"Oh, you're a positive trainer, that means you only have one set of tools to deal with multiple situations..."
There are a lot of myths about Force Free, Positive trainers out there, mostly spread by those that refuse to understand the science. It's not even all from the "other" side of training, some of it comes from other Positive trainers.
My Definition of Force Free:
1) Use of scientifically sound and proven techniques that work on ALL animals capable of learning (ie. almost anything with a nervous system).
2) Of those techniques, only those that do not cause pain, fear or other harm to the animal
3) Letting the animal know what it's done right and what it's done wrong after it understands what works in the first place. We all make mistakes once in a while; we have to face some consequences for it.
4) Management is a key stone in the foundation as are Operant conditioning and Classical Conditioning.
5) People might need to improve skill, but we're all able to use simple, non-harmful techniques.
6) Consequences do not have to be painful or fearful.
7) No one can guarantee that any behaviour can be completely and forever removed from the repertoire of an animal; no one can guarantee that an animal will respond 100% of the time.
8) As a Trainer (or coach) working with people. Yes, People, not just dogs. If we can't get through to the people, we can't get through to the dog.
So what does it all mean?
First and foremost I would call it an ethical choice. I'm not saying those that use are using force or intimidation are not ethical themselves, but they're making a choice in the manner of their training. I don't want to show people outdated and potentially dangerous (for the dogs and sometimes people) methods that could result in making matters worse. Yes, there is a broad number of ways to deal with a situation; we should be looking for the most humane way to accomplish that goal. Sometimes the fastest fix is not always the best; fixing a problem takes time.
If the wheel came off my car, I would hope that the mechanic didn't suggest a bit of duct tape to fix the problem. We live in a time where we expect everything to be fixed right away. Dogs are complex critters and need time and effort. If something feels like it's to good to be true, chances are it is.
With the increase in dog ownership in the last few years (I've heard it's doubled in the last 10-20 years) it's not hard to imagine that there has been a thirst for knowledge - most of which seems to be coming from Reality TV. I don't believe that the "Real Housewives of..." represent real housewives... anywhere - or any time period for that matter; and I don't believe other things should be taken as useful tips and hints (even though those programs say "don't try this at home", sadly, many people do). Our dogs deserve people that understand the scientific foundations of the techniques that are being used on them; as custodians of animals that cannot verbally tell us, our responsibility is to know as well.
Sunday 27 October 2013
Thursday 22 August 2013
Deconstruction II (Tearing down misleading words)
Some of the things that get under a lot of Positive/Force Free Trainers skins is the buzz words that Balanced/Energy/Dominance-Alpha based trainers use as euphemisms. At this point, I wouldn't mind if they came right out and said what they were really using to control a dogs behaviour; in fact, I would welcome it. Why? Because people would begin to understand what these methods really do to their dogs, and the possible side effects they could create. Since they aren't about to tell the general public what they really mean, I will be happy to educate the public for them.
Various methods are used; I'll talk about the science behind them later (where there is a case for science, and not misunderstanding of science or out right fabrication and spreading of myths), first though, there needs to be some explanation of the words. Balance. Most of the time, when I read this, then read the descriptions that follow, there is usually some method of force, intimidation or pain involved (usually for "correction"). It might be wrapped up in words like leash corrections, stern or loud voice, or pinning the dog to the ground (alpha rolling). I haven't come across any site or explanation that describes the techniques as not using some sort of physical or mental force; if there is, AND they don't use prong, choke or eCollars, I'd like to see it and find out what they do and dissect the method happily in an intelligent debate. Energy, is usually used to mean that the person has some mystical connection with the dogs mental/emotional state; usually this is in conjunction with the three collar types mentioned above. You cannot use Energy to train a dog; you can use psychology, but not mystical mumbo jumbo; I can't even make an argument for this because it's so vague and unprovable it defies logic. Dominance/Alpha. This is used based on a complete misinterpretation of the science involving wolves; the original author of the papers now wishes he hadn't used the terms, as what he meant, was Alpha = Parent; Beta = older pups (usually around 2yrs); Omega = youngest cubs. So just as a Parent human is dominant over their child (they hold all the resources) so is an Alpha. It's a family structure, not some anthropological mockup of dog societies. Again, with this false theory, there is a lot of force, intimidation and fear inducement in the training. Not only is it assigning human values to dogs, but forcing dogs into situations that would be considered potentially lethal situations in the real world (the only time a wolf in a fight alpha rolls another wolf is with intent to kill!)
