The "Great Divide" . . . a Different Perspective

Lately I have notable number of blogs and group posts that propose the following two ideas:

1.  There is a divide between trainers who strive to refrain from incorporating correction, in the form of positive punishment or negative reinforcement, into their training = +R trainers, and those who train using techniques based in any of the four behavior theory quadrants = All Quad trainers (who refer to themselves as "balanced".  I say "All Quad" because I consider it a more precise descriptor.)

2.  This divide is bad and any statement or point of view that acknowledges or highlights the divide is "divisive" and so should not be expressed.

I agree completely with point #1.  There is a divide between +R trainers and All Quad trainers.  And while the point of view of different trainers on corrections is at the heart of the divide, there are other significant factors that make it even more pronounced than that.

However, I disagree with statement #2.

I do not believe that it is realistic, nor even beneficial, to pretend that the divide between the different trainer populations does not exist.  I do not even agree that we should, necessarily, attempt to erase the divide!

I propose that both +R and All Quad trainers should acknowledge the divide, seek to understand the divide, and even embrace the divide!

It actually exists for a very good reason:  we are different.

What?

Yes, it is a fact that individual trainers are different from one another.  Some examples . . . 

• A trainer who chooses to put a prong collar on a dog to train loose leash walking is different from a trainer who uses a food based method to train that skill.  There is a difference, even when the end result of the training looks very much the same!

• A trainer who considers electric shock on a remote collar to be a "stim" or a "tickle" that the dog will actually enjoy working for is different from a trainer who considers the use of electric shock to train dogs to be aversive.  There is a difference.

• A trainer who uses a clicker to build duration of focus and attention in the face of distraction is different from a trainer who uses a verbal reprimand to do so.  There is a difference, again, even when the end result looks identical!

Furthermore - and this is critically important - "different", in and of itself, does not mean "better" or "worse".  "Different" is not a value judgement.  It means precisely what it says: different.  Or, not exactly the same.

+R training and All Quad training is not the same!  Yes, there are many methods that both groups use and do, in fact, agree on.  Yes, there are some techniques, and elements of training philosophy, that both groups do share in common.  But the differences that exist are quite significant!

Also, speaking in terms of "difference" does not imply "hate".  For example, the statement, "I use food to train a recall" does not mean "I hate those who do not use food to train recalls".  It simply means, "I do it this way".  Even if I were to go so far as to say, "I do not use a long line and a prong collar to train recalls", I am not saying "I hate people who use long lines and prong collars to train recalls".  Yes, I am saying, effectively, "I do something different from what you choose to do".  Again, straightforward acknowledgment of difference is not a statement of hatred.

Why Acknowledge Differences?

I am convinced that honest and straightforward identification and understanding of the real differences between the two "camps" would actually have the potential to result in more respectful, cooperative, and fruitful discussion between the two groups.

If we are able to speak of the differences as differences, with an understanding that we are not the same, and that we are not going to agree on everything, the door would be open to mutual listening between those who hold different perspectives, and to a better understanding of where those who take another approach are coming from.

What About Common Ground?

I am all for finding common ground between trainers.  However, attempts to do so tend to disintegrate into bickering, flying accusations, emotions gone wild, and very little agreement in the end.

Starting, instead, with, "we differ in these ways" can create a foundation of, "these are the different points of view where we are coming from".  With that established and out of the way, common ground can serve to bridge the divide that we are now well aware of.

A bridge, after all, does not close a divide.  It connects the two sides.  Our common ground can connect us, but only after we have come to know and understand the reasons for the divide that needs to be crossed.

The divide is real.  I propose that we start there . . . 

Are +R Trainers Really Big Bad Meanies?

A good measure of conflict has existed for some time now between those who train dogs as exclusively as possible using positive reinforcement (hereafter +R trainers) and those who hold that some incorporation of aversives/positive punishment/correction, is necessary to effectively train dogs (hereafter All Quad trainers).  The points of debate between the two groups have included many long-enduring assertions and objections.

But this past summer I came upon a new one that has left me quite astonished.  The new rallying cry of a particularly vocal segment of the All Quad training community is "+R trainers are MEAN!!"

