"But . . . Nobody is ALL Positive"

Those who incorporate deliberate corrections into their training often object to +R based training on the basis of the fact that nobody is ALL positive.

Personally, I consider this to be a diversion, at best.  This objection actually has nothing to do with how +R based trainers work, it has nothing to do with learning, and it has nothing to do with the dogs themselves.

But here is the kicker . . . +R based trainers will be the first to acknowledge that nobody is ALL positive.

I realize that the descriptor "purely positive" is still being used by some, but I personally have never met a +R based trainer who uses that label to describe his or her training.  I have heard descriptors such as: +R, Force Free, LIMA, Relationship Based, Positive (leaving off the "purely"), Aversive-Free, Coercion-Free, Humane Hierarchy, Science Based, Clicker Trainer, etc.

I did make inquiries, and apparently there are still a handful of trainers who refer to themselves as "purely positive".  I leave it to them to explain and defend their training choices.

However, do realize that the vast majority of +R based trainers firmly reject the use of the term "purely positive", and we would appreciate it if those who are striving to debunk our training would attempt to do so on the basis of what we are actually doing and not because a label that very few actually even use.

I digress . . . back to the topic at hand.

Objection is still made in response to those who refer to themselves as +R, or "positive", or force-free, etc.

Examples:

"Nobody can be all positive all the time".

"You use force - don't you use a leash?"

"You can't train with only one quadrant".


I would submit that using a descriptor to explain how one trains, such as +R, positive, force-free, etc. actually does not imply that anyone can be "positive all the time", that there aren't times when it is necessary to restrict a dog's freedom, or that anyone is actually trying to train "with only one quadrant".

How can that be?

Think of it this way.  Does a vegetarian only eat vegetables?  Of course not!  The term "vegetarian", generally speaking, is understood by most to mean, "this person does not eat meat".  So, the vegetarian will usually eat grains and dairy products, as well as vegetables.

Imagine if I went online and started talking with vegetarians, and then began to object to them by saying, "nobody can eat ALL vegetables!" or "you can't be a vegetarian, you eat bread, don't you?" 

I would be missing the point entirely!

The much better questions would be, "what foods do you eat?", "why do you choose not to eat meat?", "what challenges do you face as a vegetarian?", "why do you enjoy eating a vegetarian diet?"

Those who object to +R based training, regardless of what descriptor the trainer uses to identify his or her training choices, on the basis of what it "can't mean" would do much better to ask, "what does this person mean by this?"

Breaking it Down

No, a +R trainer does not only train through positive reinforcement.  Using the term +R to describe one's training indicates an underlying mindset that regards the dog as a partner who brings as much into the training process as the trainer.

A force-free trainer is not allowing his or her dog to run wild in the world, free of all boundaries and rule structures.  The term force-free, this context, indicates that the trainer uses training techniques and methodologies that do not include aversive tools such as prong collars, use of physical corrections, or, very often, use of verbal corrections.  Of course a force-free trainer uses leashes, although in a neutral way, as a safety measure (or, to comply with the law), not to manipulate or correct the dog.

A positive trainer is not trying to claim that life is always sunshine and flowers for the dog.  I would propose that good positive training can provide a dog with a very high level of discipline and challenge.

Conclusion

When it comes down to it, any particular term that anyone uses to describe anything can be twisted, manipulated, and misinterpreted.

And yet - we need vocabulary.  We need to be able to describe, distinguish, differentiate, identify, categorize, and communicate!

We have to do the best we can even with terms that cannot describe our training perfectly.

The Ripple Effect

Times are changing.  And lately they seem to be changing quite rapidly.

Change is not always a good thing, but the change that I am seeing in online dog training discussion and debate is something that I consider to be very good change.

I am convinced that this change is happening as a result of the "Ripple Effect" of the work that is being done by the founder, instructors, and students of the Fenzi Dog Sports Academy, an online education entity focused on +R based training for all manner of dog sports.  This term, "Ripple Effect", is one that is used by students of the Academy to describe the tiny, but often quite significant, effect that their personal dedication to the study and practice of high quality +R based training can have on those who have the opportunity to see them in action with their dogs.

The Change

I have enjoyed online dog training discussion, and even debate, for many years.  But it has always been the case that +R based trainers have been in the minority in most online dog training discussions, and we have generally had very little opportunity to discuss the nuts and bolts, if you will, of the way we actually work with our dogs in these formats.  Until fairly recently, most of the online discussion that I have read and taken part in concerning +R based training has centered on certain folks attempting to debunk it and on others striving to defend it.

