The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) is a body that seems to have been formed by trainers unhappy with the trend toward dog-friendly techniques. They also seem a little rusty on the relevant science. Their 2011 conference theme was “Pack Leadership for Dogs and Their Humans,” and the IACP website has education articles with statements like this:
“For me, the reason I use a dog pack to train is that it rebuilds a dog’s brain from the inside out. What I see over and over anymore (sic) are dogs who are too unstable to even teach a sit.”
IACP has a Code of Conduct, Item 8 of which reads as follows:
“8. IACP members may not seek to deprive any canine professional of his or her ability to conduct his or her business by seeking to restrict or ban accepted and established tools of the trade, or by seeking to restrict or ban accepted and established techniques and practices within the industry through calls for boycotts, restrictions, bans, or other actions designed to interfere with free marketplace participation of a canine professional in his or her business. Accepted and established tools of the trade include, but are not limited to, leashes, harnesses, training collars, slip collars, prong collars, head halters, remote electronic collars, and electronic pet containment systems. Accepted and established techniques and practices include, but are not limited to, those techniques and practices described in published books, videos, and professional seminars. A personal preference shall be allowed in the individual member’s choice of methods, equipment and techniques within their own practice.”
Wait a second. Are they saying that if anybody has ever written it down or described it at a “professional” seminar, it’s an “accepted and established technique?” This policy would allow the grandfathering in of practices such as those of the late William Koehler. In The Koehler Method of Dog Training (Howell Books, 1962, 1996) Koehler describes how to hang a dog until unconscious (p. 37):
“When finally it is obvious that he is physically incapable of expressing his resentment and is lowered to the ground, he will probably stagger loop-legged for a few steps, vomit once or twice, and roll over on his side. The sight of a dog lying, thick-tongued, on his side is not pleasant, but do not let it alarm you. I have dealt with hundreds of these.”
Koehler is – I’m not kidding – an IACP Hall of Famer. Here is an excerpt from his IACP Hall of Fame page:
“Quiet, unassuming, soft spoken and gentle of hand, Bill gave us a way to train dogs while at the same time honoring their very dog-ness. The Koehler Method of Dog Training is just as valid and useful in the Twenty-first century as it was in the Twentieth century and we suspect it will continue to have just as much meaning for as long as we have dogs to train.”
Koehler’s remedy for digging (p. 178-179) is as follows:
“(F)ill the hole to its brim with water. . . . bring the dog to the hole and shove his nose into the water; hold him there until he is sure he’s drowning. . . . fill the hole with water and repeat the experience the next day, whether the dog digs any more or not.”
IACP has a listing of Trainer Schools, which are either “members or sponsors of the IACP.” Recommended schools sponsor the certifying body? This from an organization ostensibly “established to develop and promote the highest standards of professional and business practice among canine professionals.”
On this list of schools is one that initially appears to be an outlier, a school whose link reads “ForceFree Method™.” Seeing as force enthusiasts have infiltrated bodies like APDT, I thought this might represent an attempt by force-free trainers to infiltrate IACP, however it turns out ForceFree Method™, “combines low level remote collar work with excellent body language to engage the dog’s natural Pack Drive. Fast and happy training for both dog and handler.”
If you go to their site, you get this:
“Why forceless? Most people just don’t feel good yelling at their dogs or yanking on a choke collar. Moreover, doing so just turns the training process into a contest of willpower. Anyone who has ever lived with a dog knows they have an endless supply of willpower. So simply forcing your dog to behave leaves them forever looking for an opportunity to outwit you.
We also do not ‘cookie or clicker train.’ These methods do work well for competition dogs who must perform routines under controlled conditions. We find them useless when trying to stop unwanted behaviors in the real world.”
