It was, perhaps, the longest 10 minutes I can remember. Certainly my older dog Tiramisu didn’t seem to mind. But I had to seriously consider what was going on in the head of my 14 month old Belgian Shepherd Rizzo. After asking him to “Sit!”, there I stood, a full 10 minutes later, still waiting for his butt to hit the ground.
It’s never good practice to “nag” the dog by repeating the cue for a behaviour. Doing that can give them the idea that they are not required to respond to your first or even second or third request. Was my dog being stubborn? Did he not hear me? Perhaps this was some peculiar form of canine practical joke. It isn’t like there wasn’t something in it for Rizzo. We were all waiting to go into the back yard for a play. All he had to do was sit.
Am I the only one?
A couple of years ago I wrote a 3 part series for Life As A Human called “3 Reasons Why Your Dog Isn’t Responding.” In that series I identified the 3 most common reasons a dog might not respond when you give him a cue: 1) He didn’t see or hear your cue 2) He got the message but doesn’t clearly understand what it means yet (needs more training) or 3) He’s not motivated to respond to you (either for the reward he might get or the punishment he might avoid). But there seems to be a fourth mysterious reason why a dog might not respond. Apparently only the dogs understand that reason and they are not sharing!
It’s not just me, right? Every dog will, on occasion, appear completely unresponsive even if you give them a cue for a well known and heavily rewarded behaviour. A friend and professional dog trainer related a typical story to me this week. She and her three dogs were out for a walk. Off leash and 10 feet ahead of her on the trail, the three dogs stopped and looked at my friend. It was time to go and she called out “Come!”.
Her youngest dog immediately began air scenting and wandered off in one direction into the woods while her oldest dog simply turned around and walked down the path in a different direction. Her middle dog just stood there on the trail staring at her as if she had just uttered Mandarin Chinese instead of a well known cue. You can imagine her frustration as a dog training professional. What was going on here? She teaches dog training for a living, could these really be her dogs? How embarassing!
It’s all about me and my needs
In this world of the Internet and Smartphones, we have come to expect the things we want to be there when we want them. And more and more, we want them FAST! I guess that it isn’t surprising that we expect our dogs to be as responsive as our TV when we press the remote control. People even use shock collars that come with remote controls to get their dogs to do what they want them to do. Unfortunately for us, our dogs still retain some sense of their own ideas about what they do and do not want to do at any given moment.
And I think that’s where the frustration lies – when what we want doesn’t match what our dog wants. Regardless of the training methods you choose to use, it’s still up to your dog to decide that they want to cooperate. Many of us spend a great deal of time training our dogs and it can feel like something of a betrayal when we ask our dog for something and we “get the paw” from them. “Not right now,Dad. Your needs are just not that important.” Ouch.
Ungrateful savages
For all we do for our dogs, this is the thanks we get. We give them food, shelter, companionship, a loving home; do they not appreciate all of that? Well, yes and no. Our dogs appreciate all of what we do for them in the same way that a 2 year old child might. They will do what they please, thank you very much, and some of the time that will be what you ask them to do. Other times? Not so much.
The strange thing I have noticed is that many times my dogs will wait until we are out and about in front of other people, especially other dog people, to pull out their selective deafness routine. It seems that they save that creative disobedience for the exact moment when it will be the most embarrassing for me. To say it can be infuriating is an understatement.
Who does the universe revolve around anyway?
While we may think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect our dogs to always respond to us when we give them a cue, I think we might have a very different perspective if our roles were reversed. Ask any husband who is summoned by his wife while watching sports on TV. “I’ll be there in a minute” is a perfectly reasonable response! Isn’t that what our dogs could be thinking as they seem to wander aimlessly after we have asked them to “Come!” for the fourth time?
We know we have a perfectly good reason why we need our dog to sit or come or lie down right NOW but isn’t it possible that our dogs don’t share our insight? From their perspective, we might be the one that is missing out on this really great smell! It might even be an interesting sound or strange sight. You see, our dogs have different senses than we do. The thing that is distracting them might not even be something we can see or hear or smell.
