SpecTraining

That's the reason you will find most if not all high level performance trainers use a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement. Positive only methods have been tried and failed training police dogs, security dogs and Schutzund sporting dogs and one's that claim to have trained in positive only methods, no one would ever know the truth or tell the difference in the dogs performance once trained. If positive only methods worked best to achieve the greatest reliablity and performance, the people dedicated to train and win in these disciplines at high level competition wouldn't be training with prongs and E Collars as they do and would be concentrating on positive only methods which they don't is the way I see things.

Interestingly the top level agility trainers don't use physical corrections

Top level as in world level or club level here???. Most use E Collars nowdays if you research it

Sadly poor training exists with both positive and correction based training. For myself I have found good, well planned, consistent positive training is fast and effective.

That is very true, good post.

However, I personally have not been able to achieve as much reliability with positive only as I have by including corrections. For example, as of a few months ago I had a very (very) good recall on my current dog around distraction by using reward only, no corrections. But I just couldn't seem to get her totally reliable around a few rare, extremely exciting & unpredictable distractions using reward only. So I'm currently using an e collar (under advice of a pro behaviourist/trainer) to tidy up the recall & chase that elusive 100%, since I want as reliable recall as I can get on her, in every situation I can think of.

Possibly a better trainer than myself could have gotten even closer to 100% recall using positive methods alone. But I'm the trainer she's stuck with, and I have to work within my own skills to get the best result I can for her. We muddle along OK, she seems pretty happy.

That's the reason you will find most if not all high level performance trainers use a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement. Positive only methods have been tried and failed training police dogs, security dogs and Schutzund sporting dogs and one's that claim to have trained in positive only methods, no one would ever know the truth or tell the difference in the dogs performance once trained. If positive only methods worked best to achieve the greatest reliablity and performance, the people dedicated to train and win in these disciplines at high level competition wouldn't be training with prongs and E Collars as they do and would be concentrating on positive only methods which they don't is the way I see things.

I have seen over the years far more harm done by positive only trainers from taking too long with specialised routines charging people a fortune for methods that don't work for their dog, to recommending a dog be PTS because they can't train it with their methods that are limited compared with trainers who carry full tool box of tricks.

Some of you may remember the transition from aversive based training to positive reinforcement was largely based upon aversive training methods assumed as being cruel on the dog and had little to do with achieving better performance and reliability, it was based on training without aversive methods being used and training on a more humane platform.

Aidan, you mentioned (bolded) that you can think of a few good reasons why you wouldn't use corrections at that point in the example which is the part I am trying to understand, as I cannot think of any good reasons in all honesty what sparing corrections is intended to achieve in relation to the training result???.

I am speaking purely training results, obedience and reliability, and not from a humane basis of correction avoidance???.

I've already mentioned a few, the possibility of the correction actually impeding learning (and I realise that everyone believes that they would never be so unclear with a correction, yet I see it over and over...), the suggestion that it is maybe not always faster (and how would you know anyway? How would one test that objectively? If you can suggest a way that doesn't require an enormous, tightly controlled sample I would genuinely love to know!)

So if we don't know if it's actually any faster or that it has benefited learning, and it isn't necessary in the example under discussion, I would make a decision not to based on that alone. I know for certain that we can get a very high level of handler attention amidst distraction using positive reinforcement, and that it is not a long, slow road.

We also need to consider the handler. The minute they walk out the door they haven't got you coaching them any more. Positive reinforcement carries a much lower risk than corrections; you can't "over-reward", you can mistime a reward but it usually doesn't cause any anxiety or uncertainty, a reward won't shut a soft dog down, even a poorly timed reward provides useful classical conditioning, food is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system (calming processes), corrections are associated with the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight processes) - remember we are talking about dog owners here and not professionals.

Sometimes the effects of corrections cannot be seen immediately. They might be effective in stopping the unwanted behaviour, but increase other unwanted behaviours. There is always a response to corrections. On the flip-side, reward has behavioural benefits beyond the immediate behaviour.

