# Positive only dog trainer thoughts?



## stingeragent

So I've done a lot of research over the past few weeks on dog training. I've trained plenty of dogs, but never had as much interest in it as I've had lately. What I've seemed to find is the "positive only" trainers on youtube at least, have 0 videos of them training dogs that are aggressive. People aggressive, dog aggressive , fear aggressive, etc. It seems they typically correct normal behavior problems. Pulling on leash, coming when called, basic obedience, etc, but never dealing with an actual "problem" dog. It is however very common to go on the page of someone who uses prong collars or ecollars, and they have numerous videos of dogs that try to bite their face off on day 1, and by week 2 they are the most calm obedient dogs. Has anyone else noticed this? It almost seems like a shadow game they are playing. People who don't use positive only training are evil, yet they provide no factual evidence using positive only training on a dog that has more than just minor behavior problems. Kind of reminds me of most politicians in a way.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

opcorn:


----------



## stingeragent

I will bring into question specifically zack george. Just watched a stop leash pulling video. He really never does a "before training", so you just have to assume the dog pulls. Then he spends 20 minutes in the video having the dog stop 100 times during the walk giving a half pound worth of treats. After the 20 mins it's a cut to an advertiser pitch for dog food delivery and that's the end. No end results, nothing. Just watching 20 minutes worth of him giving treats to a dog constantly on a walk. Sigh. I'm not the most experienced dog trainer in the world but I really like tyler muto. He does a video showing the dog before any training, running around being crazy trying to bite everything. Then a video of the training it self. Then a video on the end result achieved. The positive only folks don't do this, as far as I have seen. I do like kikkopup (sp?), but I haven't seen her tackle an aggressive dog either. I'm all for positive only training, and if that works great, but they try and make you feel bad if it somehow doesn't work. I can personally relate to this trying to teach my weenie dog "down". Tried for days and days with treats only and it just didn't work. Read on here a comment about using leash pressure instead and low and behold he learns down in 1 session.


----------



## Wheelhaus

1. Positive reinforcement aggression training is dull as dirt. There's a dog. You get a treat. Let's go away. It's training that doesn't look like training, because the whole point is to keep the dog below threshold where he doesn't react and reinforce not reacting. Perfect positive reinforcement aggression training should look like you aren't training an aggressive dog.
2. Lots of those prong/ecollar videos are staged. It's really easy to video a dog barking and pulling on leash and frame it in a way that makes it look like the dog is dog aggressive, then have them under obedience with another dog under obedience in the same room. But that's marketing, not dog training.
3. Being off leash with fifty dogs isn't "fixed" barrier aggression - it's one thing to talk **** on the internet, it's another to talk **** in a biker bar where fifty beefy dudes will kick your ass
3. Shut down ain't the same as "fixed" aggression. 
4. Yes there are


----------



## wolfy dog

'Positive only' does not exist. What you mean by that is Operant Conditioning, which includes 4 aspects: neg.reinforcement, pos.reinforcement, neg. punishment and pos. punishment. What you mean by 'Positive Only' is training without the use of the so called cruel tools, which is completely subjective (I call a Halti cruel while some other trainer may call them positive). I would love to see these trainers work with a WL adolescent male GSD.


----------



## Wheelhaus

Yes tools are subjective, but it's not you who gets to decide: it's the dog. Does the dog find it unpleasant? Is he working to avoid feeling discomfort?


----------



## WateryTart

I don't like "positive only" just because in my experience with those trainers, no other methods are acceptable. They have a hammer, so everything is a nail. I prefer to try positive reinforcement first, but if my dog needs a correction (positive punishment), she gets one! Negative punishment tends not to work (she doesn't care). I appreciate a trainer who has lots of tricks up his or her sleeve, so if one method doesn't work, we can get creative and try another.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl

Those are the four quadrants of operant conditioning but there certainly are trainers who are unwilling to employ positive punishment or some forms of negative reinforcement (e collar for instance). I know some reward only trainers who still use tools like spray bark collars, which qualifies as positive punishment, but certainly isn't as aversive as a shock bark collar.

I agree with everything Wheelhaus said, think it is spot on. There are times when a dog is fundamentally sound but has become unruly due to lax handling, these dogs can have "miraculous" and quick turnarounds with some smart corrections and/or learning a prong. A reward only trainer will never put their foot down with a dog like this because the philosophy is to ignore unwanted behavior. So that is one instance where a balanced trainer will get quick, real results.

To be fair, I can think of some dogs with real food or social motivation who will "turn on" for the first time in their lives upon working with a reward trainer after having been subjected to misused force. 

I don't know THAT much about Tyler Muto but what I have seen, he appears to be a pretty talented balanced trainer. He uses lots of rewards and corrections but what I have seen seems to be fair corrections that the dog understands, the dogs appear to mostly be relaxed working with him, except for maybe a really aggressive pitbull who he scared the crap out of with a pet convincer but I don't think you are going to stop a pitbull from eating another dog with a clicker. So that one gets a pass from me.


----------



## HelenaPog

I believe, that positive only is a lie!

I tried to do it, didn't work. 
I had a problem with Kaja, she wanted to play with dogs like crazy, so when we were passing the other dog, she was playfully lunging to it, but it looked aggressive to others. I was so ashamed and I tried positive training. After dealing with instructor of sports and police dogs, he told me that especially GSD needs to have also some punishment - NO fighting the dog or anything, just the right amount of correction with collar and leash pull, right tone of voice when training, satisfying the pray drive. 


After that, Kaja's problem almost vanished. She still wants to go to the other dog but only if it is a big temptation (puppy barking on her and wants to play etc.), but were getting there. 

It is like with a child in a way... no mater how good and friendly you want to be with your child, sometimes you just need to put 'your foot down' and set some rules...  
I can't imagine dealing with positive training when having an aggressive dog.


----------



## Birbeck

I use an Ecollar every day with my shepherd. I rarely have to use it or at most vibrate only and that works well. Keeps us free from pesky leashes and collars that would otherwise harm her optical nerves with repeated pressure.
The point of an ecollar is not to take your anger out on the dog for misbehaving/yell at it. It's there to grab the dog's attention back to you for further instruction (if even needed, more often than not the dog is aware of their misbehavior and simply saying their name will correct them) and to catch a dog doing a negative behavior and quickly zap them, do not scold the dog after wards or say anything as they likely wont know what on earth you're making noise about. I feel my dog walking out into a street because they don't know any better and getting hit by a car/lunging at people or other small animals/etc is far more harmful than a quick zap/sound/vibration to regain their attention so they stay next to me and don't get hurt and learn that the environment can be a calm one. Also gives time to respond to potential threats/aggressive individuals and the dog can't be grabbed by the leash or otherwise. Of course everyone's dog is different. Though it seems to me positive reinforcement means 'bribe' and this will never work in a high energy situation when loving on the dog/treats will no longer be effective. I see way more aggressive animals on harnesses and nylon collars where the only barrier is some moron breaking their back trying to restrain them. This should never happen.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

The more dogs (GSDs mostly, also some wolf/GSD crosses) I have had in my nearly 70 decades, the more I realized that training them has to be individually customized for each dog. Most of my GSDs have been wl high drive, and I remember a couple who responded to mostly positive methods (with some corrections). And, I've had a couple definitely hard dogs that I had to be prepared to get down and dirty with, if it was something serious. Right now I have two rescues, one who was abused and neglected, the other pretty much left to do as she pleased. The abused Czech boy made it to 2 yrs old when I got him, and was not too damaged from the abuse, because he is focused and intense, and tunes out everything else when he is focused, including pain (although he does have some issues). Takes brains to work with him. My girl, if I used any correction even hinting on strong, she would shut right down. But she will do anything for food. So I can't take one method for both--one size does NOT fit all. You might be able to use all positive with other breeds, but not a hard aggressive wl GSD.

Susan


----------



## selzer

Positive training actually works. 

But it doesn't work if:

You have zero faith that it will work.
You can use positive and permissive interchangeably.
You have no discipline yourself, no sense of timing, lacking in consistency, etc. 
You are afraid of your dog.
You are afraid of ordinary people, places, and things.
You toggle between positive only and lose-your-mind-crazy-beat-the-dog.

Prong collars are simple. Once someone shows you where they go, and how to fit them. They are power steering. This is about as much training as a whole lot of people in our society are willing to do with their dog. Apply the prong collar, let the dog self-correct, or give it a pop. Dog is ordinary, and avoids the pressure. Done. 

Dog is not trained, but is now manageable. Works. You get results, and therefore, another prong-collar enthusiast is made. Whoo hoo!

Positive Only -- I am not sure that even exists. Positive only would refuse to use negative markers. For example, as kids we used our body to block entrance to other parts of the house, thus teaching the puppy to stay in the kitchen. The puppy was never hit or physically corrected, but by blocking his progress -- that wouldn't be positive. 

On the other hand, the puppy learned quickly that it was allowed only in the kitchen and without any punishment, the puppy grew up never violating that rule. No treats were applied. And, if you look at most positive trainers, body blocking seems to be acceptable. 

Training an animal is about building communication/trust between the animal and a human. The key is consistency, not punishment or lack of punishment. If you are consistent, and the dog can consistently avoid something unpleasant by knowing what you want, he will trust and the relationship will be better than, the dog owned by a permissive or inconsistent owner that gives the dog no direction or misdirection. 

On the other hand, you can build a relationship with a dog, teaching the dog to make good choices, using praise and reinforcement and good management that makes the need for punishment unnecessary and corrections minimal. 

I have taken a prong collar of an 18 month old dog, put him in my car, and drove him home, and never put the prong on him again. I hadn't seen the pup since he was 8 weeks old. He was managed (not trained) with a prong collar, and I removed it, and we get along just fine. He listens to me and he has no behavioral problems. 

I think people who manage a dog without training the dog often do end up with issues -- if training is not done with using corrective collars and devices, than little or no relationship exists. Sometimes to get this dog to do what you want, or not to do what you don't want, physical force is necessary. Some dogs will decide whether it is worth it to go through an electric barrier, or to plow through the prong, or receive a stiff correction to do what he wants. 

A dog that is properly trained/managed/led with confident, positive, relationship-communication building techniques is less likely to be in that situation. The trainer/owner understands the dog and doesn't test him beyond his capacity -- doesn't expect an untrained dog to not chase after a deer, keeps a lead on him, whereas the gadget manager might put an e-collar on a dog and expect that a zap will stop him. The dog may or may not stop chasing. The other dog is on lead and never got close enough to chase the deer, because he isn't trained yet.

My dogs are often off lead and under voice control. I don't use prongs or e-collars. I will say "No" or "Eh!" when necessary. The do not chase squirrels, rabbits or deer, or can be called off if they start toward one. And I am not a proponent of shoving treats at dogs. I use them in the beginning, and then phase them out completely. My dogs will learn something new without any treat-luring or reinforcement, because in the beginning we learned that praise and treats went together, pretty soon praise was the positive marker. My dogs love for me to praise them. 

