# Old fashioned training



## Zeeva (Aug 10, 2010)

My brother in law has a rottie and a dobbie: amazing dogs. Very loyal, great with kids, good with other dogs (my two will try to fight them and they walk away or ignore their aggression), very obedient. They're kennel dogs and he uses the alpha roll as well as compulsion training. He used water to condition his dobbie so much that if you take the dobbie near the pool or near a hose he may bite. It really makes me wonder...I've only seen my own somewhat poorly trained dogs by me and my positive reinforcement training and his well trained dogs with his older training methods. I was always afraid of the older training methods making a dog obedient because he she is scared of the owner there by hurting the bond between owner and dog. But his two LOVE LOVE LOVE him and the family; even the toddler and their 3 year old.

What am I missing? Enlighten me about the negativity toward this type of trainer? Isn't this the type of training used by police dogs? They're supposed to be very well trained dogs too, right?


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

There are effective trainers in all styles. ... and then there are good trainers.


----------



## Mary Beth (Apr 17, 2010)

I really can't endorse your brother-in-laws method of compulsion training especially with using the water. Also with the alpha roll over - that can backfire. Positive training does not mean all sweetness and treats either rather I consider it a way of teaching the dog that it is in his best interests to please me. I also use a combination of positive and natural dog training which uses the dog's prey drive to help me establish leadership and achieve cooperation.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

If I have a child who goes to the pool without my permission, and I take said child to the pool, hold her head under water repeatedly until near drowning, and when it is all over she NEVER goes near water again..... it was effective. But was it RIGHT?

(and yes, I know dogs are not children.... but I think you get the point)


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

> They're kennel dogs and he uses the alpha roll as well as compulsion training. He used water to condition his dobbie so much that if you take the dobbie near the pool or near a hose he may bite.


Any training that brings out that type of aggression/fear in any dogs should be a HUGE heads up to training I want no part of. Ever. 

Some of the best trainers/dogs in the world are only taught by using positive methods. I agree with what gagsd stated. It's not the method it's the trainer...and if I'm having trouble in training I need to up my learning and methods. There's a reason Ive been taking classes for over 10 years


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

If you use enough force you can get a dog to do pretty much anything. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If you're not getting results with positive reinforcement perhaps it's time to reexamine your methods and techniques.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

Some good points have already been made here, but I think a lot of trainers or regular dog owners who are against 'cookie training' are under the impression that somehow you are 'bargaining' with the dog or that the dog should do it because 'they said so'. I don't know your brother, but I think he would see a bigger difference in his dog if he employed more positivity in his training with the dogs.


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I wouldn't want my dog to fear me because of training methods. I lean more towards positive, but I will give mild(very mild) corrections...like a loud no, but I don't get much more harsh then that.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Fear and love, love, love, DON'T go hand in hand! I don't doubt you when you say they love him and the family.....I'm not understanding something?....is it possible they don't fear him.....Nah I just can't comprehend this.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

cliffson1 said:


> Fear and love, love, love, DON'T go hand in hand! I don't doubt you when you say they love him and the family.....I'm not understanding something?....is it possible they don't fear him.....Nah I just can't comprehend this.


Abused kids often still love their parents.

Dogs are capable of conflicted emotions too. Not quite as complicated in the layering, maybe, but love and fear are pretty primal.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I want my dog to understand what I want, before any corrections are ever issued. If my dog understands and has been proofed with that understanding, then a fair correction is in order. I am not purely positive or old school, but look at training from what is going on in the moment. Today my dog dropped the #3 dumbbell at my feet(without the command to out) and it could have been bad for either one of our toes. He was corrected because he does know better! 
The correction was verbal and _not_ getting the toy I had on me thrown or tugging with the dumbbell. I don't want conflict in his retrieves, but want him to understand what NOT to do to get the reward and keep his enthusiasm high.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

I've actually heard some trainers say that they want the dogs to fear them , especially if they have aggressive tendencies. I wouldn't want to take my dogs to them.


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

It may be that the dogs love him because they have no choice. They are pack animals with social drive, and if they have never known any other kind of handling...maybe it's doggy Stockholm syndrome?

I met a compulsion trainer once who flat out would not use treats for rewards. He claimed his dogs "loved" him, but they would not make eye contact when he touched them. I do not doubt they had a bond, but in what kind of relationship are you afraid to look your beloved in the eye when they express affection? The only scenario I can think of is an abusive one. 

Not saying your brother is evil or anything, I can only go by what I've personally seen of "old school" training. I do think it is possible to use compulsion in a fair way that does not torment the dog, and we all have to use compulsion at some point or another purely for safety's sake. But as to the effectiveness of the training... It's a lot easier to create a dog that is afraid to do anything bad than a dog that strives to do good every minute of the day. My guess is that without long-term maintenance of this kind of training, his dogs would lapse into all kinds of behavioral issues. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Any training that brings out that type of aggression/fear in any dogs should be a HUGE heads up to training I want no part of. Ever.
> 
> Some of the best trainers/dogs in the world are only taught by using positive methods. I agree with what gagsd stated. It's not the method it's the trainer...and if I'm having trouble in training I need to up my learning and methods. There's a reason Ive been taking classes for over 10 years


I'm interested in what venues/sports you have experienced international top level competitors that use no corrections. I have yet to hear of this in any protection sports. I know of top trainers that utilize marker training for most of their foundation work, but still use corrections when proofing.

I would love to have the knowledge to achieve this level of training with no corrections. I'm truly interested in who to look to for this knowledge.


