# Positively trained dog-Reiki vom Aegis



## Shade Whitesel

I waded my way through the crutches vs tools thread and rather than posting at the end of that one, let's start a new one. Several people said dogs cannot be trained to high level with positive, etc...etc.... And that it takes longer, etc... etc.... 
Reiki had his IPO 3, had scored 5th at the 2010 AWDF with a 97,88,97, and had his French Ring 1 title by the time he was 3.5 years old. At that time, he had 15 pinch collar corrections in his life, taking the positive label away from him! No e collar. In my experience, it doesn't take longer, we are just better trainers as we train more dogs. Reiki hasn't had a pinch on since and no e collar. He scored 7th at the AWDF this year and just got 2nd at the DVG Western KG Regionals with 100,96,94. 
I hate the term purely positive and would not consider myself that. Dogs get corrections in life, they get corrections by being held back by a leash when you are not allowing them to bite, they get corrections when you say no, or whatever. I use leashes and collars and toys and food and I also train without, depending on the ability and level of the dog.
I am not bragging about my dog or my training, and my motives for training with no corrections honestly came about because I wanted to see if it could be done at a high level. Everyone always said it couldn't be done and I figured that if we could breed and select dogs for certain purposes, what was it about biting dogs that we had to use corrections to make high level sport? 
Reiki is competing at high level IPO sport. He is maintaining that high level. His flaws are because I didn't know any better in his imprinting teaching and have had to retrain many things. 
I will never say I can train any dog to high level with only positive. I have not trained every dog. But I do take exception when people say it cannot be done. How do you know? have you trained every dog? It would be more accurate for people to say they themselves cannot train a dog to high level with only positive. 
I could care less about what corrections other people use. There are many more examples of trainers reaching high level using the pinch and e collar than not. I myself used an e collar on my first 2 Schutzhund dogs. If I were to judge people choosing that tool, I would be judging my own self. 
I don't normally post on these sorts of things. But I felt that people should know there are examples out there and stop saying it can't be done.
Shade Whitesel


----------



## Jake Brandyberry

I am one of the people who says it is not possible in anything else but IPO. Ring you can maybe get a 2 but above that I think not. If you believe different, great. Prove it.


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> I waded my way through the crutches vs tools thread and rather than posting at the end of that one, let's start a new one. Several people said dogs cannot be trained to high level with positive, etc...etc.... And that it takes longer, etc... etc....
> Reiki had his IPO 3, had scored 5th at the 2010 AWDF with a 97,88,97, and had his French Ring 1 title by the time he was 3.5 years old. At that time, he had 15 pinch collar corrections in his life, taking the positive label away from him! No e collar. In my experience, it doesn't take longer, we are just better trainers as we train more dogs. Reiki hasn't had a pinch on since and no e collar. He scored 7th at the AWDF this year and just got 2nd at the DVG Western KG Regionals with 100,96,94.
> *I hate the term purely positive and would not consider myself that.* Dogs get corrections in life, they get corrections by being held back by a leash when you are not allowing them to bite, they get corrections when you say no, or whatever. I use leashes and collars and toys and food and I also train without, depending on the ability and level of the dog.
> I am not bragging about my dog or my training, and my motives for training with no corrections honestly came about because I wanted to see if it could be done at a high level. Everyone always said it couldn't be done and I figured that if we could breed and select dogs for certain purposes, what was it about biting dogs that we had to use corrections to make high level sport?
> Reiki is competing at high level IPO sport. He is maintaining that high level. His flaws are because I didn't know any better in his imprinting teaching and have had to retrain many things.
> I will never say I can train any dog to high level with *only positive*. I have not trained every dog. *But I do take exception when people say it cannot be done*. How do you know? have you trained every dog? *It would be more accurate for people to say they themselves cannot train a dog to high level with only positive. *
> I could care less about what corrections other people use. There are many more examples of trainers reaching high level using the pinch and e collar than not. I myself used an e collar on my first 2 Schutzhund dogs. If I were to judge people choosing that tool, I would be judging my own self.
> I don't normally post on these sorts of things. *But I felt that people should know there are examples out there and stop saying it can't be done.*
> Shade Whitesel


just so I get this correct.

You are not saying you train purely positive, you do not like that term.

And also say that people are wrong for saying that dogs cant be trained to the highest levels, by using "only positive" methods.

What does "only positive" mean then? seems to me "only" and "purely" are interchangeable, when you cut right down to it..

Does this mean "only postive" in all aspects of the dogs life? or just when specifically training for the sport in question?

I do get what you are saying, it is the word usage that sticks in my craw though.


----------



## Joby Becker

just a side note as well.

You do realize that there are more than a few people that state that you train your dog without corrections and without punishment, that use you as the example for purely positve or positive only, or whatever. 
And they are also promoting the no corrections, no punishment "theory" and using you as an example. 

not your fault I know, but still not accurate, even by your own words regarding corrections and punishments...


there are actually more than a few.. of references to you and your dog, 

here is one i found in a couple seconds...

_A local (professional) trainer has worked her GSD through CD, BH, SchH3, Brevet. This dog has never worn a prong or e-collar, and has never received a correction on the training field! (She will admit to correcting him in the house a few times, as he is a house dog, not a kennel dog) AND, he's only 4! Reiki Vom Aegis, and Shade Whitesel._


----------



## Bob Scott

Nice post Shade!
I also hate the purely positive term. That puts training in the tree hugger context and a "my way is the only way" mindset with many of the PP folks.
I too did it just to see if I could and it's definitely not the only good method. 
I prefer to use the term motivationally with no physical correction and that still creates some interesting debates. :wink:
Convincing others is something I've learned isn't worth the effort. Great discussions about it are fun, yes, but it's all about choices and what works for the individual and his/her dog.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

HI Joby, 
You are entirely correct in wondering about the word usage of purely positive, positive only, etc... It's important that we actually define these words so that we all mean the same thing when talking about training. 
Suggestions? I only say that I have trained Reik without an e collar,since that is the most accurate. He's had a pinch on, granted that it's been over 2 years now. And if we really want to get down to the scientific definitions, if I say No to him, he's not purely positive! Which is why I hate the word usage.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

I know that there are people that hold me up as an example. Which is why I posted. Saying exactly how many collar corrections he has received. I cannot control what other people say or write about me and I suggest that you not believe anything unless it comes directly from me.