I am also of the opinion that a training relationship strongly weighted towards reward leads to a stronger personal relationship. I can't prove that, but it is the relationship that I would prefer to have. I think it's ugly to be correcting your dog when it isn't necessary. I don't like being around people who do that to other people, either. My rugby coach doesn't mind giving us (as a team) a spray when warranted, but the respect he has earned comes from his ability to make every player (as an individual) feel like they are worth something to him and the team.

A note on reliability - it has been amply demonstrated to me through observing good trainers, having done it myself, and thousands of lab experiments that +R can lead to extraordinarily high levels of reliability. So can corrections. +R is generally a little slower in achieving a moderate level of reliability than reward and correction together, but ultimately both end up in the same place in the same time if taken to high levels. There are exceptions, the cat-chaser for example where we can punish something very specific and controlled set-ups would prove very difficult, but the example under discussion is not one of these exceptions.

It's a really big topic, debated for many years. Skinner came to the conclusion (based on the empirical data available to him) that punishment was unreliable and unpredictable. Since then we've learned that this is not the case, and I think the positive training movement conveniently ignores the weight and breadth of available evidence on this topic. Still, people seem to attribute almost mystical properties to whatever "method" they prefer. I've never seen very mild corrections work for anything other than very mild distractions for long, turn the volume of the distraction up and the dog continues his unwanted behaviours. At this point you have a choice:

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using more mild corrections

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using reward

- increase the correction

It's not up to me to convince you which you should choose, but my choice is to build up slowly with reward wherever I can.

Thanks for your insights Aidan appreciated :p

Here's a good link that explains my feelings on the situation

http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages.php?pageid=54

Garry

That's common Huski and is basically throwing the dog in the deep end where nothing really works well without the foundation training to work under high level distraction. I wouldn't personally take a dog at that level of training to an obedience club where it's bound to fail and apply corrections in hope of improving behaviour which is essentially unfair on the dog.

But the point is that many people do and we don't know if the OP is one of these people - TBH, not many people know how to build a good foundation and introduce distractions gradually. Throwing the dog in the deep end and then just giving corrections when it backfires often ends up with a poorly trained dog and a frustrated handler.

Throwing a dog in the deep end and applying heavy corrections usually will retrain certain behaviours which is old school yank and crank but it does work if you want to eliminate one behaviour and not interested in preserving others factor like prey drive for instance for another purpose.

How do I know that adding an aversive works???. I stopped the dog chasing cats where the reward only based trainers before me failed to correct the behaviour.

I make a fairly sharp distinction between things we can control and things we can't control and make decisions based partly on that. The evidence you have presented is confounded in that it's likely that no attempt has been made (by client or positive trainer) to work at graded exposures with cats doing things that are likely to elicit prey drive. That is not to say that corrections would not be expedient where cats are involved, cats are not easily controlled In my experience the correction needs to be fairly severe to stop a cat chaser with any sort of drive. But the confounder is that you don't know that +R wouldn't be equally as effective and reliable at stopping a cat chaser (but probably not as expedient), so again I would argue that it wasn't necessary for learning, strictly speaking.

However, in the example being discussed we are able to move away from the other dogs, we can control the environment. I can think of a few good reasons why we would use corrections at this point, I can also think of a few good reasons why we wouldn't (and generally I wouldn't).

One benefit to using very mild corrections in low-distraction environments is that if you intend to go into very strongly distracting environments you have a basis for learning through aversion and can usually increase the intensity of the correction and the dog has a pretty good chance of figuring out what the correction was for. However, in this particular situation I'm not convinced that it is necessary, or any faster than +R alone (done well). Even with very reactive dogs we can get them working alongside other dogs very quickly without corrections.

Aidan, you mentioned (bolded) that you can think of a few good reasons why you wouldn't use corrections at that point in the example which is the part I am trying to understand, as I cannot think of any good reasons in all honesty what sparing corrections is intended to achieve in relation to the training result???.

I am speaking purely training results, obedience and reliability, and not from a humane basis of correction avoidance???.

