Training Without Conflict® 팟캐스트 에피소드 68: Will Bangura

compulsive behavior, extreme hyperactivity, and more. He has helped more than 24,000 subdogs. Will appreciate you coming to the podcast. Um welcome and let's start guess let's let's start simple. How how would you define your approach in in couple of sentences? >> Well I yeah that's difficult a couple sentences. Um let me just give a little background too for anybody else that's listening. Um, I started training dogs back in 1975. Okay. I was 9 years old. My dad was a police officer. He bred and trained German Shepherds um mainly in AKC obedience matches, a little bit of Shitzen back in the day when it was called Shitzen. Um, and that's where I got started training dogs. Um, every Wednesday night in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where I'm from, we went down to the Northshore, uh, German Shepherd Dog Training Club, the AKC Dog Training Club. Um, and back then everything was pretty much compulsion based, you know. Uh, everything we did was pretty much Keeler based. Uh, so Bill Keeler, Coler, some people say Coler. >> I know I can never say the name. >> I always say Keeler. U, but that's where I got my start was, you know, with the Keeler method. um as I uh you know back then I don't remember even praising the dog. I don't remember giving food rewards, anything like that. Um, as I got into training professionally, starting in, uh, the early 90s, um, I was adding positive reinforcement, uh, with the use of prong collars, choke collars. Um, back in, um, the late 90s, early 2000s, I started, uh, working with e-collars. Um Tony Drugman was a uh e-collar trainer here in Phoenix was very very close to uh Fred Hassan. Then I became very close to Fred Hassan. Spent a lot of time uh studying with Fred how to use the e-collar. Uh Robin McFarland and Fred were uh together for a while. They had their split. Uh then I spent some time um studying with Robin um using a remote collar and for most of my career I've been a balanced trainer and for most of my career uh really prided myself on the fact that I was really good at at using aversives that I was really skilled with using pressure with dogs without having the fallout with without u having them suffer. for uh what every total positive reinforcement forcefree trainer would say that we were doing uh harming the dog, causing stress, anxiety, fear, making them more aggressive. Um, and I spent I spent um most of my balance training career when it came to posit total positive reinforcement and forcefree training trying to debunk the forcefree trainers, trying to debunk the total positive reinforcement trainers. um saying things that I hear all the time from the balance training community today that uh

corrections are necessary, aversives are necessary, positive reinforcement is is great for teaching a dog a new behavior. I remember paring this over and over again. However, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. There's going to be a distraction in the environment, a competing motivator, if you will, that's going to have more value to the dog than whatever cookie or treat that you have in your hand. And the dog's going to look, you know, maybe it's a rabbit, maybe it's a squirrel, and the dog looks at you with your cookie and says, "Hey, that's great. That's worth five bucks, but you know what? The squirrel is worth a hundred bucks. See you. I'm out of here." >> Right. Right. And you know, having been having done this for a very long time, you know, there were times when I had a lot of trainers. At one point, I had 14 trainers working for me. Right now, I don't have any and I won't, it'll just be me. But, you know, more recently, I'd say five, seven years ago, when I had a couple trainers for me and mentoring them, and they're young, you know, in their 20s. >> You're still in Arizona. Sorry to interrupt. Right. >> Yeah, I'm still in Arizona. So you know I we would have discussions and and I would say to them that you know we talk about tools we would talk about the industry whether the industry was going to end up being regulated was it going to be lenture you know things like that and I said you know I don't know if there's ever going to be ban on these tools in the US I said quite frankly probably the US might be the last place that has a ban you know it's not like Europe you know we love our guns We love our freedom. We we we love our tools. I said, however, I do think that at some point in time, if you stay in this field, I don't think it'll affect me, but I saying this to my younger, you know, trainers that are mentoring, I think there's going to come a time when you're going to have to be certified and you're probably going to have to be licensed to train. And it's probably a good idea for you to look into certification and look into the positive reinforcement more force-free approaches. And if there comes a time when you do have to be certified, if you do have to be licensed, and if they do ban or restrict your use of tools, what are you going to do? Excuse me. What are you going to do? What can you do without these tools? >> Okay. Um, now that being said, I thought it would be hypocritical for me to ask them to do that and me not follow suit. So, I started looking at the certifications that were out there that I for decades just said it was all BS and, you know, who cares, you know?

So, you take a multiplechoice test, big freaking deal. What does that prove? That proves nothing. Proves that you can answer some questions on a test. >> Very true. I went through and I I got all the information uh for the uh from the certification council for professional dog trainers for their certified professional dog trainer knowledge assessed went and looked at that looked at the behavior consultant um testing. also the International Association for Animal Behavior Consultants um which um I also was certified through them which I gave that up because of a dispute that I had with them about u a supplement that I created that they felt um was outside of my scope as a behavior consultant that somehow I wasn't uh they felt wasn't qual to recommend supplements or to create a supplement and I thought that was ridiculous and so we parted ways. But as I started going through the material and I realized, you know, there was an awful lot about positive reinforcement that I didn't know. An awful lot about positive reinforcement. You know, I'm thinking positive reinforcement just about rewarding a dog when they do something right. And and I know that you know this because you are very knowledgeable that there's a lot to positive reinforcement besides just giving food rewards. I through most of my career I was kind of the go-to guy to deal with the dogs that nobody else wanted to deal with. The dogs that were very high drive. The dogs that you know not only had very high prey drive but like to chase after things. the aggressive dogs, dogs with severe bite histories, dogs, you know, homes that had intradog aggression, severe intra dog aggression where they were really hurting one another. They're having to go to the emergency vet and get stitched up and stapled and tubes in them. And one of the things that I always prided myself was how quickly I could change the dog's behavior. And I felt I was, you know, really good with an e-collar that I could do some amazing things very quickly with an e-collar. I got more involved in it and and as I went through the certification process, you know, you might be aware that there is a code of conduct a >> yeah I'm quite familiar statement that you've got but yeah go ahead because I know many people >> sign a declaration basically that um you're not going to use a verses >> correct >> all right and so I said Hey, I'm going to take on this venture of of not using averses. And because most of the work I do is with dogs that have aggression issues and reactivity issues, it now became a matter of all right, I'm no longer quote unquote correcting the aggression, which today I look at it as

no, I was never correcting the aggression. In most cases, I was punishing fear because those dogs and most aggression is based in fear. Once in a while, you'll get a true case of dominance aggression, but most of the dogs their aggression is fear-based. It's defensive aggression. And it wasn't until I started getting into the little nuances of counter conditioning, desensitization, differential reinforcement, arranging the antecedance, environmental management, um, and seeing what I was able to do with that approach versus just punishing the aggression for using negative reinforcement to get a dog to do other operant behaviors, focused healing, look, you know, focused looking at me, you know, avoid the other dogs. If you're a reactive dog, you know, we can walk by all these dogs with the e-collar, they're focused on me, everything looks good. The problem was that suppressed the outward behavior and and aversives can work. And if you're really good at it, if if you're good at using anversive, yeah, you can shut down that behavior. The problem is is that it comes back >> because you didn't change the underlying emotional state that drives that behavior. And one of the things that I argued about and and what I still hear today obviously from balance trainers is that, you know, one of the biggest things that they'll say is, "Well, You'll euthanize a dog for aggression versus correct the dog. And quite frankly, when I look at it today and I I see the effects of, you know, it's one thing to be a a really experienced trainer, behavior consultant, somebody a pro that works with dogs and you really know what you're doing. Now, the other thing that's important here, 99.999% of the dogs I work with are companion dogs, pet dogs. So, I'm not working with sport dogs, >> okay? Very different. You know what we can and and and I've look, I've had Malininois. I did personal protection training. I never competed in in uh protection sports, but I did personal protection training. I had, you know, high drive shepherds, malinawas, you know, that were beasts and, you know, they were fun dogs and there's a lot you can do. Those dogs can handle a lot of pressure things that pet dogs would never never be able to handle. You know this, there's a lot of trainers out there and there's a lot of bad trainers. There's a lot of average trainers. Well, if you're working with pet dogs and you're using aversives and you're average, you're going to mess up a lot of dogs. Now, if you're not a professional trainer, you're Joe six-pack and you're one of the 200,000 to 500,000 individuals that's buying an e-collar out of a pet store, >> they're definitely screwing up dogs and

causing harm with good intention. And and just like for the many decades I had all the best of intention. I believe that most trainers have good intentions. I believe that most people that work with dogs have good intentions. Um but I didn't know what I didn't know. >> I I you know I I repeated a lot of things that I heard in the balance training community arguing against forcefree and total positive reinforcement folks. But then when you cross over and you actually have to do it. Um, now I know that you and I disagree on some of the science that's out there, some of the studies that are out there and and and that's okay because there's never going to be a perfect study that's out there. Um, but I do believe that there's an overall scientific consensus. Is everybody in agreement? No. But I believe there's an overall consensus that for the most part if you're looking at dogs across the board that there is a much greater risk. And it happens often when we're talking about pet dogs and and it happens a lot when we're talking about professionals using aversives, but happens even more when we're talking about non-professionals using aversives that are trying to use aversives to correct serious behavior problems like reactivity and aggression. Thinking that things are going really well because they might shut that behavior down quickly, only to find that it comes back and it comes back worse. only to find out that it increases the anxiety. Um, I get calls every day today, that I'm forcefree, that I'm total positive reinforcement from people that have taken their dogs to really well-known balance trainers for aggression issues, reactivity issues, that used aversive tools or balance trainers, use, you know, positive reinforcement as well. But I hear it every single day. The dog, it's worse. The e-collar screwed up the dog. The prong collar screwed up the dog. The training made it worse. Now, I didn't get I didn't hear that stuff from the people I was working with when I was using those tools. But, you know, I think about it. If I'm the consumer and I choose trainer A and trainer A's method and things go south, I'm probably not going to be calling back trainer A or another trainer like trainer A that uses trainer A's methods. I'm probably going to be looking for somebody else. And I think that happens probably a lot. I mean, I don't know for sure, but I think that happens a lot that, you know, unless we ourselves are following up with our clients long term, especially when we're talking about things like severe reactivity and aggression, do we really know what our true outcomes were when it comes to the work that we did?

>> Um, now I know that was long-winded. you asked me to say a little bit, but I felt it was important to give a little bit of background because, you know, I'm not like some >> 20 or 30 something year old uh forcefree trainer that, >> you know, uh went to >> Yeah. >> Gene Donaldson Academy and and has never picked up a prong collar, any collar, uh never worked with a real case of aggression, >> uh type of thing. So, you know, I I come at every all everything that I do and I come from comes from that perspective. Yeah, I like that. No, and that that was very very good uh um beginning for no question. Um all right, so just to mention that you know like like the the examples that you were giving as far as people being failed by the balance trainers. Of course there is people being failed by the force three trainers otherwise they wouldn't go there. You know that that's kind of right. >> Absolutely. Yeah. Um I guess all right. All right. So if if I understand correctly, you believe that every behavior can be shaped purely through some uh uh positive reinforcement schedules with no need of any aversive experience. Right. >> Yeah. My belief is this that there's only one legitimate use of an aversive and that is when you are surprised and it's a dangerous situation and you've got to do what you have to do to protect the dog or a person or what have you. But then that's information when that happens that says, "Hey, I've got more work to do. I've got training to do. And if I've got a problem in this specific area where I couldn't manage and control my dog, um it's not that the positive reinforcement doesn't work. It means that I've not done enough work with that. And then the approach that I'm going to take is okay, I'm going to do everything in my power to avoid the triggers. Not that that fixes the problem at all. >> Correct. >> But it's the first step because I can't have the dog continuing to rehearse those behaviors. they get more and more conditioned, more and more habituated, not just the outward behavior, but the underlying conditioned emotional response. And that makes it more and more difficult for me to be able to modify that behavior. >> Yeah, understandable. Um, yeah. I um that that that's I I like I like >> and and there's the component here and I and I get that some people, you know, like even the certification council for professional dog trainer says we're not a welfare organization, you know, because they've opened the door to allow for aversives. Um, and I get that. thought where I'm at today, okay, animal welfare is very important to me and I just don't think because I don't feel that it's

