What is Possible?
Recently I heard an interview with a very well known competitor/trainer. He said "positive training works with dolphins.....it is not possible to train a dog without physical contact; it's a lie…”.
Physical contact means pain compliance.
My first thought was, "How egotistical is THAT? If you can't do it, no one can?" Let's call that my irritable reaction.
My irritation was soon replaced by sadness, however, because if positive reinforcement training is "not possible", then what sane person would attempt it? If a "top trainer" ridicules the possibility, then the message to thousands of less experienced trainers is clear: do what is proven to work, regardless of the outcome for the dog, or the sport. If a young trainer decides to attempt positive training anyway, the blatant ridicule, followed by subtle sabotage, will usually drive them away from the sport or into the hands of tradition soon enough. It takes a strong and courageous person to do something that others say is impossible, and few individuals want to play the fool, especially if they are relative novices themselves.
If you want to be a successful competitor, the safest route is the known one. Many of the most accomplished competitors have very little to offer outside of their method, which often crams every dog into exactly the same hole they've been crammed into for thirty years. Yes, these folks win. If winning is the most important element for you, then it makes sense to go with what is proven to work. But, when well regarded trainers or competitors state that a progressive method is "not possible", you discourage innovation and set dog sports in the wrong direction.
Wouldn't it be better to say, "In my experience, positive training does not work."? That phrase opens up a place for dialogue and the possibility that you may be confronted with evidence, which might, over time, allow you to change your perspective and try something new.
If the world of today had been described to me thirty years ago, I would have been unable to process what I was hearing. I would have had no way to reconcile such unbelievable information with what I now know to be real and true. The possibility of video telephones, computers, internet - I would have laughed at you. If you had told me that athletes were breaking records that were considered physically impossible, that science had taken us inside of cells and DNA and into the very heart of what makes us human - I could not have heard you. Big Science was a test tube baby, not Dolly the cloned sheep.
If you had told me that I could use food to train a dog; that a plastic toy called a clicker could help me with my training, that I could wait for a behavior to occur and then name it rather than creating each behavior... I would have made fun of the waste of time and the "stupidness" of it all. I was young and opinionated. I knew it all, and if I wasn't doing it, then it wasn't worth doing.
While it's sad to see such a close minded attitude on a thirteen year old, it's relatively harmless since no one is listening anyway, but coming from a well known trainer with excellent skills and insight to offer... it's damaging and cause for great concern.
The world of today was NOT POSSIBLE just thirty years ago. Outside the realm of comprehension. Yet it's here, not only possible, but now reality. So if the not possible can become reality, isn't it better to try and stay away from absolutes in our thoughts and speech as much as we can? There are so many places to throw up barriers and argue that something is not possible. Honestly, it makes me tired even thinking about it, which is why I have waited a while to broach this topic. The words that come out of our mouths frame the reality in our heads. Close your mind to new possibilities and you are right, it will not happen for you.
I cannot predict where a changed mindset will take you, any more than I could have predicted that Dolly the Sheep was possible. The possibilities suggest, however, that the dog/human relationship can be so much more than what tradition and prior experience may have led us to believe.
I made the change to positive training techniques many years ago, but it was only two or three years ago, when Cisu began failing in the ring, that I made a complete change in philosophy to dog as partner rather than dog as subject. I can't wait to see what I'm doing in five years, because really, I've just begun to explore the avenues of possibility that are appearing in front of me, and they seem endless. There is so much to learn.
Training is a journey, not a destination. If you think you've arrived, you've already missed out.
52 comments
Ha…so you’re saying trainer who train with “traditional” methods and I quote “sabotage” people like you out of the sport? I doubt the judges knew your name before they read it on a piece of paper, nor did they know how you train, nor do they care. It’s a merit based system, if your dog does well, you place high…if your dog doesn’t do well, you place low. That simple.
And as usual, R+ people always insult other trainers…“Because YOU aren’t skilled enough to train a dog without compulsion no one can?”…you can’t train a dog without compulsion either. You can TEACH a dog without compulsion. You can teach him everything you want him to do with R+. But that is NOT training. A dog who’s well learned believes in other options. When you give a command, he wants to do what you ask, so he does it, and you reward him. But, if he ever decides to not to what you ask? He won’t do it, and he knows at the worst, you’ll be a bit upset and he’ll get no reward. A dog trained with compulsion knows, if I don’t comply, I miss out on a reward…but even if I value the distraction higher than any reward my handler has, my handler can make a correction infinitely negative, that balances out the equation. Your treat and praise or tug and praise is worth an 8, chasing a squirrel is a 10, the dog is going to chase the squirrel. If your treat is an 8, chasing the squirrel is 10, but the dog knows he’ll be getting a correction worth -11 AND no treat…heck of course he’ll comply. By obeying he avoids a correction that is higher in negative value than the squirrel and on top of it, he gets rewarded to boot if he complies! No brainer, he’ll choose obeying every time.
