# Beginners questions



## Jeff Oehlsen

We have a lot of very new people here on the forum so I thought maybe this would be a good topic to start.

One of the things that I am seeing personally over the years is the "beginners question"

Most of the time, I see this being asked when the person is doing an exercise like heeling, and they are far enough along where you start to "adjust" what they are doing to be more correct.

This is an avoidance behavior, and it has become more prevalent in the last few years. It is frustrating for those of us that "did what we where told"

In this day and age, the younger generation "text" when they do not want to "confront" you, like missing work, apologies excetera.

This behavior of "Beginners questions" stops the pressure THEY feel when you start to make them more correct in the work. I do not mind them asking questions, but the bottom line is that they are doing this out of avoidance of the training.

There is also concern, in my opinion when it comes to the "beginners questions" about concern for the dogs welfare, such as we saw in the thread about Leerburgs methods, which of course is an abomination, because none of them "Leerburg" came up with.

The tiny annoyance that the dog is learning to "avoid" is minimal, and the dog learns just to do the behavior and turn it off.

THIS is where the beginners begin to urk me. They cannot get past the dog having to endure some minor irritation to learn. Sometimes to get your point across with a strong dog, you have to correct him.

If you don't have the heart to do this, then why are you here ??? 

The other thing is when they start arguing. How is it that you can argue when you do not know what you are talking about ??? Having done NOTHING means exactly that. One day maybe you will get to sit at the head of the table, but more than likely you will not.


----------



## susan tuck

I only have one thing to say.............WHAT HE SAID! 8) People who think dogs that are trained with these methods are somehow miserable or unhappy are incorrect and are not basing their opinion on first hand experience. Believe me, when these methods are done correctly, the dogs are not miserable, and in fact most dogs consistently at the top are trained with a lot of pressure.


----------



## Kristina Senter

I only understood half of what he said, at least within the context of what I believe to be the point. So, without being able to really specify which half, can I also agree "...WHAT HE SAID", but in regards to only the half that I understood? 
I mean, I'd hate to agree with something that made no ****ing sense whatsoever, just because I agree with something else that did.
I think I probably agree with the point that you're trying to make, but then, it could have been negated by the points I did not understand.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> This is an avoidance behavior, and it has become more prevalent in the last few years. It is frustrating for those of us that "did what we where told"


So, you're saying it is annoying that folks will shop around for a better answer (ie an answer that causes less stress to the dog) because they want to avoid giving necessary corrections or putting necessary pressure on a dog?

Just trying to get a feel for what you're saying.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

Maybe I completely misunderstood what you're saying here, Jeff, but if anything I find most beginners train with a heavy hand. They're more eager to over-correct, and they don't give the dog a chance to learn. I've very very rarely met beginners in the working dog realm (not talking people who dress their dogs in princess dresses here) that are intent on avoiding correction. I find, at least in my experience, that the desire to work with minimal correction and conflict in the dog is something that comes with experience.


----------



## Debbie High

Jeff, Are you avoiding what you are really trying to say.....that beginners are too soft and don't like giving hard corrections?LOL Are you just trying to be nice!

As a newbie to dog sports (not dogs), I certainly don't mind giving an ass-kicking correction. The problem I run into is being confident that I am being fair to the dog and that my timing is correct. I don't have a training club to attend so I'm on my own. At this point I'm just trying to get in the general direction of correct. This is why I stick to positive as much as possible. Hope to get to several of Michael's seminars within the next few months. If he tells me to give a hard correction I will certainly do it. For me it is about maintaining a balance.

As for things that don't pertain to training for something specific.....I don't put up with a whole lot of crap. For instance, my dogs have only tried to kill the cats once. 

Any suggestions from others is always appreciated.

Best regards,
Debbie


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I think he's touched on a subject that is very important. Pressure is given to the dog and at the slightest sign of avoidance, ears back, tail down, whatever, the novice stops the pressure. I think this is the worst thing that can happen. The pressure has to go on until the dog shows the behaviour you wnat and then reward comes immediately. This way the dog learns something. The thing is, it's not only novices who do this. Some first time handlers have a natural feeling for what they should deal out to the dog or not. They don't need to go to listen to what "he said" as Susan said.

The best things are the things you teach the dog because it comes from your "heart". Again, as Susan said not just because "HE" said. A dog has to have "heart" but the handler, too to teach the dog what he has to learn to live in our structured pack.


----------



## Guest

> The pressure has to go on until the dog shows the behaviour you want....


Could you recount a specific and personal example of this? 

Take an exercise the dog wasn't quite getting, describe what form your pressure took, and how that helped elicit the desired behavior. Unless, on the other hand, you're talking about eliminating a behavior.

I'm newb enough to not even understand what you mean by "pressure"...I guess.



> If you don't have the heart to do this, then why are you here


I've had an e-collar hanging on hook in my kitchen for 2 years now. I keep eye-balling it with temptation. But since I'm on no particular time-line, I keep finding a reason to think of _one more inductive method, _ or reading one more book before even going there. I personally think it's only helped my beginner perspective, and I've delayed the (what I thought was) the inevitable "proofing stage via corrections" for much longer than I thought.

I would second the observation of saying my fellow newbs probably err on the heavy-handed side.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Firstly, I wouldn't put pressure on a dog that wasn't quite getting the exercise. 

The pressure would come for instance, if he knew how to jump over a hurdle, for instance, but refused because the hurdle was a "horse jump" with possibilities to "go through" and not over.

Here, I would maybe put the dog on a long lead and force (always relative) it over the jump. I would ignore any signs of avoidance but when he jumped, I would certainly praise him.

Rather simply explained but then I am a simple person.

This happened with my dog and afterwards, he would jump whatever the situation. I went home thinking "this isn't dog sport" but from this evening on the dog jumped when I said "jump".


----------



## Guest

> Firstly, I wouldn't put pressure on a dog that wasn't quite getting the exercise.
> 
> The pressure would come for instance, if he knew how to jump over a hurdle, for instance, but refused because the hurdle was a "horse jump" with possibilities to "go through" and not over.


So I guess that's the particular hair I split. I consider jumping over a park bench, or a horse jump as essentially novel to the dog compared to a hurdle or a hedge, and thus take a remedial approach in its introduction.

Or an example from the other day. I was doing the dreaded send-aways. I had been doing them in a fenced field, and the horizons had regular old chain link.

I was about to send him to a new stretch of chain link which had had a big sign which displayed the footage to center field. I said to myself "I don't think he's going to go, because this looks different." There's a big white sign with a backdrop of green canvas.

Lo and behold, despite previous reliability...he didn't go. New picture. 

Eased up my expectations, went closer, worked our way back out again, and now he knows....you can still run to that particular visual picture. 

Although, to be fair, I wouldn't have even known how to apply pressure in that case...so maybe I'm just lazy. :-$


----------



## Steve Strom

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> We have a lot of very new people here on the forum so I thought maybe this would be a good topic to start.
> 
> One of the things that I am seeing personally over the years is the "beginners question"
> 
> Most of the time, I see this being asked when the person is doing an exercise like heeling, and they are far enough along where you start to "adjust" what they are doing to be more correct.
> 
> This is an avoidance behavior, and it has become more prevalent in the last few years. It is frustrating for those of us that "did what we where told"
> 
> In this day and age, the younger generation "text" when they do not want to "confront" you, like missing work, apologies excetera.
> 
> This behavior of "Beginners questions" stops the pressure THEY feel when you start to make them more correct in the work. I do not mind them asking questions, but the bottom line is that they are doing this out of avoidance of the training.
> 
> There is also concern, in my opinion when it comes to the "beginners questions" about concern for the dogs welfare, such as we saw in the thread about Leerburgs methods, which of course is an abomination, because none of them "Leerburg" came up with.
> 
> The tiny annoyance that the dog is learning to "avoid" is minimal, and the dog learns just to do the behavior and turn it off.
> 
> THIS is where the beginners begin to urk me. They cannot get past the dog having to endure some minor irritation to learn. Sometimes to get your point across with a strong dog, you have to correct him.
> 
> If you don't have the heart to do this, then why are you here ???
> 
> The other thing is when they start arguing. How is it that you can argue when you do not know what you are talking about ??? Having done NOTHING means exactly that. One day maybe you will get to sit at the head of the table, but more than likely you will not.


Just for clarification, how would say,,Bob Scott fit with this premise?


----------



## Anne Vaini

Steven,

I use the word "compulsion" for this because the application of the pressure _compells_ the dog to perform the behavior.

Simply applying force is not necessarily compulsion in this sense as not all force compells the dog to perform the behavior, and not all compulsion is force.

Using the jump example:

I was performing with my dog. This is an on-stage, off leash, "all positive" type situation. My dog refused a jump in in-between show practice. I knew that the only way to recover her for the next show was compulsion - but what can I do in that situation? what kind of pressure can I apply that would compell her to jump?

I put her in a "sit pretty" stay for approximately 5 minutes - until she was tired and sore and could barely hold herself up straight. She would have done ANYTHING to break position. Like jumping. She flew over the jump, got a big jackpot and we did well in the next show.


----------



## Guest

Perfect explanation, Anne.


