Training doesn't fit in a box, and neither should our language when discussing it

What kind of dog trainer are you?

This seemingly simple question, with an infinitely complicated answer for many, has been plagueing dog trainers, and in my opinion, the entire dog training community for decades, but only since the broad spread of the internet has it truly begun to have a powerful impact on the dog training industry.

Balanced. Postitive reinforcement. Force Free. E-collar. Natural. Clicker. Science based.

These, and more, are the tiny, restrictive boxes dog trainers are expected to fit their entire craft into. A craft that is also expected to encompass a lengthy list of abilitites, problem solving capacitites, titling venues, every breed of dog and type of owner under the sun. Decades of experience, wrapped up into one or two words.

We, as a training community, need to stop. Stop choking one another with stereotypes and cliches, and stop limiting ourselves. These labels are not industry standards, and even their meaning varies from person to person- and therein much of the problem lies. Let's break down what each of these names is meant to represent, and what they really say about everyone else.

"Balanced" training is meant to represent a style that utilizes all quadrants of operant conditioning, in very basic lay terms, discipline and reward. But what type of discipline? That distinction remains somewhat vague, as it has become a broad catch-all term for any trainer who incorporates physical correction. One "balanced" trainer can be vastly and shockingly different from another. This particular label presents two unfavorable assumptions. The first being that the "balanced" trainer uses all four OC quadrants equally. I have found this to be patently false in most cases, in fact, the quadrant most actively in use by them is positive reinforcement. It also implies that other methods are unbalanced. What are some synonyms for unbalanced? Unequal, unhinged, unstable. Like most of the training labels I'm discussing today, the name itself carries a subtle insult.

"Positive reinforcement" (R+) and "force free" are two terms that often are lumped together but can have small, but distinct differences. Many of the R+ trainers I've had the pleasure of talking to and learning from are quite open about their training being primarily positive reinforcement, but of course will acknowledge that even the withholding of reward can no longer be considered R+. "Force free" trainers use the same methodology (training without physical correction or molding) in most cases, but is the name accurate? Withholding reward until correct action is offered is certainly sound thinking, but many argue that mental coercion is still a form of force, therefore the label itself is incorrect. Let's break down the implications of these names. "Force free" says, "I don't train with manhandling or harsh punishment", again, a very sound philosophy, but carries the implication that any other method is unkind. "Positive reinforcement" is better, I think, but as I mentioned earlier, this school of thought certainly doesn't have the market cornered on high value reward.

"Science-based" is not far away from the previous two, however, every trainer of every school of thought uses the science of animal behavior every time they train a dog, whether they know it or not. Dog trainers were doing incredible things with dogs long before animal behavior studies existed. While modern science has given dog trainers incredible insight and food for thought, the assumption should not exist that a trainer who doesn't work the way a "science based" trainer does is an uneducated cretin.

"Natural" training, to be entirely honest, is the foggiest to me in terms of direct application to teach specific tasks. It seems Cesar-esque to me,without the use of training collars or food, and is meant to be based on relationship without tools or tangible reward. If anyone out there can send me some videos on this style teaching very specific commands, I'd be grateful. I'm sure you can see where I'm heading now- the opposite of natural is of course "unnatural", to me an unfair and false way to label both "R+" and "balanced" work.

As for "e-collar","clicker" etc., I refuse to label any trainer based on one tool of many they may use. I am not a prong collar or a piece of Red Barn.

Now the labels get uglier. Punishment trainer. Shock trainer. Cookie-pusher. I will be frank, when you see these labels, walk away. If you're an owner looking for a trainer, walk away. If you're a trainer or a training enthusiast trying to have a discussion, walk away. These are more than labels, they are insults, and those using them likely do not care a whit that what they choose to call themselves also carries a demeaning undertone to others.

The sooner we abandon labels, the sooner we can spread our knowledge to one another with respect and open minds, and do the most good for the ones who really matter- the dogs. To do this, we must absolutely own the fact that a great deal of very poor work is being done in every style. Defeatist, permissive "FF/R+" training; harsh, unrewarding "balanced" training; "natural" work that accomplishes next to nothing- it's everywhere, and we know it. Rather than attack the worst of every other style, try representing the very best of your own.

Some of you may be looking at this laughing to yourselves, thinking, "Hey! I'm a PositiveReinforcementBalancedCookiePushingScienceRespectingECollarClicker trainer!"

No, you aren't, my friend. You're a dog trainer.