Why Is Balance So Good?

[Staranais]

How about "I'm a dog trainer" as a way to describe ourselves?

Well, it would make discussions pretty difficult! If we don't have labels for different types of training approach, then we either have to describe them every single time we want to talk about them, or else be resigned to people getting upset or confused when we inadvertantly call them by the "wrong" label.

And personally, I find typing "I am the type of trainer who likes to base my training on reward but who is also happy to use aversives regularly so long as they're not damaging my dog's enthusiasm for training" a bit long to type.

[Staff'n'Toller]

if you are choking, startling, shocking, tapping or otherwise causing physical discomfort or mental anguish to any dog in the name of training do not, by any means, call yourself "balanced". Own up to what you do and save the term “balanced” for those of us who truly are.

This sort of muck can only come from a PP trainer.

Ian Dunbar certainly isn't PP and AFAIK neither is Kelly Gorman, so who wrote the article for dogstardaily?

I believe balanced is a smoke screen, I always have thought it was but professionally and personally I'm not interested in starting debates about it here.

I wish we could stop using PP here because to date I only know one trainer who is and even then I have my doubts that she is. I would call myself reward based, as would most here and I can't see why we can't leave it at that.

I can't see why Corvus can't call herself training in the R+ and P- quadrants only....??

[Cosmolo]

Why does everything have to get so complicated..? I am a dog trainer who uses the most effective method to suit dog, owner and problem and i believe everything i use is humane. Still too long to type like Staranais though isn't it?!!!

[Staranais]

I believe balanced is a smoke screen, I always have thought it was but professionally and personally I'm not interested in starting debates about it here.

I think the same thing about "positive" training, which I believe many trainers really just use as a PR term.

I would call myself reward based, as would most here and I can't see why we can't leave it at that.

Cos people will then say... do you mean "reward based" with corrections or without!

I mean, in the past I've heard people (on this forum) claim that the Koehler method is reward based, on the basis that it recommends trainers use a lot of praise and generally only recommends corrections after the dog has had a chance to become familiar with the exercise. The handler who posted felt that this qualified the Koehler method to be called a reward-based system. I'm just not sure if it makes sense to group Koehler trainers with the "use aversives only when absolutely necessary" type people.

I don't know, I'm probably kidding myself that people here will ever agree on accurate, sensible, non-offensive terms to call each other. I just think it would be handy if we could!

[Erny]

I can't see why Corvus can't call herself training in the R+ and P- quadrants only....??

Because she'll physically scruff her pup for certain mis-demeanours. That's P+. So the only quadrant she doesn't use is R-.

When I've used the term "balanced" I do not mean it to mean equal parts of each or all of the 4 quadrants. I mean it to mean that I balance up the training as necessary but I tend to use more positive than otherwise. Sometimes with some dogs I get to use more positive simply because the negative (ie aversive) I've applied was enough to stop unwanted behaviour that was otherwise occurring more times than good behaviour. But when I apply an aversive, the dog receives bucket loads more positive (ie higher rewards and more of them) to counter balance that, when he's done good.

"Balanced" doesn't mean either that I use all 4 quadrants with every dog. There are some dogs that need predominantly if not wholly positive, due to their temperaments and/or due to their past (poor) experiences. Remembering that I'm usually only with many of the dogs I work with for a snap shot in time by comparison to the rest of their lives. I expect that at some stage in their life-time later down the track, an aversive would be necessary, but the aversive needs to be balanced with that dog's temperament and demeanour.

I see nothing wrong with the term "balanced" - I think it is others that need to accept it and if they aren't certain of what that person might mean by it, then just ask. I don't see it as a smoke screen for anything nor have I ever used it as one. I wonder, for those who are offended by it or think it obnoxious, whether they think that by not being categorised as a "balanced" trainer means that their methodology is "imbalanced" and that they have assumed a negative connotation from that word and line of thinking of themselves. Or maybe for some others who scorn anyone who uses corrections/aversives within their training, the word "balanced" is too nice for their liking and doesn't keep up the image of such people being evil and cruel nasty pasties. ????

