# What do you consider a "Correction"?? ..



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Does it have to be physical? In another thread some discussion ensued on being able to correct on a flat collar or a fursavor collar. 



Elaine Matthys said:


> You can tell I've been competing way too long as I keep forgetting you can compete in obedience with a flat collar on. You can't give any corrections with a flat collar either which is why I still use a choke chain. I've clearly been around too long to have any patience with anyone that can say they can give collar corrections with a flat collar with a straight face. I'd sure like to learn from you exactly how that's done





Ingrid Rosenquist said:


> You can also use martingale collars in AKC obedience. I have friends who have always used martingale collars that are nylon with exception of the "action" portion which is chain on their dogs in the obedience ring.
> 
> For myself it depends on the dog. My bitch who is working towards her UDX/OTCH has always competed on a flat collar and has only had a fursaver on when competing for her BH. Unlike my males, she is more sensitive and does not require much more than verbal corrections in training.





Dave Colborn said:


> A correction is a correction is a correction.
> 
> It's how the dog perceives it, not you. Something that is negative to them, and something done to decrease the liklihood of a behavior.
> 
> ...





Joby Becker said:


> It is kinda stupid to say you cant give a correction on a flat collar or any type of collar. you can give corrections with no collars, or with any collar.
> 
> Would be a lot better to say that a certain type of collar might not be the ideal physical corrective device for certain dogs, or for certain things.





Rick Smith said:


> re: "Would be a lot better to say that a certain type of collar might not be the ideal physical corrective device for certain dogs, or for certain things...or for certain people...."
> 
> EXACTLY Joby =;=;=;=D>
> 
> ...


I've used many things for correction, one of my favourite tools is just a $5.95 Sprenger throw chain! I've used change out of my pocket, a touch with my heel ala Cesar Milan to every collar known to man. I've seen riding crops and sticks used for heeling. 

It's interesting that in some circles many can't see past the tools or the methods in the way that they are actually used. 

Bart Bellon says it best .. from his website. 


> A farmer long ago told me some wise words about dog training. He said, the trainer can use a stick to guide a dog. He can use that same stick to pet a dog. He can use that same stick to activate a dog (e.g. “go!”). He can use that stick to punish the dog. When the training is clear and understood, that same stick with which the dog was just punished can be used as a stick for a quick reward game of fetch. Now we are training dogs!


To bad some people can't see past the stick.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ive used my leash at times. 

The dog still goes and gets it and hands it to me, when she wants to go outside...after she is done barking at me that it is....8-[


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I guess the correction is in relation to the relationship you have with your dog.

I won't repeat the corrections I have administered, sometimes harsh, sometimes mild but I have never experienced a change in the relationship with my dog.

Some needed harsh, some only needed mild retribution.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I am wondering why when I slap myself with the leash the dog goes nuts though... :-o she did the same thing when I zapped myself with the ecollar...maybe she is jealous??

But no, a correction obviously does not *have* to be physical, although I think this how most people view it. then of course, we must ask, what is an effective correction?

Gillian....Retribution?... interesting word choice...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Ok, call it mild, forget the retribution if it suits you. It's easy to pick holes in other's posts.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Ok, call it mild, forget the retribution if it suits you. It's easy to pick holes in other's posts.


I was not poking holes in your posts...are yer panties in a major twist today or something?

I just looked up the definition of retribution...certainly can fit for correction , just found it interesting...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I was not poking holes in your posts...are yer panties in a major twist today or something?
> 
> I just looked up the definition of retribution...certainly can fit for correction , just found it interesting...


Not at all - just wondering at your answers to my posts which by the way seem to speak for themselves.

If anyone's knickers are in a twist I guess they are yours but guess you don't wear them, or.......


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

An action that creates a level of discomfort for the dog that it blocks problem behavior. To my understanding a proper correction is one that goes beyond the dogs individual threshold whatever that might be. Every dog is different.

Below the threshold equals stimulation and an increase in problem behavior. Way beyond the threshold equals abuse and is detrimental. In our system correction does not equal compulsion. We define compulsion as "correcting" the dog into the correct position. We believe that compulsion is attempting to do the dogs work for it. We do not see this as productive.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Back in the bad old days of dog training, Barbara Woodhouse out and out told handlers to give a jerk on the choke chain. Somehow that became politically incorrect, so it became a collar correction. Pretty sure I read someone on this board refer to using the prong collar the Baden way as 'communication'. 

A bit off topic, I realize. A correction... I suppose, in my mind is something immediate and aversive to the dog. An effective correction... something a bit more elusive and I would guess the ability to give one is what separates the good handlers from the ordinary, or inept or abusive.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Hey have you ever put a choke chain on and then give yourself a good hard correction? And then do the same with a prong? That choke chain fricken hurt!! Course I didn't have Wasabi's pinner prong on when I did that, the outcome might have been different if I had.


----------



## Mike Di Rago (Jan 9, 2009)

A correction is any action or use of object that stops a behavior or obliges a behavior or action.
So, in a way it depends on the dog and how much is needed to get the job done.It can be verbal or physical depending on how much is needed by the particular dog.
Sometimes people fall in a sort of fashion when using training aids or ''new theories'' rather than just thinking about the minimum needed to get the job done with the particular dog.
Just my opinion
Mike


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Steve Burger said:


> An action that creates a level of discomfort for the dog that it blocks problem behavior. To my understanding a proper correction is one that goes beyond the dogs individual threshold whatever that might be. Every dog is different.
> 
> Below the threshold equals stimulation and an increase in problem behavior. Way beyond the threshold equals abuse and is detrimental. In our system correction does not equal compulsion. We define compulsion as "correcting" the dog into the correct position. We believe that compulsion is attempting to do the dogs work for it. We do not see this as productive.


Describe a correction in your system. IE a dog gets out of heel position. Do you wait it out, guide it back in and reward, correct back in and reward, just correct, put the dog away? What?

If a dog is out of heel position for me, and is to a proofing phase, then he'll get a correction, hopefully right as he's thinking of breaking position. that will decrease the liklihood of the behavior occurring again. That isn't doing his job for him, it is compelling him not to make the same mistake again, as there is a consequence.

Please describe blocking a problem behavior.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

so, can a command be a correction ?
before you all start laffing, i'll say ...yes
and a real world example :

3 of our base handlers happened to be doing a drill on base when i was driving thru the gate and i was 3-4 cars back and d.i.w. so i got to watch

- security drill and the dogs were checking all cars
- one dog working while the other two stood around and watched 
....then they would rotate a new dog in to check the next car....
- also happened to have a lot of foot traffic backed up at the gate
- one of the dogs started getting jacked up and was getting overly "social" with some lookie loos and straining on lead 
- i've seen his dog work before, so i was watching that handler closely
- all he did was say "heel" in a sharp voice and the dog snapped to his hip and calmed down...it WASN'T a "focussed heel" btw, and NO lead pop was given, and no pain or discomfort was dispensed 
- to me that was an intelligent correction 
anyone disagree ??


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Describe a correction in your system. IE a dog gets out of heel position. Do you wait it out, guide it back in and reward, correct back in and reward, just correct, put the dog away? What?
> 
> If a dog is out of heel position for me, and is to a proofing phase, then he'll get a correction, hopefully right as he's thinking of breaking position. that will decrease the liklihood of the behavior occurring again. That isn't doing his job for him, it is compelling him not to make the same mistake again, as there is a consequence.


With the heel I reinforce very heavily the correct heel position in very small increments early on, but the dogs learn pretty fast where they need to be. Once the dog knows where it needs to be, if it falls out of position it just doesnt get a reward. I dont really have to wait it out because they are pretty focussed on being in the right position for their praise and reward. 

Same with agility, knocked bars dont get a reward, sloppy weaving once they know the game, doesnt get a reward and they get made to do it again, I find a bit of frustration makes them try harder the next time. I will also use my voice to indicate if I like or not. 

With working sheep I use my voice as a correction and I will use my body to block something I dont want. I generally try and anticipate what the dog is going to do by watching the sheep and the dog and either redirecting or using my body to before it has the chance to do what I dont want. I will use my body and stock stick to block undesirable behaviour or to widen the dog out. I will also lie him down and hold him in that position, which he doesnt like.

So correction for me takes many forms depending on the particular dog and the activity. It never involves a collar as my dogs dont generally wear them on the farm.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Not at all - just wondering at your answers to my posts which by the way seem to speak for themselves.
> 
> If anyone's knickers are in a twist I guess they are yours but guess you don't wear them, or.......


