# A Silent Killer.... Death better than some training methods?



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

A Silent Killer - Balanced Trainers Blog



> There is a silent killer in the dog training world. It is not a virus, not a piece of equipment, not a bacteria.
> 
> It is an idea.
> 
> It is the idea that all dogs, in all situations, should be trained with nothing other than rewards, and without ever the use of aversives. “Reward what you like and ignore what you don’t” is the mantra that is preached, and all will be well in the world. In the dog training community this philosophy goes by many names, some call it Pure Positive (which is not an accurate description), some call it Progressive Reinforcement, some call it Reward only, but for the purposes of this article I will refer to it as Aversive Free or AF.


Interesting article.....


----------



## Twyla (Sep 18, 2011)

Woolf has come from being a dog who trainers and a vet advised to be pts to being a dog who can mix with small groups of people while monitored using this method. He still has his quirks, will always need management, but using appropriate corrections has helped him learn there are consequences. Contrary to what his previous trainers had said regarding corrections, it didn't increase his aggression and hasn't turned him into a beaten down confused dog. 

That has just been my experience with Woolf and working him through fear aggression, emphasis on aggression.


----------



## gsdraven (Jul 8, 2009)

I hate the words "reward only" and treats. Positive training done correctly isn't about shoving cookies in a dogs mouth. The "article" is just as biased as any blog written by a PO trainer. I also have never met a trainer that uses only rewards and never any verbal or space corrections - many just prefer not to use correction collars. 

There are always numerous ways to get from point A to point B and they may all be valid. I have had dogs where using corrections for any reason would absolutely backfire and I've had dogs that in some situations definitely needed a correction to get through but I've never had a dog where a physical correction was needed in regards to working through inappropriate aggression. The one thing the "article" has right is that training is not one size fits all.


----------



## Kaimeju (Feb 2, 2013)

I think calling +R a "silent killer" is a bit melodramatic. If anything it is just inadequate for some dogs. "Real life is not a Skinner Box."


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

Twyla said:


> Woolf has come from being a dog who trainers and a vet advised to be pts to being a dog who can mix with small groups of people while monitored using this method. He still has his quirks, will always need management, but using appropriate corrections has helped him learn there are consequences. Contrary to what his previous trainers had said regarding corrections, it didn't increase his aggression and hasn't turned him into a beaten down confused dog.
> 
> That has just been my experience with Woolf and working him through fear aggression, emphasis on aggression.


When it comes to rescuing dogs, sometimes I think it's a "Waste of time" on the aggressive ones. Not that they can't be rehabilitated, but there are SO many friendly, non-aggressive, dogs pts every day in shelters around the country. I just think that in the time it takes to rehabilitate, properly place, and then live out a life long, liability-fear, lots more dogs could be saved. I am NOT trying to argue, or poo poo rescues, just wondering if we should be placing our energies into the 1000's and 1000's of dogs that have good temperaments, decent nerves, etc...instead of the intense man hours that go into "fixing" and "managing" the aggressive, "problem" ones. 

And before anyone tells me about the 1000's of hours they've put into rescues, and how I don't know what I'm talking about. I volunteered at a kill-shelter for several years. So many good dogs get put down, it's just my opinion. In this time we live in(in the US at least), of over-run shelters, very high kill rates, etc...we need to educate, time manage, and be realistic. Where is the time better spent?

*EDIT* After re-reading a little bit more carefully, I think I am discussing a topic that would best be brought up in a new/separate thread. SO pay no attention to this post. Sorry for changing the subject, OP. lol, maybe I'll start another thread some other time.


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

Extremists.
Everything needs balance. I am all for positive training but if the dog needs a little correction there is nothing wrong with that. I do not agree with a previous trainer I had 20yrs ago when he told us to hang our GSD by his choke chain for snarling at my husband for trying to take a bone away. Extremes of anything usually aren't the best way.


----------



## Twyla (Sep 18, 2011)

DaniFani said:


> When it comes to rescuing dogs, sometimes I think it's a "Waste of time" on the aggressive ones. Not that they can't be rehabilitated, but there are SO many friendly, non-aggressive, dogs pts every day in shelters around the country. I just think that in the time it takes to rehabilitate, properly place, and then live out a life long, liability-fear, lots more dogs could be saved. I am NOT trying to argue, or poo poo rescues, just wondering if we should be placing our energies into the 1000's and 1000's of dogs that have good temperaments, decent nerves, etc...instead of the intense man hours that go into "fixing" and "managing" the aggressive, "problem" ones.
> 
> And before anyone tells me about the 1000's of hours they've put into rescues, and how I don't know what I'm talking about. I volunteered at a kill-shelter for several years. So many good dogs get put down, it's just my opinion. In this time we live in(in the US at least), of over-run shelters, very high kill rates, etc...we need to educate, time manage, and be realistic. Where is the time better spent?
> 
> *EDIT* After re-reading a little bit more carefully, I think I am discussing a topic that would best be brought up in a new/separate thread. SO pay no attention to this post. Sorry for changing the subject, OP. lol, maybe I'll start another thread some other time.


Luckily, it is up to the individual to decide what is a 'waste of time'.

Have a good day


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Everything is taken out of context here. Positive reinforcement is only one of the four training techniques that is being confused here. In the newer training techniques we use: positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment. It is not all about treats. If you don't understand the principle it won't work.
This training is called: operant conditioning.
The next article explains it well: Operant Conditioning - Introduction to Operant Conditioning


----------



## Gretchen (Jan 20, 2011)

I do not understand why so many people cannot take a balanced approach in life, not only in dog training but in many subjects.

When our dog was young, she was extremely strong willed and did not respond to positive training methods. We used prong for corrections and then praise. As she became more mature, we stopped the prong as she responds to praise and treats.
Our previous dog was a dream to train, she basically trained herself. You can't apply one method of training to all dogs.

That people would euthanize a dog rather than spend time working with it is just another sign of the times that some people simply cannot handle a challenge, if things are not easy, well good-bye.


----------



## DaniFani (Jan 24, 2013)

> When the AF approach fails, the only other option is euthanasia. After all, it would be unheard of to just give a dog a simple correction, to help it understand that there are certain behaviors in life that have consequences. Simple, immediate, consequences.


I've talked with some of my "positive training only" friends about this. In nature, when something is inappropriate or against the "rules" the dog/animal learns via simple, immediate, consequences. Wolf gets unruly with the leader, gets a swift, stern, correction, wolf plays too rough with another wolf, he gets a swift, stern, correction, wolf takes something that isn't his, gets a swift, stern, correction...etc. SO why is it soooo horrible to give, swift, stern, corrections, for similar things in the human world? 

I do believe part of this is due to lack of education, so instead of educating owners on these methods, because of fear of misuse, they are told to never even attempt them. To some extent I understand this, corrections need to be done correctly, at the right time, etc. However, I believe this mindset has evolved into, you need to use positive training only...anything else is "old school" and "barbaric." 

To me, corrections are just another tool in my tool bag. After assessing the problem, with the guidance of my training director, and other mentors, I will use the appropriate tools when required. 

DISCLAIMER: Obviously nature can be "barbaric" and "ruthless," resulting in death, extreme injury, etc....I feel like I have to say, OBVIOUSLY I am NOT saying to kill or maim your dog if it disobeys you. However, I do not disagree with swift, quick, clear, corrections, when appropriate.


