Any Tips For Keeping Attention During Distractions

[huski]

That's common Huski and is basically throwing the dog in the deep end where nothing really works well without the foundation training to work under high level distraction. I wouldn't personally take a dog at that level of training to an obedience club where it's bound to fail and apply corrections in hope of improving behaviour which is essentially unfair on the dog.

But the point is that many people do and we don't know if the OP is one of these people - TBH, not many people know how to build a good foundation and introduce distractions gradually. Throwing the dog in the deep end and then just giving corrections when it backfires often ends up with a poorly trained dog and a frustrated handler.

[SpecTraining]

How do I know that adding an aversive works???. I stopped the dog chasing cats where the reward only based trainers before me failed to correct the behaviour.

I make a fairly sharp distinction between things we can control and things we can't control and make decisions based partly on that. The evidence you have presented is confounded in that it's likely that no attempt has been made (by client or positive trainer) to work at graded exposures with cats doing things that are likely to elicit prey drive. That is not to say that corrections would not be expedient where cats are involved, cats are not easily controlled In my experience the correction needs to be fairly severe to stop a cat chaser with any sort of drive. But the confounder is that you don't know that +R wouldn't be equally as effective and reliable at stopping a cat chaser (but probably not as expedient), so again I would argue that it wasn't necessary for learning, strictly speaking.

However, in the example being discussed we are able to move away from the other dogs, we can control the environment. I can think of a few good reasons why we would use corrections at this point, I can also think of a few good reasons why we wouldn't (and generally I wouldn't).

One benefit to using very mild corrections in low-distraction environments is that if you intend to go into very strongly distracting environments you have a basis for learning through aversion and can usually increase the intensity of the correction and the dog has a pretty good chance of figuring out what the correction was for. However, in this particular situation I'm not convinced that it is necessary, or any faster than +R alone (done well). Even with very reactive dogs we can get them working alongside other dogs very quickly without corrections.

Aidan, you mentioned (bolded) that you can think of a few good reasons why you wouldn't use corrections at that point in the example which is the part I am trying to understand, as I cannot think of any good reasons in all honesty what sparing corrections is intended to achieve in relation to the training result???.

I am speaking purely training results, obedience and reliability, and not from a humane basis of correction avoidance???.

[SpecTraining]

That's common Huski and is basically throwing the dog in the deep end where nothing really works well without the foundation training to work under high level distraction. I wouldn't personally take a dog at that level of training to an obedience club where it's bound to fail and apply corrections in hope of improving behaviour which is essentially unfair on the dog.

But the point is that many people do and we don't know if the OP is one of these people - TBH, not many people know how to build a good foundation and introduce distractions gradually. Throwing the dog in the deep end and then just giving corrections when it backfires often ends up with a poorly trained dog and a frustrated handler.

Throwing a dog in the deep end and applying heavy corrections usually will retrain certain behaviours which is old school yank and crank but it does work if you want to eliminate one behaviour and not interested in preserving others factor like prey drive for instance for another purpose.

[Aidan3]

Aidan, you mentioned (bolded) that you can think of a few good reasons why you wouldn't use corrections at that point in the example which is the part I am trying to understand, as I cannot think of any good reasons in all honesty what sparing corrections is intended to achieve in relation to the training result???.

I am speaking purely training results, obedience and reliability, and not from a humane basis of correction avoidance???.

I've already mentioned a few, the possibility of the correction actually impeding learning (and I realise that everyone believes that they would never be so unclear with a correction, yet I see it over and over...), the suggestion that it is maybe not always faster (and how would you know anyway? How would one test that objectively? If you can suggest a way that doesn't require an enormous, tightly controlled sample I would genuinely love to know!)

So if we don't know if it's actually any faster or that it has benefited learning, and it isn't necessary in the example under discussion, I would make a decision not to based on that alone. I know for certain that we can get a very high level of handler attention amidst distraction using positive reinforcement, and that it is not a long, slow road.

We also need to consider the handler. The minute they walk out the door they haven't got you coaching them any more. Positive reinforcement carries a much lower risk than corrections; you can't "over-reward", you can mistime a reward but it usually doesn't cause any anxiety or uncertainty, a reward won't shut a soft dog down, even a poorly timed reward provides useful classical conditioning, food is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system (calming processes), corrections are associated with the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight processes) - remember we are talking about dog owners here and not professionals.

