# Can +R training produce strong working dogs?



## John Michaels (Oct 15, 2014)

Please forgive me if this has been posted here before but it has been comming up alot lately that not only is it possible to train working/sport dogs without the use of any compulsion, I have heard more than a few countrires in Europe baning the use of pinch/ecollars etc. and trainers like Stee White (http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/is...d-Based-Training-and-Police-Dogs_20185-1.html) who supposedly trains police K-9's without the use of any aversive methods....

I'd love to hear everyone's oppinion on this; (I also heard that even those who claim to use only +R methods either never really produce any successful IPO dogs or working K9's and those who have; actually do use compluson contary to what the petlovers out there seem to claim).


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

John, it's been argued on the WDF to infinity but MY opinion is YES.

My now 11 yr old GSD has been trained in SAR, live and cadaver plus boat work and article search. 

He has his AKC CDX, HT and also his SCHIII. 

I've never corrected him with a leash or collar of any sort. 

Punishment has always been loss of reward. 

The club I belonged to allowed no physical corrections.

As to aversive methods, that's the job of the helper/decoy to bring out the aggression in the dog.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I am all for laying a foundation with pups based on positive reinforcement, but there are certain behaviors that need corrections, even with pups. Generally speaking, if a dog can go through training without corrections, I would say the dog is lacking in drive. Also, what is the point of having a goal of no corrections? Also, there are some dogs that can be trained to increase their drive with the right level of compulsion.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Chip
are you familiar with the guy in the link that was provided by the OP ?

his name is Steve and here's a free link that doesn't cost 20 bucks to look at :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vEqZmRHcEM

also check his nine rules of punishment vid on youtube that shows a PSD training session. 
--- i think it's well worth watching and relevant with what i think is being tossed out in this thread

no time to post my .02, but will when i get a chance


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

this is the PSD clip :
https://youtu.be/zHiejASuDyQ


----------



## John Michaels (Oct 15, 2014)

Just to clarify my reasons for asking this; since getting my dog (Mal) I have been trying to do as much as i could without the use of any compulsion and using treat based motivators only (my GF is very strongly against the use of compulsion methods). As the dog got older it was apparent that certain behaviours needed to be stopped right away (car chasing, nipping passersby’s and handler aggression etc.); after exhausting all R+ methods with (IMHO) very slow and non-lasting results it was clear to me that i had to try something different. My biggest problem (IMO) with R+ only is that it is difficult to present a black and white response to the behavior. It seems to make more logical sense to give treats and toy rewards for behaviour that one wants to teach or reinforce and give a physical correction for any unwated behavior.

ie. chasing cars; +R = (overview) have him around a cars; when a car is about to pass call him to me, engage him in play and give him treats from coming to me instead of chasing the car. (I did this for 2+ months)

This method in theory seems fine and so long as i was purposely setting up this scenario but if I was out walking or any other times where i might have not been 100% prepared this is where I found the problem was for me; he would lunge at the car and I would have no way to let him know that that was unacceptable.

(after causing a lot of tension at home) I picked up a pinch collar and went back to walking by cars and anytime he would 'focus' on a passing car i would say "leave it" and pop him with the collar. After an hour I could already see he was getting it and after 2 weeks he pretty much ignored all cars.

The most recent issue is that when playing/walking with him off leash he will approach other dogs or people with unpredictable outcomes. (I had done the Michael Ellis training the recall system upto just before the ‘proofing’ with the ecollar segment) My problem was that when he is not attached to a leash I am unable to give him a correction so that if he decided to ignore me I had no way to enforce my command which basically left me having to choose not to give a command (recall) for fear of letting him blow me off and learn to ignore what IMHO is the most important command a handler can ever learn, or not give a command and basically stand by and watch a train wreck happen. (or just have him always on leash ofourse). Needless to say the ecollar was the perfect solution and within a few days I already see major improvement and I can say I have had 100% recall success even with high distractions. (I use a very low level stim setting which I have tried on myself first)

The constant argument I get from my GF is that I haven’t tried really doing R+ only and following it through and that I want the “quick easy way” and that contrary to what I have learned it is possible to train a working dog and even do protection training using only R+ methods and she gives me the Steve White example and all these trainer who train dolphins and “every type of animal from fish to bears” using only +R. So I guess I am trying to ferret out the truth because I really don’t know what to tell her when she brings this up in our arguments.