So if all the above is smoke and mirrors, what are they using? Some of it was mentioned. If we look at leash pops, prong ("pinch") collars, eCollars, choke and slip collars (nylon chokes) they all have a basis in either discomfort (at best) or pain (at worst) (ie. Positive Punishment in Operant Conditioning terms) or after sustained use and then discontinuing use after the dog does the "right" behaviour - relief (Negative Reinforcement). They say that you need excellent timing for these devices to work and that they shouldn't be used by those not proficient in them; yet if you have excellent timing, you don't need them in the first place! (to paraphrase Ian Dunbar). That is the scientific methodology they use, whether they describe it as such or not. Alpha rolls and other dominating maneuvers are merely some form of the above as well. Will the dog learn the correct behaviour that is being targeted? Possibly, yes, I will admit they might (it's the nature of learning theory) but they may also develop a negative emotional connection with the technique, the person using the technique, or perhaps with people in general. Why? The thing that those that use Balance don't either understand, or ignore, is that Classical Conditioning (Pavlov's research performed over a 100 years ago and well established) is always at work.
They neglect it because they are only focused solely on the behaviour, not the emotion. If you change the emotion, you will change the behaviour. The behaviour is there for a reason, it works to accomplish the goal the dog wants. Eliminating the behaviour may work, but the emotional state will stay the same; so the chance of recurrence is ever present, not diminished or extinguished. Change the emotion and the need for the behaviour will no longer be valid; the dog may perform the behaviour out of habit and work it's emotions back up, but that is a management issue that doesn't require the use of force, just compassion and empathy. You don't need to correct a behaviour that is fueled by negative emotions; you need to fix the emotions first. Blaming a hungry thief for stealing bread and locking them up doesn't make the hunger go away.
This for me is still a messaging and communication issue leading the public with false advertising. No one can guarantee the behaviour of another organism. You can adjust the odds in your favour, but you can't make it a sure thing. The public has the right to know that there are people out there that claim one thing, but do something completely different. Reality TV has done nothing to help in this regard. Dog Training is fighting against outdated and erroneous messages coming off TV, the internet and filtered through friends and family who suddenly know what's best for your dog. The public needs, no, DESERVES Consumer Rights protection. They acquire a pet that will be with them for up to 15 years or more and ask someone to come and train the dog (an animal with a not so distant past of being a predator with sharp teeth) without telling them how they plan on motivating the dog or what methods they are really using. Trainers be honest in the way you train dogs; don't flower it up with language that doesn't mean anything or is false. Owners be as harsh in your questions to your trainers as you need to be until you get an answer you understand; if they continue to make you ill at ease or if it is something you would not do to a child, you have the right to walk away.
Suggested reading:
http://eileenanddogs.com/2013/08/12/calm-submissive/
http://muttabouttown.com/2013/08/13/making-force-free-training-the-norm/
Various methods are used; I'll talk about the science behind them later (where there is a case for science, and not misunderstanding of science or out right fabrication and spreading of myths), first though, there needs to be some explanation of the words. Balance. Most of the time, when I read this, then read the descriptions that follow, there is usually some method of force, intimidation or pain involved (usually for "correction"). It might be wrapped up in words like leash corrections, stern or loud voice, or pinning the dog to the ground (alpha rolling). I haven't come across any site or explanation that describes the techniques as not using some sort of physical or mental force; if there is, AND they don't use prong, choke or eCollars, I'd like to see it and find out what they do and dissect the method happily in an intelligent debate. Energy, is usually used to mean that the person has some mystical connection with the dogs mental/emotional state; usually this is in conjunction with the three collar types mentioned above. You cannot use Energy to train a dog; you can use psychology, but not mystical mumbo jumbo; I can't even make an argument for this because it's so vague and unprovable it defies logic. Dominance/Alpha. This is used based on a complete misinterpretation of the science involving wolves; the original author of the papers now wishes he hadn't used the terms, as what he meant, was Alpha = Parent; Beta = older pups (usually around 2yrs); Omega = youngest cubs. So just as a Parent human is dominant over their child (they hold all the resources) so is an Alpha. It's a family structure, not some anthropological mockup of dog societies. Again, with this false theory, there is a lot of force, intimidation and fear inducement in the training. Not only is it assigning human values to dogs, but forcing dogs into situations that would be considered potentially lethal situations in the real world (the only time a wolf in a fight alpha rolls another wolf is with intent to kill!)
