Experts versus the rest

[Root Beer]

You -- and probably most (but not all) self-professed +R and/or purely positive trainers -- don't deny using -P. You yourself don't deny employing approaches that do not fall under the umbrella of quadrant theory, but I suspect most self-professed +R and/or purely positive trainers deny that there even ARE approaches that do not fall under the umbrella of quadrant theory. However, the term "+R trainer" suggests "+R only," even if that suggestion is incorrect. Everybody uses SOME +R.

 

 

 

I have yet to meet a +R trainer who denies using -P, although I do know just a handful who try to minimize it even more than I do.

 

+R trainers ourselves go round and round trying to figure out a term that really describes what we do. All possible classifications fall short in some way. Therefore, each of us decide on the term that we feel is most appropriate and run with it.

 

But, again, I know absolutely zero +R trainers who call themselves "purely positive", regardless of what Google has to say on the matter. And I have the privilege of being acquainted with some of the most accomplished +R trainers in the country. Those trainers reject the term as firmly as I do.

 

 

But I'll call you personally anything you want, as I did in my first post on this topic, and as Donald advocates. Donald will definitely call anyone he meets on the Boards whatever they want, so long as the first word of what they want to be called is "Mr." or "Ms." Otherwise, tough luck.

 

 

Kristine is my preference.

[rushdoggie]

 

But suppose you are not dealing with ignorant people? Suppose it's yourself that is doing the training, or someone whose understanding of dogs you respect? Would you then concede that correction broadens the means you have available to train/communicate with your dog, and could enhance the effectiveness of your training? If not, that's where I think dogmatism comes in.

 

Ummm, I guess? I think insisting that adding a correction makes it so much clearer to the dog speaks equally of dogmatism. Sure, it could work, but its not needed to make it work. Its extraneous for the most part. I don't do it because there is no need.

 

However, yes, if your dog understood exactly what the correction was for, if it was timed well and appropriately, if he already understood that peeing outside is desired, if he wasn't the oversensitive sort who would be freaked out by any kind of correction, if you were calm and fair then yes, absolutely it would be helpful.

[rushdoggie]

What is it about dogs (or human culture) that makes dogs do so much better with +R in agility than obedience?

 

IMO: tradition.

 

Obedience is steeped in tradition, traditional breeds, traditional methods etc.

 

Agility started as reward based training became well known, and people figured out pretty quick that one method worked better than others. No one was hung up on tradition, because it was a new sport which attracted scores of people disillusioned with Obedience due to its rigid rules, traditions and cliquish-ness (which was regional and in some places it was bad and in others people were more welcoming).

 

Obedience (and I assume you are talking about the sport) is changing, and there are lots of people training with +R doing well, but they are in isolated places and not the "norm." Where I train it is +R and people do well including very high scores. My friend just finished a CD with 3 scores over 197. My instructor has several DOg World awards (back when they used to give them. +R obedience is the norm here rather than an outlier like it was where I lived in central CA.

[d112358]

If you are a really experienced and talented trainer, you can probably succeed with a purely positive approach or with just a minimum of corrections, but if you are a beginner, possibly short on time or natural talent, it might be a difficult task to keep everything positive.

 

I would argue that for a beginner, focusing most heavily on R+ training is more important, even though it's hard and non-intuitive sometimes. It's a way you can learn to read your dog and develop your timing and not worry so much about messing it up. If you start out with poor timing (as we almost all do) and use reward-based methods, your dog might get a lot of unearned tidbits and think you're a smorgasbord and a pushover. If you try to use poorly-timed corrections, you prove yourself unpredictable and lose some trust. If you try too-light corrections, you teach your dog to ignore you. If you use too-harsh corrections, you can teach your dog to fear you and in some cases provoke aggression.

[Sekah]

Has this been linked yet?

 

http://denisefenzi.com/2013/03/20/what-is-a-correction/

 

If a correction is designed to make the dog correct, why does it often look like the dog is being made sorry rather than being made right?

