Teaching Dog

The popular advice is to be the "pack leader", which is basically saying "When your dog is acting out and trying to dominate you, then you must emulate a wolf". This piece of advice has, as most know, led to strange training and behavior management methods that are controversial at best and downright silly in some instances.

I was thinking about this and realized - if I did act like a wolf when my dog jumped up on me, what would that really mean I was to do? I don't have any wolves handy to test with, so I thought back to Saturday morning when Brynda was out with me during class being the teaching dog. What did she do when a dog got rude with her? She turned around and gave him what for and he backed off and was much more respectful after that. It happened one more time during the other dog's interaction with Brynda as he was trying all those things he has used in the past with other dogs and also with people. One more time, more mildly the second time, Brynda turned and snarked at him and he stopped with the rude behavior. Not only did he stop, but he started parallel walking with her, sniffing where she did and basically being her shadow.

So how does Brynda's action affect how I should respond to a dog being rude (head butting Brynda)? jumping up? humping my leg? nipping my hands (Brynda's ear)? There's is no way that my lunging at, snapping at and making the sounds Brynda did are going to have the same affect. My body is different, my speed is different, my coordination is different and my vocal chords are different. That dog knows I'm not a dog or a wolf. Brynda didn't alpha roll the dog, she didn't punch him, nip him on the neck or grab his collar and jerk it. In fact, she never made physical contact with the other dog at all unless sound waves count.

Can I, as a human, communicate as effectively as Brynda did so that ONE TIME was all that was needed to stop a particular behavior? Not if I try to emulate a dog or a wolf because I am not either of those species. The dog I'm trying to stop knows this, and so do I.

I think the first thing that has to be looked at between a human and dog is whether there is "interest in engagement" coming from both sides. Without that interest in engagement, you may be able to force a dog to comply with your wishes but you will have to apply that force repeatedly (or with enough intensity) until the dog finally gives up. If a dog is interested in engaging with me, even if that engagement is fueled by food or play, I can get a dog to do anything. I can also stop any behavior I don't like, the first time, with permanence, just by telling the dog I want nothing more to do with it if it's going to act like that. You can't just ignore the behavior, you have to indicate somehow that it's inappropriate and won't be tolerated in your presence. But force is never the answer - ask Brynda.

Have a shy dog? Fearful of new places? Doesn't seem to know how to play or interact or too scared to? Again, ask Brynda. Her answer? Walk away and play with something, come back and sniff, walk away and play with something, sniff the ground, lay down with back turned away from scaredy dog, pick up toy and throw it near the other dog, grab the toy and play with it close to the other dog, sniff the dog and walk away. In 80% of the cases of shy dogs, at this point they start following Brynda around and sniffing the toys she throws at them. Eventually, Brynda will lay down and, I'm assuming, invite the shy dog to come lay down with her and if it happens, give the other dog a bath and a massage. This might repeat for a couple of sessions if I let Brynda do all the work and the owner of the scaredy dog is willing. But once is usually enough to handle the fear to the point of being able to work with the dog myself and finish the confidence building.

More and more as I'm understanding what it means to be a dog, I'm realizing how inappropriate most training methods are. Brynda has been the best teacher I've ever had. Her methods are "come be with me and do what I do" or "come play with me and learn this skill" and of course "don't do that". This is where I am heading. There are still the residuals of traditional methods, human ego and frustration, but it's working and dogs are recovering faster and with more permanence and skills are learned in short quick sessions with fun and companionship all around.

Learning to like or at least accept unpleasant necessities

Learning to like or at least accept unpleasant necessities (via DogRelations™)

Source: flickr.com via Elisabeth Weiss on Pinterest The article below talks about something that I touch upon quite frequently, namely the day to day application of “skills” like “STAND” or “BANG” ( play dead lying on your side until released) that do not fall into the category of…

Perception 2013

It's interesting to watch how people respond to things they like, things they don't like, things they don't understand, things they are willing to understand and things that may or may not get them in trouble.