Are we unreasonable in expecting our dogs to respond to us immediately? Probably. Are there things we can do to get them to be more cooperative more often? Of course there are: training and our choice of training methods can do a lot to shape things up. But I don’t think it can ever be perfect. Our dogs are not machines that can be remote controlled. Perhaps we need to adjust our expectations as their owners.
Get creative instead of angry
Maybe all we need to make these frustrating situations more tolerable is just to let go of some of our expectations. We have expectations of our dogs and we have expectations of our role in our relationships with our dogs. Perhaps a slight change of perspective might improve things. Let me give you an example.
If I’m out on a walk with my dog and I call her to “Come!”, she might not even lift her nose from whatever it is that she is sniffing. I could get angry and shout at her but would you want to go to someone who is obviously getting angry with you? There are many different ways to respond in that situation. But it would make sense to be fun and encouraging instead of cross and threatening. I just need to get her attention and a calm and happy demeanour would be much more attractive than acting all angry about it.
Sometimes our dogs don’t respond to us the way we want. But that’s nothing personal. It’s not a betrayal and it’s not their way of saying they don’t love us any more. It’s just them being, well, them. If we don’t take things so seriously and forgive the occasional lapse, I think that would improve things with our dog. Instead, many people go in the other direction. They begin to sound more like a drill sergeant to be feared and obeyed. While that might get you what you want in the short term, I don’t think that it’s the best way to interact with a dog.
We are much more intelligent than our dogs. We have control of all of the things our dogs need to be happy like food and water. So what if we don’t get what we want sometimes? If I ask my dog to sit and he doesn’t, nobody dies. And if I take my dog somewhere where his health might be in danger if he doesn’t respond to me, shame on me for not having him on a leash.
So the next time you find yourself embarrassed by your dog’s lack of response, just lighten up, Sunshine. At the end of the day, it’s you they are going to come over to for a snuggle and a scratch. If they don’t come when you call occasionally, it doesn’t mean they forgot what that cue means. Maybe it just means they will get to it in a minute. Maybe we should just relax and enjoy our dogs, quirky behaviours and all.
Until next time, have fun with your dogs!
Photo credits –
What?! –Michael Kappel 2009 from Flickr
Ungrateful Savages – razzumitos 2009 from Flickr
Not right now, ok? – greaterumbridge 2007 from Flickr
Sorry about the novel.
I enjoy a healthy debate and I also am interested in learning more about my methods.
I hope I do not come across as condensending because I do not mean to. I am genuinely interested in hearing your feedback.
Eric, I am not sure what you are saying…
My dogs are trained using both positive and aversive techniques, they can be around other dogs without being aggressive and I have been able to handle other dogs without aggression issues but than again, I am a professional trainer who has been working with dogs for decades.
Those people who have issues with their dogs are not professional trainers, in fact, they seek out professional training because they care deeply for their dogs and want to learn.
My point is that police officers and most dog handlers are NOT professional trainers, in fact, a majority of the cops I work with only understand the basics of training and not enough about animal behavior. Therefor, if I am going to place a potentially dangerous dog in their hands, I better be damn sure that dog listens the first time and everytime to the handler that is controling that dog. I don’t want a lawsuit.
This lack of training is not a fault of mine but rather the government. If you want to offer training for cops and pay them for the time of the street, by my guest. Until then, I have to cater to the city and the city says they can only send their cops to school for two weeks. To weeks compared to my experience is nothing and the dogs they are getting are hard to handle, like to bite, and can be very very loaded by anything that moves.
My husband, who is a k-9 cop, would never dream of working a positive method trained dog that has NOT been introduced to aversives because in reality, those dogs are not going to be predictable nor will they be safe to handle.
Please think through the different scenerios where “choosing not to listen” would be dangerous. Let’s say there is a shoot out at the park and your dog is standing in the middle of the field between the cops and the bad men. If you tell your dog to down, and he just decides to ignore you (due to stress, drive, bored, or just because he feels like it) what do you do? There is nothing that a positive trainer can do in that situation but someone who trained their dog to aversive as well and press a button on the ecollar and repeat the command. This may be the difference between that dog living or dying.
