Dog training methods - I've seen it all - how do we know what's right?

[SuddenlyOld]

At my age I've seen so many training methods come and go, lauded to begin with then trashed as the next method comes in.

First it was Barbara Woodhouse, then Jan Fennell, Cesar Millan, currently Southend Dog Trainers, and even Graeme Hall

All have since been shown to promote 'unhealthy' training methods. Even Graeme Hall looks good on TV but apparently it's all staged and doesn't last.

So my question is, how do we know that current training methods are right for our dogs, or for us?

I do wonder about this because I remember Jan Fennell being on TV and her methods seemed amazing and made sense. I tried them on our barky, jumpy sheltie cross. It didn't work and now her methods have been debunked.

So how do we ever know that current methods are right?

IMO, for what it’s worth - your original trainer either wasn’t a very good trainer or wasn’t very good at communicating.

Usually when people say don’t say no to dogs it’s got chuff all to do with it being negative or not enforcing boundaries - it’s because it’s a pretty useless word to use with a dog, because you don’t mean no, you mean, off or leave or be quiet or any number of other things. Positive training doesn’t mean not having boundaries.

They should have also given you ideas of what you could use as reinforcement outside if treats or toys weren’t it… and possibly given some thought as to why he’s not interested in them? As in, is he overly aroused and needs some work on calming him down…. I’m not a trainer btw, but that would be my first thought on why he’s not interested in stuff, that he’s either too excited or too anxious.

I’ve used another dog as a reward for an overly enthusiastic greeter, sometimes rewards are not something you give but access to what they want.

Haltis are aversive - that’s not an opinion they’re literally designed to be, so yes they hurt, that’s how they’re made to work. Are they better or worse than a collar on a pulling dog 🤷‍♀️ depends on the dog. Something else entirely could be even better though.

Actually, putting aside whether Halti's are, or are not aversive, Dr Roger Mugford didn't design them to be so.

They work by tightening round their face when they pull, which causes pain… if he didn’t intend them to be aversive he did a very very bad job of designing them.

Fixed headcollars exist, which work the same way horses ones do, literally sit there and give you control of their heads. They can also be aversive because a lot of dogs dislike things on their face, but they’re not actively doing anything to cause discomfort, so it depends on the dog and how people introduce them.

His view is that the Halti closes their mouth (which they don't like but arguably could be considered aversive), as opposed to causing pain.

Of course, this is genuine Halti, and the words of the owner of the company.

Personally, I find a flat collar sufficient.

Surely something that forces an animals mouth closed is an aversive by default?

I haven’t used on on any of my own dogs, but I’ve walked other peoples on them, that… that is not what they do.

They literally leave dents in breeds with any flesh there.

That smacks of people who make prong collars saying they’re just giving pressure tbh.

I have one, I tried it once, definitely does not tighten enough to cause pain, even when doggo was pulling as hard as he could. It attaches to the lead at two points. Any lead misused can cause pain though.

That was why I worded my original point carefully. There is doing something the dog doesn't like, and doing something that causes pain. Both could be considered aversive.

Here's an example. I train my dog to do a thing before he gets a reward. Today, he wouldn't get into the car. He was waiting for a treat to be thrown in before he got in. I don't want to bribe him, he has to do the thing first, then get rewarded. So I asked him a second time. Then I lifted him into the car. This isn't his favoured solution, but it didn't hurt him. Is that aversive?

What I can tell you is that after we had been to the beach, I asked him to get in, he did the same thing. As soon as he saw I would lift him in, he got in by himself, and got a big reward.

Haltis don’t attach at 2 points… just under the chin, they have a back up safety strap to the collar but that’s loose unless something breaks or comes off.

Mine does. This pic taken from the manufacturer website. Main lead attached to back, front lead used to turn head to discourage pulling. It's entirely down to the handler whether they apply enough pressure to cause pain. That can be said of many leads though.

made by the manufacturer - go to 1.20 and you can see it being fitted, there’s no second attachment on a halti, when they’re pictured with a double ended lead the other end is on a collar

The collar is the primary though, not the front part. You can clearly see that the dog is held on the collar and the handler only uses the head part to turn the head, the dog shouldn't be able to pull on it. If the dog is pulling on the head part, it is being used incorrectly.

Yeah, because it’s being demonstrated on a dog that isn’t actually pulling 😂

But even in that video - the chin strap is being pulled, which tightens it… it’s not working by magic.

Btw I’m not saying it to criticise owners using haltis, personally I’d go front fastening harness and then fixed head collar if I needed to.

But I get that for practical reasons sometimes people need a quick fix ti be able to get a dog from a to b safely until they can train it to walk better.

But they are aversive, if they were supposed to just steer and guide there’s no reason at all for them to tighten round the muzzle.

I get that, but it's still up to the handler how tight to pull. It's supposed to be the turning of the head that stops the dog pulling in the same way a front mounted D ring on a harness would.

My dog pulled like a train, but all the pressure was on his collar, not the head part. I could turn his head using the other end of the lead with barely any pressure.

I actually found it too much of a faff to get on and off, so just used a flat collar in the end. Whilst the Halti worked in that he stopped pulling, it didn't make him walk more politely, he'd just go off in a different direction or arse about. I found just stopping worked better. When he decided to come back to me, and remove pressure on the lead, we started walking again. It took a while but he got it eventually. Pulling = we stop. Slack = we go.

Our boy doesn't pull at all on his halti, so it doesn't tighten anywhere.

We use two types, too posh to pull which is attached at the back and is fleece lined, and the original halti.

