Diablo

I used to think that too, now I'm not so sure. I certainly don't think you can teach a recall off a running cat by bribing a dog with food or with treats. A high prey drive dog will view the food as completely irrelevant in that circumstance. However, with some dogs, correcting the dog to within an inch of its life is not necessarily going to stop it chasing either. Positive or corrective, the solution to that type of prolem must be done intelligently. In my experience, the correction must be timed appropriately (before the dog is fully spun up in drive). IMO the timing of the correction is in many ways more important than the magnitude or type of correction. With my old boy, I had far more success in correcting him and redirecting him gently as soon as he started to think about doing something inappropriately predatory, compared to correcting him harshly when he was already adrenalised and focused on his prey. However, positive solutions can be really helpful too, either as stand alone solutions, or to augment the corrections. You can work on desensitising the dog to the cat, you can work on prey drive games so the dog understands that obeying you leads to drive satisfaction, etc. It's not just about waiting until the dog is taking off after the cat, and then waving a cookie around. Also, in my experience, many people whose dog won't recall off a running cat, also have dogs that won't recall in many other circumstances. They just don't have a good recall, and jumping straight to correcting the dog for a hugely distracting recall isn't the answer. The answer is to go back and train all those intermediate steps that they missed, and then work on the huge distractions like running cats. But hey, what would I know? Personally Staranais, I think you have a very good understanding of general dog training and in fact, you have provided an excellent post Correction and positive re-direction with crucial timing of events was the basis of my GSD's obedience training with predatory behaviour which was not attainable easily without some compulsion. It may be possible to achieve results with "expert" positive reinforcement but on the average of what I have seen from dogs trained without compulsion at our Schutzhund club, the unreliability rate is high in those dog types. For the average person, it appears more successful to train with a combination of both methods. Too many people I believe are clouded with the thought that training without compulsion is always best for the dog, but depending upon what you need to achieve, complusion in some behaviour in some dogs should be be regarded as just another training tool in the box. With my dog especially, positive conditioning proofed him against predatory behaviour with certain distractions, but corrections proofed him against every distraction with far better reliability. It's a case of having an open mind and access to all methods of training and using what is most appropriate. Neither purely compulsive nor purely positive is the best method to successfully train every dog.

Exactly Kavik..........that's why each particular dog needs to be assessed by someone competent enough to determine the "best" methods to train that individual dog. Neither compulsion or positive reinforcement can be used successfully across the board in all cases and depends on the dog and the end result that needs to be achieved.

My GSD is the same MonElite regarding a recovery from corrections for misbehaviour, in fact, it makes no difference to his drives whatsoever afterwards. The trainers at our Schutzhund club "all" teach and use corrections for misbehaviour and blocking with unwarranted aggression which is standard practice. Treat and marker training is used also to teach the dog to do something. I have never seen a good Schutzhund prospect shut down from corrections yet.

I don't know what "WL's" and "SL's" are, but my dog (GSD) does exactly what she is bred for: great versatile all-round intelligent, loyal, energetic, steadfast, courageous companion, friend, guardian, obedience, family dog. Don't know what all the flack is about, but there is nothing like a good ol' fashioned German Shepherd Dog!!! Hi Czara. Well WL is working Lines and SL is show Lines. Alot of breeders of GSD's tend to get very one eyed (for the want of a better saying LOL) on Working lines being stronger ( again for the want of the right word before anyone starts ranting at me LOL) than show lines. I agree there is nothing like the good ole German Shepherd and it shouldnt be the "We are better than YOU" type of argument but it always seems to turn that way, that is why I started this thread and it has been very very interesting with some excellent posts. The biggest issue I think with the GSD Carlibud, is that the breeders become "one eyed" believing what they breed is correct and won't budge on it???. Some showline breeders will stand up and fight with vigour that their breedings can work although they haven't produced a worker in 4 generations. Some working line breeders will do the same with their breeding's conformation but have never shown a dog in their lives, too much talk and assumptions with not enough action from either camp really???. Personally I think that both camps could offer each other some valuable knowledge to improve the standards of each line which would be far more productive than arguing about what is best.