----------



## Kristina Senter

In a simpler example: a dog understands a "down" command and chooses to break the command when he sees a ball. 
Although you can teach the dog that breaking the command will not achieve the ball in a number of ways, with many dogs, you will need to correct for breaking the down at some point. If you correct and the dog and he does not go all the way down, or goes down and slowly rises right back up, you teach him nothing untill he understands that the correction (pressure) does not stop until he is in a complete down. This does not imply that it needs to be an excessive amount of pressure, the timing is what will teach the dog how to "turn off" the pressure.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Anne, is the decision to jump here, yours or hers??

I think the clue in Jeff's post lies here:
THIS is where the beginners begin to urk me. They cannot get past the dog having to endure some minor irritation to learn. Sometimes to get your point across with a strong dog, you have to correct him.

If you don't have the heart to do this, then why are you here ??? 

And where are you Jeff :lol:


----------



## Guest

> Anne, is the decision to jump here, yours or hers??


Good question. I bet a jump could be classically conditioned with an electric floor. Short of that, I think we're typically doomed to responses which are ultimately voluntary. :-({|=


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Quote Steven L. So I guess that's the particular hair I split. I consider jumping over a park bench, or a horse jump as essentially novel to the dog compared to a hurdle or a hedge, and thus take a remedial approach in its introduction.Unquote

Steven, I'm not saying I'm right - it's just my simple way of thinking maybe. I think I have taught my dog with the word "jump" to jump *over *what I want it to, i.e. put pressure on its back legs and heave itself over the obstacle. I don't want any more than this and definitely don't want it to assume it could go through or even round it.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Steven Lepic said:


> Good question. I bet a jump could be classically conditioned with an electric floor. Short of that, I think we're typically doomed to responses which are ultimately voluntary. :-({|=


Now that could be right to a point until I say "jump" :lol:


----------



## James Downey

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> We have a lot of very new people here on the forum so I thought maybe this would be a good topic to start.
> 
> One of the things that I am seeing personally over the years is the "beginners question"
> 
> Most of the time, I see this being asked when the person is doing an exercise like heeling, and they are far enough along where you start to "adjust" what they are doing to be more correct.
> 
> This is an avoidance behavior, and it has become more prevalent in the last few years. It is frustrating for those of us that "did what we where told"
> 
> In this day and age, the younger generation "text" when they do not want to "confront" you, like missing work, apologies excetera.
> 
> This behavior of "Beginners questions" stops the pressure THEY feel when you start to make them more correct in the work. I do not mind them asking questions, but the bottom line is that they are doing this out of avoidance of the training.
> 
> There is also concern, in my opinion when it comes to the "beginners questions" about concern for the dogs welfare, such as we saw in the thread about Leerburgs methods, which of course is an abomination, because none of them "Leerburg" came up with.
> 
> The tiny annoyance that the dog is learning to "avoid" is minimal, and the dog learns just to do the behavior and turn it off.
> 
> THIS is where the beginners begin to urk me. They cannot get past the dog having to endure some minor irritation to learn. Sometimes to get your point across with a strong dog, you have to correct him.
> 
> If you don't have the heart to do this, then why are you here ???
> 
> The other thing is when they start arguing. How is it that you can argue when you do not know what you are talking about ??? Having done NOTHING means exactly that. One day maybe you will get to sit at the head of the table, but more than likely you will not.


 
I think that concern for the dogs welfare and wishing to learn a method that maybe just as effective and respectful to the dog is noble plight and not a lack of heart. And I do use correction and punishment...But I still admire people searching for more progressive training. And this is a funny topic coming from you Jeff, you are probably one of the most conflictual people in dogs I have ever met. But yet you have qualifications that others must meet in order to engage the same behavior you take very liberly. The qualifications you impose are experience based. You have gouged me for not having as much experience as you as somehow that makes you more qualified to speak. And if I challenge you...I am wrong... not because of the points of my argument but simply because I have not been doing this as long as you have. 

I think the young minds coming into dogs are simply incredible...The amount of people trialing thier first dog and winning big is enormous at the moment. Which makes me believe that experience is not mutulally exclusive to the quality of expertise. 

So, By that note. When I critically think about someones advice Experience is less and less a determing factor when considering the source. The crediablity for me now is the proof. Simply are you having success with your dog.

By Begginers question...I take it you feel that begginers are interrupting the training in an order to stop being told what to do?

If I am trying to help someone and they are trying to avoid my help...then maybe instead of getting fustrated I should just let them be. Live and let live. And maybe there is a reason they do not want my help....it is possible that my advice my not be very good...or it may not fit thier training program. Either way it's really none of my buisness how they want to train. I highly doubt it's some generational culutral gap that's driving them to question the advice.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

With Jeff's post I find you have to someimes read between the lines.

He has such a lot to offer but not all want to know about it. More the pity them.


----------



## susan tuck

Steve Strom said:


> Just for clarification, how would say,,Bob Scott fit with this premise?


I know this question was not posed to me, but if I may, I would like to respond.

Bob Scott has been around the block a number of times with many dogs. I believe Thunder was his first foray into the world of grip sports? Still, I believe he is familiar with and has used various methods from force to compulsion to motivation to a little bit of everything on different breeds of dogs and different venues. Bob has chosen to go the route of 100% motivation at this point, all the more power to him, it's working for him, he's happy with it, and that's all that matters. 8) 

The DIFFERENCE is Bob always prefaces with "this is what is working for me". I am pretty sure if Bob didn't have first hand knowledge of whether or not a method works and how it works he sure wouldn't be making blanket statements about how unfair and cruel it was and how unhappy all the dogs trained by that method must be. ](*,) 

He keeps a pretty open mind.

AND now I'll shut up because I bet Bob can speak for himself!!!!!!!!\\/


----------



## Steve Strom

I'm not in any way saying anything negative about Bob or Jeff. I just think Bob kinda contradicts Jeff's premise.


----------



## susan tuck

Well I don't know. I pretty much learned by doing what I was told, keeping my mouth shut and my ears open, same as Jeff. Plus you have to remember for most of us, the internet and it's "information highway" was not available back then. People first actually LEARNED techniques from others, hands on experience, then decided what they wanted to keep or molded it according to what their own experiences showed them. Maybe it's just generational.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Page one I didn't get the point across.

The HUMAN cannot handle pressure, so they start asking questions to avoid the things that cause THEM pressure.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Just for clarification, how would say,,Bob Scott fit with this premise?

Bob would not fit at all. He is not new, and argues his points based on experiences that HE has had.

I hate not getting my point across correctly.


----------



## Steve Strom

I understood your point Jeff, and also the generational difference Susan.


----------



## susan tuck

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Page one I didn't get the point across.
> 
> The HUMAN cannot handle pressure, so they start asking questions to avoid the things that cause THEM pressure.


Okay, BUT like dogs, people must learn they can work through and despite the pressure, if not well then maybe this is not the arena for them..........Now I see exactly what you are saying.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

susan tuck said:


> Okay, BUT like dogs, people must learn they can work through and despite the pressure, if not well then maybe this is not the arena for them..........Now I see exactly what you are saying.



I get what he is saying and am guilty of doing what he said. When training Judge, I'll run into a little bump and NOT wanting to over-correct him, I start asking questions, instead of following my instinct, correcting him that moment and moving on. 

I did get scared of disciplining him or giving too many corrections as nowadays people see it as wrong and their way is the only way of training. I've learned in the last 6 months that I know how I treat them, my family and friends know and that's all that matters. I think that there are a lot of newbies who may be in the same situation and the same thinking.....People are crazy and you can report someone for anything. 

Courtney


----------



## Bob Scott

;-)


Steve Strom said:


> I'm not in any way saying anything negative about Bob or Jeff. I just think Bob kinda contradicts Jeff's premise.


First off, nothing negative taken. This is a legit discussion! :wink: 
Ok, I'm going to really rattle the cages here.
I agree with Jeff!  
What I do is a choice, as I've always said. 
Compulsion, correction training, etc is no different the all motivational/no correction that I do. It's only as good as the person using it.
I DO NOT believe it's the only way. I will have no problem hammerinng a dog if I feel it needs it.....or maybe I'm just getting soft on my old age. :-k: .......Probably not! :lol: 
Susan pretty much cover it. I've been around the block with many dogs. More then a few of the four legged ones too. :-# Did I say that with my out loud voice? 
Yes, Thunder is my first venture into the bite sports but a dog is a dog, is a dog! I don't really care what your trying to teach the dog.You get in their head and take it in a direction that you want to go with what works for YOU and YOUR dog. 
I'd be ashamed to talk about some of my dog training in the past. Not because of corrections, but because of heavy handed or unfair corrections. That also didn't make me a bad trainer. Maybe just a bit to needy in the control dept. 
I believe I can read a dog pretty well. Without that any training is nothing more then (as Jeff said) "doing what were told". 
There are people that can't train the way I do just as there are people that can't train a dog regarddless of the method.
I'll continue with these methods by choice. I see many, many more people that are using less and less physical pressure on their dogs. I think all can benifit. maybe not to the extent I have but I most certainly hope that "the old methods" are never forgotten as long as they are done humanely and correctly. History has shown they work. 
I don't necessarily agree with some of the folks on the forum but they don't necessarily agree with me. 
That's dog training! :wink:


----------



## Kristina Senter

Well put, Bob.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Bob, you still started with people saying do this, and you did it, and then you went home and practiced it, and started to learn about what the dog was doing, and what worked best AT THAT TIME AND PLACE.

When you got to the point where you were asking questions, it was not out of avoidance, but because you had TRIED a few things, and were not getting the response you wanted.

