the role of punishment

spiritdogs

Also, I do think that many average pet owners have a bias toward punishment.  Why?  Because generally speaking, they feel better and are better at punishing than they are at the other techniques, which require a bit more finesse and understanding to be implemented. And, they don't know what to do if a positive technique isn't working as well as they think it should.  They almost always want fast results - not everyone spends as much time or energy on their dogs as we do.  So many times, pet owners muddle along without EVER going to training class, and if they do, they go to beginner class only and then never again.  How can they expect to be effective at this if they don't learn to apply it properly?  Somehow, they seem to think that punishment is an ok form of trial and error, but positive reinforcement is not.

Very true.

Yet, more damage is done to dogs by punishment, more dogs become aggressive because of punishment, and more behavior is unchanged after repeated punishment than I can tell you.  I see it all the time. 

Maybe. In the hands of the average pet owner who uses corrections incorrectly, yes. Although I have rarely seen a dog become aggressive because of corrections, and the ones that did showed signs of aggression before they were corrected. In the example posted about the jumping dogs and the corrections making him aggressive ~ IME, that would require that the dog has never had any positive experiences with people, and that the corrections that were received were sufficient to change a friendly dog into a aggressive one, which means there is a high likelihood that the corrections were abusive.

BTW, it is not the fault of trying to use positive methods that failed in the example about the jumping dog.  The dog decides what the valuable resource is - it can be your face (to greet), or it can be a toy {go grab it).  The idea is that the toy should not have been there.  In that case, I would have told the person to put a door between themselves and the dog without acknowledging the dog AT ALL.  No eye contact, no voice, no nothing.  Dogs do get more boisterous (after all, their behavior always worked before, so they ramp it up, assuming that we just "didn't notice them" yet).  But, if the human, instead of giving up, rides that out (in body armor perhaps LOL), the extinction burst will come, and the behavior will extinguish.  Failing to do that is a human problem, not a dog problem - they just do what works, and the dog grabbing the toy just exhibited a giant "gotcha" because he got something for being obnoxious.  Dogs repeat what is reinforced.  What you allow, you teach. 

The dog never viewed me as a valuable resource. If you read my post, you would see that when the toy wasn't there, the behavior didn't change. I cannot put a door between me and her. She is not housebroken enough for that, and also there is no door when we're outside. By the time I could get to a door, the behavior would have escalated. No eye contact doesn't matter to her, no voice doesn't matter to her. Standing still was viewed as a challenge to reengage me. I tried to ride it out, waiting for it to extinguish. It only escalated to the point of being dangerous to myself and anyone who might be in the vicinity. And as for what works, if there was no toy to get, she was satisfied with a body part. As much as your ideas sound good in theory, in real life, they simply aren't practical.

Here's another one y'all can rip apart :)

Another example where I used P+ was with Ares. He was learning "guard the article" ~ an advanced exercise, where he is sent to a "place" where he has to stay next to an object that has no value to him, and he cannt leave the place while a protection helper agitates him. When the helper gets a specified distance, the dog engages in a bite, and when the helper retreats, the dog disengages and returns to the object. It is all done without any commands from the handler, in fact the handler is not even near the dog. Ares knew the exercise, he had been trained to go to his place for food, which was later transitioned to staying on his place until released for a toy, and later staying until released to bite. He could do it flawlessly on a long line ~ I didn't even need to hold the line. As soon as the line was removed, he would fly across the room for a bite. We did everything possible to try to remove the line without him knowing. The little buugger can feel the weight of it ~ and it was the lightest weight long line we could find. So I went back to training just the place. I sent him once, he went. He stayed. I released him and praised him and petted him. I sent him again. He went. I released him and praised him and petted him. I sent him a third time. He hesitated before going. He went. I released him, I petted him, I praised him. I sent him a fourth time ~ he didn't go. He looked at me with an attitude of I went three times and got no food and no bite. I will not do this again. I gave him a correction. The next day he passed the test doing guard the article. He is and always has been a dog who will work if he either gets a constant supply of food, or if there has been a correction for not doing it.

