The Dance

Conventional wisdom states to learn by doing. (I think I've stated something similar in a previous post....) In the profession of dog training, there are people who just "do." I feel that to be an effective trainer, it is vital to do your proverbial homework and learn, really, actually learn, about dog behavior as well as learning theory. Anyone can go out, buy a treat pouch or a shock collar and call themselves a dog trainer, but not just anyone will get fabulous results. Why is that? It is because you cannot teach an animal (or a person for that matter) if you do not understand how they learn, which includes understanding how they communicate. Sure, you may be able to get a dog to come back to you if you set it up and shock it enough, but the dog isn't happy about it and in most cases the dog would be 3 counties away if the collar were ever removed. Dogs are not stupid. They know when we have treats and they know when they are wearing a collar that hurts/scares them. The dance of dog training is having a solid knowledge of dog behavior and learning theory and marrying it to great technical skills, like timing. Poor timing can set back training by quite a bit, regardless of the methods you employ.

I've been called out on having too much book knowledge before and my response remains the same "I need this knowledge if I want to best serve my clients and their dogs. There is no such thing as knowing too much when it comes to this profession." Likewise, I have been told to "Broaden my horizons." My response to that is this: "My horizons are very broad, but they do not include using fear or pain to teach an animal." And I ask you, who has broader horizons? The person who has researched many methods and based their methodology off of that research or the person who has not researched any methods and is just sticking with something that seems to work ok? Personally, I would vote for the first one.

My belief is that when I am training a dog, I am not drilling it endlessly and demanding it to be some sort of subservient robot, but instead I am speaking to the dog in a manner it understands. The real dance of training is using training sessions as a sort of open forum with your dog. Watching them watching you for instructions and rewarding them when they get it right. Likewise, redirecting them to the correct behavior when they get it wrong. When a dog knows that you can be trusted to show them the ropes, training becomes infinitely more enjoyable for dogs and humans. Dogs enjoy training, they love getting it right, because dogs actually love to learn. Forcing dogs to become mindless robots appeals to some, but personally I want a dog who is as enthusiastic about learning from me as I am about teaching it. I would rather base my training style off of years of scientific study than simply go with something that seems like a good idea at the time and close my eyes to other ideas.

Are there trainers out there who do their research and still stick to methods I don't agree with. There certainly are. But I prefer these trainers over the purposefully ignorant ones because at least they are aware of the risks and how to manage them. Unfortunately, there are also trainers who do their research and still choose methods I don't agree with simply because they are sadists, these are trainers I take issue with, along with the trainers who refuse to learn about the animals they are supposed to be teaching. I am by no means the world's best trainer (hell, I'm still interning!) but I have enough knowledge to know a good trainer when I see one, and trainers that can't or won't learn to dance with their dogs are trainers that are not only get mediocre results, but they are trainers that ruin a lot of dog-human relationships.

The true calling of a dog trainer isn't to just teach a dog what to do and what not to do, but to teach the owner how to teach (how to dance) with their dog. We aren't drill sergeants, we are mediators between people and dogs.

Choosing a Trainer

One of the best investments a dog owner can make is going to puppy/dog classes. Unfortunately, what stops a lot of doggy parents is this: they don't know how to select a trainer. Wanting to start out "right," these poor people end up not starting at all for fear of ruining their new dog. Thus, sometimes, the dog ends up ruined anyways. Quite a dilemma, which is why there is a whole article dedicated to this topic. So, without further ado, let's get to it!

The first thing you may want to ask the trainer is what qualifications/certifications they have. There are good trainers who aren't certified through the APDT (Association of Pet Dog Trainers) but at the very least they should be attending at least one behavior/training seminar a year in order to stay on top of the latest scientific findings in animal behavior. Attending seminars sounds frivolous, but I assure you it isn't. It gives trainers a chance to learn about the latest findings, allows them to network (and learn from) other trainers and encourages them to grow. All are invaluable. Think of it this way: would you go see a psychologist who had been practicing for 60 years but hadn't been keeping up on the latest in the field? NO! Because without the latest scientific findings this psychologist would probably still be using frontal lobe lobotomies as his go-to treatment. You don't want a dog trainer who is not up to date on dog behavior and training because being behind can cause a lot of harm.

