# Any crossover trainer on the forum?



## Buddy's mom forever (Jun 23, 2011)

By "definition" crossover trainers are animal trainers who have transitioned or are transitioning to positive reinforcement based dog training.
I would love to hear your story and what was the turning point for you to decide to change the way you train your and/or the other people dogs. 
Thank you so much for sharing your experience and your story.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

I guess I would be a crossover trainer! I grew up doing 4-H obedience using the Kohler type methods. I kind of cheated since I trialed with dogs my older sister had primarily trained and I (and she) were successful. She was also successful in AKC obedience with her GSD. 

Fast forward about 20 years and after leaving my graduate program and getting a job in the dog world I thought I would train my Heart Dog Dexy (who was about seven) for a CD. I was working on heeling and giving leash pops for lagging when my boyfriend stopped me and asked what I was doing. When I said I was giving "corrections" he was aghast and stated "That is Dexy!" That was my turning point, Dexy was my soul-mate, I was his world, and I was giving him "corrections" to work toward a title that meant nothing to him?

Dex and I trialed once and DQed (he downed on the long sit when the handler in the next ring was doing the drop on recall and downed her dog with a voice command). Dexy didn't want to trial, he wanted to swim and hunt voles, so that is what we did.

With Selli, I have used on positive reinforcement for her competition training. Like Dex, she prefers long tramps in the fields to trialing, but we have had fun and earned some titles. I found a great obedience coach when Sell was about six for training for open. Never got there due to financial issues and decided to continue agility. When I get my next pup (hopefully not for a LONG time), I plan to start with my coach from the very beginning!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I crossed over the opposite way. I started in classes that were all positive and went to a more "balanced" style of training. I never enjoyed the extremes in "pure positive" training. I like putting my hands on my dogs while training. I like giving them feedback when they are wrong, and they seem to like the clarity in that information. I like to help them be right and show them what to do when they are struggling with a concept, rather than leave them to figure it out. Results wise, my first dog, who was the one started all positive, earned her CD with a 170.5 (half a point from the minimum passing score) versus my next two goldens both earning it with a 199 (a point away from a perfect score). But I don't just train how I do to get better scores, I do it because it is the way I train best, and therefore it is what makes the dog learn best and makes them happiest. In all honesty I don't love to train because I have a strong desire to have obedient dogs. I train because I love the connection it creates and the joy I see in my dogs working.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I guess this counts as a cross-over....

The first dog classes we ever did, back when I was 9-10 years old and we took our first golden to obedience classes offered through the local high school - they were about $60/12 weeks? We did about 4-5 weeks before dropping out.

The lady recommended pinning the puppies for 10 minutes every day and crating them with zero attention for 2-3 hours before training, as well as crating as punishment. <- If you wanna know why I came to this forum with such a hugely negative view on crate-training, it was because of this woman and her cowed/bullied golden retrievers. 

With our second golden - we went to a lady recommended by our vet. At the time, she was the only one doing "positive reinforcement" - although nowadays, it would be called balanced training, since she used corrections in her training. 

I take private lessons from Selli-Belle's coach - and I'll tell you this.... that first lesson I did with her was totally awesome. The methods she uses - many of them are what I was taught way back with that second instructor. The methods she uses to teach heeling to young dogs? EXACTLY THE SAME. It literally was like a training pow-wow session between us or something. LOL. She was going through her book describing the methods - and I was literally right there nodding and grinning the whole time. The way she trains I would absolutely describe it as balanced. She does use corrections, but similar to what I was taught like 20 years ago - you immediately follow up with POSITIVE feedback and rewards.  

I've been going to the local dog club and a private facility since Jacks was 15 weeks old, and I still train at both places... the people there are more or less positive tending. But the methods they use vary sometimes quite a bit from what I initially was taught years ago. So needless to say, that first lesson and just about every private lesson with that lady, it's very close to home for me. And like I said, goes right back to that second instructor.

