# Hard dog *requires* firm hand: +R training?



## wildo

I saw this on the leerburg site and it raised some questions for me:


> He is not a dangerously sharp dog to be around, but he is an extremely hard dog in temperament. By that I mean *he requires firm correction* and tolerates it if it is justified. He does not tolerate any unfair corrections or any pressure from people that he is not strongly bonded to.


This isn't really the first time I've heard of a GSD "requiring a firm hand" and I really wonder the truth in that statement. Why would a well balanced dog require positive punishment training techniques? Is this an outdated perception- or is there something about the GSD that makes +R training (and the application of negative punishment when required) not doable?

I know that there are people out there using +R training on SchH GSDs with success, which is why I question comments like "requires a firm hand." Can anyone shed light on this? Why would someone make such a claim?


----------



## Liesje

I don't know if I agree with that statement b/c I don't know the context and am not always a Leerburg/Frawley fan but I do agree that a good GSD does require an owner that is not a pansy and is able to make it very clear to the dog what is acceptable behavior and what is not. It's not just about training the dog, but living with the dog. For example I live with three male dogs, two are intact. In the wild they might just fight it out to decide who gets what but in my house *I* decide who gets what and when. The more you are clear and consistent with your dog, I think the less the dog really needs as far as continued training and corrections. But if you let your dog get away with crap like going into a barking spitting frenzy when passing another dog on the street then yeah, eventually if you want to reverse that you're going to need a pretty firm hand.


----------



## wildo

Eeekk... I guess I should have known that this will likely turn into a training method debate. Not saying that you have done that Lies, but I am saying that I don't know how to respond to what you wrote without mentioning that +R training is not the same as being a "pansy owner" or "inconsistent" in response to behaviors. Ultimately- with +R training being a relatively new thing, that's why I wonder if the perception of "requiring a firm hand" is outdated.

For example, I'd say that this statement...



Liesje said:


> But if you let your dog get away with crap like going into a barking spitting frenzy when passing another dog on the street then yeah, *eventually if you want to reverse that you're going to need a pretty firm hand*.


...is not entirely true. Inflicting positive punishment is certainly _one_ way to handle that, but hardly the _only_ way.

Dang. I see where this is going. I really do hope that we don't get into a training technique argument. I really am simply curious about that often used phrase in describing a GSD.


----------



## TechieDog

wildo said:


> I saw this on the leerburg site and it raised some questions for me:
> 
> 
> This isn't really the first time I've heard of a GSD "requiring a firm hand" and I really wonder the truth in that statement. Why would a well balanced dog require positive punishment training techniques? Is this an outdated perception- or is there something about the GSD that makes +R training (and the application of negative punishment when required) not doable?
> 
> I know that there are people out there using +R training on SchH GSDs with success, which is why I question comments like "requires a firm hand." Can anyone shed light on this? Why would someone make such a claim?


The statement you quoted refers to a HARD dog requiring a firm correction and in the context quoted I take it to me that the particular dog being discussed does not react to lesser corrections (because he is hardened to them). It was not a generalized statement.


----------



## ponyfarm

In my experience, some dogs are the "make me do it" type and some are the
"anything you want master" type.

I had a rottie/dobe that was the 'make me' type. He was bullheaded!


----------



## Josie/Zeus

ponyfarm said:


> In my experience, some dogs are the "make me do it" type and some are the
> "anything you want master" type.
> 
> I had a rottie/dobe that was the 'make me' type. He was bullheaded!


Ditto. 

Zeus was exactly that, oh my gosh was he bullheaded. Odin was the complete opposite, very obedient- he loved to please. 

Koda is very much like Zeus.


----------



## wildo

TechieDog said:


> The statement you quoted refers to a HARD dog requiring a firm correction and in the context quoted I take it to me that the particular dog being discussed does not react to lesser corrections (because he is hardened to them). It was not a generalized statement.


Help me to understand this. If the dog has been hardened to the correction- then he was once _not hardened_ to the correction. Wouldn't the fact that the he was once not responding to the correction (thus the need for the harder "firm" correction) indicate that a different method may be required? If the dog doesn't respond to a light correction- then I don't get the point of a harder correction. To me, the unresponsiveness indicates that the understanding of the correction is not there. If the dog does not understand the correction- then why does making the correction more intense "clarify" understanding? I'm not sure it does...


----------



## TechieDog

wildo said:


> Help me to understand this. If the dog has been hardened to the correction- then he was once _not hardened_ to the correction. Wouldn't the fact that the he was once not responding to the correction (thus the need for the harder "firm" correction) indicate that a different method may be required? If the dog doesn't respond to a light correction- then I don't get the point of a harder correction. To me, the unresponsiveness indicates that the understanding of the correction is not there. If the dog does not understand the correction- then why does making the correction more intense "clarify" understanding? I'm not sure it does...


The dog may understand the correction but just choose to ignore it. Hence the need for a harder correction (or another technique).


----------



## wildo

If he chooses to ignore it, then he doesn't understand the correction. Does not a correction communicate: "What you are doing is wrong; I want you to stop what you are doing right now." If the dog does not respond to that, then he does not understand that.

I'm on a quest to find out if a high drive, working line GSD could be raised with +R reinforcement. I am 90% confident at this point that not only could such a dog be raised that way, it would likely be among the most the best of the best in the performance category. But statements about genetic "hardness requiring a firm hand" kinda scare me a bit. Could such a statement indicate a lack of biddability? Or is it simply bad training?


----------



## Josie/Zeus

Think of it as having children, the others do what they are told and there's always one that doesn't and requires a spank or two in the butt.


----------



## TechieDog

wildo said:


> If he chooses to ignore it, then he doesn't understand the correction. Does not a correction communicate: "What you are doing is wrong; I want you to stop what you are doing right now." If the dog does not respond to that, then he does not understand that.


Or desensitized to the correction. Perhaps the dog is simply more stimulated by whatever it is he is doing.

By +R are you talkign about positive reinforcement only methods?


----------



## wildo

I don't have kids. I can't relate to that analogy. My kids will be perfect... :rofl:


----------



## Catu

wildo said:


> Inflicting positive punishment is certainly _one_ way to handle that, but hardly the _only_ way.


And the same applies to positive reinforcement. I'm all about teaching with +R, but with all dogs I reach a point where, once the command is already learnt, where complaining is not optional. That is the point when it becomes obedience and not trick training. Some dogs are more biddable and naturally obedient, but there are others who do not and you have to adjust to that. Also, as stated on the original quoted paragraph some dogs need to feel that their handlers are real strong confident leaders and, while it doesn't imply that you have to beat a dog, not even touching a hair of it, you don't get there it a "Good boy". A firm "NO" and a pop collar ARE positive punishment. It is the way it is in animal world, dogs don't have Gandhi and Diabla doesn't steal Akela's toy anymore not because he taught her with cookies, but because he weights almost twice as her and showed only once, but in no uncertain terms, that he would not tolerate bull.... anymore.

I don't think positive punishment is outdated, but on the contrary. After training only with force methods it came the fashion of only positive training then it came a place for a golden middle. The world would benefit if human positive punishment with kids were not as outdated as it is.


----------



## wildo

TechieDog said:


> Or desensitized to the correction.


I see that as a problem in training. Desensitization to correction means that the correction is not clear/understood.



TechieDog said:


> Perhaps the dog is simply more stimulated by whatever it is he is doing.
> 
> By +R are you talkign about positive reinforcement only methods?


This is the beauty of +R methods. They embrace the _reality_ that the dog is more stimulated by the environment, so they methodology employs negative punishment (removing the stimulation by changing the environment) as a means of correction. No, +R (positive renforcement training methodology) does not _only_ employ positive reinforcement. It also uses negative punishment.

I am currently watching weekly videos of a very high drive, very mouthy Border Collie being raised (videos start at 5weeks old) with +R techniques and I can tell you that at 17 weeks old, this dog is more obedient, more drivey, and more responsive than any GSD I've ever seen- regardless of age. I assure you- that BC _clearly_ understands what a negative punishment correction is. While a BC is not a GSD (I get it), I don't see why the same techniques couldn't produce similar results in a high drive GSD.

So with that said, I still question if the phrase "requires a firm hand" is still just an indication of poorly communicated training.


----------



## wildo

Catu- I was typing my response when you posted. I guess one flaw in my line of thinking (about +R) is that I totally agree with you about more kids needing some positive punishment in their lives...

I think, though, that fortunately it's a bit easier to train a dog than a kid (I imagine- again, I don't have any kids). I mean- you can't really put a kid in a crate. And sending them to their room FILLED full of reinforcing toys, computers, stimulus is not really the same as sending a dog to a crate for a timeout... Therefore I posit that there is a good explanation for +R not working so well in child rearing, but working well in dog training.

And because I am desperate trying (though I think I failed) to keep this conversation on track about the phrase in question- and not so much about +R techniques- I will add that I think ALL kids "require a firm hand." :rofl:


----------



## TechieDog

Desensitization may not be a lack of understanding the correction but will result from poor training. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to see if there were more "Hard Dogs" in the old days of coercion training than there is nowadays!

Can you give me an example of how +R "embraces the _reality_ that the dog is more stimulated by the environment" ... by " employs negative punishment (removing the stimulation by changing the environment) as a means of correction" ?

Curious, from what you said, do you think that a lot of drive is being lost in dogs (GSD's) trained with positive training methods + correction (negative reinforcement)?


----------



## Catu

wildo said:


> I'm on a quest to find out if a high drive, working line GSD could be raised with +R reinforcement. I am 90% confident at this point that not only could such a dog be raised that way, it would likely be among the most the best of the best in the performance category. But statements about genetic "hardness requiring a firm hand" kinda scare me a bit. Could such a statement indicate a lack of biddability? Or is it simply bad training?


A friend of mine went on the same quest, but abandoned it after a couple of years. It did not because the dog was a wild child who would not obey him, but on the contrary, the dog already has a BH. The problem was that she was a very biddable female who wanted nothing but to please him, I was there when a world champion trainer showed him how unfair he was being to the dog. The dog was desperate to do things right, but only positive training did not provided her with enough information, when she did wrong my friend would ignore or try to redirect, withholding the reward as negative punishment, but she would became anxious and do worst creating a vicious circle with no end until the poor female was an emotional wreck. When corrections were added she did not became frightened of him nor resented the training, she actually relaxed on a place where things were more black and white.


----------



## ponyfarm

Def, dogs are like kids..same family, different temperament, but kids usually come from a bigger genetic makeup. 

I am no expert, but the herding breeds are the most biddable dogs. Borders will try to do about anything if they can figure it out and if they get it wrong, they shrink in dismay. I think the GSD's with more of the herding genetics might be a bit more biddable than a hard shutzchund type dog. ( I am using the word "biddable" as willing to try to do whats asked in a happy/ non confrontation way. May be not what others think of "biddable ' as)

So, I would look at what the lines you are after have been/or are doing. Lets face it..to be a K9 dog, that dog has to have a tough skin. To be a herding dog, if they are too tough/aggressive they bite the sheep and thats baaa'd! LOL


----------



## Liesje

wildo said:


> Eeekk... I guess I should have known that this will likely turn into a training method debate. Not saying that you have done that Lies, but I am saying that I don't know how to respond to what you wrote without mentioning that +R training is not the same as being a "pansy owner" or "inconsistent" in response to behaviors. Ultimately- with +R training being a relatively new thing, that's why I wonder if the perception of "requiring a firm hand" is outdated.
> 
> For example, I'd say that this statement...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is not entirely true. Inflicting positive punishment is certainly _one_ way to handle that, but hardly the _only_ way.
> 
> Dang. I see where this is going. I really do hope that we don't get into a training technique argument. I really am simply curious about that often used phrase in describing a GSD.



FWIW 90% of my training would fall inside the +R quadrant. I guess some people see all interactions with dogs in terms of training and operant conditioning. I personally do not. If my dog is misbehaving I will say "no" and not allow him to do it. If my dog is so soft that he can't handle that then he's just not the dog for me. To me this is not a training technique, it is me being the owner and leader setting appropriate boundaries for my dog so for the future I've set him up for success and given him the means to behave in ways that he feels confident with himself.

If we have to use the training/learning theory labels I would say that in daily life I'm more inclined to use +P than on the training field (where I use +R and some -R).


----------



## wildo

Catu said:


> A friend of mine went on the same quest, but abandoned it after a couple of years. It did not because the dog was a wild child who would not obey him, but on the contrary, the dog already has a BH. The problem was that she was a very biddable female who wanted nothing but to please him, I was there when a world champion trainer showed him how unfair he was being to the dog. The dog was desperate to do things right, but only positive training did not provided her with enough information, when she did wrong my friend would ignore or try to redirect, she would became anxious and do worst creating a vicious circle with no end until the poor female was an emotional wreck. When corrections were added she did not became frightened of him nor resented the training, she actually relaxed on a place where things were more black and white.


Now that is _ultra_ interesting to me... Seriously. I am not sure what to make of it, but I am glad to hear that perspective. Seriously interesting...

TechieDog- I apologize, but I am not following your request. If you can rephrase your question, I will attempt to answer.
[EDIT]- well, I'll give it a shot anyhow.



TechieDog said:


> Can you give me an example of how +R "embraces the _reality_ that the dog is more stimulated by the environment" ... by " employs negative punishment (removing the stimulation by changing the environment) as a means of correction" ?


An example might be- I want the dog to tug with me. I am trying to build tug drive and a willingness to work whenever I ask. The dog is not in the mood for tugging an instead wants to sniff around the large backyard. One thing that I might do is take the dog inside to the much smaller bathroom where there is little going on. Changing the environment might set the dog up for success in focusing on me. If that doesn't work, I could put the dog in a timeout in the crate where there is no stimulation. When I take the dog back out, he should be more willing to work with me since there is more stimulation in working with me than in sitting in a crate.



TechieDog said:


> Curious, from what you said, do you think that a lot of drive is being lost in dogs (GSD's) trained with positive training methods + correction (negative reinforcement)?


Quite the contrary. My personal experience is that +P corrections had absolutely killed my dog's drive to work. Negative punishment corrections have caused her to blossom into a dog with a very nice drive. That's my personal experience anyway, though I am admittedly working with a dog that is not "hard."


----------



## Freestep

wildo said:


> If he chooses to ignore it, then he doesn't understand the correction. Does not a correction communicate: "What you are doing is wrong; I want you to stop what you are doing right now." If the dog does not respond to that, then he does not understand that.


Or, the correction simply didn't register. Harder dogs tend to have a high pain tolerance, and light corrections may be ignored simply because they aren't felt. Think of it this way. If someone says "don't touch the stove; it's hot", you touch it anyway and it's not hot enough to hurt, you may dismiss the warning. If, however, someone says "don't touch the stove; it's hot", you touch it anyway and burn yourself, you may be inclined to listen next time.


