Excrutiatingly Stubborn Dog

[Staranais]

The only black and white views from what I have seen stem from the positive trainers in all cases. I don't know anyone who trains in pure compulsion or markets that they won't use a clicker, won't use a treat or won't train motivationally, it's the positive trainers who master the "wont's".

I have met many people like that, I'm afraid. They are slowly becoming fewer in number, but they are still out there.

One of our local professional trainers is very vocal in proclaiming that he won't use a clicker or food treats to train dogs. On his website, he calls positive reward training the "Bullshit Industry of the Century". You can't get much more black and white than that!

http://www.paulhutton.co.nz/industry/index.html

I have also talked to more than one professional trainer who didn't know what a clicker/marker was actually for, as well as several people over the years who have been convinced that all dogs need corrections or they won't be reliable.

Look at Ed Frawley, he openly admits that he used to trash-talk clicker training only because he was closed minded and didn't understand what it was about. Now, he is a convert.

People on both sides of the argument can be arrogant and closed minded and unwilling to learn.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Staranais

[bedazzledx2]

Geez Louise!!!! Thats a radical site : No room for compromise in this guys world is there.

The only black and white views from what I have seen stem from the positive trainers in all cases. I don't know anyone who trains in pure compulsion or markets that they won't use a clicker, won't use a treat or won't train motivationally, it's the positive trainers who master the "wont's".

I have met many people like that, I'm afraid. They are slowly becoming fewer in number, but they are still out there.

One of our local professional trainers is very vocal in proclaiming that he won't use a clicker or food treats to train dogs. On his website, he calls positive reward training the "Bullshit Industry of the Century". You can't get much more black and white than that!

http://www.paulhutton.co.nz/industry/index.html

I have also talked to more than one professional trainer who didn't know what a clicker/marker was actually for, as well as several people over the years who have been convinced that all dogs need corrections or they won't be reliable.

Look at Ed Frawley, he openly admits that he used to trash-talk clicker training only because he was closed minded and didn't understand what it was about. Now, he is a convert.

People on both sides of the argument can be arrogant and closed minded and unwilling to learn.

[corvus]

won't issue consequence

Once again, "consequence" can be rewards. There is no such thing as training without consequence. It's part of the ABCs of training.

and of course the scare campaign of the fallout and injury potential of using compulsion and tools of that nature fills their marketing campaigns.

Personally, I was heartbroken when I finally saw the fallout I had caused in my previous dog with corrections. Absolutely devastated. It took me nine years to realise and I only did because I raised an animal without much compulsion at all and saw the difference. I tried to fix it and I couldn't. Old habits die hard. I don't consider it a scare campaign to try to communicate to others just how horrible it was when I realised what I'd done. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That dog worshipped the ground I walked on and no one but me could see what I was so upset about, but that didn't help me at all. It can be very subtle and insidious.

[aussielover]

Geez Louise!!!! Thats a radical site : No room for compromise in this guys world is there.

The only black and white views from what I have seen stem from the positive trainers in all cases. I don't know anyone who trains in pure compulsion or markets that they won't use a clicker, won't use a treat or won't train motivationally, it's the positive trainers who master the "wont's".

I have met many people like that, I'm afraid. They are slowly becoming fewer in number, but they are still out there.

One of our local professional trainers is very vocal in proclaiming that he won't use a clicker or food treats to train dogs. On his website, he calls positive reward training the "Bullshit Industry of the Century". You can't get much more black and white than that!

http://www.paulhutton.co.nz/industry/index.html

I have also talked to more than one professional trainer who didn't know what a clicker/marker was actually for, as well as several people over the years who have been convinced that all dogs need corrections or they won't be reliable.

Look at Ed Frawley, he openly admits that he used to trash-talk clicker training only because he was closed minded and didn't understand what it was about. Now, he is a convert.

People on both sides of the argument can be arrogant and closed minded and unwilling to learn.

