Wednesday, May 25, 2011


I have an agenda for positive training.

To me, it is important that my training reflects the best of what R+ has to offer without leaning on emotional arguments. I want people to incorporate more reinforcement into their training because it will make their dog's performance faster, stronger, flashier, better, not because it makes the trainer feel good (although the feelings I get from clicker training are a big reinforcer for me) because most of the traditional trainers I encounter and have heard from don't feel bad about what they're doing to their dogs.

My win condition is not everyone uses R+ exclusively. My win condition is that most people use R+ heavily and as a first resort. Because it is objectively better.


  1. I love your focus. Most traditional trainers hate the superior attitude many clicker trainers have. The only way to increase the use of R+ is to show that it can not only create a better performance but that it can also hold up in the long run. Now that there's been a "positive trained" OTCH I think change can happen a tiny bit faster.

  2. From my observation, "holding up in the long run" is the weak link in the method. I base this on part on conversations from RTO (which I no longer read because it was too high volume and made me too upset) of people who had used R+ very successfully but swung back to corrections because behavior wasn't holding up through extended trialling. When people leave the inner circle of the clicker cult, it seems to be for this reason.

    I'm sure you know who I mean, everyone is run together in my mind. I've noticed a trend of people who DID use R+ very competently (as opposed to people who tried it and were NEVER successful because of poor mechanics) eventually drop the food and toys and incorporate play with the handler a lot more, with a lot of physicality - "motivational pops."

    No real answers to the issue, just something I've noticed and am thinking about.