Correcting Behavior

Dog Behavior Training - Dog Training To Correct Behavior Problems

Have you ever wished that the secrets of dog behavior training were available to anyone who wished to take their dog obedience training to a new level? The truth is that proper dog training can be simple for anyone who is willing to educate themselves on the best way to communicate with man's best friend. In order to succeed at puppy training or adult dog training you must first understand why dogs do what they do. There are only two reasons why a dog performs any behavior:

1- To increase pleasure: Have you ever wondered why your dog pees on the floor, chews up your couch, and jumps on your guests? That's right, these activities produce pleasure for your dog. It's as simple as that. If these behaviors didn't produce a fun experience then your dog wouldn't do them. Any time you wish to correct behavior problems with your dog it is important to first realize that your dog is doing these things out of pure pleasure.

2- To avoid discomfort: Old school dog behavior training prescribed a very harsh method of Correcting Behavior problems and fomented a dog obedience regimen that was very disciplinarian in it's root form. That type of dog training is unnecessary and will often do more harm than good.

Very skilled dog behavior training, though, should use humane corrections that merely provide an annoying deterrent to help correct behavior problems. Humane corrections can run the gamut from spray bottles to annoying noises all the way to training collars. Yes, used properly, a training collar can be a very valuable and humane tool for getting rid of unwanted behavior problems. It is recommended that you seek out the services of a qualified professional if you are going to use such a tool. These dog training collars are merely used to provide an annoying feeling and not a painful feeling.

In understanding these two concepts it is then much easier to formulate a training program that will fit your individual dog. With my own dogs or with the dogs of clients I always have a two-fold approach to training:

1- Obedience training must be mandatory. This is where the new school of dog trainers go wrong. The new school of dog obedience training uses lots of treats. The correction for an unwanted behavior is often a simple ignoring of said behavior. This style of dog training will never make obedience a mandatory endeavor for your dog. Think about it, if your dog has the option to come when called to get a treat or run wildly towards a busy street in the direction of a fleeing cat, which option do you think your dog will take? Likely he will head to the street and risk life and limb for the cat. This is because the owner never enforced their training efforts to the point where obedience is mandatory.

2- Obedience training must be fun. Just because something is mandatory doesn't mean it also shouldn't be fun. Dog behavior training is intrinsically fun for your dog because your dog gets to work side by side with you. Your dog is able to bond as he learns from you and learns a deep level of trust as you guide him along with his training. If you skip this step then you may have an obedient dog, but he sure won't enjoy it.

I have referenced old school and new school dog training practices. Old school training is harsh and rough. New school is all fun and games. To truly have the best trained dog you need to combine the best of both schools. From the old school we use corrections to get rid of unwanted behaviors. From the new school we use a great deal of motivation and fun. The end result is the best trained dog on the block.

When you understand dog behavior training and how your dog views his world you can truly accomplish amazing things with your canine companion. Dog training can truly be made easy when you live these principles, rather than practice them at random intervals throughout the day. It's time to get to work!

Ty Brown is a leading dog training authority with numerous radio and television appearances to his credit. Visit his website for Free dog training videos and otherdog behavior training resources.

Can anyone go to a mosque?
Like anyone can go to a church? I'm pagan and I like learning about different religions, different cultures. So I was wondering if I could just walk in and observe/participate in some of the worship or something? And if I can, what do I wear, when can I go, what's the correct behavior, etc.

Get the answers...

Who is your favourite etiquette guru?
Who is your favourite etiquette guru? Mine is Ms. Manners aka Judith Martin. "Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior" is a book that changed my life.

Get the answers...