[juliepoudrier]

Wow, once again it seems that a link is posted that tries to tie the meaning of a word to the author's perceptions of that word/meaning while making out that everyone who uses the word in another way are the "villains." I fail to see how yelling "Hey!" (a correction) while my dog is riding the side of a sheep (with its teeth, no less) down the field is somehow making the dog sorry. In fact, with a youngster, I go out of my way to NOT make the dog sorry, because I actually want a dog that is willing to grip, with the caveat that the grip be appropriate. The word (correction) conveys to my dog that I'm unhappy, sure, but the dog sure isn't rolling on its back pissing itself. If I've trained my dog correctly (oops, probably shouldn't use that word) from the start, then just yelling "Hey!" tells the dog I want it to stop what it's doing at that moment and try something else.

 

Oh, and when the two dogs (one of them mine) got into a fight out in the yard this afternoon, I grabbed one up by the scruff and kicked the other away to break it up. doG forbid I gave both dogs such a correction.

 

Has this been linked yet?

 

http://denisefenzi.com/2013/03/20/what-is-a-correction/

 

ETA: The comments in this article make me think of Jack Knox, who is fond of saying that we shouldn't try to make the dog right (correct), but instead should help the dog to keep from being wrong (it's nuance, but it's important if you want a dog who can work stock appropriately and independently). I don't view a correction as "making the dog correct": I view it as imparting information to the dog that I don't like what it's doing and that it should stop that and try something else. Because we are working with the dog's instinct in cases such as this, and the dog in general should understand certain things about working livestock (that is, its effect on stock), then the dog ought to be able to process my displeasure and come up with a plan B that's more appropriate without me having to "make it correct," despite what the author of that article believes.

 

J.

[MnM]

 

I have to admit that I'm a total failure so far in all of the trainging 'camps'. I'm a total newbie who is making a *lot* of mistakes. Happily my pup is *awesome* and forgiving. My hope is that in a few years I'll know enough to be one step ahead of my dog and we can end up being best of friends. My hope is that we are welcomed everywhere because both of us are fun to be around - with manners and great treats for all.

 

I do know this - I love him and I'm doing my 100% best, as uneducated as it is. He loves me too, I can see it. We are making progress. We walked to the dog park today on the short-loose leash, and he stayed right at my knee - with plenty of loving reminders from me. It is just day 2 of trying! I'm so proud. I'm not entirely sure if my efforts were considered postive or corrections, but we are learning to communicate and enjoy walking together and that is all good.

 

Thank you to everyone here for giving advice, no matter what that advice is.

 

Thanks,

Mom, Rocket, and family.

[alligande]

I have long been curious about something: if a dog can understand the concept of a marker (click, verbal etc) for doing a good job, then why can it not understand a marker for don't do that? I think it is safe to stay that most people on these boards have dogs that are well trained and mannerly by pet standards, so I am not talking about anything drastic, but all my dogs have been on the receiving end of an oi and a raised eyebrow when they forget their manners, usually a minor infraction such as paying to much attention to food that is not theirs. It is a quick reminder, I use the same for my husband ... Works for all of them. If training is about communication, then the more methods we have the better, if we can quickly tell them I don't like that, does it not make our communication easier.

As a pet owner first, agility competitor second I have fully bought into the benefits of positive training a dog, but this question remains in my mind, basically I wonder if we are underestimating our dogs abilities if we say that using a negative word is bad.

[Maxi]

One of the things we are often told (and do) as trainers is consider how important it is to get the timing of any reward/reminder (I'll use that word instead of the word correction).Certainly, I've always been someone who has subscribed to this. But I can of think of at least 2 separate cross-species interactions when this seemed to indicate that one animal will reprimand another after the event.

