EDUCAN and Dognition, towards a new technology of behavior. Cognitive technology, of course!

As dog trainers we are behavior technologists. Hence, we need to have a technology that translates the raw knowledge acquired by basic scientists into tools which are applicable to the education of our canine learners on a daily basis.

However, the technology available in the dog world was developed within a dated framework which is now under strain and needs to be overcome. Despite being effective it precludes us from exploiting the new discoveries and from offering services of a higher quality.

The science of behavior has changed its focus in recent years. It used to be limited to observable conducts whereas now it pays prominent attention to the study of the cognitive processes underlying such behaviors.

A further change concerns the fact that behavior analysis used to focus on general learning processes, those which are common to a majority of animal species. In contrast it has now started paying attention to the learning capacities peculiar to each species and even to each individual within a given species.

Finally, since dogs had not awaken the interest of researchers focusing on behavior, their way of acting used to be inferred on the basis of comparisons with other species, either rats and pigeons studied in laboratories or wolves observed in a natural environment. Nevertheless, in recent years dogs have been exhaustively studied with regard to their cognitive skills, both individual and social, as well as in relation to their communicative abilities and their way of interacting with humans.

At the end of the 1990’s EDUCAN started to develop a new technology of behavior designing protocols and intervention guidelines that took advantage of this wealth of new scientific knowledge available. Since then we have being making a sustained effort and, of course, my new book , “Your Dog Thinks and Loves You” further progresses in the same direction.

At that time those scientists working in the field were changing the way we understood dogs but did not show too much interest regarding the practical application of their discoveries. Today this has changed too and Dognition is the stepping stone in this line of research.

Dognition is a website cofounded by Brian Hare who is the author of “The Genius of Dogs” and the Director of the Duke Canine Cognition Center. Within its panel of experts Dognition counts with some of the leading researchers on canine cognition. Its objective is to offer owners custom results about their dog’s cognition. This is done by proposing games that owners can play with their dogs in the comfort of their own homes.

Dognition is thus developing technology for cognitive assessment, an effort that dovetails nicely with EDUCAN’s mission: the development of technology that allows the provision of cognitive training and education.

To better understand the importance of Dognition’s technological contributions, consider the example below. My colleague Javier Moral, Dean of Studies at EDUCAN, and I teach our training courses. However, our way to prepare the materials for the class differs widely. Javier’s intelligence, on the one hand, is very visual and so there are plenty of colors, arrows, overall views and other graphic representations in his notes. On the other hand, mine are totally different because I focus on words to learn. Thus, I summarize, create overviews and phrase the contents that I have to explain to students in alternative ways. Doubtless, if one of us had to prepare for the class with the notes of the other, it would be an ordeal and our performance would certainly be inferior. However, neither of us is more intelligent than the other. Simply put, our cognitive skills are different and, here is the bottom line, the working methodology needs to be in consonance with such peculiarities to make the utmost of the cognitive capacities of each one of us.

Likewise, we are aware that our children do not learn in the same manner. Hence in order to help them develop their full potential we identify activities where they excel and wisely combine them with others that contribute to develop weaker areas. We should do the same with our dogs.

However, the currently available training technology only offers (offered ) resources that serve to exploit general cognitive skills, those which are common to many species. Such strategy may provide quality tools when we want to teach circus skills or merely mechanical and repetitive routines. However, such tools are barely sufficient to provide an integral education for our dogs and at any rate they are suboptimal. This is particularly evident with regard to individuals belonging to breeds that diverge from the average standard on one side or the other. Good trainers are capable of deviating from the general rules to adjust to the needs of each individual learner. However, when they engage in this process trainers lack any technical criterion or, for that matter, any objective tools for the assessment of progress. In sum, they are solely relying on their talent which is clearly unsatisfactory.

This is the reason why Dognition and EDUCAN have come together in a project that fills both parties with hope. Its aim is to develop a new behavior technology that, in the first place, evaluates objectively and clearly how each dog learns, and then, to propose protocols and technical tools that suit each custom assessment.

And, since I know my followers well and I feel that you are about to ask it, I will tell you before you do. Yes, we are working on the translation of our websites and the rest of the information to the other party’s language.

This will not only lead to a new understanding of how to train dogs but it will also change our mind frame with regard to how we live together with dogs. Through training we will be able to help dogs blossom, live full and integrated lives, thus ultimately becoming happier.

A new and brighter era is dawning in the training and education of dogs world.

Negative punishment, a further step forward

Negative punishment is one of the most widespread and advertised conditioning processes. It consists of the removal of a positive stimulus contingent with the emergence of a conduct that we wish to eliminate.

It is important to clarify from the outstart that negative punishment is not a sort of panacea to get rid off every kind of conduct. It is only useful with regard to operant behaviors, that is, those behaviors which have no self-reinforcement processes attached so that their emergence depends on the association with other reinforcers. Thus nobody should harbor hopes of getting rid off a behavior like digging in the garden by letting the dog doing it at will!

Doubtless it is very important to know the scope of application of a process. However, it is equally important to know the cases where that process is not effective. Few things have been as deleterious to the public image of negative punishment as its indiscriminate prescription also to sort out emotional problems and problems associated with self-reinforcing behaviors. Anyhow, the reputation of this process among professionals is excellent. The reason is that it enables us to consistently eliminate many conducts without generating conflicts or resort to aversive stimulation.

There are several ways of applying negative punishment but the most popular one consists of the suppression of the positive stimulus acting as a reinforcer for the targeted conduct. As a rule of thumb we advise clients not to reinforce dogs when they offer the unwanted behavior. In fact this is a mixture of negative punishment and extinction that will only yield slow results. We can speed up the behavior change if we organize things in such a way that dogs are being positively stimulated before engaging in the problematic conduct so that the pleasant stimulation can cease as soon as the problematic conduct begins.

For instance, suppose that we want to prevent the dog from jumping on persons to greet them. A simple way of doing this is to caress and pamper your dog while sitting on the floor. As soon as the dog jumps on you, you will end up the session by standing up. This intervention requires more preparation but it produces faster and more consistent results than following the typical advice of “ignoring dogs when they jump on you and pampering them when they stay with all four paws on the floor”. The reason is that with the latter advice dogs learn that they should jump once in a while to trigger the owner’s sequence of behaviors. It happens very often with regular owners, not with seasoned professionals hopefully, and this slows down and even blocks any progress. By organizing things in such a way that the positive stimulus is always present before the inadequate conduct emerges we will clean up the dog’s head, as well as the owner’s! This way a crisp and fast improvement will be achieved.

A more rare application of negative punishment may be carried out through satiation. Satiation is an application of negative punishment and it consists of keeping the positive stimulus active until it is no longer positive, either because of its prolonged administration or its intensity. Very often this is the most entertaining, effective and easiest way to eliminate certain operant behaviors. I sincerely think that my clever use of negative punishment through satiation is responsible for many of the private customers I have taken away from my competitors.

Whenever I had to go to an interview with potential customers and their dog kept on jumping on people I knew that no other firm would cause a better impression than ours. Why? It is simple. Customers would be confronted with three different strategies from our competitors. As we will see, even if all of them are effective when they are applied well, they are less amusing and clients do not appreciate them as much.

  1. Negative correction by the trainer like blocking the dog with the knee, bothering the dog in the hind legs or stepping on the leash to prevent the dog from jumping. Most of the clients do not like this strategy and, in fact, it may provoke a strong impression on many dogs. Furthermore, it requires skill.
  2. Punishing through suppression, which means to ignore dogs actively until they stop jumping. Once the bad behavior stops, the trainer will reinforce the dog. In addition to the problems I have already pointed out with this kind of intervention, some customers do not enjoy watching how their dogs keep on insisting. This phenomenon is due to the shape of the extinction curve and the over-arousal caused by the change of attitude from a social partner. Moreover, on that first session you can forget about achieving satisfactory results, judging them from the client’s point of view.
  3. Counterconditioning the dog with other conduct like sitting down. This is not always easy for clients on their first training day. They will be overloaded with information about what to ask their dogs for, what to teach them and what to assess.

