck' the drive out of a dog with corrections. Making them timid and s l o w , cause they've learned that if they go fast they may be 'wrong' and when they are 'wrong'.....

Seems to me that all the early training of all the Sch people I know use treats and TOYS for rewards and that getting the joy and drives are #1, then working on the strict 'obedience' and preciseness. But that's a good question. I'll try to get some Sch people to respond....


----------



## onyx'girl

As a fairly newb to SchH~ MRL is right, there is no corrections at all when you are training foundation with a pup or even an adult just getting into it, you want the pup to be so confident they can run a country, they will be so willing to please you for a tug or ball, the only "correction" is not getting the reward.


----------



## G-burg

> I've spent the last 3 weeks with Bronco working on clicker training and its been fine and hes improved in leaps and bounds..as long as there are treats. If I dont have treats on me..he just doesnt respond.


This would tell me that the treats were never phased out correctly and that the dog wasn't made to do the command..

So in the beginning of teaching a dog a command we use a food lure, once the dog understands the command that's when corrections would come into play or be added.. for the dog not complying.. When the corrections are added and the dog complies, then the food would be used as a reward.. further into the dogs training then you can alternate between verbal praise and or food.. that way the dog starts understanding that I must do what's asked of me and that I may get a "good boy", "good job" or mom/dad may give me something really yummy and good.. 

All my dogs were taught positively.. food or toy.. but corrections were introduced later into our training if they decided to blow me off.. Now my dogs will do the commands I ask regardless if I have food/toy, etc.. I will say that I do still do all my training with rewarding them for doing things correctly.. it's how I enjoy training and so do my dogs..

Don't know if I would ever go straight compulsion on a young dog, especially a dog I intend to compete with..


----------



## crs996

If I had to drag out a clicker and treats for every door I wanted my dog to sit at all day before going through, or lay down for a minute, or go to his bed, it would be quite a process. I trained sit in one session, with treats. After that, no treats. Within a few days he was doing it on his own, with lots of praise. I don't care if my dog is in a starry eyed state when I ask him to sit/down/stay or the normal day to day activities, I just expect it. My corrections are never overly harsh, and he enjoys OB work... for the praise!

His joy comes from activities we do together, walks, hikes, swimming or even short trips in the car. He works because I've asked him to, not because I clicked or have food. 

In regards to SchH, where does table training fit into


onyx'girl said:


> As a fairly newb to SchH~ MRL is right, there is no corrections at all when you are training foundation with a pup or even an adult just getting into it...


 ???

I like the idea of eager dogs running an agility course, but this is a totally different subject matter than basic obedience. I have noticed many clicker/food trained dogs are very wound up and hyper when performing OB, I'm looking for calm, submissive OB. Of course, many clicker dogs aren't as enthusiastic once the food is gone either. 

With my past dogs, once they had all the basics, I RARELY even had to even give corrections. They were happy to oblige because we were deeply bonded. So if the end result is that they happily perform without correction, why bother with food bribing?


----------



## Castlemaid

I didn't know anything about dogs or dog training when I got my first dog - a spaniel mix from the pound. And he turned out to be a phenomenal, well-behaved, obedient, therapy dog, maybe not because of how I had trained him, but despite how I had trained him. No treats, no bribing, do as I say, cause I'm the Alpha, or else! I too looked down at the clicker and food and treat trainers and followers, felt smug and superior to them all, after all, look at my dog - I must be doing something right, right?

When I got my second dog, she was a challenge. I know the universe had planned on sending me Keeta all along as a lesson in humility, and humble me she did. I had to admit that I did not know everything there is to know about teaching and training and earning my dog's respect. I was open-minded enough to look at alternate training methods. What positive/food reward training methods did for Keeta was teach her to WANT to learn. It built her confidence, changed her attitude, revealed her vast and innate talent and intelligence, and create a reciprocal respectful relationship where there was none before. 

The desire to work and obey is instilled in a positive manner and becomes ingrained. By the time a dog can track and do an obedience routine and a protection routine all in the same day for trial, the only reward they get is praise, and the fun of tracking, and doing obedience, and the protection routine, because they were trained to love the work. 

My dog learned a great deal more than she would have if I had stuck to my old ways of training and teaching, and *I* learned even more than she did by opening my mind to different training philosophies and swallowing my pride. 

And after raising a puppy, seeing just what delightful little babies they are, so trusting and loving and innocent (despite the shark teeth - oww!!!) I am just flabberghasted that people still feel that "corrections" are needed to teach anything.


----------



## Ucdcrush

onyx'girl said:


> "Disobedience" is usually caused by a dog that is confused, because the trainer is not giving the dog clear instruction. So I wouldn't call it disobedience, but confusion.
> A dog that doesn't obey a command is usually not sure what you want from him.


I really don't know about that-- dogs can learn very quickly what "sit" means, and do it for years reliably, but in the face of a strong distraction their priority is on attending to that distraction and not to sitting.

So I don't buy that they are confused as in they don't know what we're asking of them. They either don't hear us because they have learned it's not that important to obey (there is no consequence of disobedience), or they hear us but decide they'd rather attend to the distraction. I think the command->wait->correct/praise thing just helps to establish an environment of obedience; the dog IS going to do what I say no matter what. The easiest path for the dog is to do it himself, quickly.


----------



## Chris Wild

Ucdcrush said:


> I really don't know about that-- dogs can learn very quickly what "sit" means, and do it for years reliably, but in the face of a strong distraction their priority is on attending to that distraction and not to sitting.
> 
> So I don't buy that they are confused as in they don't know what we're asking of them. They either don't hear us because they have learned it's not that important to obey (there is no consequence of disobedience), or they hear us but decide they'd rather attend to the distraction. I think the command->wait->correct/praise thing just helps to establish an environment of obedience; the dog IS going to do what I say no matter what. The easiest path for the dog is to do it himself, quickly.


I'm sorry, but this attitude that once the dog shows any understanding of a command that the dog truly knows it and any failure to perform is disobedience and must be punished shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how dogs think and learn.

Dogs do NOT globalize well. Yes, they can learn a simple behavior very quickly, provided all factors are consistent. But throw in another variable.. a different location, a different distraction, and to them it is NOT the same. This is why dogs who sit perfectly when working at home in the kitchen don't sit the first time they get to a class, or Petsmart or the vet's office. It is not because the dog is being disobedient. It isn't even necessarily because the dog is overly distracted. It is because to the dog it is a completely different thing. It is well known in training that as soon as one single variable changes, performance will decline and it will take a bit of work to get it up to it's former level in that new situation. And then the same has to be repeated in more different situations over a significant period of time.

Punishing a dog for confusion and lack of understanding.... and that is *exactly* what is happening... is never, ever fair to the dog. Only once the dog has been given the opportunity to globalize the behavior to a variety of situations so he truly does understand that sit means sit no matter what, and has the mental maturity and training experience to cope with more distracting situations should those things be introduced. Get through ALL of that, and now you may be correct that a dog who fails to sit is being disobedient and a correction is warranted. Though even then in many cases it's not.

People cannot view training a dog like learning a vocabulary word and assume that once that word is learned, it is automatically learned forever in every situation every time. Dogs do not work that way. They are extremely situational. They also do not choose disobedience on a regular basis. It is very, very rare for a dog to choose disobedience. Most often it is the handler who is at fault for failing to communicate to the dog properly or placing a dog in a situation that is beyond the dog's abilities at that time. And then you're punishing the dog for the handler's failing.


----------



## BlackPuppy

If I used his kind of training on my dogs, they'd shut down and not do anything. The best training DVD I've ever seen was Ivan Balabanov's "Obedience without conflict" and "The game". Huge immediate results! I stopped looking right there. But, I have to fess up. I went to one of his seminars first. He trained my dog to out in about 2 minutes and I was hooked. His training video is totally positive and the dog gets excited to work with you without food rewards, and looks forward to training. It's all fun and games to the dog, but it's really training.


----------



## Catu

I agree that positive training is not for everyone. It require an owner who wants not only comply of commands, but a relationship the dog. Bond. It requires not to want a slave but a partner. Bond. It requires to be willing to spend time and effort shaping and proofing a behavior instead of a quick fix. Bond.

Harsh methods will work for you, I'm sure they will. You will get a dog that sits, you will get a dog that do not pulls, but what you will loose in the process... that you won't buy with money nor you will get it in a DVD.

Positive methods will not work for you, clicker will not work for you, all you will be is a treat dispenser, your dog will look for bribery, your dog wont listen to you unless you have a hot-dog in every hand. But it is not the dogs fault and definitely it is not the method fault. The reason is the lack of bond, and bond... that will come only the day you give a step back and start thinking in what is better, and not in what is easier or quicker.