That second instructor inspired both me and my sister to get into dog training and it was primarily all about forming great relationships and bonds with your dogs while drawing the best out of them for competition... and it also was about understanding and communicating better with your dogs. That is balanced dog training to many, but considering where I came from and what I know is out there... it's definitely more positive than anything else.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I am very much a crossover trainer. I grew up with goldens and morgan horses, and learned the correction/choke chain training method. Back then people even did things like throw a sky chain at a dog that did not come when called etc. I was a working student at the American School Of Dressage, and absorbed those methods.

However, positive training is more effective than balanced or aversion training, which is why I use it primarily. It has so much science behind it, and the cleaner you are with technique, the more species you can train effectively be that parrot, cheetah, or dog. However, dogs are intuitive, they are anthropologists who study us, and they forgive our training mistakes by learning despite us as well as because of us. 

I became interested in the science of how people learn and learning styles by teaching English and AP English at some top human prep schools. I attended professional development days on glitches in learning, how to maximize learning, how people learn in groups, experiential learning etc. I developed experience and confidence is the science behind teaching & training. The theory behind teaching and what best practices are cutting edge and currently motivated me in a functional day to day sense. I was the Presidential Teacher/Nationally Recognized Educator from the state of CT and also won the Faculty Award in a different year. I am a believer that there is a _best practice _in medicine, teaching, dog training etc, and I want to stay on top of the theory as well as the hands on. Since we train 300+ dogs ever 7 weeks, it is really different from one or two dogs. 

In both human and canine learner, it is moving to be part of an epiphany moment in which the lightbulb goes on and learning takes place. That could be a puppy linking the hand signal for down with a "down" verbal for the first time or that could be a tenth grader fully comprehending why Holden Caulfied wears a red hunting cap.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I am a cross over trainer.

Starting in the 80s I had a tough golden, King, (referred to as a schuntzund dog in a golden coat) who taught me much in the need for training. I worked one on one with a trainer specializing in tough dogs and went to classes which were also compulsion based. It worked very very well for him – he needed a job more than he needed a kinder approach.

Enter my 2nd dog, Rowdy, who starting having issues at about 2 years old due to this method of training and totally shut down with force fetch. He was affected so badly his health went into a nosedive (I was sick at the time and so his training was done by a professional – the same pro I worked with for King). I discovered positive methods of training and kind of went to all positive via shaping. He hit the rings (agility and obedience) at around 6 years old after much retraining – he was entered in Open obedience a dozen times but always froze at the ROF – his default behavior after being force fetched for months on end was learned helplessness – which btw; has me detesting those words ‘has he been force fetched?’ whenever a problem crops up. 

Rowdy was my 'turning point' - a sweet, sensitive golden who only wanted to be with me and do everything within his power to make me laugh. I deeply regret what he encountered but am grateful every day of my life for all he taught me!

With my 3rd golden, Casey, shaping worked very well - except – he learned so quickly I had to back track to lay a firmer foundation and I continued learning more and more about positive dog training – and letting the dogs learn consequences and responsibility. I went to seminars and camps and really set my goals high for learning to train without compulsion.

My 4th golden, Faelan, and my 6th golden Brady were brought up with positive training but were taught crate games, Its Yer Choice, impulse control etc to help lay a really strong foundation and to teach them how to learn. They are both doing very well (Faelan is in Masters agility, has 2 UD legs and has his RA while Brady already has his RA with nice scores for both his RN & RA)

My Towhee was a challenge at first and many who knew her when she came to live with me (around 18 months) and see her now cannot believe the transition in her. She is competing in agility, has her 1st Open obedience leg with a 195 ½ and is just such a love. I do not believe compulsion or ‘balanced’ training could have made such a difference with her since she has a high desire to please and work, a lot of energy and an incredible love of people.

I have learned that pure shaping does not always work – dogs need to learn impulse control, to take responsibility and learn to only do things on cue. I rarely put a leash on my dogs while training – although it has been 15 years or so since I trained with compulsion old habits die very hard. However, teaching a dog to take responsibility does not need physical corrections and rarely requires verbal corrections. This does exclude safety issues since you’d best believe I would grab a dog and carry him/her or pull them back by the scruff if he/she was in imminent danger.