To the OP:

Many trainers use compulsion. It was the norm in dog training for a long time. Many military and police dogs are trained using compulsion. It is a way to achieve obedience that is fast, and requires, IMHO, less skill as a trainer than rewards based training.

I believe that any owner looking for a trainer has the obligation to find a trainer that works in a way that the owner is comfortable with. I believe that all dogs are individuals, and training needs to be tailored to meet the needs of the dog. My personal approach is to first develop a relationship with the dog, building engagement and focus first, then moving to training behaviors. If at any time I am uncomfortable with something a trainer or helper is suggesting or doing, I simply don't participate.

Any trainer that uses fear to the extent that it causes prolonged avoidance is being inhumane. 

David Winners


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

Zeeva said:


> What am I missing? Enlighten me about the negativity toward this type of trainer? Isn't this the type of training used by police dogs? They're supposed to be very well trained dogs too, right?


Just a note on police dogs. They are very high drive, and are usually pretty hard dogs. Many of them will immediately bounce right back from a correction and move on, especially when working in drive. This isn't the case with many pet dogs. Compulsion can create a lot of conflict in a dog, especially if the dog has weak nerves or is handler soft. A hard working line dog with rock solid nerves can handle a lot of pressure from it's handler. It's a matter of the right tool for the particular dog you are working.

Rewards based training works on these dogs as well, and many police and military trainers are moving towards positive training methods. It certainly helps build trust in the team. It's a slow change, but it's happening. 

David Winners


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I suspect a lot of assumptions are being made here based on emotions also....ya think? Back in the day when everyone used compulsion training, if I follow this premise everyone had fear based or emotionally damaged dogs....some people speak about what they have no experience little knowledge and a lot of feeling....not a good recipe to me for training a dog. All methods can be productive and fair, and all methods can be cruel used by inept people, thus inducing all kinds of things from fear to lack of respect which is all bad.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

cliffson1 said:


> I suspect a lot of assumptions are being made here based on emotions also....ya think? Back in the day when everyone used compulsion training, if I follow this premise everyone had fear based or emotionally damaged dogs....some people speak about what they have no experience little knowledge and a lot of feeling....not a good recipe to me for training a dog. All methods can be productive and fair, and all methods can be cruel used by inept people, thus inducing all kinds of things from fear to lack of respect which is all bad.



I agree 100%.

My mother trained hundreds of dogs with a choke chain and a 6' leather leash, and had a great relationship with all of them. I see a lot of knee jerk reaction to words like compulsion, Kohler, Monks of New Skeet. They are all viable tools to training dogs.

David Winners


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

Well, there's a reason that "old school" is just that - an old, outdated method of training. There are appropriate places for corrections, but what the OP described is a situation where someone has decided that he lacks the time, patience and knowledge to train differently, and as a result is simply resorting to force. As I said in a prior post, with enough force you can get a dog to do just about anything, but that doesn't make you a good trainer. Training has EVOLVED because people started to realize that they were getting better results, and being fairer to these animals, with a more balanced approach. If you want to throw a choke chain on your dog, do a bunch of goofy alpha rolls and think you're a trainer, fine, but you're not. It's only a "viable tool" if you have no problem just outright breaking your dog's will through the use of force and intimidation. There is much anecdotal evidence of why this is simply a bad tactic. I'll provide one example - I recall Michael Ellis explaining how he revamped San Diego PD's K-9 training program. They were using an "old school" yank and crank program, and many of their handlers were being bitten by their dogs. They hired Michael to come in and revamp the program, replacing the "old school" with a positive reinforcement focused program, the bites stopped, and the obedience skills IMPROVED.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

ten3zro said:


> Well, there's a reason that "old school" is just that - an old, outdated method of training. There are appropriate places for corrections, but what the OP described is a situation where someone has decided that he lacks the time, patience and knowledge to train differently, and as a result is simply resorting to force. As I said in a prior post, with enough force you can get a dog to do just about anything, but that doesn't make you a good trainer. Training has EVOLVED because people started to realize that they were getting better results, and being fairer to these animals, with a more balanced approach. If you want to throw a choke chain on your dog, do a bunch of goofy alpha rolls and think you're a trainer, fine, but you're not. It's only a "viable tool" if you have no problem just outright breaking your dog's will through the use of force and intimidation. There is much anecdotal evidence of why this is simply a bad tactic. I'll provide one example - I recall Michael Ellis explaining how he revamped San Diego PD's K-9 training program. They were using an "old school" yank and crank program, and many of their handlers were being bitten by their dogs. They hired Michael to come in and revamp the program, replacing the "old school" with a positive reinforcement focused program, the bites stopped, and the obedience skills IMPROVED.



I don't know if you failed to read my previous posts or what. I am an avid marker trainer. I believe in "modern" training. I use treat bags, clickers, and avoid conflict with dogs whenever possible. I have turned handler aggressive military dogs into biddable partners through positive training. There is a place for compulsion in training in my world. Just because something is old school doesn't mean it is no longer a viable training method. Sometimes you have no choice.

Nowhere did I advocate braking a dog's will. Nowhere did I say you had to alpha roll your dog. You say compulsion is not a viable tool, but there are appropriate places for corrections. You're on the anti compulsion bandwagon, shouting from your soap box, and contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.

I also stated that military and police departments are slowly incorporating positive training methods. I feel this is a good thing, and they are doing it because they see good results. I have been bitten by those same handler aggressive dogs of which you speak, and have turned some of them around as well, through positive training.