A common problem I see at my obedience club frequently are people who only ever train their dogs in low levels of distraction then take them to club for training and ask them to work in a very high level of distraction.

To me the problem in that instance is not that the dog needs to be given a heap of leash corrections but that it needs to be trained to focus around distractions more gradually.

I am not saying don't ever use corrections, I don't have any problem with them. But getting focus around distractions is a very common problem and often occurs because people go from low levels of distraction to high levels of distraction missing the stages in between - that to me is handler error not something the dog should be punished for. Time before distraction before distraction.

The people who I see take their dogs from low levels of distraction to club training and then try to deal with their dogs by correcting them instead of gradually building focus don't tend to build a very reliable, drivey or focused dogs... JME.

That's common Huski and is basically throwing the dog in the deep end where nothing really works well without the foundation training to work under high level distraction. I wouldn't personally take a dog at that level of training to an obedience club where it's bound to fail and apply corrections in hope of improving behaviour which is essentially unfair on the dog. Corrections work best IMHO just on the good side of the dog's threshhold where distance to distraction is the most important aspect. A correction can be as little as a wiggle on the leash and a verbal NO. A correction is not necessarily a high level aversive, in fact I have seen some purely positive trainers who swear to have never corrected a dog as they are actually applying leash manipulation which are essentially corrections as they speak

Hows about teaching the dog an appropriate response to a distraction before the need ever arises for a correction? Too simple? Ok get out the prong collar

This is a perception that interests me as to what the advantages are for not applying a correction, in other words, what do we think is better in the training result between a dog trained with corrections or aversives and a dog that hasn't???. For what purpose should we try to train without corrections in hope of achieving what exactly???.

Just trying to understand this philosophy ;)

I have a question for you Garry, how do you know that you are achieving anything over and above reward alone by using the correction? Think about it, because I know it sounds stupid to a lot of people when I ask them to think about this.

The assumption seems to be that there "needs" to be a consequence for non-compliance, and while I wouldn't disagree that aversive consequences aren't useful at times, I know from experience that there doesn't "need" to be an aversive consequence for non-compliance. So if there doesn't "need" to be one, the only reason for doing it would be to benefit some aspect of learning.

Introducing a correction could have two possible effects:

1. it could speed up the learning process by providing a contrast between non-compliance and compliance

2. it could hinder learning by adding mild stress or additional cognitive processing about what, exactly, the correction was for

Given that you have moved the dog below the threshold at which a harsh correction is necessary, is there still a nett benefit in introducing the correction?

This is, of course, a hypothetical and no answer will be right in every case, and no experiment has been devised thus far that has allowed us to draw any conclusions on this problem (you could have a look at "Estes" if you want some empirical data though) but it is worth consideration, IMHO. By considering the problem, you might also gain some insight into why others make the choices they make not to use a correction in this sort of situation. To benefit your understanding, it might prove to be a more fruitful exercise than getting someone else's opinion on the matter.

I learned to train in aversive methods which back then were pretty much the standard practice, then as reward based training evolved providing added benefits, I tended to form a combination of the two methods to the point where most of my practices are reward based, but I do correct where I feel a correction will result in the right behaviour in a shorter time frame and work it from there.

Where I think that adding a correction benefits behaviour modification is from my own experience as the 2nd or 3rd trainer of particular dogs that have been spared corrections by reward only methods and still exhibit unwanted behaviours or are intemittantly unreliable to voice command. In my way of thinking, these particular dogs I have worked with, have absolutely no sense of boundaries of what is expected from them in terms of good and poor behaviour and react upon a basis of most valuable reward which may be the handler or chasing a cat, another dog etc. The question presented will be something like, "my dog is really good, but I can't stop him wanting to chase cats and looses the plot when seeing one".

