# Working Dog Training in One Sentence



## JE-UK

I can't post the article as it's behind a paywall, but Whole Dog Journal did a really good article a while back on a reward-based police dog trainer, who has found that he gets as reliable a worker, but with less stress in the dog and a better relationship between dog & handler.

That's one view. And the opinion of your not-completely-positive herding trainer is another view. We can trade anecdotal evidence all day, if you like :smile:.

Consistently, though, the current research is holding up in support of reward-based training being the most effective. I suspect that because positive methods take more investment and thought by the trainer, it is always going to be an easy trap to fall back into compulsion/pain/fear methods.


----------



## BorderKelpie

I have working dogs also. Mostly herding but one is a GSD in training for sportwork. I believe in postive reinforcememt training, too. To a point, that is. I raised my children that way also, but there will always come a time when a mistake will be made and a consequence will be suffered. That is just the way life works out. No, I do not go looking for reasons to 'punish' but if a correction is needed, it will be administered, firmly, fairly and without anger.


----------



## JE-UK

Maybe we are talking about the same thing, but confusing each other with terms?

There is a lot of ambiguity in the dog training world, about what is meant by reward, punishment, positive, etc.

My own approach is to keep training (or any interaction with the dog) free of force, fear, pain, or intimidation. But I DO occasionally use punishment, of course I do. Because I use them rarely, they can be super mild. A thirty-second timeout is as brutal as I ever get :smile:. I generally talk about it being reward-based or non-coercive.

Proofing is a requirement, I agree. And really, we never stop proofing. I just don't think you need to hurt the dog to proof a behaviour.


----------



## Countryboy

I remember once reading a book on dog training where the author cited a few examples of training. I was a teenager at the time so what book??? . . what author??? . . . I have nooo idea.

The one method that stuck in my mind . . probably 'coz the image was a little extreme . . was of a hunter on horse training a hound to follow a scent.

He said that when he discovered that the dog was following an undesired scent *not the prey he was being trained to track* that he simply rode the horse right over the dog. And said that the dog would never follow that scent again. Instant training... :ahhhhh:

But how true, JE.  A 30 second time-out . . for some dogs . . is the equivalent of corporal punishment. I swear that sometimes a simple glare from me will halt undesired behaviour in my dogs. They stop and slink away as if they've been more severely punished. So a glare, and sometimes a 'bark', suits me just fine.

OTOH, over in another thread, a swat on the butt with a baseball cap solves the problem of counter-surfing. Frustration does nothing good for my blood pressure and I will not risk it for the sake of 'positively' diverting a dog away from the counter for the umpteenth time.

**Tonka has never been a counter-surfer. Watson either.  Spud tried . . once.

Force??? Ya . . well . . Spuddie didn't really wanna go into his crate for the first two nites he lived with us... 

Intimidation??? U bet! When the kids are running in and out an open door and Tonka's got his eye on it?? There's maybe sumthin' abt my arms crossed glare that makes him almost shrug and walk away.  lol


----------



## oceanrose

I have trained pets, and I have trained working dogs. To me, they're the same thing, and approached the same way. Someone with a working dog may have higher expectations than a pet home, but it depends on the pet home, and even the working dog to a great degree.

Before I started training as a positive trainer, I got great results. Now as a positive trainer I get great results. 

The difference is the frustration level I feel when training a problem. Instead of correcting the problem, I'll correct my TRAINING problem in my mind. The statement you quoted brings a bunch of thoughts to mind. If as I'm thinking you're talking about a herding dog: Why is a dog herding cattle without knowing not to run them toward someone? Why wasn't the dog taught first to hold the cattle off? What is the dog's default behavior? How can it be used? Why did the trainer choose to put himself and the dog, and the cattle in this situation and how could it be avoided? Because to me, before training, I think through options and decide how I can successfully work on the behavior, without endangering anyone, most especially my dog, or myself and others. Most training errors that lead to corrections take place because we have either missed a step in training, or else we have rushed through something in our hurry to get the desired result. Taking a step back and evaluating what happened is how we learn and do better the next time.

