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/

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.

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

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)

Off Leash etiquettes (or why not as many people are as wrong as we think)

I've been thinking about this for a while now; I've read a few other blogs as well and comments on our local Off Leash Dog Park facebook pages.   Beyond the opinions that I formerly held, something I've noticed is that most of the time it's about what the dogs are doing to each other, and why whatever the other owner did was wrong.

As a Professional Dog Walker and Dog Training Instructor I know something about both people and dogs.  As an instructor I know that if I can't reach the people, then I won't be reaching the dog, and they might not get what they need.  As a walker, if I can't get through to the dogs that I walk and tell them what I want them to do then my life will be a lot harder.

So the problem is this as far as I can see.   Everyone is probably right, and everyone is probably wrong.   How does that work?   Everyone has their own ideas about what is acceptable for their dog, and other dogs and the interactions that dogs have.  Wherever they got these opinions doesn't really matter, they have the ideas in their head.  One thing that happens a lot in Off Leash areas is that dogs get into things that might be a little to much for them, and their people react.

It's in the reactions that we express our emotions and our ideas about what is appropriate.  I've seen to many professional walkers screaming at people in the park instead of just walking away.   I've seen regular people screaming at other people too, instead of walking away.   Everything you feel goes straight down the end of the leash and the dogs feel it too (even if they aren't on a leash).  

Let me give a (rather outrageous) example.   Little Fluffy the Chihuahua has Brutus the Bull Mastiff on the ground and by the neck.   Fluffy is in full shake mode, and Brutus is still, and looking more than terrified.   Everyone laughs, then Brutus turns on Fluffy... then everyone thinks that Brutus is an evil dog and shouldn't be in the park.  As I said, rather outrageous, but similar things happen with all sizes of dogs.   Now, Fluffy's parent is outraged, Brutus' parent is shocked and terrified; words are exchanged and near fist fights nearly break out.   "Fluffy was attacking him!  Brutus was just defending himself!"  "Brutus is a brute and should be expelled from the park!"  etc.  This isn't the first time that Fluffy has attacked someone like this, but it's the first time Brutus has reacted like this.   I'm assuming in this scenario Brutus had a really good bite inhibition with Fluffy and Fluffy was fine except for a bruised ego, and hopefully a better respect at not being a bully.

Who's right?  Both people; they both think that their dog was doing the right thing.  Who's wrong?  Both of them; they don't see the things that their dogs could have been different; or perhaps more importantly, what they could have done to keep their dog from getting into that situation in the first place.  Fluffy has had problems in the past like this but it's never really been noticed?  That isn't Fluffy's problem, it's a perception and handler problem.   Brutus protects himself when someone is being a jerk?  Then maybe his parent should have asked Fluffy's parent to get off.  Maybe they did, and they were met with a laugh.

How do we deal with this?   If someone isn't willing to act for their dog to keep their dog safe, do we have a right to touch their dog?   If it was a person, we'd say no; technically that could be considered assault.  But if you're dog is in trouble, or about to be, then gently pulling them, or another dog out of the situation might be warranted.   There comes risk in this and I would be very cautious.  In the middle of a tense situation, you risk your hand (or fingers) by pulling dogs apart at the head or collar.   A loud sudden noise might stop the activity long enough to get one or more dogs out of the situation with some other method.  Pulling them apart always risks the redirection of aggression ("I can't bite the dog in front of me, but I'm still mad, so... sorry, you're here, he isn't! [CHOMP]").  Not the dogs fault, but it's something we have to be wary of.

So is there any way to correct this difference in etiquette perception?  I would say no, not really.  Everyone has different ideas on how their dog should act.  With my group dogs, I don't mind if they hump one another (they've "worked it out" - literally and with careful supervision) but I don't generally let them hump other dogs; even if the other dogs owners say they don't mind.  I watch for the reactions of people and how they're looking at their dogs (if they're looking!); it's easier to tell frowns and scowls from smiles (which could be happy or nervous or polite indignation).  I watch the dogs and their reactions.  A tucked tail on a chased dog generally means someone isn't having as much fun as they might look like they're having. 

Everything about dogs is complex.  Everything about people is complex.  Mix them together and things get even more complex.   You know your dog (I hope); you know their reactions.  Hopefully the other people know their dog as well.   You have ideas, they have ideas.   Maybe they're the same as yours, maybe not.  Ask; Question; Query; find out what they think; what is acceptable and what isn't.  In order to make sure our dogs are behaving well, we have to learn how to be calm, understanding and listen to other people.  If that doesn't work and you feel that you are not being heard, walk away.   Sooner or later, people have a tendency of realizing that maybe their dog isn't acting appropriately for the other dogs; but leaving them thinking that people are just jerks in your dog park won't do anyone any good.

Mental Exercise

Throughout my time as a trainer and walker I've told people about mental exercise for their pups and dogs.   Why is mental exercise important?  Why is it important for us?   So we don't loose some of our abilities.  Granted, whenever we ask a dog to do something we're also asking for some degree of mental activity on their part because they don't speak human (although they understand it far better than we give them credit for - they even understand it better than we understand each other!).

Mental exercise in a dog can be anything from running random tricks or obedience drills to running full blown agility courses or even tracking, herding or other activities like that.  I always tell people that the reason border collie owners in the city take their dogs to the park 3 times a day for an hour at a time is to tire them out; the same amount of time giving the same dog mental exercise would tire them out too.

Treat games are a good way to tire a dog out -- numerous fancy treat dispensing toys can be used for this.  They can range from a pop bottle with a hole big enough for kibble to fall out in the neck filled with kibble, to fancy 40-60 dollar wooden puzzles (don't ask me how I know that some cost that much!).  The idea is that the dog has to work for it's food - which most of them love to do, once they realize what they're supposed to do.

Digging games, such as putting a toy in a pile of cloths/towels/rags and telling (esp. good for terrier) the dog to go get there toy after they've seen you bury it; once the dog gets good at it, you can keep them out of the room and then tell them to find the toy in one of numerous piles. 

Fetch/find games work the same way.  You could hide in a closet and tell the dog to come find you by just saying their name once while they're occupied somewhere else or with someone else.  

Lots of different games can be had, if you think about it.  If the dog is digging in the backyard, you could give them one place ONLY where they can dig, or find something for them to burn off that energy elsewhere.  Be creative, think like a dog; wag, and be happy!