I did work dogs in a bite suit once wearing my girlfriends panties....but that is a whole nuther story


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Nicole Stark said:


> Hey have you ever put a choke chain on and then give yourself a good hard correction? And then do the same with a prong? That choke chain fricken hurt!! Course I didn't have Wasabi's pinner prong on when I did that, the outcome might have been different if I had.


or one of Gillian's sharpened pinch collars...I can only imagine that coupled with the idea of retribution...

I would rather get whipped with a leash...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> If a dog is out of heel position for me, and is to a proofing phase, then he'll get a correction, hopefully right as he's thinking of breaking position.


Are we assuming that a dog may never think of breaking a position in advance?, even if it measured only in seconds or are we assuming that the handler is a psychic? or some other option I have not put forth? like loss of attention? 

just curious


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Yeah me too.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> - to me that was an intelligent correction
> anyone disagree ??


so why was it intelligent? because he only gave a verbal cue? 

I probably would call that a re-directing command, the correction should come if the dog did not comply with the heel...


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Mike Di Rago said:


> A correction is any action or use of object that stops a behavior or obliges a behavior or action. So, in a way it depends on the dog and how much is needed to get the job done.It can be verbal or physical depending on how much is needed by the particular dog. Sometimes people fall in a sort of fashion when using training aids or ''new theories'' rather than just thinking about the minimum needed to get the job done with the particular dog.


Which sorta begs the question appropriate corrections. I see the tend to over collar dogs, they have a choke and 2 prongs and a e-collar. But they are attached to a handler who has horrible timing. So all that high tech gadgetry is in one word 'useless'. Sorta like Joby wearing panties in a bite suit depending on the lace they maybe pretty to look at but for all intents and purposes, useless. 

Ricks story about the search dog where the handler redirected the dog into heel. It could be considered a correction as that fits the criteria to oblige a behavior by stopping another behavior. Or is it just good handling?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> With the heel I reinforce very heavily the correct heel position in very small increments early on, but the dogs learn pretty fast where they need to be. Once the dog knows where it needs to be, if it falls out of position it just doesnt get a reward. I dont really have to wait it out because they are pretty focussed on being in the right position for their praise and reward.


It's funny how people talk around correction. I am not picking on you, but where did you give the dog a correction? Talk about it. Collar, hands, stick, etc. Voice is a cue, that becomes a correction why? because something negative comes afterwards.



Sara Waters said:


> Same with agility, knocked bars dont get a reward, sloppy weaving once they know the game, doesnt get a reward and they get made to do it again, I find a bit of frustration makes them try harder the next time. I will also use my voice to indicate if I like or not. .


OK. this isn't correction, this is withholding a reward. Huge difference. Correction decreases the liklihood of a behavior. Witholding the reward does nothing for the behavior going on, only increases the liklihood of the correct behavior being offered later on by the reward being offered when the dog is correct. Not a bad training method, I have no problem with it. Not correction though, when you withhold the reward.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Are we assuming that a dog may never think of breaking a position in advance?, even if it measured only in seconds or are we assuming that the handler is a psychic? or some other option I have not put forth? like loss of attention?
> 
> just curious



I think it's just a matter of reading the dog. Loss of attention would be one read.


Dave, I understand what your saying about withholding a reward as NOT being a correction. Would a Negative "NO" while withholding the reward be the correction? That would seem to fit for how I train. I want the dog to understand "MY" feelings on WHY I'm withholding any reward when a marked behavior doesn't go just so. 
Obviously any correction comes only if the dog is understanding the asked for behavior. In the beginning of training a behavior it will be less then correct.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> I think it's just a matter of reading the dog. Loss of attention would be one read.
> 
> 
> Dave, I understand what your saying about withholding a reward as NOT being a correction. Would a Negative "NO" while withholding the reward be the correction? That would seem to fit for how I train. I want the dog to understand "MY" feelings on WHY I'm withholding any reward when a marked behavior doesn't go just so.
> Obviously any correction comes only if the dog is understanding the asked for behavior. In the beginning of training a behavior it will be less then correct.


What does "NO" mean and why? "NO" starts out no more negative than "sit" means to perform a sit. Most dogs know when "no" is the cue, something is going to physically happen next that is unpleasant, because they get a no and get whacked afterwards.. 

What does it mean to your dogs? Does "no" mark that they will just not get a reward? It it that simple for your dogs, like a "yes" means a treat is coming?

"No" in that case would be a marker for no reward, I think. Which should after a period of time lead the dog to believe when he hears it, he should try something else or go back to the position he was in. So in essence it would be a second command, and an ambiguous one at that, unless the dog could associate the NO, and remember the previous command he heard, and try again. Most likely dogs hear no after a while, and then reassess the context (body position, location where they are in relation to you) to try and get it right.

In the military "no" was always followed up with what you wanted. I think it is pretty useless in a system that uses correction. In yours it may make sense as a marker.

I think the arguement would be when a dog is off leash, then the no would be negative. If at that point they are doing something wrong, though, the training is lacking and a second command might be in order.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"I think the arguement would be when a dog is off leash, then the no would be negative. If at that point they are doing something wrong, though, the training is lacking and a second command might be in order."


Pretty much how I use it. If it doesn't sink in then I know I'm using it to early in the training. If the dog's focus remains on me it's a good sign that he's not understanding and still trying. If he's distracted then that's simply a focus issue.
My negative for general control around the yard is a simple "quit". If they are facing me I hold up my index finger with a "AHHH"and that stops them from whatever.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> "I think the arguement would be when a dog is off leash, then the no would be negative. If at that point they are doing something wrong, though, the training is lacking and a second command might be in order."
> 
> 
> Pretty much how I use it. If it doesn't sink in then I know I'm using it to early in the training. If the dog's focus remains on me it's a good sign that he's not understanding and still trying. If he's distracted then that's simply a focus issue.
> My negative for general control around the yard is a simple "quit". If they are facing me I hold up my index finger with a "AHHH"and that stops them from whatever.


Why does your "quit" "no" or "AHHH" stop them? how do you associate negative with it? Is it fear of your voice?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Voice inflection is a big part of it. My body language can add or subtract from it depending on the situation At my house they learn no from the time they are pups. 
Fear of my voice is relative to the individual dog I guess. One simply stops what he's doing. The other is very soft to me so I do have to keep in to a minimum. He can be stopped with nothing more then a hard stare from me. That type of dog can be very frustrating to me after years with terriers. :grin:


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> At my house they learn no from the time they are pups.


 
How do you teach this specifically?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Depends on the pup. With some of my terriers it came down to a scruff. I usually just hold them in the air till they relax, in particular with one I had. I read his objections as stress. Shake him and he became a buzz saw and would nail me if I pushed to hard. Not a hard dog to me. Just a stress biter.
Yep, I've used physical correction on some of my pups. My older GSD was never fearful at all of my verbal corrections but he was also the most responsive dog I've ever had. The younger could definitely show avoidance if I raised my voice or threatened him. 
In the early days of my training (50s -60s) it was pure Kohler and I was very heavy handed. The problem with that for me was my temper matched the heavy hands. Bad combination! Markers and reward based training was the best thing that ever happened for me even though I had good success with the other methods. 
I'll still use physical correction if I feel it's needed but with my two GSD it's not been needed. In the few occasions I've resorted to that it's been my lack of control over ME. That does nothing but create confusion in the dog and training is hurt. 
I hate admitting that but I have to realize is there.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> It's funny how people talk around correction. I am not picking on you, but where did you give the dog a correction? Talk about it. Collar, hands, stick, etc. Voice is a cue, that becomes a correction why? because something negative comes afterwards.
> 
> 
> OK. this isn't correction, this is withholding a reward. Huge difference. Correction decreases the liklihood of a behavior. Witholding the reward does nothing for the behavior going on, only increases the liklihood of the correct behavior being offered later on by the reward being offered when the dog is correct. Not a bad training method, I have no problem with it. Not correction though, when you withhold the reward.


I was just responding to you asking about how people reacted when a dog was sloppy with finding the heel position. I use reward and witholding reward but have done a lot of foundation work so the dog understands this way of working so there is not much waiting around for dogs to find the right position. 

I dont think I train agility or obedience with correction. However if I say this, people often tell me that witholding reward is a form of correction. So was just putting it out there.