And with all that, I'm not saying I will NEVER correct a dog, or a kid, but it better be a really good reason. My nephew ran across the road when he was 3. He got a correction. Ramses attempted to kill a new cat the other day. He got a correction to save the cat's life. The difference though, is that I didn't blame the kid or the dog. With the kid, we worked on road safety for 2 weeks straight. For the puppy, I taught him 3 new behaviors that don't allow him to chase the cat, that I ask him to do immediately when he sees her, and just to guarantee it, I have been having him drag a leash so I can grab him if she takes off and his instincts kick in. Teaching an alternate behavior and breaking the negative one is much less stressful than dealing with the negative issue.


----------



## Ladywolfe

Punishment may correct some behaviors, and swiftly. But, I really dislike it and I love the bond that develops when my dog looks at me and I can just see it in his eyes that he truly believes he is the inventor of a new behavior that has made me happy. I love to see a dog so proud of himself, thinking he is the only dog in the world who can sit, stay, etc. LOL


----------



## tortoise

OK, lets straighten this out. 

There are 4 ways to behavior (in people or animals) can be changed.

Positive Reinforcement: something is added to the environment to increase the likelihood of a behavior being performed. (Give the dog a treat when it is good)

Negative Reinforcement: something is taken away from the environment to increase the likelhood of a behavior being performed. (Escape training.)

Positive Punishment: something is added to the environment to decrease the likelihood of a behavior being performed. (Spray the dog with water when it is naughty.)

Negative Punishment: something is taken away from the environment to decrease the likelhood of a behavior being performed. (Don't give the dog a treat when it is naughty.)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ALL-POSITIVE TRAINING. "Positive" training relies heavily upon negative punishment.


----------



## PammiPoodle

I want to throw out a few definitions here for you all. You know, to get everyone *really* confused! ; )

*Reinforcers*: Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative.

*Punishers*: Response from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.

The terms "positive" or "negative" can be applied before either of these words to denote whether the behavior is linked with the beginning of a stimulus (response from the environment) or the removal of one. For a reinforcer, that means either something *good happens* or something *bad stops happening*. For a punisher that means something *bad happens* or something *good stops happening*. I'll use examples:

*Positive reinforcer*: A cookie popped in the mouth after sitting on cue.
*Negative reinforcer*: The release of tension on a choke chain after sitting on cue.

Both of these stimuli reinforce (increase the probability of repeated) sitting on cue, though both are not considered "positive" in the general understanding of the word.

*Positive punisher*: A smack on the nose for jumping up on a human.
*Negative punisher*: Removal of attention for jumping up on a human.

Both outcomes punish (decrease the probability of repeated) jumping up, though the first is considered an "aversive training" technique, and the second a "positive training" technique.

Behaviors can be "punished" without causing a dog harm or undue distress. If a dog's personal motivation to engage in a behavior is so great that negative punishment and positive reinforcement just won't change it, it's a moral decision as to whether you comfortable forcing or coercing another animal to do your will (remember, *we* chose to put them behind that herd of cattle!). I will admit, I "alpha rolled" my previous dog (back when I thought it was something alphas actually did - ha!) for trying to kill my cat. He and I never engaged in those respective behaviors again. We both felt like sh!t. Hahaha It was a learning experience all around! Now I keep it "positive" in the common understanding of the word. Meaning I give cookies for sits and ignore jumper-uppers! : ) I'm also a normal human (I hope!) and *do* yell and have my very own "unauthorized outbursts". Hahaha

*Sorry for the "seminar"! I just like to help people understand that "punishment" does not equal "bad" and to be a kind trainer does not mean we must sit idly by and endure obnoxious or dangerous behavior! There are many compassionate ways to help "guide" our animals' (and friends', haha) actions. : )


----------



## tortoise

oceanrose said:


> And with all that, I'm not saying I will NEVER correct a dog, or a kid, but it better be a really good reason. My nephew ran across the road when he was 3. He got a correction. Ramses attempted to kill a new cat the other day. He got a correction to save the cat's life. The difference though, is that I didn't blame the kid or the dog. With the kid, we worked on road safety for 2 weeks straight. For the puppy, I taught him 3 new behaviors that don't allow him to chase the cat, that I ask him to do immediately when he sees her, and just to guarantee it, I have been having him drag a leash so I can grab him if she takes off and his instincts kick in. Teaching an alternate behavior and breaking the negative one is much less stressful than dealing with the negative issue.