Gosh - I'm not writing very well today. I hope that makes sense.

Maybe another term that perhaps people could be happy to come to terms with would be something like "eclectic" trainer. A bit of this and a bit of the other - whatever works best for the dog in that moment of time for the purpose of long term training and harmony.

IMO "humane" is something that should always count. The problem with that is that many have a different interpretation of what they regard as "humane". I've known of some "PP" worshippers as saying that they would never apply a physical correction (eg. from a check chain or whatever) even if it meant that without it (and the learning that would come from it - we were speaking hypothetically) the dog would be pts for its behaviour/s. They saw "pts" as more humane than the dog receiving a physical correction and then being able to live happily. I just don't share that view.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Erny

[m-j]

I'm just not sure if it makes sense to group Koehler trainers with the "use aversives only when absolutely necessary" type people.

I would say it was more applicable to say use praise only when necessary, otherwise it could put you in the wimpy trainer category.

[Staff'n'Toller]

I can't see why Corvus can't call herself training in the R+ and P- quadrants only....??

Because she'll physically scruff her pup for certain mis-demeanours. That's P+. So the only quadrant she doesn't use is R-.

I'll pay that because I forgot about the scruffing.

IMO "humane" is something that should always count. The problem with that is that many have a different interpretation of what they regard as "humane". I've known of some "PP" worshippers as saying that they would never apply a physical correction (eg. from a check chain or whatever) even if it meant that without it (and the learning that would come from it - we were speaking hypothetically) the dog would be pts for its behaviour/s. They saw "pts" as more humane than the dog receiving a physical correction and then being able to live happily. I just don't share that view.

I haven't personally come across any 'worshippers' who make those claims and I agree it seems extremely hard to take on. Maybe I am just sheltered.

Maybe another term that perhaps people could be happy to come to terms with would be something like "eclectic" trainer. A bit of this and a bit of the other - whatever works best for the dog in that moment of time for the purpose of long term training and harmony.

I think the same thing about "positive" training, which I believe many trainers really just use as a PR term. wink.gif

Perhaps it is all semantics and we are just too caught up in it?

Cos people will then say... do you mean "reward based" with corrections or without! laugh.gif

Perhaps we are too caught up in giving each training method a label, and maybe it doesn't matter that much anyway. I know with my classes I explain that it's reward based, using food but with a view to be able to remove the food and use other rewards, but that there is a place for corrections in dangerous and/or life threatening situations or in situations where trying to extinguish unwanted behaviours by P- has not been successful. *gasp for breath*

I don't feel I can narrow it down any more than that but for the most part my clients are happy with the explanation.

[Erny]

I haven't personally come across any 'worshippers' who make those claims and I agree it seems extremely hard to take on. Maybe I am just sheltered.

There's a UK Chat site ..... you see (ie read) much of it there - to the EXTREME, in fact.

I know with my classes I explain that it's reward based, using food but with a view to be able to remove the food and use other rewards, but that there is a place for corrections in dangerous and/or life threatening situations or in situations where trying to extinguish unwanted behaviours by P- has not been successful. *gasp for breath*

I would class that as "balanced".

I also take into account efficiency of training. So in a given situation where the unwanted behaviour needed to be extinguished very quickly and where positive may well work but in a slower fashion, I would be inclined to use the aversive provided I felt the dog could cope with it. Sometimes that's kinder on the dog too - as learning in itself is stressful and if we can make the message black and white so the dog can learn faster, we can reduce the duration of the learning stress.

Perhaps we are too caught up in giving each training method a label ...

We probably are.

When did that issue become predominant? Perhaps when there was a 'split' by faction groups?

Edited October 7, 2009 by Erny

[Staff'n'Toller]

Oh right, is it an open forum? I must wander over sometime. I try to limit my dol and facebook time due to my addictive personality.

