Oh GOD, a Ceasar wanna be

[Root Beer]

I mean list each aspect of the dog's behaviour and give your own interpretation of it.

 

Pam

 

I can do that. Probably not today, but tomorrow I would probably have time to sit down and do that.

[Debbie Meier]

Kristine, Thank you for taking the time to explain your approach.

 

I have another question for you, how do you get your dog to the point where he reliably gives you the proper behaivor regardless of the level of stimulation, be it high, low or never expirenced before?

 

And how long do you expect that to take when you have a dog that is easily motivated by noise and motion?

 

Do you feel that you are teaching the dog to behave in a certain way under all stress levels or getting your dog desensitized to specific stress levels (ie agility competition)?

[Houndstooth]

I found the "training" in the video very unappealing, and I do come from the perspective of someone that trains dogs for stockwork.

I've worked border collies for 20 years, in that time I've taken many lessons and clinics. Personally I've never seen a decent sheepdog trainer poke and nag at a dog. I also don't see much comparison between a happy, excited dog jumping up on people, and a dog harassing sheep. Why not just give the dog a quick correction for jumping up, then move on? Is continuously poking at a dog really so effective that it needs to be defended as a training method?

 

Angelique

[Root Beer]

Kristine, Thank you for taking the time to explain your approach.

 

No problem!

 

I have another question for you, how do you get your dog to the point where he reliably gives you the proper behaivor regardless of the level of stimulation, be it high, low or never expirenced before?

 

Repetition and a high rate of reinforcement when you first start. When the dog has a true change of mindset, the behavior will generalize.

 

I use learning to type as an analogy. Most people, when they first learn to type, have to do a lot of slow drills and think about where their fingers are on the keys. If they try to go too fast, they make mistakes or get stuck.

 

But at some point, the skill of typing goes from being one that you consciously have to think about and practice a lot to one that is automatic and you don't have to think about it at all to do it, as long as you do it on a fairly consistent basis.

 

It's similar with this process. At first the dog needs a lot of repetition and a high rate of reinforcement or the dog will get lost or stuck. But once it is really ingrained, it is automatic to the dog.

 

And how long do you expect that to take when you have a dog that is easily motivated by noise and motion?

 

That depends a lot on the dog. I hate to say that because it sounds wishy-washy, but it really is true. Some dogs won't need a whole lot of time - maybe a few weeks total. Others might need months to truly get to the point where it is completely learned and ready for highly stimulating situations.

 

Do you feel that you are teaching the dog to behave in a certain way under all stress levels or getting your dog desensitized to specific stress levels (ie agility competition)?

 

I would say that when done as completely as possible, this would teach the dog to behave in a certain way under most stress levels/excitement levels/distraction levels/motion levels, etc.

 

Nothing is 100%, and something totally new can throw a dog for a loop. If Dean was at an Agility competition and a group of horses came running across the field (yikes!), Dean would bark at them! So, if I were going to compete with him adjacent to a place where people were riding horses, I'd want to be ready to play Look at That with him with the moving horses to make sure he understands that moving horses fall into that particular rule structure. (Of course, safely on leash at a distance that wouldn't disturb the horses).

 

But some things will generalize. He used to react to cars going by on the road while we were riding in the car. After learning to play Look at That at Agility class, that behavior simply vanished. I was surprised. I thought I would have to work on that with him specifically, but it generalized on its own.

 

So, I'd say that the dog would generalize this a good bit, but not likely 100%.

 

I was surprised last summer at camp that he ignored the people going in and out of the pen to work the sheep. He loves sheep, and the year before he had run the fenceline and had to be called off. This year he understood that they weren't available to him and he didn't bother with them except to glance over there every now and again. You would have thought he had never even been in a pen with them before, but when he had his one and only turn on them, it was clear that he had forgotten nothing from two whole years before! And even after that, he understood that the sheep were not available to him and he never ran or barked along the fenceline.

 

I'm not saying that would be automatic with every dog - and he isn't around sheep much. But I was surprised to find that for him it really did change his mindset that much.

 

Once the dog really has this rule structure, it generalizes nicely, but it might not always "hold" with something really unusual, new, or unexpected.

