Cookie training vs Correction training... - Page 2

I don't agree with EITHER type of training.

Training HAS to have balance.  Meaning it cannot be "purely positive", and it cannot be "punishment based."  I would absolutely avoid an all-positive trainer or an excessively harsh trainer.

Should a dog be corrected for showing aggression, yes, if they are trained they should.  They must know its wrong.  Then you do have to fix the underlying issues, and conditioning to wearing a muzzle is a great idea, as long as the dog doesn't associate it as being a bad thing.

....On the other hand I want to be part of a Schutzhund group and training. Is it asking too much to have both????..........Can you train Schutzhund with cookies????.

You ask a great question. And one which has as many answers as there are trainers! 

Bob made a SUPER point! Don't worry so much about "how" a trainer trains, but more importantly, does that trainer inspire you with confindence, and does he relate to his/her dogs THE WAY YOU WANT TO.

I can honestly say that someone who keeps their dogs in kennels/crates, etc (i.e., not housepets) when not working with them, would not be able to understand me or how I relate to my dogs. Our goals would be different. I've worked (over the years) with MANY folks like this, and many are FINE dog trainers, but without fail they have a very hard time understanding my personal goals and what is important to ME.  Bob is absolutely correct in that you have to find someone who you trust and who interacts with their dogs in a way you respect.

I have to disagree with Doberdoodle a bit with her comment that you can't be "one or the other".  In fact, once you start really understanding (I mean really understanding) pure positive training, and more importantly once your dog starts to understand, you will find it damaging to throw compulsion in here and there.  In my experience (just my humble opinion) it is much fairer to the dog to do ONE OR THE OTHER.

I would like to mention Shade here again. Shade uses positive methods with her dogs.  She has had very nice success in schutzhund (winnning 5th place at AWDF championships and other major wins) as well as doing well in ringsport while just "playing around"! (Earned Brevet, Ring I in three straight trials with 1st place and 2nd place in Ring I)  As well,she shows AKC obedience.  I am SUPER lucky to be able to watch her, and even take lessons from her, as she is one of the very, very few people titling in schutzhund who UNDERSTANDS positive.  Many do it, few understand it.

You asked for personal experiences, so I'm not trying to "put down" compulsion training; heck, it is where most of us old timers started! But for me, personally, I didn't start HAVING REAL FUN or LEARNING AS MUCH until I started exploring positive.  I felt like a novice again - and it was GREAT!  

The first dog I really started with (a pit bull) I was able to ILP and take out in to AKC obedience competition at pretty large shows and get multiple HITs. That hooked me. I then got Dirk, and felt a strong urge to prove to myself that I could take an unaltered, "gamebred" male pit bull and earn SchH and ring titles without EVER GIVING A CORRECTION WHILE TRAINING.  I'm only human, and a few times I slipped up, but its safe to say that 99% of his training was pure positive, and the times I "F'd" up and corrected him, had no real impact on his training other than to set me back a bit.  Dirk earned his FR Brevet with 3rd out of 8 dogs (the two folks who beat me were #1 competitor in US and #1 competitor in Canada) and while his SchH scores have not been great, that has much more to do with the limitations I bring to the board as his trainer/handler due to my frustrating health issues.  He got his SchH III (we left ring due to not wanting to be around the people involved at that time).

So, what I am saying Ruger1, is, IF you want to e

Diane, how does the all-positive work out, not with competition dogs, but with household pets who come from unknown backgrounds and present with behavior issues?

How much more clear to a dog does it have to be, then this: When you listen and abide by the rules and behaviors you already know, you get praise and rewards, and when you don't you get corrected and have to do it anyway.  I am familiar with 'purely positive' training, and have used it, and it does not work out for all dogs, or even most.  I wouldn't even think it would work out for top level world competitors in SchH, either.  A ScH3 dog may not even be well behaved or reliable when he's out of his ShH routine.  There is more to behaving than being conditioned to perform for rewards on a field, and some of the dogs that do well in competitions are crated otherwise and are dog-aggressive, not so hard to perform on an empty field as it is in real life where other distractions are more rewarding than what you have to offer in your treat pouch.

I agree with the balance dichotomy.

Motivational, positive reinforcement methods work well to *teach* behaviors.
At some point, for 99.9% of dogs, its going to be necessary to *proof* those behaviors later, and explain that compliance isn't optional.

Diane, how does the all-positive work out, not with competition dogs, but with household pets who come from unknown backgrounds and present with behavior issues?



I'll honestly say that I don't have a lot of experience with training other people's dogs for pet type training. I was responding to the question regarding positive training and SCHUTZHUND.  THAT I have experience with, so I felt qualified to respond to that.  However, if the discussion is pet training other people's dogs, well, I am not qualified to reply.  Maybe Victoria Stillwell? : )  


One thing I hear a lot is "well, at SOME point positive dogs are going to disobey..."  Sure!  But I can also say that if you take a look around the PNW, the most out of control dogs are the ones with the shock collar and sharpened prong collar on them! Those poor dogs CONSTANTLY mess up, and yet no one thinks twice about the method used on them NOT WORKING!  Why not!?  If compulsion works so well, then why does the shock or prong have to be used over and over again?  

