I often surf the web to find interesting sites about dogs and dog training. This week I stumbled on a site that began with a statement about dog training that was so audacious that I had to stop and read it several times to be sure I had read it correctly. The author states –
“Let me start off by saying that of all the different dog training methods you’ve heard about fit into one of two categories. There are only two methods in the whole world! And they are… … all-positive and balanced.”
The sheer magnitude of this over-simplification stunned me. I had walk away from the laptop and get myself another coffee before continuing my day. There are only two methods of dog training in the world? My first question is, “Which world?” It certainly can’t be the one in which I live. Although things would be so much easier if that were true, it just isn’t. What troubles me about statements like the one above is not how inaccurate they may be. What troubles me is that dog trainers feel the need to reduce dogs and training to such simple terms in the first place. There is a “war of words” out there in the dog world and the unfortunate casualties are dogs and not humans.
It seems that like many things in our 21st century society, we are being asked to choose a side – who are you for or who are you against. Often training discussions get more caught up in who is right and who is wrong than whether the training does the best job for the dog. When it comes to training and working with our dogs, this kind of polarizing argument can have unfortunate consequences for the dogs that get caught in the middle.
The quote above claims that the two sides at odds in the world of dog training are “all-positive” and “balanced” training. I have read a great deal about dogs and dog training. I am a certified professional dog trainer. In all my reading on dogs and training, I have not come upon any training that identifies itself with the label “all-positive” dog training. By contrast, I see any number of sources claiming to use “balanced” training with dogs. Here I find the opposite problem. I found such a wide variety of definitions of “balanced” dog training that I wrote an article about it to try and figure out what trainers meant by “balanced.” It turns out that most of them don’t agree on the same meaning and many actually conflict with each other.
Sticks and Stones and Words
The war of words is escalating. There are exaggerations and questionable claims from both the force-free training community and the traditional compulsion trainers. This is not just unfortunate, it’s dangerous. The dogs get caught in the shuffling of trainers and methods as owners move from one “solution” to another. A dog can easily end up confused and act out. Many of those dogs will end up in shelters. Some won’t survive being re-homed. The terms dog trainers use to help a dog owner can do the most damage. Let me give you some examples:
- Correction – This is one of the most commonly used terms in the dog training world. And yet, it is rarely used to describe what the word actually means. If we “correct” something, it is assumed that something has gone wrong and we are bringing it back to being “right” again. When compulsion trainers talk about “correcting” a dog, what they mean is using some kind of physical or verbal intervention to stop a dog from doing something unwanted. But where is the “correction”? Yes, it tells the dog what they are doing wrong but it tells them nothing about what to do instead to be right. A yank on the leash, a poke in the side, a loud “HEY!” are all described as “corrections” but these actually function as a reprimand to stop an unwanted behaviour. You aren’t “correcting” anything, you are stopping (reprimanding) unwanted behaviour. But Correction sounds much more productive than Reprimand when we’re working with our dogs even if it is inaccurate.
- Abuse -This one is getting thrown around a lot by the force-free training community these days. It has been used to describe everything from the use of shock collars and pain-based training methods to slip-collars and feeding the wrong kind of dog food. That’s a pretty broad spectrum for such a highly-charged word. The use of the term “abuse” seems to be based on what the speaker believes about a particular technique, training philosophy, or piece of equipment rather than the actual living conditions of a particular dog. For example, prong and shock collars are sold by the thousands each year and yet physical injuries from these devices make up only a small fraction of cases that come through the average veterinary practice. This is not to endorse their use but simply to point out that just putting a device on a dog should not, in itself, constitute abuse unless using the device is shown to have caused harm to that particular dog. Abuse is an act, not an idea.
