Are we the only ones who are right?

This came up on my Facebook feed and I thought that this was an interesting blog from Denise Fenzi about trying to understand other people and their views on dog training.

Food for thought...
https://denisefenzi.com/2018/03/03/the-weed-people/

 

Yes - it's a good reminder. Thanks.

 

I had a hard time getting into that article when early on the author said this, "My mom was right about weeds but she was wrong about people." Especially given the title here. Weeds are often valuable food for wildlife, think of the plight of bees. Many times weeds will cover a lawn without need of water, mowing or feeding but have some unfortunate characteristic that makes them unpopular. It's not a good analogy to use weeds.

 

So, I've been having a think about whilst making lunch, too. Prawn chowder, if you're interested. I knew prawns were considered "brain food", but it obviously extends to peeling and chopping them, too.

Anywho.

It is an interesting blog, and I think we can take a lot from it. I am trying to be better at explaining why "I am right" in a better way. To actually connect with people and make them consider what I am saying, rather than slamming up the barriers and becoming emotional. I fail. A lot. But I'm still trying, and sometimes it works. Those "sometimes" make it worthwhile.

I don't think her analogy is particularly useful, though. With spreading weeds throughout gardens, you're talking about aesthetics and a bit of wasted time and energy. With dog training you're often talking about the welfare of a sentient being. So when we're talking about prong collars, shock collars, other forms of positive punishment and negative reinforcement it simply (and, to my mind, undeniably) does matter more. Let's say that you knew of a family where the young child ran off all the time. It happens and, however much the parents explain to the child why they shouldn't do it, they still run off and hide. Now imagine if those parents chose to "fix" the problem by putting a shock collar on that child that zapped them every time they ran away. People would be horrified and up in arms about it. No-one would be able to walk down the street without commenting - or worse. To some of us, there is little difference between that child and a dog; they are both creatures under our care and it should be our responsibility to teach them how to behave appropriately, rather than punishing them for what comes naturally to them. So we are equally horrified when someone should treat their dog that way, and we react emotionally. Maybe it's not the best way to communicate, but we're human and reacting to horrific things in a violent way (even if that is restricted to harsh words) is natural. We can strive to do better, of course, and that is what I do even if I don't always succeed, but it doesn't mean that my first impulse on seeing or hearing about someone using a shock collar isn't one of disgust.

Then there's the people who simply hadn't considered what they are doing is potentially dangerous. How many of us hadn't considered, before the big advertising campaign years back, that a passenger in the back seat without a seatbelt could kill the people in the front, even in a relatively minor accident? Should they not be told that what they're doing is endangering others, just because it's "a different perspective"?

And what is the alternative? To simply smile and let them get on with their day without even trying to pass on your knowledge? There's a very famous quote that springs to mind: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

 

This blog really made me think though because I used to train using adversives and intimidation until I came to my 4th dog. I’m quite old and it was the accepted way of doing things when I first started.

While I spend almost all my time with positive trainers I do go to a traditional trainer occasionally. I go because the trainer has access to some fantastic training grounds and I don’t have to spend half my life driving there. This trainer spends a lot of time explaining to her clients why positive training doesn’t work. She is saying this because she really believes it. She points out how badly behaved positive dogs are, how long it takes to get a behaviour and how many dogs become reliant on their owners luring them to get behaviours.

She knows that I train differently but I don’t argue with her because until my dogs are as good or better than hers there is no point. Her view is as valid as mine. We should help and suggest better training methods to people but not judge them.

 

I think many traditional trainers are open to learning about positive reinforcement. It can be difficult for them to shed their old ways of doing things, but I also think they should be (and often are) prepared to learn about the process and understand how it works. If they are making a living from training dogs, they should at least understand it.

I try not to judge the clients who have been indoctrinated into using harsh methods by those trainers who tell them it's the best or the only way. I do take issue with people who make money from an industry and refuse to stay current with it. If your trad trainer is spouting things like R+ trained dogs are badly behaved and that they are reliant on bribery, then she is missing the point and is lacking understanding. I'd be pointing out the Guide Dogs who are trained - astonishingly quickly - using positive reinforcement and ask her to explain that. And, yes, I would judge her harshly for being close-minded. It's her job to educate and so should educate herself, too.

 

There are plenty of scientific studies around that prove that +R training methods are better for dogs than 'traditional'. As @snowbunny says if working within the profession she has a duty to both her clients and her clients dogs to make sure she is using the most modern scientifically based training methods. The common response by 'traditional' trainers is that +R trained dogs are so well behaved, only do it for the food lure etc etc. Unfortunately they show their lack of knowledge when they say that the dog has to be lured by food to comply with requests.

 

It's interesting isn't it? Do we see dog training as a profession? I think I do. As a nurse I would not have been allowed to continue to practice without proving every three years that I was up to date with current theory, knowledge and skills.To my mind this should apply to any line of work that involves responsibility for the physical or emotional wellbeing of living creatures. Possibly including weeds!

 

Mmm! Prawn chowder!

 

It was delicious! I'm glad I made a big pan. Lunches for the next few days are sorted

 

First, I should declare that I am a positive trainer through and through - no-one is more committed to positive training that I am.

