Balanced Trainers Blog

I received this article in my email today, via a Robin Macfarlane’s News Letter... 

I've always been a proponent of the saying "Honesty is the best policy". However, this career has given me plenty of opportunity to realize that honesty isn't always easy or well accepted.

There are days I have to deliver a message that someone is not going to want to hear. Words like; "this dog is dangerous" "this dog is a liability" or "the only option I see is euthanasia" do not come without great consideration and they carry a heavy weight with them.

But there are times those words must be spoken. The challenge is helping a loving and attached person see the same reality that I am seeing.

Rose colored glasses are nice to look through. They add a lovely hue to the surroundings but they are not so good for clarity. When it comes to our dogs sometimes it is easier to find excuses to leave the glasses on than it is to see the stark image that might be right in front of us.

I recently received an e-mail that described a dog who has a multiple bite history. The newest owner described an adult dog who wasn't a stranger to using his teeth when presented with a situation he didn't like. The owner also expressed a belief that the dog "may" have been abused. I paraphrased the situation on a Facebook post and it received considerable attention so I thought it valuable to share here on the newsletter as well.

Here are the thoughts I shared on the TMD Facebook page:

if you send me an e-mail that says something like: I've rescued a 3 year old dog. He was living with a neighbor who didn't pay much attention to him. I "believe" he was abused...he has bit me several times, but not hard bites, just scratches. I tried to take away a piece of garbage he had and he came at me. He's a beautiful dog. I feel so sorry for him, he must have been abused...I love him and cuddle with him, he gets a couch to himself and I feed him as much as he wants...why does he treat me this way?

I will put it to you this way: I have rescued a 30 year old man. He was living with his mother. I "believe" he must have had a hard life. He has pulled a gun on me several times, but no direct shots, just grazed the skin. I asked him to move off of the couch so I could clean and he came at me. I just feel so sorry for his having a hard life. I tell him how great he is and feed him and he's just so handsome! I can't understand why he treats me this way.

We will need to get on the same page that sympathy over perceived abuse will not fix the problem. Unacceptable behavior may have been learned, but it can be unlearned through work, structure and rules.

If you can change your mindset about what rescuing should really mean...then we will begin the journey together of rehabbing an attitude of entitlement into one of becoming a productive and well mannered member of society.

The truth isn't always easy, but looking at situations with a skewed perception helps no one, least of all the dog. Rehabilitation of dogs who bite is often times a possibility BUT it is never going to be easy or without significant risk.

Most importantly, while empathy for a dog's "past" is a reality we must all deal with, sympathy and excuses for his present behavior will never solve the problem.

If need be able to take the glasses off and get to work.

Woof!
Robin

 

I agree with Robin with regards to the majority of her message. I believe that being extremely emphatic does not rehabilitate a dog. It often can make a dog worse. There was part of her message that I do take offense to though. I have cringe at the advice given by any trainer where they state that, "the only option I see is euthanasia”

I think it is highly inappropriate for a dog trainer to tell a client to kill their family member. That decision should always be left up to the family. Everyone has different tolerances for risk. The trainer is there to perhaps offer advice on risk and improve the situation by any means possible without eliminating the dog. If they can't help they should simply say that and move on. By the same token I think it is highly unethical for a trainer to take large sums of money, in a situation where they know they have almost no chance of making a difference.

This post was written by one of our Forum Members, Jay Jack

If you enjoy it please visit http://3badbullies.wordpress.com/

First…. Just in case you don’t know…. Economics isn’t just the study of money, and it’s effect.

A great book called Freakonomics

convinced me to stop being nauseous at the though of economics.

Anyway… What the hell does this have to do with dogs?

Well, there’s a rule in Econ called the Rule Of Unintended Consequences. Yes, it’s pretty self explanatory. Although, the story people in Econ always go to is called The Cobra Effect. As the story goes……. In Delhi India, there was an epidemic in the overpopulation of Cobras. The government tried to solve the problem by paying citizens for any dead Cobra they turned in. Of course, this lead to people breeding them to turn them in for profit. And when the government found out, they canned the program. As soon as there was no reason to keep the snakes…… They were abandoned. Which of course caused the population of loose Cobras go UP.  So, the solution for getting rid of Cobras, increased them.