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

That's a very interesting article, thank for posting the link. I'll bet the links at the end of it are just as intersting, and I can't wait to read them.

What drives me bonkers are the trainers who won't admit that they're just promoting their own philosophy. They aren't dogs, so why insist that they know best? Especially when they advise PTS, that's disgusting. Why not admit failure, and suggest another trainer? How egotistical.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

A good trainer/handler developes a strategy that bests suits the individual dog. One that can recognize where the fault at failure lies, and realize it may not be with the dog.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

LoL. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who believes in partying for the positives and a correction for the negatives. Let me preface this with, I have never hauled off and hit an animal...ever. At the same time, we have distinct corrections for things we don't want; saying No or Aght very firmly. We also do 'time outs' as needed. There are some things that can be ignored, but if I want to mark an action as a bad thing and enforce it so it doesn't happen again, there has to be some kind of correction, IMHO.


----------



## GregK (Sep 4, 2006)

DaniFani said:


> In nature, when something is inappropriate or against the "rules" the dog/animal learns via simple, immediate, consequences. Wolf gets unruly with the leader, gets a swift, stern, correction, wolf plays too rough with another wolf, he gets a swift, stern, correction, wolf takes something that isn't his, gets a swift, stern, correction...etc. SO why is it soooo horrible to give, swift, stern, corrections, for similar things in the human world?


Because interspecies communication isn't as clear as same species communication.


----------



## FlyAway (Jul 17, 2012)

gsdraven said:


> I hate the words "reward only" and treats. Positive training done correctly isn't about shoving cookies in a dogs mouth. The "article" is just as biased as any blog written by a PO trainer. I also have never met a trainer that uses only rewards and never any verbal or space corrections - many just prefer not to use correction collars.


Yes, and hasn't this topic been debated ad nauseum on this forum more than once?


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

From all the 'purely positive' trainers I have watched (mostly AKC clubs) it seems to me that many dogs do get confused as to why they are rewarded....esp those who growl or threaten other dogs....they growl, they look at mom and get a cookie! HUH??? I watched a lady with a Westie make the dog more and more dog aggressive this way....there was no clarity in the training. Have known a couple people with GSDs do similar things....

At both Ivan and Mike E seminars, both known for positive training, they bring up the importance of making a distinction between wanted and unwanted behaviors.....corrections do not need to be extremely harsh - they need to be negative and clear to the dog at the appropriate level for him to understand....in our breed, there are some very very strong dogs who need a different level of negative.


Haven't read the article - have had this discussion with more than enough people already   

Lee


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have never met anyone who was totally positive reinforcement. Every person I have met training, had some method of letting the dog know it did not do the proper thing. 

I might use an Eh!, or I might say No, I might position the dog where he ought to be, or I might just redo the exercise. In any of these circumstances the dog gets it, that he did not respond the way I wanted him to. 

That being said, I think that people give up on positive reinforcement way too soon. I think with a more patient and more consistent handler, a lot of these dogs that are called hard or stubborn, who it is said it did not work for, well, I think it did not work for the handler/dog team, and if it does not work for the handler/dog team, it does not work. 

Some people just should not own dogs. And some of those people are into positive reinforcement because it sounds nice. But not everyone that uses that method is of the same vein. Just like, not everyone who slaps a prong collar on their dog and gets immediate results is now going to drop out of obedience classes because the dog is fixed and perfect now. 

I have seen an AKC person severely punishing a puppy at a show. There were actually many complaints. Most of the people I have met at AKC shows are actually pretty balanced in their approach to training. You will not generally see a lot of corrections at shows because:
A, dogs should not be there unless they are entered.

B, dogs that are entered are generally at a level of behavior and training where physical corrections are not all that necessary.

and C, there is supposed to be no training in the ring, and people are generally trying to keep their dogs up-beat prior to going into the ring, and many put their dogs up after their run. 

I think it is an unnecessary slight on AKC people to suggest we are crazy +R people from what you might have witnessed at a show.


----------



## atravis (Sep 24, 2008)

wolfstraum said:


> From all the 'purely positive' trainers I have watched (mostly AKC clubs) it seems to me that many dogs do get confused as to why they are rewarded....esp those who growl or threaten other dogs....they growl, they look at mom and get a cookie! HUH??? I watched a lady with a Westie make the dog more and more dog aggressive this way....there was no clarity in the training. Have known a couple people with GSDs do similar things....


To be fair, this method does work. Not if used _incorrectly_ or in the wrong situation, but the same could be said of anything.

Ridley went through his reactive period, mostly due to being attack multiple times by loose dogs as a puppy, and what worked for him was reward for looking calmly at other dogs. Sure he barked and had his little fits, but the SECOND he was looking at them and quite, I clicked and treated. He soon figured out that just because he saw another dog, didn't mean he had to have a fit. Looking at other dogs calmly and quietly was what I wanted, and that is what I got, and what I have to this day. That said, Ridley is an otherwise stable dog who suffered no real aggression issues, just a loud mouth and some puppy insecurities, which are factors. 

For the record, there are people who reward a growl. If built up from a dog with no warning signal from neutral to attack, a growl can be very valuable communication. 

We can all claim we've watched other people ruin their dogs doing this or that, be we are not those people and we are not aware of their full situations. So how can we really lay judgment? 

I think there is room for balance.

I also think aversives are more oft misused than rewards.


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

The wish to fight any possible failure, to feel just - makes even the fairest and gentlest of men brutal. Instead of admitting their own failure many attribute it to their dogs and try to "correct". If we are talking about a young dog, but not a puppy, the difference between a good trainer and the bad one is that the first one would be able to "read" his dog, and the bad one will use "methods". A carrot and stick motivation is good for puppies only. Like a human child, who is at his five can already be considered a crystallized character, so is the dog - any sense to "correct" there is only if he is very young. How far one can go? The adult needs behaviour modification as much, as a cow needs a saddle. Sadly, yes... That is the only option. Hitler, in every invaded country, was destroying luna houses and PRISONS.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

sigh - I was not "knocking" or slighting AKC people - I have done CDs on most of my dogs and my AKC coach is a Rally Judge.....I was a member of an AKC club for years....the Westie I mentioned is one owned by a club member and believe me - we had major major discussions about this many times....after she made him worse, to the point she was afraid to take him to a match or show - she told me she should have listened to me at the beginning as what I predicted did indeed happen.

Every method is going to work for some person somewhere along the line - or it would not be touted.....my point was that there was no marker for negative with the westie - a simple 'not acceptable' and/or a tap would have sufficed, followed by a 'look' command and reward

Lee


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

wolfstraum said:


> sigh - I was not "knocking" or slighting AKC people - I have done CDs on most of my dogs and my AKC coach is a Rally Judge.....I was a member of an AKC club for years....the Westie I mentioned is one owned by a club member and believe me - we had major major discussions about this many times....after she made him worse, to the point she was afraid to take him to a match or show - she told me she should have listened to me at the beginning as what I predicted did indeed happen.
> 
> Every method is going to work for some person somewhere along the line - or it would not be touted.....my point was that there was no marker for negative with the westie - a simple 'not acceptable' and/or a tap would have sufficed, followed by a 'look' command and reward
> 
> Lee


Well, you're one up on me anyway. I have only been a member of AKC clubs and I have never met anyone who is purely positive. I have seen some obedience people who were pretty harsh with their methods. I have seen choke chains. I have seen a LOT of prong collars -- all used by AKC people, just not at shows. 

