Brand New Resource For Vets And Dog Trainers From Ava

[cheekycairn]

Below is information I have just received about a new AVA resource on the use of positive reinforcement training methods for dogs...

"Dogs play such an important part in many of our lives and through proper training from an early age they can learn interact in a positive way.

With this in mind the Australian Veterinary Association has developed a set of practical recommendations in a guide for dog trainers based on training methods based on positive reinforcement.

Reward-based training: a guide for dog trainers outlines the benefits of reward-based training and identifies some of the problems associated with alternative training methods. It also includes a number of case studies, examples of training and comprehensive list of references for further reading on the subject.

‘Positive reinforcement’ is a training method based on the simple approach of giving the dog something it wants to make behaviour more likely to occur again.

The AVA believes use of positive reinforcement is the most humane and effective training method as it avoids undesirable behavioural side effects. Positive reinforcement also makes training more enjoyable and helps to improve the bond between the trainer and the pet.

For example, Sassy jumps up to greet people: her owners have tried pushing her down and kneeing her to knock her off balance when she jumps. This has not worked, in fact she now jumps from further away to avoid the knee. Sassy should be ignored if she jumps and only receive attention (including eye contact) when she has four paws on the ground. Only when she is standing or sitting should she be rewarded with attention and treats."

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Reward-based%20training%20brochure.pdf

[Steve K9Pro]

For example, Sassy jumps up to greet people: her owners have tried pushing her down and kneeing her to knock her off balance when she jumps. This has not worked, in fact she now jumps from further away to avoid the knee. Sassy should be ignored if she jumps and only receive attention (including eye contact) when she has four paws on the ground. Only when she is standing or sitting should she be rewarded with attention and treats."

K9: Hmm, so, Sassy jumps to avoid the knee, this likely means that she is jumping with a high level of enthusiasm.

Now when she jumps we ignore her?

This will produce an extinction burst, just like the knee did.

How does one ignore a dog that is jumping on you with force and tearing your skin off with its nails?

[corvus]

So, what, "positive reinforcement" is a comprehensive training method, now?

[Nekhbet]

How does one ignore a dog that is jumping on you with force and tearing your skin off with its nails?

Better contact the AVA Steve, they will put you in touch with one of their veterinary behaviourists who will charge you squillions to fix the problem slowly and scientifically.

Yes you should always show the dog the desired behaviour, yes you should reinforce the right behaviour. But once again they make punishment seem like it's simply beating the dog or taking out anger management issues O_o If in doubt, totally malign that which you dont understand :rolleyes:

[Jessca]

How does one ignore a dog that is jumping on you with force and tearing your skin off with its nails?

Better contact the AVA Steve, they will put you in touch with one of their veterinary behaviourists who will charge you squillions to fix the problem slowly and scientifically.

Yes you should always show the dog the desired behaviour, yes you should reinforce the right behaviour. But once again they make punishment seem like it's simply beating the dog or taking out anger management issues O_o If in doubt, totally malign that which you dont understand :rolleyes:

Don't forget with lots of drugs ;)

[corvus]

Well, to be fair, all they have really said is that positive reinforcement is a preferable training technique to positive punishment or negative reinforcement. Does anyone seriously disagree with that? I don't think there's any evidence that they don't understand punishment. On the contrary, they provide a pretty good summary of what can go wrong with using punishment and why they prefer positive reinforcement. They even added a few references for what it's worth.

I don't see why this has to be a big deal. We are all adults with the ability to handle shades of grey and the ability to make our own ethical decisions. Why can't we prefer positive reinforcement and still use other quadrants where we see fit? We know what works practically and what works theoretically. Surely we can marry those two and achieve humane and efficient training without having to resort to a back and forth argument using examples of individuals that don't fit the mould for whatever reason.

As for drugs, I have no idea why it's stigmatised to use drugs in a behavioural modification protocol. Sometimes a dog has got themselves so worked up and anxious that trying to change that without taking the edge off the anxiety and arousal with drugs just makes it a whole lot harder to make any headway.

[Staff'n'Toller]

Weird sort of publication to put out I thought...I can see their target audience is trainers but unless you're a Vet you can't get into the Behaviour Special Interest Group of the AVA anyway.

[Jumabaar]

How does one ignore a dog that is jumping on you with force and tearing your skin off with its nails?

Better contact the AVA Steve, they will put you in touch with one of their veterinary behaviourists who will charge you squillions to fix the problem slowly and scientifically.

Yes you should always show the dog the desired behaviour, yes you should reinforce the right behaviour. But once again they make punishment seem like it's simply beating the dog or taking out anger management issues O_o If in doubt, totally malign that which you dont understand :rolleyes:

Don't forget with lots of drugs ;)

I have actually found Veterinary behaviourists a lot less heavy handed with drugs than regular vets who are after a quick fix!! And they don't cost any different to non-veterinary behaviourists, who also sometimes seek out drug therapy to allow dogs to be given a chance to be trained out of their problems!!