I think Michael Ellis is a great trainer and I've learned much from his videos. I hope to have the time to attend his school next year. 



David Winners


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Side note... USMC boot camp can only be described as purely compulsion based, pure avoidance training. Anyone care to wonder why they haven't changed to "modern methods"?


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

David Winners said:


> I agree 100%.
> 
> My mother trained hundreds of dogs with a choke chain and a 6' leather leash, and had a great relationship with all of them. I see a lot of knee jerk reaction to words like compulsion, Kohler, Monks of New Skeet. They are all viable tools to training dogs.
> 
> David Winners


It's how we were taught to train years ago. I too have trained with a choke chain using a leather leash. To be honest even though I don't use it anymore I've got to say my 11 year old who was trained with a choke chain is a lot better mannered than my 1 year old who was trained with treats. Of course to be fair he is still young yet and may grown into being as good as my old dog. However if I can't get his recall any better I may just be breaking out my old choke chain. It works! and no my 11 year old doesn't fear me in the slightest.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Well I'm fine with compulsion as long as used correctly. Getting a dog to the point you can't get him near water without getting a few puncture wounds is not correct. And Zeeva I don't think compulsion is up your alley. You seem somewhat unsure and I think an important aspect of any training but especially compulsion is timing and clarity for the dogs.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

David Winners said:


> I don't know if you failed to read my previous posts or what. I am an avid marker trainer. I believe in "modern" training. I use treat bags, clickers, and avoid conflict with dogs whenever possible. I have turned handler aggressive military dogs into biddable partners through positive training. There is a place for compulsion in training in my world. Just because something is old school doesn't mean it is no longer a viable training method. Sometimes you have no choice.
> 
> Nowhere did I advocate braking a dog's will. Nowhere did I say you had to alpha roll your dog. You say compulsion is not a viable tool, but there are appropriate places for corrections. You're on the anti compulsion bandwagon, shouting from your soap box, and contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.
> 
> ...


I have met a k9 handler from the military, we are training together for the next couple weeks. They primarily use motivation but also correction. The e collar is frowned upon but is still being used. 
She said it depends on the handler and that some are really hard on the dogs. A lot of handlers dont have previous experience which doesnt make it easy when they are paired with high drive dogs.

Got to watch a 10yo shepherd. Was impressed with the handler bond but also knew instantly that this is a dog not to be messed with. Reminded me a lot of the dogs my family used to breed.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

David Winners said:


> I don't know if you failed to read my previous posts or what. I am an avid marker trainer. I believe in "modern" training. I use treat bags, clickers, and avoid conflict with dogs whenever possible. I have turned handler aggressive military dogs into biddable partners through positive training. There is a place for compulsion in training in my world. Just because something is old school doesn't mean it is no longer a viable training method. Sometimes you have no choice.
> 
> Nowhere did I advocate braking a dog's will. Nowhere did I say you had to alpha roll your dog. You say compulsion is not a viable tool, but there are appropriate places for corrections. You're on the anti compulsion bandwagon, shouting from your soap box, and contradicting yourself in the same paragraph.
> 
> ...


No - you have mischaracterized my position. I think compulsion has its place and I use corrections when appropriate. My point was the TYPE of force based training the OP was describing is something completely different from the legitimate use of corrections in a balanced training program. That's what we're discussing on this thread, no? I'm addressing the OP and this alpha roll nonsense and use of brute force. IMO your post seemed to agree with or legitimize what he described and that is what I was disagreeing with. I'm not disagreeing with the use of corrections.


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

hunterisgreat said:


> Side note... USMC boot camp can only be described as purely compulsion based, pure avoidance training. Anyone care to wonder why they haven't changed to "modern methods"?


Because they don't have the time to do it any other way, that's why. Same reason why most training programs where you drop your dog off and pick him up 6 weeks later use too much force - time is money. USMC boot camp is far from the model when it comes to dog training. The military views its dogs as equipment and the dogs get passed off from one handler to another, without ever living with the handler like civilian police dogs do.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

David Winners said:


> I'm interested in what venues/sports you have experienced international top level competitors that use no corrections. I have yet to hear of this in any protection sports. I know of top trainers that utilize marker training for most of their foundation work, but still use corrections when proofing.


In every venue other than the protection sports, there are lots of top trainers who are not using physical/forcible corrections. Canine freestyle and agility, in particular, are dominated by trainers who don't use forcible compulsion. (I'm drawing the distinction because I want to clarify the definition I'm using. I don't think it's possible to train with _no_ corrections, strictly defined; even force-free trainers will use verbal corrections and spatial pressure like body blocks.)

In protection sports I think it's only Mario Verslype who's currently competing at a top international level and winning with force-free techniques, and he only switched over completely in the past couple of years. Up until about 2010(? I'm not sure of the exact date) or so, he was still using a little bit of e-collar work for polishing.

Protection work is a different kind of sport with a different kind of dog from what you see in most other venues. I recently started following the (small and quite new) movement to train force-free in protection work and it's been a very interesting, educational journey for me. I still am only beginning to develop my understanding in that area and wouldn't be comfortable opining on it, but I _will_ say it's a lot more complicated than I had initially thought from my experience in other sports!

Anyway, this is a (predictable, but still) tangent from the question originally posed. I don't think anyone would dispute that forcible training can and does work -- at least I certainly wouldn't.

I _also_ don't think anyone would dispute that it can have a lot of negative fallout and not only hypothetically can, but _does_ damage psychologically softer dogs. I've seen it. I'm sure you have too. And the cost of making mistakes on a frightened, overwhelmed dog is not small.

