Options
Humanising Dogs
missmaisie
Posts: 170 Forum Member
✭
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/3am/2009/07/15/sarah-harding-pet-in-the-doghouse-after-bad-behaviour-115875-21520322/
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, my bug bear, treating your dog like a humanised accessory. This is not funny or in any way amusing.
I am currently looking after a dog who has been so humanised that he doesn’t know who he is! So, am I wrong? Or should dogs be dogs for flips sake!!!!
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, my bug bear, treating your dog like a humanised accessory. This is not funny or in any way amusing.
I am currently looking after a dog who has been so humanised that he doesn’t know who he is! So, am I wrong? Or should dogs be dogs for flips sake!!!!
0
Comments
I despair of people like this. When they or some poor unfortunate gets bitten by the dog they always seem puzzled as to why.
Treat a dog like a dog and make sure he has the bottom place in the household hierarchy - and that he knows it.
If you have more than one dog let them sort out their own hierarchy - but the top dog should always be below the most junior human in the house.
Treating dogs like humans does nothing but confuse the hell out of them.
I have to admit I love my dogs and one especially is my 'baby'. However, I would not go in for the OTT behaviour of some dog owners and much as my dogs are precious to me they are still dogs.
The story you linked to sounds as though that dog had been left too long between walks for a start and trailing around a hotel is maybe not the best situation.
Anthropomorphising even
I would never put clothes on my dog, or carry him around in a handbag,or put bows in his hair..I think dogs should look like dogs, and be able to walk as much as possible
He sleeps in my bed, and on the downstairs sofa, as that suits us, but we have other rules he has to stick to.
I think it is ok to humanise your pet to a certain extent, as long as it doesn't affect them, or impede on their happiness and enjoyment of being a dog and they understand that you are the one in charge..I think in most cases, they don't really care as long as they know their boundaries and are still able to do their doggy stuff...
Maybe I'm missing something here, or there are other details you haven't posted, but personally I wouldn't say that wanting to play with a useful stick-throwing human means the dog doesn't know who or what he is or that it was humanising him. He was having fun! He was playing dog games, using dog behaviour, fetching sticks, and while it may be a bit compulsive in hi scase it's still a dog behaviour (chase, stalk, hunt, find/seek, kill/grab, fetch etc) not a human behaviour, albeit he recognises humans are better at throwing sticks than dogs and from what you say he will play with your collie anyway if she involves a tennis ball or stick in teh game so it's not even that he doesn't play with dogs.
Not all dogs play the same games, e.g. some don't retrieve, some don't wan to be involved in boisterious games. After all if he was busy e.g. herding sheep and not playing with dogs that wouldn't "sheepise" him, it would just be that he was more interested in working/playing sheep herding than than in playing with other dogs.
Like not all people want to be the life and soul of the party, not all dogs want a high level of social interaction with other dogs.
There is a collie near me who used to play with my dog as a puppy but as the collie has grown up he has become more and more interested in his ball and less and less interested in other dogs (collies can be quite compulsive dogs once they take to something) but he is very happy with his ball and he is still very much a dog, behaving as a dog. It seems the reason he may not be having so much fun now is because you have stopped his favourite game ?
Ouch, that hurt ... I do play with him - but I don't feed his obsession, which is different. Of course there more details than I've shared but the point is, would you take your dog to a bar?
Goodness, I know a small pack of Frenchies and they seem the most placid, lovely little dogs ever. To turn one into a biter (unless seriously poorly bred) is something of an achievement - though not a positive one.
I think a dog can be 'humanised' to an extent and still be a happy, well adjusted dog. The trick is to remember they are dogs and understand their mental needs.
My dogs are very 'doggy' yet two of them wear clothes to varying degrees depending on weather (they are hairless) which some might not approve of. However, they are trained to heck. They know their place in the 'family' ('packs' are for dogs only - not humans - so I say 'family') and they know what is expected of them. They know they can trust me and they can communicate with me. I've learned their body language and have taught them (an abridged, artificial version of) ours.
They are part of the family - not accessories, not 'pack' members - with their parts to play. Companions, helpers, guards, fitness trainers, hot water bottles. But above all else, they are dogs.
Sorry but I can only reply on the basis of the information you have supplied which seemed to be that it wants to play with balls/sticks, you think he should prefer to play with dogs and you prefer that play also didn't invlove balls or sticks, unless I misread something?.