*Can one really train competent high drive working dogs that do protection work using only R+ (no compulsion of any kind) and are there any real examples; ie. Purely R+ trainers who have titled high level Schutzhund dogs or dogs that are successful police/military K9s or PPDs? *


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

this is a good one too 
https://youtu.be/_KeVESv8Dhk

hopefully neither clip will hijack the thread


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Ask your girlfriend where she thinks she would be in life if there were never any negative consequences for her behavior.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Steve is NOT a positive only trainer and has said so himself


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I didn't watch the videos, but I think obedience should be fun for the dog, including the training of PSD's. Heavy handed training can supress drive too much in some dogs. Other dogs might need more corrections, but corrections should largely be reserved for disobedience and not for when a dog hasn't learned a behavior/command. I think there are a fair amount of handlers who correct their dogs thinking they are being disobedient, when the dog doesn't actually understand what is expected from him. Becoming a leader of your dog requires more than just compulsion, and reward based training fills that need very well. But I don't see how you can train a high drive dog in protection/apprehension training without any compulsion. The level of drive becomes too intense and the correction is more to snap the dog out of his drive state a little to get him focus, than to punish him. Also, the training, for me, is much more enjoyable training the dog in drive, than strictly using compulsion. Part of the reason of having a highly driven dog is to utilize his drive via +R in obedience.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I dont see where it states that steve white ONLY uses +R, it does not really say anything about corrections in that article, just compulsion and force training, which is really a different thing. I also think that whoever wrote the article slanted it to make it appear that Steve White is a purely positive trainer, or they just didnt know the difference...

and he is NOT...even his police dog has HAD corrections..just like every other purely positive trained dog, knowingly or unknowingly, corrections are laid into the framework of every dog period, severity, and frequency and situational use varies of course...

anyhow here is Steve stating he is NOT a purely positive trainer and saying his police k9 HAS had corrections. 

https://youtu.be/zHiejASuDyQ?t=2m38s

That being said, I believe that there are lots of dogs and people that could benefit from the use of MORE positive (rewards-based) training being incorporated, and also believe that there are many many many dogs that will perform much better if more quadrants of Operant Conditioning are use, including both forms of punishments and both forms of Re-enforcements.


----------



## Nick Hrycaj (Mar 30, 2014)

joby's clip of steve white around 5:00 paraphrases in a police example exactly what I think every time someone talks about purely positive training. Those dog owners that do not have a back up (I.e fenced area, long line, e collar, carefully controlled evironmental exposure,etc) are dangerous. Dangerous to others - uncontrolled dog. Dangerous to themselves - when the dog bites the wrong person or runs in traffic and causes an accident it will be owners fault and liability. Dangerous to responsible owners - society dismisses and stereotypes forgetting about those that chose to take their dog proper places equipped with the proper tools to ensure safety and compliance each time.

Why are you repeatedly taking your dogs off leash places when you admit you have no consequence for it and the results of the encounters are unpredictable?

To answer your prompt, no purely positive and working or sport that includes bite work can't coincide.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The more reward based training a dog has the fewer and lower level of correction will be required.

Just a thought here

With reward based training ( I hate the term Purely Positive) and the dog truly understands the behavior why would a dog NOT obey if that reward is the ultimate reward, the bite?!

Why shock/prong/etc a dog off a bite if it knows obeying the out will get a rebite?!

Let the the helper/decoy/trainer put the physical pressure on the dog? 

For the handler, why pick a fight with a dog that loves to fight? All your going to do is tell it that fighting can be nonproductive. If the dog is clear headed this shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i'm not big on terms especially ones that have been morphed from another term.
most of the purely positive, reward based, etc terms are "PC" versions of operant training, which has left out most of the operant part as if it was too hard to understand for the "masses" ](*,)
- so much easier to call it "clicker training" or reward based

i prefer to use "operant" and that's how i try and train
i want the dog to make as many decisions as they can
all i want to do is show them what is acceptable and what isn't
of course i can do that with only a lead/collar combo, but i try not to

Amen for Joby ... how many fuking times do people have to be reminded that operant training is NOT any of the above 

example to follow....