- Killing with kindness – Lately compulsion trainers have been making claims that using food treats to reward a dog for behaviours can lead to any number of unfortunate consequences. They claim that food rewards can end up killing dogs by creating food aggression or being too permissive and having to surrender an unruly dog to a shelter to be euthanized. The science behind the use of rewards to reinforce behaviour is backed up by over 70 years of data – both in psychology labs and the real world. Reward training has been used successfully with hundreds of species living in zoos and the pets we keep in our homes. If the use of rewards in training were as dangerous as claimed by some, marine mammal trainers would have abandoned it decades ago. Instead, aquariums and wild animal parks routinely use rewards to train everything from rhinos to sharks to killer whales to tigers. The claim that dog owners are “killing their dogs with kindness” by using food treats in training is utter nonsense. And yet the claims are made over and over again with no proof.
- Dominance – World renowned wolf researcher Dr. David Mech is largely responsible for the term “Alpha Wolf.” He now says he now regrets using “alpha” to describe the breeding pair in a wolf pack. The dog world, for whatever reason, latched on to the concepts of “Alpha” and “Dominance” in their efforts to explain dog behaviour and justify a variety of training methods. The science and contemporary literature on dogs and their ethology has proven that the “dominance” model does not apply to dogs either in domestic situations or living on their own in feral communities. But the words “dominance”, “pack”, and “alpha” remain trigger words that are sure to spark lively and, at times, less-than-civilized debates among dog trainers. The use of any of these words can get the speaker labelled as “Old School” or as a trainer who has little regard for our modern understanding of dogs – a trainer who prefers brute force to establish themselves as the “alpha.” Used in proper context, these terms can have some meaning regarding dogs and behaviour. But we struggle in our efforts to redefine and reuse them. All too often the force-free community finds what they feel are incorrect applications of these words. They can look too closely and start fights where little or no disagreement even exists.
Collateral Damage
There are dog owners out there that need help with their dogs. Some just need a little coaching. Others are learning how to live with their first dogs. Many will turn to dog training professionals. It can be daunting for the average dog owner to venture online looking for answers. There are opinions and counter-opinions about treats or no treats, prong collars or no-pull harnesses, abusive and too permissive.
There is nothing like a good argument to increase that sense of solidarity with those who share our opinions and nothing that seems quite so noble as trying to right a terrible wrong. But can we, as dog training professionals, get so caught up in the war of ideology that we lose the very audience we are trying to serve? What about trying to help the dogs? Helping dog owners provide the best, most healthy and successful life for their dogs should be the priority. Not which side you are on or who is right or wrong.
I’m quite sure that this article will have all the effect of holding up a hand to stop the wind for all the difference it will make in the greater debates raging in the dog world. But my advice to dog owners is that you should meet the dogs of potential dog training professionals or at least dogs that they have helped to train. Decide for yourself if these are the kinds of dogs you want to live with yourself. You don’t need to get caught up in the war of words and the ideology. Meet the dogs. They will tell you all that you need to know.
Until next time, have fun with your dogs!
Be sure to check out our Canine Nation ebooks in the Canine Nation store and join our conversation on Facebook in the Canine Nation Forum!
The first Canine Nation ebooks are now available –
“Dogs: As They Are” & “Teaching Dogs: Effective Learning”
Photo credits –
All photos – Canine Nation 2013
Janet says
There are plenty of trainers who implement “proper” corrections which do indeed not only show the dog that they made the wrong decision but also show the dog the right answer all in the same moment. For example, dog was told to sit at the heel position, dog complies and gets rewarded, dog stands up, handler brings his right hand to the clasp and left hand to the rump, the right hand gives a very quick but fairly mild (just firm enough to work) collar “correction” upward, the left hand gently guides the rump down to its original location, once the dog is in the correct location again verbal and/or physical praise is given. Seems pretty black and white to me and the dogs taught under this method learn very quickly. Sure, some people misuse the term, but people also say “irregardless”. If you have actually witnessed someone simply “popping” a dog for making the wrong decision and not offering any guidance as to what the correct decision is then that is truly unfortunate for the dogs taught under that method but I suspect you’re not writing out of any extensive first hand knowledge of “balanced” training methods but rather from anecdotes, videos, perhaps people on the street who own a prong collar (and may not have a clue what they’re doing). Find a reputable trainer using methods different than your own, ask to shadow for a week, be honest about your stance but say you want to see things first hand to make an educated opinion. You will be surprised to see what takes place in these places. Dogs learning with their tails wagging, no signs of stress coming from those dogs, kind people who love dogs coming together to train their dogs jn cooperation, well thought out methods that do indeed “correct” a behaviour by showing the correct behaviour and providing an aversive for the incorrect one simultaneously. I strongly urge you to get better acquainted with the actual methods employed by “balanced” trainers and shed the horrific image in your head of a mean man snapping repeatedly on one end of a leash and a very confused and stressed out dog on the other end. Although I would assume if you looked hard enough you could find a man who’s methods really are that aweful you can’t judge everyone based on the actions of a few.
