99% Positive

Ever since the Suzanne Clothier seminar, where she said that being “all positive” is impossible, I’ve been obsessed with how we ought to use consequences in training.

I suppose that Suzanne could criticize my current obsession; I recognize that I may be overthinking this issue, after all. But let’s face it: this is who I am. I think. A lot. I am fascinated by science and research, and I love dog training, so really, it ought to be no surprise to anyone who knows me that I think about this stuff often. So, given all that, I’m going to continue to think about this stuff.

I’ve come to the conclusion that it is, indeed, impossible to use only R+ methods in training. But that doesn’t mean I can’t try. While there may be times that it’s necessary to use some of the other principles of operant conditioning, my personal goal is to remain firmly in the R+ area 99% of the time.

The other night, I went out with some friends. As it always does, our conversation turned to dog training. We were comparing different methods, specifically the various pros and cons of luring, shaping and capturing behaviors. I shared that for the first year, I lured every behavior with Maisy exclusively, but that she seems to learn faster through shaping.

The next morning, on one of the many dog-related email lists I belong to, the incredibly delightful Crystal Salig responded to a thread about teaching the recall by tugging on the leash. She said:

I used to mildly coerce the first part of recall also- just very light pressure on the neck with the leash and released it when the dog started to move- it wasn't harmful, it just wasn't as good as a completely uncoerced recall. I'm still trying to find a less aversive way to stop when a dog is pulling on leash so that it doesn't hurt or surprise the dog as much. When I switched from lure-reward to clicker training, I started to become even less aversive than I was before- seeing how much faster the dog learned if I didn't even lure him let alone use a physical prompt.

This all got me to thinking about my recent venture with Maisy, specifically her sniffing while on walks. Basically, if she stopped to sniff something without having been cued “go sniff,” I’d been telling her “let’s go” and kept walking. If she didn’t keeping walking, the resultant tug on the leash was a natural consequence of her behavior. And while this approach has been working- Maisy knows that “let’s go” means it’s time to stop sniffing and keep walking- I’ve felt bad about doing it.

Crystal Salig’s post helped me understand why the leash tug didn’t sit right with me. Although my action wasn’t inhumane- it’s not physically painful, nor did it appear to be causing stress on Maisy’s part- it did involve coercion, as minor as it is. I commented to my friends that Maisy learns better when she thinks something is her idea, which is why shaping seems to go faster than luring does. Tugging the leash makes Maisy stop sniffing, but it’s not her idea, so while it’s working, it’s slow and frustrating.

This doesn’t mean I think that what I’m doing is wrong. I wouldn’t have tried it if I did. But I do think there has to be a more positive way to teach this. I’m pretty sure that it includes using Premack.

So, here’s the first draft of my plan: I’m going to be vigilant on our walks. I will heavily reinforce the behavior I want- walking in a loose heel. I will also reinforce eye contact, as paying attention to me is incompatible with sniffing. I will pay close attention to her, and when I see the early signs of sniffing (and I think I can pick them out), I’ll call her back to me, ask for some kind of behavior (heeling, a sit, eye contact- it doesn’t really matter what), and then reinforce the behavior by cuing “go sniff.”

I’m quite sure this will not be the final draft of my plan. These things seem to evolve over time, after all. But from now on, all training has to pass the “feel test”- if it doesn’t feel right, then I won’t do it. And in the process, I hope to become 99% positive.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Wrap Up

Wow, who knew that a two day seminar could inspire over a month’s worth of blogging? I want to thank everyone who commented on these blog posts. The discussions we’ve had over the past month have really helped me think about the things Suzanne said in a far more sophisticated manner than I could have alone.

I just want to touch on a few of the highlights from those conversations today. If you haven’t, I encourage you to go back and read the comment threads. There are a lot of smart, dedicated, and talented people in there sharing differing perspectives. Although we dog trainers will probably never agree 100%, it’s nice to consider other ideas, either to refine our own thoughts, or to strengthen our positions.