I believe that is finally changing, and that the work of one person has been the driving force behind this change:  Denise Fenzi.

Ms. Fenzi caught my attention at first because she has accomplished something that a good many people have insisted could never - no way, no how - be done by a +R based trainer.  She earned an AKC Obedience OTCH.

If you read Ms. Fenzi's blog, which is available online to the general public, you will learn that she is constantly learning and changing and "evolving" as a trainer.  She did start out using more traditional training methods.  However, something changed somewhere along the way and she has dedicated herself in recent years to training through methods that do not include the intentional use of aversives in training.

This transition, in and of itself, in a high level AKC Obedience competitor is, to me, nothing short of astonishing.  And that was really the first thing about Ms. Fenzi that won my respect, and, I am sure, the respect of other +R based trainers.

Prior to that, I was very surprised when I started to hear rumors online of a "Denise Fenzi", who was +R trainer competing at the highest levels of AKC Obedience and who (at that time) was close to achieving an OTCH (which, of course, she accomplished).

Back then, any claims that Ms. Fenzi's accomplishments lent any validity to the assertion that +R based training methods are, in fact, highly effective, were generally shouted down quite loudly.  The argument against: she was supposedly uniquely talented.  Sure, Ms. Fenzi could do it, but nobody else in the entire world could ever emulate her success.

I didn't buy that.  But there wasn't much one could say to back up the position that if Ms. Fenzi could do it, others could, as well.

And then Ms. Fenzi did something that I believe is driving the changes that I am starting to witness.  She brought her approach to training, and her own training skills, to the +R based training masses!

She began on online Academy dedicated to +R based dog sport training.  Classes are offered in competitive Obedience, Nosework, IPO, Rally FrEe, Canine Fitness, Agility, along with specialized classes on photography, shaping, relationship games, attention and focus, competition ring skills, etc. etc. etc.  The schedule changes each session and new classes and instructors are being added every single time.

If You Build It . . .

Dog sport participants are flocking to these classes en masse, and for very good reason.  These classes are providing quality instruction in excellent +R based training skills that are rarely found in your average training class at one's local dog training center, or even at many facilities that do support a +R based training approach.

In the past those of us who have wanted to continually learn and grow as +R based trainers were limited largely to the study of books, DVD's, and the occasional workshop presenter, or perhaps a yearly camp.  This circumstance kept our access to newly developed +R based training concepts rather limited, and we were often left to our own devices when it came to practicing our training skills or troubleshooting issues.

Now we have a year round, constant ongoing source of: access to excellent +R based trainers teaching on more topics than any of us can deal with at any single given time, Facebook groups where our training choices are supported and where we can bounce ideas off of each other, troubleshoot in community, and find inspiration when we get stuck.

Bandit has been learning skills through Fenzi Academy classes

since he was a young puppy

Change is Happening!

With the establishment of the Fenzi Dog Sports Academy, +R based dog sport enthusaists have access to resources that are enabling us to hone our +R training skills, and that are allowing us to constantly learn how to use them and apply them in new ways.

And, we are starting to talk about what we are doing.  I hear people talking about what they do in Fenzi classes in person at live training classes and at dog sport competitions.  People online are starting to talk about elements of +R based training, and about the most effective of +R based training concepts in a manner that is clear, precise, confident, competent, and . . . familiar!

Oliver, the Beagle, has benefitted from classes through the Fenzi Academy

in Fitness, Agility, Ring Skills, and Parkour

And this is the "Ripple Effect" of the Fenzi Academy in the dog sport world!  Slowly, but surely, those of us who are +R based trainers have been able to start to move away from defending our training choices and we are now able to begin to talk about how we train, what has worked and what has not worked, ideas for tweaking our training plans, and . . . the results of our training!

Of course, this change is not absolute.  There are still many trainers out there who object, quite loudly at times, to the very existence of +R based trainers in the dog sport world.  We still have to put up with being called "mean", with being told that our training "doesn't work", with insulting labels like "purely positive" or "cookie pushers", and with having ridiculous assertions shot our way that have absolutely no connection to what we actually do, but by which some people insist on trying to characterize us.

But change is happening!!  I am seeing evidence of this.  Lately there are more +R trainers taking part in the conversations, and we are starting to have a voice that cannot be drowned out by those who have managed to silence us in the past.

Tessa, flying high after a session of Canine Fitness

What is a Correction?

Whenever I engage in conversations online about the use of corrections in dog training, someone inevitably poses the question, "what is a correction?"

