Article - your thoughts?

[lizzybeth727]

This is where the term "management" applies. Where a balanced trainer would ensure that the dog had a good "sit" and a good "off" trained well and then apply a small number of properly timed corrections to ensure that jumping on anyone was no longer self-rewarding, a PR trainer would develop an entire management scenario. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

I do believe in management. Behaviors that are practiced become habits, so the first thing a trainer should do is make sure that behaviors are not practiced. If my recently adopted 80-pound GSD with no training likes to jump, I'm going to manage him when Grandma comes around and make sure that he does not get the opportunity to jump. Meanwhile, I'll be teaching him off, sit, down, recalls, stranger greetings, and anything else that would help for when he's ready to greet Grandma politely.

First, as a PR trainer you shouldn't have to wonder whether I am quoting the Brelands or not.

There are actually several different psychogists and trainers that have these same ideas, the Brelands happen to just be the first. I didn't know if your article was referring to the FIRST, or just to ANY of these trainers. Alas, trainers are not mind readers.

I find it interesting that you can toss the information they gathered aside because it's "from the 1940's."
Actually it was from 1961.

When your dog does something right he is rewarded. When he does something that you do not want him to do, he is ignored, reinforcements are withheld, or he is given a time-out. Like it or not, that is when and how the technique that you and your fellow PR trainers are using and defending.

Techniques have changed A LOT since the 1960s. The Brelands didn't have clickers. They didn't have conveniently packaged treats (the first dog clicker-trainers used a "clicker"-type thing with a spoon attached so they could spoon out canned dog food). Trainers and psychologists have learned a lot since them about reinforcement delivery, preventing behaviors from becomming habits, stimulus control, how/when to use the Premack Principle, etc. I'm not at all dismissing the Breland's Instinctive Drift theory, but I do believe that we've learned a lot over the last 50 years about how to handle it in dog training.

As for "When Pigs Fly" I not only have read it, I own it. In fact, let me provide you a quote. Not only does Killion admit that positive punishment has it's place in certain situations, here's what she says about punishment in general:

When your dog does something right he is rewarded. When he does something that you do not want him to do, he is ignored, reinforcements are withheld, or he is given a time-out.

If the behaviour is self reinforcing, as the Breland's point out, this method of intervention is not going to work. You are working on a reinforcement schedule that essentially has a red or a green button - and you have a dog whose own behaviour pushes the green button in his mind. Take away all the toys, treats and activities you want, that dog is still going to chase that cat if he is so inclined - simply because he's driven to - and it's fun!

If you have read the book, you should know that the author spends a lot of time explaining how to use the Premack Principle to stop self-reinforcing behaviors.

If you've read "Don't Shoot The Dog," which I'm sure you have, you'll also know how Karen Pryor explains how putting a behavior on cue wth stimulus control does also serve to stop self-reinforcing behaviors. I've personally used both of these methods with great success with not only dogs I train myself, but with clients' dogs that I teach them how to train.

The fact that you use "balanced" and "punishment based" in the same handful merely points out your ignorance.

I used them in the same sentence because there are a lot of similarities, and this is one of them. Heck, I know positive reinforcement trainers who think that all bad behaviors should simply be ignored.

And honestly, I didn't see a lot of "balance" in this article. I came away from it with the impression that you believe that all bad behaviors can be solved with a collar pop. Again, if this is not what you intended, maybe you should edit it.

As for how you prevent your dog from "running amok", please do share. I love the vagueness that comes from PR trainers...

I've made over 5,000 posts on this forum, most about how to "prevent dogs from running amok." I was vague because this thread did not ask "What would you suggest instead??" but "What do you think of this article?" I explained what I thought of the article. Those on this forum who know me, know a lot of my methods and don't need to know what I'd suggest instead. If you want to start a new thread with a specific question about a specific dog doing something "amokly" I'll be more than happy to comment.

Front clip harnesses are a death trap and far more inhumane (IMO) than most other tools available. I'm sure you'll LOVE my article on front-clip harnesses.

I haven't seen this article, if you'd like to provide a link I'll be happy to read it.

You yourself, Lizzy, use prong collars.

No I don't, please don't think that from one post you know me. I said I'm not opposed to prong collars, but I don't use them and wouldn't recommend them. I do think they're more humane and effective than choke chains, and I HAVE used choke chains.

