Diablo

I used to think that too, now I'm not so sure. I certainly don't think you can teach a recall off a running cat by bribing a dog with food or with treats. A high prey drive dog will view the food as completely irrelevant in that circumstance. However, with some dogs, correcting the dog to within an inch of its life is not necessarily going to stop it chasing either. Positive or corrective, the solution to that type of prolem must be done intelligently. In my experience, the correction must be timed appropriately (before the dog is fully spun up in drive). IMO the timing of the correction is in many ways more important than the magnitude or type of correction. With my old boy, I had far more success in correcting him and redirecting him gently as soon as he started to think about doing something inappropriately predatory, compared to correcting him harshly when he was already adrenalised and focused on his prey. However, positive solutions can be really helpful too, either as stand alone solutions, or to augment the corrections. You can work on desensitising the dog to the cat, you can work on prey drive games so the dog understands that obeying you leads to drive satisfaction, etc. It's not just about waiting until the dog is taking off after the cat, and then waving a cookie around. Also, in my experience, many people whose dog won't recall off a running cat, also have dogs that won't recall in many other circumstances. They just don't have a good recall, and jumping straight to correcting the dog for a hugely distracting recall isn't the answer. The answer is to go back and train all those intermediate steps that they missed, and then work on the huge distractions like running cats. But hey, what would I know? Personally Staranais, I think you have a very good understanding of general dog training and in fact, you have provided an excellent post Correction and positive re-direction with crucial timing of events was the basis of my GSD's obedience training with predatory behaviour which was not attainable easily without some compulsion. It may be possible to achieve results with "expert" positive reinforcement but on the average of what I have seen from dogs trained without compulsion at our Schutzhund club, the unreliability rate is high in those dog types. For the average person, it appears more successful to train with a combination of both methods. Too many people I believe are clouded with the thought that training without compulsion is always best for the dog, but depending upon what you need to achieve, complusion in some behaviour in some dogs should be be regarded as just another training tool in the box. With my dog especially, positive conditioning proofed him against predatory behaviour with certain distractions, but corrections proofed him against every distraction with far better reliability. It's a case of having an open mind and access to all methods of training and using what is most appropriate. Neither purely compulsive nor purely positive is the best method to successfully train every dog.

Exactly Kavik..........that's why each particular dog needs to be assessed by someone competent enough to determine the "best" methods to train that individual dog. Neither compulsion or positive reinforcement can be used successfully across the board in all cases and depends on the dog and the end result that needs to be achieved.

My GSD is the same MonElite regarding a recovery from corrections for misbehaviour, in fact, it makes no difference to his drives whatsoever afterwards. The trainers at our Schutzhund club "all" teach and use corrections for misbehaviour and blocking with unwarranted aggression which is standard practice. Treat and marker training is used also to teach the dog to do something. I have never seen a good Schutzhund prospect shut down from corrections yet.

I don't know what "WL's" and "SL's" are, but my dog (GSD) does exactly what she is bred for: great versatile all-round intelligent, loyal, energetic, steadfast, courageous companion, friend, guardian, obedience, family dog. Don't know what all the flack is about, but there is nothing like a good ol' fashioned German Shepherd Dog!!! Hi Czara. Well WL is working Lines and SL is show Lines. Alot of breeders of GSD's tend to get very one eyed (for the want of a better saying LOL) on Working lines being stronger ( again for the want of the right word before anyone starts ranting at me LOL) than show lines. I agree there is nothing like the good ole German Shepherd and it shouldnt be the "We are better than YOU" type of argument but it always seems to turn that way, that is why I started this thread and it has been very very interesting with some excellent posts. The biggest issue I think with the GSD Carlibud, is that the breeders become "one eyed" believing what they breed is correct and won't budge on it???. Some showline breeders will stand up and fight with vigour that their breedings can work although they haven't produced a worker in 4 generations. Some working line breeders will do the same with their breeding's conformation but have never shown a dog in their lives, too much talk and assumptions with not enough action from either camp really???. Personally I think that both camps could offer each other some valuable knowledge to improve the standards of each line which would be far more productive than arguing about what is best.

