What's So Bad About Using Force In Dog Training?

[Simply Grand]

I was really after something more concrete in response to my straightforward questions. (Note there was one about LLW also).

I don't really know what "authentic enough" means in the context of dog training.

I'm about to go to bed but I will come back another time and answer my own questions, so that you can maybe see how I'm asking you to articulate your training philosophy.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Simply Grand

[Willem]

Willem, do you think using pulling the lead (with whatever amount of force) to cue direction changes when loose lead walking is a BETTER way of training than avoiding leash pressure by verbally cueing a direction change? Assuming in both cases that the dog receives a reward when it follows the handler?

I missed this one...

the challenge is that you have to start from somewhere - and most dogs are not born with perfect leash behaviour. Now you have a problem: on the one side you want to walk the dog, on the other hand training a leash pulling dog for loose leash walking with positive reinforcement takes quite some time. Obviously walking the dog while he still pulls will compromise the positive reinforcement training heavily, so you have to make a decision whether positive reinforcement is really the best method here - which means you have severe problems walking the dog while the objective is not achieved.

Hence in this case IMO doing something like crazy walking, which includes some kind of force to correct the direction / pulling is the better choice. You can walk your dog and use crazy walking (the neighbours might be alarmed about those strange 'dance moves' and circles :) ) and don't have to wait at home till the unwanted pulling is extinct. Of course you can still combine this training with positive reinforcement. You can achieve a significant change for a leash pulling dog in a few days with this approach - it is very hard to achieve the same result just with positive reinforcement in the same time.

No matter what the tool is you choose, the objective is always loose leash walk (which means no tension in the leash).

Edited June 12, 2016 by Willem

[Simply Grand]

No, if you start with reward reward reward for being where I want you to be, with no tension on the lead, and add a verbal cue, for either a baby puppy or an older dog you don't ever need to pull the lead to direct them. If the dog has a history of getting what they want by pulling you do need to do something to prevent that (stand still until they move to relieve lead pressure) but it is not a slow process.

You started learning this stuff when you already had a pulling issue that you had to go back and address. That does not need to be the starting point.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Simply Grand

[Willem]

I was really after something more concrete in response to my straightforward questions. (Note there was one about LLW also).

I don't really know what "authentic enough" means in the context of dog training.

I'm about to go to bed but I will come back another time and answer my own questions, so that you can maybe see how I'm asking you to articulate your training philosophy.

I missed you other question ...but it's answered now (or at least I tried).

wrt authentic:

for me it is more a journey than a fix goal and my hope is that the older I get the more authentic I become. I believe that dogs are very good in sensing the emotional state of a person, thus if you think you are someone you are not, the communication between you and your dog will very likely be heavily compromised. On the other hand, being authentic will ease the communication significantly.

E.g. if you are scared of some dogs, they will very likely sense it and then of course you would have some challenges if you want to train them, especially if you think you can trick the dog by impersonating a fearless handler. It won't matter whether you say to others that you are not scared - they might believe you, but the dog senses something different. It is similar with all the other emotions, fears, uncertainties, anger, anxieties etc.. If you approach another dog while walking your dog and the other dog looks aggressive and scares you, you will transmit your feeling through the leash to your dog and if you do this often the dog will become leash reactive (because his alarmed state gets every time reinforced when you transmit this scary feelings).

A lot of people have some fear of dogs (IMO it is quite natural), and while they might love dogs (maybe only smaller dogs) - somewhere there is also this subliminal fear of bigger dogs. This subliminal fear can make it difficult to fill the role of a leader. Some people are not really scared of dogs, but are scared of getting bitten, again this subliminal fear might get in the way.

An unbalanced personality will also cause some challenges, or people who are easily frustrated, depressed etc. etc.. . The problem is we are what we are, and if the dogs can sense this, it might be better for us to face our own weaknesses instead of trying to hide them. That might come with some inconvenient consequences: we might have to face that our qualifications to be a leader might not be so good. Nevertheless it will open up also opportunities: if we face our weaknesses we have the chance to improve in this particular realm.

So, in nutshell, training your dog starts with training yourself....so much about my understanding of 'authentic'.

[Willem]

No, if you start with reward reward reward for being where I want you to be, with no tension on the lead, and add a verbal cue, for either a baby puppy or an older dog you don't ever need to pull the lead to direct them. If the dog has a history of getting what they want by pulling you do need to do something to prevent that (stand still until they move to relieve lead pressure) but it is not a slow process.

You started learning this stuff when you already had a pulling issue that you had to go back and address. That does not need to be the starting point.

that's force too - and some dogs have a good endurance in this pulling games. The pulling for this approach applies even a higher force compared when doing the crazy walking where you aim to change direction every second(s). By doing so it doesn't allow the dog to position himself plus you pull sideways which requires much less force.

But I agree, there are other options out there - the worst thing is doing nothing and get dragged for years behind your dog, which leads first to own frustrations, then less walking and at the end you have an also frustrated dog.

The crazy walking worked for me.

