# Purely positive and hard/serious/strong nerve/ etc dogs



## Bob Scott

Time to stir the pot a bit again.
I didn't want to hijack another post so I'm starting this one.
I see comments about purely positive training is successful with only soft or weak nerved dogs. 
How were these conclusions arrived at? 
Have you made an honest effort to use these methods or are you not using them because, in your head, you seriously believe you have to use a heavy hand with a serious dog.
Respect is all about leadership, not physical power.
I've been doing purely positive for about 4 yrs now and I've got to say it was really hard for an old fart like me to make the change but I truly do believe in it.
I've done quite a bit of retraining with my seriously nasty, hard, crazy %$#^&*( JRT to realize that it does work.
My own GSD is, admittedly, handler soft and very much in tune with me as his pack leader but he is rock solid in the nerve dept. 
I've seen hard a$$ SchH III dogs do complete turn arounds when the compulsion was stopped. 
I've explained my position on this before but I'd love to hear reasons WHY you don't believe it works. Not just that it doesn't. 
If the dog is clear headed about what you want from it, it WILL work!


----------



## Liz Monty

Bob, I have found with Bella, that I thought I could start out with compulsion, but it just got her more aggressive, biting, getting that look in her eyes like she was getting confrontational to me. So I have begun some positive training and am getting fast responses from her. They are sometimes too fast as I said in another thread, so I think a mix of both could be the ticket with her. Just what I am thinking now. Does not mean I'm right.


----------



## Lyn Chen

Bob, when you say purely positive, do you mean *no* corrections at all? Otherwise, in what context are corrections used? I don't use compulsion when teaching my dog but I have to correct him sometimes, for snapping at the ball too fast for example, or going after it when I don't want him to. I also had to use compulsion after teaching him the commands because he was doing them too slow--and believe me, I tried positive every which way and he was still slower than when I used a bit of compulsion. 

I don't believe in using compulsion or corrections all the time because if you overdo it he becomes one stubborn SOB who will just sit his ass and whine about me being unfair (maybe translate to biting if he hated me, which thank God he doesn't), but it's still necessary when he gets out of the line.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:I've seen hard a$$ SchH III dogs do complete turn arounds when the compulsion was stopped.

Sure, but was the reason they were hard because they were hard? Or because of the escalation of the compulsion due to the impatience of the owner? I see a lot of people correcting a dog because "he aught to know this"

One of the biggest reasons you see a turn-around is due to understanding.


----------



## David Frost

Over the years, trainers, particularly those that train police service dogs have garnered a reputation of "yank and crankers" (a description I borrowed from a similar discussion). Personally, I think a number of folk would be surprised at the amount of purely positive training, police trainers actually use. I've always felt that using purely positive methods accomplished a great deal. There are however, certain tasks, that the use of force establishes a limit. A line that will not be crossed. To that end, the use of physical corrections, regardless of the label (punishment, coersion etc) made positive reinforcement even more powerful. 
In essence, I don't believe there is a "single" technique that is most effective in dogs. Rather training is an amalgam of techniques. The good trainer, in my opinion, is aware of the behavior, with an eye on an objective and is best able to use the correct "technique" at the appropriate time. 

DFrost


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

> I don't believe in using compulsion or corrections all the time because if you overdo it he becomes one stubborn SOB who will just sit his ass and whine about me being unfair (maybe translate to biting if he hated me, which thank God he doesn't), but it's still necessary when he gets out of the line.


Agreed, Lyn. Or you have a dog who looks joyless about working or, like one of the dogs who trialed for her Sch 3 at our trial a couple weeks ago, look like they are walking on egg shells because they think they are about to get zapped any second by an e-collar whether they are wearing one or not. The biggest thing I have to always keep in mind is not to correct for mistakes as that is not fair, but only correct for intentional disobedience. 

I had used compulsion before on training the recall with a long line and a prong collar. One of my dogs is soft enough and only moderately food motivated that even if I tried giving him the food reward for coming, he'd be so shut down from a moderate prong collar correction if he didn't come to me right away that he wouldn't take the food. He'd come creeping up to me slowly tail down and ears down instead of a nice fast recall. I had to take the prong collar out of the equation for him in that case and implement the clicker so he knew he wasn't being corrected for coming to me. His short distance recall (about 10-20 yards) is much better and the longer distance recall is getting better because of it.