So if all the above is smoke and mirrors, what are they using? Some of it was mentioned. If we look at leash pops, prong ("pinch") collars, eCollars, choke and slip collars (nylon chokes) they all have a basis in either discomfort (at best) or pain (at worst) (ie. Positive Punishment in Operant Conditioning terms) or after sustained use and then discontinuing use after the dog does the "right" behaviour - relief (Negative Reinforcement). They say that you need excellent timing for these devices to work and that they shouldn't be used by those not proficient in them; yet if you have excellent timing, you don't need them in the first place! (to paraphrase Ian Dunbar). That is the scientific methodology they use, whether they describe it as such or not. Alpha rolls and other dominating maneuvers are merely some form of the above as well. Will the dog learn the correct behaviour that is being targeted? Possibly, yes, I will admit they might (it's the nature of learning theory) but they may also develop a negative emotional connection with the technique, the person using the technique, or perhaps with people in general. Why? The thing that those that use Balance don't either understand, or ignore, is that Classical Conditioning (Pavlov's research performed over a 100 years ago and well established) is always at work.
They neglect it because they are only focused solely on the behaviour, not the emotion. If you change the emotion, you will change the behaviour. The behaviour is there for a reason, it works to accomplish the goal the dog wants. Eliminating the behaviour may work, but the emotional state will stay the same; so the chance of recurrence is ever present, not diminished or extinguished. Change the emotion and the need for the behaviour will no longer be valid; the dog may perform the behaviour out of habit and work it's emotions back up, but that is a management issue that doesn't require the use of force, just compassion and empathy. You don't need to correct a behaviour that is fueled by negative emotions; you need to fix the emotions first. Blaming a hungry thief for stealing bread and locking them up doesn't make the hunger go away.
This for me is still a messaging and communication issue leading the public with false advertising. No one can guarantee the behaviour of another organism. You can adjust the odds in your favour, but you can't make it a sure thing. The public has the right to know that there are people out there that claim one thing, but do something completely different. Reality TV has done nothing to help in this regard. Dog Training is fighting against outdated and erroneous messages coming off TV, the internet and filtered through friends and family who suddenly know what's best for your dog. The public needs, no, DESERVES Consumer Rights protection. They acquire a pet that will be with them for up to 15 years or more and ask someone to come and train the dog (an animal with a not so distant past of being a predator with sharp teeth) without telling them how they plan on motivating the dog or what methods they are really using. Trainers be honest in the way you train dogs; don't flower it up with language that doesn't mean anything or is false. Owners be as harsh in your questions to your trainers as you need to be until you get an answer you understand; if they continue to make you ill at ease or if it is something you would not do to a child, you have the right to walk away.
Suggested reading:
http://eileenanddogs.com/2013/08/12/calm-submissive/
http://muttabouttown.com/2013/08/13/making-force-free-training-the-norm/
Sunday 11 August 2013
Deconstruction (part 1) - Critical thinking
Last time I wrote about making plans. It occurs to me, after, or before, you make plans, or set sail on a ship, you must figure out the method you will use to accomplish your goals. Will you use traditional Post and Beam; modern construction framing, or go all out and make a concrete; sail, steam or catamaran?There are numerous ways to train dogs in the world today. A lot of them are basically the same, some are as different as night and day. I've talked about some of it before; others have talked about it. There is a lot of weasel wording in dog training. First and formost people need to be aware that there is, as I've said in the past and I will keep saying until enough people stand up and demand their rights as consumers, THERE ARE NO REGULATIONS IN DOG TRAINING. Anyone can hang up a shingle and say "I'm a dog trainer; I've been training dogs for XX years; I'm an expert; I know dog behaviour; I know dog body language; I understand dog psychology...." There are only a few areas in dog training that are currently regulated. That small list includes Veterinary Behaviorists who work on very special cases and are usually referred to by more reputable dog trainers (Trainers who admit that they are out of their league or comfort level when dealing with a case and understand the dog needs more assistance).
We should talk about the biggest myths out there openly, and plainly. To understand the root cause of them, and to establish them as outright myths. There is a lack of critical thinking in Dog Training, which leads to blind acceptance of methods that are either unneeded, outdated, and/or just dangerous.
I've heard well educated people say "Science has their theories, but I know xxx works, I've done it myself!" The fact is that Science Theories are well ordered, usually very simple concepts that have been proven over, and over, and over until all the extraneous non-useful, false or unverifiable information is rejected. We cannot accept the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, Quantum Theory, Evolutionary Theory and reject Learning Theory because it is discomforting to the way we think. Learning Theory, is a theory, because it has been proven over and over again on numerous animals (kingdom Animalia).
If someone is using a technique to change an animals behaviour and deny they are using Learning Theory, or that they have developed a technique outside the boundaries of these Theories, they are either unaware of the Theory or purposefully promoting falsehoods. The question then becomes of us, as dog owners in general, do we want someone who has either no understanding of the science behind their techniques or is lying to you. Would you trust a doctor with this level of education or duplicity? As a species, probably through society, we have a tendency, if someone calls themselves an expert or professional, to take them at their word and not question anything they say! (how many times have you watched your money walk away because an expert said you needed something, but you were not sure and found out later you didn't need what they were pushing?)