The Agility classes I have taken were all positive, but that was just teaching agility, not training life-skills. 

And that freaky lady who told me to take that nasty prong collar off my dog and keep him away from all other dogs, well, she might tout herself as purely positive, but I saw her body slam her Great Dane puppy, so I don't think she counts. 

Would it be more likely to see purely positive at an AKC show, than it would be in Schutzhund? I suppose probably, no reason to put that in there though, was there?


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

The drama of these sort of blog posts makes it hard for me to take the authors seriously. It seems "Positive trainers are killing dogs!" is the new trend, I've seen quite a few people blog along this theme. 

Both positive training and correction based training can work to solve any number of behavior problems,_* if*_ used correctly. Used incorrectly, in part or poorly no method is going to give you great results. Saying either "doesn't work" is sort of being an extremist and not very accurate. And* All *trainers are promoting their own philosophy  The argument that dogs are dying in shelters because of positive training is just ridiculous. Really it is. The average shelter dog has not had any sort of training. Overwhelmingly, dogs are in shelters because people don't train and contain their pets then get "fed up having to deal with" the results of their lack of dedication to their dog. And the idea that all dogs with behavior issues need is "one good correction!" is equally ridiculous.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Such places as petsmart and petco practice this training method. They may give VERBAL correction but never a physical one such as a leash correction. That is why prongs and choke chains are banned in their training classes.

When luther was a pup and we were first trying to deal with his EXTREME fear aggression we did petsmart training because we were employees and got it for free. We were told to never correct, but simply ignore the bad and reward the good. Exactly as this article said. We would sit there while he barked at everyone, and the second he stopped and turned to us we were told to reward. Realistically how is this stopping the situation?? Keep in mind this was considered one of the best petsmart trainers in the denver region by the stores themselves. 

After 6-8 weeks of no progress I found a trainer that did work with the denver and broomfield pd. First thing he did was put a slip collar on luther. It was amazing how only a few weeks of simple obedience combined with a physical leash correction changed him. When we talked with the old trainer she told us the choke chain would never work because the second you took it off he would stop behaving (he had only been training with it for 2 weeks). In the same breath she told us that her method worked best but could take a year to see results.

The article outlines EXACTLY the type of training that is sweeping this country, through large chain pet stores and shelters! How anyone could argue that is beyond me, because I've seen it first hand! Yes some dogs do fine with reward and simple verbal corrections. Some dogs would shut down with too harsh of a correction. HOWEVER there are dogs that need a harder correction. And so many of these "trainers" are blinded and refuse to look out if their little box. When a prong or choke chain is BANNED from a class, that should tell you it's not worth your time. I would never ever recommend someone go to a large chain trainer like is so commonly offered at petsmart or petco or many local shelters.

Its always been my opinion that the best trainers are open minded and well rounded. They'll stay as soft as they can but go as hard as they have to.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

And please, dont mistake my words. Im not saying every single dog needs a prong or a choke chain. Obviously thats not true at all. But there are many dogs that need "harder" physical corrections vs some soft dogs. Luther needed physical correction to clearly show him the line between wrong and right. In my mind these trainers are blinding themselves because they refuse to do anything but THEIR method and approach. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Capone22 (Sep 16, 2012)

I use both positive reinforcement and corrections but Michael Ellis told of a study where dogs were corrected with a prong, an e collar and by with holding a treat. Then the dogs cortisol (stress hormone) was measured. I believe the dogs that were trained with positive only, and got a treat with held for incorrect behavior showed more signs of stress and raised cortisol levels than the dogs corrected by the prong. 

For some dogs withholding that treat or ball is a very big deal. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I would not correct EXTREME fear aggression with a prong collar. Sorry. But what are you correcting. The barking. With some dogs, and yes, the moment Babsy barked at another dog coming into her puppy class, a gave a quick strong verbal correction, and that was the end of that. She no longer barked at other dogs in classes or shows. 

If you let a dog continue in that behavior and get all ramped up, then yes it will take a stronger correction to snap him out of that, and then, what are you correcting? The barking, the reaction. Will it take the fear out of the scenario for the dog or increase it? It could increase it, and the dog no longer barks and acts like an idiot to express his discomfort, and some dogs will end up going straight for the bite. 

The owner thinks the problem is solved, the dog stopped acting like an idiot. Yay, prong collar or physical corrections worked, see, you +R idiots, my dog was fixed by being corrections. And the dog is still afraid of dogs, perhaps moreso, and when one comes close enough, your dog strikes laying the dog's face open. 

Is every dog going to do that? No. But some will. Some will just graduate silently to the next level, because he has learned not to bark and lunge. People keep their dogs away from barking, lunging lunatic dogs. And when your dog starts barking its fool head off, you start paying attention to the dog. When the dog is is silent, has been corrected to silence, you might not be as careful with the dog. 

And for some of our dogs, that is enough for them to relax. How many dogs actually put on their show AFTER we tighten up on the leash and get nervous? But with a dog that has EXTREME fear aggression, I don't think our relaxing with the leash after teaching the dog not to bark will stop a dog from attacking another dog. 

If there was a Dog-Agression pill we could give our dogs, then people would swarm to it. Because people want problems to be solved overnight. PaLeeze, let it be a vitamin B deficiency or a thyroid issue -- give them some meds and everything evens out. Behavior problems that are not physical though, are either genetic or environmental. You aren't going to fix a genetic problem with physical corrections. So that leaves Nurture: leadership, socialization, management, and training -- these problems do not happen over night, and should not be expected to go away overnight. The longer a dog continues in the behavior the longer the cure is going to take, most likely. The stupidest thing I have ever heard is to let the dog stand there and bark/react until it looks at you. In PetsMart, what choice is there? There isn't much room. But if I were the trainer, I would have increased the distance and worked on getting you to get your dog to focus on you at home, increase distractions slowly, and decrease the distance slowly. If the dog does react, Eh! and move along out the range where the dog reacts, and step it back a little. 

Yes, that takes time, but as you are stepping up leadership at home, and training the dog, building the bond, and as the dog matures and as nothing bad happens to the dog, the dog should start to react less frequently at closer distances, until he learns to ignore other dogs, if it is nurture and not nature. If it is nature, you manage, build confidence, manage, build confidence, and manage.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

I agree you need to work on making the dog more comfortable and accepting of it's surroundings. But at the same time when other training methods have been tried and you now have a large dangerous dog (we're talking lunging with hackles raised, snarling, snapping) then there needs to be a fix or its euthanasia. Correct the undesired behavior such as the lunging etc, work long term with basic obedience on making a more sound temperament with decreased reaction to outside stimuli.

In reality genetic cases like that cant be fixed. There is no cure for extreme fear aggression, you can only work on making it so you can manage the dog as best as possible. And sometimes with extreme cases euthanasia is the best or the only answer.

As I said, every dog requires it's own training method. Closing yourself off to training times, limiting yourself to a small box instead of looking at what each individual dog requires is foolish.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Let me be real honest as well to everyone so I dont appear like im praising one method over others. Did the magic prong collar fix luther? No we ended up euthanizing him at 3.5 years old because of fear and aggression issues. It helped greatly and he was much better managed. But there were some behaviors never corrected, even with the final use of medication (largely prozac), and there were some situations that happened towards the end that made many of his behaviors worse.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Anubis_Star said:


> As I said, every dog requires it's own training method. Closing yourself off to training times, limiting yourself to a small box instead of looking at what each individual dog requires is foolish.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Maybe. 