I found that many positive trainers argue that dogs should not be in working careers anyways, or even competition careers. I guess I cannot think of a strong arguement against that other than that there are some jobs that a canine can do that technology cannot. But maybe someday they may find themselves or a family member lost or a bomb under the building they work at, and that dog will do it’s job to resolve the situation. God forbid that dog just decides not to listen.
Trust me, I have been in the business long enough to know that dogs have off days and decide to pick a fight, regardless of how well they are trained. I dread to think of what could happen if that dog decided to do that while searching for bodies on 9/11…
I did some quick research on Steve White, there is nothing about this man in competition sports or police sports. In fact, I could not find anything regarding successful dog integration through any of the k9 departments when I did my search, but that might just be because I did not dig deep enough. I did just do a basic google search and all that came up was KPS, his website, and his police federation program. I will have to take a look again.
I would expect to see any caliber police dog trianer in PSA, IPO, or FR. All three of those sports will test the dog, the trainer, and the control.
If you feel you can do all of that positive and still earn yourself a PSA 2 or FR2 title (which would be what I would expect from a beginner police dog), please do so and prove us all wrong. Remember, you must have a very high drive, civil, and fast dog. If you try to do the test with a low drive, nervy dog then you are cheating because I could even pass PSA 2 with a low drive dog while using only positive methods, a low drive dog simply does not want the bite badly enough to be considered a breedable worthy dog. It would not be a dog I would trust with my life wether in SAR or police.
It is all in the drive, the more drive you have and the more civil your dog, the more control you need…
Also, I wanted to point out that I have no issues with amazing positive trainers, in fact I am friends with a lot of fantastic dog trainers that refuse to use collar or aversion. They are quite successful pet dog trainers but I have yet to see one that can match a true working kennel standard. I have no hash against your methods, I am just pointing out a major flaw in the system.
I don’t know about you but I would not raise my child on positive only. If I tell my child to put away that video game and come back downstairs ten minutes later to find the game still out, I will ground that child. You can bet that next time I tell that kid to put away his game, he will do it. That is a very gentle example.
Now, lets say that we never establish the “I am going to tell you once” rule and this same child wants to go to a party and I say no. Since I did not establish my boundries and make the rules clear, this kid chooses to ignore me. He goes to the party, gets drunk, gets drugged, has to go get his stumach pumped and gets caught by the police. Suddenly, we have serious issues.
Lucky for us, humans understand mental punishments such as being grounded or taking away a game but unlucky for us, dogs do not. Dogs cannot be grounded or put on a time out, they need physical corrections, either by body language, leash correction, tone of voice or more. I am sure that you understand this since you mentioned it in your earlier post.
You can be as positive as you want with child or dog raising but it makes life a whole lot clearer when you can say, “Do you see that line? Do not cross it. If you stay on this side, you will get treats, toys, love, and rewards. If you decide to cross the line, I will warn you and then you will get a correction for disobeying me.” There is a clear right and wrong, no gray area, provided you are 100% consistent.
By using positive methods, you are saying, “Do you see that line? Cross it if you must but if you stay on this side I will feed you, reward you, give you toys, and give you love. If you cross it, you will not get any food/love/toys.” What happens when the object across that line is far more interesting then you could ever be? Far more exciting? What happens if something aversive is forcing your dog to cross that line? Can you be more powerful or stronger than an aversive pull? There is a right choice, staying on your side, but no clear wrong. Is it really so bad to cross the line? Not really. It just is not as fun to be on the other side.
I think that is really confusing to a dog.
I want to share a story:
A girl at the club was using all positive methods for her protection dog and one day, while teaching her dog to attack a very intimidating decoy, he launched and landed on the decoy’s upper arm. Perfect for targetting. However, when it came time for that dog to out, instead of releasing the decoy, the dog started trashing and getting more intense. Usually this trainer will have another toy on standby to reward the dog for outing but the dog just did not care, he had a live toy to play with. She was trying to get the dogs attention with food, toys, reward… She eventually tried harshly calling the dog into heel, hoping it would out but the dog simply trashed some more. Finally, at wits end, she decided to go up to the dog and gently pry the teeth of the decoy. The dog was alarmed, dropped the decoy and instead of going for the toy (which she was thrashing everywhere to get his attention) he ran to the end of his leash, whipped her off her feet, and dragged her all the way to a decoy across the room and bit him.
