corvus

Kivi's been very quiet and sleepy today as well. Presumably because he went to daycare yesterday and then I took him for a run this morning. He's 16 months old. I've seen him at daycare and he doesn't run all day, but it's amazing how much just a little extra exercise can wear them out.

But you can go the other way with puppy classes, too. The one we took Kivi to when he was a baby was run by a trainer, but it went for an hour and they were lucky if they got a chance to interact with other puppies at all. For my bouncy social butterfly that meant I spent most of those loooong classes being expected to stand on his lead and ignore the crazies when if he'd just had a chance to meet and greet at the beginning he wouldn't have the crazies. I couldn't say how many times I claimed he needed to go outside for a toilet break in an effort to reduce all the body blocking and boredom and frustration he was experiencing. Trainer wasn't cool on removing pups that weren't having fun, either. This time I'll be looking for one with a balance of training and play.

Thanks guys, those were some great posts. Staranais, Kivi already does the "Corvus is boring. I'm gonna chomp on the lounge by her head because she usually looks at me then and I can whine at her and maybe she will give me something to do." thing. The things you accidentally encourage. He's now learning that sometimes Corvus doesn't want to give him attention and he may as well lie down and quit his whining. I think this time around I need a "I'm not in the mood so go lie down and quit your whining" suggestion. ;) I never taught "go to your spot" because he doesn't have a spot. I think I'm going to do that one this time, and Kivi can learn it at the same time. I am also going to start reinforcing Kivi's positive interruptor and I can see for myself if one works differently to the other. I like the sound of doggy zen, though. I HATE it when dogs get underfoot or stand so close to you when you're doing something that they are right in your personal space. Kivi knows sitting quietly is his best bet at getting something he wants, but I never invested very much into teaching him that kind of thing, so it's been slow and kind of haphazard and he still thinks putting his head on my knee and whining or looking pitiful is worth a try if he's not in the mood to sit quietly (I'm looking at OH because I know I never let it work!:D). Thanks everyone. That's really helpful. :D

I'm just trying to get you to talk about interruptors, huski, rather than philosophies or methods in general. I haven't once said that the negative interruptor I use doesn't work the way that I want it to. It works exactly how I want it to, and I don't think it has much of an effect on Kivi except that if I sit there just going "ah-ah" every time he goes to do something because he's in one of those into everything moods he starts whining and chomping on things because he's bored and frustrated and I won't let him do anything he wants to do. I am wondering if I would get the same response if I had a positive interruptor instead. I'm wondering if there's any difference in how a dog behaves if you use a positive interruptor or a negative. What do you think? I'm also thinking perhaps I could have avoided the whining and chomping thing if I'd reinforced similar behaviour with acceptable objects rather than just hopefully waving a chew toy at him and then complaining that he doesn't like them and would prefer to chomp on furniture. Ultimately, what is troubling me is whether positive interruptors can do the same job as a negative interruptor. Or a better job? Or a worse job? How do they compare and why? Has anyone actually trained a positive interruptor?

And I don't see what this has to do with you and what you perceive as a successful tool for your dog, particularly. I'm not asking you to avoid using negative interruptors. I'm asking if you think there's a purpose for a negative interruptor that a positive interruptor can't also achieve. You've more or less answered that, thanks. Until about a week ago I was also thinking that it was important for dogs to know when their people were unhappy with them. Now I'm wondering if that's actually true. I'm challenging it. Why do they need to know? Do they even understand it? Is it really any different in function to a positive interruptor? Pretend for a moment that you didn't know that "ah ah" was a signal of displeasure. Why does it work? What exactly does it achieve? As far as warnings go... I'm mentally challenging that one, too. But that's for another thread. Let's just say I've had over a year of doggy warnings and I can't say I think Kivi likes them much at all. There are things he would never do around Penny lest he provoke a warning. I wonder why I would need him to feel that way around me when I could just tell him what I do want him to do and give him a big cuddle when he does it instead.

What if the dog cares more about a self rewarding behaviour than any positive reinforcement you could offer? What if? Is it then going to care more about a punishment I can offer than this self-rewarding behaviour? Is an "ah-ah" seriously going to work where a pile of treats would not? I'm talking non-physical interruptors of the negative and positive kind, here. I don't think either of them are going to work in that situation. Do you? Unless it's conditioned, which can go either way, can't it?

