Gray Areas: Thoughtful conversations about "balance" at a time when punishment has become a spectacle. Plus: the"mice" of at an R+ Floridian utopia

Annie reads a post from Denise Fenzi's page that sparked some interesting comments on labels in the world of dog training. Some dog trainers are considerate about the use of some punishment in training and others work to avoid it at all costs. And then there are trainers who simply don't know what they're doing at all. Like... Dog Daddy. He calls himself "balanced" but no educated pro trainer would give him that label. Maybe the real problem is that to non-professionals, what this Insta-celeb doing is all they know about dog training.

TOPICS DISCUSSED

Frustrations with the dog training industry

Divide between different training methods

The problem of most people's lack of understanding of dog body language

The weirdness of a spectacle-like approach to dog training

Importance of focusing on the dog's well-being

Potential for more animal training entertainment that actually shows off the magic of positive reinforcements

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Dog training should focus on the well-being and training effectiveness

of dogs rather than creating a spectacle.

Understanding dog body language is crucial for preventing dog bites

and improving communication with dogs.

The divide between different training methods should be approached

with open dialogue and growth in mind.

Strength-based training can be effective in both academic and dog training settings.

The well-being and safety of dogs and the public should be the

priority in dog training.

REFERENCES

Denise Fenzi's Facebook page

Transcript

This transcript was made automatically from the audio, so it may contain small errors.

Hello, human friends. Annie Grossman here of School For The Dogs, a small business in New York City. It is a busy time of year to be a small business owner and... Podcasting feels like a kind of luxury when I can set aside the time to do it. And when I do have the moment like right now, I think, okay, well, I really need to like convey some super useful information about dog training.

But then I sit down and the only thing I feel like I really... And burning up inside to talk about is Dog Daddy. So I'm sorry if you're here for like training advice. I hope you will scroll back to some earlier episodes. But I'm just so enraged right now about the state of the industry.

I mean, I think I've had rage for a long time. But it's like reached a fever pitch for reasons that I really want to talk about. So that's what I'm going to do. Thanks for being here with me on this. And the truth is, I would love to be having a conversation about some of this Dog Daddy and Dog Daddy adjacent stuff with Annie.

Some of the amazingly intelligent dog trainers I know and I just don't have the bandwidth to do that on the podcast right now. I definitely blame this fact on my business and my children. They make it very hard for me to... Do the kind of podcasting I want to be doing. Especially the kids, man.

They make it very hard to get anything done. But I am in conversations that happen, you know, while I'm waiting to pick up my kid from school on my phone, that kind of thing. And on Instagram and on Facebook, where I see people... discussing things and so I thought I would actually just read a post that I thought was really insightful and and some of the comments that I also found insightful kind of like quick and easy way of bringing in some other voices into this conversation people who are saying things that I find really interesting. The post was on the page of Denise Fenzi, who is a highly respected dog trainer and educator of dog trainers, and it says courtesy of Chad Macken, so her post is a repost, and it's not specifically about Dog Daddy, but...

It talks about some of the issues surrounding this divide that you might say there is in the dog training community or one of several divides. The part from Chad Macken here says problems with the balance versus force-free model and then there's bullet points. Creates characters instead of individuals, blinds us to ideas, puts ideologies over individuals, reduces nuance, presupposes friction setting the table for unnecessary conflict, shifts attention from growing to winning, lets people let their ideology determine their value rather than their work, encourages us to focus on the shortcomings of others instead of working on our own, reduces critical thinking. And then Denise writes and kind of introducing this, regardless of your position on training, pledging, thinking, feeling, unwavering allegiance leads to the points he describes below. I see it over and over again.

The words used in interactions, the black and white statements and ultimately the lack of growth. I don't apologize for my training methods. I'm pretty darned force-free to the extent of my abilities. I can easily support that position and at the same time, I can recognize that rational people can make different choices than me based on their needs, circumstances, and current base of knowledge and beliefs. If anyone wants to understand the choices I make, I'm happy to talk about it.

If anyone wants to learn from me, I'm sharing for all I'm worth. If anyone decides to explore new techniques, I'll answer questions to the best of my ability. Most important, I'm available as a non-judgmental resource. I have an impact in the community because my community is broad and includes folks who don't already share my values. If you're yelling and everyone is yelling the exact same thing back, did it matter that you yelled at all?

