Experts versus the rest

[ourwully]

Donald and Maxi

Thank you for the clarifications. I have a lot to learn. It is frustrating at one level when details are not given because I want to solve the problems immediately, but long term and for transferability, it is clear that there is a deeper understanding needed. Through this forum and books, I think I have acquired a lot of strategies but it is clear that I am an extreme novice in one very important area, and that is understanding my dog. In one way this recognition is a bit daunting but I am up for the challenge and the next level of committment.

 

Root Beer

I am glad I asked the question. From your responses on the forum I was guessing that +R just meant positive. I commend you on your approach. I am being very positive, in my opinion, but my guess is, to take it to your level, this is a 24/7 committment. I know there is a huge thread on clickers so I don't want to start another one but I have used the clicker a little bit and with some success. My first attempt, however, wasn't well thought out as I only trained Juno to jump on me! It did work very well on hand targetting and this has been a very useful strategy for me. The one issue I have with the clicker is that I don't seem to have enough hands at times. On the clicker thread, I did find it useful to read that you can slightly delay the treat after the click. This will certainly help me with the hands problem.

 

When I got Juno in December I thought I was just getting a companion, I didn't realize that I was embarking on such an exciting, all encompassing journey. Border Collie people are great!

 

Thanks

Bill

[d112358]

There's a lot less damage you can do to your dog with positive training - they can get entitled and fat, but they're generally pretty retrainable at that point by someone who knows what they're doing. Correction-based training with poor timing or that's consistently too harsh can break a dog and turn it into a fearful mess. For someone new to training a dog, I would recommend perfecting your timing with a clicker and reward-based training.

 

In terms of stock work, I know very little. What I've seen with my extremely sensitive BC is that she bounced back from correction far more easily in her first lesson than she does elsewhere (in normal life, I use a verbal interruptor occasionally with my hard-headed terrier and the BC starts throwing appeasement gestures). If interacting with stock is extremely self-reinforcing, there's a large natural element of reward in teaching a dog to work that the handler doesn't have to provide.

[ourwully]

My apologies if this is a boring update but yesterday I took Juno for a walk after dinner. This was an extra walk for us. We started off with a pull so we slowed down with easy pressure on the leash. Then she started pulling again so I sat her down and gave her the choice of forward or back home. She started pulling again so I turned and went straight home. I didn't feel too bad because it was an extra walk anyway. Once we were home I let her loose in the yard for a while and then I put the leash on her in the yard and started walking her around the yard. We normally don't use the leash in the yard. We did this for maybe 5 minutes and she was really good. This morning, with my wife, we started off with a pull again, so I stopped Juno and waited for a while. Then we set off and low and behold she walked pretty well for our complete walk down the street, and on the trails. The suggestions seemed to work. I think also I may have shown a little more confidence right from the start.

Cheers

Bill

[CMP]

Excellent!

[Maxi]

Hi Bill,

That all brilliant.. Given the issue you had with Juno, it could even be called a step in the right direction! , I'm so pleased for you

[Root Beer]

Root Beer

I am glad I asked the question. From your responses on the forum I was guessing that +R just meant positive. I commend you on your approach. I am being very positive, in my opinion, but my guess is, to take it to your level, this is a 24/7 committment.

 

I don't know about that. I manage to fit it in along with a full time job (that requires me to bring home work at times), social activities, friends, a husband and household, and plenty of time spent just living ordinarily with my dogs.

 

I don't actually spend all that much time training. I'll admit, I DID spend a lot of time training my first dog. It was a pleasure I'll never forget, but yes, I had to put time in with him. It was also one of the most difficult things I've ever done because he was highly fearful, reactive, and he almost ended up fear aggressive at one point. And I didn't know a single thing about training a dog when we started. We took a journey of learning together that transformed him from that mess into a very well adjusted, very happy, dog who was quite mellow by the second half of his life (although still full of a spark of fun). We did it without a single physical or verbal correction (because - thank God - he was a dog who could not have handled either, so I had to learn how to train effectively using +R - and please don't interpret that as "moral high ground" because I really am just stating the facts as they were), and that made me into the trainer that I am now. I miss him every day of my life. He was worth every second I put into learning how to train him, and then some.

