A Trainers Debate With The Rspca

[Kelpie-i]

I often watch the US ASPCA show on Foxtel and am interested in their way of temp testing the dogs. Does anyone know if this is similar/different to the way the RSPCA do their temp tests??

The US based ones seem very thorough and tend to work with dogs who have mild problem cases. There was on particular episode where a dog was very possessive towards his food in the bowl and would aggress if anyone came close. Apart from this problem, the dog was great with all other aspects. The staff there put this dog on a rehab regime and fixed the problem and the dog was successfully rehomed to a couple with no kids.

I'd be curious to see the criteria for the temp tests by the RSPCA.

[Cosmolo]

Kelpie-i, i can only comment on the temp tests i have had experience with which were mainly in WA. The testing took place inside the kennel only and was basically a test to see if the dog would accept handling. They did not test for food or toy guarding, prey/ play drive, any obedience- walking on lead etc or with other animals. They later changed it slightly so that if the dog was on lead, being walked through the aisle with dogs barking on either side and it reacted with any intensity, it would fail. The tests were conducted by an unqualified trainer and a vet nurse. The vet would then give an opinion when the dog was vet checked.

Dogs that come in having growled at, snapped, lunged or bitten any child were immediate pts- we had a lovely beagle come in that had been tortured by its owners children and it growled once (owner ticked box on form) automatic pts. It was not an option for a dog to be homed 'not with young kids', the idea being that if it could not cope with them, it shouldn't be homed at all. We were not allowed to say that a dog could not go with children, nor could we reject applications for particular dogs because of children.

The tests seen in the US on Animal Precinct etc are completely different. We are currently in the process of developing a real temp test ourselves that covers as many bases as possible to firstly be introduced at one of the smaller Melbourne shelters, with the hope of expanding it and/ or putting the pressure on larger orgs (not just RSPCA) to test more thoroughly. At the moment there are dogs passing that shouldn't and dogs failing that shouldn't. We are now making attempts for that to change.

[Kelpie-i]

We are currently in the process of developing a real temp test ourselves that covers as many bases as possible to firstly be introduced at one of the smaller Melbourne shelters, with the hope of expanding it and/ or putting the pressure on larger orgs (not just RSPCA) to test more thoroughly.

Good luck with that Cosmolo, I truly hope it gets the consideration that it will deserve. Whilst I knew that the temp tests currently performed at most major shelters are unsatisfactory, I had no idea they were that bad. I would also like to question the adoptions process and how they decide a dog's suitably to a prospective new owner. I've seen some pretty bad mis-matches in my time!! Perhaps this could be next on the list??

Edited December 21, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[Cosmolo]

The temp tests will also help with that because alot of the mis matches are a result of staff and subsequent adopters being unaware about certain problems the dogs have and/ or how difficult that particular dogs problem might be to modify. There are lots of things on the list, believe me!

[MarkS]

Hi all I see the post on the RSPCA site has caused a bit of a storm here This is Mark. That post I wrote to the RSPCA was in reponse to a thread they had going in regards to corret training methods, and equipment that they agrre with and don't agree with. This post went on for a few weeks, until the RSPCA pulled it stating a bug had gotten into the system and they lost all the posts. Strange how the bugs only decided to eat that thread!

That letter posted on this site is a very, very, small edited version of my response to them (RSPCA). My post was much longer and more detailed. Also let me say, I never stated purely positive training was a 'blanket' no good training method (I use it myself when appropriate). I was simply trying to get the point across that it wasn't suitable for ALL dogs, and that dog training and behaviour modification needs to be more balanced.

I'd like to offer this article for comment, published in the Advertiser Newspaper in SA.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/comment...5006301,00.html

Cheers everyone

Mark

[Tonymc]

Mark,great to see you post!!!!!!

Mark,firstly as you said the fact that so called"Bugs" only attacked your replies to the rspca tells a big story and the real agenda the rscpa are running.

Mark,I agree totally with the reply to the Newspaper article.

I come from a rural background and Dogs, are always a part of that enviroment.I do have a bad habit at times of just assuming that everybody knows or has a basic knowledge of how Dogs function and operate.Due to dealings away from rural enviroments I have been really surprised how some are just so out of touch with dogs,yet have dogs.