necessary and and I've not found over the last, I don't know, six, seven years that I've been fully crossed over as a forcefree trainer that I don't use aversives. I've not encountered a case where I needed to use an aversive >> to modify a behavior. Um, now I could, but then I'd be violating my, you know, code of conduct and in the >> Yeah. >> you know, profession I've made to, hey, I'm going to do this forcefree, >> you know, and and I'll tell you, you know, there were times when I found myself, especially early on, being a little frustrated because I'm like, man, I know I can make things happen faster in some respects. But that is kind of a myth for me in a little ways because when I say faster, yeah, suppress behavior faster. But as far as having real permanence and reliability of change, especially when it comes to aggression and and and pet dogs with aggression, because that's where I come from. Those are the people I work with. Suppression doesn't change things forever. It puts the dog in a pressure cooker. >> Okay? and eventually that dog snaps. Not every dog, but a lot of them do. >> Um, and and so really, if you really want to get to the bottom of it, you got to change the way the dog feels. If the dog doesn't view a trigger as a threat, they're not going into fight or flight. There's no function. There's no purpose for that behavior. There's no need for it. And and so for me, it's all about changing that underlying emotional state. And and when you do that, the behavior melts away. And and I don't need to use aversives to do that. Counter conditioning and desensitization works fantastic. And there's all kinds of different protocols that come underneath that big umbrella >> of counter conditioning and desensitization. >> All right, let me um um I mean, these are very good good I I like already where we're going with this. I think it's going to be a very cool conversation. Uh, one of the claims and I think it's also your one of your claims as well from from kind of checking your stuff and and so on and it's not just your it's just u the um you know the the force free oral positive trainers. Uh one one of them is that punishment creates fear and ruins the relationship. Right now my question uh are you saying that all punishment causes fear or only the poor use of punishment causes fear? I believe that there is a way to use punishment effectively without it causing fear, increasing anxiety, and having fallout. I think that there are a lot of variables that make it very difficult for that to be the case. Number one, I think you have to be an extremely good trainer. I think your timing has to be

impeccable. I think you need to be able to read K9 body language really well. I think that when you use punishment, um it's got to be in a very controlled way so that you can um um control for variables like superstitious associations. Um I think a lot of people you know misunderstand punishment for punishment has to be in my opinion and what I know not just by my opinion and my experience but also from you know my my education and knowledge is that I've got to be 100% consistent. My timing's got to be impeccable and the punishment's got to be very harsh. And I don't know a lot of trainers, even professional trainers that are that good at that. And I certainly don't know hardly any non-professional trainers that are good at that. And so there's a very very high risk especially again when I'm talking about pet dogs there's a very high risk that using punishment will increase anxiety and uh potentially also lead to aggression. Can it be done without that happening? Yeah. But there's a lot of variables. You know genetics is a big factor. You know temperament's a big factor. you know, as well as, you know, not just the factors about the uh the teacher, the trainer, but you know, the learner as well. >> I caught on a word that you used and I kind of want you to elaborate a little bit. Why why do you say that punishment in order to work to be successful has to be harsh? >> I think that it's easy for a dog to get desensitized. you know, I I think I've listened to um and I agreed with you and it's interesting because um you know, I've trained both ways. I don't think that you're a big proponent of lowle e-collar training. Am I correct? >> Very true. >> Yeah. And and so from that perspective, I think that and I did a lot and you know and this kind of uh trainers do I don't align with. >> Yeah. and and and you know I one of the things that um I learned one of the things I learned about that was from you and and I agreed with you you know after actually doing a lot of very uh low-level e-collar training for decades >> is that um yeah you know punishment and and using aversives you know they they need to be kind of separated there and that that low level um can really desensitize the dog and then it could be more and more, you know, ineffective. >> Okay. So, I see I see definitely see see where you're coming from. But maybe maybe we can replace the word harsh cuz I don't think it hits right. I think it it kind of hits the wrong way. >> What What would you even say? I I would say that the punishment has to have all the components to succeed and to outweigh the desire of whatever that is but >> got to be painful enough for the dog

unpleasant enough for the dog that the dog wants to give up the behavior >> which harsh doesn't really represents that right >> I mean we can I I can just snap my finger cut off right >> okay let let's move on Uh let me ask you if if fear is always a bad thing, how do you explain the survival learning in >> I mean really in every species or not? >> Yeah. And and I realize that you know there are versversives in the environment right in nature there are >> based on I mean specifically the because when we say the fear is always bad right? >> Well I I didn't say that fear is always bad. Okay. But what I don't want to do is I don't want to intentionally create fear. And especially when I feel that it's not necessary to modify behavior, I'm going to do everything in my power to not intentionally induce discomfort, to not intentionally induce fear or intentionally induce pain or intimidation, especially when it's not necessary. Um, and because it does have that risk. Correct. Okay. Um I know somewhere as I was you know again checking things out. um my name came about and my example of mother correcting a puppy and that's a actually classic example right it's not like something I came up with but but when a mother corrects her puppy is she creating fear or clarity in your opinion >> I think it can be both >> and I think that it may be clarity and it may not be clarity you know Um I don't depend on dogs to to train dogs. Um I think that um we have a much higher order of reasoning and the ability to do things more efficiently and more effectively. Um without causing welfare issues. Um, I think many times when, you know, we see a mother dog, you use the word correct um, the puppy. Is it is she correcting the puppy or is she pissed off because the puppy's being obnoxious and and you know, she's uh, responding to her own trigger. Is she really trying to teach? I don't know. >> Or is she or is she reacting? I think um yeah, I mean in my opinion >> I mean learning happens regardless, right? And and we know because Skinner told us that that >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, my my my argument there is that clarity trumpet because um >> puppies don't run around for moms and they don't get like all spooked when mom shows up or anything like that. Right. Sometimes >> there is there's clarity of of >> but I wouldn't say that's happen but these are the pathological cases where moms uh like for example I have a I mean I've been breeding dogs for yeah really four years now. Um I bred probably not probably because I did a podcast recently about,300 puppies. That's a lot a lot of puppies. >> It is. >> And it's not a puppy meal. I mean, they

have the best facility and the best care >> and and we do a lot. When I was working at Guy Dogs, I also was very much involved with the breeding. >> And that's another thing if we had there really high quality breeders >> and breeders that were very responsible and I'm again focusing more on the pet dog community. um we wouldn't have nearly the problems that we have with dogs today. >> Uh yeah, but again back back to the clarity, it's it's basically mom definitely set certain boundaries and keeps puppies from becoming pests and chaotic and fighting with each other if you want or or pushing and developing uh uh certain things. I mean that that's everywhere in in in ethology evolutionary psych I mean we need that we need that upbringing to hopefully get raised right the reason I was bringing that there is pathological example is like I have a female right now that there's like you know nine puppies and and by the time they were let's say 10 week uh uh 10 days She decided that she will discipline them. Put whatever word you want there for it as they would be eight weeks and they would actually understand what she's trying to do. And we ended up really separating her and bringing her in through supervision making sure that she she's a good mom and she fits. Um so of of course those happen. Um, so if if dogs can learn through discomfort in nature without the trauma that fell out, why would it be impossible in dog training? >> I'm not saying it's not impossible. I'm saying that >> nothing >> there. I'm I didn't say it's impossible, but I do think and and we do see it. I mean, the scientific literature that's out there isn't being falsified. There are plenty of dogs that as a result of being trained with aversives. There's been psychological damage to those dogs. There's been increased anxiety. There's been increased fear. There's been increased aggression. And I think that it's harder for especially a world-renowned skilled trainer like yourself to maybe hold take real hold of that if you're far removed from the pet dog companion dog community >> because again I think there's things that are very different. You can put an awful lot of pressure on well-b bred working dogs. Not that I would do that today, you know, but I I I understand that, you know, they they can handle that where, you know, not even close to that kind of pressure, you know, a lot of pet dogs would just completely fall apart. >> Yeah. >> And not all moms correcting their puppies >> have that. It's not always benign. There's lots of mother dogs that are correcting puppies that, you know, the puppies are traumatized by it. And there's lots of moms that are messed up

that are correcting their puppies, too. >> That's why we call it pathological. >> Um, yeah. I mean, I many many people out there think of me as a sport dog trainer and a Malino person and so on. Um, I I've had a really successful pet training business since early 90s and I always do. And I at this point in my career, what is interesting is the cream of the extreme cases. That's the only time that I personally would take a a dog that I will work with myself because it just challenges me and it um I I don't know the outcome but but it's it's worth uh other than that my employees take care of that but I I do have a you know very good grasp of of everything that's happening out there and as far as the pet side of training as well. Um, so like let's say if a dog if a dog stops chasing cars after one correction. >> Mhm. >> And ends up being alive because of that. Was that fear or safety? Well, again, like I said, in an emergency situation, you've got to do what you've got to do to protect the dog, right? You don't want the dog getting hit by a car. But again, that would be information for me to say that, well, in that context, apparently my dog is not off leash reliable if I couldn't call the dog back and it wanted to chase after the car. So, number one, I'm going to make sure that my dog's on a leash, and I'm going to be doing all kinds of work, okay, to help desensitize the dog. The problem is is that it can be done just fine with positive reinforcement, but you got to follow the right protocols. When when Clive Wyn did the study on chasing and he cited my positive reinforcement guide on how to stop chasing, what I was disappointed was he didn't follow any of the protocols. That was not a good that was not a good design study. the the way that the positive reinforcement was done to try to stop dogs um from chasing is doesn't even come close to what best practices are industry standards for forcefree positive reinforcement training and then you kicked out a bunch of the dogs in the e-collar group. So, you know, the study I don't know if you read my critique of the wind study, but uh it was a pretty poor study. So yeah, >> let's go a little bit further in that. Tell tell me tell tell me more about this. >> Uh what what would be the protocol that you would do? Because as far as I understand the study here, >> I'm going to be working with the dog at a distance, okay, from cars, joggers, bicyclists, whatever the dog likes to chase after. Okay, if I've got to have, you know, somebody running around with a rabbit on a on a flirt pole or whatever, you know, I'm going to do what I got to do. But the thing is, is the dog going

to chase when it's too close? Yeah, because it's over threshold at that point, right? I've got to get that dog focused and giving up wanting to chase at a distance first where the dog can handle that. and using positive reinforcement for different behaviors that are getting reinforced while that's happening. And gradually, systematically over time, I can bring that dog closer and closer and closer and closer to the trigger. Okay? But most of the time, what happens is whether it be just your normal pet guardian or whether it be a professional trainer, they set the dog up for failure. Okay, here's a trigger. They're too close. the dog takes the break and then what do you got to do now? You know, either something bad happens or you've got to use punishment to stop it, right? Because in that situation, we set the dog up for failure. We've got to, you know, it it takes time to do it with positive reinforcement. All right. Yes, >> definitely. >> Aversives, punishment can can work fast. I I I'll never say that punishment doesn't work. It doesn't always work the way we want it to if we don't apply it really well. Um, but it certainly can work. We know, you know, when when Skinner mapped out opera and conditioning, he said, "Hey, this is the way learning happens." So, we obviously know that those things work. But even Skinner himself through most of his career argued against the use of punishment. >> Oh, 100%. >> Yeah, >> 100%. >> Um, and you know, that's kind of where I am today is that, you know, it's really not necessary. And again, unless it's an emergency situation, I've not had any balance trainer yet that I've asked been able to come up with when I said when other than an emergency, >> when is it necessary? When I mean, what can't you train other than an emergency? What behavior can't you train or modify that you feel that you have to use an aversive punishment? >> Right. Okay. Yeah. >> Unless it's an emergency. >> So I I will I'll give you my my take here. Um so when we're talking you basically as and you already defined it as decentization um and and you briefly explained the protocol. I think that protocol is very sound. I think that protocol is nowadays very well understood for for trainers that have paid attention and have tried to understand and and see what they can do. Um, but he I I have the the problems with this and let me kind of go a little bit and and I'll let you I I'll be interested to hear what you say. But desentization to me only works when we're dealing with a conditioned emotional response. Something that has been learned like fear of of a I don't know stranger or something. It relies on keeping

the dog below the threshold just as you were explaining until the the well how would you say the the nervous system basically kind of recalibrates right. But when the behavior is instinctual and biologically prepared like like uh you know any prey drive, defense, territorial aggression and combine that with a strong reinforcement history. Let's say the dog is already, you know, killed five, six squirrels and two birds. the synization will fail and I will explain why. Those reactions aren't uh uh fragile kind of learned fears. They they are hardwired motivational systems that have been rewarded over and over and over again. So it is in my opinion and not just my opinion but like all the books and studies that uh um those reactions aren't fragile learning learned fears. They are hardwired motivational systems. They be rewarded and we cannot desentize a dog out of what his nervous system is genetically programmed to do. and it finds it inherently satisfying, inherently reinforcing. In those cases only in again what I know that works and what papers and research proved to work including the study that you were talking about clives uh only proper contingency control meaning introducing consequences and challenging and channeling the the drive of the dog productively can change the behavior. The idea that you can fix chasing squirrels with again the intention to kill through gradual exposure to me misunderstands how predatory behavior works. Once the speed of or or motion, you know, like like let's say you were in in at one place you were talking about, okay, we're going to work with a bicycle or a car or whatever, right? Once the that bicycle motion crosses that threshold that activates the dog's prey motor pattern, game's over. The chase itself becomes the reinforcer. Now the trainer can go back just a step below that trigger and it's going to appear that it's successful again. But the moment that movement reaches that level, the problem is there. It never went away. Um >> No, I was going to say you've got there's a couple things, you know. Um, and and it can be done with drives just like anything else. And and you're right, you do got to keep the dog below threshold. And it's going to take work. This is not something that's going to happen overnight. It's not something that's easy. You know, you're going to be, you know, uh, beating to do controlled. Yeah. Not just desensitization, but counter conditioning because there's got to be a reinforcer as well. Okay. Not just for giving up chasing, but for doing something else that I want