----------



## Lyn Chen

My dog is hard enough to be trained with compulsion, I believe, but I'd love to meet the trainer who can make him do something through sheer force alone, because he must be good. :wink: He becomes more aggressive with compulsion, less inclined to listen to you, and will sometimes just sit and block you out. I actually use this for protection, if I force him to do something, he's going to want to do the opposite, so if he bit badly we force him to out and he will bite harder next time. However if I want him to comply, I don't use force...I look him in the eye and talk to him in a soft voice and you can see him sort of roll his eyes and drop the item slowly, like a kid going, "Okkkkayy...fine..." I take all this liberty because I raised him as a pup and we have good communication going on, but really I think he'll nail someone he doesn't have a good relationship with that overcorrects him.

I believe corrections/compulsion is necessary, but not to the extent that they're the only way to teach a dog something.


----------



## Konnie Hein

> I see comments about purely positive training is successful with only soft or weak nerved dogs.


I've actually always felt that it was the opposite. For example, my SAR labrador is a soft dog and is handler sensitive. I trained him for obedience using the traditional compulsion training method (prong collar correction for disobedience and praise for the correct response). I feel it worked really well because he is a softer dog and didn't need more than a few corrections to gain complete compliance with the command. This isn't my favorite way to train a dog, but I was working with some tight time constraints and picked what I believed to be the fastest method for him. On the other hand, my young Malinois is a fighter. If you correct him too hard, he gets pissed and turns the obedience session into a biting/wrestling match. So I use mostly positive reinforcement, coupled with a few light corrections on the prong to remind him where he needs to be. It works quite well.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bob Scott

Lynn, yes! All the training is done with no corrections. I found it hard to do initially because of my years of compulsion training but I do believe in it. That doesn't mean I wont use compulsion if it's need, but I haven't as of yet except for basic manners at home.
Need compulsion, to me, means correcting for refusing something that is totally understood. If the dog has been trained correctly with motivation it should have no desire to refuse. Why would it? It has the choice of doing something correctly and recieving a reward (food/toy/bite) why would it choose to refuse and get a physical correction? This goes back to Jeff's comment about understand. 
Some good points brought up here. 
Quote Jeff: "Turn-around due to understanding" Understanding is the key to any training.
Quote David: "A Line that will not be crossed". 
Completely understandable for many reasons in the case of a PSD. 
#1 Most PSD are older and often even have some training when they are purchased by the Depts. I do believe that any dog will revert to it's foundation training under stress. 
#2 Much of motivational training is all about letting the dog make mistakes/choices and finding no reward in the process. Definately not something you can allow with a young, partially trained PSD.


----------



## Tim Martens

i've found that dissing your dog works much better than positive or compulsion training...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvM-HrS3mwY&mode=related&search=


----------



## Bob Scott

:lol: :lol: Thanks Tim! 
Unfortunately, in my "hood" dissing (not as subtle as in the tape  ) creates a very negative reaction in my dog. :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> i've found that dissing your dog works much better than positive or compulsion training...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvM-HrS3mwY&mode=related&search=


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lyn Chen

Bob, I do think the kind of dog you have can also have an effect on that. I have a dog that I never need to tell no, as she is always motivated, but my GSD I started out with purely positive and letting him figure out if he did something wrong because there was no reward, and we had a lot of confusion going on. He learns slower than most dogs I've had and as long as I keep it fair he seems to appreciate a bit of push now and again.


----------



## Bob Scott

The kind of dog can definately have an effect but it's just finding out what rings the individual dog's Pavlovian bell, so to speak. 
I'm definately not saying this is the only way to train. I've been in dogs for to many years for that but in the four or so years I've done the motivational, I honestly more of it could/should be used in training. 
A good combination of both? Probably what dog training will evolve into in the long run, but until I can't move forward, I'm gonna keep doing this new fangled, soft only, sissy dog training.
Nothing makes me scratch my head more then the AKC folks that go from the agility ring, wher the dog is total motivational and having fun, then to the obedience ring where the same dog and handler look like they just got a good a$$ whuppin. Why haven't they figured out that letting the dog have fun works for both rings? :roll:


----------



## Lacey Vessell

Really good thread Bob. When teaching Coda obedience, I used all motivational (obedience without conflict). If I had a dime for each derogatory comment I received about this method, from seasoned SchH competitors at my club, I would have had enough to pay my entry fee for my dogs BH trial. I actually started arriving at the training field early, so that I could do obedience without having to hear the comments, as I knew I would only be able to bite my tongue for so long. I was told that my dog would leave me on the training/trial field - she has yet to leave me - although I have seen their dogs leave them on the field and high tail it back to the safety of their crates the first chance they got. 