The more experience you have with dogs, the more disciplined you can be in yourself, the more confident you become, the better your technique with dogs, and the less need for corrections or punishment. It makes you wonder if punishment is fair at all, if the punishment is necessary because we failed to communicate properly, train properly, consistently manage a dog, and build a working bond with the dog.


----------



## DutchKarin

Susan_GSD_mom said:


> The more dogs (GSDs mostly, also some wolf/GSD crosses) I have had in my nearly 70 decades, the more I realized that training them has to be individually customized for each dog. Most of my GSDs have been wl high drive, and I remember a couple who responded to mostly positive methods (with some corrections). And, I've had a couple definitely hard dogs that I had to be prepared to get down and dirty with, if it was something serious. Right now I have two rescues, one who was abused and neglected, the other pretty much left to do as she pleased. The abused Czech boy made it to 2 yrs old when I got him, and was not too damaged from the abuse, because he is focused and intense, and tunes out everything else when he is focused, including pain (although he does have some issues). Takes brains to work with him. My girl, if I used any correction even hinting on strong, she would shut right down. But she will do anything for food. So I can't take one method for both--one size does NOT fit all. You might be able to use all positive with other breeds, but not a hard aggressive wl GSD.
> 
> Susan


My you are old... 70 decades? hahah... I agree 100% with Susan.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

DutchKarin said:


> My you are old... 70 decades? hahah... I agree 100% with Susan.


Hah! That proves it, lol! How about, I am in my 70th year.... Or, approaching the end of my 7th decade... My OLDER sister sent me a cartoon... An elderly woman who says she has snack bags all over the house on the floor--in case she falls! Wouldn't work in any of our houses, though, would it? Oops, I am getting too chatty here...

Susan

:surprise:


----------



## dogma13

Selzer can we assume your experience has been exclusively with dogs of stable temperaments?Have you ever had to deal with a genetically unstable dog?Or a really intense drivey dog?Wouldn't you agree they would require a different approach?A heavily modified approach anyway.


----------



## LuvShepherds

Someone abbreviated it to POS which is what I think of PO training. You are absolutely right, they don't show highly aggressive or out of control dogs trained with PO. I use a prong when a dog is old enough to wear it safely because 1. I know how to use it and 2. I know how to wean off of it. The reason Selzer says dogs using prongs are managed, not trained, is that it takes a solid year of working with a dog in a prong for the dog to be totally proofed 100% of the time. People quit using them too soon. 

If I had a dog like a Cavalier King Charles spaniel I would use PO and be confident I would have a well trained dog. A WL GSD? Never. I'm not a perfect trainer but I've been training GSDs for over 20 years and eventually every dog was leash trained and relatively well behaved, even our fear based aggressive biter, but it took a long time. My female took 3 years to be extremely well trained on a leash. That isn't because I couldn't train her but because she finally settled down at age 3 and I was no longer fighting puppy energy. I still use some type of training collar when we are in crowds, either a choke or a prong, not because she needs it but because the weight of a metal collar reminds her to behave. It's for my safety, not hers. Since I never have to correct her, the choke doesn't hurt. I alternate between them.

Selzer, I love your posts BUT you are a breeder and have had your own lines for so long, you know exactly how the dogs will learn and react. When the rest of us get a dog from a breeder there is a lot of diversity in behaviors and learning styles from one dog to the next. Our breeder even told us dogs from her lines tend to have the same behaviors and abilities because she manages her lines so carefully. I went from a WGSL to rescues which could have been anything to an Eastern Europe WL dog and they are all different, so require different methods and tools.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

I think good intentioned people create problems starting with very young puppies and then spend way too much time fixing what should never have happened in the first place.

I suspect that Selzer has mastered the technique of not teaching a puppy bad habits that can become horribly ingrained and can be difficult, if not impossible, for JQP to undo.


----------



## LuvShepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I think good intentioned people create problems starting with very young puppies and then spend way too much time fixing what should never have happened in the first place.
> 
> I suspect that Selzer has mastered the technique of not teaching a puppy bad habits that can become horribly ingrained and can be difficult, if not impossible, for JQP to undo.


Yes. I haven't had that many young puppies, so even though I have a lot of dog experience, it's usually retraining rescues rather than teaching a puppy. I accidentally created one serious problem with my new dog, but fortunately recognized it right away and we are working on it. It's not leash work, it's a weird behavior problem I've never seen before or even heard of. I think the more puppies one works with, the better that person becomes as a trainer.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

LuvShepherds said:


> Yes. I haven't had that many young puppies, so even though I have a lot of dog experience, it's usually retraining rescues rather than teaching a puppy. I accidentally created one serious problem with my new dog, but fortunately recognized it right away and we are working on it. It's not leash work, it's a weird behavior problem I've never seen before or even heard of. I think the more puppies one works with, the better that person becomes as a trainer.


LOL! I think sometimes less is more.


----------



## selzer

dogma13 said:


> Selzer can we assume your experience has been exclusively with dogs of stable temperaments?Have you ever had to deal with a genetically unstable dog?Or a really intense drivey dog?Wouldn't you agree they would require a different approach?A heavily modified approach anyway.


My first shepherd was what I thought was a dominant, high drive, high energy WL/pet line cross. I learned a lot from that dog. If I had that dog today, it would be a whole other story. Looking back, he was none of those things. 

Genetically unstable? I think I would define such a dog as one who did not mature with training into a dog that is safe around people, can be managed around dogs, does not have anxiety that requires medication (storm phobias, serious car sickness, etc.). Yeah, no, I suppose I never had a genetically unstable dog. Some of them I maybe thought were at different stages. Ninja -- I thought she had fear-aggressiveness due to a vaccine reaction. Nope she is almost eight now, full of drive, and can be a bit hairy about strangers near her kennel, but I can trust her with anyone, and she's the bitch that heeled nicely at my side while the untethered yorkie-mix was circling, lunging, barking and carrying on all the way back to my car. This is a bitch who will go after my other bitches given the opportunity, so that wasn't self-preservation, just following direction that I gave her: "LEAVE IT, HEEL!"

If you want to go with a more liberal view of unstable, than yes, I would say that I have handled/trained a few. 

And then there was Jazzy (my brother's bitch). High drive working line bitch. I had her from age 3 to age 5. She was biddable. That dog loved me until the day she died at 13. I never forced her to do anything. I believe she would have jumped off a cliff if I told her to. A few months after she came to live with me, she and my heart dog, my Arwen, my 3-blue ribbons for her CD dog, got into a fight. It was Jazzy who listened to me when I finally told her to SIT and STAY! I dragged Arwen back through the kennel. Over the years I got better at managing bitches too. 

I'm certainly not 70, but I have lived in 6 decades, of course that doesn't make me 50 yet, LOL. And because of my father's prejudice, I couldn't get a GSD until I moved out on my own. So I started late in the game. Making up for that now, I guess >.

I have had dogs trained or managed by others with prong collars. I have not used prongs on these dogs. So no, all of the dogs I have trained/lived with have not been my own lines, my own breeding, owned by me their entire life. Most have. 

I think there are probably dogs out there that need a firmer hand than I have ever needed. But I also think a LOT of people out there are like I was with my first GSD, inexperienced, seeing the results of poor management, weak leadership, poor training technique. Those that put a prong on their dog and got instant results, or neutered their dog and got favorable results, well they experienced positive reinforcement of the method they chose to deal with the issue, so of course they are going to believe that much stronger in it. When you work with dogs that will shut down if you are harsh with them, then you have have to have more to work with than a prong collar, then you will learn how to work with a handler sensitive dog. And you may even find that the techniques that dog teaches you work with dogs that don't need them, perhaps better than forcing, punishing, correcting, dominating.


----------



## selzer

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I think good intentioned people create problems starting with very young puppies and then spend way too much time fixing what should never have happened in the first place.
> 
> I suspect that Selzer has mastered the technique of not teaching a puppy bad habits that can become horribly ingrained and can be difficult, if not impossible, for JQP to undo.


 
I think way too many people try too hard to apply everything to poor innocent puppies and puppies do a lot more stumbling through the maturation process than they need to. 

But every puppy is an individual. And if you continue to apply what worked with puppy A, to puppy B, even though it isn't working, you are going to have a problem. 

I read on these sites, and apply things, and a week or so ago, Quinnie started chasing her tail when I got her to class -- oh, no! And I am looking for compulsive behaviors and watching her, and trying to squelch that for sure. After I got her home, one time she started the tail chasing thing, when I brought her up and was playing with her and her toys, kind of rough housing. I told her, "No!" and stopped the game. The next day, she played with her toys, but ignored her tail. So maybe it's not compulsive tail-chasing and just a response to excitement for what is happening/what is going to happen. She also ignored my shoes and sandles the next day. The first day I had to tell her MINE, several times. 

With every puppy, pay attention, watch, notice, wait, and try try try not to over-react. 

And just when you think you have the recipe for perfect puppy raising, you get sent a knuckle ball, and it is back to the minor leagues.

I LOVE puppies. But they sure are a pain.


----------



## LuvShepherds

MineAreWorkingline said:


> LOL! I think sometimes less is more.


You think so? I don't know, I wish I could go back two months and make a different decision. One poor choice created a huge problem. If I had more WL puppy experience, I would have anticipated the issue.


----------



## Muskeg

I am no fan of hurting my dog. But if I don't control certain behaviors it is dangerous. To think that you can fix very strong prey, chasing, or biting-controlling behavior in a dog from strong working lines, with treats, that is simply false. 

I have seen it fail with dogs from lines I have and am very familiar with. Fail miserably, so badly that the owners gave up and rehomed the dog. 

You can choose to manage the dog forever, or to train (which is a form of management, but doesn't require physical control). 

I would never push a technique on anybody, as long as they are doing the work and going off of proven operant and classical conditioning science-based techniques. 

But I get very angry at agenda trainers like Zak George or Stillwell who are just not skilled in any kind of training what so ever, positive or not. Their bad advice results in dogs being hurt, people being hurt, and a breakdown of the dog-human relationship. 

Using a prong does not promote an adversarial relationship with your dog unless it is used incorrectly. Know the tool, know the dog, know yourself. 

I have not met a single positive-only trainer I would trust any of my dogs with. I have met a corrections based trainer I would also not trust any of my dogs with. 

A good trainer, is a good trainer. I do not get hung up on labels. I listen to them explain, I see their results, I see what kind of dog they work with. You can go wrong with corrections, you can go wrong with positive-training. 

I see a huge schism among dog owners and trainers, and it bothers me. Just because your lab never needed corrections, doesn't mean a working-line GSD also doesn't need corrections. Maybe it falls back on the fallacy going around that it is "all how they're raised." Ugh. Genetic genetics! 

Be fair, respect your dog, be open to learning, and know your dog. Effective training teaches a dog quickly and humanely and doesn't rely on tools for long. Tools including treats.


----------



## selzer

I notice that most people who suggest that positive training cannot work for all dogs, immediately bring treats into the equation. And immediately, I understand that they just don't get it. 