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. It's not about yanking the dog around by the throat, it's about teaching the dog a command and teaching what is required from the command. Simple example the casual heel: You start of and command heel and praise the dog for being in the right place. The dog surges ahead.......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops and "heel" then praise the dog for returning to the correct position etc etc. When the dog has learned in bullet proof fashion to heel without distractions off leash.........the dog knows the command. Add some distractions like another dog approaching. Heel......the dog is in position and praised, then he see's the dog approaching and surges ahead, aghhh heel and he pulls to the end of the leash ignoring the heel command and a leash correction is admistered for ignoring the heal command. The correction is not the response for surging towards the other dog, the correction is for ignoring a known command which the dog has the choice of compliance or not. The dog learns that ignoring commands results in unpleasantness and complying with commands results in positive reward. The dog in this instance has learned right from wrong and the consequences of each chosen action. The dog will stay behind and heel without pleasure. Period. If you teach your dog like that you never have dog that wants to work. ( No drive) The dog will learn to expect punishment or wait for the ".......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops" That's not training a dog to work Misha, that's training obedience which is two different concepts, but without obedience as the foundation you create a solo tasking dog. It's like the GSD that was trained specifically for Schutzhund competition that got hit and killed by a car chasing a cat across the road. The dog had a SCHh3 title but the handler couldn't stop the dog chasing the cat through lacking in "off field" general obedience that the dog had never been taught. Work is taught in drive...........a different situation and different commands. However, you could train a casual heel in drive with a release word for the dog to chase and bite it's target being another dog approaching as the reward, but I doubt that too many people would be happy with such a training concept Wrong wrong wrong Even the info that you have that SCH3 dog will do that is questionable or the SCH3 title is questionable. Training SCH only for competition???? You raise dog for SCH not train. You raise dog for sport. I personally can not distinguish training obedience and training a dog to work. It's not wrong at all, sport is a specific routine for which it's trained to do. A police K9 will have a higher level of general obedience than a dog trained for Schutzhund competition and will be workable over a wider range of situations. Police K9's are definitely not trained in purely positive methods which I think Jeff Jones explained to us earlier.

That's correct Kavik, I totally agree, but we are talking general obedience. Many sport dogs purely raised for competition are never taught general obedience and are kept in kennels and runs and bought out only to train for sport and put away until the next training session where nothing is trained that could have the potential to compromise it's sporting ability and performance. Sports training is a different concept entirely.

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. It's not about yanking the dog around by the throat, it's about teaching the dog a command and teaching what is required from the command. Simple example the casual heel: You start of and command heel and praise the dog for being in the right place. The dog surges ahead.......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops and "heel" then praise the dog for returning to the correct position etc etc. When the dog has learned in bullet proof fashion to heel without distractions off leash.........the dog knows the command. Add some distractions like another dog approaching. Heel......the dog is in position and praised, then he see's the dog approaching and surges ahead, aghhh heel and he pulls to the end of the leash ignoring the heel command and a leash correction is admistered for ignoring the heal command. The correction is not the response for surging towards the other dog, the correction is for ignoring a known command which the dog has the choice of compliance or not. The dog learns that ignoring commands results in unpleasantness and complying with commands results in positive reward. The dog in this instance has learned right from wrong and the consequences of each chosen action. The dog will stay behind and heel without pleasure. Period. If you teach your dog like that you never have dog that wants to work. ( No drive) The dog will learn to expect punishment or wait for the ".......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops" That's not training a dog to work Misha, that's training obedience which is two different concepts, but without obedience as the foundation you create a solo tasking dog. It's like the GSD that was trained specifically for Schutzhund competition that got hit and killed by a car chasing a cat across the road. The dog had a SCHh3 title but the handler couldn't stop the dog chasing the cat through lacking in "off field" general obedience that the dog had never been taught. Work is taught in drive...........a different situation and different commands. However, you could train a casual heel in drive with a release word for the dog to chase and bite it's target being another dog approaching as the reward, but I doubt that too many people would be happy with such a training concept

