# What are some of your methods and philosophies when it comes to advanced training?



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

I'd love hear what YOU do personally for off leash or any form of advanced training, things that require absolute attention, focus with liability if not performed correctly. I'm curious to learn about what everyone is using and how it's working out for them, specifically in the upper echelon of the training world. 


On another note, it seems like the success rate for complete focus and obedience like off leash training to have a dog stay 100 meters away and released with a hand signal or something of the like, goes to ecollars. Just from observation, I've never used ecollars before. I'm not against or for it either way, I believe it's just a tool. Can be used harmfully or correctly. Ecollars have a very high success rate at least when it comes to reliability in the training and work very fast. Whether or not they're a nice tool to use probably depends on your personal beliefs about the training methodology and also how its used (settings, etc.). I've seen people use nothing but praise and dog psychology AKA "Dog Whisperer" type of philosophy to do some amazing off leash stuff. I've also seen it done with positive reinforcement with treats but it seems like it's not as reliable as the other methods. 
I know it's possible and I've seen it done but if we're talking pure statistics and numbers, it seems the % of success and reliability for advanced training such as off leash, protection, service dog, seems to be higher with the first 2 philosophies than with positive reinforcement only/no corrections. What's everyone's thoughts on this? 

My PERSONAL opinion on using positive reinforcement is that it can only help but it shouldn't be the only method. Corrections (whatever they may be, could be a simple "no") are required and a part of dog psychology and in the later more advanced stages of training, some dogs will not "perform" without a treat. To me, treat training doesn't seem genuine to nature or communicating with the dog, but rather using scientific operant conditioning to manipulate it's behavior enough so that it becomes a habit. I'm more of a believer of the Cesar millan philosophy but with more praise and positive reinforcement together. Sort of a hybrid philosophy. Reward good behavior, correct bad behavior. But most importantly, establishing a relationship with your dog so that he/she understands what is approval or disapproval. I have this with my older dog and it's simply amazing how connected we are. People observing from the outside don't understand but I can speak english and she'll know what I approve of or disapprove of based on my body language and tone of voice.


----------



## Gretchen (Jan 20, 2011)

We seldom do off-leash. I live in an urban area, it's just not safe. Molly has a good prey drive and is protective. Too many joggers coming out of no where. Her best performance off leash has been playing with a group of other GSD's on a sparsely populated beach.

I'd say her best command is "down". Advance training was taught with a team, a trainer and myself or my daughter using the prong collar, verbal commands, hand signals and positive reinforcement.

I've seen our trainer use ecollars on other dogs in very specific situations, it is not a constant. The dog's owners seem OK with it.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

The best tools are patience, consistency, a positive attitude, a good trainer and humor.


----------



## KristiM (Oct 18, 2011)

Are you talking pet training/general manners? I personally like a balanced approach to any training and I am not a fan of square peg round hole training. It should always be tailored to the individual dog. I do a lot of off leash walking and hiking with my boys. I train recalls with positive methods and I have highly motivated dogs so very rarely need to use corrections. The one exception is my one dog chases wildlife, this was solved with an e collar. My other dog is still young so this may change but he will recall off of anything to play tug.

I hate how people say that a dog trained with positive reinforcement will only listen if reinforcement is available. It's not untrue, but a dog trained with corrections will only listen when enforcement is available. This makes off leash difficult (unless you are using an e collar.) 

I also never ask for behavior unless I know they will listen, I try to make it so that they never learn that not listening is an option. I will use corrections to make things more clear to my dogs, depending on the dog and the situation. Corrections tend to make things more clear for my one dog and more unclear for the other dog.

I feel like I have an amazing bond with both my boys through training, competing, exercising and living with my dogs. We have a relationship based around mutual respect, love and understanding. I try to be confident, firm and and fair with them but at the same time I am always in control!


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

I have trained several dogs to do hand signals from 50 ft away without any need of an ecollar. I have also trained them to go 50 ft away from me and turn and sit on command. All that was needed was a leash and some cheese for the training. These excercises and others where then performed in a ring without the dog wearing a leash.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Ooh keep them coming, very interesting stuff!



Andaka said:


> I have trained several dogs to do hand signals from 50 ft away without any need of an ecollar. I have also trained them to go 50 ft away from me and turn and sit on command. All that was needed was a leash and some cheese for the training. These excercises and others where then performed in a ring without the dog wearing a leash.


Just curious, have you tried more advanced obedience like maybe 100 feet with distractions, other dogs, people like in a public place? 
What you did was impressive, hopefully someday my puppy will do that and more. My goals are set pretty high (in anything I do) and I think something like going to a public park and having the control, trust and obedience as well as focus that they can see kids with frisbees, people walking, cars in the parking lot, etc. and can just stay put 100 feet away from me until i give the release. 
Or in the future when I rescue another dog and have 2 or more dogs in my pack, I can have all of them respond to a drop command or off command and they all instantly stop whatever they are doing and give me attention. I've seen video of this and the only person I know that has done this locally to me used a Cesar Millan style "dog instinct/psychology" method with lots of praise. Dogs being able to stop whatever they're doing even when in aggressive protection training to stop on a dime has always been so impressive to me. I've seen e-collars do wonders for it but who knows if they were superficial results. I'm not yet convinced that treats only have a high success rate at really high levels of training like that. But always learning.. 

About the treats and how the dog won't perform without them. I should clarify. I'm very aware that dogs can perform commands without treats especially because the whole point of conditioning is that you do it so many times that even without the treat they become habits. I use positive reinforcement myself but just not by itself. But I'm not sure if using ONLY treat methods would have a very high success and reliability rate for really advanced training like say protection training, police and military work where they need to stop whatever theyre doing, and calm down from a very intense state. Not knocking it, just haven't seen a LOT of it. I've seen it done but seems much tougher to do with treats alone.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

The question you need to ask yourself is "why would your dog ever need to be 100 ft or yards away from you?" There are only so many obedience exercises that are truly useful. If you're pushing the envelope just to push it...that's great, but many people don't do that. My dog is 2.5 years old. I can get him to recall 100% of the time from 50 ft away without any need for an ecollar or anything else. He loves to be by me...so a 100 yard stay is difficult without someone holding him (we did a test of fastest dog at my club). I can get him to drop, sit, other things from a distance, but I really don't test it. I don't allow my dog to get more than 20 yards away from me if we're off leash, since in most places this is really really illegal and just asking for trouble.

There isn't a situation you can name that requires a sit/stay from 100 yards away. The stuff I consider advanced is utility work, Schutzhund work, or other sports that people do. Right now for utility we just take small steps, just like we did with the "simpler" stuff in order to guarantee that the dog knows what he's doing. Don't allow them to fail so to speak and just work through issues as they come.

The "pack" stuff...is actually pretty easy. You train each dog to do it on their own. Then you put them together and allow them to do it. Usually this takes two dogs that are very comfortable with each other, don't want to just play/wrestle, and are just well behaved. It's kind of like doing team obedience, the dogs learn to work together, and no matter what is said they all have to do it.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

martemchik said:


> The question you need to ask yourself is "why would your dog ever need to be 100 ft or yards away from you?" There are only so many obedience exercises that are truly useful. If you're pushing the envelope just to push it...that's great, but many people don't do that. My dog is 2.5 years old. I can get him to recall 100% of the time from 50 ft away without any need for an ecollar or anything else. He loves to be by me...so a 100 yard stay is difficult without someone holding him (we did a test of fastest dog at my club). I can get him to drop, sit, other things from a distance, but I really don't test it. I don't allow my dog to get more than 20 yards away from me if we're off leash, since in most places this is really really illegal and just asking for trouble.
> 
> There isn't a situation you can name that requires a sit/stay from 100 yards away. The stuff I consider advanced is utility work, Schutzhund work, or other sports that people do. Right now for utility we just take small steps, just like we did with the "simpler" stuff in order to guarantee that the dog knows what he's doing. Don't allow them to fail so to speak and just work through issues as they come.
> 
> The "pack" stuff...is actually pretty easy. You train each dog to do it on their own. Then you put them together and allow them to do it. Usually this takes two dogs that are very comfortable with each other, don't want to just play/wrestle, and are just well behaved. It's kind of like doing team obedience, the dogs learn to work together, and no matter what is said they all have to do it.


Yeah 100 feet was somewhat an arbitrary number, I knew it wasn't a practical number. I don't see many scenarios where that would occur but it was just one example of very high level advanced training. 50 feet or even 25 feet with lots and lots of distractions would be another good example. And as you pointed out, Schutzhund and other sporting work as well as things like being a service dog. 
What training philosophy do you adopt and any particular methods or techniques? Do you use treats, positive reinforcement only, praise, a mix of all of them, ecollar, etc. etc.? Any particular books or sources that you have adopted your training style from?

I should say if anyone has any particular sources, books, DVDs, training mentors, etc. that they admire, learned some things here or there, recommendations, etc. that'd be interesting to know as well.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Whatever method you use for "advanced"training consisting of mainly off leash commands must be grounded in foundation and proofing. There is no one that I use, it depends on the dog. But most people move to fast from one thing to another and when they get to off leash the lack of foundation shows. When a dog knows down it will down anywhere, same with sit, same with recall....many are the dogs who will only perform in certain places or with certain equipment on. I don't say sit in the training field....lol, I say sit....that means in a parking lot, that means approaching the vehicle to go somewhere, that means if it see another dog....sit means sit. When you have that kinda foundation in basic commands, the off leash transition is much smoother.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

as i was teaching my dog a certain command (sit, stay, come,
down, stop/wait, etc) distance and off leash was thrown in.
i start teaching the command very close to the dog. i used the
"one step back" at a time method. "sit", make him sit, hold it for
a second or two. as he was learning "sit" i started taking a baby
step backwards (the dog is sitting in front of me). the baby step
backwards leads to a giant step, then 2 steps and so on. then
i start getting out of sight. i sit the dog beside a door. say "sit"
and i step inside the room, just out of sight. sometimes when
i'm out of sight i make noise, talk out loud, sing, stomp my feet,
bang on the wall/door, etc, adding distractions. i'm only out of sight
for a few seconds. as the dog learns i'm out of sight longer and longer.
when outside i sit the dog in front of the car. i walk around to the
passenger side and duck down. as the dog learns i move to the rear
of the car, to a tree, to a bush, hide beside the house, hide in my neighbors yard, etc. i slowly get further and further away from the dog.
as the dog is getting stronger and stronger at the command the
distractions get harder and harder. i start having people call the dog,
pet him, treat him, run around him, get really animated in calling him,
have people walk right up to him with their dog and let them get
nose to nose and walk away. once my dog holds his position after
the harder distractions then it's just a matter of reinforcement
training. use your imagination for distractions. when giving hand signals
i did basically the same training method. when i was teaching "sit" i also
gave him a hand signal for "sit". once he learned sit i interchanged the verbal command for the hand signal. first at close range. then moving
further away and adding distractions.

off leash was easy. i'm not holding his leash when i'm moving away from
him. sometimes i used a long line but i used that more for teaching
"stop", "wait" and "come".


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i trained my dog 2 to 3 years before he was
trained to the level that he is. i trained one thing
at time. no drilling the dog with teaching. short
sessions in the begining (5 to 10 minutes) always
ending on a positive. i always say if your dog
learns 1 command a month that's 12 within a year,
in 2 years that's 24 commands. at 24 commands
you have a very nicely trained dog. when you add
in the automatic behaviours that's really, really, really
nicely trained.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

To me the real foundation of off leash training, specially with a breed like the GSD, is bond and respect. No training method, no trick, no e-collar nor long leash replaces the foundation you work with the dog since puppyhood. I don't teach the recall, it is a formality to teach the SchH style arriving, but nothing else. Where I work hard is to get my dog to like to be with me, to be attentive to my directions, to bring me the toy after I toss it and to release it when I say so. I just trust my dogs and do my best to be trustworthy.

I'm not saying it's magic, it takes at least all the first 18 months only to get the foundations, which is basically a lot of playing, playing and playing, but playing with rules, hence the respect part. If someone can't take the leash off without risking the dog bolting away it's not off leash training what that person needs, it is to connect with the dog and go to the basics. If the dog is not coming, before blaming the dog ask yourself how many steps on the training you are skipping.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

doggiedad said:


> i trained my dog 2 to 3 years before he was
> trained to the level that he is. i trained one thing
> at time. no drilling the dog with teaching. short
> sessions in the begining (5 to 10 minutes) always
> ...


 
I never thought of it like that. One command a month, seems doable. Even with short 5 min training sessions every day or twice a day. 

I'm curious, how did you correct or enforce your stay command when at a distance + distractions? Taking a step back farther and farther for a down stay command seems doable and I've done that with my older dog back in her days. It's somewhat enforceable especially when she understands the command, so when she's break it, my body language and 'no' as a correction makes her understand not to break it. But corrections have to be well timed. At 50 feet, it'll take me a good few seconds at sprint mode to get to my dog and then by then saying "no" or giving a correction is too late. If you're let's say, 20 feet away and you start to add small distractions like a person calling him/her or trying to pet her, throwing a toy, etc. how do you enforce the command from far away. A lot of people use ecollars because it's like an invisible long leash and you can correct behavior for very long off leash training with distractions with precise timing. With distance and distractions, a well timed correction is so difficult. 
Did you instill a "look at me" or attention command and build a strong foundation on eye contact or something? 

Here's a video of someone I am looking into calling. (less than 1 min videos)
Saint Bernard Dog Training and Behavior Orange County Dog Trainer David Utter at www.DavidUtter.com - YouTube

Huntington Beach Dog Beach Training Dogs for Obedience and Behavior - YouTube

Weimaraner Hunting Dog Off Leash Dog Trainer Los Angeles Orange Riverside & San Bernardino - YouTube

He doesn't use an ecollar for such long distances which is very impressive to me and it's one thing to have a dog perform on a leash or physical touching range because then, who knows if a trainer abuses or scares/hits the dog into doing something but edits the video to hide it. But at a distance, it requires much patience and actually requires the dog's focus and trust. I don't see a dog being able to do that without having a very close bond with their owners.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Catu said:


> To me the real foundation of off leash training, specially with a breed like the GSD, is bond and respect. No training method, no trick, no e-collar nor long leash replaces the foundation you work with the dog since puppyhood. I don't teach the recall, it is a formality to teach the SchH style arriving, but nothing else. Where I work hard is to get my dog to like to be with me, to be attentive to my directions, to bring me the toy after I toss it and to release it when I say so. I just trust my dogs and do my best to be trustworthy.
> 
> I'm not saying it's magic, it takes at least all the first 18 months only to get the foundations, which is basically a lot of playing, playing and playing, but playing with rules, hence the respect part. If someone can't take the leash off without risking the dog bolting away it's not off leash training what that person needs, it is to connect with the dog and go to the basics. If the dog is not coming, before blaming the dog ask yourself how many steps on the training you are skipping.


Definitely agree. I'm curious, how do you enforce your rules and boundaries with your dog especially during the puppy years? A dog that's well bonded to you and can read your cues, your body language, tone, etc. and knows what you want and will do what you say is the best. No treat in the world can replace a good relationship. But I'm more concerned about that initial stage. Defining the relationship. When a dog is a puppy, the relationship is "ME ME ME ME ME ME, i WANT!" and if that kind of behavior is rewarded or coddled like many inexperienced dog owners do (such as picking up the puppy and saying "oh it's okay" when she starts barking at you, growls, etc.) it can be a big problem. 
I guess my question is what kind of methods or philosophies (books, DVDs, sources?) did you use for behavioral "training" to define to your dog what the relationship is going to be (you are the leader and he should trust you) in order to get to the state where learning obedience commands is made easy? 
I kind of view behavior and manners as a separate (not completely separate but still) issue to obedience training or doing "tricks". You can have a dog that does everything you say but has no respect for you and it's kind of bizarre to observe that. A dog that can do a million tricks but he'll do things like growl when you enter his space, gets food aggressive, listens only when he wants to, etc.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

1 command a month will get very old very fast...right now I'm training for the Open class and I'm mixing in Utility work because there just isn't enough stuff to do in a 30 minute training session from just one class.

Here's what you do...you don't expect your dog to do things off leash...ever. You do things on leash. You tell them to sit/stay and you walk away to the end of your leash. 30 seconds, then 1 minute, then 2 minutes, than 3 minutes. Then you drop your leash (but leave it in front of the dog) and do it for various amounts of time. Then you finally take the leash off, and walk in front of your dog...6 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, more time each time. Then you'll be able to do it from 20-30 feet in a few months.

Then you work on out of sights...turn your back at first so you don't have eye contact. And let them sit there for a period of time that you know your dog can do. Then hide behind something close (a tree or a support column if inside) for a period of time. My dog is now 2.5 and I have only recently started trusting him on out of sight downs.

The recalls...same thing. Start on leash. Do 6 ft recalls for months. Then farther, then farther. Finally on leash, very structured. Lots of love/treats/whatever when the dog does it. Don't allow them to blow you off ever. Take very small steps. While you train, while your dog grows, you will develop a very good bond. Your dog will just love coming to you. Don't reach too far...don't expect perfection too soon. Your dog will learn to do things from a distance. I never thought I would be able to do some of the things I can...but it happens, and you won't even realize when/how.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

KristiM said:


> Are you talking pet training/general manners? I personally like a balanced approach to any training and I am not a fan of square peg round hole training. It should always be tailored to the individual dog. I do a lot of off leash walking and hiking with my boys. I train recalls with positive methods and I have highly motivated dogs so very rarely need to use corrections. The one exception is my one dog chases wildlife, this was solved with an e collar. My other dog is still young so this may change but he will recall off of anything to play tug.
> 
> I hate how people say that a dog trained with positive reinforcement will only listen if reinforcement is available. It's not untrue, but a dog trained with corrections will only listen when enforcement is available. This makes off leash difficult (unless you are using an e collar.)
> 
> ...


.

Agree 95%.(-5% e-collars, will never use them) I used to be hard core positive training but have realized that some dogs need a more stricter protocol (WD, particularly in his shark weeks) in addition to this once in a while.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i trained much more than 2x's a day. i had to leave for work
at 6:15 am. i use to get up at 4:00 am/4:30 am to get in
3 or 4 5 minute sessions before i left for work. my
GF also got up a hour or early so she could get in a few 
sessions. when my neighbor came over to let our pup
out or to feed him she would do a session of training.
when we came home from work a few more sessions
before bedtime.

so, i was teaching my dog to stay by moving further
and further away. i didn't move further away untill
my dog would hold the "stay" step by step. i would take
1 step and wait 2 to 5 seconds. as time moved on
i would take 1 step and wait 10 seconds before moving
on to 2 steps and so on. the further i moved away the longer
the "stay" was. if my dog moved when i was 50' away i would call him
to me or yell out "no" or some verbal correction.
then i would get my dog and place him in the "stay" and
walk away again. by the time i was at 50' away he was holding
his stay. i slowly add in distractions as the dog gets better
at the command. when i first start teaching a command i don't
use distractions. i think it's to much for the dog because they're
so easily distracted. once the dog starts to understand the command
i slowly add in distractions. the distractions get harder and harder
as we move along.

i've never used an e-collar. i use praise, treats
and petting. i slowly phase out the treats.



doggiedad said:


> i trained my dog 2 to 3
> years before he was
> trained to the level that he is. i trained one thing
> at time. no drilling the dog with teaching. short
> ...





pancake said:


> I never thought of it like that. One command a month, seems doable. Even with short 5 min training sessions every day or twice a day.
> 
> I'm curious, how did you correct or enforce your stay command when at a distance + distractions? Taking a step back farther and farther for a down stay command seems doable and I've done that with my older dog back in her days. It's somewhat enforceable especially when she understands the command, so when she's break it, my body language and 'no' as a correction makes her understand not to break it. But corrections have to be well timed. At 50 feet, it'll take me a good few seconds at sprint mode to get to my dog and then by then saying "no" or giving a correction is too late. If you're let's say, 20 feet away and you start to add small distractions like a person calling him/her or trying to pet her, throwing a toy, etc. how do you enforce the command from far away. A lot of people use ecollars because it's like an invisible long leash and you can correct behavior for very long off leash training with distractions with precise timing. With distance and distractions, a well timed correction is so difficult.
> Did you instill a "look at me" or attention command and build a strong foundation on eye contact or something?
> ...


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

if a dog can handle more than 1 command a month that's
awesome. ok, 2 comands a month that's 48 commands
in 2 years, wow, that's turning up a notch. wow, wow,
in 3 years that's 72 commands. you're quite the trainer
martechik. how old is your dog and how many commands 
does your dog know?

when i'm at dog shows i always see dogs doing things off leash.
when i'm out and about i see dogs doing things off leash. there must
be some people on this forum that do things with their dog/dogs
off leash. something tells me you do things with your dog off leash.

you have to do 6' recalls for months before moving further away?



martemchik said:


> >>>> 1 command a month will get very old very fast<<<<
> 
> ...right now I'm training for the Open class and I'm mixing in Utility work because there just isn't enough stuff to do in a 30 minute training session from just one class.
> 
> ...


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

pancake said:


> I guess my question is what kind of methods or philosophies (books, DVDs, sources?) did you use for behavioral "training" to define to your dog what the relationship is going to be (you are the leader and he should trust you) in order to get to the state where learning obedience commands is made easy?
> I kind of view behavior and manners as a separate (not completely separate but still) issue to obedience training or doing "tricks". You can have a dog that does everything you say but has no respect for you and it's kind of bizarre to observe that. A dog that can do a million tricks but he'll do things like growl when you enter his space, gets food aggressive, listens only when he wants to, etc.


It's an interesting discussion.....One thing you have to remember is, everything you do with your dog is training. Informal or not, it's all training. Terri Arnold used to preach that you train the life issues and the competition stuff is nothing more than trick training. By "life issues" she means Come when I call, Stay put, and don't drag me around when on lead. I follow that philosophy, but add in "Keep your teeth to yourself!" Except of course when we're playing silly bite games. What I've found is, if you work thru those basic respect issues the rest falls into place. Problems in training often have their basis in a problem with a life issue. Clarify the life issue, and the problem sorts itself out. 

Bunny just turned 2.5 years old....most mornings we do a very short obedience session, maybe 10 minutes. We take a group class once day per week, and she comes with me when I teach class. But the most important training is the everyday interaction. Hope this makes some sense.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

doggiedad said:


> if a dog can handle more than 1 command a month that's
> awesome. ok, 2 comands a month that's 48 commands
> in 2 years, wow, that's turning up a notch. wow, wow,
> in 3 years that's 72 commands. you're quite the trainer
> ...


Yes I do things off leash...I've stated it earlier in this thread. My dog has a CD on him and a RA...so clearly there is off leash work. But when I was starting out in training I didn't expect to be off leash in a week, month, or even year. It happens when it happens. The point was don't push your dog about its limits way too fast.

My dog is only 2.5 years old. I'm not sure he knows that many commands. I don't know if any dog knows that many commands. I can't even think of 48 commands my dog would need to know. He does what I need him to do when it comes time to do it. I don't know what you would consider a command...my dog needs to do X amount of exercises in rally shows and in obedience shows. He knows what he needs to know. I never said my dog masters more than one command a month (and he does), but I can't imagine just working on one thing for a month and then moving on to something else.

I got a CD at the end of September, he should be ready to trial for a CDX hopefully by the end of December...not sure if learning one command a month would quite get him ready for the next level of trialing quite that quick. And there are a bunch of dogs at my club that are near the same timetable so no I don't believe my dog is better than most.

You know doggiedad, for someone who blows so much smoke about how great their own dog is, you really have an interesting way of putting other people's training methods and dogs down.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

martemchik said:


> The question you need to ask yourself is "why would your dog ever need to be 100 ft or yards away from you?" There are only so many obedience exercises that are truly useful.


I agree. Outside of the competition ring I've never found a use for the down−from−the−sit or the sit−from−a−down. 



martemchik said:


> He loves to be by me...so a 100 yard stay is difficult without someone holding him


I think that you've just told us of your level of control. 



martemchik said:


> There isn't a situation you can name that requires a sit/stay from 100 yards away.


I've been there many times at work with my police service dog. I've also been there many times outside of LE. Walking in a forest that has logging roads, my dog was walking towards me from 100 yards away, when a logging truck came along the road that was in between us. I gave him a sit command, that kept him out of the path of the truck until it had passed. Then I gave him a release command. 



martemchik said:


> The stuff I consider advanced is utility work, Schutzhund work, or other sports that people do.


In real life it's sometimes necessary to have good control from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

LouCastle said:


> If this discussion was in a competition forum you'd have a point. But it's not. In real life it's sometimes necessary to have good control from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions.



Lou...for you as a LEO there were times...but in my life, my dog should never be 100 yards away from me off leash (it would be super illegal). That was my premise for my comments. You're right that there are sometimes needs like this, but 99% of people don't have those needs.

Your comment about my level of control of my dog...completely unnecessary IMO. I haven't trained for a 100 yard stay, and I don't plan on it. Like I've stated...my dog will never be 100 yards away from me near any kind of busy street or logging truck. I don't worry about those kinds of life or death situations because my dog will never be put in those situations. For those that might put their dogs in those situations...its completely different.

