# Balanced Training Approach



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Go watch the class. Ask for those who have taken it what they thought. Within training everyone has their own methodologies. I personally am a balance trainer--I believe in emphasizing positive reinforcement and making training fun but also using corrections when needed.


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

People who utilize punishment and reinforcement in training are one thing.

In my experience, "Balanced training" (and "positive reinforcement") in reference to pet training classes is a term used as a marketing strategy more than to describe what is going on. I would not feel comfortable recommending that a family member, a friend, or a student/client of mine go to facilities who market themselves in this way.

There are enough easy ways to teach pet training with positive training that I can't justify "balanced training" being an appropriate option.

If there is a board certified veterinary behaviorist in your area, find out what trainers they recommend for basic training and utilize those places.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Well, a good friend and trainer of mine markets herself as a modern balanced trainer and is very good. Her dogs are happy, motivated dogs that work very nicely in the obedience ring (her passion is training and teaching not competing though).

Again, I emphasize that with any trainer you watch them conduct a class and watch their dogs work. This is actually why I started taking lessons from the above trainer (we're newbie field trainers together). I liked watching her dogs work, they were happy, heads-up heeling, and very clean and precise. She does give fair corrections once a dog has reached a certain level of understanding. She also has very high standards for her dogs, and they are among the best behaved I have seen (even among dog trainers).


----------



## RedDogs (Jan 30, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> Well, a good friend and trainer of mine markets herself as a modern balanced trainer and is very good. Her dogs are happy, motivated dogs that work very nicely in the obedience ring (her passion is training and teaching not competing though).


I didn't mean to say it was all situations. This is a different scenario than someone who only teaches pet manners classes. Not to say there aren't people who are using "balanced training" well and only teaching pet classes.... there definitely could be, but it does make me want more information about their skill set in using both techniques. No matter what methods are used.... pet manners only instructor are more likely to be less skilled than those competing and doing other things with their dogs.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

The other problem with a "balanced" training approach for pet training is that it is the owners who will be administrating the corrections, not the trainer. Your friend must have impeccable timing and understands what truly motivates her dogs, great for her. But that takes time (a lot of time), practice, study and a certain natural ability to do it correctly. Pet dog trainers do not come into training with those skills and abilities and the one who takes the brunt of their practicing in their dog.


----------



## Jige (Mar 17, 2011)

Okay I had to google this as I wasnt sure what Balanced trainig was. I in no condone hitting or kicking a dog when you are training him/her. I do think that saying "No" or giving a pop to the collar as a form of correction is fine.

To the OP I would attend one of the classes and see if this trainer is for you and your dog.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> The other problem with a "balanced" training approach for pet training is that it is the owners who will be administrating the corrections, not the trainer. Your friend must have impeccable timing and understands what truly motivates her dogs, great for her. But that takes time (a lot of time), practice, study and a certain natural ability to do it correctly. Pet dog trainers do not come into training with those skills and abilities and the one who takes the brunt of their practicing in their dog.


That timing and learning the right motivations is taught, not instinctive. It's about the same as using treats or a clicker in your training. Especially the clicker. 

That said, I do somewhat agree about discomfort about somebody teaching pop corrections and handing out prong collars in an "in and out" class setting. If people are only attending 7 weeks of class and not going back... that means they are probably going to forget everything they learned except putting a prong on their dog and jerking at it. 

Where I attended classes, I didn't actually put a correction collar on my dog until we began competition basics. And even there I think I went a session with just the buckle collar on my guy. The choke chain or prong were only necessary in polishing up the instant sits and focus. The difference between the choke chain and the prong was it was necessary to pop with the choke chain to get the same reaction as a finger tightening with the prong. That is why I first used a prong in classes and then just put a choke chain on later on when I had little need for that level of correction. I cringe when I see choke chains or even prongs on young dogs who are still pulling while their owners are pulling back.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

RedDogs said:


> I didn't mean to say it was all situations. This is a different scenario than someone who only teaches pet manners classes. Not to say there aren't people who are using "balanced training" well and only teaching pet classes.... there definitely could be, but it does make me want more information about their skill set in using both techniques. No matter what methods are used.... pet manners only instructor are more likely to be less skilled than those competing and doing other things with their dogs.


Yeah, the comment just bothered me since I consider myself a balance trainer. Kind of like saying instructors who teach clicker training classes are lazy and have uncontrollable dogs. Not always true, but there are substandard ones that fit that mold that I have seen.

