Is there ever a place for punishment?

I think it would be great as a debate if only you hadn't abused your dog first. Reminds me of a little rhyme I heard you once "3 things if you beat them will better be a woman a dog and a walnut tree". That was used to justify harsh treatment too.

 

Hmmm...quite an emotional thread, and the OP is probably wondering what hit her in mentioning the mere action of swatting her dog with a newspaper.

At the risk of my post being removed (again, for no apparent reason), I have to agree with the OP. Although I rarely use punishment in training my dog, I am starting to add a little to his training; no amount of positive reinforcement is stopping some of his unwanted behaviours and it's simply impossible to create an environment where those particular behaviours cannot be continued.

I did also punish my children as they were growing up for unwanted and dangerous behaviours. And despite this (or perhaps because of it), they are all well adjusted and productive members of society.

In terms of training animals (and humans), over time the pendulum tends to swing either to the far left or right...but in reality, a more balanced approach is probably more beneficial and practical, in my opinion.

 

But the thing is....when Jo says you aren't getting something about learning theory, that's because you aren't getting something about learning theory. Maybe you should go back over the thread with an open mind and look at what that might be.

Someone always says something like this.

Not the mothers/fathers of children that weren't so lucky, and ended up emotional messes. Or behind bars. They just tend to stay quiet.

 

Threads like this always make me wonder about a situation that seems to me to be similar. What are the consequences of doing something the dog perceives as adverse, when it is not intended as a punishment. Tilly is prone to ear infections, and as a result often has her ears flushed, cleaned, or medicated. She does not like this one bit and while she does put up with it, I think she might be a bit hand shy because of it. We always give her treats in conjunction with ear treatments or nail clipping.

Cooper does not like being brushed, or having any sort of tool used on her. (Tools as in thermometers, hypodermics, IV lines or nail clippers.) Occasionally I can get 30 seconds or so of brushing done before she decides it is too much. I usually hold her collar, but let her go, as soon as she wants to leave. After that I probably won't be able to get near her for about an hour, and she will be reluctant to come out on the deck for a while. No amount of treats or praise will make her happy, but she does forgive me in a little while. If I picked up a leash she would come immediately, but I'm not going to restrain her with a leash to brush her.

 

Hi @Ski-Patroller you raise an important point. We owners do inflict pain on our dogs when we allow a vet to inject medicine. The sharp needle results in momentary pain. We do so that the dog will avoid disease or fight an infection that could result in worse or dire consequences. But there I think the similarity ends. We don't do these harms to train or teach a dog to do less of an undesirable behaviour. We are not training at all. The pain is an inevitable by-product of improving or maintaining the health of our charges.

 

I think there's a vast difference between appropriate and timely punishment and abuse. To infer otherwise is...a rather extreme position to take.

 

I was just brought up to know that you don’t use violence as a way of expressing your frustration.

If someone annoys you at work - you don’t punch them in the face. So I wouldn’t hit my dog or child either.

There’s enough horrible things in this world without inflicting pain on the people you’re supposed to love.

 

I suppose it depends if its you getting the "punishment" or not.

 

Training dogs is such an emotive subject isn't it? Someone recently shared a Barbara Woodhouse video from the late seventies...I actually felt sick watching it. It amounted to little more than abuse. You can see clearly the dog's expressions ranging from being completely non-plussed to outright anxiety.

I simply never, ever want any of my dogs to look at me like that.

Interesting, however I don't think we are talking about pendulums, although I understand your thought process, positive training being more of a fad... (I think..) positive reinforcement training is backed by sound evidence. This evidence base is also growing as more and more trainers understand the benefits over traditional methods.

Maybe one day in the future we will be regarding balanced trainers in a similar way to dear old Babs Woodhouse.

 

I agree, but the dog doesn't know this. I'm not sure from the dogs point of view that it is any different. If you asked Tilly whether she would rather have her nails trimmed or get a swat on the butt with a paper I'm pretty sure she would opt for the swat, (especially if it were followed by a treat) I'm just thinking that if we consider that adverse corrections are likely to give problems, then how do we avoid those problems when we have to do something the dog considers adverse. It is not an idle question, since it is close to impossible for us to get Cooper into the vet after she had a bad experience with a blood draw.

 

Hi @Ski-Patroller I appreciate your dilemma. My black Lab dislikes the vets since having much dental work when she was a very young dog. I often take her to the vets just weigh her on the scale, treat and then take her home. She really likes food. I imagine you've tried such counter conditioning.
As for your general point I agree with you, the dog will not understand the distinction between punishment and pain as a by-product of some medical procedure. At the moment the one consolation I can muster is that pain from medical procedures such as vaccinations is infrequent. Flimsy I know, because dogs can be scared of going to the vets and have deep memories of traumatic events. But what's the alternative? There is an alternative to rolled up newspapers.

 

I believe that is incorrect. I don't know a great deal about human training but in animal training the movement towards positive reinforcement training and the abandonment of aversives is very much one way.

Many older traditional trainers are crossing over to modern methods and in most dog sports and disciplines training has become steadily more positive as each decade has passed. There is no traffic in the other direction. There are differences between regions of course and as this is an international forum we see those differences highlighted here from time to time. But the general trend is a relentless movement away from aversives.

 

I'm not assuming anything about you, Sigurd - other than what you have said in your posts and with your comments, which show a lack of understanding.