For me, I have found that the seminar and resulting discussions have strengthened my commitment to positive training, even if the term is a bit of a misnomer. As everyone noted, it is impossible to use solely positive reinforcement. I strive to teach enough foundation skills that I rarely need to stray from that principle of operant conditioning.

Still, there are times when a consequence is needed for a less-than-desirable behavior. The challenge is to find such a consequence which is neither physically painful nor which causes excessive emotional stress. Of course, there is the challenge of defining how much stress is too much, but I’m afraid I have yet to figure that one out. So far, it seems to be a matter of knowing the dog well enough to be able to stop while we’re ahead, but that’s a rather ambiguous answer, and one which is undoubtedly frustrating for the less experienced trainers out there.

I have decided that for my dog, the best way to deal with unwanted behaviors is to use Premack’s Principle. I’ll admit, while I understand the principle intellectually, I don’t quite get why it works so well. At any rate, I’ve had some amazing results with Premack, and so have others.

When it comes to our “silly tricks”- my name for competition behaviors which really only matter because I have a goofy hobby, and not because they’re vital life skills- the consequences for an incorrect response is generally removing the reinforcement or doing a time out. Time outs work well; Maisy loves to train, and she loves to spend time with me. Removing my attention for a short period of time is a far more effective punisher than withholding a food treat.

I do occasionally use mild verbal corrections, but Maisy is so sensitive that I have to be careful with using these. I try to avoid them, as well as no reward markers because they tend to frustrate both of us. Similarly, I use some pressure/release techniques with her, such as body blocks or light physical pressure, but I have to be careful with these, too- she’s incredibly sensitive to physical touch. In fact, I once tried using a body wrap on her, which are widely promoted for reducing anxiety. It did not go over well, and in fact, actually caused more anxiety. Although both verbal corrections and physical prompts can be useful tools which fall on the more positive end of the “consequence spectrum,” they are things which I must use sparingly with my dog.

Which brings me to my favorite part of the seminar: Suzanne’s repeated insistence that we view all dogs as individuals. I love that she says training is humane only when we check in with the dog regularly in order to get his perspective. Can you do this? Is this okay with you? How can I help you? These questions focus on building up the relationship in the name of training, and I’ve always said that training is only about the relationship between me and my dog anyway.

Finally, I think the biggest benefit I got from the seminar was learning to give Maisy the information she needs to be successful. Her statement that dogs look to their people for clues on how they should react really encouraged me to look at what role I play in Maisy’s reactivity. I’ve always known that Maisy is sensitive to my moods and reactions, but being forced to confront that reality at the seminar has really improved my awareness of my own body. Making a conscious effort to remain calm and confident in the face of triggers has gone a long way in soothing Maisy’s fears.

All in all, that weekend was one well spent. I really think I grew a lot as a trainer as a result of the things Suzanne said, and again, I really appreciate each and every one of your comments.

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Where Clicker Trainers Go Wrong

It came as no surprise that Suzanne considers herself a humane trainer. I knew that by reading her book, by the fact that she calls her method “relationship centered,” and by the observation that the positive training community has rallied around her. So, I was completely unprepared for what she said next:

“All positive training is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.”

Come again? Aren’t you for training our dogs in positive ways? What do you mean, it’s “stupid”? Needless to say, this statement really set me reeling. But you know what? She had some valid criticisms, and I think it’s important that as clicker trainers, we consider what she says, and find ways to improve our training as a result. Again, my understanding of her criticisms are my own, based on stray comments she made. This entry cannot be considered a complete commentary, and I only hope that it’s accurate. That said, in reviewing my notes, I found four ways we often go wrong:

Clicker Trainers are Too Cerebral
As I mentioned previously, Suzanne believes that consequences are useful in training dogs. Although I disagree with some of the consequences she believes are acceptable, I do concede that they can have a place in a thoughtful training program, and I’ve since found some ways to improve my training with Maisy as the result of using them.