As far as pet dog trainers not being able to use corrections effectively---well, I think sometimes people do not give them enough credit. And having a good teacher is worth a lot to teach motor skills. And I would much rather have a great teacher teaching a student how to effectively use a correction rather than not teaching that student at all about them. So when the time comes and the student wants to use one s/he will be armed with knowledge about it rather than just being told 'don't do it.' Just my $0.02

Anyway the main point is that I would never see a trainer unless I saw them teaching and saw how their dogs behaved and how well their students did. If I liked what I saw (dog's attitude, training, manners) I would seek that trainer out. I want results, not qualifications...


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

All balanced training means is that the trainer uses many positive methods to train and reward the dog, and also incorporates corrections to show the dog he is wrong. Where it can get confusing is that "corrections" can be at all levels. You don't know if the trainer is using appropriate corrections until you see them in action. Corrections do not have to equal pain!

So if you have taught your dog to sit and one day your dog blows you off and doesn't sit, the balanced trainer will do something to make that sit happen. It might be something as simple as putting your hand on the dog's rear end and placing them in that sit, and then praising the dog once they have sat. Yeah, the are also trainers who might pull out a whip and beat the dog because they didn't sit. And there's all levels in between that. But that doesn't mean that all balanced trainers do horrible stuff to their dogs just because some idiots do.

I certainly wouldn't discount a trainer because they say they use balanced methods. In reality I've seen many more poor "positive" trainers than "balanced" trainers out there teaching pet classes, simply because there are so many pet places taking people with no training experience, putting them through a two or three week course on how to train dogs, and then suddenly they are supposed to be the training "expert." That doesn't make all positive trainers bad, it just means what it means with any kind of training - you don't really know until you see the trainer in action if they are any good and if the training is appropriate or not.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

You should definitely go watch a class. Unfortunately, as an unregulated industry, people can use all sorts of terms to describe what they do and different terms mean different things to different people. I consider myself a positive trainer. That might make something think I'm a tree-hugging, cookie-pushing push-over of a trainer with wild, out of control dogs b/c that's what the "positive trainer" down the road looks like. 

Bottom line is this: NO TRAINER - no matter what s(he) calls him/herself should inspire you to do something to your dog that you aren't comfortable with. 

IMO, there really isn't a need to teach behaviors using corrections, and I find it much more enjoyable to develop a great working relationship with my dog and know that he's responding b/c we're a team and not b/c he's worried about what will happen if he gets it wrong. I do sometimes use corrections -- and yes, they come in all shapes and sizes and don't always create slinky dogs working in fear -- but my philosophy is that if I find myself thinking the correction is needed too often, it means I've somehow messed up the training part of the gig, so it's time to go back and re-tool that so the dog understands better and can be correct.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> but my philosophy is that if I find myself thinking the correction is needed too often, it means I've somehow messed up the training part of the gig, so it's time to go back and re-tool that so the dog understands better and can be correct.


But doesn't that depend on the level you are at? 

As your level of training with your dog goes up, the level of corrections and the amount of treats you are using should go down. 

So if you are entering shows, you should be able to enter the ring without needing treats or corrections. If your dog makes mistakes without corrections or a treat on your person, then that means you aren't ready. 

But if you are in intermediate obedience, then that means you are still teaching the exercises. So a correction might be a simple "No" or using your hand and leash to guide the dog into a sit in heel position every time you stop walking. 

^ At least that's my thinking... and of course, I'm absolutely brainless about a lot of things.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> So if you are entering shows, you should be able to enter the ring without needing treats or corrections. If your dog makes mistakes without corrections or a treat on your person, then that means you aren't ready.


If that were true then wouldn't we see a lot of dogs getting 200s all the time in the obedience ring? Dogs will always make mistakes, the difference is how different trainers choose to deal with those mistakes.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> If that were true then wouldn't we see a lot of dogs getting 200s all the time in the obedience ring? Dogs will always make mistakes, the difference is how different trainers choose to deal with those mistakes.


True. 

Then again, I was really thinking about the types of crutches that some people get into during training, even while prepping for shows. I'll use myself as an example, when I first showed my Danny. At class, he would constantly lag, mainly because it was more comfortable for his elbows than trotting to keep pace with me. He also was likely to daydream during the fronts and not come on the first call. He also did not have a reliable finish. And he had slow sits. For a couple years I got into very bad "babysitting" habits, where I got used to luring and correcting to keep him in heel position with me, etc. 

I had to clean all of that up before I got into shows.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

and I would agree that if you are finding yourself correcting for something too often, then something needs to change. Sometimes you did not do a good enough job explaining what is wanted and you need to reteach. Othertimes the particular correction you are using isn't effective and that is what needs to be changed. There is a fine line between correcting with least force necessary and "nagging."


----------



## jweisman54 (May 22, 2010)

I guess I have opened a can of worms here with this topic. It seems to me that there is definite controversy here.