[mum24dog]

Why not just give the dog a quick correction for jumping up, then move on?

Angelique

 

Because many of us would rather teach a dog what it is that we want it to do rather than simply punish it for doing something we don't approve since that tells the dog very little except that its owner can be mean sometimes.

 

Pam

[ejano]

Until I started learning about using a dog to work stock, I would have been aghast at the notion of rapping a dog across the nose with a stick. But as Julie's post shows, the purpose for the dog, the need to prevent stress and injury for all involved, and the *thought and care* (not to mention experience) which can go into (relatively mild) physical punishment, have shown me how appropriate and even necessary such a response can be in the context of working stock. (I remember one lesson last spring I watched, and was *amazed* to see the dog truly relaxed, using her mind again, eager to work, and safer for the sheep after such a correction. The dog reveals all, is my motto.) From what I have seen, a truly skilled stock person uses a lot of well-timed rewards and fewer (but also very well-timed) punishments to guide the dog in his work, and is always reading both the dog and the sheep to see how they are doing and what they need. It is very different from any other training I have done or watched.

 

As for work off stock, leash manners, agility, tricks, and coming when called (which I imagine sets the tone for the stock work in some ways), I am much more inclined to train like Kristine, teaching what I want through reward-based methods (positive reinforcement and some negative punishment) and only gradually adding the challenge of distractions as the dog's understanding grows. Ask me again in a year, lol!

 

Barbara

 

 

I've seen herding trainers use a long swimmie noodle to good effect with both sheep and dog. We used it to break the pups of lunging and barking at the sheep in the pens at the breeders as it is a pretty good barrier for teaching distance (put the noodle between them and whatever you don't want them on). As you say, agility and obedience are different because training is "up close" and they're pretty calm when you're working with them.

 

Liz

 

.

[juliepoudrier]

Is continuously poking at a dog really so effective that it needs to be defended as a training method?

 

Angelique

From my own POV it's not about defending a nagging trainer. It's about this "OMG this person is the devil incarnate" and "the poor, poor dog is now permananetly damaged" reaction that is the predictable response to such videos. Most stockdog trainers learn (sooner or later) that nagging gets you nowhere. But was the dog in this video physically harmed? Did it suffer permanent psychological damage? I doubt it. And as you may have already noted from the first response to your post, there are plenty of non-stockdog people who think corrections for unwanted behavior are unkind or unfair to the dog, that is, bad.

 

Because many of us would rather teach a dog what it is that we want it to do rather than simply punish it for doing something we don't approve since that tells the dog very little except that its owner can be mean sometimes.

 

Really? If the dog has been raised to understand a correction (usually a word), then I don't see how giving a correction for unwanted behavior is somehow the equivalent of the owner "being mean sometimes." I give my dogs a little more credit in the brains department than that. If my dog understands that "Ahht!" means "don't do that" and the dog goes to jump on me and I say "Ahht!" how is that being mean? Likewise if it goes to pull wool (which means I'm likely not near enough to even deliver a timely punishment if I wanted to) and I say "Ahht!" it's simply giving the dog information, which the dog understands as "don't do that." It's an all-purpose correction that can be used in any number of situations and it's up to the dog to understand the situation and come up with an appropriate response (e.g., perhaps sitting or standing there instead of jumping up, or in the case of the livestock, letting go and getting back outside the "bubble"). You're falling into the same old trap that others have: stockdog trainers use the term correction and it does not necessarily equal punishment. Where you teach the dog to offer a behavior you want in exchange for one you don't want, I would teach the dog to understand a correction means "don't do that" and let the dog come up with a response that's appropriate for the situation.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Kristine,

 

How do you apply your process at a distance away from the dog so that the dog can do a task at distance? Or do you have to teach the dog to execute everything completely without a flaw?

 

Let's say as an example the dog is 50 feet from you doing a task, like getting ready to go up a A-Frame and then suddenly sees a cat, what do you do if the dog decides to quit his work (going up the A frame) and opts to engage the cat instead? How do you get the dog to disengage from the cat and go back to the right job?

[jdarling]

Shannahan Article on "Correction"

[RoseAmy]

Has anyone ever watched a mother dog teach her puppies correct dog behavior? Or watched an older dog teach a young puppy right from wrong??

