Why is it...

spiritdogs

Many correction trainers use "no" a lot, but think what the word means to the dog who hears it a lot: No - get off the couch.  No- stop jumping up.  No - quit what you're doing.  What does no REALLY mean in those contexts?  Nothing - just unpleasant background noise - it is not instructive as to the next behavior the trainer wants.

I use 'no' as a no reward marker. My dog knows what it means. She knows that 'no' means nope, you've done it wrong, you're not getting the reward now. Just as she knows 'yes' means you've got it, the reward is coming.

What does a leash correction really mean?  In my opinion, it doesn't mean "don't do that"  it means "don't do anything"

I'm not sure I quite know what you're getting at here. I think that a properly timed leash correction tells the dog 'if I do that, I'm going to get corrected' not 'don't do anything'.

 "No" precedes a correction for me, but even corrections, like rewards and markers and NRMs must be "trained".  "Uh oh" is my no reward marker, said in a neutral voice, simply indicating the dog did not earn the reward and we are starting the process over.  "No/Na/Nein" is said in a stern voice and is either a verbal correction or precedes the correction, or is used without the correction but the dog is conditioned to understand it with a correction.

Leash corrections can mean a lot of things.  In SchH we "tap" the dog to build drive.  To a weaker dog like Kenya or Coke, a tap might be the same level as a real stern correction for them.  For a stronger, harder dog like Nikon they are just a way of physically frustrating the dog to heighten the drive (like patting the dog's butt), but aren't telling the dog "no wrong" or "no stop".  A medium leash correction to him = stop, look at me instead.  A harsher correction I guess would be more of a punishment, but actually I would agree that it's almost more a "no, don't do anything" like Anne said.  Kind of stops the dog, reboots the process so to speak.  I'm not sure corrections make good punishments after-the-fact b/c it's so difficult to time that, plus if the dog is messing up it's usually the handler's fault anyway.  Honestly I think appropriate corrections are more effective as R- (like how an e-collar is used when used correctly).

poodleOwned

 Many many dogs will not react towards a slow prey object or an object that isn't moving right to be considered as a prey object. It is quite normal. It is part of good dog wiring, otherwise they would waste and expend unneccessary energy. A dog that is slow to tangle is probably going to be  a winner genetically.

Correct.  This is an argument common in Schutzhund because it's so easy to train a "prey monster" dog.  These dogs are called "points dogs" because even though they may not have an ounce of real hardness or civil drive, they can easily win top competitions.  For people who are set on competing and winning, points dogs/prey monsters who simply see a sleeve as a prey object and a helper as the person in control of the prey game are the dog to have.  But for people concerned with having a more clear-headed, sound dog, you will not have a "points dog" and your dog might be more difficult to train because he won't light up unless there is a real threat and this is more work for the helper.

poodleOwned

Actually, this is a case in point where a drive model of behaviour unless finessed comes up short. Many many dogs will not react towards a slow prey object or an object that isn't moving right to be considered as a prey object.

Also correct however in SchH the dog is trained early on to view the sleeve as a prey object, so it is very finessed.  The dog not only learns that a sleeve is a prey object, but that the dog needs to initiate the game by bringing the drive an aggression (to get the sleeve moving) and then outing the sleeve later on if he wants to play the game again.  Even dogs that are genetically sound and more hard should not be displaying civil aggression as early as we start training, so it is all prey based for a long time.  Nikon was nearly a year old before we gave up on using the sleeve as prey, even though we knew that would have to happen.  Encouraging civil and defense drive in a puppy is not appropriate.  We just go through the ropes building prey drive (the dogs start on small rags and tugs that are always moving, they never start by being presented with a full sleeve on a helper).  The dog is either a prey monster and continues to see the sleeve as the prey object, or the dog matures and says "hey, I'm done with these dumb puppy games, you need to bring it for real if you want me to work."

As a sort of humour, where i used to train had a single breed club adjacent. All that you could hear was NO. We got to call them the NoNos. I always want to know is why if yelling No is so great as a training tool are people keep having to do it from week to week? 

spiritdogs

hence the necessity for many people to use tactics like ear pinches to get dogs to retrieve.

I once was at a training seminar with my then 15 month old poodle. She had a very positive trained retrieve and would also do it over the the high jump as well. I taught her in a slightly odd way to suit her personaility.Talk about human pressure!! Well madam got to show off in front of a largish crowd and nailed it several times, tail up full speed, a bit sloppy on the finish. Worked on that.

At the same time , there was a trainer that was spruiking the ear pinch retrive beause of "reliability" and the need not ot waste "entry fees" and time off work for trials. Well strike me down with a heavy hammer if his dog  did just one retrieve and then moved out of ear pinch range. Talk about reliable!!!!