The OP is not a sport competitor or a police trainer. She's a pet owner. We are talking about pet dogs here, and our example of "old-school" training in this context is someone who has so badly abused his dogs (and yes, I will say that's abuse) that they would bite a person rather than go near a water hose. Whatever you think of the possible acceptable uses of force, that is bad training and not at all something I would advocate as an alternative for a pet owner with an unruly, but not extreme, pet dog.


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

Merciel said:


> In every venue other than the protection sports, there are lots of top trainers who are not using physical/forcible corrections. Canine freestyle and agility, in particular, are dominated by trainers who don't use forcible compulsion. (I'm drawing the distinction because I want to clarify the definition I'm using. I don't think it's possible to train with _no_ corrections, strictly defined; even force-free trainers will use verbal corrections and spatial pressure like body blocks.)
> 
> In protection sports I think it's only Mario Verslype who's currently competing at a top international level and winning with force-free techniques, and he only switched over completely in the past couple of years. Up until about 2010(? I'm not sure of the exact date) or so, he was still using a little bit of e-collar work for polishing.
> 
> ...


Well said. Thanks


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

Merciel said:


> In every venue other than the protection sports, there are lots of top trainers who are not using physical/forcible corrections. Canine freestyle and agility, in particular, are dominated by trainers who don't use forcible compulsion. (I'm drawing the distinction because I want to clarify the definition I'm using. I don't think it's possible to train with _no_ corrections, strictly defined; even force-free trainers will use verbal corrections and spatial pressure like body blocks.)
> 
> In protection sports I think it's only Mario Verslype who's currently competing at a top international level and winning with force-free techniques, and he only switched over completely in the past couple of years. Up until about 2010(? I'm not sure of the exact date) or so, he was still using a little bit of e-collar work for polishing.
> 
> ...


Great post, 

Thanks

David Winners


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

ten3zro said:


> No - you have mischaracterized my position. I think compulsion has its place and I use corrections when appropriate. My point was the TYPE of force based training the OP was describing is something completely different from the legitimate use of corrections in a balanced training program. That's what we're discussing on this thread, no? I'm addressing the OP and this alpha roll nonsense and use of brute force. IMO your post seemed to agree with or legitimize what he described and that is what I was disagreeing with. I'm not disagreeing with the use of corrections.


I stand corrected and thank you for your clarification. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

I agree that the treatment in the OP is abuse, not legitimate training.

David Winners


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

David Winners said:


> I stand corrected and thank you for your clarification. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
> 
> I agree that the treatment in the OP is abuse, not legitimate training.
> 
> David Winners



Thanks - I think we're on the same page.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I don't think anyone condones compulsion that forces a dog to do something.....but some comments projected that old school or compulsion have no place in dog training and I disagree. As for top world competitors....I have trained and worked with many, and it's laughable that people think that Mario is only one that uses force:crazy:. Tracking ( forced tracking) and retreives, and outs are often trained with force.......I do agree that pet training is often different from sport and LE work. Nobody condones abuse, whether it is compulsion or anything else.......but I trust watching a dog work more than opinions; on if the training method was good.....hey but I'm weird.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

cliffson1 said:


> I do agree that pet training is often different from sport and LE work.


 
I agree with this 100%. What a lot of people don't realize is that real working dogs and sport dogs both have to work through a lot of different stressors. What I have noticed is pure possitive training tends to break down a bit when the dog gets stressed. That's when I think compulsion is needed. The dog needs to know that it has to do something, not just when it feels like it. I think all training methods have there place.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

I have seen more raw compulsion in american pet training than anywhere else!

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

cliffson1 said:


> I don't think anyone condones compulsion that forces a dog to do something.....but some comments projected that old school or compulsion have no place in dog training and I disagree. As for top world competitors....I have trained and worked with many, and* it's laughable that people think that Mario is only one that uses force*:crazy:. Tracking ( forced tracking) and retreives, and outs are often trained with force.......I do agree that pet training is often different from sport and LE work. Nobody condones abuse, whether it is compulsion or anything else.......but I trust watching a dog work more than opinions; on if the training method was good.....hey but I'm weird.


I think her point was that Mario Verslype was the only one competing at the international level and using force-_free_ training techniques, not that he was the only one using force at that level. 

At least, that is how I read her comment. However, I am wrong so often that I am completely willing to accept that I am wrong in this instance as well.

I find it sad that so many of us refuse to accept that good training has many faces. It isn't so much about the method, but the knowledge of the trainer using that method. I have seen abusive training using a flat collar, a clicker and a bag of baked chicken. And I have seen beautiful training using an e-collar. A good trainer would never reject out of hand a method that would be a better fit for any individual dog, for each circumstance that individual dog is being used in. From working on the street, to competing on some sport field, to living as "simple" companions. 
Sheilah


----------



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

sit said:


> I think her point was that Mario Verslype was the only one competing at the international level and using *force-free *training techniques, not that he was the only one using force at that level.


Yes, that is definitely what she said.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

sit said:


> I think her point was that Mario Verslype was the only one competing at the international level and using force-_free_ training techniques, not that he was the only one using force at that level.
> 
> At least, that is how I read her comment. However, I am wrong so often that I am completely willing to accept that I am wrong in this instance as well.


Nope, you're exactly right. 

