Dogs: Their Secret Lives episode 2 aggression

F

Finlib

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 October 2008
Messages
1,009
Visit site
on tonight channel 4
This one annoyed me slightly more not sure it really solved any of the problems fully or looked into how they occurred.
The Great Dane owners were given training exercises but to me they solved the problem by rehoming the older dog!

I suppose on the up side it did stress how important it is to socialise dogs as young puppies but if they are rescue dogs they often aren't puppies when they are rehomed
 
I thought it was great. Explained why people using dominance type training are very wrong, and a bit about dog body language and how people ignore the distress signals that dogs to show they are unhappy with a situation.

It was not perfect and yes it could have been more in depth in places, but as program being shown on mainstream TV it was really positive step in the right direction for our dogs.
 
Agree the dominance stuff and why people go down the dominance route was explained well and shown as flawed against reward training It was interesting how inexperienced people(and young children) can misinterpret dogs fear signals.
showing teeth is smiling.
Maybe I would have liked more in depth stuff around solving the problems.
 
It is risky to show detailed problem solving on mainstream tv, too many people would jump on it and try and copy without looking at what is actually going on. Especially where aggression is concerned, it is too easy to make it worse, most reputable behaviourists won't deal with aggression without a thorough vet check to check for discomfort or pain (APBC only do on vet referral anyway) or at a distance, they need to see the body language and understand the relationship.

I liked the emphasis on reinforcement training, but again, too many people would just shove treats at their dog willy nilly instead of targeting and shaping the desired behaviour. I know of one so-called behaviourist who spent an hour feeding the subject dog treats and left the owners with a dog who mugged everyone in sight and got aggressive when the goodies failed to appear.
 
Last edited:
Some good parts I agree, all common sense but so many people don't have that nowadays! What infuriated me was the way Mark Evans pushed that very nervous springer when going into her house. I realise he was doing it to get a response but why didn't he explain that! As it was he kept saying she was aggressive but she wasn't she was just frightened. Again the methods used to help her were to me common sense, and what has been advised many times by people on here to those having problems.
 
Me too Dry Rot. After last weeks episode I knew this one would make me cross. Too many numpties keeping dogs when they have neither the lifestyle nor the very basic knowledge to do so.
 
ribbons said:
Me too Dry Rot. After last weeks episode I knew this one would make me cross. Too many numpties keeping dogs when they have neither the lifestyle nor the very basic knowledge to do so.
Click to expand...

The guy with a doctorate, what ever his name was, I wonder how many dogs he's actually trained. The idiots with the Danes were being lectured to by equally inexperienced people. It didn't annoy me, it was entirely predictable. The worrying thing is that there are those who believe the nonsense!

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
The guy with a doctorate, what ever his name was, I wonder how many dogs he's actually trained. The idiots with the Danes were being lectured to by equally inexperienced people. It didn't annoy me, it was entirely predictable. The worrying thing is that there are those who believe the nonsense!

Alec.
Click to expand...

The 'inexperienced ' woman advising them was Emily Blackwell a lecturer in canine behaviour at Bristol University with 15 years experience. Dr Daniel Mills is one of the leading experts in animal behaviour, he is head of animal behaviour at the University of Lincoln and lectures worldwide. Dr John Bradshaw ( the man talking about dominance theory) is also a world renowned expert on animal behaviour. They see fearful/aggressive dogs on a daily basis and their advice is based on seeing hundreds of dogs, studying animal behaviour full time.

The programme was a breath of fresh air and hopefully will make more people realise that bullying your dog into complying with you is wrong and there is a better, more efficient and most importantly humane way of training your dog.
 
Teaselmeg said:
The 'inexperienced ' woman advising them was Emily Blackwell a lecturer in canine behaviour at Bristol University with 15 years experience. Dr Daniel Mills is one of the leading experts in animal behaviour, he is head of animal behaviour at the University of Lincoln and lectures worldwide. Dr John Bradshaw ( the man talking about dominance theory) is also a world renowned expert on animal behaviour. They see fearful/aggressive dogs on a daily basis and their advice is based on seeing hundreds of dogs, studying animal behaviour full time.

