Dogs: Their Secret Lives episode 2 aggression

Can I ask of those who still believe in the "pack" theory on what do you base your belief that we, as humans form part of a "pack" with dogs?
 
Burtyler said:
Can I ask of those who still believe in the "pack" theory on what do you base your belief that we, as humans form part of a "pack" with dogs?
Click to expand...

50 years of observing pack behaviour, and within my own environs, and the same length of time listening to those whose opinions I respect, ......... and that's strangely not one with a relevant Uni qualification, but those who demonstrated their abilities and with dogs which performed in a willing and a welcoming fashion.

I've also spent the last 50 years listening and attempting to understand those who tell those who earn a living with dogs, that somehow they have it wrong.

Watch the dogs of those who would support the pack argument, and then assuming that you can see what's before you (as I'm sure that you can), watch those who demonstrate their abilities.

Again, 'Those who can 'Do', and those who 'Can't', write a book, or teach'.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
........ are all dogs. Accepting that there are those animals which through breed, description, or history, will be a bit of a challenge, every dog presents a challenge, some more so than others.


Alec.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there, but some of these unfortunates are owned by idiots. Presenting training methods they can work with consistently and regularly is usually all the poor dog needs so he has boundaries and expectations-his 'place' if you will.

Someone mentioned about the common sense of praise or smack on the bum. Yes, but its a timing issue, so its associated with a specific behaviour. The really good dog trainers (and horse ones too) almost always have lightening reactions so its very, very clear what they want from an animal. Some companion owners don't, so clicker work helps 'bridge' that association.

I'm not making any claims about my own dog training skill, more the lack of it. But I was pretty good with horses, and I've used the same methods to have a dog that I consider is reasonably well behaved

And BTW, having a doctorate isn't automatically a bad thing to practical animal training. Mines in wheezy horses, but I'm still in touch with normal stuff ! ;)
 
I must say I respect experience but I accept that sometimes people with less experience than myself may have validity. I have learned to step outside the box to see what is "new" in the industry as we never stop learning. After all if my doctor was still practising using methods from 50 years ago even with his hands on continued experience if he didn't consider some more up to date science I would think about changing doctors
 
Can I also ask what was it that you specifically disagreed with in the programme.... Any one. Was it the specific methods used or was it their evidence against the "dominance/ alpha/pack theory??
 
Alec Swan said:
A question for those who have experience of horses, and dogs too; At what point do the 'Herd' behaviour patterns differ from those of the 'Pack"?

Alec.
Click to expand...

A bit of a 'not quite' answer. In terms of hierarchical positioning for resources such as water, food, companionship, the occasional er, 'special cuddle', not a lot I would say.

In terms of how we can train these species with this instinct, a couple of distinct differences between horses and dogs spring to mind. I would say horses have a greater need for the personal space to be acknowledged due to the herd mentality.

The limitation for positive reinforcement in horses such as food rewards-very difficult to create positive associations when riding due to the delay in actually giving food. So a lot of horse stuff is negative reinforcement, mostly the release of pressure such as a leg aid.

And I reckon I'm done. My approach is 'don't set 'em up to fail' and 'whats the incentive for this dog/horse to repeat this behaviour'. I'm actually rather simple.

Would also like to say, I think it might have been Dry Rot who posted a clip of themselves working with a young dog with a 'sleeve' (apologies for the wrong terminology). It was fabulous training to watch, with a beautifully attentive dog delighted to have work to do. Loved it.
 
I'm an oldie now and no longer compete with dogs (obedience and working trials and dabbling in Schutzhund when it was first introduced into this country by a brave few who risked being banned by the KC) but I thought I would point out some of those who have been at the top in their chosen fields and have also taught and written many books. It has been my privilege to have have attended many (and I mean Many) courses, seminars, classes and of course I have all their books!
John Rogerson, Terry Hadley, Sylvia Bishop, Ian Dunbar (though I don't think he competed)
I think all of them emphasised that no dog could ever compete at a high level unless they actually enjoyed it.
The real trick to competition obedience (and Dressage) is for the dog to really enjoy showing off his moves.
 