My daughter was invited to the circus last week by a classmate celebrating her 7th birthday. The circus comes regularly to a very nearby venue, but I’d successfully avoided it up to this point. The kids all enjoyed themselves, of course, and were especially excited to see real live elephants and tigers. I remember my own awe as a child being exposed to such creatures.

To say I felt conflicted would be an understatement, especially while watching the lions and tigers perform. It’s hard to know exactly how much of such an act is scripted versus accidental. But a number of those big cats looked genuinely pissed, and the third time one of the females balked at a cue and then ran at the trainer, it did not look choreographed.

Likely all part of the show on some level, but is that even any better?

My three-year-old son pretty much summed up the absurdity of the evening when he exclaimed quizzically, “Look, it’s tigers on stools!”

Why yes, my son. This is how men demonstrate their physical prowess and mental superiority over other living creatures–by making them sit on stools.

Or, in the case of the majestic killer whale, by housing them in fishbowls and training them to splash tourists.

The maiden post to this blog was in response to the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau at Sea World’s Orlando park. It was the third death associated with the bull orca Tilikum, known to tourists as Shamu.

That post was flip in some respects, but the business of keeping killer whales for fun and profit is not. It does speak directly to my problem with gauging the humaneness of a training program purely according to which learning quadrants happen to dominate. And sadly, it speaks to the power of money to distort our judgement.

I think it’s well established that a higher percentage of clicker-trained killer whales actually kill their trainers than do dogs trained by any method. I do not mean that as an indictment of clicker-training.  I mean it as a challenge to the dual myths that A) killer whales are a model of reliable behavior compared to dogs, and B) their handling is a model of humane training.

What we do to killer whales is an atrocity without moral justification, in my opinion. They suffer lives of abject deprivation, void of any genuine opportunities to self-reward. They are prisoners of our selfish desire to engage with an intelligent species that wants little to do with us, absent our trapping and keeping them like lab rats.

Positive reinforcement based operant conditioning has proven utility both within and without the confining walls of zoos and amusement parks. I don’t deny that. I deny the legitimacy of extending the analogy between dogs and killer whales to the point of suggesting the best tools for engaging the latter must also be the best choice for training the former. And to the extent I personally find the level of management involved in captive marine mammal training to be abusive, I think there is some danger associated with modeling dog training practices after that example.

I am sure that some will consider this post ridiculous because they have been brainwashed to feel a certain way. This Blog Post has very little to do with dogs but it concerns an issue that I feel strongly about; that being senseless killing of wildlife.

This post was inspired by this article…

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2010/12/08/131876027/60-wild-coyotes-patrol-chicago-and-occasionally-stop-at-convenience-stores

Please be advised that I don’t have a problem with ethical hunters.  Hunters, as in other areas of life have the full gamut of personalities.  Some hunters lobby very hard to keep wild areas from being turned into yet more concrete jungle. This in my eyes is very valuable.  I  am simply against those that shoot things for fun and then don’t put it into the cook pot.

The animal under the biggest attack lately has been the Coyote. People seem to be very threatened by the Coyote to the point of paranoia. Trust me there aren't dingos or coyotes running off with babies on a weekly basis. If they are perhaps we should examine the parenting involved.  

The hunters of course have their own motivation for killing them.  They kill deer.  Now consider that I live in state where the deer hunting season has no limit. That is correct, shoot as many as you want. So, I think deer are hardly threatened. So let’s assume that you are the greediest type of hunter. You might argue that the Coyotes serves no purpose! Well consider that nature does have a design and a plan. Animals like Coyotes weed out the sick and the weak. This helps ensure a healthier stronger population. So they do serve a purpose, even to the hunter, in that they help ensure healthier and stronger stock.

The aforementioned article shows another very important purpose. They kill vermin like mice and rats. So if Coyote were to be feared how could this population live in a downtown area for years (Year 2000 or earlier) without public outcry? They probably existed for years without incident.  No one ever considered thanking them either for controlling the rodent population, which could bare disease.  That is just human nature though. We humans tend to feel that everything is a threat and never acknowledge the good.

