A primer on corrections

[Root Beer]

Rootbeer:

 

 

I'm not going to get into a long, twisted discussion about this, but I do want to point out that one dog is a hunting dog by genetics and the other is not. Tessa hunted and killed because she needed to. Once in a safe place with clear rules, hunting is no longer necessary and is certainly not part of her makeup. In fact, her genetics predispose her to biddability (not to mention that famous "modified prey drive"). Beagles are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

And yet, Stephanie (my friend who has the Beagle) has been told over and over that there is no way her Beagle can be reliable off leash. But she hikes with him almost every day - off leash - for miles and miles.

 

She got him as a rescue. He was not raised by her as a puppy. He did not come to her with off leash reliability. But she worked with him in the exact same way that she worked with her previous dog - a Border Collie, or possibly Border Collie mix.

 

Supposedly, she is doing what is "impossible", and using +R training with a Beagle to train off leash reliablity, "beyond impossible". She is the one person I know who is more extremely +R than I am!! She does not even use neutral -P with her dogs, and I will - extremely sparingly.

 

She primarily used Premack to train him - permission to sniff, permission to wander (in safe places during training), as reinforcement for offering attention, staying close, and coming when he was called.

 

It's amazing to watch her do things with him that many say she can't, can't, can't!

 

She doesn't really say much about it. She just does it. It's awesome!

 

And that's a big reason why I simply can't agree when statements are made corrections being "necessary" to train something like off leash reliability, or what "can't be done". One can name this breed and that breed that "can't" . . . but someone out there, most likely, has done it successfully!!

 

The Fenzi Academy Facebook group is an amazing place in that regard (one can only join if one has taken a Fenzi class, so it's not open to the general public). There are people doing all kinds of things with breeds that supposedly "can't" using +R training. And, somehow people are!

 

 

And I guess it's fortunate that Bandit didn't kill any of the neighbor's chickens or guineas, but would you have minded if he did? The answer to that question might put a different perspective on training dogs regarding the chasing of other animals.

 

I wouldn't have been thrilled had he caught and killed one of the guinea's, but we went to the work and trouble to fence our yard to keep our dogs in, and our neighbor's animals out. It simply would have been what it was. Years ago, Sammie killed four groundhogs (over the course of several weeks). That was perfectly fine with me. They are at their own risk within the fence. I had no problem with it, especially since he was skilled enough to kill them without getting hurt himself. I never allow my dogs freedom to chase whatever they want outside the fence. Inside the fence, my dogs have my blessing, and my permission, to chase them out. In fact, I will tell them to if they don't do it on their own accord. Maddie was awesome at flushing out the guineas.

 

My dogs don't get to go outside the fence off leash until they are reliable. Once they can call off running prey, they can go off leash in the unfenced part. Same with being off leash in the woods.

 

I don't see that my perspective on training dogs regarding chasing other animals would change. My perspective is this: inside the fence, before the recall is trained, if they chase, they chase. They are trained to recall on their names, using +R based training. When the dog gets to the point where the training is solid, I will call the dog off chasing inside the fence to test the recall. When the dog can recall off running prey in the yard, off leash privileges outside the yard gradually expand. At that point, whether or not I allow chasing inside the fence depends on the situation. I may call the dog off of something, I may let the dog chase, I may encourage the dog to chase something away (usually wild rabbits, which they are never going to be fast enough to catch).

 

I do not allow my dogs to chase animals around the neighborhood. That would be a great way to get them killed off. But inside the fence - yes, they help keep unwanted animals out. But, of course, I train them so they can be called off, and they are not running roughshod.

[Root Beer]

You do build relationships with dogs, for sure, and trust and a desire to work for you, but you are never going to have a (typical) Livestock guardian or (typical) scent hound who cares as much about pleasing you as a (typical) herder.

 

You can still use positive methods for the LGD or hound (and I would), but it's going to take a lot longer, be a lot harder, and you aren't going to get the same level of reliability from a dog who has generations of breeding behind it to chase the rabbit (cat) or to work miles away from you without human input and the dog who has generations of breeding to take direction.

 

It's interesting you say that. I would submit that a well trained recall is about much more than the dog wanting to please. Wanting to please can serve as motivation in some contexts, but every dog - even the most biddable - is going to have those moments when the drive is stronger than any desire to please.