I find that people who train mostly positive have a larger training box than people who quickly resort to corrective collars and gadgets.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

And ive seen the exact opposite. The trainers ive respected the most have been willing to use all tools for all types. Of course these trainers have largely done PD, PP, and sport training. I guess it's all a matter of personal experience and opinion. 

Besides why cant you train mostly positive while still using corrective collars? Berlins training right now with the president of our schutzhund club is reward based completely, except for the use of "No" which we just incorporated this week at 15 weeks old. All the adult dogs in the club are rewarded through treat or play, proofed and corrected with collars. They know what is desired of them, why is that training method not acceptable? 

Im not trying to bash other training styles, excpet those that limit themselves. I just agree with the main idea of this article, even though yes some comparisons are pretty extreme. If you would rather kill your dog instead of issuing a physical correction then so be it. But are you any kind of "trainer" worthy of that title? No

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Anubis_Star said:


> Let me be real honest as well to everyone so I dont appear like im praising one method over others. Did the magic prong collar fix luther? No we ended up euthanizing him at 3.5 years old because of fear and aggression issues. It helped greatly and he was much better managed. But there were some behaviors never corrected, even with the final use of medication (largely prozac), and there were some situations that happened towards the end that made many of his behaviors worse.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I put my first GSD down at age 7 due to aggression. He was the one I made all the mistakes on. I got him while I was working full time, and going to school full time. I made every mistake in the book. I used physical corrections/choke chain on him, jerking him when he would go off the property line, until the dog would growl at me. 

He shattered his leg at 18 months old and had a lot of pain. He became more and more aggressive. He went after my girl, and I intervened and he closed around my wrist -- did not break the skin. It was a warning. I did not back down, and he bit my hand and made three of my fingers bleed. 

If I knew then what I knew now, well I would have understood that he really, really showed some inhibition with that bite. But I felt that I had neighbors with children and the dog was a serious liability if he would bite me, so I took him to the vet and put him down. I know that I caused that problem. 

I did not cause it with positive reinforcement training. I caused it through ignorance. That does not make me a +R trainer, because I do use corrections -- usually verbal. I no longer pay attention to alpha-dominance baloney. I am not a fan of old-school training. I learned a lot from him, and from my next dog who was almost the exact opposite of him. 

I am sorry you had to put down your dog. It is an awful thing to have to do, especially if the dog is not suffering in physical pain. But a dog that is aggressive is not a happy dog. Dogs are not children, but the do thrive on some of the same things that children thrive on, like consistent discipline, good management, training, reasonable expectations, and feeling secure.


----------



## kjdreyer (Feb 7, 2013)

I'd hesitate to tar all PetSmart trainers with the same brush - I just completed a PetSmart puppy class and am taking level 2, and my trainer is fantastic. Great energy, very positive, but equally willing to dole out a needed and proportionate correction. They do have a flat-buckle collar only rule, but given the range of dog training experience they're encountering, this is probably wise. 

I also took a second beginner class at another facility, and encountered much the same philosophy, and this was at a high-end, "Santa Fe Snob" facility. I'll be taking more classes there, as well. Now I'm just pet dog training, so I certainly don't have years of trainer evaluation experience, I just wanted to stick up for PetSmart!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have gone to PetsMart for a couple of classes. One was good, taught by someone with a lot of experience and who showed in Obedience. One was absolutely awful, taught by a guy whose only experience was owning a poorly behaved young bloodhound. 

I was there one day, not for a class, and there was this trainer dealing with a dog that was reactive, and she had a can of pennies in one hand and a clicker and a bag of treats in the other. I just have to say, I was catching flies, looking like a total dork watching that poor dog being treated and then the can shaking and I was ready to go up and bite the lady myself.


----------



## kjdreyer (Feb 7, 2013)

Yeah, when I read your post I remembered the totally lame trainer who sub'ed for our class once who was so timid and mousy, if I was a dog I'd wanna bite her just cause I could.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I disagree that dogs NEED collar corrections. I know trainers/behaviorists who rehabilitate dogs with all sorts of aggression and other serious behavior problems without using any physical corrections (training collar, ecollar, etc...) These methods can and do work-- if used properly. Just like negative reinforcement/positive punishment can work if used correctly, same thing with positive reinforcement and negative punishment. It is just another way to alter behavior using operant conditioning.

I don't know why trainers who use corrections can't believe or admit that training without corrections can work too. Why does it have to be only their method will work?
If a trainer fails or is not good, that doesn't mean their preferred methods are necessarily no good. It's like saying although I've never taken a guitar lesson it must the the guitar's fault I play so badly (I know this is not the perfect metaphor but I've been writing a term paper all day, my brain is tired.)
If you had a bad trainer or heard about some ineffective trainers who used collar corrections, would you conclude that collar corrections don't work, or all trainers who use them are no good?


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

Chicagocanine said:


> I don't know why trainers who use corrections can't believe or admit that training without corrections can work too. Why does it have to be only their method will work?


What's your definition of "correction"?? I don't know any successful trainers who don't use some kind of correction.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

I just meant trainers who insist that "positive training" does not work. Usually these are the "traditional" type trainers, or those who mainly use training collars or ecollars for training.


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

Chicagocanine said:


> I just meant trainers who insist that "positive training" does not work. Usually these are the "traditional" type trainers, or those who mainly use training collars or ecollars for training.


I am all for positive but I will also correct when necessary and I'm not mainly using training or e-collars for training. 

I am for a common sense and balanced approach. 

I can't stand one extreme or the other. Both has it's place!


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

"Again, I must restate. I have nothing against positive, rewards based dog training (I myself use positive dog training every day, it is a necessary component of a balanced approach), or those who choose the positive approach for themselves. It is the dogmatically *Aversive Free *mentality that I am speaking against."

That's a direct quote from the link. The writer is commenting on "aversive free" training. Paul Owens, the original Dog Whisperer markets his approach as "nonviolent" and when he started, he didn't even believe in the use treats. 'Correction' doesn't automatically infer brutality, but that's how it comes across with the AV training. 

I took a class like that. I wasn't allowed to use the word "no" (lol) and I'm certain that my puppy's overboard barking at other dogs was trained into him during this class. Sure, the dog park and other anticipated good times with dogs gets him excited and vocal, but he figured this out in under 2 minutes in class: "Look at another dog and bark, turn head back to my owner and she'll click and treat. Yay for me, I love this, I could do this all day." If I didn't have any previous experience and didn't alter this technique, who knows where this could have ended up. It's obviously an incentive to bark, at least it was in my puppy's eyes, and maybe he would have included jumping and lunging eventually too, because he enjoys those as well.

I think this is what the writer is talking about. Like with my puppy, would he grow up to be a dog that's labeled as "fear aggressive" because he barked and hackled at every dog he encountered? We'll never know, because teaching "quiet"and "sit" with a correction to induce compliance (and not a brutal one, lol) was my chosen path.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

True. Humans (some more then others) tend to have a punitive hierarachal nature even more so then the pack drive in dogs or wild cousins wolves. We have egos and sometimes corrections go overboard for that reason.

