Rom

For example,

I know of a dog, an 8 month old GR. This dog was jumping on visitors, stealing washing from the bedrooms and crying at the door when it wanted company, it was rewarded for this as a puppy as the owners thought it was cute.

Thats an example of how +R can go terribly wrong.

They got in the (what they thought were pros) franchise Dog trainers. They were advised to alpha roll the dog when it jumped up, throw chains at it when it cried at the door and I can't remember what was suggested for the stealing.

After one month this rambunctious puppy was fright biting when the owners went to pat it, and basically was a nervous wreck.

.....and an example of how +P can go terribly wrong.

Like Mark said, +R doesn't work for all dogs. The RSPCA disputes this and I guess that they are referring to instances such as the above to support their claim. The thing that bugs me is that they fail to recognise that +P can be added to training without making a mess of a dog in the same way that +R can be used in training without making a mess of a dog and their stance hinders the education of using +P effectively. They don't even recognise that the training tools they promote can and do apply +P stimulus.

There also seems to be a "throw away" attitude to the instincts of our canines. Just to suggest that dogs have been domesticated does not go to follow that basic ancient instincts have not carried through in one shape or form (and in varying degrees to each breed and individual within breed). In the RSPCA's response, it has denied (or ignored to suit its own argument/agenda?) that instinct plays any part in our domesticated dogs' behaviour.

ETA: Answers such as "dogs are domesticated" really annoy me. It answers to absolutely nothing in relation to the behaviour of dogs although we are expected to accept it AS an answer.

I agree again

RSPCA:

It is no surprise that their behaviour patterns are just as different. Making comparisons between the two is akin to giving human relationship advice based upon studies of the behaviour patterns of Cave Men.

Back in the early 90's when I was studying human psychology, one of the core subjects was ancient history. It was recognised that while the nature and characteristics of some of the behaviours have changed with time, there is little by way of significant change in the instinctive motivations behind those behaviours (eg. humans still have instinctive motivations to court and mate with each other, but these days the courtship probably wouldn't be too successful if you started out by bopping the woman over the head with a wooden club ....but then I guess that would depend on how desperate you are and who was doing the bopping ), even though we too look very different to our cave dwelling ancestors. In my opinion, dogs have been through far fewer changes in the characteristics of behaviours than humans have, other than those that could be attributed to either dilution or concentration of the same instinctive motivations that you would find in the wolf.

On the contrary......... " Many other people" don't have any input in regards to making laws and influencing government and local councils.

I agree.

RSPCA:

Fortunately we do not need to rely on studies of wolf behaviour when training dogs, as there are decades of evidence-based research on the ways in which ALL animals learn, including dogs. Its called operant conditioning, and is the basis for our approach.

I also find it annoying that they represent their method as 'operant conditioning' without acknowledging or accepting that positive punishment is indeed a part of operant conditioning....its kind of like they're bastardising the factual science to suit their own ends and misleading the public. This IMHO is a criminal deception.

RSPCA SA Blog spot

Positive Reinforcement versus Punishment in Dog Training

March 8th, 2007

The following is our response to a comment that was posted by “Mark” on 5th March about our blog on dog training devices which the RSPCA does not agree with. We disagree with “Mark’s” opinion! (which is reposted below)

Reponse from the RSPCA

Mark, thank you for your comments, as they highlight misconceptions that exist about our training philosophy here at the RSPCA and its consequences. For those unfamiliar with positive methods, it might seem that we advocate treating our dogs with kid gloves and letting them do whatever they want. This is absolutely not the case. Being positive does not mean being permissive. Our use of rewards (food, toys, play, praise and attention) is just part of a program that includes proper management to limit the dog’s opportunities to misbehave, and the use of passive punishment (e.g. ignoring unwanted behaviours, removing attention, time outs etc).

When analysing dog behaviour it is misleading to talk about wolves and pack behaviour. Dogs have been domesticated for over 100,000 years, and it is widely accepted that through our selective breeding they have become vastly different to their wild ancestors. If you consider the physical differences between a wild wolf and, for example, a Chihuahua, these differences are blatantly apparent. It is no surprise that their behaviour patterns are just as different. Making comparisons between the two is akin to giving human relationship advice based upon studies of the behaviour patterns of Cave Men.

Fortunately we do not need to rely on studies of wolf behaviour when training dogs, as there are decades of evidence-based research on the ways in which ALL animals learn, including dogs. Its called operant conditioning, and is the basis for our approach. Studies confirm that methods such as ours are humane, effective, and far less likely to compromise the relationship between a dog and its owner than any other. We agree that dogs are highly social animals that need leadership, but it is clear that we can provide this using a positive approach.