As I said, we have tried to train him to walk to heel for 17mo. If we want to walk him in a new or exciting area he needs the halti for safety.

The front ring on his harness works most of the time. Treats and toys don't work outside (when he's pulling everything leaves his head except the desire to get to where we're going). I'm also pretty sure this is a uniquely spaniel trait.

It isn't unique. My lab is the same. Go anywhere new, and it's like I've never trained him. He was a 2 year old rescue who had had no training. It has taken a long while for him to walk loose lead in most places, but when we go somewhere new, I have to a) leave him in the back of the car with the boot open for a good few minutes for him to sniff and settle, and b) run through all the basic loose lead drills a few times before he calms down enough. He's 3 and a half now.

Here's an example. I train my dog to do a thing before he gets a reward. Today, he wouldn't get into the car. He was waiting for a treat to be thrown in before he got in. I don't want to bribe him, he has to do the thing first, then get rewarded. So I asked him a second time. Then I lifted him into the car. This isn't his favoured solution, but it didn't hurt him. Is that aversive?

I wouldn't say it was aversive but I would say it was totally unnecessary.

I also don't really get your logic - you say he needs to jump in before getting rewarded, but surely that's exactly what's happening if you chuck a treat in for for him to get when he jumps up?

I guess I don't want to have to bribe him to do everything. Eventually, I want to fade the treats in some instances. IMHO a dog should do thing when asked and not just because there is a bribe on offer. What happens when I need him to do something and I don't have a treat? For example, he's running towards a road, I call him back, but don't have a treat in my hand. That sort of thing.

Here's an example. I train my dog to do a thing before he gets a reward. Today, he wouldn't get into the car. He was waiting for a treat to be thrown in before he got in. I don't want to bribe him, he has to do the thing first, then get rewarded. So I asked him a second time. Then I lifted him into the car. This isn't his favoured solution, but it didn't hurt him. Is that aversive?

A reward isn't the same thing as a bribe. Throwing the treat into the car means the dog is instantly rewarded after they jump in the car. Youre ascribing human motivations to the dog in thinking he will understand the difference of whether the treat is given by you after he gets in the car, or if he jumps up and gets the treat. Doing something he doesn't like, ie lifting him in, is a mild aversive imo. "If you don't do this, this thing that you don't like will happen". As opposed to "if you do this, you'll get a tasty treat".

I think positive dog training is about setting the dog up to succeed.

Scenario one, You throw the treat in, he's motivated to jump in the car, he eats the treat = he's been rewarded for getting in the car.

Scenario 2 - You tell him over and over to get in the car, he doesn't do it, you physically put him in the car - did you then give him a treat for getting in the car? Or did you think no, he didn't get in on his own, no treat.

Both methods might well work, but the first scenario is way more likely to result in a dog that is happy to get in the car by himself next time and that's ultimately the aim isn't it?

Interesting take, thank you. He did indeed get a treat when he got into the car, irrespective of whether he had help in scenario 2.

I was writing another post when you posted, but my question is, how do I get him in the car if I've run out of treats with scenario 1? He's a rescue and I've had him a year, and have been using scenario 1. All that has happened is that he waits outside the car until a treat is thrown in, and was slowly waiting for more and more treats to be thrown in before he got in. So, I changed my approach.

I would always make sure i had enough treats to get him in the car at the end - sounds like you only need one, so id leave one in the car ready.

If i didn't have a treat id ask my dog once to get in and if she didn't, id lift her in. My dog would rather be outside the car than inside, so she needs motivation to get in.
I've always had more success when i let my dog make her own decisions.

If I'm going to feed her the treat anyway, and scenario one allows her to make her own decision, id rather do that.

No, unfortunately, I don't only need one. He has rumbled that treats get thrown in before he needs to, and so waits for an ever increasing amount of treats to be thrown in before he gets in. I.e. he has been training me.

I agree about letting the dog make his own decisions. I want him to decide to get in more rapidly though.

If i didn't have a treat id ask my dog once to get in and if she didn't, id lift her in

This is essentially what I did, although I did it to avoid the need to throw endless treats in.

It is an interesting discussion point though (about when to reward). All the training I have undertaken suggests that allowing the dog to make the decision and then rewarding is more effective than bribery. I had viewed that throwing the treat in first as being bribery as opposed to providing an instant reward once he gets in. My experience with my own dog bears this out. I may try leaving treats in the boot when he doesn't see me put them in and see what happens.

I also think that my dog's experience in the car was influenced for a long time by the fact that he was a rescue and associated the car with being taken away from his former home. The first few times I visited and took him out, he got in without issue, however after I brought him home permanently, he took a long while of going to nice places and coming home again before he would go in the boot (I had to have him on the back seat). That took a lot of time and patience. He's worth it though.

Here he is holding my foot while I work.

Ah bless him! Have you tried clicker training with him? I find it's really effective for my dog as the clicker marks the exact behaviour she's being rewarded for so she knows what to repeat. Maybe your dog is anxious about the car so he's needing more and more motivation to get in hence waiting for more treats.

@HappiestSleeping dogs don't understand the concept of bribery, though.

Rewarding the dog with a treat for getting in the car is just teaching him that jumping in the car leads to good things, which is what you want long-term (car = treats = something positive).

Rewards don't have to be food related, so in your road example I would be giving tons of fuss and praise for coming back, or long-term, training them to see a "yes!" As a reward by association (using food) then gradually phasing the food out so it's only used occasionally as a reinforcer.