So when I arrived with satiation in my toolbox, I said to my clients: Ok, your dogs want love and affection, let us give them that! So I told them to hug their dogs, and caress them enthusiastically. A few minutes later the dog would say: hey, that’s enough! But of course, we would keep on loving them!

The owners had fun doing this, it felt easy even on the first session and it produced faster results than any of the alternative strategies. I insist that the other strategies also lead to excellent results if applied correctly, but they require more time and clients like them less at the beginning.

I remember how funny it was for a client whose border collie was a sofa squatter not to let him walk down so that he would give up the habit of using it! Of course do not try this with lazy dogs, you may need some thirty hours for the intervention to work. It is very important that you adapt your techniques to each individual, as you wouldn’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I really hope that you have enjoyed this article because I have unveiled one of my top commercial secrets to write it!

About luring

In a previous post Richard Ibarburu commented about the excessive use of luring as an example of positive reinforcement based strategy that could potentially hinder the emergence of didactical choices. Richard’s wise comment made me realize that nowadays dog trainers, including me, always refer to luring to emphasize its drawbacks rather than its virtues.

Not long ago “Security Dogs”, a well-known dog training center, kindly invited me to a workshop they organized with Fernando Silva. At a certain moment Fernando made use of luring to induce a dog to perform a certain conduct. Two of the students looked at each other and one of them said: “luring!” Almost immediately a mock of deception followed in their faces. On top of that, the teacher himself explained almost apologetically to the audience: “This is too much luring for my taste but sometimes you have to do it”. It is my belief that at that particular moment and with the work Fernando was doing no other technique would have been better and more effective than luring. My claim makes sense if we take into account the high level of dog training that Fernando always exhibits.

So the question remains, is it really luring that bad? How did we reach the point where we all make bitter remarks as soon as we refer to this training technique? To answer these questions we have to analyze what is luring about as well as its effects on learning.

Luring is a training technique that consists of guiding dogs to perform a behavior directing their attention with a primary reinforcer, usually food. The continuous presence of the primary reinforcer contrasts with other techniques. Two important aspects derive from this definition:

  • The dog’s attention focuses on the primary reinforcer whereas other present stimuli lose salience.
  • Dogs feel that they are being continuously reinforced. In other words, reinforcement is not circumscribed to the point when they actually obtain the reinforcer.

From these considerations stem some important consequences regarding training. Such consequences should not be taken as good or bad in themselves. The right strategy is to assess in each case whether luring is playing in favor or against our training goals.

One of the main effects of using luring is that the dog will concentrate on the food to the detriment of other environmental stimuli. In other words, the dog may not perceive the clicker or even our commands, what can delay or worsen the learning of associations. On the opposite side of the scale, luring can be useful to help inexperienced dogs disconnect from the environment and learn to concentrate on their work. The latter effect may be of much use in private commercial training sessions in order to be able to work with dogs in the park where they play!

It is true that the timing is worse as the dog feels that he is being rewarded all the time. This may prevent us from giving full value to the dog’s higher quality behaviors. However, this effect can be useful to promote the establishment of a positive emotional association of the dog with the work. In some cases this is far more important. Luring is also useful to manipulate dogs with whom we have no previous bond, as it is the case in commercial training sessions.

In order to gain a broader perspective on this subject I am going to point out the benefits and drawbacks associated with the use of luring. In this way you will be able to understand when it is advantageous to rely on luring depending on three types of considerations: the specimen, the training stage and the type of work you are carrying out.


  • It helps training positive focus in dogs who have difficulties in concentrating for a prolonged period of time.
  • It promotes concentration in difficult environments and situations, a feature that as we have already seen can be useful to work in the park where the dog regularly plays and walks, or also when the training field is crowded with other dogs. Some trainers boast of working without resorting to luring, but then it turns out that their dogs are unable to work if they are not all by themselves and in complete silence. Wouldn’t it be more practical to plan for focus training during a couple of days relying on luring rather than to keep on organizing this sort of “mystical” training sessions?
  • It relegates certain stimuli when we do not want the dog to perceive them. This may help dogs in overcoming small lacks of confidence. In aggression cases, it may also allow to deviate the dog’s attention from other dogs or persons. At the same time we will be achieving a positive emotional state and, as dogs feel that they are being rewarded all the time, we are also reinforcing them for not offering aggressive behavior. This may work as a good kick start to counter-conditioning processes in the frame of behavior therapies.
  • It helps to train motor patterns as opposed to final conducts. In certain behaviors related to sports our aim is not so much the final position the dog reaches but how such position is reached. Thus I am not just interested in teaching the dog to lie down but in the dog performing a given motor pattern that ends in the lie-down position. The difference between final conducts and motor patterns is of the utmost importance for sport training. In this regard, to attain the desirable motor patterns from the beginning and to fix them in the dog’s muscular memory, luring is simply irreplaceable.
  • It would be difficult, if not impossible, to induce certain conducts without luring.
  • It is very useful to mitigate hesitations and lacks of confidence. Some dogs may want to work and to keep progressing but if they are sensitive they can become loaded with tension. In relation to hesitant conducts, greater consistency is achieved by using luring. Subsequently, on this more solid foundation, one may return to working with other training techniques.


  • Poor perception of the environment, including conditioned reinforcers like the clicker, the commands, and even the handler! This will pass its toll on the quality of the work which will be slower and less clear in relation to the parameters mentioned.
  • It promotes maximum concentration on selfish behavior engines. Since dogs are following the lure, they will fail to perceive the need to synchronize with their guides or to pay attention to the handler’s indications. Affection is also dramatically relegated. In sum, the coordination and activation of social engines is absent.
  • Poor perception of signals and subtle stimuli. Dogs are so absolutely focused on the primary reinforcer that they will be blind to other indications we want to introduce to fine-tune or to progress in our work.
  • It is “hard” to switch to other ways of working the behavior. Transitions are one of the main problems with luring and many dogs experience severe problems with them. However, once again, we can exploit this weak point to our benefit. This is what we do in our training proposal by introducing the so called “counter luring” step. It consists of providing dogs contradictory information, the lure may tell him to sit while the handler says “lie down”. This way we train our dogs to give priority to the latter so that they become more pro-social and less focused on individual reinforcers.
  • There is no activation of problem solving abilities. Putting “the carrot in front of the donkey” (and I am quoting from a comment to a previous article) does not engage problem solving skills at all.
  • Self-reinforcement is also completely absent from the picture because the dog is reinforced continuously and problem solving is not engaged.
  • Learning resulting from luring is rough and unrefined. Since dogs’ attention is totally focused on the reinforcer, they will only learn the most evident parts of the trained behavior. Subtle steps ahead or modifications to the main conduct will go unnoticed.
  • Dogs do not act proactively, they merely react. Dogs depend totally on us and other external stimuli to perform the trained conduct.
  • In this way, the autonomy of dogs is undermined. Hence they will be unable to work without strong support and will not take the initiative to offer the behaviors.

Overall, we should take into account our training objectives and our training possibilities to assess whether relying on luring may be of help or not. Sometimes luring may act as a false friend. Beyond its apparent simplicity it may hinder the achievement of the results we are aiming for. Keeping its pros and cons in mind will help you to take the right decision to use it or not. This way you will be able to proudly say “yes, I also use luring”.

Not only dogs: Now also sea lions, parrots and dolphins

Hi everyone,

In a previous post I hinted that we were on the verge of closing a very important agreement for EDUCAN. Today I can finally announce that the project is already on its feet!

We have signed an agreement with ZOOS IBÉRICOS, an entity that belongs to Parques Reunidos which is the company that owns more zoos and aquariums all over the world. The purpose of the agreement is to implement our cognitive-emotional training methodology with various species. We will start with sea lions, parrots and dolphins at the Madrid Zoo.