Ucdcrush said:


> I really don't know about that-- dogs can learn very quickly what "sit" means, and do it for years reliably, but in the face of a strong distraction their priority is on attending to that distraction and not to sitting.
> 
> So I don't buy that they are confused as in they don't know what we're asking of them. They either don't hear us because they have learned it's not that important to obey (there is no consequence of disobedience), or they hear us but decide they'd rather attend to the distraction. I think the command->wait->correct/praise thing just helps to establish an environment of obedience; the dog IS going to do what I say no matter what. The easiest path for the dog is to do it himself, quickly.


So you think a positive trained dog cannot work through distractions? What about a pup through this distractions?


----------



## Catu

Or what about this distractions. Wild sea lions at less than 9 feet away.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

crs996 said:


> If I had to drag out a clicker and treats for every door I wanted my dog to sit at all day before going through, or lay down for a minute, or go to his bed, it would be quite a process.


I agree - but fortunately, I don't have to! That would be a totally inaccurate way to use food in training, and used correctly you DON'T need to be constantly and forever handing out treats. 

Also, a reward is not a bribe. Sorry, but that's a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## crs996

Chris Wild said:


> I'm sorry, but this attitude that once the dog shows any understanding of a command that the dog truly knows it and any failure to perform is disobedience and must be punished shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how dogs think and learn.


This sounds like a rationalization for disobedience, and further is a great exaggeration. Dogs do have their own minds, and they are certainly capable of disobedience. It seems like the more people "study" dogs and come up with "the next great training idea", the more complicated everything gets. It's not needed, and half of these lab rats that do these "studies" are not even dealing with real word situations. Suddenly we have to read doctoral thesis on how dogs learn and how unfair corrections are because you gave the command 25 feet from where you gave it originally and the dog doesn't understand. Dogs aren't stupid.

I won't correct a dog that doesn't understand the command, but I have seen countless examples in training of dogs who just know they can get away with not doing as they're told. 

Maybe training with pinch collars, etc has gotten such a bad rap because of how incredibly poor most people's timing is. You can see the confusion on a dogs face when an owner with terrible timing jerks on them 10 seconds after the event. At least with food the dog doesn't care when, why, etc.


----------



## crs996

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I agree - but fortunately, I don't have to! That would be a totally inaccurate way to use food in training, and used correctly you DON'T need to be constantly and forever handing out treats.
> 
> Also, a reward is not a bribe. Sorry, but that's a pet peeve of mine.


A lot of positive trainers seem to idolize Victoria Stilwell, and she practices about the biggest case of food bribery I've ever seen. That's her answer for absolutely everything and IMO it's a total joke. Dog is aggressive, hold food in its face. Dog barks, put food in it's face. See a stroller? Quickly stop and put food in its face. The follow ups show people walking around with their chicken treat bags _months_ afterward!


----------



## Ucdcrush

Catu said:


> I agree that positive training is not for everyone. It require an owner who wants not only comply of commands, but a relationship the dog. Bond. It requires not to want a slave but a partner. Bond. It requires to be willing to spend time and effort shaping and proofing a behavior instead of a quick fix. Bond.


This is something else I've seen repeatedly when it comes to discussing corrections, the idea that using any training where the word "correction" is somehow part of the equation, will result in a severed bond, create a robot "slave", and that the dog will not trust the owner.

That _could_ be the case in the wrong combination of things, but it is absolutely not the case all of the time. 

What about when the timing of the correction is right (the command is known; the correction is connected to disobedience), if the corrections aren't "harsh", if there is praise or even food as rewards for correct behaviors. That is much more often the formula that goes into regular, common sense training that is used (was used?) regularly and this doesn't necessarily result in nervous, cowering slave dogs.

Just look at Cesar Millan's big pack of dogs, which I mention because he is an example most people are familiar with. He definitely uses corrections. From what you have seen on TV, would you argue that his dogs don't trust him? Are his dogs slaves that can't enjoy themselves for fear of screwing up and being corrected? Does he not have a bond with his dogs? 

As for whether a long program of shaping and proofing is "better" than a quick fix? I think from both the dog and owners point of view, a quick fix would be preferred so they could both move on with life.


----------



## codmaster

onyx'girl said:


> "Disobedience" is usually caused by a dog that is confused, because the trainer is not giving the dog clear instruction. So I wouldn't call it disobedience, but confusion.
> A dog that doesn't obey a command is usually not sure what you want from him.


 
Are you serious? I mean do you really believe that any dog who doesn't do what you tell him to do is "confused"?

How about he/she doesn't feel like doing what you told him to do because the distraction/temptation is just to much and he/she would rather do something else at that moment.

Granted sometimes with many trainers they be asked to do something that they have not learned but ALL of the time when they refuse a command? Be serious!

Do you also believe that your dog "lives to please you"?


----------



## codmaster

Ucdcrush said:


> This is something else I've seen repeatedly when it comes to discussing corrections, the idea that using any training where the word "correction" is somehow part of the equation, will result in a severed bond, create a robot "slave", and that the dog will not trust the owner.


Anyone wanting to see a real life example of a group of people who treat "Correction" as a dirty word and have some very far out ideas of dog training and mentality should try a trip to Aggressive Behaviors in Dogs - Home.

This is a web site owned by the Yahoo group "agbeh"

Interesting if you want to hear information about really "Positive reinforcement Only" for aggressive dogs.


----------



## JOSHUA SAMPSON

MansBestFriend said:


> .as long as there are treats. If I dont have treats on me..he just doesnt respond.


never been a fan of the "ONLY" positive reinforcement theory of training. It might work for "easy" dogs but there are a lot of hard dogs out there too and a lot of them are kinda bull headed. they need corrections training as well as rewards. it's kinda like a treat is the reward you get for the obedience but the correction is kinda like blinders for the rest of the world. as if to tell him "you need to pay attention" and then " you get goodies for doing as told.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

I don't think systematic desensitization is far out? Or was there other stuff?

I have had dogs who had aggressive tendencies and also love my Chow mixes. If you know Chows they typically have their own ideas. Corrections don't really work with them so hot. Well, you can do it, but it doesn't get you far. 

So there's not much of a chance for the quick fix (which is generally compliance and not learning) and you learn to teach them stuff and a great way to teach someone is to reward them for doing right. I use verbal corrections, quick and done which, once we have a relationship, they care about. If anyone else gives them the same, they giggle and walk away. 

So it gets back to that. Relationship, time, shaping.


----------



## onyx'girl

onyx'girl said:


> "Disobedience" is usually caused by a dog that is confused, because the trainer is not giving the dog clear instruction. So I wouldn't call it disobedience, but confusion.
> A dog that doesn't obey a command is usually not sure what you want from him.


 



codmaster said:


> Are you serious? I mean do you really believe that any dog who doesn't do what you tell him to do is "confused"?
> 
> How about he/she doesn't feel like doing what you told him to do because the distraction/temptation is just to much and he/she would rather do something else at that moment.
> 
> Granted sometimes with many trainers they be asked to do something that they have not learned but ALL of the time when they refuse a command? Be serious!
> 
> Do you also believe that your dog "lives to please you"?


I don't believe that my dog lives to please me. I would rather have my dog be willing to work WITH me rather than against me. And the bond that we share is the most important thing. If I was constantly nagging my dog to do something, and he ignored me would that be productive? But if my dog is so willing to work with me, he won't ignore me.
In beginning foundation training, I use lures, to get the dog into the correct position, then mark it. So the pup knows what to do when given that command. And having total focus on me when the pup is young is a great beginning to not look at other things to be a distraction. 
I don't expect too much, or rush my pup-I'd rather go slow and have him comfortable with what I ask of him. 
Of course you get a dog with no bond, (rescue or adoption) and it is different because you aren't dealing with a clean slate. I still feel that using positive methods are more effective than correcting, because again that dog may not know what you are expecting of them.
Why are you so harsh with your comments?


----------



## G-burg

> Are you serious? I mean do you really believe that any dog who doesn't do what you tell him to do is "confused"?


I'm gonna go out on a limb here!!  Yes, confusion can lead to a dog not doing a command.. See it every day..


----------



## Ucdcrush

If it is confusion, maybe the dog is confused about whether it's more beneficial for him to obey a "stay" command, or to chase the cat he's interested in. In that case I don't think a correction for chasing a cat would be "unfair" if he decided not to "stay" as he was told. If he was indeed confused about the importance of obedience, the correction will remind him what happens when he chooses disobedience, and in the future, it should increase the chances of him obeying.


----------



## Catu

I'm not against corrections, they have their place in training. I'm not a pure positive trainer by any means. But to teach THROUGH corrections... that is completely unfair for the dog.

