Just wanted to share a little incident with all of you. I hope this shows that with a little patience and positive approach training will be a lot more fun for you and your dog. I have explained in a prior post how I formed an invisible line with my flexi leash that my now 13 week old pup will not cross. What I left out was an important lesson that I learned. My puppy Kai Von Leerburg has tons of prey drive and soon learned that chasing after headlights at night was more fun then following me. He also is a hard puppy when in drive. While every thing I do with my pup is positive I was getting frustrated that all the encouragement in the world was not as attractive as running the opposite way after a moving headlight at night. Well I soon resorted to popping on the collar every time he ran after a car. Because of being in high drive I had to flip him over backwards for him to even acknowledge the leash. Well after 5 minutes of this he began to associate a correction with the car. So now I had a cowering dog that would run the opposite way when ever he heard a car. Remember a dog will associate a place or an object with a correction before he will an action. So I shook my head at my stupidity and put on my thinking cap. I then began to feed Kai a piece of hotdog every time a car passed by. And by the end of the walk rather then running away or running towards cars every time Kai saw a car he would check in with me for a possible reward. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with the group.

Good post Vince. I am struggling with similar issues. Though I've been training for years, I wanted to try an all positive approach with my current 5 month pup.

The problem is, it can be very frustrating and time consuming since the proper behavior must be:
1. induced somehow
2. then reinforced

Question: Is there any reason why step 1 (induction) is better than compelling the correct behavior then rewarding it?

Why is the patient way better than the more efficient way?

I'm not disagreeing with you at all... just looking for input... been struggling with this issue.

If a dog cowers in anticipation of a correction then the correction is not properly applied. You can make a positive experience out of it if you praise the dog - and mean it. Dogs know your feelings and aren't fooled.

Dogs pick up on all our emotions. If you're feeling frustrated or tense up when a car is coming the dog will pick up on this. You must be relaxed and unemotional when giving a correction (to state the obvious). This is where so many make their mistakes. I have learned much from this approach - in training myself as well as my dogs. Think about what you're telling your dog when you correct him - what you're feeling, whats your attitude, etc.

This is interesting and I will look forward to hearing how things work out.

I too am looking to learn other methods of dog training. I was taught to direct the dog and to praise them heavily when they do it correct. However, if the dog understands the command yet ignores it, I was taught to correct and then re-direct. Would this be called "compulsion" training?

I spoke to a trainer who advocates "positive pet training" only. I asked him about administering corrections. He says he does. I didn't have a chance to talk to him further. Anyway, I'm a little confused. What sets "positive only" training apart from compulsion?

I'm going to help a friend obedience train their lab. The dog is friendly and responsive. I'm thinking that I should NOT use a prong collar with this dog unless the dog turns out to be more difficult to train than I'm anticipating. I think I can probably just use a flat collar and give it mild "re-direction" (new term, mine! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ). Does that sound appropriate or would you be inclined to always use a prong?

As always, thanks! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Marks:

Great post. I agree with you totally. And while I am the first to admit my shortcomings I do know how to give a proper correction. The moral of this story was that any correction was unnecessary and counterproductive.

Dave:

I too started my training adventure worshiping the prong. I would let a puppy be a puppy for the first year or so and then I would introduce power. I have done a complete reevaluation of my training. I now still believe in a prong for the average pet owner I do not for the completion dog and experienced trainer until advanced proofing is involved. Yes it is very time consuming and frustrating at first until you get the hang of it. The wonderful thing about it is you cannot make a mistake. If you feed at the wrong time for the wrong reason no damage is done. You cannot say that about power. Now the big but. The higher the food drive or play drive the easier the training is. My dog will let you cut his paw off for a piece of food. I compound that by underfeeding him. He will work until he passes out for food. Without this I do not know how far I could go. Email me privately with any questions on techniques I use. It is really cool how well it works.