For instance, two weeks ago, I posted a picture I found on another trainer's Facebook page that illustrated a method of working with dogs that, frankly, turns my stomach.  I shared that picture with a group on Facebook that I infrequently post in, but thought they would like to know about this new method and the tools used with it.

Eventually, the trainer who's picture I linked to, discovered that I had linked to it and had posted about a report given to me about one of the dogs who had been the recipient of this new method of socialization.

You would think that there would be a polite request to delete the link and delete the post.  One would think that humans are gentle enough and caring enough that they would try a soft approach first.  But it's been my experience that those who practice harsh methods of training dogs, also treat their fellow humans in a similar manner - especially when confronted with the effects of their methods.

Excuses and justifications that I've heard for working with dogs in a harsh, aversive, forceful and often times painful for the dog, manner are:
1. my clients are happy with the results
2. my dog loves his e-collar, he is always excited to go for a walk when I grab his collar
3. I tried everything and nothing else worked
4. It takes too long with any other method
5. It's just a tap/tickle, it's not any worse then a static shock (I don't know about you, but I hate static shocks and will go out of my way to prevent them!!!)
6. I don't talk about your methods, don't talk about mine.

and many more, all of which is a total lack of taking responsibility.

In this case, what descended on my head was a storm of vitriol from not only the trainer, but several people that she talked to about what "I did to her".  One of which was someone that I work with closely who only got that I was being unprofessional and didn't want the shit to hit her group.

I think the worst part of all the hatred that came my way was when the trainer started spouting lies about what people had told her about me and my methods and a justification for what she does (i.e. everyone gets bad reports so just ignore them).  She even went so far as to say she had gotten reports from people who had "shadowed" me. 

I have had 5 apprentices and several who came to one or two group classes to see if they wanted to be an apprentice since moving here to Tucson.  Out of those five apprentices, one went home and started her own business in Washington, one comes here at least once a week to socialize her dogs and ask advice, two are still apprentices and the last one is now my assistant trainer.  Basically, any "reports" she got about me came from people who barely knew the back of my head in regards to my training methods.

One of the people this trainer "talked" to, was apparently (and I say that with little knowledge of whether it's true) one of the people in the picture I shared.  This picture showed some legs and an arm that didn't appear to be coming from the same body as the legs, and several dogs.  The hand at the end of the arm was attached to a whip like object and that object was blurred in the picture suggesting movement.  Next to the legs, and held by a hand was another whip like object which appeared to be still.

The reason this person had for IMing me on Facebook was to get me to retract what I said about the picture and to delete the picture from the group I shared it with.  The reason she wanted this done?  I had to reread her vitriolic ramblings several times to find out the exact reason.  The dog in question is a foster.  She was afraid that the rescue organization would think she was using abusive methods to train the foster dog. Makes me wonder if she - deep down inside - knows that putting the dog in that situation has the potential for abuse. It also makes me wonder what other abusive methods she might be using on the dog.

So who really is at fault here?  Was I wrong in pointing out the potential for abuse because of whips  being part of the training process? or was she at fault for putting a dog she didn't own into a situation where abuse was possible?

Leadership

Leadership comes from within, not from what you do or don’t ask another to do. The qualities of a leader have more to do with inner strength and a calm, confident manner, not how good you are at getting compliance or fending off rivals. Communication plays an huge role in being a leader. Respect comes from understanding and ability to convey and receive information.

Your dog’s respect for you will also grow the more you understand each other and can effectively communicate. Learn dog body language, teach your dog more then just six or seven human words. Label everything for you dog. Off means gets off, down means put your belly on the ground, sit means put your butt on the ground and keep it there until I tell you otherwise.

Our tendencies as humans are to find short cuts, especially in our current magic wand society. Your dog is not going to understand that "no" means, get off, get up, stop that, move away, leave it alone, stop barking, don't dig, etc. Label everything. Stop taking shortcuts and bring out the fullness of your relationship with your dog in such as way that your dog understands.

And don't forget to play.

