A clip-on treat pouch
  Much handier than fishing dog treats out of your pockets!

A dedicated notebook AND pen that lives with it
  From the FRONT of the notebook you will record any positive behavioural changes you notice, along with questions or comments you have between sessions. From the BACK of the notebook you will record instances of unwanted behaviour and the surrounding context. When we meet in person, we will go over what you have noted since we last met and use the information you’ve gathered to make sure we’re staying the course!
  Right now, we all have too many plates spinning and too many things to remember.
Use your notebook!

Food reinforcement you feel comfortable feeding a lot of
  For many dogs, their regular kibble (subtracted from their daily allotment) works fine. For others, a ‘puppy’ or ‘kitten’ line of the same formula works well to increase the value without upsetting tummies.

An open mind
  Positive reinforcement behaviour modification often looks different than a ‘training’ session. Because we are using food to change the underlying emotion that drives behaviour, it can sometimes look like “rewarding bad behaviour”.
Always feel free to ask questions if you aren’t sure how an exercise is helpful!

Trust in the process
  Creating lasting change in the way a dog independently responds to the world takes time. We are rewiring neural pathways that have been entrenched by instinct at the minimum, and likely by months or years of rehearsal as well! Our success is measured in trends—no one walk, outing, or day.

Commitment to only ever compare your dog to the dog they were yesterday
  There are many ways to change a dog’s behaviour, and not all of them are humane or ethical. You will also never have the full ‘inside scoop’ on how long and how intensively someone has been training their dog. When comparison tries to sneak into your assessments of your dog’s progress, remember:

Once I realized how many of Kitty’s challenging behaviours stemmed from fear, anxiety, and overwhelm, I began to wonder how many struggling dogs were being misunderstood as ‘dominant’ or ‘aggressive’. I started a deep dive into our current understanding of why dogs behave the way that they do, and the most humane and effective ways to change their behaviours.

What I found changed my approach to dogs forever.

I use positive reinforcement because dogs are social creatures who want nothing more than to cohabitate peacefully with their family. When dogs ‘misbehave’, they are either underprepared for, or overwhelmed by, what they are experiencing in that moment. If that statement gives you pause, don’t worry; it can be surprising for owners to learn that their dogs are never purposely misbehaving.

To grasp how our constant companions and teammates have become misaligned as a ‘dominant’ animal who ‘wants to be the boss’, we need to bust a decades-old—but still very prevalent—myth about dogs.

In 1947, a researcher named Rudolph Schenkel released ‘Expression Studies on Wolves’; a groundbreaking study on canine behaviour. For 12 years, he had studied different groups of adult, unrelated, captive canines and made careful observations on their behavior. Schenkel’s interpretation of what he saw shaped our general understanding of wolf—and dog—behaviour for decades.

Over time, our common understanding of Schenkel’s observations developed into this: Wolf packs are led by an ‘alpha wolf’, who achieves that status by being the strongest and smartest. The ‘alpha wolf’ controls access to resources, and maintains their dominant position through correcting other animals when their authority is challenged.

This understanding of behavior has permeated dog training and led to all kinds of aversive methods, from shaking coins to shocking dogs, being justified because ‘dogs correct each other’. Even worse, it has led to struggling, overwhelmed dogs being called ‘dominant’ or ‘pushy’ and trainers who encourage punishment to ‘remind the dog of their place’.

Schenkel’s observations of canine behavior were sound. What was lacking was his understanding of why he saw such high levels of competition, conflict, and correction. Schenkel assumed that the high levels of conflict were normal behavior—what he did not realize was that the wolves’ behavior had been drastically affected by the unnatural condition of captivity.

In 1999 a new study was published—this one by David L. Mech. Mech spent 13 years studying the same family of free-living wolves in the Northwest Territories. Those differences in the populations studied are critical in behavioural science; it is now well-understood that in order to get sound behavioural observations, we must go to where the behaviour naturally occurs.

What Mech found completely upended our understanding of how canines live and communicate.

Mech found that a wolf pack did not consist of random adults, as in Schenkel’s study, but of a biological family. A ‘pack’ generally consists of a breeding pair—a mother and father—and one to two litters of their pups, depending on how many animals their territory is able to support. There is no competition to determine leadership status; as with other social mammals, the pups follow their parents because they are social mammals with a familial bond.

Further, Mech observed a drastically lower rate of physical correction and conflict between animals. In fact, when competition surrounding resources arose, Mech observed consistent, ritualized de-escalation behaviours. If wolves had the agency and ability to leave a conflict—agency that animals in Schenkel’s study lacked—they would choose retreat over physical conflict whenever possible.

Thanks to Mech’s study, we now know that canines only engage in physical correction if nonviolent communication fails repeatedly or if external factors are contributing to stress. It is not a normal or natural part of canine communication.

This isn’t to say that corrections do not change canine behaviour. They can and do change behaviour, and often very effectively!

The key point, and why I opt out of using aversive methods, is why corrections work.

Corrections do not change behaviour because we are ‘tapping into canine communication’, ‘replicating the mother’s bite’, or ‘reminding the dog we are alpha’.

Corrections only change behaviour because they are unpleasant or painful enough for the dog to want to avoid the correction more than they need to perform instinctual behaviour. Corrections do not change the emotion that drives behaviour—they only stifle the behavioural expression of what the dog is feeling. Worse, they can exacerbate the fear and anxiety that drive unwanted behaviours! 

Corrections don't change behaviour, they only suppress it.