# Lack of cumpulsion hurting the breeds?



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

I had a discussion with a trainer and friend of mine just a few days ago and some of the other new threads here bring up the same point in my mind. 
I see the trend toward reward-based training as a good thing in general. That said, I think the trend is greatly negatively effecting virtually all of the working and hunting breeds. Softer training methods allow for softer dogs to be worked and titled and subsequently to be bred. Training was brutal when all working Retrievers were trained using a heeling stick and a forced-retrieve and Shepherds were yanked and cranked into the desired position. But, dogs that could not handle that training were washed out. Today, we see higly titled dogs that would shut down at a reasonable correction being bred constantly. "Good" training has reached a point where we are able to disguise the true charachter of the dog and IMO, this presents big problems in present and future gene pools.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I think it's up to the helper/decoy to bring out the "real" dog. My job is to be his partner.
One of my GSDs is very handler soft. Would I call him a weak dog because of that? Hell no! You should see him try and work over the helpers at club.
Attemps at dominating him with the stick, body posture, noise, etc only takes him to another level. THATS what tells me if the dog is any good. 
Being able to put up with "brutal training" by it's handler doesn't necessarily equate to a good dog IMHO.
Been there, done that! I've had a few dogs that could (and did) take serious ass whuppings. I created most of that and I would LOVE to do them over.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I am not sure about this, or if it is the fact that people getting into dog sports are weak sensitive shitters. LOL

I have never seen so many people get so butt hurt over a ****ing dog in my life. Shitters are great dogs except...............WTF ????? What exception ?? Great dogs don't have exceptions, that is why they are great. : )

There is something to this, but lets face it, out of all the couple thousand people that are on this forum, probably less than 50 actually go out and compete with their dogs. So the sad thing is all this foo foo training, which by the way takes WAY more experience to master than most people will ever have, is being promoted, and in the end, they use compulsion.

Look at KNPV dogs. The dogs over here produce.........what ??? Basically nothing, because we train with positive, and it does not produce what the parents are. It is the training method that makes them all hard and ballistic first, and genetics second.

I am not saying that positive suck or compulsion is the only way, or anything. There is something to the training as to how the dog looks.

Look at those videos of Suttles pups. That was not genetics, that was shitty training. 

The people I know are either on Mike Ellis's program, or on Mike Ellis's program, and whatever else they like. I am not seeing that really angry intensity from these dogs. Why ??? The training program is not designed to create this.

And before people loose their mother****ing minds, re-read what I said, it has nothing to do with Mike Ellis sucks or any of the shit you non reading comprehension ****s come up with. It is just a difference in the training program, AND since he is not around all the time, whatever these people are doing in between.

In Mondio, I do not see a lot of work to channel the frustration of compulsion into the bite. What I see, and agree with, is that the dog has to bring his shit with him, and if he doesn't, siyanara.

It will be fun to see what the future brings as more Mondio (us) dogs are bred.


----------



## Darryl Richey (Jul 3, 2006)

I think Bob makes some very good points. I'll take a bit of a handler soft dog that's helper hard. Weather a dog can take a correction from the owner"who in theory should be at least a bit of his superior" will not alwasy have bearing to how the dog works.
I also believe that dogs can be built to tollerate the hard corrections with a certain mentality of training.

Darryl


----------



## Drew Peirce (Nov 16, 2006)

Bob nailed it.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

I have heard this argument in my hunting breed (toller).....that people are not breeding dogs capable of handling force training/corrections anymore.

It just so happens that a larger percentage of Tollers are collar trained compaired to many retrievers, it being a rare breed still and many people still playing the field trial game if not actually hunting. 

My impression in my breed is not that they are not breeding dogs that can take compultion....but that they are not breeding dogs with solid enough nerves... period. This goes for however you want to train the dog...all positive or with some compultion. 

(Sorry about triple negative in paragraph above...it is late for me )

This is a breed with lots of prey and this can get them over some nerve issues (my current dog is like this)...but I would still like to see more stable dogs bred over all. 

Soooo to try and bring it back to the point....even if a trainer is using all positive methods or compulisive methods...*good* training can hide nerve issues. If more stable dogs were bred, trainers of all kinds would be happier I think...

Ummmm, if that made no sense I appolagize. WAY past my bedtime.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Kristina Senter said:


> I had a discussion with a trainer and friend of mine just a few days ago and some of the other new threads here bring up the same point in my mind.
> I see the trend toward reward-based training as a good thing in general. That said, I think the trend is greatly negatively effecting virtually all of the working and hunting breeds. Softer training methods allow for softer dogs to be worked and titled and subsequently to be bred. Training was brutal when all working Retrievers were trained using a heeling stick and a forced-retrieve and Shepherds were yanked and cranked into the desired position. But, dogs that could not handle that training were washed out. Today, we see higly titled dogs that would shut down at a reasonable correction being bred constantly. "Good" training has reached a point where we are able to disguise the true charachter of the dog and IMO, this presents big problems in present and future gene pools.
> 
> Anyone else have any thoughts on this?


 
I do not think that training has gotten softer, speaking like this makes it seem like dog has been babyed to a title....I thinks the training has gotten more intellegent. And for the most part I do not know one trainer that is having any kind of success that is not using some form of complusion. I think the use of reward methods and has gotten oodles of attention. The flip side of the coin that has not gotten much press is that the use of complusion has gotten more intelligent. The tables have turned because simply it works better...both training using more reward and more intelligent use of correction. Fact is getting a 3 on a dog is not easy and takes a good dog. And if the dog is lacking charcter that will be exposed sooner or later. I am not sure that use of harsh correction which some dogs can handle more than others is a test of charcter. It defintly tests the dog ability to take a harsh correction. But on trial day the dog still has to face the decoy. I think the pressure each of these things, harsh correction, and facing the decoy are dynamically different. I have seen dogs more worried about thier handlers than they are the decoy. With that evidence one can say that the training of old ruined the true chracter of a dog. Having an ideaology of train the dog hard and we will see what's left on trial day is one extreme...the other is lets never put any pressure on the dog and let's see if how much dog we can have trial day are both pretty unrealistic. I am not sure what we expect out of a dog. But I think it's pretty unrealistic to place an expectation that "good charcter" is the ability to get the shit kick out of the dog day in and day out and still come out like a frieght train. I also do not see these dogs that cannot take a little pressure from the handler but can take it from the helper/decoy? Both sides of the extreme eventually rear thier ugly head. I think that using more reward based methods preserves the character of the dog....But no matter how many cookies you give them...you cannot make more dog. And I also think that using intelligent complusion will give you the control you need to score points but for going it also will not make more dog. 