This sort of foolish hysteria is what has fueled the whole BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) argument. A few dog bites and next thing you know certain “Types” of dogs are being exterminated in the 10s of thousands. I look forward to the day, (hopefully in my lifetime) where we put an end to fear mongering.

Positive reinforcement is only one of four options that a trainer can apply in shaping and modifying behaviour.  In it's simplest form the trainers decision about which quadrant of the motivational matrix is best applied, and when to do so, is about whether he is trying to increase or decrease a behaviour.

The higher the skill and experience levels of the dog trainer, the more ability the trainer has to appropriately apply each of the 4 options (quadrants) in a way that is best suited to the individual dogs temperament, and in a way that advances the dog’s learning towards realisation of the desired training outcomes.

There is a falsehood being spread amongst the dog training community that punishment has no place in dog training – this push is being led by organisations and some individuals that, whilst claiming to have the best interests of the dog and heart, clearly have political power and financial reward operating as their primary motivators. Such organisations and individuals frequently play on the legitimate emotional connection that people have to dogs and rely heavily on selling partial science as the whole story in order to justify their agenda to the trusting masses that are simply looking to do the best thing for their dogs.

By Tyler Muto

My recent post A Silent Killer, created quite a stir as anticipated. The words within contained a pretty serious charge: That a very small faction of trainers, who believe that no dog should ever be trained with the use of aversives, regardless of the situation, are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dogs.

Of course there was some pretty heated criticism of this assertion, unfortunately much of that criticism was unjustified. There will be more to be said on this matter, but for now I only have the time to address one of the main concerns.

The post is very important to me, and it is likely to upset some people. Those involved will not admit their guilt, will deny every aspect of what I am about to say, and place the blame elsewhere.

There is a silent killer in the dog training world. It is not a virus, not a piece of equipment, not a bacteria.

It is an idea.

It is the idea that all dogs, in all situations, should be trained with nothing other than rewards, and without ever the use of aversives. “Reward what you like and ignore what you don’t” is the mantra that is preached, and all will be well in the world. In the dog training community this philosophy goes by many names, some call it Pure Positive (which is not an accurate description), some call it Progressive Reinforcement, some call it Reward only, but for the purposes of this article I will refer to it as Aversive Free or AF.

If your dog was to be subjected to an aversive, would you rather it occurred randomly or control the timing yourself?

I put this question to a rational positive-reinforcement trainer, who responded unhesitatingly that she would prefer to control the timing of the aversive, so as to minimize fallout, and in order to potentially create some practical inhibition.

The logic of her choice hinges on a pair of sensible assumptions. First, that controlling an aversive (even just the timing) naturally lends any competent handler the opportunity to avoid (or at least temper) detrimental associations; second, that the well-timed application of an aversive has potential utility. Of course, she would prefer to avoid aversives altogether, and clearly stated so.

No surprise, given the well-publicized risks. According to the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior,

the potential adverse effects of punishment [include] but are not limited to: inhibition of learning, increased fear-related and aggressive behaviors, and injury to animals and people[1]

Moreover, we are warned that risks such as extreme generalized fear and negative associations with the dog’s environment or handler, can occur “regardless of the strength of the punishment.”

This last claim must rest on belief in a dark sort of behavioral homeopathy, whereby the magical effects of punishment [2] endure despite its infinite dilution.

Prologue

I have been fascinated for the longest time by observing dogs behaving and interacting with the world around them. I arrived at the inevitable conclusion that the only way to explain why a dog reacts to different situations the way it does, is to look to the canine mind, and not try to explain everything in human terms. I have long since given up attempting to explain human behavior. Man is supposed to be a rational being, but it is sometimes very difficult to believe this. When there is an understanding (however minimal) of how the dog perceives his place in the world, then we should be in a position to be able to observe its’ behaviour from the correct perspective; that of the dog. This article is a brief examination of the “mind of a dog” and following articles will look at behaviour, and how people interact with dogs. The dog is certainly not born with polite manners, but it has natural instincts hard wired from birth that need to be satisfied. These make up the dog psyche, and will be explored in the course of this article.