A Trainers Debate With The Rspca

[Rom]

RSPCA SA Blog spot

Positive Reinforcement versus Punishment in Dog Training

March 8th, 2007

The following is our response to a comment that was posted by “Mark” on 5th March about our blog on dog training devices which the RSPCA does not agree with. We disagree with “Mark’s” opinion! (which is reposted below)

Reponse from the RSPCA

Mark, thank you for your comments, as they highlight misconceptions that exist about our training philosophy here at the RSPCA and its consequences. For those unfamiliar with positive methods, it might seem that we advocate treating our dogs with kid gloves and letting them do whatever they want. This is absolutely not the case. Being positive does not mean being permissive. Our use of rewards (food, toys, play, praise and attention) is just part of a program that includes proper management to limit the dog’s opportunities to misbehave, and the use of passive punishment (e.g. ignoring unwanted behaviours, removing attention, time outs etc).

When analysing dog behaviour it is misleading to talk about wolves and pack behaviour. Dogs have been domesticated for over 100,000 years, and it is widely accepted that through our selective breeding they have become vastly different to their wild ancestors. If you consider the physical differences between a wild wolf and, for example, a Chihuahua, these differences are blatantly apparent. It is no surprise that their behaviour patterns are just as different. Making comparisons between the two is akin to giving human relationship advice based upon studies of the behaviour patterns of Cave Men.

Fortunately we do not need to rely on studies of wolf behaviour when training dogs, as there are decades of evidence-based research on the ways in which ALL animals learn, including dogs. Its called operant conditioning, and is the basis for our approach. Studies confirm that methods such as ours are humane, effective, and far less likely to compromise the relationship between a dog and its owner than any other. We agree that dogs are highly social animals that need leadership, but it is clear that we can provide this using a positive approach.

Dominance and pack theory are over-used justifications for the use of punishment based training. It is too simplistic to think that dogs misbehave or are disobedient simply because they haven’t been shown who is boss, and that if you can just exert adequate dominance over a dog that everything else will fall into place. This approach is likely to lead to unneeded amounts of punishment and frustration, which are likely to only worsen problems such as not coming when called and biting, while the real issues go unaddressed, such as adequate opportunity to learn what is required, and the provision of an adequate environment.

However, for those that are determined to cling to the concept of dominance, the positive method of training is still relevant. Surely making a dog work for every bit of food that they need to live puts the owner in the most dominant position available? Leash correction training surely cannot compete with this position of power.

Last but not least, we completely disagree that the use of positive methods can be linked to dogs becoming aggressive. Quite the opposite, as the methods are so non-confrontational. Further to this, positive methods are the best form of approach with a dog that is showing aggression since punishment based training is more likely to incite retaliation from a confident aggressive dog, or in a submissive dog to teach them not to warn before biting. (If growling gets punished then it’s safer from the dog’s perspective to go straight to biting without giving any warning). So if we are serious about reducing the number of bites in homes (and we are) then we are more likely to succeed when dogs are positively trained (and further if owners can be better educated to understand their dog’s body language).

Let us end by saying that we have never experienced the use of positive training causing the euthanasia of a dog. On the contrary, our use of positive methods has allowed us to re-educate and re-home dogs who have shown defensive aggression in homes that relied on physical adversives. In these cases it has been wonderful to see the dogs learn to trust their handlers, to watch their happy personality reveal itself when they learned there was nothing to fear, and to see their progress in learning when they were given calm clear guidance about what was actually required of them in a non-confrontational way.

Original Comment by “Mark”

“I believe the RSPCA needs to re-asses it views on dog training and dog training and behaviour modification. RSPCA has totally lost all sight of the fact that dogs are instinctively pack animals that live by pack instinct. All domesticated dogs still have at least 80% of the inherited instincts of the wolf. I believe that the RSPCA is falsely misleading the public by suggesting that ONLY totally positive food based training should be used to train ALL dogs. This type of training may very well work for lower pack dogs, as they are instinctively followers, and do not have the instinct to assert dominance for control. Dogs that instinctively belong at the top of the dog pack (dominant dogs, or rank dominant dogs), will not respond appropriately to totally positive food based forms of dog training. This type of training does not establish in the dog’s mind the order of the pack, and dogs trained in this manner will continually try to assert dominance over their owners. Yes ALL dog training should be primarily positive. You cannot gain a dog’s respect or confidence without your training being primarily positive. But incorrect behaviour or dominant behaviour should be corrected. I am a professional dog trainer in Adelaide, and the number of dog owners that have come to me after trying totally positive food based training is incredible. Too often I have seen dog owners at their wits end due to overly dominant dogs controlling the family, or showing dominant aggressive traits, come to me after being to a totally positive based dog trainer. I personally believe the number of dog bites and attacks from family dogs will be greatly reduced if we understand the instincts of the dog, and train accordingly! Too many dogs these days are being destroyed or dumped at shelters due to aggressive behaviour. Most of these can be corrected with the right training. It’s about time welfare groups respected the dog for what it is, a social pack animal that has inherited rules for survival, and we should respect this in our dogs. Bribing a dog with food is not working with many of these dogs natural instincts, and destroying dogs because of dominance related issues, because RSPCA does not agree with corrective training, is an injustice to our beloved canines!”

