The war between "positive" and "correctional"

Dog_ma

I care for tolerance. Short of extreme and harmful stuff, I have no problem with person A being way over there, person B being way on the other end, and person C being out to lunch. I

That is an excellent post. I wish I had written that. But the only thing I could think of was slightly OT based on your imagery. And thanks for the milk.

 I think I am simple, but there are times when I might appear complex. I'm a peace-loving hippie that never backs down from a confrontation, though I've talked myself out of a few.

Though there is talk of extremes, I read the posts of people here and much of what they do doesn't sound all that punishing and actually incorporates more of the aspects of the "positive" training camp though some hate it when I point that out, because of the label associated with positive trainers. Even the variations in how people define corrections lead to a debate and most people here have not scruffed and pinned, where as I have, with the eye-lock and the low, growly voice. Most here have used what might be comparatively called love taps or physical cues but they still see it as a correction, especially if they mean re-direction.

What we can all take advantage of is a greater understanding rather than just relying on equipment. And no one I know here relies on just equipment. We constantly debate back and forth what our understanding is. For example, I'm not as against prongs as I was before coming to this forum. I can see with the proper training and usage it could be a valuable tool because it's acting more as a cue than an actual physical punishment, IMO.

You brought milk, I will bring the sugar free Godiva chocolate.

 The war wages here in my area between training facilities.  Call them on the phone and mention another school you may have attended or contacted and you'll get a long diatribe about how WRONG their methods are.  I've found myself torn between which direction to go with Woobie and questioning my own instincts.  I WANT to use 100% positive reinforcement with him and I'm giving it a go right now with a new training location.  HOWEVER, I've finally started to accept that not all methods work for all dogs.  Woobie actually does straighten up, pay attention and respond (slightly) better with some corrections.  Indie, OTOH, just doesn't need them.  Well, for the from behind tackle move, he got a pretty harsh response from me, but then never did it again.  He wants to be connected and communicating.  Give him that and he'll walk thru fire for you.  Woobie's too busy being concerned about his environment to focus on me.  I'm working on only positive methods for the next 6 months at least, but at the end, I'm going to reassess and pick and choose what and when certain things work and continue on with those.  If our final set of tools includes a prong collar and some corrections, I'm not going to worry about being politically incorrect. 

 No sugar free for me, thank you - it has a particular effect on me - which I only found out one day after eating half a bag of sugar free dark chocolate Dove candies.  Don't do that.  Ever.  You can thank me later - hopefully after never personally discovering why.  But, it's a nice thought and well deserving of another serving of milk.

Here's why I "never say never":

The best of dog trainers are those that meet in the middle - not on either extreme, but have a balanced approach to dog training.

Honestly, there's a need for extremes too - as long as they don't jeopardize the safety of anyone (canine, human, or other), on either side of the spectrum.  The extremes is where the pioneers live - they mash it out for the rest of us.  It takes commitment to work with a philosophy to its natural conclusion and live with the consequences no matter what.

tessa_s212

 Every forum is different. On some forums the word correction is so much of a taboo, you might as well be burned at the steak. This seems to be the general feeling here.

tessa_s212

spiritdogs

What was the point of this thread anyway - to start another one????   (*stops to reload*)

 

 

 The only point to this thread was to point out to others the extremist mindset people have become a victim of. It is not is certainly not kind or fair that I and many others are treated poorly because we do not follow the purely positive bandwagon.  I have no plans for war because I do not see myself posting too heavily on this forum in the future.

However, I still cannot help but to laugh that on many of the forums I may participate in I am attacked and thought little of because I am the positive and motivational dog trainer that uses treats, clickers, and more humane and gentle training and rehabilitation methods. And here I am viewed as the exact opposite. It's just slightly amusing is all.
 

There are no victims, only volunteers.

If you read carefully this forum is hardly and all positive training place.  Three are people who use a variety of methods, and many of these people are outspoken about their respective methods.

Personally, I use what works for my dogs--I like being flexible. 

 The problem, as I see it, is that there isn't always a middle ground.  You might be "balanced" but does that then mean that someone who believes they should NOT physically correct their dog  is *un*balanced?  There isn't always a middle ground that will offend no one, and even if there was, why would you adopt it if you didn't agree with it just to keep peace?  I do not believe in intimidating or causing pain to dogs.  But, it might be better to tell you what I do believe in, since some of you still think this is all about permissiveness and cookies, which it is not.  I believe that any dog can be taught to exhibit the behaviors you want him to, provided he is capable of them, by means of lure/reward, clicker training, motivational training, or a combination thereof, and not necessarily using only food as a reinforcer, although I certainly use a lot of it for some dogs.  The key to training with food is that you use it as a reinforcer, not a bribe.  And, that you understand that the dog who is not motivated by food may well be motivated in other ways, but that doesn't mean that a non-food motivated dog must necessarily, or at all, be trained by force.  You can call a leash correction a yank, a pop, a suggestion, or an "I told him who was boss", but the one thing you cannot call it is positive reinforcement.  It's punishment.  That's the scientific definition, not the personal one.  And, all punishment has the effect of diminishing behavior, if not permanently.  If you are not punishing your dog hard enough to stop a behavior permanently, then why is it not better to install an incompatible behavior that you like better???  Otherwise, you are simply accomplishing the same thing a horse does when swats flies with his tail.  Unless he kills one on the first swat, they always come back.  If he could train them to like cows better, problem solved.  The word "balance" really irks me sometimes, because it's just a euphemism for those who want to keep punishment in their arsenal, but aren't willing to say that they punish their dogs.  Punish doesn't imply cruel, it just implies that you use either +P or -P, and it's more helpful to just say that, say which, or say how.

