Training With No Compulsion?

[Erny]

I'm all for what you are saying, Aidan, but I've worked with dogs who are so 'in' to doing what is wrong that it has been necessary to correct, only so that I can use the positive stuff to show them the contrast and guide them back down the other 'fork in the road' from where they were initially headed or at.

[Aidan]

I'm all for what you are saying, Aidan, but I've worked with dogs who are so 'in' to doing what is wrong that it has been necessary to correct, only so that I can use the positive stuff to show them the contrast and guide them back down the other 'fork in the road' from where they were initially headed or at.

No argument from me, Erny. MonElite had made the statement "if they are not corrected for doing wrong then they dont know its wrong" which is misleading because it implies that you can't stop a dog doing something without a correction. There are many ways to stop a dog doing something wrong, not all involve corrections.

[MonElite]

OK let me humanise what I was trying to say.

A young guy gets his drivers licence.

He is told not to speed as he will get caught and pay fines, also will loose the points and the licence.

Now - some will drive carefully and be perfect, some will speed and not be caught and some will speed get caught and learn the lesson.

And there will be those that will speed, loose the licence and still speed.

Some dont need a correction, some need one and some you can whack on the head many times with little or no results.

It just depends on the kid dog

Edited January 11, 2010 by MonElite

[corvus]

Okay, but you can't "tell" a dog that he's going to get a correction if he does something without giving him a correction for doing it, or at least creating a conditioned punisher.

Two years ago I would have agreed with you. But now I say "why does a dog need to know what is 'wrong' or 'bad' at all? Why can't he just learn what is rewarding and what is not rewarding? This is the attitude I went in with when I got Erik. Erik is easy to train, but very busy, very smart, and very opportunistic. He always tries something once just to see if it's a good thing for him to do. He's pushy, demanding, and unlike Kivi, he certainly does let you know all about it if he doesn't like something. If I waited around for him to do everything I didn't want him to do once so I could correct him for it I'd spend most of my life correcting him for his latest 'trick' and he would not be nearly so fun to free shape.

Erny, I hear what you are saying, but don't really see how it relates to the discussion except as another scenario in which you might need corrections. This thead is about whether you can do it WITHOUT corrections. Like I said, Erik is rather enterprising and overly confident, yet I've had him since he was 10 weeks old and he's now 6 months old and I have only had to resort to punishment once, and that was because I didn't appreciate at the time that he was a dog that gets so "into" doing something sometimes that he gets a bit lost in it. There was plenty of opportunity for me to do something with rewards if I'd made a proper effort, but instead I inadvertently made it all a good deal more rewarding for him. Whoops.

Anyway, the point is, if I'd been more experienced with dogs like Erik I should have seen that one coming a mile away and done something about it and then I wouldn't have needed punishment.

[Diablo]

OK let me humanise what I was trying to say.

A young guy gets his drivers licence.

He is told not to speed as he will get caught and pay fines, also will loose the points and the licence.

Now - some will drive carefully and be perfect, some will speed and not be caught and some will speed get caught and learn the lesson.

And there will be those that will speed, loose the licence and still speed.

Some dont need a correction, some need one and some you can whack on the head many times with little or no results.

It just depends on the kid dog

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.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Diablo

[corvus]

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

[Misha]

Arhhhhh Sorry

Why in Australia Compulsion is bad word.

For people saying that some one will read this tread and will start training with compulsion/force i will say that that person is dambo and I will assume idiots do not read treads here at least not on 5th page depth.

In case a "Dambo" reads this traid: You do not punish the dog for trying. Even if the dog is making mistake you do not punish the dog. You are asking the dog to do something. Logic says DO NOT use any compulsion.

You correct the dog. Correction still can be delayed reward, no reward or just try again. Most of the correction are needed for the handler not for the dog ( the handler did not ask the correct question)

On my previous post I ask for possible solutions to invisible barrier. Reason for that can be protection of the dog. Yes US dog people are willing to adopt our way of leaving to accommodate the dogs needs but in reality working dog owners and "other" people in order for dogs better life require dog adaptation.

Will you tell the owner of a dog that he needs to re home the dog or provide a quick solutions that will allow the dog to happily live ever after.

For the people that know that with force you are not getting nowhere: in my opinion you need to apply compulsion if you need to get very reliable prohibition.

[Erny]

Why in Australia Compulsion is bad word.

I think, Misha, because those who are opposed to the use of it, prefer to describe and reference it in its most extreme, painting a picture of a cruel owner who somehow enjoys the use of force and overtly heavy handed punishment on their dogs.