 

And that's where solid training comes in. If the dog has learned, "the recall means turn and return to the handler", it's not a matter of "pleasing" or "not pleasing" - it's a matter of doing what is learned. Sometimes there may well be an element of wanting to please involved, but at other times there won't be - even with a biddable dog.

 

I have Dean sit in the kitchen while I put Bandit's bowl down in the dining room. He's not sitting to please me. He doesn't want to please me at that moment - he wants to eat! But he does it because he understands what "sit" and "stay" mean.

 

I think this comes down to the question, "is it necessary for there to be some degree of negative consequence in order for a dog to truly understand what trained cues and directives mean, and to understand that those cues and directives are to be followed?"

 

I would propose that the trainer who incorporates corrections, would answer that question with "yes, it is necessary".

 

And the trainer who chooses to use +R based approaches as exclusively as possible would answer that question with "no, the dog can learn the same concept through the plethora of +R based training approaches available to us now".

 

And that's why there will always be disagreement about this.

 

That's one piece of Donald's original post that I agree with wholeheartedly. "Corrections are controversial"!!! Corrections, and the choice not to incorporate corrections into training, are both highly controversial. And will remain so, I would say!

[juliepoudrier]

But, as I pointed out, Donald didn't say that corrections are always required, all the time, nor did he say at all that corrections are required for recall training. His very specific example was dogs bursting out the door. So you're essentially putting words in his mouth ("if ... as he proposes..." -- he proposed NO SUCH thing) so you can make an argument YOU want to make, and of course it's about a particular aspect of training where few people use corrections. He says "corrections are necessary." He doesn't "espouse a theory" that corrections are required for recall training.

 

If you want to discuss how he trains a recall, by all means do so, but when you start with a premise that is your own construction based on something you incorrectly (and deliberately, so that you can make your specific argument) attribute to him, IMO you are being unfair to him simply to try to promote your own ideas.

 

J.

Hi Julie,

 

While Donald was not talking about recalls per se, he did say . . . "Corrections are . . . necessary if you want a dog who can surpass himself; a dog who is trustworthy on or off lead in the dangerous, unpredictable, fascinating big world"

 

Bold added by me to highlight the part of the quote I wish to emphasize.

 

In response to this, I chose to ask him about recalls for three reasons.

 

1. The topic of reliable recalls had already come up in this thread, although it was other posters who were discussing the skill. Still, it had become part of the context of the broader discussion.

 

2. It's a nice, simple example that I can speak to very directly from experience (with my own dogs and clients dogs), and experience with very different dogs with different temperaments and backgrounds.

 

3. A reliable recall certainly is a significant component of having a dog who is trustworthy off lead in the "dangerous, unpredictable, fascinating big world". I don't mean to imply that recall is the only skill that such a trustworthy dog will have, but, again, it is a major part of that skill set, and a nice simple one to discuss.

 

So, I am very interested in his answer to my question.

 

If . . . as he proposes . . . corrections are necessary to achieve this. Then why have many people (including myself) managed to train highly reliable recalls without incorporation of corrections? I am actually not looking to discuss the way I choose to train (you all have a decent idea of that already), but to discuss his specific point of view on necessity in this case.

 

So, that's where my question came from.

 

The question could be expanded to incorporate other elements of a dog who is trustworthy off leash, but I would rather keep the question nice and simple.

[juliepoudrier]

deleted, because I said I wouldn't go there.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

But, as I pointed out, Donald didn't say that corrections are always required, all the time, nor did he say at all that corrections are required for recall training. His very specific example was dogs bursting out the door. So you're essentially putting words in his mouth ("if ... as he proposes..." -- he proposed NO SUCH thing) so you can make an argument YOU want to make, and of course it's about a particular aspect of training where few people use corrections. He says "corrections are necessary." He doesn't "espouse a theory" that corrections are required for recall training.

 

If you want to discuss how he trains a recall, by all means do so, but when you start with a premise that is your own construction based on something you incorrectly (and deliberately, so that you can make your specific argument) attribute to him, IMO you are being unfair to him simply to try to promote your own ideas.

 

J.

 

Seriously?

 

Are you really trying to make the case that Donald would not consider recall training to be a component of having "a dog who is trustworthy on or off lead in the dangerous, unpredictable, fascinating big world"??

 

Why don't we let Donald speak for himself on the matter?

 

If he agrees with your assessment that I am "putting words in his mouth" by considering that particular application, then I will happily rephrase my question, taking any component of "a dog who is trustworthy on or off lead in the dangerous, unpredictable, fascinating big world" that he would prefer that I ask him about.

