# Fans of Andrew on Greatest American Dog



## tamizami (May 1, 2007)

I know there were lots of us fans of Laurie and Andrew from the Greatest American Dog here. Imagine my surprise when this month's Whole Dog Journal includes a lengthy interview with Laurie about her experience on the show. Its a great read for fans of Andrew and fans of positive training techniques. They also dig into the differences between JD & Galaxy - who described himself as an "old-school dog trainer" who "doesn't believe in using food in training at all and never, ever gives dogs "people food"." 

You can order a subscription or a copy here: http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/

Enjoy!


----------



## sophie (Jul 9, 2006)

I read that article and enjoyed it immensely. I highly recommend the Whole Dog Journal it always has great articles.

Linda


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

I watched a few episodes of the Greatest American dog and was not impressed with anyone on the show, including andrew. I have issues with this article. 

One, knocking JDs dog for doing what she is told? That is absolutely ridiculous. When did it stop being ok to demand excellence from your dogs. The whole thing about Andrew stoping during agility to go say hi to some people? Unacceptable in my book. You can go do that when I say you can. 

Not to mention, she was probably on her 'best behavior' because half of the dogs in that house were DANGEROUS! Most of those people have no business owning dogs. I don't think I could go and feel comfortable and let my dog be around those dogs. I wouldn't put him in a situation like that. 

She has no idea about 'old school' training, I don't care if she says she has or not. Training does NOT make dogs run away from you. If this is the case, then she was training very very poorly, if at all. The whole thing about balanced training is that you use both positive and negative. And you have to use them both in a fair and reasonable manner. I have not met one dog trained with balanced training methods that will run away from you when off leash. In fact, most of them are hardly ever on a leash! 

Victoria Stillwell manages, she doesn't train. Nothing on her show comes close to showing reliable results that you do not constantly need to be standing there feeding your dog. I thought her advice to the contestents on the show was aweful. 

This is the problem with the dog world. People think it is cute when dogs misbehave, and set poor goals for them to reach and have low standards. People do not know what 'good dogs' are or what good training is.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

I have not yet read this article, so I can't address it directly. 

However, I have met Andrew and Laurie personally. I think she is an awesome trainer and has a great relationship with her dogs. Her dogs are extraordinarily well behaved and well trained. Andrew proved it not just on this show, but through the obedience titles he has earned.

*She has demanded excellence from him and he has excelled. * :good post - perfect 10: 

I also think Victoria Stillwell does much more than manage the dogs. She is a much better model trainer than many on television. It is simply incorrect to say that the dogs have to be bribed constantly to behave once they are trained with positive methods. 

I was very active in obedience with my first maltese who earned his CD at 12 years of age. My Cameo has been certified as a therapy dog. Over the past 9 years, I have been to many different training facilities while working with my brood, I have seen positive and negative methods put to clear effect. Lead jerks and choke collars work to produce specific results. So do shock collars. But are they the best methods to to use? I have friends who are rather old school in their methods who have beautiful, wonderful dogs. I still cringe when I see some of the negative methods used. To me it is a bit like my grandfather who believed in taking his kids behind the woodshed for a "whooping". Most of his children grew into lovely people. But today the woodshed is not considered an ideal method of childrearing. Certainly, my father did not carry on that tradition with his own children. I think we turned out as well (if not better  ) than his siblings. I respect my friends who have trained this way, as I respect my grandfather, but I believe that our ideals evolve over time and hopefully we learn new ways. 

Lets just say that parents disagree about parenting methods and dog owners disagree about training methods.


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

It would be okay, just to say agree to disagree, if you could get the same results, but you cannot. Any results you get training all positively are not as dependable as using balanced methods. It is MORE fair to correct when necessary, than to never correct because the dog will learn the desired behavior quickly, and will have a better understanding of the task he is supposed to perform. 

The difference is that at 5 months, it doesn't matter where we are, if he is 2, 10, 15, 20 ft away or there is distractions, but all I have to say is 'Rugby, sit' and he stops what he is doing to put his bottom on the ground. And I don't have to go digging for a treat or make sure I have my clicker handy, I can just smile at him and say thanks and he know he did a good job and he is happy with himself. The difference is dog trained with balanced training methods like to work, and dogs trained with all positive methods like food. 

Balanced training is mostly 'positive' anyways. For one thing, I am positive that I will be succussful in whatever the dog is supposed to be doing. I am positive that I am being fair to my dog by letting him know exactly what it is he has to do. I am positive that in the face of distraction, Rugby is going to behave. I am positive that this training is dependable enough to save his life if the situation arises. I am positive that this method will work for all dogs. 

As for shock collars, I love them! Except that no shock is actually given to the dog. They are electronic training collars, and they produce this sort of tingle. We use it to train most all the dogs at the dog training place I go to (with the exception of really small dogs).To be honest, I wish Rugby was about 10 lbs heavier so I could use it with him. It is much easier to define what the dog is supposed to be doing, and the training goes much quicker. The learning level is not much more than a tingle to get their attention. 

The whole offering spontaneous behaviors actually made me laugh out loud. Spontaneous behaviors are fine, but if I have told you to sit, or go over that A-frame, etc that better be what you are doing. The fact that Andrew goes over to say high to people and jumps on the judges table may be cute in the agility ring, but if he gets off task outside of the ring it could get him killed. So in this aspect too, balanced training is much more fair and gives the dog more oportunity to succeed.


----------



## Moxie'smom (Dec 16, 2007)

I think I'll personally stay with the positive training method. The idea of a "shock collar" quite frankly scares me, but then again an alpha roll scares me too. 
I think people who believe in shock collars should put them on themselves first, then tell me if they work. 

With positive training, it's not ALWAYS about doing things for treats. After the behavior is learned, you fade back giving reward. Actually when you fade back, you get a better response than always giving treats. And after a certain time you do not treat anymore. Also, there is no such thing as never saying "no" to a behavoir that is not desireable..you just don't punish like the old training methods. 

I think you might consider reading up on Laurie's training methods before you critizize them so strongly. It helps to really understand the whole method, not just parts of it. 

Might I recommend "Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson and "Don't shoot the dog" by Karen Pryor, she developed clicker training, but even if you don't utilize the clicker method (which i haven't yet) it's really a great book with a lot of really good info.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Before lecturing others on proper dog training methods, I suggest you get yourself current with learning theory and its place in dog training and behavior. Some good books have been suggested. This stuff is OLD and very well tested. 

BTW, my Soda Pop has been 100% positively trained and has his CGC, CD and is a service dog. 

Running off in agility is not usually solved by correction. It is more of a relationship and obstacle/handler focus issue. Remedial work, not corrections solve it best.


