Please be mindful of the ‘training’ advice offered by certain ‘youtube’ individuals.
The moment you find a ‘trainer’ interpreting ANY animal’s behaviour as being:
or “Throwing a tantrum”
Then I urge you to seek alternative advice elsewhere.
Interpretations such as these (and these are genuine), are indicative of an individual who has come face to face with the extent of their own knowledge, experience or capabilities. It’s almost like an involuntary safety mechanism, designed to prevent us from realising that we are limited, perhaps more limited than we either believed ourselves to be, or would like to appear. It doesn’t necessarily make the person ‘bad’, in fact they likely love their animals and genuinely believe that they are doing right by them. However it often suggests that individuals who use this type of observational terminology, are inclined to place multiple problems under one explanatory umbrella, implying that the dog is somehow capable of acting in a certain way, simply to spite, challenge or deliberately undermine you.
If a dog is reliably acting in a particular way, be it contextually predictable or seemingly irrational, there IS a reason. The reason may be obvious, difficult, or indeed impossible to ascertain, but on some level, there IS a reason. One thing is absolutely certain … No dog, is behaving the way it is behaving, due to “throwing a tantrum” or because it considers it necessary to act “bratty”.
Following extensive field work involving hours and hours of documented, observable canine behaviour, no ethologist has ever returned an ethogram which read “Shitty” or “crappy” in order to describe what they had witnessed.
Here’s the danger (as I see it), in using terms such as these to describe what unfolds before us … They provide all the justification required, to allow anger, frustration and resentment to cloud our thoughts and govern our actions.
“Shitty” behaviour is justifiably punished. I needn’t concern myself with the why’s and the wherefores if I consider a behaviour to be “crappy”, I can just get in there and stamp it out. It’s a personal attack.
The fact that consistently undesirable behaviours are generally indicative of a far larger ‘relationship’ or certainly contextual issue doesn’t matter one bit .. Not if My dog is being “Shitty”!
Plus …… PLUS ….. Those blokes on the internet said it’s okay, and they’ve got several thousand followers and are “Internationally recognised behaviour experts” – Right?
They’ve never actually met me, my dog or my family. They’ve never been to my home, joined us on our walks or asked for any veterinary or acquisition and rearing history.
They know nothing of my dog’s breeding, present level of command fluency or individual temperament …. But that doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant WHY my dog is barking on the lead, chasing her tail incessantly or leaping at guests. It’s all just “Shitty” and therefore deserves correction, needless of further thought .
Do you see WHY I get so frustrated when I see video advice like this? It explains nothing, and so the desperate owners who watch it, learn nothing. It reduces dog training to a level below that of anyone who genuinely consider themselves ‘trainers’, to a place where coercion is king, and understanding, irrelevant. It’s a backward step that I urge anyone and everyone to avoid.
I have no issue whatsoever, with delivering a negative consequence to a behaviour which threatens the welfare of any animal, and I include that threat as being the very real possibility that the dog will be surrendered to a shelter. The difference being, that wherever possible, I will look to give the animal full control over that situation through the use of an appropriate alternative, or at the very least, an environmental cue which serves to predict the likelihood of pending correction, thereby providing the dog with control. A dog taught to walk well on a lead, won’t pull. A dog which pulls on a lead isn’t being “shitty”, it simply doesn’t know how to walk acceptably.
There is no benefit whatsoever, to be gained by interpreting any behaviour which displeases you, as “shitty”, “crappy” or “bratty”. Should you hear things like this, proceed with caution.
Wales chose to ban the use of remote training aids, largely on the advice of Mr David Ryan (then chair of the APBC) who condemned remote training devices.
Here’s what Mr Ryan told the Welsh Parliamentary Assembly, in his wholly anecdotal (and incredibly biased) report (Dec. 2007) – In this instance, relating specifically to the use of remote training aids for cats ..
“Due to their ethology and particular sensitivity, punishment by any kind of device is not appropriate in modifying feline behaviour. Any form of punishment invariably increases anxiety and fear. Feline ethology is such that their primary response is flight and avoidance; which may remain specific or generalise, and unrelated neurotic behaviours in the cat easily occur, including reduced capacity to cope with social contacts”
Got that? … “Invariably increases anxiety and fear” … “punishment by any kind of device is not appropriate” …. “Unrelated neurotic behaviours .. Including reduced capacity to cope” ..