The second thing to ask is what (and how much) experience they have. Do they have a dog? Did they apprentice under an experienced and respected trainer that held many qualifications/certifications? For how long? Could you contact their mentor (think of it as checking a reference)? How long have they been training on their own? How much experience do they have dealing with a specific issue (reactivity, aggression etc...)? It is unacceptable for someone to pass themselves off as a trainer or behaviorist if they only have book knowledge and no actual (or very limited) hands-on experience. Having dogs all their lives and reading a lot of books does not qualify them to offer advice or work with your dog. Having had dogs in their lives a long time and read a lot of books is a good start, but, alas, not enough. These "good enough" trainers devalue the profession and oftentimes (though with the best of intentions) make a bad problem worse or create new problems. Experience is key. I cannot stress this enough: working under an experienced a reputable professional should be a minimum requirement for those wishing to train dogs. When the mentor gives them the green light to practice on their own, then they can start taking on cases.... but not before. I've learned this while apprenticing and wish I had thought of it sooner!

A third thing to ask is what methods they use. Beware of words like "balanced" as they typically mean that physical punishment is mixed with rewards (which is everything but balanced.) Other buzz words to be wary of are: energy, pack leader, military (military training styles are the last thing a civilian's dog needs!), dog whisperer, dominance, correction and praise-based (praise is not something a dog likes on its own and in traditional classes the only reason dogs appear to like it is because they have learned that praise means they do not get a physical correction.) These words and terms generally indicate a trainer who uses pain and fear avoidance as main motivators in training... they also tend to indicate that the trainer is lacking understanding about the potential damage their methods can cause to dogs, their handlers and the dog-human bond.

Some words to listen for that are great are: reward-based, positive, motivational, aversive-free and fun. The trainer should be excited and open to talking about the methods they use in-depth. Typically, if a trainer uses the scientifically proven (and super fun!) method of reward-based training, their tone is more upbeat and positive and they are much more open to discussing what exactly takes place in class. A good question to ask is "What if the dog does not comply with a command?" if their answer is something along the lines of "Then they are given a correction" then you may want to look elsewhere, but if instead the response is along the lines of "Then we use a food lure to lure them in to place" then you may have found an actual reward-based trainer! Many aversive-based trainers are not open to discussing their methodology and may not have as upbeat and positive a tone. Likewise, they may dodge questions or try to get you to "Sign up and see for yourself." It is not unreasonable to request to observe one or two classes to get a feel for what methods they use before you commit to anything. After all, you want to be sure that a) you are comfortable with the methods and b) that the training is fun and safe for the handlers AND the dogs.

Last but not least, it never hurts to quiz the trainer down to make sure they have an understanding of learning theory and some of its terms. Ask them to explain variable ratio reinforcement, for example, or perhaps ask them to explain how counter-conditioning works. These are terms you can easily look up on your own, but you would be surprised how many trainers are completely stumped by such terms! It never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible, right? With so much that can go awry when raising a dog, choosing a trainer is one of the biggest decisions you will make. It's your dog's future and it is worth the consideration and effort to shop around and find an experienced, knowledgeable and fun trainer. Doing so is as close to a 100% guarantee as you can get that you and your dog will live harmoniously for a very long time to come.

Euthanasia is NOT a Dirty Word or Deed!

There seems to be some argument as to what constitutes a good reason to euthanize a dog. Rescues and shelters have to deal with this, as do many owners and trainers. There are two extremes, the folks who believe a dog should not be euthanized no matter what, and the folks who believe that any irregularity (physical or behavioral) must be culled. I submit that there is a happy medium. My personal belief regarding euthanasia is pretty mid-spectrum. I believe that if the dog is dangerous to people or other dogs or has a painful medical condition that cannot be treated effectively that it should be euthanized. This sounds horrible, but please let me explain why I so thoroughly advocate this approach.

