To be very confused about training dogs

[Stopthatfido]

I've had a dog for 2 years from a puppy. I've trained him. I keep training him. Just when I think I've got on top of the best way to train him I read something different.

Today it's a local trainer and owners praising the benefit of ecollars, which I thought were a massive no no.

As lots of posters (and normal people in the real world) think all the dogs should be perfectly behaved, am I being unreasonable to think there should be some kind of consensus on what is good dog training practice?

YANBU - We're in the 21st century. Surely someone knows the best way to train dogs

YABU - Get a grip. No one is ever going to agree. Some people are always going to bang on about being the alpha.

There are many ways to train a dog, and, different methods may give you same the result - think of it as ‘Getting from A to B’. The real difference, is do you have a happy, healthy dog at ‘B’ or do you have one that’s damaged and just submitting.

I think YABU to expect everyone to agree - but if you're looking for a scientific consensus, my understanding it it's all about positive training rather than anything involving aversives or hierarchy. So I'd probably try to work out the red flags for this (e.g. anyone talking about an "alpha" or dominant/submissive behaviour or advocating for the use of aversives - punishment - in training.) and then avoid people who are still sticking to those old myths.

IIRC there is an accreditation that trainers can get which shows they are using evidence based up to date methods - maybe only follow people who have that.

Trainer/behaviour consultant here.

In the UK training is unregulated, anyone can hop on the wagon, hang out their shingle and call themselves whatever they like.

Im retired from training in person now, so I am a non-practicing member of my professional body. I have previously been a member of another professional body - both science based, force free organisations that assess their members before they're allowed to be members, in person, in various situations - I've had to run classes, be observed training totally unknown dog and handler combos, show my history taking process, my report writing, pass written exams...

And then complete a min. number of CPD hours annually, hold the right insurance, uphold a particular ethos and commit to a code of conduct.

But you could just tell some organisations you've trained 500 dogs/for 500 hours, pay your fee (under £200) and call yourself a Master Dog Trainer (theres a chap on TV with exactly this qualification right now, he was a weetabix salesman before that).

Science backs up that positive reinforcement, force free training is the most effective with the lowest chance of risk/doing harm.

That is the bottom line.

The shock collar, prong collar etc folks will argue it til the cows come home but none of the studies they cite stand up, they're all very badly flawed, designed by pro-aversive people, to give the results they want to give.

I will tell you something very telling - PetSafe who make shock collar products, have been sued and are paying out nearly 2 million dollars... because they make false claims that their products are harmless, are safe, are effective - and they have no scientific basis to make such claims and are fully aware there is plenty of science out there showing those claims are false.

We're working on getting dog training to be a regulated industry, and have been for over a decade but it takes time and unfortunately its one of the things that those outside the dog industry do not realise is actually important.

For example - if dog training were regulated, I do not think we would have seen the rise in XL Bully related deaths.

In my opinion (as a professional working in the industry), a huge part of that problem is caused by unqualified trainers and owners, attempting to teach their dogs bite work, using aversive methods.

Different dogs different techniques needed.
Some dogs are NOT food driven some excessively so.
Some have strong prey drive some zero.

Agree with this. Every dog I have had has needed a different approach and my current one has been…..interesting to say the least. I would never use one of those collars though.

I don’t want a dog that only does what it is told because it is scared, I think that can lead to bigger problems down the line and I wouldn’t want any creature to be scared of me anyway.

Boiled down to its basics, positive reinforcement balanced with negative punishment, works for everything capable of percieving reward.

To date that is: dogs, cats, horses, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, various smaller aps and monkeys, dolphins, seals, sea lions, big cats, giraffes... butterflies even.

What varies is how you apply it, what reinforcer you use, how it is delivered, how you manage the environment you work in, how small your training criteria and how rapidly you broaden them or refine them.

Teaching a dog who likes food not to jump up as someone walks in the room, I may well scatter moderate value food on the floor in the other direction.

Teaching a gorilla to present to the enclosure bars to take a shot, I won't be scattering kibble now will I.