........ .
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm quite sure that they're everything that you say, experts even, but have any of them ever demonstrated, CONSISTENTLY, that they've ever actually trained dogs? Have they ever competed with a dog in any of the accepted disciplines and how, I would like to know, do they fly in the face of all those who work with dogs, professionally, including our Police forces, those who train to International Sheepdog standards, those who are full time Gundog trainers and compete in the National Retriever and Spaniel Championships, those who live and work within all the Canine and highly competitive Sport disciplines, and advise those that succeed, that they are wrong? Have any of those who you've quoted ever had control of a pack of hounds?

Considering all of the above questions, have you any relevant experience? It most certainly isn't my intention to offend you, though I really do think that before you quote the thoughts of others as being set in stone, that you consider those who visibly succeed with dogs, and before you quote those who would advise you that those who are successful have got it all wrong.

For all the above assurances, have you ever seen them actually deal on a one to one basis with dangerous dogs? Despite what these 'experts' tell you, our dogs are our servants, that's how they've developed, and that's how they are happiest. A dog which understands its boundaries, is a dog which is compliant and a dog which is compliant is dog who is the servant of man. Before you shout at me, Master and Servant is by matter of mutual respect, and for respect to be maintained, so someone has to make the decisions, and that has to be Man.

Two truisms for you;

Pack hierarchy and leadership stem from the most subtle of nuances, and it has nothing to do with violence, and everything to do with mutual respect.

The list is never ending of those who through scholarly learning, will advise others that they have a bright and new set of ideas. I assure you that there is nothing new to be achieved in dog training beyond understanding the precept of pack membership and the conditions by which our canines are happiest. It's to do with understanding the dog.

Alec.
 
Nice one Alec, though I would put your tin hat on mate.
Discipline does not neccesarily mean bullying. Bribery only works till something better comes along for the dog (or the child for that matter)
 
There is a world of difference between bribery and reinforcement. All animals learn by reinforcement of one kind or another - if the consequence of an action is either bad or missing, it is unlikely to be repeated. If the consequence is pleasant it will repeated. That's how all of us in the animal kingdom learn to cope with our world.
And it is the case that the majority of people who undertake behavioural training get into that area because they have encountered a problem dog who didn't respond to "conventional" methods - much like horse owners and "natural" horsemanship. I know I did - got given a Cocker spaniel who was allegedly a rager. he wasn't, he was very possessive and had been taught to effectively defend himself by a succession of owners trying coercive methods.
If you have mostly had dogs from puppies you will train them to what you require, the real test comes when you rehome or rescue a dog with baggage - and are not prepared to transgress in to outright cruelty to enforce your will on it.
 
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".

Well done you, Alec! But will knowing the truth make a hoot of difference? Dog training is subject to the law of inverse proportionality. The fewer dogs you've trained, the more you know. That is one of those eternal truths that cannot be argued!
 
Well, the cocker spaniel in question had been thrashed with a riding whip, and one so-called "trainer" I saw would pick a GSD up by its check chain and suspend it in mid air when it had "transgressed". Is that not cruelty in your book? But that is the kind of thing that general coercion can lead to if it doesn't work - it escalates fairly quickly, particularly in the hands of inexperienced "trainers". I would far rather they learned a system that works as well and is less open to doing damage.
Can I ask, Alec and Dry Rot, have you ever tried reinforcement training? If you can say yes, and thoroughly, and with no success, well, I will bow to your superior knowledge. I have tried both and have found reinforcement training to be quieter, kinder, less stressful and very much more effective, particularly in dogs with history.
A very experienced and well respected vet and dog behaviourist I knew reckoned applying physical punishment to a dog could be likened to standing on a bar of wet soap - in a percentage of cases it works, in a further percentage the soap shoots off into the distance and in the remainder the soap shatters into many many pieces.
 