Just a note...just because I haven't tested it, doesn't mean my dog won't do it. I'll go out tomorrow and see how long of a stay I can get out of him. Just so that you know I have plenty of control. Maybe it will help you sleep better at night.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

martemchik said:


> 1 command a month will get very old very fast...right now I'm training for the Open class and I'm mixing in Utility work because there just isn't enough stuff to do in a 30 minute training session from just one class.
> 
> *Here's what you do...you don't expect your dog to do things off leash...ever.* You do things on leash. You tell them to sit/stay and you walk away to the end of your leash. 30 seconds, then 1 minute, then 2 minutes, than 3 minutes. Then you drop your leash (but leave it in front of the dog) and do it for various amounts of time. Then you finally take the leash off, and walk in front of your dog...6 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, more time each time. Then you'll be able to do it from 20-30 feet in a few months.
> 
> ...


I work with MY dogs exactly the opposite way. I always expect my dogs to work off leash, always. From day one, from when they are 3-4 months old and to be close is instinctive. I use leashes only to guide the dog into position for heeling.

I take my dogs to college with me about twice or three times a week and they almost never use leashes there, even with the dozen or so resident stray dogs that roam freely around. They walk with me, they are around me when I sit in the grass to study and wait for me outside the office of a teacher if I need to ask something. Basically if I'm not formally training, they are free to be dogs the old way The only precaution I take is one dog at the time, not to allow them to be a "pack" together around other dogs. Of course I'm aware that this is a luxury not everyone can have, for once because of no leash laws and second because the genetic of my dogs allow me to trust them in ways I don't imagine with any of my previous dogs. But basically this day to day situatuins are the foundations for anything else.

I use something similar to what martemchik described when I work dogs of clients I have no bond with.

Just days before I got a Akela I went to a Ivan Balabanov seminar that was very centered in puppies just because there were lots of pups and young dogs. There I learn't a lot how to play with the dogs. Something that also changed how I view dogs in general is the book "Bones would rain from the skye - Deepening our relationship with dogs" of Suzanne Clothier. But my main influence is my SAR background, where the dog is expected to work off-leash all the time.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Martemchik, you are seeing a white and black movie and you think its perfect because you can understand the plot, but only the day you experience technicolor you'll understand how much you are missing.

Have you ever took your dogs to a trek on the hills, or to walk by the beach on a chilly winter morning... off leash? Dog ownership if meaningless without those magic moments.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I want to clear this up...I now get that what I wrote doesn't make the best of sense without further explanation.

"Don't expect your dog to do thing off-leash...ever" meant more of a don't plan a time table for it. Don't look around at other dogs being off-leash and think yours should be too. In training if you see someone off-leash, it doesn't mean you should be off-leash. I meant this in more of the sense that if I had a new puppy, I wouldn't have a time-table set for when the dog will be allowed off-leash. Each dog is different, saying to yourself, "I want my dog to be off-leash by 1 year old and have 100% recall" might either lead you to work really hard to reach that goal (would've been impossible with my dog/my training expertise) or it will lead you to fail at that goal and might upset you.

I say this because I've been in a class where there were dogs that weren't ready to be off-leash. They saw my dog, and other dogs in the class working off-leash and rushed their dogs off-leash. This lead to many mistakes happening, no ability to correct, blown commands, and just set the dog back much more than it actually moved it forward.

When your dog is ready to be off-leash...you'll know it.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Catu said:


> Martemchik, you are seeing a white and black movie and you think its perfect because you can understand the plot, but only the day you experience technicolor you'll understand how much you are missing.
> 
> Have you ever took your dogs to a trek on the hills, or to walk by the beach on a chilly winter morning... off leash? Dog ownership if meaningless without those magic moments.


Lol I do it all the time...but a county park by the lake...no vehicles, no roads within 1000 yards. The only road around is just the road leading into the park itself so it is very very slow and pretty much unused.

I just don't really let my dog get too far ahead/behind me. Never is he 100 yards away. There is no difference to him to have to wait for me for a few seconds while I catch up and make sure that our distance is only 20-30 yards. Our biggest danger is another dog that could possibly be DA...and that hasn't happened yet so I'm not very worried about it.

Trust me...my dog lives a very fulfilled life. I feel like I'm being attacked because I don't find it necessary for my dog to be 100 yards away from me at any time. My dog lives a very very happy life. Probably gets more exercise and time out and about in nature than most dogs in the world. But I let it come with time...I didn't push him, I didn't endanger his life in order to fulfill some need inside myself to have a dog that would walk around off leash. Look up that thread about the puppy that was allowed off leash a little too fast in life...I'd rather have a dog that was on leash for the first 5 years of its life than what happened to that dog.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

no smoke blown about my dog. it's all fact but then again
what smoke am i blowing. is it blowing smoke when you say
your dog earned it's CD? 

i wasn't putting your post down. i was having fun with it. besides if you
read your post and my post about training there're similar. :crazy:
you can't show a post of mine where i put other people training methods
down or their dogs. don't confuse not agreeing with putting down. 



martemchik said:


> Yes I do things off leash...I've stated it earlier in this thread. My dog has a CD on him and a RA...so clearly there is off leash work. But when I was starting out in training I didn't expect to be off leash in a week, month, or even year. It happens when it happens. The point was don't push your dog about its limits way too fast.
> 
> My dog is only 2.5 years old. I'm not sure he knows that many commands. I don't know if any dog knows that many commands. I can't even think of 48 commands my dog would need to know. He does what I need him to do when it comes time to do it. I don't know what you would consider a command...my dog needs to do X amount of exercises in rally shows and in obedience shows. He knows what he needs to know. I never said my dog masters more than one command a month (and he does), but I can't imagine just working on one thing for a month and then moving on to something else.
> 
> ...


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

stop being sensitive and feeling attacked because people
have a different opinon than yours.



martemchik said:


> Lol I do it all the time...but a county park by the lake...no vehicles, no roads within 1000 yards. The only road around is just the road leading into the park itself so it is very very slow and pretty much unused.
> 
> I just don't really let my dog get too far ahead/behind me. Never is he 100 yards away. There is no difference to him to have to wait for me for a few seconds while I catch up and make sure that our distance is only 20-30 yards. Our biggest danger is another dog that could possibly be DA...and that hasn't happened yet so I'm not very worried about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Catu said:


> To me the real foundation of off leash training, specially with a breed like the GSD, is bond and respect.





DunRingill said:


> One thing you have to remember is, everything you do with your dog is training. Informal or not, it's all training.


These two quotes really resonate with me.  They sum up my approach perfectly. I build a relationship, and I utilize every moment. I like capturing behaviors and encouraging repetition through praise the most, but I'll use other techniques when the need arises. 

As far as reading material goes, I think you should read everything you can come across. Even things you disagree with, because there's always something to learn from someone. Just like dogs, we're all different, and what works for one of us might not work for another.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

martemchik said:


> Lou...for you as a LEO there were times...but in my life, my dog should never be 100 yards away from me off leash (it would be super illegal).


And yet tomorrow you may find yourself in that situation. 



martemchik said:


> That was my premise for my comments. You're right that there are sometimes needs like this, but 99% of people don't have those needs.


One never knows when one will find themselves in that 1% where they'll need this level of control. I think that ALL dogs need two bombproof commands. "Bombproof" means that the dog will obey the command (without repetition) no matter how far away he is (at least so that he can hear the command) no matter what distraction is present. Those commands are the recall and a stationary command, such as a sit or a down. 



martemchik said:


> Your comment about my level of control of my dog...completely unnecessary IMO. I haven't trained for a 100 yard stay, and I don't plan on it.


The OP asked about methods used for reliability from 100 meters. I added some distance in going from meters to yards. You may one day find yourself in that 1% that you mentioned. One can't predict with 100% accuracy who will, and who won't need that level of control. If you do, and you've only trained in the ring for 100 feet (one third the distance that the OP asked about) your dog may not perform as desired. 



martemchik said:


> Like I've stated...my dog will never be 100 yards away from me near any kind of busy street or logging truck.


You may be right. Then again, you can't predict what will happen tomorrow ... 



martemchik said:


> I don't worry about those kinds of life or death situations because my dog will never be put in those situations.


One doesn't need a logging road or a forest for "those situations." It can happen when someone leaves a gate open and a dog goes exploring. I'd NEVER say that I was completely immune to such situations, it just lulls one into a false sense of security. I don't understand people who make such claims. I've seen them be wrong, too many times. 



martemchik said:


> For those that might put their dogs in those situations...its completely different.


It's not necessary one _"put their dog in[to] those situations."_ Sometimes it just happens, like life. 



martemchik said:


> Just a note...just because I haven't tested it, doesn't mean my dog won't do it. I'll go out tomorrow and see how long of a stay I can get out of him.


You just told us that you already know that, _"a 100 yard stay is difficult without someone holding him."_ If you don't know what he'll do in that situation, well, you don't know. And testing it once or twice won't tell you very much. Training needs to be done in the venue and at the distance that you expect reliability. If it's not, you're just guessing and sometimes, just praying. 



martemchik said:


> Just so that you know I have plenty of control. Maybe it will help you sleep better at night.


I can't tell you how many times I've heard people make statements like yours, _"I have plenty of control."_ only to have me show how little they actually have. 

What you do or don't do with *your dog(s) * has nothing to do with how well I sleep. That depends on what *I do *with *my dogs. * Just so's you know, I sleep VERY WELL at night.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> And yet tomorrow you may find yourself in that situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lou, I just briefly skimmed out your website. Could you touch on the pros and cons of an ecollar and when one is required? How is it used properly? This is all information I can find online but the reason I started this thread is because it's much more helpful to hear people from the community give their input and have an active discussion. I'm not asking to bait you into a debate, I think ecollars are appropriate in many cases. I'm just curious what your stance is. 
My personal opinion is that ecollars are sometimes necessary for long distance and distraction off leash type of training to get very high reliability rates AKA police work. but they're not so hot when it comes to rehabilitating an aggressive or fearful dog. In fact, leash correction and eye contact exercises may be much more effective than an ecollar for aggressive dogs but then again I've seen it work on very aggressive (handler aggressive) dogs and it saved the dogs' lives. Very open to listening to anyone who has any input.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

pancake said:


> Lou, I just briefly skimmed out your website. Could you touch on the pros and cons of an ecollar and when one is required? How is it used properly?


Oh wow! This is the topic of a small book and I'm not good at short answers. But I'll give it a shot. 

Some of the pros include the fact that the Ecollar is gentle and humane. It's safer than just about any other tool, in that it can't produce a physical injury from the current it produces. Some minor sores can result if it's left on for too long, but that's easily avoided. It's probably faster at getting reliability than just about any other method that exists. At the same time that it's being used it's building a bond with the dog that can't be accomplished in any other way. The dog quickly learns that the mere presence of his handler provides comfort and safety. No other tool allows the dog to learn this. In fact, using a leash and conventional correction methods teaches the dog the exact opposite. With those methods, it's when the dog is away from the handler, that he can't be made uncomfortable, unless a long line is in use. But just about every dog learns that when he's off the leash, he can't be corrected. 

Some of the cons have been answered on my site in the Myths Section.


> * 24. MYTH: * Ecollars are perfect tools.
> 
> * FACT: * Ecollars have quite a few drawbacks. First and foremost, they're expensive. The cost will keep many people away from them. Another, is that they're operated (most of them) by rechargeable batteries. You have to remember to keep them charged up. (Of course, with those that make use of user-replaceable batteries, you have to remember to keep spares on hand). Another is that you have to remember to turn them on. This seems obvious, but you'd be surprised how often people forget this. (I've forgotten this many times when teaching seminars. It's probably because I'm distracted by questions. Yeah, that's it. LOL). Another problem is that if you have more than one, you have to bring the proper transmitter to go with the collar you're using. This won't be a problem for those with only one Ecollar.


As to "proper use," my articles describe what I consider that to be in detail. Basically it involves setting up the training so that the dog is clearly shown exactly what makes the stim start and what makes it stop. All of the basic work is done at the level of stim that the dog can first perceive in the situation. For example, in the first stage of teaching the recall, I let the dog wander out to the end of a long line (actually I use a retractable leash for reasons that are explained in the articles). Then I press the button and pull the dog towards me. As soon as he takes a couple of step in response to the leash pull, I stop the stim. He learns in a few reps that coming towards me brings comfort and that being away from me brings discomfort. 

Many people think that the dog must know the behavior before the Ecollar is used, but I've shown that this is not necessary. For the most part those folks train the behavior with other methods and then use the Ecollar only for proofing and getting reliability at a distance. They put the collar on their dog who knows what the command means, (let's use the sit as an example) give the command and hit the button if the dog does not comply. The problem is that the dog is now feeling a very novel, uncomfortable sensation and does not know how to make the discomfort stop. If he guesses correctly, and many of them do, all is well. But if he does not, a disaster may be brewing. He may try to move away from the discomfort but since it's attached to his neck he really can't. But now he's moving to the right, since most Ecollars sit on the left side of the dog's neck. The response from most people is to turn the Ecollar up. (This is the corollary to other types of training that use corrections, if the dog does not obey, once he knows the command you give a correction. If he still does not obey, you give a harder correction). Now the dog is getting a more intense stim and he tries to move away from it faster. So the trainer turns it up. Now the dog is in complete panic and is RUNNING to his right, away from what has not become pain. The sit is completely gone. 



pancake said:


> My personal opinion is that ecollars are sometimes necessary for long distance and distraction off leash type of training to get very high reliability rates AKA police work.


I don't know that _"necessary"_ is the right word here. I achieved a very high degree of reliability with my PSD without an Ecollar. But I worked like a dog, pun intended, to get it. I spent huge amounts of time working with him. I could because we were together, eight hours a day, five days a week and I wanted to excel as a K−9 handler. But few pet owners have that kind of time to spend. The nature of police work allowed me to do a short training session and then go do some LE work. Then I'd go do some more training and then some more LE work. I was able to get in 20-30 training sessions a day, spread out throughout the day. My stats fell because of it and I was constantly in the supervisor's office explaining this. 

But when I found the Ecollar it became MUCH easier to get this same degree of reliability, higher actually, than before the tool came alone. And the time to get it was cut by 80%-90%. 

Before the Ecollar I was doing one−on−one training classes with pet owners as a side business. It was very frustrating because people were not doing their homework. They became frustrated, trying to remember everything they'd been taught, and simply stopped working with their dog. We'd meet on the second week of classes and since their dogs had not progressed, we could not move on. When I started introducing the Ecollar, response was greatly improved. The results came so fast that there was no frustration on the part of the owners, they saw increases in their dog's proficiency with every session. 



pancake said:


> but they're not so hot when it comes to rehabilitating an aggressive or fearful dog. In fact, leash correction and eye contact exercises may be much more effective than an ecollar for aggressive dogs but then again I've seen it work on very aggressive (handler aggressive) dogs and it saved the dogs' lives. Very open to listening to anyone who has any input.


If the tool is used properly I think that the Ecollar is THE BEST tool for _"rehabilitating an aggressive or fearful dog."_ All that's done is to teach the dog the recall and the sit (perhaps the down) using my method of using the Ecollar. The reason that this work is too long for here, but it's on my website. There are two stories of such successes there as well. Briefly, one dog that I worked with was the most fear aggressive, most reactive dog that I've ever heard of. If this dog walked from the shade under a tree into the bright sunlight, someone was gonna get bit. That's all it took. When I first met the dog she literally tried to kill me with a face bite. This was not a "get away from me nip at the ankle." This was a "I have to kill you to survive" all out attack. Within about 25 minutes of teaching the recall, this dog climbed into my lap and was licking my face. Roma

The other success story was accomplished by a trainer who learned my methods for doing this on the phone , before my website was up. He was a shelter volunteer and took a dog under his wing, that came into the shelter on Monday and was scheduled to be PTS on Friday, due to his dog to human aggressiveness. He worked the recall protocol on Tuesday. He worked the sit protocol on Wednesday. Wednesday night the shelter director saw his progress and gave the dog a reprieve. The trainer continued to work with this dog and he was adopted out to a family with kids and other dogs. He never again displayed any aggression. Http://www.loucastle.com/simon2 

While such cases are possible with other methods they universally take a great deal of time. In the first case I mentioned, the owner, who had used the so−called "kinder gentler methods" successfully to train and certify a SAR dog (with a find to his record), had been trying those methods for about two years, with only minimal results. The Ecollar gave results in one session! 

ALL that was done with both of these dogs was to work the recall and the sit with the Ecollar. My theory of why these dramatic changes occurs is this (from my site)


> ... the dog is forced by an unseen force, the Ecollar, to stay in one place. The penalty for going into fight or flight as Roma was doing, is the discomfort of the stimulation. Please note that I'm still working at the level where the dog first feels the stimulation. The dog wants to avoid that penalty and as such, holds her position. A child rides by on a bike, and where the dog used to chase and try to bite that child, she is forced to hold her sit. She is doing the work. She is not being restrained by a leash. Lo and behold, nothing bad happens to the dog.
> 
> A few minutes later, some children playing nearby start screaming and laughing. Roma used to run in abject terror when this occurred, but now the consequences of a stimulation make her do the work, and she holds her position. Again, nothing bad happens to the dog.
> 
> ...


I hope this provides some answers. If you have any more, ask away.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Catu said:


> you are seeing a white and black movie and you think its perfect because you can understand the plot, but only the day you experience technicolor you'll understand how much you are missing.


Catu - I love this! Totally brilliant!


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> Oh wow! This is the topic of a small book and I'm not good at short answers. But I'll give it a shot.
> 
> Some of the pros include the fact that the Ecollar is gentle and humane. It's safer than just about any other tool, in that it can't produce a physical injury from the current it produces. Some minor sores can result if it's left on for too long, but that's easily avoided. It's probably faster at getting reliability than just about any other method that exists. At the same time that it's being used it's building a bond with the dog that can't be accomplished in any other way. The dog quickly learns that the mere presence of his handler provides comfort and safety. No other tool allows the dog to learn this. In fact, using a leash and conventional correction methods teaches the dog the exact opposite. With those methods, it's when the dog is away from the handler, that he can't be made uncomfortable, unless a long line is in use. But just about every dog learns that when he's off the leash, he can't be corrected.
> 
> ...


Lou, This was extremely helpful. I learned a lot about ecollars I wasn't aware of and your perspective was very educational. It's interesting that teaching only recall and sit can rehab a dog. The reason I mentioned that it may not work for a dog with fear/aggression issues and only for offleash advanced obedience was because I was thinking of the traditional "do this or I shock you" type of approach. I've seen it done but I don't think it fully rehab-ed the dog, it just made him more tamer while he had the collar on. The collar was a must and he was still not trustworthy around people including his own handler. 
The theory behind your recall and sit makes a lot of sense. The idea that the dog learns on its own that when presented with a "fearful or scary" situation or a shock, she chooses the situation, which inevitably makes her face it on her own. And on her own, she learns to overcome that fear which is what rehab is all about, allowing a dog to work it out on their own. 
Very interesting stuff.

What is your take on ecollars for everyday behavior and/or obedience work and not rehab? I can see the benefits for boundaries and long distance recall like you mentioned but what about basic obedience like sit, down, downstay, etc.? 

There is a franchise dog training business called sitmeanssit.com and I don't know the owner personally but he has branches all over the country. I believe his name is fred and he has over 1000 youtube videos that I THINK he may post daily. So I don't think transparency is an issue, at least he's honest about his methods. There's a video of an full training session. 

I did wonder about his methods and have yet to come to a personal decision of whether ecollars for basic obedience is cruel or "taking the easy way out". I can understand it for rehab most definitely and even advanced off leash because the risks are very high when doing off leash, and enforcing a correction isn't easy like you mentioned. But for basic obedience like sit, stay, and so forth, I'm wondering if this will cause the dog to learn to fear the handler or damage the relationship between a dog and his/her owner. Sitmeanssit.com boasts that they can get a dog to learn all the basic commands in a very short amount of time, I think I saw an ad for 1 sesson or 20 minutes or something, which I believe. I saw their video and it did work. The question I have is at what cost or what sacrifices (if any)? Will it cause the dog to be fearful, tucking his or her tail? Is it even worth it for basic obedience when you can train with treats or praise or leash correction? Is it a superficial result that turns the dog into a fearful robot that will do what you say but will have long-term behavioral consequences? Or will they only respond when they have the collar on and learn that collar off means no pain, therefore they quickly learn to hate the collar and associate the pain with the handler? 
These are questions I think about. 

The video in question is this:






He has over 1000 videos and I believe between all their branches and trainers, they have videos of dogs passing therapy dog tests, CGC, protection and have 3 month old puppies off leash. 
I will give ecollars training method one thing, time efficiency. Extremely fast. But all those questions above make me wonder if it damages the dog, how much does it hurt the dog, potential relationship problems and/or dog personality/behavioral problem, costs, is it any better than leash correction when not doing long range off leash stuff? 
What settings are they used on? How much do these shocks hurt on each setting? I know the lower settings aren't bad, I've seen youtube videos of human testing them out on each setting. 
Would love to hear back more from you.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Looks like I'm late to the party, sit means sit seems to have been discussed here already and it looks like they're not good at all. Never really considered them an option for my dog but it was interesting to see results.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

pancake said:


> Lou, This was extremely helpful. I learned a lot about ecollars I wasn't aware of and your perspective was very educational.


Thanks for the kind words. 



pancake said:


> It's interesting that teaching only recall and sit can rehab a dog.


I didn't go into this sort of rehab with this in mind. Rather it was serendipity that came out the other end. I'd been using the Ecollar to train these basic behaviors with dogs that had these problems to a minor degree and started getting reports back from the owners that these problems had "disappeared." Then I went looking for such dogs to see how it would work for dogs with more severe issues. I was astounded to find that it stopped them. Thinking backwards from what causes most of them, "fear combined with fight or flight and survival as a result" I formed the theory that I presented in my last post. 



pancake said:


> The reason I mentioned that it may not work for a dog with fear/aggression issues and only for offleash advanced obedience was because I was thinking of the traditional "do this or I shock you" type of approach. I've seen it done but I don't think it fully rehab-ed the dog, it just made him more tamer while he had the collar on. The collar was a must and he was still not trustworthy around people including his own handler.


This approach is very common and it seems to be just an application of common sense. It's what most people think of when they think of the Ecollar. "When the dog does an undesired behavior, you hit the button." It's how Ecollars were used when they were first invented and makes sense to the average person. But the Ecollar is not like any other tool due to its remote nature and the unique sensation that it delivers. There's also a huge difference between how dogs respond to high levels of stim v. how they respond to low levels of stim. When training is done this way, the dogs are free to make any association that occurs to them and because the training is not structured to show the dog what makes the stim start and how the dog can shut it off, you don't know what that association may be. If it's the wrong one, then fallout (unexpected, undesired behavior) almost always occurs. 

Realize that in most all cases of dog to dog aggression are due to fear. The display of aggression, deep throated, loud barking, hair standing up (piloerection), spit flying, deep growling, lunging, etc., are designed to impress the other dog with how big, strong and fearsome, is the dog engaged in it. It's the fearful dog saying, "Look how big and scary I am, you better not come over here." It's "you better keep away, or else" behavior. 

Using the Ecollar as you've just described is almost always done at high levels of stim. Using low level stim in this situation will only cause a momentary distraction effect. And after a few stims, it won't even cause a distraction. 

With this method, due to the high levels of fear that cause the display of aggression, you have to use very high stim levels for the dog to even feel it. Because there's no structure to this method of using the Ecollar, the dog is free to make any association that occurs to him. Typically the dogs think that "the other dog," the one he's being aggressive towards, hurt him from a distance! When your dog stops the display of aggression, he's rewarded (the pain stops) and so he learns that he can escape the pain if he shuts off the display. But you've not affected the fear! All you've done is to shut off "the display" of aggression. That display does two things. First it warns the other dog of the aggression that's in your dog's brain, and second, it warns you, that your dog is loading up. 

But now that you've shut off this display, you and the other dog, no longer get this warning. The fear is still in the dog's brain. He'll sit quietly as the other dog approaches. Then when the other dog crosses some invisible line where your dog thinks that he can attack without getting hurt from a distance, he does. You can get a dog that goes from "calm to murder" without warning, seemingly in a heartbeat. The signs of it are quite subtle and I've seen supposedly knowledgeable, experienced trainers miss it. Trainers who advocate treating aggression like this, really demonstrate an ignorance of the Ecollar. 

My method of dealing with dog to dog aggression derives from a protocol that I developed to stop police dogs from chasing cats during urban, yard−to−yard searches. Just about every back yard in an urban environment has had a cat in it sometime during any given night. The dogs would get distracted by the odors of those cats, especially if they'd ever had a chase of a cat. If a cat was present in the yard, they'd chase it and would stop the hunt for the felon. If I'd used the standard crittering protocol (the reason that Ecollars were invented) more than likely the dogs would become fearful of the cats. They'd refuse to go into yards that either contained cats or had a strong scent of one. 