Curious to note that on this particular topic they have since removed links that would allow you to leave comments on this blog entry.

[Tonymc]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with views of Mark the dog trainer!!!!typical RSPCA, again out of touch with reality. Tony

[Reddii]

While I'm not sure I agree with all of what Mark has said I certainly agree with his sentiments. We need to be able to pick and choose the training methods that best suit both our dogs and us for given activities.

I think we need to be careful thought not to make this thread about the RSPCA. There are plenty more people out there who advocate purley positive training methods. RSPCA is just one organisation with these views.

[jesomil]

I totally agree with what Mark says as well.

The methods in the response are probably great for some dogs but to make it a blanket training for all dogs is unrealistic.

Edited December 18, 2007 by jesomil

[dogdude]

On the contrary......... " Many other people" don't have any input in regards to making laws and influencing government and local councils.

I am not a fan of the way the R.S.P.C.A conducts itself.

I do not agree however with some of what Mark said either.

[jaybeece]

I think we need to be careful thought not to make this thread about the RSPCA. There are plenty more people out there who advocate purley positive training methods. RSPCA is just one organisation with these views.

Yes, but the RSPCA is seen as an authority on dogs so I think it's wrong to present only side of dog training to the public.

My concern is that by promoting only "positive' training they're making it a lot harder for people who's dog don't respond to it well by making it feel like they'll be a bad owner for needing to turn to non-RSPCA approved methods to have a well behaved dog.

One of their articles a while ago listed head halters under "positive" training equipment too which is just plain silly. It's just as adversive and "negative" as a choker in many ways.

It is too simplistic to think that dogs misbehave or are disobedient simply because they haven’t been shown who is boss, and that if you can just exert adequate dominance over a dog that everything else will fall into place. This approach is likely to lead to unneeded amounts of punishment and frustration, which are likely to only worsen problems such as not coming when called and biting, while the real issues go unaddressed, such as adequate opportunity to learn what is required, and the provision of an adequate environment.

And IMO this is exactly the opposite to how it really is. So many dogs out there are well trained, but still exhibit behavioural problems and are regularly disobedient because they don't know where they stand with their owner or family.

[Rom]

On the contrary......... " Many other people" don't have any input in regards to making laws and influencing government and local councils.

I agree.

RSPCA:

Fortunately we do not need to rely on studies of wolf behaviour when training dogs, as there are decades of evidence-based research on the ways in which ALL animals learn, including dogs. Its called operant conditioning, and is the basis for our approach.

I also find it annoying that they represent their method as 'operant conditioning' without acknowledging or accepting that positive punishment is indeed a part of operant conditioning....its kind of like they're bastardising the factual science to suit their own ends and misleading the public. This IMHO is a criminal deception.

[Erny]

There also seems to be a "throw away" attitude to the instincts of our canines. Just to suggest that dogs have been domesticated does not go to follow that basic ancient instincts have not carried through in one shape or form (and in varying degrees to each breed and individual within breed). In the RSPCA's response, it has denied (or ignored to suit its own argument/agenda?) that instinct plays any part in our domesticated dogs' behaviour.

ETA: Answers such as "dogs are domesticated" really annoy me. It answers to absolutely nothing in relation to the behaviour of dogs although we are expected to accept it AS an answer.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Erny

[Tonymc]

Exactly Erny!!!!!They are advocating food as the total answer too.I guess it might be beyond their comprehension that not all dogs are motivated or driven by Food. Tony

[SUPERKAZ]

I think Mark makes some good points, but I also thing the RSPCA's response is quite reasoned as well. I am no expert, and what I take away from it is to be overwhelmingly positive, but realise that as appropriate, there are other technigues I can employ as well if I need to, or if particular issues arise. I think the two methods expressed both have merit, and would work best in balance or combination, having regard to the individual dog in question.