Yes, it confirms your place in the group, but no, you have not made an impact. Speak calmly and clearly, contemplate the audience you want to reach, get rid of hyperbole, and look hard to the issues you're trying to address. If you're not seeing shades of gray, I think you need to focus on your own awareness before you try to impact others. I thought this was really well said and I think it is so important to remember that there are gray areas and I know I'm someone who tends to be extreme about things and I have referred to dog training as good dog training and bad dog training but that doesn't mean that I don't see many shades of gray and I think good and bad are something that each person has to define for themselves. That definition could change.

In my book I have a section where I talk about a conversation I had with Debbie Jacobs of Fearful Dogs where she questioned why I would do something like play the elevator game where you're making use of negative punishment and positive reinforcement and a kind of seesaw to teach like a sit-stay. I'd never thought about that as being problematic in any way. But her point was, why would you teach it that way if it's possible to teach it without using punishment at all? There are so many areas where we are not always using positive reinforcement, and it's, I think, important that we talk about those gray areas and investigate those gray areas. Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and read some of his comments because basically my response to all of that was like, hell yes.

And I found the comments to be really thought-provoking. So I thought I would just share some of them. Here's a comment from Chad Macken, who writes, For a little context, this was created not to be a meme originally. It's a jumping off point to a larger essay I'm working on. I took that screenshot to clarify something is related discussion.

My main thesis is that people are inherently tribal and will always end up dividing into camps. But as Sapolsky reminds us, we have a great deal of flexibility about where we draw the lines we align with. Defining ourselves along the line of balance versus force-free would put Denise and myself opposed to one another, but I don't personally draw my line there, and she doesn't either. The idea is that we've been told this particular is natural and represents a truth about training. I think it's an incredibly destructive place to draw the line and causes harm to dogs, dog owners, and the industry as a whole.

This meme can't communicate all of that. And I believe what he's referring to as a meme are the bullet points I read on the divide between balanced and force-free trainers. Problem with having those, the model of those two camps. Diana Petherick writes, if you erase the title from the meme and just look at it as problems in communication between groups of people, it applies to everything. Dog training, politics, religion, race, even driving.

Nobody is really listening. They already think they know who you are based on what they believe your beliefs are because of the group they are in. A caricature rather than an individual. Both the commentary and the meme are brilliant. Thank you so much for posting this.

Here's an interesting comment from Janine J. In my opinion, the meme frames the debate as being 100% about the human part of the equation, about the human growing learning, being individuals, thinking, assigning self-value. Not once does the meme mention the dog or whatever the animal. Therein lies the entire problem with the debate. It's not or should not be about the value or even integrity of the practitioner.

This is so typically Western, ego-oriented. I don't care about the balanced trainer's feelings or even the freer free trainer's feelings. It's about the animal and the things we do to that animal. To which Chad Macken replies, I hear you, but the thing is, the dog's welfare is largely dependent on our ability and skill level. The more competent the trainer, the more likely the They are to be able to succeed with any given dog.

The presumption is all of us are interested in helping the dogs and people we work with in the best way possible. So my skill, knowledge, attitude, and understanding are the only things I can control in the equation. The dog is a free entity whose goals don't necessarily align with mine. The better the trainer, the more likely they can come to an understanding without conflict. The need to develop is a direct reflection of the need to better take of the dog's needs.

At least that's how I see it. CB Wing writes, this may be off topic, but the line about focusing on shortcomings and several others throughout the comments makes me think about strength-based training, sorry, strength-based learning. This approach or mental shift I've taken in my high school classroom seems to have really helped me with teaching dogs and handlers too. Go figure that bringing neurodiversity affirming practices to my classroom to build belonging for all the kids in our learning space also applies to dogs. Strength-based practices are about building relationships by identifying strengths.

Then we use those strengths to build in the areas we want to or need to grow. Deficit-based approach is the norm around here. Doesn't meet potential and fails to meet expectations are common ways to approach learners. Basically, what do you suck at? Let's fix it.