If we look at great atheletes, primarly ones in martial sports like boxing or MMA...If you just put them in the gym and punch them in the face everytime they make a mistake and that's your teaching method I am sure you will destroy a lot of talent...and the ones left standing are not by default the best talent. But if you take them and train them intelligently they still have to have the balls to get into the ring on fight night. 

Might you name a few of the dogs that maybe weak that are getting titled and producing puppies?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Is it really about the training method or the trialing system testing the dog. If soft dogs are making it through, then that says more about the trialing system and judging than what the dog can or cannot take from his handler. However, you hear across the board in dog sports [yep, herding included] that the "real" dogs aren't the high scorers? 

Terrasita


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Im not too sure which way it goes. The chicken or the egg. I have, without trying to brag, some very tough dogs. I am talking massive tollerances to corrections and extreme drive for biting. Now not many people want these types of dogs as they dont get great points and are quite difficult to train and handle. So we hear about how everyone wants a tough dog, but when they see it in the flesh all of a sudden "trainablity" becomes the number one trait.
Maybe its the fact that not many people want tough dogs so less are bred? Maybe its the fact that the main dog sport (IPO) is such a weak character test that the majority breeders are breeding for these types?
I know of a multi world champion dog who was a really average dog. I spoke to another competitor who knew the dog personally and said that "If you had of seen this dog at 9 months of age you would have shot him". I also spoke to a guy who decoyed the dog at his club and also did NVBK. He said the same thing about him. He also said that "......could never of got his BR title, he would have been ran off the field".
Yet this dog was top of the IPO/SchH tree. There is deff a problem if this can happen.


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Interesting discussion.
I have to just echo what Bob said. Just because a dog is sensitive to his/her handler doesn't mean he is soft in general. I also think if our dogs performed obedience they way they did 20 years ago, you would barely pass that phase.

As far as being on certain programs for training, I also agree with Jeff (WHAT!?!) regarding the system. If a dog understands what you want from it, there is usually less conflict and the reward is that, a reward. Not a place to unload all of it's anger and frustration. You can tune up a dog then send him for a bite... well, that surely will show you some intensity, but is that what you want? 

For me, I want a dog that can control himself, and that I enjoy working with. Do I think that makes him a ****er? No. or maybe I just like ****ers :wink:

Julie


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

James: Nice Post! Makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I also agree with Bob, Julie and the others. I think the problem may be in the tests themselves.That's how a dog is measured. If the dog is soft with the handler or whatever, if it can pass the tests it's good. I don't like watered down tests so that more dogs can pass. I like tests that are reachable but not easy. When my dog gets a title I want it to mean something and not just given to it.


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

I think there are some trainers who are like to think of their dogs are a "real dog" and not a "points dog".

Maybe the truth is that they are bad trainers or have bad dogs. Perhaps the dog that has nerve issues, a problem with displacement aggression, poorly socialized, downright antisocial or the trainer frankly cannot read dogs or their drives or bring out the best in their animal. Rather than admitting that they are are not good enough to handle the animal or have a bad dog, maybe it is easier on the ego to label the dogs as a "real dog".

My belief is a dog is what you make of it through upbringing, training and conditioning. Positive training methods does not mask character. High points in trials does not necessarily identify the best dogs for real life or it could be because the trainer is exceptional. On the other hand, nothing stopping a "real" dog from being a top sports dog.


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Some interesting points. 
I agree with Jeff (should have added this in my original post) that the programs have become softer and this is playing a large role as well. I guess my thinking was questioning whether the programs had become softer because the dogs had become softer, etc. 

Although I can think of several dogs that serve as good examples, I'd rather not name them. Some will recall one photograph that comes to mind where a dog on the podium could be seen "hitting the deck" when a sound surprised him. Ultimately it is absolutely nerve strenght but when a dog has enough prey drive, it will take a LOT of punishment in bitework but cannot handle any real pressure out of drive. When this dog is trained virtually solely in drive with motivational OB, much of the dog is disguised in good training. The system, in this case, is not to blame in my opinion as much as the training methods.

I should also mention that I'm not even necessarily talking about an overly handler-hard dog. I'm just talking about a dog that won't shut down or go into avoidance when corrected. I watched a titled dog just a couple weeks ago refuse to re-engage when the leash got wrapped around the handler's leg and delivered a correction (on a flat collar) well before the dog got to the bite. The dog returned to the handler, downed and absolutely refused to be sent on another bite, despite the decoy's efforts. That is the kind of thing I'm referring to. 40 years ago, this dog would never have made it to title.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2009)

Kristina Senter said:


> *Lack of cumpulsion hurting the breeds?*


I believe so on a theoretical level. Practically in the 20 years I've been involved with dogs I can't say with certainty that with my breed of choice (rottweiler) there has been a movement towards softer dogs, but it does seem like it. Sometimes I think it may be my head that's been changed, that I'm not as consistent with the methods I used from the beginning. The reason for this being that the influence of motivational ideas grinds you down eventually whether you like it or not and you start doubting yourself. The thing is about training is that first compulsion in and of itself is not brutal. Second if you believe that you will succeed or that the method will succeed and you stick to the common sense approach the dog will learn. It's when self doubt enters the equation that methods fail, dogs seem to be able to take advantage of this doubt to the max further making you believe that you're on the wrong track. It takes being comitted and then all of a sudden the dog "understands" whereas it didn't understand before.