DS: Your opinions on the Leeburg training philosophy on the when and how of corrections?
Leerburg has posted an interesting "how to" on when and how to apply corrections - and at what FORCE. http://leerburg.com/corrections.htm Here's my summary of what I liked and disliked about his approach, I'm interested to hear your opinion on his training philosophy? You don't have to agree or disagree with me. What I liked: - I agree that nagging corrections do nothing but create a dialog with the dog. My theory has always been : One direction - one correction. - I like the fact he explains a dog should not be punished for something he has not been taught and that "force compliance" with no opportunity for reward through learning is outdated - I like the fact he introduces other methods of rewards as valid options (toys, treats, voice) - I find his objections to Koehler type method (Automatic corrections) really compelling. He makes a case against punishing the dog for making a mistake because it was not taught the proper behavior. - He has an interesting collar called a "Dominance collar" which I have not seen before and will investigate as an option for dog aggression on lead - he advocates this as an alternative to a prong collar to "take the drive out of the dog". (ie reduce the dogs desire to fight or bite) I am undecided on this but intrigued. What I didn't like - I have never in 30 years found it necessary to use an e-collar or any other form of extreme punishment to "extinguish" behaviors such as garbage raiding. (Avoidance corrections). My dogs don't chew, or steal garbage and I have 3 of them in the kitchen all day with my daily kitchen garbage within view. Same with digging holes, or other undesirable behaviors. I have strong objections to using pain as a consequence for these types of behaviour modifications. - I cannot yet wrap my head around an e-collar used in Sporting dog training. Yes, he makes a good case and explains it should be used only once the dog has been taught the correct behavior but the question I have is WHY would pain be an acceptable punishment for a routine in sporting dogs commonly called the "bark and hold". If I ever am forced to deploy my dog in real life - I sure as hell hope it doesn't just stand there - I would not send him out to bark and die. I see no point to this routine, and the punishment for me in getting the dog to comply is not justified. I have never used barking as a means of intimidation. I consider it provocation and I avoid conflict - why would any civilian chose to provoke a fight with their dog as bait? That's about it for me. @Greek: I appreciate your detailed reply. One comment on barking dogs - I'm qualifying my comments as a "civilian" vs Police person because many posters here routinely state Schtzhund is a "Game" for their dogs. And this is a weekend sport for "Fun". I don't get that. Secondly, Police here in Canada use minimal force - not lethal (thankfully). Police using k-9's barking as a means of crowd control (example our recent G20 in Toronto) is valid and I get that. However, in real life threatening personal situations - I have (sadly) been in a handful in 30 years -and found an intrepid dog more of an asset - admitting I have yet to deploy my dog. I do appreciate all comments. Thanks LD for the link to Volhard collar. @Greek: Thanks for add. I confess I no longer train my dogs to the level I once did and my 3 are just canoe dogs now. But stealth has been my friend. And in times of great need, my dogs have recalled from a distance with not more than a whisper. That is what I mean when I say I'm "serious". When I'm not, they routinely ignore me (which by many persons standards, makes me a bad trainer.) Accepting YA is not the best place for context, I qualify that comment with this: The world doesn't tolerate ambiguity in dogs: so I don't leave things to chance and don't let them romp off lead in a park - hence I always have control and no need for an e-collar. Yes, the day may come when I need the dog to make a show - then the gloves are off. Its never say never. Cheers @UHave2Be: Is it fair to presume you are a Koehler fan? (Smile) Anyway, thanks for the added details - you made some valid points. I appreciate intelligent discussion. I will have to dig in and read more. @MissManners: Thanks for post. To be clear, I referenced Koehler regarding Leerburgs description of "automatic" corrections - not forced. Admitting, I have used this approach with my dogs - so I'm suggesting its interesting to question its use. I'm on the fence at the moment. Regarding ecollar - as I age, I may resort to ecollar when my arms give out to arthritis. I won't say never - just not now. :-0

Get the answers...

