Article: Positives of Negatives & Negatives of Positives

Lovely article, pretty much my position. In public i will never admit to ever using aversives because it seems to be taken that using them is a good thing to do. It is also focusing on the .05% of training, not the majority.

Had to laugh about the body blocks. My old  Lab boy loved it thought it was great. My poodles can be cued around an agility course with tiny moves of my shoulders. I had to learn to moderate my signals so that my dogs didn't think i was shouting. so imagine i get better faster drops by usinf slower gentler signals and verbals??

Great article. 

 very good read

Jewlieee

I did have to correct some behavior by telling him to "knock it off" like she did with her dog, in a strong tone and man did he take notice. This was after I had exhausted all other avenues. Unlike her though, I did feel guilty because I could see the shock in his face.

I can relate to that. Luci is great at doing our seekback except if there are birds around. I gave her a mouthful in frustration one day and she looked like i had driven a stake right through her heart. 

 I have to tell you she hasn't chased birds since.

I don't really disagree with the article but I think it only touches on one fraction of dog training, since a body block is the most aversive thing that is dealt with in the article.  I think for household/pet training and training a dog for an all-breed type title (like rally, agility, AKC obedience...) the types of training described in the article should suffice.  But there are dogs that train and work at a much more competitive level.  Not competitive as far as points and trophies, but "competitive" for breeding and maintaining the correct traits of the breed, where instead of wanting to create a venue where *all* dogs have the chance to succeed, we are purposefully and intentionally weeding out the weaker.  When dealing with breeds where courage, fighting drive, and strong active aggression are desirable traits that must be tested and evaluated, there must always be some element of pressure.  In my experience one of the most rewarding parts of dog training is building a dog's confidence through the careful and subtle uses of pressure.  We are not so much teaching tricks and commands as we are showing a dog the correct way to be in control using drives that are inherent.  Also the article does not touch on using "aversive" type stimuli to actually arouse the dog into a higher state of drive.  You can't do this with all dogs but for those that you can, frustration -> release is a very powerful tool.

I took the article in a much more general manner - specifically that one cannot truly be 100% anything and that to say that one is, is a bit ridiculous. 

It's refreshing to hear a "big name" say that yes, she has used aversives, and the world hasn't come to an end, that in fact, if chosen carefully, they can have a place.  I will be very interested to see what she writes next.

stardog85

I took the article in a much more general manner - specifically that one cannot truly be 100% anything and that to say that one is, is a bit ridiculous. 

I agree.  Those of us who have been training dogs for many years have known this but it's always nice to have someone well known and respected say it so well.

stardog85

I took the article in a much more general manner - specifically that one cannot truly be 100% anything and that to say that one is, is a bit ridiculous. 

It's refreshing to hear a "big name" say that yes, she has used aversives, and the world hasn't come to an end, that in fact, if chosen carefully, they can have a place.  I will be very interested to see what she writes next.

I agree but to me it rather limits the effect when the scope of the article doesn't go beyond body blocks.  People will say they are not "100% positive" and are OK using aversive and corrections but often won't even acknowledge those corrections, like it's evil to even say the word "collar check" or something like that.  I don't like how some discussions have to be so carefully framed in order to appease certain crowds.

Dr. McConnell is very much a person who is most experienced, I believe, in dealing with family companions, not schutzhund dogs. Therefore I would be surprised for her to touch on the issues you are, Lies. Because that field really likely only makes up about 1% (if that!) of the dog population in training. You yourself have commented that you have used certain aversives in Schutzhund, but if you used any of those same exercises in agility, dock diving, tracking, Rally, or Disc Dog, you would be excused from most classes very quickly. I don't think that the issues you are addressing are even relevant to her post, really, to be honest. It's a very narrow view of training ideology if you take everything at a Schutzhund-based angle, because it is in reality a very tiny section of the world of dogs.

I have always admired Trish's work, and am intrigued that when I read her blog entry, it is as though I am reflecting on my own life with my dogs, and with the way I work with clients. I can count out in a pretty obvious way the rare time I have used a P+, the same way I can count out the number of "Knock it offs" I use that are not a punisher, but just an interrupter (which she doesn't really talk about, and I wish she had have!), as it stops behaviour at that moment, but has no effect on whether or not the dog will do it again in the future.

 I can completely relate to why I rarely ever use the term punishment when working with clients because the term in real society is defined much differently than the term I would talk about with my professors at university. And, well, semantics does matter, and the fact is most people equate punishment with something swift, strong, and physical when it comes to dogs. I wish they didn't, but they do. And they don't understand that benign things, that are hands-off, can also be very punitive to some dogs, so it's also my role to try to point that out.