I see the new people asking questions like Courtney was saying, to avoid having to actually train the dog. As far as a positive OR negative method, they start to melt under the pressure, and you see the "learned helplessness" that we used to see with dogs that were corrected way to much, where they just hold still and are not trying a different behavior.

It is alright to question things, but I tend to see them questioning as avoidance, not for knowledge, as they go right back out and do the same thing, and then freak, and ask questions. LOL

I do feel bad for new people a lot of the time, as they show up and they are training with trainers that have trained 2 or 3 dogs at least.

I guess where I start to loose it is when they ask a question that shows you that they do not understand a concept, which happens on this board a LOT, and then they want to argue with you about your answer. Shut up and try it, THEN come back and tell me I suck or something. =D> =D>


----------



## Bob Scott

I was fortunate as a kid because with my first dog I had an old man that lived across the street from me. He had a working Pointer and always talked about whAT he did and more importantly WHY. Heavy handed? Yes! This was in the mid 50s, but he was always fair and clear about why. 
When he passed on I continued with books and trial and error but old Mr Zwazie left me with at least an understanding of why! 
By the time I got to the questions it was more about finding methods to refine for points, not the why and how the dog learns. 
That's what most beginners are missing and many "trainers" are nothing more then the product of "what THEY WERE TOLD" ALSO.
I don't particularly like to tell beginners what to do over the net because I have no idea if they have any dog sense. Giving generic advice (in particular for aggression issues) can get them in trouble.


----------



## James Downey

First I have not witnessed this great atrocity. Maybe I have not been observant enough? I have not had this happen to me. I guess when new people ask for advice and I offer my experience I try to leave it at that. When they are asking questions after I have offered advice it's generally because they have recieved conflicting advice or they are digging deeper. The people I do get into spats with seem to be people that are absolutley conviced they are correct. Maybe they are? Or it's on issues of ethics. But maybe...just maybe the new person does not take the advice from the person because...they simply do not want that persons advice. The other thing is...and I mean this with all due respect maybe Jeff's assessment on the behavior of asking questions as avoidance is wrong. Either way this seems to be a pretty petty thing. We are not curing cancer here. If the new person is not open to advice and using avoidance tactics to not deal with it...let it go. When I have a problem with other human beings...I HAVE THE PROBLEM. Does that make sense. This seems pretty easy to solve. Tell them exactly what you wrote in your last sentence and leave it at that. Tell them to try it, and then make a judgement. If they do not want to try it...well then you have done all you can.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

_"That's what most beginners are missing and many "trainers" are nothing more then the product of "what THEY WERE TOLD" ALSO."_

I don't like not hearing the WHY, because later on I'll be told something different, or _"don't do that"_, and I'll reply_ "but you told me to do it that way before"_, to which I hear _"yes, but do it this way now"_, and I still don't know WHY....it's frukstrating.

This thread's too deep for me.


----------



## Bob Scott

Who's on first....and why didn't he run to second? :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: First I have not witnessed this great atrocity.

I guess your reading comprehension is just too low to see it on the posts I was talking about.

Then again, why would anyone ask you to help them train their dog ???? LOL

Quote: I guess when new people ask for advice and I offer my experience I try to leave it at that.

So even if you were asked for help, you don't really give it.

Quote: But maybe...just maybe the new person does not take the advice from the person because...they simply do not want that persons advice.

People were paying me to help them train their dogs. Had a business number, encouraged them to see what my dogs could do, what my clients dogs could do. Kinda different from what you are putting out there as I am doing.

Not like I am walking around a park bugging people......maybe you should leave them alone, james.

Quote: The other thing is...and I mean this with all due respect maybe Jeff's assessment on the behavior of asking questions as avoidance is wrong.

Yet, you post nothing as evidence that it is. Geez Howard jr jr jr, at least give me something to wack you in the head with. If you have some experience tht I do not know about, great, but in all the years I have seen you post, most of the time people are slapping you about the head and shoulders for repeating what others say, and not actually contributing.

Just one time, say something and then actually back it up with a plausable arguement. After 13 years of school and a few degrees, maybe I might know something about the human psyche.


----------



## Jim Nash

The problem I've seen more throughout the past several years is that handlers want a quick easy fix to a problem . They will be given a way to solve it and if it doesn't work right away they will shop around to other trainers for a quick fix that never comes . Then they blame either the dog ,trainers or both .

I'm not sure if it's generational or the easy access to other trainers now a days that obviously will say they don't agree with the other trainer. Questions are good but soon or later you have to pick a course of action and put in a good effort . Most things don't come easy , you have to work for it .


----------



## James Downey

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: First I have not witnessed this great atrocity.
> 
> I guess your reading comprehension is just too low to see it on the posts I was talking about.
> 
> Then again, why would anyone ask you to help them train their dog ???? LOL
> 
> Quote: I guess when new people ask for advice and I offer my experience I try to leave it at that.
> 
> So even if you were asked for help, you don't really give it.
> 
> Quote: But maybe...just maybe the new person does not take the advice from the person because...they simply do not want that persons advice.
> 
> People were paying me to help them train their dogs. Had a business number, encouraged them to see what my dogs could do, what my clients dogs could do. Kinda different from what you are putting out there as I am doing.
> 
> Not like I am walking around a park bugging people......maybe you should leave them alone, james.
> 
> Quote: The other thing is...and I mean this with all due respect maybe Jeff's assessment on the behavior of asking questions as avoidance is wrong.
> 
> Yet, you post nothing as evidence that it is. Geez Howard jr jr jr, at least give me something to wack you in the head with. If you have some experience tht I do not know about, great, but in all the years I have seen you post, most of the time people are slapping you about the head and shoulders for repeating what others say, and not actually contributing.
> 
> Just one time, say something and then actually back it up with a plausable arguement. After 13 years of school and a few degrees, maybe I might know something about the human psyche.


 
I did not see you refrence any posts relating to the subject...you made general claims. Even used general terms...like new begginers. Which is the kind of term a college educated man should use...aren't all begginers new?

I do not know why anyone would ask me to help them with thier dog... I take it your saying my training sucks. We will not get into how successfu yourl training is....Will we. 

And as for the Buisness....This is the first time you mentioned that. And you refrenced this board as one of your places of "fustration". So, no it's exactly the same of what I am putting out there. The whole buisness thing is a big piece of information. I think that would have been pertinent to mention in previous posts. 


And as for experience...I deleted this on my last post but I will say it now. You have taken a lot of liberty on deciding how much experience I have. In fact this is a default AVOIDANCE behavior for you. You seem to go right to this instead of focusing on the agrument. On previous arguments I have simply stopped arguing with you when you come to this. Because it shows how ingnorant you are. You have no idea on how long I have been training dogs. You have no idea how long I have been training Protection dogs. If you must know I have been training dogs since I have been 12 (i am 30 now) and training protection dogs for the 6 years. You simply have this preception that I have done nothing. You use experience as a qualifier of a persons knowledge and ability. And also as prerequiste to even speak. Also you claim that I just repeat what others have told me. Which simply is not true. And then on top of it getting my slapped on the head shoulders by people for repeating it. Actually I got slapped on the head and shoulders for posting my own thoughts...those people attacked my arguments not my source. BTW those people were few, and to tell you the truth I have seen one of those people actually trial thier dog in the last 5 years...and the dog ran off the field from gun fire. Internet beatings as glorious as they maybe are still not trialing your dog. I have repeated things I have heard, I will admit I was not as blessed as you were upon birth with all the knowledge in the world...And seeing you just did what you were told as young lad...I am sure you have repeated a thing or 2 yourself. These attacks on my posts do not really contribute do they. You see where we are at here. I will tell you this, our altercations in the past and your general demeanor have left me not very receptive to your posts....maybe I am not the only one. Maybe others are just being polite when they offer thier AVOIDANCE behaviors. It seems trainers whom have had success do not have these problems. People actually just take thier word for it.

And your going to ask me for evidence? Your the one crying about no one trying your advice and avoiding you with questions. I have yet to see any evidence for this. Only the claims of "it happens a lot on this board" And I posted the word "maybe" which means might. I do not have any evidence. Really Jeff...you think that your on my radar that much.

Besides a Guy with 13 years of school, a few degrees and maybe some knowledge of the human psyche would be able to handle a few green trainers who are offering some avoidance behavior. And if I were you I would go kick the shit out of my guidance counselor...All that school and all those degrees. and 13.5 k a year is all you got of it?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: And as for experience...I deleted this on my last post but I will say it now. You have taken a lot of liberty on deciding how much experience I have. In fact this is a default AVOIDANCE behavior for you.

Uhhhh, better look up the big words their jimmy.

Quote: Besides a Guy with 13 years of school, a few degrees and maybe some knowledge of the human psyche would be able to handle a few green trainers who are offering some avoidance behavior. And if I were you I would go kick the shit out of my guidance counselor...All that school and all those degrees. and 13.5 k a year is all you got of it?

Noticing a trend, and being unable to deal with it are two different things entirely, but I am sure you know that already.

I stayed in school while it interested me. The actual application of what I learned however was not what I wanted out of life.

I find that being free of all the silly shit that I used to find important is better for me. I can go where I want, and do the things I want to do. I made a list a bunch of years back of all the things I wanted to see and do before I die.

Well, having the "job" and gathering "stuff" was sort of a by product of making that kind of money. It had been a few years and the list I had made was still the same, no check marks. Meant to do it, but the house needed this, the car needed that, to tired, whatever. So one day I had an epiphany, and sold all my stuff and decided to do the things on my list.

