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.

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.