So from my perspective I have the suspicion that the appearance of more dogs that don't respond to compulsion the same way as dogs I've known years ago may be due to my undecided attitude, which was caused by paying too much attention to motivational prattle and maybe the fact I've gotten older and softer. It may also be due to more dogs being selected for breeding that have not demonstrated the capacity to handle compulsion.

The question arises what is the standard yard stick to measure a dog's response to compulsion based on its natural package, before environmental influences start to change the dog. For me a simple test has been putting the puppy in a crate. Starting at 8 weeks I would carry it in. Then over a few days the pup would get accustomed to wearing a collar. At some point I would put a finger in the collar and drag the pup to the crate. All pups resist at first but they do end up in the crate. Over the next few days the pup's reaction changes and it starts to follow the pull of the collar to the crate. Within a week I put my finger in the collar and the pup moves ahead of me and runs into the crate.

The above is a normal reaction for me for a pup exposed to this procedure. But over the years I've seen reactions where the pup would continue resisting more and more instead of complying. I could throw a food item into the crate and bypass all that. But my way of thinking is; it's a dog, I've had dogs in the past that would do this no problem, so why should you get special treatment. In the end it may not be so much a question of capacity to handle compulsion but instead lack of willingness/directability in today's animals. Dogs that have a good degree of willingness end up looking as good doing their exercises when trained with good compulsion as dogs trained with motivational methods. So adjusting the training methods to make a dog look good regardless of it's natural degree of willingness will affect the gene pool if these dogs are selected for breeding over and over again. Which seems to be the case as breeders will put their efforts into a dog possessing an "ideal" type and promote the dog regardless of if it has willingness or not, they will work around it if necessary. Willingness is the first temperament trait they discard as being not absolutely necessary. That's what all the modern SCH methods are all about really, making a dog look happy doing the exercises because it would've looked like sad dog having been trained with compulsion.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

They don't do this anymore but if I had a test question in school and I got it wrong and I got my butt busted for the wrong answer then I too would be afraid to take the test. A dog that looks unhappy is in fact an unhappy dog. Complusion may very well be why. I agree there is enough times that a dog needs it. A happy dog looks better and is more confident in himself and this is through motivational methods. It just makes common sence to me. 

There are plenty of tough dogs out there that need more complusion than others but YOU must be FAIR to the dog with those corrections.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

No, I don´t think lack of compulsion is a problem, nervestrenght, being able to concentrate and work well in different environment is nothing hard compulsion is gonna produce, many use hard compulsion when dogs are made over the top bitecrazy and hardened, because it´s the only way to get thru, but how is this a sign of quality? It´s true that the better trainers of today can reach far with a mediocre dog, but this is only a problem if people breed dogs on titles/points and not look for the natural qualities and see how the dog is not only on the field. That I think is the reason to success, being picky about the breedingstock, not how much compulsion a dog can take.

Just a thought, are the really strong dogs the ones who accept a harsh handler who uses much compulsion, isn´t theses the medium dogs, a strong dog will probably defend himself with force if to much compulsion is used.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Kristina Senter said:


> Although I can think of several dogs that serve as good examples, I'd rather not name them. Some will recall one photograph that comes to mind where a dog on the podium could be seen "hitting the deck" when a sound surprised him. Ultimately it is absolutely nerve strenght but when a dog has enough prey drive, it will take a LOT of punishment in bitework but cannot handle any real pressure out of drive. When this dog is trained virtually solely in drive with motivational OB, much of the dog is disguised in good training. The system, in this case, is not to blame in my opinion as much as the training methods.


 
I agree with Kristina on this, I see lots of dogs, some who are on the podium at high levels of competition, who out of drive, and I mean completely out of drive, not "out and about but with a toy in their mouth", can't really handle life. They handle it through their drive, not through their nerve strength. 

In or out of the sport, I think most of us can agree that it's through stress that we see the dogs character. Whether that's stress in the training, stress from the decoy, and which is required we may not agree on.

If a dog is raised in a purely positive/motivational manner, training is always a game, you always win against the decoy and never have a bad experience, happy happy happy do we really know what the core character of that dog is, or are we just guessing at it based on how they do on the trial field? If another dog is raised with more negatives in their life, be it the training style, life experiences, whatever and it also goes out and can put in great performances, haven't they shown more about their true character then the first dog? I'm not saying the first dog doesn't have solid character, just that nobody has ever really tested it enough to know if they would shine or crumble, while the second dog was tested and showed it would shine. Which is fine IMO if you are just looking at the dog for competition, but if you want to use them for breeding I think you need to know a little more about who the dog really is, what amount of stress they can work through, etc.

I used to talk with a Sch friend (positive style of trainer) of mine about the "old school" French Ring style of training (LOTS of compulsion). She would say "the FR dogs are good in spite of the training" I'd respond with "the FR dogs are good because of the training" We were both right. She was talking about how they put in good performances on the trial field in spite of the style of training they received. I was talking about how they are good genetically because that style of training weeded out weaker individuals, and produced a gene pool of driven, stable, resilient dogs.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2009)

> Just a thought, are the really strong dogs the ones who accept a harsh handler who uses much compulsion, isn´t theses the medium dogs, a strong dog will probably defend himself with force if to much compulsion is used.


Some strong dogs are very handler sensitive.


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I was talking about how they are good genetically because that style of training weeded out weaker individuals, and produced a gene pool of driven, stable, resilient dogs.


Precisely what I mean.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Erik Berg said:


> ... this is only a problem if people breed dogs on titles/points and not look for the natural qualities and see how the dog is not only on the field.
> QUOTE]
> 
> This would be my thought, too. Don't good breeders look past the titles to the actual dog?
> ...


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez (Jan 16, 2009)

> Don't good breeders look past the titles to the actual dog?


Good breeders yes but they are very few. They are also drowned out by the number of people breeding for cash or prestige and more than anything simply ignorant breeders. To compete good breeders have to sell out to some degree. Few are the educated dog buyers that can make up their own mind and look past show and sport titles. Good breeders must place all their puppies too. They must cater to all kinds of people.


