"But she just did it to you!"

Physical doesn't always mean negative.  But (and it's a very big but) if you want a dog to do as you ask, your request has to make some sort of sense to the dog in a way that he understands.
If you take a dog that has had no training, and stand in front of it telling it to "spin", what will you get?  Yup, very likely a blank stare, an honest, but blank, stare.  So, it makes sense that in order to get the dog to spin, you might have to "explain" what that means.  Some trainers use targeting, some lure with a treat, then they attach the cue as the dog finishes the behavior.  Soon, you have a dog that spins.
But, if you assumed the dog was dissing you because he didn't spin when you asked, and then made some "correction", no matter what it was, the dog would still not spin.  Why? Because he had no idea what you were talking about.  Unfortunately, when a dog gets body blocked, it does stop him momentarily, but, as a trainer, my inclination is to say, "So, what do you want him to do instead of the behavior you just corrected?"  With most dogs, if you simply train the alternate behavior, it's just as easy, and more effective in the long run, to use that as the "correction", or rather, the redirection.  And, it reinforces a behavior you do want him to do.  So, if the dog is jumping up, just teach him to sit for greeting.  It's so simple that it defies explanation why more people just don't do that.  If a dog is in a sit, he isn't jumping.  So, lengthen the time he is in the sit - if he is rewarded for longer and longer sits, he will continue to sit, not jump (so long as no one rewards the jumping -and we all know how easy it is to do that inadvertantly with a look, a push, or an "off!")
Dogs do posture over one another and try to occupy space, but as I said, that is a relationship issue.  The dog that clearly understands that the human is in charge does not ordinarily take such liberties.  And, my theory is that you need to make the whole relationship work, rather than correct situations without alerting the dog that his position as CEO in all areas is over.  There are some dogs that will push and push, and who need NILIF on a constant basis.  But, there are few dogs who don't respond to NILIF that is applied consistently, but without physical punishment or even body blocking.  If I ask my dog to sit/wait for his food, and he doesn't, the food disappears for twenty minutes.  If I ask again, and he still refuses, the food will appear again tomorrow... I have never had to punish a dog physically, or force them into a sit, or struggle to make them wait.  They get it that I control the resources, and if they want din din, they sit politely to get it.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Physical doesn't always mean negative.  But (and it's a very big but) if you want a dog to do as you ask, your request has to make some sort of sense to the dog in a way that he understands.
If you take a dog that has had no training, and stand in front of it telling it to "spin", what will you get?  Yup, very likely a blank stare, an honest, but blank, stare.  So, it makes sense that in order to get the dog to spin, you might have to "explain" what that means.  Some trainers use targeting, some lure with a treat, then they attach the cue as the dog finishes the behavior.  Soon, you have a dog that spins.
But, if you assumed the dog was dissing you because he didn't spin when you asked, and then made some "correction", no matter what it was, the dog would still not spin.  Why? Because he had no idea what you were talking about.

I dont think anybody here will do a correction to a dog because he didnt follow a basic command, you apply corrections because the dog is doing something you dont like him to do, not because he is not doing something that you wish he could do, do you see the difference?

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
Unfortunately, when a dog gets body blocked, it does stop him momentarily,

Yes it does stop him momentarily (which is exactly what i want him/her to do at that same moment) and (you forgot this part) also teaches him thats a behavior that is not allowed

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
but, as a trainer, my inclination is to say, "So, what do you want him to do instead of the behavior you just corrected?" 

Why the dog has to do something different? why the dog cant just do nothing instead? again, thats just overanalyzing everything, what my dog does if she is not allowed to jump on guests? she can just do nothing at all or if she wants she can walk around, stare, sniff from the distance, sit, laid down, drink a margarita, etc. just not jump on them (or whatever other negative you are thinking about to bring up to the reply), my dog smells my guests legs in a polite way, since i didnt corrected her for doing that then she knows she is allowed to do that, i didnt have to burn my brain thinking what she could do intead then, as simple as that

ORIGINAL: houndlove

By correction I simply mean a sound, a certain movement, a combination of all of the above... Slamming, jumping up with stiff legs (not a happy - "yey"-type of jump), other hyperactive activity directed to physically get you to do something... or, get you to listen to the dog's demands.

Okay, that settles it, I have alien dogs. They really honestly don't do this kind of stuff. When they want something from me, they know the only way to get it is to either sit or down and wait. And Marlowe for some reason breathes heavily. [&:] Like all dogs, they do what works. With one another, what works is different than what works with me. But a week in my house and every dog I've ever had has realized that a different set of rules apply to getting what they want from the humans than from the other dogs that are around. To me, NILIF fits the bill perfectly here. It also isn't "training" but a "lifestyle"--it's always happening and it teaches dogs in "real time" what does and does not work for getting what they want from humans.

But Cressida you have hounds-and hounds are pretty darned smart, and pretty darned self interested.  If you establish that pattern, they're not gonna alter it if they're thinking "In this situation behavior A gets me to go outside."   Well unless you bring out the clicker, but that's a totally different thread. []

My Gaia has corrected me twice.  Both times were for interrupting her while she was engaged in an aggressive behavior with another dog.  No breaking of the skin, and immediately after she did it, she went into a completely submissive posture.  Both of these times were within the first 2 or 3 weeks that I had her.  I think they were both a case of mistaken identity and being caught up in the moment.

But to get back on topic, my dogs will just move away if they "need" their space.  If I need my space, I turn away and ignore them. 