There is definitely no 100% when it comes to dog training, and I agree that is the point of the article.

Kim_MacMillan

Because that field really likely only makes up about 1% (if that!) of the dog population in training. You yourself have commented that you have used certain aversives in Schutzhund, but if you used any of those same exercises in agility, dock diving, tracking, Rally, or Disc Dog, you would be excused from most classes very quickly. I don't think that the issues you are addressing are even relevant to her post, really, to be honest. It's a very narrow view of training ideology if you take everything at a Schutzhund-based angle, because it is in reality a very tiny section of the world of dogs.

Well, some of the agility, obedience, etc trainers in our area definitely make my skin crawl!  When I got Kenya and told the breeder I wanted to try agility it was under the condition that I was *not* allowed to train with a certain local trainer.  I haven't been able to find a decent trainer or facility within 45 minutes and I live in an urban area with no shortage of dog trainers/clubs.  The things people will do for points and titles is definitely not limited to 1% of the dog competition world.  Whether or not it gets you excused from a class makes no difference because all these things are done offleash regardless of venue but the final product is not really indicative of the training, and IMO the training is where you learn about the dog.  Also, in general I see more aversive training from people that have no affiliation with competitive training.  Every time I'm at the pet store people are there slapping prong collars, e-collars, and choke chains on their pets.  If these techniques only reflect 1%, why is it that my all-breed club has to explicitly ban certain tools?  So many people came in jerking around their pet dogs on a choke chain or prong collar we now have to say "bring your dog to the first day of class wearing a secure flat collar and 6' leash."  Many people still think you potty train a dog by smacking it over the head and forcing its face into its mess. In all the venues I train and compete in, the amount of people using *some* amount of correction and/or aversive training is nowhere near as low as 1% (yes, including pet dog people, agility, AKC obedience, dock diving, etc).  IMO some people are downright abusive, others are being treated like doormats by their dogs and could stand to include some more negatives.  There's a huge range.  The article makes perfect sense to one having experience with training but a lot of people that don't might not really understand because it doesn't touch on the type of aversive and corrections they are used to seeing and using.  I think that is part of the challenge - a lot of people seem to think that only a professional trainer can use +R effectively.  I recommend McConnell's books and people won't read them because they think, "they are training books I won't understand."  Hopefully she will expound on the idea and give some more examples of aversive training and when it does or doesn't work.

The angle I'm referring to is comparing 100% positive based training to a 99.99% positive based training. That is what I mean about a narrow scope (the 99.99% is from the article).  I happen to really like this author and her books but I admit I was a little disappointed given the title of the article, I was hoping for something a bit more controversial and farther below the surface is all.  Yes, nothing is ever 100%, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say otherwise...

I don't think this is an article aimed at the "regular" pet owning population - it's much more slanted to a dog trainer population (hobby or professional) imo. 

As to the 100% - I've seen it in fb groups, email groups, and trainer listings that like to ban 100% the discussion of aversives and ask people to sign statements using words like "never" and "always".

I am personally quite disturbed by the various splits I see in the dog training world - imo there is way too much us vs. them thinking and not enough "perhaps I can learn something from this person who has different beliefs".  

I am guilty of being very us vs. them in some cases, but as I grow as a trainer and experience more variety in the sports I choose to participate in, the more I can see the forest for the trees and find ways to build bridges instead of tearing them down.

I would be pretty willing to bet that the examples in the article were chosen specifically to keep from so offending some people that they stop listening, especially after the reactions McConnell saw to her post about rehoming a dog.

Liesje

Hopefully she will expound on the idea and give some more examples of aversive training and when it does or doesn't work.

I really hope she doesn't focus too much on aversives, to be honest. It's one things to give a few examples of how and why she has used an aversive, but it's another to begin a discussion that will easily get out of hand.

Part of the reason the "99% positive" discussion has come up is that people are far too inclined (as you have mentioned, and I agree 100%) to jump to harsh, physical, and tool-based methods and will do so quicker than picking up a bag of cookies to teach the same thing. People will use a cookie to teach their dog to sit, but instead of applying it to real-life contexts, then still continue to jerk at the dog and push on its rump, and then complain that "the dog only sits for a cookie".

When professionals, who are well-respected, begin to hold conversations, it's all too easy for the inexperienced to jump on the bandwagon and try things out for themselves. A certain television show is a great example. Watch a few episodes with "Tsssht" or "claw jabs" and you have people all over hissing at their dogs and jabbing them with no idea of the consequences of doing that (and in some cases, the lack of any behaviour change!) - just because a "professional' demonstrated it on a TV show.  I am very careful to not give any form of aversion or punishment (no matter how benign) advice over the internet or on blogs, because of the chance of setting people up to fail. I would think that Trish would think the same.

