Moving beyond the dominance myth

[BSan]

Interesting to read.
Took my dog (now passed away) to obedience school 14 years ago. Things have changed so much since then. It is so different as explained to me by those teaching classes, that I haven't a clue to the new methods. I now have a new puppy to train, and will be taking him to some classes soon. Don't know which classes to take him to. Some use "clicker", some actually have meat/chicken in a pouch around their waist. Weird/new to me. I have heard of the Alpha/dominance info. Some things I have done have worked well, such as puppy sitting and waiting for me to go out the door first. It has kept him from running/pulling outside. With repetition, he now automatically does it, whether he views me as the pack leader, or is easily trained with repetition, and wants to please. The other is getting out of the car. Ever since he jumped over my back and ran into the street as a small puppy, I have him wait until I get out and say ok! He is also catching on to that as well. He knew it was really really bad what he did before, when he ran in the street, just from my reaction, which was really fearful/ scared he would get hit by a car. He sensed that and the next time, he actually waited and looked at me as if saying "is it really ok now to get out". I didn't take much to teach him to wait. So how this all works, I don't know. I have alot to learn, starting over again with a puppy.
One thing I will say, is that this summer I visited a wolf sanctuary that is only 45 minutes from my home, and it was so interesting. We were shown which wolf was the leader, yet he did not do some things that I would have thought were characteristic of a leader. He did not come close to investigate us, he kind of hung in the backround and acted disinterested, and was checking out something else. When they were fed, most of them congregated at the food and some were a bit snarley, while the leader did not eat while we were there. I asked about that, and they explained why, but I honestly don't remember. I plan on visiting again. One group of wolves would not come out when we were looking, but when we turned to walk away, I looked back and they were out and watching us as we walked away. I felt as though I was the one being observed, behind a fence. Thanks for all the food for thought! I enjoyed reading the discussions.

 

[BarkingM*d]

The following article may be of interest to you (apologies it's a bit lengthy). It appeared in last months VicDog our canine state controlling body magazine and is filled with much anicdotal evidence and very little fact:

Food for thought! – By Michael Tucker, President Australian Association of Professional Dog Trainers Inc.

Article printed in VicDog Magazine September 2006. http://www.vca.org.au

The wide use of food as a reward in dog training continues to increase. BUT have people really stopped to think what they are doing?

It might look easy to may when they see their dogs respond to “Come” when called to a food treat held in the hand. Handlers are taught that this is a modern and very gentle method of training which is called, “positive re-enforcement”. Very fancy words, aren’t they? They are enough to lure most people into thinking that because it is a new method, it must be the best or at least better than the methods used years ago. Just because something is new does not mean to say it is the best. On the contrary, it can be worse or the worst! We live in an age of seeing all sorts of things advertised on television. Before viewers think about purchasing those advertised goods, they should ask themselves quite simply, “Are those items advertised to help us, or are they advertised just to make money?”

In writing this article I feel that, having been a professional dog trainer and instructor for fifty-five years, I have a moral obligation in the interests of good dog training, to help handlers by guiding them back on to the right track to train their canine companions effectively and reliably.

If dog owners have read my first book, Dog Training Made Easy, they will see how and eight-week old puppy can be initially taught the recall with the aid of a piece of meat just before on of its three daily meals. That initial training, preferably carried out up and down the kitchen floor, is only given to lay the foundation of the recall and sit. The next stage should be carried out on the leash, then later by dropping the leash and finally off the leash. Using food as an incentive to come should be done for no longer than three weeks. Puppies go through many stages during puppyhood. We have to know when to leave off using the food treat. If it is used beyond twelve weeks of age, then the puppy is highly likely to perform only for food and not out of respect and affection it should have for its handler. I stress the point that no puppy should ever be starved so that the handler can get a good result. It angers me when I hear of puppies being starved for twelve, twenty-four or even forty-eight hours, depending on their rising ages, so that handlers and dog clubs can achieve success.

Several years ago a man brought me a four year old St. Bernard for training. He took the dog over from his friend who, due to ill health, was unable to care for the dog any longer. However I trained them successfully in seven lessons to do the basic obedience. On completion, the new owner was so appreciative and thanked me very much for all of the tuition I have given him and his huge dog. Then he told me that he had first approached a dog training school which trained with food. On learning that the dog was four years old, the instructor told him that he must starve his dog for four days before attending his first lesson! The owner vehemently declined to attend, and rightly so.

Other unrelated cases, which involved two four and a half month old puppies of different breeds and owned by different owners unknown to each other, came to my school for basic training. They informed me that the instructor at the school they had attended only a few times was unable to get their dogs to respond to food. So they were requested to only feed their dogs once a day, in the hope that they would respond. Knowing that one should never treat any young puppy that way, both dog owners decided never to return to that place again. The matter was duly reported to the RSPCA. When questioned, the instructor backed down by saying that it was only a suggestion made to the dog owners not a request. The investigating inspector told the instructor that that sort of suggestion should never have been made. When clients attend a dog training school with their dogs they expect to be given good advice, not bad advice.