Oftentimes, shelters and rescues adopt out dogs that are aggressive towards other dogs, dogs that resource guard or dogs who show extreme fear towards people/dogs. These dogs are not safe and they are not good examples to the community of what a rescue/shelter dog is. For every awesome, solid dog that gets adopted, there are at least three times as many neurotic dogs that need some pretty extreme remedial work to be "normal." The thing is, is that most owners will not hire a trainer to get these dogs the help they need, instead they will either live in denial that their dog is not normal or they will spend their lives trying desperately to control every situation the dog is in so it isn't triggered.

There is a lot of disagreement over euthanizing dogs who are severely reactive/dog aggressive, and I can understand why. Most of these dogs could probably live a pretty happy life without killing anything. However, there are also dogs who are amazing escape artists. If you have a dog who, if s/he got loose, would hurt or kill another dog, then that dog is a danger to the community. It isn't uncommon for me to hear "Well, s/he just doesn't like dogs, s/he is fine with people!" that may be the case now, but what happens when the dog is pushed over its threshold (which in all likelihood will happen since it is impossible to control all situations all the time)? The possibility for redirected aggression (directing aggression towards someone/something that is not the original upsetting stimulus) is pretty high, and we hear about it a lot.

A kid and a bunch of dogs playing, a couple dogs squabble over a toy or bone, the other dogs get wound up and soon the child is in the hospital. Three dogs in a yard react to someone/something passing the fence and one of the dogs attacks the other and soon the other dog joins in and one dog is dead or severely injured. I do not consider reactive or dog aggressive dogs to be safe. They could eventually be safe if they received the desensitization and counter-conditioning, but that takes a lot of time, energy and training experience and sadly those are three things that most shelters, owners and rescues are short on, they are (like so many of us) very busy with what they already have on their plate!

I don't think I need to explain why euthanizing an animal in extreme pain is the kind thing to do.

All that being said, euthanasia is not a dirty or taboo word or deed. It is oftentimes the best choice for the safety of the community as well as the dog. Sometimes, the kindest thing you can do for an animal is to give it final rest and peace. Shelters and rescues in particular have a unique ethical obligation to provide safe animals for the community, and if a dog cannot even be trusted in a play group or walking within ten feet of another dog, how can it be trusted to not hurt someone or something should it ever get loose? Just ask yourself these two questions (as my mentor Cindy puts it): "Is this a dog I would take into my home?" and "Is this a dog I would want living next to me?" If the answer to one or both of these questions is "No," then euthanasia should be strongly considered.

And that is the extremely non-glamorous reality.

A Whisper to the Whisperer.

I feel that I should start by saying that I don't hate Cesar Milan. In fact, to be perfectly honest, I really love how much he loves dogs. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that his rise in popularity has actually created more problems for dogs and their owners than solutions. The average dog owner does not know the difference between his good ideas (exercise your dogs) and his really dumb and dangerous ideas (rub your scent on your dog's meals, stare down your dog, pin your dog on its side etc...) The thing I take issue with the most is that, to the average dog owner, most of his ideas sound pretty good. "Dogs need a pack leader" problems behaviors are due to "dominance" and so on. The problem with us primates is that we like being in charge and this carries over into our relationships with our dogs. It is easy for us to believe that our dogs are trying to be the boss when they do things like growl at us when we try to get them off of the sofa/bed or when they chase the cat or even when they stop and mark on a walk. It is easier for us to believe that our dogs are rank mongering adversaries than normal, typical dogs.

Cesar Milan loves dogs and to boot he is extremely popular. I feel very strongly that this puts him under a very unique ethical obligation to not put any "information" out there that he has not researched. We have known, literally for over 50 years, that "dominance" training is not the way to go. In fact, it was on its way out when Milan showed up and popularized it again. "But he gets results! He saves dogs!" Yes and sadly no. What Milan does is suppress a behavior. The dog is not taught a replacement behavior but instead is just repeatedly punished. Instead of desensitizing and counter-conditioning the dog to change the emotional state behind the behavior, punishment is administered and the behavior (and often the dog) is suppressed. The big problem with this training style is that suppression is not elimination and on top of being extremely damaging to the dog emotionally (and in some cases physically) owners are put in a dangerous position.

