Do Confrontational Dog Training Methods Really Work?

I do not yell or hurt my dogs, you are correct. I'm sure I've scared them at some point while correcting them for doing something dangerous (say, the one time my neice threw his ball into the neighbor's cow pasture that has hidden barbed wire, and he was a puppy and didn't have a reliable recall, and I corrected him for running at the bushes hiding the barbed wire). And in a situation like that, I agree an afraid dog is better than a sliced up dog. But I don't really find that the typical use of aversives/corrections that people implement when a dog refuses to obey a 'sit' cue, pulls on a leash, or barks at another dog at all necessary. I guess that was my point. Sorry for 'skewing' what I do - I initially meant that I do not use punishment when it comes to cues/commands, leash walking, and general living. Dangerous situations? Sure. I suppose I didn't elaborate enough, my bad.

I don't think I've labeled you a traditional trainer, have I? I may have reference traditional methods in our discussion, but I don't believe I've called you one. You use positive methods - that's great. I haven't watched your video, so I can't comment.

I just don't understand the adamant and vehement arguing for punishment when everyone here is admitting they generally mostly use positive training and it works great for them.

tenna

I do not yell or hurt my dogs, you are correct. I'm sure I've scared them at some point while correcting them for doing something dangerous (say, the one time my neice threw his ball into the neighbor's cow pasture that has hidden barbed wire, and he was a puppy and didn't have a reliable recall, and I corrected him for running at the bushes hiding the barbed wire). And in a situation like that, I agree an afraid dog is better than a sliced up dog. But I don't really find that the typical use of aversives/corrections that people implement when a dog refuses to obey a 'sit' cue, pulls on a leash, or barks at another dog at all necessary. I guess that was my point. Sorry for 'skewing' what I do - I initially meant that I do not use punishment when it comes to cues/commands, leash walking, and general living. Dangerous situations? Sure. I suppose I didn't elaborate enough, my bad.

But this was my point earlier. There are so many different degrees of aversives it's hard to brush them off  as all being the same. I don't physically punish my dog for not complying with a known command, although I will remove the reward and/or give a NRM. Sometimes I might give the slightest tug on her leash if she's lagging behind just to get her attention and say 'come on, let's go' - unless your dog walks on a loose leash 110% of the time and never lags or rushes in front causing the leash to go taut, it's pretty difficult to avoid.

I've never once seen a dog trained properly on a prong collar reacting in fear or losing confidence, or showing signs of being in pain. I've seen plenty of dogs trained properly on head collars fight with it, show strong signs of aversion and claw at their faces until they bleed to get the damn thing off - yet many "positive" trainers happily use head collars. Can people misuse prongs? Sure they can, just as you can misuse any tool. But use it properly on the right dog in the right situation and it does not have to create fear, pain or be highly aversive to the dog.

I don't think I've labeled you a traditional trainer, have I? I may have reference traditional methods in our discussion, but I don't believe I've called you one. You use positive methods - that's great. I haven't watched your video, so I can't comment.

You assumed that I used punishment based training.

I just don't understand the adamant and vehement arguing for punishment when everyone here is admitting they generally mostly use positive training and it works great for them.

Because I'm a sucker for punishment and I can't stand posters slamming methods that can work successfully without having to be as awful as they describe them. TBH, I find my posts less adament and vehement than half of the ones here that flame any thing remotely aversive/punishing. I think reward based training is the way to go and I find it frustrating and sad that there are still some punishment based trainers out there who think yanking a dog around is the best way to get the best out of the dog. I don't agree with using confrontational methods like alpha rolls, either.

But having the experiences I've had I won't ever agree that certain tools and methods can't work successfully or that any dog, with any behavioural problem, can be trained or cured using purely positive training.

A good friend of mine spent months training with two separate self professed purely positive trainers who both ended up telling her that her dog aggressive dog couldn't be fixed and was better off PTS. She went to see a reputable rewards based trainer who also uses aversives/punishments when appropriate and the dog is completely cured of his aggression. I will never believe for a second that aversives/punishments don't have their place in dog training.

ETA: Keeping in mind that there are posters here like yourself who said that you never have to use punishment/aversives in training. That is the point I was responding to. Sure, now you have clarified to say that you don't actually mean that punishments/aversives aren't always unnecessary, but that's not what you said in your earlier, very opinionated and passionate posts.

 Going back and addressing some things from earlier here... if you use punishment to suppress a behavior, you can indeed get rid of it completely. I've seen it plenty of times. If you get the behavior to zero, you may get some reoccurrence. You still have to punish at that point. At some point though, you will get rid of it completely. Unfortunately, my famiarlity here is with humans, but there are some behaviors that won't be successfully treated with reinforcement based techniques, and are successfully treated with punishment. Punishment in the hands of the average pet owner though, it's extremely dangerous.