Okay, so no forcing dogs to “behave.” No food and no use of timing markers. So what does he do? Here is what he recommends for food guarding:
“I like to begin by calling the dog away from the food bowl. A 10 or 15 foot line might be in order to help teach this behavior. I will call the dog’s name and apply some gentle leash pressure pulling the dog towards me. As soon as he starts to come my way (by his own choice) I let the leash go slack and continue to encourage the dog. When he gets to me I will have an incredibly tasty treat waiting for him. So he learns that giving something up for me often means he gets something better. In other words, he isn’t giving anything up, he’s simply trading up!”
Wait. This would be “cookie training” but for the bit where we “might” have to use a long line to “apply some gentle leash pressure.”
Notwithstanding this description, one would think he’d boxed himself in motivation rhetoric-wise were it not for our favorite motivation deus ex machina, which headlines the Become a Trainer page:
“It’s all about Pack Drive™”
“Pack Drive” is trademarked?
Here we go.
“The ForceFree Method™ is an intuitive system of training that makes sense to both people and dogs. Effective and gentle, the training method works WITH the dogs (sic) instincts rather than against them. We achieve off leash reliability, even with distractions, amazingly fast. Most dogs perceive the training as simple “pack cooperation” and play. Therefore, they quickly shed rebellious behavior, and give you more focus than you imagined possible. Doesn’t that sound like more fun than correction after correction?”
Are we comparing the funnicity of electric shock versus “correction after correction” from the perspective of the people or the dogs? Speaking of the joy and wonder of inter-species relationships, here is an IACP recall treatise. I’m trying to imagine why I would have such a grim relationship with my dog. And I’m at a loss. We need mental health professionals deconstructing this stuff.
The late author Vicki Hearne is also in the IACP Hall of Fame. She herein babbles on “rote learning”:
“It works tolerably well on some handlers, because people have vast unconscious minds and can store complex preprogrammed behaviors. Dogs, on the other hand, have almost no unconscious minds, so they can learn only by thinking.”
Please re-read the preceding, bearing in mind that a person who took money for training animals wrote it.
“A correction blocks one path as it opens another for desire to work; punishment blocks desire and opens nothing.”
Punishment is any consequence that reduces the frequency of the behavior it follows. Its impact on “desire” is impossible to analyze. The sentence is made-up rubbish. A “trainer” – including one who is dead – who can’t define an undergrad Psych 101 term like punishment is (was) a quack.
“Correction” is weasel-speak for the term Hearne was unable to correctly use in a sentence, i.e. punishment. In this case, she was talking about the violent kind of punishment, i.e. positive punishment. We could stretch and say it’s a fair metaphor to say punishment blocks one path (i.e. reduces the frequency of a behavior, thereby “blocking” a strategy the dog is attempting), but to say it “opens another for desire to work” is unparsable nonsense. But force trainers have to use unparsable nonsense because they have this phobia of the word punishment. Which is pretty ironic.
It’s concerning that the IACP brain trust, rather than seeking to distance themselves from the Bill Koehlers and Vicki Hearnes, enshrines them in its Hall of Fame. But this is a fringe organization, and humans are nothing if not fringe organization generators. Much more concerning is the fact that legitimate organizations such as APDT state outright that members may train any way they please, which means trainers may engage in even the most egregious aversive practices or flagrant unprofessional conduct. It is, in practice, no different from IACP when it comes to the conduct of its members.
The strategy of dog-friendly-in-theory trainer organizations seems to be what a former student of mine calls “osmosis.” If you expose sadists and quacks to technically sound, humane ways of training, they’ll cross over on their own. It’s just a question of education. If, on the other hand, you draw a line in the sand and say “any member who hangs dogs to unconsciousness is out, period,” they’ll get all alienated and it’ll shut down dialogue.
Can we entertain having a statute of limitations on this strategy? There is a nation of dogs waiting to hear if non-contingent water-boarding will be unequivocally off the table any time soon.
Good for you, Jean. We need more people that pick apart the rubbish thrown around the dog training community under the guise of “training”.
Keep up the great work, and don’t back down or dumb down your posts. I like that you called out the APDT. Shame on them.