 

If he would prefer that I discuss self control at the door, I'd be happy to do that. I have trained that successfully using +R (sans corrections), as well, and the same question could apply to that skill set.

 

Personally, I don't think he is going to have an issue with the fact that I went with "reliable recall" on my question, but I did ask the question of Donald, so why not let him decide if my question is problematic or not?

[geonni banner]

Hmmm... I have caught catfish using no hooks, lines, or any of the other commonly used tackle. I used a 5-gallon bucket to catch 3 channel-cats one day. Quite an achievement, if I do say so myself.

 

However, if I really wanted to catch catfish on a regular basis, reliably, I'd set a trot-line.

 

I would not, and do not hold the bucket-catch as the most desirable way to catch a catfish, simply because it involved no hooks, and I've done it successfully.

 

Those 3 bucket-caught fish were tasty, but I don't reckon it made much difference to the fish, at the end of the day.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I didn't say anything about training recalls.

 

Donald

[ourwully]

I hope this isn't too off topic but I would like to describe my situation with Juno and ask, from both sides of this discussion, how I should deal with it.

 

As mentioned earlier, Juno's recall hasn't been reliable so last week, I started doing the following:

 

-in the yard I am calling her and giving her treats, or a ball for returning - so far she has been almost perfect

-in the house I call her randomly using the word "here" and then giving her a really nice treat - so far just about perfect

-in the woods, on a long line, she has returned almost every time to the whistle or to the word "come" , however, there have been times when she has ignored me completely and just kept sniffing or walking ahead. My response has been to reel her in at least to the point where she starts returning on her own - when she arrives I don't give her a treat but I do praise her and act excited to see her.

 

From a corrections point of view, am I doing the right thing by reeling her in, or should I do something else?

 

From a non corrections point of view, should I do more recalls in the yard and walk her on leash in the woods for a while before trying the long line again?

 

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse here but I really would like to get this right!

[Root Beer]

Dear Doggers,

 

I didn't say anything about training recalls.

 

Donald

 

I would be very happy to rephrase my question. I didn't realize that when you said this in your original post:

 

Corrections are controversial, subject to abuse but necessary if you want a dog who can surpass himself; a dog who is trustworthy on or off lead in the dangerous, unpredictable, fascinating big world;

 

. . . that you were not considering a recall to be a skill that a dog who is trustworthy off lead to be a part of that.

 

So, I would like to rephrase my question - because I am interested in your answer.

 

What specific behaviors would you expect dog who is trustworthy off leash in the world to have mastered? I can focus my question on pretty much on whatever aspect of training that you like.

 

Although you did not bring up recalls yourself, I thought it was a good example to work with, but I'm flexible!!

[Root Beer]

I hope this isn't too off topic but I would like to describe my situation with Juno and ask, from both sides of this discussion, how I should deal with it.

 

As mentioned earlier, Juno's recall hasn't been reliable so last week, I started doing the following:

 

-in the yard I am calling her and giving her treats, or a ball for returning - so far she has been almost perfect

-in the house I call her randomly using the word "here" and then giving her a really nice treat - so far just about perfect

-in the woods, on a long line, she has returned almost every time to the whistle or to the word "come" , however, there have been times when she has ignored me completely and just kept sniffing or walking ahead. My response has been to reel her in at least to the point where she starts returning on her own - when she arrives I don't give her a treat but I do praise her and act excited to see her.

 

From a corrections point of view, am I doing the right thing by reeling her in, or should I do something else?

 

From a non corrections point of view, should I do more recalls in the yard and walk her on leash in the woods for a while before trying the long line again?

 

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse here but I really would like to get this right!

 

I'd be working Premack in the woods. I would take some walks on a regular leash for a time. I would call her, reinforce with a super high value treat, and then release her back to sniffing and walking. Repeat, do this for several sessions.

 

After a few sessions on the regular leash, I would go back to the long line. Same thing. Call, reinforce (with a toy motivated dog, I might even incorporate toy play - call, turn away from the dog, let her catch up to the toy, play tug (or whatever), put toy away, release to sniff and walk. Or, if not toy motivated, then I might use food. Gradually increase the time in between the release back to her sniff and walk and the call.

 

In cases where she did not come when called, I would go to her and - without repeating the recall cue - use the food or toy to grab her attention and lure her back to me. Then I would work the recalls from a shorter distance for a time.