 

But I don't spend all that much time training on a daily basis. 5 minutes here and there. I devote a decent amount of time to training for the sports that my dogs and I enjoy together, but for basic manners and stuff - not much time at all. Yesterday Bandit started learning "sit at the door" - he is very excited to get out the front door and he needs some self-control there. Five treats - less than a minute. We'll do that on a daily basis for about a week or so and I expect he will have the concept down. He is ready to learn "up-up" and "off", as well. Another less than a minute a day project.

 

I can't remember the last time I did training with Dean or Tessa on anything that wasn't sport related. I think I refreshed recalls about 6 months ago. Again, a couple minutes a day for about a week or so.

 

 

I know there is a huge thread on clickers so I don't want to start another one but I have used the clicker a little bit and with some success. My first attempt, however, wasn't well thought out as I only trained Juno to jump on me!

 

Clicker work is great for teaching opposites!! When I train recalls, I also train send aways. Then I can strengthen the recall by sending the dog away to recall!

 

I also teach my dogs to jump up on me (I want hind leg work for Freestyle) and to put four on the floor on cue. (That is "up up" and "off"). That is always an option if you ever want to get the clicker back out!!

 

 

It did work very well on hand targetting and this has been a very useful strategy for me. The one issue I have with the clicker is that I don't seem to have enough hands at times. On the clicker thread, I did find it useful to read that you can slightly delay the treat after the click. This will certainly help me with the hands problem.

 

Yes, you can reach into a pocket or bowl after you click and get the treat to feed. I do that on the occasions when I actually need both of my hands for something while doing clicker work.

[Root Beer]

There's a lot less damage you can do to your dog with positive training - they can get entitled and fat, but they're generally pretty retrainable at that point by someone who knows what they're doing.

 

There are all kinds of doggie zen games that teach the dog that he or she must exercises a high level of self control to gain reinforcement.

 

And meal size can be reduced on days when a lot of training treats are given to avoid a huge excess of calories. I'm not talking deprivation here, but about being reasonable. My dogs always get a meal, but if one of them just emptied a Kong stuffed with the equivalent of half their supper a couple of hours before dinner time while hanging out in a crate at class while one of my other dogs worked on the floor, the dog only gets the other half of the meal when dinner is served in the bowl.

[mum24dog]

I don't know how well correction or punishment based training sticks when not practised for years because that isn't how I do things. What I do know is that I took my 11 year old hound cross out today and put him through a range of formal obedience exercises that we haven't done for nearly 4 years and he performed them as if he last did them yesterday, even better if anything. He's not a particularly motivated dog in general (a hound after all) but he was so happy to be given the opportunity to do stuff he really understands and for which he has been rewarded.

[mum24dog]

 

In terms of stock work, I know very little. What I've seen with my extremely sensitive BC is that she bounced back from correction far more easily in her first lesson than she does elsewhere (in normal life, I use a verbal interruptor occasionally with my hard-headed terrier and the BC starts throwing appeasement gestures). If interacting with stock is extremely self-reinforcing, there's a large natural element of reward in teaching a dog to work that the handler doesn't have to provide.

Whilst it is interesting to know how certain dogs behave in a working or peripheral to working environment, as you have noted, it would be a mistake to assume that it necessarily translates to different dogs and/or different situations.

 

Our collie is certainly more resilient when doing agility, which he loves, than he is when doing obedience, which he doesn't.

[ourwully]

Hi Root Beer

When I was thinking 24/7 I guess I was thinking about Juno and I on our first voyage together. I think if I could start over I wouldn't do things a lot differently but I would do them more efficiently and with more confidence. I can see that the amount of time required would certainly be less with every dog added. I still commend you on your approach and I know what you mean when you say the training of your first dog was a great pleasure.

