# training a dog: is a luxury?



## Hektor (Apr 16, 2011)

Reading this part of the forum I realised that a lot of new-dog owners have o lot of problems with their puppy and a lot of questions about how to behave in some situations.
It comes to my mind allways one question:
Why people don't go to puppy, group or any other training POSITIVE lessons to be taught the right way to rise a puppy instead of making so many mistakes and ruinning their realtionship with their puppy, and finally blaming it for their mistakes?

I am a positive trainer in my area, and every day that a dog owner comes to me with problems I allways ask myself the same thing......My job here is very difficult and I have to change peoples way of thinking about positive training, but I thought that in USA and in some european coutries this would be more popular. 
So my question is: Why a new dog owner does not prefer to go to a positive trainer?


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

This is a question I have often asked myself, Hektor. I suppose it is partly down to the fact that many people believe they already know everything they need to know - through having a dog as a child, or watching television shows. Add in that sometimes classes are quite a distance away, that they are in the evenings after owners have already put in a long day at work (another reason for many dog problems, one suspects); that there is a sometimes quite significant cost involved; that it takes some effort to research and check out trainers, and the human tendency to inertia, and it becomes even more understandable.

I think it would be a very good idea to offer a pre-dog ownership course - in fact, I think everyone should have to undertake a test in basic understanding of what is involved in dog ownership before being allowed to take on the responsibility, but I know that will never happen!


----------



## Theo'sMom (Mar 23, 2011)

I know one case where the problem was due to a combination of ignorance and laziness. We had dinner with a couple who just got a poodle mix who had no idea that a puppy doesn't just automatically listen. This was because when they had a dog as children the dogs were magically trained. (by mom during the day when they were at school) they did no research or reading and had a normal puppy who they thought was out of control. They finally contacted a trainer and their dog lived w the trainer for three weeks and then the trainer met with them and taught them how to train and set limits with the dog. It seems to me that seeing training as a way of bonding with your dog helps it to not seem like just hard work.


----------



## Rowan (May 27, 2011)

Hektor said:


> Reading this part of the forum I realised that a lot of new-dog owners have o lot of problems with their puppy and a lot of questions about how to behave in some situations.
> It comes to my mind allways one question:
> Why people don't go to puppy, group or any other training POSITIVE lessons to be taught the right way to rise a puppy instead of making so many mistakes and ruinning their realtionship with their puppy, and finally blaming it for their mistakes?
> 
> ...


DISCLAIMER: I'm not Cesar-bashing. I'm just using this as an example. 

Short answer: Because it's a lot more work.

I believe you're fighting the "Cesar" craze (in part). His DVDs and books are everywhere. He has seminars. He has a very popular TV show. Dog owners--especially new ones--watch the miracles he performs on his show and, believing their dogs have the same issues, quickly adopt his techniques. What they don't understand is that Cesar's techniques won't work for all dogs. (Many people don't believe in his methods period.) He encourages exercise and that's a good thing. But he also encourages "alpha techniques" that are controversial. So as a positive dog trainer, you are advising they go against "The Master" and they rebel. _"But his techniques work! I've seen it on TV!" _ they argue. :faint: (I feel your pain.)

It doesn't help that Cesar is more popular than (for example) "positive reinforcement" trainer Victoria Stilwell (love her), who also has a TV show. The changes are more dramatic and fast (and seemingly easy) on the Cesar show. Victoria gives the owners a laundry list of tasks to accomplish _and _asks them to change their ways. Most people want the easy way out and through TV _magic_, that's the Cesar way. 

We are a nation of instant gratification. We want a puppy to arrive fully trained and to stay that way. People forget they are living creatures that need as much attention as a human being. They learn the hard way that you can't ignore a dog and you can't bully it into submission. It's a partnership. 

You should film a series of Webcasts (YouTube) explaining why certain techniques don't work while offering alternatives that do work, etc.


----------



## Hektor (Apr 16, 2011)

Rowan said:


> DISCLAIMER: I'm not Cesar-bashing. I'm just using this as an example.
> 
> Short answer: Because it's a lot more work.
> 
> ...


I love Victoria Stillwell too, and her show is on tv here in Greece, also. And I think in a way, that she helps people feel more comfortable with training their dogs.
But my problem is not the method used in training, but to train or not to train a dog.
But probably no one here will answer as a dog owner.


----------



## liljaker (Aug 6, 2011)

I love the pic in the Avatar. When you state the kind of dogs you have, I presume he is the spoo? I am new on the forum, and was curious. The headshot reminds me of my black mini, Jake, when he was a pup, too.


----------



## Rowan (May 27, 2011)

Hektor said:


> I love Victoria Stillwell too, and her show is on tv here in Greece, also. And I think in a way, that she helps people feel more comfortable with training their dogs.
> But my problem is not the method used in training, but to train or not to train a dog.
> But probably no one here will answer as a dog owner.


Hhhmm, I guess I got so excited I failed to answer the pertinent question.  Let me try again: I think people feel they know all they need to know by watching and applying Cesar's (or any TV/book trainer's) methods. So, instead of going to puppy class or a trainer, they go the "do-it-yourself" route. Then, like you said, the damage is done and they want a trainer to fix their dog (because they view the dog as having the problem, not them).

I know people at work who think like this. Then I hear them constantly complaining about their dog's horrible behavior. *shrug*

(Some people seem to think that only Cesar style trainers are right, and will shun trainers who follow other methods.)

I've always trained my dogs at home following Victoria Stilwell's methods. They were all socialized with other family/friend/neighborhood dogs, and I don't have any issues. I also realize that any behavioral problems that may arise will be my fault!


