CALLING ALL BEHAVIORISTS!

[bcnewe2]

QUOTE Or are you trying to make everything right in the world with this dog? QUOTE

 

 

I have no idea what this means. I offered this problem to learn how a desensitization approach might help solve it. By reading the suggestions offered by Kristine and Eileen and others, it has also spurred me to think of some new approaches on my own. The value of a forum discussion at its best.

 

Sorry it was a poor excues at a dig (not really aimed at you or anyone in particular) at the idea of trying to do the positive training for the sake of the dog. Not that you don't want what's best for your dog, but I had a feeling it was as you described, you want the dog to load because it'd be easier on you and the situation. Like I said, if she loaded even reluctantly that'd be good enough, or maybe I'm totally off base.

Hope that makes sence.

[Root Beer]

If so, those persons would be theorists too. I can't remember any such posters, but it's entirely possible. What did they say?

 

I'm going to have to go back and try to find the exact wording some time. It stands out in my mind because it struck me as so strange, but I can't remember the exact words off the top of my head.

 

Have you ever had a dog for whom an aversive would ever be the right choice? Do you foresee ever having a dog for whom you would think an aversive was ever the right choice?

 

Well, in theory . . . !!!!

 

Thinking back, I can think of only one instance where an aversive was the right choice for one of my dogs. When Dean first learned to play ball, he was overly exuberant when he returned the ball and he had a tendency of grabbing my hand immediately upon delivery of the ball. To teach him not to do this, I stuck my finger in his mouth as I took the ball from him and tickled his tongue a bit. (Should I put a "don't try this at home" disclaimer on this one? LOL!!) I can't say he found it truly aversive, but since my goal was simply to teach him to give me the ball and move on and not to try to tell him that he was "wrong" (since that's was my honest perspective), I only wanted to annoy him slightly, not cause serious discomfort.

 

So, yes. I have used an aversive to teach him one thing.

 

Other than that if I look back at all of the training I've done with my dogs, I can honestly say that I don't see where use of aversives would have been a better choice. I can say that if I knew how to train when I started like I do now, I could have done things a thousand times better, but aversives would not factor into that mix.

 

At the same time, I still don't see anything theoretical about it because it's just the way I approach things. Asking me if I would consider an aversive is like asking if I would consider getting a job that requires me to get up at 3:00 AM every day. I'm not an early morning person and I don't operate that way. Would I do it if I truly had no other choice so survive. Yes - although it would be a struggle. Using aversives to train is like that to me. It really goes against the grain of who I am so other ways just make more practical sense to me.

 

And I don't mean to insult anyone by saying that - it's not a judgment on anyone any more than saying that it seriously doesn't suit me to get up at 3:00 AM is an insult to those who do, or must, and that I seriously don't consider doing so.

 

Do I, in theory, forsee seeing aversives as a right choice for a future dog? No more than I forsee learning to speak Japanese, becoming a truck driver, or owning a horse. (I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with those things - in fact, I chose things that are morally neutral to make that point)

 

I'm saying that the difference between the practical trainer and the theoretical one is that the effect (in the fullest sense) is paramount to the practical trainer, and that is inconsistent with a blanket refusal to consider any aversive, however mild or effective.

 

I would say, based on your description, that I, and most "positive trainers" that I actually know in real life, fall into a third category. I'll call it "sensible trainer" since that hasn't been used yet and I think it fits. We consider the effect paramount, but the effect includes more than the behavior - we train to achieve a specific effect both on the behavior and the mindset of the dog. (Example - I don't just want the effect to be "he'll do the teeter", but "he enjoys the teeter"). We train using techniques that make sense to us because they deliver excellent results and take the needs of the individual dog into account at the same time.

 

Some of us enjoy study of and discussion of behavior theory because it helps us to understand why the techniques that we find so useful and effective work, but we do not make our training choices based on theory, so we don't fit into the "theorist" category as you define it.