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. It's not about yanking the dog around by the throat, it's about teaching the dog a command and teaching what is required from the command. Simple example the casual heel: You start of and command heel and praise the dog for being in the right place. The dog surges ahead.......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops and "heel" then praise the dog for returning to the correct position etc etc. When the dog has learned in bullet proof fashion to heel without distractions off leash.........the dog knows the command. Add some distractions like another dog approaching. Heel......the dog is in position and praised, then he see's the dog approaching and surges ahead, aghhh heel and he pulls to the end of the leash ignoring the heel command and a leash correction is admistered for ignoring the heal command. The correction is not the response for surging towards the other dog, the correction is for ignoring a known command which the dog has the choice of compliance or not. The dog learns that ignoring commands results in unpleasantness and complying with commands results in positive reward. The dog in this instance has learned right from wrong and the consequences of each chosen action.

Oh, I've got you figured out. *adds another notch* The thing is, for some reason Diablo thinks this thread is about purely positive trainers - none of which are on this board (or if they are they are too smart to make themselves known) and hey, the topic is actually the effective use of punishment - and has responded by attacking said trainers. Presumably if Diablo is so supportive of punishments they might have something useful to say about Steve White's Rules of Punishment and whether they agree with them all or not and why. Several people have pointed out the rules that have led them to NOT using punishments. That is relevant and I am glad they contributed. This dissing of trainers that are either hypothetical or not on the board to defend themselves is really drifting from the original topic. M-J has pointed out that even following the rules to the letter can result in an ineffective punishment. M-J, I can't speak for Steve White, but I would suggest that your case may have been an exception to the rule. I agree that 100% is a tall order for anything in the real world, but I still agree with the rule because I think in the vast majority of cases it is key to the effectiveness of that punishment. I know that from experience. It's also of relevence to debate the reasons for people being led not to use punishments which I have responded. I don't know what Ginnea Pigs has do with the topic Corvus do you???

Some say that corrections stress the dog and stressing the dog is something we shouldn't do......fair enough??? On the other hand, corrections teach the dog the conscequences of doing something wrong with the option to behave and enjoy the reward stress free. To humanise this further as MonElite has presented to us I ask this simple question: Is it more stressful to behave and stop at a red light, or misbehave and run the red light driving straight through it when we have the choice to do either??? A dog may fear a correction as we may fear running a red light, but the alternative is pleasant and stress free. A dog as we are, is cleaver enough to make choices and a dog trained with corrections properly administered is about as stressed as we feel stopped at a red light. The right choice is the nice choice that creates tranquility is what the dog learns in the same fashion as we learn the tranquility of stopping at red lights. We don't fear a ticket from a policeman or being killed as we sit at a red light, neither does the dog fear a correction when walking nicely by your side which becomes a learned behaviour of pleasantness.

I agree with this. For dogs with behaviour issues - be it aggression or fear without aggression, I like to do one-on-one consults with the owner and dog before they join our classes. For one, there are times when any group of dogs/people is too high an intensity for the dog to cope with and if it is possible prefer to work on day to day lower intensity situations until the owner gets a handle on how to apply the recommended strategies and until the dog begins to understand what is required and through the strategies programmed at consultation level, begins to increase its self-confidence and confidence in the owner's abilities. For two, it means that when the owner comes to class, he/she will know what they need to do and when and for a good part do not require one-on-one assistance (other than a bit of help along the way, as you do for any member of class anyway) throughout the class time itself. But I do understand what Diablo is saying - I know of Clubs who do actively turn their backs on problematic dogs. I know of a Club or two who have recommended pts, when the only thing wrong was lack of leadership and the inability (or preferred avoidance) to apply a well timed correction. That was my "exact" reference Erny especially from some clubs heavily promoting purely positive training. It's almost a case of selecting dogs that fit with their training methods and most likely to achieve. Eject the dogs that are unlikely to achieve on those methods which lessens the failure rate for that club. I know of several dogs that have been deemed untrainable and recommended to be PTS by these clubs and have been successfully rehabilitated by competent trainers using methods required for that particular dog.