People need to learn that dog training is not necessarily easy or random, but based on sound scientific principles. Just because someone calls him or herself a “trainer” does not make them an expert on dog behavior, or worthy of someone’s trust or hard-earned dollar. And, just because a group of people create an association of “canine professionals” does not mean that the individuals that are members or collective group knows what the heck they are talking about.
And just because a dog appears heeling beside a trainer in his promotional video, that doesn’t mean he trained the dog himself, or even that the dog was trained according to the methods he espouses.
This association’s advice on tackling a simple case of play biting in a puppy is thus…
“I teach the ‘scruff and cuff’. It must occur within 1/2 second of the protest and must ‘end the discussion’. That means taking hold of the pup by its neck scroff/collar behind the ears and lifting the front just enough for the weight to come off the pup’s front paws. My right hand sneaks up under the jaw and cuffs it. This is done with an open hand and stiffened fingers, enough to cause a submissive reaction. I don’t let go of the scruff until this has occured. Sometimes a pup will come back at the person giving the correction. This indicates that the cuff was inadequate and the dog thought you were baiting or ‘flanking’ it so to speak. That cuff needs to be swift and forceful enough to slightly startle the pup. Too little is as bad as too much. A calm, quiety warning growl should accompany the correction”.
What a dangerously silly piece of advice. Not to mention a long winded explanation!
Do they do the same when a baby grabs their hair? We’re talking puppies!
I’m glad you highlighted this prehistoric group Jean!
I was writing about the IACP.
The APDT (international) however, are a training and information resource association. I find their magazine very current and informative. The APDT are using every ounce of current research, whereas the IACP appeared to have stopped looking at research in 1965! How the IACP made it to the internet I’ll never know!
Last week I wrote a blog post on certification of trainers so I’m glad you posted this article when you did! I’ve linked to it and hope that my scant few readers will click.
Several years ago, my dogs were unfortunate enough for me to naively and stupidly follow up on a referral from a pet store to one of these trainers. Talk about the regret of a life-time.
Big sad face.
I had a bad experience with a trainer who on the phone told me she did not use any corrections and this was a “clicker class”. I arrived to see dogs on “training collars” and reactive dogs being sprayed with water and yelled at. I left.
I was VERY shocked to see her listed on APDT years later when I had joined myself. It made me really wonder who I was giving my money to. *sigh*
Pingback: Hire me. I am a self-taught lawyer! « scratchandsniffdogs
Great piece by Emily here: http://scratchandsniffdogs.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/hire-me-i-am-a-self-taught-lawyer/
Jean
The best thing that I ever learned from a “all positive” trainer was to NEVER turn my leash over to someone else until I’ve seen them in action, their frustration tolerance, etc. Thank Dog for someone like JD that has the guts and the intellect to dispute crap such as put out by these ‘trainers’.
I would imagine that the trainer who stated, “What I see over and over anymore (sic) are dogs who are too unstable to even teach a sit,” probably does see more then his or her fair share of unstable dogs. In fact, I’ll bet that he or she is surrounded by unstable dogs.
I wonder to what extent aversive-based training is specific to a country or culture. My wife & I were in Paris last winter (ooh-la-la!) and saw a city of well-mannered dogs and handlers. Saw almost no leash tugs, yelling and frustration. Why calm in one city and crazy in another? Any ideas?
I would guess the laissez-faire, less controlcontrolcontrol attitude may play a role. Dogs have access to places and stimuli, and so habituate, i.e. it gets old. Dogs who don’t get out much or see much get more excited when they do go somewhere.
And I’m not convinced the trainer I quoted is seeing dogs too “unstable” to be taught to sit. What on earth does that even mean? A trainer who can’t teach a dog to sit is incompetent, not inundated with unstable dogs.
Cheers,
Jean
Well first off, they were probably brought into the city. Ever been to Boston, Portland, or New York City. You will see mostly behaved dogs OUTSIDE their home, but you tend not to see the ones caged up in their yards never leaving their home or yard, and sometimes a danger to those that pass by or ring the doorbell. In a city, you either sink or swim with your dog.