Shade Whitesel is doing force-free IPO at the national level, but Mario's the only one I know of doing it at the _inter_national level. It's a very small niche for a number of reasons. Possible, but very very difficult.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Mrs.K said:


> I have seen more raw compulsion in american pet training than anywhere else!


Yes, same, and I think that's why some people (including myself) have/had such strong opinions about it. Regardless of the training methodology being used, pet training has the greatest extremes, the least knowledge, the most mistakes, and the worst results.

It wasn't until I got into sport training and came to this board (two separate things, but overlapping in time) that I developed a more nuanced understanding of how different techniques could be used effectively and humanely. My background is in pet training, and I saw some colossal disasters in that sphere. It's easy to develop extreme opinions when what you see are the extreme disasters.


----------



## Packen (Sep 14, 2008)

A good trainer assesses the dog and then makes a training plan based on the dog's strengths and weaknesses. There is no 100% either end on the extreme training methodology that is successful. 

People who advertize only 1 way of training, wash out dozens of dogs before finding 1 that will conform to that 1 style of training. This is what most pet people do not understand and quickly jump on various bandwagons based on hearsay.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I misunderstood the comment about Mario, and apologize for my subsequent post:blush:.


----------



## abakerrr (Aug 8, 2008)

hunterisgreat said:


> Side note... USMC boot camp can only be described as purely compulsion based, pure avoidance training. Anyone care to wonder why they haven't changed to "modern methods"?


Because it's nice to see what people are made of when put under a little stress and pressure. As Ive heard it put... in the real world, not everyone plays fair and not everyone wins a trophy.


----------



## Cschmidt88 (Nov 24, 2010)

David Winners said:


> I'm interested in what venues/sports you have experienced international top level competitors that use no corrections. I have yet to hear of this in any protection sports. I know of top trainers that utilize marker training for most of their foundation work, but still use corrections when proofing.


Merciel covered others, but in protection sports the main person I know of is Denise Fenzi. She has dogs titled in all levels of Sch.
Denise Fenzi | a professional dog trainer specializing in relationship-building in competitive dog sport teams (You should check her out Merciel, the has an online dog sport academy and a book coming out) 

Shade Whitesel trains with very minimal corrections, her dog is titled in top levels of IPO/Schutzhund and French Ring 1. I know she was a heavier handed trainer in the past and similar to Mario has been using less and less corrections as time goes on. I'll see if I can ask her to clarify. She did use a prong for FR. 

I don't think this fella counts as a "top level" trainer since I don't think he's that well known. But here's a positive PD trainer
Can you train a police dog using only positive reinforcement? | Positive Police Dogs


Here's a force-free trainer for another sport 
Shotgun Life - Expert Dog Trainer Robert Milner Says Heck No to Shock Collars
His site
https://www.excellentgundog.com/


Those are the examples I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## dioworld (Feb 1, 2012)

Every dog and breed is different, I don't think any one single training method works on all dogs. I've trained through both positive only, compulsion only trainers. I do find a place where both methods are neccessary in certain situation.


----------



## ten3zro (Jul 13, 2013)

I think the point a lot of positive-only trainers make though is that the pats on the back compulsion trainers give themselves are somewhat undeserved. If I put a gun to your head and told you to have a seat, you'd sit down. If I just asked nicely, you might decide not to obey. I got you to sit with the gun, but that doesn't make me a masterful trainer. Again, I believe in the use of escape/avoidance and corrections, but I think a lot of people in the positive camp feel like people go there too quickly because it's faster and easier to just force the dog to comply....


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

David Winners said:


> Many trainers use compulsion. It was the norm in dog training for a long time. Many military and police dogs are trained using compulsion. It is a way to achieve obedience that is fast, and requires, IMHO, less skill as a trainer than rewards based training.


I don't think that is true..In the last five years that I have been training one dog or another(my own) I have yet to run into a trainer that uses compulsion. Everyone of them are positive with different degrees of very mild corrections if any.


----------



## Cschmidt88 (Nov 24, 2010)

Oh and I remembered something that reminded me of dogs loving their people despite harsher methods. I remember a animal control officer recollecting on one of her most memorable experiences. She was called in to take a dog who was set on fire by its owner, the officer had the owner in custody. When she got there, they had a hard time prying to dog from the owner's side (he got in the police car).

Some dogs will love you no matter what you do to them it seems. Not comparing setting your dog on fire to compulsion, I'm trying to use it as an example of how a dog can still love and want to be with their owner despite being put through a lot of pain. 

I can dig up the video if need be, just a short little segment.


----------



## Cschmidt88 (Nov 24, 2010)

llombardo said:


> I don't think that is true..In the last five years that I have been training one dog or another(my own) I have yet to run into a trainer that uses compulsion. Everyone of them are positive with different degrees of very mild corrections if any.


Our local police force switched from a very heavy handed school to a new one that trains all obedience positively and then adds minimal corrections in for proofing and such. Since they switched they've been able to get their dogs out and working the streets a lot earlier and with better results. 

I really enjoyed seeing the dogs acquired through their new partners, they were much more eager to engage with their handlers. The toy was only part of the reward, playing with the handler was most of it. The dogs were very eager in obedience as well. 

The dog's I've met through their old school were definitely less comfortable and the toy was all of the reward (the officer echoed this thought), they had some control issues with the dogs tuning off the rest of the world once they got the toy. They didn't mess up as much in obedience but it wasn't pleasant to watch by any means and the performance was less enthusiastic by far.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

So what I'm gathering from this thread is that compulsion means heavy handed, yank and crank, fear based training methods. Hmm, interesting. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Cschmidt88 said:


> Merciel covered others, but in protection sports the main person I know of is Denise Fenzi. She has dogs titled in all levels of Sch.