Few dogs are beyond repair. If you as the rational thinking species actually use your creativity, sense of fairness and need to help, your dog can become who you wish her to be in a very short time. Tap into your dog's instincts. Dog's run, chase, pounce, shake things, dig and howl. Use these activities to teach them when to do what they already know how to do. Then show them how they can do them better and help them via the best method there is - play.

Want you dog to learn how to get you a beer out of the fridge? Create several games that show the dog how to: open a door, grab a can, close the door, bring the can to you and drop it in your hands. None of this is beyond the intelligence or physical ability of a dog. If you make each segment a game (which implies a goal with a reward), not only will he learn fast but he won't forget because the pleasure never goes away.

When you have this level of communication with your dog, being "the boss" isn't really even necessary. A creative, calm, confident leader can teach anything and fix anything.

Labels

Many dog trainers, behaviorists and TV personalities attempt to speak with authority on the subject of wolf and dog behaviour. However, their knowledge of wolves is largely second-hand information gleaned from books, research papers and television documentaries about both wild and captive wolves. Much of this information is now out of date, and subsequently retracted by those who did the original research. In reality, the best teachers are the wolves and dogs themselves when it comes to learning about their behaviour and relationships with their own and other species. While many professional dog trainers work with dogs daily, and have the opportunity to interact and experience a variety of breeds and temperaments, very few have the chance to work with captive wolves on the same basis over a number of years.

The best learning experience is always hands on, immersion into the subject you are learning about. You can learn the general theories and methods from the experience of others by reading, going to seminars and even attending workshops and schools. But until you've actually worked with at least 1000 aggressive dogs your words and utterances will only be based on others wisdom and not your own experiential knowledge. Until you've brought at least 1000 shy dogs away from their fears and given them the ability to enjoy life again, be careful how emphatic you are about asserting your "rightness".

A dog who is not actually being a dog, but is an amalgam of what a dog could be and what humans have constructed with their ignorance, is not a simple construct. To label such a dog as "dominant" or "submissive" does a grave injustice to yourself and the dog. There is so much more to discover about such a dog in order to assist him. By actually demeaning him with such a vague, amorphous label, demeans you and your abilities as well.

What is a Game?

There have been many different definitions and attempts at defining the term "game" but for the purposes of dog training, here is a definition that fits in the instructional setting as well as for life experiences.

A game is a challenge, created by the rules that govern it, bound by the cooperation between the players of the game who all have the same purposes, intentions and focus; all of which results in a quantifiable goal.

Just so we are all on the same page, I will also define the terms used in the definition.

Cooperation-To work together toward a common goal, justly and honestly. Cooperation implies the ability to engage in communication with understanding; to be honest about intentions and purposes and the rely of information; to do one’s rightful share of the work; to effectively perform one’s job and assist in the survival of the players until the goal is reached.

Players-As an adjective, to be "game" is someone who is eager and willing to do something new or challenging with the purpose of reaching a goal or creating something new. This person is a "player". A game can have one player or multiples. These players can be working cooperatively or separately, even in conflict as a means to deter the other players from reaching the stated goal.

Quantifiable-Capable of being measured. For instance, if you were playing the game of 1-2-3-break which has the goal of the dog learning to stay in the position asked for until released, you could measure your progress with duration of stay, level of distractions, how many different environments the behavior is perfected in and the distance the handler can move away from the dog.

Challenge-A test of one's abilities or resources in a demanding but stimulating undertaking. A challenge also invites the player to learn new things, refine already known behaviors and abilities, create new pathways and new worlds thus guaranteeing survival.

Rules-a rule is a statement explaining what someone can or cannot do in a particular system,game, or situation. The rules of the game are the structure that allows the goal to be reached. Rules create the boundaries, set the tone and make coorperation inevitable.

Goal-The end toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective. Having a goal is often what differentiates between play and a game. A game can have more than one goal. For instance, coming back to the 1-2-3-Break game, there are several goals - 1) learning to stay in one place 2) waiting for a release 3) creating self control in the face of distractions.

Purpose-The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Each teaching game has a stated purpose, a reason why the game is being played.