Herm Sprenger do a quality whistle http://www.petsplus.com.au/pet-shop.asp?id=964

I'm glad you said "half"! I must be in the other half :D But to be completely honest, you cannot possibly use 'purely positive' methods with any fear or aggression case, there is necessarily an aversive involved in whatever the fear-inducing stimulus is. We actually have some "purely positive" trainers in SA Aidan, that won't do any jobs relating to aggression and eject dogs/owners from their training classes if any aggression surfaces. Some also reject training applications from GSD, Rottweiler and Doberman owners and crossbreeds of That "half" I would question their training ability in general???. The "good" trainers will do any job presented and have the experience and methods at hand to deal with the specific situation required.

If in doubt, act superior and accuse someone else of not knowing as much as you. I'm starting to take this as a sign that my arguments are better when I'm the accused. :D Again, no one here is talking about "purely positive" methods. We're talking about the rules of punishment. I will ask you once again to consider the topic when next you post. You must be kidding If I had to do that I would buy a guinnea pig. Maybe instead of being so defensive of +R training, you could do some research so your next dog doesn't have to experience this 'training', if you can call it that. Poor frigging dogs. Corvus, stupid comments as above which I responed need to be highlighted and answered, so what I suggest that you do is screen ALL the posts that don't relate to the topic instead of singling out the debates that you can't win or disagree with

Just out of curiosity is there any reason why you have to walk the dog through a shopping centre or why you couldn't put a muzzle on the dog instead of resorting to threatening the dog with his life? cheers M-J If you want to bandaid aggression you could use a muzzle but that only masks the behaviour, it doesn't fix it???

.... Oh, please. Spare the rod and spoil the dog? Do you like to be punished, Diablo? How about I choke off your air supply every time you post something I don't like? Should be a gift to you, because it'll save you from serious injury when someone else snaps and introduces you to Mr Lead Pipe. Of course, I'm not threatening you, but illustrating a point. That argument is ridiculous and actually kind of offensive, much like my above statement would be if it were said to your face in an aggressive tone. Just because punishment is a way that any animal on the planet learns doesn't mean we are somehow denying our dogs of something natural to them that they need. We desex them, don't we? That's even more fundamental to life than operant conditioning. Firstly, why are we talking about your civil aggressive GSD? I don't know any dog owners that have to handle such a thing except that one person in the States with her working line GSD. I know she had some civil aggression problems with him at some point, and she didn't need corrections to get it under control. However, I do know aggressive dogs that GOT WORSE when punished. I know dogs that got PTS because their initial fear aggression was treated with punishment and they spiralled out of control. There are always exceptions, but arguing against a set of general statements with exceptions to the rules is, well, not very convincing or useful I'm afraid. Secondly, no one here is talking about putting a dog to sleep because they have tried positive methods and they didn't work but they refuse to try punishments. Would you like to discuss the topic at hand, now? Are there any rules that you specifically disagree with, or are you just kicking against reward-based methods in general? Funny thing is Corvus, blocking methods you will find used often by "proper" trainers.........the one's who have actually achieved something and can train a range of dogs for various applications. Half of the clicker and treat trainers will and do run a mile when faced with seriously aggressive dogs or at times deem them untrainable. Purely positive is no better than negative reinforcement where you will find "proper" trainers will have all these tools in their box and use what is best for specific applications.