I know, I've been taking classes at the online academy and have recommended it to others. 

I don't think she qualifies under the criteria that David set because she's not primarily focused on protection sports. AKC obedience is her main focus. She is international level in obedience, but not in IPO (she doesn't compete nationally in IPO either, I don't think, although you're right that she has put a SchH3 on multiple dogs).

Shade did use a prong collar on Reiki (I think she said once that it was a total of 15 pops over the course of the dog's life) before she shifted to 100% force-free.

A pattern I've seen with force-free IPO trainers (who are a _very_ small group, so it's a tiny sample size) is that they start out using some combination of motivational and compulsion methods before they shift over to 100% force-free, just because the trainers we're discussing now are the first wave doing it. All of them learned using older methods originally, and developed their skills using those methods.

So you'll find very, very few teams where the dog has never been subjected to a prong or e-collar at some point in the training history. Mario's current dog qualifies, and the puppy that Shade's bringing up right now will, and all of Denise Fenzi's current dogs do... but it is a tiny, tiny handful.


----------



## Cschmidt88 (Nov 24, 2010)

mycobraracr said:


> So what I'm gathering from this thread is that compulsion means heavy handed, yank and crank, fear based training methods. Hmm, interesting.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I definitely don't think so. My apologies if my wording in my last post is off, little too late to correct it. 

But to me compulsion means compulsion. Not a specific style but more an action. In the sense that Positive reinforcement is something added to encourage a behavior, it's a thing. Although people do often use it as a way to describe a style of training. (Which I don't like as much because I don't know a single trainer who uses only that quadrant of operant conditioning) 

But that's how compulsion has come off as to me, anyhow.


----------



## Cschmidt88 (Nov 24, 2010)

Merciel said:


> I know, I've been taking classes at the online academy and have recommended it to others.
> 
> I don't think she qualifies under the criteria that David set because she's not primarily focused on protection sports. AKC obedience is her main focus. She is international level in obedience, but not in IPO (she doesn't compete nationally in IPO either, I don't think, although you're right that she has put a SchH3 on multiple dogs).
> 
> ...


Aaah, that makes sense. (About not including Denise) She dabbled in Mondioring too but I guess she decided not to pursue it. She was a lot of fun to watch though!

There's one other force-free bitesports group I can think of. But they don't compete at national level either.
Riverfront Working Dog Club

I do wish there were more resources, I'll be starting my next pup force-free in bitesports (most likely Mondio to start with) and it's been hard to find folks to work with. Thankfully the breeder has gone to Ellis' school for decoys and is willing to work with us.


----------



## maureen_mickel (Jul 17, 2011)

I dont think training a dog with alpha rolls and dominance reduction techniques is the best way to train. I start off with clicker, then use corrections mainly with a prong (mostly as a as a negative reinforcer) or with a dogtra collar on the lowest level possible (again, as a negative reinforcer). This will help behavior become more reliable without dwindling confidence. People don't agree with the tools i use and that's fine. We all train differently. I prefer to have all these tools in my toolbox so if there ever comes a time where a dog does not learn well with one way, i switch to a different way. But i never like a dog to become afraid in order to obey. I feel all four quadrants to be used, and all professional trainers should practice all training tools then go from there. There are too many that "learn" these tools are "bad" through improper use of the tool. I used to be one of these people. Though we all have our different styles of training, and I greatly respect that.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

I do not like either extreme! 

Balance is the key. I'm more and more about clear signals and try to use clear signals as much as possible and as hard as it is to use them. I am not perfect and have to learn a LOT of things and I will listen to people and try to use whatever information I am given and can use and stay as balanced as possible.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I have used all types of training and incorporate them in my tool box. All methods have pros and cons....for pet training if the owner prefers this way what's the problem, I don't see any if this is right for the dog commensurate with the handlers skills. In competitive training( protection) and real work( LE, Military, SAR) where you are trying to reach a specific goal often in a timeframe....then though there are a few that use primarily positive, the overwhelming majority use a fair balanced approach that is geared to utilizing the traits and drives of the dog. Many,many,many of these people are loving, fair, competent, and loved by their dogs, I realize the rationale positive people understand this, but just like there are extreme compulsion people, there are extreme positive people....both types usually inflexible and both types leaving a lot of things on the table. I honestly think that dogs thrive best when they can be trained in clear methods that they intrinsically understand. The pack structure has structure and discipline....I think for training dogs and working dogs in particular where stressors are involved, the training must be proofed. Pet people and pet training is different because often people look at their training and treat their dogs from an anthropr......mentality. I know people who raise their kids positive only.....I see them much more frequently in supermarkets talking back to their parents like they are adults.....I will never become that progressive...it's unnatural for the pack structure and ill prepares the children to flourish in society where it is necessary to interact with others and not on positive terms only.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (May 3, 2013)

The best way is to lay a positive foundation with food, a toy or both. It is unfair and doesn't help your relationship with your dog to start out with compulsion because you are punishing the dog for not displaying a behavior it hasn't learned yet. After many months of using positive reinforcement, there will come situations that need a correction because you know the dog is being disobedient and is refusing to display the behavior you know he knows. Good police trainers use positive reinforment, usually with a toy. You end up with much more reliable obedience. Corrections will always be necessary, but only after laying a positive foundation.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