Training by definition (or my definition anyway) to teach to the extent that training collars and perhaps even leashes are not needed, nevermind a never ending array of corrections and rewards.
The one thing I miss about living in the city, is my dogs were exposed to more varied distractions.
When trainers are talking about unstable dogs that is usually what the client brings to the dog trainer. Personally, I think a dog and owner relationship can always improve, so I don’t talk about an unstable dog like it’s a demeaning thing.
All my personal dogs and long time client dogs are either stable, unstable or quite a bit improved. I’ve never met a dog to unstable to teach a sit . However, I have met a few owners who were told to put their dogs down, because there was no hope by a trainer. Just glad that they found me:)
Those who wish to find a trainer who is committed to training dogs using methods which are dog-friendly, or simply put, do not cause pain to the dog, can find one at http://www.trulydogfriendly.com. For those who are still on the fence and have been reading IACP’s misinformation, please go here and read the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior’s position statement on the use of dominance in dog training: http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance%20statement.pdf. Obviously, people with advanced degrees in animal behavior are at odds with the “pack leader” concept being touted by IACP. In fact, the AVSAB tells veterinarians NOT to recommend such trainers.
AVSAB has also gone on record about the use of positive punishment in training: http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/Combined_Punishment_Statements.pdf.
This blog is merely a waste of time, including all the lame pigeon comments. The dog training world is in a mess because most pigeon trainers don’t have a clue as to what dominance even represents as it connects to mind and body. Most of these lame and self validating pigeon systems of training are disconnected from reality.
IACP memberships include but are not limited to vets,groomers,kennel owners and trainers of different methods (including what you call dog friendly trainers). Personal training perferenes are allowed and dicussed among members with open minds unlike other organizations.What would your ideal organization be…..closed minded??
In regards to screaming,yeling or forced and dominace training, they’ve been a thing of the past for many manymany years. Where have you been?
JD: ” Wait a second. Are they saying that if anybody has ever written it down or described it at a “professional” seminar, it’s an “accepted and established technique?”
So “your” books or seminars are to be considered?? How about Karen Pryor,Patricia McConnell,Nacy Baer,Roger Abrantes,Bruce Fogle, Mary Burch, Alexandra Horowitz etc? They shouldn’t be read?? Funny, because I believe many IACP members have read such books with open minds yours included. I assume you’ve read Koehler’s book because you’ve referenced it by quoting sections of the book plus provided page numbers why would you read such a book ?
As for Koelher being inducted to Hall of Fame I’d like to think it was because he was one of the first dog trainers and “all” dog training styles developed from his style.
Dale:
Thanks for the link!
Are these people disconnected from reality, as well?
Peder Z. Christiansen – Mondioring sport seminar (bite sport)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2lX-yo0v4A
Steve White – long time trainer in police K9 Units
http://i2ik9.com/video.htm
Guide Dogs for the Blind – guide dog organizations are shedding their history of yank-and-crank training
http://www.guidedogs.com/
And, honestly, I’m not sure why you’re hating on pigeons.
I call anyone a pigeon who exploits and misrepresents. What a joke. Any trainer worth his or her salt has confronted the inconsistencies associated with conditioning and influence. Pigeons are merely heating up dominance to market and sell their lame permissive ideas onto the unsuspecting public. I just released a study which shows the reasons behind higher fail rates with these pigeon systems. Pigeons have created their own self validating Ivory Tower. Truth couldn’t make it in the front door even if it wanted too. As for certifications, associations, credentials etc, they are all meaningless. Dominance is the core issue. Either you have both feet in nature or you don’t. Pigeons are merely scratching the surface when it comes to understanding the dog and human dynamic. http://www.k9pack.com
Anyone can pay money to get some pigeon certificate or diploma and stick it up on the wall as long as they raise their pigeon claw and swear to misrepresent dominance and exploit conditioning. When the pigeon terms and conditions don’t work then dogs get medicated and destroyed. The behaviorist system of training is merely humanization of behavior. It is nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme.