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. It's not about yanking the dog around by the throat, it's about teaching the dog a command and teaching what is required from the command. Simple example the casual heel: You start of and command heel and praise the dog for being in the right place. The dog surges ahead.......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops and "heel" then praise the dog for returning to the correct position etc etc. When the dog has learned in bullet proof fashion to heel without distractions off leash.........the dog knows the command. Add some distractions like another dog approaching. Heel......the dog is in position and praised, then he see's the dog approaching and surges ahead, aghhh heel and he pulls to the end of the leash ignoring the heel command and a leash correction is admistered for ignoring the heal command. The correction is not the response for surging towards the other dog, the correction is for ignoring a known command which the dog has the choice of compliance or not. The dog learns that ignoring commands results in unpleasantness and complying with commands results in positive reward. The dog in this instance has learned right from wrong and the consequences of each chosen action. The dog will stay behind and heel without pleasure. Period. If you teach your dog like that you never have dog that wants to work. ( No drive) The dog will learn to expect punishment or wait for the ".......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops" That's not training a dog to work Misha, that's training obedience which is two different concepts, but without obedience as the foundation you create a solo tasking dog. It's like the GSD that was trained specifically for Schutzhund competition that got hit and killed by a car chasing a cat across the road. The dog had a SCHh3 title but the handler couldn't stop the dog chasing the cat through lacking in "off field" general obedience that the dog had never been taught. Work is taught in drive...........a different situation and different commands. However, you could train a casual heel in drive with a release word for the dog to chase and bite it's target being another dog approaching as the reward, but I doubt that too many people would be happy with such a training concept Wrong wrong wrong Even the info that you have that SCH3 dog will do that is questionable or the SCH3 title is questionable. Training SCH only for competition???? You raise dog for SCH not train. You raise dog for sport. I personally can not distinguish training obedience and training a dog to work. It's not wrong at all, sport is a specific routine for which it's trained to do. A police K9 will have a higher level of general obedience than a dog trained for Schutzhund competition and will be workable over a wider range of situations. Police K9's are definitely not trained in purely positive methods which I think Jeff Jones explained to us earlier.

That's correct Kavik, I totally agree, but we are talking general obedience. Many sport dogs purely raised for competition are never taught general obedience and are kept in kennels and runs and bought out only to train for sport and put away until the next training session where nothing is trained that could have the potential to compromise it's sporting ability and performance. Sports training is a different concept entirely.

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. It's not about yanking the dog around by the throat, it's about teaching the dog a command and teaching what is required from the command. Simple example the casual heel: You start of and command heel and praise the dog for being in the right place. The dog surges ahead.......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops and "heel" then praise the dog for returning to the correct position etc etc. When the dog has learned in bullet proof fashion to heel without distractions off leash.........the dog knows the command. Add some distractions like another dog approaching. Heel......the dog is in position and praised, then he see's the dog approaching and surges ahead, aghhh heel and he pulls to the end of the leash ignoring the heel command and a leash correction is admistered for ignoring the heal command. The correction is not the response for surging towards the other dog, the correction is for ignoring a known command which the dog has the choice of compliance or not. The dog learns that ignoring commands results in unpleasantness and complying with commands results in positive reward. The dog in this instance has learned right from wrong and the consequences of each chosen action. The dog will stay behind and heel without pleasure. Period. If you teach your dog like that you never have dog that wants to work. ( No drive) The dog will learn to expect punishment or wait for the ".......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops" That's not training a dog to work Misha, that's training obedience which is two different concepts, but without obedience as the foundation you create a solo tasking dog. It's like the GSD that was trained specifically for Schutzhund competition that got hit and killed by a car chasing a cat across the road. The dog had a SCHh3 title but the handler couldn't stop the dog chasing the cat through lacking in "off field" general obedience that the dog had never been taught. Work is taught in drive...........a different situation and different commands. However, you could train a casual heel in drive with a release word for the dog to chase and bite it's target being another dog approaching as the reward, but I doubt that too many people would be happy with such a training concept

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. It's not about yanking the dog around by the throat, it's about teaching the dog a command and teaching what is required from the command. Simple example the casual heel: You start of and command heel and praise the dog for being in the right place. The dog surges ahead.......aghhh.......a couple of leash pops and "heel" then praise the dog for returning to the correct position etc etc. When the dog has learned in bullet proof fashion to heel without distractions off leash.........the dog knows the command. Add some distractions like another dog approaching. Heel......the dog is in position and praised, then he see's the dog approaching and surges ahead, aghhh heel and he pulls to the end of the leash ignoring the heel command and a leash correction is admistered for ignoring the heal command. The correction is not the response for surging towards the other dog, the correction is for ignoring a known command which the dog has the choice of compliance or not. The dog learns that ignoring commands results in unpleasantness and complying with commands results in positive reward. The dog in this instance has learned right from wrong and the consequences of each chosen action.