Many years ago, when I had my first golden back in the early 80's, I went to obedience class and all they used were choke chains as collars. That was the norm back then. Would I use it now.........absolutely NOT! Would I use a prong collar on my dog...........absolutely NOT!

I received an email from Izzy's first trainer today. She ONLY used positive reinforcement as her training methods, that is why I like her and her results so much. Izzy will be enrolled as of Monday in on of her new classes with only Golden's. The facility is a GR breeder in the local area who also does doggy day care which Izzy will also be attending once a week. She will learn off leash training while there which is something I cannot teach her due to housing development that I live in and the leash law that we have in our town.

That being said, I am pleased that things will be working out the way I wanted them to. I do not want my dog corrected with a neck pop by a different trainer. Izzy uses a Gentle Leader and to create a neck pop would hurt her with the GL on.

Thanks to all of your replies. I didn't want this to get into a heated discussion. I know what works for one person may not work for another.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> Thanks to all of your replies. I didn't want this to get into a heated discussion.


I think people just like talking about or propping the methods they use. 

I'm glad you found the trainer you feel comfortable with. Good luck.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

jweisman54 said:


> I guess I have opened a can of worms here with this topic. It seems to me that there is definite controversy here.
> 
> Many years ago, when I had my first golden back in the early 80's, I went to obedience class and all they used were choke chains as collars. That was the norm back then. Would I use it now.........absolutely NOT! Would I use a prong collar on my dog...........absolutely NOT!
> 
> ...


I am glad you were able to get into a class with a trainer you like.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Loisiana said:


> I certainly wouldn't discount a trainer because they say they use balanced methods. In reality I've seen many more poor "positive" trainers than "balanced" trainers out there teaching pet classes, simply because there are so many pet places taking people with no training experience, putting them through a two or three week course on how to train dogs, and then suddenly they are supposed to be the training "expert." That doesn't make all positive trainers bad, it just means what it means with any kind of training - you don't really know until you see the trainer in action if they are any good and if the training is appropriate or not.


We have had this argument many times, but your reality is far different than mine. Sure there are "positive" trainers who don't know their stuff, but I know crappy big box store trainers who use corrections and choke collars too. I also know there are more trainers who have advanced degrees in animal behavior who advocate positive methods than those who advocate physical corrections.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Megora said:


> That timing and learning the right motivations is taught, not instinctive. It's about the same as using treats or a clicker in your training. Especially the clicker.
> 
> That said, I do somewhat agree about discomfort about somebody teaching pop corrections and handing out prong collars in an "in and out" class setting. If people are only attending 7 weeks of class and not going back... that means they are probably going to forget everything they learned except putting a prong on their dog and jerking at it.


I don't agree about timing being taught. Having taught both puppy classes and beginning agility classes, many people can't or don't want to work on getting the timing right. I have had people who I can instruct, remind and demonstrate about timing for treats or even time for a que and they never seem to get it. People who successfully go onto higher training are self-selected by having some ability in timing because they have gotten good results.

And yes, people can have bad timing with the clicker and treats, but the result is a dog who gets too many treats and is confused. Bad timing with corrections results in a dog receiving a unpleasant experience and being confused about why.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Selli-Belle said:


> We have had this argument many times, but your reality is far different than mine. Sure there are "positive" trainers who don't know their stuff, but I know crappy big box store trainers who use corrections and choke collars too. I also know there are more trainers who have advanced degrees in animal behavior who advocate positive methods than those who advocate physical corrections.


But that doesn't change the point of my comment, which is that you can't judge a trainer based on what they label themselves as, there are good and bad in all types of training.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Selli-Belle said:


> I don't agree about timing being taught. Having taught both puppy classes and beginning agility classes, many people can't or don't want to work on getting the timing right.


I've seen people like that too... 

And I remember my sister telling me horror stories when she helped assist at puppy and obedience 1 classes ages ago.  

As far as timing the corrections properly - I HAD to be taught even after I thought I knew everything. : The problem I had back in competition basics was standing dumbly looking at my dog who was supposed to be learning how to "watch" but he'd be making goo goo eyes at the instructor. 

I learned and he learned, but definitely it was a few classes of my instructor lecturing at me before I got the message.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I got into obedience when choke collars and corrections were the norm. I had my own opinion on what I would do to my incredibly soft first golden and the head trainer respected that. I believe that with any trainer, you should pick and choose what makes sense to you. My trainer friend who has helped me get titles on my dogs used to recommend things to me I wouldn't do. For example, she told me to crate my dog away from me the night before a show(she used to put her dog in the shed in her backyard). This dog had not been in a crate at night for years, she was first and foremost my pet. I didn't crate her.... she got her UD, but my trainer friend had 2 OTCH's. My friend also told me I shouldn't let her have access to toys, so that I would only use them in training as reinforcement. I didn't do that either. I could list numerous other examples, but my point is I listen to the trainer and then make my own decisions whether or not I take the advice. I have used a prong collar(on one dog) to teach attention, but she didn't mind it one bit. But I haven't used it on subsequent dogs.

