A Trainers Debate With The Rspca

[Erny]

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

Sorry Kavik ..... I used the word "but" in that post which makes it sound as though in some way I disagreed with you. I don't disagree. Not at all.

[jesomil]

Boy will I get an ear bashing now

Not at all. Great post and really thought provoking :rolleyes:

[dogdude]

I can't think of very many circumstances in life where extremist ideas are good.

..........That includes dog training!! :rolleyes:

[MarkS]

Oh I agree with you dogdude... 100%

Especially in dog training.

I know that we all want a purely positive and wonderful world, and I hope oneday we can achieve this.. We just need to stop voting insecure leaders into power. I'm praying for the day I get $50.00 for stopping at red lights, and not have to pay fines for going through them. I think I'll get to work MUCH faster then

Insecure leaders need to create insecurity in those they want to lead. My reference to earlier post.

A dog leads in a lot of instances because he has an insecure owner helping him to lead. I know this sounds a little mean but its true. If the dog owner was confident and assertive, then an insecure leader cannot be created. :rolleyes: Therefore a much happier dog and owner.........

Boy I think I'm getting tooo sleepy, and having trouble making sense of myself now... time for bed

[4leggedvariety]

can't agree more with mark's comments. Dogs are not dolphins, chickens, or lab rats. A couple of years ago, I was at Seaworld watching a sea lion show. The performing sea lion was sitting on its box doing something when someone accidentally left out another sea lion too early into the tank. The performing sea lion immediately disappeared into the water. The marine mammals trainers tried every thing to get him back, including dangling fish on the edge of this runabout but to no avail. This went on for 10-15 mins and at the end, they just have to say over the loud speaker the sea lion was having a bad day. Our dogs don't live in a sterile environment, nor can we afford to laugh it off & say the dog is having a bad day when it runs off and bites somebody.

Dogs are dogs and they have instincts unique to that species. What one choose to believe & ignore is up to them, but the problem arises when someone uses a one size hits all approach to dog training.

This may sound philosophical, but this world strives to achieve BALANCE. Think of something that does not work best when in equilibrium?

[Kelpie-i]

Hi Mark, welcome to DOL!

Your post is very well put and I'm sure you will find many people here who agree with you in may aspects.

It's a pity that balanced trainers are pideon-holed as alpha-rollers and with using weopons of mass destruction and nazi torture methods when dog training. This couldn't be further from the truth.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it all boils down to the RSPCA's public perception and how they wish to be seen.....cuddly and fluffy like. So naturally they will delete that which is not conducive to their belief. Your post was a threat to them and perhaps one that they could not fathom due to lack of knowledge.

At the end of the day, it is the poor dog that pays the ultimate price for their ignorance.

I have one small question for you MarkS, do you believe that the use of food in training is contributing to the higher cases of aggression or is it due to lack of leadership and guidance.?? Your comments in the Adelaide newspaper website seem to indicate that you feel the use of food in training is one of the culprits.....?

Edited December 23, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[Lablover]

This thread reminds of the pros and cons on the use of human children methods of discipline.

We are never going to agree. Human psychology is not an exact science.

Interesting all the same.

I feel there is less fallout using as many positives, especially in novice hands.

[MarkS]

Thanks to all those that support me, and those that don't. All discussion helps us learn and move forward, as long as we keep open minds.

Edited December 23, 2007 by MarkS

[Lablover]

Thanks to all those that support me, and those that don't. All discussion helps us learn and move forward, as long as we keep open minds.

You are a (welcomed) stranger. Care to disclose your experience, or if not, what you had for breakfast? LOL.

[The Spotted Devil]

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.