Question About Adam And Eve?
I'm already pretty knowledgeable about the bible but I do have some questions. And before I get a bunch of stupid people clamoring about how the Bible isn't true and it doesn't matter. I Actually AM an Atheist but am observing the Bible merely as a literary piece of work. I recently posted a question that worked off the observations that since Adam and Eve obtained The Fruit Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil from the Tree Of Knowledge -- that they obtained KNOWLEDGE from the tree and its fruit -- specifically knowledge dealing with Good and Evil... Morality essentially. That Humanity, from that day forth, obtained Objective Morality. But I found that people kept trying to flip it around. Calling this "original sin" as though that explains it all. Of course it's original sin. According to the myth these people go against the instruction (not necessarily the wish) of their God and thus face the consequences. But people continued to say that Adam and Eve had Objective Morality BEFORE they at the fruit... but I would expect the tree to be called something like "The Tree of Stupidity" for it to wash away Objective understanding of Morality and replace it with a Subjective one. And I would also like to ask, if this God is seen to be a deity of Justice, how could it judge a people that aren't equipped to see the rules? If we don't have a stable point of reference and only have Objective Morality to work with, then how can be be Judged through Justice? If we don't have a clear perception of Sin and Correct behavior then we're not here to really choose right from wrong. Form follows function. And any creator that would make us incapable of proper choice and they state that our point in life is to CHOOSE... it seems oxymoronic. Furthermore, I fail to see any point in the bible where it EVER says that Adam and Eve had Objective Morality BEFORE they ate the fruit. In fact, there's more in the bible to suggest that I'm right. That Adam and Eve were in a state of Childhood innocence. Unaware of anything being right or wrong. Then Eve was told that she could be smart like God, observed that the tree was called the Tree of Knowledge... connected the dots... ate the fruit, and only then stepped out of childhood innocence and realized that they were nude and became self conscious of their bodies as the other person examined it. So many Christians have a moral opposition to nudity and calling it Pornography. And in many cases nudity can be pornography. But if they had OBJECTIVE MORALITY and they were naked, then doesn't that mean that we should all go streaking butt-crack-naked in the streets because it's Objectively-Morally correct and we only think it's wrong now because we have Subjective morality? Or are we right now in viewing Nudity with caution? These are opposites I might add. So where in the Bible does it say if we obtained Subjective Morals from the Tree of Knowledge? What exactly do people mean when they say it's "Original Sin" because I've already stated what it means to me when people say that. And after what I've said, do you think I have a good point in defending the position that it seems to clearly state that we more-so got Objective Morality from the fruit rather than the direct opposite? And again, I'm just entertaining this in a literary way. If you find this interesting and you find it gets you to think, then great. KATE MIDDLETON: Yes Adam and Eve were brothers and sisters, who had many kids and taught the importance of incest, God wants people to have sex with their brother and sister, its the only way to create retarded kids, which means more followers of religion. What? Someone that's never read the bible already knows that. MAGIC JEW: "So, we can't say it's untrue..." What? What are you talking about. So we have no idea if we obtained Subjective or Objective morality from the Tree Of Knowledge so that we can't say it's untrue? What? "but you think something appears oxymoronic and or inconsistent." Yes... if something IS inconsistent then it's safe to say that often times it's oxymoronic. "And what if our reasons coincide, what then?" I'm asking to see if your reasons do coincide with some sort of consistent form of logic... but your response makes absolutely no sense. When something is Objective: It's something that's usually able to be observable through physical evidence and reasoned logic in order to examine it empirically (through observation) and without bias. But seeing as Morality is not physical but more-so a way of life, and religion is not based on evidence but states that we have OBJECTIVE morality, I would say that it would mean absolute, unquestionable morality. Something that can't really be questioned. Something that's true simply because that's the natural order of things. SUBJECTIVE: Something dealing typically with bias, seen usually in pseudo science. Sometimes the information of a Subjective bit of information has no point of reference and many different and very contradictory conclusions can be made on the same topic because of this clack of a reference. James O I really agree with your statements about camp fire stories. It's much like Greek Myth