----------



## Katie (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm having problems. 

Before we got Ruff I read "Before and after you get your puppy" by Ian Dunbar, "Don't shoot the dog" (about clicker training) and any other puppy book the library had.

We do not have a television. I have never seen Cesar Milan. Or any other dog training programme come to that.

I raised my kids with positive techniques, I wish to raise my dog the same way. i have never smacked or shaken him, I have never alpha rolled him. 

Ruff went to preschool for 4 weeks from 8-12 weeks (positive, but based on letting puppies play, and on teaching owners about potty training, sleeping through the night etc) now he is at Kindergarten. From 12 to 16 weeks. This will be his last week. We will carry on. It has not been easy to get to training. I live in Christchurch NZ and our city is quake devastated. Aftershocks continue. less than half an hour ago there was a 4.2 shallow (think seriously shaky, deep ones roll, shallow judder) quake centered less than 2km from my home. Believe me, one needs commitment to take ones puppy out to training at night. I will continue with the next class, whatever that is, as long as I can get there.

Yet I am having problems with bone guarding. I have sought help the very day it happened. i have emailed the trainers at the class, and they have asked me to bring 2 bones and some extra yummy treats to class this week. (and gloves!) I know it must be in some way my fault, not Ruff's, and I am committed to working it out.

I have worked and worked at getting it right and I am having problems and i have never even seen Cesar Milan....but i am now going to youtube him and see what all this is about.

Sometimes we try and try, and things still don't work. On the plus side I have managed to train Ruff not to freak in quakes. This last one was very shaky for its size...and i was on the toilet! Ruff barked once during the quake, but didn't panic even though i wasn't there.

And I exercise him, at least 2 hours a day, often more (I live on a beach, so this is fun, but we go out whatever the weather. it is winter here and i have exercised Ruff in a storm wind right off the Ross Ice Shelf)
We chose to have a dog now, because i am at home during the day with no other commitments, and have been since February. 

And we are having problems.....what more could i have done? What more should I be doing?


----------



## Countryboy (May 16, 2011)

Hektor said:


> But probably no one here will answer as a dog owner.


'K . . . I'll put my head on the chopping block. 

My guy is not food oriented. So treats are out. Therefore so is Agility and Rally. 

"Good boys" are about all I can hand out. And I mean serious "good boys" . . a couple of minutes of ear rubs. So we're talking abt long term training. This takes a while to sink in. But I'm hoping that Tonka and I will have at least six more years together, so we've got time. 

That's the gentle part of me.

Slightly less gentle??? Let's say a dog is annoying me. I annoy them right back. If they jump up?? . . I hold their paws. And make sure it's for longer than they really want them held. If they're in my face??? . . blow hard into theirs. They pretty soon back off. 

Even less gentle??? My boys will not jump onto my bed. Even when I'm not there. That's 'coz I've managed eventually to catch them in the act . . . and have my cap in my hand. *Ooooops for them!* With both of them, one swat on the butt was enuf . . . forever.

I too, don't like CMs method. U don't need them with yr own dogs. I don't need to establish dominance . . I am dominant. They know that from my voice. They know when my bark is serious . . I don't need to 'flip them over'.

In the den, pups are not trained by positive methods only. An older dog will inflict mild corporal punishment on a pup that's out of line.

**A slight disclaimer ..... I have only large dogs. And no experience with Minis or Toys.


----------



## Quossum (Mar 18, 2011)

Countryboy said:


> My guy is not food oriented. So treats are out. Therefore so is Agility and Rally.


Just an encouraging note...you don't *have* to have food drive to train Agility. Many people train with (and / or even prefer) toy drive. And, of course, food drive (like toy drive) can be taught if you really, really want it and can put in the work.

No problem if you don't *want* to do those activities...just sayin' that you needn't have food drive to do them if you DO want to do them. It helps, sure...but it can be done.

--Q


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

I despair as well, esp when I encounter people in the park with young, ill-mannered dogs, dogs they have never bothered to train, who then shout at and hit their dogs when the dogs engage in perfectly normal (for them) behaviour. 

I think a lot of it comes down to *why *someone acquires a dog. 

Many people seem to get a dog either because "kids should have a dog" or because they occasionally want to interact with a cute furry creature. Sadly for the dog, occasionally never translates into daily, so there is no impetus for training. I swear, sometimes I think a stuffed toy would better fulfill the needs of many dog owners. I see so many dogs that get NO training, NO attention, NO exercise, with owners who complain that the dog does [some undesirable behaviour]. It makes me frantic. It is the best way I know to end up with a dog with problem behaviours, behaviours that could have been prevented rather than having to be remedially trained out, if the owners had done the most basic puppy training.

I think for many people who don't read or research dog training methods, the best entree into positive training is trick training. I've managed a few times to teach a neighbor's dog in the park a simple trick with luring, to try and hook them on training as a way to interact with and enjoy the dog. 

As for preferring punishment methods, I think there is a misconception that punishment methods work better or are faster (thanks to CM, as others have said). And sadly, there still lingers this pernicious idea that training with food is somehow "cheating", that if the dog works for food, he doesn't truly love/respect his trainer. Which is complete tosh, but is an idea that clings to life in spite of the efforts of positive trainers and behaviourists everywhere!


----------



## Hektor (Apr 16, 2011)

liljaker said:


> I love the pic in the Avatar. When you state the kind of dogs you have, I presume he is the spoo? I am new on the forum, and was curious. The headshot reminds me of my black mini, Jake, when he was a pup, too.