I learned years ago with my 1400 lb horse, that force wasn't the direction that I wanted to use in my relationship with my animals. In a battle of wills and strength, obviously the 1400 lb horse would win. Fortunately, I had an excellent trainer who taught me how to make the horse do what I wanted without force. I learned a lot about working with animals from that trainer...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> For example, she told me to crate my dog away from me the night before a show(she used to put her dog in the shed in her backyard).


That's horrible. I couldn't do that either.... I don't even crate my golden because I like him to be with me all the time. o_o



> I listen to the trainer and then make my own decisions whether or not I take the advice.


I totally second this. 

Sometimes though it's not worth paying for a class if there is going to be too much friction between you and the teacher. Or if you are not learning anything from the class.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I learn a lot by watching what not to do. And when I don't agree with what the trainer wants, I don't make it an issue... so really no friction.


----------



## jweisman54 (May 22, 2010)

All I want is a well behaved dog as my pet. I do not plan on doing any type of showing at all. She is my companion, my pet who gives me unconditional love. I never negatively reinforced any of my children, I won't negatively reinforce my pet either. I agree that you have to take what you want from any type of training method and do with it what you will. Years ago with my first dog, it was the norm to use a choke collar and then a prong collar with my second dog, but that was back in the early 80's when positive reinforcement wasn't even heard of.


----------



## Tuckers Mom (Nov 12, 2010)

I use balanced training with Tucker. Not by choice, but by necessity. When I rescued him, it was very apparent that NO training of the obedience or leash variety was ever practiced. He was potty and crate trained and that was about it. We also live in a rural area where there are MANY distractions such as wildlife, and we raise chickens and rabbits on our property. Tucker has a VERY high prey drive. I built his foundation training around clicker and had to use other methods in order to have complete control over him, as he is VERY strong willed, ( young bratty stage at a year old) and a big handful. My Husband works long hours and it's just us most of the time. I felt like I had to go with more aggressive forms of training in order to have him be able to drop to the ground on my down command when faced with chasing a squirrel, or worse yet, the other dogs across the street of our country road that sees a great deal of commercial freight traffic. I think that you have to look at your particular situation, and I am not necessarily adovating negative or harsh correction training, but certainly feel that everyone's situation is different, and you must also have appropriate folllow through with this type of training that reinforces the POSITIVE aspect. for instance, If i have to use a stimulation correction, and get the desired response, he is HIGHLY PRAISED, Clicked, and treated appropriately. That is most important.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> I also know there are more trainers who have advanced degrees in animal behavior who advocate positive methods than those who advocate physical corrections.


Hmmm, do you have a list? And to what extent do they advocate positives--all positives? Some corrections? Depends on the type? The dog? Too grey an area.

I will say that while it seem many people seem to like veterinary behaviorists or applied animal behaviorist because they have advanced degrees, but the titles do not necessarily impress me at all. First, with vet behaviorists they study medicine and then specialize later in behavior. With both, they may be 'book smart' but not all will have experience actually working with multiple dogs in multiple situations--they lack the 'street smarts'. And then many of them seem to charge up the wazoo in prices because of course they have an advanced degree that cost them money--but my personal preference would be someone who spent that time working with many dogs and getting the application more so than the detailed knowledge. These trainers can be very good, and charge more modest prices and can get good results. Not to say that those with advanced degrees can't, jut that I don't think the advanced degree makes them better...


----------



## barkingbuddhas (Apr 7, 2011)

You can find a really good list of highly educated and hands on trainers at IAABC.org. They do not charge "wazoo" prices, but if you're to the point of needing one, maybe it would be good to listen to what they have to say. 

A behaviorist is who you hire when you apply punishment incorrectly. A long distance runner is who you hire if you click and treat incorrectly. 

It's behavior. All behavior- no matter how extreme it first appears- can be broken down in pieces small enough for dogs to learn it's worth it to them to comply with our wishes. Sure you can get the behavior in the short term using punishment, but... there are other, dog friendly ways for owners who want to learn. (a.k.a. Premack)

You can also read about the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior's stance on punishment http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/Combined_Punishment_Statements.pdf 

Has your dog trainer trained another species? Can your dog trainer only train dogs? Ever been to chicken camp? Legacy Canine - Chicken Camps by Terry Ryan Does chicken camp sound like "book- smarts" to you? It's what skilled trainers attend to learn basic learning theory principles. 