Since I am thrilled with the project I would easily exceed the limits of the post. To prevent it, I will just quote the section of the agreement with ZOOS IBÉRICOS referring to this partnership. I have edited the document just adding bold characters to emphasize what I believe are the most relevant pieces of information. This will also please my “webmaster of the universe” who always insists on me to use bold characters to emphasize important passages in blog articles.


The main object of the partnership between the two parties to the present agreement is to design, implement and evaluate the results of the application of new training protocols for various species. For this purpose the main yardsticks will be the three pillars of the cognitive-emotional training methodology: (1) the exploitation of the cognitive skills of each species, (2) the assessment of their emotional state, and (3) the understanding of their unique social behavior patterns.

This main objective can be broken down in two different operational aims:

1. Improved animal welfare:

The new protocols will pursue the improvement in the quality of life and working conditions of the animals. Regarding the choice of behaviors, both parties agree to give priority to animal welfare over other considerations like the appeal to the public and how spectacular the chosen conducts seem to be.

According to recent ethological findings animals generate conduct differently depending on whether they are in an environment where they have to fight for survival (i.e., scenarios characterized by predatory risks, resource scarcity or the need of an active defense of the territory) or in a welfare environment (i.e., scenarios where there are plenty of resources and no foreseeable risks for the animal).

Most of the current training techniques, including many of those relying on positive reinforcement processes, are based on the survival environment paradigm, what worsens the results even with animals who enjoy an optimal quality of life.

One of the main technical and ethical purposes of this partnership is to develop working protocols based on the way animals generate conduct in welfare environments. This means that animals will not work driven by the need to ensure their survival but solely by the motivation to improve their physical, emotional and social welfare.

2. Research:

The aim is to apply state-of-the-art knowledge on ethological issues to animal training, as well as to evaluate the results deriving from this implementation.

The present project is pioneer in:

a. Exploiting the cognitive processes known in each species for the purpose of training animals. Until now operant conditioning has been the main working tool for animal trainers. Operant conditioning has the advantage of being applicable to all of the species typically involved in animal training programs. However, cognitive ethology has proven that different species can have various mental processes like problem solving, learning by imitation (as shown in Pepperberg’s rival model in relation to psittacidae). […] “[B]y taking advantage of these specific capabilities the quality of the work will increase. Since many of the referred cognitive processes are self-reinforcing, their use drastically reduces the need to rely on external sources of reinforcement and helps attaining more consistent conducts while improving the emotional state of the animals. In other words, animals enjoy offering the behaviors and see them as goals in themselves rather than as mere gates of access to food (i.e., the normal state of affairs when primary extrinsic reinforcers are relied upon). Cognitive processes have the further advantages of allowing self-assessment to animals and improving their intrinsic reinforcement capabilities.

A further advantage of the new methodology is that training sessions will work as environmental enrichment interventions thereby improving animal welfare. In addition, fewer sessions will be needed to maintain the behaviors, the improvements will be achieved faster and the quality of the work will be more solid.

b. Evaluating and fine-tuning the emotional state of animals during training sessions and shows, decreasing their levels of distress and improving stress management by trained animals, promoting positive emotional states in them and developing reliable instruments for tracking emotional welfare in trained animals.

c. Developing protocols to take advantage of those social processes characteristic of the species, like affective bonding, so that the interaction between animals and trainers in the course of the working sessions and exhibitions becomes a desirable and self-reinforcing objective. Nowadays we know that affection is an important drive in many species of social mammals. Notwithstanding the fact that many trainers have exploited these aspects intuitively for a long time, this working methodology has not been tested in a systematic and scientific manner. Thus one of the objectives of this partnership is to create protocols for those species covered by the project.”

…and a last excerpt from this agreement: “one of the tasks entrusted to EDUCAN consists of:

– Designing protocols, schemes and working techniques for different species.”

Overall, it constitutes a VERY exciting project which is going to demand lots of work from us (probably we will have to restrict some commercial activities to be able to sleep once in a while). However, it is a huge step towards the long due paradigm update in relation to animal training.

I am very grateful to Miguel Bueno Brinkmann, biologist and head curator of birds and sea mammals at the Madrid Zoo, and Pablo Roy, head trainer for sea lions at the same institution, for their interest and invaluable help in making this project come true.


To suceed or not to fail?

Let me explain to you which are the main categories I use to classify animal trainers. There are of course different training schools, different modalities, and various kinds of stimuli that different trainers choose to apply or not to apply. These are all important considerations and yet they are less important than the distinction between the following two categories: (1) those who train their dogs not to fail, and (2) those who train their dogs to succeed.

I want to clarify from the outstart that I am persuaded that dogs should be trained to succeed, and not merely to avoid mistakes. For some years I followed the opposite path and this is perhaps the reason why I am convinced that my current position is the right one. We all know that nobody can be as convinced as a converted.

The vast majority of trainers sponsor the competing view, errorless training. They tend to think that errors are dangerous and hence you hear sentences like “don’t let your dogs make mistakes if you don’t want them to learn incorrectly”. This is also linked to the fact that we feel uneasy watching how our dogs make mistakes in the execution of the behaviors we are teaching them.

Thus preventing the dog from making any mistake is the priority for many trainers. This means that our energy and attention are focused in the task of monitoring errors and choosing techniques to prevent them, block them or correct them. This way dogs finally succeed because of the many things they do not do, not because of the things they are actively trying. Training sessions are devoted to create “secure situations”, to close doors, to limit options…

There are several problems with this way of training which, by the way, is not circumscribed to trainers using aversive methods (many trainers who adhere to positive reinforcement based methodologies, even cognitive trainers, sponsor the errorless training view). Here is a list:

First, after a period of time working under these guidelines dogs, who are not silly at all, realize the nature of our goal. Their voluntary attention is then focused on locating the behaviors they should not do. This way they become more effective in not doing than in doing. This is the corollary of the general work scheme we are implementing and we ought to be comfortable with that by-product.

Second, errorless training is exhausting from the emotional perspective. Just think about one of those movies where a young and promising sport star is pressed by the trainer/father/agent who takes great care in underlining every error that is being made. Of course the demanding figures are full of true love and good intentions for their pupil, but as this sort of torture goes on and on, the rising star’s original motivation is killed. Then, the future star decides to send everyone to hell and runs away to Idaho with his or her better half to settle a ranch.

Our dogs cannot run away to Idaho to settle a ranch even when they get fed up of training with us. Therefore, we must be very careful and take seriously our responsibility to prevent the dog from getting emotionally overloaded. This does not mean that one should not demand effort and implication from the learner. However, we should realize that by emphasizing errors we will be undermining our learners with insecurities and draining their emotional energy. Imagine how you would feel if you had to go to a job where your boss would remind you EVERYDAY of the mistakes you make or would tell you to be very careful not to make any. That’s not the way to build up self-confidence, implication and work-team.

Third, even if at the beginning it is easier to train the dog not to fail (learning not to do is faster than learning to do), we will soon realize that there are so many possible mistakes that it would be impossible to cover all of them in a person’s lifespan. In contrast, there is only one successful conduct in each case. Hence it is much more comfortable and expedient for both dogs and trainers to focus on that.

Summing up, in my opinion it is very important to build the dog’s head to succeed. For this purpose one should allow initial mistakes and inform the dog about them without worrying. Errors are a necessary part of active learning. We should devote our attention to the right answers so that the dogs’ attention is also directed to them.

Later on, when dogs consistently work to achieve success and their mental scheme is already built up, we will be able to give more importance to those mistakes that arise since this would not create other problems.

Training in welfare environments (I)

In a previous article I commented about welfare or comfort signals which can be used to evaluate how dogs are feeling. My topic today regards one of the main pillars of our work: the different learning and conduct generation that dogs exhibit depending on whether they are in a survival environment or in a welfare environment.