the dog to do. >> All right. But >> I'm going to start at a distance with that trigger moving really slow. >> And then we're going to get closer and closer. And then we're going to back up again. And then we're going to start moving faster and get closer and closer. So it's a very and you know this it's excessive approximation. It it's it's gradual systematic desensitization. And you can modify the behavior because based on what you're saying, if it is just something that you know if we were to say that all things that are intrinsically motivated by very strong drive like prey drive um and things that have very strong reinforcement histories um can't be modified with positive reinforcement. We say the same thing then we could argue the same thing. Well, it's not going to be modified with punishment either. punishment will control the contingency for sure. >> Right. And with a dog like you're discussing, I think the important thing to understand is um if we know we've got a dog with that problem, >> you know what then if we were to control it with say an e-collar or punishment or something like that, right? It would be more efficient to do it with an e-collar than a prong collar, right? because you don't necessarily have a long line on the dog, but I'm still then putting the dog in a situation, right, where I'm technically potentially setting that dog up for failure. And that could mean the dog gets killed, right? Because if I'm just relying on my e-collar, maybe the dog will respond and stop. Maybe the dog won't. Maybe the dog will run faster. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I if I've got a problem dog like that, I'm going to make sure that that dog is safe. I'm going to make sure that the dog can't escape the house, get over the walls, get underneath the fences, you know, I'm going to make sure I've got a a long line on my dog, something like that. Um, >> until I've done until I've done the work. >> Various management. Correct. Correct. But yeah, but again like what >> or or or I could use the electronic collar and I could punish my dog. I don't feel that's fair to the dog if I haven't you know if I'm not willing to do the work just because it's easy and and you know to punish the dog with an e-collar because it doesn't take you know much for anybody. And that's the problem too with the tool is that yeah, it can work and it can work fast and it can seem easy, right? >> But then you've got 200,000 to 500,000 non-trainers buying e-collars every year without any instruction using it on dogs and and their timing is horrible and and they're messing these dogs up. >> Sure. Sure. But I think you're uh I just want to make sure that you're not missing

my argument and and what I'm trying to say here because >> it is >> it is actually very essential >> when we're talking about the synization and when it can work and when it fails. it clearly can fail. Exactly. >> And and and and that again is as we get closer and closer and once that premodern pattern that predatory behavior is triggered from let's say from you let's let's just imaginary put put numbers here. >> Mhm. So we go from 1 to 10 and let's say seven is the threshold when the dog's blood pressure goes up. It skips a beat and it says I'm on that whatever that is squirrel grab whatever it is right so we can go one two three four depending how much time you want to spend and how much work you want to do all that time it's not preparing the dog for the number seven when the natural instinct to kill and chase that whole prey motor pattern that it's baked in the DNA kicks in. >> Yeah. Because the training wasn't done at that point. You're you're still in training. Of course, that's going to happen because it's a condition process and you're still conditioning at that point. >> Right. Right. Right. So, tell me how you go from everything works up to six. >> Yeah. >> And seven is where it is. >> Well, seven just means that I'm seven. I'm seven. >> How do you recover from seven? How do I recover from seven? >> I don't know how you recover, but how do you overcome the problem with seven? >> Well, if I'm at seven and the dog wants to chase, if that prey drive is kicked in, okay, then my contingency in how I've attempted to try to control and set up that training session, I've made some errors. I've gotten too close, too soon to the trigger with the dog. the uh trigger might have been moving too fast, too soon. Um the alternative behavior that I need the dog to do, I might not have conditioned that enough. My reinforcer for that alternative behavior might not have been high enough. So again, every what we might call failure >> or what a lot of people would say the dog being disobedient >> is not disobedience. It's the dog giving me information. And it's communication and it's feedback for me to say, "Hey, you know what? I need to dial things back a little bit. I need to spend more time at a little bit further distance >> or maybe more slowly moving closer or more slowly bringing the speed of the trigger up." Okay. And and granted, this is and that's why I say and can every forcefree positive reinforcement trainer be really fantastic at doing this and having great success? No, just like we talked about, not every e-collar or trainer that uses aversives is is going to be successful >> in the greater sense. I totally agree

with you for sure. That's that's true. >> However, with the as far as we're talking the centization and and and the way I try to explain it that reaches level seven, the hardwire motivational system, premodel pattern kicks in. You go to back to six and it's beautiful simply because it's not triggered. You basically are saying and it's not just you. This this is a you know a concept in the force world that I personally have a problem and and that's why we're talking that uh um you can with the centization basically overcome instinctual and biologically prepared behaviors like the the prey drive and defense territorial aggression. Let me give you a different example. Uh another one that I have heard you and and of course again this is this is across the board. Everybody does things like that. Trust me when I I told you I've been breeding dogs for 40 years. I have done everything that was being suggested over the years. And I have the opportunity to kind of play around with things like this. So a different problem but still generically baked is the noise sensitivity. Mhm. >> And one reason why like let's say let's say when I used to work at guide dogs and I hope they still have this practice because it's uh u incredibly uh telling. So there is the breeding program. Puppies get evaluated. They go to the 4 homes. They get raised. Time to come back for real training now. Formal training. The very very very first thing that we will do, we will get that whole badge of dogs being 20, 30, whatever the number is and we will get every person that we can from the staff to take one dog spread out in on the property and shoot a gun bunch of times. Every dog that said I don't want to stay here, they get rejected for the program and rightfully so. And then the 4 home has the opportunity to take the dog back because really nothing wrong is nothing wrong for the dog to just be afraid of loud noises. However, every single program that has serious agenda evaluates noise sensitivity. You have it in in every single one. And the reason being is because it's innate because it's impulsive. You respond and you are not in control. So when somebody says that you can play the tapes and you can do this gradual descentization, you have to understand that there are levels of the severity of a problem just as I was telling you with the dog that's already killed five squirrels or even if he didn't kill but clearly has that intention. It's not just play hopping

butterfly towards the squirrel. Um, those tapes, those gradual moments of of desentization, they work for the moment and only for the moment. When a dog has a serious problem with noise sensitivity when they get startled by noise, few things can happen again depending on the severity. One, they will recover very quickly just like people will Whoa. Oh, okay. Or they will be bothered or they will really be concerned and worried and shut down. And there would be typically there is no really a fight response unless you really uh uh create a situation to have that but there is a very strong flight response and that noise overrides any trainability at that point and no decentization has ever solved that problem yet. I've got clients that many clients that I've worked with that have dogs, pet dogs with very severe noise sensitivities. Um, one lady um that comes to mind, her name is Lisa and uh she's got a dog named Josie and she's uh uh I don't know if she's in Alabama or Arkansas. She's one of the people I work with virtually. And um she lives near a artillery range >> and um the dog um had severe sound sensitivities and fears to the sound of the artillery to u fireworks, thunder, you name it. And this was a dog that was extremely severe. Um, and you know, granted, and we did, and we wanted to play sounds at low volumes and things of that nature, but you know, you can't just call up the army and say, "Hey, can you do me a favor while we're working with this dog for the next 3 months? Can you guys just not have any artillery exercises going on?" Right? So, couple things. One, and again, this is not always the most convenient thing to do, right? So, we had to desensitize and counter condition the dog to wear noiseancelling headphones. This is a dog that also for a short while was on some medication as well to help bring down some of that anxiety so that we could actually do the work of counter conditioning and desensitization. And one of the things I also tell folks is that, you know, when we're using recorded sounds, it's hard as we start doing the counter conditioning and desensitization to get to a level that matches reality in the real world. You know, like I tell my clients, look, if you don't have surround sound, a good stereo system that eventually can be cranked up really loud and be almost almost the way it sounds in the real world. It's not going to happen. Number one, but there are things, you know, and I know that I I think you're pretty much against medication. I'm not against medication. I'm against the overuse. >> You said it right. pretty much which doesn't exclude them >> completely.

>> But I've seen medication do some amazing things. I've also seen some regular veterinarians and I got all the respect for vets. They got the hardest job in the world working with so many different species and problems but you know they don't regular vets don't have much education in vet school when it comes to psychopharmarmacology. Um so a lot of them are rolling the dice and a lot of the medications that I see them prescribed there's a lot of emphasis on you know trazadone and gabapentin and those things are sedating and I find that a lot of anxious dogs that start feeling some sedation get more anxious and it makes things worse um as opposed to some of the SSRI which if they start them at a very low dose there's not that sedation factor and if they titrate them up you know slowly there's not that then sedation factor >> what do you think the SSRI does at that moment what is the >> we don't really know what we don't really understand the mechanism behind it we know that they work we thought serotonin was a big deal you know I don't know that that's I mean we know that we're modulating serotonin but there's other things going on we don't have that figured out my wife's a psychiatric nurse practitioner we have this discussion all the time unfortunately we don't you know we don't have good diagnostic stuff when when it comes to the brain being an organ of the body. Yeah, we >> have good diagnostics on other organs of the body. Um but uh I think just because in in human psychiatry, you know, we take a look at people with mental illness for so long there's been this stigma and it's been about, you know, a character issue rather than, you know, there's a medical component to their behavior. Um and let's face it, people with mental illness, they don't have a lot of money. they don't have people lobbying in in Congress. So, there's not a lot of money put into that part of of health care um like heart disease or something like that. But I think as we in the future understand the brain better, I think as we have better imaging, better diagnostics that we'll have a better understanding on how these things work. right now. Um, we know that, you know, these medications can work. They don't work for every dog. Not every medication is going to work with every dog. Not every dose is going to work with every dog. Um, there are some dogs that that I find that it helps a lot, but there are some dogs it helps a little and there are some dogs it makes it worse. You know, there's no I wish there was an easy way to say, "Yep, that dog needs meds and we know that's going to work." Do you think there is a a chemical imbalance in the brain?

>> Um, I mean I obviously I think there's something there's something I know they call it a chemical imbalance. I I think we don't know. I think that was the theory. I think that was the theory, >> but I don't know that we know. I >> I don't know that we know. I don't think that I think the jury is still out. I don't think we've got enough good science. So, but uh um again um >> but my point was about the sound sensitivities. >> Correct. >> I've had good success with dogs with severe sound sensitivities. Um it's in the work is inconvenient. You know, counter conditioning and desensitization is is inconvenient. You know, and and you know, the balance trainers will like to say, you know, well, if you're so good at what you do, show your work. Well, do you know how boring counter conditioning and desensitization? Nobody's doing videos on counter conditioning and desensitization. It's the most boring thing in the world. It is boring. Good counter conditioning and desensitization is boring. There's nothing exciting about it, >> right? And it's time consuming. But again, it is timeconuming. >> We can we can uh um >> pretty much move move on. Uh I guess what we disagree on here is that you you you are claiming or your argument is that uh you can through desentization and conditioning you can change instinctual and biologically prepared dogs. I mean I think if I mean not to anthropomorphize but if we take a look at human beings we take a look that you know we biologically have a fear of reptiles and there are some people that you know whatever it is they have an extreme fear perhaps a phobia >> of reptiles >> and we know through counter conditioning and desensitization with people um who have a nervous system pretty much identical to a dog and we've had plenty of great success you helping people with their phobias that were instinctual had a component I should say I don't know I like to say things have components I don't like to say it's all this or all that >> so what I'm saying yeah I agree with you uh I I mean as a side note I in in part of my life I actually spent few years of of learn I'm like a certified hypnotherapist and like like all sorts of things of that nature. Uh and and >> Ericsonian what kind of >> Yeah. And and >> I'm very big in Ericsonian uh >> hypnotic language. >> Okay. So I mean so in that way we understand what what is possible. Um, however, >> and if you know with with with him, you know, he was aligned well, not him, but uh was it Bandler and Grinder uh with neurallinginguistic programming who kind of modeled >> I did that some >> Yeah. And and so I have you know some of the phobia cures with NLP, right? The