This question is not typically asked because somebody is genuinely interested in knowing exactly what each of the discussion participants really mean by the term.  Usually, the person posing the question is trying to make a point of his or her own about the use of corrections in training.

But . . . honestly . . . I believe that this is a question that we should be actively discussing!  This word can mean different things to different people.  I would love to see more trainers - both those who choose to incorporate correction into their training and those who do not - put their understanding of the term, in as much detail as possible, out on the table for all to consider.

When you use the term "correction", what, exactly, do you mean?

In this post, I am going to explain my answer to that question, and how I have come to formulate this definition.

When I speak of a "correction" in a dog training context, I mean:

A deliberate application of something that is aversive to the dog that is intended to communicate that a particular action or behavior is wrong or incorrect.

The aversive used can range from mild to harsh, but its use is intentional on the part of the trainer.

More than "Making the Dog Correct"

It is often claimed in online discussions that a "correction" is anything that "makes the dog correct".  That would be a general definition, indeed.

If it were true that a "correction" really were simply anything that "makes the dog correct", then some things that are very pleasant to the dog could be classified as "corrections".  However, in practice, those who choose to incorporate correction into their training typically do not classify the use of things that the dog likes to make him or her correct as "corrections".

I have presented these scenarios, or similar ones, on several occasions to groups of trainers who use corrections in their training, and have asked if they consider these to be examples of "corrections":

The dog is cued to do a trick and the dog does not comply.  The handler gets out a treat and lures the dog through the trick, gives the treat.  The handler then cues the behavior again and the dog is successful.

The dog is sent over a jump but runs around it instead of taking it.  The handler ignores the error and puts a target out on the other side of the jump and sends the dog again.  This time the dog takes the jump correctly.


The dog is called but does not come when called.  The handler goes to the dog with a neutral demeanor and, upon getting to the dog, says the dog's name cheerfully while patting his or her leg.  As the dog starts to walk along with the handler, he or she continues to praise the dog for returning as they walk along.

The answer to my question, "do you consider these choices, on the part of the handler, to be corrections?", has consistently been a resounding NO!

That begs the question . . . why not?  In each example the dog was "made correct". 

Obviously, there is more to a "correction" than simply making the dog correct.  And, clearly, a "correction" is not intended to be something that the dog enjoys.

That is why I define "correction" as aversive.

More than "Information"

Another very common explanation that I see for the term, "correction" is that "a correction is just information".

I do not dispute that a correction is, in fact, information.

However, I would like to see those who define "correction" this way go on to give more detail about the type of information that is intended to be conveyed through the correction.

There are many ways to give a dog information.  Praise is information.  Delivery of treats is information.  The click of a clicker gives the dog information.  Being on a leash provides information.  A well conditioned target is information.

Is use of a "correction", by virtue of being "information" exactly the same thing as use of praise, treats, a clicker, a leash, or a target?

In order to answer that question, we must consider the nature of the information that is being conveyed.

Information is not some neutral concept.  Information is communication.  By providing information, we strive to say something to our dogs.

Through use of praise, I intend to convey, "I am pleased with what you just did".  By the click of a clicker, I am clearly stating, "that exact behavior in that instant is IT!"  When my dog and I are joined by a leash, I am conveying, "we are sharing this space together now and we need to cooperate in our movement".  And a target is telling the dog, "go there" or "lay down here" or "paw there".

What information does a correction give to the dog?

That is the question that I would like to see more trainers who incorporate correction into their training answer.

I would say that a correction conveys this information: "you are wrong" or "that is incorrect".

The merits and disadvantages of communicating that message to a dog in training is a matter that is up for legitimate debate.

But for those who define a correction as "information", the time has come for you to provide more information about the exact nature of the message that you are looking to convey through the use of corrections.

A Uniform Definition?  Probably Not!

It is a fact that there is not one standard vocabulary in the discipline of dog training that all trainers, regardless of personal training philosophy or chosen methodology, recognize and adhere to.

Many lament over this, and express a desire for there to be such a standard.  But the fact of the matter is that dog training in the United States is not a regulated industry, and we, as trainers, really are free to define the terms we use as we wish to define them.  This may make for some confusion, but it really isn't something that any of us have the power to change at this time.

I propose that the next best thing is open, honest, and respectful dialogue among trainers about the terms that we use.  We may not agree on how we choose to train, but we can take steps toward understanding one another better.  I believe that thorough discussion of how common terms are used between different trainers would be a big move in that direction.

 

Dealing With Errors

One of the most common questions that I hear from trainers who choose to incorporate correction into their training is: "what do you do when your dog doesn't do what you want?"