 

[Danefied]

BTW Dogs in training - I saw your article posted on another forum, I don't see that you're responding there....

 

[corgipower]

Preventing access. Back to management we go!

My three herding dogs do not chase vermin of any kind because they have been trained - using both positive and aversive methods. Choosing to chase the animal results in a correction and an end to the outing. Choosing to return to me results in a reward.

But what happens if you're not in a position to give the correction? Do they get to chase and not be corrected? Or do you prevent that scenario via management?

Stand like a tree, cross your arms, turn your back, etc. If you'd like me to quote a half dozen PR books, I most happily will. Obviously, this is not acceptable in certain situations.

It is one of those four quadrants though.

 

[Shai]

Shai, you failed to answer my most basic questions, again sticking to the vagueness that PR trainers seem to adore.

You seem to be under the impression I am a PR training. Well I suppose I am in that when I believe it will work best, I use positive reinforcement. I would imagine that as a "balanced" trainer you also use P+ at times.

Preventing access. Back to management we go!

You seem to have a vendetta against management. When used properly, management is simply creating a situation in which the dog is in a frame of mind where he can learn, and then is faded as the dog learns.

My three herding dogs do not chase vermin of any kind because they have been trained - using both positive and aversive methods. Choosing to chase the animal results in a correction and an end to the outing. Choosing to return to me results in a reward.

Congrats

We do not live in an area that permits allowing our dogs to chase wildlife - in fact, not only is it frowned upon, it's extremely dangerous (in most areas, not just my own).

I shall count myself appropriately blessed to have large fences areas invaded by bunnies. By the way, it was an anectdotal story...wasn't intended as a "this is the only way!"

It's kinda like saying I prevent my kid from going out and getting drunk by getting him drunk at home. If your end goal is to have a child that chooses NOT to drink, you're going about it the wrong way.

Invalid analogy

Again, point out where I said that and please stick to the facts. The number one response by PR trainers dealing with dogs who jump up is to ignore the behaviour. Stand like a tree, cross your arms, turn your back, etc. If you'd like me to quote a half dozen PR books, I most happily will. Obviously, this is not acceptable in certain situations.

I was being sarcastic.

My issue was not with clicker trainers. It was with those trainers who identify themselves as "purely positive." They are not a rarity, and those who claim that practitioners of all other methods are cruel and confused are not a rarity either. In fact, one organizing body actually states that it is against their code of ethics for a member to even recommend ANOTHER TRAINER who uses aversive techniques.

[...]

More than any other branch of training, the "purely positive" group seems to truly believe that their method is superior in all ways in all situations. The facts are that it is not.

You will not find me defending the purely positive group. Even the name is rubbish..."purely positive" would by definition include positive punishment as well as positive reinforcement. Demonizing training techniques as the PP do (and they are not alone in this...I've seen other types of trainers swear they will go to hell before so much as touching a clicker, as if the tool were the symbol of all things evil, much as PP would do re: prongs, e-collars, etc.) as they are wont to do is ridiculous.

Perhaps not, but I'll give you a dollar if you can find a comparing article written by a positive trainer that doesn't at least insinuate that the rest of us are uneducated brutes. To hold my feet to the fire in a situation where you would not do the same to one of your own shows... what were the words? Oh yeah, a "slant" or an "agenda."

Thanks, but I packed my lunch, so you can keep your dollar.

You seem to be under the impression I am a PP trainer. If so, I assure you this is not the case. See above.

 

[corgipower]

I honestly don't care how you train for the most part but I am sick and tired of the extremes and using said extremes to prove points.

There is no always in training, there is no never in training, there are no absolutes in training and there is very rarely a one size fits all answer to training and I think at the end of the day pretty much all of use can agree on that

I agree completely!

 

[corgipower]

BTW Dogs in training - I saw your article posted on another forum, I don't see that you're responding there....

We're more fun. :ninja:

 

[Dekka]

I didn't read teh whole thread (sorry, only one week of classes left!)

The idea that positive methods break down in the face of a determined dog is down right laughable. IME people who fail at postive training (and I won't deny its harder, people I believe are hard wired to punish) are those who cannot think outside the box. Who want to see the problem as the dogs, and never take any responsibility upon themselves for the dog's behaviour.

Ie these sorts of people tend to look down on management techniques. They seem to see management as a failure, vs a step in breaking down behaviours. They want visible results NOW.