Below, is a 2016 study by the University of Lincoln in respect of the use of electronic containment systems, E-collar fences basically, where gardens have a perimeter wire placed around them and the cat wears a collar. As the cat approaches the boundary wire, a tone or pulse is given by the collar, which serves as a warning, followed by a static correction if the cat continues towards the boundary …
“Modern devices train the cats to associate a warning beep with the location of the invisible fence. As a consequence animals may be able to quickly and efficiently learn appropriate avoidance behaviours, without persistent anxiety or fear of a shock.
The scientists undertook a range of behaviour tests designed to assess the mood and anxiety of cats and found that, if anything, those contained with electronic boundary systems appeared more confident when it came to new experiences.”
Just to recap … “Quickly and efficiently learn appropriate avoidance behaviours without persistent anxiety or fear …. Appeared more confident when it came to new experiences”
Now then … You tell me? …. Since they cannot BOTH be right, one of the two conclusions and recommendations is obviously incorrect! The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC), insist on academic standing (Honours degree and above) and postgraduate experience of 2-3 years working alongside a veterinary practise. Being veterinary referred, they’re obviously well educated and ought to know their subject inside and out, right? They ought not really make sweeping generalisations, assumptions or claims, such as “Any form of punishment invariably increases anxiety and fear”, without concrete, undeniable evidence to support those claims, surely? **Incidentally, when your child runs around with her laces undone, trips on one and falls and grazes her knee, then in the ‘scientific’ sense, provided she makes sure that they are done tightly thereafter, ‘running with loose laces’ has been technically punished, and she’s now ‘avoiding’ a repeat punishment by learning that she’s better off with tight laces** … But according to the APBC, “Any form of punishment invariably increases anxiety and fear”? – Is the child now anxious? Does she spend her playtime in fear?
The APBC again, appear to be at substantial odds with the University of Lincoln in relation to electronic containment systems!
Remember, The University writes that:
“If anything, those [cats] contained within the boundary systems appeared more confident when it came to new experiences”
Mr Ryan of the APBC however, stated:
“Fence containment systems should not be allowed even though the animal is able to move away from the fence. …
Whilst all electric shock devices are prone to the dog failing to associate the intended stimulus with the punishment, containment systems are particularly disposed to the dog associating the pain with an unintended stimulus. When a dog approaches a boundary, it does so for a reason. It may be greeting visitors or defending the property against a perceived intrusion by another dog. If it receives a shock as it does so, the shock will be associated with the most relevant stimulus present in the dog’s mind at the time. It may therefore associate the pain not with approaching the boundary, but with visitors or passing dogs, resulting in subsequent fear and aggression towards those stimuli.”
*[note also, how all parties simply use the term ‘electric shock’, whilst none have taken the time to elaborate on the term, leaving anyone without first hand experience to know no difference between placing a battery to one’s tongue, a muscle stimulation belt to one’s abdomen, or corporal punishment electrodes to one’s shaven head]
Again, for an association of such academic achievement, operating via direct referral of such a trusted body of professionals as veterinarians, then one would certainly expect statements presented as facts, to be beyond inaccurate, untrue and scaremongering tactics such as
“When a dog approaches a boundary, it does so for a reason. It may be greeting visitors or defending the property against a perceived intrusion by another dog. If it receives a shock as it does so, the shock will be associated with the most relevant stimulus present in the dog’s mind at the time. It may therefore associate the pain not with approaching the boundary, but with visitors or passing dogs, resulting in subsequent fear and aggression towards those stimuli”
Unless of course, the University findings that the [cats] were “Without persistent anxiety or fear” and “More confident when it came to new experiences” were simply, wrong?
For those who might not be aware, pet containment systems save lives. That’s why people buy and use them. Not because they get a kick out of startling their pets – (they could fill that criteria at FAR lesser cost) – No, the reason pet containment systems are installed, is because the owners wish to keep their animals, other people’s animals (including stock and livelihoods) and potentially innocent motorists SAFE. They want to permit the animal freedom, whilst simultaneously ensuring welfare. These are owner who recognise the fact that doors sometimes swing open, leads can get dropped, kids don’t always close doors behind themselves and that one single error could cost the animal it’s life or physical wellbeing.