Steve White is an example of what influence represents via the mind and body connection. Its not about what you are holding in your hand but rather where the mind is going. Dogs and nature represent the whole. Behaviorism is a separation. Pigeons do not understand how a dog’s mind is governed and influenced beyond appearances.
I am personally and professionally acquainted with Marc Goldberg, creator of the Force Free Method of dog training. As such, I am in a position to accurately report that Marc’s approach to training is supremely and absolutely humane and gentle. His fundamental basic theory is to kindly entice dogs to learn rather than force or dominate them in any way. Subtlety, relating to each and every dog as a unique being and adjusting his training choices appropriately are also central to Marc’s dog training paradigm. I have seen Marc work with a variety of dogs and can attest to his talent / expertise and vast knowledge base, his respect for all dogs, the remarkable changes his training has wrought in the lives of owners and dogs who might otherwise have been put down, his appreciation of the species as a sentient, intelligent entity and his impressive affinity and ability to communicate with dogs using only his soft voice and subtle body language. I have learned a great deal from Marc – his consistent advocacy for training dogs in a sensitive, kindly manner has impressed many clients and trainers alike.
It is an interesting intellectual exercise to read this highly critical account of Marc and the Force Free Method as if it was written by someone who does not know him, has never worked with him and has no direct knowledge of the Force Free Method. For all of Ms. Donaldson’s insistence on education and scientific relevance, she has fallen woefully short of her own standards in this blog post.
Generally speaking, it is always astonishing to me that the self-described “Positive” trainers speak of other trainers who are not strictly aligned with their theories and practices harshly, in a scathingly condescending manner and most often without empirical knowledge of the subject at hand while at the same time appealing to the gang (dare I say pack) mentality of their like minded readers. These emotionally charged critics incite paranoia, panic and fear. More often than not, these holier-than-thou naysayers utilize a vitriolic tone which is provocative, antagonistic and histrionic. The line they have drawn in the sand has created a serious “us vs. them” mentality in the dog training community at large. Legions of trainer are lumped into generalized categories and are sliced to pieces by the swords of the “Positives”. By virtue of Ms. Donaldson’s blog post, I have now been obliquely called a “sadist” and a “quack” since I am a member of the IACP and I do not ascribe to this style of dog training. Ms. Donaldson could not recognize me out of a crowd of two people yet there I am – standing amidst other cruel ogres with a big blood red letter emblazoned on my chest. She knows nothing of the way I train, but her sweeping charges paint me as an idiot, cruel, uneducated, unethical and hopelessly inhumane. Wow. Just wow.
I hold onto the hope that eventually, both groups of trainers who are facing off across that line in the sand can begin to share information in a respectful fashion, share training techniques and explore whether we actually have a bit more in common with each other than we realize. Perhaps this is naive, but an open mind in conjunction with a closed mouth can be a revelation.
In the meantime, although I have numerous comments yet unstated herein, I have dogs to train….
Dale, are you currently having a psychotic break? Please step away from the computer until you can make sense.
Seems pigeons have a difficult time understanding since they are all following the same bread crumbs leading to the same outdated Skinner Box of lame ideas.
Do not denounce something you know NOTHING about. If you have not worked with specific iacp trainers, you have no right to judge. Just because someone wrote something in a book, does not mean everyone who reads it will follow it to a “T”.
I developed the ForceFree Method of Training Dogs with both the attitude of the dog and my desire to get results in mind. Both are important. The ends do not justify the means. Nor do the means justify lack of results.
Did I expect that dog TRAINERS would rally to support my efforts? Of course not. In general dog trainers eat their young. What I have been gratified to see is that many dog OWNERS approve of my methodology, and more importantly, so do their dogs.