The reason positive training doesn't work is because too many people do not understand it at all. Yes, yes, I have been in a class where the instructor said to sit and feed treats to a dog that was nervous and barking at other dogs. That's nuts. If a dog is giving a behavior that you do not desire, you do not give them treats, for heaven's sake. How would you use treats to train a dog off of chasing wild game??? You wouldn't. Not directly. 

Instead you would work on engagement, away from any wild game. You would build the bond between you and the dog. You would work on very exciting, very fun things like agility, maybe protection, tracking, etc. You would work on improving recall, obedience, and heeling -- lots of turns and steps that require the dog to work with you and to think, etc. Building the engagement, and the bond will help you to know how and when to introduce distractions, and then to when to give the commands -- before the dog is in full flight after a distraction. At the end of training the dog will be able to recall during prey, just as police dogs can out when they are doing what is exciting for them, when the handler tells him.


----------



## CarolinaRose

Thecowboysgirl said:


> the dogs appear to mostly be relaxed working with him, except for maybe a really aggressive pitbull who he scared the *crap out of with a pet convincer* but I don't think you are going to stop a pitbull from eating another dog with a clicker. So that one gets a pass from me.


I didn't see anyone comment on this. 

I'm not familiar with this term, but based on what you said, it sounds harsh. 

What is a "Pet Convincer"?


----------



## car2ner

I have to agree with the idea that each dog needs slightly different handling. My ridgie mix finally learned to heel when I tripped clear over her. Not a technique I recommend but it worked with her. My beagle / whippet required a soft touch. My two year old GSD was the first dog I ever put a prong collar on. I teach him with positive but when he disregards direction he will get a "correction"...or a Hey, No, Pay attention here. And yes, we have a bond and engagement but crittering has been a challenge since he had to take it easy after a recovering from a minor surgery. Laying around bored set him back. And my little girl pup, she is stubborn, but responds beautifully to reward, praise and toys, food sometimes. 

You can't be a one trick expert. There is no magic cure or we would all have perfectly trained dogs (and children) generations ago.


----------



## Steve Strom

CarolinaRose said:


> I didn't see anyone comment on this.
> 
> I'm not familiar with this term, but based on what you said, it sounds harsh.
> 
> What is a "Pet Convincer"?


A compressed air can. I had a Rott, I dare somebody to use it on a dog like him. The basic idea is an interruption of something by startling them.


----------



## Galathiel

I've always trained with the reward being praise. I've never even used training treats (or bought em!) until my current dog. He is a lot more challenging because he .. doesn't .. like .. praise. Or maybe I should say it means nothing to him, has no value. Also, he's an independent cuss. I love him (now) but he frustrates the crap out of me sometimes!  Mainly, because my other GSDs were a breeze compared to him obedience/training wise.


----------



## LuvShepherds

CarolinaRose said:


> I didn't see anyone comment on this.
> 
> I'm not familiar with this term, but based on what you said, it sounds harsh.
> 
> What is a "Pet Convincer"?


An air horn. Amazon.com : Pet Convincer - Dog Training Device - Air : Barking Deterrent Collars : Pet Supplies


----------



## LuvShepherds

CarolinaRose said:


> I didn't see anyone comment on this.
> 
> I'm not familiar with this term, but based on what you said, it sounds harsh.
> 
> What is a "Pet Convincer"?


An air horn. http://www.amazon.com/Pet-Convincer...&qid=1460586808&sr=8-2&keywords=Pet+convincer


----------



## CarolinaRose

Steve Strom said:


> A compressed air can. I had a Rott, I dare somebody to use it on a dog like him. The basic idea is an interruption of something by startling them.


It sounds like the "can full of coins" trick. Is it a strong pressure? How/Why would something like this scare the crap out of a dog? Sounds like it would just be annoying. (What would happen if used on the Rottie?)


----------



## Chip18

Steve Strom said:


> A compressed air can. I had a Rott, I dare somebody to use it on a dog like him. The basic idea is an interruption of something by startling them.


Aww yes "that" dog! 

I have heard of such ... dogs that don't much care for "corrections" regardless of how they are delivered. Such dogs are a different kettle of fish I would say ...best to have your game face on. :grin2:

As to the Pet Convincer to the poster that asked here you go:

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/7400865-post6.html

I'm still a SLL guy myself (Pet Person) haven't met "that" dog yet??


----------



## CarolinaRose

LuvShepherds said:


> An air horn.  Amazon.com : Pet Convincer - Dog Training Device - Air : Barking Deterrent Collars : Pet Supplies


(this posted while I was typing the above)

OOOhhhhh! An AIR HORN!

Yeah, that would scare the crap out of someone! :grin2:


----------



## LuvShepherds

There are two types, Pet Convincer which is very expensive and the Pet Corrector which isn't. I've looked at them but never bought one.


----------



## Steve Strom

CarolinaRose said:


> It sounds like the "can full of coins" trick. Is it a strong pressure? How/Why would something like this scare the crap out of a dog? Sounds like it would just be annoying. (What would happen if used on the Rottie?)


He'd bite you. He didn't like canned air like you use to dust keyboards and stuff, and that things supposed to be high pressure. I doubt it would have scared him, but he wouldn't have liked it.


----------



## dogma13

CarolinaRose said:


> (this posted while I was typing the above)
> 
> OOOhhhhh! An AIR HORN!
> 
> Yeah, that would scare the crap out of someone! :grin2:


It's a little tool that shoots compressed air.It makes a PSST sound and you shoot it next to (not on) the dog to startle them.The equivalent of an EH EH!! pay attention!!stop that!!


----------



## CarolinaRose

Chip18 said:


> As to the Pet Convincer to the poster that asked here you go:
> 
> http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/7400865-post6.html
> 
> I'm still a SLL guy myself (Pet Person) haven't met "that" dog yet??


Thank you so much for posting that link. I watched the video. Pretty interesting stuff! Definitely something to keep in mind. 

Also, SLL? What does that mean?


----------



## SuperG

I've asked my parents why they didn't subscribe to positive only when they raised me....they suggested that they would have if I wouldn't have acted as if I knew more than them.

SuperG


----------



## LuvShepherds

SuperG said:


> I've asked my parents why they didn't subscribe to positive only when they raised me....they suggested that they would have if I wouldn't have acted as if I knew more than them.
> 
> SuperG


:grin2: It doesn't work with children. They need consequences.


----------



## Chip18

I pretty much agree with Selzer also but by and large the people "who have experience" aren't the ones that run into problem with PO, Trainers and Training.

PO is the first thing most newbies do and if they have an "easy" dog ... it works out fine. 

But if they have a dog that is on the edge ... and they "ignore" behaviours and "miss signs" of trouble brewing ..."those folks" with those dogs are the ones that are going to run into .... "issues!" 

And when they "those" dogs make there "issues" apparent to those owners and "if" they turn to PO only trainers, there recommendation will be "PTS" pretty much that simple. PO only trainers ... do not work with "I will hurt you or others bad ...if you screw this up!" Pretty much that simple! 

I have one "still" my first OS WL GSD was a pretty eye opening experience (pack issues) "missed" signals! It became pretty clear that a "PO" approach "Behaviourist or Trainer" was not gonna cut it to me.

To this day he is still not a fan of company but he is "safe" in public and stays in "Place" with company in the home, been 9 years so we'er good. And wobbly dog so "yanking and cranking" was not an option but showing him how I expected him to behave ... worked out fine! 

As for the VS and George Zach's out there if they "think" there crap will work with dogs "that will hurt you or others bad" if they screw up??? Meet "Shelly:"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qT5Z03VMw

If people get it "right" in the first place ... they won't have these problem. If "PO" only trainers "think" they have answers and they are out here???

Jeff Gellman* "still" has a 25,000 dollar challenge *to any "PO" trainer that "thinks" they can rehab one of the dogs he and his staff works with on a daily basis, using "there methods" that would be this guy, for those that don't know.

Solid K9 Training - Rehabilitation and Family Dog Training

As I am want to say:









People need to adapt their "approach" to suit the dog in front of them ... pretty much that simple.


----------



## SuperG

LuvShepherds said:


> :grin2: It doesn't work with children. They need consequences.



Well, there ya go.....I'm a positive only with consequences dog trainer.

SuperG


----------



## Chip18

CarolinaRose said:


> Thank you so much for posting that link. I watched the video. Pretty interesting stuff! Definitely something to keep in mind.
> 
> Also, SLL? What does that mean?


LOL ... I tend to make a lot of "assumptions." Slip Lead Leash, my tool of choice, no less than Jeff Gellman says it's "not an easy tool to master" but if you do ... it works out great! At anyrate, pretty much all you need to know can be found here:

Slip Lead leash - Boxer Forum : Boxer Breed Dog Forums


----------



## Nigel

LuvShepherds said:


> There are two types, Pet Convincer which is very expensive and the Pet Corrector which isn't. I've looked at them but never bought one.


We had one not sure which, but our girl was disapointed when it didn't dispense cheese.


----------



## dogma13

Selzer,I've always agreed with your approach to raising puppies.Let them be puppies for gosh sakes!Get to understand each other and form a close bond.But if they get cocky as adolescents and try to blow you off that needs to be shut down firmly.
One thing I don't understand is your distaste for properly used prong collars.I have one on Samson during walks simply because it takes a feather light touch to communicate with him.When we walk in town it's all about sniffing and exploring unless we're crossing a street and he's at heel.The other two are responsive to a flat collar but he's not.With his flat collar it's painful for me when he's lurching around tracking squirrels and what not.

The prongs tighten evenly and gently around his neck and he feels the pressure immediately and lurches more politely


----------



## Chip18

Nigel said:


> We had one not sure which, but our girl was disappointed when it didn't dispense cheese.


The sound did not freak her out??

And are there really two brands?? Anyway I usually add for people that one to try one go to a Bicycle shop and get an air pump, that's where it comes from. Same thing and half the price.  

With most dogs it get's an immediate response, and stops a behaviour cold! But as Steve alluded to ... there is always that dog!


----------



## LuvShepherds

Chip, I thought they made a loud horn sound but I found a video you posted and it's just an air hissing sound. Why would that stop a dog? Mine would ignore it. You just saved me $50 or $12.


----------



## Stonevintage

I agree Dogma. I have the prong on Summer when we go for walks. What is a mild pull for her is simply not on that 2 inches of my hand that takes the brunt of the pull. But, with the prong on - if needed I can engage it and she respects it. But I never correct with it anymore-dont' have to. The flat collar is on and used unless the flat is not working (but it's fine when we get into the routine of the walk) Also, I always have in mind - what control would I have in an emergency situation and without the prong there?- I simply do not trust myself to be able to handle an 80 lb dog if there's a problem. With the prong I can plant my feet or sit on my but if I have to to control my responsibility in an emergency- a flat would certainly do damage to my arm/hand. 

It does so much good and I just can't see the downside....


