A Trainers Debate With The Rspca

[Rom]

Pax, the confusion is probably down to my clumsy wording. Sorry . I was hesitant to use the word punishment when referring to the two scenarios because in operant theory its only punishment if it changes the behaviour....and there are many reasons why the stimulus the dog was feeling in the first scenario would not actually change the behaviour on its own.

Often the two words are interchangeable and by definition and as I understand it a correction is an aversive to the dog, but it doesn't necessarily change the behaviour outside of that one repetition where you catch the dog doing something wrong. For a stimulus to be classified as a punisher it must weaken a behaviour or reduce the intensity or regularity of it with the intention of the behaviour going through extinction. But you can't define what is a correction or what is a punisher based on the stimulus.....

It is not really the handler that decides what is a correction and what is a punisher.....its the effect that the stimulus has on the behaviour of the dog that tells us which it is. Which it is can vary from dog to dog and change with circumstances. Eg. If a dog likes chasing cats when you go for a walk if every time your dog sees a cat you have to go 'ah', then you are correcting the dog. On the other hand, if the first time your dog sees a cat and makes to chase it and you go 'ah' and your dog never ever looks at another cat, then you have effectively punished the behaviour.

How can you correct a behavoiur that hasn't been learnt?

I make sure that my dogs truely know a behaviour before I would ever correct it. I know my dogs always want to choose the correct behavoiur as they are so heavily rewarded for that choice. If they did choose the wrong behavoiur my subtle disapproval would be enough of a correction to punish them.

I agree with the intent of the above in that I would prefer to be pro-active and teach what I want using a high rate of reinforcement before I put punishment on a dog for misbehaviour, I want the dog to know exactly what it is that he and can do and have confidence in the actions that he can take to avoid the punisher....however, I can help guide the dog through the learning process using a correction.........if that makes sense.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Rom

[Jed]

There are points in what Mark says. I have spoken to a few excellent trainers who feel that all positive is not all good, and agree in principal with Mark.

When the RSPCA comes out in opposition, people think it must be right, because it is the RSPCA.

Different strokes for different dogs, I think, and, more importantly, the wisdom to see who needs what. If I raised my voice to some of the girls here, they would faint dead away, but you could positively train one of the boys for years, and still not get the same response as waving a newspaper at him gets!!

And it's not a boy thing either, my other dog would go white around the gums and die immediately if I used anything except rewards on him. I don't think he has ever received a correction. He thrives on pats, smiles and kind words, coz he loves to do right.

The only people who think check chains are cruel are those who don't understand their use, and misuse them.

[Erny]

I am not a lover of the RSPCA but I agree absolutely with the response from them, well apart from the wolf bit...

Ok - not picking on Rusky in particular (for that matter, not 'picking' on anyone) ..... but I'm interested to know from those who DO agree with the RSPCA's letter contents .....

RSPCA will pts for behaviours that CANNOT be turned around by method of the passive punishment it speaks of, but which in liklihood (at least for some of those poor dogs) the methods Mark speaks of may well have identified some success sufficiently to allow re-homing.

When you consider this, can you really agree with the RSPCA ???

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[Rusky]

She's the last person I'd call an expert on wolf behaviour

oh Tess come on, the lady spends weeks and months studying the animals on location, studying tapes, talking to the people who have become personal friends who spend their entire lives studying wolf behaviour... I think that puts her out in front... in front of Mark too I guess

My original Jan Fennel comment was directed at Mark who said

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

Jan Fennel does use a lifestyle with dogs completely adapted from wolf behaviour.

Yes of course dogs are pack animals but a pack can be 2... you and your dog. I didn't realise that the 80% was a figure but I knew they shared 97% DNA.

I can't see any reason for positive punishment. I have read all there is to read... I even read some of the stuff posted on DOL

[Tonymc]

Exactly Erny!!!!You hit the nail on the head.Kelpie-I, no need to get back to the cave.Your"s was a fair call. Tony

[Cosmolo]

I second Erny's sentiments and question- maybe this is a bit off topic but what i want to know is whether positive purists believe euthanasia or multiple rehomings are better options than use of punishment in training? I would like the RSPCA's answer to that one- based on outcomes, their stance must be yes.

Rusky- i have given an example of where poorly timed positive rewards/ training resulted in serious aggression in a dog- i don't deny that this is uncommon but for some dogs, poor positive training can be just as detrimental as training involving correction. The RSPCA in WA have embraced positive training for at least 5 years- and i can say for a fact that the inability to look outside the square has resulted in some dogs being euthanased when their problems could have been resolved with relative ease, given a balance of correction and positive reward. How can this be a good thing?