I don't think this is set out to be the answer to everything, but there are so many trainers and vets back in the dark ages of training so client education is the only way to train the trainers! Pet people often don't realise there are positive methods out there because they are going somewhere that trains the dog the way that they have for decades. I don't think that all issues can be delt with positively but people need to know that it is an option, particularly early on when their pup is starting to get mixed messages about what it is doing.

Really the only downfall is that it hasn't addressed punishment fairly as a training tool. I think this is because in the wrong hands it does get out of control. I believe when it is used by someone who understands that dogs can't speak english, and has a fair understanding of how it affects dogs it works. When it is used by someone aka the people who hit their dog when it comes back to them because it ran away you are going to get into problems and it is these people that the behaviourists are trying to target. Giving them piece meal information on why their dog isn't improving when it is being hit and giving them an alternative. It is these people that I think this is aimed at.

[Nekhbet]

Well, to be fair, all they have really said is that positive reinforcement is a preferable training technique to positive punishment or negative reinforcement. Does anyone seriously disagree with that? I don't think there's any evidence that they don't understand punishment. On the contrary, they provide a pretty good summary of what can go wrong with using punishment and why they prefer positive reinforcement. They even added a few references for what it's worth.

Positive reinforcement is part of your overall training. You cannot pick one quadrant and say it's 'preferable'. If you dont know the dogs problem, breed, background, previous training and owners abilities you cannot say that all owners should go for it first. For all purpose run of the mill 'we have done little to no structure work with our happy go lucky dog' yes of course go for it. Anything else ... call an EXPERIENCED professional and if you DONT like the techniques used say something.

The thing that gets up my nose is they advocate people go for a trainer that uses only positive training. There are many good trainers and behaviourists that use things in combination that is right for both dog and owner. Their badmouthing and saying how punishment can cause bad effects really is rediculous. What they are talking about in there is NOT well used punishment but in fact just owner behaviour that teeters on abuse at times. If in doubt give it a whack because you think it works - that is not dog training. Reef the dog around while frustrated - that is not dog training. Unfortunately that is what many veterinary behaviourists and positive trainers view punishment as being; just overall temper tantrum pain application to the dog.

It makes life difficult because the general public are just that - the general public. Keep linking the behavioural term of punishment with just bad owner behaviour (which isnt training in any way) and they generalise. Then when you pull out an e-collar, check chain etc people are convinced it's all one and the same thing.

The AVAs members are the ones with the ability to dish out drugs or lethabarb so I suppose they're qualified to fix your problem in one way or another.

[corvus]

You cannot pick one quadrant and say it's 'preferable'.

I can, and I just did.

If you dont know the dogs problem, breed, background, previous training and owners abilities you cannot say that all owners should go for it first. For all purpose run of the mill 'we have done little to no structure work with our happy go lucky dog' yes of course go for it. Anything else ... call an EXPERIENCED professional and if you DONT like the techniques used say something.

Since when does 'preferable' mean that all owners should go for positive reinforcement first? There's no sense doing something that's not going to work simply because it's a preference. I prefer positive reinforcement, but the only time I'm going to try it first if I don't think I will have success with it is if trying if first and having it fail won't make things worse.

The thing that gets up my nose is they advocate people go for a trainer that uses only positive training.

They do? I could only find this: "Seeking the help of a qualified trainer who uses reward-based training techniques". It doesn't say "a qualified trainer who uses only reward-based training techniques". In the summary it says reward-based training should be the primary method used. Who doesn't use rewards more than anything else?

[Nekhbet]

I can, and I just did.

On paper and out here in the real world having to fix other people's dogs problems are two different things

They do? I could only find this: "Seeking the help of a qualified trainer who uses reward-based training techniques". It doesn't say "a qualified trainer who uses only reward-based training techniques". In the summary it says reward-based training should be the primary method used. Who doesn't use rewards more than anything else?

What do you think they mean by reward based training techniques? In that case all trainers can be considered and the statement becomes a moot point. Reward based training should be the primary method used - really? In every case you need a dog trained? I should toss away everything I do now and just stick to what the AVA consider best practice? Mmm no. This is simply the shiny PR face to what training is trying to be funneled into by the AVA, RSPCA, Delta etc.

If you are going to supply the public with information, you don't make it biased otherwise you then show an agenda. If this pamphlet didnt sway peoples opinion it would be useful at least.