Teaching a butterfly to fly to a mark on a cue... I'll be pairing the presentation of food with the cue, on the mark, and then gradually increasing the distance that mark, that the butterflies are released at.

Teaching a dog who loves balls or tugs more than cheese - I'll be using balls and tugs, not cheese (though I may also use Pre-Macks principle, to increase the value of cheese, because using toys as your only reinforcer is somewhat limiting).

I choose this pairing of the quadrants of learning theory not particularly because they're 'nice' and 'kind' although, properly used, they are.

I choose them because they are effective, and the risk of things going wrong in a way that is hard to reverse, or in a way that causes harm, is incredibly low and for the most part I can figure out what the risky points are and mitigate that risk easily.

The other pair - positive punishment and negative reinforcement - the risks are high and whilst I may be aware of them (I am, but a lot of trainers using these methods are not, and most owners using them are not!) I cannot easily avoid those risks. With these options, you only tend to find out you've done harm after you've done harm, at which point it is very difficult to undo.

For example - choosing the intensity level of a shock collar.

• Start with the collar on low, increase the setting over several sessions until the results are what you want - however this runs the risk of desensitizing the dog to the collar settings, so in an emergency situation when you really need it to work it doesn't - and the time you find that out is... the emergency situation.
• Start with the collar high - its a gamble as to how high that should be. Not high enough, see the first bullet point. Too high, dog experiences a 'single event learning' situation where they pair the extreme pain with whatever they were looking at/thinking about at the time. EG dog was thinking about running in the yard. Dog is now terrified to go into the yard. Dog was looking at the delivery person as some of them bring biscuits - dog now links delivery people with extreme pain. Dog first experiences the high shock on seeing a child with a dog - owners intent is to stop their dog running over to other dogs. Dog actually learns 'small children and dogs = extreme pain, better attack them before they can hurt you'... (nb. All of these are real life examples. The latter two caused the dogs to lose their lives.)

I do understand why people go for the quick fix aversive option - they're desperate for a solution to a problem, and in their desperation either they do not understand the risks they are taking at all or, they have some idea but feel it is justified.

"Successful" training is based on the outcome, not the process.

Dogs aren't a thing, they have different personalities, and no two will respond in the same way to the same training methods.

You have to do what works for the dog, not the breed.

surely differences of opinion are the norm in behaviour management
Your dog doesn't have to be perfect, just keep control of it in public

@WiddlinDiddlin out of interest which professional body were you a member of? I am aware the industry is unregulated so interested to hear more.

I think how to train depends on the breed, home life and individual personalities of the owner and the dog. Most importantly kindness to the said dog, consideration for those around you always are of the most upmost importance. Personally I could no more use an ecollar on my dogs than fly to the moon

I suppose the problem is everyone's definition of 'well noones perfect' differs.
Like, I would bin any man who didnt know how to use the washing machine as I think its pathetic, another woman would go 'ah but he's so good at cooking, noones perfect' and be perfectly happy.

Problem is with dogs, everyone's black and white and shades of grey are different.
Its not acceptable to have an animal off lead that you cant reliably (and i mean 99 times out of 100) call back, some people think 2/3rds of the time is good innings, as their dog is great with kids and doesn't bark.
Some people think resource guarding is a massive problem and a sign a dog should be put down, other know their dog only does it in a very specific set of circumstances and can avoid those.
Some people think no dog should ever jump up, other people see it as less of a problem with a 6kg dog than it is with a 30kg dog.
And on the other side, some people think its okay for a dog to be a nasty little shit if its tiny....

Methodology changes often in this kind of sphere, sometimes based on new research, sometimes just because ideas go in and out of fashion. I've been a teacher for 30 years - the educational establishment changes its mind constantly on how best to teach children. Same with training dogs, I imagine!

I think there's a general consensus (positive re-enforcement, not aversives, not alpha mentality) but our understanding and knowledge evolves and deepens over time. Some people are slower to catch-up, some people don't trust newer developments, some people are just ignorant.

