Dogs: Their Secret Lives episode 2 aggression

Last edited:
As someone that has grown up with family / companion dogs, how are we supposed to know what to do when the (to my eyes) 'experts' can't agree? Is it any wonder these TV programmes create such a fuss? Personally, I'm on my second rescue dog (not including family dogs growing up) and the methods I use with her are completely different to those I used with the first - surely there isn't one correct method for all individuals? My current dog is four and I've had her 6 months. She spent her life until rescue in a dog pack in a field with little human contact. She doesn't play with toys, doesn't pick things up in her mouth, can't handle formal training but is very sensitive to tone of voice and body language so everything is 'experience' based. If I were to treat her the way I did my first 'own' dog, she'd shut down. Maybe it's different with puppies as they are more of a blank canvas? A lot of it is common sense, especially the basics, but it's difficult for the amateur owner to know what to do for the best.
 
puppystitch said:
As someone that has grown up with family / companion dogs, how are we supposed to know what to do when the (to my eyes) 'experts' can't agree? Is it any wonder these TV programmes create such a fuss? Personally, I'm on my second rescue dog (not including family dogs growing up) and the methods I use with her are completely different to those I used with the first - surely there isn't one correct method for all individuals? My current dog is four and I've had her 6 months. She spent her life until rescue in a dog pack in a field with little human contact. She doesn't play with toys, doesn't pick things up in her mouth, can't handle formal training but is very sensitive to tone of voice and body language so everything is 'experience' based. If I were to treat her the way I did my first 'own' dog, she'd shut down. Maybe it's different with puppies as they are more of a blank canvas? A lot of it is common sense, especially the basics, but it's difficult for the amateur owner to know what to do for the best.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate how difficult and confusing it must be as an owner when as trainers, as you say can't appear to agree. I would say it then needs to be what feels most comfortable to you in what you use to train your own dog. Did you read the article above which gives you the science behind all training? The main differences between trainers is which type of punishment or reinforcements used.
There is a new challenge called the Worlds Dog Trainers MotivationTransparency Challenge on Facebook where you can see a number of top trainers from the U.K and other countries as well as other trainers. Check it out.
 
But none of this science is new. Pavlov rang a bell and fed the dog. Skinner's lab rats learned to push a lever and get food, or push a lever and turn off the electric current running through the floor.
 
CorvusCorax said:
But none of this science is new. Pavlov rang a bell and fed the dog. Skinner's lab rats learned to push a lever and get food, or push a lever and turn off the electric current running through the floor.
Click to expand...
No...the learning theory is not new! Its the application of the theory from which the differences in training arise. The main "argument" is with regard to "punishment" where some trainers apply punishment, such as lead jerks and other physical corrections, use spray or electric collars or smack the dog for unwanted behaviour to stop it being repeated (the dog avoids the behavior due to the unpleasant consequence, to avoid hurt or pain) where others punish by simply removing rewards or access to good stuff for unwanted behaviours. Although where possible they prefer to encourage the dog to offer wanted behaviours instead by rewarding them when they get it right.
Many think reward based training is just about chucking food down a dog where actually its about "rewarding" the dog for getting it right and withdrawing rewards when it gets it wrong. No discomfort, confusion and a great relationship with your dog!
 
Burtyler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you need to have a primary reinforcer? Is tone of voice/your demeanour never enough?

Genuine question from a serial borrower of other people's dogs and on the basis that I think the pony knows what good lad means but he certainly doesn't get a treat when I'm riding/lungeing etc.
 
ester said:
Do you need to have a primary reinforcer? Is tone of voice/your demeanour never enough?

Genuine question from a serial borrower of other people's dogs and on the basis that I think the pony knows what good lad means but he certainly doesn't get a treat when I'm riding/lungeing etc.
Click to expand...