My protocol basically teaches the dog to turn his head away from the cat. You can't chase something that you can't look at. Someone asked me if this protocol would work on dog−to−dog aggression. I didn't know so I gave it a try. I was surprised, but it did. Here's some video of one such result. NOTE: this result is extraordinary. It has two dogs, one of whom used to be aggressive towards the other, playing. All that I want from this protocol was for the aggressive dog to stop his aggression. I don't insist that he frolic and play with other dogs. The video (there's no sound) was shot by someone who used my protocol and then sent me the video. No one has ever been able to tell me with any conviction, which dog was the formerly aggressive one. http://www.youtube.com/v/4qmMAFKBuKg&rel=1 Keen observers will notice the two fence−fighting dogs in the background. That's a very strong attraction to an aggressive dog, yet neither dog pays them the slightest attention.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

***This is the rest of Lou's post. Posts are limited to 1000 words or less. Next time I will just delete the extra parts. ADMIN Lisa***



pancake said:


> The theory behind your recall and sit makes a lot of sense. The idea that the dog learns on its own that when presented with a "fearful or scary" situation or a shock, she chooses the situation, which inevitably makes her face it on her own. And on her own, she learns to overcome that fear which is what rehab is all about, allowing a dog to work it out on their own.
> Very interesting stuff.


It's just a theory. If someone has a different one, I'd love to hear it. 



pancake said:


> What is your take on ecollars for everyday behavior and/or obedience work and not rehab? I can see the benefits for boundaries and long distance recall like you mentioned but what about basic obedience like sit, down, downstay, etc.?


First, realize that almost all of my work these days is with mature dogs. I've raised a couple of puppies, and there's few things that I like better, but I have dogs for a purpose. I've had much better luck in obtaining my own dogs when they're older and I can determine their level and balance of drives. Most of my work is with police service and SAR dogs. I have a few pet clients. I'm often the "last resort" for this last group. I'm the last stop before the pound/pts for dogs with problems. Their owners usually have tried the so−called "kinder gentler methods," conventional leash and collar methods and everything else they can think of, and have not met with success. I start those dogs off with the Ecollar, teaching basic OB as if they'd never had any training at all. The "how−to" of this is described step−by−step in my articles on them. 



pancake said:


> There is a franchise dog training business called sitmeanssit.com and I don't know the owner personally but he has branches all over the country. I believe his name is fred and he has over 1000 youtube videos that I THINK he may post daily. So I don't think transparency is an issue, at least he's honest about his methods. There's a video of an full training session.


I do know him personally. There have been several discussion about him here and elsewhere. 

Here are a couple of them on this site. 
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/training-theory-methods/100474-sit-means-sit-training.html

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/training-our-puppy-basic/170578-sit-means-sit-training-question.html

There are plenty more out there. 

As one of those links mentions in order to buy a franchise from this company you must go to a three week long school. THAT'S ALL that's required. You come out with a certificate stating that you are a "Certified Remote Collar Specialist." You might never before have even seen a dog and now you are a "Certified ... Specialist." Some of the people who have gone to this school were experienced dog trainers before. With such a background it's possible to pick and choose what will work for you. Without such a background, you can't make such choices and so there are many of these people out there who really know very little about dogs, their drives, and what makes them do the things that they do. Its especially bad when you consider much of this class is devoted to "how to market yourself as a dog trainer" and not to dog training. 



pancake said:


> I did wonder about his methods and have yet to come to a personal decision of whether ecollars for basic obedience is cruel or "taking the easy way out".


Whatever you do, please don't make your decision based on the SMS organization. 

Here's one of my fav links regarding this question. Can you guess why? Is this training technique too extreme?

Finally, after a heated discussion between me, Mr. Hassen and Donn Yarnall (Donn was the founder of both the LAPD K−9 Narcotics and Patrol dog units. He was head trainer of the latter for about 20 years, until he retired. He's an innovator of using the Ecollar for LE K−9's). Donn wrote this warning. It was aimed directly at Mr. Hassen and his methods but it applies to anyone who is considering using an Ecollar to train their dog. Warning



pancake said:


> I can understand it for rehab most definitely and even advanced off leash because the risks are very high when doing off leash, and enforcing a correction isn't easy like you mentioned. But for basic obedience like sit, stay, and so forth, I'm wondering if this will cause the dog to learn to fear the handler or damage the relationship between a dog and his/her owner.


Used properly, the Ecollar will BUILD the relationship between the dog and handler. My methods teach the dog, in the very first steps of teaching the recall, the first behavior that should be taught, that being near the handler brings comfort and safety. This works on dogs with serious issues and "normal" (whatever that means) dogs. No other tool can do this. 



pancake said:


> Sitmeanssit.com boasts that they can get a dog to learn all the basic commands in a very short amount of time, I think I saw an ad for 1 sesson or 20 minutes or something, which I believe. I saw their video and it did work.


I guess this depends on your definition of _"learn all the basic commands."_ First dogs already know how to come to someone who has something they want, and they sit and down on their own. Getting them to do it on command is relatively easy. A child with a treat can get this in just a few minutes. The question is this ... can you do it with the dog a distance from the handler, and when high level distractions are present? I think that only when you can accomplish the last situation, is a behavior _"learned."_ If someone says they can do that in _"1 session or 20 minutes."_ they're a liar. A dedicated Ecollar trainer who is using my methods can accomplish it in about a week. This means working with the dog twice a day for 5-20 minutes per session. 



pancake said:


> The question I have is at what cost or what sacrifices (if any)? Will it cause the dog to be fearful, tucking his or her tail?


Proper Ecollar use does not do any of these things. 



pancake said:


> Is it even worth it for basic obedience when you can train with treats or praise or leash correction?


That's a decision that each dog owner has to make for himself. But I doubt that there's anyone here who can get reliable off leash OB for a recall, sit and down, in a week, with those methods. 



pancake said:


> Is it a superficial result that turns the dog into a fearful robot that will do what you say but will have long-term behavioral consequences?


Does this dog look like a _"fearful robot?"_ 



 Please don't believe the nonsense put out by the antis. Almost universally they've never used an Ecollar themselves and they've also never seen proper use of the tool with low level stim. 



pancake said:


> Or will they only respond when they have the collar on and learn that collar off means no pain, therefore they quickly learn to hate the collar and associate the pain with the handler?


It's not necessary to use pain with the Ecollar to get results. Minor discomfort is all that's necessary. What you describe, _"only respond[ing] when they have the collar on"_ is a training flaw called being "collar smart." It's not a function of the Ecollar it's a function of poor training and can result with any training tool from pinch collars to treats, and even something as benign as a bandana. 



pancake said:


> The video in question is this:
> Dog Training - Teaching with a remote dog training collar - YouTube


Just a few comments about the video. At the start of it he tells us that there will be _"no tugging."_ Yet at 6:52, 7:30 and again at 9:05 he's tugging on the leash, trying to get the dog to do something. Throughout the video the dog is lip licking and yawning, signs of stress. At 5:42 and 8:50 the dog's confusion and fear are obvious. 

I'd not let this guy anywhere near one of my dogs. I did so once. I won't make that mistake again. I had to literally snatch the transmitter out of his hand, when he went to turn the stim level up to a 5 (the highest setting it had) for my dog who normally worked on a 2. He had put the dog into a state of learned helplessness. I've never seen that outside of a science lab, where monstrously high levels of shock are used to get fast results in studies. 



pancake said:


> He has over 1000 videos and I believe between all their branches and trainers, they have videos of dogs passing therapy dog tests, CGC, protection and have 3 month old puppies off leash.


He does get results. But at the cost of every negative thing that you describe. One of the things that having so many videos accomplishes is that it pushes the discussions that have occurred about him and his methods, so far down on searches that no one finds them. I will give him credit where it's due. He's a brilliant marketer. But he's not much of a dog trainer. 



pancake said:


> I will give ecollars training method one thing, time efficiency. Extremely fast. But all those questions above make me wonder if it damages the dog, how much does it hurt the dog, potential relationship problems and/or dog personality/behavioral problem, costs, is it any better than leash correction when not doing long range off leash stuff?


Look at the video that I just supplied. Does that dog seem to be in any pain? When the Ecollar is used properly, minor discomfort is all that's necessary. I doubt that you can even tell when the trainer is pressing the button. 



pancake said:


> What settings are they used on?


It varies from dog to dog and from situation to situation. 



pancake said:


> How much do these shocks hurt on each setting?


I use the level of stim that the dog can first perceive in any situation. That level of discomfort makes a dog do things like flick an ear, look at the ground, scratch as if bitten by a flea. There are other such minor "tells" that a dog gives that tell you when he feels the stim from an Ecollar when my methods are used, but you get the idea. 



pancake said:


> I know the lower settings aren't bad, I've seen youtube videos of human testing them out on each setting.


Youtube was invented to show future generations just how stupid some people can be! Lol. I'm the first to tell you that an Ecollar can hurt like heck. I've felt the highest levels that several brands of Ecollar have. Usually that happens after doing an Ecollar seminar for a SWAT team or the like, and we're after hours in the bar. Isn't it amazing how smart drinking alcohol makes us? Maybe it's just me? ROFL. 



pancake said:


> Would love to hear back more from you.


I just spent several hours answering your questions. While I'm not sniveling, and I don't begrudge the time, it's very inefficient. This could be done in about 15 minutes on the phone. Email me (my email address is in my signature line) and I'll send you my phone number. That invitation goes for anyone BTW, even if you read this several years down the road.

Regards, Lou


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> Thanks for the kind words.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed response. It was more than helpful, never was exposed to this side of ecollars. I can safely say Sit Means Sit looks like a chop shop type of business that churns out fast results with not much consideration for the animal's wellbeing or relationship. 

Did you ever think about making youtube videos and stuff? 


On an unrelated note, does anyone have any personal advice or tips, experiences, stories, etc. on how to choose a behaviorist and how to distinguish someone who's great at advanced training and competition work versus someone who is more in-tune with dog psychology, dog body language, and educating owners about certain behaviors and pack situations. Looking for someone who's versed and experienced in the way dogs act, the way they think, someone like Cesar Millan at this point in time. It's not to say that someone who is an expert at competition work can't have this quality but I know that it's also not a guarantee that if you're an expert competition trainer that you're also a good educator to pet owners, and very good at understanding dog-dog and dog-human psychology and dynamics.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

pancake said:


> Did you ever think about making youtube videos and stuff?


I have occasionally. If I was a commerecial trainer who was looking for more clients, I would. But I'm not. I have more work than I want, just with word−of−mouth advertising.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

pancake said:


> He has over 1000 videos and I believe between all their branches and trainers, they have videos of dogs passing therapy dog tests, CGC, protection and have 3 month old puppies off leash.
> I will give ecollars training method one thing, time efficiency. Extremely fast. But all those questions above make me wonder if it damages the dog, how much does it hurt the dog, potential relationship problems and/or dog personality/behavioral problem, costs, is it any better than leash correction when not doing long range off leash stuff?
> What settings are they used on? How much do these shocks hurt on each setting? I know the lower settings aren't bad, I've seen youtube videos of human testing them out on each setting.
> Would love to hear back more from you.


 Well I personally know a dog who was sent to one of those franchises and ended up so messed up from it that when he was euthanized after being home a short time and supposedly "cured", the vet required rabies testing. That gives you an idea of how damaged the dog was mentally - the vet felt he may be rabid. I have heard many other first hand accounts from people I trust are being honest (and who are not against e-collar use) that live close to franchises or even headquarters. Everyone seems to have the same experience. Some the dogs who are trained through them can't handle it and end up constantly on edge or just totally shut down. Some dogs do well enough with the training but the method requires you always, ALWAYS have an e-collar on the dog. If you don't, the dog may or may not perform even the most basic behaviors. I've heard some SMS trainers have a hard time even getting their dogs to...well sit on the dock during dock dog competitions where they can't use an e-collar. The closest franchise here sets up at a big expo center for all sorts of events - home and garden shows, RV shows, etc because everything that is put on at this place brings big crowds. There is a dog show there every year, which also brings in a crowd - the dog owning general public which is SMS's target audience. SMS can't set up at the dog show though because e-collars aren't allowed on show grounds. They apparently can't demo how well their training method works without the dogs wearing e-collars. 

I think it's a case of...when something sounds too good (or too easy) to be true, it probably is.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> I have occasionally. If I was a commerecial trainer who was looking for more clients, I would. But I'm not. I have more work than I want, just with word−of−mouth advertising.


Ah okay. Read a lot of your articles yesterday, good stuff! Will be revisiting this concept when my puppy is older. 



AgileGSD said:


> Well I personally know a dog who was sent to one of those franchises and ended up so messed up from it that when he was euthanized after being home a short time and supposedly "cured", the vet required rabies testing. That gives you an idea of how damaged the dog was mentally - the vet felt he may be rabid. I have heard many other first hand accounts from people I trust are being honest (and who are not against e-collar use) that live close to franchises or even headquarters. Everyone seems to have the same experience. Some the dogs who are trained through them can't handle it and end up constantly on edge or just totally shut down. Some dogs do well enough with the training but the method requires you always, ALWAYS have an e-collar on the dog. If you don't, the dog may or may not perform even the most basic behaviors. I've heard some SMS trainers have a hard time even getting their dogs to...well sit on the dock during dock dog competitions where they can't use an e-collar. The closest franchise here sets up at a big expo center for all sorts of events - home and garden shows, RV shows, etc because everything that is put on at this place brings big crowds. There is a dog show there every year, which also brings in a crowd - the dog owning general public which is SMS's target audience. SMS can't set up at the dog show though because e-collars aren't allowed on show grounds. They apparently can't demo how well their training method works without the dogs wearing e-collars.
> 
> I think it's a case of...when something sounds too good (or too easy) to be true, it probably is.



Yeah that sounds really bad. It sounds really shady and a quick fix. I found that franchises for services that require lots of experience and education (i.e. dog training, martial arts, tattoo work) with fast results is almost bad news.




Does anyone here subscribe to the belief of "natural" dog behavior training? That's not really a term but that's the only way I can describe it. The philosophy that dogs are a certain way and respond to certain things in a certain manner due to their genetics. Cesar Millan's method would be a prime example. It's not to say that it is the only way but it is one way of approaching dog behavior and psychology, training, etc. 
I have found a few other behaviorists that explain themselves as teaching you how to be the leader and fixing behavior problems by utilizing "dog language". I don't have any specifics when it comes to techniques but the idea of laying a foundation of respect & leadership before friendship, and then friendship before obedience training or operant conditioning. 
I see a lot of people who want to be friends first, parent later and then wonder why they have behavior problems or a dog that growls at them when asked to move off the couch. Or sometimes I see ads for "PURELY positive reinforcement ONLY, all other methods are cruel and outdated" and it makes me wonder does that really work? I would think it works well but only for certain dogs. When it works it works great but for a lot of dogs, I feel without some form of discipline and groundrules, this philosophy and methodology can only go so far. 

I also have seen it discussed as "pack behavior corrections" and "obedience correction" on Leerburg and how issues that related to pack behavior such as biting, growling, not moving off the bed, food aggression, etc. requires immediate and clear correction before it escalates where in obedience and competition training, there is more slack. But isn't this just another way of saying, depending on what you value as important = importance in correction? And then in that case, wouldn't it purely be relative and dependent on the owner's EXPECTATIONS? If I have high levels of expectations where I require the dog to follow through on a sit or down when i say it only 1 time, whereas someone who is more relaxed and doesn't enforce as much and wonders why the dog won't sit after saying "sit, sit sit sit, sit! sit! lucky sit!" then I'd be delivering the same amount of corrections for obedience training as someone who would correct a biting or potty training issue. 
In Cesar's book, he wrote about how he took a survey of 1000 people (I forget the exact number of survey takers) and the top issues were things like separation anxiety or jumping (30-40%) but potty training was down to like 9%. And he was stating how people have really high expectations when it comes to potty training, and sanitary issues due to accidents are very high on almost every dog owner's list which results in very strict and rigid (but can be loving and not harsh) enforcement when it comes to poo and pee. But when it comes to things like jumping, humans tend to get soft and because it's not as high on the list as potty accidents around the house, it's not enforced to the T. 
I feel like a lot of things that people complain about especially on youtube or forums about how certain methods or philosophies are "cruel", is due to criticism for "being strict" which often involves a more intense and urgent attitude towards training. If I require my dog sits and comes when I only say it once and once only, it's certainly strict but how is that any different than my zero tolerance for my dog peeing on the carpet or growling at me when I ask to move off the furniture? 

I may have gone off track here but I was curious if anyone else subscribes to the belief that they need to maintain strong leadership in all aspects before all else, and once you have that respect and trust... things like friendship, advanced obedience training or trick training, etc. just come naturally? I definitely use positive reinforcement and all training methods, not just one but I find that using only treats to get a dog to do something without any form of correction is not "natural". My personal opinion is that it seems like it is pure manipulation for the sake of the "performance" but without corrections that are found in nature by a dog's mother or the leader of a social group of animals, there are more cases of dogs that develop behavioral issues. Dogs need boundaries and rules and I think most dogs "thrive" on it, they feel uncomfortable when there's shaky leadership or an owner that they don't feel is in control of every aspect. Anyone agree? 

Disclaimer: I am not thinking very clearly at the moment, sometimes my brain can spit out well constructed sentences and thoughts but right now having trouble expressing what I want to say. please excuse any confusion ahah


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

yes, I agree with this. In fact, my breeder made sure to tell me that I had to stay on top of Grim. Obedience was NOT negotiable. Not every dog needs a 'heavy hand' approach, but some do. Some dogs can turn into not only irritating pets, but dangerous pets if they don't follow direction. Grim is VERY strong willed. Although he's biddable most of the time, he can dig in his heels when he wants to. Dominant dogs need clear, consistent, fair leadership. Without it, you can have a mess on your hands. Before you can become this 'leader', though, you have to develop a bond with the dog. Without that bond, you're missing a critical piece to the puzzle. Now that the bond has taken place, he can NEVER think that he has a choice to follow direction or not. I don't want him thinking it's even possible to challenge me for the leadership role. So far, this is going very well with minimal correction. However, his age is a factor. I'm sure we're going to have more 'testing' as time goes on. There are some GSDs who can be trained with minimal correction. Knowing what 'kind' of dog you have is important, IMO, before you start handing out corrections. You don't want your pup to lose confidence or fold because they can't handle the correction. JMHO


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

pancake said:


> I may have gone off track here but I was curious if anyone else subscribes to the belief that they need to maintain strong leadership in all aspects before all else, and once you have that respect and trust... things like friendship, advanced obedience training or trick training, etc. just come naturally?


 Not really because I suspect you mean "strong leadership" in the dominance/pack theory sort of way. If you mean it in the "controlling the dog's resources, ability to self reinforce and teaching them to have impulse control" then yes, I feel that is a good basis for training and a good way to teach what people view as good manners. I don't think it's necessary though. Things people see as important to "show strong leadership" tend to be either silly (dog can't be on the furniture, dog can't go through doorways first, human eats before dog, etc, etc) or potentially damaging (alpha rolls, strong physical corrections, anything you might see CM do...or worse). You definitely don't have to find your inner CM to have a great relationship with your dog. In fact, IME the CM type outlook of every problem to you have is because the dog is dominant, trying to be alpha or stubborn is generally quite damaging to a good relationship with your dog. 



pancake said:


> I definitely use positive reinforcement and all training methods, not just one but I find that using only treats to get a dog to do something without any form of correction is not "natural". My personal opinion is that it seems like it is pure manipulation for the sake of the "performance" but without corrections that are found in nature by a dog's mother or the leader of a social group of animals, there are more cases of dogs that develop behavioral issues. Dogs need boundaries and rules and I think most dogs "thrive" on it, they feel uncomfortable when there's shaky leadership or an owner that they don't feel is in control of every aspect. Anyone agree?


 Many dogs do like routine, just like many people do. Dogs do feel comfortable knowing their owner is not going to put them in bad situations. But IME most people who have the outlook on positive training that you do are not well versed in positive training as a whole, thinking it's all about giving your dog a treat every time he does something good. That _barely _scratches the surface of positive methods, it's like the Petsmart version of positive training. The world of positive training offers endless possibilities for getting and altering behavior. 

This is a great article about that: Denise Fenzi

IMO if you go into training believing your dog due to breed or temperament "needs" strong correction that's what you're going to get because that is the relationship you set up from day one.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

AgileGSD said:


> Not really because I suspect you mean "strong leadership" in the dominance/pack theory sort of way. If you mean it in the "controlling the dog's resources, ability to self reinforce and teaching them to have impulse control" then yes, I feel that is a good basis for training and a good way to teach what people view as good manners. I don't think it's necessary though. Things people see as important to "show strong leadership" tend to be either silly (dog can't be on the furniture, dog can't go through doorways first, human eats before dog, etc, etc) or potentially damaging (alpha rolls, strong physical corrections, anything you might see CM do...or worse). You definitely don't have to find your inner CM to have a great relationship with your dog. In fact, IME the CM type outlook of every problem to you have is because the dog is dominant, trying to be alpha or stubborn is generally quite damaging to a good relationship with your dog.


I do mean in a dominance/pack theory sort of way but by controlling the dog's resources in every aspect. Not in a physical challenge, which a big human might win but it won't be pretty. It's the attitude and expectation you have with your dog(s), not a group of techniques or methods. You don't have to alpha roll your dog or something to establish in his or her eyes that you are the leader, period. Much of what you do to let it know that it needs to work for everything including affection at times, lets it know that all resources come through you as well as corrections. I praise about 5 to 1, so extremely high number and energy with praise "good down!! good down!X X5" for each correction. It's silly to think that training only the good behavior will drown out the bad ones, at least in my opinion. I personally think everyone needs to have some Cesar type of calm, assertive strength with their dogs but the problem is most humans don't know how to be calm and assertive. I found the best people who do this are those are actually alphas and vocal and assertive among humans (often extroverts) with LOTS of patience. Most of the "alpha" tough guys in real life tend to veer towards harsh punishment but more importantly come from a place of frustration and emotional instability. But just as ineffective there are people who are "push overs", who let their dogs run the house and do what they want. It's no lie that dogs will test you and they will test you in ways that aren't necessarily physical but to see if you will enforce their breakage of rules. And this is dominance or pack mentality. The word "dominance" has been so hype so may be I'll just call it something else "being rebellious" much like a teenager. 

A lot of people argue things like "oh dogs are not pack animals, new research shows..etc." and will argue the point that dogs are not wolves therefore the pack dynamic is inapplicable to dogs. Which is absolutely false. They have such similar DNA and dogs have been bred over years to bring out a more tame personality but a group of feral dogs are a good indication that they are social creatures. So called "pack mentality" is viewed as an actual "pack", but in reality much of what Cesar or any natural behaviorist would argue applies to SOCIAL animals, not strictly to animals that travel and roam in "packs" or "flocks". Any social animals or group of animals, including human beings and even reptiles like the croc and alligator, will create a hierarchy among themselves. This is simple laws of economics. There is limited resources in nature, be it food, which parts of the body of the prey to eat, mating and reproduction, the shadiest place under the sun, etc. There will always be a "leader" or an alpha when it comes to a group dynamic and in the animal world it's usually the one who's more dominant, aggressive and oftentimes physically bigger. Even among human beings, within any social group there tends to be an unofficial hierarchy, people who call the shots and make decisions for the group (although more complex). 
Living with a dog or any other animal is no different. You don't have to physically "dominate" a dog to show that you're the leader, you just control its resources. After all, the whole point of physical competition and fighting in the animal kingdom is to compete for the limited resources within the environment. But it's not to say that the top dog of the group doesn't correct its subordinates when they do things that the leader does not agree with. 
The mother does this perfectly fine with the litter and through innate dog body language, the puppies even at only a few weeks old learn every quickly what is okay and what is not. I may not agree 100% with Cesar in particular but he does have some amazing skills at reading dogs and their emotional state and correcting them. And everything he uses is based off of what a mother dog would do or an alpha dog would do to correct a follower of the group. A side note, I kind of found it ridiculous some people on youtube were claiming the mother dog is abusing the pups and needs to be separated. In my experience, dogs need corrections much like small children do. The idea of disapproval is much stronger, more effective due to the dog's genetics and instincts than hoping it will dissipate on its own through only the reinforcement of good behavior. At least for a lot of the dogs out there, not every dog is a naturally well-behaved and mannered superstar. 



AgileGSD said:


> Many dogs do like routine, just like many people do. Dogs do feel comfortable knowing their owner is not going to put them in bad situations. But IME most people who have the outlook on positive training that you do are not well versed in positive training as a whole, thinking it's all about giving your dog a treat every time he does something good. That _barely _scratches the surface of positive methods, it's like the Petsmart version of positive training. The world of positive training offers endless possibilities for getting and altering behavior.
> 
> This is a great article about that: Denise Fenzi
> 
> IMO if you go into training believing your dog due to breed or temperament "needs" strong correction that's what you're going to get because that is the relationship you set up from day one.


Well, it's not what I believe or what I envision and therefore make it reality. AKA self fulfilling prophecy. It's my expectations. It's my attitude and my expectation of what a dog's place is in my group settings and how he or she should behave and when. Some may claim its strict, others not. I make sure my dog sits and looks at me every time we go out and come back through the door. This is NILIF and resource control, not physical dominance. By showing that every time we do something she wants, in this case going outside to play, she will only be rewarded after sitting and being in a calm, relaxed state , and I have her attention. 

I know for sure that there are dogs that have been trained using a very advanced form of operant conditioning but my personal view on that is, it is just that. Conditioning. It's just habit forming manipulation and though it works at teaching a dog something new (great for that!), once you get to proofing and reliability, not every dog is going to respond. And once you know a dog as a command down but will not do it, a correction is applied because your expectations of behavior are higher than when the dog didn't know the command. Correction could be anything, could be simple as michael ellis' "ah ah" or a leash correction. there's a tier and different levels of correction for different levels of "infractions", just like in positive training you start to wean and scale so the dog only gets rewards for the BEST behavior so it continually gets better and learns to be quicker, sharper, etc. 

