Interesting Read

[Erny]

AVASB : Owners usually provide attention by talking or yelling, pushing them down, or otherwise touching them. A better solution would be to remove attention

by standing silently and completely still and then to immediately reward with attention or treats once the dog sits. This learning-based approach leads to a better understanding of our pets and consequently to a better human-pet relationship.

What the AVASB haven't taken into account is the dog whose behaviour is such that it simply can't be ignored, where the behaviour becomes potentially injurious to the person due to extinction burst and then becomes worse because the owner has been forced to 'act' prior to the extinction burst peaking.

[Erny]

AVASB : The standard of care for veterinarians specializing in behavior is that punishment is not to be used as a first-line or early-use treatment for behavior problems. Consequently, the AVSAB urges that veterinarians in general practice follow suit.

The problem with this is that with behaviours where "punishment" is effective, application of "punishment" at the outset of the behaviour usually results in (a) a lesser punishment being necessary to be effective and (b) because the behaviour has not had the opportunity to become ingrained and inadvertently reinforced over time, the dog receives fewer "punishment" applications for the behaviour.

I've not worded the above very well .... hope it makes sense.

[Cosmolo]

A little Ot but an example of a situation where using correction is not a 'last resort'. I went and saw a client recently who had a great dane cross (great dane height but a bit more solid) who jumped on visitors and had recently caused a large cut on the owners older relative. The dog was locked away whenever visitors arrived as they could not take the risk of the dog injuring someone. There was no opportunity to safely ignore as a training solution so we did use corrections immediately. The dog responded well and will now be allowed to interact with guests with a little more training.

[Erny]

AVASB : Punishment is anything that decreases the likelihood a behavior will occur again.

I agree with this definition, and probably should have resourced to their definitions before I started. But if this is their definition, then by rights they are precluding the withholding of treats; sin-binning; ignoring; and the like, yet they make no mention of these activities nor of the fall-out or even the potential psychological affect these things can have.

[Erny]

An excerpt from "Critics of Punishment" in Steven Lindsay's "Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training"

Sorry ..... I can't seem to put my hand on the quote that I wanted to use .... relating to use of punishment in training. Will put it here when I get a better chance to look more thoroughly.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Erny

[Erny]

Overall, I think the AVSAB's "statement" release loses credibility when you recognise the statements it has made that are (a) wrong; and/or (b) seemingly sweeping statements that are not backed up with researched reference. From their "statement" it also seems to me that they do not have a full understanding and knowledge of the application of training methodology that goes along and in conjunction with the training aids they have seemingly decried or disprove of.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Erny

[Nekhbet]

1. Reward-based training. There are numerous ways to train dogs. In addition, each

animal has his/her own learning style and preferred motivators. AVSAB endorses

training methods which allow animals to work for things (e.g., food, play, affection)

that motivate them rather than techniques that focus on using fear or pain to punish

them for undesirable behaviors. Look for a trainer who uses primarily or only

reward-based training with treats, toys, and play. Avoid any trainer who advocates

methods of physical force that can harm your pet such as hanging dogs by their

collars or hitting them with their hands, feet, or leashes.

Research shows that dogs do not need to be physically punished to learn how to

behave, and there are significant risks associated with using punishment (such as

inhibiting learning, increasing fear, and/or stimulating aggressive events). Therefore,

trainers who routinely use choke collars, pinch collars, shock collars, and other

methods of physical punishment as a primary training method should be avoided.

Because of its risks, punishment should only be used by a trainer who can fully

explain the possible adverse effects (See AVSAB Punishment Position Statement

on the AVSAB web site) and instruct owners in one-on-one sessions how to perform

the techniques correctly.

Punishment should not be used as a general first-line approach; instead trainers using

punishment should discuss specifically which situations may call for its use. General

use of such punishment assumes that animals always know exactly what humans

expect of them and are willfully disobeying. In fact, animals are often disobeying

because people have accidentally reinforced the wrong behaviors or have not

communicated clearly the appropriate behaviors. No learner wants to be in a situation

where they have to constantly be afraid of making a mistake.

how to choose a dog trainer from their position statement

[Nekhbet]

4. Respectful. A good trainer should be personable and respectful of both you and

your dog. Avoid trainers who recommend using physical force (e.g. alpha rolling,

pushing a dog into position, hitting, choke chain or pinch collar correction) or

methods/devices that have the potential for harm, as an acceptable way to train.

Additionally, avoid trainers who make you feel bad about the speed of progress that

your dog is making. (See AVSAB Punishment Position Statement on the AVSAB

web site)

[Nekhbet]

• The AVSAB recommends that veterinarians

not refer clients to trainers or behavior

consultants who coach and advocate dominance

hierarchy theory and the subsequent

confrontational training that follows from it.