It's more correct too. (Human) Frustration has no place in dog training!

Why did the dog run cattle at the trainer? Because dogs are not robots and have free will. Working dogs need positive punishment to proof and finish commands. After getting a correction for running cattle at the handler it will likely never do it again.

First they are taught how to play the game. Then we show them the rules of the game. Finally, we demonstrate that the rules must never be broken. 

A working dog that is not proofed is a dangerous dog.


----------



## tortoise

PammiPoodle said:


> "punishment" does not equal "bad"


^^^^What she said!!!^^^^


----------



## JE-UK

oceanrose said:


> Most training errors that lead to corrections take place because we have either missed a step in training, or else we have rushed through something in our hurry to get the desired result. Taking a step back and evaluating what happened is how we learn and do better the next time.


Brilliantly stated.

Tortoise, Pammipoodle, as I'm sure you are aware, not everyone uses the correct terms when discussing operant conditioning. I'm aware of the correct use, but many, many people use "positive" as a shortcut term for "non-coercive". In any case, it is always useful to be clear on terms, so thanks for posting a refresher for people who may not have been aware.

Tortoise, I generally agree with your statement _A working dog that is not proofed is a dangerous dog_. That is obvious. But I think you really mean that a working dog that is not proofed with coercive methods is a dangerous dog, and I disagree. As do others. 

You might be enlightened by Robert Milner's gundog site (he also trains bomb detection dogs). All reward based. And gundog trainers are traditionally some of the most recalcitrant about switching from old methods.


----------



## DivinityPoodles

I have a small question...

if dogs that are going to be used as say a police dog are only positively trained, how do they train through to make sure that the dog will still take out the bad guy who will hit/punch/kick/stab the dog to get away? Because I can guarantee that the bad guy will have NO second thoughts about hurting the dog especially when the dog is biting. And the dog can't let go. Also, most police dogs are trained to pick up guns, so if a 'force fetch' isn't done, what if the dog decides to leave the gun within reach of the suspect?

Just curious.
(And no my poodles are not trained to hold a bite no matter what and although I have no doubt I could get them to fetch a gun, it's not something I intend to do)


----------



## BorderKelpie

I need to ask about that - police dogs pick up the weapon? I understood it to be that it was prefered the dogs did NOT touch, pick up, move the weapon in order not to contaminate evidence and heaven forbid, the thing actually discharges when he grips it. 

This is a great discussion regarding terminology and I hope it clears up some confusion. Thanks for all the input everyone!


----------



## Quossum

Such great stuff; good explanation of Reinforcement / Punishment. When I taught a G/T enrichment class, I did a unit on this whole concept, starting with having the kids do the Training Game and continuing with the whole _Don't Shoot the Dog_ thing. 

I found it helps to think of the four quadrants as R+ (Positive Reinforcement), R- (Negative Reinforcement), P+ (Positive Punishment), and P- (Negative Punishment). It doesn't help that the word "positive" often means "good" in the vernacular, so I encouraged the students to think of these terms in their mathematic sense: Positive means something is added, and Negative means something is taken away. 

All of these "work" perfectly well, given appropriate timing and good training "chops." The problem is that the use of aversives, whether it is in _giving_ them (P+) or _taking them away_ (R-), often has detrimental fallout in regards to a dog's attitude , enthusiasm, and willingness to freely offer behaviors. See The Problem with Punishment for a further exploration of this idea. This applies to R- as well as P+, because in order to apply R-, the trainer usually applies the aversive in order to then take it away when the dog does the right thing. The classic R- example is the use of the ear pinch to train the retrieve. Apply pressure to the dog's ear, let go the second the dog takes the dumbbell. I taught my first dog the retrieve in this manner, and it worked. Would I train the retrieve this way again? No. Though it worked, there just seems to be something a little...uncomfortable about inflicting pain (or at least discomfort) upon a dog so that I could have a green ribbon and a piece of paper with certain letters on it.