Paul wrote:

****I was taught to direct the dog and to praise them heavily when they do it correct. However, if the dog understands the command yet ignores it, I was taught to correct and then re-direct. Would this be called "compulsion" training?***

Paul,

There is no question in regard to the wisdom of praising a dog for a correct behavior--I don't think this was ever disputed. But what do you mean by "direct" the dog? Every exercise or behavior, be it "sit", "down" or "track" begins with explaining to a dog what this specific behavior means. It can be done with food, toys or compulsion, accompanied by praise. If you are not using toys or food, then I suspect you use some level of compulsion. If that's the case, I would call it "compulsion" training.

Is "purely motivational" approach, without ever resorting to a correction, possible? I doubt it. It depends on a lot of things--what your training goals are, what your dog's temperament is, and how good of a trainer you are. No two dogs are the same, and what may be a mild distraction to one dog may be an overpowering one to another. I don't think you can fix serious dog aggression or handler hardness, for example, with food or toys. My approach is to use as little compulsion as possible, but always be ready to correct when necessary. It may not be "purely motivational", but I still consider it "motivational".

Hey Vince,

I'm not trying to say you don't know how to correct! Either approach works - even though I don't take the food route, I don't tell people not to. I see excellent results from both approaches.

Paul,

If a dog is soft I don't normally introduce a prong unless its needed. Depends on the dog. I also don't equate correction with compulsion unless done incorrectly. On occasion I have gone too far in a training session - I become frustrated and correct the dog when I should have just ended the session. Thats compulsion - in my view. I think of corrections more as direction or guidance. The better your bond is with the dog, and your ability to let the dog know what you want it to do the fewer corrections will be needed.

Let me give an example of the inductive vs. compel method-- remember, I'm only talking about INITIALLY forcing the dog into the correct position to show him what you want THEN rewarding of course.

Ideally--I want the dog to retrieve the ball and drop it into my hand.

Problem-- dog returns with ball and drops ball near me-- then tries to pick it up again before I can get to it.

Induction--Using food, I can get her to return the ball and drop it on the ground to get the treat. But placing it into my hand seems more difficult without using any force.

Force--Is there any reason NOT TO use the leash to guide (compel) the dog closer and show it what I want? Is pure induction better? --- Thoughts?

Dave:

Would you say getting a mouse to push a tiny ball across the floor into a hole slightly larger than the ball a bit harder then what you are asking? I saw this on one of Ed's videos. First a pellet of food was dropped every time the mouse came anywhere close to the ball. Then only after he touched the ball. Then only after he moved the ball. Then only when he moved it in the direction of the hole. Then only when close to the hole. Finally only when it placed it in the hole. No prong collar! Only food. Now if you can get a mouse to play basketball with food I think you can get your dog to retrieve. What do you think?

Ps. I don’t understand people’s adverse reactions to food. People awe in amassment at sea world and nobody cries foal that a prong is not used. Try to teach a tiger at the circus with a prong collar. How do you think the first dogs were domesticated? I bet when they wondered into a campsite food was involved. How would you like it if I put a prong around your neck and yelled GIBLEGLOCK while slamming down on the prong so hard that you fell face down and then said good boy and fed you a snickers bar? Trust me I use the prong. I have even sharpened the points at times. But I will never use it as a teaching tool!

Renee:

When I said "direct" I meant to give a command. So if I tell my dog to sit and he doesn't, I will say "No" and then again say "sit", if he sits then I'll say "good sit".

I've never used food or toy reward. I would simply help the dog into the position that I want while giving the command and then praise them once in position. I guess anytime force, whether mild or hard, is used then I suppose it could be described as "compulsion" training". Is my understanding correct?

Vince, so you use a flat collar along with the food reward and use the prong only for corrections AFTER the training is "complete"? Earlier you said that "I now still believe in a prong for the average pet owner". It seems to me that the average pet owner takes one look at the prong and doesn't want anything to do with it. What would you say to that average pet owner to alleviate their concern?

Thanks.