Ok, brace yourselves and put the kettle on, because this is a long one!
I ask that you please read it to the end for a full understanding of how and why I train as I do and why people come to me with their 'last chance saloon' dogs.
I have tried to keep this short but largely failed as it is such a complex subject.
I had someone contact me recently asking if I was a "certified Force-Free trainer" because that is what she had been told she absolutely *must* find. She was of the opinion that any other methodology was tantamount to abuse and was "lazy training for people who can't train properly".
I will start by making it clear that I am a reward based trainer. I teach new behaviours without correction and my training is as fun as I can make it for all involved. I will also NEVER do anything to a dog that is not discussed with his or her owners or anything that could constitute a welfare issue.
Speaking of issues, the problems her dog has (extreme lead pulling and a total lack of recall leading to the dog attacking wildlife, cats and a couple of nasty incidents involving attacks on other dogs) are things I specialise in so I know I can help her. I made the decision however to refer her to another local trainer who meets her 'force free' requirements as she was not open to discussion at all despite that she has already been using a 'force' free trainer for many months, and is not only getting nowhere, but her dog is continuing to escalate.
These problems are not something that I will fix without some form of consequence for non-compliance once I know that the dog has a very solid understanding of what is required of it and so I am not the best trainer for her current mindset and I'm fine with that. I'm not going to argue with someone who isn't willing to listen even though their chosen methodology is failing them.
I'm sharing this story as it brings up a topic I want to discuss.
I am VERY much more of a Yes (wo)Man than the No Guy when it comes to training.
I love paying dogs in food, toys and my undying affection for their efforts and good decisions. Training should be fun and I want dogs under my guidance to be enthusiastic about it.
One of the main reasons I enjoy working with puppies and love training tricks, fancy obedience and assistance work is that it's pretty much all "yes" all of the time.
But whilst I'm more carrot than stick, I do always make it very clear to my clients that on occasion, we may reach a point or come across an issue of which for that dogs welfare, we need to teach a very clear "no" as well as the all important "yes".
Time and again, I find myself working with dogs who have already had a lot of money, time and effort spent on them by very capable and adoring owners who have been working with at least one other trainer (including the one I referred the above lady to and no, I will not be naming them), who are now desperate and feel like failures because a reward-only methodology hasn't fixed their problem.
Training has become very political, especially online and it is so frustrating as the politics and infighting isn't fixing dogs.
Anyone that knows me will know that I thoroughly detest the excessive use of buzzwords such as "force-free", "purely positive", "balanced" and "science based" that get thrown around online like confetti. It's why I try to avoid social media - It's very often filled with a lot of loud, judgemental noise... but not a lot of actual training!
I mean...Sure, I can and and certainly do love to geek away all day regarding the scientific aspects of as well as the art and instinct-based sides of dog training, but I would like to share my little mantra:
*Buzzwords and labels don't train dogs. Training trains dogs*
Now, anyone who has worked with me will also know that I'm not heavy handed, I never correct unfairly and they will also confirm that the dogs welfare (and theirs as the dogs owner) is my greatest priority. Neither my dogs nor my clients dog have any fear of me and so they shouldn't. I am their teacher, their friend and their advocate at all times. Keeping everyone safe is my job.
Given that I'm so welfare driven, why then do I eye-roll at these buzzwords so much and why am I prepared to give dogs these allegedly un-modern and (according to some voices) "cruel" or unnecessary consequences, especially as I use copious rewards?
After all, the internet experts assures us that we can train absolutely all dogs without corrections of any kind and that trainers who do so are "lazy" or (and this one never ceases to make me LOL) "on a power trip".
I use corrections because I consider it grossly unethical to spend weeks, months or years trying and not really succeeding to rectify a problematic or downright dangerous behaviour when the dog can be helped in a much shorter period of time simply by providing a clear and meaningful "no, not that" alongside plenty of "yes! More of that! We love that!".
That's without even touching on the questionable morals of charging a client repeatedly for little to no progress months and months down the line.
Not teaching a dog "no" can lead to conflict and frustration both in the dogs mind and between the dog and owner.
It can lead to the dog being in or putting someone/something else in danger.
A lack of clearly defined "no" and absolute clarity as to your expectations can and does get dogs hurt, rehomed and in extreme cases, put to sleep or killed in some other way. And that's not hyperbole, that is hard, horrible fact.
This is not to say that all dogs require what the buzzworders would consider to be true corrections, especially not for basic training.
My other little mantra: "Training should be as positive as possible for everyone involved".
For some dogs, simply withholding rewards paired with a conditioned non-reward marker is corrective enough to result in cessation of a troublesome behaviour although for real behavioural problems this is extremely unlikely to work. A lot of dogs also find the withholding of rewards as negative punishment extremely frustrating- and trainers, if you've not noticed this, especially in higher drive dogs, start looking out for it. Mild, fair correction paired with a "try again" marker of some sort causes far less conflict between those sorts of dogs and their handler and very few will be needed as there is instant, clear clarity.
For other dogs (and these are the kind of dogs I work with most, usually as their second, third or on occasion even fourth trainer) some form of "absolutely not", is necessary to achieve cessation of a problem behaviour. Or at least to achieve it at a reasonable speed and get everyone safe as rapidly as possible.
And finally, there is the middle ground of verbal correction.
Whilst some things you can and absolutely should take your time on (e.g. recall and proofing newly learned behaviours and manners), something dangerous should ethically speaking, be resolved as quickly and fairly as possible.
I'm going to use a previous case I have worked with as an example of a behaviour I would correct because it's a great one.
The dog is a very high drive, high energy working breed mix who had a long history of chasing cyclists and runners as well as lunging at cars. He also had some other very common issues such as dog reactivity whilst on lead and a bit of resource guarding.
The owner of this dog had really, really tried and he had a ton of fancy tricks to his name.
Their timing was great when it came to using their reward and non-reward markers as they had been taught. They had put in many hours and had not failed the dog in any way. They are superb owners and love that dog so much.
They had been to several highly qualified "force-free" trainers over a long period of time and worked and worked at the problems. The issues continued to escalate and eventually, the dog nipped a cyclist in an entirely predicable show of predatory drift.
Their last trainer eventually told them to just continue to walk the dog very early in the morning or very late at night for the rest of the dogs life because their reward-only system was not fixing these issues. No other option was given as they considered him unfixable simply because their system didn't work on him.
The dog found chasing to be far more reinforcing (fun) than any offered reward, be it cheese, raw beef liver, praise or toys and so this high energy, otherwise friendly dog was to remain on lead and largely hidden away from the world for the rest of his life per the previous trainers advice.
Not entirely bad advice in the sense that management is always important whilst working through problems.
But these owners had been trying to fix and manage these issues for several years by this point. Management alone doesn't fix the problem and management is highly likely to fail eventually (e.g. a collar snapping or coming loose on a dog that has no recall or lunges hard).
It took four weeks to change that dogs life for the better. He is now off lead safe, walks at heel past cars and cyclists and is able to partake in 'normal' dog activities like midday walks in the park.
It is very easy and quick to train a dog to *do* something using a reward only system. It can prove very hard, very long winded or even impossible in some cases to train a dog *not* to do something with a reward only system. This is particularly true when we dive into genetically hard-wired drives that were selectively bred for hundreds of generations. Such instincts range from the harmless drive to fetch and retrieve all the way through to those that are harder to manage in a non-working home such as herding or extremely high prey drive or the desire to fight with other dogs.
I can offer no magic wand.
Solid training still often takes a long time and can involve a lot of repetition which can become rather tedious. There is a reason people pay good trainers to do this work.
As a rule, good basic pet dog training is often pretty boring to watch. Recall training is a good example of something that is usually a long, repetitive process.
But quite often, fast really is better from a welfare standpoint and no, it's not "lazy training". *eye roll emoji face*
Using the car chasing discussed above as the example, I will always be a strong advocate for teaching the dog that we absolutely NEVER lunge at or take off after moving vehicles.
Why?
Because doing so could get the dog killed, possibly even the owner if they get dragged into the road by the dog (which incidentally was the near-miss situation that along with the nip, was the catalyst for this dogs owners contacting me).
It could even have cause a crash if a driver got panicked and tried to dodge the dog. and what if that predatory chase and nipping behaviour was ever directed at a toddler running around? It doesn't bare thinking about.
Hiding the dog away outside of 5am or 11pm is not fixing the problem at all and can be unsustainable for the owners. It's not only exhausting for the owner who just wants to be able to enjoy their pet dog like everyone else around them seems to be able to do with theirs, it's depressing.
This particular dog was all round more calm, sensible and relaxed in general simply for receiving a couple of swift, clear corrections for doing some dangerous things.
"No" now meant something, which meant there was no more conflict in his brain over what was and wasn't expected of him in a variety of other situations. He now leads a very happy life with very happy owners who can actually enjoy their dog at last because he was given a couple of firm "no" moments alongside a ton of highly reward based training.
In the instances we need to correct, we want to establish as swiftly and effectively as possible that this behaviour ceases NOW.
The alternative is potentially deadly and that is neither ethical nor welfare driven however you try to paint it.
Another recent example for you, this time a dog belonging to a friend of mine.
This particular dog bit the owners first trainer because they were not used to working with high drive dogs and their bread and butter is puppy classes. Nothing wrong with that and there is a great need for good puppy classes - something this trainer excels at from what I gather.
But said trainer was not a good fit for this particular dog and they really should have referred out. Instead, they suggested euthanasia because they got bitten whilst the dog was in a high state of arousal the kind of which is entirely normal for the breed and they had no clue how to handle a dog 'in drive'.
Thank goodness that dog lives with a skilled owner who ignored the advice of a trainer out of their depth and went elsewhere, because he is now an accomplished sports dog living an awesome life.
This post has come about out of frustration of people being guilt tripped because their problem can't be fixed with rewards only and not because that client mentioned at the start is now going elsewhere.
The frustration is in this myth that no dog or situation ever requires a consequence and that if you resort to doing so, you are a bad owner (or trainer) and will destroy your dogs trust in you. It just simply isn't true. And it certainly isn't "science based". If you are unfamiliar with the four quadrants of operant condition, it is worth looking into, even if alot of what you'll find is written from a highly biased viewpoint.
Yet another mantra from moi:
We don't get to pick or ignore quadrants to fit our narrative and still call it 'science'.
It pains me just how many of my clients have already spent a fortune on training, have been guilt tripped into never giving their dog a consequence and been strung along for years by this assumption that telling their dog no would make them somehow less caring and would kill their dogs spirit.
I do not for a moment believe that a very swift, fair and clearly given momentary "no" is less ethical than putting a dog, people or other animals at risk of injury or even death for protracted periods of time whilst working through a method that isn't getting results or getting those results at a reasonable speed.
But what frustrates and angers me even more is how often I have heard the words "they suggested euthanasia because he can't be helped and we've tried everything" when only this one set of pretty restrictive methodology has not proven effective, even after a very long time and a lot of persistence.
Behavioural euthanasia is NOT always the wrong call. But it is also fairly rarely the right one from what I've seen and experienced.
I've heard the words "death before discomfort" too many times from certain extremist factions of the training industry who genuinely believe that the dog is better off dead than receiving a swift "no" learning event.
Really? It's better to kill a dog than to just... tell it off a couple of times to provide clarity on what he must not do as well as what he can?
Insanity. And truthfully, how is destroying a dog because its temperament doesn't fit your preferred methodology "force free"?
I've put back together a number of dogs recently who have been to trainers who are very highly credentialed on paper and very loud about their opinions on this subject. A number of these dogs has been recommended for behavioural euthanasia, one for extreme lead pulling. I personally cannot fathom killing a dog because it pulls on lead but that's another story.
Don't get me wrong... I'm very pro qualifications! Beyond the Animal Welfare Act, dog training is an entirely unregulated industry (which is nuts to me) and there are plenty of absolute charlatans out there. So I do think qualifications are a good thing. But qualifications does not immediately a good dog trainer make, and one of the most skilled trainers I have ever had the pleasure to work with has not got a single credential to their name beyond many, many years of experience and literally thousands of fixed and happy dogs under their belt. One of the worst was a registered, qualified trainer with one of the most well known professional training organisations.
I FIRMLY believe there is nothing wrong with referring to someone else if your methods, experience and/or personal ethos aren't working or right for the dog. It should probably be more common.
Hell, I referred out a client last month because I was absolutely not going to be that dogs best option given that it almost outweighs me. I'm no yank and crank trainer who relies on muscle to gain compliance but at the same time, I know when I'm outgunned and given that I live in a very dog and people heavy area, right on top of the local playing fields etc, a 70kg, human-aggressive livestock guardian with a serious bite history is not a dog I'm happy to work with here.
Now, before anyone reaches for their pitchforks,
I want to make it entirely clear that I have no problem with "Force Free" as a concept for teaching.
As mentioned before, "as positively as possible" is one of my favourite catchphrases.
I have all the time in the world for the trainers I know personally who train without any "no". Some of them are fantastic trainers and I love them dearly. I have certainly learned a lot from several of them and will no doubt continue to do so.
It is pretty well established at this point though that correction-free training is not an effective way of permanently rectifying major predatory behaviours (amongst other things) and that is the sort of dog I deal with on the daily.
What I am NOT pro is the constant buzzword-fuelled rhetoric that finds itself labelled online as "science based" and loudly and often rather piously shouts that "force free" is the only "modern, science-based" way to train and anything else is abuse.
The use of the word 'force' is so loaded. It conjures up the idea that those of us who are still welfare driven but not proclaiming ourselves to be "force free" are out here kicking dogs into sit-stays as if that is the only other option besides nothing but treatos for good behaviour. 🙄
"Force-free" is an easy sell from a business perspective. Never having to correct/apply some form of consequence sounds wonderful, doesn't it? I know it's how I would prefer to train. But it has some limitations and I refuse to shy away from that.
Frankly, if I wanted a nice cushy life, I would follow the crowd and do puppy classes, puppy foundations packages and basic pet training. I'd make more money and have an easier life!
But there are plenty of trainers for those dogs and precious few of us willing and able to really help the serious reactivity cases. The dogs that don't take food during training. The very high drive, intense dogs. The dogs that come up the lead at you teeth-first out of frustration when they see another dog. The dogs that kill livestock. Even just the really seriously awful lead pullers.
At risk of using a buzzword myself (bleurgh!), truly science-based training takes into account all four of those learning quadrants I mentioned earlier and acknowledges that sometimes, some consequences may be required.
Yes, I know that one of the arguments against any form of consequence or negative reinforcement is that Orca, lions, rhino etc in zoological facilities are all trained using reward-only systems.
This is pretty much correct.
However that argument does not take into account that we don't expect orca, lions or rhinos to walk (or swim!) at heel past things they want to eat or attack. We don't expect them to come back when called when distracted in the woods, even if that means call off the chase when they flush a deer or pheasant (or seal?!) in a field.
We don't expect them to live in our homes like civilised beings and not eat the neighbours new kitten. When the beautifully trained orca or lion doesn't feel like complying, it simply won't.
There are occasions when even a huge reinforcement history will let you down and they're invariably the worst possible moments.
As I said earlier, it's easy peasy to train IN new behaviours with rewards. It's much, much harder and sometimes downright impossible when the chips are down to train OUT unwanted behaviours with a reward only system.
I make no claim to be some godly trainer of unparalleled ability. We are ALL constantly learning and have our areas of great skill or great lack of and I am certainly no exception.
Well over half a decade on from the positive-only puppy classes I began assisting in and a lot of dogs later, I'm still almost constantly studying in some capacity or other and still regularly working with people above my pay grade to continue to improve and hone my skills. I LOVE working with other trainers and love learning new things.
Whoever you opt to entrust your dogs training to, I do strongly recommend that you ensure that they are qualified to handle your dog and teach you what you need to know.
That qualification may be predominantly or entirely years of hands-on experience and success or it may be a lot of worthwhile qualifications AND hands-on success. But look for that success.
It also goes without saying that they must be adequately and appropriately insured as a trainer if they are taking your money.
Either way, a good trainer will be able to show their work.
Even if they're like me and utterly crap at social media, they will be happy to show you their methods and show off their skills using their own dogs or inviting you to watch a training session or class.
They'll also be honest if they reach the limits of their skillset.
I have recently referred a client of mine to another trainer because now we have fixed the behavioural issues, she wishes to start partaking in a specific dog sport.
I have literally zero experience in this sport and have no place continuing to take her money whilst I learn how to teach what is required to compete in it on her dog. I am excited for her to begin the next phase in her dogs awesome life and feel grateful to have played my part in rectifying her dogs behavioural issues and getting them both to this point. But my job here is done.
And always remember, properly trained dogs lead better, more fulfilled lives.
They can be trusted to have far more freedom, can come anywhere that dogs are permitted and will be far more welcome as guests in hotels, pubs and even your families houses than dogs that act like hooligans.
Never be guilt tripped into avoiding seeking help for your dog should you find that having given it time and effort, your current method is not working.
So, in answer to that ladies question, no. I am not a "certified Force-free trainer".
What I am is a reinforcement-based-but-without-being-limited-to-only-one-methodology-cookie-cutter-style trainer.
I treat every dog as the individual it is and will think outside the buzzword box when I need to.
I have rather a lot of certificates and qualifications in welfare and training ranging from positive-only behavioural modification to behavioural modification using all four quadrants, dealing with resource guarding, obedience training from basic through to high level (both force free and so called "balanced"), fitness and nutrition, canine first aid, the proper, humane use of training equipment, separation anxiety, dog to dog aggression, level 4 (HND) Animal Management and Welfare, recall (both reward-only and "balanced") and am currently studying a very large canine rehabilitation, conditioning, physical therapy and fitness course. I am a professional member of the IACP. These courses have helped me to be better able to explain the nuances and science involved in canine behaviour and to better explain how and why we train as we do.
But mostly, I have experience with a lot of dogs and their foibles. I have worked with everything from chihuahuas to Malinois, Pomeranians to Pointers, bull breeds to Boxers to primitive breeds like Akitas and Shar Pei.
I also worked with basal canids and vulpine species for just over half a decade.
And that experience has been worth more to me than any of my certifications and qualifications have been.
Ten points to anyone that made it this far! I admire your dedication, have a truly awful photo of Kobrin running in the rain as payment! 🤣
Comments