Why is it...

I find that the ones who are really defensive about it don't really know what they are doing anyway.  There are a lot of skills/commands that a Schutzhund dog can learn using negative reinforcement and those types of corrections, but the people who train that way just train it and have the skills to prove it, they don't go around debating it all over the net and in front of everyone.  Nikon's been taught some things with positive freeshaping, some things with lure/mark/reward, somethings with classical conditioning, and some things with negative reinforcement. I train some things with a flat collar, some with a prong collar, some with no collar at all.  Some with food, some with a toy, some with physical and verbal praise and motivation.  All depends on the dog, the tool, the skill being taught.  Schutzhund people get a ton of crap because we are supposedly training aggressive attack dogs based solely on physical coersion and whatever, so the ones that know what they are doing just wave these assumptions aside and invite you to come out to the club and watch for yourself. 

The ones that use corrections and know what they are doing and how to "read" dogs don't even bother responding to generalizations and baseless attacks.  The ones that get all defensive and insist their corrective methods are right all the time are the ones that really ARE abusive and out of line.  I know dogs personally that have been trained in ways that I consider inappropriate and abusive.  Luckily these dogs are sound enough to not really give a rip and are unaffected other than this type of training skipping over foundation and causing problems with precision and control later on.  These dogs title really fast and compete pretty clean but yes, it does effect their trust and relationships later on.  Just last week our TD was helping work a dog trained in these methods and he was reaching down to pet her or something and she kept flinching, so she is handshy.

As far as sweeping generalizations are concerned, I'd rather be out training my dog than being asked to justify my "methods" to someone who has already made up their mind anyway, and that goes for positive, and negative, and anything in between!  If anyone would like to *see* how I train my dogs all they have to do is ask for a clip or come out to the club and watch, we invite visitors free of charge.

For the same reason you can't tell an emotionally based trainer or owner they are ruining their dogs by the way the are acting around them or interacting with them, and then making up excuses (blaming others) for why their dogs are neurotic messes.

Unfortunately, most of this is about human motivation and emotional need (especially with over-nurturing women), not logic and science.

The blame game is available for anyone who chooses to use it.

And, so is honesty.

I know quite a few "correction based trainers" who would gladly listen to opinions on training without being defensive or judgemental on other training methods.  You sound like you have had some particularly unpleasant encounters with trainers.  I tend to try and find out about a trainer before I consider taking a class.  Recently I was ready to sign Belle up for a class but after talking to several friends who are familiar with his methods and philosophy, I changed my mind.  I don't have any interest in trying to change anyone's mind if they are firmly entrenched in a "one way" method of training.  It's a waste of time.

edit to add that I want to enjoy a class and get some benefit for my dog, not debate with the instructor.

Angelique

For the same reason you can't tell an emotionally based trainer or owner they are ruining their dogs by the way the are acting around them or interacting with them, and then making up excuses (blaming others) for why their dogs are neurotic messes.

Unfortunately, most of this is about human motivation and emotional need (especially with over-nurturing women), not logic and science.

The blame game is available for anyone who chooses to use it.

And, so is honesty.

 

A BIG +1 to that one. Sometimes is not the method that is used, it's just the owner

Angelique

For the same reason you can't tell an emotionally based trainer or owner they are ruining their dogs by the way the are acting around them or interacting with them, and then making up excuses (blaming others) for why their dogs are neurotic messes.

 

Actually, the OP was talking about how something effected the relationship with her dog, not telling other people how the relationship with *their* dog is.  Big difference there.

espencer

A BIG +1 to that one. Sometimes is not the method that is used, it's just the owner

That's exactly what I'm griping about, though. I don't care about the method. I'm not interested in converting people or ferociously attacking a method, nor ferociously defending one. I just don't want other people to mess up the way I did. I share troubles I've seen or had with clicker training and socialisation and lure and reward as well. But when I share my troubles with corrections I get treated like an infidel and people feel a need to take it very personally.

 

I think it all goes both ways.  If I shared my success with corrections I'm sure I'd get people who have never trained my breed and/or my sport telling me that I'm ruining my dog.  Again, I would just shrug and invite them to come watch us train and observe my relationship with my dog.