Happily for dogs that is not so. I can tell from personal experience that even dogs with bad bite histories can be happily trained with almost no aversives (and by almost there is no way to NEVER correct a dog, even unintentionally) I also have my fair share of personal experiences of how collar corrections made things worse (in both a practical and competition areas) If anyone cares I will share.

Corrections mask problems. They dont' get rid of the root cause. The dog learns the behaviour is dangerous in the presence of the punisher, but the cause of that behaviour is still there.

As for self rewarding behaviours... This is all I have to say will your dog do this (in public repeatedly):

 

[lizzybeth727]

Choosing to chase the animal results in a correction and an end to the outing.

How do you get your dog to end the outing? If he's chasing an animal.... how exactly do you apply a correction?

More than any other branch of training, the "purely positive" group seems to truly believe that their method is superior in all ways in all situations.

How many "purely positive" trainers do an online interview/chat session where they debate their points, then go and publish an article online to further argue their points, and THEN come to a forum and type thousands of more words to FURTHER argue their points? You've pointed out here that PR trainers are vague... maybe it's just that they don't want to spend so much time and energy engaging in this particular conversation with someone who they know they aren't going to convince?

I'm a professional dog trainer. People pay me all day long to give them my opinion about dog training. For me to come on an online forum just to argue some more is.... exhausting sometimes. I know of several pro trainers on this forum who feel the same way. Maybe THAT's why we're a little vague.

 

[DogsInTraining]

Corgipower,

First, thank you for the welcome. I think we agree on more than meets the eye.

Reliability?
How reliable is correction based training? Or "balanced" training?
Training is NEVER going to be 100% reliable. No matter what the methods.

I agree with you on that last note. Entirely. However, I look at it much like Suzanne Clothier. I want my communication to be as precise as possible. PR training focuses (sometimes exclusively) on what TO do. Correction based training focuses (sometimes exclusively) on what NOT to do. Balanced training teaches the dog what TO do, while simultaneously telling the dog what NOT to do. To me, this provides the clearest picture possible in the dog's mind. Add consistency, and it's my belief that this results in the greatest possible level of reliability.

Management still plays when doing balanced training. Until the dog DOES have a good sit or good off, I'm managing him and his environment regardless of what method I use to train him. Otherwise, those "properly timed corrections" aren't going to happen either.

There's a difference between employing some level of management during training and relying on it. Am I going to use a leash to manage the dog? Yep. Am I going to require that throughout this training procedure the dog not come into contact with a stranger at the door until he is totally ready? Nope. I find this excessively with aggression issues - aggressive dogs seem to be managed to death, and a chance encounter with a dog on the street can set a dog aggressive dog's behaviour modification back significantly. Because I don't rely solely on management, I can respond in real time with clear directions.

So all PR trainers should know Brelands and Skinner?

I find this unsettling. Yes, I do expect that all PR trainers should be aware of Skinner's work and the Breland's continuation of that work. The reason that so few PR trainers are aware of the Brelands is that they were quite possibly the most successful PR animal trainers of all time - and yet they recognized the limitations of their methods. These same methods that Karen Pryor wrote about - without, of course, any mention of "Misbehaviour". If you don't understand both the how AND the why, I don't see how you could be very effective. Just as any painter studies Van Gogh during their studies, PR trainers should be educated in the history of their methodology.

It's not a matter of tossing it aside. It's a matter of over the course of the last 70 years, a lot more has been learned about dog training and we have much more current information to cite.

Would you go to a doctor who was still using medicine from 70 years ago? Or would you prefer one who was a little more up on today's choices?

Actually, I use quite a few ancient remedies that are many times older than 70 years. Old doesn't mean wrong.

In addition, just because the article I quoted is an old one doesn't mean that the science doesn't stand today. After her husband died, Marian Breland remarried Bob Bailey. From Wikipedia:

In 1976, Marian married Robert E. (Bob) Bailey. He had been the first Director of Training in the Navy's Marine Mammal Program, then became ABE's General Manager. He and Marian had founded the facility "Animal Wonderful" in 1972.[2] Among their many activities, the Baileys worked with the Canine Companions for Independence nonprofit organization which trained dogs to assist disabled individuals.[20][30] Together, the Baileys trained animals from over 140 species.

