A big argument of the positive-reinforcement-type trainers against the use of certain tools, particularly the e-collar, is that it will create something known as a Robotic Dog.
Aside form the fact that there already is a vast array of robot dogs, I would argue that, despite the outlandish goals of alchemy and other false sciences, there is no way we can transform a living, breathing metabolizing being into a mass of wires whose components communicate solely with 1s and 0s. Not to mention that simple robots were the icing on the cake for my generation when we were children: there were various animals that made noises, shuffled forward/backward and did those cute little backflips. One of my most coveted toys was GoGo, a little Maltese-like dog with wheels on her feet, and when you pressed the switch on the end of her leash, she would wheel forward with her legs moving so as to give the appearance of a live dog walking. Pull the switch back toward you and she would walk backwards. I recall wanting one quite badly in kindergarten when they first came out, which probably gives you some idea as to my current age.
Digressing from the obvious, though, I have found that a lot of people misunderstand their current usage of the term. Hence, the purpose of this entry.
While I am no IT expert, I understand the most basic unit of a robot is a computer, which makes it function and move and do all it's robot-y things. The purpose of a computer is to create output from something that was originally input. At a basic level, I press a key and a letter appears, much as what is happening as I write this. Or, I input a set of numbers connected by a multiplication sign. What comes out is considered a product of those two numbers. In a more complex example, if I place a DVD in my player and press the "close" button, I expect it to load properly and either a menu to appear or a movie to start.
To give the robot more of a living analogy such as what I'll be getting to with dogs, I'll move it along and go for a wider definition. Input from one source translates into output by the receiving entity: therefore, when I am told to clean the kitchen, my actions include (but are not limited to) clearing the table, washing the dishes, drying them, putting them away, sweeping the floor, and wiping down counters and cabinets. When I ask a professor for help with a concept that I don't quite understand, that professor goes to any length to make sure that I learn said concept in a way that will benefit me.
And finally, to bring it to dogs, when I say "Sit," I mean "Sit."
Of course a reputable dog-training company already took that slogan and made it into their corporate name, so I must give credit where credit is due.
The problem comes when you say any command, what is expected other than the right response?
Input, output.
Even the most peppy clicker-trainer mainlining Prozac, who has a dog on the end of a leash wearing the latest "humane" "no-pull harness" or headcollar or whatever newest gadget out there is promoted to be "pain-free" and "gentle," can tell the dog to sit. As long as the dog knows what is expected of it and understands the connection between the verbal command and the position it is to assume, the dog will sit.
Input, output.
Robotic, no?
The issue comes whenever any type of "traditional" training tool comes into the picture. Now, they say, we are talking about jerking, choking and shocking dogs. What horror!
Without going into detail about how we are not all but whooping our dogs into a submissize urinating frenzy, the positive folks seem to conveniently ignore the part of the argument that actually involves their training efforts, too.
I am still using the same commands as they. I am using rewards as they do (though not the same type; I prefer a toy or praise to food). I am teaching dogs to be well-behaved, same as they do. I don't see why they should have any issue with these facts.
I'm just adding the option to reinforce my commands with a correction should I be blown off in favor of something more motivating than my rewards. After all, when I say "Come," I mean "Come." I'm not giving the dog permission to go chase the bunny out of the yard, but the problem comes when the bunny is more stimulating (fun?) than me and whatever treats, praise or toys I have in my hand for the time being.
I'm sure the positive-only folks would agree that, when I say "Come" I most certainly want the dog to come to me. What makes this any more robotic than what would otherwise happen in a lower-distraction environment?
Here's where it gets a little fishy.
My use of an aversive to enforce a command that my dog has been taught and knows in every other situation is only a way to help my dog understand that I mean what I say. After all, if I do not help with chores around the house, my consequence is that I have to start paying rent to live at home. That's a pretty harsh consequence for someone who doesn't earn enough to pay rent for anything short of an efficiency in the worst part of town, so I choose to pull my weight, except when I'm on the computer writing blogs such as this one. (Hi, Mom!)
How robotic am I!
Were I to let my dog run off and chase the bunny rather than "Come" to me, I suppose some (although who, I can't imagine) would see it as my dog having a "free-spirit," along with the desire to "be a dog," or maintain her status as "guardian of the yard."
Absolute piffle to all 3 notions.
My dog's "free spirit" comes through her freedom from the leash and within the boundaries of the theoretical behavioral "fence" I have built for her through respectful and trustworthy training.
My dog's ability to "be a dog" is demonstrated through her choices made while free of any influences, including myself, the leash or her training collar. It is also shown through her job both as a pet and a therapy dog, not through her prey drive or ability to chase local fauna.
My dog's "guardianship" of the yard is only a ploy. My yard is mine, and if I say that she share it with various wildlife, then that's my rule and final stand on that matter. After all, I certainly don't enjoy sharing my government with types who take bribes and play to where the money is rather than listening to the will of the people...but no one's yet told me to start organizing a revolution to clear them out (and even if told, I am most definitely not the right person to start such an event!).
Simply put, I want my dog to obey because she wants to, and not for any other reason.
Unfortunately, even the act of obeying any and every command I give is robotic.
"Sit." Dog sits. "Down." Dog lays down. "Heel." Dog comes to heel.
What difference does it make if the dog was trained with a clicker, a training collar or a toy, especially so if the enthusiasm is more than obvious for knowing that it is doing the Right Thing?