With my sheepdogs I dont use any treats, toys or whatever I use my voice tone, my body and stock stick to exert pressure to block, redirect or whatever, or if the dog is being particularly naughty I hold them in a lie down which they dont like. To me I am correcting the dog as I am trying to decrease certain behaviours, which is not always easy if they are already hardwired by genetics, but I am also redirecting it at times, it is a flowing thing, stock work, a mix of trying to decrease certain behaviours with physical intervention but also increasing other behaviours by rewarding with continuity of work.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I was just responding to you asking about how people reacted when a dog was sloppy with finding the heel position. I use reward and witholding reward but have done a lot of foundation work so the dog understands this way of working so there is not much waiting around for dogs to find the right position.
> 
> I dont think I train agility or obedience with correction. However if I say this, people often tell me that witholding reward is a form of correction. So was just putting it out there.
> 
> With my sheepdogs I dont use any treats, toys or whatever I use my voice tone, my body and stock stick to exert pressure to block, redirect or whatever, or if the dog is being particularly naughty I hold them in a lie down which they dont like. To me I am correcting the dog as I am trying to decrease certain behaviours, which is not always easy if they are already hardwired by genetics, but I am also redirecting it at times, it is a flowing thing, stock work, a mix of trying to decrease certain behaviours with physical intervention but also increasing other behaviours by rewarding with continuity of work.


Maybe I am wrong, but isn't with holding a reward a consequence not a correction? doesn't a correction imply stopping a behavior or addressing it directly? Could be that I am wrong, but that's my opine on that. 

So I guess your answer to this post would be that you believe with holding is correction, and that's all you use? people talk about their voice being a correction. Why is voice a correction and not just another cue?


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but isn't with holding a reward a consequence not a correction? doesn't a correction imply stopping a behavior or addressing it directly? Could be that I am wrong, but that's my opine on that.
> 
> So I guess your answer to this post would be that you believe with holding is correction, and that's all you use? people talk about their voice being a correction. Why is voice a correction and not just another cue?


No not really. I believe witholding makes the dog try to get it right, it is a cue that indicates to the dog that it hasnt got it right. With agility and obedience for the trial ring that is "all" I use, although there is a lot of foundation work that goes into that type of training method so there is a lot of work.

Correction to me is warming my cattle dogs butt and any other butt that decides to ignore me and chase a roo. They dont anymore - the tone of my voice gives them the cue - ignore at your peril. 

I think a voice can become a correction if it has been paired with a negative consequence, like praise can be a reward if paired with a reward. Transference of value so it becomes more than just a cue it becomes the reward or the correction.

The tone of my voice can stop my rescue dog in his tracks. A strong no or tone in my voice will stop him in his tracks, despite the fact that he is a dog that I have never physically corrected, was in his past life though. He is so desperate not to put a foot wrong.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

A verbal no or eh eh is an correction to, or a little jerk on the flat collar.


----------



## Rachel M. Reams (Nov 29, 2012)

Sara Waters said:


> I believe witholding makes the dog try to get it right, it is a cue that indicates to the dog that it hasnt got it right.


If the dog finds withholding a treat sufficiently aversive that he works to avoid having the treat withheld, then by definition withholding the treat is a punisher. The behavior that directly led to the treat withholding becomes less likely to occur in the future. On the scale of least to most aversive, I'm pretty sure that treat withholding is, for most dogs, as mild as it gets, which is why they keep working with enthusiasm and trying to find the button that turns on the treats, rather than shutting down if a treat is withheld.

No increase or decrease in behavior occurs in a vacuum. If sitting on cue is heavily reinforced, then at the same time the likelihood of other behaviors are decreasing when sitting is cued. This can happen in the absence of a cue as well; my RR had one testicle slow to descend and for the first few weeks in my home, it was somewhat in question as to whether he would be eligible to compete in conformation, so I went ahead and taught sit. At sixteen weeks, the missing ball dropped into the scrotum, so I immediately began ignoring all sits; good things happened to the puppy only when he was standing four on the floor. Over time, even though I never applied a positive punisher for sitting, the behavior extinguished itself as standing became a heavily reinforced behavior. What started as an automatic sit at doors, became an automatic stand at doors. What was a sit on greeting a stranger became a stand on greeting a stranger.

I suspect to people who are used to using collar corrections or e-collars, ignoring the sit wouldn't register as a "correction" (by which I assume we are referring to a positive punisher), but to a clicker-savvy dog, withholding the c/t is every bit as much a correction as a leash pop would be. It's valuable information to the dog, and to a sufficiently sensitive dog it could be pretty aversive. Certainly Karen Pryor has expressed in the past her opinion that turning your back on a dog (to punish jumping up, for instance) can be aversive to some dogs. 

For simplicity's sake and to keep things as clear as possible to my dogs, I try to train myself to think only in terms of "increases behavior" or "decreases behavior." Anything that increases behavior is by definition a reinforcer, and anything that decreases behavior is by definition a punisher, and I work to avoid words like "correction" or "consequences" because they not only have ill-definined colloquial meanings, but they're usually emotionally laden terms as well. I personally do not believe that it's possible to be a 100% positive trainer, because my dogs experience things that are aversive to them all the time, including withholding a c/t while shaping a new behavior. As Sara mentions, even being cued to perform an incompatible behavior while herding can be used as a punisher, and of course through the Premack Principle, we know that being cued to perform a favored behavior can be used as a reinforcer as well.

It's all connected!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Rachel M. Reams said:


> my RR had one testicle slow to descend and for the first few weeks in my home, it was somewhat in question as to whether he would be eligible to compete in conformation, so I went ahead and taught sit.


 
I don't even care how nice your post was, I am impressed that you had a one-balled Road Runner, you can teach it to sit, and that you know where to show him for confirmation.

Kidding about that, nice post.


----------



## Rachel M. Reams (Nov 29, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> I don't even care how nice your post was, I am impressed that you had a one-balled Road Runner, you can teach it to sit, and that you know where to show him for confirmation.
> 
> Kidding about that, nice post.




Can we agree that un-teaching a previously reinforced behavior is frustrating as all get out? I swore up and down I'd never teach sit as a default ever again, even with rescues.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Rachel M. Reams said:


> Can we agree that un-teaching a previously reinforced behavior is frustrating as all get out? I swore up and down I'd never teach sit as a default ever again, even with rescues.


Sure. and that speaking in terms of operant conditioning makes the training conversation easier.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> or one of Gillian's sharpened pinch collars...I can only imagine that coupled with the idea of retribution...
> 
> I would rather get whipped with a leash...


You are really are a clown!

Most European handlers use sharpened prong collars - I learned this lesson early on in dog sport from guys that welcomed Lance Collins to their club.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Mike Di Rago said:


> A correction is any action or use of object that stops a behavior or obliges a behavior or action.
> So, in a way it depends on the dog and how much is needed to get the job done.It can be verbal or physical depending on how much is needed by the particular dog.
> Sometimes people fall in a sort of fashion when using training aids or ''new theories'' rather than just thinking about the minimum needed to get the job done with the particular dog.
> Just my opinion
> Mike


I agree with you Mike. Actually, I think there is far too much "chunnering" about corrections. If the dog needs it, one has to recognize it immediately and act on it. How, in my mind is immaterial.

A too harshly given correction "in time" is far better and understandable for the dog than a well thought out "humanely given" correction given too late.

Reading about dog training and all the newfangled ideas of praise and correction are certainly worthwhile but can never, in my mind, replace a handler that can read his or her dog and react with precise timing and this is something you cannot learn from books or forums - you either react well or you don't. I must admit "reading about how to correct your dog might slow your reactions"


----------



## Mike Di Rago (Jan 9, 2009)

Gillian,
I would also add to what you just did that many times new handlers have enough on their hands just learning to read their dogs, that the extra ''tools', are just too much for them to handle and sometimes they don't understand the importance of timing.
Maybe because of my police background I tend to make the analogy with the principles of use of force.
What I mean is, to get the same result or reaction in my dog, is there something less that I could have done or used. All this again depending on the dog.Problem is too many people use the ''one size fits all '' attitude in dog training. Because a method worked on their male 3 year old Malinois,it should also work on the 1 year old female GSD.
And often we don't use the approach of taking it on the level of the dog.How is the dog perceiving this.As you said a harsher correction but in proper timing is clear in the dog's mind.But any correction in wrong timing will never make sense to the dog.This is where the confusion begins.
But again this is just my opinion!
Mike


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Describe a correction in your system. IE a dog gets out of heel position. Do you wait it out, guide it back in and reward, correct back in and reward, just correct, put the dog away? What?
> 
> If a dog is out of heel position for me, and is to a proofing phase, then he'll get a correction, hopefully right as he's thinking of breaking position. that will decrease the liklihood of the behavior occurring again. That isn't doing his job for him, it is compelling him not to make the same mistake again, as there is a consequence.
> 
> Please describe blocking a problem behavior.