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

what type of training is this ?
(try and hold the jokes please)

i received a dog that had a number of live bites. the day i got it it nailed me. i knew it would and was prepared i didn't use a stopwatch but it probably hung on my arm for at least 20-30 minutes and basically i did nothing and tried to show no reaction at all 

was i being purely positive ? i certainly gave it what it wanted //lol//

- should i have corrected it ? it was certainly "unnacceptable behavior" //lol//
- should i have hung it up ? (i've done that before)
- should i have choked it off ?
- should i have tried to avoid getting bit in the first place ?
- should i have offered it a treat or tried to get it "comfortable" with me and trust me before i got close to it ?
...who knows...maybe it was a stupid move on my part, but that was the last live bite for that dog and it sure helped a dog that might not have lived very long otherwise

- i considered it effective operant training. the dog decided when to release and i think the dog started to realize that biting a human was not always rewarding. i'm DAMN sure all the other live bites had conditioned that dog that it was an effective or satisfying behavior

i also think the dog had NO clue i was actually controlling the "session" and not sure if this fits in any of the four quadrants, but imo it helped the dog 

i'm sure there will be people who think this is dumb ass training. feel free to disagree and say why


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I think it's possible, just not for the majority of dog/human combos. I tried for fcking years, literally to sort Sali out with pure R+ was a waste of our time. I ended up just doing drills outside my front house.
"Sit"- dog sits- I move forward turn to face dog- "Heel"- dog comes into heel- "Sit"- dog sits- I move forward turn to face dog............. to the point of boredom, both mine and hers. No massive corrections just flat collar and light leash pops to remind her I am still there, lol, prongs just make her mad you see.

If your GF is really getting pissy about it, hand her the leash, my guess is she will see the light fairly quickly if the problem is really serious, one episode maybe.


----------



## Mike Di Rago (Jan 9, 2009)

Rick,
I know this is not about the thread but I need to asK as this caught my attention.
You said:

''i received a dog that had a number of live bites. the day i got it it nailed me. i knew it would and was prepared i didn't use a stopwatch but it probably hung on my arm for at least 20-30 minutes and basically i did nothing and tried to show no reaction at all 

Were you wearing a sleeve at the time?If not,it couldn't have been much of a bite.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I was puzzled by that too but I just figured it was a coat grabber


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i'm no masochist .... fairly thin hidden sleeve with a thick Ray Allen lace up leather gauntlet under it

the interesting part was observing how it gripped, pulled, shook and regripped, etc. i think that can tell you a lot about the level of aggression and/or fear that is motivating the bite

so was it "purely positive" and reward based or not ???


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

on each arm 
.. i wasn't confident i could "feed it" one or the other


----------



## Nick Hrycaj (Mar 30, 2014)

what were you TRYING to train?

The out? If you perfectly timed your command with the dogs voluntary release after 30 minutes then offered a quick rebite for "compliance" to the out then sure, mostly positive. 

Indiscriminate biting? If you always let the dog randomly bite then hang off your arm half hour at a time and never corrected it, sure positive as can be.


----------



## Nick Hrycaj (Mar 30, 2014)

I flat out refuse to believe the one session of whatever you described is the reason the dog had no further bites.

Dogs learn through repetition and through exposure in a variety or enviroments. One session is not repetition. One session does not equal the dog reliably choosing not to bite anywhere (location/situation)


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : "I flat out refuse to believe the one session of whatever you described is the reason the dog had no further bites."

- i never said that one session was the reason it had no further live bites ](*,)

it was an eval to see it it was worth rehabbing or training at all

- i said i think that particular approach HELPED the dog and helped it turn a corner by seeing a totally different consequence that it most likely had NOT seen before when it had bit other people

- if you think a dog cannot change a conditioned behavior based on one session i would agree in 99% of the cases; including this one


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Chip Blasiole said:


> I am all for laying a foundation with pups based on positive reinforcement, but there are certain behaviors that need corrections, even with pups. Generally speaking, if a dog can go through training without corrections, I would say the dog is lacking in drive. Also, what is the point of having a goal of no corrections? Also, there are some dogs that can be trained to increase their drive with the right level of compulsion.


+1


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

The only way in my mind to produce "strong working dogs" is to breed them.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Gillian 
re : "The only way in my mind to produce "strong working dogs" is to breed them."