----------



## Andy Larrimore (Jan 8, 2008)

IMO, you can have a good dog or "real dog" by always allowing him to win against the decoy. I do not feel that a dog must get a negative from the decoy in order to be good. The club decoy should be building and preparing your dog for real life or trial. He should expose the dog in as many scenerios as possible in a positive manner and push the dog a little further each time. It should always result in the dog winning and in pure domination of the decoy, not just running off with some sleeve. When I train a new dog for bite work I allow the dog to take me to the ground on the initial entry of the bite. I position the dog so that he is standing right on top of me biting the life out of me. I then have the handlers lift their dogs off of the bite not "out" their dogs. The dog must know 100 percent that they can control the situation at hand with their aggression. When a dog learns this they will not hesitate. This is not to say that any dog can do this work but the right dog should certainly not fail.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I agree with Kristina on this, I see lots of dogs, some who are on the podium at high levels of competition, who out of drive, and I mean completely out of drive, not "out and about but with a toy in their mouth", can't really handle life. They handle it through their drive, not through their nerve strength.
> 
> In or out of the sport, I think most of us can agree that it's through stress that we see the dogs character. Whether that's stress in the training, stress from the decoy, and which is required we may not agree on.
> 
> ...


These are some good points. I was a a Flinks seminar when he was asked about the KNPV dogs, he answerd "They have good dogs but shit training". Now this is the general SchH thought about the KNPV. I was having this conversation with a friend and I said that "maybe the KNPV is breeding the stronger dogs because they generally use more compulsion and they need stronger dogs to cope with it?"
Its obviously a question that alot of people are now starting to talk about.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

All things in moderation. IMO, that's really what it all boils down to.

Unfortunately, we as human beings have a tendancy towards the extreme. We struggle with reconciling two apparently contradictory approaches, and as a result, too many trainers end up going all one way, or all the other way.

I do believe that it is possible, with the right dog, to train it to a very high level with purely positive methods, AND have the dog be a quality dog, temperment-wise.

I also agree with Jeff- it takes talent (more than most people realize) to train a dog this way.

Ultimately, I believe the real problem is that the tests have gotten weaker. We keep lowering the bar to accomodate this dog or that trainer. 

The dog either is, or it isn't. There shouldn't be a grey area.


But hey, it's out of fasion for teachers to give kids an "F", too.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I will also add that many trainers work only with dogs that can take a good ass whooping because ;
#1 That's what they like.
#2 They are outside their comfort zone working with anything else. 
I'm as guilty as anyone else on this. That's why I got rid of two (maybe) good Mals. I can't and refuse to work with a nervy dog. 
I wouldn't put my GSDs through what I did with a few of my competition terriers. Of course I wouldn't put a terrier through what I used to. :-o :wink:


----------



## Rod Roberts (Nov 7, 2007)

Hi Folks 

After reading this thread with great interest, it reads as if motivational training is one way and compulsive training is entirely different.
In my world motivation can be created in many ways and compulsion can be subtle pressure which the dog moves away from hence causing further motivation, the use of reward based training while it can be very good, or the dog can become over-focused on the reward, which itself can create a barrier to the dog learning. With regards to breeding one persons desired outcomes, is another’s dislikes 

Rod


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Rod, most trainers (including myself) will definitely use a combination of motivations and corrections to achieve success. My focus was was on the tendency of trainers to use less and less physical correction in the recent years. For example, I understand that "negative punishment" (witholding or teasing with the reward based on lesser desired response from the dog) is a powerful training tool. There are currently training systems that use *primarily* this approach, however, in place of a physical yank on a correction collar. My opinion is not even that this is a bad thing....I just have some concern for the future gene pool as a result.


----------



## Darryl Richey (Jul 3, 2006)

Kristina,

The key is, even with the style of training that you are talking about....withholding reward, these trainers will still yank a knot in the dogs ass if it needs it. The dog is very clear on why it happens and the dogs then can still take the compulsion. I get together and train with one of the most inducive trainers out there and pressure is still involved in the end. These types of trainers still work the hard dogs, but because of the system you don't see them having to get into the same kinds of "fights" that others may have to.
If dogs are getting weaker I think it's due to breeding and the sports that allow it.

Darryl


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

What sports have getting weaker during the years, most of them looks pretty much the same they always did, or?


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

While I agree with this to a point, to me breeding is more about what a dog produces vs what they are or what type of training is behind them. 

I have seen quite a few females that were not the strongest of dogs, produce some very nice puppies. I have not seen it with males (maybe cuz these dogs were never bred) but have known a few females that fit this description. 

For me, if you look at it totally from a breeding standpoint, it is about what a dog produces, nothing else.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Kristina Senter said:


> Some interesting points.
> I agree with Jeff (should have added this in my original post) that the programs have become softer and this is playing a large role as well. I guess my thinking was questioning whether the programs had become softer because the dogs had become softer, etc.
> 
> Although I can think of several dogs that serve as good examples, I'd rather not name them. Some will recall one photograph that comes to mind where a dog on the podium could be seen "hitting the deck" when a sound surprised him. Ultimately it is absolutely nerve strenght but when a dog has enough prey drive, it will take a LOT of punishment in bitework but cannot handle any real pressure out of drive. When this dog is trained virtually solely in drive with motivational OB, much of the dog is disguised in good training. The system, in this case, is not to blame in my opinion as much as the training methods.
> ...


I think dogs/dog sports are taking the same turn as the new Gen of kids/parenting skills, can't use compulsion/corrections on them, we bribe them to do what we want (mommy will buy you a new toy if you be quiet), we water down the tests, or take scores/points out of the equation as in T-ball in Little Leagues all over the country. You end up with dogs and kids that don't know what pressure is or how to handle it when actually faced with it. I find, if you use a little well timed compulsion on kids or puppies/young dogs, you don't need to use near as much later on because they know you mean business and if for some chance you do have to bang on them (lets say running out into traffic) they wont shut down, they recognize it with "oh shit, I screwed up, I better not do that again". 