 

And we don't see a need (99.9% of the time) to use aversives to achieve our goals. Again, not because of theory, nor to judge anyone else, but because the way that we have learned to train works and just make a lot more sense to us personally and it doesn't fail to get the job done. (Unless we don't actually do it, which holds true for any form of training, naturally!)

 

Sensible also fits because we do take our dog's sensibilities into account, which I know is something that some of you scorn, but that fact does not change the fact that it is important to some of us! Again, personal priorities, personal preferences, etc. Where "practical" would say "it works, it's fast", "sensible" would say, "it works, in the long run it is best for my dog". Of course there are many areas where practical and sensible overlap, but I think the distinction is actually quite precise.

[bcnewe2]

One more last question for you Kristine

Would you raise a child with no aversives too? I went to a technical highschool and there was a child care class, (I didn't take it, I took horticulture) but I remember that the kids taking the class were not allowed to use the word no. I was always confused as to how they got the childeren in the daycare to understand what not to do without the word no.

Just courious.

[Ooky]

What a cool discussion - it's especially fun for me because I was reading thinking "Kristine and Kristen are really doing a good job laying out the competing views in my own training." But then I realize it's not just that they are doing a good job representing the two sides to my training personality, both people have had real influence on how I train based on past posts. I've gone to the Kristine-Kristen school of dog training, in a way.

 

I really do *try* to be what eileen describes - a practical trainer that is interested in results. Some times, even a lot of the time, positives work best. I have no doubt an all positive methodology could work for a skilled trainer like Kristine, but I can't make it work. Something in the way Iwas raised and also having been a nanny leads me to the same thoughts Kristen alludes to - I simply can't imagine raising a child (or a dog) that way. I wouldn't know how.

 

Case in point: last night Odin got up and even after going outside (very very rare that he would ask) he couldn't settle down. He normally listens to me, but wouldn't last night. Or DH, who was getting grumpier and grumpier. None of my "positive" methods were working, i.e., ask for a down-settle and then reward the correct behavior with praise. He would down, and then pop back up again. And again. And again. I kept reinforcing the stay (not a normal thing I have to do with him) but he was only getting more and more wired, not less. Finally, I had just had enough. I leashed him to me and gave him a moderate leash tug when he predictably tried to do the same restless things he had been for the hour previous. He whined once, I told him NO and that I was serious, and he laid down with what I swear was sulking. I said good boy and he popped back up. So another leash tug and NO, and he laid down again, I did not praise, and... he stayed down and went to sleep.

 

Now, I'm not saying there weren't better ways to handle the situation. A crate, for example, but this was an unusual instance and we don't even have one in the bedroom. I think he would have found being exiled to the other side of the house for the rest of the night, which he's not used to, much more aversive than what did happen to him, sulking and all. But I guess with my skills, with dogs or children, I reach those points and think I just don't have the patience, timing, or whatever to do it all positively. And overall, it works out for us, so far. He wasn't scarred, and I actually got some rest.

[beachdogz]

I went to a technical highschool and there was a child care class, (I didn't take it, I took horticulture) but I remember that the kids taking the class were not allowed to use the word no. I was always confused as to how they got the childeren in the daycare to understand what not to do without the word no.

 

I can answer that question because way back I took Early Childhood Education classes in both high school and college. If they put their feet up on the table, you are not supposed to say "Don't put your feet on the table" ("don't" having the negative word "not" in it); you are supposed to say "Feet are for standing on the floor." And you were expected to turn every single negative sentence into a positive.

[Root Beer]

One more last question for you Kristine

Would you raise a child with no aversives too? I went to a technical highschool and there was a child care class, (I didn't take it, I took horticulture) but I remember that the kids taking the class were not allowed to use the word no. I was always confused as to how they got the childeren in the daycare to understand what not to do without the word no.

Just courious.

 

First I must digress just to clarify one thing. I'm not saying you think this but, for anyone reading. The fact that I don't train with aversives does not mean that I don't tell my dogs "no". Of course I do - a lot! For example, sometimes they gather at the door when I don't feel like going out and I'll say, "no - we aren't going out right now". They don't just get to do whatever they want all the time.