Marian's graduate studies had stopped when she and Keller left to found ABE. Marian now returned to grad school, and earned her Ph.D. in Psychology at the University of Arkansas in 1978. She then served as a professor of psychology at Henderson State University from 1981 until her retirement in 1998. During these years, the Baileys produced educational films on topics such as the history of behaviorism. Their film work included The History of Behavioral Analysis Biographies, the ABE documentary Patient Like the Chipmunks, and An Apple for the Student: How Behavioral Psychology Can Change the American Classroom.

Marian continued writing about the "misbehavior" of animals during operant conditioning for publications like American Psychologist, ', the official journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).[31][32] The Baileys were chief among the behaviorists who began using the Internet for instruction, problem solving, and promotion of their science.[33]

In 1996, the Baileys began the Bailey & Bailey Operant Conditioning Workshops, which provided training to animal trainers, psychologists, students, and many others from throughout the world.[21] The program of study involved four increasingly advanced levels of the "physically, mentally, and emotionally demanding" workshops.[34] In 1998, the University of Arkansas inducted Marian into the university's Fulbright College Alumni Academy as one of their first Distinguished Alumni Award recipients.[35]

On September 25, 2001, Marian died at St. Joseph's Hospital in Hot Springs.[1]

Articles from Marian and Bailey (and others!) about the misbehaviour of organisms abound, but journal subscriptions and inadequate abstracts make their original article the easiest to gain full access to. If you'd like me to find you more current articles, I'd be more than happy.

Some do...I'm not one of them. Dogs are not dolphins, whales, chickens, pigs or wolves. They are a unique species in so far as having evolved alongside humans for thousands of years. That evolution enables them to have a working relationship with us far beyond what chickens, whales, dolphins or any other species can have.

No - most do. And for the record, dogs as a unique species in reference to clicker training goes against the behaviourism grain. Either you're a believer or you aren't. I suggest you read "Determinants of Animal Behavior" for a fuller understanding of behaviourism and animals and the "current science." You may be surprised.

Dogs are such opportunists, we can use that to steer their behaviors in the direction we want.

I would say that dogs are such opportunists, they are going to take any opportunity that involves a possible reward. It is this opportunism that creates the issue of competing rewards.

If my dog is jumping on me as a self rewarding behavior -- keep in mind, it's not the jumping that's the end reward here, it's the me -- I can absolutely remove the reward, namely myself. Very quickly the jumping on me becomes a whole lot less rewarding. If, simultaneously I reward the dog with myself when he offers all four feet on the floor, that behavior replaces the jumping.

If the act of jumping truly is the reward he's going for, I can redirect that into jumping over an obstacle or onto a bench or through a hoop.

Such a behaviourist point of view. And hard to believe when prefaced by:

Heck, if you walked into my house, you'd probably be horrified at my dogs' behavior. Are they trained? Absolutely! Do I allow them to jump and bark and mouth? You betcha I do. Can I stop them mid behavior? Most definitely. It's my choice to allow it and not at all dependent on the method I'm using.

They are not trained to greet people correctly. I would consider them not trained. What they ARE trained to do is to get themselves under control when instructed. Great, they can follow your command. But my dogs use their own self control when I get home, and no command is necessary. They have learned the appropriate way to greet people at the door.

Telling owners to ignore behaviors is valuable in so far as most of the time, they inadvertently reinforce behaviors. Dog jumps, owner pushes it away, dog thinks this is an awesome game and jumps again. Ignoring the jumping would be better than reinforcing it unintentionally.

You most definitely have a point here. Your average pet owner is TERRIBLE at inadvertently reinforcing negative behaviours. However, ignoring the behaviour only works if your dog's goal was your attention or reaction. If the dog is simply performing a behaviour that he/she enjoys or has become habituated to, all you're going to end up with is an owner who ignores bad behaviour and a dog who continues to perform said behaviour.

I'll be honest, if I came to your home and your dogs greeted me in that fashion (jumping, barking, mouthing) I would be appalled. In fact, if you were anything but a client seeking advice it would be the last time I entered your home. I have no patience for dogs with no self control and owners who seem to enjoy it that way. "Oh, but I can get them to stop" is an excuse for not teaching them how to behave properly in the first place.

 

[Dekka]

I'll be honest, if I came to your home and your dogs greeted me in that fashion (jumping, barking, mouthing) I would be appalled. In fact, if you were anything but a client seeking advice it would be the last time I entered your home. I have no patience for dogs with no self control and owners who seem to enjoy it that way. "Oh, but I can get them to stop" is an excuse for not teaching them how to behave properly in the first place.