I agree 1000%, its time for people to get back to treating dogs as dogs!!!!!!

The more out of touch with Dogs people get,the higher number of attacks or bites. Tony

[MarkS]

Thanks Tony

Yes that last response to the newspaper article was from me. I feel the Dog and Cat Management Board have now lost touch as to their real purpose here in SA. It's to promote 'RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP', not push for a certain training method. Look on their sites, the only dog training they promote are 'Delta'. Not that I have an issue with them promoting dog trainers, but they need to have a more balanced outlook. Delta do have their good points, don't get me wrong. But to blanket all dogs with their training philosophy is WRONG in my eyes.

Here's a little exerpt from my dog training site. This article goes a lot longer, but I am tired of people stating that because it works on dolphins, it works on ALL animales. Dolphins aren't taught obedience! How can a dolphin be taught bounderies and limitations when it is kept so removed from reality? My dog would be the perfect pet if I kept him removed from reality as well.. come to think of it, I probably would be too

______________________________________

People that call themselves 'Totally Positive Reward Based Trainers' tend to get caught up in scientific studies and journals on operant and classical conditioning (which ALL training is based on, whether you use totally positive methods or not), however they seem to have totally forgotten the most important fundimental information, and that is the dog is instinctively a social pack animal that has inherited natural instincts and drives that has helped him survive for 1,000's of years. The dog doesn’t live in a laboratory cage like pavlov’s dog. But has to deal with real life and real life situations. So many 'Positive Reward Based Trainers' tell me all exotic animals are trained with totally positive reinforcement, so that proves it works. Of course they are, and 99% of them live in a cage! Very sterile environments.. It is so easy to condition an animal if you please it while it's confined in a sterile environment (even humans). A classic example are dolphins in a marine park. Kept in sterile pools with no outlet, mentally or physically for them, until the trainer comes out to feed it. I to would jump, catch ball, and do crazy tricks if I was kept so removed from reality. I to would look forward to my trainer coming out to feed me, at least my stomach gets full again, and I get some mental and physical stimulation…. I guarantee any animal kept in those conditions will train almost 100% with totally positive reinforcement. Try training the same dolphin out in the ocean where there is so much more to distract it both physically and mentally. Would totally positive reward based training work 100% of the time then? Of course not. Being kept in a sterile environment like a pool, cage, laboratory or tank is not true life reality. These dolphins are not obedience trained, they are performing tricks. Our dogs have to adjust and survive in an open world, full of distractions, and owners need to know that they can control their dog no matter what the situation or distraction. Remember we are working on instilling obedience in our dogs, not training for tricks.

____________________________________________________________

___

I am sure there will be many that disagree with my opinions, and thats ok, as long as we can all take a little something from each other.. hopefully we can then improve on what we all tend to be doing wrong.

I do use totally positive methods, and have achieved fantasic results from it..but not as a blanket training system.

Hope I haven't upset too many.

Take care all

Mark

[Jeff Jones]

Hi Mark.

So many 'Positive Reward Based Trainers' tell me all exotic animals are trained with totally positive reinforcement, so that proves it works.

I am sick of people using this excuse aswell.

[Rom]

Well....you haven't upset me! ;)

Great article Mark, thanks for posting

[Rom]

This post went on for a few weeks, until the RSPCA pulled it stating a bug had gotten into the system and they lost all the posts. Strange how the bugs only decided to eat that thread!

I'd also like to add that if you wish to add comment to their blogs now, the comment is submitted directly to moderators who decide whether or not your comment will see light of day!

[Erny]

I'd also like to add that if you wish to add comment to their blogs now, the comment is submitted directly to moderators who decide whether or not your comment will see light of day!

Whose blog? The RSPCA's? But if they are so certain they are right in their stance, they shouldn't be frightened of a bit of good, solid debating. If they know what they are talking about, they'll be able to debate it well.

I made a response to the link Mark posted - don't know how that will go.

[MarkS]

Yes ROM..Leadership and control opinion by censorship!