----------



## Jenny720

I bought the pet convincer awhile back - a can that releases quick loud spray of air- to help stop him from grabbing food off the counter. Did not work max was very intent on finding out what it was.


----------



## selzer

I don't know why my dogs don't blow me off. Maybe part of positive training is that it is not permissive, and dogs understand from early on that I will follow through, every time. So, they do not suddenly wake up and decide we are not going to listen to Susie today. 

I won't use them because I cannot become dependent on something I can't use in the ring, and I do not need them.

I really do not have animosity toward them, except that when people fiercely defend them, as though it just wouldn't be possible to own or train these dogs without them -- that is what gets me going. 

I have said many times that if the prong collar gives you control so that you are not struggling/fighting with the dog, then it's better to use it. But I am disappointed with how many people never graduate. And, frankly, I worry about dogs when the collar fails, and the untrained dog then finds itself unconnected. 

I drop things. I drop leashes. My dogs feel the leash drop, turn and come back for me and wait for me to pick it up. 

These dogs are herding dogs, police dogs, military dogs, service dogs. Ok, the police dogs and MWDs might be trained with prongs, but some of people that need service dogs would have trouble putting the prong on their dog. And if the dog NEEDED that prong, what good would it be as a service dog? And shepherds don't use them. 

I take offense at the attitude that they are necessary. And if you aren't using them, then you have never dealt with a high drive dog, a high energy dog, an independent dog, a dog with a strong nature, a _real _GSD. Or you have never had a dog with weak nerves, or you raise them all from puppies. There are a million and one excuses to use the prong collar. Shouldn't need an excuse. I call them correction collars because people use them to deliver corrections. 

With horses, you have training bits, and you have your simple snaffle. Generally people want to use the bit that gives them control that is easiest on the horse. With dogs people seem to want to go to the big guns first -- heck they ask me at 8 weeks, when they should start using the prong. 

I don't think trainers get better with the power steering. It doesn't seem to teach handlers how to improve their training. People don't graduate. 

It is not so much that I am against them, but I am not for them. I think that for most pet people, when the dog reaches manageable, that's it, he's where we want him to be. 

And you would think all the dogs with issues out there are dogs whose owners use positive training. Well, sure, if you are shoving cookies at your dog without any idea why or how, you are likely to have issues. But lots of people that use prong collars have issues with their dogs too. Lots of them. It isn't a magic wand, but lots of people use them as such. Or try to. 





dogma13 said:


> Selzer,I've always agreed with your approach to raising puppies.Let them be puppies for gosh sakes!Get to understand each other and form a close bond.But if they get cocky as adolescents and try to blow you off that needs to be shut down firmly.
> One thing I don't understand is your distaste for properly used prong collars.I have one on Samson during walks simply because it takes a feather light touch to communicate with him.When we walk in town it's all about sniffing and exploring unless we're crossing a street and he's at heel.The other two are responsive to a flat collar but he's not.With his flat collar it's painful for me when he's lurching around tracking squirrels and what not.
> 
> The prongs tighten evenly and gently around his neck and he feels the pressure immediately and lurches more politely


----------



## Chip18

LuvShepherds said:


> Chip, I thought they made a loud horn sound but I found a video you posted and it's just an air hissing sound. Why would that stop a dog? Mine would ignore it. You just saved me $50 or $12.


LOL yep that's what they do! 

Depends on the dog/owner as to how much of an "aversive it is." I have stopped a known biter at my "stupid friends" house with "Caesars" "PSSST" thing! That dog has, as of last count bitten the owner 4 times and 3 strangers ... thus far!

They won't train or confine, he came out of the bedroom aiming at my heels I would assume?? I spun around pointed and "said" PSSST" the dog ran off like he had been dropped kicked! :laugh2:

That was a dog that did not understand what limits and rules were! But back on point ... not my idea (PC) Jeff and Sean recommend it and I finally saw,it here first, although it was months before I noticed it being used??:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-VJXhM0iJo

It takes "Interpretation" of "Corrections" off the table ... pretty much that simple.


----------



## stingeragent

Wow, I opened a can of worms with this one. Thanks for all the well thought out replies folks.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

I just finished reading this article: Why I No Longer Call Myself A Balanced Obedience Trainer

I am not at all opposed to aversives, but I really like this paragraph here: 



> However, the words spoken to me by Bob Bailey during a lunchtime conversation at the very first workshop I attended are always in the back of my mind: *"If you are having to punish something very often, then there is likely something else that you need to be reinforcing more."* I have found these words to be oh so true, especially when it comes to training for behaviors that I want my dog to love doing. *I have found that when a dog is willing to choose behaviors other than the one I want, it is usually a sign that the dog either doesn't really understand what I want, doesn't have a strong enough history of reinforcement for it, I am not providing enough value relative to the alternatives or the dog doesn’t believe that I will.*


----------



## Chip18

Jenny720 said:


> I bought the pet convincer awhile back - a can that releases quick loud spray of air- to help stop him from grabbing food off the counter. Did not work max was very intent on finding out what it was.


Aww there you go, the "PC" was not the correct tool for the situation at hand. 

I would consider the PC" a "close quarters combat tool" the dog needs to be at leash distance and taken by surprise for it to be "effective" Unless he is coming up on you while your preparing a meal?? It's not going to work. If you have to approach him?? You lose the element of surprise!

Something went wrong somewhere or the dog would not be doing this ... but water under the bridge as it were.

If your dog is engaging in a behaviour that can get them killed (and counter surfacing can) "despite the cute pictures of "Boxers behaving badly on FB, then it's time to "make it real for the dog."

"Behaviour Modification Protocol" whatever it is the dog is doing, needs to stop ... right freaking now! 


The first tool of choice would be an E Collar for "Behaviour Modification" ... it doesn't take a lot of knowledge looks like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-RK24CCH4Q

You're not looking for "working level" you're looking for "Don't do it again level!" So be generous with the dial if you go that route. If a "Behaviour needs to stop "Right Freaking Now" there you go. But if that is to much for you?? There are options, I like to KISS, myself and the only other "tool" that I am aware of that can give "corrections at a distance" is ...sigh a "Bonker" or a "Throw Chain" and actually corrections at a distance is most likely where that came from (Throw Chain.)

Sally Scooter will demonstrate the "Bonker" a towel bound with rubber bands and you "throw it at the dog and hit them with it. :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbJQPek8F1Y

A Bonker let's you give "Corrections" at a distance you can throw it at the dog and say "NO" or say "Nothing??" Act of God correction ... where did that come from??

Argument for the "silent" approach can be found here:
This example is a dog marking indoors but the principle as a "Bonker" would be the same. 

Dog Training and Obedience Articles | Self Correction - Carpentersville, Illinois

Or for a more "nuanced" approach see here: 

Counter Surfing is an All Too-Frequent Dog Behavior Issue for Many Dog Owners.

I just present info that works from trainers that deal with serious dogs. Adjust to scale as it were, "for crap that won't work":grin2: ...most likely Zach and VS have it covered. 

And being kinda anal ... if you have questions Jeff, Gary and Sean all have sigh ... FaceBook pages! 

I have reached them on occasion and had questions answered there, so it can happen. Otherwise on the air for Jeff and Sean! And Jeff and Sean have weekly radio shows where they answer questions:

https://www.facebook.com/Solid-K9-Training-140229622668254/

https://www.facebook.com/133978373293039/videos/989642594393275/

https://www.facebook.com/gary.wilkes.39?fref=ts

Those guys are the experts.


----------



## dogma13

selzer said:


> I don't know why my dogs don't blow me off. Maybe part of positive training is that it is not permissive, and dogs understand from early on that I will follow through, every time. So, they do not suddenly wake up and decide we are not going to listen to Susie today.
> 
> I won't use them because I cannot become dependent on something I can't use in the ring, and I do not need them.
> 
> I really do not have animosity toward them, except that when people fiercely defend them, as though it just wouldn't be possible to own or train these dogs without them -- that is what gets me going.
> 
> I have said many times that if the prong collar gives you control so that you are not struggling/fighting with the dog, then it's better to use it. But I am disappointed with how many people never graduate. And, frankly, I worry about dogs when the collar fails, and the untrained dog then finds itself unconnected.
> 
> I drop things. I drop leashes. My dogs feel the leash drop, turn and come back for me and wait for me to pick it up.
> 
> These dogs are herding dogs, police dogs, military dogs, service dogs. Ok, the police dogs and MWDs might be trained with prongs, but some of people that need service dogs would have trouble putting the prong on their dog. And if the dog NEEDED that prong, what good would it be as a service dog? And shepherds don't use them.
> 
> I take offense at the attitude that they are necessary. And if you aren't using them, then you have never dealt with a high drive dog, a high energy dog, an independent dog, a dog with a strong nature, a _real _GSD. Or you have never had a dog with weak nerves, or you raise them all from puppies. There are a million and one excuses to use the prong collar. Shouldn't need an excuse. I call them correction collars because people use them to deliver corrections.
> 
> With horses, you have training bits, and you have your simple snaffle. Generally people want to use the bit that gives them control that is easiest on the horse. With dogs people seem to want to go to the big guns first -- heck they ask me at 8 weeks, when they should start using the prong.
> 
> I don't think trainers get better with the power steering. It doesn't seem to teach handlers how to improve their training. People don't graduate.
> 
> It is not so much that I am against them, but I am not for them. I think that for most pet people, when the dog reaches manageable, that's it, he's where we want him to be.
> 
> And you would think all the dogs with issues out there are dogs whose owners use positive training. Well, sure, if you are shoving cookies at your dog without any idea why or how, you are likely to have issues. But lots of people that use prong collars have issues with their dogs too. Lots of them. It isn't a magic wand, but lots of people use them as such. Or try to.


Totally makes sense now,I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reasoning.You've come into contact with a large number of people that think tools magically train dogs instead of the owners.I've met a few doozys too.If you see enough of it you'd never want to hear the words prong or e collar again ever:|


----------



## voodoolamb

I'm a fan of non aversive training - What often gets called positive only (even though corrections are used just generally not physical ones)

I'm a wuss. I don't like causing physical pain to the dog if it is not absolutely neccessary. I have used prongs and e collars on myself and IMO they hurt. I have seen many training sessions where they were used. I've seen signs of stress in those dogs. I've seen dogs that developed fear/reactivity issues because of too heavy a hand inregards to training corrections. 

One of the best trainers I have met is in the positive camp. The bond he has with his dogs is nothing short of amazing. His dog's obedience is top notch. Very responsive animals. He doesn't have doodles and labs either. Rotties, pits and gsd mixes. Something he always says that has stuck with me is "Give me a big enough choke chain and I can get a giraffe to sit. Doesn't mean I trained it"

Sadly, the majority of dogs I see with prongs and chokes are NOT trained. The owner has no control over the animal when it is off. Generally speaking though the vast majority of all dogs I see are not trained but that is a whole other can o worms.