 

I still use the clicker at times and I am sure I will use it more in the future. Right now Juno has just about learned to ring the doggie doorbell and that hasn't taken too long. I used hand targetting and I'm also using it to get her to put her stuff in her toy box.

 

Cheers

Bill

[Maxi]

I don't know how well correction or punishment based training sticks when not practised for years because that isn't how I do things. What I do know is that I took my 11 year old hound cross out today and put him through a range of formal obedience exercises that we haven't done for nearly 4 years and he performed them as if he last did them yesterday, even better if anything. He's not a particularly motivated dog in general (a hound after all) but he was so happy to be given the opportunity to do stuff he really understands and for which he has been rewarded.

Mum24dog, I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what others are saying about their training methods. The comments I've read on this forum suggest that all who have answered this thread use positive methods when training their dog. It's just that once a dog has learnt and understands and should know better that some of us do not ignore bad behaviour (and then as continually stated, any correction that is given takes the dog's age and temperament into consideration). This approach is certainly not the 'punishment based' training that your terminology seems to imply.

 

Also I'm very pleased for you that your dog remembered something after 4 years (why wait so long if he enjoys it?) but I'm also not surprised, when a dog learns something, the neural connections in his brain will change slightly so that he remembers the behaviour, it won't matter what method is used...it's like learning to ride a bike or learning to swim for humans.

[mum24dog]

Mum24dog, I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what others are saying about their training methods. The comments I've read on this forum suggest that all who have answered this thread use positive methods when training their dog. It's just that once a dog has learnt and understands and should know better that some of us do not ignore bad behaviour (and then as continually stated, any correction that is given takes the dog's age and temperament into consideration). This approach is certainly not the 'punishment based' training that your terminology seems to imply.

No, I haven't misunderstood and some very much not positive approaches have been mentioned. I don't see a clear division between training and a point at which the human considers that the dog has been trained and should be corrected for non compliance. If my dog does not comply it is either because my training has not been proofed sufficiently well or my request for compliance was unfair in the circumstances. Too many people blame the dog for their own failings. And I deliberately said correction or punishment, thus not necessarily equating the two.

 

Also I'm very pleased for you that your dog remembered something after 4 years (why wait so long if he enjoys it?) but I'm also not surprised, when a dog learns something, the neural connections in his brain will change slightly so that he remembers the behaviour, it won't matter what method is used...it's like learning to ride a bike or learning to swim for humans.

It's a question of maintaining performance, not just remembering roughly how to do it. I could still swim or ride a bike but I would need some practice to do either as well as I used to. Why have I left it so long? Well we do other things and I find it pretty boring.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Undoubtedly some folk believe rewards are simple: that the dog acts because it "loves treats" or "toys" or "Clicks " or "has a genetic need to 'herd'"

 

While chasing/heading/gathering sheep is genetically rewarding for perhaps 90% of sheepdogs, sheepwork is forbidding to some from the getgo and forbidding by bad experience to others. In any case, a dog chasing sheep is no use to the shepherd.

 

Most, perhaps 70% of sheepdogs are genetically biddable - ie: they are eager to please their shepherd/handler.

 

Directing these genetics into work or directed play is what training - of any persuasion and for any purpose - is about. We teach the dog that cooperating with us is more satisfying than their own inchoate urges. Together we create elegant accomplishments and they come to delight in our performance.

 

Their reward is the work.

 

Donald McCaig

[Maxi]

^^THIS^^

 

Completely agree. Not only is the dog's reward his work, but the shepherd should also consider his sheep's welfare and this is a major and important point.. This is more than just 'not gripping' but also ensuring that the dog learns to feel his sheep so that they are worked in an unstressed manner.

 

The original post asked why 'experts' seemed to give different advice from the rest', It's not that stock workers are necessarily more expert than non stock workers in training dogs ....it's just that they also have their stock consider.

