One woman's Story

ONE WOMAN’S STORY
(Revised 2001)
Following her husband's death, a woman I know was given a ten month old German Shepherd bitch. The strong bond that German Shepherds manage to form help to bring us out of ourselves and make life worth living in times of emotional crisis. The bitch was friendly to people although a bit hesitant with strangers, but showing considerable nervous aggression towards other dogs. They went to one of the large suburban obedience clubs and her dog freaked. The instructor, a woman with a very harsh manner, told the woman to give the dog severe leash corrections. The instructor then took the dog, presumably to administer the severe corrections, but the dog slipped her collar and raced off towards another dog. Her owner yelled at her in panic and the dog dropped to the ground and then could do nothing but quiver. The instructor’s parting shot, fired in anger, was “you will really have to get on top of that dog”. The woman left the training ground feeling even more traumatised than her dog and cried in her car. After one more session she decided not to go back. Does this mean that dog training is no longer an option for her?
Fortunately not, but this story does illustrate the harsh, punitive attitudes that lead us to seek alternatives. You could argue about whether those attitudes are typical. Do they represent the worst extreme or perhaps the logical extension of those attitudes? Are they a distortion of training methods which if used correctly are valid? One thing is certain - this story is not an isolated instance.

Use of food
The pros and cons of using food is a major one. Should you use food? Is it a bribe? Does the dog become dependent on food? How is the behaviour maintained without food? Properly understood, “food training” overcomes most of these concerns, as the use of food becomes intermittent after a consistent response has been achieved.
While praise may be secondary to food, the dog is a highly social animal which desires human contact.
Dogs are carnivorous predators. It is natural for them to work for food. This especially true of activities such as tracking and nose work. Most of the domesticated dog's useful traits are developments of hunting skills e.g. tracking, herding, retrieving.
But many other animals eat. Sharks are carnivorous predators and have not formed the unique bonds that exists between dogs and people. The dog is therefore characterised by other qualities. Is is sociable. It is a pack animal. Its success in worming its way into human society may have more to do with its pack behaviour and its scavenging mode of existence.
This suggests that social contact is an important factor. Dogs are really tuned in to social contact with humans. They particularly respond to tone of voice, gestures and body language. They slink, they bristle, they barge, they run around in circles, they freeze, they drape themselves over couches with their legs in the air ... and have a repertoire of many more postures. Their responses reflect a fine-tuned sensitivity to social status. That status is established in various doggy ways.
If you look at pack behaviour of dogs, you will notice their sociability and their relationships of dominance and submission. It is widely believed by dog trainers that the human dog handler steps into the role of pack leader. You will notice that a canine pack leader does not hit, kick, brandish rolled up newspaper or jerk with a chain and lead. The dominant dog will ignore lesser canines, but if they persist with their attentions, it will use a lot of vocal signals, such as growls, and dominant body language such as standing over the other dog, barging past it or knocking it off its feet. A mother may briefly push a pup to the ground with her mouth or her paw. You also notice a great deal of posturing, bluff and acting and very little actual pain, injury or long-term mental or physical damage being inflicted. There is a lot dog handlers and trainers can learn from this.

Positive and negative reinforcement
The use of “correction” whether as punishment or negative reinforcement is another issue. What are the arguments in favour of using positive reinforcement only versus a combination of positive and negative reinforcement? What kind of negative reinforcement? It is arguable that some forms of correction are justifiable and humane. The worst aspect is “correction” used as a euphemism for harsh, punitive methods. I believe that these methods are overused.
Ideally the world could be set up so that we all got nothing but positive reinforcement for good behaviour, but in practice there are unpleasant consequences to some behaviour. Why should dogs escape this? The argument may be about what those consequences should be. I think they should be humane but realistic and above all effective in bringing about the behaviour that you want. People who are excessively dominated by their dogs can be given techniques acceptable to them by which they can assert themselves. Controlling what a dog wants from life - whether food, social contact, play or walks - will suit many people better than conventional leash corrections.
I think that punishment (unpleasant consequence of a action) exists in nature to help us survive. We would suffer a lot more injures and premature deaths if we didn’t learn to avoid dangerous things. This does not mean that it should be the main basis of how we live and learn. Learn the twelve times table by tomorrow or lose a limb.
Dominance
What about dominant dogs? Should you dominate your dog? Is dominance important? What are the implications of pack behaviour and the social nature of the canine animal? These are questions which are not discussed by David Weston, although his attitude implies that dominance is not what it is all about. I believe that dominance or pack leadership must be achieved by the handler, and that the debate should be about how to do this, not whether to. Food controlled by the handler and used as a reinforcement of obedient responses is in a means of achieving dominance.
Some dogs need a concerted effort by the handler to achieve control, or the consequences for the handler can be pain and injury - for example, one woman I know had her front teeth knocked out by an unruly dog which jumped up. Another suffered a dislocated hip and vertabrae when her dog pulled her over. Others have been badly bruised by their dogs barging past them or crashing into their legs. Perhaps the solution to these problems can be achieved by giving a dog positive motivation to sit in front of the handler. But I suspect that there is a more subtle process at work, whereby the handler, by controlling the reward and using it to bring about the desired behaviour, is achieving a leadership role with the dog. With unchallenged leadership, a lively, communicative handler who uses positive reinforcement can achieve a lot.
It is time to analyse more clearly the training methods and the underlying philosophies used in the dog obedience clubs allover this country. It is 2001, not 1901. Could it be that the spit and polish style of training developed by the Prussian army in the First World War is not entirely appropriate for people today or for achieving what they want from their companion animals?

© Kaye Hargreaves 1991,2001, may be reproduced with acknowledgement; www.kayehargeaves.com