----------



## cloey70 (Jan 6, 2008)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 9 2008, 04:00 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667025


> It would be okay, just to say agree to disagree, if you could get the same results, but you cannot. Any results you get training all positively are not as dependable as using balanced methods. It is MORE fair to correct when necessary, than to never correct because the dog will learn the desired behavior quickly, and will have a better understanding of the task he is supposed to perform.
> 
> The difference is that at 5 months, it doesn't matter where we are, if he is 2, 10, 15, 20 ft away or there is distractions, but all I have to say is 'Rugby, sit' and he stops what he is doing to put his bottom on the ground. And I don't have to go digging for a treat or make sure I have my clicker handy, I can just smile at him and say thanks and he know he did a good job and he is happy with himself. The difference is dog trained with balanced training methods like to work, and dogs trained with all positive methods like food.
> 
> ...


Wow, is about all I can say to u, and maybe ignorance. Wish I could train u with a shock collar. Cruel, just plain cruel you are.


----------



## pebble's mama (Jun 1, 2008)

QUOTE (cloey70 @ Nov 9 2008, 11:37 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667483


> QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 9 2008, 04:00 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667025





> It would be okay, just to say agree to disagree, if you could get the same results, but you cannot. Any results you get training all positively are not as dependable as using balanced methods. It is MORE fair to correct when necessary, than to never correct because the dog will learn the desired behavior quickly, and will have a better understanding of the task he is supposed to perform.
> 
> The difference is that at 5 months, it doesn't matter where we are, if he is 2, 10, 15, 20 ft away or there is distractions, but all I have to say is 'Rugby, sit' and he stops what he is doing to put his bottom on the ground. And I don't have to go digging for a treat or make sure I have my clicker handy, I can just smile at him and say thanks and he know he did a good job and he is happy with himself. The difference is dog trained with balanced training methods like to work, and dogs trained with all positive methods like food.
> 
> ...


Wow, is about all I can say to u, and maybe ignorance. Wish I could train u with a shock collar. Cruel, just plain cruel you are.
[/B][/QUOTE]


I agree. People are trying to be nice about disagreeing with your methods and you just keep pressing. It's obvious no one is going to come to an agreement so lets just move on.


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

Can someone please put some weight into their answers? 

I HAVE used a shock collar on myself, and it is not uncomfortable ('pain wise') untill it is turned all the way up. Have you guys tried a shock collar? How can you completely disagree with it if you have not? The reason shock collars scare you is because you have no idea how they actually work or are used. Why don't you go find out? 

I know exactly what positive training is all about. I am a convert. The difference is that my dog is devloping an intrinsic desire to work, and you are relying on extrinsic rewards. The difference is in the results. 
So what do you do when the dog refuses to do a task, keep asking, get better treats, a louder clicker, make his do it over and over and over again and hope that he complies? How do you enforce yourself...or do the dogs get to decide when they want to listen or not. 

I really am offended because it is clear that none of you have any idea what a balnced training method it. Or you are ignorant enough to assume that because you are uneducated about the various training methods, that positive training methods are the obvious choice. I did do my reasearch before I made the switch because I was skeptical too, but NOT close minded, and knowing what I know now wish I had never wasted the time doing any 100% positive things. 

You are exactly right...it is a relationship problem. He knows that he doesn't have to do what she says right when she says it. He isn't stupid that is for sure! 

I think what you don't get is that old school methods does not mean all negative training. It is a blend of everything. The differnece is that we clearly explain to the dogs what they are supposed to be doing and corrections are minimal. 

I plan on doing obedience with Rugby as well. Tell me how the positive training is going for you when you get to utility. 

Do you mean this Jean Donaldson?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jaA4k4SdTg
This is your training method of choice? 
I am not against reading the book however, though I highly doubt that it will do much in your favor. 

If I am cruel then so be it. God help Rugby and wretched life he lives.


----------



## 08chrissy08 (Sep 19, 2008)

QUOTE


> Do you mean this Jean Donaldson?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jaA4k4SdTg
> This is your training method of choice?
> I am not against reading the book however, though I highly doubt that it will do much in your favor.[/B]


I'm confused as to why you have something against this vid? The whole point is to prove that any behavior can be taught to be performed with the training methods used. She isn't advocating that people teach their dogs to hump.


----------



## I found nemo (Feb 23, 2006)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 9 2008, 11:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667548


> Can someone please put some weight into their answers?
> 
> I HAVE used a shock collar on myself, and it is not uncomfortable ('pain wise') untill it is turned all the way up. Have you guys tried a shock collar? How can you completely disagree with it if you have not? The reason shock collars scare you is because you have no idea how they actually work or are used. Why don't you go find out?
> 
> ...


I don't think your necessarily cruel, but I wouldn't use a shock collar on ANY dog, maybe a person though :HistericalSmiley: :HistericalSmiley: (Oh it was a joke).
Maybe your right, maybe we don't understand all about it, but really I don't want to understand it.
I think positive reinforcement works, it has for Nemo and my kids   
I have Nemo on all voice commands and I have to say the Maltese breed is more intelligent than some people I know, so I just don't see the need for it.
I do appreciate your view though, even if I don't agree with it.
:biggrin:


----------



## sophie (Jul 9, 2006)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 9 2008, 10:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667548


> Can someone please put some weight into their answers?
> 
> I HAVE used a shock collar on myself, and it is not uncomfortable ('pain wise') untill it is turned all the way up. Have you guys tried a shock collar? How can you completely disagree with it if you have not? The reason shock collars scare you is because you have no idea how they actually work or are used. Why don't you go find out?
> 
> ...



Okay, I may be ignorant and God knows I am no dog trainer, but what do *you* do when a dog you are training refuses to do a task? In another thread about humping or peeing on another dog you mentioned that you would *BOP *the dog. 

You were asked twice in that thread to please explain what you meant by bopping because as we defined bopping it means *hitting, *but maybe that definition was a regional thing. And, the last time I checked you hadn't replied to the question. So, do you advocate hitting or striking a dog when you train it? Wouldn't that instill fear in the dog and wouldn't the dog comply out of fear and/or intimidation and not because of trust placed in the trainer. How does that make the dog want to happily obey you? I just cannot see how using a shock collar or hitting a dog would cause him to "develop an intrinsic desire to work." Could you maybe explain what the negative consequences are when training in the program you are in? Maybe I am totally just no understanding where you are coming from and I would understand it better.

Linda


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

Rugby gets leash corrections (hence the reason for the two ring training collar). If he doesn't sit, I put upward pressure on the leash (which he knows means sit because of the training method that I use). If he doesn't come, I reel him in. If he doens't heel, a series of turns acts as his correction (the leash hangs below me knee and and when he is out of heel position it hits my leg and acts as a correction.) Does Rugby take it personal? Absolutely not, because it is fair and reasonable that I ask those things of him and the correction are minimal just to let him know not only what it is that he is supposed to be doing, but what it is that he is _not_ supposed to be doing. That is a big thing and it is not fair to ever hold the dog responsible for a task if you have not explained these things to them and you can not do this will all positive training. 