It disgusts me to see a dog cringe when given a command or if the handler makes a quick gesture or movement. The only "truth" that I have actually heard in response to not teaching motivational obedience from one of these old school SchH competitors is that "it takes longer" and "it's alotta work". I agree, it did take me longer in the beginning stages, but she already knows a SchH 3 obedience routine, and performs it very well and consistently, while they are still teaching dogs six months older then her the BH routine.

When new members show up at the club - the first thing I tell them when these seasoned competitors bombard them with advice is - watch the handler and the dogs first. The truth is in the handlers and dogs performance, whether on the training field or in a trial.

Not all methods are right for every dog, sometimes a combination of methods works best. I like to think that I'm open minded enough to at least try something different - especially if I can see the positive results that another team has had with the method.

Sorry for the rant.......just had to vent.


----------



## Bob Scott

Lacey, fortunately our whole club is motivational only. We wont allow members to work their dogs at other clubs without discussing it first. 
Two totally different styles can create confusion for a new dog trying to do both, and possibly a safty hazzard for the decoy. 
It doesn't matter which method you use. If you're in control of the dog it wont leave the field. 
If my first SchH I score isn't as great as I want it, does that mean the method ore no good or I didn't do as good a job as I'd like to?  
Regardless of my score, I'll go on the field with a dog that totally loves being there with me. 
Same with the AKC ring. The 3-4 of us that have competed there have gotten nothing but compliments about how "up" our dogs are through the whole routine. 
Two of our dog teams that had never shown in a obedience trial before, took first place in their class.


----------



## Liz Monty

Bob, the CKC here is getting to where you are hoping for in the obedience part. Years ago I went to watch an obedience class in Toronto and the teachers where more or less teaching the focus the way the sport/schutzhund are trained. Eyes up to handler's eyes and more forward movement, very happy looking. They were teaching with food and eye contact and lots of food reward for each accomplishment.


----------



## Lyn Chen

Ah Bob, I see what you mean. Yes, I agree it could be used more, and it does seem like a lot of trainers would rather try it the "hard" way first before seeing if they could negotiate with the dog. :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

Many in AKC have been doing a lot of food training for years but lots of them still think you have to beat the $#!+ out of the dog for making mistakes. 
When I started in the 60s, that's about ALL we did was correct the snot outa the dogs. When I taught classes in the 80s we were doing lots of praise for the correct performance and correting if they were wrong. It DOES work if done correctly. I just want to take this as far as I can.


----------



## Lacey Vessell

> If my first SchH I score isn't as great as I want it, does that mean the method ore no good or I didn't do as good a job as I'd like to?  Regardless of my score, I'll go on the field with a dog that totally loves being there with me.


*I agree completely with you in regards to wanting to go onto the field with a dog that totally loves being there with you. As for the scoring part, I'm a firm believer in "if the student failed to learn; the teacher failed to teach". I think I am the biggest critic of my performance as well as my dogs. Prior to the critique by the Judge, after she completed the obedience portion of the BH, I knew what we had to work on. When the first thing the Judge said while giving the critique was "here we have a very upbeat and happy dog that wants to do for the handler" - that to me was the best compliment he could have given us. The excellent and very good ratings were just gravy afterwards.*



> Same with the AKC ring. The 3-4 of us that have competed there have gotten nothing but compliments about how "up" our dogs are through the whole routine. Two of our dog teams that had never shown in a obedience trial before, took first place in their class.


*Great accomplishment - anyone ask them what methods they used? 