Dominance and pack theory are over-used justifications for the use of punishment based training. It is too simplistic to think that dogs misbehave or are disobedient simply because they haven’t been shown who is boss, and that if you can just exert adequate dominance over a dog that everything else will fall into place. This approach is likely to lead to unneeded amounts of punishment and frustration, which are likely to only worsen problems such as not coming when called and biting, while the real issues go unaddressed, such as adequate opportunity to learn what is required, and the provision of an adequate environment.

However, for those that are determined to cling to the concept of dominance, the positive method of training is still relevant. Surely making a dog work for every bit of food that they need to live puts the owner in the most dominant position available? Leash correction training surely cannot compete with this position of power.

Last but not least, we completely disagree that the use of positive methods can be linked to dogs becoming aggressive. Quite the opposite, as the methods are so non-confrontational. Further to this, positive methods are the best form of approach with a dog that is showing aggression since punishment based training is more likely to incite retaliation from a confident aggressive dog, or in a submissive dog to teach them not to warn before biting. (If growling gets punished then it’s safer from the dog’s perspective to go straight to biting without giving any warning). So if we are serious about reducing the number of bites in homes (and we are) then we are more likely to succeed when dogs are positively trained (and further if owners can be better educated to understand their dog’s body language).

Let us end by saying that we have never experienced the use of positive training causing the euthanasia of a dog. On the contrary, our use of positive methods has allowed us to re-educate and re-home dogs who have shown defensive aggression in homes that relied on physical adversives. In these cases it has been wonderful to see the dogs learn to trust their handlers, to watch their happy personality reveal itself when they learned there was nothing to fear, and to see their progress in learning when they were given calm clear guidance about what was actually required of them in a non-confrontational way.

Original Comment by “Mark”

“I believe the RSPCA needs to re-asses it views on dog training and dog training and behaviour modification. RSPCA has totally lost all sight of the fact that dogs are instinctively pack animals that live by pack instinct. All domesticated dogs still have at least 80% of the inherited instincts of the wolf. I believe that the RSPCA is falsely misleading the public by suggesting that ONLY totally positive food based training should be used to train ALL dogs. This type of training may very well work for lower pack dogs, as they are instinctively followers, and do not have the instinct to assert dominance for control. Dogs that instinctively belong at the top of the dog pack (dominant dogs, or rank dominant dogs), will not respond appropriately to totally positive food based forms of dog training. This type of training does not establish in the dog’s mind the order of the pack, and dogs trained in this manner will continually try to assert dominance over their owners. Yes ALL dog training should be primarily positive. You cannot gain a dog’s respect or confidence without your training being primarily positive. But incorrect behaviour or dominant behaviour should be corrected. I am a professional dog trainer in Adelaide, and the number of dog owners that have come to me after trying totally positive food based training is incredible. Too often I have seen dog owners at their wits end due to overly dominant dogs controlling the family, or showing dominant aggressive traits, come to me after being to a totally positive based dog trainer. I personally believe the number of dog bites and attacks from family dogs will be greatly reduced if we understand the instincts of the dog, and train accordingly! Too many dogs these days are being destroyed or dumped at shelters due to aggressive behaviour. Most of these can be corrected with the right training. It’s about time welfare groups respected the dog for what it is, a social pack animal that has inherited rules for survival, and we should respect this in our dogs. Bribing a dog with food is not working with many of these dogs natural instincts, and destroying dogs because of dominance related issues, because RSPCA does not agree with corrective training, is an injustice to our beloved canines!”

Curious to note that on this particular topic they have since removed links that would allow you to leave comments on this blog entry.

I wonder if it is always that we expect too much or if it is that we don't always realise what is cueing a particular behaviour? Esp when talking about people who do seriously love their dogs?

I had a realisation this morning about a training issue I'm having with my own dog...nothing serious, more like a sticking point.

I've started teaching my girl to go out and sit in the box. I've broken the training down into small pieces and started simply. She had paired being in the box with sitting and being rewarded and was doing this part consistently. So I started increasing the distance a step at a time...it was all going well and she was enthusiastic and consistent. When I got a certain distance from her and sent her to the box, she started dropping in the box instead of sitting...if I moved closer she'd sit so I'd do that for a few reps and then take one step back, ask her for the same thing and she'd run to the box and drop....

This morning I realised that it was the distance that was cueing the drop behaviour because of also training the change of position......funny thing is, when she realised I wasn't rewarding for the drop in the box she'd kind of run out and stand there and look at me expectantly....I was giving her a bit of time to see if she worked it out for herself....the first thing she tried then was retrieving the box! LOL So, she was trying on the behaviours that she'd been rewarded for in the past at a distance....to her, distance was a strong cue for a behaviour.