 

It sounds to me like you've reached a place in your work with her where you need to up the criteria a bit. Build a bridge between where you know she will be successful (in the house) and where you are running into problems.

 

Does that make sense?

 

That would be my advice from the +R side.

[geonni banner]

our wully:

 

I would do what you did with the long-line, with two exceptions, one of which is predicated on something else I do with my dogs.

 

I teach my dogs from an early age, that the word "no" is not censure or scolding, and simply means, that, what you're doing, isn't what I want. Please try something else.

 

Hence they have no urge to move away or sense that I am displeased when I say "no" to them.

 

So, when my dog is out a long way off on the long-line, and responds to my recall command by doing anything except turning toward me and moving in my direction, I say "no," and repeat the recall command.

 

Even if I have to reel him in all the way, he gets praise on the entire return trip and a treat (or not, if I don't have one) when he arrives.

[waffles]

Ourwully- why have three recall cues? Just curious. You said... In the house I say here, in the woods I say come and sometimes I use a whistle.

 

I would stick to one word for a recall. Use the whistle for an emergency recall as some people say, but I never liked using a whistle because I will not always have one on me. For me a recall is always an emergency.

 

I agree with the other two. Just keep upping the difficulty of your recall but still only call when you are pretty darn sure they will come.

[Sekah]

I tend to primarily use a clicker for training. I think Donald's original post is accurate and can apply widely to an array of methodologies.

 

I think there's a common misconception that a correction is cruel. A correction is meant to make a dog correct. It is not meant (by basic definition) to make a dog sorry. Corrections happen constantly, and they happen naturally. Some dogs take to them more easily than others.

 

My one dog is biddable and resilient. She is a working breed. While I primarily focus on reinforcement and management, I will also utilize corrections while working with her. She springs back from them with tenacity. (I feel that I need to underline here that corrections are neither physical nor cruel, lest someone take this paragraph out of context. They are primarily re-doing exercises, withholding rewards, no-reward markers, interruptions, etc.)

 

My other dog is soft and nervous. She is a companion breed that came to me at ~7 years old. While I generally tend to handle both dogs similarly, my bond with this second dog is less strong since she wilts under pressure and stresses easily. Thank goodness she has the world's strongest food drive.

 

Both dogs are reliable off leash in parks. The resilient dog however is trustworthy enough to be off leash along roads, whereas the more sensitive one is not and won't ever be.

 

I guess I'm just posting here to underline that corrections are not innately cruel, and that they often are a natural part of day to day life. Each dog and handler team internalize them differently, so to try to dissect the very notion of 'corrections' tends to lead conversations in evangelical circles. That's my two cents.

[ourwully]

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

Root Beer - I see the progression you are suggesting, but I guess I am getting impatient now that Juno is nearly two. Even on the leash I can see her ignoring me at times. When this happens, I reel her in but I suppose I could use the protocol for the whiplash turn and walk the lead and wait for her attention.

 

Geonni Banner - I am always positive with Juno when she responds regardless of the situation so we are on the same page there. The way you are using the word "no" is new to me so I will try that. It makes a lot of sense.

[ourwully]

Waffles

I have 3 recall cues for these reasons

The standard "come" for recalls I use everywhere.

The whistle started as an emergency recall and I built it up for a period over a year. I would only use it when I knew she would respond and I always gave her a very special treat. Recently I used it when she was in a position where I thought she would respond but she saw a squirrel, and instead she ignored the whistle, and bolted. Now she came back but after a year of building the recall I was really dissappointed. So now I am back to building it up as an emergency recall. I always carry a whistle with me in the woods. I still think the whistle recall is promising so I will continue working on it.

The word "here" in the house is also like an emergency recall and I got this from the video "Really Reliable Recall". It is the same idea as the whistle and I have been building this recall as well. I also use it outside but I have been a little bit lax in building it outside.

[CptJack]

Are you expecting her to *always* be tuned into you/paying attention to you? As in, do you expect her to never be preoccupied/absorbed by sniffing?

If so, your expectations may very well be unreasonable. She's a dog, not a robot - and she's still a *young* dog, at that.

 

I do expect my dogs to recall and listen when I have something to say/ask of them, but that doesn't mean my dogs are never completely preoccupied by sniffing or something. It doesn't mean I never have to give a "MOLLY!" to get her to turn toward me and put her focus on me before I give her a command. Not as often as I used to, certainly, and she's got pretty amazing handler focus, but she can't give me all her attention ALL THE TIME and I'm not sure I'd want her to, anyway.