With +R training, dogs do learn ‘No’, ‘Wrong’ or whatever your NRM (non reward marker) marker is – you can guide and assist them as long as you quickly fade any luring and follow the steps to rewarding and then randomizing. Dogs learn very quickly to try again but they can keep making mistakes and not go into shut down if properly trained using positive methods – by that I do not mean repeated failures on the same exercise; 2 failures and you either simplify or assist. But while training something new, my dogs do not stress since they know it is just a game and I won’t let them fail repeatedly – positive training by its nature means you have to plan and break each exercise or activity into small parts – referred to as ‘splitting’ rather than the traditional method of ‘lumping’.


I am still a student of how to train using these methods – as science and pioneering +R trainers are forging ahead and learning ever more sophisticated methods I am continually feeling more and more motivated  There are an abundance of resources so I can continue my education and I can honestly say, I am loving it – my dogs are loving it – and it has truly made a difference in all of our lives.

And contrary to what some may believe --- rewards are not always about food. They can be food, toys, interpersonal play, praise *OR* the opportunity to continue. This opportunity to continue is a huge part of how ring readiness is trained and built. You can bring personal tricks and games into the ring and so you can reward your dog and you can easily train without food or toys. This is a part of their foundation work.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

Though I am not 'technically' a crossover trainer, I have never believed that punishment is a necessary part of learning, even for a dog. My feelings were reinforced by what I had seen and how those dogs behaved in the presence of their owners, intimidated, hesitant, unsure of what was going to happen next. My first formal training class 'required' a choke collar, I refused to put one on my dog, the trainer said 'your choice, but your dog won't learn what I am going to teach.' I stayed in class hoping to learn what I could, what I learned was that was not how I wanted to teach my dog. 
I was introduced to reward based training on a basic level when I started fostering rescued dogs who had little experience or primarily negative associations with people. Intrigued that a piece of kibble could 'win a dog' over, and that giving him that piece when he sat, encouraged him to sit again, I was 'sold' on the reality that training and learning does happen without a leash jerk. A year or so later, I adopted an abused rescue dog, terrified of the leash, we worked together for six months, hands free, the only 'tool' that I used was the bag of treats. During that time he learned all the basic obedience skills, including recall, and walking 'with me' (as if on leash). I was introduced to the books by Ian Dunbar, Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, and launched a journey of learning 'how and why' it all works the way it does. I took advantage of the unique and amazing opportunity to learn reward based dog training under the guidance of a certified canine behaviorist, professional dog trainer, a two year apprenticeship course. The focus was not just 'how to', but a solid foundation of understanding dog behavior and communication skills, and how to communicate effectively with them, including many hours of hands on practice and personal training. What I have learned is to see a dog in a different 'light', a sentient being with emotions, feelings, needs and wants, not a lot different than us. To see a dog as a willing friend and partner in life, capable of learning all we want to teach, without the need to go down 'that' road. What is so rewarding to me, is how eager and willing my dogs and all those who I work with are so happy to learn, confident and trusting, and really work at getting it 'right'. As a bonus the relationship I have with my dogs is deeper, more profound, bonding with my dogs, with love and respect for 'who they are', knowing I don't 'have' to punish, I can train with my heart, has opened a whole new world to me.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Megora said:


> With our second golden - we went to a lady recommended by our vet. At the time, she was the only one doing "positive reinforcement" - although nowadays, it would be called balanced training, since she used corrections in her training.
> 
> I take private lessons from Selli-Belle's coach - and I'll tell you this.... that first lesson I did with her was totally awesome. The methods she uses - many of them are what I was taught way back with that second instructor. The methods she uses to teach heeling to young dogs? EXACTLY THE SAME. It literally was like a training pow-wow session between us or something. LOL. She was going through her book describing the methods - and I was literally right there nodding and grinning the whole time. The way she trains I would absolutely describe it as balanced. She does use corrections, but similar to what I was taught like 20 years ago - you immediately follow up with POSITIVE feedback and rewards.