 

1 when my dog Jess was a pup she chased the neighbour's cat under a car. A short while later, I walked my dogs up the lane to a field where they could play. The cat followed, ignoring my attempts to shoo him away (I was concerned for his safety). He sat in the field and watched the dogs run about. As soon as Jess was interested in some smell, he walked up to her and boxed her with both paws over the face. He then stalked off majestically with his tail held high. Jess just sat down with an astonished look on her face.

 

2. Several years ago, when I was much less experienced about stock work, I was training a young dog on about 10 sheep of mixed breeds. One Jacobs ewe was continually turning and attempting to confront my dog.

At the end of the session I was in the habit of using my dog to drive them to a trough and give then some feed ( as an opportunity to give a young dog some practice at 'proper work',,). As the sheep started to focus on the trough, my dog went in and nipped one of the ewe's hind leg ( not nastily, just smartly). I initially thought this was her inexperience and over enthusiasm as a young dog. I reminded her to behave and she sat by my side while we watched the sheep eat.

However, the next day, even though I was more prepared and faster at asking for a recall, the dog still went in and nipped one ewe as she went towards the trough at the end of the session. I suddenly realised that my dog was not randomly picking on a sheep. she was intentionally nipping the Jacobs ewe who was giving her trouble during the training session. After that second nip, the Jacobs didn't bother turning on my dog anymore, instead she tended to keep to the front of the flock.

[sandysfarm]

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.

 

 

I think 14-16 weeks is when the bladder muscles are fully developed and so the pup is able to be consistently reliable within a reasonable length of time. So if I'm smart, I have that pup out every X amount of time during his waking hours, crated at night to sleep, and tethered to (me) on an 8 ft line the time that he's awake and in the house. I'm waiting for it to dawn on him that his house is his crate - clean. Until then, he's not making any mistakes on my watch. I always do it the same way with greyhounds, collies, retrievers, etc and it's never failed me. The only terribly behaved exceptions I hear about consistently are the very small breeds: IG's, yorkshire terriers, Lhasas and the like but I would never own anything under 30 pounds or so.

[CMP]

Dear Doggers,

 

... I, who train mostly with corrections am the most positive guy you ever want to meet.

 

Fascinating statement.

 

You would not be the first stockman I have known to have described his training in this general manner.

 

An old dog guy who used to come to the farm when my father was alive with an ever changing assortment of bitches and dogs (he was the guy who we might call a beahviourist these days) and he put it to me this way: training a sheepdog is about helping them manage their instincts, training a sheepdog to be a pet is like teaching them to be a whole other animal.

 

IF that is true, then corrections would be the primary mode of communication for said sheepdog. Not so simple, but it's a little like "go be a Border Collie and we'll work from there" where you are guiding the dog to manage his instincts to suit your needs/his job and he is guiding you on the nature of his individual instincts so you know how to "correct" them to suit.

 

Not everything about being a pet in today's world would suit a BC's instincts. From the time they are puppies most of their instincts are discouraged and sometimes even punished. They need to be TAUGHT more things than a sheepdog and the expectation for them to continually and happily behave against their instincts is high - and so it makes sense that a reward system works best.

 

 

There is no better way to achieve a higher level of understanding than from participating in/witnessing a good discussion/debate.

[mum24dog]

You make some valid points CMP, and you illustrate why asking an "expert" in one field for advice isn't necessarily going to provide you with answers appropriate to your own situation.

[mum24dog]

I have long been curious about something: if a dog can understand the concept of a marker (click, verbal etc) for doing a good job, then why can it not understand a marker for don't do that? I think it is safe to stay that most people on these boards have dogs that are well trained and mannerly by pet standards, so I am not talking about anything drastic, but all my dogs have been on the receiving end of an oi and a raised eyebrow when they forget their manners, usually a minor infraction such as paying to much attention to food that is not theirs. It is a quick reminder, I use the same for my husband ... Works for all of them. If training is about communication, then the more methods we have the better, if we can quickly tell them I don't like that, does it not make our communication easier.