I like a little of both, you get a reward for good bahaviour but you also get the smackdown for ****ing up. What rout the kid or dog takes is up to them. Some people like to try and control the negatives or keep them from happening, like not taking the kids out to dinner or giving a dog a little rope to hang himself. Me I don't change my life or schedule to fit around them, they learn to deal and work around me. I always had a kid I could take anywhere that was pleasant and the dog is the same way. Some people let their kids or dogs be nucances for fear that tuning them up will somehow break their spirit or take something away from them. Now we have neighborhoods full of screaming out of control kids and excessive barking dogs, neither with a lick of sense or self control.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

Kids these days. 

First it starts with snuff, then they're pilfering the cider barrels, and before you know it they're in chinese opium dens!

Nothing a couple strokes from the adze won't fix.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

LOL Steven, a little more than what I was going for but ...

Seriously, you don't know how many kids I have here that don't touch my stuff, act civil with the other kids but once mom pulls up, screaming, tantrums, running out into the street when they go out to the car, it's freakin' rediculous! I kicked one kid out of daycare because the mom repeatedly let the younger one run across the road. In those times, I think a nice hard ass whooping is NEEDED and should be applauded by the public. I can't use corpral on these kids but 99% of the time seriously strict and 100% accuratly timed and implimented "time outs" or naps EVERYTIME a hard kid screws up, fixes most issues within a couple weeks. The shit hits the fan when mom pulls up because they know the rules change as soon as they step outside. I guess it's too much trouble to "expect" much out of anybody anymore. Parents too lazy too punish kids? WTF?


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

People seem to be simplify the context of parental ass-whoopings.

I hear a lot of my peers (police) casually speak of "kids these days" too. And they're the first to say: "If that were MY kid, I'd...."

Nonsense. Not valid. They HAVE kids, and they've been consistent, disciplined, and loving since they were born. As such, you're never going to approach the same kind of problems which a kid will have who didn't have that pervasive structure his whole life....or even better, straight up booze-fueled chaos. 

It's a revenge fantasy...and I understand it, but the people who take great pride in their ability to stomp a new a-hole into their kid (or at least pat themselves on the back about it) are probably leaving out all the other details which lend themselves to the fact that a real whooping, considering the greater context, is really quite an anomoly for a-bomb level misbehavior.

And, while we're at it, if there so many problems "these days", let's trace it back culturally. I guess "the greatest generation" dropped the ball in terms of parenting. Two generations later, and we're in the shitter apparently.

In other words, if you have a well-behaved kid....give yourself come credit. It was NOT the whoopin' which "did it". It's the fact you're a competent, mature, disciplined adult yourself.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

I was recently working in a house with a very bossy 4 year old girl. She was constintly pulling all my tools from my tool bag and playing with them. It was driving me nuts! I finally got the mothers attention and told her that her child may get hurt playing with my tools. She walked over and yelled at me to put my tools up so the child couldn't get at them.
I told her if I put my tools up, they and I would be "UP" in my truck! She then figured out I asn't kidding and yelled at her nanny to come get the child. She didn't have the nerve to stand up to her own child. She's a Doctor. I was totally amazed. If I was that child I would have been told to leave them alone once, then I would have been dragged away by the ear lobe.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

Mine would have brought me outside to play with something else. 

I now see that they were cowards for not causing my physical discomfort to spare them the annoyance of my existance.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Steven Lepic said:


> Mine would have brought me outside to play with something else.
> 
> I now see that they were cowards for not causing my physical discomfort to spare them the annoyance of my existance.


 
Sorry Steve but that's just lame! Re-Direct them! Are they not a higher level speces than a Dog! What are you going to do when they decide to run across the street in front of cars, re-direct them, oh ya re-direct them to the ER!!

I'm sorry I posted this, as it's way off topic!


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

I don't think you're asking me because you actually want an answer. I think you took offense to my disagreement with ear-pulling in that situation.

So we disagree. Fair enough.

Back in my day, gentleman settled disagreements by duel.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Steven Lepic said:


> Mine would have brought me outside to play with something else.
> 
> I now see that they were cowards for not causing my physical discomfort to spare them the annoyance of my existance.


OK, I''ll bite once more.

So what does that teach a child. Hum if I bother anyone that comes into the house with tools, then I will get to play outside, what a deal, I'll have to remember that.

A duel, man you must be really old!:razz:


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

I have no idea why a principle has to be at stake.

At that age, does it have to be more complicated than?: "Leave the guy alone, let's go do something else."

Insistence on pestering you despite an alternative...ok. Slightly different matter.

Pistols at dawn.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Steven Lepic said:


> I have no idea why a principle has to be at stake.
> 
> At that age, does it have to be more complicated than?: "Leave the guy alone, let's go do something else."
> 
> ...


I gave you a short story, they tried several times to distract the child. See if you would have been smacked up side the head a few times as a child, today you may not be so eager to draw pistols.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

Maybe I'd be more eager!


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Has this thread melded with the one called "What's this World Coming To?" AKA: kids these days?


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2009)

That was the plan from the beginning.


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

Steven Lepic said:


> That was the plan from the beginning.


Not my plan :-k 

But now that we're there...I actually thanked a guy in a grocery store the other day. He had a 3-ish yr old little girl that was crying because she wanted candy. He calmly but clearly reprimanded her in the checkout line and this kid figured out fast that dad was not kidding, and not giving in. Good dad


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Has this thread melded with the one called "What's this World Coming To?" AKA: kids these days?


I agree that this one needs to get back on topic .... we have the other 
one already.


----------



## Mo Earle (Mar 1, 2008)

Some people, as with some dogs....just should not be bred! ](*,)
....and some people don't know how to train their dogs or their kids as they need to be- but THEY will still think they have the best...dog or kid around.... just ask them.

Lack of compulsion/effective training...could hurt the breeds, but I don't think it is only the Lack of compulsion (or effective training) hurting the breeds ,it is definately a small part of the big picture-but not the lone factor. I think it is a multitude of factors... the irresponsible breeding, people who think they have the "best" or are told they have the best...and want everyone to want what they have-and then have litters of pups who just don't cut it...
...and you could have the best training around, but if they don't cut it to begin with, you still have crap. The fact is, most owner are not willing to expose their dog or pup the level of pressure to properly test or develop the dog or expose the dogs weakness, to see what the true individual dog possesses. :-k 

So we are seeing more and more pups/dogs that aren't "truly" tested, they are sold, the sire is bragged about, the dam too..and the breed begins to get watered down.... lack of compulsion, effective training and testing along with irresponsible breeding are all factors.. and on the other hand, you have the most awesome specimen, that could be a true asset to the breed, but there is no exposure to proper training or testing....the dog doesn't receive the proper tools or exposure to show his/her qualities...that also hurts the breed.:-?