Kate, I assume Adele Yunck is the second trainer? 

Our "coach" Kathy Cox calls what she does "Motivational Training" not positive reinforcement. She used to consider it "Play" training. There is a difference between Adele and Kathy in their training styles, it may not be huge, but it is there. Kathy's "corrections" are in reality attention getters and not used as aversives while Adele does believe in "corrections" in proofing.

One thing I love about Kathy is that she is very open about telling you where she gets various techniques. I believe the idea that the main point when a dog does not do something correctly is to figure out if it happened because the dog was confused about what you wanted or if the dog was not paying attention. If the dog is confused, you need to help the dog figure out what you want and f the dog is not paying attention, you need to get the dog's attention. I believe that is from Bridgette Carlson.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I consider myself a "crossover," though I never trained dogs professionally with "balanced" methods. I didn't start charging anybody any money until I had interned for more than a year with a CPDT pro and really felt confident that I could tackle most normal issues without falling back on a mentor. By that time, I had non-aversive methods in my toolbox for all the common situations and practice choosing the right response and working through it with all kinds of different dog personalities. Even getting a sit from a Shih Tzu is really different than getting one from a Cairn or a Golden.

I trained my own dogs years ago with more old-fashioned methods like scruff shakes, pushing their butts down for sits, and even alpha rolls, though I never roughly rolled a dog. I really believed that leadership with dogs was about intimidation (I would have called it "getting respect" at the time), and couldn't conceive that you could get a truly reliable behavior without having the dog believe at some level that it would be unpleasant to disobey.

As far back as ten years ago I had behavior reliable enough with that that I got asked for dog training advice a lot, and that's what got me interested in training professionally. As I looked into that, I spent more and more time with people who were a lot better than I was and who never raised their voice, popped a collar, or allowed their students to put chokes, prongs, or electric collars on dogs in their classes.

Seeing these people work with so many different personalities and issues was the last step in bringing me into the modern era of dog training. I would see an owner struggle with truly extreme lunging and pulling, and then I'd watch a pro take the leash and transform the dog in ten steps. It was like they were doing magic, and it was so much faster and more reliable than what I had originally learned.

I now deal with the fallout from "balanced" training all the time, and I totally agree with LJilly that pet dog training is really starting to develop a set of best practices with help from the APDT, CCPDT, and AVSAB. And all those orgs are remarkably consistent in pointing out the downsides of training that relies on force, intimidation, or aversives. Behavioral science and decades of research completely back up their position statements that force and intimidation are not preferable tools. They come with a whole host of unpleasant or even dangerous side effects, and they shape behavior more slowly and less reliably than rewards and positive reinforcement. It bums me out that there's so much willful ignoring of the research among dog trainers when the researchers and behaviorists have really answered the question of whether some common tools are actually a good idea.

I don't consider myself a "positive" or "positive only" trainer mainly because I find those terms imprecise. I would consider myself a trainer who works to stay current on research-based dog training methods and who relies on motivating, shaping, and proofing a dog's behavior through rewards, avoiding aversives. I will certainly still say "no" to a dog, but I regard that moment as a cue that I should train what I want instead of saying "no" to what I don't.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Selli-Belle said:


> Kate, I assume Adele Yunck is the second trainer?


I have a terrible internet connection over here - would love to go nuts explaining corrections as I've learned from Kathy and Adele and others.... 

Short answer is no. The lady I took classes from as a pre-teen and growing up was somebody else who retired before Jacks. And thank goodness she was around back then and basically the biggest thing she taught me and my sister is dog training is fun and your dog can and should be having fun too. 

I'll never forget sitting there and watching her demo with her goldens who came out flying and just wanting to please her and show off. That was my ideal for dog training after that introduction. 

A lot of the stuff she did to get those results with her dogs - Kathy uses very similar methods. As I said in my other post - I went to Kathy the first time a little stressed about being overwhelmed by all new stuff out of my comfort zone, and found her to be right there with very familiar stuff in my comfort zone. 