Another most inappropriate use of food is in connection with the worst temperament trait in dogs, aggression! Handlers are being shown how to entice their dogs away with food treats when they show aggression towards other dogs. In doing this the instructors and handlers are actually rewarding their dogs for being aggressive. It is as simple as that, yet they do not seem to understand or try to understand how their dogs’ mind work.

When a puppy displays bad behaviour like aggression, it should be corrected by the handler taking hold of it by the scruff of the neck saying “No!” and giving it one quick shake. The puppy will immediately and instinctively know that that correction is the same as it received from its own mother. So wherever possible one should stick as close to nature as one possibly can. As soon as the puppy responds favourably, it should be quietly praised. Later, the puppy should respond to just the word of reproof, “No!” when the handler reads its intentions for bad behaviour. When simple corrections are made like this the puppy will not become afraid of the handler, instead it will respect the handler just as it respected its mother. Regrettably, many dog training clubs today are telling handlers not to correct their dogs.

How absurd! Would they rear their own children the same way? Some time ago an Australian obedience champion came to my dog training school. As soon as the vehicle had pulled up outside my house the handler opened the back door and the dog jumped out and ran around my neighbour’s front garden. Despite numerous calls it refused to obey. Finally, I asked the handler to walk towards it and secure it with a leash. Having accomplished that, we each took a seat in my carport for a consultation for that was the purpose of the handler’s visit. The dog was put into a drop stay position about three yards away. In less than a minute it got up and walked over to it’s owner. It was duly put back and told to stay again. That happened several times in the first few minutes. Finally I asked the handler to let me hold the dog on the leash, It then relaxed while we conversed.

The main topic of our conversation was the use of food and I was asked why I did not approve of it. Before I went into all the reasons, I found it best to use their arrival as a classic example. I explained that there was an absolute lack of control when the dog alighted from the vehicle without a leash and not waiting for a command to come out on to a busy road. It disobeyed several commands to come when called. Lastly, despite several attempts, the dog would not stay in the drop position. Naturally, the handler was speechless. I think the motive for the handler’s visit was an attempt to convert me to training with food. Such an attempt was stupid and futile!

At a later date I observed the same dog work in an obedience trial. When the handler returned to the dog in the group stay, for which it was awarded full points, they departed from the ring under the rope on the opposite side of the ring entrance, then walked towards their vehicle a short distance away where it received its food reward. Sure, the dog had no intention of moving in the stay exercise, because its food reward was behind it in the vehicle. Yes, a very cunning procedure!

Three years ago I was invited by a shire council to give two demonstrations of obedience and tricks with my Border Collie at a public festival. A team of seven dogs and handlers from a long established obedience club did the same at other times of the day. The person in charge informed me that they had to be very careful because four of the seven dogs were aggressive! I soon found this to be true when I watched them perform, constantly using food! I wasn’t surprised!

Hopefully these stories will make people sit up and take notice as to what has been happening gradually in the dog training industry in recent years. The time has come when people should very carefully consider, analyse and question whether these new dog training methods are reliable or not. Finally, let us never forget the proven methods our dedicated forebears studied and established years ago. If they knew what is going on today, they would more than likely turn in their graves!

 

[BarkingM*d]

I know that a local vet that specialises in behaviour has made an offer to the VCA to put forward the other side of the story. I sincerely hope they take her up on the offer..

Please have a read of the following, an excellent response submitted by a local trainer:



Below is my response to the VCA. I am not a member of the VCA, but am
responding to an article posted on a website in the public domain.
Permission to cross post or put on websites is granted. I'd love to
know if the VCA ever prints this.

Ciao,
Leandra

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Tucker's criticism of the use of food in dog training ("Food for thought!", VicDog, September 2006) unfortunately contains a considerable amount of misinformation.

Operant conditioning (OC) is the part of the science of behaviour that explains the functional relationship between environmental events and behaviour. It is a key component in explaining how all organisms, including dogs, learn. Behavioural scientists have been studying the field since 1938, when BF Skinner published his landmark scientific work 'The Behavior of Organisms'.

Another process by which the behaviour of animals and humans can be changed is called classical conditioning (CC), or Pavlovian conditioning. This phenomenon was described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, resulting from the now famous experiment where the sound of a metronome was followed by the placement of meat powder in dogs'
mouths, causing them to salivate. After the sound and meat powder were paired together several times, the sound was presented by itself without the meat powder, and the dogs still salivated.

Another well known scientist in this field includes Edward Lee Thorndike, whose Law of Effect says responses that produce rewards tend to increase in frequency. His work in the 1800's provided the foundation for all of the reward-based training we use with dogs today.

