The Great Debate: Positive Reinforcement Vs. Physical Correction

When it comes to dog-training, my golden rule is: Train with as little physical force as possible. I utilize a combination of classical and operant conditioning methods, teaching dogs primarily through positive association and rewards.

My brother, Robert, trains dogs as well. He doesn't understand canine behavior quite like I do, but he's nonetheless an expert in getting a dog to behave as he wishes. Rob's training methods differ from my own in that he's more of a Dick Koehler or Cesar Milan kind of guy. His training is largely based on physical correction and punishment. That doesn't mean that he beats dogs into submission, only that he has no qualms with making things unpleasant for a dog if he deems it necessary.

If you were to ask Rob about my training methods, he's likely to say that I'm too easy on dogs, and if you ask me about his, I'll tell you that I think he's probably a little too hard on dogs, but neither of us will deny that the other's methods work.

The debate (in a small nutshell):
Some proponents of positive reinforcement-based training will argue that corrective-based training is inhumane and unnecessary, and that it often can do more harm than good.

Advocates of corrective-based training will argue that dogs need to know that the human is in charge, and giving a dog treats for being nice isn't going to work when the dog is a pissed off hundred-pound rottweiler with tunnel vision.

My opinion:
Both arguments are valid. On one hand, smacking a dog or cutting off the oxygen supply to its brain may be an efficient means of behavioral control and/or modification, but such techniques can certainly result in increased fear and aggression, and when a dog is overly fearful or aggressive to begin with...well, put two and two together.

I don't agree with physically forcing an aggressive dog into submission unless it's absolutely necessary to do so. If Cesar Milan attempted to confront and physically dominate some of the dogs I've worked with, he'd get himself promptly killed.

As far as showing a dog who's in charge, holding one down on its back probably isn't the best way to get your point across. After observing the behavior of thousands of dogs --from fighting Tosas to toy Poodles-- for more than three decades, the only time I ever see a dog holding another animal down on its back is when the dog is trying to kill that animal.

Take that for what it's worth.

Nor do I agree with physically forcing a fearful dog to face the source of its fear (say that 10 times really fast). I believe it's far safer for a dog's mental health if the animal is coaxed through systematic desensitization processes, rather than forced to endure the equivalent of a hydrophobic being pushed off a diving board. Flooding methods may work sometimes, but unless you really know what you're doing, you're more likely to cause some potentially irreversible psychological trauma.

On the other hand, focus is extremely important to a dog's ability to learn, and sometimes a quick jerk on the leash or a firm tap on the shoulder can be far more effective in maintaining a dog's attention than might be the promise of a Scooby Snack. A dog that hasn't been trained to focus on your call to "come" may end up dead in the street beneath the car that was unable to brake quickly enough.



I choose to train using as little physical force as possible, and I've been highly successful with it. I believe in presence, as opposed to physical domination (of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm approximately the size of an NFL offensive lineman). Other trainers have no reservations about getting down in the mud and duking it out with Cujo himself...and have been highly successful with it. Certain things work for certain dogs, and certain things don't. If something doesn't work for your dog, try something else.

That's all I have to say about that.


...at least for now.