I think if the training you're doing with your dog is working, it's positive (ie not ecollars or other aversives) and your dog is happy, then carry on with what you're doing. I'd give the local trainer advocating ecollars a wide berth though.

It seems odd to expect a perfect consensus. After all, look at all the parenting trends, new techniques, old techniques, etc, etc thst are all over MN. Why should dog training be different.

A lot of it is to do with the fact that there are different types of dogs and different types of people. It is not surprising that they find many different roads towards a working relationship.

But a LOT of it is also down to the content hunger that drives the internet and most other media these days. Everyone flogging so much as a dog chew will put content out there to drive people to their site. All the social media platforms benefit from endless dog chatter. All of the many, many new small businesses offering training have to make a name for themselves in a crowded market. Etc, etc. We live in a world of superfluous noise.

I was a member of the IMDT, and left due to differences of opinion in the direction the body was taking (pretty much, not working toward a regulated industry). I'd rather not say who I am now a (non practicing) member of, as thats rather outing, but they're working with that goal in mind and under the wider umbrella organisation ABTC. My current professional body didn't exist when I became an IMDT member though or I'd have got that way first.

@Chiseltip I would very strongly disagree. If its only the outcome that is important... I could train every dog in existance not to chase sheep, jump up, bark, eliminate inappropriately...

By shooting them dead.

Do you want to alter your statement now - the process IS important isn't it?

The process will always be important - how you get a result matters when the subject of your methods is a living, breathing, sentient being, particularly one living in a family household and going out in public.

It may not matter if the dog lives in a lab, is never loose with other dogs, never off lead around people, never expected to tolerate all manner of human goings on - or is kennelled and only ever handled by professionals (though I can think of two instances where even then, it turned out it did matter when humans got injured very badly).

I mean it still matters to the dog who is having a shitty life, but in the broader scheme of things...

It matters when a dog who has paired being ordered off the sofa with being hit and strangled - and so when the adults aren't there and the child tells his friend to order the dog off... the friend winds up dead.

It matters when the dog expecting and fearing having their food bowl taken away, launches at the toddler walking past the foodbowl...

Dogs are constantly learning and your intent is irrelevant - what the dog learns may be nowhere near what you intended. Some methods will mean accidentally learning the wrong thing is easily undone - and some will mean someone dies.

The general force free, do no harm, positive reinforcement methodology has been widely accepted as best practice for at least the last 40 years. We can trace the understanding that aversives are risky and its better to be setting an animal up to want to work for you because its enjoyable and fun, vs having to because not doing is scary and painful, riiiiiight back to Xenophon - it is absolutely not a fad nor likely to go out of fashion.

It is true, various techniques within that ethos alter as we learn more - but the basics remain solid.

Thank you for all your replies, especially @WiddlinDiddlin (can you come and live with me?).

I suppose I know there will always be differences of opinion, as with child raising, but I was quite surprised to see so many people, including a so called professional advocating for Ecollers. It just seemed so out there. I think I got to a “oh ffs, what am I supposed to believe?” stage.

I’ll stick with the positive training x

What a weird response. How is killing an animal the same as training it?

Are you OK?

If you would happily, regularly hit your child to discipline / control them - then I guess you would have no problem using an electric collar on a dog?

personally I would always go for positive reinforcement for both a child and a dog… reward the good to get the behaviours you want.

if the only way I could get my child or dog to obey me was through fear and pain - I would feel pretty shit…

I definitely prefer force free, positive training methods that are rewarding the good, redirecting or ignoring the ‘bad’ and building a relationship based on love and mutual respect - not fear and pain.

I am sure that training a dog appears to be difficult. Perhaps that is why I see the majority of people exercising their dogs have hardly any control of their charge.

Dogs are a little like children in that you teach them from a very young age to behave properly. Mine were guided from the first day. Yes, young, but that is the point - not to teach bad behaviour which then needs to be unlearned! Almost all dogs are eager to please their owner. Please pay attention when they look to you for guidance. If they learn that the safe spot is by their human's heel then that is where they will walk.Lots of verbal praise - much better by far than good which benefits only the manufacturer and supplier.

