Gail Fisher, All Dogs Gym & Inn - The perfect place for pets and their people

N.H. Sunday News - Dog Tracks Column - 1/24/10
By: Gail T. Fisher

My book, THE THINKING DOG, started out as simply a revision of a short manual I wrote in 1996, when I was learning “clicker training,” a then relatively new method of dog training. With over 25 years, as a professional dog trainer, I had already been through one previous epiphanic incarnation from one method to another. My “crossover” manual was written to help others with some prior knowledge of dog training, and were “crossing over” to clicker training, breaking habits and overcoming long-held beliefs to gain competency with this new approach. As I revised the manual, it kept growing until I realized that sharing what I had learned over the years needed a book, and it became THE THINKING DOG.

I was writing about different training methods when I had an “Aha!” moment: I realized that every single approach I’d ever tried, observed, read or heard about falls into just three categories. At first I thought this couldn’t be the case—after all, there are literally hundreds of dog training books in print, and probably as many out of print. Surely they represent loads of different methods. But the more I thought about it, the more I recognized commonalities between methods, and that they truly do fall into one or a combination of just three general approaches – lure-reward (luring with food to gain behaviors), compulsion-praise (physically manipulating or using collar “corrections” to achieve behavior), and marker (or clicker) training (capturing and shaping behavior). Many “methods” are combinations of two or even all three approaches. For example, my previous training approach combined luring with some physical compulsion.

I have always been open to new learning, looking for the best, kindest, most efficient and fair training method for the dog’s sake. And I also judge techniques from the perspective of our students, many of whom are novice trainers. I look for methods that enable novice dog owners to be successful training their dogs. I’ve tried many approaches over the years, so I feel capable of objectively assessing the different methods in use today. This week and next, I’ll provide a broad overview of the pros and cons of each of the three general approaches, starting this week with Lure-Reward training:

How it works: With Lure-Reward training, the handler holds a food treat or toy, and motions with it, luring the dog into the desired position. For example, the trainer motions upward to sit the dog, or downward for lie down. As soon as the dog is in the desired position, the dog is rewarded with the food treat to reinforce the successful action.

Pros: A food-oriented dog responds quickly to this approach. This fast response (success) is highly reinforcing for both the trainer and the dog. It is relatively easy for the novice trainer to achieve success with simple behaviors such as “sit” and “down,” and it is a “dog-friendly” approach to training, using no physical compulsion or physical manipulation that may be uncomfortable for the dog.

Cons: In order to work, the dog must be interested in food treats. On the other hand, a very “foody” dog—that is, one that is overly-focused on food—is impossible to train with food in sight. The dog’s response is dependent on the handler luring with food, making food the **enticement** (a “bribe”)rather than the reward. No lure; no response. Another disadvantage is also one of the advantages—that it is easy to do. Because it is so easy to achieve fast results with luring, the novice trainer can become dependent on luring. When the owner doesn’t eliminate the lure, the dog becomes dependent on it, too, and doesn’t perform without a food lure. A common scenario is that an owner will give the dog a cue without luring, and when the dog doesn’t respond, he or she will pull out a treat and lure the dog. While this may sound OK, it actually rewards the dog’s for the lack of response. What the dog learns from this is, “When I doing nothing, Mom (or Dad) will pull out a treat and help me out.” The end result is that the handler is unintentionally training the dog to do nothing—i.e., to **not** respond without a food lure.

More on comparative training methods next week.

Add Comment

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.