If there is a way to achieve the training results that I want without using tools and corrections, that is the avenue I will pursue. Actually I don't use leash corrections with flat collars or slip collars in general for worry of muscos-skeleto injuries, if a situation arose where I did need physical corrections an e collar or prong would be my first choices as they are a safer option IMO.

My GSD has a great functional heel. I could walk him with a shoe lace. Ever since day 1 I was consistent with the notion that tension on the lead meant that we stopped. It never got him where he wanted to go. Pulling never became a self rewarding behavior. Once he was old enough to go for real walks it was simply a matter of shortening the leash to keep him in position and pairing with a command. I was vigilant on our walks with keeping my eyes peeled for things like cats and other dogs. That way I could give a leave it command the moment he took interest. Now a cat darts across the road and he looks up at me like "Hey! Did you notice that cat? I totally didn't go bonkers or anything. Aren't you supposed to tell me good boy now?" No need for a prong or a correction. 

I've luckily never dealt with human aggression. I have had a handful of dog aggressive dogs though. My late pit was very dog aggressive. As in no doubt he would have killed another dog. I used positive techniques with him. Never used anything other then a flat buckle with him. Keeping him below his threshold, reducing distance, getting him to engage with me via treats, working on general obedience etc. Never had an incident. And yes, we did get to the point where he could be in close proximity to other dogs. 

I have had one dog that has needed to wear a prong. A deaf great dane. I did use the rubber tips with him. 

Oh one more thing. When I started working dogs many years ago. Aversive techniques were pretty much it. I started training using a choke chain. I can say that the relationship I have with the dogs I trained using non aversive techniques is MUCH MUCH better then the relationship I had with dogs trained with other techniques.


----------



## Chip18

stingeragent said:


> Wow, I opened a can of worms with this one. Thanks for all the well thought out replies folks.


Oh we tend to do "this" all the time, you'll see.


----------



## Baillif

I had a friend that used to say "If you lower your expectations enough you will never be disappointed."

Most possie trainers have rather low expectations in their obedience and claim success because their idea of success is low hanging fruit.

There are rare few possie trainers out there that can accomplish a **** of a lot without aversive control but they have to organize heaven and earth around their dogs to make it happen and avoid pictures where the dog can go off the rails for its own rewards. They also generally keep their dogs really really hungry to keep them motivated and to set up situations where negative punishment has a bigger sting. A hungry dog is a dog that is IMO in pain. Hunger is aversive.

Anyway

If you are clear fair and consistent in your aversive use and you reward and motivate your dog where appropriate you can accomplish magic. It isn't like you have to punish all the time if you're doing things right. There comes a point when the lesson is learned. My last trial with Crank is proof. We passed a Mondioring 1 trial with a perfect score on someone else's field against decoys he has never seen before. It has happened 3 other times in US history. I couldn't correct him even if I wanted to. There were no collars no leashes. He knows hes not wearing anything. He did everything I asked of him for 18 minutes the first time I asked for it while in the rain, while decoys were on the field, and with a crowd to distract him. I couldn't reward with a tug or a toy or food, all he got was a good boy at the end of each exercise. The lesson was learned. He was banging out the OB nearly without correction that whole week leading up to it.

People don't know just how magical it can be. I can move anywhere in the world with my now 4 dogs following without corrective collars without a bag of treats and without worry and not have issues. I have no fenced in yard and potty break my dogs in the front yard and it always gives me a little kick when they come running out the front door and someone happens to be walking their dog in front of my house and they recoil in fear in a fast retreat thinking my 4 dogs are about to come running out the front door at them and their raging leash reactive dogs in the middle of the street and my dogs never go out of the yard because they know they shouldn't leave unless I walk them past the border myself. They just stare and carry on about their business as the neighbor struggles to control their leashed animals. They don't chase squirrels, or deer, or cats, or rabbits because that lesson has already been learned. Three are malinois one is a shepherd mix. One is a 5 month old female Mal. She already knows the deal. I can take her anywhere off leash no collars and not worry about losing control of her. Why? Because the lesson is learned. I don't just go around punishing my dogs all day. They learn to avoid pitfalls that get them into trouble and then it is all good.


----------



## Jenny720

Chip18 said:


> Jenny720 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought the pet convincer awhile back - a can that releases quick loud spray of air- to help stop him from grabbing food off the counter. Did not work max was very intent on finding out what it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Aww there you go, the "PC" was not the correct tool for the situation at hand.
> 
> I would consider the PC" a "close quarters combat tool" the dog needs to be at leash distance and taken by surprise for it to be "effective" Unless he is coming up on you while your preparing a meal?? It's not going to work. If you have to approach him?? You lose the element of surprise!
> 
> Something went wrong somewhere or the dog would not be doing this ... but water under the bridge as it were.
> 
> If your dog is engaging in a behaviour that can get them killed (and counter surfacing can) "despite the cute pictures of "Boxers behaving badly on FB, then it's time to "make it real for the dog."
> 
> "Behaviour Modification Protocol" whatever it is the dog is doing, needs to stop ... right freaking now!
> 
> 
> The first tool of choice would be an E Collar for "Behaviour Modification" ... it doesn't take a lot of knowledge looks like this:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-RK24CCH4Q
> 
> You're not looking for "working level" you're looking for "Don't do it again level!" So be generous with the dial if you go that route. If a "Behaviour needs to stop "Right Freaking Now" there you go. But if that is to much for you?? There are options, I like to KISS, myself and the only other "tool" that I am aware of that can give "corrections at a distance" is ...sigh a "Bonker" or a "Throw Chain" and actually corrections at a distance is most likely where that came from (Throw Chain.)
> 
> Sally Scooter will demonstrate the "Bonker" a towel bound with rubber bands and you "throw it at the dog and hit them with it. :
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbJQPek8F1Y
> 
> A Bonker let's you give "Corrections" at a distance you can throw it at the dog and say "NO" or say "Nothing??" Act of God correction ... where did that come from??
> 
> Argument for the "silent" approach can be found here:
> This example is a dog marking indoors but the principle as a "Bonker" would be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dog Training and Obedience Articles | Self Correction - Carpentersville, Illinois
> 
> Or for a more "nuanced" approach see here:
> 
> Counter Surfing is an All Too-Frequent Dog Behavior Issue for Many Dog Owners.
> 
> I just present info that works from trainers that deal with serious dogs. Adjust to scale as it were, "for crap that won't work"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...most likely Zach and VS have it covered.
> 
> And being kinda anal ... if you have questions Jeff, Gary and Sean all have sigh ... FaceBook pages!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have reached them on occasion and had questions answered there, so it can happen. Otherwise on the air for Jeff and Sean! And Jeff and Sean have weekly radio shows where they answer questions:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Solid-K9-Training-140229622668254/
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/133978373293039/videos/989642594393275/
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/gary.wilkes.39?fref=ts
> 
> Those guys are the experts.
Click to expand...

Hi chip- yes that was awhile back -an issue if anyone left food unattended. We seemed to close that chapter there maybe an occasional attempt. As he is maturing he has connected the dots. Always like the Jeff videos will check out info- thanks:grinning:


----------



## phgsd

I started out training with mostly "old school" trainers who used force almost entirely. Since then, I've transitioned to mostly positive methods - but I have no problem using corrections when needed.

My JRT's are very sensitive - if I don't keep things mostly positive when training, they won't work for me. But if I make things very fun and exciting, they will happily work all day. 

With that said, I will correct for certain things. My young female went through a phase where she would not come when called, and she is not very food motivated. I was able to fix the recall in just a session or two with an e-collar (on vibrate only - she is very sensitive). Once she learned that I could reach out and touch her, the problem was essentially solved. If I'd tried to use only positive methods, it would have taken a very long time and I don't think it would have been as reliable. 

I have seen "purely positive" trainers fail with aggressive or difficult dogs. Sometimes corrections are the best choice for the problem, and IMO it is sometimes more frustrating to constantly fail using +R than it would be if a few appropriate corrections are applied.


----------



## Castlemaid

Sorry to go completely off topic (or maybe not?), but @SuperG, this is the most impressive array of Back-Yard Obediance Training Titles I have ever seen on any dog!! LOL!!


> Yakaia Vom Herzbach Level I-V BYMLCS, MHP III, FPII, HHH Level X


I would love to know what all these titles stand for. AND I bet it was achieved with 200% positives. 
Kudos for a smart dog and a naturally gifted trainer. :thumbup:


----------



## SuperG

Castlemaid said:


> Sorry to go completely off topic (or maybe not?), but @*SuperG*, this is the most impressive array of Back-Yard Obediance Training Titles I have ever seen on any dog!! LOL!!
> 
> 
> I would love to know what all these titles stand for. AND I bet it was achieved with 200% positives.
> Kudos for a smart dog and a naturally gifted trainer. :thumbup:



LOLOL !!! I was waiting for someone to bite and I might add you are very astute with the assumption that they are all "backyard" titles. Of course they are all my creations coupled with sarcasm. The "BYMLCS" is Back Yard Miller Lite Championship Series, she's a charger and most likely better trained than most companion dogs. The MHP III is a third degree rating in Motor Home Protection ( which she actually deserves when we are on the road), I never thought I would have such a great dog on the road and I must say, she is more a deterrent if anyone has nefarious motives than me having to brandish my handgun ( which I would rather not). The FPII is a Fishing Partner level 2 out of 5 because she neither catches nor cleans the fish yet but she is so ever good in the boat and finally the HHH Level X is for her incredible Happy Hour Hound abilities throughout the spring, summer and fall as she takes her mark beside me on the deck while we sit by the fire most every day for an hour or two and just keeps me company...no matter what distraction might present itself.

So much of her abilities are due to her innate intelligence but also from the savvy advice I have gleaned from this forum. I can only imagine what this dog could have accomplished in the hands of truly skilled trainer.

SuperG


----------



## SuperG

Oh, I forgot to mention my reasoning/excuse...for adding a signature with all the baloney. This new format prompted me to add a signature among other items.....so I'm blaming this on the new format. I'm a firm believer that one is only as good as their next excuse....works for me, anyway.

SuperG


----------



## Chip18

SuperG said:


> The FPII is a Fishing Partner level 2 out of 5 because she neither catches nor cleans the fish ...
> SuperG


Well there you go ... she will never achieve a FPV without "consequences" for not performing a behaviour which she has *been properly taught ... * so ..."who's" at fault here?? 

Sorry I got no information on training that .. I always thought fish came from the grocery store wrapped in cellophane???


----------



## SuperG

Chip18 said:


> Well there you go ... she will never achieve a FPV without "consequences" for not performing a behaviour which she has *been properly taught ... * so ..."who's" at fault here??
> 
> Sorry I got no information on training that .. I always thought fish came from the grocery store wrapped in cellophane???


The method is fairly straightforward ....if she cleans the fish...she eats the fish....but she'd rather eat the fish whole.....can't blame her.


SuperG


----------



## Chip18

SuperG said:


> The method is fairly straightforward ....if she cleans the fish...she eats the fish....but she'd rather eat the fish whole.....can't blame her.
> 
> 
> SuperG


Well if I were a judge ... she'd earn a FFIII!