Once in a while the holder of a PhD in animal behavior will show up at my farm or my workshops to see for herself. I’m gratified that those individuals have been positive in their feedback. I’m not concerned with the PhD who knows just because she knows or who is not positive in their feedback.
To sum it all up, to be called a Weasel by Jean McDonald is something of an honor. It’s like being called Un-American by Sen. McCarthy.
The word Pack is defined in Webster’s Dictionary and I believe understood by my fellow IACP members is as follows:
“A full set of like or associated things handled or considered a unit”.
Hmmmmmm, so an IACP conference which educates their members on helping clients develop a “team and/or unit” relationship with their dogs is bad? WOW!!!!!!!
Now someone tell me how the word Leadership translate to Dominance?? I don’t beleive it does or every will: *Leadership – To go ahead of as to show the way, guide,to serve as direction. *Dominance – to have control, to have masterful or supreme control over, to tower above or loom over. As you can see they are very different but viewed as one by many people, organizations and unfortunately those holding degrees within animal science and behavior venues.
On the subject of dog friendly trainers, I’m familar with a few members of the “Truly Dog Friendly”. I’m surprised to learn yelling, screaming and growling while teaching Leave It is a “truly dog friendly” approach to dog training.Thanks for the information because the dogs who cower,shake and hide behind their owners could of fooled me.
BTW Ian Dunbar is also a member of the IACP Hall of Fame.
Amick, you are sadly misinformed regarding not only the definitions of dominance and leadership but also about who can define the terms and comprehend their appropriate applications. As far as this educated and LIEBI trainer is concerned Jean’s blog post is spot on. While Vicki Hearne does have some nice quotes to her credit, she has penned a lot more ridiculousness. The substance behind those quotes belies a level of experience based on false assumptions and quackitude. The result, sadly, is a career culminating in what will surely be considered misinformation, mythology, and rhetoric (perhaps sorcery).
You can nitpick on the TDF members but you are really just grasping at straws. At the very least, what Jean is discussing are pervasive themes that are the very foundation of traditional dog training. Which do you think will hold water when all is said and done: abusive dog training based on the fairy tale of pack dynamics and dominance theory or dog training based on established, well documented, vetted principles of learning that are applicable across species? It is telling that punishment-based trainers are usurping positive training terms for use in their marketing campaigns and utilizing reward-based training methods when it suits them, i.e. when they hit a training wall due to their wholly incomplete, dare I say incompetent understanding of how positive reinforcement works, at which point they slap on the e-collar and zap away. It is pitiful, really.
But you be the judge.
Huh?, since you choose to hide your identity, I will follow suite! I have but one question….Why is EVERY training method for dogs, other than the one YOU personally believe in, considered “abusive”, “dominant”, “punishment-based”, and “incompetent”?! And yes, to quote you – “IT IS PITIFUL” – that the so called Positive-Based trainers and advocates are all so NEGATIVE and close-minded. As a trainer, I utilize many methods with the dogs I train, none of which are based on abuse, punishment, dominance or force!
This blog is really disappointing. While some of the argumentative topics do bring some misconceptions to light, it is very onesided. I personally use to feel as if I could say I respected your opinion Jean. I am in no question saying you don’t deserve credit for your accomplishments, but the brutal attack on the community of dog trainers that understand many and all methods that have there limitations is childish at that.By no means do I believe that every fool using a leash and training tool should be allowed to do so…but saying that, my schooling originally began in very Koehler based, compulsion drive learning. Since then I have been as you would call it “enlightened.” I have had the time to learn, luring, marking, shaping, etc. I look up to trainers using positive methods like Micheal Ellis, Ivan Balabonov etc… who have brought these training practices to light for what they are (very efficient teaching theories.) In fact, marking, luring, and shaping are perhaps my favorite ways to train. However, I like many other trainers would love to believe that we could fix all problems using these methods, have found that even the great “Science based dog training” methods have a limitation also. Over the course of years, while I preach such methods I have seen methods fail both owner and dog.Often this is the case prior to the dog’s referral to me. Many of these “quacks” are trainers who are willing to try different things when those using “humane” 2 quadrant approaches have failed to help and have given up on the dog saying things like “if you had trained the dog earlier you’d have other options besides putting them down,” while amazingly later they found such an open minded trainer who give them help and allow their dogs to live fulfilling lives. Every one of these statements sound great, and in theory and in controlled studies evidence would seem to support the lack of need for any form of aversive techniques. But, as in many cases, controlled correlation studies don’t always fit what we find in the real world. By all means, if you can train a dog without it, why do it? Then there are those who don’t get the training they need through these methods. Now we could discuss and argue all day, leaving only opinions and cited sources on the page. Yet, when it comes down to the hard evidence that can be seen by looking at the dog population and interviewing those who have sought help and been failed multiple times, by very reputable trainers….well that’s just sad.