----------



## Liesje

My Pan is very much like that, what Catu is describing (though he is not soft and not an emotional wreck but he will overload in drive and act bonkers if he can't figure out what you want). He just wants you do straight up SHOW him what is wrong and right. Freeshaping and all that stuff - as much as it interests ME - is not really his style. He learned to "platz" using -R and when he wants something from you the FIRST thing he will offer is a platz. I feel like in his mind it was like, "Ball ball ball!! HOW do I get the ball?!?! PLEASE SHOW ME HOW I GET THE BALL!" So I said "platz!" and made him do it, then I said "YEAH good boy!" and gave him the ball and he was like "YESSS finally!"


----------



## ponyfarm

Something to add about border collies that might help. Not sure if taking this in the wrong direction as I lost track of the direction! (Hey, Im old!)

Anyway, been around Borders for years. My mom trials border collies. They are super smart, can learn ten new tricks in an hour, if they don't get the trick right, they just try another one!, make up thier own!, they are fast, loyal, easy to manage, dont destroy things, dont attack people or other dogs..

...but I don't want one. They are wimpy!  And I can not stand them staring at me with those little beady eyes!! haha...(hope I dont offend anyone here! MOM??)

Get a biddable GSD and thats the elusive Golden Middle for me.


----------



## Catu

Liesje said:


> My Pan is very much like that, what Catu is describing (though he is not soft and not an emotional wreck but he will overload in drive and act bonkers if he can't figure out what you want). He just wants you do straight up SHOW him what is wrong and right. Freeshaping and all that stuff - as much as it interests ME - is not really his style. He learned to "platz" using -R and when he wants something from you the FIRST thing he will offer is a platz. I feel like in his mind it was like, "Ball ball ball!! HOW do I get the ball?!?! PLEASE SHOW ME HOW I GET THE BALL!" So I said "platz!" and made him do it, then I said "YEAH good boy!" and gave him the ball and he was like "YESSS finally!"


I admit that dog was too soft for my taste and had some cracks on the nerve box, but also my friend is a big man, one of those guys you expect to see working as guard outside a bar and only his frustration may be overwhelming for this small female. But now you point about overloading in drive I think that in some way it could have been interpreted like she overloaded in social drive. instead of ball, ball ball!!!! for her would have been LIKE ME, LIKE ME, LOVE ME!!!!

I had a border collie and I thought I'd always have one... those smart guys! But I agree, after owning a GSD, I'm not sure if I'd go back to owning one. While BC learn WAY faster, I find a good German shepherd more trustworthy.


----------



## wildo

Freestep said:


> Or, the correction simply didn't register. Harder dogs tend to have a high pain tolerance, and light corrections may be ignored simply because they aren't felt. Think of it this way. If someone says "don't touch the stove; it's hot", you touch it anyway and it's not hot enough to hurt, you may dismiss the warning. If, however, someone says "don't touch the stove; it's hot", you touch it anyway and burn yourself, you may be inclined to listen next time.


Thanks- this is a good analogy. I understand what you mean by this... In the end, I still need to make it out to some SchH fields and do some observing. I really want to learn more about this concept of a "hard dog" and what is meant by a "firm hand."

Concerning the Border Collie- I agree with everyone here. I don't think it's possible to get sucked into agility and not have the thought cross your mind about the coolness of owning a BC. But after doing my own research, I also found them to be sound sensitive, motion sensitive, soft nerved- turned off by correction of any type, etc, etc. I found this great article (which for the life of me I can't find now) about what a Border Collie is _not._ The things they described the BC as not are pretty much the things a GSD _is_. I agree- not the breed for me.


----------



## Samba

I think you might find such a dog easy to train with R+. The dogs have intensity and drive, so yes, R+ is great to apply and they learn very fast!

But, there might be times of intensity and high drive when a correction is just the thing you want. A correction on a good German Shepherd is no big deal. The dog remains clear, the communication is clear and the dog avtually performs better than before the correction. This is different from taking a dog out who is not in drive. And then applying strong correction as a way to teach the dog the basics. I don't think that is what they are talking about in regards the dog...I hope.


----------



## Liesje

Exactly, a fair well-timed correction is no big deal to the dog, it's just a way of communicating. I am fascinated by freeshaping and try it to certain extents with all of my dogs but have found myself swinging from total +R (years ago) more and more to +P and -R mixed in with marker training because sometimes it's just faster. It gets me the behavior faster and it gets the dog the release and reward faster. Win win. (and faster doesn't have to mean sloppy or less precise! Pan is already the fastest most intense and precise dog I've done obedience with and he's already gotten the most -R and +P)


----------



## 4TheDawgies

This brings up a question of mine. I hope its not too off topic. 

My question is there are "hard dogs" who need these intense corrections to get the dog to comply, and then there are for lack of a better word "soft dogs" who need nothing more than a simple ah ah, or a negative punishment to get them to comply. 

Which is a more desirable trait in our dogs? is it simply a preference of the trainer and what they prefer to employ when working with their dog? Or is one or the other better?

I have a member at my club who could literally give a earth shattering correction to his dog and the dog still doesn't feel the correction or comply. (I will call this dog a hard dog since that is what it was described as).

Then there is a dog at my club that will be extremely drivey for a tug toy or ball on a rope. If the dog is given direction through positive reinforcement and negative punishment the dog looks like a star. If the dog however is given positive punishment the dog begins to loose drive and try to avoid the situation, for what appears to be a lack of understanding. This same dog can handle just as much pressure from a helper as the "hard dog". 

So the difference between those dogs in training styles is vastly different. Is one or the other any better? Is one or the other a faulty temperament? Or are they simply two different working styles but both are good dogs and its simply the preference of the trainer to choose what they prefer?


----------



## wildo

You're question is _exactly_ *on* topic. Thanks for asking it. I am curious the answer as well.


----------



## Liesje

I like a dog in the middle. I can't have a dog that shuts down because of a leash correction but I don't want a dog that needs its head taken off just to get the point across. Both of my male GSDs can take a LOT of pressure from me and in protection but that doesn't mean that is how I train them. I don't want to have to be constantly on their butts about everything. If I have to give the same correction more than a few times then that tells me my point is not getting across.

Then there is the concept that often the same dog needs different types of levels of correction depending on his mental state. When Pan is getting too high in prey drive doing protection, in order for me to make my point once he needs a different correction than if we are just sitting in the front yard together and I don't want him to fixate on a cat across the street.


----------



## Lilie

Liesje said:


> *Then there is the concept that often the same dog needs different types* *of levels of correction depending on his mental state*. When Pan is getting too high in prey drive doing protection, in order for me to make my point once he needs a different correction than if we are just sitting in the front yard together and I don't want him to fixate on a cat across the street.


I think this is a very important point.


----------



## 4TheDawgies

Liesje said:


> I like a dog in the middle. I can't have a dog that shuts down because of a leash correction but I don't want a dog that needs its head taken off just to get the point across. Both of my male GSDs can take a LOT of pressure from me and in protection but that doesn't mean that is how I train them. I don't want to have to be constantly on their butts about everything. If I have to give the same correction more than a few times then that tells me my point is not getting across.
> 
> Then there is the concept that often the same dog needs different types of levels of correction depending on his mental state. When Pan is getting too high in prey drive doing protection, in order for me to make my point once he needs a different correction than if we are just sitting in the front yard together and I don't want him to fixate on a cat across the street.


So then you feel it would be a personal preference as to what type of dog you get, not necessarily saying a "soft" or a "hard" dog is bad, but only what someone prefers, but both are "good" german shepherds?


----------



## 4TheDawgies

Lilie said:


> I think this is a very important point.


I agree it is a good point. Because then I also want to ask this question.

That same "soft dog" who cannot take a correction from their handler in say obedience over a tug toy. Can take a very good correction from their handler when in drive for protection. IS that dog still a soft dog? Or is that dog "Handler sensitive"? OR is Handler sensitivity a symptom of being soft?


----------



## Liesje

Yes, very much personal preference. And also people have totally different understandings of what soft and hard mean. I've seen it discussed a few times on the pedigree database (which is not really giving any definitive answers but there are quite a few accomplished breeders, LEOs, and sport competitors there) and it's clear even five people who all do the same sport with the same line/type of dog have five different definitions of soft and hard.

To me handler sensitive is not the same as soft but a dog can be one, both, or neither.


----------



## 4TheDawgies

Liesje said:


> Yes, very much personal preference. And also people have totally different understandings of what soft and hard mean. I've seen it discussed a few times on the pedigree database (which is not really giving any definitive answers but there are quite a few accomplished breeders, LEOs, and sport competitors there) and it's clear even five people who all do the same sport with the same line/type of dog have five different definitions of soft and hard.
> 
> To me handler sensitive is not the same as soft but a dog can be one, both, or neither.


Right that's why I am talking in terms of what was described here. The dog who takes really harsh corrections from a handler is perceived as "hard" here as described by one person, so using process of elimination a soft dog is one who doesn't do well with a harsh correction. 

What I have observed on forums and on the field is people with hard dogs seem to look down on soft dogs. I've even heard some people go as far as calling that dog weak and saying it shouldn't be worked. But only because it doesn't fit their idea of what a GSD should be and therefore faulting it. So thats why I asked if it was a preference. 

So can you have a hard dog, but the dog also have handler sensitivity? So going by what Leerburg called a hard dog, if that dog had been handler sensitive does that immediately make that dog not hard? or are there other ways that you personally, or other members here, also believe describes a hard dog?


----------



## Lilie

I'd like to take this to the next level for a moment. 

I think there are dogs that were made 'hard' due to inconsistant training meathods. Some people tend to want to rush their dogs into what they feel is perfection by using harsh corrections or e-collars. 

An example of what I mean is a dog who barks at the mailman. Every day Fido barks at the mailman and Suzy screams at him over and over "Quiet...Leave it....Stop...That's enough!"....from her comfy seat in front of the T.V. But Fido won't stop barking till the mail man is long gone. Fido knows those commands, he just refuses to listen. He is attempting to spite Suzy. So Suzy buys a bark collar. 
If the bark collar doesn't work, what is Suzy going to do? Tackle Fido in an alpha roll?

Suzy could have gotten off the couch after the first 'Quiet' and corrected the barking / rewarded the quiet. Yes it would have taken Suzy longer to teach. But Suzy didn't have to go from sitting on couch barking out commands to one of the harshest training tools out there.


----------



## Liesje

Lilie I agree but I also think nagging corrections, constantly repeating commands, etc can make the dog hardened because he gets away with having his own agenda and then in order to make the point the handler really has to step it up. A correction that may have worked in the beginning before the training was unclear now the dog totally ignores. That is really frustrating for me to watch, constant nagging and repeating commands and the dog barely flicking an eye in response.


----------



## onyx'girl

In 'Advanced Schutzhund' by Ivan Balabanov and Karen Duet, *Hardness* is described as:
_The dogs capacity to ignore unpleasant experiences during the protection phase and to demonstrate maximum courage and fighting spirit._

And from Gottfried Dildei/Sheila Booth 'Training in Drive':
Hardness: A dogs ability to withstand negative stimulation and remain unaffected. The Ability to bounce back in drive._(A correction in obedience requires resiliency in pack drive, as well as in whichever drive is being used. A helpers threat requires resiliency in fight drive. Each drive has its own hardness factor for each dog. Thus the same dog may be able to withstand a certain degree of negative stimulation in prey drive, but not in fight drive.)_

With my dog, he is handler sensitive for the most part in the obedience/heeling exercises.
When it comes to obedience in the protection phase, I have to use methods to keep him in balance that would be way too much if I used them in obedience....his fight drive makes him hard.


----------



## Catu

4TheDawgies said:


> So then you feel it would be a personal preference as to what type of dog you get, not necessarily saying a "soft" or a "hard" dog is bad, but only what someone prefers, but both are "good" german shepherds?


I think it is true, but within a range. A dog that is as handler sensitive as a Border Collie is not a good representative of the breed, as much as a dog as handler hard as a Bull-mastiff is not correct either. But between the two you have plenty to choose from.

Note I added the distinction of handler soft and handler hard. As other pointed, there is a distinction between being soft or hard to environmental stimulus and when it comes to the handler. in my opinion all shepherd breeds should be somewhat handler sensitive, because they have to work at distance from the shepherd, imagine if the handler would have to go physical every time the dog needed a correction... 

Akela is a dog I could call environmentally hard, little disturbs him and he can take a lot of pressure from the helper, but handler sensitive. If I raise my voice (and he is not in drive, like just hanging at home as opposed at training) it is like if I've just beaten him with a broom. But I think it also has to be with his age, instead of becoming rebellious with adolescence he is more in a Drama Queen stage.


----------



## onyx'girl

Karlo is like Akela, I think it is a stable balance and what I would rather have. Though, I've never had to yell at him!
And so far at 2.5, I haven't seen any rebellious behaviors come out(other than our dumbbell retrieve work, which he hates, but complies with)


----------



## Lilie

Liesje said:


> Lilie I agree but I also think nagging corrections, constantly repeating commands, etc can make the dog hardened because he gets away with having his own agenda and then in order to make the point the handler really has to step it up. A correction that may have worked in the beginning before the training was unclear now the dog totally ignores. That is really frustrating for me to watch, constant nagging and repeating commands and the dog barely flicking an eye in response.


Right! My point exactly! (Just stated much better!) The handler has made the dog hard by not following through with the first command. The dog becomes 'hard'. Therefore they have to utilize harsher/harder corrections to attempt to get the dog to comply.


----------



## Emoore

Can you please tell me where I could read up on +R training? I've never heard the term. I tried google but only found training on some type of software called R.


----------



## Catu

+R refers to Positive reinforcement
-P negative punishment

and so on...


----------



## Liesje

Emoore said:


> Can you please tell me where I could read up on +R training? I've never heard the term. I tried google but only found training on some type of software called R.


+R is stuff like most marker based training, freeshaping, lure/mark/reward kind of stuff. You mark and reward what you want, ignore what you don't want (or command an incompatible behavior) rather than physically or verbally correct the dog. Karen Pryor's "Don't Shoot The Dog!" is kind of the Bible of marker based +R dog training.


----------



## wildo

Emoore said:


> Can you please tell me where I could read up on +R training? I've never heard the term. I tried google but only found training on some type of software called R.


+R is simply an acronym for positive reinforcement training. Quite honestly, I am not sure where I saw it from. It's likely a spill over from psychology defining the four quadrants of operant conditioning as +R, -R, +P, and -P. To my knowledge (or at least the way I use it) the "+R" term used in the context of dog training is referring to the overall methodology of positive reinforcement training which embraces two quadrants of operant conditioning: the positive reinforcement and negative punishment quadrants. (Though I've recently debated with myself if restrained recalls could be classified as negative reinforcement.)