Obsessive canine behaviour is a very different issue to humanising a dog.
Many working dogs are encouraged (and arguably bred by selection for a strong working drive) to have a degree of obsession, indeed it is that which can make them exceptional good working dogs due to the very high, sustained, motivation to gain access to their object of desire, be they gun dogs, sniffer dogs, sheep dogs, tracking dogs, search and rescue dogs, epileptic alert dogs, or even flyball enthusiats (sp) etc as they would rather do that than anything else, including playing with other dogs. In a working environment it is helpful that the dog is not distracted from its work by other dogs around it, who may also be working, albeit they may or may not play together at other times, with different stimuli.
Depriving a working dog of this outlet would not be doing it a favour and indeed many dog behavioural problems arise from working dogs not having a suitable (though possibly substitute), outlet for their working traits. I do not know enough about your dog to comment on it specifically, other than in general terms of dog behaviour, on the basis of what you have posted.
Hence this is actually a well-recognised and often utilised dog behaviour, albeit it can create problems in the wrong situation or if the particular obsession could result in harm to the dog e.g if resuting in physical injury or if teh dog is perfoming th behaviour to the point of neglecting to eat, drink or rest, and albeit that Obssessive Compulsive Disorders can also be a human behavioural problem.
To address your bar question, as is often the case it's not necessarily what you do but how you do it.
No I wouldn't dress my dog in clothes other than a functional dog coat if it was the sort of dog/weather to need it (hairless dogs and exception individual circumstances excepted e.g tee shirts, socks etc to protect areas from licking if healing etc) and no I wouldn't take my dog to bar, or anywhere else indoors before it had had the opportunity to toilet outside. That's just plain stupid and selfish and unfair to the dog and everyone else if it then can't help messing.
Nor would I put it in a handbag or push it around in a buggy etc (again medical/geriatic and emergency circumstances possibly excepted) but I have certainly been for walks with friends and we have finished the walk at a pub so yes I suppose I have taken my dogs to a bar/pub on several occasions and ensured they had water (but I have never bought them a beer
My sister made my dog wear a crop-top once I thought it was horrible.. my dog is not a sl*t! That put me off dogs wearing clothes. And I would not carry her around in a handbag or whatever because she weighs like 25 kilos - too heavy :P
My sister treats her dog like a baby. It's not a baby, It's a dog. She gives it scratchings off the plate, gives no discipline to him, and as a result the dog is out of control.
What these people don't realise is that they are being cruel, just in an opposite way.Giving your dog treats leads to obesity, which leads to complications and premature death. Molly coddling your dog deprives it of the interaction skills it needs to learn when coming across other dogs.
My sister irritatingly always gives it the benefit of the doubt
* If the dog barks aggressively when someone enters her house. my sister interprets it as 'he's being protective'.....when he's being overly aggressive
* if the dog bounds towards other dogs on a walk and resists calls to come back and stop it she says 'well he was feeling playful'....when he's being ill disciplined
* The dog chews furniture and shreds newspapers when its left alone for 30 mins....my sister says it's not being destructive, it is seeking stimulation
It's not all my sisters fault there. There are a lot of these silly new age books that tell owners to not do anything remotely negative to the dog. But just as you have to give praise to the dog where it's due, sometimes you'll have to say no to it, tap him on the nose, and take away his favourite toy if you want whats best in the long run for you and him.
Good dog ownership is all about moderation.
lots of Treats, too much praise and no disciplinary action is a sign of a bad owner
No treats, little praise and lots of disciplinary is a sign of a bad owner
some treats, some praise, disciplinary action from time to time when warranted are a sign of a good owner.
However my cat IS my baby she is so spoiled and that's the way it IS .She has her very own dinner set a couple of denby china plates and bowles .
M&S featherdown single duvet her own sofa with all her little toys and cushions .
Special window seats have been built for her and they have M&S cushions on them so she is comfortable. I only ever give her bottled mineral water .She gets lots special treats she loves fresh salmon not smoked though
The way i see it is i rescued her from a bad start to her life and i want the best for her she even eats at the table and i wouldn't have it any other way .
It is perfectly possible to train a dog without punishment. I've never physically - or even verbally - punished my dogs. I certainly haven't 'tapped' them on the nose!!:eek: As for taking a toy away - not entirely sure a dog can make the connection between the toy being taken away and the undesired behaviour.