[corvus]

On paper and out here in the real world having to fix other people's dogs problems are two different things

So, what, you can't have a preferred quadrant because you have to fix other people's dog problems? That doesn't make sense. I can happily list the quadrants in order of my personal preference, which has hardly any bearing on what I actually decide to use except that where several will work I'll use my favourite. Oh noes, I have a favourite?? Who doesn't love rewarding dogs?

What do you think they mean by reward based training techniques? In that case all trainers can be considered and the statement becomes a moot point. Reward based training should be the primary method used - really? In every case you need a dog trained? I should toss away everything I do now and just stick to what the AVA consider best practice? Mmm no. This is simply the shiny PR face to what training is trying to be funneled into by the AVA, RSPCA, Delta etc.

To me it says "pick a trainer that uses primarily positive reinforcement". Seems like good advice to me. I use primarily positive reinforcement. Lots of people do. I don't think they are saying "always" or "never". I think they are saying as a general rule.

If you are going to supply the public with information, you don't make it biased otherwise you then show an agenda. If this pamphlet didnt sway peoples opinion it would be useful at least.

Eh, we get fed biased information ALL THE TIME. Because if you want to pass on a message you keep it very simple and ignore a lot of exceptions and caveats. I don't think that "positive is good!" is a bad message to send to the masses at all. So what if they start frowning at prongs and e-collars? If they really need them, they won't care about image. I'd rather people went into any training venture being cautious of punishments.

[Nekhbet]

So, what, you can't have a preferred quadrant because you have to fix other people's dog problems? That doesn't make sense. I can happily list the quadrants in order of my personal preference, which has hardly any bearing on what I actually decide to use except that where several will work I'll use my favourite. Oh noes, I have a favourite?? Who doesn't love rewarding dogs?

I use what works for the dog and gets the results. I dont really care about personal preference of quadrants. At the time I have the dog the amount of reinforcement/punishment used and what type will change to how the dog is behaving and how well it is responding to training. My end goal is always that the human-canine bond is strengthened, that the dogs anxiety is low and that it is being properly treated by its owner. I never have a glassy eyed dog from training, they're happy, focussed and want more - even if I use a punisher.

As for what you use, your sample size really is too small for any validity so can we stop these circular discussions you seem to love - the world is greater then your two dogs.

I don't think that "positive is good!" is a bad message to send to the masses at all. So what if they start frowning at prongs and e-collars? If they really need them, they won't care about image. I'd rather people went into any training venture being cautious of punishments.

Because it skews the reality of dog training and perveys an agenda. It's pushed towards dog trainers too - why? Shouldnt they know better already? They also divide 'Punishment as a training method' and 'Reinforcement as a training method'. Neither of them are 'methods' per say at all. But they insist on creating a divide. Also just because you have a lot of 'reputable' sources an intelligent person can manipulate quotes and information in the finished document ... there's a whole industry made on this too you know!

The use of positive reinforcement is the most humane and effective training method as it avoids undesirable behavioural side effects

Really I still thinks it's a piece of paper I'm not really interested in.

[corvus]

I use what works for the dog and gets the results. I dont really care about personal preference of quadrants. At the time I have the dog the amount of reinforcement/punishment used and what type will change to how the dog is behaving and how well it is responding to training. My end goal is always that the human-canine bond is strengthened, that the dogs anxiety is low and that it is being properly treated by its owner. I never have a glassy eyed dog from training, they're happy, focussed and want more - even if I use a punisher.

So does everyone?

As for what you use, your sample size really is too small for any validity so can we stop these circular discussions you seem to love - the world is greater then your two dogs.

I thought I was the one trying to stop the silly circular discussions. You were saying the proverbial 'you' can't have a preference and suggested this was because training incorporates all of the quadrants depending on what is appropriate. I disagreed and said I have a favourite even though I use all of the quadrants depending on what is appropriate. The point I was making was hardly dependent on a large sample size. In fact, I made a point earlier that it's pointless bringing up individuals as 'evidence' for the superiority or efficacy or lack thereof of a training method. But let's keep those arguments separate so no one gets confused.

Because it skews the reality of dog training and perveys an agenda.

To properly represent the reality of dog training takes a fair bit more than a 2 page brochure. Sometimes people ask me specific questions about dog behaviour because they know I'm studying it. The more I learn, the harder the questions are to answer because it's hard to distil what I do know into something small and useful. Most of the trainers and behaviourists I know just don't talk about punishments much because they have to work so hard to get people to stop using them inappropriately. If I had a dollar for every time I saw someone in the street inappropriately punish a dog and completely fail to even change the behaviour they are punishing, I'd be able to fund my own research. It's extremely common. It's always nice to have a realistic discussion with someone who's been in the game for a long time about ways to use some quadrants other than R+, but I can understand why they don't want to talk about that in public. They are terrified that if they explain it can be used humanely they will be taken out of context and used to justify misuse. I wholeheartedly believe that's what would happen. It happened here when Steven Lindsay visited last year.