Generally, I do not like comparing human pysch to dog behavior, but for the argument lets look at the concept of motivation itself.There are some people, who just by getting rewards will change their behavior. There are others that will never give up a behavior, due to its self-rewarding nature, for any other reward. Some things are just too good in and of themselves. Yeah, maybe if we starve them for a while (kinda aversive sounding to me) we will get them to change their tune.And then, oh wait, now they have enough food to sustain themselves, so why not try again…and yep, still more fun. The same can be said about punishment also.
Sometimes behaviors that will not change by reward base, can be stopped with aversive techniques, or even with punishment based techniques. In fact, some studies (oops we might find science supporting the other side too) suggest things like remote collars are around 70percent more effective in stopping serious problems then some positive based methods. While anyone with a sound mind could scrutinize such studies and say they were poorly tested and did not account for other variables or possibilities, this “new science” seems to be people trying to prove hypothesis by controlling the boundaries of the experiments and how they are conducted, instead of create a truly complete compilation of such data. It goes both ways, but if it makes us feel better, we might as well believe it. But, let us go back to motivation….Yeah, we all know that both punishment and reward based systems still lack in helping many. Even applying both, we see failures in the system. So then we equate it to genetics (which it very well could be, or early learning) and give up. Why not have 4 options if the first two don’t do the trick?You may say that there is never a time that the first two don’t work, but ask around…I’m sure you’ll find some.
So if someone who tries finding what works when one method is not a quack, I’d wear that title with pride, knowing that it gives the dog another chance at a great life, no matter how many opinionated people post their angry blogs. We should all strive to use as little force, fear, punishment or whatever you want to call it, but there is nothing less positive than giving up on a dog, or putting it down if one method fails when there are other options. To me doing so is pride, close-mindedness, stubbornness, etc. Ideology meant to help dogs is pointless if it hinders them as much as it helps.
Of the quotes from the Koehler book, that is a very tiny section of A book that I simply do not use. However, the other hundred or so pages are quite helpful and useful in the processes of molding and foundation training.
I am intelligent enough as other IACP members, to pick out what works and what does not work. I have spent a lot of my time tracking trainers and methods down to study them.
The open communication of the Interational Association of Dog Trainers allows for much knowledge to be compared and analyzed. In fact, I believe in a recent discussion it was the overwhelming concensous of the group that hanging a dog is not an appropriate training method. It’s great that we are able to discuss it and why that is for anyone who does not think it is obvious.
Members of Truly Dog Friendly have been known to actually run campaigns against other trainers, spread rumors about other trainers that are not true, and spread lies about equipment that they just say “so what” when they are called out.
Not a very ethical group in my opinion, and one that just wants one thing—-more money for a market they want as their niche. The thing is, the public will either find a trainer who will help them based on their own observations, or they will just give up on the dog due to misinformation and lies that are spread (and substandard training practice that do not deliver what is promised).
“As a trainer, I utilize many methods with the dogs I train, none of which are based on abuse, punishment, dominance or force!”
