"I do agree with utilizing distractions for reinforcement/proofing."


Absolutely. It's not trained until it's proofed.

I have used (and will still use) names of loved things (with my dogs, they would all be certain foods ) in a situation of "near refusal," but I'm not sure about a direct (general) association of correction and unpleasantness with the handler's approach when a true refusal is corrected. I think (and operate under this) that it's a direct association of correction and unpleasantness with the handler's approach when the command has been blown off.

Especially with my almost-never-corrected dogs, who are not compulsion trained, I think that the one time (with each of two of them) they were subjected to that consequence made a big and lasting impression, and I really do think that the connection with refusing the recall was clear... that no generalizing was done.

OTOH, of course you're right that different dogs will have different reactions.

Good post!

Connie I don't mean that it never works, I used that method for most dogs until recently. A lot of my methods had to change because of my physical impairment after the accident.

I couldn't use that method on Duke, I did once and he didn't trust me for a week. My harder, higher drive dogs respond to it better but it varies. A fair amount of refused recalls are not refusals at all.

The method can frighten a dog if the reason for the dog not coming to you was that the dog didn't hear the recall command. Or the method works great for a dog that is moderately handler sensitive/pack driven/biddable. Or it won't work at all because the distraction remains more important than the consequence of not obeying. Or...

A dog that becomes nervous when the handler approaches might bolt to avoid a correction it thinks it will get because it doesn't understand why it was corrected. Or a dog might just avoid the handler after refusing a recall to avoid/delay the correction. Or the dog might see the handler's approach as a physical cue that preceedes a physical correction and then come to the handler.

A question I get is: "How do you know for sure if the dog didn't hear or is refusing?" A good indication is if the dog looks at you after the command. But dogs won't always look back at you if they are about to blow you off in favor of the distraction.

Distance can be a good indication - the closer the dog is the more likely it will hear you, right? Not always. Ever been thinking about something or working in a focused manner and have someone standing right next to you say something and you have no idea until they flick you that they were even there? That is an example of a distraction causing an interruption in your senses.

Hahahah of course I could be the only person that does that, I am blonde after all..

Anyhow, I don't think it never works or that it should never be used. It is just my opinion that most pet dogs are not actually refusing, they don't understand the details of the command(Ignore EVERYTHING and come to me NOW!) which makes the correct/drag either confusing or unfair to the dog.

Edited by Jennifer Marshal (07/17/2009 05:49 PM)
Edit reason: spelling

I agree!

That's why I stressed that you must be absolutely certain that the dog heard, and understood the command.

When unsure, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the dog.

 Quote: Alyssa Myracle

I agree!

That's why I stressed that you must be absolutely certain that the dog heard, and understood the command.

When unsure, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the dog.

Absolutely. If this wasn't yet clear in the thread, I hope it is now.

Unfair corrections (of any kind, for any non-compliance) are a terrible strain on dog-handler bond.