It is like to take a child and ask him "_2+2_" no answer? SLAP!! and yell "_4!!!_" until the kid answers "_4_" couple of times. Then assume the kid knows how to add and punish him later for not being able to resolve a problem. Oh yeah... and the kid will love mathematics...

Cesar Millan's pack is not what I would use as a good example for your point. Whoever who knows a little of canine body language can notice that.


----------



## onyx'girl

:thumbup: Agree, Catu!


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> If I had to drag out a clicker and treats for every door I wanted my dog to sit at all day before going through, or lay down for a minute, or go to his bed, it would be quite a process.


:headbang: 

That statement can only come from someone who knows NOTHING about clicker training, so please, for those of you thinking about starting up with the clicker, DISREGARD that statement....... *As important as it is to click/treat initially with ALL initial training*.......................... The next stage of CLICKER training is random reinforcement. Then fading the treats almost entirely (or entirely).



> I'm looking for *calm, submissive OB*.


I have friends with top obedience dogs, and I know tons of Sch dogs I've seen perform amazing obedience routines. Never have these trainers said their goal is a 'calm/submissive' dog. 


> Of course, many clicker dogs aren't as enthusiastic once the food is gone either.


The only times I've seen this is when the owners fail to learn what clicker training is, and did it WRONG. Meaning they only learned part of the theory (goodness knows, taking classes to learn it right, and CONTINUING to take classes to progress and learn would mean I'd have to commit to something and learn something new....). 

That statement just isn't true. Period. For dogs that are clicker trained properly using all the theory and ideas behind this training METHOD. It is a method. Based on way more than the mere 'click/treat' and that's it. Books are written about it. Trainers take years to learn and teach it well. I've been using it for years and I am still learning.

I want a fast, thinking, learning dog that is enthusiastic. I get that throwing the clicker into MY training bag of tricks.

And I would much rather say I have a crazy drivey dog listening and obeying then a 'calm, submissive' one.



> I agree that positive training is not for everyone. It require an owner who wants not only comply of commands, but a relationship the dog. Bond. It requires not to want a slave but a partner. Bond. It requires to be willing to spend time and effort shaping and proofing a behavior instead of a quick fix. Bond.


Just read that and it's a great statement probably putting my training theory into a few great sentences. If my ONLY goal is an end behavior ( ie a 'sit') then it doesn't matter how I taught it, using a 2X4 over their head (just kidding  ) or using a clicker. But if I have a BIGGER goal............................. a relationship and bonding goal WITH my dog. And I do. It's the more positive training for me! My dogs. My choice.


----------



## Catu

Ucdcrush said:


> If it is confusion, maybe the dog is confused about whether it's more beneficial for him to obey a "stay" command, or to chase the cat he's interested in. In that case I don't think a correction for chasing a cat would be "unfair" if he decided not to "stay" as he was told. If he was indeed confused about the importance of obedience, the correction will remind him what happens when he chooses disobedience, and in the future, it should increase the chances of him obeying.


If you put a dog in a situation were the conflict is that big before the dog is ready, you will set him to fail and you will be forced to use a heavy correction. It is a common mistake and its easy to blame the dog, but the truth is that it's a trainer mistake.

If I gradually raise the level of distractions all I'll need will be a "ah-ah" warning from time to time to get a rock solid stay. Oh... but that would require time... I'm sorry.


----------



## Ucdcrush

Catu said:


> I'm not against corrections, they have their place in training. I'm not a pure positive trainer by any means. But to teach THROUGH corrections... that is completely unfair for the dog.
> 
> It is like to take a child and ask him "_2+2_" no answer? SLAP!! and yell "_4!!!_" until the kid answers "_4_" couple of times. Then assume the kid knows how to add and punish him later for not being able to resolve a problem. Oh yeah... and the kid will love mathematics...


Anytime the word "correction" comes up, people jump to talking about "training through corrections" and how bad it is. This Perfect Dog system _includes_ corrections but I would not call it "training through corrections".

I am not advocating training "through corrections", neither is the Perfect Dog system, and from what I read, no one else in here favors training "through corrections" either.

The example in your 2nd paragraph is ridiculous. *Of course that would be wrong*, but why are you even mentioning it here? It has little or nothing to do with any "dog training system" that is being discussed here. Again, anytime the word "correction" comes around, some people start railing against the most extreme "corrections only" system they can think of -- even if it does not relate to the training theory or system being discussed.


----------



## crs996

onyx'girl said:


> I would rather have my dog be willing to work WITH me rather than against me.


Why does this (nonsensical, IMO) statement keep appearing when referring to training with corrections? It is automatically brainwashed into positive trainers that corrections make a dog work _against_ you rather than with you? 

Part of the moral superiority complex that is often encountered with treat trainers is that dogs who have received corrections perform with ears back, head low and eyes averted, living in fear of the next horrible jerk on the leash. Is this not doing a disservice to the ultimate goal of having a well trained dog, with more than one method being accepted?


----------



## G-burg

> Part of the moral superiority complex that is often encountered with treat trainers is that dogs who have received corrections perform with ears back, head low and eyes averted, living in fear of the next horrible jerk on the leash


But this can and does happen to a lot of dogs.. He!!, I've even seen dogs that once they've messed up a command, or their routine, the dog was panicked or would completely shut down for fear of what might happen..

The beauty of dog training... there's a million ways to reach the same end goal.. and everyone has their own way/opinion on how to get there!


----------



## crs996

MaggieRoseLee said:


> :headbang:
> 
> That statement can only come from someone who knows NOTHING about clicker training, so please, for those of you thinking about starting up with the clicker, DISREGARD that statement....... *As important as it is to click/treat initially with ALL initial training*.......................... The next stage of CLICKER training is random reinforcement. Then fading the treats almost entirely (or entirely).


Well that just goes to show how many people are doing it wrong then, since this is what I've been told is the method by several "positive" trainers. If it is so much more complicated (as mentioned in a previous post, as compared to training with corrections) is it really useful/helpful to those with already limited time and interest in dog training?

MRL, I am not saying that clicker/treat training doesn't have its place or that it doesn't work. I simply have a problem with the "angle" that positive training has taken on correction based training in order to assert itself in the marketplace. Promoters of positive training often refer to it as cruel, unfair, not how a dog learns, violent and countless other degrading terminologies to promote "their way", which to them is the _only_ way. I understand, this is great for business! It generally requires more sessions to achieve the same results and is more expensive, but they sell it to people based on disingenuous "feel good" marketing. 

I am currently in an OB class given by a respected local SchH trainer. This class is aimed at the person who owns a powerful breed, and is correction based. As she also runs a large breed rescue, there are always highly aggressive or behaviorally challenged dogs in class. Some are so difficult that they begin with muzzles to prevent fights, and most are wearing prong collars. When it rains, there are 16 people with powerful dogs in a space marginally larger than a 2 car garage. Some of the owners are very small, older, etc. but they all love large breeds and ALL learn to control their dogs. The difference from class 1 to class 2 was incredible, and there are no clickers or treats in sight.


----------



## crs996

G-burg said:


> The beauty of dog training... there's a million ways to reach the same end goal.. and everyone has their own way/opinion on how to get there!


Completely agree!! Now why can't positive trainers let others do as they please without the vitriol, hate and diatribe?

"Old fashioned" trainers can make comments about "food bribing" and this really won't hurt positive trainers. But all the negative stereotypes being laid out about old fashioned trainers hurts and brings about calls for bans, etc, especially when many correction based trainers use treats as well.
There will always be those that choose clickers/food no matter what, but how many people with a new dog are influenced by someone telling them how _they will destroy their relationship with their dog forever_ if they use correction based training? It's disingenuous and self-serving.


----------



## Catu

crs996 said:


> is it really useful/helpful to those with already limited time and interest in dog training?


That is the whole point. This is a dog board, not a car board or a gardening board. If you ask here commenting on a method that is not the best available, expect to hear that.


----------



## crs996

Catu said:


> That is the whole point. This is a dog board, not a car board or a gardening board. If you ask here commenting on a method that is not the best available, expect to hear that.


I meant to the general public, last I checked positive trainers were not exclusive to this forum.


----------



## Catu

crs996 said:


> I meant to the general public, last I checked positive trainers were not exclusive to this forum.


But then you don't need to defend what has no defense.

If I go to a car forum and ask a question about replacements and I say I will not buy original, but Chinese alternatives, people will tell me it is a bad idea. Yet I do not need to argue about the benefits and quality of Chinese products if the only reason is I want to go cheap because my car is not my priority.


