"What Is Real Clicker Training?"

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

http://clickandtreat.com/wordpress/?p=884

The above article was recommended to me by a friend who is a breeder of Champion Poodles...Championship Titles in Obedience and Agility, not just Conformation, although they have those too. 

Since putting an AKC Obedience Title on multiple dogs speaks volumes to me about a person's knowledge and abilities, I tend to respect her opinions on the topic of dog training.

Clicker training, and "purely positive" training methods in general, have never made much sense to me. I started training my own dogs back in the late 70s, when aversion methods were all I ever saw anybody use, and some of what I saw (and I'm ashamed to admit, did) was pretty harsh. However, it worked. I had a dog who could be relied upon under any and every circumstance, distraction, and temptation to do the things I needed her to do, the kinds of things that would save a dog's life...which to me is one of the most important reasons for training. 

Then I got JD and met a "positive methods only" trainer. I couldn't understand how you could effectively train a dog using only rewards for good behavior and simply ignoring (not correcting) "bad" behavior, but I gave it a try. JD is generally a submissive, timid, tractable dog, so we did okay with these methods. (Especially since with JD there never really was any bad behavior, unless you count dropping a slobbery tennis ball in the lap of every guest who entered my home, lol.)

 But he isn't anywhere near as well trained as my first dog was, and I would not trust that in a real crisis, he would respond as well as necessary. 

I know of another dog with severe behavioral issues who was passed from home to home and mishandled every step of the way. His final owner believed only in positive training methods, and did in fact use clicker training with him, with disastrous results. He certainly learned a lot of tricks, but in the end, he was humanely euthanized for extreme aggression which had no physical basis or cause. It actually seemed to me that his behavior was worse after the clicker training than before it. While that was an extreme case,  it left me with an even more skeptical view of clicker training than ever.

After reading this article, I think I understand more about clicker training, and I also think I understand more about it than a lot of the people who use it, lol. 

This part of the article pretty much sums it up: 

"So, the real problem with clicker training is that there are two separate views of the process. One side sticks to the Skinner/Breland preference for positive reinforcement in all things and places a taboo on investigating, discussing or using aversive control. The other perspective assumes that neither reinforcement nor punishment can possibly be good or evil, without a reference to a specific task or goal. Only in the context of a specific application can any behavioral effect be judged as beneficial or damaging. For example, hundreds of thousands of dogs are destroyed each year because they greet humans by jumping on them. This behavior is taught to them by humans when they are infants – with positive reinforcement. To stop a dog with a long history of jumping on people a non-dangerous punishment procedure can quickly inhibit the behavior. In this example, positive reinforcement causes the deaths of many dogs while positive punishment could save them. It is the choice of the trainer to select the tool that is most likely fix the problem. For effective clicker trainers, the key is to find the right combination of behavioral effects that are likely to teach correct behavior and make it dependable in the real world. If you follow the punishment with clicks and treats for correct behavior an inhibition can be created that leaves a lasting absence of the unacceptable behavior with only beneficial side-effects – a loving, polite dog that will stay in the home."

Thoughts? 

[BG and Gavin]

Good read. Thanks Karen. I always felt it would be confusing to only know what is right and not know what is wrong. I also understand the issue of running against a dog's nature. Gavin's nature makes it easy for me to put him in a down stay in front of a pile of steak. He would hold all day. But it is near impossible for me to maintain his focus when a play opportunity with another dog is a stake. I do not have the discipline to do all positive, clicker or treat traing effectively and I know you can ruin a dog if you don't get it right. Gavin is near perfect indoors and on the job, but I need work outside when play opportunities arise. When we go to dog fairs and such when we are surrounded by other dogs, he needs a couple of leash corrections at the beginning to get control of himself, but then does pretty well, I think because I have communicated the expectations. I need to do dog park practice more, but I don't like them and I will admit to being a little lazy.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Thanks for your feedback, BG. 

I admit to being more than a little lazy when it comes to working on training, lol. Which is probably why my last very headstrong dominant Poodle got away with murder a LOT. :) 

[Kate, Mel, Tenley & Harper]

The problem I find with so many of these "balanced" approaches to training is that they tend to ignore three of the main causes of behavior issues in dogs: stress, fear, and pain. By ignoring any of those three things and applying aversives, the results can be disastrous as we all know.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I think that most dogs need to know what to expect from us and what is expected from them. Inconsistency exacerbates stress and fear in many dogs because life seems unpredictable and chaotic to them. When they know what to expect and what the rules are, they seem to be more relaxed and actually more confident. I don't think it's the use of aversion or non-dangerous punishment that's the problem, but rather the incorrect or inconsistent use of these things. And of course, the dog has to be given a fair chance to learn the rules. Punishing a dog for doing something that he has never been taught is wrong is horribly unfair. 

Kate, do you feel that "positive only" training methods are effective for most dogs? 

[Kate, Mel, Tenley & Harper]

Not necessarily. I do tend to promote positive methods the most and use them about 95-98% of the time with my own dogs. But, they both do know the rules to follow and I taught those to them through a combination of positive reinforcement (it is possible to set boundaries with positive reinforcement) and positive punishment. We've always used an "ack" sound when they do something wrong, which is an odd enough sound to get their attention and then they'll sit attentively looking for direction on what to do next. Being clear and consistent from the beginning goes a long way.