:eek:

I have been through his whole site and I can't actually find anywhere that describes HIS technique for training dogs.

I wonder what incentive he uses to train dogs if he doesn't use rewards and also doesn't use punishments and apparently only incompetent trainers need to use ecollars :rolleyes:

[Staranais]

:eek:

I have been through his whole site and I can't actually find anywhere that describes HIS technique for training dogs.

I wonder what incentive he uses to train dogs if he doesn't use rewards and also doesn't use punishments and apparently only incompetent trainers need to use ecollars :rolleyes:

I have never trained with this trainer, but have talked at length (and trained alongside) someone who claimed to have trained extensively with him.

I got the impression that this person was aiming to train the dog basically by creating really strong habits, plus a belief in the dog that it would never get away with not obeying so it might as well obey. He used physical placement to teach, check chains & a degree of social isolation to create motivation, but most of I think his method was absolute consistency (never ever letting the dog get away with not obeying a command).

I don't know how accurately this mirrors how his trainer trained. The trainer might have some great skills, I have no idea. You can be very closed minded and still good at what you do, after all. I just reference his site to point out that, it's not just positive trainers that are very black and white about dog training. Not by a long shot.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Staranais

[Aidan3]

The only black and white views from what I have seen stem from the positive trainers in all cases.

Adelaide must be a very enlightened city

Compulsion (with praise, which is rarely reinforcement without compulsion) was the status quo for a very long time, and it has taken a long time for that to change. When I started clicker training (which was a "method" at that time) it was a very small population of people who were willing to challenge that status quo, experiment, make mistakes and see if the zoo and marine mammal techniques could be applied to dogs and how far we could go with them. We had all previously been traditional trainers, I didn't know anyone that wasn't. It was not uncommon for clubs to insist on correction collars, and when clickers started to become popular many clubs banned them.

Positive training was never simply to obtain higher obedience scores, I am confident that you have been mislead on that point. It was an application of the science that marine, military and exotic species trainers had been using successfully since the 1950s.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Petsitters

Was the rotti being walked in a rear attach harness with the attach point betewen his shoulders? Or a front attach harness, with the attach point at the chest. I recommended a front attach harness to one rotti owner who went from not being able to walk her dog at all, to being able to walk the dog and roll a cigarette at the same time - not that I recommend that but it was a huge improvement.

I agree with Aidan2 about the training clubs in Adelaide. The clubs are still very old school for the most part, with choke collars and adversives galore. Some won't allow treats, some won't allow front attach (training) harnesses. I guess it depends how competition focussed they are. I've had arguments with some of the instructors about corrections. I am not going to put a choke collar on my dog and reef her if she doesn't heel nicely. And I am not going to scold her if she doesn't come when I call her. Sheesh.

And I am going to treat her for being in the "re-inforcement zone" (RZ) next to my leg ie "doing nothing" according to one of our leading instructors. I just have this slight problem that my dog is insisting RZ be my right leg because my right hand is better at dispensing treats than my left but we're working on it (she's not supposed to swap sides without the right command). I'm not planning on doing obedience comps any time soon ever, so I'm not that bothered by it. And I guess that reflects in our progress.

We do have delta instructors and classes but they are very expensive compared to the council classes. I think they do no correcting but I'm not sure. I know they are anti the use of water pistol to stop a dog barking even if the dog loves the water pistol water jet and it's used as a distraction.

I am impressed with the results Susan Garrett gets - her main focus is in agility but she covers other fields as well. She says "no verbal or physical corrections". She very rarely uses a non-reward marker ie telling the dog that it's not going to get a treat for the behaviour it's trying now.

Mostly it's about choices for the dog and making the right choice as easy as possible for the dog to get right, until the dog has an understanding of what the task is, and then adding distractions very slowly - and rewarding when the dog gets it right and waiting for it to try again when it doesn't. She's not permissive in the way she trains either. She prevents the dog from ever learning how much fun it is to chase things it should not. And she decides when training starts and stops, ie she doesn't let the dog quit on her. But she also keeps training very short, and it's ok for the dog to finish on a mistake (learned from Bob Bailey).