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

As Bailliff said its all about expectations.

Case in point. Someone asked early on in this thread why its hard to find any video of positive only trainers doing meaningful work with reactive dogs or even just dogs that pull. They got some silly response about how positive training is boring so no one films it....:hammer:


When you have low expectations and you make a huge deal out of minute results its all good. For me, I like to have absolute control of my dogs and dogs that I am training at all times. I like walking through the nieghborhood or park with all the dogs off leash and at heel. I like watching them run loose, sniff and do all the things dogs love to do knowing that when I say come they will come, when I say down they will down and when I see leave it they will leave it.
I achieve that through motivation and the application of pressure followed by corrections for non compliance.

Dogs love structure, they love rules and they love consequences. 
I have trained a lot of dogs and I assure you they have no interest in living like a bunch of four legged hippies in a commune. Quite the opposite in fact. They crave structure and consequence because it defines the world around them and their place within it physically and socially. This is a survival mechanism for pack animals and we all have it.

Strong, weak, sensitive, high energy, low energy it doesnt matter. They all respond to this system. It does not matter what type of dog you have.

The choice not to correct your dog is personal. Its a choice based in emotion that makes you feel good about yourself. There is no science or practical evidence to support this method. Infact the opposite is true. 

To some dogs it's immaterial as they are low energy, relatively stable and harmless. Minimally effective training will not negatively impact them one way or another. Unfortunately, to many it is harmful and severely impacts their and their owner's quality of life.

In the end dog training can be about results..or it can be about feeling good. For me results feel good, for others its more the experience then the outcome that matters.


----------



## SuperG

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> As Bailliff said its all about expectations.
> 
> Case in point. Someone asked early on in this thread why its hard to find any video of positive only trainers doing meaningful work with reactive dogs or even just dogs that pull. They got some silly response about how positive training is boring so no one films it....:hammer:
> 
> 
> .


FWIW, my current GSD was highly dog reactive as an adolescent so I pursued "professional" training and the first stop on the journey was an outfit that professed all positive....basically counter-conditioning and desensitizing methods. What I found of interest immediately upon my arrival was the trainers suggested that I leave her prong collar on....I didn't expect this since it was advertised as "force free, all positive etc..." The event which sold me on the fact that I was at the wrong place was when the instructor took my dog on lead and used her as an example...she first asked me if my dog was aggressive towards human....I told her no...not yet anyway. She used the "methods" and paraded my dog closer and closer toward the other dogs using food lures and distractions but my dog finally went off....the trainer ended up hanging my dog on the prong to regain some control and break my dog's antics. I had a good laugh that this "all positive" approach included hanging my dog on the prong. She then mentioned to me what a "hair trigger" my dog had....maybe that was to rationalize her use of the lead and prong or maybe it was more she was scared of being bit and had more of a handful than she expected. 

I would have to say if there was a video of this "all positive" technique....it would have been neither meaningful in making any progress and would never have made the grade as "all positive".


SuperG


----------



## Baillif

Positive punishment is positive too


----------



## CarolinaRose

Baillif said:


> Positive punishment is positive too


:grin2: technically true!


----------



## carmspack

blitzkrieg said "I like to have absolute control of my dogs and dogs that I am training at all times. I like walking through the nieghborhood or park with all the dogs off leash and at heel. I like watching them run loose, sniff and do all the things dogs love to do knowing that when I say come they will come, when I say down they will down and when I see leave it they will leave it"


but "you" can't . 
That is not realistic .
If it were then there would be no fails at the IPO trials .


In a public space you can't predict what might happen with OTHER dogs being loose.
At least if you have your dogs on lead you can control the situation at your end better and if it
should come to a dispute you have an advantage .


----------



## carmspack

over the years on this forum I have seen "training / behaviour " issues come and go .


one particularly long and drawn out thread using positive only as a modifier for a serious issue (aggression) prolonged the animals confused, conflicted , unwanted problematic state .


this was a personal indulgence , which was not fair to the animal's needs and understanding.


this also changes the relationship between the owner and the dog . Constant tensions .


my idea of positive is that --- I am positive that you will do "it" - and I will use the best , clearest, way to accomplish this - and move on , each party still being positive in wanting to relate and continue with the exercises .


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

carmspack said:


> blitzkrieg said "I like to have absolute control of my dogs and dogs that I am training at all times. I like walking through the nieghborhood or park with all the dogs off leash and at heel. I like watching them run loose, sniff and do all the things dogs love to do knowing that when I say come they will come, when I say down they will down and when I see leave it they will leave it"
> 
> 
> but "you" can't .
> That is not realistic .
> If it were then there would be no fails at the IPO trials .
> 
> 
> In a public space you can't predict what might happen with OTHER dogs being loose.
> At least if you have your dogs on lead you can control the situation at your end better and if it
> should come to a dispute you have an advantage .


But I do..every day..for years..with multiple dogs..

The good news is real life is much easier to train for then an IPO trial.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

OMi-Gosh! this is SO true.


I have tons of respect for people who title in dog sports, mondio, French ring, IPO and so on.


It is NOT easy. 








Blitzkrieg1 said:


> But I do..every day..for years..with multiple dogs..
> 
> *The good news is real life is much easier to train for then an IPO* trial.


----------



## Baillif

You can correct and punish in everyday life when you see them attempting to go off the rails. Can't do that it trial. It is what makes trial so much more difficult. All your contingencies are able to be in place in everyday life. If your dog goes off rails in a trial you are stuck eating **** with a smile.

I do agree absolute control of anything is an illusion, but I share Blitz's confidence in that I can take my dogs through normal everyday situations without worry of losing them or having any major issues. Not to say there won't be times I'll have to check a behavior I don't like seeing, but I'm confident I can manage the situation.


----------



## Muskeg

I tried "reward only" training for a couple years when I got my first working type dog.

It worked halfway.

It never taught my dog to deal with high excitement situation, it never taught her to deal with stress. 

I decided to do my research. It was an "aha" breakthrough moment when I figured out how simple communication can be when using both corrections and rewards.

When I face an obstacle with a particular dog or situation, I seek advice. I'm not boasting that I have the "most ultimate high-power dog in the world" but I have one dog that most people would have just given up on. As soon as I figured out a few things, by seeking help from someone with more experience with this particular type of dog, he's on his way to off leash control. It was fast, it was simple. 

If I just walked my dogs on leash on sidewalks and played fetch with them at the park, I wouldn't need the control I've sought. Because I do many activities that require the dogs to be off leash (in off-leash legal areas) I need a solid-as-possible recall, down-stay and heel. At this point, it is as close to 100% as anything can be. 

I can't control other's actions, and you do meet the occasional idiot out there, but I can handle almost anything with those three commands. 

It is fast, easy, and low stress for everyone. Then we can just move on and enjoy life together. 

I have no problem with treats, I never said I did. All I know is that using treats-only limits your potential. I'm nowhere near as good as Bailiff, but I am getting closer to the "magic" and it is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Jenny720

There are so many dogs with different temperaments, also owners with different goals -one way of training is not going to fit all. Positive training only goes so far with certain dogs. I like individualized training.


----------



## Baillif

People barely even know what that means. The framework of positive reinforcing or negative reinforcing behaviors you want to see and punishing the ones you want to weaken works for ALL dogs assuming they are not deeply aberrant or unable to control themselves physically. The application of that framework will of course vary as far as what is considered an appropriate intensity of punishment or based on what a dog finds rewarding or not, but that framework does not change dog to dog.

Some dogs learn faster than others some need additional help with figuring out concepts quickly and clearly, but at the core what you are doing does not change.

I don't consider a dog fully trained if it still needs reinforcement help to carry out a command. So the sit means sit and offleash k9 style of ecollar training where a dog is asked for a command and stimmed until it carries it out is not what I consider trained. I don't consider them trained until they are on a framework of just positive reinforcement or positive punishment (purely positive lol). If they carry out the command yay. If they don't it's no and consequence they would like to avoid. No additional help or pressure needed. The dog should of course be around 90% compliance or higher. They are past the point of doing it to escape existing pressure and doing it because they know a consequence is coming. They don't wait for the stim or leash pressure. It adds a layer of understanding. Even if the dog carried the command out after the no the consequence still comes because they made the mistake already and the consequence for it is unavoidable. That layer of understanding is imo key if you want to push the boundaries of reliability as high as you can. I want maximum reliability with minimal input on my part.

That's not to say if the dog gets confused because of a particular picture it isn't familiar with that I won't step it back and use negative reinforcement or positive reinforcement to help the dog understand. You have to be fair, but in that new picture I try to move them back to that purely positive framework asap in a clear fair way. (lol)


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

I see this all the time with people that use the prong or e collars. It never moves past the point of negative reinforcement to positive punishment.
The dog begins to rely on the the stimulus or pops for info instead of actually thinking about what it is they are doing. 
As soon as I see the light go on I try to get the dog purely positive as you call it..lol.

I have yet to see any dog this system won't work for.


----------



## Jenny720

Jenny720 said:


> There are so many dogs with different temperaments, also owners with different goals -one way of training is not going to fit all. Positive training only goes so far with certain dogs. I like individualized training.


*typo- Positive training alone- only goes so far with certain dogs. 

I use a ball as a positive reward when training my gsd as we started with treats at first. Treats for my chihuahua as reward. My dog is dog reactive and occasions I will use a light correction with a prong collar.


----------



## Spectrum

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Those are the four quadrants of operant conditioning but there certainly are trainers who are unwilling to employ positive punishment or some forms of *negative reinforcement (e collar for instance)*. I know some reward only trainers who still use tools like spray bark collars, which qualifies as positive punishment, but certainly isn't as aversive as a shock bark collar.


Sorry to come off as rude, but that's not negative reinforcement. An E-collar is 100% a positive punishment. Negative reinforcement involves removing an uncomfortable/aversive stimulus in the presence of a specified behavior. 

I personally have a dedicated focus on behavior analysis in my career, and while I'm not a trainer, the concepts are universal in teaching and maintaining behavior. 

First of all. Positive Reinforcement works, there are no if, or buts. It simply works. The reason people constantly fail with this kind of work is that it requires consistent rewarding, correction to 'correct' behavior, as well as a *reinforcer that actually reinforces behavior in your dog*. Giving treats to a dog that isn't food driven is a waste of time. As with all 4 branches of the reinforcement/punishment dynamic, it many times requires some level of behavioral analysis to find out what is motivating instances of acute behavior (in this case, something like dog to dog aggression). For the most part, dogs like treats and praise, and the basic behaviors such as sit, stay lay down etc.. all are easier to train. That's why 90%+ percent of people who train their dogs this way have little to complain about. The last 10% is broken down to either the owner themselves doesn't know which behavior or approximation to reward, or they're using a terrible motivator. 