These people CARE about welfare.
One final point on pet containment systems .. One which again, serves to highlight either the ignorance, the naivety or the dishonesty of the APBC in their 2007 paper …
Quality electronic containment systems follow a pretty simple procedure. realising that it would be wholly unfair to simply hide a wire and have the animal try and guess through correction, where the boundary lies, the kits contain multiple, clearly visible flags.
Now a flag isn’t something that most pet animals will encounter a great deal in a natural environment, and that fact is used to the owner’s advantage – As a ‘visible’ boundary.
The flags are placed along the boundary line, and the animal is ‘taught’, that approaching the flags results in a negative experience, an unpleasant consequence, a startle, a ‘shock’.
Done correctly, this novel stimulus [the flag] rapidly assumes “avoid it” status, and the animal maintains a healthy distance whenever a flag is in close proximity. Over time, the flags can be gradually removed, with the animal ‘remembering’ the areas it has learned to avoid …. Ta Da … Invisible containment system.
Now this is what the APBC wrote in respect of pet containment systems:
“The difference between electric boundary containment systems and electric stock fences, as used by farmers to control large livestock, is that the stock fence invariably follows a visible boundary, or is highlighted by white tape, so the animals can see it clearly. The arbitrary invisible boundary defined by an electric containment system does not provide a visible reason for the dog to understand why the shock happened. Animals understand that things they touch can be painful; thorns or sharp rocks exist in their environment. It is very easy for them to learn that something they brush up against should be avoided.”
A reminder of a key criticism of containment systems from the APBC:
“When a dog approaches a boundary, it does so for a reason. If it receives a shock as it does so, the shock will be associated with the most relevant stimulus present in the dog’s mind at the time.”
And yet the ‘acceptable’ endorsement for farm animals?:
“The difference between electric boundary containment systems and electric stock fences, as used by farmers to control large livestock, is that the stock fence invariably follows a visible boundary”
So then I ask you, if that visible boundary is a hedgerow, yet ‘shock’ is associated with “the most relevant stimulus present in the [animal’s] mind at the time”, then why are we not seeing millions of sheep, horses, cattle and pigs, literally terrified of hedgerows, or aggressing towards trees? Farm hedgerows invariably contain roosting or resting birds, often singing or cawing .. By the logic of the APBC, we ought also, to have farm animals showing signs of increased anxiety when they see or hear, birdsong. BUT … As you are no doubt aware, this simply ISN’T the case. Birds land amongst a herd of cattle, and what do the cattle do? – They continue to graze. Horses will stick their heads THROUGH the strands of electronic tape in order to eat what’s on offer on the other side!
And what of electric chicken fencing? Fencing designed to keep the contained animal safe, by virtue of the fact that the approaching predator receives unpredictable electronic correction – again, ‘shock’ if you like? Where is the ethical army in this instance? Why is the argument for the fox, rat or badger, any less important on welfare grounds, than the argument for the domestic pet?
Interesting isn’t it! .. You see, the REAL differences between farm stock containmnmet systems and PET containment systems, are that farm containment fences:
(a) Have a HELL of a lot more energy potential – ‘SHOCK’ if you like.
(b) Will punish ANY animal that happens to come into contact with them
(c) Do NOT carry the same emotive strength as an animal which people consider to be part of their family – Despite the fact that each are living, sentient beings
(d) Neither farmers, nor veterinary referred ‘behaviourists’, are ever likely to exchange (or pay for) behavioural concerns over a cow straying onto a lane
(e) Banning electronic stock fencing for agricultural animals in Wales, would go down like a shit panini – Sideways …
As I say … Ignorance, naivety or dishonesty?
The lack of genuine understanding is disturbing regardless – Especially when laws which affect hundreds of thousands of animal’s welfare are passed on the strength of it.