 

Yes, I do tend to tell them what to do instead of what not to do. If I don't want my dog to jump up, I say "off" instead of "no", but that's not really a big deal.

 

And, especially with a new dog who is just learning the house rules, I use negative punishment as needed, which is the equivalent of the time out. A dog who counter surfs, plays too rough with the other dogs, tries to tear up things that aren't his to tear up, throws flatware out of the sink, etc., ends up sitting next to me on the futon or computer on leash for a while. I'm perfectly nice to the dog during this time, but freedom goes away. That's how positive trainers teach consequences and I've found that it works and I can be perfectly pleasant about it. The need for it pretty much goes away once the dog has the house rules down pat.

 

Where I don't use "no" or an equivalent is when I am teaching the dog something new, working to change the dog's attitude toward something, building fluency of a particular skill, playing sports, or performing routines.

 

Example - to teach the dog a start line stay, I reinforce the sit stay heavily until it is solid and then work to build difficulty using rewards. I've found toy play to be the best reward for this particular behavior. I want the dog be eager to sit as I set myself up where I need to be because sitting while I set myself up is part of the game. This is where I don't use aversives of any kind. I don't put the dog in a stay and say "no" (or equivalent) every time the dog starts to get up.

 

So, what do I do if my dog breaks a stay in training once I am sure that he knows the behavior and really should be expected to hold the sit? (In competition, you just have to go because you NQ if do anything else!) We don't start. That is what the dog wants, after all - to join me among the equipment on the course. He doesn't get that until he holds the sit until I release him. I am very matter of fact about recueing the sit. It's just a sit and I don't get upset about it. When he holds it until I release him, the game he wants begins. But I don't do that in the actual training stage.

 

Soooooo . . . to answer your original question, I would absolutely use "no" with a child and there would most certainly be discipline with a child in my household.

 

Children aren't dogs. Dogs are animals. They can't understand the whys and wherefores of what we do to and for them. Sure, they can to some extent - I truly do believe that my rescue dogs have some sense of gratitude to Ben and me for giving them a good life - but they certainly can't know, comprehend, understand, and make decisions in the same way that a human can.

 

I know that this is debated, but I don't believe that dogs make moral decisions. Yes, they can learn to do and not to do certain things. They can know that we want or do not want them to do certain things. We wouldn't take them into our houses and live with them if they couldn't! But they aren't human and they don't need to be equipped to live as a human does. They will never go out on their own and build their own lives independent of us and they don't need specific preparation to do so.

 

If I had a child, I would take my responsibility to raise him or her to make thoughtful moral decisions very seriously so there would be some significant differences between the way I raise the child and the way I raise my dogs. I can't say what they would be since I haven't raised a child, but I know that this would be true.

 

If I were teaching the child a new skiill - like baking a cake for instance - I would, just as I do with my dogs - explain what to do and nurture good skills in a way that is very positive. I wouldn't just tell the child - that's wrong, don't put the egg in first, don't mix it that way, don't do it like that, no no no! (Just an example - not saying anyone here would be this way!) How many cakes do you think the kid would bake if that were his or her introduction to baking?

 

Also, the language ability of a child allows for a lot more "in between" communication. Saying, "that's the wrong bowl, use this one" isn't an indication that the child is doing something "wrong" and even a young child can understand the difference.

 

As far as aversives with a child, it's something I would have to think about pretty carefully. My own mother could be pretty darn aversive. When I first heard the phrase, "when I say "jump", you say "how high?" I was genuinely puzzled. You say "how high?" You sit around asking questions? With my mother if she said "jump", you started jumping. If she didn't like the height on your jumps, she would tell you. Ask "how high", indeed! She would happily discuss it afterward, but you jump first ask about it later!

 

She raised two children who grew up to be law abiding citizens and decent people who live productive lives. But what kind of relationship did she foster with her children? Not one that I would want with my own children. I don't say that to be critical of my mother - she truly was a good parent. She raised us in the way she truly thought was best and she did a lot "right". But the way she raised us did not foster warmth, trust, and affection. I would want that with my own children as much as I have it with my dogs.