If you can only read one point of view..then you can easily control thoughts. People that need to censor opinion, act out of insecurity.. No different to the insecure bitting dog.

Thats why communisum worked in some countries. But since the advent of the internet..communisum is slowly crumbling... To easy to get ALL points of view now. You can't as easliy control the people, and what they learn anymore.

Thank God!

[Rusky]

this is a good article on the dominance theory.

The Dominance Theory

By Norma Jeanne Laurette

Let me begin by saying I was taught the “dominance” theory - as it pertains to our pet dog's and their interactions with us, their guardians. Within my first year of instructing dog training classes, I stopped using choke chains, pinch (prong) collars, alpha rolls and all use of force or physical punishment because I quickly realized the potential harm the use of these tools could o to a dog. This potential for harm is not only physical and psychological, it can destroy the trust our dogs have in us, and as a result, the bond between a dog and its owner may be corrupted. Since trust and respect are sides of the same coin, I feel the dog's trust in its owner must be

protected at all cost. Along the same lines, I no longer use the word “obedience” in association with training due to its basic meaning according to The Oxford Dictionary, “submissive to another's will”.

At that point in my career, I didn't realize there were many trainers already using positive methods. I was convinced I was the only one in my city with the beliefs I held, and I felt very much alone. Since then, I have met so many of like-mind, and I've learned so much, and continue to learn everyday. I'm happy to say, my city now consists almost totally of “positive”trainers.

Although I no longer taught the use of tools or techniques that involved pushing or punishing, I did teach the “dominance” theory and the importance of “leading the pack”. Over the past few years this theory has been challenged, and as a result, I renewed my research on the subject. Because of what this research revealed, at this time, I no longer agree with the “dominance” concept. Here's why.

There is a common belief among dog owners and trainers alike, that dogs will challenge their owners in attempt to rise in rank, and lead the pack. This theory has been around for decades, and although still popular, many of the top canine behaviour experts now believe this concept to be incorrect, and assert that we have misinterpreted the dog's motivation by interpreting the dog’s behaviour in that manner.

Dog owners and trainers alike often use the “dominance” theory to explain a variety of canine behaviours. Trainers often use this theory to justify both the use of aversive tools and physical techniques designed to over-power the dog, with the objective of intimidating the dog into subservience in order to stop unwanted “dominant” behaviours. This type of “training” works by virtue of the concept that the dog becomes afraid to “behave” in particular ways for fear of punishment. Unfortunately, this has cost many dogs their lives. “Dominance exercises” have

been known to cause aggression and other unwanted behaviour that result in euthanasia. In one case, a trainer in Florida actually killed a dog while attempting to force it into submission. After muzzling the dog and sitting on it for over an hour, the dog lost consciousness and later that day, had to be euthanized due to its injuries. R10

The concept of “ranking” comes from the idea that a wolf will challenge another of similar rank, hopefully winning the challenge, thereby gaining higher status, and eventually, leading the pack. Many believe this behaviour has been passed down over thousands of years, affecting the behaviour of domestic dogs and their interactions with their human guardians. R1

In reality, only “unacquainted” wolves living in captivity behave in a manner that appears as though they are competing for “status”, due to confined artificially created territories. R7 In my opinion, this is just another example of wolves being forced to compete for limited resources, such as food and mating rights.

Wolf packs living in the wild are dominated by one alpha male and female breeding pair, who guide and protect their cubs. R9 As soon as they are old enough to mate, these cubs will leave the pack to find mates, and raise families of their own. This would mean that every wolf healthy enough, and able to find a mate, will be “alpha” at one time or another during its lifespan, but only when raising its young.

