Tails From The Field: Navigating Dog Training Methodologies

Welcome to “Tails From The Field,” a series sharing true stories from Chad Culp’s professional dog training experiences. While names and breeds may be altered for privacy, the lessons learned remain authentic. This particular story delves into a client’s strong, yet misinformed, stance on dog training tools and methods, highlighting common misunderstandings in the pet owner community.

The Initial Confrontation: A Question of Tools

Upon entering a client’s home, the usual pleasantries were bypassed. Instead, the client directly questioned my methods: “if you use prong collars or choke chains, I can just pay you now and you can leave.” This directness, while appreciated, felt confrontational and unexpected. A crucial question arose: should I accept the payment and leave, or attempt a more nuanced conversation about training approaches? My internal checklist confirmed that while I do utilize training collars in certain situations, they are not my sole approach. Flexi leads and harnesses are also part of my toolkit. The immediate challenge was deciding whether to engage in this debate at that moment. Despite my initial reaction, I chose to remain calm and think before speaking. This decision proved to be wise, as it led to a productive discussion and ultimately, a successful training session.

I explained that my goal wasn’t to take his money without providing value. Instead, I proposed a discussion to see if I could assist him. He agreed, and I elaborated on my methods, emphasizing that even though I sometimes use training collars, I am also proficient in training without them. I assured him that no action would be taken without his explicit approval and that he would observe the entire process. This conversation, occurring over a decade ago, allowed for a rational dialogue, paving the way for a successful training lesson and his subsequent enrollment in my Basic Obedience group class.

The Reactive Bulldog and Misconceptions Fueled by Online Content

The reason for my visit was a young, reactive bulldog exhibiting lunging, pulling, snarling, growling, and barking at other dogs. While no fights had occurred, the dog’s behavior suggested aggression. The client’s strong aversion to prong collars and choke chains stemmed from his consumption of YouTube videos by Zak George, leading him to fully embrace a purely positive or force-free training philosophy. I’ve previously discussed this phenomenon in my article, Dogs Are Not Dolphins.

Although I wasn’t familiar with Zak George at the time, I recognized the training philosophy. I explained that I was certified in positive training and discussed its benefits and limitations, particularly its impracticality and time-consuming nature for addressing aggressive behaviors in the average pet owner. Nevertheless, I agreed to try his preferred approach.

To my astonishment, I discovered that this bulldog was completely unmotivated by food. Offering treats, even without any requests, was ineffective as the dog showed no interest. His disinterest extended to toys as well. This presented a significant challenge, especially considering the client’s fervent advocacy for positive training methods and his reliance on online resources, yet his apparent lack of basic lure-and-reward exercise implementation.

Virtue Signaling vs. The Urgent Need for Results

A common pitfall for many YouTube viewers, including my client, is falling prey to “virtue signaling.” This marketing tactic positions positive training advocates as inherently “good” for their love of dogs, while labeling trainers who use aversive tools as “bad.” This clever marketing appeals to owners’ desire to be perceived as good pet parents. However, it often leads to a misunderstanding of what truly makes positive training effective and its inherent limitations in achieving rapid results.

The inability to utilize treats severely impacted my ability to succeed with this client. I politely explained that positive techniques require a dog with a high level of motivation, which was clearly lacking. I emphasized that it could take days or weeks of homework just to generate basic motivation, let alone enough to manage reactivity around other dogs.

The client appeared disappointed but curious about alternative solutions. I proposed a more traditional leash training approach, using a regular collar instead of a prong or choke. I explained the importance of a loose leash and the use of leash pops—a technique I acknowledged Zak George would likely disapprove of—but assured him it wouldn’t involve specialized collars. He then asked, “Can’t you just take the dog out for a walk and transform him? You know, like the Dog Whisperer on TV.”

The “Dog Whisperer” Phenomenon and Contrasting Philosophies

Cesar Millan, famously known as “The Dog Whisperer,” is arguably the most recognized dog trainer globally. His popularity, however, has made him a target for positive-only trainers like Zak George, making the client’s question particularly striking. When I expressed surprise, he confirmed his seriousness, appearing unfazed by the apparent contradiction.

