Rules of one's chosen pursuit - rules of dog training

For training a dog, the Rules of One's Chosen Pursuit involve the rules of dog training. Many dog trainers find the rules of the different styles of dog training even more important than the overall rules of training. Each style of dog training has its own rules. Lately I have been working quite a few dogs with chain pet store trained handlers. One thing that strikes me as interesting is that this chain pet store thinks positive reinforcement involves many aversives. However they do demonize the more traditional tools of dog training, the slip and pinch collars. I believe in order to be intellectually honest we need to understand what aversives are. This is true whether we do or do not use them in our chosen style of dog training. Understanding what an aversive is also helps us understand aversive control and control brought about by positive reinforcement.

Much of the debate about all positive training can be eliminated if we determine what our purpose for training is. Some trainers primary goal is to teach hazard avoidance drills, other primarily want to be Dog Friendly.ť Many dog trainers fall someplace in between. When I do an all positive dog training program I usually have several reasons for making this choice. For me I feel an all positive dog training program allows many opportunities for the human handler to grow in understanding. It's hoped that through dog training, positive reinforcement becomes a significant point of reference that can at least compete with, and maybe even surpass most people's desire to first use aversives when trying to change behavior. 

Choosing positive reinforcement dog training or aversive control is usually a matter of degree. To what degree one or the other is used is often determined by the trainings purpose. What is the reason for doing dog training? Do you want to change behavior, be dog friendly, or comply with other people's wishes? It's not unusual for dog training to have several factors as a purpose. While several factors may be at play, usually some will be more important than others. There will be a hierarchy of what the handler values. What is valued most will lead or draw the dog handler towards some goals more than others. What is valued leads one across the fjord of time and effort to the destination of a target or goal.

I do not totally understand Dog Friendly, but I do think it may illustrate an important idea about the matter of degree. It appears there are groups that take Dog Friendlyť to mean the primary purpose of human/dog interaction is for the human to eliminate all discomfort from the dog's life. This is often taken to the extreme where the human is expected to undergo great discomfort to shelter the dog from the harshness of reality. Human sacrifice for the sake of a canine friend is not good or bad, and it can have a positive impact on one's life and society. I doubt if societies can for long periods of time, follow rules for dog friendly behavior while being human unfriendly. As with many things in life, dog friendly is probably a matter of degree.

I have met many people who feel that meeting their dog's basic needs such as food, water, and shelter is being dog friendly. Many of these well cared for dogs are tied by the house their entire life. If the dog experiences no pain with this practice and it knows no other way of life, this would seem to qualify as dog friendly. From the websites I have read, the dog friendly, cause no pain rule appears to have been met in this, meet basic needs - keep tied to territory scenario. At face value I think this may even qualify as dog friendly by the doctrine of the Dog Friendly true believers. However, I have met many Americans who think keeping a dog constantly tied no matter how well cared for is a cruel practice.

This matter of degree is something I struggled with when I was a vegetarian. I would probably still be a vegetarian except the personal rules of my significant other make it much easier to eat animals. For vegetarians, where do you draw the line of not killing animals? Is it only unacceptable to kill for food? Is it alright to kill for self-defenses? Is it alright to kill single cell animals? Is it alright to kill insects that are harmful to plant crops? Is it wrong to kill all animals or is it only wrong to kill nonhuman animals. Many animal rights vegetarians seem quite hostile, even homicidal towards their fellow humans.

I have noticed that dog trainers who choose to use aversive control also practice this matter of degree. Many trainers, even positive reinforcement trainers think is okay to use very mild aversives. Such as a disapproving look. Others believe making a noise that stops the dog from performing a behavior is acceptable. I need to mention that noise is not always and aversive when used to stop a behavior. Sometimes it can be used to get an orientation response. The orientation can be incorporated into learning situations in interesting ways. An orientation response can be from and unconditioned stimulus or a conditioned stimulus. The conditioned stimulus in this situation can be developed either through positive or aversive experiences. On the extreme side of using aversives in dog training are some of the old European techniques such as hitting the dog with a whip. Ouch! Another outdated but still practiced technique is hanging a dog until it passed out for some minor infraction, lets say, not sitting on command. This is sometime done in the name of dominance and gives those who use dominance theory as their training foundation a bad name.

What I come away with is that the Earth's most highly developed primates are some fairly aggressive creatures. It appears to me that within this teem of atom splitter and modern wolf, the dogs aren't the only ones who bite.

The matter of degree inters into many important areas of human endeavor, from simple decisions to the great questions of life.

Each of the seven Points Of Reference is important. Each Points Of Reference can be a stepping stone to greater understanding and eventually to self actualization.