[CMP]

I can state with confidence that I have never been intentionally unfair, cruel or mean spirited to a dog. I like to think that if my dogs were polled, they would tick off the 'trustworthy' box on the scorecard.

 

When a dog, as an example, who has been trained and proofed on a recall, fails to respond to that recall and the reason is not mitigation enough (sometimes they are too young to overcome their natures, sometimes they're just off having a private poop, etc.) AND that dog's future will depend very much upon coming when called *all the time* - a correction is in order. If you've done it right (the training that came before and the correction itself), the correction is not damaging to the dog and forms another part of the framework - one which is important to animals whose eventual jobs will actually have some responsibility and carry real-world consequences.

 

I do not buy into the theory at all that every dog failure belongs to the trainer - just as every person failure does not belong to the parent of the offender.

 

I just can't imagine how one turns a situation where a dog is standing in front of you with a dead chicken he just hoisted from the chicken-shed, where it was alive and well and laying eggs, and deal with it positively. I suppose the answer might be not to let him get into the chicken shed - but if you use dogs for work, you must be able to trust them and they must learn to use their independence wisely - and so they MUST have some.

 

So, in my world, you retrieve the chicken, tell the dog he is a total jerk-ass, maybe twice, send him to some place to do some pennance, maybe tether him for a while and then think of a way to work on future-prevention. If the dog knows what he has done is wrong and trusts you, the correction, in my mind is the kindest, fairest thing you can do. It is quick, painless and efficient. I can think of no other method that would work given all the circumstances.

 

I have worked a lot with service dogs, including specialty services such as drug and bomb dogs and I tell you plainly that the level to which these dogs are trained cannot be done without correction. I don't mean abuse, I mean correction.

 

I dunno - maybe this topic will always be a crucible of disagreement and misunderstanding.

[Mark Billadeau]

Which is more humane, only positive training for a dog on stock and possibly injured (or dead) stock or using corrections on the dog to protect the stock?

 

Training methods that work well off stock may not transfer well to on stock because you are now responsible for more that just the dog's wellfare.

[CMP]

Yes, the story I related about my father upending the dog was after the dog had killed a lamb and had then guarded his kill against his handler. He had injured several in the past. The upending happened after the dog took a lunge - there was a necessity to respond in kind. It took my father nearly a year, but at the end of that time, that dog became one of his most trusted working dogs and retired happily to my father's home.

 

I think he was right - that it was the kindest thing that could have been done for that dog in that instance. The next thing, if the behaviour could not be corrected and if the dog continued to eat the livestock, would have been permanent and not positive in any way, shape or form.

[Eileen Stein]

It's true that the stakes are higher in livestock work, and it's also true that the dog's level of engagement and concentration is typically so high in livestock work that a correction that would wither a pet dog can be necessary just to get the dog to notice it. That may well be why trainers of working stockdogs are dismissive rather than intrigued by the mystique of training without corrections. But I don't buy the idea that corrections make sense for working dog trainers but are unnecessary or undesirable for pet/sport dog trainers.

 

To take the most basic level of training, I would be interested to know how "extreme +R trainers" (which I now gather is the acceptable term for what many extreme +R trainers and others call purely positive trainers) approach housebreaking. I cannot imagine how to train a dog not to eliminate in the house without employing correction to let the dog know that eliminating in the house is unacceptable. I'm not talking about rolled-up newspapers or rubbing noses in it, I'm talking about a calibrated reproof that communicates the wrongness of what the dog is doing. I realize you can "train an alternate behavior" by bringing the dog outside at regular intervals or when you think it has to go and praising it for eliminating outside, but that is not an inconsistent alternate behavior -- the dog learns that eliminating outside is good, but does not learn that eliminating inside is bad. Establishing the habit of going outside only takes you so far -- there will be times when the convenience of going inside outweighs the habit of going outside from the dog's point of view. It seems to me that at some point you must communicate that eliminating inside is bad, and the most effective -- if not the only -- way to communicate that is with a correction. To seek to avoid such a correction seems to me not only inefficient but patronizing. In other threads I've read posts which say that a dog cannot really be considered housebroken until it's a year old. This is astonishing to me, and I can't help wondering if that's because a poor, convoluted and obscure means has been used to try to communicate a simple, crucial concept to the dog.