The spoo is Naomi( female) and hektor is the mix (male).
The avatar's pic is of my spoo and the name is of my mix, so everybody is huppy!!!!!!


----------



## Hektor (Apr 16, 2011)

Katie said:


> Yet I am having problems with bone guarding. I have sought help the very day it happened. i have emailed the trainers at the class, and they have asked me to bring 2 bones and some extra yummy treats to class this week. (and gloves!) I know it must be in some way my fault, not Ruff's, and I am committed to working it out.
> 
> I have worked and worked at getting it right and I am having problems and i have never even seen Cesar Milan....but i am now going to youtube him and see what all this is about.
> 
> ...


Keep working, I think you are doing great!!

There are easy going dogs and less easy going dogs. 
And that is something that depends on our personality too, and the interaction between the dog and owner.
In my opinion dog training classes should firstly solve dog owners problems, and secondly teach them how to find a solution in a future problem and how to think in the right way regarding their dog. So that is all about!


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

I agree. Each dog is an individual, and each dog will have his own faults, quirks, preferences. Plus each dog will have different experiences, and what they learn from them is not always what we would prefer they learn!

My dog is pretty well trained, although always a work in progress. But there are behaviours I choose to MANAGE rather than eliminate (mainly through laziness :smile. All my trash bins have lids, because he's an inveterate dumpster diver. I don't even think about it, but I was reminded this past weekend when we were visiting friends and he shredded the contents of their bathroom bin.


----------



## buttercup123 (Oct 7, 2010)

I'm not a new dog owner but I dont do positive reinforcement training.
They are dogs that bite and teach each other through pain and body language. 

I'm sure positive works great for a lot of people but doesnt mean it should be the only way of training.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

buttercup123 said:


> I'm not a new dog owner but I dont do positive reinforcement training.
> They are dogs that bite and teach each other through pain and body language.
> 
> I'm sure positive works great for a lot of people but doesnt mean it should be the only way of training.


Why not?

If reward-based training works better, is safer, and is nicer, why not?

Sort of like saying "sure, antibiotics work to treat infection for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they are the only way." There's always amputation, after all :smile:.


----------



## itzfoxfire58 (Jun 18, 2011)

I have never used reinforcement to train my dogs and I have had two Rotts who were perfectly trained, put in stays or downs for 20 minutes without moving, while I walked around and talked to people. My most recent dog BOSS (RIP) wouldn't even eat his food until I told him ok. Now Fallen is another creature and I don't know if its because I got him when he was older or what, but he is not food driven. I have treats that he loves "lamb lungs", but with all food he just sits and looks at me, I try to give it to him he licks it, but will not take it from me, but if I put it on the floor he'll just look at it and if I walk away he'll pick it up and eat it and dose the same thing with his food. Sometimes I wonder if he would rather be with me having me rubbing and brushing him rather then eating. Well one thing, at least I won't have to buy any treats.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 5, 2011)

itzfoxfire58 said:


> I have never used reinforcement to train my dogs and I have had two Rotts who were perfectly trained, put in stays or downs for 20 minutes without moving, while I walked around and talked to people. My most recent dog BOSS (RIP) wouldn't even eat his food until I told him ok. Now Fallen is another creature and I don't know if its because I got him when he was older or what, but he is not food driven. I have treats that he loves "lamb lungs", but with all food he just sits and looks at me, I try to give it to him he licks it, but will not take it from me, but if I put it on the floor he'll just look at it and if I walk away he'll pick it up and eat it and dose the same thing with his food. Sometimes I wonder if he would rather be with me having me rubbing and brushing him rather then eating. Well one thing, at least I won't have to buy any treats.


So, how did you train your dogs? I'm truly curious, not being argumentative. There's more than one way to do just about everything and I'm certainly interested in learning about the many different ways to train a dog.


----------



## buttercup123 (Oct 7, 2010)

JE-UK said:


> Why not?
> 
> If reward-based training works better, is safer, and is nicer, why not?
> 
> Sort of like saying "sure, antibiotics work to treat infection for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean they are the only way." There's always amputation, after all :smile:.


It doesnt work for every dog. 
There is no one way to train a dog, to think that is just ignorant. 

You also dont need treats and rewards to train your dog. 
Look up Brad Pattison, he never uses treats and is a very well known trainer, and do you ever see Cesar Millan use treats (not that I agree with his training its just another example). Funny how all these well known famous trainers dont use treats or positive reinforcement. Instead theyve studied body language and how dogs communicate and train based on that. 

My Cane Corso for one does not respond to positive training. 
She is a high strung dominant breed, it just doesnt work with her.
Yet she is very well trained.

The kind of training for my Corso would not work well on my Poodle though, she responds great to positive training.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I am intrigued by those who say they do not use reinforcement, positive reinforcement, or positive training, meaning, presumably, that they don't reward good behaviour (technically it would also mean that they don't punish behaviour they do not want, but I am not quite sure how one would train without any reinforcement ...). I don't know of any trainers - including CM - who do not reward the dog, whether with attention, access to the thing they wanted, stopping physical coercion, or whatever. Treats are just one - easily managed - form of positive reward; many dogs value interaction and attention, a toy, or a brief spell of freedom more than food - for BCs the reward for working sheep well is they get to work more sheep. Do you really train your dogs without any form of reward at all - not even a "Well done!" or "Good dog!"? And if so, how do you maintain a good relationship, if training is solely about punishment?