- i think i get where you're coming from, but i think it's a little idealistic 

i think it would be more realistic to say a strong working dog is the result of a dog born with stable, balanced hi-drive genetics that has been trained by a competent trainer who is able to bring out the best in it

i'm sure there will always be a few great dogs who really stand out, but there are, in my opinion a lot of very good dogs who are only very good because they had a very good trainer and handler

in the past few years i've seen maybe 40-50 mwd's rotate in and out of our navy base.
only a few that i would consider great K9's even tho all were certified and working. but it seemed more like their working ability was due to how well they were trained and how competent their handlers were rather than a result of their breeding
- otoh, mwd bloodlines aren't discussed very much so i could be totally wrong in my assessment


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I stand by it

Strong working dogs are bred.


----------



## ron ligtenberg (Mar 4, 2015)

I agree, a strong working dog has it in his genes.

And the really hi drive serious dogs are bred with that in mind.

A not so high drive dog can be trained to show as being high drive and serious but if the dog would go and work in reality it would not be fair to the dog as he will come in situations he can't deal with.

As for corrections , Even we as humans need sometimes an correction:mrgreen:

And in the european country's with regulations against Ecollars pinch collars.
For professional dog training (police dogs ect) it is recognized that some things are needed. 
It is more for the general pets and sport dogs.
As some people just can't understand that just hurting an animal won't make him understand.
they spoil it for everyone.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Gillian Schuler said:


> The only way in my mind to produce "strong working dogs" is to breed them.


Where's the 'like' button


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I actually get what Rick is saying, my GF's dad does this with parrots, he holds them and lets them bite his hand till they give up, they rarely bite when handled again. Not saying it's a good or bad idea, just saying I get it.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree 100% that strong dogs are bred. 

Training them is about getting in their head. I don't believe physical corrections are "necessarily" needed for that.

ANY physical corrections I've given my present two GSDs has been while they are pups and that has been for house manners only. Never for training issues. 

As to the Operant conditioning 

I also think that term is often misued, especially if all the tangents of + and - aren't followed. 

With no physical corrections it can't truly be Operant conditioning no matter how it's spun.

I've been guilty of using that term incorrectly myself.

I've also used the PP term in the past and it makes me gurp up little, nasty chunks in my mouth now. :lol:

The only dogs I've seen that couldn't be trained with no physical corrections were dogs with owners that had no leadership, good bond or whatever you wan to call it. 

These same people would also fail with any method of training. At the very least they would have no idea of the how and why they got the dog trained other then "That's how I was told to do it.


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

I think bribery only works until they want something more than what you have to offer. To some dogs just a tone of voice can be a correction. I think pos only is unattainable. And you are being bs d by the people that say they can.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i think the post got off on the wrong foot by asking "plus R only ?"

too easy to explain how dog training is a physical task that will ALWAYS require physical hands on work
- that by definition implies their will be physical compulsion
- the degree it is applied is all that matters to me

but i will continue to differ on the "breeding produces strong dogs" viewpoint and i base it on seeing 40-50 mwd"s over the years

first, i assume DOD is capable of evaluating the genetic potential of a K9 before they put it in the system. that implies they have the correct breeding (to be a strong working dog)

second, i don't want to criticize the mwd system, but not all the dogs are strong working dogs and they get changed from one handler to another for reasons that are rarely the dog's fault even tho the dog gets blamed ](*,)
- with a new handler and better training they can and usually DO become VERY strong working dogs

lastly, 
- we usually get the "can't get a silk purse from a sow's ear" comment when genetics gets brought up 
- true
- of course you have to start with a full tank ](*,)

- but puppies do not enter the world as a silk purse. they get that way when they are raised, trained and handled by a competent person who can get the most out of them

one real world example :
- I wonder how that "guy in Australia" is doing with his dog since it appeared to be very well bred from strong working dog (KNPV )bloodlines 
- i wonder if he now has a strong working dog ??? //lol//


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> - but puppies do not enter the world as a silk purse. they get that way when they are raised, trained and handled by a competent person who can get the most out of them


But you can't create anything if the base isn't there to create from. You could be the most competent person in the world but if it's not in the dog to begin with...... if the genetics aren't there to begin with..... then you ain't going anywhere.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i am saying it is necessary but not sufficient.