[Root Beer]

 

I dunno - maybe this topic will always be a crucible of disagreement and misunderstanding.

 

 

I think it always will be. I know for a fact that mutual understanding can be furthered in cases where those discussing the topic are willing to focus on the training itself and to recognize that another person's experience can be quite different from one's own. But that very rarely happens.\

 

But disagreement will always be with us. I will say straight up that I am not willing, under any circumstances, to physically or verbally correct a dog (even mildly) for something that I am perfectly capable of changing/training effectively and reliably through use of +R. My heels are dug in on that and I flatly refuse to budge. I am perfectly capable of understanding that others have a different point of view, but I am not going to say that I would do anything different from what I will actually do just to be agreeable.

 

And, on the flip side, there are those who are equally convinced that there is no way on God's green earth that my +R trained dogs actually ignore items on counters, remain in the car until I release them, recall off of wildlife, walk on loose leashes (unless I give them leave to pull, which I do choose to do at times), earn titles in competition, or do anything other than run wild through life with reckless abandon. Nothing that I ever say or do will convince them otherwise. I completely understand that is their belief. But there will always be disagreement between myself and those folks.

 

I actually don't consider disagreement to be a bad thing in and of itself. It can get bad when the accusations start flying (in both directions) and when misunderstandings are proclaimed as Gospel (in both directions). But I also think that when we can honestly say, "we aren't going to agree here", then the doors to communication can actually open and learning can happen on both sides - even if that learning is mainly perception of a different mindset.

 

Unfortunately, misunderstanding will always be with us, too. That just is what it is.

 

But there are also those who will listen and learn. After many, many, many years on this board, I do think a lot of mutual understanding has been achieved through these discussions and that there is not so much of a conflict over this as an honestly acknowledged disagreement.

[CMP]

Haha. Glad to know I am not the only one who reads the "puppies should not be considered housetrained until they are a year" and goes .... wha-wha-wha-what?

 

That's an excellent example, too.

 

My dog did not feel remotely threatened or lose any of her confidence when I explained about the peeing and pooping in the house business. She did understand that it is bad. I mostly used positive methods and a pro-active approach but there came the time when it was not enough to tell her that going outside was good - I needed the bit about inside being CLEAR - not implied.

 

She only ever went in the house once. She was three months old and she didn't much like being told she was bad, really - but it did not traumatize her - it just made her understand.

 

That said, THAT could not have happened did I not employ positive methods in almost every aspect of our dealings. She trusted me. That made the correction stand out. She still trusts me. But if she pees in the house again, I am definitely going to tell her that was bad and give her the stink eye.

 

 

Kristine: Yes, I agree - and I am always impressed with this board because you CAN have a good discussion even when there is disagreement and ... you know ... things can be learned.

[Root Beer]

To take the most basic level of training, I would be interested to know how "extreme +R trainers" (which I now gather is the acceptable term for what many extreme +R trainers and others call purely positive trainers)

 

"Extreme +R" isn't really a term that is used. It's a phrase that I use to characterize myself (only myself) to make the point that I am very serious about my personal commitment to training in the way that I have chosen to train.

 

"Purely positive" is a term used to attempt to debunk +R training. It is used to try to imply that +R trained dogs are not given any structure or discipline or self control, and so to characterize +R trainers as those who are trying to do something that really isn't possible (basically, train without really training).

 

So, in saying that I am +R to an extreme, I am not saying that I am "purely positive". There is no such thing, other than as a term of insult. Yes, there were those who used it eons ago to describe themselves, but those trainers are few and far between now.