As a pet owner first, agility competitor second I have fully bought into the benefits of positive training a dog, but this question remains in my mind, basically I wonder if we are underestimating our dogs abilities if we say that using a negative word is bad.

 

 

Dogs understand "Don't do that" but then what? What is it supposed to do instead? As an interruptor it is fine but ideally it needs to be followed immediately by an acceptable alternative.

 

I think a lot of positively inclined people are reluctant to use, or recommend the use of negative language because of the effect it can have on a handler's view of their dog. Negativity breeds negativity, blame breeds more blame. Not everyone understands the difference between interrupting a behaviour in a neutral frame of mind and viewing what the dogs is doing as bad. It's just a dog.

 

Advising complete strangers on line about their dogs' behaviour needs to be approached in a responsible manner and care should be taken not to give advice that carries a significant risk of unintended fallout. First do no harm is a pretty good rule.

 

Have I put the fear of god into a dog? Yes, once that I can remember. Did it work? Yes because the totally unaccepted behaviour was out of character. Would I advise anyone else to do it on line? Absolutely not.

 

Do I interrupt my dogs with an "Oi" or whatever if they are doing something I don't like? Of course I do, I'm only human.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Mum writes (in part): "Advising complete strangers on line about their dogs' behaviour needs to be approached in a responsible manner and care should be taken not to give advice that carries a significant risk of unintended fallout. First do no harm is a pretty good rule."

 

Yep.

 

Donald McCaig

[CMP]

 

 

Advising complete strangers on line about their dogs' behaviour needs to be approached in a responsible manner and care should be taken not to give advice that carries a significant risk of unintended fallout. First do no harm is a pretty good rule.

 

Yes, indeed.

[Laurelin]

Yes that is my thought and why I generally only recommend positive training online. I certainly use -P and +P (which would include verbal corrections). I try to use them thoughtfully and not as my go-to.

 

The problem with online is that you don't have that history with a dog or handler and you don't know what has and hasn't been tried and how well the handler implemented it.

 

My dogs certainly know 'no', 'hey', 'nuh uh' but it does work more as an interruptor. It means stop and look at me and then I give further instructions. I also use no reward markers when we're shaping which generally is 'whoops'. It means 'try again' essentially. I know a lot of people do not like either of those but I find they are fine and actually very useful communication.

[Mark Billadeau]

Dogs understand "Don't do that" but then what? What is it supposed to do instead? As an interruptor it is fine but ideally it needs to be followed immediately by an acceptable alternative.

I want and expect my dogs to think on their own; to figure out what to do (try) next. In their future I'll be 100s of yards away and unable to show them what to do in a new situation. All I'll be able to do is tell them when they are wrong or right. So I need to cultivate their problem solving skills and their understanding of the communication process we'll have the future. Try something and if told they are wrong, try something else; if not told they are wrong, keep on doing that.

[Mark Billadeau]

 

I just couldn't resist

[Sue R]

(Thankfully, my only contribution to this rapidly expanding discussion.)

 

I just couldn't resist

[juliepoudrier]

What Mark said, and I think this is why there will always be a divergence of opinion when it comes to using corrections or not. I am sure that +R trainers also would like their dogs to be independent thinkers, at least in some situations, but the fact remains that if my dog is 50, 100, 600 yards away, all I've got is the interruption (correction). I then depend on my dog to make the next decision, and if our relationship is right and my training has been right, then that next decision should be a better one than the one that elicited the correction in the first place.

 

Granted, we don't start them out at 600 yards, but the whole progression of the training we undertake is with the end goal in mind: a dog that can work at great distances (or up close), perhaps out of sight, and still make the right decisions most of the time, and especially when confronted with a situation that the human can't help with (can't show or tell them what to do).