I'm not at all opposed to specific lists. I find them helpful in some ways, such as what to buy at the store or what chores I have to do around the house, and then there's some situations where they are simply not applicable. Take driving as one example.
My basic list of requirements for my car is that it do what I want when I ask and play music for me while doing so. My responsibilities toward achieving that end include supplying it with petrol, maintaining a clean exterior and interior, and keeping an ear out for any odd noises. I'm obviously not the most judicious car owner out there, but it works and when something obvious goes wrong, it's enough to get it fixed and maybe get a tip on what else might be wrong. (Yes, I go to mechanics with whom I have a family history. I trust them completely and so far, they have not yet pulled the Ignorant Woman treatment on me, doG love 'em.)
However, someone else's list of car requirements might be more similar to how my list of dog training exercises works out. They might expect that their car runs only this way, have this exact amount of fluid of any type, make this type of noise when this pedal/button is pressed, and check the engine religiously to make sure that anything potentially damaging is fixed before it starts. While my car runs just fine and does the job I need it to do, I'm sure their cars receive much better overall maintenance care than mine. I'd even venture to say that they run better!
In dog training, most owners have a specific list of things that they want their dog to do, mostly along the lines of this little gag gift (I recommend zooming in to see all the details!). A majority of people have only 4 basic requests: they don't want to hear nuisance barking, the dog needs to not pull on the leash, stay in one place when told to, and it needs to come when called the first time.
Unfortunately, just like some people are better car owners than I, it's extremely difficult to teach some commands while neglecting others.
The whole point of training is to build the foundation of respect and trust between an owner and a dog, and as mentioned in a previous blog, this two concepts are the very foundation of a working relationship. Of course, it's easy to skip all the boring stuff like Sit and Down, but how else are you going to teach the dog to stay in one place? Of course "Heel," to some people, can seem a bit stuffy and over-the-top, but how else are you going to teach a dog how to walk on a loose leash without first teaching it the basic concept of focus before freedom? So many people just want to jump to the recall, but how else are you going to convince your dog that your commands are to be respected without first instilling in him a sense of respect through the more "boring" commands?
One cannot just pick and choose which parts of an obedience regimene are to be fulfilled when training a dog. It's either all or nothing. When finished with any training program, it should be expected that, within a reasonable amount of time and with some effort put towards polishing and proofing commands, that dog will successfully be able to perform a basic AKC Novice routine without any trouble. To get to this point, the dog has to show that it respects and trusts its handler to give fair direction, and the handler must respect and trust the dog to be obedient.
I'd be comfortable in saying that most average family pet owners are just fine with Novice-level training being the highest they go with their pet. It's not a problem to make them aware of the multitudes of different dog activities out there that require some basic foundation obedience: competition obedience, Rally, and even agility or Flyball, but it's safe to say that, unless they have some spare time on their hands to dedicate to further training, most will be perfectly satisfied, even tickled, with the newfound relationship they gained with their pet through basic obedience training. Letting them go further is most certainly an option so that the dog does not stagnate or become bored with just the same ol' stuff, but it's safe to say that dumbbell work or scent discrimination might be beyond the scope of what some people have the time or the dedications to teach their dogs.
Either way, it's amazing how, once people understand all that goes into obedience training, they're amazed at the opportunities that open up for them. After all, they only asked for (an average of) 4 things be taught to their dog. Now, their dog knows so much more, and the owner's eyes are opened as to what exactly their pet is capable of.
Along with this admission comes the opportunity to take the dog more places, meet more people, and be a good ambassador for both responsible dog owners and whatever breed your dog represents.
I unintentionally got into a dog training debate at one of my favorite blogs, and promptly stepped back to state that I refuse to do tit-for-tat arguments, and my participation in this string of comments was over. (Amazingly, the other party continued to rant and rave while providing support that I was nothing short of one mean, son-of-a-bitch for daring to correct my dog. Speaks to the maturity level of some, doesn't it?!)
I do not do such debates. There is no gaining ground, unless "you" have more supporters than "they" do, and of course "they" always tend to be more vocal because "you" are, quite frankly, abusing dogs and have no business putting your hands on any dog because it will only end up cowering, urinating all over itself, tucked tail, and repsonding out of only the fear of the highest degree.
Simply put, "they" are out to make "you" think that you might be able to drive a car, be a parent, own your own home even...but you are not fit to own, much less train, your own dog without ruining it.
How can one gain ground against such a flood?
Easy: not get dragged in dog training methodology debates!
It's not always the easiest to stay out of them, if nothing more to offer support to someone whose point of view happens to mirror yours, and of course once you start following them, it's hard to not interject your opinion here or call shenanigans there.
On doing some serious thinking about this issue, my thoughts were drawn to WHY we dabate these things the way we do. Heaven knows that no side will win, and the only way the debate ends is when we all go our separate ways and continue to do what we love.
Consider this my own official good-bye to the dog-training debate:
Why exactly DO people get so hot under the collar when debating dog training, especially in regards to the 3 main types of training commonly mentioned (those being the William Koehler-type methods, the positive-reinforcement-only/clicker methods espoused by popular authors such as Karen Pryor, and the balanced methods popularized by the likes of the Monks of New Skete and Cesar Millan)?
I have rarely found it necessary to get defensive or overblown because I am confident in my results. I see no need to compete with someone else's ability to train a dog for many and various reasons. Of course the dog is trained, and some are trained to a better degree than others, and we all know that training can all be accomplished toward different ends (agility vs Rally vs Schutzhund vs generic obedience that most families desire). I know why my method works, versus why it is superior or inferior to other methods. I'm not using my chosen method of dog training just because I was told to or because it's "tradition" or because I'm just a mean bitch, I'm using it because it's given me good results and can be tempered to individual dogs without losing the overall philosophy.