 

If that's not what you mean just disregard this.

ETA: And for me, no always means "Stop what you are doing, expect more input." It shouldn't just be a prelude to something unpleasant/scary/aversive, IMO. It's just information for the dog.

[ourwully]

Cpt Jack - thanks, you may be right - I might have to call her first to get her focus. Sometimes I think I am trying too hard and just forgetting the simple things!!

[juliepoudrier]

For those of you wondering how some of us who do use corrections might train a recall it's pretty simple, really. In the house with a puppy, they learn their name and "here." if they aren't responding right away, I'll go back to the old standby they're used to responding to: "puppy, puppy, puppy!" Praise and/or treats for coming quickly (or coming at all). We do the same outside without the distraction of other dogs. And then of course move on from there.

 

Many of us who have stockdogs live on farms. There are plenty of opportunities for walking dogs in large open (yet fenced) spaces. Many of us are crazy dog people: we have multiple dogs--the retiree(s), the work dog(s), and perhaps a youngster or two coming along. We walk our dogs in a pack. If I'm on the back 40 and blow my recall whistle, the old(er) dogs all come. The youngsters come too, because they don't want to be left out of whatever's going on (this is sort of the farmer's version of make a game of chase where the pup is chasing you except in this case the pup is chasing after the older dogs, who happen to be recalling to the human). It's almost cheating in a way, using the reliability of the old guys to help teach a recall to the younger set. But it does work. And it works well. They learn without even realizing they're learning. But even so, that learning may not entirely stick when they are introduced to stock.

 

Regarding multiple recall commands, i addition to a whistle, my dogs are all expected to recall to their names and to the word "here" (and sometimes "come here," since we know that many of us tend to have more of a conversation with our dogs then simple command-respond). I have specific reasons for these commands, which will also later be used in the context of working stock. (For example, here will become "in here" to call the dog in on a shed, and using their name while working them will signal that they should move toward me while taking the additional command given along with their name). The recall whistle means only that, and nothing more. (As an aside, the last thing a stockperson wants is a dog who hesitates to come directly to them when called on, so it would be counter intuitive to make a dog hesitant to come forward to us with anything less than speed and enthusiasm.)

 

Now for corrections. Puppies are always called for treat, praise, or play rewards. Like Geonni, I use a correction word that simply means, "Pay attention!" I don't use "no" for that, but instead use "hey." So if my 6-month-old puppy is out in the yard chewing on the 2-year-old's neck and I call his name and he ignores me because he is so intent on what he's doing, then the next thing out of my mouth is "Hey!" The correction simply breaks the concentration on what the dog is doing and refocuses it on me. When I say "Hey!" he will glance over at me and then I ask him to come in a happy voice. At that point I really don't want to walk over to him to get his attention--I want to get his attention using my voice. This will be necessary in later training (see paragraph above).

 

So I really think it's at this point that some of us diverge in recall training. If the pup/dog generally understands what a recall means, then the correction is really simply a word(s) that says "You need to pay attention to me now." Of course if that doesn't work, then the next step is to go get the pup so that it doesn't learn to ignore you. But the pup certainly isn't corrected (punished) when I go get it (or reel it in on a line, if that happens to be what I am doing at the time); the pup gets praise and then is allowed to go back to what it was doing so that the recall isn't always about ending the fun, so to speak.

 

Right now my 10-month-old is learning to recall off stock. She has a drag line when working. When we are done working, I call her to me (I'm standing between her and the stock so even if she's thinking she's going to go past me to get to them, she does have to come toward me to do so). I do this in a happy, encouraging voice. If she decides instead to flank off and try to get around me to get to the stock, I step in front of her, blocking her from what she wants (correction). I call her to me again. There may be several repetitions of this before she gives up trying to go around and comes to me. In that case I can do one of two things: praise her for coming to me and immediately release her to the stock (BIG reward) or call her off to walk away with me. We do some of both. The value of the long line is that if I call her off and she starts to go with me but then decides for one last try at the stock, I simply step on the line. I may give a correction (ah ah!) at this point or may remain silent. What she learns is that I am not actually holding the line and yet still she is stopped for not complying with my request to walk off with me. At that point, I pat my leg, say something nice like, "Come on, that'll do" and continue to walk off with her. This little scenario may be repeated several times before we actually get to the gate.