Given the importance of the topic for the design of training techniques, this will only be an introductory article. Actually the methodologies for teaching and learning vary dramatically between both scenarios. An adequate understanding of the underlying relationships will enable us to make a systematic treatment of the mechanisms that guarantee that dogs enjoy working, as well as to replicate the training, without excessively relying on the talent of either the dog or the trainer.

First, I need to clarify that working in one type of environment or the other does not determine the quality of the work. In both scenarios we can rely on either positive or negative stimuli to promote learning. Then, what is the difference? What varies is the way these stimuli are used.

  • In survival environments animals have no guaranteed access to resources (e.g., food and water) and their safety is not taken for granted either.
  • In welfare environments animals have abundant resources as well as guaranteed security.

As noticed earlier, some species –including dogs and human beings- have a different way of learning and generating behavior depending on whether they are in one kind of environment or the other.

It is important to realize that in welfare scenarios the aim of dogs is to have a good time, increase their welfare, whereas in survival scenarios the aim is to obtain resources crucial for survival and security. The behavior differs and so the learning does.

It is crucial to understand this bifurcation because probably most of us live in a welfare scenario. Let me put an example. Almost certainly some of you have been looking for a particular item, even visiting different shops for days in order to find it. It does not matter what the item in question was, that damned Charlie Patton Yazoo L-1020 record, a particular book or some other thing. Probably when you returned home you found an empty fridge. You probably thought, “I’m exhausted, I don’t feel like going to the supermarket at the moment. I’ll do it tomorrow.” Summing up, we are capable of generating an enormous amount of conduct to get something which is not an actual need and yet we refuse to walk round the corner to buy food, that is, a primary resource crucial for survival. Isn’t it weird? No, it is not. The explanation is simple.

We know that we are not going to starve to death. In fact, we can probably obtain food whenever we want to. Once a primary resource is guaranteed its value as a motivator decreases. In contrast the self-reinforcement value and the extra-quality of life represented by our desired item gains a greater value as a motivator. This is one of the first differences between welfare and survival scenarios. In a welfare environment any thing or event that is self-reinforcing effectively work as positive stimulus, whereas primary stimuli lose effectiveness. In survival scenarios the opposite holds.

A second difference between the two types of scenario regards the way animals manage negative stimuli. For a negative stimulus to trigger conduct in a survival environment, it has to be clearly perceived by the learner. Moreover, if it is to work, it has to give rise to a negative emotional state that warns the animal about a possible risk. In contrast, in a welfare scenario it is much more effective to rely on low intensity negative stimuli. These are capable of interfering with the enjoyment of pleasant activities but without overruling the positive emotional state stemming from the latter. As a consequence, dogs will generate a great amount of conduct to offset the interference to keep enjoying the pleasant activity. This is the reason why it is so effective to introduce minor bothers in shaping sessions (e.g., attaching a post-it or a rubber band to the dog). This strategy also helps dogs to confront problems and teaches them to manage stress.

It is important to know that we cannot jump from one kind of environment to the other at will. We have to choose one of the two categories for each kind of work and be coherent henceforth. If you plan to rely exclusively on food as a reinforcer, it is better to propose a survival environment, because then food will have greater value and the learning obtained will be more consistent and of a higher quality. On the other hand, if your dog has a great time solving problems and experiences training as an aim in itself, pick up a welfare environment.

Teaching the dog to go away

Doubtless the most important behavior we can teach to our dogs in order to improve their quality of life is to come when called. A reliable recall, one that works even if the dog is distracted in other activities, allows handlers to grant dogs free range so that they can explore the environment.

In this article I will not tackle the issue of how to train a good recall. My topic for today regards some of the risks incurred when training a bomb proofed recall, as well as the way I work with puppies before starting recall training to avoid these side effects.

Many years ago Jaime Parejo and I were in close contact. Jaime is, by the way, a terrific trainer, a re-known specialist in search and rescue (S&R) and a person I deeply appreciate. At that moment he was writing the book about the “chest method” (“método arcón”) that would gain him recognition all over the world. We used to speak lots about his work of course. I remember Jaime would use the term “yo-yo effect” to refer to the tendency of some dogs to come back to their handlers once they had reached a certain distance threshold. He had realized that this problem derived from excessive recall work and that it was very harmful for S&R dogs as it severely limited their working autonomy.

Jaime hit the bull’s eye with this observation, a big share of the population of trainers’ dogs were not able to go away beyond a certain distance. I have been always more interested in the identification of the reasons why dogs behave in a certain way, and in taking advantage of these tendencies, than in designing specific techniques. Hence I analyzed the problem from this perspective. I realized that, until then, and mostly in an unconscious way, I considered such effect to be beneficial. After all it is the dog who takes the trouble to stay close to the handler. However, after reflecting on Jaime’s words, my opinion changed and so did my way of training recalls and, in general, my way of taking care of dogs.

On top of my affection for him, Jaime will always have my recognition for helping me gaining this insight. My dogs have lived happier lives since then.

Dogs who exhibit this “yo-yo” tendency do not enjoy their country explorations as much as they could. The physical exercise they practice is also limited and so is the outlet from stress that they enjoy. After all, they cannot give free reign to their innate motor patterns.

This is a common problem with dogs whose guardians are professional trainers and, as I have said, it used to be a problem with my dogs. These dogs are always paying attention to their handlers and they need that the latter provide them instructions to be able to amuse themselves. If they run after a rabbit by any chance they will come back overwhelmed because when the chase is over they will find themselves far from their handler and this causes them bad feelings. The problem with some other dogs is the opposite: they have the time of their lives when they are in countryside and come back when they feel like it more or less. However, I will tackle this second category of problems in a future article, not today.

To achieve welfare with active breeds it is crucial that they are able to run freely and explore vast areas. The notion of health as the absence of diseases has long being overcome: To achieve welfare the focus should not be on avoiding stress and anxiety. For dogs to blossom, it is far more important that they can live full and happy dog lives.

Nowadays the first thing I teach to my puppies is to go away rather than the recall, so that they can fully enjoy their walks. Puppies absorb every bit. Puppyhood is a stage when it is very hard for us trainers not to make our dogs too dependent on us. It is difficult for us just to walk them without any training. And if we give up to the temptation, then it will be very tough for the puppies to be at ease unless they are engaged in some kind of activity with us.

I have to recognize that for me it is very easy to train the behavior of going away: the back door of my garden opens directly to the countryside, plus my adult dogs already master this conduct and the puppy will willingly accompany them in their adventures. During this stage I am very careful not to make anything that promotes dependency: I don’t hide so that the dog does not have to worry about where I am, I don’t reward the puppies every time they approach me, I just walk and let the puppies realize how wonderful and interesting the world is, full of different smells, sounds etc. I want them to experience how good it feels when they run, jump and learn to use their bodies. I want them to behave as dogs with my adult dogs, that they learn that in the countryside the most amusing partners are other dogs, not me.

It almost looks like the reverse image of the guidelines to build the recall one would read in many books. And yet I am very proud of my recall work. As a matter of fact it is the behavior my colleagues ask me about more often when they see how consistently my dogs respond. My dogs do not expect any other reward than naked social reinforcement and as soon as I release them, they run away and start exploring once again without keeping an eye on me in case there is a new recall in the pipeline. However, if I called them once again, they would come without the slightest hesitation.

Of course I recognize that the privileged conditions where I train play a prominent role in making this outcome possible. I can train in a secure area. I know that my adult dogs will come when called and that the puppy will follow them.

As I said earlier, I have always been attached to the idea that if we know how a mechanism works (even a negative one) we will be able to exploit it to our advantage. Thus, notwithstanding I make every effort to prevent my dogs from acquiring the “yo-yo effect” on a permanent basis, I apply a technique that allows me to engage this mechanism at will so as to limit the range of movement dogs enjoy temporarily. It consists of recalling them many times in a row at the beginning of the particular walk, ten or twelve times will suffice. I recall them every time they reach the distance I need. This way the dogs know that they should not go beyond that limit in this particular walk and I can adjust the distance to unusual environmental conditions. However, I never start practicing this kind of work until the dog has learnt to come when called without being too dependent on me.