The problem comes when someone says that they use "what works" in their training. I can see where this might cause a rift...I understand that hitting a dog "works" to make it stop doing something, and I can understand that redirection also "works." For some dogs, using a food treatie is what "works" to help teach a concept, while praise "works" for the majority of ones I have met. Without elaboration of the technique, it's easy to hear where "what works" can go awry and cause some people to automatically go on the defensive, just in case that one person is one of those types who can do everything but own/train their own dog correctly.
In fact, one of my favorite comments on a dog-related blog was directed at anyone who uses corrections: the entry was centered around a video filmed by a security camera in an elevator that showed a man walking in with his dog, literally beating the snot out of it while the car was moving, and calmly walking out with it when the ride was over. The person who posted this video unabashedly announced that anyone who trained using Koehler's techniques would soon end up like this man. A follow-up comment was something to the effect of "And people still believe in training with "what works" rather than taking the time to learn more positive methods."
Far be it for me to see the remote connection between outright abuse such as that and the Koehler program from start to finish (instead of the other way around, as most people are more likely to read it), but I had to laugh at that, and I still do today. Sadly, my laughter is not so much of the humorous variety, more of the "I do feel sorry for you" type: some people are just never meant to craft out logical arguments.
I think this person summed it up quite nicely in regards to what someone means when they say they use what method "works" to train any particular dog:
"If you define "works" as reliable, single-command performance (and we're talking obedience here, not sheep herding) at liberty (off leash, in public, around distractions, and without batteries) well, then, your list of training methods that "work" gets very short indeed."
Any training method will work, and yes, backfiring counts...it's working, but it may not be in the way that the trainer or owner intended. The dog is being trained to DO something, even if it is to not listen, keep doing what it is doing, or, at best, do something else but still not listen. To make a method really take off and go far, though, it needs to really work. As this lady put it, when compared to the long list of various ways in "how to get a dog to [do this behavior or not do this behavior]", when speaking in terms of what the average family is asking of the average family dog, some methods are definitely better than others. Which ones, of course (without taking into consideration the method being advocated by the commenter), will always be under debate.
I think of it as the "I'd love to do that, I love animals" line used by people who have no idea what is involved in certain animal-related professions other than playing with cute doggies or kitties: loving animals is a start, but any such job is far from just receiving animal therapy all day. It's how you can further yourself in their care and learn as much as you can about anything related to them that really sets you apart. Similarly, positive reinforcement techniques are a start, and should always be present in training: but it's how you can vary the reinforcement and really polish commands using both rewards and corrections (seriously, who wants to use such a thing as punishment in training?!) in a way that benefits the dog the best that can take the relationship as well as performance to new levels.
And to tie it all together: as for me, I will stick with what I know to work, strive to make it better for both me and the dogs I will one day work, and not engage in tit-for-tat arguments over how to teach/unteach certain behaviors simply because someone believes that, without meeting me or judging the perfomance of my dogs rather than judging me on what tools I use, they can do the job that much better.
Let's ignore for a moment the whole thing about killer whales, being a Not Domestic animal that usually travel about a hundred or so miles per day in a highly social (and large!) family group and is a very sound-oriented animal, being kept in a pool with only a few other members of it's species where their echolocation bounces around like lasers at a Rush concert and they are regularly forced to learn and perform repetitive parlor tricks if they want to eat.
The point I want to drive home here is that anyone who claims to train with purely positive reinforcement will one day end up with a scenario very similar to this one (that is, if it's not already a regular occurrence!). The video embedding is disabled, so you might have to do Ye Olde Copye and Paste on the linky.
Again, this is the one time I'll ignore for a fact that a dog is not a whale is not a pigeon is not an elephant is not a chicken.
Any animal that is trained in a manner such as this will eventually find something more exciting than it's usual fare. Doesn't matter how much "trust" or "magic" or how strong the "bond" is, when something more stimulating or novel comes along, it's "Hey, the heck with this noise, check this out!" Whether it's something like this, or a dog who happens to find the local wildlife much more intriguing than any "gentle" redirection or "high-value" treat.
And then, if the animal in question happens to be a dog, the end situation is actually quite similar: the dog is quickly confined, whether on a leash or in a kennel, and removed from the situation. I'd call it a wasted learning opportunity, but no one asked me, and more than likely I am not the one signing the papers for that dog anyway.
Whales are not dogs. But in this case (aside from the bloodshed and death of a hapless bird who landed in the wrong place at the wrong time), they may as well be.
Apparently, at one point in time I mentioned some semi-regular posts about the progress made in Mallory's training.
Long story short, here is what happened back in January:
I know she's not that excited in the "I Am A Therapy Dog" tag picture, but that's generally the face she's giving us now whenever we drag out the evil evil camera. In fact, she knows just when it's out:
And when we find her in a somewhat photogenic position with a wise, suave or just cute look about her, we run to grab the camera. She'll all but stay in that exact position until we turn the camera on, and then it's "Oh, I was going to get up anyway!" Either that or she gives us a very dirty look that almost rivals that received by parents of teenages.
Believe it or not, she actually DOES enjoy wearing her headbands to visits at the hospital. Make her wear one at home, however, and she mopes around and grumbles under her breath about how embarrassing this is and won't someone PLEASE take this thing OFF!