So the dog in this example sees chasing a cat as high reward and has been subject to months of positive redirection type training that so far has failed. The dog in my assessment is totally oblivious to the fact that chasing cats is unwanted behaviour, so what I may do is to teach the dog that chasing cats will result in a consequence for the dog to learn that cat chasing is in fact not a rewarding exercise at all and cat chasing will result in unpleasantness which an aversive to a cat chasing reaction draws a definitive line for the dog to make it's own choice. Bit like throwing a ball for a puppy. The puppy races down towards the back fence in pursuit with full focus on the ball and slams into the fence, doesn't whack the skids on fast enough. Slamming into the fence wasn't pleasant and the puppy learns quickly to hit the anchors early enough next time to avoid the aversion. In practice, they learn to race full pelt towards stationary objects and stop just short of running into them which the dog learns by itself. The same basis applies from adding an aversive into training.

How do I know that adding an aversive works???. I stopped the dog chasing cats where the reward only based trainers before me failed to correct the behaviour. The dog IMHO needed to learn consequence where it previously took the stance of reacting towards what it sees as high value reward and the dog knew no better.

Hope my explanation provides the understanding I am trying to project Aidan I will check out the link, thanks

Garry

A dog in your example M-J that is conditioned to chase and not used to working with humans we could call a "green" dog to formal obedience training. I agree that in those circumstances you described, a very heavy correction would probably be necessary, but I would work a dog like that with some distance between the distraction where the dog's focus can be shifted back to the handler, condition that and work on it from there.

Which is basically what I do ;) I do understand about green dogs but prepardness I believe can create training issues also

Can't really agree on handler fallout people talk about from result of correction process, not unless the handler applies a correction way above the requirements of a particular dog which borders into cruel domination of a submissive dog, but I have had some seriously handler aggressive dogs that wanted to kill me intitially in the past, that have been transformed into friendly quite handler submissive and reasonable dogs once they realised that the handler could kill them if they act aggressively. The dogs didn't hate the handler more from heavy correction, they respected the handler with affection. The only time I have ever seen fallout, is heavy handedness with a soft dog corrected with force exceeding the dog's requirements which is handler error, not because an aversive was applied. Had the handler used lesser force to suit the dog correctly, fallout would not have occurred IMHO.

Garry.

I have seen the reaction you have talked about with dogs to other dogs, but I also seen those dogs jump through a loophole when one presented itself on more than one occasion.

I do agree with the over-correction (bearing in mind the dog determines this, not the handler), but to me fallout can be as small as the dog loosing a little bit of enthusiasm or even just a momentary reaction from the dog like it's ears being laid back then returning to a more relaxed position as the situation continues. Just like you can poison a cue I believe you can poison the training concept for the dog, especially if the dog can see, hear or possibly smell a correlation with the handler in the situation of that moment, after even one previous inadvertant over-correction or a suitable correction for another situation. Handler nerves in competition comes to mind. I know I'm being nitpicky but as I said it is something I would prefer to avoid as Greys are pretty soft dogs in a training situation.

cheers

M-J

I haven't ever trained a Grey to any great extent M-J, but I have experienced similar with a Belgian Malinios expecting the correction resilliance of a German Shepherd and I understand you point of view in regard to handler sensitivity. I wish I had the answer to handler nerves in competition, still working on that one

Hows about teaching the dog an appropriate response to a distraction before the need ever arises for a correction? Too simple? Ok get out the prong collar

This is a perception that interests me as to what the advantages are for not applying a correction, in other words, what do we think is better in the training result between a dog trained with corrections or aversives and a dog that hasn't???. For what purpose should we try to train without corrections in hope of achieving what exactly???.

Just trying to understand this philosophy

Sometimes you CANNOT compete with what the dog is interested in - stock chasers, aggressive dogs, no boundry dogs etc. If they want their target, you have no chance of being good enough compared to it. So a correction shows the dog, no you cannot have your target interest. So what do you have ... me, or nothing. So invariably the dog will calm down, and happily listen to what you have to say.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with the above. It can be amazing what a strong history of reinforcement for a cue can do. The Greys (rescues not my dogs initially)I work with have genetics and several years history of chasing combined with reward and a lack of prepardness to work with humans for me to contend with. If I corrected them when they become distracted by something they find intrinsically rewarding I would have to give a hefty correction to stop their interest. They certainly wouldn't turn back to me and happily comply to a cue. I'm also guessing with some I would probably have fallout somewhere in their training future, something I prefer to avoid.

cheers

M-J

A dog in your example M-J that is conditioned to chase and not used to working with humans we could call a "green" dog to formal obedience training. I agree that in those circumstances you described, a very heavy correction would probably be necessary, but I would work a dog like that with some distance between the distraction where the dog's focus can be shifted back to the handler, condition that and work on it from there.