JB Watson, credited as the father of modern behaviorism, together with R Rayner, conducted a well-known study of an 11 month old boy called Albert. The study in which they classically conditioned a fear response in the boy was published in 1920, and helps us to understand what has happened when working with extremely fearful dogs.

More details on any of the above can be found in any basic psychology textbook, as well as on numerous websites. Positive reinforcement is one of the four quadrants of OC, but it does not involve luring the dog with food as Mr Tucker asserts. He is describing a food lure. Positive reinforcement presents the food (or other reward) only after the desired behaviour is performed.

Marian Kruse, a PhD student working with BF Skinner, together with her husband Keller Breland, used positive reinforcement to successfully train thousands of animals for the war effort, and later for commercials and animal shows in the USA. With her second husband Bob Bailey, Marian trained more than 140 species of birds and mammals by applying the sound scientific principles of OC.

Another well-known name in the field of OC is scientist and animal trainer Karen Pryor, who used Skinner's OC principles for training dolphins. Her book 'Don't Shoot The Dog', an explanation of OC written for the general public, was published in 1984. In it she used real-world situations to demonstrate how OC can be used to change the
behaviour of one's children, spouse, and pets. Karen has also been responsible for raising the profile of clicker training.

So the use of food to train dogs is far from being a new gimmick. Rather, dog trainers have been very slow to embrace what scientists, behaviorists and exotic animal trainers have known for several decades. Today, all over the world, working dogs are being successfully trained using positive reinforcement. These include police dogs, search and rescue, military, termite detection, customs and service dogs, as well as those competing in performance sports.

The methods espoused by trainers such as William Koehler and Barbara Woodhouse are regarded today by behaviorists as being inhumane, unnecessary and inappropriate.

Mr Tucker is correct when he says that continual use of a food lure results in a dog that will only obey when he sees food in the owner's hand. Food lure methods are suitable for puppies, or to commence training a behaviour, but the use of food in this way must be quickly phased out and replaced with true positive reinforcement, where the reward is only presented after the behaviour is performed. When the behaviour is learned, reinforcement can be provided intermittently, which will strengthen the behaviour. This scientifically proven principle is the guiding force behind addiction to poker machines and other forms of gambling.

It is important that the dog determines what constitutes a reward, or reinforcement, not what the owner thinks should be reinforcing. As much as I love my job, if my boss substituted my pay cheque for a pat on the back and a "Well done", I wouldn't go to work for very long. Food rewards may be considered to be the dog's wages for a job well done. But reinforcement does not have to be limited to food. It may be anything that the dog finds highly motivating, such as playing with a favourite toy, or going for a walk. Few dogs find praise alone sufficiently motivating.

Mr Tucker is also justifiably angry when he hears of puppies being starved for 12 hours or more. Such a practice is both inhumane and unnecessary. It does assist training to work with a hungry dog, but this can be easily achieved by staggering the dog's usual meals so that a meal is due at training time.

The training methods advocated by Mr Tucker focus mainly on the quadrants of OC known as positive punishment and negative reinforcement. As an example, a dog performing heelwork pulls on the lead and the choke chain is pulled tight around the dog's neck. When the dog gets back into the correct position, the chain is loosened.
In this case, the tightening of the chain is positive punishment, and the loosening is negative reinforcement. Contrary to Mr Tucker's belief, dogs trained in this manner are not obeying out of respect for their handler, but to avoid a correction. In order to be effective, this method of punishment has to hurt, at least once. Smart dogs quickly learn to react to the sound of the chain before it goes tight, thus avoiding the pain in the neck on future occasions.
Some trainers choose to use a rope correction collar so that their dog cannot hear a chain and thus avoid a correction. Some trainers also use chains to train deaf dogs, who also have no hope of ever avoiding a correction. Most people would, I hope, consider such practices to be inhumane.

Correction-based training does work, but it doesn't work on all dogs. Many of the breeds considered untrainable by correction-based trainers are in fact very trainable using positive reinforcement. I currently own a beagle, which has lived with me since she was eight weeks old. I have only used positive reinforcement with her, no food
lures. At 12 weeks of age she had a recall with 90% reliability from a distance of 40 metres. Many correction-based trainers have asked what breed she is crossed with because "everyone knows beagles don't come back".

Another problem with correction-based training is that the rate of recidivism is high when punishment is used to alter behaviour. Consider the convict who re-offends upon his release from prison. How many of us drive within the speed limit after being fined for speeding? Dogs, like humans, simply find another way to get what they want and avoid the punishment.

When we are not around to deliver the punishment, the dog can freely indulge in that bad behaviour. That behaviour is reinforced, which keeps the dog performing the behaviour. Now it is being reinforced intermittently, since it can only be punished when the owner is present, and so the bad behaviour is strengthened. This is the reason why continuous barking and raiding rubbish bins is often impossible
to stop.