i gave two examples. one based on a few years of observation up close and the other as a total wild ass guess based on the very limited feedback we received from the poster 
- if those examples don't explain my point better, please say why

- if anyone feels it is necessary AND sufficient, of course i'm open to that viewpoint and examples would be a good way to build on that viewpoint

all this last post has stated is you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear; which i am NOT disagreeing with

to say a strong working dog is BRED is close to denying the nurture side of the argument and to me it is just as important

and please keep in mind i only said it was "somewhat idealistic"; i didn't say it was wrong or incorrect. i said it was more realistic to realize the importance of the nurture side when discussing how strong working dogs are produced

i will never know for sure, but my gut feeling is there are dogs out there who were bred from strong working bloodlines that end up being dumped, rejected, sold off, or maybe even killed because of incompetent people who bought them and had no clue how to raise them and train them properly

anyway; it's only my opinion and nobody is gonna change theirs based on mine //lol//

but regarding the thread, i firmly believe ALL dogs will receive physical compulsion and sharp corrections from their owners and handlers during their lifetime.
- unless they are raised to wear cute clothes and will spend most of their time on a lap or in a designer handbag
- or raised on a farm and are never required to wear a collar


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

"it" ...meaning the breeding (genetics)

just in case it wasn't obvious what i meant by "it" ;-)


----------



## Brian Smith (May 26, 2013)

I think the goal of any training should be to use the least amount of corrections possible. Too often I think handlers correct out of frustration and a misunderstanding of what is occurring in front of them. It is a hard pill to swallow when you must admit that the training is failing because of you and not the dog. As handlers we want the training to progress as fast as possible because we understand what is wanted when really, the training should progress as fast as the dog is capable. 

I am not sure you can train a dog without the use of physical corrections but I'm also not so closed minded to think that it's not at all possible. I can say that the percentage of trainers that are capable of doing this are so small that it might currently seem impossible. But again, just because I can't do it doesn't mean I'm going to call someone who says they can a liar. In then end, that should be the goal, to 1. communicate your wishes so accurately to the dog it can't misunderstand and 2. to set up training so it is impossible to fail (as much as we can at least). 

Someone stated "I think bribery only works until they want something more than what you have to offer." This is always the issue in training, not an excuse for corrections. Dogs constantly go through cost/benefit analysis. If the dogs strays because the "bribe" isn't enough that's the trainers fault, not the dogs. And this is why I think Steve White is so effective as a trainer, he understands that training is a progression, sometimes very slow. He is very methodical in his approach and sets up his training where he controls as many variables as possible thus limiting a bad/failing training session. He is able to introduce new things in a controlled manner systematically. 

I believe Nick mentioned dogs learning through repetition and exposure and I think that also extends to the use of reward/compulsion. I think that with compulsion, behaviors will deteriorate as the dog will "test" the boundaries again. Thus the need for more compulsion is always right around the corner. With a positive approach, the behavior you want has been reinforced positively, creating a new behavior that is in itself rewarding. Remember that eventually the act of achieving the reward (the behavior) becomes more rewarding than actually receiving the prize (reward). 

This is just my two cents.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i agree with Brian's post 

one detail he brought up that i have been thinking about hasn't been discussed
- the idea of setting the dog up to succeed
- i totally agree with that and assume most other people do too

but here is where it gets "grey" for me.
i basically separate my training into two phases :
1. teaching 2. proofing

without going into a lot of detail (because there ARE a lot of details involved) it means when i am teaching i set the dog up to succeed
...but
when i am proofing i set the dog up to fail
(by increasing the level and number of distractions, increasing physical and mental pressure on the dog, increasing distances, etc) 

the part that is hard for me is at the proofing stage
- when the dog fails, when do i take a step back, or when do i correct ?

to me that is the hardest part of my training .... when to decide the dog has "learned" a behavior and a correction for non-compliance is in order
** it is just too freaking easy to say "i correct when the dog knows the command" ... to me those are just empty words ](*,)

from my limited experience, this is where patience and keeping a cool head is most important, and this is where i think punishment is applied too soon in a lot of training situations
- and just because the dog is strong enuff to "handle it" doesn't necessarily justify it....in my opinion of course 
---- if the end justifies the means there is no reason to discuss training in the first place ](*,)

in one of the vids i think Steve touched on setting a dog up to fail. seemed like he felt that was a bad way to train, but he didn't get into the details ... i wish it had been discussed more

as far as "certain" unacceptable behaviors that need to be "nipped in the bud".....
that could be the subject of a whole new thread in itself //lol//

but glad the thread is back on track and sorry if i steered it off

about time for the OP TO STEP BACK IN ... since he started it


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> i
> to say a strong working dog is BRED is close to denying the nurture side of the argument and to me it is just as important