I do train with what I consider discipline. While I slack up a bit after they are trained, to begin with they get nothing without doing what I want. Sit for dinner or a walk. A wait before off lead. A down before being invited onto the sofa. etc. And run through basic commands frequently through the day.
To think that dogs learn like humans and require punishment or even that they can figure out what they are being punished for, is humanising them in an equally bad way.
Don't worry, no need to 'comma' the terms, I mean them genuinely as read, not as euphemisms for something more sinister (don't worry i don't go around giving a Frank Bruno left hook to the dogs i've owned). I am speaking from experience.
The tap (or bop) was taught to us at dog training sessions years ago. if a dog is naughty, you go up to it, make it look at you and quickly 'quick as a flash' tap it on the nose with the tips of your fingers open hand. I mean tap in a literal sense. It is a pain free technique (I wouldn't hurt a dog), but yes it can be considered a negative training aid, as the surprise of it is not liked by the dog.
Must disagree with you on the 'take away the toy' technique. I think it's been long proven that animals have a sense of cause and effect, and association (it's not humananizing, it's basic animal instinct). Traditionally cocker spaniels have been in our family (who are quite high on the intellect scale), so i'm not sure how well it works for other breeds. But from what i can go with it's been good with us.
The weird thing is though that what creeps into cruelty and acceptability, varies with owner to owner, perception and breed of dog.
* For example those 'bitter sprays' to stop dogs chewing furniture and carpets. Some consider a positive training aid as it is using scent and deterrence, whereas some consider it cruel, as it tells a dog not to do something by assaulting its very sensitive sense of smell ( i think the latter).
* Some think those electronic collars that give a tiny electric shock are cruel, some think they're an acceptable minor corrective appliance (i think former).
* Some think neutering is perfectally acceptable, some think it's mutilation no worse than tail docking (i think the former).
* Some think it's a sign of bad dog ownership to let your dog onto your bed or sofa with you. Some think it's a loving gesture that shows the dog is welcome. (no strong opinion, but i know people with viewpoints both ways. etc. etc.....
You can tell how wide ranging the viewpoints are by going to your local pet superstore. For everyone who thinks a certain product shouldn't be sold, there's someone who thinks it's a good idea.
Haven't got time to reply to everything, so just a quick reply about the above.
Dogs do make cause-effect associations. But without the deductive processes we have. The 'effect' has to happen immediately after teh 'cause' - this is why timing is so very important in dog training and why clicker training is so effective. In the bit in bold, you are in effect teaching the dog that if he looks at you, he will get tapped on the nose.:eek:
Not all training classes are of the same quality nor follow the same techniques. The first I ever went to was run by army dog handlers and they would never have endorsed tapping a dog on the nose - someone in the class did it to their dog and the trainer gave him a bit of a dressing down and explained why it was so bad - all those delicate nerve endings.
(got to go to work now - may post more later!!)
However by using positive reinforcement instead, there's very little that can cause negative emotions in the dog. If you get it wrong, the worst that can happen is that you've inadvertently trained an incorrect response. But for the dog, there's none of the fear, apprehension, stress or potential emotional fall out that can come by using punishment.
I agree that spray collars, electronic collars, lead jerks, or physically forcing a dog to do something are cruel & unnecessary.
People who are against any sort of punishment like to stress the potential problems of punishment, fair enough, but many then claim as a contrast that “reward does no harm”.
This is untrue and ill-informed.
If you are aiming to train positively for a more desirable behaviour as a substitute response to resolve a problem behaviour you can inadvertently be strengthening the problem behaviour if your timing is wrong and some dogs can get frustrated and/or confused about trying to gain the reward (particularly if the person training is inconsistent with their timing) which can certainly be a negative emotion and can lead to negative responses included excitability, distraction and/or aggression.
Likewise if you are trying to use positive training/association to change a pre-existing negative emotional state e.g. fear, mis-timing or mis-reading the dog and rewarding at the wrong time will instead intensive that fear.
Another example of the potential negative consequences of misuse of reward would be using a reward of the wrong intensity for that dog, in that situation. This will either be ineffective if too weak or can have the dog too distracted by the reward to focus on the behaviour required if too strong. A reward that is too strong/exciting can also teach hyperexcitment as an unwanted side effect, all considerations (intensity, type, timing, focus, observation, effective two way communication) that are as important with reward as with punishment
I entirely agree timing needs to be accurate in training but that not only applies to any punishment or negative reinforcement but also to timing of commands, including correct anticipation, and timing of rewards or positive reinforcement.