It is far more efficient to reward the dog's good behaviours. He then spends his time repeating those behaviours, and bad behaviours are often ignored by the dog. I seldom have to correct bad behaviour, and when I do, it is no more stressful or painful than a gentle hand on the dog's collar, directing him where I want him to go. Since the good behaviours are now learned, I only need to reward them intermittently to keep them going.

Correction-based training causes aggression in some dogs, and has also been linked to common behavioural problems such as separation anxiety. I adopted positive reinforcement techniques when my now 6 1/2 year old border collie became aggressive and extremely anxious as I used correction-based methods to train him as a puppy. What I didn't know at the time is that punishment increases anxiety, and
anxiety inhibits the ability to learn. Within a short time my dog no longer wanted to interact with me, and would run away distressed whenever I produced his lead and chain. I have no doubt that had I persisted with correction-based training for this dog, he would have been euthanized by the time he was 12 months old as aggressive and
uncontrollable. Instead, the use of positive reinforcement techniques has repaired our relationship, and today he is sweet-natured and gentle, and one of the easiest dogs one could ever hope to live with.

 

[BarkingM*d]

Unfortunately many other dogs are not so lucky. When confronted with such a dog, the correction-based trainer rarely considers that the method is far from ideal. Instead the dog is labelled as stupid or untrainable, and many are euthanized due to aggression. I was quite dismayed to discover that owners of such dogs drop out of correction-
based obedience clubs in very large numbers. I have attended several such clubs in my area, where there was no shortage of bad advice
freely given by the instructors on how to deal with such dogs. Combined with the lack of positive-reinforcement clubs in my area, this led me to complete the Certificate IV in Behavioral Dog Training offered by Delta Society Australia. Today I am an accredited trainer with the Society. One area in which I serve my community is to help rehabilitate some of the dogs that are ruined by correction-based techniques.

Correction-based training is only successful with impeccable timing, and the consequences can be disastrous if this timing is wrong. When using positive reinforcement we don't get serious problems when the timing is wrong. It simply takes a little longer to train the desired behaviour. It is also difficult or even impossible for children, the elderly, or physically impaired to deliver corrections. All of these people can successfully train using positive reinforcement.

As an analogy to correction-based training, consider commencing in a new job. You are given very poor or even no guidelines regarding acceptable behaviour, yet you are expected to make decisions. You are left to freely make mistakes, and then your supervisor promptly responds by belting you over the head with a rolled up newspaper. For how long will you enjoy your work? How will that affect your
relationship with your supervisor? What effect does it have on your stress levels? Will you remain calm enough to learn what is required of you?

It is frequently very easy to recognize correction-trained dogs in the obedience ring. They often look unhappy, even stressed, and give the appearance of compliance only due to compulsion. Many lag when heeling offlead, because they know their handler is currently unable to deliver a correction.

I compete with my dogs in tracking. One of the common problems seen in this arena with correction-trained dogs, is that the dogs are often unwilling to lean into the harness and pull. They are also reluctant to make decisions, in case they make the wrong decision and receive a correction. That constitutes a serious problem when the
only creature who knows where the track actually is, is the dog. When the lead is accidentally caught in vegetation or around a tree trunk, and the dog effectively corrects himself, correction-trained dogs shut down. He was on the correct track, but has been conditioned to cease and desist with the correction, and now there is nothing he can do. Other correction-trained dogs will put their noses to the ground and overshoot corners because they do not have the confidence to turn. That involves making another decision that may not please the handler.

Whilst on the topic of competition, Mr Tucker implies that the storage of a food reward in the handler's car is tantamount to cheating in obedience trials. How does that compare to the correction-based trainer's tool of choice, which is worn around the dog's neck whilst in the ring? The dog doesn't know that the rules forbid corrections.

Mr Tucker criticizes the use of food when dealing with aggressive dogs. This technique for desensitization and counter-conditioning is firmly based in the principles of CC and OC. When used correctly, the dog is positioned far enough away from the fear object so that he is calm, and his perception of that fear object is changed with the use of something he values highly, namely food. It is a very effective technique that I and many other trainers have repeatedly used successfully to reduce fear and aggression. With an aggressive dog, I do not put him in situations where I know he will aggress. Practice makes perfect, and he will simply become
more aggressive. Instead I will work him far enough away from his fear where he can think, and learn how to cope with his fears in a manner which is both acceptable to humans, and healthy for him.

In contrast, correction-based trainers frequently advocate putting aggressive dogs in a class situation and punishing for every growl and lunge. This simply switches off the growl, which is the dog's only warning device when he is unhappy or fearful. It hasn't removed the fear, and that dog is now even more dangerous because he can
attack without warning. Imagine a situation in which you are so frightened that you cannot think clearly. I experienced such a situation first hand when I was a victim of road rage two years ago and froze out of fear for my life. It is completely unreasonable to expect a dog to learn in such a stressful situation.