----------



## Liesje

I do not think restrained recalls are -R. To me a -R recall would be like if you put on an e-collar, gave the command, and stimm'd the dog until it started coming toward you. But it is interesting because often we build and cap drive by frustrating the dog somehow and this doesn't neatly fit into the quadrants. I don't think the quadrants can fully address the importance of drive in training, only the method/steps used to train the behaviors.


----------



## wildo

Liesje said:


> I do not think restrained recalls are -R. To me a -R recall would be like if you put on an e-collar, gave the command, and stimm'd the dog until it started coming toward you.


The removal of the restraint allows the dog to get reward. Couldn't you call the restraint a negative stimulus and coming to me the reward? I actually don't know the answer to this. I think it kinda fits the definition.


----------



## Liesje

I guess looking at it that way it fits. But I don't necessarily see restraining a dog as applying a negative stimulus especially because the dog's behavior doesn't turn that on or off. If the behavior being trained is a recall, the dog cannot accomplish that while being restrained. I suppose if the behavior really being trained was alerting to the handler, then you could say the dog is turning off the aversive restraint as long as he gets released the second he focuses on the handler (but when I do restrained recalls my dog is never not focused on me and is usually screaming as I walk away). In -R/escape training the dog learns that by doing or not doing certain things he can turn rewards on and turn aversives off.

Good topic though!


----------



## Catu

I would call a restrained recall -R if I apply pressure with the line and it releases when the dog comes. If the line is there only to prevent escaping until the dog decides by itself to come, then not.


----------



## wildo

Yep- I agree with your assessment. That's why I said I've debated with myself on it. I think you can make it fit into -R, but only by applying definitions that may or may not be accurate. I really don't know. The real world is hard to apply in black & white terms, but if you had to put restrained recall into one of the four operant conditioning quadrants, I think that -R _might_ be the best fit. I dunno... Not that important. Just sayin'


----------



## Liesje

I'm not disagreeing but I don't think it fits for me because the dog cannot do something differently to affect a different outcome with regard to the restraint the next time the exercise is done. But, I think this is interesting and I'm going to ask this question on another board....


----------



## 4TheDawgies

Lilie said:


> Right! My point exactly! (Just stated much better!) The handler has made the dog hard by not following through with the first command. The dog becomes 'hard'. Therefore they have to utilize harsher/harder corrections to attempt to get the dog to comply.


Yes this is where I was going to take it. I have a really really nervy white german shepherd. I basically desensitized her to corrections when I first got her. So at one point I could give her some really hard corrections and she would act like nothing. I have since learned more about training in the years I've had her but that is what was making me question the hardness a little. Because she is not what I would consider a hard dog LOL

And the guy at my club, I love him to death hes such a great guy, but despite the help of the TD and other members, he still gives very nagging corrections for the most part then ends up having to give the earth shattering corrections to make his dog even blink. I and the other members agree he is like that because he has been desensitized to corrections and has learned to ignore them and plow through them.


----------



## Lilie

4TheDawgies said:


> And the guy at my club, I love him to death hes such a great guy, but despite the help of the TD and other members, he still gives very nagging corrections for the most part then ends up having to give the earth shattering corrections to make his dog even blink. I and the other members agree he is like that because he has been desensitized to corrections and has learned to ignore them and plow through them.


There was a two year old pittie in our class, with an elder man as the handler. She had a prong collar on that she totally ignored. It meant nothing. The elder man's son had this pup in a prong her entire life. The dog was so ill mannered and was aggressive towards our instructor when she finally was able to correct, that our instructor pulled her from our OB class. She put them into one on one classes, until they were able to work with the dog.


----------



## Samba

Restraining or blocking is not generally thought of as -R, no.


----------



## lhczth

4TheDawgies said:


> Then there is a dog at my club that will be extremely drivey for a tug toy or ball on a rope. If the dog is given direction through positive reinforcement and negative punishment the dog looks like a star. If the dog however is given positive punishment the dog begins to loose drive and try to avoid the situation, for what appears to be a lack of understanding. This same dog can handle just as much pressure from a helper as the "hard dog".


Where you might see the softness in the dog is if the helper steps on the dog's foot during the drives or something negative happens to the dog during the work. 

The dog losing drive and going into avoidance could be the result of a soft dog, but it also could be due to a bad handler. I personally don't want a dog that shuts down or goes into avoidance when corrected, but even a resilient/hard dog may start to show these behaviors if they are confused by the training (even +R training as someone has pointed out earlier).


----------



## lhczth

4TheDawgies said:


> So can you have a hard dog, but the dog also have handler sensitivity? So going by what Leerburg called a hard dog, if that dog had been handler sensitive does that immediately make that dog not hard? or are there other ways that you personally, or other members here, also believe describes a hard dog?


I use the term "hard" to mean dogs that can handle adversity and pressure while continuing to work. These dogs may be handler sensitive, but they are resilient to corrections and continue to work and do what is asked despite the corrections. 

A soft dog is a dog that does not handle pressure well whether it is coming from the handler, the helper or the environment. These dogs may appear to be difficult (I hate the word stubborn) dogs to train and lack handler sensitivity (are not biddable) yet will shut down or go into avoidance when corrected or face pressure their nerves are not able to handle.


----------



## lhczth

I have always hated these discussions. A good trainer will use what works best with an individual dog. This will usually involve all four quadrants of operant conditioning though with one or two areas probably used more than another. 

Wildo mentioned putting a dog in the crate if they don't want to work. I, personally, have never liked the idea of building drive through deprivation and consider this to be far less humane than a quick correction. Isolating a dog unless it is out to work. "Fasting" them until they realize that the only way they get to eat is if they do as asked. Sorry, I don't see either as humane, but these are often used by +R trainers.


----------



## DunRingill

wildo said:


> If he chooses to ignore it, then he doesn't understand the correction.


Not necessarily. Some dogs DO value their own agenda more than any reasonable reward you might hold over them. It took a very long time to make Mike a more willing partner...it was worth the work and people who watch him now often comment on how much he loves to work but BELIEVE ME he didn't come that way naturally. That dog was born without an ounce of natural cooperation. Love him, but don't want another one like that thankyouverymuch. 

There ARE dogs like that....never say never. If you're saying "I'll never have to use physical corrections" consider the possibility that you haven't worked with enough dogs yet. They ARE out there.


----------



## DunRingill

lhczth said:


> I have always hated these discussions. A good trainer will use what works best with an individual dog. This will usually involve all four quadrants of operant conditioning though with one or two areas probably used more than another.
> 
> Wildo mentioned putting a dog in the crate if they don't want to work. I, personally, have never liked the idea of building drive through deprivation and consider this to be far less humane than a quick correction. Isolating a dog unless it is out to work. "Fasting" them until they realize that the only way they get to eat is if they do as asked. Sorry, I don't see either as humane, but these are often used by +R trainers.


YES YES YES!! Agree 110%. 

I did actually try isolation/deprivation with Mike, because I really didn't want to have to correct him so hard. I tried putting him in his crate when he didn't want to work. He curled up and went to sleep. I tried working another dog in front of him, after putting him in his crate. He'd either curl up and go to sleep, or watch passively. Not only did he not care, he gave the impression that he thought my other dog was an idiot for playing my games. I tried crating him in another room, away from us. He didn't care. I even fed his dinner to my other dog, in front of him....nope. 

It soon became very obvious that putting Mike back in his crate was REWARDING him for his lack of cooperation, and that was the end of THAT. 

I refuse to starve a dog....especially refuse to starve a dog just so I can say I don't use physical corrections. (and I do believe that starving, deprivation, and isolation are still physical and mental corrections.) 

OK I better get to work.....


----------



## wildo

DunRingill said:


> YES YES YES!! Agree 110%.
> 
> I did actually try isolation/deprivation with Mike, because I really didn't want to have to correct him so hard. I tried putting him in his crate when he didn't want to work. He curled up and went to sleep. I tried working another dog in front of him, after putting him in his crate. He'd either curl up and go to sleep, or watch passively. Not only did he not care, he gave the impression that he thought my other dog was an idiot for playing my games. I tried crating him in another room, away from us. He didn't care. I even fed his dinner to my other dog, in front of him....nope.
> 
> It soon became very obvious that putting Mike back in his crate was REWARDING him for his lack of cooperation, and that was the end of THAT.
> 
> I refuse to starve a dog....especially refuse to starve a dog just so I can say I don't use physical corrections. (and I do believe that starving, deprivation, and isolation are still physical and mental corrections.)


Another interesting perspective. I don't think dogs are robots. I don't think that a single method will necessarily work for every dog. But that doesn't mean that I won't be willing to give it a shot. My _personal_ opinion is that people are too willing to switch to coercive training over +R training without really seeing the +R training through. Sounds like you _did_ try all you could think of, but had to switch to other methods. I commend that! Again, I am not saying that I think one should only be able to use one method. All I am saying is that I would like to _attempt_ to train a dog with +R (and -P) techniques and see how it goes. If it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out. I think it would be a fun experiment.

Since I don't have any inclination to get another pup until Pimg dies- I am hoping I have many, many years to contemplate that strategy.



DunRingill said:


> OK I better get to work.....


Yikes! Me too...


----------



## Samba

I have not found a highly effective system that is all positive. 

No one tell Hogan that a correction is a bad thing please! He does not sulk, resent or become submissive. I think he likes it because he always comes up grinning and working better! This "feature" in the dog us why breeding is such an important endeavor.

I am not pleased with my dog that requires a lot of R+ training. I use R+ and find it very effective, of course. But a dog that actually "needs" this type of training is not my cup of tea or correct,IMO.

Without a better description of the "hardness", it is difficult to know the exact make up of the dog described thusly. I am thinking a lot of people might not have a firm enough hand to work with a dog that I consider good and correct.


----------



## BeautifulChaos

Out of curiosity, where do you guys place the dog that "jacks up" with corrections? Not through over stimulation... (I really can't think of how to work it)

I have always thought of my dog to be a hard dog. Before I got him, he had some serious aggression issues. He was with a positive only group, and he was running the show. I won't use any names from the group as they are a fairly well-known organization.
They had a dog that would hit the end of his leash trying to kill anything/everything that went past him - dog, cat, human, etc. He was a very very drivey dog, and a very dominant dog by nature. Through their +R techniques, he learned how to manipulate the handlers. "I can bark and have my fun, and if I then turn and sit quietly, I'll get a treat". Eventually, they gave up and deemed him completely untrustworthy. 

The night I got him, I had to really crank on him when he grabbed my cat and began shaking her. As soon as he was told that it wasn't acceptable behavior, he stopped - and they now live happily together.

He naturally takes a very hard correction, though he was not just desensitized to them. He is now a very stable dog that I trust with anyone/everyone. However, a poorly timed correction, and he intensifies.

On the other hand, I was working with a dog a year ago that had zero interest in what you asked of him (not a german shepherd). From the time he was 9wks old, it was all about what HE wanted. Granted, he was one of the most intelligent dogs I ever met, he was near impossible. Treat motivated? Not at all. He turned his nose up at everything if it meant he had to work for it. Praise? Forget it! He could've cared less what you wanted from him. He simply tolerated your existence. We only got compliance through the use of soft corrections. If you used a harsh correction, he got jacked up. He suddenly became drivey. Keep in mind, this was a very confident, stable dog.

does this make any sense?

ETA, not sure how this post ended up in the middle of everything...


----------



## crackem

the problem with dog training, is more people sit on the internet and read smart sounding tidbits and the rantings of those that like to pontificate profusely and then they think "hey this sounds good" and they repeat, over and over and over, rather than going out and training their dogs.

So much sounds so good in writing and over the years i've met many of these pontificaters, and trust me, their words made them sound like dog training gods, their dogs looked like ****.


----------



## wildo

Nice rant. What does it contribute to the topic?


----------



## Samba

Whew, it must not be me...I trained three this morning. Oh wait, because I will train any dog, the less gifted ones sometimes look like poo! Uh oh!


----------



## crackem

really? as far as rants go, it was pretty pathetic, i mean it was only a couple sentences long. What did it contribute? I don't know, what did you take from it?

I know what I meant. 

and before anyone else wants to get all defensive, It wasn't pointed at anyone in this thread, just a general observation on dog training threads in general. I have had dog's that looked like poo too, but they got past it, just as i'm sure your's do too, because you probably know how to train.


----------



## lhczth

Yup and this afternoon I will track 4 dogs, work three in obedience and 1 or 2 in protection. When one is actually out on the field working dogs their perspectives change dramatically. Maybe not after one dog, but eventually. No two dogs are the same and as I said before, good trainers use the best methods for the dog they are currently working. That best method will almost always entail using all 4 quadrants of OC.

Story. The AKC obedience trainer I work with at times started out wanting to train entirely with +R. This was in 1985. After she failed her first attempt at the CD because her dog decided that day she would rather visit than heel, she started looking at using corrections. No, she didn't start cranking on her dog, but the dog did face physical consequences when she decided not to comply. Fast forward 25 years and this same trainer became involved with field trainer. A person who would have NEVER EVER done a force retrieve and is still extremely gifted in doing shaped retrieves will do the forced hold on her field dogs. She also now uses the e-collar (something I would have NEVER expected) in her field work.


----------



## Samba

I was not taking it personally really. I made the comment because the little rant thingy seemed to just land there in the middle of the thread. I wondered if it was about anyone in particular because I was not sure what prompted it. Honestly, I am not really too touchy about such. The interjection just seemed a bit odd in the context and flow of discussion. That is all. I guess all interweb discussions could come with a disclaimer.

Sure, its the internet, it is people typing and anyone can type. They might type something they read about. It is always possible. But, it is also possible they got it from someone pretty good when they read it! 

I read some stuff posted on this board years ago. It seemed to make sense. The trainer typing it turned out to be accomplished and helped me with many things. They are very skilled and knowledgable. This situation can happen also!


----------



## Germanshepherdlova

crackem said:


> the problem with dog training, is more people sit on the internet and read smart sounding tidbits and the rantings of those that like to pontificate profusely and then they think "hey this sounds good" and they repeat, over and over and over, rather than going out and training their dogs.
> 
> So much sounds so good in writing and over the years i've met many of these pontificaters, and trust me, their words made them sound like dog training gods, their dogs looked like ****.


Off topic but…..
Pontificater-nice word.


----------



## Liesje

I know this is off topic (but kind of where this thread went), but what are examples of negative punishment? That is the one I struggle with the most, or maybe I am already using it but just don't know it...