----------



## liljaker (Aug 6, 2011)

I agree; as we all know, MOST poodles respond very quickly to positive reinforcement -- and are very sensitive and will sulk if their feelings are hurt -- i.e., you sternly look at them or tell them that something is not acceptable -- IMO anyway. I am sure other breeds may require other kinds of communication to get a point across, but I would think that it would work for all breeds if done consistently and correctly. I'd much rather have a relationship with my dog than have him fear me if he does something he thinks will upset me.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

buttercup123 said:


> It doesnt work for every dog.
> There is no one way to train a dog, to think that is just ignorant.


I try very hard to overcome my natural inclination to ignorance :smile: by using the hard work that others have done to educate myself. Is there only one way to train a dog? No. Is there a best way? Yes.



buttercup123 said:


> You also dont need treats and rewards to train your dog.


Reward doesn't always = food treat, although food treats are handy and portable.

I sometimes start to feel like one of those looney bible thumpers who stand on street corners ... take pity on me, as I easily fall into proselytising. Not trying to cause offense, but there is so much false information out there. I started with aversive methods (a bazillion years ago), because that's all there was. I still regret what I inflicted on past dogs.

All the behaviour research is consistent that aversive training methods don't work as well as positive methods. Aversive training requires constant reinforcement, as you aren't training the dog to WANT to work, you are simply giving him one way in which he can avoid punishment. He will eventually find a DIFFERENT way to avoid punishment that involves doing something OTHER than what you are asking. It used to be a fairly frequent occurrence in the bad old days for OTCH dogs to one day completely blow their tops and book it out of the competition ring, totally out of control. 

Of course, that said, one absolutely CAN train with aversive methods. They have worked for decades. They still work, to a degree. But they aren't very nice, and positive methods work better.

We used to beat children; we don't do that anymore, even though it "worked". We used to imprison the mentally ill; we don't do that any more, even though it "worked". We used to give Thalidomide to pregnant women to alleviate nausea; that "worked" REALLY well.

We used to do a lot of things that "worked", but they weren't very nice and had terrible side effects. Then we found better ways. I will say this, it can be damned tempting to take training frustrations out with a hefty yank on the choke chain or similar physical punishment. I can see (but resist!) the appeal. I often have to take a deep breath, back up, and try to figure out what I'm not making clear, or how to better incentivise the behaviour I want. 

It's useful to distinguish between learning and proofing ... usually, when we talk about training, we are lumping the two together. Learning is the process of linking a cue to a behaviour. Proofing is the ability to get that behaviour on cue.

*Learning *is absolutely, positively, guaranteed faster and clearer with positive reinforcement methods. There is a lovely anecdote in Karen Pryor's book about a pioneering gymnastics coach who uses clicker training with the young girls who train with her. The girls LOVE it, and progress very quickly because of it. 

*Proofing *(ensuring consistency of desired behaviour, on cue, with distractions) CAN take longer with positive methods, as it is easier to instill a high level of fear (with punishment methods) than it is to instill a similarly high level of good feelings (with reward-based) in order to overcome distractions.

The only negative for me about reward-based training is that it's MUCH harder work for the trainer (but easier on the dog :smile. It requires thought and creativity and consistency and commitment. I suck at the creativity part, which is why I steal, steal, steal other people's ideas.

Cesar Millan doesn't even merit discussion ... he is either misguided (and not interested in improving as a trainer) or a flat-out liar ... as when he points to a fear-frozen dog that is stressed beyond tolerance, has completely shut down, and is trembling and certain it is going to die ... "Look! A calm submissive dog that has responded to my magical, calm, assertive energy field!"

But back to points that were raised ... 1) some dogs aren't food motivated so positive methods can't be used and 2) some breeds cannot be trained with positive methods.

Disagree.

There are other rewards than food (walks, games, toys, praise, the chance to sniff, ear rubs, etc.), although I have yet to find a dog that won't work for chopped up bits of the skin off an order of Chinese crispy duck. I think it is dog crack. A milder form of the drug is made by taking the skins off chicken breasts and frying until crispy, then breaking into pieces. My dog will do anything for this. ANYTHING. 

As for the breed argument, I'd agree that Cane Corsos are opinionated, not-very-biddable dogs. But so are Chows and Coonhounds and Siberians and Airdales and and and .... 

With a breed like that, yes, there is more work for the trainer. But there are examples of all of the above breeds, beautifully trained with positive methods.

A quick search shows that other Cane Corso owners don't seem to think positive methods won't work for this breed.

This breeder says "With these dogs we have found that physical mastery over them is less critical than patience and consistent, positive training methods."

This site advises "Possibly this is not a dog for the novice but needs an owner that is well versed in positive training methods ..."

And this Cane Corso blog says "So the point is, that ‘positive training’ is possible. Actually, that’s the only way."

And reward-based training is so rewarding for the trainer!! How cool is it to say "wanna work?" to your dog and have him leap in the air in frenzies of joy?


----------



## buttercup123 (Oct 7, 2010)

Thanks for your reply, I defiantly thought positive training was all about treats!!
It was a very informative read, I guess I do agree with it I just do it in a different way. 
My Cane Corso still gets punishments I guess though, I feel like she understands consequences better then any of my other dogs. 
Example, she knows if she tries to steal food off my plate when I walk away she will get yelled at and made to go lay down in a stern voice.
Where if she doesnt touch it at the end she will usually get some of my dinner. 
(I'm ok with begging, I know its a rude habit I just dont mind them as long as they keep their distance and dont try and take food).