If I see a team perform really well, I always ask what method they used either for the whole routine or specific areas of the routine. I am hoping that I'll be able to use motivational in all phases - I already do in tracking, but we are not that far along in (SchH 1) protection work - time will tell. The biggest problem I have is that there are only two of us now that use the motivational method at my club (I think I converted one :twisted: ), so I have no one to draw from or to watch and learn.......might have to visit the in-laws in MO soon *


----------



## Bob Scott

Lacey Vessell said:


> If my first SchH I score isn't as great as I want it, does that mean the method ore no good or I didn't do as good a job as I'd like to?  Regardless of my score, I'll go on the field with a dog that totally loves being there with me.
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree completely with you in regards to wanting to go onto the field with a dog that totally loves being there with you. As for the scoring part, I'm a firm believer in "if the student failed to learn; the teacher failed to teach". I think I am the biggest critic of my performance as well as my dogs. Prior to the critique by the Judge, after she completed the obedience portion of the BH, I knew what we had to work on. When the first thing the Judge said while giving the critique was "here we have a very upbeat and happy dog that wants to do for the handler" - that to me was the best compliment he could have given us. The excellent and very good ratings were just gravy afterwards.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same with the AKC ring. The 3-4 of us that have competed there have gotten nothing but compliments about how "up" our dogs are through the whole routine. Two of our dog teams that had never shown in a obedience trial before, took first place in their class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Great accomplishment - anyone ask them what methods they used?
> 
> If I see a team perform really well, I always ask what method they used either for the whole routine or specific areas of the routine. I am hoping that I'll be able to use motivational in all phases - I already do in tracking, but we are not that far along in (SchH 1) protection work - time will tell. The biggest problem I have is that there are only two of us now that use the motivational method at my club (I think I converted one :twisted: ), so I have no one to draw from or to watch and learn.......might have to visit the in-laws in MO soon *
Click to expand...

Quote lacy:
Great accomplishment - anyone ask them what methods they used? 

They ask, we tell them, they don't believe us. :lol: :lol: 

Lacy, motivational protection can be pretty difficult if the helper doesn't understand, or doesn't believe in it. 
Best of luck in your efforts!


----------



## Tammy McDowell

I personally don't have a problem with compulsion if it is used properly and not taken into overkill. I'd say our dogs get an even mixture of positive motivation/compulsion and they all have beautiful, very up beat obedience. 
Saying that, there is a guy that now trains with us who has a GSD that has been fried from day 1 w/ an e-collar. Every time he used to bring the dog out we'd all cringe because the dog would literally slink out onto the field, ears back w/ his stomach practically dragging on the ground...it looked TERRIBLE and the dog couldn't have been more miserable. This particular handler took approx. the last 6 months to try and re-build his relationship w/ his dog via more positive methods to bring the dog back around and has made a lot of progress thus far. 

I guess I am right in the middle, I see a need for both in the grand scheme of things. Different dogs require different training methods to get them where you want them.


----------



## Bob Scott

Tammy, both methods can, and are misused. Over correction creates the tucked tail and hang dog attitude. A dog that is afraid to move for fear of unfair or excessive correction. 
Lack of proper motivational understanding creates a dog that can never be weaned off of the reward, or an uncontrolable dog. Neither belong on the field IMHO!
Both require knowledge about correct use.


----------



## Tammy McDowell

Bob Scott said:


> Tammy, both methods can, and are misused. Over correction creates the tucked tail and hang dog attitude. A dog that is afraid to move for fear of unfair or excessive correction.
> Lack of proper motivational understanding creates a dog that can never be weaned off of the reward, or an uncontrolable dog. Neither belong on the field IMHO!
> Both require knowledge about correct use.


I completely agree!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: new fangled, soft only, sissy dog training.

I went as far as I could, but the dog dictated that corrections were necessary. There is a Mal Yagus something that they say was trained only with clickers in IPO. I think he did really well.

I think that if you have a dog that can be trained with just clickers that is cool. I also think that that dog may not really be all that.


----------



## Tammy McDowell

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: new fangled, soft only, sissy dog training.
> 
> I went as far as I could, but the dog dictated that corrections were necessary. There is a Mal Yagus something that they say was trained only with clickers in IPO. I think he did really well.
> 
> I think that if you have a dog that can be trained with just clickers that is cool. I also think that that dog may not really be all that.


Yagus v.d. Duvetorre? From what I understand he is a super strong and VERY nice mal, a son of Stoned.


