Punishment Has No Place

ORIGINAL: DPU

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.

[] But being a good trainer doesn't make you a good writer. His credentials don't change my opinion on this article. I have a dozen of training books on my shelf written by professionals that I should probably donate to Goodwill - their content is too basic *for my taste*, the argument is week. And that's OK, we all have our own preferences on which professional view to adhere to.

Just to add, I am sure nobody here would tell off a pup who failed to pee in the right spot without showing him the correct spot. We wouldn't tell off a pup who is in a chewing stage to just stop chewing - we'd show him what's OK to chew. This is common sense. But, I do think, dogs are perfectly capable of understanding when you tell them off to stop *that*. Just stop.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

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!

 
I dont punish either, i correct which is different and a correction does not even has to involve physical touching, i do what a dog does, if one dog does not want another to chew on something that dog is not going to bring another thing so the first dog stops, no, i for example i could use a body block, i put myself between the thing (a couch) and the dog and that way i let him know that is my couch, since is mine then only i able to "chew it" if i want to, when i'm gone the dog still wont do it because she knows that "toy" (couch) is mine
 
Very effective way in my opinion because i have tried it and it worked, my dog still has her chewy bones if she wants to chew something, when i saw her chewing a shoe she was having her chewy bones 24/7, she just decided that it was "shoe time", so it does not matter if you bring a golden bone to the dog, if the dog decides to chew something different he will do it and thats why you have to teach your dog what things belong to you and not him

Punishment has no place in the teaching phase of a dog's education!

I am confused now. A dog gets 'educated' continuously. For us, we see the end of 'obedience session', but to a dog, it's just the end of the game. So, since I don't understand where to draw a line on where the Training ends, I'd have to say that punishment is fine - just as you tell your kids off - it's nothing different. Now, if he is talking about teaching tricks and specific behaviors on cue, then yes, of course punishment has no place... and I think that's pretty clear to all - a TOTAL common sense.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

"Well Ian Dunbar says there is a place for corrections".  That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

 
And why is that?
 

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

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.

 
Ok, what happens when you want to show a kid the difference between right or wrong? do it first while you are frustrated, angry, emotional, etc, then do it when you are calm, whats the difference on the corrections?, it does not matter if is a kid, a dog, a bird or a whale, you see the difference on the way you correct while beaing calm and not AND like i said before, a correction is not always physical touching, if you show emotions at the moment of correcting the dog just sees you as a crazy lunatic that cant control him/herself and those are not good leaders to follow, maybe 95% of the corrections dont need more force than the one you use to close a door

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

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.  

 
Like i said to mudpuppy all those things are mine and my dog cant touch them for the same reason, think about you going to a friends house for a weekend, is your friend, you are allowed to stay but you wont start destroying her things or using them without permission because they are not yours right? do you feel your friend is unfair because you cant use her stuff without her permission? of course not, and your dog niether 

I apologize to take this off track, but [sm=devil.gif]
The author of the article wrote a book titled "The Only Tricks Book You'll Ever Need". Now, I wouldn't have the guts to name my book like that - that's pretty brave. Now I am gonna have to go and check it out, since it's the *only one*.[8D]

all those things are mine and my dog cant touch them for the same reason, think about you going to a friends house for a weekend, is your friend, you are allowed to stay but you wont start destroying her things or using them without permission because they are not yours right?

 
except that dogs don't understand the concept of a "permanent possession". If it's in their mouth, it belongs to them. If your dog puts his favorite toy down and wanders off, and another dog picks up the toy, now the toy belongs to that other dog.  If your dog felt strongly about his toy, he might charge-bark or start a fight with the other dog BEFORE it picks up the toy, but if that dog gets it into his mouth, possession has been transferred.  Humans often don't understand this, which is why so many humans get bitten when they try to pry items out of dog's mouths. People forget that for dogs, if it's in the mouth it's theirs, and that possession trumps dominance.
 
