What are we "correcting"?

This way of thinking was so liberating for me.  It has made training so much more enjoyable for me and my dogs.  I wish when I was training retrievers I had more of this mindset. But then again this type of thinking is the main reason I quit serious retriever training.  It just wasn't fun for me or the dogs.

It must be beyond confusing, frustrating and down right agonizing for dogs to figure out just what in the world we want.  They are fantastic in their ability to get along in our world of weird rules.

spiritdogs

I find the term "correction" to be a bit misleading

You mean like this?:

spiritdogs

it would be much easier to educate, rather than castigate

(emphasis added)

Then i agree that the word is misleading, maybe the term "redirection" would be better? I dont know if i'm castigating my dog when i use a verbal correction. Or should i say now verbal redirection?

Every time i redirect my dog i'm educating him, right? Every time i correct my dog am i educating him? probably some people would say no. The method its exactly the same, so depending on the word that i use for it its what would make me a good owner or a bad owner?

Our dogs are our best friends, dont let a dictionary make you think that someone here would be hurting something that we love with all our heart

It seems to me that anything that isn't a tangible positive reward somehow = a correction.  I don't really know, or care, if that's true or not, since I'm not inherently against correcting.

Most of the time I use a corrected to attempt to get a dog's attention and redirect.  Like a firm "hey uh uh!" if the dog locks eyes on a cat and if he still locks his gaze, I will step in front of him and move him away with my body so I can toss a ball and direct his attention elsewhere.  Sometimes I literally tap my dogs on the top of their head, lol!

Every once in a while I need a harsh physical correction, but this is a safety issue rather than training.  Like for example I dropped a pill on the ground and Nikon ran to eat it (silly puppy will eat anything that is dropped).   "Hey!" ignored, I grab the puppy by his sruff and hold him away so I can get the pill.  Or, I have Coke outside and I see this stray dog that's been going by.  He is not a small dog and I don't know if he's friendly, so erring on the side of caution I grab Coke's collar and march him inside.  Normally, I will call him, he will trot over to me and walk in the door, but sorry if there is a possible fight or attack because a strange dog is coming into my yard, I have no problem grabbing my dog and quickly pulling him to safety.

I think you are missing my point, espencer, possibly because your focus on this board is seems to be more focused on making me wrong than on really understanding what I'm saying.  Castigate is the act of punishing to correct, or of criticizing or reprimanding.  I think if you put yourself in a dog's place, you might understand that they are operating under doggy rules of social order and behavior.  Would you "correct" another human by yanking on him if he didn't understand that you wanted to shake hands instead of hug?  All I'm saying is that dogs have a socially acceptable set of behaviors amongst themselves, and then we come along (with all our human arrogance) and insist that they are wrong about those rules.  After all, they sniff faces to greet, which, using common sense, would require them to jump up in order to reach a being as tall as a human.  But, many humans assume the dog to be wrong or bad, instead of just assuming that he is only trying to be polite in the ways that dogs are polite.  So, my point is that if we want dogs to greet us the way we would like, and they are just trying to be polite, maybe we should be just as polite and tell them how we want them to behave without doing some of the physical, rude things that humans have often done to them to make that point.  That, in my book, is redirection, and education.  Ignoring the jumping and instead teaching the dog to sit is very easy and requires no "verbal redirection" if by that a human would hiss, or raise his voice, or even yell at the dog.  (Not saying you do that, but obviously a lot of people do.)  The result of not granting that the dog comes hard wired with his own set of social criteria is that you accord him no respect, and you confuse the heck out of him. JMHO FWIW

Liesje

It seems to me that anything that isn't a tangible positive reward somehow = a correction.  I don't really know, or care, if that's true or not, since I'm not inherently against correcting.

Most of the time I use a corrected to attempt to get a dog's attention and redirect.  Like a firm "hey uh uh!" if the dog locks eyes on a cat and if he still locks his gaze, I will step in front of him and move him away with my body so I can toss a ball and direct his attention elsewhere.  Sometimes I literally tap my dogs on the top of their head, lol!

Every once in a while I need a harsh physical correction, but this is a safety issue rather than training.  Like for example I dropped a pill on the ground and Nikon ran to eat it (silly puppy will eat anything that is dropped).   "Hey!" ignored, I grab the puppy by his sruff and hold him away so I can get the pill.  Or, I have Coke outside and I see this stray dog that's been going by.  He is not a small dog and I don't know if he's friendly, so erring on the side of caution I grab Coke's collar and march him inside.  Normally, I will call him, he will trot over to me and walk in the door, but sorry if there is a possible fight or attack because a strange dog is coming into my yard, I have no problem grabbing my dog and quickly pulling him to safety.