[ShellyBeggs]

I agree with Mark totally.....and what Tony and Erny have said here.

My kelpie is not food or toy driven......and he needs rules and consequences and he likes to push boundaries! Not only does positive only training not work with him.....but having had him around someone who previously worked at the RSPCA, she says he wouldn't even pass their behaviour tests because he is too interested and excited by cats and large animals....but mainly because they check for response to positive training which he would fail.

........he is a herding breed, isn't agressive but has a high chase drive but low food/toy drive. I think for a kelpie he is quite well balanced compared to a lot out there I have seen going feral at everything....but in the hands of the RSPCA he would be PTS and the main basis is that he isn't responsive enough to positive training.......and he chases things (which is what he is bred to do so a giant DER to the RSPCA).

The RSPCA makes out that using anything but positive training is the equivalent to beating the dog with a baseball bat.

And that isn't true at all.......I have even been told by the RSPCA that the use of a correction chain is cruel. It can be in the wrong hands, but if used correctly can be a wonderful tool. Like raising kids, it should be about the right balance for a particular dog. No dog responds the same and so training tools can't be the same for every dog.

I was refused a rescue from an RSPCA because when I commented that I would take the dog to my obedience club, and she asked me on a chain, and I responded that it was a requirement of the club that all dogs wore correction chains (as it was back then). The women told me that was a cruel device and I wasn't fit to own a dog. I explained that I had already obedience trained 2 dogs who were never effected by the wearing of a correction chain and that when I had walked this boy around the property on the flat collar he had on, he almost ripped my arm out of the socket and that obedience was really what he needed. I was told that I needed a more positive training approach before I could get a RSPCA rescue. I left upset and disgusted...... 1 week later this beautful boy was pts, when I enquired I was told it was due to him being unruly and uncontrolable on lead and they didn't think he was rehomable.

I think the RSPCA needs to get off their high horse, and get out there trying some of their positive only techniques in real life situations......without the safety net of "pts".

[Tonymc]

Shelly very very good post and a great example of why the RSPCA needs to really learn about Dogs and stop misleading the general public!!! Tony

[Rom]

There also seems to be a "throw away" attitude to the instincts of our canines. Just to suggest that dogs have been domesticated does not go to follow that basic ancient instincts have not carried through in one shape or form (and in varying degrees to each breed and individual within breed). In the RSPCA's response, it has denied (or ignored to suit its own argument/agenda?) that instinct plays any part in our domesticated dogs' behaviour.

ETA: Answers such as "dogs are domesticated" really annoy me. It answers to absolutely nothing in relation to the behaviour of dogs although we are expected to accept it AS an answer.

I agree again

RSPCA:

It is no surprise that their behaviour patterns are just as different. Making comparisons between the two is akin to giving human relationship advice based upon studies of the behaviour patterns of Cave Men.

Back in the early 90's when I was studying human psychology, one of the core subjects was ancient history. It was recognised that while the nature and characteristics of some of the behaviours have changed with time, there is little by way of significant change in the instinctive motivations behind those behaviours (eg. humans still have instinctive motivations to court and mate with each other, but these days the courtship probably wouldn't be too successful if you started out by bopping the woman over the head with a wooden club ....but then I guess that would depend on how desperate you are and who was doing the bopping ), even though we too look very different to our cave dwelling ancestors. In my opinion, dogs have been through far fewer changes in the characteristics of behaviours than humans have, other than those that could be attributed to either dilution or concentration of the same instinctive motivations that you would find in the wolf.

[Reddii]

I think Mark makes some good points, but I also thing the RSPCA's response is quite reasoned as well. I am no expert, and what I take away from it is to be overwhelmingly positive, but realise that as appropriate, there are other technigues I can employ as well if I need to, or if particular issues arise. I think the two methods expressed both have merit, and would work best in balance or combination, having regard to the individual dog in question.

That's a really good point. I've used both purely harsh aversive and purely positive (at the RSPCA, where I still train for flyball and race with their team) and found that neither on it's own works. Interestingly they were contstantly at me for correcting my dog/s, until I got a 4 month BC to hold a stay with distraction for 3 or 4 minutes. Since that point not a word! Now I use a mix that is different for each of my dogs and different again depending on the situation they are in.

I can understand though why some people feel purely positive is the way to go and should be promoted. After seeing the way some owners (mis)use a check chain on relatively soft dogs there is an argument there, it may not yield the best result, but it will save the dogs a lot of grief.

