Positive only training methods and their “no force” gurus, currently hail EXCLUSIVE operant conditioning as a Holy Grail in training concepts. The fact is, the most educated behavior trainers have used operant techniques long before the profits took over common sense in the dog world. Positive reinforcement is GREAT and as you know, it is a concept I use but positive training alone does not give the results in training we need as responsible dog owners.

While many trainers are trying to capitalize on rote method training (“Group wait for your dog to down say down click and treat.&rdquo that is founded in positive only reinforcement to hook the general public out of their money and time and then use excuses and psychobabble explaining that the cause of poor behavior in their client’s dog is rooted in internal anxiety. This explanation of course offers a perfect setup for more training and thus more money.

When we talk about drive, stimuli, instincts and other concepts, the process of filtering out what is useful as well as truthful, can be difficult to discern. It is then easy to veil and disavow certain concepts like corrections with flowing technical jabber.

I try to put the true face on what is best for dogs by simplifying why positive only methods are almost a scam.
While rewarding the dog for a desired behavior will increase the chance of the behavior reoccurring it does nothing to decrease the undesirable behaviors from occurring. We can influence a dog with a reward; this does not mean we can always influence the dog with the reward. If a dog sees some other environmental influence that he or she finds more rewarding or more interesting then often we cannot predict or control our dog’s response. He is obedient to his desire not your desire.

Positive reinforced only trained dogs are therefore trick trained to simulate true obedience by conditioning but not balanced by your authority as a leader. Many dogs are very willing to please and so these dogs do require less discipline and readily accept your authority. It is these dogs that do best in the positive only environment and thus give "poof" that using only positive conditioning works. As a working professional who is looking forward in the dog and dog owners best interest I will always speak frank about this topic.

It is important for you to realize what you already know about your beloved dog and puppy. They are inquisitive and outgoing and they often have their own agendas on what is “best for them”. They are, by their very nature as social pack animal, resistant in order to survive as a species. These survival instincts can lead to behaviors that are harmful to others.

I don’t mind challenging positive only advocates and by doing so educate the public about those who would rather profit and mislead consumers then to actually establish a balanced training program by identifying the cause and effects of all behaviors.

A good training goal is to gain reliability in your dog's awareness of your leadership and performance to your directives. Many of Ed’s tapes will help you in understanding how to do this from what I have seen.

Being more intelligent then your dog you need to be the decision maker of what is right and wrong and your dog should be trained in a way he naturally looks for this guidance.

This natural relationship is established with consistent lines of communication found in the foundation exercises. An effective training program is one where every lesson builds off the previous lessons. I cannot stress enough the importance of a dog knowing what is expected from him. Being fair with "NO" and predictable as an owner strengthens your dog psychologically. It gives him the direction he needs to keep him confident, secure and responsive in new and stimulating situations and not just in the quiet seclusion of your home.

The dog is a social yet domesticated pack animal be a leader not just the treat giver. You will be surprised how your relationship actually improves when you are.

Why do you use this discussion board as your personal sounding ground. Ed does't even do that, he posts links to articles on his site if people want to go read them.

You want to write articles why don't you get your own website and do it.

Because this issue is one that bothers me and many others in our profession. We had a 2% increase in dog and a huge increase in dog bites. Is it a increase in bad dogs and stupid owners or are some trainers who have no business holding a leash let alone training others?

I think people need to be held somewhat accountable. I think it is good that people get a chance to see the whole picture and not some sound “Bite” of agitated folks for a change.

I sound off from time to time because I want no mistake about my thoughts to a subject. People try to fit their own ideas how another thinks and trains with vast speculation around here at times. By qualifying my position others are welcomed to challenge it and at least know the line of thoughts used to make such statements.

The discussion board should be more inclusive and filled with complete ideas not just a slam fest where on trainer or another goes…”Well, I think you are an idiot because I said you are!” or some other trash talk. A discussion should have something to discuss more then WRONG WRONG, WRONG. By taking on full answers the most of BS and other questions that will come up can be eliminated.

