My friends who have just had babies tell me it's the same in the world of bringing up children - pressure to do the right thing, but most of them not knowing what that is or which expert to trust!

I'd agree with some of that... certainly that not all trainers are aware enough. I only have to go back to what i felt like as a dog owner, and the comments we made, and my friends... it's so important to understand your dog owners. (well, OK you may not understand them all but ... )

Well, I am surprised I thought you'd talk about water sprays or something, or pinning

Instead, what you describe is what is, or should be routinely explained in most kind dog classes - it's using some "negative punishment " but that's part of positive training (which is, basically, positive reinforcement, mostly, combined with occasional negative punishment and appropriate ignoring, the latter has to be used carefully as if the dog is self rewarding, it won't work).


It's intereting that you call it being firm -I'd call it using reward based training (which for me incorporatesa "negative punishment) and it's very common and not a part of any harsher methods

Wys
x

Agree
I must have taken ages writing my reply!

Wys
x

Scarter, I think you (and obviously some of the trainers you have gone to) totaly missunderstand what positive training is all about
Sure in a class lots of the time it is about teaching a 'trick' (and I believe anything you ask your dog to do is a trick) and rewarding the dog for the trick. and these tricks help teach the dog the behaviours you want from it. Most classes dont have time to deal with individual dog problems - although I know the one I went to you can ask at the end and get help.
But positivly dealing with problems also shows dogs that there are consiquences to its actions - not nasty consiquences - just means they dont get the outcome they want

as I said at the start I tend to use positive reward and negative punishment

Meaning if the dog does something I like I give (positive) something it likes and that makes the behaviour more likely to happen (reward)
If the dog does something I dont like - like bugging me for attention I take away (negative) my attention and the dog is less likely to bug for attention - if I also team that up with giving the dog attention the seccond it takes its focus away from me and does something I like more like sitting nicely then I give (positive) it attention (reward)

I also have a non reward noise - 'no' (said calmly) or 'eheh' and I have trained the dogs to know it just means 'thats not what I want try something else'

A loud 'oi' or 'psst' unless you have actually trained the dog that it means something is just something that startles the dog, depends how you follow up the dogs reaction to the noise as to how it reacts to it next time - its just a noise - dogs dont speak english unless we teach them it.


As Wys says I dont see any pitfalls with correctly done positive training, it does take into account the individual dog and handler
With punishment based training even when done correctly with perfectly timed corrections (which most people are incapable of) STILL has the potential in some personalities of dogs to make them very very dangerous, and in some others it can make them dipressed. Sure it works with some dogs but I dont like the reason why it works

Positive training works with pretty much every single mammel on the plannet - including men until they figure out what you are up to

Scarter, I've just seen your reply to Hali - and am confused!

I thought you were saying those methods should have been told to you before, and were "corrections" etc.

But most dog trainers do use them, and they aren't considered punishments as such, not in a bad way.

Wys
x

but at least you went into a better explanation than me

I agree, particularly with the bit in bold.

I was confused as well - certainly the impression I get from Scarter's posts is that the 'discipline' she imposes is not consistent with positive training and has not been suggested/shown by her trainers (until she started having serious problems). But then Scarter agrees with me that they are not inconsistent with positive training?

No. Initially we were told to avoid confrontation - later when things had got worse, confrontation was recommended. The latter approach is working well. We haven't had a problem for a while now.

It was explained to me that generally speaking non-confontation is recommended to dog owners as there's less chance of a dog reacting badly to it. It's a safer approach in the hands of a novice dog owner. But it's not always the right or best approach. But upon observing my dog and seeing him in action it was decided that in his case avoiding confrontation wasn't good. He was seeing it as weakness and needed to learn who was boss.