[Erny]

You need to become a member, but other than that, yes it is an open forum. I haven't been on there for ages. I know I only had to so much as whisper "e-collar" and I would be accused as having a mental disorder. And that I might use a check chain or *shudder* (facetious emoticon needed here) a PPCollar is just to ghastly for words. If I use a head-collar though, that's ok because the RSPCA and APDT recommend them.

Given the time I spend on chat sites (ie DOL) ... (facebook confuses me), perhaps I have got a mental disorder !!

Edited October 7, 2009 by Erny

[corvus]

Corvus i don't understand how you can say you haven't tried using punishment with Erik when you say in another thread you've scruffed him to stop him mouthing.

Like I said to you last time you tried to point the finger with that one, I can't sum up everything I do in one sentence and I can't be held accountable for the way I react when I'm in pain. I do not deny that scruffing is a punishment, but I can't say I use it as a training or behaviour modification method if I've only done it when I'm in pain and have never applied it with the intention of modifying behaviour. I've never met any of the problems I've so far had with Erik by punishing every time it happened as well as rewarding. If I were to say I used punishment in training Erik based on the scruffing, then I could say it hasn't worked very well, and then you could all say "That's because you haven't used it properly" and you would be right. So that's why I don't consider scruffing Erik a couple of times a training method I have used on him. It just wasn't.

I know people on other forums that have trained sports dogs and have done so with mostly rewards. They haven't claimed to be purely positive, but they certainly don't call themselves balanced. I wouldn't call anyone that uses mostly rewards 'balanced', whether they are comfortable with the odd correction or not. I think that 'balanced' should mean about 50:50 rewards and punishment. Like that "No!... Good dog." stuff that goes down.

There is one person I know that trains sheepdogs. She is what I would call 'balanced' with her herders. She mostly uses pressure to teach the dogs to back down fast. It's very interesting, and considering she has tried training herders with clickers and no punishments and then decided it created a herding dog with not enough discipline around sheep, I absolutely believe her and hold her opinion on the matter in the highest of regards. She is very aware that this is something she would not do with every dog. I'm thinking about my two pet dogs learning to be good companions, though. Me and my ilk make up the majority of dog owners. Do we need to be 'balanced'? I just kind of feel that if people are going to make generalisations about using 'balanced' trainers, me and my dogs are the kinds of people they are directing those generalisations to.

[Erny]

I think that 'balanced' should mean about 50:50 rewards and punishment.

Only because you chose to in the face of all the explanations here.

Balance :

"Harmony in the parts of a whole".

"To compose or arrange so as to create a state of harmony".

Strike a balance : "To make a compromise".

Balanced :

(of a discussion) "Presenting opposing points of view fairly and without bias"

So "balance" doesn't have to mean 50/50. But unless you can accept and see the explanations given, you'll not ever understand that perhaps?

I just kind of feel that if people are going to make generalisations about using 'balanced' trainers, me and my dogs are the kinds of people they are directing those generalisations to.

When a new client rings me I don't merely say "I am a balanced trainer". I don't expect them to know. I explain it and then might throw in the term if it is appropriate to the conversation. Generally, once it is explained, the person understands what is meant. You too could ask for explanation so that you are clear. But if you're suggesting I have to write it down for you every single time I post here on related subjects, then you're asking for paragraphs when single lines will do for the purpose.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

How about "I'm a dog trainer" as a way to describe ourselves?

Well, it would make discussions pretty difficult! If we don't have labels for different types of training approach, then we either have to describe them every single time we want to talk about them, or else be resigned to people getting upset or confused when we inadvertantly call them by the "wrong" label.

You're conflating two different things here tho', the identity of the person using a method, and the method itself. And that is the core of the problem.

I'm a dog trainer. I use a range of methods. I think it's better if my methods can't be summed up into a shorthand that people will use to work out whether I'm an evil dog abuser or a sad middle aged woman stuffing schmackos into her dog's gob. Apart from anything else, appropriate methods vary depending on the dog.

Part of my frustration with these discussions is that humans are very invested in being one of the good, clever guys, and usually that means someone has to be a bad, incompetent guy into the bargain. What should be under consideration in each training scenario is the most appropriate method for the dog in front of you. That is complex, and not the stuff of sound bites.