I'm not referring to life threatening circumstances when you might react strongly to save your dog.  However, as long as you mention it, it's really a human failing not to have puppy proofed your house, if that was your pill the pup went after.    I also don't have any trouble with making enough of a sound to get a dog's attention if he hasn't heard me.  What I was really getting at is the fact that we assume that dogs' natural behaviors are somehow "wrong", when it is only in the context of their relationships with humans that their own normal canine behavior is unacceptable.  Maybe I didn't explain that very well.  I'm only talking about how we "correct" what seems, and really is, normal to dogs.

spiritdogs

What I was really getting at is the fact that we assume that dogs' natural behaviors are somehow "wrong", when it is only in the context of their relationships with humans that their own normal canine behavior is unacceptable.

Like poop eating? It may be normal to dogs, but, people want to correct it for the dogs own safety (worms). So, I guess a correction could be a "eh eh" because it's stopping the dogs "normal behavior". IDK, am I getting this right? Is this what you mean? Or do you mean someone correcting a dog for pulling on a leash? Or jumping up on people?

 I think that since we're the humans and we provide the food dogs are just going to be living more by our rules than we will by theirs, and that what we're "correcting" is undesirable manifestations of broadly desirable behaviours.  That is, I don't want my dog to raid the rubbish bin or counter surf, but I do want him to retain the instinct to seek out food for himself - what if he got loose and was running wild for days on end?  Thus I think the responsibility is on us only to correct in context and to turn to our advantage the fact that most dogs don't generalise well.   After thousands of years of co-habitation and dependence between dogs and humans I'm not sure it's even possible to say anymore what is a natural dog behaviour and what we have caused by that coexistence, the only real thing that matters now, IMHO, is that we carry out our day-to-day interactions with our pets in as peaceful a way as possible.

I absolutely concede that many, if not all, dogs might be baffled by some of the things we choose to correct or redirect from, not because of the manner in which we perform those corrections/redirections but that we do it at all.  In what weird, wild animal world would a creature be corrected for eating, which is at the base of survival?  And yet I have corrected, strongly, for Ben helping himself to food on my counter.   The thing is, I'm not sure that's an issue limited to interspecies communication - I am often confused by the things I do that my DH chooses to object to, and similarly I have seen interactions between dogs in which one dog is quite obviously confused about being corrected by another dog for something harmless, like walking too close to a ball. 

I think dogs can make allowances for being corrected for odd things as much as we humans can - a dog version of a "*shrug* well, OK, if it means that much to you....", and that problems arise only when those corrections outweigh opportunities given to the dog to do the right thing. 

I took the point to be (for example)  that to a dog if you leave food unattended, then it is now up for grabs.  Perfectly natural dog behavior but we want to teach our dogs that food is ours unless we offer it to the dog.  It's about being fair and teaching the dog the rules of the house.  Some people don't allow dogs in certain rooms.  I think it's unfair to correct the dog for entering that room if you haven't taught him the boundary.  It's all just one big indoor space to a dog, he has no concept of why he shouldn't enter certain rooms.  To me the point is you shouldn't be correcting unless and until you have first taught.  Emergencies are an exception.

spiritdogs

I'm not referring to life threatening circumstances when you might react strongly to save your dog.  However, as long as you mention it, it's really a human failing not to have puppy proofed your house, if that was your pill the pup went after.    I also don't have any trouble with making enough of a sound to get a dog's attention if he hasn't heard me.  What I was really getting at is the fact that we assume that dogs' natural behaviors are somehow "wrong", when it is only in the context of their relationships with humans that their own normal canine behavior is unacceptable.  Maybe I didn't explain that very well.  I'm only talking about how we "correct" what seems, and really is, normal to dogs.

Management only works so far though, there's always things that happen that you can't foresee.  Take the pill example.  I don't leave pills lying around duh.  I have a nagging wrist injury that's developed into arthritis, and oddly opening a pill bottle is the hardest task for me to do.  So the bottle shakes, a pill flies out on the floor in front of the puppy so I grab for him before he can eat it.  Am I correcting the dog for being a dog?  Sure!  But humans chose to have dogs living in human environments, and I guess sometimes that choice means correcting a dog for...being a dog.

I think I tend to be more hands off as far as my dogs just being dogs.  Our household is not super structured.  I really don't care what they are doing as long as they are not actually fighting, or doing something that's dangerous to them or me or my cats.  When I got Nikon several people told me I had to constantly crate him for this or that, only let him play with other dogs for a few minutes at a time, bla bla bla.  I didn't really abide by much of that and so far haven't seen any consequences.  Letting him contstantly interact with my other dogs has not affected our relationship, but I'm not one to think that a human can fill the void of being social with another dog.  I also let my dogs correct each other and set boundaries, to an extent.  I don't need them to sit or do this or that for every treat, meal, or going out the door.  Yet they listen to me, I can take any object from them, I can command them to sit or down or get in the kennel with no problem.

When it comes to safety though, I don't have a problem doling out what the dog would perceive as a "correction".  There are some things I can't expect my dogs to ever understand and it's my role to control and protect them.