Some dogs may find praise rewarding but it iwould be more efficient if it has been previously paired with a primary reinforcer, such as food. Also when initially training new behaviours or when training with high levels of distraction then food is usually more effective to start with! We often say something like ,"good dog" naturally when they get something right so pair that with food to begin with them it actually establishes a meaning or association with good stuff to the dog
 
Thankyou Burtyler, I haven't read the article yet as I can only sneakily log on here at work during the week so I'll save it for the weekend. I really find these conversations interesting, as long as they stay civil, as I can see benefits / negatives to both camps and us outsiders can learn a lot. To be honest, I'm so proud of the progress my girl has made without me committing to any kind of method - I'll never be able to get her to sit from 100yds away but equally, I don't really need her to.
 
Dry Rot - that video was a joy to watch. Happy dogs who look to you and want to do what you say. Absolutely fantastic.
 
QUOTE-The 'inexperienced ' woman advising them was Emily Blackwell a lecturer in canine behaviour at Bristol University with 15 years experience. UNQUOTE

Hi came across this post when browsing & did a google search on dr emily blackwell & clicked a video link it gave, seems she might be held in high esteem by some here but it sure dont seem to a wide spread sentiment thats for sure, see the vid I found which brought up a whole lot more about similar things!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXr4yVPhsig
 
Burtyler
No...the learning theory is not new!*

Malbbe
Hi Burtyler, Ive been trying understand what scientific theory many of the posts are really referring to, so, can you tell me what study or whose' 'learning theory' is being referred to throughout this post? Thanks.
 
Blimey....where do I start....? We are talking a type of learning called "conditioning".
Quote "Operant conditioning (or instrumental conditioning) is a type of learning in which an individual's behavior is modified by its antecedents and consequences. Instrumental conditioning was first discovered and published by Jerzy Konorski and was also referred to as Type II reflexes. Mechanisms of instrumental conditioning suggest that the behavior may change in form, frequency, or strength. The expressions "operant behavior" and "respondent behavior" were popularized by B. F. Skinner."
 
Does that help?
I can also suggest various articles and books for example "how dogs learn" by Burch and Bailey which covers the early trainers and how they used and developed the scientific principles to where we have ended up today.
 
I watched the video and thought wow what a stitch up, how can Emily Backwell be responsible for the death of that Dobermann, all this video says is the dog was uncomfortable in her presence and she put it on a behavioural modification plan whatever that was as it never says. We are never told whether this dog had a full medical before hand either, I would have liked to have known where this dog was bred because it sounds a very nervous dog and the sort you could buy from a puppy farmer or BYB so its behaviour could well have been genetic. The fact its behaviour worsened after Emily Backwells involvement isnt conclusive either as if it was genetic or medical would have happened anyway. It is quite possible if Emily Backwell hadnt been involved the outcome would have been the same. The truth is no one knows based on the evidence in that video whether that dog was failed at all, but to blacken someones reputation and dragging in Dr Ryan as well is a low thing to do.

Imo half the people who own Dobermanns shouldnt, a lot come in through rescue with behavioural problems which are the result of lack of training from their previous owners or neglect, they are not an easy breed as they require lots of exercise and mental stimulation which these owners are not prepared to give them and half the time the dogs are more intelligent than the owners.
 
Santa's-a-scam 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?

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.
Click to expand...
Well said Alec
 
The concept of us being the "leader of the pack" is an outdated theory.
I do however, as the article below suggests agree that we need to provide leadership and guidance for our dogs. Being a simple "leader" may be (?) a better way of describing our relationship with our dogs as using the term
"pack leader" tends to draw people into this need to dominate the dog.
https://positively.com/dog-training/myths-truths/pack-theory-debunked/
 
Burtyler said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
Click to expand...


Operant conditioning Operant conditioning, sometimes referred to as instrumental learning, is a method of learning that occurs through rewards and punishments for behavior. It encourages the subject to associate pleasure (positive) or displeasure (negative) with the type of behavior. Instrumental conditioning was first discovered and published by Jerzy Konorski and was also referred to as Type II reflexes. Mechanisms of instrumental conditioning suggest that the behavior may change in form, frequency, or strength. The expressions “operant behavior” and “respondent behavior were popularized by B.F. Skinner who worked on reproduction of Konorski’s experiments. Operant behavior means that “a response is followed by a reinforcing stimulus”.