Roast beef is just an example. I don't need to tell you that you use whatever reinforcement does the job. For my mum's dog Pyry, hunting is the big reward. If you want to overcome the pull of hunting, you have to use it. For her dog Jill it's fetch. She will do anything for fetch. For Kivi, it would have been other dogs, but fortunately we put the work in with other big rewards to condition the response we wanted before expecting compliance around other dogs. If Kivi ever stopped to think whether he wanted to wrestle with dogs or roast beef, he'd probably pick other dogs, at least from time to time. Fortunately roast beef is also high on the list or we'd have to think of something else. I haven't said anywhere that I think interruptors are universally flawed or ineffective. I said my negative interruptor for Kivi was weaker than a command I had trained with rewards, even if the command is in its early stages. It's quite effective in low key situations, and that's exactly what I aimed to achieve with it. I think you're getting tangled up in what I have said versus what you think I'm thinking. This is not a positive reinforcement versus correction debate. This is a "do you need a negative interruptor?" musing. Yes, you can have an interruptor that is neither particularly negative or positive. I'm not especially interested in those ones right now. "Oi!" works pretty decently, though. To begin with when I said "ah-ah" to Kivi he ignored me because it meant nothing to him. I had to teach him that it meant I was going to back him off whatever he was into. Like I said before, if I did it loud enough to act as an interruptor on its own, it was too harsh for the little man. "Negatives" as you say, huski, are by their very definition the opposite to positives. If positives represent things that a dog likes, then negatives must represent things that a dog does not like, right? I'm not foolish enough to think I can get through life with a dog without making them experience negative things, but I would just like to minimise them as much as possible, at least with myself. OH likes to growl at Kivi when he does something that OH doesn't like. That's fine by me. It's his relationship with that dog and he can do whatever he likes with it within reason. But it's kinda obvious that when Kivi gets growled at, he comes and quietly lies down beside me. Next time OH tries to call Kivi to him, Kivi doesn't go. At least, not without some encouragement from me. If OH growled at Kivi all the time, it would become less aversive, but what's the point in that? I've noticed that dogs do a lot of stuff to each other that isn't all that nice. I've also noticed that the consequences for a dog ignoring a threat from another dog is often physical. I have no problem with anyone who wants to base their relationship on the same things, but personally, I'm not a dog and have no intention of acting like one. I have the blessed gift of being able to outsmart my dog (I hope) and reducing the doing of things to my dog that he doesn't like in the process. If that didn't seem better to me somehow, I wouldn't do it, would I? I want to cut down on the use of negatives in training and I don't understand why anyone would particularly care one way or another. Yes, I do think negatives are "bad" because that is, after all, their inherent nature. Certainly "ah-ah" is not in the same ballpark as a boot to the ribs, but I have the luxury of choosing to do neither if I desire. To me, it's about the attitude. I don't think saying "ah-ah" to Kivi has somehow irreversibly damaged my relationship with him in the slightest, but I would like to concentrate on finding things to reward rather than things to tell dogs not to do.

