So are we LIMA or are we “bALaNceD”?

[tiernon]

@luketbachelder This is so weird to hear as I've dealt more with people ridiculing r/reactivedogs for how "soft" we are. I also don't spend much time in other LIMA subreddits, and thus encounter a lot more "shock collars solve everything" discussions, so I may simply be failing to notice the occasional "balanced" advocate in here.

I think this is probably a case of mods not being able to moderate as actively as they would like. Given that this is an emergent problem, it's a new development and not necessarily a philosophical change. Reporting comments which stray from LIMA are probably the best way to get the issue under control.

But the biggest problem is probably an extension of the other, extremely insightful comment posted in here: people don't understand that this isn't actually a question of training philosophies. It's a question of science. Advocating in favor of LIMA and rejecting dominance theory are just two examples of the same thing: being guided by scientific consensus and not casual anecdote. We treat LIMA like it's an ethical stance when in reality, it's applied behavioral psychology.

(Of course, given how difficult it's been for scientists to convince the public to stop hitting their kids, it's not surprising we've yet to convince people to stop scaring their dogs.)

While dominance theory has probably done the most damage to effective dog training, the invention of the remote-controlled shock collar comes in at a close second.

 

[dreamscapestars]

@luketbachelder The answer is right there in the wiki. It states that the sub supports LIMA training methods. There is even a link to an article from Laura Romanik on why she no longer uses balanced training methods.

 

[christopherb]

@luketbachelder I think this sub should take a stronger stance against classic aversives, but I think it's silly that mods on r/Dogtraining will unironically allow/recommend gentle leaders and ban other aversive collars. It's the exact same principle. Gentle leaders are an aversive, despite the cutesy name.

This whole drama seems to be mostly based on one thread three months ago here where a mod refused to flat out say they would remove all comments mentioning aversives that weren't "don't".

(I think ultimately those other subs are hurting dogs by not allowing people to refer users here. This sub is really helpful for owners of reactive dogs. So their priority isn't helping dogs in banning mentions of us, it's feeling superior)

 

[joshuawithmartin]

@christopherb I can’t even remember the thread but I remember the modmail!

 

[christopherb]

@joshuawithmartin Oh, to be a fly on the wall for that one, lol.

The r/Dogtraining mods removed a comment of mine once for saying martingales shouldn't hurt and shouldn't be escapable. They can be...inflexible.

Edit: they also don't allow linking to non-aversive YouTube videos from trainers that have old videos where they did use aversives. And like last week they told me they don't/shouldn't allow linking to Petco, PetSmart, Chewy, and Amazon because they sell aversives. The mod team there is constantly validating their reputation for being fundamentally unreasonable.

Some of those mods need to spend less time on reddit and more time outside. The mod who said these things to me doesn't even have credentials in their flair so they're not necessarily a qualified professional of any sort. I don't know if they even have a dog. I've never seen them mention having one.

 

[niaa]

@christopherb Yup. I got told off by a mod for saying that I would tell my dog no and tug on his leash once- apparently the word “no” counts as aversive and isn’t allowed. The post was from a guy whose dog was mounting humans randomly on walks, and the post only had automod comments on it. Super frustrating situation.

 

[christopherb]

@niaa Leash corrections (which could be what is meant by tugging, or could be literally just enough to get their attention, but the mods would conservatively interpret it as the former just in case) and scolding (using "no" as a response to bad behavior) are aversive and can worsen reactivity, and there are non-aversive ways to accomplish the same thing (such as teaching "leave it" using e.g. the Errorless It's Your Choice method), but IMO it's better to allow replies explaining that than to just remove comments and not provide alternatives to the OP.

The comment you just made would probably just be removed on r/Dogtraining with a stock message about reading the rules. I wouldn't have been able to make my comment and other people reading wouldn't have learned about Errorless It's Your Choice or the idea that leash corrections can worsen reactivity. IMO that's a strictly worse outcome.