swish technique and some of the other things. There's a lot of interesting stuff with NLP. However, the again there there is the levels just like just like in martial arts you have a white belt and you have a blue and so on and because we can fix all the way to the limits to where instincts kick in where that prey motor pattern or where that uh um instinctual knows sensitivity it's it's not a it's not conscious. You are reacting and then you're thinking why did you react? This is there is no research that has overcome this problem yet and if it is I would really like to see it because I spend a lot of time in this. Well, I'm trying to understand what you're saying because >> so what I'm saying is if if let's say we have a dog that uh unexpected sudden loud noise comes >> in a situation when it's not expected again I know you you like um to talk about anticedance and conditioning and all that is all would, but you throw the dog out of that and you present that noise, if we're talking noise. >> Mhm. >> That it's clearly sudden, unexpected, and loud enough that triggers those genetic instincts. We are helpless on that. >> In that situation, I agree, you're helpless. the the the challenge becomes and this is always a huge challenge, you know, um and that is how do you effectively and efficiently avoid the triggers while you're doing the work? And that can be a huge challenge. You know, I've got clients that um have dogs that are dog aggressive, people aggressive, and you know, they're living in an apartment complex with 500 units, okay? and they need to avoid people and dogs except under very controlled training situations until the work is done and then they can have you know more real world scenario and it's a it's a pain it's a challenge and just like what I was saying with um Josie that dog with the pet guardian Lisa um in Alabama that had the sound sensitivities because of the artillery range that dog was very severe and we couldn't get that dog below threshold so yeah there would be a lot of surprise prizes that would make it so that we couldn't do the work. So, we had to do two things in that situation. One was, like I said, uh counter conditioning and desensitizing noiseancelling headphones to bring the sound down. Also adding some medication. Eventually, the medication the dog was weaned off and eventually the dog didn't have to wear the noiseancelling headphones. And now artillery can boom and bang and and the dog's okay. Um, was it easy? No. Um, was it a big challenge to uh be able to avoid the the triggers? Yeah, it was. You know, I mean, most people aren't going to necessarily, you know, it's a big task. Okay, I got to

put my dog on medication. I got to desensitize my dog to noise cancelling headphones. Oh my god. >> Yeah, it's a lot of obligations and a lot of time consuming. Yeah, it's a lot of effort for the >> but it can be done. My point is though, it can be done. You know, granted, can I fix everything, cure a thing? No. >> Can I make most everything a hell of a lot better? Yeah. >> Is there going to be some dogs we're not going to cure? Yeah, >> that that's kind of where we you know there there is a point where we very much align of the process of decentization and how how um um you know that we can definitely fix a lot of things just by being smart and and create a a a good design, write a good prescription and hoping that the owner will also understand and take the responsibility and take the time. However, once again, my big issue and I think we leave that alone from here is that there is a point there is really a clear point break where from there on in my opinion the trainer becomes unethical and starts to sell snake oil. And this can be because of lack of understanding and knowledge or simply you know making making money from from you know business but um okay I I think >> give me an example because I'm I'm I'm losing you a little bit about the >> well I mean as said like we can uh I mean >> that we're saying we can fix everything or what? >> No we cannot fix everything. That's my that's my problem. And you're saying when there is the highwired motivational systems when we're talking about >> predatory stuff or when we're talking about light sudden loud noises or I mean we can go on with many examples but I don't want to kind of water down the conversation. >> Sure. It's just that there is a point where in plain language instincts kick in and override any training and any conditioning and the synthesization that has gone up to that moment. And the moment we go a little bit back, the success is there. which kind of fools many trainers that they just need to do more work not recognizing that there is that break point where nothing uh uh besides uh um contingency control consequences and and when I'm saying contingency control and consequences uh that's not all of course that would work in conjunction with channeling the drive and some differential reinforcement and offering some alternatives and so on and so on. But the contingency control is essential from that point on when we're talking about these kind of cases when we get to that place. Um let me let me ask you about this. Um there is there is this another famous one where aversives damage the bond between dog and the owner or the trainer or so on. What if if that was true

then why do the police dogs and the you know sport dogs that do protection or whatever that are using you know the experience pressure or aversives frequently daily if you want whatever but they still work joyfully and they trust the handlers completely. Well, again, I think we've got to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. When we're talking about dogs that are so that the controlled breeding of those dogs for specific drives and and temperaments and their ability to handle pressure is very very different. And again those dogs are being trained by professionals. The vast majority of pet dogs are not being trained by professionals. They're being trained by their own pet guardians that have dogs that aren't well bred like that to handle pressure >> and they don't have the skills that trainers have and the timing. And they are with painful, uncomfortable, poorly timed corrections punishing the dog. And the dogs know, well, this is coming from my people. >> Mhm. >> And yeah, that trust, that that bond, that relationship does start to deteriorate. Now, does every dog that somebody uses punishment with, does it happen? No, of course not. And again, I think it's important that and and this is where I think those of us that are trainers that have used aversives or still use aversives and and are skilled at using pressure with dogs that can handle pressure, we tend to make that our model of the world more than looking at the the big picture of just all the dogs that are out there. >> Okay. >> And so I think when I take a look at the big picture, you know, I agree with the studies when they say that that happens. I also know that there are professional trainers that are very skilled with using pressure and there are dogs out there that are really well bred to handle pressure and it's a different ball game and and then we can get different results there. Um, but I've also watched dogs that were well bred and I've watched trainers that were professionals using these tools for a long time that aren't at the top of their level and and they I've watched them do things to their own dogs that have harmed their relationship, >> you know, and the dog, you know, a lot of times, you know, looks very um bouncy. and very animated and stuff, but yet you can take a look if you're really good at canine body language, you can see an awful lot of stress and and you can't just count it off as, oh, it's arousal, >> you know. >> So, what would the relationship be like if the aversives weren't used? Also, you know, that's another question that we can't answer. You know, are we comparing, taking a look at, well, what's the relationship? Um, but I think

my biggest thing is, you know, there's a reason why, you know, 15, 20 countries out there have banned e-collars. There's a reason why 5 10 countries out there ban prong collars, right? They're not all nuts. There's some real stuff going on there. And they're looking out for the common interest of the general public, which is going to be your pet dogs. So I get it. >> Okay, we will get definitely going to hopefully you have time and I I do want to hit on on the studies and and the bands 100%. Um, you know, talking about the, you know, comparing the well-b bred working dogs versus a extremely shy and fragile whatever dog that we picked up from the shelter and and or a rescue and so on. everybody and and I know you've heard me saying this and I I know you kind of try to uh counter it, but everybody is biologically prepared, right? to aversives and and um like just just silly examples, you know, when you if I'm going to teach a little kid to do jujitsu, I'm not going to just break his arms or whatever, but I will show him the discomfort and I will teach him. And and once again, there are levels and you have to do the right thing with the right dog instead of uh assuming that you're going to use whatever the electric collar and you're going to max it on a dog that clearly doesn't require that. Now I definitely would agree with part of your argument as as far as the education and and you know uh that people do stupid things and my dilemma with that is that people will always do stupid things and thank God we have laws and and we see them work. Um, but you can you can strip a person, you can not let them have anything and they still will be bad people. And I don't think we argue with that. As far as the bands, just a a really quick one be before I because I have so many interesting question here, but the bands when they took place, you would think that nobody now in Europe uses electric cars and that's very >> No, I'm sure they do behind the closed doors. >> In fact, correct. In fact, that the sales are they continue to be higher and higher with every year. It's just they're under they're taboo under closed doors. And now we actually even I would be very concerned because there is no right education, there is no right environment where to learn. So you're even more prompt to do stupid things because there is nowhere to do. But uh um aversives damage the bond. So um >> they can I'm not saying they do they can >> correct correct now can trust exist >> without clarity and accountability. I think that's a really interesting one. Well, first of all, we can't really measure trust when it comes to a dog and their trust in in their

their uh handler, their pet guardian. I don't think um because we you like your side of the you know always would say that you're breaking the trust, right? It's one of the biggest slogans. Correct. That's kind of why I'm saying >> the relationship, the bond, the trust, that type of thing, you know, the relationship, you know, as far as you know, >> trust exists without clarity and accountability. >> I I think and I get what you're saying, you know, and and things need to be clear. And I think there's that myth out there that positive reinforcement training without the use of aversives is permissive. That we let dogs get away with bad behavior. That we don't set boundaries. um which isn't which isn't true. It's just that, you know, we don't um we don't set our dogs up for failure so that we can then just punish them to to teach them that way. Um we want to set them up for success. And we want to do it in a way that is the most ethical, the most humane, and and has the greatest welfare uh for dogs. And you know, um I I love my dogs. They're sentient beings. And uh when there there was a time you know, not that long ago where um I didn't care or didn't think much about whether or not some discomfort was good or bad or harmful to them. But today I feel differently and and and again it comes down to the fact that I've yet to find anything that needs to have punishment >> in order to teach. Again, very different than an emergency situation. >> Okay, >> so >> aversives happen in emergency situations because you're in an emergency situation. Yeah, I accept that. I like that for sure. >> Mhm. >> But I don't I don't know. I you know, we've talked a little bit about the the noise sensitivities. We talked about the biological instincts and drive and and chasing and prey and those type of things. And I do think both of those things can be modified and helped to a great degree. Not necessarily cured for every dog 100% without the use of aversives though. In some dogs, I think it can be turned around completely without the use of a person. >> Cool. What? Like, isn't trust, how do they say? Isn't trust earned through consistent outcomes, not just comfort? >> I think predictability maybe, you know, we know that, you know, dogs >> well, consistent outcomes, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Would you would you trust a human who never told you that you were doing something wrong? You can tell me that I'm doing something wrong, but you don't have to use discomfort, pain, or intimidation in order to communicate to me. That's the difference. Granted, we can we can teach that way. My point is is that there's and I know this sounds like a tree hugger, but

there's a gentler, kinder, nicer way to be able to teach. >> Okay? >> You know, like in my classes when I uh you know, I have school for trainers too, >> right? And and one of the the things when whenever we're going over shaping and you know just this uh um I I always give a a kind of silly example and and the example is like let if you if you have a like let's say I give you some Bulgarian car. There is no Bulgarian cars by the way. We never made cars. But let's say there is one. and we go to a gas station and tell you, "Will, I'm going to give you 5,000 right now in in cash if you within 45 seconds find where how to open the the tank so we can fill up the car." And then I watch you struggle, but I also watch you that you're really, really, really wanting to succeed. And however, you're stuck at the back with the spare tire. And I say, "Will knock it off. It's that way." And I just do the Hey, it's that way. >> Would you like that or no? >> Why not use successive approximation with free shaping with positive reinforcement, then the dog doesn't have to struggle? >> No. I'm talking about you and the car and the example that I gave you. You have 45 seconds and you're really struggling. You want the money. >> If it's me, I would say, "Thank you. Thank you, Will. I'm I'm on it." >> Yeah. But dogs aren't using that kind of reasoning, though. >> They're not using that kind of everything is dissociative in terms of them and operated. Oh, they're learning. It's consequences and associations, >> right? >> Which brings clarity and and and can diminish frustration. Right? But the point is is that I can create as long as I'm making good clear black and white cause and effect associations and as long as you know I'm reinforcing the right behaviors in order to um shape things. I can be very clear with the dog. I don't h the dog doesn't have to be frustrated. Now if I'm trying to go from zero to 100 with a dog and then the dog's going to be frustrated. If I, you know, I used to have when I had a um when I had a lot of trainers working for me, one of the things that I always used to do is I would give the trainer a dog and I would tell them to do something impossible that I knew that couldn't be done with the dog. Not because I wanted them to do it. I wanted to see, are they going to push this dog to do something that really can't be done? Are they going to keep doing the same thing over and over again or are they going to start making adjustments or are they even going to say, "Hey, you know what? This is ridiculous because I wanted to get rid of some of that ego that can happen with trainers." And that was one of the first things

that I looked for was, yeah, they just going to keep pushing and pushing and wanting to go this direction thinking, you know, they got to make that happen instead of breaking things down >> into small little pieces where there can be success. Mh. >> And quite frankly, that's going to build more agency, more confidence, and more of an operant dog, more of an active learner than somebody who, you know, is always having to take cues from me. >> Right. So, so basically like and then you correct or edit it as you like, but you you're basically kind of saying the dog always learn better through free choice and positive reinforcement >> now. >> Yeah. I mean, I got to keep things, you know, as far as free choice, I'm not going to put the dog in a situation where it's going to be in danger, you know, but yeah, absolutely. >> Yes. So >> yeah, I know you don't like errorless learning and and all that good stuff, but you know, try to make it as easy as possible for the dog to succeed. That actually helps me because it makes my work go faster, too. So if if dogs if if we prefer to always take that approach, if that's true, why do wild animals use force, restraint, hierarchy across the board in every single natural system? What? What? >> Well, there all right. I personally believe that no animal goes into fight or flight and uses force unless they feel that there's a threat. And my whole thing is there's not a threat when I'm when I'm training an animal. >> And there threat and I don't need to be a threat. >> And yeah, I can train with pain and I don't mean that like abuse, okay, you get the idea. But I also don't have to. And the fact that I don't have to and I can get the results. Why would I? >> Why would I choose to use pain? Why would I choose to use anything that would cause discomfort if I don't need to? It's one thing. And again, I've not found a situation yet or a case or a dog since I've crossed over that I've needed to. And when I ask other trainers, all they can tell me is these surprise situations, which I agree. Hey, if it's a surprise, it's a surprise. You got to do what you got to do. Yeah, you got to keep dog safe. But that's information that tells me, you know what, there's more training to be done. >> And just using an aversive doesn't necessarily fix that problem. I might be stuck with having to have that e-collar on the dog for the rest of its life. Why do you think we have to where we're forced, we're obligated to put seat belts, we follow laws, their consequences for sure in human society. If positive reinforcement alone is is good enough. >> Nobody said that um negative reinforcement or that positive

