Why is compulsion necessary with all the wonderful results you can get from motivational methods? Where do you see compulsion fitting in to your training program and where does motivation fit in?

Dog training isn’t something to “believe in.” it isn’t religion, it is an eclectic set of methods learned from both canine learning theory and experience applied to living creatures that are at their core all very similar, but in their earthly manifestations, are all somewhat different. To believe that one approach, one technology, is the answer is in my opinion self-delusional. But people like to be “right” and “morally superior” and all that, so we have built quasi-religious sects in dog training, You have the e-collar religion, and the purely positive religion, and then you have people who take a more eclectic approach. I love motivational training.

On some dogs it is amazing what a skilled positive trainer can achieve. I’d rather train with motivation. In most of what we do, where the competing motivations to the task are relatively low because we have selected dogs that are extreme in their retrieve and hunting drives, we can rely on motivational training to carry us all the way to the end of the training task for the most part – such as in detection training and tracking But I also know, with any organism with a free will – and a dog has free will to make decisions in his interest based on his temperament and the drives he needs to satisfy – limits have to be set and enforced. Wild animals learn from both motivation and compulsion. When the young Bear cub messes with the porcupine, he does it only once. Unpleasant consequences teach important lessons.

Having had Malinois all my life, I am so used to dealing with strong willed dogs that often defy the motivational plan because they see some prey or something in their environment that calls up a defensive reaction, I see the utility in thoughtful compulsion to achieve an understanding of boundaries. I see the need for both. Dog training is not the place to get your religion, although so many are true believers. I don’t participate in these doctrinal disputes. I look at results.

In economics ( I spent 13 years as an economics undergrad, master's student, and Ph.D. student to make this one reference) there is a theorem which says that resources flow to their most highly valued use. So, if we look at why most of the top competitors in almost every canine endeavor, such as field trials or Schutzhund or PSA, they all use highly driven dogs to take advantage of the motivational aspect of learning, but they almost to a person also use e-collars. If purely motivational methods alone could earn top scores over an eclectic approach, any competitor who wants to win would be doing that exclusively, because people who want to win do not get married to one method, they do what wins. So, if pure motivation would produce a better overall performance, all else equal, all top competitors would do it, because all that is important to a competitor is to place 1st. That resource (technology) would be adopted immediately. It hasn’t happened. Eclectic approaches win. I’ll stay open minded, but eclectic.

Source: http://signaturek-9.blogspot.com/

Read this link before reading on: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090521112711.htm

There are a few things I concluded from reading this article in Science Daily:

1. It excluded from the research sample, dogs that are more likely to be highly dominant, such as high level working dogs. While working dogs do end up in shelter environments, the vast majority do not.

2. If you conclude from reading this article that dominance - related aggression doesn't exist you will be doing a disservice. They are correct to point out that the blanket attribution of dominance, in Cesar Milan fashion,  to all situations is in fact ridiculous, as most professional trainers and behaviorists have known for years since he showed up on the scene. However, there are situations where dogs attempt to manipulate control through showing aggression (because they learn it works) and the dog is in fact not scared or fearful. The researchers attribution of fear and anxiety in blanket fashion is just as ridiculous as Cezar Milan's all encompassing dominance. This is the same victimology that is attributed to everything canine to justify force-free training in all situations. If the dogs are simply trembling victims of abusive training methodologies, and if they are ALL just frightened and anxious, we cannot use anything but love and a clicker on these poor canine victims of society.....it is the same reason why we now have a society full of kids who no longer respect authority, because there are no consequences for anti-social behavior, for after all they are just victims of economic "abuse." That is another show.

3. The article does verify something I have been saying for years, that even if you have a dominant dog (call it what you like, but a master manipulator - they are after all predators - that uses aggression to satisfy his drives, hunger, or other innate needs) the Alpha-Omega model that uses physical dominance techniques like alpha rolling is a poor method to use because when people use it they are inconsistent and weak minded, unlike another dog would be using the alpha roll, and usually it does in fact lead to the owner or someone else getting bit.

Trainers beware of the all or nothing. There is usually some ideology lurking in the weeds.

Go to.....  http://signaturek-9.blogspot.com/

Check out the interview.........

Using Compulsion in Training: A Primer

Excerpeted from: Controlled Aggression in Theory & Practice

by Jerry Bradshaw

Every behavior must have a consequence, either a reinforcing consequence or a punishing consequence. “Punishment” here refers to punishment in the behavioral sense. Punishment is any consequence of a behavior that reduces the likelihood of that behavior. Reinforcement is any consequence of a behavior that increases the likelihood of that behavior. Both reinforcement and punishment come in two varieties, positive and negative: Positive in the sense of providing a consequence, and negative in the sense of withholding a consequence. This gives us the following four consequences:

·         Positive punishment means delivering an undesirable consequence that reduces the likelihood of a given behavior.

·         Negative punishment means withholding a desirable consequence to reduce the likelihood of a given behavior.

·         Positive reinforcement means providing a desirable consequence to increase the likelihood of a behavior.

·         Negative reinforcement means removing an undesirable consequence to increase the likelihood of a behavior. 

Training proceeds through three phases: acquisition, fluency, and generalization. Training is a process through which we introduce and vary the consequences of behavior to teach the dog associations (acquisition), and then teach limits to behavior when employing these associations (fluency). Finally, training involves requiring these associations to be performed in all different situations and contexts (generalization). This is commonly referred to as proceeding through the learning stage, to the correction stage, and then the proofing stage.

Note that I do not usually find any use for force or compulsion in the acquisition phase of training. Providing a foundation of proper behavior, and never allowing behaviors you don’t want to see, can be accomplished in this phase of training, because the trainer can exercise complete control over the training environment. In other words, we can set the dog up for success. However,  in order to proof responses, we must present the dog with situations that may induce non-compliance, anticipate the dog’s non-compliance, and positively punish him (corrections) for disobedience.  In my opinion, it is virtually impossible to de-condition a dog to every possible distraction using only negative punishment. Limits must be set in a general way with compulsion, and this is done in the fluency and generalization phases of training. In the fluency stage we introduce the concept of corrections or positive punishment, and continue to apply those corrections (as well as apply positive reinforcement) in the generalization or proofing stage of training.

Force or compulsion is applied to the dog through the use of devices intended to cause discomfort to the dog. This discomfort should be minimal, and just enough to get the point across. This minimum force rule should always be applied when using compulsion. At the end of this book there is a guide to introducing the e-collar in obedience, with some applications to protection training. Most people who criticize e-collars know little about their proper use.  Those trainers, who employ their use properly, know how the relationship with their partners grows tremendously through these described effects.  The trainer is the center of all good things, and offers relief from any punishment that is applied, through the use of positive positive reinforcement. Thus we concentrate on rewarding good behavior that is shown, once limits are set. Correction becomes unemotional when the physical component of it is removed.