Also the other problem I have with conditioning before respect is, (this by the way is completely my personal VIBE and opinion) that it feels like training a seal. I know a lot of people have true bonds with their dogs using conditioning but to me, the focus is on the treat and reward, not on my approval. Though you CAN train with treats so that it includes your approval especially with resource control. But my preferred method is to only use the treats or food to bribe and lure the dog to do something until she learns it. Then it is weaned onto praise as it turns the focus from "if I do this, I get that treat. if i press this button, the owner pops out a treat. I can train the owner by not performing unless a see a treat" to "i do this before i want my owner's praise and approval". Just feels like there is more of a bond and connection by expressing continual feedback of approval and disapproval with my dogs constantly looking to me for guidance. But that's why I like the "natural" dog psychology approach as a foundation to our relationship. Just personal preference.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

pancake said:


> It's silly to think that training only the good behavior will drown out the bad ones, at least in my opinion. I personally think everyone needs to have some Cesar type of calm, assertive strength with their dogs but the problem is most humans don't know how to be calm and assertive. I found the best people who do this are those are actually alphas and vocal and assertive among humans (often extroverts) with LOTS of patience. Most of the "alpha" tough guys in real life tend to veer towards harsh punishment but more importantly come from a place of frustration and emotional instability. But just as ineffective there are people who are "push overs", who let their dogs run the house and do what they want. It's no lie that dogs will test you and they will test you in ways that aren't necessarily physical but to see if you will enforce their breakage of rules. And this is dominance or pack mentality. The word "dominance" has been so hype so may be I'll just call it something else "being rebellious" much like a teenager.


 Just what sort of things do you feel "rebellious" dogs do when their owner isn't "alpha" enough? How will these dogs test you?



pancake said:


> IA lot of people argue things like "oh dogs are not pack animals, new research shows..etc." and will argue the point that dogs are not wolves therefore the pack dynamic is inapplicable to dogs. Which is absolutely false. They have such similar DNA and dogs have been bred over years to bring out a more tame personality but a group of feral dogs are a good indication that they are social creatures.


 Well a big issue is that much of what was believed about wolf behavior turned out to be false itself. The dominance theory is definitely an outdated view of dog behavior that was based on an outdated view of wold behavior. Outdated all around. One can choose to ignore all advances made in understanding dogs, or wolves for that matter because it doesn't suit their long held beliefs about interacting with dogs but it doesn't change that there is a wealth of more current information available. 

As for the DNA argument about dogs and wolves, the same can be said for humans and chimpanzees. Those small variances in DNA can mean a world of difference though.




pancake said:


> I may not agree 100% with Cesar in particular but he does have some amazing skills at reading dogs and their emotional state and correcting them. And everything he uses is based off of what a mother dog would do or an alpha dog would do to correct a follower of the group.


 Does Cesar really say that his methods are based on "what a mother dog would do"? Having had mother dogs with puppies, the claim that is what Cesar is doing seems really off the wall to me. TBH the way bitches interact with their puppies including if they are "strict" with them or not, varies a great deal depending on the individual.

As far as Cesar reading dogs well? Have you seen the recent clip of him with the resource guarding Lab Holly? The one in which is was obvious he was going to get bit and when he did he said "I didn't see that coming"?

The National Geographic channel's clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ihXq_WwiWM

The dog's behavior spelled out clip by clip:

Showdown With Holly - Cesar getting bitten - YouTube





pancake said:


> I know for sure that there are dogs that have been trained using a very advanced form of operant conditioning but my personal view on that is, it is just that. Conditioning. It's just habit forming manipulation and though it works at teaching a dog something new (great for that!), once you get to proofing and reliability, not every dog is going to respond.


 The same exact things can be said for compulsion actually. Or any training really.




pancake said:


> Also the other problem I have with conditioning before respect is, (this by the way is completely my personal VIBE and opinion) that it feels like training a seal. I know a lot of people have true bonds with their dogs using conditioning but to me, the focus is on the treat and reward, not on my approval. Though you CAN train with treats so that it includes your approval especially with resource control. But my preferred method is to only use the treats or food to bribe and lure the dog to do something until she learns it. Then it is weaned onto praise as it turns the focus from "if I do this, I get that treat. if i press this button, the owner pops out a treat. I can train the owner by not performing unless a see a treat" to "i do this before i want my owner's praise and approval". Just feels like there is more of a bond and connection by expressing continual feedback of approval and disapproval with my dogs constantly looking to me for guidance. But that's why I like the "natural" dog psychology approach as a foundation to our relationship. Just personal preference.


 I'm not surprised that you feel this way, having such a simplified view of what positive training is. If you only use positive training as a way to bribe your dog to do something, you really are missing out on what is possible. Both within the methods collectively called "positive training" and with your dog's ability to think, problem solve, make choices and yes, even to develop a better bond 

I think you might have a bit of an issue anthropomorphizing the hows and whys of dog behavior but only when it comes to positive methods. You feel that dogs who are trained with rewards are only it in for the reward. Do you feel that using corrections to proof behavior means your dog is only performing because you can force him to? Either way, the dog's behavior is being manipulated by you - either because they expect something good from you or they expect something bad from you. It isn't really "natural" either way.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

AgileGSD said:


> Just what sort of things do you feel "rebellious" dogs do when their owner isn't "alpha" enough? How will these dogs test you?


You're confusing what I'm saying. My point is that a dog will challenge you as an owner if you're weak. By weak I do not mean physically weak but enforcement weak. Lax. Lazy. "just let him do it this one time" type of mentality. This is obvious dog behavior, you tell a dog get off the couch, he doesn't move and looks at you and you're like "fine, just have it", the dog learns to think that it's okay. Some may view this as the dog "won" but in reality it's just enforcing your rules. My dog challenges me but she's naturally not the type of socially dominant, "climb the pack ladder" type, so it doesn't occur much. She's not allowed inside a room. When me and a few friends are inside that room, she will approach. We all pet her and say good girl and she decides may be it's a good opportunity to "test me". Dogs will always test you. Humans are the same way. It has nothing to do with pack mentality. It's the constant ebb and flow of interaction between social animals to see where they fit in in the group or society. The way she "tests" me is she will sit and go down and then she will put 1 paw on the door "line" (the frame). I decided to see what she did and ignored it, and then she puts her second paw on the frame, essentially crossing the line she isn't supposed to. To most people they would think, "that's fine, she's somewhere along the line or boundary" but I already know she's testing me. This isn't a one time occasion and I do let her do it just to see what she does. If this goes without correction she will full on fledge make her way into the room, tail wagging and everything. Most people's response would be "OMG, fine you are just too cute. come here and reward her". While I admit I have done this once or twice, I'm usually strict about when she gets her praise and that would not be a time to praise her. 
On the flip side, when she does that, she is so in tune with me and because of the way I have my training setup, she is constantly getting feedback from me, both approval or disapproval. A simple "Bandit, get off the line. You're not allowed here" and she will take her paws off. 
Another member posted how she sent her dogs to the shade while she had people over outside and she said down but they would only sit. Visitors were impressed that the dogs were so well behaved but she said "what did I say?" to the dogs and they went into a down position like they should have. 
The amount, frequency and hardheadedness a dog has when it comes to constantly challenging your rules strictly depends on the dog but the point I'm trying to make is, at some point you need to enforce your rules and if you commit yourself to "team positive reinforcement ONLY" then well, you're limiting yourself on the tools that can be used. Quite naturally. 



AgileGSD said:


> Well a big issue is that much of what was believed about wolf behavior turned out to be false itself. The dominance theory is definitely an outdated view of dog behavior that was based on an outdated view of wold behavior. Outdated all around. One can choose to ignore all advances made in understanding dogs, or wolves for that matter because it doesn't suit their long held beliefs about interacting with dogs but it doesn't change that there is a wealth of more current information available.
> 
> As for the DNA argument about dogs and wolves, the same can be said for humans and chimpanzees. Those small variances in DNA can mean a world of difference though.


Well I'm sure this discussion has been beat to the death but just to address the last part, a chimp and human is no comparison to a dog and wolf. Thats not a fair comparison. Dogs can still breed with wolves and depending on the dog, feral dogs exhibit similar behavior as wolves and the distance in lineage and ancestry is still not that wide. Primitive dogs such as huskies or malamutes, etc. have lots of wild and wolf like traits and it's only recent that dogs have been bred and selectively engineered by humans to make certain traits "shine". But regardless, when you are breeding you are not adding or subtracting anything by in large, you are accentuating certain desirable traits, which is found in the DNA and nature anyway. I'm not a professional breeder so I can't comment any more on this but either way, it has no bearing on natural dog psychology and behavioral training. 





AgileGSD said:


> Does Cesar really say that his methods are based on "what a mother dog would do"? Having had mother dogs with puppies, the claim that is what Cesar is doing seems really off the wall to me. TBH the way bitches interact with their puppies including if they are "strict" with them or not, varies a great deal depending on the individual.
> 
> As far as Cesar reading dogs well? Have you seen the recent clip of him with the resource guarding Lab Holly? The one in which is was obvious he was going to get bit and when he did he said "I didn't see that coming"?
> 
> ...


Well personal experience with bitches and the litter aren't exactly an accurate observation to how things occur in nature. If you wanted to really understand how a mother dog treats her litter, you would watch a female wolf and her litter or feral dogs and pups. A lot of the domestication, human environment affects what a mother dog does in raising her pup. Oftentimes the mother has no problem with humans in the presence of the pup and being that she is subordinate to the human owner, she can be a lot more lax in the upbringing of pups compared to the brutal natural rearing required to survive in the wild. A domesticated mother pup gets her food from her owner, her owner tells her when to sit where to go, where to walk , etc. so as far as the mother dog is concerned, her own survival instincts and rearing instincts are not even close to what would be found in nature because she herself has not been taught that. 
Cesar learned this growing up in Mexico where dogs are not idolized or humanized like in the US and he learned to read dog body language and psychology by watching groups of feral dogs, mothers and litters, etc. Pretty impressive if you ask me. 
I don't believe that its been enough time for evolution to completely outbreed wolf traits and behavioral instincts out of dogs. It's not possible. Mothers will correct the pup when she sees fit, she will "bite" with pressure on the neck or growl to teach the pup manners or to learn that bite pressure. Pups naturally follow the leader AKA their mother even when they are only a few weeks old. They instinctively know where the teet is and to drink the milk of the mother, they learn to hunt and find food and eat and constantly battle to climb the social ladder among its litter mates. This is all what's natural, not what we see today in a domesticated, controlled breeder environment. 


I have seen that episode and I've seen many of his DVDs from back to end and have read page to page his books. And everytime I watch the show I could not understand how anyone could think he's "cruel" or "inhumane", it almost makes me believe that there must be some sort of misinformation or miscommunication for someone to believe that. The tv show is edited and I feel some people have judged him before they know him. Every single one of the Cesar haters I have met online that I have had rational discussions (or heated) with have never even read any of his books, which is where he discusses his thought process, the reasons and behind the scenes for what happened on certain shows. The Tv show is only 1 hour long with lots of editing, sometimes more than few years passes for 1 case and they have to cram it into a 30minute segment (20min with commercials). And I feel some people get the wrong impression. If you read his book, he goes over certain cases and explains why he did what he did, what happened during production, and so forth. 
I did see the last episode with Holly and she turned out great. She bit Cesar and she was a silent redzone dog with no warning. It could happen to everyone, he's human. What most Cesar Haters dont even comment on is that more than half the time, it's not even him doing the work. He just assesses, does what he can, teaches and educates the owners but the majority of the time he recommends the Psychology center where dogs that have aggression or fearful issues are rehab-ed through his stable pack of dogs. He freely admits that he sometimes feels its better to bring Daddy in to assess the situation in his book and the reasons for it. You cant blame him for getting bit, Holly was extremely aggressive. And the show cut out the scene but Holly was sent to Allstates K9 (featured on Season 7 in 2 different episodes) and she also bit the handler there who I know is a very sweet man that absolutely cares for all his dogs. 




AgileGSD said:


> The same exact things can be said for compulsion actually. Or any training really.


I agree. But your and my definition of compulsion training is different. Sure any training is somewhat manipulation and that's why I said it was personal preference and a personal vibe more than anything. But for me, training using a dog's natural psychology and instincts is more conducive to learning and relationships than labcoat type manipulation. But this again is personal preference and I use clicker and marker training and treats all the time. I just believe you can't use ONLY that. At least not for high reliability, efficiency and for lots of dogs out there. 




AgileGSD said:


> I'm not surprised that you feel this way, having such a simplified view of what positive training is. If you only use positive training as a way to bribe your dog to do something, you really are missing out on what is possible. Both within the methods collectively called "positive training" and with your dog's ability to think, problem solve, make choices and yes, even to develop a better bond
> 
> I think you might have a bit of an issue anthropomorphizing the hows and whys of dog behavior but only when it comes to positive methods. You feel that dogs who are trained with rewards are only it in for the reward. Do you feel that using corrections to proof behavior means your dog is only performing because you can force him to? Either way, the dog's behavior is being manipulated by you - either because they expect something good from you or they expect something bad from you. It isn't really "natural" either way.


I don't have a simplified or warped view of positive training, I think people who view that positive treat training is the ONLY, most modern and "scientific" way are limiting themselves with other tools, especially ones I've talked about when it comes to capitalizing on a dog's natural instincts. In that way, team positive reinforcement ONLY people are not only limiting their training but they're warping the view of the training world and seeing that just because their method works for their dogs doesn't mean it is effective or has high reliability for other dogs. 

Well you may view my corrections "forcing my dog to do something" and your "coaxing the dog into doing something" as the same manipulation, the difference is a lot of what I use is found in nature and among dogs to keep things inline. Capitalizing on a dog's natural reaction to certain things, enforcing rules and boundaries and setting a strict leadership and respect environment is natural if done right. Coaxing a dog to do something with absolutely no correction is not and doesn't have a high success or reliability rate when it comes to much tougher and advanced training. Corrections are a part of life and to baby a dog into thinking it lives in a marshmallow world where teaching them good behavior through treats somehow eliminates bad behavior is just foolish. 

Disclaimer: I have to say that a lot what you are reading from me is biased against one camp of people. And that's the people who claim that positive reinforcement is THE ONLY WAY to go. I run into these people all the time that tout that the newest research shows that everything is outdated and inhumane and the only way to train a dog is through treats and love with no discipline or rules. I wouldn't mind so much if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people from this camp are the ones with the most negative, hurtful comments and attitudes I have ever met in my life. I ran into this one lady that spent her entire free time on a special youtube channel that she made going around on Cesar Millan's videos to spew hate. There were pages and pages of her getting into arguments and calling people mean names and hurtful comments and at this point you question her motive and whether she cares for the wellbeing of the dogs, or she just wants to be a bully and pick a fight. Much of the emotion I may have conveyed in the post isn't directed at you but it probably came out from my "rant" against haters and unbalanced individuals.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

_She's not allowed inside a room. When me and a few friends are inside that room, she will approach. We all pet her and say good girl and she decides may be it's a good opportunity to "test me". Dogs will always test you. Humans are the same way. It has nothing to do with pack mentality. It's the constant ebb and flow of interaction between social animals to see where they fit in in the group or society. The way she "tests" me is she will sit and go down and then she will put 1 paw on the door "line" (the frame). I decided to see what she did and ignored it, and then she puts her second paw on the frame, essentially crossing the line she isn't supposed to. To most people they would think, "that's fine, she's somewhere along the line or boundary" but I already know she's testing me. This isn't a one time occasion and I do let her do it just to see what she does. If this goes without correction she will full on fledge make her way into the room, tail wagging and everything. Most people's response would be "OMG, fine you are just too cute. come here and reward her". While I admit I have done this once or twice, I'm usually strict about when she gets her praise and that would not be a time to praise her. _

In reading this, I feel that this pup isn't 'testing' you, but rather is confused by what she's supposed to do, and being lured into the room. You're not being clear, consistent, and fair in this. The time to 'correct' was when the dog approached the room. The one paw, then another crossing the line shows the confusion in the pup's understanding of the 'rules' and then is further complicated by being praised. You undid your own training and rules by allowing her to enter the room at times. Stepping back and objectively looking at a pup's behavior usually will show you where the pup's lack of understanding is or where you've caused confusion for the pup in your actions. IMO, if you're not always clear, consistent, and fair.. you will eventually lose your status as 'leader' because the pup feels that 'vacuum' and will attempt to step into that position. (Some won't, depends on the personality of the dog) I do believe it's rare for a pup to 'challenge' the handler. I, myself, had never seen it until Grim. Every other time a pup doesn't do what it's told to do is a result of confusion on the pup's part and mistakes on the handler's end. 

While I do agree on both correction and positive training working together, care needs to be taken that there isn't unfair correction going on. (There was a thread which talked about what an 'unfair correction' is.) 
Ex- Grim does very well with 'sit' both with and without treats. However, you add in distractions... like my pug running around him, him on alert because it's dark outside, etc. and he will either not sit or will not do it right away. Being that he has the attention span of a gnat, this is *not* the time for correction. He's still lacking the focus, and unless he's focused on me and STILL not sitting... it would be an unfair correction. I'm asking him to do something he's not at that level of training to do. His confusion is clear... he's looking away at things that he's trying to process... it's a training error on my part because he's still lacking the focus under distraction. Normal for him at his age. To correct this would be causing confusion AND lack of trust for me as a leader. I cannot afford to have him questioning me as leader. So the focus shifts from 'he's not doing what I want' to 'what have I failed to teach that is causing him to not comply?" The answer is focus. We're also talking about age, and his ability (or lack of) to ignore stimulus to the contrary and focus on what *I* want. Now if we worked on focus, and I had proof that he could sit in spite of distractions at a later date and he at THAT point ignored my command, I'd be correcting. At this age, though, it's about not being sure what to do and not being consistent (in your case) with expectations. I would not say that your pup 'knows' she's not allowed into that room. I'd say she knows that sometimes she's not allowed in that room, but has no clue when that 'sometimes' is. Does that make sense?

Also wanted to add that in rare instances, unfair corrections will get you a physical fight from the dog. The *only* time that Grim has 'challenged' me is when I corrected him for the biting (rough housing) and that triggered him to fight. Another user said the same as my breeder... "why start a fight with a dog that loves to fight?" I don't feel this applies to the 'average' GSD, as again... I've never seen it with any of my other GSDs. To see this in a pup is just rare.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

pancake said:


> You're confusing what I'm saying. My point is that a dog will challenge you as an owner if you're weak. By weak I do not mean physically weak but enforcement weak. Lax. Lazy. "just let him do it this one time" type of mentality. This is obvious dog behavior, you tell a dog get off the couch, he doesn't move and looks at you and you're like "fine, just have it", the dog learns to think that it's okay. Some may view this as the dog "won" but in reality it's just enforcing your rules. My dog challenges me but she's naturally not the type of socially dominant, "climb the pack ladder" type, so it doesn't occur much.


 I don't think I am confusing what you are saying but I'm still interested in ways dogs are constantly "challenging" or "testing" the people they live with. You example of your dog putting her feet over an imaginary barrier is not the best example, as Jag said it could just be that she is unclear about what is expected. Or she's getting mixed signals about what you want at that moment. To me this is sort of like saying the reason agility dogs get creepy on contacts or their contact behavior erodes over time is because they are testing or challenging their handler. 




pancake said:


> Well I'm sure this discussion has been beat to the death but just to address the last part, a chimp and human is no comparison to a dog and wolf.


 But our DNA is very close, just as that of wolves and dogs which was your argument "the DNA is almost the same!". Do you feel people owning wolf hybrids is a good idea?



pancake said:


> Well personal experience with bitches and the litter aren't exactly an accurate observation to how things occur in nature.


 I think you may be confusing the things you're saying  That's the thing though. Living with dogs isn't how things occur in nature either. On one hand, you argue for this outdated idea of dominance theory because it's "natural" and "how dogs behave in nature". But on the other hand, we can't observe bitches with puppies in home settings because that isn't how things are in nature. I totally agree that not much about our life with dogs is "how things are in nature" and that attempting to poorly mimic "what wild dogs do" to interact with our pet dogs is off base at best.




pancake said:


> Cesar learned this growing up in Mexico where dogs are not idolized or humanized like in the US and he learned to read dog body language and psychology by watching groups of feral dogs, mothers and litters, etc. Pretty impressive if you ask me.


 Hate to tell you but the Mexican street dogs aren't living a "natural life" either  I have yet to see anything terribly impressive about CM but I find many people are much more easily impressed with trainers than I am.



pancake said:


> I have seen that episode and I've seen many of his DVDs from back to end and have read page to page his books. And everytime I watch the show I could not understand how anyone could think he's "cruel" or "inhumane", it almost makes me believe that there must be some sort of misinformation or miscommunication for someone to believe that.
> 
> I did see the last episode with Holly and she turned out great. She bit Cesar and she was a silent redzone dog with no warning.


 That's the issue and why I brought up that episode specifically. There was nothing "silent" about that dog. Did you watch the video which showed an analysis of the dog's body language? That was not "with no warning", the dog gave a lot of warning that Cesar failed to notice. She was a resource guarder and there are drastically better ways to deal with resource guarding than have a strange guy come to your house and attempt to manhandle your dog while they eat. 





pancake said:


> I don't have a simplified or warped view of positive training, I think people who view that positive treat training is the ONLY, most modern and "scientific" way are limiting themselves with other tools, especially ones I've talked about when it comes to capitalizing on a dog's natural instincts. In that way, team positive reinforcement ONLY people are not only limiting their training but they're warping the view of the training world and seeing that just because their method works for their dogs doesn't mean it is effective or has high reliability for other dogs.


You say you don't have a simplified view of positive training but the above statements portrays that you do not have a good understanding of how to effectively use positive training. So does this statement:



pancake said:


> But for me, training using a dog's natural psychology and instincts is more conducive to learning and relationships than labcoat type manipulation. But this again is personal preference and I use clicker and marker training and treats all the time. I just believe you can't use ONLY that. At least not for high reliability, efficiency and for lots of dogs out there.


 And this one:



pancake said:


> The amount, frequency and hardheadedness a dog has when it comes to constantly challenging your rules strictly depends on the dog but the point I'm trying to make is, at some point you need to enforce your rules and if you commit yourself to "team positive reinforcement ONLY" then well, you're limiting yourself on the tools that can be used. Quite naturally.


And this one too:



pancake said:


> Coaxing a dog to do something with absolutely no correction is not and doesn't have a high success or reliability rate when it comes to much tougher and advanced training. Corrections are a part of life and to baby a dog into thinking it lives in a marshmallow world where teaching them good behavior through treats somehow eliminates bad behavior is just foolish.


These statements and ones in your past posts make it seem as though you think positive methods are using treats to "coax" or "bribe" a dog to do behaviors. And that it's all about "teaching them good behavior through treats to eliminate bad behavior". That really is an extremely simplistic view of positive training and considering that is where you are coming from, it isn't hard to see why you feel it's not very effective. The sort of positive training your are talking about does have limited effectiveness. 

But positive training is not about luring into position, ignoring bad behavior, giving treats for good behavior and hoping for the best. It's about a system of clear communication between the dog and owner. It's about incorporating "life rewards" into training. It's about setting your dog up to practice good behavior over and over, while making things gradually more difficult. It's about shaping behaviors which make your dog a better learner and you a better trainer. It's about controlling the dog's ability to self reinforce for behaviors you don't like. It's about teaching your dog to think, to engage with you and to be a willing, happy partner in training. Reliability comes from building the behavior step by step and teaching the dog there are always _many_ other choices but the only choice that matters is the one you are asking for. It's about a lot more than that too. Like I said, the limitation with positive methods tends to be with the trainer and not the methods.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

pancake said:


> The way she "tests" me is she will sit and go down and then she will put 1 paw on the door "line" (the frame). I decided to see what she did and ignored it, and then she puts her second paw on the frame, essentially crossing the line she isn't supposed to. To most people they would think, "that's fine, she's somewhere along the line or boundary" but I already know she's testing me. *This isn't a one time occasion and I do let her do it just to see what she does.* If this goes without correction she will full on fledge make her way into the room, tail wagging and everything.* Most people's response would be "OMG, fine you are just too cute. come here and reward her". While I admit I have done this once or twice,* I'm usually strict about when she gets her praise and that would not be a time to praise her.


 So she isn't supposed to cross that line but sometimes you let her, and then depending on your mood sometimes you praise her and sometimes you correct her?
She's not testing you, she's confused because you're sending her mixed messages.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

pancake said:


> Does anyone here subscribe to the belief of "natural" dog behavior training? That's not really a term but that's the only way I can describe it. The philosophy that dogs are a certain way and respond to certain things in a certain manner due to their genetics.


I'm reminded of Arnold Horshack sitting in Mr. Kotter's classroom frantically waving his hand and shouting "Ooh ooh ooh, pick me, pick me. I'm also aware that I'm dating myself with that reference. 

Most of my work with the police and SAR dogs is based on their drives which is determined by their genetics. 



pancake said:


> I have found a few other behaviorists that explain themselves as teaching you how to be the leader and fixing behavior problems by utilizing "dog language". I don't have any specifics when it comes to techniques but the idea of laying a foundation of respect & leadership before friendship, and then friendship before obedience training or operant conditioning.