To be most effective clicker training relies on as precise timing as would be required for effective use of punishment, whether used as a bridge or a marker, and I have always been somewhat bemused by the fact that many people who advocate clicker training stress that the aim is to avoid the risk of mis-timing punishment!
Of course it is preferable to use positive reinforcement rather than punishment but it is the argument that timing is crucial for one but this timing importance argument is largely disregarded with the other!
The AVSAB position statement accepts that punishment is sometimes necessary (a negative consequence to unwanted behaviour is the other half of learning theory be that positive or negative punishment or negative reinforcement) and they advise that the owner asks anyone using punishment to ensure the trainer is aware of and can recognise and address long or short-term consequences.
They do not however equally stress the importance of timing in reward training or suggest owners should also ensure their trainers are aware of, can recognise and can address long and short term side effects of reward training!
However the position statement should be read while bearing in mind that many AVSAB members have their own political agendas including considering that behaviour should be solely the preserve of qualified veterinary surgeons and having a considerable degree of professional jealousy of any non-veterinary behaviourists, particularly if they have a high profile.
Also most AVSAB members are full time vets who also have an interest and board certification in behaviour, rather than being full time trainers or behaviourists and in some cases they delegate the actual practical hands-on training (which it could be argued is actually more challenging that the theory!) to other staff members or outside professionals, as do some British behaviourists.
I note one member, Sophia Yin, who was largely responsible for organising the position statements, uses a number of her own quotes in the these statements.
It is also of course not publicised that these statements were accepted by a majority vote of the membership, not unanimously. Ms Yin in particular is very keen to promote herself as a media personality and she is always very keen to promote not only herself but also her own material and products.
I’m not saying there are not a lot of valid points in their position statements but there are a lot of “may” which equally means may not and “can” which isn’t the same as will.
Statements, whoever they are issued by, should always be read in the light of the background and politics of the writers and weighed accordingly.
ps I have also know people who have created noise phobias in their dogs with bad clicker training and advising telling them to go to a class first to prevent this is the same as Milan saying "don't try these techniques without a professional" some will, some won't
Thankyou, which is essentially what i'm saying.
You know that Chinese concept of yin and yan, the idea that the balancing of two opposites can make a harmonious whole. I think it's the same principle with dog ownership. To my mind the best dog owners are the ones that give praise where it's due, in proportional terms and who are not afraid to let the dog know when it'd done bad in moderated proportional terms. I think to me this creates a good dog because it's fair, balanced and is a democratized process.
For me, i don't like this quite modern assertion that any form of negative training equals unnecessary cruelty, and the more positive you are to your dog equals the better you are as an owner. It's not as black and white as that. To me both assertions as as tenuous as saying that a parent who tells off their child for trying to sneak in more pudding is a bad parent (this is obviously preposterous). And a parent who keeps feeding her child sweet food, and buys it all the playstations ipod it wants is the best kind of a parent (which is equally ridiculous)
It also annoys me that no one these days picks up on the neo-cruelty that is happening through over-positivity. As I said before I don't like it when some owners use the shock collars, or the bitter sprays.
However to my mind a person who feeds their dog bits of steak and dairy products several times a week is worse, as it's slowly killing it's dog. Or the woman who is shelling out thousands of pounds to put her 13 year dog through a cocktail of drugs and a host of operations to buy it no more than a year of low quality life. Scarily these people think they're being good loving owners, where they are in fact being immensely cruel.
(I wish the RSPCA would do more to combat this neo-cruelty. I am shocked by how many people still don't know that chocolate is incredibly damaging to dogs_
So yeah apologies if my posts are scattergun. Just saw what Stress monkey wrote. and in quickfire response:
1) As i said before i don't do anything that causes dogs pain. If got the feeling it causes pain, i wouldn't do it (Cockers are quite expressive, so it's pretty easy to read what they're feeling). By nose I mean the snout of the dog, not the actual fleshy nose itself. It's worked for me, and it barely gets used anymore as dog is trained.
2) Yes the clicker technique is VERY good, I agree with that and recommend it. My sister started it with her dog, shame she didn't stick to it fully.
3) It was a pretty good class actually, but it was years ago. So it may seem 'old school' by comparison.