As Tortoise says, there's no "all-positive" training. But those of us who have the goal of training without aversives would say that we are endeavoring to use only R+ and P-. In other words, we are manipulating the *good* things in the dog's environment. This does involve a major paradigm shift, as you have to think of your dog and his actions in a different way. Not so much, "How can I stop him from doing XYZ," more, "What can I train him to do that's incompatible with him doing XYZ." It involves controlling the dog's reinforcement, which can be challenging, and building value judiciously for certain things while trying with all your might not to accidentally let the dog get reinforced for the wrong things, or to "steal" reinforcement. 

Now, I'm human, and I've yelled "No!" before and even lost my temper. That's on me, but I am *trying* to be a no-aversives trainer.

--Q


----------



## tortoise

Luvmyspoos said:


> I have a small question...
> 
> if dogs that are going to be used as say a police dog are only positively trained, how do they train through to make sure that the dog will still take out the bad guy who will hit/punch/kick/stab the dog to get away? Because I can guarantee that the bad guy will have NO second thoughts about hurting the dog especially when the dog is biting. And the dog can't let go. Also, most police dogs are trained to pick up guns, so if a 'force fetch' isn't done, what if the dog decides to leave the gun within reach of the suspect?
> 
> Just curious.
> (And no my poodles are not trained to hold a bite no matter what and although I have no doubt I could get them to fetch a gun, it's not something I intend to do)


No, police 9's are NOT trained to target a weapon. There is a lot of discussion among personal protection (PPD) and K9 trainers about whether or not a dog should target the arm holding a weapon. Most say no because of the danger.

K9/PPD are picked for the ability to withstand pressure on the bite and it's developed by applying pressure during training. It starts with gentle touches and pretending to hit the dog (but not touching). The dog learns it isn't scary. As the dog is developed, the pressure turns into (padded) stick hits, hitting, even kicking the dog. It is all done slowly and the end result is it amps the dog up, like playing rough with your hands makes a pupy more excited. This is all necessary so that when a K9 or PPD are in a real life situation wher the bad guy attacks the dog, the dog keeps a cheerful state of mind and does the job. And it works. K9s have worked through stabbing and gunshots.  This is really important to understand: Even though this training involves physical contact with the dog, it is trained with positive reinforcement. It's impossible to build confidence for this using punishment.

Some other things that these dogs can have problems with is call-offs, not letting go of the bite when commanded to, and biting the wrong person! Those are all a really big deal.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

I'll have to ask my friend about the police training question! I know it's not the same as police training specifically, but a friend of mine has been researching shutzund because she'd like to get involved with a doberman (in the future - she doesn't have a dobie yet) but she only uses positive reinforcement training. I know that she has had some trouble finding breeders to take her seriously about doing shutzund training unconventionally - with a clicker! She has been working with a trainer who has titled many dogs in shutzund using clicker training.


----------



## oceanrose

tortoise said:


> It's more correct too. (Human) Frustration has no place in dog training!
> 
> Why did the dog run cattle at the trainer? Because dogs are not robots and have free will. Working dogs need positive punishment to proof and finish commands. After getting a correction for running cattle at the handler it will likely never do it again.
> 
> First they are taught how to play the game. Then we show them the rules of the game. Finally, we demonstrate that the rules must never be broken.
> 
> A working dog that is not proofed is a dangerous dog.


What I asked in my question wasn't whether the dog has free will or not, but WHY in the training step was this missed? If we go back as trainers, and examine where we made the error in our training, we'll do a better job last time. And would a correction work there? It depends on the type as Pammipoodle so nicely typed out. There is no way of knowing though without being there. I would think having a great hold cue cemented would be necessary before ever getting a dog around livestock. Herding is one thing I've never trained for though, unless you count training my GSD to herd and hold my cats in or out of a room 

I agree all dogs need proofing, I just don't think you need Positive Punisher or a Negative Reinforcer to do it, or in laymans terms, I don't think you need a correction. Again, is it possibly warranted? Potentially. Could it be avoided by what we trained and shaped the dog to do? Absolutely.