This is precisely why I let my dogs jump and bark I don't want people dropping by unannounced. And if I know people are coming I will tell them to stay etc. Though to be fair the BC is not allowed to jump as he is to big/heavy. Though he will stand up right beside you with his paws tucked really close to his body lol.

 

[lizzybeth727]

Bob Bailey's an amazing clicker trainer - as in, he's very good at being clear with criteria, he has impecible timing with the clicker and with reinforcement delivery, he knows exactly when to raise criteria to shape behaviors, he has an amazing understanding of cueing, and he's extremely creative about thinking of new behaviors to teach. But "purely positive," he is NOT. I've gotten to hear him speak at a few seminars, and there are certainly a lot of things he does that I disagree with and IMO are a little outdated. But I'm going to be vague and stop there, because I don't really understand why he's in this conversation at all right now.

 

[Danefied]

Though to be fair the BC is not allowed to jump as he is to big/heavy.

yeah... we don't allow our guys to jump either...



Oh and yes corgipower, Chaz is way more fun - still trying to catch up on this thread!! I could have sworn I posted in it somewhere LOL!

 

[Dekka]

You might not be surprised that a small hoard of barking jumping JRTs are very effective at keeping the johava witnesses at bay!

 

[Linds]

.

I'll be honest, if I came to your home and your dogs greeted me in that fashion (jumping, barking, mouthing) I would be appalled. In fact, if you were anything but a client seeking advice it would be the last time I entered your home. I have no patience for dogs with no self control and owners who seem to enjoy it that way. "Oh, but I can get them to stop" is an excuse for not teaching them how to behave properly in the first place.

You know, I'm pretty much with you up until that point. Mainly because who cares? If someone else doesn't mind a behavior why does it bother you?

My pup will come tearing in from another room screaming and jump on me every single time I come in the house from being gone. Nice springing leaps up, with some whines, groans, moans, yips and some teeth chattering and it doesn't bother me in the least. I could get him to stop with a sit or a down or so on and do so when I want him not too but it's not a big concern to me. It might be to others, but he isn't their dog

That's the problem to me, trainers caring so much how everyone else does everything from teaching a heel to their house manners. It just doesn't matter to me I guess, do what you will with your own dogs and figure out what works for you

 

[Shai]

Hotdog relays! Love it! lol

 

[Dekka]

I really need to get a vid of her doing that!

I use it all.the.time. in these sorts of threads. The idea that one needs aversives to get a dog to chose to not do something self rewarding just shows people have no idea what they are talking about.

Dekka is as food motivated as they come. She is obsessed about food. How ever I have loads of pictures of her ignoring food. (including on set when the actor had to try desperately to get her to eat, and she couldn't even look interested)


I have read more of this thread. My take. If you want to be a balanced trainer, have at it. I only get offended by the sort of people who hang dogs, use staves etc. I do take exception to the mis information that positive training can't work with hard headed dogs, or self rewarding behaviours.

 

[corgipower]

I think we agree on more than meets the eye.

The "we" I was referring to was the entire "we" of the forum.

There's a difference between employing some level of management during training and relying on it. Am I going to use a leash to manage the dog? Yep. Am I going to require that throughout this training procedure the dog not come into contact with a stranger at the door until he is totally ready? Nope. I find this excessively with aggression issues - aggressive dogs seem to be managed to death, and a chance encounter with a dog on the street can set a dog aggressive dog's behaviour modification back significantly. Because I don't rely solely on management, I can respond in real time with clear directions.

It's entirely possible to use PR methods without relying solely on management. I can absolutely respond in real time with clear directions without a correction.

I find this unsettling. Yes, I do expect that all PR trainers should be aware of Skinner's work and the Breland's continuation of that work. The reason that so few PR trainers are aware of the Brelands is that they were quite possibly the most successful PR animal trainers of all time - and yet they recognized the limitations of their methods. These same methods that Karen Pryor wrote about - without, of course, any mention of "Misbehaviour". If you don't understand both the how AND the why, I don't see how you could be very effective. Just as any painter studies Van Gogh during their studies, PR trainers should be educated in the history of their methodology.

I am quite capable of understanding the how and the why without knowing the who.

No - most do. And for the record, dogs as a unique species in reference to clicker training goes against the behaviourism grain. Either you're a believer or you aren't.

