I attended an extremely interesting two day seminar over the weekend with the internationally reknowned Ken Ramirez. He has trained and been responsible for training not only many different species (some of which can kill you if you make a mistake) and many other trainers who have gone on to the top of their field.
He makes the point over and over again that it does not matter WHAT breed, WHAT discipline or WHAT species you train, the rules are the same.
What I particularly liked is that he stressed that the PRIMARY reason for any sort of training is for Physical exercise, Mental stimulation and cooperative behaviour. It should also directly benefit the individual (not the breed or species). Secondary Reasons for Training are :
• Education
• Conservation
• Research
• Competition
• Performance
• Work
• Sport
• The list goes on and on…
These are good reasons to train, but not the primary ones,
You cannot say that the job is more important than the mental and physical health of the dog and if you do you are not thinking of the dog first.
He also emphasised the importance of non food reinforcers however also stressed that for many novice trainers they are unable to provide these as they are not introduced correctly.
He referred to the Humane Hierarchy (Susan Friedman) to explain how he trains all his trainers so that their DEFAULT behaviour is NEVER to select positive punishment FIRST, rather as an absolute LAST resort (if ever). He does not believe that any tool should be permanently removed from the toolbox but he may use it once a year if that.
This is because his training is so CAREFUL and of course CRITICAL to the health of the animals and their keepers and trainers.
Trainers move down the ladder because their use of reinforcement options are not as robust or they have not explored those options as thoroughly.
A positive reinforcement trainer only gets to punishment if all other options have been exhausted. (Friedman, 2008)
• Medical, Nutritional, & Physical needs are met
• Antecedent Arrangements are considered
• Positive Reinforcement utilized
• Redirection, Alternative Response training, Regression considered (DR
• Extinction, Negative Reinforcement, or Negative Punishment
• Positive Punishment is last resort
http://eileenanddogs.com/2013/05/21/the ... rchy-cone/
Now, if someone like this KNOWS (not believes KNOWS) that this works and has seen the consequences to people when such training is not conducted properly I fail to understand why people a) refuse to accept this truth as fact and b) reach for positive punishment FIRST. Especially in a species and in context (gundogs) where the likelihood of being killed by a Cocker Spaniel is remote.
If you go to hospital with (insert relevant condition) you would hope that the medical profession would exhaust all other potential options before deciding on amputation.
It is impossible to train any species without the use of ANY punishment at all as punishers exist in the environment.
I often think that people consider that the end justifies the means................. maybe we should adopt the "first do no harm" approach?
The reason a dog has so many friends is because he wags his tail more than his tongue!
Allyson Tohme MGoDT (MT)
) was in relation to stopping a puppy running in and whether or not the method could be considered cruel. I admit I didn't say "steady to the dummy" and therefore left the thread wide open to an earnest discussion as to what constitutes steadiness but the thread was about punishment and what is acceptable, whether its possible to train a dog without it. 
Punishment does have a place don't discount it altogether but the punishment should fit the crime and the temperament of the dog, I've only had one hard case who required rather more than a short sharp reminder such as "OI!" the rest have been civil creatures. 