So now it is your turn. What do you do? 
Although since you never told the dog both sides of the story (what to do and what not to do) it is unfair for you to correct your dog. So by training 100% positive, you have taken that option away from yourself--you can not enforce what you want the dog to do. 

I honestly hadn't checked that thread after I posted, but I will go back and respond. Yes, I did mean push said dog off of other said dog. It does not instill fear, because it is fair. Rugby has been 'bopped' right on the nose for resource gaurding. I rough house with him harder than the correction given (and he looooves to play), so I hardly expect him to have much of a reaction to it. Guess how many times he has tried it again? None. Guess how many times he hides his head when I touch him or runs away from me or shows any sign of fear? None. I am not saying go around hitting your dog, I am saying that when appropriate, it is okay to give fair corrections.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

*Just a reminder of our forum's rules:

"Personal opinions on all topics are both welcomed and permitted. While heated debates and arguments between members will be allowed a certain amount of leeway, personal attacks are not permitted and will not be tolerated."

It's fine to disagree with each other and share opinions. This is actually an interesting topic and we all could probably learn some things. But please make your comments on the post and not on the member who made it.

Thank you.
K/C Mom
Forum Administrator*


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

I think you have many misconceptions on positive training done properly. Positive is NOT permissive. The whole point of positive training is to utilize learning theory to maximize the learning and minimize the stress. Any correction is a stress. A correction only works if it is strong enough for a dog to recognize it as so. It may be a very, very mild stress, or a more powerful one. But it works on the purpose of causing stress to the dog. So yes, when I use my no-reward-marker of "eh eh" softly, it creates a mild stress on my dog so they have a small worry of "oops I did that wrong". The fewer and milder the corrections I use, the less stress my dog undergoes. And the better trainer you are and the more clear you are in teaching a behavior, the less corrections you will need. Watch a very, very skilled trainer teach a dog to heal with a choke collar on...you will notice very few corrections and they only rattle the collar (not pull up on it) and a LOT of positive feedback telling the dog when it is in the proper position. There are thousands of incorrect positions and only 1 correct one. You will train much faster to focus on that one instead of focusing on correcting every wrong one (eliminating a 1000 possibilities instead of just clearly showing the dog one). Training is all about feedback to your dog. A really awesome trainer has sat down, figured out the criteria of what they are teaching, how best to elicit the behavior without force, and precisely what/where feedback is important. And this is why you can teach a dog to heal in perfect position without a leash, just your voice alone and some cookies. That is what a skilled trainer can do. 

As far as using rewards, I would encourage you to research variable reinforcement schedule to learn how powerful occasional rewards are once a behavior is learned. 

A clicker is a training tool. Once a dog knows the behavior, the clicker is gone. I don't carry a clicker around with my service dog to click him for healing in a store. He already knows that behavior. I do intermittently reward him with a verbal praise which indicates he is on the right track to earning a reward. He will work for hours before that reward comes. 

It sounds like you have an incorrect picture of what training based off learning theory (often called positive training) truly is and truly entails. I'm willing to bet if you did some research, you would see that some of what are doing works on learning theory without you even knowing it. And I'll bet you pick up some new ideas that can improve your work. 

No, I don't think I'll have any trouble using learning theory when it gets to utility. I was originally mentored by someone who trained bomb sniffing dogs and guess what...they didn't need shock collars to get a consistent, reliable response.


----------



## domino_angel (Apr 17, 2008)

Ooh what a juicy thread. LOL.

Actually, I can see where K9cracker is coming from. Let me quantify that by saying that I have never used a shock collar, or "bop" my dogs. I have however, OFTEN corrected by adjusting my tone of voice to show them I am unhappy. It seems to work pretty well, and my dogs don't get scared of me. I am not sure about the negative training aspect where shocking is concerned. I don't think I like the idea. 

I actually have experience with dogs not wanting to come when called because they were hit/smacked/bopped... I had to train that out of my Hubby. He thought that when Chloe didn't come, he should swat her hind end for not coming. I said, "You're an idiot! If you hit her AFTER you get your hands on her, no wonder she doesn't want to come to you. Stop it!" So we got over that and she's doing very well. That was more training the husband than the dog. LOL She has ALWAYS come to me, maybe not ASAP when I say it, but pretty quick. We're working on it.


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

QUOTE


> And the better trainer you are and the more clear you are in teaching a behavior, the less corrections you will need.[/B]


Absolutely true! 

I do agree with you on most things. I think that I have emphasized the negative spects in the training just because they are essential, and it is the only difference between the training methods. I am working with a very talented trainer that has been training for over 30 years, and been very sucessful. I understand that that you are focusing on the one good position, and we do not hold back praise, but it is inevitable that the dog tries a different position. When this happens a correction is essential just to describing the boundaries to the dog. We do not set the dog up for failure either, but they still have to know both sides. 
(We don't pull/tug/etc the leash for the heel, but upward pressure on the leash has been defined as a non verbal way to ask for a sit, and a correction would just be asking stronger but only once the dog understands enought to be held responsible for the activity)

Again, the balanced training is mostly positive, but is incomplete without the negative too. 

I have used a clicker with Rugby to teach him to jump (not over, but straight up). He jumps very well and was weaned off the clicker very very quickly. However, when the day comes that he decided he doesn't want to jump , what can I do about it? This is why I will not use them when training 'important' things with him. 

As for the bopping thing, I really can't think why a fair correction will make a dog afraid of you. You are not hurting the dog...just interupting. And this isn't appropriate for every situation, but I think humping definetely qualifies. 
Having said all this, using the skock collar in the wrong way is the difference between a happy confident, intelligent dog succeeding in his training and a quivering puddle on the floor. I haven't seen a dog like this, but I know it is possible and can see where it would happen in the wrong hands. Just like the wrong person giving physical correction (either too strongly or at the wrong time) will have the same effect. I think the opposite is also true for clicking. Click at the wrong time too many times and you have a very confused spaz dog on your hands. The tools are only as good as the handler. 


As for the humping video, the humping was the dogs reward. She was never told to hump, just allowed. Hardly qualifies as a party trick. *yuck*


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

:shocked: Oh my goodness, there's so many great positive/motivational training methods out there now that I wasn't aware that trainers and owners are still using the old school punishment methods. 



I'm including position papers on punishment from two veterinary behavior organizations:


American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior's Punishment Position Statement 


Animal Behavior Resources Institute Position Paper on The Adverse Effects of Punishment







Joy


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 9 2008, 11:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667548


> *Can someone please put some weight into their answers? *
> 
> I know exactly what positive training is all about. I am a convert. The difference is that my dog is devloping an intrinsic desire to work, and you are relying on extrinsic rewards. The difference is in the results.
> 
> I really am offended because it is clear that none of you have any idea what a balnced training method it. Or you are ignorant enough to assume that because you are uneducated about the various training methods, that positive training methods are the obvious choice. I did do my reasearch before I made the switch because I was skeptical too, but NOT close minded, and knowing what I know now wish I had never wasted the time doing any 100% positive things.[/B]


I find it interesting that you are asking for people to put more weight behind their answers and yet I do not see any weight behind yours. You seem to have your own negative experience with positive training and dismiss it as ineffective despite a great deal of evidence and research that it works. 