So IMHO it's not the correction but whether the correction was 'fair' given the circumstances.

Correcting a little puppy who does not know the word 'sit' for not sitting is very unfair. Doesn't matter what type of correction was used. Dogs do have a sense of fairness. They know.

I've waded between the positive only and other methodolgies myself over the years and have found if I just keep asking myself, was what I asked of my dog fair from an objective POV - I seem to be clearer in my communication with them.

Still the simple truth of your statement will always remain and the communication will never be as clear between myself and a dog as dogs amongst their own kind. 





GregK said:


> Because interspecies communication isn't as clear as same species communication.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Everyone is confusing positive training with operant conditioning. The latter works with punishment, just non-physical means.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Capone22 said:


> Michael Ellis told of a study where dogs were corrected with a prong, an e collar and by with holding a treat. Then the dogs cortisol (stress hormone) was measured. I believe the dogs that were trained with positive only, and got a treat with held for incorrect behavior showed more signs of stress and raised cortisol levels than the dogs corrected by the prong.
> 
> For some dogs withholding that treat or ball is a very big deal.


Do you happen to have a citation to this study? Sounds interesting!

[EDIT]- this could be it: http://www.revmedvet.com/2012/RMV163_530_535.pdf (**** am I a good googler)


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

Blanketback said:


> I took a class like that. I wasn't allowed to use the word "no" (lol) and I'm certain that my puppy's overboard barking at other dogs was trained into him during this class. Sure, the dog park and other anticipated good times with dogs gets him excited and vocal, but he figured this out in under 2 minutes in class: "Look at another dog and bark, turn head back to my owner and she'll click and treat. Yay for me, I love this, I could do this all day." If I didn't have any previous experience and didn't alter this technique, who knows where this could have ended up. It's obviously an incentive to bark, at least it was in my puppy's eyes, and maybe he would have included jumping and lunging eventually too, because he enjoys those as well.


It sounds like he learned a chain of behaviors (bark, stop barking, look at owner) due to the way the training was done. Teaching quiet should not be an incentive to bark if trained correctly.
I don't use "no" because it tends to be way overused and doesn't give the dog much feedback, and can be confusing for them because it doesn't tell the dog what you want them to do or even really what you want them NOT to do. I'd prefer to teach "quiet" rather than just say "no" if my dog was barking.
Not using the word no should not mean you let them do whatever they want, or that they are out of control or never told what they are or are not supposed to do.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

wildo said:


> Capone22 said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Ellis told of a study where dogs were corrected with a prong, an e collar and by with holding a treat. Then the dogs cortisol (stress hormone) was measured. I believe the dogs that were trained with positive only, and got a treat with held for incorrect behavior showed more signs of stress and raised cortisol levels than the dogs corrected by the prong.
> ...


So I read this study and found it very interesting indeed. Between the prong and ecollar, there seemed to be good data. I'm not so sure about the No Reward Marker (NRM) application data being overly useful though. The study stated:



> Quitting signal is a conditioned signal which evokes feeling of frustration in dogs since it has a meaning of withdrawal of the reward. The main principle of the quitting signal is to condition a feeling of frustration, and thus, to abandon of a distinctive behaviour towards a specific signal. In order to participate in the experiment, the dog should withdraw itself from the toy immediately after the first instruction of the signal. *Before the main experiment started, quitting signal training procedure was completed and the signal was tested on each dog*


...So in other words, they first tried to train a NRM in the dogs so that it could be tested against the ecollar and prong collar. Therefore the effectiveness of this method against dogs that have otherwise never been trained in this way is questionable to me. To be fair though, they said the same of the ecollar, though in an assumedly smaller population:



> Prior to the main experiment, since 7 dogs had never been trained with the electronic training collar before, an adaptation phase, which lasted six weeks, was conducted for them. For the adaptation phase, the dogs carried the electronic training collars during the normal daily training routine. The same procedure was applied for the rest of the dogs for a week since they were already familiar to the electronic training collar. This procedure was conducted in order to achieve habituation of the dogs to the device again since the electronic training collars are forbidden in Germany since 2006.




The study concludes that the NRM was ineffective in producing a learning effect. It cites reasons of speed and accuracy of timing, as well as skill of handler:



> By contrast, the desirable learning effect could not be achieved in application of the quitting signal. An explanation for the low learning effect of quitting signal is similar to that of pinch collar. Since the dog handler applied the method, the optimal timing could not be achieved for each dog. Moreover, as using the conditioned quitting signal, feeling of frustration upon application of the signal might not be as strong as the feeling arised during the provocation of the decoy in most of the dogs.


Why is it that the handler couldn't say 'Nope!' with "optimal timing?" Why is it that getting a NRM didn't produce as much frustration upon application as that of getting to the decoy? Both of these questions are answered by the study itself:



> However, for achieving this result, it is essential to prove the administrator’s practical and theoretical knowledge. Overall, the debates over training methods should include not only the specific training aids but also their significance for animal welfare prospect should be covered. The qualifications of professional dog trainers such as practical and theoretical know ledge requirements that trainers must fulfil should also be considered in new discussions.* Therefore, we strongly recommend to put more emphasize on qualification of the trainer when assessing the effectiveness of training methods.*




It's not shocking to me that dogs that are not conditioned to a NRM 1) don't respond as well to it, and 2) are frustrated/confused by it. Take police dogs that are used to physical corrections when they make a mistake, and have hours upon hours of time invested in training under a certain method- and then give them a lollipop when they make a mistake... Of course they will be confused/frustrated. And of course the handlers aren't effective in their timing of the NRM. Both handler and dog aren't used to that method of training. 


I think the study is REALLY interesting and arrives at some awesome info about ecollars that I didn't know. But I don't think it's an accurate reflection of +R style training methodologies (specifically the NRM). In fact, I'd posit that this same study done to agility dogs (meaning dogs that aren't typically trained using aversives) would have the exact opposite conclusion. That NRM are highly effective and aversive conditioning is frustrating/confusing. Of course the study is science based and my hypothesis is based only on my own experience.

At any rate- the study concludes by saying that discussion on dog training methodologies are USELESS without discussion of the skill of the trainer. And that, I couldn't agree more with!


----------



## Blanketback (Apr 27, 2012)

Chicagocanine said:


> It sounds like he learned a chain of behaviors (bark, stop barking, look at owner) due to the way the training was done.


Exactly  and on one hand I was pleased that he could pick up on something so quickly, on the other hand I wasn't too keen on what it was. Lol, his cute little expectant face and the clear-as-a-bell expression: where's my hotdog? Too funny!

I use no and hey, to let him know that what he's doing isn't appreciated. I don't use these for something I want, like quiet or sit or whatever - those have to be taught as separate actions. But it's really more of a tone than anything - if you say "good dog" in a negative way, it's not going to be a pleasure to hear, lol.


