[Alpha]

If the mods don't feel this belongs here, sorry, please move!

I thought it would be interesting to see forum members general outlooks on dog training. From behind the scenes theory and uses of positive reinforcement or correction training.

I've typed mine out, it's quite long, but I hope if you all have the time, you could post your general outlooks on dog training as well.

I thought it might also be educational for the newer members looking for information, to see different methods, explained in a non-bias manner to compare and chose what would work best for their furry families.

[Alpha]

General Outlook on Dog Training:
As I’m sure many of you know, there are a tonne of different training methods out there. In the three most simplistic forms; positive, balanced and correction based. There are limitless levels of each category and also numerous combinations of positive and correction based which fall under the “balanced” category. Positive is just as it implies, a method that bases dog training on the positive. Correction based is also clear in the naming. This theory bases the method on correction. Lastly, balanced training, can be any form and amount of the above used together to form a different method.

Overlooking my whole training regiment with my dogs, my training method would be labeled “Balanced Training”. A combination of positive reinforcement, shaping methods as well as correction. My opinion is formed for a number of reasons, we’ll start with why I use positive/shaping methods with my dogs.

Positive/shaping:

I use the shaping techniques with my dogs for very specific exercises. Exercises that either require a lot of drive, or are for showing situations, in my experience, result in a happier, more willing to work dog. In my personal experience, shaping the behavior with my dogs is fun and actually pretty easy. The dog performs said behavior on their own, I mark, either using a clicker or my voice, than reward. After the general foundation of shaping is laid down, it’s very easy to use on introducing more new behaviors. In the beginning with shaping, I use absolutely NO aversives, not even verbal. The whole idea of shaping is allowing the dog to figure it out all on their own, with NO guidance from you whatsoever. Later on, I’m going to talk about when I start using aversives, how and why. Separately, using positive reinforcement in some situations is more likely that you’ll see that behavior again. When asking your dog to do something, rewarding for doing that behavior in many situations will obviously encourage them to do it again.

Corrections:

Firstly, a lot of the technical terms I’m going to use, have my own interpretation within. Seeing as I use a mix of both positive and correction based training, my interpretation will differ from one who uses a method solely based on correction or positive. Balanced training is a mix, therefore the terminology used will differ slightly with experience and your general outlook. As well, balanced training within itself can vary vastly. One person, may use 60% positive and 40% correction, while another vice versa. Hence the terminology and outlook of one word can change greatly. My definition of aversive, means anything that the dog is willing to work to avoid. This could be as mild as a verbal aversive, or ignoring a dog that is jumping or more severe like a leash correction with a choke chain. Please note, that I did not state “severe” in itself, rather, MORE severe than the previous listed aversive. Correction, in my house, is much different than aversive. Corrections are much more specific, and I personally use verbal corrections as well as leash corrections. I’ve wandered down the e-collar road, and it was used as a correction, but it’s not an aversive we use often.

I personally believe dogs can and do learn by correction. Litter mates issue corrections to each other and receiv e corrections and LEARN from them shortly after birth. A mother who’s puppy is nursing too anxiously will issue a correction to which the puppy complies. The severity of that correction is what is of upmost importance for each and every individual dog. Where one dog will shut down from a leash correction another may thrive and carry on as if it never happened. Finding your dog’s limit with aversives and abiding by it will not only make you creative when it comes to dog training but further your knowledge in that specific area.

To me corrections work well when trying to STOP a behavior. As I mentioned with positive reinforcement, in many situations it works well for getting your dog to do said behavior AGAIN, like sit. I find corrections work well to CEASE unwanted behaviors, like jumping on the counter. Also, I believe corrections should be administered after a behavior is SOLID. The severity of the correction is dependent, sometimes a strict verbal aversive combined with manipulating your dog into a sit when it broke a sit stay is more than enough. If I’m 100% sure that my dogs know said behavior, I will issue a correction.