I do not question that you may have found results from the style of training you have chosen. I do question your dismissal of people like Laurie Williams and Victoria Stillwell. 

Despite 9 years of training my dogs and reading up on the subject I know I am not an expert. My actual field of expertise is in education. I am a college professor. In my field, we spend a lot of time analyzing what the research says about methods and approaches to learning. One of the things we are consistently reminded is that anecdotal evidence is not equivalent to documented research. 

You say you are offended by the folks that question “balanced” training methods. You call others here ignorant of various training methods. You say you did your research before and you are not closed minded. And yet your original post basically slams the idea that positive training can work. Your further posts state that your method is the only effective one. The reality is that you are the one who has been dismissive of the results others have had. In this, you seem to believe there is only one path and it is your own. You have all the answers and you do not need to learn any more. 

For myself, I am a student and I continue to learn and I am grateful to folks like our Jackie and Laurie Williams for sharing their expertise with me. :yes: 


On a note about the shock collars. I have two dear friends who have used them. I was not impressed by their effectiveness. I see that they produced results, but they also seemed to produce side effects. One friend used them to enforce long stays on her dog. That dog always looked like it was agonized during the stay exercises. Another friend trained her GSD with one. I know the dog obeys my friend beautifully, but it did not stop her from killing her sheltie playmate in the yard. These are anecdotes. Real research also questions the use of these “stress devises.”


----------



## cloey70 (Jan 6, 2008)

This is all very interesting, and I've learned alot. One thing I've noticed with my own skin kids, and the way the world is now about discipling is that positive works so much better then beating down verbally or physically with dogs or skin kids. My own skin kids have way more confidence, security, and are not afraid of me because I use positive feedback, then swatting the butt or giving a pinch. Kind of like Supernanny is for kids (which is all about positivity and not negative discipline). I feel all this applies to training our pets as well. I remember growing up, my dad would spank me, and to this day has had a negative affect on my life, and I feel dogs are the same way. This all just my own personal experience, and opinion. Sorry for ranting at you earlier, just hits a little at home with me.


----------



## Moxie'smom (Dec 16, 2007)

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 10 2008, 01:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667778


> QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 9 2008, 11:46 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667548





> *Can someone please put some weight into their answers? *
> 
> I know exactly what positive training is all about. I am a convert. The difference is that my dog is devloping an intrinsic desire to work, and you are relying on extrinsic rewards. The difference is in the results.
> 
> I really am offended because it is clear that none of you have any idea what a balnced training method it. Or you are ignorant enough to assume that because you are uneducated about the various training methods, that positive training methods are the obvious choice. I did do my reasearch before I made the switch because I was skeptical too, but NOT close minded, and knowing what I know now wish I had never wasted the time doing any 100% positive things.[/B]


I find it interesting that you are asking for people to put more weight behind their answers and yet I do not see any weight behind yours. You seem to have your own negative experience with positive training and dismiss it as ineffective despite a great deal of evidence and research that it works. 

I do not question that you may have found results from the style of training you have chosen. I do question your dismissal of people like Laurie Williams and Victoria Stillwell. 

Despite 9 years of training my dogs and reading up on the subject I know I am not an expert. My actual field of expertise is in education. I am a college professor. In my field, we spend a lot of time analyzing what the research says about methods and approaches to learning. One of the things we are consistently reminded is that anecdotal evidence is not equivalent to documented research. 

You say you are offended by the folks that question “balanced” training methods. You call others here ignorant of various training methods. You say you did your research before and you are not closed minded. And yet your original post basically slams the idea that positive training can work. Your further posts state that your method is the only effective one. The reality is that you are the one who has been dismissive of the results others have had. In this, you seem to believe there is only one path and it is your own. You have all the answers and you do not need to learn any more. 

For myself, I am a student and I continue to learn and I am grateful to folks like our Jackie and Laurie Williams for sharing their expertise with me. :yes: 


On a note about the shock collars. I have two dear friends who have used them. I was not impressed by their effectiveness. I see that they produced results, but they also seemed to produce side effects. One friend used them to enforce long stays on her dog. That dog always looked like it was agonized during the stay exercises. Another friend trained her GSD with one. I know the dog obeys my friend beautifully, but it did not stop her from killing her sheltie playmate in the yard. These are anecdotes. Real research also questions the use of these “stress devises.”
[/B][/QUOTE]

Bump....

I see the "Balanced" method as described as only being one sided as well. But that that side doesn't seem to have much depth to it in the examples that have been given. I've based my opinions on the type of training I have used on using various facilities, private and group. With a variety of trainers. I think it's sometimes dangerous just basing opinions on one facility. 

I think the humping video proved a point. I think the point might have been missed by the comment that was made. I, myself will stick to what has worked for me and my pups for over 15 years. And that would be the using positive reinforcement. And my Moxie was AKC CGC certified at 8 months of age. All positive training, treats or verbal or both. That's pretty young..and at 14 months he'd past the same test again if given today.. and he will get the chance very soon. We'll be going for our TDI and Delta certification in the future. As well agility.

Moxie is not clicker trained, (I just haven't gotten there yet) but I believe that clicker training can be utilized for "Important" commands effectively, if used properly. Karen Pryor's book " Don't shoot the dog" Has me more than convinced of it. I kinda have a lot of respect for master trainers like Pryor and Donaldson who have had somewhere between 20-30 years of experience. And behavioral as well. Have used ALL methods in the past and have all kind of wound up in the same pond. The "positive" approach. From my own experience, I know it works quickly and well. I'm not saying you can't get results with other methods....but I too don't like the possible side effects of using the alternatives.


----------



## tamizami (May 1, 2007)

I am also a fan of positive training and have seen great results, but my experience is very limited compared to others on this forum. I think many people forget that there are corrections in positive training, just not _aversive _corrections. Additionally, there is punishment in positive training, it utilizes _negative_ punishment, which means you take something away rather than aversives or positive punishment. And its very easy to wean the dog from needing a treat or toy every time you ask for the behavior or it is offered. We shouldn't forget that verbal praise is an excellent reinforcer for our Maltese.


----------



## Kutsmail1 (Dec 26, 2007)

I too have limited experience re: training as compared to those of you showing in various trials. I also appreciate more than one point of view. It doesn't mean I have to agree with one or the other. I have to choose what makes sense to me and what works for me.