----------



## David Taggart (Nov 25, 2012)

Correction collars - who first made them? I have never used it for my dogs, but I had to for other dogs. I find it good for one thing only - to cure mild phobias. Some dogs panic when you bring them to water, some dogs panic to go onto the bus, they need to make first few steps in order to overcome their fear. You need it only once for few minutes.
Seeing an old lame duck with a young St. Bernard makes sense to it. In all other cases you do not need any correction collars provided you started to teach your dog knowing much about what is going on in his box. When the cruel animal treats the wild animal as a complete idiot - "Wanted barks", "unwanted barks" - what, the heck, they think generally of dogs? Well, a pit bull was born to endure pain, they are pain resistant, as I was told. But GSD ... Saying nothing about some small breeds, the short haired, many of whom, being too intelligent to stop "unwanted barks" without much reason, are introduced to human nastiness without any regard to their tender skin. But, I don't think this training tool impresses the user as much as dog whips&sticks. Just have a look at the advertisments in Google! What I'm sure about - that regular punishment makes the dog stupid. Dogs, as creatures, have inborn and very acute sense of justice. If he thinks that you have treated him unjustly - he will turn a bulk of stupidity, and, what concerns learning new commands, the only thing you would be able to teach him - "wanted barks".


----------



## Capone22 (Sep 16, 2012)

wildo said:


> So I read this study and found it very interesting indeed. Between the prong and ecollar, there seemed to be good data. I'm not so sure about the No Reward Marker (NRM) application data being overly useful though. The study stated:
> 
> ...So in other words, they first tried to train a NRM in the dogs so that it could be tested against the ecollar and prong collar. Therefore the effectiveness of this method against dogs that have otherwise never been trained in this way is questionable to me. To be fair though, they said the same of the ecollar, though in an assumedly smaller population:
> 
> ...


Hey thanks for finding it!! I think Michael said he had written the people who did the study to get the full study. So I never looked it up. Very interesting. And yes different than I thought. 

Also, I know there have been a couple schutzhund dogs trained with no correction collars. The only correction to them was withholding the reward and making them do it over until they got it right. So it's not impossible. But it takes a certain kind of dog. And a handler with very good timing. But in this instance they were so highly driven for the reward it WAS a negative feeling for them to get their reward withheld. We need to stop looking at corrections from a human standpoint. What seems cruel to us, may not to them and vice versa. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Oh- no question I agree with you that a NRM can be _highly_ effective for certain dogs. I would say that generally speaking, dogs trained in a more +R fashion are likely to be more affected by the NRM, while those dogs trained in a more traditional (meaning through the use of aversives) would be less affected by a NRM.

I don't know how I'd train weave pole entries in agility without the use of a NRM!

I was really pretty surprised that the data did seem to show a clarity of learning through the ecollar over the prong collar. That's definitely interesting. I'd love to know if these studies were done using the Lou Castle method (which I know very LITTLE about, but believe his method emphasizes the lowest stimulation level possible to produce a result). I'd think if they were blasting the crap out of the dogs, then yes- of course there would be a high level of quick learning there. "WOW! I don't want _THAT_ to happen again!!"


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

I wouldn't say lack of corrections is killing MOST dogs. What's killing dogs is poor breeding practices, too many dogs of certain "difficult" breeds being produced, and bad "linking" of owner to dog. 

I don't think this is what the author is saying- that lack of aversives is killing dogs as a generality. I think he's saying that not using aversives- when appropriate and fair- is killing dogs. 

See his post on "too much dog" here: Too Much Dog


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

As my younger friends would say "OMG- Best Article Ever!"




> People need to be honest with themselves before selecting a dog. If you don’t exercise now, a dog isn’t magically going to give you the desire to “get your lazy butt off the couch” and start training for a marathon.
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> *Get a dog that matches your lifestyle, personality and energy level. Don’t try to make your dog a sport dog if it isn’t in his genes. Provide your high drive dog with outlets that challenge him.* If you belong to a rescue get on board with the program. High Drive Gladiator type breeds need non-politically correct games to make them happy. Accept this and stop making dogs miserable by placing them with the fuzzy bunny slipper crowd.


(I am now so glad I do *not* own any fuzzy bunny slippers....  )




Muskeg said:


> I wouldn't say lack of corrections is killing MOST dogs. What's killing dogs is poor breeding practices, too many dogs of certain "difficult" breeds being produced, and bad "linking" of owner to dog.
> 
> I don't think this is what the author is saying- that lack of aversives is killing dogs as a generality. I think he's saying that not using aversives- when appropriate and fair- is killing dogs.
> 
> See his post on "too much dog" here: Too Much Dog


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

wildo said:


> Oh- no question I agree with you that a NRM can be _highly_ effective for certain dogs. I would say that generally speaking, dogs trained in a more +R fashion are likely to be more affected by the NRM, while those dogs trained in a more traditional (meaning through the use of aversives) would be less affected by a NRM.
> 
> I don't know how I'd train weave pole entries in agility without the use of a NRM!
> 
> I was really pretty surprised that the data did seem to show a clarity of learning through the ecollar over the prong collar. That's definitely interesting. I'd love to know if these studies were done using the Lou Castle method (which I know very LITTLE about, but believe his method emphasizes the lowest stimulation level possible to produce a result). I'd think if they were blasting the crap out of the dogs, then yes- of course there would be a high level of quick learning there. "WOW! I don't want _THAT_ to happen again!!"


Definitely depends on the dog. For Pan, and NRM is absolutely useless. Training in any venue is so very self-rewarding for him. For example, in flyball if you've got a dog that starts blowing off the ball, typically you put that dog up. For Pan that never did work and never would. Flyball is fun with or without a ball (even with or without getting a tug at the end)  For Nikon an NRM works but in general my preference (and I'm sure everyone would say the same) is to set the dog up for success as much as possible. I'm not one that believes my dogs will learn that a faster sit or down out of motion will happen if I keep doing them and only reward the fast ones. Doesn't work that way. I've *got* to show the dog what I want, whether that's through true freeshaping, luring, manupilating the environment/props, -R, whatever.

I think a more important difference than e-collar stim level is whether it is used as -R or +P (or a combination). I could be wrong, but what I read of Lou Castle a while back sounded like -R. I've used a prong collar the same way but it's definitely easier to execute with an e-collar.


----------



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

gsdraven said:


> I hate the words "reward only" and treats. Positive training done correctly isn't about shoving cookies in a dogs mouth. The "article" is just as biased as any blog written by a PO trainer. I also have never met a trainer that uses only rewards and never any verbal or space corrections - many just prefer not to use correction collars.
> 
> There are always numerous ways to get from point A to point B and they may all be valid. I have had dogs where using corrections for any reason would absolutely backfire and I've had dogs that in some situations definitely needed a correction to get through but I've never had a dog where a physical correction was needed in regards to working through inappropriate aggression. The one thing the "article" has right is that training is not one size fits all.


:thumbup: Typical of this kind of article, there's absolutely no mention of managing the dog's environment to prevent opportunities to practice bad behavior - the false dichotomy presented is that the only two choices with "aversive free" training, to use the author's terminology, is to reward or to ignore behavior. That is a misrepresentation. Sure, there may be people out there, and even "trainers", who are doing just that, but that just means they don't know what they're doing, it's not an indictment of positive training techniques.

I also find it hard to believe that there are very many people who would rather euthanize their dog than use a prong collar. For the record, I do use aversives, but prefer to train as motivationally as possible by setting my dogs up for success (to be reinforced/rewarded) rather than for failure (so I can correct them for non-compliance). I think that dogs, and people too for that matter, learn faster that way. For any particular behavior I'm trying to train, there's one right answer and numerous wrong answers. Being corrected for guessing wrong 10 times is so much less productive, so much less clear, than being rewarded getting it right ONCE.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I went back and re-read the article. I don't think his intent is to give a broader perception of PO trainers (for or against), or of the use of the various methods (or such things as management) or to address the broader specturm of 'tools' used in training dogs. 