What also bothers me whenever you see a drift like this is that most reward mechanisms are carried in balance. For example, a positive reinforcement regimen also places a bit of negative punishment into the mix. If a dog complies, the he's rewarded, and therefore the behavior is positively reinforced. At the exact same time, his noncompliance is negatively punished, as the food he wants is deprived whenever he doesn't comply(reinforcer varies, food is an example). Equally, a dog that's on a negative reinforcement schedule gets his, lets say, weighted vest removed for 10 minutes when he complies. If he doesn't, he's being positively punished by having to continue wearing that weighted vest. It's a balance all around. 

I do get annoyed at the positive only people for attempting to vilify the use of punishment, because many times they flat out lie. The truth is:

Punishment absolutely works, much more effectively than positive reinforcement schedules in the short term. 

That being said, however, it carries some obvious weaknesses which make it difficult to truly carry out responsibly. For one, it's a lot easier to abuse an animal with punishment, not only because of the actual aversive stimulus/removal of positive stimulus, but because the act of punishing someone when teaching a behavior is actually running a positive/negative reinforcement on the trainer themselves! Think about it, push a button when dog is barking, dog stops, therefore you're likely to do it more often to seek a quick fix. Punishment also doesn't teach behavior, it corrects mistakes. If you think about that, it becomes clear as to why it shouldn't be used alone. 

Behavior is modified in everything with a balance of the two. The best place to be on this issue is in the middle. That way you can use every resource available responsibly, and get the best results.


----------



## Steve Strom

> Sorry to come off as rude, but that's not negative reinforcement. An E-collar is 100% a positive punishment. Negative reinforcement involves removing an uncomfortable/aversive stimulus in the presence of a specified behavior.


Which is what happens when you let off the button when you use it in an escape training method. Some will argue that its practically rewarding.


----------



## Spectrum

Steve Strom said:


> Which is what happens when you let off the button when you use it in an escape training method. Some will argue that its practically rewarding.


They would be wrong. Escape require an already present aversive stimulus. Because you introduce the aversive stimulus as a consequence of bad behavior, it cannot be ethically considered escape conditioning.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

You can absolutely use an E collar in the negative reinforcement quadrant.
Create discomfort to make a behaviour more likely all the time.


----------



## Steve Strom

Spectrum said:


> They would be wrong. Escape require an already present aversive stimulus. Because you introduce the aversive stimulus as a consequence of bad behavior, it cannot be ethically considered escape conditioning.


Press the button, give the command,dog complies, release the button. I don't know how it fits into ethics.


----------



## Spectrum

^ Like I wrote below, there are plenty of studies that show that training in that fashion is extremely conducive to aggression and stress in your animal. That's the ethics in animal behavior. Imagine having a current run through a collar in your neck, only stopping when you solve a puzzle. The more complex the puzzle, the more frustration you'd breed. Not to mention that an aversive stimulus has to absolutely be 'aversive' and not just unpleasant. 

As I wrote, there are parts of punishment in reinforcement and vice-versa. But to say that negative reinforcement in e-collar training is a huge stretch. Unless you're keeping your finger on the button all the time, *until* the behavior you want is achieved. But in this scenario, you'll be breeding learned helplessness, which any behavior analyst worth their salt would never employ on an animal, considering the monumental risk of aggression.


----------



## Baillif

Spectrum you are laughably misinformed. If low intensity stim wasn't able to negative reinforce you wouldn't be able to create and strengthen behavior with it which you very clearly can. People do it all the time. Bart Bellon can teach a sit a down or a stand in less than 5 minutes with just the type of ecollar training you are claiming is so awful. Learned helplessness occurs when you don't give a dog an escape and you get him for absolutely everything he attempts to do. I can teach an 8 week old puppy a place stay with an e collar NO FOOD OR TOY AT ALL and a leash in less than 15 minutes and then make it reliable under distraction in another 15. The dog will be happy at the end too.

Take for example the negative reinforcement that occurs when you start up your car without putting on your seatbelt. The beeping is annoying but it isn't punitive. There is a huge difference there. The beeping doesn't blow out your ear drums or cause pain. It is just annoying and it starts as soon as you are doing the "bad behavior" of not putting on your seatbelt and it stops when you carry the action out. Likewise with ecollars you dont fry the dog while screaming here or down or whatever you use it at a level where it is annoying when you are using it for negative reinforcement. Which quadrant you end up in has more to do with the end result of what is happening rather than what you imagine it falls into in your mental headspace. 

Step out of the classroom and actually go train some dogs before you spout nonsense.


----------



## Steve Strom

Spectrum said:


> ^ Like I wrote below, there are plenty of studies that show that training in that fashion is extremely conducive to aggression and stress in your animal. That's the ethics in animal behavior. Imagine having a current run through a collar in your neck, only stopping when you solve a puzzle. The more complex the puzzle, the more frustration you'd breed. Not to mention that an aversive stimulus has to absolutely be 'aversive' and not just unpleasant.
> 
> As I wrote, there are parts of punishment in reinforcement and vice-versa. But to say that negative reinforcement in e-collar training is a huge stretch. Unless you're keeping your finger on the button all the time, *until* the behavior you want is achieved. But in this scenario, you'll be breeding learned helplessness, which any behavior analyst worth their salt would never employ on an animal, considering the monumental risk of aggression.


Oh boy. I never should have said anything. You're very well read, but there's a few things you haven't seen.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

This is a common issue. People have not used the tools or trained the dogs but have some theoretical knowledge without the practical experience to make the necessary connections.

This accounts for many "behaviorists" that promote ineffective methods and vilify aversives.

Please share these studies. I guarantee they are all variations of slapped collar on dog. Pushed button and discovered he was stressed...lol.


----------



## Baillif

I'll slap the collar on the dog and get it done I don't even care. It is about clarity. I teach eye contact with ecollar or leash pressure negative reinforcement not with food (usually) there are some dogs that respond quicker with the food but most are faster with collar and food not actually being involved. You also use a leash to help give the dog the answer for the direction the dog needs to escape in be that a sit or a down or a place or whatever. You don't just leave it up to chance for the dog to figure it out except in the case of eye contact but even then you're doing stuff to try to get the eye contact to happen fairly quickly like making a weird noise or blowing down at the dog so they look up and solve the puzzle. You do your best to give them the answer quickly you don't just keep your finger on the button and wait for the right response to magically happen. Even with good positive reinforcement you don't do that and freeshape it you lure it and fade the lure. I don't know anybody worth their salt that freeshapes with punishment or negative reinforcement.

Almost wish Lou was around to rip into the guy line by line in hot pink text.

Academic's are so silly. They know the theory but they have no clue when it comes to practical application of that theory. They're so quick to enter a conversation with their fancy "book learnins" though.


----------



## Baillif

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> This is a common issue. People have not used the tools or trained the dogs but have some theoretical knowledge without the practical experience to make the necessary connections.
> 
> This accounts for many "behaviorists" that promote ineffective methods and vilify aversives.
> 
> Please share these studies. I guarantee they are all variations of slapped collar on dog. Pushed button and discovered he was stressed...lol.


I guarantee they're all studies run by clueless academics that couldn't train their way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## Spectrum

Steve Strom said:


> Oh boy. I never should have said anything. You're very well read, but there's a few things you haven't seen.


Fair enough. I'll be the first to say that my research and application isn't with dogs, it's with humans. The APA has a set of guidelines with regards to ethical treatment in experimentation that cannot be crossed, due to many scenarios in the past with the trauma associated with specified methodologies. 




Baillif said:


> Spectrum you are laughably misinformed. If low intensity stim wasn't able to negative reinforce you wouldn't be able to create and strengthen behavior with it which you very clearly can. People do it all the time. Bart Bellon can teach a sit a down or a stand in less than 5 minutes with just the type of ecollar training you are claiming is so awful. Learned helplessness occurs when you don't give a dog an escape and you get him for absolutely everything he attempts to do.
> 
> Take for example the negative reinforcement that occurs when you start up your car without putting on your seatbelt. The beeping is annoying but it isn't punitive. There is a huge difference there. The beeping doesn't blow out your ear drums or cause pain. It is just annoying and it starts as soon as you are doing the "bad behavior" of not putting on your seatbelt and it stops when you carry the action out. Likewise with ecollars you dont fry the dog while screaming here or down or whatever you use it at a level where it is annoying when you are using it for negative reinforcement. Which quadrant you end up in has more to do with the end result of what is happening rather than what you imagine it falls into in your mental headspace.
> 
> Step out of the classroom and actually go train some dogs before you spout nonsense.


1. Unless you isolated all other potential motivators, you cannot say with confidence, that because someone of higher regard did it, it must be okay. This is a fundamental issue and does not need the context to prove my point. 

2. A beep to an electric charge are two different categories of aversive stimulus. There is also plenty of work that shows acclimation of AS tends to lead to a lot more resistance. Work that I've had a part in, by the way. I understand that your experience is something you bring up, but that doesn't mean I don't have any. As mentioned before, my line has a strict ethical code, as well as many studies showing **** going bad because of it. I'd be inclined to not use that for myself, but I've never vilified anything. If anything, I defended punishment procedures. Say whatever you want, but don't twist words when my initial claims are right there for those to see. 

And by the way, I have only been respectful to ideas here, I'd prefer to speak as adults, without your negativity all over. As you've said, I'm well studied in the matter, but I'm no student. I earn a salary in this area, albeit with another mammal. Application and research go hand in hand. Otherwise you're playing a glorified minesweeper. 



Blitzkrieg1 said:


> This is a common issue. People have not used the tools or trained the dogs but have some theoretical knowledge without the practical experience to make the necessary connections.
> This accounts for many "behaviorists" that promote ineffective methods and vilify aversives.


As above.


----------



## Baillif

Stuff goes bad with positive reinforcement all the time. Just because someone can point out places where it led to an issue doesn't mean its a good idea to go throwing some strict ethical code up around the issue when it clearly wasn't fully understood. Your understanding of the quadrants is clearly wrong, and it isn't uncommon to find that lack of understanding amongst people in the psychology field whether they work with humans or animals.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Baillif said:


> I'll slap the collar on the dog and get it done I don't even care. It is about clarity. I teach eye contact with ecollar or leash pressure negative reinforcement not with food (usually) there are some dogs that respond quicker with the food but most are faster with collar and food not actually being involved. You also use a leash to help give the dog the answer for the direction the dog needs to escape in be that a sit or a down or a place or whatever. You don't just leave it up to chance for the dog to figure it out except in the case of eye contact but even then you're doing stuff to try to get the eye contact to happen fairly quickly like making a weird noise or blowing down at the dog so they look up and solve the puzzle. You do your best to give them the answer quickly you don't just keep your finger on the button and wait for the right response to magically happen. Even with good positive reinforcement you don't do that and freeshape it you lure it and fade the lure. I don't know anybody worth their salt that freeshapes with punishment or negative reinforcement.
> 
> Almost wish Lou was around to rip into the guy line by line in hot pink text.
> 
> Academic's are so silly. They know the theory but they have no clue when it comes to practical application of that theory. They're so quick to enter a conversation with their fancy "book learnins" though.