[Steph M]

What baffles me here is 'force' is so broad. I can't tell in all of this word salad if you mean force IE collar grab games, the tension on the leash when one stops moving forward when a dog pulls or a 'corrective' smack or similar.

The first one I don't think anyone really thinks is unnecessary?

[LisaCC]

I don't think you need to do NDTF or any other dog training course. You need to go do a basic psych 101 or something on learning theory.

I assume you would be far out of your depth if asked to explain how you get to this conclusion - and beside your limited capability in this realm: this would be off-topic anyway. However, feel free to start your own thread if you want to elaborate this further.

Rather than attack with petty insults as you know nothing about my 'capacity in this realm' I'm suggesting this seriously as you seem to not understand the finer details in how animals learn.

It would also help you understand how people in this thread are using terms which by future comments you are having trouble with.

[Willem]

What baffles me here is 'force' is so broad. I can't tell in all of this word salad if you mean force IE collar grab games, the tension on the leash when one stops moving forward when a dog pulls or a 'corrective' smack or similar.

The first one I don't think anyone really thinks is unnecessary?

force is defined by the physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force ... there is not much room for other interpretations. It might be that many people using the term 'force' in the context of force-free dog training mean actually abuse free / torture free etc. However, force is not abuse, nor is it automatically pain inflicting - it's just 'force'. 'Tension' in context with 'force' is just force per square cross-section. We use 'force' all the time, no one would think about 'abuse' when just lifting a glass - however without force we couldn't lift the glass.

Eta:...wrong link...fixed now.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Willem

[Willem]

http://k9-trainer.com/infopages/Compulsive.html ... some good thoughts in this article

[persephone]

I'll see your Wikipedia , and raise you a Mirriam Webster .

Full Definition of force

• 1a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2) capitalized —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane>b : moral or mental strengthc : capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>
• 2a : military strengthb (1) : a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose (2) plural : the whole military strength (as of a nation)c : a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missileforce>d : an individual or group having the power of effective action <join forces to prevent violence> <a force in politics>e often capitalized : police force —usually used with the
• 3: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
• 4a : an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effectsb : any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe
• 5: the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech <stated the objectives with force>

[Kavik]

Trainers using compulsion physically manipulate the dogs into positions such as sit and drop (and yes I have seen it done and also this was taught at NDTF). Some dogs may be fine with that, for eg it doesn't bother my GSD at all to be pushed around in this way (not surprising since he was bred by people I met while doing NDTF and people who train security, who would desire dogs who are like this). He is also happy to come in close in fronts etc. The Kelpies however do not deal with such hands on methods very well and do much better with a more hands off approach. They are more sensitive to body and handler pressure which is not surprising considering they are working bred for sheepwork and this is desireable for sheepwork training.

Not that I trained Diesel using compulsion, I used reward based training with him :) but he would have tolerated it, that is the kind of dog he is. The Kelpies DO NOT tolerate manhandling well at all.

The article is incorrect on a few matters such as saying that training with food provides a conditioned reflex rather than training. Ummm, not the case! Shaping is where the dog learns to offer behaviours and think, that is the opposite of a conditioned reflex which doesn't require thinking.

Compulsion may train do what the handler says or else, but it does not teach thinking skills, or how to deal with failure, or how to be creative and offer behaviours, which are all things we strive for in positive training. I don't want my dog to be afraid to try something or to be afraid of failure.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Kavik

[Willem]

Trainers using compulsion physically manipulate the dogs into positions such as sit and drop (and yes I have seen it done and also this was taught at NDTF). Some dogs may be fine with that, for eg it doesn't bother my GSD at all to be pushed around in this way (not surprising since he was bred by people I met while doing NDTF and people who train security, who would desire dogs who are like this). He is also happy to come in close in fronts etc. The Kelpies however do not deal with such hands on methods very well and do much better with a more hands off approach. They are more sensitive to body and handler pressure which is not surprising considering they are working bred for sheepwork and this is desireable for sheepwork training.

Not that I trained Diesel using compulsion, I used reward based training with him :) but he would have tolerated it, that is the kind of dog he is. The Kelpies DO NOT tolerate manhandling well at all.

The article is incorrect on a few matters such as saying that training with food provides a conditioned reflex rather than training. Ummm, not the case! Shaping is where the dog learns to offer behaviours and think, that is the opposite of a conditioned reflex which doesn't require thinking.

Compulsion may train do what the handler says or else, but it does not teach thinking skills, or how to deal with failure, or how to be creative and offer behaviours, which are all things we strive for in positive training. I don't want my dog to be afraid to try something or to be afraid of failure.

..contradicts somehow the statement in the article where it says ....'Trainer’s who hit dogs are not trainers. They are animal abusers. Any trainer or programs that advocate hitting a dog should be avoided. A dog should not ever be hit with the hand, rubber hose, stick, newspaper, finger, or any other object or appendage. Dogs do not learn anything from that form of abuse, except to fear their owner, environment, and possibly turn aggressive. The only thing that should come from the owner’s hand is love, and an occasional treat'.

saying this, I also think some statements in this article are at least debatable, but overall I still find it interesting and can agree to a lot of it.

