- by Roger Hild
When it comes to training dogs, the reality is there are many techniques which can be employed. This fact becomes readily apparent when you do a little research. Such research will also reveal some fairly entrenched views about the moral/ethical superiority of one’s preferred approach over that of their competitors. Some approaches, you will note, have been around for quite awhile and will have withstood the test of time while other approaches will be relatively new and not as well proven.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with any of the approaches per se, there is often a seductive quality to the marketing pitch advocates of various approaches use to gain converts to their cause. The seductiveness is to be found in the assurances that, whatever the desired results, they can be had with very little investment of oneself outside their comfort zone. This means for the person with very little patience, the promise would be for immediate results; for the individual that sees themself as too busy, the promise would be accomplishment with no additional effort and for the individual that hates having to set limits or engage in any sort of confrontation, the promise is never having to correct your dog or say “no.” Also, in addition to the marketing of their chosen approach, there is often an attempt to discredit and even demonize others who utilize different, and ofttimes more effective, training approaches. A wise dog owner will watch for traps that play to or attempt to exploit vague moral or ethical ideals. Other trainers (that use more traditional approaches) may be labeled as less humane, less “enlightened,” old-school, less scientific etc in an attempt to avoid objectively looking at the facts as they relate to effectiveness.
The type of learning we are primarily concerned with, when it comes to training dogs, is experiential i.e. learning from experiences. We provide and repeat the experiences from which we want the dog to learn. As we do this, we set up and manipulate cues, consequences and behaviour so that the dog will learn the lesson we are trying to teach. Regardless of the type of training techniques, all training approaches will be fundamentally based on this concept. Those experiences are then organized in such a way so as to teach more complex lessons.
Those advocating for the new will often make reference to words like “latest” and “scientific” with the desire to link the two terms wherever possible. However, the fact is that when it comes to how dogs learn, there is really nothing new - dogs really haven’t changed much since we began keeping them as companions and neither has the way they learn.
In recent years many dog trainers have jumped on an “Operant Conditioning” bandwagon. The practitioners of this variety of “OC” are quick to make claims about how dogs learn and declare them to be based on the latest scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, there is nothing new nor scientific in their assertions or methods. It is also noteworthy that more efficient and effective training alternatives are available.
True Operant Conditioning is a reasonably balanced learning theory. It is a four-quadrant model that attempts to explain learning in terms of the consequences related to an action. Within that 4Q model are the different contingencies of positive and negative reinforcement as well as positive and negative punishment. Those who claim to subscribe to Operant Conditioning theory but who only are willing to work with the “reward” side of the equation are in reality practitioners of a bandwagon variety of OC that might more properly be called “PROC” or Positive Reinforcement Operant Conditioning. Where true OC offers a reasonable chance of success through balance, “PROC” is a very protracted and unrealistic method for attempting to train. The results are mediocre at best and more often simply disappointing. The motivation for “PROC” is not better training but a seductive philosophy (sometimes pursued with almost religious zeal) of abolishing all painful life lessons. It is indeed unfortunate that this almost narcissistic need (for a “warm and fuzzy,” feel good above all else approach to life) gets packaged and marketed as “animal-friendly” or “more humane.” It is a selfish approach designed to place the trainer's need to feel good above the learning needs of his student.
In psychological terms, conditioning means, “causing an organism to exhibit a specific response to a stimulus.” The conditioned response must be specific, reliable, highly predictable and reproducible. Any response (other than the “conditioned” response), any randomness or any failure to respond correctly, must be accounted for and explained. As I said earlier, there are several ways to cause the sought after response, using positive and negative consequences. By definition conditioning, particularly Skinners Operant Conditioning model, does not acknowledge or take into account any internal events such as thoughts, feelings, or motivations and therein lies its weakness. If these internal events are not acknowledged as contributing to the conditioning of the behavior, they cannot then be used to explain any “conditioning failures.” Conditioned performances, (particularly utilizing only positive reinforcement) while often improved, are often not the best that one would hope for or expect. When performance falters (as it frequently does) more conditioning will not solve the problem whereas addressing some of the internal factors (excluded by OC) or looking at relationship related issues, very often does.
The main problem with the theory of conditioning (and particularly with Operant Conditioning) is in the understanding and application of the learning process. Operant Conditioning is simply one kind of conditioning (made famous by B F Skinner) which seeks to explain all behavior and learning in terms of the associations made between responses to stimuli and the resulting consequences. Although behaviorists believe all thought processes can be accounted for through associations of stimuli and responses, other psychologists strongly reject such an approach as inadequate to explain many kinds of behavior.
A good training program, on the other hand, addresses the whole dog and not just the behavior. Along with utilizing all four quadrants found in the Operant Conditioning model, it also seeks to deal in those areas that behaviorists refuse to acknowledge (such as choice, motivation, drive, and various mental/emotional processes). It would flow from a philosophy which acknowledges that, in addition to (or regardless of) any conditioning, dogs make decisions and sometimes become contentious. Real training is about working with the dog to teach him what is expected – what choices to make and how to behave. It holds him accountable for the choices he makes. It acknowledges there is a difference between knowing and doing and that difference can sometimes represent a point of contention, rather than a lack of conditioning.