Any of my other dogs cant understand that concept which is why purely positive training works better for them. 
If any of that makes sense.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 5, 2011)

First, I wholeheartedly agree with *JE-UK*. In the past 20 years, I've studied psychology and education / learning theory. Everything I've read indicates that reinforcement - especially positive reinforcement - is by far the most effective training method. I'll go stand on the street corner and proselytize with you 



buttercup123 said:


> Thanks for your reply, I defiantly thought positive training was all about treats!! It was a very informative read, I guess I do agree with it I just do it in a different way.


Thanks for the comment - I wondered if part of the disagreement was that to some people reinforcement = food / treats. A reinforcer is anything that increased desired behavior. A dog may not be food motivated, but maybe a game of fetch or belly rubs or a special toy works to increase desired behavior. Those are all reinforcers.

Punishment is anything that reduces an undesirable behavior, but it doesn't have to be something aversive. A timeout can be a punisher. When a dog tried to jump and the jumpee turns away and ignores the dog, that's punishment. No one is hurt or scared, but if it happens enough, the dog will stop jumping (especially if his good behavior is reinforced).

Really fun discussion.


----------



## 2719 (Feb 8, 2011)

The title of the thread...training a dog is a luxury?

Well it can be I must say. Here's me going talk about "way back ,long ago..." there was not the popularity of dog training, agility,rally etc. We just enjoyed our dogs as part of our family. We took them camping, hiking, and to every activity we could involve them with. We didn't ever think about paying someone else to teach us how to live peacefully with our dogs.

Now we are inundated with Dog training books,dvds, classes, television shows, Youtube videos etc. etc. And some training classes are very costly for the average family.

I just started Lizette in Agility training...I have learned so much about proper training techniques...but it is in fact a luxury that I have decided we deserve. Lizette loves it and therefore so do I.

Some people just can't afford to go to a trainer so they put their trust in others sources...sometimes it works out...sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## buttercup123 (Oct 7, 2010)

> Punishment is anything that reduces an undesirable behavior, but it doesn't have to be something aversive. A timeout can be a punisher. When a dog tried to jump and the jumpee turns away and ignores the dog, that's punishment. No one is hurt or scared, but if it happens enough, the dog will stop jumping (especially if his good behavior is reinforced).


 Thats what I thought, cause ignoring a dog is punishment too. 
So with positive training you guys dont do that because its punishment?


----------



## cookieface (Jul 5, 2011)

truelovepoodles said:


> The title of the thread...training a dog is a luxury?
> 
> Well it can be I must say. Here's me going talk about "way back ,long ago..." there was not the popularity of dog training, agility,rally etc. We just enjoyed our dogs as part of our family. We took them camping, hiking, and to every activity we could involve them with. We didn't ever think about paying someone else to teach us how to live peacefully with our dogs.
> 
> ...


I think training a dog to be a "good doggy citizen" (e.g., basic commands like "sit" or "down;" not to bite, jump, or counter surf; to walk nicely on a leash) are part of responsible ownership. Going beyond that with tricks, agility, or specialized certifications is extra, but I suspect that some dogs are much happier (and better behaved) when they have a "job" or extra stimulation.

As far as cost, there are plenty of great free training resources available.



buttercup123 said:


> Thats what I thought, cause ignoring a dog is punishment too.
> So with positive training you guys dont do that because its punishment?


I think it depends on the individual, but some folks who focus on positive reinforcement would use less aversive punishment if necessary. For example, I've been reading about bite inhibition and the basic idea is to yelp and give the pup a brief timeout when/if he bites. It's punishment, but it's not harsh and mimics what happens when they're still with mom and siblings. Similar thing with jumping. Ideally, one would notice that a dog was about to jump and use a distraction (e.g., tell the dog "sit" or "down") to prevent the unwanted behavior. But if that doesn't work or if you don't notice in time, turning your back does not reward the dog for her behavior. 

The thing about these punishers is that they can be delivered almost immediately (it's a natural reaction to cry out when bitten). If timing isn't correct, the dog doesn't associate the punishment with the behavior (the same is true for reinforcers, which is why clicker training is popular and effective).

With positive reinforcement, the dog chooses to behave in ways that bring rewards (whatever that may be - food, pets, toys) and you become the giver of all good things. It's a good way to build a solid relationship built on trust and respect.

That said, if my pup were about to chew an electrical cord or eat something nasty / harmful, I'd likely react with a scream and quick action to remove the dog from danger. At the very least that could be startling  

Now I'm really interested to see if I can find my old conditioning and learning textbook. Might be a weekend project...


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

Interesting point, Buttercup. There are some trainers who avoid any form of punishment, but most use a combination of positive rewards, and negative punishment - either giving the dog something they want, or with holding it, with the emphasis on setting the dog up to succeed so that they get rewarded more often than not. A negative reward would be stopping hurting the dog - as in some of CM's methods, or a retrieve "forced" by ear pinching - and a positive punishment would be collar snaps, smacks, etc. Hope I have got that right!


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

Maybe that is another one of the misconceptions about reward-based training, that there is no punishment involved. Probably stems from the difficulty with the word. In behaviour science, as cookieface says, punishment simply means anything that makes a behaviour less likely. It can be by adding something the dog doesn't like or taking away something he does like.

However, in popular usage, punishment = pain, and I think that is what prevents reward-based trainers from using the word.

My personal philosophy is *don't do anything to the dog that causes pain or fear*. But I absolutely do punish, when I can't either a) train a non-compatible behaviour, i.e. teach a sit on greeting to prevent jumping up or b) prevent or extinguish a behaviour by not rewarding it.