Now, it is important to note that practitioners of all of the different training approaches include some individuals who are rude and disagreeable, just as there are many practitioners of all of the different training approaches who are polite, eager to engage in discussion in a true give and take, and strive to be objective.  The fact of rude trainers is not strictly a +R training phenomenon.  I do not deny that there are +R trainers who could use some work on their people-skills - but I would say just as firmly that All Quad trainers who could stand to work on the same people-skills exist in at least the same proportion.

However, there is one extra little barb that is inserted into the objection directed at +R trainers, and it is often worded like this: "how can you say you are +R toward dogs when you don't use +R with people?"  

I give the All Quad folks a lot of credit for finding a slam that will really pack a good punch.  This is actually a personal attack (you are a mean, rude, etc. person) veiled as a criticism of the training approach (the trainers use of +R with dogs).  As such, it is very, very clever.  Granted, I would maintain that choosing to use aversives in training does not give a person any more right to be rude to other people than +R trainers, but that really isn't where I'm going with this.  The accusation boils down to, "there is no way you can actually do what you claim to do as a dog trainer because I don't like the way you treat me as a person".  Frankly, that doesn't add up.  But it does come off as if a valid point has been made.

When it comes down to it, we should treat other people with respect because it is right to treat other people with respect, not because one chooses to train a dog in a certain way.  Being a +R dog trainer does not somehow imply that  an individual now has an obligation to be Mother Theresa but that those who incorporate aversives/positive punishment/correction can be as rude as they please!  Choice of training approach has no bearing on this, actually.

Now I am going to say something that might be very controversial, but I feel strongly that it needs to be said . . .

I do not believe a prevalence of rude +R trainers is actually at the root of this particular accusation.  I strongly suspect that something else is happening here.

Sure there are rude +R trainers.  But there are rude All Quad trainers out and about on the online forums, as well.  Nobody is sending out a mass rallying cry against them.

I believe this accusation is actually a response to the fact that there is something that the vast majority of +R trainers will not and cannot, in good conscience, do.

It is a fact that no matter how much an individual All Quad trainer loves his or her dog, no matter how well he or she takes care of his or her dog, no matter what titles and accomplishments he or she achieves with his or her dog, most +R trainers will not and cannot say, "Even though I choose to train in a different way, I am perfectly fine with your personal training choices".

I believe that for those who choose to train using aversives - even to the most minute degree - that stings a bit.  The unspoken implication is there - "I would not choose to do what you do, therefore I am, on some level, not really perfectly OK with what you are doing".

Ouch!

When looking at things from that perspective, the over-exaggerated cry of "+R trainers are mean!" makes perfect sense.  It does seem mean.  Total approval from an entire population of dog trainers is being withheld and the reason why probably doesn't quite make sense.

Many +R trainers and All Quad trainers share a lot in common.  We train and compete side by side, harmoniously, in almost every dog sport.  We use a lot of the same techniques, especially in the early stages of training a dog.  We all want good things for our dogs.  We all have goals and we are all looking for results.  Many of us have put forth a lot of effort to try to understand those who make different training choices, even when we do not agree on this approach or that approach.  I realize it must be utterly confounding that +R trainers will not just make nice and offer a complete and resounding endorsement of at least an All Quad training approach . . .

But that doesn't make the "mean" designation accurate.  It is actually not mean or rude to hold true to one's personal standards.  There are training approaches that All Quad trainers use that +R trainers choose not to use because they do not consider them to be appropriate things to do to a dog.  In doing this, and even in saying so, one is not being "mean" to those who consider such approaches acceptable.  It's not really about them, actually . . .

The fact is that the vast majority of +R trainers are out there training dogs, working with clients and client dogs, helping people learn how to help their dogs overcome behavior issues, coaching competition handlers, and preparing their own dogs for competition.  Most promote +R training to those who come their way for training, many of whom have tried methods that incorporate aversives and have not gotten the results they hoped for.

Of the ones who are on the internet forums, many engage in debate with All Quad trainers in an objective and helpful manner.  If you aren't finding those +R trainers, I would suggest you explore some different groups.