So Skinner, et all, having now attached their own labelling system, and claimed ownership, to a system which by and large has been in use, for centuries. Others will now tell me, I'm sure, that their experiences are to the contrary, but when I tell a dog to Sit or Lye-down, or to Stay, and then if I tell the dog that he's a 'Good boy', he will immediately break from where he is, so giving the dog mixed messages. Replacing the dog where he was tends to either negate the original command, or the meaning behind praising him. Allowing a dog to leave us and to go and follow our instructions, in what ever discipline, tends to hinge around 'allowing' the dog to work, and unless the animal is a puppy and perhaps unsure of what it wants to do, or the dog has performed a particularly arduous task, then praise, seems to me anyway, to be superfluous. Sending a dog to his bed, and then telling him that he's a good boy, will also often have the dog consider that 'Good Boy' is his release, at least that what I've always found.

It's my belief that no dog will perform a duty, or follow an instruction, at least with any apparent pleasure, unless it actually wants to. The question of reward and punishment only applies when either the dog's, unsure of what's wanted, hence we give encouragement, or that it's understood what's wanted, and blatantly ignores the instruction, and that is all so often because the thought of receiving the reward isn't as important as is riot! He's probably going to get the reward anyway, so why should he bother.

I have yet to understand the use of the word 'Conditioning' when used in dog training, other than it being the very early days of training and when we 'condition' a puppy to abide by our will. The early days for a puppy are like the foundations upon which we build a relationship, and 'conditioning' becomes ever more difficult when we enter the dog's life at a latter stage. Conditioning of puppies to accept our will, and from the word go, is an almost imperceptible progress, where the puppy learns without it being compliant. With young puppies (age measured in weeks rather than months) strict compliance via conditioning, is all so often the undoing of potentially useful dogs. In short, too much is done too soon, and there have been some potentially useful dogs who's been undone in such a manner.

Having struggled through some of the learned works which have been quoted, and being ever able to listen to the views of others, I often come away wondering just what the writer is on about, or when I actually grasp their point, realising that they are attempting to reinvent the wheel.

Alec.
 
It's my belief that no dog will perform a duty, or follow an instruction, at least with any apparent pleasure, unless it actually wants to.
Hoorah, you have reached the whole point. Conditioning is a means of changing a dogs perception so that he does want to do what is being cued.

How do you train a recall without a positive reinforcer?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
JillA said:
……..

How do you train a recall without a positive reinforcer?
Click to expand...

All dogs, especially those which are performing tasks for which they were bred, or are focussed on, will be of neither use or purpose until they understand the precept of compliance with their handlers wishes. That is at the basics of all dog training.

Discipline, and an understanding that I will be obeyed. There are several ways of achieving it, but they all hinge around the dog wishing to abide by my will, and that's dependant upon many factors, the dog's demeanour being first; Terriers are hard work, as are some of the more opinionated gundogs, and as with many other exercises, the ingrained 'return to heal' is best installed within controlled environments, and before the temptation of the big wild world has too much of an influence. Constant change of direction is another, where by the dog is constantly looking for its owner, is another, but never, upon NEVER would I EVER use any form of food inducement. We revert to the word discipline. Should a dog which refuses to comply with my wishes, refuse to listen to my stop whistle, then any form of recall is a waste of time. The dog is dealt with, and sometimes harshly because he refused to stop when ordered. A dog which has stopped, is the one which will return. A dog which is at full tilt in the opposite direction is never going to listen to any recall whistle. Discipline.

Alec.
Click to expand...
 
Alec .....Even when using "discipline" do you not use any form of praise or reward...... a game or a toy for any dog that does as you "order" them to do? How do they know when they have done the right thing or do you only let them know when they get it wrong?
 
Who mentioned food? And what do you do with the dogs who don't "stop"?
You mentioned some time ago about no professional dog trainer using reinforcers - what about the sniffer dogs or rescue dogs who get to play with a toy when they have identified their target?
 
There is always an assumption that reward or reinforcement means shoving food down a dog........ it shows a lack of understanding of what Positive Reinforcement means.
Positive means adding something Reinforcement means something the dog likes or finds rewarding (in THEIR opinion) which will increase the likelihood of the behaviour happening again. So Positive Reinforcement means adding something the dog likes in order to encourage the dog to do that behaviour again....because we have made it worth their while. Not simply MADE them do it because WE said so......
 