And then we get the occasional lucky shot:
I once mentioned that she was scared of pretty much anything in the house. The dishwasher is no longer scary, we can pretty much scoot anything across the floor now, and garage doors in motion get a mere passing glance now. Progress was slow in some ways, but looking back over the past year, it's been amazing: sometimes it's hard to see day-to-day milestones, but hindsight says there's progress. Occasionally, there are still some Scary things that are genuinely startling. The cardboard box that is not supposed to move might skitter a little bit because it was bumped, some garage items are still raving monsters that need passed with the utmost haste, and men wielding sticks...well, that just might be something that takes a little longer. Despite all the success we've had, occasionally a gardening tool with a long handle sets her off, and it's sad to see Dad pick up his physical therapy tools and watch her cower. Of course, there's no way to tell her that we'd like to have words with whoever whacked her for whatever reason. Suffice to say that he (undoubtedly a he!) is going to the special circle in That Place where true animal abusers go to spend their eternity.
Our favorite game that she pretty much only plays with me (although this might also be because I'm the only one who plays it with her) is to stalk me: She'll run off and face me from a distance, and I'll lower myself and start moving reallllllly slowly toward her. If she's in a playful mood, she'll narrow her eyes, lower her head, lower her body and stalk toward me. One sudden move on either of our parts and we're running toward each other. It's pretty much a bunch of growling and bounding around from there. She once tried this game with our neighbor's elderly golden retriever. He was understandably confused when she stalked him, and his confusion turned to a slight alarm when she charged. She thought he was boring and hasn't done it since.
We play a variant of this game in manner most unpredictable, especially considering what she's probably been through. I'll take a leash (usually the leather one since we only play this on walks when off-lead) and fold it up while facing her, and then I'll hit the ground or my shoe or something with it. The louder the snapping sound, the more she wants to get it, and even more unpredictable at the time was that the more she was lightly hit with the leash (and to this end, I'm surprised that no one has called the police for want of witnessing animal abuse, if not for the obvious play actions of my dog), the more fun the game becomes. The fact that I can cease all play at one word is a wonderful thing: she has both control of herself and the ability to listen in high-energy mode. More than once has she done me proud.
Over a year ago, we had to say good-bye to the one of the worst dogs to have as a First Dog. Except for a few flaws that didn't really affect anyone but us, he was perfect in both who he was and the jobs for which he was placed on this earth. Looking back, it was hard to imagine life without him; once we had to say good-bye, it was hard to believe that it had been nearly 11 years.
Now, I can't imagine life without my little wiggle-bug.
A lot of people who pooh-pooh the use of corrections of any type in dog training are the ones who will trot out words such as "fear," "pain," "inhumane," and heaven forbid, the C-word: "cruel." All the time, more often than not, looking down their noses at someone who is obviously a morally inferior being to dare suggest that it's not only OK, but acceptable to teach a dog the boundary of appropriate and inappropriate behaviors.
What I don't get is, are they referring to training in general (is it better to NOT train a dog because anything of the sort makes it somehow NOT a dog?), or the basic learning process that any animal--or person--must go through in order to achieve a high reliability rate (teaching, proofing, and proofing with distraction)?
Ironically, my two favorite words are bandied about more in the positive-only training circles, despite their successful silence in the world of the more balanced learning regimes, or at least those that are open to the idea of using appropriate discipline when training a dog. Understandably, it's hard to even imagine these words ever coming into play in the case of dogs with extreme problems.
The word one is most likely to hear in any animal-related post is "love." I don't know anyone who doesn't love their animals, and this is yet another word thrown around by many positive-only camps: who doesn't love their dog, and who wouldn't want their dog to love them back? The problem rears it's ugly mug, however, when love doesn't solve aggression issues, or pulling on the leash, or even something as simple as not coming when called. I believe it was Koehler himself who stated that, and I paraphrase, a dog who desires leg of mailman will continue to strive for it while ignoring any attempts at distraction, such as redirection with treaties. In this situation, one might say that the dog doesn't "love" it's owner, since it obviously doesn't care about responding to the owner's wishes (and yet things like this are promptly forgotten when the dog is peacefully sleeping in said owner's lap in the evening!).
Ignoring all the ways that people show "love" to their pet in the absence of actual things that would greatly increase the quality of life, the truth is that there is no "love" in a relationship without my two favorite words: if there is neither respect nor trust, there is no relationship. It goes the same way for the relationship between and out-of-control dog and it's owner as it does with the abusive boyfriend and the girlfriend who insists that he is really a kind teddy bear at heart. In both relationships, there is no respect or trust, and the only "love" that is present is one that is fabricated by those who only use the word in hopes that, if they hear it enough, then all their troubles will end.
But using fair, appropriate corrections on a dog and achieving respect and trust without breaking it's spirit, causing aggression, submissive urination, and an overall lack of joie de vivre when out with it's cruel, non-dog-friendly handler? How does that happen?
Actually, it happens more often than one might think. The only problem is that not too many are willing to figuratively buy into the idea, much less put forth the effort needed to pull it off. (Hence the popularity of send-away training, which, like most things, has it's distinct advantages and unfortunate disadvantages.)
The idea that one must have respect and trust in a relationship is also representative of the realization that said relationship is a two-way street: there is some "give" in each direction, where each being is allowed to have some form of control. Where it differs with the dog/owner relationship is that, despite the "give," at the end of the day, the dog must answer to the owner rather than call the final shot.