Before we achieve any success with a dog, we have to have compliance and obedience well established. We all accept that I'm sure. We have to have a dog that 'wants' to please us (ok so there are some disciplines where dogs are encouraged to do it for themselves), and the dog has to enjoy its work, and the question, as I see it, is the route which we take, and how we establish the footings of the building which we're going to create.

The levels of physical violence towards dogs which have previously been described, have no place in the every day training of dogs, and once such levels are reached, then generally the next stage is that the dog is shot. Being reliant upon pain isn't what dog training's about. Dog Training (as I see it), is about having a willing and compliant dog, a dog which understands the place which I hold.

As I see it, there's a fundamental difference in the approaches, and it's my opinion that the two 'methods' actually oppose each other, with one being that the dog sees himself as a part of a pack, or a team, and the other that he somehow has the equal rights of a human.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the Positive Reinforcement principles. There is however, a fundamental difference between a dog complying with my wishes, because it's what 'I' want, and one who returns to me because 'HE' will be rewarded. If he's rewarded for compliance, what happens when he thinks that biting a human or chasing a cat is more fun than a tit-bit, and a tit-bit which he's probably going to get, anyway!

As I'm now getting-on-a-bit, I've given up taking on the mistakes of others, with a view to correction, because though progress is generally made, the truth is that unacceptable behaviour once learned and instilled, through remaining uncorrected, is difficult to eradicate entirely. I prefer to start with puppies, and though I have an exotically bred Cocker pup here, I have never raised my voice to him, and certainly never my hand. He's that soft that any form of harsh treatment is more than he can cope with. The problem with him is that it's like pushing a piece of string. I need a dog which 'needs' to be stopped, not a dog which is faultless and if I'm honest, a bit insipid. The dog which 'needs' stopping is probably going to be the one who through sheer bloody-mindedness or having the day when he knows best, is the one which will be met on the way back from his crime , scruffed and probably shaken, and next time, when he hears the stop whistle, he'll comply!

I've never had a dog which has been chastised which has born a grudge or feared me. They may well be fearful of my reaction to their refusal to comply when they know very well what's wanted, but they certainly don't fear me.

For those who prefer to use Positive Reinforcement, explain this to me; "You have a young, joyful, and full of himself, Springer pup of say 14 months. Whilst hunting up a hedgerow, and the pup going really well, a hare jumps up, you blow the stop whistle, the pup ignores you and takes off after the hare". What would be your course of action?

Greybird, I met Terry Hadley a couple of times, many years ago, and from memory he had a Rott called Graf. Graf wasn't a particularly big dog, but the guy who ran for dogs and for the Met, only ever faced Graf once. He turned down future invitations! Terry Hadley was a first class dog man. Though I'm sure that he had leads, I never saw Graf on a lead.

We can discuss the principles of dog training for ever, but it's always been my contention that food rewards encourage a dog to be selfish, rather than complying with its owners wishes and maintaining its position, in the 'pack'.

Alec.
 
There's nothing wrong with using food for training, if of course it suits the dog.

There's a big difference between food 'rewards' - shoving hot dogs into a dog who has already eaten that day, and asking a dog to 'work' for some or all of his daily allowance of food. Personally, I don't have time to slice up hot dogs :p
 
"For those who prefer to use Positive Reinforcement, explain this to me; "You have a young, joyful, and full of himself, Springer pup of say 14 months. Whilst hunting up a hedgerow, and the pup going really well, a hare jumps up, you blow the stop whistle, the pup ignores you and takes off after the hare". What would be your course of action?"

I would consider that I had failed my dog in his training, that I had not trained him either for that situation or trained enough. It is a dog and will do what a dog naturally does unless I have taught otherwise. With regard to dogs doing it to please me I know they will do that as in pleasing me they will earn their rewards...... I am the one who "controls" the resources as I open doors for them to go in and out, I dish up their meals etc etc. I don't believe dogs are capable of higher emotions like selfishness, stubborness etc. And I believe there have been studies to prove this.
Used incorrectly food rewards CAN adversely affect training so like any form of training it needs proper understanding and application. You don't have to use food in all training, it can be whatever the dog sees as most valuable and desires at that moment in time...... Chasing a ball or a bird! A fuss a sniff of something a roll in a smell..... Its just that food is so easy to use when training with most owners and most dogs love a tasty morsel of food.
 
CorvusCorax said:
There's nothing wrong with using food for training, if of course it suits the dog.