I have a few more things to see, and do, but the list went from quite long, to only a few things left.

You see james, in the end, it is not the money that counts for shit, it is what you have done, and have seen, and tried in this life.

Of course I don't go around telling people that I was once successful. Many of them already think I am nuts. : ) 

Luckily, I wasn't stupid with my money that I made, so 13.5 is enough.

It is interesting how the amount of money you make in this life matters to some people. I think that is an entirely different topic though.


----------



## Anne Vaini

> The problem I've seen more throughout the past several years is that handlers want a quick easy fix to a problem . They will be given a way to solve it and if it doesn't work right away they will shop around to other trainers for a quick fix that never comes . Then they blame either the dog ,trainers or both .


Ditto. I see this a lot. Frustrates me to no end. They see the results I have in my dog. I tell them exactly how many hours of training it took and the eyebrows go up a little higher.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

Jim Nash said:


> The problem I've seen more throughout the past several years is that handlers want a quick easy fix to a problem . They will be given a way to solve it and if it doesn't work right away they will shop around to other trainers for a quick fix that never comes . Then they blame either the dog ,trainers or both .
> 
> I'm not sure if it's generational or the easy access to other trainers now a days that obviously will say they don't agree with the other trainer. Questions are good but soon or later you have to pick a course of action and put in a good effort . Most things don't come easy , you have to work for it .



This is SO correct. 

I will use myself as an example since I've only been training bitesports for 4 years. I have trained dogs a lot longer than that but it was different, I didn't want the level of precision that I do now. 

I am by nature a VERY IMPATIENT person......this works so much against me in dog training it's horrible. I want things to be right the first time, there is no room for error. This is when I have to step back and let it go for a few and then start training again. I want him titled yesterday and that is WHY I want quick easy fixes. 

However, I KNOW that those quick easy fixes are going to bite me in the ass in the long run, hence the reason I have taught myself to step back and WORK through the issue NOT AROUND it. I think that many newbies work around an issue and then try to go back and fix it. I have realized that in the long run, I'm going to have a better dog if I work through the issue right then and not try and go back and fix it later. 

Don't get me wrong, I can train some things really well, a long platz and the retrieve etc. BUT I have a hard time training Foos. I know that it has to do with me and not the dog. The dog knows it but continues to forge ahead and give me not eye contact. I personally think this is because he does not have the focus down yet, he will look at me when I ask for it but outside coupled with a foos, all I get is a few check ins. I used a little harsher method yesterday than I'd been using and he is starting to get it. I was using one swift correction and yesterday, I used a bunch of nagging corrections until he got in place. It worked well. 

I think this is more of a generational thing as my generation in general is a lot more impatient than the older generations. Society influences....probably. 

Courtney


----------



## Candy Eggert

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff........don't you recognize "Mad Skilz, One Time" when you see it [-X


----------



## Ryan Cole

This is a great discussion.
As a completely inexperienced person, I believe I understand exactly what the orig post is saying. 
Luckily, I don't think it applies to me!
However, I am having a hard time convincing the wife -- who has no problem swatting a nose HARD for sniffing something up on the table -- that an Ecollar is not the horrific torture device she see's it as.
Meanwhile, she has an attitude that the dogs already "just know" what we want of them, they just choose to be defiant and not obey.
I want to use all tools available to me to teach something they haven't had an opportunity to learn yet, and refine the things that they've begun learning.
Can anyone point to some clear, concise and simply-written literature in support of ecollars?


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

Can I ask you WHY you are using an e-collar and for what behaviors? 

I do think that everyone has been guilty of what Jeff said at least once in their dog training career. That or people just don't want to admit their weaknesses. 

Courtney


----------



## Ryan Cole

I'm not using one now. I am simply gathering input to help in my decision making.
If used, I would not engage in the continuous stim until escape method, but would be using it more as a signaling device, as a way of communicating at a distance, for off-leash ob training.
You seem to have more you'd like to say about it and I encourage you, since my mind's not made up....


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

Just curious. E-collars are GREAT tools in the right hands. Make sure you have someone VERY experienced helping you with it. At least that's my 
.02. I have used one before on a dog that needed it for off leash work due to DA. 

Courtney


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

An e-collar isn't a "signalling device" for "work at a distance". Make no mistake, it is a correction. Even in dogs that tolerate the stim seemingly well, it's a correction. If you're going to use it, use it properly - as an extension of a prong correction that allows you to work at a distance, and/or without a visual to the dog that the correction is coming. Don't fool yourself, using lower-level stim as "communication" is escape training.

I love e-collars. I use them almost invariably in my proofing in a well-trained, adult dog. However, I've found that if my foundation in positive training is solid, the "necessary proofing" stage gets pushed further and further back, and is shorter and shorter. It makes the point that really if the dog knows what he's to be doing CLEARLY, he generally will want to do it. You get the odd dog that'll push the boundaries and "test" the handler, or the odd stimulus that a dog can't resist. These are the occasions that are assisted by proper use of the e-collar.


----------



## Ryan Cole

Thank you both.
By what I said, I definitaly was not thinking of "signaling" as in using a low level stim as if it were a clicker, if that was where anyone thought I was headed.
Rather, I had in mind that I could communicate to the dogs when they were not doing what I wanted while off leash -- when I can't give an immediate enough correction to undesired behavior.
I'm finding it difficult to word the way I like......
They just seem to be smart enough to realize that if they're off-leash and I'm not standing right there next to them, then I can't give a correction, so they decide that whatever might come later (once I get to them) is worth it for them not to listen now, and keep doing whatever it was they wanted instead of what I wanted.
I had recommendations from others to go the ecollar route with my hard-headed guys; just wanted to solicit some general feelings from others.


----------



## Joseph Meunier

Admit weaknesses? It would be much quicker to list my strengths...Some days I don't know where to begin.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

Joseph Meunier said:


> Admit weaknesses? It would be much quicker to list my strengths...Some days I don't know where to begin.


And thus your post proves my point. Everybody has weaknesses in their life and in their dog training. Ask me about mine in dog training anytime and I'll list them for you but my life personal weaknesses are a different story. 

Courtney


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Jenn Ruzsa said:


> An e-collar isn't a "signalling device" for "work at a distance". Make no mistake, it is a correction. Even in dogs that tolerate the stim seemingly well, it's a correction. If you're going to use it, use it properly - as an extension of a prong correction that allows you to work at a distance, and/or without a visual to the dog that the correction is coming. Don't fool yourself, using lower-level stim as "communication" is escape training.


I think it depends on how you are using it. Your method may be correction/escape training, I know the way I use it is as a correction, even on a low level. However, I've talked to people who use it in a MUCH more refined method then I do, who use it to signal things to the dog. Like when it's time to bite. I don't see how a "nudge" from the collar (very low level stim) that tells the dog "hey, you can bite now" can be considered a correction, I'm sure the dog didn't think he was being corrected but instead finally being released to a reward.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I think it depends on how you are using it. Your method may be correction/escape training, I know the way I use it is as a correction, even on a low level. However, I've talked to people who use it in a MUCH more refined method then I do, who use it to signal things to the dog. Like when it's time to bite. I don't see how a "nudge" from the collar (very low level stim) that tells the dog "hey, you can bite now" can be considered a correction, I'm sure the dog didn't think he was being corrected but instead finally being released to a reward.


I've seen the e-collar on low stim used as a "communication" to bite a decoy, or go for a Frisbee or other retrieve item (extensively, in fact). There are some dogs that can handle it relatively without conflict, and these are the dogs that make the best "demo dogs" for promoters of these methods. More dogs still will eventually adapt to it - probably the majority of dogs. But whether the dog tolerates or adapts to it, the stim from an e-collar is still an aversive. In this case you mention, it seems to me that the stim is being used as an aversive to "not NOT bite" (essentially to bite) if that makes sense.

It's my believe that electrical stimulation is "different" than other forms of physical stimulation too. I've never really looked into research to support it, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were studies on the unique characteristics of shock in applications with humans and/or animals. We communicate so much within our own bodies by electrical means, it only makes sense that shock would affect animals differently than other forms of touch.


----------



## Ian Forbes

Jenn Ruzsa said:


> I've seen the e-collar on low stim used as a "communication" to bite a decoy, or go for a Frisbee or other retrieve item (extensively, in fact). There are some dogs that can handle it relatively without conflict, and these are the dogs that make the best "demo dogs" for promoters of these methods. More dogs still will eventually adapt to it - probably the majority of dogs. But whether the dog tolerates or adapts to it, the stim from an e-collar is still an aversive.


Not necessarily. If it just a signal, the dog is not working to turn it off. I see it as no different to using the beeper or vibrate mode as a signal.



> In this case you mention, it seems to me that the stim is being used as an aversive to "not NOT bite" (essentially to bite) if that makes sense.


I disagree - I think in this case it would just be a signal. We are talking about just a 'nick' on the stim?



> It's my believe that electrical stimulation is "different" than other forms of physical stimulation too. I've never really looked into research to support it, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were studies on the unique characteristics of shock in applications with humans and/or animals. We communicate so much within our own bodies by electrical means, it only makes sense that shock would affect animals differently than other forms of touch.