I don't agree with the shock collar because to me, I can't get past the negativity of it on small dogs. Also, I will not put a collar on a maltese or other small dog. Just too risky due to the potential for tracheal collapse. Now I might be misunderstanding here. I tried to go through all of this carefully, but to me a collar is a collar. I never saw where it was called a "shock harness". People sometimes become complacent with things like this. Collars with busy little angels like maltese can get hung on things. Now for the record, I am not saying that anyone purposely leaves it on and ignores that the dog can get caught in some way and choke.

As far as "being cute" when one of our maltese or furbabies disobey, well, the actuality is they ARE cute. I don't think that means we are not correcting them. I believe that we do have the common sense to comprehend the significance of the dangerous impact of that type lack of action.

Now, I believe that brings me to the actual training. While my experience is in basic obedience, I stand firm in positive training. Does that mean I haven't tried what I consider "negative" through years of trial and error? Of course I have. I found out quickly that I did obtain quicker results and a happier dog with positive training. I love to see a spirited, well trained dog which is one of the qualities I love about maltese. I have seen the consequences on "the other side". A good friend of mine uses the shock collar on the labs he trains. He is a very well respected trainer, and has labs from all over the US sent to him. Recently, even he misjudged. He is now paying to send the dog elsewhere for retraining at his expense. A trainer of his level isn't cheap! Sometimes no matter how experienced we feel we are, we become over confident. 

We all have to decide what we want from our dogs. What are our goals, and how will we achieve them? I personally can live with the more positive side of training.

Now, I have NEVER trained with food rewards before Zippy. Praise was always effective for me. I was strongly opposed to that; however, I was willing to ask for help and accept it. Zippy has the attention span of a gnat. 

Thanks to JMM, and other helpful members on SM little Miss Do Da and I have come to an understanding. She also learned how to con me out of extra treats....bless her little heart lol. I would NOT have tried this though if I had not considered this to be a positive reinforcement. She is very well behaved. Could she win at a trial...no way, but that isn't being disobedient. That is simply the level of training I chose for her.

It wasn't only "giving treats" as positive reinforcement for Zippy that I learned here. I was reminded...KNOW YOUR DOG! Sometimes because we feel we have had so much experience, we fail to remember that even we can learn new tricks if we are open.

Now, back to our little Andrew...all I can say is Andrew DID walk under that elephant with very little prompting...'nuff said!


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

The articles you posted are both the same. Both of them state that there is a place for punishiment. The difference is that when punishment is used correctly, none of those things are true. If it is used fairly and at the appropriate time, then it is extremely effective. 

http://www.dogpro.org/index.php?pageID=46

QUOTE (CloudClan @ Nov 10 2008, 01:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667778


> I do not question that you may have found results from the style of training you have chosen. I do question your dismissal of people like Laurie Williams and Victoria Stillwell.
> 
> You say you are offended by the folks that question “balanced” training methods. You call others here ignorant of various training methods. You say you did your research before and you are not closed minded. And yet your original post basically slams the idea that positive training can work. Your further posts state that your method is the only effective one. The reality is that you are the one who has been dismissive of the results others have had. In this, you seem to believe there is only one path and it is your own. You have all the answers and you do not need to learn any more.
> 
> ...


The fact is that if you watch Victoria Stillwell's show, at the end I do not see a dog that is 'fixed' in the sense that the problem has actually been addressed and continual management is not needed. 

I am not offended by people questioning balanced training, I am offended by people dismissing it without knowing how it works. You can get results with positive training, but it is a certain kind of result and not one I am interested in getting. I want reliability and a foundation I can build on as Rugby and I continue in the training. I think those people that wish to continue their 100% positive training are going to hit a road block when they get to that level.
I trained my last malt with all positive, but was she as reliable as Rugby is at 5 months, I can't say that she was. 

How did she use a collar to enforce long stays? The only ways I can think would be ineffective. Even if you just use it when the dog breaks, by using just the collar you are not showing the dog what it is they should be doing instead. I think she has a problem with the training and not the actuall collar. 
As for your other friend, attacking the sheltie has nothing to do with the shock collar. It doesn't matter how well trained the dog was (not matter what the methods) if the signs of aggression have been ignored and not addressed before the incident, then the killing was inevitable. Collars are just a training tool, not a cure all. 

I have seen shy, fearful, unconfident dogs become more self assured through balanced training (and yes, that does include the use of a shock collar). I have yet to see the opposite.

We do have a size limit for shock collars, and maltese don't quite fit in there. However if they did a collapsed trachea is not something that a shock collar would do. It just ommitts an uncomfortable tingle, that becomes increasingly uncomfortable as the levels increase.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

Here's a response to a question about punishment methods of training from Dr. Dodman a veterinary behaviorist at Tufts. I copied this from Bark magazine's site:



Bark: What do you feel is the place for punishment or negative re-enforcement in treating behavioral problems?

Dodman: I think that the direct punishment-based techniques are outmoded, a thing of the past, and should be avoided. Nobel Prize winners Lorenz, Tinbergen and Von Frisch might have disagreed on some points, but the three of them were all in agreement that punishment teaches a dog nothing. All it does is to teach a dog how to avoid the punishment. Which is not the same as teaching the dog what to do. There is no learning, other than learning avoidance of certain actions. You don’t need punishment to teach either dogs or children. I don’t believe in the concept of "sparing the rod and spoiling the child," or sparing the chain-jerking and spoiling the dog. All the techniques that we use in the clinic are 100 percent motivational—we do not use any coercive techniques. I work on the theory that if you can train a killer whale to launch itself out of a swimming pool, roll on its side and urinate into a small plastic cup, given only a whistle and a bucket of fish, without a choke chain, then you don’t need those confrontational techniques with dogs.

As for those prong collars … I sometimes say to clients what John Lennon rudely said about Paul McCarthy—the only thing he did was "Yesterday." Prong collars are yesterday. There are some trainers, not all trainers, who just seem to know only one thing, and that is how to escalate punishment to reach the desired effect. So they start off with puppies the right way with food motivation. But as soon as the dog reaches a certain age, they go into a slip collar, then a metal choke collar, and if these aren’t having the desired aversive effects, they escalate up to a prong collar; some even graduate higher, to electricity. What you have is a gradation of pain. And the pain is designed with the theory "you teach them to do something, and if they don’t do it, you hurt them." Konrad Lorenz said that science and know-how aren’t enough in dog training; patience is the vital stuff. I find that non-confrontational techniques are more appreciated by owners who often aren’t of the disposition to want to hurt their animals to make them do anything.


----------



## Kutsmail1 (Dec 26, 2007)

I really think that this could go on and on. Collars are collars regardless of whether they are shock, prong, or just cutsey. Collars on small dogs are medically inappropriate. I think most veterinarians and owners would appreciate and agree with that. Whether or not they are being used for corrective/disciplinay measures, they can get hung up on things. As with children, we must always be aware of dangers for the little fluffs. They are curious and can innocently get into things that can cause harm. It could be as simple as playing with each other. They can cause damage, if not death.