Sometimes the effects of corrections cannot be seen immediately. They might be effective in stopping the unwanted behaviour, but increase other unwanted behaviours. There is always a response to corrections. On the flip-side, reward has behavioural benefits beyond the immediate behaviour.

I am also of the opinion that a training relationship strongly weighted towards reward leads to a stronger personal relationship. I can't prove that, but it is the relationship that I would prefer to have. I think it's ugly to be correcting your dog when it isn't necessary. I don't like being around people who do that to other people, either. My rugby coach doesn't mind giving us (as a team) a spray when warranted, but the respect he has earned comes from his ability to make every player (as an individual) feel like they are worth something to him and the team.

A note on reliability - it has been amply demonstrated to me through observing good trainers, having done it myself, and thousands of lab experiments that +R can lead to extraordinarily high levels of reliability. So can corrections. +R is generally a little slower in achieving a moderate level of reliability than reward and correction together, but ultimately both end up in the same place in the same time if taken to high levels. There are exceptions, the cat-chaser for example where we can punish something very specific and controlled set-ups would prove very difficult, but the example under discussion is not one of these exceptions.

It's a really big topic, debated for many years. Skinner came to the conclusion (based on the empirical data available to him) that punishment was unreliable and unpredictable. Since then we've learned that this is not the case, and I think the positive training movement conveniently ignores the weight and breadth of available evidence on this topic. Still, people seem to attribute almost mystical properties to whatever "method" they prefer. I've never seen very mild corrections work for anything other than very mild distractions for long, turn the volume of the distraction up and the dog continues his unwanted behaviours. At this point you have a choice:

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using more mild corrections

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using reward

- increase the correction

It's not up to me to convince you which you should choose, but my choice is to build up slowly with reward wherever I can.

[bedazzledx2]

:D :D

Aidan, you mentioned (bolded) that you can think of a few good reasons why you wouldn't use corrections at that point in the example which is the part I am trying to understand, as I cannot think of any good reasons in all honesty what sparing corrections is intended to achieve in relation to the training result???.

I am speaking purely training results, obedience and reliability, and not from a humane basis of correction avoidance???.

I've already mentioned a few, the possibility of the correction actually impeding learning (and I realise that everyone believes that they would never be so unclear with a correction, yet I see it over and over...), the suggestion that it is maybe not always faster (and how would you know anyway? How would one test that objectively? If you can suggest a way that doesn't require an enormous, tightly controlled sample I would genuinely love to know!)

So if we don't know if it's actually any faster or that it has benefited learning, and it isn't necessary in the example under discussion, I would make a decision not to based on that alone. I know for certain that we can get a very high level of handler attention amidst distraction using positive reinforcement, and that it is not a long, slow road.

We also need to consider the handler. The minute they walk out the door they haven't got you coaching them any more. Positive reinforcement carries a much lower risk than corrections; you can't "over-reward", you can mistime a reward but it usually doesn't cause any anxiety or uncertainty, a reward won't shut a soft dog down, even a poorly timed reward provides useful classical conditioning, food is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system (calming processes), corrections are associated with the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight processes) - remember we are talking about dog owners here and not professionals.

Sometimes the effects of corrections cannot be seen immediately. They might be effective in stopping the unwanted behaviour, but increase other unwanted behaviours. There is always a response to corrections. On the flip-side, reward has behavioural benefits beyond the immediate behaviour.

I am also of the opinion that a training relationship strongly weighted towards reward leads to a stronger personal relationship. I can't prove that, but it is the relationship that I would prefer to have. I think it's ugly to be correcting your dog when it isn't necessary. I don't like being around people who do that to other people, either. My rugby coach doesn't mind giving us (as a team) a spray when warranted, but the respect he has earned comes from his ability to make every player (as an individual) feel like they are worth something to him and the team.

A note on reliability - it has been amply demonstrated to me through observing good trainers, having done it myself, and thousands of lab experiments that +R can lead to extraordinarily high levels of reliability. So can corrections. +R is generally a little slower in achieving a moderate level of reliability than reward and correction together, but ultimately both end up in the same place in the same time if taken to high levels. There are exceptions, the cat-chaser for example where we can punish something very specific and controlled set-ups would prove very difficult, but the example under discussion is not one of these exceptions.