----------



## Bob Scott

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: new fangled, soft only, sissy dog training.
> 
> I went as far as I could, but the dog dictated that corrections were necessary. There is a Mal Yagus something that they say was trained only with clickers in IPO. I think he did really well.
> 
> I think that if you have a dog that can be trained with just clickers that is cool. I also think that that dog may not really be all that.


Jeff, that's my purpose for this post. 
WHY don't you think a strong dog can be trained motivationally? 
WHY does training have to be about physical control?
WHY can't a dog be imprinted/programmed to obey through operant conditioning?
I'l agree that an older dog with a foundation in compulsion will have more dificulty in the crossover but training is about understanding, not control.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

The way it's been explained to me by a few people is that a strong dog will at some point in their life test their boundary, usually when you least want it to happen, like at the Nationals, n once the dog figures out that nothing stopped them from testing their boundary you need to go back and redo a bunch of training after the dog just cost you the trial. Ofcourse, I can't counter this with any type of experience training 100% motivational or being around that style of training, it's just the counter argument that has been told to me on several occasions. It's an interesting theory, I wouldn't mind knowing what happens in real life with dogs like this trained only motivationally.


----------



## Bob Scott

Someone send me a hard, serious puppy and I'll find out! :lol: :lol: 
Thunder is both hard and serious with the helper but handler soft. I guess that takes him out of the running.
My TD/helper has told me he doubts any dog I raise would challenge me because of my control over them. Control DOES NOT have to mean physical. 
My JRT is probably the nastiest dog I've ever owned. Physical correction does NOTHING but fire him for the fight. In the last four years, I've completely did a turn around with his response to obedience. He'll still try and eat my face if I get physical, but I don't have to any more.


----------



## Lyn Chen

Bob, consider the dog who will not out for a tug while on the sleeve (has a good out elsewhere). In my dog's case if you forced him to out he would lock on harder, but I could just relax, look him in the eye, and tell him to out in a normal voice, and he would out. I don't consider any of this motivation because he is outing for nothing (if not physical force, he is outing out of pressure from me). After the first time he ever outed, he is taught then that he gets a rebite, and THEN it becomes a motivational thing. But you could say the out was taught 'forcibly' first, and then reinforced motivationally.

Semantics, semantics, semantics... :lol:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Someone was telling me about a dog they once worked that had an Outing problem. The dog wouldn't out for ANYTHING no matter what they tried, I mean, they could make him out with alotta effort but the dog never "remembered" for next time. One day he was just sick of the dog not wanting to out n smacked the dog on the head with his hat.... the dog outed n was completely like "WOW What'd you do that for? Ouch!". They obviously proofed the dog against decoys hitting the dog with hats etc. But some dogs are just really weird :lol:


----------



## Andres Martin

> WHY can't a dog be imprinted/programmed to obey through operant conditioning?


Bob...are we all on the same page regarding the definition of Operant Conditioning?

It seems to me you are advocating the use of only Positive Reinforcement, Negative Punishment...HALF of the OC repertoire.

In OC, the key is balance and the objective is reliability.

Why do you think it's better to opt out of Negative Reinforcement and Positive Punishment?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I am not a trainer and don't have a full understanding of some of the terms used here. As a hunter, I watch the dog and figure out what is needed to turn on a dog in respect to getting what I want out of him. I have two green dogs to get ready for the nationals in March to run the Master fur test. It is a **** track, using bottled scent. I took both dogs out and neither pays a lick of attention to a bottled scent so I sat down and watched them for an hour as they ran loose. The older of the two went about 30 yds on the bottled scent and what thenyounger one was doing looked more interesting and he pulled off. I will work them one at a time to start to avoid this. Since time is running short and I want them to associate this bottled scent to a reward(****) I have decided to work them, not only individually, but each will be loose while I lay the track and they will probably walk along to see what I am up to. When we get to the tree I will kicked the masked bandit out and presto. The association will be made. Airedales hunt to fight. With a bottled scent it does'nt really matter if a oppossom, ****, rat or what is used as it is the fight they are hunting. They will assocciate that quickly. By doing this, they will follow the scent because they want to, not because I had them on a leash and drug them around. With dales, and most dogs, I think the real key is that "they" want to do it". I can achieve perfect recall when they are on a leash....every time. Same as when they are on a 30' check cord. The thing about a check cord is they will turn and look to see where the end is. If I am holding it, perfect recall. If it is on the ground next to my foot, perfect recall. If it is 3 feet from my foot, they say, "up yours and go the other way....fast". I figured out quite a while back, with the terriers, the key to consistency, is to take the approach where they can figure it out on their own and like doing it. Without their desired to do it, you have robotics and total inconsistency depending on the method of control you have at any given moment.