In my experience, the dog owners who go to training and learn the right and wrongs of compulsion, the meaning of punishment, and the proper use of corrections are generally the very ones who would prefer to not use it, and enjoy the use of positives (praise/treats/rewards). They go to training because they are interested in their dog's welfare and want to learn how to raise their dogs to become harmonious within the family unit and within the community. Whilst those who steer clear of training schools (some perhaps because the positive reward regime of training isn't working for their dog efficiently enough - for whatever countless reasons that might have) apply the use of compulsion, punishment and corrections without understanding how to do so only so that it is effective. And of course, there are the others who just plain aren't interested in training at all, a percentage of whom would apply compulsion, punishment ... but not in the sense of 'training' as we discuss here. I'm generalising here of course, and I know of quite a good number of people who don't go to training per se, yet also have enough base knowledge (quite often animal instinctive) to humanely train their dogs to their needs and ways.

Just as a clarification as well - my interpretation of "compulsion", although it obviously extends further for some, is the 'guide, show, place' based methods of teaching/showing our dogs what we want, when we are in the teaching phase. I teach both 'lure' and "guide, show, place' at our school, because in some instances, 'lure' just doesn't cut it for some dogs. Compulsion does not have to be a dirty word. It only becomes that due to a select people's perception and opinion of it (IMO). And that to talk of it in the extreme supports the argument for 'Positive Only' regimes. The same as the word "dominance" became a dirty word. And for at least one trainer/behaviourist who is involved in public speaking, even the word "leadership" is becoming a dirty word.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Erny

[Diablo]

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

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.

[Misha]

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

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"

[Kavik]

There is no place for compulsion/physical corrections as explained by Erny (guide show place) and Diablo in agility training.

[Diablo]

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

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

[bedazzledx2]

I trained heel without a lead, compulsion, or correction. Then I proofed it without corrections.

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

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.

[corvus]

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

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.

Dogs are not good generalisers. We know this. Assuming that a command known in one situation equates to a command known in all situations is a false assumption. Now, I assume you know this and what you're doing is proofing. Have you considered that the command may as well be new in a situation in which that command has never been issued before? If you have to correct each time... Are you aware that you can proof just as well without setting the dog up to fail and then correcting it? I've found that for the most part if you have it solid enough in the low distraction environment and do a suitably small step to a higher distraction environment the dog hardly ever fails to respond to the known command. It's just a matter of teaching them to expect to hear it in all sorts of situations and receive all sorts of rewards for it each time. I love watching Erik when I ask him to do something unexpected in a situation he's never done it in before. He looks surprised, then you can practically see him sorting through his repertoire looking for the right behaviour. Sometimes he gets it wrong and I just wait patiently for him to try again. Sometimes he needs another signal to remind him. Erik is still only a pup, but he downs on command pretty much anywhere, in pretty much any state of arousal and I didn't correct him for not doing it once. There were plenty of times when he didn't because he's not as steady and predictable as Kivi, but the consequence here for not obeying a command is that you don't get a reward. If they want the treat and know the behaviour, they'll do it. If they want the treat but don't know the behaviour they'll try something they do know. Or stare blankly/whine at me. It doesn't get them the treat, but it does tell me we need to practice some more and I ask them something easy so they can get their treat for choosing to work with me even when it's confusing or stressful.

So yes, it is possible to do what you're doing without compulsion/punishment/force/negative corrections or whatever you want to call them.

[Diablo]

There is no place for compulsion/physical corrections as explained by Erny (guide show place) and Diablo in agility training.

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.

[Kavik]

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.

I don't know of any agility dogs that lead a life such as this. All that I know are family pets that go for walks/romps/runs/swims etc like any other dog.

I didn't say that corrections are never warrented in training life skills.

[bedazzledx2]

Not here they're not. Show dogs perhaps? but the overwhelming majority of sporting dogs here in the West are first and foremost pets and live wonderful lives with their families. That doesn't mean people are not competative...they are! The most successfull teams in competition obedience and agility are positively trained because it works!!!! Proved over and over again.

There is no place for compulsion/physical corrections as explained by Erny (guide show place) and Diablo in agility training.

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.

[Misha]

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

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.

[ness]

Sure is and you just have to watch them in the ring to see the quality and standard of there work (and the handling isn't half bad either ).

[caffy]

I trained heel without a lead, compulsion, or correction. Then I proofed it without corrections.

...and a perfect recall by positive methods