Eric Brad says
Janet –
Not only have I employed “corrections” with my dogs, I received years of formal training from instructors who taught methods recommended by the Monks of New Skeet, Bill Koehler, Barbara Woodhouse, and others. I am not a johnny-come-lately to dogs and dog training.
Generally, I see all kinds of rationalization when it comes to “corrections” and your example is no exception. You suggest that the “correction” of the tug or pop on the leash is the “correction” while the hand applies gentle pressure to the rump to show the dog that “sit” is the proper response. There are a couple of interesting assumptions in that example.
First, it is assumed that pushing a dog’s rump to the ground helps him understand that the “Sit” posture is the correct response. I would suggest that the dog also learns that yielding to the physical pressure of the hand is a good strategy. Because if they don’t, the tug gets harder and the push on the rump gets stronger. So are you teaching the dog to sit or to yield to hand pressure?
Secondly, I always have to laugh when I hear “Balanced” trainers talk about the rewarding properties of physical affection or verbal praise. While there may be a physiological component that could show that physical contact can be rewarding to dogs, it’s important to remember that the same hand that delivers the “correction” also delivers the “affection.” How the dog interprets your attempts at physical affection will depend heavily on your history with that dog. It should also be noted from a biological perspective that physical contact is not necessary for survival and so is not very high on the list of intrinsic physical rewards for a dog. As far as verbal praise is concerned, that is purely conditioned. There is absolutely no natural, unconditioned biological reward for hearing sounds.
So, you may suspect anything you like about me. The fact is that I was a “Balanced” trainer for 15 years before there was a term for it. I learned a better way. Lots of people love their dogs. They are not all great trainers. They can’t always read their dogs properly or well. But they get along just fine. As long as the humans and dogs find the arrangement satisfactory, who am I to argue with that? I am fond of saying that all dog training works – eventually. I’ve made my choices and you have made yours. I wish us both happy and healthy relationships with all of our dogs.
Thanks for your comments,
Eric
Eileen Kerrigan says
“… meet the dogs of potential dog training professionals or at least dogs that they have helped to train. Decide for yourself if these are the kinds of dogs you want to live with yourself.”
The only problem with this is that dogs who live with trainers who use force/aversives may seem — to the average eye — wonderfully well-behaved, leading trainers “shoppers” to think, “Ooh, I’d be thrilled if my dog behaved like that!” … because, really, all most people want is a dog who “behaves.”
Most people won’t go much deeper than that to delve into the WHY of the dog’s behavior — e.g., how did the trainer teach his dog such a solid stay? Was the dog heavily reinforced for staying, or heavily punished for moving? Most people won’t be able to tell the difference between “laying quietly” and “completely shut down.” Most people will look at a perfect heeling demo and think, “Oh, I want my dog to do that!” … and never stop to think about how that perfect heel was achieved.
Eric Brad says
Hi Eileen –
Thanks for your insightful comments. And I agree with the sentiments that you put forward. But there is an unfortunate truth in what you say here. There are people out there who want a dog that just “behaves.” By that, they mean a dog that doesn’t do much except when commanded to by their owner. They are people who keep dogs as accessories in their lives. Something to spruce up the family photos or improve the public appearance. Maybe even something to cuddle when they feel like it.