Oh, I've got you figured out. *adds another notch* The thing is, for some reason Diablo thinks this thread is about purely positive trainers - none of which are on this board (or if they are they are too smart to make themselves known) and hey, the topic is actually the effective use of punishment - and has responded by attacking said trainers. Presumably if Diablo is so supportive of punishments they might have something useful to say about Steve White's Rules of Punishment and whether they agree with them all or not and why. Several people have pointed out the rules that have led them to NOT using punishments. That is relevant and I am glad they contributed. This dissing of trainers that are either hypothetical or not on the board to defend themselves is really drifting from the original topic. M-J has pointed out that even following the rules to the letter can result in an ineffective punishment. M-J, I can't speak for Steve White, but I would suggest that your case may have been an exception to the rule. I agree that 100% is a tall order for anything in the real world, but I still agree with the rule because I think in the vast majority of cases it is key to the effectiveness of that punishment. I know that from experience. It's also of relevence to debate the reasons for people being led not to use punishments which I have responded. I don't know what Ginnea Pigs has do with the topic Corvus do you???

Some say that corrections stress the dog and stressing the dog is something we shouldn't do......fair enough??? On the other hand, corrections teach the dog the conscequences of doing something wrong with the option to behave and enjoy the reward stress free. To humanise this further as MonElite has presented to us I ask this simple question: Is it more stressful to behave and stop at a red light, or misbehave and run the red light driving straight through it when we have the choice to do either??? A dog may fear a correction as we may fear running a red light, but the alternative is pleasant and stress free. A dog as we are, is cleaver enough to make choices and a dog trained with corrections properly administered is about as stressed as we feel stopped at a red light. The right choice is the nice choice that creates tranquility is what the dog learns in the same fashion as we learn the tranquility of stopping at red lights. We don't fear a ticket from a policeman or being killed as we sit at a red light, neither does the dog fear a correction when walking nicely by your side which becomes a learned behaviour of pleasantness.

I agree with this. For dogs with behaviour issues - be it aggression or fear without aggression, I like to do one-on-one consults with the owner and dog before they join our classes. For one, there are times when any group of dogs/people is too high an intensity for the dog to cope with and if it is possible prefer to work on day to day lower intensity situations until the owner gets a handle on how to apply the recommended strategies and until the dog begins to understand what is required and through the strategies programmed at consultation level, begins to increase its self-confidence and confidence in the owner's abilities. For two, it means that when the owner comes to class, he/she will know what they need to do and when and for a good part do not require one-on-one assistance (other than a bit of help along the way, as you do for any member of class anyway) throughout the class time itself. But I do understand what Diablo is saying - I know of Clubs who do actively turn their backs on problematic dogs. I know of a Club or two who have recommended pts, when the only thing wrong was lack of leadership and the inability (or preferred avoidance) to apply a well timed correction. That was my "exact" reference Erny especially from some clubs heavily promoting purely positive training. It's almost a case of selecting dogs that fit with their training methods and most likely to achieve. Eject the dogs that are unlikely to achieve on those methods which lessens the failure rate for that club. I know of several dogs that have been deemed untrainable and recommended to be PTS by these clubs and have been successfully rehabilitated by competent trainers using methods required for that particular dog.

Herm Sprenger do a quality whistle http://www.petsplus.com.au/pet-shop.asp?id=964

I'm glad you said "half"! I must be in the other half :D But to be completely honest, you cannot possibly use 'purely positive' methods with any fear or aggression case, there is necessarily an aversive involved in whatever the fear-inducing stimulus is. We actually have some "purely positive" trainers in SA Aidan, that won't do any jobs relating to aggression and eject dogs/owners from their training classes if any aggression surfaces. Some also reject training applications from GSD, Rottweiler and Doberman owners and crossbreeds of That "half" I would question their training ability in general???. The "good" trainers will do any job presented and have the experience and methods at hand to deal with the specific situation required.

If in doubt, act superior and accuse someone else of not knowing as much as you. I'm starting to take this as a sign that my arguments are better when I'm the accused. :D Again, no one here is talking about "purely positive" methods. We're talking about the rules of punishment. I will ask you once again to consider the topic when next you post. You must be kidding If I had to do that I would buy a guinnea pig. Maybe instead of being so defensive of +R training, you could do some research so your next dog doesn't have to experience this 'training', if you can call it that. Poor frigging dogs. Corvus, stupid comments as above which I responed need to be highlighted and answered, so what I suggest that you do is screen ALL the posts that don't relate to the topic instead of singling out the debates that you can't win or disagree with