Red Flag Words Trainers Use

I’ve said it a million times before and I’ll say it a million times more: Dog training is unregulated and anyone can call themselves a dog trainer even if they have no experience and no education. Unfortunately, that means it’s up to dog owners to figure out who is knowledgeable, effective, and safe and who isn’t.

In addition to avoiding people who use outdated and dangerous training methods including the use of pain (prong, shock, choke collars), fear (leash corrections or other physical force), or intimidation (water bottles, bean bags, shouting, stomping, “alpha rolls” or other “dominance” nonsense), there’s another entire class of trainers to be aware of.

Trainers who don’t understand how animals (all animals) learn aren’t good candidates for dog training. All dogs (and, again, all animals) learn in the same basic ways. Science has classified these basic ways that animals learn as Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning. We probably learned the basics of these things when we were in high school or early psychology classes. Remember “Pavlov’s Bell?” That’s classical conditioning. Does the name B.F. Skinner sound familiar? That’s Operant Conditioning. This article isn’t intended to teach what those two things are. But, at the risk of really over-simplifying, Operant Conditioning is teaching an animal that when they DO something (that is, they “operate” their bodies in some way), there’s a result (known as a consequence) that can be good or bad. And Classical Conditioning is training via associations (good or bad) - it’s how they “feel” about something like strange dogs, bicycles, thunder, or their favorite treat. Even though we describe them individually, these two things go hand in hand - even when we trainers think we’re using only one or the other. Understanding these two ways animals learn allows us to present dogs with a myriad of opportunities to learn.

There are a lot of different ways to teach a sit. You can teach it by “luring” a dog into position using a tasty treat. You can teach via something called “shaping” where we get the dog to do something, then we pay for anything that is a little bit closer to the target behavior. We can even “capture” a preferred behavior by reinforcing it when the dog does it naturally. All three are fine options. Some trainers prefer one way over other ways. Some dogs become really good at the whole “shaping game” and can learn new things quickly with the method. Sometimes I’ll “capture” something opportunistically when I happen to have the presence of mind to notice and reinforce for something I like. In any case, those are all examples of Operant Conditioning - teaching a dog to “operate their body” to produce a desired outcome (that tasty piece of cheese I usually carry during training sessions). Exactly which method I’ll use depends on the behavior I’m trying to get, the dog’s learning history, and my personal bias about each method. When done well, they’re all effective, humane, and efficient. But they are all operant conditioning (which leads us to say - as I said above - all animals learn the same way).

Ditto with Classical Conditioning. We use it to change how an animal “feels” about something. Typically, for the purposes of dog training, we’re trying to teach a dog to like something that they previously feared or felt neutral about. Examples include fears of thunder, being left home alone, going to the vet, strangers (whether human or dog), etc. Different ways we apply Classical Conditioning include counter-conditioning, desensitization, habituation, or flooding (I don’t use flooding and would not recommend trainers who do - it’s another outdated and dangerous method that we no longer use).
Okay, after saying this blog post wasn’t trying to teach you what Operant and Classical Conditioning are, I still went deeper than I planned to. Still with me?

What’s important is that your trainer knows all this. You don’t have to know all this. I don’t go into the intricacies of Operant/Classical Conditioning when helping a client. I tell them what to DO (move the food to their nose, then up, and back to get the dog to sit…). I simplify things. People often don’t want to become experts on behavior - they just want their dog to learn to do specific things. And that’s absolutely fine.

But, again, your trainer SHOULD know what’s actually happening. Why is the dog’s behavior changing? Why ISN’T the dog’s behavior changing? If a certain Operant Conditioning protocol isn’t working, might another?

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to attend a training session for trainers. There were some really skilled trainers (in addition to the two who were running the program). And there were some newbies who were learning quickly. And then, well, there was a trainer who wanted to teach one of the animals using a specific protocol she’d read about. I’d heard about the method, but didn’t know much about it. I’m happy to try new things (in a class or on my own dogs - not on a client’s dog - the client should expect me to know what I’m doing, not to be experimenting on their dog). So, I happily asked them to explain how it worked. But they couldn’t tell me. They knew WHAT to do, but seemed not to know the principles behind the specific steps they had been told to do. So, when things didn’t go exactly as they had envisioned, they didn’t know how to troubleshoot. And they found it frustrating. And they were reluctant to try other things because they didn’t have a good understanding of the basic principles underneath - they just knew the steps. That’s not enough.

I see new protocols described as “new,” “innovative,” or “unique.” I see phrases like “leadership” or “communication.” But those words don’t tell us what the trainer actually DOES.

In a recent online discussion, a highly-qualified trainer named Si Wooler said, “I would argue that the important thing for trainers to do…is gain a thorough understanding of the proven laws of learning theory. Learn exactly how operant and classical conditioning work and then practice their application.” Later in the conversation Si said, “Beware those who speak of innovation folks. The science isn’t broken.”
So, when you are reading about the “newest innovation in dog training since B.F. Skinner” beware. Ask the trainer specific questions like, “What will happen when my dog gets it right? What will happen when my dog gets it wrong? What, specifically will you DO to teach my dog this behavior? Why does that work?” If they can’t answer your questions in ways that make sense to you, keep shopping. It may be that they simply don’t know the answers.

(okay, okay, one other thought) I totally understand why people might not want to go into detail about how to train something specific before you engage them. Training for free is something I happily do at times - but as a professional, I recoup I need to recoup my expenses (ongoing education, insurance, all that cheese!) and I make income by selling my time, services, and knowledge. Giving it away to someone inquiring about working with me is bad business. And MAYBE that’s the reason some of these trainers sound a bit vague on their websites. I realize that makes it even harder for you, the dog owner, to decide whether or not the trainer is actually qualified. I wish I had an easier answer for you. One day, hopefully, our industry will be regulated so that unqualified trainers - with insufficient or outdate knowledge - are weeded out.

Until then, it’s up to you to ask questions to figure it out on your own. Or ask other trainers you trust. There are SO MANY dogs needing help that I’m not looking to get you to work with me. I’ll be happy to vet your local trainer if I can - and perhaps to recommend one who is better qualified and more transparent.