----------



## Andres Martin

Don...on a side track (npi)...what would you do if during training, your dog finds REAL **** (or whatever) scent and decides to go pursue THAT instead of what you're offering?

Corrections come into play when there are COMPETING EQUIVALENT (at least) REWARDS.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Bob, a dog that is handler soft is not a hard dog. I would hope that you would be able to do the SCH 3 stuff with no corrections because (1, sport is a joke 2, it is not a test 3, it is a pattern and a joke) the sport of sch allows it.

I am not impressed with a dog that can do all this stuff "just cause" you ask. I personally think that it is cool to have a dog like that for around the house, but if you start breeding a dog like that, where do you think you will be in ten years? I prefer to breed to a dog that wants to do damage to the bad guy, not just let go. I think in the long run that this is detrimental.

Plus, I also think that there are many people that clicker train that are closet compulsionists.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Please ignore this last sentence : I think in the long run that this is detrimental. 

I was editing and left it in. it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Andre, if the dog took a side track to a real ****, I would pet the heck out of him and tell him how good he did. The first point I am trying to get the dog to understand is that there is a reward at the end of the track....or any track. First they have to learn to follow it whether it is 20 yds, 50 yds, or 500 yds. They have to complete it to reap the rewards. For this phoney BS track I need them to follow, I figure maybe five **** fights will give them all the association they need. My finished dogs are straight hog dogs but, when they are hunting, I do see them hunting past down trees and such. They do this just in case there may be a squirrel napping around. The important thing is, when they cross a hog track, it makes no difference what else may be around, the hog comes first. In the case of the *****, I am not interested in a **** dog, and, in reality, hanging a **** in a tree at the end of this phoney track does not make it a real scenario for a **** dog. I simply need the dog to assocciate the following of a track leads to good times. I don't leash them or anything. I take a chair out and lay a few tracks here and there, and sit back and observe so I can see what I might do to "improve the results.....but I let them do the learning on their own because it is a "natural" process to them. Once they learn it on their own, they will track forever.

I have often wondered why, in teaching tracking for obedience type tracking and schutzhund, the handler does not leave the dog alone and let the dog learn to use the gift that he has. It seems if that was the first step, it would be a simple matter to direct and shape the type of tracking that was desired. I don't care what kind of track the pup takes....as long as he takes one and follows it up....he will learn how to use his natural ability. Not only will he learn to use it, he will "understand" it. That is the key since I can't tell the pup "look, just follow this track every time and you will get something good". When starting a fur dog, I just let them go wild on anything, when they fully understand the tracking, it is pretty easy to reign them in and focus them on one thing. With the hog dogs, hogs supply the best fight, and I come in and do the killing. In no time flat they seem to understand that this is what we are looking for. Actually, all I am doing is taking the mothers place and exposing them, if they have the talent, they will do it in short time.


----------



## susan tuck

I'm with Mike, a strong dog at some time will come back slowly or even not at all, having found something more interesting elsewhere! Using compulsion (here I am obviously speaking of the forced retrieve) the dog learns I MUST everytime.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Here is a few quates I picked up from Henry Johnsons collection. Soime of them deserve some thinking about. I found the last one particularily interesting.

"It is the job of a dog trainer to summon the dog's genetics, not to impose man's will on the dog's." (Donald McCaig)

"No matter what, we have to look for what is natural and part of the dog's instinct. A dog must hunt because he loves to, and he must protect because he loves to, because it is a part of his instincts." (Klaus Schurack)

"I think most dogs can be trained to perform a certain behavior, but I want to see what the dog will do when we allow his inherited traits to take over. That is when you see the real beauty of the dog, and his training is almost a by-product. If we want really good Airedales in hunting or working we have to know the difference between trained and instinctive behavior."
(Perry Settle)