 

In none of these situations is the dog actively punished. Corrections come in various forms, generally by voice, body pressure, or by stepping on a line. In these cases we are working with youngsters who may not have rock solid recalls, or if they generally are pretty good, the distraction (stock) is simply too great to ignore. Interestingly enough, the youngsters learn self control pretty quickly this way.

 

All of this of course still requires excellent timing, and I'm not going to say that the youngster doesn't beat me on occasion, But when that happens, you simply get them to a point where you can naturally ask for a stop. Walk though the stock so you're once again between the dog and the stock and try again. No histrionics, just repetition.

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

Rushdoggie:

 

I should have added a winky! ;-) I'm still a crazy dog lady with only 3.

and

 

 

And sometimes that's appropriate... There are also times where another approach just isn't cutting it. For example, take a young dog who dives in and bowls sheep over or grabs them and won't let go. If that young dog has had enough training to know better (and has been given every opportunity to correct itself), then there might come a time when the dog does get a more positive correction (positive punishment) for its behavior. There's a line beyond which young dog enthusiasm turns into young dog being an asshole and the poor sheep shouldn't be the ones suffering as a result. I know this is a very specific reference and it relates to stockwork, which is not really what is under discussion here, but it does serve to illustrate why labeling people who use corrections as belonging to a "want it NOW" group might be a bit misleading.

 

 

Well, I am sure you got the "some not all" part of my post because you quoted it, so I am not sure how I am labeling everyone who uses corrections as anything.

 

Also if you read my other post I clarified that statement, meaning the human who wants their dog completely trained in 2 weeks with push button behaviors in all circumstances.

 

I certainly don't mean a single behavior, in fact I'm pretty sure I said that some behaviors could be addressed successfully with minimal fallout that way.

[Root Beer]

Thank you for the suggestions.

 

Root Beer - I see the progression you are suggesting, but I guess I am getting impatient now that Juno is nearly two. Even on the leash I can see her ignoring me at times. When this happens, I reel her in but I suppose I could use the protocol for the whiplash turn and walk the lead and wait for her attention.

 

Have you tried telling her to ignore you and then reinforcing her for choosing to offer voluntary attention?

 

The whiplash turn is an important piece, but so is building value into choosing to tune into you. Premack is a great way to build that.

 

At one point I was having issues with Bandit being much more interested in the floor at class than in working. I spent several training sessions doing nothing but teaching him his quick release by sending him to sniff the floor, and giving a click/treat every time he chose to tune in.

 

After a few sessions, he was ready to start working again, and there was value in the choice to ignore the floor that hadn't been there before.

 

So, I would definitely spend some time on the quick release itself. It might make a very big difference.

[geonni banner]

I dunno. There are a lot of people out there, and no, I don't mean Root Beer or rushdoggie, when I say this, that seem to feel that every minute of a dog's life should be pink and perfect happy my little pony friendship is magic and there is no such thing as people who shout, boards with nails in them or rain when I want it sunny.

 

I think this is unwise. I believe it creates a dog that is completely unprepared for bumps and bruises, whether physical, mental or emotional. Sure, you may have a dog who trusts you to walk into a lion's mouth if you tell it to, but it will only be because he can't imagine the big fluffy pussycat would ever be mean to him.

 

And I also believe that training can help to crystallize, (without being cruel or brutal) the realization that yes, the lion is a bitey beast, but if mom/dad says step up, it may sting a little, but they've got my back!

 

 

I've watched people raise their kids and dogs like the "nice" people, and the kids - in many cases - folded up like card tables when they got to college, and the dogs folded up like card tables the first time something bad happened to them. Often it took lots of time and drugs to sort each out.

 

I don't want a dog like that. I can't imagine a working stockdog being like that, and I think it is irresponsible to the nth degree to create such a potentially fragile mind and body in a dog.

 

OK. rant over. (picture the ninja icon.)

 

 

For some reason my post editor is ghosted, uses the typewriter font, makes sentences twice as wide as the window for composing them in, and won't let me use the emoticons, italics, bolding, picture upload, etc. I have no idea how to fix it. Anyone else having this?