[Willem]

I'll see your Wikipedia , and raise you a Mirriam Webster .

Full Definition of force

• 1a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2) capitalized used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane>b : moral or mental strengthc : capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>
• 2a : military strengthb (1) : a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose (2) plural : the whole military strength (as of a nation)c : a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missileforce>d : an individual or group having the power of effective action <join forces to prevent violence> <a force in politics>e often capitalized : police force usually used with the
• 3: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing
• 4a : an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effectsb : any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe
• 5: the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech <stated the objectives with force>

when discussing dog training I think we can leave out '2a' (we don't talk about military realms), '4a' is very specific (also doesn't contradict the physical definition), '5'...do we really need to discuss this as it refers to writing?

leaves '3', violence, compulsion and constraint: for me this are all terms that can be caused by applying a physical force (which would be measurable in Newton), but the outcome (violence, compulsion and constraint) is not so easy measurable, at least not in physical units. I understand that some people associate automatically violence when they hear / read the term force, however, IMO this is not justified. If you lift a glass, you use a force (to overcome gravity), that's not violence.

If people promoting positive reinforcement training in combination with force-free training, why don't they use just the term violence-free instead if they mean violence respectively violence-free?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Willem

[Simply Grand]

Are that many people talking about force free training? In Australia at least... I can't think of any DOLers who claim or push it?

And are you 100% they are even referring to physical force and not force free in the sense of not making the dog do anything it doesn't voluntarily do?

[corvus]

http://k9-trainer.com/infopages/Compulsive.html ... some good thoughts in this article

This article is full of misinformation and demonstrates a general failure to understand the basic principles of behaviour and learning. It's nice when you find things you can agree with, but that is not the same as finding things that are correct. If you are interested in the latter, start with a text book, not the opinion of a dog trainer with unknown qualifications publishing little thought bubbles about how they think training works on the internet. Seriously, this industry needs peer review.

[corvus]

PPGA: http://ppgaustralia.net.au/

"Pet Professional Guild Australia Members Understand Force-Free to mean: No Shock, No Pain, No Choke, No Fear, No Physical Force, No physical Molding, No Compulsion Based Methods are employed to train or care for a pet."

They go on to talk more about what this means with reference to the humane hierarchy and their guiding principles. This organisation is attracting membership in Australia, and I believe it has replaced one of the organisations for pet dog trainers that were already in place.

[The Spotted Devil]

http://k9-trainer.com/infopages/Compulsive.html ... some good thoughts in this article

This article is full of misinformation and demonstrates a general failure to understand the basic principles of behaviour and learning. It's nice when you find things you can agree with, but that is not the same as finding things that are correct. If you are interested in the latter, start with a text book, not the opinion of a dog trainer with unknown qualifications publishing little thought bubbles about how they think training works on the internet. Seriously, this industry needs peer review.

Shit yes*

*Said with force

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

And wrt zapping: I think I get zapped here on the forum quite often :D

I have to agree with that, and I'd also say as a training method for Willems it's been a complete fail. So either you don't find it aversive enough to change your behaviour or you have no idea what behaviour is supposed to change.

Either way - it's not working. So it's not exactly a punishment either (in the scientific jargon), it's just unpleasant. Unless you have a masochistic or troll drive.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[Willem]

PPGA: http://ppgaustralia.net.au/

"Pet Professional Guild Australia Members Understand Force-Free to mean: No Shock, No Pain, No Choke, No Fear, No Physical Force, No physical Molding, No Compulsion Based Methods are employed to train or care for a pet."

They go on to talk more about what this means with reference to the humane hierarchy and their guiding principles. This organisation is attracting membership in Australia, and I believe it has replaced one of the organisations for pet dog trainers that were already in place.

not much concrete information on this page, however, scrolling down the page I stumbled over the picture that says 'LEAD BY EXAMPLE' and I ask myself why do they promote such an advanced harness-collar system if they don't apply force? ...why do they promote a harness that constrains a dog more than any other harness and collar would, if it is not about controlling the dog via a leash??????

[Simply Grand]

And wrt zapping: I think I get zapped here on the forum quite often :D

I have to agree with that, and I'd also say as a training method for Willems it's been a complete fail. So either you don't find it aversive enough to change your behaviour or you have no idea what behaviour is supposed to change.

Either way - it's not working. So it's not exactly a punishment either (in the scientific jargon), it's just unpleasant. Unless you have a masochistic or troll drive.

I think argument for the sake of argument is highly rewarding for Willems. So when we try to punish by saying "you are wrong, here is why" he actually finds that to be an opportunity for reward because he can argue back.

We all know it too, I suspect. We know that not responding would extinguish the behaviour, but we continue to engage for our own reasons.

Excellent example of how animal (including human) learning and behaviour works :D