# Dogs: Their Secret Lives episode 2 aggression



## horselib (26 August 2014)

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


----------



## Teaselmeg (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## horselib (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## JillA (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## MurphysMinder (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Dry Rot (27 August 2014)

I knew it was going to annoy me and it only took about five minutes to find my prejudices were justified!


----------



## ribbons (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Teaselmeg (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## ribbons (27 August 2014)

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)


----------



## JillA (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Dry Rot (27 August 2014)

"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!


----------



## Alec Swan (27 August 2014)

JillA said:



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

Describe 'outright cruelty' to me.

Alec.


----------



## JillA (27 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 August 2014)

Describe your understanding of 'Reinforcement Training',  to me if you will.

Alec.


----------



## Dry Rot (28 August 2014)

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!


----------



## Dobiegirl (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## MurphysMinder (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 August 2014)

M_M,  

will you explain to me your understanding of the term "Positive Reinforcement',  and importantly,  how you apply it?

Alec.


----------



## MurphysMinder (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Dry Rot (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## paisley (28 August 2014)

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


----------



## CorvusCorax (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Clodagh (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Dobiegirl (28 August 2014)

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dogs-their-secret-lives/4od#3747829


For anyone who may have missed it first time around or simply wanted to watch it again.


----------



## JillA (28 August 2014)

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


----------



## Alec Swan (28 August 2014)

........ 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.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## samlf (28 August 2014)

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...

Nail on head!


----------



## Burtyler (28 August 2014)

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?


----------



## Alec Swan (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## paisley (28 August 2014)

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 !


----------



## Burtyler (28 August 2014)

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


----------



## Alec Swan (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (28 August 2014)

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 (28 August 2014)

paisley said:



			........

Someone mentioned about the common sense of praise or smack on the bum. ........
		
Click to expand...

Neither have a place in dog training.  Think about it.

Alec.


----------



## paisley (28 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (28 August 2014)

Sorry Alec... Are you saying neither praise nor punishment have a place in dog training??


----------



## paisley (28 August 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Neither have a place in dog training.  Think about it.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Its only as an example of how people often respond. I mention it as it often means nothing in terms of training, so already though about it quite a lot.


----------



## Greybird (29 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Alec Swan (29 August 2014)

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.


----------



## CorvusCorax (29 August 2014)

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


----------



## Burtyler (29 August 2014)

"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.


----------



## Dobiegirl (29 August 2014)

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...


----------



## Burtyler (29 August 2014)

&#55357;&#56833;good points Dobiegirl... Nicely put.


----------



## Spudlet (29 August 2014)

Alec, do you ever tell your dogs they've done well at something?


----------



## Burtyler (29 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Saneta (30 August 2014)

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!


----------



## JillA (31 August 2014)

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?


----------



## galaxy (31 August 2014)

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.


----------



## lexiedhb (31 August 2014)

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.


----------



## Saneta (31 August 2014)

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!!


----------



## Spudlet (1 September 2014)

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!


----------



## Dry Rot (1 September 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (1 September 2014)

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.


----------



## Dry Rot (1 September 2014)

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.  (In the absence of rabbits, they are chasing butterflies and swallows).

[youtube]pAtSGsYQNRw[/youtube]


----------



## Burtyler (1 September 2014)

Sit means lie down..... Ha ha ha...... ;-)


----------



## Burtyler (1 September 2014)

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?


----------



## Dry Rot (1 September 2014)

Burtyler said:



			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?
		
Click to expand...

You can ask all you want!


----------



## Burtyler (2 September 2014)

Dry Rot... I was simply interested as I enjoyed watching your video. But if you are saving it for when you sell your videos on then fair enough. I dont do silly games.
For anyone interested in reward based and positive training of dogs here is an interesting read that may help clarify what it is all about http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/pets/is-a-reward-trained-dog-a-misbehaving-dog-positively-not/


----------



## puppystitch (2 September 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (2 September 2014)

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.


----------



## CorvusCorax (2 September 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (2 September 2014)

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!