Can't really agree on handler fallout people talk about from result of correction process, not unless the handler applies a correction way above the requirements of a particular dog which borders into cruel domination of a submissive dog, but I have had some seriously handler aggressive dogs that wanted to kill me intitially in the past, that have been transformed into friendly quite handler submissive and reasonable dogs once they realised that the handler could kill them if they act aggressively. The dogs didn't hate the handler more from heavy correction, they respected the handler with affection. The only time I have ever seen fallout, is heavy handedness with a soft dog corrected with force exceeding the dog's requirements which is handler error, not because an aversive was applied. Had the handler used lesser force to suit the dog correctly, fallout would not have occurred IMHO.

Garry.

Hows about teaching the dog an appropriate response to a distraction before the need ever arises for a correction? Too simple? Ok get out the prong collar

who mentioned a prong collar? How about the dog is disobeying a direct obedience command. The dog is asked to focus on the handler and is ignoring them.

This forum seems to be attacking anyone that mentions a correction lately, I dont think enough of you understand what they are and hence come raining down with hellfire and sarcasm when someone mentions them. Plus how many of you are actually obedience instructors or professional dog trainers that work with many dogs apart from your own? I am seeing a lot of 'oh I would never use it on MY dog/s".

Corrections dont have to be hard or painful. They can be enough to simply tell the dog, no we dont do that. You have a leash attached to a collar on your dog for a reason - it is a valuable tool in helping the dog understand what you want from it. The dog in this case would not be forced to watch, it would be corrected for ignoring its owner. I have no issues with non aggressive dogs watching others, but if they start totally ignoring the owner then it's a problem.

I would be looking at why the owner and the reward they have to offer is not high enough value before anything else. I was told to simply correct my dog and it did nothing to build our relationship and increase my value for her.

neither myself or spec training only said to correct. Rewards are a massive part of fixing this problem and the corrections would only be minimal, enough to simply help the dog understand what we dont want instead of waiting for them to take their focus off another dog - I dont wait for a dog to finish a bad behaviour. Personally if this was my dog I would NEVER simply wait for him to finish his focussing or try and drag him off. What are we teaching the dog? That the owner is simply a treat dispenser at the end of the lead and when doggy gets too distracted they'll wait until dog is interested enough in what they have to offer. Sometimes you CANNOT compete with what the dog is interested in - stock chasers, aggressive dogs, no boundry dogs etc. If they want their target, you have no chance of being good enough compared to it. So a correction shows the dog, no you cannot have your target interest. So what do you have ... me, or nothing. So invariably the dog will calm down, and happily listen to what you have to say.

Excellent post

When judges, surveyors or other breed enthusiasts refer to 'correct type' , they are referring to conformation/structure .

Yes, that is probably true Tapferhund, but it does create a misleading situation to assume "correct type" would normally refer to the animal as a whole.

Yeah but there is a lot more to it IMO than just giving a correction, IMO. I think it's an oversimplified solution to a more complex problem. JMO.

Many dogs will back out of a distraction focus from a correction especially if the have never experienced one, then you can work on reward motivation once the correction has snapped them out of the unwanted focus. A correction will snap the majority of dogs out of unwanted focus I have found and used at the opportune moments is an extremely effective process.

I beg to differ Huski. If the dog is corrected when assuming something is of a high value, the correction lowers the value of that distraction and followed by a high value reward when the dog regains focus, the distraction that the dog once thought was high value enough to loose focus then fades into insignificance.

But how high value can the reward be if the dog is not interested in it? I used to be able to shove steak under my dogs nose and she wouldn't notice it, no amount of physical corrections changed that.