JillA said:
Well, the cocker spaniel in question had been thrashed with a riding whip, and one so-called "trainer" I saw would pick a GSD up by its check chain and suspend it in mid air when it had "transgressed". Is that not cruelty in your book? But that is the kind of thing that general coercion can lead to if it doesn't work - it escalates fairly quickly, particularly in the hands of inexperienced "trainers". I would far rather they learned a system that works as well and is less open to doing damage.
Can I ask, Alec and Dry Rot, have you ever tried reinforcement training? If you can say yes, and thoroughly, and with no success, well, I will bow to your superior knowledge. I have tried both and have found reinforcement training to be quieter, kinder, less stressful and very much more effective, particularly in dogs with history.
A very experienced and well respected vet and dog behaviourist I knew reckoned applying physical punishment to a dog could be likened to standing on a bar of wet soap - in a percentage of cases it works, in a further percentage the soap shoots off into the distance and in the remainder the soap shatters into many many pieces.
Click to expand...

I find that post both patronising and arrogant. I republished a book describing this type of psychological training over thirty years ago that had been written 140 years before that. You have no idea how either Alec or myself train dogs and your comments are pure speculation. I'll go further and say I don't think you have much of a clue about dog training but "In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king". Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs!
 
Dry Rot said:
I find that post both patronising and arrogant. I republished a book describing this type of psychological training over thirty years ago that had been written 140 years before that. You have no idea how either Alec or myself train dogs and your comments are pure speculation. I'll go further and say I don't think you have much of a clue about dog training but "In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king". Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs!
Click to expand...


Lol, what irony.
 
Alec and DR , I think you are seeing things as a bit too black and white here. I do believe sometimes more than just positive reinforcement is needed, i.e. a firm correction if a dog is totally out of order, but having owned dogs through the whole change from most training being done by force to it being done by mainly positive reinforcement, I think as dog owners we should always be open to new approaches. A pup from my last litter went to an chap who was head of the dog division of a police force for many years, on retirement from the police he travelled all over the world advising on the training of search dogs. He trains with positive reinforcement methods and his dog is a joy to see. I suspect in the past he used rather more "compelling" methods to get results, but obviously feels there are better ways to do things now.

I can tell you Alec that some police forces (maybe all, I don't know) do use a lot of positive reinforcement in their training methods, as do top IPO and working trials trainers/handlers. Dry Rot, when you have been doing sleeve work with your lad have you given him the sleeve at the end of a session (under your terms, e.g. not letting him take it and run off with it), then that is positive reinforcement.
I am not always a huge fan of behaviourists, but I do think she gave all the right advice to the owner of the nervous springer, her only mistake in my view was not telling Mark Evans that he was totally wrong in the way he approached the dog.
 
I'm about to go to work, so very briefly, it is rewarding the behaviour you wish to achieve. It isn't just as simple as pushing treats in though which is where many go wrong, you have to reward at the exact instant the dog does the right thing, which is why clicker training is often used, so that once the dog knows what the clicker means , you can get your timing right. I am no expert, as I have already said I used to be of the school that thought a good yank on the check collar was the answer to everything (and shock, horror, will still use this), but in my mind you certainly get the same results but with happier dogs using more positive training.
 
As I've said, I watched about five minutes of the program and then watched no more for fear of my blood pressure.

Because neither Alec nor myself parade our credentials around the countryside does not mean that we know nothing about dog training! I suspect we could both teach the "experts" a thing or two.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous to explain training to me when I haven't asked the question? Alec has, so I am sure he appreciates your opinion. To satisfy my own curiosity, I did a quick Google. I was disappointed not to learn anything new at all. It may be new to you and the "experts" but, as I've said, the advice has been in print for at least 170 years (written up by a Colonel in the cavalry) and was certainly extant for many centuries before that.

Sometimes a dog needs a kind word and a soft touch, sometimes a tap with a stick at the right time is far more effective. Pity the same criteria aren't still applied to children and then perhaps we wouldn't have so much delinquency in society. This is my last post on this thread because I think it is getting a bit ridiculous.
 