For dogs with aggression (the root of which is fear) punishment exacerbates the emotions behind the behavior. Instead of lowering the arousal level through DCC (desensitization and counter-conditioning) the dog is pushed over its arousal threshold, being punished all the way, until it shuts down. The hapless owners are left with a dog that is a ticking time bomb, apt to go off at any time, and they are none the wiser. They are convinced that their dog is cured, that they are now the "pack leader" their dog needs... until the behavior resurfaces or escalates. The wear and tear on a dog, physically and emotionally, from this style of training should be (and is by many veterinary behaviorists and trainers) considered abuse. It is no small wonder that there is such substantial outrage directed at Milan from so many qualified professionals (referring to people with degrees in animal behavior and veterinary medicine) as well as professional trainers.

If Milan wanted to, it would be very simple to change his methods to be congruent with what behavioral science has known for decades: operant conditioning (reward-based training) is the best way to solidify desired behaviors as well as stop undesired behaviors. Regardless, however, he persists in hanging dogs by choke chains, kicking them, poking them and shocking them (with horrible timing, might I add.) Milan is not doing any dogs or their owners any favors, quite the contrary.

I love that Cesar Milan loves dogs, but I hate that he is not pursuing knowledge in the field of dog training because it makes him look like an abusive idiot, and I think he could be a halfway decent trainer if he just took the time to attend some seminars and maybe even read a few books written by veterinary behaviorists. Heck, he could probably find a bunch of information on Google Scholar.

When the "trainers" who are in the limelight are not using methods that are backed by years of scientific study, it makes the jobs of trainers who dedicate their lives to continued learning much more difficult, indeed, nearly impossible. Trainers who are living up to their ethical obligations to provide dog owners with accurate, up to date information and resources and methods, who take the time to read studies and science journals about dog behavior; these are the trainers who need to be heard. Not some nut job with zero qualifications and near zero knowledge. Loving dogs is not the only thing that makes a person a great trainer, education, technical skills, people skills and behavior reading skills are. As I've said, Cesar Milan loves dogs... but it just isn't and shouldn't be enough.

It would be my hope that as more attention comes back to science-based dog training that Milan will be forced to learn more about dog social hierarchies, body language and of course humane training methods. He is charismatic and if his voice became a voice advocating for humane training then the field of dog training could soar even higher as more owners learn that training can and should be fun and safe for everyone.

I Survived Childhood!

Looking back on my childhood surrounded by animals of all kinds, I am sort of amazed that I survived relatively unscathed. My parents bought a golden retriever bitch (later named Dawn) at an auction. A short time later they learned she was pregnant. Soon, they were playing midwife to Dawn and looking for homes for her cute puppies. There is a photo of me in a wading pool lined with blankets immersed in golden puppies. I think I was a few months old. My parents opted to keep one puppy, a pretty blonde they named Cookie. Cookie, as I recall, never barked. Neither did Dawn. Odd for two country dogs to not bark. They also never wandered far so they were loose all the time, except for at night (they were put in an outdoor kennel.) I learned to walk by pulling myself up on Dawn's fur and we would cruise slowly around the house together. I used to go into their kennel while they were eating and pretend to be a dog by putting my face near their food dishes and "barking."

I am sure all you dog people have cringed at least once already, but there is more.

I had no qualms about "cuddling" with our dogs. If they were lying down, I would immediately hasten to them and put my head on their belly and have a good rest until the dog decided it was time to get up. I teased them with food, I ran fast and squeaked loudly and more than once my dynamic movements resulted in a child-dog collision.
Yet, I never got bitten or even growled at by Dawn or Cookie. I don't even think the mini schnuazer, Duchess, so much as growled at me.

Allowing a child to do all the things I did with our family dogs growing up is a crap shoot, at best, and I don't recommend it.

Later in life, as I met more dogs, I began to realize not all dogs like children. However, since I had two stellar goldens and an aloof schnauzer at home who had never so much as raised a hackle at me, I had been conditioned to haphazardly approach and "dote" on dogs. Being bitten, surprisingly, did not counter-condition me. In fact, it just convinced me that some dogs were "bad" and others were "good."