Hi Erny

Interesting question you raise - sorry to go OT but I think much of the problem with the word 'dominance' stems from a lack of education on the part of owners....I only have to direct you to this recent thread - the number of average people/dog owners who think that 'dominance' does require alpha rolls is astounding Take Caesar Milan for a moment...nothing like a TV show to popularise methods with the average owner! I tend to refer to my mad Dally as being persistent, bold, intense or pushy - I've chatted with a lot of dog owners as we walk down the street...I've been given all sorts of terrifying advice about how I should train him and even had the owner of a GSD puppy suggest that I alpha roll Zig, like he was taught to do by other GSD people Funny thing is I have never seen one other person in my local area training their dog as they go for a walk - they just put contraptions on them (like a body harness or halti) to control them or wrestle them to the ground if it's a SWF going nuts. Yep, I growl at Zig when he's being an absolute git but he tends to think that corrections provide attention (therefore positive reinforcement). For him, the best thing I can do is remove him from his social world and put him in his crate

As a scientist, although dominance is certainly acknowledged, it is a very fluid (and complex!) construct in the animal world. It's not something that can be objectively tested - which is why we prefer to look at non-associative learning (habituation, sensitisation, desensitisation) and associative learning (classical conditioning and operant learning).....if a scientist can not objectively manipulate and measure something then we cannot gain reliable outcomes and results. While all the studies show that positive reinforcement (particularly when intermittent) results in an extended memory of the exercise and is harder to extinguish, animal welfare scientists do understand that negative reinforcement etc. is required.....you can't train a horse safely, for example, without it. Nor can you move livestock without it. What we are trying to get across (and perhaps this is where the whole argument with the RSPCA has gone awry due to a lack of understanding/explanation on their part - trust me....that's not the only aspect of animal welfare they don't get!!!!!) is that the negative reinforcement required is a LOT less than we all previously understood. As an example, the amount of pressure from the hands to remain in neutral contact with the bit in a horse's mouth is 200g. To stop the horse requires 300g. 600g can result in learned helplessness. Negative reinforcement is a really important part of training but it must be applied correctly - 90% of jockeys do not relent with the whip when the horses do what they are asked and run faster. Similarly a poorly timed food treat for a dog will reinforce the inappropriate behaviour.

I actually find it very enjoyable to observe the parallels between the two theories....my show trainer (who is fantastic and what I would call a balanced trainer) will talk about what the dogs are doing in terms of dominance/leadership and I can translate that all to operant learning/classical conditioning. As I've said before, I don't think my view negates the success of trainers such as yourself.

Personally, I think the focus for the average owner needs to be on consistency. An animal that receives inconsistent (random mixture of positive/negative) treatment will display a similar stress response one that consistently receives negative treatment. The average owner *thinks* they are giving their dog a correction and the dog just doesn't perceive it that way....thus the trauma for both parties begins.

For what it's worth

ETA: Spelling :rolleyes:

Edited December 23, 2007 by The Spotted Devil

[Lablover]

Personally, I think the focus for the average owner needs to be on consistency. An animal that receives inconsistent (random mixture of positive/negative) treatment will display a similar stress response one that consistently receives negative treatment. The average owner *thinks* they are giving their dog a correction and the dog just doesn't perceive it that way....thus the trauma for both parties begins.

For what it's worth

ETA: Spelling :rolleyes:

Outstanding!!!!!! Training is fluid, consistency.........yes yes yes.

[Lablover]

May I just add, one good correction -if the command/cue has been learnt and proofed, is worth a million nagging requests.

I could not imagine pet dog trainers, being able to apply the above, in front of of most loving mummy owners.

And lets face it, if all dogs had no problems, there would be little need for experienced trainers or behaviourists.

[MarkS]

I would have to disagree that its best to only use positves with inexperienced hands. Hmmmm.. I am wondering if this is the case, is it better then that if a positive doesn't work in inexperienced hands that we take on board only what welfare groups like the RSPCA tell us, and that is all training should be based on positives? Where does that leave our poor dog? Should we leave all corrective training only to the experienced? Hmmm then how can this corrective training be used..Aren't we ALL novices when we start?