punishment doesn't teach and doesn't instruct. Nobody's saying that it that it doesn't do that. But the thing is, okay, it's very different when you've got independent humans running around that we're not there to police every single minute of the day. All right? Versus a dog. And with a dog, you know, they we first of all, we bring them into our world. All right? There's a whole other host of things that we could talk about when it comes to breeding and genetics and how there's this huge mismatch in a lot of dogs and their homes, environments, and their people. >> Okay? And the thing that they don't want to do is exactly what they were bred to do. Okay? You know, from an ethological perspective, that's a problem. But just because we can, just because we do learn from pain doesn't mean that we have to teach that way or that we should teach that way. And I think that when we can teach in a way that doesn't cause discomfort, I think it's better for everybody involved. And I haven't found anything yet where the behavior has to have an aversive in order to train it in or to modify it out except for an emergency situation. So I just find that there's there's no need to do it. And now I granted, you know, everybody has their choice. They have their their option, you know. Um I don't think >> no okay I get the point with the emergency situation and you know and dangers another adult life or what you know whatever that is right but so so your position is that reality how how the whole planet functions and abides by certain law should change to fit a philosophy and not the other way around. >> Well, why do you think Skinner was opposed to averses? >> Um, Skinner was opposed to aversives. It is very clear. I've spent uh enormous time on this and I have talked to some of the best students of his that are now retired uh professors and and he didn't reject punishment. He did not believe that punishment uh um he didn't reject it on moral grounds, on ethical grounds. He rejected it because he believed that it doesn't work or that it doesn't last or that it's going to counterattack or that it's going to you know he did not understand punishment. If you want to go that route, which was >> You don't think he understood punishment? >> Correct. Yeah, that that's uh >> You don't think Skinner understood punishment? >> 100%. That's unarguable. Um I mean, we can I I'll I'll get to this for sure. That's an interesting conversation also to have. Um they were you know uh I mean ju just because we are talking the difference between suppression in real lasting change. No, no, no. Uh, we will disagree greatly on this and and that's kind of where >> project pigeon

>> that's how you know the famous >> coercion and it's follow okay >> yeah uh uh I mean that's the extreme taken from from that but basically Morice Sidman basically uh um you know there is a first of all there is a difference between functional punishment and universal suppression and they cannot be mixed and Sidman and uh you know the whatever the book was coercion and it fell out you know in in his work on aversive control described universal suppression he did not explain functional punishment um but let let's let's move on and I definitely would love to go uh uh more into punishment for sure. I mean we are on punishment and and uh definitely want to touch base on on Skinner's ideas because I think not I think it's certain it's obvious that um the the force free community as a whole is a product of that way of thinking. Um the the one of the claims is the punishment doesn't teach it only suppresses. Right? If punishment only suppresses, how do animals learn avoidance and control through it? If punishment only suppresses, how do animals learn avoidance? and control through it. >> Give me an example. >> Well, when we say that punishment suppresses >> Mhm. >> behavior and then when we take it all the way to as uh Mar Sidman says, it's universal suppressions to to where it's like I I ask you not to chew on the shoe in the kitchen, but now you don't want to even come to the house. That is universal suppression. That's a misguided, misused form of punishment. That's not uh um what you would call functional punishment. So if like like the the idea in the narrative of the ideology is that punish if punishment suppresses behaviors. But if punishment only suppresses, why do animal learn to avoid and control their behavior through it? >> Do you understand what I'm saying? >> Yeah. I think from my perspective in in terms of just my own work with dogs, um I think there is some um legitimacy to that when we're talking about more perhaps nuisance behaviors. M >> but I think when we're talking about behaviors that are really strongly rooted in that underlying conditioned emotional response. I think it's different. >> I don't know if that makes sense. If you understand what I'm >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean >> because I think in some you know you don't have this if the behavior is not driven by this underlying anxiety, stress, fear.

I think we're looking at two things that are quite a bit different as well. And um you know obviously you know I'm force free and positive reinforcement. I use aversives today. But if I were to go back to use aversives, it wouldn't be for the dogs that were aggressive and reactive. It would be for obedience training, basic foundational commands, nuisance behaviors, those type of things. Um, >> okay. and and and I think maybe that's why I I don't think there is that avoidance and that control long term when we're talking about >> well what I mean by avoidance to interrupt what I mean by avoidance is that they actually are learning to avoid right if they're suppressed they will be blocked of doing anything it's going to go sideways >> are you learn how to avoid punishment they learn how to avoid the punishment and control behavior through it. >> Yeah. Because that's what turns off the punishment. >> Correct. You you're aware of the um the two factor theory, right? The mar um it's the two-factor theory of avoidance learning where the the behavior is maintained by fear reduction and negative reinforcement. That's how you maintain the behavior. That was the I mean it's like 9040 something study and basically uh um in a nutshell the once the dog learns the avoidance persist because the dog keeps escaping the feeling of fear and uh condition emotional response. So um extinction really doesn't happen. Um they what what that mean it's they function right. No, you just said extinction doesn't happen, >> right? They they they continue to like the avoidance behaviors persist >> like uh like the the experiment and let me see if I can not butcher the whole thing now. Like the first part is like just a pure classical conditioning situation where an neutral Q is paired with an aversive and it becomes a condition punisher that elicits among any other things fear. And now the operant side of that experiment was that the behaviors that remove or prevent the fear eliciting queue become negatively reinforced and they terminate that conditioned uh fear state. If you want >> the fear state of the aversive or the fear >> of of once they once they respond they respond due to conditioned fear response but once the response then then it's gone >> and it doesn't >> it doesn't go away it's there something to look into because uh like um I I will I will put some links in the in the in in the comments or the description for sure. Uh because it's it's actually quite interesting and important because

later on there was a whole different study. Um, Leo, Leo is the name of the guy and it's current and it's a present like it's it's you know he did bunch of things but it's it's the the current understanding of everybody and the core claim of of Leo was that the um that the I was going to say the dog but they of course do it with rats and I will explain saying why with rats but there is a a threat circuit and and and not necessarily fear. So the the like the core claim that he makes is that after learning makes the the situation predictable and controllable the rat stops freezing and instead performs a simple instrumental avoidance responses. Uh what is interesting to know about rats and and the geniuses of of what he did is that when uh let's say let's say you put it in a skinner book whatever and you put some electricity they respond just like any living thing will respond with a little jump and you know discomfort and immediately after they will freeze. It's a very uh innate evolutionary uh um response in in rodents because if they move their you know predators get them. So that freeze response is extremely uh important but it also it is based on fear only fear nothing else. And what he found in the studies that they put the same the same conditions like imagine you know uh um the box that they can go away and you know and there is the queue and so on. Basically the the rats they end up going into this what he calls uh um man he has a really good names for this and I'm I'm a little bit offg guard here. um it's not a loop but it's a it's a again it's a instrumental avoidance response. They basically they're moving away they're responding and they're not freezing anymore which shows that they're just responding and the fear now it's not there anymore. Why? because they have the solution. And once they have there is a solution to the problem, there is no reason for fear no more. You're just knowing how to control the situation. There is no reason for anything to be afraid of. >> Well, predictability and control, I think, are important for decreasing that fear. I don't know that we can definitively say that it completely negates it. Well, what he basically showed is that you don't need fear to manage the situation because once that the animal can predict and control that freezing drops out and just the basically the action policy takes over and that's it and you can in fact they

what they were doing in their experiments is they would watch and eventually they would just kind of okay well it's time to go to lunch break and the raptist continues to do because it's negative reinforcement and they're convinced that they are you avoiding right however the fear responses the signals of fear are out the door is incredibly important conversation >> yeah I'd have to look at the study >> yes it's incredibly important and uh you Now um not sure why studies like that are not covered in in the um well in in in the places where you have taken time and I don't want to say that it's nonsense but it's definitely very much uh um one-sided uh what what you have studied it's kind of it's a specializing and really really mastering certain skills but but it's still in >> I don't think anybody dis I don't think that it that we discount that because you know if if you've taken the time to study and learn we understand that predictability and control and aversives if aversives are being used are are very important okay one of the things that we do understand is that very few people are good about using aversives in a way that allow for predictability and control. Now, you at your level of of uh skill and experience may be a very different thing than than some other trainers, but there's plenty of them out there that they're just flying by the seat of their pants rather than designing good training programs and and thinking about the learner. They're more interested in, you know, allowing you to get these results. you know that there's this huge dopamine hit when you're working with an animal, especially, you know, if you can use an aversive and get something to happen very quickly, that's a very powerful reinforcer for the the trainer who's using the aversive. >> Yeah. And again, I I I understand the position. it just uh um >> I don't think we discount though the fact that you're talking about this study. If I looked at the study, I would say, yeah, this is a real thing. This is something that that can happen. The problem is is that we're crossing our fingers and and hoping that everybody can make that happen when it when it that's not reality. Um but as a as a advocate of positive reinforcement only you present the situation in a very misleading way. You're not saying well you're saying that okay well he's now sitting because he's afraid. And what that study shows is that you have passed that there is no fear involved because you're in control of the situation. It's a very very valid study and it's very very important. >> Well, until until the distraction comes and somebody says turn up the e-collar.

>> Um, no. We we can I mean we can sidetrack like this in in many ways. As I said, your community presents that fear once it's there. It's basically it's basically that two factor theory that once it's there, the reason the rat is responding or the dog is responding is because of the fear. And it's been clearly demonstrated that that is not the case. There is the learning curve that fear is a factor but it does not stay there. That's what I'm trying to say. Um let me let me go let me go here. Um, if let's say the dog and and this is again like a I I can throw a personal experience this but let's say if the dog learns not to run into the street because of past correction or whatever you want to call it. Is that suppression or learning safety? >> It can be both. Okay. If suppression saves a life, why is that a bad outcome? >> It's not a bad outcome when it's in an emergency situation if that's how you choose to teach it from the start. I think there's a a better way to do it that you don't have to use the aversive to teach. M >> typically you would you know one of the again the big things and goes all the way back to Skinner since we mentioned his name and of course we have to mention his name when we're talking about punishment one of his big claims at the time was that uh punishment one of the bad side effects is that causes counteratt attack. Basically, using aversives leads to aggression, right? This is a very common uh >> it can I'm not going to say that it does in every case cuz that >> Are you are you in that case referring to the stimulus itself or to poor timing and excessive intensity? Well, I think all those things are factors and I and that's why I think it it um there are lots of different variables, lots of different factors when using an aversive to especially again with a pet dog. All right? And even a pet dog that isn't real stable, doesn't have good nerves, and the temperament is messed up and maybe some bad genetics. Um there's lots of different variables there and very few individuals have what it takes to account for all those variables and do things just right with the use of aversive to avoid the potential for the fallout which those things don't happen. >> Okay. typically when using positive reinforcement. >> Listen, Will, I I I mean, of course, I cannot disagree that >> to use punishment, you need to understand. >> You you need you need knowledge. I think you give a lot of people credit, but I also would argue that if somebody can understand uh very complicated differential reinforcement program or decentization as we were talking with the the critical nuances and details because

without them we agree it's not going to happen. What makes you think that they're not capable to do that? And >> I'm not saying that they're not capable them >> instead of say you don't do that ever because it's bad and because has the big fallouts. >> Yeah. >> And with consciously knowing that humans will do it. Why would you not teach them how in >> Well, because the problem is it's an unregulated industry. So I have no I have no asurances as Joe consumer out there with my pet dog. No matter who I choose, I have no protections, no consumer protection like I do when I select a doctor. You know, when I find a doctor, I know that they had standardized formal education. I know they had to sit in front of the board and and prove that they knew their stuff. I know that they have to have continuing education to keep current on the latest and greatest science-based evidence-based practices. And if they are somebody who isn't that skilled, if they are doing things that you know are aversive so to speak and and causing problems that >> there is some governance, there's some uh disciplinary action that that can be taken, you know, to help get that person back on that doctor back on track or if that doctor is going to be doing things that uh are going to be causing harm to take away that license. We don't have that. you know, we don't have that in the dog training world. So, it's this huge crapshoot and and while maybe I could trust you with my pet dog doing those things, there's a whole bunch of people out there, >> right? >> I can't. And my my point is this. When we can teach things without the use of aversives, why why would we why would we do it with it? And you know, you're talking about why not teach the forcefree community how to be extremely skilled with with aversives. Well, why not teach the balance community that you don't need to use aversives? >> So, we can go both ways. I hear what you're saying. In a perfect world, we'd all have incredible skills. >> I spent great deal of my time learning. And if I was to collect CEUs from webinars and conference, but you know that everybody's not you. >> No, the reason what what I'm what I'm going with is actually different point that I want to make. It's basically the the whole forcefree community lies bluntly that certain things are having huge fallouts no matter what and that positive reinforcement works and they do so without the education in aversives. >> I agree. I I the one thing I will tell you is that um anybody that did not start training dogs where they were using aversives, if they are coming into the industry and they're going through say the well-known