 

Just some food for thought.

[Houndstooth]

From my own POV it's not about defending a nagging trainer. It's about this "OMG this person is the devil incarnate reaction" that is the predictable response to such videos. Most stockdog trainers learn (sooner or later) that nagging gets you nowhere. But was the dog in this video physically harmed? Did it suffer permanent psychological damage? I doubt it. And as you may have already noted from the first response to your post, there are plenty of non-stockdog people who think corrections for unwanted behavior are unkind or unfair to the dog, that is, bad.

 

I just wonder at the vehemence of the defense - no, obviously it isn't the worst thing ever done to a dog, but hardly necessary. And then to equate it somehow to training a stockdog just seems pointless, at best.

It is unfortunate that to some all correction is "mean", but I don't think it justifies defending bad training.

 

To mum24dog - first I will say I agree with most of your posts, however I feel a proper correction is conveying information to a dog. I know it has been said before, but corrections don't need to be hard (let alone "mean" which implies taking a certain pleasure in "punishing" the dog), to be effective. It is just telling a dog not to do something, simply and directly.

Every dog I've owned has been quite capable of understanding that.

 

Angelique

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

 

How do you apply your process at a distance away from the dog so that the dog can do a task at distance? Or do you have to teach the dog to execute everything completely without a flaw?

 

Let's say as an example the dog is 50 feet from you doing a task, like getting ready to go up a A-Frame and then suddenly sees a cat, what do you do if the dog decides to quit his work (going up the A frame) and opts to engage the cat instead? How do you get the dog to disengage from the cat and go back to the right job?

 

In that case I use a call off. I call the dog's name or use a recall word like "here" or "return" or whatever I use with that particular dog.

 

The Look at That training ties into that because it does, as a side effect, increase the dog's ability to disengage from distractions and orient back to you. While this is not a true "Look at That" situation, with enough of that kind of self control training, a simple call off and directive to the next task ought to do it.

 

Of course, working recalls separately for a dog who does not call off is important, as well.

 

So, in your example, I'd call out, "Dean! Here! Scramble!" Of course, as he started to move in toward me, I would use appropriate body language to get him pointed in the direction of the A-Frame as I called out "Scramble". Now I am not only using the call off, but sending him off on his next task - the A-Frame.

 

So, no, the dog does not have to learn to execute everything without a flaw. Distractions and stressors, etc. are going to happen. That's the thing I love about the Control Unleashed program (not an advertisement, just a comment on my own experience!). The dog doesn't have to do everything perfectly all the time. The program equips both dog and handler to get back on track when things don't go off without a flaw. It gives us tools to be able to continue (with whatever) when life happens.

[PSmitty]

Really? If the dog has been raised to understand a correction (usually a word), then I don't see how giving a correction for unwanted behavior is somehow the equivalent of the owner "being mean sometimes." I give my dogs a little more credit in the brains department than that. If my dog understands that "Ahht!" means "don't do that" and the dog goes to jump on me and I say "Ahht!" how is that being mean? Likewise if it goes to pull wool (which means I'm likely not near enough to even deliver a timely punishment if I wanted to) and I say "Ahht!" it's simply giving the dog information, which the dog understands as "don't do that." It's an all-purpose correction that can be used in any number of situations and it's up to the dog to understand the situation and come up with an appropriate response (e.g., perhaps sitting or standing there instead of jumping up, or in the case of the livestock, letting go and getting back outside the "bubble"). You're falling into the same old trap that others have: stockdog trainers use the term correction and it does not necessarily equal punishment. Where you teach the dog to offer a behavior you want in exchange for one you don't want, I would teach the dog to understand a correction means "don't do that" and let the dog come up with a response that's appropriate for the situation.

 

J.

 

Totally agree with this.

[Root Beer]

Has anyone ever watched a mother dog teach her puppies correct dog behavior? Or watched an older dog teach a young puppy right from wrong??

 

Just some food for thought.

 

I'm not a dog, I'm a human.

 

My dogs know I'm not a dog. They know I'm a human.

 

I don't feed my dogs like a mother dog would. I feed them like a human does. I don't groom my dogs like a mother dog would. I groom them like a human does.