 It is impossible (and probably ludicrous to try) to explain in a paragraph or two a complete system. We have people who have come to 2 or 3 work weeks (five days of 8 to 10 hour days of theory, demonstration and working dogs) who do not _really_ understand what we do (though many think or will say they do). I am speaking in generalities and it would be easy even with that to be misinterpreted. 

First and foremost we do not correct dogs in the showing or teaching phase. We are however, now using low level (below the correction threshold) stimulation on the e-collar when teaching an exercise. The dog learns to turn off the collar by being correct. This is part of the foundation that is laid for later using an e-collar to give corrections. Once the dog clearly knows the exercise, as demonstrated by action and expression we feel we can move on. We then move to a securing stage where distractions are introduced and corrections are administered if the dog is incorrect. I am not going to try and explain the subtleties of correcting with an e-collar. I feel I am confident enough at this point to use one but would not try to explain it. 

The description you gave of giving the dog a correction is probably not too different of what we would do, at least when we were primarily giving corrections via leash/pinch collar.. Unless you are forcing the dog into the correct position by your physical force. That is compulsion. The difference between our idea of a correction (when we used to use pinch collars for the correction) and compulsion may not be discernible to the average person at least upon first look. 

Say the dog, who should know better (has made it through showing and securing phases) has decided to take a sight seeing tour and has wandered out of position while heeling. A traditional compulsion oriented correction would give a hard pop of the leash at the same time pulling the dog into position. We instead would have administered stress/conflict as correction by giving vertical pops of the pinch/leash straight into the air and not in the direction we want them to go. The correction is not directing the dog into the direction you want it to go. This is what I mean by not doing the dog's work for him. The severity of the "pop" would have been in relation to the dog's correction threshold. A soft sensitive dog (not too many of those in our club) it would have light gentle pops (and maybe with a fursaver as opposed to a pinch). if it had been a super handler hard dog it would have serious pops and possibly with a collar as Gillen later describes.

As far as what we would do in the first scenario you describe would at this point (assuming it is in the proofed stage) give e-collar correction just beyond the correction threshold for that particular dog. As far as blocking behavior say the dog is in the long down under distractions. The handler is watching from a distance. The dog starts to break the down, you give an e-collar correction probably a little hotter than the average above the threshold correction for that particular dog. Probably to the point where you get a little "apology" from the dog.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Thank you Mike - at least someone understands me.

I have no reason to believe that the "modern talking" to the dog has no place in today's dog training but all within reason.

However, when it comes to asserting oneself against a dog, it has no place or reason.

An assertive person will always be assertive - with persons and with dogs. There are no tricks and tips to help you here. You have to assert yourself. An 8-week old pup who enters the household is able to recognize who is the boss. It sounds ridiculous but it is true. The pup senses who is in control.

All those who think that they can pull the wool over the pup's eyes with new-fangled canine technology can forget it.

We have to think "canine" again. Forget what has been taught over the last 10-15 years but just use our natural instincts and act on them.

Modern training methods have certainly their place in today's canine training but from the moment the pup crosses over your threshhold, the "education" begins. And No is No, followed by the necessary correction.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Mike Di Rago said:


> Gillian,
> I would also add to what you just did that many times new handlers have enough on their hands just learning to read their dogs, that the extra ''tools', are just too much for them to handle and sometimes they don't understand the importance of timing.
> Maybe because of my police background I tend to make the analogy with the principles of use of force.
> What I mean is, to get the same result or reaction in my dog, is there something less that I could have done or used. All this again depending on the dog.Problem is too many people use the ''one size fits all '' attitude in dog training. Because a method worked on their male 3 year old Malinois,it should also work on the 1 year old female GSD.
> ...


 Timing is everything! It applies to much more than just corrections. With a correction if it is not within 2 seconds it is probably too late. The other side holds true as well. We often don't give a dog enough time to settle when doing exercises (more about reading dogs). Many people are so impatient to move on to the next thing that not enough time is given to securing ultra-important foundation work. 

Also many times people do not pay much attention to what they do in the 3 to 5 seconds before giving a command. I think many people would be surprised to find their dog does not really even know the commands. This can be true of dogs at the IPO3 level. Often the dog is cuing on a particular mannerism of the handler and not the command itself. If you want to know how well a dog even knows the command we might be correcting them for, stop do absolutely nothing, no movement, stand completely still for 3 to 5 seconds before giving the command (and give the command in a normal calm voice). If the dog looks at you like you are from Mars then he probably does not really know the command. We have had numerous IPO3 dogs that have been brought to work week where the handler has been told to back up and concentrate on "sit and pay attention". Many handlers cannot handle this. 

I think that we cannot replace time and experience of handlers. I know what Gillen is saying that you either have timing/understanding or you don't. Some people who are new to the sport have a better feel than some that have been around for a long time. At the same time, experience, at least if you have a good mentor to learn under, cannot be replaced. I know I am a much better handler than I was 2 years ago, yet I understand that I have a very, very, long way to go.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_" If you want to know how well a dog even knows the command we might be correcting them for, stop do absolutely nothing, no movement, stand completely still for 3 to 5 seconds before giving the command (and give the command in a normal calm voice). "_

Excellent!

And then try turning your back and giving it.

What a wake-up that was to me when Bob Scott suggested it several years ago.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _" If you want to know how well a dog even knows the command we might be correcting them for, stop do absolutely nothing, no movement, stand completely still for 3 to 5 seconds before giving the command (and give the command in a normal calm voice). "_.


Steve l picked this up from Lance and assume that might be part of this system you speak of. I mentioned recently that I train for my environment and that piece I learned from him is woven into every exercise they learn.


----------



## James Kotary (Nov 14, 2012)

Corrections for my rescued female Rottweiler have to be verbal and the occasional stomping of my foot. I have worked hard to gain her trust and feel that if I administered any type of physical correction she may not trust me and take to my commands. It has worked well though it takes a little longer, I gladly will do it because she is skidish and I do not want to have to go back to square one if she takes to a correction of the physical type the wrong way.
I know many trainers who use the tug on the lead to correct their dogs, and I feel personally that is fine. Just I would rather take the extra time and explore the non physical because my dog does not come from a good breeder or a good situation.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Kotary said:


> Corrections for my rescued female Rottweiler have to be verbal and the occasional stomping of my foot. I have worked hard to gain her trust and feel that if I administered any type of physical correction she may not trust me and take to my commands. It has worked well though it takes a little longer, I gladly will do it because she is skidish and I do not want to have to go back to square one if she takes to a correction of the physical type the wrong way.
> I know many trainers who use the tug on the lead to correct their dogs, and I feel personally that is fine. Just I would rather take the extra time and explore the non physical because my dog does not come from a good breeder or a good situation.


an e collar might be the best tool for this dog, just keep that in the back of your mind...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

James Kotary said:


> Corrections for my rescued female Rottweiler have to be verbal and the occasional stomping of my foot. I have worked hard to gain her trust and feel that if I administered any type of physical correction she may not trust me and take to my commands. It has worked well though it takes a little longer, I gladly will do it because she is skidish and I do not want to have to go back to square one if she takes to a correction of the physical type the wrong way.
> I know many trainers who use the tug on the lead to correct their dogs, and I feel personally that is fine. Just I would rather take the extra time and explore the non physical because my dog does not come from a good breeder or a good situation.


One of mine is a rescue and when he came to me he was very skittish and fearfull and very afraid of toys and the rescue was having great difficulty placing him. Just raising a finger or voice at him made him pee. Any form of physical discomfort and I think this would apply to e collars or loud voice tone had him completely unable to function, it was extraordinary to watch his body language.

I took the time to teach him via non physical methods, mainly by reinforcing all the good things he did, taking time to set him up to succeed where possible and teaching him to not be afraid to experiment by trying out different things for his reward. I had to teach him to have fun. 

He is a very hard working dog and grew to love to train with me and has turned out to be one of my best trialing dogs with a state agility title under his belt after only his second trial, and I have never had the need to use physical correction on him. As his confidence in me grew he also grew take failure much better and witholding reward has become an opportunity for him to work harder, rather than shut down because he failed.

