Punishment Has No Place

From the article:
Overall, punishment is only half the equation, it has no place in the teaching phase. If it is used to manage behavior the right behavior must be rewarded instead. Most importantly, punishment should not be used in cases of aggression because we never know what the dog is learning. There is a better way to train your dog.............find it !

I agree but I read a double talk.  I have 3 escalating levels of punishments that I apply to my dogs.  Calm No, Hey!, and Damnit.  Followed immediately by praise for stopping the behavior.  And I don't discard the punishment as not training. 

For example, with my new foster Essie, she would not let any of my other dogs near me and she would snap at any dog that would come near.  Behavior not acceptable.  Right before the snap, she would get a calm no and when she responded she was praised and a pat.  At the same time the other dog was called over for a pat.  If I missed the start of the behavior and she snapped without making contact, she got Hey and then a praise.  If she made contact, she got a Damnit and when she responded and the other was able to come over, she was praised.  It did not take a lot of occurrences to have this behavior stopped.

I'm sorry, but I don't get why you would subject the other dog to a possible contact (bite).  I don't use my other dogs as guinea pigs for that sort of behavior.  Had you ever thought to use "classical conditioning" instead at a safe distance first, then working up to them being side by side? 
At any rate, I know that there will always be people who choose punishment first.  I just think there's another way of doing things, and that some people might like an opinion on the rationale for that.  I think that Gerilyn has stated it pretty succinctly in the article for those interested in a more positive approach.  That's all.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I'm sorry, but I don't get why you would subject the other dog to a possible contact (bite).  I don't use my other dogs as guinea pigs for that sort of behavior.  Had you ever thought to use "classical conditioning" instead at a safe distance first, then working up to them being side by side? 
At any rate, I know that there will always be people who choose punishment first.  I just think there's another way of doing things, and that some people might like an opinion on the rationale for that.  I think that Gerilyn has stated it pretty succinctly in the article for those interested in a more positive approach.  That's all.

 
Its called real life living with multiple dogs.  No guinea pigs in my house, just dogs and dogs sometimes have to work things out.  If I did not have control over Essie with my verbal punishment commands then I probably would have done as you suggested.  One thing I have working for me is that it is a huge responsibility that Essie has taken on to try and keep dogs 3 times her size away from me.  I knew it would be short time.  Essie learned to share.
 
In the case of me fostering a pair of Beagle breeding pair, I knew verbal punishment for the male mounting her constantly would not work, so I moved to a different approach. 

Agree Punishment has not place, now, Corrections are totally different, you punish when you add feelings to the correction, adding feelings of frustration, anger, etc has no place because then you are an unestable leader on your dog's eyes
 
Another thing why i think this person has not idea of what is talking about is this part "The problem with punishment is that it is only half of the equation. Punishment stops the dog from doing whatever he was doing at that moment, it does not teach the dog what you wanted him to do instead" (emphasis added)
 
As we have discussed before, the dog does not have to do anything instead at all, the dog can do whatever he wants, just not that, many people in this forums talk about having the dog his own independence and that they would not like them to be robots, well i think that if you have to tell them what to do instead they look more like robots to me, they look like they can not even think by themselves what to do next
 
Is very funny that everytime that i say Ian Dunmbar agrees that corrections along with +R gives you a higher level of success rather than just +R alone nobody says anything

Here's another article from someone who's been around the dog world and see's the other side of this debate. Any lopsided, extremist hilosophy, is just that:
 
[linkhttp://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/smart_choice_rants.html]http://www3.sympatico.ca/tsuro/_articles/smart_choice_rants.html[/link]
 
 

I don't do "punishment" per se unless you count an empathic no.  There are negative consequences-if the dog is chewing on something inappropriate, I take it away.  If they're laying too rough, clapping followed by redirection works.  I try to follow NILF, so I will ignore them if they're misbehaving-they love attention, so it is a punishment.

I read the article as I am always interested on reading a good "100%-anti-punishment" opinion. But, this sounds like a paper written by student, who has done some "research" on Google. I'd give it an "A" for an effort and "C-" for a well thought-out content...

We then begin the vicious cycle of increasing punishment to try to catch the dog doing the wrong thing... Punishment is rewarding to us as dog owners because we feel as though we've at least done something !

Really? Hmmm..... Who are these evil people? All the people who use punishment?

spritdogs, I got that quote from you from another post:

...and without punishing the dog with any verbal "hey"...