A good dog trainer will happily take questions; and if they can't answer them right away, they will probably be more than happy to find out the answer! Why? Because just as much as you, they want to know the truth. If they give an answer that doesn't seem well thought out, utterly ridiculous, or makes you uneasy - question them more. If the answer is not immediate and makes logical sense without a lot more thought involved to parse the language, it is likely that they are not in understanding of the Science behind their technology.
Your relationship with your dog is Critical; your dog deserves you to be critical in your thinking. Critical thinking is the first step to deconstructing and then understanding false claims and undeserved methods.
More to come.
Suggested viewing : https://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup
Wednesday 3 July 2013
Build a House, have a plan; Go to war, have a plan; train a dog? wing it....???
The welfare of numerous animals is at stake.
A lot of people set out plans for their life. They set out plans for a home before they build it (or leave it to the architect and the contractor). Governments (usually) set out grand objectives for the military, which sets out realistic, day to day plans and strategies for a war. We plan a LOT. We practice a LOT. I don't know of any one nuclear scientist ever found in a reactor that doesn't know the difference between a proton and a neutron (ok, save your jibes, Homer Simpson doesn't count!). Lawyers make plans and contracts for clients. Carpenters follow plans to build houses. Sports teams have plans; nearly everyone who works as a professional has some sort of plan. We have plans either before we get into a career (education) or after we get into a career (mostly more education). To make a car, a company needs a plan. To make a cake, you need a plan! (a recipe). Yes, you can make a cake or other food after you've had some practice (ah... there we go practice!). So, why do we assume that we can train a dog, without a plan?
A lot of people do, and they get by. But (in Canada) at least 40 000 animals a year would disagree that those plans work; mostly because they've paid the ultimate price. Not always right away, but perhaps after some time. What do our future companions deserve? Are they disposable, or potentially disposable? I don't think so, and a lot of other people wouldn't think so either. They cost more than an iPhone if they come from a reputable breeder (sometimes even if they don't come from one!). We can replace a mechanical or electronic device if we screw it up or drop it on the floor and cause it to cease functioning in the way we like. What happens when we the same happens to an animal? They get returned or some worse sentence.
What can we do? We can plan. I would suggest planning everything well in advance. What will the dog/cat/gerbil/hamster/pig/sloth/boyfriend need? Physical requirements; mental requirements; medical requirements etc. Where will the animal get these requirements? Who will provide them, and when? Who will pay for them, and how? What behaviours do the dog/cat/etc come with that we might want to enhance; and what do they come with that we will not find appealing? All these things should be thought out before hand. Once you know what you need, you can work on, you guessed it, the plan!
The plan should be easy for you to follow. Break it down into steps. When we learn algebra in school, we are not provided an equation the first day of kindergarten and told to solve it! We need to learn the basics, and we need to learn them well. If we can't add simple numbers together, we won't be able to add variables together either. Throw in Trigonometry and you have a whole new kettle of fish. Other than acronyms, can you remember what Sin, Cosine and Tangent mean? We can't go from 1+1 to solve the rate of speed of an object falling from a building of height X given a rate of acceleration of 9.8m/s/s over night. Break it into small steps, make it easy.
Small steps mean that you and the dog (I'll use dog from now on) can accomplish goals and landmarks. If the goal is to hard, you break it into smaller chunks so that it's manageable and you progress to the point you want to get to. Ah, the goal! The end behaviour. With small steps, you achieve small goals toward the end - the goal. Broken up into tiny pieces, things become easier for everyone to understand; learning happens faster (and probably bonding). Both you and the dog get a flood of happy feelings. As you get more skilled, you try more difficult things; perhaps your goal changes, what then?
If an athlete says they want to compete in a marathon, they run every day, maybe twice a day. They run long distances, they partake in a half marathon when they're ready, maybe two or three. Once they're ready, they tackle the end goal. Mission accomplished... now however, they want to beat their own best time. So they train harder, get help, perhaps a coach. They manage their goal. Now they want to be in the top 10! Even more training, a diet regime, more coaches etc. But each time they don't just wing it; they set out a goal. Some maybe set the goal in their head, but the fastest most productive people will put the goal down on paper and try to figure out what steps they need to accomplish it.
Encourage everyone who wants an animal to understand what it entails to have an animal. What needs an animal has, and what things that the animal will require (food, training etc). The welfare (and possible survival) of the animal is at stake.