Long story short, she always had “control” of this dog through positive methods but one day his fight drive kicked in and this dog suddenly decided not to listen. If those decoys had no suit on, this could have ended miserably. She was a knowledgable trainer and very successful in the ring, she was by no means inexpereinced and all her dogs are very well trained. She just happened to finally realize that with that dog, her rewards would never be enough again. It was physically and mentally impossible for her to outmatch the lure of a decoy without ruining the dog’s working ability.
Not listening should NEVER be an option with working dogs.
If you are okay with your pet dog not listening, by all means… let your pet dog come slowly or ignore you. But if you are training a high caliber, high drive dog to working level, you better expect control.
I call my method a respect training method. I ask that a child or dog has some respect and through that, they can earn privaliges. Granted, I do not offer as much freedom or choices as you do and I envy that your dogs are so creative but in my field, it would be very dangerous to let that dog ignore me.. even just once. I do plan on creating a more mutually respectful relationship type method but until then, I will stick to what works.
I ask something of the dog and he does it, great! Here is a lot of love and rewards and freedom.
I ask something of the dog and he does not do it, bummer. Here comes a correction.
I think many people are quick to judge but I use every method, I clicker train and start positive while slowly adding boundries. I do not be unreasonable, I wont temp my dog with something he is not ready nor do I over train or get angry.
I always ask WHY my dog is disobeying me. Does he not understand? This is usually not the answer because I always train positive first and add compulsion after my dog shows that he gets the message. Is he bored? This is not often the case since I reward my dogs often with different toys, food, and attention. Is he loaded? This is usually the case, my dogs are often in drive mode the moment they wake up. Is he sick? I have not encountered this issue unless you consider in heat or near an in heat female a good reason to ignore commands but I do not. Is he doing just because he can? This is occasionally the issue. I always look at the why, and there are a lot more why’s than what I just posted.
I have a theory and I am interested to know what your view point is on this. My theory is that pets dogs are primarily trained using positive methods while (most successful) working dog trainers use balanced (positive/negative).
I think that our big differences stem from the fact that I train dogs to do dangerous and competitive jobs, to work for a living, and to do their job the first time I ask.
Thanks you for this. I was so confused by how many people, books, and articles claim correcting a dog who steps over the line is abusive/destructive and can only harm the training. I believe in using both positive and correction tactics, and I’m glad I’m not the only one.
Wonderful article, like usual. If a person doesn’t want a dog to have their own personalities and show some cheek once in a while, then what’s the point of having a sentient, emotion living being. Like Leonard said, get a fuzzy robot instead. Press a button and watch it comply 100% of the time or until it runs out of batteries.
I don’t use any physical corrections or even harsh verbal corrections. My dogs aren’t slaves, to be punished via capital punishment for daring to disobey my every command. Yet my dogs comply nearly 100% of the time unless they have good reason not to. Putting off immediate compliance to a recall for a minute to go potty is much better than blindly obeying and then eliminating in the house.
Also, non-compliance can be a very good indicator of health problems. If you force compliance with corrections, how ill does your dog have to be before they’ll prefer the correction over compliance that they’re having physical or psychiatric problems with?
“I would call that excellent dog management.”
Well, I hope not. I don’t wish to be managing my dog for the rest his life. That’s why I train. Eventually as he demonstrates his reliability over the period of weeks or months the line gets shorter (another example of being smarter than the dog – dogs aren’t able to calculate the length of the line) until eventually he won’t need the line.
“If by “correct him” you mean give him another opportunity to respond correctly, I would again say WELL DONE!”
No, I mean I correct him for non-compliance with a command that has been taught and (positively) reinforced over a number of weeks.
“Most force trainers use the term “correct” to mean that they give the dog some sort of mild physical punishment (i.e., leash jerk, verbal reprimand, etc.) so the dog learns that there are unpleasant consequence for non-compliance.”
Yes that’s exactly what I do. Having taught my dog using positive reinforcement (mainly throwing a ball, his favorite thing) I then, once he has clearly demonstrated his understanding of the recall, introduce corrections for failure to comply. Again, it’s called training for reliability.
I train with a simular method as Paul McNamara.