A dog learning consequences to poor behaviour in the correct fashion does NOT ruin a dog/handler relationship, in fact, it increases the bond and trust by setting boundaries for the dog to learn that obeying the handler provides the nicest things in life.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with using corrections or consequences by any means. But I don't think that using them automatically makes the dog have a higher value for the reward you are using.

That's right, sometimes the very highest value reward doesn't work to regain the dog's focus, but a correction does get the dog's mind off pursuing the distraction which of course is proximity related. If the dog is in the zone to pursue a distraction, rarely anything will work other than physically dragging the dog away. I add a correction at the proximity where the dog is still managable and focus redirection is still possible to attain, then reward when the dog's focus shifts back on to you. I like the correction and reward as it provides two reinforcers one negative and one positive instead of one to reshape the behaviour to where you need it to be. A negative combined with a positive to me provides two bites at the cherry instead of one if that makes sense

If other dogs are higher value than the owner, that is not something that is simply fixed by giving corrections IMO. I would be looking at why the owner and the reward they have to offer is not high enough value before anything else. I was told to simply correct my dog and it did nothing to build our relationship and increase my value for her.

I beg to differ Huski. If the dog is corrected when assuming something is of a high value, the correction lowers the value of that distraction and followed by a high value reward when the dog regains focus, the distraction that the dog once thought was high value enough to loose focus then fades into insignificance.

A dog learning consequences to poor behaviour in the correct fashion does NOT ruin a dog/handler relationship, in fact, it increases the bond and trust by setting boundaries for the dog to learn that obeying the handler provides the nicest things in life.

Your puppy is a little too young to be going to a dog park as well, it's risky for one so young.

Totally disagree with this

15 weeks is NOT too young to be out and about

It is a shame that this happened but this could have happened walking down the street

Hope your pup recovers mentally

15 weeks being out and about has several risks. One is that you would hope the 12 week vaccination provided substantial antibodies against disease, the dog at that age suffering a serious fright can be detrimental to it's temperament development and they possess little defence against attack. Personally I am very cautious where I take puppies at that age for these reasons.

Yes, it could happen down the street I agree, but more likely in a place where off leash dogs are permitted and expected to be.

A nasty and frightening experience in deed, so glad the puppy is ok. But, you really need to be on the ball and understand the risks involved taking any dogs to places where off leash dogs are likely to be for the simple reason, you cannot trust what any strange dogs may do and how they may react and sadly with a defenceless puppy, it doesn't stand much chance of survival if attacked by a seriously aggressive dog.

What I find frustrating is people ask questions (fair enough if its a genuine interest), so GSD Enthusiasts, breeders, showies etc come and explain the reasoning, the breed standard etc and people still argue, carry on and dont accept whats being told to them......complete waste of time in my opinion

What I find most frustrating with the GSD's are people claiming breed standard compliance of dogs that are not work tested (Schutzund titled)

Couldn't agree more SpecTraining (and please don't dig up old arguments over it) but there is not a lot we can do about it . A helluva lot has been done in the past to try and have the situation changed but to no avail....and now that the DPI are involved here in Vic......I very much doubt it will EVER change........well not for Schutzhund anyway...but there is a very small light of hope in another sport being looked at. (?)

Yes, I know the situation well, but I am more speaking about the one's who "claim" the GSD's being of correct type when in fact they are not which a working test easily identifies. If the dogs are not work tested and confirmed being of correct type fair enough, but it needs to be disclosed and not assumed which is misleading information about the dog or bloodlines which I find frustrating.

Spectraining : that's what I was unsure about too. He is beautifully focussed for 98% of the work but it is almost as if he says " whatever mum, stop annoying me I'm busy looking elsewhere" when we hit something distracting. The other dog or person does definately hold a higher value in his mind than anything I offer at that time.

Baring in mind his age, what do you consider to be an appropriate correction?