I would suggest that all trainers, whether new to dogs or experienced trainers, read or re read "Don't Shoot The Dog".  Time and again I pick up this book and get positively reinforced. :)

I quote Pryor here :So subjects like to learn through reinforcement not for the obvious reason-to get food or other rewards-but because they actually get some control over what is happening.  And the reason people like to modify the behavior of others through reinforcement is that the response is so gratifying. Seeing animals brighten up, little kids' eyes shine, people bloom and glow with accomplishment you have helped them achieve, is in itself an extremely powerful reinforcer.  One gets absolutely hooked on the experience of getting good results."

I can't say it enough regarding blanket statements about punishment for dogs or any other animals (including humans).  There are so many variables on both ends-the subject being punished and the person or thing delivering the punishment-it's impossible to generalize results and claim that in all cases this or that results from punishment.

 I would say that they should read "The Culture Clash" again, too;-)

Anyway, I find Tenna's point really salient here.  Why do people ***CLING*** to punishment so much when there are ways to train dogs without it that make for the animal "brightening up" as Jackie puts it?  If you are using punishment for anything except the kind of circumstance that Tenna described (life threatening, yet untrained dog, headed for disaster if you don't intervene) you *are* a traditional trainer.  We often describe that as the difference between a "clicker trainer", and a trainer who just  uses clickers. 

I believe that, rather than believing punishment is so necessary and defending it against all comers, we should all be striving never to have to use it.  Have I ever punished a dog?  Sure.  Do I do it regularly?  Not on your life, and every time I do, which is so infrequent as to be infinitesimal, I immediately review in my mind whether there was something else I could have done in that moment to achieve the result I wanted.  That way, I get better at achieving great results without the use of force or coercion.  I never knew such pleasure until I had dogs that actually worked for the sheer joy of being able to offer behavior they know will produce something great for them.

spiritdogs

 If you are using punishment for anything except the kind of circumstance that Tenna described (life threatening, yet untrained dog, headed for disaster if you don't intervene) you *are* a traditional trainer. .

So by your definition, a "traditional trainer" is anyone who uses punishment or aversives of any kind unless the dog is in a life threatening situation? Even though 99.9% of the time they don't use physical punishment, if that .1% is used for something that is not life threatening, they are a horrible traditional trainer who uses punishment based methods and finds it hard to sleep at night?

spiritdogs

I never knew such pleasure until I had dogs that actually worked for the sheer joy of being able to offer behavior they know will produce something great for them.

My dog has been punished for things that aren't life threatening (i.e a stern voice correction to interrupt her stealing food off the table, or the slightest leash tug on her flat collar). She LOVES to work. Punishments have not lessened her ability to offer behaviours or her joy to work.  Or did you see something different to what I see in the video I posted?

tenna

People are getting picky about semantics here, and though I agree being specific is important, but I think we all know, and all realize, that when I (or anyone else) say in this conversation "aversive" we do not mean something mild like removing a treat or closing a door.

Yes I ***WAS*** being picky about semantics here... and for a good reason - I was making a point.  No, we don't all "realise" what you mean when you say "aversive", because what YOU consider to be aversive, someone else may not consider it to be.  More importantly, what is aversive to one dog may not be aversive to another dog.

Look at it this way: let's suppose that you are a person who actively avoids administering leash corrections.  Sometimes they happen if the dog lunges, or i you need to move him away from something quickly, but you don't have them "at the top of your tool box".  Perhaps they are not even IN your toolbox.  Perhaps they are a technique you feel is unnecessary and inappropriate.  That's OK.  Let's suppose you train using treats and toys - that is OK too.  Now here is the thing - some dogs really couldn't give a monkeys wossname about leash corrections!  As Liesje says, with some dogs it ramps them up MORE.  The neck is - what? - the second strongest muscle on a dog's body? - and some breeds have very high pain thresholds.... the jerk barely registers for them.  Yet the SAME dog could get quite frantic and start showing very obvious signs of stress if a particular toy or food treat is witheld. 

I think we need to be quite careful about "semantics", because essentially, everyone here is basically in agreement - semantics is precisely what is being argued, and I think your exchange with huski proves it - you are saying almost the same things with different words

You say you would never use punishment necessarily.  Do you really think the dog-lovers here use it unecessarily?!  Even spiritdogs has said she keeps it in the toolbox, although she examines very carefully when she uses them and considers very hard whether another, less invasive technique might work first. I think most of us do the same!  Perhaps we use punishment more often than she does, but can we help it if we haven't got the length and breadth of experience that she has?!!!!  What I'm saying is.... You're preaching to the choir here.  We are all on the same path.