I'll refer you to the best resource I know for this. Donn Yarnall's website, Home. You can get that information from the "civilian" unrestricted side of the side. Go to the section on "Rank Drive." His leadership exercises give amazing results at communicating, without conflict, that the human is the fair and just leader of the dog−human team. 



pancake said:


> Or sometimes I see ads for "PURELY positive reinforcement ONLY, all other methods are cruel and outdated" and it makes me wonder does that really work?


If those advertisers mean that they use ONLY positive reinforcement (+R) and do not use any other quadrants of the OC "box" then I think that they're sadly mistaken. It's impossible to use only one quadrant, or to completely avoid using punishment in some form in training a dog. Mostly those folks try to avoid using aversives, especially positive punishment (+P) but most of them still do, they just try to use them at what they consider to be "low levels." Of course, our perception of what that means, may not coincide with what the dog thinks is "low level." 

Much of the time, people who have success with those methods have some things in common with one another. They start training their dogs as puppies, fresh from a breeder or other source. They use breeds that are known to be biddable, that is, interested in pleasing their owners, or they select individuals known for this. They have been to many seminars and read many books on the subject. They are willing to wait for fairly long periods of time for their methods to take effect. They have an ethos that causing the slightest discomfort or stress to a dog is wrong, unethical, and/or inhumane. Sometimes they think that anyone who uses an Ecollar is "lazy, uneducated, ignorant of their methods or is looking for a 'quick fix.' " While they believe that being "kind" to the dogs is the right thing to do, in discussions with those whom they oppose, especially Ecollar users, they have difficulty in remaining polite and professional, often going to attacks on the person, rather than on his ideas. They've bought into all the scientific studies that show adverse results with Ecollars but none of the ones that show good results. They will jump into the middle of a conversation about a specific dog with a specific issue, with horrible tales of abuse and misuse of Ecollars, as if those things always occurred, and they were a result of using the tool, rather than what it really is, stupid users who have not bothered to learn how to properly use the tool. They will almost never engage in discussion of how their choice of tools has problems, how long it takes to get results, or the failures of those methods for some issues and with some dogs. Of course these are generalities and don't apply to all. 



pancake said:


> I would think it works well but only for certain dogs. When it works it works great but for a lot of dogs, I feel without some form of discipline and groundrules, this philosophy and methodology can only go so far.


I think that I'd enlarge the group of dogs that it works with to "most dogs." But there are some dogs that it works for, not at all, and some behaviors that it does not work well for, at all. I agree that dogs need as you say, _"discipline and ground rules."_ 



pancake said:


> I also have seen it discussed as "pack behavior corrections" and "obedience correction" on Leerburg and how issues that related to pack behavior such as biting, growling, not moving off the bed, food aggression, etc. requires immediate and clear correction before it escalates where in obedience and competition training, there is more slack. But isn't this just another way of saying, depending on what you value as important = importance in correction? And then in that case, wouldn't it purely be relative and dependent on the owner's EXPECTATIONS? If I have high levels of expectations where I require the dog to follow through on a sit or down when i say it only 1 time, whereas someone who is more relaxed and doesn't enforce as much and wonders why the dog won't sit after saying "sit, sit sit sit, sit! sit! lucky sit!" then I'd be delivering the same amount of corrections for obedience training as someone who would correct a biting or potty training issue.


I'm not a fan of much that comes directly from the owner of that site. He's not a trainer, he's a breeder who sells dog training equipment and makes videos of people who are trainers. Most of what comes from him, he's merely parroting from the trainers in his videos. On top of that, is the fact that he's "born again" using marker training but his old methods, some of them barbaric by any measure, are still on the site, available to anyone who trips over them. The site is badly outdated and needs pruning. 

His ideas of "pack behavior corrections" and "OB corrections" are archaic and based on old models that have since, fallen from favor. I believe that it's possible to fix many issues without conflict, by making use of the dog's natural drives. I have no problem giving corrections when they give the best results, but I know that they do not always do so. 



pancake said:


> In Cesar's book, he wrote about how he took a survey of 1000 people (I forget the exact number of survey takers) and the top issues were things like separation anxiety or jumping (30-40%) but potty training was down to like 9%. And he was stating how people have really high expectations when it comes to potty training, and sanitary issues due to accidents are very high on almost every dog owner's list which results in very strict and rigid (but can be loving and not harsh) enforcement when it comes to poo and pee. But when it comes to things like jumping, humans tend to get soft and because it's not as high on the list as potty accidents around the house, it's not enforced to the T.


I think that every dog needs two bombproof commands. A recall and a stationary behavior, a sit or a down. Bombproof means that the dog will obey the command, without repetition, no matter how far he is from the handler (allowing for conditions where the dog can hear the command, of course) and no matter what distractions are present. These are life−saving behaviors. If the dog is headed towards danger, for example chasing a cat towards a busy street, (two problems really, lol) the recall will stop him before he's in front of those cars. If he's on the other side of danger, that same busy street, for example, and he's coming towards the handler, the stationary movement, will stop him and keep him safe. After that, other movements are gravy. They may have a purpose (a stand, for grooming) but are not essential. I think that most pet owners just want a dog that will come when called, will do some tricks, will not tear up the home, and will not be aggressive towards them or the family. Peeing and pooping that you mention, come under the category of "not tearing up the home." 



pancake said:


> I may have gone off track here but I was curious if anyone else subscribes to the belief that they need to maintain strong leadership in all aspects before all else, and once you have that respect and trust... things like friendship, advanced obedience training or trick training, etc. just come naturally?


Wow! I agree that leadership is necessary. We may disagree on the definition of "strong" because some may think that means "harsh." I think that the owner needs to be a "fair and just leader" meting out reinforcement and punishment in the proper amounts and at the proper times. I think that to be most effective, training needs to be balanced between the two. 



pancake said:


> I definitely use positive reinforcement and all training methods, not just one but I find that using only treats to get a dog to do something without any form of correction is not "natural". My personal opinion is that it seems like it is pure manipulation for the sake of the "performance" but without corrections that are found in nature by a dog's mother or the leader of a social group of animals, there are more cases of dogs that develop behavioral issues. Dogs need boundaries and rules and I think most dogs "thrive" on it, they feel uncomfortable when there's shaky leadership or an owner that they don't feel is in control of every aspect. * Anyone agree? * [Emphasis Added]


There I am, back in Mr. Kotter's class ... "Ooh ooh ooh."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Jag said:


> yes, I agree with this. In fact, my breeder made sure to tell me that I had to stay on top of Grim. Obedience was NOT negotiable. Not every dog needs a 'heavy hand' approach, but some do. Some dogs can turn into not only irritating pets, but dangerous pets if they don't follow direction. Grim is VERY strong willed. Although he's biddable most of the time, he can dig in his heels when he wants to. Dominant dogs need clear, consistent, fair leadership. Without it, you can have a mess on your hands. Before you can become this 'leader', though, you have to develop a bond with the dog. Without that bond, you're missing a critical piece to the puzzle. Now that the bond has taken place, he can NEVER think that he has a choice to follow direction or not. I don't want him thinking it's even possible to challenge me for the leadership role. So far, this is going very well with minimal correction. However, his age is a factor. I'm sure we're going to have more 'testing' as time goes on. There are some GSDs who can be trained with minimal correction. Knowing what 'kind' of dog you have is important, IMO, before you start handing out corrections. You don't want your pup to lose confidence or fold because they can't handle the correction. JMHO


I find it fascinating that we disagree so vehemently on the Ecollar but agree so completely in what you've said here!


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

pancake said:


> My point is that a dog will challenge you as an owner if you're weak. By weak I do not mean physically weak but enforcement weak. Lax. Lazy. "just let him do it this one time" type of mentality. This is obvious dog behavior, you tell a dog get off the couch, he doesn't move and looks at you and you're like "fine, just have it", the dog learns to think that it's okay. Some may view this as the dog "won" but in reality it's just enforcing your rules. My dog challenges me but she's naturally not the type of socially dominant, "climb the pack ladder" type, so it doesn't occur much.
> ... Dogs will always test you. Humans are the same way. It has nothing to do with pack mentality. It's the constant ebb and flow of interaction between social animals to see where they fit in in the group or society.





Jag said:


> In reading this, I feel that this pup isn't 'testing' you, but rather is confused by what she's supposed to do, and being lured into the room.





AgileGSD said:


> I don't think I am confusing what you are saying but I'm still interested in ways dogs are constantly "challenging" or "testing" the people they live with. You example of your dog putting her feet over an imaginary barrier is not the best example, as Jag said it could just be that she is unclear about what is expected. Or she's getting mixed signals about what you want at that moment. To me this is sort of like saying the reason agility dogs get creepy on contacts or their contact behavior erodes over time is because they are testing or challenging their handler.


It's possible that these dogs are _"challenging"_ or _"testing"_ their owners, but I don't think that's always the case. It's also possible that they are _"unclear about what is expected,"_ but again, I don't think that's always the case. The first possibility implies a conflict situation, perhaps some malice, or at least a "me v. him" attitude on the part of the dog. The second implies either poor or weak training. I think that more often it's just a case of DWDWDWD, "Dogs Wanna Do What Dogs Wanna Do." Dogs have their own agendas. Sometimes it coincides with what we want them to do and then, we're gold. But sometimes it's in direct opposition to what we want. But it's neither necessarily a challenge, nor is it necessarily a result of poor training. 



AgileGSD said:


> But positive training is not about luring into position, ignoring bad behavior, giving treats for good behavior and hoping for the best. It's about a system of clear communication between the dog and owner. It's about incorporating "life rewards" into training. It's about setting your dog up to practice good behavior over and over, while making things gradually more difficult. It's about shaping behaviors which make your dog a better learner and you a better trainer. It's about controlling the dog's ability to self reinforce for behaviors you don't like. It's about teaching your dog to think, to engage with you and to be a willing, happy partner in training. Reliability comes from building the behavior step by step and teaching the dog there are always _many_ other choices but the only choice that matters is the one you are asking for. It's about a lot more than that too.


Isn't this the case with all good training? 



AgileGSD said:


> Like I said, the limitation with positive methods tends to be with the trainer and not the methods.


The problem with these methods often is that even when they work, they take an inordinate amount of time to get reliable results, even with true experts doing the work. If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded. Once in a great while a "positive trainer" wins one of these competitions, but it's quite rare. Those methods have been around long enough, that if they were better, as we keep hearing, they'd be DOMINATING ALL competitions. Yet they're not. In fact, in just about every form of such competition, at the highest levels, not only are the winning dogs trained with conventional or traditional methods, they've also been trained with Ecollars for at least part of their work.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> I find it fascinating that we disagree so vehemently on the Ecollar but agree so completely in what you've said here!


If you want to be even more 'fascinated', I'll let you in on something. When Grim goes into 'real life' training and away off lead training, if he needs an E-collar he will wear one. We only disagree on when to use an E-collar, not the tool itself.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

LouCastle said:


> The problem with these methods often is that even when they work, they take an inordinate amount of time to get reliable results, even with true experts doing the work. If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded. Once in a great while a "positive trainer" wins one of these competitions, but it's quite rare. Those methods have been around long enough, that if they were better, as we keep hearing, they'd be DOMINATING ALL competitions. Yet they're not. In fact, in just about every form of such competition, at the highest levels, not only are the winning dogs trained with conventional or traditional methods, they've also been trained with Ecollars for at least part of their work.


Man is that the truth (except for the part about the ecollar, not sure about those statistics I think its just corrections in general). All of the training facilities in my area have slowly moved to positive only. They actually won't even allow a choke, prong, and of course the ecollar. These places have dog trials. I go there and am still to get lower than second place when it comes to rally or obedience. You can definitely tell the difference. The dog is happy...but the dog isn't focused. It will like Lou said, do its own thing once in a while (not bad in rally, NQ in obedience).

I've moved over to the...positive training until you know your dog knows what is expected, and if it blows you off you can correct (whatever method you wish to use for corrections). Makes for a good working dog to this point...we'll see what happens in the future.

Pancake...you need to watch "Nova: Dogs Decoded" (available on netflix). It shows how different dogs and wolves really are. The things that wolves do in the wild to "correct" their young isn't necessarily what we do when we're correcting in dog training. At the same time...it talks about how malleable canine DNA is and that it only takes 3 generations of selective breeding to completely change a dog's temperament. 3 generations and the only thing that is the same between a wild canine and a domesticated one is the look. And even that starts to change very quickly. So it's kind of been proven that wolf theory doesn't apply to dogs that have been domesticated over hundreds and even thousands of years.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

martemchik said:


> Man is that the truth (except for the part about the ecollar, not sure about those statistics I think its just corrections in general). All of the training facilities in my area have slowly moved to positive only. They actually won't even allow a choke, prong, and of course the ecollar. These places have dog trials. I go there and am still to get lower than second place when it comes to rally or obedience. You can definitely tell the difference. The dog is happy...but the dog isn't focused. It will like Lou said, do its own thing once in a while (not bad in rally, NQ in obedience).
> 
> I've moved over to the...positive training until you know your dog knows what is expected, and if it blows you off you can correct (whatever method you wish to use for corrections). Makes for a good working dog to this point...we'll see what happens in the future.


Totally agree. Also, the 'doing its own thing once in awhile'... if you have a certain type of dog, this is going to lead to a breakdown in how the dog views the handler and can be disastrous. I talked to one training place months ago that I was wanting to take Grim to. However, after actually speaking to the owner, it was clear that was not the place for him. I think that when a person is coming from a place of 'the hard and willful dogs' and comparing them to what seems to be a lot of the 'pet' GSDs that are out there.... the latter doesn't understand that the former requires something totally different. What would be extremely 'harsh' for the latter is simply a requirement for the former.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

Jag said:


> If you want to be even more 'fascinated', I'll let you in on something. When Grim goes into 'real life' training and away off lead training, if he needs an E-collar he will wear one. We only disagree on when to use an E-collar, not the tool itself.


I'm sorry, that's not quite accurate. We also disagree on having a trainer in person to teach the handler about the appropriate use of the E-collar. OK.. now I think I'm done.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Pancake, I enjoy reading your take on all of this. But the one thing that keeps playing in the back of my mind is: formulating a theory is all well and good, but it isn't nearly that simple because the dog will let you know if you're right or wrong. So when you pigeonhole yourself with your ideas, you're really just limiting yourself.


----------



## RyleesDad (Sep 18, 2012)

I think a combination of both positive/negative reinforcement would be ideal. In my experiences (I'm on about my 4th GSD) the two dogs that were best trained had prong collars used on them. For that reason, I remain loyal to some negative reinforcement just as much as I like the idea of positive reinforcement. I think a combination of both will help them catch on faster. 


Sent from my iPhone using Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> Pancake, I enjoy reading your take on all of this. But the one thing that keeps playing in the back of my mind is: formulating a theory is all well and good, but it isn't nearly that simple because the dog will let you know if you're right or wrong. So when you pigeonhole yourself with your ideas, you're really just limiting yourself.


:thumbup:
I also wanted to use the 'all positive' method of training...which was new to me. However, I quickly found out that Grim isn't the dog for this. Keep your mind open and adjust to the dog.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

I trained my first dog 25+ years ago (before the big food fad hit) with saltine crackers and no leash. He was a show dog and I was told by my mother I could not train him because it would make him a bad show dog. So I would sneak the crackers out of the house before my Mom got home and did the training in the backyard. I had him doing fronts and finishes, retrieving on the flat and over a jump, and even off-lead heeling. Mom didn't find out until she gave me the dog when I moved out of the house. I put a CD and CDX on him in 7 shows and owner-handled him to his only championship point. But he still got a correction when he screwed up -- a verbal repremand was enough for this dog.

I have trained quite a few dogs since then. And all have been started with food and corrections used to polish the performance. "Correction" should not be such a dirty word. It doesn't have to mean "harsh" or even physical -- for some dogs "no, no bad dog" can work. It all depends on the dog.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Jag said:


> :thumbup:
> I also wanted to use the 'all positive' method of training...which was new to me. However, I quickly found out that Grim isn't the dog for this. Keep your mind open and adjust to the dog.


Maybe I'm missing something but according to your sig Grim isn't even 4 months old yet? And you are already sure he isn't going to respond to positive training?


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Jag said:


> _She's not allowed inside a room. When me and a few friends are inside that room, she will approach. We all pet her and say good girl and she decides may be it's a good opportunity to "test me". Dogs will always test you. Humans are the same way. It has nothing to do with pack mentality. It's the constant ebb and flow of interaction between social animals to see where they fit in in the group or society. The way she "tests" me is she will sit and go down and then she will put 1 paw on the door "line" (the frame). I decided to see what she did and ignored it, and then she puts her second paw on the frame, essentially crossing the line she isn't supposed to. To most people they would think, "that's fine, she's somewhere along the line or boundary" but I already know she's testing me. This isn't a one time occasion and I do let her do it just to see what she does. If this goes without correction she will full on fledge make her way into the room, tail wagging and everything. Most people's response would be "OMG, fine you are just too cute. come here and reward her". While I admit I have done this once or twice, I'm usually strict about when she gets her praise and that would not be a time to praise her. _
> 
> In reading this, I feel that this pup isn't 'testing' you, but rather is confused by what she's supposed to do, and being lured into the room. You're not being clear, consistent, and fair in this. The time to 'correct' was when the dog approached the room. The one paw, then another crossing the line shows the confusion in the pup's understanding of the 'rules' and then is further complicated by being praised. You undid your own training and rules by allowing her to enter the room at times. Stepping back and objectively looking at a pup's behavior usually will show you where the pup's lack of understanding is or where you've caused confusion for the pup in your actions. IMO, if you're not always clear, consistent, and fair.. you will eventually lose your status as 'leader' because the pup feels that 'vacuum' and will attempt to step into that position. (Some won't, depends on the personality of the dog) I do believe it's rare for a pup to 'challenge' the handler. I, myself, had never seen it until Grim. Every other time a pup doesn't do what it's told to do is a result of confusion on the pup's part and mistakes on the handler's end.
> 
> ...


I definitely agree. I should have been more clear. The room I'm talking about is my dining room and this is when she is placed outside. Our dining room has a door that opens to the backyard and when we have guests, they want to come up to pet her. She is never allowed inside and it's always been like that. I would bring her inside (and spoil her like I do with this puppy) but other family members are opposed because her hair shedding is UNBELIEVABLE. And also she cant walk on our hardwood floors due to old age. So the rules are very clear. She will just sit her head in through the door and get petted. The breakage and testing comes when we leave the door open and we're eating or doing something on the dining table and she will slowly encroach. It's extremely obvious. I know my dog's behavior and even strangers have said "look, that's so funny. look how the dog is slowly trying to come in". A simple "no" stops her and she knows she's not supposed to. I've only let her come in once or twice in the past but I don't do that anymore. 
It can be more confusing if it was just a separate room in the house but she knows the difference between outdoors, indoors and the doorframe, cement and tile floors, etc. to know where the boundary is. 



Just being a devil's advocate as I'm sure you know your dog better than I do, but have you tried a gentle leash correction when you are in an environment that is 1 notch higher than what she normally is trained in. Like if he performs "sit" without distractions alone with you but will not do it with 1 other person in the room. If you are certain he knows "sit" perfectly fine when he is with you then I don't believe it's that he doesn't "know" sit persay but he's not willing or unable to perform it due to the attention span. One of the things that I've found to help tremendously is working purely on eye contact. Eye contact before food, before going out, before coming in, and slowly increase the eye contact and counting the seconds. At first, she couldn't look for more than a 1/2 second, and now I'm up to 10 seconds. I've learn no dog is going to listen to any command if he or she doesn't give you attention and focus. You're right about not correcting him for not being able to not be distracted, that's not his fault. But training eye contact goes a long way!


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> Pancake, I enjoy reading your take on all of this. But the one thing that keeps playing in the back of my mind is: formulating a theory is all well and good, but it isn't nearly that simple because the dog will let you know if you're right or wrong. So when you pigeonhole yourself with your ideas, you're really just limiting yourself.


I think you need to understand that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with positive reinforcement or any kind of operant conditioning or treat work. I've said this before. The only problem I have is when other people tell me that positive reinforcement training is absolutely the only tool that is necessary as everything else is cruel and outdated. I'm advocating variety in training including clicker and treat training whereas those who I am arguing against is essentially stating "NO, treat and positive methods ONLY." So just by simple reasoning, the only ones limiting themselves are the people who advocate one supreme training methodology, not variety, regardless of the specifics.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Whiteshepherds said:


> So she isn't supposed to cross that line but sometimes you let her, and then depending on your mood sometimes you praise her and sometimes you correct her?
> She's not testing you, she's confused because you're sending her mixed messages.


Please read my response to Jag for more clarification. I don't let her in, only have done so once or twice in the past. The boundary is a clear outdoor to indoor boundary.


----------



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

pancake said:


> You're confusing what I'm saying. My point is that a dog will challenge you as an owner if you're weak. By weak I do not mean physically weak but enforcement weak. Lax. Lazy. "just let him do it this one time" type of mentality. This is obvious dog behavior, you tell a dog get off the couch, he doesn't move and looks at you and you're like "fine, just have it", the dog learns to think that it's okay. Some may view this as the dog "won" but in reality it's just enforcing your rules. My dog challenges me but she's naturally not the type of socially dominant, "climb the pack ladder" type, so it doesn't occur much. She's not allowed inside a room. When me and a few friends are inside that room, she will approach. We all pet her and say good girl and she decides may be it's a good opportunity to "test me". Dogs will always test you. Humans are the same way. It has nothing to do with pack mentality. It's the constant ebb and flow of interaction between social animals to see where they fit in in the group or society. The way she "tests" me is she will sit and go down and then she will put 1 paw on the door "line" (the frame). I decided to see what she did and ignored it, and then she puts her second paw on the frame, essentially crossing the line she isn't supposed to. To most people they would think, "that's fine, she's somewhere along the line or boundary" but I already know she's testing me. This isn't a one time occasion and I do let her do it just to see what she does. If this goes without correction she will full on fledge make her way into the room, tail wagging and everything. Most people's response would be "OMG, fine you are just too cute. come here and reward her". While I admit I have done this once or twice, I'm usually strict about when she gets her praise and that would not be a time to praise her.


I don't think you're going to find anyone here who disagrees with you about enforcing rules. I don't see it being about testing or challenging _you_, it's about not being clear and consistent in your expectations. Sometimes she can come into that room and sometimes she can't - how is she supposed to know under what circumstances it's okay and when it's not? I think she's testing _the rules_ because they're not clear and consistent. However, I don't agree that if you set specific rules most people would think it's okay to not enforce them. If she can't enter the room without being invited (or ever, if that's the case), then she should never be reinforced for doing so, either with praise or even attention. I don't ban my dogs from any room in house, but if I did and they broke and crossed that boundary, I'd calmly get up and put them back in place. If you're lax with enforcement then you have to expect that your dog is going to figure that out right quick, and start trying to figure out what they can get away with. Dogs do what works. :shrug:



> The amount, frequency and hardheadedness a dog has when it comes to constantly challenging your rules strictly depends on the dog but the point I'm trying to make is, at some point you need to enforce your rules and if you commit yourself to "team positive reinforcement ONLY" then well, you're limiting yourself on the tools that can be used. Quite naturally.


I am not a positive only trainer, but I want to respond to this - positive does not mean permissive, and it definitely does NOT mean that you don't set rules and reinforce them consistently, or that there are no consequences whatsoever for non-compliance. And the earlier you start, the better, which is why I do NILIF from the time my puppies come home. They learn right away that they must sit and wait while I put the food bowl down or I won't release them to eat. 



> Capitalizing on a dog's natural reaction to certain things, enforcing rules and boundaries and setting a strict leadership and respect environment is natural if done right.


All of that is completely consistent with positive reinforcement training. 



> Coaxing a dog to do something with absolutely no correction is not and doesn't have a high success or reliability rate when it comes to much tougher and advanced training. Corrections are a part of life and to baby a dog into thinking it lives in a marshmallow world where teaching them good behavior through treats somehow eliminates bad behavior is just foolish.


That is NOT consistent with positive reinforcement training, done correctly.  Many people who prefer not to use physical corrections or aversives still use verbal corrections - it doesn't mean that you can't ever tell the dog no. It's not about teaching them they live in a marshmallow world or magically eliminating bad behavior with treats. As I said, dogs do what works - if bad behavior works, they'll continue doing it. If good behavior works, _AND their environment is managed so that their opportunity to practice bad behavior is eliminated or severely restricted_, then that behavior will eventually, and _naturally_ extinguish. That doesn't mean you can ignore everything you don't like, not at all. But _some_ behavior, anything that doesn't involve harm to the dog, to other animals, or to people, can successfully be extinguished if it's not EVER reinforced in any way. Obviously anything that is potentially dangerous needs to be dealt with differently. 



> Disclaimer: I have to say that a lot what you are reading from me is biased against one camp of people. And that's the people who claim that positive reinforcement is THE ONLY WAY to go. I run into these people all the time that tout that the newest research shows that everything is outdated and inhumane and the only way to train a dog is through* treats and love with no discipline or rules*.