The Breakdown of My outlook on Balanced Training:

The percentages of positive and correction I use in training is dependent on what we’re doing. For example:

Obedience: 60% positive 40% correction
Agility: 95% positive 5% correction
Bite work: 90% positive 10% correction

This is my personal breakdown, of the mix I generally use for said dog activities. I’ll explain now as well the levels/severity of correction within each activity.

Obedience competition does not require a happy hard working dog. Although, I pride myself in having two dogs that wag tails and are clearly happy about working. With that being said, obedience work is also very precise. You need straight fronts, straight sits, no lagging, fast recalls and the list goes on. After I’ve introduced a behavior and practiced I begin using aversives where needed for proofing. Proofing is just that, “proofing” a behavior to make that behavior solid. An example, would be placing a dog in a sit stay and throwing a ball. The dog should not chase the ball. Will he the first time? Maybe. For obedience my attitude of “giving them the benefit of the doubt” doesn’t carry on as long as for agility. To start, I keep things light and happy, and with each new success, I get less lenient about breaking the sit. Verbal aversives, like “Eht!” or “wrong!”. Once the behavior has been proofed and the finishing touches are done, I’m even more of a stickler! Depending on the situation I can tend to let some things go especially seeing as I have two young dogs, but generally I issue verbal corrections followed by praise.

We’ve been having fun with some basic agility work and when we do agility there are no leash corrections. The most severe correction I administer for agility are verbal aversives. Agility is a high drive sport, and owning a submissive, low-confidence dog sometimes even verbal aversives can turn him off and shut him down. Even my verbal aversives are quickly followed by praise. I would rather start off with a high drive, high energy dog, limit my corrections and use positive reinforcement, than use a more severe correction and risk losing that drive for said obstacle, or the activity in general.

The basic bite work we’ve been doing is the same idea as agility. It requires a tonne of drive and a lot of energy. Seeing as we’ve just begun bite work and the obedience is already solid, I limit my corrections to keep that drive and intensity, as opposed to losing it as well as the interest in the activity from too harsh of a correction. As with obedience, after the finishing touches on a command are solid, more corrections are introduced once the behavior is known inside and out. We’re still in the introduction/practicing stage of bite work so we keep the corrections to a minimum.

These are the four “stages” I use when working out how much positive, or the level of correction for each stage of training.

1. Introducing the new behavior
When first introducing a new behavior, I keep everything fun! No aversives at all, not even verbal. I give my dogs a chance to figure out what I want from them, and seriously praise and reward if they do it. If the behavior requires the use of an already known command, sometimes I will verbally correct, but nothing to severe. I don’t want to lose their interest or that happy attitude for learning this new behavior.

Ex) Teaching Down:
Most teach down after the dog already knows “sit”. Teaching the down requires the use of the already known command sit. If my dogs broke their sit, while trying to teach them down instead of verbally correcting harshly, or even physically correcting (leash pop) I would keep the verbal aversive light. My fear of a harsh correction would be the dog associating the correction with this new behavior (down) hence losing all interest and drive to learn.

2. Practicing the behavior
When the introduction is over, and the dog is beginning to understand what you want of them, I’ll begin verbal aversives, sometimes not as a correction, but rather guidance. Still heavily rewarding for good, or almost good attempt at the behavior.

3. Proofing
When proofing, I use verbal aversives to start than moving on to an aversive like a leash correction for big mess ups.

Ex) Sit stay:
My dog is in a sit stay. I throw a ball, they chase it. This is expected, that’s the whole point of proofing, not necessarily setting your dog up, rather putting them in a real life situation, simulating it so you can correct. To begin, I’d say, “No, wrong”, than place them back in the sit. Throwing the ball again. Repeating, repeating and repeating! Heavily rewarding for good stays and slowly and gradually increasing the time and level of distraction. The situation where I would use a leash correction, is if my dog went down on a sit stay because of boredom or lack of interest in the activity. I may give them the benefit of the doubt once, but the second time, they would be getting a leash correction, followed by a firm stay.