I am all for positive only methods but when it comes to non-compliancy, I start to see the need for force.
I train police dogs for a living, as well as protection sport dogs. I train dogs that get rewarded with a bite and the decoys instantly put the dogs I train into a very loaded zone where corrections are needed. I realistically know that treats, toys, or even my love cannot compete with a decoy. How are you supposed to train positive when your dog can only think of the bite? You cant.
That dog needs to see a bite as a high value so when that dog is getting hurt or scared, he still hits hard and bites strong. If we make the decoy less of a high value reward, suddenly we run the risk of a dog running or being chewy on the bite, two things that can lead to very serious issues.
The other reason I use some force in my methods is for reliability and safety.
Would you want a police dog responding slowly to an out or leave it command? By the time the dog responds to you, there would be a huge mess to clean up. What about a pet about to run into traffic responding slowly to a recall command? You say you do not mind dogs responding slowly and somone else mentioned taking humor in your dogs misbehavior, what on earth will you do when that dog disobeys you and his life is in danger? This is what balanced trainers mean when they say that positive only can kill a dog.
I simply do not believe that working dogs can be trained using on positive methods, but that is my opinion. When someone proves that it can be done consistantly, perhaps I will consider switching over to positive only.
Until then, I will train safe and reliable dogs because the option of not listening is simply not a thought that will ever cross the minds of the dogs I train.
I would direct you to Steve White. You can find more information about Steve and his training accomplishments and background at his i2i K9 website. I would encourage you to contact Steve directly. Both he and his students have won competitions in police K9 work using positive methods.
As a side note, there is no such thing as “purely positive” or “positive only” training. Some behaviours will need to be discouraged or eliminated and these will sometimes require the use of aversives. Positive trainers do not use aversives to teach behaviours. “Non-compliance” is not a behaviour. Therefore it doesn’t need to be discouraged or eliminated. Non-compliance should instead be seen as an indicator of a problem somewhere in the training program. It could be clarity, understanding, problems with cues, or with motivation. But if the dog isn’t doing what was asked, there is a reason.
Balanced trainers are threatened by new methodology that they don’t understand and can’t do. So they look for exaggerated reasons to demonize more modern, reward based training. Anyone who would have a dog that shows enough aggression toward other dogs to be out in public without leashes, muzzles, or other necessary management equipment is just stupid. If you cannot see your dog is uncomfortable enough to kill another dog LONG before it happens, you probably shouldn’t have a dog.
Don’t you think it’s time we got past the hysterical rhetoric and talked about teaching dogs? Positive training doesn’t kill dogs. Balanced training doesn’t kill dogs. Cesar Millan doesn’t kill dogs. Ignorance and stupidity kills dogs.
Eric
“Non-compliance” is not a behaviour. Therefore it doesn’t need to be discouraged or eliminated.”
I see, so because behaviorism is the science of behavior, and because non-compliance is not a behavior, it doesn’t need to be addressed.
That about sums up in a nutshell, why balanced trainers find it hard to take seriously, not the science itself, but those advocating it.
“I see, so because behaviorism is the science of behavior, and because non-compliance is not a behavior, it doesn’t need to be addressed.”
And this is the conclusion of most Balanced trainers. Do you believe that the only way to “address” non-compliance is with “corrections”? I certainly don’t. I use the full compliment of behaviour modification approaches available to me to improve reliability and compliance when training my dogs. Simply yanking on the dog or threatening with a verbal reprimand just strikes me a little childish – “Hey! Gimme what I want NOW!”
So perhaps you can see why some of us find the rhetoric of Balanced trainers a little silly and, well, sad.
Next time, you might want to ask me if I hold a particular point of view rather than interpreting my quotes for me and assigning conclusions to me that I may or may not actually agree with.
“Do you believe that the only way to “address” non-compliance is with “corrections”?”
No, I don’t Eric. Why are you turning this into an either or scenario? I am all for positive reinforcement, it accounts for about 90% of what I do.
“I use the full compliment of behaviour modification approaches available to me to improve reliability and compliance when training my dogs.”
This either means you do use corrections where appropriate (hence why do you constantly attack others who do?) or else the ‘full compliment of behavior modification approaches” does not include ‘corrections’ in your vocabulary.