There are so many different views to either believe in or not believe in, I can certainly pick and choose what works for me.opcorn:

I also reserve the right to change my mind on what I believe in as I continue to learn.

I would say that dogs are such opportunists, they are going to take any opportunity that involves a possible reward. It is this opportunism that creates the issue of competing rewards.

True...

Such a behaviourist point of view.

I have no idea what a "behaviorist point of view" is.

I'll be honest, if I came to your home and your dogs greeted me in that fashion (jumping, barking, mouthing) I would be appalled. In fact, if you were anything but a client seeking advice it would be the last time I entered your home. I have no patience for dogs with no self control and owners who seem to enjoy it that way. "Oh, but I can get them to stop" is an excuse for not teaching them how to behave properly in the first place.

Nah...
For one thing, if you don't like the way MY dogs behave in MY home, you don't at all need to be here.
For another, I choose what I want to teach them and what I want to allow. There's no rule book on what dogs are required to learn. And allowing jumping, barking, mouthing doesn't mean that I inflict such things on guests either. Considering I have one house guest a decade or so, there's just no need for it to be a primary training concern though. When guests walk in, I make sure they're greeted with manners. That doesn't mean I get to sit on my ass and wait and see, it means I'm proactive perhaps giving a command as soon as a paw comes off the floor or giving praise as soon as the dog settles. But when I walk into my own home, I not only allow the dogs to jump on me, I encourage it.

 

[corgipower]

yeah... we don't allow our guys to jump either...

Yeah...I might modify some of the rules if I ever own a dane.

 

[DogsInTraining]

Linds, thanks for the kind words. I didn't feel that my position was too extreme, but I did expect some backlash from the PR community - tends to happen when you suggest that just *maybe* PR can't solve everything - or is necessarily the most appropriate course of action.

As for everyone else, there's too much coming at me at once and frankly I have things to do today to respond to everyone.

Yes, I'm aware of when the article was published. You will note, Lizzy, that my "1940's" was a quote from a previous poster.

As for my failure to respond to another forum, I either haven't seen it or I couldn't be bothered. This seemed like a reasonable group of people.

Once again, however, comes the argument that if PR doesn't work it must be the trainer. It can't ever be the dog or the method.

As for the dog carrying (is that a hotdog?) my retriever used to fetch bacon, which is great and all, but doesn't apply to the theory of instinctual drift in any way so I'm unsure the point you're trying to make.

To everyone else, I'm not here to discuss your excuses or your assertions. I wrote an article defending the use of choke chains and pointing out the shortcomings of head halters in response to an incident in which positive trainers were... well, let's just say I had images in my head from The Waterboy of Kathy Bates saying "check collars are the DEVIL!"

I felt compelled to respond. For links to the other articles, you can just go to dogsintraining.wordpress.com

And finally, to the person who suggested I edit my article to make it easier for them to understand. Sorry, but I write for myself. I read and re-read each post before putting it out there, and the overwhelming majority of responses are very positive. If you can't get past the idea that I criticized the extreme wing of PR trainers (how offensive!) and suggested that those trainers who declare anything outside of P+ or R- to be cruel are just plain incorrect, then keep on doing what you're doing.

If, like me, you believe that the dog in front of you should dictate the methods you use, keep checking the blog, you may enjoy yourself. My main goal as a rescue operator is to keep dogs in homes. My main goal as a dog trainer is to keep dogs in homes using the most positive methods possible in that situation. Long, drawn out desensitization plans are simply not feasible in many of these situations. This does not make me an abuser or a bully, it makes me a realist with a job to do.

I am also only able to comment on the trainers I have experience with - and given the number of PR trainers who have recommended permanent management or euthanasia to clients with difficult dogs who have then come to me and found a solution to their issues it is clear that in my area at least we are plagued by a long line of PR trainers who would rather see a dog confined to a kennel or dead rather than corrected.

"Check chain," "prong collar," "e-collar" and even "aversive" have become four letter words, and that's just not okay. That was my point, and the only point I intended to make with that particular article.

 

[Shai]

Once again, however, comes the argument that if PR doesn't work it must be the trainer. It can't ever be the dog or the method.

What happens if leash/collar pops don't work?

I wrote an article defending the use of choke chains and pointing out the shortcomings of head halters

That article went well beyond choke chains vs. head halters.