Agreed
Stress is an excellent teacher. I would say around 50 percent of the pets I get in lack the food drive for any kind of meaningful positive reenforcement anyways.
People act like a dog feeling stress is always unethical or counter productive.


----------



## Stonevintage

Have not seen this prospective posted here yet... so here goes...

I don't see much wrong with PO - during the time you get them (8 wks) into your home till maybe 12-14 weeks old....bonding and all pos rewards are training - plus- there's some pretty heavy duty potty training going on. 

From then on - IME (experience) lol - past that and even at that tender young age - if it goes much further - you will have several bad habits already developed that will take twice as long to reverse....:|


----------



## Steve Strom

Here's some stuff you can read Spectrum. This is pretty basically how e collars are used by a lot of people, with a few variations here and there. 

Dobbs Training Libraries

Personally, I think if you start judging and commenting on others ethics over the use of a tool you haven't had real experience with and then comparing it all to humans, you're asking for the insults and condescending replies.


----------



## Spectrum

Baillif said:


> Stuff goes bad with positive reinforcement all the time. Just because someone can point out places where it led to an issue doesn't mean its a good idea to go throwing some strict ethical code up around the issue when it clearly wasn't fully understood. Your understanding of the quadrants is clearly wrong, and it isn't uncommon to find that lack of understanding amongst people in the psychology field whether they work with humans or animals.



Why are you taking such heavy offense to a statement I made? I mean, I repeat for the second time, that I pointed at weaknesses on both fronts. I'm not pro one or the other. I'm for using them both in conjunction. 

I said reinforcement fails due to not investing adequate time into studying the behavior, lack of consistency and failing to identify the appropriate reinforcers. 

Punishment is extremely effective, but it isn't used effectively by many. I mean, even if every GSD trainer in the world was absolutely perfect in application, you'd still be the massive minority, because there are a huge amount of people who purchase e-collars and used hits/blows to overcompensate for their lack of patience. 

Incompetence is very real, and trying to create blanket statements of either side is the real cluelessness here. 

But, by all means, continue with the ad hominems. The fierce resistance you're displaying is characteristic of the fanatical.


----------



## Spectrum

Steve Strom said:


> Here's some stuff you can read Spectrum. This is pretty basically how e collars are used by a lot of people, with a few variations here and there.
> 
> Dobbs Training Libraries
> 
> Personally, I think if you start judging and commenting on others ethics over the use of a tool you haven't had real experience with and then comparing it all to humans, you're asking for the insults and condescending replies.


But I never did. I said it couldn't be ethically *labelled* escape conditioning. Not that it couldn't be done ethically. I never said punishment was unethical. That's been people twisting words, or simply not reading what is written. 

It's more like people are touchy on the subject, and decided to take offense to a stance that, at best, I commented on.


----------



## Baillif

I am not taking offense to anything. Your idea that you can't use an ecollar for negative reinforcement is very very very wrong. Your idea of what causes learned helplessness also wrong. Your practical knowledge and even a good bit of your understanding of learning theory is flawed. You might be able to spout the lingo and convince people that don't know that you know what you are talking about, but you very clearly don't.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Obviously ethics in terms of tools and methods in regards to application of negative reinforcement and positive punishment for humans would be different then what is appropriate for dogs.

While we can all agree on some theoretical principles in terms of behavioural science.
Practical application in the field is often much different then a sterile lab setting. 
Good dog trainers create complex behaviours, suppress certain behaviours and all in the presence of distractions, stressors and competing motivators.


----------



## Baillif

We clearly can't even agree on the learning theory.


----------



## Steve Strom

I don't offend Spectrum. When you say it can't ethically be labeled escape training and that's exactly what it is labeled by many, well?? I don't even use the collar that way beyond the original introduction to electricity. I'm not even sure why I replied, I don't think I've spent more then 10 mins in my life thinking about quadrants.


----------



## Spectrum

Edit: ^I wasn't referring to you being offended. I can respect that we haven't, or at least I haven't, properly explained my points effectively, and even if I did and we disagree, you've been respectful. 

I could sit here and describe the process of teaching a dog to sit through a negative reinforcement/escape conditioning process, and show the process includes whole lot more in addition to just the presence/shocking of the e-collar. In your example of the seat belt, a more appropriate example would be to introduce someone into a unknown environment, and then proceed with a shock/beep etc with a command in a language you've never heard. They'd then have to find out, independently, what makes the beep stop. Dogs aren't capable of abstract thought, meaning that unless you've already shown them what a sit command means to you, they don't have a clue as to what to do. In a true scenario, where *only* the e-collar and no prior instruction, or even the physical pressing of the backside, this would lead to a level of learned helplessness. Because you've given the dog no instruction as to what it is you want them to do. Obviously, they have an out, but they don't know what it is. An waiting for them to figure it out while inducing pain doesn't foster the learning of behavior. It fosters frustration. 

That's why I said the labeling, and only the labeling, is unethical. If you introduce the shock, and then press on their backside to get them to sit and then cease the shock, you've introduced an element which stops it from being escape conditioning. Sitting is negatively reinforced, but the process as a whole isn't a negative reinforcement application. Physical correction, where you make the dog sit, is also considered a positive punishment, because the dog does not want to be sat down in normal situations.


----------



## Spectrum

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Obviously ethics in terms of tools and methods in regards to application of negative reinforcement and positive punishment for humans would be different then what is appropriate for dogs.


It's frustrating that, x posts in, I'm still being told that I said e-collars were unethical. 

I won't address this specific point any further, as I feel I've done more than enough to clear the air.


----------



## Steve Strom

One thing Spectrum, you have to remember training has a plan. Steps you follow. You don't just strap it on and start stimming. So yeah, the end result is the dog does sit in all situations with or without the collar. Follow the training textbook and forget about the theories for a while.


----------



## Baillif

Learning theory is important. What quadrants you think you are in don't matter though. The end behavior of the dog whether the target behavior gets stronger or weaker really tells the tale of what quadrant or quadrants you are really in. Those quadrants don't have hard edges to them, this much is true. It isn't a game of theory crafting or a thought experiment though. You don't train a dog in your head with what you think is the practical application or typical imagined response to stimulus. You have to deal with an actual animal with real responses to stimulus in front of you, and if you don't do that then don't pretend to understand the animal, the theory, or the practical application fully.


----------



## Spectrum

Both of your points don't address that I was accused of looking down on e-collars, when I explained the reasoning as to why it can't be labelled as such. I never said you stick to one 'quadrant', as a matter of fact, and for the *third* time, I said that both sides are meant to be utilized to get the best results. My example above, explained why using e-collars solely cannot be labelled escape conditioning, as that implies that you shock the **** out of the dog without any prior instruction and/or corrections and expect them to figure out what you want them to. 

That isn't a reflection of my philosophy, rather an explanation to my statement. In this instance, the semantics are very important, as the definition difference can completely change the scope of a treatment. *In this example* Escape conditioning is not useful for teaching behavior, rather it would be better applied to avoiding certain conditions. An invisible fence, for example is an excellent example of escape conditioning. 

I'm sitting here spitting out the words put in my mouth, and as a reply I essentially get "it's not all hypothetical, dude". That's an incredible cop-out, considering this scenario has been used by Baillif to attempt and discredit my experience based off of statements he didn't understand. Now that I have, it's "well you need experience" 

Nit-picking at its finest.


----------



## Steve Strom

Whats your experience with ecollars then?


----------



## Baillif

I NEVER said you looked down on ecollars nor did I say you did. I took very specific issue with the fact your understanding of learning theory is wrong, and more specifically where you claimed an e-collar was used for positive punishment only and had no application of negative reinforcement. You've been quoted on that. Don't go back and change terms you used now. You can spin and evade all you want but your ignorance was clear and you got called on it.


----------



## Spectrum

^ No, I haven't. Please quote the post where I did. I've literally spent the last three posts explaining the post that brought out those assumptions. 



Steve Strom said:


> Whats your experience with ecollars then?


Each of my dogs is wearing one right now.


----------



## Baillif

Post 81 steve quoted you straight up.


----------



## Steve Strom

Did you intro them along the lines of teaching them to turn off the stim? Known commands?


----------



## Spectrum

^If you're going to make a point, I'd prefer you make it. 
@Baillif
And you're going to disregard every other post where I didn't make that stand. I admit, that wasn't written the way I meant it, but you take issue as if I've been arguing that e-collars can only be punishing, when literally every other post I made after that doesn't fall in line with that. What's more likely, that I'm arguing against myself, or I wrote something incorrectly?


----------



## Baillif

What's more likely is you realized you were being an idiot and rather than just admit you were wrong you try to squirm out using "science terms."


----------



## Spectrum

The only thing that's wrong in my initial post is the "100%". Every other point was in that the e-collar, in isolation, cannot be ethically used in escape condition/neg. reinforcement to teach behavior. Because there's a process which introduces other aspects which help shape the behavior. You've been so flustered this entire time that I think you've made this more than it is. You've taken offense in my not agreeing with you, and you've continued to attempt to belittle those that do not agree with you. 

I'd happily be the idiot that back peddled because of the social pressures of a forum I seldom frequent, rather than the resort to exhibiting case after case of academic resentment.


----------



## Steve Strom

> If you're going to make a point, I'd prefer you make it.


I'm just curious about how you applied science in your actual use and which variables like pushing on their butt became important.

Ah, never mind.


----------



## Baillif

Almost nobody uses it in isolation. It can easily ethically be used in isolation for certain behaviors though so you aren't even right there. I've not taken any offense. You're just wrong.


----------



## Spectrum

Baillif said:


> Almost nobody uses it in isolation.





Spectrum said:


> That's why I said the labeling, and only the labeling, is unethical.





Baillif said:


> It can easily ethically be used in isolation for certain behaviors though so you aren't even right there. I've not taken any offense. You're just wrong.





Spectrum said:


> *In this example* Escape conditioning is not useful for teaching behavior, rather it would be better applied to avoiding certain conditions. An invisible fence, for example is an excellent example of escape conditioning.


At this point it's just circular. 



Steve Strom said:


> I'm just curious about how you applied science in your actual use and which variables like pushing on their butt became important.
> 
> Ah, never mind.


I've used preference assessments to distinguish which treats each of my dogs likes the most. My GS, for example is a huge fan of peanut butter, while my pit prefers meats. I've actually ran some ABC observations on my pit, since she was a rescue and I wanted to see why some of her behavior initially occurred. I've charted the transitions from continuous reinforcement to intermittent to see what is effective with each dog. I've kept the more complex behaviors on a shaping protocol, while some of the other, more immediate behaviors have been addressed with beep, then shock punishment protocol. An aversion conditioning protocol. Aside from the punishment, these are things I do at my job on a daily basis. Graphs are my friends, and I tailor my approaches based on what the numbers say. It's worked for me so far.


----------



## Steve Strom

Lol, enjoy your graphs Spectrum.


----------