“Simply yanking on the dog or threatening with a verbal reprimand just strikes me a little childish –
“Simply”? See the way you misrepresent other methods? As if yanking on the leash is all there is to it, as if it doesn’t include a couple of weeks of teaching using positive reinforcement both inside and outside the house in as many different locations as possible before any corrections are applied. As if verbally threatening the dog has got anything to do with it. But yes, I agree, trying to teach a recall by verbally threatening the dog is pretty childish, but worse, highly ineffective – which is why I don’t do it.
“Hey! Gimme what I want NOW!””
Come when I call, is what I am teaching the dog Eric. I am not teaching him come when you feel like it, or come unless you have something better to do. And it is not about me, you consistently interpret corrections as being some kind of struggle between me and the dog as if my value as a person depends on whether my will is obeyed. It’s about the dog Eric, not me. It’s about the welfare of my dog and keeping him safe.
“Next time, you might want to ask me if I hold a particular point of view rather than interpreting my quotes for me and assigning conclusions to me that I may or may not actually agree with.”
I am sometimes short with you Eric. I get frustrated at your constant misrepresentation of trainers who use corrections. You may well have used those methods in the past Eric. But everything you say on those matters simply suggests to me that you made a wise choice to change method.
You’ll forgive me for suggesting, but gratuitous use of my given name is not particularly persuasive.
To address your points:
I’m glad to hear you don’t feel “corrections” are the only way to address non-compliance. There was a reason I phrased it as a question. I’m not turning this into anything but a discussion.
I do not consider the use of aversives or “corrections” to be part of improving reliability. Reprimanding my dog for “looking over there” instead of heeling tells them nothing about what I’m looking for in the “heel” behaviour. It just tells them I DON’T want them looking over there. You may find that “nitpicking” but, well, I think it’s significant even if you don’t. C’est la vie.
While you may be a very skilled and dedicated trainer, I can go to any park or street in my town and watch people “simply yanking” on their dog and expecting it to improve things with their dog. Most folks who bother to even pay for training spend a few bucks a week for 45-60 minutes of instruction. Most of that goes in one ear and out the other (I know because I teach myself) but the stuff that appears to work sticks. So while it isn’t “simply yanking” for you, it seems to be for most people. Worse, if they yank and it doesn’t get them what they want, the solution is to yank more/harder.
If you want to keep your dog safe, Paul, correctly assess the risks and put a leash on him if you need to. You dog may have excellent recall but that wouldn’t save him from a swerving car. At least with a leash you might be able to pull him to safety if you saw it coming. I don’t care who you are, there are times when nothing can take the place of a line attached to the dog. The rest is about you setting your own criteria as to what is and is not acceptable in terms of responsiveness to cues. Yeah, it is about us – the handlers. We set the rules. Yours are different than mine. And that’s ok.
As for misrepresenting trainers who use corrections, well, I would say that many have done that work for me. Visit any of the websites I reference in my articles and see for yourself. I include those references so people know who I am talking about. If you feel you are not being fairly represented, represent balanced trainers better. You have never sent me a link to your website. Perhaps it’s time for me to show a responsible trainer who refers to himself as “Balanced” and talk about the good you do. I just need to see it and talk it over with you first.
Perhaps in some small way, my frustration echoes your own. I get rather weary of hearing about “food bribery” in training.
“I do not consider the use of aversives or “corrections” to be part of improving reliability. Reprimanding my dog for “looking over there” instead of heeling tells them nothing about what I’m looking for in the “heel” behaviour. It just tells them I DON’T want them looking over there. You may find that “nitpicking” but, well, I think it’s significant even if you don’t. C’est la vie.”
No, I find what you have said above to be irrelevent, why do you give an example of heeling, when we are discussing the recall? I don’t teach my dog where to ‘look’ when heeling, hence I don’t correct for it. I don’t correct for anything that I haven’t first taught, full stop. As for the recall, the most important part of any correction is that you have clearly taught the behavior before giving any corrections. This is what allows the dog to understand what the correction is for. I know that my dog does not think the correction is for sniffing the ground or playing with other dogs or any other normal behavior because that behavior does not diminish. My dog still sniffs the ground and plays with other dogs and does all the normal things dogs do. The only difference to his behavior is that he comes when called.