I totally agree and the emphasis is on training, once the desired behaviour is established the treats are gradually phased out, Alec you have this picture in your head of people going around with lots of treats stuffing it into their dogs mouths at every opportunity, this is not so, its a training aid, a reward for when the dog gives the right behaviour.

As for the young Springer( Im thinking you mean a driven working bred dog) then most trainers would first establish excellent recall and the dog not working too far in front of you. A good friend of mine is having one to one with a highly respected trainer who uses a rabbit pen to establish control so Im assuming this is what most gun dog trainers do and so a hare jumping up in front of them wouldnt have the reaction you are talking about as the dog will have been de-sensitised and wont react. For other people who dont have access to such a trainer I would urge them to work on their recall and using a long line is good for this, once the dog has flown so to speak you are let with 2 choices, either you run after it which I would strongly disagree with or you walk off in the opposite direction and when the dog came back I would not chastise it but I wouldnt reward it either.

I dont go with the pack theory, Im not a dog and my dogs know Im not a dog, they do know though Im in charge, the whole pack theory again was based on work done with wolves which as In the Channel 4 programme showed was deeply flawed as they didnt use an established wolf pack but wolves that were strangers to each other. The behaviour shown and the conclusions drawn from their interaction was useless as it didnt show true pack behaviour. Its ridiculous that still this whole pack theory is still going, Im knocking on a bit now myself but I am open minded, Ive moved with the times and yes I still use some of the old methods which do work and I know the science behind it but I also use positive re-inforcement as well because it does work. The problem I find is people who can use either method but dont do it correctly and people not understanding what it actually means.

The old saying "there is more ways to skin a cat" ring very true here and just because someone has always done something a certain way dosnt mean there are no other ways and perhaps better ways.
Click to expand...
 
Just to say I have been on many training courses, watched many programmes, read many books all on dog training. I am quite happy to take on board new ideas and not afraid to reject my previous beliefs especially if it benefits my dogs welfare.
Actually even David Mech who wrote the original paper about wolves and packs was not too proud to admit he got it wrong and has revised his theory.
 
Burtyler said:
Just to say I have been on many training courses, watched many programmes, read many books all on dog training. I am quite happy to take on board new ideas and not afraid to reject my previous beliefs especially if it benefits my dogs welfare.
Actually even David Mech who wrote the original paper about wolves and packs was not too proud to admit he got it wrong and has revised his theory.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. All dogs, like humans, are different and there are many and various ways to resolve problems. Over the years, I've watched dog training programmes, attended talks, demonstrations and courses to try and broaden my knowledge so that I can be a better dog owner. I've seen so called professional dog trainers display disgusting behaviour towards dogs in their care, and agility people taking out their frustrations on their poor dogs. If they can be that cruel in public, what the hell are they doing behind the scenes? Personally, I've learnt to take the bits from all this that best suit my dogs and me. I have an open mind, so if anything new comes along that might help with a particular problem, I would give it a try. Never, ever involving cruelty/abuse, all done with positive reinforcement. Surely the fact that assistance dogs, guide dogs, hearing dogs, search dogs etc are all trained in this way, with a ball rather than food most times, it must mean something?

BTW if my dog chased a hare, I would go back to basics and walk the dog on a long line and continue training until I knew the dog was under total control again!
 
I'm interested to know how people (both those who are dyed in the wool old school and those who have bought in to the new more behavioural training) would have dealt with that big powerful Great Dane who consistently displayed dog/dog aggression and was on the very edge of control.
I would train a "leave" using food rewards and reinforce it until it was fully conditioned, alongside the gradual desensitisation with target dogs at the distance he could cope with. Much like they did in the programme - and that was before I had seen the programme. Over to the rest of you?
 
Every time this discussion is about we get told that professionals who deal with multiple dogs in dog sports etc do not use positive reinforcement. This is just not true. In the agility world you are ONLY allowed to use positive reinforcement. If anyone is seen not doing so and treating a dog harshly they are put under disciplinary procedures.
 
There seems to be 2 types of trainers/ owners, those who dont care if their dog is frightened of them, their actions, or response to lack of compliance, and those who care very much, and would never want their dogs to feel fear.
I know which side if thd fence im on.
 