----------



## ester (2 September 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (2 September 2014)

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


----------



## CorvusCorax (2 September 2014)

Nope, not new!!! A dog will do whatever it perceives will make it's life easier/better. Do what suits the individual type dog.


----------



## puppystitch (3 September 2014)

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.


----------



## A1fie (3 September 2014)

Dry Rot - that video was a joy to watch.  Happy dogs who look to you and want to do what you say.  Absolutely fantastic.


----------



## Malbbe (9 December 2014)

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


----------



## Malbbe (9 December 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (9 December 2014)

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."


----------



## Burtyler (9 December 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning


----------



## Burtyler (9 December 2014)

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.


----------



## Dobiegirl (9 December 2014)

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.


----------



## FairyLights (10 December 2014)

Well said ALEC sorry left off the quote . see below


----------



## FairyLights (10 December 2014)

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


----------



## Burtyler (10 December 2014)

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/


----------



## Alec Swan (13 December 2014)

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 &#8220;operant behavior&#8221; and &#8220;respondent behavior were popularized by B.F. Skinner who worked on reproduction of Konorski&#8217;s experiments. Operant behavior means that &#8220;a response is followed by a reinforcing stimulus&#8221;.

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.


----------



## JillA (13 December 2014)

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...


----------



## Alec Swan (13 December 2014)

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...


----------



## Burtyler (13 December 2014)

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?


----------



## JillA (13 December 2014)

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?


----------



## Burtyler (13 December 2014)

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......


----------



## Burtyler (13 December 2014)

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.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 December 2014)

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.


----------



## Burtyler (13 December 2014)

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. &#55357;&#56842; 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.


----------



## Alec Swan (13 December 2014)

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.


----------



## Dobiegirl (15 December 2014)

Did anyone see Countryfile last night? they were training Cockers & Springers using a clicker and a toy as a reward.


----------



## Alec Swan (15 December 2014)

Dobiegirl said:



			Did anyone see Countryfile last night? they were training Cockers & Springers using a clicker and a toy as a reward.
		
Click to expand...

Yes,  I did see it.  I wonder if they'll be brave enough to show the handlers and pupils on a 500 bird day,  and in the thick of it!! It'll be entertaining,  I expect! 

Alec.


----------



## Dobiegirl (15 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			Yes,  I did see it.  I wonder if they'll be brave enough to show the handlers and pupils on a 500 bird day,  and in the thick of it!! It'll be entertaining,  I expect! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing as mundane as that, Great Crested Newts and Bats are not your average pheasant so I would imagine different methods were called for, they also gave lots of praise, its obviously working so you have to grant them that.


----------



## Clodagh (15 December 2014)

In Shooting Times a couple of weeks ago in the Q&A bit someone asked about trainin gand was told clicker training was slow to catch on but was absolutely the way forward so attititudes are changing.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 December 2014)

Clodagh said:



			In Shooting Times a couple of weeks ago in the Q&A bit someone asked about trainin gand was told clicker training was slow to catch on but was absolutely the way forward so attititudes are changing.
		
Click to expand...

Traitor! 

Alec.


----------



## Clodagh (16 December 2014)

LOL Alec, made me laugh too. I can't see me tryinmg it tbh, I would never cooridinate clicker and treat and keep my eyes on the ball (dog) at the same time. Will continue praise for good work here.


----------



## Burtyler (16 December 2014)

Like everything new to us handling a clicker takes practise. 
By the way it is often mainly used when teaching a behaviour and then once the behaviour is learnt a verbal marker (praise word) can be used. 
The big advantage of a clicker is it is a quick, clear and consistent marker......plus it reaches the dogs brain (in the amygdallia?) faster than the spoken word! 

Not clicker training but this may be of interest........
https://positively.com/community/positively-contributors/thomas-aaron/


----------



## gunnergundog (16 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			Yes,  I did see it.  I wonder if they'll be brave enough to show the handlers and pupils on a 500 bird day,  and in the thick of it!! It'll be entertaining,  I expect! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

You need to spend a day out with Helen Phillips and her husband Chris!  Helen wrote Clicker Gundog....11-12 years ago now, so this is not a new application of the science!.....her first clicker dog was Thorn, a Viz, who worked as a very competent picker-upper on driven shoots.  Previous dogs were cross-over dogs - dogs trained traditionally then  moved over to clicker; there have however been many dogs subsequently.....including springers.  Helen is probably not a 100% clicker purist, but has proven that there is a role for clicker in the gundog world.