The problem is, clicker trainers sometimes shy away from consequences entirely because we’re thinking too much. I know I fell into this category! When I was considering a consequence, I would think about which of the operant conditioning quadrants it fell in. If it fell in the “wrong” quadrant, I wouldn’t do it. Instead, Suzanne encouraged us to look at our dogs, and to decide if the consequence is humane or not. As long as we aren’t hurting or scaring our dogs, we’re probably okay.Instead of thinking about our actions based on some chart, we’re better off thinking about our dog.

Clicker Dogs Have No Impulse Control
Okay, this is a bit of an over-exaggeration of what she said, so don’t go around quoting this verbatim. What Suzanne actually said is that when she sees a dog throwing behaviors, she knows two things: it was clicker trained, and it has low impulse control. This does not mean that all clicker dogs struggle with impulse control, but it can be a by-product of the training method if we don’t get adequate stimulus control over the behaviors we teach our dog, and if we don’t take the time to teach our dogs how to relax.

I love having a dog who wants to work, but sometimes I think I’ve created a monster because I haven’t worked that much on teaching her how to just be. Sometimes, I don’t use the clicker at all because it is creates too much arousal. She loves it so much that she loses control over herself.

Clicker Trainers Micromanage Their Dogs With Cookies
There are two sub-points here. First, clicker trainers tend to rely too much on management, and don’t spend enough time teaching their dogs to be responsible for themselves. (I wrote about this previously in this entry.)

Second, clicker trainers tend to rely on cookies far too much. Suzanne is not against cookies, she just thinks we need branch out. She said that what we really need to do is harness intrinsic motivation. We need to teach our dog to work for other things. Life rewards such as getting to go for a walk or using play as a reinforcer fits here, but Suzanne is big on using praise and the social relationship as a reinforcer, too. Cookies are great, but they’re the icing on the cake of social relationships.

Clicker Trainers Rely on “Recipes” Too Much
Finally, Suzanne was critical of clicker training because it can result in the handler treating the dog like a computer: we train them based on stimulus and response, or input and output. We would find it insulting to be treated this way, so why wouldn’t our dogs? Instead, we need to see the whole animal, and tailor our plans to their needs and preferences. Even counter conditioning will fail, she said, if we don’t keep the dog safe. Training recipes might be a nice starting point, but we need to go beyond them.


As I mentioned, I know I fall in the “think too much” category. I also recognize that my use of the clicker could have contributed to Maisy’s impulse control problems, because I'm just not that good at getting things under stimulus control. So far as micromanaging with cookies… well, guilty again. I do rely a lot on management, and I’m just learning how to use things other than food as a reinforcer. I think I am safe on the last point; but I think my strength lies in being able to evaluate various “recipes” and tweak them so that they work to both Maisy’s strengths and my own.

So, fellow clicker trainers, do you recognize yourself in any of these descriptions? If so, what are you going to do to improve your training?

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Humane Training

Perhaps the most interesting- and challenging- part of the seminar was hearing about Suzanne’s training philosophy, and the way she implements it. There wasn’t an official session on what she considers “Humane Training,” but I think I have a decently accurate picture based on her general themes and random comments. I hope so, anyway! I’d hate to misrepresent her in any way.

Suzanne seems to define humane training as knowing the difference between asking your dog “will you do this?” and “can you do this?” This really resonated with me since Maisy is the kind of dog who will try her heart out for me. I’ve asked before if Maisy’s willingness to do something is an indication of her actual ability to do it, so I greatly appreciated Suzanne’s statement that the goal of humane training is finding fun things to do with your dog while keeping her physically sound, intellectually sane, and emotionally safe.

So, why did I find this so challenging? Largely because her implementation of this philosophy is different than mine. Throughout the weekend, regardless of the issue or the dog at hand, there were two recurring themes: responsibility and consequences, both of which I struggle with.