I think spiritdogs is completely correct, in that we all need to "get specific", otherwise it really IS just semantics.  Rather than saying this way is better than that way, I think it is better to say this is what I did for this dog in this situation, and then we can argue the particulars of that specific scenario.

I am very sensitive to punishment, I think.  I don't take criticism very well; even an NRM can be "aversive" to me.  It doesn't have to be harsh, scary or painful, I just don't like the feeling of "I got that wrong".  While we humans can often work past that with reasoning, and philosophy ("It's not a failure if you learned something from it";) I doubt animals have that capacity, and that is why I am very careful about punishments.  The learning experience is "better" without them. 

When I was learning to drive, one instructor was quite into telling me when I did something wrong, on the basis that it would be dangerous if I repeated it when on the road or real.  He was quite benign about it, extremely nice and very friendly, but I swear I could FEEL "shut down" happening.  It was like my brain was a mass of Christmas lights and various areas were blinking of one by one.  Things I could do previously got harder.  It wasn't a conscious thing, and had I been a dog I may well have been labelled "stubborn" or "stupid". Another instructor I had ignored most of my mistakes, he "managed" me by using the dual controls, or calmly reaching across to adjust the wheel, in the least intrucive way possible.  No matter HOW badly I completed a manouvure, he found something good to say about it.  I did much better with this instructor!

Just today, someone at work came over to tell me about a mistake I made.  I did not like being told, and I tried hard to remain neutral (I HAD made a mistake and she was just the messenger) but I could FEEL my jaw clenching, and the muscles in my face tightening.  Again, no pain, no fear...  But it was an unpleasant process.  We all like the feeling of "success!", satisfaction, a job well done, "I can DO that".....  We tend not to like the flip side so much.  "I did that badly", "I was wrong".  This is also demonstrated in Pryor's book I think - the "game" where members in one group were "trained" to complete a behaviour using a marker word and shaping.  Members of the other group were given a markerword when they went wrong.  No pain, no fear involved.... yet many members of the second group ended up frustrated and in tears.  I think this effect is often skipped over in these discussion, in favour of the "pain/fear" part of training, but considering we are all dog lovers here, I don't think the pain/fear part is nearly so releavnt.... all of us will avoid using such techniques if we possibly can!!

In short:  Do Confrontational Methods Really Work?  That depends on how you define "work".....

 Chuffy - excellent post!

“Do confrontational methods work?”

Well, there is a lot of literature out there that tells us what happens when we correct, punish or threaten our dogs. It is overwhelming and it gives a clear message. I am not going to argue that it is wrong or I have the one living organism in a thousand that it doesn't apply to or that I have some magic that makes it all different or that I have brilliant timing which counts me out of all of these discussions.

I am just going to share what happened for me at a personal level. I really don't want a whole lot of posts that suggest that if I used a different aversive that it would have been somehow different, or that a particular trainers magic wand could have re-defined it and made it all different. IMHO that is just rubbish and the literature and reality tell me that.

The photo on my post is of a chocolate Labrador called Cadbury now deceased. When I called up the breeder she asked “ have you had any other dogs” and “I hope you don't have any children”. He was pretty much as Marley in the book, may be even worse. Super hyper and quite independent in many ways. We took him to school and he got fired . We hired a private trainer and he did the standard Koehler thug up. I learnt to apply very harsh corrections. Yes he did quieten down. Yes he did stop pulling on the lead after even more massive corrections. Yes he had a reasonable recall because he lived in fear of what would happen if he didn't. Yes he stayed where I left him. One good thing is that I learnt to pair praise with correction, something many of today's modern dog thugs seem to forget. I also learnt that unless I maintained the diet of P+ R- unwanted behaviours would return.

When he was three, I gave up smoking and took up formal obedience training. We flew through the classes and he got CD in three trials. Nothing outrageous score wise, but he did it. Then I tried open. My dog was so frozen that he walked out to the dumb bell... My lab walking for a retrieve really upset me so I hit the Internet and learnt about clicker training and then went up this huge learning curve..I was lucky that people warned me that it wouldn't be plain sailing training a xover dog and they were right. All of these behaviours that had been trained using the other axis came back. Suddenly he wasn't comfortable doing SFEs, heeling wasn't that much of a lark, and his recalls became really flaky. He started jumping up on people again. Again all stuff that the textbooks tell us. I learnt to motivate very quickly because I loved my dog and I loved watching that spirit return and I loved the laughter he bought to me and many others.