Training (for me) is as much about the interactive dynamics between student and teacher as about what is being taught. In the learning process (some of which will be a conditioning process) the student also learns about the teacher. Often the emerging interpersonal dynamics will influence subsequent behavior far more than any single training or conditioning sequence. At some point, tasks will be performed as taught because a choice has been made to do so - not simply as the result of some stimulus-response reflex (read conditioning) action.
On the other hand, behaviorism and its tool (Operant Conditioning) is, “neglected by cognitive etiologists and ecological psychologists convinced that its methods are irrelevant to studying how animals and persons behave in their natural and social environment,” according to a recent article on behaviorism published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Also of note in the same article: “The deepest and most complex reason for behaviorism's demise is its commitment to the thesis that behavior can be explained without reference to mental activity. Many philosophers and psychologists find this thesis hopelessly restrictive. They reject behaviorism because of it....”
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Punishment vs. Correction
In the course of a recent discussion about dogs pulling on leash (and what role corrections might play) a colleague queried me about the following:
“I change directions frequently, especially if I sense she's about to course ahead. If she moves to the end of the leash and there is pressure, I'll get her attention with a sound, and signal her to follow my new direction, and reinforce her for doing so. Of course any pressure is released for her doing so, but I did not deliver it. I keep my hands as still as stones. Now in your opinion, are there any leash corrections involved here?”
Without a doubt there are corrections in that example. The subject of the discussion is “learning theory,” not teaching theory. The intervention, as experienced by the dog, was effective and therefore “corrective.” Learning theory does not address who supplies the stimulus (pos. or neg.) only what its effect was on the subject. If, either by pulling the leash, simply stopping or changing direction, the dog experienced a stimulus that made him stop what he was doing, the effect was the same and the handler caused the correction to happen. The dog is not stupid, he knows from whence the correction came. If the correction was effective, the next thing the dog did was to look at you and move into a position beside you – he knows. He doesn’t stare off into the sky and wonder, “Lord was that you? Why me lord?”
If we were to all gather together in a large park and began training our dog, many of you would see that what I do probably isn’t a whole lot different than what you do – even those of you who say you use only “positive methods.” I am not a punishment based trainer, yet I do correct my dogs. The correction can be anything including redirection, removing a reward or applying an unpleasant (physical) consequence.
The first, (and most obvious) problem is deciding what the words themselves mean. Secondly, (and most important) we must begin to appreciate how the average layperson understands those words. JQP is seldom a scientist and yet these words have been part of the common vocabulary since long before there were “behaviorists” attempting to give new meanings to everyday words.
Terms such as “positive punishment,” “negative punishment,” “aversive” etc. for a variety of reasons, have all become a part of the ‘behaviorspeak’ movement. In the laboratories where they were studying behavior, people like B. F. Skinner began using many common words (such as the terms already mentioned) to describe their observations, philosophies, actions and beliefs. It likely was not their intent to change the meanings of many of these words but what they ended up doing was to add a somewhat different meaning to some of them. The problem comes when we don’t all sing from the same book (nor should we feel we must).
The meanings given these words by behaviorists are not what I (as a part of JQP) mean when I use them and herein lies the problem. Take the word “punish,” the Oxford dictionary definition is: “Cause (offender) to suffer for offence; chastise; inflict penalty on (offender); inflict penalty for (offence); (colloq.) inflict severe blows on (opponent)….” Punishment is defined as “punishing penalty.” Nowhere in the definition is there any mention that a punishment is to correct or change behavior; it is simply the penalty handed out, after the fact, for unacceptable behavior. These definitions are in line with what most people think when they use the word.
The word “Correct” does have as one of its meanings, to punish but it is with the intent of making right. Other meanings are: Set right; substitute right thing (for wrong one); counteract; bring into accordance with standard; eliminate aberration etc.
The “behaviorspeak” definition of punishment is any action that is used to stop a behavior or reduce its occurrence (and the definition is based on the outcome). According to those that subscribe to this definition, corrections would be included under the heading of punishment. When they talk in terms of positive or negative punishment, they mean to add something to punish (positive = to add) or taking something away to punish (negative = take away). This gets further complicated by the use of the term “aversive” by which they usually mean the “punisher” which was added to make the behavior stop.
The interesting thing is that some of these “opposed to punishment” types, who would label any “aversive correction” as punishment, have a different standard for themselves. A few years ago, I was at a seminar being put on by a rather well known PROC (Positive Reinforcement Operant Conditioning) trainer. He decried the use of any form of “punishment.” One of the participants wanted help with her dog that pulled on leash. He took the dog and began to walk it. As soon as the dog charged away from his side, he stopped, dropped all slack and held on to the handle tightly. The dog hit the end of the line rather hard (I’d be hard pressed to leash correct any more effectively). This was repeated two more times and then the dog “miraculously” began to walk beside him. Someone asked him about his use of punishment and he denied it saying what he had shown us was not punishment but rather the dog correcting himself. (Note: there is suddenly a distinction being made between punishment and correction?)
The aversion some trainers feel (to acknowledge an action as a correction) is an interesting phenomenon and it speaks to the person’s personal issues more than it does to dog training philosophy. Two possible reasons come to mind (there may be more) why someone would be reluctant to acknowledge a correction:
1. Economic – they want their training philosophy to seem politically correct so that clients will want to train with them.