----------



## Spudlet (17 December 2014)

Or this lady! http://www.dogsforlife.co.uk/index.aspx


----------



## Malbbe (17 December 2014)

Clickers are old hat, very old hat, probably why some think they are new is because the idea is a selling point by the recent (15 years or so) development of COMMERCIAL dog trainers, more often selling themselves as 'reward' or 'positive' trainers & 'behaviourists'...IT'S ALL SALES TALK.

As regards clickers, they used to be known as >'crickets'<, they have been around as a fidget toy since appx 1920's/30's -used by US marines as a communication device in WW2 &, back to dogs,......In 1951, B F Skinner (founder of modern behaviourist psychology) wrote a paper titled 'How To Teach Animals'.......Skinners sentence is directly relevant to clickers (crickets) & 'supposed' 'commercial modern dog training' is below (paste).

B F Skinner
"For a conditioned reinforcer you need a clear signal which can be given instantly and to
which the subject is sure to respond. It may be a noise or a flash of light. A whistle is not
recommended because of the time it takes to draw a breath before blowing it. A visual signal like a
wave of the arm may not always be seen by the animal. A convenient signal is a rap on a table with a
small hard object or the noise of a high-pitched device such as a "cricket."

Ref
B F Skinner, 'How To Teach Animals', Harvard, 1951.
.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 December 2014)

Malbbe said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

B F Skinner
"For a conditioned reinforcer you need a clear signal which can be given instantly and to
which the subject is sure to respond. It may be a noise or a flash of light. A whistle is not
recommended because of the time it takes to draw a breath before blowing it. A visual signal like a
wave of the arm may not always be seen by the animal. A convenient signal is a rap on a table with a
small hard object or the noise of a high-pitched device such as a "cricket."

Ref
B F Skinner, 'How To Teach Animals', Harvard, 1951.
.
		
Click to expand...

I'd have loved to see B F Skinner handling a dog at 300 yards,  with anything other than a whistle,  supported either by a changed whistle tone,  or hand signals!  A dog which accepts hand signals at 10 yards,  and when focussed on its handler at 300 yards,  sees them,  trust me!

Alec.


----------



## Malbbe (17 December 2014)

Skinner never would or never implied in any way that OC (operant conditioning) could be consistently & reliably applied outside lab conditions, neither did he ever mention anything significant about dogs or their training. 

What Skinner did write in his primary, probably most important, work & which founded modern behaviourism, was in keeping with what you just wrote, in 1938 Skinner said: 

"The dynamic properties which are fundamental to a science of behavior can be properly >>>>investigated only in the laboratory<<<. Casual or even clinical observation is ill-adapted to the study of*processes,*as distinct from momentary features".

Ref
B F Skinner, (1938), 'The Behavior Of Organisms', Copley Publishing Group, Acton, Masachutsetts, 01720
.


----------



## Burtyler (18 December 2014)

Clickers are old hat, very old hat, probably why some think they are new is because the idea is a selling point by the recent (15 years or so) development of COMMERCIAL dog trainers, more often selling themselves as 'reward' or 'positive' trainers & 'behaviourists'...IT'S ALL SALES TALK.

I may be considered one of these "commercial" dog trainers but I don't think we are selling the idea of clicker training as being new any more than Pirelli or Goodyear are selling their tyres as being new. What we are attempting to do is to encourage owners back to using it as a training method. 
Speaking for myself I have read about and studied the roots of modern behaviourist psychology on which I base my methods and I know that all the members of the associations I belong to are required to understand it in order to qualify as members.
The concept of "positive" or "reward based" training is a way of identifying the methodology we are using.


