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)