Unfortunately some owners and trainers confuse positive with permissive. Good positive reinforcement trainers do not permit their dogs to run amok. We are pro-active rather than reactive, setting our dogs up for success and reducing their opportunities to make mistakes. For example, rather than correct a dog for pulling on the lead, I reward him in the correct position before he pulls. It makes no sense to me to allow a dog to do something wrong, and then waste time and effort fixing the problem. It is more efficient, and far less stressful on the dog, to teach him the right way in the first place.

I see many examples where correction-based trainers are reactive, and rely on corrections to communicate with their dogs when it is completely unnecessary. For example, recently I watched a woman at a conformation show with her obedience champion. Together they approached a trolley containing another dog. The woman allowed her dog to walk right up to the trolley, then corrected him for getting too close. Why not simply ask him to sit when he is still one metre away from the trolley?

Finally, I would like to quote Donna Duford, who is the Director of Behavior and Training at the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control. The term "cross over" is used to describe a trainer who has switched from using traditional, correction-based training to positive reinforcement methods. Donna is a cross over trainer. The following extract is from her article "You Can Cross Over, But You
Can't Cross Back", which can be found on a number of internet sites:

"I have known for years that I have no desire to go back, but I did not realize until recently that I can't. This issue became clear to me when two of my colleagues and I recently started a pilot study with the Pryor Foundation on the difference in the speed of acquisition of learning a new behavior between traditional training and clicker training.

Each of us was to train a dog, one with command-based training, and the other with clicker training. We decided on a 10-minute session for each dog. To make sure we ruled out as many variables as possible, we decided to use shaping exclusively with half the dogs and physical manipulation with the other half. The clicker-trained
dogs were rewarded with food, while the other dogs were given verbal praise and petting. The manipulation we used was mild. We either slide the front legs out to guide the dog down, applied pressure on the shoulders with one hand, or used downward pressure in the collar. All three of us had used physical force of varying degrees in the past and felt comfortable using gentle pressure for the purposes of
this study.

The clicker training sessions were fine. Some of the dogs caught on quickly and started to offer "down" on cue. Others didn't get quite as far in the process. Regardless, they were relaxed and engaged with the trainer. The first thing we observed with the force-trained dogs was their stress. We noticed it early and watched it escalate quickly. We started with mostly exuberant, friendly dogs who within minutes were subdued, upset and socially disengaged. And none of them figured out what we wanted. In fact, a couple of the dogs who had followed a hand motion to the ground at the start of the session would no longer respond to it after a few trials with force. It did not surprise us that the clicker-trained dogs learned the behavior faster. We were overwhelmed, though, by the amount of stress we saw in the force-trained dogs.

The techniques we used were gentle compared to some of the ones we had used in the past, yet once we got started we found ourselves agonizing over them. Though our agreed training period was 10 minutes, we each wanted to stop training by five minutes into our session."

Like Donna, I find myself unable to cross back. Hopefully, after reading this, those people rooted in tradition will have the courage to change, and the open mind to receive the scientifically proven principles that form the foundation for reward-based training.

Kind regards,
Leandra Prior

 

[Doberluv]

It might look easy to may when they see their dogs respond to “Come” when called to a food treat held in the hand.

This is describing bribery, never recommended by competent trainers. There's a difference between holding a treat in view of the dog and rewarding the dog AFTER he comes.

Another most inappropriate use of food is in connection with the worst temperament trait in dogs, aggression! Handlers are being shown how to entice their dogs away with food treats when they show aggression towards other dogs. In doing this the instructors and handlers are actually rewarding their dogs for being aggressive. It is as simple as that, yet they do not seem to understand or try to understand how their dogs’ mind work.

Again....you do not offer a dog a reward while he's being aggressive. You reward for wanted behavior, before the dog launches into full alert and while his attention stays on his handler.

I used treats to counter condition my Doberman to lunging at other dogs. I got his attention and as long as he held it on me while another dog walked past, he then got a treat. If he managed to alert and lunge before I was able to catch his attention, I'd turn and walk the other way and he would not get a treat. It was successful.

We have to know when to leave off using the food treat. If it is used beyond twelve weeks of age, then the puppy is highly likely to perform only for food and not out of respect and affection it should have for its handler.

This is not true. He apparently doesn't know about a schedule of reinforcers, variable ratios.

Just these three quotes demonstrate that this moron doesn't have a clue about reinforcement, timing, intermittent reward schedules. He, like so many ignorant people get a snippet of information and think they've got the whole story. A little information is a dangerous thing.

He is flat out wrong. Science and oodles and oodles of trainers use "positive" reinforcement methods. We all know that and we all know how beautifully they work. That is not even debatable. There's proof. There's really no point in arguing about facts, only about opinions. And my opinion is that this guy is a moron.

Just the way he talks about dogs being "bad" and "respecting their owner" and what not shows me that he does not have a clue about the canine brain. He, like a lot of people project human concepts or morality into dogs' brains. He's clueless about behaviorism. What is his education? What degrees in what sciences does he have? Training dogs for 55 years doing what, shaking them up by the scruff? For 55 years? That speaks for itself.