 

[niaa]

@christopherb Yup. My frustration was twofold- I think the comments weren’t visible to the guy who made the post, so he learned nothing, and the moderator was condescending and ultimately
unhelpful. To clarify, when I say tug the leash, I mean to get their attention, not a correction.

 

[joshuawithmartin]

@luketbachelder Ooh have r/dogtraining “announced” finally? They messaged about this recently and I have a post drafted and waiting. I’ll go get it up!

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@joshuawithmartin Is that the forum? I don't ever go there but I was fully expecting it to be open dog training or something along those lines.

I'm super interested as to what the drama is for that, because dogtraining appears to also be LIMA, and pretty much against aversives (at least, in their description).

 

[joshuawithmartin]

@imagebeastmarkbeast As far as I’m aware yes, they messaged us (with pretty much the same language as OP here…) saying that because we allow some discussion of tools and methods and don’t choose to delete everything, that they are actually recommends under the guise of discussion and we therefore are pushing balanced training

 

[imagebeastmarkbeast]

@joshuawithmartin Ohhh. I was interpreting it totally differently - I thought there were subreddits that were upset that we weren't advocating for tools/balanced training. I didn't realize they thought we were doing it too much! Ha.

Thanks for the insight!

 

[joshuawithmartin]

@imagebeastmarkbeast Right? Yes it’s actually the opposite direction

 

[jmarie196812]

@joshuawithmartin That's funny because I see aversive recommendations in r/dogtraining waaay more than here

 

[autumn1123]

@joshuawithmartin I mean. I can’t count the number of obvious recommendations in this thread, which got a lot of attention, that you decided to lock but not actually remove anything harmful?

 

[joshuawithmartin]

@autumn1123 I thought that there were some great comments and discussions on why the use of aversives is not a good idea and thought it was worth leaving those up for folks to find - yours is one of them actually!

 

[autumn1123]

@joshuawithmartin But half or more of the comments are still saying “they’re fine if you use them well” and receiving lots of upvotes; isn’t that just confusing for your average dog owner who is trying to make sense of all the conflicting information out there? Are they supposed to just go with their gut and potentially fall for marketing tactics or is it maybe more ethical to more deliberately support the advice of prominent experts in the field such as AVSAB?

 

[tiernon]

@autumn1123 I chimed in on one of the threads to support limited use of aversives—temporarily, in extreme cases, and only if you really, really know what you're doing.

I went back just now and you're right: there was a lot of the usual pro-shock collar circle-jerking that you see elsewhere.

But that is EXTREMELY out of character for this subreddit.

I agree that it's unfortunate that the mods for r/dogtraining will be denying participants access to and knowledge of r/reactivedogs. This subreddit gets a post along the lines of "I thought I was alone" roughly every other day. It's been a lifeline for countless people with seemingly untrainable "problem dogs."

All because once in a blue moon, we sprout a few commenters who don't believe in LIMA

 

[tenderloin]

@autumn1123

isn’t that just confusing for your average dog owner who is trying to make sense of all the conflicting information out there?

I would rather someone see level-headed back and forth discussion and make a decision for themselves instead of outright ban and being pushed into more poorly-moderated subs that lack nuance (i.e., historically opendogtraining). People who are curious about aversives are going to find that information somehow, and I'd rather the educated users here be part of that converstion. If that's not your approach then that's fine - that's why we all have our own subs

I'm also curious how many of those comments you reported in that thread that you found problematic. This is a small moderator team. What support were you offering the mods here?

 

[autumn1123]

@tenderloin But again, more firmly regulated subs still don’t ban people from asking questions. Discussions can and do still happen, but there’s a lot of power in someone saying to someone who is desperate, “I used an e-collar and it was like I had a different dog in a week!” Which is allowed here. Even with a reasoned back-and-forth, someone who is at the end of their rope might decide it’s worth a try and traumatize their dog because they don’t know what they’re doing.