Then you are a positive trainer. Kudos. I don’t know why you are so upset? I’m confused. You say you do not use punishment or intimidation yet do not classify yourself as a positive trainer. You are going to have to explain that one to us close-minded trainers. Please share with us the methods you do use and what exactly makes you think that my post was directed at you and your ilk.
Not who you are talking to, but firstly about defining terms, the dictionary has several terms of positive. Since Jean feels professions et can not define terms to meet their profession (as we all know they do) then lets stick to a definition of positive based on this link:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/positive
“Measured or moving forward or in a direction of increase or progress.” one of a laundry list presented. I like that one. Now Jean seems digusted that this is definition of positive and not in line with the four quandrants, which are terms that fall outside of this definition. Also, apparently it’s okay for TDF and APDT to define things as “pain” that are not painful and do not meet the scientific basis for pain (as to when the signal is received and TRUE pain is felt). Any touching of the dog seems to indicate pain whether it’s molded or not. And the “positive” definition for TDF trainers is that if it’s not a treat or it is a touch then it’s not positive. Neither the scientific definition Jean likes NOR the dictionarly defition.
I have in fact thought a lot about my definitions and how they fit into dog training, so that noone can be confused about what I might be saying OR the difference in terms used by a dog trainer.
http://mannerlymutts.blogspot.com/p/glossary.html
Additionally, MY dog friendly or positive definition has been outlined in an article:
http://mannerlymutts.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-is-dog-friendly.html
It melds well with our definitions of progress. Progress, results, standards etc…these are things that make both our canine clients and dog owners happy with their improved relationships and ability to communicate, I know how it happened that in positive the world became that everything that is not a treat or hands free is PAINFUL. It’s the same tripe that refuses to be able to tell the difference between a correction and punishment (by the definition that includes violence).
http://mannerlymutts.blogspot.com/2010/07/definition-of-violence.html
It mainly smacks of desperation, and I am a okay with that. I only wish that perhaps the same sort of dedication was spent improving skills, and researching, reading, and experiences what you are attempting to talk about intelligently.
What is truly scary and abusive, is what some trainers will do in the name of studies. Sadly, one of the things that they do not do, was consult a professional and knowledgable trainer. Instead, they intentionally abused dogs. This could only be intentional unless they are claiming extreme stupidity.
http://ruthcrisler.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/remote_control/
This would be an amusing read, if it wasn’t so darned frightening.
Huh,
The defintions of Pack, Leadership and Dominance are located in the Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language on the following pages 146, 284 and 359. What part of their definitions are you suggesting “we” don’t understand or maybe you don’t understand as it relates to dog training? Team work and/or Unity(dog and handler working together while enhancing the skills of the dog and building an enhanced relationship between the two) or how Dominance is abusive (creating compliance via submission thru supreme overpowering control)?
The information regarding the Truly Dog Friendly trainers mentioned in my previous post was based on my personal observations of their training and the information provided by *their previous clients* prior to hiring me to *re-train* their dogs and to provide the results they didn’t receive from trainers. No nit picking or grasping at straws here,because results speaks for itself. Results, WITHOUT abuse of Dominance (which I beleive dominate behavior includes includes yelling,screaming and growling at the dog )
BTW I believe that holds water is a dog happily wagging his tail while displaying reliable off leash obedience near a very busy street. Too dangerous some may say, Nah it’s just training created via team work, trust and unity without so they so called dominance some people THINK happens during our training sessions. If you beleive we yank, crank and dominate you’re sadly mistaken and living in the stone ages.
I’m surprised at the extreme defensive reactions to this blog. The damning parts are direct quotes from these IACP sites, albeit with humorous asides, so the dog trainers quoted really seem to have been just given enough rope to hang *themselves*. And then they go really off the rails in the comments. A positive trainer in Santa Fe helped us enormously with our own dog (who was not an easy dog!) and, to be perfectly frank, neither my husband nor I have it in us to jerk him on any kind of collar or otherwise force him. I’m hoping she will read the battle going on here and respond.