He even comes immediately when called off roos and never had his butt warmed. Good timing and persistance was everything when working with this dog and a recognition that he became worried very quickly in the early days. He is now much more resilient. I actually dont think physical correction would have worked with this dog but I could be wrong.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Voice inflection is a big part of it. My body language can add or subtract from it depending on the situation At my house they learn no from the time they are pups.
> Fear of my voice is relative to the individual dog I guess. One simply stops what he's doing. The other is very soft to me so I do have to keep in to a minimum. He can be stopped with nothing more then a hard stare from me. That type of dog can be very frustrating to me after years with terriers. :grin:


I do think you are on to something here Bob. I was recently at a seminar where the use of the words were assumed that the dog's knew the meanings. 

In Ring I train the dog to out on his name so in trial for the most part you get 2 commands i.e. 'X' - 'Out' but in training it is always just the name for the most part with a throw chain every now and then to keep the dog on it's toes. The seminar facilitator was saying that then you shouldn't be using the dog's name any where else then such as in the house i.e 'X' 'on your bed' because you are confusing the outs on the field. I did and still have a hard time getting my head around that concept. It makes sense really from a human point of understanding, but I am just not to sure that makes sense from a dog's point of view. 

I do believe that your change in voice inflection and even the situation has a bearing on what the dog understands. I could go "Uggggh" just as well as "out" using the same tone of voice and the dog would do the same thing. This is why I prefer to use a clicker than using the common 'yes' that most use. First of all being a man my voice is deep and gruff I think that I have a more hard time being consistent with my happy upbeat inflection. I do use 'yes' but only if I don't have access to a clicker or it is not loaded. 

As you've found an aversive to the dog can be just your stare. I think your inflection can be seen as a negatory as well, depending on the dog of course. So .. I'd consider that a correction as well after all it is how the dog perceives things not how we perceive it that makes it an aversive.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Geoff Empey said:


> I do think you are on to something here Bob. I was recently at a seminar where the use of the words were assumed that the dog's knew the meanings.
> 
> In Ring I train the dog to out on his name so in trial for the most part you get 2 commands i.e. 'X' - 'Out' but in training it is always just the name for the most part with a throw chain every now and then to keep the dog on it's toes. The seminar facilitator was saying that then you shouldn't be using the dog's name any where else then such as in the house i.e 'X' 'on your bed' because you are confusing the outs on the field. I did and still have a hard time getting my head around that concept. It makes sense really from a human point of understanding, but I am just not to sure that makes sense from a dog's point of view.
> 
> ...


I use my dogs names to get their attention, not as part of the command. I have noticed also that dogs often respond to the first part of a command, so when I say "get out" to cast my sheepdog, my dog responds instantly to "get" which is probably good as I use "out" in agility

I think that dogs do understand specific words. When I am herding I have to use directional commands at distance and it doesnt matter on my inflection the dogs will respond to the word. But it has to be in context, so if I say round to my sheepdog when we are walking, he immediately starts looking for sheep to go round on, he wont swing round without the sheep. I try and keep my agility commands very separate from my sheep commands. 

I also think inflection, tone of voice can be an adversive or praise. I use this a lot and the dogs respond. Staring can also be an adversive for some dogs. Most dogs dont like being stared at.

My dogs absolutely respond to my not so pleased body language. I have one very sensitive dog that can pick up when she has done something that I didnt want even though I think that I seem upbeat, she can spot fake instantly.

Dogs are also masters of reading you especially once they know you. I had an old dog go deaf once and I didnt notice how deaf untill I left her with my mother who quickly realised that she was completely deaf as the dog was very confused because she had no communication system with my mother. With me there was no problem, it was as if she still had her hearing.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

In terms of correction I am assuming working dogs as this is a working dog forum. For me that brings perhaps a different connotation than normal training for a pet. I am not really including dogs from poor environments or with poor working temperament. That is a whole different ballgame.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Steve Burger said:


> In terms of correction I am assuming working dogs as this is a working dog forum. For me that brings perhaps a different connotation than normal training for a pet. I am not really including dogs from poor environments or with poor working temperament. That is a whole different ballgame.


Working dogs come in many forms and temperaments. I have 3 working sheepdogs with vastly different temperaments, all good workers but from from supremely confident to very sensitive. I think their take on what is a correction differs somewhat, so I adjust their training and how I handle them, it becomes second nature with each dog after awhile. I guess you just have to adjust to what works. I back up if something isnt getting the desired results and have a rethink. So what I consider a correction for one dog may not be for one, or too much for another.

One was a cast off because her previous owner had a style of training that didnt work with her, so he suggested that she may respond to me better.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Gillian said
"An assertive person will always be assertive - with persons and with dogs. There are no tricks and tips to help you here. You have to assert yourself. An 8-week old pup who enters the household is able to recognize who is the boss. It sounds ridiculous but it is true. The pup senses who is in control.


You've got it! 
I'm a HUGE believer in some of the newer methods but that doesn't/can't change the fact that I'm the boss and my dogs know it. The fact that I can't quite explane myself at times doesn't seem to effect my training. :grin:


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Steve Burger said:


> In terms of correction I am assuming working dogs as this is a working dog forum. For me that brings perhaps a different connotation than normal training for a pet. I am not really including dogs from poor environments or with poor working temperament. That is a whole different ballgame.


So what do 'you' consider a correction then? Does it have to be physically causing discomfort? Or can it be anything that you do that changes the unwanted behaviour? 

Again I must say I see lots of 'over' collaring lots of 'over' correction. (Not directed at you Steve) Sure some dogs need that but not always. I just have a hard time getting my head around _extreme_ anything that goes for physical correction and/or purely positive. Though I'd like to say I can learn from both. 

Does a dog really need to learn that being dirty in the blind requires wearing a cone to not pull the tubes out of it's lungs after being kicked by the helper hard enough to break ribs and collapse a lung? I've seen it, and some think that technique is all right.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

I guess so on that last part!

There was a time when we were trying to figure out how best to work the Dutch that I had a bunch of collars on her. It was easier to be prepared in advance rather than to fight her to get a different set up on her mid session.

Once I figured out what worked everything else came off.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Geoff Empey said:


> So what do 'you' consider a correction then? Does it have to be physically causing discomfort? Or can it be anything that you do that changes the unwanted behaviour?
> 
> Again I must say I see lots of 'over' collaring lots of 'over' correction. (Not directed at you Steve) Sure some dogs need that but not always. I just have a hard time getting my head around _extreme_ anything that goes for physical correction and/or purely positive. Though I'd like to say I can learn from both.
> 
> Does a dog really need to learn that being dirty in the blind requires wearing a cone to not pull the tubes out of it's lungs after being kicked by the helper hard enough to break ribs and collapse a lung? I've seen it, and some think that technique is all right.


 I am not sure what you getting at, especially in regards to the above post? I said a couple of times in this thread that a physical correction needs to be slightly over that particular dogs threshold. In general, yes this would mean some form of physical discomfort. Sometimes it might mean using throwaway verbal reprimands. For example if we are teaching a new behavior then we don't want to get carried away with a correction over something else, in that scenario a throwaway verbal reprimand might be the best route. 

To quote my td.. In all aspects of training we have to remember that a dog will willingly move from discomfort to comfort but will not willingly go from comfort to discomfort. There is such a wide range of what should be called an appropriate response that it could mean almost anything. Fortunately with an e-collar you do not have to physically harm the dog to get their attention. i don't see what you are getting at in terms of extremes, a super handler hard dog is going to require a more extreme response than a super sensitive dog. I also think that there are probably a lot more people out there using e-collars that are not very sophisticated or adequately trained in their use than there are people who use them competently. 

What to apply when, is pretty close to impossible to cover in an internet thread. This is where experience, developing understanding and feel, and being able to read the dog comes in. Good mentor-ship in my opinion is a must. I just don't think you can develop this from internet forums or even DVD's.

As far as extreme measures, there have been a few times I was unfortunate to witness some incompetent asshole inappropriately reacting to his dog out of frustration. One scenario comes to mind but it was not at a club I belonged to. 

The very few times I have witnessed what some people might consider extreme reactions where I think it was appropriate, in the time I have been training in Schutzhund, was for cases of handler aggression. I think these are cases that have to be very black and white, extreme in response and thus very clear to the dog. 