There was a good lesson in this realisation for me because we may not always realise exactly what clues the dog is reading in order to try to do what we want and there are areas in some exercises where there are parallels in criteria.....I wonder how often I have caused confusion for my dog in the past and where my training actions for one exercise has caused her confusion with another?

So...getting back on topic, maybe the dogs previous owners were more night owlish or earlier risers than her new owners? Maybe its not that she has just associated toileting with being outside, but time is strong cue? Or maybe there is another cue that we haven't realised or cannot percieve?

I was told prong collars are illegal to use in WA???

In order for something to be illegal, there needs to be mention of it in legislation. If you do a search on the legislation in your state you will find no mention of prong collars....therefore they are not illegal. Many will claim that prongs are illegal to use, but unless you live in Victoria, they will not be able to show relevant legislation to support that claim.

The only restriction that Federal legislation places on the prong collar is that they cannot be imported without a permit.

Thanks for the tips all

It will be a little while before I can put the tips to the test though.....don't really want to encourage it to stop raining here!

Just a question, although i may be on the wrong track.

Isnt using a correction collar of any sort once the dog is trained, management?

I would assume that once a dog has a 100% reliable recall, one would not need to continue to use the tools?

I'd call that maintenance rather than management.

You know what they say 'never work with dogs or kids' . My dog may have recalled 100% out of the last 200 recalls. That doesn't mean that there won't be a situation arise when she may not recall and I'd like to be in the position to enforce that recall if I could.

I guess that whether a tool is a training tool or a management tool can depend on your goals and reasons for using it.

To me training is about learning and management is about prevention or restriction.

In the case of halti vs prong it could be said that both could fall into either category because instances can be found where both are used as a preventative without training. Both can start out as a management tool so that learning can take place...so they may then end up a training tool. The difference to me is whether or not learning takes place....so as well as being goal dependent, that can depend on method.

I agree that a prong collar can fall into a management category when training isnt coupled with it. However i cant see how a haltie can fall into that category. The timing of corrections are not precise so it cant possibly train the dog.

For me the test is whether or not the dog learns, not whether or not it is possible. The halti is not my tool of choice for many reasons.....including that I don't feel that it gives the dog a clear enough message, but having said that I'll pull up short at claiming that all dogs cannot learn on a halti. (Thats evolution of learning for you....once upon a time I wouldn't have said that!)

When do you think the management becomes training? And than when does the tool have to be removed? (if ever?)

Even ecollars the "remote trainer" can be a management tool when used in certain ways... for example i used my ecollar to stop my dog making long eye contact with other dogs..this managed the problem but at the same it was training her that being near other dogs is not always bad.

If your dog learned not to make eye contact with other dogs, then I'd call this training. To me management would be blocking your dogs view of or restricting its ability to see other dogs.

I have used a lot of tools when training my dogs and realise that with one dog I still use the tools that supposed to be a training tool as a management tool, and I never progressed.

Some dogs are tool/collar smart and Im wondering if its a faliure on the trainers side to wean the dog off the particular tool. Views?

I think its more that the dog has been able to pair consequences with the tool. If training is set up so that the dog is never able to pair consequences with the tool, then they would be less likely to become smart to that tool.

Rachelle:

I don't think it is as simple as that. The dog knows when the line is on that under any circumstance/condition it has to obey, but it also knows that once the line is removed then all bets are off.

How do you think a dog learns this Rachelle? My immediate reaction is that one method has be trained using mainly compulsion, whereas the other cannot.

Not necessarily. It could be that the dog has paired the long line with a sequence of events that happens in a predictable manner and also that the dog has paired the removal of the long line with a sequence of events that happens in a predictable manner. In other words there has been a mistake in the training that has allowed the dog to learn that he doesn't have to obey in the absence of the long line.

I guess that whether a tool is a training tool or a management tool can depend on your goals and reasons for using it.

To me training is about learning and management is about prevention or restriction.

In the case of halti vs prong it could be said that both could fall into either category because instances can be found where both are used as a preventative without training. Both can start out as a management tool so that learning can take place...so they may then end up a training tool. The difference to me is whether or not learning takes place....so as well as being goal dependent, that can depend on method.

Is there a simple test to tell the difference between whether grass is dead or just dry?

The reason I'm asking is that up here tracking season is dry and I'm wanting to be able to train my girl on the type of cover that we're likely to come across at trial. A learned friend has indicated that dry grass will still produce some bacterial action when it is crushed and thus create the scent that we are training on, but dead grass will create problems.