dog training schools for positive reinforcement, you know what they are. um they're not other than theoretically teaching negative reinforcement, positive punishment, there's no hands on skills. >> So, no, they're not. And and they they don't have that. And and >> um you know, I guess it would be like if um Oh, goodness gracious. you know, be like an old medical treatment that was effective but maybe had more side effects, right? And we've got a new medical treatment that can be effective but it has less side effects. Why would we go with the old treatment? >> No, we wouldn't. I mean, we shouldn't. We shouldn't, right? >> Unless unless we believe in in, >> you know, mythology. too. You know, a lot of the and and I'll agree, you know, there's a lot of very black and white, all or nothing statements made on both sides. The forcefree community, it happens a lot. It shouldn't. >> Yes. >> Because there's always exceptions to to the rule >> and it is >> and the same thing in the in the balance >> 100%. >> Side of things. Okay. >> And part of the problem is that we're not talking to each other. >> Well, exactly. And that's why I wanted to talk because you know you and Cabraw a while back were like you know none of the forcef free trainers want to talk to us >> and I'm like yeah I understand why they don't they don't understand you know the use of >> force from conversation like this we all walk out with something to think about and hopefully the audience does the same. Uh, let me ask you if if aversives are inherently causing aggression, why are just >> I don't think they're inherently cause aggression. I think I I don't think they inherently cause aggression. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think that the improper use of it certainly can. Okay. And I think that there's a lot of improper use of it. And so that is why we see that a lot in the studies. And I think a lot of the improper use is because there's a lot of, you know, just regular pet dog owners, you know, that are using aversives. And it scares me because with social media and and, you know, you got 30 second, you know, video clips of, you know, let me show you this dog who's aggressive and just out of control. And then 30 seconds later, I'm going to show you this dog appears to be calm, cool, and collected. And we used an e-collar. So now, you know, me as a just a typical dog owner, you know, I I go to PetSmart and I I go buy, you know, an electronic collar and, you know, I think I know what I'm doing. And then all the things that the forcefree community are talking about, those things happen quite a bit. >> All right. And and and so I think >> that the balance training community

doesn't look at it that way. And I think the forcefree community, a lot of them because they've never trained a dog using an aversive, okay, they many of them, some have um don't know that. Yeah, it can be successful. >> I think in the I know what you're saying. I think in the balanced community, it's a little bit >> weirder than the the force free. >> I don't I think I think >> in terms of uh uh >> I think both sides are weird. I bet on both I think we're both weird. >> Yes. But but you have more of a unified front and the balanced community has incredible internal conflicts and I'm for sure part of the problem and and I like it that way because when I I I like to talk to people and I like to challenge ideas and so on. Uh uh when we're talking about studies like can you name one control study where where proper properly applied aversive cause long-term aggression in training dogs >> proper long-term um I don't know do we even have a study like that I I can't think of one do you know of one where >> there so there are studies But >> because most of the stuff shows the the fallout studies and those aren't good studies, but >> the proper the word properly here is is a key word. >> Well, and that's the hard thing. How do you define that? See that studies are tough. They're very difficult. I in studies it's actually um and again that's that's been since since the beginning uh a passion of mine and and the studies that the positive the the always points out to >> I think the biggest one in the in the the um forestry community would be taking a look at the um studies where the training u methods were compared and the ones that um compared the positive reinforcement to the e-collar training where the e-collar trainers were selected by the e-collar manufacturers. I think that's the big one that the forestry community >> likes to hold on to because it shows that there was no advantages according to the study with the uh >> with the use of the e-collar and I believe the study showed that the >> positive reinforcement group uh there was less latency and and uh they responded faster on or more often on the first queue. before we we dig into the studies because I do want to I think it's important to but a a kind of different question still wouldn't wouldn't lack of clear boundaries also create frustration and aggression. >> Absolutely >> right. So one of the like like if you go into the science >> like the this is you know uh a cornerstone if you want in in the forestry community and and you know we are evidence-based and you're stuck in medieval ages. I mean I'm paraphrasing but you you know the the

the the cliche slogans we follow science and you use outdated in methods and kind of I I was there but now I know better. Um science means something is testable and repeatable. Correct. science is um you know as far as how I would describe it would be you know yeah having a hypothesis right and designing a study and testing that hypothesis having >> and we got to be able to repeat it >> yeah and it's got to be repeatable yeah >> then why don't these studies include dogs with serious aggression or some real world stakes. >> Well, you know, studies with animals are tough. Just to be able to just get through the committee um to be even to be able to do them is tough. You know, the we're dealing with there's always going to be studies on on both sides. There's always going to be outliers, right? There's always going to be a study uh that's going to show that, you know, aversive, you know, didn't cause fallout here. But we have to take a look at that just like what we're having this conversation. Well, what makes that so? >> Right. We talked about timing. We talked about predictability. We talked about control. We talked about >> reading. Uh yeah, contingencies, body language, you know, >> and then when it goes wrong, we need to understand what were the things that caused it to go wrong. And I think again, most people, unfortunately, want to take a look at things and it's either black or white, all bad, all good. All right? And and not looking at the the big picture, you know. Um and you know I can sit here and say yeah that you can use aversives and it can be done in a way theoretically and not just theoretically but in a practical sense where the dog can learn and it's not just suppression and there's not fallout. >> But you got to be really skilled. You got to be really skilled and you got to have and you gota and depends what kind of dog you're working with. And again, where I think I come from and where I think a lot of the forcefree community come from is that we're looking well beyond professional trainers working with dogs and we're looking at lay people and if there's a lot of trainers out there that are making big mistakes and you know there are on both sides. >> Mhm. >> There's definitely lots of lay people making lots of mistakes. >> Yeah. No question. No question. a huge welfare risk when it comes to aversives more so than you know um just training with positive reinforcement. And I know also there are dogs that um have been failed with positive reinforcement. I get it. And it's not that that doesn't work. It's just like, you know, for a trainer to say punishment doesn't work is ridiculous.

We know punishment works. Okay. And I'm not saying it doesn't work. We've been through it. You know, you know where I come from. But we're not as a industry talking about the nuances. We're just making these big black and white statements. This is bad. This is good. >> Mhm. And this is the the my argument and and frustration if you want with where we are today. Well, where we all are today. um you know just always >> and it's unfortunate because like I said to start with I think most people that work >> I think most people working with dogs have good intentions and that's why it's unfortunate that we're not having these conversations and I think maybe you thought that we were going to have this heated discussion and I knew we wouldn't. No, I I absolutely am not here to point a finger or I told you so or like I I think I really believe in talking to each other. >> I agree. And the moment we shut this off, I actually as soon as it's ready, I will watch it myself because I know as I'm having the podcast is one thing, but listening to is a different thing and I know it's going to be takeaways and then I very much appreciate it. Uh the biggest argument and frustration as I said is humans and any anybody on our planet we have certain laws we are pre-programmed it's in the it's baked in the DNA trying to convince somebody that punishment or aversives or negative reinforcement doesn't have place or it's not going to work or something's going to work better, it will never get accepted. I think this is probably the most dangerous proposition somebody makes. And this is my frustration because humans intuitively at some point will resort to doing something and they will not have the understanding and the education how to do it. Just as I was giving you the example of okay well let's ban the electricers in Europe. Well, I just had like a couple of days ago one of the um owners of one of the companies and he just came with some other friend. It wasn't like I invited him or anything, but I used the opportunity just like I've done with everybody that owns electric companies. The sales are going up. They're not going down. That tells you that people are not giving up, they're just hiding. And that becomes dangerous. Makes you feel really good on the surface of things. I have a problem with that. >> Yeah. you know, I I I've got kind of mixed feelings, you know, and you you know that you know, I don't think that there's the necessity for it, but I do agree with you that I think um bans don't stop tool bans I don't believe stop uh people from wanting to use force with their dogs. Okay. Um, a lot of forcefree trainers would

probably be surprised to hear me say this because they haven't used the tools, but um, I think an e-collar is much more humane than a prong collar. >> Mhm. >> Um, and and I think a lot of force fear trainers would would be surprised by that. You know, >> it still comes down to how you use anything. >> Sure, it comes down to how you use it, but it comes down to how you use it. And and I just think that there's a lot of people that >> granted granted you have experience and knowledge. Um there is definitely a place for one tool versus another and and you can clearly pick which one when. Um uh I I guess one of the like the forcefree camp seems to be failing in convincing the rest of the world. besides just the oh aversives are bad and there is lifelong whatever and just the scarecrow kind of strategies and pointing to science studies which again I'm just about to go into but why not demonstrate life with dogs but not the dogs that are just low stake obedience drills and you know I I I I told you I follow up everybody that I feel that it's important and I would sign up to some big big event and I and there will be a video and I'm like okay let let's see I'm like okay that's not like like where you are talking about aggression and when I start to think about a serious problem. You've basically given up already. I want to >> So basically, you're saying that, you know, like a lot of the forcefree trainers will be talking about working aggression cases, but they've got really mild aggression where they might think it's severe, but >> or not even showing, you know, like instead of, you know, like we have the smartphones and that that's a a extremely good one. Uh um nobody forced us to jump on everybody to jump on smartphones. I mean, there were the guys still flipping and whatever, but it wasn't for too long. Every single person today, unless you're a criminal and you need to at least try to be out of track, right? >> Everybody has a smartphone. Why? >> Because it demonstrated what it can do. It wasn't based on a ban. It wasn't based on, oh, you guys are medieval or you're, you know, on the other. It's like, hey, this is it and this is what it can do. Watch it. I'm not just telling you what it can do. You watch it. >> Well, if you're referring to like trainers, forcefree trainers, you know, creating videos of their work like I >> No, no, no, not at all. I'm talking about in the most uh legit uh um webinars and conferences and presentations of of the cream of the community. >> Mhm. >> Uh and I don't want to put it all down because there are takeaways. There is no question that there are takeaways. Um, but if you want to convince

me to have a smartphone, you got to be able to show me what it can do. And in those events, I don't see it. and a lot of the >> I I'll be very honest with you um you know and and I'll probably take a lot of heat for this in the forcefree uh community but when it comes to some of the very severe cases I don't see lots of good examples of good work at conferences and webinars and and things of that nature even with um the individuals that are put upon on a pretty high pedestal when it comes to they're supposed to be the >> forcefree aggression expert Mhm. And again talking about the other side, the the balance people and the uh the before and after videos as you're mentioning. I mean that that's nonsense too. That's like clearly >> clickbaits and and likes and subscribes and >> Mhm. >> I think we're growing out of that. That's not going to go for too long. I also think that just talking and telling me that it works also will wear out. It actually is already. Um and and this is where I'm really like I really like what we're doing right now. I don't know where I'm going with this. I don't think you know but but we are clearly thinking about doct training and welfare and how we can be better and >> trust me if I know that there is a better way. I mean I am I I don't want to like I have accolades nobody in the states has but if I know that there is somebody in Madagascar that has something to tell me. I don't care what kind of what camp they're in, what like I will buy the ticket and I will go and I'm not an exception. That's kind of what I'm trying to say. >> Yeah. >> Um just like you know how again the the the problem with the just throwing the baby with the water and everything. It's like corrections, whatever you want to call it, are never ethical. That's another big uh uh you know, slogan. So allowing a dog to continue a behavior that leads to death, is that ethical? Just as you said, it we need to take care. There is pros and cons. There is cost and benefit. Like I if I need to amputate my toe on the foot because of gangrina and not to lose my life, I would say [ __ ] it, do it. Which was a situation that's not a even a joke. I was very close to that. I was playing barefoot soccer with one of my dogs and I make it miss the ball. However, she grabs and punctures me and breaks my toe. And that's where it became scary because in with the puncture, the broken bone and the bone getting infected, that was going to be a big issue. I've been bitten many times in my life. I I know I I've taken also courses of this. So, I don't need to pay emergency room. I can take care of myself for the most part. But 2 days later, I'm like, I need to go.