2. Emotional – they may feel caught on the horns of their own “moral dilemma” and want to assuage their feelings of guilt.
The fact that JQP does make a distinction between correction and punishment is important. Those in the “positive behaviorspeak” camp know and exploit the fact that there is such a strong emotional reaction to the term “punishment” (as evidenced by this very discussion and many more just like it). If they can convince potential clients that they are “punishing” their dog (rather than correcting him) they can then make the argument to both the new client and to themselves, that theirs is the more “humane” way to train.
So to get back to that gathering in the park, I would expect to see a variety of techniques with some very good training going on. Pushing aside the different philosophies and terms others might use, I would expect to see an interaction between each dog and handler that connected consequences to behaviors. Beyond this I’d also expect to see (especially with the really good trainers) a level of communication that transcends anything the theorists could have imagined.
_____
Tsuro Dog Training
Visit us at http://www.tsurodogtraining.com
“I change directions frequently, especially if I sense she's about to course ahead. If she moves to the end of the leash and there is pressure, I'll get her attention with a sound, and signal her to follow my new direction, and reinforce her for doing so. Of course any pressure is released for her doing so, but I did not deliver it. I keep my hands as still as stones. Now in your opinion, are there any leash corrections involved here?”
Without a doubt there are corrections in that example. The subject of the discussion is “learning theory,” not teaching theory. The intervention, as experienced by the dog, was effective and therefore “corrective.” Learning theory does not address who supplies the stimulus (pos. or neg.) only what its effect was on the subject. If, either by pulling the leash, simply stopping or changing direction, the dog experienced a stimulus that made him stop what he was doing, the effect was the same and the handler caused the correction to happen. The dog is not stupid, he knows from whence the correction came. If the correction was effective, the next thing the dog did was to look at you and move into a position beside you – he knows. He doesn’t stare off into the sky and wonder, “Lord was that you? Why me lord?”
If we were to all gather together in a large park and began training our dog, many of you would see that what I do probably isn’t a whole lot different than what you do – even those of you who say you use only “positive methods.” I am not a punishment based trainer, yet I do correct my dogs. The correction can be anything including redirection, removing a reward or applying an unpleasant (physical) consequence.
The first, (and most obvious) problem is deciding what the words themselves mean. Secondly, (and most important) we must begin to appreciate how the average layperson understands those words. JQP is seldom a scientist and yet these words have been part of the common vocabulary since long before there were “behaviorists” attempting to give new meanings to everyday words.
Terms such as “positive punishment,” “negative punishment,” “aversive” etc. for a variety of reasons, have all become a part of the ‘behaviorspeak’ movement. In the laboratories where they were studying behavior, people like B. F. Skinner began using many common words (such as the terms already mentioned) to describe their observations, philosophies, actions and beliefs. It likely was not their intent to change the meanings of many of these words but what they ended up doing was to add a somewhat different meaning to some of them. The problem comes when we don’t all sing from the same book (nor should we feel we must).
The meanings given these words by behaviorists are not what I (as a part of JQP) mean when I use them and herein lies the problem. Take the word “punish,” the Oxford dictionary definition is: “Cause (offender) to suffer for offence; chastise; inflict penalty on (offender); inflict penalty for (offence); (colloq.) inflict severe blows on (opponent)….” Punishment is defined as “punishing penalty.” Nowhere in the definition is there any mention that a punishment is to correct or change behavior; it is simply the penalty handed out, after the fact, for unacceptable behavior. These definitions are in line with what most people think when they use the word.
The word “Correct” does have as one of its meanings, to punish but it is with the intent of making right. Other meanings are: Set right; substitute right thing (for wrong one); counteract; bring into accordance with standard; eliminate aberration etc.
The “behaviorspeak” definition of punishment is any action that is used to stop a behavior or reduce its occurrence (and the definition is based on the outcome). According to those that subscribe to this definition, corrections would be included under the heading of punishment. When they talk in terms of positive or negative punishment, they mean to add something to punish (positive = to add) or taking something away to punish (negative = take away). This gets further complicated by the use of the term “aversive” by which they usually mean the “punisher” which was added to make the behavior stop.
The interesting thing is that some of these “opposed to punishment” types, who would label any “aversive correction” as punishment, have a different standard for themselves. A few years ago, I was at a seminar being put on by a rather well known PROC (Positive Reinforcement Operant Conditioning) trainer. He decried the use of any form of “punishment.” One of the participants wanted help with her dog that pulled on leash. He took the dog and began to walk it. As soon as the dog charged away from his side, he stopped, dropped all slack and held on to the handle tightly. The dog hit the end of the line rather hard (I’d be hard pressed to leash correct any more effectively). This was repeated two more times and then the dog “miraculously” began to walk beside him. Someone asked him about his use of punishment and he denied it saying what he had shown us was not punishment but rather the dog correcting himself. (Note: there is suddenly a distinction being made between punishment and correction?)
The aversion some trainers feel (to acknowledge an action as a correction) is an interesting phenomenon and it speaks to the person’s personal issues more than it does to dog training philosophy. Two possible reasons come to mind (there may be more) why someone would be reluctant to acknowledge a correction:
1. Economic – they want their training philosophy to seem politically correct so that clients will want to train with them.