He is referring to a group which does exist (hang out at Victoria Stillwell's 'Purely Positive' forum to see some examples) that are very extreme in their views. 

He, from my reading, is referring to *this specific group* of people and therefore not advocating for or against the use of specific positive techniques but rather against the extreme (think PETA) mentality crowd, that's what I got from this article... See below quote:



> Aversive Free (AF) Training can be defined as training which involves only the R+ and P- quadrants of learning. When I refer to _Aversive Free (AF) Trainers_ in this article, I am _not_ referring to those who simply choose this approach for themselves, but I _am_ referring to those who vehemently oppose the use of aversives for _any dog in any situation_.
> 
> Let me be clear, what I am referring to is not the idea that reward only techniques are good, and work in some cases. What I am referring to is the dogmatic belief that this is the ONLY way to train a dog, or deal with behavior problems. The _aversive free _philosophy is that any type of consequence _other than_ simply removing the reward, is cruel, inhumane, and barbaric





Cassidy's Mom said:


> :thumbup: Typical of this kind of article, there's absolutely no mention of managing the dog's environment to prevent opportunities to practice bad behavior - the false dichotomy presented is that the only two choices with "aversive free" training, to use the author's terminology, is to reward or to ignore behavior. That is a misrepresentation. Sure, there may be people out there, and even "trainers", who are doing just that, but that just means they don't know what they're doing, it's not an indictment of positive training techniques.
> 
> I also find it hard to believe that there are very many people who would rather euthanize their dog than use a prong collar. For the record, I do use aversives, but prefer to train as motivationally as possible by setting my dogs up for success (to be reinforced/rewarded) rather than for failure (so I can correct them for non-compliance). I think that dogs, and people too for that matter, learn faster that way. For any particular behavior I'm trying to train, there's one right answer and numerous wrong answers. Being corrected for guessing wrong 10 times is so much less productive, so much less clear, than being rewarded getting it right ONCE.


----------



## Chicagocanine (Aug 7, 2008)

To me a NRM is just a way to tell the dog "that wasn't what I was looking for, try again" so it is useful feedback and if the dog understands it should not stress a dog out or cause frustration.
I agree that the article is not giving an accurate view of "aversive free" training as I don't know of any trainers whose method is to reward what you like and just ignore everything you don't like. There are so many other options out there that don't involve "aversives", besides just ignoring the behavior.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Chicagocanine said:


> To me a NRM is just a way to tell the dog "that wasn't what I was looking for, try again" so it is useful feedback and if the dog understands it should not stress a dog out or cause frustration.
> I agree that the article is not giving an accurate view of "aversive free" training as I don't know of any trainers whose method is to reward what you like and just ignore everything you don't like. There are so many other options out there that don't involve "aversives", besides just ignoring the behavior.


 That pretty much is what I call the "Petsmart method of Positive Training". There definitely are trainers like that out there. That sort of thing though, it's just barely scratching the surface of what is possible with positive training. There's good and bad examples of trainers who use any method of training. Unfortunately, with "pet training" becoming so popular there seems to be a lot of positive professional trainers who have very little experience training dogs to a very reliable degree in anything. While I do think overall, it's great to have a separation of pet training and competition training, it makes total sense...that doesn't mean the pet trainers shouldn't be "proving" their training in some way. Anyone who is training dogs professionally should be able to get basic obedience titles or advanced Rally titles on their dogs. Those behaviors are stylized and not what the average pet owner wants or needs but it's showing your ability, as a trainer to train a dog to reliability at a certain degree without rewards or corrections present and with distractions. 

All that said, it's not the fault of positive training that there's so many inexperienced trainers who just have a bare bones understanding of the method teaching others how to train their problem dogs.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Chicagocanine said:


> To me a NRM is just a way to tell the dog "that wasn't what I was looking for, try again" so it is useful feedback and if the dog understands it should not stress a dog out or cause frustration.



But for some dogs, an NRM just blows their mind. Pan is a dog where in many avenues of training you are always dancing a fine line between having a really upbeat, intense dog that loves to train with a LOT of drive and having a dog that is over the threshold and is now hectic. Sometimes using the NRM elevates him to that level and it's not conducive to learning. It's not a stress thing. Add to that the fact that for him, most training is self-rewarding meaning he's not working to gain a toy or treat or something other than doing what he's asked to do. Flyball is a great example. He never did flyball *for* a reward, he did it purely because he loved to do it. Using NRMs for bad/incorrect behaviors was useless in that scenario because he had fun and got "rewarded" even if he blew off the ball, skipped a jump, chased another dog, etc. NRM is really common in flyball. If a dog messes up twice, you put him up. That didn't work with Pan, ever. The only way to make progress was to change up what we were doing so that he was successful. 

Last weekend we had a visitor at our club with a Malinois. At one point her dog jumped the jump, picked up the dumbbell, but then went around the jump on the way back. As soon as he blew off the jump the handler said "nuh uh" as his NRM and the dog immediately turned around, jumped back over the jump, and then jumped BACK over the jump correctly. It was pretty funny and cool!


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

> If a dog messes up twice, you put him up.


I don't think I'd put a dog up for messing up...I'd rather end any session on a good note, and even if the dog messed up, work thru the reason for the 'mess up' and see if we can fix it during that session. If the dog clearly is not gaining anything, then take a step back and have the dog end it positively. 
I'd then re-assess my training so I could understand *why* the dog messed up, because usually it is handler error. 

Though I don't train in flyball so not sure this applies?


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Liesje said:


> Last weekend we had a visitor at our club with a Malinois. At one point her dog jumped the jump, picked up the dumbbell, but then went around the jump on the way back. As soon as he blew off the jump the handler said "nuh uh" as his NRM and the dog immediately turned around, jumped back over the jump, and then jumped BACK over the jump correctly. It was pretty funny and cool!


This is Pimg with NRMs.


----------



## csandvik (Jun 13, 2012)

Interesting read. I have come across many trainers that try to fit dogs into a style of learning that isn't befitting that particular dog. In my experience as both a school teacher and dog trainer I find that you need find out the learning style in order to really reach the subject (in this case a dog). I'm not saying the cookie cutter ways won't work, I'm saying if you know how a particular dog learns you really get to the heart of the matter. The experience will be more enjoyable for both owner and dog.

Carl
Taking the Lead Dog Training - Home


----------



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

onyx'girl said:


> I don't think I'd put a dog up for messing up...I'd rather end any session on a good note, and even if the dog messed up, work thru the reason for the 'mess up' and see if we can fix it during that session. If the dog clearly is not gaining anything, then take a step back and have the dog end it positively.
> I'd then re-assess my training so I could understand *why* the dog messed up, because usually it is handler error.
> 
> Though I don't train in flyball so not sure this applies?


That's what we do too, we won't stop if the dog isn't doing it right, we either keep at it until they are, or if they're just not getting it we take it a step back to where they were succeeding and do a rep or two there before stopping. We always try to end on a good note.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I see lots of people mentioning NRMs and I don't think that even that is what is being talked about in the article. 
There ARE a group of people who believe that even saying "no" "eh" or any reaction at all to the bad behavior is wrong. You just completely ignore it. 
And, yes, I can see how that would be stressful to the dog. He isn't getting a treat but you also aren't pointing out to him exactly where he went wrong. A NRM pinpoints the spot where he deviated from what you wanted, allowing him to fix it. Without that, the dog is just left hanging there. 
Just as several years ago there was a parenting push to never use the word "no" with your children.