----------



## crs996

Catu said:


> But then you don't need to defend what has no defense.
> 
> If I go to a car forum and ask a question about replacements and I say I will not buy original, but Chinese alternatives, people will tell me it is a bad idea. Yet I do not need to argue about the benefits and quality of Chinese products if the only reason is I want to go cheap because my car is not my priority.


That comparison makes no sense, since there are obviously others here who debate on the topic. Further, it (again) makes the assumption that one is superior to the other, which cannot be proven in contrast to quality of material used in a part.

Again, look what I posted earlier: "There will always be those that choose clickers/food no matter what, but how many people with a new dog are influenced by someone telling them how _they will destroy their relationship with their dog forever_ if they use correction based training? It's disingenuous and self-serving."

Also, interesting how you picked that one thing to comment on out of all of my posts.


----------



## onyx'girl

crs996 said:


> Completely agree!! Now why can't positive trainers let others do as they please without the vitriol, hate and diatribe?
> 
> "Old fashioned" trainers can make comments about "food bribing" and this really won't hurt positive trainers. But all the negative stereotypes being laid out about old fashioned trainers hurts and brings about calls for bans, etc, especially when many correction based trainers use treats as well.
> There will always be those that choose clickers/food no matter what, but how many people with a new dog are influenced by someone telling them how _they will destroy their relationship with their dog forever_ if they use correction based training? It's disingenuous and self-serving.


Originally Posted by *crs996*  
_is it really useful/helpful to those with already limited time and interest in dog training?_
If you have limited time and interest in dog training, why have a dog?

I don't think anyone here is saying your dog will be destroyed forever. And where are you getting this feeling~ _the vitriol, hate and_ _diatribe?_ I see people giving their experiences with training, and what works for them and their dogs. 
I have a fear aggressive dog, and using a prong collar on her will ramp up her reactivity. I have nothing against a prong, but for her, it isn't a useful tool. And I do use corrections when warranted. For a pup who is learning, though, I'd rather use positive methods. Which brings me back to the original subject~Don Sullivans methods... do puppies really need correction based training?


----------



## crs996

onyx'girl said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying your dog will be destroyed forever. And where are you getting this feeling> the vitriol, hate and diatribe? I see people giving their experiences with training, and what works for them and their dogs.


Apologies, it was not directed at any particular poster. Victoria Stilwell, who proclaims herself to be a positive trainer, made the remark about destroying the bond forever. The highly negative views regarding training with corrections can be found many places, all over the web, and in this thread it was said 

"...I am just flabberghasted that people still feel that "corrections" are needed to teach anything."

and

"I agree that positive training is not for everyone. It require an owner who wants not only comply of commands, but a relationship the dog. Bond. It requires not to want a slave but a partner. Bond. It requires to be willing to spend time and effort shaping and proofing a behavior instead of a quick fix. Bond."

This is smug and downright insulting to many who have trained our dogs using corrections and have extremely deep bonds with them. It has the same grating effect as "food bribe" to some, which out of fairness I will discontinue to use in future posts..

The negative influence (IMO) of positive trainers/marketers/etc can be seen when out in public, giving your dog a leash correction and this inspires dirty looks, negative comments, whispers of cruelty, questions as to why you don't have a Halti, etc. Several sites state that corrections are "euphemisms" for cruelty and punishment. I have nothing against their training methods, some of them are amazing, but I don't like the negative diatribe used to boost their methods over others. Simple as that!


----------



## Tihannah

I am still not through reading this entire thread but wanted to throw my 5 min of experience in here. I came into this (training) knowing absolutely nothing but what I'd read and watched in videos online. I've been to 3 different classes and trainers trying to find the RIGHT one and Kaiya will be turning just 6 months on the 18th. I admit I get frustrated at times, but since I've never used physical correction with her, I just didn't feel entirely comfortable starting now. My reaction and still is to any difficulty in training is to research more. Ask more questions and get more advice from more people who have been through this. 

Just a few days ago I posted how my pup seemed to be becoming bored with our training and didn't want to participate anymore and wasn't treat motivated and I was becoming frustrated because she would simply wander off in the middle of a training session. The easier way out probably would have been a physical correction. Hook a leash to her and force her to sit in front of me? Instead, I got great ideas from people that understood. She's a puppy, and I was taking this waayyy too serious. I started incorporating treats AND toys, and exhuberant "YES's!" and I moved constantly making her WANT to follow me and see what I was doing. We've been doing this for about 4 days now.

Last night when I got home from work, it was like she couldn't wait to start our session. Because it was FUN! And she's a puppy, and sometimes I forget that. My pup adores me, and just seeing those ears go back, and those eyes look down when I give her a firm "Aaah!" is enough physical correction for me... But I'm a newbie and this is my first, but this has been MY experience so far...


----------



## Jessiewessie99

My family tried it.Its useless.Molly broke the collar.


----------



## onyx'girl

Jessiewessie99 said:


> My family tried it.Its useless.Molly broke the collar.


Yay, Molly

Tina, that is what the puppy wants, to be engaged with us! Good job!
One thing to point out, you said you were trying different things before this with no luck, consistancy is key...glad you found what works for you, training can be fun!!!


----------



## SpeedBump

Catu said:


> If you ask here commenting on a method that is not the best available, expect to hear that.


Fixed that for you 
I use whatever method works for a particular dog, no one sizes fits all available here.


----------



## Chicagocanine

TxRider said:


> Which is awesome when raising a puppy, and you can develop that well.
> 
> A little different with a 3yr old rescue dog with issues and already well established and well reinforced behavior.


Clicker training methods have been the most effective thing so far with my dogs who I got at 4 1/2 years old with behavior problems (one was a stray, one was adopted from the previous owner.) One of them I started out with "traditional" methods but when I found out about clicker training I was finally able to walk him without a prong.


----------



## IliamnasQuest

From what I gather, Don Sullivan's method of training is not some revolutionary method but simply a rehashing of the old Koehler "yank 'em, crank 'em" methods. Popular back in the 50's and 60's.

I started out with Koehler-style training, which was the only type taught in my area for a long time. Over the years I studied and tried other methods and found that in the long term, positive reinforcement works MUCH better than punishment-based training. Properly done, positive reinforcement builds solid obedience in a dog and produces a dog that really WANTS to please you (not just pleasing you to avoid a correction). 

I've done it both ways, and was successful both ways. However, I will say with 100% belief and conviction: TRAINING PRIMARILY WITH POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT METHODS WILL BUILD A BETTER, MORE TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOG. I have no doubt of this. I've not only seen it with my own dogs, I've observed it with hundreds of others.

Primarily positive training doesn't rule out corrections, but corrections are not used until a dog has been trained to a command under many MANY distractions. Dogs don't tend to generalize - "sit" may mean "sit" in your living room, but in the local playground, a dog who has never been taught the "sit" command outdoors with kids running around will be honestly confused by the command. When the criteria changes (surroundings, distractions, noises, etc.), the command is NOT the same to the dog. Knowledgeable trainers understand this, and take the time to calmly TRAIN the dog in numerous situations until the dog realizes that "sit" means "sit" wherever it is. 

Of course, you can always just yank on the dog when it doesn't sit and the dog will eventually learn that "sit" means "get your butt to the ground before your person causes you pain" and yes - the dog will learn to generalize that after a while, too. But it's YOUR choice. You can teach the dog, kindly, to respond under various distractions or you can try to "quick-fix" it by providing corrections because you assume your dog fully understands when it probably doesn't. 

Which way do you really think is going to build the best relationship?

I understand that people are impatient. It's easier to correct a dog than to pay attention and reward for behaviors you like. And people who feel that reward-based training is useless because you're bribing a dog must be doing something wrong, because I don't bribe my dogs. They're rewarded for behaviors I like. I don't give a cookie every time my dogs do something I command. Properly taught, +R training is not permissive nor is it bribery. It's clear, concise, enjoyable training that leads to understanding, consistent responses and trust. If your dog isn't responding to this training, then you're doing it wrong. Plain and simple. This method works on nearly all animals (have used it on cats, horses, people and even a full-blooded wolf).

I taught a beginning class once that met 3X a week for about three weeks. Eight sessions in total. There were around eight dogs in the class - all medium to extra large, not trained, all beginning people too. This was a positive-reward based class. Not one dog wore a corrective collar - everyone used flat collars.

First night was introduction of the method, demonstration and calm socialization (bring dogs in and let them get a feel for the surroundings while I assessed their behavior). Two of the dogs, one a GSD and the other a mixed breed, had dog aggression problems. A couple of the dogs were adopted as adults and had unknown backgrounds.

Second session started into doing the actual behaviors: walk on a loose leash, sit, down, stay, come, etc. Throughout the sessions I added in obstacles like a ramp, steps, doorways, jumps, tunnel, even a tire on the floor where the dogs had to put their front feet (on or in the tire). I used signs to designate stations where people practiced the various exercises. 