Thing to remember with people in high level dog training. They are sponges. They learn from the really top level trainers in the sport. And pick up what they want from them and other people. That's learning from that awesome trainer from western Canada... that learning from people like Adele. And there's some very old and proven methods that have been around for many years. 

And that doesn't involve idol worship of singular people - she promotes two people in her program and encourages people to watch those videos and learn from them. The same though... she will have criticisms of those training styles. She and I were totally laughing about the one and the reasons we were totally in agreement about (I don't like to sweat) - and the other one she totally had me falling over in shock because she observed something that I've seen when watching youtube videos but assumed I was being overly critical of somebody who gets a lot of promotion on the basis of what she represents in dog training. 

^ OK - even without going into full detail I did manage to babble. LOL.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Megora said:


> I have a terrible internet connection over here - would love to go nuts explaining corrections as I've learned from Kathy and Adele and others....
> 
> Short answer is no. The lady I took classes from as a pre-teen and growing up was somebody else who retired before Jacks. And thank goodness she was around back then and basically the biggest thing she taught me and my sister is dog training is fun and your dog can and should be having fun too.
> 
> ...


HMMM.....now you have me going through my list of Detroit area mostly positive trainers with Goldens who have written books........


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> I don't consider myself a "positive" or "positive only" trainer mainly because I find those terms imprecise. I would consider myself a trainer who works to stay current on research-based dog training methods and who relies on motivating, shaping, and proofing a dog's behavior through rewards, avoiding aversives. I will certainly still say "no" to a dog, but I regard that moment as a cue that I should train what I want instead of saying "no" to what I don't.


This is an interesting point, and my trainer said pretty much the same thing when I contacted her after being referred by someone I met on this forum. I have come to learn that positive does not mean permissive, and I have watched during lessons with my Kea that when Kea is wrong, it stresses her out. We are a work in progress as a team, but I guess the turning point for me was that I wasn't getting the results I wanted out of the older methods with which I was more familiar, particularly with heeling and focus. My trainer has helped me to be more clear about what I am asking Kea to do and to continually raise the bar so that I'm not accepting less than her best. It's a slow and incremental process, but I feel that my bond with my dog has strengthened and I think we both find training together much more enjoyable.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

KeaColorado said:


> This is an interesting point, and my trainer said pretty much the same thing when I contacted her after being referred by someone I met on this forum. I have come to learn that positive does not mean permissive, and I have watched during lessons with my Kea that when Kea is wrong, it stresses her out. We are a work in progress as a team, but I guess the turning point for me was that I wasn't getting the results I wanted out of the older methods with which I was more familiar, particularly with heeling and focus. My trainer has helped me to be more clear about what I am asking Kea to do and to continually raise the bar so that I'm not accepting less than her best. It's a slow and incremental process, but I feel that my bond with my dog has strengthened and I think we both find training together much more enjoyable.


I totally agree. I had a great bond with the dog I was more "balanced" with, but I found that the more "corrections" I used, the more dutiful the obedience was and the less joyful it was. Things that were trained by motivating the dog to figure me out and get rewarded were learned more quickly and performed more joyfully. Those behaviors also persisted for longer (e.g.: Leash training that relied on collar pops seemed to need "reminder" pops sporadically after the behavior was learned. Leash training learned through games and rewards seemed to persist for longer with far fewer "reminder" treats).

We say all the time to clients that "positive isn't permissive." It's just as strict and holds dogs to just as high a standard as any other successful program. It just means that we don't think that you need the collar pop or the stern "no" in the mix in order to be clear and to get reliable, precise, durable behavior. I still need to make sure the dog doesn't self-reward for undesired behavior, I still need to have high criteria for your dog, I you certainly should not be begging my dog to do stuff. I just don't think that the "no!" or the collar pop or the scruff shake will accelerate our progress, improve our precision, or increase the durability of the trained behavior. And I think they do have the potential for undesired side effects in a significant percentage of dogs.


----------