For those people, the force-trained dog who has been conditioned to avoid conflict by doing as little as possible is the perfect pet. What is at issue here, I think, is our definition of “well-behaved” when we are talking about dogs. Certainly my definition has changed radically over the past 15 years. When I attend agility trials, I see many dogs who move at a moderate pace and rarely make errors on course. These dogs also appear to be stressed and more concerned with avoiding mistakes than enjoying the game. And I wouldn’t want a dog like that. I wouldn’t train a dog to be that way.
I think that until we change what people expect from their dogs as companions that share our lives, there will always be a market for those dead-eyed, broken-spirited dogs who do only what they are told and no more. While we work on changing how dogs are trained, I think we also need to change what people should expect from their dogs. Frankly, I think a lot of people are missing out on the best parts of owning a dog.
Thanks again for your comments!
Eric
Eileen Kerrigan says
“I think a lot of people are missing out on the best parts of owning a dog.”
Couldn’t agree more! 🙂 I remember when I first got back into “dog world” (after a 12-year hiatus due to a crazy work schedule) and signed up for classes, bought a million books, and began working with our adopted Malinois, my fiance was baffled: “Why do you need to do all THAT with a dog? I mean, she’s already well-behaved, right?” He didn’t understand why anyone would feel the need to DO anything with a dog — to him, a dog was a creature who lived in your house, and you walked it and fed it and occasionally threw a ball for it and … hm, well, that was pretty much it, really.
It wasn’t until he experienced the fun of an agility trial (and later Rally, with her younger BSD “brother”) that the lightbulb began to glow. And what really convinced him was seeing how all that ring work translated into real-life bonuses: the reliable recall, the polite waiting-for-meals-on-a-mat, the sheer ease of getting them to do whatever we requested (go in the crate, hop into the car, let go of the dead groundhog). He was astounded at the way they almost seemed to read our minds and “converse” with us, in stark contrast to so many dogs we met who seemed oblivious to their owners’ existence.
Maybe it’s something that’s hard to explain unless you’ve experienced it … but it would be wonderful if JQP dog owners could see the vast difference between that kind of relationship and one in which the dog is simply obeying “or else!”
Lindsay says
The kind of relationship described here is almost always achieved when you put out the time, effort and interest into your dogs training regardless of methodology assuming that the method employed is humane and straight forward for the dog to understand. All positive practitioners don’t have a monopoly on healthy and cooperative relationships with their dogs where communication is at a high level. Robot minded dogs exist but it’s not because they received a snap on their leash. Believe it or not sometimes other factors come into play.
Eric Brad says
Lindsay –
I agree, no one method or combination of techniques will have a monopoly on happy and healthy relationships with dogs. Various methods will, however, offer greater or lesser risk of creating difficult or flawed relationships. I choose to avoid the risky one.
And you are right, robot dogs are not the result of a pop on the leash occasionally. Robot dogs are victims of systematic and prolonged behaviour suppression. I have see this kind of behaviour suppression taught as part of an entire dog training “system” and I have seen it when trainers do not have the skills or patience to train properly with dogs.
Peggy Richter says
The term Skinner used was “punishment” (Neutral operants: responses from the environment that neither increase nor decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.• Reinforcers: Responses from the environment that increase the probability of a behavior being repeated. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative. • Punishers: Response from the environment that decrease the likelihood of a behavior being repeated. Punishment weakens behavior.). Those that argue that “punishment” has no place in dog training are leaving out part of the operant training created by Skinner. Punishment can be minimal or extreme. Frankly, I prefer to use the punishment of “NO!” or even the command “STOP” to stop my dog from getting too close to a steer he is working than to have that steer provide the punishment of a kick to the dog’s head. Per Skinner’s definitions, you cannot use a tool to REDUCE or eliminate a behavior other than “punishment”. Behavioral studies on both humans and other animals show that a COMBINATION of these tools is the fastest and most reliable method. It would be nice if positive only actually worked, but it doesn’t —hence people drive their car at the speed limit not only because they are more likely to have a lower insurance rate (fewer accidents or tickets) but because they are passing the cop car with the radar gun (possible punishment).