Responsibility is a bit easier for me to swallow, although Suzanne’s emphasis that it must go both ways was a new way of thinking to me. Both the handler and the dog have a responsibility to the other, but sometimes, I think I focus more on the handler’s responsibilities. I definitely put more responsibility on myself than I do on Maisy, as I firmly believe that training problems lie in my failure to adequately communicate. I think Suzanne would agree that our dogs are generally doing the best they can- as she said, dogs want to be right.

Where I often fail, however, is in giving Maisy responsibility for what she’s learned. Sometimes, I work so hard at setting her up for success that she can’t really make any choices. This isn’t so bad during the learning stage, but in my effort to be all positive, I sometimes lean a bit permissive.

Which leads to consequences, the more difficult of the two themes. The first time Suzanne said the word, I had a visceral reaction to it- I’m pretty uncomfortable when people begin to discuss consequences because it often implies physical corrections. And I don’t do physical corrections. Still, Suzanne was clear that consequences need to be tailored to the dog, and that you should always use the least amount of force possible, but she did say that for some dogs, a well-timed physical correction can be useful. She’s even okay with shock collars under very specific circumstances. At the same time, you can’t do this with very sensitive dogs. Often a firm word is enough (or too much!) for them. She went so far to say that such dogs need our support, not our criticism, and so the way we approach them will be very different.

I was very glad that she made this distinction, although I do not agree with her regarding physical corrections. Do they work? Certainly, but even so, I don't find them acceptable. I suspect that part of my adamant opposition to physical corrections is due to the fact that I have one of those sensitive dogs. Regardless, it was good for me to consider the idea of consequences. As Suzanne pointed out, sometimes a consequence is simply saying, “No, thank you,” to a particular behavior our dogs exhibit, and as I mentioned earlier, I do tend to trend a bit permissive with Maisy.

So, how do we humanely use consequences? First and foremost, we need to teach the dog how to be right. Suzanne said that in her experience, people don’t build strong enough foundation skills. I know I certainly fell into that trap, and I think training classes in general could do more to help teach people how to build stronger foundations. She also stressed that while building foundation skills, it’s important to give the dog choices, but to set the situation up in such a way that the dog can make the right choice. This gives the dog more responsibility for her behavior, while also helping her learn.

Gradually, we make the choices harder, rewarding heavily for correct decisions while imposing consequences for the wrong one. Again, the consequence depends on the dog. She gave the example of teaching a dog to walk on leash. It is the dog’s responsibility to stay nearby. If the dog fails, we may not use a leash pop, but we might use some collar pressure to make things a bit uncomfortable. It’s not given as a punishment, but it is a consequence of the dog’s behavior.

I’ve struggled with good loose leash walking skills with Maisy. She doesn’t pull, but she likes to stop and sniff interesting rings, and I’m afraid that this is transferring over to the obedience ring. Because I haven’t wanted to use anything aversive, even if it’s only mildly uncomfortable, I’ve stopped and called her name. In essence, I’ve nagged her, which has only taught her that if she ignored me, she could sniff longer.

Suzanne would say that she needed a consequence for ignoring me, so I took her advice and started a new program: Sniffing is only allowed when I explicitly cue it. Furthermore, she must disengage and come with me when I tell her sniffing time is over (I’m using the cue, “let’s go”). The first time I said “let’s go,” she didn’t make an effort to move. It was very hard for me to just start walking, and I did end up pulling her for a few steps. When she caught up with me, I praised her effusively. By the end of the walk, though, she began to choose to disengage and move with me when I said, “let’s go!” We’re still working on not sniffing unless I cue it, but it’s getting better.

So, was that positive punishment? Yes, and that makes me feel bad. I feel slightly dirty just writing about it. But… did it hurt her? Was she confused about what I was asking from her? Did it cause her to feel unsafe? No, I don’t think it did, which means it was an appropriate and humane consequence.

There’s more, of course. Suzanne said a whole host of interesting things about clicker trainers… but I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for my next post to hear about those! In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts on consequences. Do you use them, or do they make you feel a bit weird like they do to me? How do you use them in your training, and if so, how does Suzanne’s criteria for humane consequences sit with you? Let me know!