2. Emotional – they may feel caught on the horns of their own “moral dilemma” and want to assuage their feelings of guilt.
The fact that JQP does make a distinction between correction and punishment is important. Those in the “positive behaviorspeak” camp know and exploit the fact that there is such a strong emotional reaction to the term “punishment” (as evidenced by this very discussion and many more just like it). If they can convince potential clients that they are “punishing” their dog (rather than correcting him) they can then make the argument to both the new client and to themselves, that theirs is the more “humane” way to train.
So to get back to that gathering in the park, I would expect to see a variety of techniques with some very good training going on. Pushing aside the different philosophies and terms others might use, I would expect to see an interaction between each dog and handler that connected consequences to behaviors. Beyond this I’d also expect to see (especially with the really good trainers) a level of communication that transcends anything the theorists could have imagined.
_____
Tsuro Dog Training
Visit us at http://www.tsurodogtraining.com
So..........Define Training
Someone once told me that in their opinion, most dogs (90%) are untrained. I don’t know if that figure is accurate or not but I’ll agree that a large number are not very well behaved. One of the problems I have with that assertion is I’m not sure what the claimant means by the word “trained.” To muddy the water further, we have heard all kinds of ideas about how some kinds of early training can interfere with other (future) training.
Here are a few more rambling thoughts to add to the above subjects:
It has been estimated that an alarming percentage of high school students are functionally illiterate when they graduate. Similarly, I see a number of dogs that have been through school and permitted to graduate that are “training illiterates.” I think there is a correlation that is reflected in the prevailing cultural/political attitudes.
Politically, I can only speak for my small part of the globe (Ontario Canada). Prior to the 2004 election here, under a Conservative government, we had seen a return to standards and testing. The result was an improvement in the literacy rate. The teacher unions led the fight against reintroducing testing and standards and we heard some pretty crazy claims about how being forced to pass tests might damage a student’s self-esteem. They stated the ability to meet testable standards didn’t indicate a student is really learning or gaining anything. Parents, however, thought the standards were great and approval for standards and testing was very high. We once again have a Liberal government and there is already evidence that the academic standards will be abandoned for a more “feel-good” socially correct agenda. I see the same arguments used against holding training and trainers to any standards. The problem is thus a human, politically motivated one and not unique to teachers or trainers.
Does an average family dog (that has learned to abide by the house rules and do as she is told), qualify as trained? I have an actual dog in mind. I did not train this dog – her owners did not seek out any trainer and she did not go to any training classes. I met her because she lives next door to one of my former clients. She is an AussieXCollie mix about three years old. She stays off the road and the only place she is permitted to go is next door to play with the Newf (my clients dog). She always comes when whistled for and will stay put if told. I am told that in the house she is perfect and never gets into anything she isn’t supposed to. When outside and told to stay in her own yard she does. If a stranger walks in to the yard, she will bark and follow them to the door but other than sound the alarm, has never made any aggressive move toward anyone coming on the property. Let’s call her “Dog A” and hold her up for comparison to a couple other dogs.
Dog B is also three and has been going to school since starting puppy class at 12 weeks (has never been my student – only saw the dog in consultation). This dog has been through several beginner and “second-level” classes plus trick and agility classes. The dog supposedly knows all the obedience commands but when I asked the owner to get him to sit the owner was ignored – no sit. The dog also would not come and pulled on leash. The reason for the consult – the dog is “reactive” and has gotten into several fights with other dogs. The dog would only “perform” obedience commands once the owner bribed him with treats and only then for a brief period.
Dog C is a Standard Poodle I saw at a correction match. This dog was observed entering the building on his hind legs pulling for all he is worth. The owner’s arm was fully extended and the dog was all but hauling her off her feet. Inside the building people moved to get their dogs out of this poodle’s path and there were a number of growls from several other dogs. At one point the poodle jumped up on a table holding a bunch of premium lists. I was told (didn’t observe) that the dog would be better behaved once inside the ring.
Dog D lives next door and spends much of his time on the end of a chain. He does go inside when the family is home but otherwise he will wander the roads and they have to go running after him to get him back. Given the chance, he’ll shit in any yard but his own.
To my way of thinking the only dog that qualifies is Dog A. What dogs do you think qualify?
Here are a few more rambling thoughts to add to the above subjects:
It has been estimated that an alarming percentage of high school students are functionally illiterate when they graduate. Similarly, I see a number of dogs that have been through school and permitted to graduate that are “training illiterates.” I think there is a correlation that is reflected in the prevailing cultural/political attitudes.
Politically, I can only speak for my small part of the globe (Ontario Canada). Prior to the 2004 election here, under a Conservative government, we had seen a return to standards and testing. The result was an improvement in the literacy rate. The teacher unions led the fight against reintroducing testing and standards and we heard some pretty crazy claims about how being forced to pass tests might damage a student’s self-esteem. They stated the ability to meet testable standards didn’t indicate a student is really learning or gaining anything. Parents, however, thought the standards were great and approval for standards and testing was very high. We once again have a Liberal government and there is already evidence that the academic standards will be abandoned for a more “feel-good” socially correct agenda. I see the same arguments used against holding training and trainers to any standards. The problem is thus a human, politically motivated one and not unique to teachers or trainers.