Eric Brad says
Hi Peggy –
Excellent description of Operant Conditioning as laid out by Skinner. “Punishment”, in Skinner’s model, can also be positive and negative. It’s also true that “Extinction”, providing no response to behaviour, often diminishes frequency or intensity of behaviour. I’m not sure that I would call “Extinction” a punisher though as it is a neutral response on the part of the trainer. We are neither adding (positive) or removing (negative) anything from the training situation. A verbal “No” or “Stop” is added by the trainer and if behaviour decreases is a Positive Punisher. If the trainer were to stop doing something the dog enjoys like petting them, they could decrease unwanted behaviour by stopping the petting when the behaviour occurred (remove the pleasant touching) and that would be Negative Punishment if the unwanted behaviour decreased.
How one chooses to employ elements of the Operant Conditioning model is a matter of personal taste and training ability. I don’t believe any one “recipe” is necessarily superior to another if the basics of behavioural science are being used correctly. Each trainer has their own skills and preferred methods.
The fact that you can so clearly articulate the science behind what you do as a trainer identifies you (in my mind at least) as a thoughtful and honest trainer.
Thanks for reading and for a great comment!
Eric
Louise Thompson says
As always very enjoyable read!
Geoff Stern says
Eric, you seem still intent on making “correction” a dirty word — now it’s a subterfuge for “reprimand.”
I correct my dogs all the time — well, not all the time, because they’re not always wrong, but when they make a mistake I correct them — “Uh-uh…” (NRM) and then retry the exercise.
And let’s be fair. Let’s not set up a straw man to knock down. Even the most die-hard Koehler-ite doesn’t claim that a force correction by itself teaches the dog what to do.
And yes, “balanced trainers,” “traditional trainers,” and so on, aren’t some unified camp: there are many differences in their approach, their use of compulsion. If you don’t see the difference between, say, Michael Ellis and William Koehler, then you’re like the Fox News ijjits who don’t see the difference between Barak Obama and V.I. Lenin .
Eric Brad says
Hi Geoff –
“Correction” is a misnomer. As you point out in your comment, “when [your dogs] make a mistake you correct them – ‘Uh-uh…’ (NRM) and then retry the exercise.” So what exactly did you “correct?” Yes, you pointed out a mistake. The dog is now aware that they did something incorrectly. An NRM (No Reward Marker) is just that, an indication that no reward will be offered for that behaviour (or lack of behaviour). It is a softening of language to make it more pleasant to use. “Correction” sounds more productive than “Told him he screwed that up.”
If, as you suggest, the community of trainers who use “corrections” knows exactly what they are doing then I fail to see it in action on a regular basis. I see people “correcting” their dogs all the time without any indication of how to do the behaviour properly. What’s more, often those same trainers will not bother to offer any reward of value to the dog when they do get the behaviour correct.
To be clear, I am not condemning the use of NRMs or +P in managing behaviour in this article. I’m simply pointing out that “correction” is a deceptive term for what is really going on. Trainers would do the world a great service if they stopped using coded language to indicate what they mean, in my opinion.
With regard to the differences in the “Balanced” training camp, it is again the use of the work “balanced” to describe the wide variety of approaches to the use of compulsion you describe. It unfairly paints Koehler and Ellis with the same brush. They are NOT the same. This is also true of the reinforcement based trainers. The approach of Ken Ramirez differs from Ian Dunbar who also differs from Jean Donaldson.
The point of the article is that both sides of the issue are using shorthand and exaggeration to both promote their own ideas and condemn the “other side.” In my opinion, this is detrimental to the task of helping dog owners work with their dogs.
The Fox News reference made me smile.
Thanks for reading!
Eric
Aria says
By the very nature of reprimand and reteaching a trainer is creating the correction. Essentially teaching the dog, no this is wrong, this is right. A correction is in it’s very nature a minimum two step process.
Jenn says
Couldn’t agree more – thank you for bringing another voice of reason to this complex issue