 

[Doberluv]

You posted the next two articles while I was writing the above post. LOL. So, I'll go read the other ones now. I was wondering what you were up to. LOL!

 

[RD]

Ugh. My apologies in advance for any difficulty understanding this post. My tylenol PM just kicked in but I know I'd still be up all night if I didn't reply

That article is so far off, I don't even know where to begin. Obviously the author hasn't the slightest idea how to use food rewards correctly.

Just as with a choke chain or pinch collar, timing and when to reward a dog is something that needs to be learned. Luring an aggressive dog away from its target with food? Ridiculous idea. I don't know a single reputable trainer that would do such a thing. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about behavior will understand that producing a reward while the dog is still exhibiting undesirable behavior is the worst possible thing to do.

In reality, those of us who use food rewards when working with aggressive dogs do not produce a reward until the aggressive behavior has stopped. We may use other, neutral means to lure the dog away (walk in the other direction, give a command, etc) but providing a reward at that time is just stupid.

I can't believe people are still likening a scruff shake to a correction that a dog recieves from its mother. How in the world can humans (primates) accurately mimic canine behavior? To a puppy, that's not a correction, it's an attack. And yes, it does make the dog fear the handler. A leash pop at least isn't associated with people's hands . . .

Gah. I could dispute every single paragraph, but I just don't have the energy. All I can say is that these "newfangled" methods of training are scientifically proven to work. They aren't simply based on someone's notions of what dogs MIGHT be "thinking" when they correct each other.

Edit: Whoops, didn't see the rebuttal posted. Gotta read that one, too.

 

[Doberluv]

Thanks for posting those two articles afterward. (I was stimied at first, after reading some of your answers to training questions. I was scratching my head, thinking, what the heck???) And then I saw that you had posted those other ones. Yes, a lot which was in there must have been taken from people like Jean Donaldson. I recognized something in there which I have read in her book. Excellent posts, good educational information. You should get this spead out even more. Unfortunately and ironically, it is usually the people who need education the most who are the most resistant to reading anything.

*Actually, that was rather effective posting that first one, then sticking on the next two. Good attention grabber.

Yes, absolutely. This is not something new. They've known the world wasn't flat for a long time now. LOL.

 

[BarkingM*d]

I had to check the calendar when I first read it through to make sure is wasn't one of those April fools day stories...

As you can imagine, the article has ruffled a few feathers locally... I think it was a poor decision for the VCA to print the article as it certainly does not reflect the opinions of many members within the organisation. I really hope they to do allow the reward based trainers equal space in a future publication.

My favorite part of the article is where he comments that you wouldn't raise your own children like that would you? err... well actually yes. Learning theory is learning theory full stop. Just look at the developments that have been made in teaching especially early years in the last 20 years...

 

[Doberluv]

My favorite part of the article is where he comments that you wouldn't raise your own children like that would you? err... well actually yes.

Exactly. This stuff was beginning to be really brought out when my kids were babies (26 and 23 years ago). "Watch for behavior you like and let the child know. If he's playing nicely with his sibling instead of fighting, comment on that. If he's doing a behavior you don't like, distract, redirect to another activity and let the child know how pleased you are or give a little prize sometimes." This was even Dr. Spock's idea, although people misinterepted him and thought he meant to be permissive. People seem to do that a lot.

Yes, learning theory is across the board with all mammals. People say that dogs are different. Well, yes, they're easier to train. LOL. So where does all this stuff come from with these out of date people......It's like war against the dogs with them. If the dog jumps up, he's challenging your status. You have to_______ (insert favorite brand of punishment).

Yes, I hope they allow equal space. Maybe you can do something there. You write well. And you know your stuff.

Here are some links to places which show how operant conditioning and clicker training is used with all kinds of wild animals in captivity. It has enabled improved husbandry with these animals' medical care and more as it's process reduces stress levels. If they can train wild animals with no domestication or predisposition to be with humans, believe me, dogs are a cake walk.

http://www.aza.org/AZAPublications/2005ProceedingsReg/Documents/2005ConfProcKansasCity2.pdf

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0601_03
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/104551934/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.krugerpark.co.za/krugerpark-times-3-3-cheetah-toy-22024.html

 

[BSan]

I have read most of the info you posted. Thanks!
Something in dealing with Very young children that works is redirection. I wish I had been better at that when my own were young, but I get lots of practice with my grandchild. Instead of doing a power play over not going up the stairs, eating dog food, or putting the dog food in the dog water, I usually say no and then quickly redirect, take her to something that is positive/acceptable/ok, and reward her with smiles, play and interaction. A wise grandma helped to teach me that a long time ago when my kids were little. It works by far better then constantly saying no until you get mad, they get frustrated. But, this is a bit new to me as I am not sure exactly whether no is used at all, or any mild correction, or only the positive in the postive reinforcement methods. I am sure I will find out when I take him to a class. Forgive me for my ignorance, just trying to learn a bit before we enroll in a class. I feel so out of it, as it has been years since I have had a puppy to train. The methods I was taught back then are outdated!

