Hard dog *requires* firm hand: +R training?

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by GSDElsa

ich-a correction is no more physically controlling the dog than luring, leading them on a leash, etc. how do you figure it is?

There are definitely many times when force based training depends on the handler physically overpowering the dog.

Someone just posted this on another forum I'm on and it seemed timely for this topic. Dr. Dunbar and Donaldson talked about their typical things and brought up good points. I don't totally agree with Dr. Overall. Her experience with e-collars, even bark collars has not entirely been my experience. I've certainly seen what she is talking about though with e-collar and IF use in some dogs. I think Dr. Dodman is pretty right on about the way you train setting up the relationships you'll have with your dog.

The Heavy Hand Myth - You Don't Need Fear & Pain to Train Dogs. - YouTube


I'm not getting at never saying no to a dog. But there is still a lot of belief that certain breeds need harsh training from the get go. That you must "show them who's boss" or they will "take over" (or "become monsters" I suppose). I have seen dogs that experienced, old school trainers have deemed "dominant-aggressive" that were just normal dogs who didn't take well to the trainer's harsh treatment. Luckily, many of the owners were appalled by the trainer's actions and didn't follow the instructions that the dogs should be "put through the wall for pulling that %&$!" or hung or alpha rolled or any number of Man vs. Beast type scenarios. Some weren't though, some believed the trainer. Poor dogs

And getting back to how the "you must dominant your GSD" ties in with agility (because I suspect a big reason Wildo will try to train without correction is because he wants a bold, confident agility). I have also seen dogs blossom in agility when the approach to their training went from a strict alpha-type thing where the dog was corrected for everything "bad" (most were treated for "good" behavior - times really have changed) to a more easy going, upbeat approach. I had a GSD in agility class who's owner was very strict, despite giving treats there was a lot of verbal, collar and sometimes more physical correction going on. The dog did the equipment but with no real drive. Then I found out the dog loved a certain toy. Combined with not allowing the corrections to be used in agility and using the toy, it turned out this dog is actually pretty drivey and has a lot of potential in agility. She also became more enthusiastic about the food rewards and generally much more upbeat. I'm also attending a puppy foundation class inwhich one owner is always correcting her puppy when she isn't paying attanetion or tries to do the "wrong" thing. And despite it's breed and line the puppy is cautious, slow and rather hesitant to try stuff. And it's no surprise, since her owner has been teaching her it's undesirable to try anything. And back in the day, some of the worst agility dogs I have seen have been OTCH or UD dogs that crossed over to agility. They would never run full out and were constantly checking to make sure they weren't doing something wrong. Outstanding obedience dogs but dogs who had been trained not to think or interact on their own. Again times have changed and I'm sure there are some awesome obedience./agility dogs out there these days. But I'm sure there are still some will never be all they could be in agility due to the training relationship that was set up from high-level obedience training.

[Catu]

Originally Posted by AgileGSD

There are definitely many times when force based training depends on the handler physically overpowering the dog.

Here is where lies my problem!!!!! Using corrections is not force based training, as much as in your own example using treats is not reward based training. You say you use corrections and people jumps to assume you are yanking your dog with a choke and doing alpha rolls all over the place. I DO use corrections, but I've never done an alpha roll on my dogs. When in the thread we forgot about the word balance? Why is to easy to jump to the extremes and the stereotypes?

[DunRingill]

Originally Posted by Catu

Here is where lies my problem!!!!! Using corrections is not force based training, as much as in your own example using treats is not reward based training. You say you use corrections and people jumps to assume you are yanking your dog with a choke and doing alpha rolls all over the place. I DO use corrections, but I've never done an alpha roll on my dogs. When in the thread we forgot about the word balance? Why is to easy to jump to the extremes and the stereotypes?

RIGHT!! I personally don't know anyone who uses "force-based training." I DO know a lot of people who use corrections in their training program, balanced with lots of positive reinforcement especially in the teaching phases. Not sure why the assumption is always to such extremes. I don't alpha-roll my dogs, but I DO use corrections in training.

[Liesje]

Exactly! (to the last few posters) I feel like every time I post in a topic regarding +P or -R I have to always qualify my post with the fact that 90% of my training is +R and even when using aversives they are almost always paired with +R! As far as agility goes, I don't really use corrections there other than behavioral stuff, but the actual training of the obstacles, contacts, crosses, etc is either lure/mark/reward or freeshape/mark/reward and that goes for my nervy dog lacking confidence to my bold, powerful male. I might correct the dog for trying to fixate on another dog or trying to mark on a piece of equipment but I don't have use for -R during agility.

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by DunRingill

RIGHT!! I personally don't know anyone who uses "force-based training." I DO know a lot of people who use corrections in their training program, balanced with lots of positive reinforcement especially in the teaching phases. Not sure why the assumption is always to such extremes. I don't alpha-roll my dogs, but I DO use corrections in training.

The question here pertained to the idea that some dogs "need" strong corrections and a so-called "firm hand". Those IME generally imply quite a lot of physical "domination" going on. Maybe that doesn't mean the same to everyone.

Everyone uses some form of "correction" or punishment in training, even if they don't think they do. But there is a world of difference between using minor corrections occasionally and approaching training as though if you don't prove to this dog you can overpower them, they will some how "take over".

[Liesje]

Well at least in SchH I believe there are a lot of dogs that are going to need a firm hand at some point. Why...because nobody's perfect. Most times I see it is when dogs are overloaded and things are just not computing. Part of that is who the dog is, part of that is the training and handling allowing the dog to get to that point of being overloaded. See the comment about nobody being perfect. It is not about dominating the dog as in showing whose boss but clear communication that actually computes. If anyone can offer other suggestions of how to "reach" a dog in that state feel free to advise... A lot of the training I'm doing with Pan lately involves finding that balance between capping drive and not overloading the dog. Where that line falls is different for each handler. I personally like a higher threshold and a dog that might be working in a little lower state of drive but shows more natural secondary obedience and control. Other people intentionally overload the dog to the point of insanity and then often require several physical altercations to regain control.

[Samba]

My dog/s who requires a "firm" hand and a capable owner are the dogs I probably would be the least likely to want to try to get physical with or dominate. There are some yucky handlers who do unwarranted things to dogs. That is nothing new. But, there are dogs who must respect you, who need a clear relationship understanding or you are not going to get very far with them. A firm hand to me does not imply abuse at all. But, a stronger type dog in personality just might need its corresponding handler.

I don't wrestle my dog or stomp on him or yank him all around. But, many is the time the DH calls on me to come and do something with my dog that he can not accomplish.
Now, the Sheltie the DH can do anything with. Not the same type of handler required!

[Liesje]

I agree, and likewise of my dogs, the one that has gotten the "firmest hand" is also the one to whom I am most closely bonded, the one who works for me and *only* me and works the way he does *because* of that bond and relationship built on trust and respect (which is, by the way, mutual...I trust and respect my dog since after all I'd be banking on him to protect us).

[AgileGSD]

Originally Posted by Liesje

Other people intentionally overload the dog to the point of insanity and then often require several physical altercations to regain control.

That sort of thing goes on quite a bit in agility and flyball. The getting the dog to a point of insanity anyway and with some people the altercation issue. I think very often in this situation, people resort to correction because they don't know what else to do. And many other solutions (teaching impulse control, for example) would require the trainer to focus on things that aren't all that rewarding for them because they don't directly relate to the trainer's titling goals. I've come to realize a lot of issues people have in sport training are a result of what is or is not rewarding for the humans involved to work on.