If I'm going to let someone train my dog, I'm going to invest the time in a conversation.

[Keshwar]

Ian Dunbar certainly isn't PP and AFAIK neither is Kelly Gorman, so who wrote the article for dogstardaily?

From the top of the article:

A Balancing Act

August 21st, 2009 by Erica Houck Young

[corvus]

I don't know, I'm probably kidding myself that people here will ever agree on accurate, sensible, non-offensive terms to call each other. I just think it would be handy if we could!

Well, I think you are and it's very annoying to have to say that. The problem is, everyone draws their line at a different place. I'm happy to call myself a rewards-based trainer and hope that people understand that means I start with rewards but will deviate from rewards if I need to. Other people on this forum seem to get offended that anyone should call themselves a reward-based trainer when they would rather say they use mostly rewards but some punishments and suddenly they think the person calling themselves reward-based thinks they are more ethical than they are, and they'll be damned if they change what they are calling themselves because they've picked a label that sounds right to them, so instead they argue about it.

To me, "reward-based" is fundamentally the same as "positive". Positive has just become a no-no word because of this stupid "purely positive" thing that everyone is so hung up and hateful about.

A 'balanced' approach, though? It seems that every time I've heard that term it's come from a trainer that approaches dogs with a "Bad dog, stop doing that.... oh, good dog, you're doing the right thing now" kind of method. Some of them are not balanced by my understanding of the word and are more aversive than positive, but I was ignoring them and assuming 'balanced' meant a little from column A and a little from column B rather than most from one column or another.

ETA, I see I was misinterpreting based on my previous experiences. I'm inclined to think harmony is a cop out because it means nothing concrete, but I can understand the idea of compromising. Kind of.

Edited October 7, 2009 by corvus

[Keshwar]

Another relevant gem from Dog star daily

Can't We (Trainers) All Just Get Along?

August 31st, 2009 by Nicole Wilde

“Cookie-slinging weenies!”

“Punishment trainers!”

“Posi-Nazis!”

“Jerk trainers!”

Know what these epithets have in common? For one thing, they’ve all been slung around the internet with the intention of disparaging other trainers. They also all show the ignorance of the person spewing them.

In a way, the training landscape is a lot like the political one. There are those who are far to the right and those to the far left, with the majority of folks falling somewhere in between. At one extreme end of the training spectrum there are those who use punishments like helicoptering and hanging—abuse, not training, to any ethical trainer’s mind. There are also trainers closer to this end of the spectrum who teach new behaviors by letting dogs make mistakes, then reprimanding by jerking them roughly (or some by shocking with e-collars). Far at the other end, there are trainers who use treats to train new behaviors but have no concept of how to fade those treats out, so that dogs are forever dependent on food to perform—in other words, treats are used as bribes. There are also trainers closer to this end who would have no idea what to do if, for example, an aggressive dog wasn’t responding to treats. Never mind that both of these extremes do not represent the majority of trainers; in this swamp of murky understanding, misconceptions breed.

So if not extremists, what type of trainers form the middle ground? Some consider themselves “balanced” in that rewards are used, as well as what the trainer would consider fair corrections if needed. Others call themselves “positive trainers,” which is generally used to indicate those who train with treats and primarily use positive reinforcement. I’ve seen a wide range of techniques and skill levels from both camps. I’ve also seen alarming levels of intolerance toward trainers who are different, from both sides. I have observed online people being vilified for the way others assume they train, without anyone ever having even had an actual conversation with the person, never mind seeing them work with a dog.