The last session, 100% of the class was still with us (NO drop-outs). I set up a small obstacle course, partly with jumps/tunnel/etc. and partly with signs that would ask for a down, sit, walk around cones, etc. And EVERY SINGLE DOG there did the obstacle course OFF-LEASH, with ALL the other dogs and people standing on the sidelines - and no one was allowed to carry food or toys during the course! In less than three weeks, the dogs had all learned to focus on their handlers, listen to them in the face of distractions, and work without food or toys in sight. This was done with NO corrections other than an occasional "eht!" as a verbal correction.

People seem to really want to discredit the concept of positive reinforcement as a training method. What I've found is that the people who talk badly about it have never truly given it a chance. I'm not sure why some people would prefer to use corrections over rewards on their dogs (given the chance, I would always rather praise/reward my dog than to pop on the leash). As far as having to carry treats ... well, even if you do choose to always carry treats, is that any more difficult than always having to put a training collar on your dog when you go out? My goal is that my dogs obey regardless of what I have strapped to their neck, and that I never have to put something on just to control them. And overall, it's worked for me. My beloved Trick (who I lost last October at the age of 13 1/2) spent her entire life rarely ever wearing a leash. It just wasn't necessary - and she never even heard a verbal correction until she was more than six months old. My old chow Kylee (died in 2008 at 16 1/2 yrs old) was started in the compulsion methods but became a truly amazing obedience dog when I switched over to the positive methods and re-trained her in open and utility. She was another dog that was absolutely trustworthy off-leash.

My current chow, Khana, has all three of her rally titles and her CD - 13 times in the ring, one disqualification (due to peeing in the ring - MY fault!) and 12 qualifying scores, many placings beating GSDs, border collies, golden retrievers, labs, etc. Now she works as a Service Dog, picks up items, brings me items, and her retrieve training was NOT a forced retrieve but a shaped (+R) retrieve. 

It's incredible what you can do with +R, but you do have to learn the proper method and not just assume that you randomly click a clicker and fork over food until your dog is full. There's a science to it, and done right it WORKS. Done right, you won't need many corrections. Done right, and you have a dog that trusts you absolutely. Done right, you will have a better relationship than you can EVER have in a dog trained to respond to avoid corrections.

I know, because I've trained both ways and I understand both ways. Yes, you can train a dog successfully using punishment. But if you can train with minimal punishment and lots of +R, and get a BETTER result in the long run, why would you ever choose to use the harsher method? To me, that's the bottom line. If there's no reason to use corrections other than the laziness of the human, then it's the human who is wrong - NOT the dog.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## codmaster

IliamnasQuest said:


> ... but simply a rehashing of the old Koehler "yank 'em, crank 'em" methods. .
> Properly done, positive reinforcement builds solid obedience in a dog and produces a dog that really WANTS to please you (not just pleasing you to avoid a correction).
> 
> TRAINING "PRIMARILY" WITH POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT METHODS WILL BUILD A BETTER, MORE TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOG.
> Primarily positive training doesn't rule out corrections, but corrections are not used until a dog has been trained to a command under many MANY distractions.
> 
> Dogs don't tend to generalize - "sit" may mean "sit" in your living room, but in the local playground, a dog who has never been taught the "sit" command outdoors with kids running around will be honestly confused by the command.
> 
> When the criteria changes (surroundings, distractions, noises, etc.), the command is NOT the same to the dog. Knowledgeable trainers understand this, and take the time to calmly TRAIN the dog in numerous situations until the dog realizes that "sit" means "sit" wherever it is.
> 
> Of course, you can always just yank on the dog when it doesn't sit and the dog will eventually learn that "sit" means "get your butt to the ground before your person causes you pain" and yes - the dog will learn to generalize that after a while, too.
> 
> I understand that people are impatient. It's easier to correct a dog than to pay attention and reward for behaviors you like. And people who feel that reward-based training is useless because you're bribing a dog must be doing something wrong, because I don't bribe my dogs. They're rewarded for behaviors I like. I don't give a cookie every time my dogs do something I command. Properly taught, +R training is not permissive nor is it bribery. It's clear, concise, enjoyable training that leads to understanding, consistent responses and trust. If your dog isn't responding to this training, then you're doing it wrong. Plain and simple. This method works on nearly all animals (have used it on cats, horses, people and even a full-blooded wolf).
> 
> I'm not sure why some people would prefer to use corrections over rewards on their dogs (given the chance, I would always rather praise/reward my dog than to pop on the leash).
> 
> I know, because I've trained both ways and I understand both ways. Yes, you can train a dog successfully using punishment. But if you can train with minimal punishment and lots of +R, and get a BETTER result in the long run, why would you ever choose to use the harsher method? To me, that's the bottom line. If there's no reason to use corrections other than the laziness of the human, then it's the human who is wrong - NOT the dog.


Well, lets see. That was quite a message you sent with a lot of information in it.

But I think that perhaps a few clarifications might help readers better understand and choose between PR (positive reinforcement) and a more balanced method.

First, you mention that your approach is "Primarilly" PR. Most folks that use PR add in an "only" in there - NO corrections ever either verbal or physical. Do you follow that or do you allow a few corrections (Don't call it punishment as that has a bad connotation to it as if we correction advocates like to hurt our dogs.) 
Do you believe that to be true?

Speaking of Koehler, do you realize that he was a BIG advocate of insuring that your dog understood the command 100% before any correction? And that the correction if any was to be perfectly in line with the size and strength of the dog as well as what he /she had done wrong? 

Do you really believe that the only reason that people hse corrections is that we are "Lazy"? But you indicated above that you do use some corrections - does that mean that you are lazy some times?

I also read "Culture Clash (new second edition)" by jean Donaldson, a leading voice of PR. In it she has a statement that says "the dog will be less reliable, so what" talking about a dog trained with PR compared to a dog trained with other methods. Do you agree with her about the reliability or was she wrong?

Do you really think that your dog wants to please you? Or is the dog smart enough to want to do things that bring a reward to him/her?

Jean D. also alluded to the fact that PR training might take a lot longer to have a reliable trained dog than using other methods. Would you agree with this?

One last question - How would you train a dog who was resource aggresive and would bite your 3 yo child when he tried to take a toy out of his mouth? Or maybe one who would consistently counter surf and steal food off of the counters?

Just curious?


----------



## Hunther's Dad

There are only four ways to change a dog's behavior: 1) Give him something he likes, 2) take away something he doesn't like, 3) take away something he DOES like, and 4) give him something he doesn't like. Numbers 1 and 2 tend to interact, and numbers 3 and 4 tend to interact.

An example: You want to teach your dog to sit. He doesn't know what you want at first, so he doesn't do it. He gets frustrated, because he can smell the treats you have but can't get them (and frustration usually is unpleasant - #2). Finally he sits, maybe by accident if nothing else, and you give him the treat. (#1) The frustration goes away, plus he gets a yummy treat.

The same example: You are teaching your dog to sit. He doesn't know what you want at first, so he doesn't do it. You yell, "SIT!" and give a hard yank on the collar. The dog sits; another yell and yank are not forthcoming. The dog's calm state is taken away by the yell (#3), and pain is administered (#4). 

Ironically, the handler's frustration goes away (#2), and his dog obeys him, which is what he wants (#1). Substitute the word "spouse" for the word "dog," and you have the model for domestic violence.


----------



## codmaster

Hunther's Dad said:


> An example: You want to teach your dog to sit. He doesn't know what you want at first, so he doesn't do it. He gets frustrated, because he can smell the treats you have but can't get them (and frustration usually is unpleasant - #2). Finally he sits, maybe by accident if nothing else, and you give him the treat. (#1) The frustration goes away, plus he gets a yummy treat.
> The same example: You are teaching your dog to sit. He doesn't know what you want at first, so he doesn't do it. You yell, "SIT!" and give a hard yank on the collar. The dog sits; another yell and yank are not forthcoming. The dog's calm state is taken away by the yell (#3), and pain is administered (#4).
> Ironically, the handler's frustration goes away (#2), and his dog obeys him, which is what he wants (#1). Substitute the word "spouse" for the word "dog," and you have the model for domestic violence.


Interesting but I have no idea what point that you are trying to make? I would assume that you are against any corrections and we should train our dogs with treats? Is that your point.

How about I use the command "Sit" and then SHOW the dog what i want him to do, perhaps with a gentle palm moving down his back and curling under his hind legs and then a GREAT deal of praise when he gets the point and sits. Would that be too much "Pain" and "Punishment"? This method does actually work and my dog never ended up hating or even fearing me! How about that?