 

I think that with both dogs and children there can be due respect and warmth, trust, and affection all at the same time. No, not at every single moment, but across the board.

 

I apologize for waxing personal here, but I think it illustrates the point that even the choice to use non aversive methods is much more personal than theoretical. (I know you didn't bring up theory, but just to link back to other parts of this thread). It may appear on the surface that I choose a time out type of consequence for a dog who should "know better" instead of an aversive more because of adherance to a theory, but it is really because of who I am and what I am trying to accomplish with my animals.

 

Maybe that's the real difference between practical trainers and sensible trainers and clicker trainers and theoretical trainers and heavy correction trainers, etc. and maybe that's why we really struggle to understand each other's viewpoints. Maybe when it comes down to it, there is a personal component that we just can't perceive through the internet so discussions seem to be devoid of it. (Now I'm being a theorist!! When it comes to humans, I don't mind that at all.) Maybe that's why certain points sometimes comes across from both sides as dogmatic, judgmental, and combatative when the poster doesn't intend to be that way at all.

 

In a way I can't answer the question because I don't have a child, but I can say that if I did, I would try very hard to be fair and clear but thorough when teaching the hard lessons, but I would also seek to foster warmth, trust, and affection in the normal day to day living. And that is the same as it is with my dogs.

 

P.S. No clickers with the children, I promise!! If there ever are any, anyway!

[bcnewe2]

I can answer that question because way back I took Early Childhood Education classes in both high school and college. If they put their feet up on the table, you are not supposed to say "Don't put your feet on the table" ("don't" having the negative word "not" in it); you are supposed to say "Feet are for standing on the floor." And you were expected to turn every single negative sentence into a positive.

Yes that is what I'm remembering. Just couldn't remember the whole thing. Is that method out dated now?

 

I've gone to the Kristine-Kristen school of dog training, in a way.

Now that's a scary thought!

 

I don't expect anyone to use what I've done as an example or something they should do, it's what's worked for me, others may find it totally inappropriate for their dogs.

I like the idea of the practical trainer description. Sounds way better than a lazy one which I tend to think I might be.

 

Nice description Kristine about what you'd do with your kids. I find or found that I raised my kids allot like I raise my dogs, it's a learning experience with mistakes being made on the fly and new things being tried all the time. My adult daughters are always commenting/complaining on how their 16 year old bro gets away with murder compared to the way they had it. I think it's really because I'm older, not as worried about the little things. But what does matter to me, they all remember. Not because I'd beat it into them but because we've had lots of discussions on the subject As the 2 daughters are having kids of their own now, when one of them calls asking for advise, I love to rub it in just a tiny bit that they're asking me...the stupid Mom that raised them so horrible way back when that's what they thought!

This has been a very good discussion, I had to go re read the op cause I forgot what it was all about!

Cheers....my parents are coming down for a few days starting today, should be interesting.

[beachdogz]

Yes that is what I'm remembering. Just couldn't remember the whole thing. Is that method out dated now?

 

I don't know...probably not outdated now. Self-esteem seems to still be an issue. As I said in a prior post, my kids are in the "participation ribbon/everyone's a winner" generation.

 

This has been a very good discussion, I had to go re read the op cause I forgot what it was all about!

 

Well, it was about my dog charging anyone who jumps around and moves their feet. But when I get a few minutes, I'm gonna toss out a new problem and see what kind of response I get to it.

[Shetlander]

To teach him not to do this, I stuck my finger in his mouth as I took the ball from him and tickled his tongue a bit. (Should I put a "don't try this at home" disclaimer on this one? LOL!!) I can't say he found it truly aversive, but since my goal was simply to teach him to give me the ball and move on and not to try to tell him that he was "wrong" (since that's was my honest perspective), I only wanted to annoy him slightly, not cause serious discomfort.