Every stimulus is tranmitted to our brains using electrical signals. No doubt some individuals (of all species) are more sensitive to some stimuli than others. I don't believe that electrical stimulation is particularly different to any other stimuli in that it can occurs in many ways, at many level and individuals will respond differently.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

If a stim is being used both as a negative reinforcer and a signal to become active, I'm kinda confused how the dog keeps from being confused if there's no body language from the handler.

Unless the dog is conditioned to responding to stim in a certain way based on the scenario? Or is it the level of stim being used that determines whether or not it's positive or negative?

If so - then wouldn't the negative require a higher stim than actually necessary, assuming you use the e-collar in the "level the dog can JUST start to feel" way? Or would there be a second collar in a different location with an alternate meaning? Or....? How does the dog differentiate between whether you are signaling to start a behavior or signaling to stop a behavior?


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

For the sake of clarity:

Positive reinforcement is when the dog is given something for compliance with a behaviour. So, a treat is positive reinforcement.

Negative reinforcement is when something is taken away from the situation to reward the dog for compliance with a behaviour. So, in escape training, the cessation of the stim is negative reinforcement.

Positive punishment is when something is applied to discourage noncompliance. A prong collar pop is a form of positive punishment.

Negative punishment is when a reward is withheld to discourage noncompliance. The absence of reward is a negative punishment.

Most "motivational training" employs both positive reinforcement and negative punishment, while "compulsive training" employs negative reinforcement and positive punishment.

Positive and negative have nothing to do with "good vs. bad". ;-)


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Terminology kills me  Let me rephrase then:



> If a stim is being used both as positive punishment and a signal to become active (initiate a behavior), I'm kinda confused how the dog keeps from being confused if there's no body language from the handler.


Question remains, how does the dog tell the difference between "this stim means go do something" and "this stim means knock it off" ?


----------



## Ian Forbes

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> If a stim is being used both as a negative reinforcer and a signal to become active, I'm kinda confused how the dog keeps from being confused if there's no body language from the handler.


I would not recommend using it as both. If I was using the e-collar stim as +P and -R, I would only use a tone or vibrate mode as a signal to the dog.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Jenn Ruzsa said:


> For the sake of clarity:
> 
> Positive reinforcement is when the dog is given something for compliance with a behaviour. So, a treat is positive reinforcement.
> 
> Negative reinforcement is when something is taken away from the situation to reward the dog for compliance with a behaviour. So, in escape training, the cessation of the stim is negative reinforcement.
> 
> Positive punishment is when something is applied to discourage noncompliance. A prong collar pop is a form of positive punishment.
> 
> Negative punishment is when a reward is withheld to discourage noncompliance. The absence of reward is a negative punishment.
> 
> Most "motivational training" employs both positive reinforcement and negative punishment, while "compulsive training" employs negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
> 
> Positive and negative have nothing to do with "good vs. bad". ;-)



This gets me all balled up in knots. For instance, I can add pain or remove comfort by the same action - is that positive or negative?

I use it as good vs. bad because I can't seem to make sense of it. can you help me out on this?


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

Umm....yeah, I don't see how the dog knows the difference between the 2 stims. 

On eminute, I'm correcting my dog with it for breaking a long down, the next I'm giving him a stim that means he can be released to bite, or whatever? 

Can you say confusion? I personally think this would make the dog so confused, they'd just sit there. I'd love to hear the explanation on how it would work! 

Courtney


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Question remains, how does the dog tell the difference between "this stim means go do something" and "this stim means knock it off" ?


It is my understanding that it's based on where the stim comes from. The dogs have more then one collar on, and each collar means something different. Stim on one can mean "go" stim on another can me "stop"

Even if it was just with one collar though, it would probably be the difference between the handler lightly touching the dog with a finger to cue it to do something, vs puching it with a fist to cue it to not do something. 



> But whether the dog tolerates or adapts to it, the stim from an e-collar is still an aversive.


I think this assumes the stim is always painful, or at least uncomfortable. And I don't agree with that, not when done at a very low level.


----------



## Chad Byerly

Jenn Ruzsa said:


> For the sake of clarity:
> 
> Positive reinforcement is when the dog is given something for compliance with a behaviour. So, a treat is positive reinforcement.
> 
> Negative reinforcement is when something is taken away from the situation to reward the dog for compliance with a behaviour. So, in escape training, the cessation of the stim is negative reinforcement.
> 
> Positive punishment is when something is applied to discourage noncompliance. A prong collar pop is a form of positive punishment.
> 
> Negative punishment is when a reward is withheld to discourage noncompliance. The absence of reward is a negative punishment.
> 
> Most "motivational training" employs both positive reinforcement and negative punishment, while "compulsive training" employs negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
> 
> Positive and negative have nothing to do with "good vs. bad". ;-)


Negative Punishment. Many people define it the way you did, "The absence of reward", but my understanding is this describes Extinction of whatever behavior caused that result (no result). And Negative Punishment requires the removal of something from the environment that will decrease the probablity of the behavior in the future (whatever the dog WAS DOING in that trial) . 

*Not rewarding* is no change, and this can still be in the Positive Reinforcement quadrant, because once criteria is met something will be added to the environment which will increase the probability of the behavior in the future.


----------



## Ian Forbes

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I think this assumes the stim is always painful, or at least uncomfortable. And I don't agree with that, not when done at a very low level.


True.

A light tap on the shoulder will get your attention. A hard prod will probably hurt.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Even if it was just with one collar though, it would probably be the difference between the handler lightly touching the dog with a finger to cue it to do something, vs puching it with a fist to cue it to not do something.


I still don't get how it can be both encouragement and correction.

If a very very low level of stim "works" to correct a certain dog (to "stop"), how can that same very very low level cue him (encourage him) to "go"?

Two collars? Really? Let's set that aside for a second.

Now what?


----------



## Bob Scott

I just use avoidance with the e-collars.
I avoid using them. :-o :razz: :razz: :wink:


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Connie Sutherland said:


> If a very very low level of stim "works" to correct a certain dog (to "stop"), how can that same very very low level cue him (encourage him) to "go"?


I haven't had a dog yet that the same "very very low level" that could be used as a signal was also enough to use as a correction. And from what I know of the dogs being trained in this way, they are the same. That very very low level can be a "go" cue, because the correction is coming at a higher level.



> Two collars? Really? Let's set that aside for a second.
> 
> Now what?


Now what what? Are you asking now what about 2 collars, or now what about a dog who uses the absolute lowest level it can feel on the collar as it's correction setting?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I haven't had a dog yet that the same "very very low level" that could be used as a signal was also enough to use as a correction. And from what I know of the dogs being trained in this way, they are the same. That very very low level can be a "go" cue, because the correction is coming at a higher level.
> 
> 
> 
> Now what what? Are you asking now what about 2 collars, or now what about a dog who uses the absolute lowest level it can feel on the collar as it's correction setting?


:lol:


I was asking now what, to differentiate between "stop" and "go" if "stop" requires nothing more than a very very low level of stim.

But you answered that, too, actually, in the first part of your post.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

Anne Vaini said:


> This gets me all balled up in knots. For instance, I can add pain or remove comfort by the same action - is that positive or negative?
> 
> I use it as good vs. bad because I can't seem to make sense of it. can you help me out on this?


The way that I understand it, the "quadrant" considers basic comfort a neutrality. The rest is about what the intended response is:

Positive Reinforcement is APPLICATION of REWARD to INCREASE a behaviour.
Negative Reinforcement is WITHDRAWAL of a PUNISHER to INCREASE behaviour.
Positive Punishment is APPLICATION of a PUNISHER to DECREASE behaviour.
Negative Punishment is WITHDRAWAL of a REWARD to DECREASE behaviour.

Therefore, the APPLICATION of pain (PUNISHER) intended to DECREASE further occurrence of the behaviour meets the defining criteria of a positive punisher.

Hope this helps some! I need a coffee. :mrgreen:


----------



## Michele McAtee

Jenn, thank you for outlining this is not rocket science. Lol!
I've seen exactly what you have written and discussed the topic at club. Good reminder.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

Chad Byerly said:


> Negative Punishment. Many people define it the way you did, "The absence of reward", but my understanding is this describes Extinction of whatever behavior caused that result (no result). And Negative Punishment requires the removal of something from the environment that will decrease the probablity of the behavior in the future (whatever the dog WAS DOING in that trial) .
> 
> *Not rewarding* is no change, and this can still be in the Positive Reinforcement quadrant, because once criteria is met something will be added to the environment which will increase the probability of the behavior in the future.


I do believe in a technical sense you're very right. However, this is how I've seen it applied most to animal training specifically. Unless it's just too early for me to be using my brain right, I can't think of an example where a negative punishment in your definition sense might be used by a positive trainer.

For the purposes of example: A dog is dirty in the blind.
A positive reinforcement would be to allow him to have the bite, and apply praise, when he works cleanly.
A negative reinforcement might use stim on an e-collar that the dog "turns off" by doing a clean bark and hold.
A positive punisher applies a stim/prong correction when the dog bites dirty.
A negative punisher would be the withholding of the bite that the dog wants, and goes hand-in-hand with the positive reinforcement in the quadrant.

What might a negative punisher by your definition constitute? Thanks!


----------



## Chad Byerly

It would be interesting if others would answer this question as well, because I know that many trainers use negative punishment. (BTW, per this thread, I'm a beginner)



Jenn Ruzsa said:


> For the purposes of example: A dog is dirty in the blind
> ....
> What might a negative punisher by your definition constitute? Thanks!