No, we aren't really big bad meanies.  We are excited about +R training, we promote +R training, and we are committed to excellent use of +R training.  Rude individuals best represent themselves as rude individuals, not the entire +R training population.

Why am I a +R Trainer?

Why?  That is the question!  Why am I a +R trainer?  Is it because of a stance of moral superiority?  Is it because I am afraid that one little unpleasant experience will ruin my dog?  Is it because I think that everything has to be nice for my dog all the time?

Well . . . no!

Back when I got into dog training, I knew nothing.  Zero.  Not a thing!  I did not purposely seek out a +R training facility.  I didn't even know that such a thing existed!  I found the nearest training facility, signed my dog up for Basic Obedience, and off we went!  I just wanted to learn how to train my dog to sit and give paw.  I knew nothing about training philosophies, training methodologies, behavior theory, reinforcers, aversives . . . nothing!

Two things that I had absolutely no control over really shaped my future path as a trainer.  First, the facility that we stumbled into was, for the most part, supportive of +R training.  Although there were dogs in prongs on the premises, all of the training was introduced through +R methods.  The only techniques that I learned there were +R based.

Second, my first dog, Speedy, was a highly fearful, extraordinarily soft dog who was not wired correctly in the head.  He required a notable amount of positive reinforcement.  He had to learn that being out in the world was a good and safe thing.  I spent the first several years of his training building positive associations with . . . pretty much everything!

When we moved and I changed to a second training facility (which I did leave about 5 years ago), it was a facility that I would now refer to as "balanced" even though they call themselves "positive".  They introduced everything using +R, mostly using treats, but students were taught to "enforce commands" through physical manipulation (example: stapling sits) or verbal corrections.  Dogs who barked were squirted with vinegar water.

At that time, I didn't really see anything wrong with any of that.  The vinegar did worry me a bit because of the idea of spraying an acid, even a weak one, into the dog's eyes, but I had no objection at that point to the idea of applying mild aversives in training.  However, I didn't do any of that with Speedy because he was so soft and fearful.  Nobody expected me to because of who he was.  The fact that others were doing so didn't really phase me, but it was at that point that I started to notice that my dog who had quite a lot "wrong" with him was perfectly capable of learning without any of that.  And I kind of liked it that way . . . 

Because Speedy was fearful and reactive and so easily ovestimulated, I began to read books to try to find more and more ways to help him.  I read many of Patricia McConnell's works.  I read Emma Parson's Click to Calm.  I read Ali Brown's Scaredy Dog.  All of the authors that I happened to choose promoted a +R approach to helping dogs like Speedy.  I set out to help Speedy through clicker work, and through desensitization and counter conditioning.  I can't say I did it with a lot of skill, or without a lot of mistakes, but I watched, amazed, as Speedy transformed from a dog who hid when people even looked at him and went into a barking, lunging frenzy when dogs got too close into a dog who could function with people watching and deal well with the presence of dogs around him.

I wish I could describe what I saw throughout that process.  The change was literally visible to me in his eyes!  I could tell that things were happening in his brain and he really was learning to respond to things differently because the look in his eyes began to change.  This didn't happen quickly but I could see that he was changing and growing every step of the way.

And, after a while, other people began to notice.  They told me that his whole face, and his eyes, looked different!  His expression had softened.  He had more "open" expressions on his face in situations where he used to lose control.

And all of this happened without one correction, without one reprimand, without one training collar, without one application of any aversive.  This was all accomplished with a clicker, treats, and patience on my part.

Of course, by this time I had learned a lot.  I used to refer to Speedy as my "college education" in dog training and behavior.  Everything is harder with a dog whose brain does not function properly.  But I studied, I worked, and Speedy and I got the job done.

And it seemed to me . . . how much more could a "normal" dog accomplish through that kind of training?!

When we adopted Dean I faced the question, "do I incorporate corrections into his training?"  I decided against it.  If Speedy could learn through +R based training, so could Dean.  At that point I consciously made up my mind about the kind of trainer that I am.