DPU

Oh, so confusing, best to tend to the dogs basic needs, move on to the higher level needs of social learning, building a relationship and trust and then the need for training using either way diminishes

This statement describes how I feel precisely

Tena

The best of dog trainers are those that meet in the middle - not on either extreme, but have a balanced approach to dog training.  

I don't think the methods one uses or the tools one uses or even one's philosophy has much to do with how good of a dog trainer you are. The best dog trainers have really good timing and are consistent and truly understand the concept of "proofing".

That said in our area there are none of these mythical "balanced" trainers. We have Petsmart, which I'll ignore, and two "extremist" training centers- one does mostly +R with a dash of -P and loves clickers, and one uses mostly -R with a dash of +R and loves ecollars. Neither place tolerates any kind of +P. The ecollar place cranks out well-behaved dogs. The clicker place cranks out well-behaved dogs and also has produced an impressive number of dogs who win at the highest levels in all sorts of doggy sports. For your average dog owner who just wants a well-behaved dog the ecollar place seems to be slightly more successful than the clicker place. However, sometimes the ecollar dogs end up at the clicker place with owners who want more out their dog and then the problems begin- these dogs are inhibited in their learning ability/desires/drives. This shows up more when the owners try to do agility with the trained-with-ecollar dogs than when they try to do flyball or obedience.

The word "balance" really irks me sometimes, because it's just a euphemism for those who want to keep punishment in their arsenal, but aren't willing to say that they punish their dogs.  Punish doesn't imply cruel, it just implies that you use either +P or -P, and it's more helpful to just say that, say which, or say how.

Not for me its not.  I have admitted openly I have used punisher and very successfully with River and still do from time to time.  My dog Brooke never receives any punishers, its not necessary nor do we use punishers with Hailie my pug and never have.

You are correct though, I beleive that balance in training means you would consider a punisher if need be; or if you were more traditional you would consider positive if need be -- hench my statement 

Balanced training acknowledges that no one method will work best on any dog or in any situation. It allows the flexibility of using both positive and negative reinforcements and balancing the two factors in a way which will emphasize helping the dog learn and retain the required lessons.

Maybe I am mistaken but I thought you have agreed with this at some level.  Although you are a positive trainer and avoid punishers as much as posible it is not at "all costs".  I remember you describing instances when you have agreed that for some dogs you have to change it up and use punishers as well.   I totally understand your "stance" which is it should be avoided and the last tools used. 

IMO -- Sometimes, depending on the dog, a blend of methods work best.

mudpuppy

However, sometimes the ecollar dogs end up at the clicker place with owners who want more out their dog and then the problems begin- these dogs are inhibited in their learning ability/desires/drives. This shows up more when the owners try to do agility with the trained-with-ecollar dogs than when they try to do flyball or obedience.

This has been my personal experience.  I don't know what training Indie received in the past, but he is more free and willing to try lots of different things when we're training.  Woobie is a "show me what you want me to do, otherwise I'm going to sit here" dog and I attribute that to the incorrect use of a prong collar for corrections we did at a training location with a very punishment based trainer.  It's taking ALOT of praise and encouragement to get him to try new things. 

mudpuppy

The best of dog trainers are those that meet in the middle - not on either extreme, but have a balanced approach to dog training.  

I don't think the methods one uses or the tools one uses or even one's philosophy has much to do with how good of a dog trainer you are. The best dog trainers have really good timing and are consistent and truly understand the concept of "proofing".

That said in our area there are none of these mythical "balanced" trainers. We have Petsmart, which I'll ignore, and two "extremist" training centers- one does mostly +R with a dash of -P and loves clickers, and one uses mostly -R with a dash of +R and loves ecollars. Neither place tolerates any kind of +P. The ecollar place cranks out well-behaved dogs. The clicker place cranks out well-behaved dogs and also has produced an impressive number of dogs who win at the highest levels in all sorts of doggy sports. For your average dog owner who just wants a well-behaved dog the ecollar place seems to be slightly more successful than the clicker place. However, sometimes the ecollar dogs end up at the clicker place with owners who want more out their dog and then the problems begin- these dogs are inhibited in their learning ability/desires/drives. This shows up more when the owners try to do agility with the trained-with-ecollar dogs than when they try to do flyball or obedience.

Good post Mud.  I do agree with you here if the trainer is not "good at what they do" no diversity with tools even food will matter.

