There is something interesting and wonderful that happens when people really make the paradigm shift to seeing the dog, really seeing the dog, and to working with the relationship, autonomy, respect & trust truly uppermost as the guiding principles. First, the dogs respond, and respond well and quickly. Second, the handlers become sensitized to how people interact with dogs -- and they are surprised and dismayed to see that in some situations, the dog is being somewhat left out of the equation by trainers, vets, behaviorists and others.

A new question arises from this: people want to know which book, which DVD, which trainer/school or vet behaviorist will line up with the Relationship Centered Training approach that I use. Having found something that suits them and satisfies them on a deep level, liking what they see in their dogs' eyes, they want more.

I've long thought of Relationship Centered Training as a philosophical framework against which anyone can examine techniques or theories and see if it suits them and their dogs. It is not enough to say "I don't like this" or "I wouldn't do it that way" when evaluating information on training. More is needed. Mere naysaying does not refine a trainer's skills. First, where is the mismatch between their philosophy and yours, and then in philosophy vs. application of that theory? If your own philosophy is not clearly articulated, you will have trouble defining precisely where the mismatch is. Put in writing for yourself what it is you believe and what your philosophy is.? Second, what alternatives in approach, attitude, technique and/or equipment could we bring to the situation to get similar or (hopefully) even better results? Why use or not use x, y or z?

I developed this checklist for thinking through whether a video or book, technique, seminar, philosophy or trainer may or may not align well with your own philosophical framework. These RCT basics form a good part of my own philosophical framework against which I assess other work, ideas, materials, teachings.

1. OBSERVATION SKILLS: importance of reading animals clearly, so that behavior is read accurately, and so that threshholds are accurately defined and thus used effectively.

2. PATIENCE: value of patience not just stated as a theory (i.e, "be patient" as an oft repeated maxim) but actually demonstrated by working on "animal time" where the animal's behavior drives the trainer's choices and actions, not the clock or other external pressures that have nothing at all to do with the animal's needs or ability to process information or emotional state.

3. AUTONOMY: the respect inherent in granting the animal autonomy to the highest degree permitted by the situation.

4. CLEAR THINKING: how critical it is to question the underlying assumptions or opening premise that informs how the problem is framed and thus be able to properly frame a solution. Cognitive errors can set us down the wrong path.

5. CLARITY IN COMMUNICATION: the intended & unintended effects of equipment (also frequently not questioned, such as automatic dispensing of the Gentle Leader or anything other equipment), and including the handlers' use of their own movements, expression, body language and equipment handling.

6. TRAINING OR MANAGEMENT: the distinction (or lack thereof) between management (which merely prevents or limits behavior) vs true training, whereby the animal develops new skills, new behaviors and new understanding. Also of interest is the use of prompted/cued behaviors vs. volitional behaviors. Volitional behavior permits the animal to learn and choose and be responsible for their own behavior; prompted/cued behaviors are handler dependent. Both have value in given situations, but a trainer should recognize management for what it is, and not mistake it for training.

With each training situation, each day, each animal, you are given more chances to refine your philosophy, to test it, to work it out in real life, to gather new information and embrace it or reject it. Knowing how to sort through the information and hold it against your own philsophical framework is helpful.