The process, over time, through which I chose to be a +R trainer had nothing to do with moral superiority over anyone else.  I had to do what worked for my own dog, and after doing so I found that I wanted to keep on training as I had trained him.  It had nothing to do with avoiding unpleasant experiences - I know full well that it was extremely unpleasant for Speedy to experience the degree of fear that he had to deal with over the first few years of his life.  I never had to apply an aversive to teach him that life is tough.  He knew that all too well.  And it wasn't about making everything nice for him all the time.  Again, he had a highly fearful temperament.  Life wasn't very nice for him whenever he left our home.

But I will say this.  The experience of helping a dog move from a point where he would literally be crippled with fear in the face of ordinary things like people looking at him, seeing other dogs, being around people living life around him when out and about to a point where he goes about in the world radiating joy and savoring every possible adventure did have a profound effect on me.

While I do not shy away from the fact that life is hard at times - even for our dogs - I do flatly refuse to apply even the tiniest bit of discomfort to my dog if it is not necessary.

For example, while I am absolutely willing to administer an Adequan shot to Speedy (necessary to alleviate arthritis pain), I am not willing to put a prong collar on a dog.  This is because I know that anything that can be taught with a prong collar can be taught with a clicker and treats.  I know this because I have watch a clicker and treats make some truly incredible things happen.

I know that there are those who would object to my reasons for choosing to be a +R trainer because Speedy is "just one dog" and not all methods work on all dogs.

But there is something that only I know.  Speedy may have been "just one dog", but he was a dog who was "miswired" to an extreme.  He was a dog who had issues that were far beyond my depth as a new trainer (at one point he was very close to being fear aggressive), and I managed to help him become a pretty darn near "normal" dog through +R training techniques.  And when Speedy and I started, I would never have believed that he could have changed and progressed to the degree that he has.

Speedy went on to become a Freestyle dog, loving to dance in front of an audience.  He has gone, many times, to an off leash dog camp and run loose with 40+ other dogs without a single incident.  He, who once would not let anyone touch him, has been x-rayed unsedated without a problem!  He danced in front of 500 people, twice, and had a grand time doing it!  He plays every summer off leash on the beach with children and other dogs playing around him.  He doesn't even act "a little shy" with most people anymore.

That experience taught me that things that I would have thought impossible can be accomplished through +R training.

And now that I know that, I can't "un-know" it . . . 

And that, ultimately, is my reason.

Speedy, playing off leash at the beach

Speedy, far left, running off leash with dogs at camp

Speedy went on to earn 6 Rally Titles and 8 Freestyle Titles
at live titling events!

Purely Positive - What Does it Mean?

Let me preface this by saying that I do not like the term "purely positive", and I generally avoid any use of it.  In fact, I find it to be moderately aversive, in spite of the fact that my own training approach could technically be termed as such.  However, because it is a term that is used commonly, both by those who choose to incorporate correction into their training, and by the general pet public, I believe that consideration of the term is in order.

In behavior theory speak, the term "purely positive" is used to designate dog trainers who train, almost exclusively, using positive reinforcers (incorporating limited use of negative punishment where needed), and who deliberately avoid all use of positive punishment and negative reinforcement.  In common speak, "purely positive" means that the trainer uses things that the dog likes as rewards to help the dog learn, and avoids things that the dog finds unpleasant, aversive, or painful.

But in actual practice, I find that "purely positive" tends to be used much more as a statement of what the trainer is not doing - correcting the dog - than a clear description of what the trainer actually is doing, which can be quite systematic and effective.  This tends to give the incorrect impression that the "purely positive" trainer is actually not doing much of anything!

One of the main reasons why I find the term aversive is because I have heard it thrown in the face of primarily positive reinforcement based trainers (hereafter designated as +R) as an attempt to discredit their training methods, based not on actual results that the trainer may or may not have achieved using +R methods, but on the often repeated mantra: no training can be purely positive all the time.

Technically, that is true.  No training can be "purely positive" all the time.  Sometimes an approach that the trainer intends to be reinforcing to the dog turns out to be aversive to a particular dog.  And there are times when an individual trainer may not pick up on that.  Accidents that are aversive to the dog happen - things fall over, paws get stepped on, trainer timing is sometimes off and feedback to the dog can be unclear, etc.  And, there are times when restricting the dog's access to something that he or she might want is necessary.  In other words, even when the trainer is committed to a +R approach, everything is not pleasant for the dog at all times.