----------



## oceanrose

CharismaticMillie said:


> I'll have to ask my friend about the police training question! I know it's not the same as police training specifically, but a friend of mine has been researching shutzund because she'd like to get involved with a doberman (in the future - she doesn't have a dobie yet) but she only uses positive reinforcement training. I know that she has had some trouble finding breeders to take her seriously about doing shutzund training unconventionally - with a clicker! She has been working with a trainer who has titled many dogs in shutzund using clicker training.


That's awesome your friend found a trainer locally to train with a clicker! They are out there, but it's sure regional. Before I got Ramses, that was actually what I wanted to do, since it's on my bucket list to title a dog in Sch. work. But there are no local clubs that supported it at all. So I changed directions and got a puppy for obedience and tracking instead. I'm hoping with my relocation that I'll be able to find a club that would at least let me train with a clicker eventually.


----------



## oceanrose

Quossum said:


> But those of us who have the goal of training without aversives would say that we are endeavoring to use only R+ and P-. In other words, we are manipulating the *good* things in the dog's environment. This does involve a major paradigm shift, as you have to think of your dog and his actions in a different way. Not so much, "How can I stop him from doing XYZ," more, "What can I train him to do that's incompatible with him doing XYZ." It involves controlling the dog's reinforcement, which can be challenging, and building value judiciously for certain things while trying with all your might not to accidentally let the dog get reinforced for the wrong things, or to "steal" reinforcement.
> 
> Now, I'm human, and I've yelled "No!" before and even lost my temper. That's on me, but I am *trying* to be a no-aversives trainer.
> 
> --Q
> 
> 
> Quossum231126 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! It's the mindset, and how the problems are looked at. And none of us are perfect trainers. Luckily we all have perfectly forgiving dogs, because there is no such thing as a non-perfect dog
Click to expand...


----------



## tortoise

Quossum said:


> As Tortoise says, there's no "all-positive" training. But those of us who have the goal of training without aversives would say that we are endeavoring to use only R+ and P-. In other words, we are manipulating the *good* things in the dog's environment. This does involve a major paradigm shift, as you have to think of your dog and his actions in a different way. Not so much, "How can I stop him from doing XYZ," more, "What can I train him to do that's incompatible with him doing XYZ." It involves controlling the dog's reinforcement, which can be challenging, and building value judiciously for certain things while trying with all your might not to accidentally let the dog get reinforced for the wrong things, or to "steal" reinforcement.
> 
> Now, I'm human, and I've yelled "No!" before and even lost my temper. That's on me, but I am *trying* to be a no-aversives trainer.
> 
> --Q


We probably train very similarly. I would teach people: "reward the good, ignore the bad, correct the dangerous or defiant".

My neighbor has been jerking her barking Basset Hound around for 2 years and the dog has an anxiety complex about people coming to the door now, which makes everything worse. Yesterday I was over and had dog treats with and just started clicking. Soon the dog was laying down on its side relaxed and also not barking when someone knocked on the door. I've talked to her a lot about non-jerking-the-leash things to do. (leash, crate, go lie down, reward good behavior, etc). It will be hard to work with the people. When the dog ran off to bark out the front window the owner would start to yell at the dog. I told her to wait quietly. The owner was really uncomfortable, but the dog did run back quickly and got rewarded for it. They want to borrow my ecollar. NOT until they do the positive training first! (They won't need it, their dog did awesome).

I guess I have 2 more categories that I would use correction for: self-rewarding behaviors and things that make us angry. Because even if I'm not engaging with my dog and not doing anything to it, I'm not so nice to be around when I'm angry. It makes sense to me that a correction is less distressing than being around an angry person, so I choose the correction. So a person might use correction to speed training for a behavior they have no tolerance for: aggression, countersurfing, etc.

When you DO a lot of reward based training, your dog is less likely to start bad behaviors. I start from zero, control the environment, and lots of clicker training. That prevents the dog from starting behaviors that would need correction later. I talk about correction a lot because I think it has a very important place in dog (and people) training. I talk aboutit because when it is done wrong, bad things can happen. But that doesn't mean that I use a lot of correction. The last correction my dog got was last week. He failed to lie down on command and I corrected him out of habit (being used to more fully trained dogs). I already trained leash pressure with it so he was not distressed or confused. But it was my mistake. We are working on adding enthiasim and speed to the down with rewards. The trainer I'm seeing thought it was time to add correction for slowness, but I know I haven't worked with my puppy enough on the clicker training and he's not ready for it.