Galaxy, I know there are far more good owners than bad thank goodness, and indeed, I reported the incident of rough handling at agility, and as you rightly say, that particular owner was disciplined.
I think we've all kinda gone off the subject here. Personally, I enjoyed the program and hope that it will continue to educate and help the average dog owner. There was advice without blame, positive reinforcement if you will!!
 
Anyone who ever utters the words 'good dog' (or variations thereof) has used positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is defined as something which is added to a situation (that's where the positive bit comes from - it is used in its mathematical sense, not as a good / bad judgement) which reinforces a behaviour - ie which increases the likelihood of that behaviour happening again. This can include food, but also verbal praise, an ear rub, a tummy tickle, a toy, the opportunity to run free off lead, the chance to go and smell some smells - anything that the dog finds pleasurable or fun. Associate it with a behaviour, and the dog is more likely to want to do it again.

So - if you have ever said good dog, or smiled at your dog, or said 'that'll do' as a reward - you are a positive reinforcement trainer.

It does not necessarily have to be used to the exclusion of either positive punishment, negative punishment, or indeed negative reinforcement, although there are various factors to consider before any reinforcer or punisher is selected - both ethical and purely practical.

I find it most irritating to see people denigrating something when their posts make it quite clear that they are ignorant of what the thing they apparently dislike so much actually is!
 
Well, I will briefly come back to answer a couple of queries.

The book that JillA was asking about is "Dog Breaking" by Colonel Hutchinson which went to at least 10 editions in the 1800's. Or to give it it's correct title, "Dog Breaking; The Most Expeditious, Certain, and Easy Method whether great excellence or only mediocrity is required with odds and end for those who love the dog and gun". Get a copy of the 10th edition (1845?) which has foot notes to the foot notes! The author was General W N Hutchinson, Duke of Wellington's Regiment, late colonel Grenadier Guards. If anyone has read Peter Moxon's books, they may recognise where he got his information!

I think I was training dogs for 30 years before the penny dropped and I completely changed my methods.

Re:the rabbit chasing spaniel, about the worst thing you could do would be to chase after the dog, shouting. Is that encouragement or a request to stop? Drill the dog in the Sit. That requires some dominance but also "positive reinforcement". I have used methods described by Konrad Most in "Training Dogs" written in 1910 for over 50 years. I would not be satisfied until the dog would Sit instantly at a distance of at least 100 yards and skid to a halt when chasing a rolled tennis ball. At that stage, I can pretty much guarantee the dog would also skid to a halt on command (whistle, word, shot, or sight) when chasing a rabbit.

Dog training is like the Mafia. The dog should not fear that it will sleep with the fishes or wake up to find a horse's head in it's basket, only be aware that it might! I think that's what Alec means by respect. When Max pulled the frying pan off the cooker, he was made aware of the fact that he is not immortal. I doubt whether offering him a treat would have had the same effect. I only have to growl and he knows he is at the limit of what is acceptable.

Last, most animals learn best from play and experience. The trainer's skill is in setting the scene so the dog learns what the trainer wants and also discovers that he, the dog, enjoys and profits from the experience.
 
Spudlet. I think you may like to clarify that use of the words "Good dog" alone may not necesssarily be a reinforcer UNLESS the dog perceives it to be so. Perhaps when it has been associated with a primary reinforcer like food / good stuff to the dog or other reinforcers like the ear rub, fuss, play etc. Like any words we use it means nothing to our dogs until we have created any association with it. Like asking a dog to sit before we have taught it what the word Sit means. It would also only be considered a reinforcer unless the particular behaviour happens again.
Dry Rot..... can I ask what you mean in terms if "dominance". Dominance is a word bandied about a lot in dog training and I feel we should either be cautious in using it or explain what our use of it means.
 
I just copied this excerpt from a video on training I released years ago on VHS tape and am now in the process of re-editing. As you can see, all the dogs are cringing, cowed, nervous, and intimidated because they were regularly beaten into submission:p. (In the absence of rabbits, they are chasing butterflies and swallows).

[youtube]pAtSGsYQNRw[/youtube]
 
Dry Rot. Can I ask how you achieved compliance during the training of each dog? In otherwords how did you get them to do what you asked and how long did it take....on average to reach the stage they were at in video?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top