----------



## Jake Brandyberry

So he has had 15 prong corrections. How many times have you popped the flat/choke/slip collar? Also the way you train, I assuming that you used a negative marker before everyone of those 15 prong corrections. What do you think this dogs in the dogs mind everytime you use that negative marker?


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> HI Joby,
> You are entirely correct in wondering about the word usage of purely positive, positive only, etc... It's important that we actually define these words so that we all mean the same thing when talking about training.
> Suggestions? I only say that I have trained Reik without an e collar,since that is the most accurate. He's had a pinch on, granted that it's been over 2 years now. And if we really want to get down to the scientific definitions, if I say No to him, he's not purely positive! Which is why I hate the word usage.


Shade. 

Point blank, what does ONLY POSITIVE mean to you? You are the one that said you dont like people saying that it cant be done with *only positive?*

*Are you an "only" positive trainer? *


in the initial post, it was kind of unclear, at the last part of the post. 

*But I felt that people should know there are examples out there and stop saying it can't be done.
Shade Whitesel*

Examples of what? 

just trying to approach this logically.


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> I know that there are people that hold me up as an example. Which is why I posted. Saying exactly how many collar corrections he has received. I cannot control what other people say or write about me and I suggest that you not believe anything unless it comes directly from me.


I dont.. 

I would like for you to directly tell me what "only positive" means. so that I know what you mean when YOU say it...


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Hi Jake, 
I have never popped the slip, choke (he has never had either of those on). And I have not popped the flat collar either. You could however count as a "pop on the flat collar", when he was young and I would stop when he pull on his leash/collar. Or in tracking, when he would pull and hit the end of his line/collar. I track on a loose leash so in training,I stop when the dog pulls. 
Yes, he did get a negative marker before his pinch collar corrections. I don't normally use one in regular training. If he makes a mistake more than twice, than I would go back and reset and train,so there is usually not much of NRM, negative marker, whatever you want to call that. I have no doubt that since I associated the negative marker with the pinch, it is still in his mind at some point. I think it caused more conflict and more problems than it "fixed" at the time.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Joby, 
For me "only postive" means without collar corrections. Reik is not only positive (since he has had the pinch on) so I should not be using those words to describe him. However, what it also means to me is consistency in training method throughout the dog's whole life. When I say I am a clicker trainer, I mean that I rarely lure, I mostly shape his behaviors and manage his environment so that he makes correct choices, whether that is when to bite, when to heel, when to out. 
I think, just like when describing other methods, there are many variations and it becomes impossible to define them all. 
Overall, in current training, the dog rarely even gets a NRM, I reset, or repeat the behavior until it is fluent. If he makes 2 mistakes, I reduce criteria. He has certainly had his share of negative marking when my timing sucked and I didn't know how to be more effective in my teaching. 
At this point, I train off leash, usually with his buckle collar on with whatever motivational tool I am using at the time. Helper if it is bitework, tug or ball if it is obedience. Line and ball if it is tracking. 
Does this help define the words or should I take back everything I said in the original post?


----------



## Marta Wajngarten

Shade Whitesel said:


> Hi Jake,
> I have never popped the slip, choke (he has never had either of those on). And I have not popped the flat collar either.


Ok Shade, I'm not bringing this up to be confrontational in any way, but I do have to talk about the big elephant in the room. I'm guessing you haven't seen it yet as you said you don't spend much time on here. Some one recently posted a vid of you that clearly shows you popping the flat collar for not outing. Are we not seeing that correctly or was what you popped not a flat collar and exempt from this declaration? Or perhaps you have an entirely different input on what it is that we saw and discussed.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Marta Wajngarten said:


> Ok Shade, I'm not bringing this up to be confrontational in any way, but I do have to talk about the big elephant in the room. I'm guessing you haven't seen it yet as you said you don't spend much time on here. Some one recently posted a vid of you that clearly shows you popping the flat collar for not outing. Are we not seeing that correctly or was what you popped not a flat collar and exempt from this declaration? Or perhaps you have an entirely different input on what it is that we saw and discussed.


http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f9/correction-not-correction-24282/


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Missed the post! 
No popping on the flat collar. I reached down and grabbed the scruff. At the same time I lifted up on the harness so that he couldn't take the sleeve to the ground and rebite it. I would definitely consider this a correction. I tried this three times, didn't work. I then went to telling him to bark and guard after the out cue. Worked much better. Abandoned the scruff grab. You would think I would learn!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Shade Whitesel said:


> I reached down and grabbed the scruff./QUOTE]
> 
> That's what Dean Calderon called "the German Shock collar" ;-)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

What I don't understand is the minute someone writes about marker training or positive reinforcement, some immediately jump to whether you can train "purely or only positive." Somehow Downey's thread about tools, crutches and controlling access to resources even after he said he wasn't purely positve, went to purely positive. Thanks Shade for the history on the dog's training and the video in particular.

Terrasita


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Hi Shade, for what it's worth, thanks for clarifying your position. Regardless of how people interpret what you do, whatever you are doing...your results on the podium show you are clearly getting better success than the vast, vast majority of trainers out there with whatever method they choose to use for whatever reason. So cheers to that. 

I would be most interested to see hear how Reiki has done in his French ring training as well with your methods. I very much respect people who have success in multiple venues.


----------



## James Downey

Jake Brandyberry said:


> I am one of the people who says it is not possible in anything else but IPO. Ring you can maybe get a 2 but above that I think not. If you believe different, great. Prove it.


If you think you could train a dog to IPO3 with nothing more than a clicker, food and reward toys (including sleeve). prove it. I don't think you can even do the possible,.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> What I don't understand is the minute someone writes about marker training or positive reinforcement, some immediately jump to whether you can train "purely or only positive."