Intention- a determination to act in a certain way; to have in mind a purpose or plan, to direct the mind, to aim. Without intention, we go nowhere. It is determination in the fullest sense, almost the need to move forward.

Focus-a central point, as of attraction, attention, or activity.

Play Away Sound Sensitivity

Well, last night was the first time in many many years that I actually was awake at midnight at the start of a new year. Not by choice !! Turns out that Tora does NOT like fireworks and there were a lot of them in yards around me, especially in the one behind me. 

This gave me an opportunity to test out my method of handling storm phobia on fireworks. It was harder because they don't last as long as a storm, the smell is entirely different and there are a variety of sounds. And it was 36 degrees outside !!!

So, I let all the dogs out with Tora on a leash just in case she decided to try and jump my 8 foot fence or dig her way under (although she has not shown that she's a digger). Tora was not happy, not even with Tempe playbowing at her and Brynda rubbing up against her. She was better out in the open then she had been in her crate however so I took that as a good sign.

I picked up the flirt pole - a game Tora was finding increasingly more interesting - and started flinging the rabbit around. I had a long tuggie in the other hand and Tora on a long line. It took about 20 minutes for Tora to finally bite the tuggie, all the while the kids behind me are setting off some impressive fireworks. My four kept running to the fence thinking to get some treats and eventually I did have the kids throw some treats for them - and even Tora decided it was safe enough to eat. Encouraging signs.

By 12:40 Tora was chasing the rabbit, running for treats, tugging the buffalo and tackling Temperance. Success.

Why switch from punishment based methods to reinforcement.

Talking to another trainer yesterday about the reasons for making the switch from punishment based methods to reinforcement.  When asked why the switch, the answer was

"I started doing more and more board and train dogs. I started getting some pretty shy sweet ones in and it was hard correcting them and seeing them not wanting to work with me. I started noticing a lot of holes in the training I was doing. Then, when my old trainer **** started showing me marker training, I started practicing on **** and saw a HUGE difference in her. So I started playing around with it, understood it fairly well and did a whole bunch more research on it. Then I knew.

I had to break a dog down before I could build it up and I hated that. Also working the board and train dogs, it was soooo boring. Same things day after day and I started hating it."

That last statement about having to break a dog down before being able to build it back up definitely resonated with me.  This is the only way a punishment based trainer can resolve behavior issues.  The "obedience" argument (that a dog has to have a good grounding in obedience first) is just an excuse to apply the only real tools a punishment trainer has  - harsh corrections.  That "obedience" training is what breaks the dog down, creates a dog so passive that it knows if it moves without permission it will have pain applied somehow.

Simplicity

The basics of dog behavior and training can be explained to a child and he’ll get them right away, if they’re true and workable. Last night, I had the pleasure of working with two boys, 6 and 8, who want to be junior handlers.  The 6 year old got the mechanics of treat delivery and and waiting for the dogs attention before giving a cue right away.  The 8 year old had tons of questions about why it was done "that" way.  But both of them learned the basics of teaching a dog "tricks".  Izzy, their dog, learned to sit immediately (she already knew sit) and that having sat, she was to stay there until released (no need for the word stay).  Both boys got this concept right away - no need to "explain".  There were other things everyone learned last night, but mostly what was learned was that it was easy and that it made sense to a child.

Truths, valuable truths, and the things that are really workable, are that easily communicated. You can always tell when we’re getting too complicated and esoteric because a child can’t understand what we’re talking about. And if that’s the case, and it’s gotten very complicated, the humans and canines we are attempting to teach will never reach understanding.  When explanations and mechanics are so complicated that it takes a PhD to decipher them, all you get is robotic movement or no movement at all.

Adults have a tendency, which I think is a learned tendency, to either not question and therefore not understand or to just not listen to the explanations of why.  Children, like dogs, see the end product and just want to know how to get there.  Childern can dream and wish and hope and work toward those goals.  Adults have lost it somewhere and get bogged down in "it can't be done".

