| > Burnsway wrote: In no way should the vets method be compared to beating a dog
> with a broom. Not that I agree with this method or disagree with it but lets not
> go from a little on hands/discomfort training to comparing it to abuse.
Burnsway,
My intent was not to suggest that the vet was abusive, but (clearly with a bit of exaggeration) to drive home the point that you don't bring out the big guns or the medium artillery or even the pistols until you've tried simple benign and peaceful methods.
That was my politically correct answer.
Here's the answer from my experience and my heart:
A smack with a broom, shaking a dog, putting a thumb in its mouth to pinch its cheek and cause discomfort, using a spiked or choke collar, burning the dog with a match, yanking the bezeezus out of its neck with a leash... Clearly these are all different levels of inflicting discomfort on the dog, which when severe enough becomes pain. None are humane. None are necessary in 99 out of 100 cases, and none should constitute the starting point for training. It is morally wrong to inflict pain as a training method on a pup that does not even know it is doing anything wrong. Quite frankly, I wouldn't visit this vet if he charged nothing and gave money away. And your phrase "discomfort training" is in the modern world an oxymoron.
I will admit that there are situations where more physical or aversive means may be required, and I'll respond to that as I address some of Judi's comments.
> Judi W wrote: The difference is between passive with the idea that the
> action will extinguish itself, and more active discouragement.
It is not "passive WITH THE IDEA that the action WILL EXTINGUISH ITSELF."
Consciously or unconsciously, you present the positive solution (subtly, and as many people tend to do) as something that may work, or something that is doubtful ("with the idea"), and also as a method that does not use the normal steps of rewarding or punishing a behavior, but leaves the dog to hopefully stop its own actions voluntarily ("will extinguish itself") while the owner or trainer keeps his/her fingers crossed.
The method I described is as bona fide and as scientific and as legitimately an effective training method as any other generally accepted method. The outcome--whether the dog stops biting--is no more uncertain or left up to the dog as it would be in the vet's method, or in many other sound methods of training.
I apologize if these were not the things you were thinking, but they are the things that your words suggest.
> Judi W wrote: With some behaviors and some dogs, the biting/nipping is self
> rewarding and they might need more active discouragement.
First, I do not agree that puppy nipping is very often a self-rewarding activity. Although many types of aggression are self-rewarding (and maybe that's the connection you are making here), puppy nipping and biting is not aggression. It is an instinctual and necessary learning behavior and has nothing to do with aggression.
Secondly. I often notice euphemisms creeping in whenever more aversive methods are referred to. I note the term ""more active discouragement" or something similar used 4 times in your post. Let's sat frankly what it is that started the discussion: a vet yelling at a dog and sticking his big thumb into its mouth, under its tongue, probably making it hard for the dog to breathe, but most certainly adding to the normal stress most dogs have when visiting a vet, and applying enough pressure to its gums and cheek to cause clear discomfort. More active discouragement, indeed. Also, I wonder how this puppy is going to feel about returning to that vet next time? A lot of things have certainly been accomplished by this vet's response, but I don't think teaching the pup to stop nipping is one of them. Later, you argue that there are circumstances where, for the sake of time or safety, more aversive methods need to be used. What was the big emergency or need here for this vet to employ discomfort as his first response, and I imagine recommend it to the owner?
Also, if we want to discuss the concept of self-rewarding behavior, let's mention that aversive corrections and punishments are also very likely to enforce negative behavior--in humans and canines. I can image some dogs seeing the vet's method as a game: you pinch me, I'll pinch you.
> Judi W wrote: With young children in the home
it is sometimes helpful to
> get on with the more active discouragement as young children don't always
> have the skills or patience to handle the shunning and the biting can
> be detrimental to the bonding.
IMO, the children are either old enough to be able to play what for them is a simple game, "Ouch!", or they are not old enough. If they are old enough, there is no need to go beyond the benign "Ouch!" and ignore method. And if they are old enough to apply the thumb under the tongue method, what do you think THAT might do to their handling the situation and bonding?
If they are not old enough to participate, then they are not old enough to be near the dog unsupervised, and should not be in a position to ever be bitten in the first place.
As any owner or trainer, I will always value human safety over any consideration of a dog's, but I really don't see children (which we are hypothesizing about--does Cadillac_Lady have any?) as being in danger here. As you may know, the majority of dog bites each year in the US occur to children, BUT... one of the main causes of this statistic is that children often abuse dogs! So I would respectfully suggest that if there is a child-dog problem to occur, it is more likely to be the children that need to be trained than the dog. And I am wondering if the children's psychologist will recommend sticking a thumb in THEIR mouths and squeezing until it hurts as a solution? I also wonder what values these hypothetical children are going to develop as they grow up seeing their mom sticking her thumb into their pup's mouth and squeezing until it hurts!
> Judi W wrote: Always it is preferred to go "with" the dog rather than against
> but individual circumstances and character might call for somewhat different measures.
There is only one circumstance that I can see necessitating "somewhat different measures." That would be a puppy who is overly aggressive and out of control. Nothing in Cadillac-Lady's original post suggests that this is the case. When it is the case, there are five and only five likely situations which would have created such a devil dog.