It's a really big topic, debated for many years. Skinner came to the conclusion (based on the empirical data available to him) that punishment was unreliable and unpredictable. Since then we've learned that this is not the case, and I think the positive training movement conveniently ignores the weight and breadth of available evidence on this topic. Still, people seem to attribute almost mystical properties to whatever "method" they prefer. I've never seen very mild corrections work for anything other than very mild distractions for long, turn the volume of the distraction up and the dog continues his unwanted behaviours. At this point you have a choice:

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using more mild corrections

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using reward

- increase the correction

It's not up to me to convince you which you should choose, but my choice is to build up slowly with reward wherever I can.

[SpecTraining]

Aidan, you mentioned (bolded) that you can think of a few good reasons why you wouldn't use corrections at that point in the example which is the part I am trying to understand, as I cannot think of any good reasons in all honesty what sparing corrections is intended to achieve in relation to the training result???.

I am speaking purely training results, obedience and reliability, and not from a humane basis of correction avoidance???.

I've already mentioned a few, the possibility of the correction actually impeding learning (and I realise that everyone believes that they would never be so unclear with a correction, yet I see it over and over...), the suggestion that it is maybe not always faster (and how would you know anyway? How would one test that objectively? If you can suggest a way that doesn't require an enormous, tightly controlled sample I would genuinely love to know!)

So if we don't know if it's actually any faster or that it has benefited learning, and it isn't necessary in the example under discussion, I would make a decision not to based on that alone. I know for certain that we can get a very high level of handler attention amidst distraction using positive reinforcement, and that it is not a long, slow road.

We also need to consider the handler. The minute they walk out the door they haven't got you coaching them any more. Positive reinforcement carries a much lower risk than corrections; you can't "over-reward", you can mistime a reward but it usually doesn't cause any anxiety or uncertainty, a reward won't shut a soft dog down, even a poorly timed reward provides useful classical conditioning, food is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system (calming processes), corrections are associated with the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight processes) - remember we are talking about dog owners here and not professionals.

Sometimes the effects of corrections cannot be seen immediately. They might be effective in stopping the unwanted behaviour, but increase other unwanted behaviours. There is always a response to corrections. On the flip-side, reward has behavioural benefits beyond the immediate behaviour.

I am also of the opinion that a training relationship strongly weighted towards reward leads to a stronger personal relationship. I can't prove that, but it is the relationship that I would prefer to have. I think it's ugly to be correcting your dog when it isn't necessary. I don't like being around people who do that to other people, either. My rugby coach doesn't mind giving us (as a team) a spray when warranted, but the respect he has earned comes from his ability to make every player (as an individual) feel like they are worth something to him and the team.

A note on reliability - it has been amply demonstrated to me through observing good trainers, having done it myself, and thousands of lab experiments that +R can lead to extraordinarily high levels of reliability. So can corrections. +R is generally a little slower in achieving a moderate level of reliability than reward and correction together, but ultimately both end up in the same place in the same time if taken to high levels. There are exceptions, the cat-chaser for example where we can punish something very specific and controlled set-ups would prove very difficult, but the example under discussion is not one of these exceptions.

It's a really big topic, debated for many years. Skinner came to the conclusion (based on the empirical data available to him) that punishment was unreliable and unpredictable. Since then we've learned that this is not the case, and I think the positive training movement conveniently ignores the weight and breadth of available evidence on this topic. Still, people seem to attribute almost mystical properties to whatever "method" they prefer. I've never seen very mild corrections work for anything other than very mild distractions for long, turn the volume of the distraction up and the dog continues his unwanted behaviours. At this point you have a choice:

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using more mild corrections

- continue with low level distractions, then build up slowly, using reward

- increase the correction

It's not up to me to convince you which you should choose, but my choice is to build up slowly with reward wherever I can.

Thanks for your insights Aidan appreciated :p

Here's a good link that explains my feelings on the situation

http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages.php?pageid=54

Garry

[Rileys mum]

Wow. This is all fascinating reading.

**small update ** I have been seeking out opportunities to expose and train my pup with similar distractions that we are presented with at training. He is not consistently attentive but is definately getting better.

I'm now treating him multiple times in a row while he's giving me attention and also using the mark word 'yes' ( which I use with my agility puppy foundation work) I have found now that he is watching me more while we are on our walks too and I have been double treating and big time praising him for it. I think he's getting the idea that it's extra special to watch mum lol.