I probably do not have as much experience in training as you all do. But I do have some experience. When I went to training classes with Taz (pit mix who was 8 weeks at the time), we used...I guess a combination of things. We used clickers, treats, verbal praise, and a form of punishment. We kept the leash on Taz at all times when he was in the house and we held the other side. That way we were able to be aware, at all times, what Taz was doing, and he learned that I was in charge. If he did something I did not like I tugged the leash...not too hard, and it was not intended to inflict pain, just jolted him and got his attention. I immediately redirected him to what he SHOULD have done (i.e. chew his bone rather than my shoe) and immediately click, treat, praise when he did what he was doing. I will tell you after a little bit of this, he never chewed a shoe again. To address the jumping, I would step on the leash, so that he could not jump and clicked, treated, praised him when he would not try and jump. He doesn't jump on anyone when they come in the door. I used this in a few different ways and it worked very well for me. I think the trick was that it wasn't used to inflict pain, but rather restrict and/or redirect. It taught him that I was in control and that I was his "leader". Some people disagree with this, as they have told me that they think it takes away a dogs personality. I will tell you, it did no such thing. Taz has tons of personality. He just knows he is not in charge and not to get out of line. The other thing we used that I guess is punishment was an alpha roll. This did come in handy a few times and we only needed a few times. Taz was very....rambunctious when he was a pup. As he was going to be  a pretty strong, large dog, I felt it was important that I have under control from the start. I think Taz is one of the best behaved dogs I have ever seen.

I will say that I don't think this method works with every dog. I know with my poodle...who was already 1 when I got him. I tried the same method with him and I got almost no results. Of course, with him comes a lot of other issues from his past. I do plan to use the same method with my new pup. I plan to wait a little bit before I really start...I will use mostly positive reinforcement right now as she is only 6 weeks. And I don't think she will fully comprehend this yet. In fact, I know she isn't getting the praise and treats yet. I am pretty sure she just thinks we are crazy.

I'm glad you started this thread, mudpuppy. Ever since I raised a wild hare to live in my home without giving him much of a chance to associate anything unpleasant with me (which was quite a challenge considering how stupidly touchy a wild hare turned out to be) I've been wanting to do the same thing with a dog. People are always saying you need punishment in your toolbox to raise a dog that is pleasant to live with, but, well, you can't punish a wild hare even once or he never trusts you again and bounces off the walls trying to get away from you every time he sees you.

Now, I acknowledge that a hare is not a dog and my hare is unlikely to hurt anyone and I don't expect him to walk on a leash and sit on command and all those things dogs are expected to do. But within the realms of what a hare is capable of, I think we've done fabulously well. The hare trusts me and is genuinely happy to be around me and knows how to communicate with me and understands my body language. He's as happy as a hare in a house can be, he's bold and confident by hare standards, and I've built our trust piggy bank balance to a point where he'll forgive me for a lot of things he wouldn't have in the beginning. I am very confident we would not have a happy and often very relaxed hare if I'd ever applied a simple correction that is totally accepted to use on dogs.

Why is it acceptable to correct a dog when the same action would turn a wild animal against you for life? Why should dogs be corrected just because they can be without rendering them dangerous (usually) or impossible to live with? Is it unreasonable for me to think that because a wild animal would take a correction as irrevocable evidence that I'm not to be trusted, a dog might just have a few minor reservations about their owner if corrected? I don't want a dog with reservations about me, no matter how minor. I don't even want to risk ending up with a dog with minor reservations about me. Everyone who uses corrections will no doubt stand up and wave their arms about and say "My dog has no reservations about me in the slightest and we have a wonderful relationship!" to which I say "How fortunate for you. What a relief." and continue to avoid corrections like the plague because I see a risk in them that I don't want to take and don't think I have to take.