Like, I I need to go at least get an X-ray cuz this is not right. The moment I go, they're like, you're staying or you probably at best you're going to lose your foot. And and you know, just just what I mean by you know, there's cost and benefit in in everything. and and we a lot of times just pull the rug in our advantage just because our narrative is is better than yours or something. And I'm talking both sides. I'm really talking both honestly talking both sides. >> Yeah. Um, if a single fair correction preverse a lifetime, I think we agree there is no it definitely would reflect more compassion if if life matters. Um I have again seen it to where we would say and and and that's a it's kind of soft spot and it's almost uh um you know it's not controversial but you you all also kind of hinted on it. I mean it's it lingers all the time when people from different point of view would talk and the balance trainer will say well you will utanize a dog before you try our steps and tell me about that. >> Well yeah I mean I used to say that too uh to the balance training community believing that and I think When I hear that statement, what comes to mind is a dog with severe aggression, right? Typically, um, and where if I thought that suppression, if I thought that aversives were really all that needed to happen to turn that dog around, then I might be happy with that. Except for the fact that again that is a behavior that typically is is rooted in anxiety, fear, stress. That dog is those outward behaviors are driven by their underlying emotional state. I need to change an underlying emotional state to really get that dog to not view that trigger as a threat. And then the behavior goes away. And I don't have to use aversives to do that. And I I do that day in and day out with very severely aggressive dogs. And um I'm having success without using aversives. >> Yeah. And I >> for those type of things and I don't know that every positive reinforcement forcefree trainer, I don't know what their success rate is or how severe the aggression cases are that they're they're taking on. Um, they are a pretty tight-knit community. I I think maybe, you know, I'm involved in the community. I don't know that I'm as tight-knit with that community as all the people that maybe started out forcefree that aren't crossover trainers. >> Um, so I don't know what everybody else is doing, so to speak. Um, or how severe their cases are. Um, I most cases for me, you know, if things aren't working out, it's usually a bad environmental situation. Like if if you know, we've got an aggression case and and it's not going to be something

that you're going to cure. You can make it a whole lot better. But, you know, let's say I'm walking into a home and I've got a single mom with three little kids and, you know, and things are chaotic. I'm in that house and things are nuts and I'm like there's just no way one of these kids is going to get hurt. I don't care. Management always fails. There's no guarantee of a cure. We can make things a whole lot better. So, you know, I've had conversations with people very honestly speaking about all this and about what it takes to manage it, what it takes to modify that behavior, what your lifestyle is as a single mama with these kids. And you know, um maybe the best thing would be to rehome the dog. Okay. >> Um I've had I've had clients bring up conversations of euthanizing their dog. Um and I try not to tell them one way or another, yeah, you should, yeah, you shouldn't. you know, I I try to be um a consultant to them and to um tell them, you know, I usually will say to somebody, well, that's an option. And I'll tell people, you know, most people um if they're looking at that option, they typically want to feel comfortable and confident that they have done everything that they possibly can do. And I've even had discussions with people um because I don't use negative reinforcement and I don't use positive punishment these days. And so if things aren't going well in a case like that, you know, I'll bring up, you know, there are other options. And you know, because they'll even some says, "What about an e-collar?" And I'll say, "Well, let me explain how they work. uh let me explain the pros and the cons, you know, um and and they make the decision. Now, I've not had anybody say, "Yeah, I want to go with the e-collar." And if they did, I'd have to say, "Well, I've got to unfortunately I got to refer you out." Not that I don't know how to do it, but I don't do it these days. >> Um >> yeah, good point. But it it's it's a tough situation. You know, uh >> the um you know, the the forcefree camp will say, you know, you're quick to you know, run to the correction, quick to run to the punishment. The balance training camp says, well, you'll euthanize a dog before you'll give him a correction. Um, that that's tough and and that's a really emotional decision for any pet parent to have to make with their pet. So, it's tough. It's a it's a very emotional argument and um yeah, I I I get it. What what kills me more than that is because sometimes those decisions are a little bit easier to make. Let's say you got a 80-year-old woman who has a probably the wrong dog. Very energetic, large breed dog, high prey drive, likes to chase, you

know, a good dog friendly dog, stuff like that. She wants to take, you know, she wants to go for a walk and walks are very, very difficult. and maybe doing all the in-depth positive reinforcement work >> Mhm. is a lot of work for this person and maybe they won't put that effort in and then they don't get what they want >> with that dog where yeah maybe this is a dog that you could teach somebody to use a prong collar or teach somebody to use an e-collar and maybe they could have success with that you know and again justation you can you can mediate the situation you can kind of stabilize the situation and then move into the direction that it's feels right and and and productive. Uh um yeah, it's a it's a always interesting >> if it was aggression, I wouldn't be saying, you know, well, maybe this person could benefit from this tool. But, you know, when again, we talked a little bit earlier about if I were going to use a versus something, I'd tend to use it more for nuisance behaviors and foundational obedience commands rather than certainly I wouldn't. I definitely absolutely would. What did you like? What is your experience and what did they teach you in in the places that you you studied? Is talking about correlation between college or are you talking about my >> I'm talking about the the behavior uh uh you know all the little the names that you have behind >> you know it was a lot of just a lot of positive reinforcement differential reinforcement counter conditioning primac principle desensitization extinction you know all the basic stuff >> and and not to not to cover a whole other part of learning I think it's shameful. >> They they covered the theory of it, but nobody's >> covered the theory in terms >> doing hands-on with with use of reversives and in >> I know how they covered the theory because again like I I know like I know exactly the programs you're taking. I know I I >> mean I didn't go to like Karen Prior Academy. I didn't go to Gene Donaldson school or any of those things, you know, anything that I did. Um, >> you know, because I had been in the field for so long before like the certified animal behavior, the you know, the international camera behavior. It's definitely we cannot argue that it's ideology rigid. It it totally >> definitely because they're out of the UK and and they are big- time, you know, forcefree. Yes. And they're all about welfare. Um um and and that's kind of again my my concern and frustration is like if you if you really are animal behaviorist international can an animal behaviorist organization you you cannot be ideology rigid. You just cannot be it's it's a shame. uh um

and the studies and everything that it's taught, it's always the ones that somehow contribute to the narrative of the ideology. the other studies are never ever mentioned like and even even for example you mentioned Clive study and you said that you wrote a rebuttal which I really want to look into because again I'm that kind of guy that always interested also I have a >> yeah you could get a pre-print I didn't I didn't get it published in peerreview because I'm not going to spend the two grand to do it >> um but You you did take the time to read that one and to actually give your opinion on it. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I probably wouldn't except for the fact that he cited my my guide, my positive reinforcement guide on on stopping chasing behavior. >> Yeah. The thing is that they had they were limited in in how much time there was you know every study if it's going to be a a a legit study there has to be parameters and so if the force free will take a month to do whatever differential reinforcement programming then it's unfair for the electric color group just to called Turkey and shock dogs, right? So the these are things that has to be under consideration. However, in the long a as far as the study was there were two positive groups not one but two against the force three against the shock group and the one was to go that route of desentisation and that's what I meant by they were complying to the moment when they were triggered now we can argue that there was not enough time but there was not enough time for anybody. And this is when we need to think about cost and effective and how much a person sometimes where where they really stand. Are they I'm going to just take that dog to the shelter or utilize it tomorrow because I need something to happen today or am I going to take time there is so many toss-ups and so many angles to look at everything. However, regardless of the comparison of the forcefree and the shock group, what came clearly apparent is that after the first session for the most dogs in the shock group, they gave up the idea of chasing >> which I would expect to happen. Right now what is more important is that besides the very temporary negative effects at the moment of the experience. There was nothing else. Those dogs were bored to death for the next seven days. They were trying to bring sticks to the people. They were just trying like what are we why are you ignoring me? What can we do something here? Well, the you know it's to show if you want to see it this way. It's to show that the all this roller coaster of bad

disastrous side effects are not there. Of course, it has to be done in a certain way. Now, the reason I brought this one, but you do you know which studies started the whole ban and the whole idea that aversives are bad? >> Well, there's a lot of studies. I don't I mean, I don't spend my days and nights digging through and memorizing studies, but there's there's so many of them. There's like >> I will tell you I I have them all but I will tell you why it's important because if we >> if we have to argue about and and and and have a a debate or say that science says and we point to studies then we have to know the studies. >> Mhm. And most people that say science says and they make reference to the studies, they have not taken the time to educate themselves. That's a common human error in in everything we do. You know, I mean, you can have a nowadays you can have a meme. >> Yeah. that's going to come on Instagram and you have I don't know some legendary philosopher and then some quote and you think that this quote is legit just because it's next to the picture to this person and and nobody ever checks it. It's ridiculous where we are. However, if we talk about science-based and what is referred to science-based, it gets very shaky. The very first study was uh uh Matias Shielder and and Joan van Debbour. It was 2003. That study got reference. This is the most referenced study in the whole forcefree community. And because it's so highly referenced, nobody even checks. It's just it's a you know like you you you need to do uh um you know >> going with the 32 German Shepherd police dogs. >> Correct. Correct. That was basically uh uh I can tell you it it's uh >> dogs what they did they just observed. It's not a it's not a even even the guy even shield Shidler himself admitted later that the evidence was misused. And what they did they observed the dogs during the time when they get corrected for behaviors. So you will have that kind of response. it it's natural to have that kind of response. Um but you know measuring acute response to punishment doesn't equal measuring or coming to conclusions about measuring chronic welfare. You need to actually if you really wanted to need to take the time to see what happens next. Um there was no randomization there was no baseline. there was no statistic control. I mean, when you don't have a baseline of temperament assessment or much controls, what kind of what are we talking when you're doing a study? Um, I I can go on. I mean, maybe maybe this is a some some other different podcast, but I I have this like I have them all of them. for example, the one um with uh uh Dr. Mills, you know, um and Cooper

and Danielle Mills um 2014 and then China did it in >> 20 and she did it basically from watching the videos and she made another paper based on that. I mean I mean there is so many flaws and so many question marks in there. So many that it's a shame to to to even presented as a science says. And first off the groups the different groups of dogs were trained in different seasons in different locations. That means you know like I mean if you train a dog in 80° versus 50° there is already different body uh uh functioning. Uh um I I tried to I tried to talk to him several times and I was talking to him actually I have some emails some some correspondence but when it come down to me and him talking this way he never accepted it because he knows very well that I'm going to challenge him and the best thing about science when you come up with something is like hey challenge me let me see if it's legit let me if I can defend that. However, it's not that he just not giving presentation or not teaching or anything. He just refuses to be challenged. But in his bubble, he's very eager to speak and present. Very eager. Um I have seen I I have talked to like I have talked to people pretty much with all the studies. I have found a way to find people that have been participating in the studies. Um like the one with Shid Shidler and the one in Holland, the very first one, >> it's a very famous um person >> uh and I don't want to say he she but he was presenting and he has a very influential work and stuff. never wanted to like in a private conversation there was a lot to tell me but would never have the courage to come forward and I understand that with with um um Daniel Mills study they were comparing predatory instincts and controlling predatory behaviors chasing sheep. Well, besides the the what I was pointing, I have like five pages of flaws of that study. >> Mhm. But one really serious one is if you're going to be evaluating training approach on controlling predator instincts. Then there has to be some chase. There has to be some open space and some freedom. >> Are you talking about the China? >> Well, China deals Cooper 2020 efficacy of John with and without the remote collar. >> Yeah. So basically she doubled down on the videotapes and made another paper of the original study. I'm talking about the original study which she talks also about the same study >> shoulder Vanderbore. >> But no no that that's the the Dutch people. >> Okay. the Cooper and Daniel Mills made

the study um in 200 that the response group the group without the e-collar responded faster. >> Correct. Correct. >> Shorter latencies. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's all nonsense because the dogs were on leash. They never even tested recalls. But moreover, the ship like you would have two sheep in a 10 by 10 play pen. You cannot even evaluate predatory instincts with a not moving animal. Forget about what animal what are you selecting as far as the intensity. Like I can tell you the the study that Clive did, the dogs that got selected, they ended up with, I believe, 20 or 19 dogs out of 60. And the reason, the main reason was because the dogs that were just hoping and wanting to play, they were not of interest. We really try to focus on the dogs that are very that they have a very different purpose when they're chasing. And this is very easy to see. So there were two days prior to the study to begin to actually select the dogs. Um, yeah. I mean, anyway, what what my my point is that the studies that everybody in the force community references and I'm willing to talk to anybody that is willing to talk to me about it and uh just in the same way as you and I are talking and hopefully somebody eventually will want to. So far, it has not happened. Let's get to the point where we basically the reason well I guess the real reason is the one that we're talking about and I really enjoy it but but on the surface it was the jackpot post that I made >> and I was surprised and maybe I didn't well I know I did a good job of explaining myself because I After reading so many posts, um, I'm like, man, am I not explaining myself well, or do people really don't understand what it is? Are they been just fed that Kool-Aid for so long that it's just how it is? And uh um so where where do we disagree? Well, Clive's friend, uh, Erica Troy Brocker, >> she's not necessarily her friend. >> I know, I know. They've done studies together, but anyway, she did a study, uh, 2022, give the dog a big bone magnitude, but not delivery method of food impacts, preference, and reinforcer efficacy. Now, here's the thing that you know, and again, this is where things have to come out of being black and white, and we got to get into little nuances, okay? Because >> you talk about a jackpot to different people, and different people have different ideas. Some people say, well, a jackpot is high value versus low value. Some people say, no, jackpot is the amount of food that you give. Okay. Um, and then there's the thing that you were talking about, which is this surprise jackpot. Okay. And my thing is that a jackpot