I'm not battling anyone here, i'm discussing and expressing how i see it. Sadly though dog ownership is so subjective that it can't be fitted all into one neat package, so any debate doesn't work. Everyone thinks their way is the best way, For example someone can write
''well my dog is well trained and I only use acceptable methods, and would never abuse it''
but peoples definition of 'well trained', 'acceptable', and 'abuse' are completely different.
Some people consider a dog who sits on command and doesn't bark at the postman as well trained. Others consider a dog that can do a dance on Britain's Got Talent with it's owner as well trained.
There are people out there saying i'd never lay a finger on my dog or hurt them. But the same people are using high pitched dog whistles which hurt their dogs ears. They see that as humane as it's hands off, others see it as just as abusive.
I consider a good owner one that can train it's dog without going into the parameters of spoiling them, or being cruel to them...but i know thats a futile statement as my idea of what spoiling and cruelty is can be very different to other peoples, and it is depending on the breed of dog in question.
For example for one person calling me harsh for taking the dogs toy away, there'd be enough calling me a pampering wuss for thinking bitters sprays and shock collars are too excessive.
If it works for you and it's not excessive, I applaud you
Tass ~ I consider myself truly put in my place!
But my main aim is to deter people from following Millan's techniques & seeing him as some sort of canine communication genius.
I agree that timing is critical for training, whether using positive/negative reinforcement or positive/negative punishment. Personally I would rather go with positive reinforcement where possible, whether this is teaching children, dogs or colleagues at work. I find it difficult to envisage deliberately using punishment, except maybe in an emergency, in any situation. However it is far too easy for people's own emotions (frustration, anger, tiredness etc) to get in the way when training a dog & give a quick jerk on the lead, or snap at the dog. At least when training using positive reinforcement, owners will most likely be in the right frame of mind to reward, rather than punish, as most people don't even envisage starting a training session unless they are feeling calm, relaxed & enthusiastic about it.
Something that made a huge impression on me when I was learning clicker training techniques & the emotional reaction to positive reinforcement & punishment was to be paired up with another person, one of whom was blindfolded. The blindfolded person had to be steered around an obstacle course by their partner. First time, we were given verbal praise & encouragement by our partner everytime we made a step in the right direction (no praise if going wrong). Second time we were given verbal abuse if we were going wrong & silence if we were going in the right direction. There was a huge emotional difference between these techniques. In the first scenario i felt encouraged to keep trying, felt happy when I was praised, completely trusted my partner & thoroughly enjoyed the experience. In the second scenario, I felt nervous, anxious, felt like giving up & sitting down & lost all trust in my partner ~ it was not a nice experience at all.
This was a salutary lesson to all of us in the class & maybe gave us just an inkling of how dogs feel when subjected to punishment or negative reinforcement.
Dogs that are taught using positive reinforcement come to enjoy training sessions, they learn that they can be successful & will keep trying various behaviours to earn a reward. They have some control over the consequences of their behaviour & the emotional reaction to the appearance of the clicker is one of the expectation of "joy".
I appreciate that some people like their dogs to be instantly obedient & constantly aware of their owner's commands. Personally I like my dogs to have a bit of independent thought, to try solving puzzles on their own ~ because they know they can!! I've seen plenty of people in the park marching their dogs up & down, changing direction, ensuring the dog is glued to their heel the whole time (& sometimes even using ~ or misusing ~ a clicker to try to achieve this). I want my dogs to enjoy life, to have fun on their walks, to want to be with me & most importantly, to be dogs, (with the proviso that they do not cause any problems to any other person, dogs or livestock). Of course a good recall is vital but a good recall is far more likely if the dog wants to come back to you rather than because it is too scared to leave your side or too frightened of what will happen to it when it is eventually caught.
I appreciate that there is a lot more to learning theory than just positive/negative reinforcement & punishment. Similarly there is a world of difference between teaching a young pup to sit or lie down & trying to change a fear aggressive dog into a calm, relaxed & confident dog. Ratios & schedules of reinforcement play a huge part in training & behavioural work as well. But also of crucial importance is to recognise the dog's reaction to a reinforcer or a punisher. As you say, if the reward is too salient the dog could get over-excited, or be ineffective if too weak. But these problems are easily resolved ~ change the reward!
Yes I agree that things can go wrong using positive reinforcement incorrectly for the reasons you've said, but the use of punishment can cause much more severe long term problems both behavioural & emotional & it can end up destroying the trust & relationship between the dog & owner.