I think there is a big difference between doing something because you have pleasant associations with the task, and doing something because you are scared of what will happen if you don't. As soon as the coercion is removed, the choice to do that task goes too.

The Paul Hutton thing, where you look at what he does, it does seem based on that whacko stuff that he's been rubbishing, except he may use more than just one quadrant of operant conditioning.

About using compulsion for obedience training. I know one person who did this, video'd it, won a lot of competitions, but looks back at the dog in the video now and sees that it was miserable. Tail was down, head was down. Not enjoying the process at all. The dogs that look thrilled to be there, besotted with their handler, and perform all their tasks precicely and with speed, get better marks than the dogs that look sad and unhappy and uncertain and slow.

[PetSitters]

The only black and white views from what I have seen stem from the positive trainers in all cases. I don't know anyone who trains in pure compulsion or markets that they won't use a clicker, won't use a treat or won't train motivationally, it's the positive trainers who master the "wont's".

I have met many people like that, I'm afraid. They are slowly becoming fewer in number, but they are still out there.

One of our local professional trainers is very vocal in proclaiming that he won't use a clicker or food treats to train dogs. On his website, he calls positive reward training the "Bullshit Industry of the Century". You can't get much more black and white than that!

http://www.paulhutton.co.nz/industry/index.html

I have also talked to more than one professional trainer who didn't know what a clicker/marker was actually for, as well as several people over the years who have been convinced that all dogs need corrections or they won't be reliable.

Look at Ed Frawley, he openly admits that he used to trash-talk clicker training only because he was closed minded and didn't understand what it was about. Now, he is a convert.

People on both sides of the argument can be arrogant and closed minded and unwilling to learn.

Wow!!! interesting website, thanks for the link.

A lot of what he is saying is true and one thing especially that rarely comes into the equasion now days is off leash control given the dog laws that restrict the practice. The early training principals when I first began as a teenager was all about off leash control being the proving ground to obedience and the "good" trainers or instructors then never used a leash and always had their own dog at class as a testament of their training ability for everyone to see. Unleashed control now days in pet dog obedience is rarely tested or trained to achieve, but years ago it was the essence of obedience to take your dog anywhere off leash with recall under the most severe of distractions being the training highlight of success?.

We don't train for off leash obedience much anymore in the pet dog and neither do we practice off leash handling in daily life. We don't pop into the corner deli letting an unleashed dog out of the car to stretch it's legs and command a sit at the shop doorway whilst going in to buy some stuff. So, now days the test of obedience has changed dramatically in terms of what is considered an obedient dog and what this guy here is saying is take an average modern trained pet dog off leash in daily circumstances as see how good it is which would be an intersting test indeed ;)

[PetSitters]

won't issue consequence

Once again, "consequence" can be rewards. There is no such thing as training without consequence. It's part of the ABCs of training.

and of course the scare campaign of the fallout and injury potential of using compulsion and tools of that nature fills their marketing campaigns.

Personally, I was heartbroken when I finally saw the fallout I had caused in my previous dog with corrections. Absolutely devastated. It took me nine years to realise and I only did because I raised an animal without much compulsion at all and saw the difference. I tried to fix it and I couldn't. Old habits die hard. I don't consider it a scare campaign to try to communicate to others just how horrible it was when I realised what I'd done. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That dog worshipped the ground I walked on and no one but me could see what I was so upset about, but that didn't help me at all. It can be very subtle and insidious.