Of course what many of us might consider a normal physical correction some people might consider abuse. I can think of a woman some time back who had more dog than she probably should have had. It got corrected (and not in a manner that most of us would think of as extreme). She left. A short time later she got rid of the dog as it became more and more out of control, and less respectful of its handler. If it had been handled correctly just a couple of times it would probably never ever had been a problem again. Instead it was nagged, under-corrected, which we know only stimulates the dog and makes the problem worse. 

In terms of over-collaring I am not sure what you are getting at. Earlier you mentioned not seeing the point of having 4 collars on. I at times have had 4 collars on my dog. Every one is for a potential different scenario. This is especially true in protection. Even in obedience I will sometimes have several collars on, again for different scenarios that may arise. First and foremost if I need a particular tool I don't want to have to run back to the car to get it. I have been yelled at enough in my time for not having the right tool for the right job. For example in obedience I will have a pinch collar on the dog and this is usually what is attached to the dog. It is rarely used as a correction tool anymore, it is mostly just what is attached to the dog. I have the e-collar for normal stimulation, as well as corrections, in whatever form they may be called for. I also might have a fur saver on. The fur saver would be on in case I need to use a second handler for reverse response training should it be called for. In protection I would also have a choke cable with a tab on the dog in case I need to block the dog from excessive vocalization during secondary obedience or for not outing (a rarity but it does happen at times and I need to be ready). 

As far as what you describe as an extreme result (kicking the dog as it come in the blind) I do not think that is appropriate. We sure as hell don't do anything like that, though of course, I have seen some extreme dogs that need more of an attention getter than your average dog,


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

I guess I'm a purist when it comes to training and conditioning, but in my definition, any stimulus applied as positive punishment that will decrease the likelihood of the preceding behavior is a correction.

Personally, I prefer not to repeat corrections, as someone else had mentioned. I will use verbal corrections when necessary, in addition to using whatever tools are appropriate and available at the time (prong collars, throw chains - and other objects, leash, etc.) I don't want my dog to fear any particular tool or me, but I also want the respect and understanding that disobedience will be addressed. My body language and tone is more important than the tool with my own dogs because they understand when I intend to correct them. With dogs that I don't have a relationship with that I'm training, I tend to begin applying corrections with a prong or e-collar while pairing it with a verbal correction so they make that association for the future.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

My problem is "over threshold." What if over threshold is something that could result in a vet bill? In Geoff's example of the "cone" which I don't quite understand the logistics of and the kicking helper. Is that what it takes to get over threshold. Does it make it righ? Like Ariel, old school was enough was what stopped the behavior. If you had to do it twixe, it was a nag nd you were conditioning them to it. Seems like the e-collar was a solution. However, a strong enough dog will run right through them and/or all you do is fuel aggression and tolerance. So then its a groin e-collar and so on and so on. At some point you have to really start re-thinking the bad ass dog that is so hard to correction you have to damn near kill him and evven then he might decide its worth it. For me, not so much as training but on a relationship level there are certain things that need to stop, like the sweetie pie in the other thread that redirects to the owner when not allowed to bite the kid, and I don't care how ugly it gets or if you hurt. But typical task training, how far should this go before you decide breeding/selection for trainability is in order?

T


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Steve Burger said:


> I am not sure what you getting at, especially in regards to the above post? I said a couple of times in this thread that a physical correction needs to be slightly over that particular dogs threshold. In general, yes this would mean some form of physical discomfort. Sometimes it might mean using throwaway verbal reprimands. For example if we are teaching a new behavior then we don't want to get carried away with a correction over something else, in that scenario a throwaway verbal reprimand might be the best route.
> 
> As far as extreme measures, there have been a few times I was unfortunate to witness some incompetent asshole inappropriately reacting to his dog out of frustration. One scenario comes to mind but it was not at a club I belonged to.
> 
> ...


I have seen the same as well that dogs that may look strong but they really are not. They get swung around and choked out and then the seminar is *over*! 

I agree that in this day and age many people do not understand what we are looking at and working with for the most part when it comes to most working dogs that we do play around with. So ones correction is someone else's picture of abuse. Which is a sad thing as a lot of things end up going underground. Such as the countries that have banned pinch and e-collars due to the lobbying of animals rights people. 

That particular club in a 6 month span where 2 dogs got collapsed lungs from the training decoy kicking the dog when it was dirty in the blind. People were warned about the history of this particular person and his penchant for overly violent correction and yet still they sucked up the kool-aid. 



Steve Burger said:


> In terms of over-collaring I am not sure what you are getting at. Earlier you mentioned not seeing the point of having 4 collars on. I at times have had 4 collars on my dog. Every one is for a potential different scenario. This is especially true in protection. Even in obedience I will sometimes have several collars on, again for different scenarios that may arise. First and foremost if I need a particular tool I don't want to have to run back to the car to get it. I have been yelled at enough in my time for not having the right tool for the right job. For example in obedience I will have a pinch collar on the dog and this is usually what is attached to the dog. It is rarely used as a correction tool anymore, it is mostly just what is attached to the dog. I have the e-collar for normal stimulation, as well as corrections, in whatever form they may be called for. I also might have a fur saver on. The fur saver would be on in case I need to use a second handler for reverse response training should it be called for. In protection I would also have a choke cable with a tab on the dog in case I need to block the dog from excessive vocalization during secondary obedience or for not outing (a rarity but it does happen at times and I need to be ready).


My touching on the over collaring is to me it is related to over correction. In trial we never have more than one collar on the dog if one at all, so to me why would we need 2 pinches, 1 e-collar and clothes line on the dog? In the way I train I just don't see why people need more than one training collar and maybe a back up. If you can use all those collars and are part of the plan .. great! But from what I've seen is many that do this couldn't time a correction with one collar but now they have 4 it is a disaster in the making for the dog. 

I saw one time a very socially dominant Belgian line Malinois who the more he was corrected the more it got 'real' for him. It was war with the training decoy one day the dog went into a mode where he guarded the decoy against the handler coming to pick him up they attempted to choke him out and the collar or a clip failed and the dog went after the handler it was very lucky that the 2nd collar was available or else it could've been much worse than what it was. But that is an extreme case that I probably won't ever see again. That dog was special. 



Steve Burger said:


> In terms of correction I am assuming working dogs as this is a working dog forum. For me that brings perhaps a different connotation than normal training for a pet. I am not really including dogs from poor environments or with poor working temperament. That is a whole different ballgame.


Maybe I don't understand what what this post was about Steve. What I am reading is you are saying that in the working dog world a 'correction' needs to be something different than what a pet would have threshold for, or else it is not a correction? You explained it above and I get that now but this post threw me off a bit. Thanks for contributing.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

I was just replying, with probably very poor communication skills in the post, that a dog who does not have a working temperament or who has a background of severe physical abuse would not be handled the same way and that my posts are in reference to healthy working dogs.

The reference to the "lady who left" was a club member and not at a seminar.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> My problem is "over threshold." What if over threshold is something that could result in a vet bill? In Geoff's example of the "cone" which I don't quite understand the logistics of and the kicking helper. Is that what it takes to get over threshold. Does it make it righ? Like Ariel, old school was enough was what stopped the behavior. If you had to do it twixe, it was a nag nd you were conditioning them to it. Seems like the e-collar was a solution. However, a strong enough dog will run right through them and/or all you do is fuel aggression and tolerance. So then its a groin e-collar and so on and so on. At some point you have to really start re-thinking the bad ass dog that is so hard to correction you have to damn near kill him and evven then he might decide its worth it. For me, not so much as training but on a relationship level there are certain things that need to stop, like the sweetie pie in the other thread that redirects to the owner when not allowed to bite the kid, and I don't care how ugly it gets or if you hurt. But typical task training, how far should this go before you decide breeding/selection for trainability is in order?
> 
> T