So, how do I tell the difference? I had just assumed that all brown grass was dead.....

A few years back when the ex and I were building a house, we also had a pup. One afternoon when we were busy working on the house a sudden storm surprised us and announced itself with a huge lightning strike and immediate thunderclap. The strike was soo close that we physically felt the shock wave and could smell sulphur after it. It knocked glasses of benches and blew our phone up.

In the sudden ensuing down pour, we were busy getting tools etc out of the rain and when we were done realised that the pup was nowhere to be seen. We had a 6.5 acre block that we were also in the process of dog fencing. The pup had bolted in fear and luckily enough ran to one corner of the paddock that was fenced and sat there cowering in fear in the rain.

I didn't know anything about drive training back then, but this pup was ball obsessed. Thankfully that summer provided us with frequent afternoon storms and to help the pup out I'd pull her ball out and play with her during the storm gradually moving from inside, to the verandah and finally out in the rain with the thunder and lightening flashing away.

We got to the point over the course of that summer where the pup would get excited about approaching storms and get attacks of the zoomies and then sit willing one of us to get the ball out and play in the rain LOL.

So maybe its not just the pace but also the sniffing?

A trigger can be made up of a smell or a sound as well and this is tricky cuz dogs can hear and smell much more than we can.

I remember reading or hearing a story about a dog that randomly aggressed at people. The people that the dog aggressed at seemed to have nothing visually in common....they were different sexes, ages, sizes, colours, engaging in different activities....

Investigation revealed that one of the triggers was the smell of pizza....they put it to the test and found that the dog was aggressing at people who had recently eaten pizza. After this was realised the owners remembered an incident where when the dog was a juvenile, they had ordered pizza delivery. Pizza guy come in the front gate in the dark, spooked the dog who run up barking, this in turn spooked the pizza guy who kicked the dog. At the time it although both parties had the bejeezus scared out of them, it seemed that no real harm was done.

I seriously can't remember the source of this story, so can't really verify if its true or not but it seems to be within the realms of possibility.

This is an area of great interest to me.

On the one hand we have the leadership issues that we need to enforce to help our dogs have a healthy and balanced life, on the other there is some recognition that for a dog to have a healthy and balanced life, they need the freedom to express their natural drives in a mutually acceptable way. It is also recognised that prevention of expression of those drives can build frustration in the dog which can bleed over into unwanted behaviours and conversely, satisfaction of those drives leads to a calmer more balanced dog.

There is a point where these two concepts seem to clash in relation to 'walking the dog'. If a dog was making its own way from point a to point b, it would ordinarily travel at a lope or trot. For many dogs the speed at which they'd travel in their natural gait is at least twice the speed of their human handler.

So does it always mean that a dog that walks out ahead is challenging leadership status? Or is it just reacting to an instinctive drive to travel at a faster pace? Does preventing a dog that already has behavioural problems from travelling at a pace that seems more natural to it increase its frustration and therefore its aggressive reactivity?

One of the reasons that people walk dogs, particularly those who own dogs that live in suburban backyards, is to increase the dogs physical and mental stimulation. Yet soemtimes I wonder if a walk is a pseudo stimulation exercise in that the dog gets exposed to all the stimuli, but isn't allowed to interact with that stimuli. It would kinda be like putting an open cheque for a million dollars in front of me and then telling me that although it is there for anyone who wants it, I can't have it. I'm sure that I would not feel very calm and balanced about that

So, what is the answer? Is there a middle ground where both the needs of leadership can be enforced and where the dog gets optimum physical and mental stimulation within the bounds of being on lead?

The above is why I believe that as well as teaching a dog to heel, for the benefit of the dog, it should also be taught a command that allows it to do anything it likes within the bounds of being on lead so long as it adheres to socially acceptible canine good manners and it doesn't pull on the lead. This way we can still set boundaries as leaders, the behaviour is only allowed at our say so, the dog can get optimum physical and mental stimulation within the bounds of being on lead, and we can still call the dog to heel and enforce it where circumstances or the environment warrant.

I can see so many benefits for dogs in the above that I'd love to see more obedience clubs teach these skills to their members....but I have a hard time convincing obedience people of the value of such an exercise.....

I accept though that it might be difficult if you're in the position where you have to walk two or more dogs at once.

Lurve learning it too!

As to whether or not you're talking crap, I can't call that one way or the other cuz I don't know enough to However, until reading the above I wasn't aware that endorphins also had a pain blocking function....cheers for that! Another thing for me to ponder when I'm observing dogs.