In some ways I don't really understand the point of 100% positive gaining for protection dogs. I am a very balanced trainer. Almost everything with my dog is shaped and the clicker utilized. However. .. let's be real. You are doing sport or work where the dog is working in aggression because it thinks it has to bring it to kick that mo fo decoys behind. Unless you are one heavy handed individual (which there are plenty of) that sound be waaaaaaay more stressful on the dog than a prong correction. And I don't really think a dog that is passed by a prong correction when working in protection necessarily has the personality to do the work.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

What ticks me off is when the word compulsion is used, there are always some people who assume that a majority of people that incorporate some form of compulsion do so in teaching the dog basic commands. The vast majority of people I see today use food, toys and tugs, markers, or clickers in learning or shaping behaviors. I can't remember the last time I have seen a person cranking and jerking a puppy. Then there are the people who don't understand or who have never trained a dog in advanced measures who pass all this knowledge and judgement on something they have little understanding of. Appropriate corrections using compulsion can be fair, effective, safe, and productive. A good trainer, IMO, assesses the dog in front of them and uses the techniques and methods that are best for that dog. I hate seeing trainers force their methodology on a dog that is temperamentally not as suited for that method as maybe another. Like working a dog only in prey drive that has very little prey drive, because that is the only way the trainer knows or the trainer FEELS that is the only way a dog should be trained. ....common sense in training is still the best way to approach things in my opinion.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

GSDElsa said:


> In some ways I don't really understand the point of 100% positive gaining for protection dogs.


This is an absolutely fair point. Because you're right, these dogs should be able to withstand a decent amount of stress and physical discomfort without collapsing, and if you're using IPO as a breedworthiness test, then you may well _want_ to stress test your breeding dogs for handler-imposed pressure as well as helper-imposed pressure.

These considerations are among the many reasons that the number of trainers doing force-free IPO is so small. (Again, I won't call it "100% positive" because it's not. They're using all four quadrants, they're just not using physical force.)

Another reason is that it's just plain_ hard_. Incredibly hard. IPO is already a very demanding sport. Trying to do it without force is a little bit like climbing Mt. Everest with one hand tied behind your back and half the tools thrown out of your kit.

However, it's not the case that the trainers we've discussed in this thread are imposing more stress on their dogs than they would with prong corrections. The whole point is to do it with the lightest touch possible, and these are people who know dogs very, very well and are opening themselves to very public scrutiny by doing what they're doing. All of them have done it the traditional way first, and then -- having been to Mt. Everest once or twice or three times -- they've refined their methods so that they can make the journey again via a different route.

In my opinion it's a tremendous test of skill. Definitely not for everyone, but the people who can do it, and do it well, are exceptional trainers.

I'm not nearly that good (not even in the same solar system!), and I fully expect to fail spectacularly when I try it myself a few years down the line, but I do think it's pretty impressive that someone's out there showing it's _possible_.


----------



## ken k (Apr 3, 2006)

cliffson1 said:


> Appropriate corrections using compulsion can be fair, effective, safe, and productive. A good trainer, IMO, assesses the dog in front of them and uses the techniques and methods that are best for that dog.


this


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

ten3zro said:


> Because they don't have the time to do it any other way, that's why. Same reason why most training programs where you drop your dog off and pick him up 6 weeks later use too much force - time is money. USMC boot camp is far from the model when it comes to dog training. The military views its dogs as equipment and the dogs get passed off from one handler to another, without ever living with the handler like civilian police dogs do.


I was talking about the training of humans to be clear.

When other branches train without compulsion, the results are inferior, and for a number of reasons...


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

abakerrr said:


> Because it's nice to see what people are made of when put under a little stress and pressure. As Ive heard it put... in the real world, not everyone plays fair and not everyone wins a trophy.


correct... its not nice though... its necessary.

Same with LE/MWD/PPDs


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Amina, I know you'd like to see better OB from your own dogs and perhaps looking at your brother's dogs make you wonder if you're raising yours right. You say his are so well trained and such, but when I read your OP I also see that his dog is completely unpredictable and will randomly bite when in a situation that provokes him. That's a huge problem to me, and that's why I'd say your brother shouldn't be a role model for training. 

I'm very physical with my dogs: in play, giving affection, and also correcting. I don't have a problem with it and neither do they. I'm not beating them or correcting them into next week, just reminding them what's what. 

But I'm also a better learner this way. I've had a few driving instuctors and my favorite was the one who slapped my hands when I wouldn't execute the hand-over-hand technique. Huh, one slap and I never made the mistake again. My favorite boss was a screamer. Oh boy, did I ever learn alot from him. He was also very fair and if I stayed late he'd go buy me dinner and always gave me some extra cash for my efforts. He was very generous with raises too. 

I think that's the key: be fair, be generous with praise, and be extremely careful that you're consistant at all times. If the rules never vary, and the routine is always the same, the consequences are expected, then it's easy for the dog to understand what you want. That said, this time around I opted for a clicker class for my puppy and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and have gotten some amazing results with this type of training.


----------



## ODINsFREKI (Jul 30, 2013)

Your bro raised his dogs they way he wanted and it works well for him. Worry about your dogs and do the best you can. 

He raised his dogs for family protection and not for show. There are dozens of ways to train and they all get results. Some are harsh, some are cold and militant, some are loving and some are cerebral. 

Dogs are individuals and no two dogs respond the same to the same training. They will all have distinct traits handed down by the alpha.