If you truly understand behavior these principles apply across species. Goldfish, ferrets, cats, husbands- you name it, if you learn how training actually works, it's not just for dogs. It's for life.


----------



## jweisman54 (May 22, 2010)

barkingbuddhas said:


> You can find a really good list of highly educated and hands on trainers at IAABC.org. They do not charge "wazoo" prices, but if you're to the point of needing one, maybe it would be good to listen to what they have to say.
> 
> A behaviorist is who you hire when you apply punishment incorrectly. A long distance runner is who you hire if you click and treat incorrectly.
> 
> ...


The trainer that I am using who was Izzy's first trainer understands those principals and was talking about just that subject Monday night....about how the training is not just for dogs, that you can actually train a fish, using a flashlight! Very interesting stuff and we are enjoying our re-training sessions.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

barkingbuddhas said:


> You can find a really good list of highly educated and hands on trainers at IAABC.org. They do not charge "wazoo" prices, but if you're to the point of needing one, maybe it would be good to listen to what they have to say.
> 
> A behaviorist is who you hire when you apply punishment incorrectly. A long distance runner is who you hire if you click and treat incorrectly.
> 
> ...


Yup, yup! I consider myself very fortunate to have done three levels of Chicken Camp when they were still being taught by Bob Bailey. It was such a great experience. One of the biggest messages I brought home with me is that often, dogs are learning in spite of us, not because of us -- in the sense that with dogs, you can often eventually teach them something with bad timing, etc. -- but try that with a chicken. Not gonna work! Those feathery bastids are WAAAAY faster than dogs and they don't give a flying fig if you jolly them up with praise and most find your petting aversive. You'd better grasp a great sense of timing and master the mechanics of a correctly delivered reinforcer if you want to change your bird's behavior.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> Hmmm, do you have a list? And to what extent do they advocate positives--all positives? Some corrections? Depends on the type? The dog? Too grey an area.
> 
> I will say that while it seem many people seem to like veterinary behaviorists or applied animal behaviorist because they have advanced degrees, but the titles do not necessarily impress me at all. First, with vet behaviorists they study medicine and then specialize later in behavior. With both, they may be 'book smart' but not all will have experience actually working with multiple dogs in multiple situations--they lack the 'street smarts'. And then many of them seem to charge up the wazoo in prices because of course they have an advanced degree that cost them money--but my personal preference would be someone who spent that time working with many dogs and getting the application more so than the detailed knowledge. These trainers can be very good, and charge more modest prices and can get good results. Not to say that those with advanced degrees can't, jut that I don't think the advanced degree makes them better...


Or look at the list of people who are Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists.

To become a CAAB you need to prove you have extensive experience with hands on behavior work with clients and their animals in addition to academic credentials.

These are the people who are doing the scientific research about animal behavior and are at the forefront of the discipline finding out how methods work or don't or even harm the animal. Yes there are trainers who are very good and there are trainers who may have an equal amount of experience and may have read all the same scientific research as a certified behaviorist, but I would be interested in finding someone who has reached the same level of verifiable expertise who advocates a training or behavior protocol with aversive physical corrections.

I do know they tend to charge A LOT of money for their services. My good friend Camille Ward CAAB charges under $100/hour but having seen her working and seen what she offers to her clients, in reality she works on each case (preparing a treatment plan) easily for as many hours that she does not charge for as she does for appointment time that she does charge for. She also teaches classes and also volunteers to teach puppy classes for our dog training club.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I just can't wrap my head around why many people seem to think that "balanced training" is something to automatically avoid. If a dog is told to stay in a sit and the dog gets up, a balanced trainer might tell the dog "no" and place them back into the sit by putting a hand in the collar and a another on the rear. Unless you are just a true believer in the idea of only teaching the dog they did wrong through withholding the reward, I don't see how this is a bad thing. But yet it is "balanced training." Like I said earlier, balanced training doesn't have to mean collar pops or pain or whatever. It can, but doesn't have to.

So I'm curious, how many of you would not recommend a trainer because they placed a dog back in a sit when they get up from a stay? I know there are a few that really believe in totally hands-off training and wouldn't go this route, but I think that most people don't see a problem with it, yet rule out anyone saying they used balanced training because they have given it a bad connotation.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

And I really wouldn't care if my dog trainer had trained another species or not. If training a chicken or a dolphin taught them something about training dogs that is great, but I don't think any less of someone as a dog trainer if they haven't ever trained a chicken.

My student's parents don't care how well I train dogs, they care how well I teach children. And I don't care how well my dog trainer can train a bird, I care how well they can train a dog.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Loisiana said:


> I just can't wrap my head around why many people seem to think that "balanced training" is something to automatically avoid.