“While you may be a very skilled and dedicated trainer, I can go to any park or street in my town and watch people “simply yanking” on their dog and expecting it to improve things with their dog.”
That’s fine, I actually agree with you, most people don’t have much clue when training dogs. And I don’t have a problem with you suggesting your methods of positive reinforcement. Much of it is good advice. My problem is you criticizing (and misrepresenting) dedicated professional trainers with many years of experience with the same brush.
“If you want to keep your dog safe, Paul, correctly assess the risks and put a leash on him if you need to.”
I do Eric, but let give you an example. I live in a block of flats, where I have my own backyard which is fenced and secure. Every couple of weeks we have gardeners come around to mow the lawns. The gardeners leave the gate open. I have since had to tell them not to mow my lawn anymore. But as I am not master of the universe and cannot control every contingency (as the above demonstrates) I believe that reliability to recall is an essential part of my responsibility to the welfare of my dog.
“You dog may have excellent recall but that wouldn’t save him from a swerving car. At least with a leash you might be able to pull him to safety if you saw it coming. I don’t care who you are, there are times when nothing can take the place of a line attached to the dog.”
And there are likewise times when nothing can replace having a reliable recall (as in the above example) Some of us believe in the extra security of a reliable recall.
“The rest is about you setting your own criteria as to what is and is not acceptable in terms of responsiveness to cues. Yeah, it is about us – the handlers. We set the rules. Yours are different than mine. And that’s ok.”
And that’s ok with me too. But if you wish to claim that science based methods are as effective as traditional methods perhaps it is incumbent on you to train and demonstrate the same reliability to command. Does it occur to you that balanced trainers treat your claims with skepticism for this very reason? That you don’t train to the same standard of reliability?
“As for misrepresenting trainers who use corrections, well, I would say that many have done that work for me. Visit any of the websites I reference in my articles and see for yourself.”
I do, and I have, and my opinion remains unaltered.
You have never sent me a link to your website.
I don’t have a website, I am not a professional dog trainer.
Perhaps it’s time for me to show a responsible trainer who refers to himself as “Balanced”
I don’t have a website or videos, but here is a website of a balanced trainer with videos. http://www.leashfreeliving.com/p/obedience.html This is the behavior that I train and look for in my dogs.
“Perhaps in some small way, my frustration echoes your own. I get rather weary of hearing about “food bribery” in training.”
Yes I am sure your frustration does echo my own. I wish both sides would stop misrepresenting the other.
And I do wish you would stop misrepresenting behavioural science and science based training. The fact is, behavioural science can explain EXACTLY why what you do works and even why it works well. You may have chosen a different application of it than I might have, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are USING behavioural science whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. So there is no reason for comparison. We both use science in our training. I just know how and why I’m doing it.
This is not an ethical debate. Your methods are neither right nor wrong. But, like most Balanced trainers, you struggle to describe with any accuracy how and why these methods work for you and why you find their results preferable.
Thanks for the link, I will indeed have a look. If I may, I’d like to contact you privately with my thoughts on that.
As for the rest, I have no further comment.
When my dog disobeys a recall I don’t get angry, frustrated or yell at him. (I never yell at my dog). Rather I simply pick up the light line I have attached to his collar and correct him. You see I know well in advance that my dog (assuming he is normal) will on occasion ignore my commands, so I plan ahead. It’s called training for reliability.
As you have said – “We are much more intelligent than our dogs”.
Well done Paul!
I would call that excellent dog management. It makes the task of training much easier when you have some physical control over the dog. If by “correct him” you mean give him another opportunity to respond correctly, I would again say WELL DONE! That’s the way to train. Most force trainers use the term “correct” to mean that they give the dog some sort of mild physical punishment (i.e., leash jerk, verbal reprimand, etc.) so the dog learns that there are unpleasant consequence for non-compliance.
Speaking for myself, I don’t require instant compliance from my dog when I give cues. That’s just me and how I choose to live with my dogs. As you suggest, when it matters there is a leash or line attached for safety in case there is a “lapse” in response. That’s just good dog management.
Thanks for reading!