Last point I want to bring up…if you think Schutzhund etc is the same as THIRTY years ago you’re simply proving you haven’t been in the sport 30 years and to top it off are completely uneducated on the training methods of 30 years ago. 30 years ago was the Koehler era…where dogs were stressed before knowing commands to teach them the commands. This type of training actually works better than yours, because: Yours doesn’t work, yours teaches, it doesn’t train, as I said before. With Koehler, the dog always obeys, he knows he must, he’s not being asked, and there is no reward, only stress…of course he complies. BUT the problem with that is weaker dogs can’t handle the stress, and I think of myself as a fair person, correcting a dog who doesn’t know what you want is unfair. Methods in place TODAY, use marker training to shape and teach behavior, and once the dog fully understands what commands mean, what’s being asked of him, we then, and only then add compulsion to teach the dog “Hey, we’re not asking, we’re giving commands…you know what stay means, you will stay until I release you, or you will be corrected”. That’s the same way our society works. Sure if you don’t go to work, you don’t get paid, that’s similar to your dogs, R+ dogs…they want to get paid so they go to work. BUT, in the end you go to work to get paid so you don’t starve because you can’t afford food, or so you don’t freeze because you can’t afford heat and a roof over your head. You’re rewarded for your work, but you also have very severe consequences for not working. With an R+ dog, you will feed him in about 3 hours, he knows it…so if he doesn’t work for his pay right now, guess what? Still got a roof, warm bed, good food…life is still grand. Without consequence…consequence more substantial than no treat or no tug, a dog is only learned, not trained. That’s the reason somebody like Mike Ellis who trains with markers, but enforces with compulsion won the Mondio 3 championships a few years ago and not an R+ dog, that’s why R+ dogs have never won a nationals level championship in any working dog discipline and never will unless we all convert to it, and our competition are all using training of lesser effect, like R+ only. You can blame judges who never saw you, and trainers who win more than you, but the fact is, our dogs perform better, that’s why they get wins. The days of Koehler are over, we use both markers and compulsion. like Koehler your method of training is flawed because it’s extreme. His methods were extreme in that they were too harsh, yours extreme in that they have no consequences whatsoever other than missing out on a cookie. The Golden Middle often wins the day. And it does win the day in dog training. Do you think you guys are new? That R+ in dogs is new? LOL, R+ was how Schutzhund dogs were originally trained, it didn’t work! So Koehler stepped in and had a better, yes, BETTER product in that it was 100% reliable. Don’t you remember the quotes by Max von Stephanitz about NOT using force with GSDs? People tried that, it didn’t work, Koehler worked, but it limited which dogs could be worked to only the hardest animals, now marker + compulsion is opening us up to being able to get near 100% compliance, AND working weaker dogs who would’ve been washed out or destroyed if you were using Koehler Method.o uses marker training to te
Living things aren’t 100% reliable. Please don’t think that using compulsion will guarantee 100% reliability. I think it is so sad that people are willing to do almost anything to get “100% compliance” and win titles and ribbons that only you, the human cares about with little concern or respect for the animal. Why not just take what your dog gives you with training that doesn’t hurt him? This post went from uplifting to depressing.
To be fair, there are also very determined “positive” trainers who only see their methods as correct. Anything else, from saying “No, No” to gently touching your dog is wrong. I’m seeing followers, who exclusively use these methods, struggle or even fail.
I absolutely agree, that being open minded to many possibilities, is the right answer and growing as a trainer. I’m finding the truth for me and my dogs is somewhere in the middle; finding the balance. That is where the performance sweet spot will be.
I find nuggets of training gold from many sources. Even the “positive” trainers, listed above have nuggets, which are helping. It is about building the relationship with my dogs, building my training toolbox, and working to get better.
You are right. It is about the journey and that is exciting.
I personally feel that when the goal of winning overtakes the goal of hard work and being the best that you can be, the end result doesn’t make you feel as good about the process and sometimes comes out worse for the wear too. For example, breeding for lighter bones in racehorses…they run fast and make lots of money (goal of winning), but by the time they are 5 the legs don’t hold up (animal looses in the long run even if they are lucky enough to be used for breeding vs the slaughter house). Performance enhancers in athletes…they will risk permanent damage to their own body, public embarassment, ect in the name of winning. Is a victory of a dog that willingly works without fear of consequences a real victory?…I think so. I don’t mean to discredit the hard work that compulsion trainers use either. To get a different species to work with you, that takes alot of hard work regardless of method. I just feel better about myself and my dog knowing that we did it together because it was fun for us both. I am a newbie to the competitive world with my own dogs. I value our working relationship over a ribbon. I also happen to feel like that value will help us get to that ribbon. Many of these top competitive trainers will only compete with a dog bred from a long line of competitors…what about most of us out here who want to compete with what we have now…with all of the issues, the lack of pedigree, and whatever other little quirks our dogs have. Most compulsion training competitors wouldn’t touch that challenge with a ten foot pole.
Well I am not sure what people mean sometimes by traditional training. Sure, many people will use positive punishment at times but that does not mean there is no innovation. I personally try to remain open-minded to all types of training and I incorporate or change things to get them to work for me. As the poster talked about the close-minded 13 year old I see many trainers are guilty of this. They hate the clicker or they hate the ecollar. They cannot value or appreciate the skill it takes to operate them. Too bad…we could learn a lot from each other.