Sunday 1 June 2014

I'm migrating to my webpage powered blog.  Most, if not all, posts here will be revamped, and republished there; I'll keep old ones here, but some are pretty raw, especially the first few.  They will be more polished and flow better once republished. 

Time to use that University education for something!

Thanks!
by Scott Nygren

Saturday 15 March 2014

A shift in thoughts

Recently some things have been happening in the dog training world.  The tide has slowly been turning over the last 50 years away from either misunderstood harsh methods, or from  misunderstood science.  Quebec is the latest jurisdiction to ban the use of both electronic (stim, e-collar, 'tap' collar etc) collars as well as prong (pinch etc) collars.  Use of these devices on a dog, in training or otherwise, can result in a $600 fine.

Germany has also banned the use of shock collars as well as some other countries; and yet others are also considering a ban on them.  The City of Toronto in Canada bans them in public parks - although most people that use the parks in Toronto do not know this.

The United Shutzhund Clubs of America ban the use of these devices in or on the grounds where competitions are being held.  (although it does seem that they are still allowed to be used otherwise).

More than one country has banned the use of the methods used in the Dog Whisperer TV program as well.  The man himself may want to do good for dogs but the methods used in the program are what outraged numerous groups.

The FCI (FEDERATION CYNOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALE) the overarching body for all National Kennel Clubs in the world, bans the use of prong collars during competition (again, they cannot be on the grounds of competition).  They are currently also suggesting that a ban on users of these devices before after or during competitions be enacted.

So why would are these bodies and governments trying to enact bans on these devices?  Perhaps lobbying by those of us that disagree with them has started a trend, but I would like to think that our politicians have actually looked at the science behind the arguments and seen the reality.  Aversives such as these are not only unnecessary, they cause a welfare problem for a lot of animals that they are used on.

I can hear the disagreements and ranting already.  "You can't tell me what methods to use to train my dog!"  Yet I (the public/province/country) can tell you what to use or not use against your children... or your spouse.

"They only stop the dog from XXX they don't hurt them."  At the very least, they are a strong annoyance, or they wouldn't work.  The science backs this up.  If something decreases a behaviour, then we are either adding something or taking something away (positive punishment or negative punishment).  There HAS to be some mechanism that the dog either finds aversive (need to avoid - not safe) or aggravating (you took something safe away!) for punishment to work in these two cases.  So if just the sound or a prong or choke chain is all that the dog reacts to, then they don't need to wear the collar.

The classic Straw Man "if we don't use these methods the dog will be destroyed!".  Science proves that DS/CC (desensitization and counter-conditioning) are what we need.  If I'm scared of clowns, and every time one comes near me someone zaps me with a tazer to keep me from punching it's lights out I'm going to start getting even more jittery every time I see clowns because I'm going to expect a possible zap.  Electrocuting me is not the answer; therapy to work on helping me deal with the emotions behind the evil clowns is.

Step by step the world is starting to understand the value of a healthy emotional life of the animals we keep in our midst.  Hopefully it will happen with more frequency.

Thursday 13 February 2014

I know the soap is what works, but I still want hot water to kill the germs....

I was doing dishes today, and something occurred to me that there is a lot of Cognitive Dissonance in the world.  This came about when I was thinking as the hot water ran out while I was washing the dishes (our building has two large hot water tanks and if one runs dry - takes a while for the other tank to kick over it's water).  Hot water is not needed to kill off most of  the bacteria that might be on the dishes... soap is.  I'm a trained Biologist (mostly working with... yes, bacteria).  We didn't toss things directly in the autoclave, we washed them out first THEN steam heated the crap out of them to kill off spores and any residual bacteria or spores that might still be stubbornly hanging on in some little corner under a protective piece of agar we might have missed.

Cognitive dissonance is holding two contrary beliefs that are, once you examine them, incompatible.  In the dog training world, some of these views, when they're examined, are glaring.

"If I don't use these methods, the dog will be put to sleep."  (when talking about using aversive techniques to keep the dog from performing behaviours - ie. they're using only Operant Conditioning).  Technically this is a straw man argument; but for those that do understand Pavlovian conditioning, Cognitive Dissonance is at play as well.  Why?  If you understand what Pavlovian conditioning is, then you understand that adding unpleasant stimuli when an animal is already stressed, has potential side effects -making the reaction to the initial stimulus worse or changes the reaction to a new stimulus or object (person) instead.

"Using treats is bribing the dog."  Yet when push comes to shove, a lot of the same people claiming this still use things that the dog wants to train in the R+ (positive reinforcement) quadrant of training.  Using one type of motivator the dog wants while ignoring another, is dissonant.  The reward used for reinforcement only matters in how much the animal wants that reward; if the animal works harder for certain rewards, why not use them to your advantage?  Two of my dogs would happily work for a tug toy or to chase a ball; one of them could not care less about those motivators but works his butt of for a piece of kibble. 

"I only use only Positive Reinforcement" - meaning that they would like to use just treats and things the dog likes.  I can't see how this is would actually work, unless the dog did nothing but offer behaviours that were not annoying to the trainer/owner.  In theory possible but I think that would take a trainer and a dog both of incredible skill and tolerance for low rates of reinforcement.  A lot of the time, people who do claim this, also use some levels of P- (negative punishment) in the form of time outs;  Either dissonance or misrepresentation.

"Dogs are pack animals and require a structure with an alpha."  This thought makes me chuckle a lot.  If we think about it (and I've written about it before) the statement is dissonant.  Alpha here means the boss; the one who is in charge.  Until my dog learns to drive, earn money, buy groceries and ration out my time, food, entertainment etc I won't worry about, and I don't think anyone else should worry about, a dog wanting to be "dominant".  Dominance displays, resource guarding might be different matters, but this doesn't mean that the dog is in charge.  They're trying to give you information at that point - our job is trying to figure out what they're trying to say and either teach them something better, or show them that behaviour is unacceptable.  For those that are familiar with current science (and even old science) the "alpha" mythology is just that; a myth - at least as portrayed in popular culture.  The Alphas were meant to be a statement of mother and father. The dissonance comes from thinking small pieces of the dogs behaviour repertoire mean that the dog is trying to rule the house.  Here is a little video to help with this.

At times we over analyze dogs.  Yes, there are times as trainers and owners we want to know what our dogs are thinking.  Let us be honest though.  I don't know about you, but I can't even figure out what my wife is thinking a lot of the time.  I know that looking at dogs, I can't figure out what they're really thinking - that's a black box that I might never understand.  BUT, I know what works for them.  I know how to manipulate their behaviour.  They might be thinking that I'm the best thing on the planet, or they might be planning on taking over the world.  But does that matter?  Not really.  They might be laying at my feet right now to keep themselves warm all burrowed up in a pile, or they might be waiting to pounce, just in case I foolishly drop a piece of food on the floor so they can gobble it up as an offering from a subservient whelp.  Either way... Learning theory still holds for them; they do what works; they respond to safe/dangerous.  My job one way or the other, is to use that to whatever advantage I might have.