During the socialization period of development, a puppy is imprinted with recognition of its own species. As a result, dogs do not identify humans as “canines” or “pack members”, because we smell, think and behave differently. R2 According to John Fisher, because we are not perceived as dogs by dogs, they will not compete with us for rank. R3 With “alpha” position comes the responsibility of providing for the pack and because we provide everything the dog needs, such

as food, shelter etc., it would be counter-productive for a dog to challenge us for “alpha” position. R4

According to Coppinger, R6 dogs became isolated from their wild ancestors long ago resulting in a new species, the Canis Familiaris - the domestic dog. Although some wolf-like behaviours remain in the domestic dog, since they are a different species, it's not realistic to assume all dog behaviours will be the same as those of the wolf. However, if we choose to compare domestic dogs' behaviour to it's natural ancestors, it only makes sense that we should compare it to the wild

wolf, not wolves attempting to survive in the face of human interference. R5

Every behaviour blamed on “dominance” is normal in canine terms and can be explained by simple motivation and reinforcement. It's quite simple, dogs want good things. R11 If you saw a $100 bill lying in the street would you not pick it up? Why then is a dog helping itself to your dinner “dominant”?, when they are scavengers by nature. It's not a “dominant” dog that takes your food, it's a normal dog doing what comes naturally to its species.

This is what I believe now; one of the few commonalities between dogs and humans is – some are more assertive than others. Dogs that are more assertive will try harder to obtain valued resources, be it attention, food, comfortable sleeping places, freedom to run and explore etc. Dogs that are less assertive are quicker to relinquish the resource to a more assertive dog or human. Since it's about the resource, it stands to reason – if you can control what the dog values, you can control the dog. An assertive dog is more of a challenge to train, but it has nothing to do with dominance.

Although it may seem as though we are “splitting hairs” with terminology, the main difference is this. According to The Oxford Dictionary, “Dominance” means “in control over a group” and “assertive” means “to insist”. An assertive dog is challenging a person or another dog to win resources that it wishes to control, not in order to control the other person or dog; therefore, a dog’s competing for a desired resource has nothing to do with ranking.

The bottom line is this: if we want dogs to behave in a manner that is not natural to it's species then we have to control the environment to prevent the natural - yet unwanted behaviour. In order to do so, we have to teach new behaviours and reinforce them. Although dogs need guidance to be good companions, “dominating” them has proven to be counter-productive at the very least, and extremely abusive at its worst. It's time for us to teach those around us, dog owners and dog trainers alike, to stop blaming, labelling and punishing dogs with a “dominance” tag. When the world becomes aware that it is not only easier, but also more productive, to teach instead of punish, only then will the world be a more humane place for dogs.

References

R1 - Dominance Fact or Fiction?, Barry Eaton 2002, Page 4 – Dominance: Where Does It Come From?

R2 - Dominance Fact or Fiction?, Barry Eaton 2002, Page 4 – Pack Theory

R3 - Diary of a Dotty Dog Doctor, John Fisher 1997

R4 - Dominance Fact or Fiction?, Barry Eaton 2002, Page 5 – Pack Theory

R5 - Dominance Fact or Fiction?, Barry Eaton 2002, Page 7 – Origins Of The Pack Rules

R6 - The Domestic Dog, Edited by James Serpell 1999

R7 - Dominance Fact or Fiction? Barry Eaton 2002, Page 6 and 7 – Origins Of The Pack Rules

R8 - Dominance Fact or Fiction? Barry Eaton 2002, Page 7 – Origins Of The Pack Rules

R9 - Alpha Status, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs, David Mech, 2000

R10 - http://www.palmbeachpost.com/pbcentral/con...addog_0719.html

R11 – The Power of Positive Dog Training, Pat Miller, Howell Book House, Wiley Publishing Inc., 2001

[Erny]

From Norma Jeanne's web-site :

"although she was taught that most canine aggression was based on ‘dominance’ she found this to be untrue. She learned through experience that most aggressive dogs were reacting to fear and were forced to defend themselves, many resulting from unpleasant training methods. Many were mis-diagnosed as ‘dominant dogs’ and paid with their lives.

Norma Jeanne strongly believes that trainers should not be contributing to the problem, and has made it her life-long goal to present as many humane and effective options possible for training, behaviour and aggression modification, so that the use of fear and pain in training will no longer be necessary.

Her awakening came during a class when she did the alpha rollover with a Jack Russell Terrier that was so frightened by her man-handling, that it spun and urinated with fear. During the same class she alpha-rolled an adult Rottweiler. In hind-sight, Norma Jeanne feels this was more than stupid, but that is what she was taught – that every dog had to be physically dominated in order to gain control and respect. Well, this was a big dog – she stood at its side, reached over, grasped his legs and pulled them out from under him. The rotti fell to the ground, raised his head, looked at her and growled. She held firm as she was taught, and growled louder than he did. The dog submitted and she let him up."