It saddens me when 'some' advocates of the totally positive dog training methods, see themselves as the righteous ones. We are ALL here for the one reason, our deep love and respect for the canine. I get so tired of those that see any negative as cruel. Our society, and the society our canines instinctively live is based on negatives and positives.. Thats life, and we all have to deal with that. Life isn't always a rosey positive path. Our biggest lessons are learnt from our mistakes, and in many situations our mistakes create a negative, that we must then turn around into a positive. I hear so many say, but using negatives in dog training can create stress in a dog.. Well I have news for them..stress is a part of life for ALL animals. Believe it or not..every living creature needs to experience stress at some level. The amount of stress we create is the issue, and all training should be as less stressful as possible. When a high ranking dog challenges a dog in a pack with a bite on the neck we say thats not cruel, it just dogs sorting out their pecking order. Tell me that both those dogs arn't experiencing a form of stress. Yet a dog owner that uses a fair and just negative to enforce a rule is considered cruel and creating unwarranted stress in the poor dog.

Why is it that using negatives in behaviour management is seen as cruel by so many, yet the same people will watch their dogs occassionally challenge each other? Doesn't withholding a food reward in a highly food motivated dog create some form of stress? Many will say but witholding a food reward doesn't creat physical pain.. Hmmm how many people do you know that are in psychological pain due to an abusive relationship? That is so much worse than any physical pain.

No trainer is out there to damage or overly stress a dog. Those that keep suggesting that trainers like me for example are a cruel bunch, really do need to take a good look at themselves. The number of owners out there that are at their wits end with their beloved dog, need someone to turn too. And if a totally positive method isn't working, then alternatives need to be used. Our number one priority is the dog and the relationship it has with its owner. I personally have lost count of the owners that have turned to me as a last resort, I have saved many a dogs life that totally positive methods just weren't working.

Those that believe that all our training is based on negatives look at us with blinkers, and only see what they want to focus on. We only ever see what we believe. Because totally positive trainers are so against any form of negative reinforcement, thats their focus when they look at a trainer that advocates using positive and negative reinforcement. They only see the negatives, and when their state of mind is focused on a negative... it creates a 'negative' feeling inside.

We that advocate using postive and when needed negative reinforcement, our main focus is on the postive, ALWAYS! You can only gain a positive response by using a positive. But you can also inhibit a negative behaviour by using a negative, in many instances.

In South Australia the Dog and Cat Management Board brought out a discount on dog registration for obedience trained dogs, to promote responsible dog ownership. When this originally came out, the minimum standard was level 3 obedience. When the Dog & Cat Management Board aligned themselves with 'Delta' this level was dropped to the following level:

Stay for 10 seconds

Walk at heel for a distance of 5 metres

Recall to handler from a distance of 1 metre within 3 commands

Sit within 3 commands (Sit can be subsituted by down or stand in any exercise if the dogis unable to or uncomfortablesitting)

Not aggressive when 2 metres from a dog which is sitting quietly with its handler

I am at a loss to understand why the board even considers this a training level? I am also at a loss to understand why the board lowered the original level required for the discount?

Something is going very wrong with our society when we use this level of obedience to show that an owner is now responsible and has a trained dog, and now deserves a discount in dog registraion.

I personally feel like an idiot passing these certificates out to my clients.

But life goes on......

[Rom]

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

Back tracking just a little

From what I recall, Jan Fennels work with/study of wolves was conducted at zoos or some other form of captivity. So perhaps some of the results/observations made there about what does and doesn't work is based on similar flaws as what Mark points out in the below?:

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.

After reading one or two of Jan Fennels books and learning that she was inspired to do what she does with dog after attending some Monty Roberts workshops with horses, I decided to read some of Monty Roberts books.

The keystone of a lot of what Monty Roberts does with horses is what he calls the 'join up' process. On the face of it, the 'join up' process seems to be very benign and doesn't seem to be dishing any punishers onto the horse. Thats what Jan Fennel has latched onto and it has inspired her methods. At a workshop of hers that I attended, she referred to the 'join up' process as just 'shoo-shooing' the horse away.

In his book "Shy Boy-the horse that come in from the wild", Monty Roberts goes into this join up process in depth and describes the psychological fear (or terror, depending on the the extremes to which the point is pushed) that the join up process can induce in a horse.