----------



## Samba

Technically, it is when something desired is taken away as a result of a behavior.

If the dog knows a reward is available, but recieves a NRM for a behavior and food is withheld. My friends Sheltie finds this situation disturbing. If he really wants his reward and his effort results in the reward being withheld...man, he is sad!


----------



## wildo

Samba said:


> Technically, it is when *something desired* is *taken away* as a result of a behavior.


Wouldn't that be -R: removing the reinforcement?




Liesje said:


> I know this is off topic (but kind of where this thread went), but what are examples of *negative punishment*? That is the one I struggle with the most, or maybe I am already using it but just don't know it...


The best way I remember is that the + or - ("positive" or "negative") is the verb, namely- application of or removal of respectively. The second word is the noun.

Positive reinforcement (+R) = application of reinforcement
Negative reinforcement (-R) = removal of reinforcement
Positive punishment (+P) = application of punishment
Negative punishment (-P) = removal of punishment

So if you just remember that + means an application and - means a removal, it's pretty easy to figure them out.

[EDIT]- um... apparently I didn't even slightly answer your question. I've always heard the common example of -P is an ear pinch in order to retrieve a rotten bird or similar in hunting dogs. The ear pinch is applied until the dog decides he would rather retrieve the rotting carcass than deal with the ear pinch. I'm sure there is more too it than that. I don't really know, I find the ear pinch a ludicrous way to train.

Here's a "nice" article on "practical" -P training: http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/Force-Fetch-Issues-Page2.htm (note my sarcasm).


----------



## Samba

The ear pinch could be considered positive punishment as I understand the terminology.


----------



## Zahnburg

Will,

I believe your terminology is incorrect. An ear pinch is negative reinforcement.

Here, a simple cut and paste explaination:

Positive reinforcement - providing something enjoyable to _increase _the likelihood of the behavior
Negative reinforcement - taking something unpleasant away when the desired behavior is performed to _increase _the likelihood of the behavior in the future
Positive punishment - adding something unpleasant to _decrease _the likelihood of the behavior in the future
Negative punishment - removal of a good consequence when the
behavior is performed to _decrease _the likelihood of the behavior


----------



## wildo

wildo said:


> I've always heard the common example of -P is an ear pinch





Samba said:


> The ear pinch could be considered positive punishment as I understand the terminology.





Zahnburg said:


> An ear pinch is negative reinforcement.


LOL.... well, you know what they say about getting 10 trainers in the same room... :rofl:


----------



## wildo

However, after doublechecking wikipedia, I agree- I think my terminology is incorrect.

Operant conditioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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


I think Zahnburg wins this round. :toasting:


----------



## Samba

I don't think you have the definitions quite right, Wil. It is a bit tough to sort out though. Oh, yeah an ear pinch is negative reinforcement. The stimulus is one that is stopped or avoided and it is one that increases the likelihood of the behavior! Yikes, I was confused.

Yes, Zahnburg has those straight.


----------



## wildo

Samba said:


> Yikes, I was confused.


 You and me both. I thought I had them all straight in my head, but I guess I need to revisit that...  sorry for the misinformation everyone.


----------



## Liesje

I know the definitions I just don't see -P used effectively very often in training. Maybe because the dog has to make a mistake in order for it to work? To me -P just seems incomplete, like you're bribing the dog and then what...?

To me ear pinching or forced retrieves are -R. You apply an aversive stimulus and as soon as the dog does what you want, that aversive stops. You are actually training the dog TO do something, not punishing him for not doing it. I think a lot of people struggle with this because yes, we apply physical pressure to the dog on purpose before they really understand what we want. Maybe it sounds "mean" or whatever but if the pressure is appropriate some dogs really flourish when they learn how to turn that pressure off.


----------



## onyx'girl

I'm doing the FR right now with Karlo...it is working and he isn't 'damaged' because of it. I tried other methods, but he was just not going to do it....freeshaping, clicker, was not successful w/ him. 
So we started with the ear pressure. He got it, a few times he challenged me~I had to follow thru to show him I was being consistent, but he knows what is expected now. 

We are going very slow with this, I am not rushing it, and we will see how he does with the next steps. I am working with someone that is experienced in training it, not doing this hodge-podge on my own. It's the most compulsion I've put on him mentally.


----------



## onyx'girl

too late to add to my last post, but what we are working on now has changed our relationship/Karlo is showing me more respect and he really has a smile in his eyes/on his face when he 'gets it' . It has carried over into our other phases of training, and while I was working on the FR in the very beginning, I didn't expect much of him(or do much) in the tracking/ob....I wanted him to focus on the retrieves. His tracking and his focus during OB is much more enthusiastic now. 
-R isn't a bad thing!


----------



## Samba

I too have had things really turn around after the forced retrieve in training. I know that such things have gotten a bad name in current culture. Oh well, want to see a good dog excel and be a dynamo in work...add some pressure correctly!


----------



## Liesje

Compulsion and escape training seems to work really well for Pan now that he's at an age where it doesn't cause conflict. He seems to be the sort of dog that has a very low threshold for getting really excited and just overloading into this manic state. So, using some of the "purely positive" methods where it takes time for the handler to break down steps and the dog to figure out and freeshape can be really counter-productive for us because the longer between release/reward, the more he just loads up and loses his ability to really problem solve. There is drive and then there is a dog that is just acting neurotic. I don't want or need the "extreme drive" type dog. I'm not sure how much I really like this aspect of Pan's temperament, but I *do* like that it is much easier to cap him and work in drive for extended periods, where as some of my other dogs need more from me as far as making things fun and motivation otherwise they fall flat. Pan is the type of dog that will do awesome if he has to long down first! In contrast, Nikon is very clear-headed and much more serious doing obedience. Not serious as in aggressive but if you have a single piece of kibble he will focus pretty intensely until he figures out how to get that. I did a completely freeshaped retrieve with him, start to finish, never gave me any problems, never needed any gimmicks or going back and fixing. Pan by contrast is most definitely going to do some form of forced retrieve later on. He just brings a different type of drive and energy to training and works much clearer in the head if I just show him exactly what I want and don't want even if it's somewhat forceful from the beginning.


----------



## AgileGSD

Very interesting topic Wildo. 

I do think GSDs are a breed where many people involved tend to very much have a dominance minded approach to raising. I notice that a lot even with pet people who have them but certainly with people who are "into" them. Don't know how many times I've heard that you HAVE to be "alpha" over your GSD or you'll be in trouble. I do wonder - could this be one reason we don't see more fast, driven GSDs in agility?

I was thinking about this discussion while working with some pet puppies today. Breed isn't real important but the dogs are owned by two very different owners and are two very different dogs. One is an under-socialized timid dog who's owner gives him the benefit of the doubt and talks fondly about her past dog and his wild exuberance. The other is a well adjusted, smart puppy who's owner loves him but always thinks he "needs" corrections because of disobeying. She wishes her dog was more obedient, the other owner wishes her's was more exuberant. Then I consider Savvy, my 6 month old PyrShep who has lived a fairly unbridled life in many ways. He is surrounded by people who think his enthusiasm is endearing. We laughed when he walked on the coffee table while we had guests (and they laughed too). No one scolds him for jumping on and off the back of the furniture or leaping from couch to chair to couch without touching the ground like a circus dog (ok....we encourage it and have now taught him to jump from the back of the chair onto our backs for toys). He's funny how he clacks his teeth at you when he's real excited. And yes, he jumps up on his family and friends, sometimes with some encouragement he will climb up them or jump into my arms. I do wonder if some people would look at him as needing a dog who is in serious need of correction and discipline. I look at him as being....pretty awesome! 

Interestingly, raising a puppy more on the +R side of things tends to make for better supervised and easier puppies. I don't expect Savvy to not destroy our stuff, so when he isn't being supervised he is in an expen (which I trained him to stay in using "time outs") or oversized crate with various chew toys and treats. He's not left outside very often by himself and training is incorporated into life because works for food/toys while we're just hanging around. He is wildly exuberant but he's also a really good puppy. He certainly isn't a "hard dog" but he is pretty tough and definitely high drive, almost frantically so sometimes.

I'm not saying to raise a puppy with +R you have to let them be as unrestrained as Savvy is. I understand not everyone sees the humor in a 15lb puppy jumping onto the coffee table and walking around on it because it never occurred to him not to. I could easily prevent him from doing those things but like I said, I find it endearing. But I think in part, that is a major difference between me and many of the people I know who are into dominance theory or correction based training. Maybe when you let go of the idea that dogs "need someone to stay on top of them", you can see how adorable the puppy on the coffee table is  

I think often dogs that "need a firm hand" do because that is how they were raised - interactions with humans are a battle of wills and strength. In such a scenario softer dogs may tend to become mild mannered, harder dogs may tend to become harder and put up more of a fight and more reactive dogs may end up being handler aggressive (which of course, means more corrections and more human vs. dog fights with possible injuries to both). 

Haven't gotten to really read this yet but thought I'd pass it on:Difficult, Aggressive Dogs Need “Strong” Training. Really? Boulder Dog

Obviously correction based training techniques work for competition training. And some dogs seem perfectly fine to keep working. And some dogs, not so much. I have seen dogs at the training club cower, run away, urinate on themselves and completely shut down during retrieve work. These are dogs trained by people who have gotten OTCHs, multiple UDs, etc so not Average Joes misusing techniques. Doing this while my play trained dog happily retrieves his dumbbell as many times as I ask him to (and offers to go out the ones that the forced trained dogs don't). For me personally, if I have to ear pinch a dog to get them to retrieve I would see no point in playing games with them that involve retrieve. Since there is always a possibility that I will want to play such games, I do try to pick puppies with some degree of natural retrieving drive and imprint them from early on to pick up and hold stuff. But if that ever didn't work out, there are plenty of other games to play with a dog


----------



## wildo

Wonderful post, AgileGSD. I read it and think to myself- "this person gets it." I really appreciate your experience and thanks for taking the time to write it. You give me some hope! 

[EDIT]- Wanted to add:


AgileGSD said:


> I do wonder - could this be one reason we don't see more fast, driven GSDs in agility?


Yes- I very much think so!


----------



## Samba

I have found great variety in the breed. Remarkable differeces in my German Shepherds in my dogs from from varied breeding programs. 

I don't ascribe to dominance theory, but do believe all dogs benefit from guidance, leadership and training. The pups begin with lots of R+ training. 

That being said, I can understand the idea of a GSD who needs a firm hand. Now, that does not involve something abusive or anythung alpha-ish. I had a dog who became a dual purpose police dog who was bred from Belgian lines. I guess you can say he required a firm hand, a certain demeanor and confidence or he would completely rule the house. A hard dog with a high degree of rankness. My current dog is not as hard, but he is no push over. If he does not see you as the authority, you won't get far with him. 

I have a rescue bitch that any person in class would take. They could work with her and sonetines in teaching I loan her to a handler. No one ever wants to work with my male (except the experienced trainer who likes who he is). He is a harder, more powerful dog and it is obvious to the novice trainers that he wpmight not be a match for them. He would require a certain confidence, a firm hand, consistent leadership...whatever one would use to explain the character of the handling he requires. 

It is inpossible these days to know what a dog is like just by identifying it as a German Shepherd. One of the ways the clarification as to the type of dog one of them is might be in the description of what sort of handler or leader is best for that one. It is not that sone dogs need to be alpha'd but they need soneone who is capable of working with their set of traits.


----------



## Liesje

I have read and heard people say that a GSD is a "hard" dog to own and they make it sounds like they are stubborn and bullheaded. To me this is not true, I find them to be very biddable and handler-focused to the point of being clingy. What I think makes the GSD "hard" to own and train for some people is that the GSD wants to always know what is going on and who is in control. If you as the owner do not fill that role then the dog will try to make up for it. However if you are "firm" as far as making it clear to the dog who is in control and what your expectations are, I do not see them as being difficult or stubborn. But many owners have trouble filling that role and that is where they get into trouble with their dog's behavior.


----------



## wildo

I guess my issue is that I don't subscribe to the idea that +R training techniques can't fill that role. The not-so-old adage of "positive, not permissive" should still apply.


----------



## Catu

wildo said:


> I guess my issue is that I don't subscribe to the idea that +R training techniques can't fill that role. The not-so-old adage of "positive, not permissive" should still apply.


I am a +R trainer!! is the ONLY +R training that I feel is incomplete and work only with a limited type of dogs.



Samba said:


> I have found great variety in the breed. Remarkable differeces in my German Shepherds in my dogs from from varied breeding programs.
> 
> I don't ascribe to dominance theory, but do believe all dogs benefit from guidance, leadership and training. The pups begin with lots of R+ training.
> 
> That being said, I can understand the idea of a GSD who needs a firm hand. Now, that does not involve something abusive or anythung alpha-ish. I had a dog who became a dual purpose police dog who was bred from Belgian lines. I guess you can say he required a firm hand, a certain demeanor and confidence or he would completely rule the house. A hard dog with a high degree of rankness. My current dog is not as hard, but he is no push over. If he does not see you as the authority, you won't get far with him.


I'm very much here too! Specially with the female, but I can see the male pup getting there too.

But I think that humans are just like dog when it comes to basic learning. When you see people who have no clue about dogs, as most I see doing pet obedience training, you have to teach them to be too dominant when they have strong hard dogs and too soft when they have those ultra sensitive, submissive dogs. Black and white.










Then the more we learn about dogs, the more we can adapt our training to our own personality and to our own dogs, to our own lifestyle and to our own goals, we can use all shades of gray without losing nor the respect nor the enthusiasm of our dogs. I teach people not to let their dogs mouth them, nor to let the dog up on the furniture, not to jump over people, yet my own do all of the above, because I know that even doing so they still comply to me, I have control over them and, more important then anything, I TRUST them. But getting there wasn't achieved in a 6 weeks old training course.


----------



## Liesje

wildo said:


> I guess my issue is that I don't subscribe to the idea that +R training techniques can't fill that role. The not-so-old adage of "positive, not permissive" should still apply.


Like Catu is saying, I personally feel that exclusively +R is unrealistic (tried to fit every breed of every dog regardless of temperament, drive, etc into one box) and incomplete. I do use +R with everything, just not exclusively. So if I'm using -R, the second the dog turns it off, they are also getting marked and rewarded (+R). I do not feel *any* of the quadrants should be used exclusively.

Ideally the owner takes a leadership role before any of this happens. If you control the resources your dog needs and wants and control the environment so that the dog is not getting away with behavior you don't want, you shouldn't have to "train" a dog how to act as far as daily life.


