Correcting "Warning Signs"

One question often raised on my trainer discussion lists is this; will correcting a dog that is growling teach the dog to stop growling, or teach the dog to go straight to biting without a warning? In the numerous times this topic has surfaced on these lists, there has yet to be one trainer that can offer a single example of any dog going straight to a bite. So while one option may seem logical to human theorists, their logic doesn't seem to pass the test of real world, trainer experience.

In fact, trainers on my discussion lists often note that addressing growling generally reduces the likelihood a dog will bite. Why? Perhaps it's because you are TEACHING a dog thinking about biting, that acting on such thoughts is not an appropriate option. So instead of removing a warning, you're actually de-escalating a situation and teaching/guiding a dog to more appropriate thought patterns.

Trainers or behaviorists that fail to deal with precursory, problem behaviors are not doing dogs or their owners any favors IMO. We have a plethora of training options today that only reward good behaviors. Unfortunately, these methods have no strategies for actually teaching when significant problem behaviors are present. Comprehensive teaching will always require clear intervention that addresses problems early. Limited approaches that ignore problems, redirect dogs to other behaviors, or wait for a dog to outgrow bad behaviors are simply side-stepping reality.

There may be many paths to success for any given dog - but progress and improvement always require teaching what is good, as well as teaching what is not good. Is your "teaching language" providing learning on both sides of this equation?