----------



## Brigita Brinac (Jun 29, 2008)

Bob...completely agree w/you. Had both types...hardness toward opponent was equal....Receptivity towards their handler was the opposite...Level of trainability/teamwork was superlative in the 'handler receptive' dog...the other...was a 'deadhead'.

Sorry but I'll take a handler receptive dog any day to one which works for itself and is 'brain dead'. 

B


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

I'll take a handler receptive dog over an excessively hard dog any day as well. My point wasnt that dog's need to flip their handler's the bird, it was that training techniques today allow for excessively soft dogs to compete among the handler responsive, but appropriately resiliant dogs. 
Trainers (in several venues) are learning that they don't need ANY hardness in order to train and title. They are certainly the minority at this point, but as the world looks more and more toward BSL, friendly dogs and training that can in no way be considered "abusive", they will gain popularity and demand. 
I can think of some examples but I'm not saying this is so terrible now, as I'm thinking 10 years from now, we will have a VERY different gene pool of softer, nervier dogs because our training has advanced to the point where many have success with dogs leaning uncomfortably far in this direction.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

WHY do we have to equate a tough dog with having to be able to take pressure from it's own handler? That's the helper/decoy's job.
We select dogs that like to fight and then we pick a fight with them. :-k :?: :?: 
Just pondering one of life's dog training mysteries! :wink:


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

I want my dogs to be eager to please me, to punish the decoy everytime and trustworthy in public. 

Simple. 

Anything else should be neutered and never bred from. 

Trouble is there are many bad trainers out there who cannot read dogs, with bad timing and cannot get a dog to do what they want except through compulsion. The only dogs who survive this cr*p training are the insensitive, please-themselves dogs. They then get labelled as being great dogs, hard dogs but IMO they are useless and should not be bred from. 

*Where knowledge ends, force begins. *

Show me a dog I cannot make twice as good through motivational training as your conflict ridden, badly timed, cra*p compulsion based training. Have a nice day .


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> WHY do we have to equate a tough dog with having to be able to take pressure from it's own handler? That's the helper/decoy's job.
> We select dogs that like to fight and then we pick a fight with them. :-k :?: :?:
> Just pondering one of life's dog training mysteries! :wink:


This is the "hardest" Malinois I've ever seen. He had an "outing" problem. After several minutes of choking him, hanging him, and a few kicks to the side in an attempt to get him to out a tug, this dog decided he'd had enough of his handler and he launched himself up at the handler's neck. Thankfully, the handler was wearing heavy-duty coveralls and the dog got a hold of those instead (this is when the outing problem became very problematic!). This was an otherwise very social dog.

Whenever I hear people talking about the handler putting a lot of pressure on a tough dog, I think of this dog and his response to it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Stupid pressure is stupid pressure.

A long time ago, we used pressure to teach the dog to bite harder, and to be more intense. We used the term "channeling" a lot. We taught the dog to relieve the pressure into the bite.

I think the terminology has changed quite a bit since then. I don't hear "channeling" too much any more, nor do I do it.

I think that we used to follow a lot of corrections, say to clean up exercise X, and then it was followed by a bite. We left the dog on the bite longer than normal, and the thought process that I was taught was that this helped to teach the dog to "channel" all the frustration that the dog was going through cleaning up exercise X into the bite.

I think that we start dogs off much more clearly, and teaching with inducive methods eliminates this need. I think that most of the dogs we have now have a lot more interest in doing what we are wanting then some of the dogs I remember training.

However, there are some things to think about. At the higher levels, there is more compulsion used to get the dog correct, and does the fact that the dog does not understand this "channeling" (maybe he does) have an effect on the dog ???

Like everything, there are plenty of bad examples of using compulsion. I do not remember hammering a dog stupid during the cleaning up of exercise X, I just remember that there were a LOT more corrections to get the dog perfect.

I know that everyone strives to get thier dog perfect from the start now. We tried to get the dog close, and ask for more and more as we went along. That was just how it was done, at least that I remember.

I saw a few people doing stupid shit, and they got by at times, depending on the dog, but for the most part, the dumbasses got no where.

With inducive methods, and such, we can definately use much less dog to get a higher title. This is just an evolution of training. When you have a weaker dog, (not necessarily shit) and train the B&H for three years, you are going to fake some people out. 

I don't remember trying to get a dog into avoidance in training, or to the point where they turn and nail you. I had dogs that would not put up with corrections for a long period of time, so we just shortened the training, and cleaned up X that way.

I do remember having way more intense dogs back then, but we were using dogs with less trainability, and that were genetically selected to take a lot of corrections. 

The Germans did not do anything with their dogs until they were a year of age, and then they took them out and hammered them into shape. A good example here in the states is the field trial bred lab. They can take a wupping, and not go all wonky.

I trained Buko without corrections until he was 20 months. Then like an idiot, I went to a decoy cert, and spun the dog oout of his mind with all the different decoys, and exciting work. 

When I HAD to use corrections, he had NO idea what was going on. To this day, a correction means heel to him. Before he went to the mistake from hell, you asked and he did it. There were no corrections, because he did it right 95% of the time, and when I did correct with a NO, he SEEMED to understand this meant that he was wrong, and we did it over.

I just think that I am a much better trainer than my understanding of positive methods. Somewhere I ****led it up, and not just taking him to the decoy cert. I still bang my head on the wall over that brilliance. In retrospect, I would have been better off using compulsion to teach THIS dog. I still do not think he understands that the correction means he is wrong, just heel.