 

And I don't teach my dogs correct behavior as a mother dog would. I have lots of training options that a mother dog does not have because I'm human.

 

Just some food for thought.

[juliepoudrier]

Angelique,

My POV on training comes from training stockdogs so that's why I bring up that sort of training--it's what I do. Kristine talks about positive reinforcement and clicker training because it's what she does. Obviously there is sometimes a disconnect between the two points of view and this discussion is just one such example. When folks look at this trainer and say he's causing undue stress to the dog and that it's quite clear to them how stressed out the dog is by his methods, I take exception to that. You can call it vehemence, defense of bad training, pointless, whatever you want. I haven't once in this thread said I think this guy is a great trainer. What I've objected to all along is the what I consider over-the-top reaction to the video. I don't personally see a dog that was overly stressed or harmed and if by saying so I am in your view vehemently defending the trainer, well, I don't know how to correct your misinterpretation of my comments.

 

You've been a member of this forum for a while. I don't know if you just normally lurk or don't bother or what, but as you might have noted by now, the minute someone mentions a correction, many folks immediately equate that with "punishment" and "mean." If it takes a stockdog training example to disabuse them of the "punishment" and "mean" ideas, then that's what I'll use, again, because that's what I know. The whole point is that one person's interpretation of what they're seeing is based entirely on their own experiences and perspectives and not everyone has the same experiences and perspectives. Kristine looks at that video and sees a dog in distress. I look at the video and don't see a dog in distress. Your dog jumps on you and you give it a quick, no-nonsense correction and it's caught on video and posted here and what do you think the reaction would be? Some folks would say you're mean and causing your dog distress. I'd probably be the one responding by saying "I don't see a dog that is unduly stressed or overtly harmed." That's where I'm coming from.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

So, in your example, I'd call out, "Dean! Here! Scramble!" Of course, as he started to move in toward me, I would use appropriate body language to get him pointed in the direction of the A-Frame as I called out "Scramble". Now I am not only using the call off, but sending him off on his next task - the A-Frame.

 

 

It sounds like you are applying a correction as your dog is coming back to you and you apply your body language to stop him from coming to you and redirect him toward the A-Frame.

[Root Beer]

It sounds like you are applying a correction as your dog is coming back to you and you apply your body language to stop him from coming to you and redirect him toward the A-Frame.

 

How is that a correction? Use of the dog's name, or "here" means - "turn and run this way" and/or "orient to me".

 

On the body language part, we concur. The body language does say, "now go that way".

 

I know it is a subtle difference and sometimes there is some overlap, but I don't train my dog's name and/or call off to mean, "don't do that", but to mean, "run to me" or "orient to me".

 

While technically the directive does "stop" the dog from running toward the rabbit, this is happening as a direct result of the dog responding to the directive call and then directive toward the next obstacle.

 

The difference isn't in what is actually happening from a visual perspective - dog leaves rabbit and returns to the Agility run and goes on. But from a training perspective, there is a difference.

 

Do you consider every cue or directive to your dog to be a correction if a change in behavior from one thing to another is in play? For instance, if your dog was lying down on your porch and you threw a toy and said, "go fetch", is that a correction because you are stopping the dog from lying down?

 

I'm not being sarcastic or snarky there. I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I am trying to understand where you see the difference between the two scenarios. To me there is none. The dog, engaged in one behavior, is directed to do something else. Nothing is "corrected" in either case.

[Ooky]

I agree with all who have said this guy isn't terribly skilled or effective, but is not harming the dog or being "mean" to it. I thin the dog was offering behaviors to see if she could understand what he wanted. PErsonally, if I had been the dog, I would have been kind of confused myself with this guy, which is what I personally read from the dog (as much as you could read it on the video). Also, I think the poking was for a while getting the dog MORE excited, not less, which wasn't really what he wanted to accomplish.

