A Trainers Debate With The Rspca

[Erny]

RSPCA have made a blanket statement about THEIR TRAINING philosophy TO Mark (knowledgable and experienced trainer). Their training philosphy clearly limits punishment to passive measures only (as stated through and within this thread).

I'm not talking ONLY about dogs who come within the 'care' of the RSPCA .... but on its "training philosophy" in general. A philosophy that it PROJECTS onto people who without better knowledge, hang on its every word as a gospel. Their clutches reach far beyond the gates of the walls which dictate the RSPCA shelter boundaries, and affect many dogs who otherwise might not have needed to have ended up in a shelter in the first place.

The view you seem to be taking at the moment is ONLY in relation to the re-homeability of dogs that come within the shelter rather than as broadly as what the RSPCA influences with ITS opinions.

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

It's a separate issue and a slippery slope as an argument.

Given the contents of my post here, do you still think so? I don't think it's a separate issue nor a slippery sloped argument. But I do believe the RSPCA's argument is one-eyed and blinkered.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

... they used a sort of barkbusters programme. I think you guys call it 'balanced training'

Ummm, I have never thought of barkbusters programme as (what I know of it) "balanced training".

[Rom]

The RSPCA also keep dogs that are statistically less likely to be rehomed because of market trends and euthanase more popular breeds who have modifiable behavioural problems .

Edited December 19, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

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

I spoke of it in my earlier post. Much of its behaviour has developed and escalated due to poorly timed rewards.

ETA: And passive punishment (eg. "ahhh's" and "sin-bins") have proven little effect.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[Rusky]

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

sorry it wasn't my point it was someone elses. I clarified a pack. I will try and find the comment and add with an edit.

cosmolo my idea of positive training does not mirror the RSPCA from 5 years ago. I don't have the pack now to quote from. I think they just about now use Honey Gross Richardsons plan or if not it is very very similar. I was quite impressed, however, what happens in the shelter and what happens in the training classes for the masses can and will be quite different so perhaps that is where we are coming unstuck.

I always hated the temperament testing. I thought it was unfair and certainly with home based foster care dogs which were pound pick up to immedite testing, very tough, also depended on the particular vet on the particular day....

I don't like the RSPCA.. I don't like them at all. I do agree with their blog post. I disagree with Mark. All dogs can be trained using positive reinforcement.

I do agree that dogs are abused and neglected, are fearful and aggressive and end up in pounds and shelters, that is not the fault of the pound or the shelter, those dogs have already been let down by humans. Shelters and rescue right now are bursting at the seams. It is dump a dog season. Don't blame the shelters, don't blame the pounds, blame this stupid throw away society who chuck out their SWF and their large cross breed because it interferes with their lifestyle, because they can't be bothered with training, because it is easier to go and buy a new cute fluffy while the old christmas present languishes abused and afraid in the shelter.

The RSPCA also keep dogs that are statistically less likely to be rehomed because of market trends and euthanase more popular breeds who have modifiable behavioural problems

stinks doesn't it?

[Erny]

The RSPCA also keep dogs that are statistically less likely to be rehomed because of market trends and euthanase more popular breeds who have modifiable behavioural problems .

I tend to agree, Rom. However I understand the shelters cannot morally (or legally) re-home dogs who sport potentially injurious behaviours and I also understand (not that it doesn't make me sad) that some dogs are euth'd because their problematic behaviour/s or even their breeding make it unlikely that they will be adopted - and room does need to be made for dogs who are more readily re-homeable.

BUT .... I think the point is that the RSPCA's tenticals surpass the walls of its own confines. As such, its philosophies need to be flexible enough to take that into account.

As it stands, it's their way or the highway, regardless of whether the dog is in their direct care and under their management or not.

And THAT is what makes the RSPCA's stance imbalanced and unfair to dog-owners, dog trainers AND manytimes to dogs themselves.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

RSPCA have made a blanket statement about THEIR TRAINING philosophy TO Mark (knowledgable and experienced trainer). Their training philosphy clearly limits punishment to passive measures only (as stated through and within this thread).

I'm not talking ONLY about dogs who come within the 'care' of the RSPCA .... but on its "training philosophy" in general. A philosophy that it PROJECTS onto people who without better knowledge, hang on its every word as a gospel. Their clutches reach far beyond the gates of the walls which dictate the RSPCA shelter boundaries, and affect many dogs who otherwise might not have needed to have ended up in a shelter in the first place.

The view you seem to be taking at the moment is ONLY in relation to the re-homeability of dogs that come within the shelter rather than as broadly as what the RSPCA influences with ITS opinions.