 

[Angelique]

I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing how one feels emotionally about something they consider morally wrong. Bashing included.

I understand what you are saying here. Using "moral" self-rightousness to justify bad behavior on the part of an attack against anyone or anything which does not fit into someone's own belief system of what they have personally determined to be "moral" and correct is a common human behavior.

I can't help but find this both sad and unfortunate...kind of reminds me of how some overly zelous self-rightous religious folks act towards others who do not believe what they believe.

Since Jean Donaldson is someone you choose to emulate in this as someone you admire, that is your choice. It's a free country, and you are an adult who can say and do as you please.

Cesar's response to these attacks is simple, "It doesn't show very good leadership". And, I agree with him.

Lemon brains means the brain size. Their brains are about the size of a lemon and are rather smooth, like a lemon. This is biology, not an emotional bash.

Never meant it as such. I only mentioned that the phrase "lemon brain" was how I spotted the quote as Jean's. I also spotted the quotes against Cesar as some of her "handiwork" which she is also free as an adult to express. Doesn't say much about the benefits of her beliefs in dog training, but it does say a lot about her character as a human being.

It seems this thread has wandered off topic a bit in favor of discussing "training" methods. I wonder of anyone else has any more thoughts as to why "dominance is a myth" based on their on personal experiences?

I would really like to hear more opinions on this.

 

[sam]

I'd love an example of where Jean Donaldson is refering to Cesar in Culture Clash b/c I don't think that's remotely true. She may refer to force based methods of training but I really don't see her refering to Cesar at all. I've read both versions of Culture Clash and that thought actually never entered my mind. There is nothing new about Cesar's methods; he is basically Koehler only more charismatic, better looking, with an adorable accent and with a lot of image help and editing.

Oh and *dominance* isn't a myth, that's not the point. The point is that there are many myths about dominance, what it is etc. There are many things commonly attributed to "dominance" that really have absolutely nothing to do with it. Certainly there are dogs who are status seeking and certainly there are owners who have inadvertently put the dog in the situation of leader which causes a heck of a lot of problems. (just saw that with a GSD in a manners class- very scary) I don't think anyone is disbuting that. I think the problems occue when EVERYTHING, every behavior problem, is attributed to "dominance" as Cesar and many others seem to do.

This is where the so called bashing comes in. I have no problem with Cesar as a human being. I wish him nothing but success and happiness. He is very handsome and charming, certainly does have a way with dogs and people etc
Anything I say agaist him is not about him as a person but about some of his methods and the fallout I see happening when people put them in to practise.
It's a really scary thing to me when I see dogs who are simply exuberant, normal dogs, completely young and under trained and people who have watched Cesar or read his book telling me that the dog is just dominant and doesn't know who is boss or "leader" if you will. Then they use collar corrections, jabbing the dogs neck and now alpha rolls to try to establish leadership. People start to see everything as the dog blowing them off, disrespecting them which results in a ton of punishment and poor training and often times a VERY screwed up dog. It takes people to a place of blaming dogs for their inability as a trainer and that doesn't get the dogs or the owners anywhere.

 

[Boemy]

Dominance itself definitely isn't a myth; our cat, Muffy, was dominant over Ebony and bossed her around--even though Ebony was four times her size. Muffy had a well-developed sense of humor and would do things like lie across the stairs, leaving Ebony stuck at the bottom, whining. She would also chase the dog around the yard. (She NEVER allowed Ebony to chase her in return.)

 

[Angelique]

Sam,

Jean's "remarks" in regards to Cesar (which were quoted by Doberluv) were not taken from Culture Clash. I've read these same remarks by Jean on the net myself.

Having studied Koehler (never liked it) with a former canine officer, and am now using a philosophy similar to Cesar's, I can tell you from personal experience that what he is doing has nothing to do with "old school" Koehler. But you need to look at what he is doing with something other than the "training" eye to understand it. This is what his attackers are unable to do, IMO.

Anyway, enough about Cesar and Jean. I'd really like to hear more opinions about the "dominance myth" and stay on topic.

 

[BSan]

Sorry, that was me off topic, new to site, just trying to figure out what info to glean from for basic training help, no specific problems (new puppy-need fresh training info). People have sung praises about Cesar to me, and others the Alpha, establishing dominance info etc. I have picked up books in the bookstore and put them back again, including the one by the Monks. I have read these posts and I am trying to understand the different thinking from which people base their interaction and training methods. It appears that these beliefs have a large effect on outcomes, and so I am just trying to learn. I'll hop to another thread somewhere. Sorry. It's been all interesting to read.

 

[Doberluv]

BSan, you're just fine. You're not off topic at all.

