Advertised As Positive Training

[cactus]

A rellie booked a pup in for training at a boarding kennel. It was advertised as positive techniques only. But when she collected her dog, the guy said apart from herding dogs, ALL dogs should only EVER be trained with a check chain. Never use praise, pats or rewards- give a correction when wrong and say nothing when they do it right. Not so positive is it? Well what does one expect from a franchise? They do claim to tame your dog and give a life time guarantee. Well they sure whipped that dane into shape during that week, but of course the benefit hasn't transferred to real life, where said pup's owner wants to have a close and caring relationship with their dane and doesn't have the heart to be as cold as the trainers instructions require her to be. Not to mention that long slender puppy neck being yanked about... Now she has a guarantee, so she can take him back at any time for further *training*, but now that she knows what he was put through, she wont take him back there.

Just shows how careful you have to be when selecting a trainer. She never even asked what system he uses- she saw the "positive techniques only" sign and went ahead with it. Funnily enough someone who had recommended this trainer said that he had done a marvelous job with her GSD, but that whenever they went back there the dog was terrified of the trainer. Good grief.

[sidoney]

What, positive punishment techniques? GRRRR

[Kelpie-i]

Well they weren't lieing about using "positive" techniques. They just didn't mention which side of positive.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

That must be really tough on your rellie. I'd be asking for some money back. ;)

[sas]

I'd report them to Fair Trading and/or the ACCC because obviously it was not positive training as they stated.

[Kavik]

My parents had the same thing - they sent the Beagle away for training, advertised as positive techniques. The techniques I am sure were far from positive as when the man lifted his hand, the dog hit the deck and rolled over on his back . . . and Beagles are not easily cowed.

[cactus]

My parents had the same thing - they sent the Beagle away for training, advertised as positive techniques. The techniques I am sure were far from positive as when the man lifted his hand, the dog hit the deck and rolled over on his back . . . and Beagles are not easily cowed.

Sad isn't it? If it were me, I would have met the guy and questioned him and asked for a demo of his techniques. Thats probably because I already got burned with Dogtech. This other guy was a Dog Tamer's trainer. The rellie is not one to make a fuss, but I thought I'd post about it as a reminder to newbs to really find out about the trainer they are thinking of entrusting with their dog.

[Guest Dianne]

very sad indeed..mongrels.

But may I ask [not meaning to be rude] but why would you send a dog away for training? Wouldn't it be better to be part of the experience.

The very statements and outcome you've stated above are a good advert for NOT sending dogs away.

[cactus]

very sad indeed..mongrels.

But may I ask [not meaning to be rude] but why would you send a dog away for training? Wouldn't it be better to be part of the experience.

The very statements and outcome you've stated above are a good advert for NOT sending dogs away.

I agree Dianne. The rellie had to board her dogs for a week. Her Dane pup has been a real challenge for her- he is the boss in their relationship. She was almost at the point where she was going to get rid of him, because she just couldn't cope anymore. She thought while he was going to be boarded, he may as well get trained as well, so he would come back a little easier to deal with. The problem, is, that SHE needs the training. She doesn't understand the importance of the NILIF system and cant see how confusing and inconsistent her training is (she's pretty much trying whatever anyone says whenever she remembers). If I've told her once, I've told her a 1000 times... join an obedience class!!

[Kavik]

My parents sent the dog away and didn't ask me about the place beforehand. The Beagle was a rescue and quite a handful - VERY noisy and bitey when he got possessive of things. I had always trained the other dogs, but this one was my brother's. And I had moved out of home at that point. I also think they should have done the training with the dog. I think they just wanted a bit of a start, as they were having problems. If they had asked I probably would have suggested Hanrob.

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

The whole point of training is IMO to train the human in how to communicate effectively with the dog. Rather than call it "dog training", perhaps we should call it "human/dog interaction training"?

There are so many fantastic courses and clubs that rely on building that *positive* human/canine relationship, it's hard for me to understand why ppl persist in the notion that "someone else can train my dog and fix all the problems I've created b/c I am not sure what I'm doing"... It makes me sad and angry at the same time.