Well, those people just don't know what they're talking about. My dogs get plenty of treats and love, but they also get a whole lot of discipline and rules.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle; said:


> The problem with these methods often is that even when they work, they take an inordinate amount of time to get reliable results, even with true experts doing the work. If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded. Once in a great while a "positive trainer" wins one of these competitions, but it's quite rare. Those methods have been around long enough, that if they were better, as we keep hearing, they'd be DOMINATING ALL competitions. Yet they're not. In fact, in just about every form of such competition, at the highest levels, not only are the winning dogs trained with conventional or traditional methods, they've also been trained with Ecollars for at least part of their work.


 The idea that positive trainingow takes an "inordinate" amount time has not been my experience. Although it has been my experience that some things take a long time to train to train to reliability or to overcome, regardless of method used. Good training isn't always quick, regardless of methods used. 

As far as competition success goes, change is hard and never comes quickly. Dogs trained without the used of force do dominate agility at the highest levels. With the more traditional sports, change is happening for sure but it's slow. Once people said there'd never be an OTCH trained without physical corrections. NOw there's at least two. Before that people believed the ear pinch was the only method that would produce a reliable retrieve in the ring. Many people have since proven otherwise. Change is happening even slower in protection sports but it is happening. Part of what makes this change so difficult in the sports that have been around for a long time is that people tend to look towards those who have been most successful in the sport for training advice. Those involved in the sport at that level have a lot of time, money and emotions invested in doing what they have always done. And it isn't just a matter of switching over from this plan to another. For positive training to work in some scenarios the foundation of the training has to be much different than what is traditional. For everyone involved in sports where physical correction is still heavily relied on in some aspects it's hard to let go of the fear involved
with doing something different. Fear of failure, fear that maybe all thd time you were wrong, fear of not fitting in with your peers, etc. 

It is funny that the idea was brought up that positive training is only effective with the right breed and when the right dog is started as a puppy. One side effect I have seen with the increasing acceptance of positive training is more and more "off breeds" competing in various venues. Breeds which traditional trainers often deemed "untrainable".


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

What you will see with positive reinforcement is dogs that are happier, and more willing to do the work. You'll see that they enjoy being obedient and that they like listening to the handler.

But (in general) it takes longer. My experience has been that my dog (taught more with older methods) is the youngest one at obedience trials. But its usually a year or so...not like my dog is in there at 2 and the others are in there at 6. The dogs will get away with things. You have to have an environment that allows for your dog to make some mistakes 3,4,5, 20 times until it finally realizes that it shouldn't do that based on your redirection methods. You also will have a much tougher time (like Lou said) getting your dog "perfect." It is very tough without corrections to get your dog completely straight, or in a perfect heel, those little things that will lose you points in the ring. Now...pet owners don't care, but at the same time most pet owners need an obedient dog before its a year old, or gets too big to control.

Each one of us has our own methods...I'm one dog deep (he's 2.5 years old) and I know I've made plenty of mistakes. I've learned many ways to do things, I'm still learning ways to do things, and I'll make sure that the next one will be taught in ways that I have seen work with this one (hopefully within a year).


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

AgileGSD said:


> I don't think I am confusing what you are saying but I'm still interested in ways dogs are constantly "challenging" or "testing" the people they live with. You example of your dog putting her feet over an imaginary barrier is not the best example, as Jag said it could just be that she is unclear about what is expected. Or she's getting mixed signals about what you want at that moment. To me this is sort of like saying the reason agility dogs get creepy on contacts or their contact behavior erodes over time is because they are testing or challenging their handler.


Please see my reply to Jag. more clarification on that example. 




AgileGSD said:


> But our DNA is very close, just as that of wolves and dogs which was your argument "the DNA is almost the same!". Do you feel people owning wolf hybrids is a good idea?


Our DNA comparison to chimps are no where even close when comparing dogs to wolves. We're not even the same species. In fact, a human to neanderthal comparison is STILL way far off than wolf to dog. 
Owning a wolf hybrid doesn't pertain to anything we talked about but wolfs can breed with dogs. I don't have enough information or experience with wolf hybrids to make a decision either way. Cesar says its a bad idea, I dont agree or disagree as of yet. Supposedly my dog I rescued is low content wolf. 



AgileGSD said:


> I think you may be confusing the things you're saying  That's the thing though. Living with dogs isn't how things occur in nature either. On one hand, you argue for this outdated idea of dominance theory because it's "natural" and "how dogs behave in nature". But on the other hand, we can't observe bitches with puppies in home settings because that isn't how things are in nature. I totally agree that not much about our life with dogs is "how things are in nature" and that attempting to poorly mimic "what wild dogs do" to interact with our pet dogs is off base at best.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay but you're taking nature too literally now. They were street dogs, rural dogs, feral dogs, etc. He attributes his knowledge to observing all kinds of "wild" natural dogs. 

Here's another example. The western coyote. They are not "pack" animals, like wolves. As in they do not form these "packs" naturally but they are small group animals. But when frozen winter occurs, these small groups find each and hunt together in masses. Essentially becoming "a pack". Evolution caters to the fittest and fittest meaning "fit to the situation", not physically fit or athletic. And when the the situation calls for it, a large social group is formed and naturally with ANY living social creature, there is a hierarchy. 
Let's forget wolf pack and just stick to social group. Within all social groups people will vie for power and rank, some more than others and it's a very reptilian, ancient instinct found in all living social things. Even reptiles will do this (alligators) and this is believe it or not, rank within a group is what determines the efficiency and survival of that group, and within the group the rank determines resource allocation. 




AgileGSD said:


> That's the issue and why I brought up that episode specifically. There was nothing "silent" about that dog. Did you watch the video which showed an analysis of the dog's body language? That was not "with no warning", the dog gave a lot of warning that Cesar failed to notice. She was a resource guarder and there are drastically better ways to deal with resource guarding than have a strange guy come to your house and attempt to manhandle your dog while they eat.


Well I have to disagree. He didn't manhandle her, he claimed her space, which is how animals behave. They claim space and possessions. Fights only occur if there's a challenge to that space. With Holly, she was completely fear aggressive, not dominant and he never claimed she was dominant. If you watch that particular clip, she snapped and pulled and back and her facial expression was absolutely neutral. Cesar relaxed and she snapped a second time even when he made no movement or advanced. And also, Cesar could be wrong here and there, I'm not claiming he's god. he got bit, so what? That's his job, every kennel worker, dog trainer, behaviorist gets bit. It's unfair to take a case that lasted almost a year (i think more?) with other trainers involved who got bit, and narrow it down to a 10 second trailer clip. In fact, I admire how he owned up to it by admitting he didn't see the second, untelegraphed bite coming. I would have a problem if he made up some BS answer and tried to save face. 





AgileGSD said:


> You say you don't have a simplified view of positive training but the above statements portrays that you do not have a good understanding of how to effectively use positive training. So does this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please read the BOLD statement I highlighted in your paragraph. It shows that we are in complete agreement then. If you are someone who doesn't believe that positive training is absolutely the only way to go, then everything I wrote past this response doesn't pertain or argue against you.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

AgileGSD said:


> As far as competition success goes, change is hard and never comes quickly. Dogs trained without the used of force do dominate agility at the highest levels. With the more traditional sports, change is happening for sure but it's slow. Once people said there'd never be an OTCH trained without physical corrections. NOw there's at least two.


Guess it depends on your definition of physical corrections.....to me, that doesn't necessarily mean an ear pinch or a collar pop. Putting hands on the dog and pushing them away when they lose focus during heeling, is that a physical correction?


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> I'm reminded of Arnold Horshack sitting in Mr. Kotter's classroom frantically waving his hand and shouting "Ooh ooh ooh, pick me, pick me. I'm also aware that I'm dating myself with that reference.
> 
> Most of my work with the police and SAR dogs is based on their drives which is determined by their genetics.
> 
> ...


Ah thanks for the link, I'll definitely check it out!



LouCastle said:


> If those advertisers mean that they use ONLY positive reinforcement (+R) and do not use any other quadrants of the OC "box" then I think that they're sadly mistaken. It's impossible to use only one quadrant, or to completely avoid using punishment in some form in training a dog. Mostly those folks try to avoid using aversives, especially positive punishment (+P) but most of them still do, they just try to use them at what they consider to be "low levels." Of course, our perception of what that means, may not coincide with what the dog thinks is "low level."


Yep, pretty much what is advertised. Found a few local trainers and called one and one his websites states that he only does Positive training and goes on about how every other method and correction, leash corrections, etc. are scientifically outdated, etc. Which by the way is false. I'm wary of people who badmouth others instead of building up themselves. 
His credentials are impressive, went to state college with psychology and tons of experience with rehab in human psychology and then animal psychology, went to behavior school, studied all the scientific lingo and has a bunch of education pertaining to dog behavioral training. When I asked him his training process he says treats and praise and reward based on classical conditioning. Everything sounded great. i asked him if he does off leash training and his answer was no. I asked him how reliable the emergency recall he teaches, or how reliable the dog will do the commands without treats and he says that we would have to wean onto adversive or avoidance to get those results. He could be a bad trainer but someone who is very book smart and educated and accredited even knows that reliability using one quadrant is downright ridiculous when you look at the big picture. Not all dogs and all environments will respond. 



LouCastle said:


> Much of the time, people who have success with those methods have some things in common with one another. They start training their dogs as puppies, fresh from a breeder or other source. They use breeds that are known to be biddable, that is, interested in pleasing their owners, or they select individuals known for this. They have been to many seminars and read many books on the subject. They are willing to wait for fairly long periods of time for their methods to take effect. They have an ethos that causing the slightest discomfort or stress to a dog is wrong, unethical, and/or inhumane. Sometimes they think that anyone who uses an Ecollar is "lazy, uneducated, ignorant of their methods or is looking for a 'quick fix.' " While they believe that being "kind" to the dogs is the right thing to do, in discussions with those whom they oppose, especially Ecollar users, they have difficulty in remaining polite and professional, often going to attacks on the person, rather than on his ideas. They've bought into all the scientific studies that show adverse results with Ecollars but none of the ones that show good results. They will jump into the middle of a conversation about a specific dog with a specific issue, with horrible tales of abuse and misuse of Ecollars, as if those things always occurred, and they were a result of using the tool, rather than what it really is, stupid users who have not bothered to learn how to properly use the tool. They will almost never engage in discussion of how their choice of tools has problems, how long it takes to get results, or the failures of those methods for some issues and with some dogs. Of course these are generalities and don't apply to all.


100% agree and I have no problem with the way you use ecollars. There seems to be an overcompensation and humanization when it comes to dogs in the recent years and providing strict discipline even out of love, is somehow cruel and inhumane. And yet none of that stuff would fly with a human child. 




LouCastle said:


> I think that I'd enlarge the group of dogs that it works with to "most dogs." But there are some dogs that it works for, not at all, and some behaviors that it does not work well for, at all. I agree that dogs need as you say, _"discipline and ground rules."_


yup the actual statistical numbers I'm not sure what they are. And the success rate would be higher for certains dogs and almost every puppy. Question is, how reliable, efficient and successful is it when it gets to advanced training where reliability is a must AND when considering the big picture and looking at the entire dog population rather than the idea that "well it works for all my dogs!". Also rehab is an entirely different ballgame than clean slate teaching. 




LouCastle said:


> I'm not a fan of much that comes directly from the owner of that site. He's not a trainer, he's a breeder who sells dog training equipment and makes videos of people who are trainers. Most of what comes from him, he's merely parroting from the trainers in his videos. On top of that, is the fact that he's "born again" using marker training but his old methods, some of them barbaric by any measure, are still on the site, available to anyone who trips over them. The site is badly outdated and needs pruning.
> 
> His ideas of "pack behavior corrections" and "OB corrections" are archaic and based on old models that have since, fallen from favor. I believe that it's possible to fix many issues without conflict, by making use of the dog's natural drives. I have no problem giving corrections when they give the best results, but I know that they do not always do so.


I do not like Ed Frawley's materials. You are right, very commercialized and frankly I think he's a bit harsh and has yet to find the right answer. There isn't consistency in his training methods and his older stuff are harsh and sometimes downright mean. I don't know the guy so can't say but he could also be trying to cater towards "softer" target audience by shifting his training philosophy for business and marketing. Who knows? 




LouCastle said:


> I think that every dog needs two bombproof commands. A recall and a stationary behavior, a sit or a down. Bombproof means that the dog will obey the command, without repetition, no matter how far he is from the handler (allowing for conditions where the dog can hear the command, of course) and no matter what distractions are present. These are life−saving behaviors. If the dog is headed towards danger, for example chasing a cat towards a busy street, (two problems really, lol) the recall will stop him before he's in front of those cars. If he's on the other side of danger, that same busy street, for example, and he's coming towards the handler, the stationary movement, will stop him and keep him safe. After that, other movements are gravy. They may have a purpose (a stand, for grooming) but are not essential. I think that most pet owners just want a dog that will come when called, will do some tricks, will not tear up the home, and will not be aggressive towards them or the family. Peeing and pooping that you mention, come under the category of "not tearing up the home."


I agree with the importance of those commands but I feel attention and eye contact with distractions can go a long way. Sometimes resolving issues where the dog has trouble because basically, he's just not paying any focus. 




LouCastle said:


> Wow! I agree that leadership is necessary. We may disagree on the definition of "strong" because some may think that means "harsh." I think that the owner needs to be a "fair and just leader" meting out reinforcement and punishment in the proper amounts and at the proper times. I think that to be most effective, training needs to be balanced between the two.


Yep. I think the rule regardless of what your technical methods are, is ... does it come from a place of calm assertiveness with love and care for the dog? 100% of the time, if it comes from anger or frustration you can pretty much call the training session off cause it's not conducive to learning to be in an emotionally unstable state. (For the human) Balance, is the key to everything in life.


----------



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

.


AgileGSD said:


> Fear of failure, fear that maybe all thd time you were wrong, fear of not fitting in with your peers, etc.


Some people even fear anything that's old, even if it works.

There are as many misconceptions about corrections and compulsion as there are about positive training. 

For the record I'm not against Positive training. I'm anti those who insist their way is the only way, regardless of the topic.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Jack's Dad said:


> .
> 
> Some people even fear anything that's old, even if it works.
> 
> ...


Yep!


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

Jack's Dad said:


> .
> 
> Some people even fear anything that's old, even if it works.
> 
> ...


Big thumbs up there!! :toasting:


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Jack's Dad said:


> .
> 
> Some people even fear anything that's old, even if it works.
> 
> ...


 Eh. I've trained with the old methods too. Never said they weren't effective. I think the only claims of a method being ineffective on this thread were made about positive methods. And by people who didn't seem to have a good understanding of thd methods. I'm not out to convince anyone to change methods but I will respond to inaccurate statements about methods I'm familiar with and dog behavior in general.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Jag said:


> If you want to be even more 'fascinated', I'll let you in on something. When Grim goes into 'real life' training and away off lead training, if he needs an E-collar he will wear one. We only disagree on when to use an E-collar, not the tool itself.


You're right, that is fascinating too. What do you mean by _" 'real life' training"_ and when to you think it's appropriate to use an Ecollar? 



Jag said:


> I'm sorry, that's not quite accurate. We also disagree on having a trainer in person to teach the handler about the appropriate use of the E-collar. OK.. now I think I'm done.


Why do you think this is necessary? Is it necessary with clicker training? Free shaping? Luring? Conventional leash and collar methods that use corrections? If it's not necessary with them but it is with the Ecollar, why? Have you read (for example) my article on teaching the recall? 

Some people are visual learners. Some are auditory learners. Some learn best by reading. Some learn best by having a trainer at their elbow. Everyone is different. I know people who CAN NOT learn when they're with a trainer. They choke up and can't perform at all.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> The idea that positive trainingow takes an "inordinate" amount time has not been my experience. Although it has been my experience that some things take a long time to train to train to reliability or to overcome, regardless of method used. Good training isn't always quick, regardless of methods used.


Well now I guess it's time for numbers. How long would it take YOU to train a dog to a 90% reliability level to be off leash doing a recall and a sit from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions? Now how long do you think it would take someone who has read about using "positive training" but has never before done it? Typically Ecollar users in the last situation, report that it takes them about two weeks. I get it done in one. 



AgileGSD said:


> As far as competition success goes, change is hard and never comes quickly. Dogs trained without the used of force do dominate agility at the highest levels.


I don't think that agility fits what I said. I was quite specific in my statement. I said, _"If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums at the highest levels of *competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded."*_ [Emphasis Added] Those would be things such as AKC OB, the biting sports, including SchH, Ring Sport, KNPV etc. 

If those methods were as superior as some tell us, _"change"_ would not be _"hard."_ People using conventional methods would simply never finish anywhere near the top of the heap at the highest levels of competition. And so they'd be forced to change. It's a business for many of them, and rather than close down, they'd switch. But the facts are that people who are using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" ARE (as I said) NOT _"knock[ing] those trainer off the podiums."_ 



AgileGSD said:


> With the more traditional sports, change is happening for sure but it's slow. Once people said there'd never be an OTCH trained without physical corrections. NOw there's at least two.


You're making my point. Karen Pryor's book _"Don't Shoot the Dog"_ was released in 1999. These methods have been in use by the general population for about 13 years now. And you claim as success TWO DOGS! And BTW your changing of the situation from what I said, _"[standing on] the podium at the highest levels of competition"_ is quite a distance from your twist of getting an _"OTCH."_ As I said, _"Once in a great while a "positive trainer" wins one of these competitions, but it's quite rare."_ 



AgileGSD said:


> Before that people believed the ear pinch was the only method that would produce a reliable retrieve in the ring. Many people have since proven otherwise.


I agree. Lots of people are using the Ecollar for this now. Lol. 



AgileGSD said:


> Change is happening even slower in protection sports but it is happening. Part of what makes this change so difficult in the sports that have been around for a long time is that people tend to look towards those who have been most successful in the sport for training advice. Those involved in the sport at that level have a lot of time, money and emotions invested in doing what they have always done. And it isn't just a matter of switching over from this plan to another. For positive training to work in some scenarios the foundation of the training has to be much different than what is traditional. For everyone involved in sports where physical correction is still heavily relied on in some aspects it's hard to let go of the fear involved with doing something different. Fear of failure, fear that maybe all thd time you were wrong, fear of not fitting in with your peers, etc.


The advocates of the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are not known for their _"Fear of failure, fear that maybe all the time you were wrong, fear of not fitting in with your peers, etc."_ If these methods were better we'd be seeing DOZENS of these dogs DOMINATING all forms of competition. But we're not. 



AgileGSD said:


> It is funny that the idea was brought up that positive training is * only effective * with the right breed and when the right dog is started as a puppy. [Emphasis Added]


I'm pretty sure that no one has made such a statement. If you think I have please show us where I've said it. I HAVE said this, _* "Much of the time, * people who have success with those methods have some things in common with one another. They start training their dogs as puppies, fresh from a breeder or other source. They use breeds that are known to be biddable, that is, interested in pleasing their owners, or they select individuals known for this."_ 



AgileGSD said:


> One side effect I have seen with the increasing acceptance of positive training is more and more "off breeds" competing in various venues. Breeds which traditional trainers often deemed "untrainable".


I'm a _"traditional trainer"_ and I've NEVER considered any breed to be _"untrainable."_ Who are the trainers who are making this statement?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

martemchik said:


> What you will see with positive reinforcement is dogs that are happier, and more willing to do the work. You'll see that they enjoy being obedient and that they like listening to the handler.


_"[H]appier and more willing"_ than what? Here's some video of a dog being trained with an Ecollar. He looks plenty _"happy and ... willing"_ to me! Can you point out where he's not? 




How about in this one? 




All encompassing statements like this are just wrong. I’m sure that SOMETIMES this is the case. But you make it sound as if this is a function of any other form of training than "positive reinforcement." 



martemchik said:


> But (in general) it takes longer.


As I've said. How much longer? It varies. At an extreme I used to argue with one advocate who told me that it took her three years to train her dog to recall. For those three years the dog was not allowed off-leash except under very limited circumstances. Some people consider that kind, I’m not one of them.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

DunRingill said:


> Guess it depends on your definition of physical corrections.....to me, that doesn't necessarily mean an ear pinch or a collar pop. Putting hands on the dog and pushing them away when they lose focus during heeling, is that a physical correction?


 Not trying to be obtuse but...it really depends on the context for me if it falls under "positive training" or not. 

These discussions always end up with people arguing of what is or isn't "positive training" or "correction" or whatever.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> Pancake, I enjoy reading your take on all of this. But the one thing that keeps playing in the back of my mind is: formulating a theory is all well and good, but it isn't nearly that simple because the dog will let you know if you're right or wrong. So when you pigeonhole yourself with your ideas, you're really just limiting yourself.





pancake said:


> I think you need to understand that I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with positive reinforcement or any kind of operant conditioning or treat work. I've said this before. The only problem I have is when other people tell me that positive reinforcement training is absolutely the only tool that is necessary as everything else is cruel and outdated. I'm advocating variety in training including clicker and treat training whereas those who I am arguing against is essentially stating "NO, treat and positive methods ONLY." So just by simple reasoning, the only ones limiting themselves are the people who advocate one supreme training methodology, not variety, regardless of the specifics.


Your reply to my post doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not questioning your willingness or refusal to use positive reinforcement. I'm not sure where that came from? I'm saying to be flexible and allow the individual dog to determine how you train, not the other way around, where you blindly follow your chosen way.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> Well now I guess it's time for numbers. How long would it take YOU to train a dog to a 90% reliability level to be off leash doing a recall and a sit from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions? Now how long do you think it would take someone who has read about using "positive training" but has never before done it? Typically Ecollar users in the last situation, report that it takes them about two weeks. I get it done in one.


 One week and the dog never, ever has to wear an e-collar again? That's a lot better than any of the dogs I've known who's owners have used an e-collar for a recall, so obviously not everyone or even most have that sort of success with e-collars. Of course, methods using them vary a lot too. My friend started using one last year for her dog and he still has to wear the collar pretty much any time he's walked off leash and still needs "reminders". FWIW I sent her your website for info on how to use the e-collar but she went with Leerburg's method instead and also got help from a local field trainer. 



LouCastle said:


> I don't think that agility fits what I said. I was quite specific in my statement. I said, _"If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums at the highest levels of *competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded."*_ [Emphasis Added] Those would be things such as AKC OB, the biting sports, including SchH, Ring Sport, KNPV etc.



Well when I hear "podiums at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded I immediately think of the FCI Agility World Championship 




LouCastle said:


> If those methods were as superior as some tell us, _"change"_ would not be _"hard."_ People using conventional methods would simply never finish anywhere near the top of the heap at the highest levels of competition. And so they'd be forced to change. It's a business for many of them, and rather than close down, they'd switch. But the facts are that people who are using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" ARE (as I said) NOT _"knock[ing] those trainer off the podiums."_


 You think change wouldn't be hard for people who have built their livelihood around their particular methods? That it would be easy for someone who's had a well known, competitive training business to one day say "well I'm doing everything totally different with this next dog than what I teach and the methods I have developed over the past 20 years"? And you don't think students would be raising their eyebrows at that? Really?




LouCastle said:


> You're making my point. Karen Pryor's book _"Don't Shoot the Dog"_ was released in 1999. These methods have been in use by the general population for about 13 years now. And you claim as success TWO DOGS! And BTW your changing of the situation from what I said, _"[standing on] the podium at the highest levels of competition"_ is quite a distance from your twist of getting an _"OTCH."_ As I said, _"Once in a great while a "positive trainer" wins one of these competitions, but it's quite rare."_


 I think it was earlier than that but honestly, positive methods are only recently becoming more widely used in the more traditional sports. I very much think in the next 10 years, you'll see a lot more of it. And even more in 20.





LouCastle said:


> I agree. Lots of people are using the Ecollar for this now. Lol.


 I don't know any AKC OB people who use an e-collar for retrieve, although I'm sure some do. It's either some sort of ear/toe pinch or physically force the dog to hold it or they use shaping or have a fairly natural retrieve. 





LouCastle said:


> I'm a _"traditional trainer"_ and I've NEVER considered any breed to be _"untrainable."_ Who are the trainers who are making this statement?


 I don't think someone using modern e-collar training is really a "traditional trainer", at least not in the way I think of traditional trainers (most I have known are are pretty hard on their dogs but often don't agree with e-collar use). but a lot of the old school obedience people around here are still pretty vocal about breeds which are or are not "trainable" or suitable for competition dogs. I was told when I first got into obedience and expressed interest in a Greyhound that the breed was "stupid, untrainable and don't waste your time" by a long time local trainer with a long established training business. I have personally heard people say various Nordic dogs are untrainable, Chows are untrainable, Sighthounds are untrainable to think of a few.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> Your reply to my post doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not questioning your willingness or refusal to use positive reinforcement. I'm not sure where that came from? I'm saying to be flexible and allow the individual dog to determine how you train, not the other way around, where you blindly follow your chosen way.


Maybe you misread my post as well cause I'm not telling anyone my chosen way or telling them how to train. I'm all for personal preference and believe in the philosophy "Take what is useful, discard what is useless". But I'm entitled to my opinion that when someone says using only positive training is just as reliable and efficient is limiting themselves.

EDIT: Oh i see what you mean. You're suggesting that different methods are for different dogs and to decide what to use based on the dog. This I agree with. But I'm also of the belief that the majority of dogs are going to respond to certain things that appeal to natural dog instinct but that's just my opinion. Obviously if it doesn't work well with the dog, I wont be trying to fit a square in a circle.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

I'm just curious, who are all these people you're talking about? Are you taking an on-line 'dog training' course or something? I know my puppy's basic manners trainer was like that, but we still got something out of the classes - I just didn't see eye-to-eye with her. But it was still worth the money and the time, it was pretty good overall.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

AgileGSD said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but according to your sig Grim isn't even 4 months old yet? And you are already sure he isn't going to respond to positive training?