[juliepoudrier]

The part I was actually taking issue with was the assertion that many [emphasis added] people who might want it now don't want to "take the time to build that rapport, that bond, that trust, that communication..." I did go back and read your later clarification, but it's still not clear to me that you aren't equating someone who "wants it NOW" with someone who doesn't want to take the time to bond, etc. I used a single behavior example just as a convenient means of illustrating a situation where want it now doesn't have any relationship to a bond, rapport, etc. Maybe I'm simply reading more into what you said then I should, and if that's the case, then I apologize.

 

J.

 

I should have added a winky! ;-) I'm still a crazy dog lady with only 3.

Well, I am sure you got the "some not all" part of my post because you quoted it, so I am not sure how I am labeling everyone who uses corrections as anything.

 

Also if you read my other post I clarified that statement, meaning the human who wants their dog completely trained in 2 weeks with push button behaviors in all circumstances.

 

I certainly don't mean a single behavior, in fact I'm pretty sure I said that some behaviors could be addressed successfully with minimal fallout that way.

[Root Beer]

I dunno. There are a lot of people out there, and no, I don't mean Root Beer or rushdoggie, when I say this, that seem to feel that every minute of a dog's life should be pink and perfect happy my little pony friendship is magic and there is no such thing as people who shout, boards with nails in them or rain when I want it sunny.

 

 

I know a lot of +R trainers. Quite a lot.

 

Not one of them would fit this description. All of them are people who live in the real world and understand that dogs have to deal with hardship and suffering.

 

Their decision to train +R, as well as mine, has nothing to do with "my little pony friendship" or making a dog's life "pink and perfect".

 

They, like myself, have chosen an approach to training that is effective, efficient, and makes very good sense to them.

 

Maybe there are +R trainers out there who are under the false impression that a dog's life can be difficulty-free, but I seriously have not met these folks.

 

Who are they? Do you know of any well known +R trainers who actually say these things? I'd love names, and references to their blogs/articles/books that make this claim.

 

 

I think this is unwise. I believe it creates a dog that is completely unprepared for bumps and bruises, whether physical, mental or emotional. Sure, you may have a dog who trusts you to walk into a lion's mouth if you tell it to, but it will only be because he can't imagine the big fluffy pussycat would ever be mean to him.

 

And I also believe that training can help to crystallize, (without being cruel or brutal) the realization that yes, the lion is a bitey beast, but if mom/dad says step up, it may sting a little, but they've got my back!

 

You might find some food for thought in this blog post that I wrote some time ago on this very topic.

 

http://dancedogramblings.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-protective-bubble.html

 

Good +R training can actually create a strong, resilient dog who is nicely equipped to deal with difficulty in life. I wouldn't want a dog who was not equipped to deal with the hardships in life. Nothing about being a +R trainer removes, or seeks to remove, the dog from life experience.

 

If you don't care to read the whole blog post, I will quote this much here . . .

 

"Dogs who are trained through reinforcement still get accidentally bumped into, called off of things that they would rather chase or investigate, experience fear of something at some point if not many things, and deal with boredom, frustration, and loss. They experience injury, illness, and every manner of life that is unpleasant that any living creature on this earth experiences. The fact that the handler is not adding to that by incorporation of further discomfort into training has no bearing on the fact that every dog will experience, and hopefully learn to cope with, the difficulties and challenges of life."

[geonni banner]

I know a lot of +R trainers. Quite a lot... 'snip' ... The fact that the handler is not adding to that by incorporation of further discomfort into training has no bearing on the fact that every dog will experience, and hopefully learn to cope with, the difficulties and challenges of life."

If you will read my post again, the word "trainer" does not appear. The word I used was "people" as in dog-owners. And yes, I have met dozens of them. And they, being devoid of any sort of training expertise, +R or any other kind, (or common sense) do emphatically want that sort of existence for their dogs. And they tend to think that anyone who doesn't is a monster. They are the same people who won't let their kids watch nature programs because the kid might see a bobcat kill a hare, or zebras having sex.

[Root Beer]

If you will read my post again, the word "trainer" does not appear. The word I used was "people" as in dog-owners. And yes, I have met dozens of them. And they, being devoid of any sort of training expertise, +R or any other kind, (or common sense) do emphatically want that sort of existence for their dogs. And they tend to think that anyone who doesn't is a monster. They are the same people who won't let their kids watch nature programs because the kid might see a bobcat kill a hare, or zebras having sex.

 

Interesting. Must be a regional thing. I really have never come across anyone like that - +R trainer or not!!

 

I've worked with a lot of ordinary dog owners. Most of them are just regular people who want a nice dog, and are generally down to earth and realistic.