You must be kidding If I had to do that I would buy a guinnea pig. Maybe instead of being so defensive of +R training, you could do some research so your next dog doesn't have to experience this 'training', if you can call it that. Poor frigging dogs. Obviously you haven't handled dogs with dangerous aggression Pax, or understand the ramifications of dog attacks with a stupid comment like that???

I think you have told us before Kavik, that your DA dog is fear aggressive...........try dominance aggression with clickers and treats The dog says, "hold the treat for a second, I will be right back for the treat after I bite this kid walking down the pathway"

I don't think anyone is saying that, though. I don't know about others, but my point has always been that following those eight rules can be quite difficult, even if you know your dog well and have good timing and a good understanding of dog body language. I have met professional dog trainers that at best possess decent timing and that's all. Why should we as dog lovers encourage the use of something that is not only unpleasant to dogs but difficult to pull off effectively? If I waited around to correct Erik every time he did something I didn't like I'd spend most of my life unteaching him things I don't like instead of teaching him things I do like. It's so easy to start training proactively instead of just reacting to whatever your dog comes up with and keep the punishments for fixing accidents in messing up with environmental reinforcement control. It's much easier to stick to the eight rules that way, and what's more, you get to spend most of your time telling your dog they are awesome and putting lots of positive reinforcement in the piggy bank for those moments you do decide you need something negative in the mix. Dogs like every other one of God's creatures need to learn the consequences of it's actions either good or not so good and I don't believe it's a healthy practice to deny a dog this privilege and learning curve in life. Many subjects as an example dog aggression, regularly appear on these boards with frustration as how to manage this situation and correct the behaviour. Positive reinforcement conditioning may correct the situation in time but what "will" correct the situation very quickly in these situations is often known as "blocking"...............yes!!!, negative reinforcment if you aggress, you will loose your air supply and a dog that can't breath will die from that effect which a dog learns fast. If it hurts the dog by choking off it's air supply you are doing the dog a "huge" favour of kindness to experience that type of correction as the next phase of aggression with the failure of positive methods is the vet clinic to be PTS and the brief period of blocking that causes unpleasantness to the dog has ultimately given the dog a chance at rehablilitation to live their full life. My GSD has a high level of civil aggression and is naturally stranger and dog aggressive and will bite people given the opportunity untrained. In three blocking corrections along with positive reinforcement for not reacting, my dog in the hands of the inexperienced and destined for rainbow bridge uncontrolled can now be walked through a shopping centre and have strangers pat him in complete safety. Is it a nice feeling to place a dog in a blocking correction???.......NO it's bloody horrible, but it's far better than the thought of saying a premature goodbye to your friend at the vet clinic because you were too obsessed with purely positive training methods.

Plenty of parents on here tho'. In any case, it's not the method per se that I am objecting to - I am not against correction in all circumstances. What I am objecting to is you putting your preferred method at the top of a heirarchy and attempting to discredit other perfectly suitable methods in the process, without any hard data to back it up. What I discredit is the assumption that negative reinforcement will cause breakdowns in all dogs because it doesn't. In fact, some dogs thrive on their understanding that the handler holds the ultimate physical power over them and many dogs have been saved from a premature trip to rainbow bridge because of these training methods. No methods are correct for every dog and every situation, it depends on many variables what method on what dogs will work best for what needs to be achieved.

Even if we accept your assertions* what value do you think talking about competitive trainers of utility/working breeds in the military/police environment has when you're talking about training principles on DOL? This is a serious question by the way, these discussions always seem to cycle back to nostalgia about working and utility dogs that some of us find pretty irritating. That system you are talking about left a lot of casualties in its wake, including breeds that are not soft, but just unsuited to that method. Or dogs just unlucky enough to be handled by Joe Average rather than a top trainer. Those dogs (and people) have found much more success with a broader range of methods being available. What about a pet Basenji being trained in house manners by an 8 y/o girl? Or an elderly lady training a well bred toy poodle in an advanced companion stream at the local obedience club who is there because she likes to work with her dog and catch up with friends? Would you train them the same way you train an 21 y/o male handling a military dog? * and I don't, I think Susan Garrett would give anyone a run for their money It's a training method SkySoaringMagpie, if you don't like it, don't use it???. I doubt the "Joe Average" on DOL are 8 year old girls training Basenji's but the point is, negative reinforcement has been the method used exclusively and successfully where extreme reliability is required.

