The Dog Shouter

If there’s any topic that causes more sparks to fly at animal shelters than the issue of “no-kill,” it’s how to handle problem behavior in dogs, to make them adoptable.

Once upon a time, dog training was associated with teaching obedience and tricks, but today dog trainers are routinely called in to lifesaving interventions, in which a pet’s behavior has become so dangerous or destructive that the alternative is to put the animal down.

The spread of such pet behavior “crises” exactly parallels the evolution of pets into family members, and helps explain the huge popularity of trainer Cesar Milan’s TV show The Dog Whisperer in the 2000s. As the science of dog training has become ever more sophisticated, trainers—fueled by Internet fame—are becoming minor rock stars in their fields. As a result, competition between opposing camps over the use of prong collars and clickers now has all the collegiality of a congressional hearing into the attack on Benghazi.

Readers of our “Ask the Dog Trainer” column may have noticed a certain division of opinion, to put it mildly, among trainers in various camps. Columnist Cynthia Angevine, who has been criticized for using Cesar Milan-type language about humans being “pack leaders,” sent us to a blog post from 2012 that served as a flashpoint for trainers nationwide on the issue of rehabilitating “unadoptable” dogs.

Given the recent controversy at the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Department, in which director Barbara Bruin was ousted over allegations that dangerous dogs were adopted out to unknowing families, we thought it might be interesting to present the blog post, along with responses from local trainers.

The author was Tyler Muto, a highly successful trainer in Buff alo, N.Y., and the youngest vice-president in the history of the International Association of Canine Professionals. At age 27, the self-taught Muto opened his K9 Connection training center in Buff alo in 2007, and quickly developed a following. In 2011 he expanded to a much larger center, now run by five disciples, which trains 300 to 500 dogs per year. Muto himself handles only boutique clients (at Tyler Muto Dogmanship) and travels around the country giving training seminars.

Despite his reputation for transforming aggressive and reactive dogs, Muto’s techniques quickly became controversial because he would include some punitive techniques, such as prong and electronic (“shock”) collars. This led to blackballing by local rescue organizations that refused to adopt out any dogs that might be sent to Muto.

“A Silent Killer” is a diatribe he penned in response, in his characteristic polemical style. We asked his permission to run a condensed version of the blog post, but he refused when he learned that other trainers would respond, stating paradoxically that he was “not interested in any controversy.”

“There is a silent killer in the dog training world. It is not a virus, not a piece of equipment, not a bacteria,” Muto begins. “It is an idea.”

The idea turns out to be the doctrine that the only acceptable way to train a dog is with techniques that avoid any punishment. Known as positive reinforcement training, pure positive, or just “positive” training, it is labeled Aversive-Free by Muto because he is referring to the idea that any punishment must be avoided.

“I am not referring to those who simply choose this approach for themselves,” he notes, “but … to those who vehemently oppose the use of aversives for any dog in any situation.”

The reason he calls this belief a “killer” is because it has become so prevalent at rescues and shelters, he says, that the only alternative they will consider when it fails is euthanasia.

The aversive free proponents … are so good at promoting their philosophy that they have many people believing that anything can be accomplished with reward based techniques….

Yep, shelter staff, daycare owners, breeders, veterinarians, and many others … have been duped into believing this non-sense. Many well meaning dog owners have also been sucked in, believing that, armed with cookies, hugs, and rays of sunshine they can transform their aggressive, unruly pooch into a well mannered pet.

… Unfortunately, most dogs with serious behavior issues will not be helped with this approach.

Muto offers a few examples in which dogs were euthanized, or threatened with euthanasia, rather than be sent to him for training. “Myself and thousands of other Balanced trainers have had to deal with name calling, accusations, slander and defamation by the AF,” he writes, concluding in boldface type:

Aversive-free dog training is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dogs every year.

I am tired of this issue being pushed under the rug. I am tired of clients coming to me in tears after being told by positive dog trainers that their beloved pet could never be helped. And I am sickened to think about the numbers of innocent dog owners who actually took their advice.

The Aversive Free Trainers say they never punish, I guess capital punishment doesn’t count.

