Your tone is still as immature as ever but hey ho, don't expect any different. Just try not to get this thread closed, if you could be so kind

Actually, get your facts straight. He did the jabbing as you put it and then when it didn't work, he did the "cheese" thing but as a "rabid anti" you like to twist and turn it. Everything you say I take with a pinch of salt anyways. Another one that likes his stats and perpetuates in rudeness to females, nice man

Just to pick up on this point.
Did anyone see the study they did recently on shelter dogs in the US? It showed that if kept separate from humans then the dogs became depressed even if they had doggy play mates. Which sort of makes sense. Dogs are meant to be with humans.

However if it's as well done as most of these studies they probably used 2 dogs in each group.

As they say the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

I can't remember the dog's name or anything to try to find a clip of it but there were several dogs, all living in a doggy apartment complex (families were welcome with pets) with their owners. They had all tried to avoid each other because several of the dogs had some bad attitude but CM sorted it out and it was nice to see all the owners outside with their dogs at the same time and no bad atmosphere.

I actually took some cheese with me to the Vets yesterday (took Bailey for a hormone implant) in case my boy decided to be a pain. He hates it there and can sometimes be a bit barky. I thought it was a good time to try the "cheese" thing but Bailey was completely well behaved without any treats (last time he took a dislike to a Standard Poodle and kept yapping at him). However, he got his cheese afterwards as he was a brave boy when the implant was inserted (they are quite big like a microchip) so perhaps he'll start to like the Vets a bit more. I'll definitely keep up the cheese thing, as my dogs would jump through hoops of fire for cheese (perhaps they are mice in disguise )

Ah, yes we do agree, thanks for clarifying!

I usually tend to use the term "positive trainer" to denote someone who does not use positive punishment because that's usually how it's understood in general dog forum speak; they are a positive reward trainer, but I know what you mean and it can get confusing for everyone.

Wys
x

Argh! Semantics again.

I don't actually know any trainers around here that characterise themselves by one word. The point I was trying to make (badly it would seem) is that even is someone says they are a positive trainer you should really check exactly what they mean.

I don't agree with CM as I have said before I think he uses a very narrow set of techniques. He also seems to use extreme methods as first techniques. I don't feel that people should abuse dogs because they aren't in a position of power (with great power comes great responsibility). If I wouldn't use a training technique on a person (OK, maybe slightly adapted. I have for example never taught a person using pigs ears as an incentive) then I won't use it on a dog.

As well as this being an ethical choice I believe it works better. You will always get better results working as a team rather than as a master and a slave.

I went to a positive punishment training class once (I didn't let any of the guys near Jet, but I stopped going - he didn't like being in a room with all of the stressed dogs). Hardly any of the dogs would move they were so scared of doing something wrong. They crept up to do recalls. I love that Jet runs flat out looking joyful on his recalls. I feel it is cruel to have squashed the joy out of these dogs.

Dogs are naturally some of the happiest creatures around. To take that joy and squash it so that the dog is scared to put a paw wrong is in my book wholly unforgivable.

My dog loves cheese too. However when I had pet mice they weren't fussed about cheese really. They did like yoghurt though. Oh and millet.

Still in denial about what you do. No wonder you can use such methods on little dogs and think it's not tantamount to abuse. You antis are very good when it comes to denial.

Get your facts straight.... though after all this time, I know this too be a fultile request.

He jabbed the dog... it did not work
He offered cheese... it provided momentary distraction
The other dog got closer .... and he lunged again
Millan jabbed him again.

I think you are a little confused Promethean. Perhaps it's time to tuck up with your teddy I'm "pro" not "anti"

Honestly, you need to go and find somebody else to argue with. Real men don't come on internet sites to pick fights with women, it's a pretty poor show really

Anyway, I know what I saw on the DW show but, as usual, you have to change things to suit your argument. Well go ahead; I pity you, I really do

You know, I saw a programme recently, where there were mice/rats infesting peoples' homes (I think it was in London). They had this JRT that was their "ratter" (who was so clever) and in the traps they didn't put cheese, they put peanut butter. How weird. Did the trick though, the traps worked. Think this cheese/mice thing is a myth after all

I apologise wys - I see now what you were getting at and you are quite right - it wasn't going over the same ground.

And the answer is that in the context of that snippet of the discussion that you referred to :

I didn't have any particular use of the the phrases in mind. I tend to think in terms of positive=reward; negative=punishment as you correctly assumed. But I'm sitting here trying to think up a possible interpretation of positive and negative training in which I think what I said doesn't apply...and I can't. If anything comes to mind I'll get back to you

However....

Now you're entering into another gray area. What do you mean by hanging? A lot of people describe CM as 'hanging' dogs when he holds onto their leash and lets them struggle, perhaps choking themselves until they calm down. Some might categorise this as positive punishment.

A common training approach with dogs that are chronic pullers is to simply stop moving when they pull and let them struggle, perhaps choking themselves until they calm down. At which point they allow the dog to move forwards. Is this too positive punishment? In which case positive reward trainers often use it. It's just they refer to it as negative punishment (stop the dog from doing what it wants to do which is moving forwards) followed by positive reward (letting the dog move forwards).

I really do believe you! However, you said on another thread:

So at what point does something become positive punishment? If the dog interprets it as punishment perhaps? If the handler interprets it as punishment? If the handler is angry? If it's not followed up by a reward?

Take the old favorite debate about whether CM kicks or taps a dog with his foot. If he isn't angry and the dog doesn't mind then does it mean it's not positive punishment?

It is a good point that for clarity it's good to specify exactly what we mean when we talk of positive and negative training methods. And yes, it's the cause of a lot of confusion.

But in CM discussion I think even more confusion is caused by variations in the way that people classify various actions - even when they conform to the same model when talking of positive and negative methods.