I don't think that correction harms the relationship/trust between dog and human, but I do believe that harsh corrections do have a negative effect on that relationship.  A body block, a look, a finger snap, or an "eh-eh" serves the same purpose as a growl would to a dog-but the human has to use that warning correctly. 

In the same vein as one of espences former posts, body language or posture conveys a very powerful message to a dog.  And that posture can also serve as a warning to the dog.

Border Collies are very bossy and definitely get into "corrections." It's one of the reasons I can't commit to 100% P+ for the rescues. They also take matters into their own paws very quickly, but they also shut down quickly if you tell them WHAT to do too much. Being told what to do is like a drug to them - they get addicted to it like crack and once you open that Pandora's box you'll need very expert help undoing the damage - a dog that freaks out when asked to think of answers on its own. So I walk a fine line here.

I use corrections to stop a dangerous behavior or get the dog's attention. A correct P+ moment should result in the dog saying "What?" not "YIKES!" As espencer said, the dog should know that he is then free to do whatever, just not that. It's important in stock training because what I want, and what the dog just did, might be extremely close - and it is impossible to communicate the difference without the dog coming up with it on its own.

I might need the dog to get sheep out of a corner, which requires the dog to pass quietly between the sheep and the fence to the point where the sheep will move away, then stop as the sheep move quietly out. There's a zillion wrong ways to do this and only one right way, which will be different every single time. The dog has to feel it out - all I can do is tell him, no, that wasn't it - whatever the heck you were doing there was wrong, try again. The only way I can tell it was wrong is by seeing the result of it on the sheep. All I can do is correct and ask for it again, until it happens for us.

So, in answer to the part of this thread that is addressing whether dogs are scarred for life by corrections, and whether it's always possible to accomplish something without them - no and no.

Dog training wasn't 100% brutish and harsh at any time in history, really. There has always been the same range of training methods as today, believe it or not - it's just that the more high profile animals are the ones trained compassionately, instead of the other way around. And the average person trains with an average amount of knowlege, which is to say not much. That may have changed slightly, but I doubt it's much.

Border Collie trainers, I know, back in the old country, were a relatively gentle lot. Heck, it's a little like the dolphin thing - you can abuse the animal while training at hand, but once it's working a mile or more away from you it will come back to bite you - or won't come back, I might say!

Shepherds and farmers tended (and still tend) to hold abusive trainers in great scorn. That's relative of course, but I have some writings from trainers in the 1920s, 40s, and 60s that would astonish you, if you think compassionate training was invented in today's generation.

One of my favorites is from the 1930s - "Let Nature show you how to train the pup, Nature knows best." This was in the context of explaining that a pup should mature at its own rate and it was best to let natural ability emerge rather than train it in forcefully.

Another trainer from the 30s through the 60s, in fact the greatest and most revered trainer and breeder of BCs ever, said, "Ye should never need tae beat a dog." He felt strongly that if you had to resort to force to get what you wanted out of a dog, that dog didn't have what it took to work - that was a lethal fault.

But shepherds didn't have the public eye back then - German shepherd, gun dog, and hound trainers were the highest profile until very recently. Now the tide has turned back the other way - certainly a good thing, but it's inaccurate to claim that recent trainers were the first to think of training dogs using self-motivation, or positive reinforcers, or in a way that allows the dog to think for itself.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

ORIGINAL: TinaK
If a dog is correcting you, she doesn't think it will spoil your relationship. (?) Why do we think that by us correcting a dog we are engraving mistrust?

I think one reason is that our "corrections" are sometimes for things that would be considered normal dog behavior, and that just don't happen to fit in with a lifestyle in which the dog must acclimate to human demands.  Just an example...if a dog is jumping up, in his mind he is just trying to greet by doing what dogs do.  They sniff the side of the other dog's face.  So, your dog tries to get to your face.  Should you punish him for being polite?  Seems to me that it's the same as human customs.  If it's the norm for us to shake hands here, it might be the norm for people in other countries to bow, or hug.
You wouldn't push them away or step on their toes, or shove a knee in their chest, right?  You might simply find a way to tell them that, in this country, we prefer a handshake - when in Rome...  So, to me, training is all about nicely informing the dog that the custom here is that dogs sit for greeting humans. 

First off dogs aren't human, so they don't see *greeting* the same as humans. Also, if your training a young dog, or just a excited dog, sure you can go about "nicely informing the dog that the custom here is that dogs sit for greeting humans." But dogs that have aggression or have been allowed bad behavior for a period of time...that's quite a different story. 

If I say it's black, I'm sure you'll say it's white, but honestly, I have not found it that difficult to retrain obstinate, stubborn, or out of control dogs whose humans can manage to cooperate and really apply the training on a consistent basis.  The problem is that the dog is out of control because someone has not done that in the past.  So, it's retraining for both dog and handler.  But, I have yet to have a dog that does not improve if the human is on board with the protocol.
Even CM cannot maintain good behavior in a dog whose people will not adhere to the program.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

If I say it's black, I'm sure you'll say it's white, but honestly, I have not found it that difficult to retrain obstinate, stubborn, or out of control dogs whose humans can manage to cooperate and really apply the training on a consistent basis.  The problem is that the dog is out of control because someone has not done that in the past.  So, it's retraining for both dog and handler.  But, I have yet to have a dog that does not improve if the human is on board with the protocol.
Even CM cannot maintain good behavior in a dog whose people will not adhere to the program.

Actually, I quite agree with what your saying hear. I was simply pointing out that it's not the same as working with a young dog from the start.