• The AVSAB recommends that veterinarians

identify and refer clients only to trainers

and behavior consultants who understand

the principles of learning theory and who

focus on reinforcing desirable behaviors

and removing the reinforcement for undesirable

behaviors.

I have no respect for these people. Sorry. I also have not slept in 2 days so if I dont make sense feel free to poke me

[Erny]

Something else I was thinking about as I was driving to take my boy out for a jaunt in the park.

Is it me, or has the AVSAB written in a fashion that makes it, on first reading, seem as though they are taking a balanced perspective, yet by the mere omission to naming all of the training tools that "punish" (I mean, what about the head-collar and the no-pull style of harnesses?) lead people to believe it is only use of THOSE tools named by it that cause the supposed problems that they speak of? They broadened the actual paper to focus on "punishment" yet they only paired it with seemingly selective training tools. Is this coincidental?

Did they do that on purpose? If they did, is that because in writing their "position statement" they have an agenda? Is it designed as a style of brainwash? (Am I being too harsh?) If not, then is it simply a matter of them not understanding the fundamentals of (a) how training equipment works and/or (b) how punishment works?

The other thing that gets me is how come, if training in the absence of punishment is the way to go (and it has been advocated and practiced more and more over the years), why are we seemingly seeing more and more dogs surrendered for boisterous behaviour? Why isn't it the reverse?

Don't get me wrong .... I'm all for positive where positive is sufficient, and I use lots of it in my training. My own (now nearly 7mo) pup has been and is being trained on a flat collar without physical corrections. I love this where it will work. But I recognise that training is not a 'one size fits all' matter yet statement releases such as the AVSAB's seems to be trying to channel people's beliefs that the view of training and the variety of training tools available should be narrowed down.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Erny

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The other thing that gets me is how come, if training in the absence of punishment is the way to go (and it has been advocated and practiced more and more over the years), why are we seemingly seeing more and more dogs surrendered for boisterous behaviour? Why isn't it the reverse?

Well, to be fair, surrender rates don't tell you a lot. Old school disposal methods were to drop the dog on a remote country road, take it to the dump and shoot it, or otherwise get rid of it - going to the farm via the vet for example. Also, reasons for surrender can be notoriously flakey.

[corvus]

AVASB : Punishment is frequently a first-line or an early-use tool by both the general public ...

I didn't mean to start pulling apart the AVASB Statement in this manner, but I can't help it as I keep seeing these sorts of statements. Firstly, I'd like to know where they gathered their statistics to be able to release a statement that suggests "punishment" is what the general public use first up.

I can only speak from my own experience and from what I learn/hear from others, but I tend to find that many of the unwanted behaviours that have developed and are for what people need me to help with, is because the owner has been loath to "punish" their dog at all.

Well, I think that a lot of people do automatically use punishment, even physical punishment. We are higher primates after all. Look at the way chimps handle their problems! They are violent creatures. We are not that bad thank god, but nor are we bonobos making love not war. As someone who takes a lot of provoking before I get angry and a lot more before I get physical, I was shocked to find myself standing over a frightened puppy one day when he was annoying the crap out of me and had a "MUMMUMMUMMUMMUM!" moment with his teeth when I was running late and trying to do things. I had pushed him off me so violently that I'd really scared him, possibly even hurt him. It was too much and I knew it as soon as I'd done it, but I'm only human and I have a higher tolerance than many people I know. It's in our nature.

Although I do agree that a lot of problems people have stem from discipline problems. However, you could look at it another way and say that it's because the people hadn't told the dog what TO do rather than what not to do. In addition, I think trends have changed and more is expected of dogs these days. When I was a kid, dogs roamed the streets and mostly did what they liked as long as they didn't bite anyone. And that was only 15 years ago. Consider that it's also possible that the people who happily use punishment and end up with problems anyway could be less likely to be the kind of people that seek professional help?

Temple Grandin says the worst thing you can do to an animal is make it feel afraid. She once oversaw the training of antelopes at a zoo and if someone inadvertently frightened them that was often the last time that person could get anywhere near them. Given, we kinda need dogs to fit into society a wee bit better than a wild antelope, but it serves to highlight just how powerful fear is. In my mind, if you are going to use something that potentially powerful on another animal, you had better be VERY careful and know what you are doing. Hence, I try to keep my aversives to an absolute minimum. Until I blow up and my animals learn that sometimes I turn into a nutter, that is.

Lastly, I think we need to remember that these articles are meant as sweeping generalisations, aren't they? Generalisations about most dogs and most dog owners. No one on this forum is really a "most dog owners" kind of person. I happen to think that the majority of aggression is driven by fear, even when it is in the guise of something else. Fear and reinforcement. So yeah, I would like to see people be real careful with how they use fear.

I agree that not all aversives illicit a fear response and I personally try to stick with aversives that don't. My rule of thumb is that the animal should be back to normal within about half a minute of the aversive. That's just me, though.