My problem with the "balanced" training approach is more that it is undefined, and the continuum the term exists on goes too far. Some would call what I described above with my own dogs as a balanced approach-- which it is, in a way. Others who call themselves "balanced" trainers are more extreme. Before we got Tenley, we attended a host of training classes to find one that we liked. In one of the classes-- taught by a "balanced" trainer-- the puppies sat around in a circle wearing shock collars. Four month old puppies! The same trainer was later telling me how he rehabilitates puppy mill dogs who are typically fearful of people and other dogs (among other things). I asked how he did it, and he proceeded to tell me the same way he taught these puppies-- that fear is unacceptable, and that' they'll be punished for it (with the collar). I certainly don't think that is the best way to train most dogs, and wouldn't even call it training. 

In my search (we attended 14 puppy school classes and interviewed over 20 private trainers.... a little excessive, I know) I found a few others like him as well. So I hate to recommend a "balanced" approach to the masses who don't have much knowledge of animal behavior, who aren't going to do much research, and who will then wind up in one of these classes with their puppy who doesn't need that heavy of a hand (and who that heavy of a hand could have a very negative effect on). I find that the positive reinforcement trainers inspire their 'students' to think a lot more about behavioral science and find that's the best starting place for most dog owners. 

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

I agree that "balanced approach" can mean just about anything, and trainers with very different methods use this term.  It's important to really understand the specifics of a training method and to observe the actual training, and to ask for "proof" how how effectively the methods worked through references.  I absolutely would want to observe a training class or session with dogs who have gone through the training program with any prospective trainer and talk to the owners of these dogs.  My experience hasn't been that the positive reinforcement trainers are more apt to understand behavioral science...at least the ones in our area.  Most of them really only deal with puppy training and will not work with dogs with significant issues, because they understand that they aren't qualified for that.

[Kate, Mel, Tenley & Harper]

Wow, that is interesting. Where we live (Washington, DC) the only trainers with actual credentials behind their name are the positive reinforcement trainers. A lot of them are actually PhD students studying behavioral science at local universities. And they do work with at-risk dogs-- the trainer we selected is largely a positive reinforcement trainer (she probably shares my 95-98% mix) and she is the behavioral evaluator at the humane society, so she sees everything (this isn't a small town humane society-- it's a big deal). Our puppy school teacher was even more progressive with using ONLY positive methods and also teaches numerous reactive and fearful dog classes as well, with amazing strides made in those classes. We actually had puppy kindergarten right after the fearful dog class got out, and were always instructed to wait in our cars until we saw those dogs were all safely out of the building and she waved us into the building. Thus, we got to watch them "grow" and it really was remarkable the strides that were made. Are those dogs ever destined to compete in the "obedience ring"? No, they probably never will. But, they are safe and will live happy and well-adjusted lives. 

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

That's great to hear.  In our area that's just not the case.  We have "positive reinforcement trainers" usually associated with one of the pet stores, and they have very limited "credentials". 

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Same here. Some have no real credentials, as dog training, like human personal training, is not well regulated. 

We had a Petsmart trainer for one class who had never taught dog training before. her background was working with dolphins. 

[Kate, Mel, Tenley & Harper]

Wow, that's amazing to me. We definitely have the pet stores with the "training" schools, but they have no (or extremely limited) credentials and aren't even that popular. In fact, in the probably 200 times I've gone to those stores in the last year and a half (we go on rainy days), I've never actually seen a class in session. 

We have numerous legitimate positive reinforcement training schools in the area. The one we ended up choosing is obviously, in my opinion, the best but there are a few others very similar in the area. It's a non-profit, the trainers volunteer their time. They offer every class you can imagine-- puppy classes, adult classes, CGC classes, therapy dog classes, nose work classes, agility classes, treiball classes, etc. They also offer classes for reactive dogs, fearful dogs, dogs that need help building confidence, etc. They have a special program for foster dogs as well-- if you're fostering a dog, you can bring it to training classes there for a very nominal fee. They host numerous workshops all the time about living with adopted dogs, T-Touch methods for calming dogs, etc. They're really quite phenomenal. Their website is down for maintenance but the Yelp review speak for themselves... http://www.yelp.com/biz/your-dogs-friend-rockville 

[Jane, Guinness and Murphy]

Some really great reviews....their approach surely seems to have been successful.

[Jen, Lachlan, and Declan]

I have to say that this is an excellent article. Thank you for sharing it, Karen!

Some thoughts - let's see if I can organize them in any meaningful way after a glass of wine, LOL

To me (and preface anything I say here with "To me", as this is my opinion) - dogs are in many ways like small children. They need boundaries. They need to know what the rules are. They can, and do, poke at the boundaries to see if they can stretch them. Sometimes they need discipline in order to better understand what we expect. I'm not advocating beating them like red-headed step-children but, like any other child, sometimes a little discipline is necessary. 

I see the clicker (and use it) as a communications tool - it's a quick, clear, unambiguous way to tell the dog "Yes! That! Right there! That's exactly what I want!" It's one of the fastest ways I've found to communicate this to the dog because, unlike the voice, it always sounds exactly the same - and I can click a whole lot faster than I can blurt out words. Unfortunately it doesn't communicate complex concepts such as Don't Pull Me Down the Street, Don't Jump On Visitors, and Stop Mauling the Cat.

The clicker is excellent for teaching new ideas and behaviors and for shaping more complex behaviors. Some people seem to see it as a mystical do-everything sparkly wand of magical dog training, though. I wish such a thing existed!