 

With puppies and play or trick/manners training, I use a lot of +R (i.e., positive, reward based, whatever you want to call it). The difference for me is that if the dog offers the wrong behavior, it will get a correction word (ah!ah!) and I will then make my original reuqest again. When the dog offers what I want, it gets rewarded (treats, praise, whatever makes the him/her happiest). In my worldview by correcting the dog I have done no harm, and in fact have communicated that the behavior it offered did not match up with what I had asked for. The dog can process that information, recognize that, for example, offering its paw when I've asked it to sit up, is not what I wanted (because I told him that with my voice correction) and then try offering an alternative. Again, the alternative offered is entirely up to the dog (though I may even be--gasp--luring the behavior with a treat if it makes sense for me to do so, which it would if I wanted to dog to sit up). All I'm doing that a +R trainer wouldn't do (at least as has been described here) is to let the dog know that a particular behavior offered was not the one I wanted.

 

I do get the philosophy behind not suggesting corrections to newbies, who can make such a mess of it (unintentionally). But I don't think it's necessary to always provide the alternative answer for the dog either, because in my mind that's just "making the dog correct," which isn't always the best answer either.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

What Mark said, and I think this is why there will always be a divergence of opinion when it comes to using corrections or not. I am sure that +R trainers also would like their dogs to be independent thinkers, at least in some situations, but the fact remains that if my dog is 50, 100, 600 yards away, all I've got is the interruption (correction). I then depend on my dog to make the next decision, and if our relationship is right and my training has been right, then that next decision should be a better one than the one that elicited the correction in the first place.

 

Granted, we don't start them out at 600 yards, but the whole progression of the training we undertake is with the end goal in mind: a dog that can work at great distances (or up close), perhaps out of sight, and still make the right decisions most of the time, and especially when confronted with a situation that the human can't help with (can't show or tell them what to do).

 

With puppies and play or trick/manners training, I use a lot of +R (i.e., positive, reward based, whatever you want to call it). The difference for me is that if the dog offers the wrong behavior, it will get a correction word (ah!ah!) and I will then make my original reuqest again. When the dog offers what I want, it gets rewarded (treats, praise, whatever makes the him/her happiest). In my worldview by correcting the dog I have done no harm, and in fact have communicated that the behavior it offered did not match up with what I had asked for. The dog can process that information, recognize that, for example, offering its paw when I've asked it to sit up, is not what I wanted (because I told him that with my voice correction) and then try offering an alternative. Again, the alternative offered is entirely up to the dog (though I may even be--gasp--luring the behavior with a treat if it makes sense for me to do so, which it would if I wanted to dog to sit up). All I'm doing that a +R trainer wouldn't do (at least as has been described here) is to let the dog know that a particular behavior offered was not the one I wanted.

 

I do get the philosophy behind not suggesting corrections to newbies, who can make such a mess of it (unintentionally). But I don't think it's necessary to always provide the alternative answer for the dog either, because in my mind that's just "making the dog correct," which isn't always the best answer either.

 

J.

 

 

The thing is though that if you're not sure whether a person will know how to apply an interruptor or correction correctly, you probably can't assume that it would be fair to expect a dog that may not have any history of being encouraged to think for itself to happen upon the desired real life action without any outside clue.

 

Context is everything. A sheep dog with make it's choices from within the range of what it does on the job; it won't throw in something it only ever has to do in the house. Similarly, a dog being taught heelwork won't throw in an agility move. (Or at least I would be amazed if it did.)

 

My dogs certainly think for themselves and I personally wouldn't always tell them what they should be doing if the choice is limited. However, if the choice could be one of many things and may not be clear from the context then I would help it out. I'm very patient but I don't have all day to wait.

 

People who already know these things don't need to be told. Those who don't should be given advice which is easy to understand gives them and their dog the best chance of success and if that sometimes means "Do as I say, not as I do (when you aren't watching)" then so be it.

 

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule but they can obscure the message for someone seeking help.

[mum24dog]

 

I just couldn't resist

 

 

"Don't Shoot the Dog" in a nutshell.