 The reason why i tell this anecdote is that often methods are chosen and used that suit linear, first order thinking , and the advocates are never called to account. Why tell classes to yell No if it patently doesn't work?  Why advocate ear pinch methods when it is to all intents and purposes a dead duck and unnecceasy? Here is my record. My old Lab missed one retrieve once in 15 years of life when he couldn't cross a very dangerous river in a hack hunting situation. I was desperate that he stopped. Luci has NEVER failed a retrieve of any sort in trialling siuations. I will go one step further, if you have to use ear pinches then either the training is wrong, or you are trying to force a dog that has no drive and no interest in retrieving to retrieve. It is a bit like medicating show dogs to handle the stress . It really isn't on.

spiritdogs

Pressure can be a dangerous tool in the wrong hands, but a magnificent refinement in the right hands. 

 So so true. I think that the two things that have extended my own training and trialling range is learning to proof earlier rather than later, (this is pressure) and awarenss of other pressures that we place on dogs . With well prepared well trained dogs, it really increases their confidence and ability to perform tasks. If we leave it too late it is so hard as the dogs seem to get stuck. I would probably within the first couple of weeks of heeling put a few distractions around the place, then some dogs, then some people. It is a learning tool that we use on humans. Early on we learn that for example writing with a crayon is much the same as writing with a biro.

Another example is with stays. A notorious difficulty with some poodles here  is stays. It seems with anything to detoriate with time.  What i am now doing is proofing my younger dog for my absence very early on with very small times and distances. Now proofing a dog so that your absence is ok is not the easiest of easy things on one's ego.. Theorectically if the emotion if my absence is so intense that it can cause a failure, then my absence becomes negative reinforcement which is terminated by staying. Unfortunately for the simplicity of training if i get it wrong it can also be terminated by the dog coming to me. Now if i didn't think and growled my dog out then what a mess...

I have  also learnt about the kind of pressure body language and placement can play. When i walk into the ring and act really nervous and grimace and carry on, I might as well put up a "please fail me " sign. I am giving my dog non congruent and conflicting body language.Then if i use a gruff voice to start well.... At the other end, if i am working on what appears to be a young adolescent gun dog with what appears to be temporary deafness and a total lack of manners, I can go a long way very quickly using body language pressure.

I think we have to watch langugae and jargon use to. When i started working with a trainer here with my dog, she said that we had to "correct " my dog. My heart sank. What she actually meant was we needed to re-do the excercise and show her by rewarding her what we wanted. It is a common use here of "correct".

 Sorry Liesje, I misunderstood you, although I think that was kinda understandable given the topic.

I trained Kivi that "ah-ah" meant stop doing what you're doing. I am regretting it, because I don't have the energy to maintain it and because I've never done anything particularly punishing to Kivi, so I'm relying entirely on his innate desire to be easy to get along with. Problem is, he's a spitz breed, so his innate desire to be easy to get along with goes out the window the moment he thinks something that conflicts with what I've asked him to do might be good for him (and let's face it, that's not an exclusively spitz trait). So it does take a lot of energy and consistency to maintain it and it will only work in the lowest of distracting environments, and I have to be prepared at any moment to dive in and enforce. I've now back-tracked and am teaching him a solid "leave it" with rewards. It's amazing how attractive something that once seemed like a silly idea is once it has a decent reward history. Erik is currently learning "leave it" this way and I'm weaning myself off "ah-ah".

I've also given up on NRMs because it just fuels my human desire to verbalise, and the more I verbalise the more confusing I am to my animals. My dogs don't really need to be told when a reward isn't coming, or when they should try something else. If I've done my job right they know a reward isn't coming because I didn't mark anything, ergo, they should try something else. If my reward rate is high enough we're just wasting time with NRMs.

Pressure is something that has come into play quite heavily with my hare. Too much pressure and he bounces off the walls and cuts himself on things, but a tiny bit can prompt him to come out in the open and be used to move him around a bit. Knowing when to use pressure and how much has been enormously useful in not only getting him to do things without freaking him out, but increasing his tolerance to my presence. There's a point where a little pressure is overcome and he can relax. That has done good things for his confidence around me, I think. Unfortunately, I've undone some of it by using too much pressure accidentally. I am coming to think this is a bit inevitable with flighty animals. 

I've never found using a NRM confuses my dogs. There are situations where I might want to mark a behaviour as undesirable when I don't want to reward, such as when I'm building drive with Daisy and she barks. I don't want her to bark, so I use NRM and she stops. In that instance, I'm not able just to mark and reward. I'm not going to be constantly using a 'yes' marker when I'm building drive, I use it when I've given a command and she's complied.

This could be an interesting discussion, but it's a bit off topic. If you want to talk about it feel free to start a new topic.