----------



## Freestep

Liesje said:


> To me ear pinching or forced retrieves are -R. You apply an aversive stimulus and as soon as the dog does what you want, that aversive stops. You are actually training the dog TO do something, not punishing him for not doing it. I think a lot of people struggle with this because yes, we apply physical pressure to the dog on purpose before they really understand what we want. Maybe it sounds "mean" or whatever but if the pressure is appropriate some dogs really flourish when they learn how to turn that pressure off.


This is pretty much how horses are trained, and it seems to work well for them as well.


----------



## Liesje

Also another issue I have with the +R only approach is that too often I see it used with flooding/desensitization and I personally do not like this method of training or behavior modification. +R trainers insist that if they mess up, they aren't damaging their dog and I believe that to be false especially in this context. If they mess up, they are continually exposing their dog to something that makes the dog react out of fear and insecurity and instead of actually doing something about it the dog has no idea what to do or who to trust.


----------



## wildo

Liesje said:


> I do not feel *any* of the quadrants should be used exclusively.


I'm not sure I've _ever_ said that I would use a singular quadrant only. I _did_ say that "+R Training" refers to the methodology of positive reinforcement training which also embraces negative punishment (timeout) techniques.


----------



## wildo

AgileGSD said:


> Haven't gotten to really read this yet but thought I'd pass it on:Difficult, Aggressive Dogs Need “Strong” Training. Really? Boulder Dog


FYI- the link to Part 3 is broken on the Part 2 page. You can find part 3 here: Positive Does NOT Mean Permissive Boulder Dog


----------



## Liesje

I'm not saying you said that but the +R trainings I know are self-proclaimed exclusively +R. Not just with their pets but "dog trainer" people with facilities, teaching classes, etc. This is how they approach all training of all breeds (though I would say the scope of their training is limited pet type training, rally, lower level AKC obedience stuff). I am going to one such trainer tonight. I don't agree with all of her methods but I like her as a person and for the majority of dogs that come through this facility, her methods are appropriate. She understands the limitations and gives me leeway on how I train and handle my dogs in the class but this is definitely a "+R only" type facility since that's how they advertise themselves (I do the web site).


----------



## Hillary_Plog

Liesje said:


> Like Catu is saying, I personally feel that exclusively +R is unrealistic (tried to fit every breed of every dog regardless of temperament, drive, etc into one box) and incomplete. I do use +R with everything, just not exclusively. So if I'm using -R, the second the dog turns it off, they are also getting marked and rewarded (+R). I do not feel *any* of the quadrants should be used exclusively.
> 
> Ideally the owner takes a leadership role before any of this happens. If you control the resources your dog needs and wants and control the environment so that the dog is not getting away with behavior you don't want, you shouldn't have to "train" a dog how to act as far as daily life.


Very well put Lies. The best trainers/handlers that I have come across are those that understand that EVERY dog is different and there is no training philosophy or method that works exclusively on EVERY dog. 

I also think that your training method can/should vary depending on what you are training your dog for. In the end, the process of training the average pet dog to have good house manners will look different than a service dog being trained which will look different than a Schutzhund dog which looks different than the agility dog. 

To address the original post though, I absolutely have had a "harder" dog and, likewise, have had a "softer" and more handler sensitive dog, both of which required me to adjust my training methods accordingly.


----------



## wildo

Liesje said:


> I'm not saying you said that but the +R trainings I know are self-proclaimed exclusively +R. Not just with their pets but "dog trainer" people with facilities, teaching classes, etc. This is how they approach all training of all breeds (though I would say the scope of their training is limited pet type training, rally, lower level AKC obedience stuff). I am going to one such trainer tonight. I don't agree with all of her methods but I like her as a person and for the majority of dogs that come through this facility, her methods are appropriate. She understands the limitations and gives me leeway on how I train and handle my dogs in the class but this is definitely a "+R only" type facility since that's how they advertise themselves (I do the web site).


Oh, I see. Yes- there most certainly are trainers out there that are positive reinforcement only. That was actually my biggest issue with moving to a "+R training style" is that I think there needs to be a balance. I don't see how there can be a balance in positive reinforcement only. What I didn't realize at that time is that some (most?) +R-type trainers will balance with with negative punishment. For me, this is a really nice system I can embrace.

That said- I'm FAR from perfect. I still use positive punishment more than I would like, but in general it's not often that I issue a positive punishment correction to my dog. I mostly end up correcting out of frustration since I don't typically have a ton of patience. It's an area I am working on. 

I don't have the experience to have seen a "hard" or a "soft" dog side by side, but I'd imagine Pimg is on the softer side. For her, positive punishment techniques literally drained her of drive. I've seen her blossom into a really drivy dog by removing +P corrections (in general) on her. Ha- in fact, someone at the agility trial this last weekend told me how wonderful my "working line dog" is!


----------



## Liesje

Like Hillary is saying, context definitely matters as does the difference in dogs. My Kenya (my best agility dog, with a MACH son and another well on his way) is much softer than all my other dogs and requires training and even play or daily interactions that are much different than Nikon and Pan. She is better for some things than they are and vice versa. She has the drive for agility but not the toughness and fighting drive for Schutzhund and other protection venues and is more easily effected by things though luckily she recovers quick (for example I stepped on her foot once heeling DURING a trial, she let out a scream, gave me a sad look, but kept on going...whereas my boys I swear I could stomp on their feet intentionally and they wouldn't care or they would think it was some new game). She learns fastest (like within minutes) using lure, mark, reward. She doesn't freeshape well and she shuts down under -R. Some +P is OK but it is light compared to what the other dogs need to make the same point. If she was the only GSD or dog I ever owned I would think that exclusive +R might be realistic.


----------



## cliffson1

Hillary Plog's post is very realistic and sensible.


----------



## Jason L

Is there such a thing as escape training in agility? Trying to imagine a context where that kind of method would be used.


----------



## Liesje

I was wondering that too Jason, how these other methods even realistically fit... I suppose you could use it to find a contact but I've never seen that done (I personally teach 2on2off, separate from the obstacle).


----------



## Chicagocanine

I don't think most dogs "require" hard corrections to be obedience trained any more than most dogs "require" complete absence of any sort of correction. I think a lot of it is what the handler needs, understands and is able to properly execute, and what they are comfortable with using. Sure some dogs can handle really hard corrections more than others, but does that mean they need it, and that there is no other way to train them?


As far as positive reinforcement ONLY training I mostly hear this phrase used by people trying to scoff at positive reinforcement based methods. Trainers who do claim to use ONLY positive reinforcement either do not understand the methods/terminology or are kidding themselves that they never ever do anything that would be considered negative punishment.




Liesje said:


> Also another issue I have with the +R only approach is that too often I see it used with flooding/desensitization and I personally do not like this method of training or behavior modification.


 I don't understand the connection of flooding with positive reinforcement. Most of the trainers I know who use R+ based methods do not agree with using flooding. Many dogs in this situation will not accept a reinforcer so I can't see how this could be a positive reinforcement method. Can you explain how they are doing this?


----------



## Liesje

Chicagocanine said:


> Sure some dogs can handle really hard corrections more than others, but does that mean they need it, and that there is no other way to train them?


To me the answer is, it depends on why the training is happening. Is it just to teach a new skill/behavior, or....? For me something like rally training is way different than SchH, not just because obviously rally is way different than SchH but when I'm doing rally I'm training the dog to perform some skills but when I'm doing SchH I am using the training itself reveal and test things about the dog. I can't know how well my dog stands up to various types of pressure if I never work him under pressure. I can't say that I train by capping his drive if that's not really what I'm doing. I can't say he is tough and fights and shows power if I'm not willing to put that to the test. So yes, my dogs *need* various types of pressure in all three phases in order for me to understand what I've got and go from there. I'm not the biggest Schutzhund fangirl (I like SDA better) but for the sake of this discussion I will say that to me training Schutzhund is different than doing stuff like rally and agility because there's no reason that any reasonable well adjusted dog of any breed can't do well at rally and agility while SchH is not designed so that every dog can or should succeed.


----------



## Samba

Pressure is important. Life and work are full of it!


----------



## michelelh

*Hard Dogs and +R training*

This article may clear things up a bit. Police and Military dogs trained using reward based training. The article starts on page 18. This is a fantastic testimonial for +R training in the real working dog world. Reward based training is good for more than basic obedience and fun tricks.


----------



## gypsyrose

michel ellis has a good video on the use of corrections hard dogs versuses soft dogs. i have found that some dogs cring and cower away at a loud voice and then there is gypsy she can be a hand full around other dogs and no amount of any corrections has changed that i even hired a trainer to help. after spending a ton of money gypsy is still agressive towards other dogs but a tug on her gentle leader keeps her behaving but all her other collers do nothing but choke her when she wants to get to another dog. i am now working towards getting her closer and closer to other dogs and have actually gotten her to sniff and great befor she trys to eat them. my understanding is a hard dog can continue to work and learn even if scolded at times but a soft dog will shut down for as much as a day or more if thay are scolded.


----------



## gypsyrose

wildo said:


> I see that as a problem in training. Desensitization to correction means that the correction is not clear/understood.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the beauty of +R methods. They embrace the _reality_ that the dog is more stimulated by the environment, so they methodology employs negative punishment (removing the stimulation by changing the environment) as a means of correction. No, +R (positive renforcement training methodology) does not _only_ employ positive reinforcement. It also uses negative punishment.
> 
> I am currently watching weekly videos of a very high drive, very mouthy Border Collie being raised (videos start at 5weeks old) with +R techniques and I can tell you that at 17 weeks old, this dog is more obedient, more drivey, and more responsive than any GSD I've ever seen- regardless of age. I assure you- that BC _clearly_ understands what a negative punishment correction is. While a BC is not a GSD (I get it), I don't see why the same techniques couldn't produce similar results in a high drive GSD.
> 
> So with that said, I still question if the phrase "requires a firm hand" is still just an indication of poorly communicated training.


i have a friend with a border collie who cringes and cowers away at the simple words bad boy. but my german shepherd requires alot of no's and bad girl's inside the house when she insist we play or she smells somthing in the trash or want us to play chase but she never shys away or acts as if any thing bad has happened at all after being corrected.


----------



## AgileGSD

This relates to the discussion pretty well: susangarrettdogagility.com/2011/08/the-possibilities-in-dog-training/




gypsyrose said:


> michel ellis has a good video on the use of corrections hard dogs versuses soft dogs. i have found that some dogs cring and cower away at a loud voice and then there is gypsy she can be a hand full around other dogs and no amount of any corrections has changed that i even hired a trainer to help. after spending a ton of money gypsy is still agressive towards other dogs but a tug on her gentle leader keeps her behaving but all her other collers do nothing but choke her when she wants to get to another dog. i am now working towards getting her closer and closer to other dogs and have actually gotten her to sniff and great befor she trys to eat them..


 Not trying to be mean here but it sounds like you need a better trainer and to manage your dog a bit better. You should not be hoping for the best as you get your dog nose to nose so she can "improve" by greeting before reacting to them. I've had good luck with abandonment training for that issue and there are a few others now too such as BAT and CAT that I have not tried. Perhaps you can find a trainer in your area well versed in one of those to help Gypsy react more appropriately to other dogs?



gypsyrose said:


> i have a friend with a border collie who cringes and cowers away at the simple words bad boy. but my german shepherd requires alot of no's and bad girl's inside the house when she insist we play or she smells somthing in the trash or want us to play chase but she never shys away or acts as if any thing bad has happened at all after being corrected.


 
To most dogs giving "a lot of no's and bad girls inside the house" equates to nothing more than nagging. That said, I some how suspect you wouldn't find the fact that my puppy jumped onto the kitchen table last night very amusing 

But really, again this is where management and training could much better serve you. Why not train your dog to go lay on a mat when you need her to chill out? Why not train some impulse control? Provide her with treat puzzle toys to keep her entertained. And of course, make sure she is getting enough exercise and interaction otherwise. Most dogs develop poor house manners (raiding the trash, chewing up stuff, not being able to settle down when needed, etc) because they are given too much freedom too soon. Then they spend months and years being self reinforced for the very things you don't want them to do. Really, a dog who wants interaction badly enough doesn't care if your nagging - you're still paying attention to them. 



Samba said:


> Pressure is important. Life and work are full of it!


 Correction based training is not the only way to teach a dog to work through "pressure". 
Planning to Fail | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog
Stressed! It is More Than Desserts Spelled Backwards | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog
Stressing Dogs, Dancing Humans & Weirdly Inappropriate Reinforcement | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog

Stress; Another Distraction or Something Greater? | Susan Garrett's Dog Training Blog


I do think how you train/interact with your dog makes a difference in their general personalities, maybe more than many people realize.


----------



## GSDElsa

I didn't read through everything, but I just don't understand why people find it so hard to understand that different dogs do better with different types of training depending on the situation and what your goal is with the dog. 

I have one very handler sensitive, soft, biddible, medium-drive dog. I will occasionally use compulsion for heel work with her to pump her up, but she responds best do +R/shaping and virutally never chooses to not comply. She truly lives to make me happy and if she is NOT doing something I want it is because she's stressed for some reason or she's confused at what I'm asking. 

My puppy is another beast. Although he can be a drama queen if he stubs his toe, he is what I think of as a harder dog a VERY high drive. We have been incorporating training methods into his training that I would never need to or want to use on Elsa. We have to make it clear with him from the very beginning what is and is not acceptable behavior. With that said, he also gets a lot of shaping and +R stuff too. But, quite frankly, I think he would quickly turn into a monster if that's all I used. 

For some dogs, I really think that creating a very clear CORRECTION for a dog is actually much clearer and better for the dog than trying to correct a behvior with things like time outs. Why have my dog overloaded and giving undesirable behaviors I try to clicker train out of him when I can give him a very clear correction and be done with the issue the second the correction is issued? To me, that is the best method and removing the most conflict from the situation because it is IMMEDIATELY clear to him that what he is doing is unacceptable.


----------



## Liesje

Exactly, Justine, thank you!

As for why use pressure and corrections and compulsion when you don't have to? well...do anything I guess? Why NOT do it? I know there are people out there that advertise training SchH3 dogs with "no corrections" but I guess I train my dog to train my dog and use whatever methods work for that dog and expose to me what I want to know about that dog. I don't say to myself I *have* to train this way or that way just to prove a point about my method. Personally, I believe that SchH training does and should involve a certain amount of pressure in order to thoroughly test the dog and bring out more confidence and power in a dog by showing him how to control pressure. How and when the pressure is used totally depends on the dog you're training. Nikon and Pan both get pressure but right now that comes in very different forms and situations depending on the dog.


----------



## codmaster

One thing that I have noticed with a few local positive only (no chokes, no prongs, no leash corrections, and even frown on voice corrections) obedience trainers is that if your dog acts the least bit aggressively to other dogs - OUT of the class!

