1. If ‘No’ is a generalizable conditioned punisher, what’s wrong w/using it in Phase 1 training, as long as the punishment is just the withholding of a treat? Wouldn’t that make it easier to use ‘No’ in Phase 2 Avoidance training?

  2. Technically there is nothing wrong with that and a trainer could be correct by doing that. “Phase 1” “phase 2” etc.. Is just a way to train clients in chunks and it is just based on my opinion of what has been easiest. So although it may make phase 2 easier to teach “no” in phase 1, it would then make more lessons in phase 1 and therefore make phase 1 “harder” and also a bit more confusing when teaching the client that phase 1 is about focusing on encouraging the right behaviors and phase 2 focuses on teaching concepts related to discipline, positive punishment in particular.
    But, as long as it makes sense and is correct I always invite trainers to manipulate how they wish to chunk things.
    For instance, what if a trainer or client never planned on using any aversives at all in training?
    Then no reason to even worry about phase 1 or phase 2..
    So the charts and phases on this site are just a way that has worked well for me to have trainers follow a similar compass if working together.

  3. Re: competing-motivator training-choice options [punishment/reinforcement/premack] , an observation/question: your choices as a trainer depend on your training goal, which must take into account each dog’s personality/nature/instincts. No?