Dog training methods - I've seen it all - how do we know what's right?

[SuddenlyOld]

At my age I've seen so many training methods come and go, lauded to begin with then trashed as the next method comes in.

First it was Barbara Woodhouse, then Jan Fennell, Cesar Millan, currently Southend Dog Trainers, and even Graeme Hall

All have since been shown to promote 'unhealthy' training methods. Even Graeme Hall looks good on TV but apparently it's all staged and doesn't last.

So my question is, how do we know that current training methods are right for our dogs, or for us?

I do wonder about this because I remember Jan Fennell being on TV and her methods seemed amazing and made sense. I tried them on our barky, jumpy sheltie cross. It didn't work and now her methods have been debunked.

So how do we ever know that current methods are right?

Positive, reward based, training will see you through. Steve Mann, Susan Garret, etc.

The key is to make training engaging and something your dog wants to do. Then good management for behaviours you don't want to be repeated.

Well, we can never know for certain, but I'd rather not risk anything other than positive training on my dog.

Because we understand much more about what makes dogs tick. In the future training methods may evolve and be refined but I think they’re based on sound principles.

The method that works for you long term is the right one!

However, one thing I have learnt early on is: repetition, repetition repetition until the dog is doing the wanted of almost automatically.

And stick to one method that will get you the behaviour... so it's a mix and match!

The method that works for you long term is the right one!

However, one thing I have learnt early on is: repetition, repetition repetition until the dog is doing the wanted behaviour almost automatically.

And stick to one method that will get you the behaviour... so it's a mix and match!

There are lots of ways to train a dog, but no sure fire way that works for every dog. How well they work will depend on the owner... and the dog.

Positive reinforcement based training has been around for decades and is the method used by sea animals trainers, and chicken trainers.
Not that I endorse sea parks, but if it works on an orca and on a chicken, I think there are good chances that it'll work on my terrier, and so far, it has worked just fine.

We can never state with 100% certainty that any method is the right one. I don’t believe there is One True Way to train dogs, any more than there is a single acceptable approach to raising children. I do what feels right. For me that means a positive approach, nothing aversive. Though I do use words like “no” and “off,” which some trainers eschew. But in general I try to encourage certain behaviours and work with my dogs’ specific temperaments to reinforce that. I don’t follow some standard advice, e.g. I have never used crates on a regular basis (though my dogs are fine if they need to be in a crate at the vet or whatever). I honestly think that developing a relationship with one’s dog is the foundation for all successful training.

I'll always lay a behaviour down with positive reinforcement: treats, praise and play, building up my relationship with the dog as I go along.

IME of high-drive dogs, though, +R isn't always enough. I want my dogs to have the freedom to range and run, and I am prepared to use some aversion to get them there.

That makes me the devil incarnate to some people on this board.

Positive reinforcement all the way. The bond i have with my dog is unbelievable. He was a wild pup but he is by far the best behaved dog that i encounter. The engagement we have is great. Food wasnt his motivator so working with what he loves was a game changer

I will and always have used positive reinforcement. I do not need to know what "training method" is in fashion.

It seems obvious to me that a dog that is stressed, worried confused or vary of their owner is not in a position to learn which is what happens when some of the "old school" methods are used.

Positive reinforcement means to my dogs that they have clear behaviours and reinforcement which they love when they are carried out.

I rarely have to teach recall or heelwork as my dogs are happy to hang out around me as good things aways happen near to me.

I train working breeds, gundogs collies and yes wcs can walk to heel

My dogs also have freedom to run and range and I would never use e collars on them to achieve that.

I've only had a dog during this era of positive training, so it's (thankfully) all I've known. I think it's working well considering she has some challenging traits (high prey drive, very fast, naturally quite independent, inclined to scan for movement if not engaged). Her wanting to be with me is absolutely key to our successes. I've always been empathetic towards animals though and can't imagine using cruel training methods, even if they were in.

I agree, but most people (myself included) don't have the timing / skills to use aversion. I use "no", and noise as adversives, but that's about it. The average dog owner should stick to R+.

One of mine has a stupidly high prey drive. I still use positive/reward based training. It works.

The repetition of your post made me 😂

Science and greater understanding of the way dogs learn has shown the reward based is the most effective long term. That's a fact.

I have trained many breeds of dog in agility and even the most independent respond to reward based training.

It's also about expectations. I have a working terrier. She is NEVER going to be safe around sheep, for example. So we manage it. She IS going to hunt and chase so if we feel she is not safe to do so or she may get herself into trouble we manage it with a long lead or avoid certain areas at certain times.

Dogs aren't robots. They are sentient beings with moods and health. A lot of it is also about knowing your dog and understanding and working with their breed traits in order to motivate them. Terriers are independent problem solvers. So better trained in that way as in manipulate their environment so they are forced to make the right choices and be rewarded as for such.

I am so with you on this! When I got my first dog as an adult (pointer - yes, it was foolish) I fully wanted to commit to +R training only but the longer we had her, the more I realised it didn't work for her. She had very high drive and would chase anything moving faster than a walking pace - cyclists, runners, skateboards... and small fluffy dogs. I could have been waving a sirloin at her and she would not have cared less. It was getting dangerous, and confining an athletic dog to a life on lead is a recipe for more disaster. We were directed to a balanced trainer who used appropriate aversion and her recall from chasing was immaculate within days, after months of getting nowhere. She's still my happy, sociable girl and she gets off lead freedom because I can call her back. We wandered into a field with a stranded lamb the other day, she saw it before me, I saw her run, laid eyes on the lamb, blew the whistle and she turned on a sixpence and came back to me. I know saying this here is deeply unpopular, but the training method that works best is entirely dependent on the dog IMO.

I have had a hound terrier and now a working terrier from working parents. Both very very high drive with the speed to match. Between training, long lines and being selective about where we walk ours have spent the majority of their walking life in the countryside offlead. It does take a bit of care. thought and practice but I have never needed to use pain and fear in order for them to lead a full life.

So the insinuation is I didn't try hard enough? Aversion is not the same as pain. No one has ever inflicted pain on my dog.

Aversion is something unpleasant to the dog. Usually pain or fear but can be as simple as ignoring them. I didn't say pain. I said pain or fear. Whatever it is the dog feels bad about it and it does go some way to damaging trust and a relationship.

I used to use aversion a lot in training and think it was the only way for some things. I was wrong.

How does aversion work if it doesn't cause the dog pain or an unpleasant experience?

Sorry, that didn't make much sense, but surely an aversive is designed to be unpleasant and off-putting so the dog "learns" not to do X or else Y will happen.

So they may not cause physical pain but they are designed to be unpleasant and therefore cause some kind of fear or anxiety or nasty shock?

I love Graeme Hall!!! Please say it’s not true!!! (Hoping at least some of his patients are as he left them!!!)

Ps never join dog training Fb groups, all the people in them do is argue over what to do and fight!!

Graeme Hall doesn’t even have any qualifications.