4. Finishing touches:
For finishing touches I still heavily reward for performing the behavior correctly although I’m less lenient when issuing corrections. By this time, my dogs know the behavior inside and out, although sometimes, there are extenuating circumstances.

[Alpha]

As a conclusion, every dog is different. Some dogs will require much more positive reinforcement than others, while some dogs will thrive with a well placed correction to put them back on track.

Figuring out what’s best for YOUR individual dog is key.

[Lorina]

Figuring out what’s best for YOUR individual dog is key.

That line right there sums up my general outlook.

[Curbside Prophet]

Dog training is such a marvelous and fascinating subject, and you did a wonderful job explaining your methods Alpha...better than I ever could.

But today I'm feeling like...I don't know, maybe not as rigorous, so I have only some simple ideas...ideas that cater to the general dog handler. And I'd like to do that by adding a point to Lorina's with a question - does your dog still like you after the training session? It's really that simple for the common dog handler. You're the exception Alpha, so you've probably crossed this road a long time ago. But for those who are trying to figure out if a training method is working for you, ask yourself, does my dog look happy doing this? You don't need scentific evidence to see a happy dog.

My apology Alpha, this isn't an attempt to duncify your thread...I enjoyed it very much.

[Quincy]

I'll add a bit, and from what I've seen in Tracking, particularly so on a long difficult scent track, try to avoid any correction as this tends to turn off the scenting abilities of most dogs.
.

[Curbside Prophet]

I would say with any kind of aversion, you better know what the heck you're doing. The difficullty with aversions is that they need to be timely. Most dog owners are not timely, nor consistent, and this is what makes any kind of aversive training dangerous. This isn't a plea for positive only training, bless their hearts, but consequences are necessary, they just need to be well delivered and appropriate.

[Alpha]

The difficullty with aversions is that they need to be timely.

This is a great point! When I first started training, the general correction used for a lagging heel was a leash pop. I'll admit, it's an awful method for a lagging dog, seeing as they're obviously not interested or aware of the proper position, and correcting them with a more severe physical correction will only make them even MORE disinterested in what your doing.

When I stopped and looked at how and when I was correcting, it was pretty clear than even I, who tried my hardest to plan a good, timely correction, was most likely "popping" just as my dogs were thinking about catching up.

What an awful method!! Just as they were thinking, "Mhmmm, maybe I should catch up with mom, maybe that will make her happy..." POP! Dog: "Maybe not..."

We have no way to know what dogs are thinking at the time of the correction. That's why I posted, my fears of corrections when introducing new behaviours, risks losing your dogs drive and intensity for that new behaviour.

Dogs "associate" behaviors and commands quite well. My dogs love the clicker, whenever they see it my hand they KNOW it's fun happy training time.

Just as a dog who's been trained to heel using leash pops, knows as soon as their owner gives the "heel" command, it's correction time.

[DBZ]

My 10 1/2 y/o ACD, Zip, has been trained using a hodge-podge balanced combination method.

When I raise my next companion dog, which I hope won't be for quite awhile yet, I plan to follow the guidelines set forth by some very accomplished and renowned trainer, educators such as Dr. Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor, Pamela Dennison, Nicole Wilde and the Volhards. Imo, a person could be well served by starting with a book like Dr. Dunbar's "Before and After Getting a Puppy". Then Dr. Dunbar's "Training the Companion Dog" (I believe is the title?) video series would be a nice compliment to the book and of course a reputable trainer of like philosophy to help fill in any blanks or demonstrate clearly.

I believe a healthy puppy obtained around 7-8 wks. old raised in this manner will do well and rarely if ever need aversives. I'm sure as with most anything, there will be exceptions. I may be proven wrong with a dog of my own at some point and have to eat my words. Time will tell. But if all goals can be met without introducing aversives then why use them?

I use Dr. Dunbar as an example because he is highly intelligent as evidenced by his many degrees and his many years of experience working with thousands of dogs including many with some of the worst behavioral problems. He has a proven track record of success getting desired results using positive training. I believe Dr. Dunbar has demonstrated positive reinforcement works.

