Training Approaches and Being Politically Correct

There's been a huge push in our society over the past several decades toward approaches that remove all corrections from training. Is this better, or does it just make us feel more politically correct?

For the purposes of this post, PR refers to purely "Positive Reinforcement" approaches where dogs are rewarded or praised for good behavior, but problems are typically ignored or the dog is redirected.

I always encourage owners to find a professional who uses an approach with which they're comfortable. But the easy marketing of the PR approach often leaves out what I consider some important details. I'd like to offer some additional observations so that dog owners can make their own informed decisions . . .

1) Because the PR approach (by definition) uses no corrections or consequences for undesired behavior, it creates a lot of long term stress for dogs. If a dog is jumping up on its owners, most PR trainers would recommend turning away and ignoring the behavior. This does nothing to help the dog understand what the owner wishes (for the dog to keep all 4 feet on the ground). The dog is confused so the behavior continues, the owner gets increasingly frustrated, and the dog grows more anxious. In contrast, by simply correcting the dog when it jumps up ("NO - OFF" with a push off), then praising the dog when its paws are on the ground ("GOOD OFF") you're actually communicating with the dog. The behavior ends in short order, and both dog and owner can get on with life.

2) Dogs are not people! They require leadership to be happy, calm, and well behaved. If you don't believe this, then I challenge you to broaden your viewpoint and stop thinking like a politically correct human. Treats and praise alone can't establish leadership. Dogs trained with PR see their owners as equals, and often develop bad behaviors as they struggle to establish missing order. Dogs NEED someone to provide structure (rules and expectations) and impose consequences (corrections for disruptive behaviors). While this may be difficult for a human-centric thinker to grasp, it's absolutely true. My wife tries her best to spoil our dogs, yet its me (their boss) they stay with, watch, and show the greatest affection toward when we're all together.

3) Many PR advocates like to promote their approach with claims of new scientific research pointing to its effectiveness. A further look will usually find references to very dated studies regarding operant conditioning. Operant conditioning recognizes 4 quadrants of learning based on combinations of rewards and consequences. PR training only uses only 2 of the 4 quadrants of this learning matrix (thus the name positive reinforcement). I find it odd to use studies to justify an approach only to dismiss a large portion of those same studies. Why not use other quadrants and learning adjuncts as needed?

4) PR advocates suggesting the use of corrections and/or certain collars as inhumane and unnecessary doesn't hold water. I would simply comment that any tool can be misused, including treats and praise. Obese and spoiled dogs come quickly to mind. Professionals don't misuse their tools, and these supposedly "inhumane methods" have safely produced happy, well-behaved dogs for decades. Service and working dogs are rarely trained with PR since reliability is an issue.

In summary, training should focus on results! Owners should interview prospective trainers to understand their methods and opinions about training, and choose a professional with which they're comfortable. I always work toward healthier, happier relationships between owner and dog, and want owners to feel their money is well spent. Effective trainers wont limit themselves to one method or tool. Owners shouldn't short change their dog's education or their shared relationship by limiting options.