There is (in my opinion), an unpleasant image emerging in respect of what constitutes (or ought to constitute) dog training and ownership. I was watching a few videos from a few US youtube trainers over the past couple of days, and it seems that the main message being put over, isn’t to exercise, permit freedom, bond, interact and create a harmonious relationship with a responsive dog, but rather that a restricted or restrained dog is the name of the game, or in more instances – Hire me.I saw a recall video – The dog was about 10′ away from the trainer, in a room, on a remote, and the trainer had food. To me, that isn’t a recall. The environment had been restricted to the point of ‘zero option but to’, and there was no relationship, no ‘gel’ between dog and trainer whatsoever.
I’m seeing nothing which denotes ‘skill’? There seems to be nothing different, beyond dog or camera angle in the abundance of clips. Life extends beyond a place board. Walking 2 dogs or 20, all on restraints of one sort or another – Well, frankly, “That don’t impress me much”.
There is life beyond a ‘facility’.
The dogs live beyond a ‘facility’.
Training MUST extend beyond facilities and tools.
Where is the ‘love’? Where is the ‘fun’ gone? Why is dog training and ownership being portrayed as some kind of regimental, seen but not heard mentality?
Sometimes, I cannot help but draw the analogy of a prison when I look at these facilities. Freedom is only permitted, when permitted. Choice is channelled and/or pressured and a great deal of time is spent on a place board ‘lock down’.
Rarely, VERY rarely will you see these 20 lead walked dogs running freely together, permitted to experience and exhibit their natural, species specific tendencies, whilst still under the control of the trainer. The excuse will be that they are ‘aggressive dogs’, ‘red zone’ dogs or anxious dogs, and so the ‘harmony of the pack’ would be adversely affected. In response to which, I would ask “Then what is the point in the programme?”
It isn’t my idea of training.
The APBC (Association of Pet Behvaiour Counsellors) http://www.apbc.org.uk is a self-proclaimed, “Second to none”, group of ‘veterinary referred’ ‘behaviourists’ (read ‘expensive’ – although they claim to work at a “reasonable cost”), which operates throughout the UK. The association proudly places tremendous emphasis on a member’s academic achievement, yet you will notice ‘applied/practical proficiency’, to be suspiciously lacking in their marketing material. Essentially, the APBC is an association intent upon furthering their own name, increasing (paid) membership and creating an ‘elite’ public persona. They claim however, that their focus is,
“To maintain and ensure the highest professional standards of the practice of companion animal behaviour therapy so that clients can be assured of effective, humane and appropriate advice”
Read those three tenets again – “Effective” “Humane” “Appropriate”
Read on …
The APBC advised the Welsh Parliamentary Assembly on their ban of remote training collars in favour of ‘kinder’ – ‘more effective’ methods of training and behaviour modification, one of which was chasing stock/wildlife.* The (then) chair of the APBC – David Ryan, wrote an article on his website regarding chasing.
You can read it here http://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/how-do-i-stop-my-dog-chasing/.
It begins by bamboozling the owners with the utter bullshit (i’m sorry, but i’m passionate) claims, that chasing is a release for anxieties, therefore the owner must ‘scan their environment’ at home to identify insecurities, which accrue to culminate (like a pressure cooker of anxiety) in chasing – THEREFORE, David Ryan tells owners to treat (for example) firework phobias before tackling chasing!! … It gets better … Mr Ryan, the bastion of welfare, of “EFFECTIVE HUMANE and APPROPRIATE training; the parliamentary ‘go-to-man’ on matters affecting millions of dogs, is asked the following question ….
“I have 2 y/o Sheepdog, of course, bred to herd. We rescued her 3 months ago. We live in a rural area with many deer, armadillos, etc. Our property is not fenced. She has bolted out the door several times in pursuit of deer. I can’t control the deer population, it is what it is here. She does love her toys so I will work on this. My concern, when she is in pursuit, she is fast and hears nothing I have to say. The other problem I have is her barking. She gets walks 3-4 times a day and whenever she sees deer she barks uncontrollably. I tried the rocks in a can, creating a noise and that worked for about 3 weeks then she became immune to that. Will a dog whistle help? I am desperate! Thank you!”
Mr Ryan replies with the following (shortened for brevity):
“If I HAD to keep her using your environment (and my preference would be to re-home her to a more appropriate one, because it is not benefiting either of you) I would forget about walking her and spend the time with her tied-out on a long line so she can’t run off, whilst playing retrieve games with her.”
