Bad Dog... really?

 I am doing a lot of pondering lately as we have a new puppy in the house - in fact she's currently sat on my desk lying across my arms. This makes typing... interesting.

Anyway... Bad Dogs...  why do we seem to want to tell our dogs they are bad?

I think theres more to this than just wanting a dog to not do something or stop doing something... after all if that were all we wanted to achieve then 'come here' or ' lie down' would (if you have taken the time to train those things) achieve that goal.


We seem to want our dogs to understand that an action is inherently wrong, and thats a big problem because dogs don't have the same social and moral standards we do, and they never will.

I think it goes further than that though, I think most people deep down, understand that a dog is never going to be able to understand that chewing up the iPhone is wrong because an iPhone is very expensive, contains important information and is a pain in the rear to replace, or that Daddy worked very hard to pay for the iPhone and feels bad now he realises the insurance doesn't cover acts of dog and he is out of pocket...

Most folk realise these are concepts well beyond doggy comprehension.

I think, what it is, when we say 'bad dog', what we want is the dog to feel ashamed, to feel bad... its not training then is it? Its revenge. Its us lashing out 'you made me feel bad/lose something important/look stupid in front of my friends', I want you to feel bad, to feel worried that I am angry, to feel ashamed for your actions'...

We do this to children to but at least then, in most cases anyway, theres a 'why' involved.

'You did a bad thing because your actions made someone else feel/lose out on/etc'.. 'your actions hurt someone else'... 'you would dislike it if someone else did that to you'..

Thats why we do this with children (please note, I am not saying that is what we SHOULD do with children either, but at least with children theres the option for discussion and the understanding of empathy.)


There can be no discussion with a dog - I cannot tell Tatty-pup who is currently trying to bite my ear that she is a bad dog for doing this as it hurts me and she would not like it if someone hurt her ear... she's never going to be capable of that level of empathy!

She IS capable of understanding that if she bites me and I yelp in pain, then I'm going to put her down and stop playing with her or cuddling her, so that is what I'll do... but telling her she's bad, this would achieve nothing.

Except... if she really hurt me, and if I weren't a dog-geek, if she were misbehaving in public and people were looking on and judging me,  probably, telling her 'BAD DOG, HORRID DOG' would make ME feel better...

So there's that - I think deep down or even, not that deep down at all - people tell dogs they are bad not because they think it will actually change the dogs behaviour or because they really believe a dog can understand such complex concepts... but because it makes THEM feel better.


Why is that important - well firstly if its you doing it - stop. Next time those words are about to come out of your mouth, ask yourself 'is this training my dog, or is it just revenge designed to make me feel better?'...

If you are a trainer and a client is doing this - they need to feel better, how can you help them do that, in a more appropriate manner? (Alternative behaviours are not just for dogs!).

As they say where I am from... think on!


As post script to this - it dawns on me (slow aren't I!)... for those who have dogs who will show appeasement behaviours or in otherwords 'the guilty look' (it isn't, we know that now).. those people have been rewarded haven't they!

They wanted their dog to feel bad, to feel ashamed, they told the dog off and hey presto, dog looks guilty and ashamed!

Dogs! Stop offering appeasement gestures to humans!

Correcting your corrections...

You say correction... I say punishment.. you say no! That's not... but I... how...

Theres a lot of confusion over this term.. I've been pondering it over in my head for a few days and it's time to ponder it out in writing.

When you, the pet owner, talk about 'correction', for example..

"My dog pulls on the lead and so I need to correct him for that"

What you mean, is you want to stop that behaviour and impart to your dog that this behaviour is wrong.


But 'correction' doesn't mean telling someone they are wrong - it means putting someone right..

It could involve pointing out the error, but to be a correction, you need to offer them the opportunity and guidance to get it right.

So you tell me where giving your dog a quick jerk on his collar or shouting 'no' at him, or giving him a zap from an e-collar is achieving that goal?

It isn't is it - in fact if it was, you wouldn't have to keep doing it - and you do, right?

Theres a lot of misconception about positive, force free dog training, particularly around the concept of 'correction'.

Here's the thing though - we DO correct our dogs - yes we do.

We do not use positive punishment (the jerk on the collar, the choke chain, the e-collar) to do it, but we do correct our dogs.

Here's how.

1/ Evaluate the situation the dog is in, so that you know what mistakes are likely to occur.
2/ Ensure you have the ability to control the dog, and also to motivate the dog.
3/Understand why those mistakes may occur.
4/ Have a pro-active, positive alternative behaviour in mind.

So here's a potential scenario - I've taken Spot to Grandma's house where there is a family BBQ happening.

Evaluate the situation - so theres going to be food, theres going to be people, there may be children. I know that Spot likes food a LOT, and he likes people, and he adores children.

The risks therefore are that Spot might steal food, potentially he might steal dangerous food like Corn cobs or things on skewers, and he might take food from children. He could knock a child over as he is very enthusiastic about both food and kids.

Ensure you have the ability to control and motivate the dog.

So I make sure my pockets are filled with high value foods for Spot. I also put him in a harness and attach a medium length line to it, and I take Spots bed with me.

I now have the ability to control Spot with the long line, I have his bed I can ask him to lie on it and stay on it (and I can explain to children not to touch Spot when he is on his bed), and I have both the motivation and the reward in the form of treats Spot likes.

Understand why mistakes may occur...

I know that children often don't do as they are told, so a child could wave food under his nose. I know that whilst Spot's stay on a mat is strong, but when not on his mat he may bounce or follow people for food. I know that even adults will do things they've been asked not to do, such as give him food.

Theres a lot of temptation in this scenario!

Have a pro-active positive alternative behaviour in mind..

Yep, this is holding the long line - and asking Spot to stay on his mat. I can reward him for doing this, I will never be so far away from Spot that I cannot distract him and redirect him to going on his mat, having a treat, doing a little bit of work for me for a treat... generally keeping his focus on me.


So now we are at the BBQ and Spots been great but here comes a toddler and whoops, he's fallen over and he has a big juicey burger in his hand.

I call Spot to me, he is on the long line anyway so I shorten that up, he DID want to take that burger, but because I called him to me and used the long line, I prevented that - and now I ask him to lie on his mat and reward him really strongly for that instead.


I have corrected Spots behaviour - I have seen what was about to happen, I have asked Spot to do something else instead and he has.

THAT is how to correct behaviour.


If you are allowing the behaviour to happen - so lets say I see Spot going to the fallen toddler to take the burger and I let him take that burger - and THEN you punish the dog - NO, BAD DOG...

You haven't corrected anything - you have punished the dog, but all thats going to achieve is to make him wary of you, after all he successfully stole the burger which was super rewarding, so it isn't going to stop him doing that in future.

Lets say you had a shock collar on the dog and as you saw him approach the child you zapped him - what does that teach him? It might teach him that approaching burgers is unpleasant, but he has a child right in his face, are you 100% positive it isn't teaching him that CHILDREN are scary?

So here you still haven't corrected anything - even if Spot doesn't grab the burger, you haven't taught him to do something else and potentially you have taught him a lesson you didn't want to - that children are scary.

You may now be asking 'but how do you teach him that this behaviour is wrong'..

The answer is, you don't.

Attempting to teach a dog that behaviours are socially and morally wrong is pointless, and futile. Dogs do not have the same social and moral standards that we do and they are not capable of understanding such concepts -in fact as I have said many times before, even WE don't have a cast iron, unchanging set of social and moral standards, which is why things like the age of consent and the laws surrounding theft and ownership of property change from culture to culture.

Forget teaching your dog that a particular action or behaviour is wrong - instead, focus on teaching him the behaviours you DO want, and understand him and be ready to pre-empt and redirect him from performing behaviours you don't like.

Eventually you will have a dog whose second nature is to turn to you, to wait for you to give the ok, because his habit is to see which behaviours YOU reward. He will be used to exercising self control and he will understand that acting on impulse tends not to benefit him.

Just for a while, humour me and run through a few situations in which you think you would need to 'correct' your dog.

Counter surfing -
Pulling on the lead -
Jumping up at people -


Now for each of those situations, instead of thinking 'how will I stop my dog and let him know that behaviour is bad', which is really what you mean by correction, think 'how will I prevent that from happening and teach my dog a preferable behaviour'.

Identify why it happens - counter surfing happens because dogs are opportunistic scavengers, theres food up there and its unattended, or there MIGHT be food up there...

                                      - pulling on the lead happens because dogs naturally walk faster than we do, because its rewarding to pull, they get to move quicker, because they don't actually know how to walk any other way
                                      - jumping up at people happens because dogs like to get close to peoples faces to greet them, because there may be a history of reward for doing so, because they don't know any other way to solicit attention from a person, because they are excited and lack self control.


How can you prevent it? - counter surfing - prevent access to the food preparation area, never leave food out when you cannot supervise the dog 100%.
                                        - pulling on lead - use a front clip harness, a headcollar, or both, teach your dog to enjoy wearing these before hand,
                                        - jumping up at people - keep a lead on your dog and don't allow him to get close enough to people to jump up, ask people not to encourage him to jump up.


What would be a preferable behaviour - counter surfing - lying on a dog bed whilst people prep food, lying outside of the kitchen whilst people prep food.
                                                              - pulling on lead - walking beside the owners leg on a loose lead
                                                               - jumping up - sitting down to greet people, keeping four on the floor to greet people.


Just think, if your dog is taught to walk on the lead nicely because he learns that going ahead doesn't work, and staying beside you is highly rewarding - he never needs to learn that pulling is BAD.
If he learns that theres no point jumping on the counter, theres never food up there, but lying on his dog bed means he gets rewarded every so often for doing nothing at all - he never needs to learn that counter surfing means he is a BAD DOG..
He learns that greeting people only happens when he has four on the floor and this is really rewarding - attempting to jump means the person backs up or he is taken away - he does not need to know that jumping up is BAD does he?

So, next time you think about correcting your dog - make sure you ARE actually correcting your dog, ie, preventing the behaviour you don't like and teaching him a behaviour you do like instead.

Just shouting at your dog or causing him momentary pain is not correcting, it isn't even effective punishment if you have to keep doing it - it just makes you a sucky person to be around.

Dominance.. again. What it is, what it ain't.

Before I start this, its worth keeping in mind the phrase 'A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing'...

Never does that apply more when it comes to discussing dominance and dogs, and dog training and dog behaviour!


So first of all let me be clear about some of the following terms:


Context - a set of circumstances or facts surrounding a specific event or situation.


In discussing dominance, we need to know about the environmental context, and the social context.

In other words, WHERE it happened/happens, and WHO was involved.


Resource - something valuable to the involved parties.

So here we mean toys, food, water, attention from a person, access to a choice sleeping position.




So what is dominance - well that depends on who you are, whether you are discussing in a purely scientific context, or a more general context. Here are some definitions of 'dominance' or 'dominating' or 'domineering', some of them are in fact incorrect but are in common use.

Dominant - the winner of a competition, the strongest, the fastest, the top of the heap, the boss, someone who controls others actions

Domineering - behaviour displayed by someone that controls the actions of others

Dominating - the act of controlling others or taking over a situation, conversation or other social interaction

Dominance - power or influence over others, suppressing others




SO now lets look at dogs. For a long time a large section of the dog owning public has believed a number of things that aren't quite true.. or are even entirely false.

Here's one.

Dogs want to become dominant over their owners.

Here's another.

Dogs fight for dominance over each other/over humans.



Thats just not true, looking at the dog - human social context first, dogs have no concept of DESIRE to dominate human beings for the sake of then being the dominant party.

Looking at the social context of dog to dog interactions again, dogs do not want to dominate other dogs so that they are then 'top dog'.


This is why people will tell you, 'it doesn't exist'.. what they mean is, the DESIRE to become dominant, does not exist.

And that is true.

BUT... dominance does exist.

Every person or dog, who has their actions controlled by a dog - so the person who's dog growls when they try to sit on the sofa, so they sit on the floor instead, the person who's dog yells at them till they take it for a walk... the person who has a dog who won't let the other dog play with a particular toy...

In all these situations a dog is dominating another dog, or a person....

But here's the crucial point... this dominance is the OUTCOME of a social interaction and usually, is specific to a particular environment as well.


It is not something the dog set out to achieve for its own sake. The dog did not think 'ah ha, I shall control my owners actions, by refusing to allow him to sit on the sofa I shall achieve dominance over him and thus I shall raise my social status'.


Nope. What happened was the dog liked lying on the sofa, the dog learned that growling at the person meant he could stay on the sofa, maybe he learned that the person approaching the sofa was scary so growl, oh they go away, that works, repeat it.. hey I get to stay on the sofa, excellent.


This outcome however, does end up domineering the humans life, but it IS NOT because the dog desired to control the humans life, its because he wanted to stay on the sofa.


The same applies to the dog who won't let the other dog he lives with, get the ball. He has not a single care about being dominant, having any kind of social status, what he cares about, is the ball. He likes the ball, he values it highly, and he has via trial and error, figured out that he can prevent the other dog from having the ball by displaying certain behaviours.

So, why is this important and why do so many trainers and behaviourists tell you dominance doesnt exist.


Well, several reasons - and back to my 'a little bit of knowledge is dangerous'...

Because there is this misconception that dogs WANT to become dominant, and because unfortunately so many shysters and TV shmucks like to blame every behaviour they see on 'dominance', the word has become poisoned. We don't want to use this word because its real meaning is lost, because sadly a huge number of people use it wrongly, we don't want to be mixed up with that.

I don't need to tell you that your dogs inappropriate behaviour is dominating your life .. you know that! I don't want you to hear me talk about dominance, then hear some bumhole on the TV talking about it and think we are discussing the same thing, because we sure as shit ain't!


The major point is, dominance is really nothing to worry about, its not relevant, I don't need to discuss it with you when I come to your house to assess your dog, you don't need to know about it.

In the same way that you can appreciate the blue skies on a sunny day without knowing that the molecules in the air scatter blue light more than they do red light and so the sky appears blue... or you can watch TV without needing to understand how electricity works or how digital signals are transmitted or how an LCD actually turns that digital signal into a picture...


You can deal with behavioural problems, you can live happily with your dogs, without knowing how dominance actually occurs.

All you really need to know, is this:

Dominance does not CAUSE behaviour, dominance is the possible OUTCOME of behaviour.



So when you hear that a dog pulls on the lead because he is dominant - no. When you are told that your dog barks at you when you tell him off, because he is dominant - nope. When you see on TV some pillock explaining that a dog is shitting on the carpet, weeing up the walls, raiding the garbage can, humping his toys, growling at the kids, running away from home, killing squirrels in the yard, guarding his food bowl from you, stealing items and guarding those from you.... because he is dominant.

The answer is no, none of those things are caused by dominance. To say something is 'caused by dominance' is like saying 'smell the colour 9'... it actually doesn't make sense.

So when we tell you to forget dominance, you really can do so, just do it - because even though all those behaviours above and many many more MAY WELL dominate your lives...


We can fix them without once thinking about our dogs as being dominant, or domineering, because they don't WANT to be. They just want to chase the ball, lie on the sofa, eat their own meal in peace.


So, now I hear you saying ok, but what about with other dogs, how about when my dog is stealing other dogs balls in the park.

Your dog may well be dominant over another dog in a particular context, over a particular resource.

Fluffy may not allow Fido to have that ball, Rover may not want Spot to sit next to him on the sofa.

As long as the dogs themselves understand these rules and can get along, thats fine, its not a problem, frankly, its none of your business don't interfere, keep your clumsy human nose out of things. 

If Fluffy is the dominant dog when it comes to Fido and the ball, as long as Fido doesn't give two shits, thats fine.  If Rover is the dominant dog when it comes to Spot and the sofa, and Spot couldn't give a flying fuck, thats also fine.

It's totally irrelevant to you. Its also totally irrelevant to any other context and any other social grouping. The fact that Fluffy is dominant over Fido when it comes to the ball, in your house, has NO bearing whatsoever on whether Fluffy is dominant over Rover in the field.

The fact that Rover is dominant over Spot when it comes to the sofa has NO bearing whatsoever on whether he is dominant over Charlie at Nana's house.

These situations are determined by behaviour, they are driven by the desire to win the resource, and of course, the desire not to be involved in conflict, because its not just about 'who is strong enough to take what they want' its ALSO about 'who is diplomatic enough to quit rather than start a fight'.

In all these situations where you could identify a dominant dog, keep in mind that the OTHER dog chose to back down.



Problems can of course occur, when two dogs want the same resource, both are well matched and value it highly and are willing to fight over it.

But even here, DOMINANCE is not the problem, the desire for a limited resource, and the inability to resolve who wins it IS the problem.

This situation is generally not that common UNLESS the dogs in question have particularly poor skills at communicating with one another! Generally speaking, dogs who communicate well, will back down, will find a way of diffusing the situation.


More commonly I see dogs who are in fact highly anxious, that are described as 'dominant' who are not at ALL dominant.. but ARE constantly fighting to guard, or keep control of resources that they fear they will lose.

These dogs are not attempting to take over the world to gain social status, they are not attempting to control others so that they achieve some grand high poohbah prize of a Chufty Badge and a We Am De Best hat...

These dogs are highly anxious and stressed and just want to feel secure and safe!

So lets put this one to bed for good shall we? Dominance is not your concern, unless its with a fully consenting adult of the same species as you, a can of squirty cream and some handcuffs!




























 

STOP focusing on the behaviour... think about the DOG...

I feel compelled to write this down as I have today seen several examples of what I am about to discuss, via the life-invading ever present Facebook of course.


So yeah, STOP focusing on behaviour - dog owners, pet parents, dog minders.. whoever you are.

Look away from that unwanted behaviour for a second, we aren't going to forget it entirely, no, but the first, most important, crucial element here is NOT that turd on the floor, its NOT that irritating barking, it is NOT that chasing of livestock or escaping the fence or humping Nanna's leg...

Its also not the expensive of the carpet cleaner, its not the irritation of your neighbours and its even not the scratches down Nanna's leg.


The FIRST thing you should consider here, is the dog.

Thats right, that goofy furry guy down there, him, or her of course - THATS your first consideration, THATS your priority (yes it is, I don't care if you have kids, elderly rellies, if the second coming of Christ is your godson.. the DOG is the priority right now)...


Look at the dog.

The dog is performing these behaviours, these behaviours did not manifest themselves alone, without the presence of a dog (if you have turds on your carpet and you have NO DOG then you HAVE got some serious issues that I am not qualified to deal with, move along please!)


Are you looking at the dog yet?

That furry dude has needs - he has inherited behavioural traits and desires, he has instincts. He also has some cognitive ability and he has emotions that are not dissimilar to your own.

He feels stressed, he feels relief, he feels hunger, thirst, pain and discomfort. He feels fear and anxiety as well as joy, he feels rage and he feels desire. Your dog can panic, and he can lust...

So whilst he won't have all the same reasonings for those emotions as we would, because he can't understand the concept of an over due mortgage payment causing panic, and he can't equate a bonus in a paypacket with joy, the basic, simple emotions are the same.


Ask yourself then, WHY did this emotional furry dude DO the behaviour you don't like?


He's not complex enough for the reason to be 'because he hates you' or 'because he wants to pay you back for leaving him home alone' or 'because he wants to take over the world' so you can rule those ideas RIGHT out, straight away.


If you focus on the DOG, and you ask why something happened, and how can we CHANGE things so that something doesnt happen any more... we can address most problems really pretty easily.

Why did the dog shit on the floor?

Because he needed to shit urgently? Because he didn't know where he should shit? Because he's scared to shit in the place you want him to shit? Because he got a sudden fright and effectively, shit himself? Because he couldn't GET to where he would have preferred to shit? Because you have inadvertently taught him to shit on the floor?


Loads of potential reasons there, you know not one of them is because 'he is a dirty bastard and wants to make you suffer'...


So how might we address this whilst thinking about the DOG rather than the behaviour as the priority.


Well when the DOG is the priority, that has to rule out all the methods that might be harmful to the dog - so lets take a guess that rubbing his face in this shit won't be an option, and probably shouting at him when you find the shit isn't an option. Those methods don't put the dogs needs as a priority, they put YOUR needs to feel like you are righting a wrong, in first place.


Here's a big newsflash - a dog has ABSOLUTELY, ZERO NEED to know he did something that you consider 'wrong'.

He does not need this, he will never need this and, you will never teach him this, in a million years. He is not capable of learning 'wrong' from you.

For sure he can learn ' this person is sometimes angry and scary' and he can learn 'never do THAT thing in the sight of THIS person'... but he has not learned that this action is 'wrong'.

Learning that certain actions are inherently wrong is a HUMAN thing, its a social construct and it changes from country to country and culture to culture. I can't really be bothered to list them but its safe to say there are things you can do in the UK that would be RUDE in Latvia, things you might find are considered polite in the USA but are shockingly, unspeakably wrong in China.

So stop wasting your time and confusing your dog, hes never going to learn it and attempting to teach it will frustrate you, and damage your relationship with your dog.


So, theres absolutely no need to try and impart the idea or knowledge to your dog, that he has done something humans consider to be wrong or bad.

What do you do then - well back to putting the DOG first, before the behaviour.

Your dog shit on the floor, did you teach him to shit outside?

Its a lot easier to teach a dog, and build a habit, that 'we always shit outside on this grass' and you do that by preventing any other option, and pairing the correct action with a high value reward.

We do this with children, its not hard - star charts and sweeties for sitting on the potty and making doodoo, nappies off and dust sheets down and a potty in every room to avoid the unwanted behaviour of 'shitting in our pants'.

We do not potty train children by just taking off the nappy and letting them run around and GUESS where the toilet is, and then when they make a mistake, rub their noses in it or drag them to it, point and shout BAD BOY...

If you did potty train a child like that, I am calling Child Protection/Social Services...


What if you taught your dog the wrong place to toilet, lets say you accidentally taught him to go on soft padded surfaces, ie, puppy pads.. and NOW you realise those pads are SO similar to carpet. oops your dog thinks thats the right place to go.

Same deal, prevent the error, provide the correct place to go, reward the correct action. Not hard, just requires some management and vigilance on your part.


We are now thinking about the DOG here - what does the dog know, what does he understand, what mistake has occurred and wrong thing learned, what will motivate him to repeat the action we DO want.


So way back near the start of this rant I said the dog takes priority over everything when you are solving a behaviour problem, the DOG is more important than Nanna's scratched legs or the ruined carpet.

I stand by that - you will not fix a behaviour problem by freaking out about Nanna's legs - yes that shouldn't occur, but no it does not justify an aversive methodology.


If we prioritise the dog, if we focus on MANAGING the dog so it can't happen, and in understanding WHY it happened, what motivated the dog, what produced that behaviour, we can address the behaviour in the right way and stop it happening again... which in the end is GREAT for Nanna, surely!


Trainers - this is why owners do things that are aversive and are, with the benefit of greater knowledge, horrible.

It is almost always NOT because the owner WANTS to be horrid to their dog, it is because in focusing on the awfulness or scaryness or expense of the unwanted behaviour, they FORGET the dog in the equation.

And that is very easy to do, when you have Nanna bleeding in the hallway and you have shit on the expensive new rug or you have neighbours threatening to call the authorities becuse your dog barks.. its SO easy to forget the dog and focus only on the behaviour.

Be sympathetic, YOU may know why the methods chosen are abhorrent to you but the owner is JUST trying to solve the problem and has prioritised the wrong thing.

Dogs and Kids - it's just a cute pic/video, right?

I am prompted to write this as a response to all the parents who also own dogs, particularly those posting pictures and videos on Facebook and on Youtube, of their dogs and their kids being 'cute' together.


Here's a statistic for you - 77% of children bitten by dogs, will be bitten by a dog who is a family dog, or a dog belonging to close friends/relatives - in other words, your child is MORE likely to be bitten by a dog you and they are familiar with.

Why is that?


Well when we live with a dog or we are really familiar with a dog, we forget they are a dog, we relax, we want to see the cute stuff, and we let slip from our minds that our dog, even the smallest of them, is a thinking, feeling individual who has a language our children don't understand and most of us are just guessing at.


Check out these two previous blogs on the subject:

http://ems-dogsense.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/i-dont-care-how-damn-cute-it-is-kids.html

and

http://ems-dogsense.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/your-dog-is-speaking-to-you.html


In the first blog, the little boy Blake was raised to think it was acceptable to 'pop on the nose' a dog that approached him, he was raised to feel completely confident about approaching dogs with food, approaching dogs who were eating, and to hit dogs...

He was ALLOWED to sit on dogs, hit them, ride them like ponies - are we SURPRISED he ended up being bitten?


In the second blog really watch that video clip - if you do nothing else, watch the clip and see if YOU can pinpoint WHEN that lovely labrador says 'I don't want to play with this baby'... its actually a long long time before he takes any further action and in my opinion he looks to his owner for help several times before he gets any and she NEVER really realises how uncomfortable he actually is about the babies behaviour.

Dogs and kids can have an awesome time, but those two blogs show you how things go wrong and how subtle dog body language is at first, when our dogs are talking to us, before they start shouting!



So, whats safe and whats not safe?

Don't - allow your child to sit on, hit, pull, kick, stand on, your dog.
Don't - allow your child to get in the dogs bed when he is in it.
Don't - allow your child to approach a dog who is eating a chew toy, bone or his meal.
Don't - allow your child to get in a dogs face, put their arms around his neck, or put their face in his face.
Don't - allow your child to tell off or discipline or correct your dog.

Do - encourage your child to respect your dog and understand he has feeling and emotions too.
Do - encourage your child to think about your dogs needs and desires - teach them to play with the dog in ta way the dog likes, such as throwing a ball.
Do - encourage your child to invite the dog to them for fuss and attention, and to respect if the dog does not wish to come over.
Do - involve your child (age appropriately) with care such as grooming and training and in measuring out or preparing food.
Do - encourage your child to come to you and tell you about the dog if the dog has something, even if that item belongs to the child.



For parents - never leave your child unsupervised with a dog, never expect your dog to tolerate unpleasant or unfair handling by a child, NEVER EVER punish your dog for walking away, or for warning that a childs behaviour is making them feel uncomfortable.

IF your dog is warning by freezing, lip curling, growling or air snapping at your child or at you, call in a professional, prevent the situation getting worse by safely managing the dog and child, DO NOT PUNISH THE BEHAVIOUR, AVOID IT HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE, until the professional can get there.

Labels - does it really do what it say's on the tin?

Under the surface of the dog training industry, across the world really, there is a bubbling, seething discord going on.

The labels we use to define our selves, or that others use to define us... are causing some problems!


Why do we need labels - well.. some would say we don't need them, and I think that would be a lovely place to live indeed.

If the simple term 'dog trainer' (ooh... is that a label)... in fact meant, automatically and without any further explanation:

"Person who teaches you to train your dog in the most effective and least harmful way possible"...


Well if it meant that I wouldn't be writing this blog!

To date there are the following labels I have come across - some I identify with, some I don't..

Behaviourist, behaviour consultant, force free trainer, positive reinforcement trainer, purely positive trainer, dog trainer, balanced trainer, progressive reinforcement trainer, positive correction trainer......


The list probably goes on and on and on.

Why do all these terms exist? Well, all these people are trying to make it clear what they do, or in some cases, don't do, in terms of training or behaviour work, with dogs.

They are not trying to convey this to other trainers though, they are trying to convey this to the general, non-dog-geek public, who may hire them.

So it seems pretty sensible to me, to try and find a term that sums up what you do, quickly and in a way thats easily accessible and understood by the public.


But thats not really what is happening.

Starting with the ones I actually identify with...

Positive reinforcement trainer - this is a person who uses positive reinforcement, though you may not know what that is, it sounds ok. It doesn't tell you what else they use or what they don't use.

Force free trainer - this is a person who does not use force to train your dog. It doesn't tell you what they do do though and what do you classify as 'force' exactly, are you aware of how force is commonly used in training as if you are not, this may not be particularly appealing or relevant to you.

Purely positive  - as far as I am aware this is someone who claims only to use positive reinforcement, HOWEVER I have in fact never come across one of these people who actually exists as a working trainer. I have come across idealistic people who think this is what they do with their own dogs, and far more commonly I have come across these as theoretical people who appear to exist only in the minds of those who want to justify something or things THEY do that are perhaps not so nice...

This is a really misleading term as a ;purely positive' trainer in terms of learning theory quadrants, would therefore potentially use positive punishment too... and thats not what those who claim they exist, claim they do... so I am going to discount this one as I don't think they are actually real!

Progressive reinforcement trainer - these do exist, but do you know what that actually means? I like and admire the person who came up with this term and she is a really excellent trainer but honestly, I struggle to quantify what that means too so I don't expect anyone else to get it.

Balanced trainer - now that sounds nice?  We all need a bit of balance in our lives, but a balanced trainer is in fact someone who uses positive punishments AND positive rewards... so they might use a choke or a prong collar on your dog and hurt him or cause fear, but they will also give him some treats if he does something good too... sounds ok but its not actually how the science works. But I digress!

Behaviour consultant/behaviourist - now this SHOULD mean someone who is focusing on your dogs behaviour and how to alter it, which may or may not involve some training, they should know HOW your dog thinks and solves problems and reacts emotionally, and how to change that, and how to manage things safely... but in the UK at least, anyone can call themselves this (and in fact any of the above terms) and you have little way of knowing if their knowledge of dog behaviour came out of a cracker, or was verified by an accredited and up to date professional body.



So... thats where we are, there are all these people and they will all tell you they can train your dog, or teach you to train your dog....

But how do YOU know they are going to do it in a way thats kind, effective, SAFE... despite all these labels, you still don't really know!


I happen to like 'force free' - as a generic cover for what I do.. yeah, most people get that 'force' isnt very nice, so doing something without force is probably better.

It is not perfect though and I will be the first to admit that.


So to begin with, 'Force Free' tells you that I do not use force when I am training or modifying behaviour.

Note this when I am training or as part of a behaviour modification plan'.... because there are times when I am working with my dogs, your dogs, whoevers dogs, when I may have to do something that is NOT a part of the training plan, that is not a training or behaviour modification technique, its a safety technique, its a 'don't be bitten, run over or dead' technique.

So whilst I am a force free trainer... hell YES I will pull a dog out of the road by whatever appendage I can grab applying whatever force is necessary to stop that dog being a flat-dog.


Of COURSE I will grab a dog in a dog fight by his tail and his scruff and hoik him out of it using plenty of force.

But pulling a dog out of a road or out of a fight are not training, they are not part of behaviour modification plans, I will not tell you to fix your dogs behaviour or train him a new behaviour, by doing those things (or many others)...  those are not training situations, those are emergencies.

You may think it is silly to have to spell that out, but there are some folk, and categorically, these are without exception, people who are proponents of training methods and behaviour modification methods that DO use force, who like to stir the pot, and throw in ridiculous scenarios and suggest that we cannot be force free trainers, and that the ideology of force free training is impossible and we are all kidding ourselves OR of course, that we WOULD stand by and watch a dog get itself killed because we can't use force.

Stop being dickheads people, seriously!

Force free training is about far more though than just 'not using force' - its about opening your bloody mind and seeing a way round a problem using your brain, rather than your brawn.

I am, as a force free trainer, highly unlikely to have to do either of the things I set out above, because part of force free training means I wouldn't BE working that car chasing dog so close to traffic before he was ready, so the chances of an accident are much reduced.

I would not BE working that dog aggressive dog so close to other dogs that the opportunity to have a fight would not occur, so I would not have to use force to split up a fight that won't happen!


I have thought outside the box, I have used the massive brain I have evolved, and figured out a way to fix the problems without just hitting things with sticks until they do my bidding or bite my arm off!


A trainer who really, should be top of his game, and very clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder, recently posted that we have to make dogs do things that they won't like from time to time and by that reasoning, he posits that we MUST therefore, force them.

And if you follow his logic, we must all use force and there are no force free trainers...


He suggests that we force a dog to wear a collar and lead - actually I pair the sight, feel, sounds and sensation of being restrained with high value food rewards, working gradually always remaining below the dogs threshold so the dog WANTS to wear the collar, wear the lead, follow me around, so he feels a tug on his lead adn thinks YAY that means goodies!

No force there, a shit load of clever human brain manipulating the less clever canine brain, YES of course... but no force.

He suggests that we force a dog to follow us - he might, I don't - I teach my dog that following me is really fun to do, from such a young age that not following me has really  not occurred to him. With older dogs I manage their environments so its not an issue, until they learn to want to be with me - so we drive to secure places where they don't need to be on a lead, and we teach, again, below threshold and build a bond so they do want to be with me and it becomes a non-issue. No force there then either.


He says that because we have to take our dogs to the vets or have them ride in the car, we must therefore use force to achieve this but again as the examples above... no, we don't - we can take the time to set our dogs up to want to do what we need to do in almost every situation.


The one time we cant is the emergencies life throws at us, and for sure, we will sometimes need to do something a dog won't like then.

But what Mr Force-Is-Necessary fails to realise, is when we GIVE dogs choice where possible, when we set them up so that they make the right choices and they enjoy doing so...

We also build in a HUGE degree of tolerance for the times we have to take total control and say 'nope, sorry this has to happen' - we don't damage the relationship.


And of course, we are still a force free trainer even if we have had to carry a screaming dog with a broken leg into a car and take him to the vets and hold him down on the table, because when did you last pick up a dog in an emergency and think AH, THIS IS A TRAINING SITUATION RIGHT HERE...


So maybe our labels are not good enough, maybe we need better ones, maybe it would be fucking peachy as anything to live in a world where we don't need any labels at all... I would like that.


