These are exciting times in dog training with the infusion of new, science-based methods and vigorous discussion of same by dog trainers all over the world, in forums provided by the wonders of the internet.  Yahoo email groups, discussion boards, blogs, You Tube, and social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn bring dog trainers together as never before to hammer out their trade and communicate to the public about best dog training methods.

Perhaps because of the nature of the internet media, mostly written word, dog trainers have converged on sets of terms that they use to communicate about training.  Although trainers use these words to describe what they do, they also use them to identify training philosophies and method sets that are hotly debated and often controversial. These words therefore become labels for the type of trainer you are and the relationship that you have with your dog.

Not long ago on the Truly Dog Friendly email list group, we each were asked to provide a label for ourselves that accurately represented the type of training that we practice.  Labels such as "positive", "reward based" and of course "dog friendly" were all offered and then often rejected as either being overly simplistic and misleading or worse, hijacked by trainers who use "corrections," another misleading term offered to obscure the use of intimidation, discomfort, pain and fear to train dogs. 

I eventually settled on the label of "positive reinforcement" trainer for myself, even though I use methods outside of that operant conditioning "quadrant" (Quadrant, another word, misleadingly implies that behavior is ruled inclusively by 4 processes...).   Probably the best way to describe how I train is that I avoid the deliberate use of aversives in training, to the best of my human ability. So what's aversive?  I define aversive as anything a dog works to avoid, presumably because the dog experiences those things as unpleasant and undesirable.

Lately, trainers using other practices than mine have offered the label of "balanced" to describe what they do. These trainers use the term "balance" to signify that they mix methods from two contrasting sides of their toolbox.  These two opposing sets of methods draw upon things that the dog works to get and things that the dog works to avoid.

Importantly, the label "balance" implies that good dog training must necessarily combine the pleasant with the unpleasant, the good with the bad, the rewarding with the painful and scary, all from the dog's perspective (which we can't know directly I suppose but we can see how the dog reacts).   

That dogs require aversives to be well trained is a viewpoint, rather than a fact.  Science continues to provide evidence that positive reinforcement is the centerpiece of effective training, for all animals, not only dogs.  In other words, the behavior of animals (humans included) is powerfully affected by their seeking things that they want, that give them pleasure, that fulfill their needs as living beings.  

Technically, management, "negative punishment" (taking away good things), and extinction round out this mix, but all of these components fall short of being aversive (I'll write an upcoming blog on negative punishment soon).  The deliberate application of pain, discomfort, fear, and intimidation both erodes the trainer's relationship with the individual receiving the training and suppresses the expression of all behaviors in that individual.  These drawbacks far outweigh any possible benefit of changing behavior quickly.

For its part, the balance movement claims that "positive" trainers impose no consequences on dogs. These trainers must be defining "consequence" to be a punishment, in order to make such a statement.  Not all consequences, however, need to be unpleasant or bad.

The cornerstone of training with positive reinforcement is controlling all of the resources, rewards, and ultimately reinforcements in the dog's environment. The trainer must in fact control all of the good things that the dog wants and all of the bad things that the dog avoids. Of course controlling everything is not possible, but the better the trainer, the more she will control whatever affects her dog's behavior.

That brings me back to the term "balance."  As Gillian Ridgeway explains in her excellent article in her blog on The Dog Star Daily website: www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/walking-fine-line training with positive reinforcement is necessarily about balance, if you think of balance as meaning structure and limitations for dogs, as well as rewards for their good behavior.  She clearly explains how correct use of positive reinforcement requires structure and limitation in order to work.

Should we positive reinforcement trainers be taking over the concept of "balance," owning it, as some have advocated?  I'm not sure.  I think it's better not to label our training with simple terms, although doing so would definitely be convenient at times.  I would rather dig past the superficial labels and ask what trainers are actually doing to change the behavior of their dogs.  If popping prong collars or zapping dogs with shock collars changes the dog's behavior, then why?  How do these methods work, if the dog does not perceive those "consequences" as things it wants to avoid?  

I would rather lay bare the reality that corrections, balance, popping, tickling and so on all work to change a dog's behavior because the dog is working to avoid discomfort, pain and intimidation.  I oppose terms that are euphemisms to sanitize what the dog is experiencing and why its behavior has changed.

Therefore, although I certainly share the sentiments of my fellow positive reinforcement trainers, I hesitate to usurp the term "balance" for ourselves.  One reason is that using terms with different meanings to different trainers confuses the public who turn to experienced dog trainers for help.  Another reason is that we confuse each other as we try to discuss dog training in person or in our writing.  But the primary reason I want to avoid redefining the term "balance" in dog training is to lay bear its meaning as the application of pain, discomfort, fear and intimidation to train dogs.  Let us call a spade a spade and use language that makes completely clear what we are doing to our dogs.


*******************************************************
Read more about positive reinforcement dog training at The Dog Star Daily's web site: www.dogstardaily.com/  The Dog Star Daily is a fantastic resource, one-stop shopping for positive reinforcement trainers and anyone interested in trying out a non-confrontational approach to living in harmony with dogs.

This blog entry was inspired by my cyber-friend and fellow R+ trainer Cindy Bruckart CPDT, of the Puppy Play House thepuppyplayhouse.com/ and Three Bitches Barking fame.  See her DSD blog here:  http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogger/9