1) Irresponsible breeding. Not the owner's fault, but something prospective purchasers should be aware of and try to avoid. 2) Failure on the part of the owner to socialize or train the dog; i.e., owner negligence. 3) Abuse of the pup by the owner or others, or unwitting abuse in the form of strongly punishing training techniques. 4) Possibly environmental or physiological causes such as playing frequently and learning from another dog that is out of control, having a disease such as hyperthyroidism, or living in whatever way in a stressed environment, and 5) Some combination of the above.
Dismissing #5 as just a combination of the others, we end up with the four most likely possibilities, and three of these are clearly the owner's responsibility or fault. The other one (#1) could be said to be part of the owner's responsibility, although perhaps not the owner's fault.
So in the case of a devil dog that needs strong intervention, first, it was probably the owners or breeder that made the dog what it is, not the pup's choice. So we are punishing the pup for the sins of others instead of educating those other to use more positive methods to correct their oversights or errors.
Second, although there is a tremendous range of puppy behaviors, even among the same breed, I do not find it to be a continuum from perfect dog to monster, with every shade in between. Rather, I see it as two groups of dogs on one side or the other of a fairly clear dividing line. The dog is either safe enough and has the potential to be trained using simple positive methods--and any moderate aggressive tendencies it may have clearly counterindicate aversive methods! See for example James O'Heare's "The Canine Aggressive Handbook" (2001). It has been a clear and virtually uncontroversial concept over the past five years that aggression should NEVER be treated with aggression or aversives or even assertiveness! It always makes the problem worse. Read any aggression expert who has published in the last five years!
On the other hand, the dog is on the other side of the line, and is clearly out of control and a threat. In such a case, the owner should consult a qualified trainer or expert in aggressive behavior because the dogs on this side of the fence are too potentially dangerous to be self-trained using any method. Here, I agree, we definitely keep the kids out of it!
Your final comment is excellent advice. As we know, a training relationship will minimize specific problems, even if they are not the problems we concentrate on during training. Pups need plenty of positive experiences and reward, and I am in absolute agreement with your final paragraph.
I hope I have not exaggerated or misread your comments, but regardless, they served as an excellent outline for related issues and counter arguments that I think are important and often overlooked. I also have been talking generally and hypothetically here, and nothing I have said was intended to be an accusation or attack on any poster or on Cadillac-Girl who brought the situation to our attention. If I have sounded a bit excited, I am because I feel strongly about the unnecessary use of aversives, and I have great faith, borne out through my own experience and in the current literature on training and aggression that I keep abreast with, in positive non-invasive methods.
It is often said that each individual has the right to make his or her own choice about what methods to use. Unfortunately, this is a human right, not one that takes the dog into consideration, and I must disagree with this idea as well. I have a neighbor who has three poorly or completely untrained mastiffs who are positively viscous to anyone but this 300 lb. man who owns them. He routinely lets them out of his house, off leash, into a an unfenced backyard, where they inevitable run into my yard and excite my fenced in pack of five. This occurs on the average of at least once every two days. When it occurs, he walks over into my yard and grabs each dog and slaps the living daylights out of it as he curses it. He then drags it, practically choking it, by the collar, back into his house, only to repeat the feat again a day or two later. My wife has been almost attacked twice as she came home from work by one of these loose dogs. I have reported the man to the dog warden a number of times, and unfortunately, living in a small rural town, there is no enforcement agency such as an SPCA enforcement division, to appeal to. I am near the point of taking him to court. So, let me say it again now, after telling this story. "Each individual has a right to make his or her own choice about what methods to use?" In many cases, I think not. This is an extreme case, but the number of times good trainable dogs are unwittingly, ignorantly, purposely, or unnecessarily misused in the name of training is phenomenal. The number of times dogs end up intractable or aggressive due to poor training is phenomenal. I would estimate that at least 70% of the dogs I have trained needed training and counterconditioning because of the way they were originally trained. I wonder how many other trainers would agree with those statistics?
There is a change occurring in dog training, and it is based on scientific and behavioral evidence and a more accurate understanding of how dogs behave and act. As with many things, there are people who strongly and violently oppose this slow shift toward such methods as Clicker Training and other positive methods. But I believe there are also many well-meaning people that haven't really examined their ideas about what is appropriate treatment for dogs, many owners who just don't know, and who often get advice from the worst sources--traditions and myths and long-abandoned practices like "rub the pup's nose in the pee" to house train it."
I hope all that I have argued will be taken as an expression of my defense and concern and compassion for dogs, and not at all as an attack on anyone whose comments I have responded to. I know the two people I have answered specifically in this post are intelligent people entitled to their own opinions, but I think once our semantics and misunderstood statements and occasional overzealousness (that one goes to me!) are clarified, we probably agree on many points more than it seems. I know I have seen many posts by Judi that recommend postive approaches and humane treatement of dogs. But I believe, and strongly hope, that five years or ten years from now, the positive philosophy will pervade the canine world and that if not now, at that time all of us will agree that many of today's common ideas were not quite right.  |