So are we LIMA or are we “bALaNceD”?

[luketbachelder]

Many other subs are starting to ban mentions of r/reactivedogs because of the rules and treatment regarding aversives here. The description says we promote LIMA and the wiki talks about types of training while still not once recommending aversive training tools and methods, many times saying no those are not good training. Yet that discussion is still allowed under the guise of balanced training with a quick autoMod message saying it isn’t recommended.

So are we LIMA or balanced or free for all so long as you say it’s balanced? The pro-aversive/“balanced” comments and posts are few and far between but if it’s locking this sub out from others then it needs to be discussed.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@luketbachelder Here's the thing, this is a sub for reactive dogs. Some are frustrated, many are fearful.

It's really not a place for balanced training discussions because reactivity and training are two totally different things. Training does not fix reactivity. It does not heal reactivity. It is completely and totally a management strategy (and IMO, there are other, and better management strategies).

Can aversives stop reactive behaviors? Sure. Pain is very motivating! But we have to ask ourselves why they work and how they work, and the potential for fallout. Of course aversives have potential for fallout even in regular training, but the risk is especially high when using them in reactivity work because we are not here trying to train dogs to sit or stay or recall or whatever - we are trying to alter mental states. And that is very risky when you use aversives.

For the record +R isn't really a first line of defense for reactivity training. It looks like it is, because treats are being used, but that is actually not typically the area of learning theory being utilized.

 

[christopherb]

@imagebeastmarkbeast The problem isn't that this subreddit isn't against aversives. It is against aversives. The "problem" is that this sub doesn't automatically or entirely remove all comments about aversives, even when people are replying to it explaining why it's not a great idea and generally providing way more helpful info for everyone than removing it would have.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@christopherb Thank you. I wasn't aware of the drama in the other subreddits because I don't go there, so I misunderstood what the issue was - I thought other subreddits weren't recommending us because of the lack of aversive support here.

I think overall this subreddit is really great about being clear that aversives are not promoted or recommended, and I know there has to be allowance of discussion because there are plenty of people who are really just doing their best with the information they have. I do see it being a potential issue when aversives are supported or recommended because IMO they shouldn't be by anyone who isn't a professional, nor should they be without meeting the dog in person - but that I guess aligns with "anyone can be anyone on the internet".

So yeah, super sticky subject, and very sad that they wouldn't recommend our subreddit because I think this is a great place for people to get support that they may not get elsewhere.

 

[christopherb]

@imagebeastmarkbeast

So yeah, super sticky subject, and very sad that they wouldn't recommend our subreddit because I think this is a great place for people to get support that they may not get elsewhere.

Yeah.

I actually had an interaction with the r/Dogtraining mods a while ago where they were like "I know we have a reputation for being unreasonable, but I promise we're actually very reasonable". Lol

 

[kidwindy001]

@luketbachelder When I first adopted my dog, we worked with a balanced trainer. I did not know the extent of my dog’s issues upon adopting her and he was recommended to us, we didn’t know what else to do, contacted a positive reinforcement trainer who couldn’t get us in for two months, and her reactivity was so bad we didn’t know what else to do so we went with the balanced trainer. I know now that that was not the right thing for my pup, but didn’t at the time. So when I have posted in this sub, mentioning that we have done balanced training in the past helps paint the picture of where we are at now with training. Because of that, I feel like it would be very hard to just ban anything and everything that mentions balanced. Discussing it has helped me realize what I was doing wrong and what I should have been doing instead. I never really see anyone RECOMMENDING it, but I think DISCUSSING it can be very beneficial here.

 

[autumn1123]

@kidwindy001 I’m a mod at r/dogtraining and although we are very firm about aversive recommendations, we wouldn’t remove comments like that. We don’t remove questions or “I’ve done this and it wasn’t the right choice”, we remove recommendations because strangers on the internet aren’t qualified to make that call.

There was a thread here recently which had mostly balanced recommendations (“it’s fine if you do it right”) and the mods locked it but didn’t actually remove any problematic comments - many of which had many upvotes.

 

[kidwindy001]

@autumn1123 Ah, I was not aware of that. Thank you for clarifying!

 

[sharifa0725]

@luketbachelder So LIMA doesn't necessarily mean that aversives should never be used. It's right there in the name: least invasive and minimally aversive. That means exhausting non aversive methods first, since they come with more potential for fallout. I've seen healthy discussion in this sub where someone had really tried their best to use R+ methods, consulted with a certified trainer, the whole shebang, and it didn't work. It was at that point that the topic of aversive correction was brought in. For the sake of the owner and the quality of life for the dog, it became appropriate to introduce aversives. Otherwise the dog would likely be surrendered and eventually euthanized. It's pretty difficult to argue against using those tools at that point, it's simply what needed to be done when nothing else would work after a good deal of time and effort. It's also entirely within the spirit of LIMA philosophy, since it's the least invasive/aversive option remaining.