Crap, I had this detailed reply all typed out and then I lost it. So here's the short version. I didn't say anything about NRMs. I used to use them because I thought Kivi needed the extra info, but have since abandoned them because I don't think they actually do give more info than, say, no reward on its own without a marker. But that's beside the point. NRMs are not the same as negative interruptors. The latter is, by definition, negative. I am guessing that if pup does something he shouldn't and he ignores my suggestion of something better, I do the same thing I do with Kivi in such a situation. Take away whatever it was he was getting into, or remove myself or him from the situation. Or I say "Guess you don't want a reward" and leave it at that if it's not a serious thing. I only use the negative interruptor for things I can't easily move. It's not meant to stop him from doing that thing forever. It's just meant to tell him that right here and now, I'm not keen on that behaviour. As far as proofing goes, are you asking how you proof behaviour without corrections, or without negative interruptors? Or something else? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I can say that I'm not in the habit of using either in proofing behaviour. If I want it to be rock solid I reinforce the crap out of it with rewards. Doesn't everyone? If I was lazy and didn't build Kivi up to higher distractions and just jumped into it, I have lately been using the negative interruptor. It doesn't work! That interruptor is weaker than the command, so it's not much use in proofing. I would have thought changing directions and being a tree was R-. Well, the latter at least. I've never tried doing the former. It's not quite the same IMO as a negative interruptor or marker. All dogs challenge at some point. Even Kivi! He may be more teddy bear than dog, but he's a spitz somewhere deep down and he doesn't generally do things unless they obviously benefit him. It behooves any dog to care if you have reinforced something whether it be positively or negatively. The question is have you reinforced it enough to compete with other neat/bad things? And is the response to that reinforcement conditioned? It's amazing what you can achieve with roast beef where chewy junk food treats failed. Well, I doubt you want to hear my take on this, but you've brought it up so you're going to get it. I don't know about Daisy, but Kivi didn't come home knowing what "ah-ah" meant, either. Once or twice I caught him doing something I didn't want him to do and said it loud enough for it to be an interruptor by its sound and volume alone. What I got was a puppy that had no idea what I'd been upset about and simply wouldn't even go in that room for the next few hours until I could coax him back in again. Soft dogs come with difficulties of their own? I never had to tell Kivi not to steal food from the table as a puppy because I was never silly enough to expect him to know that rule and so he was never in a room with food at nose height. So in all honesty, that is a pretty easily solved problem to me. This is why I don't generally give trainers money anymore! No one is perfect and sometimes you break your own rules and let puppies into places where they are inevitably going to make a big mistake. I wouldn't say anything to a puppy in that situation. I'd just take him out again. Doesn't seem worth it to me to use it as a training or communication exercise. Kivi still gets put in another room when we eat as a general rule, although he now knows what acceptable begging looks like. My point is that I had to teach Kivi what "ah-ah" meant in order for it to be particularly helpful. Why not teach "look at me" instead? I'm not interested in "purely positive". I'm interested in "why use negatives if you could use positives?". ETA, nope, apparently that was also the long version.

See, that was my thinking exactly... Don't take this as being argumentative. It's just the argument that's going through my own head. I think, yes, I think that it's fair to communicate when you don't like something your dog is doing, and I think dogs get that when you go "Aght!" for example, that's just you telling them you don't like that, which they ideally care about because they are social animals and one of their aims in life is to avoid confrontations with other animals they are living with. It's funny how you forget how crazy puppies are. They don't know the rules and have no idea that the noise you just made means "don't". You have to teach them that. My thought is, if you have to teach them "don't", then why not teach them "look at me" instead? Does it really make any difference? Like Aidan said, if the action is rewarding enough, the dog will do it anyway. And I guess then you've just decreased the effectiveness of that interruptor. I go on to think, what's the difference between setting a boundary with a negative action and setting a boundary with a positive action? If you manage things correctly, perhaps you never need to say "don't"? Instead you can say "look at me, now how about you go do this thing that I've reinforced positively like hell?" What's the difference between that and saying "don't do that, now how about you go do this thing that I've reinforced positively like hell?" Just as an example. Furthermore, I've never tried living with only positive interruptors and no negative interruptors. It could be awesome. Okay, I also believed that a dog needed a no response so he knew what not to do and then you'd tell him what to do and you would all be happy. But I'm thinking, what if that's actually not necessarily true? What if a dog doesn't need a no response to know what he shouldn't do? If you reinforce what he should do often enough, and then if he ever goes to do what he shouldn't do you just tell him what he should do and reward, then maybe he just sticks to what he's been rewarded for. Say you were freaking awesome at environmental management and/or pre-emptive training, couldn't you control what pup gets rewarded for to the extent where he only develops good habits and you don't need to tell him you don't like something? Isn't that more or less one of the aims of neutralisation? I'm just bouncing ideas around. If no one blows them out of the water well enough you know what's going to happen! Someone's gonna get fixated... Are you saying it makes no difference if it's a negative or a positive interruptor? Provided everything goes according to plan, new pup will be a Swedish Vallhund. Apparently we only have hunds now. I DESPERATELY wanted an Akita, but alas, OH pointed out that our car is not very big compared to the size of an adult male Akita. It's probably for the best, as we still have those rabbits to look after. One day when I no longer have pet rabbits I can get a hunting dog. Probably never going to happen, though. If it's not rabbits, it'll be ferrets or wildlife or some other small, vulnerable prey animal. Hopefully the Val will be a little more into fun things like frisbees and flirt poles than Kivi Tarro, though. I think that Lapphund is a little broken. I will look up Doggy Zen. Ironic seeing as I was talking about Zen with dogs just today. ;) I never really got far with ToT as I was like "eh, that sounds like too much hard work" but having said that, life would have been easier if I'd bothered to train "leave it" before it kinda became necessary. Today KT absent-mindedly spat out a gummi snake he found on the footpath when I told him to leave it, then went "Wait, what am I doing? I was going to eat that", and I had to drag him away from it because I had nothing else to offer and for all that he'll spit out some really tasty things on command, he just picks them up again if you're not on the ball enough to move him away from it before he can think about how good it tasted. Another thing to improve on this time 'round.