Because these people tend start the conversation as if they are doing something different than most. But when the shit cloud clears we find that they are using physical punishment. So that leads me to believe that they think that their physical punishment is different. But it's not! They are doing the same thing as everyone else. They are correcting the dog with physical punishment when they see fit.


----------



## Joby Becker

OK... just got home from work, have not looked at any posts yet on this thread.

As Shade started this thread, and I asked a couple questions, I will NOT look at anyone elses posts in this thread except hers, dont want to be influenced or lose track, I think we are close to the meat of the matter...

ok looking now...will respond momentarily..





Shade Whitesel said:


> Joby,
> For me "only postive" means without collar corrections. Reik is not only positive (since he has had the pinch on) so I should not be using those words to describe him. However, what it also means to me is consistency in training method throughout the dog's whole life. When I say I am a clicker trainer, I mean that I rarely lure, I mostly shape his behaviors and manage his environment so that he makes correct choices, whether that is when to bite, when to heel, when to out.
> I think, just like when describing other methods, there are many variations and it becomes impossible to define them all.
> Overall, in current training, the dog rarely even gets a NRM, I reset, or repeat the behavior until it is fluent. If he makes 2 mistakes, I reduce criteria. He has certainly had his share of negative marking when my timing sucked and I didn't know how to be more effective in my teaching.
> At this point, I train off leash, usually with his buckle collar on with whatever motivational tool I am using at the time. Helper if it is bitework, tug or ball if it is obedience. Line and ball if it is tracking.
> Does this help define the words or should I take back everything I said in the original post?


I did use a video of you and your dog to take a poll on if that scruff shake for the out was a correction, currently 91% of people say that is a correction. I did not specify "physical correction". But I would say that almost everyone would classify that as a physical correction.

I have read your responses, and it appears that you keep saying that the time he had the pinch on, is what is keeping him out of the "all positive", but have also said you did neck scruff grabs, apparently.. which you agreed were corrections. so there is more than just the pinch collar.

ALL THAT ASIDE. Since you have now pretty much knocked yourself out of the "puely" or "all" postive training, in regards to training your high level sport dog (which is a super fantastic feat, without hardly using any corrections), I still have 2 more questions and I am done.....

You started this thread for a reason, you want people to stop saying it cant be done.

I would like to ask again..

*What would you like people to stop saying cant be done?

Training a dog to a high level in sport, all positive, with no physical corrections?*

And the last question..

*



you said: But I felt that people should know there are examples out there and stop saying it can't be done.

Click to expand...

**Where are the examples?*, for me personally, if I knew of an example of it, I would stop implying it cant be done.

I am done asking questions after those two get answered.

My take on this whole entire subject is this.
There are multiple discussions that fly around from different angles..things get cloudy. From NO collars on down the line...

Regardless of what anyone elses opinions are, I think to say that a dog is all positively trained, it would have to be ALL positively trained, from pup to adult achievements, in ALL situations of its life, not just its sport specific training, everyone I have ever heard of talking NO corrections, or ALL positive, has admitted to using physical corrections at some point with the dogs.

Tossing that aside, I could easily say I would agree with I think it is entirely possible to train a dog to high level without using physical corrections, and use an Ecollar...."escape" training with the ecollar similar to the NePoPo system, is NOT corrections. it is "negative re-inforcement, and reward based.. Techincally escape training with the ecollar is not using physical corrections at all.

I also think that "marker" training and clicker training, are super duper training styles, the best out there in some regards.

Again since everyone I hear saying they are all positive are actually not all positive, I cannot easily agree, as I have yet to hear of ANY example. You were the closest, and you yourself took the label off, and you were the only example I have heard of that was almost verified. James Downey made the claim that he verified the FMBB winner also was all positive, but that was disputed immediately, and James never went back to explain his "verification" of it. 

I think this ALL positive thing is more about not using certain tools, and less about being all positive.... Like not using chokers, pinches, and ecollars, if one was to state it like that, I would have no trouble believing it is possible, with the right dog, and the right trainer...

So aside from my rant, if you get the time please answer those two questions above..

one more, I just thought of...I have tried to wrap my head around the call off. How do you stop the dog from self rewarding if he decides not to call off?

thanks


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Joby,

I know the questions weren't directed at me, but you mentioned the call off again and I was thinking about that again. I occured to me that perhaps doing something I used with my dog might work. Granted, I have corrected her for the call off and turned to using this method to reinforce the fact that she gets rewarded for calling off and coming back to me. How about just back chaining?

Start with the dog in a stationary position just a few feet in front of the handler. Recall the dog. Once the dog is in proper position, reward. Position the dog progressively further away from the handler and closer to the decoy until the dog is eventually directly in front of the decoy. Then start again with the dog being sent from the handler's side and being called off progressively closer to the decoy. 

Of course, you would still need a leash and collar, but this could be done without any compulsion. This also doesn't solve the problem of what to do if the dog disobeys, but I think it lays a good foundation to condition the dog to always come back when it is called. Being disobedient produces no reward so the only path to reward is to ignore the decoy and return to the handler.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

HI Joby, 
Call off for ring? Or for Schutzhund?


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Joby,
I would like people to stop saying that training a dog for high level sport using no physical corrections, no collar corrections, no scruff shakes, no e collar, cannot be done. No one knows! Just because someone hasn't done it yet, doesn't mean it can't be done. 
For examples, if we take myself out of it, and Mario, the FMBB winner, because no one knows if he has used the e collar on his dog or not, not one person is speaking up. So I will have to say there are no examples. 
From what I have learned from my minimum corrections on Reik and his uncle, Ender, I have no doubt it could be done and intend to do it with the next dogs I have. Let's just hope my next dogs have the temperament for high level competition, because as we all know, that's the hardest thing to find. But then again, my next dogs will be different temperament from the current ones, so maybe with the experience of training them, I will change my opinion!


----------



## Shade Whitesel

For Schutzhund call off, easy... Prevent the dog from reaching the helper by a harness and line. Let it bark. Call to heel. Wait. Call to heel. Wait. When dog eventually comes to heel and before it chooses not to sit, send for a bite on the helper. Gradually work that closer. Add the sit at heel in. Maintain by about 1 call out for 50 hold and barks. 