""Every time you put more control on a dog you weaken him just a little. The question you must ask yourself is this. 'Is my dog really strong enough to stand that much weakening?' If not, you had better leave off some of the control and let your dog have his strengths! Because all of the control in the world is of no use if your dog can't bring the cattle to the pen."
(Rusty Johnson, "Ranch Dog Trainer", Oct./Nov. 1999)


----------



## susan tuck

Don, the only schutzhund dogs I have seen made a little weaker by force are when the force was done wrong. Compulsion & force do not traumatize the dog & make him weaker when done correctly.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

You may be right Susan. I am not a trainer as I said. I am a breeder and, as such, I want to see a dog that is suited for the element it is placed in. I will not place a dog in a high stress element that is not up to it. From where I sit, there are just a lot of dogs being worked in venues that are not really suited to the individual dog but, more so that this is what the owner wants to do so the dog is going to do it. As a hunter, ifmthe dog I am working is not showing the drive I want to see, I get rid of the dog and find a dog that is suitable for my needs. I do not try to increase this drive or change that drive. I find the right dog. I owe nothing to the dog and am not doing the dog a service by using compultion as the main part of training. Compulsion has it's place but more as a correction when the dog knows what it is supposed to do but won't, same as the use of an e collar.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: It is the job of a dog trainer to summon the dog's genetics, not to impose man's will on the dog's." 

Does this guy do hunting dogs? You do realize that we bite sport people have the dog doing completely unnatural things.

Dogs don't attack from the front.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff, most of these quotes are from people with hunting dogs or cattle dogs I am pretty sure.....but that doesn't mean there are not some valid points. I had two of my dogs out in the mountains at 12 months old years ago. I was relieving myself on a tree as were both dogs. The fellow that owned the property came quietly walking up while all this relieving was going on and both dogs, headed for him at the same time. I yelled at them and they broke off just in time, but one planted both feet in his chest and the other in his hip. This guy was 6'5" and about 275lbs. Never again would he come around my dogs unless I was there. These are hunting dogs. Hog dogs to be more precise. They were never worked in protection at 12 mo. old but they had been on hogs from 9 mo old. If so much about protection is based on prey drive....there has to be a connection somewhere. Even in hunting, some dogs are only suited for varmints and small game because they just don't have what it takes to be heavy duty.....then there are the heavy duty dogs that live for pushing the envelope. Same as people.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Dammit Don, you need to do MR. Quit fartin about with this hog stuff, or send me a pup and I will see what is up :lol: 

There is some merit to what you are saying, but there are many more elements than just what you are seeing. Only way to tell is to train the dog


----------



## Bob Scott

Andres, If my dog doesn't make strong eye contact with me, he doesn't get the bite. 
I guess in it's purest form, I'm not total motivational because if my dog breaks for the helper, he (the dog) gets a !FOOEY!, the helper goes passive and the dog gets nothing.
I just don't use physical correction in training. 
Does that make more sense?
Jeff, I understand what you say about a handler soft dog not being hard. In that, I agree with you concerning me, his handler.
With the helper there is no softness at all. More then one person that has seen my dog on the field has commented that he would be a better street K9 then a sport dog because of his edgyness and sharpness. 
Calling him a serious dog would probably more fit. Still very social without the stimulation of a threat.
His being mildly displastic eleminates any thoughts of breeding. 
Again, having spent a lot of years doing "normal" compulsion training I would never advocate dropping it from anyone's training box. It's just that I'm seeing things I would have never believed could be done and I'm gonna follow it as far as I can...........or until my dog says EF U and bites the he(( outta me! :lol: 
Again, control on or off the field is about leadership and I don't believe leadership needs to be physical.


----------



## Bob Scott

I might add after reading Don's post. 
I have done earth work with terriers for years. My JRT was one of the very few dogs that can be called out of the ground in the middle of a fight with a ****, fox, possum, groundhog, etc. 
Again! It's about leadership!
If I tried to get heavy handed with that little sob, even at 12yrs old, he'd still try and eat my face. He's definately a hard dog. :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Bob, I have never been able to call one of my dogs off of a hog....but I have never tried. When the dog is working in close quarters with an animal that can gut them with one stroke, I don't want them worrying about what I want....I don't get into any heavy obedience with them for that reason. The difference here is, I don't have John Q public to deal with afterwards. I let the dogs do what they have to and I am the cleanup guy.....the taxidemist sews the ears back on the mount and such....you can't do that when dealing with people....or should I say "in front of other people". 8)