If you empower your puppies to go away and to behave expansively, you will improve the quality of your walks with them. Not only will your puppies have more fun behaving as real DOGS (with capital letters), but you will also grin and amuse yourself contemplating how they blossom. Take my word: dogs deprived of their autonomy could never be as happy.

Bomb proofing mistakes

Isn’t it surprising how easy a clean conduct varies and yet how hard it is to modify flawed conducts? Proofing mistakes embedded within the trained conduct is a common problem among animal trainers of all levels.

Take a defective heeling behavior for instance, when dogs either walk crossing their handlers’ path, or behind or in front of them. A further example would involve those far from brilliant static shifts of position, when the latency before offering the behavior is really terrible. Why is it so difficult to get rid off the problems just described? It is as if it was only easy to modify a behavior that is satisfactorily shaped from the start!

So what is the explanation? As it is usually the case in animal training, the truth is that it is our fault. There are two reasons behind.

On the one hand, the technique applied to shape the behavior is of the utmost importance here. We should keep the final behavioral goal in mind and refuse any beginnings which are incompatible with it. Trainers may experience something similar to the “blank page syndrome” when they start working with a new animal. Just as writers do, it is normal that we are fraught with anxiety when contemplating the long road that lies ahead of us. There remains so much to do before being able to present our work that the task looks daunting!

When we face difficulties the temptation to take easy shortcuts is strong. We don’t want to get stuck with that particular exercise and hence we settle for a downgraded version of the original behavioral goal. In a previous post (“Less is more”) I wrote on this subject. What I want to emphasize now is the importance of reflecting on the influence that today’s training session will bear not on the training session tomorrow but in those that will be carried in two or three years time, once most of our work plan will be in place. In other words, will then the lessons taught today help us or will they hinder further learning so that it will be necessary to clean up the dog’s head before progressing?

Let me illustrate this point with an example: imagine that I want my dog to lie down by moving backwards in order to make the final behavior look faster in execution as well as to prevent the dog from gaining ground when he is supposed to keep a perfectly static position. Having set that objective, suppose that I start rewarding my dog for offering a two-stoke lie down. In other words, I reward the dog for sitting down before lying down. My laziness will increase the amount of work for both of us at a later stage. Thus it would be wiser to be a bit more patient and wait for the particular lie down behavior I am after. In fact it would be a far better policy to reward an approximation to the correct behavior than settling for a complete but flawed behavior.

On the other hand, there is a further and more fundamental problem for even after teaching a behavior with mistakes to a dog, there must be the possibility to get rid off the flaws. Theoretically, it suffices to reinforce those instances where the dog gets closer to the set behavioral goal. Why is it then that the mistakes become sort of bomb proofed?

“Frailty, thy name is dog trainer.” May be we just attended a competition (either as part of the audience or as competitors) and with the boost in motivation we adopt the firm decision to become stricter in order to correct the problematic heeling. We start training without rewarding any flawed repetitions. However, after a busy week, we lower down the criterion once again and settle for the behavior as imperfect as it used to be. Subsequently, perhaps we attend a training workshop where we learn a wonderful technique than can help us in sorting out the problem. Again we experience a boost in motivation and start training with a stricter criterion in mind. But progress may be made at a slower pace than expected, so we relax the criterion again and go back to square one. To feel better we may think that John Smith had a flawed heeling behavior too and he won the world championship anyway. Few persons ask themselves if the rest of the pack is as good as John’s…

Anyway, the point is that this sort of vicious circle goes on and on. At the end of the day the result is that the incorrect forms of the conduct are subject to a variable reinforcement schedule whereas correct behaviors are typically kept under a continuous reinforcement schedule. Remember that behaviors on an intermittent schedule are less susceptible to extinction. That is why we cannot get rid off the mistakes no matter how much effort we think we are putting.

The conclusion is that you should never train behaviors under intermittent reinforcement schedules until you have reached their definitive form, at least if you work solely on conditioning processes. Otherwise the behavior will be harder to modify. This is an extremely important piece of advice for new trainers, but one that is often overseen. In fact, in Spain I have heard just two instructors regularly underlining this fact in their classes, Carlos Bueren and Javier Moral. I think it is an extremely important point that we all should emphasize and clarify to novel trainers.

When less is more

Imagine the following situation, a dog trainer is teaching a dog to sit. It is one of their first training sessions, may be the first one. In order to teach this particular conduct the trainer has decided to rely on a certain technique which he masters well. For the purpose of this discussion it is irrelevant which training technique it is used, whether it involves a clicker, luring or helping the dog with the hands. All that matters is that the dog sits and hence things seem to be working for our tandem.

However, a few repetitions later the trainer realizes that the dog is standing up immediately after sitting down: “Damn it! Let’s do a few more trials to see if we can sort the problem out.” But the problem does not fade away and the dog keeps on standing up. So the trainer introduces a small aide in the hope this will help them overcoming the hurdle. Eventually he manages and proceeds to the next training step, teaching the dog a second behavior, lying down.

Again our tandem faces problems. Notwithstanding the techniques applied by the trainer seem to work at the beginning and the dog lies down, the latter refuses to stay in that position. The trainer then decides to put in practice a technique that he learnt at a workshop. He did not like the course that much because the underlying training philosophy was far away from his, but he thinks that this particular technique can do the trick here. Et voilà, … it works! So he finally manages to make the dog stay in the position.

The trainer in our tale is incurring what I believe is one of the most frequent mistakes during the initial stages of animal training: he is adding rather than subtracting. In fact, he is asking the wrong question, “What can I do to promote that the dog remains in the position?” as opposed to what the more fruitful question would be, “Why does the dog stand up?” or “What is causing this second adjunct behavior?”

The fact that the dog willingly sits down after the first training sessions means that we are on the right track. However, why does the dog stand up so fast? The dog offers this second behavior for a given reason. Something is happening either: (1) in the physical sphere, may be the dog feels uncomfortable on the surface we are working or is experiencing pain; (2) in the mental sphere, the dog might believe that needs to move to obtain something; or (3) in the emotional sphere, perhaps the dog is aroused or feels insecure.

We need to realize that when we start training an animal we are laying down the foundations which will determine the animal’s understanding about the entire learning process and the way we work together. At this stage we are teaching the animals what to expect from us and what we expect from them.

What is wrong with a “patchwork” approach? By adding different techniques that do not share a common basis, we will be losing coherence and blurring the big picture for our learners. The patchwork approach implies renouncing to abide by a definite training ideology. Instead trainers jump from one difficulty to another merely attempting to use whatever they have in their toolboxes to sort out the problems they come across. Overall, it means that by obtaining the short run benefit of teaching a given conduct we will be hindering further development in the long run. This is so because nothing learnt on these premises will contribute to support other prior or subsequent lessons. In a nutshell, the general learning scheme will be missing.

Going back to our example, when one realizes the dog stands up after sitting down, one should not think which technique can be applied to obtain the stay from the dog, but rather clarify why the dog suddenly stands up in the first place. This is the factor that needs to be identified in order to take it away from the equation and build solid and consistent foundations that support a continuous advance of our learner. That is why less may be more.

Summing up, at the initial stages it is much more important to teach our dogs the code of communication, that is, to teach them how to learn, than any given behaviors or tricks. In fact, any behaviors at this point are taught as a means of conveying to our learners the codes of communication. Needless to say such codes will vary among different training schools, and even between two different trainers who belong to the same school. If these codes are not transmitted clearly our work will suffer in the long term. Moreover, failure to do so will compromise the teaching of more complex or subtle behaviors.