A lot of people set out plans for their life. They set out plans for a home before they build it (or leave it to the architect and the contractor). Governments (usually) set out grand objectives for the military, which sets out realistic, day to day plans and strategies for a war. We plan a LOT. We practice a LOT. I don't know of any one nuclear scientist ever found in a reactor that doesn't know the difference between a proton and a neutron (ok, save your jibes, Homer Simpson doesn't count!). Lawyers make plans and contracts for clients. Carpenters follow plans to build houses. Sports teams have plans; nearly everyone who works as a professional has some sort of plan. We have plans either before we get into a career (education) or after we get into a career (mostly more education). To make a car, a company needs a plan. To make a cake, you need a plan! (a recipe). Yes, you can make a cake or other food after you've had some practice (ah... there we go practice!). So, why do we assume that we can train a dog, without a plan?
A lot of people do, and they get by. But (in Canada) at least 40 000 animals a year would disagree that those plans work; mostly because they've paid the ultimate price. Not always right away, but perhaps after some time. What do our future companions deserve? Are they disposable, or potentially disposable? I don't think so, and a lot of other people wouldn't think so either. They cost more than an iPhone if they come from a reputable breeder (sometimes even if they don't come from one!). We can replace a mechanical or electronic device if we screw it up or drop it on the floor and cause it to cease functioning in the way we like. What happens when we the same happens to an animal? They get returned or some worse sentence.
What can we do? We can plan. I would suggest planning everything well in advance. What will the dog/cat/gerbil/hamster/pig/sloth/boyfriend need? Physical requirements; mental requirements; medical requirements etc. Where will the animal get these requirements? Who will provide them, and when? Who will pay for them, and how? What behaviours do the dog/cat/etc come with that we might want to enhance; and what do they come with that we will not find appealing? All these things should be thought out before hand. Once you know what you need, you can work on, you guessed it, the plan!
The plan should be easy for you to follow. Break it down into steps. When we learn algebra in school, we are not provided an equation the first day of kindergarten and told to solve it! We need to learn the basics, and we need to learn them well. If we can't add simple numbers together, we won't be able to add variables together either. Throw in Trigonometry and you have a whole new kettle of fish. Other than acronyms, can you remember what Sin, Cosine and Tangent mean? We can't go from 1+1 to solve the rate of speed of an object falling from a building of height X given a rate of acceleration of 9.8m/s/s over night. Break it into small steps, make it easy.
Small steps mean that you and the dog (I'll use dog from now on) can accomplish goals and landmarks. If the goal is to hard, you break it into smaller chunks so that it's manageable and you progress to the point you want to get to. Ah, the goal! The end behaviour. With small steps, you achieve small goals toward the end - the goal. Broken up into tiny pieces, things become easier for everyone to understand; learning happens faster (and probably bonding). Both you and the dog get a flood of happy feelings. As you get more skilled, you try more difficult things; perhaps your goal changes, what then?
If an athlete says they want to compete in a marathon, they run every day, maybe twice a day. They run long distances, they partake in a half marathon when they're ready, maybe two or three. Once they're ready, they tackle the end goal. Mission accomplished... now however, they want to beat their own best time. So they train harder, get help, perhaps a coach. They manage their goal. Now they want to be in the top 10! Even more training, a diet regime, more coaches etc. But each time they don't just wing it; they set out a goal. Some maybe set the goal in their head, but the fastest most productive people will put the goal down on paper and try to figure out what steps they need to accomplish it.
Encourage everyone who wants an animal to understand what it entails to have an animal. What needs an animal has, and what things that the animal will require (food, training etc). The welfare (and possible survival) of the animal is at stake.
Saturday 22 June 2013
Something Blue... (hold your breath?)
Some people get grumpy when you point out that dog trainers aren't on the same skill level as surgeons when you're comparing regulations and training when you're doing comparisons. Fine; I can understand that. How about Plumbers, or Carpenters. You do need some training and some practice to use those skills. Grandpas used to build their own houses/barns/sheds/garages etc. Where they always safe? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Plumbing you know isn't safe when it leaks all over the place, so it's a bit easier to deal with (unless the pipes are already buried behind the walls or under the concrete floor!).Both Plumbers and Carpenters are regulated nearly everywhere. Either self regulated in their own industries, or regulated by law. Why? Because they can cause a lot of damage (or death!) if they do something wrong. So what does this have to do with Dog Training?
Anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a Dog Trainer and do nearly ANYTHING to a dog. Even people video taped and put on the internet, having a following from TV, showing things that would be considered assault or worse if it were done to an adult human or worse, a child. This might be partly the laws fault, but I don't think it is entirely. We, as a society, have a different view of dogs than we do of humans; sometimes even other animals.