So what is respect on the owner's end? Respect for the dog involves knowing that dog's capabilities and limitations. It involves knowing what drives that dog might possess (based on breed or personal hands-on evaluation), and knowing how to use those drives to the utmost advantage when doing any sort of training. Respect involves the acceptance that a dog is a dog, not a horse, nor a killer whale, chicken, elephant, pigeon, nor any other non-dog animal. Respect is using training techniques that will teach the dog in the quickest, most humane way to be a well-behaved canine citizen in human society, and accepting that those techniques might involve the use of an occasional mild aversive if necessary.
We all know respect is a two-way street, so what would it look like from the dog's point of view? It would involve respect for the owner, who has earned it through consistent, fair and clear communication. It involves respect for physical boundaries set by the owner, whether it's something as simple as "Just don't steal food from the counter" or the complexity of learning the boundaries of the yard. Respect is responding to a command the first time, because the dog understands that it can receive one of two consequences, the one being more desirable, the other not so much...and part of this respect comes from teaching the dog to not FEAR the undesirable consequence, but to move freely about within the realm of behaviors that are encouraged and rewarded.
Trusting one's dog, especially off-leash, is a bit of a stretch for some people because it involves something not quite unlike being thrown into the deep end while only having been taught to swim in the shallow end. Trusting your dog is a sign that you acknowledge your dog's ability to think though something and choose what is right: your dog sees a prey animal. What does it do? If you trust your dog and have trained it with respect, knowledge and confidence, the dog will make the right choice. Even when not doing training in and of itself, trusting a dog involves that it has learned what you desire of it and is willing to voluntarily stay within the boundaries of that behavioral "fence" you have erected for it during the course of training. Of course, it would be so easy for the dog to nip into the street to grab a ball, or blithely ignore your recall, or even chew on your favorite settee, but he chooses not to. Instead, he earns your trust by screeching to a halt at the curb and waiting, or dashing back with a happy dog-smile, or chewing on his favorite bone. Earning your trust earns your dog his freedom in ways that other dogs can only envy.
On the other end, your dog must trust you, and be given reason, as such trust is not free. Possibly one of the cornerstones of this trust is going to come from the respect that you show your dog through training and daily interaction. Some dogs might take a little longer to gain this trust due to previous experiences, while others will latch on immediately...and, sadly, some dogs will lose trust in their owners through means which are many and various, from misguided ignorance of attempting to do good to The Unrestrained Use Of Excessive Force. (Capitalized due to it being an actual song by an actual band, but the imagery and use of such a phrase is more than fitting in this situation, no?) Your dog must trust that you are a fair leader, and will not do anything that is out of line, such as meting out unwarranted discipline or being too rough in handling. Trust is from protecting your dog rather than putting him out to fight his own battles, and teaching him how to think for himself as well as respond to your commands and cues.
And I'm probably forgetting about a million other things involving the two-way street of respect and trust between you and your dog, but hopefully the basic gist of the idea is there.
Once the two parties in question have achieved a level of respect and trust appropriate for them, then there is a true relationship that, to others, looks as though you and your dog have a mind connection with each other. Whether your dog is trained for the obedience ring, the police force, yourself (in the case of a service dog) or even just basic house obedience doesn't matter.
Am I saying that one MUST train their dog to have a relationship? Far from it. Many people will insist that their dog is perfectly fine, and that their relationship is perfect as is. As long as that's the case and the dog is not a harm to anyone, it's certainly not my business to say that any dog, whether or not it knows obedience, is not worthy of a place in someone's heart. However, that doesn't preclude me from saying that, whatever your relationship is NOW with your dog, it definitely won't get WORSE if you take it one step further. Training is not just an exercise or a 15-30 minute commitment per day for life deal...it is what makes dogs true extensions of ourselves and true mirrors into who we really are. Do right by your dog...it's the furthest thing from being any sort of "cruel"!
It's no myth that every dog is different, and I would hope that no one (well, who doesn't have dollar signs dancing in their collective eyeballs) would perpetuate that myth by using a one-size-fits-all approach. Heaven forbid their approach fail: the consequences could range from absolutely no change in behavior (and hence a http://www.tsurodogtraining.com/plan_b.htm">call for euthanasia because the dog is "unfixable") to an extreme opposite in presentation, with maybe a few successes in between.
The problem comes when people try to justify that dogs with different personalities, temperaments and drive require different METHODS in training.
I'm as bad with intriguing lead-ins as I am with dramatic endings, so I'll start with the obvious conclusion: Different dogs don't require different METHODS as much as they do the VARIANCE of one basic technique.
It irks me when trainerettes (hat tip to Linda Kaim for the term) insist how pure positive is the way to go for many dogs, but others could benefit from some use of aversives (provided they are applied GENTLY so as to not cause the poor pup any lasting psychological damage), while still others are beyond help and worthy of nothing but a quiet, humane ending.
Then there are the myth-perpetuators who insist that if their method fails, there is no hope, none whatsoever.
It's at this point I call bull plop.
These are extreme examples, but then again the industry is filled with some extreme ideas in this era. What these people are missing is that, for all the different methodologies and techniques out there, they are still training a basic animal: a dog. After acknowledging what is on the end of the leash, we must now look at what breed or type or dog: is it a herder? A hunter? A retriever? An independent Spitz-type dog? One must have SOME idea of the type of dog on the end of the leash in order to use potential drives and desires to the best of one's ability, as well as knowing approximately what general temperament should present itself. Knowing the individual personality is going to be a definite plus: is this particular dog neurotic and shy or nervous? What about the one that is cocky and doesn't mind flipping the bird now and then? Do you have a paper tiger on the end of your leash or a real one? Now let's think again why the dog is in training and what particular problems exist, both to be solved and to be learned. The question is not "What METHOD would be best for this dog?" but "What VARIANCE of technique will be the right fit for this dog?"