It sounds like you train your dog by waiting till he/she does something, by accident even, and then reward him with a treat - sounds like a great method but it seems like it might take a long time.

BTW, regarding your very inappropriate comparison of dog training to the very serious problem of domestic violence, I also would never use a prong collar on my wife nor she on me. Perhaps an e-collar but never a prong!

BTW2, why would you assume that trainers who use other than PR and treats "Yell" at their dogs? 

And for that matter "Yank" on the collar. Personally I never yank, jerk or even tug on the collar, I might give a correction but I almost always use his leash to do so.


----------



## TxRider

Hunther's Dad said:


> The same example: You are teaching your dog to sit. He doesn't know what you want at first, so he doesn't do it. You yell, "SIT!" and give a hard yank on the collar. The dog sits; another yell and yank are not forthcoming. The dog's calm state is taken away by the yell (#3), and pain is administered (#4).
> 
> Ironically, the handler's frustration goes away (#2), and his dog obeys him, which is what he wants (#1). Substitute the word "spouse" for the word "dog," and you have the model for domestic violence.


Difference being even the correction based folks say to tell the dog to sit calmly, not to yell, and to praise the dog heavily when it sits.



When I brought Hope home, a 3yr old feral rescue, I could ignore the counter surfing, the jumping on me and everything, the accidents in the house, the total lack of training. Easy to fix without punishment.

I could not ignore the overwhelming desire and attempts to kill small animals she saw. I could not ignore her trying to drag me to very dog she saw to the point of possibly harming herself and launching into the air after small animals.

I used a clicker to teach this 3yr old feral dog that a human voice was actually something more than just background noise. I used voice markers after that to train her basic sit, down, stay, play dead, shake hands.

I used simple association to each her the name of her ball, to relieve on command, to eat an drink on command, and to find her ball on command and other command she has learned through association.

I use corrections to keep her from launching into the air on leash after small animals, a year of positive reinforcement didn't work. She will also get a correction, usually just verbal, for willful disobedience.

And it is disobedience, clearly defined in no uncertain terms whatsoever by her quite vocal protest before complying. Even when she knows a food treat is at stake as well as praise. There is zero confusion in her mind, none whatsoever.

She gets a physical correction for things worthy of one. For serious behaviors I do not want to be repeated.

Positive and negative punishment are just as valid forms of learning and behavior modification as positive and negative reinforcement are. They form the four quadrants of operant conditioning.

Punishment is only really useful to decrease the occurrence of a behavior though IMO. It is of far less use when trying to increase the occurrence of a behavior.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

From codmaster:



> First, you mention that your approach is "Primarilly" PR. *Most folks that use PR add in an "only" in there - *NO corrections ever either verbal or physical.


Not so sure that is true from the people posting on this thread, or on this board. I'm ALL about the clicker and PR. But I own and use the prong collar as well as e-collars and will certainly give corrections to my dogs when needed. 

But these are in NO way the primary way I 'teach' my dog anything. They are the reminders when my dog knows something and is 'choosing' to not pay attention to what I am asking. And since I try to do a good job teaching with the PR my usual corrections aren't ever having to be harsh or over the top...


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

codmaster said:


> Most folks that use PR add in an "only" in there - NO corrections ever either verbal or physical.


Don't have time to read everyone's posts yet, but I have to respond to that comment as well. MOST people I know, either here on the board, or in person and in the classes I've taken for the past 10 years with the 4 dogs I've had in that time period, DO use corrections, some physical, and pretty much all of them use verbal corrections. I've actually come across very, very few people that do not believe in at LEAST verbal corrections. I'm not sure where you came up with this idea.


----------



## Chicagocanine

codmaster said:


> Interesting but I have no idea what point that you are trying to make? I would assume that you are against any corrections and we should train our dogs with treats? Is that your point.
> 
> How about I use the command "Sit" and then SHOW the dog what i want him to do, perhaps with a gentle palm moving down his back and curling under his hind legs and then a GREAT deal of praise when he gets the point and sits. Would that be too much "Pain" and "Punishment"? This method does actually work and my dog never ended up hating or even fearing me! How about that?


This is molding and is not the most effective way to train a dog to sit.

So are you saying that you use corrections to show a dog what behavior you want them to do, when training new commands? 

What is wrong with using treats in training?




> It sounds like you train your dog by waiting till he/she does something, by accident even, and then reward him with a treat - sounds like a great method but it seems like it might take a long time.


That is called capturing and is actually a very effective way of teaching a dog something new. In fact it does not take a long time (assuming you have a dog who is savvy to this type of training) because once the dog realizes what you are rewarding for, they will offer the behavior more and more often. This works best using a marker signal to mark the exact behavior, such as a clicker or short word.
You can read about this here if you don't understand how it works: 
http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2001b/capture.htm


----------



## codmaster

Cassidy's Mom said:


> Don't have time to read everyone's posts yet, but I have to respond to that comment as well. MOST people I know, either here on the board, or in person and in the classes I've taken for the past 10 years with the 4 dogs I've had in that time period, DO use corrections, some physical, and pretty much all of them use verbal corrections. I've actually come across very, very few people that do not believe in at LEAST verbal corrections. I'm not sure where you came up with this idea.


It really doesn't matter where I "came up with this idea". I can not claim credit for the idea at any rate (and wouldn't anyway); just mentioned the idea as i ran across it on the web.

Since you admit that you have met very few (but obviously you have met at least a few) people who do not believe in any corrections, even verbal; I will list a group that I ran across on the web who have a web site and a Yahoo discussion group who do in fact believe in NO corrections, or at least so they claim in the discussion groups. The group is agbeh : Aggressive Behaviors in Dogs.

The web site is:
Aggressive Behaviors in Dogs - Home

Try it and see what you think.

They talk a lot about corrections = "Pain" for your dog, etc. etc. etc. I was a member for a while as it was interesting to hear their approach.


----------



## codmaster

Chicagocanine said:


> This is molding and is not the most effective way to train a dog to sit.
> So are you saying that you use corrections to show a dog what behavior you want them to do, when training new commands? What is wrong with using treats in training?
> That is called capturing and is actually a very effective way of teaching a dog something new. In fact it does not take a long time (assuming you have a dog who is savvy to this type of training) because once the dog realizes what you are rewarding for, they will offer the behavior more and more often. This works best using a marker signal to mark the exact behavior, such as a clicker or short word.
> You can read about this here if you don't understand how it works:
> ClickerSolutions Training Treasures


First of all, I do understand the clicker approach to training - just don't think that it is the most effective way to teach a dog to do something. 

To train tricks, maybe it would work pretty good as long as the dog naturally does the things that you want and then "capture" the behavior.

It does appear that waiting till your dog did what you wanted to treat him and thus reinforce that behavior could take a LLLOOONNNGGG time to teach him to do it reliably.

I never said that I use corrections to TEACH a behavior - that would be sort of stupid, don't you think? I use a reasonable correction to ENFORCE a behavior/command.

BTW, it took one session using the method I described to teach my dog to sit - and he was about 12-14 weeks old so you should realize that the method does in fact work very well. Same with the "Down". Now granted, we needed to do a lot of training with distractions but the dog learned the basic command very quickly. 

I guess in your approach you would just hang around and wait for the dog to sit by himself and then treat him. Would he have to be on leash or do you let him run around the yard?

How about a recall?

I don't see anything wrong with using treats in training - IF your dog is motivated by them. Whatever motivates a dog is the thing that is best to use. I happen to have a dog currently who is sometimes motivated by treats and sometimes not so much and for example will refuse even "High Value" treats like chicken chunks when he is ramped up on the training field. This is what the PR folks in our local obedience club reccommended to use to control my dog - unfortunately they had no response or suggestion when he would refuse the HV treat. A correction was then in order for me.

"they will offer the behavior more and more often"

Finally, with obedience commands as opposed to tricks, I want my dog to do them when I tell him to, not when he guesses what I want and tries random behavior.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

Another confusion with reward based training is that we ONLY use treats. Not true.

What we are supposed to use, is something that is of value TO THE DOG. So if my dog hated treats, I could still absolutely use the same positive training, but with something my dog DOES really like. A ball? Tug toy? 

If my dog has nothing to motivate it, treats/toys/whatever, then this training would be much harder. Be like asking a millionare to 'work' for $5 bills................ probably not catch their attention very long.


----------



## TxRider

codmaster said:


> First of all, I do understand the clicker approach to training - just don't think that it is the most effective way to teach a dog to do something.
> 
> To train tricks, maybe it would work pretty good as long as the dog naturally does the things that you want and then "capture" the behavior.
> 
> It does appear that waiting till your dog did what you wanted to treat him and thus reinforce that behavior could take a LLLOOONNNGGG time to teach him to do it reliably.