Mainly I've heard:
Calmly put dog in the car or away from the field for a short period, then bring back out.



Jenn Ruzsa said:


> A negative punisher would be the withholding of the bite that the dog wants, and goes hand-in-hand with the positive reinforcement in the quadrant.


I'm not clear on the set-up, or what you mean by "dirty in the blind". I was imagining the dog had already bit the sleeve in the blind...
------------------
Or, not Negative Punishment:

Minimize how much fun the dog has with the dirty bite, and start again. (management)
Lower criteria, and set the dog up to succeed. (back to training)


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

Chad Byerly said:


> It would be interesting if others would answer this question as well, because I know that many trainers use negative punishment. (BTW, per this thread, I'm a beginner)
> 
> 
> 
> Mainly I've heard:
> Calmly put dog in the car or away from the field for a short period, then bring back out.
> 
> 
> I'm not clear on the set-up, or what you mean by "dirty in the blind". I was imagining the dog had already bit the sleeve in the blind...
> ------------------
> Or, not Negative Punishment:
> 
> Minimize how much fun the dog has with the dirty bite, and start again. (management)
> Lower criteria, and set the dog up to succeed. (back to training)


I suppose there are those that believe the dog connects "putting him up in the kennel" with punishment. Personally, I don't. Which is good because I'd hate for my dog to think that every time he goes into the kennel I am trying to reduce the incidence of a behaviour. Though thinking back on dogs we had as kids, it's amazing how quick calling the dog to put him inside for the day before leaving for work decreases the occurrence of the recall! :razz:

I find it interesting that putting the dog up would be used as an example, since usually what I see being done with a young dog is that he's put up as soon as there's a "good note" to put him up on. I would think if putting him up was an EFFECTIVE negative punisher, it'd take longer and longer to reach those good notes. Am I just rambling?

My example was perhaps ineffectively describing a situation where the bark and hold is desired. I chose this situation because generally the breaking of a bark and hold is a self rewarding behaviour, even if the "fight" isn't as much fun.

I agree with your "minimize the fun, and lower criteria/set up for success" but would argue that minimizing the fun is negative punishment (withholding of the reward) and that "setting up for success" demands clarification that will ultimately lead to the dog being put into a situation where he successfully performs the bark and hold, and is thereby POSITIVELY REINFORCED with a bite and praise.

Does any of that make sense? Sorry I'm in a rush out the door. LOL


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Why would you put the dog up on a negative note? Counter productive IMO.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Mike, if I interpreted your question correctly, then we've done exactly that in our disaster SAR training. For example, the dog consistently pays attention to the distraction instead of finding the hidden person, so we leash him up and put him back in the car. We'll get him out at the next training and voila - he ignores the distraction. We discovered this by accident, but it sure seems to work for specific situations. We're taking away the reward by removing him from the situation and putting him in the car, and we're certainly ending on a negative note. If the dog wants his reward badly enough (and we select dogs who do, which is why this works for us), he'll ignore the distraction next time around.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

If the dog cannot find an article, I used to put him away. This was an article search, not tracking.

I let him see me go out and find the article and then I would kick my soccer ball around, as a reward for me finding the article.


----------



## Anne Vaini

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> If the dog cannot find an article, I used to put him away. This was an article search, not tracking.
> 
> I let him see me go out and find the article and then I would kick my soccer ball around, as a reward for me finding the article.


That worked??!


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

He never said it worked, he just said thats what he did    I think he just wanted an excuse to kick a soccer ball around


----------



## Bob Scott

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Why would you put the dog up on a negative note? Counter productive IMO.


''I've had excellent results with Thunder with this method. 
For instance; He wants to forge on the back transport. I give a neutral "nope", take him by the collar and walk him off the field. 
It may only last 2-3 mins but he always comes back holding position much better.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I just wanted to kick the soccer ball around. LOL


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Bob Scott said:


> ''I've had excellent results with Thunder with this method.
> For instance; He wants to forge on the back transport. I give a neutral "nope", take him by the collar and walk him off the field.
> It may only last 2-3 mins but he always comes back holding position much better.


Bob, How long does this last? In other words, one putting away is enough? He no longer forges?


----------



## Jim Nash

We do a veriation of this in teaching a PSD to be quiet while making an announcement in the doorway before a search . The dog is usually amped up because he knows he's going to be released to search and confront a badguy so he starts barking on it's own . 

When the dog barks without a command to do so (usually before or during the announcement ) as soon as the dog barks we take him away from the doorway . As soon as he quiets down we turn him around and bring him back and give the announcement again . If he barks without command again we do the same thing until he's quiet throughout the announcement then we immedately release him to search . 

It works alot better than giving a physical correction which either just gets the dog more worked up or brings the dog out of drive . 

We do the same thing when bringing the dog up to work with a decoy . We don't want the dog to bark at the decoy on it's own or have the decoy get the dog to bark . We want the dog to bark only upon our command . 

If the dog barks at the decoy before the command we turn around and walk it away . When it's quiet we do the same as I described above . With some dogs they won't shut up until put back into the squad .

Some dogs are stubborn and it takes alot of work . With most though the dogs pick up on it quickly . The dogs pick up on it quicker when the handler has good timing (is able to turn dog around just as the dog barks) . Good timing makes it easier for the dog to make the association that it needs to be quiet before it can be rewarded (sent on a search to find badguy or sent on the decoy ) .


----------



## Bob Scott

Gillian Schuler said:


> Bob, How long does this last? In other words, one putting away is enough? He no longer forges?


It can hold for a number of training sessions. That's on me for letting it happen to much as a young dog. (rewarded to long for aproximation. He has excellent consistancy in most behaviours.


----------



## Lou Castle

Steven Lepic said:


> I've had an e-collar hanging on hook in my kitchen for 2 years now. I keep eye-balling it with temptation. But since I'm on no particular time-line, I keep finding a reason to think of _one more inductive method, _ or reading one more book before even going there. I personally think it's only helped my beginner perspective, and I've delayed the (what I thought was) the inevitable "proofing stage via corrections" for much longer than I thought.


Steve if your idea is to become a well rounded dog trainer there's no problem. If your goal is to have a well trained dog there might be. You can spend all the time you want with the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) and still not have a dog that's reliable in the face of distractions. Dogs have relatively short life spans. I think that we owe it to them to make them reliable as efficiently as possible. 

I'd suggest that you stop thinking of the Ecollar as some monster device to be avoided and learn more about it. It's far more gentle than I'm sure you imagine. But if all you're going to do is to correct your dog when he makes a mistake, leave it on that hook in the kitchen. Unless you've been keeping the batteries charged regularly, they probably need replacing anyway. 



Steven Lepic said:


> I would second the observation of saying my fellow newbs probably err on the heavy-handed side.


I've seen both with more people on the too "gentle side."


----------



## Lou Castle

Jenn Ruzsa said:


> Negative punishment is when a reward is withheld to discourage noncompliance. The absence of reward is a negative punishment.


Not quite. In order for something to be part of OC something actively must be done. Something has to be added or removed. "Withholding" is passive. REMOVING a reward would be a negative punishment. 



Jenn Ruzsa said:


> Most "motivational training" employs both positive reinforcement and negative punishment, while "compulsive training" employs negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
> 
> Positive and negative have nothing to do with "good vs. bad".


I'll disagree. These last definitions of "motivational training" v. "compulsive training" are usually how those who favor the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) characterize the difference between the two schools of training. In truth both kinds of trainers use all four quadrants of OC (Operant Conditioning).


----------



## Lou Castle

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Question remains, how does the dog tell the difference between "this stim means go do something" and "this stim means knock it off" ?


Mike for those who are using the Ecollar this way it's often done by using very low level stim and/or the nick mode for an affirmative command and they're using higher level stim and/or continuous mode as a correction. Usually they've created a reinforcing relationship between the low level stim and/or the nick mode beforehand.


----------



## Lou Castle

Anne Vaini said:


> This gets me all balled up in knots. For instance, I can add pain or remove comfort by the same action - is that positive or negative?
> 
> I use it as good vs. bad because I can't seem to make sense of it. can you help me out on this?


The problem is that you're looking at two sides of this. To properly use the terms of OC you should only look at one, _what you're doing, _not its result. 

In this example you've "added pain" making it "positive." "Removing comfort" is the _result _ of what you've done.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier Mike Schoonbrood wrote,


> But whether the dog tolerates or adapts to it, the stim from an e-collar is still an aversive.


Not necessarily. Some trainers use low level and/or nick mode just as others use a clicker. They make a pleasurable association with it, usually with food or a toy. In that case, it's not an aversive.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> We do a veriation of this in teaching a PSD to be quiet while making an announcement in the doorway before a search . The dog is usually amped up because he knows he's going to be released to search and confront a badguy so he starts barking on it's own .
> 
> When the dog barks without a command to do so (usually before or during the announcement ) as soon as the dog barks we take him away from the doorway . As soon as he quiets down we turn him around and bring him back and give the announcement again . If he barks without command again we do the same thing until he's quiet throughout the announcement then we immedately release him to search .
> 
> It works alot better than giving a physical correction which either just gets the dog more worked up or brings the dog out of drive .


A bit off topic but I'd like to address this. I've seen handlers do this for decades and have never found a reason for them doing it. If the dog is quiet naturally when the announcement is being given that's fine. But if he's not why bother trying to quiet him down AT ALL? 