 

I think some of the issue here is assuming that corrections, whether physical or not, are inherently "mean". I don't believe they are. I think if you tried to hold a conversation without the word "no" and instead only answered questions with positive statements, it would be a weird conversation and not the most efficient way to communicate. This is how I see corrections - equivalent to the word "no". Of course, I also don't believe in dominance-based training methods, or beating your dog (I mean beyond mild physical corrections) or kicking puppies, whatever. But I will give Odin a rap or a scruff shake when warrented, for sure. He survives just fine and in my experience this is USUALLY the end of that behavior - forever. I say usually because I am not a skilled enough trainer to always extinguish a behavior immediately. I like to use positive methods predominately because my timing on corrections frankly leaves a lot to be desired, plus *I* feel happier when we are "going" positive on non-life-or-death stuff. I can certainly understand Kristine's feeling uncomfortable watching a dog be unfairly intimidated or corrected or bullied or wahtever by "corrective" methods - but I do think she and some others see this occurring a lot more than it actually does. And in some cases, I just don't have time or patience for positive means, which exposes my inadaquacy, I guess.

 

Case in point: the other night Odin raced in with the zoomies from a big storm with thunder we were having, ran upstairs to where I was sitting, and did a fairly good "swimmer's turn" off my abdomen while holding his ball (very playful). OUCH. This wasn't normal for him, and he was over thresholds of normal excitement into zoomy land. But I DON'T CARE. He is an adult now and even if he does have zoomies he needs to remember to respect my personal space. Such behavior could hurt me or the fetus or later, a baby if I was holding it. Or he could have knowcked someone over. He wasn't remembering to respect ME. So I yelled, and would have rapped him across the nose too if he hadn't been gone already. He knows what "HEY" means, and he knew I was angry. DH often points out that because I am his "person", my anger, which he hardly ever experiences, is a huge deal to him more than any other person or trainer (btw, DH thinks I don't get angry with him often enough!). He ran downstairs and was *very* upset. When he came back up, I think he WAS offering appeasement behaviors, but again, I was ok with that because in my mind, we were talking major infraction and he should feel "bad" enough that a significant impression was made. Of course I also let him know he was alright and I forgave him, within 5 minutes of it occuring. He has been very respectful of my personal space ever since. It may not have been a positive experience, but I like the "case closed" feeling.

[Debbie Meier]

How is that a correction? Use of the dog's name, or "here" means - "turn and run this way" and/or "orient to me".

 

I didn't say that was a correction, you using it more like a redirect after a mistake. I would be interested to hear what you would do if the dog blew off your recall and kept chasing the rabbit. How do you get the dog to stop doing what it enjoys doing? Probably get in it's path and not let it past you using your body language, correction. Or others would have the dog dragging a leash, step on the leash, when the dog hits the end, correction.

[Eileen Stein]

I think what it comes down to is whether or not THIS METHOD portrayed in the video (which IMO looks like an attempt to instill fear - faux calm - via positive punishment to create a behaviour of lying down) was the MOST APPROPRIATE for THIS DOG in THIS SITUATION according to what WE CAN SEE IN THE VIDEO ALONE?

 

I'm not sure it does come down to whether this method is the most appropriate; I haven't heard anyone argue that this IS the most appropriate method. It is not a method I could see myself using, but I can't say exactly what I would be doing without having seen the dog's behavior before the training method was applied -- here the video starts with the training already in progress -- and without a clearer idea of what the goal is. I also have to say I don't think much of the trainer's timing in the second phase of the training, and would not have posted this video as an example of particularly good training.

 

I do dispute, however, that what we see in the video "looks like an attempt to instill fear - faux calm - via positive punishment to create a behaviour of lying down." I see no attempt to instill fear, nor do I see any fear resulting.

 

What I do see is the trainer placing the dog on her side in an attempt to show her that he wants her to lie calmly on her side. He does not want to hold her immobile, and thus deprive her of any volition in the matter, hence his quick replacement of her and equally quick removal of his hand when she moves to get up (what has been termed "poking"). Those "poking" movements are not intended as punishments. As he sees she is getting the idea, he stops "poking" and begins to stroke her, and it is then -- not during the "poking" -- that she responds by lying quietly on her side. (She does appear relaxed to me then, although the small size and lack of clarity in the video keeps me from coming to a firm conclusion about this, and therefore I haven't expressed one.) I certainly don't perceive any fear. Then when he stops stroking her she readily and calmly rises up and seeks further interaction with him, and not in a servile way.

 

That is what I see.