Angelique, let me try to explain: If I saw someone poking rolling or bullying someone on the street, I would also have an opinion about that. It has everything to do with fitting inside my moral framework. I would definitely not turn a blind eye and do nothing, say nothing. That's just the way I am. I'm not wishy washy or the type to sweep something under the rug when I see what I consider (and many behaviorists see) as mistreatment of animals. To say, "Well....it's not the way I'd do it, but it's not right and it's not wrong. There are no wrong answers. Nothing is right or wrong. It's just different." That sounds like someone from the 60's on opium.

What I think about this misapplication of dominance is not about self righteousness. It's about caring for animals and getting the word out that there are ways to achieve the very same behavior that these people whose dogs Cesar works with want. It's not about a training box or another kind of box. It's about what is best for dogs, to treat them fairly and not punish them for things they have no clue about, who haven't been taught. Teaching a dog with fair methods IS communicating with him, is interacting with him socially, is creating a relationship between owner and dog which is condusive to the way dogs think and operate in their world with humans. It is based on all the things I've already mentioned a million times.

You keep asking for more opinions. There are eight pages here and I have yet to read anything from you other than your defense of Cesar's methods and your criticism of me whom you take to be politically incorrect in not being passive and wishy washy about my distain for many of the ways he handles and thinks about dogs.

What about sharing your opinion and what your opinion is based on. Are there any sources from which you collect you information, any recent studies, information or any scientific tracking of any of this? Something to relate to other than one or two people who have no background in biology or ethology of dogs, who have no archeological background to help with finding out where dogs come from.....or is there something I'm missing?

I'd like to see more substance, personally. And would welcome you to join in with the discussion with some information, not just making personal analysis of me and why I am wrong to have an opinion and why I am wrong or self righteous to speak out against something I believe is harmful to dogs, something which many, many people see as harmful to dogs. I am not alone in this opinion by any means. What do you think is inaccurate about what Jean Donaldson has to say, what the Coppingers have to say, what David Mech has to say about wolf packs. Or Karen Pryor. Apparently you give no credence to their long time education and practice. David Mech is widely considered the world's leading expert of wolf pack behavior. Are all these scientists (of varying and advanced degrees) who endorce positive reinforcement as the best way to communicate and work with animals all off their rockers? But Cesar Milan or Kohler have it all figured out? They are definitely diametrically opposed to CM's methods, in theory as well as practice.

So, yes, opinions are more than welcome here by all.

 

[whatszmatter]

One thing about Mech, he's done a lot of work and I respect what he's done, but bashing "pack" and dominance theory because of poorly done wolf in captivity studies done way back when and accepting all his stuff as truth when in fact a lot of his studies pertain to the same wolves on an ISLAND in norther canada as a basis for all this being misunderstood leaves something to be desired IMO.

Even a lot of his referenced stuff is done off things he did earlier watching wolves on the same island years before. Now he's spent more times watching wolves than I have watched of Sienfeld episodes, but to be fair they've been the same wolves over the years

 

[Doberluv]

His studies dispell the old myths about wolves which were done on unrelated wolves in captivity many decades ago. He is, once again... considered by most experts throughout the world to be the leading expert in wolf behavior in the wild. It is what we have now. Science is normally a changing thing. We have to consider what there is and it is the best we have to date. This wolf pack which I think you're referring to, he observed for 13 years, naturally had wolves dispursing and new ones being born. It was not a static group of wolves. It was a natural pack (family) in a natural setting, not behind some chain link fence.

There are also many more studies being done in Yellowstone, in Idaho among other places. I haven't read much in detail on those. But at any rate, they dispell much about the old dominance myth about wolves, how they treat one another. More importantly, there is a lot of research which dispells it where domestic dogs are concerned and their niche with humans, dispells the application of it which is so over used and misunderstood.

 

[whatszmatter]

See, I don't think they really dispell anything. The biggest thing I think they've shown is that the rules aren't always as rigid as we once thought, but in no way has shown that the "rules" don't exist. when food is plenty and pups are being born and such, rules are very relaxed, other times of the year they aren't so relaxed. the rules seem to follow a certain heirarchy but more along the lines of a familial one just like humans do. The rules are set from a pretty early age.

Its not very suprising that if you take a pack made of unrelated, unfamiliar, wolves and put them together there will be a lot more fighting for rank and status or resources, because they don't know where they fit in, or whom they have to listen to. But when you're raised with that, you just fall in line.

The enforcement of those rules isn't always so obvious because their always communicating their intentions with each other and when they deal with something, they deal quickly and often what would seem to us very harshly, and it doesn't need to be done again. I was reading some observations on a wolf pack in Yellowstone, and one of the females kept ignoring the wishes, so to speak of the breeding female alpaha, top dog, whatever, and they witnessed an attack on that malcontent by a number of the wolf pack and later found her dead.

If anything recent studies show that there are more components to the wolf dynamic, pack, family than once believed, but I still think the "rules" are quite evident.