I don't think Jo Public particularly needs physical punishments in their tool box, but I guess that's just me, too. There aren't many things I have encountered that could be solved with physical punishment but not ignoring coupled with an incompatible behaviour or training with positive reinforcement. In fact, I can't think of anything, and I personally know of one dog, possibly two that did become aggressive after physical punishment.

[Cosmolo]

And i know dogs corvus wo have become aggressive after someone used positive reinforcement incorrectly. Timing, consistency and clarity is key no matter what training you are doing. I use physical aversives where appropriate and i don't believe its fear based training. A dog that is terrified of its handler won't learn anything. Corvus can you give me examples of an aversive that doesn't cause fear and one that does? I just want to understand where you're coming from: )

Jo Public whose 50-60kg dog is jumping them such as the example i gave earlier does need a quick physical correction in their toolbox IMO- what else would they safely do? Its hard to ignore the dog as you fall to the ground.

A dog should recover from a correction quicker than 30 seconds too IMO

Edited January 7, 2009 by Cosmolo

[Erny]

Lastly, I think we need to remember that these articles are meant as sweeping generalisations, aren't they? Generalisations about most dogs and most dog owners.

AVSAB : Avoid trainers who recommend using physical force (e.g. alpha rolling, pushing a dog into position, hitting, choke chain or pinch collar correction) or methods/devices that have the potential for harm, as an acceptable way to train.

AVASB : The AVSAB recommends that veterinarians identify and refer clients only to trainers and behavior consultants who understand the principles of learning theory and who focus on reinforcing desirable ehaviors

and removing the reinforcement for undesirable behaviors.

I don't think the above are generalisations .... in fact, I think they are very directional and pointed.

But when you think about it, they've ruled out anyone who uses any training/management device on dogs, as any equipment style has "the potential for harm" as does any training methodology - although noting the AVSAB has been selective about naming only certain styles. But I doubt "joe public" would pick up on that fact.

I agree with Cosmolo. It's also my opinion that a dog should recover from a correction quicker than 30 seconds.

we kinda need dogs to fit into society a wee bit better than a wild antelope, but it serves to highlight just how powerful fear is

I don't think comparison of dog to wild antelope is a good one.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Erny

[Erny]

Well, to be fair, surrender rates don't tell you a lot. ... Also, reasons for surrender can be notoriously flakey.

Perhaps, and fair enough. I guess you'd need stats to compare against dog populous -vs- dogs to shelters from 'back in those days' and then compare those with dog populous -vs- dogs to shelters in recent times, to be able to establish a firmer foundation for my musing. Figures I do not have at my finger tips.

[Dogs rock]

The thing that bothers me is that the article suggests that trainers that use some sort of pysical punishment use it almost 'willy nilly' without putting conditions on it, and also that they don't use positive reinforcement along with it (which I think someone mentioned before). I know it was mentioned about sweeping generalisations, but I feel that it is a slap in the face to the many trainers out there that DO understand learning theory, and DO use punishment appropriately and with some clear rules for it's application. I think it is important to point out that these many knowledgeable trainers that have an excellent understanding on dog behaviour also spend a fair bit of time educating clients on punishments that ARE inappropriate and unfair. Punishments that Joe Public think are acceptable and start to implement with no actual understanding of the damage that they are doing (like the person who scares the bejesus out of their puppy by roaring at them, dragging them over to a patch of urine on the ground and rubbing their nose in it).

There is also quite a bit of talk in the article about punishment being used on dogs with fear issues - any educated dog trainer would surely not actually use punishment in this case, as punishing fear does tend to make it worse, or at least doesn't really help the situation at all (as the punisher compounds the fear, not reduces it). I guess the real issue is that there is no regulation as to what makes a good dog trainer and an average one, so poor Joe Public is stuck with whomever he calls and thinks sounds good on the phone. And without regulation, organisations like the AVSAB do in fact need to be conservative in their views and make sweeping statements because, as I'm sure we all agree, there are also plenty of bad trainers out there too.

For the record, in case you couldn't tell, I believe in physical punishment when necessary, but also make very sure that positive reinforcement for correct behaviour goes hand in hand. I don't believe that punishment alone is particularly effective (that IS where you would likely end up with a fearful and/or reactive dog), nor do I believe that just positive reinforcement works for all situations either. I think the key to success is having good AND bad consequences, depending on the behaviour. I feel that this leads to greater understanding in a shorter time period, as the dog can clearly see the results of exhibiting various behaviours. (Provided of course that there is consistency and good timing - something that all us dog trainers are forever hopeful of finding in each and every client).

