A recent posting from Pack To Basics on training. I totally agree!
ON CAMPS
Trainers often get hung up on labels,
referring to themselves as “balanced” or “postive-based” and often have bitter
rivalries over those labels and what they mean.
I believe it creates a false
dichotomy. The line in the sand is mostly imaginary. If we are effective,
we each deal (to a greater or lesser extent) in compulsion and reward.
We may use different types of compulsion (hunger, social pressure, spatial
pressure and internal drives are all forms of compulsion in that they exert a
degree of pressure on the dog), and different types of rewards, but learning
only happens in the context of contrast. If there is no change in
condition, we don’t learn how to change the condition.
Therefore, each of us in the role of
teaching the dog how to improve their circumstances. We do
this by presenting them with options and allowing them to make choices and
learn from those choices.
These things are true for all
effective training regardless of the labels we give ourselves. To the
dogs, we either make sense or we don’t. We either treat them with respect
or we don’t. We are either fair, or we are not. If we convince the
dog that we are the sort of person that gives good advice, we will have his
trust and willing partnership.
This is what I seek. I seek an
honest and sincere relationship with the dogs I train. I seek to help
them unravel the confusion that has made their life with humans difficult or at
least more difficult than it has to be. I seek to have an honest dialog
with them. I seek to EARN their trust and respect, not to take it by force.
If any who read this does the same,
then they are of like mind and spirit and we have much in common regardless of
our ways and means of achieving that. I would further submit that if you
are effective then these are things you must do whether you recognize
that need or not.
As far as I’m concerned there are really only two types of
trainers, effective and ineffective.