[Root Beer]

Deleted

[Root Beer]

What Mark said, and I think this is why there will always be a divergence of opinion when it comes to using corrections or not. I am sure that +R trainers also would like their dogs to be independent thinkers, at least in some situations, but the fact remains that if my dog is 50, 100, 600 yards away, all I've got is the interruption (correction). I then depend on my dog to make the next decision, and if our relationship is right and my training has been right, then that next decision should be a better one than the one that elicited the correction in the first place.

 

It's ironic that you say this because one of the criticisms that we take from many of our colleagues who incorporate correction into their training for sports is that we (+R trainers) encourage our dogs to think for themselves too much.

 

Independent thinking is a critical part of the +R training process. The dog must think and work independently throughout the learning and fluency building process or you won't get results (one of the difficulties that newbies sometimes have is to let go and actually let the dog think and figure things out).

 

Independent thinking plays a different role than it does in stockwork, but it is essential.

[Root Beer]

Wow, once again it seems that a link is posted that tries to tie the meaning of a word to the author's perceptions of that word/meaning while making out that everyone who uses the word in another way are the "villains." I fail to see how yelling "Hey!" (a correction) while my dog is riding the side of a sheep (with its teeth, no less) down the field is somehow making the dog sorry. In fact, with a youngster, I go out of my way to NOT make the dog sorry, because I actually want a dog that is willing to grip, with the caveat that the grip be appropriate. The word (correction) conveys to my dog that I'm unhappy, sure, but the dog sure isn't rolling on its back pissing itself. If I've trained my dog correctly (oops, probably shouldn't use that word) from the start, then just yelling "Hey!" tells the dog I want it to stop what it's doing at that moment and try something else.

 

Oh, and when the two dogs (one of them mine) got into a fight out in the yard this afternoon, I grabbed one up by the scruff and kicked the other away to break it up. doG forbid I gave both dogs such a correction.

 

I would like to say a word here on Ms. Fenzi's behalf.

 

I think it is key to understand the context in which she is writing. She is primarily a competitive Obedience trainer. Believe me, she sees and hears about a lot of bizarre corrections happening for the sole purpose of the handler's quest for success in a man-made sport.

 

Use a shock collar on an older dog who is starting to lay down on the out of sight sit stay? Well, it's just "making the dog right". Setting the dog up to fail so he or she can be "corrected" in that circumstance? Well, it's just "making the dog right". These are the kinds of justifications that she gets to hear people attempt to make on a day to day basis. Attempted justification for things that I would be willing to bet money not a single stockdog trainer on this forum would do to a dog for the sake of a game.

 

And this is the kind of thing that she is responding to. She is not talking about situations where life and safety is at stake and some kind of interruptor like "hey" is being used.

 

While I cannot speak for her, I know her well enough, and have read enough of her other writing (read the whole blog to get a more accurate picture) to know that she is not villifying stockdog trainers for interrupting behavior that can be dangerous to stock.

 

Her audience is primarily dog sport trainers. She is responding to what she sees and hears among dog sport trainers. What she is responding to is a very real debate that goes on among sport dog trainers.

 

I once challenged the idea of "a correction is just anything that makes the dog right" - a statement that I have heard made by certain dog sport trainers - by asking this question of a group of trainers who frequently make that statement: If my dog fails to sit and I put a treat on the dog's nose and lure the sit, is that a "correction"? After all, I "made the dog right". The answer: No. What if I use a target? Again, no.

 

So, there is a fallacy in this statement that is proclaimed by many - by certain populations of dog sport trainers, and sometimes trainers who specialize in behavior modification through compulsion - that a "correction" is "anything that makes the dog right".

 

And Ms. Fenzi is correct. In that context and in response to those claims, a "correction" is not something that makes the dog "right", it is something that makes the dog "sorry".

 

She is not talking about the use of interruptors in situations where dogs are fighting or livestock is in danger. She would be the first person to say that you do what you have to do in those circumstances.

 

Please do consider the context.