The thing most people don't grasp about positive is this:  if you have a dog sitting next to you, and you want it to give you attention, and it looks away, the compulsion trainer corrects the dog.  How is this different from the positive trainer who waits for the dog to look back, and then marks and reinforces the behavior?  We know from science that the marked and rewarded behavior will begin to occur more frequently; it is up to the talent of the trainer to bring the dog to the point where more and more distraction can be applied and the dog will still perform correctly.  

For me, personally, it took a HUGE mind shift to wrap my head around positive. It actually took 2 years of me arguing with the marine mammal trainer who taught me.  I just couldn't get past "yeah but..."   But then, bang, it made sense.  I don't mean to be argumentative, but around here, there are VERY few people who "get it" to the point of being EFFECTIVE.  That is why I take lessons from Shade - I'm STILL trying to wrap my head around it after 10 years.

As to using the method with animals with unknown history, not your own, etc, again, I'm not an expert, but I will say it IS the prefered method with exotics, and all other kinds of animals which present real challenges.

Hopet his helps some, I sure enjoy talking about it! : ) 

Compliance isn't optional.  I agree.  It sounds harsh, but think about our own lives.  Our compliance with laws and even social mores are not "optional."

You always hear that consistency and timing is important in dog training, especially if you're using corrections.  If you speed through a red-light, you get a ticket-- now every time with the red light cameras.  That is consistency.  Before these cameras, there was a chance you could speed and get away with it, no police in sight, so the behavior of running red lights continued.  But now that you know every single time you choose to run that light, you get a ticket-- it's reduced the behavior to zero.  Now, if they could make a system where every time you stopped at a light you get $1 or a congrats, it would balance out to the type of training we do :-)  Humans must learn self-inhibition, and so must pets.  I see it as the deal we have with dogs as domestic animals- I provide all care, and you accept me as the leader and do things on my terms.

Now, on the flipside, if you were to only correct your dog for something once you get frustrated, that is wrong and will confuse the dog, the system has to be consistent rules.  You do this, this happens.  You do that, this happens.  Not "You do this, and you won't know what will happen," that creates fear and weakness in the dog. 

The compliance can start from day one, without correction.  If you have 3 ways to teach sit to a green dog, let's say.  1) Pull up on the dogs collar, choking him until he sits then release the pressure, 2) lure into a sit with a treat, 3) Gently place the dog into a sit with your hand near the base of his tail, then praise.  Option 1 is an aversive way to train, the dog is only sitting to release the pressure on his neck, this is a negative association with the command that may last lifelong.  2, luring is "asking" and making sitting on the dogs own terms, it's also pairing the treat as part of the command that you have to phase out later.  Option 3 is giving the dog no room to fail, it is applying the word to the action, then praising.  It is not taken as unpleasant, and this is a way to introduce a command without correction, but also without making it the dogs choice.  Choice will come in later as you require more, as you ask your dog to perform a task he understands, then follow through with either correction or praise.  The "art" of this type of training is the trainer must  truly know when the dog is understanding, when to progress to the next step, and this is why using corrections is best left up to a trainer.  This is why treat-training is best info for the general public, its benign.  So you will read a lot of articles about it, see it done on tv shows.  You cannot screw up a dog much with treats, but you can screw them up by using correction inappropriately.

Can we poll the competitors at Worlds and see who uses all-positive?  I would love to know.  We'd have to take their word on it--  I know a trainer who claimed to train purely positive clicker in B&T's then behind closed doors would put pinch collars on.

Oh, I don't think there's anyone competing at any level outside of many a club trial who is using *purely* positive.

But that does not mean it does not work.  Each dog training sport has a very strong "culture" around it (makes for a fascinating study!)  Schutzhund is no different, and it has a culture coming from the old style military training. They used to beat elephants to get them to work - but when it came time to do such precision things as preventitive medical care, etc, on BIG, mean animals, keepers found that compulsion is not the best way.  Training has advanced 100% since marine mammal trainers began to share their techniques with pet owners. 

Doberdoodle, you forgot one very important FORTH method of getting the dog to sit.  You mention "luring", and "luring" is a cautionary word that should warn you that the person using it does not understand positive training. You see TONS of "luring" going on with schutzhund folks who think they are using "positive".  The forth method you didn't mention is waiting for the dog to sit and capturing the action with the marker. 

Here is the problem with "luring" (in my humble opinion) and why it is no more effective than pushing the dog into the sit.

So, you have your young pup and you want to to teach "sit".  If you PUSH the pup into position, sure, he ends up sitting, but exactly how much thought did the dog give to how it earned that reward?  NONE!  What did the dog learn at that moment?  That if my owner pushes my butt down, I get a treat.

Second person has food in hand, calmly watches pup. Pup looks up, and, looking up, finds itself sitting, as it is easier to look up that way. Click and treat.  Owners hand had nothing to do with why it got rewarded. Owner is out of the picture.  I'm sure you will aagree this makes a MUCH clearer picture (though it is still cloudy to the pup!) of what the sit command will be.