The first time I was bitten, it was a level three bite (puncture wound!) to my hand by a family friend's cocker spaniel, Thumper. I had been relentlessly following him around all day and when he retreated to his bed for a lie down, I followed thinking "Ah! Doggy nap time! YES!" Well, doggy nap time was a no-go. As I reached for Thumper to give him a pet before lying down, he growled and bit my hand. Good thing I reached out first before putting my head down, or else I would have scars on my face.

The next bite I received was from a family friend's deaf dalmation, Pepper. Even knowing she was deaf, as a child I had a hard time understanding why I had to give her lots of room when I was walking around her. I neglected to follow this rule, startled her by touching her hindquarters as I went past (it worked with horses, I reasoned!) and she turned and snapped. Lucky for me, this bite did not break skin, but it bruised a wee bit and I was rather distraught because I thought Pepper "liked" me.

Shortly after the Pepper incident, I was nipped by a dachshund. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why. The doxie was small, I was large and I just manhandled it past its threshold. It growled and when I ignored the warning it bit. I was very fortunate that it did not break skin.

Other bites I've gotten have been from a maltese, yorkie and jack russel terrier. I also got nipped by a neighbor's boxer and a stray golden.

When you are a child, you don't consider yourself a threat because hey, you're a kid and you are just doing your thing. Be that as it may, for a dog, a child being a child can be extremely disconcerting. From the age of about twelve onward, I never got bitten again. I was older and wiser and noticed when dogs did not want company. Parents would do well to remember that how they allow their child to interact with their own dogs at home is conditioning the kids how to interact with strange dogs. All dogs need to be treated respectfully, especially the family dogs since they don't get much of a break. Just because a dog is raised around kids is no guarantee that they will not bite that child, or any child.

I survived my childhood without sustaining any grievous injury or scarring, but many children each year are not so lucky because they were never taught (indeed, their parents were never taught) how to interact appropriately with dogs. I can't drive home this message enough, because each bite is not only preventable, but predictable. If you are a parent, please take the time to review the following resources so you can protect your children.

Dr. Sophia Yin on how to "Stop Aggression Before it Starts"

An E-Book on how to properly greet a dog

A great post!

Browse through everything here at your leisure. There are some great resources and I think it will be very helpful for both parents and dog owners!

What's so Relevant about Relevance?!

Now there is a question! I'm not an experienced instructor, but I will do my utmost to explain what relevance is (as is applied to dog training), why it is important and how not understanding it can cause massive communication breakdown between you and your dog. I think the easiest way to start is with an example!



Example : Fido is enrolled in a traditional training class where mandatory equipment includes a prong collar. The instructor barks the command "SIT!" and the handlers are instructed to tell their dogs to "SIT!" while tugging on the leash until they comply. Upon compliance, the tugging stops and the dogs are told "Goooood doooog!"



Relevance! The dog in the example has learned to assign relevance to a word. In the example, poor Fido assigned relevance to the command "SIT!" through the use of an aversive. "When I put my bottom on the floor, the pain stops." likewise Fido learned that "Gooood dooog!" was relevant because it indicated that (if he complied without leash corrections) he had successfully avoided the aversive.

Grasping the concept of relevance is integral to being successful in training your dog. If you do not show your dog that what you are telling it to do is relevant to it, it more than likely will not care and as such not comply. When we are working with dogs, we first must have something to motivate it to comply. As a reward-based trainer, I like to use food. For some dogs who are not as interested in food, toys can suffice as well. Keep in mind that we don't decide what our dog wants to work for, they decide. A pretty standard illustration of how a dog assigns relevance to a command is as follows (taken from "How to Teach a New Dog Old Tricks" by Dr. Ian Dunbar, page 90):

"Weigh out your puppydog's daily diet and take a handful of kibble. Give one piece to the pup to let it know 'the game's afoot', say "Rover, sit" and then slowly move a second training treat upwards and backwards over the pup's head, keeping it close to its nose. As your pup lifts its head to follow the food, it will sit down. When the dog sits down, give it the food lure as a reward."