Those that use abusive, coercive, intimidating or violent means of training dogs are starting to realize the backlash to their techniques. Slowly we realize as a society that these techniques are not only antiquated, but they aren't needed. Having a undergraduate science background I realize these techniques CAN get things accomplished, but they also have very serious side effects that are hardly ever mentioned that can put a dog in severe jeopardy. I can get my car moving if I put pure alcohol in the gas tank, but it's not wise.
Why do we allow techniques can make dogs more fearful, shut them completely down (Stockholm syndrome) and/or make them dependent on the devices in order to comply or cause aggression that wasn't there before, or worse yet, hide the "aggressive" signals what warn people the dog is uncomfortable and about to bite! What type of life would you have if you had to wear something around your neck that caused you (at the very least discomfort - at worse, pain) every day of your life if you did something someone else considered wrong. And what happens if you don't respond to those techniques? You're labelled as "un-trainable" and your owners are given to believe that you are a dog that is incapable of learning and beyond hope. Where does that leave you? If you're owners are lucky or dedicated, they find someone that is willing to help and overcome the damage that has already been done; if you're not, you take a trip to the vet.... (80% of dogs euthanized dogs in CFHS shelters are euthanized for "physical and behaviour unhealth" - aka. to sick or bad/unwanted [probably normal for dog] behaviour).
Is it all a matter of Consumer Rights? It's certainly a good start. What "whisperers", "dominance", "alpha-dog/pack leader" and the new "energy" trainers generally use is, to be blunt, violence to try to stop behaviours. If a dog sits when it's supposed to down -Zap, Yank, Yell, Hit, Poke etc. When the dog finally sits, those things stop (some of these trainers may) give the dog a treat at this point and claim they are positive trainers.
For the time being, if trainers are honest as to what they're using and what side effects are possible, then I think the public will choose to follow more and more progressive training methods. You can't slap together a house without using code; you shouldn't be train unless you understand what the effects of the training your using are. For over 100 years science has given us the answers for training, it's time we started listening to science and ethics. The last of the force trainers will fight and struggle all the way into this century, but sooner or later, they will have to come. When they do, we'll welcome them happily to a better way of training.
http://cfhs.ca/athome/shelter_animal_statistics
Sunday 26 May 2013
Something borrowed ... (not really; the history and science of dog training)
Most people know about Pavlov... ring a bell?Some people know about Skinner... need a box?
Keller Breland, Mirriam Breland Bailey, Bob Bailey?
How about Jean Donaldson, Ian Dunbar, Patricia McConnell, Karyn Pryor, Pat Miller?
All of the above have contributed enormously to the work of properly educated and scientifically fluent based dog trainers around the world. Notice I didn't mention any names of two North American training personalities (one in the US and one in Canada).
There is science behind training; whether people know it or not. For many many years, the Training community relied on lore passed down from trainer to trainer. Most of this lore still used came from training of war dogs. During the wars dogs had to be resilient; the methods used weeded out dogs that were not resilient were washed out. The harshness of the training was passed on after the wars; if your dog didn't live up to those standards, it usually meant an uncomfortable end ("He's defying me", "He's not trainable" etc). There was little scientific knowledge with this training; even though they were using what Pavlov and Skinner had already figured out in the Laboratory.
The people that brought science out of the lab into the world were the Brelands and Bob Bailey; students of Skinner. Using their techniques, they realized quickly that science worked quite well in the real world to train animals of all sizes and stripes.
Karyn Pryor and Ian Dunbar took these ideas and ran farther with them; turning them into usable and practical methods for every day people. Questioning the need for force at all. If, as some said, dogs were willing to please, why did you need force? Why could you use methods not involving force on some animals and need them on dogs? There was no logic in that and they proved there was little need to bully or coerce a dog. Making the dog do something was incompatible with them wanting to do it or wanting to be with you; reward the correct behaviour and you don't have to worry about all the other nasty.
The discussion continues though. Those claiming that dogs need to be put in their place will still use the old excuses. It should be an issue of Consumer Rights. Many of us will be happy if those that use force, coercion, pain, discomfort and/or bullying/intimidation come out and tell people outright what they plan on doing to motivate without the euphemisms of "alpha", "dominance", "pack leader" or "energy" speak. The public will decide, just like the public decided on the abuse of children and spouses -- the change in law followed. There is an ethical responsibility of ALL trainers to be straight forward with effects their methods will have; not to hide them. Science tells us what effects different types of training uses; if someone doesn't understand the science, they cannot understand what their methods will do. If they don't know, how is the public suppose to know?
(thanks to Ian Dunbar, Jean Donaldson, Kayrn Pryor and the others mentioned here for all the work they have done to get us to this point)
Friday 3 May 2013
Something New.... (Loose Leash Walking)
Something New...