Don't get me started on standardized testing. I'm really enjoying the strength-based shift to look at each learner, high school, artist, dog, trainer, dog, to help them find their strength, and we build around that. It feels more like a ripple than a construction site to me. I wish we could grow the strengths-based approach as the norm. I know my academic and social life would have been way easier.

Neurodivergence is my superpower, but it took me a very long time to figure that out. It's been so much easier building with my strengths instead of against them or not using them.

Tanya Corvus writes, In my opinion, people mix up training and everyday life, but it matters. It matters if you try your hardest career. I think what she means is like training... Dog training that happens when you're doing training and dog training that happens when you're not necessarily thinking about training. But it matters.

It matters if you try your hardest to create situations that set your dog up for success and strive to be force free. And even if you don't succeed all the time because life happens, even though you will have to grab and hold him back when shit hits the fan and you need to do damage control or you lose your temper and yell, But I have trouble seeing people in a positive light that call themselves trainers and still rely on prong collars and e-collars. And yes, I will extrapolate on their character from the space of knowledge because to me, it is despicable to be ready to shock the neck of a dependent being, be it a child or a dog. And everyone would be outraged if you were to strap an e-collar to a child's neck to teach it not to forge ahead in the supermarket or on walks. It should not be socially acceptable to do that.

Inga Dahlman writes, For me, this topic falls under the clause of tribalism, which is interesting in itself. A large portion of humans, if not the majority, is hardwired to seek out life in groups, evolution, mechanics, better odds of survival, etc. But considering how modernized our existence is, this concept appears washed out, i.e. not on the forefront of our consciousness. Yet we see it everywhere.

Political conflicts is a big obvious one. Everyone has a stand, opinion on something, and everyone who shares an opinion on a matter they see as threatening to their principle, values, existence of their identity, bands with like-minded individuals to protect, preserve that value, existence of identity. Tribalism is everywhere. I believe at the core of these issues is fear, fear of erasure, fear that if we are not aggression forward in defending what we love, who we are, we will be erased. It's this fear that drives the wedge between tribes and prevents integration, compassion, and exploration.

Christina Camby writes, there is a clear watershed, those who elect to train without intentionally using pain or fear and those who are comfortable using pain and fear to some degree. We now know that pain and fear isn't necessary for behavior modification. Of course, ad hominem attacks are uncalled for and unhelpful, but simply pointing out that pain is unnecessary shouldn't be problematic. I am happy to talk with, listen to, and sometimes collaborate with people at varying stages of their crossover journey, but I'm not going to be gaslit into thinking that That pointing out that aversives are unnecessary is the problem or that it's somehow reducing nuance or impeding one's ability to connect with an individual or to think critically. We are stronger together and can find a lot of common ground to focus on even if we don't agree on everything, but it's absolutely fine to let your force free flag fly unapologetically.

Anyway, there's over 150 comments on this post, which you can find on Denise Fenzi's Facebook page, and so many of them are super thought-provoking, and of all the ones I've read so far, there's something in each of them where I feel like, yes, exactly, exactly that. I'll read just one last one, this one by recent podcast guest, Zach George. It's true that the conversation around training methods can sometimes become polarized, creating caricatures rather than acknowledging the complexity of individual cases and methods. However, this issue goes beyond personal choices and touches on the broader responsibility we have towards animal welfare and public safety. The focus on aligning with fourth free methods isn't just a matter of personal preference or ideology.

It's grounded in the consensus of leading veterinary behaviorists. and animal welfare organizations. These bodies advocate for humane, ethical training methods based on scientific evidence emphasizing the physical and emotional well-being of the animals. It's crucial to understand that the advocacy for force-free methods doesn't stem from a desire to quote-unquote win an ideological battle or to diminish the value of trainers with different approaches. Instead, it's about prioritizing the health and safety of dogs and the public they interact with.

This perspective doesn't diminish the importance of ongoing learning and adaptation within the field. Rather, it encourages it. The dialogue within the dog training community should indeed be open, respectful, and focused on growth. It should also be informed by the latest research and ethical considerations. As we navigate these discussions, it's vital to keep the well-being of the animals at the center and to be open to evolving our methods in line with new understanding and evidence.