Absolutely agree Corvus, my young GSD fit's into modern training like a duck to water AND complusion ramps up aggression with this boy and I am sure if I prong collared him hard he's likely to bite me, BUT my older boy is dead opposite in his personality, handler submissive and responds to compulsion where reward has no value to him whatsover in distraction. My young guy getting his attention with a ball or tug under any distraction will recall in an instant, where my older boy will look up and tell me "so what" I will come when I have finished sniffing if I want to, is the difference in attitude between the two dogs both GSD's though?

My Golden Retriever is a soft dog, a bit nervy and won't eat on the street and has no food drive when feeling insecure from distrations, but responds to very mild aversion on the collar but it's about using the right level of aversion to suit his personality. If I corrected him at the level my older GSD needs, he would shut down and flop on the ground in fear submission, so in my lot alone, I have 3 entirely different personalities who respond to different methods and levels of correction/motivation to gain obedience.

What I am saying in my belief of dog training, you cannot afford to shut yourself down to any methods or tools that can potentially best achieve an obedience result for a particular candidate. If I feel a prong collar or an Ecollar will provide the result we need on a particular dog, I will use it in the same fashion if think motivational training is best suited to a particular dog, I will use that too or a combination of both. I don't use choke chains by the way, a prong leaves choke chains dead and buried I think?

My point is that I do come across dogs with a personality like my older GSD under the instruction of positive only trainers who refuse to use compuslion on a dog that needs it which results in the dog being left in the backyard and not walked and exercised because it's a pain in the butt on leash for the owner to manage which I feel is not fair on the dog. If I can fix that dog on a prong collar so the owner can walk and exercise the dog with the obedience they require to manage the dog effectively and enjoy their walks together I think is an excellent result and have certainly had no owner complaints from doing so, in fact it's the exact opposite when new lease on life has been re-established with their dog. :D

Edited May 29, 2011 by PetSitters

[PetSitters]

:eek:

I have been through his whole site and I can't actually find anywhere that describes HIS technique for training dogs.

I wonder what incentive he uses to train dogs if he doesn't use rewards and also doesn't use punishments and apparently only incompetent trainers need to use ecollars :rolleyes:

I have never trained with this trainer, but have talked at length (and trained alongside) someone who claimed to have trained extensively with him.

I got the impression that this person was aiming to train the dog basically by creating really strong habits, plus a belief in the dog that it would never get away with not obeying so it might as well obey. He used physical placement to teach, check chains & a degree of social isolation to create motivation, but most of I think his method was absolute consistency (never ever letting the dog get away with not obeying a command).

I don't know how accurately this mirrors how his trainer trained. The trainer might have some great skills, I have no idea. You can be very closed minded and still good at what you do, after all. I just reference his site to point out that, it's not just positive trainers that are very black and white about dog training. Not by a long shot.

That sounds like a spin off from Koehler especially the social isolation was one of Koehler's specialities prior to a training session on the "make the dog really excited to be with you concept" after a few hours of isolation. Koehler had some really silly and aversive behaviour problem techniques that ruined his credibility somewhat, but his leash training techniques and ability to transform that into off leash obedience was his forte and leash training in Koehler methods by the book will produce excellent off leash obedience which is probably what this guy's training is modelled on and how he gives performance guarantees?

[JoeK]

The only black and white views from what I have seen stem from the positive trainers in all cases.

Adelaide must be a very enlightened city

Compulsion (with praise, which is rarely reinforcement without compulsion) was the status quo for a very long time, and it has taken a long time for that to change. When I started clicker training (which was a "method" at that time) it was a very small population of people who were willing to challenge that status quo, experiment, make mistakes and see if the zoo and marine mammal techniques could be applied to dogs and how far we could go with them. We had all previously been traditional trainers, I didn't know anyone that wasn't. It was not uncommon for clubs to insist on correction collars, and when clickers started to become popular many clubs banned them.

Positive training was never simply to obtain higher obedience scores, I am confident that you have been mislead on that point. It was an application of the science that marine, military and exotic species trainers had been using successfully since the 1950s.

