DunbarAcademy.com

I have always found it peculiar that 'the creed' for many reward-trainers should condone the use of even minimally aversive procedures when training. (And such a woolly, imprecise, term!) Whereas, during everyday living with a dog, there are times when we raise our voice or grab a dog's collar to keep it from danger, for example if someone leaves the front door open, or when a dog knocks over a cup of tea when jumping onto our computer keyboard, (just happened), aversive procedures have absolutely no place when teaching any animal, humans included.

Most discussions of LIMA (Least Invasive, Minimally Aversive) have focused on the nature of dog training, (whether people consider the techniques to be pleasant or unpleasant), rather than its effect in terms of changing behavior.
For dog training to evolve as an applied science, in addition to evaluating the enjoyment of the process, we must also objectively quantify the ease, speed, and especially, the effectiveness of different training techniques by regularly monitoring improvements in Response-Reliability Percentages and Response:Reward Ratios to provide proof of training and proof of the speed of training.

Ongoing quantification should be concomitant with all training techniques, whether employing rewards and/or punishments. At the very least, test the dog's skills, (RR%s, Stay and Watch durations, etc.) before each session and after each session, so that you have objective data about behavior-change, and the effectiveness of your chosen techniques. It is hardly sufficient to advertise oneself as a positive reinforcement trainer, or a balanced trainer, without results-based proof that the methods work, and how well they work. Without ongoing quantification, dog training remains an enjoyable activity, rather than a science.

Furthermore, from a practical viewpoint, when certain techniques and procedures are deemed unacceptable, our major focus should be researching acceptable alternatives that are altogether easier, quicker, more effective, and yes, more enjoyable. With the example of aversive punishment, the obvious quest would be for non-aversive techniques that 'act like' punishment by reducing the frequency of and eventually eliminating undesirable behavior. This has been my life's work.

Spoiler Alert: The answers will not be found in our Century-old laboratory learning 'theory' of machines and computers training captive rats by administering food pellets and shock and 'communicating' with beeps and buzzers. Rather than trying to emulate a computer's consistency, impeccable timing, and computing power, we should focus on our inimitably human special powers. In some ways, we are still smarter than computers, certainly more creative. (Didn't we create computers?) But our secret special power has always been language. We need to bring back our voice to dog training.

Why Minimally Aversive?
Given the wide choice of non-aversive techniques that are easier, quicker, and more effective than any aversive technique, why not say, Non-Aversive, like training back in the 80s, 90s, and early 00s? Over the past few decades, I have given numerous seminars about non-aversive means for effectively resolving misbehavior and non-compliance. Most of these seminars, especially Science-Based Training (with Feeling), are archived at DunbarAcademy.com and over the past couple of years, I eventually wrote it all down in my latest book, Barking Up the Right Tree.

I think there are two major differences in dog training between then ('82–'05) and now. At the turn of the Century, 1. Puppies and dogs were trained off-leash, so the leash never became a 'crutch', and 2. The prime directive was teaching cued-behaviors, i.e., opening interspecific communication channels by teaching dogs ESL.

Off-leash puppy classes enables older puppies to graduate to off-leash adolescent and adult classes, as they proceed through an off-leash PK-P1-P2-adult Games Class format. Owners learn off-leash control from the outset and so, don't have to make the complicated and time-consuming transition from on-leash to off-leash. Instead, for walks, they simply attach a leash to their off-leash-trained dog. Moreover, off-leash control, e.g., Sits, Downs, and Stays during dog-dog play, are quantified so that owners have a realistic view of their control, and knowing the precise response-reliability percentage of each cues, are motivated to improve their personal bests.

Off-leash classes catalyze socialization with unfamiliar people, and allow puppydogs to develop confidence and dog-dog social savvy, tone-down rambunctiousness and over-the-top play styles, and learn bite-inhibition. Fear of people or the environment and dog-dog reactivity are virtually non-existent. Incipient signs of common temperament problems are simply nipped in the bud.

Most important, training off-leash provides ongoing proof of canine consent to join with their person playing the Training Game. Check out the videos of the K9 Games events — just dogs and their people having fun together, off-leash.

Once a dog comprehends even a small number of the words we use, for example, Sit, Settle, Shush, and Chewtoy, our verbal instruction and guidance simply transcend the constraints of any aversive stimulus, that at best, only inhibit behavior, but do little to get the dog back on track and act in a manner that we would like. The sheer beauty of verbal communication is that at any moment, hands free, we may specifically instruct the dog to do exactly what we want — instructions prior to task and especially, verbal guidance to fine-tune ongoing behavior, for example, Hustle and Steady, (speed up and slow down), and Tranquillo (be calm).

However, as luring verbally cued behaviors, i.e., teaching ESL, gradually fell out of favor, many trainers were understandably at a loss for what to do to quickly and effectively  resolve non-compliance and misbehavior and so, thought, I presume, that a ‘little aversive’ might be necessary, 'on occasions'.

Whatever combinations of training techniques we chose whether using rewards to reinforce behaviors or corrections to inhibit them, quantification of the effectiveness of our methods should be concomitant with training to offer proof that training worked, and how well it worked.

No aversive technique, and few reward-training techniques, approximate the exceptionally high Response-Reliability Percentages of Lure-Reward Training — 97-98% following a single verbal instruction. When trainers have an arsenal of comprehended words at their disposal for verbal (instructive) guidance, there is no need to be even minimally aversive.

Why Least Intrusive?

This, I just don't get. The assumption must be that intruding into a dog's life or brain is a bad thing!? On the contrary, I think that most dogs love training, as evidenced by them almost always opting to join in when off-leash at home, in class, in parks, or on trail walks. Obviously, this depends on the nature of training. So, let's just redefine training as: education, interaction, games, mental stimulation, mental exercise, and juicing happy hormones with oodles of praise, petting, and loving. I view every single interaction with a puppy, dog, or child as an educational interlude, a learning opportunity, that hopefully does change their perceptions and behavior and engender warmth and trust.

As teachers and guardians, there are times when we must absolutely intervene for our dog’s safety by quickly, utterly, and effectively changing their behavior. But also, when living with a dog, I want to totally intrude into my dog’s brain to better understand their feelings, emotions, and motives, just as much as I relish my dog 'intruding' in my brain, and remaining there long after they've died. Kinda like a doggy Vulcan mind-meld. We need more togetherness, not less.

I have always thought that TINA should be the new LIMA —

Totally Intrusive, Non-Aversive.