I think the dogs back in the day were spun up, and most were done correctly. It had nothing to do with bad compulsion work.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I just think that I am a much better trainer than my understanding of positive methods. Somewhere I ****led it up, and not just taking him to the decoy cert. I still bang my head on the wall over that brilliance. In retrospect, I would have been better off using compulsion to teach THIS dog. I still do not think he understands that the correction means he is wrong, just heel.


Are you saying that you would have been better off using _only_ compulsion to teach Buko from the beginning, or do you think a combination would have been best?

Do you think you could teach him what a correction means at this stage or do you think he'll be stuck on thinking a correction = heel?


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

I have had no problems introducing compulsion to polish off precision later on in a dog primarily trained with motivation. Usually at that stage only minor correction are required A bad trainer is a bad trainer regardless of when he decides to introduce compulsion. There are way more cr*p trainers than there are bad dogs. 

I believe a dog that is strong in drive yet is able to maintain a willingness to listen to his handler is worthy to be bred from. IMO compulsion MASKS this by forcing the dog to behave. Thus we are selecting inferior dogs, dogs that REQUIRE complusion when the environmental stimulus becomes too much for it to handle. NO WONDER we are seeing a proliferation of nervy dogs which are not clear headed and these are marketed as "fantastic, over the top in drive, hard" in other words rubbish dogs. I say train with motivation, and sit back and see which dogs can remain handler sensitive when performing under extreme pressure, that's the one worthy of passing on its genes.


----------



## Kristina Senter (Apr 4, 2006)

There was a dog at a club I attended years ago. The handler bragged about how hard this dog was, how much it took to get him to out, what an ass whoopin he could take. He would beat the dog with his leash to get him to out. He was en excellent dog despite the abuse but I still long to have been able to take this dog from this idiot and really help him become the dog he could be without all of the conflict and issues. Some "smarter, not harder" training could have really made this dog shine. 
I don't know how to say this is NOT what I'm talking about!!!!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Konnie. I was very good at teaching a dog with compulsion. Gotta remember that "no" is part of this. : ) I am saying that I had a much better chance of making a lot less mistakes, rather than go with marker training, which I think takes a better trainer than most people I know.

The problem with Buko's training in the beginning, I was the club decoy, and the rest of the decoys were over 50. Ken Jaramillo would work Buko whenever I asked, but I knew how much pain he was in after. It is what it is. 

I love MR, so Buko is not going to be the last MR dog I own. : )

Quote: 
I believe a dog that is strong in drive yet is able to maintain a willingness to listen to his handler is worthy to be bred from. IMO compulsion MASKS this by forcing the dog to behave. Thus we are selecting inferior dogs, dogs that REQUIRE complusion when the environmental stimulus becomes too much for it to handle.

This is where we differ in what we think a dog is. There is no less strength in a dog that is willing to ignore his handler and has to be MADE to do something. I have only had that problem with a very very few dogs. Most of what I see is a dog that at some point didn't know what the **** the handler wanted, so he chose **** you in the end. I also do not see a dog that cannot handle environmental stimulous having all these problems. Maybe we have different terminology there.


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

If you ask me to build a five-foot brick wall but give me no mortar to cement the bricks with, You will not have much of a wall.

If you ask me to build a five-foot brick wall and I have no idea how to mix the mortar to the right consistency, you will still not have much of a brick wall. 

Even if I have all the material I need, if I do not know how to mix my mortar the wall will not stand, however when you call me up and say “my wall fell down” I can swear it was because the quality of the mortar was bad and you may never know the difference.

Although I hear this point about soft dogs getting titled all the time I have to ask myself if the dog didn’t have the raw material/genetics how could that be? If I don’t have the mortar, I have a pile of bricks. However IF I don’t know how to mix and apply my mortar, the dog will still be a pile of bricks.

Is it possible that dogs have the genetic makeup, but fewer trainers know how to bring it out? Is it possible that the failure rate of donated dogs to the military and police departments in the fifties and sixties, that had a failure rate of 70-80%, and came from the old compulsive methods of “Flank em till ya’ blank em or they Bite!” Could it be that simply did not work? Trainers today certainly seem to have found a lot more good dogs suddenly.

Besides the less compulsion more positive ways seem to be bringing the most success (Holland & the KNPV would be the exception) in the most dog disciplines. Why would you argue with success? 

As for my personal training beliefs? I can't build what I don't have the material for, and I have never wanted a dog that could take a Hard Correction. I’ve always wanted a dog that needs NO corrections at all!


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

I've had the pleasure of training alot of Police K9's. For me I like the dogs that are hard and challenging . Both my K9 partners were that way . The first I had no choice , I got what I got and all the hard work was worth it . The 2nd I had a choice and choose another challenging dog . I couldn't be happier.

For the handlers I instructed in the class I prefer the easy dogs that don't need much for corrections . 

Dogs come with a variety of characteristics that can make them a good PSD , that combination can include it being a dog that needs hard corrections or one that doesn't need physical corrections . It doesn't seem to matter to me as long as that combination leads to a dog that will hunt and engage badguys . 

I've learned over the years that positively motivating a dog as much as possible leads to a better product but thats not the case with some dogs and hard physical corrections are sometimes needed . 

Both positive motivation with little to no physical corrections and hard physical corrections are an important part of training and it's usually dependant on the dog . I feel a trainer is missing the boat if they rule certain types for dogs or certain ways of training . In the end it's the combination of what the dog brings with it and the training that brings what you need out of it .


----------



## Brigita Brinac (Jun 29, 2008)

James Degale said:


> I want my dogs to be eager to please me, to punish the decoy everytime and trustworthy in public.
> 
> Anything else should be neutered and never bred from.



*** With due respect I have to disagree. Some of the GREATEST Malinois producers were aloof, 'dangerous' as per today's society labels go, handler aggressive, dominant, worked for themselves, and weren't titled to the highest level in their program....some not even titled at all; and they could never be taken into a school for some PR work...but incredible producers. 

There is a big difference in wanting a dog for the 'world's' and one which is 'breed worthy'. Points and 'receptivity' do not equate with breedability. Many a great trainer has made an average Mali look damn good and it went on to breed and produced 'nothing'.