In a follow-up post titled “Now That I Have Your Attention,” Muto reiterates that he is not knocking positive reinforcement, which he uses every day. His point is that these techniques do not work with every dog in every situation, and for those dogs that can benefi t from correction, punitive techniques—when used properly—are far kinder than death.

Our columnist Cynthia Angevine is among trainers nationwide who applauded Muto’s outspoken defense of punitive techniques, saying “he was able to clearly state what so many of us who deal with all types of issues are running into,” adding that “It is heart breaking that the dogs are paying with their lives and their sanity so people can feel good and declare self righteousness.”

Some other dog trainers we talked with did not entirely agree. There is a saying in the profession that the only thing two dog trainers will agree on is that the third doesn’t know what he’s doing. One thing all of our trainers do seem to agree on is that customers need to be wary of the large number of poorly qualified trainers who pass themselves off as professionals. Observe them at work if you can, get references, and don’t be afraid to switch if something feels wrong. As with humans, it sometimes comes down to a question of fit.

First, Do No Harm

Cricket Mara

I’m not a big fan of conflict—with people or dogs—but I am in favor of logic, common sense, and good science, so I’d like to clear a few things up.

Quality positive training is neither passive nor permissive. It is orchestrated to help the dog make appropriate choices, with the desired choices being rewarded. Errors lead to a removal of the opportunity for a reward, followed by a chance to choose again. Good training of any kind relies upon the skills of the trainer—primarily a coherent understanding of what the trainer is doing and why, along with excellent timing.

When using force-free methods, you may not get the results you desire if your timing isn’t perfect, and you may confuse the dog, but you won’t do any real harm. However, if you are using aversive methods, poor timing could result in some serious problems for the dog, such as creating fear and aggression, undermining trust, and creating learned helplessness. Punishment suppresses behavior, which is often mistaken for learning. Poorly applied aversive training is abusive because the dog cannot predict when something bad will happen, and/or has no control over what makes it start or stop.

Unfortunately, there are still people calling themselves trainers whose methods and attitudes are steeped in tradition, emotion, and superstition. They will spout confident-sounding mumbo-jumbo that ultimately lacks substance and any basis in science. The more you understand the science of learning, the easier it will be to spot these posers. There are many excellent books available to help you understand the science of training and how to use it effectively to teach your dog. I recommend The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson, The Power of Positive Dog Training by Pat Miller, Excel-Erated Learning by Pam Reid for science buffs, and the book that started the positive training movement, Don’t Shoot The Dog by Karen Pryor.

You may say this is all fine and good for “normal” dogs, but what about those “red zone” dogs? Unfortunately, there are a lot of damaged dogs out there, due to genetics, lack of proper socialization, abuse, neglect, or just bad training. There is no magic bullet that will fix these dogs. When dealing with fear, anxiety, and aggression, the use of aversives will often make things worse. Punishment suppresses behavior, but does nothing to address the underlying emotional issues.

I know the science, and accept that punishment can work—for some dogs. But I can’t accept the risks. That is why I have made an ethical choice not to use pain, fear, force, or intimidation in the name of training. I stand by my commitment to the lIMA (least invasive, minimally aversive) principle when teaching dogs (and people).

Cricket Mara runs a dog behavior consulting practice in Corrales called Pawsitive Dog, and is a frequent contributor to our Ask a Dog Trainer column. Contact her at cricket@pawsitivedog.com

Aversives Are a Necessary Part of Life

Gerry Glauser

Some people like extremes, with simple rules that make them feel good about themselves. Such is the fictitious concept of dog training with no aversives, where only Positive Reinforcement/ Negative Punishment (+R/-P) are used for everything. The claim is that this is both scientific and humane, quoting opposing arguments that are often illogical and sometimes silly, and unable really to even define their terminology.

An “aversive” is simply an unpleasant stimuli or situation, as defined by the dog. This includes walking over a sharp stone, being restrained by a leash, told no, or kicked. When mothers and other adult dogs teach puppies, aversives are effectively used. At very high intensity, aversives may cause a rapid, adaptive (traumatic) learning that is very unpleasant and a survival characteristic, but that’s one of those extremes. Minor aversives are a common, necessary, and useful part of life. You cannot avoid them, but need to learn how to manage those situations.

