But . . . Not All Corrections Are Abusive

If you frequent online discussion groups and forums long enough, you end up hearing quite a litany of objections toward +R based dog training.  Some of these objections are grounded in legitimate issues.  The quality of instruction in +R based dog training can vary from trainer to trainer and area to area.  Some of the objections to +R based dog training have been around since an earlier time and many do not realize that the discipline has grown, changed, and improved in many ways.

However, many of the objections are based on flat out misconception.

One of the most frequent objections that I hear to train using +R based methods, directed specifically at those who choose not to incorporate corrections into their work with dogs is that "not all corrections are abusive."  Concluding, therefore, that since they are "not all abusive", they should be used.

 

Is Anyone Saying They Are?

The first aspect of this objection that I would like to consider is this.  Do most +R based trainers really claim that all use of corrections in training is "abusive"?

Based on discussions that I have had with other +R based trainers, I would say "no".  Most +R based trainers would not actually claim that all use of corrections in training is "abusive".We are certainly very much aware of the fact that corrections, and many of the more popular corrective training devices, can be used, and are, in fact, used by some trainers in abusive ways.

 

And we do tend to vociferously object to such practices.  We do hold that there are better ways to achieve the desired results, even when working with dogs with more serious issues, and we do not just sit back and approve of the use of methods in training that are abusive, harsh, painful, and potentially very harmful to the dog.

 

Somehow, there are dog trainers who add the fact that +R based trainers speak out against abusive training methods to the fact that we choose not to incorporate correction into training and they think that the sum total of those two facts equals, "all use of corrections in training is abusive".

 

In reality, that is faulty math.

 

Of course, there are corrections, both verbal and physical, that are more mild, that work by causing a more moderate level of discomfort to the dog, and that can effectively communicate information to certain dogs in certain circumstances.

 

And while it is not my personal choice to employ the use even of those more mild corrections, of course I would not call their use "abusive".

 

"Not Abusive" is Not a Reason

 

If I were going to consider incorporating corrections into my training, I would need a clear and concrete reason to do so.  I would need a lot more motivation than the acknowledgment that not all use of correction in training is abusive.  "Not abusive" is not a reason.

Certainly, "abusive" is a clear reason not to, "not abusive" is not a reason to do so.

Suppose I were to try to convince someone who did not want to use a clicker in training to use one.  If I were to say, "it's not abusive", is that going to convince someone who is opposed to the idea?  It's not likely.  I would need to present real reasons that would lead one to think about the clicker in a different way.

I have been involved with training dogs since 2002, and I have managed to accomplish some things through +R based training that some say cannot be done without corrections.  I have successfully rehabilitated a fear reactive dog.  I have helped an untrained and completely undisciplined adolescent Border Collie become the best behaved dog in our household.  I have trained my dogs to recall reliably to hike off leash in the woods.  And I could go on . . .

In all that time nobody has ever presented any compelling reason to me to abandon the +R based approach that I have chosen in favor of a training protocol that incorporates corrections.

That is why I stick with a +R based training approach.  I find the discipline of +R based training to be enjoyable, an inspiration of creativity and outside-the-box thinking, effective, and absolutely fascinating.

I would need a lot more than "not abusive" to be convinced to consider incorporating corrections into my training.  After all, what I am already doing is not abusive.  And . . . it is so much more than that!
 

Speedy, the first dog I trained.  He started off fear reactive, and I learned

how to help him through desensitization and counter conditioning.

He went on to enjoy a full and happy life, playing off leash on the beach

every summer.  He also enjoyed participation in several performance sports.