Off-leash puppy socialization and training classes caused an unplanned paradigm shift in dog training. The off-leash format was ideal for socialization with people and puppies and produced confident, friendly, good-natured and well-behaved dogs. Also the off-leash format was ideal for teaching off-leash verbal control at a distance in an extremely distracted setting without the continued need for training aids. The field of science-based, pet dog training exploded and other fields of dog training (obedience, protection, search and rescue, bomb/drug search and hearing-ear dogs) followed suit, because pet dog trainers were training puppies to off-leash control within a tenth of the time that it took on-leash trainers. Basically, teaching a dog what to do is quicker than teaching a dog what not to do, because … there is only one right way compared to the infinite number of wrong ways. Reward-training is simply far more time-efficient and effective than punishment–training. And so, pet dog training became a happy place with an abundance of food and toy lures and rewards producing friendly, confident, well-trained dogs.
However, as pet dog training diverged from competition/working dog training, quantification disappeared, criteria softened, and efficiency and effectiveness of training decreased. Over the past 15 years though, things have begun to drift and pet dog training urgently requires a massive overhaul to put it back on course.
Pet dog training desperately needs a make-over in terms of theory and practice.
In the absence of regular quantification, standards have fallen in terms of performance criteria, time and trials to criterion and off-leash verbal control. Many puppy classes are now taught on-leash and owners are still trying to lure or feed food treats week six. Many temporary training tools have become permanent management tools. We must get back to basics — off-leash classes for socialization with people and dogs and to teach bite inhibition and off-leash verbal control without the continued need for training aids (crutches). We must phase out food lures, rewards, clicks and treats, leashes, collars, halters and harnesses. We must follow the first three stages of lure/reward training:
1. To phase out lures (or physical prompts) within the very first session, 2. To reduce the number of food rewards to enable differential reinforcement and 3. To phase out all training rewards and replace them with infinitely more valuable “life rewards” so that the dog becomes internally motivated and desired behaviors become self-reinforcing and simply do not require external rewards or punishment.
2. Laboratory-generated learning theory needs to be utterly reviewed, reevaluated and re-written for more effective practical application in education and training. Most reinforcement and punishment schedules have severe constraints in dog training, i.e., they simply don’t work. We shouldn’t even try to apply these schedules because we can’t. We do not have the consistency and computing power of laboratory machines. Also, we can do much better using instructive and analogue verbal feedback. After all, we are smarter than computers; we built them. We must move away from non-instructive, sterile quantum feedback before all trainers become technicians and theorists and dog training loses its soul.
To hear more of Dr. Dunbar's views and insights see him live at one of his upcoming seminars.
- dr. ian dunbar's blog
- login or register to post comments
- 817 reads
- back to the dog blog
- more by dr. ian dunbar
train and play classes
Dogsmart in Vancouver, BC holds 'Train and Play" classes. Adolescent and older dogs on and off leash to hone our handling skills specifically to address this shift.
They're awesome not only because life rewards are part of the bonus in this class (play with you, play with other dogs, food and toys, work on your "obedience" skills) but you also learn about inappropriate play and social behaviours and also how to shape and reinforce the ones you want to see more of.
This is a great idea!
happy-houndz.blogspot.com cheers, kate
Dogsmart (Vancouver BC) has
Dogsmart (Vancouver BC) has always taught brilliant classes. woofs, ian
Amen to that...
I've commented on a few DSD blogs with similar feelings about the communication void that is appearing between trainer & pupil, which can further increase that communication gap between dog & handler.
I am constantly plugging the idea of seeking professional help, when I meet other dog owners. It's so disheartening when these people do reach out to embrace professional help, only to find they don't understand the terminology, or the trainer is asking them to use clicker (which is sometimes not suitable for their needs or abilities). I love clicker (I enjoy it) but I can see why some people find it confusing or too fiddly. I don't think the trainers preference of using clicker should take precedence over the client's abilities.
I just finished reading David Ryan's 'Dog Secrets' (in which he tells us there are no secrets) and although he touches briefly on operant conditioning, it's done using very simple terminology. It has a really 'common sense' feel to it and I'm pleased to find a new book I can recommend to people who are only looking for this entry level advice. Some of the clicker/operant conditioning based books can be a little scary for novice handlers :)
At the APBC seminar Karen Wild & I were discussing what makes the ultimate "x-man" trainer, or behaviourist counsellor. In addition to the understanding of dogs they need to be;
* human psychologists - understanding the client's role in the relationship. What motivates them? Why they might they be reluctant to apply the advice given?