Ring: I don't know, haven't trained it. But my grand idea would be to give the person posing as the judge a big bite wedge and have them right up against the decoy when first training. Then work that back to the handler so no one gets bit in trial.


----------



## Joby Becker

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Joby,
> 
> I know the questions weren't directed at me, but you mentioned the call off again and I was thinking about that again. I occured to me that perhaps doing something I used with my dog might work. Granted, I have corrected her for the call off and turned to using this method to reinforce the fact that she gets rewarded for calling off and coming back to me. How about just back chaining?
> 
> Start with the dog in a stationary position just a few feet in front of the handler. Recall the dog. Once the dog is in proper position, reward. Position the dog progressively further away from the handler and closer to the decoy until the dog is eventually directly in front of the decoy. Then start again with the dog being sent from the handler's side and being called off progressively closer to the decoy.
> 
> Of course, you would still need a leash and collar, but this could be done without any compulsion. This also doesn't solve the problem of what to do if the dog disobeys, but I think it lays a good foundation to condition the dog to always come back when it is called. *Being disobedient produces no reward so the only path to reward is to ignore the decoy and return to the handler.*


Seems like a great approach to me for sure, I agree except for the last line, the reward could be biting the decoy. Most people, to keep a dog strong and fast on his entries, will pepper in sends with bites on the call off work, unless doing them with the decoy in some sort of "cued" position...otherwise the dog will start to hesitate and anticipate...so most do a call off, a couple bites, another call off. or whatever...seems like a high likelyhood the dog could bite and self reward... I am not sure I would devote entire sessions to just call offs, seems like that could cause problems with the biting sends...

I also have a method I use occasionally, no physical corrections, no prong or ecollar, that will also fit in to an all positive model as described by everyone, I just never realized it... 

do exactly like you say, except have the dog on a line on his flat collar. Have the line 3 feet shorter than the distance to the decoy, when you get to sending him to the decoy..say Heir! blow the whistle, or OUT, or whatever you say, when the dog is a getting close to the end of the line. If the dog does not comply with the command, he CORRECTS himself, on a flat collar....
I do believe this method fits in with the no physical corrections as stated above. the dog does not listen, the line becomes a post, and stops the dog... Just like in heeling, if the dog pulls, you stop..no correction..  still counts even if the dog does a flip at the end...


----------



## Joby Becker

gotcha..

so even though you said that *"people should know that there are examples out there."*

you are now saying that there are no examples out there..

Sch doesnt have a call-off does it? 

A far as the ring goes, if you get stuck..try my method...works for PP dogs...dog autocorrects itself...no correction from you.. use a harness, if that is the qualifier, instead of a collar...


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Maren Bell Jones:
He did okay in ring but his outs were real slow. I trained him up to ring 2 and trialed him once at it,but he broke his last line of departure. Then I decided I really wanted to do well in Schutzhund and that the ring escort and blinds were messing with his Schutzhund.
Reik loves ring! Very interesting to him. I learned alot doing ring, and if I had a dog that was suited to it, would love to try again. I don't think the outs would be a problem with my current dog, a malinois. But for the positive method, the call out and the object guard would be the hardest? Maybe when Reik is retired from Sch, I will try to train the basket and do DIW just to see if the training holds up in trial. Maybe I will try with the brown dog in a couple years.


----------



## James Downey

Christopher Smith said:


> Because these people tend start the conversation as if they are doing something different than most. But when the shit cloud clears we find that they are using physical punishment. So that leads me to believe that they think that their physical punishment is different. But it's not! They are doing the same thing as everyone else. They are correcting the dog with physical punishment when they see fit.


Bedder Denu


----------



## rick smith

since we've moved on to specifics maybe this is a day late and a dollar short, but since i drafted it and checked it; here goes 

- these semi-related threads about corrections/punishment/positives and negatives seem to be going in circles
- my conclusion as to why, is because people really don't know the difference between compulsion training and operant training.
which may be one reason why "positive" and "negative" seems to have different meanings to different people.
.....actually, compulsion has not been discussed much at all

my 02cents :
everyone who has read many of my posts know where i stand, and i have also said before i think there are only three "systems" of training :
1. operantly
2. compulsively
3. combination of both
anyone who disagrees please step up

all the other training terms just confuse the issue, imo
- reward based training
- positive only
- Koehler method
- pack leadership
- motivational
- clicker training
...... etc etc .... the list is endless and many are due to trainers accepting operant conditioning but insisting on REnaming it to stand out or make a few bucks :-(

and more importantly, the TOOLS you use are NOT the SYSTEM you are training with !!
....if you ask someone how they train and they answer..... flat collars only; no prongs no Ecollar - SO WHAT ?? well, if they are compulsion only they may still be VERY abusive trainers !!!!
- if you ask me, i would say, i train operantly and DO use Ecollars and prongs, but i could also SHOW you I am NOT abusive in any way shape or form when i am working with a dog 
....the TOOL is not the system !

and i will also agree with Joby that "everything you do with the dog" is also training; EXCEPT that when it's stated that way, there is really NO "system" involved  ...if we're just talking daily living with a pet, fine, but i think we are a little beyond that level on this list. or maybe if you take that approach you could say there is no such thing as a training system at all

positive and negative mean different things to different people, but when discussed as it pertains to operant canine learning theory, the meanings are clearly defined : positive = "something" added, and negative = "something" taken away 
they have NOTHING to do with value judgments about whether they are good or bad
... and that "something" can be good or bad (reinforcers) .... praise, bites, tugs, sleeves, rewards, pats on the fanny, food, flanking, scruffing, lead pops, crating; whatever
... no matter what, they are signals to the dog, no more no less, and to be effective as communication, they need to be delivered when behavior "happens" that we either agree with and want repeated, or don't agree with and want stopped
- if it's done operantly, we deliver the reinforcer and than WAIT to see whether the dog does what we want it to do. more importantly we allow the dog time to make a decision

if we use compulsion, we don't care what the dog decides because we PHYSICALLY force it to comply. and that goes for any level of compulsion; light or heavy
... some who use a lot of compulsion might still say we are letting the dog "decide", but i think that is a stretch 