Does an average family dog (that has learned to abide by the house rules and do as she is told), qualify as trained? I have an actual dog in mind. I did not train this dog – her owners did not seek out any trainer and she did not go to any training classes. I met her because she lives next door to one of my former clients. She is an AussieXCollie mix about three years old. She stays off the road and the only place she is permitted to go is next door to play with the Newf (my clients dog). She always comes when whistled for and will stay put if told. I am told that in the house she is perfect and never gets into anything she isn’t supposed to. When outside and told to stay in her own yard she does. If a stranger walks in to the yard, she will bark and follow them to the door but other than sound the alarm, has never made any aggressive move toward anyone coming on the property. Let’s call her “Dog A” and hold her up for comparison to a couple other dogs.
Dog B is also three and has been going to school since starting puppy class at 12 weeks (has never been my student – only saw the dog in consultation). This dog has been through several beginner and “second-level” classes plus trick and agility classes. The dog supposedly knows all the obedience commands but when I asked the owner to get him to sit the owner was ignored – no sit. The dog also would not come and pulled on leash. The reason for the consult – the dog is “reactive” and has gotten into several fights with other dogs. The dog would only “perform” obedience commands once the owner bribed him with treats and only then for a brief period.
Dog C is a Standard Poodle I saw at a correction match. This dog was observed entering the building on his hind legs pulling for all he is worth. The owner’s arm was fully extended and the dog was all but hauling her off her feet. Inside the building people moved to get their dogs out of this poodle’s path and there were a number of growls from several other dogs. At one point the poodle jumped up on a table holding a bunch of premium lists. I was told (didn’t observe) that the dog would be better behaved once inside the ring.
Dog D lives next door and spends much of his time on the end of a chain. He does go inside when the family is home but otherwise he will wander the roads and they have to go running after him to get him back. Given the chance, he’ll shit in any yard but his own.
To my way of thinking the only dog that qualifies is Dog A. What dogs do you think qualify?
Variations on a Theme
Once upon a time in a far distant place, there was a tribe of people that really loved cars. Indeed, some loved cars so much that they even had more than one. Things started to go a bit sour, in this far distant place, when word started to get out that some of these beloved cars were involved in some rather nasty accidents and people sometimes got badly hurt. What to do?
Initially, it seemed, many of the car owners seemed to be content simply ignoring the problem – hoping it would go away. As the number of incidents reported each day continued to increase, ignoring was no longer an option. As the outcry increased, the people demanded their tribal leaders do something. The leaders, ever sensitive to the demands of the crowd, asked for clarification as to what exactly is the problem.
It was at about this same time that a group of the more astute folks began to identify a number of issues. Some of the things they noticed were:
- The large number of “problem cars.” It was noted that many people were not able to get their car do what they wanted it to. Some folks had to make several attempts just to get the car going where they wanted it to go. (This realization sparked a new industry [trainers] dedicated to teaching people how to safely make their cars do what they wanted).
- Many of the more serious injuries were caused by Chev. Pick-up trucks.
- More “accidents” seemed to happen at locations where more of the tribes people tended to congregate.
- Some of the cars were very poorly put together and not properly maintained.
- There was a segment of the tribe that believed it was wrong to own cars.
As pressure mounted to “do something,” the leaders looked at a number of actions. They considered where the accidents happened and decided to limit car access to these areas. This led to the formation of “car parks” these were small enclosed areas (complete with guard rails) where people were free to take their car and drive it in circles for an hour or two. This seemed to help some but the pressure continued so they looked at banning certain makes of cars.
Since many of the injuries were from Chev pick-ups, they decided to ban them. Meantime the trainers were saying there is no need to ban vehicles, people just need to learn how to drive properly. They argued that it is not the vehicle but the driver that needs to be dealt with – punish the bad drivers, they urged. They also pointed out the poorly built and poorly maintained vehicles and said, “someone should do something about that.”
Still the carnage on the roads continued and the experts continued to argue about what the real cause was and what the solution should be. Meantime the group who didn’t think people ought to own cars began to get excited because they could see that in time, they just might get their wish. They would just push for more and more 'vehicle ban' legislation and also push for more and more “No cars allowed” locations. They thought it great that the "experts" couldn’t agree and seemed unable to get over their “pissin’ contest.”
As all this was going on, there was a group that kept asking, “Why not hold people responsible for their actions?” Why not make people prove they can actually drive and if they can, let them take their car in public. If someone can’t demonstrate safe driving, remove them from public areas until they are once again safe.
Others thought this might be a good idea but they had a number of reservations. They wanted to know how they could identify those who qualified to be in public with a car. When the concept of certifying or licensing was floated, they cried “No way, we don’t want the tribal leaders having that kind of bureaucratic power” (they seemed to forget that the leaders were getting set to ban the vehicles.) The most curious objection seemed to come from the trainers: they seemed to be very concerned about their own liability. While they agreed (in principle) that everyone who has a car should learn to drive, they could not agree that the owner should have to demonstrate that they can drive. Curious indeed.
Initially, it seemed, many of the car owners seemed to be content simply ignoring the problem – hoping it would go away. As the number of incidents reported each day continued to increase, ignoring was no longer an option. As the outcry increased, the people demanded their tribal leaders do something. The leaders, ever sensitive to the demands of the crowd, asked for clarification as to what exactly is the problem.