The problem that generally comes up within this community is that people who self identify as "balanced" typically default to aversive tools almost instantly. Also there seems to be a strong correlation between people who default to aversive correction and an uneducated, out of date, "old school" attitude that leans heavily on dominance theory. These people pop up in here, say that we're all soft on our dogs, then lecture us about how we're failing them by not "being the alpha". The sub has to be heavily moderated for that kind of nonsense because God damn, we get it enough in our regular lives. Still, there is room for a healthy discussion and times that it's appropriate, like the above example.

 

[autumn1123]

@sharifa0725 So here’s my take as a trainer. For one thing, LIMA is a decent framework for qualified professionals, but I really don’t like it for the general public or public forums like this - mostly for the reason you mentioned, that the balanced crowd (and most casual owners) are quick to go, “well, that didn’t work, time for a prong collar”.

But, for one thing, very rarely are people actually starting with the least intrusive training method. For instance, by and large most people still use negative punishment for teaching “leave it”, a tactic centered in frustration, rather than using an errorless fade-in protocol.

Next, to ethically be able to decide that an aversive is necessary, you need:
- a thorough background of the dog, their environment, their learning history, and their medical history
- a thorough understanding of learning theory and animal behavior
- an understanding of antecedent arrangement and the ability to ensure the dog has been/is being set up for maximum success
- the ability to ensure that the handler has clean mechanics, timing, and enough understanding to be applying the training correctly

.. before even getting into things like medication. There is no way for this sub, as a public forum of internet strangers, to be able to ensure that those steps have been covered, nor to be able to ensure that other sub users will apply the aversive in a minimal way, so there is really zero reason to mention aversives here at all. Which makes LIMA a poor framework for the sub to base itself on, because people hear “minimally aversive” and go “oh okay, I can use a shock collar as long as I don’t turn it too high”.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@autumn1123 I have done all the steps and processes you’d expect a diligent owner to do and moved to LIMA training but here’s the other thing I expect from other LIMA owners - stop when it is no longer a clear communication tool or you or the dog are regressing, and never stop rewarding the good behavior. The number one idea behind any aversive to make it “fair” (subjective term, follow the idea) is the dog must know how to turn it off every single time. As in, a prong or e collar is NOT for pushing boundaries, diving into high stress and distraction environments, and for teaching new things. The dog must be in the state of mind to listen and understand how to turn off the stimulus every. single. time. Period. Also, there have been times I felt nervous or sloppy with my potential timing so I STOPPED using it until I got to connect with my trainer again. If you have any iota of doubt that the exact moment you are correcting is wrong, put the tool down and leave it. Without anthropomorphizing dogs, I like to imagine what would (and does) my dog do to train me? If I were doing something he didn’t like, how does he escalate his behavior before he would consider nipping or biting (never has, knock on wood)? And how does he “reward” me for doing what he likes? You don’t want your dog to escalate to biting for every trigger, you need to have that same respect when training and not escalate to aversives and corrections as the quickest means to an end. Just my two cents

 

[autumn1123]

@imagebeastmarkbeast The problem with using pain and discomfort to train, even if you do use it in a way that the dog always knows how to turn it off, is that it releases the handler from the responsibility of empathizing with their dog; i.e. figuring out why the dog is offering a certain behavior or not responding to a cue. A dog might be hesitant to sit because they’re in pain, but begin sitting faster because a pop on the prong hurts more. Even if they know how to avoid the pop, is that fair? How long will they receive punishments for not responding fast enough before the handler figures out the why, instead of the handler needing to figure that out from the start?

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@autumn1123 Fair point - I assume that ties into the medical history prerequisite you already mentioned. I don’t use aversive for commands like sit. Personally I think we (dog owners and trainers) over use Sit instead of what we actually want - focus on handler, not stimulating environment. My dog can get prong corrected for starting to pull ahead on the leash on walks, but the majority of his exercise isn’t from walking, and only after we do verbal cues and attempt to change direction or get another desired behavior. He will get vibration stimulation as recall from a distance if needed, and I use low stim to break his attention when he starts fixating if he hasn’t responded to verbal cues or attempts to redirect, but only if he hasn’t escalated physiologically (hackles, growling, etc). And again, any stimulation followed by the desired behavior is rewarded. If stimulation is given and not met with the desired behavior, it is because I personally failed somewhere - taking it too far too quickly, intervening too late, not building up to the environment etc. It is no small task, and I have stepped back from it more than once. It can be hard view your dog as an animal that only behaves against instinct when the motivation is high enough and really get in tune with their behavior to even consider correcting. It’s also really hard to learn to be honest with yourself, step back, and recognize that you aren’t a superstar trainer and take accountability for your dogs shitty behaviors. If my dog reacted, it is because I pushed him too far too quick or didn’t thoroughly plan and train for that trigger. When I learned to take accountability for my dog’s behavior, I stopped viewing aversive as a “I’m going to punish you” tool, but as a “this is a communication device when you can’t or won’t hear me.” I don’t view it as “let me reduce the time it takes you to do what I asked” or “you’re going to do every command I say quickly OR ELSE” - if I want a quick Sit, I train and reward a quick sit. I can’t think of a single situation where my dog would need to be corrected for a sit, or what situation I would put him in that I’d ask for a sit and demand it with a correction if he didn’t - ties into my prior idea of use it when it is warranted, not because it is a quicker means to an end.