 

 

approach housebreaking. I cannot imagine how to train a dog not to eliminate in the house without employing correction to let the dog know that eliminating in the house is unacceptable. I'm not talking about rolled-up newspapers or rubbing noses in it, I'm talking about a calibrated reproof that communicates the wrongness of what the dog is doing. I realize you can "train an alternate behavior" by bringing the dog outside at regular intervals or when you think it has to go and praising it for eliminating outside, but that is not an inconsistent alternate behavior -- the dog learns that eliminating outside is good, but does not learn that eliminating inside is bad. Establishing the habit of going outside only takes you so far -- there will be times when the convenience of going inside outweighs the habit of going outside from the dog's point of view. It seems to me that at some point you must communicate that eliminating inside is bad, and the most effective -- if not the only -- way to communicate that is with a correction. To seek to avoid such a correction seems to me not only inefficient but patronizing. In other threads I've read posts which say that a dog cannot really be considered housebroken until it's a year old. This is astonishing to me, and I can't help wondering if that's because a poor, convoluted and obscure means has been used to try to communicate a simple, crucial concept to the dog.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I use crate training. The dog is only given unsupervised free time in the house (although with a puppy even that isn't free reign of the whole house) after eliminating outdoors. The restriction of space is completely neutral, and it increases as the dog's understanding grows.

 

I don't teach the dog that it is "wrong" to eliminate in the house, but that the proper place to go is outside. Yes, accidents happen at first, but they don't once the dog understands what is desired, I've found that they comply.

 

I do not train an alternate behavior with housetraining. Crate training utilizes the dog's instinct not to soil the den. That's not really an "alternate behavior" but an expansion of an understanding that the dog already has. It's not convoluted or obscure - it is very straightforward.

 

And no, I would not expect that to take up to one year.

 

I'm on dog #6. Only one of those was housetrained from the start (ironically, former stray Tessa who lived outside for three months was fully housetrained). They all housetrained reliably and without any fuss without me communicating that it is "wrong" to eliminate in the house. Shoot - Sammie did it at one year old (he was one year old when we adopted him and he wasn't housetrained) using newspaper, because we didn't know about crate training with him.

 

Communicating that it is "wrong" to eliminate in the house to housetrain makes as much sense to me as doing so without communicating that makes to you.

[CMP]

Yep, different strokes - as long as it works, as long as the dog and the owner are happy with how it is working and as long as the individual understands their own system - then it's all good.

 

That's why asking for training advice on the internet (or in any large gathering) is a pretty dicey proposition. SO much depends upon

 

- the work or end use to which the dog is destined

- the owner's lifestyle and living situation

- the individual dog's temperament

- the individual owner's temperament

- the basic philosophy employed in general interaction

 

I know some people who want their dog 100% obedient in all things. I only care about 100% in some things and those things I care a great deal - but to many my dogs might seem a little wild - they run about and get into things, they come and go as they please - they decide when it would be a good time for a walk and go take one - or a good time to play and go find someone to play with them. Every one of them has a stellar recall and down-stay and I find that is enough for our everyday lives in terms of perfect compliance.

 

But sometimes they want to sleep on the floor and not in a crate - and I don't much care. Sometimes they want to poke at the cat and I don't much care - they'll just get poked back. Thing is, they WILL do what I ask if I insist. This insistence is done with a firm tone but is not in any way mean - but yes, it is a threat ... when I insist they understand that non compliance is equal to punishment - even if that means a tether or a time out or a banishment.

 

That's every day life. If they are just a pet that is their whole life. If they are working dogs, work is different, compliance is not optional and failures are corrected.

 

I think the really important thing is WHAT PURPOSE will the dog serve? Training must be done to that goal.