Benedict

I think dogs can make allowances for being corrected for odd things as much as we humans can - a dog version of a "*shrug* well, OK, if it means that much to you....", and that problems arise only when those corrections outweigh opportunities given to the dog to do the right thing. 

Totally. 

I feel the most sorry for my dogs with regard to the cats.  Especially Nikon, since he is a breed of dog selectively bred FOR prey drive and it is used in training and developing the dog.  If one of the cats flips out and is running around wildly, I can hardly blame the dogs for salivating and wanting to chase.  Luckily though, I am told that dogs don't generalize, so he seems to be understanding that the CAT is not OK for chasing and biting but the balls, tugs, rags, and flirt pole are perfectly acceptable.

If he is repeatedly fixating on the cat, instead of being corrected and left at that, I will take out another toy that he is encouraged to chase and bite.  I think the "correction" is truly a learning experience when it is immediately followed by some situation where the dog can succeed and be rewarded.

 i think the problem is more that in dog training the word "correction" has gotten all these negative connotations. to me correction is PART of education my dog. the issue is more what my corrections look like.

a correction can be yelling at or hitting the dog. (obviously not the way to go) but it can also just mean a redirection. a correction can be a word "leave it" or a tug on the leash. and yes, i use a tug on the leash. i dont yang the leash, just a slight tab with one finger and my dogs know it has the same meaning as leave it... no big deal..

 I just don't really like the whole idea behind correction, assuming that it is what I think it is, which is a major hangup about dogs doing anything you don't want them to do and therefore need to be told that it is unacceptable every time, but if you use the word "correction" it sounds fair.

I use punishments. I have a high regard for teaching my dogs that when I use this tone or say this word it means I'm unhappy with you. I call them punishments or conditional punishments if that's why they work. I can't say I know of any "correction" for a dog that isn't aversive in some way, so why not just call it what it is? At least that way I am careful about the way I use them because I don't feel automatically justified. I think correction is a silly word to use for animals because it's not like we can sit them down and show them what they should have done instead and explain to them why they were wrong. We can reward or punish, so why not just say what you are doing. So many dog people I see they use the word "correction" like they are the ones doing the right thing when most of the time the dog is doing the wrong thing in the first place because they didn't do the right thing, so they turn it from being their problem into being the dog's problem, which I don't think is fair considering dogs don't know any better and we have the benefits of foresight and hindsight. 

 i think the problem is more that in dog training the word "correction" has gotten all these negative connotations. to me correction is PART of education my dog. the issue is more what my corrections look like.

a correction can be yelling at or hitting the dog. (obviously not the way to go) but it can also just mean a redirection. a correction can be a word "leave it" or a tug on the leash. and yes, i use a tug on the leash. i dont yang the leash, just a slight tab with one finger and my dogs know it has the same meaning as leave it... no big deal..

I disagree. I think the use of ANY kind of correction, a No or a leave it or an Eh eh or a gentle tug on a leash are signs of a less than effective training technique being used. It seems to be a human failing that people can't automatically be positive towards dogs, or kids, or even each other, without extensive education and practice and changing their viewpoint. People go around waiting for their dog to misbehave and then they feel they have to correct, instead of the much more effective method of teaching their dog how to behave instead. It's about thinking proactively instead of reactively. Train a few simple behaviors and you can instruct your dog in how to behave in practically any situation and wow, now you don't have to wait for misbehavior that you will have to correct. Dogs develop habitual patterns of behavior easily, and pretty soon you'll have a dog that spots particular events/situations and immediately goes into the pattern of behavior you used to have to carefully instruct/guide the dog to do. This is called "manners".

mudpuppy

It seems to be a human failing that people can't automatically be positive towards dogs, or kids, or even each other, without extensive education and practice and changing their viewpoint. People go around waiting for their dog to misbehave and then they feel they have to correct, instead of the much more effective method of teaching their dog how to behave instead. It's about thinking proactively instead of reactively.

I'm in total agreement with this, but, honestly, this wasn't intended as a discussion of whether it was right to use correction or punishment or not, it was about the arrogance of humans thinking that dogs are "wrong" because we don't agree with their innate culture and behavior that comes naturally to them.  Just as an example, would you think that a lion is "wrong" for killing a gazelle?  Is a shark "wrong" for swimming ten feet off the beach just because you want to surf there?  The idea is that we are asking another species to forego their normal behavior, and adopt our idea of what their behavior should be.  So, in my view, we owe them at least the respect of realizing that they aren't doing stuff just to piss us off - they're simply being dogs, and while we want to change some of the behavior, if we did it by acknowledging that they are "right" in their own culture, but we would like them to adopt what's polite in ours, we would think of it more as if we were asking another human to kiss cheeks (as in Russia) instead of shaking hands (as in America).  Once you respect another species as the wonderful species it is, it's that much easier to communicate instead of dictate as if we were the only species on the planet.  I find humans to be so arrogant, and I'm shocked that there aren't little cliques of fishes, birds, and mammals, complaining about us to the Creator to make us more humble in our interconnectedness with them;-)