He's not going to respond to 'purely positive training'. I didn't say he doesn't respond to positive training. Yes, I'm sure. 

Pancake-we're working on that actually. He's getting better every day with it. However, he's too young to handle distractions right now... at least not until he's fully learned focus.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> You're right, that is fascinating too. What do you mean by _" 'real life' training"_ and when to you think it's appropriate to use an Ecollar?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I meant by real life training is more to the effect of PSA training. For me and mine, it's appropriate when all other training methods have failed to accomplish my goal. 

Why do I think it's necessary to have a trainer involved? For the same reason I think a trainer needs to be involved for most issues... to see the dog and handler, evaluate the dog and the handler, and to make sure that this tool is being used properly. You can have cruddy timing with a clicker, but it's not going to stress your dog the same as messing up with stim. Same thing with all the other methods you listed. Yes, I read the article. If someone can't learn with a trainer, I'd suggest they get a cat.  

I know you're going to separate every single sentence of my post, pick it apart and make it fit into your way of thinking. However, I'm going to put this out there anyway. Long before there were E-collars, dogs were trained and were successful in every venue. Not saying that they aren't a tool to be used, just saying that life went on before. We may be able to get all the way through my training and working goals without ever using an E-collar. I have a dog that's pretty biddable. However, this is *now*. I'm not going to write off a tool if that's what will get us to our goals. However, I think that I can accomplish most (if not all) of his training without it. This is the way *I* prefer to do things. I've said many, many times that I don't have anything against E-collars in general, and that my first GSD ended up being trained with one. For some reason, though, that has been overlooked every time I've said it. I don't think it's the only way to train, though, and I don't believe it's the right tool for every dog in every situation. Which is where we part ways.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> I'm just curious, who are all these people you're talking about? Are you taking an on-line 'dog training' course or something? I know my puppy's basic manners trainer was like that, but we still got something out of the classes - I just didn't see eye-to-eye with her. But it was still worth the money and the time, it was pretty good overall.


These people are everywhere and more widespread than ever. At least in my experience. I find ads like these all the time written by crazy people who have nothing to do but impose their methodology on others. Here, forums, youtube, local trainers, people I run into. lol ***How to find a Good Dog Trainer***


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

LouCastle said:


> All encompassing statements like this are just wrong. I’m sure that SOMETIMES this is the case. But you make it sound as if this is a function of any other form of training than "positive reinforcement."


Well...you just pointed out to AgileGSD how their TWO dogs are the exception when it comes to placing high on the podium and being taught with positive reinforcement. And yet you post two youtube videos about dogs and I'm supposed to throw out what I've been seeing in the ring because a whole TWO dogs you pointed out to me look happy as they work.

Trust me...I know its not true for every dog, but when you're talking positive reinforcement vs. any kind of corrective training, the dogs in general are happier. But if you would watch my dog in the ring you would never think that he's been highly corrected at times (including for the retrieve) which is right now no-no.

I agree with you that corrective methods are proven to be the more successful ones in the ring. I agree that positive reinforcement takes a lot more time and that the recall situation you mentioned isn't just exclusive to that lady but probably going on in a lot of places right now. But for each one of those people, there is a person that is using too harsh of corrections, or corrections when they aren't necessary which leads to flat dogs that hate what they're doing. You can tell while watching them work that they don't want to be in the ring.

I also don't know a single person that has placed high in competition in my area that has used an ecollar, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on that fact. Not a single person at my club uses an ecollar, and we do quite well in competitions. Again, I guess this might not be true for all cases...but I think you're really overstating the amount of people that train with an ecollar in the sports you mentioned.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

I can see why that ad upset you - they didn't spell "Millan" correctly, lol. I'm sure that got under your skin. But honestly, if that's an example of what you think is a "an ad written by crazy people" then I really have to question what your perceive positive training methods to be. I guess if you don't understand it, it's easy to assume that it's an asinine way to train a dog.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

The 2012 IPO World Champion for both FMBB (Belgian Shepherds, May) and FCI (all breeds, September) was trained without compulsive tools/methods. Mario and Hasco van de Duvetorre:






It's just one dog but change is slow and is happening. 



martemchik said:


> I also don't know a single person that has placed high in competition in my area that has used an ecollar, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on that fact. Not a single person at my club uses an ecollar, and we do quite well in competitions. Again, I guess this might not be true for all cases...but I think you're really overstating the amount of people that train with an ecollar in the sports you mentioned.


 I don't know anyone who uses e-collars for competition obedience either. And a handful of people I know have used e-collars in agility to correct dogs from running off or once for not hitting contacts. Those dogs are generally not real competitive and the e-collar use sure didn't make them competitive. In agility, if your dog wants to leave the ring that badly you have bigger issues than the dog isn't responding to his recall cue. 



Jag said:


> He's not going to respond to 'purely positive training'. I didn't say he doesn't respond to positive training. Yes, I'm sure.
> 
> Pancake-we're working on that actually. He's getting better every day with it. However, he's too young to handle distractions right now... at least not until he's fully learned focus.


You seem extremely defensive in your reply about why your 4 month old puppy definitely needs compulsion. 

If you have a problem with distractions, check out Susan Garrett's It's Yer Choice Game and also Crate Games. You can get amazing results with that, very appropriate for puppies and the higher drive your dog is, the better it works


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

Agile- I seem "extremely defensive"? Really?? Why do you say that?


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> I can see why that ad upset you - they didn't spell "Millan" correctly, lol. I'm sure that got under your skin. But honestly, if that's an example of what you think is a "an ad written by crazy people" then I really have to question what your perceive positive training methods to be. I guess if you don't understand it, it's easy to assume that it's an asinine way to train a dog.


Did you even READ anything I wrote? I think that you've succumbed to a "us vs them" mentality and you seem to think that somehow my personal disapproval of people who tout their methodology is the best, is somehow wrong. 

let me ask you a question so we can just clarify this instead of beating around the bush. Do YOU believe that positive training is the ONLY method that should be used (for whatever reason, regardless of the dog) and are you outspoken about it, essentially making it a religion and being an active participant in spreading the holy training truth? If so, I got nothing else to say to you cause I can see why everything I post can get under YOUR skin. I'm not a Cesar worshiper and I don't believe one method is the best. I have a problem with someone who does believe their method is the best AND when theyre outspoken about it just to pick fights. 

That ad and many others are posted under services where people are only supposed to post their services. I was browsing through various dog trainers and behavior specialists and once in a while you'll find people who badmouth everyone else just to get a step ahead of the game. That person who posted the ad isn't a dog trainer, hasn't posted a service, and posted some negative nonsense. Wouldn't be a problem if they didn't do it in a business section where it didn't belong. 

So let me ask you why you don't have a problem with people crapping on others rather than edifying themselves? Positive training is just a minor issue here, the MAIN issue I have a problem with is, If you made some form of training or style a religion, you're free to use it. Just don't shove it down other people's throat and certainly don't badmouth others by claiming their methods are inferior. 
And this problem is universal to humans, not just for dog training. Look for anything, carpet cleaning, website design, computer programming, etc. and there are people who approach life with an open mind and a kind heart and there are others who COULD be completely right when it comes to fact, but they're just sh!theads and live a life full of negativity. If gravitating towards brings others down is something you agree with, then well that just speaks volumes about what kind of person you are doesn't it? But hey, no problem with that. That's the whole reason why I spoke out about "holier than thou" attitudes, which I find is very pervasive in this new modern "positive training ONLY" trend.

EDIT: Before you straw man my argument again, I'll clarify that when i said 'crazy' that is synonymous to emotionally imbalance individuals. AKA people who aren't happy with their own lives, therefore taking a stance at making other people's lives worse. People who dedicate their lives to being right rather than helping. People who post negative offtopic opinions in a services section just to eliminate competition the dirty way.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> I know my puppy's basic manners trainer was like that, but we still got something out of the classes - I just didn't see eye-to-eye with her.





pancake said:


> Did you even READ anything I wrote?
> Do YOU believe that positive training is the ONLY method that should be used...


Who's not reading whose posts?  I can't believe you ranted at me like that when I obviously *am not* your target audience. Well, as long as you feel better getting it off your chest.


----------



## pancake (Oct 2, 2012)

Blanketback said:


> Who's not reading whose posts?  I can't believe you ranted at me like that when I obviously *am not* your target audience. Well, as long as you feel better getting it off your chest.


That rant was warranted after your unnecessary insult. Don't play victim.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

martemchik said:


> I also don't know a single person that has placed high in competition in my area that has used an ecollar, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on that fact. Not a single person at my club uses an ecollar, and we do quite well in competitions. Again, I guess this might not be true for all cases...but I think you're really overstating the amount of people that train with an ecollar in the sports you mentioned.


Several years ago (I can't remember exactly when, but could find out) 3 of the 4 finalists at the NOI were trainers who are QUITE familiar with e-collar use. The 4th might use them too, but I don't know first hand so didn't include them.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

If I felt like a victim, I would have ranted back. I don't mind you pegging me for a 'positive only' trainer, just like I didn't mind actually attending a 'positive training method' class. The more the merrier, as far as techniques go. And even if the trainer did try to shove some of her methods down my throat, so what? It was my ultimate decision, and when I said I didn't agree with her, we moved on. She didn't fight me, she just accepted that we didn't agree on using certain tools. She was paid to help me train my dog, not brainwash me. Who cares if we have different visions? Like I said before, you can always learn something from someone. If you have an open mind, that is.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> One week and the dog never, ever has to wear an e-collar again? That's a lot better than any of the dogs I've known who's owners have used an e-collar for a recall, so obviously not everyone or even most have that sort of success with e-collars. Of course, methods using them vary a lot too. My friend started using one last year for her dog and he still has to wear the collar pretty much any time he's walked off leash and still needs "reminders". FWIW I sent her your website for info on how to use the e-collar but she went with Leerburg's method instead and also got help from a local field trainer.


I notice that you didn't answer my questions. _"How long would it take YOU to train a dog to a 90% reliability level to be off leash doing a recall and a sit from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions?"_ and _" ... How long do you think it would take someone who has read about using "positive training" but has never before done it?"_ 

I said nothing about a dog _"never, ever ha[ving] to wear an Ecollar again."_ As with any other training method Ecollar users have to do maintenance training. Please don't pretend that users of the so−called "kinder gentler methods" don't have to do this too. 

As to your friend who went with Leerburg, instead of my methods ... You tell us that _"... he still has to wear the collar pretty much any time he's walked off leash and still needs 'reminders.' "_ Perhaps if she'd shown the dog what make the stim start and stop, as my method do (Mr. Frawley's don't, they leave it to the dog to guess what starts the stim and another guess as what makes it stop) her dog would not have to _"wear the Ecollar ... any time he's ... of leash."_ I've written a critique of Mr. Frawley's DVD, where he espouses his method. MORE EVIDENCE that he's not a trainer!


> It's the worst dog training video OF ANY KIND that I've ever seen. It's worse than a waste of your money; it teaches and endorses abuse of dogs using an Ecollar.


 Leerburg Video As often occurs with the Ecollar, your comments are not about the tool, rather about how it's used. 



AgileGSD said:


> Well when I hear "podiums at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded I immediately think of the FCI Agility World Championship


I suggest that you expand your world. I think this is a good example of someone moving the goalposts. I've watched agility, and don't consider that there is much (my terms) _"accuracy, reliability or precision"_ in it. The dog can run anywhere he wants on the obstacles. He can be off by as much as several feet on some of them. He just has to complete them in the right order and in the fastest time. The dog is constantly being directed by the handler as to where to go next. Handlers can "pre-run" the course if they like. Handlers are provided maps of the course. The handler can encourage the dog all he wants and whenever he sees fit. It seems to me that speed and getting them done in the right order are more at stake, , but perhaps that's my failure. I’m certainly not knocking it, to each their own but trying to compare it to the _"accuracy, reliability or precision"_ required for AKC OB, the biting sports, including SchH, Ring Sport, KNPV etc., is apples to oranges. 



AgileGSD said:


> You think change wouldn't be hard for people who have built their livelihood around their particular methods? That it would be easy for someone who's had a well known, competitive training business to one day say "well I'm doing everything totally different with this next dog than what I teach and the methods I have developed over the past 20 years"? And you don't think students would be raising their eyebrows at that? Really?


When Ecollars first came out and the advantage they supplied became obvious, tons of competition people in the venues I've described where _"accuracy, reliability or precision"_ are valued, jumped on the boat. I have no doubt that if the so−called "kinder gentler methods" prove to be superior that soon they'd be dominating all of these events. But, as we know, they're not. If the methods were as good as some pretend, the people who do use them would be showing the others up at every turn. But they're not. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Karen Pryor's book _"Don't Shoot the Dog"_ was released in 1999.





AgileGSD said:


> I think it was earlier than that but honestly, positive methods are only recently becoming more widely used in the more traditional sports. I very much think in the next 10 years, you'll see a lot more of it. And even more in 20.


You're right about the date! That's what I get for not looking in my own library. It was first published in 1985! But that supports my statement even more. Earlier I wrote, _"These methods have been in use by the general population for about 13 years now."_ An inaccurate statement based on my previous inaccurate statement. Lol The ACCURATE statement is * "These methods have been in use by the general population for about 27 years now." * I was off by more than a factor of two! 

You're probably right, that we'll see more of it in the next 10 and 20 years. But I doubt that we'll ever see it completely replacing traditional methods and the Ecollar. If it was as good as some tell us, it would have already. 



AgileGSD said:


> I don't know any AKC OB people who use an e-collar for retrieve, although I'm sure some do. It's either some sort of ear/toe pinch or physically force the dog to hold it or they use shaping or have a fairly natural retrieve.


Your first sentence speaks more to how wide your personal experience is than the truth of the matter. I know of many in the sport who use Ecollars for the retrieve and more. I've sold Ecollars to many of them and I'm on a list devoted to competition OB where it's discussed occasionally. You're right that it's usually an ear/toe pinch. But you'll find that those who reach the pinnacle of the sport are all using a forced retrieve of some sort, not _"shaping"_ or a _"natural retrieve."_ Many of them have moved to using the Ecollar in place of the ear pinch. 



AgileGSD said:


> ... a lot of the old school obedience people around here are still pretty vocal about breeds which are or are not "trainable" or suitable for competition dogs. I was told when I first got into obedience and expressed interest in a Greyhound that the breed was "stupid, untrainable and don't waste your time" by a long time local trainer with a long established training business. I have personally heard people say various Nordic dogs are untrainable, Chows are untrainable, Sighthounds are untrainable to think of a few.


I've been told that the breeds you mention can't be trained to recall or do OB. Some of these comments came from owners who were told the same things. I've been told the same thing on some forums that are specifically for the owners of these breeds. I've worked with all of them, and have never had the slightest bit of trouble giving them the same basic OB skills as every other breed with the Ecollar. It seems to me that people who make this statement about any breed, in fact any dog, are just using ineffective methods or they're not applying effective methods properly.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Jag said:


> What I meant by real life training is more to the effect of PSA training. For me and mine, it's appropriate when all other training methods have failed to accomplish my goal.


Do you mean "Protection Sports Association?" If so, that's a sport association, not "a training method." 



Jag said:


> Why do I think it's necessary to have a trainer involved? For the same reason I think a trainer needs to be involved for most issues... to see the dog and handler, evaluate the dog and the handler, and to make sure that this tool is being used properly. You can have cruddy timing with a clicker, but it's not going to stress your dog the same as messing up with stim. Same thing with all the other methods you listed. Yes, I read the article. If someone can't learn with a trainer, I'd suggest they get a cat.


Well, you're welcome to your opinion but I think that outside of a very few issues, most people can get satisfactory results for basic OB by following instructions from a book, a pamphlet, or a website, particularly mine, lol. Hundreds of people, who have never before trained a dog, have used nothing more than my articles to train their dogs. 

As to not stressing your dog with clicker training, I disagree. You can cause just as much stress with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" if they're applied improperly. Heck it can happen even when they're applied properly! The fact is that YOU CAN _"stress your dog the same as messing up with stim."_ 

One study done by Salgirli in Hannover, compared three tools, the Ecollar, the pinch collar and a quitting signal (the latter used by many who favor the latter methods). It found that the Ecollar caused the least amount of stress and provided the most effective learning and that the quitting signal was "not effective." http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissertations/salgirliy_ws08.pdf

As to your suggestion, _"If someone can't learn with a trainer, I'd suggest they get a cat."_ I find that rude, offensive, and insulting, as I'm sure that those who suffer from the condition I described (_"They choke up and can't perform at all."_) would. Several folks in that circumstance have trained their dogs, with complete success, with nothing but my articles. As always you're welcome to your opinion. 



Jag said:


> I know you're going to separate every single sentence of my post, pick it apart and make it fit into your way of thinking. However, I'm going to put this out there anyway. Long before there were E-collars, dogs were trained and were successful in every venue. Not saying that they aren't a tool to be used, just saying that life went on before. We may be able to get all the way through my training and working goals without ever using an E-collar. I have a dog that's pretty biddable. However, this is *now*. I'm not going to write off a tool if that's what will get us to our goals. However, I think that I can accomplish most (if not all) of his training without it. This is the way *I* prefer to do things. I've said many, many times that I don't have anything against E-collars in general, and that my first GSD ended up being trained with one. For some reason, though, that has been overlooked every time I've said it. I don't think it's the only way to train, though, and I don't believe it's the right tool for every dog in every situation. Which is where we part ways.


Your first sentence, as we can see, is wrong. I'm breaking posts into paragraphs now, rather than into sentences. It's not as effective because I can't respond directly to each of your statement, but it will do. 

I've said MANY times that Ecollars are not necessary. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now and they're not going away. Decades ago we communicated with pens made from the feathers of birds, dipped in ink. Today email is replacing the letter. Progress had been made, giving us new and better tools. Every tool, from the computer to the crowbar is a compromise. It has advantage and disadvantages. 

I really don't give a darn how you train, what tools you use, or what you train your dog to do. I do have a problem when you spread myths and misconception about a tool that you truly know very little about, especially when I favor that tool. I have no hope (or interest) in changing your mind. But your posts may influence others who have not yet made up their mind. Since they're based on emotion, opinions that usually have no basis in fact, and imagination, I will knock them into the cocked hat every time that I see them. 

I do love the straw man arguments though. I've NEVER said that using an Ecollar is _"the only way to train"_ or that it's _"the right tool for every dog in every situation."_ We part ways because you misquote me, perhaps thinking in these statements that you're right. You're not. And this is NOT a matter of opinion.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

martemchik said:


> Well...you just pointed out to AgileGSD how their TWO dogs are the exception when it comes to placing high on the podium and being taught with positive reinforcement. And yet you post two youtube videos about dogs and I'm supposed to throw out what I've been seeing in the ring because a whole TWO dogs you pointed out to me look happy as they work.


AgileGSD told us, that there are _"at least * two"*_* dogs * with an OTCH. Cllaiming that two dogs out of the thousands (probably 'hundreds of thousands') is a sign that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are taking over the OB world, or even making noteworthy inroads, is absurd. If we were talking about statistics, that number would be "mathematically insignificant." Also note that these two dogs do not fit my statement. One can get an OTCH without ever winning one of the _"highest levels of competition."_ 

If you like, I've got A LOT more than two videos. But there are only TWO OTCH's that we've been told about. AND we have no way of knowing if these dogs were truly _"trained without physical corrections."_ MANY times I've heard this sort of thing only to have people who know the trainers tell me that they do, at times, use physical corrections. And of course, no one knows what happens, "out behind the barn" when no one is looking. 

At an extreme we have the darling of the all positive crowd, Karen Pryor, killing her cat because she could not figure out why he was peeing on the burners of her stove and she could not stop him. If these methods are sooooooo good, how is it that someone proclaimed as a true expert in these methods, could not stop this behavior, either with training or failing that, just plain ol' management? "SHUT THE DARN KITCHEN DOOR!" Disgusting, simply disgusting. AgileGSD can you also please answer this question? 



martemchik said:


> Trust me...I know its not true for every dog, but when you're talking positive reinforcement vs. any kind of corrective training, the dogs * in general * are happier.


This may or may not be true but your previous statement was definitely *UN*true. AND you didn't do as I requested, show us where the dogs in the videos that I supplied were not _"happy and ... willing."_ I'm sure that the readers realize that you failed to respond because you know that BOTH of these dogs were BOTH _"happy and ... willing"_ contrary to your previous statement. 



martemchik said:


> But if you would watch my dog in the ring you would never think that he's been highly corrected at times (including for the retrieve) which is right now no-no.


I think that if you can tell the method that has been used to train a dog, by watching him, it's been applied improperly. 



martemchik said:


> I agree with you that corrective methods are proven to be the more successful ones in the ring. I agree that positive reinforcement takes a lot more time and that the recall situation you mentioned isn't just exclusive to that lady but probably going on in a lot of places right now. But for each one of those people, there is a person that is using too harsh of corrections, or corrections when they aren't necessary which leads to flat dogs that hate what they're doing. You can tell while watching them work that they don't want to be in the ring.


Glad we agree on this. But you're talking apples and oranges as those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" OFTEN do. When you talk about someone applying _"too harsh of corrections, or corrections when they aren't necessary"_ * you're talking about those methods being used IMPROPERLY. * When we agree that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are less _"successful ones in the ring"_ or that _"positive reinforcement takes a lot more time"_ or that _" the recall situation [ I ] mentioned [where the lady took three years to train a recall]"_ we're talking about your methods *being used properly. * EVEN WHEN THEY'RE USED PROPERLY, those methods are less effective. It's happening again that the Ecollar (or methods that use corrections) are being discussed ONLY when it's used poorly or even when it's misused and are talking about your methods ONLY when they're used properly. 



martemchik said:


> I also don't know a single person that has placed high in competition in my area that has used an ecollar, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on that fact. Not a single person at my club uses an ecollar, and we do quite well in competitions. Again, I guess this might not be true for all cases...but I think you're really overstating the amount of people that train with an ecollar in the sports you mentioned.


I wrote _"If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums * at the highest levels of *competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded."_ [Emphasis Added] and you talk about, _"competition in [your] area."_ I talk about national level and world level competitions and you talk about the locals where the level of competition is much lower. Thanks for AGAIN making my point. _"Do[ing] quite well in competitions"_ at such a local level is truly comparing apples and oranges, begging the question. People sometimes do this in these discussions, thinking that they're proving their point. Actually it proves mine. 

Again, so there is no one who doesn't get what I'm saying ... * If these so−called "kinder gentler methods" were as good as people would have us believe, those who use them would be DOMINATING the HIGHEST LEVELS OF COMPETITION in ALL sports where ACCURACY, RELIABILITY and PRECISION are rewarded. * These sports include such things as AKC OB, SchH, Ring sport and KNPV. These sports have in common, movements where the dog is at times a long way from the handler, and he must perform those movements accurately, with great precision and reliably at those distances. Sports such as Agility, Fly ball and Frisbee are specifically EXCLUDED since they involve neither accuracy, reliability nor precision. Agility involves speed and the dog following the direction of a handler, who is quite close to the dog at all times. Fly ball involves speed and has a dog retrieving a ball over a series of hurdles there are no movement required away from the handler except that the dog has to push a platform to pop the ball into his mouth, similar to a chicken pressing a level to get a piece of food. Frisbee involves a dog retrieving a Frisbee thrown by his handler and the judging is based on drive, athleticism, ingenuity, sequences and flow. 

If some want to move the goalposts to make themselves right, they can. But they should not pretend they're talking about the same thing that I’m talking about.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> The 2012 IPO World Champion for both FMBB (Belgian Shepherds, May) and FCI (all breeds, September) was trained without compulsive tools/methods. Mario and Hasco van de Duvetorre:


Very nice work indeed. But how do we know that these dogs were _"trained without compulsive tools/methods?"_ I've had people make statements like this one before, in similar discussions, only to have someone who knows the trainers or has trained with them, pop in to tell us that they, in fact, DO use compulsive tools/methods occasionally. Let's see if that happens here. 



AgileGSD said:


> It's just one dog but change is slow and is happening.


Yep _"just one dog"_ of the thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) who compete in this sport. Again, _"mathematically insignificant."_ You can pretend that the tide is turning all you like, but the FACTS speak for themselves. These methods have been in use for nearly 30 years and you have two OTCH's and ONE dog at the IPO Worlds. My statement is still completely true. You can talk about _"change"_ all you like, but there's been plenty of time for this to occur. It has not because these methods do not give enough reliability. If I want to train some tricks, there's nothing better than these methods. When I want to get a dog to shake hands or hold a piece of cheese on his muzzle until told it's OK to eat it, I use them. But the two lifesaving OB movements that I mentioned, the recall and the sit, should not be "tricks." They need reliability at the highest level. 



AgileGSD said:


> I don't know anyone who uses e-collars for competition obedience either. And a handful of people I know have used e-collars in agility to correct dogs from running off or once for not hitting contacts. Those dogs are generally not real competitive and the e-collar use sure didn't make them competitive. In agility, if your dog wants to leave the ring that badly you have bigger issues than the dog isn't responding to his recall cue.