We are getting another puppy in about a month and I've been thinking on how I would like to improve on the way I raised Kivi. One of the things I've been wanting to improve on is my heavy reliance on "ah-ah" as a conditioned punisher, or a negative interruptor, I guess. It's not meant to stop KT from doing something forever, just meant to interrupt him and tell him I don't like that and will come and shoo him away if he keeps doing it. It works, but I don't like being so dependent on it and I was wanting to shift my thinking from what I don't like to what I do like. I came across a video on Youtube about training a positive interruptor. It turns out I've been doing this with Kivi as well as the negative interruptor, but because I wasn't consciously aware that I was trying to train a positive interruptor it's not nearly as strong as it needs to be. And I've got a few other things that act as positive interruptors as well. I was thinking that one of the things I liked about a conditioned punisher is that it was good for moments when someone's safety was under threat, but then it has occurred to me that I've just spent the last 12 months training an emergency recall almost soley with awesome food treats and it gets that dog of mine moving faster and more reliably than anything else in the world. He flies to our feet through any obstacle when we use that ER. I've also kind of always thought that it's helpful for a dog to know when you dislike something as well as when you like something, but I'm feeling challenged about that at the moment and am wondering if that's just my human way of looking at things. Maybe a dog doesn't need to know when you don't like something if you have a positive interruptor and have taken the time to train a few alternative behaviours. Would anyone care to comment on negative and positive interruptors? Is there a reason why a dog should know what you don't like as well as what you do?

Is it worthwhile using a word? I've been saying "hold up" to Kivi when there is pressure on the leash just before I stop moving all together since I first put him on a leash. I don't have to say it much anymore, but if he does get a bit carried away on the scent of something I only need to say "hold up" and he slows. He never even looks up anymore, just slows down or stops. Half Kivi's english vocabulary is verbal directions when on leash.

I don't think vegies are necessary per se, but I think the argument that because wolves don't eat them much dogs wouldn't is flawed. Dogs, no doubt, can survive very well on just meat and organs, but as far as I know free-ranging pariah dogs would tuck into a pile of rotting fruit or veg quite happily enough, which is a good enough excuse for me to add a little. I would take the meat to vegie ratio up a little, though. Although it depends on how easily they maintain a healthy weight on that ratio, I guess. I also add kelp powder for trace elements and brewer's yeast for.... I forget. I did the research years ago! I also add some dairy in the form of cottage cheese or plain, low fat yoghurt. I don't think they need that stuff, but they sure like it and it doesn't seem to do them any harm. With the vegie mix, stay clear of corn and maybe use only a little potato. Corn is a grain after all, and potato can be hard to digest, I think. I usually put in a bit of pumpkin and sweet potato, which my dog seems to really like mixed in with his cottage cheese. It's much more fibrous and less starchy. That's just my take, though. I think dogs can do excessively well on prey model or BARF. I kinda mix and match. I like giving whole fish and feed lots of chunks of meat and I usually do an organ meal once a week rather than mixing it in, but that's just my way of compromising and trying to cover all bases.

I just go on body condition, too. If someone is looking a little skinny or a little plump, I just adjust slightly. It usually ends up being a bit of a subtle see-saw deal. Especially as I never actually weigh any of the meals. I just kinda toss things together haphazardly and feed lots of bones of varying sizes and amounts of meat and do it all by guesswork. My mum's Kelpie cross is a few kilos lighter than my Lapphund, but my Lapphund eats significantly less. The Kelpie cross is so active it's quite hard to keep flesh on her. My mum makes her own BARF mix and ended up having to increase the meat to vegie ratio. It wasn't a big deal for her less active dog, though. She just cut his food back and still feeds them the same thing.

That's exactly why it's fun! When my dog's afraid the last thing I'm going to do is reach for the camera, but sometimes I snap a really interesting photo with subtle communication in it. It's really enlightening to see how you would interpret a photo from knowing nothing about the situation or the dog, and how the owner would interpret it with far more information. Nice photos, everyone.