 

ETA: I agree, BTW, that this appears to be a delightful obliging dog who would be a pleasure to train. Perhaps the real purpose of the video was to illustrate this for potential adopters.

[flyer]

Until I started learning about using a dog to work stock, I would have been aghast at the notion of rapping a dog across the nose with a stick. But as Julie's post shows, the purpose for the dog, the need to prevent stress and injury for all involved, and the *thought and care* (not to mention experience) which can go into (relatively mild) physical punishment, have shown me how appropriate and even necessary such a response can be in the context of working stock. (I remember one lesson last spring I watched, and was *amazed* to see the dog truly relaxed, using her mind again, eager to work, and safer for the sheep after such a correction. The dog reveals all, is my motto.) From what I have seen, a truly skilled stock person uses a lot of well-timed rewards and fewer (but also very well-timed) punishments to guide the dog in his work, and is always reading both the dog and the sheep to see how they are doing and what they need. It is very different from any other training I have done or watched.

 

As for work off stock, leash manners, agility, tricks, and coming when called (which I imagine sets the tone for the stock work in some ways), I am much more inclined to train like Kristine, teaching what I want through reward-based methods (positive reinforcement and some negative punishment) and only gradually adding the challenge of distractions as the dog's understanding grows. Ask me again in a year, lol!

 

Barbara

 

What Barbara says is also true for me. The dog in this video is not working stock, IMHO she is a bubbly dog who doesn't have manners.

[Root Beer]

I didn't say that was a correction, you using it more like a redirect after a mistake. I would be interested to hear what you would do if the dog blew off your recall and kept chasing the rabbit. How do you get the dog to stop doing what it enjoys doing? Probably get in it's path and not let it past you using your body language, correction. Or others would have the dog dragging a leash, step on the leash, when the dog hits the end, correction.

 

I can go with "redirect after a mistake". I'm not bothering to tell the dog that there was a mistake - just getting him back on track as soon as possible (after all, we are being timed and at this point the run is still good!). But, that description definitely fits.

 

At that moment, during an Agility run, there is nothing much one can do. The dog can't drag a leash - it's against the rules. If one is smart, he or she doesn't compete in outdoor Agility trials unless the dog has a reliable recall! Some people never do compete outdoors for that very reason (people who use all types of training methods, not just the reinforcement folks, I do want to add!!)

 

But if what you're asking is, what do I do about it from a training perspective, then I go back to my recall work. I go back to the first steps and "load up" the recall word using a high rate of reinforcement. Going back to that typing analogy, I want that recall word to be conditioned so strongly that the dog responds to it without thinking, just as I'm typing right now without thinking about it.

 

Some people do body blocks, but I don't. It's not that I think they are bad or mean or punitive, but I don't see them as terribly clear, especially for recall training. And I don't do the step on the leash thing, either. I don't want my dog to return to me because I've stepped on the leash, but because that recall word is solid as solid can possibly be.

 

There are several games that I play for recall training. My personal favorite is the one with two people, each one takes a turn calling the dog using the name or recall word. The second the dog starts to move toward the person who has called the dog's name clicks and then rewards when the dog gets to him or her.

 

I'd also play the game on a long line where a treat is tossed (within the range of the long line) and the dog goes to get it, then the dog's name or recall word is called and the dog is clicked when he or she starts to turn toward the handler and rewarded upon returning.

 

Those are "kindergarten" recall games that I play with a new dog, but they are very effective for sharpening up a recall that is disappearing.

 

I would probably throw in some plain old Obedience recalls from a sit-stay, too, but I would not rely on that alone since the dog is not in an attentive sit-stay most of the time when you want a recall.

 

Finally, I would use the Give Me a Break Game from Control Unleashed (sorry - I really love that program!) to really solidify the on-cue recall behavior. I would work in a fenced area and use a release as the reinforcer.

 

The way I see it, if a dog can learn what "AH" or "no" or whatever means, then the dog can learn what "Name, here" means.

 

So, with this recall issue, I would not enter any more outdoor trials, nor have the dog off leash at all unless the area were fenced, and I would go back to recall kindergarten. Once the recall is solid, we'd try the outdoor trial again.