An anecdote to finish off... A couple of months ago I was at an obedience trial with my girl. Someone was admiring her and her work, and said how good it was to see a happy dog with a lovely bond with her owner, that had clearly been trained with positive reinforcement. I had to correct the lady and say yes, she does get plenty of positive reinforcement, but she does also receive punishment (including physical) when necessary. It is often said that the use of punishment (particularly positive punishment of the physical kind) breaks down the bond between dog and owner. I guess my kids missed that memo....

[Nekhbet]

I agree with Cosmolo. It's also my opinion that a dog should recover from a correction quicker than 30 seconds.

OK slept now I might make sense ...

There is no 'recovery' from a correction - well unless you are belting 7 bells out of the animal - but remember dogs pull some funky behaviors in surprise and to get their own way. Some dogs pull the mother of all tantrums and it can look for all intensive purposes like its being skinned alive ... and you havnt even touched it Genuine fear and the BS spoiled or in control dogs pull is two very different things. A PhD wont tell you that PRACTICAL HANDS ON TRAINING experience will.

When I correct I like to do it before the dog hits it heightened state - eg dog who goes bananas straining, barking etc when passing dogs at a fence. I allow the dog to look at them, but as soon as it was engaged I give the correction. As soon as the dog looks at me 'YAAAAAAAAAY GOOD DOG'. Why make life harder? It only took two good corrections for that dog to stop lunging completely whilst I was walking it and even began self correcting its own behavior.

An anecdote to finish off... A couple of months ago I was at an obedience trial with my girl. Someone was admiring her and her work, and said how good it was to see a happy dog with a lovely bond with her owner, that had clearly been trained with positive reinforcement. I had to correct the lady and say yes, she does get plenty of positive reinforcement, but she does also receive punishment (including physical) when necessary. It is often said that the use of punishment (particularly positive punishment of the physical kind) breaks down the bond between dog and owner. I guess my kids missed that memo....

I agree with you Dogs Rock. There is good and bad on both sides of the track BUT no one should be purely discounted because of their beliefs or equipment. I'm sure there are many people out there who now thank prongs, check chains and e-collars for saving their dog from euthanasia and allowing it to become a loved member of the family. My dogs are like yours too, I went to a purely positive day and had other people admiring my dogs ... well how do you think I correct a 60kg entire male? But, they all get encouragement when required and the reinforcers outweigh the corrections (because of course they are perfect )

If you discount equipment, bad mouth or scaremonger it shows a LACK of education in my books. I dont care that they have PhD's in 'animal behavior' (which by the way is not practical, lifestyle dog training) because their views show they live in a bubble. There are dangerous, stubborn, aggressive, tough dogs in the world who need a bit of a clip about the ear proverbially. We want dogs to fit into society but then we have people like this who spout that you should avoid people who want to use corrections first etc. I too have seen first hand what happens when a dog is trained purely reward based - two out of 3 people in the house still carry the scars. One size does not fit all and if you think it does you should NOT be giving advice to the general populous, or at least be willing to pass them on to someone who will train in the methods you do not.

[Cosmolo]

I have had the same thing dog rock- people assuming that one of my dogs in particular is trained without any corrections because of how he works, and thats not true. My dogs missed the bond diminishing memo too!

[Erny]

I agree with you Nekhbet. Look at many of the 'rules' in life that have swung to each of the extreme swings of the pendulum. IMO, that's half the problem with many 'rules' that we have upon us that the 'rule-makers' make. They are either to one extreme, or the other. I prefer to see life as having some balance, some moderation. I guess the problem is that it is impossible for the 'rule-makers' to include a proper description of 'balance', so they tend to avoid doing so. But because these things become 'rules', it warps the balance/moderation that we otherwise would have, and in cases, things go pear shaped.

PS .... Glad you got some sleep in . Feel better?

Edited January 7, 2009 by Erny

[Nekhbet]

sleeeeeeeeeeep ... eh sort of. At least I'm safe enough to drive a car now and MAYBE make a point on the forums ... maybe not ... heheheheeh

I'm still tired enough it took me 4 hours to find the liver treats in my pocket *sigh* and wondered why I smelled like liver.

I want to see rules MADE by the people with the practical experience, the people like us on the forums who breed, train and scrape up other peoples messes. Christ after having stuffed up dogs given to me left right and centre frankly I WANT and NEED equipment everyone is poo pooing. Not every dog is a soft, roll over and pee if you raise your voice dog. Not every dog HAS an interest in food or toys when fixing a problem - you have to give them an 'oi settle moron' before you get through to their brain which has taken off like a freight train on their own tangent. Now unless we start starving dogs or completely depriving them of stimulation to heighten the value of the reward (which in itself isnt that cruel especially for those ultra stubborn dogs?) what the heck is wrong with punishment.

If more kids these days got a clip on the ear and a smack on the bum it wouldnt hurt either. But they're going the same way. We think the world has 'changed', society has 'changed' - human and canine nature has NOT.