# Corrections/Punishments "out of drive"...



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

With all the talk about successful NO CORRECTION training, some discussions come to mind, past and present.

It appears to me that EVERYONE that is saying that they do not use physical corrections in training the dog, also say that they use corrections and punishment for things that are "out of drive". 

I assume these would be for manners, household behavior and probably even some basic OB type stuff around the house, or out and about, like dog wanting to chase a squirrel or something. Maybe biting..whatever it may be, the kind of stuff that you just have to get around when owning a dog, like even normal pet people have to do...Dog trying to eat food off the table, counter surfing, getting the garbage, chewing stuff up, shredding stuff, trying to grab your sandwich, whatever it may be. 

I am assuming that the word NO is used, and that word is enforced by some form of correction and/or punishments..

Pretty much everyone that I know of that claims that they do this (and also says they use no corrections or punishments to train in their "sport" or venue), also claims that doing this in the home, or with the dog "out of drive", has no impact on the training done for sport or whatever it is, while the dog is "in drive", and therefore can with a clear conscience say that the dog is trained without any corrections, even though I might even argue a dog is NOT in drive during all of the training for sport, I will not at this time.....

I would say that this is just another version of "charging the marker" if corrections or punishments are paired with a verbal cue, and therefore carries weight in the training of the dog in other areas....

It was said by one person that trains with NO corrections (that also uses punishment "out of drive"), that they prefer to withhold a reward when training "in drive", that a lasting impression is made when the dog does not get his reward. and that the dog learns quickly to be correct from it (which I believe 100%)

I am of the opinion that a punishment or physical correction also leaves a lasting effect on dogs. This is proven all the time with extinction of certain behaviors, which in some cases are solved in a single occurence, and by the dog understanding that there can be consequences when a negative verbal cue is given, such as the word "no" or whatever it is. The dog knows that he did not do something correctly, or that he did or is doing, something wrong when he hears that word. For instance if the dog gets a little pushy and jumps up to try to bully you and nips you in your shoulder (or whatever else) and you smack him on the muzzle and say NO...the next time he may attempt to jump up and get pushy, and you say NO, and he decides that is not a great idea anymore. (insert your form of punishment or correction into whatever scenario it is...)


The poll question is this.

Do you think that using punishment or physical corrections in one area of dog training, will affect other areas of dog training, such as lending more weight to a negative verbal cue, even if physical corrections or punishment are not used in those "other" areas? 

I just cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that there is not a bleed-over into other areas...but would like to hear what others think about the subject, and I do have an open mind about it if someone says anything that I can make sense out of logically.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

I do agree with this, I absolutley believe it. But I also think if you use no at home with punishment...and no on the field with no punishment...the dog is capable of learning the difference. 

and just for the record. My original post on the Tools vs. crutches thread. Was not about not using correction. It was bout not using the hundered mechanical and foriegn objects to manage the dog people use. Including things like hats with cups glued to them. 


Here's a good observation. yesterday we promised my kid he was going to the park. He qas interrupring my wifes workout. So I told him to leave, he said no, I said go in time out. he said no, I took away his toy (he did not care, No drive for it). He then said no again. This time fustrated, I swatted him on the ass and told him to sit, with tears in his eyes and a case of the sobs from the pain, he said no again. This time I said, then your not going to the park. HE immediatly begged for forgiveness, screaming sorry...ran and told my wife sorry...now he was hysterically crying. You tell me, what's more effective. Taking away his cookie, or swatting him on the ass. 

Because pain, It's only in your brain. It's not even real. But losing the chance at a resource, that's real.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

I can't help but feel like a lot of the talk now of tools, crutches, corrections, etc. is potentially directed at me since I dared post a video of my dog on the table. I use tools to train. Yep, I do. 

But, in my opinion a tug or food reward, even a release command is a tool. I do not feel that I suck at problem solving because I use certain things to aid in certain types of training. I don't use them for all training, unless a "good boy" is a tool. 

Now, before I get slammed I do fully agree that it is always better to use positive reinforcement to train. I have never used over the top compulsion to train or teach a lesson. I have a relationship of respect and trust with my dog. BUT there have been times where for the safety of him and others I have had to give a harder correction not to cause him pain, but to snap him out of rage. It worked and now a word or change in my tone is all I really need if that old issue arises.

To answer Joby's poll question, I think that it absolutely does carry over to different areas. Just in the last year my dog has done and seen many new things and behaved as I expect just because of the experiences I created in my home environment. 

In a nutshell, I always prefer for training to be fun and enjoyable for all involved, however; when you deal with an animal that could take you out if they wanted- I prefer to keep in mind that they are animals no matter how well trained. 