There is nothing wrong with discussion, in fact it is how everyone learns and changes - but there is discussion where people genuinely are interested and are prepared to change what they are doing when things are explained to them - which is useful - and then there is just "stating what I think" discussion for the sake of argument and not being prepared to change, no matter what others say or what evidence is given - and the latter, I think, is not helpful.

 

The thing is, it isn't an extreme position at all, particularly in the context of dog training.

The key point is that the person dishing out the treatment doesn't get to decide how punishing the victim finds it. You don't get to decide whether what you do is mildly unpleasant or absolutely terrifying.

There are so many dogs around, with so many fears and fearful behaviours, and the average pet owner just shrugs these off as the dog being a little strange about X, Y, Z and never thinks to relate these to their treatment of the dog (because they love the dog, right, and applying punishment is just in the dog's best interest etc etc). They are just unable to relate what is clearly the fall out of punishment to the way they have treated the dog.

 

I have a great deal of sympathy, @Ski-Patroller with the difficulties of dogs that hate treatments for ear infections . There is a solution though, but first just on your question:

There is no difference. It doesn’t matter what your intentions were. If the dog finds something punishing, it’s punishing, and it will have fall out.

Yep, that’s fall out of punishment.

So is that.

The solution to this is a range of positive reinforcement techniques that get a dog able to cope better with these kinds of necessary interventions. One I particularly like for ear cleaning is called the bucket game (you can google it) although not everyone is a fan, and some people argue about whether there are better ways, it works for me in a practical timeframe with the skills and dogs I have.

As an example of what can be done with positive reinforcement and medical interventions, here is a tiger being clicker trained to cooperate with a blood draw. I guess you could always try just getting in the cage with it and whacking it with a rolled up newspaper if it doesn’t hold still instead....

 

Hi @JulieT very interesting entry. You mention that some individuals are not a fan. I looked on google but could not find any critique of the Bucket game. The one thing I can put forward is that it isn't anything new. LAT and BAT in common with the bucket game centre on counterconditioning. And that dog trainers fail to see the underlying principle at work. Or is there something else at issue. Could you please elaborate?

 

I read a post from a quite well known trainer who put forward the argument that depriving a dog of a highly valued reinforcer if he didn't engage (or bribing the dog with a highly valued reward in return for something the dog finds unpleasant) isn't the best way to train, or isn't even completely ethical. She was arguing that only if the reinforcer is also available for not engaging, and the dog decided to engage, was the dog really making a choice to accept the treatment.

While there is some merit in this, particularly in very extreme examples, I found the bucket game got me over simple things like ear cleaning, very well, and considering my dog's response I decided I was happy with it.

The bucket game also got me and my dog through a lot worse when he needed quite serious surgery. And then, yes, I would have wished for endless time and opportunity to train the medical interventions that were required - I can't say he was happy. But you know what? I was still really, really glad to have a dog that would stay still, calm, and eat sardines with his head on a towel while we got through it. With no obvious fall out....

So I still rate it as a (practical) technique that is well worth doing.

 

Thanks @JulieT Your reply reminded me of the debate about what choice really means. The pirate captain quips to some poor soul, "You have a choice. Walk the gangplank or be left hanging from the yardarm". One would normally respond there is no choice in such an offer. The exit option is not present if the ship is 20 leagues from land.

I think the well known dog trainer has arrived at a faulty conclusion. If the dog has the option to truly end the game, then the fact that she did not chose the high-valued treat complemented with some aversive, reveals the dog got a higher payoff from exit. The dog did indeed make choice. The right to pursue liberty over tempting food would be viewed as ethically sound by classical liberals.

For what it is worth, I have learnt a great deal from the debate on this thread. It has forced me to think more deeply about the meaning of punishment, and now, the meaning and value of choice in dog training.

At a minimum, I now have another exercise to use as part of some counter-conditioning program.

I'll have to think about how I would apply it to my vet fearful Lab; entry to the vet with high value treat plus some distasteful treatment or do we return home and in view of your lack of treatment the possibility of distemper. Hmmm. I don't think there are any easy solutions.

 

Are there any vets near you who offer desensitisation sessions? Our local vet now offers these and for about four months I took my yellow lab weekly, or sometimes twice in one week because she had become very fearful. Each session lasts about 45 minutes to an hour, with the same nurse, gradually familiarising her with the room and introducing various procedures such as using the stethoscope, looking at her ears, etc., with plenty of treats. A designated vet also pops in during the session.
I now take her fortnightly and she has changed from the dog who stood with her tail clamped under her tummy and barked at the vet when he first came into the room (so he stayed firmly by the door) to the dog who last week walked into the room with him and the nurse, wagging her tail, completely relaxed. She still barks when we are first in the waiting room, but she has now had injections and examinations with no fuss at all.
Taking your lab in to weigh her is a good idea, particularly if you can do it once or twice a week. There’s a jar of treats by the scales at our vets! I hope you can work her through the fear.

 

Thanks @Granca. I've tried desensitisation. But the vet and I can both see she is never going to overcome the trauma she experienced as a very young dog at another vet surgery. This vet is very good with her, but her tail disappears under her body as soon as she smells the chemicals. She does not want to be there. I understand very well the point @Ski-Patroller made about the intention to do good can be viewed as an aversive by the dog.