Edited December 19, 2007 by Cosmolo

[Rusky]

I am not a lover of the RSPCA but I agree absolutely with the response from them, well apart from the wolf bit...

Ok - not picking on Rusky in particular (for that matter, not 'picking' on anyone) ..... but I'm interested to know from those who DO agree with the RSPCA's letter contents .....

RSPCA will pts for behaviours that CANNOT be turned around by method of the passive punishment it speaks of, but which in liklihood (at least for some of those poor dogs) the methods Mark speaks of may well have identified some success sufficiently to allow re-homing.

When you consider this, can you really agree with the RSPCA ???

Don't pick on me Erny I might cry

They have a long way still to go, well I would like the whole organisation to be disbanded...

It is very very recent that they are using positive reinforcement I guess you could say then that positive punishment has failed miserably in the RSPCA since their PTS rates in Eastern states is deplorable, absolutely deplorable...

[Cosmolo]

Rusky- it is NOT recent that RSPCA have started with positive training, as i said in my previous post, in WA it has been at least 5 years and i believe it was a national initiative so the other states would be the same. RSPCA VIC have definitely had it for at least 2 1/2 years.

And who is delivering the positive punishment in the shelters that you argue have failed? Certainly not qualified, experienced and up to date trainers that i know of!

[Rusky]

Rusky- i have given an example of where poorly timed positive rewards/ training resulted in serious aggression in a dog- i don't deny that this is uncommon but for some dogs, poor positive training can be just as detrimental as training involving correction. The RSPCA in WA have embraced positive training for at least 5 years- and i can say for a fact that the inability to look outside the square has resulted in some dogs being euthanased when their problems could have been resolved with relative ease, given a balance of correction and positive reward. How can this be a good thing?

Do you mean RSPCA dogs? they haven't been using positive reinforcement till fairly recently, they used a sort of barkbusters programme. I think you guys call it 'balanced training'

I think also that the temperament testing, well I know... is the decider and it is most unfair.

Can I see the dog which has serious aggression caused by poorly timed rewards please?

[Rusky]

cosmolo

I disagree. I had the programme in my hand, was asked to run one, it was not a positive reinforcement training programme. I am sorry I don't know what else to say to you. Maybe your take on positive reinforcement is not mine... I don't know.

I know it is now a positive programme, my daughter in law took her dog

[Tonymc]

Rusky,no disrespect intened but I do not follow your point about the numbers in a pack.Where does that have relevance to the topic?

Rusky your stating positive thee is no call for positive punishment.A big point some overlook is they assume the majority of dogs out there are like there own.Somebody with a submissive type dog may generalise and feel the majority of Dogs are similiar to their own.this is due to lack of broader exposure,experience and knowledge.

You might scrape through just with some very very mild dogs with the RSPCA"s approach but give them a rank dog and as erny said it would be put to sleep.This rank dog could be retrained very well using a wider and more knowledgeable application of methods.So it is fair that a Dog dies due to narrow mindedness?Hell no!!!!

Rusky,is there only one way for you to drive to your Supermarket?No of course not!!!!Would you listen and believe somebody if they kept telling you there is only one way to drive there?No you would look at all options availible and pick the most applicable way!!!!! Tony

[Rom]

Exactly Erny, that's why I put this part in bold:

RSPCA:

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).

Basically, where their food rewards and 'passive punishment' don't work they restrict the dog (and often also the dogs owners) by limiting the dogs opportuntities to misbehave.

RSPCA:

Let us end by saying that we have never experienced the use of positive training causing the euthanasia of a dog.

I also believe from my own experience that the above statement is at least misleading in that the RSPCA do temp test and euthanase dogs that don't pass that temp test......have they made a judgement call that reflects an opinion that their own methods would not modify the behaviours of those dogs that fail the temp test?

[Cosmolo]

Rusky- i don't know how long ago you were asked but myself and another family member worked for RSPCA, in the dog training dept and 5 years ago, when i was there, they were running all puppy classes and adult group classes as positive training, including the banning of correction chains BOTH in their classes and ALSO for walking dogs in the shelter.

And no you can't see the dog that was wrecked- because he's dead now.

[Erny]

...for some dogs, poor positive training can be just as detrimental as training involving correction.

My turn to echo Cosmolo's words here.

Many of the dogs I'm asked to consult on are the result of ill-timed positive reinforcement. Sure .... take a pup and raise it with well-timed positive training/passive punishment and success is possible - and I agree with that method in those successful cases.

But where it has gone wrong for the inexperienced owner and we're requested to fix it, positive physical punishment is not out of the question, IMO, if THAT is what will turn the trick.

Only as recently as today I was called out to consult on a dog with aggression to o/dogs and o/people issues - issues that have been developing and occurring over a space of about 1.5 years (the dog is 2yo).