You asked us whether we still held our POV against the background of the RSPCA euthanasing dogs that might be turned around with correctional training. So that's what I responded to.

If you're asking us what we think about their influence as an opinion leader, well, I have much bigger issues with them over their support of breed bans than I do over them not supporting correctional training. But ultimately the RSPCA is not the opinion leader that scares me, PETA are far more of a direct risk to dog owners and trainers than the RSPCA.

The RSPCA, despite its many faults, should not be held accountable for the vast swamp of human stupidity and incompetence anymore than any other organisation should be. Dogs end up dead and in shelters primarily because humans are not required to prove their capacity to manage a dog before they are allowed to acquire one.

I am concerned that this subject takes on the trappings of a religious war sometimes. I have never claimed that correction is never appropriate. I have made my views known about areas I have some knowledge of (training sighthounds) but that is not the same thing.

If you find yourself in in Canberra, PM me and I'll buy you a coffee (that goes for you too Tony).

[Kelpie-i]

QUOTE(Rusky @ 19th Dec 2007 - 08:12 PM)

... they used a sort of barkbusters programme. I think you guys call it 'balanced training'

Ummm, I have never thought of barkbusters programme as (what I know of it) "balanced training".

Sorry, still can't double quote

I was thinking the same thing Erny. Barkbusters methods are most certainly not in line with what a "balanced" trainer might do

Let's look at the bigger picture here, not just with dog training but with almost everything in our lives these days:

We cannot discipline (by way of smacking) our children anymore as this is seen as abuse

We cannot sing Christmas Carols or hang up Christmas decorations as it may offend those non-Christians

Santa can no longer "Ho Ho Ho" coz it may scare the children - they must now "Ha Ha Ha"

And of course

The use of purely positive methods in dog training coz it's more socially acceptable.

I think the magic word here is "socially acceptable" methods of training and ones that fit into today's cotton wool society, which is the ONLY reason why the RSPCA has adopted the purely positive approach. It cannot be seen as advocating any form of correctional based methods, after all they are the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals!!

Let's face it, the RSPCA, like many of our local councils and other organisations these days, wants to be seen as politically correct - nothing more, nothing less. And for this very sad reason, many dogs are PTS because in many cases, a PP approach does not cut it. Will they admit to that, of course not!

[Erny]

Santa can no longer "Ho Ho Ho" coz it may scare the children - they must now "Ha Ha Ha"

I didn't know THAT !!!! I spent our obedience club's Christmas break-up "Ho Ho Ho-ing". None of the kids cried. The new baby of one of the trainers cried when it got passed to me for a 'hold' ..... and I didn't even "Ho Ho Ho" it.

I think the magic word here is "socially acceptable" methods of training and ones that fit into today's cotton wool society, which is the ONLY reason why the RSPCA has adopted the purely positive approach. It cannot be seen as advocating any form of correctional based methods, after all they are the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals!!

Agree, Kelpie-i. Although I see it on a different slant as well. IE That meeting what is "socially acceptable" is more likely to and will more easily win favour - regardless of whether it is correct or not.

Yes - cynical ....... but am I wrong?

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[Kelpie-i]

I didn't know THAT !!!! I spent our obedience club's Christmas break-up "Ho Ho Ho-ing". None of the kids cried. The new baby of one of the trainers cried when it got passed to me for a 'hold' ..... and I didn't even "Ho Ho Ho" it.

tsk, tsk Erny, you are NOT allowed to HO HO HO......that's cruel!!

Yes of course......I didn't think of the $$ in donations...it all boils down to one thing doesn't it....the public's perception!

[Erny]

tsk, tsk Erny, you are NOT allowed to HO HO HO......that's cruel!!

Out of curiousity, what's the penalty for "Ho Ho Ho-ing" ?????

Yes of course......I didn't think of the $$ in donations...it all boils down to one thing doesn't it....the public's perception!

Yes it does and unfortunately the loudest voice is not always the best one to listen to, yet it is often the only one that is heard.

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

Rusky- i do not believe that all dogs can be practically trained with positive reinforcement- so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. It is not possible to control the environment and outside influences enough to set up the situation required for every dog to be trained this way.

I have a dog who had been through 3 homes, 2 of whom had tried positive techniques to resolve some very extreme fear based issues without any success. She has now improved beyond even my expectations through a combination of rewards and appropriate corrections.

I have many clients who have tried positive techniques with no or limited success because the technique is not suitable for their individual dog. So, without facts to the contrary, i continue to believe that a balanced approach, tailored to the dog and owner is best.

