“My beef with positive-only training methods . . . . “

Would you care to define “positive-only training methods” and say who here says they’re a “positive-only” trainer?

Ok, there is so much wrong with this that it’s very hard to know where to start, so I’ll just dive in. The tone of Marie’s post leads me to believe that she thinks that all obedience trained dogs are trained using aversive methods. I fight this mentality all. the. time. along with the mentality that all aversive techniques are inherently bad.

The dogs who are trained using “jerk and pull” methods rarely perform as brilliantly as they are capable of. Which is why most of us have gone to using motivational methods to obedience train. :-) And to train in general.

So back to your comments, let’s start with the idea that so-called “choke” collars are OK (IMO, if you are choking your dog, you are misusing the collar) and an ear-pinch or the use of an e-collar is bad. I would say that it depends on the hands behind either method. I would say that there is still a place for these methods, but that they should not be used willy-nilly and the idea of “teaching” a dog basic obedience, or anything, in this way makes me shudder.

Marie, let me ask you, if your dog is out 100 yards from you, and he’s headed for something dangerous like a leg-breaking hole, and he ignores your stop whistle, don’t you want a way to reach out and touch him? That’s why we use e-collars. (Hey, at least you called it an e-collar and not a shock collar.) The level of stimulation depends on the dog and collars these days can be easily set. They also have a short burst setting and a longer setting that cuts off after a few seconds. (Different buttons.)

My beef with positive-only training methods is that it’s incredibly unfair to the dog to make him continually guess if he’s offering the right behavior. I’ve seen many dogs get very frustrated until he is shown or told when he’s wrong as well as when he’s right. Telling him when he’s not right speeds the process along of him learning what’s right, and I would argue that the dog is happier. A trainer near here offers a terrific demonstration in her beginning classes regarding the frustration (to the dog) of positive only training — she has students try to train their fellow students to do a behavior using positive only. The activity makes the point.

“Aversive” is a pretty loaded word. I believe that dog training needs to include consequences for being wrong once he knows what’s right. Is telling the dog “no” aversive? Is letting the dog run into the collar when he’s out of position aversive? (FWIW, I don’t teach heeling that way, ick.) Is giving the dog a “wake up” bounce for lack of of effort aversive?

All I know of scent work at this point is teaching my dog to pick out my scent on an article from a pile of articles with someone else’s scent. And I know that people teach that by tying the wrong articles down to a board so that if the dog tries to pick up the wrong one, he can’t. I would argue that to some dogs, that is an aversive method — but it works. (I don’t use that method.) I tried to train a dog using a positive-only method and the dog got very frustrated. I found that by telling a dog when he is wrong that it actually created more confidence (he isn’t guessing) and a happier dog. (There’s a lot more to it than that, FWIW.)

If my dog is giving me the dew claw and avoiding the exercise, I will find some way to create a consequence for that that admittedly is more harsh than a game-show buzzer noise. He knows what the game is, what’s expected of him. My dogs also know the ear-pinch. Used correctly, it provides the dog information of what is expected in much the same way that pressure on a bit in a horse’s mouth does. (The pressure is removed when the animal gives the correct response.) The only way to fairly use pressure methods is to teach the animal how to remove the pressure or the “aversive” first.

My point is that “aversives” have their place in dog training but also that it depends on the dog. I would also argue that the high-intelligence, high-drive dogs that are suitable for high-level training (SAR, scent work, all the things being talked about here) are the most likely candidates. I don’t like it, but aversive techniques can be used to teach (tie-down method of teaching scent work). Aversive techniques are best used by a person who knows exactly what they are doing with a certain type of dog.

Whew, sorry. I guess this is what happens when someone pushes my “obedience training with a ‘choke’ collar” and “ear-pinch and e-collars are always bad” buttons. Kind of unusual to see them both in the same post.

Think Obedience ring vs Agility ring. Two seperate events in which you can use two seperate training methods for if you so choose. (and that might not be the best example)

I have worked with drug dogs and in that case you do NOT stop them from pulling on leash or do anything that makes them stop and pay attention to the handler. It would be inturupting their focus and perhaps shut them down. Yes you can direct them to a specific search area though AND teach them a passive find to protect property.

In training the scent work you (typically) use different methods for teaching that vs the obedience involved with passive finds. (think toy as reward vs traditional choke collar to teach the sit stay passive find)

I have worked with some cadaver dogs which are taught passive article indication so evidence can be protected.

I also do tracking with two of my dogs. Teaching how to find the track and teaching basic commands are seperate. I do not do obedience on the track aside from teaching article indications. (and there is leeway in this)

I want my dog to pay attention to the scent of the track so I do not use my reward marker words I might use in teaching regular obedience work on the track because I don’t want her looking at me for direction. I can use them for the article indications however.

Does that make more sense?

But what the hell would I know?

Dogs already know how to use their noses and we are incapable of teaching them anything in that regard, with any tool. We teach them which scent we want them to search for, and we teach them to tell us about when they find it.

The most common use of aversives I see in scent work is to stop crittering, not basic obedience.

And as to aversives being needed for bomb dog (or drug dog) training, you actually cannot use aversives to force a dog to learn how to use it’s nose. You can use it for the basic obedience portion of training because it is seperate however.

An interesting look at trainng military dogs is in the book “Always Faithful~ A memoir of the Marine Dogs of WWII” by Capt William W. Putney DVM, USMC ret. He was one of the first to use positive methods in war dog training.

I “get” using dogs that test well from alternative sources like shelters, but the demand for dogs of this caliber is outstripping their availability.

Domestic and Military applications are still pretty dominated by pure bred Mals and Labs. Domestic law enforcement is starting to look for dogs from other sources as budgets are cut, but the search is often tedious and the results less than stellar.

When you have such a rich pool of talent to choose from, wouldn’t it make more sense to continue what you have as opposed to having to try to recreate it in a breed or breeds that offer less in the way of selection, or worse, undergo the endless search for candidates from non-traditional sources?

I have hooked dogs out of shelters as service/working dogs and even landed a Pit a job as a detector dog in a community that has effectively banned them. It helped that she looked like a Lab that had a head on with a Mack truck, but the search was endless to come up with a few really viable candidates.

When time is the issue, it is important to have a ready source.