The above paragraph has the unfortunate effect of looking like a formula, and while some parts of training are procedural, the actual teaching and learning are anything but formulaic (although they might become repetitive!). Most of you can probably zip off the buzzwords by heart now, all together now: Exercise, discipline, affection. (However, this is not training as much as it is a way of life, but it's still an oft-repeated concept.) Behavioral researchers have attempted to turn what is really an art into something that can be measured and categorized, and while a small part of this is beneficial to the industry, it's actually more of a disservice to what true trainers consider is an art.
Now, I don't mean "Art" as in the class where you got to get dirty with clay and glaze, use fancy watercolors, pretend to get high with markers, or splash around in the darkroom. It's fun to think about, though. I certainly miss those days.
The art of dog training is to first know, for example, the basic language, instincts and motivations of dogs. I'm not going to explain all that, since the Secrets of a Professional Dog Trainer! book goes into detail with that quite nicely in the first section. But once one understands how dogs WORK (to use a rather general word), the question arises: "How can I use dogs' own workings with the right technique and vary that technique to suit this individual dog?"
The average pet-owner is taught to think in terms of positive and negative, and I'll completely drop the psychobabble here, Positive will mean good, happy, kittens-and-rainbows etc while negative will mean bad, aversive, thunderclouds-and-death kind of things. Of course these things are usually placed in linear mode, so that the Bad is on one end and the Good is on another. The average owner is taught to think in terms of a sliding scale: if you are not using enough Good in your training, then clearly you are using more Bad than necessary, and must use less Bad and more Good or else your dog will hold a grudge and hate you for life. (Which might be true for serious yank-n-crank techniques used on the wrong dogs!) They're taught that, by using enough Good, they can stamp out that awful, evil Bad, just like in the movies. And if they DO in some way/shape/form have to use any Bad, it must either be used gently and/or as an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT because if it doesn't work, your dog must be euthanized or rehomed to a farm where it can have all the room it wants to run around.
If only it were that easy. To make it easier on me, I'm going to keep using Good and Bad just so I'm not using the more Biased And Confusing Behaviorism Terms.
In situations regarding basic training and obedience, I do not accept the sliding scale, nor do I accept the "All dogs need different methods" argument. The sliding scale is just unrealistic, and the "methods" argument is just a way to appease people who may disagree with the fact that you have no problem using such a thing as a pinch collar when training your dog. The truth is, when someone uses a different "method" on a dog, they are not reinventing the wheel...just making it more refined to their needs.
Someone who drives a race car is going to need a specific type of wheel. The off-roader riding in the ATV is definitely not going to use those same wheels. An average city driver is pretty much not going to have any use for either of the aforementioned types of wheels. Yet, if you remove the wheels, even just one, NONE of these vehicles are going anywhere. But it's the same thing moving them forward...just different types.
And so, I come to my dramatic point: training involves using the SAME METHOD on EVERY DOG, but varying the degrees to which we use our Good and Bad.
An extremely soft, insecure or underconfident dog might need a whole truckful of reserved, calm Good and not a lot of Bad. A hyper dog going a mile a minute might need a lot of Good and and a little bit more Bad to teach control and restraint. A stubborn dog might need a lot of Good and some Bad in order to teach that when asked to jump, one must do so. An extremely aggressive dog (whether handler- or dog-aggressive or anywhere in between) might need a lot of Good along with a lot of Bad to teach that any aggression is absolutely unacceptable in any situation.
What passes as Good for one dog might be Bad for another: not all dogs enjoy a high-pitched happy voice, a hearty thump on the ribs, or even the consistency of a clicker and treat. Some might find them too boring, too scary, or just not motivational enough to keep going. Our shy dog might suffice with a treat, some calm physical contact and soft "Good." The hyper dog, is, of course, going to thrive off attention and maybe find Good in the throwing of a ball. Our aggressive case we might not use happy praise either: for this dog, Good might simply be communicated through the lack of Bad (which should not be interpreted to mean "lack of praise").
What passes for Bad as some dogs might be WAY Bad for another: a stern look for our shy, insecure dog will more than suffice, while our aggressive case will just throw us the finger and proceed as usual. However, it we gave a heavier correction to even our hyper dog as we would give to the aggressive dog, that would be a little too much--and let's not consider what it would do to our shy dog. Underkill would result in no change from status quo, while overkill results in total shutdown.
I hope everyone noticed the pattern on our respective dogs: they ALL receive Good in some form, whether it's from praise, food, or play. However, they all also received varying levels of Bad based on their temperaments and individual needs, and whatever FORM that Bad takes is up to the dog: does it require a stern "No"? What about a collar correction, and if so, to what degree? Is there a particular stimulus that is NOT right for this dog? (Case in point: My dog wears an e-collar. I do not stim her. She is too soft even for a lower-level stim, but responds to the pager just fine. She also will wear a pinch collar occasionally. A light tug is all that is necessary. Anything higher will shut her down.) THIS is training. Remember that Exercise, discipline, affection thing I wrote earlier? Training is not a lifestyle, and this particular lifestyle is something that I do recommend in that order for every dog.