I appreciate all the helpful advice :p it's really given me an alternate way of looking at my training. Although I'm new to dog training, I have trained and competed horses for 20 odd years so I'm very in tune to alot of things. I'm not impulsive and analyse everything I do so people needn't worry that I'm gonna start dishing out un thought out corrections just because someone suggested corrections as a method. I appreciate all the ideas given

After assessing things and considering the advice given I'm no longer going to let my dog approach and play with other dogs etc until he sits calmly for me and gives me his attention. If he is unable to do this I will increase the distance we are from the distraction until I'm able to achieve this.

I will continue the reward system I've explained above and continue finding distractions to work with.

It's all about consistency and patience lol. But we will get there ;)

[Nekhbet]

We also need to consider the handler. The minute they walk out the door they haven't got you coaching them any more. Positive reinforcement carries a much lower risk than corrections; you can't "over-reward", you can mistime a reward but it usually doesn't cause any anxiety or uncertainty, a reward won't shut a soft dog down, even a poorly timed reward provides useful classical conditioning, food is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system (calming processes), corrections are associated with the sympathetic nervous system (fight or flight processes) - remember we are talking about dog owners here and not professionals.

I'm a bit sick of this excuse. I also think making the assumption that it's better to assume everyone is a numpty isnt favourable either. OK not everyone is capable but many are, and many want to learn. If the owner HAS a soft dog why would you recommend corrections any way? People with hugely problem dogs or low skills can go to a dog club (if any of them are willing to take on their dog which is why a friend of mine opened her own so we could give problem dogs a weekly outlet) Or is this becoming the age of hands off, less responsibility for our actions and if we dont use corrections we can't be blamed for causing a problem... if it all turns to poo blame the dog because our method has supposedly no side effect :p

I am also of the opinion that a training relationship strongly weighted towards reward leads to a stronger personal relationship. I can't prove that, but it is the relationship that I would prefer to have. I think it's ugly to be correcting your dog when it isn't necessary. I don't like being around people who do that to other people, either. My rugby coach doesn't mind giving us (as a team) a spray when warranted, but the respect he has earned comes from his ability to make every player (as an individual) feel like they are worth something to him and the team.

A note on reliability - it has been amply demonstrated to me through observing good trainers, having done it myself, and thousands of lab experiments that +R can lead to extraordinarily high levels of reliability. So can corrections. +R is generally a little slower in achieving a moderate level of reliability than reward and correction together, but ultimately both end up in the same place in the same time if taken to high levels. There are exceptions, the cat-chaser for example where we can punish something very specific and controlled set-ups would prove very difficult, but the example under discussion is not one of these exceptions.

Again what do people think we that use corrections do to dogs? My theory that many of you do not understand corrections still seems to ring true when I read what is written over and over again. I have always used a correction when necessary, I see many many dogs receive a correction when necessary and no one has 'relationship' issues. In fact relationship GOES UP because now we are making life very black and white for the dog, which is especially important when we are trying to reshape problem behaviours or create new good ones. Correction coupled with reward - why would that be a problem if the dog learns faster? Did we all fail sometimes when we were growing up and wasnt the point to LEARN from it and use it to make better decisions in the future? So if I corrected a dog fod going ape at another and tugging on lead, then offered a reward for paying attention, would the dog not learn that if it happened again there is 2 options for it? Correction or reward? And let the dog chose what it will get. I dont force dogs, I give them choices. But each choice has a different consequence, one nice, one probably not so nice. Of course you have to reward behaviour - without it, consistency ceases to be. But just R+ alone with no consequence I cannot recommend to majority of situations I see.

As for some stress ... life is hard. Sometimes dogs learn even better when under a little stress, it sticks. Not saying we push the point to exhaustion but we shouldn't say that a correction for disobeying something you have taught the dog because it is suddenly under a little pressure is unfair. Dogs have to learn to cope. Dogs also need to learn to be handled and to accept handling ... those that have never been made to do something or made to be held under someone elses terms throw the best tantrums. Even on my terms dogs get a reward for compliance. There has to be something in it for them.

I would rather help the dog along and get some consistancy in the basics then keep plugging away at only R+ techniques if that is going to be the longer route. There are more interesting things to do with a dog then spend months trying to get half decent focus around distractions, and personally if distraction proofing is going to take that long I would rethink my methods. Dogs are also faster learners then I think we give them credit for, they do have the amazing ability to mould their behaviour and pick up new ideas within the space of hours, heck, minutes (I mean pick up not permanently learn)

Edited October 3, 2010 by Nekhbet

[Aidan]

My theory that many of you do not understand corrections still seems to ring true when I read what is written over and over again.