In other words, using food as a lure and reward is the quickest way to teach a dog to assign relevance to what we are asking it to do, in this case, "sit." Using food as a lure and/or reward in training is not only the quickest way for a dog to learn, but also the most fun and the most safe. Using food, we can get dogs to like scary stimuli such as babies, small children, teenagers on skateboards and people using walkers. Conditioning using food is a powerful thing!

Once a dog starts to understand the relevance of your vocal commands, you will be able to drop the hand signals and start phasing out the rewards, but that is another topic for another day.

The other side of relevance is irrelevance. An example of this would be instructing your dog to "COME!" when it is in the middle of chasing a cat. 99.99999% of dogs agree that chasing a cat is more rewarding than ceasing that chase and returning to the owner. A further example is telling your dog to do something you have never taught it to do (or maybe something he does know how to do but in a highly distracting environment) and repeating the command a million times. These both result in a dog learning irrelevance. It is very possible to poison a cue by using it when it is not firmly established and using it when it is not established at all. This is why we need to take extra care that training occurs at the dog's pace, not ours. If we move too quickly in training, the dog's responses will quickly deteriorate. Slow and steady wins the race!

So, in summary, if you want your dog to learn quickly and discriminate well between your vocal cues, help your dog to assign relevance to those cues by using food to lure him/her into position and then proffering the lure as a reward. Training this way is too fun for words! Incredibly complex tricks are taught everyday using this method, so imagine how far it can get you in teaching your dog how to live harmoniously with you! For further reading on training a happy house pet, visit dogstardaily.com. I've linked some great articles below! And remember, always move training along at the dog's pace, doing so yields tip top responses.

Basic manners are a must, naturally

Basic lure/reward training. Give each article a look, they are all relevant!

And last but not least, if you really want to start at square one, give the digital training textbook a look. It will help guide you through each stage of your puppy's development!

"The Culture Clash": My New Favorite Book!

I recently finished a book titled "The Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson. Before I delve into why this book is my new favorite and why I recommend it for every dog person out there, professional or not, I would like to take some time to actually discuss what makes Jean Donaldson a reputable writer that I sit up and listen to. Jean Donaldson is the Director of the San Francisco SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers and has been since it was founded. She lectures nationwide alongside noted experts such as Dr. Ian Dunbar. She continues to work with dogs on a daily basis and also continues her education by attending seminars. In other words, she has always been an advocate for humane treatment of dogs, has been training for quite a while, has relevant and up to date knowledge, is a sought after speaker and has worked closely with many noted veterinary behaviorists and trainers over the span of her career. I also appreciated that she sticks to scientific findings as it applies to dog behavior and training instead of prattling about what a dog might be thinking (revenge, for example) when a it chews furniture.

One of the best take-home messages from this book that I think will help a lot of owners understand their dogs more is this: your dog does not care about pleasing you. At first glance, this statement sounds like it cannot possibly be true. After all, we have seen dogs do things like sit and even do a brilliant recall in the midst of a very distracting environment all for just a bit of praise. But what is the dog really doing? Donaldson illustrates in no uncertain terms that the dog is actually acting based on what it has learned is relevant to its own interests. In other words: am I safe or am I unsafe? For trainers employing aversives, dogs quickly learn that praise actually indicates the avoidance of an anversive. For trainers employing positive methods, the dogs have learned that praise typically precedes a food reward or something equally wonderful like a game of tug. A dog is amoral and has no concept of the internal state of a being of another species. The only thing a dog has a concept of is if something is relevant to it.

In a lot of breed descriptions we hear things like "eager to please" and "empathetic." While we would like to cling to what Donaldson refers to as the "Walt Disney Dog" there is absolutely no evidence that a dog is capable of having empathy let alone a desire to please a person. Be that as it may, I still love dogs! Putting a human spin on something that is decidedly not human (called anthropomorphism) is causing a bit of trouble for our canine friends. The following is a quote from Donaldson from "The Culture Clash" (found on page 15):

"Indeed, where is this dog who is interested at all in the internal state of his owner except with regard to how manifestations of this state impact events of relevance to the dog? Actually, let's start by tracking down a dog who can form representations of another being's internal states at all. Although praise works as a reinforcer for some individuals in the total absence of all competing motivation, this effect is limited, and casts some pretty extreme doubt on a "desire to please" module.
Closer scrutiny makes the case even weaker. Rule out, for starters, that the praise functions as a safety cue- a predictor of extremely low likelihood of aversives.... If the trainer is any good, the dog learns that if a response is praised, a correction has been avoided, and so the praise acquires meaning and relevance. But does this mean the dog is employing this sound as evidence of some internal state of the maker of the sound? This is unlikely."