Between using a balance of Good and Bad along with a proper relationship with your dog, there is no need to use any other "method" to train. What's important is not how you appear to others: anyone with a pinch collar on their dog is automatically assumed to use it in the most severe manner, and anyone with an e-collar is assumed to be lighting up the poor animal like a Christmas tree. Others are not the one living with your dog, vetting your dog, or sharing a healthy dog/owner relationship with your dog. If you are training your dog in a balanced way that the dog understands and that gets you consistent, reliable and reasonably quick results, then the only worry others should have is how come THEIR dog won't respond to commands after watching yours do so flawlessly, with a wagging tail, a spring in his step, and the willingness to do it all over again.
And their worries should start at the source: choosing a trainer who specializes in the ability to vary a single, traditional, time-tested technique (and the tools used, if necessary) to suit the individual dog. There is no such thing as a "different method." There are only different dogs.
While one might argue that the newspeople only selected "family friendly" breeds, the concept would no doubt be repeated with pet mastiffs, Shepherds and the like. Simply put, in the vast majority of cases, no pet dog will bite someone unless it is an act of aggression that the owner should have seen coming.
It's also interesting to note that a lot of lawyers do not support using a "Beware of Dog" sign, as it is basically admitting that you have an aggressive dog who WILL bite no matter the circumstances. This is an extreme liability, and better signage would be along the lines of "Dog in yard".
While no one's yet confronted me about it, I'm sure I get a lot of mean looks from people behind curtains or those who are just really good at concealing their facial expressions when it comes to letting dogs mark while on a walk. Why? The short answer is because I don't allow it: it interrupts the pace of our walk, it's rude, and it focuses the dog's mind on something other than me.
The long answer is a little bit more involved, and it probably doesn't lessen the mean looks in the long run.
In a good working relationship, a dog looks to it's owner as a pack leader. Ideally, the relationship is one where the dog has been allowed to learn by reinforcement, as well as mistakes and fair corrections, so that the dog is not afraid of misbehaving so much as it is confident that any decision that it does make will be a good one because it knows where the boundaries of "bad" behavior lay. Because the dog learns that it is not in charge, it then assumes a more submissive, albeit confident, role as a happy, secure, loyal pet who will do just about anything for it's owner.
Where marking comes into this is the need (drive) to claim something, be it an object, territory, or person. A dog who respects it's leader and who is comfortable with that hierarchy should feel no need to desire anything such as what is achieved through a quick urine squirt, because there is no need for it. While on a walk (which is the most common activity to observe marking), a dog is co-operating in an activity that bonds it closer to it's owner: the owner leads, determines which path will be followed, determines what stops will be made and when, and the dog gains attention (reinforcement) by keeping a focus on these activities. I don't mean that the dog should be keeping a full eye-contact competition heel the entire time; indeed, a walk should be relaxing (even the portions where the dog is asked to do obedience exercises) and the dog should be allowed to notice what's going on around it, but without going too far forward or lagging too far behind it's person.
I'll cover in a later blog how and why, when taught correctly, this is actually beneficial for the dog in terms of mental exercise.
By going off to sniff an object with the intention of marking, the dog is indicating a certain lack of respect for the person by going outside the expectations of what is considered good behavior. Whether this happens in the home on the corner of a couch or a toy, or outside on a bush or tree, it's behavior that I consider unnecessary if the dog has a good working relationship with it's leader. While this behavior, such as the likes of jumping, digging, chewing, mouthing, etc is natural to dogs, it is not something that I want my dog doing: we consider it no problem to curb other such behaviors in the interest of teaching respect for humans, and when taught appropriately, the dog doesn't suffer in any way by NOT being allowed to perform those behaviors (provided it is given an effective outlet for those affected by activity!). As such, to deny my dog the opportunity to mark is not taking away any part of his manhood, nor is it depriving him of what some overly emotional types consider "just being a dog." As a matter of consequence, I like to consider that the majority of well-trained dogs who respect their pack leaders are truly more dog-like and live fuller lives than those who are allowed to rule the house, treated as commodities (here's lookin' at you, Hollywood!), or live outside 24/7, among other circumstances.
In regards to marking during a walk, it is no doubt an annoyance for owners to have to stop at every tree or bush and give it the old sniff-n-squirt. While a walk should be relaxing, it should also have a rhythm to it. It should have direction, a purpose and the intent to go somewhere, even though most of them start out and end at the same exact point. It should be relaxing, fun and focused, allowing for the benefits of both physical and mental exercise. I want a dog's brain to work with me and make it's own decisions. While going off to mark a tree indicates a degree of independence prided by some owners ("Oh look, he's doing his own thing! Such a big boy!"), it is not an activity the dog should feel pressed to do--as if the every tree he doesn't visit will turn into some demon if not calmed by the presence of a drop of urine. The almost-frantic frenzy dogs enter in an attempt to mark as many outdoor items as possible is visible to a lot of people, but the obsessiveness of the behavior isn't so obvious to those who insist that it is a part of their daily excursion.
In some cases, this is actually quite rude to allow a dog to mark. As with breaking the heel position while out on walks, it indicates a lack of respect for the pack leader's domicile and possessions, as well as those of others. I see this often with dogs on extendable leads: he is frequently allowed to stray from the sidewalk onto someone's property, often right up to the house itself, and mark at will what is officially that of someone else's. Even marking bushes next to the sidewalk is rude if they are obviously part of a landscape arrangement: dog urine, while known for causing brown spots in the lawn, can also ruin parts of plants if applied too often. The poor little boxwood out front has certainly seen quite a few lifted legs!