*GREAT teachers - you must have the ability to assess people's preferred learning methods and communicate clearly with them using this information. You must offer the same patience & understanding that you give their dogs. Be aware of their needs, their capabilities etc. and set realistic goals.
*market researchers - what do your clients want from you? What is the best way to communicate with them? Why should they chose your 'product' over alternatives? Which clients don't complete your courses and why?
*Prepared to undertake CPD - in all areas (e.g human counselling skills) not just in dog behaviour
*Sales People - to 'sell' clients the benefits of doing (and sticking with) your advice. To motivate them to trade in their old ways for your new ones.
*Lawyers -well you don't need a law degree, but some basic understanding -to ensure understanding of welfare standards, risk assessments & compliance - is needed.
*Good Business sense - an ability to continually re-evaluate your target market; to adapt your business to meet their needs.
*Communication expert - human-human, dog-dog, dog-human communication.......
I'm sure there are more, but lunch recess was over by then :)
I think a 'make over' will help positive training reach a lot more people. People are more likely to try it and stick with it IF they can understand it and be successful at it. Although I would not want to learn much on dog behaviour from Cesar, I think there is A LOT to learn there about communication of ideas. If we look at the things that make his ideas so 'sellable' and use those with a positive training method, I wonder what might be achieved?
Overhaulin'
I won't point out that I'm too young to know what drift has occurred in the past 15 years, but it's evident that there is a problem.
I'd like to introduce one more contender for What Pet Dog Training Needs: RESEARCH. Particularly research on the application of the theories, techniques, and practices.
For one thing, we are borrowing and stealing and guessing by extrapolations from other arenas. Domestic dogs and humans may have an extremely unique relationship or interactivity that makes dog training, or PET dog training even further, a world apart from training lions and horses and dolphins and mice and fish.
Good science starts with observation. We have so little to go on to even examine what is actually happening!
I think the next quantum shift is dog trainers realizing that pet dog training is teaching TWO animals, not one.
Being People-Friendly & Scientific
Kirsty ... your list of required skills was impressive and interestingly, almost entirely about communicating with people. (I don't think you even included dog training skills). Last year, prior to meeting Cesar Milan, I Netflixed his first series. From what I had heard and read, I knew that I probably would not agree with much of the dog training on the show but I wanted to see what made the program so popular. It was so obvious. The show could have been about any subject (it just happened to be about dogs), basically the show is a personal empowerment program for people with an extremely charismatic host. I agree totally, that we have to "sell" science-based training and what an amazingly easy product it is too sell that it is unfathomable, why we have done such a bad job.
Nicole ... Absolutely ... I have been pushing for more (or rather some) research on pet dog training for years. There are changes afoot though. At the APDT Annual Conference in Atlanta this year, hopefully, (if we get sufficient submissions), there will be a scientific Poster Session. Also, the newly founded APDT Foundation exists solely to raise money for research of pet dog training. I think one of the best ways to "sell" science-based dog training is presenting proof that it is altogether easy, quicker and more effective that methodological techniques.
Wanted: Extremely Charismatic Host....
I am not a Trainer, at least not yet. I brought home the cutest puppy in the puppy store 20 months ago and it turns out it was an Aussie. Who Knew??? I have spent most of that time trying to establish right from wrong, all the while being taught how to "train the dog" when even I knew it was me, who had to be trained!!!! The first guy I met was an Alpha Roll Guy:( Who knew??? Thankfully I found the APDT in time to Overhaul my Attitudes and Tweak my Education before I tried my own Alpha Roll.
The only thing I know now, is Nicole was right when she said "I think the next quantum shift is dog trainers realizing that pet dog training is teaching TWO animals, not one"
Moreover, I think all we really need Ian, is "an extremely charismatic host", to teach your brand of personal empowerment to the general public!!!
P.S. Are you busy???
Charismatic hosts coming soon
All I can say is ... DogStarDaily has something better in store. Yup, we've been pretty busy lately. Soon fun and friendly, science-based dog training will have a charismatic host ... or two! Coming soon... Watch this space.
Dog Training Shift Predicted Long Ago
Luckily I found a wonderful group that knew (perhaps because their primary job was in fact dog training) that this "unintentional" shift would happen. It's sad that some people think they have all the knowledge due to training for another field, that they totally ignored what other people sought to teach them. This is just the beginning of the dismal failings of arrogant "teachers".
I think these are exciting times not "dismal failings"
Stepping up and recognizing a fresh approach is healthy and to boot it takes courage. Nothing dismal about that.
Everyone gets hot under the collar and their passion or ego can get the best of them. NO ONE is perfect.
What I LOVE most about stopping by here is that EVERY trainer on this site strives to move forward. They treat animals with compassion even down to the hands off training techniques backed by scientific research. Just as science is forever evolving we will be too. That's exciting!