The same, as I mentioned above, applies to positive methods because praise precedes good things like cookies, a walk or a game. In short: dogs do not "please" us for the sake of pleasing us, they do it because they have learned that responding to us either a) results in pain being avoided or b) in something wonderful (in other words a motivator).

Donaldson makes an extremely solid case for why professionals need to keep up with behavioral science. Here is another quote from "The Culture Clash" (found on page 14):
"I'm incensed, in fact, by the incredible irony that zillions of rats and dogs lived pretty awful lives in laboratories and were subjected to zillions of rotten experiments in order to come up with basic principles of how animals learn. One of the most obvious applications of the knowledge so gained would be dog training, no? Kind of a double whammy for your species to be used in the experiments and then have the mass public ignore the results and continue to punish you because you're so smart. Of all the windows in existence to communicate with dogs, operant conditioning is the window that is open the widest. We should start using it."

Regardless of being a trainer or shelter volunteer, I think it's important to note that dogs are not empathetic, they are not moral beings that can be spiteful and that they respond incredibly favorably to operant conditioning. This is knowledge that dog owners would do well to take note of as well. Keeping up with the science behind doggy behavior is a fantastic way to be sure that we are speaking to our canine companions in a language that they can make sense of. Expecting them to learn our language is extremely conceited, especially if we are not putting any effort into learning theirs. An example of this communication breakdown can be found in the "dominance" model. Ever since we figured out that wolves have a hierarchy, we jumped to applying it to dogs.

This is fine and dandy, in fact dogs do have a social structure... but it is not a linear hierarchy the way wolves are. Patricia McConnell PhD (ethology) points out time and time again that for dogs, rank is pretty fluid. There usually isn't a dog who is #1 all of the time. Rather, instead of explaining it as a dominance hierarchy, it is easiest to explain it as a subordinance hierarchy. Donaldson also touches on this briefly in her book. Summarized: dogs would not have made it very far as a species if they bit each other and hurt each other all the time. Thus, to keep the peace it is far more common to see appeasement and submissive gestures than growly and snappy behaviors. Dogs who do growl and snap a lot are the dogs that tend to not have a lot of status. No one, especially not other dogs, wants much to do with them. We cannot assume that these social lepers are the top dogs. Doing so sets training back about 50 years.

The following are the top ten behaviors that humans attribute to "dominance" (as found on page 19 in "The Culture Clash"):
1) Biting/aggression, especially towards family members
2)Pulling on Leash
3) House-soiling, especially when accidents occur on beds
4) Chewing other valuable possessions
5) Jumping up to greet and pawing
6) Failing to come when called
7) Begging at table
8) Going through doorways first
9) Sleeping on forbidden furniture
10) Food/laundry stealing.

Jean Donaldson shares my amusement at the idea that a dog who tries to get out a door before a person is staging some sort of coup. More likely, they are a dog and are interested in closing the distance between them and whatever is out there. I would venture to say that rank seldom if ever enters into a dog's mind when they are about to go outside. There are squabbles between dogs at doorways, sometimes, so we can't rule out that perhaps there is some pecking order involved, but we need to remember that we are people and dogs are dogs. We can't be a part of a social hierarchy when we aren't even the same species. So it is best to put "dominance" to bed. It simply can't be applied to doggydom.