Use a firm voice when necessary. For their safety and ours we need to be in control.

The current news of dogs attacking humans and other dogs owes a great deal to foolish owners! I wish I lived near to you to advise. Just remember that you are to be in control not the dog!

No to e-collars. Training methods depend on your breed too. What works for a terrier might not work for a retriever etc. some
basics will be the same, but look for a specialists dealing with dogs like yours and check reviews.

Perfectly OK thankyou, that was an analogy.. not sure if you've come across those before...

You said the outcome was most important, ie. the dog no longer performs the unwanted behaviour. (Because an e-collar or prong collar is an aversive (as are many other variations on the positive punishment theme), it cannot train a dog to do something, only to not do something - punishment reduces the frequency of behaviour... ).

Shooting the dog would instantly and permanently stop the dog doing the thing you don't want it to do.

It is of course pretty out there as hyperbole goes but the point still stands - if you agree with me that this would not be acceptable, then you agree the method does matter.

I’m a trainer. I would describe myself as P+ based but not purely positive only. For instance I will sometimes step into a dogs space to teach a kick back stand for competition obedience. Not a timid dog or one that’s wary of people, but some trainers would think that was terribly intimidating. I’m happy with my choices.

I would never ever use an ecollar.

There are a LOT of 'social media savvy' trainers out there, who put together some very slick content that often doesn't highlight the truth of the methods they use.

I mean they can do this because the prices they charge are astronomical and they have a lot of time in the office... but that asides, they have spent a lot of effort building strawmen to take down.

One is the concept of the 'positive only' or 'purely positive' trainer.

Doesn't exist - unless you're talking about someone who uses only positive punishment AND positive reinforcement... which doesn't work because once a dog fears trying out new behaviours in case theres a punishment, all a reinforcer will ever do is signal 'no punishment this time' and the dog is at best, working for relief.

If that sounds weird - look at abusive human relationships where the victim thinks the 'normal' stuff any healthy relationship should have, is so incredible that they'll continue to tolerate the abuse in the hopes they will feel that relief again - same learning/behavioural mechanics at play.

Any positive reinforcement based trainer is going to be using negative punishment - ie, taking away some expected reward - as the flip side to the positive reinforcement.

Anyone who has withheld a reward (or click which predicts reward) because the expected or cued behaviour didn't happen, has used negative punishment and is therefore not a 'purely positive' trainer.

I am not really keen on the term 'positive reinforcement based' its been misused by many an aversive trainer now, and by many others it is thought to mean 'permissive/just throws cookies' etc.

I prefer force free, though it should be understood that is force free in the context of teaching and standard management. If I need to grab a dog by his left testicle to stop him falling off a cliff and that will cause him pain, I will absolutely do that regardless - but that is not standard management or training, thats a one off emergency situation. (I have to state this because there are absolutely arsehole aversive trainers out there who would state that a positive, force free trainer would stand by and let a dog get hit by a car or fall off a cliff rather than use force. Not true, yet another ridiculous straw man).

In my opinion and thats as someone who has been in the dog training, behaviour and rescue world for almost 30 years now - the reason the aversive 'balanced' trainers are so insistent, so slick at social media, so determined to build these strawmen - they know that their skill set and knowledge is limited, it has huge holes and they burn through clients at an astounding rate, as the quick fixes fail.

They're massively insecure and very soon (hopefully if the uk government pulls its fucking finger out) one of their most relied upon tools will be banned. Hoping the PetSafe case is going to tip the balance there!

You made me think of this video I saw on Facebook about exactly this - the contradictions in Dog training

(Edited to say when I previewed my comment it had a thumbnail of the video but when i posted it now looks a like a dodgy invisible link. It definitely isn't! It's just a link to a Facebook short. I'll add it again here with a visible url:

www.facebook.com/reel/4245921659064116/?referral_source=aggregation_page