This is like me saying "my theory that many of you don't understand positive reinforcement seems to ring true..." You seem convinced that teaching attention around distractions of this nature is usually going to be faster with corrections, well I'm not sure how fast it has to be? I'm not sure the extra 5 minutes of my life saved is worth the extra time taken to teach someone how to do it. If there is a difference at all.

We could go around and around in circles here or just accept that I do what I do best and you do what you do best. If I think I'm better not to use corrections in a particular situation and you think you are better to use corrections in a particular situation then we are probably both right.

Maybe I'm not very good at using corrections? I don't know, they seem to work well when I do use them and I think that probably carries more weight than reading a few paragraphs on the internet.

As for some stress ... life is hard. Sometimes dogs learn even better when under a little stress, it sticks. Not saying we push the point to exhaustion but we shouldn't say that a correction for disobeying something you have taught the dog because it is suddenly under a little pressure is unfair. Dogs have to learn to cope. Dogs also need to learn to be handled and to accept handling ... those that have never been made to do something or made to be held under someone elses terms throw the best tantrums. Even on my terms dogs get a reward for compliance. There has to be something in it for them.

I agree with everything you have written quoted here and I believe there is a good case for using corrections to teach dogs to deal with stress productively in reasonably well controlled environments.

[Nekhbet]

This is like me saying "my theory that many of you don't understand positive reinforcement seems to ring true..." You seem convinced that teaching attention around distractions of this nature is usually going to be faster with corrections, well I'm not sure how fast it has to be? I'm not sure the extra 5 minutes of my life saved is worth the extra time taken to teach someone how to do it. If there is a difference at all.

Did I say it is for every dog? Do I generalise and use one method for all dogs I train? No. I understand perfectly well that you require reinforcement in order to perpetuate a wanted behaviour, but what I AM saying is that you cannot discount corrections as being useful for some training.

I'm not sure the extra 5 minutes of my life saved is worth the extra time taken to teach someone how to do it. If there is a difference at all.

I have tried, with and without. The difference is more then 5 minutes, in fact it can be significant periods such as days or weeks. I think that type of saving is worth it, particularly for the owner. If the dog is not really requiring it then it doesnt get a correction, but if the training is dragging on, the dog is not listening and is refusing to accept rewards (and I am not going to send the owner half a kilometer down the road in order to get to a viable distance) and the dog is receptive to a correction in order to learn then why not?

Corrections are only useful if they produce a good result. It may not be immediate, the dog may pull behaviours to get out of having to deal with life but hey, it's not all doggy cookies and cuddles all the time particularly when the behaviour you are trying to prevent can be potentially harmful or dangerous. I personally believe a dog that refuses to listen under distraction is potential for disaster, and in some cases can snowball into anti-social behaviours (this is not a generalisation but taken on a case by case basis). As with everything there is TIME and PLACE and REASON. Correcting an overly soft dog and making it hit the deck because the handler cannot be bothered being rewarding is WRONG. Reefing a dogs head off because you do not implement a fair or consistent training routine is WRONG. Correction when at the same time you give a command and do not give the dog a chance to comply is WRONG. I will always use corrections but I dont think they are an ort we should completely throw out the window. If you dont want to use them, fine, everyone has their own preferences. I simply choose to have it in my toolbox along with a myriad of other techniques to be able to deal with whatever is thrown at me in a timely and efficient manner.

[bedazzledx2]

Sounds like a really good plan RM . Keep us updated.

Wow. This is all fascinating reading.

**small update ** I have been seeking out opportunities to expose and train my pup with similar distractions that we are presented with at training. He is not consistently attentive but is definately getting better.

I'm now treating him multiple times in a row while he's giving me attention and also using the mark word 'yes' ( which I use with my agility puppy foundation work) I have found now that he is watching me more while we are on our walks too and I have been double treating and big time praising him for it. I think he's getting the idea that it's extra special to watch mum lol.

I appreciate all the helpful advice it's really given me an alternate way of looking at my training. Although I'm new to dog training, I have trained and competed horses for 20 odd years so I'm very in tune to alot of things. I'm not impulsive and analyse everything I do so people needn't worry that I'm gonna start dishing out un thought out corrections just because someone suggested corrections as a method. I appreciate all the ideas given

After assessing things and considering the advice given I'm no longer going to let my dog approach and play with other dogs etc until he sits calmly for me and gives me his attention. If he is unable to do this I will increase the distance we are from the distraction until I'm able to achieve this.