No doubt there are exceptions and dogs like Ivan who might well need punishments, but I think dogs like Ivan are very rare. At this point, I haven't yet seen a dog that needs to be punished, so until I do I will not consider P+ as an option. I know for a fact it has damaged my relationship with Penny and that realisation broke my heart. It took an animal raised without P+ for me to make that realisation, though. Otherwise I would never have known our relationship could have been better. I'm grateful everyday that I found myself raising an animal that couldn't be punished.

corvus

Why is it acceptable to correct a dog when the same action would turn a wild animal against you for life? Why should dogs be corrected just because they can be without rendering them dangerous (usually) or impossible to live with? Is it unreasonable for me to think that because a wild animal would take a correction as irrevocable evidence that I'm not to be trusted, a dog might just have a few minor reservations about their owner if corrected? I don't want a dog with reservations about me, no matter how minor. I don't even want to risk ending up with a dog with minor reservations about me. Everyone who uses corrections will no doubt stand up and wave their arms about and say "My dog has no reservations about me in the slightest and we have a wonderful relationship!" to which I say "How fortunate for you. What a relief." and continue to avoid corrections like the plague because I see a risk in them that I don't want to take and don't think I have to take.

**Stands up

**Waves arms

I am glad that you are able to raise your animals without corrections. If mine weren't so obnoxious and rude, I would also. If mine weren't so confident and hard, I would also. There are huge differences between a wild animal and a dog. Dogs have been selectively bred for a long time to live with humans as domesticated animals. They are even more domesticated than a cat.

I always ensure that I have my dog's trust before giving him any corrections. By then, I have a pretty solid understanding of his drives, his confidence, his temperament, his hardness. All of that enables me to decide if he can handle a correction, and how much of a correction he can handle. It also means that he won't hold it against me when he receives a correction, which is then followed up with a reward. Pretty much how your hare now has the trust in you that if you make a mistake, she isn't upset by it.

No doubt there are exceptions and dogs like Ivan who might well need punishments, but I think dogs like Ivan are very rare. At this point, I haven't yet seen a dog that needs to be punished, so until I do I will not consider P+ as an option. I know for a fact it has damaged my relationship with Penny and that realisation broke my heart. It took an animal raised without P+ for me to make that realisation, though. Otherwise I would never have known our relationship could have been better. I'm grateful everyday that I found myself raising an animal that couldn't be punished.

I am sorry about Penny. I have no idea who Ivan is. Again, I think it's great that you are able to not use P+. In my world, it simply doesn't work. I certainly don't believe that all dogs need P+.

AthenaBear

I think the trick was that it wasn't used to inflict pain, but rather restrict and/or redirect.

The trick was that it was followed up with a positive. The redirection after the correction makes a big difference. The dog is told "no" and then he is shown what he should do instead, rather than simply leaving him to choose what might be another unacceptable behavior.

corgipower

The trick was that it was followed up with a positive. The redirection after the correction makes a big difference. The dog is told "no" and then he is shown what he should do instead, rather than simply leaving him to choose what might be another unacceptable behavior.

Thats what I was meaning. In the example the OP used a knee in the chest when the dog was jumping. I think that type of punishment is ineffective because it is used primarily just to inflict pain. Period. No correction. Where as holding the leash so that the dog can't jump is punishing him my 1.discomfort and 2. restriction. But he is redirected to what he shoud do. So I do agree with punishment, done in a productive way.

 

 

corgipower

I am glad that you are able to raise your animals without corrections. If mine weren't so obnoxious and rude, I would also. If mine weren't so confident and hard, I would also. There are huge differences between a wild animal and a dog. Dogs have been selectively bred for a long time to live with humans as domesticated animals. They are even more domesticated than a cat.

But my point is, just because they're super domesticated, why should we assume they need something that would turn other animals against us? Are dogs not animals? Domestic cats don't think much of corrections, either. My domestic rabbit came to me wilder than my hare because she had been punished. I just am having trouble understanding the logic that says dogs are somehow different to all other animals I've ever lived or worked with and therefore sometimes need something that would convince all other animals I've ever lived or worked with that I'm not to be trusted.