+R trainers are well aware of all of this.  The aim of +R training is not to make everything pleasant for the dog at all times, but to facilitate canine learning, primarily, though methods that employ the use of positive reinforcement.  This is an important distinction.  I would say that the vast majority of trainers, regardless of training method chosen, ultimately want to make life as pleasant as possible for their dogs.  And it is a fact that there are times in the learning process, and in life itself, when the dog will experience times of difficulty and frustration, and when he will not always have what he wants.  And while +R trainers do make a deliberate choice to avoid use of training techniques that use aversion to teach concepts and behavior, they also know that training is a discipline that often presents challenges to the dog along the way.  In other words, of course, no training is "purely positive" all the time, in the sense that no training is 100% pleasant to the dog at all times.

This, however, does not change the fact that there are many, many good +R trainers out there who get excellent results.  I propose that the effectiveness of +R training methods should be judged on the basis of the actual results that competent +R trainers produce, and not on implications associated with a term that does not precisely describe this type of training to begin with.

Another reason why I avoid the use of the term "purely positive" is that the term is used to mischaracterize +R trainers as "cookie pushers" who lack any clear purpose, structure, or use of intellect in their training.  I often hear things like, "a dog won't stop for a cookie when he is busy chasing a squirrel".  As if +R trainers are outside, pointlessly calling "cookie, cookie, cookie" while waving a hot dog in the air, as the dog is tearing away full speed and then call that a training method!  There are certainly those who have that impression when they hear the term "purely positive"!

+R training is highly structured, the methods that fall under the umbrella of +R have clear purpose, and +R trainers know how to develop training plans that take the individual needs of the dog into account.  A good +R trainer would no more recommend the above approach than he or she would recommend that a skydiving instructor should wait until the skydiving student is falling from the plane before explaining how the parachute works!

Finally, "purely positive" is often understood to mean, simply, "never say no".  For many the term is synonymous with "let the dog do whatever he wants and when you like something he does, give him a cookie, and ignore absolutely everything else".  So, if the dog is running toward a busy street, ignore it; if the dog is about to eat a fully cooked chicken that is sitting on the counter, ignore it; if the dog poops all over the house, ignore it; if the dog is bullying other dogs in the house, ignore it.  This is absolutely not what happens when one trains using +R!  

In reality, the +R trainer would view these scenarios more like this: if the dog is running toward a busy street, use a well trained recall to call the dog back; if the dog is about to eat a fully cooked chicken that is sitting on the counter, use a well trained leave it cue to indicate that it should be left alone; if the dog poops all over the house, go back to training 101 and teach the dog to go to the bathroom outdoors (unless it's a medical issue, of course, in which case, consult a vet); if the dog is bullying other dogs in the house, assess and address the situation to ensure the well being of all of the dogs.  And while the +R trainer will choose to use positive reinforcers to teach the excellent recall, the well-understood "leave it", and a combination of positive reinforcement/negative punishment to teach the dog where to defecate and how to behave appropriately around the other dogs, the idea of that the "purely positive" trainer is sitting around letting it all happen is simply false.

I believe that this misconception has developed from an incorrect understanding of the free shaping training technique.  Yes, when one is free shaping, the trainer allows the dog to do anything he or she chooses and then clicks and gives a treat when the dog does something that the trainer wants.  Through this process, the dog learns what is being clicked frequently and begins to offer that behavior, and then that offering is "shaped" into a concrete behavior that is put on a cue.  This can be done to teach basic behaviors, tricks, and sport skills.

It is important to note that free shaping is done within the context of training sessions, not throughout life in general.  Free shaping should be done in situations where the dog is going to be safe no matter what he or she should choose to do, like a living room or other training space.  Free shaping is not done with the untrained dog off leash next to a busy street.  And, of course, if the dog is going to do something that is unsafe during a free shaping session, the dog is not left to do that unsafe thing in the name of shaping!

In reality, dogs who are trained through +R methods learn to ignore cars that they would have formerly chased, they learn to recall off of squirrels and other exciting things, they learn to greet people and other dogs politely, they are housetrained, they learn what is theirs to chew and what is not a chew toy, they learn to walk politely on loose leashes, etc. etc. etc.