Eric
I enjoyed this piece and found it very informative. I don’t have dogs. I have cats. In acceptance of cats’ independent nature I have developed the credo: a cat will come immediately when you call them – if they want to. But I do love dogs. I thoroughly enjoy my sisters dog when I am visiting her.
Yes, it can be embarressing, but if a client is with me, and a couple are there BECAUSE my dog seems to “obey” so well, and she tops to sniff a -whatever- on the way back from a recall. I just try to smile and say “A-“.
Why?
In school, if you went by the 10% grading system (I know, but it’s been a LONG tmie since I was in school), on a test with 100 questions, you could get 9 wrong and still get an A, probably an A-. That’s still a pretty great grade. My daughter is finishing medical school and taking her federal licencing exams. Passing grade is … who knows, but it’s a lot less than 100%. Any answer wrong could possibly result in tragedy. But while still not a correct answer, it’s acceptable as a “pass”.
Why do we expect this 100% perfection from our dogs? In local dog sports, in competition, a score of 90 out of 100 points is still considered “excellent”, yet you’ll hear the owner in the club house complaining about the dog who never did THAT one before and “you can bet well be working on THAT before the next meet.” And you know what that means. of course, if that same trainer made a wrong turn, fumbled a dummy or ignored a jedges insgtructions, he’d just laugh it off in that same club house and order another beer.
You’re absolutely right, that we tend to take our dog’s obedience as a sign of our value. I think that is probably one of the roots. I do not define myself through the performance of my dog. I have a relationship with her. I’m proud of her. And if she decides that a blade of grass is worht 5 seconds of her time during a choreo, there’s probably a very good reason I can’t know about. I -could- train the DOG out of her. There are enough tools out there to do it, but then why have a dog in the first place. build a furry robot instead.
thanks for the thoghful articles. Keep ’em coming.
Leonard, if sitting for my driving exam I do everything perfectly, but then inadvertently run a red light, nobody is going to give me a A-. Nobody is going to shrug their shoulders and say, oh well, your only human, you did everything else right so here’s your pass. You see there are things in which we do demand 100% compliance. These things usually involve the potential for serious injury or loss of life, whereby we do not entertain reasons or excuses. Hence your daughter may well pass her exam without getting a 100%. But should her actions once she becomes a doctor result in serious harm or loss of life to her patients nobody is going to be giving her an A-.
As a reliable recall is something that can indeed save your dog from serious injury or worse, some of us regard reliability on the recall as an essential part of responsibly for looking after our dogs welfare. Because as you say, none of us are perfect, accidents happen, emergencies occur, even the best management sometimes breaks down. A reliable recall, is further insurance that some of us take to insure the safety and welfare of our dog.
We can, perhaps should, sometimes enjoy our dog’s *dis*obedience, because we see then the dog’s independence of being and perhaps get a lesson from the dog on what’s truly important . Taking the disobedience with good humor is a way to salve the disappointment of a failure in, say, the obedience ring or agility ring or tracking test.
The catch is what to do when there is a safety issue, of course. If my dog fails to do a DOR in Open A, or has a case of tunnell suck in agility (ooo, this tunnel is so much more fun that than A-frame), all I’ve lost is some hard-earned money for the entry fees, and I may have gained a lesson about my training or handling (poor signals? feet giving a cue different from my arm motion?).
But if my dog fails a DOR when I have to stop him from colliding with something on his path, that’s a safety issue. If my dog doesn’t retrieve a dumbbell, no big deal. If my gun dog doesn’t retrieve a shot bird, quite different.
And how you respond to these failures — how you avoid them in the first place — is what’s critical.
Hi Eric. I can so relate. It’s all the more embarrassing when it happens to one of us, the pros. My dog, like it or not, has to be my business card. People have insanely high expectations of my dog’s behaviour because I am a trainer.
I have to admit, I am guilty as charged on doing (once in a while) precisely everything I tell my clients not to do: repeating cues and getting angry. Do as you preach and all that…
Am working out patterns to his ‘random’ disobedience: whenever I have earphones on, and when my kid is around.
Thanks for the post!
Again, great read.
If dogs don’t teach us to have a sense of humor, nothing will. 🙂