Anyone looking for written documentation on what they want to support will find it. It is out there! IF you are looking for someone to share something here that will change your mind, or support your theory or belief in how you train your dog, that isn't going to happen.

We all have our own formed opinions. Trying to force others into anothers' opinion will not happen. In the end, we WILL all do what we feel is right.

I'm happy for you that you feel you have found the utmost control for your canines that will achieve perfection in for your own needs. We all strive for that.

The thing is that we all feel we have found what meets our own needs and goals WE have chosen for our little fluffs. My ways are not anothers ways. IF asked whether or not I agree, I have the right to say no, without justification....it is what it is.

THE END


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 11 2008, 07:56 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=668304


> The articles you posted are both the same. Both of them state that there is a place for punishiment. The difference is that when punishment is used correctly, none of those things are true. If it is used fairly and at the appropriate time, then it is extremely effective.
> 
> http://www.dogpro.org/index.php?pageID=46[/B]


You dismiss what the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior has to say by posting an article written by one dog trainer who uses no scientific research in his statement. Certainly, he is eloquent about the idea of balance and as a buzz word “balance” seems so reasonable. 

But the AVSAB is using documented research when it says that their _“position is that punishment (e.g. choke chains, pinch collars, and electronic collars) should not be used as a first-line or early-use treatment for behavior problems. This is due to the potential adverse effects which include but are not limited to: inhibition of learning, increased fear-related and aggressive behaviors, and injury to animals and people interacting with animals.2 … Even when punishment seems mild, in order to be effective it often must elicit a strong fear response, and this fear response can general¬ize to things that sound or look similar to the punishment. Punishment has also been shown to elicit aggressive behavior in many species of animals.6 ” _

In Mr. Thomas’ article he pleads for common sense and balance. I do not see any real defense of the necessity of using the devises the Veterinary and Behavioral scientists have shown to be unnecessary and potentially harmful. 

He talks of how people take positions with a _“zeal of being "Born again", and often preach, rather than teach their new mindset.” _

To me this reminded me of your claim of being a “convert” to your methodology. You defend the use of these aversive devices as though they are the ONE true method. In my initial reply to you, I questioned not your methods, but your zealous view that positive training was an erroneous approach. 

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 11 2008, 07:56 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=668304


> It would be okay, just to say agree to disagree, if you could get the same results, but you cannot. …
> I want reliability and a foundation I can build on as Rugby and I continue in the training. I think those people that wish to continue their 100% positive training are going to hit a road block when they get to that level.
> I trained my last malt with all positive, but was she as reliable as Rugby is at 5 months, I can't say that she was.[/B]


 :beating a dead horse: 
This anecdotal comparison shows nothing. Every dog is different. As we (hopefully) evolve as trainers we will likely have more success. I have trained my boys and my girls. My therapy girl has never given me the reliability that my Cloud (CD title) gave. Though frankly she is smarter in some ways and learned many things faster. Both were trained in very similar ways. They have different personalities. 

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 11 2008, 07:56 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=668304


> The fact is that if you watch Victoria Stillwell's show, at the end I do not see a dog that is 'fixed' in the sense that the problem has actually been addressed and continual management is not needed.[/B]


I am not sure what you are expecting. Do you think that once you train your dogs you will have “fixed” them? :HistericalSmiley: As in you will not have to work with them to continue to keep up the progress you have made? This again is absolutely unsupported by the research. 

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 11 2008, 07:56 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=668304


> How did she use a collar to enforce long stays? The only ways I can think would be ineffective. Even if you just use it when the dog breaks, by using just the collar you are not showing the dog what it is they should be doing instead. I think she has a problem with the training and not the actuall collar.
> As for your other friend, attacking the sheltie has nothing to do with the shock collar. It doesn't matter how well trained the dog was (not matter what the methods) if the signs of aggression have been ignored and not addressed before the incident, then the killing was inevitable. Collars are just a training tool, not a cure all.[/B]


I posted these two examples because you claimed that none of us had ever tried a shock collar. I have not used them on my own dogs and I would not. However, I have been with friends who have used them. I am not here to defend the way they trained with the shock collars, since I see no necessity for their use myself. The first trainer did use the collar on her toy breed dog to give an immediate correction when the dog broke the stays. Frankly, it did work to produce a dog that would stay. But the dog looked like it was in agony during all stays waiting for the shock. It also shut down in Open. Her later dogs have successfully completed in Utility, as well as the highest levels of Rally and Agility, but that dog shut down and did not progress. This is a trainer who has studied and educated herself to become an outstanding trainer and achieved top rankings with her dogs. I agree she had a training problem at that time. The problem was her frustration led her to a negative choice. 

As for the owner of the GSD. I have no way to prove it in one anecdotal event, but the research supports that dogs trained with E-collars (the euphamism for shock) are more prone to aggressive behavior and are more often euthanized due to their behavioral issues than dogs trained with more humane methods. 

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 11 2008, 07:56 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=668304


> I have seen shy, fearful, unconfident dogs become more self assured through balanced training (and yes, that does include the use of a *shock collar*. I have yet to see the opposite.[/B]


As stated above, I have in fact seen the opposite. 

Again, I would happily agree to disagree if you were not so persistent in your claim that your methodology is the only approach that works.


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

QUOTE


> The fact is that if you watch Victoria Stillwell's show, at the end I do not see a dog that is 'fixed' in the sense that the problem has actually been addressed and continual management is not needed.[/B]


Do you think dogs do not need continual management/training after the dog is "fixed"? I find that awfully naive. On top of that, they only show the dogs a few weeks after they started the training, not a few months or years later. It takes a lot longer than a few weeks to "fix" a dog.

QUOTE


> I am not offended by people questioning balanced training, I am offended by people dismissing it without knowing how it works. You can get results with positive training, but it is a certain kind of result and not one I am interested in getting. I want reliability and a foundation I can build on as Rugby and I continue in the training. I think those people that wish to continue their 100% positive training are going to hit a road block when they get to that level.
> I trained my last malt with all positive, but was she as reliable as Rugby is at 5 months, I can't say that she was.[/B]


What kind of results are you interested in getting? 

I have seen very reliable, consistent results and a very well trained dog with using learning theory/positive training. What more do you want? 