I bet that if your posts pointed specifically to your own troubles and observations with your own dog and your own practices, you wouldn't get so much argument about methodology.

But, when you stray from the personal, you open your comments up to scrutiny by addressing methodology, like in this comment, which is not at all addressing your own specific personal relationship, rather is addressing general methodology:

corvus

but the moment I open my mouth with a general warning about corrections

And here, you bring up a fascinating topic for speculation and discussion; of course people would want to engage with a multitude of opinions!

corvus

And god forbid I should insult all of dogdom by comparing the way dogs learn with the way every other animal on the planet with a brain learns.

And here, you can't really hide an critique on general methodology

corvus

punishing an animal you are trying to build trust with doesn't make a great deal of sense.

by adding a disqualifying clause, like

corvus

I don't care how people want to train their dogs and what they want to build their relationships

I believe that when you are criticizing a methodology, it is to be expected that others will argue their opposing opinions. Isn't that fair?! If you are interested in offering personal experience, without methodological argument, however, taking care to avoid general statements should be adequate.

I hope that helps!
 

Liesje

I think it all goes both ways.  If I shared my success with corrections I'm sure I'd get people who have never trained my breed and/or my sport telling me that I'm ruining my dog.  Again, I would just shrug and invite them to come watch us train and observe my relationship with my dog.

The trouble with that line of thinking, even though I'm sure you have a great relationship with your dogs, is that some people invite the same scrutiny, but cannot see the same things that a person trained in dog behavior sees when they look at the same dog.  Very strict obedience can come from dogs that are confident or fearful, or even aggressive, and from dogs trained by various methods.  But, I find that some trainers equate obedience with their dogs liking the training.  Then, they tell you that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  What I can never understand is if you can come to the same level of obedience by using non-confrontational methods, why would you not try???

spiritdogs

What I can never understand is if you can come to the same level of obedience by using non-confrontational methods, why would you not try???

Because everybody has their own definition of "non-confrontational methods". What can be "confrontational" for you might be actually "non-confrontational" for me. And even if they were the same, what happened with the old "no dog is the same and therefore you cant use the same methods for every single dog"? 

spiritdogs

What I can never understand is if you can come to the same level of obedience by using non-confrontational methods, why would you not try???

Lots of reasons - speed, the dog doesn't really care either way, the communication is clearer one way or the other, the level of drive is not acceptable/sufficient.....

I will use myself as an example.  I taught Nikon the down out of motion using -R (the down out of motion is basically you are running with the dog in heel, say "platz", the dog flatens to his stomach and stays there until told otherwise).  It took him about 2 minutes to learn the brand new skill.  After three sessions of about 2 minutes, the -R was already phased out.  The dog performs the skill with absolute precision and a high level of drive.  He performs it off lead or on lead and will do it without any correction to get him to do it or any reward to keep him doing it.  Could I have taught it with a treat and a clicker?  Yeah but it would have taken for-e-ver to get the same result with the speed, precision, and drive required.  But Nikon's also the only dog in the club right now that was trained that skill with that method.  Some are trained much more slowly, some were trained more harshly (by other people not part of our club).  A dog bred and trained in drive doesn't want a cheerio sized treat he wants to chase and bite things. 

Also, I very very rarely use one "method" alone.  Take the down out of motion again.  The dog is brought out and presented with his absolute favorite thing - the ball.  The dog would rather have the ball in his mouth than breathe.  He was bred and imprinted to be a prey monster so we train and reward with something he understands.  When learning the new down, as soon as it was performed (soon as the belly dropped) he got the marker ("yes!";), the release ("ok!";) and the reward (the ball tossed).  I don't have a problem using R- for certain things but personally prefer to always follow up with R+ in the same sequence.  The R- was faded first, so as soon as the dog understood the command (about 6 tries and 2 minutes total), he was doing it and still getting the reward.  After just a few short sessions, neither the R- nor the reward are necessary, but the reward is still intermittently given to reinforce the behavior.  The R- in the beginning was the clearest and fastest way of having the dog understand and the easiest thing to have to fade.