YES!!!! … you read that correctly … “REHOME HER, or FORGET ABOUT WALKING HER AND TIE HER OUT” ….
Having NEVER MET THE DOG, and based entirely on the scant information provided in a brief, desperate blog post, the former chair of the “second to none” APBC, the “highest professional standards of companion animal behaviour therapy”, starts out with “REHOME HER or FORGET ABOUT WALKING HER AND TIE HER OUT”.
Mr Ryan goes on to recommend ‘games instead of walks’, ‘practise obedience so that she comes back because she wants to’ [??!! – No actual answer there whatsoever!] ….. And finally … “After that you need a PROTRACTED PROGRAMME [my emphasis] of introducing the stimulus (deer) at a low level whilst keeping her focus on you (toy-reward) and gradually increasing the salience of the deer-stimulus … [Then comes a ‘buy my book’!! .. Followed by] “Good Luck!”
I’m sure Mr Ryan means ‘decreasing the salience of the deer-stimulus’, but here’s the rub … Here’s the really really really wrong part … The worst aspect of all ….
Mr Ryan is LYING and he bloody well knows that he is lying. There is no way in a month of Sundays that a ball will beat a deer for a sheepdog with a well rehearsed chase history. Mr Ryan knows this, which is why he starts out by saying ‘rehome your dog’ – Because his advise is impotent and he knows it … But impotent advice won’t generate income, and so Mr Ryan back-pedals and throws a ‘buy my book’ into the equation too … Best grab a few quid out of it whilst she’s desperate eh David? …. Disgusting. Unethical. Unprofessional. dishonest and greedy.
That’s the APBC for you. David Ryan is presently presenting seminars on chase modification throughout the UK … Where emotions prevail, common sense will fail, eh David.
*You really ought to get your hands on this advisory paper, settle yourself into a comfortable chair for an hour or so and read through it. Depending on your general response to absurdity, you will find yourself either laughing, stunned into disbelief, or enraged. Seldom will you encounter a more emotively biased, evidentially lean, scientifically cherry-picked, anecdotal and factually false piece of work on the subject of remote training aids and the effects of professionally applied correction (positive punishment – Adding a negative consequence as a result of an action), and electronic pressure (Negative reinforcement – Removal or non-occurrence of a negative consequence as a result of an action) on canine behaviour.
During my APDTUK assessment, I was required to teach an unknown class of people/dogs, certain behaviours for (I think it was an hour?) whilst being observed by two assessors placed at either end of a training hall. The teaching requirement was held secret until I entered the hall and began the session. At the conclusion, I was asked to leave the hall and wait outside, where I was led to an undercover area, which joined one of the assessor’s houses.
As I waited, a group of 3 or so dogs (from memory they were Belgian Shepherds – Tervurens or Groenendales) emerged tentatively from the back door of the house, eyed me with great mistrust and wariness, and one of them continued a low grumble, whilst looking towards me from sideways on. “Ooops .. Ignore them” remarked the husband of the assessor as he brought me a cup of tea, “They’re no good with strangers” … He turned to the dogs “G’wan – Inside!” and shooed the dogs away.
I was advised some 10-15 minutes later, that the assessors were ready now, to give me both my aural assessment, along with their feedback on my work. I was taken through to a conservatory, where the two women awaited me. Now I have to say that each of the women were lovely to speak with and both nodded encouragingly as I explained my use of class layout, positive reinforcement, choice of rewards, reward delivery protocols, projection of instruction, explanations etcetera, in relation to the preceding class work.
Then it came to my scores!!
“Do you teach classes already Jamie?” I was asked.
“No, I don’t” I replied
“Why not?” the second assessor enquired
“Because I don’t necessarily believe that hall-based training is the most beneficial training I can provide” I answered, trying to choose my words so as not to offend!
“Well you should!” announced the first lady (not as in the president’s wife .. She wasn’t there .. I just mean ‘the first one of the two to speak in this recollection of dialogue’ … Anyway, I digress) … “You did an exceptional job in there! The woman who kept wanting to do things HER way is a NIGHTMARE to train, but you actually chose HER dog to demo with! It worked!”
I smiled, “Oh .. Thank you”
Then came my results …..