This is a pretty large excerpt, but here it is (as found on page 20 of "The Culture Clash"):
"Whenever there's this desperate grasp for "whywhywhy" a dog does something, rather than being taken by a red herring like "pack theory," first rule out:
1) Because it's being reinforced somewhere in the environment
2) Because no one ever made a case to do otherwise (i.e., why NOT?)
The dominance panacea is so out of proportion that entire schools of training are based on the premise that if you can just exert adequate dominance over the dog, everything will fall into place. Not only does it mean that incredible amounts of abuse are going to be perpetuated against any given dog, probably exacerbating problems like unreliable recalls and biting, but the real issues, like well-executed conditioning and the provision of an adequate environment, are going to go unaddressed, resulting in a still-untrained dog, perpetuating the pointless dominance program.
None of this is to say that dogs aren't one of those species whose social life appears to lend itself to beloved hierarchy constructs. But they also see well at night, and no one is proposing retinal surgery to address their non-compliance or biting behavior. "Pack theory" is simply not the most elegant model for explaining or, especially, for treating problems like disobedience, misbehavior or aggression. People who use aversives to train with a dominance model in mind would get a better result with less wear and tear on the dog by using aversives with more thorough understanding of learning theory, or, better yet, forgoing aversives altogether and going with the other tools in the learning theory tool box. The dominance concept is simply unnecessary. So what do we know about real dogs?
Top ten things we know about real dogs:
1)It's all chew toys to them (no concept of artifacts)
2) Amoral (no right vs. wrong, only safe vs. dangerous
3) Self-interested (no desire to please)
4) Lemon-brains (i.e., small and less convoluted brains that learn through operant and classical conditioning)
5) Predators (search, chase, bite dissect and chew all strongly wired)
6) Highly social (bond strongly and don't cope well with isolation)
7) Finite socialization period (fight or flight when not socialized to some social stimulus category)
8) Opportunistic scavengers (if it's edible and within reach, eat it NOW)
9) Resolve conflicts through ritualized aggression (never write letters to editor, never sue)
10) Well-developed olfactory system"

I think that we should all print out those 10 things and hang them all around our houses. Just a thought.

Jean Donaldson mentioned ritualized shows of aggression and I would like to clarify something: ritualized shows of aggression include growling and snapping and sometimes even biting. Be that as it may, it is very rare for a dog to hurt another dog. Bites during these ritualized shows of aggression are strongly inhibited. Usually, they are snaps to the muzzle and never break skin. Dogs have evolved an extremely fascinating method for keeping the peace: they don't maim each other. If a dog is breaking the skin on another dog, then it isn't just a ritualized show of aggression/subordinance cycle, it is in all likelihood an under-socialized dog that has poor bite inhibition and does not know how to respond to ritualized aggression (the best way is to yield, especially if the dog is younger than the one putting on a show.) Hope that helps clear the air on that tidbit a little.

To be honest, I can't pick one favorite thing about this book. I really loved that she took the time to debunk dominance/pack theory as well as the myth that a dog is "eager to please," I also really liked that she dedicated an entire section to why dogs bite (it even had some cool graphs!) I'll take a moment to explain the dog bite bit.

Every dog CAN bite, but not every dog WILL. Every dog has a bite threshold, but not every dog will be pushed to or over that threshold in its life. Every dog has triggers that push it closer to that bite threshold, but not every dog has the same triggers (indeed, to humans some of those triggers seem downright silly.) I believe it is safe to say that nearly all dog pros out there will agree on the importance of correctly identifying potential triggers for your dog. Indeed, your safety, the public's safety and your dog's safety are pretty dependent on it. Dogs who bite people are more often than not executed for their crime when all along they displayed signs that indicated their triggers. My post on "Red Flag" behaviors has a bit more on that.

Jean Donaldson covers everything from why dominance/pack theory has no relevance to owning/training dogs to reinforcement schedules to get your dog hooked on learning. It is an in depth book that puts a lot of popular ideas about dogs to rest and instead focuses on science to build a solid bond and rapport with our dogs. Donaldson stresses that using science to understand and train dogs does not demean them, rather it is us, the beings with the "melon-brains" as she calls them, learning how best to live and communicate with dogs so we can both live happier lives.

When it comes right down to it, being aware of the misconceptions about dogs and replacing those misconceptions with facts is the quickest and easiest way to not only train a dog, but also to being educated advocates for canines and helping others to build a great bond with their dogs as well. At the end of the day, I think all dog lovers should give this book a read and reap the immediate benefits of understanding why dogs do what they do and how best to teach them to do what we want them to do.