 These people who handle such dogs need to completely re-think their whole training regiment. Dogs that are built up to this point are likely the result of poor foundation work to begin with as well as likely a whole series of under-corrections. An under-correction increases the problem behavior because it is a stimulation to the dog. The same is true with the e-collar. The reality is that many people do not properly know how to use one. Dogs need to be taught how to "turn off" the collar. When dogs are indiscriminately and unfairly fried for not doing something they were not correctly taught to do in the first place it is a travesty.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> My problem is "over threshold." What if over threshold is something that could result in a vet bill? In Geoff's example of the "cone" which I don't quite understand the logistics of and the kicking helper. Is that what it takes to get over threshold. Does it make it righ? Like Ariel, old school was enough was what stopped the behavior. If you had to do it twixe, it was a nag nd you were conditioning them to it. Seems like the e-collar was a solution. However, a strong enough dog will run right through them and/or all you do is fuel aggression and tolerance. So then its a groin e-collar and so on and so on. At some point you have to really start re-thinking the bad ass dog that is so hard to correction you have to damn near kill him and evven then he might decide its worth it. For me, not so much as training but on a relationship level there are certain things that need to stop, like the sweetie pie in the other thread that redirects to the owner when not allowed to bite the kid, and I don't care how ugly it gets or if you hurt. But typical task training, how far should this go before you decide breeding/selection for trainability is in order?
> 
> T


We had a dog that came to our club that would not out. Before it came the insanity (as defined as repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting different results) had increased to the point where it had 2 Dogtra's turned up to 127 and an electric sleeve. I know the foundation work that had resulted in this involved first teaching the dog to out by flanking it. When that failed to reliably work they went E. None of this methodology dealt with the main problem, which was the out command was a conflict between the dog and handler and the "out' command sent the dog into fight drive. The process of teaching it to release the sleeve had to be completely re-taught and they had to change the command. For some reason the handler at one point after the dog had gotten a few Sch3 titles, went back to using the "out" command. I guess he did not want to be different than other people or something. Of course the problem came back and washed out the 9 months of work (probably 8-10 sessions a week)they had done to achieve a "relatively" reliable out. 

This is again an illustration of what happens when the wrong tool is used in combination with a poor foundation laid.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Steve Burger said:


> We had a dog that came to our club that would not out. Before it came the insanity (as defined as repeating the same mistake over and over and expecting different results) had increased to the point where it had 2 Dogtra's turned up to 127 and an electric sleeve. I know the foundation work that had resulted in this involved first teaching the dog to out by flanking it. When that failed to reliably work they went E. None of this methodology dealt with the main problem, which was the out command was a conflict between the dog and handler and the "out' command sent the dog into fight drive. The process of teaching it to release the sleeve had to be completely re-taught and they had to change the command. For some reason the handler at one point after the dog had gotten a few Sch3 titles, went back to using the "out" command. I guess he did not want to be different than other people or something. Of course the problem came back and washed out the 9 months of work (probably 8-10 sessions a week)they had done to achieve a "relatively" reliable out.
> 
> This is again an illustration of what happens when the wrong tool is used in combination with a poor foundation laid.


 
That's almost verbatim regarding what I heard about a dog here that was reconditioned with marker training and then the handler reverted and all the work was for naught. But you also give a good example of how the dog will say screw the correction and will go the distance and that its over the command and his state of mind with the handler that he says screw it, not necessarily the correction? Interesting.

T


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

double post,oophs


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> That's almost verbatim regarding what I heard about a dog here that was reconditioned with marker training and then the handler reverted and all the work was for naught. But you also give a good example of how the dog will say screw the correction and will go the distance and that its over the command and his state of mind with the handler that he says screw it, not necessarily the correction? Interesting.
> 
> T


 When my Dobermann bitch is in drive working in protection, especially fight drive, she needs something like triple the level of e-collar correction that she does in obedience. E-collar and pinch collar corrections, can be stimulation to the dog, and like you said earlier can result in tolerance. The importance of foundation cannot be understated. To quote my TD again.. "The points you look for in the end are the ones you missed in the beginning".


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Steve Burger said:


> When my Dobermann bitch is in drive working in protection, especially fight drive, she needs something like triple the level of e-collar correction that she does in obedience. E-collar and pinch collar corrections, can be stimulation to the dog, and like you said earlier can result in tolerance. The importance of foundation cannot be understated. To quote my TD again.. "The points you look for in the end are the ones you missed in the beginning".


Can you explain what you mean by foundation. For the first time with Rhemy and Khyndra, I actually conditioned a verbal "no" correction when they were little puppies and while they were in crazy drive. Something I read here a couple of years ago and re-reading what Manfred Heyne does with voice tones while his puppies are in the whelping box. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> My problem is "over threshold." What if over threshold is something that could result in a vet bill? In Geoff's example of the "cone" which I don't quite understand the logistics of and the kicking helper. T


I am assuming that he was describing a dog that had suffered injuries and needed tubes to be put down into its lung to keep it inflated after it was collapsed, and a cone on its head to stop the dog from messing with the tubes..



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> For me, not so much as training but on a relationship level there are certain things that need to stop, like the sweetie pie in the other thread that redirects to the owner when not allowed to bite the kid, and I don't care how ugly it gets or if you hurt. *But typical task training, how far should this go before you decide breeding/selection for trainibility is in order?*T


I dont understand the bold part.. 

I agree that it has to stop with that "puppy". I also understand that the lady has never raised and owned a working type dog, and has allowed the cute puppy to go overboard with its biting. an easy fix for most working dog people, unless the dog is really a monster...

What are you meaning about breeding for trainability, in what context specifically? I dont see Kristi's problem as a dog problem at all, it is obvious that she "may" have gotten a dog that is not a good fit for her, unless she has someone experienced close by to help her, hands on...with the dog.

If you were not referring to her, and just working dogs in general.. High level sport training, or other types of work, in my opinion is far above and beyond typical task training...and some people are not prepared to properly handle certain types of dogs, or use training techniques ineffectively..same as kristi, above with her puppy.

anyhow honestly not picking here, seriously...just not understanding what you meant to say.


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

Threshold is the level at which the correction stops the unwanted behaviour. Different for every dog and different in every situation. So if after 1 or maybe even 2 well timed corrections the dog should be listening to you. If you have to correct more then that you are not reaching the dogs threshold so you need to increase the hardness of the correction. Lots of trainers nag their dogs repeatedly and that only helps to teach the dog to learn to work through that ineffective pop on the lead and over time you will need more frequent, harder corrections to make the point.

If you give good corrections consistently you will find that over time as the dog begins to understand what is expected you can actually decrease the hardness and amount that you have to correct. The dog must also know that he can stop a correction by performing properly.

As to the person who would train a dog with tubes in it..most ridiculous thing I have heard in awhile. Not sure who is worse the trainer who did that to the dog or the handler for allowing it, and then to bring a severely injured dog to training.

Dog trainers need to have timing, intelligence and patience, sounds to me like this so called trainer needs a new hobby.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Tracey Hughes said:


> Threshold is the level at which the correction stops the unwanted behaviour. Different for every dog and different in every situation. So if after 1 or maybe even 2 well timed corrections the dog should be listening to you. If you have to correct more then that you are not reaching the dogs threshold so you need to increase the hardness of the correction. Lots of trainers nag their dogs repeatedly and that only helps to teach the dog to learn to work through that ineffective pop on the lead and over time you will need more frequent, harder corrections to make the point.
> 
> If you give good corrections consistently you will find that over time as the dog begins to understand what is expected you can actually decrease the hardness and amount that you have to correct. The dog must also know that he can stop a correction by performing properly.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the post..

I did not infer that the dog Geoff was talking about was brought to training with the tubes in its lung, rather than it needed the tubes in its lunge after training, because it was kicked in the ribs very hard and sustained a serious injury..

I could be wrong though...happens a lot lately..


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I am assuming that he was describing a dog that had suffered injuries and needed tubes to be put down into its lung to keep it inflated after it was collapsed, and a cone on its head to stop the dog from messing with the tubes..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Something herders are after--the dog will all that genetic drive/instinct with absolute confidencea and nerves that you can control at a distance by voice. Its bact to that genetic obedience stuff. As for Kristi's pup--you mean we agree on somehting??:-|

I can't know what's up with Kristi's dog in terms of whether it is a leadership issue or a monster issue. Her mentors and the breeder have to help her with that. But all BS aside in a GSD, I'm inclined to move towards both. Pup was 5 months old at the time. There are children involved and judging by the "nice puncture" wound description, sweetie pie means it. I think we tend to minimize certain negative traits like--"it was just reidrected aggression." See for me, that's a trait that you select against. If its pack related and we get an understanding and I don't have to see it again, okay. But if we have to keep revisiting it then it could be game over. I really don't like that it happened in the context of the child that it lives with. I ran into this with Rhemy several months ago and had several discussions with the breeder who said his sire would exhibit redirected aggression when bitches were in season. For Rhemy, it happened in a certain stock context. Its somehing I have reserved until I see what he is like at full maturity. I should also say he didn't sink teeth into me. Otherwise I probably wouldn't be so reserve minded about it. High level training is still task training for me--i.e. rules of engagement. If military or LE says they need a certain type of purpose dog, I'm down with that but mostly we're talking about sport/trial dogs. I grapple with the same issues. For the keeness and nerves/temperament I like, generally independence comes with it. The screw you dog is a PITA, no matter how powerful in the work--for me anyhow. Its funny we were talking about this 10 years ago in herding. The older the person got, the weaker the dog and now they would rather "train" confidence because they don't feel like fighting with the super dogs. I will never go there but certain things do get tiresome. Mostly its a trialing issue with my PITA dog but having worked her, it has me moving certain traits up the priority list. I also believe that breeders and sport enthusiasts have to protect the high end dogs. Get off Youtube and don't place them in situations where disaster will strike and then of course they find out and attribute it to the dog was "bite trained."