tellings of why we have spiders and seasons of the years. And I agree it needs work. But there are people that say it doesn't need work. And on a Literary basis, I'm interested how they come to these conclusions that it doesn't need any sort of adjustments or anything like that. CHAPTER AND VERSE, the answer to your question is right there in Genesis 3:6 "6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND, WHO WAS WITH HER." This is the NIV version but I've seen this sort of statement also in many different translations. There's a lot of blame of Eve for being first to eat from the fruit. But if Adam had a moral opposition to it, seeing as he was sitting there right next to her, I'd expect he would have protested. Kaganate -- so you're saying that something is missed in translation... This is what bothers me out of the people that translate the Bible... or most texts. They try to get a word for word translation -- when what they should be doing is trying to place the meaning into the English page. Kinda curious about that... but, I kinda have to take your word with a grain of salt, seeing as I don't read Hebrew. THE MARK: I'm talking about Objective and Subjective morality because these are talking points people have about Atheists. They like to claim Atheists don't have morals. But it sound like by the answers I've been supplied... pretty much Christians are in as much mud as Atheists. That they have just as much of an ability and inability to determine right and wrong and just as much of a lack of capacity to determine this Objective Morality they bring up in so many of my conversations. I've just been looking at the parts in the Bible, as a piece of Literary work, to see what could lead them to say that. And I don't see how and where anyone can say the things they say about Atheists when stating that they're incapable of doing anything good... and even that statement is in the bible, but even in the bible itself. the statement seems baseless. THE MARK: I'm talking about Objective and Subjective morality because these are talking points people have about Atheists. They like to claim Atheists don't have morals. But it sound like by the answers I've been supplied... pretty much Christians are in as much mud as Atheists. That they have just as much of an ability and inability to determine right and wrong and just as much of a lack of capacity to determine this Objective Morality they bring up in so many of my conversations. I've just been looking at the parts in the Bible, as a piece of Literary work, to see what could lead them to say that. And I don't see how and where anyone can say the things they say about Atheists when stating that they're incapable of doing anything good... and even that statement is in the bible, but even in the bible itself. the statement seems baseless. TREE TOP: I've heard so many different interpretations of "made in the image of God" that I consider all of them ridiculous than what it literally says. That we are literally in the physical appearance of God. It is improper conduct of an audience, a reader, a listener, to grab hold of something said and assume it's a metaphor or as something that should be taken as figurative in some way when there's nothing else to be drawn upon to interpret the asserted statement as a metaphor or interpretation of the asserted figurative statement. I don't agree with your assertion that it was ever intended to be figurative or metaphorical. And though the Bible later says that no man can look on God and live. Though I don't feel that should be taken metaphorically simply because you and I are just the audience and we have no right to be the story teller, nor to try and rewrite history to pretend the historical fiction in the book is anything but that. I'm willing to accept the Bible is not consisten

Get the answers...

How to tell two annoying people to back off?
i get soo annoyed by these two people in my class.they get so rowdy in class so i can not really get my work done....and also when the teacher is giving instructions they keep talking so i can't get started on whatever the class is supposed to do!and they laugh at,like, EVERTHING!!!!!! like,if i do something wrong, or i say something weird, or i say be quiet your annoying, they laugh all squeaky like!i am tired of it!!!!!!i am down to the point where all i can think of doing is punchhing them,but i do not want to, cause thats not correct behavior.i am not saying i want to tell them to back off, you can make it as rude as ever, as harsh as ever, as long as theyll see that im serious and i hate them and they can;t mess with me. thats my story!

Get the answers...

Correcting Behavior News

The Timeout Method Part Three: Correcting Behavior -from VetIonx

Pet Trainer Victoria Swanson shows how to institute the Timeout Method to help rid you dog of certain unwanted behaviors.

youtube.com

Correcting Horse Behavior with Psychology

NewsWatch 2008: UC Davis veterinarian Jeannine Burger has been called in as a "horse shrink" to correct aggressive reactions a horse may ...

youtube.com

Don't wait to give employee feedback. Learn how this manager gives positive -- and negative -- feedback.

youtube.com