It takes courage to move ahead. Courage could be defined as 1) being willing to cause something; and 2) moving ahead against any and all odds. There really is no such thing as failure, only not doing.  But for whatever reason, adults see failure more then they dream of, plan for success and then act.  This can be solved by going back to basics, making things simple and easy. One, two, three, done. Taking them back to childhood where the courage to dream and plan and act was natural.

Dog training and behavior is simple.  And it is easy as well. If a child can do it, anyone can.  If a child can do it, why is there any need for painful techniques and tools or intimidation to teach a dog our rules and the behaviors that make living with humans less stressful.

A New Paradyme - Releasing Dominance Theory

In the beginning, I was taught the “dominance” theory by many trainers who I followed and even idolized. In those years, even though I believed what I'd been taught, looking back I realize that I never really applied that theory to my own dogs. I never did use choke chains, prong or pinch collars, mostly because I fell in love with a slip collar made out of 1/2" rope early on. Yes, a slip collar can be used in similar fashion to a choke chain and in recent years has been made popular by a famous TV dog show. What I used however was 1/2" thick not the thin braided nylon used on said TV show, much less potential for harm. Because it was rope it was soft on my hands.

Because it was a slip collar it went on easily and came off the same. But it was only there to contain a dog in it's initial training phase, not as a method of control. There were no, or very few, leash laws when I was growing up and going to college and even into the 80's and that's what I think of when I'm working with dogs. I still train as naked as possible and teach others to do the same.

Along with dominance theory are other words and practices in use then and now for "controlling" the wild animal nature of a dog that most people seem to think is real- or a product of their own fears. But again, as I look back, I never did apply this theory to my own dogs - we were friends and companions always. Even today, most of the "commands" that my dogs learn they learn by use, not by a strict regimen of training. "Leave it" is already known by Cinnamon the 4 month old puppy, as is "back it up". But I didn't train them, I just used them in appropriate circumstances. Are they "commands" or just a communication asking the dog to please do something? "Leave it" in my world means back off - not a whole lot different then "back it up" but used in a different context. Even in the late 80's, dominance and obedience were not a part of my personal world with my dogs. Princess, an Aussie I had in the middle 80's, never had a leash on her neck, ever, and yet without any training in recall or heeling would follow me everywhere. She would race beside my bicycle all the way to work, stay with me at work and then race me home.

Although I never did teach the use of tools or techniques that involved pain or heavy control, I did teach the “dominance” theory and the importance of “leading the pack”.

Dog owners and trainers often use the “dominance” theory to explain and make excuses for a variety of unwanted canine behaviors. This concept is also used to justify the use of aversive tools and techniques designed to over-power a dog with the objective of intimidating the dog into submission in order to stop those behaviors. This type of “training” works because the dog becomes afraid to move in certain manners for fear of pain or the pressure of intimidation and challenge.

Many of the trainers who use dominance theory consistently challenge the dogs they are training with threatening body postures, pokes, prods, kicks, punches and loud commanding voices.

These methods teach avoidance but do nothing to address the root cause of the behavior issue - issues which are usually only issues because humans don't like them. It’s much like doctors who treat pain with pain killers as opposed to finding out what is causing the pain and curing that.

“Dominance exercises” commonly cause fear, aggression and other unwanted behavior that result in suffering by the dog and often euthanasia. In one case, a trainer in Florida actually killed a dog while attempting to force it into submission. After muzzling the dog and sitting on it for over an hour, the dog lost consciousness and later that day, had to be euthanized due to its injuries.

Things like spitting in the dog's food to handle food aggression, peeing on the wall higher then the dog is peeing to make a dog stop marking in the house, alpha roles that don't truly exist in nature, scruff shaking so hard it causes the same internal damage as a shaken baby, hanging the dog by it's collar until it passes out or vomits and a plethora of weird and wacky means to "put a dog in it's place".

You don't see much of the weirdest of these techniques, but they often made me wonder, in those days before the Internet and easy access to information, if the main techniques of harsh obedience training, alpha roles, poking the neck and kicking the abdomen are from the same trough as spitting in the food and peeing on the wall. I've seen it all, tried it all, discarded all of it after the first use. There were techniques that I did keep around for a long time however. But again, only with my clients, never with my own dogs.