So anyone could reverse the question, "If you can achieve the same level of obedience in a higher level drive in much less time using -R and the dog doesn't give a rip what method you use, why wouldn't you?"  You say that obedience does not equal liking the training, but doesn't your question imply just that?  My dog would rather be scolded 5 times and then have a ball tossed (not that I do this, but...) than be stroked 5 times and have a treat offered.

It's like raising kids, lots of different ways, some more strict or aversive than others, but two adults can turn out just fine coming from different environments.  For example I was expected to work while I was in high school and to me that was perfectly normal, but other people have told me it's horrible to have a child working.  Is one way right or wrong?  Does it matter?

Also it seems some people assume that one cannot be a qualified trainer and behaviorist at the same time.  Personally I have yet to find people better at "reading" dogs and behavior than very experienced, intuitive working dog training directors.  But, since I like objectivity I take my dogs to a more mainstream behaviorist/trainer.  I have demonstrated my dog's training to the behaviorist we use and she does not have a problem with those methods being used for those skills on that dog.

Liesje

spiritdogs

What I can never understand is if you can come to the same level of obedience by using non-confrontational methods, why would you not try???

 

Lots of reasons - speed, the dog doesn't really care either way, the communication is clearer one way or the other, the level of drive is not acceptable/sufficient.....

I will use myself as an example.  I taught Nikon the down out of motion using -R (the down out of motion is basically you are running with the dog in heel, say "platz", the dog flatens to his stomach and stays there until told otherwise).  It took him about 2 minutes to learn the brand new skill.  After three sessions of about 2 minutes, the -R was already phased out.  The dog performs the skill with absolute precision and a high level of drive.  He performs it off lead or on lead and will do it without any correction to get him to do it or any reward to keep him doing it.  Could I have taught it with a treat and a clicker?  Yeah but it would have taken for-e-ver to get the same result with the speed, precision, and drive required.  But Nikon's also the only dog in the club right now that was trained that skill with that method.  Some are trained much more slowly, some were trained more harshly (by other people not part of our club).  A dog bred and trained in drive doesn't want a cheerio sized treat he wants to chase and bite things. 

Also, I very very rarely use one "method" alone.  Take the down out of motion again.  The dog is brought out and presented with his absolute favorite thing - the ball.  The dog would rather have the ball in his mouth than breathe.  He was bred and imprinted to be a prey monster so we train and reward with something he understands.  When learning the new down, as soon as it was performed (soon as the belly dropped) he got the marker ("yes!";), the release ("ok!";) and the reward (the ball tossed).  I don't have a problem using R- for certain things but personally prefer to always follow up with R+ in the same sequence.  The R- was faded first, so as soon as the dog understood the command (about 6 tries and 2 minutes total), he was doing it and still getting the reward.  After just a few short sessions, neither the R- nor the reward are necessary, but the reward is still intermittently given to reinforce the behavior.  The R- in the beginning was the clearest and fastest way of having the dog understand and the easiest thing to have to fade.

So anyone could reverse the question, "If you can achieve the same level of obedience in a higher level drive in much less time using -R and the dog doesn't give a rip what method you use, why wouldn't you?"  You say that obedience does not equal liking the training, but doesn't your question imply just that?  My dog would rather be scolded 5 times and then have a ball tossed (not that I do this, but...) than be stroked 5 times and have a treat offered.

It's like raising kids, lots of different ways, some more strict or aversive than others, but two adults can turn out just fine coming from different environments.  For example I was expected to work while I was in high school and to me that was perfectly normal, but other people have told me it's horrible to have a child working.  Is one way right or wrong?  Does it matter?

Also it seems some people assume that one cannot be a qualified trainer and behaviorist at the same time.  Personally I have yet to find people better at "reading" dogs and behavior than very experienced, intuitive working dog training directors.  But, since I like objectivity I take my dogs to a more mainstream behaviorist/trainer.  I have demonstrated my dog's training to the behaviorist we use and she does not have a problem with those methods being used for those skills on that dog.