And yet, it is at this initial stage when dog trainers are more prone to fall into “traps” that prevent their dogs from adequately understanding how to learn. The most prominent example of such traps is an excessive concern for achieving any particular conduct. It is this biased frame of mind that leads many trainers to start looking for techniques to help the dog performing. Very often

The socialization of sensitive breeds

Keeping with problems common to sensitive working breeds (typically border collies, Shetland sheepdogs, Belgian and Australian shepherds), there is a theme that began to intrigue me several years ago, there were many dogs of this nature in the hands of competitors or professionals who showed fears and insecurities, which were always blamed on poor socialization.

When the owner claimed to have properly socialized the dog and it continued with these «ghosts», it was put down to:

  1. The owner lying and having not taken it out to as many places as they say.
  2. The owner being a rough guy and having broken the character of those dogs.
  3. With these dogs you know, one always comes out with ghosts no matter how well you do it.

These three arguments are real, and in many cases the dog’s final bad character is due to at least one of these problems.

But at one point, when I got involved more seriously with Belgian Shepherds, I decided to look deeper.

The truth is that there were many people who were working according to what we understand as a socialization model: since the puppy came home at the right age and was raised by a responsible breeder and lover of the breed, they started to take it to thousands of sites and new situations. Afternoons were reserved for going to the airport, neighborhood parties, the mall …

Every day we work to keep our puppy from becoming one of the specimens that are overly affected, and in many cases these concerned owners were professionals or competitors in training, with an above average level of knowledge, experience and involvement.

By making a small census (without rigor of study) between acquaintances I came across a troubling finding: the percentage of dogs with fears was equal among those whose socialization was a model and among those who were at the mercy of God, growing up in kennels or other types of isolation. Always remember that I am referring to individuals of the above mentioned breeds.

This could lead us to think that this problem was entirely innate and what we did made no difference during the dreaded critical period.

But there were two details that told us that this was not so:

  1. The first, more general, were studies in a wider range of breeds showing that isolated individuals had more problems than what we understand as well socialized individuals.
  2. The other was more specific, if we took a third group of individuals of these breeds, which had grown up with an intermediate level of socialization, we found that these were the ones which showed substantially fewer problems.

This group is for individuals who took the dog for walks to the same sites over and over and for less enthusiastic professionals who when they could took the dog somewhere new, but without making it a daily obligation. These were the ones with higher quality of character in their dogs.

Obviously it follows that there is an optimum range of outings to new places, but I was more interested in finding out why, rather than finding what the range is through statistical analysis.

I found the solution in stress studies, stress generates additional activation of the organism. Although this stress is overcome and managed properly, it will require a minimum time for the dog to recover and to get rid of residual stress, this also happens with processes of stress (positive stress, like the type we have fifteen before a date).

By making many trips to new environments, more sensitive dogs undergo continuous activation of stress and when they get to go on the next trip they had still not been able to recover, until it reaches a point where the accumulation of residual stress has the same harmful effect as lack of socialization, and whoever thinks that we do not need to recover from positive stress after a challenging active holiday should remember how they usually need a couple of days of recovery before returning to work.

Therefore we must take special care to let the puppy successfully recover and rid itself of residual stress: playing with dogs or acquaintances in a safe environment, remember that regular (and safe!) people and places act as inducers of calm in social mammals. Furthermore, in the Socialization, continued interaction with known individuals (social group members) is more important than introduction to new environments, and we work as if the main socializing element is to learn new things. Error.

Rest time is also important. Massages help if the dog accepts them (in Denmark and Norway home dog masseurs are becoming common and dog agility competitors are some of their main customers).

With respect to optimal frequency, although the data was collected haphazardly and must not be taken otherwise, we found that two, maximum three weekly trips to new settings is enough and with more trips than that there is risk of excess.

But to play with friends, the only limit is the fatigue limit! So: More park and fewer neighborhood parties (even if there are no churros).

The timing and distribution of activities of those trips is also very important, but I’ll develop that idea in another article so as to not burden you with a huge block of text.

Management of negative emotional states in sensitive dogs

A few days ago a new friend asked me about the problems of his seven-month sheltie: in certain situations, he showed fear and seized up. This was a problem for his quality of life and its future potential in Agilty.

Specifically the car and the pet carrier caused drooling, emotional block and even escape responses, when he came home he took more than ten minutes to recover and start playing with my puppy.

Lately many sensitive and intelligent dog breeds, particularly border collies, Shetland sheepdogs, Australian and Belgian shepherds are appearing with issues or mismanagement of negative emotions.

It is normal for sensitive races with nerve responses to be affected by something timely, if they are not taught to properly manage negative emotions it can create insecurity, fearful responses and even more severe problems.

Apparently the sheltie had a bad transfer when a puppy when he was sent by courier (not usually a good idea to send a puppy by courier, but sometimes it is the only option). This generated a bad emotional association with both the car and the pet carrier.

Emotions are associated by classical conditioning and are more consistent than an association made by operant conditioning, furthermore self-feeding processes of the emotional state often appear: the fear (the combination of internal state, physiological reaction and tendency to action) generates more fear by itself, without there being more external stimuli. When this happens, the association can not be extinguished, and he will often start to associate other things with that fear, for example our sheltie could go by car on the road to work, and when he gets out, with the fear caused by the car, may associate it with the road, generating fear to this and these transfers can increase indefinitely.

It is fundamental to the quality of life for a dog to be prepared to properly manage negative emotional states or we will have low tolerance and poor stress management, a tendency towards inconsistent behavior, insecurity and unhappiness of the dog.

In this case I recommended the following:

Games for getting into the pet carrier and the car: Putting some tasty food inside, we leave it to the dog to decide whether to enter, we gradually make it more difficult to access both the car and the pet carrier (side pet carrier, door ajar, door stuck against a wall so that you need to move the pet carrier to get in, crumpled newspapers filling the pet carrier…). It is very important to do this well, commands like «very good» must not appear, nor should successes be clicked. We are not teaching an action by operant conditioning, we do not want external reinforcements and confirmations, what we are doing is putting the dog in a situation perceived to be emotionally negative (heavens, the pet carrier!!), by making something of interest appear, we create a small conflict: I want the food, but I’m afraid to enter. It is important that the dog decide if it is worth it to face the negative or not, if he decides to do it, he will be learning something more important than making the pet carrier something positive: he will learn that even if he has a negative emotion he can work on it and with that voluntary confrontation with fear, he gets results and comes to a positive emotional state. We are teaching him to properly manage fear, not by eliminating a particular point. The reinforcement must be as small as possible and the difficulty must be increasingly difficult, so we replace the external reinforcement (food) with the internal reinforcement (troubleshooting). Finally we will get him to go into the pet carrier and the car for fun and as an end in itself; with that we will have «turned the tables» on the emotional association.

But if we just do this, although we improve the dog’s particular problem, we have not finished preparing him to properly manage negative emotions.

Since overcoming this problem we will continue to work: in the normal training sessions, we will occasionally use low-intensity negative stimuli (a paste of hair on one leg, a post-it on one ear …) so that he sees that through working he accesses a positive emotional state even if slight discomforts appear.

In my opinion, training must get the dog to access a more positive emotional state more than avoiding negative stimuli at all costs, I think there is much confusion between negative stimuli and negative emotional state and that leads to very harmful overprotective training in puppies, who must build up their management tools of negative situations, we must know how to gently introduce negative elements to teach the dog that they can be overcome, without this we would not be preparing them to have an optimal quality of life.

Internal and external reinforcements

There are two ways of individual reinforcement for dogs:

  1. Internal, which makes the dog satisfied to be doing what he is doing, the behavior is its own reinforcement.
  2. External, which drives the behavior based on the expectation of getting something of interest (food, toy, etc).

The most interesting thing is that we now know that it is possible to make behaviors obtained by one type of individual reinforcement gradually become reinforced by the other.

This allows great advantages:

  1. For training where we can get a new behavior, learned with external reinforcements, it skips to become self-reinforcing with the benefits of greater efficiency in terms of reinforcements and pro-activity involved. Here I would give an example, but I think the Pere Saavedra video series «surrounded» by border collies is exemplary. The truth is that much of the new book I have «in the pipeline» focuses on how to achieve this and I will tell you in different entries.
  2. For behavioral correction, which is what I will focus on today, where the behavior that a dog does for fun (internal reinforcement) can be strengthened externally until it ceases to have any value of its own and is extinguished when leaving the external reinforcement program.