When I look for a breeding dog...I make a point (after talking to several European breeders and trainers) that I am looking for a *breeding* dog...NOT a performance dog. Two different things and in most cases...2 different dogs. Different criteria.

If we keep breeding 'performance/point' dogs...I believe the caliber of working Malinois will decline. If we breed breed worthy dogs...then there's a future for the working Mali in ScH, Ring, Sar, PSD, etc....They're the ones which produce progeny which can satisfy virtually any working dog person.

The type of dog I personally like (and enjoy) handling and training; is not always the one that should be bred to. In many cases 2 different set of criteria.


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

Brigita Brinac said:


> If we keep breeding 'performance/point' dogs...I believe the caliber of working Malinois will decline. If we breed breed worthy dogs...then there's a future for the working Mali in ScH, Ring, Sar, PSD, etc....They're the ones which produce progeny which can satisfy virtually any working dog person.


I did not say anything about chosing a high scoring points dog. Scores are mainly about good training not the dog. Please re-read my posts :

I want a dog that is eager to please the handler, uncompromising in attiutde towards the helper and socially reliable. Anything else should NOT be bred from. 

Just to say a dog that is social in public is not "real" or "hard" and therefore not breedworthy is a baseless argument. There are plenty of dogs who have grown up in kennels yet go on to be reliable. Unreliable dogs have poor nerve strength and are genetically unstable and this should not be covered up by breeders labelling the dog a "hard" and therefore breedworthy. This is just marketing and by the sounds of it you have either fallen for it or are responsible for it. I advise you to read the bottom post, a perspective from a military trainer and world champion schutzhund on real vs sports dogs, there is no such thing! A good dog is a good dog, similarly a bad one is a bad one and should not be glorified.

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f16/real-dog-vs-sports-dog-perspective-10326/


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Brigita Brinac said:


> *** With due respect I have to disagree. Some of the GREATEST Malinois producers were aloof, 'dangerous' as per today's society labels go, handler aggressive, dominant, worked for themselves, and weren't titled to the highest level in their program....some not even titled at all; and they could never be taken into a school for some PR work...but incredible producers.
> 
> There is a big difference in wanting a dog for the 'world's' and one which is 'breed worthy'. Points and 'receptivity' do not equate with breedability. Many a great trainer has made an average Mali look damn good and it went on to breed and produced 'nothing'.
> 
> ...


Good points. 

I don't think the lack of compulsion (although "compulsion" would have to be defined here as everything I don't allow the dog to do comes under this heading.)

I agree with the different criteria. The trouble is that the temperament tests for the GSDs are making it more difficult to get a dog through them if it shows even the slightest aggression. 

Up to about a year ago we had a decoy who didn't mind how aggressive the dogs were - he got them to work without their losing this. We never had discussions about compulsion, either. Acceptable was what made the dog work. Discussions about sociability, etc. wasn't an issue. Most of the handlers weren't interested in taking their dogs to supermarkets, schools, etc.

Maybe the fact that the "Worlds" top ten like to "stay up there" and their dogs are getting younger and younger, thereby being selected for their quicker trainability and not for tough characters.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

James, give us some examples of dogs that you would not breed to because they are unsocial.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I think Brigita's comments/observations are very accurate, and help explain why we see an overall decline amongst many of the working breeds. People mislabel the strong traits such as social aggression, dominance, etc. as examples of poor temperament, select away from those traits, and end up with valuable genetics lost and the breeds watered down. The various sports have become more popular, with a greater demand for competition dogs, but what percentage of handlers are prepared or willing to work with a seriously dominant, socially aggressive dog that is a potential liability in a very litigious world. I believe you have to look for extremes in breeding dogs since dogs rarely outproduce themselves. The other thing is to find dogs that are extreme and are producers (throw their desireable traits.) 
I believe scores can be very much about the dog, when the training is good, but you have an extreme, tough, nasty dog that is not going to submit to aspects of the training due to dominance, handler hardness, etc.


----------



## Brigita Brinac (Jun 29, 2008)

Thank you Chip. You've explained better than I did! Socially aggressive/dominant dogs aren't any fun training. They are a lot of work w/some risk involved as well...But in many successful breeding programs...they are the cornerstone. Thank you.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

I thought of this thread while reading this article:
http://www.german-shepherdherding.com/herding.htm

The author (Ellen Nickelsberg) describes a great herding dog as having "genetic obedience" and goes into detail to describe the difference between a soft dog and a handler sensitive dog (one with genetic obedience). The quote below seems to relate directly to this thread:

Quote from article:


> I have heard the comment many times that HGH dogs are "soft". In my mind that is one of the more uninformed remarks I have ever heard. No dog that is able to control a flock of 200 to 1,000 or more sheep is a "soft" dog. One must be very careful to make the distinction between softness and handler sensitivity. The German shepherd herding dog is most likely to show handler sensitivity because it is selectively bred to have a strong pack drive - a strong willingness to please the shepherd as leader. If training methods are used that ignore and, thereby, abuse the power of that drive, what you will end up with is a dog that will be useless for any kind of independent work, be it herding or protection work - chalked off as a "soft" dog when in reality the training method most likely destroyed the dog's self-confidence to work on its own.


----------



## Brigita Brinac (Jun 29, 2008)

nicely said.


----------



## Brigita Brinac (Jun 29, 2008)

Kristina Senter said:


> I'll take a handler receptive dog over an excessively hard dog any day as well. My point wasnt that dog's need to flip their handler's the bird, it was that training techniques today allow for excessively soft dogs to compete among the handler responsive, but appropriately resiliant dogs.
> Trainers (in several venues) are learning that they don't need ANY hardness in order to train and title. They are certainly the minority at this point, but as the world looks more and more toward BSL, friendly dogs and training that can in no way be considered "abusive", they will gain popularity and demand.
> I can think of some examples but I'm not saying this is so terrible now, as I'm thinking 10 years from now, we will have a VERY different gene pool of softer, nervier dogs because our training has advanced to the point where many have success with dogs leaning uncomfortably far in this direction.



Kristina...I agree.


----------