I know exactly what you mean Riley's mum and it's quite a challenge sometimes to regain their focus. I like about turn corrections on leash with a young dog as soon as they loose focus and look elsewhere, change direction and reward when they catch up. If you are consistant with with change of directions, the dog learns that not watching and being aware of where you are going, a correction will follow and keeping an eye on you and focusing brings reward.

Hi all.

So I'm needing some advice

my pup has hit the 9 month mark and he's mr sociable and interested in EVERYTHING that's going on around him.

We graduated into grade 4 obedience today and it's become clear that , although 100% focused during work on the circle, the moment any distractions are introduced he becomes deaf as a door post and ignores me completely. I have his fave treat ( fritz) and he couldn't care less if I use it to try and re focus him. He is SO focused on the other dogs walking past him or the trainer walking past him.

Now I understand he's still a baby and hes at the age where he's exploring things and has limited attention spans. I'm Absolutely exstatic with how he's progressing. I guess I was just looking to see if there were any methods I could use to get his focus back during these times where he thinks I'm not even there. I am COMPLETELY non existant during these times.

The hardest part is that it's just pup n me in the house and unless we pass another dog out on a walk etc he really doesn't get exposed to the types of distractions presented during class ( for info he couldn't care less about dogs working in other classes around him, it's just when we do focus work with distractions in our class. I hope I'm making sense)

thanks in advance ;)

This is a good example IMHO of disobedience resultant from purely positive training methods where the dog will focus upon targets of greatest value, the other dog has more value than his favorite treat???. What I prefer to do at that point, is add a correction to teach the dog consequence of the wrong behaviour. Without experiencing negative consequences, the dog is conditioned to focus upon the good, and sometimes what is good to the dog, to the handler is bad and a poor behaviour developing in the dog.

What I find frustrating is people ask questions (fair enough if its a genuine interest), so GSD Enthusiasts, breeders, showies etc come and explain the reasoning, the breed standard etc and people still argue, carry on and dont accept whats being told to them......complete waste of time in my opinion

What I find most frustrating with the GSD's are people claiming breed standard compliance of dogs that are not work tested (Schutzund titled)

I still see these transformation issues altering the original conformation standards as a show judging error. At some point in time for example the GSD, a dog of greater angulation than the average must have won a show for the lines to be reproduced. If over angulated dogs were disqualified, the trend would have never occurred to become mainstream

I doubt anyone would hold that a Malinois lacks efficiency or durability, whether or not one is better than the other (on that sort of criteria) I don't know. This discussion (diverging as it does from the original topic) really focuses on the reasons given for the angulations described in the early standards, more so than the validity of those reasons.

Von Stephanitz chose Klodo v Boxberg as the sieger in 1925, according to this author, to alter the trend towards "high, square" dogs:

http://www.riesashepherds.com/Geman_Shephe..._and_quotes.htm

The Fortunate Fields experiments in 1934 aimed to discover correlations between structure and working ability, while maintaining a dog with good conformation. There is no doubt these experiments had a big influence on the breed, although it didn't take long for breeders to start ignoring the actual recommendations made and taking them to extremes. Of interest, the authors concluded that a "fast trot" (e.g dog beside bike) is of little value to a working dog, and that good hind thrust was the most important aspect of gait.

The example pictured more resembles working line conformation than show line, no question about that

Could be her second fear period.

Toss everything Cesar Milan does right out the window. You don't "cure" aggression with agression - you run a real risk of heightening it.

If it keeps happening, seek professional help but I'd be working on building confidence.

You can cure aggression dominating an aggressive dog as Cesar Milan does, but it's a process met with caution that takes a high level of experience to conduct. Perhaps I think Poodlefan means don't try it yourself???

Hopefully your puppy sounds like he is on the mend. You probably need to determine what the illness is from stool samples, blood test etc to diagnose the condition. If it's Coccidia which has like a 14 day incubation period, it would determine that the illness was contracted at the breeders place, it wouldn't be unfair to ask the breeder to pay the vet bills considering they sold you a sick dog. Otherwise if it was a non decript stomach upset, it's just great it's nothing more serious I guess is how I would view the situation.