I would love to watch one of his best obedience rounds and then compare it to one of todays top +R rounds. William Koehler began in the 1940's and his methods were used by more trainers than any other methods worldwide. Many trainers today still retain the original Koehler basic leash system especially in military and police training. Many systems perceived as belonging to someone else originated from Koehler. He did compete in the early days against positive reinforcement trained dogs and continued to win in obedience.............how he would go now, I guess we will never know???

I didnt say it was. My comments were in relation to dogs being punished and supposedly being severely affected for immense periods of time from one correction. so if he never got fed unless he had to do a behavior for it he would starve himself to death because you're not fun enough? Maybe you misunderstood my post. If your dog does not value something highly enough then you remove all other sources of it and make him work for what little he gets. Quality over quantity. Because you dish it out so easily. He gets excited because he probably knows the tide of favourite treats will come forth with with only him having to show a little more interest in you. a dog is not a hare. A hare is a solitary creature, wild animal with a strong instinct to bolt for self preservation which you are trying to override with some food - it doesnt work that effectively. A domestic dog on the other hand is an animal bred for multiple generations with desired characteristics and then raised around humans. I will tell you punishments work with wild animals as well, rabbits that have hit ferreters nets often enough will learn to stop at the hole, flip up the net and bolt off safe. Wild animals have a self preservation instict first and foremost. My other comments for wild animals still stand - they are still not suppressing the instincts they are conditioning tricks in the animals on the animals terms. If the walrus never wanted to comply, they would never have forced him. If the antelope never wanted to go into the crush for a blood test they would never have taught it. It comes to finding the right animal with a biddable personality. Not every antelope will be taught that trick, there are many zoo animals that are simply left to their own devices because they cannot or will not be taught with simply P+ training. as for people with the 'different' breeds I do own a Malinois and have trained several of the 'different' breeds. You want sensitive, try a Mal. What a stranger does to your dog, that is not what I'm talking about. If you have a good relationship with your dog they bounce back, they wont 'hold it against' you. Sure, I made mistakes with my Malinois, heck even completely turned her training on its head and taught her different behaviors for similar commands to retrain her for a different discipline. Does she treat me like a leper? Nope. She has always stuck to me like glue, all my dogs do no matter what the breed. It's your attitude that makes or breaks, and wether your dog will treat you like a numpty after an incident irrespective of the breed. Imagine the days before all these modern techniques and when discipline was with a big stick or a boot to the bum... I'm sure any sooking or scuttling dog would have been sent off or left to starve out on its own as a stray. I was just thinking of William Koehler who was one of the greatest dog trainers of all times from the 1960's. He was as many would know, the "master" of the yank and crank. Everything was taught on a leash with a correction chain on every breed and when the dog learned what was required, William threw the leash away....didn't use a leash after initial training. With purely negative reinforcement, William could train anything and win everything he entered in obedience competitions with no leash in his day. Not to say that some of Koehler's methods were not on the barbaric side as time evolves and we have learned better, but millions upon millions of dogs have been trained to milimetre perfection with Koehler leash methods and unless the modern day dogs have changed dramatically in personality, nerve and temperament, since Koehler trained them, all the negative perception towards a good leash correction when appropriate is bulldust. Koehler was the new generation of "humane" trainers after the stick and boot up the bum methods became outdated Nek

Yes, they do vary in personality likewise some from a great litter an odd one can be faulty in health, temperament, conformation etc etc.........nothing provides a total guarantee???.