I could be wrong, and I'm working on my memories of high school biology here so stand to be corrected, but I vaguely remember that adrenalin causes dilation of the pupils? It makes sense to me cuz if you wanted to prepare the body for fight or flight then one of the things that you'd want to ensure is that eye sight was at its optimum. Having said that, high school biology was over 20 years ago for me so perhaps more/different info has come to light since then?

Wot Arya said.

One question though:

Endorphins to suppress fear and pain during the chase and kill?

Isn't it adrenalin that blocks fear, pain, and the ability to record memories and then the endorphins kick in after the catch to form part of the reward for the behaviour?

I'm finding the above a little confusing.....I think that both motivation and drive are reliant on each other and the intensity of each can be changed by manipulation of the other.....I'm having trouble understanding how you can separate the two?

LL, does the author give a definition of each?

ETA: I guess I'm finding it confusing because I'm considering this definition: Drive is an instinctive motivation. So I wonder if the author is discussing extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic motivation?

ETA again:

I think maybe I'm on the right track after another read through:

You must also consider competing motivations. You may have a hungry dog that has acquired the response of coming when called in order to earn a food rewardd, but if the dog is loose and there are squirrels to be chased, you may not see the fruits of your training labours.

I might be drawing a long bow here, but to me the above suggests that the dog has been trained to come for a food reward, but that does not mean that food is that dogs primary motivator particularly if he chooses chasing squirrels over earning a food reward even though he is hungry. In this instance, the dogs primary motivator is prey drive satisfaction.

I wonder if the author has a complete understanding of drive theory?

Oooooh Great!

Now my cred is really gonna be shot down in flames isn't it...........amongst those that I learn about dog training from are flipping florists and ballerinas!

OMG I am a convert!

I have a White Shepherd Stella and whilst we do static drill of any discription she is nearly perfect, heeling or just walking down the street it is a nightmare to keep her focus on me and stop her pulling. For some time I have been reading this and other threads re prong collars and today I brought one, I felt dirty buying it, on the Victorian collar black market.

I have read and watched all I can find on line so I think that I am using the collar correctly. I took Stella for a short walk around our block, less tha one k, by the time we got home she was walking with a dead loose lead for the first time. I did not have to "pop" her at all, on a check chain I seem to do more "popping" than Rice Bubbles, all that was required were three quick direction changes early in the walk and her focus was on me and where we were going. She did yelp once but there seem to be no ill effects, no breathing noises and no sore shoulder for me.

I will keep you posted on our progress.

Hi DB,

I don't think its a black market as such? Could be wrong but my impression was that its not illegal to buy, sell or own a prong in Vic, just illegal to have one on your dog?

Love the ricebubbles comment :D

Rachelle's tip about the leash is a good one for when you are out and about and your dog leaps up to other people (though not necessarily with the check chain). If like me you have a very people friendly dog it can be a real headache when friendly strangers want to pat her- she always tries to jump up and her behaviour is usually compounded by the idiots saying "its ok, i love dogs" and giving her a big pat and cuddle . In that situation by having your foot on the leash there is no chance of that happening.

Ain't that the truth!

I had the same problem with a dog lunging on lead and people patting her and giving her treats when she was doing that

Jane Harper actually works in Brisbane though doesn't she? Its possible that she could see you on the way to or from work....call her and ask.

I'm no behaviourist but I wonder if the suggestion of having children throw food to the dog in this instance is wise? I wonder if the reason for your dogs aggression might have something to do with the fact that the neighbour children were unpredictable to the dog in that the dog never knew if it was food or a rock that was going to be thrown...no clear pattern as to whether what was going to be thrown was a reinforcer or a punisher and there was no clue to the dog either which it would be or how he could control which it would be through his actions.

Think of it like this....you know a person who everytime you see them they say "Put out your hand" and you do. Sometimes when you put out your hand they put a chocolate in it. Other times they stick a pin into the palm of your hand. You never know which it is going to be and they are very unpredictable....how long would it take you to not want to put out your hand and want to avoid that person.

I wonder if having children throwing anything at your dog is just going to increase his fear? And is this going to reduce his trust in you because you're subjecting him to it....not protecting him from it?

ETA: I don't mean the above to constitute advice because I'm not in any position to do that. Just wondering about how the dog might percieve having kids throw food at him in this situation.

It think it worthy to mention that it was also due to the unfortunate mis-use of the tool ie. sharpening of tips etc by moronic idiots which assisted in bringing on it's ban.

I've done a bit of gooogling and haven't been able to come up with any examples of stories of the above....has anyone got any links?

I am in touch with Dr. Fedderson-Peterson in Germany about this study on the usage of prong collars and hope to get her publication and the latest data soon.

I'd love to read this stuff too if its available yet?