Oh god, I am so relieved someone said that. Geez, nothing gets my hackles up more than an emotional argument. Except maybe an emotional argument in which I get accused of doing something I couldn't even imagine doing. I don't come into these discussions to try to convert people who I know have already made up their minds about something. I do it to share my experiences in the hopes that people will go into things with more information. No one ever notices that I've shared the troubles I've had with positive methods as well. It's more for the lurkers than the regulars. It's not really methods that I'm interested in, but attitudes. I don't like corrections because I'm the exact kind of person that would have been Penny if I were a dog. If that makes sense. :D I always said Penny was a little too much like me. I strive to treat animals gently because I would want to be treated gently. Corrections in themselves aren't ncessarily bad, but they do often make me an unpleasant person because I can't always do it with neutrality. As much as you choose a training method that suits your dog, you also have to pick one that will suit you. If I'm conflicted about physical corrections, then my dog is probably going to find it confusing if I use them. You have to be true to yourself. I think that when you are true to yourself, that's when your dog gets you and you start finding magic.

However, I really find it hard to believe that you don't punish your own dog, Corvus. What do you do when she does something you don't like, that simple ignoring won't extinguish? Or do you just mean you don't actually correct your dog? That's quite another thing. Hello. Right there. Oh wait, I have a brainwave. I said I raised an animal without physical corrections, I think. I was talking about my hare. I sure as hell trained that sucker (you try sharing a room with a nocturnal adolescent! :D) But no one wants to hear about my hare. That much is clear. I have certainly not made any comments on other people's dogs. I went out of my way to state I wouldn't do anything of the sort because I don't know enough. Like Anita, I find it aggravating that I can't talk about my experiences and my way of thinking - NOT what I somehow think everyone else should do or some such - without having everyone take it very personally. One last time. I talk about my experiences with one dog. I have no need to backpedal because this has been my message from the start. When I say "you don't know what you're missing" I mean the proverbial you, anyone, particularly me, no one in particular. Like when you (I) say "You come in here and share your ideas and get flamed." for example. When I generalise about dogs and other animals, I'm trying to explain why I do the things I do. I don't need a single person to agree with that and I'm not asking for it. Just trying to make myself understood. Considering how many times I have to repeat myself and still people are determined to misinterpret, it seems like a lost cause. I can take legit criticisms of positive training in my stride. Yes, there are problems with some tools and they way people use them. I will even freely admit that my dog seems stressed about clicker training. I'm yet to see the same from some of the members on this forum that embrace physical corrections. No, dogs are not wild animals, thank god. But they are animals and however you look at it at the most basic level, all animals (with a brain) learn the same way. That's why operant conditioning is so fundamental to animal training. Any animal. And any method, huski. Drive training does utilise OC. It's not new and unique. I really don't understand why we have to treat dogs differently. Give me a break, guys, I've mentioned my hare just once in this thread in passing! I was really proud of that effort. Once again. I don't care what methods you use. This is "you" as in the reader. I just know that I lost something and I never got it back. I don't want that to happen to other people. It's just a warning and if you want to ignore it I frankly don't care. Just don't put words in my mouth and paint me as someone I'm not. I wouldn't dream of judging people. It's anathema to me and I am appalled that people are determined to think that about me. I apologise most sincerely to anyone who feels I have judged them. I promise I have not and I strongly believe that every person on this forum is doing the best they can for their dogs and it is entirely their business what methods they use. Except Huski, who I judged ages ago. ;) Just kidding, huski.