and and that's not the word that's used really in in in in learning and in psychology would be, you know, >> yeah, jackpot is never used. >> Yeah. It it's uh magnitude of reinforcer, I think, is the term that they use or reinforce magnitude. Um, and primarily what the studies show isn't I found the one with Frey rocker that shows amount or there was one other study where what was it rats ran they could get six pellets or one pellet and and there was one where the six pellet rats were running faster but then there was another study where they put out a bowl of kibble um versus you know like a piece of kibble and there was no difference in that one. Um, it seems like the literature pretty much shows that high value food reward as a jackpot versus amount has some benefit and and can uh increase frequency, duration and um increase uh decrease latency and and also um more prone prone to extinction um when using high value food rewards, you know, as a jackpot. But I think the other thing too that I found that was missing is that and this goes again back to predictability and control. Okay, I think the best use of a jackpot, the dog has to know what it is, why it's being given. Okay. And that's something that needs to be classically conditioned. And there should be a marker for that jackpot reward. And I think when done that way, >> it has a much different effect. >> So yeah, and that that's where >> but for a surprise jackpot, no, that's not where the dog has no clue why. It's not necessarily the the the whole idea that >> throwing out the the ba the baby with the bathwater thing. Yeah. >> The whole idea that was proposed about jackpot has flows. And nobody argues that if I have different quantity or different quality, the dog's going to choose the better. If it doesn't, it will correct itself and it will uh uh do it. But there is no question that they they can do that. But this is a you know like if you give a chicken versus a really dry petmart biscuit. >> Yeah. >> That one is way more motivating to do than the other. But that has nothing to do with jackpot. >> Yeah. Because I think the way that Prior was talking about jackpot and I don't know 100% I could be wrong. So any Karen Prior devotees if I get this wrong don't beat me up but you know I think jackpot for her was you know high volume. >> No >> of a food. No, it so that's kind of and let let me let me go with this a little bit and and then ask me questions. But >> jackpots don't teach to do don't teach the dogs to do better. They teach them to want it more. They basically have more motivation. So the precision, the improved response that's not accomplished and never was

accomplished by jackpot. The immediacy, there is this thing about immediacy, not evaluation. The dogs learn through temporal proximity, not reflective analysis. And the shorter the gap between the action and the consequence, the stronger the association. Everybody agrees that's what uh immediiacy means. The dog the dog experiences I did this and this immediately happened. It's a it's a very straightforward simple cause and effect loop. And it's totally grounded on on sensory feedback, sight, sound, whatever, touch. But what it's not, it's not in reasoning or comparison. And this is the the point of a jackpot. It's the evaluation. And the evaluation, how this one versus this one, that's a cognitive step. It's beyond learning. It it requires the brain to recall a previous outcome. But not just that, but actually compare it with the current one and infer why the different uh uh bring different outcomes and this uh this is an abstract thought. This is has zero to do with associative learning. >> Exactly. So >> that's why I say a marker needs to be >> so when trainers jackpot >> that the dog can think I got chicken instead of whatever because and this is important but because my seat was faster or more precise or overall better than the one I did before. We are projecting human logic onto animal that operates on sensory timing and not mental comparison. It's impossible for them to do. The dog's brain isn't asking why was the reward different. There is no question that it's registering. A reward happened and it was a really good one and I did the sit. But the the neutral circuits driving the behavior are are you know the pimemeneric prediction error loops and they don't interpret the sides or meaning of the outcome and basically if I believe as a trainer that because I did more and better in whatever way on that execution of the SID and I did an average reinforcing on the one that was an average. The dog cannot put the two together and say I will do that better the next time. Where we get confused is that the dog gets excited. But this is in the moment. This is of course normal. Now, I'm not talking the average seat that we give a some treat that the dog doesn't like. Of course, I'm not going to go anywhere. But they continue to, you know, they're motivated. They still do the sit. It's just the concept of the jackpot that emphasizes that behavior is better than that one. And that's why you got the jackpot. Whatever that means for anybody, dogs cannot do that.

And >> no, you as the trainer would have to have a really, really keen eye and your criteria would have to be very specific and you'd have to keep jackpotting on that specific criteria. And I believe that you'd have to um have a marker for that so that it could be predictable and you'd have to be very consistent and then it could be beneficial. But I think without that just giving that surprised handful of food, >> the dog can't figure it out. >> Again, it's I I I still will disagree even with that because it's not necessarily the I I'm not talking about surprise. I'm I I can talk about consistency of always rewarding the better one with more and better and the other one with so so but you mentioned the important word that actually makes the difference that eventually if you are train and I'm meaning you I'm meaning everybody just conversational but if if you ever improve the behavior and you locked it to your acceptance as that's the ideal behavior that happens by raising criteria. >> Mhm. >> And raising criteria has a very certain steps how to do there is an element of extinction which creates some extinction bursts and so on. there is some you know withholding of the reinforcement to where you get more explicit behavior so on and so on. That paradigm has nothing to do with jackpots. However, I believe that a lot of trainers eventually even subconsciously end up doing something with raising the criteria and upping the the demands of what they expect but they give the benefit also on the jackpots and that's misleading. There is no one stud there there's actually very few studies I mean I believe three >> and they're like one studies with two dogs another one I mean they're as sketchy as they can be but also there is a very good reason why the you know all the big books never talk about jackpot in in that sense >> that's a human human thing do Do you get what I'm saying? >> No, I I I do get what you're saying. Um, and again, I think you can make it clear for the dog, but it it takes planning, it takes work, it takes consistency in order for, you know, the dog. >> But explain me explain planning consistency because >> I'm I'm afraid that >> Yeah. >> when someone tries to talk that way, >> it just becomes a world sour. So, if I precondition a dog to a we'll call it a jackpot marker if you will, okay? And let's say that that you know I'm saying yes for my regular marker, bingo for my jackpot marker, right? And I've preconditioned bingo means hey I'm getting not just more but higher value because we know the real term for jackpot is magnitude of reinforcement. And we know >> that what really matters is

>> I I have to stop here because it's not >> again it has not much to do with >> like we cannot just evaluate the magnitude the magnitude can evaluate again I get more excited when I get this versus when I get this >> right no and I get that point if I want to refine a behavior if I want to get a dog that you know has a straight [ __ ] let's say you know straight situ versus a crooked sit. I don't want to get, you know, knocked off a half a point on a sit. >> So, you know, I could Yes. and reward my dog on the straight sit on the crooked sit, right? But on every time that there is a straight sit, I could go ahead and jackpot my dog with with bingo. And if I'm consistent with that and the dog understands bingo what it predicts and it gets more I think that can change and shape the behavior a little bit. >> Right. And this is just >> that's the human thinking behind the process. >> No, it's associative learning. This is this is clearly associ I'm creating a very black and white cause and effect association. >> You get bingo bingo you get high value handful of food rewards. But without that understanding and without the criteria, without the consistency, it becomes meaningless. >> Yeah. With the consistency and and everything that you're saying, the one is still a very abstract thought to a dog. It's no question, there is no question this is not associative learning. And we know very well that dogs are incapable of uh uh reasoning and thinking in abstract terms as we do. >> So you don't think a dog can learn that when I sit straight I hear bingo and I get a higher value food reward and more of it than when I sit crooked and I hear yes and I get one piece of kibble. >> Yeah, that's that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't and all the all the all the research and all my experience of of training dogs in in the pet world in police world in guy dogs in high level competition uh has not shown me that and I have played with that as well. Um, we again confusing motivation and getting excited about the reward to comparing the current response with the one in the past and making that decision that this is why I'm getting the reward. There is zero evidence to that anywhere. >> Well, it's something that's a conditioning process. It it >> it's an abstract thought. Then this is the problem because for us it's so in our face. It's so like of course it has to work but we have that part of our brain that can make that happen. We can think that way. I understand what you're saying. I still believe that when it's done correctly and when it's done through good old classical conditioning associated You're saying that they can think abstract. That's what

>> because this is not abstract thinking. Associative learning is not abstract thinking. >> But it's not associative learning. >> Sure it is. If I've got a marker that I'm using consistently for one particular behavior >> versus a different one and and the dog there's the magnitude of reinforcement for one behavior. That's that's associative learning. That's classical conditioning. >> Yeah. >> Bingo. I'm getting something bigger and better. Yes. Means I'm getting one piece of kibble. I'm very consistently only marking bingo and giving the high value large amount of food reward when I get the straight sit. That dog's going to figure it out. It's very black and white. It's very associative. Yes, there's an operant component to it because there's there's obviously a consequence, but it it's both operant and classical. >> Let me try in another way. >> Yeah. Let's um um let's take a gardener that has bunch of pots and plants and the one plant gets all the nutritions and the sun and everything, but the other one still gets enough to continue on. And this is the point why it's not going to work. It's there is no reason for the dog to change its mind and it cannot think in that abstract way unless we raise the criteria as I said and we use a very different strategy how to improve on the behavior but that whole thought it's just something to think of I guess >> the criteria is very simple this is a very simple criteria >> Mhm. But for us, >> when the sit is square and straight, >> you're getting five pieces of ham. When the sit is crooked, >> you're getting one piece of kibble. And when you sit square and straight, >> you're getting the marker word bingo, which I've preconditioned >> to the high value food reward >> and the multiple highv value food reward. The dog's going to work. We know we do know that dogs will work for a better reward. We know that they'll want to gravitate towards better when we can make it very clear to them >> and and it doesn't happen immediately. It's not like the dog the first time I do it gets it. But that's why it's conditioning. >> But we can condition the dog to understand. >> Aha. It's the straight sit that gets the bingo that gets the ham. >> Yeah. And and that's the I mean we will we will clearly disagree but hopefully hopefully you understand what I'm saying because that aha >> I hear what you're saying moment cannot happen study that you want to send me or put in the link below that >> yeah of course of course I will but again but again the the studies that I'm going to point you to there are attempts to to actually prove that it's working and and the outcomes were just baseless Nothing.

>> Well, there was uh 2025. Oh, no. Maybe that was printed in 20. >> They're 2020 and whatever. Like it's not it's not but >> Sha Shahan, Timothy Sha and >> like like none of these books ever will ever talk about this because we recognize that dogs are limited in and not limited. They're just incapable of thinking and making this kind of abstract. I did this because of this. The only way again to increase >> I'm talking about a pattern that they're you know dogs are very pick up patterns and all we're doing is >> you're still feeding >> you're still rewarding that sit the other >> rewarding the sit but the dog prefers one reward over the other. >> Yeah. And this is why I mean there is an immediacy versus evaluation. Immediiacy means I'm wow I got a big one. Oh I got >> the other thing that makes a difference. >> Evaluation is impossible. The other create the other critical element in using this is making sure the dog doesn't get satiated as well because that's >> no there there is there there are a lot of problems with jackpot. I mean for for one the the you know rewarding this one with an average reward and this one with big one it will not make them evaluate why that happened but what it will do is it would create some frustration and some inconsistency of expectations which will in a long run will actually disrupt the learning >> well that's why I said you got to have a marker so that there isn't that frustration so that becomes very clear for the dog. >> Yes. But it's still immediiacy versus the ability to evaluate and compare and improve because of >> something to think of. >> Yeah. >> Something to think of. It's just that it's not >> And again, as I watch through this afterward, you get a different perspective like you were saying as well. >> Men, what did you think? What did you expect anyway? I'm happy you weren't expecting fighting. >> No, I wasn't expecting fighting because that's just not who I am. Cool. You know, I And I've watched you talk with other people. You're not >> And doing this is way more valuable for me and hopefully for you than going over on Facebook on on posts and and it's just the as good as the social media is, man, it's so dangerous. You want to talk about uh >> so dangerous >> modifying behaviors and what social media is doing to us boy >> and then you have all the bots all the bots the conversation >> anyway I I would love to have you back again man >> yeah I appreciate it conversation I know I again it's not about me convincing you or you convincing me it's about having the opportunity to talk to each other and I think it's it's super important for us to do. And as I said, I know I'm

going to walk out and I'm going to be for the next few days, you know. >> You're heading to Europe. Is that what you're doing? >> Yeah, I'm going to uh Europe. I'm going to a competition with my dog. Uh >> nice. >> I don't even know what day it is. You know, the dog training Friday is today. So, I'm going I'm leaving Monday. That's kind of why I was rushing you. And I'm like, man, it's it's either now or or two months later. And who knows where we're going to be two months later. It was just organic to to make the conversation, you know. >> So, >> absolutely. >> Really, appreciate you. >> You as well. Have a good uh trip in in Europe and look forward to doing it again. >> I think we will, man. Thank you so much. [Music]