That said, my most severe punishment, reserved for the most egregious transgressions of house rules, is a 30 second timeout alone in the kitchen. My dog HATES this, but it doesn't frighten him, it doesn't make him fear me, and he understands what it means.

To wander off the subject a bit, I'm struck sometimes by how many of the people I see still training with choke chains, shock collars, whacks, and yelling really don't seem to LIKE their dogs very much. Is it just me or do others see this too?

Whereas the reward-based trainers all seem very engaged and encouraging with their dogs, with both seeming much happier. Maybe because reward-based forces you to focus on the successes rather than the failures?


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

JE-UK said:


> To wander off the subject a bit, I'm struck sometimes by how many of the people I see still training with choke chains, shock collars, whacks, and yelling really don't seem to LIKE their dogs very much. Is it just me or do others see this too?
> 
> Whereas the reward-based trainers all seem very engaged and encouraging with their dogs, with both seeming much happier. Maybe because reward-based forces you to focus on the successes rather than the failures?


Interesting point - I wonder how much is cause and how much effect? If you believe your dog is "disobedient" to "spite" you, and that there is a magic bullet way of gaining instant control, you are going to be frequently irritated with the dog, resort to punishment, have a potentially fearful and problematic dog which is ever more "disobedient", and so the cycle continues. If you believe that your dog does not respond because you have failed to communicate what you want properly, or because you have not put enough effort into training, you may make the effort to engage more effectively - and at least will not blame the dog so much! There is also the behavioural effect on humans of acting happy making us happier - and reward based training involves a lot of upbeat praise and body language.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 5, 2011)

JE-UK said:


> Maybe that is another one of the misconceptions about reward-based training, that there is no punishment involved. Probably stems from the difficulty with the word. In behaviour science, as cookieface says, punishment simply means anything that makes a behaviour less likely. It can be by adding something the dog doesn't like or taking away something he does like.
> 
> However, in popular usage, punishment = pain, and I think that is what prevents reward-based trainers from using the word.


Right. I suppose if you had an odd pup who didn't like ear rubs, they could be used as punishment. I don't like chocolate, so if I were given a Lindt truffle every time I completed a project, I may just stop working 

Things get even more confusing when people say "negative reinforcement" to mean "punishment." 



JE-UK said:


> My personal philosophy is *don't do anything to the dog that causes pain or fear*.


When I read _The Dog Whisperer_, Owens said something like "don't do anything to your dog that you wouldn't do to your child or grandparent." I think that, plus his recommendations for building a solid relation with your dog are what stood out most in the book.



JE-UK said:


> To wander off the subject a bit, I'm struck sometimes by how many of the people I see still training with choke chains, shock collars, whacks, and yelling really don't seem to LIKE their dogs very much. Is it just me or do others see this too?
> 
> Whereas the reward-based trainers all seem very engaged and encouraging with their dogs, with both seeming much happier. Maybe because reward-based forces you to focus on the successes rather than the failures?


Interesting observation. I've not been around enough dogs and dog owners to really know. What I have noticed in reading online dog forums, is that folks who focus on punishment tend to fall into two groups. One group isn't aware that a different training technique exists (e.g., my parents house-trained their dog by smacking him after every accident, isn't that what you're supposed to do). The other group seems to place too much stock in pack theory and the need to be the alpha. Their need to dominate could override the expression of any other feelings they have.

It could be perception, too. Yelling, hitting, shocking - all seem like harsh things I'd never want to do to someone I love, but that's my belief. Just because someone yells at or hits their dog (or child) doesn't mean they don't love him.


----------



## buttercup123 (Oct 7, 2010)

> To wander off the subject a bit, I'm struck sometimes by how many of the people I see still training with choke chains, shock collars, whacks, and yelling really don't seem to LIKE their dogs very much. Is it just me or do others see this too?


I dont think thats true at all. 
I use a pinch collar on my Mastiff and a chain martingale on my Shepherd. 
My Mastiff is my heart dog, I love that dog more than anything and would do anything for her she is my life. 
The Shepherd I cant speak for as he's still being trained to walk.

My mom has to use a shock collar on her bull terrier because she has OCD and it's the only thing to stop her spinning 24/7.

Both these devices aren't even used I guess on the dogs.
When my moms bull terrier has her shock collar on it has a negative and positive tone and thats what my mom uses, although when she has the collar on she usually just stops. She doesnt act in fear at all when she has the collar on and continues being her big dumb goofy bull terrier self.

Same with my Mastiff and her pinch collar, she just needs to have it on and she will walk beside me, but if she starts to get out of line she gets a little snap and smartens up (this is not very often). 
She also does not act in fear with this on, quiet opposite actually because she associates it with walks and having fun.

Defiantly a good informative debate, I'm glad we can all keep civil and are actually learning different things from each other.


----------



## tokipoke (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't have a problem with Cesar Millan. I have a problem with the people who pick and choose what they think is right and just practice that one thing on their dog, such as the 'alpha techniques.' You can't be mimicking a 'bite' with your hand all the time for everything or trying to 'roll' a dog into a submissive position. It doesn't work that way, and it takes a keen sense of observation in dog body language to know when this is appropriate. Too many people try this at the wrong times on the wrong dog and this can cause more mental problems. I know many people dislike Cesar, but they can't deny that when he works with a dog, there is an immediate change in the dog's behavior. His way is very instant but will not work for most people because most people are unstable and inconsistent. 