I don't consider re-directing a dog to be punishment. I guess you could call it a correction, you corrected the dog's behavior by swapping bone for couch.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

except that dogs don't understand the concept of a "permanent possession". If it's in their mouth, it belongs to them. If your dog puts his favorite toy down and wanders off, and another dog picks up the toy, now the toy belongs to that other dog.  If your dog felt strongly about his toy, he might charge-bark or start a fight with the other dog BEFORE it picks up the toy, but if that dog gets it into his mouth, possession has been transferred.  Humans often don't understand this, which is why so many humans get bitten when they try to pry items out of dog's mouths. People forget that for dogs, if it's in the mouth it's theirs, and that possession trumps dominance.

 
We will have to agree that we disagreed specially  with "possession trumps dominance", i dont know if you have ever tried to be dominant over your dogs (i assume you havent) but that wil never ever ever happen, all the dogs i have been with know about "permanent possession" and thats why they dont chew anything that they dont want them to, they know those things are mine and they never touch them again, how weird is that?

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

"Well Ian Dunbar says there is a place for corrections".  That just doesn't make any sense to me. 

And why is that?

 
Because you have snipped it and now it reads wrongly. 
It makes no sense to me that you are saying "corrections are fine" and "Ian Dunbar says corrections have their value" yet the article, the topic and every other post has been about PUNISHMENT - and you yourself have made a distinction between the two.  Does that make sense now? 
 
I will agree with you that you should not punish/correct any animal or child when you are frustrated... you need to be calm and clear headed.  Not one area of my post disputes that.  Nor has anyone else.  What I was disputing was your definition of "punishment" and "correction".  Being calm had absolutely nothing to do with it.  To say you should be calm in delaing with your dog is like saying jam attracts wasps and has nothing to do with this topic.  A correction OR punishment can STILL be ineffective and even harmful even if delivered calmly.  That is another kettle of fish enitrely.  Back on topic.
 
As for your views on possesion and dominance.... It looks like you will have to agree to disagree with me as well as mudpuppy.  Plus, this is going waaaaaaaaay off topic.  I would suggest starting a new one but have a feeling in my water that it might be better to wait and pester admin for that "Heated debates" section that was discussed recently first......

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Because you have snipped it and now it reads wrongly. 
It makes no sense to me that you are saying "corrections are fine" and "Ian Dunbar says corrections have their value" yet the article, the topic and every other post has been about PUNISHMENT - and you yourself have made a distinction between the two.  Does that make sense now? 

"Leash corrections with or without a training collar manage a behavior like pulling and help us control the dog but that is all"

So, in "tech terms". Skinner was all wrong and there are only three quadrants instead of four? "Positive Punishment" is a scientific tech term, isn't it? []

Most "corrections" are punishment. Leash correction, yelling NO, removing a shoe from the dog's mouth. The dog can't make the aversive being applied stop by changing his current behavior. Punishment is the most ineffective method of modifying behavior.
Negative and positive reinforcement are much more effective methods of modifying behavior. Standing over a dog and glaring at the dog until the dog drops the shoe is negative reinforcement-- the dog's behavior immediately causes the aversive to go away.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

 yelling NO

 
If you yell to the dog he will think of that as barking (since they dont speak english), therefore if the dog barks at the owner is he punishing her/him?

sometimes.  Ever seen a dog get mad at his handler for messing up on an agility course? 
Note I didn't say yelling NO was an effective method of modifying dog behavior. A popular method, though.

ORIGINAL: Angelique

So, in "tech terms". Skinner was all wrong and there are only three quadrants instead of four? "Positive Punishment" is a scientific tech term, isn't it? []

And what I got from you guys about OC is that the wait period for getting a treat is postive punishment?

Actually Skinner always talked about four potential consequences that when immediately following a behavior have an impact on its likelihood to occur again in the same or similar circumstances.  Two in which behavior recurring was likely (positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement) and two in which the behavior was likely to reduce in frequency (punishment and extinction).  Actually I think the new terms are just a result of the simplicity of the original set of premises (some folks just cant seem to accept the simple solution [] just a personal comment).   I feel real comfortable with just those four.

As to while punishment has no place in the learning phase, punishment by definition reduces the likelihood of behavior occurring.  For learning to occur, active involvement increases the chances the message/skill/whatever will get a foothold beyond short term memory.  So, you do not want to punish behavior since a common reaction is not to offer behavior.  Extinction and shaping are far more effective in establishing behaviors, and schedules of reinforcement maintain them.