+R training is all about the dog learning how to be a good citizen in the human world, how to be a polite member of a human household, how to carry out a set of tasks to assist us with our work, or, sometimes, how to be a skilled and  competent participant in a human-made dog sport.

"Purely positive" expresses none of this, and implies a good deal that is actually not true.

I am all for abandoning the term entirely in favor of finding more precise ways of describing what +R training is really about!  The more people come to understand +R training as a diverse, effective, and highly substantial training discipline, the better.

Dog Training as Morality?

This is a re-post from my other blog, but it fits in with the overall topic of this blog, so I am re-posting here.

Training methodology and philosophy are often a hotly discussed and debated topic among those who train dogs with any degree of seriousness.  Particularly among those of us who enjoy discussing training on internet groups and lists.  The debates can get quite emotional at times, complete with indignation and hurt feelings flying high and fast.

I understand the intense interest in the subject.  I definitely have a philosophy that influences my own training and handling choices.  I enjoy discussing this with others of like mind.  And sometimes I enjoy discussing it with people who are not of like mind, especially on the rare occasions when the debate is objective and logical, and assertions are backed by fact.

Some have compared training philosophy to religious practice.  As a seriously active and practicing (and even professional) Catholic, I do see a great many parallels between the two.  They are not exactly the same, of course, but there are certain similarities.

For example, although this would be considered a very unpopular assertion, I actually think of training philosophies as a type of morality.

Did I really just say that?  Yes, I did.

Just a few days ago, in my classes at school, my students learned this definition of morality:

Morality - what we ought to do and who we ought to be, according to God's Law

A training philosophy really is what an individual trainer holds as what he or she ought to do (to and for his or her dog) and who he or she ought to be (as a trainer and handler).

For example, just as I hold, as a Catholic Christian, that I ought to respect the property of others and so I ask to borrow something rather than take it without permission, I hold, as a dog trainer/handler that I ought to give my dog an active role in the learning process and so I use training techniques that provide opportunities for the dog to have input into his or her training.

I believe that this is one of the main reason why training debates among those who adhere to different training philosophies are often so heated and emotional.  The discussions aren't just about methodology, nor about what "works", nor what is the fastest way to train.  Dig down a little bit deeper and it is clear that we really are discussing the manner in which each of us believe that a dog ought to be treated and handled.

Few people are going to take kindly to a perceived implication that the manner in which he or she believes that a dog ought to be treated or handled is considered to be "wrong" by someone else.

Moreover, it is culturally unacceptable, at least in this country, to come right out and say, "I don't choose to train or handle in this way [insert methodology here] because I consider it wrong to treat a dog that way".  We have to dance around it, try to find a way to express it that sounds like that isn't actually what is being said. 

But, when it comes down to it, when one looks at things from a moral perspective, there are going to be some choices that one considers to be right and other choices that one considers it to be wrong.  And, when it comes down to it, there are training choices that each individual trainer considers to be right and other choices that one considers to be wrong.  If that were not the case, we would not be having these debates at all.

The whys and wherefores of those choices will vary from one trainer to another.  Some will base the rightness or wrongness of a particular approach or method on behavioral results alone, some on the speed of the effectiveness of the technique, some on the effect that the technique has on the dog's confidence and attitude, some on both the dog and handler's enjoyment of the training process, some on the track record that the method or approach has had with other handlers in certain types of competition, some on the role that the dog plays in the learning process, some on what has been tried and found successful by themselves, some on what is being taught or promoted by a particular trainer, some on what has traditionally been done in a particular discipline, etc. etc. etc.

But in the end, we are all making choices for our dogs that are driven by what we hold to be right and wrong for our dogs and ourselves, and I don't consider this, in itself, to be a bad thing.  Perhaps if we were to acknowledge this more openly, we could find ways to make our discussions of training, and our own training philosophies, more objective, logical, and fruitful.

Why Debate?

I have been known, from time to time, to get involved in debate over dog training topics in various online forums and discussion groups.  The main point of disagreement in the vast majority of these debates has been the use, or lack thereof, of "corrections" in training.  And I will freely admit that I generally enjoy those debates.  Sometimes they degrade into flying accusations and personal insults, but when the discussions happen with a mutual desire to understand the position of the other side, I find them to be fascinating conversations.