So that too, I'm like, yes, yes, what he said. Now, this conversation is not at all about Dog Daddy, actually, but I think that the hubbub about this dude is sparking some really interesting conversations such as this. However, I think the Dog Daddy stuff touches on some different... When I read this, I thought, yes, all of what everyone is saying here, I agree with. But here's the thing.

There are people who can call themselves balance trainers, who can... Regularly incorporate force and coercion into training plans in ways that might be different than what I would choose to do. And those are conversations I'm interested in having with trainers. I am curious about those gray areas and what research shows us and what people's own backgrounds and training tells them. These are really interesting conversations to have with people who live and breathe dog training, people who are constantly taking courses and reading papers and getting more letters after their last name.

And then there's like everyone else in the world. And of the group that contains everyone else in the world, I actually think that the biggest problem is not that people don't understand training as much as people don't recognize when a dog is seriously stressed out and miserable. Like, I literally think kids should have a short unit in school about dog body language. Think about how many dog bites would be prevented if people were just a little bit better at reading when dogs are telling us that they are uncomfortable. Of course, there's lots of nuance to learning how to...

Observe dog behavior and interpret it. But I don't think that most people have even the slightest inkling of that as like a thing to even think about. And that I think would be a good starting point. The other thing is, I think to the rest of the world, the stuff that Dog Daddy is doing, that Cesar Millan has been doing for decades. This is what dog training looks like.

They think this is what dog training is. It's about humans projecting their own issues onto dogs and needing to fix their own energy, needing to come to terms with their past and move forward with confidence, calm, love, and joy, supposedly, in the case of Cesar Millan, in the case of Dog Daddy. I think this is what people think. Dog training looks like, too. Yanking a dog around, sitting on them, as I witnessed, basically just physically overpowering the animal.

And I just want to stand up and say that that is not dog training. The dogs are learning, but I think training refers to a technology. How are we using what we know about the science to make the learning as effective as possible? And I think that both... True balance trainers who are actually trying to use a balance between rewards and punishment, negative and positive punishment, negative and positive reinforcement, and those who are like the positive reinforcement or what I call sort of good dog trainers of the world.

These are things we can talk about. We could talk about the technology, the science, the history, the implications, the ethics. But the Dog Daddies and Cesar Millans of the world, they're not in this conversation. I don't think they know that there is a conversation happening. And I think that's one way in which having these, you know, common enemies who are total charlatans actually can foster more closeness and understanding in these kinds of conversations between trainers who maybe don't agree on what area is gray or black or white or more white or more black on the gray spectrum.

Other thing that is giving all of us a bad name because these people are also calling themselves dog trainers. And they can. They can because there is no rule about who can call themselves a dog trainer. There are no regulations in America that matter. And certifications are hit and miss and not well understood themselves.

Considered acceptable if it is delivered as some kind of spectacle. Which I think is another real part of this moment. Dog Daddy literally dresses up as a clown. Like I can't explain how else he sometimes appears. And he like brings his show to town for a couple of hours and then moves his circus tent to a new city.

Coming into a new room where he's proclaiming all the dogs in front of him as last chance dogs, although he shows himself to know nothing about any of their histories or training backgrounds. Yanks them around. And speaks a bunch of gibberish that everybody nods along to and then leaves town. Unfortunately for balanced trainers, he has chosen to call himself a balanced trainer as a kind of euphemism. But this is as much training as riding a bull is about training the bull.

It's just abuse explained with like psychobabble gibberish. And I see the same people nodding along to gibberish in every episode I watch of The Dog Whisperer, which again, I think stems from people just being clueless when a dog is in front of them freaking out. Anyway, it's interesting that dog training right now, I mean, between Cesar Millan and Dog Daddy, Cesar Millan on TV, Dog Daddy in these like arenas. That it's such a spectacle, that it's like the thing of a show, like a man dominating beast, which is especially interesting when the man is dressed like a clown in pajamas. So, you know, on the one hand, we have the people who are actually trying to figure out how to do this effectively and to educate themselves and land where they may on the spectrum of Of force or not force.

On the other hand, we have people doing it as a show. People who are, believe they are dog trainers because they were born as dog men. To quote from Dog Daddy's site where he writes... True dogmen have been in existence for hundreds of years, not a made-up name like a dog whisperer that was created by Hollywood executives for TV ratings. Dogmen, like me, are either born with a gift or it was passed on from a true dogman who found one student to pass his knowledge to.

