I was a Fetch trial, to get a fun title for Nick. He LOVES to play fetch, even with rules. He decided that running around was more entertaining than the structure of the trial. Since we were there for fun, I NEED retrieving as a task, Nick was having fun, and I don’t want to do anything to dampen his retrieving joy. I caught him and ended his trial when he lost focus. Both judges are old school protection dog trainers, and generally neither happy, nor nice. Their philosophy is to set up for failure. Mine is to set up for success. Because Nick didn’t get his second Q, and was just happy to jump for joy, I was told, in no uncertain terms, that Nick needed a shock collar. This is a common refrain from traditional trainers who haven’t kept up with modern science. I politely responded that shock collars don’t work for him (implying me, not giving them the opportunity to comment further.)
It’s far too rewarding, and much easier to give into the urge to punish to “solve” a behavior issue, especially if it’s just the push of a button. The problem is it doesn’t address the underlying issue causing the problem. It doesn’t address any emotional or physical causes, needs of the learner, or teach the learner what to do instead. It’s like treating diabetes by just adding insulin and not addressing proper diet or monitoring blood sugar levels.
Like response practice for public access challenges, we need to practice polite responses that discourage further discussion as to why you need to harm the dog, while remaining open to solutions that will help the situation. I like my “that won’t work for my dog!” I will say it loudly, and as many times as it takes to get someone to understand I will not be following outdated, cruel training practice.
This is helpful when dealing with anyone pushing advice that goes against your ethics. Especially when that person is in a position of authority, like someone you paid for training advice.
We will inevitably have our training choices and ethics challenged at some point during our service dog training journey. Just like rehearsing for access challenges, we should prepare for having tools or techniques we view as unethical, suggested.
There’s a lot going on in the dog training world right now. It’s an ongoing conflict over core beliefs about the role of using pain, force and fear to teach a dog desired behaviors. Either you are okay harming another species or you are not.
The scientific consensus is there is no benefit in applying punishers/harming the learner, and that the behaviors are stronger, better generalized, and become self rewarding when taught with positive reinforcement.
Many of us at Crazy2Calm are crossover trainers, meaning we learned training initially from trainers that use harsh punishment, shock collars, prong collars, choke chains, and penny/pebble cans when we were younger. Unless you are able to find a local group that believes learners should feel safe, and even from members of the general public, you will likely hear comments or be pressured to use aversive training methods. It can be difficult, no matter how strongly you feel about using positive reinforcement to resist the advice. Most of this “well meaning” advice comes from people who focus solely on a single behavior change, and not on the overall wellbeing of the learner.
At Crazy2Calm we focus on both ends of the leash. We want successful, happy handlers and service dogs. We will meet handlers where they are, encouraging both partners to learn in a safe, fun environment, making life better for all involved.
It’s far too rewarding, and much easier to give into the urge to punish to “solve” a behavior issue, especially if it’s just the push of a button. The problem is it doesn’t address the underlying issue causing the problem. It doesn’t address any emotional or physical causes, needs of the learner, or teach the learner what to do instead. It’s like treating diabetes by just adding insulin and not addressing proper diet or monitoring blood sugar levels.
Like response practice for public access challenges, we need to practice polite responses that discourage further discussion as to why you need to harm the dog, while remaining open to solutions that will help the situation. I like my “that won’t work for my dog” because it implies that there is no need for further discussion. This is helpful when dealing with anyone pushing advice that goes against your ethics. Especially when that person is in a position of authority, like someone you paid for training advice
Comments
Post a Comment