 

I continue to get the sense that you equate many or maybe most aversives as being harsh, causing serious discomfort or stressing the dog out. An aversive is obviously something the dog doesn't like because it is supposed to discourage a behavior. In your example, to discourage your dog from grabbing your hand you did something he didn't like and he stopped grabbing your hand. That is pretty much the definition of aversive and even, dare I say it, positive punishment or negative reinforcement (I can see the argument going either way and I don't care, so take your pick ).

 

I don't think most of us who talk about corrections or pressure or aversives are saying we don't care how it affects the dog or what fall out may come from an improper use of those things. And I don't think most people who use corrections are aiming to cause dogs serious discomfort. I do think most are aiming to stop a certain behavior, sometimes a behavior that is life threatening.

 

When I said I felt my dog experienced some relief when I took him off the teeter, that being on the teeter involved a certain pressure, your response was that pressure would be pushing the dog beyond his comfort zone, ignoring his stress signals, demanding performance. It sounded way harsher than the game I was playing with my Lhasa. But then I don't see pressure as something that must push a dog beyond his ability to recoup and quickly resume what he was doing. I see Quinn dealing with pressure at his herding lessons and there is nothing he wants more in this world than to work sheep. Similarly, I saw my Lhasa deal with the pressure of the teeter as he also learned a new game, new rules, and new focus. This allowed him to quickly climb back on the board to keep playing.

 

You never did explain what pressure your dogs found rewarding, by the way. Not that you haven't had plenty of other things to respond to.

[Eileen Stein]

At the same time, I still don't see anything theoretical about it because it's just the way I approach things. Asking me if I would consider an aversive is like asking if I would consider getting a job that requires me to get up at 3:00 AM every day. I'm not an early morning person and I don't operate that way. Would I do it if I truly had no other choice so survive. Yes - although it would be a struggle. Using aversives to train is like that to me. It really goes against the grain of who I am so other ways just make more practical sense to me.

 

Well, ruling out a job that requires getting up at 3:00 AM really resonates with me. It would be well-nigh impossible for me to do that -- I could probably count on the fingers of two hands the number of times I was on time for school in K-12, and I chose law as a career in part because I was under the (mistaken) impression that lawyers didn't start work til 10:00 AM. But that is something hard-wired into my metabolism, circadian rhythms, etc. -- I'm sure it's in my genes. It's hard for me to see a refusal to tap a dog on the head or muzzle, or take a quick hard step toward a dog, or pull a dog's collar, as intrinsic or integral to someone's personal identity in anything like the same way. I think that's a mental choice, not a physiologically dictated one. But I guess I have to accept your assertion that it's fundamental to who you are.

 

Do I, in theory, forsee seeing aversives as a right choice for a future dog? No more than I forsee learning to speak Japanese, becoming a truck driver, or owning a horse. (I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with those things - in fact, I chose things that are morally neutral to make that point)

 

Well, you're talking about something totally different here. Regardless of whether you foresee learning to speak Japanese right now, my question is more akin to "Are you open to the idea that you might find yourself in circumstances in the future where learning Japanese would be desirable?"

 

I would say, based on your description, that I, and most "positive trainers" that I actually know in real life, fall into a third category. I'll call it "sensible trainer" since that hasn't been used yet and I think it fits. We consider the effect paramount, but the effect includes more than the behavior - we train to achieve a specific effect both on the behavior and the mindset of the dog. (Example - I don't just want the effect to be "he'll do the teeter", but "he enjoys the teeter"). We train using techniques that make sense to us because they deliver excellent results and take the needs of the individual dog into account at the same time.

 

So do we practical trainers. That's why I included the parenthetical when I said "the effect (in the fullest sense) is paramount," and why I included the qualifier "with no negative baggage." I too intend to achieve a specific effect both on the behavior and the mindset of the dog. I too take my dog's needs and sensibilities into account. The fact that an aversive works fast is a plus to me, but it's not the only consideration; what's best for my dog in the long run is also an important consideration, and IMO sometimes an aversive IS best.