The book "Shy Boy" is the result of a challenge that Monty Roberts set himself to cut a mustang from a wild herd, and all by himself tame it, saddle it and ride it home. All this was done out in the wilderness. While he was successful in doing this, the mustang was subjected to the join up process for more than 24hrs straight, from what I remember. So, was the mustang subjected to +P? Absolutely it was because as Monty Roberts states, the join up process mimicks a disciplinary action that is frequently used in herds.....The punisher is the threat of being at greater risk of predation by being separated from or forced out of the herd.

ETA: The best thing I got out of the Jan Fennel seminar that I attended was this saying: "The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open." I often pull myself up cuz I still need practice on this :rolleyes:

Edited December 23, 2007 by Rom

[dak07]

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as purely positive training, anyone that says that they are purely positive trainers just demonstrates either a lack of education or not quite telling the truth. the use of sin bins, withholding of treats etc. are all forms of negative punishment.

[Erny]

Interesting question you raise - sorry to go OT but I think much of the problem with the word 'dominance' stems from a lack of education on the part of owners....

Hi TSD. I have to agree with you that EDUCATION is indeed the key and this is what MUST be promoted above, beyond and before all else.

Unfortunately, IMO, the legislations that are being passed; the ban after ban after ban; the "we've got our fingers in our ears because we don't want to listen to you and our way is the only right way because it sounds nice, warm, fuzzy and cushy to our 'groomed' version of society these days" act as a continual blocker to people opening up their minds to receiving that education.

Either that, or those for whom "positive only" does not work for them are intimidated and made to feel guilty for even contemplating something other than that ..... so they hit the books or TV - and we know that books and TV are not structured or designed to suit every dog, every person, on their own individual merits.

As for the Cesar Millan "alpha roll" component of his methodology ..... I do not condone "alpha roll". Let that be clear. Above all it is dangerous to the owner. Having said that I don't have pay TV and the only televised episode I've had opportunity to watch of his was one involving a somewhat 'rude' JRT. The "alpha roll" that he used comprised of a very quick well-timed gesture using three fingers of one hand on the dog's shoulder - the dog volunteered a very appropriate submissive posture. Of course there was more to what he did in that episode, but I was not horrified at what he did.

But again - I have not seen other episodes that demonstrate this further. And I guess it doesn't matter how many times you say "do not try this at home" ..... people will hear only what they want to hear, or as seems to be the case these days, are conditioned to hear.

We need to remember that people are like sheep (yes, even me sometimes .... until I can in all consciousness no longer) and it is far easier to be a follower and receive approval than it is to stand up against the tide and say what you believe in. Strength and courage to do so comes from a passion - a passion that is SELFLESS and serves no personal agenda.

Mark has done this. And I applaud him. And I stand with him also.

It's about time the blinkers were removed from the few who yield power and who demonstrate that power in a manner befitting an animal that is afraid. IE Without wisdom. Without forethought for what is ultimately best.

...... :rolleyes: Erny steps down from soap-box .....

Edited December 23, 2007 by Erny

[MarkS]

Mark claps his hands as Erny steps down from her soap-box!

:rolleyes:

None of us are right 100% of the time. Thats where active discussion such as this serves a wonderful purpose. We can all learn something from each other. Even a old stubborn Aries like me

[Guest Willow]

From what I recall, Jan Fennels work with/study of wolves was conducted at zoos or some other form of captivity.

Jan studied the wolves living wild in Yellowstone

[Tonymc]

Great post Erny!!!! I have to laugh at some of the purely positive crowd.I see it this way.Who is best at training or getting the message through to a Dog?Another Dog!!!! Even Dogs living in packs in the wild do not run their pack on a purely positive approach!!!!!

Lablover,I have to strongly disagree with your idea that the inexperienced are better with the purely positive approach.I have seen those type of situations and it ended up with confused people,confused Dogs,no limits,no guidelines,no boundarys and no leadership.All in all a great recipe for a big wreck!!!! Tony

[dak07]

At the end of the day, indusive training methods will work on wide variety of skills / behaviour problems but without reliability and this is what i find disturbing because, i feel that clients are misled into believing that their dog is trained to react / behaviour in a certain way but the moment something better comes along the dog will not obey and will go after what it desires more e.g. will a dog remain in a sit ( for a liver treat ) when someone else is offering a t-bone?