----------



## Bob Scott

I do understand about the hog work. Some of the difference is that, underground, the dog usually has to back away when he's in a 6inch hole and, in the ground, the fight is much closer to being equal then above ground where the critter can do a lot of moving around. 
As for John Q!    Been there! Done that! :lol: :lol: 
We've had the PETA freaks picket a den trial because we were stressing the poor rats. :roll: The caged rats usually curl up and go to sleep once they realize the dogs can't get to them.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff,
"Does this guy do hunting dogs? You do realize that we bite sport people have the dog doing completely unnatural things."

All dogs know how to bite, you just direct them as to when to bite. First off, you have to have a dog that is confident enough to bite who ever...when ever....most don't have that anymore. Those are the dogs that are doing something that is totally unnatural for them. Those are the ones that need all the motivational training and "good boy" stuff. They all know how to bite ...it's just that most are afraid to bite.....now a days....because they have been bred down to societies standard.


----------



## Lyn Chen

Teaching the dog to bite is the easy part. :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

LOL, It should be Lyn. I think Butch Cappel told me that all dogs know how to bite..... the trainer just supplies the when where and who.....or something to that effect. It just came up while we were talking about something else. I was going to discuss that something else in a topic but, would you believe, I can't remember what it was....but it will come to me. It had something to do with how far a particular dog could be taken because of the dogs own limitations.Something like a top trainer may be able to take a so so dog upt o a 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 because that is as good as the dog can be where a lesser trainer may only get an 8 out of a dog that should have really been a 10. The dogs will appear equal but they are not because the trainer was a # 8 trainer. Something along those lines. It's to early to get me thinking like that.


----------



## Lyn Chen

But I think that was what Jeff was saying earlier, that in bitework you are teaching the dog unnatural things like inhibition without losing drive, biting only when you tell them to, OUTING and then coming back to you, etc. So it isn't just a matter of letting the dog go and bite the crap out of someone...


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Oh, I agree Lyn, it is the limitations that should be the "unnatural' part of bite work but good bitework seems to be hard to come by with a lot of dogs. It is the constraints that the dog must work within that make the training a challenge. Is it these contraints and the dog not fully understanding the limitatioins that causes them to be hesitant in the bitework. They are not really sure what is wanted from them? 

In it's natural state, any dog could be a bird dog, The natural part is the find the bird and eat it. Good retrievers are trained to bring their prize back and give it to someone which is totally unnatural....but years of breeding have made it appear very natural in some breeds. Airedales seem to be reluctant to willingly bite people in a play scenario. I am not sure if the wrong approach wasn't taken with the training or not. A lot of compultion tends to get me zip from these dogs. I tend to get more if I just put them up and ignore them and work with another one in front of them. I have only worked with a limited few and just to test the waters. 

Guardian class dogs work well when it comes to protection, because their "natural" working mode is in defense. Are breeds such as Airedales, worth the time and effort, since they "naturally" operate in high prey drive. A guardian class dog will sit with the flock and guard, protect...he never leaves to pursue. High prey dogs will not sit and guard, they pursue to search out and destroy as it is more natural.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Please stay on topic.Thanks.


----------



## Lyn Chen

Sorry Mike, I think we're still somewhere along the lines of compulsion and instinct, but now I've lost it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I drifted but it was 4:30 in the morning  Seems one thing just leads to another at 4:30. What was the topic again?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Did you say Butch Cappell? 

No "F"in way! This guy hasn't a clue. I watched their joke of a world championship and could have won it with a neighbors housecat, or Marions dogs. Good God.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Whose dogs, Jeff? :roll:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Very pleasant guy to talk to but I have never seen any manwork of anykind performed in a competative way. He seems to know what he is talking about in the few conversations we have had. Past that, I couldn't really say.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Well run away, 'cause that is all he is good at.

Oh yeah......Maren, you know the one with her dogs names posted permanently so she doesn't forget which one is which. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

I'm hardly the only one who does it. I just dislike always referring to who is who should it come up...anyways, someday I'll finally learn that he's just exhibiting a classic extinction burst and if ignored, he'll eventually stop... ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


----------