QUOTE


> How did she use a collar to enforce long stays? The only ways I can think would be ineffective. Even if you just use it when the dog breaks, by using just the collar you are not showing the dog what it is they should be doing instead. I think she has a problem with the training and not the actuall collar.
> As for your other friend, attacking the sheltie has nothing to do with the shock collar. It doesn't matter how well trained the dog was (not matter what the methods) if the signs of aggression have been ignored and not addressed before the incident, then the killing was inevitable. Collars are just a training tool, not a cure all.[/B]


How would you use a collar to enforce long stays? I don't see the need for a collar OR harness for stays. You can't expect the dog to stay for a long period of time without first doing it for shorter durations. When training Jax for stays, we didn't start out with 30 second or 30 minute stays, we started with just mere seconds. Then worked from there. He was rewarded for staying until I gave him the free command. Then I added distractions and duration, separate at first, then combined them. He very rarely broke his stay, because I was teaching him NOT testing him, therefore I did not set him up to break his stay. If he did, by chance break it, it was my fault, I expected too much too fast! I would give the "no reward marker/sound" as his "correction" make him go back to his position then start again. He has a good stay (could be better, but that's due to my lack of continuing training). 

The trainer we go to will put her dog in a stay until she gives the free command - he will not and does not move, no matter what the distraction or duration is. Again, what more are you expecting? This was all done using positive training. 

QUOTE


> I have seen shy, fearful, unconfident dogs become more self assured through balanced training (and yes, that does include the use of a shock collar). I have yet to see the opposite.
> 
> We do have a size limit for shock collars, and maltese don't quite fit in there. However if they did a collapsed trachea is not something that a shock collar would do. It just ommitts an uncomfortable tingle, that becomes increasingly uncomfortable as the levels increase.[/B]


I just don't understand the want or desire to cause that degree of harm or discomfort to your dog just to train them, when there are other, just as (if not more so) *reliable *methods. And I'm not sure if you, yet, acknowledge that collapsing trachea is an issue, but wish you would see that it is and not use a "2 ring collar" on Rugby. 

I think a couple people have said it wonderfully, yet you seem to disregard all of the results people have seen and results that have been documented using only positive training. Positive training does use correction, it just isn't as aggressive as the ones "Balanced" training use. Like Jackie (JMM) said:

QUOTE


> Positive is NOT permissive. The whole point of positive training is to utilize learning theory to maximize the learning and minimize the stress. Any correction is a stress. A correction only works if it is strong enough for a dog to recognize it as so. It may be a very, very mild stress, or a more powerful one. But it works on the purpose of causing stress to the dog. So yes, when I use my *no-reward-marker of "eh eh" softly*, it creates a *mild stress* on my dog so they have a small worry of "oops I did that wrong".[/B]


I will continue to use Positive training with Jax and any other dog I have and train. I will continue to get reliable, consistent results and will have a happy, confident, well adjusted, trained dog. I will also have the good conscience that I did not harm or cause discomfort to my dog(s). This is why I choose to use positive training and encourage anyone training their dog to do the same!


----------



## 08chrissy08 (Sep 19, 2008)

I watched an episode with Victoria Stilwell last night that I thought was pretty telling. She was working on a boxer that was super hyper active and had no training whatsoever. The owner had put a shock collar on the dog and an electric fence around the yard because he kept jumping the fence. He completely ignored the collar when it was down low, so the owner eventually turned it up all the way. She said she heard the dog scream and after that point he was terrified to go out into the yard. Even by the end of the show, he was still very leary and wouldn't go near the fence. I think it was a great example of the harm that can be caused with shock collars. 

I know you aren't advocating that everyone run out and start using shock collars without proper knowledge of them, but the fact is that a lot of people that resort to them, really have clue how to properly use one. Aside from that, I would much rather have my dog do something for me for positive reasons instead of out of fear of being shocked. I HAVE felt the shock that they give btw, my parents bought a collar that they had planned to use on their yellow lab. After using it on themselves first to see what it would be like, they promptly threw it out. At that time I also used it on myself to see what it was all about. I tried various settings. I will never have one in my home. Ever.

I work to train both of my pups with positive training. Yes, I started out with giving treats as rewards but now I give them only very rarely. When I say sit, two butts hit the floor no matter what they are doing or no matter how far away I am. Same results you were talking about and they are 5 and 4 months of age.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 10 2008, 12:58 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=667772


> QUOTE





> And the better trainer you are and the more clear you are in teaching a behavior, the less corrections you will need.[/B]


Absolutely true! 

I do agree with you on most things. I think that I have emphasized the negative spects in the training just because they are essential, and it is the only difference between the training methods. I am working with a very talented trainer that has been training for over 30 years, and been very sucessful. I understand that that you are focusing on the one good position, and we do not hold back praise, but it is inevitable that the dog tries a different position. When this happens a correction is essential just to describing the boundaries to the dog. We do not set the dog up for failure either, but they still have to know both sides. 
(We don't pull/tug/etc the leash for the heel, but upward pressure on the leash has been defined as a non verbal way to ask for a sit, and a correction would just be asking stronger but only once the dog understands enought to be held responsible for the activity)

Again, the balanced training is mostly positive, but is incomplete without the negative too. 

I have used a clicker with Rugby to teach him to jump (not over, but straight up). He jumps very well and was weaned off the clicker very very quickly. However, when the day comes that he decided he doesn't want to jump , what can I do about it? This is why I will not use them when training 'important' things with him. 

[/B][/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, you missed my point. An excellent trainer need not use aversive corrections because they can clearly teach the dog what they want. Proofing does not require aversives, just that the dog learn to generalize the behavior thoroughly in a variety of environments with a variety of distractions. Balance changes depending on the skill of the the trainer and each individual dog. I hope you will one day grasp the fact that the best trainer uses a different method with every dog, recognizing that each dog is an individual and learns best with different methods - but always avoiding aversives as much as possible. There is a large library of scientific research documenting how dogs learn and the detriments of focusing on positive punishment.


----------



## joyomom (Jan 13, 2008)

Great interview by Laurie and wonderful article. I love the Dog Journal magazine! I heard about it on SM and subscribed.


----------



## k9Cracker (Feb 22, 2006)

The thing is that the vet article used research from the 60s! Training has come a long way since then, and shock collars don't even compare. The truth is that vets don't train dogs. If they did, they would know that punishment does not elicit fear, and is not painful to the dog. The truth is that shock collars are much more humane than any type of collar including what I have on Rugby, just because you can use the least amount of force and it is only slightly uncomfortable to them. My trainer gets leg cramps, and the TENS unity she was given by the docotor for her leg is more uncomfortable than the collar she uses on her dog, and she preferrs her Tritonics collar over the tens unit because it is 'smoother'. 

Giving corrections is given in the same idea of you 'uh-oh' or 'eh-eh' or whatever you use, but in a way that gives the dog another option. We don't tell dog 'no' where I train because it is unfair since we have not told them how to fix what they are doing wrong. If they are jumping on you...'no' does nothing and means nothing but 'sit' 'down' and 'off' does, and is much more fair to the dog. A physical correction can be used in place of this because it puts you in a position to show them the right way. I think it is much much much nicer to the dog to clearly define what it is that they are supposed to be doing by the use of both positive and negatives than to just provide the positive, and an 'uh-oh'. The 'uh-oh' does not tell the dog what he did wrong and he is left frantically searching for what it is he has to fix in order to please you. He doesn't only think 'oops I did that wrong' he is thinking 'opps what did I do wrong.' I just tell my dog straight up what it is and is much less stressful on him. The difference is that we hardly ever have to correct dogs where I train. I think that this says something--the dogs get it. 