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

purely positive trainer:

Shade Whitesel - YouTube











About me | Denise Fenzi

and Leri Hansen:

















all these trainers use pure positive and with patience it works


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

:thumbup:

Well said.


This was my philosophy in training horses too. 



csandvik said:


> Interesting read. I have come across many trainers that try to fit dogs into a style of learning that isn't befitting that particular dog. In my experience as both a school teacher and dog trainer I find that you need find out the learning style in order to really reach the subject (in this case a dog). I'm not saying the cookie cutter ways won't work, I'm saying if you know how a particular dog learns you really get to the heart of the matter. The experience will be more enjoyable for both owner and dog.
> 
> Carl
> Taking the Lead Dog Training - Home


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I know that positive training and clicker will work for almost anything. But what about "purely positive" which most of the people I've met who use it define as "never telling the dog no. Or eh, ah, or anything that stops the behavior" To do that would be to add a "negative" factor to the training session.

I know that I'm talking about extremists


----------



## mebully21 (Nov 18, 2011)

most of the positive trainers i know will use the word no, they are just not that anal thinking that positive means just yes and not no words.. yeah those are extremists who think that by saying no its not positive..


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/

This is what is ment by progressive reinforcement.

Also instead of aha or no or ehe they use a positive deterrent like a kissing noise instead. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Mrs.K (Jul 14, 2009)

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=/

Here is another one.

I do like her though. However I am still going to keep it balanced.
Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Mrs.K said:


> I am all for positive but I will also correct when necessary and I'm not mainly using training or e-collars for training.
> 
> I am for a common sense and balanced approach.
> 
> I can't stand one extreme or the other. Both has it's place!



This!


----------



## sheep (Dec 2, 2011)

Isn't the correct way of positive training the way that uses positive methods mainly, while using punishment that are non physical or confrontational if needed? Like time outs or so for example.
Also, positive methods is not just about cookies and treats... Positive methods should consist in truly understanding how to guide the dog or change his behavior in the most motivating and non confrontational way, unlike the old school dominance way that blames everything to dominance and mainly teaches you to dominate. For example, a dog that is dog reactive might be that way coz he is insecure and afraid, so he chose to fight if he can't flight. So a positive trainer would prefer to try gradual approach and confidence building rather than forcing dog to comply.


Extremists annoys me thought. Not every dog can be taught with same methods, and if a correction is much more productive then so be it. If your dog is afraid of the stairs but you cannot lead him to it in anyways, then it might be time to force him a bit before he grows too much to be carried up and down. If you are in a situation in which you need your dog to comply yet he is not unless a simple correction can help then so be it.

Personally, I use corrections when I need and I can't imagine what it would be like if I simply chose to ignore him at times.
Also, I have to use a prong now since he is dog reactive. It isn't an ideal tool for dog reactivity as it can escalate it, thought it is the only thing that can give us some control on our dog. He ended up that way due to being almost attacked by some dogs when he was young, so I know that he is insecure towards them and don't know how to interact with them properly (he was not socialized enough). Knowing that, we don't force him to sit next to other dogs and just suck it up, but I would demand him to behave at distance and not bark or pull towards the other dogs during walks.
The only thing that can help "curing" the reactivity is to let him interact with many dogs, thought we can't do that currently so we have to keep it in control.

On the other hand, old school people also annoys me. They don't understand a thing about positive methods, for them it's just cookies and bribery, and then bad behavior is almost all due to dominance.

I wish that the world can have a more balanced view on this, at least I'm glad the people in this forum is more balanced.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

sheep, true. When I read these threads I don't ponder so much the particular training methods, really most of them are nothing new under the sun. What I ponder is what drives people to get so locked down into one mindset.

There's a tendancy, IMO, to the *'being right* is more important then actually getting it right' mentality that besets some people. They usually don't want suggestions much less be able to handle criticsm. Frankly I could care less about this sort of thing if didn't affect innocent bystanders, such a dogs, negatively.

Some trainers (like the V.S. and C.M. and some others) become so invested (financially and reputation) in their methodologies that they have to whip up a fervor to keep their foundations intact and as the author noted it develops into an almost cult like following.

The good news is their is a movement afoot of 'balanced trainers'. My trainer recently e.mailed me another article about this very topic. So the trainers associated with this balanced approach may have a hard time differentiating themselves from the 'pack' as by it's very nature is less 'gimmicky', it will be better for the dogs in the long run IMHO... it will be interesting to see how that plays out.


----------



## sheep (Dec 2, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> sheep, true. When I read these threads I don't ponder so much the particular training methods, really most of them are nothing new under the sun. What I ponder is what drives people to get so locked down into one mindset.
> 
> There's a tendancy, IMO, to the *'being right* is more important then actually getting it right' mentality that besets some people. They usually don't want suggestions much less be able to handle criticsm. Frankly I could care less about this sort of thing if didn't affect innocent bystanders, such a dogs, negatively.
> 
> ...


I guess that for trainers, it can be a matter of pride as well as a matter of their methods having been working out for them for years. For example, my old school trainer would not really take into account what I've told him even thought he was polite and listenning. He was often saying how my dog was dominant and even looking is dominance, when I've told him that I've taught him to look at me for guidance or commands (specially when I've told him to wait for something). I can understand why, he was the trainer that had success for a few decades of his training career while I was the troubled owner that needed his help anyways.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

RE: pride yup I think that's part of the reputation I was speaking of.

I've seen people and not just trainers, who even though they were NOT getting results they simply could not handle the cognitive dissonance associated with admitting they were wrong.

Also don't forget, you'll rarily ever hear about the dogs where the trainer has failed.....



sheep said:


> I guess that for trainers, it can be a matter of pride as well as a matter of their methods having been working out for them for years. For example, my old school trainer would not really take into account what I've told him even thought he was polite and listenning. He was often saying how my dog was dominant and even looking is dominance, when I've told him that I've taught him to look at me for guidance or commands (specially when I've told him to wait for something). I can understand why, he was the trainer that had success for a few decades of his training career while I was the troubled owner that needed his help anyways.


----------



## Lady Jenna (May 4, 2013)

Maybe I've come late to the conversation, and I know I haven't done all of the research I need to do to have formed a complete opinion on this subject. That having been said, I believe that this dog was murdered:

Diluted GSD or GSD/husky mix? - GermanShepherdHome.net

I have raised two teenagers who don't drink or do drugs, and still speak to me with respect, and play board games with me on Thursday night. I've trained horses for more years than I care to count, and have done it pretty well. I have no experience with 'clicker' training with dogs, only with horses. I can say without reservation that it DOES NOT WORK with horses. That method produces horses that seek treats, and if you don't have treats, they will not perform.

That dog was killed for being afraid of his surroundings, and board from lack of stimulation. He was forced into a situation he could not control, and was killed for it. That person would not 'take the easy way out' and instead chose to TAKE HIS LIFE. The human didn't pay the price, the DOG DID. Was the person offering to adopt him the perfect home? Likely not, but at least it was NOT DEATH! Perhaps a foster care situation would have been a better alternative.

Sorry, and thanks for letting me rant. Who speaks for these lost souls?


----------