Not only that, but this dog was no longer being walked due to the difficulties the owner was having with the dog's behaviour.

Within 3/4 hour of working with the dog, it was walking past dogs that it would normally aggress towards, with minimal to no fuss. Sure - the emotional aspect of the problem needs more work and time - nothing can replace those two factors, but the owner has seen and now recognised the benefits and effect of balanced training and in the space of 2 hours that I was with her has developed confidence enough to work with her dog and handle him.

Within that same 3/4 hour period I was able to work with the dog without its muzzle. He deferred to me and sat close when asked. I was able to stroke him.

The dog was initially on a head-collar, which he hated. But it was the only tool his owner was able to hold him with (mind you, to no good effect as far as behaviour modification was concerned).

His body language reflected no such irritations with the check chain (would prefer a different style collar for the dog's sake, but we're not allowed that here in Victoria ). The messages delivered were clear (+P and +R). No shyness from the dog. No cringing from the dog. No lead pulling. Dog minding owner instead of owner minding dog.

If it could not have been revealed to the owner that her dog's behaviour could be improved, the dog would continue to remain in its backyard. Its behaviour would have escalated beyond what it already was (escalating aggressive behaviour was already evident, even as recently in the last week) and it's not too difficult to guess where the dog might have ended up eventually.

Certainly if this dog landed at the RSPCA or any other similar type shelter, it wouldn't stand a chance for consideration, which brings me to ask the same question as Cosmolo .....

Cosmolo : How can this be a good thing?

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Ok - not picking on Rusky in particular (for that matter, not 'picking' on anyone) ..... but I'm interested to know from those who DO agree with the RSPCA's letter contents .....

RSPCA will pts for behaviours that CANNOT be turned around by method of the passive punishment it speaks of, but which in liklihood (at least for some of those poor dogs) the methods Mark speaks of may well have identified some success sufficiently to allow re-homing.

When you consider this, can you really agree with the RSPCA ???

It's a separate issue and a slippery slope as an argument. All kill shelters have to prioritise for reasons that are morally difficult because there are more dogs than homes and resources. At least the RSPCA where we are has a colour coding system on the cages. One colour for "easy" dogs for first time owners, one colour for dogs for experienced dog owners, and one colour for challenging dogs for experienced dog trainers only. So it at least acknowledges that some have specific training needs and tries to rehome them. Ultimately tho', the dog with more challenging behaviours is in the same camp as the large black mixed breed, the old dogs, the 'ugly' dogs, the dogs who need ongoing medication etc etc.

As far as some AR people are concerned, I am already responsible for the deaths of shelter dogs purely because I bought mine from a registered breeder instead of adopting from a shelter. I think the suggestion that a failure to use correction is responsible for the deaths of shelter dogs is similarly indefensible. There are many dogs that are PTS that could have been turned around (with a range of training tools and the right home) but there is always another unwanted dog or three to take their place in the cage and there are not enough suitable homes and that is the true nature of the problem.

I could definitely get behind a correction based program for BYB's and puppy millers. The people that is, not the dogs.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Rusky- it is NOT recent that RSPCA have started with positive training, as i said in my previous post, in WA it has been at least 5 years and i believe it was a national initiative so the other states would be the same. RSPCA VIC have definitely had it for at least 2 1/2 years.

Rusky is from WA and you are from Melbourne by the looks of things.

In the past there have been state by state differences between the different RSPCA branches. Our local RSPCA has been more progressive on a range of issues than some other state RSPCAs for example including on the subject of breed bans. It would not surprise me if training programs have been different across the country too.

[PAX]

Edited December 19, 2007 by PAX

[Cosmolo]

Anita- just to be clear, i lived in WA until a few years ago, was working directly with/ for RSPCA WA until 3 years ago hence where my information comes from.

And Pax- RSPCA have knocked back the offer of training and other programs, hence why we now work with AAPS where we have a great relationship that i believe truly benefits the dogs. Believe me, i am not one to stand and judge without exploring options and getting involved.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Cosmolo

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Anita- just to be clear, i lived in WA until a few years ago, was working directly with/ for RSPCA WA until 3 years ago hence where my information comes from.

OK there goes that theory!

[Maddy]

Exactly Erny!!!!!They are advocating food as the total answer too.I guess it might be beyond their comprehension that not all dogs are motivated or driven by Food. Tony

Did you read the entire article? Obviously not.

Our use of rewards (food, toys, play, praise and attention)

ETA I'm not on either side of this debate, it just bothers me when people get argumentative without having properly read the sources (and then badly misquoting)

Edited December 19, 2007 by PokeyLittlePuppy