I will continue the reward system I've explained above and continue finding distractions to work with.

It's all about consistency and patience lol. But we will get there

[Aidan]

Did I say it is for every dog? Do I generalise and use one method for all dogs I train? No.

I realise that, and I said "usually" which was the impression I got.

I understand perfectly well that you require reinforcement in order to perpetuate a wanted behaviour, but what I AM saying is that you cannot discount corrections as being useful for some training.

As far as I can see, no-one has challenged that view here.

I'm not sure the extra 5 minutes of my life saved is worth the extra time taken to teach someone how to do it. If there is a difference at all.

I have tried, with and without. The difference is more then 5 minutes, in fact it can be significant periods such as days or weeks. I think that type of saving is worth it, particularly for the owner. If the dog is not really requiring it then it doesnt get a correction, but if the training is dragging on

I would agree with that. The point at which I would use one and the point at which you would use one are undoubtedly different, and that is fine. Remember that we are talking about a specific example, and the suggestion I had made (earlier, back when this thread was still on-topic) was the "Look at That" game which produces extraordinarily fast results even with highly distractable dogs. If corrections can improve on that in the long term, then good, but my experience is somewhat different.

The difference in our experiences is probably because I do what I do well and you do what you do well.

[Vickie]

**small update ** I have been seeking out opportunities to expose and train my pup with similar distractions that we are presented with at training. He is not consistently attentive but is definately getting better.

I'm now treating him multiple times in a row while he's giving me attention and also using the mark word 'yes' ( which I use with my agility puppy foundation work) I have found now that he is watching me more while we are on our walks too and I have been double treating and big time praising him for it. I think he's getting the idea that it's extra special to watch mum lol.

that is great news

I'm no longer going to let my dog approach and play with other dogs etc until he sits calmly for me and gives me his attention.

just be careful you do not increase the value of other dogs for him by using this as a reward.

[bedazzledx2]

Sadly poor training exists with both positive and correction based training. For myself I have found good, well planned, consistent positive training is fast and effective. I have well trained dogs who have not been trained with corrections. If you want to get technical I have used NRM's but less so the more I learn. I have found that if you have to use a NRM more than twice in training session you have overfaced the dog and need to look to your teaching. The fallout from corrections depends on your training philosophy....I do a lot of splitting rather than lumping and a ton of shaping. In order for this to work the dog has to feel very confident in offering behaviours and many correction trained dogs find that difficult. The upshot of well done positive training is you get a dog who 'owns' the behaviour and is not afraid to learn new ones. The more they learn the faster they learn the next thing and it becomes great fun for everyone. Your timing becomes critical as you are not looking for what to correct but what to reward.

[Tiggy]

Sadly poor training exists with both positive and correction based training. For myself I have found good, well planned, consistent positive training is fast and effective. I have well trained dogs who have not been trained with corrections. If you want to get technical I have used NRM's but less so the more I learn. I have found that if you have to use a NRM more than twice in training session you have overfaced the dog and need to look to your teaching. The fallout from corrections depends on your training philosophy....I do a lot of splitting rather than lumping and a ton of shaping. In order for this to work the dog has to feel very confident in offering behaviours and many correction trained dogs find that difficult. The upshot of well done positive training is you get a dog who 'owns' the behaviour and is not afraid to learn new ones. The more they learn the faster they learn the next thing and it becomes great fun for everyone. Your timing becomes critical as you are not looking for what to correct but what to reward.

[Staranais]

Sadly poor training exists with both positive and correction based training. For myself I have found good, well planned, consistent positive training is fast and effective.

That is very true, good post.

However, I personally have not been able to achieve as much reliability with positive only as I have by including corrections.

For example, as of a few months ago I had a very (very) good recall on my current dog around distraction by using reward only, no corrections. But I just couldn't seem to get her totally reliable around a few rare, extremely exciting & unpredictable distractions using reward only. So I'm currently using an e collar (under advice of a pro behaviourist/trainer) to tidy up the recall & chase that elusive 100%, since I want as reliable recall as I can get on her, in every situation I can think of.

Possibly a better trainer than myself could have gotten even closer to 100% recall using positive methods alone. But I'm the trainer she's stuck with, and I have to work within my own skills to get the best result I can for her. We muddle along OK, she seems pretty happy.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Staranais

[SpecTraining]

Sadly poor training exists with both positive and correction based training. For myself I have found good, well planned, consistent positive training is fast and effective.