“Well, you scored all but perfect! Well done!! It isn’t very often we get scores like this. You only dropped half a point, giving you a score of 17.5 out of a possible 18!! Well done!!!”
The second, smiling assessor asked “Can you think why you dropped the half-point?”
I thought …. “Errm?? Timing perhaps?”
“Er? … I’m not sure, was I rude or anything? Did I miss a technical point? .. I really don’t know?”
“Ha ha! Nope!” Chuckled my judge “That was all great! … I’ll tell you ….. Do you remember going through the DOWN exercise?”
“Yes, I do” I answered, a little puzzled
“And do you remember the Poodle?”
“Yes, I do … She was the young one who was taking a while”
“That’s right” said my second judge “And why was that do you think?”
I knew the answer to this, so I replied with confidence “OH! ..That’s because the dog didn’t fully understand the mechanics of the exercise. The owner was choosing to lure for too long, making the dog over-reliant on the visual cue of the hand containing the food – It was as though her nose was attached to it with string .. It moved and she broke!” I smiled …
“Errrr? No …. No that isn’t what WE had down? …. Why else do you think a dog like that may struggle?”
Now I was confused! I KNEW why the dog wouldn’t DOWN; It was for the reasons given! I tried a generic answer .. “Well .. Either the dog doesn’t ‘understand’ the behaviour, perhaps it has a prior training history which conflicts with what was being taught there, or the motivation to perform it is insufficient for that particular dog in the circumstances?”
The ‘professional’ interpretation has stayed with me from first hearing it … This was it …
“No .. That’s not what we think Jamie. What we see is a young Poodle in a training hall in the colder months. Now his fur on his tummy is shorter than the rest of his body and the floor of the hall is pre-tty cold for that little one …..” (I sat – Stunned) … “So what might we have done differently?”
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! …. But I found the words dropping from my mouth, like broken teeth from the ‘stun-punch’ to the chops I had just sustained … “Put.a.coat.on.it??”
“YES!!! A coat … Or put a warm blanket on the floor!” ….
……. A warm blanket …… Because a dog which originated working in swamps and water, will endure a ‘cold tum-tum’ performing a DOWN inside a training hall ……
I think I knew from that moment on, that my future as a member was to be a brief affair ……..
Imagine you were to try this …..
Shortly after bedtime, you tie a piece of thin line to the wardrobe door handle in a young child’s bedroom, just before you tell them the spooky story about the ‘wardrobe ghost’. The wardrobe ghost sits within wardrobes, unseen, silent … Waiting ….. If you open the wardrobe, you will see nothing … If you scream out, he will vanish and return again, even angrier and even more terrifying .. because the wardrobe ghost is VERY clever … He waits and waits until you are tucked up in bed, before v.e.r.y. q.u.i.e.t.l.y. opening the door and reaching out to take hold of sleeping children’s hands, whereupon they sleepwalk with him, into the wardrobe, never to be seen or heard of again; that is until they too, become ghosts themselves. Lots of parents claim to be able to hear the faint screams and cries for help of their own, missing children when their wardrobe is opened at night …..
Light out now, nighty-night ….
Some 30 minutes later, from outside the room, pull gently and silently on the line ….
.. NEVER let on ….. EVER …..
I can virtually guarantee, that the affected child will carry their fear (or at the very least suspicion) of wardrobes well into young adulthood, and that the memory will likely NEVER go away. Some would quite probably remain permanently affected, sleeping with lights on, open doors, pets on beds and no wardrobes.
But nothing has happened.
Nothing terrible has EVER occurred.
No ghost has been seen or heard (although the child will tell you otherwise).
Wardrobes are inanimate objects – Until they are given purpose through use.
Even rational thinking as the child matures will not eradicate the strength of that terrifying night ….
It ‘could’ happen … It ‘might’ be true ….
A lifetime of belief and suspicion, upon which the only substantial foundation was a moving door.
The rest was completely fictitious, shared so as to knowingly instil a false fear, a lifelong aversion … Perhaps the same fear the story-teller themselves, had also been told …….?
Interesting, isn’t it, how simple it is to create logically, experientially and evidentially unsubstantiated fear and avoidance, simply through the manipulation of otherwise naive minds?