Anyway, I agree that the divide is stupid and inaccurate, but I think the overall message is more useful than a more balanced one. Incidentally, they reference good sources and in context. You don't have to look very hard to find an academic saying positive reinforcement is good and punishment can potentially make things worse. Most of them around the world seem happy to say it.

[Weasels]

I don't have a problem with corrections per se, but I would only ever hire a PP trainer/behaviourist for my dogs.

This is because I don't trust someone I have only met a few times to know the threshold of correction that my dogs (particularly my boy) can handle without shutting down. And since I'm the one that then has to pick up the pieces for the next week bringing him back from increasing reactivity, skittishness and general barkiness I'm unapologetic about that.

My view is that PP is a lot less likely to do damage in the wrong hands or even with people that misjudge a specific dog than corrections will. I appreciate that there are trainers that may be very effective in their use of corrections but there are a lot of cowboys out there too and I'm not willing to take a chance.

[huski]

Weasels personally I wouldn't hire any trainer I didn't trust to teach me how to train my dogs, regardless of the methods they use.

There are terrible "PP only" trainers out there too that I would never want training my dogs, a bad trainer is a bad trainer IMO.

[Weasels]

Weasels personally I wouldn't hire any trainer I didn't trust to teach me how to train my dogs, regardless of the methods they use.

There are terrible "PP only" trainers out there too that I would never want training my dogs, a bad trainer is a bad trainer IMO.

Fair enough, but in that 'getting to know you' period while trust is established (or not) I would much prefer a gentler hand. I concede that Weez is probably at the extreme end being both a breed that is known for shutting down under harsh tratment and a rescue dog. My approach personally is trying to talk to as many trainers as I can and absorb what's helpful for me & mine and discard the rest. Just one client's perpective tho of course

ETA: I think my point is that a terrible PP trainer is less likely to cause ongoing problems than a terrible -ve trainer. Obviously you'd ditch both tho.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Weasels

[huski]

Weasels personally I wouldn't hire any trainer I didn't trust to teach me how to train my dogs, regardless of the methods they use.

There are terrible "PP only" trainers out there too that I would never want training my dogs, a bad trainer is a bad trainer IMO.

Fair enough, but in that 'getting to know you' period while trust is established (or not) I would much prefer a gentler hand. I concede that Weez is probably at the extreme end being both a breed that is known for shutting down under harsh tratment and a rescue dog. My approach personally is trying to talk to as many trainers as I can and absorb what's helpful for me & mine and discard the rest. Just one client's perpective tho of course

That a behaviourist or trainer might use corrections with some dogs doesn't mean they don't have a "gentle hand", are harsh on dogs or aren't experienced or very successful in working with timid and nervous dogs - at least that has not been my experience

There's a lot you can do to make behaviour worse using "PR only methods" too, I think it's a real myth that "kinder" methods can cause less damage when used incorrectly.

ETA: I don't think of it as a "which is worse" thing - I simply would not hire a trainer I thought could stuff my dog up regardless of the methods they use. I don't see less risk in hiring a crappy PR trainer vs a crappy trainer who uses corrections, I think both have the potential to do damage and that is something I would always avoid. I have always been lucky with the behaviourial trainers I've hired/worked with though

I know of crappy PR trainers who have told owners their dogs are better off PTS, I'd consider that pretty detrimental to the dog

Edited October 15, 2011 by huski

[Weasels]

I know of crappy PR trainers who have told owners their dogs are better off PTS, I'd consider that pretty detrimental to the dog

poor things I think I've been pretty lucky with trainers too, of the 5 we've worked with for various sports/ behaviour issues/ obedience, 4 have been PP and 1 has used mostly +ve with correction when necessary. The latter has been fairly willing to work with us on what is best for our dogs tho so we've been happy to continue.

I'm pretty cagey about handing over control of my dogs to anyone tho, even my husband :D

Edited October 15, 2011 by Weasels

[corvus]

Well, from what I have seen and experienced it can be difficult to avoid the effects of punishment bleeding into other behaviours. That's a problem to me. Poisoning cues is not very helpful or a compromise I'm willing to accept.

Having the effects of rewards spread to other behaviours is generally a good thing, though. What goes on with Erik and rewards is not typical. He's a wee bit manic and seems to have a short-term memory a mile long.

I think that it's worthwhile differentiating between trainers and behaviourists, here. There are a few behaviourists I would trust to punish my dogs. They are the ones that I know are well versed in the many and varied uses of positive reinforcement, classical conditioning, and providing outlets for natural behaviours. There are no trainers I have met at this stage that I would trust to punish my dogs.