I think that all the nurturing in the world won't help if the genetics are not there to nurture from. If there is nothing there to train (or nurture from) then where is it coming from? You have to have the genetics as the foundation on which to build. Just as I think that all the nurturing in the world won't change the genetics present. Maybe control to a degree, but never change. A leopard doesn't change its spots even if I chose to call it something different.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> I stand by it
> 
> Strong working dogs are bred.


100% Agree with this statement, since in my mind, when we speak of "strong" dog we are talking about the genetics of the dog, the raw instincts the dog brings to the table. It's like "nerve", which is something a dog has, it's not something you can train into a dog.

I think this article has some very good explanations when it comes to defining what we mean when we say "strong working dog". It's very possible that for others, the term means something else entirely?

http://http://workingdogs.com/dom1.htm


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

One of the most common mistakes about reward based training is to call it bribery. 

It can definitely be that if the dog doesn't deliver if no reward is present but that's no different then saying a dog wont deliver if it doesn't have it's e-collar, pinch collar or even a leash on.

Both methods require skill to convince the dog that the reward or correction is always available.

Both methods are up to the handler to get the message across.


----------



## John Ly (Mar 26, 2014)

Sarah Platts said:


> But you can't create anything if the base isn't there to create from. You could be the most competent person in the world but if it's not in the dog to begin with...... if the genetics aren't there to begin with..... then you ain't going anywhere.


so true. i remember when i had my very first dog and i thought its how you train them. good times!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> One of the most common mistakes about reward based training is to call it bribery.
> 
> It can definitely be that if the dog doesn't deliver if no reward is present but that's no different then saying a dog wont deliver if it doesn't have it's e-collar, pinch collar or even a leash on.
> 
> ...


Bob, I've been reading this about 5x over and I think I agree with you but would like you to give a more detailed message.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> One of the most common mistakes about reward based training is to call it bribery.
> 
> It can definitely be that if the dog doesn't deliver if no reward is present but that's no different then saying a dog wont deliver if it doesn't have it's e-collar, pinch collar or even a leash on.
> 
> ...



Yup. I'd say that collar-wise is just about the same thing as the dog being able to perceive when and if a reward is possible. Both are handler errors.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Yup. I'd say that collar-wise is just about the same thing as the dog being able to perceive when and if a reward is possible. Both are handler errors.


double yup! 8)


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

The goal of any training should be results. The number of corrections you end up using throughout the process is not any kind of indicator of said results.

I was just at a Jogi Zank seminar. Very advanced application of the ecollar and leash pressure to correct, amplify commands, bring speed, intensity and reliability to the dog.

It was his opinion that a dog that learns to deal with and work through pressure from a young age is much stronger for it in the end.

The laws in Europe are not preventing the podium level guys from doing their thing. The majority of them are in a nepopo system to a greater or lesser degree. They just cant show what they do anymore.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Bob, I've been reading this about 5x over and I think I agree with you but would like you to give a more detailed message.



Gillian, what details are you looking for?

Hopefully I can answer them successfully.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Bribery and positive reinforcement have little in common. With bribery, a potential reward is presented before a behavior is displayed. With a reinforcer, the potential reward is given after a behavior is displayed and it is only considered a reinforcer if the frequency of the behavior is increased.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : "Bribery and positive reinforcement have little in common. With bribery, a potential reward is presented before a behavior is displayed. With a reinforcer, the potential reward is given after a behavior is displayed and it is only considered a reinforcer if the frequency of the behavior is increased."

this is a correct statement, but in the working dog world it is not always so blatant and obvious
- i have seen the lines blurred ... "two ball" to work on an out is what comes to mind the most, but it can also be mixed together if a re-bite is used improperly as a reward. re-bite is rarely considered bribery cause it doesn't involve a toy

it makes NO difference whether the second ball, or kong, or whatever is displayed or not if the dog will only out for what it gave up. it's bribery

if it was bribery it will show up in the proofing stage

the diff between the two (bribery or plusR) depends on the skill and mindset of the handler 

my point is i don't believe presenting the reward b4 the behavior is the only thing that makes it a bride


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

bribe - not bride 
//lol//


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Rick does your technique of ignoring the dog biting you have negative consequences for a working dog that you expect to bite later on?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The reward can be shown first in order to lure the dog into position. It can easily turn into a bribe if the handler doesn't know how to use the 'lure" properly. 