My issue with "balanced training" is that too often, I've found it means a trainer uses cookies but is just a generous with dispensing leash pops and other forms of positive punishment - some to the extent of a cookie in one hand and the remote to the e-collar in the other.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> Or look at the list of people who are Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists.
> 
> To become a CAAB you need to prove you have extensive experience with hands on behavior work with clients and their animals in addition to academic credentials.
> 
> ...



Yes, but do you know all of them never use aversives? And then to what extent do we even mean aversives? These discussions get us nowhere because everyone has their own interpretation and definition of terms. As has been mentioned on many prior threads no one seems to advocate a purely positive method (only R+). So where do we all draw the line? Where do the behaviorists draw the line? Is it aversive to pull up on the leash to get your dog to sit when he choses not too--after being thoroughly trained in what sit means? I think it is an aversive, but a fair one. What is the alternative--to go back to the cookie? 

I know FlyingQuizini says she considers herself a positive trainer, but I have seen older videos of her working Quiz and giving him one collar pop for a moment of inattentiveness. Granted, I am sure he was thoroughly trained to understand that correction/aversive. But that is the kind of thing I think of when I mean balance training. Teaching the dog, and when the dog is proficient reinforcing that behavior with a few corrections as needed. If you are doing a lot of corrections (i.e. popping the collar every 5 seconds) this is not right, you did not teach correctly first.

And I did not say that those with advanced degrees were necessarily not good, just that I don't think the degree itself makes them better trainers or heck, even more knowledgeable. While I value an education, experience is so important to me. I do know many of them charge close to $100 if not more. Yet I know very good trainers who charge less than half of that, have over 20 years of experience, and even a breadth of experience. Because--training competition dogs, to working with aggression, to SAR dogs, to pet dogs is just not the same thing.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

And here's a sampling of those behaviorists from the list you sent who do not appear to be against aversives at all times:

Positives of Negatives & Negatives of Positives » TheOtherEndoftheLeash

Very good article here talking about using more than R+ and yes, *gasp* P+ in the form of body blocks. In particular I like how she mentions it is very dog dependent--a body block might overwhelm a sheltie but not discourage a lab. And yes, she even says it. She'll never sign a pledge to avoid using aversives and does not see training as black and white.



> While the application of aversive events may be necessary in some cases, the use of them is not the first nor the preferred method of effecting behavior change.


Canine Consultants



> We employ all four kinds of behavioral consequences as needed: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.


Pet Behavior Change LLC



> nel, and work down through each level until the behavior is modified. You will see that punishment is on the list, but it is the very last option. So I first try all other techniques that are both effective and humane. I find that behavior change occurs in the first 1-4 levels. I would rarely find myself moving all the way down the funnel to use punishment.


Collected Wisdom | Animal Behavior | Philosophy

So, obviously more positive focused but ultimately not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. There were a few that downright said no aversives, but most webpages from the list did not have a page that described their training philosophy.


----------



## barkingbuddhas (Apr 7, 2011)

this is very sneaky- hehe. you are cutting and pasting the pieces that you feel support your view of how often aversives are applied. this post makes it sound like you're saying they use all four quadrants are used equally. i could probably make mother teresa sound less than compassionate by taking words from webpages too. 

yes, science based training does use some forms of positive punishment. but again, leash pops for lack of a sit is not in that category. there are way too many alternatives to use before that. this is why comprehensive training skills are vital. like i said before, positive is not permissive but it also requires critical thinking skills and training- not just read a webpage and go do.

tell you what, send this thread to trish (dr mcconnel) and she see how she would clear it right up. the amount of time you spend in the positive punishment (where you add something negative to decrease behavior) is very very very minimal. you also completely leave the principle of LIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive) out of your posts. you cannot just look at the sentences that say "yes we use some forms of punishment " because that TOTALLY misses the entire story. there are guidelines to using punishment. Steven White used to have them on his site, but I can't find them, so I'll post them below (from Steve White "rules for punishment"??) .

"so...The 8 rules for using aversives (in order for them to work in training)

1) It must be something the dog doesn't like and does not expect.

--are collar pops unexpected ? heck no

2) It must actually suppress the behavior

-using aversives that don't work is at best nagging, at worst abuse

3) It must be applied in the perfect intensity 

Too much / too harsh = dog shuts down and can't learn
Too little / not harsh enough = development of a "punishment callous" actually teaches dog to become imune to punishment and "tough it out"

4) Must be IMMEDIATE

or it won't be associated with the behavior you're trying to suppress

5) Must be associated with the behavior
and not you-- other wise you get a dog whose behavior is suppressed in your presence, but continues when you aren't present. 
"sneaky dog syndrome" = the dog associates the punishment with YOU more so than the behavior.
Steve commented how dogs often don't understand what they are being punished for but how they are remarkably good at figuring it that YOU are involved or connected somehow- even when using hands off tools like electronic collars.