** IMO, the main difference in the two systems involves whether you are allowing the dog to make the decision or not

obviously when you train operantly, timing is key to communicating to the dog....your reinforcer must be delivered immediately after the behavior is presented...dogs aren't smart enuff to remember and link behaviors longer than a few seconds. you MUST reinforce what you want immediately so it can be clear to the dog what behavior they got reinforced for .... duh 
... praise a dog that has been "soaking" in a crate only praises the soaking, so if i'm a dog i'd probably wanna soak more often //lol//

compulsion, otoh, does not allow the dog to make the decision. the handler is doing it for them, whether it is simply pushing its butt down to teach it a sit, grabbing it by the lead and moving it where you want it to go, or picking it up by the scruff to force it to do what you want. that is what compulsion is all about. 
you can do it "positively", or "nicely"..... 
OR you can do it with more force than is probably necessary to get compliance from the dog
...so a quick scruff can be "operant", IF you give the dog a choice, but more often than not it becomes compulsion... because you don't

obviously the unfair, inconsistent, heavy use of compulsion is what eventually becomes abuse
and another extreme example of compulsion would be flooding...it is still in use too 

i think people who use the "other" terms for operant conditioning are usually using operant conditioning principles, but probably not in the strict sense with a "thinking", conscious knowledge and use of all four quadrants. they may have studied the tables and learned about the plus and minus "p's" and "r's", but just don't "think" it and have trouble applying them when they are out with the dog 

anyway, that's my take on why there is so much disagreement here and why definitions seem to be debated a lot ....was gonna start a thread on how many training systems are there, but the "Law" never posted theirs first 

but WTH, a LOT of interesting comments and opinions have surfaced ... and no one is gonna change their attitude because of my post either 
- if i've just added to the confusion ... SIA 
... so TX for posting them all !!


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> since we've moved on to specifics maybe this is a day late and a dollar short, but since i drafted it and checked it; here goes
> 
> - these semi-related threads about corrections/punishment/positives and negatives seem to be going in circles
> - my conclusion as to why, is because people really don't know the difference between compulsion training and operant training.
> which may be one reason why "positive" and "negative" seems to have different meanings to different people.
> .....actually, compulsion has not been discussed much at all
> 
> my 02cents :
> everyone who has read many of my posts know where i stand, and i have also said before i think there are only three "systems" of training :
> 1. operantly
> 2. compulsively
> 3. combination of both
> anyone who disagrees please step up
> 
> all the other training terms just confuse the issue, imo
> - reward based training
> - positive only
> - Koehler method
> - pack leadership
> - motivational
> - clicker training
> ...... etc etc .... the list is endless and many are due to trainers accepting operant conditioning but insisting on REnaming it to stand out or make a few bucks :-(
> 
> and more importantly, the TOOLS you use are NOT the SYSTEM you are training with !!
> ....if you ask someone how they train and they answer..... flat collars only; no prongs no Ecollar - SO WHAT ?? well, if they are compulsion only they may still be VERY abusive trainers !!!!
> - if you ask me, i would say, i train operantly and DO use Ecollars and prongs, but i could also SHOW you I am NOT abusive in any way shape or form when i am working with a dog
> ....the TOOL is not the system !
> 
> and i will also agree with Joby that "everything you do with the dog" is also training; EXCEPT that when it's stated that way, there is really NO "system" involved  ...if we're just talking daily living with a pet, fine, but i think we are a little beyond that level on this list. or maybe if you take that approach you could say there is no such thing as a training system at all
> 
> positive and negative mean different things to different people, but when discussed as it pertains to operant canine learning theory, the meanings are clearly defined : positive = "something" added, and negative = "something" taken away
> they have NOTHING to do with value judgments about whether they are good or bad
> ... and that "something" can be good or bad (reinforcers) .... praise, bites, tugs, sleeves, rewards, pats on the fanny, food, flanking, scruffing, lead pops, crating; whatever
> ... no matter what, they are signals to the dog, no more no less, and to be effective as communication, they need to be delivered when behavior "happens" that we either agree with and want repeated, or don't agree with and want stopped
> - if it's done operantly, we deliver the reinforcer and than WAIT to see whether the dog does what we want it to do. more importantly we allow the dog time to make a decision
> 
> if we use compulsion, we don't care what the dog decides because we PHYSICALLY force it to comply. and that goes for any level of compulsion; light or heavy
> ... some who use a lot of compulsion might still say we are letting the dog "decide", but i think that is a stretch
> 
> ** IMO, the main difference in the two systems involves whether you are allowing the dog to make the decision or not
> 
> obviously when you train operantly, timing is key to communicating to the dog....your reinforcer must be delivered immediately after the behavior is presented...dogs aren't smart enuff to remember and link behaviors longer than a few seconds. you MUST reinforce what you want immediately so it can be clear to the dog what behavior they got reinforced for .... duh
> ... praise a dog that has been "soaking" in a crate only praises the soaking, so if i'm a dog i'd probably wanna soak more often //lol//
> 
> compulsion, otoh, does not allow the dog to make the decision. the handler is doing it for them, whether it is simply pushing its butt down to teach it a sit, grabbing it by the lead and moving it where you want it to go, or picking it up by the scruff to force it to do what you want. that is what compulsion is all about.
> you can do it "positively", or "nicely".....
> OR you can do it with more force than is probably necessary to get compliance from the dog
> ...so a quick scruff can be "operant", IF you give the dog a choice, but more often than not it becomes compulsion... because you don't
> 
> obviously the unfair, inconsistent, heavy use of compulsion is what eventually becomes abuse
> and another extreme example of compulsion would be flooding...it is still in use too
> 
> i think people who use the "other" terms for operant conditioning are usually using operant conditioning principles, but probably not in the strict sense with a "thinking", conscious knowledge and use of all four quadrants. they may have studied the tables and learned about the plus and minus "p's" and "r's", but just don't "think" it and have trouble applying them when they are out with the dog
> 
> anyway, that's my take on why there is so much disagreement here and why definitions seem to be debated a lot ....was gonna start a thread on how many training systems are there, but the "Law" never posted theirs first
> 
> but WTH, a LOT of interesting comments and opinions have surfaced ... and no one is gonna change their attitude because of my post either
> - if i've just added to the confusion ... SIA
> ... so TX for posting them all !!