One time was greatest obedience trainer is William Koehler and used to trial the Bull Terrier and who knock him off in big trial was lady called Winifred Strickland who trial German Shepherd Dog. I remebering this storys becuase we having the Shepherd dog and is happy for major winning on our breed. She train with the food motivation with the choker in combination and getting drive from the dog and she beating Koehler becuase her Shepherd has happy feet and Koehler dog he slink around and not enjoy the trial like the Shepherd Dog and they awarding her more points on the routine. Is long before the Dolphin training on the whistle was used for the dog.

So this is where is started with the drive training against Koehler methods on the trial dogs. People probably doing other things but Koehler was the big name he training on the televsion dogs and he win everything in major obedience trial and was bigger than the Cesar Milan on his time. Winifred Strickland developing the drive training but obedience was still for her compulsion like Koehler for the consequence is nothing to do with the humane training is for spring in the dogs stepping.

When the rewards training starting to taking off with no complusion, these dogs didnt win the trials most were no good at high level then which began the humane pushing for some trainers saying they having dog coming 3rd place with no corrections and complusion but it wasnt about better accurate on the obedience it was almost good accurate without the suffering on the dog from harsh treatments you see? They never say is better for obedience accurate with the motivational becuase they didnt win the big trials and was all about the method to save the dog is whats happening then.

But we needing to be remebering that good sporting dog doesnt always meaning good obedience for the pet dog becuase sometimes a bad behavior on the sporting is good for sporting and bad for pet so agility trainer, Schutzhund trainer and pet dog trainer have different requirements on the dog to do the job so not all methods for training for different jobs will be same and not all dogs are the same.

Joe

[Kavik]

Petsitters

Was the rotti being walked in a rear attach harness with the attach point betewen his shoulders? Or a front attach harness, with the attach point at the chest. I recommended a front attach harness to one rotti owner who went from not being able to walk her dog at all, to being able to walk the dog and roll a cigarette at the same time - not that I recommend that but it was a huge improvement.

I agree with Aidan2 about the training clubs in Adelaide. The clubs are still very old school for the most part, with choke collars and adversives galore. Some won't allow treats, some won't allow front attach (training) harnesses. I guess it depends how competition focussed they are. I've had arguments with some of the instructors about corrections. I am not going to put a choke collar on my dog and reef her if she doesn't heel nicely. And I am not going to scold her if she doesn't come when I call her. Sheesh.

And I am going to treat her for being in the "re-inforcement zone" (RZ) next to my leg ie "doing nothing" according to one of our leading instructors. I just have this slight problem that my dog is insisting RZ be my right leg because my right hand is better at dispensing treats than my left but we're working on it (she's not supposed to swap sides without the right command). I'm not planning on doing obedience comps any time soon ever, so I'm not that bothered by it. And I guess that reflects in our progress.

We do have delta instructors and classes but they are very expensive compared to the council classes. I think they do no correcting but I'm not sure. I know they are anti the use of water pistol to stop a dog barking even if the dog loves the water pistol water jet and it's used as a distraction.

I am impressed with the results Susan Garrett gets - her main focus is in agility but she covers other fields as well. She says "no verbal or physical corrections". She very rarely uses a non-reward marker ie telling the dog that it's not going to get a treat for the behaviour it's trying now.

Mostly it's about choices for the dog and making the right choice as easy as possible for the dog to get right, until the dog has an understanding of what the task is, and then adding distractions very slowly - and rewarding when the dog gets it right and waiting for it to try again when it doesn't. She's not permissive in the way she trains either. She prevents the dog from ever learning how much fun it is to chase things it should not. And she decides when training starts and stops, ie she doesn't let the dog quit on her. But she also keeps training very short, and it's ok for the dog to finish on a mistake (learned from Bob Bailey).

I think there is a big difference between doing something because you have pleasant associations with the task, and doing something because you are scared of what will happen if you don't. As soon as the coercion is removed, the choice to do that task goes too.