Mandy--this sounds exactly like what we do where I train. 2 differences though. 1) we do not use food rewards, just praise and 2) when the dog breaks, we go give correction (put them back where they were) and keep going. Again, this way they know exactly what we want them to be doing, and we leave nothing up in the air. 

And I think that had Stillwell trained the dogs in a different way she could reach these same 'half-results' much quicker than she does. 

Chrissy-The problem here again is that the people did not tell the dog what it was supposed to be doing. So this is the exact opposit of all positive training. Still no explanation is given to the dog, and they are left frantically searching for what it is they are suppoosed to be doing. I do not like invisible ffences at all, but it you are going to use them (only under supervision at all times) then it takes at least a week or walking the fenceline with your dog so they understand what is coming for them. The difference is that with all positive training, all you loose is reliablility but with all negative you can have a very scared and unsure dog. Neither is fair to the dog. 

Like I said, shock collars are just a tool...You cannot blame the tools for poor training.


----------



## vjw (Dec 20, 2006)

QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 12 2008, 08:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=669162


> The thing is that the vet article used research from the 60s! Training has come a long way since then, and shock collars don't even compare. The truth is that vets don't train dogs. If they did, they would know that punishment does not elicit fear, and is not painful to the dog. The truth is that shock collars are much more humane than any type of collar including what I have on Rugby, just because you can use the least amount of force and it is only slightly uncomfortable to them. My trainer gets leg cramps, and the TENS unity she was given by the docotor for her leg is more uncomfortable than the collar she uses on her dog, and she preferrs her Tritonics collar over the tens unit because it is 'smoother'.
> 
> Giving corrections is given in the same idea of you 'uh-oh' or 'eh-eh' or whatever you use, but in a way that gives the dog another option. We don't tell dog 'no' where I train because it is unfair since we have not told them how to fix what they are doing wrong. If they are jumping on you...'no' does nothing and means nothing but 'sit' 'down' and 'off' does, and is much more fair to the dog. A physical correction can be used in place of this because it puts you in a position to show them the right way. I think it is much much much nicer to the dog to clearly define what it is that they are supposed to be doing by the use of both positive and negatives than to just provide the positive, and an 'uh-oh'. The 'uh-oh' does not tell the dog what he did wrong and he is left frantically searching for what it is he has to fix in order to please you. He doesn't only think 'oops I did that wrong' he is thinking 'opps what did I do wrong.' I just tell my dog straight up what it is and is much less stressful on him. The difference is that we hardly ever have to correct dogs where I train. I think that this says something--the dogs get it.
> 
> ...




The articles I quoted are the position statements of ALL veterinary behaviorists and veterinary experts. Yes, they're veterinarians, but they're the ones who specialize in dog behavior. I have a feeling that no matter who or what credible references are given, you and your trainer are going to keep on using outdated and barbaric training techniques, therefore I'm not wasting any more of my time with this.


----------



## I found nemo (Feb 23, 2006)

QUOTE (vjw @ Nov 12 2008, 09:54 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=669185


> QUOTE (k9Cracker @ Nov 12 2008, 08:23 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=669162





> The thing is that the vet article used research from the 60s! Training has come a long way since then, and shock collars don't even compare. The truth is that vets don't train dogs. If they did, they would know that punishment does not elicit fear, and is not painful to the dog. The truth is that shock collars are much more humane than any type of collar including what I have on Rugby, just because you can use the least amount of force and it is only slightly uncomfortable to them. My trainer gets leg cramps, and the TENS unity she was given by the docotor for her leg is more uncomfortable than the collar she uses on her dog, and she preferrs her Tritonics collar over the tens unit because it is 'smoother'.
> 
> Giving corrections is given in the same idea of you 'uh-oh' or 'eh-eh' or whatever you use, but in a way that gives the dog another option. We don't tell dog 'no' where I train because it is unfair since we have not told them how to fix what they are doing wrong. If they are jumping on you...'no' does nothing and means nothing but 'sit' 'down' and 'off' does, and is much more fair to the dog. A physical correction can be used in place of this because it puts you in a position to show them the right way. I think it is much much much nicer to the dog to clearly define what it is that they are supposed to be doing by the use of both positive and negatives than to just provide the positive, and an 'uh-oh'. The 'uh-oh' does not tell the dog what he did wrong and he is left frantically searching for what it is he has to fix in order to please you. He doesn't only think 'oops I did that wrong' he is thinking 'opps what did I do wrong.' I just tell my dog straight up what it is and is much less stressful on him. The difference is that we hardly ever have to correct dogs where I train. I think that this says something--the dogs get it.
> 
> ...




The articles I quoted are the position statements of ALL veterinary behaviorists and veterinary experts. Yes, they're veterinarians, but they're the ones who specialize in dog behavior. I have a feeling that no matter who or what credible references are given, you and your trainer are going to keep on using outdated and barbaric training techniques, therefore I'm not wasting any more of my time with this.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I totally agree, I wont be reading this thread any more, (Not that anyone cares :biggrin: ) but I feel I have learned enough from SOME informative posters.
Thank You


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

You are grabbing on to positive training not being clear. If you have clear criteria you are teaching and good feedback, it is VERY obvious to the dog what you want. They are not wandering about trying to figure it out. 

And the method of free shaping (letting to dog figure it out without guidance) is brain exercise for the dog. Also, I have found when I let my dog figure something out (ie weave polls), they have a much better understanding vs. using a lure or physical placing them as you advocate. 

Positive training is not permissive and is based solely on the consequences of the behavior. Please do some real reading before you continue to knock something you do not understand. 

I am also done with this thread unless you are seriously interested in learning about what you are knocking. You don't have to agree, but you should at least be properly informed.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

QUOTE (JMM @ Nov 12 2008, 12:15 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=669262


> You are grabbing on to positive training not being clear. If you have clear criteria you are teaching and good feedback, it is VERY obvious to the dog what you want. They are not wandering about trying to figure it out.
> 
> And the method of free shaping (letting to dog figure it out without guidance) is brain exercise for the dog. Also, I have found when I let my dog figure something out (ie weave polls), they have a much better understanding vs. using a lure or physical placing them as you advocate.
> 
> ...


 :goodpost: :amen:


----------



## momtoboo (Jan 30, 2006)

I am a huge fan of Laurie & Andrew. On the lighter side,I was so impressed with the "weeeee" trick, I taught it to Boo, & yep, I did use treats.  Even Hannah will do it "sometimes".


----------