Every canine behavior blamed on “dominance” is normal in canine terms and can be explained by simple motivation and the search for reinforcement. It's quite simple, dogs want to survive and survival means going after what is considered good stuff. If you saw a $100 bill lying in the street would you not pick it up? Why then is a dog helping itself to your dinner “dominant” when they are scavengers by nature? It's not a “dominant” dog that takes your food it's a normal dog doing what comes naturally to its species. It’s not about dominance it’s about resources and the ever strong survival instinct.

I ask you, as a thinking reasoning being, to try and get the concept that culture and nurture play a huge role in how a creature views it's world, what it considers reinforcement and how it responds to danger and even what it considers dangerous. A human from the depths of the Amazon jungle would NOT pick up that $100 bill. A human born and raised in Los Angeles would not eat monkey brains. Dogs have been domesticated for a very long time, they are no longer, by environment, nurture or nature, wolves, just as we are no longer aborigines living by the spear in the jungle.

At one point in my life, I realized that I was getting nowhere in trying to apply what I'd been taught about dogs by others. This was before I discovered the massive amount of information about dogs, behavior and training on the Internet. I knew, however, that I was living one way and teaching another. I stopped. There were other factors involved in that, but I stopped training completely. It was pointless unless I could figure out how to teach what I did with my own personal dogs.

For example, I no longer teach the words “obedience” or “command” to clients. Obedience is not a natural thing for a dog, it's demeaning and was born from the need to quickly train dogs during war time to be messengers. It was never meant for pet dogs. The greatest percentage of my clients just want a pet that doesn't drive them nuts with behaviors (natural to dogs) that are dangerous, annoying or intimidating. In the past I would tell them to be the pack leader and give them a set of rules to live by. Then teach the dog to obey about six commands and this was all supposed to produce a dog that could be lived with. The Canine Good Citizen test is the epitome of this philosophy. It has 10 testing points, none of which actually address how humans and dogs can live together in harmony.

Dominance theory has no place in the pet dog world. It has no place in the sporting world either, but most definitely not in the pet dog world. I believe that the interest in and use of dominance theory comes from a deeply hidden need to control things because of the fear of being eaten / mauled / hurt by a wild creature. It comes from a misunderstanding of what dogs have evolved to be, what they are capable of and how evolution has shaped them to avoid conflict because it is a non-survival behavior. I believe it comes from the need to be at the top of any pyramid no matter whether it's human, canine, feline, equine or any other species. Dominance theories abound in the training world with nearly every species being trained. Even prey animals like horses are treated with the harsh methods created by the need to dominant. It's a human need that has been anthropomorphized onto every other species out of fear.

There is a trainer here who posts the exact same ad every day on Craigs List trying to get customers. He is a "traditional" trainer. He believes that dogs should be controlled and submissive. He treats humans the same way. In his mind (and this is solely based on my knowledge of him from his writings and responses), he is the only one qualified to train your dog. In his mind, he is the best there is and has the police department as his proof - even though ( and I could be wrong on this ) the only thing he's done for the police department is snake aversion work. He also sites that he worked at a wolf sanctuary as a caretaker. I called that sanctuary and his duties were clean up and feeding of captive animals that couldn't express themselves in a natural way. Whatever he learned there - and he claims he learned alot and uses what he learns on your dogs - couldn't be the truth of a DOG, only of a captured wolf and only their responses to his maintenance duties.

So, dominance theory in a small package. Myth topped off by seeing one situation and applying it to all. The same way dominance theory came into being for all trainers.

I have figured out how to teach others the way I work with my own dogs. So we all learn how to use a dog's natural instincts - a dog's need to play and a dog's desire to learn to be with us and interacting with us no matter what that might be - and they learn faster and more reliably then "traditional" methods. Everyone enjoys themselves once they get into the spirit of play and understand that even they learned best when the learning process was a game and when the tests were a challenge and not a stressful activity of proving oneself.