And it's insinuations that those of us who would dare stoop to the lowly and stupid (as Anita implied, people who use physical corrections aren't being 'smart') level of using physical corrections are missing something extraordinary with our animals that really gets me. Honey, you read too much into things. You know what I think when someone is so defensive? I won't tell you, because it's gonna make you more defensive. I've only ever related what I know from MY experiences and if you weren't so defensive you'd realise that is no threat to you. Either you've experienced magic or you haven't. I would never presume that every dog that was physically corrected responded the same way Penny did. That's pretty simplistic thinking. If you have magic even with your physical corrections, then more power to you. I'm hardly going to know one way or another, and I don't really care. I just want to help people avoid making the mistakes that I made. We can only talk about training from our own perspectives. From my perspective, what is so smart about punishing an animal you love and want to trust you? Doesn't make much sense to me. Punishment by its very definition is unpleasant. I certainly do use punishments. And I certainly consider myself stupid for having to do something to my dog that they don't like rather than something they do like because I just flew in the face of all my aims. Does that make me think anyone else who uses punishment is stupid? Well, that's somewhat different if they are working to their own aims, isn't it? I don't make a habit of applying my view of the world to everyone else, but what would it matter if I did? You wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Geez. You're only as stupid as you think you are. My dog, huski. My dog. Repeating myself is boring. If the cap fits... Oh dear, not this argument again. You're looking at the details rather than the bigger picture. This is a different argument to the one I'm arguing. It's not about the details, it's about the attitude, how you approach an animal, what you base your relationship on, how you build it. It's very tedious when people refuse to admit that dogs are animals as well. They are not something special that doesn't live by the same rules as every other animal. EVERY animal with a brain learns the same way: they try to keep the good things coming and stop the bad things. If I have a method that works on every animal including dogs, and a method that works on dogs but not much else, regardless of what the latter method entails, I'll pick the one that works on every animal. If it doesn't work, then I might explore other ideas. I'm not even going to start because it's off topic. No one claimed Yin was "purely positive" and no one is talking about misuse of training tools. In fact, no one is talking about being "purely positive" at all. Good for you. Love the quotation marks. *yawn* Who cares? We're not talking about AllDogs as some kind of single entity of dogdom. These discussions always go around in circles. As soon as someone makes a generalisation, someone else gets on their soapbox and states that all dogs are individuals and different things work best. Uh huh, we all know that. My purpose in getting involved in these discussions at all is so simple. Gentle physical corrections permanently damaged the relationship I had with my dog. If people still want to risk it and use them, then what do I care? I just want folks to be informed, so I share my experiences and the reasons why I changed my methods. I harp on about it because it was a big deal to me and I REALLY don't want other people to walk blindly into that world and suffer because of it. What could possibly be so personally insulting to you about that? Keeping in mind that I just assured you I was insinuating nothing about other people's relationships with their dog, and if you read that into my posts, I didn't mean for you to. It's not balanced if people are too afraid to post, is it? I get the impression there are quite a lot of them.

I wouldn't dream of implying anything about Shell's relationship with Zero or the methods she has used with him. I've known her and Zero for little more than a year and met Zero just a few times after she had done all that work with him. I don't know near enough to comment. What I was saying was that Shell's relationship with Zero is something special. I remember the first time I met them and I have to say it was not the same as the last time I met them. I would say from those tiny snippets that it has not just improved but blossomed. I don't know why people who advocate physical corrections always assume that every criticism of correction-based methods implies that they abuse their dogs. Quite the contrary, huski. I have said repeatedly that it's NOT the harsh, obvious stuff that worries me. It's the subtle, insidious stuff that you don't notice until something extraordinary happens to make you realise what you're missing. I highly doubt you've had my insight, seeing as that would kinda require you to at least know vaguely what I'm talking about. I have shared that insight plenty of times, but I think you have to see it for yourself to appreciate it. Fear is a continuum and experienced by different individuals in different levels of intensity. In support of SSM, I have been contacted by several people on this forum who have told me they are too frightened to post their disagreement in this part of the forum because they know they'll be slammed and they are a fair bit smarter than me and keep out of it. I think that's really sad and people are missing out on an alternate view because of their intense defensiveness of their preferred methods. What's the point in a forum if everyone is busy making other people afraid to air their views? I saw it happen on another forum, only the other way around, and now it's lost half its members and discussions are pretty boring. The reason why I care if a method works for an elephant or not is that I don't think dogs are a "special" animal that we should do things to that we can't do to other animals just because they will let us. Obviously you can and need to expect more of a dog than a wild animal, but for all intents and purposes, they learn the same way and the reason why you can't train an elephant with a focus on "corrections" aka punishment and reasonably expect to be pretty safe around that animal most days (you can never be 100% safe with a wild animal - I've been bitten by a Willie Wagtail!) is because elephants don't like it and when they say no, it's a fair bit more serious than when a dog says no. The reason you can't train a dolphin or killer whale with correction-based methods is because when they say no they can swim away and you can't enforce a thing. The reason why I can't train my hare with correction-based methods is that when he says no, he runs in a blind panic and refuses to come anywhere near me for several days afterwards. The reason why it's hard to train a cat with correction-based methods is that when a cat says no, it walks away, claws you, and/or refuses to come near you for several days afterwards. If I corrected my benign pet rabbit I'm sure she would find a way to punish me, which would suck because, surprise surprise, I don't like being punished. An easy solution to all these problems is to strive for a "yes" rather than punishing a "no". I don't see why dogs should be any different. I think in a lot of ways dogs are harder. I damn well know when I've pushed my hare too far. It's bleeding obvious. My dog just looks mildly uncomfortable. I think it's inevitable that we will all use punishers with our animals because we are not very good at anticipating what they will do and their world when they live with us is full of things they can't do that they would like to do. I use punishments even though I concentrate on positive methods, because I am not as good as I would like to be, and because I'm human and sometimes I am impatient or lazy or have bad judgement. IMO the important thing about being a positive trainer is the attitude, not whether or not it is truly "positive" or whether or not corrections are harsh. To bring it back on topic, I don't know why we have to make excuses for CM because he works with dangerous dogs. An elephant is dangerous. Fortunately for dogs, they are not as big and dangerous as an elephant and there are therefore more options for changing their behaviour so they can live with us safely. If they have to be shut down, then fine, but I wish someone would make it clear what is being done. For the average person who is not dealing with an animal that has learnt to attack, Yin's methods are great. I know a trainer in the States who is constantly lamenting that so many people come into her classes poking their dogs in the neck and alpha rolling. If that is truly happening, then we need websites like this one to balance things out a bit.