Leash walking is one of the most intense behaviours to get out of a dog. Why? If you think about it, there is so many other more interesting things to do. So, what do we do? We either train the heck out of them, or if you're a bit lazy like most of us are (including me), there are things we can use to reduce the pulling.
Harnesses and head halters are a wonderful addition in the last few years. Although many are touted as "No-Pull" with the right other motivation SQUIRREL! your dog can easily CAT! pull you along if it really DEAD FISH! wants to. I would term them pull reducing harnesses. The harnesses I am talking about are ones that attach at the front of the chest to use their own forward momentum against them. As a scientist, I liken it like a fulcrum; depending on where it is, the more effect it will have. It works against a natural reflex as well.
Get someone to pull you by the arm, quickly, and without any warning (no 1...2....3!). Your natural instinct will be to pull BACK against this (the same with a shove). Sensible/Sensation, Easy Walk and Freedom harnesses are the common these days for anti-pull harnesses. They work the same way because you can attach them at the front (the Freedom harness has an additional attachment at the back) and this acts as the fulcrum. Ideally these are used in conjunction with training, but for some, all they use is these for a long long time without training... once back on the collars though, they will likely start pulling again. Nose halters and Gentle leaders will be the same.
Halters and Gentle Leaders are designed more to control the head (gently, not with a rough hand - snapping heads around can cause damage to the dog, which might lead to other problems). I don't recommend these as much as harnesses because if the dog loves to walk nicely and then SUDDENLY charge, the same head snap can happen. But for a dog that is all over the map (street) and is a bit less focused to specific things, these work well; it also allows you to get reactive dogs off of whatever stimulus triggers their reactivity. Training is helpful here too, but many don't bother.
Training is intensive and takes time, but is well worth it. The main concept in teaching a dog not to pull is to play "Red Light, Green Light" (Ian Dunbar). Every time the dog starts to go forward to pull, you stop, and wait for them to focus back on you or (better still) to come back to your side. For chronic pullers, this means a lot of stopping and waiting, but once the dog starts to understand what you want, it becomes a lot easier. Patience is a supreme virtue when it comes to Loose Leash Walking, but it is well worth it.
Leash walking is one of the most intense behaviours to get out of a dog. Why? If you think about it, there is so many other more interesting things to do. So, what do we do? We either train the heck out of them, or if you're a bit lazy like most of us are (including me), there are things we can use to reduce the pulling.
Harnesses and head halters are a wonderful addition in the last few years. Although many are touted as "No-Pull" with the right other motivation SQUIRREL! your dog can easily CAT! pull you along if it really DEAD FISH! wants to. I would term them pull reducing harnesses. The harnesses I am talking about are ones that attach at the front of the chest to use their own forward momentum against them. As a scientist, I liken it like a fulcrum; depending on where it is, the more effect it will have. It works against a natural reflex as well.
Get someone to pull you by the arm, quickly, and without any warning (no 1...2....3!). Your natural instinct will be to pull BACK against this (the same with a shove). Sensible/Sensation, Easy Walk and Freedom harnesses are the common these days for anti-pull harnesses. They work the same way because you can attach them at the front (the Freedom harness has an additional attachment at the back) and this acts as the fulcrum. Ideally these are used in conjunction with training, but for some, all they use is these for a long long time without training... once back on the collars though, they will likely start pulling again. Nose halters and Gentle leaders will be the same.
Halters and Gentle Leaders are designed more to control the head (gently, not with a rough hand - snapping heads around can cause damage to the dog, which might lead to other problems). I don't recommend these as much as harnesses because if the dog loves to walk nicely and then SUDDENLY charge, the same head snap can happen. But for a dog that is all over the map (street) and is a bit less focused to specific things, these work well; it also allows you to get reactive dogs off of whatever stimulus triggers their reactivity. Training is helpful here too, but many don't bother.
Training is intensive and takes time, but is well worth it. The main concept in teaching a dog not to pull is to play "Red Light, Green Light" (Ian Dunbar). Every time the dog starts to go forward to pull, you stop, and wait for them to focus back on you or (better still) to come back to your side. For chronic pullers, this means a lot of stopping and waiting, but once the dog starts to understand what you want, it becomes a lot easier. Patience is a supreme virtue when it comes to Loose Leash Walking, but it is well worth it.
Thursday 25 April 2013
"Something Old..." (Leadership -- Ghandi vs Stalin"
Something Old....
I've started writing this a few times now. I'm just going to address one big misconception about what a leader is. Why? Because it's made a comeback in the last 10 years because of certain TV celebrities in dog training.
Wikipedia: Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
So, are you a leader to your dog? What does a dog think leadership is? Does it have anything to do with dominance?