The Paul Hutton thing, where you look at what he does, it does seem based on that whacko stuff that he's been rubbishing, except he may use more than just one quadrant of operant conditioning.

About using compulsion for obedience training. I know one person who did this, video'd it, won a lot of competitions, but looks back at the dog in the video now and sees that it was miserable. Tail was down, head was down. Not enjoying the process at all. The dogs that look thrilled to be there, besotted with their handler, and perform all their tasks precicely and with speed, get better marks than the dogs that look sad and unhappy and uncertain and slow.

I was so impressed with the Susan Garrett seminar :D

She certainly shows that positive is NOT permissive. She does not use corrections but is very clear with her criteria and consequences and controlling the environment. I think it would be very difficult for the average person to do it the way she does as most people would find it very difficult to control their interactions with their dogs as much as she does or be as disciplined.

[PetSitters]

I found some training concept literature and am thinking WOW!!!, this is exactly my feelings on balanced training and then I found who wrote it, Steve Courtney from K9Pro http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages.php?pageid=54

Steve's concepts are on very similar lines to one of Adelaide's most respected trainers Mark Singer who both come highly recommended on DOL regularly with problem behaviour with pet dogs having a proven history in behaviour rehabilitation. Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Here is another interesting article by Steve on head collars:http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages.php?pageid=31

Edited May 29, 2011 by PetSitters

[Aidan3]

Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

[corvus]

I think we absolutely need to work within the temperament of the dog, but I don't think this needs to rule out rewards. I will say that I find this a difficult concept to accept. Put a dog in a distacting enough environment and they won't be interested in food. But if you then say "Gee, he won't work for food, obviously we need to try something else" it's like trying to run 10km with no training and then saying "Gee, I didn't make it, obviously I'm not capable of running 10km." Sometimes if you want to use rewards you need to build a reward system, not just use what works from moment to moment.

I don't think anyone needs to find an excuse for deciding to use corrections where rewards would work, or deciding to use rewards where corrections would work. As long as the training is sensitive and sensible it mostly comes down to personal preference. I'm not going to judge anyone who decides they don't want to teach their dog to be receptive to food around certain distractions. Your dog, your call. Just don't tell me you had to use something else because rewards don't work. I will be very doubtful. I will be doubtful if you tell me you can't run 10km, too.

[kiesha09]

Petsitters

Was the rotti being walked in a rear attach harness with the attach point betewen his shoulders? Or a front attach harness, with the attach point at the chest. I recommended a front attach harness to one rotti owner who went from not being able to walk her dog at all, to being able to walk the dog and roll a cigarette at the same time - not that I recommend that but it was a huge improvement.

I agree with Aidan2 about the training clubs in Adelaide. The clubs are still very old school for the most part, with choke collars and adversives galore. Some won't allow treats, some won't allow front attach (training) harnesses. I guess it depends how competition focussed they are. I've had arguments with some of the instructors about corrections. I am not going to put a choke collar on my dog and reef her if she doesn't heel nicely. And I am not going to scold her if she doesn't come when I call her. Sheesh.

And I am going to treat her for being in the "re-inforcement zone" (RZ) next to my leg ie "doing nothing" according to one of our leading instructors. I just have this slight problem that my dog is insisting RZ be my right leg because my right hand is better at dispensing treats than my left but we're working on it (she's not supposed to swap sides without the right command). I'm not planning on doing obedience comps any time soon ever, so I'm not that bothered by it. And I guess that reflects in our progress.

We do have delta instructors and classes but they are very expensive compared to the council classes. I think they do no correcting but I'm not sure. I know they are anti the use of water pistol to stop a dog barking even if the dog loves the water pistol water jet and it's used as a distraction.

I am impressed with the results Susan Garrett gets - her main focus is in agility but she covers other fields as well. She says "no verbal or physical corrections". She very rarely uses a non-reward marker ie telling the dog that it's not going to get a treat for the behaviour it's trying now.