It was at about this same time that a group of the more astute folks began to identify a number of issues. Some of the things they noticed were:
- The large number of “problem cars.” It was noted that many people were not able to get their car do what they wanted it to. Some folks had to make several attempts just to get the car going where they wanted it to go. (This realization sparked a new industry [trainers] dedicated to teaching people how to safely make their cars do what they wanted).
- Many of the more serious injuries were caused by Chev. Pick-up trucks.
- More “accidents” seemed to happen at locations where more of the tribes people tended to congregate.
- Some of the cars were very poorly put together and not properly maintained.
- There was a segment of the tribe that believed it was wrong to own cars.
As pressure mounted to “do something,” the leaders looked at a number of actions. They considered where the accidents happened and decided to limit car access to these areas. This led to the formation of “car parks” these were small enclosed areas (complete with guard rails) where people were free to take their car and drive it in circles for an hour or two. This seemed to help some but the pressure continued so they looked at banning certain makes of cars.
Since many of the injuries were from Chev pick-ups, they decided to ban them. Meantime the trainers were saying there is no need to ban vehicles, people just need to learn how to drive properly. They argued that it is not the vehicle but the driver that needs to be dealt with – punish the bad drivers, they urged. They also pointed out the poorly built and poorly maintained vehicles and said, “someone should do something about that.”
Still the carnage on the roads continued and the experts continued to argue about what the real cause was and what the solution should be. Meantime the group who didn’t think people ought to own cars began to get excited because they could see that in time, they just might get their wish. They would just push for more and more 'vehicle ban' legislation and also push for more and more “No cars allowed” locations. They thought it great that the "experts" couldn’t agree and seemed unable to get over their “pissin’ contest.”
As all this was going on, there was a group that kept asking, “Why not hold people responsible for their actions?” Why not make people prove they can actually drive and if they can, let them take their car in public. If someone can’t demonstrate safe driving, remove them from public areas until they are once again safe.
Others thought this might be a good idea but they had a number of reservations. They wanted to know how they could identify those who qualified to be in public with a car. When the concept of certifying or licensing was floated, they cried “No way, we don’t want the tribal leaders having that kind of bureaucratic power” (they seemed to forget that the leaders were getting set to ban the vehicles.) The most curious objection seemed to come from the trainers: they seemed to be very concerned about their own liability. While they agreed (in principle) that everyone who has a car should learn to drive, they could not agree that the owner should have to demonstrate that they can drive. Curious indeed.
Hope
The voice on the other end of the line was not one I recognized. “I’m having a problem with my dog and my vet says you’re the person to call. Can you help me?” I listen as she describes a problem I’ve dealt with many times before, assure her that I can help and arrange to meet her and her dog the following week - you will meet them later in this book.
These days when my phone rings, it is usually someone looking for help with their dog. Most often the dog is intended as a companion for the family. A small percentage of those contacting me will be looking to prevent problems before they start; while a larger group seeks help resolving behaviours that have already become troublesome. In many instances the relationship has already reached a crisis point where quick intervention is called for. This crisis is not only a problem for the individual owner but is rapidly emerging as a collective, societal problem where legislators feel compelled to explore, and at times implement, various kinds of anti-dog legislation.
Judging by the type and number of “issues” people are having with their dogs, someone who didn’t know better might conclude dogs just arrived on this planet - certainly not the loyal friend we’ve lived with for thousands of years! What has gone so wrong, in the past few decades, to threaten such a long and enduring relationship? Can something be done to get this relationship back on track? I believe the answer is a definite yes. Once we understand what the problems really are and what needs to be done, I believe the motivations are there to resolve the issues and the solutions are not that difficult to implement.
With this message of hope in mind, I want to look at the whole dog, all of his behaviour and everything surrounding him that influences how he is/acts. These postings, therefore, are intended to be much more than yet another ‘how to’ about training. While training is certainly an important factor, it is far from being the only important consideration. Far too many trainers teach/view training in isolation but fail when it comes to generalizing the training experience to normal everyday life. I get calls all the time (and I’m guessing other trainers do as well) complaining that their dog has already been “trained” and is still behaving in a completely unacceptable manner. Sometimes the dog has been through more than one course of training and can perform many behaviours in a circus-like manner; but outside those performances, the dog remains out of control. The good news is that many of the ingredients for successfully resolving most issues and gaining the control you need, are already within your grasp.
These days when my phone rings, it is usually someone looking for help with their dog. Most often the dog is intended as a companion for the family. A small percentage of those contacting me will be looking to prevent problems before they start; while a larger group seeks help resolving behaviours that have already become troublesome. In many instances the relationship has already reached a crisis point where quick intervention is called for. This crisis is not only a problem for the individual owner but is rapidly emerging as a collective, societal problem where legislators feel compelled to explore, and at times implement, various kinds of anti-dog legislation.
Judging by the type and number of “issues” people are having with their dogs, someone who didn’t know better might conclude dogs just arrived on this planet - certainly not the loyal friend we’ve lived with for thousands of years! What has gone so wrong, in the past few decades, to threaten such a long and enduring relationship? Can something be done to get this relationship back on track? I believe the answer is a definite yes. Once we understand what the problems really are and what needs to be done, I believe the motivations are there to resolve the issues and the solutions are not that difficult to implement.