Ok, I use "hey". It must be it then, the author is talking about me.

Ah... I don't know where to start... so I won't.

I'd like to talk about my cat here for a sec... how she trained my pup.
When he follows here around being a little pest and she is not the mood for *that*, she'd first stop, then lower her head (cat's way of saying 'no, not now'), then if he doesn't get it, she'll hiss. If he doesn't get that, he gets a slap on the face. That's punishment. She is making it clear to him that she doesn't want him to do *that*. Now, it took him some time to learn these "cat" steps of warning. I don't micromanage my cat's and dog's relations, I did however help my pup learn what these steps mean. If she freezes lowering her head. I look at the dog like, OK, get that! Next, he'd get a verbal warning from me. So, he knows what these steps lead to. And, the funny is, considering all these slaps he gets from her, when she is done playing chase, they still manage to show affection to each other - he licks her face and wobbles his butt, she purrs and rubs against him, they cuddle together butt to butt on the couch. It's clear to me that punishment is not going to ruin their relationship. She is a good trainer. The problem is that when some people deliver punishment, there is no warning. Or, there is warning but the dog hasn't learned yet your "steps" so to speak.
Of course, we can't slap a dog. The thing is, with cats, they only raise paws to fight ... to slap. We, humans, raise hands for all other reasons. So, as our steps or warning we need to pick something that is not by us anywhere else - a freeze, a dead serious stare, a move forward, a "hey".

At any rate, I know that there will always be people who choose punishment first.  I just think there's another way of doing things, and that some people might like an opinion on the rationale for that.  I think that Gerilyn has stated it pretty succinctly in the article for those interested in a more positive approach.  That's all.

Thanks, Spiritdogs. I think we're just more "into" corrections in our society; hence the reason for your comment that "there will always be people who choose punishment first."  We're "hard-wired" to correct and to set straight. Here we are, a "Western" society and we really do believe in things like good and bad and black and white and eternal punishment and salvation, etc. Definitely hard-wired.  And to be "intellectual" in this society means you have to be a critical thinker which often gets interpreted as a point-out-the-flaws thinker. I see so many workplaces that don't notice the "good," only the "bad," and I see teachers and whole school systems that only take note of "bad" behavior. So many parents that become exasperated because they're correcting over and over again. It's amazing. It's far more prevalent than dog training. I think it's in our genes!
 
One thing I've noticed is how extremely difficult it is for me to not give a correction, to close my mouth, hide my hand, stand still and to wait for something good to notice. It's like pulling teeth for me to not get involved and It's so hard to focus on the "good" and not correct the "bad." Corrections are way more easier for me to do that I struggle to not do them. I never thought it would be that hard but boy, it really is.
 
 

ORIGINAL: TinaK

I read the article as I am always interested on reading a good "100%-anti-punishment" opinion. But, this sounds like a paper written by student, who has done some "research" on Google. I'd give it an "A" for an effort and "C-" for a well thought-out content...

 
About the author:
The author is Gerilyn Bielakiewicz and was written quite a few years ago mainly for a general pet owning consumer.  She has since written several books The Everything Dog Training and Tricks Book, The Only Tricks Book You'll Ever Need, The Everything Golden Retriever Book. The publisher Adams Media made several other books from the same material as well. Gerilyn has been training people and dogs close to 20 years.  

As we have discussed before, the dog does not have to do anything instead at all, the dog can do whatever he wants, just not that, many people in this forums talk about having the dog his own independence and that they would not like them to be robots, well i think that if you have to tell them what to do instead they look more like robots to me, they look like they can not even think by themselves what to do next

 
you're not TELLING them what to do instead. Example: I don't want the dogs to chew on the chair, the couch, the table, shoes. I could wait and whenever the dog tried to chew on one of these items I could punish the dog. This is a very ineffective way to train-  the dog might learn to not chew the chair in my presence, but hasn't learned a thing about not chewing the couch or the shoes, or not chewing the chair when I'm gone. You'd have to punish this dog over and over again, and just hope you're present to punish when he fails to realize that the new shoes are the same as the old shoes, i.e. not something to chew on. Very ineffective training approach. A more effective approach is to teach the dog what is appropriate to chew on (bones only), and to reward the dog for choosing to not-chew the furniture. People forget to notice the many times their puppies are choosing to not-chew the furniture!