----------



## Burtyler (18 December 2014)

Alec. 
When you first start to train any dog do you not begin at a very close range to them? You wouldn't try stopping a dog at 300 yards from the outset...... you start close and then add distance. 
The clicker is used to tell the dog they achieved the behaviour you wanted not as a signal to tell them to DO a behaviour. The whistle or hand signal is merely a CUE like asking a dog to sit.....its a signal of what you want them to do. So if you are teaching a whistle tone or hand signal....in the early stages close to the dog.... you can use a clicker to indicate to the dog when they offer the correct response to your hand signal or whistle that you gave them.


----------



## Malbbe (20 December 2014)

Burtyler - The clicker is used to tell the dog they achieved the behaviour you wanted not as a signal to tell them to DO a behaviour. -

Clickers >& other sonic devices< were in common widespread use with dogs in the circuses, they could be used as a conditioned reinforcer or they could & were sometimes used to 'instruct' a behaviour. 

As I vaguely remember them then I am pretty sure the circus's had some with slightly, but 'noticably' different tones or something which made some of them sound different, they were often used through a mike & speaker system. That said dog tricks were only a small part of a circus night out, more of a few minuets of fill in portions.


----------



## twiggy2 (20 December 2014)

you can use anything the cue or mark a behaviour including a clicker, however a clicker is generally used to mark behaviour ie indicate to an animal what it has done is correct.

if you use it a cue it is of limited use as a single click could only cue one behaviour but as a marker it can be far more effectively and widely used


----------



## Alec Swan (20 December 2014)

Burtyler said:



			Alec. 
When you first start to train any dog do you not begin at a very close range to them? You wouldn't try stopping a dog at 300 yards from the outset...... you start close and then add distance. 
&#8230;&#8230;...
		
Click to expand...




Santa's-a-scam said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..  Dogs that don't 'stop' learn to stop,  firstly 10 feet away,  then 10 yards,  until I know that they'll stop upon command.  &#8230;&#8230;..

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

All training starts,  'In Hand',  'In the House',  or 'In the Garden',  in other words,  under controlled conditions whereby correction is easily achieved.  Trying to stop a wayward dog at 300 yards,  is a waste of time,  I've found!

Alec.


----------



## Malbbe (21 December 2014)

Quote - Trying to stop a wayward dog at 300 yards, is a waste of time,

Yes, but, what Burtyler can only mean is that dogs are the only species of mammal on the planet which if it is taught/learns what 'to do' it will never do what it should 'not' do with any learning 'process' taking place.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 December 2014)

Malbbe said:



			Quote - Trying to stop a wayward dog at 300 yards, is a waste of time,

Yes, but, what Burtyler can only mean is that dogs are the only species of mammal on the planet which if it is taught/learns what 'to do' it will never do what it should 'not' do with any learning 'process' taking place.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not too sure about that.  Most breeds of dog,  those bred for a purpose (work),  will mostly have a self satisfying and underlying purpose.  Sheepdogs,  for instance will have the base line intention of killing the sheep,  and Gundogs too will be there to catch and kill game.  It's our level of discipline which applies the brakes and has them operating within the bounds which the handler wants.  Sheepdogs and Gundogs,  when they have no training in place (at least,  those with the greatest potential from a 'handling' aspect),  will very quickly revert to their base instincts,  and it isn't so much a case of them learning through training as assuming or learning through a lack of training,  and so their inbuilt and instinctive behaviour patterns,  take over.  And so I believe that learning what not to do isn't so much a process,  as a case of reverting to the animals instinctive behaviour,  a behaviour which we attempt to suppress or at least 'use' to our advantage.

Considering the above paragraph,  can the same be said of the Guard breeds?  I suspect that it can.  I'm trying to think of a breed or type of dog to which the above thoughts don't apply,  but for now,  I can't!  Most breeds of Hounds,  and that would include the Coursing breeds are,  or tend to be,  one step removed from the handling standpoint,  as control and direction have never really been asked of them,  at least not to the extent of most Gundogs and Sheepdogs.

That's what I think! 

Alec.