Saying that you will use an aversive in a very specific situation after trying other, gentler things first, is different than listing out all of the possible areas where applying aversives are good/bad/neutral. Because.....it is 100% dependent on the dog, the family training the dog, and the circumstances of the behaviour. People, with no idea of their dog's needs (and a lot really don't know!), and no idea of how their dog responds to stimuli, and even yet no idea of how to read the outcome of a consequence you have provided (based on dog's body language, and behaviour after that consequence), will take these examples because it "sort of looks like what my dog is doing", and then fail miserably at it.

If you asked any five of my clients about what "consequences" I recommend for things, often all five answers will be slightly different. And that is why, I feel, you should not begin to give "case study examples" too often to make it look like "If A happens, then B should follow", because you often have C,D, and E to contend with in the process, and those variables are almost always different for each dog.

An example - biting/tugging at the leash. For five different clients I have made five different recommendations:
A. Clicker train "Leave It"
B.  Coat the leash in a bitter-flavor coating, rewarding for leaving it alone
C.  Use a head halter to redirect mouthing of the leash
D. Desensitize the dog to the leash, starting from just picking up the leash.
E. Using a muzzle while dog was on-leash (this is an extreme case)
F. Put it on cue and use it as a reward
All different protocols, in a case where all of the behaviours looked 'the same' on the outside - leash tugging - but in reality were all driven by different motivations, histories, and drives. Each of those options works well for that situation. Recommendation A worked well for Dog A, but recommendation C was would be unnecessary, whereas Recommendation A, B, and C did not work at all for dog E. Recommendation F worked amazingly for an agility dog I know, but would fail miserably at the hands of Dog C's owner. Dog A was a young pup, with little history, while dog D had a very bad association created with the leash and needed to start again from scratch.

For each behaviour, there are so many ways to work on it, dependent upon so many factors, that you can't begin to make recommendations or discuss pro's and con's on a blog or forum.

Another good example is knowing when to "fix" a problem and when to "manage" a problem. The same problem, depending on the household, will always be addressed differently.

So how can a professional even begin to list examples of aversive training and when it does/doesn't work?they can't.  It's too black and white, and dogs and their families live in a world of grey. There are too many variables. It took a huge set of paragraphs to explain teaching Willie not to rush sheep, and that's just one example in a very, very specific circumstance.

stardog85

I am personally quite disturbed by the various splits I see in the dog training world - imo there is way too much us vs. them thinking and not enough "perhaps I can learn something from this person who has different beliefs".  

I am inclined to agree, but there are some fundamental morals and values that are involved in this split as well, and that's where the basis comes in. Because when you start talking aversives and the use of punishments, everybody draws a different line at what is acceptable.

When using aversives:
- Can they be physical or should they be hands off?
- Should you ever strike your dog in training?
- Are hands-on aversives better or electronic ones?
- Is electricity okay to use in the name of teaching?
- How far are you willing to escalate an aversive to change a behaviour?
- Some say you need the aversive to be swift enough the first time - do I have what it takes to really "make it count" when it comes to that punishment?
- Do you follow a hierarchy of punishments (removal of attention/body block/time-out/physical correction) or do you "inflict quick, and move on"? Is it more fair to give the dog a chance to learn from a lesser punishment, or make it so that dog understands clearly, with no chance of misunderstanding, the first time?
- Have you tried kinder methods first?
- Are you 100% certain the dog understands what you are asking before you punish it? Does the dog understand a way to obtain reward (does it know the "right choice"?)
- Is there a one-size-fits-all approach, or are things modified based upon the situation?

Those are just some of the considerations when deciding where you fall on the spectrum.

I have specific values and morals which will guide me in what decisions I make regarding the use of aversives and punishments. They come from a foundation of how I few dogs in society and how I look at them as individual beings. Because of those values, there are certain "tools" I will blatantly not recommend or allow in my training program.

I am very open to learning from others, and I never jump to conclusions about anybody, but there does come a time when being "open to learning" blurs with "supporting the methods of others" for sure, especially when it conflicts directly with your own personal values. It's a fine line, and you have to be careful to remain flexible without violating yourself and your own beliefs by trying to be "too open".  There is a lot of us vs. them for sure, but in some ways there always will be because there everyone is driven by their values, and everyone's values are going to be slightly different than the next person's.