I want to emphasize that "correction" is exactly that: a "correction". It has to be appropriate, applicable, and reflect my training goals. It should never, ever be done in anger. For example, recently Starr started to decide for himself when to release from the "settle" position. He has known the "settle" position for well over a year now, he knows both the "settle" cue and the release cue, he has been consistently reinforced and proofed for it, and I am reasonable in the length of time I expect him to stay in it. To correct this behaviour, I put him in the settle and stood on his leash. When he self-released, he immediately felt the pressure from his buckle collar and settled back into position. He received positive reinforcement for settling in to position, and a release shortly thereafter. I like this type of correction because it doesn't involve the owner getting angry or stressed - it cues the dog that they're doing something they shouldn't be, and the dogs have to figure out what behaviour is expected. When I am referring to "corrections" for my sheltie, it could be a light touch on their head to remind them to look at me, walking away from them if they lose focus on a heel pattern, a noise, stopping a walk etc. Starr had a habit of fence running at the dog park (big dogs are on one side, small dogs are on the other). I don't mind this, as long as he can be called off of it. When he was learning this he sometimes didn't come when called, so I physically moved between the fence and him to drive him away from the fence, and then rewarded him as soon as there was some distance. There was no physical contact, no harsh words, no anger - but I corrected the behaviour by moving him away from the fence without ever touching him, and he now comes flying when I call.
"Corrections" is not a bad word (think of all the times teachers correct students), but because people are now associating it with aggression and violence due to the overuse of the word on a variety of shows, it's developed a whole background meaning that shouldn't exist.
3stars.....I am curious as to what "correction" you feel is appropriate for a dog.....lets use say for a more mundane Sheltie example, as opposed to an aggressive large dog. Perhaps a non-stop barker????
So much depends on why the dog is barking in the first place...
I would use a couple of different different methods. I would make sure the dog was always with me (probably with a partner leash, so that I could be on top of the problem whenever it starts. I would work a ton of focus exercises, so that the dog reacts to stress by looking at you instead of barking.
I've had some success with teaching dogs what the command for "bark" is, and from there what the command for "no bark" is.
I'm a big fan of clicker training, and I've had huge success with the LAT method for reactive dogs. It goes completely against what your instinct is saying you should do, but it works - I've experienced the results first hand. The key to it is that you have to click the instant something catches the dog's attention - you can't wait until the dog is losing it's head.
I have seen dogs who bark just to hear themselves bark. One of my friends is a collie breeder, and a phenomenal trainer and groomer. She tried everything under the sun to get her collie to stop barking while she was training, and finally she ended up putting her hands on the dog's mouth and saying in a firm voice "no bark". She has an excellent relationship with her dogs - her dog isn't afraid of her, and is used to being handled, so this wasn't frightening to the dog in any way. Again, it's a correction - not a beating. When my friend did this, the message to her dog was clear, her dog no longer barks while training, and there is still an excellent relationship between the owner and the dog (perhaps moreso now, since my friend is no longer stressed about having to train a yappy dog!)
These are just a few ideas - so much depends on the dog and their personality. For example, I would never put my hands on the mouth of a skittish, shy, or fearful dog.
Someone mentioned depriving the dog of attention and I remembered a discussion I had with a Finnish agility friend recently. She was telling me about this training thing they call "Ice Age" where you basically ignore the dog completely for 2 weeks (only interaction being feeding time, but after the dog sits, and only after you stroke the head as a "dominant gesture"). If the dog approaches you, you make a loud AHREEMMM sound like you're clearing your throat to get the dog away. After those 2 weeks, there is a process of reintegrating the dog into the pack, but only if it listens and is obedient and comes when called, if it doesn't but goes to another person instead, it is shooed as if it's not welcomed. This is repeated until the dog actually goes to the owner when called. My friend went through this process with 2 of her dogs, and she said she saw an effect on her dogs and they listened to her more (though it didn't last incredibly long).
I've heard of a few trainers in town using this method for their Schutzhund dogs. I completely disagree with it, will never use it, and will never advocate its use in this form. I will never be so desperate to win a competition that I will place my dogs in social isolation for two weeks. If it ever comes to that, then I should have my dogs taken away because I will have lost sight of why I have them in the first place - as companions and friends.
Lets say you in the class with instructor who lets you do it, you are doing off leash work and walk with your dog, then you dogs goes to sniff- you leave out of sight and show up when your dog noticed you and actively looking for you.
I have done this, although I've always stayed in sight. As soon as the dog caught up to me s/he was given a "jackpot reward" to reinforce the behaviour of being with me. It works well - I like it a lot better than other methods people use like leash pops.
No corrections are needed if you do positive training right.
That would be like saying (for those with children) if you teach your child appropriate behaviour in a positive manner, you will never need to correct their behaviour. In an ideal world, this would be wonderful, but any parent/teacher can tell you that's not the way it works. You need to keep in mind the key word in corrections is "correct". Corrections are not punishments (that's why I have the guidelines of relevant, appropriate, reflect the training goals, and never done in anger) - they are designed to correct a behaviour once you have done all of the appropriate pre-conditioning, training, reinforcement and proofing.
If you can't manage the situation, like keeping garbage out of reach, closing blinds when you're gone, use crates. If a dog gets it wrong, it really just means you have to BREAK down the teaching steps even more. As long as we allow our dogs self rewarding behaviour and don't manage it, the longer and more difficult it will be to untrain this unwanted behaviour!
I agree
Personally, I disagree somewhat with the 'goodwill bank' although I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind it!
In a lot of ways it is certainly a good analogy... here is where I disagree... if you build up so much rapport and trust and put in so much work to make your dog trust and respect you, why do you now feel you need to go in and make withdrawals willingly? To possibly undo everything you've saved there? You may want to hold on to those savings for human errors, such as hollering and all the other things we humans do out of frustration to our poor best friends, lol.. we are human!
My understanding of the goodwill bank was that the 'withdrawls' are when you let the positive approach slip and if you have this concept at the back of your mind, you are less likely to 'forget yourself' and resort to punishment.
Seashel is correct - it's a method of double checking. The idea is to make students think about how much correcting they're doing vs. how much rewarding. I've noticed students in beginner classes have a real tendency constantly correct their dogs, and rarely reward. I use the "goodwill bank" to remind them that the relationship with their dogs should be based on positive reinforcement, as opposed to negative. And, by the way, those human errors you mentioned are
exactly what the goodwill bank is for. Whether the correction was a good one (thoughtful and appropriate) or a bad one (frustration and other human errors), the goodwill bank concept helps us remember that we need to cultivate the positive side of our relationship with our dogs, instead of the negative side.
These positive teaching methods don't mean to be permissive or have to be all too touchy/feely. There is a difference between building a trusting, close-bonded relationship, and catering to or indulging our dogs. One leads to voluntary compliance and a well-behaved partner; the latter to an entitled, and possibly aggressive, brat.
@ToffeeMom - your trainers philosophy is the exact same philosophy of the goodwill bank - she just uses the word "redirect" instead of "correct".
Remembering the Goodwill Bank concept has made me think twice before using the correction.
Fantastic!
Dogs appreciate fair, consistent leadership, and part of that leadership is being able to correct the dog in an appropriate and fair manner which respects the positive relationship you wish to have with your dog.
) if he barks at someone's inoffensive elderly dog and I'm not ready with the treats and clicker. Remembering the Goodwill Bank concept has made me think twice before using the correction so even if that isn't quite the principal behined it.