----------



## Burtyler (21 December 2014)

Malbbe said:



			Quote - Trying to stop a wayward dog at 300 yards, is a waste of time,

Yes, but, what Burtyler can only mean is that dogs are the only species of mammal on the planet which if it is taught/learns what 'to do' it will never do what it should 'not' do with any learning 'process' taking place.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think I only mean that Malbbe!
I agree Alec......bet that surprised you? ;-)


----------



## Malbbe (21 December 2014)

Santa's-a-scam said:



			It's our level of discipline which applies the brakes and has them operating within the bounds which the handler wants............Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably such as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42tNOWAbEE8


----------



## Alec Swan (21 December 2014)

Malbbe,  my Flash Player seems to need upgrading,  and I can't access your youtube inclusion,  perhaps you could describe it too me.

Alec.


----------



## Malbbe (21 December 2014)

Flashplayer is a free download but DOWLOAD ONLY from Adobes site - - NEVER download from any other source or accept any notices which come through to PC's offering 'Flashplayer free download' OR any other site .

This is Adobes main site, you can download it from there:
https://www.adobe.com


----------



## Alec Swan (21 December 2014)

I already have Adobe Flash,  but it disconnects every time that there's a new supplier's update.  It seems to refuse me access.  My Mac guru says that he'll sort it out,  remotely,  when he gets round to it! 

In the meantime,  describe to me how you see the piece of film,  and when my system is again up and running,  we'll see if your interpretation is as mine!

Alec.


----------



## Malbbe (22 December 2014)

I see it as a good example of highlighting the (Skinner 1938) 2 reinforcing stimuli in OC in a live reinforcement training exercise, Skinner wrote - "There are thus two kinds of reinforcing stimuli positive and the cessation of a positive reinforcement acts as a negative, the cessation of a negative as a positive" -

Ref
B F Skinner, 1938, 'The Behavior of Organisms', p 66.


----------



## Alec Swan (22 December 2014)

Burtyler said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..
I agree Alec......bet that surprised you? ;-)
		
Click to expand...

Staggered! 



Malbbe said:



			Presumably such as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42tNOWAbEE8

Click to expand...

I've finally managed to affect the download!  It's such a sense of achievement!! (Sad,  I know)!

There was so much that I couldn't agree with.  Why give an instruction to a dog when he's going to do it anyway?  Once the dog has a grasp of what retrieving is about,  then the dog is 'stopped' or at least stationary ('steady' in correct terms),  and he waits until he's sent.  Once a desire to retrieve is established,  the longer that 'running in' is left,  so the harder it is to achieve 'steadiness'.  Refusing to allow a dog to retrieve,  until he's sent,  is how they are wound-up,  and speed on the outward and return journeys,  and smart retrieves are encouraged.

It is a GOLDEN RULE of retrieving work,  that the dog is NEVER stopped when he's returning with the 'dummy' (retrieved item).  Similarly,  when a dog has his retrieving established,  the item is always taken gently and it becomes the handler's property.  NEVER should the 'dummy' (object item,  whatever) be given back to the dog.  The dummy is the handlers property.  It would be different with a dog doing man-work when he's given the sleeve to play with,  as the sleeve isn't a retrieving item.

When the dog took off after the deer,  the handler didn't stop it,  he used a recall whistle.  When a dog is 'stopped',  and he's about to commit a sin (mortal or otherwise!),  the dog is stopped,  left in the 'down' position,  grumbled at if needs be,  and then left to consider his crime.  If he's simply recalled and without a stop,  then he doesn't learn right from wrong,  he just learns " Not this time".  

I'm sorry to pull it to bits,  but you did ask for an opinion.

Alec.


----------



## Malbbe (22 December 2014)

Alec- "I'm sorry to pull it to bits,"

No need to be sorry, you did not pull anything I said to bits, if you look again at my quote I was talking about the way it illustrated the 2 reinforcers in OC, my comments were on the learning causes, your comments seem to be to do with your subjective perception of 'method(s)', that/those are not the subject I made observations on. 

For the record, skinners OC is not about methods, it is about how learning ocurres, skinner was nothing to do with the potential millions of methods for this & that species or individuals subjective opinions of methods.