With this message of hope in mind, I want to look at the whole dog, all of his behaviour and everything surrounding him that influences how he is/acts. These postings, therefore, are intended to be much more than yet another ‘how to’ about training. While training is certainly an important factor, it is far from being the only important consideration. Far too many trainers teach/view training in isolation but fail when it comes to generalizing the training experience to normal everyday life. I get calls all the time (and I’m guessing other trainers do as well) complaining that their dog has already been “trained” and is still behaving in a completely unacceptable manner. Sometimes the dog has been through more than one course of training and can perform many behaviours in a circus-like manner; but outside those performances, the dog remains out of control. The good news is that many of the ingredients for successfully resolving most issues and gaining the control you need, are already within your grasp.
Trends Part 1 - Dog Training Methods and Philosophies
About 4 years ago I was encouraged to run for office in the Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers. At the time, I had been rather vocal about the need to maintain some balance in training and I was opposed to limiting trainers options. I was encouraged to put my money where my mouth is and stand for office – I didn’t think I’d have a hope in hell but I agreed to run anyway. My message was simply that we should remain inclusive. I was not interested in banning methods or tools and I was opposed to a mandatory certification proposal. In the election that followed, I was elected vice-chair of the CAPPDT – no one was more surprised than me.
That same year, I was asked to present a case study at our annual conference and I decided to present a case that I was pretty sure would make some people think and would likely stir up some controversy. For that particular case, given the complexity of issues that we were working with, we used a wide range of options – but it was when I mentioned using the remote training collar that an audible gasp could be heard. The net result of that presentation was very interesting. Some hated it – in fact some left. Many were very curious and there were many questions and discussions which occurred outside the seminar hall. Some were curious how someone that would use a pinch collar and later an ecollar could end up as vice-chair of the association. I was particularly struck by the comments where some said that for the first time, they felt like they had found a group to which they could belong. The point is however, the more options you are able to offer, the more likely you are to find something that fits and works well.
This post is the first of several on the topic and is based on a talk given a year ago to the Lindsay Kennel Club. More to follow - watch for them.
That same year, I was asked to present a case study at our annual conference and I decided to present a case that I was pretty sure would make some people think and would likely stir up some controversy. For that particular case, given the complexity of issues that we were working with, we used a wide range of options – but it was when I mentioned using the remote training collar that an audible gasp could be heard. The net result of that presentation was very interesting. Some hated it – in fact some left. Many were very curious and there were many questions and discussions which occurred outside the seminar hall. Some were curious how someone that would use a pinch collar and later an ecollar could end up as vice-chair of the association. I was particularly struck by the comments where some said that for the first time, they felt like they had found a group to which they could belong. The point is however, the more options you are able to offer, the more likely you are to find something that fits and works well.
This post is the first of several on the topic and is based on a talk given a year ago to the Lindsay Kennel Club. More to follow - watch for them.
Trends Part 2 - The Ever-swinging Pendulum
No doubt most of you thought this article is about dog training – but that’s only partially true. This piece is also about human nature and how we are constantly struggling to incorporate new ideas while resolving issues which commonly arise out of a resistance to change. It’s also about dealing with basic disagreements and resolving interpersonal conflicts – these are human problems, the subject in this instance just happens to be about training dogs. Helping people with their dog related goals might be our primary motivation but regardless of what it is we set out to accomplish, we will get derailed if we cannot resolve the basic struggles that inevitably arise.
If any of you were to ever take a look at some of the stuff I’ve hung onto over the years, you’d see that I’ve collected a lot of stuff with a hope that someday I’ll be able to use it again. My closet is filled with hope – “Hope this comes back in style and hope I’ll be able to wear that again.” Platform shoes and bellbottom trousers are coming back – I just know it! Someday this will all be back in vogue! Ever notice how often “new trends” are often nothing more than recycled older patterns?
Ever hear the expressions, “everything old is new again” or “we’ve now come full circle?” Like most common expressions, these are grounded in a basic truth that comes from our human experience. It has also been said that we are doomed to continue repeating patterns and experiences from which we have not learned.
Anyone new to dog training is going to be in the same place I was when I began. That place is your own personal starting point – we all have one. You are all no doubt aware of the impact of first impressions … well, your own personal starting point is nothing more than a kind of first impression. Many of the views we have about something are strongly influenced by and grounded in, the prevailing views which make up that starting point. We like to view our beginning at something as fresh and new, unencumbered by the stale outdated ideas of the past. Your growth starts from that point and it may take awhile before you realize your starting point is probably not new and that the pendulum has in fact passed through that point before. Fact is, there is very little that is new when it comes to training dogs. The proof of this statement can be determined by reviews of old training manuals and through conversations with trainers that have been around a long time. Fact is that man has been working with dogs quite successfully for thousands of years. Still, there are many different views concerning the best way to train dogs.