Simply leave him in the car when the announcement is made or have someone else make it. No time wasted in training something that's not important in the first place. I've seen handlers' spend the dog's entire career correcting him when he starts barking. As you say it's rarely effective and often counter–productive. Why must the dog be at the door when the announcement is made? If you want the crook to hear the dog bark so he believes that a dog is present, do so just before you release him.


----------



## Bob Scott

I've always thought that reliability in a dog is more about the trainer's ability and connection with the dog then it is the method. 
Just a thought!


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou stated;

"Simply leave him in the car when the announcement is made or have someone else make it. No time wasted in training something that's not important in the first place. I've seen handlers' spend the dog's entire career correcting him when he starts barking. As you say it's rarely effective and often counter–productive. Why must the dog be at the door when the announcement is made? If you want the crook to hear the dog bark so he believes that a dog is present, do so just before you release him."


I've been a PSD handler for 12 years now , made alot of announcements and on a fair share of them things busted loose as soon as I made the announcement and it was a good thing I had the dog there . I also have the dog bark on command then quiet the dog and give the announcement again or I have the dog do it before I give the announcement then quiet him. Doesn't matter . It's really not that hard to train or take up that much training time when it's done with PSD's in the beginning of it's training .

I had a robbery suspect last night refusing to come down from the second floor of a house . I made the announcement with the dog at the base of the stairway . No response . Had dog bark , silenced him and made announcement again . Suspect yelled he was coming out and did so . 

I agree the corrections (to be specific on a prong , chain or with an e-collar) is usually not that effective . 

But taking the dog away from the entryway if it barks when it's not supposed to works much better. Early on in training the dog is taught to bark (speak) . When we move to announcements at the entryway we are simply teaching them to be quiet buy training this way . When the training is successful the dog is now capable of barking or being quiet at the entryway . He quickly learns that as long as he does what he's told , "quiet" or "speak" or follows any other command I give him (down , sit , etc.) he will be released to find the badguy. If he doesn't obey he's taken away and started over . With dogs in training most soon find obeying will get them what they want (being released to search) . 

Lou for you it's not that important and a waste of time . For me through my experiances having a dog that barked during the announcements and the dogs we have now that know when to bark and know when to be quiet , I find the latter a great option to have . Leaving the dog in the car in most cases is not an option for me .


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Two years ago we began working our building search and deployment warnings into our muzzled obedience routine. The dogs are now much calmer and focused and very, very quiet on deployments.


----------



## Sam Bishop

Jim Nash said:


> But taking the dog away from the entryway if it barks when it's not supposed to works much better. Early on in training the dog is taught to bark (speak) . When we move to announcements at the entryway we are simply teaching them to be quiet buy training this way . When the training is successful the dog is now capable of barking or being quiet at the entryway . He quickly learns that as long as he does what he's told , "quiet" or "speak" or follows any other command I give him (down , sit , etc.) he will be released to find the badguy. If he doesn't obey he's taken away and started over . With dogs in training most soon find obeying will get them what they want (being released to search) .
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excellent example of negative punishment - with its flip side - positive reinforcement. The fun (frustrating) thing about learning theory is that each quadrant works with the other quadrants - training doesn't happen in a vacuum. Every technique each of us use can be explained with learning theory - and we can all argue endlessly about where the R+/P-, R-/P+ begins and ends. But, used together, with understanding from the trainer, the dog learns what works and what doesn't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jim Nash

Matthew Grubb said:


> Two years ago we began working our building search and deployment warnings into our muzzled obedience routine. The dogs are now much calmer and focused and very, very quiet on deployments.


Matt , 
That's what I like about our dogs now . More focused , quiet with no loss in drive . The technique I brought up just made it so easy to teach a dog a reliable "quiet" command . Having good noise descipline pays of in many other areas of PSD work . 

This has worked great with my current K9 when I work with the SWAT team . I can get him to bark on command and easily get him to stop also . It was very easy to teach since I did it from the beginning of his training . 

I also did it with my 1st partner who was initially taught (more like allowed) to bark during announcements or challenges to suspects . Since we were candidates for the SWAT team noise discipline was a must. It was tough to teach him to be quiet at first but once he got the idea it became very reliable and he became the most used K9 on the SWAT team at that time . 

In both cases it was very important to me to have noise descipline and it definately wasn't a waste of time to train this .


Sam , I hope you didn't think I wanted to argue about it . I just wanted to point out a training technique our department has had success with . It now has morphed into more about tactics then the basic training technique and how I used it to teach PSD's to be quiet .


----------



## Lou Castle

Bob Scott said:


> I've always thought that reliability in a dog is more about the trainer's ability and connection with the dog then it is the method.
> Just a thought!


To me "ability" means how efficient the trainer is with "his method." The two are inter–related and inseparable. I think that _the connection _ that a trainer has with a dog is greatly overrated *as far as getting reliability is concerned. *

I often hear about what a great "bond" people have with their dog yet they can't get them to recall when distractions are present. Of course many of them think that by constantly shoving treats in the dog's face, they have a "connection." 

And I can get a dog to recall to me without much of a connection, just by showing him that coming to me brings comfort. But perhaps you have some different meaning to the word "connection."


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> I've been a PSD handler for 12 years now , made alot of announcements and on a fair share of them things busted loose as soon as I made the announcement and it was a good thing I had the dog there .


I wonder what accounts for the wide divergence of our experiences? I was a handler for 5 1/2 years and the in–house trainer for my department for the next 15 years or so and I've worked with over 150 police agencies both foreign and domestic. NEVER have I had anything "bust loose as soon as I made the announcement and none of the handler's that I've trained or worked with have mentioned such experiences either!? 

But even if that was the case having someone else make the announcement while you held back away from the door a bit would cover this eventuality. I've made and seen thousands of announcements made, real and in training. Usually the handler puts the dog in the doorway, in just about the worst position possible if the crook was armed, which we rarely know. I saw this several times on the K9 Cops TV show. 



Jim Nash said:


> I also have the dog bark on command then quiet the dog and give the announcement again or I have the dog do it before I give the announcement then quiet him. Doesn't matter . It's really not that hard to train or take up that much training time when it's done with PSD's in the beginning of it's training .


Often it's not done at "the beginning of [a dog's] training." And by the time people ask me for help, it's become a monster. The announcement simply can't be heard over the dog's barking. The idea of the announcement is to give the crook the opportunity to surrender before the dog is deployed. If he can't hear what the handler is saying, it's not only a waste of time making the announcement (because it can't be heard); but a court could find that you didn't give notification. 



Jim Nash said:


> When the training is successful the dog is now capable of barking or being quiet at the entryway . He quickly learns that as long as he does what he's told , "quiet" or "speak" or follows any other command I give him (down , sit , etc.) he will be released to find the badguy. If he doesn't obey he's taken away and started over . With dogs in training most soon find obeying will get them what they want (being released to search) .


As you say, if this is started from the beginning, it usually works well. But few departments have an in-house trainer and when they start out, they think it's "neat" when the dog barks like crazy as they make the announcement. They make the problem worse by encouraging it. Then, a few years later when they realize the potential liability they try to stop it. They've built a mountain and then they're trying to climb over it. Often that leads to much conflict and in extreme cases, handlers getting bit for overcorrecting their dogs trying to get them to be quiet. I think it's far easier to just keep the dog away from the door, instead of getting into this battle. Most of those guys have enough on their plates without spending time trying to fix the very problem they created. 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou for you it's not that important and a waste of time .


Jim I was referring to those officers that have this as a problem, usually of their own creation. Rather than waste time trying to get the dog to stop barking when there's no immediate purpose for having him at the door, it's easier to simply remove him from that situation. Having him stand ten feet back and have someone else make the announcement solves the problem without spending time training it. If as in your experience, "things bust loose" the dog is still right there.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou stated;
"I wonder what accounts for the wide divergence of our experiences? I was a handler for 5 1/2 years and the in–house trainer for my department for the next 15 years or so and I've worked with over 150 police agencies both foreign and domestic. NEVER have I had anything "bust loose as soon as I made the announcement and none of the handler's that I've trained or worked with have mentioned such experiences either!? "



Yeah you got me wondering too. 




Lou stated;
"Often it's not done at "the beginning of [a dog's] training." and by the time people ask me for help, it's become a monster. "




Lou in this discussion I was talking about a training technique that has been successful in training a dog and used an example of how we use it to teach a dog to be quiet . You weren't even in the discussion yet . I wasn't speaking about you or your monsters at the time . Just an effective training technique. 




Lou stated;
"The announcement simply can't be heard over the dog's barking. The idea of the announcement is to give the crook the opportunity to surrender before the dog is deployed. If he can't hear what the handler is saying, it's not only a waste of time making the announcement (because it can't be heard); but a court could find that you didn't give notification. "



Lou you just stated why I want the dog to be quiet in this situation and train for it. 

Why did you think I wanted my dog quiet during the announcement?




Lou stated;
" Jim I was referring to those officers that have this as a problem, usually of their own creation. Rather than waste time trying to get the dog to stop barking when there's no immediate purpose for having him at the door, it's easier to simply remove him from that situation. Having him stand ten feet back and have someone else make the announcement solves the problem without spending time training it. If as in your experience, "things bust loose" the dog is still right there. "


Lou , I wasn't referring those officers that have a problem usually of their own creation (though I have used it for this problem with great success, I'm sorry you haven't been able to) . 