T


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

Joby..thank goodness. I was getting very PO'd about that. I have seen some handlers who are thinking of their egos rather then the dogs well being so honestly nothing would surprise me at this point. Guess I should have re read that one :-o


I agree with Steve's last post. Good point about lower corrections only being stimulation for the dog. That is why prong collars are often used in protection, they can build drive in the dog.


----------



## James Kotary (Nov 14, 2012)

Sara Waters said:


> One of mine is a rescue and when he came to me he was very skittish and fearfull and very afraid of toys and the rescue was having great difficulty placing him. Just raising a finger or voice at him made him pee. Any form of physical discomfort and I think this would apply to e collars or loud voice tone had him completely unable to function, it was extraordinary to watch his body language.
> 
> I took the time to teach him via non physical methods, mainly by reinforcing all the good things he did, taking time to set him up to succeed where possible and teaching him to not be afraid to experiment by trying out different things for his reward. I had to teach him to have fun.
> 
> ...


She has responded well to the verbal commands and it is hard to give her treats as rewards because she is not food driven. I did a lot of praising and petting at first, now more to a simple "good" to let her know she did correct actions. At first I had to use a gentle leader because she would not sit still or tried to pull me along and I did not want to use a choker. As we progress I am able to let her free roam my yard and stick to boundaries I set by telling her "no" when she strays to far. She, at first when I got her, would try to chase after people and other animals. Now she will see them, stop, look at me and sit. I call her to me and she comes almost with out hesitation at this point. 
I will keep in mind an e collar because I may try to get her into some sort of sport. I think bite work might suit her the way she grabbed my father the first time she saw him. He was wearing a hoodie and she freaked out. She did let go when I yelled so that was good and did not bite down enough to break skin. Now every time she sees him she puts her head down as to say "hey, I am sorry". 
Only thing I have yet to break her of is barking when looking out the windows in the house and while sitting in the car and people or animals pass by. She sure does make a great watch dog and I am sure my home is secure when I am gone.
She is turning into a great dog and I am glad I rescued her. At first I was not going to disrupt my senior male with a younger new dog. I am so happy I acted on impulse!


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Thanks for the post..
> 
> I did not infer that the dog Geoff was talking about was brought to training with the tubes in its lung, rather than it needed the tubes in its lunge after training, because it was kicked in the ribs very hard and sustained a serious injury..
> 
> I could be wrong though...happens a lot lately..


Yeah what he said Tracey. Dog was dirty in the blind multiple times and then the dog was kicked to keep it clean, but obviously it was a little over zealous in causing thousands of dollars of vet expenses in doing so. 

I guess that is what some consider a 'correction' :-x (oh and I had no part in this abuse, was just there to see the aftermath.)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> Yeah what he said Tracey. Dog was dirty in the blind multiple times and then the dog was kicked to keep it clean, but obviously it was a little over zealous in causing thousands of dollars of vet expenses in doing so.
> 
> I guess that is what some consider a 'correction' :-x (oh and I had no part in this abuse, was just there to see the aftermath.)


 
The million dollar question is whether it stopped the behavior---uhhhh after all of the thousands of dollars of vet care. Did the helper pay the bill or was he authorized to inflict that type of correction.

T


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> The million dollar question is whether it stopped the behavior---uhhhh after all of the thousands of dollars of vet care. Did the helper pay the bill or was he authorized to inflict that type of correction.


From what I understand it was all considered an 'unfortunate accident' depending on who's kool-aid that they are drinking. The dog has gone on to a IPO 2 with average scores nothing what they called pronounced in protection who knows where the points disappeared. I am not in any contact with these people anymore either, they are happy good for them.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Tracey Hughes said:


> Joby..thank goodness. I was getting very PO'd about that. I have seen some handlers who are thinking of their egos rather then the dogs well being so honestly nothing would surprise me at this point. Guess I should have re read that one :-o
> 
> 
> I agree with Steve's last post. Good point about lower corrections only being stimulation for the dog. That is why prong collars are often used in protection, they can build drive in the dog.


well, it's still enough to get PO'ed about...if one is inclined to do so....


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

curious ... if you often use a prong to stimulate and build drive, can it also be used as a corrective tool with the same dog ?

if so, how ?
(specifics please)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> curious ... if you often use a prong to stimulate and build drive, can it also be used as a corrective tool with the same dog ?
> 
> if so, how ?
> (specifics please)


sure..

very simply...

popping a collar on a H&B, or in heeling to bring up drive not used as a correction, but stimulation in my mind...in the dogs mind it could maybe some form of correction I suppose, seems plausible, maybe for not performing with more intensity. who knows....but it is done at threshold lower than what one would use for the purpose of actually correcting a dog for non-compliance, 

same dog tries to take dirty bite in the H&B, or break a heel under distraction, dog gets stiffer Correction, used as an effective correction for non-compliance to a command..paired with a "negative" verbal marker if that is how person trains.

same thing for an ecollar...can be used to stimulate behavior or for correction... the intention and purpose of its use is how most people define what is going on....

or just a stick...here it is explained in detail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axahVdmGOhM


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

rick smith said:


> curious ... if you often use a prong to stimulate and build drive, can it also be used as a corrective tool with the same dog ?
> 
> if so, how ?
> (specifics please)


 I think more than stimulation in protection it introduces conflict.. Lance's mantra..."Prey drive + Conflict" = Power. A few years back a club member bought him his own chair with that saying embroidered on it.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Is that akin to "Zuckerbrot + Peitsche"??


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Is that akin to "Zuckerbrot + Peitsche"??


Not sure, I don't comprehend German, I am sure it is not original to him, just abuses the concept and applies it many places in training.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

The most effective correction I ever experienced was with my last dobe and a rock and was basically accidental.
Now that sounds harsh but I'll explain.
I was down the beach with her and she was running very far away from me and coming back when called just fine.
A dude on a quad came onto the beach and started ripping up the beach towards us. Pickle saw it coming and took off towards it, from a short distance away from me. I attempted to recall her but she had prey induced deafness on the go and was in the zone, she was gonna have the tyres and that was that.
Automatically and with some annoyance I picked up a small rock, she ignored a recall again and I threw the rock. I hit her square on the top of the head from about a football field away, how I have no idea.
Anyway she stopped dead in her tracks and came pelting back to me.
She never, ever ignored a recall again.
Timing and force had come together with perfect accuracy purely by luck.

Another interesting side effect is her general obedience was greatly improved from that point onwards.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Matt Vandart said:


> The most effective correction I ever experienced was with my last dobe and a rock and was basically accidental.
> Now that sounds harsh but I'll explain.
> I was down the beach with her and she was running very far away from me and coming back when called just fine.
> A dude on a quad came onto the beach and started ripping up the beach towards us. Pickle saw it coming and took off towards it, from a short distance away from me. I attempted to recall her but she had prey induced deafness on the go and was in the zone, she was gonna have the tyres and that was that.
> ...


were you angry at the time? just curious?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

No I wasn't as it goes,not outwardly, just annoyed inwardly, I rarely get angry with my dogs, just a perfect hit with a rock, wasn't even aiming it at her, just trying to distract her with the rock landing nearby to get her out of the 'I'm having the quad bike wheel' zone.

Getting angry with dobermans rarely works in my experience, you either ruin them by making them nervous or they shut down and wont play your game anymore.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Matt Vandart said:


> Getting angry with dobermans rarely works in my experience, you either ruin them by making them nervous or they shut down and wont play your game anymore.


That's been my experience too


----------