Luring has merit AS LONG AS the handler knows how to go from luring to rewarding. That's just as important with luring as going from a correction to working a full set of behaviors and the dog KNOWING that the reward or correction is always there.

Teaching any reward based behavior is still a matter of weaning the dog off the "lure". 
That's a matter of creating random reward.

I like to use a slot machine as an example.

If you get a reward every single time you pull the arm then suddenly pulling the arm the next 5 times you'll get frustrated and find another machine or just quit.

If you get a reward every forth time you pull the arm then your "drive" or intensity to play the game goes down until the forth pull. 

It's the randomness of a slot machine that keeps you pulling the arm. 

You just KNOW the very next pull on the arm is going to bring reward.

Create that random reward in training and the dog's "drive" or intensity.


Heeling

In the beginning you reward the very first step then once the behavior is understood then you make the reward come at very random steps.

Where it can go wrong?

You had the dog heeling a complete pattern then you tell yourself you no longer need to reward the early steps. 

WRONG!

You will ALWAYS reward randomly enough in training to keep the dog's drive/interest in heeling.

Same as using corrections in training. You need to wean the dog off the corrections in training in order to complete that heeling pattern.

For bite work the reward is the best it can be for a working dog. IT GETS TO BITE/FIGHT!

Possibly a clear headed dog will connect the dot's quicker but any dog should be able to figure out that holding position in order to get the bite/FIGHT.

The Sch III sire of one of my dogs had serious out issues when it came to club. 

The dog wasn't trustworthy around people. Befoer it came to the club it was beat, had a cattle prod used on it, pinch collars, e-collars, you name it.

Obviously there was something in the training on this dog that created a monster.

The first time on the sleeve the TD/Helper just held position while the dog hung on for 20+ mins. 

When the dog released it's grip it got rewarded with another bite. 

The dog was "getting it" after a couple of sessions but still had trust issues. Simply put he still wanted to eat anyone that got near him. I think that also included his new owner.

In a few weeks all issues were resolved. Even to the point the dog can be trusted in a crowd. We just didn't bother to do any hugging with him........but what's wrong with that? Nothing.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

> If you get a reward every single time you pull the arm then suddenly pulling the arm the next 5 times you'll get frustrated and find another machine or just quit.
> 
> If you get a reward every forth time you pull the arm then your "drive" or intensity to play the game goes down until the forth pull.
> 
> ...


I disagree, if I knew I was gonna win every time I would pull that arm till MY arm went numb, beats working for a living any day 

However I get and agree what you mean, just messin


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> The goal of any training should be results. The number of corrections you end up using throughout the process is not any kind of indicator of said results.
> 
> I was just at a Jogi Zank seminar. Very advanced application of the ecollar and leash pressure to correct, amplify commands, bring speed, intensity and reliability to the dog.
> 
> ...


Absolutely!!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Rick does your technique of ignoring the dog biting you have negative consequences for a working dog that you expect to bite later on?


I would say it might, but for a dog that is a "bully" type pet dog, this has worked for me several times in the past, I used a suit though (with dogs that never did bitework or very minimal sleeve work.

Hell a couple dogs I bought I had to wear the suit to initially handle them safely and quickly. instead of starving them and making them my buddy that way, they learned quickly that biting or trying to bully me did nothing.

Some of them went on to do fantastic bite work later on...with me handling them initially and even after being sold to other people later on.

Depends on the dogs like anything else. some of the dogs I had I even worked on a regular basis after doing that initially and owning them. but those dogs had no problems biting much of anything, and I would "guess: would still try to eat me, even though they failed initially when I got them...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Gillian, what details are you looking for?
> 
> Hopefully I can answer them successfully.