I guess we're on different lists and run in different circles. I know of several who do.


----------



## Jag (Jul 27, 2012)

LouCastle said:


> Do you mean "Protection Sports Association?" If so, that's a sport association, not "a training method."
> 
> These were 2 separate sentences. The first was to answer your question.
> 
> ...


Why don't you tell me, then, what situation this tool would NOT be good for? You've had something negative to say about every other method of training...ergo, to you, the E-collar is the 'only way to train'. Your website is not a training website, it's an E-collar website. IMO, you're a salesman more than a trainer. You can give seminars until doomsday on the use and good of the E-collar, but you're not addressing TRAINING the dog...which includes a variety of methods and tools. You can say I'm wrong all day long. It's still your opinion. There are some people that you can't strong arm or bully, Lou. I'm one of those people. I totally believe there is a use for the E-collar. That will never change. However, it is ONE tool in the box. Some may reach for it first, some last, and some in the middle.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

LouCastle said:


> Glad we agree on this. But you're talking apples and oranges as those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" OFTEN do. When you talk about someone applying _"too harsh of corrections, or corrections when they aren't necessary"_ * you're talking about those methods being used IMPROPERLY. * When we agree that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are less _"successful ones in the ring"_ or that _"positive reinforcement takes a lot more time"_ or that _" the recall situation [ I ] mentioned [where the lady took three years to train a recall]"_ we're talking about your methods *being used properly. * EVEN WHEN THEY'RE USED PROPERLY, those methods are less effective. It's happening again that the Ecollar (or methods that use corrections) are being discussed ONLY when it's used poorly or even when it's misused and are talking about your methods ONLY when they're used properly.


Actually...I'm agreeing with you on everything you say except that a majority of people doing high level competition are using an ecollar. I do believe they use corrective methods, but I don't believe its an ecollar.

By the way...my "local" competitions...we had a good amount of club members go to nationals this year and title/qualify. A dog from my club was the north central champion and qualifier for nationals/worlds. She's down there right now. But wait...that's probably not "high level" enough for you as well. By the way I promise you this dog has never had an ecollar on her. She's had a prong on her...she gets corrected, but not as you claim with an ecollar.

That's the only point I'm arguing with you. I don't believe in purely compulsive training, I don't see it being successful when it comes to accuracy like you speak of. But thanks anyways for ripping apart my post, my level of competition, my level of dog obedience, and everything else I do that involves a dog. Maybe one day we can all call ourselves demigods of dog training like you believe yourself to be. But until then, I won't look down on people that haven't reached "my level" or tell them that they're an apple while I'm the almighty orange.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> I notice that you didn't answer my questions. _"How long would it take YOU to train a dog to a 90% reliability level to be off leash doing a recall and a sit from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions?"_ and _" ... How long do you think it would take someone who has read about using "positive training" but has never before done it?"_


 That's because it is a hard question to accurately answer. You claim that you can teach this in a week but the dog may not be reliable without an e-collar on and will still need maintenance training with the e-collar. It seems you can't answer the question easily either. How long will it take you to train a dog to 90% reliability without the dog having to wear the e-collar? It took us with positive methods, two sessions to have an extremely reliable off leash recall with our newly adopted untrained corgi, running loose over fields and through woods with other dogs. I think that's pretty quick. We used a long line for those two sessions and never had to go back to it. We did use rewards for maintenance but he doesn't need to know we have food to be reliable. He is 9 years old now and when we got him he was 8-9 years old, so this training has held up over time. One of my 4Hers trained her adult shelter rescue who was hard wired to run away with the same method and it worked for her but it took her a lot longer on the long line. All dogs are different, all trainer's abilities are different. 



LouCastle said:


> As to your friend who went with Leerburg, instead of my methods ... You tell us that _"... he still has to wear the collar pretty much any time he's walked off leash and still needs 'reminders.' "_ Perhaps if she'd shown the dog what make the stim start and stop, as my method do (Mr. Frawley's don't, they leave it to the dog to guess what starts the stim and another guess as what makes it stop) her dog would not have to _"wear the Ecollar ... any time he's ... of leash."_ I've written a critique of Mr. Frawley's DVD, where he espouses his method. MORE EVIDENCE that he's not a trainer! Leerburg Video As often occurs with the Ecollar, your comments are not about the tool, rather about how it's used.


 His methods seem pretty in line with what the field trial people around here use. This is more proof though that your question is hard to answer, even for you. You say anyone can easily learn to use an e-collar and have a very reliable recall in 2 weeks. I don't know any person who has managed to train a dog to reliability without having to wear the collar in 2 weeks. I gave an example of my friend but that story is pretty much the same with others I've known who use e-collars for recalls - the dog is reliable with the collar on but not so much without the collar. You say it's because their methods are flawed but that seems to show that it's not that easy for a newbie to reliably train with an e-collars. 




LouCastle said:


> I suggest that you expand your world. I think this is a good example of someone moving the goalposts. I've watched agility, and don't consider that there is much (my terms) _"accuracy, reliability or precision"_ in it. The dog can run anywhere he wants on the obstacles. He can be off by as much as several feet on some of them. He just has to complete them in the right order and in the fastest time. The dog is constantly being directed by the handler as to where to go next. Handlers can "pre-run" the course if they like. Handlers are provided maps of the course. The handler can encourage the dog all he wants and whenever he sees fit. It seems to me that speed and getting them done in the right order are more at stake, , but perhaps that's my failure. I’m certainly not knocking it, to each their own but trying to compare it to the _"accuracy, reliability or precision"_ required for AKC OB, the biting sports, including SchH, Ring Sport, KNPV etc., is apples to oranges.


 I suggest you expand your's as it seems you have no idea what goes into making a top level agility dog  Your knocking of agility seems to me to be an example of moving the goal posts. "Dogs trained with positive methods aren't dominating the podiums....expect in agility which doesn't count". 



LouCastle said:


> When Ecollars first came out and the advantage they supplied became obvious, tons of competition people in the venues I've described where _"accuracy, reliability or precision"_ are valued, jumped on the boat. I have no doubt that if the so−called "kinder gentler methods" prove to be superior that soon they'd be dominating all of these events. But, as we know, they're not. If the methods were as good as some pretend, the people who do use them would be showing the others up at every turn. But they're not.


 Except that e-collars already fit into compulsion based training. Going to using an e-collar for correction didn't require any major change in methods or philosophy, it was simply adding a tool to the methods they already were using. Switching from compulsion based training to positive methods is a totally different scenario. Like I said, the top people in their sports tend to have a string following and a lot of time, money and emotion tied up in their methods. It isn't easy to just start doing something different.

That said, I have personally seen things changing. I first started training in 91 and no one I ever ran into that competed or taught classes ever used food. Within a few years though, that started changing and people used food and but still relied heavily on correction. Now the use of food/toys/life rewards in training is pretty widespread. We are now seeing dogs competing at high levels who were trained without using traditional compulsion methods. We have trainers who are very skilled at using positive methods, far beyond the "lure and treat" idea that many people think is the be all, end all of what positive training is about. At this point, I'd say things are unlikely to go back and are likely to keep moving in the direction they are moving. Time will tell. Do I think everyone will abandon all use of correction? No I think that is unlikely. But I think that we're going to see less and less as people get more skilled in using other methods. And I think we are going to see more and more competitive dogs trained without traditional compulsion methods. 




LouCastle said:


> I've been told that the breeds you mention can't be trained to recall or do OB. Some of these comments came from owners who were told the same things. I've been told the same thing on some forums that are specifically for the owners of these breeds. I've worked with all of them, and have never had the slightest bit of trouble giving them the same basic OB skills as every other breed with the Ecollar. It seems to me that people who make this statement about any breed, in fact any dog, are just using ineffective methods or they're not applying effective methods properly.


 Sadly, many owners of those breeds believe their dog can't be trained and can never, ever be off leash no matter what.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

In the following post, my original comments are in black. Jag's response are in red and my responses to Jag are in blue. 

Do you mean "Protection Sports Association?" If so, that's a sport association, not "a training method." 

These were 2 separate sentences. The first was to answer your question. 

Now I understand. You think that PSA is closer to real life than other protection sports. It's off topic, but no sport trains you for "real life." 

Well, you're welcome to your opinion but I think that outside of a very few issues, most people can get satisfactory results for basic OB by following instructions from a book, a pamphlet, or a website, particularly mine, lol. Hundreds of people, who have never before trained a dog, have used nothing more than my articles to train their dogs. 

As to not stressing your dog with clicker training, I disagree. You can cause just as much stress with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" if they're applied improperly. Heck it can happen even when they're applied properly! The fact is that YOU CAN "stress your dog the same as messing up with stim." 

I have NEVER seen a dog pant from stress (as you talked about on your website) from an ill timed "click". Please tell me how you can get this level of stress from non-corrective training. Your site also talks about the dog thinking that the ground won't be 'hot' by standing next to the handler, or passing by the handler. I've never encountered these behaviors from non-stim training. 

It seems that you think that the only measure of stress that one can observe is _"panting."_ This is probably due to your lack of experience. There are many such signs and many of them are very subtle. In the so−called "kinder gentler methods" they're masked by the dog's excitement at the prospect of getting a treat, a toy, some praise or the like. But as was seen in the Salgirli study it's present. There the stress level was determined by measuring the dogs' levels of cortisol. 

Of course you don't get the dog thinking that the ground is hot in other forms of training. But so what? I know that a pot on the stove is hot but doesn't stress me, I just know not to touch it. All that happens in my Ecollar training is that the dog avoids that area. He's able to easily problem solve, something that often is said that dogs can't do when they're stressed or afraid. Obviously the dog is neither stressed nor afraid. He's undergoing minor discomfort. Similar to when he lays in the sun, gets too warm, and then moves to the shade. OMIGOD, how could anyone do THAT to a dog! lol 

One study done by Salgirli in Hannover, compared three tools, the Ecollar, the pinch collar and a quitting signal (the latter used by many who favor the latter methods). It found that the Ecollar caused the least amount of stress and provided the most effective learning and that the quitting signal was "not effective." http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissert...irliy_ws08.pdf 

As to your suggestion, "If someone can't learn with a trainer, I'd suggest they get a cat." I find that rude, offensive, and insulting, as I'm sure that those who suffer from the condition I described ("They choke up and can't perform at all.") would. Several folks in that circumstance have trained their dogs, with complete success, with nothing but my articles. As always you're welcome to your opinion. 

Well, rude or not...if you can't go for an hour class and listen to what someone says and then mimic that behavior at home you have bigger issues. There are people who claim their dogs are 100% housebroken, too, but really aren't. I can claim reading an article made me able to read minds. Doesn't make it so. 

I don't think that there's much difference between going to a trainer as you say, (not doing anything in front of him) and then going home to _"mimic that behavior"_ and reading an article, then going outside and _"mimic[ing the] behavior"_ that was described. The idea behind having a trainer PRESENT when you're "_ mimic[ing]"_ what he's just shown you is that he can correct any defects that you add in to the movement. Obviously if you try this at home, he's not there to correct you. And so for those who don't learn well in the presence of a trainer, there's no reason to spend the money or the time going to him if that's what you're going to do. If you don't learn well from reading and are incapable of reading and following simple written instructions, then my articles are not for you. 

Your first sentence, as we can see, is wrong. I'm breaking posts into paragraphs now, rather than into sentences. It's not as effective because I can't respond directly to each of your statement, but it will do. 

Thanks, can you try entire posts? 

I could but then, like you and AgileGSD, I might pass by some questions that have been asked. Or is there some other reason that you don't answer them. Lol 

I've said MANY times that Ecollars are not necessary. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now and they're not going away. Decades ago we communicated with pens made from the feathers of birds, dipped in ink. Today email is replacing the letter. Progress had been made, giving us new and better tools. Every tool, from the computer to the crowbar is a compromise. It has advantage and disadvantages. 

I really don't give a darn how you train, what tools you use, or what you train your dog to do. I do have a problem when you spread myths and misconception about a tool that you truly know very little about, especially when I favor that tool. I have no hope (or interest) in changing your mind. But your posts may influence others who have not yet made up their mind. Since they're based on emotion, opinions that usually have no basis in fact, and imagination, I will knock them into the cocked hat every time that I see them. 

So it's OK for you to make posts that may influence people into using E-collars, but not OK for others to make posts that may influence them to at the very least go to a trainer before using an E-collar? That doesn't make any sense. It's funny that MY opinions you discount as "myths and misconceptions" but YOUR opinions are indisputable fact, LOL! 


* **** POST CUT AND TRUNCATED BY ADMIN - WAY OVER 1000 WORD LIMIT - **** *


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

martemchik said:


> By the way...my "local" competitions...we had a good amount of club members go to nationals this year and title/qualify.


That's great. How many of them WON at the nationals? 



martemchik said:


> A dog from my club was the north central champion and qualifier for nationals/worlds.


Please let us know if she wins. 



martemchik said:


> She's down there right now. But wait...that's probably not "high level" enough for you as well.


Well my statement was pretty clear. But since you keep forgetting it, allow me to remind you,


> If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums * at the highest levels of competition * where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded.


 The _"north central championship"_ is NOT *highest level of competition * is it? Why do people keep begging this question? It's really not possible to make something happen that's never happened, just because you wish it to be so. Please get back to us when people using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are * DOMINATING * competitions where "accuracy, reliability and precision" are rewarded. No one should hold their breath waiting on that. 



martemchik said:


> By the way I promise you this dog has never had an ecollar on her. She's had a prong on her...she gets corrected, but not as you claim with an ecollar.


I don't believe that I've ever claimed that your dog (or any other specific dog) has been corrected _"with an Ecollar."_ Can you show us such a statement? 



martemchik said:


> That's the only point I'm arguing with you. I don't believe in purely compulsive training, I don't see it being successful when it comes to accuracy like you speak of.


I don't believe that anyone can be successful in _"purely compulsive training"_ and I doubt that doing it like that is even possible. Just as it's impossible to train a dog without using punishment, it's impossible to train a dog using ONLY punishment. Can you show us anyone who is using _"purely compulsive training"_ or where I've said this? I don't think you'll be able to do so, I've never said it. 



martemchik said:


> But thanks anyways for ripping apart my post, my level of competition, my level of dog obedience, and everything else I do that involves a dog. Maybe one day we can all call ourselves demigods of dog training like you believe yourself to be. But until then, I won't look down on people that haven't reached "my level" or tell them that they're an apple while I'm the almighty orange.


I prefer to consider that I'm simply addressing each of your concerns. Unlike you and some others, I answer just about every question that's asked of me. YOU OTOH for reasons of your own, have avoided several of mine. I don't believe that I've _"rip[ped] apart"_ your _"level of dog obedience, [or anything] else [you] do that involves a dog."_ I've merely used facts (some of them from you) to put the lie to some of your nonsense. Here are a few examples. 


Your contention that a dog is never 100 years away from an owner and so he'd not need control there. 
Your statement that you have control of your dog or that your training is good, while telling us that _"a 100 yard stay is difficult without someone holding him."_ 
Your contention that what is needed by 99% of the people is acceptable for 100% of the people out there. 
Your denial of the OP's question about what methods give reliability when a dog is 100 yards (actually he said meters) from the handler, saying it's not necessary. 
Your denial of the fact that your dog will ever need to be reliable at 100 yards because your dog _"will never be put"_ there. 
Your vague and ambiguous statement that dogs trained _"with positive reinforcement ... are happier"_ There's more but that illustrates my point. 

As to _"believ[ing myself to be a] emigod of dog training"_ that's just rude and insulting, but quite typical of someone who has run out of logic and reason and has to resort to personal attacks in an effort to win an argument. I've said many times that I'm not an expert, that "I just know a few things." I don't know what _"my level is,"_ I've never competed in AKC OB, or any of the biting sports. I used to "compete" on the street, with real criminals with real guns who have committed real crimes. Nowadays most of my work is with police service dogs and SAR dogs, as a trainer. My days of being the "competitor" are behind me. Now I train others for those "competitions." 

I'm sorry that you think you're _"an apple and that I'm the almightly orange."_ But I'm not responsible for your feelings. Perhaps some counseling is in order? Next ... vegetable ratings! ROFL.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> I notice that you didn't answer my questions. "How long would it take YOU to train a dog to a 90% reliability level to be off leash doing a recall and a sit from 100 yards away in the face of high level distractions?" and " ... How long do you think it would take someone who has read about using "positive training" but has never before done it?"





AgileGSD said:


> That's because it is a hard question to accurately answer. You claim that you can teach this in a week but the dog may not be reliable without an e-collar on and will still need maintenance training with the e-collar. It seems you can't answer the question easily either. How long will it take you to train a dog to 90% reliability without the dog having to wear the e-collar? It took us with positive methods, two sessions to have an extremely reliable off leash recall with our newly adopted untrained corgi, running loose over fields and through woods with other dogs. I think that's pretty quick. We used a long line for those two sessions and never had to go back to it. We did use rewards for maintenance but he doesn't need to know we have food to be reliable. He is 9 years old now and when we got him he was 8-9 years old, so this training has held up over time. One of my 4Hers trained her adult shelter rescue who was hard wired to run away with the same method and it worked for her but it took her a lot longer on the long line. All dogs are different, all trainer's abilities are different.


Interesting that you avoided it before, but when you saw that I was using your evasion against you, you answer it with the response that _"it's a hard question to accurately answer."_ if it's so _"hard ... to ... answer"_ how come you can get it done now? Anyway, it's not, but it gives you an out. It's also interesting that you try to include a qualifier, that _"the dog may not be reliable without the Ecollar on and will still need maintenance training."_ as if a dog trained with your methods will never need maintenance training. Never any hint that a dog trained with your methods might not be reliable without a pocket full of treats or his toy in hand, the reality of those methods for most people. 

To answer your question, I wouldn't train a dog to a 90% reliability without the Ecollar on. I won't take the Ecollar off until I had a MUCH higher rate of reliability. In fact, I advocate that the dog wear his Ecollar all the time that he's out of the house, even after Ecollar training is "completed." (Yes, I know that training is never "completed.") Any dog can make the wrong decision. If he does something dangerous, my worst case scenario is chasing a cat towards a busy street, if he's been trained with an Ecollar and he's not wearing it, (or he's been trained with any other method) if he blows off your recall, you're pretty much done. You might repeat the command, louder or with a more forceful tone of voice but it he doesn't obey, you're both done. But with an Ecollar, I can get compliance. You'll say that he might still not obey, but since you're not familiar with Ecollar training properly done, you're wrong. 

Now you tell us of a dog that received two training sessions from you and was allowed to run free _"over fields and through woods"_ with other dogs and that he had _"an extremely reliable recall."_ This paragraph is chock full of weasel words and more evasions. You tell us that he's now 9 years old and that you got him when he was 8-9 years old??? Is that a typo? You hint that my dog would need to be wearing the Ecollar to be reliable but you tell us that your dog was wearing a long line during this romp in the woods and the field. Your dog is not off leash! It DOES NOT fit my question, but you provide this information in response to my question, AGAIN trying to move the goalposts in your efforts to be right. Sorry not gonna fly. You tell us that his recall is _"extremely reliable"_ but that is vague and ambiguous. 

You use food _"rewards for maintenance * but he doesn't need to know we have food to be reliable."*_ as if he couldn't smell the treats on you, lol. Just how stupid do you think he is? 

I had asked how long you thought _"it would someone who has read about using "positive training" but has never before done it?"_ to train the recall to a 90% reliability level and you tell us of one of your _"4Hers"_ who _"trained her ... rescue ... but it took her a lot longer on the long line."_ 

So while you want to appear to have answered my questions on this, you really haven't. In BOTH situations you describe, the dog was wearing a leash, so in neither situation was he off leash, which was my question. 

You've also avoided the part of my question that dealt with high level distractions. SO AGAIN, you've avoided and evaded my questions that clearly show the weakness in the so−called "kinder gentler methods. 



AgileGSD said:


> His methods seem pretty in line with what the field trial people around here use. This is more proof though that your question is hard to answer, even for you. You say anyone can easily learn to use an e-collar and have a very reliable recall in 2 weeks. I don't know any person who has managed to train a dog to reliability without having to wear the collar in 2 weeks. I gave an example of my friend but that story is pretty much the same with others I've known who use e-collars for recalls - the dog is reliable with the collar on but not so much without the collar. You say it's because their methods are flawed but that seems to show that it's not that easy for a newbie to reliably train with an e-collars.


I doubt that the field trial people in your area put Ecollars on four month old puppies and stim them at too−high levels repeatedly, for no training reason. I doubt that they stim the dog and hope that he guesses what behavior is desired. I doubt that they allow the dog, during this guessing, to run unleashed through yards and bushes, hiding under them in fear, while desperately trying to figure out how to make the pain stop. Those are just some of the things that Mr. Frawley does in his DVD. 

What does reliability have to do with _"wearing the Ecollar?"_ Either the dog performs the commands or he does not. The test should be "does he need a stim." If you have a dog who only performs when the Ecollar is on, you've committed a training fault that can occur with any tool, including treats, or even something as benign as a bandanna.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> I suggest you expand your's as it seems you have no idea what goes into making a top level agility dog  Your knocking of agility seems to me to be an example of moving the goal posts. "Dogs trained with positive methods aren't dominating the podiums....expect in agility which doesn't count".


You've deliberately misquoted me, apparently in an effort to make yourself look right. My statement AGAIN,


> If these methods were as good as the advocates of it would have us believe, they'd have knocked traditional and conventional trainers off the podiums * at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded. * [Emphasis Added]


 Agility contains none of these things. Accuracy, for example, has to do with the dog being right in the scent exercises. Reliability has to do with the dog obeying commands at a distance from the handler when distractions are present. Precision is judged by the dog being in perfect position in the heeling. 

In AKC OB a dog loses points if he's a couple of inches wide in the heel. He must do a timed stay with the handler away from him, at the upper levels, out of sight of the dog. 

In agility the dog has to negotiate obstacles in the proper order, fast enough to beat the times of the other dogs. This is done with the handler immediately present and giving direction with voice and hand signals at each and every obstacle. No accuracy, reliability or precision is required. It's a speed contest along a preset course. 

But let's stop playing. Simply answer a simple question with the knowledge that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" have been in use by the general population for nearly three decades. From this site, American Kennel Club - Obedience


> •The AKC National Obedience Championship title (NOC) is awarded to one dog each year. ...There are 14 NOCs in the seventeen-year history of this event 3 dogs having won the award twice.


How many of those 14 dogs were trained exclusively with the so−called "kinder gentler methods?" 



AgileGSD said:


> Except that e-collars already fit into compulsion based training. Going to using an e-collar for correction didn't require any major change in methods or philosophy, it was simply adding a tool to the methods they already were using. Switching from compulsion based training to positive methods is a totally different scenario. Like I said, the top people in their sports tend to have a string following and a lot of time, money and emotion tied up in their methods. It isn't easy to just start doing something different.


I started using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" as soon as I learned of them. It wasn't any big deal. But I learned very quickly that that they are not suitable for some behaviors and some dogs. Some have not learned that. Your statement that _"top people in their sports tend to have a strong following and a lot of time, money and emotion tied up in their methods."_ is true. BUT when they started consistently losing the top competitions to those using those methods, they'd have to change or they'd be out of business. That change might take some time, and there are probably some who would rather go out of business, but most would change as quickly as they could. That is IF those methods were dominating those competitions. But as we know, they're not. People who favor those methods are not winning because those methods don't give the best results, except in a very few venues, no matter how skilled are the users. Fact is, they often don't give reliable results for anyone except highly skilled users. 



AgileGSD said:


> That said, I have personally seen things changing. I first started training in 91 and no one I ever ran into that competed or taught classes ever used food. Within a few years though, that started changing and people used food and but still relied heavily on correction. Now the use of food/toys/life rewards in training is pretty widespread. We are now seeing dogs competing at high levels who were trained without using traditional compulsion methods. We have trainers who are very skilled at using positive methods, far beyond the "lure and treat" idea that many people think is the be all, end all of what positive training is about. At this point, I'd say things are unlikely to go back and are likely to keep moving in the direction they are moving. Time will tell. Do I think everyone will abandon all use of correction? No I think that is unlikely. But I think that we're going to see less and less as people get more skilled in using other methods. And I think we are going to see more and more competitive dogs trained without traditional compulsion methods.


I stated training twelve years before you, and I knew LOTS of people who _"competed or taught classes"_ who were training with treats! Maybe it's just "a locale thing." Maybe I was better travelled than you? 

I agree that nowadays _"the use of food/toys/life rewards in training is pretty widespread. We are now seeing dogs competing at high levels who were trained without using traditional compulsion methods."_ But we're not seeing them winning consistently at the highest levels of competition where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded. ONCE IN A WHILE one of them does, but it's rare. I think that those methods have come as far and have had about as much success as they're going to. That being said, as generational changes occur, sports get dumbed down, allowing people success where none is deserved. It's similar to schools that now give trophies to everyone who competes and no longer have valedictorians because it might make others feel "less than." That will allow people using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" to succeed more. But they'll never dominate in the "old school" sports at the highest levels of competition, where accuracy, reliability and precision are rewarded. Some sports have been created especially for those folks. Instead of training up to a standard, they just lobby for, and eventually get the sport changed.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

This is just turning into people making jabs back and forth at one another.

Good discussion has ended a while ago and this thread is just pushing people's buttons instead.


----------