It really does sound like you do not understand clicker training.

A clicker is used the exact same way a "good dog" or a "yes" is used to tell a dog it did the right behavior. It is simply a shorter more consistent sound to mark the exact behavior at the exact moment than a word is. It is really no more than that.

You then associate that behavior with a command just like any other behavior and stop clicking for it. You can then correct for not obeying that command if you like.

You seem to have it totally backwards in another area as well, the best use for clicker training is for training dogs to perform behaviors that are totally unnatural for the dog. Shaping unnatural behaviors. That is where clicker training stands out above other training methods and shines.

For standard commands like sit and down and stay, natural behaviors, clicker training has little or no value over other methods to tach that behavior and link it to a command.


----------



## codmaster

TxRider said:


> It really does sound like you do not understand clicker training.
> A clicker is used the exact same way a "good dog" or a "yes" is used to tell a dog it did the right behavior. It is simply a shorter more consistent sound to mark the exact behavior at the exact moment than a word is. It is really no more than that.
> You then associate that behavior with a command just like any other behavior and stop clicking for it. You can then correct for not obeying that command if you like.
> You seem to have it totally backwards in another area as well, the best use for clicker training is for training dogs to perform behaviors that are totally unnatural for the dog. Shaping unnatural behaviors. That is where clicker training stands out above other training methods and shines.
> For standard commands like sit and down and stay, natural behaviors, clicker training has little or no value over other methods to tach that behavior and link it to a command.


Actually, I am guessing that you really don't understand what I am trying to say. Of course since you have no idea of my background in dog training it does seem a little disconcerting for you to try to tell me what i do or don't understand, wouldn't you say?

If I understand your last statment, you are stating that you think that clicker training has no value over standard correction based training, correct? Most of the clicker/treat based trainers would certainly disagree strongly with you on that point.

So for AKC obedience, you would recommend NOT using clicker training, I would assume.

And I am curious as to what is "unatural behavior" for a dog that is the best thing to use clicker training for? Do you mean tricks, for example?

And why would using a clicker be better than a key word? i.e. "YES" This is much easier for most people to use to mark a behavior since they don't need a third hand. 1- leash, 2 - clicker, 3 - treat/toy!

"You then associate that behavior with a command just like any other behavior and stop clicking for it"

Do you mean just stop the click and/or the treat/praise also?
Substitute a "word" for the click? You really need to explain this a little clearer for us really slow trainers.

But enough of this thread - lets simply move on.


----------



## Hunther's Dad

codmaster said:


> Interesting but I have no idea what point that you are trying to make? I would assume that you are against any corrections and we should train our dogs with treats? Is that your point.
> 
> How about I use the command "Sit" and then SHOW the dog what i want him to do, perhaps with a gentle palm moving down his back and curling under his hind legs and then a GREAT deal of praise when he gets the point and sits. Would that be too much "Pain" and "Punishment"? This method does actually work and my dog never ended up hating or even fearing me! How about that?
> 
> It sounds like you train your dog by waiting till he/she does something, by accident even, and then reward him with a treat - sounds like a great method but it seems like it might take a long time.
> 
> *BTW, regarding your very inappropriate comparison of dog training to the very serious problem of domestic violence, I also would never use a prong collar on my wife nor she on me. Perhaps an e-collar but never a prong!
> *
> BTW2, why would you assume that trainers who use other than PR and treats "Yell" at their dogs?
> 
> And for that matter "Yank" on the collar. Personally I never yank, jerk or even tug on the collar, I might give a correction but I almost always use his leash to do so.


My point is that I see a certain number of people "training" their dogs with acts that border on criminal animal cruelty. They need to knock that [email protected] off before they get themselves arrested. Not only that, they are clearly not enjoying their "training." If you're not committing acts to that level, I don't give a **** how you train.

Why do you make the assumption that I "assume" that others who don't use PR always "yell" at their dogs? I gave one example.

And if domestic violence is such a problem that I made a "clearly inappropriate" comment about, why are you returning the joke (as highlighted above)?


----------



## codmaster

Hunther's Dad said:


> My point is that I see a certain number of people "training" their dogs with acts that border on criminal animal cruelty. They need to knock that [email protected] off before they get themselves arrested. Not only that, they are clearly not enjoying their "training." If you're not committing acts to that level, I don't give a **** how you train.
> 
> Why do you make the assumption that I "assume" that others who don't use PR always "yell" at their dogs? I gave one example.
> 
> And if domestic violence is such a problem that I made a "clearly inappropriate" comment about, why are you returning the joke (as highlighted above)?


To demonstrate exactly how inappropriate your comment was.

*Enough!* Hunther's Dad!

Please read my last line in my message above!


----------



## Hunther's Dad

You are not a moderator. You can always put me on ignore if you feel my comments are "inappropriate." Believe me, you won't hurt my feelings.

Now *there's* enough.


----------



## TxRider

codmaster said:


> Actually, I am guessing that you really don't understand what I am trying to say. Of course since you have no idea of my background in dog training it does seem a little disconcerting for you to try to tell me what i do or don't understand, wouldn't you say?


I said it sounds like you don't, from what you have written.



> If I understand your last statment, you are stating that you think that clicker training has no value over standard correction based training, correct? Most of the clicker/treat based trainers would certainly disagree strongly with you on that point.


I don't think a clicker has much value other methods in teaching basic commands like sit or down etc. The marker for the behavior doesn't need to be that precise and he behaviors aren't that foreign or unusual.



> So for AKC obedience, you would recommend NOT using clicker training, I would assume.


 No I wouldn't recommend not using one, I just don't see much of a benefit over other methods.



> And I am curious as to what is "unatural behavior" for a dog that is the best thing to use clicker training for? Do you mean tricks, for example?


Tricks would be a good example, one man's trick is anothers obedience though. For example teaching a dog to stick it's nose under water and blow bubbles out of it's nose, or turn off a light switch, or other behaviors that a very clear short marker to mark a behavior or small partial behavior has a big benefit in making it easier to mark a behavior in a way the dog understands exactly what is being marked easier.

Actively shaping a complex behavior vs capturing a simple one like sit.



> And why would using a clicker be better than a key word? i.e. "YES" This is much easier for most people to use to mark a behavior since they don't need a third hand. 1- leash, 2 - clicker, 3 - treat/toy!


Because it is more consistent than most people are with their voice. A clicker sounds exactly the same every time, never higher or lower or nice or frustrated. It's quick, short, sharp, clear and isn't used for anything else.

If you use it well enough a "yes" is every bit as good as a click, and very few clicker trainers would disagree. Anyone can give a consistent click, it's harder for many to give well timed consistent voice marker.

Most do fine with just two hands, one for a leash, the other to click and treat, if your even using a leash at all.



> Do you mean just stop the click and/or the treat/praise also?
> Substitute a "word" for the click? You really need to explain this a little clearer for us really slow trainers.
> 
> But enough of this thread - lets simply move on.


As soon as the dog understands a behavior you add a command to it, and stop using a clicker for that behavior. Then you fade out treats as well so all you give is a command and praise, and then correct for non compliance if you desire..


----------



## Chicagocanine

codmaster said:


> First of all, I do understand the clicker approach to training - just don't think that it is the most effective way to teach a dog to do something.
> 
> To train tricks, maybe it would work pretty good as long as the dog naturally does the things that you want and then "capture" the behavior.


It is actually quite effective. If you don't believe that, look at all the videos on youtube that show a dog being clicker trained and the finished, trained behavior. 
It is not just for tricks. In fact, dogs do not know the difference between obedience and tricks. Yes capturing is one method used in clicker training but there are others too such as shaping.



codmaster said:


> It does appear that waiting till your dog did what you wanted to treat him and thus reinforce that behavior could take a LLLOOONNNGGG time to teach him to do it reliably.


As I said, if the dog understands the training it does not usually take long at all. If the dog understands the clicker, once you start clicking/rewarding for a behavior they are doing they usually will repeat the behavior, and the more you click for it the more they repeat it so no you don't have to wait a long time for them to repeat the behavior.

If you want to teach a behavior the dog does not generally do on their own (so you can't capture it) you could shape it (involves starting with one behavior and slowly changing the criteria until the dog is giving the behavior you're looking for) or you could use a lure or a target.




codmaster said:


> I guess in your approach you would just hang around and wait for the dog to sit by himself and then treat him. Would he have to be on leash or do you let him run around the yard?
> 
> How about a recall?


Sure, that is one way to do it. You don't need a leash and in fact most of the clicker training I do is off leash. When I get out the clicker my dogs know it's training time so they usually stick pretty close by me.