Rick, I reject your 3 styles 

I do not think that training with only "marker" training", (which is what some people call it, not all I realize) really falls into the Operant category, personally, but that is just me.

I talk to people all the time that use clicker or marker training only, that exclude 1/2 of the Operant conditioning model.

Dont get me wrong if they can do that with what they want to achieve, more power to them. 

That being said negative reinforcement, and positive punishment ARE parts of the model. 

I I use R+ R- and P+ and P-

Am I a great trainer, no..not great..

Now I really dont care if someone is not using the full spectrum of the model, but do get really tired of people telling me I should try Marker Training, when they see an ecollar on my dog, or a prong collar. I try to tell them I do use marker training. They just do not agree.

There is a huge movement of people that are pushing Positive only type training, meaning no R- or no P+...they have labeled that as "marker training", and even OC... so what do you call that?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

So instead of trying to prove that somewhere in the dog's life, it was "corrected" and objecting that marker only for some behaviors work, why don't you just say the bottom line is that you like your e-collars, prongs and corrections, compulsion, whatever.


T


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So instead of trying to prove that somewhere in the dog's life, it was "corrected" and objecting that marker only for some behaviors work, why don't you just say the bottom line is that you like your e-collars, prongs and corrections, compulsion, whatever.
> T


I think marker training works. I use marker training.

Instead of trying to say that the dog has never been "corrected" why not just say that the use of corrections is very limited, and avoided when possible, and stop saying that using corrections and punishments at home does not apply when talking about the "training of the dog" and that said dog is trained without corrections, even if he is corrected?

even Shade said there are NO examples of only positive dogs, and every "only positive" dog I know of, has had corrections anyhow..

She has always been 100% honest about it. except when she said that there are examples out there...

She has said that was a correction, you on the other hand are trying to still justify that not being a correction, why dont you just call a correction a correction?


----------



## kenneth roth

T uses the same kinds of corrections as shay does, but with a higer level of stimui.

Some people dont count light corrections as corrections,just stornger corrections count as a correction.


----------



## kenneth roth

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So instead of trying to prove that somewhere in the dog's life, it was "corrected" and objecting that marker only for some behaviors work, why don't you just say the bottom line is that you like your e-collars, prongs and corrections, compulsion, whatever.
> 
> 
> T


Good question Ms T, now anwser your own question. You still didnt say why shay correction wasnt one.


----------



## Joby Becker

I was trying to think back..

I can 100% honestly, by anyones terminology, say that I have not given my dog a correction with the ecollar in the last 4-5 months. But use the stim everytime it is on the dog...

I have used it for R- though. Not P+


----------



## Skip Morgart

Joby Becker said:


> I was trying to think back..
> 
> I can 100% honestly, by anyones terminology, say that I have not given my dog a correction with the ecollar in the last 4-5 months. But use the stim everytime it is on the dog...
> 
> I have used it for R- though. Not P+



Since you are attempting to cover "anyones terminology", how is "using the stim everytime it is on the dog" NOT a correction?


----------



## Joby Becker

Skip Morgart said:


> Since you are attempting to cover "anyones terminology", how is "using the stim everytime it is on the dog" NOT a correction?


negative reinforcement.. (escape)
low level stim, dog turns it off by completing action, and is rewarded.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton

It seems the talk of all these methods of training can go on until the end of time. Perception is usually reality to people, and everyone has a different perception. 

What I may call negative, another may view as positive. Ok, great. I for one agree that we all have different terms and preferred methods, but I can't help but think we are all on at least a similar page.

It seems with all the positive, reward, withholding reward, etc talk -that the main point I see, is that none of us believe that beating the shit out of our dogs and forcing them to perform out of fear is a good way to train. Looks to me like most agree on the principle but are just hung up on definitions. 

I think anything in excess can create an imbalance.....too much compulsion, or too many rewards.

I personally have never used or owned an e collar, but that doesn't mean I think they are awful if used appropriately. I have used prongs, not abusively, and proud of it because I may not have arms if I didn't. What I care about is that I have always had dogs that are happy, healthy, and fit well into society and my home life- and just so happen to love love love protection sports and whatever else can be a "job". I am happy with that.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> I think marker training works. I use marker training.
> 
> Instead of trying to say that the dog has never been "corrected" why not just say that the use of corrections is very limited, and avoided when possible, and stop saying that using corrections and punishments at home does not apply when talking about the "training of the dog" and that said dog is trained without corrections, even if he is corrected?
> 
> even Shade said there are NO examples of only positive dogs, and every "only positive" dog I know of, has had corrections anyhow..
> 
> She has always been 100% honest about it. except when she said that there are examples out there...
> 
> She has said that was a correction, you on the other hand are trying to still justify that not being a correction, why dont you just call a correction a correction?


If you go back and read, I didn't vote one way or the other. I said I couldn't tell. You all reference the dog's point of view. Its like the word "no" is a correction. Not in all cases. If you think in terms of something stopping an unwanted behavior, I don't think the dog was corrected. Shade describes attempting to impact him physically i.e. corecting him and it didn't work. That's consistent with what I saw. I also said, only Shade knew one way or the other. She said she attempted to correct him. Okay, it was an attempted correction. In the grand scheme of things I really don't think that much about corrections, compulsion, punishment or whatever you want to call it. I spend all my time thinking of how I'm going to use shaping and positive reinforcement to get the behavior I want in the dog. If someone tells me they work with positive reinforcment and marker training I'm not going to grill them for whether they've ever corrected the dog. Nor would I jump to the conlusion that if they ever corrected the dog it would carry over to any of the training. If you work with positive and marker training you would know that the fact that he was corrected for something totally different from what you are doing would have no bearing on free shaping behaviors, getting stimulus control and variable reinforcement schedules. The dog isn't doing it to avoid something. All he knows from the reinforcement history is that if he does it, he gets what he wants. Its not 3 weeks ago I got a correction for bolting out the door and now she's trying to free shape the retrieve so I had better pick up the dumbbell. He's only going to pick up the dumbell because she has rewarded each step towards that end. 