This is a great question.  Some people actually have the impression that +R trainers allow their dogs to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and that if the dog does not respond correctly to a trained cue, we do absolutely nothing.  This is a misconception.  Our dogs would not be trained if we did not do something to address errors.  The fact that I choose not to employ some kind of correction does not mean that I choose to do absolutely nothing.

So, what do +R trainers do to deal with errors?

First, allow me to clarify that I am speaking specifically about addressing errors that occur with fully trained behaviors with which the dog has demonstrated prior and consistent understanding.  Also, I am not addressing situations where the dog is choosing not to comply to a cue due to physical pain or discomfort, or because of significant fear, or circumstances where non-compliance would put the dog (or anyone else) in danger.  In those instances, training is not the issue at hand, and the pain, fear, or safety issue must be addressed directly.

Dealing with Errors from a +R Point of View

1.  Ignore the Error

Sometimes this is the best way to handle an error, especially if it is a very random or out-of-character mistake.

There are times when I mean to turn left and I turn right.  In those cases, I don't need information from anyone else to tell me that I went the wrong way.  I realize it the second I make the wrong turn.

I approach occasional random incorrect responses from my dog from this perspective.  No living being is 100% all the time.  There are times when I conclude that the best response to an error is to simply ignore it.

Example:  I ask my dog to jump up on the sofa and sit so I can put on his collar, and he jumps up and lays down.  I proceed to put on his collar in spite of the fact that he is laying down, not sitting.

In this instance, the fact that he is laying down, not sitting is of no consequence, so I ignore the error and go on with what I need to do.

2.  Provide positive feedback for the effort, but not the highest value reinforcer

This is the most common way that I choose to handle errors.  And this is always my approach when my dog and I are working in a new context, or in a situation where the dog might be experiencing some level of stress, or if I see confidence wavering.

I might say, "good try!", but not give a treat.  Or I might give a tiny bit of a treat, but not a jackpot.

In these cases, I do let the dog know very clearly that I am pleased with the efforts made, but I leave something bigger for the dog to score when the correct response is given.

Example:   I cue a tunnel on an Agility course, and the dog takes a jump.  I say, "good try" and toss a treat behind me to set the dog up to try again.  I reserve a game of tug (highest value to this particular dog) for the correct response.

Some trainers object to this approach, claiming that the dog will persist in the error if any measure of reinforcement is provided when an incorrect response was offered.  This has not been my experience.  I have found consistently that providing some degree of positive feedback for effort has resulted in the dog remaining engaged, keeping his or her mind in the game, and actually builds understanding of correct responses much faster than ignoring incorrect responses altogether.

However, if the dog continues to repeat the error, I do break off and provide extra assistance to help the dog see how to be correct and get the higher value reinforcer.

 

3.  Reset the Exercise/Cue dog again/Jackpot correct response

This approach will follow either of the above choices - I have ignored the error, or I have provided some positive feedback for effort.  Or, I have broken the dog off mentally from the first attempt by tossing a treat or giving the dog a chance to sniff or take a moment of down time before setting up again.

Now the dog has a new opportunity.  The behavior is cued again.  If the dog is correct, a jackpot is given to emphasize that the correct response has been given.

Example:   Dog is cued to sit and stay.  As handler walks away, dog gets up.  Handler returns to dog, says, "good try" and tosses a treat to break off the exercise, then sets the dog up again and cues the stay, walks away (dog stays).  Handler returns, gives dog five treats in succession as a jackpot.

Frequently, after the dog has responded correctly and received the jackpot, I will move to something else for a time.  In doing this, I allow the opportunity for latent learning to occur after the jackpot given for the correct response.

4.  Provide more, or clearer, information

Sometimes when an error is made, the dog needs more information.  Perhaps a reminder of what is desired, or a clearer cue.

At times, I will go out of my way to provide this information.  I might show the dog a large visual cue, or I might bring a target into the picture, or I might use some kind of physical guide (ex. a ring gate or platform), or even a food lure to set the dog up for success and to give the dog extra information, or the needed reminder.

Example:   I cue my dog to down from a stand and my dog offers a bow.  I get a mat and repeat the exercise, stopping so the dog is standing on the mat when we stop, and then cue the down.  Since the dog is strongly conditioned to down on the mat, the dog lays right down.

I am honestly not concerned, in these instances, with the fact that the dog is "supposed to know" what I want.  If the dog is not responding correctly, something has, in fact, broken down.  The dog may honestly be confused, or the dog may not be able to generalize the behavior in that particular situation, or the dog might be stressed or distracted.  Unless I have reason to be concerned about my dog's well being, I am not really concerned with any of that.  I simply provide the reminder or additional information to see if that will get the dog back on track.

5.  Take it back to training

Sometimes the error is not simply a matter of genuine mistake, or temporary "brain fade", but the behavior truly has broken down, or it needs more work to become fully fluent.

In those cases, I ignore the error and make a plan to take the behavior back to training.

Example:  At an Agility trial, the dog does not read the handling provided and takes the wrong piece of equipment in a discrimination.  I move on in the course, and then go on later to on discrimination skills in training.

When working on the behavior in training, I will lower criteria, raise the rate of reinforcement, and give the dog ample opportunity to practice the correct behavior.  In the context of training, I will also focus on fluency building and make sure the dog has the opportunity to generalize the behavior adequately. 

What about NRM's?

I realize that many who are +R trainers use NRM's (Non-Reward Markers) to address errors, but it is not my choice to do so.  When working with my dog, it is always my direct intention to communicate "how to be right" to my dog, rather than "that is wrong".

NRM's mark mistakes.  They do not, in themselves, provide information that will assist the dog in choosing to respond to cues correctly.  Therefore, I do not consider the use of NRM's to be in conformity with my approach to training dogs, so I do not use them to handle errors. 

When Management is Needed

There are times, of course, when management is needed.  If the behavior that has broken down is a recall, it is always my choice to work on that behavior in a fenced area, or with the dog on a long line for safety.

If the dog suddenly begins counter surfing, I will keep my counters clean and free of tempting items as the dog is learning a default "four on the floor" to greater fluency.

Generally speaking, management is temporary and is needed only until the training "catches up" and the dog, once again, becomes reliable.  Management is "an ounce of prevention" that helps facilitate the "cure".

A Multi-Dimensional Answer

The answer to this question, "what do you do to deal with errors if you don't use corrections?" cannot really be given in a short answer.  As +R trainers, we have a good many options at our disposal for handling error, and it is up to the trainer to discern the best course of action, given the dog and circumstances at hand.

But I can say this simply, we do not simply "do nothing".  We have effective options at our disposal and we proactively use them.

 

 














 

No Need to be Insulted!

Years ago I had a very close friend who was a vegetarian.  She chose to be a vegetarian because she believed that it was wrong to kill and eat animals.  That was her reason, and she stated it freely.  There was never a need for her to sugar coat it, or try to express it in a way that would not be offensive to meat eaters.

I am a meat eater.  I believe it is perfectly fine to kill and eat animals.  I enjoy eating meat and do so with a clear conscience.  I was able to state that to my vegetarian friend honestly, and there was never a need to try to make it sound like the difference between us did not exist.

I never had a problem with the fact that she believed that it was wrong to kill and eat animals.  I knew that she disagreed with my position as a meat eater, and that she considered my eating choices to be wrong.  And it was perfectly fine with me.

I never presumed that she was accusing me of being an "animal murder" because she did not believe in eating the meat of killed animals.  I never took her choice as some kind of expression of moral superiority.  And I was certainly never insulted when she talked about her own beliefs on the matter.

Why are dog trainers continually insulted these days?  Why do so many presume that any statement of difference in training approach is a personal attack on themselves?  Why the cry of "moral superiority" in the face of different beliefs and choices?

• If one says that he or she chooses not to use training tools that operate through application of an aversive stimulus (some measure of pain or discomfort) to the dog, those who believe that those tools are acceptable get insulted.

• If one says that one trains using the tools and techniques that he or she considers most effective and humane, those who do not use those tools and techniques get insulted.

• If one says that he or she does not incorporate correction into training, those who choose to use correction get insulted.

• If one says that one solves behavior problems through positive reinforcement based training techniques, those who use other means to approach behavior problems get insulted.

• If one points out that he or she does not agree with the techniques and approaches used by a particular well known trainer, those who agree with that trainer get insulted.

I could go on . . .

When did straightforward expression of a different point of view become so offensive?  Why take everything so personally?

I would like to challenge all dog trainers out there to stop taking offense when differences are expressed! 

Certainly, there is a time and place to take offense when one truly is the victim of a personal attack.  By way of example:  "Sally Jo teaches her clients to abuse their dogs" is a personal attack.  "I don't consider the use of shock collars to be humane" is NOT a personal attack!

I would love to see more objective discussion of training philosophies, techniques, approaches, and results.  "I disagree" could so easily replace "that's insulting" or "that's offensive", and I believe that our debates and discussions would start to bring about greater understanding among trainers who hold different points of view.

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.