I'm rambling again, but you're 100% righ on about training an incompatible behavior. I don't think that is possible for many of the things working dogs need proofed and finished.


----------



## liljaker

Well, I am sure there is someone on the PF who has probably trained police dogs, so you will, no doubt, get an answer.


----------



## Quossum

tortoise said:


> K9/PPD are picked for the ability to withstand pressure on the bite and it's developed by applying pressure during training. It starts with gentle touches and pretending to hit the dog (but not touching). The dog learns it isn't scary. As the dog is developed, the pressure turns into (padded) stick hits, hitting, even kicking the dog. It is all done slowly and the end result is it amps the dog up, like playing rough with your hands makes a pupy more excited....


I thought this was really interesting. The trainer whose methods I'm following most, Susan Garrett, encourages this use of "applying pressure" and making the dog work through frustration, all in a no-aversives manner. When tugging with the dog, we're encouraged to slap his sides and grab his muzzle, building drive and mental and physical toughness. (For a touch-sensitive dog, this might start with the merest brush of a finger to his body.) When shaping, we're to avoid luring or "giving hints" with voice or body (this is a HUGE challenge for "positive" trainers) in order to build the dog's work ethic and willingness to experiment and think through a challenge. One of her catchphrases is, "Positive is not permissive!" 

But no *applied* aversives: the terrible consequence of not doing what you want is just that the dog doesn't get that wonderful tug toy or treat. Or, for a really naughty dog, you might turn your back on them. Sugarfoot has been training with me long enough now that I turn my back on him if he starts barking at me; I use that to say, "That will never, ever be reinforced!" But then I also have to consider if I need to break up the task a little, or just get in a balance break of tugging to reset him mentally. 

Here's a link to Susan Garrett's blog, btw, since I know I've mentioned her several times! Susan Garrett Agility Training 
She's an Agility competitor, but much of her training methods are equally applicable to any dog sport or to just having a happy pet you can live with and be proud of.

--Q


----------



## tortoise

liljaker said:


> Well, I am sure there is someone on the PF who has probably trained police dogs, so you will, no doubt, get an answer.


Umm... :wave: I have. I raised 2 police dogs from puppies to green dogs. I've trained my dogs in bitework and been a decoy (the person who gets bitten) to help other people train their dog in bitework.

@ *Oceanrose* - Sheila Booth is a schutzhund competitior who uses clicker training. She has written "Purely Positive Training" which is a starting point. She has also written "Training is Drive" which has more to do with SchH. I bought "Purely Positive Training" and loved it. Learned a lot from it. I haven't read the other but I have no doubt it is excellent. You can also get DVDs from Leerburg about developing a young dog up until the point that a decoy is needed in training. Poodles typically need a lot of work on grip since they were bred with soft-mouth-ness in mind. I'm not sure which one would be most helpful for you, they have a couple that go through back-tying in bitework for training your own dog.

@ *Quossum* - I don't think free-shaping versus luring affects "work ethic". I am very much in favor of free shaping and feel as if I've failed when I use a lure or touch prompt. Free shapping requires more involvement from the dog. It is actively learning. As far as "work ethic", I don't think there is a set definition for it. I had a trainer tell me my dog didn't have "work ethic" when in reality he was distracted on a new training field. In my mind, work ethic has more to do with how long a dog stays engaged, and if the dog stays "with me" in training when it knows I don't have rewards. It's probably not a true meaning of the phrase since those can bother be manipulated. I know Susam Garret is about as far to the "positive" training side as possible. She has very good things to teach. Her crate games are valuable for pet and working dogs. I was told that to train with her you have to sign a contract saying you won't so much as say "no" to your dog. I don't know if this is true. It makes me wonder how she deals with dogs that don't respond well to clicker training? Does anyone know? With free shaping I'm learning to not be so hard on myself and my puppy is starting to "get" the clicker training - finally!