Actually capturing can work quite well to train a recall:
ClickerSolutions Training Articles -- Teaching a Reliable Recall



codmaster said:


> I don't see anything wrong with using treats in training - IF your dog is motivated by them. Whatever motivates a dog is the thing that is best to use. I happen to have a dog currently who is sometimes motivated by treats and sometimes not so much and for example will refuse even "High Value" treats like chicken chunks when he is ramped up on the training field.


I totally agree-- use what is most rewarding to your dog. A reward can be almost anything, it does not have to be treats. A reward can be anything the dog likes or wants to do. The only reason people mention treats most often is they are something that is commonly rewarding to most dogs and they are easy to give quickly so they don't require you to pause for very long in your training, meaning you can get more repetitions in. 



codmaster said:


> "they will offer the behavior more and more often"
> 
> Finally, with obedience commands as opposed to tricks, I want my dog to do them when I tell him to, not when he guesses what I want and tries random behavior.


That quote was completely taken out of context. Obviously the end goal is for the dog to do the behavior when he asks! You say you know how clicker training works but your comment appears to show a lack of understanding of the concepts. 
What I was talking about was when training a new behavior using capturing, the dog will offer the behavior more often because they're being rewarded for it. I was talking about a new behavior the dog is learning-- this is before a cue is even added, in the initial stages when capturing a behavior. I do not add the cue until the dog has perfected the behavior to exactly what I want the end result to look like. Once the dog has learned the cue, they will do the behavior when given the cue. 
In fact when training this way, once the cue has been added the dog will often ONLY give the behavior when you ask for it because they don't get a chance for a reward if they offer the behavior without being cued.



codmaster said:


> And I am curious as to what is "unatural behavior" for a dog that is the best thing to use clicker training for? Do you mean tricks, for example?
> 
> And why would using a clicker be better than a key word? i.e. "YES" This is much easier for most people to use to mark a behavior since they don't need a third hand. 1- leash, 2 - clicker, 3 - treat/toy!.


In fact obedience is pretty unnatural for a dog, as are many other behaviors we ask our dogs for.

A clicker is better than a word for several reasons. For one thing, a click is much quicker than saying a word. This allows you to mark the exact second the dog is doing the 'right' thing. For another, the clicker has no emotion, so it is not affected by our mood or how we are feeling that day unlike our speech. Additionally it has been discovered that the sound of the click (unlike the sound of a voice) reaches the amygdala before the cortex. This pattern is associated with rapid learning and a high retention rate as well as a surge of emotions. 
As far as needing a third hand, in some cases this can be an issue, and personally I do use a marker word if I am in a situation where I can't hold a clicker. However the treats should not be in your hand unless you're actually handing one to the dog, and personally I train without a leash a lot of the time. When I do have a leash I can loop it around my arm if I need that hand for something else temporarily. I also use a lanyard for the clicker so I only need that in my hand if I'm actually clicking, otherwise it's hanging from my wrist. I am talking about when I am training something new here, the clicker is used when teaching the dog something new.


----------



## codmaster

Chicagocanine said:


> It is actually quite effective. If you don't believe that, look at all the videos on youtube that show a dog being clicker trained and the finished, trained behavior.
> It is not just for tricks. In fact, dogs do not know the difference between obedience and tricks. Yes capturing is one method used in clicker training but there are others too such as shaping.
> As I said, if the dog understands the training it does not usually take long at all. If the dog understands the clicker, once you start clicking/rewarding for a behavior they are doing they usually will repeat the behavior, and the more you click for it the more they repeat it so no you don't have to wait a long time for them to repeat the behavior.
> 
> If you want to teach a behavior the dog does not generally do on their own (so you can't capture it) you could shape it (involves starting with one behavior and slowly changing the criteria until the dog is giving the behavior you're looking for) or you could use a lure or a target.
> Sure, that is one way to do it. You don't need a leash and in fact most of the clicker training I do is off leash. When I get out the clicker my dogs know it's training time so they usually stick pretty close by me.
> Actually capturing can work quite well to train a recall:
> ClickerSolutions Training Articles -- Teaching a Reliable Recall
> I totally agree-- use what is most rewarding to your dog. A reward can be almost anything, it does not have to be treats. A reward can be anything the dog likes or wants to do. The only reason people mention treats most often is they are something that is commonly rewarding to most dogs and they are easy to give quickly so they don't require you to pause for very long in your training, meaning you can get more repetitions in.
> That quote was completely taken out of context. Obviously the end goal is for the dog to do the behavior when he asks! You say you know how clicker training works but this shows a lack of understanding of the concepts.
> What I was talking about was when training a new behavior using capturing, the dog will offer the behavior more often because they're being rewarded for it. I was talking about a new behavior the dog is learning-- this is before a cue is even added, in the initial stages when capturing a behavior. I do not add the cue until the dog has perfected the behavior to exactly what I want the end result to look like. Once the dog has learned the cue, they will do the behavior when given the cue.
> In fact when training this way, once the cue has been added the dog will often ONLY give the behavior when you ask for it because they don't get a chance for a reward if they offer the behavior without being cued.
> In fact obedience is pretty unnatural for a dog, as are many other behaviors we ask our dogs for.
> A clicker is better than a word for several reasons. For one thing, a click is much quicker than saying a word. This allows you to mark the exact second the dog is doing the 'right' thing. For another, the clicker has no emotion, so it is not affected by our mood or how we are feeling that day unlike our speech. Additionally it has been discovered that the sound of the click (unlike the sound of a voice) reaches the amygdala before the cortex. This pattern is associated with rapid learning and a high retention rate as well as a surge of emotions.
> As far as needing a third hand, in some cases this can be an issue, and personally I do use a marker word if I am in a situation where I can't hold a clicker. However the treats should not be in your hand unless you're actually handing one to the dog, and personally I train without a leash a lot of the time. When I do have a leash I can loop it around my arm if I need that hand for something else temporarily. I also use a lanyard for the clicker so I only need that in my hand if I'm actually clicking, otherwise it's hanging from my wrist. I am talking about when I am training something new here, the clicker is used when teaching the dog something new.


Excellent explanation! I don't agree with all of it, BUT a very complete and rational explanation. Thanks!


----------



## Jessiewessie99

At the shelter I volunteer at they use Clicker training, Gentle Leader training.They even use the Clicker training on cats. I never saw it or used, but I think it seems interesting.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Chicagocanine said:


> What I was talking about was when training a new behavior using capturing, the dog will offer the behavior more often because they're being rewarded for it. I was talking about a new behavior the dog is learning-- this is before a cue is even added, in the initial stages when capturing a behavior. I do not add the cue until the dog has perfected the behavior to exactly what I want the end result to look like. Once the dog has learned the cue, they will do the behavior when given the cue.


This is a very effective training method for young puppies. As soon as I bring a new puppy home I click/treat for everything they do that I like. As Chicagocanine said - the more I reward them, the more they offer up the behavior. I can then start adding the cue right before they do it (such as when I can see that puppy is about to lay down) and then click/treat when s/he does. And as she explained, the reason for doing it this way, (adding the cue after the dog is already doing what you want), is that the cue becomes associated with the correct behavior from the very beginning. If I say "down" and they either don't fully understand the command yet or have not generalized it to a variety of circumstances, and just stand there instead, they are learning to associate the word with something other than laying down. 

You can also add a cue AS the dog is doing what you want. Rather than say heel, in the early stages of training when maybe the heel concept is not quite so clear to my dog yet, I can wait until my dog is in perfect heel position and click/treat. Again, the more they are rewarded, the more they seek out this position and I can then name the behavior by saying "heel" when the dog is already heeling, and click/treat, which will associate the cue with the behavior. Once the correct position is associated with the cue, I can use the cue to get the dog _into_ heel position because s/he now understands what it means. Of course, I could give her a leash correction if I say "heel" and she doesn't get into heel position (and at some point in the training I may), but telling her what NOT to do is not as clear as telling her what I DO want her to do because there are numerous things she could be doing that are not heeling, and only ONE thing that IS.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

My favorite clicker training video!


----------



## TxRider

Closing a door.

first she clicks for a nose anywhere near the door, slowly shifting to only clicking when the nose is on the back side of the door, then only when the door is pushed.

She'll have this on a command easily in another few repetitions.






Turning off a light switch

Part one






Part two






I taught my last dog to do both of these things without a clicker, but it would have been faster if I had known about and used a clicker. 

I can't use my clicker in the house now, my newer rescue is scared to death of it, a few clicks and she is shuddering in a corner. I have to find a quieter one and try to introduce it to her better.


----------



## veronica33

lot of negative things said here by people who used it

http://www.petdogblog.com/theperfectdogcom-review/


----------