I am very open to other methods, which is why I am even on this forum- so I am not in complete agreement or disagreement with any way of doing things. I just know my dog. He is hard, and he is tough...and I would not trust that taking his ball away would keep him from expressing an undesirable behavior- and if I don't trust it, he knows it and will not trust either. Maybe that's something I should worked on- my mind since they seem to read it very well.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Sally Crunkleton said:


> I can't help but feel like a lot of the talk now of tools, crutches, corrections, etc. is potentially directed at me since I dared post a video of my dog on the table. I use tools to train. Yep, I do.


I wouldn't worry about it. Some of my videos show my dog with 2-3 collars on. One is simply for the helpers safety because the snipe backs out of her flat collar and will attempt to do so any chance she gets. I'm not particularly inclined to justify why I have them on but anyone whose been at it a while knows that sometimes being prepared is not only necessary but the safe thing to do especially with some of the younger dogs that haven't had a lot of control work done with them yet.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

Same here. Dogs can get out of most any collar unless it's so tight they can't breathe. Plus, I like having some I.D. on the dog just in case that rabbit overpowers him and he bolts. 

I am not worried though, everyone has their own way. I just took it that some may believe I know zilch about training since I put my dog on a table 2 times. Maybe that was intended only for those who misuse "tools", but either way it's all about experiences and opinions. 

I just find that balance between all I do in training is more beneficial vs sticking to one method I saw 10 yrs ago on top level dogs. All dogs vary. Trainers and handlers vary too!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I do agree with this, I absolutley believe it. But I also think if you use no at home with punishment...and no on the field with no punishment...the dog is capable of learning the difference.
> 
> and just for the record. My original post on the Tools vs. crutches thread. Was not about not using correction. It was bout not using the hundered mechanical and foriegn objects to manage the dog people use. Including things like hats with cups glued to them.
> 
> ...


James, this poll was not directed at you specifically, as I never have seen you say that there is no bleed over...as others have said.

I can wrap my pea brain around most of the things you say.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby, Not sure if I'm your man here but I've never said manners in the home doesn't carry over. The discussion we've had was me loosing control of ME and taking it out on the dog in training. 
As I've said before, I believe that poorly timed rant and madness will only set training back.
I do like the "bleeding over" term although I've never used it myself. :grin:;-)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

This is probably more about me and Joby than anyone else. I train over the top in drive herding dogs. I'm raising two puppies who don't know life around the house without their long lines so they don't get themselves into trouble. Lots of limiting access and structure. Now say I tell them "no" for jumping on me and they stop jumping on me. Does that response to the "no" mean that no is going to be effective when they are in la la land on stock? Absolutely not. There is no carry over. Its meaningless. They're so far gone, I doubt they even hear it and it mentally registers. The first time I tried a "no" and restraint on Rhemy while he was in lala land on stock, I got reactive aggression. I don't think prior to that I had ever corrected him and certainly not physically. He was literally countering and pushing into the bite on one of my ducks. [Duck was fine]. With the marker training, I have him starting to amp and then downing/capping himself and looking at me for expectation of reward. Looking at some of the posts, I don't think they really understand out of drive vs. in drive and the different state of mind both entails. The best stuff I've seen on being in the dog's head in drive is Balabanov's "The Game." James' thread was never about purely positive or training without corrections. I don't use correction/punishment to TEACH behaviors. I have and will use them to stop a behavior depending on where I am in training. If I go to correction/punishment, more likely than not, the dog has sinned--disrepect of handler, disrespect of a kid or disrespect of the stock. Since I have dogs who are not the least bit sensitive to any correction I would give- on stock, taking away what they would like to do most [engage the stock] gets more mileage. 

On a pack relationship note, one off stock method that did effect on stock in drive compliance was "nothing in life is free" or NILIF. Changed one dog I train in a week. 

T


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

James Downey said:


> Here's a good observation. yesterday we promised my kid he was going to the park. He qas interrupring my wifes workout. So I told him to leave, he said no, I said go in time out. he said no, I took away his toy (he did not care, No drive for it). He then said no again. This time fustrated, I swatted him on the ass and told him to sit, with tears in his eyes and a case of the sobs from the pain, he said no again. This time I said, then your not going to the park. HE immediatly begged for forgiveness, screaming sorry...ran and told my wife sorry...now he was hysterically crying. You tell me, what's more effective. Taking away his cookie, or swatting him on the ass.
> 
> Because pain, It's only in your brain. It's not even real. But losing the chance at a resource, that's real.


would the results have been the same if you used an ecollar instead of a swat on the ass?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

jamie lind said:


> would the results have been the same if you used an ecollar instead of a swat on the ass?