However, sometimes the ecollar dogs end up at the clicker place with owners who want more out their dog and then the problems begin- these dogs are inhibited in their learning ability/desires/drives.

I wonder whether this has to do more with the tool rather than the method (ie, a "negative" focused approach - removal of stimulus creates reinforcement).  I wonder this because my own method is more along those lines ("Assume you are okay if I'm not talking to you";) and people who adopt/purchase my dogs all notice that the dogs enjoy training and are eager to try new things.  When I was doing the home visit for Coltrane, the guy who did end up adopting him had some fun teaching him to "crawl" and "go to bed/stay" (on a platform bed) - just in the course of the hour-long visit.

I do use some clicker training - most of my dogs are introduced to it at some point - but I don't train manners or the basics with it.  

All my sport dogs have been "crossover" dogs and I've never had a problem introducing a new concept  Often my dogs are less inhibited than other dogs in a class because they have no problem working away from me, and are used to just GOING unless I say "Stop." 

I've only briefly scanned this thread so my response is more to the topic in general.  I don't see it so much as a "war" between the two because I personally do not find them mutually exclusive.  I'm sure there are some that do, but in any situation there's going to be people on the extreme poles.  I think most people and even most people here fall somewhere in the middle.  I use clickers, yes-marker, no reward marker, treats, praise, toys, body blocking, prong collars, verbal corrections, squirt bottle...what method and tool I choose totally depends on what I am asking of the dog and which method and tool will most effectively communicate that to the dog.

Typically I try to be as "positive" as possible when training a new behavior.  I shape and lure, mark and reward.  I don't see the point in introducing a correction because I think the dog first needs to understand what is expected.  Once the behavior is learned and we are now proofing, that's where corrections come into play.  Most of my corrections are verbal.  When I'm working on something that's not exactly a command, I might use an aversive noise or feeling (like a squirt bottle for the dog sticking his head through the cat door, or a slap sound if I catch him with paws on the counter). 

If I do use corrections I will end with some form of R+.  For example if I catch the dog with paws on the counter and say "NO!" and the dog jumps off, I'll ask for something simple like a sit and then give an ear scratch.  I try to see each correction as an opportunity to show the dog what is right. 

corgipower

tessa_s212

 Every forum is different. On some forums the word correction is so much of a taboo, you might as well be burned at the steak. This seems to be the general feeling here.

Funny thing is, I use corrections. I use prong collars. I have mentioned that many times here and I have never felt that I was being "burned at the stake" for it. I have had questions about it, but I have never felt at war with anyone over it.

I don't think the OP was "burned at the stake either".  Rather an extreme over reaction if you ask me.... they were criticised, by more than one person, not because the equipment is somehow evil, but because those responding did not feel the prong and/or method was APPROPRIATE in that instance.  The OP defended what she had done and explained herself and (I think, could be wrong) folks still said, nope, sorry, I dstill don't think that was "right".  (example, "not what I would have done", or "very risky, THIS way would have meant less risk" etc. etc) 

I do see a few rude posters.... on BOTH sides of the spectrum.  What I also see is fair criticism not being handled well... again, on both sides of the spectrum.  JMO. Over and out...

spiritdogs

  I do not believe in intimidating or causing pain to dogs.

I do not believe in intimidating dogs either. Never do I want a dog to fear me.  But discomfort and pain is apart of life, and I have no reservations against using self corrections and tools such as the prong collar when they are necessary. Until then, I will train motivationally. And if I must resort to other areas of the learning theory, it will still be done in an upbeat, non-threatening manner. My training methods never include anger nor work to make any dog fear me.

But, it might be better to tell you what I do believe in, since some of you still think this is all about permissiveness and cookies, which it is not.  I believe that any dog can be taught to exhibit the behaviors you want him to, provided he is capable of them, by means of lure/reward, clicker training, motivational training, or a combination thereof, and not necessarily using only food as a reinforcer, although I certainly use a lot of it for some dogs.  The key to training with food is that you use it as a reinforcer, not a bribe.

If this was directed to me, I assure you I already know of the methods of positive reinforcement based training. It is the method I use and am partial to.

  And, that you understand that the dog who is not motivated by food may well be motivated in other ways, but that doesn't mean that a non-food motivated dog must necessarily, or at all, be trained by force.

Of course not, there is this thing called a relationship and praise. As well as toys, and "real life reinforcers".

You can call a leash correction a yank, a pop, a suggestion, or an "I told him who was boss", but the one thing you cannot call it is positive reinforcement.  It's punishment.  That's the scientific definition, not the personal one. 

Whoever said it was positive reinforcement? Surely wasn't me. A correction is punishment. There's no doubt about it.

The word "balance" really irks me sometimes, because it's just a euphemism for those who want to keep punishment in their arsenal, but aren't willing to say that they punish their dogs.  Punish doesn't imply cruel, it just implies that you use either +P or -P

Again, I don't know who's refusing to state they punish their dogs. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If need be, I will use any and all spectrum of the learning theory. Because not only does positive reinforcement exist, but so does negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment.