Dog Trainer's Log

Do training techniques have split personalities?

I commented today (twice) on a blog written by Laurie Luck called the Smart Dog blog, on a post called “A surprising look at balanced dog training.”

Many trainers become familiar with operant conditioning at some point in their training lives – and the shorthand for positive reinforcement (R+), negative reinforcement (R-), positive punishment (P+) and negative punishment (P-). But while the trainers become familiar – sort of – with the concepts, we often let our own or our students’ emotional baggage around the words positive, negative, punishment and aversive dictate some very creative descriptions of a training technique.

Creative descriptions designed to make something the dog perceives as an aversive fit within a trainer’s marketing plan of being a 100% positive trainer often do nothing to explain the technique, and everything to sell the trainer’s style – while teaching the dog owner absolutely nothing about how training works. And that’s a shame, because if there’s anything I hope I’ve accomplished in thirty years of dog training, it’s that I can teach the human on the end of the leash how training works, so that he can become a better trainer. Oh, the dogs (and cats) get trained, too – but I personally cannot do that at the expense of muddying the learning waters with inexact language. I may teach Madison, the dog of few words, with as few actual words as possible – but I can certainly use words correctly and accurately to explain how I’m doing that teaching!

After making comments where I pointed out that being a ‘balanced trainer’ does not automatically mean that a person uses equal parts of positive and negative reinforcement or (o.m.g.) positive punishment, Ms. Luck replied with a thank you for the dialogue, a suggestion that we leave it at agreeing to disagree, and this quote:

I don’t want to confuse teaching with communication skills.

Y’know, you can’t make this stuff up. But I don’t have to – it’s right there in the comments. Go look for yourself.

I”ve said this about my own methods before, but in case anyone has stumbled into my blog unprepared, let me just say it again, in my out-loud dog-trainer voice.

My name is Pat, and I am a dog trainer who successfully incorporates balance into my dog training. I do not toss out techniques that work simply because they are not in fashion, or because others are afraid that they can’t be used correctly. I work at my training skills to keep them sharp, and I use every single skill in my training bag when it’s needed. Sometimes, I apply positive and negative punishers, use aversives, and use negative reinforcement – along with a healthy dose of positive reinforcement. I mix all of the approaches to get the best possible response from individual dogs, and I recognize that not every approach is right for every dog or every situation. But I don’t measure. I don’t put any method on the clock, or limit my training (ever) to only a specific method. Dogs are multi-faceted creatures and they need (deserve) multi-faceted human trainers.

And I most certainly, have made a career of combining, using and discussing both teaching and communication skills at the same time. If the student needs me to slow down so s/he can catch up, I will – but I’ve learned that there is little meaningful teaching without communication skills, and no communication skills advance without teaching. I’m not sure it’s even possible to confuse the two. But hey, if that’s what I do, then guilty as charged and happy to be labelled such.

That is my definition of balanced dog training. Others may have their own – but since ‘balanced dog training’ isn’t a federally regulated advertising term, I refuse to let the concept of balance in training become a dirty word.

Train smart, and train well! I’m going to go enjoy this wonderful central NY Saturday afternoon taking my dog for a walk. During which we will do some communicating and some training, and experience a little balance in our lives with each other.