And in the meantime while the dog is learning and being trained "effectively" to chew on the appropiate item, you have lost a couch, shoes, and in my case an injured pet.  This is what does not make sense to me.  Yes, teach according to the artle but common sense real life stuff says act to stop the chewing of a shoe.  I am ok with using the word punishment to stop/halt/postpone/take away items/substitute for inappropiate behavior.  With my dog saying please- with sugar on top, stops nothing.
 
Added:  Just so I am clear, For my deaf dog Blizzard, I wag my index finger to indicate a "stop that behavior".  I consider this punishment for licking her toe.

Hmmmm, well I sure don't say pretty please with sugar on top.....[]
 
I correct (no bite, eh eh, etc) and redirect.  Thor and Sheba did mega damage as pups when I used the old scold and punish methods......

I do agree with the gist of the article, I believe it to be common sense.  The way dogs learn is very context-specific and delivering corrections for incorrect responses is a very general long winded trial-and-error approach, while rewarding for what you DO want is much more concise.  I know were I the pupil, I would want the teacher to do the latter with me not the former, it would be much more enjoyable.  And less confusing too... and I pride myself that I am a smidgen more intelligent than most dogs.

ORIGINAL: espencer

Agree Punishment has not place, now, Corrections are totally different, you punish when you add feelings to the correction, adding feelings of frustration, anger, etc has no place because then you are an unestable leader on your dog's eyes

Another thing why i think this person has not idea of what is talking about is this part "The problem with punishment is that it is only half of the equation. Punishment stops the dog from doing whatever he was doing at that moment, it does not teach the dog what you wanted him to do instead" (emphasis added)

As we have discussed before, the dog does not have to do anything instead at all, the dog can do whatever he wants, just not that, many people in this forums talk about having the dog his own independence and that they would not like them to be robots, well i think that if you have to tell them what to do instead they look more like robots to me, they look like they can not even think by themselves what to do next

Is very funny that everytime that i say Ian Dunmbar agrees that corrections along with +R gives you a higher level of success rather than just +R alone nobody says anything

I think it strange that you make a distinction between punishment and corrections, we are all decrying the use of punishment and you are saying why you think corrections are OK and then say "Well Ian Dunbar says there is a place for corrections".  That just doesn't make any sense to me.  You make the distinction, we are all decrying the one and you support the other.  ?????  Also, you make a distinction between corrections and punishment but don't clearly explain what you believe the difference to be....?  (Perhaps that deserves its own thread so this doesn't go OT... ) 
 
In addition, I do not agree with your definition of punishment being a correction with emotion added.  I hate that we're getting tripped up by terms again, but it is helpful if we are all on the same page.... not with half of us labouring under one definition and the other half under another.  In my view, a correction just corrects the dog.  Ex: He is getting into the rubbish bin; you lead him away from it.  You have corrected his action.  Punishment (positive punishment, negative reinforcement, whatever you want to call it) is simply adding something to the environment that makes the dog less likely to repeat the action.  It's something that is unpleasant - that is, something that is nice when it stops happening.  Something the dog will work to avoid in future.  It does not have to have (although with many people it often does) emotional connotations.  In order for this to be at all effective you have to a) make it strong enough, b) time it perfectly c) make him associate that with the act of raiding the bin - and d) for a Billy Bonus, not associate with you.  Tough one.

I would emphasise that the article decries punishmnet at the teaching stage. 
So, if you are trying to teach a dog to eliminate OUTSIDE then you don't punish/correct for soiling in the lounge, on the furniture, in his bed, on your bed, in the kitchen, upstairs......  You manage his environment so mistakes are limited and you reward well for correct toileting.  A much more direct approach and much kinder. 
You don't punish/correct a dog for chewing your socks, the remote, your mobile, the table legs, the chair legs, the door frame, your underwear, electric cables etc etc.  You manage his environment (supervising him, confining him and putting things away) to minimise incorrect chewing and praise him up and down for chewing on the few things he IS allowed. 
Perhaps, when the right behaviour has been well established and you are sure the dog "knows" what to do, the writer of the article is comfortable with punishment being used to proof behaviour? 

There are whole areas of training where, IMO, punishment simply has no place at all.  One of these is toilet training.  Another is recall.  And another is counter-conditioning a fearful animal.  I am sure there are more.