After 18 months I got heeling to die for, a fast recall, and great retrieves. His heeling was still present at 12 years of age in a veteran's comp. He was a beautiful dog that I got back from the dark side. He got open in 5 trials, a fairly good effort with an average score around 188.

Confrontation makes ME a sloppy ill disciplined trainer. During those 18 months, I would come across situations that I had no idea of what to do with but as I had sworn off the confrontational approach, I would have to research and try different methods. It sure made me a better more confident trainer.

I don't say that I won't ever use P+ or R- ever again, but my use of these training options is very sparing.

poodleOwned

I am just going to share what happened for me at a personal level. I really don't want a whole lot of posts that suggest that if I used a different aversive that it would have been somehow different, or that a particular trainers magic wand could have re-defined it and made it all different. IMHO that is just rubbish and the literature and reality tell me that.

The way we use aversives and how we use them is HUGELY important. Just as it's hugely important to use positive reinforcement properly. Just as it's hugely important to use the right motivator for your dog. Far from rubbish IMO.

The photo on my post is of a chocolate Labrador called Cadbury now deceased. When I called up the breeder she asked “ have you had any other dogs” and “I hope you don't have any children”. He was pretty much as Marley in the book, may be even worse. Super hyper and quite independent in many ways. We took him to school and he got fired . We hired a private trainer and he did the standard Koehler thug up. I learnt to apply very harsh corrections. Yes he did quieten down. Yes he did stop pulling on the lead after even more massive corrections. Yes he had a reasonable recall because he lived in fear of what would happen if he didn't. Yes he stayed where I left him. One good thing is that I learnt to pair praise with correction, something many of today's modern dog thugs seem to forget. I also learnt that unless I maintained the diet of P+ R- unwanted behaviours would return.

Unfortunately you still see this a fair bit in obedience clubs and with old fashioned trainers who just don't understand how to deal with higher drive dogs.

It's why you often see high drive dogs "expelled" from and failing obedience classes, simply correcting the dog for being excitable and exhibiting drive is setting them up for failure. Some of these dogs are corrected so heavily for displaying drive that it's incredibly difficult to build it down the track. Some dogs the corrections just amp them up and they find other less constructive ways to get drive satisfaction... it's unfortunate but even now so many trainers don't know what to do with dogs like this. I've been to obedience classes in the early days with one of my dogs and was told to give her a leash correction every time she put her nose to the ground... didn't make a world of difference as she has a pretty decent amount of drive if she was scenting she wouldn't even notice it. It wasn't heavy Koehler style corrections or anything, but the trainers there just had no idea what to do with her. Thankfully I found a trainer/behaviourist who was able to teach me how to get the best out of her. Sad that so many dogs in a similar position never have the same opportunity as their handlers just don't know any better :( Their dogs get turned away or "fail" classes purely because the trainers don't know what to do with them and don't understand how to work them - in reality these dogs often make the best competition dogs.

I asked you to not reply to my posts for good reasons. I also really dislike people yelling at me on any forum (the capital letters). 

If you look at the bottom of my signature you will see that i may have earned some respect the hard way in the dog world by putting titles on my dogs. If you checked around you might find that the titles are a bit of an understatement.

Goodness knows how many hours i have given to also showing others how to train in obedience and tracking.

So excuse me if i am just a little concerned that you at quite a young age and with very little training experiencefinds it ok to write postings in this manner. It is not a great way to learn how to succesfully train and is unbearably unpleasant and rude  for the person at the other end.

Really, for many reasons i have no interest in hearing  your trainer's opinion (and now your opinion) second hand in a forceful way from you. It is disrepectful and it is an absolute boundary. Please do not respond to my posts again.

....

edited to keep the thread on track, any further personal attacks on me PO feel free to take up via PM.

poodleOwned

I asked you to not reply to my posts for good reasons. I also really dislike people yelling at me on any forum (the capital letters). 

If you look at the bottom of my signature you will see that i may have earned some respect the hard way in the dog world by putting titles on my dogs. If you checked around you might find that the titles are a bit of an understatement.

Goodness knows how many hours i have given to also showing others how to train in obedience and tracking.

So excuse me if i am just a little concerned that you at quite a young age and with very little training experiencefinds it ok to write postings in this manner. It is not a great way to learn how to succesfully train and is unbearably unpleasant and rude  for the person at the other end.

Really, for many reasons i have no interest in hearing  your trainer's opinion (and now your opinion) second hand in a forceful way from you. It is disrepectful and it is an absolute boundary. Please do not respond to my posts again.

...so now the question becomes "Do Confrontational Methods work any better with Humans?" LOL! 

denise m

so now the question becomes "Do Confrontational Methods work any better with Humans?" LOL! 

lol !