Not even suggesting that is a universal thing with this type of training but I have seen it myself.


----------



## michelelh

michelelh said:


> This article may clear things up a bit. Police and Military dogs trained using reward based training. The article starts on page 18. This is a fantastic testimonial for +R training in the real working dog world. Reward based training is good for more than basic obedience and fun tricks.


 I really encourage people to read this article. These police and military dog trainers are dedicated to training the "hard dog" primarily through Positive reinforcement. What is most enlightening is that they actually prefer to shape behaviors in protection training vs. lure. They use minimal corrections, which are considered to be more of a brake and not so much of a correction. The brake is simply used to keep the dog from self rewarding, while they wait for the dog to offer the correct or more desirable behavior. They do not use force or compulsion to teach to dog an exercise. 


The police dog trainers have indicated that the learning curve is steeper through +R training, however, less maintenance training is required and the dogs show greater reliability on the street, since there is less conflict in training and the dog is allowed to and learns how to problem solve during training.


This is similar to how we train for the sport of Schutzhund and we have also seen the same benefits as these police and military dog trainers. What is especially interesting, the dogs that we have trained using a high rate of +R training, do not develop that impenetrable pain threshold and they do not fight training, often witnessed in the high rate compulsion trained "hard dog". Since our dogs do not receive a high rate of corrections and if they do receive a correction, they know exactly what the correction is for; their pain threshold is lower than it would typically be through high level correction training. Also note worthy, the dogs that we have trained through high compulsion do tend to build a higher pain threshold and therefore have a higher tolerance for a correction and require a higher level correction than the high rate +R trained dogs. When we take these same dogs and teach them through a clear method that includes a high rate of +R training to an extremely low rate of compulsion, this same dog becomes more responsive to a correction and requires a lower level of correction than previously used.

In the end, we have a much more reliable and cooperative dog through high rate +R training. Of course all dogs are different and some learn quicker than others and are more responsive to the training. Some dogs, even through +R training show more stress or less tolerance for training and do take more time and patience to train, simply because they are happier under less human control. These are typically the same dogs that show high conflict with the handler, under higher rate compulsion training. It is tempting to revert to a higher level of compulsion with these dogs, but still they do best with a high rate of +R training. They simply require more patience from the handler and must learn that under no circumstance will the handler give in and nothing changes for the dog even when he shows obnoxious and annoying behaviors. The dog must understand that it is our will over theirs. This is simply done by remaining a calm leader (handler) and waiting for the dog to exhibit controlled behavior.

If we correct the dog when he shows behavior that is not controlled, he or she learns that our calm behavior can be changed through his or her disruptive behavior. This simple action will teach the dog that he or she has the ability to have some form of control over the situation (control is what the dog wants). He or she has essentially found the ***** in the armor and will always revert to bad behavior, until he or she learns that it does not work (bad behavior will not give the dog control). We must not allow the dog to push us (the handler) in order to get our behavior to change ...after all, we are the leaders!

We are really excited to have discovered the recommended article. It has excellent examples of real street dogs trained through high compulsion and high +R training and further backs up the high rate use of +R training in protection dog sports.


----------



## codmaster

"The police dog trainers have indicated that the learning curve is steeper through +R training, however, less maintenance training is required and the dogs show greater reliability on the street, since there is less conflict in training and the dog is allowed to and learns how to problem solve during training."

I wonder if you have a source of the documented statistics concerning how much steeper the learning curve is (How much longer does it take to acomplish the training before the dog is ready to go out to the street?)?

How much less maintenance training is required - i.e. the amount of training that is required for a dog trained the "old way" versus the amount of training needed for specific dogs trained this way?

Especially interesdting is the advantage that you mention about dogs trained this way are "more reliable" - how is this statistic measured and what is the difference in these dogs?

Finally, can you detail what you mean by the following?

*"the dog is allowed to and learns how to problem solve during training.".*

This sounds fantastic and seems like a great advantage.


----------



## codmaster

An interesting article. Thanks for the reference. My guess would be that the author,_
Stephanie Colman, is a pos only dog trainer, correct?
_


----------



## Samba

A dog with good drives will have a huge inner source of determination for drive fulfillment. These dogs are pretty easy to train with R+. Nothing wrong with that.

But, could a hard rank dog go to any any person applying R+ methods? I am not advocating training behaviors by correcting or using harsh corrections, etc either. 

When someone walks in the house, my dog can size them up pretty fast. There is an element of respect that some get and some don't from him. Methods aside, a cetain type of dog knows who is who. There has to be a match and somehow it doesn 't seem to me to be so much about the particular methods. This thing just might be what the description of the dog and its match in handler is about.


----------



## AgileGSD

GSDElsa said:


> But, quite frankly, I think he would quickly turn into a monster if that's all I used.


 How so?



GSDElsa said:


> For some dogs, I really think that creating a very clear CORRECTION for a dog is actually much clearer and better for the dog than trying to correct a behvior with things like time outs. Why have my dog overloaded and giving undesirable behaviors I try to clicker train out of him when I can give him a very clear correction and be done with the issue the second the correction is issued? To me, that is the best method and removing the most conflict from the situation because it is IMMEDIATELY clear to him that what he is doing is unacceptable.


 I recently trained my puppy to stay in an expen using time outs. It took extremely little time and was very clear to him. 

It seems pretty rare that one correction totally gets rid of any behavior, unless the correction is so severe the dog would never risk receiving it again. Even the e-collars usually take a few corrections to work and some maintenance afterwards...and some dogs eventually become desensitized. 

I'm not saying there isn't practical uses for correction in dog training. Just that many people rely too heavily on it and have led themselves to believe their dog "needs" it. Often, dogs "need correction" because that is the relationship the human involved has set up with them.


----------



## Samba

Yes, it is about the relationship. Firm, consistent, predictable....however you might describe. The stronger the dog the more important the handlers ability in relationship.


----------



## Zahnburg

I have a question to all those who train exclusively with positive reinforcement; why? Why would one so severly handicap themselves by refusing to use the most correct option in a given circumstance? 
Now do not misunderstand me, I have absolutely no problem with with the appropriate use of positive reinforcement. However, I think it is rather absurd to limit oneself by refusing to see and apply what the dog really needs in a given circumstance.
Furthermore, I personally find it rather cruel to train a dog in such a manner. I have seen those who train exclusively with positive reinforcement and the dogs can look very good in training, but during a trial it is a different story. When they trial and no food or ball, etc. comes the dogs become incredibly stressed. They simply can not understand why they are not being rewarded and become stressed. It is at this point that some truly interesting things begin to happen as the dog assumes he must be wrong and begins to try all sorts of different behaviors in order to get a reward. Poor dogs!! Additionally, I have seen these "purely positive" trainers in training and yes they do not correct the dog and yes the dog eventually figures out what they should be doing, but the stress that they endure for the sake of not giving a correction is, at times, incredible. To me it is much better to make a dog absolutely understand right and wrong by using all necessary means at my disposal.


----------



## Liesje

I know people say you can't train in a vacuum but honestly I think a lot of training comes close. I never "needed" corrections either until my dog was the one that wanted to leave the long down and run after the working dog doing the recall. Can't have any of that! I've also used pure -R to extinguish some behaviors that are major safety issues.

I'm consistently amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid just saying "no, can't do that" to their dog.


----------



## codmaster

AgileGSD said:


> I recently trained my puppy to stay in an expen using time outs. It took extremely little time and was very clear to him.
> 
> It seems pretty rare that one correction totally gets rid of any behavior, unless the correction is so severe the dog would never risk receiving it again. Even the e-collars usually take a few corrections to work and some maintenance afterwards...and some dogs eventually become desensitized.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't practical uses for correction in dog training. Just that many people rely too heavily on it and have led themselves to believe their dog "needs" it. Often, dogs "need correction" because that is the relationship the human involved has set up with them.


What do you have to do to train a puppy to stay in an expen? I thought that the pen was supposed to keep him in it?

If a dog becomes "desensitized" to an e-collar - do you think that a treat, or maybe no treat or maybe a "time out" would work to stop the behavior? Could a dog become "desensitized" to a treat, do you think? Or how about becoming desensitized to a clicker? Or do you feel that it is just the e-collar correction that a dog can become desensitized to?

Do you realize that it is very well known that some dogs (not all, by any means) will sometimes try to test their boundaries and rules to see what they can get away with or not have to do? Would you consider this to "becaming desensitized"?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

codmaster said:


> Or how about becoming desensitized to a clicker?


:rofl: Sorry, but that made me laugh! If the sound of a clicker always means that something good about to happen, how could a dog possibly be desensitized to that? :thinking: The whole point of marker training is that a reward _that is valued by the dog_ will follow the marker. I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a dog gets tired of getting something they really, really like or want. Nope, can't do it.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Liesje said:


> I'm consistently amazed at the lengths people will go to to avoid just saying "no, can't do that" to their dog.


The more information I give my dogs, the more feedback about whether they're doing right or doing wrong, the faster they learn. I know there are people who won't even use verbal corrections or no reward markers, but I'm not one of them. Sometimes a "no" is just as valuable as a "yes".


----------



## AgileGSD

Zahnburg said:


> I have a question to all those who train exclusively with positive reinforcement; why? Why would one so severly handicap themselves by refusing to use the most correct option in a given circumstance?


 As has been brought up here, training in all positive reinforcement is not really what people are talking about. Almost no one actually using "only positive reinforcement". 


What about training in this manner? I'm sure these people think this is how their dogs "need" to be trained: http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/general-information/167920-please-tell-me-isnt-normal.html



Zahnburg said:


> I have seen those who train exclusively with positive reinforcement and the dogs can look very good in training, but during a trial it is a different story. When they trial and no food or ball, etc. comes the dogs become incredibly stressed. They simply can not understand why they are not being rewarded and become stressed. It is at this point that some truly interesting things begin to happen as the dog assumes he must be wrong and begins to try all sorts of different behaviors in order to get a reward. Poor dogs!!


 And if you've been to trials, you've seen plenty of force trained dogs get stressed in the ring too. I imagine poor ring performance has been around as long as competition obedience has been around. Old school trainers always warned that dogs could become ringwise, so it was important to take them to correction matches. IOWs they knew you couldn't "get them" when you were at a trial and wouldn't perform in the ring (but at a correction match, it seemed like a trial but you could "get" your dog in the ring for not performing).

The issue with dogs performing poorly at trials is generally not so much a method problem as a training problem - the dogs are being trialed without being properly prepared for the trial setting. It can and does happen with all methods.

This is an OTCH +R trained dog at the invitational. Looks pretty happy to me  (And Wildo - if you aren't familiar with this trainer, I think you'll like her!)

Raika 2010 invitational class one - Just getting started! - YouTube



Zahnburg said:


> Additionally, I have seen these "purely positive" trainers in training and yes they do not correct the dog and yes the dog eventually figures out what they should be doing, but the stress that they endure for the sake of not giving a correction is, at times, incredible. To me it is much better to make a dog absolutely understand right and wrong by using all necessary means at my disposal.


 In one thread, positive training is being accused of being both too stressful and not stressful enough for the dogs. 

FWIW I'm not sure any dog will ever understand the concept of right and wrong. They can understand what gets them reinforcement and/or punishment though 



codmaster said:


> What do you have to do to train a puppy to stay in an expen? I thought that the pen was supposed to keep him in it?


 LOL Not this puppy. At 13 weeks old he was scaling the 4' gate in the backyard to get to me, so the expen was really nothing. He absolutely needed to be trained to stay in the expen for it to be of any use. 



codmaster said:


> If a dog becomes "desensitized" to an e-collar - do you think that a treat, or maybe no treat or maybe a "time out" would work to stop the behavior? Could a dog become "desensitized" to a treat, do you think? Or how about becoming desensitized to a clicker? Or do you feel that it is just the e-collar correction that a dog can become desensitized to?


 I suppose a dog who started ignoring food would eventually starve :crazy:



codmaster said:


> Do you realize that it is very well known that some dogs (not all, by any means) will sometimes try to test their boundaries and rules to see what they can get away with or not have to do? Would you consider this to "becaming desensitized"?


 In this case, I mean that the dog no longer cares about getting "stimmed" and they will continue whatever self rewarding behavior they were doing.


----------



## Samba

There is no training that isn't stressful in some way, is there? 

I agree that leaving half the communication out does not seem terribly useful and could become problematic. It seems to me that sometimes methods are adopted as a reaction to bad training. Well, it is bad training that should be avoided, not a method of effective communication!


----------



## michelelh

codmaster said:


> "The police dog trainers have indicated that the learning curve is steeper through +R training, however, less maintenance training is required and the dogs show greater reliability on the street, since there is less conflict in training and the dog is allowed to and learns how to problem solve during training."
> 
> I wonder if you have a source of the documented statistics concerning how much steeper the learning curve is (How much longer does it take to acomplish the training before the dog is ready to go out to the street?)?
> 
> How much less maintenance training is required - i.e. the amount of training that is required for a dog trained the "old way" versus the amount of training needed for specific dogs trained this way?
> 
> Especially interesting is the advantage that you mention about dogs trained this way are "more reliable" - how is this statistic measured and what is the difference in these dogs?
> 
> Finally, can you detail what you mean by the following?
> 
> *"the dog is allowed to and learns how to problem solve during training.".*
> 
> This sounds fantastic and seems like a great advantage.


I believe most of the answers to your questions can be found in the article. If you are looking for more statistic based information, you may enjoy reading *Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs *by William S. Helton - Traditionally, information concerning working dogs is mostly hearsay, with the exchange of information informal at best and non-existent at worst. Most books available are too general in coverage or conversely, too specific. They explain how to train a service dog or train a dog to track, based on training lore rather than empirical methods verified with rigorous scientific standards. This book, drawing on cutting edge research, unifies different perspectives into one global science.

As for our training program, we are not +R purists. However, we do use a much higher rate of +R to compulsion. Our program is probably 90% +R and 10% compulsion. This method is absolutely reliable. we have successfully trialed multiple dogs with this method. However, methods do have to be balanced depending on the dog. In addition, high rate +R training works better if the dog has some desire for food and/or toys.Naturally, if the dog has a strong desire for food and toys (that is what we look for in a working dog), the training will be even more productive through the use of high rate +R. We start with dogs that want to work ...it makes everything easier 

Originally Posted by *michelelh*  
_This article may clear things up a bit. Police and Military dogs trained using reward based training. The article starts on page 18. This is a fantastic testimonial for +R training in the real working dog world. Reward based training is good for more than basic obedience and fun tricks._


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Here's a little blurb about the Whole Dog Journal article: Training Police Dogs and Military Dogs Using Positive Methods - Whole Dog Journal Article

Steve White, (pictured), is pretty awesome - I went to a lecture that he gave at UC Davis about a year ago. Here's his website: i2i K9 Home

If you ever get an opportunity to hear him speak, I'd highly encourage you to go.