 

I always ensure that I have my dog's trust before giving him any corrections. By then, I have a pretty solid understanding of his drives, his confidence, his temperament, his hardness. All of that enables me to decide if he can handle a correction, and how much of a correction he can handle. It also means that he won't hold it against me when he receives a correction, which is then followed up with a reward. Pretty much how your hare now has the trust in you that if you make a mistake, she isn't upset by it.

Well, I had Penny's trust before giving corrections, too. It just made it harder for me to see the damage that was occurring. In fact, I didn't see it until many yeas later. I'm not talking about being majorly shutdown or frightened of me. I've done a lot since then to improve our relationship and my dog thoroughly adores me and lets me do just about anything to her, much more than my hare would ever let me do to him. However, my relationship with the hare is still better. Deeper trust, better understanding, and even though there's far less affection and he's obviously less comfortable around people in general than my dog is, the affection he gives me is far more meaningful and it's more often for my benefit than his. I am not yet convinced I've ever seen my dog seek affection for my benefit rather than her own.

I don't think you could screw Penny up if you tried, no matter what training methods you used. But it still stands that I see in her very, very subtle damage from traditional training. I probably did it wrong, but it makes no difference because I was under professional tuition at the time and doing positive training wrong is, as has already been said, less damaging than doing corrections wrong. 

We've had our share of hard dogs in our family as well. It wasn't until they came along that we discovered traditional training doesn't work so hot sometimes and positive training works much better. Hell would freeze over before Pyry - the smart, confident, stubborn little trouble-maker he is - would learn that a correction was just a communication and one that he should heed. The only way to get Pyry to behave the way you want him to is make sure the choice to behave the way you want him to is in his best interests. 

Honestly, what is the point of this conversation? Bashing "average" owners who have no desire to train their dogs?

Mudpuppy, per your definition of punishment I'll give you an example. Dog mouths a person. Person shoots dog in head. Dog never, ever, ever mouths again.

Per my definition, puppy mouths me. I say a sharp "eh" and give a hard look. Puppy stops. Voila! Effective punishment. Is it "THE" best method? Depends on the pup, and how urgently they are mouthing and nipping. 

Funnily enough, Sasha seems to have the same method. Mildly obnoxious behaviors are ignored, more painful obnoxious behaviors are met with a snarl.  

Why I like teaching "eh" or "no"? Because it lends itself to all sorts of useful situations when you time it well. Yesterday in the backyard, Eko saw one of our cats and started after him. Three steps into it, "eh" was out my mouth and Eko stopped. One mild vocalization from me, that he associates with "cut it out." Much better than getting up and trying to catch a fast pup and having him experience the self-reward of chasing a cat.

Yes, I could have him on a leash at all times. Better? Then I'd be sacrificing exercise and stimulation. I could make that choice. I choose not to. No way to know which way the dog votes. 

Dog_ma

Why I like teaching "eh" or "no"? Because it lends itself to all sorts of useful situations when you time it well. Yesterday in the backyard, Eko saw one of our cats and started after him. Three steps into it, "eh" was out my mouth and Eko stopped.

 

Little Eko? That's great.

You all may have seen the picture of B'asia's "birthday party" where all 4 dogs were waiting for a release from me before eating their carob cookie. My husband was amazed when, in the shuffle of getting everyone placed for a picture, Jaia reached down and, as his mouth enveloped the cookie, I said, "Eh" and he spit it out! LOL Not so much as a tooth mark! LOL

I love this. It's a quote from someone I know. I wish I'd said it:

"Too many people, including trainers, underestimate the ability and intelligence of dogs, simply because they do not think like us. Present so called "scientific methods" seem to involve restraining the dog and avoiding distractions, when the dog simply needs to be taught what is and what is not acceptable, through balanced training."

mudpuppy

Let's say you're a typical dog owner and have no interest in teaching your dog TO DO anything, you just want him to STOP doing all those bad and irritating things.

Typical?  Typical?  Thats as far as I could read.  You do your advocacy such a disservice. 

corvus

But my point is, just because they're super domesticated, why should we assume they need something that would turn other animals against us?