I want my dog to do what I desire because he wants to, not because he's trying to avoid a correction. If I can get my dog to do what I want without a jerk, shock, buzz, shout or shake, then why wouldn't I or anybody?

Corrections happen when people are frustrated and don't know the positive way to get it done. They tell the dog to sit and he doesn't, so they jerk up. They tell the dog to down and he doesn't, so they jerk down. They call the dog and he doesn't come, so they shock (buzz) him and so on and so forth. People think the dog knows what they want but is disobeying and must be punished to show who's in charge. They are the dominant one. But in reality the dog is probably just confused by something we (the people) don't perceive. He's not being stubborn or disobeying and needs to be shown who's boss by golly! There may be a reason we didn't pick-up as to why the dog didn't respond. When the dog is forced to do something he doesn't understand for whatever reason, maybe a really good reason we didn't figure out, we damage the bond of trust at least a little bit and then maybe a little bit more and more...

I've heard people say "I've seen so & so train using aversives and his dogs are the best I've ever seen". I don't doubt that. I've seen evidence that the positive trainers mentioned above have turned out dogs equally well trained. If all that matters is how the end result looks, then I guess it doesn't much matter. I mean a sit's a sit and a down is a down in a competition, if that's all that's being considered. There are many roads leading to the same destination. Some are bumpy and rough, some are long and winding and some are smoother and more relaxing to travel. Even though many end up in the same place, some may be a little more shaken-up getting there.

Sorry that was so long (if you read this far) I may not know what I'm talking about but thanks for the forum.

Happy "Cinco de Mayo"!

DBZ

[Curbside Prophet]

DBZ, Dunbar's home in right in my backyard (not literally, but figuratively). IMO, he's got dog training right. But, don't get him wrong, he does use aversives. I was at one of his lectures last year and he gave a perfect example of a time he used an aversive on one of his dogs. He was lying on his couch and his dog decided to give him a kiss, but in the process the dog jumped and landed on his family jewels. He yelled at the dog to get "off!" It was much more amusing listening to him tell the story. However, he's not opposed to aversives if they work, but, he believes as I learned that they need to fit the crime.

[DBZ]

Sounds like that one did!!! fit the crime. OUCH!

[Alpha]

ROFL @ Curb

DBZ- I agree that if the same outcome, sit an easy example, can be accomplished using positive methods, why wouldn't you?!?!

When it comes to aversives, I like to start out with none, exhaust every level and slowly work my way up the aversives ladder. With Hades, I haven't gone above a leash pop, with Roxy I did use an e-collar. (For one specific behavioural issue) But long before I used the e-collar, I exhausted the "positive" methods, trully, for almost a year! LOL

I don't know one trainer out there that hasn't used an aversive on a dog. Remembering that an aversive can be verbal, or even something like negative punishment. (Ignoring a dog that won't sit politely) It's the level of aversive that appears to be getting higher and higher, and more widely accepted that's nerve racking.

[DBZ]

Very good Alpha and I agree with what you're saying. I look forward to becoming a better educated teacher for my dog and this forum is a great help.

CP, I envy you attending one of Dr. Ian Dunbar's seminars. I doubt he'll be making the rounds in central Oklahoma anytime soon. Lol.

I don't want anyone to get the idea I think I'm a Knowledgeable dog person or anything like that. I know enough to know I'm not. Unfortunately I meet a lot of people at Petsmart, the dog park and other places who know even less! Lol. It's kinda sad.

Present company excluded, you guys are great!

DBZ

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DBZ

CP, I envy you attending one of Dr. Ian Dunbar's seminars. I doubt he'll be making the rounds in central Oklahoma anytime soon. Lol.

It's my understanding that he wants to do more seminars, not less. So keep an eye out, he may very well be in your area within driving distance. Many of his lectures can also be found on DVD. Just do a search on dogwise.com.