I have read the post on positive only methods and while few can argue it has some merits there is and was not enough discussion on why it is not recommended. The only think we read it ..It won’t work.

Well here is finally the weakness in positive only operant based training.

Some other might appreciate the full picture sorry if you don’t.

Not sure I know how to feel on this one. On one hand, Dennis sounds like he is just trying to stimulate a thoughtful discussion, and on the other hand it's funny as hell reading VanCamp's responses.LOL As usual......You are #1 in my book Campy!!!(In a very non-sexual way of course....I know...that sounded a little gay..."your the best campy" )

Dennis,

I am trying to be diplomatic hear. I think the problem is that your "article" like posts come off sounding snobby and condescending. It's quite obvious that you feel very confident in your level of knowlege and ability. It just seems like you need to write a book or something to make you feel better.

Anyway....enough said.

There is a difference between training a behavior, and creating a behavior so solid that it will handle trial distractions.

"Positive Only" is a great method to teach dogs behaviors for many reasons. The Guru's that use this approach to the extreme normaly are dealing with dogs that stay inside a common enviroment. Competitors on the other hand must deal with enviroments that tax the dog's obedience at a much higher level. There is no better motivation than fear for the dog. Corrections, and the fear of correction is the best motivator to make the dog reilable under all enviroments.

Teach the dog with positive motivation, make him reilable with corrections.

To automaticly accept or knock any training method for all dogs is a mistake. I do think that the positive only method will work for some dogs and/or some trainers. I wouldn't take it as the "only" method to be used.

Positive only training could reduce unwanted behavior by rewarding behavior that is incompatable with the undesired behavior. Since the behaviors are incompatable the undesired behavior will eventually extinguish from lack of reward and be replaced by the rewarded behavior. That doesn't make the behavior any less "trained". To do this requires a very high level of commitment to the philosophy and a high level of skill for shaping behavior. Most "pet" owners have neither.

I have said this before and I will say it again, to question the motivation of people that have dedicated their lives to helping animals and their owners is not fair. The idea that if the person believes in, and often is successfull with, a method that differs from you yours is only motivated by money just demonstrates your lack of an open mind and makes me question your motivations. Anybody that trains for a living is going to motivated by money. It is going to difficult to do a few things, like eat or have a nice place to sleep (or the ability to feed your own dogs), without making money. All successful training becomes the foundation for gaining new clients and often having current clients progress to higher levels of training. This process will increase profits and provide the motivation to continue training.

Originally posted by Dennis Hasley:
Positive only training methods and their “no Positive reinforcement is GREAT and as you know, it is a concept I use but positive training alone does not give the results in training we need as responsible dog owners.

While rewarding the dog for a desired behavior will increase the chance of the behavior reoccurring it does nothing to decrease the undesirable behaviors from occurring. We can influence a dog with a reward; this does not mean we can always influence the dog with the reward. If a dog sees some other environmental influence that he or she finds more rewarding or more interesting then often we cannot predict or control our dog’s response. He is obedient to his desire not your desire.
This is a fact.

Dennis,

Feel free to study some about operant conditioning. Of all the methods of shaping behavior Positive reward is the strongest and the most likely to maintain the behavior longer. If you are dependant on punishment the deterrant is only effective as long as the punisher is present. The reason most peole are going to have problems with positive only training is going to be a lack of commitment. The other common problem is to seperate the undesired activity from the reinforcement that supports it.

Your basic argument has come down to:

I can't make it work, I don't like it, therefore it can have no value.

The same attitude you are complaining about in other areas.

Please.

I am well versed in Operant Behavior. What is not talked about in the books those who think they really are versed in OC is the value of the reward scale.

You can create strong values in certain situations by OC alone. This not the question or the problem but the dog has other high values as well not just the ones you created. Therein rest the problem of only OC without use of some respondent conditioning to check the values….i.e the dog maintaining his or her command directive even if they are very interested in the bitch in heat across the room. Or the dog walking on the other side of the street…and countless other true to life reasons.

If you would read what I post you will see I actually do use OC and it works. If you don't wish to look deeper I can force you.

People tend to get the dogs they deserve.