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