I swear, this guy's just like a cartoon character. He's so freaking ridiculous. My experience running a training center where we work with a lot of reactive dogs is that I don't want it to be a spectacle. We should be focused on the dogs. We should be focused on the dogs learning their experience.

Stressful enough for a dog to be in a new place with new people being asked to do new things. The dogs comfort an experience. You know, I've gotten some messages on Instagram from a person, I think it might be the owner of Westbrook Kennels, the place in New Jersey that hosted Dog Daddy. Saying basically, and I've seen Zach George get comments like this too on his page, saying basically like, oh you come and try and do better, you come and fix these dogs, I'll pick out the dog for you. Dog Daddy too, as I've seen him offer a $50,000 to Zach George if Zach George will come train a dog, but Dog Daddy needs to be the one picking out the dog.

First of all, if you're bringing out a dog who has all kinds of issues, then clearly you have not done a good job as a trainer. What you're doing is showing the result of bad dog training. That is probably how that dog got to that state. But also, like, is this where we're at? Are we at a point where you are daring other dog trainers to help dogs?

That's what we do. You can come work with us. This isn't about creating an exciting show of my talents versus your talents. This is about helping the dogs. And if someone's truly interested in helping a reactive dog...

It's not going to happen in one session. So whoever you are who keeps sending me these messages, you're welcome to come sign up for a class at School For The Dogs. Our reactive dog classes go for eight weeks and the changes might be drastic, but they might not. Dog training often isn't that exciting to look at. But what's interesting is animal training can be really fun and entertaining and I wish there were more of that kind of animal training entertainment out there.

I have talked before on the show and actually also in the book I have a whole section about the Breland Baileys and the amazing birds. Animal shows that they put together basically using Skinner boxes that they developed with Skinner in his labs when they were doing things with him like training pigeons to fly kamikaze missiles. They took that work and around the world had arcade displays and full-on amusement park where they had, you know, raccoons playing basketball and... Ducks playing piano and all of it was done using positive reinforcement. All of it was very animal-friendly training, and I grew up going to see one of their tic-tac-toe playing chickens.

I didn't know that it was literally something that you might say was born in B.F. Skinner's lab at the time, but it certainly left an impression on me, and if only, if only I think we had these kinds of They seem crazy and silly, but these displays that I think really could display the magic of operant conditioning and shaping to perhaps another generation. I think it's a great example about how it's possible to get behaviors without force. And, you know, it's interesting because I need to double check my history on this, but I'm pretty sure that Walt Disney... Consulted with the Breelands and perhaps even had some of their machines in Disney World at some point.

But I was actually just in Disney World last week and I kept thinking this is such a reminder that it is possible to train humans without using force and coercion because you know what? Everybody there wanted to be there, whether it was the people working there that I met or the families and the kids. Nobody seemed like they were there by force. Nobody was being coerced to spend their time there. And Disney, at every step of the way, is ready to reinforce the behavior of you spending your money.

And they have every different kind of way to reward that behavior based on whatever is rewarding to whoever is there. Whether that's food or drink or ride or character or a souvenir, whatever it is, it's reinforcing a behavior, the behavior of spending money. And people are happy about it. They want to be engaging in this behavior. All over the place, I saw people wearing shirts that were poking fun of the fact that they were doing nothing but spending money.

You know, shirts that say like going bankrupt at Disney or most expensive day ever. But when you're training an animal, that's what you want. You want one who is opting in, who wants to be there. You want to create very controlled environments where there are lots of opportunities for the animal to engage in the behavior and be rewarded for it. And as an animal trainer walking around the parks, I kept reflecting on the fact that That so many of the operant conditioning experiments over the last century have been done on rodents.

And here I was in a crowd of people, about half of whom were totally psyched to be wearing mouse ears.

Congrats to listener Camilla Sullivan, winner of the November podcast giveaway. She is getting a hot dog trainer mug, which you can get yourself at storeforthedogs.com. This month I'm giving away a dog listener trucker hat. You can enter to win at schoolforthedogs.com slash pod. It is super cute.

I've been wearing it out a lot and it starts many an interesting conversation, especially when I wear it with my mouse ears.