Regardless of where we fall on the spectrum, the vast majority of us truly care about dogs. If you believe your methods are the right way to achieve better-trained, happy fur-kids, but all you offer is hostility to those who believe otherwise, you’ll never change anyone’s mind. If you engage in a respectful dialogue, though, you never know—you both might come away with a better understanding of how “the other side” thinks and feels, and one or both of you might even learn something. It might shock you (no pun intended) to learn that I am friends with people who use pinch collars and even (albeit very infrequently) e-collars. Are these tools my personal choice? No. Does it mean that because the person uses them that he or she is a terrible person? Of course not. It’s a given that we all feel most comfortable with those who are like us. But in my opinion it takes a bigger person to have a respectful dialogue with someone who is different than to hang around only with those like him or herself, patting each other on the back and talking trash behind the backs of others.

I’ve noticed that rude, condescending comments about “those other trainers” abound online, where confrontation is limited to a screen that doesn’t talk back. I’d bet you a bagful of dog biscuits most people who post those comments wouldn’t dare make them to the person’s face. And we’ve all seen those same people posting over and over on blog sites that are obviously dedicated to a specific style of training, whether it be mostly positive or more balanced, slamming the author of the blog, or taking text out of context in order to start an argument. Why is it so hard to have a simple conversation?

Dog training is not a licensed profession, and no one knows what the future may hold. We want the public to perceive trainers in a professional light, yet many times trainers themselves show a real lack of professionalism when they speak badly of other trainers to clients and colleagues. The world has enough negativity without those who are in a profession based on a love of animals contributing more. Can’t we all just get along?

[Kavik]

I think most of the descriptions fall on a scale of how comfortable people are using aversives (which often relates to their personality and their experience and what type of dog they tend to deal with and how PC they like to be :rolleyes: )

Not sure what I call myself - I guess "rewards-based" ? Mostly use +R, -P, occasionally some +P, not comfortable with -R

I would call Koehler 'Traditional' along with my security guard friends - use compulsion/guide/show/place along with pats and praise

"balanced" I would assume means rewards and when necessary the use of corrections

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I see nothing wrong with the term "balanced" - I think it is others that need to accept it and if they aren't certain of what that person might mean by it, then just ask. I don't see it as a smoke screen for anything nor have I ever used it as one. I wonder, for those who are offended by it or think it obnoxious, whether they think that by not being categorised as a "balanced" trainer means that their methodology is "imbalanced" and that they have assumed a negative connotation from that word and line of thinking of themselves. Or maybe for some others who scorn anyone who uses corrections/aversives within their training, the word "balanced" is too nice for their liking and doesn't keep up the image of such people being evil and cruel nasty pasties. ????

It's not about ad hominem attacks or armchair psychologising about the "opposition" - for me it's about personal accountability. I think the word is a misleading euphemism. I have my reasons. You don't, you have your reasons. Implying that people who are critical of the word have a negative self-image as a trainer is not particularly helpful.

[Cosmolo]

Does joe public care what trainers call themselves? Probably not. Clients get the benefit of explanation, demonstration and viewing results and i think this will always be more successful than trying to place trainers in boxes depending on what tools they may or may not use.

[Staranais]

A 'balanced' approach, though? It seems that every time I've heard that term it's come from a trainer that approaches dogs with a "Bad dog, stop doing that.... oh, good dog, you're doing the right thing now" kind of method.

Perhaps I am a balanced trainer then, because I take that approach quite often! I think it can be kind and effective. I just sometimes feel that telling my girl what she's not allowed to do, then letting her do anything else and tell her she's good, is kinder than telling her what to do (reinforcing an incompatible behaviour), since it gives her more freedom.

I don't know if I explained that well. I've just come in from studying sitting in the garden (yes I know, I tore myself away from DOL to study!) and while I was out there I had to ask my girl NOT to lick my face and walk all over my notes when I was reading. I could have just come inside, I guess, but I wanted to spend time hanging with her. So I told her what NOT to do (conditioned punisher!) and then let her decide what she wanted to do instead (in this case, chase bumblebees), and told her she was awesome for doing it. I dunno. She seemed happy enough, and seemed to understand.

Mind you, we did just have a ten minute clicker session before that where I was trying to shaper her putting her hind feet on a phone book, can't get much more positive than that I guess. So perhaps I'm more "confused" than balanced or even eclectic. :rolleyes: