Confrontational Techniques Elicit Aggression
Remember the movie Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murray wakes up every morning to repeat the same day, over and over? That is a bit of what it feels like to write about the value of benevolence in dog training, and the problems associated with aggressive, confrontational techniques. And yet, I just can’t stop, because there is still a flood of advice about using force and confrontation to correct a dog for ….. (fill in the blanks)…. because 1) misbehavior is a sign your dog is attempting to dominate you and 2) you can only counter it by using force. Sigh.
Those of us arguing that we should be teaching our dogs, rather than forcing and threatening them, have an excellent study by Veterinary Behaviorists to support our perspective. Meghan Herron, DVM, DACVB, Frances Shofer, DVM and Ilana Reisner, DVM, DACVB, of the Matthew Ryan Veterinary Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, asked clients what methods they had used in the past, and how the dog responded. (Applied Animal Behavior Science 117 (2009), 47-54). 140 people, selected because the dogs were brought to the clinic because of “aggression” problems, responded to their survey. Granted, surveys asking people about past behavior are never ideal, we humans being poor historians of our own behavior, but I would argue that this retrospective study has a lot of value. The owners were asked what methods they had used in the past, a question I also always asked of my clients, and to describe their dog’s response to the best of their recollection.
The authors divided the methods used by owners in response to their dog’s misbehavior into the following categories: “Aversive: Direct Confrontation” (alpha rolls, leash corrections, “dominance down,” hit or kick, neck jab, putting on a muzzle, etc.), “Aversive: Indirect Confrontation” (Yell “NO,” Say “Schhhtt,” stare down, growl at dog), “Non-Aversive: Reward-Based” (Food, “Watch Me,” Clicker Training, Sit for everything) and “Neutral” (Avoid, increase exercise, pheromones).
Not surprisingly, leash corrections were common, used by 71% of respondents and 74% yelled “No” in response to their dog’s behavior. However, 18% reported using an “alpha roll” and as many as 26% used a “stare down” to “correct” their dog. 11% admitting to hitting or kicking their dogs, and 14% to roughly grabbing the dog by the scruff or jowls.
Here are the numbers that matter: The most confrontational, and I would argue, aggressive, behaviors on the part of the owners resulted in the highest levels of aggressive responses from the dogs. 43% of dogs responded with aggression to being hit or kicked, 38% to having an owner grab their mouth and take out an object forcefully, 36% to having a muzzle put on (or attempted?), 29% to a “dominance down,” 26% to a jowl or scruff shake. You get the idea. Of course, these are all dogs who were seen by veterinary behaviorists for aggression-related problems, but it makes the data even more important. Violence begets violence, aggression begets aggression.
An important distinction: Note that the authors, correctly, did NOT label the owner’s responses as “punishment” or “reinforcement.” For one thing, “punishment” is an action that results in a decrease in behavior, so if an owner stares a dog down (argh! who ever started that idea anyway!) and the dog becomes more aggressive, the stare down was not punishment. Second, there are all kinds of actions correctly termed as “positive punishment” that have nothing to do with force or confrontations. For example, I use tons of food (positive reinforcement) to teach dogs a solid stay, and respond to breaks in a stay with a Body Block (Here’s a video as an example.). A Body Block is an example of positive punishment (adding something to decrease the frequency of a behavior), but it is not confrontational or threatening if done correctly. (Note how little I move in the video, and how cheerful the entire episode is.)
Thus, the study is not so much about “reinforcement” and “punishment,” as about what happens when you threaten your dog, or forcefully and physically respond to misbehavior. Please be clear that I am not saying that if one of us occasionally raises our voice to our dog, or has a moment of humanity and loses our temper, we are going to destroy our dogs forever. Neither am I saying that aversives are always bad: aversive events are part and parcel of life, and we all need to know how to handle them, dogs included. However, as many of us have observed for years, using force and confrontation as a primary method of dog training often backfires and creates some of the very problems it is trying to solve.
One of my favorite parts of this study is that it was conducted by two Veterinary Behaviorists (Meghan Herron & Illana Reisner, both, DVMs and board certified vet behaviorists (DACVBs), who I suspect (I am just guessing here), are the experts most likely to effect the behavior of many others in the field of medicine. It has been my experience that quite a few canine professionals, included some veterinarians, are still quick to buy into the “dominance-based” theories of dog training, and it is great that we have data to add to the observations of CAABs and progressive trainers that force elicits force in return. Surely the study is a great addition for anyone who would like to have some good science behind their arguments for benevolent, science-based training, so don’t hesitate to remind people that if you force a dog to defend itself, it will. Canine defensive behavior does not include calling a lawyer or writing a letter to the editor. Teeth will be involved. I’m just saying.
MEANWHILE, back on the farm. It’s GORGEOUS!!! I mean, it’s make-your-heart-sing, heart-breakingly beautiful this week. There are tulips scattered as if someone sowed jewels instead of seeds in the flower beds. The wild plums are blooming and the air actually feels heavier with their scent. The birds at the feeder are a riot of color: Scarlet Tanagers, Indigo Buntings, Rose-Breasted Grosbeaks, bright yellow Goldfinch. The leaves are swelling from their buds, the grass is growing almost visibly, and the sheep are luxuriating in it. Of course, the weeds are growing like… wait for it… weeds. The pasture needs reseeding, there are a gazillion plants to plant, thistles to battle, barns to repair, etc etc. Jim and I fall into bed after creaking up the stairs on the days we can work together on the farm. That’s actually one of the reasons for the extra work: we’re making major changes in the back yard so that 1) the basement will stop flooding and 2) we can put in a hot tub before fall. One more wonderful thing: the harvest has begun! Amazing, given that we had snow just a few weeks ago, but I’ve got rhubarb from the farm in the frig, resting beside asparagus from friends. I made a special dinner for a good friend last weekend, and we had fresh asparagus roasted in Meyer lemon-infused olive oil. Yummmmmmmm.
Here’s the Scarlet Tanager (thanks to Jim, he took the photo). The tanagers don’t nest here, not the kind of woods they like, but we got to watch them at the feeder for 3 days. Heaven! (And no, I didn’t boost the color, the bird REALLY is that bright. It’s crazy scarlet-orange-red, and one of the prettiest birds in the Northern Hemispheres, in my humble opinion.)
Here’s Rosebud napping under a willow tree with her triplets. Regrettably, she completely rejected one of them (Ralphie), the black and white one curled up on the bottom left. He never tries to nurse from her, but often hangs around with his brother and sister. He is completely imprinted on me, and if he had woken up he would have run to me, bawling for milk. It’s rather sad sometimes, he’ll watch the entire flock run up the hill, stand at my feet and look up as if to say: “And what are we going to do?”
Some tulips to make you smile! I absolutely get why people became obsessed with these flowers, there are few flowers that make me happier. Smiles to all of you dear readers, with my gratitude for spending time with me.
May 15th, 2013 at 8:06 pm
The whole “dominance” training ideology truly drives me bonkers! It seems so lacking in the basic principles of empathy and compassion. Nothing saddens me more than seeing a poor dog looking miserably at their owner all the while trying desperately to figure out just what the heck it is that the person wants and what it is that it did to cause such displeasure. Yuck
.
The one and only dog I’ve ever been bitten by (and I’ve had the honor of being with and working with alot) was a dog whose owner had been told by a dominance trainer to use an alpha role to “teach” the dog that it was submissive. I was simply giving the dog a belly rub and he very suddenly jumped up and bit my chin. I wasn’t made aware of the fact that the owner had been using alpha roles as a “training” technique until she sheepishly admitted it to me after the dog attacked. Obviously, the dog associated being on it’s back or side as a stressful thing even if a belly rub was involved.
Today I was looking out the passenger side window of our car as my husband and I drove to our son’s baseball game and I saw the most beautiful little Aussie puppy (about 3 months old) being walked by it’s owner. The pup was prancing along at it’s owner’s side when the owner suddenly stopped. Evidently she wanted the pup to automatically stop and sit by her side. When the pup kept going, the owner gave such a wicked pop on her leash it caused the dog’s neck to snap back. Oh, the look of confusion on that puppy’s sweet little face is still haunting me. It was probably a good thing I was in my car because had I not been I’m not sure what I would have done or said.
Actually, I’m wondering. If you see something like that what would be an appropriate response? I’m not one to give people unsolicited advice but still I see that puppy’s distressed reaction and I can’t get it out of my mind.
May 15th, 2013 at 8:28 pm
I was saddened to read in “Mr. and Mrs. Dog” the author’s clear belief in old punishment techniques. I would not recommend that anyone else buy it as I did. The parts about Border Collies and herding trials were interesting, but the approval of Kohler (sp?) and the dismissal of Pat Miller and others was unpleasant.
May 15th, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Not surprising, but always great to have more research to back up our argument.
The last time I used the old “hard stare” on a dog was many years ago with a family member’s new wolf-Malamute cross. Dogs might tolerate that behavior from us, but wolves certainly do not! Fortunately, I learned to adjust my approach and now Sparky and I are the best of friends.
If only we could put all those who still believe in such methods into a cage with a wolf, we’d convert the entire training/behavior industry to reward-based methods in no time!
May 15th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
I think one of the most harmful myths every visited on dogdom is the idea that every time your dog misbehaves, he is trying to “dominate” you. After all, when a two-year-old child tests her boundaries, we don’t say she wants to be the mother. We might say she is tired, hasn’t learned how to handle a situation, is trying to get attention, or perhaps is being willful or manipulative, but we don’t say she wants to be the boss.
I do think there are truly dominant dogs out there who will correct their owners in the way one dog will correct another dog for violating space or rank. I don’t think rank is meaningless. But violence is not the way to handle it. Since controlling the resources is how most dogs seem to define rank, there are other non-confrontational ways to get the point across.
In all the hundreds of dog-to-dog interactions I have seen, I have only seen a dog roll another dog as a correction twice, and the dogs doing the rolling are dogs I would consider unpredictable and a bit unstable with other dogs, not dogs I see as confident high-ranking dogs.
I DO think there is a place for verbal corrections. But because of how I’ve trained my dogs, they seem to take an ah-ah as a simple “don’t do that” and not as a scolding. And I’ve taught “no” to simply mean the opposite of “yes.” I follow the principal that it’s easier to teach a dog to DO something than to NOT do something (so “leave it” instead of “no”, “off” instead of “no”, etc).
That said, I am guilty of losing my temper on occasion, usually as the result of pain. When Jack was a young adult he bit me quite hard on the hand by accident, when he was not being careful with his teeth during play (we had already spent tons and tons of time over many months teaching bite control, followed by “no teeth on me” using a combination of positive reinforcement with play and then walking away from the game when he would not control his mouth properly). It hurt. A lot. And dogs who are not careful with their mouths are dogs who end up in trouble. My dogs never wear collars in the house. I did hold him by his scruff (the way you would grab a collar; I did not lift him, shake him, pin him, or anything but hold him) and sort of growled at him in a threatening voice that if his teeth ever touched me again, I’d have his head. The encounter lasted a few seconds, max. The thing is, if he were an aggressive dog to begin with, this certainly would have escalated the encounter. He’s not aggressive, though. I’m not sure what he thought of the whole thing. I do know he’s exceptionally careful with his teeth ever since then.
I don’t know what to make of it. For me, it was the most severe correction I’d ever consider. I would not have done it with a cooler head. It did seem to make an impression on him about the importance of teeth, much more than the months of work we’d already done (but without the foundation of course it would have been a meaningless correction for him). My correction was neither as loud nor as long in duration as a correction from another dog would have been.
However, saying “Ouch!” really loudly would probably have had the same impact on him with less risk.
I do believe, though, that with most dogs if you are usually fair and predictable and use positive methods, they do forgive the occasional lapse on our part, in much the same way we might forgive a friend for shouting at us one day when that behavior is out of character.
May 15th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
It can’t be said too often. I just referred to this study in a recent blog post also. It still amazes me how many people don’t realize that force-free training is the best way to train. We must keep sharing the information for the love of dogs.
May 15th, 2013 at 9:17 pm
As a trainer, it is our job to turn people around. I know if I told people in class to pop the leash, yell at their dogs, flip them on their side, hold them down so they know whose boss, 90 percent would do it happily!
It is my most frustrating part of being a trainer…to get through to people. Why do they accept advice on using the ancient old school techniques instead of proven scientific data? It is my job as a trainer to show them and convince them that it works. I truly believe that people like having that control over their dogs. make some of them feel powerful.
We will definitely keep on plugging away however because that is what we do as trainers.
Sara Pickett
Obey-U Dog Training Academy
Edgerton, WI
May 15th, 2013 at 9:41 pm
awesome article, and “back at the farm” is simply beautiful. thank you!
May 15th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
Thank you for writing about this study! My own post about it has been some time in the making, but unlike me, you’re a degreed authority with books and things. I love being able to refer people to your body of work!
May 15th, 2013 at 10:11 pm
Hi Patricia: You don’t know me. But you know my dog. Reactive border collie. I just wanted to say Thank you for your books, blogs, and endeavors to educate those of us genuinely interested in learning and helping our dogs to get through life.
Just a few words, but you probably know what I have gone and am going through.
He is the joy in my life and I am devoted to helping him. We appreciate your help! and Thank you for the inspiration to be a better person through our animals.
Ann
May 15th, 2013 at 11:05 pm
So nice to see some scientific proof for what I have been teaching my clients for years. Please keep the information coming!!
May 16th, 2013 at 3:45 am
Leash corrections, saying NO!, and scruff shakes were a part of my childhood and much of my adulthood as well and considered a normal part of training – not abuse. Now that we know differently it makes me wonder how much of that history in western animal training is really a cultural effect.
I watched a Dogs 101 episode that featured Welsh sheep herders and their Border Collies. Incredibly well trained, happy dogs. Toward the end of the episode the interviewer asked the owner/trainer if he used aversive methods in his training methods and the trainer seemed totally shocked that the question even came up. I wondered,was it a ludicrous question in his culture?
Have any studies been done on the training methods historically used by other cultures? It would be interesting to know if cultures that never used any fear or pain based methods had a much lower incidence in aggression and problem behaviors in general.
I love your articles, best blog on the internet!
Beautiful Pictures! Spring is exploding here on Vancouver island too!
May 16th, 2013 at 4:00 am
Thanks so much for sharing this Trisha. Perhaps send this study to the CEO of Nat Geo Wild?? Another nail in the coffin for the dominance trainers. Part of the mentality of the positive punishers is that it appears to be some sort of weakness to be kind, loving and NICE to your dog. There are elements of machismo in this type of dog training that I think needs to be outed for exactly what it is. Bullying. Science and emotional intelligence are the primary tools of the truly enlightened beahviourists and dog trainers.
Currently gorging on the asparagus crop here too! Wrapped in proscuito, drizzled in Yorkshire rape seed oil and roasted in the oven. Add a free range poached egg….just devine.
Beautiful photos depicting that Spring has arrived in all it’s glory. Enjoy…
May 16th, 2013 at 7:13 am
Thank you for living another “Groundhog Day” moment. It may seem like you are doing the same thing over and over but I appreciate it more than you can know. I work as a receptionist for a “Pet Resort” that offers dog training. They call it balanced but of course it is force based with a few treats thrown in now and then. It is my hope to leave there as soon as I can find another job, but in the meantime I try to get any little bit of information I can to whomever will listen. Of course the culture there isn’t going to accept being hit over the head with benevolent dog training, but every time I can subtly get an idea out there, I feel like maybe, someday, some way it might make a difference.
So, blogs like this keep my spirits up, arm me with more information and give me adages to have at the ready when a teachable moment presents itself. So thank you, thank you.
May 16th, 2013 at 8:23 am
I do so wish veterinarians would all get the memo on all of this. Whenever I get a new client referral with a dog exhibiting any form of aggression I always recommend a trip to the dogs vet for a complete physical exam to rule out a physical cause for the aggression. At least half the time when the owners schedule a consultation with me and we visit about the results of the vet visit the veterinarian has told the owner something like “your dog is perfectly healthy, she/he is just dominate” or the always popular “she is just trying to dominate you, she is not sick, just dominate”
It is very difficult to start a behavior modification plan this way, I have to try to educate the owner that what the veterinarian told them (and he/she has way more letters behind their name than I do) is not accurate if they ask why we are not “fixing” the dogs dominance problem with our behavior modification plan.
Very vexing.
May 16th, 2013 at 9:46 am
In response to Mary K.
“Actually, I’m wondering. If you see something like that what would be an appropriate response? I’m not one to give people unsolicited advice but still I see that puppy’s distressed reaction and I can’t get it out of my mind.”
I can relate, as I see this all too often. I always try and resond by first commenting on what a lovely dog they have, then I say “oh, you seem to be having trouble with… or I see your dog also does… then I offer a positive solution and get a conversation going about training and suggest positive based teachers/ trainers and classes. I do try and educate every chance I get. For first time dog owners I let them know that there is la big learning curve and provide as many resources as possible. I find most people really love their dogs and just don’t realize how they are harming their dogs. Sadly, there are always those who are addicted to drama and tend to revel in their dogs bad behaviour. I find these people ususally tend to use aversive methods and they are the hardest to convince.
May 16th, 2013 at 10:08 am
It occurs to me now that the reason my dogs see “no” as meaning “stop doing that” instead of a scold is because I immediately follow up with praise once they stop what they are doing. To them, it’s just another command.
I also noticed that when we are out with our dogs, I praise way more often than most other people I see. I’ve been in quite a few training classes and I praise way more often than most of the people in the class, too. Something as simple as saying a name and getting a look as a response usually illicits a “goood girl (or boy)” from me.
I also want to say again that when I grabbed a dog by his scruff, I was not “scruffing” him in the old “scruff and shake” sense. My dogs have lots of loose scruff skin and they are used to being handled in that way. I regularly give doggie massages to the backs of their necks, and since they don’t wear collars I sometimes will use the scruff if I need to quickly grab a dog who is about to run off somewhere. Plus their collars disappear in their hair even if they are wearing them. Since my dogs are on voice cues it is rare I need to physically restrain them, but sometimes there is an emergency.
I taught “heel” using all verbal cues; Jack was actually taught off-leash first. Any “leash corrections” they get, they give to themselves if they pull or something. If a dog is getting ahead I give a verbal, not a leash pop.
May 16th, 2013 at 10:54 am
Just some of the incidents I had witnessed:
An owner giving his adult GSD a really harsh leash jerk, holding the leash short and tight, forcing the dog to sit next to him. I have seen many leash jerks here and there but what I witnessed at that time was really disturbing.
Another incident was in a dog park, a woman with her GSD that she held on a short and tight leash. Next thing I heard was a woman asking someone, “Are you okay? Are you hurt?” As it turned out, her GSD started interacting with a tall poodle and the woman was thrown off balance. The woman left the park immediately and in the parking lot, I saw her and the GSD at the back door of her SUV. The dog’s front legs were up on the SUV’s back floor while the hind legs were still on the ground. I saw her using her knee quite a few times (and not gently at all) against the dog’s side, prompting the dog to jump. Seconds later, the dog’s tail was in between its legs, appears frozen and just wouldn’t move. I wasn’t sure if it was a good idea to help because I do not know the dog and the dog doesn’t know me and it may not react well if I intervene. I had asked the woman if she needed help but she dismissed me as she said no. It lasted for some time before she grabbed the dog around its waist and helped the dog onto the SUV. I found what I witnessed quite disturbing as well. In my mind, she probably knew the dog ‘will not’ hurt her but what she didn’t realize was that, well, it just might!
Another incident I’d like to share — One day, as we approached the dog park gate, a man was making an excited boxer sit next to him before entering. He indicated to me, ‘We just need some help here’ so me and my dogs entered another gate instead. Inside the park, we met them again. He appeared to be a trainer working with this excitable Boxer. The woman trailing along was the dog’s owner and she had another pittie/boxer mix who was quite playful and was playing with my dogs. At some point, when we were very close to the leashed excitable Boxer, the dog got even more excited, pulling on the leash, wanting to approach my dogs. I asked the trainer if he wants us out of their way but he said, “No, this is actually good. We are training.” The trainer was holding the dog on a short and tight leash, was giving it the leash jerks, making it sit still next to him, and I heard him tell the owner that the dog is ‘just very high energy’ (when I heard that, I kinda got the idea where he took his training technique after). Anyway, it’s so happen that I just recently watched Trisha’s Dog-Dog Agression DVD and have learned that we need to know and not go beyond a dog’s threshold. I told him that me and my dogs should probably just keep going (our close proximity obviously wan’t really helping the Boxer). As we walked away, I felt so much sadness in me to see that people, like the Boxer’s owner, unknowingly come to the wrong person to help their dog. I got home that day and scribbled on a piece of paper the contact info of a trainer that I know who works with agressive dogs and uses positive reinforcement methods (though I didnt’ think the Boxer was aggressive per se). I bring the paper with me to that dog park all the time, hoping to come across the woman, and will respectfully make a suggestion to try this other trainer who can either help her dog or recommend one who is within the area. One thing was evident, what her Boxer’s trainer was doing wasn’t helping her dog at all.
Daniel, I am with you on that. I also grew up from a place where these correction methods (leash corrections, saying NO!, scruff grabbing, muzzle slapping, rubbing their nose on their doo-doo) are ‘natural’. I didn’t see anything wrong with it too while I was growing up (darn, I even watched the Nat Geo show episode by episode on DVD when I first got my dog trying to get pointers on how to train her — I didn’t see anything wrong with that at that time either until we started attending puppy class and heard the term ‘positive reinforcement’ again and again that made me look further what really entails ‘positive reinforment’ training). Now that I know better, I look back to those childhood years and realize that the reason why we kept doing the same old method again and again on the same dog for the same issue was because none of them really worked to change the dog’s behavior.
Sara Pickett, I agree with you. We have to keep plugging ‘the right way’. I believe education is the key. Many people, like the Boxer owner in the story I mentioned, have the sincerest intentions in helping her dog . . . except that she didn’t know better. Since I learned the difference between the ‘old’ method and the new ‘evidence-based’ method, I took myself accountable to inform and make suggestions to people, even in the smallest, most subtle ways.
May 16th, 2013 at 10:55 am
By the way, I love love love all the photos!
May 16th, 2013 at 11:56 am
Violence begets violence. It’s true with many children who grow up in abusive households, it’s true in war, so why wouldn’t it be true when talking about animals? I will admit that some techniques I used on my dog 15 plus years ago were harsh and misplaced. I actually didn’t know any better and wasn’t thoughtful enough to connect the same principles (assuming I knew what those principles were) that govern how I would want to be treated of course apply to my animals. It’s odd – even though I was in the 20th century and not a conformist by any stretch, some of the ancient “everything below human is a sub-class” must have still been in my conscious or sub-conscious.
We were at a veterinary specialist this morning and the good advice from my vet behaviorist really paid off. We brought a mat and lots of shredded chicken and got to practice waits and find its and looks while we waited for 45 minutes to be seen (urg). It was still nerve-wracking but less so than the dogs I saw in the waiting room with choke collars and prong collars and a head halter being yanked. But did I know how to do this or that it even existed not so long ago? No. Do I fully understand positive reinforcement and positive punishment and desensitization and counter conditioning and, and? No. But I’m trying really hard.
I’m wondering if maybe some of the people in the study and on the street are intimidated by some of the terminology and the context in which positive training gets put. I’m not a dullard and comprehend many complex things but this world of terms really does make my head spin sometimes.
It may be easier to get what an alpha-roll is than be able to understand and teach an incompatible behavior or operant conditioning. If the goal is to have happier dogs (and therefore people) and one way to reach that goal is positive training and a kind approach, maybe it needs to get broken down into smaller, bit-size pieces.
May 16th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
I admit to very conflicted feelings on this issue. On the one hand, I HATE seeing the type of ham-fisted “training” advocated in old-style obedience clubs, by certain trainers, and in the old school members of the general public. I also HATE seeing some of the new e-collar “training” which involves giving a dog a CONSTANT low-level shock from the time a command is given until it is complied with. That seems to me like torture. Frightening, confusing, or at worst, fighting with our dogs is the absolute WORST way to get what we want from them, and harsh aversive methods often result in trauma, loss of trust, or at worst, serious tragedies for pets and their owners.
On the other hand, though, I think that the line between a mild positive punishment, like a body block or hollering at an inattentive dog from across the field, and a more serious aversive can be a very fuzzy one, and that fuzziness can be made more so by differences in individual dogs’ confidence, tolerance, alpha-wanna-be tendencies, and past associations. It’s hard to say ALWAYS about any technique, good or bad. What makes it even harder is that if I’m perfectly, brutally honest, though I generally shy away from using them myself, I HAVE seen aversive techniques work. Given the prevalence of harsh, punishment-based, dominance-based training, we can only stand a chance of changing training culture if we are honest and dispassionate about the strengths and shortcomings of each approach. So to play devil’s advocate, it occurred to me immediately that the dogs in the study were all cases where training had FAILED. It offers very good evidence that aversive methods fail much more spectacularly and destructively than positive ones, but it doesn’t tell us how frequently aversive methods are used with success.
Between dogs, aversives like snarling, barking, snapping, staring, and biting are an important part of their social repetoire. Though I have seen it only extremely rarely, my confident, high status dog has successfully (in the sense that the move was executed without incident or repercussions and achieved the desired change in behavior) alpha-rolled problematic dogs on two occasions. (He has never made an unsuccessful attempt, he’s two for two). I would never dream of trying it myself, ever, nor would I recommend that any human try it, but the fact is that it does exist in dog social life, and on at least some rare occasions, it works. Seeing dogs in action I can totally understand why so many people feel that an approach that mimics dogs’ “natural” behavior is likely to be a sensible and effective one, but I also see that most people simply are not strong, fast, or skilled enough at reading their dogs to have a prayer of success with this approach. They are likely to make damaging and dangerious mistakes.
Of the punishments that I have used with my dogs- and though punishment is not a part of our daily lives, I have to admit that I have used punishments- most are on the very mild side (brief sharp eye contact, body blocking, frowning, a harsh tone of voice at a normal volume), but a few are less so. I’ve never used anything harsher than a slightly sharp tone with Sandy, but Otis has been scruff-grabbed and frog-marched out of a room on three occasions. (Jumping, mouthing hard, snatching food off the counter).
In each case it was a harsher response than I would have offered a smaller dog, but the simple logistical fact is that Otis was 125lbs, on his way to 150- too big to be safely managed by ignoring the behavior or with physical strength, and one the realities of his life is that he is living in a zero-tolerance world where humans are concerned. Nipping, even in play, jumping on people, pulling on the leash (I used a head collar which I KNEW that he hated, but was the safest and most effective tool to help him learn), grabbing things that do not belong to him when he can reach any table, counter, or human hand with all four feet on the floor are all behaviors that have the potential to result in the serious diminishment of his life through confinement, isolation, or even in the worst case scenario, death.
I preceded these incidents with weeks of reward-based training, but in each case, ONE experience of punishment ended the unwanted behavior for good. So even though it is my preferred method, I feel like I’d be a terrible hypocrite if I stood up and said, ‘only positive, reward-based training is effective in getting the behaviors we want and eliminating those we don’t’. Or claimed that I couldn’t understand the appeal of punishment-based training.
Even worse, in many people’s eyes, I’ve used an e-collar. Successfully. Evidently without traumatizing my dog. I’ve described my experience on the forum before but the short version is that a) it was a life-or-death situation, b) I used it in an extremely limited and controlled way, only in response to a non-aggressive behavior (deer chasing) that I wanted to completely eliminate, and could not safely address in any other way. Again, there is no way to consider that, except as punishment-based training, and again, it eliminated a dangerous behavior which, in turn, has improved the quality of my dog’s life. I wish that there had been a less aversive option that offered even a shred of hope for success, but there wasn’t, and I have never regretted my decision for a moment. I’m glad the e-collar was available to me, but I cringe when I see how some people abuse the same tool.
I guess the whole discussion reminds me of is a conversation I had in college with my roommate’s boyfriend. The TV was on and an ad from an anti-drug campaign came on.
Him: I HATE that ad.
Me: Huh?
Him: That ad claims that drugs don’t work. That isn’t true, and it’s only going to make kids more likely to use them.
Me: (He was an engineer and a little literal-minded), I actually think they’re trying to say…
Him: Oh, I know what they are trying to say, and if they mean that drugs are dangerous, damaging to your health, destructive to your social relationships and not a long-term solution to your problems, they should say that. But not that drugs don’t work. They DO work, they will make you feel good, which is why so many people use and get addicted to them. People know this. If you base your argument on a statement that people know to be false, you end up looking like a liar or a fool, and people will just dismiss anything else you say because you’ve destroyed your credibility.
Me: I guess I can see that.
I think I think of punishment-based training in largely the same way as drugs- it’s dangerous, potentially damaging and destructive, and usually not the best solution to a problem. But I can see why people are attracted to it. When it works, it’s fast, it’s easy, and in the right circumstances, it CAN be an effective choice. Unfortunately, just like drugs, it can be very easy to abuse and become dependent upon.
May 16th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Dr Sophia Yin’s philosophy is that she is prepared to use any training method/tool if it can save a dog’s life. In her experience though, 99% of behaviour problems can be successfully addressed using positive reinforcement and negative punishment. Trisha, I wonder if you would be willing to share your experience on this? Is it ever justified to use a spray collar or an e collar?
I think if it was a case of returning my dog to a shelter for a behaviour problem that couldn’t be improved with R+ and P-, then it would be time to weigh up the pros and cons of using P+. As I understand it, it is better for your relationship with the dog if you are not the person who is associated with administering the punishment. I really don’t think I could ever deliberately hurt my dog. It makes me feel upset even just thinking about shocking her or startling her. But then if her life was in the balance would I feel differently?
I have had an experience, similar to Beth, where I became frustrated with my dog. On first adopting her she had a myriad of issues, or so it seemed at the time. One of which was her propensity to lunge at motorcycles as they drove past her. She lunged at one on one occasion, almost pulling my arm out of my socket. Without thinking, I quickly crouched down to her level, pointed at her and got right in her face and yelled ‘NO!!’ in a harsh and quite menacing tone (think The Exorcist). Her little face flinched, her eyes closed tight and she looked truly afraid. My heart was heavy walking home and I gave her lots of tummy rubs and ear strokes later on that day as I felt dreadful. But she has never lunged at a motorcycle again.
You bet punishment works. But when you know better, you should do better in my opinion. But hey, we’re all human and if the vast majority of our interactions are positive with our dogs, they have that strong history for them, to fall back on when we inevitably make mistakes.
May 16th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
Don’t, slap, hit, slap, your, slap, sister, slap. That’s the example used in parenting classes all the time. What’s the kid going to learn about hitting if you hit them while telling them not to hit. Of course they will learn to hit. It always seemed to me that dogs are much like children in many respects and this is one of them. Teach them with violence and they learn violence.
Like so many others I grew up in a time when dogs were punished for severe transgressions. Stealing food off the table was likely punished by several swats with a rolled up newspaper, chasing the chickens meant being slapped with a pair of empty gloves, etc. But this happened very rarely, and it was seen as punishing a specific crime and the crime was not probably never repeated. I can’t remember any adversives being used in training any of my childhood dogs I only remember seeing punishment used if the dog committed a ‘crime.’ If one of our childhood dogs barked we went out to see what the dog was barking about. If the dog was digging in a flowerbed they were scolded and shown where they could dig. We taught them not to pull on leash by not letting them pull. I guess we did use mild adversives in training but nothing like some of the horrible things I see today where a dog is leash popped for everything, or the horrible woman that had a different kind of bark collar on her dog every week, or the man that wanted to take his training to the next level so he bought a shock collar for his dog, or the dreadful man who sat on his butt in the dog park and zapped his dog for everything he didn’t like.
I use very few adversives with my dogs. I gently bump them out of the way if they ignore my cue to “beep” (meaning move out of the way). I stop dead and let them crash against their collar if they aren’t listening to “whoa.” I did use some leash tightening to explain to Ranger that chickens, no matter how fascinating, were to be left alone. I honestly, can’t think of any others.
It often seems to me that the dogs of my childhood were a happier better mannered bunch than most of the dogs I see today. I wonder how much of that is the rosy glow of childhood memories and how much is the fact that when I was growing up dogs were allowed to be dogs where as our dogs today are often denied the right to just be dogs.
And finally, a word on veterinarians. I too wish vets were trained in positive reinforcement rather than so many of them being wedded to the outdated dominance crap. There is one vet at the practice we go to that I will not let examine my animals anymore. When I took my fearful Finna in for her initial visit I didn’t know the newly added vet that was next up in the rotation. I explained that Finna was a fearful dog and that she did much better if she knew what was coming and asked the vet if she could tell Finna what she was about to do. Instead of listening to me she took the leash and started poking and prodding and fear aggressive Finna snapped at her at which point the vet delivered a very strong leash correction. I objected and pointed out that this was a scared dog saying I don’t know what you’re doing leave me alone. The vet responded that Finna needed to learn her place and to not snap. As we were discussing Finna’s health before leaving Finna put her paws over my knee and was mouthing my hand, both behaviors I recognized as attempts to calm herself in the frightening environment. Finna, thank God, has excellent bite inhibition so under the circumstances I was willing to permit it (on subsequent visits I’ve brought along something she can chew on). The vet gave me a lecture about how I shouldn’t let the dog do that since it was allowing her to be dominant. We don’t see that vet anymore. The others in the practice are all respectful of Finna’s needs and listen to what I tell them about how best to handle her. I honestly don’t know why the one is still on staff.
Contrast the dominance vet to the specialist Ranger saw earlier this week for an eye exam. The specialist greeted Ranger and gave him a treat. He showed Ranger the weird gadget he was going to use and gave him a treat. He looked in Ranger’s eyes with the gadget and gave him a treat. By now Ranger was ready to trust him to do anything no matter how strange. Two more machines and more treats and Ranger had a clean bill of health on his eyes. Even the dark spot on his eye that the regular vet had labeled a probable melanoma had been down graded to a dark spot that might someday become a melanoma.
Granted Ranger is a much better patient than Finna under any circumstances but the contrast in styles was dramatic. One left a fearful patient even more frightened and the other left an already confident patient very happy to have been there.
May 17th, 2013 at 6:27 am
I have used aversives – every now and then the dogs wind me up to the point that I scold, and there was one occasion when Poppy played her favourite game at the time (Nip Mum’s bum unexpectedly and see her jump three feet in the air) and I turned around and ROARED at her. But these are in the context of a generally reward based, mutually communicative relationship. I am human – I occasionally (!) do things that confuse or irritate my dogs; my dogs are canine – they occasionally do things that confuse or irritate me. I occasionally get irritated with my human family and friends, too… and then I apologise, just as I do to my dogs, and as they do to me.
What really worries me, apart from the obvious effects of routinely using aversives rather than other training methods on the dog and its relationship with the owner, is what it does to the human on the other end of the leash. I have worked in places where perfectly pleasant people learned to become bullies because that was the management style of the Big Boss; seen how little unkindnesses can develop into low scale routine nastiness and even outright cruelty. I believe the unthinking use of force – might is right – is bad for us as individuals and as a species, and should be challenged whenever possible.
May 17th, 2013 at 6:37 am
@em – interesting to see that you have used an e collar successfully to stop your dogs chasing wildlife.
Since reading ‘Pukka’s Promise’, my thoughts on the use of the e collar have since been challenged significantly. Ted Kerasote lends a persuasive argument as to why he has used this device on his beloved dog. I’ve no doubt that Pukka is one of the luckiest pet dogs on the planet by the way but I definitely have the leaning perspective that e collars are simply cruel and a cowardly way to train your pet dog in general. Positive reinforcement and negative punishment are kind, fair and effective and importantly help create trust and a loving bond between you and your dog, as we are all fortunately aware.
However, if there is a significant risk to an animal’s life – be it dog, wildlife, livestock, human – and your dog has a high prey drive, chasing and catching that prey is the ultimate reinforcement that will give him that neurochemical joy. No ‘treats’ or distractions could ever possibly trump his primal hard wiring. If you live in an environment where you are surrounded by wildlife and choose to have dogs, what do you therefore do?
The practical alternative for most of us who don’t live on the outskirts of wilderness, but who occasionally venture into it, is to use the leash and that is my tool of choice in such an environment. Ted also lends an interesting argument on the importance of autonomy and residual stress and the use of the leash to restrict your dog’s choices…..
In modern life, safety is everything when it comes to dogs and the environment – we live in an increasingly litigious world. We simply can not allow our dogs to make choices that result in consequences that detrimentally effect the lives of our pet dogs or other animals. If I were to let my high prey drive dog off her leash around sheep and deer, the consequences of a training session going wrong could result in tragedy and prosecution in a worse case scenario. Is it worth inflicting pain on my dog, by using an e collar, to allow her to stay off leash around livestock and wildlife? Is inflicting pain in the short term worth more in the long term – her autonomy and potentially less chronic stress at being restrained? It’s a fascinating intellectual discussion but I think I’ll be keeping the flexi leash and leaving the e collar in the shop. My gut simply feels wrong about this tool, but my head definitely sees the logic because it does work.
May 17th, 2013 at 9:25 am
@Nic1 There is no doubt that I AGONIZED about the decision to use an e-collar. I saw it as my absolute last choice. In retrospect, I can see the logical cost/benefit argument and say, based purely on my own experience, that the e-collar was so effective and seemingly had such an imperceptible effect on the rest of his behavior that it was a logical choice, even a kind one because the trade off for a brief episode of discomfort (involving less pain than slamming into the end of a leash, but a significantly freakier sensation) was years of joyful freedom. Given the choice, I feel confident that this is what Otis would have chosen for himself.
But I’d be lying if I said that this kind of rational, dispassionate argument was the reason I decided to use the collar. I can pinpoint the moment when I made my decision. We were in an urban park and off-leash area. It was mostly fenced, but not totally. It was not a place anyone would expect to find deer. Otis found one, and took off. He chased this doe for 45 minutes, driving her to within an arm’s length of me twice in that time but spending the vast majority of that 45 minutes out of sight before I finally managed to call him back. During that time, I worried that he might be lost, naturally. I worried that he might be hurt, or trapped, or have killed the deer. All of these things are horrible, of course, but by far the worst thought that crossed my mind as I searched and called and panicked was, ‘He’s going to chase that deer into the road and kill someone.” THAT’s the moment when my brain made the mental equivalent of that screeching brake noise, and I knew. Whatever I needed to do, that could NOT be allowed to happen. I needed to make absolutely sure that this situation never occurred again.
My choices were these:
Never let Otis off the leash again, but continue to walk him. I considered this, but ultimately rejected it, not because of how valuable and important I felt off-leash walking to be, in the end, but because Otis is so strong. He could pull the leash out of my hands, drag me, or break his collar (or his neck or my arm) far too easily. I didn’t feel satisfied that walking Otis at all, even leashed, could be done safely unless his deer obesession were addressed. We’d spend the rest of our lives praying that something didn’t go wrong.
Never walk Otis again. He could spend the rest of his life behind a high fence. This was the safest, but in my view the cruelest option.
Try the e-collar. I was reluctant, but I felt like I had to do everything in my power to stop his behavior, not just to manage it, if I ever wanted to walk him again. Now that I’ve done it, I’m glad, in a weird way, that Otis was too powerful to “manage” with physical restraint. I’m glad that I made the choice that I did, and feel that his life was tremendously enriched by it. But I completely understand the gut feeling of abhorrence at the idea of it. I felt that too. If Sandy, not Otis, had had that problem, I’d have simply chosen to keep her leashed, but now in hindsight, having had the experience I did, I wouldn’t make that same decision.
May 17th, 2013 at 10:16 am
Thanks for so many thoughtful comments already. They emphasize what to me is an important difference between using aversives as a primary training method and using aversives on occasion. I am 100% opposed to using aversives as a matter of course: leash jerks, snappy quick kicks with the heel, yelling, alpha roll overs etc. That said, I am not opposed to the occasional use of a strong correction in certain circumstances. I agree with Sophia Yin that the use of an e collar is justified if that’s what it takes to save a dog’s life. I have used one on the dogs of a few clients, and was glad that option was available. I realize that some people will be greatly distressed to hear that, but it simply makes no sense not to use a method that can save a dog’s life. One of the dogs I used it on had begun killing a neighbor’s chickens. These weren’t any old barnyard chickens, these were sweet, dear old hens named Mabel and Martha, and the three remaining chickens were loved and adored by their owners. We used the collar on the dog (a black lab) with excellent results.
Like several of you who have written, I have also used a strong correction on my current dog, Willie. To say that Willie has impulse control problems is to elicit a spit take from me: He is ridiculously impulsive, and we have worked on this issue ever since he was a puppy. He can get so excited that he literally runs into walls, bashes into trees and bruises himself trying to run out the door before it is actually open. That’s why I taught him “Get Back” at the door, and a gazillion other cues to keep him from running pell mell into anything and everything in front of him. All of these issues have been handled by using positive reinforcement to teach him to chill out… with one exception. When he was an adolescent he began running into me from behind. He’d come screaming down a steep hill at 20 miles an hour and bash into my legs. Also called “clipping,” this action is a great way to severely injure a person, that’s why it is illegal in football. If you’re hit hard enough you can end up landing on your head, which is not recommended by the AMA, last time I looked. I’ve had 3 clients who had severe injuries from being bashed into by their dogs, so I’m well aware of the danger. Twice Willie ran into me from behind and I said something like “Hey!” That had little effect, because he did it again soon after, and this time hard enough to knock me down. And this time, I reacted like many of my older dogs would have: I turned toward Willie and growl/yelled with absolute fury in my voice (and heart): “Don’t you EVER do that again!” I didn’t touch him, but I was truly furious, and he knew it. He never did it again. That might not have been enough for some dogs, but in part because he almost never gets a correction like that, and in part because he is sound sensitive and socially responsive, it worked.
So yes, I think it is perfectly reasonable to on occasion correct a dog with an aversive, just as we get corrected by getting burned for putting our hand in fire, or get a ticket for speeding. The key is to use them as little as possible, understanding that some dogs will never, ever need you to even raise your voice. Make sense?
May 17th, 2013 at 10:17 am
em, I do think punishment can have a place if it’s careful and appropriate. In the case of Jack’s biting during play, I spent months (no exaggeration here) teaching bite inhibition using all the positive methods. I am not lying when I say I don’t think I ever raised my voice to him in his first 8 months of life. Everything was happy, happy, happy. And for general training, I absolutely believe that’s the best approach.
But when a dog does something that is just never to be permitted, or a dog is just being routinely careless? I’m much more ambivalent. I do know that Jack is ultra careful with his teeth after that one outburst from me. He is now 6 and despite the fact that I use various rope tugs at high speed as agility rewards (where he is literally grabbing them on the fly) his teeth have contacted my skin exactly once, and the time he did it (about a year or so ago) he instantly disengaged the second he felt my skin. But he did not drop out of the activity, grovel, look alarmed, or anything else that made me think he was having a FEAR-based response. And the instant I said “Ok, GO!” he was right back in the game.
The reason I think my reaction to Jack (and your experience of frog-marching Otis) worked is complicated. One, I think we have both built largely positive relationships with our dogs. Two, I think our physical interventions are very rare. Three, I think they are done in response to violations of DOG rules, not human rules; rowdy jumping, rough biting, stealing food are all things that the dogs themselves have rules about between each other, so violating the rule is something that makes inherent sense to them. And four (this is the hardest) is timing.
I do believe that one well-timed and appropriately brief harsh response can have a quicker impact than months of conditioning for specific behaviors at specific times.
But I am reluctant advising anyone to intentionally use these methods because my experience is most people don’t have really good timing. My husband, who loves my dogs dearly and does stuff with them regularly, is a classic example of someone who is always either too late or too unclear in his responses. By the time he praises the dog, the dog has done five other things in between the act he intended to praise and the one he did. Or the dog has already started to break the behavior. Or he makes them wait too long in a high-energy situation for the reward.
And badly timed corrections can be disastrous. Corrections of any kind for dogs who are inclined to fight back (be it out of fear, anger, status, etc) can be disastrous.
On the other hand, I’ve seen some “positive-only” trainers say things that are flat-out untrue. I recently read a blog by a trainer who was responding to the methods of a tv dog-trainer. And she said that dogs are never aggressive out of dominance; it’s always out of fear. Honestly, that is just plain not true.
I also have seen people be abusive with “positive” training. Some performance dog people basically create Stockholm Syndrome in their dogs (at least if you are to believe what they recommend). Setting up your environment so the dog is constantly confined in an area with no entertainment except when they are working with you, so that you are the exclusive source of all pleasant things (food, play, mental stimulation, toys) at all times and the dog is NEVER allowed to “self-reward”, is NOT positive-based training, even if you never so much as say the word “no.”
May 17th, 2013 at 10:20 am
Daniel: Interesting question about different cultures and different methods. That is absolutely a question for another blog…. I’ll do some research on it. I do remember being struck when in Scotland at the Int’l Sheep Dog Trials (this was 25 years ago, not the recent trip) at how quiet and kind the handlers were. One dog messed up horribly, lost the blue ribbon because he took the wrong flank, and his handler just stroked his ears and said “Oh my, we all make mistakes, don’t we?”
May 17th, 2013 at 11:37 am
I am trying to stop reacting negatively to some behavior I don’t like from my dog but sometimes it is just a reaction that I can’t stop. For instance, two mornings ago Baby Dog at the end of his retractable leash turned to follow a woman walking the other way. He started walking fast after her and growling. She had a big purse slung over her shoulder that he may have been frightened of. The woman quickened her step away from him and of course I screamed no and popped the leash to retract it toward me. AAARRRGGGHH!
May 17th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Perfect sense Trisha. Thanks so much for sharing your experience. It’s not shocking at all (dreadful pun) actually because it does make perfect sense to exhaust all options and tools when a dog’s life is in the balance.I think if I had to resort to an e collar, I would make sure I consulted an experienced professional whom I felt I could trust.
May 17th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
I also was interested in Ted Kerasote’s use of the shock collar to train Pukka not to chase wildlife. My Border Collie Bo has the same problem – though he has other off leash issues as well – and I definitely considered this as an option after reading it.
I’m just not convinced it would work on him like it did on Pukka. Ted says he only had to use very low levels of the shock to deter Pukka – levels that he had tested on himself that felt “like a mosquito bite” I believe. But Pukka is a lab, and Bo is a Border Collie, who gets in such a “focus zone” that I think it would take a very high shock for him to even recognize something other than the prey he has locked onto (the border collie eye). And since he has other issues that prevent him from being reliable off leash right now, there’s really no point focusing on that problem until I can resolve the easier ones first.
That being said, I did take him to a Rattlesnake avoidance clinic this January where they used high levels of shock to condition the dogs that Rattlesnakes = very bad. After seeing him run right for the snake – he was almost on top of it – I would have made the same decision to use this method every single time. Especially after the Waldo Canyon Fire, rattlesnakes have become common in the areas where we go for walks, and I would be devastated if he was fatally bitten.
I do try and use positive methods with Bo though. I remember in his basic obedience class there was a “walking nicely on the leash” class, where every time your dog moved past your thigh you had to give him a leash correction and then coo “what happened? were you not paying attention?” We didn’t do well in that class at all – I really didn’t have the heart to jerk him around on a choke chain because he moved past my thigh. I remember reading one of Victoria Stillwell’s books, where she says something like “why should the dog have to stay behind/right next to me when dogs are so much faster?” I definitely think there’s a difference between walking nicely on the leash and not being allowed to move away from the owner’s side. If I wanted him right next to me, I could always ask for a heel!
May 17th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
I guess it depends on the dog and the context in which we use an aversive correction. I think one point to remember in general is the amount of pressure that we apply on a dog. Some dogs may be sensitive to very slight corrections and some are so rambunctious that we might need to make ourselves more firm with our correction to catch their attention and get our point across. I also think that another point to remember is if one aversive method didn’t work (whether used as method of choice or out of frustration), it probably is a good idea to choose and seek a different method that will bring the results that we are looking for. The aversive method that didn’t work for the current problem behavior may come in handy for any possible future problem issues. But if the dog has been so accustomed to ignoring the aversive method and we still keep using it, chances are it will never respond to it when used in any other context. I’m not saying that we should plan to use the method, but some unexpected situations in the future might occur that may call for it. This is just my opinion, no basis whatsoever. I’ve just learned that with dogs, nothing can be generalized. What works today may not work (or may need to be modified) in the future. What is true today may not be true of the dog in the future. The way they respond to their environment and to us could change constantly.
Also wanted to mention, when we started using this so called ‘positive reinforcement’ method and have seen positive results for many behavioral issues, we end up feeling bad (or guilty) especially if the aversive correction was given out of our sudden burst of frustration — which I think is good because that means we are aware that there must be a better way of dealing with the current problem so then we start looking and trying out other ‘more benevolent’ methods. I think the most beneficial thing about using ‘positive reinforcement’ is that not only it is effective in many situations with most dogs but it also creates strength in our bond and work relationship with our dog (or any dog that we are working with) and I think this is what makes our dogs (or a dog) respond to us the best.
May 17th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
(BTW, Nic1, did you get Lily’s DNA result?)
May 17th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Thanks for posting this study. It needs to get out! Using confrontational techniques leads to confrontations. How does one survive a confrontation? Through aggression. So glad these ladies have been doing some science to back up what we have all experienced in training and in life in general.
I get so tired of hearing trainers say they “never use punishment.” If behaviors are decreasing in intensity, duration or frequency punishment is occurring (or extinction but that takes time). If they use P- they are using punishment. If they body block, they are using P+. P+ does not have to mean pain, suffering, violence or damaging a relationship with a dog.
I think it is hard because most of us work with JQP Dog Owner. Those of us who have some experience discussing the judicious use of P+ make judgement calls when doing so. JQP does not have sufficient background to make these judgement calls so I think it is entirely reasonable to suggest R+ should be the primary training method used with all learners.
Thank you for being bold enough to state that the use of a specific modality like shock is not completely black and white, there may be limited last-resort instances (predatory behavior, snake avoidance, etc) where a seasoned professional can save lives by using it. However, using electric shock every time a dog leaves his mat in the living room and continuing to shock him until he returns to that bed is wholly inappropriate and *risks* lives. (Yes, this is on YouTube posted by someone who trains for a living)
May 17th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Sorry, I clicked prematurely.
I have definitely met the odd dog for whom a single, furious, noisy, touch-free P+ moment solved a problem like your clipping with Willie. One of my own dogs received a P+ moment like that from me when she was about to attack a small puppy suddenly and without a history of that type of behavior. She received a collar-grab-and-roar when I caught her in mid-air headed toward the pup. It was rapid, ended in about 2 seconds, completely ceased the behavior and I never interacted with her like that again. She is now 14.5 years old.
I’ve been doing this for about 17 years now. I have not yet met the dog I thought shock was the best answer for but I don’t rule it out.
However, I do entirely rule out the possibility of ever meeting the dog that would benefit from being flipped, rolled, maliciously struck, screamed at regularly, swift kicked, jerked around on the leash all day, live life in a prong collar, etc. Those are the methods we are all talking about, they are being used every day, they are being recommended on television but they don’t help these families sort out the problems they are experiencing.
May 17th, 2013 at 5:53 pm
I think there is a very big difference between the use of aversives in TRAINING as opposed to an aversive (correction, punishment, whatever it is in that situation) to eliminate a behavior. It makes makes me queasy to see or even read about dogs that are abused when they have not been taught what they are supposed to do. Teach the dog how to stop, don’t punish for continuing to walk. Teach the dog to sit, don’t punish for continuing to stand. Teach the dog to come, don’t punish for continuing to sniff. But punish indeed for dangerous behavior such as Willie’s clipping from behind or Otis’ chasing off after deer.
One thing that I observe is that a moderate number of people are less inclined these days to talk about dominance. But instead of “my dog is trying to dominate me” it’s become “my dog is stubborn: she knows what I want her to do and just doesn’t want to do it.” Which is perhaps a small improvement, but often leads to a “battle of wills” which too often leads to the same old aversive techniques, and our challenge becomes to persuade that it’s worth the time and energy to give the dog a reason to “want” to do the behavior.
May 17th, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Ted Kerasote used a shock collar on his first dog, Merle, to keep him from altercations with a dog they would encounter on their way into town. I haven’t read Pukka’s Promise, and probably won’t, but just for the record, not the first time he used a shock collar.
Recently, my dog has been experiencing a sporadic and intense reaction to either some type of pain or the anticipation of pain (too long to go into here). Even with a renown specialist, we can’t pin-point what’s going on. But witnessing her reactions and sadness, I can’t help thinking if I was shy and anxious and got randomly shocked but never know when or how intense, I’d go mad or completely stop moving.
The thinking “I want you to run free, so I am going to shock you so you can” is not something I can get behind. To me it’s a moral/ethical question that I can answer pretty quickly.
May 17th, 2013 at 8:47 pm
Here’s an interesting article along a similar vein.
http://www.shotgunlife.com/wingshooting/wingshooting/expert-dog-trainer-robert-milner-says-heck-no-to-shock-collars.html
May 17th, 2013 at 9:12 pm
….and for the opposite end of the spectrum, do a little google search for “toe hitch dog training.”
Yikes! I never even knew such a thing existed. I grew up with hunting dogs, some of which were field trialed (and yes big-running field dogs like pointers) are often trained with e-collars, and I never even heard of such a thing until I stumbled across it this evening when looking up how a forced retrieve is trained.
All the retrievers I ever knew retrieved stuff because they loved to, not because someone rigged them up to a torture device……
May 17th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
After reading this, I am so, so glad we switched early to mostly R+ methods to train my dog Lucky. He had some reactivity issues but he’s never bitten. I can see though, that if pushed in the wrong ways he might, as he has quite a strong personality with a lot of eye contact and nudging; shoving too when he was younger. He makes his opinion known, haha, about what I do and definitely about strangers! Thank god I never felt I had to smack my dog in the name of training and see how he felt about that. He likes to jump up and down and grab the leash in play when we start our walks, even at 11 years old, (we had to train him out of tugging on it and chewing through it when he was a puppy) and I am so happy I never had to see him do it in anger! And believe you me, this dog has manners now and is a highly trained, well-loved companion who was able to travel safely with us on vacation! I am just glad his story didn’t end anywhere near in a bite and the needle because I wouldn’t trade my fiery vibrant dog for any other.
May 18th, 2013 at 3:30 am
RoseC – just got the results back this morning. I’ll post them under the Wisdom Panel topic.
May 18th, 2013 at 5:57 am
@em – I think that you have definitely shared an example of when it is justified to use the e collar. It is definitely an effective tool in the right circumstances and as a last resort. When training, how did you condition the dog to the collar? Does the dog associate you and the collar with the pain or punishment at all?
May 18th, 2013 at 8:01 am
I would argue that reasonable punishments are ok not only when the dog’s life is in danger, but when there are few other ways to mange the dog.
Let’s take the case of a pointer, who already hunts at a distance (meaning check cords are not possible). Say you have a great dog who loves nothing in the world more than to hunt. She’s already a big runner, but she starts routinely running well out of sight. Since hunting IS her biggest reward, calling her back for food won’t help. She’s learned to ignore the whistle when out working but will listen to it 100% of the time when on a cord or in a smaller, confined area. Repeated work at closer distances does not fix the problem. You are now faced with a hunting dog who runs off on you and hunts on her own.
Your choices seem to boil down to a) don’t hunt the dog (and therefore remove her biggest source of joy in life) or b) run her on an e-collar and buzz her when she runs off.
Personally, even removing the human element, I find it hard to argue that it’s better for the DOG to either let it run off or simply not hunt it. A hunting dog’s love of the woods is profound. For dogs who are bred to hunt close, running off is not usually a problem, but for dogs who are more independent and hunt at a distance, it sometimes is.
So using the correction on the dog who has already failed using positive methods can benefit the dog as well as the handler.
Routinely using collars, ear-pinches, and toe-hitches (yikes again!) on EVERY dog as a way of TRAINING a behavior to possibly prevent a problem down the road that will likely never crop up is a whole different kettle of fish.
When I read of forced retrieves, my first thought was “Why not just breed dogs who have a high desire to present gifts to their humans?” The lab we had when I was a teen was forever bringing us his stuff. Bringing stuff back to 10 yards out and leaving it is certainly a problem, but it seems that the answer is better breeding, not more punishment. If the dogs who have a tendency to not come back continue to win because they’ve been force trained, then they look great in the field and continue to be bred from and perpetuate the problem.
May 18th, 2013 at 9:21 am
Dear Doggers,
Trisha wrote: “I do remember being struck when in Scotland at the Int’l Sheep Dog Trials (this was 25 years ago, not the recent trip) at how quiet and kind the handlers were. One dog messed up horribly, lost the blue ribbon because he took the wrong flank, and his handler just stroked his ears and said “Oh my, we all make mistakes, don’t we?”
Sheepdoggers are quiet and kind because stupid doesn’t work.
Whether a sheepdogger is kind or hard, there’s no point offering a correction after a dog comes off the trial field and – since such a wildly mistimed correction would certainly baffle the dog and perhaps damage your carefully nurtured working relationship – you’d need to be stupid to do it.
That said: while training a sheepdog, well timed corrections – usually vocal, sometimes body language, rarely physical are tools of choice. The trainer’s “positive” tools are the dog’s desire to express its genetics.
As master sheepdog trainer Jack Knox likes to say: “Allow the right; correct the wrong.”
Donald McCaig
Donald McCaig
May 18th, 2013 at 10:09 am
@Nic1
I can’t be absolutely sure, but I don’t think Otis ever realized that I was operating the collar, or even that the collar was responsible. We started by having him wear it around the house occasionally. We then proceeded to train him to recall when he heard the “warning” tone (it makes a beeping noise) in fenced areas. He already had a strong recall, so this was pretty easy, we just beeped, called, and ‘jackpotted’ the tone. We did not punish him for not responding to the beep, just taught him that the beep means, ‘come to me’. The first and only time we used the shock was when he started after a deer. This was the riskiest part of training, but we carefully chose our walking site, waaaay out in an open field, in an very isolated area very far away from roads, but where we were reasonably certain of encountering deer.
We called and beeped first, which he unsurprisingly did not respond to, since he was so focused on the deer. In fact, he did not respond to the shock at first either, at all. (He was really, truly in a VERY extreme adrenaline-fueled state when chasing deer). After about one minute, however, when we had pressed the shock button for the third time, he hitched up a little and flicked his ears back at us (he was not yet quite out of sight). We beeped and called at him to stop, with that frantic edge in our voices, and I think he put it together. He stopped still, turned and came running back, we gushed praise and relief. He did not ever react as though he had been frightened or hurt, (no yelping, tail tucking, cringing or flinching beyond an ear flick) but again, he was in a VERY extremely aroused state. I have no doubt that zapping him while he was just standing around would have hurt and scared him very badly and that he likely WOULD have guessed the source of his ‘problem’ if he had been less distracted, much the same way that he was perfectly willing to crash straight through thornbushes without flinching when chasing deer, but won’t set foot in twiggy brush withough looking martyred under ordinary circumstances.
After that, when he saw and started after deer, the beep and STOP cue was all he needed. We reinforced the beep-recall without anything at stake every so often, and he never seemed to be anything but cheerful about it. He never seemed to associate either me or the collar with the zap– I think partly because he was so tunnel-vision obesessed with deer, he was barely aware of ANYTHING else when the deer were present. I think it also worked because the collar generally was associated with daily pleasantness- walks and play and high value rewards for recall, with the one and only ‘bad’ experience associated with deer. I can’t say exactly what went on in his head, but I THINK, based on his reaction, that Otis figured that the deer, or chasing the deer was somehow magically responsible for the shock, and that the beep/calling to stop was us trying to warn him about the danger. ‘Don’t, you’ll get shocked!’, rather than “Don’t or I’LL shock you.” if that makes sense.
I have absolutely no doubt that worked as it did because we had laid a solid foundation of training (based largely on positive reinforcement), and because we had established a mutually respectful, kind and gentle relationship and achieved a high level of trust as a result of that. When a freaky, unpleasant thing happened and broke his focus on the deer, Otis’ impulse was to look to us for direction, and training meant that he knew what we were trying to tell him when he did. Trust also meant that in the next instance, he believed me when I warned him not to run, and further believed that if he stayed with me, he’d be safe. -
I can’t say enough, though, much as I appreciate the opportunity that the e-collar gave us, I do not and never would condone it as an everyday training tool.
May 18th, 2013 at 11:42 am
I work at a pet store and I had the worst encounter the other day. I was almost in tears by the end of the encounter. A woman walked in with a rambunctious 4 month old Dalmatian puppy, I had seen her in the store before in our puppy class. She came in and demanded I show her where our pinch or shock collars were. I informed her that we don’t carry anything like that and asked why he needed one. She told me he was stubborn and wouldn’t stop pulling on the leash. I asked if she was still in puppy class and she told me “No! I dropped out because your trainer is useless! All she did was feed him treats!” She was very upset about it. I tried to offer gentle leaders, easy walks, wiggles and wags, anything humane… but she wasn’t convinced, nor happy. I finally said that a pinch collar would probably be the best thing and sent her to Petco, but only because I didn’t want her to buy him a shock collar. I didn’t know how else to handle the situation… I feel terrible for this little guy, I wish I would have offered to take him if she decided he was to stubborn for her.
May 18th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
@em – thanks so much for sharing your experience. I feel that I have learned a lot. My concern was that the dog may associate the owner and the collar with the pain. With Otis, as he was so aroused and adrenalised his pain threshold was probably way up there anyway. It just shows that it really is a tool that when used in the correct context and with a solid history of trust and positive reinforcement, it can enhance the quality of life of the dog. Hugs to Otis.
@Dezi. – it is always disappointing when a dog gets an inappropriate behavioural label tagged on him, such as stubborn. Leash pulling and stubbornness are mutually exclusive of course. It amazes me that people continue to believe that a dog’s behaviour is a reflection of his wanting to please or annoy you! Hopefully you have planted a seed of awareness. Let’s hope it gets an opportunity to grow. You tried your best!
May 18th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
The best, most effective, consistent trainer I know is my dog Ranger. {wry grin} It’s too bad he only trains other dogs how to behave toward him and not how to behave in human society. Still, in the six years I’ve been observing him train the other dogs he interacts with I’ve had many aha moments; moments where I finally understood what some things really meant.
Out for a walk one day with a friend and her young Cattle Dog we allowed the dogs some off leash time. They were having a great time playing herding games up and down the trail except for one thing, the Cattle Dog wanted to bark in Ranger’s face to turn him (typical Cattle Dog). Ranger didn’t want to have his new pal barking at his face. Negative punishment in action, every time the CD barked Ranger stopped playing with him. Within half an hour the Cattle Dog was not barking at Ranger except occasionally and when he did he’d stop himself.
Only twice have I ever seen Ranger use what would be considered positive punishment. The first time was when a Great Dane was determined to pin Ranger against a fence and mount him. Ranger’s polite rebuffs, shake offs, walk aways, etc. were having no effect and I couldn’t move fast enough to always body block the Dane. After exhausting the other options Ranger did a full on threat display, hackles up, eyes hard, weight forward, body stiff, and a growl that unmistakably said, try it again and you will be torn into tiny pieces. The Dane tucked tail and ran back to his people, Ranger shook himself vigorously and went about his business. After that the Dane always treated Ranger with wary respect walking away whenever Ranger approached.
The second time was an American Bulldog puppy about eight months old. The Bulldog, intact, kept trying to mount Ranger and Ranger kept shaking him off, moving away, etc. After what seemed like 20 mild responses Ranger whirled around and gave one very deep woof in the Bulldog’s face. It looked like a parent shouting “I said, NO.” The Bulldog stopped trying to mount Ranger and they played together happily. They became pals and would look for each other at the dog park.
In both cases Ranger exhausted all other options before using positive punishment. Heading out on a speculative limb here, but in both cases it was ‘fair.’ The other dogs were given multiple opportunities to learn through less aversive means but didn’t. In both instances it was one brief use of positive punishment. And in both cases it worked. When we train consistently with the use of positive reinforcement and negative punishment I wonder if when we’ve repeatedly tried to stop the puppy nipping or the clipping behavior or whatever using those methods and eventually snap and resort to positive punishment either deliberately after thinking through our options or in the heat of the moment our dogs don’t see this as ‘fair.’ Dogs do have some concept of fairness; I can’t give just one of my dogs treats, they both expect to receive treats although they don’t necessarily care if one is getting cheese and one is getting kibble; they’re more interested in that they both got something.
It’s the dogs that must feel like pain is visited upon them almost at random that I feel for. If you’ve given the dog a good foundation for understanding what you do and do not like in their behavior I suspect that the brief single episode of positive punishment is ‘fair’ in the dog’s mind and drives home the message that your are very serious that the behavior is not to be repeated. Where if you put a shock collar on the dog and zap them every time they bark, unless you’re tired, or you didn’t bring the remote with you or you aren’t paying attention or… That dog has no basis for understanding why pain comes at random. The same goes for leash jerks and all the rest of the subjugate-your-dog trainer’s arsenal.
May 18th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
So many of the behaviors we are trying to train out of ours dogs are very normal behaviors for canines but are simply undesirable to us humans and the environment in which we have invited them to live. I don’t get how an association of dominance is made when a dog does something like jump up on us. The dog is perhaps being rude from a human perspective but dominant? Just like a young child has to learn the language we “speak” so do dogs. If a dog hasn’t been taught that some of its natural behaviors are ones that we don’t like, why would it ever have an incentive to stop doing something that to the dog is intrinsically rewarding. Chasing, chewing, mouthing, jumping, barking, mounting-all normal canine behaviors albeit at times annoying ones to us. I believe it is our job to give our dogs positive incentives to stop the things that we simply can not tolerate or the things that can cause us or our dogs harm.
Training, like most everything else in life, can not always be approached from a one size fits all perspective. It seems to me that one of the qualities that makes a great trainer is their ability to problem solve and think outside the box. But having said that, it never makes sense to me to use dominance based training. When I watch the body language of dogs who are being subjected to that type of training, it tells me everything I need to know. The dogs look like a combination of confused and fearful and I don’t see how that can build up a relationship between owner and dog of mutual respect and trust.
I think there is a huge difference between using a verbal correction (especially if it is followed with a positive thing like praise or treats for ceasing the unwanted behavior) and other types of mild adversives, and the types of training techniques a dominance trainer might use like fear and intimidation(stare downs) and physical force(alpha roles and leash pops). These techniques might give immediate or quicker results than the more time consuming and complex positive reinforcement techniques do, but I think they damage the owner/dog relationship. I wish more people understood that training their dogs isn’t a one time thing or even being enrolled in a six week obedience class. Good training lasts the lifetime of the dog and is constantly being reinforced and revised depending on your current circumstances and sometimes there is no easy fix to a problem behavior only management of it.
May 19th, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Like others I have used a shock collar to train my dogs to call off of deer after 1) one of my dogs was hit by a car and killed when chasing a deer and 2) I found my girl behind a 4′ fence she had jumped chasing a deer. However, I will not advise others to do the same thing since I cannot be sure they will be as careful with it as I was.
I will yell at my dogs if they are intentionally ignoring me, like when my Little Red Dog is rolling in gross stuff or snacking on long dead animal parts. He won’t stop until I get within say five feet of him. He knows I will not do anything more than yell, except when I put him on leash and he loses his freedom. I can almost hear grumbling when he moves away. I think in these scenarios they see me much like a Mom who who they aren’t afraid of but eventually obey.
My training philosophy is to use the least aversive technique I can, always to consider if my technique is fair, consider any possible repercussions and only use P+ techniques for training for dog sports. I hate the idea of ear pinches (forced fetch), toe hitches, prong collars, etc. for use in obedience, field work and other sports–People it is supposed to be fun!
As to fall out from aversive techniques, my Selli (a Golden) has a litter-mate who is a lovely dog–sweet, cuddly, biddable who has advanced titles in obedience, agility and tracking. An obedience trainer tried an ear pinch force fetch on him (he had been only p+ trained until then) and he turned around and bit the trainer. I certainly can’t blame the dog!
May 19th, 2013 at 10:35 pm
Thank you for some quality reference material! It is a pet peeve of mine when someone tells me they’re training their dog through “dominance.” Good grief. This whole notion is one of the worst things to have been inflicted on the public – I don’t know why it persists. When I worked in animal control and I was feeling cynical, I used to say, “Most dogs are wonderful not because of people but *in spite* of them.” Hopefully we will eventually spread the word and as you said so beautifully, Trisha, “…as many of us have observed for years, using force and confrontation as a primary method of dog training often backfires and creates some of the very problems it is trying to solve.” (As a mental health therapist, I posit that the same is true in our person-to-person relationships, as well.
May 20th, 2013 at 9:59 am
I recently read Dr Ha’s article on shelter dogs not being appropriate as therapy dogs.
I thought it was interesting and brought up some concerns. Have you read it? What do you think of it? My therapy dog group is having a heated discussion about the article.
May 20th, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Woofsong, do you have a link to the article?