 

[autumn1123]

@imagebeastmarkbeast The example I gave was only an example, but it applies to all behaviors and corrections. When your dog pulls on walks, you can correct him, or you can stop to consider why he’s pulling. All behavior has a function and meets a need for the animal. Is he pulling to sniff something? Is that perhaps a sign that his needs to sniff and explore haven’t been met? Is he experiencing stress or anxiety? My dog gets very pully when he’s stressed, and I probably wouldn’t be able to use that behavior as a diagnostic for his internal state if I punished him when he did.

When he’s not responding to cues around triggers, why? Are you not working under threshold? Does he fully understand what you’re asking him to do? Is he properly motivated? Those are all questions that are easy to ignore when you have a punishment right under your thumb, but they’re valid questions nonetheless. If he is failing to respond to a cue, why is that worthy of punishment to get compliance and not your responsibility to readjust as a teacher? You’ve already said that you’re able to step back and realize when you’ve made an error, so why can’t you go further with it and eliminate the punishment altogether when it isn’t necessary?

Additionally, it unfortunately doesn’t matter if a behavior trained with negative reinforcement is then rewarded after it’s offered. Any cue with an “or else” attached is always motivated by that threat and not lessened with a reward.

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@autumn1123 The questions you’ve asked are very basic surface level questions about dog behavior that have been considered, and worked on with the trainer that has seen my dog and handled him. Without going into each rabbit hole you asked about, I would say this: there are situations in which I need my dog to know that his pre-reactive behavior is unacceptable. I will do everything I can to avoid putting him in that situation, and training him to be there. After learning what behaviors have led to additional undesired behaviors, preventing and training them is always the best bet, but stopping them is the next option. In the case of distance recall, my dog will not always be under my nose - we have earned/built that privilege - under the condition that when his neck buzzes because he is too far to hear me, or we are in a situation where verbal recall is not smart, he comes to me. I’d suggest trainers consider when a dog is pulling to sniff they might not actually be “meeting a need” but distracting themselves from anxiety. My dog can sniff, he knows we stop at all the spots with great dog pee smells, and he doesn’t pull for that. Justifying bad behavior as a biological “need” is bad science, firstly, and discredits the idea of operant and classical conditioning. Instinct and motivation are the only drivers of behavior. My dog does not need to sniff everything he wants to. He may have the instinct and urge to go sniff a beehive, that doesn’t mean I should let him drag me to it.

 

[autumn1123]

@imagebeastmarkbeast Of course they’re surface level questions, I don’t know your dog. They’re just examples to illustrate my point, which you’re missing; that dogs do everything they do for a reason. That’s not bad science, that’s basic behavioral fact; so much so that we have a term for behavior with no function (stereotypy). Ignoring that reason in favor of punishment is never fair, and dogs have zero concept of whether something is “acceptable” - they know what behaviors have good consequences and what behaviors have bad consequences. And those bad consequences are also never without classical conditioning being present and your dog making associations between a correction and not only their behavior, but with you, the environment, and other stimuli.

I suggested myself that your dog might be pulling out of stress or anxiety. If you are agreeing with me as I believe you are, why does that justify adding more stress to the situation by punishing him?

And saying that I’m suggesting that you let your dog pull you to something dangerous is a bad faith/strawman argument that I am not making. I am saying that punishment is not necessary to get the behaviors we want, and causes owners to overlook the function of the behaviors they are trying to stop which is detrimental to their dogs’ welfare.

 

[mydogs]

@autumn1123 How do people use negative punishment for teaching “leave it”? I’m new to training and I’m wondering which method I’m using!! (We walk past item and when I say “leave it” she looks at me and I give her a treat).

 

[autumn1123]

@mydogs The standard way to teach “leave it” is to hold a treat out in your closed hand, let your dog try to get it, and reward when they move or look away. That’s negative punishment - removing a desired thing until the behavior of trying to get it stops.

Not only are we waiting for the result of frustration (giving up), which will make our dogs less enthusiastic to train with us, but they’re also actively practicing the behavior we don’t want, which is trying to get the food.

If you look up “errorless learning leave it” you should be able to find the healthier alternative

 

[tenderloin]

@luketbachelder Banning mentions of this sub is going to hurt owners, period. There just aren't the same level of discussions on reactivity in the other dog training subs without sifting through post after post of "how do I get my dog to sit" or whatever nonsense is in r/dogtraining. When I was starting out with training my reactive dog, I found that sub to be completely useless to me.

Banning all discussions of aversives here frankly doesn't help owners either. Instead, it creates room for poorly moderated "openreactivedogs" esque subs much like the creation of opendogtraining.

I have never considered this sub to be affiliated with r/dogtraining whatsoever, so I'm not entirely sure why they feel like they have so much leverage. Further, if people on r/dogtraining had issues with content here, I'm not sure why they weren't offering "support" in the form of reporting those comments.

All of this seems like a giant short-sighted ego trip to me.

 

[christopherb]

@tenderloin

Banning mentions of this sub is going to hurt owners, period

And dogs!