 

To take a concrete example: I want my dogs to get into a water tub when I tell them to. It helps to cool them off when they need it, and in some extreme cases might save their life. Some dogs are reluctant to get into the tub initially. I guess I could reward them for going near the tub, and then reward them for putting one foot in, and then reward them for putting two feet in, etc., etc., etc. But this would be a pointless misuse of my time and theirs. This is something I want them to learn now, and I know that 99% of dogs will not be traumatized by being placed in the tub and will very quickly find jumping in the tub and lying down pleasurable once they've done it. So, when they balk at first encounter, concededly out of fear, I take them by the collar and put them in the tub without fuss or ceremony. (I wouldn't do this with a very spooky dog, but I would do it with 99% of dogs.) I'm sure this is aversive for them -- I am making something happen that they don't want to happen. But all of the dogs I have done this with have very quickly come to jump into the tub willingly and happily after no more than 1-3 instances. None has shown any increase of fear in general, and most have shown diminished fear in general (I can't necessarily attribute it to the tub experience, because there are so many variables in the dogs' lives). Nor have they shown any distrust of me afterwards. If anything, I think it increases their trust, because they see that, despite their mistaken fear, I am not making them do something that will hurt them.

 

So the only difference I can see is that we practical trainers will consider using a wider vocabulary when training our dogs. We are not ruling out a priori one entire avenue of communication.

 

I jumped into this just in an attempt to answer your question about what Wendy might mean by "practical." I think I'll jump out again now. Peace.

[Wendy V]

Eileen, you did a better job of it that I did, so I just left you to it. Practical=efficient use of time, and using the tools at hand, i.e. voice and body pressure. This does not preclude any method that produces results.

[SoloRiver]

Probably someone already said it but I don't understand the false dichotomies being presented here.

 

Anyone who is at all consistent in her training methods is following some theory, whether it is articulated or not.

 

I find that it is very rare for even the most practical of trainers NOT to attempt to articulate something about the mechanism of why dogs do what they do, or to try to explain why one method works and another does not. That is theory. Sorry. Not all theories come out of books. You are all theoretical trainers, whether you read Control Unleashed or not.

 

I find that both "sides" are guilty of subscribing to ineffective methods because of adherence to theory. For example, "I won't use treats" appears to be a tenet of the "practical" trainer and the fact is that in certain situations, certain dogs will learn faster if such explicit, desirable rewards are used. On the other hand, "I won't ever say 'no' to my dog" appears to be a tenet of many "positive" trainers, and in certain situations, certain dogs would learn much faster if their owners were willing to use mild aversives.

 

Sorry if someone already said this, but I just can't read through all five pages of this thread.

 

Finally -- the author of Control Unleashed is a good friend of mine. Is she very well-versed in behavior theory, oh YES, she certainly is. She is also extraordinarily practical and an extremely effective trainer. I know all of her personal dogs except for the youngest (the Border Collie) and they all have their quirks and their training challenges and they are all excellent canine citizens and great dogs. What she writes about in Control Unleashed comes directly out of her experience with training dozens if not hundreds of dogs, coming to the situations with a background in behavior theory, working with dogs hands-on, and determining what is effective and produces results for particular dogs and what does not. Through this she came up with a perspective on training that many find truly novel.

 

It's nothing new; it's exactly the way science works, and the way normal human beings interact with the world. You have an idea of what might work, you try it, and then you analyze the results (did it work or not) and modify your approach for next time accordingly. That's exactly what Leslie did and what all "practical" trainers (if they are truly practical, and not simply adhering to an unarticulated theory that "treats are bad" and "desensitization takes too long" or whatever) do, every day. So what's the big deal? Sure, there are people -- on BOTH "sides" -- who slavishly adhere to their own theories even despite what they may be observing in their dogs, but that's a separate issue and again, one both "sides" have in common.

[Root Beer]

You never did explain what pressure your dogs found rewarding, by the way. Not that you haven't had plenty of other things to respond to.

 

And every time I sit down to do so, life seems to intervene!! But not this time!!

 

I can't say that there is a specific type of pressure that they find rewarding per se, and it definitely varies from dog to dog. Maddie, my Lab/BC mix, never finds pressure rewarding. She will roll at the slightest feeling of pressure. But the two Border Collies definitely enjoy a bit of pressure from time to time.