Alec Swan said:
Yes, I'm quite sure that they're everything that you say, experts even, but have any of them ever demonstrated, CONSISTENTLY, that they've ever actually trained dogs? Have they ever competed with a dog in any of the accepted disciplines and how, I would like to know, do they fly in the face of all those who work with dogs, professionally, including our Police forces, those who train to International Sheepdog standards, those who are full time Gundog trainers and compete in the National Retriever and Spaniel Championships, those who live and work within all the Canine and highly competitive Sport disciplines, and advise those that succeed, that they are wrong? Have any of those who you've quoted ever had control of a pack of hounds?



Alec.
Click to expand...

I think its worth remembering that Daniel Mills and the other behaviourists on the programme are dealing primarily with companion animals in the home.

I understand that the other dog training disciplines mentioned here should have methods that are equally applicable, but for the most part, veterinary animal behaviour cases (which forms the majority of the programmes examples) are about training owners, not dogs!

In this, I will say Daniel Mills is an expert and worth paying attention to. If your benchmark is someone who has years of experience with working dogs then yes, it will make you dubious as to their credentials.

I was taught by Daniel Mills in my undergraduate degree, and I have my own opinion on him, particularly with regards to his horse handling experience ;)
 
I don't really care about qualifications, but the trainers who I admire, whose dogs I would like my own to behave like, which are compliant yet happy and enjoy a good relationship with their owner, use a mix of classical (ding ding, food!) and operant (dog does something which results in reward/removal of reward/correction/removal of correction).
These are the ways in which most dogs learn.
In my own discipline, the dog is marked on the overall picture and must be happy in his work. If he looks worried, stressed or pressured, even if he does everything else to the letter, you can say goodbye to your points and it will be commented upon by the judge.
 
I know I only have a couple of labs, so easy dogs, and I haven't watched the program, but surely it is entirely common sense, as has been said on here by DR and CC, that sometimes you stroke the dog and say well done, maybe even give a treat if the situation merits it, and sometimes you smack its bum? If my lab puppy was doing a major transgression like chasing the chickens (she doesn't) I would shout no, run up and smack her. As she ignores them when we walk past them I say 'Good girl'. Doesn't everyone really do that? If she is chewing something she shouldn't have I just take it off her, no smack or no, just remove the object.
People seem to assume that Alec trains by beating it if it is bad and not beating it if it is good. I doubt he would have many dogs bringing him a pheasant if that was the case.
 
Alec Swan said:
Describe your understanding of 'Reinforcement Training', to me if you will.
Click to expand...

Yes. When you answer my question about whether you have retrained adult dogs with baggage. And tell me something about the methods you use. DR accused me of assuming - of course I do, in the absence of any relevant information, given the attitude taken to more behavioural methods.
Oh, and John Fisher, one of the best behaviourists of his generation, helped the Met Police Dog section retrain their dogs using reinforcement methods, and gained much more focus, co-operation and enthusiasm as a result.
Which book DR?
I LOVE a well reasoned argument ;)
 
........ Originally Posted by Alec Swan
Describe your understanding of 'Reinforcement Training', to me if you will. ........

JillA said:
Yes. When you answer my question about whether you have retrained adult dogs with baggage. ........
Click to expand...

I've searched back and I can't find either your question, or a condition attached to my reply. Answering questions with further questions is hardly good enough.

Again, explain to me how you would see your apparently favoured 'Reinforcement Training', working both from a juvenile through to a 'Taken in and problematic adult'. I've had both, many of them, I've succeeded and I've failed too. Answer my initial question, without prevarication, and we'll debate the matter further, if that's what you wish.

Alec.
 
paisley said:
I think its worth remembering that Daniel Mills and the other behaviourists on the programme are dealing primarily with companion animals in the home.

........ are about training owners, not dogs!

........
Click to expand...

The companion animal in the home, is a dog. The Poodle sitting in the lap of an elderly lady (probably both with rotting teeth), and the Rott on a chain, and the winner of a Nationals, ........ 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.

Every dog, how ever it may initially rail against 'rule', will present a happier and a more peaceful disposition, when it accepts its place, in the pack. Those who tell you otherwise will be those who write books, those who have Doctorates, and those who've never demonstrated their abilities.

Harsh words, and they're not directed at you, they're directed at those who would claim to be qualified. I'm not amongst them, I make no claims.

Alec.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top