Instead of focusing on individual trees such as +R/-P, one can instead address the whole forest with a modern, scientifi c, ethical approach such as “least intrusive, minimally aversive” (LIMA) or “least intrusive effective behavior intervention” (LIEBI). That recognizes that a forest has many trees, and includes all the reward training, but permits you to be minimally aversive to your dog as needed to communicate effectively.

Such an approach defines aversives not by some absolute, but by the individual dog’s reaction and recovery. It recognizes that +R/-P and all the so-called quadrants of operant conditioning (positive and negative reinforcements and punishments) are only a mnemonic, not a bible, and that components of all four types (and more) can be found in nearly every extended interaction with your dog. It’s the relative intensity and duration of each that really matters.

Every time my dog pulls on the leash, I could pop him by yanking hard enough to choke and pull him off his feet. Or I could simply jiggle the leash as a reminder, following it with slack, so my dog gets the message and changes direction. Both of these use potential aversives.

While potty training dozens of dogs, adding the aversive of softly communicating to them that I am not pleased with urination in the house reduces the training time needed by over 20 percent. Since this changes behavior, it is (operant) punishment, but minimally aversive, and logical in that you are not only telling the dog what is good, but also letting her know what’s bad. We call that communication.

This is never an either/or situation, but an ethical and practical balance. If nearly aversive-free training will work, then LIMA dictates its use, but also allows whatever degree of aversion is needed, including real-world factors such as owners being not willing/able to use some approaches, or the dog subject to being killed within days unless his behavior changes.

Gerry Glauser rehabilitates “unadoptable” dogs for NMDog and has worked with the Albuquerque city shelters and many rescues around the city. He spent six years volunteering at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah but is otherwise self-taught. Reach him at repeat99@gmail.com

Put the Learner in Charge

Dani Weinberg

Tyler Muto and I share some important values at the foundations of our training. We both want to help “dogs and owners … live harmonious lives together.” We differ in how we choose to realize these values.

Muto discusses only two models of training, Balanced and Aversive-Free. He suggests that Balanced is more effective, and Aversive-Free is actually dangerously ineffective. I use a third model, clicker training. I use positive reinforcement 95 percent of the time and negative punishment the rest of the time. I sometimes use negative reinforcement— the removal of an aversive— to advance learning. Does that make me a Balanced trainer? Not quite!

The primary difference between Balanced trainers and clicker trainers is who does the most work, and to whom. The Balanced trainer is in charge: She drives the learning process and facilitates the process by doing things to the learner—delivering praise, applying “correction.” The learner is relatively passive.

The clicker trainer sets up the process so the learner is in charge and drives the process. Clicker trainers get behavior by capturing and reinforcing it when the learner offers it, or by shaping it— reinforcing one tiny approximation at a time until the learner has achieved the goal. The key is having the learner be successful at every step.

Clicker training may sound impossibly slow to people who haven’t experienced it. In fact, it is much faster than Balanced training. Clicker trainers talk in terms of the number of days, not weeks or months, to teach a new behavior.

Clicker training is also safer for the learner because he never worries about the possibility of a “correction” (euphemism for punishment). If the learner makes a mistake in a training session, the worst that will happen is he will not get a click and treat. But he does get another chance. His trainer then asks for just a little less, in keeping with the principle of making it possible for the learner to be successful. Clicker training is a confidence-builder, giving dogs more control over their environments and predictability in their lives.

I think Muto will agree that almost any training model will work if it’s done correctly. I’m sure there are Balanced trainers who get carried away on the “correction” side, actually abusing dogs. And I know that many folks think they’re doing clicker training when they’re actually just using the clicker without paying attention to the principles behind it. They then claim that clicker training works only for teaching tricks, and not for more important behaviors.

My behavior-consultation clients see magic happen every day. A terrified, trembling Border Collie suddenly approaches the formerly scary human (me), ready for the next opportunity to “make her click and treat.” This has nothing to do with Aversive-Free training. It has everything to do with an empowered dog in a harmonious relationship with her owner.

Dani Weinberg runs a dog training and behavior consulting practice, Dogs & Their People, in Corrales. She is a faculty member in the Karen Pryor Academy for Animal Training and Behavior, a certified dog behavior consultant, and the author of Teaching People Teaching Dogs (Howln Moon Press, 2006). Reach her at daniw@earthlink.net