I think that a lot of different methods
work. I also agree that the object of training should be to have a pleasant companion, that is well behaved and not a nuisance. Personally, I have found that I can have that using what I consider positive methods - and the beauty of it is that I have found that those methods work on almost any dog of any breed or temperament, so long as I find the right motivator, or that one favorite thing that the dog is willing to work for. Too often, humans limit the number of things
they are willing to use as motivators, or they feel that the dog should work for them just because they are the human master. But, dogs are sentient beings. They pick their own friends and have different food preferences, left to their own devices. So, why would I, for example, continue to try to motivate Sioux with beef when
she prefers liver? Why would I insist on trying to get my hound to work only for praise when he loves treats? Why would I ask Sequoyah to work only for treats when her favorite thing on earth is her Flippy Flopper frisbee? It makes about as much sense as trying to convince me to work for paua shells instead of dollars. I just can't agree that you have to use harsh punishment (note that I did not dismiss the idea of negative reinforcement or extinction ) unless the situation is terribly extreme, and most dogs
never require it - humans seem to be the ones with the need to punish. And, the ones who do are the first to cry "different methods for different dogs". I only agree with that statement when the positive alternatives have been completely exhausted, and I am certain that I have employed them correctly. If I think I haven't done it correctly, I don't go to an aversive without making sure I seek advice from someone who is a more advanced trainer than I am. I am not convinced that being a positive trainer implies that you don't
ever use an aversive, however. Just that using one requires thought, and implies a responsibility to understand all the possible consequences.
At a tracking clinic today, one dog initially would not go by the flag, since she was taught to respect electric fencing (which is first taught by using flags so the dog knows where the barrier is). The hesitation at the flag on a track was an
unintended consequence of having been trained aversively to respect the fence. And, this is a dog, the remainder of whose training has been all positive. There are many unintended consequences of training with aversives, so I probably would not so easily agree that different methods work for different dogs in the sense that one should try aversive or correction training
first. We've all heard the stories of someone using a booby trap to prevent countersurfing, and having a dog then afraid to ever enter the kitchen again. We need to evaluate dogs carefully before we say it's ok to use that method, or we need to determine if the dog is better off afraid of the kitchen, or is she at more risk of being sent to the shelter for stealing when it becomes habitual. I am firmly in the camp of trying the least aversive and most positive means of communicating with dogs that you possibly can use. Not because I'm some treat dispensing bleeding heart wimp, but because I have tried many methods over the years. I've never had dogs that recall as well as my current dogs do. I've never had as reliable a retrieve as Sioux has. I've not had a hound that will ignore a rabbit to come to mom before. And, I have never had so much fun with such exemplary dogs!!!!! Before, it was all serious. You must be the alpha, you must make the dog walk behind you, you must never allow the dog to get on the bed, you should insist that the dog not sniff while you are walking, blah, blah, blah.... I am so happy that I finally have dogs that want to work with me and for me, that I cannot even find the words to describe the sheer joy of it. And, I am convinced that my dogs feel it, too. That is the best part - they've become willing
partners, not just
slaves, And, they walk nicely with me, they know all their commands, they aren't always forced to yield, but will do so when asked.
Yeah, I know, "slave" is a hot button word, but what else would you call it when the dogs don't
decide to do the right thing, based on a history of being rewarded for doing so, but by being forced? I mean, my boss can have me in at 8:30 instead of 9:00 by threatening to fire me if I'm not and giving me nothing in return for my lost 1/2 hour of sleep, or she can have me in on time by telling me how important my presence is at the early meetings and giving me a long lunch to make up for it. Which would you prefer? Sometimes, I wonder why some people even get dogs - they seem so stressed out, having to make them into little obedience automatons. Lighten up, act like a benevolent leader, learn to train without pain, love your dog. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. [sm=2cents.gif]
BTW, I don't think any of the above implies that I set no limits for my dogs. It's NILIF here as a way of life - but that's how it is for all of us who work for a living, including me.