Thanks Bob - I read it again s l o w l y and then got it!!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

The president of our "all breed" Dog Club where I began my training, had a Bernese Mountain Dog. He wouldn't let him be bred from but he entered him into the breedx's Temperament test (Wesenstest).

The dog passed the test but Godi just knew how to present the dog to pass. 

Apart from Swiss Trials, I have trained and trialled mostly in IPO and I think that this example applies here too.

Of course, the handler is "clever". He will maybe trial at his own club or check out the helper and the judge.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

In the next Club, mostly GSDs, when we went tracking on Sunday morning, some of them would boast "the dog nailed me yesterday" in a proud voice.

If the dog nailed them, they had lowered their status. The dog checks out the situation quicker than his handler. Had the same dog been challenged by someone else who had sufficient dominance over the dog, the dog would not have bitten him.

I am small and feminine but if one of my dogs tried to bite me out of aggression, I would have countered it.

It never came to this because they all learned from being a puppy that I was the boss and not to be questioned.

Some of them (most!!) were disobedient at times but this was entirely my fault for not reacting correctly or quickly enough.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Gillian, + 1.

Doesn't matter if it's on the training field or at home, serious aggression toward me from my own dog certainly wouldn't be a reward worthy event. :-o8-[

That's not a training issue. It's the hand of a revengeful god! :twisted:

That's not picking a fight with a dog that likes to fight. It's simply letting the dog know it made a seriously bad decision. :wink:

I've never begun to understand why that's a bragging point of dog ownership.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Gillian, + 1.
> 
> Doesn't matter if it's on the training field or at home, serious aggression toward me from my own dog certainly wouldn't be a reward worthy event. :-o8-[
> 
> ...


I never looked at it as a bragging point, but when you get in adult dogs that might be just plain nasty to you as a new handler, it can be a reality.
Especially if you dont have a game plan or you are in a hurry.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

A dog raised by a pup and challenging his handler is very different than a handler working with a new adult dog who is very tough.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Chip Blasiole said:


> A dog raised by a pup and challenging his handler is very different than a handler working with a new adult dog who is very tough.


of course


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I never looked at it as a bragging point, but when you get in adult dogs that might be just plain nasty to you as a new handler, it can be a reality.
> Especially if you don't have a game plan or you are in a hurry.




That's a given. 

If a person gets such a dog and, as you say, "you don't have a game plan or your in a hurry" then I suspect that person isn't qualified to have the dog. 


Getting a new first puppy OR adult dog should require some sort of plan even if it's just finding someone to help with the training.

That in itself, along with knowing what your getting should be a part of the plan before you even get the dog.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : 
"Getting a new first puppy OR adult dog should require some sort of plan even if it's just finding someone to help with the training.
That in itself, along with knowing what your getting should be a part of the plan before you even get the dog."

- good advice for those who are getting a dog or just got one
- if you are a trainer who trains other people's dogs, it obviously doesn't happen that way

i've said a million times you need to have a system to train and a plan on how you intend to apply it ... then be able to change the plan as u move forward //lol//

things have worked better for me when i have taken more time to evaluate the dog and owner i have in front of me. i didn't use to do it that way and made a lot of mistakes

that's why on one occasion with one particular dog i let it bite me as hard as it wanted to. but in case it was misinterpreted, i DIDN'T say i would do that with every dog in every case 

but when i am with an owner i try not to use cliches when i describe training (like...."don't pick a fight with a dog who likes to fight", or "it all travels down the lead", etc)
- i try and make them see how the dog is seeing what is going on and why it's reacting the way it is

but since this is about plusR ....

dogs are essentially much more stupid than humans. that "should" make it easier to get into their head and give the trainer an advantage. people who use a lot of force and hard physical compulsion either don't seem to see that aspect, or don't care, but to me it's very important to get into their head and a good reason to use as much plusR as you can
- there will be plenty of opportunities for corrections down the road


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I hate dogs coming up the lead, it's shite and a waste of time, easier to deal with in a handler hard dog than a handler soft one, that's not saying a soft dog cannot be good too, just don't come down too hard on it I spose. I don't have that much experience with handler soft dogs which is why I am shit with them.

On topic, if a dog has got the minerals then it doesn't really matter whether you train it R+ or yank and crank. My suggestion would be to have a good balance of both to really bring the strong dog out.


----------