But as long as there are people who think that because in rare, non training situation emergencies, we HAVE to use force, it is okay to use force whenever, wherever, as part of a training protocol, then I will feel the very REAL need to find a label for myself that distances me from them.

I do not want people to think 'dog trainer = forces dogs to do things they don't want to do'.

A Blog for the Anonymous Commenter/s (hi there, I see you there)

So someone recently left some comments on a fairly old entry, I don't know if they read much of this blog or just that entry but hey ho, I'd like to address some of their criticisms, cos thats what I do.

First of all, any entry by me that is entitled a 'a review of' and then a TV show or book - that will be my opinion of the TV show or book. It will therefore be biased to some extent, because my opinion may well not be the same as your opinion.

For reviews of Cesar Milan shows, yes I am tearing it down,yes I am biased, yes that is clearly evident if you read the rest of this blog (I have helpfully tagged Cesar Milan in entries about him so they are easier for you to find).

In posts that are not reviews I do discuss not just what is wrong with what he does, but why it is wrong, and what the correct approach would be. I don't think there is the room for that within reviews, particularly as those reviews tend to be aimed at like minded trainers/behaviourists who didn't really want to watch the show itself.

But anyway - so back to the comments.

"keep sayin shit about "good behaviorists" but never cite any studies"
"
why don't you give us some empirical evidence for your bullfuckery instead of forcing us to take your word for it"

Frankly... you do not seem to be any professionnal either. Just a random amateur like me"

How about reading/watching the following:

Raymond & Lorna Coppinger - Mexico City Dump Dogs, also Raymond Coppingers observations of the dogs of Pemba.

These guys reveal that dogs are not pack animals!

Dr P. McConnell has a wealth of information in her books and online. http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/dominance-theories

Here particularly she discusses the 'dominance myth' - dogs do not seek to dominate us, and if we seek to dominate them, we just cause problems.

Also on that topic I'd recommend John Bradshaw's 'In Defence of Dogs'  and the somewhat briefer work 'Dominance, Fact or Fiction' by Barry Eaton.

If you want some long term, tried and tested, been doing it for decades kinda stuff, check out http://www.sfgate.com/magazine/article/The-Anti-Cesar-Millan-Ian-Dunbar-s-been-2550043.php

Dr Ian Dunbar has been teaching and training with positive reinforcement for over 35 years, he is also a vet and a behaviourist (with the PhD's to prove it).

If you are still in doubt that punishment based training is damaging to dogs and their relationship with humans, what about this article by Stanley Coren
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201205/is-punishment-effective-way-change-the-behavior-dogs

If you haven't the desire to read through that, the relevant study is by Meghan Herron, School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. I recommend you do though, this isn't an article by just anyone, Stanley Coren is a well respected scientist and pscyhologist who has written a lot of books on dogs, the way they think and how we relate to them etc.

Anyway, this study backs up the findings in human and child psychology, that the use of punishment particularly (but not limited to) physical punishment, increases the likelyhood of aggressive behaviour.


And before you say 'ah but that doesn't say that positive reinforcement is better'.. well here, have an other from Psychology Today..

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/family-affair/200809/rewards-are-better-punishment-here-s-why

Ok so, this article references a study done on children, but children and dogs are a very good comparison, particularly young children. Also, there are not nearly so many studies done on dogs, purely because up until relatively recently, no one saw much value in financing such studies.


That is now changing and thats great news - which leads me on to tell you about SPARCS - Society for the Promotion of Applied Research in Canine Science  - http://caninescience.info/

SPARCS have, at the time of writing this, now run two conferences, both spanning three days, with seminars/lectures by the likes of Coppinger, Udell, Wynne, Gadbois, McConnell, Hecht, and many, many more.

These guys are pushing for more and more research to be done, to fill in the gaps that we have, but its worth pointing out, the gaps we have are generally NOT the areas most 'average joe's are discussing - the old 'is Cesar abusive and do his methods cause problems' type questions are old news, theres no doubt there, its not a mystery Yes they are, yes they do, end of.

These guys are researching how canids are using their olfactory senses, how wolves use agonistic and affiliative behaviours, why dogs relate to us so well when other canids do not...

Its interesting stuff and their yearly SPARCS conference can be viewed live and free via online streaming, so its very accessible!


There is quite a lot of useful and interesting information out there, but you do have to go and look for it, its really not going to jump up and bite you in the ass, and most of it is sadly nowhere near as exciting as watching someone on tv appear to work magic.

As for me, am I a professional - I guess that depends on your definition of professional!

I'd say I am, based on the fact that this is how I earn my living, that I blog on the subject of dogs and training in a number of other places, by invitation ( sporadically, for I am a lazy creature), that I spend a not inconsiderable amount of money each year on attending training courses, conferences/seminars and lectures, and I think quite crucially, that people seek me out for my assistance and advice.

Personally my definition of a professional, is someone who not only knows a lot about their subject matter, but is always learning, and knows when (and to whom) to refer a client on when they don't have the answer - because no one has all the answers.

Yours may be entirely different!