Here I will give you one very enlightening example that Pablo Roy, Head of sea lions at Madrid Zoo once told me: They had an orca who amused itself by ripping the silicone from the windows of the pool, which was a problem as it could break the enclosure. It was obvious that the orca was bored and they tried several measures to enrich its environment, but what it really thought was cool, was to rip silicone.

Working with orcas is very educational because you don’t get tempted to get angry with them or to punish them before considering alternatives (why is that?). What they did was use a continuous external reinforcement program: each time he took the silicone, he got a fish.

Were they crazy to reward it for bad behavior? Not far off, they were making a behavior which was self satisfactory and thus self-sustained, depend on external reinforcements. In addition to using continuous reinforcement we know that extinction while strengthening is faster: in a couple of months of work, the orca pulled out the silicone and came to ask for its reward, when they stopped giving it fish, the orca stopped ripping the silicone.

An alternative and different use of rewards to eliminate misconduct, we have tried many times with dogs and, if continuous reinforcement is achieved, it has ALWAYS came off. The owners flip and give you a wave.

The truth is to avoid being a «card» positive, I give positive work ideas. 😉

Starting a new training business among friends

It is common for friends who share a love for training to make the move to the professional world by setting up a company of their own.

But these companies may end up as the rosary of dawn, ending in many cases not only the professional union but the previous friendship that united the partners. In the world of dog training, many have been through this unpleasant and emotionally draining situation.

However I think these arrangements can be successful with a set of rules that avoid most misunderstandings and disagreements.

Perhaps the main problem here is the level of involvement and the hours spent, often the availability of time (or inclination) of the different partners is different. This idea of «everyone do what they can,» which at first seems acceptable to all, ends up feeling like abuse by the more hard workers, who feel that they are doing the work of their peers and that the distribution of money is very unfair, with phrases like «you know that I cannot train in the evenings» do not help anything!

My proposal is to divide the work into categories depending on what is to be done, not many categories just two or three, for example: Office work, street work and long journeys. Then assign an hourly rate for each category, for example: five Euros/office hours, ten Euros/hour street work and twelve Euros/hour long trips. Each of the partners will get paid the hours worked and the (supposed) benefit will only be split once obtained after paying for the work of each worker.

In this model, it is very important to avoid assigning salaries according to technical difficulty, for example by giving a different price to the hours spent training than to the hours spent leafleting: both belong to the category «street work» and must be paid equally. This prevents some from feeling like subordinates of others, which is very common when not all members have the same level of technical skills.

I also recommend dividing at least a portion of the profits in proportion to working hours. This is important for companies that are set up with an initial investment close to zero Euros, although a partner does not charge for hours worked if they are to gain the benefits that, we hope, will be growing. To collect benefits, something must be invested: money or work, if not, rather than a partner, we have a parasite.

There should also be a minimum and maximum number of hours of work per week, the minimum makes us see if the members are really in the business or if they are just passengers. The maximum hours prevents people from overloading, with the mental exhaustion that this implies. If someone works to excess, s/he will be more inclined to think that s/he is the company, to feel that others do not take the project seriously…and this is not true in many cases, another partner really can work fewer hours but do them with enthusiasm and effectiveness. This is not a parasitic partner and it is not fair to take it out on him/her, it is not always the one who works most that is right in these discussions. If we set minimums and maximums, these problems radically reduce.

This model allows you to live everyday according to the phrase that my friend Cándido often repeated: «Clear accounts make for lasting friendships.»

Education vs. Training

In some cases, dogs that compete in complex training disciplines with a high level of results are extremely awkward companions, it being very difficult to live with them, which relegates them to a life in kennels or other spaces outside the nuclear family. Why is this? Why would a dog that gets very high scores in complex obedience exercises not be well integrated into the social group in harmony? It is certainly true that in many of these individuals, a strong character and a very high level of activity is selected that make their management more complex.

But this, which is a good reason why these dogs give problems to novice owners, should not justify the fact that expert trainers who know, seek and prepare these dogs are not achieving normal coexistence for them.

The main reason for this situation is the confusion between learning and education, training typically uses learning processes (normally operant conditioning or cognitive processes) that make the dog motorize its behaviors based on motivations of a purely individual interest. Education is a different process that must be addressed from a different perspective.

Education is a special type of learning (or a combination of multiple types of learning) that aims to correct integration, maturity and effectiveness of individuals in their social group. You must therefore use affection, common goals and another series of characteristics needed in the balanced adult.

Education is especially important in altricial animals, as long childhoods mean a dependence on the mother and other members of the group for a relatively long period of time. Thus a training model that does not take into account the relationships of the puppy with his/her social group is not only less effective but very likely to lead to dysfunctional adults.

To achieve these objectives, education must meet a number of specific assumptions, knowledge of which is particularly interesting for us in order to know how to integrate the dog into our home environment as well as possible. Training and education must go hand in hand to obtain a social and manageable animal.

If the dog is bred in company- in addition to other people-, of social and well-behaved dogs, it allows free and prolonged interaction, it is likely that education is constructed correctly. Nevertheless, only dogs that come into contact with people during childhood may have some shortcomings, either through ignorance or through applying training ideas without sufficient ethological consistency.

Points to consider to satisfy a customer

Sometimes good work is not positively valued, if we are offering a quality service but customers are not happy we have a problem. And it’s a big one.

Although it is common to hear commercial trainers complain about this, they almost never feel responsible: Because the training is good, they think it must be the fault of whoever cannot appreciate it. This assumption is often false, of course there are cases where this is true, but not often.

Customer satisfaction is the third key to commercial success (the other two are quality work and optimizing training), to achieve it remember the following things:

  1. Do not make deceptive advertising: A lot of the time in advertising we include everything that could bring in the customers and we do not stop to think about it later. The customer remembers and expects: If you do not do good work, do not say you do because it seems more commercial, however if you consider it best to leave a high percentage of failure rather than use negative techniques do not advertise 100% successful results. If you’re not really a specialist in a race, do not say you are. If what you say and what you do does not coincide, your customer will not be satisfied even if the training is good.
  2. Make it clear where you think the training will get to: Individuals often want their dogs to never fail, even if the heavens open and Troy burns down. This can not be achieved, if dogs did not fail there would be no training competitions as every participant would get a hundred points! Let the customer know where their dog can get to, and you must be clear about it, don’t respond with phrases like "we’ll see what happens", "I’ll do everything possible" … These ambiguities are often taken for fear of not being hired, you must be clear from the start. It is better to not hire us than to feel cheated.
  3. Make sure you know what the customer wants: Just because most people look for the same thing in training, do not assume that training is the same for everyone. Maybe the dog not coming into the kitchen while making dinner is more important than a perfect performance on the obstacle course. Take time to find out the priorities and objectives of each customer and before the end of training make sure you consider what has been achieved. It is better to give a couple of extra sessions than to leave a customer feeling like training has been interrupted.
  4. The dog must work with the customer, not with you: Perhaps the phrase that I hate listening to most as a trainer is "with me the dog was perfect, but from the beginning, I knew they would not obey them," Well if you knew it would not, don’t accept it! It is easy to forget that we do not charge for training the dog, but the owner(s)/dog team.
  5. Do not promise unnecessary things: One of the most frequent reasons for dissatisfaction is that the trainer says that "in a few days we will give an overview" or "see how it’s going," which arouses interest… and he doesn’t do it. When training is completed and there is work, it is easy to forget these things, which are often offered lightly. But the customer will have taken it as a commitment and if we don’t do it, the customer will feel that we have neglected them. Even though the dog has had exemplary training.
  6. Do not badmouth your competition: Sure you have arguments to defend your services without having to say how bad the others are, doing so gives a bad impression. We are also all in the same boat, let’s compete but let’s not fight.
  7. Be formal: Delays, cancellations of classes, changes of the agreed schedule… give the impression that "yes, they know a lot about dogs, but they’re not a serious person" Do not do any of the above unless it is unavoidable, feeling like a nap does not count as "inevitable"!
  8. Make it clear how much, how and when you charge: Being ambiguous in this raises susceptibility rapidly, and more as it is.
  9. Make sure you receive your money: Getting paid is not only important for eating every day and paying the mortgage, if someone does not pay you can be sure that they will speak badly about you to justify it. It can come to cause you a lot of damage, so avoiding it is a priority.