[juliepoudrier]

Once again, I will note that the stockwork discussion was included simply to illustrate that one person's OMG! training technique might be another person's useful and (generally) acceptable method (i.e., we're not comparing any of these methods to the Michael Vick school of dog training). I used the specific example I did because it served to illustrate that there might actually *be* a reason to physically correct a dog, since so many folks on this forum seem to find the idea of such a thing repulsive. IMO, it shows a difference in perspective among different types of trainers (as Barbara noted in her post "It's a different way of training from anything else she has done or watched"), and that's the key to me: Someone using a different method than anyone else would choose to use doesn't make that method inherently bad. If you (the general you) don't understand the reasons behind some of the methods, then it's very easy to label the method as bad. If you do understand the reasons, then you might just be willing to concede that in some situations, your preferred training method might not be suitable and that the alternative training method might not be all that evil.

 

Even though Angelique takes exception with my mention of stockdog training, she then offers her own perspective: why not just correct and move on, which is in fact the approach most stockdog trainers take. She immediately got a response labeling her method as mean. See what I mean? If it's a method you don't understand or that is outside your experience, then you'll (the general you) make assumptions about it that might just be incorrect. I think it helps to provide examples from other training venues so that everyone can broaden their horizons and open their minds. It's why I read Kristine's posts, even though she trains very differently from me. I figure I can learn from her, if I can just get past my immediate gut reaction to "purely positive."

 

I still don't think the dog in the video was treated badly, nor do I see all the fear and stress that some others saw. Different perspectives.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

The way I see it, if a dog can learn what "AH" or "no" or whatever means, then the dog can learn what "Name, here" means.

Sure. But in my case, I want the dog to understand both. When we're working/competing/training, when I say "name, here" it could mean that I want the dog to come to me (though I'd probably use "that'll do, here") or it could simply mean that I'm trying hard to get an inside flank with a youngster and don't really want the dog to recall all the way to me, but simply "orient" to me for a split second so that I have broken one train of thought (push straight ahead) long enough to get the dog to take a flank (bend around). Alternatively, if I give the inside flank and the dog ignores it, I could use a correction: "Hey!" followed by a repeat of the command in question. Lots of grey areas....

 

J.

[geonni banner]

I once knew a woman with a Golden Retriever/ Vizsla mix. The dog’s temperament could best be described as “meek.” He was also getting old – maybe 12 or 13. I was at her house for some reason one day, and she decided to give the dog a bath. She ran about a foot of water in the tub and called the dog.

 

Now, the dog hated getting bathed, as many do. And though he came to the bathroom when he was called, he did so with head and tail adroop. Lynn pointed to the tub and said, “Get in.” Brun sank down to the floor and avoided her eye. For the next two or three minutes she repeated the command as Brun tried to make himself smaller and smaller. He kept up a tremulous wagging of the tip of his tail, and looked anywhere but at his mistress. At the end of this time I said to her, “Why don’t you just pick him up and put him in the tub?”

 

She responded, “Oh no. It has to be his choice to get in.”

 

I said, “Even if he does finally get in by himself, I fail to see how it will be his choice, and in the meantime you are making the dog miserable.”

 

But she insisted that the dog must choose to get in the tub on his own. I was really annoyed at this point, and though I rarely interfere with the way people interact with their dogs, (unless asked to do so) I picked up the unresisting Brun and gently placed him in the water. He looked up at my face and then licked my hand. At that point I left the bathroom, left the house, and never went back.

 

To me, this was dog abuse. There was no punishment, no scolding, just a relentless and to me, brutal bullying of a generally compliant dog. I had heard this woman brag about how she never hit her dog or forced it to do anything it didn’t want to.

 

I am not accusing ANYONE on these posts of being this type of “positive training only” person. But I do think that there are times when a well-timed correction or even a swat on the snout are much more sensible and humane that some long, drawn out interaction that wears on both the dog and the handler. Brun needed neither. Personally I think he behaved well by coming to the bathroom at all when he knew a bath was in store for him. I don’t think lifting him into the tub was inappropriate, and certainly I don’t think he should have been corrected or swatted for not stepping into the water when told to.

 

I would like to hear the people who have defended different training/ handling styles to say how they would have handled Brun from the moment he answered the summons to the bathroom.