----------



## Quossum

I think the "problem" with luring is that a dog used to be lured extensively will, when frustrated, stop offering responses and wait for a lure. Often the human, frustrated and unable to break down the behavior any further, will provide a lure--some sort of help, pointing, throwing a treat in the direction they want the dog to go--and thus reinforce the dog for waiting it out instead of for continuing to try. The dog becomes focused on the handler rather than on the work ahead. Not to mention the danger of the dog's speed being restricted to the speed at which the human can move the lure.

I want my Agility dog to be eager to interact with whatever is out ahead of me--eventually, this will be obstacles. I want him to run at top speed towards whatever obstacle my body language indicates. Let me tell you, it was torture, the first time I put out an object (a large ball) in the room and just waited for him to notice it. Naturally he was oriented on me and kept "throwing" behaviors at me. It took everything within me to keep from pointing out the ball, gesturing towards it, *something.* He was frustrated, barked a few times...but eventually moved away from me and towards the ball, giving me something to build on, and quickly I had him touching and then rolling the ball, putting his feet on it, etc. Lots of responses. This paid off in dividends. Now, when we go out into the yard or into the room in "training mode," Sugar actively seeks out things in the environment and starts interacting with them.

That said, I used luring rather than pure shaping to get the "Spin" and "Twirl" behaviors, but faded the lure (a touch stick) with a session or two. Those two still aren't solidly on cue, but we're working. So, most training strategies have their place. Even, for some circumstances, a firm, "No!" :angel2: But I am trying to keep my Agility training completely free of aversives so that I can keep that eager, sparkly, worry-free drive that I love.

--Q


----------



## tortoise

I agree that fun training, like agility or tricks should be.... well.... FUN! I'll use a no-reward marker but that's all. 

If I'm training a trick, I try to use free shaping exclusively. If I'm finishing off a service dog I'll use correction (in addition to rewards). I don't stop rewarding good behavior when correction is introduced - which is a common mistake. When I do this I get the eager drive when I want it and the self-control when I need it.


----------



## JE-UK

Luvmyspoos said:


> I have a small question...
> 
> if dogs that are going to be used as say a police dog are only positively trained, how do they train through to make sure that the dog will still take out the bad guy who will hit/punch/kick/stab the dog to get away? Because I can guarantee that the bad guy will have NO second thoughts about hurting the dog especially when the dog is biting. And the dog can't let go. Also, most police dogs are trained to pick up guns, so if a 'force fetch' isn't done, what if the dog decides to leave the gun within reach of the suspect?
> 
> Just curious.
> (And no my poodles are not trained to hold a bite no matter what and although I have no doubt I could get them to fetch a gun, it's not something I intend to do)


As others said, police dogs are at most trained to alert to the presence of a gun, not to pick it up. That said, it wouldn't be hard to train, I wouldn't think. My miniature is trained to retrieve all sorts of odd-shaped metal things, just as part of his regular training. You have to work up to it, but it's way do-able.

If you watch police dogs (or Schutzhund or Ring Sport) work, you can see that they think the bitework is the GREATEST GAME EVER. When waiting for the handler to release them, they are amped up and excited, tails wagging. They aren't biting out of anger; that would be dangerous and difficult to control. The "off" command is more critical than the "bite" command. For us, it's a scary thing, but for the dog, it's just another great game. Over time, just the opportunity to do the bite work can be a reward in itself.


----------



## Leooonie

tortoise said:


> Negative Punishment: something is taken away from the environment to decrease the likelhood of a behavior being performed. (Don't give the dog a treat when it is naughty.)
> 
> .


wanted to point out <b>Tortoise </b> (and this isnt a personal attack, just a sort of 'correction' in a way)
the dog doesnt know that it was going to get the treat, so therefore not givnig thr treat cannot be seen, to a dog at least, as Negative Punishment..
possibly the most obvious example would be lack of social contact, so the dog is ignored, or given a time-out...

I agree it cannot be 'all positive' however, I guess what most people mean by that is that no corrections of a physical kind are given ...


----------



## tortoise

Yeah, you called me out on my training weakness. I keep clickers and treats stashed all over the house and in my pockets. And I have a bad habit of keeping treats in my hands when I'm training. My dogs know when I'm *not* giving a treat.  

But you're right, and those are good examples of withholding.


----------