I don't deal in absolutes. I would never negate all of Shade's work she has done with the dog using free shaping, variable reinforcement, etc. because over a 3.5 year period he had 10 prong corrections. Old habits die hard. Because of what goes on in free shaping a behavior, I can't see how those corrections would impact a free shaping session at all. The fact that you do makes me wonder how much positive marker training and free shaping you've done. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

kenneth roth said:


> T uses the same kinds of corrections as shay does, but with a higer level of stimui.
> 
> Some people dont count light corrections as corrections,just stornger corrections count as a correction.


Wrong.


----------



## Skip Morgart

Joby Becker said:


> negative reinforcement.. (escape)
> low level stim, dog turns it off by completing action, and is rewarded.


still a correction to me.


----------



## Danny Craig

Joby Becker said:


> There is a huge movement of people that are pushing Positive only type training, meaning no R- or no P+...


Don't think this is accurate. More accurate would be to say there is a movement to minimize the use of R- and P+. All things considered, the less aversive the training, the better.


----------



## Danny Craig

Joby Becker said:


> negative reinforcement.. (escape)
> low level stim, dog turns it off by completing action, and is rewarded.


Stim (low level or high is irrelevant) is +P. Threat of stim is -R.


----------



## Joby Becker

Danny Craig said:


> Stim (low level or high is irrelevant) is +P. Threat of stim is -R.


I disagree craig.

I agree the actual stim is a +positive form of an undesirable stimulus. but it is NOT punishment. There is nothing being punished, It just is there...

_Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus_

..............................................................



_Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a *negative condition is stopped* as a consequence of the behavior.

Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a *negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior*._

if you were to say you view any stim as a punishment, aside from OC terms, I could agree that is how you see it. but in terms of OC the stim is just an aversive condition that is present, that the dog turns off by completing an action, it is not a punishment. 

............................

The goal of *punishment is to decrease the behavior that it follows*. In the case of positive punishment, it involves presenting an unfavorable outcome or event *following an undesirable behavior*.


----------



## Skip Morgart

Joby Becker said:


> I disagree craig.
> 
> I agree the actual stim is a +positive form of an undesirable stimulus. but it is NOT punishment. There is nothing being punished, It just is there...
> 
> _Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus_
> 
> ..............................................................
> 
> 
> 
> _Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a *negative condition is stopped* as a consequence of the behavior.
> 
> Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a *negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior*._
> 
> if you were to say you view any stim as a punishment, aside from OC terms, I could agree that is how you see it. but in terms of OC the stim is just an aversive condition that is present, that the dog turns off by completing an action, it is not a punishment.
> 
> ............................
> 
> The goal of *punishment is to decrease the behavior that it follows*. In the case of positive punishment, it involves presenting an unfavorable outcome or event *following an undesirable behavior*.


So, according to your logic, someone could leave it on low level stim permanently, since it's not a source of punishment? Many times I agree completely with your posts Joby, but I totally disagree with your explanation on this one.


----------



## Danny Craig

Joby Becker said:


> I disagree craig.
> 
> I agree the actual stim is a +positive form of an undesirable stimulus. but it is NOT punishment. There is nothing being punished, It just is there...
> 
> _Negative reinforcement (Escape): occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus_
> 
> ..............................................................
> 
> 
> 
> _Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a *negative condition is stopped* as a consequence of the behavior.
> 
> Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a *negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior*._
> 
> if you were to say you view any stim as a punishment, aside from OC terms, I could agree that is how you see it. but in terms of OC the stim is just an aversive condition that is present, that the dog turns off by completing an action, it is not a punishment.
> 
> ............................
> 
> The goal of *punishment is to decrease the behavior that it follows*. In the case of positive punishment, it involves presenting an unfavorable outcome or event *following an undesirable behavior*.


becker, 

Essentially what you're doing is administering a punisher to the dog for no reason, issuing a command and when the dog complies you are removing the punisher. In terms of operant condition, what you're doing makes no sense. You admit you administer a +P for no reason "it just is there..." and since there was no behavior that you were trying to eliminate (because there was no reason for the +P) you then conclude that the aversive stim cannot technically be classified as +P. It's a weird argument but that's what happens when we start trying to justify the weird things we do.

Why not give the command and if the dog does not comply, then administer your +P and remove the +P when the dog complies? I think that's a sucky way to train but at least it makes sense in terms of OP.


----------



## Danny Craig

correction: "it makes sense in terms of OC."


----------



## Joby Becker

Danny Craig said:


> becker,
> 
> Essentially what you're doing is administering a punisher to the dog for no reason, issuing a command and when the dog complies you are removing the punisher. In terms of operant condition, what you're doing makes no sense. You admit you administer a +P for no reason "it just is there..." and since there was no behavior that you were trying to eliminate (because there was no reason for the +P) you then conclude that the aversive stim cannot technically be classified as +P. It's a weird argument but that's what happens when we start trying to justify the weird things we do.
> 
> Why not give the command and if the dog does not comply, then administer your +P and remove the +P when the dog complies? I think that's a sucky way to train but at least it makes sense in terms of OP.


oops sorry about the last name...not sure why that happened, I was probably thinking Craig Snyder, my mistake .

Danny, of course the command is given first, otherwise the dog would have no clue what you want it to do.