 

I think we're looking at this in two fundamentally different ways. To you (correct me if I'm wrong), corrections or punishment is something to be avoided. You have a judgment that punishment (in the strict OC sense of the word - not anger or taking out frustrations on the dog) is "bad" and will hurt the relationship between dog and man.

I have no such judgment. I view punishment as information FOR the dog. It's one way I communicate to the dog what is and is not acceptable behavior. It's the way I say, "That is not what I want. This is what I want." It's clarifying for the dog what it is I'm going for in his behavior.

If I were to use ONLY reward and never use punishment, I would only be giving 1/2 the information I have available. I would be saying, in essence, "This is what I want. This is what I want. This is what I want." That doesn't tell the dog when he's doing something that I don't want.

So, the reason I use punishment is to inform the dog. It's to give this intelligent and discerning animal as much information as possible to help him succeed. Does he NEED this information? Maybe not. But why should I withhold it? This isn't some dumb animal who can't tell if he should be afraid of me or not. It's not an insecure, psychologically-messed up, lower being. This is an extremely intelligent animal capable of choice, emotion and thought. The more information I can give him, the better.

FourIsCompany

If I were to use ONLY reward and never use punishment, I would only be giving 1/2 the information I have available. I would be saying, in essence, "This is what I want. This is what I want. This is what I want." That doesn't tell the dog when he's doing something that I don't want.

 

How confusing would life be if no one ever gave you feedback on what *not* to do? Either as a person or a dog.

There are infinite things to do, actions to take. When we do not communicate to a dog what is not ok, there is no reason for them not to chew the slippers or dig up the carpet. Those are very normal, natural dog behaviors, and short of attention 24/7 you can't always give an an alternate positive command. 24/7 is tough to maintain over the course of a dog's life.

Four - that's so funny about Jaia. Sasha will spit things out too.

I don't believe any one here really never used P+, as in actions that decrease the probability of a behavior happening again in the future.

Corvus, I love hearing about your wild hair, but I don't think the experience totally applies. You can have a positive relationship with the hare because you don't expect or need the same level of behavior you do your dogs. Even my cats don't respond to P+ the same way dogs do. (And for the record, the only punishment my cats get is tsssst noise when they do something like jump on the kitchen counter or try and steal the food from my fork. This is rare).

Okay, how does one go about snake-proofing a dog without using punishment.  I've been looking for some guidance on how to do this.  None of my dogs are snake-proofed.  (Although, many basenji people have told me that basenjis will instinctually avoid snakes, much like they avoid water.)

I've contemplated putting this opinion out there. I don't want to be torn apart for it. But isn't natural for a dog to have a pack like mentality? And look for guidance from the leader? Would a leader not correct a puppies actions? I am the leader of my "pack" and its my job to show the puppy what is acceptable and what is expected. Not in a harsh way. But in a gentle and constructive way. Such as a tug on the leash to say "hey. pay attention. You should being doing this instead." (At some point in the puppies life the leash is removed. I don't keep leashes on my dog's all day for the rest of their lives. Just until they get the I am leader, listen to me thing. It makes it easier to get the pup's attention when I need it. I don't know about anyone else's pups but when they are young it can be very difficult to get and keep their attention very long). And like I said it has worked very well with my pit. As for trust, I have no doubt that he has nothing but utter trust in me. Because I am his leader he knows I am looking out for him. I think sometimes it is easy to forget that dogs are just animals. Yes, animals that we have domesticated and bred to get along with humans, but they are still dogs. In fact, so are humans. And do we not teach our children in a similiare manner? Not that I am leashing my kid and tugging his collar when he is doing something wrong. But we use punishments, rewards, and redirection. Children look to their parents for guidance on what to do and how to behave, just like a dog looks to their leader. And just like parenting your child, we all have different opinions on how to do it. If you have a method of training that works for you, then stick with that. In my experience my method has worked quite well. And no one can say that because I corrected my puppy he doesn't trust me, he does. Anyone can see that. He was not met with only punishments and corrections...but rewards and affection. He knows "mama" loves him, but he knows he better listen to "mama."