I'd urge your rellie to ask for some money back as stated, but I'd also urge them to look at joining some type of class for the dog/human relationship. This is far too important an issue to ignore IMO.

[kobblyness]

A rellie booked a pup in for training at a boarding kennel. It was advertised as positive techniques only. But when she collected her dog, the guy said apart from herding dogs, ALL dogs should only EVER be trained with a check chain. Never use praise, pats or rewards- give a correction when wrong and say nothing when they do it right. Not so positive is it? Well what does one expect from a franchise? They do claim to tame your dog and give a life time guarantee. Well they sure whipped that dane into shape during that week, but of course the benefit hasn't transferred to real life, where said pup's owner wants to have a close and caring relationship with their dane and doesn't have the heart to be as cold as the trainers instructions require her to be. Not to mention that long slender puppy neck being yanked about... Now she has a guarantee, so she can take him back at any time for further *training*, but now that she knows what he was put through, she wont take him back there.

Just shows how careful you have to be when selecting a trainer. She never even asked what system he uses- she saw the "positive techniques only" sign and went ahead with it. Funnily enough someone who had recommended this trainer said that he had done a marvelous job with her GSD, but that whenever they went back there the dog was terrified of the trainer. Good grief.

That is so sad I can only imagine how your rellie is feeling about it all . Jeeze I imagine it can't be too hard to scare a dog into submission not sure if that is the technique used it but to deny praise I find extremely hard on the dog (and me). It may work for some dogs???

Dog obedience to me is about teaching me to teach my dog positively.

[Kelpie-i]

I think some of you are getting mixed up here. "Positive training" has become such a buzz word that most people really don't know what it means.

There are 4 quadrants of methodology in dog training. Within that quadrant there are two types of "positive" methods. Positive reinforcement and Positive punishment. The other 2 parts of the quadrant are negative reinfocement and negaive punishement. But we'll concentrate on the word "positive".

In dog training, the word "positive" doesn't mean "good" or anything like that that some people may believe it does....it basically means "to give". Hence, positive reinforcement is "to give a reinforcer" ie. treat, praise to the dog to encourage behaviour and positive punishment is "to give a punisher" ie. growl, correction to discourage behaviour. BOTH are POSITIVE methods!

So, in essence, when this school advertised "positive" methods, they were not, in fact, false advertising. They just didn't state which side of positive they used.

What you should be asking is not whether this school or club uses "positive" methods but rather which end of positive do they concentrate on the most.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Kelpie-i

[Guest Tess32]

To be honest I think that's true literally, but not in the spirit of what most people take it to mean. Yes, in operant conditioning there are two positive sides of the quadrant, but everyone involved in training knows that "positive training" now is KNOWN to refer to positive reinforcment, not punishment.

It's rather like the McDonald's way of saying (or the rumour, I don't know - it still stands as an eg) "100% Australian Beef" when they don't mean that, they mean the company is "Australian Beef".

All semantics, and I seriously doubt that they just naively labelled themselves positive trainers and didn't think that most people would assume it was positive reinforcment. Total copout for me.

Nat

[cactus]

I dont believe they specified "only positive techniques used" to allay any fears the public might have that they were going to withdraw stimuli from the dogs environment during training. I really dont think the average Joe would even think such techniques exist. lol. I think it was deliberately misleading- as most people with a little knowledge of training would assume it was reward based training, and those without would probably think at the very least it avoids harsh methods. As it happens, I'm actually more annoyed by the deliberate misrepresentation than the rellie is.

[Kelpie-i]

Yes, in operant conditioning there are two positive sides of the quadrant, but everyone involved in training knows that "positive training" now is KNOWN to refer to positive reinforcment, not punishment.

Agree, but this is the problem with buzz words. They can be used to interpret anything and the general public are none the wiser.

Perhaps this club actually does believe they ARE a "positive" club and don't know any better - scary thought!

[cactus]

The trainer isnt associated with a club- he is a trainer with the 'Dog Tamers' franchise who apart from working training in peoples homes as dogtech does, also offers his services for dogs being boarded in the boarding kennel.