BUT, and this is a big but....I honestly believe that it takes more skill, more time, more patience to get the results through positive reinforcement than through punishment FOR SOME DOGS. For some dogs, punishment is a terrible thing, and they would quickly be thrown out of any serious programme that used it as 'unsuitable'. Branding a pet dog 'unsuitable' is not what many of us are willing to do...

I have two very different dogs. One is VERY high drive, very excitable, will work until he drops. I have seriously struggled with him, and he has stretched me again and again to find positive reinforcement solutions. In the main these have been very time consuming, required a lot of helpers, have been VERY expensive, and have almost been impractical.

Whenever I take him to traditional trainers for their land or facilities I have ended up cringing in embarrassment, to be honest - because I can see what they are thinking. And to some extent they are right. A novice positive reinforcement trainer, with a dog like this, ends up with very modest results.

So, while I wouldn't ever resort to punishment as a solution, there is something in the level of commitment, time, expense and time you need...I don't say this to diminish the value of positive reinforcement training. I believe in it through and through. But it's also a mistake to claim you can always get, with every dog, better results. Unless you are very, very skilled. And most of us are not. Since we just haven't been around as long.

The other dog I have would have been quickly ruined by any form of punishment, and no-one would have got anything out of her that way.

 

CPD is so important and something my colleagues and I are not only encouraged to do but are expected to do by attending conferences and seminars during the year, reading recent studies, networking with other trainers in other countries etc. I also have monthly webinars to link to and follow up discussions plus reading, reading and more reading to extend knowledge. I do wonder if the 'traditional' trainers put as much effort in to developing their skills and knowledge

 

Studies show that +R training methods produce the same if not better results than traditional methods (owners with their dogs in the study). The dogs trained with +R also display more positive body language and engage in eye contact more readily with the handler. +R trained dogs are also more willing to problem solve. Anyone training a dog whether as a novice or professional should be aware of their own limitations in training though and modify training approaches as and when necessary.

 

And your point is....what, exactly?

My point was that to successfully train a high drive dog to a high level (as in a hunting dog exposed to game, say, not just pet dog stuff) it can be time consuming, expensive, and require a lot of facilities and skills to do this via positive reinforcement compared to more traditional methods. And not everyone will have that time, money and facilities.

it's still a better way to do it, and personally I'll accept the compromises any lack of time, skills, money or facilities means is inevitable.

I honestly think the sooner that the positive reinforcement community faces up to the practical challenges the methods can pose people, and start coming up and communicating practical solutions, the more accessible the methods will become.

 

I couldn't agree more! I recently became involved in a Facebook debate (I know, I know ) about the best way to get a dog to stop pulling washing off the line. From the description posted by the dog owner, it was quite obvious that the dog was becoming anxious when left alone. I offered the suggestion of removing the washing and gradually building up time away from the dog while trying to create a positive association with being left (through toys, food, games - whatever worked for the dog) etc. etc.

Guess which suggestion worked. The one that involved balancing a bucket of water on the washing line so that it tipped onto the dog's head when she jumped.

Guess why. The result was instantaneous.

 

But how on earth do you balance a bucket of water on a washing line?

 

The problem is that there is nothing to stop anyone setting up as a dog trainer. If you told this trainer that she should learn the ‘most modern scientifically based training methods’ she would laugh uncontrollably! This is someone who breeds, shows and successfully competes while also judging and training in her field internationally. She see nothing wrong with her methods except that some people have an unrealistic fluffy view of dog training and the positive trained dogs that she meets all reinforce her view.

I’m not saying all this to be goady but that is the reality.

 

Sorry Julie is seem to have lost my reply to you.

I totally agree with what you are saying. Positive reinforcement works well when you are dealing with obedience, pet dogs, guide dogs and sports like heelwork to music as the environment is fairly sterile. But, and this is the problem that is almost impossible to get round, when the environment is working as a much stronger reinforcement than you can ever provide then you have to get really clever.

When you think about what we are asking them to do; hunt here not there, even though they have a much better idea of where to hunt, pick this bird but ignore that rabbit, it’s no wonder that it all goes to pot!

 

This is it - exactly. We (as in positive trainers) have to view this as the challenge.

It's all very well and good to explain to someone that if their dog has learned to pull on its lead for two years (for example) it's going to take another 2 years to correct that....and some of us - me for example - will just buckle down and accept that. But, you know, lots of people won't. They won't because they have kids, busy lives, and just can't do it.

For example. I want my dogs to stay at heel, off lead, in a shooting environment (that means shot, live game, falling dead game - about as exciting as you get....) for...oh, about six hours...or eight hours if I ask. If that's ok with you dog? . And how to achieve that with an excitable, high drive dog, that doesn't much care for food when you are working only in the boundaries of positive reinforcement?

Well. I tell you. It's an unbelievable amount of work. It's not so much with a quieter dog, that is very food motivated, but for some dogs the answer is 'give up all alternative activities and life for the foreseeable future'.

You know, much as I am 100% committed to positive reinforcement training - and I will never waver to the dark side - jeez....if that was the answer I gave my clients in my business, I'd go bust pretty quickly !