I was relieved by his question, as it indicated a potential willingness to consider different perspectives. I explained that while I didn’t know Zak George, I was aware that trainers like him vehemently opposed Cesar Millan, viewing him as an antagonist to their cause. I further clarified that many positive-only trainers not only reject specific tools but also any form of correction or punishment, often refraining from even saying “No” to a dog. I highlighted that Zak George’s approach was not a variation of Cesar Millan’s methods; they represented fundamentally different mindsets with distinct expectations and outcomes.

Upon learning this, the client seemed puzzled but open-minded. Seeing Cesar Millan’s show and perceiving no abusive behavior, he began to re-evaluate his initial stance. This experience underscored the overwhelming amount of conflicting information available to pet owners, leading to widespread confusion and misunderstanding.

The Core Misunderstanding: Positive Reinforcement’s Role

The most significant misconception my client, and many dog owners, hold is that positive reinforcement alone can achieve control, obedience, and the cessation of unwanted behaviors. This is inaccurate. Positive reinforcement is excellent for building motivation and enthusiasm during training but is ineffective for directly stopping unwanted behaviors, establishing control, or enforcing commands. My article, The Four A’s of Dog Training, further elaborates on this.

Applying positive reinforcement to reactivity requires considerable time and patience. Training must occur at a distance that prevents stressing the dog or triggering its reactivity, typically by keeping the dog focused on treats or allowing desensitization to the presence of another dog. This gradual approach, often termed staying “below threshold,” means that immediate walks or encounters with other dogs are often impossible. Many owners exhibiting these techniques can be observed crossing the street or hiding behind cars, desperately trying to keep their dog focused.

Effective desensitizing, redirecting, and counterconditioning exercises require a controlled environment and an assistant. Progress can be agonizingly slow, sometimes involving advancements of only a few yards per lesson, as the focus remains solely on avoiding reactivity rather than controlling the dog. This makes it challenging for owners to manage their dogs during everyday situations. While this method can work, its slow, difficult, and often unrealistic nature means owners shouldn’t feel discouraged if it doesn’t yield results.

Effective Solutions: A Balanced Approach

A balanced approach, incorporating both rewards and corrections, generally proves most effective. In the bulldog’s case, since rewards were ineffective, leash corrections, used at a manageable distance, were necessary. This allowed us to gradually push through thresholds more quickly than purely positive methods would permit. We were able to walk past the fence with barking dogs, previously a trigger for extreme reactions, with the bulldog remaining quiet. While further work was needed, this demonstrated that corrections could be applied effectively without causing harm. The owner was pleased, though I still assigned homework focused on building positive motivation with treats and toys.

Unacknowledged Gaps in Knowledge

My well-intentioned client held strong beliefs without fully understanding the details:

He was vehemently opposed to prong collars and choke chains based on online content, yet possessed limited knowledge to support his stance.
He was unaware that positive training for leash reactivity requires a dog with exceptionally high motivation.
He admired “The Dog Whisperer” without realizing Cesar Millan is considered an adversary by staunch positive trainers.
He mistakenly believed positive trainers merely used treats and clickers as a gentler alternative to leash corrections, not recognizing the fundamentally different goals and outcomes of each philosophy.
This lack of clarity is widespread, affecting millions of dog owners and even many professional trainers.

This widespread confusion, fueled by conflicting information and strong opinions often based on limited knowledge, leaves many owners bewildered.

The Path Forward: Open-mindedness and Honesty

The goal is not to create “dog training wars” but to foster open-mindedness and honesty within the industry. There’s value to be found in various training methodologies, and we can learn from different approaches, rather than adhering to rigid “us vs. them” mentalities.

Chad Culp – Certified Dog Trainer, Canine Behavior Consultant, Owner of Thriving Canine.

We offer in-person training in the San Francisco Bay Area as well as virtual consults anywhere in the world.
Newsletter
YouTube
Facebook
Join our private Thriving Canine University Facebook group (please read the rules before joining).

Dog Books