 
For some yes. Its amazing how some can say to hell with the consequences, I'm doing it anyway. How many times has the social butterfly 17 year old with the 6 pack abs said he'd rather I hit him then keep him home on a Friday or Saturday night.


T


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> For some yes. Its amazing how some can say to hell with the consequences, I'm doing it anyway. How many times has the social butterfly 17 year old with the 6 pack abs said he'd rather I hit him then keep him home on a Friday or Saturday night.
> 
> 
> T


thats different there may be ladies there. we were talking about just going to the park:smile:


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

Terrista if you where to work in a feed lot when working the chutes, then take your dogs to the ducks the next day how would you keep the dogs from killing your ducks?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daniel Lybbert said:


> Terrista if you where to work in a feed lot when working the chutes, then take your dogs to the ducks the next day how would you keep the dogs from killing your ducks?


 
Dogs work sheep, ducks and cattle. Most of mine were initially trained on goats. Khira is the only one that has had kill on ducks. You assume a dog that can work hoofed stock will kill ducks? Sheep and cattle can be about defense and fight. Mostly, ducks are about prey drive. However, have known of ducks chasing dogs around.


T


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

I dont think that a dog that works cows will kill ducks. I just think that a dog gets pretty agressive when working in alley ways and chutes. If you put it on some ducks shortly after it is possible they will be a little tuff on the ducks? If they are how do you slow them down without a correction? I have a dog that is pretty after horses and it takes a bit to keep him capped off, and controled.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daniel Lybbert said:


> I dont think that a dog that works cows will kill ducks. I just think that a dog gets pretty agressive when working in alley ways and chutes. If you put it on some ducks shortly after it is possible they will be a little tuff on the ducks? If they are how do you slow them down without a correction? I have a dog that is pretty after horses and it takes a bit to keep him capped off, and controled.


 
Dogs READ situations and mental intent along with behavior. I can dog break aggressive animals with the dog and minutes later put them on lambs or ducks. They will switch gears. The lambs or ducks aren't acting aggressive or resisting their control. Within herding there is this concept called "rate." The dog will adjust himself to the animal that he is working. The herding goal is to manage the stock usually move them from Point A to Point B. One of the reasons I train the puppies on ducks is that ducks can only go so fast. Dog learns to adjust himself. Besides, I'm over young dogs running 200 pound sheep at me. My last trial dog--Khaldi, had one motor pattern--a fast run. I clicker trained a trot, walk and stop and I worked her in a 20 x 20 pen with a flock of ducks. Job focused dogs will adjust themselves to get the job done. Its the handler's job to capture it, mark it, get stimulus/command control. No room to run and get the job done and I could capture the behavior and reinforce it. Have I used corrections in herding? Sure. Did they get me anywhere in terms of teaching a behavior? No. Did they totally stop the unwanted behavior? No. I got waaayyyy more mileage out of clicker training an alternative behavior for that context. I'm finally starting my first over the top puppy with stock. Clicker training down, call offs and calm has probably knocked a year off his training. Correcting him makes for stress and hectic. In the past, I used clicker work to clean up stuff. This is the first time a puppy was started with it. If one swift correction would do the trick and I woudln't have to revisit it, I'd be fine with it. It just doesn't work in this context--not for what I want anyway. Might get you a position trained trial dog. 

As for your dog with the horses, how is he allowed access? Have you taken the time to actually train a call off, down stay, etc.?

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dogs work sheep, ducks and cattle. Most of mine were initially trained on goats. Khira is the only one that has had kill on ducks. You assume a dog that can work hoofed stock will kill ducks? Sheep and cattle can be about defense and fight. Mostly, ducks are about prey drive. However, have known of ducks chasing dogs around.
> 
> 
> T



Do you recall the killer duck that actually gripped Thunder on his side when he was in close, trying to move them out of the corner? My jaw dropped on that one. Thunder did nothing more then shake it off and continue with moving them.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Do you recall the killer duck that actually gripped Thunder on his side when he was in close, trying to move them out of the corner? My jaw dropped on that one. Thunder did nothing more then shake it off and continue with moving them.


Yep. We certainly had some comic moments with Thunder on ducks. I yell platz just as he was going to fast into the corner and down he went--right on top of the duck. I've also witnessed his genetic grip--full and looked like he was swallowing a lamb leg whole.

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

" I've also witnessed his genetic grip--full and looked like he was swallowing a lamb leg whole".

And never broke skin or ruffled a feather!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> " I've also witnessed his genetic grip--full and looked like he was swallowing a lamb leg whole".
> 
> And never broke skin or ruffled a feather!


Exactly the type of grip the old German sheep herders selected for.

T


----------