My doberman was cold, predictable and only loving inside at night when he laid at our feet. He was not trained like a GSD. He was trained for a job. He was to protect our family and property. He was alpha rolled maybe 5 times in his life. It was for good reason and it was intense. He understood and corrected the mistake. Was he a liability? Of course. We had a well trained weapon for our protection. He lived a good life with the best shelter and food. He saved life, he protected property and he never bit anybody who didn't deserve it.


----------



## ODINsFREKI (Jul 30, 2013)

cliffson1 said:


> What ticks me off is when the word compulsion is used, there are always some people who assume that a majority of people that incorporate some form of compulsion do so in teaching the dog basic commands. The vast majority of people I see today use food, toys and tugs, markers, or clickers in learning or shaping behaviors. I can't remember the last time I have seen a person cranking and jerking a puppy. Then there are the people who don't understand or who have never trained a dog in advanced measures who pass all this knowledge and judgement on something they have little understanding of. Appropriate corrections using compulsion can be fair, effective, safe, and productive. A good trainer, IMO, assesses the dog in front of them and uses the techniques and methods that are best for that dog. I hate seeing trainers force their methodology on a dog that is temperamentally not as suited for that method as maybe another. Like working a dog only in prey drive that has very little prey drive, because that is the only way the trainer knows or the trainer FEELS that is the only way a dog should be trained. ....common sense in training is still the best way to approach things in my opinion.


well said!


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

cliffson1 said:


> What ticks me off is when the word compulsion is used, there are always some people who assume that a majority of people that incorporate some form of compulsion do so in teaching the dog basic commands. The vast majority of people I see today use food, toys and tugs, markers, or clickers in learning or shaping behaviors. I can't remember the last time I have seen a person cranking and jerking a puppy. Then there are the people who don't understand or who have never trained a dog in advanced measures who pass all this knowledge and judgement on something they have little understanding of. Appropriate corrections using compulsion can be fair, effective, safe, and productive. A good trainer, IMO, assesses the dog in front of them and uses the techniques and methods that are best for that dog. I hate seeing trainers force their methodology on a dog that is temperamentally not as suited for that method as maybe another. Like working a dog only in prey drive that has very little prey drive, because that is the only way the trainer knows or the trainer FEELS that is the only way a dog should be trained. ....common sense in training is still the best way to approach things in my opinion.


 
Very well said Cliff. Thank you! 





Merciel said:


> Another reason is that it's just plain_ hard_. Incredibly hard. IPO is already a very demanding sport. Trying to do it without force is a little bit like climbing Mt. Everest with one hand tied behind your back and half the tools thrown out of your kit.
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I think Merciel has captured the essence of the difficulty of not using any physical corrections when training for protection sport/work.


When clicker training became all the rage amongst the horsie set I saw horses that used to stand quietly for the farrier become horrible with their ground manners, like spoiled brats really. My farrier fumed over it too...poor guy no fun being under 1000 pounds of animal that thinks it should have a choice in the matter. :crazy:

Anyhoo my point is people can screw up a dog (or horse) pretty badly with the 'pure' positive training methods as it does require (IMHO) better timing, more consistency and more time to train that way.

It can be done but to get superior results for high levels of competition probably is akin to climbing Mt. Everest, hence the reason it's such a small group of already knowledgeable trainers attempting it in IPO.

Great posts Merciel, this has been an interesting thread. :thumbup:

On the sport/working dog side one thing I've pondered and chatted with M. about is how much genetic biddability/pack drive come into play. In other words a dog that actively seeks reward via pleasing his handler would be easier to train sans physical corrections...or not?


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> On the sport/working dog side one thing I've pondered and chatted with M. about is how much genetic biddability/pack drive come into play. In other words a dog that actively seeks reward via pleasing his handler would be easier to train sans physical corrections...or not?


I know that I _personally_ have a strong preference for a biddable dog (it's easier and more fun!), but I don't know if it's true for the other people I've been talking about. I haven't seen any of them say anything about that specific topic. Intuitively it seems like it _should_ be true, but I don't actually know and I would be stretching out on a presumption if I said so. A good motivational trainer can find a wide variety of ways to reward a dog, especially if they have that dog from puppyhood and can develop the value of different games from very early on. So maybe they don't need to rely on genetic biddability as much, or other factors might weigh more heavily when choosing a top sport prospect. I honestly have no idea.

One thing that I _have_ heard emphasized as important is clear-headedness/good impulse control. A difficulty that people sometimes talk about is a dog who won't "out" in the heat of the fight because he's so wrapped up in trying to defeat the helper. A clear-headed dog who can still hear his handler and think things through is much easier to train without needing compulsion to knock down his level of arousal.

It's possible to improve self-control with exercises designed specifically to help that, but if you have a dog who really gets lost in the action then you might have some trouble getting a force-free "out." Or so I'm told. This is all secondhand, obviously I've never done it.

Really, at this point my plan is just to throw this whole big pile of chaos and confusion in front of the breeder and let them figure out which puppy to give me. And then, I guess, we'll do however we do, and learn whatever we can.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yup. I don't know for sure either. Like you, it definitely is a preference for me to have a more biddable dog with higher pack drive.

My Smitty dog is pretty independent, could care less if I'm happy with him, sad, whatever he just goes off and does his thing. Sometimes it's a good thing but he has been a challenge for me. I tried purely positive and for us (maybe due to my lack of skill too) it just didn't 'open' that door. It's like my lack of timing/skill coupled with his low pack drive was setting us up to fail at first. Though we're doing good now and I love the goober to bits.  I wouldn't go out of my way to get another dog like that....


----------