Here's something I already had online: I guess I would call it fear. This was late in Penny's life and she was quite sore and a little afraid of Kivi bumping into her. ETA maybe not quite fear.

This is meant to be fun and enlightening. In the past I've found it a fascinating exercise to capture some subtle body language and see what other people see in it. I would post one, but Photobucket isn't speaking to me. I'll see what I can find tomorrow.

I personally find it difficult to believe that you must come down on a so-called "red zone" dog hard in order to "cure" it. But that's probably just my background coming into it. Fight and flight are basically the same thing once they have been triggered. The only difference is that one is a fair bit more dangerous to a handler. Come down hard on a terrified animal and, IME, you damage your cause. Sometimes in a real big way. Don't know why that should be different for dogs. I think the only time limit Cesar is working to is his own. I know people that have successfully desensitised so-called "red zone" dogs. If they are to be believed, it can be done. Shell, I'm not talking about cringing and shaking and downright terror. I'm talking about the way some of the dogs in those videos held their ears and avoided eye contact and the subtle tension in their bodies. Stuff that I saw in Penny every now and then once I knew what I was looking for. My relationship with Penny was far from obviously damaged. She gazed at me with the same focus Zero has for you. Well, not quite. The bond you have with Zero is not an everyday one. SSM, I think that is an admirable aim. I aim to make what I want what my dog wants so that I don't have to punish, force or restrain as much. Same thing, really. As far as I'm concerned, if it wouldn't work on a lion or a killer whale, then I'll try to avoid using it. Semantics are a waste of time. What it comes down to is why use more force or punishment than you absolutely have to?

PF: I said physical corrections and that's what I meant.

I would suspect that most people who read the training Forums would have seen that link. However, I suspect that most hadn't seen the link I posted. I have to say I really wonder about the self promotion that goes on in this forum. From the Forum rules:

Dogs being treated by CM often look fearful to me. Pen never hit the deck or flinched. I never noticed the difference in her until I was reminded what an animal that does trust you an awful lot looks like. I've said it before and I'll say it again: that realisation was utterly heartbreaking and I truly hope everyone who says their dogs trust them just fine despite physical corrections never have the same revelation I did. I would venture to say that I've seen a hell of a lot of dogs looking fearful of corrections. If all those people are doing it wrong, then IMO there's a bit of a problem.

I don't think that was particularly CM bashing in nature. I mean, the videos are right there for everyone to see. I don't know many people that would recommend a behaviourist that dealt with aggression with what is essentially intimidation and fear if that behaviourist wasn't CM. Who here thinks that a cat that hisses at a dog is trying to dominate that dog? I used to say I thought the man had good dog instincts, but after seeing some of those videos and some other people have shown me lately I no longer have much respect for him. I'm not the kind of person that wants my relationships with my animals to be based on fear of crossing me. I've had one like that and I will never forgive myself for letting that rift between us form. I never regained the trust I had before I started using physical corrections. As far as what the author had to say goes, notice she said she sometimes uses punishment if it's appropriate. I thought a lot of what was said made good sense.