The 'cure' involved setting firm rules, boundaries and limitations, withdrawing privileges etc

He wasn't allowed to get out of doing things he didn't want - he had to do them. We found that rather than reaching out to grab him and make him do things (which provoked a growl) the trick was to take a leaf out of CM's book and use our bodies to 'claim space'. So if he wouldn't leave a room, get out of a chair etc we'd just stand up close to him and move him that way. He was very comfortable with this - at first he'd bark defiantly, but he never did the growling, snapping or the 'body language'. The CM 'tsk' worked well too - nothing to do with the noise but rather the energy or body language again it would appear. I don't even use the noise most of the time, but it helps me to get the body language right if I think it.

Our dogs get into bed with us in the mornings. We stopped letting the boy do this. He was to stay in his crate. He didn't seem to mind in the slightest much to my surprise, but this simple thing resulted in a HUGE improvement in his behavior. Other things like us insisting on going through doors first helped. We don't chat to him so much, we only give him affection when we instigate it - we don't let him demand or even ask for it. (That's a lie - we give in all the time, but we find it better if we resist).

To be honest it's pretty much the stuff that you see on the Dog Whisper Show every week.

Had we been firm when he was a little 7 week old pup it would probably have nipped it in the bud and we'd never of had a problem. But we did stay on top of it and kept going back to the trainers. We had a niggling feeling that we were on the wrong track.

And YES. Virtually all trainers will say "But I do all of that". And yes, they do. But they don't all teach it!

I suppose that what I like to see in a trainer is someone that addresses the relationship between dog and owner BEFORE the trick training. We worked so hard on 'tricks' and our dogs are very good at them. But it's the unspoken communication that really works wonders. We're still figuring it out. Teaching tricks is the easy bit. There are 1001 ways to do that and it's not hard to figure out how. But the human-canine relationship/communication is much harder to get right in my opinion. I like trainers that focus on that aspect of things.

We still use positive, rewards based training methods. That's never changed. But now we have a good foundation upon which to do trick training.

But `a trainer` is only some person who calls themself a trainer. They can be qualified or not, experienced or not. They might have a degree in Animal Behaviour or a 2-week course and a franchise. It`s not like plumbers or teachers - there is no legal requirement for ANY training whatsoever. That`s why people here are recommended to check first!

I`ve met rubbish trainers and brilliant ones. It was always up to me to vote with my feet and stand up for my dog.
TBH all of us have made mistakes. The trick is to admit it, face up to the fact it`s our fault and then to do something about it. So you were taken in by a trainer - you weren`t the first and won`t be the last.
However, your experience doesn`t invalidate ours. You seem determined to separate training from actions your dog performs. Is recall a `trick`? No, because it is crucial to your relationship with your dog that they come to you. How you train that behaviour is also crucial. You can train so the dog is afraid NOT to come to you, which is possible. This does not make a good relationship and limits the development of the dog. If your training methods are ones that encourage confidence and make your dog feel rewarded, your dog will become easier and easier to train.

I think the confusion is still there, because none of what you've described in your previous post here:




Scarter, as a matter of interest - what negative techniques/punishment do you use?

We've used the 'stopping and standing still when the dog pulls on lead approach'. It worked. Although our dogs weren't bad pullers.

If they bark to demand attention or similar we'll turn our back/leave the room.

When they nipped as pups we'd leave the room or put them out of the room for a minute or two.

If they make a fuss to get food when we're eating, demand to get out of their crates, demand to get out/into a room for no good reason they'll be either ignored, or if it gets out of hand they'll be put out of a room.

We let them know that we don't want a given behaviour by telling them 'oi' - it's more of an energy/body language thing than the word I think.

They don't get off-lead to play unless they're behaving well on-lead.


is what is called confrontation in dog training; in fact, if anything, it takes the confrontation out!
Therein lies the confusion

It would improve things, yes, but it's under the banner of reward based training

Wys
x

I too think it is important to take a little from all the trainers you like/respect. Also, as every dog is different, there can't be a fixed set of rules - you have to be flexible.

[link removed]
I really like his manner and I think the way the dogs clearly adore him is an indicator that he is a good trainer.

Of course not - no one's experience invalidates anyone elses. Ever.