I can stop my Goldie in his tracks with a ball. For example he was just going off chasing a Muntjack and I simply said his name and Get it....his cue for the ball.... and there he was with me and after the ball. No running in and grabbing him, no yelling and it took me no time at all to train it.
 
Burtyler said:
Alec .....Even when using "discipline" do you not use any form of praise or reward...... a game or a toy for any dog that does as you "order" them to do? How do they know when they have done the right thing or do you only let them know when they get it wrong?
Click to expand...

I never play games with dogs and they never have toys. That includes dogs which are house living pets. Orders, or 'instructions' are just that, and the dogs's reward is compliance. The 'compliance' and the return to a stationary position, sometimes at a range of between 1-300 yards, is simply a delay until the dog is released from it's 'stand-still' and by whistle or command, it continues with the remainder of its task. My dogs view work as privilege, and they love their work. Mostly all that I do is steer them, and as the dog's experience grows, then I learn when to interfere, and stop them, and when to leave well alone.

A hesitant puppy or a dog which is unsure of itself has praise lavished upon it, by way of encouragement. When the dog learns right from wrong, because there are no mixed and confusing messages, then mostly they comply. If they don't understand, then they're stopped and taken back to the start of what they were supposed to be doing. If as often happens, with a hard-going or potentially wilful dog, should they choose to riot, then depending upon the severity of the crime, is dependent upon what happens next! The best dogs that I've ever had are those which are on the point of riot, but under control. It's from these dogs that the best results are obtained. I don't want a dog to work 'for' me, but 'for' himself.

JillA said:
Who mentioned food? And what do you do with the dogs who don't "stop"?
You mentioned some time ago about no professional dog trainer using reinforcers - what about the sniffer dogs or rescue dogs who get to play with a toy when they have identified their target?
Click to expand...

Food? I thought that those who use clickers carry about a bag of treats with them. Otherwise what would be the point to the clicker? Dogs that don't 'stop' learn to stop, firstly 10 feet away, then 10 yards, until I know that they'll stop upon command. It isn't difficult, when the reward is that they're allowed to continue with what they're doing, which is their main purpose. Initially, the first stop is only for a second or two, and then as training progresses, it can be five minutes, or even longer.

With most search dogs there is no need for discipline, and the whole exercise is a game, most it seems have a dog which lives its life in a wound-up state. I know of many first class search dogs which have never had a toy, because they've been trained by those who have learned by experience and example, rather than from what they've read. I once had my clean luggage virtually shredded by a Springer at Customs, and when I remonstrated with the handler, he said "Know more than me about search work with a dog do you? "Yes I do", I replied, "and if you'd like me to speak with your Section Commander, I could help set up a section of others than idiots". He didn't look too pleased, but then neither was I, his behaviour was unprofessional and he had a dog which constantly over-ran its nose, and wasn't actually working!

There are moments when I stroke my dogs, and make silly oogy-googy noises, but it's rare, beyond the stage of puppyhood!

Alec.
 
I am fascinated so thanks for being so open and honest. Its an importamt lesson for us all to learn. However, I have to say,personally Alec I do not totally agree with your methods. But I understand why you do what you do for the results you get. You do use reward.....the dog gets to continue what its doing.
I think some of it is because my dogs and many others are pets. �� I will agree to disagree.
I want happy dogs.....I don't need my dogs to stop on a sixpence but if I did I would still prefer to teach what I want and reward when they get it right.....with food or toys or whatever my dogs enjoy. I don't believe my dogs should be slaves and do what I expect... I will pay them for what they do...I want them to do it because it feels good.. But that's my decision, my choice.
P.S I realise the way this is read may be different to how I "said" it myself but its meant well.
 
Burtyler, thank you for your post. I'm not really the monster that some would have you believe, and one thing of which I can assure you; My dogs have always meant the world to me and me to them. Further, just because I often disagree with others, that doesn't mean that I'm always wrong! :)

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