----------



## P_Sutcliff (7 January 2015)

Teaslemeg
"The 'inexperienced ' woman advising them was Emily Blackwell a lecturer in canine behaviour at Bristol University with 15 years experience"---"Dr John Bradshaw ( the man talking about dominance theory) is also a world renowned expert on animal behaviour".

I think you need to look around the net more Teaslemeg, 

They are only academics, (ie they can write well in a novel kinda way), who have to sell themselves so naïve young people pay for their degree courses, keep them in a job & their graduates can leave uni waving a bit of paper & wondering why no sensible pet dog owner will employ them these days.

Paying, investing in, any degree course these days needs to lead to profitable employment for life, these dog behaviourist grads were played out by mid tensi's, they had some popularity in 1990's but died out with the reputation of being useless through the first ten years of this century. New dog owners might hire one because they know no better! especially those mentioned, they & their uni have been subject to ridicule all over the net  for a few years now & Dr Rachel Casey has actually been openly accused of lieing & Bristol Uni has called 'the cesspit of science' as a result of their meanderings! 

Dr Emily Blackwell, Dr John Bradshaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXr4yVPhsig

Bristol University, Dr Rachel Casey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-dG53ZkaPY

Google key words search results &#8211; 
Dr Emily Blackwell, Dr Rachel Casey, Dr John Bradshaw
http://bit.ly/1xDqrh7
.


----------



## Alec Swan (7 January 2015)

P_Sutcliff said:



			..

They are only academics, (ie they can write well in a novel kinda way), who have to sell themselves so naïve young people pay for their degree courses, keep them in a job & their graduates can leave uni waving a bit of paper & wondering why no sensible pet dog owner will employ them these days.

Paying, investing in, any degree course these days needs to lead to profitable employment for life, these dog behaviourist grads were played out by mid tensi's, they had some popularity in 1990's but died out with the reputation of being useless through the first ten years of this century. New dog owners might hire one because they know no better! especially those mentioned, they & their uni have been subject to ridicule all over the net  for a few years now & Dr Rachel Casey has actually been openly accused of lieing & Bristol Uni has called 'the cesspit of science' as a result of their meanderings! 

..
.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect that the now seemingly popular 'Doctorate of Dog Training',  has clear parallels with the boom in the 1990s of Ostrich Farming.  The only people who had any success as Ostrich Farmers,  were those who set themselves up as gurus on the subject,  and also advised and sold the wherewithal to landowners whereby they could 'Farm"(!) Ostriches.  Ostrich Farming was a colossal failure,  for just about every client of the Advisors.  Similarly,  those who achieve degree status as Dog Trainers,  rarely,  that I've seen anyway,  sell themselves and their thoughts to those who are anything other than gullible,  and who also lack any practical experience,  and the term,  though not intentionally being meant in an insulting manner,  is that it's al so often a case of the blind leading the blind.

The canine mind is actually a very basic and simple organism,  calling for basic and simple approaches,  and to attempt to bamboozle the rest of the canine world into believing that there's a level of ethereal or previously unconsidered thought processes,  speaks to me of the charlatan.  To support my argument,  perhaps we can consider the training of horses.  Perhaps we can consider the Roberts,  the Withefords,  the Maxwells and others,  those who have an understanding of the equine mind,  and I'd be very surprised to hear that there's a BA amongst them!  I'd be equally surprised to hear that any of those who are truly successful and would be considered as world authorities,  have ever read,  or written,  a 'paper'!

I'll be quite honest,  what makes these claims ever more ridiculous,  are the labels which are attached to the theorised twaddle!  Understanding the mind of a dog,  is a simple and basic process.  How successful we are is in achieving our goals with a dog,  is generally dependent upon how we apply ourselves,  and not by confusing the issues involved by needless and complicated over-thinking.

Alec.


----------



## P_Sutcliff (7 January 2015)

Alec Swan said:



			is that it's al so often a case of the blind leading the blind.Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Portrait of last years Lincoln University animal behaviour grads.
http://bit.ly/1BMBMKU
.


----------