If we continue to evolve this compassionate approach to guide and teach our best furry friends and it naturally spills over into our everyday lives ... the future is full of hope!
happy-houndz.blogspot.com cheers, kate
Science in dog training
The disturbing trend I've seen lately in forums and in discussions I have had with various people about dogs is the politicization of "traditional" versus "positive" dog training. By politicization, I mean people dismissing someone who advocates for what we usually call positive training as opposed to "traditional" or so-called "blanaced" methods (methods that combine jerk and pull with use of some rewards) as being "liberal tree huggers" or some such thing. I saw a forum post recently that decried an article in a SF paper discussing 'positive ans cientific dog training' as "a typical offering from the land of Pelosi." Clearly, this is arguing ad-hominim, and there is nothing inherantly political about any dog training method. Positive training works regardless of what state you live in or for whom you voted in the last election. But nonetheless, advocates of positive training have this issue to battle with, and it's a tough one.
I think the reason some people are so rejecting of taking a more scientific approach to dog training is that there is a deep divide in this country based on socioeconomics and education. People take prickly pride in following what they regard as the traditional way of doing things...from child rearing to dog training (and most Americans still favor using corporal punishment with kids). Arguments that something is "kinder and gentler" or "more fun" tends to be rejected by people who worry that society in general is becoming too "soft and permissive" and that this trend is to blame for much of what is "wrong" nowadays. Arguments that a certain approach is scientific also tends to cause many people to become glassy eyed. I teach biology to non majors at a community college, so I know how hard a sell science can be even to a relatively "captive audience." To many, science only happens within "ivory towers" and often seems to fly in the face of what "common sense" or personal experience tells them must be true. The science behind evolutionary biology and climate change are very solid, as far as scientists are concerned, but they have been rejected piecemiel by a large number of Americans for reasons that are largely emotional. Telling people that the approach seen on TV that is fun to watch and seems to work so well (if you don't look under the rug) or the "traditional method" advocated by their dog's breeder or their favorite uncle is not 'scientific' merely reaffirms beliefs that scientists are a breed apart and that science has no applicability in everyday matters.
So converting more people to what we regard as humane and scientific methods of dog training will require developing arguments that do not focus on these methods being humane and scientific, sadly. Peoples' reasons for rejecting "these newfangled methods" are often not logical, but emotional. Sometimes all we can do is plant a few seeds and hope they take root and remember that many of us did not "cross over" overnight. I think I've managed to plant a few seeds by informing people that the amazing things those agility dogs on TV do or assistance dogs do or drug enforcement dogs do were trained using positive reinforcement and not by punishment (I've actually had people ask me if we train agility dogs using shock collars-yikes). Sometimes mentioning that many trainers who have switched from coercive to reward based training methods also report far fewer incidents of their students being bitten by their own dogs (this one can backfire though, because there is always someone who thinks that he is more agile or powerful than most people and therefor can use force safely on his own dog). It is also the case that the dog whisperer, like all fads, is going to eventually run its course. There is even a chance that there will be a lurid case someday where someone is seriously injured using these techniques (in direct association with the show or not) and the media will be having a slow period and so they run with it.
Oh dear, this is rather long. I guess I've been thinking of a lot of these issues lately, because it seems that everyone who has come to my house lately to do repairs or install my cable or something has been a big fan of the Dog Whisperer show and asks me if I watch it. I love your blog and this site in general.
Post above proves its own point
The remarks immediately above contain the fallacies complained of: statements about the science behind climate change and evolutionary biology. As more is learned, there are more and more problems identified with evolutionary theory and origin of life. As someone with doctoral level education, it has been eye-opening to me to see how much of what we were taught 20 yrs ago be undermined by further research in origins of life. Directed panspermia is the best we can do for the origin of life? I don't have enough expertise in global warming/climate change, but have read enough to cause a major rethink about whether we truly know anything. And THAT discussion has become more political than scientific.
But that's the point of what Ian is telling us. Certain models of dog training have been espoused (and there is strong emotional attachment to certain points-of-view), but now the (fairly obvious) shortcomings are being pointed out..."but this is what we've been taught!". The advantage is that we CAN actually set up an experimental design to assess teaching methods more applicable to pet dog training. I look forward to this discussion going forward. And BTW: I am FAR more comfortable with a child being physically disciplined (a hand slap for a small child after being told 'no' who keeps escalating while testing limits) than a puppy. We seem to be able to benefit from such interactions as humans...puppies, I don't think so! Perhaps it's that there are things that a human just won't learn without more vigorous correction ;).