One observation that I have made within the context of these debates is that there are almost always participants who object to the very discussion itself!  These folks tend to jump in with, "why are we having this discussion again?" or "nobody will ever change their mind, so why bother to talk about this?" or something to that effect.  I always wonder why, if they object discussion of the topic out of hand, those particular people choose to get involved with it, but since they always do, these are questions that bear consideration.

Why have the debate?  Why participate?  What motivates those who do so?

Why have the debate?

It is true - there are those who are set on their particular position.  I will readily admit that I am one of those people.  No matter how many times somebody tells me that they prefer to incorporate correction into their training, for whatever reasons they care to share, I am not going to choose to do so.  And I recognize the fact that many of those who incorporate correction into their training are not going to choose to learn +R based ways to train in place of use of correction based on anything that I have to say about the matter.

Should we not, therefore, separate into our particular "camps", do what we understand to be best, and leave it at that?  I would say . . . no!

First of all, we do not live in isolated bubbles.  Typically, we train in the same training centers, we compete in the same venues, those of us who teach classes are colleagues with those who choose different training approaches.  Many of us work with students who have worked with instructors who promote different approaches.  And, of course, when we choose to discuss training online, there are always members of a particular group who have a different point of view.

In addition, I firmly believe that, in spite of the differences that exist, there is much that we have to learn from each other.  I consider it to be a good thing to understand the motivation behind why a trainer would choose a method that I personally would not, even if I cannot, in the end "agree" with their personal training choices.  I believe that it is beneficial for those who do not have a good understanding of what +R based training is actually capable to consider the possibilities even if they cannot "agree" with my personal choices.

Sometimes a particular criticism that is made by those who choose to incorporate correction inspires me to learn to train smarter and train better.  While I am not personally a "high level" trainer, I do want to be the best representative of those who choose to train primarily through +R based techniques that I can be.  Having an awareness of valid criticisms of the practices of +R based trainers can give me information that allows me to avoid those types of errors.

Why participate? What motivates those who do?

I would imagine that the reasons why people get into these particular debates is as varied as the individuals themselves.  Some are looking to change people's minds.  Some are crossover trainers who want to share something good that they have found.  Some are intensely interested in the subject and just want to discuss it.

Personally, I find that I get drawn into this debate when a misconception about +R based training is being promoted in some way.  When I read things like: "+R based training doesn't work when (insert situation here) . . ., "+R training kills dogs", "+R training produces a dog who can never do anything without food", "+R trainers are really punishing their dogs, but they just don't know it", "+R training produces dogs who cannot handle pain/stress/difficult situations", and the like, I end up jumping in to try to provide clarification, present an alternate point of view, or even dispute the claim.

I am well aware of the fact that doing this annoys or even angers those who promote those misconceptions, that there are those who are not going to be open to consideration of another perspective, and some who are going to hear what they want to hear instead of what I am actually saying.  But I am also aware of the fact that there are those who are open to consideration of a different point of view.  They are not typically the most vocal participants in these debates - often they choose to lurk altogether.  But I know they are out there.  And I am convinced that those who are open to consideration of objective facts have a right to hear both sides of the argument so they can make their own informed training choices.

When I participate in training methodology debates, my comments really are for the eyes and ears of those who are open to learning the facts.

Also, I am intensely interested in the subject and I want to discuss it.

In Conclusion

There have been times when I have regretted entering into these debates.  I have been accused of lying, of creating straw men, of saying things that I never said or implied.  I have been told that my dogs do not actually know things that I have trained, that I have ruined my dogs, and that I am not qualified to have a position on this matter because I have not earned a title in a sport in which I do not participate or accomplished a goal that I personally do not have with my dogs.

In spite of that, I still believe that this topic can be debated objectively and in a manner that does not include accusation, innuendo, or personal attacks.  And when it is handled in that manner, it is a debate that I thoroughly enjoy taking part in.  I always learn something about those on the "other side" and learning is always worthwhile.

Tessa enjoying a gorgeous spring day