 

For Speedy, I see it when we are practicing something and I have him do it over and over. A lot of dogs find that to be too much and shut down, but he seems to find being asked to repeat something rewarding. I don't mean two or three times. I've never tested to see how many times I could cue something in a row before he would quit, but he can take quite a bit of "now do that again, try it this way, etc."

 

I'm going to have to think about how to explain this better. It's almost more of a gut thing. Like I know I'm asking a bit more than what the dog is comfortable giving, but not so much that it's overwhelming.

 

Does that make a little sense? I hope so!!

 

I continue to get the sense that you equate many or maybe most aversives as being harsh, causing serious discomfort or stressing the dog out. An aversive is obviously something the dog doesn't like because it is supposed to discourage a behavior. In your example, to discourage your dog from grabbing your hand you did something he didn't like and he stopped grabbing your hand. That is pretty much the definition of aversive and even, dare I say it, positive punishment or negative reinforcement (I can see the argument going either way and I don't care, so take your pick ).

 

Right - and that's what I said. It's the one instance where I chose to use an aversive with one of my dogs to teach something. I certainly knew that when I decided to do so.

 

Oh, I definitely know that not all aversives are harsh and that not all dogs are distressed by every aversive, and that the effect on the dog's attitude and mindset varies from dog to dog. There are some dogs one could be quite harsh with and the dog wouldn't even care. There are others who crumble if you look at them crosseyed. And then most of them fall somewhere in between.

 

Believe me - I see dogs being corrected around me in classes to varying degrees all the time. I see quite the spectrum from very mild corrections that the dog hardly even notices to just plain rotten mean punishment (usually for something the handler actually caused to begin with, but that's another topic altogether!!). And I see dogs being corrected who shut down and stop performing or become visibly confused as a result and I see dogs being corrected who couldn't care less and are not affected in any obvious way.

 

I have to say this though - I seriously have seen very few dogs actually do something better as a result of a correction. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I rarely see it work the way it's supposed to.

 

I can think of exactly one dog that I have seen trained with corrections where the corrections worked quickly and got an obviously good result. The lady was correcting her dog with a sharp yank on a prong collar whenever he took his eyes off of her (incorrect use of a prong, but that's was her choice of teaching the dog) and the dog didn't seem to mind and he rarely, rarely, rarely allowed his eyes to move away from her face. At the same time in the same class, I was using a clicker with Dean. He's actually allowed to look away from me, but in the same exercises (they were obedience exercises), Dean and the dog on the prong gave equally good performance in an equal amount of time.

 

Honestly, I couldn't have done that to Dean even if it had taken twice as long to teach him with the clicker (but it didn't - it was just as fast and Dean heels quite elegantly). But the point is, that is the only instance I can think of where I've actually seen corrections work. Usually I see the dog ignore corrections, become confused by corrections, or shut down because of corrections. That's not to judge anyone - it's just what I have witnessed going on around me at training classes for years.

 

I'd also like to say here that I have not watched a Border Collie be trained from scratch as a stockdog, so I am not in any way saying that corrections don't work in that context. I'm commenting on what I have observed myself in pet and sport training classes only.

 

Now, to get back to what you said, I definitely know that not all corrections are that extreme and when I use an example like the one above, I don't mean to imply that I think all corrections are extreme or harsh or totally unfair. My reason for not using even mild corrections when teaching my dogs is not because I think the dog can't take it or something - it's because I prefer to do it through reinforcement, reward, and focusing on the skills that I want my dog to learn and it works for me - even when the behaviors would have been potentially life threatening if they had continued.

[Root Beer]

I jumped into this just in an attempt to answer your question about what Wendy might mean by "practical." I think I'll jump out again now. Peace.

 

I am glad that you jumped in, Eileen. I have enjoyed discussing this with you and with Wendy, Kristen, Liz, beachdogz (you started a fantastic discussion!!), and everyone else!