6) The aversive must be applied EVERY TIME the behavior does
-otherwise you are just putting the misbehavior on a variable reinforcement scheduel which just makes the behavior stronger and harder to extinguish

7) There must be an alternative behavior trained or available to the dog

- trying to punish away a behavior that is really strong or self reinforcing doesn't work unless you replace it with another behavior 

ie punishing a dog for jumping up (knee the dog in the chest) when he jumps up to greet isn't usually successful unless you reinforce an alternate greeting behavior like sitting - the dog is social and has a strong desire to greet.

8) The aversive must never outweigh the reinforcement in the dogs mind

-or the dog "checks out" and learning shuts down"

again, no one's mind is changed by reading an internet message board- I am, however, one for posting resources so they can know to start learning in the real world with real people, face to face.  and it bothers me to think that there are uneducated trainers out there merely calling themselves "positive" because that's the marketing phrase of the decade and basically mudding the waters for the general public. it's also throwing the baby out with the bathwater to think ALL positive trainers do is toss cookies...it's not just inaccurate, it's downright misleading.

for more resources, you might want to read "The Thinking Dog" by Gail Fisher. she does an excellent job of showing how traditional training would have taught something, and then what other LIMA ways can be used to train it. she also goes into much more detail than most books and i think you would find her very "balanced".

the other book i would recommend is "The Ethical Dog Trainer" by Jim Barry. (http://www.dogwise.com/authpub/ethical_excerpt.pdf) no, he does NOT say one is or is not ethical- it's not a judgemental book. it explains how dog trainers can define their own ethics and morality. he describes what ethics in dog training really means. for example, you may believe that the end justifies the means. i may not. that doesn't mean one is more or less right than the other, but it is something professional dog trainers must take into account when working with people and dogs. where do their own values and morals lie? what are dogs for? what kind of "rights" do dogs have? 

so when you say "some trainers never use aversives" that doesn't mean they don't get the job done or is a "negative" against them- it means they employ other means to get the same end result. this usually requires some out of the box, out of someone else's comfort zone type thinking. it may mean that they are trained in not only animal behavior but human behavior and family dynamics. some dog trainers were trained social workers or in the helping profession and they have human communication skills and can explain how to get a certain behavior without the use of aversives. so again, just quoting someone as saying they don't use aversives doesn't mean they don't get the same result as someone who does- they are using their own skills and moral values as guidelines. you may not have or make those same skills or guidelines but just because they state they don't use them is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

barkingbuddhas said:


> this is very sneaky- hehe. you are cutting and pasting the pieces that you feel support your view of how often aversives are applied. this post makes it sound like you're saying they use all four quadrants are used equally. i could probably make mother teresa sound less than compassionate by taking words from webpages too.


Actually you misunderstand me completely. I never intended or implied how much aversive were used--more than I think it is dog and situation dependent. And I don't want to go there. My point, which stands, is that some of the behaviorists from that list are willing to admit that aversives have a time and place and are even admitting to using them.

So the problem is that training is along a broad spectrum. When someone says I am a positive trainer, or I am a balanced trainer--what does that really mean? Honestly, not a lot. Which is why these discussions are pointless, and why I always think you should watch and get to know a trainer before working with them.

...and Steve White's post is interesting. I don't know that I agree with all of it, and I wonder how many behaviorists or trainers do. There is no one authority on training (thank goodness).

EDIT: again, if you read the quotes I am not sure what is sneaky about them. Many say punishment is last on the list, but still a viable option. One says they use the four quadrants as needed. It is GREAT that people are more positive with training their dogs, and I personally feel like all training should be motivational based, nut I also believe in upholding my training and expectations with my dog using corrections when needed.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't think it seemed like she was trying to say all four quadrants are _equally_ used, just that they _were_ all used by those trainers. I don't know of any trainers that use them equally. I use corrections and aversives in my training but I use a whole lot more of the positives.

I'm not sure what the point of listing those guidelines were, don't they just reinforce the use of aversives? Reading that list I was thinking they were giving great support for the use of ecollars :gotme:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

barkingbuddhas said:


> "so...The 8 rules for using aversives (in order for them to work in training)
> 
> 1) It must be something the dog doesn't like and does not expect.
> 
> ...


:wavey:

Just saying_ my opinion_...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I don't think it seemed like she was trying to say all four quadrants are _equally_ used, just that they _were_ all used by those trainers. I don't know of any trainers that use them equally. I use corrections and aversives in my training but I use a whole lot more of the positives.
> 
> I'm not sure what the point of listing those guidelines were, don't they just reinforce the use of aversives? Reading that list I was thinking they were giving great support for the use of ecollars :gotme:


thank you that is what I meant.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

I think most people lack the common sense or the understanding that it's not a vcr they can program, but a dog. They want instant results, so they end up getting them by using harsher methods. Or they start out using positive only cookie dispensing, don't follow through with any sort of negative and end up with a spoiled dog then go to the harsher trainer. When in the end using a trainer who uses a bit of both and has the experience to adjust to the person and the dog would cost them less and take the same amount of time, in general.

Classes around here have gotten kind of silly. Prices have gone up and they break down things so the dog doesn't learn too much and has to take a zillion classes to progress, or so I've found with many of them. I'm finding it hard to get the right mix of how much to teach so they get value, but not so much that they don't need or want another class to do more. I'll see how it goes. In the meantime competing with people who took a six week course and are now charging an arm and a leg for classes and are so petty they are complaining to the rescue for sending out information on other trainers - right now the rescue has to make up a separate list so they can send my info out and not have these people complain. Too nice for me, I'd tell them there's no exclusive training group and they can compete with whoever else wants to help the dogs.... sheesh!


----------



## jweisman54 (May 22, 2010)

Bender said:


> I think most people lack the common sense or the understanding that it's not a vcr they can program, but a dog. They want instant results, so they end up getting them by using harsher methods. Or they start out using positive only cookie dispensing, don't follow through with any sort of negative and end up with a spoiled dog then go to the harsher trainer. When in the end using a trainer who uses a bit of both and has the experience to adjust to the person and the dog would cost them less and take the same amount of time, in general.
> 
> Classes around here have gotten kind of silly. Prices have gone up and they break down things so the dog doesn't learn too much and has to take a zillion classes to progress, or so I've found with many of them. I'm finding it hard to get the right mix of how much to teach so they get value, but not so much that they don't need or want another class to do more. I'll see how it goes. In the meantime competing with people who took a six week course and are now charging an arm and a leg for classes and are so petty they are complaining to the rescue for sending out information on other trainers - right now the rescue has to make up a separate list so they can send my info out and not have these people complain. Too nice for me, I'd tell them there's no exclusive training group and they can compete with whoever else wants to help the dogs.... sheesh!



I agree with you that people are looking for an instant fix to their dog's behavior be it good or bad. I started this thread with the intent to find out differing opinions of negative vs. positive reinforcement while training their dog. I do believe that the opinions expressed here are varied and in a wide range of variations.

I, myself, am guilty of negative reinforcement many, many years ago with my first golden. At the time back in the early 80's the only method of dog training was the use of a choke chain. I "taught" my dog how to sit, heel, stand, etc. with the use of force. I look back now and see how cruel I actually was to that dog. I would love to be to take back how I trained her, but that was the only method at the time. Now, there seems to be so many trainers available, some good, some not so good, some use positive reinforcement, others use a lot of negative but I think most use mostly positive with some negative but the negative not being abuse but using a method that will teach the dog/owner. 

Izzy and I started back at classes last Monday night with same trainer that we started with last year. We are in a class with a couple of very young dogs and a couple that are about the same age and have some training. I tend to agree that some of these trainers are only in it for the money. "oh do more training, your dog needs to brush up on his/her commands". Well, I am going back tonight to see if we are going to continue with this training. I don't need to teach my dog how to sit or do a down or a stay. She knows that and I can reinforce this at home. I do not need to throw away $150 three times on the same coursework. I feel that we have not progressed at all and now are into this for $450.


----------



## Bender (Dec 30, 2008)

Used in the right place and time, it can be fair and effective. It's up to you in many ways to decide what works and what doesn't for your dog and to find a trainer who gets that too. Bender had an issue with obedience from being popped for attention work, she thought it meant the people coming to distract her were bad and got more concerned about that. Mild correction but poor results. Ticket had it in his head that screaming and lunging at dogs was part of flyball training because I wasn't allowed at the one training place to even say 'uh uh' to him (lest I crush his spirit) - went elsewhere, put him on a prong collar, two good corrections for being what I considered an 'arse' within the first ten minutes and he didn't think about doing it again and we could progress with training. I know some dogs who can't handle anything more than a buckle collar and others who NEED a prong. 

If you have a trainer who will give you the options on corrections and letting you decide, and isn't into the 'one size fits all' methods, and you have a good head on your shoulders, you should do fine. Ask questions and don't go with someone who can't give you an answer.


----------