I really love that he encourages exercise. His chapter on "Mastering the Walk" is excellent (from "Be the Pack Leader"). It's a great way to bond with your dog, yet people feel it's an inconvenience! The thing I disagree on is that you cannot act like the "alpha" or "pack leader" with dogs you don't know. Take for instance, when I try to groom another person's dog - this dog doesn't see me as any kind of "alpha" and if I try to assertive myself in an aggressive manner, it makes the dog lash out more. It's better to be confident and firm with a dog you do not know.

I also question what "training" means to different people. Some think it is teaching their dog tricks, etc. I believe it's teaching the dog boundaries so that the owner and the dog will live a fulfilling life. I do things that many people will think is too "controlling" but my dog has a lot of consistency in his life. He has a routine and he is happy. He's fed at the same times, he's walked in the morning and evening at the same times - always walking next to me or behind me, and playtime at the dog park - but also, the rule in my house is that he is not allowed on the furniture. He is not allowed people food, and when I'm eating he is taught not to hover (dogs begging for food is my pet peeve). Before entering/exiting the door, he's made to sit and stay and can only move when I tell him to. This is even done when I go to the dog park. While everyone else's dogs are going berserk, choking themselves trying to get into the park, I encourage mine to be calm even when we are around lots of dogs and people. He's always fed in his crate, which I tell him to go to when it's feeding time, and to sit and stay till I tell him to eat. He's bell trained to alert me when he has to potty. He also goes to the bathroom when I tell him to. All these things can be considered "training" but I just see it as a way of life! It's just the way and my dog lives.


----------



## tokipoke (Sep 3, 2011)

By the way, I find it funny that many people have problems training their dogs, yet cats have no problems training their humans!

(cat makes her human open a container)


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

Love it - if you lack opposable thumbs yourself, just use someone else's!


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

tokipoke said:


> I don't have a problem with Cesar Millan. I have a problem with the people who pick and choose what they think is right and just practice that one thing on their dog, such as the 'alpha techniques.' You can't be mimicking a 'bite' with your hand all the time for everything or trying to 'roll' a dog into a submissive position. It doesn't work that way, and it takes a keen sense of observation in dog body language to know when this is appropriate. Too many people try this at the wrong times on the wrong dog and this can cause more mental problems. *I know many people dislike Cesar, but they can't deny that when he works with a dog, there is an immediate change in the dog's behavior. His way is very instant but will not work for most people because most people are unstable and inconsistent. *
> 
> I really love that he encourages exercise. His chapter on "Mastering the Walk" is excellent (from "Be the Pack Leader"). It's a great way to bond with your dog, yet people feel it's an inconvenience!


I really don't like Cesar Millan's training methods. They are barbaric and outdated and cruel. The fact that he abuses dogs while maintaining a calm demeanor gives a sort of professional gloss to the horrid things he does to dogs.

There's no justification for endorsing his methods simply because he uses a few well-known recommendations, like ensuring the dog gets sufficient exercise. All dog trainers, ALL OF THEM, will recommend the same. 

It's a common misconception that he "cures" problem behaviours, when actually, he is merely suppressing them. 

There is a good article here that takes a dispassionate look at his methods, and explains suppression, but as it's a long article, it's worth pulling this bit out:

_Are the dogs on the show truly rehabilitated? Rehabilitation suggests that the dog's behavior has been changed, that the dog is somehow cured of the problem behavior. And yet, the vast majority of the dogs featured on the show are still restrained by short, tight leashes or receive sustained aversive, such as leash corrections, finger jabs or held back by physical constraint, giving the illusion of control. Once those methods are removed, the dog resumes the behavior. This was evidenced when a dog named "Casanova" suddenly broke free from his pinch collar._

Millan's methods don't work for everyone not because dog owners are unstable, but because the methods don't work.

Sorry, I'm sure there is no point in a CM bad trainer/CM good trainer discussion, as he seems to engender an unsettling level of uncritical devotion in his fans, but I just can't stay out of this one.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

fjm said:


> Love it - if you lack opposable thumbs yourself, just use someone else's!


The very definition of intelligent behaviour :smile:.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

fjm said:


> Interesting point - I wonder how much is cause and how much effect? If you believe your dog is "disobedient" to "spite" you, and that there is a magic bullet way of gaining instant control, you are going to be frequently irritated with the dog, resort to punishment, have a potentially fearful and problematic dog which is ever more "disobedient", and so the cycle continues. If you believe that your dog does not respond because you have failed to communicate what you want properly, or because you have not put enough effort into training, you may make the effort to engage more effectively - and at least will not blame the dog so much! *There is also the behavioural effect on humans of acting happy making us happier - and reward based training involves a lot of upbeat praise and body language.*


Now, THAT'S an interesting observation. I can remember training sessions in the bad old days, where I treated it like the broccoli I had to eat before I got my dessert. I'd train my dog and get the hard work over, then we'd go play. It never made me very happy, as training this dog does.

Edited to add: And I had another thought .... there is research done a while ago (will try to dig it up if anyone is interested) that found a very simple correlation to explain why some (human) relationships last and some don't. In the successful ones, researchers observed that there was a ratio between positive/negative interactions of 5 to 1, i.e. people in successful relationships said nice things to each other 5 times more than they said nasty things. As soon as the ratio started falling below 5-1, the relationship got into trouble. My partner and I sometimes tell each other "hey, your ratio is dropping" :smile:. I think it should apply to dog-human interactions as well!