How to optimize our commercial training sessions

I see many commercial trainers that are just starting out (and some that take time in getting started) asking for extra trouble and work by not optimizing their sessions. Training is a very vocational profession and it is often those who dedicated themselves to it that tend to look for training only in the technical area, that is, how to teach the dog, however in commercial training, like in any professional field, you must have some optimization keys to avoid having to work more in situations we have created ourselves.

Of the three variables of commercial success: quality of work, customer satisfaction and optimizing time, I will focus this article on the last, how to optimize training time? Here are a few clues.

  1. Train the call from the first dayIf you train the call from the first day, you will see the potential problems that may arise beforehand and will be increasing the volume of work on the most important exercise training in commercial training.In my opinion this is a fundamental point, the call is often the most problematic command and it is usual to start initial training with the simplest actions (sit, down..) and teach the call after several sessions with the other actions. As a result we often have to extend the training to finish training the call, more sessions that we could have saved if from day one we had given it training time. We must invest in what matters – what dog doesn’t sit or lie down as bad as the training is?None!, but don’t spend too much time on it, go directly to the core.
  2. If something in particular does not come off, don’t get obsessedIf the training goes well and the dog gets stuck on something concrete, it is best to leave that action for a few days.One of the best ways to stretch good training to infinity and beyond is getting obsessed when we fail to make the dog perform the actions we have to teach it (perhaps the action that most happens with is lying down).This is where many trainers get concerned and focus the sessions on «solving the problem,» this is a serious mistake: you can make both you and the dog nervous, neither will think clearly, thus exacerbating the problem at each session, you can generate learning blocks in the dog (and you). Remember that the whole is stronger than its parts, if the dog sees clarity in teaching and achieves results it will be more willing to learn and perform other actions that are less easy or comfortable, at the end of the day during a successful training session the dog is learning to learn.
  3. Work on the dog’s concentration before the behaviorThe first thing you have to achieve is that the dog has a sufficient level of concentration in class, do whatever is necessary: take it to a quiet place, use a disruptive stimulus when it is distracted… but do not work an unfocused dog.When doing commercial training it is difficult to devote two or three full sessions to only teaching concentration and not behavior, it seems that you’re wasting your time and do not progress, this false perception is our enemy: if the dog is not focused, its learning is slower and lower in quality, it will be dependent on all the help that you give to get the behavior and will never try to achieve the action, training will become much longer for you with those two or three sessions and will be lower in quality. Believe me, everyone has gone through this error at first (and some have failed to overcome it.)
  4. Split the session into three partsDo not put forward a session of forty minutes or an hour, think of three sessions of ten to fifteen minutes separated by a few minutes break.You have to «squeeze» every session so that your expense of time does not end. We all know that the best training sessions are very short, ten or fifteen minutes, which is commercially viable (especially if you work at home), so most professionals opt for sessions of between half an hour and one hour of work, the problem is that these long sessions tend to work with the criteria and techniques used for optimal sessions (of ten or fifteen minutes), lengthening the sessions is possible in dogs that are used to working, but a dog that is brought to commercial training will never have that habit, so the results are concentration and quality loss in its behavior.You must put each session forward as the sum of three different sessions and with concrete objectives: The first part with all the actions you are teaching except the call, not having to do the calls will prevent the dog from running out of energy when coming (many dogs of customers do not have a suitable physical condition) and provide the concentration to be maintained within the area of social care. After this first part a short break and we dedicate the second part to the call, as the dog comes to assist us and already has it in mind to work with us it will be much easier, we use the technique we use and belong to the current training to which we belong. The third part is dedicated to stays (stay, go), the dog is more tired mentally and physically, so it’s a good time to make progress in this area. It seems easy and obvious, and it is.
  5. Control bodily aidsIdeally, it is the customer who trains their dog under our instructions, but if for any reason (training in residence, inability of the owner …) we are the ones who do it we have an added risk that can really drag out the work: bodily aids.It’s easy to help the dog without realizing it, by accompanying the movement we teach with our body, this is not a problem if we are aware of doing it in a precise moment in which the dog needs extra help progressing, but if it becomes something involuntary it can happen that the dog associates the action more with our movements than with the command. For almost any trainer with the minimum experience, it is easy to lead a dog with the body (in fact the problem is when you come to a test and do it involuntary), but these movements, so natural to the professional are imperceptible to the owner, who normally stands still like a stick repeating the command. Has it happened that you have to tell a customer «not like that, don’t be so rigid, does it help the dog out at all»?Because you’re spending more time than expected because of your poor planning: You have taught the dog bodily commands and now you have to teach them to the owner, or get rid of them in the dog, in any case: double work. Train without bodily aids (or keep them to a minimum and always remember that they are a scaffold which you must quickly remove) from the first day. If you already have the bad habit of doing them and you don’t notice them, record it on video and when you see it (it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s worth it) note all the involuntary aids that you do and eliminate them. You’ll surely save three or four sessions.
  6. Properly evaluating the frequency of the sessionsOne of the most common reasons that make us need an excessive number of sessions is that they are too frequent or too infrequent.If you train the dog every day you’re not giving it time to consolidate the progress; you’re building on wet cement! Thus you will need more sessions for the same result, remember that learning is a complex process that restructures the dog on many levels, including neurologically. Have you never been to one of these intensive workshops when on the third day you can’t take in any more information? Well the same thing happens to dogs. But if you separate sessions too much, you will have to devote some of your time to regaining the level of the previous session so that you are also working double. Although every dog has its rhythm, three sessions a week is a safe bet to not overwork it.

What makes for successful commercial training?

Today it is easy to find quality training to learn how to train in our country, it is not as simple as knowing the keys to apply that knowledge to commercial training successfully, trainers with extensive knowledge of their work do not end up «settling» in the commercial field.

I believe that much of the problem is not knowing what commercial success is, and relying solely on the application of our technical knowledge, but success should also include two coordinates: customer satisfaction and positive balance between hours worked and the price of training.

If the customer is not satisfied, despite the work being optimal, we cannot speak of commercial success, we will not be able to count on their recommendation, or on the good publicity that they could generate for us, quite the opposite! I remember a Dogue de Bordeaux that heavily assaulted a family and whose owners, after a perfect job told me that actually, what to them seemed serious was it burying toys in the geraniums. Months of productive effort from my point of view did not result in customer satisfaction because of a detail that they had mentioned to me, but I did not deem it important (it is difficult to deem the geraniums important when you see a sixty-kilo dog getting up off the couch and growling and all of the family members running out of the room «because it had woken up on the wrong side of bed»).

The other critical point for success in commercial training is time optimization, most trainers I know have a strong commitment to their work and are persistent in search of results, even if they have to invest a lot of time to get them. This is good in itself, but can end up harming the trainer (if they have set a fixed price and have to triple the planned sessions) or the customer (if they pay by number of sessions and must take on the extra cost for sessions that were not initially planned). Again, although the training remains impeccable, we have not been successful: in one case we have worked almost for free and in the other our customer feels we have abused them, with the negative publicity that implies.

The following articles will explain a way to plan and conduct training that takes customer satisfaction and the optimal planning of the sessions into account, but beforehand we must establish that commercial success is achieved only when we have completed effective training, the client deems it effective and the balance between hours worked and the price of training is adequate.