----------



## codmaster

michelelh said:


> *I believe most of the answers to your questions can be found in the article.*
> 
> Actually not. or at least I couldn't find the fact based statistics that you refered to in your post. Do you have any real numbers to back up what you were sayiin? Or just a feeling and opinion?
> 
> 
> If you are looking for more statistic based information, you may enjoy reading *Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs *by William S. Helton - Traditionally, information concerning working dogs is mostly hearsay, with the exchange of information informal at best and non-existent at worst. Most books available are too general in coverage or conversely, too specific. They explain how to train a service dog or train a dog to track, based on training lore rather than *empirical methods verified with rigorous scientific standards.* This book, drawing on cutting edge research, unifies different perspectives into one global science.
> 
> *There is none! Unless maybe you can provide some actual numbers - since you did state some comparisons! ?????????*
> 
> As for our training program, we are not +R purists. However, we do use a much higher rate of +R to compulsion. Our program is probably 90% +R and 10% compulsion. *This method is absolutely reliable.*
> 
> *No Failures? That is absolutely great! A great method! *
> 
> *Although from what I have seen, every successful trainer (ScH and AKC obedience only), this is always true - lots of praise and reinforcement when the dog does right, and some type of correction when they have learned a command and don't do it for any reason. Even the often maligned Bill Koehler preached this approach many many years ago! never correct unless you are sure the dog has learned the command - at least in a distraction free environment.*
> 
> we have successfully trialed multiple dogs with this method. However, methods do have to be balanced depending on the dog. In addition, high rate +R training works better if the dog has some desire for food and/or toys.Naturally, if the dog has a strong desire for food and toys (that is what we look for in a working dog), the training will be even more productive through the use of high rate +R. We start with dogs that want to work ...it makes everything easier
> 
> Originally Posted by *michelelh*
> _This article may clear things up a bit. Police and Military dogs trained using reward based training. The article starts on page 18. This is a fantastic testimonial for +R training in the real working dog world. Reward based training is good for more than basic obedience and fun tricks._


*So any true statistics available - without just stating some unknown text. Have you read it and thus maybe could provide some of the numbers to back up your claim? Please?*


----------



## Debbieg

codmaster said:


> One thing that I have noticed with a few local positive only (no chokes, no prongs, no leash corrections, and even frown on voice corrections) obedience trainers is that if your dog acts the least bit aggressively to other dogs - OUT of the class!
> 
> Not even suggesting that is a universal thing with this type of training but I have seen it myself.


Very true! Benny and i got booted from a class like this when he was 11 months! I was told was dominant, aggressive and that I must always keep him under threshold. After finding a trainer that used all 4 quadrants I have a dog that I can take everywhere.


----------



## Debbieg

Cassidy's Mom said:


> T. Sometimes a "no" is just as valuable as a "yes".



:thumbsdown:


----------



## codmaster

Debbieg said:


> Very true! Benny and i got booted from a class like this when he was 11 months! I was told was dominant, aggressive and that I must always keep him under threshold. After finding a trainer that used all 4 quadrants I have a dog that I can take everywhere.


 
Ditto for my now 3.5yo male. Booted out of group classes from our local obedience club (and recently invited back in after we demonstrated that he had improved greratly in DA behavior). The secret which i never have passed along in the obedience club circle was that I took him to another trainer (who trains in a more balanced approach, and also is a known ScH and K9 trainer who put him on his back once or twice when he acted up with another male GSD in a couple of private lessons with me and the other owner!).

It was evidently what my guy needed as it really resulted in a GREAT improvement very quickly. He isn't perfect yet but very very clear and evident improvement.

Different approaches for different dogs (and different handlers!) seem to work best!


----------



## GSDElsa

AgileGSD said:


> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> I recently trained my puppy to stay in an expen using time outs. It took extremely little time and was very clear to him.
> 
> It seems pretty rare that one correction totally gets rid of any behavior, unless the correction is so severe the dog would never risk receiving it again. Even the e-collars usually take a few corrections to work and some maintenance afterwards...and some dogs eventually become desensitized.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't practical uses for correction in dog training. Just that many people rely too heavily on it and have led themselves to believe their dog "needs" it. Often, dogs "need correction" because that is the relationship the human involved has set up with them.


Well, I'm certainly not talking about training a puppy in an xpen! That is for sure!

How so? He is a relatively hard, strong dog..who, at the moment has way more drive than his little 8 month old brain can handle. So, when he is exhibiting undesired behaviors during training that are a result of being a bit overloaded, it is MUCH more effective to issue a simple, well-timed correction to bring him down a notch that trying to employ something like ignoring, not treating, putting him in the crate, etc. It makes is crystal clear that what he is doing is NOT acceptable and it needs to STOP. If I was simply to ignore, he'd get more frustrated, overloaded, and spastic so it would get worse way before it got better. If it ever got better.

I use corrections with him very effectively to say "stop the bull and get focused again." And it works very well. And I know it works a lot better than simply ignoring the behavior because that is where it started for us, and it became apparent very quickly that he needed something more. And, quite frankly, he genuinely seems to appreciate making it black and white. When he's gotten them it's almost a "ok, kewl, gotcha, I'll stop that now" attitude. And we've taken care of some of the undesired stuff easily with a couple corrections and one session.


----------



## Liesje

Justine, I have the same with my boy and his pedigree is pretty prey, prey, prey. The longer you simply ignore him or use -P, the MORE he loads up!!! He is not a difficult dog to train, not at all, I mean he could have easily done 2 BHs in a row at 10 months old because he has that desire to work and stamina to remain in drive. But the key with him is bringing him up to the right level and keeping him THERE, not intentionally getting him nutty or allowing him to overload. Obviously, in an ideal world his behavior would be perfect and my handling would be perfect and he would never get overstimulated but geez, I am not perfect! So sometimes he needs to be taken down a notch. When he is working correctly in the right frame of mind he is *constantly* marked and rewarded for doing so. As we move forward he needs less and less corrections.


----------



## Catu

I also think that, not only training, but living that way you teach the dog that the correction is linked only to the behavior and has no emotional implications, they learn to jump back from the correction and keep going, that resilience is something you develop. Many dogs fall apart with corrections because they have not being taught to accept corrections as part of life, something that the mothers start, but owners do not continue.

Yes, maybe I give corrections before I try the -P route too often, but if a good verbal correction or a pop on the collar does the trick right in the second, why wait to see if it worsen, building frustration on me and the dog?

It doesn't mean I don't use -P either, before you jump into it, it keeps being the best way for the dog to figure things out in its own and do a cognitive process of what you ask.


----------



## AgileGSD

GSDElsa said:


> How so? He is a relatively hard, strong dog..who, at the moment has way more drive than his little 8 month old brain can handle. So, when he is exhibiting undesired behaviors during training that are a result of being a bit overloaded, it is MUCH more effective to issue a simple, well-timed correction to bring him down a notch that trying to employ something like ignoring, not treating, putting him in the crate, etc.


 You didn't answer my question though. How would your puppy take over your house?




codmaster said:


> Ditto for my now 3.5yo male. Booted out of group classes from our local obedience club (and recently invited back in after we demonstrated that he had improved greratly in DA behavior). The secret which i never have passed along in the obedience club circle was that I took him to another trainer (who trains in a more balanced approach, and also is a known ScH and K9 trainer who put him on his back once or twice when he acted up with another male GSD in a couple of private lessons with me and the other owner!).


 A trainer did that to one of my dogs before I got her and got bit for it. Does that mean she "needed" more corrections of that sort?


----------



## AgileGSD

Check out this clicker trained GSD. All of the comments in the thread are about how amazing, how smart and how into his owner he is. 

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...984-astor-my-amazing-clicker-trained-gsd.html


----------



## GSDElsa

AgileGSD said:


> You didn't answer my question though. How would your puppy take over your house?


Well, I never really said he'd take over my house, now did I? I said he'd be a monster. Yes, I'm sure that would leak into behaviors into the house as well and he'd try to get away with crap there too. But this is a thread is regards to training and I'm discussing behaviors when training in drive. This isn't about how to crate train and overall house behaviors, although you keep wanting to turn it in that direction. I'm certainly not advocating using e-collars and a prong to teach your puppy how to stay in an x-pen. 

Not sure how you are getting that from what I am saying. I don't really think that "house behaviors" and "training my dog for x (<--insert desired sport here)" go hand in hand. Certainly there is some overlap as if I was a weakling during OB or SAR training it would give him the green light to be an jerkface at home too.


----------



## GSDElsa

Liesje said:


> Justine, I have the same with my boy and his pedigree is pretty prey, prey, prey. The longer you simply ignore him or use -P, the MORE he loads up!!! He is not a difficult dog to train, not at all, I mean he could have easily done 2 BHs in a row at 10 months old because he has that desire to work and stamina to remain in drive. But the key with him is bringing him up to the right level and keeping him THERE, not intentionally getting him nutty or allowing him to overload. Obviously, in an ideal world his behavior would be perfect and my handling would be perfect and he would never get overstimulated but geez, I am not perfect! So sometimes he needs to be taken down a notch. When he is working correctly in the right frame of mind he is *constantly* marked and rewarded for doing so. As we move forward he needs less and less corrections.


Yes, EXACTLY! Medo's pedigree isn't so prey based, but it's like he's got more oompf to work than his little adolescent boy brain can handle right now. If it's not kept in check, it just goes downhill from there. Luckily, those corrections just make it all black and white and we easily go back to a productive state of mind in an instant.


----------



## Zahnburg

QUOTE=AgileGSD;2274362]As has been brought up here, training in all positive reinforcement is not really what people are talking about. Almost no one actually using "only positive reinforcement". 


What about training in this manner? I'm sure these people think this is how their dogs "need" to be trained: http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/general-information/167920-please-tell-me-isnt-normal.html

*I will not comment about a short video clearly made as propoganda. *

And if you've been to trials, you've seen plenty of force trained dogs get stressed in the ring too. I imagine poor ring performance has been around as long as competition obedience has been around. Old school trainers always warned that dogs could become ringwise, so it was important to take them to correction matches. IOWs they knew you couldn't "get them" when you were at a trial and wouldn't perform in the ring (but at a correction match, it seemed like a trial but you could "get" your dog in the ring for not performing).
*And this is the same issue, just on the opposite side. The training lacks balance. To me, balance is the key. *

*As for a dog becoming "trial-wise" do you think dogs don't also learn that there are no cookies, hotdogs or balls in a trial? *
The issue with dogs performing poorly at trials is generally not so much a method problem as a training problem - the dogs are being trialed without being properly prepared for the trial setting. It can and does happen with all methods.

*Of course it is a training problem. *
This is an OTCH +R trained dog at the invitational. Looks pretty happy to me  (And Wildo - if you aren't familiar with this trainer, I think you'll like her!)

Raika 2010 invitational class one - Just getting started! - YouTube
In one thread, positive training is being accused of being both too stressful and not stressful enough for the dogs. 

*Dogs are stressed when they do not understand what is correct. By failing to communicate to your dog effectively, you will create stress.* 

FWIW I'm not sure any dog will ever understand the concept of right and wrong. They can understand what gets them reinforcement and/or punishment though 
*Then your training is flawed. Dogs can absolutely understand when they are correct and incorrect. Reinforcement/correction etc. is used to make the dog understand this. Working dogs enjoy working, they do not merely do it to get a reward or avoid a correction. The work itself is fulfilling to an extent. *


----------



## Zahnburg

That post (above) did not format so well. It is a quote from AgileGSD and the *Bold Text* is my response.


----------



## Debbieg

Liesje said:


> Justine, I have the same with my boy and his pedigree is pretty prey, prey, prey. The longer you simply ignore him or use -P, the MORE he loads up!!! .


Completely agree. ignoring the "loading up" does not extinguish the behavior as the +R told me for Benny and many others. When he hit 9 months Benny would bark, lunge, tremble, shriek and whine and when excited. The loading up seems to be self rewarding. I was told that this is because of the adrenaline release in the dogs brain and that allowing this behavior can cause the dog to be addicted to the adrenaline rush and constantly want more.

A fair correction given at the right time brings the dog back to the the right level and I believe teaches him impulse control. At least it worked for Benny.


----------



## michelelh

Debbieg said:


> Completely agree. ignoring the "loading up" does not extinguish the behavior as the +R told me for Benny and many others. When he hit 9 months Benny would bark, lunge, tremble, shriek and whine and when excited. The loading up seems to be self rewarding. I was told that this is because of the adrenaline release in the dogs brain and that allowing this behavior can cause the dog to be addicted to the adrenaline rush and constantly want more.
> 
> A fair correction given at the right time brings the dog back to the the right level and I believe teaches him impulse control. At least it worked for Benny.


I agree, GSDs with strong working traits may become pretty bratty around that age. Although I use +R to manage impulse control, I also believe that something else, in the form of control, needs to come from the handler to help the young dog. However, the method of control should match the situation. One of the issues with simply correcting the young dog to get control is that the dog learns that control comes from an outer force. This is what can cause reliability to be lost down the road (early imprinting). 

I'm not sure if a young dog that is physically controlled by the handler, at such a young age, actually learns how to make control for himself; unless there is something else connected to the physical control process that helps the young dog understand that control will get him what he wants; i.e., get a toy, play, engage the helper, be free, allowed to sniff, allowed to play with the super fun kids, allowed to run an agility course, etc.

What is the situation when your young dog can not control himself without a correction? Is it a life situation where the dog is simply trying to get you to engage or interact with him. Or is it in training with some sort of stimulus, such as a toy or helper exciting the dog?

I'm simply asking, because it helps to understand the entire training process to get, the most important thing in training, RELIABILITY. I'm also asking because, you probably understand the process. But I believe there are many people that refer to this forum looking for help and may need more details ...so we may be able to help them early in training so their dogs will not require a high rate of compulsion


----------



## Debbieg

michelelh;2274737
What is the situation when your young dog can not control himself without a correction? Is it a life situation where the dog is simply trying to get you to engage or interact with him. Or is it in training with some sort of stimulus said:


> In our case Benny would get very loaded when we approached his favorite park, a dog he wanted to play with, something he wanted to chase.
> 
> He would be given a correction, and I would also move whatever he wanted farther away. ( My husband would bring his dog into the park and I would make Benny wait, correct him for lunging, pulling shrieking, and even walk away from the park.) Sometimes my husband and his dog would be ready to leave before we got in .
> 
> Once he was calm we would walk toward the park but if he started the bratty behavior again he got penalty yards. I wanted him to learn that behaving that way would never get him what he wanted.
> 
> When he showed self control in the calm behavior was rewarded by him getting to enter the park, chase the ball . Food rewards would not interest him when he is that riled up.