That is very true, good post.

However, I personally have not been able to achieve as much reliability with positive only as I have by including corrections. For example, as of a few months ago I had a very (very) good recall on my current dog around distraction by using reward only, no corrections. But I just couldn't seem to get her totally reliable around a few rare, extremely exciting & unpredictable distractions using reward only. So I'm currently using an e collar (under advice of a pro behaviourist/trainer) to tidy up the recall & chase that elusive 100%, since I want as reliable recall as I can get on her, in every situation I can think of.

Possibly a better trainer than myself could have gotten even closer to 100% recall using positive methods alone. But I'm the trainer she's stuck with, and I have to work within my own skills to get the best result I can for her. We muddle along OK, she seems pretty happy.

That's the reason you will find most if not all high level performance trainers use a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement. Positive only methods have been tried and failed training police dogs, security dogs and Schutzund sporting dogs and one's that claim to have trained in positive only methods, no one would ever know the truth or tell the difference in the dogs performance once trained. If positive only methods worked best to achieve the greatest reliablity and performance, the people dedicated to train and win in these disciplines at high level competition wouldn't be training with prongs and E Collars as they do and would be concentrating on positive only methods which they don't is the way I see things.

I have seen over the years far more harm done by positive only trainers from taking too long with specialised routines charging people a fortune for methods that don't work for their dog, to recommending a dog be PTS because they can't train it with their methods that are limited compared with trainers who carry full tool box of tricks.

Some of you may remember the transition from aversive based training to positive reinforcement was largely based upon aversive training methods assumed as being cruel on the dog and had little to do with achieving better performance and reliability, it was based on training without aversive methods being used and training on a more humane platform.

[Kavik]

That's the reason you will find most if not all high level performance trainers use a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement. Positive only methods have been tried and failed training police dogs, security dogs and Schutzund sporting dogs and one's that claim to have trained in positive only methods, no one would ever know the truth or tell the difference in the dogs performance once trained. If positive only methods worked best to achieve the greatest reliablity and performance, the people dedicated to train and win in these disciplines at high level competition wouldn't be training with prongs and E Collars as they do and would be concentrating on positive only methods which they don't is the way I see things.

Interestingly the top level agility trainers don't use physical corrections

[huski]

I have no problem whatsoever with using corrections, punishments, e-collars, prongs etc. But we aren't talking about fine tuning high level performance dogs, we are (were) talking about the OP who has issues with getting focus in high levels of distraction with a young adolescent dog. I am not saying not to use corrections with the dog; but that my first port of call would not be issuing a correction. I don't like to throw my dog in the deep end and then punish her for failing to give me 110%. Focus, drive etc IMO has to be built gradually, you need to introduce distractions gradually, not put the dog in high levels of distraction and then punish it. That's setting the dog up to fail, not training it.

And let's not forget that leash corrections are not the only kind of corrections we can use. Removal of reward, time out, ending the game etc are all aversive to the dog on some level, I don't think anyone can argue they never use aversives, I am yet to see someone who doesn't.

Edited October 4, 2010 by huski

[Aidan3]

That's the reason you will find most if not all high level performance trainers use a combination of both positive and negative reinforcement. Positive only methods have been tried and failed training police dogs, security dogs and Schutzund sporting dogs and one's that claim to have trained in positive only methods, no one would ever know the truth or tell the difference in the dogs performance once trained. If positive only methods worked best to achieve the greatest reliablity and performance, the people dedicated to train and win in these disciplines at high level competition wouldn't be training with prongs and E Collars as they do and would be concentrating on positive only methods which they don't is the way I see things.

No-one was arguing otherwise. My apologies to the OP for letting this get off-topic by my participation. I had only intended to answer specific questions related to the original post and had hoped that this would not turn into a method debate. Least of all a debate of extremes ("purely positive", police dogs, high level competition dogs etc). Somehow Neville (SpecTraining) seems to always bring it back to either an imagined "purely positive" or "all GSDs must have SchH titles" debate, which is a shame because I honestly believe that Neville has more to offer than that. The original question he posed was insightful, unfortunately the forest seems to have been lost for the trees.

Some of you may remember the transition from aversive based training to positive reinforcement was largely based upon aversive training methods assumed as being cruel on the dog and had little to do with achieving better performance and reliability, it was based on training without aversive methods being used and training on a more humane platform.

You specifically asked for reasons other than these. What was happening back then is way out of context with what is happening today.