[Maralynn]

While I'm not opposed to the concept of corrections (and do use them) I have noticed in SAR dog training that corrections are often used when there is foundation training failure. Too many distractions introduced too quickly. Expecting the dog to generalize too quickly. Not backing up a few steps when adding in major distractions or training in a new area. With that in mind, I am becoming much slower to correct and quick to look for areas where there has been training error. I think solid training can eliminate the need for many corrections - especially strong ones.

 

Re: house training. I think dogs WANT to keep their home clean, and they want to please. My adult dogs had maybe one or two accidents in the house after I got them even though they hadn't really been house dogs before. Kolt has had a few - usually because I was engrossed in something and missed his signals and he had been wrestling with Kenzi. I've interrupted him (and his expression was "oops") and taken him out then calmly praised. He is 5 m/o and I'd say 90% housebroke. I haven't done anything beside management and in the past couple weeks he's gotten super good at asking to go out. I suspect that he's going to be 100% in the next month.

[Eileen Stein]

"Purely positive" is a term used to attempt to debunk +R training. It is used to try to imply that +R trained dogs are not given any structure or discipline or self control, and so to characterize +R trainers as those who are trying to do something that really isn't possible (basically, train without really training).

 

So, in saying that I am +R to an extreme, I am not saying that I am "purely positive". There is no such thing, other than as a term of insult. Yes, there were those who used it eons ago to describe themselves, but those trainers are few and far between now.

Well, if you google "purely positive," I think you will find many more people using it in a positive context, including as a name for their training business or a description of their training philosophy, than in a negative context. Even those saying it's a misnomer outnumber those using it as an insult. Of course you should use a different term if you prefer, but I don't think it's accurate to say that it's only used as "a term of insult" or "to debunk +R training."

I can't speak for anyone else, but I use crate training. The dog is only given unsupervised free time in the house (although with a puppy even that isn't free reign of the whole house) after eliminating outdoors. The restriction of space is completely neutral, and it increases as the dog's understanding grows.

 

I don't teach the dog that it is "wrong" to eliminate in the house, but that the proper place to go is outside. Yes, accidents happen at first, but they don't once the dog understands what is desired, I've found that they comply.

 

I do not train an alternate behavior with housetraining. Crate training utilizes the dog's instinct not to soil the den. That's not really an "alternate behavior" but an expansion of an understanding that the dog already has. It's not convoluted or obscure - it is very straightforward.

 

And no, I would not expect that to take up to one year.

 

I'm on dog #6. Only one of those was housetrained from the start (ironically, former stray Tessa who lived outside for three months was fully housetrained). They all housetrained reliably and without any fuss without me communicating that it is "wrong" to eliminate in the house.

 

Crate training is management -- keeping the dog from being able to range around the house unobserved or far enough that he doesn't feel he is "soiling the den." Sure, I do that too with a little pup. It's not training an alternate behavior, I agree. I also agree that most dogs will try not to soil their crate. But how does it cause the dog to "understand what is desired" over the course of this time that "accidents happen"? How does it teach the dog that slipping into the guest room is not "what is desired"?

 

BTW, I'm perfectly happy to substitute "not what is desired" for "wrong."

[rushdoggie]

I have noticed in SAR dog training that corrections are often used when there is foundation training failure. Too many distractions introduced too quickly. Expecting the dog to generalize too quickly. Not backing up a few steps when adding in major distractions or training in a new area. With that in mind, I am becoming much slower to correct and quick to look for areas where there has been training error. I think solid training can eliminate the need for many corrections - especially strong ones.

 

 

And this is my reason that I do not encourage corrections when training pet dogs as well. 99% of the time, the dog is engaged with his handler and making a mistake because the foundation training is not there, or is over-faced with distractions and incapable of learning what the handler wants him to learn regardless of whether theres a cookie dangling in front of his nose or he gets yanked on a choke chain.

 

That foundation training and ability to understand when things are so far over threshold its time to step back is a critical part of learning that most novice trainers miss and most experienced trainers do instinctively.