To begin with IMO the above does NOT depict the "balanced trainer's" way of dealing with issues and there are a number of things wrong with how Norma Jeanne was taught to handle/manage these things. The mere fact that she learned that "most canine aggression was based on 'dominance' was the first thing that brought me to this opinion.

But her learnings - just because they weren't necessarily good learnings, doesn't mean that "balanced training" is wrong. So I do not see that her 'argument' against the use of training tools and training methods that include fairly appropriated and delivered corrections along with fairly appropriated and delivered rewards has very good grounding to promote a complete "hands-off" training approach in ALL situations and with ALL dogs.

She says herself that "... the tools [use of choke chains, pinch collars] ... seemed to be effective with many dogs ... "

Seems to me that she has gone from one extreme to another and missed the bit in between.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Erny

[Kavik]

Not everyone who uses aversives in training alpha rolls dogs or lies on them until they submit . . . a very dangerous thing to do imo especially with a large dog.

Personally I think both sides tend to present extremes - the dolphin example is a classic as is the view that trainers who use corrections totally dominate their dogs, alpha roll them into submission and have unhappy working dogs.

[Erny]

Not everyone who uses aversives in training alpha rolls dogs or lies on them until they submit . . . a very dangerous thing to do imo especially with a large dog.

Personally I think both sides tend to present extremes - the dolphin example is a classic as is the view that trainers who use corrections totally dominate their dogs, alpha roll them into submission and have unhappy working dogs.

Yes - but both of these implied analogies are used with abundance frequency in most if not all of their arguments. They seem to conveniently ignore that balanced trainers will use "positive" where positive works and rather, paint a picture as though we love nothing more than thrashing around corrections using training tools to produce dogs that urinate and quake in fear. What good trainer would want THAT as their result? No training is accomplished with a dog in that emotional state. It completely goes against what we want for the dog and certainly would do nothing to help us pay for the butter on our bread.

But of course it all sounds "politically correct" when they paint that picture and many people in society these days put great store in that. Pity, because I know of a good number of dogs with whom positive training was unsuccessful and who found their way through to us ..... a whisker away from the 'green dream'. I don't know how many I don't know about. But I do know of a few whose owners thought any other way than "positive" was wrong and in the absence of behaviour modification efforts using those techniques being successful, sent their dogs on their heavenly way.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

The other thing I meant to ask, as an aside, is who began the "can't use certain words" because of how THEY depict them?

Eg. I NEVER viewed the word "dominance" to mean "be brutal" or "throw the dog around" or "force to submission". Who made it so that it is now commonly and vastly read as though words such as "dominance" are bad?

I know there are some genes that are dominant and others that are recessive. I don't conjure a mental image of the dominant gene wrestling the recessive gene to the ground until it submits into urination.

I'm finding in so many things these days that it is getting progressively more difficult to explain anything because now you first have to find ten words where normally one word would do just fine and well.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Erny

[MarkS]

My thought for the day.

I am sure I read back further about instincts and how ALL animals live instinctively. As much as we try not to admit it, even humans still live by their basic primal instincts. Even millions of years of evolution hasn't gotten rid of all our instincts. We like to believe we all treat each other as equals.. but how true is this in reality? How many of us willingly follow or respect a weak or inconsistent leader? Even though we may try, instinct tells us its wrong. We then 'instinctively' challenge this leadership, by refusing to coporate or putting up a challenge. We mock leaders that show signs of insecurity whether its in the workplace, society or on a national and international level (hmmm..why does President Bush suddenly come in to my mind? ).

If purely positive methods work to overide natural instincts, why hasn't human society followed this philosophy? Why haven't we changed our laws to reward all our positive behaviours and ignore our negative or bad behaviours? Only one reason..instinct will overide eventually. Sure remove a subject from reality, and in time you can probably make this subject do almost anything with purely positive responses. Leaders of countries have learn't that the easiest way to control its people is through fear. If leaders believed that by always rewarding behaviour will condition the people to follow willingly, then why don't we see it? Because in reality it doesn't work!