I think if the dog truly doesn't give a rip, fine.  But, I also think that the majority of dogs do;-)  The problem is that once a dog is correction trained, it's much harder to clicker train, or marker train.  Reason being that the dog will usually fail to offer novel behaviors quickly.  (Maybe that's why you think it's slower, dunno.)  I found the difference quite striking the first time I ever trained a puppy from scratch using positive/clicker training without correction or coercion (and I use the terms mildly here).  To be honest, until you do that, there's really no reference point for the discussion.

My dog would rather be scolded 5 times and then have a ball tossed (not that I do this, but...) than be stroked 5 times and have a treat offered.

To clarify, a reinforcement is something the dog wants.  So, your dog wants the ball tossed, and my Sioux wants her liver treat, and my Sequoyah wants her frisbee.  So far, so good.   To me, it's sufficient to lure, capture, or shape the behavior I want her to exhibit and she gets the frisbee.  If she makes a wrong move, believe me, she understands "no click=no frisbee"  That's the basis on which she realizes she was wrong!  So, she tries again, and I just click successive approximations until she gets it perfect (this doesn't usually take that long with a clicker savvy dog - but, admittedly longer with a crossover dog).  THEN, I name the behavior (that's so the cue becomes the command for the perfected behavior).  The reinforcement differs based on the dog's preference.  I actually had one dog in my therapy dog class who would do anything for attention from his handler.  The majority of dogs like food, the drive-y dogs like tug, ball, frisbee.  But, it's not about the food, it's about the reinforcement the dog is after.  So, we do agree on that point at least.

I think we have to account for differences in the type of sport/work.  The mature GSD doing Schutzhund is not the same scenario as most dog sports and obedience.  The purpose of the training and trialing really is to weed out the good from the crap.  Unlike many other sports, it is not one that just any dog will succeed at.  Crap dogs stand out and so does crap training (I'm talking about 100% coercive methods).  At some point, you have to put pressure on the dog.  The dog has to have courage, be sound in the head, and be able to think and work through conflict and pressure.  So I'm not sure we can really reconcile our differences as far as training a Schutzhund dog.  Before you refered to "non-confrontational" methods, but the issue here is that I am training a dog for conflict.  The way that Nikon is trained would absolutely not fly with either of my other dogs or most of the dogs I know.  With a dog like Kenya that is skittish, no drive for toys, spazzy in the head....I can still put rally, obedience, and agility titles on her up the wazoo but I have never even attempted doing the most basic bitework foundation with her because I know she is just not that dog.  When presented with conflict she simply shuts down, and not only that but she has a very low threshold for what is considered a "conflict".  I need my dog to work through pressure and conflict and "bring power with power".

So as far as training my non-SchH competition dog Kenya and my pet Coke, I 100% agree with everything you have said here and elsewhere.  But training  a Schutzhund dog that will go on to SDA, protection, and PD training is just an entirely difference scenario.  I'll even concede that ones the dog is corrected it's harder to marker train, but with some dogs that's just not important.

The speed I'm talking about is the speed performing the behavior, not necessarily the speed to learn it.  What I can score 100 with Kenya in Rally may not pass the BH on the Schutzhund field.  Easiest way to build speed is through drive, but not all dogs have that drive and not all dogs can correctly channel it into their work.  If the dog really has the drive, then you can put pressure on that dog and he will come through. 

Ixas_girl

I bet that if your posts pointed specifically to your own troubles and observations with your own dog and your own practices, you wouldn't get so much argument about methodology.

But, when you stray from the personal, you open your comments up to scrutiny by addressing methodology, like in this comment, which is not at all addressing your own specific personal relationship, rather is addressing general methodology:

corvus

but the moment I open my mouth with a general warning about corrections

(bold, mine)

To me, general warnings and attacking an entire methodology/thing/whatever are completely different. 

For example (we'll use a non-canine example), let's say someone has a thread asking about using a stud chain over the nose of a horse with bad ground manners.  I would likely first issue a *general* warning based on my *personal experiences* with this piece of equipment--not all horses are used to it and some will freak out, some horses that are used to it respond poorly enough to it as to make it worthless (my own horse for example).  Now, in the right circumstances with the right horse and handler I have no issue with it being used and in certain situations it makes handling a horse much safer, but I have personally witnessed and experienced enough downsides to issue a general warning about it to people.