Let's talk about dominance. What is it? the fact or state of being dominant: as a : dominant position especially in a social hierarchy (Miriam-Webster online dictionary); so in order for your dog to be dominant over you, he has to make the rules; he has to be in charge of the resources. I don't know about you, but my dogs are allowed on the furniture, if they bark out the window while they're out there, they have to get off. According to some, they're being dominant by being on the furniture; they're being dominant by barking out the window. My two girls both jump up in my arms, so they're dominating me... but they only do it when I signal them to. I have dogs that give me "hugs" (putting their paws up on my leg or thigh) when I ask, but they're dominating me???
Dogs like rules when then can get what they want within them. A leader sets rules. A dog might say, "Hey, can I try this?" and if they get no feedback to the contrary, the might say, "Ok, then let me see if this works!" and continue on with it IF IT'S REINFORCING! (reinforcing meaning that it either maintains, or increases the behaviour). Case 1: "Hey, can I roll in this smelly fish?... Hello?... OHHHH AMBROSIA!" Now we have a dog that will likely roll in more dead fish, but Case 2: "Hey, can I roll in this smelly fish?... Hello? ... OUCH! Something bit me!" could very well reduce the chance of it happening again (assuming case 1 didn't happen a few times before). Not given any rules, a dog will do what works for them, just like any child without any parental feedback.
So a good leader is in charge, but allows their subordinates, if you like that term, to think for themselves, but gives them a framework to work within. Do I want to be in charge of EVERY single thing my dog does? No, I want to give them the opportunity to make the decision and reward them for making the right one and guide them toward that if it's a complex behaviour. Am I lazy? Maybe, but the fewer decisions I have to make for the dog, the more energy they expend making those decisions for me. A General doesn't tell each and every soldier which enemy on the battle field to shoot at, the gives an overlay and tells those under him to get the job done under certain conditions. Be a General, not a Tyrant.
ps. I don't know what a dog is really thinking; but I do know that behavior is understandable if you look at it... if someone says they can understand the inside of a dogs head, they're at best, pulling your leg, at worst, trying to give a sense that they are an expert in which no one has yet been scientifically able to accomplish.
Next few times...
Something new.... Something borrowed.... Something blue...
I've started writing this a few times now. I'm just going to address one big misconception about what a leader is. Why? Because it's made a comeback in the last 10 years because of certain TV celebrities in dog training.
Wikipedia: Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task".
So, are you a leader to your dog? What does a dog think leadership is? Does it have anything to do with dominance?
Let's talk about dominance. What is it? the fact or state of being dominant: as a : dominant position especially in a social hierarchy (Miriam-Webster online dictionary); so in order for your dog to be dominant over you, he has to make the rules; he has to be in charge of the resources. I don't know about you, but my dogs are allowed on the furniture, if they bark out the window while they're out there, they have to get off. According to some, they're being dominant by being on the furniture; they're being dominant by barking out the window. My two girls both jump up in my arms, so they're dominating me... but they only do it when I signal them to. I have dogs that give me "hugs" (putting their paws up on my leg or thigh) when I ask, but they're dominating me???
Dogs like rules when then can get what they want within them. A leader sets rules. A dog might say, "Hey, can I try this?" and if they get no feedback to the contrary, the might say, "Ok, then let me see if this works!" and continue on with it IF IT'S REINFORCING! (reinforcing meaning that it either maintains, or increases the behaviour). Case 1: "Hey, can I roll in this smelly fish?... Hello?... OHHHH AMBROSIA!" Now we have a dog that will likely roll in more dead fish, but Case 2: "Hey, can I roll in this smelly fish?... Hello? ... OUCH! Something bit me!" could very well reduce the chance of it happening again (assuming case 1 didn't happen a few times before). Not given any rules, a dog will do what works for them, just like any child without any parental feedback.
So a good leader is in charge, but allows their subordinates, if you like that term, to think for themselves, but gives them a framework to work within. Do I want to be in charge of EVERY single thing my dog does? No, I want to give them the opportunity to make the decision and reward them for making the right one and guide them toward that if it's a complex behaviour. Am I lazy? Maybe, but the fewer decisions I have to make for the dog, the more energy they expend making those decisions for me. A General doesn't tell each and every soldier which enemy on the battle field to shoot at, the gives an overlay and tells those under him to get the job done under certain conditions. Be a General, not a Tyrant.
ps. I don't know what a dog is really thinking; but I do know that behavior is understandable if you look at it... if someone says they can understand the inside of a dogs head, they're at best, pulling your leg, at worst, trying to give a sense that they are an expert in which no one has yet been scientifically able to accomplish.
Next few times...
Something new.... Something borrowed.... Something blue...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)