Look how we are all controlled now..by the fear of terrorism. Sure terrorism is a real threat.. but to control your people and instill over exagerated fear for control to make newer and more controlling laws? I would like to know the numbers of people around the world that are killed in car accidents or murders compared to acts of terrorism. When the iron curtain dissappeared from Russia, USA had to find another 'evil doer' to ensure control was maintained, hence the overly exaggerated threat of terrorism. This is not to sugest that September 11 and Bali were not absolutely barbaric acts. They most definately were. USA knows that to be seen as a power in the world, it needs to control by positive and negative reinforcement. They need to prove they are the 'packleaders'. Natural Instinct gone MAD!! Insecure leadership!

Boy am I rambling here... sorry. But the point I believe I am trying to make is that if purely positive was such a powerful tool/force, we would see it in all areas of our life. The true reality is, is that we will not.

Why are there so many dog bites and dog attacks these days? Insecure leaders!! Create an insecure leader of your dog, and you will have a dog that will learn to control by aggression/fear (hmmm again Bush pops into my head)..in most instances. Why? because when a dog becomes aggressive, in most instances dog owners will back down! A packleader never backs down..unless it comes across a stronger challenge than it can mentaly and physically beat. So we are creating in the dog a new law for it to follow..Lead by intimidation, and instill fear! Thats not 'natural dog intinct', we have put this burdon on our dogs by allowing non natural leaders to lead.

A true follower (lowerpack animal), is instinctively a follower. This is not to say they are weak or stupid, they are merely followers. Without followers you have no leaders or peacemakers. Lowest packmembers are usually the peace makers of the pack, they help to lessen any tension building up within the pack. How many people admit that they wouldn't like to be a boss at work? Why?, because instinct tells them they are naturally the followers, and usually the peacemakers.. Reward these people 100%, and they will still follow. We all need leaders and followers, if we didn't have this deep instinct, society would probably fall apart. So to sugest that there is now no such thing as a dominant dog, because we have bred these instincts out of a dog, is also in away denying our own natual instincts. Give a natural leader only positives, and he will eventually try and gain control.

The theory I hear so much in regards to terms such as dominance and assertive behaviour is in my eyes really trying to cut hairs. We are both talking about the same thing.. control of resources, and maintaining discipline within a pack. All Social animals seek leadership..It's instinct!

I feel many are trying to see in their dogs, the perfect world where everyone and everything is in equal place on the social ladder. Many are expressing their dreams hopes and wishes through the way they see their dogs. To deny your own natural instincts, is in a way denying them in our beloved canine.. No wonder he is so confused.. He doesn't have those dreams, he exists as God intended him to...with natural order. But unlike Bush and others around the world, insecure canine leaders do not make it as the packleader in their natural state.. They are never allowed to get that high in the social stucture of the 'current' pack, because they are not psychologically strong enough to maintain a challenge, they eventually give in.. We can learn so much from our canines natural instincts if we chose too. So many dogs are learning this unnatural skill of leading by aggression, because we are creating in our dogs insecure leaders. Allowing an insecure leader to control is creating leadership by fear! Thats what our poor dogs are learning from US! We are teaching our dogs to use aggression to lead (lead by instilling fear). It's not our dogs fault. Hmmm...who are the more intelligent creatures here? At times I really do wonder!

To state that a dogs trust is destroyed by using negative and positive reinforcement, is like saying if I reward my dog to much with food he will get fat and die. Of course there are abuses, nobody denys this. But a well balanced training system ONLY fosters trust! You only have to look at a police dog and his handler to see this ultimate level of trust. I don't believe trust is only a condition of positives. Its created by consistent and fair leadership.

Boy will I get an ear bashing now :rolleyes:

[Erny]

Not from me, Mark.

Well written post.

[Kavik]

Good post about leaders and followers. Also good to know what you are as a person. Sometimes quite helpful in dog training :rolleyes:

With the examples - you would think they would use new ones occasionally was my point - dolphins are not dogs