I used the example at the door and another when discussing a training technique we use to teach a PSD to be quiet and how effective it was at teaching the K9 to be quiet . This was in relation to how others in this discussion were talking about it as a training technique for training dogs (not just PSDs). 

You turned it into a tactical discussion .

As for tactics I find it important that a PSD have noise discapline and be taught to bark and be quiet because there are many times you may need that control not just during an announcement at a doorway . IMO , it's easy and effective to train with new PSD's in training and very worth while to put the extra effort into PSD's that have been allowed to bark with no control in stopping the dog from barking (again not just in making an announcement at an entry point) .

I prefer a PSD that I can control when it barks and when it needs to be quiet . You don't . I guess that's another thing we disagree on .


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

These are beginner questions ?? When did this happen ? Now I have to go and look back. PLUS ! Lou is in the equation, and the last time I tried to discuss something with him, he typed me to death.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

By the way, I got a new e-collar the other day and spent a retarded amount of time looking for the on button for the collar. Turns out, you put two red dots together, and the SOB turns itself on.](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


----------



## Tiffany Geisen

LMAO.... I played with mine today, you have to put it on 20 before its even noticeably shocking me. Stupid roommate wouldn't let me try it on him so I finally tried it on myself. Don't forget to tell everyone about its cool locating feature and your new method to a recall....


----------



## Jim Nash

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> These are beginner questions ?? When did this happen ? Now I have to go and look back. PLUS ! Lou is in the equation, and the last time I tried to discuss something with him, he typed me to death.



No they're not and I apologize for being part of getting this thread off track . 

You took the words right out of my mouth . Before I engaged in this discussion with Lou I asked myself " Are you sure you want to get into this with him , cause this could go on forever ? " . 

Of course I didn't listen to myself and started typing away . Just sitting back now waiting for the pages upon pages of quoted stuff that will be directed towards me . 

You guys gave me a great idea . Going to put on the trusty Dogtra and zap myself when I get the urge to debate Lou again . I hope this things got a high enough setting cuz if it doesn't then in the next discussion I have to listen to Lou tell me what a bad trainer I am with an e-collar . If you don't hear from me I was successfull . Wish me luck .


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Lou in this discussion I was talking about a training technique that has been successful in training a dog and used an example of how we use it to teach a dog to be quiet . You weren't even in the discussion yet . I wasn't speaking about you or your monsters at the time . Just an effective training technique.


Yes, I know. These threads are often read by police officers with varying degrees of experience in working and training. Barking during the announcement is often a problem for reasons that I've already discussed. For you it's not (and probably never will be) an ingrained problem because you handle it before it becomes one. They don't. I was just giving those folks another option. 

Earlier I wrote,


> The announcement simply can't be heard over the dog's barking. The idea of the announcement is to give the crook the opportunity to surrender before the dog is deployed. If he can't hear what the handler is saying, it's not only a waste of time making the announcement (because it can't be heard); but a court could find that you didn't give notification.





Jim Nash said:


> Lou you just stated why I want the dog to be quiet in this situation and train for it.


Just explaining for those who didn't understand the situation. Lots of people here (both civilians handlers) who don't know the case law on this. 



Jim Nash said:


> Why did you think I wanted my dog quiet during the announcement?


Probably for the very reasons that I explained. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Jim I was referring to those officers that have this as a problem, usually of their own creation. Rather than waste time trying to get the dog to stop barking when there's no immediate purpose for having him at the door, it's easier to simply remove him from that situation. Having him stand ten feet back and have someone else make the announcement solves the problem without spending time training it. If as in your experience, "things bust loose" the dog is still right there.





Jim Nash said:


> Lou , I wasn't referring those officers that have a problem usually of their own creation


I was. 



Jim Nash said:


> (though I have used it for this problem with great success, I'm sorry you haven't been able to) .


Jim we're coming at this from two very different places. You're a handler working with your own dog, probably others from your department and maybe a few others who come to you because you're department is the "big dog" on the block. I'm a trainer working with dogs from around the US and mostly doing problem solving. I don't to "start ups" any more. Rather than spend time working on a problem that really only exists because of poor training and poorly taught tactics, I'd prefer to handle it as I've stated, and move on to more important things that need attention. 

But when did I ever say that I "haven't been able to" treat this problem? 

If I was on the ground I'd handle the situation as soon as it came up. But I’m not. I'm only called in after people have tried many other ways to solve the problem, including yours, and failed. 



Jim Nash said:


> You turned it into a tactical discussion .


First, making an entry IS a tactical situation and this barking IS tactical in nature. 

Second, there are more people reading than are participating. I wanted to give (and have) other options for those who are having problems with this situation. For those who have created this problem or have it (no matter where it originated) it's good to have more than one option. As I said, I know handlers that struggle with this for their dog's entire working life and many who have been bitten trying to stop it. 



Jim Nash said:


> As for tactics I find it important that a PSD have noise discapline and be taught to bark and be quiet because there are many times you may need that control not just during an announcement at a doorway . IMO , it's easy and effective to train with new PSD's in training and very worth while to put the extra effort into PSD's that have been allowed to bark with no control in stopping the dog from barking (again not just in making an announcement at an entry point) .


I agree. But again, I'm talking to those handlers who already have the problem. Some of them have had it for years, they're NOT what you describe, "new PSD's in training." I don't find it "worthwhile" to put in the "extra effort." Not when I can stop it INSTANTLY with just a small change in tactics and one that probably makes the handler and the K-9 safer! 

I've done this many times at LE seminars when the question comes up. because I'm known as "the Ecollar guy" people think that I'll use the Ecollar to stop the behavior. Often when I've given my solution, a stunned look came over the face of the person asking the question. They've said, "Why didn't anyone tell me this before?" They've been trying various methods, SOMETIMES FOR YEARS, to try and stop it. I give them a solution that ends the issue INSTANTLY! 

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just addressing a different audience. I know this thread is about "beginners questions" but there's room for my advice as well as yours. If someone does a search for "barking" looking for a solution to this problem, this thread will come up. Nothing wrong with having more than one way to treat a problem, in fact, it's a good thing. 



Jim Nash said:


> I prefer a PSD that I can control when it barks and when it needs to be quiet . You don't . I guess that's another thing we disagree on .


Jim we don't disagree on this. But I think it's a waste of time for someone who's dog already has this bad habit to spend hours and hours trying to train it away. Usually I attack it by first teaching the dog to bark on command and then teaching him a "quiet command." When he barks in undesirable situations I have the handler give the "quiet command." But with dogs that have been doing this for years, this is usually problematic. 

I seem to remember quite a few dogs on the K9 Cops TV show that barked almost non–stop in the back of their police cars. It would appear that not all handlers, even on your own department, embrace this philosophy.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> These are beginner questions ??


Jeff, sometimes threads wander. I started my first post on this specific part of the discussion with the comment that it was "off topic but that I'd like to address this." Of course you've never gone off the topic of a thread. LOL. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Lou is in the equation, and the last time I tried to discuss something with him, he typed me to death.


Write it off as me having too much spare time.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> By the way, I got a new e-collar the other day and spent a retarded amount of time looking for the on button for the collar. Turns out, you put two red dots together, and the SOB turns itself on.]


When all else fails RTFM! Lol.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Of course I didn't listen to myself and started typing away . Just sitting back now waiting for the pages upon pages of quoted stuff that will be directed towards me .


Your waiting is over. IF this is too much for you feel free not to read any of my posts. If you can't resist that urge, feel free to not reply to them. My feelings won't be hurt. 



Jim Nash said:


> You guys gave me a great idea . Going to put on the trusty Dogtra and zap myself when I get the urge to debate Lou again . I hope this things got a high enough setting cuz if it doesn't then in the next discussion I have to listen to Lou tell me what a bad trainer I am with an e-collar . If you don't hear from me I was successfull . Wish me luck .


I love it when people try to put words into my mouth, allowing me to show them up for it. Jim can you point out where in this discussion I've said a word about you "being a bad trainer … with an Ecollar?" Let me save you the trouble. I've never said it. IN FACT, I've not addressed ANY mention of the Ecollar with you in this thread. But it was a nice smokescreen. 

Just another personal attack because you think you're being persecuted when you're merely being disagreed with. You really should learn the difference. It would stand you in good stead.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou stated;

" I love it when people try to put words into my mouth, allowing me to show them up for it. Jim can you point out where in this discussion I've said a word about you "being a bad trainer … with an Ecollar?" Let me save you the trouble. I've never said it. IN FACT, I've not addressed ANY mention of the Ecollar with you in this thread. But it was a nice smokescreen. 

Just another personal attack because you think you're being persecuted when you're merely being disagreed with. You really should learn the difference. It would stand you in good stead. "



Lou it was a joke . Guess I did hurt your feelings . Sorry you feel that way . I've disagreed with you over what I feel is more important issues then this . 

Wow , all this over where a dog is during an announcement . I will take some of your advice and not reply to you anymore. I hate typing that much anyways.


__________________


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Lou it was a joke . Guess I did hurt your feelings .


I don't think it was a joke Jim. I'd characterize it quite another way. But you didn't hurt my feelings. I'm not one who takes things personally even when they're intended that way.


----------



## David Frost

On Kumbya.com they have open discussions on feelings. Here we try to stay on dog training topics. Experience has taught me disagreements are to be expected and certainly permitted on this board. Let's not, however make it personal. It's been a pretty decent discussion for the most part, let's keep it that way.

DFrost


----------