[Jeff Jones]

Great reply by Mark. a well thought out and educated reply from an experienced dog trainer.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Without wanting to open the "breed characteristics" can o' worms, for sighthound training I side with the RSPCA based on the two pieces of text that have been quoted.

*dons asbestos suit*

If you want to train a Saluki, in my experience you get much better results with tools that are considered "soft" providing that they are always used accurately and consistently. Now, few of us are mad enough to try and train a Saluki (or an Afghan, or similar) and that is partly because they are breeds that don't cope well with correction and which demand a high level of accuracy and observation from a trainer.

In the Afghan breed thread, some of us helped out a DOLer who was having a difficult time with her Afghan puppy in a standard obedience class which used correction only. Perhaps a GSD could thrive in such a class, but I would never recommend it for an Afghan. The advice we gave was very similar to the advice the RSPCA gave - and our Afghan is perfectly housetrained, he walks on a loose lead, he comes in when I call him, he sits for his dinner and he accepts being brushed, bathed and blow dried. In other words, his house manners are great, and that was all achieved by improving our handling and training technique, not with correction. What worries me is that I see trainers in this forum who I might be quite happy to send a Staffy or GSD to, but to whom I would never recommend a sighthound owner go.

I also note that a person can be disciplined with food, and undisciplined with correction. Most of the time it is not the tool, but the baggage associated with the tool that is the problem. Anyone can use a tool badly and attachment to certain disciplinary tools is often more about the human than it is about the dog.

Recently my partner and I were having difficulty in the show ring with our young male salukis playing up when being examined. An experienced AB judge picked up what was going on, bless him. We had the lead too tight and the dog was fighting it. We eased off the lead, and voila, the dog has behaved ever since. Not all communication from a dog is the dog being arsey and sometimes the human needs to lay off a bit.

[Tonymc]

Anita,one problem though.Your talking in breed specific contexts.The RSPCA are including all dogs in their Blanket statement.Tony

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Anita,one problem though.Your talking in breed specific contexts.The RSPCA are including all dogs in their Blanket statement.Tony

Yep, that's why I confined my remarks to sighthounds

I've talked with rescue and shelter people who have said that in their view, a dog that has ended up in a shelter because the previous owner was unskilled and the dog became unmanageable usually needs a much firmer hand than a dog that was well trained but ended up there because the owner was elderly, or ill.

That makes perfect sense to me so I would not say, even leaving breed issues aside, that a person should never ever use correction.

My problem tho', is that in attempting to argue the case for including correction in the tool set, people appear to forget that there are some breeds where correction is almost never the right thing to do, especially if you are starting with a new puppy who has not learned to run amuck.

I do not think we should sledge purely positive trainers when purely positive techniques are perfect for some dogs (when executed correctly). Setting an example for balance should be about horses for courses, and sometimes that excludes correction.

[PAX]

In real life I don't see that many or any (never seen one yet) truley dominant dogs.

I don't think the general dog community is out for world domination, I am sure there are dogs like this, but I have never met one and all the dogs I see respond to +R and

-P, it's a NILIF world.

If I felt a dog was truely dominant I would always suggest the help of a Pro trainer.

I think correction training can go terribly wrong for the dog in the hands of the inexperienced dog trainer and for the most part we are dealing with Pet people. Where as +R training can't go too wrong with a bad trainer.

It makes my skin crawl to see a novice handler with a check chain, to use it effectively you need some degree of experience, some people have the knack but most don't.

I would never suggest correction based cures for inexperienced dog handlers, so in saying that I agree with the post on behalf of RSPCA (even though I hate to agree with them on so many other levels).

I also appreciate that the Pro trainers on this site maybe see tougher breeds then I see, as I see pet dogs.

I wasn't going to post in this thread but here I am.

[Cosmolo]

A good trainer will have a range of tools and choose what will suit that particular dog and owner- positive or not. My issue with the RSPCA's statement is that it is a blanket statement which is not true for all dogs or all owners. I have to disagree with the suggestion by some that purely positive training can not mess up a dog if applied incorrectly- i see many examples where it has done exactly that.

I deal with pet dogs too- but many of them have serious behavioural issues, or the owners have an immediate need for resolution due to the nature of the issue. I have no problem with positive training/ trainers and recommend a purely positive trainer in Perth to anyone who asks as i do not know any 'balanced' trainers over there who i would be comfortable to refer to.

But my preference is always for a trainer with an open mind and knowledge regarding different training tools and techniques.