Let me tell you about my starting point - back in 1982, when I first began trying to train my own dog. This may sound strange but the motivation was this: My wife and I had bought two Lhasa Apsos and I wanted my dog “Boots” to sit on command but I had no idea how to properly go about training him to do this. My wife found an advertisement for classes in the local paper and suggested maybe it would be a good idea for us to take the dogs to dog training class. Experience over the years has taught me that she is usually right – and debate only prolongs the inevitable - so off to dog training classes we went.
At that time the school we enrolled in described it’s method as “Praise and Correction.” The first handout they gave everyone stressed this point. We were to praise the dog when he was right and correct him when he was wrong. They did not believe in using food to train, saying it was an inferior method because if training is based upon “Bribery,” the dog will never be reliable. They stressed the importance of the owner taking charge as the most reliable approach. The owners were happy and everyone seemed to clearly love their dog. The dogs did very well and seemed to glow with the pride of accomplishment and the praise of their owners.
For my part, I not only ended up with a dog that sat – my original goal - but also learned a whole lot more. From this experience I was hooked and I went on to take Open and then Utility. It didn’t stop there…I also entered trials, got titles and joined the training staff of that club. Thus began my journey with dogs.
No doubt there are others reading this right now that had a similar experience. Am I correct?
Since I began my training experience, I’ve seen “new” methods emerge and I’ve seen techniques come and go. I’ve seen people with very strong opinions bring forward all manner of ideology – some of it quite extreme. The pendulum was swinging and me along with it. Likely the pendulum will continue to swing as it is driven by the energy of human viewpoint and endeavor.
Now consider this, despite the pendulum swinging, despite the changes in methodology that we’ve seen, the basic need remains. That need is to train the dog so that we can continue to live together in harmony and enjoy each other’s company. We are simply always on the lookout for better ways to meet that basic need.
It’s been said that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. In other words, if you can understand what the need is and find a better way of meeting that need, the public will insure your success. It also implies there will always be mice that need trapping and for us, there will (hopefully) always be dogs that need training.
If any of you were to ever take a look at some of the stuff I’ve hung onto over the years, you’d see that I’ve collected a lot of stuff with a hope that someday I’ll be able to use it again. My closet is filled with hope – “Hope this comes back in style and hope I’ll be able to wear that again.” Platform shoes and bellbottom trousers are coming back – I just know it! Someday this will all be back in vogue! Ever notice how often “new trends” are often nothing more than recycled older patterns?
Ever hear the expressions, “everything old is new again” or “we’ve now come full circle?” Like most common expressions, these are grounded in a basic truth that comes from our human experience. It has also been said that we are doomed to continue repeating patterns and experiences from which we have not learned.
Anyone new to dog training is going to be in the same place I was when I began. That place is your own personal starting point – we all have one. You are all no doubt aware of the impact of first impressions … well, your own personal starting point is nothing more than a kind of first impression. Many of the views we have about something are strongly influenced by and grounded in, the prevailing views which make up that starting point. We like to view our beginning at something as fresh and new, unencumbered by the stale outdated ideas of the past. Your growth starts from that point and it may take awhile before you realize your starting point is probably not new and that the pendulum has in fact passed through that point before. Fact is, there is very little that is new when it comes to training dogs. The proof of this statement can be determined by reviews of old training manuals and through conversations with trainers that have been around a long time. Fact is that man has been working with dogs quite successfully for thousands of years. Still, there are many different views concerning the best way to train dogs.
Let me tell you about my starting point - back in 1982, when I first began trying to train my own dog. This may sound strange but the motivation was this: My wife and I had bought two Lhasa Apsos and I wanted my dog “Boots” to sit on command but I had no idea how to properly go about training him to do this. My wife found an advertisement for classes in the local paper and suggested maybe it would be a good idea for us to take the dogs to dog training class. Experience over the years has taught me that she is usually right – and debate only prolongs the inevitable - so off to dog training classes we went.
At that time the school we enrolled in described it’s method as “Praise and Correction.” The first handout they gave everyone stressed this point. We were to praise the dog when he was right and correct him when he was wrong. They did not believe in using food to train, saying it was an inferior method because if training is based upon “Bribery,” the dog will never be reliable. They stressed the importance of the owner taking charge as the most reliable approach. The owners were happy and everyone seemed to clearly love their dog. The dogs did very well and seemed to glow with the pride of accomplishment and the praise of their owners.
For my part, I not only ended up with a dog that sat – my original goal - but also learned a whole lot more. From this experience I was hooked and I went on to take Open and then Utility. It didn’t stop there…I also entered trials, got titles and joined the training staff of that club. Thus began my journey with dogs.
No doubt there are others reading this right now that had a similar experience. Am I correct?
Since I began my training experience, I’ve seen “new” methods emerge and I’ve seen techniques come and go. I’ve seen people with very strong opinions bring forward all manner of ideology – some of it quite extreme. The pendulum was swinging and me along with it. Likely the pendulum will continue to swing as it is driven by the energy of human viewpoint and endeavor.
Now consider this, despite the pendulum swinging, despite the changes in methodology that we’ve seen, the basic need remains. That need is to train the dog so that we can continue to live together in harmony and enjoy each other’s company. We are simply always on the lookout for better ways to meet that basic need.
It’s been said that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. In other words, if you can understand what the need is and find a better way of meeting that need, the public will insure your success. It also implies there will always be mice that need trapping and for us, there will (hopefully) always be dogs that need training.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)