[Rom]

Curiously enough Kelpi-i, I was reading some banter on another forum about the laws in the US in regards to punishment in training. A bloke called Fowler was charged with animal abuse for dunking his dogs head in a hole full of water and spanking it. The case against him was initially successful but got over turned on appeal because he was prevented from submitting evidence that showed he was actually trying to train his dog, he was doing so under the guidance of a pro trainer and the methods being used were last ditch attempts after a long line of trying other methods before putting the dog down.

The charges against him were quashed...or whatever that word is that means cancelled in legal terms. The pro trainer was William Koehler. The basically court upheld that if its done in the name of training, then its not abuse.

I believe that there is a similar effect here in that even though the RSPCA don't promote or condone punishment in training, you don't see them hanging around those training fields where punishment is accepted waiting to jump on people who use punishment in training. Why aren't they going after what would seem to be such easy targets? Because the burden of proof is on them to be able to prove abuse.....and they can't do it.

[Kelpie-i]

Are you kidding Rom, they don't have enough resources to be able to do such a thing. Here in Melbourne, they are currently way under-staffed as far as inspectors are concerned yet are "admin heavy" so that they can run their advertisments, organise their open days and publish their newsletters.

No time to look into the real cruelty cases.....

Out of curiousity, what's the penalty for "Ho Ho Ho-ing" ?????

A night out with a sweaty, ageing and drunk Santa!!

Edited December 19, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[Erny]

Why aren't they going after what would seem to be such easy targets?

What ..... like "live exports" and the such ????

Maybe the impact of doing that would be too great in terms of financial detriment to the Country?

Maybe instigating (and by doing so, keeping in the public limelight) these other legislations is far easier to put through Government and but achieves the attention of the general public who believe they are doing great things? Maybe without these actions they'd be under more public pressure to focus on the 'tough stuff'?

I don't know, Rom. One can only speculate until they decide to come out and tell us.

Erny : Out of curiousity, what's the penalty for "Ho Ho Ho-ing" ?????

A night out with a sweaty, ageing and drunk Santa!!

Oh crap.

"Ho Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha"

Edited December 19, 2007 by Erny

[ShellyBeggs]

And THAT is what makes the RSPCA's stance imbalanced and unfair to dog-owners, dog trainers AND manytimes to dogs themselves.

I believe that there is a similar effect here in that even though the RSPCA don't promote or condone punishment in training, you don't see them hanging around those training fields where punishment is accepted waiting to jump on people who use punishment in training. Why aren't they going after what would seem to be such easy targets? Because the burden of proof is on them to be able to prove abuse.....and they can't do it.

Don't you....???

It was a fair few years ago now but I have seen inspectors at KCC park during an obedience trial!!!

[Erny]

All dogs can be trained using positive reinforcement.

Rusky - How do you know this?

Edited December 20, 2007 by Erny

[Rusky]

Rusky- i do not believe that all dogs can be practically trained with positive reinforcement- so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. It is not possible to control the environment and outside influences enough to set up the situation required for every dog to be trained this way.

I have a dog who had been through 3 homes, 2 of whom had tried positive techniques to resolve some very extreme fear based issues without any success. She has now improved beyond even my expectations through a combination of rewards and appropriate corrections.

I have many clients who have tried positive techniques with no or limited success because the technique is not suitable for their individual dog. So, without facts to the contrary, i continue to believe that a balanced approach, tailored to the dog and owner is best.

I believe all dogs can be trained with positive reinforcement so yes we will have to agree to disagree.

I know many people with dogs with fear aggression who have been trained using positive punishment, they are very happy there is another way and are enjoying great success in rehabilitating their dogs.

I guess we have the same stories.

[Cosmolo]

Are you saying that the positive punishment caused the fear aggression in those dogs?

Any bad training = Bad results, regardless of technique. But i believe dogs are individuals and i know they don't all respond to the same techniques. I am a convert, when i lived in Perth i was a positive only trainer and thought i would never use and kind of corrections. But now i do- when i feel they are appropriate and necesary.

[Rusky]

Are you saying that the positive punishment caused the fear aggression in those dogs

I am saying that the dogs were trained using positive punishment and they had fear aggression.

You should know that fear can start at 11 weeks, these dogs were adult dogs not puppies.

I am sad that you didn't have a good experience with positive training sometimes people who change from PP to PR based training have a few problems, I am assuming that you were a trainer prior to RSPCA somewhere. Maybe I know you?