Might one argue that, if no urine application is desired, we might just avoid putting such plants in proximity of the sidewalk? It's possible, but implausible. The land that my family paid for is ours to play with; why should we cater to those who insist on allowing their dogs to use it as their personal toilet or target range? It's easy for someone to pick up any poo piles that might occur--quite naturally might I add--and it's even easier for a responsible owner to prevent a dog from marking, even if it's attached to an extendable leash; however, with most of these owners, it's quite difficult to get through the idea that it's the right thing to do!
The drive to mark is not just a male thing. Females do it too, although it is not as commonly seen because they tend to overmark more flat surfaces, and some do not even lift a leg while doing do. While neutering can fix the behavior, oftentimes it is something that has become a behavioral habit for the dog, and this is where the benefit of correction comes into the picture: just as we correct a dog for jumping (and subsequently reward him when he does not), we can correct a dog for marking (although the reward might not be as overt as the one for not jumping). Even intact dogs can learn to not mark, although this might take some effort if intact bitches are present. It's not impossible as some people seem to moan and groan about; the dog simply needs to learn respect for it's pack leader, and the boundaries within which it may act and the consequences that come from both misbehaviors as well as good behaviors! This is what truly makes a dog, a dog...and that is indeed the best kind of companion to have by your side!
I made a mistake recently: I got into a debate about e-collars on a YouTube thread in the lair of the Beast--Victoria Stillwell herself. I politely ended the comment-conversation and moved it to messages, where I was bound by no character limit.
At halftime, the ball was in my court and I was asked to comment on if an e-collar was used in the situation of a Tucker, a terrier pup. I'll let you watch the video to get some perspective.
(Please note that nowhere in the video does it state that his misbehaviors occurred ONLY during grooming sessions, as the "Description" area clearly asserts! It appears that the woman brought home her dog and was instantly beset by issues.)
The ball I was to hand back over was tagged with a request to determine whether or not an e-collar was used on this dog in the process of "taking him down."
This was my response:
I am not going to comment on the quality of training in the video, and as such will not answer your question. It is not my place to determine what tools and techniques were used on the dog, and without having seen the dog or worked with it in person, I would be doing a disservice to critique the second-hand advice (such as what the woman was telling us that other trainers told her) I heard. There was no mention of tools used, techniques to "dominate" the dog, or the qualifications of the trainers involved other than the one on which the video focused.
What I did see was a dog being desensitized to a situation in which it was previously traumatized, and being taught a basic trick (giving the paw and allowing it to be manipulated and the nails trimmed). I saw no attempt to work with the dog when it was actually misbehaving, nor did I notice any concepts being taught that might make the dog a better pet. Yet, miraculously, that one training session for ONE issue made Tucker a better pet and gave his owner a better relationship with him. That's either some good editing or maybe I'm really missing out on how easy training could be: all I need to do is teach my dog to roll over, and instantly she will come on command regardless of what she is chasing in my backyard!
You ask me a loaded question and show me a highly edited video to back it up: the whole problem was an issue with the dog's behavior in general, biting the owner, misbehaving in the house and being a stereotypical 'bad dog.' The video did not address the issue; rather it addressed one problem that was introduced to us through a very graphic description of an experience that NO real trainer or groomer would allow a dog to go through. By the way, is it a shock (no pun intended!) to you that I used loads of treats to help my dog become accustomed to the dremel that I use on her nails?
The fact that anyone can be a 'trainer' today is a grave disservice to people with problems such as this woman. They took her money and left her with a problem dog without referring her onto someone who might have been more help to her than they (although here, we get into the question of what techniques they recommended, and how dedicated she was to following their advice to the fullest)! This, in my humble opinion, is nothing short of fraud. I'm sure both of us watched that video and thought "Oh I could fix that if only I could work with the dog!" Are both of us trainers? I would give my subjective assessment to that question, but I will refrain from offending you (for the record, I do not have a training business; rather, I have a lot of hands-on and theoretical experience, and knowledge that has helped many other peoples' relationships with their dogs where the pure-positive/clicker-only model had failed them).
Two more things: 1) The dog shown was either an Airedale puppy, or an Airedale mix. This breed is a LOT bigger than what I saw on that grooming table. The fact that this animal might have been exhibiting puppy behavior (if it indeed WAS a pup) was completely overlooked or perhaps left out so that it would put the other 'trainers' in an unflattering light. 2) There is a large difference between 'dominating' a dog and 'domineering' it. I much prefer the former (which produces a dog much more willing to do what you want when you simply ASK), while what this lady was describing sounded a lot like the latter (which creates a dog bent on resisting anything asked of it, and as such must be DEMANDED to do something), with the trainers using the much more accepted word in place of what they really wanted her to do.
Keep your eyes open when watching videos dealing with clicker training or any obvious pure-positive agenda. While not everything is this glaring, the sleight of hand used to draw people into the fad are there: "Oh, you are having an aggression problem? Well, let me show you how quickly I can teach your dog to sit and lay down!"
Positive reinforcement has its place in every training program. However, fair, appropriate corrections have their place as well. To deny the existence of a balance is to have your head in the sand: Put simply, eating fast food and taking a multivitamin might sound like a good idea, but unless you acknowledge and incorporate fresh fruits, veggies and whole grains into your diet, you're only digging yourself deeper.
Adopting A Dog