Mostly it's about choices for the dog and making the right choice as easy as possible for the dog to get right, until the dog has an understanding of what the task is, and then adding distractions very slowly - and rewarding when the dog gets it right and waiting for it to try again when it doesn't. She's not permissive in the way she trains either. She prevents the dog from ever learning how much fun it is to chase things it should not. And she decides when training starts and stops, ie she doesn't let the dog quit on her. But she also keeps training very short, and it's ok for the dog to finish on a mistake (learned from Bob Bailey).

I think there is a big difference between doing something because you have pleasant associations with the task, and doing something because you are scared of what will happen if you don't. As soon as the coercion is removed, the choice to do that task goes too.

The Paul Hutton thing, where you look at what he does, it does seem based on that whacko stuff that he's been rubbishing, except he may use more than just one quadrant of operant conditioning.

About using compulsion for obedience training. I know one person who did this, video'd it, won a lot of competitions, but looks back at the dog in the video now and sees that it was miserable. Tail was down, head was down. Not enjoying the process at all. The dogs that look thrilled to be there, besotted with their handler, and perform all their tasks precicely and with speed, get better marks than the dogs that look sad and unhappy and uncertain and slow.

I couldn't have said this better myself!

The big thing I have learned about Susan Garrett when doing her recent e-course is the degree of consistency & environmental management that is required using her methods takes a great deal of discipline by the owner.

My oppinion is that so many dog owners wouldn't be bothered because they see a reef of the collar as being so much easier and they don't have to analyse things too much. But this is at their own detriment to their relationship with their dog and their dogs enjoyment for training.

Susan Garretts methods put many trainers out of their comfort zone because its different to what they are used to. I love the way she challenges you to think and work through problems!

[PetSitters]

Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case?

[corvus]

Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best?

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers.

Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case?

I think the point Aidan is making is that great trainers are the best because of their talent, not the methods they use. Given the best trainers do not all use the same methods, then the argument that the methods those trainers are using is what creates their success not only appears to be inaccurate, but I think diminishes the skill of those trainers.

[PetSitters]

I think we absolutely need to work within the temperament of the dog, but I don't think this needs to rule out rewards. I will say that I find this a difficult concept to accept. Put a dog in a distacting enough environment and they won't be interested in food. But if you then say "Gee, he won't work for food, obviously we need to try something else" it's like trying to run 10km with no training and then saying "Gee, I didn't make it, obviously I'm not capable of running 10km." Sometimes if you want to use rewards you need to build a reward system, not just use what works from moment to moment.

I don't think anyone needs to find an excuse for deciding to use corrections where rewards would work, or deciding to use rewards where corrections would work. As long as the training is sensitive and sensible it mostly comes down to personal preference. I'm not going to judge anyone who decides they don't want to teach their dog to be receptive to food around certain distractions. Your dog, your call. Just don't tell me you had to use something else because rewards don't work. I will be very doubtful. I will be doubtful if you tell me you can't run 10km, too.

Building the reward system is the problem with some dogs which can be a very complex drawn out exercise and if this can't be established well, even Susan Garrett acknowledges in her presentations that results in her methods will be limited without this foundation. If the particular dog responds better with complusion than it does establishing a reward system, it would be silly not to use some compulsion if it is getting results. The point is, dogs like this in the hands of positive trainers who refuse to use complusion from dedication to a method as their priority in training is detrimental to the dog and the owner in my opinion.

[huski]

I've trained with Steves methods for quite some time now and we don't use any physical corrections in the training program I use with my dog, so I dont think it's fair to use that article to back up what you are saying, Petsitters. My

dog had similar issues to your old GSD - unresponsive to any rewards bar scenting as soon as we left the house etc, many people told me to use leash corrections on a check chain and I did with poor results. Good training IMO is not about positive vs negative but about using the best method for the dog you are working with.