----------



## Ace952

I don't know if this has been said before but I wonder how many people TRULY have a "hard dog". I think many people say they do but don't in reality they don't.

I am sure everyone has their own definition of what a "hard dog" is.


----------



## GSDElsa

michelelh said:


> I'm not sure if a young dog that is physically controlled by the handler, at such a young age, actually learns how to make control for himself;
> 
> But I believe there are many people that refer to this forum looking for help and may need more details ...so we may be able to help them early in training so their dogs will not require a high rate of compulsion


Why do you refer to it as being physically controlled by the handler? I think that is a basic misunderstanding of what the idea of a correction is. There is no physical control happening.

I personally try to avoid giving people direct advice on what training methods to use on an internet forum. I will share experiences on what works or has worked for me, but I think it is unwise to give someone so many details on how to solve a problem to go as far as to convince them to use compulsion or positive over any other method. If they cannot necessarily figure out what exactly either means on their own, they need to enlist a real trainer. Not people on the internet.


----------



## AgileGSD

Debbieg said:


> Completely agree. ignoring the "loading up" does not extinguish the behavior as the +R told me for Benny and many others. When he hit 9 months Benny would bark, lunge, tremble, shriek and whine and when excited. The loading up seems to be self rewarding. I was told that this is because of the adrenaline release in the dogs brain and that allowing this behavior can cause the dog to be addicted to the adrenaline rush and constantly want more.
> 
> A fair correction given at the right time brings the dog back to the the right level and I believe teaches him impulse control. At least it worked for Benny.


 Impulse control is important when you have high drive, easily stimulated dogs. But that doesn't mean the dogs "need" correction to learn impulse control (and FWIW with the wrong dog, corrections when they are in that state of mind may get you bitten). Lack of impulse control also doesn't equate to being a dog who will "take over the house" or "test boundaries" or is "hard". I'm not sure why anyone would think ignoring it would help though. 



GSDElsa said:


> Well, I never really said he'd take over my house, now did I? I said he'd be a monster.


 Sorry I did get your monster comment confused with a taking over the house comment. I guess I should have asked how would your dog be a monster if you didn't stay on top of him?


----------



## michelelh

GSDElsa said:


> Why do you refer to it as being physically controlled by the handler? I think that is a basic misunderstanding of what the idea of a correction is. There is no physical control happening.
> 
> I personally try to avoid giving people direct advice on what training methods to use on an internet forum. I will share experiences on what works or has worked for me, but I think it is unwise to give someone so many details on how to solve a problem to go as far as to convince them to use compulsion or positive over any other method. If they cannot necessarily figure out what exactly either means on their own, they need to enlist a real trainer. Not people on the internet.


This is not necessarily advice. It is part of a discussion and taking a genuine interest in what the situation is. By having a discussion, I believe that we can "plant seeds", get people interested in various training concepts and approaches to different situations. We can also learn what works for some people and dogs and what did not, for their situation. People are either going to try techniques themselves or enlist a trainer. But in any event, regardless of what they do, they will have more information to hopefully make better decisions about training.

If a correction is not physically controlling the dog, then what is it? 

Thanks for the response


----------



## Debbieg

Ace952 said:


> I don't know if this has been said before but I wonder how many people TRULY have a "hard dog". I think many people say they do but don't in reality they don't.
> 
> I am sure everyone has their own definition of what a "hard dog" is.


I do not consider Benny a hard dog. I would say he is medium drive, but high in prey, and has fairly low thresholds. ( compared with other dogs I know) He still needed and responded well to corrections during adolescence.

Now at age 2/1/2 I can take Benny pretty much anywhere and am pleased with his behavior and he loves going with me, so we both win. I don't believe this would have happened without corrections. I think corrections, with Benny and many dogs, just help them learn what is right, ( will get them and us what we want). Corrections/aversives can be a "positive" part of humane training for some dogs. Every dog and handler is different and training needs to be balanced for each.

Maybe if I were a better trainer I could have accomplished all I have done with Benny with just +R, but the corrections he was given during his adolescence seemed to help and not harm him.


----------



## michelelh

Debbieg said:


> In our case Benny would get very loaded when we approached his favorite park, a dog he wanted to play with, something he wanted to chase.
> 
> He would be given a correction, and I would also move whatever he wanted farther away. ( My husband would bring his dog into the park and I would make Benny wait, correct him for lunging, pulling shrieking, and even walk away from the park.) Sometimes my husband and his dog would be ready to leave before we got in .
> 
> Once he was calm we would walk toward the park but if he started the bratty behavior again he got penalty yards. I wanted him to learn that behaving that way would never get him what he wanted.
> 
> When he showed self control in the calm behavior was rewarded by him getting to enter the park, chase the ball . Food rewards would not interest him when he is that riled up.


I'm glad I asked, because there is more to your situation than just simply giving a correction. Are you actually using life rewards to show the dog that his calm behavior gets him what he wants; i.e., to go into the park! It sounds like once he has a correction he is also given opportunities to make a choice and show calm behavior. To me, this goes far beyond just simply correcting the dog every time he misbehaves. From my experience, this type of training does help the dog develop problem solving skills, so that in the future, walking into the park calmly will be a trained behavior that is reliable.

For our situation we really would try to wait it out. We still have a pinch collar on the dog, but we don't snap it to make a correction. We simply use it more as leverage so the dog can not easily yank or pull hard, like they are able to on a fur saver or flat collar. Once they show the slightest demonstration of calm behavior (and I mean slight ...anything that shows they are making an effort to do what we want) we allow them to move forward. As soon as the bad behavior starts, we stop and wait again. This definitely takes more time than using a correction immediately for the bad behavior. 

If we want to get calm behavior at quicker rate, without a correction, we use a toy to reward any demonstration of calm behavior. Eventually the dogs get it. Once the dog completely understand the behavior and has had opportunities to practice it, we will use a real correction as a reminder, when necessary, if the dog gets distracted and forgets the good behavior. Usually a few times of a real correction that the dog can feel, helps and they seldom need reminder again.


----------



## Debbieg

michelelh said:


> I'm glad I asked, because there is more to your situation than just simply giving a correction. Are you actually using life rewards to show the dog that his calm behavior gets him what he wants; i.e., to go into the park! It sounds like once he has a correction he is also given opportunities to make a choice and show calm behavior. To me, this goes far beyond just simply correcting the dog every time he misbehaves. From my experience, this type of training does help the dog develop problem solving skills, so that in the future, walking into the park calmly will be a trained behavior that is reliable.
> 
> For our situation we really would try to wait it out. We still have a pinch collar on the dog, but we don't snap it to make a correction. We simply use it more as leverage so the dog can not easily yank or pull hard, like they are able to on a fur saver or flat collar. Once they show the slightest demonstration of calm behavior (and I mean slight ...anything that shows they are making an effort to do what we want) we allow them to move forward. As soon as the bad behavior starts, we stop and wait again. This definitely takes more time than using a correction immediately for the bad behavior.


Yes, sounds like we are saying the same thing!


----------



## GSDElsa

ich-a correction is no more physically controlling the dog than luring, leading them on a leash, etc. how do you figure it is?


----------



## AgileGSD

GSDElsa said:


> ich-a correction is no more physically controlling the dog than luring, leading them on a leash, etc. how do you figure it is?


There are definitely many times when force based training depends on the handler physically overpowering the dog. 

Someone just posted this on another forum I'm on and it seemed timely for this topic. Dr. Dunbar and Donaldson talked about their typical things and brought up good points. I don't totally agree with Dr. Overall. Her experience with e-collars, even bark collars has not entirely been my experience. I've certainly seen what she is talking about though with e-collar and IF use in some dogs. I think Dr. Dodman is pretty right on about the way you train setting up the relationships you'll have with your dog. 

The Heavy Hand Myth - You Don't Need Fear & Pain to Train Dogs. - YouTube


I'm not getting at never saying no to a dog. But there is still a lot of belief that certain breeds need harsh training from the get go. That you must "show them who's boss" or they will "take over" (or "become monsters" I suppose). I have seen dogs that experienced, old school trainers have deemed "dominant-aggressive" that were just normal dogs who didn't take well to the trainer's harsh treatment. Luckily, many of the owners were appalled by the trainer's actions and didn't follow the instructions that the dogs should be "put through the wall for pulling that %&$!" or hung or alpha rolled or any number of Man vs. Beast type scenarios. Some weren't though, some believed the trainer. Poor dogs 

And getting back to how the "you must dominant your GSD" ties in with agility (because I suspect a big reason Wildo will try to train without correction is because he wants a bold, confident agility). I have also seen dogs blossom in agility when the approach to their training went from a strict alpha-type thing where the dog was corrected for everything "bad" (most were treated for "good" behavior - times really have changed) to a more easy going, upbeat approach. I had a GSD in agility class who's owner was very strict, despite giving treats there was a lot of verbal, collar and sometimes more physical correction going on. The dog did the equipment but with no real drive. Then I found out the dog loved a certain toy. Combined with not allowing the corrections to be used in agility and using the toy, it turned out this dog is actually pretty drivey and has a lot of potential in agility. She also became more enthusiastic about the food rewards and generally much more upbeat. I'm also attending a puppy foundation class inwhich one owner is always correcting her puppy when she isn't paying attanetion or tries to do the "wrong" thing. And despite it's breed and line the puppy is cautious, slow and rather hesitant to try stuff. And it's no surprise, since her owner has been teaching her it's undesirable to try anything. And back in the day, some of the worst agility dogs I have seen have been OTCH or UD dogs that crossed over to agility. They would never run full out and were constantly checking to make sure they weren't doing something wrong. Outstanding obedience dogs but dogs who had been trained not to think or interact on their own. Again times have changed and I'm sure there are some awesome obedience./agility dogs out there these days. But I'm sure there are still some will never be all they could be in agility due to the training relationship that was set up from high-level obedience training.


----------



## Catu

AgileGSD said:


> There are definitely many times when force based training depends on the handler physically overpowering the dog.


Here is where lies my problem!!!!! Using corrections is not force based training, as much as in your own example using treats is not reward based training. You say you use corrections and people jumps to assume you are yanking your dog with a choke and doing alpha rolls all over the place. I DO use corrections, but I've never done an alpha roll on my dogs. When in the thread we forgot about the word balance? Why is to easy to jump to the extremes and the stereotypes?


----------



## DunRingill

Catu said:


> Here is where lies my problem!!!!! Using corrections is not force based training, as much as in your own example using treats is not reward based training. You say you use corrections and people jumps to assume you are yanking your dog with a choke and doing alpha rolls all over the place. I DO use corrections, but I've never done an alpha roll on my dogs. When in the thread we forgot about the word balance? Why is to easy to jump to the extremes and the stereotypes?


RIGHT!! I personally don't know anyone who uses "force-based training." I DO know a lot of people who use corrections in their training program, balanced with lots of positive reinforcement especially in the teaching phases. Not sure why the assumption is always to such extremes. I don't alpha-roll my dogs, but I DO use corrections in training.


----------



## Liesje

Exactly! (to the last few posters) I feel like every time I post in a topic regarding +P or -R I have to always qualify my post with the fact that 90% of my training is +R and even when using aversives they are almost always paired with +R! As far as agility goes, I don't really use corrections there other than behavioral stuff, but the actual training of the obstacles, contacts, crosses, etc is either lure/mark/reward or freeshape/mark/reward and that goes for my nervy dog lacking confidence to my bold, powerful male. I might correct the dog for trying to fixate on another dog or trying to mark on a piece of equipment but I don't have use for -R during agility.


----------



## AgileGSD

DunRingill said:


> RIGHT!! I personally don't know anyone who uses "force-based training." I DO know a lot of people who use corrections in their training program, balanced with lots of positive reinforcement especially in the teaching phases. Not sure why the assumption is always to such extremes. I don't alpha-roll my dogs, but I DO use corrections in training.



The question here pertained to the idea that some dogs "need" strong corrections and a so-called "firm hand". Those IME generally imply quite a lot of physical "domination" going on. Maybe that doesn't mean the same to everyone.

Everyone uses some form of "correction" or punishment in training, even if they don't think they do. But there is a world of difference between using minor corrections occasionally and approaching training as though if you don't prove to this dog you can overpower them, they will some how "take over".


----------



## Liesje

Well at least in SchH I believe there are a lot of dogs that are going to need a firm hand at some point. Why...because nobody's perfect. Most times I see it is when dogs are overloaded and things are just not computing. Part of that is who the dog is, part of that is the training and handling allowing the dog to get to that point of being overloaded. See the comment about nobody being perfect. It is not about dominating the dog as in showing whose boss but clear communication that actually computes. If anyone can offer other suggestions of how to "reach" a dog in that state feel free to advise... A lot of the training I'm doing with Pan lately involves finding that balance between capping drive and not overloading the dog. Where that line falls is different for each handler. I personally like a higher threshold and a dog that might be working in a little lower state of drive but shows more natural secondary obedience and control. Other people intentionally overload the dog to the point of insanity and then often require several physical altercations to regain control.


----------



## Samba

My dog/s who requires a "firm" hand and a capable owner are the dogs I probably would be the least likely to want to try to get physical with or dominate. There are some yucky handlers who do unwarranted things to dogs. That is nothing new. But, there are dogs who must respect you, who need a clear relationship understanding or you are not going to get very far with them. A firm hand to me does not imply abuse at all. But, a stronger type dog in personality just might need its corresponding handler. 

I don't wrestle my dog or stomp on him or yank him all around. But, many is the time the DH calls on me to come and do something with my dog that he can not accomplish. 
Now, the Sheltie the DH can do anything with. Not the same type of handler required!


----------



## Liesje

I agree, and likewise of my dogs, the one that has gotten the "firmest hand" is also the one to whom I am most closely bonded, the one who works for me and *only* me and works the way he does *because* of that bond and relationship built on trust and respect (which is, by the way, mutual...I trust and respect my dog since after all I'd be banking on him to protect us).


----------



## AgileGSD

Liesje said:


> Other people intentionally overload the dog to the point of insanity and then often require several physical altercations to regain control.


 That sort of thing goes on quite a bit in agility and flyball. The getting the dog to a point of insanity anyway and with some people the altercation issue. I think very often in this situation, people resort to correction because they don't know what else to do. And many other solutions (teaching impulse control, for example) would require the trainer to focus on things that aren't all that rewarding for them because they don't directly relate to the trainer's titling goals. I've come to realize a lot of issues people have in sport training are a result of what is or is not rewarding for the humans involved to work on.


----------