Give command, start stim...dog completes action, stim goes off, and reward is given... negative reinforcement, and positive reinforcement all in one, Probably similar to what Bart Bellon does.

examples of how I use this.

recalls, encourages dog to come back as straight and fast as possible, and get into correct finish position as quickly as possible, once dog does that, pressure is off, reward comes.

call offs, dog is sent, calloff command given, stim starts, is turned off once dog is in finish, dog gets to bite.

positions in motion or at a distance. command, stim, stims stops once dog is in position, marked, rewarded...

hope that helps some. maybe I can shoot some video or something sometime..although since I do not require the precision of say a person who trains SCH, I am hesitant to do so...Mine is more functional than precise to that level...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_ ... of course the command is given first, otherwise the dog would have no clue what you want it to do. ... Give command, start stim ... dog completes action, stim goes off, and reward is given .... _



Not my cup of tea. 

Been in my share of never-ending battles about what used to be called escape training (and still is, I guess, but the e.t. term has recently expanded to include much different meanings than this one) and I'm pretty much battled out, but it's not for me.


----------



## rick smith

NOT operant conditioning folks !!!
applying a stim when a command is given and releasing with compliance is by anyone's definition......COMPULSION
- if you try and claim you are allowing the dog time to "make a decision" you are in denial IMO 
- then, if it doesn't work at a low pleasant level it is OF COURSE simply turned up to a higher less pleasant but still not "abusive" level until it DOES work and the dog is compliant, right ???

wanna argue ???????


----------



## rick smith

btw, just because you "use markers" doesn't mean you train operantly either 
...it just means you use markers in your training


----------



## Connie Sutherland

rick smith said:


> ..... just because you "use markers" doesn't mean you train operantly either .... it just means you use markers in your training ....



No argument here.

If I use markers, it means I use markers. Period. 



PS
Also, as it happens, I do train operantly. :lol:


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> No argument here.
> 
> If I use markers, it means I use markers. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> PS
> Also, as it happens, I do train operantly. :lol:


I just make up stuff as I go along and regurgitate whatever I see on the InterWeb ;-)


----------



## rick smith

of course i shouldn't have said "anyone's" definition
shoulda said ..."my" definition  
which would be the same as anyone else who uses operant conditioning and accepts what compulsion is 

when you are giving a command and physically manipulating it until it complies with that command you are using compulsion
- you are hoping that the correction will eventually not be needed because the dog "learn" to avoid it and simply comply on the verbal command. in many cases this works...duh...that's why it is used so much //lol//

you don't have to push a dogs butt down too many times while you pull its head up to teach it that sit means sit

and the slight discomfort of a steady Estim will also communicate your wishes to the dog very quickly...if it wasn't so effective there wouldn't be a large franchised Ecollar group out there who use it as a primary tool 

good or bad is immaterial mostly, but to call it ANY kind of "positive only training" is just not correct unless the dog is some kind of canine masochist and wants a little "pain for its gain" 

reason i made the comment regarding markers is because i run across MANY owners who think they are "positive reward based trainers" because they say "YES" when the dog finally responds correctly to their multiple leash pops 
..THAT isn't a separate training system in my book...it's just mostly compulsion with a bit of OC thrown in occasionally 

had no idea it is a growing majority of owners though 

same goes for all the pet owners who teach basic positions, basic OB and basic agility and dog tricks with clickers and no corrections ... they rarely progress further and therefore feel corrections will never be needed 

to me it's still black and white as to how many ways you can train a dog using a system, but i won't make any more personal judgments any more about which is better, because too many people don't care as long as the job gets done and it works for them


----------



## John Squire

Post moved to

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f9/purely-positive-trainers-24326/#post345536


----------



## Joby Becker

Connie Sutherland said:


> _ ... of course the command is given first, otherwise the dog would have no clue what you want it to do. ... Give command, start stim ... dog completes action, stim goes off, and reward is given .... _
> 
> 
> 
> Not my cup of tea.
> 
> Been in my share of never-ending battles about what used to be called escape training (and still is, I guess, but the e.t. term has recently expanded to include much different meanings than this one) and I'm pretty much battled out, but it's not for me.


thats fine


----------



## Britney Pelletier

Thomas Barriano said:


> I just make up stuff as I go along and regurgitate whatever I see on the InterWeb ;-)



Me too!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

rick smith said:


> NOT operant conditioning folks !!!
> applying a stim when a command is given and releasing with compliance is by anyone's definition......COMPULSION
> - if you try and claim you are allowing the dog time to "make a decision" you are in denial IMO
> - then, if it doesn't work at a low pleasant level it is OF COURSE simply turned up to a higher less pleasant but still not "abusive" level until it DOES work and the dog is compliant, right ???
> 
> wanna argue ???????


So do they train the behavior first and then engage in escape training. How does this work. You say down and hit button. If the dog is instantly complying, you are buzzing him as he is going down. See for me, this is delivering punishment. Do you count a second or two before hitting the button?

T


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So do they train the behavior first and then engage in escape training. How does this work. You say down and hit button. If the dog is instantly complying, you are buzzing him as he is going down. See for me, this is delivering punishment. Do you count a second or two before hitting the button?
> 
> T


The stim is started then the command is given.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

This thread is really making me think.....



rick smith said:


> my 02cents :
> everyone who has read many of my posts know where i stand, and i have also said before i think there are only three "systems" of training :
> 1. operantly
> 2. compulsively
> 3. combination of both
> anyone who disagrees please step up


I disagree - I think compulsion is part of the OC quadrant, both P+ and -R are compulsion.













rick smith said:


> and more importantly, the TOOLS you use are NOT the SYSTEM you are training with !!


Now this I absolutely agree with. Why is it that we still consider people who use e-collars to be evil nasty dog abusers when you can do a lot more damage to a dog with your foot and not use any "TOOLS" at all!!


----------



## Holden Sawyer

I think sometimes people get the sense that pinch collar/ etc. is negative in the sense that the dog dislikes it, it is a punishment. This caused me confusion as my dog seems to love being trained for heeling that way. His tail goes up, he's springy, happy. "Positive" = dull and flat. He gets trained in everything else without physical correction other than being made to start over, sometimes just a verbal "no". He does better that way in everything else. I think some day I will understand it down the road as the pieces come together. I know I suck at timing and so on but I don't think that is the entire explanation. Maybe the answer is to see if your dog likes to be popped with a pinch and then add that to the positive reward side of the chart. At least for that specific exercise. So confusing.


----------