----------



## cookieface (Jul 5, 2011)

fjm said:


> Interesting point - I wonder how much is cause and how much effect? If you believe your dog is "disobedient" to "spite" you, and that there is a magic bullet way of gaining instant control, you are going to be frequently irritated with the dog, resort to punishment, have a potentially fearful and problematic dog which is ever more "disobedient", and so the cycle continues. If you believe that your dog does not respond because you have failed to communicate what you want properly, or because you have not put enough effort into training, you may make the effort to engage more effectively - and at least will not blame the dog so much! There is also the behavioural effect on humans of acting happy making us happier - and reward based training involves a lot of upbeat praise and body language.


Excellent points! I'm always surprised at people who say "my dog did X because he's mad" or "he knows he's guilty." Dogs are certainly intelligent creatures and have a range of emotions, but I'm not convinced they have complex behaviors and emotions like revenge and guilt.



buttercup123 said:


> I dont think thats true at all.
> Defiantly a good informative debate, I'm glad we can all keep civil and are actually learning different things from each other.


Poodle people are some of the nicest, most polite folks I've ever encountered.



tokipoke said:


> I also question what "training" means to different people. Some think it is teaching their dog tricks, etc. I believe it's teaching the dog boundaries so that the owner and the dog will live a fulfilling life.


Yes. I tend to distinguish between basic training (manners or what you described in terms of consistency, routine, and safety precautions) and more advanced training (like tricks). Basic training, in my mind, is a must. I want to be able to tell my dog "leave it" or "sit /stay" and be confident he'll obey because his life could depend on it. I also want a well-mannered dog who won't jump on every guest or beg at the table. If I had children I wouldn't allow them to run wild (of course, my husband and I joke that our children would grow up just like Lizzy Borden); I don't want that type of behavior in my dog.



tokipoke said:


> By the way, I find it funny that many people have problems training their dogs, yet cats have no problems training their humans!


My cat had me well trained to get up with her at 2 am. <sigh> I miss our mornings together.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 5, 2011)

JE-UK said:


> Edited to add: And I had another thought .... there is research done a while ago (will try to dig it up if anyone is interested) that found a very simple correlation to explain why some (human) relationships last and some don't. In the successful ones, researchers observed that there was a ratio between positive/negative interactions of 5 to 1, i.e. people in successful relationships said nice things to each other 5 times more than they said nasty things. As soon as the ratio started falling below 5-1, the relationship got into trouble. My partner and I sometimes tell each other "hey, your ratio is dropping" :smile:. I think it should apply to dog-human interactions as well!


I'd love to read that study. My husband and I will have been together 20 years next week, we must say more nice things than we think  

Love your posts, by the way. Very informative.


----------



## tokipoke (Sep 3, 2011)

I like some of Cesar Millan's methods but I use positive reinforcement all the time with my pets. I'll use treats to teach my dog something and phase out the treats. Every now and then I'll reinforce the command with a few treats. But when he's being really good on the grooming table, he gets TONS of treats. I've heard of some dogs who suddenly hate their nails getting trimmed, or the force dryer. I would hate for my dog to all of a sudden detest the grooming process. While I have the force dryer blowing right on top of his head, he's scarfing down treats out of my hand lol. My cats get tons of treats for just being adorable, and of course I trained one of them using treats. That is the only way to train a cat! I guess a negative reinforcement would be when I spray the cats with water when they scratch the furniture.

I don't EVER condone hitting an animal or using Cesar Millan's techniques as a groomer when grooming someone else's dog. I've seen some groomers get very aggressive and hit the dogs. This is a HUGE no-no. After you've jerked the dog around on the table and hit them on the head, when you use the "bite" method with your had that Ceasr Millan uses, I guarantee that dog will turn around and BITE you back. I wish more groomers would move away from this abusive-assertive approach and just be calm and respect the animal. If the dog is being great on the table, I tell them what a good girl/boy they are being and give them a little pet. This goes a looooong way.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

The "bite" thing CM does is only done by dogs themselves as an act of aggression, so anyone using it had better be prepared for the dog to meet aggression with aggression! A dog gives a very quick inhibited bite to the muzzle as a warning and correction - not something recommended for humans to try...


----------



## Leooonie (May 30, 2009)

itzfoxfire58 said:


> I have never used reinforcement to train my dogs QUOTE]
> 
> you are obviously not aware of what 'reinforcement' mean from a behavioural point of view - reinforcement is any reaction or occurance which reinforces (or increases the frequency of a behaviour) an action by an animal so, for example.... from both sides of the topic:
> To train a long 'sit stay'
> ...


----------



## buttercup123 (Oct 7, 2010)

^^ Very informative post thank you!!
I'm understanding this so much better now.
Although I do love my prong collars and find them to be great tools I'm liking the sounds of this positive stuff a lot better now that its been explained and I've seen different views on it.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

Cookieface, the study on marital interactions was by John Gottman, can be read here: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/Psy394Q/Behavior%20Therapy%20Class/Assigned%20Readings/Relationship%20Discord/Gottman92.pdf

There are a lot of non-technical news items covering the research, if you google Gottman + marital study. Some criticism of the research as it is focused on a model based on hindsight, so there is some question as to it's validity to predict. Interesting, nonetheless! Although it seems common-sense when you think about it ... couples that are nasty to each other are more likely to separate.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

buttercup123 said:


> ^^ Very informative post thank you!!
> I'm understanding this so much better now.
> Although I do love my prong collars and find them to be great tools I'm liking the sounds of this positive stuff a lot better now that its been explained and I've seen different views on it.


Hurray!

There are some excellent books out there if you are interested: Patricia McConnell, Jean Donaldson, Suzanne Clothier, Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor, Pat Miller. All have very good books available on reward-based training methods and the theories behind them.


----------

