Monthly Archives: June 2007
Today my poor old Sluggybug lost his fight against cancer of the lymph nodes, which he was diagnosed with a couple of months ago. He had been very perky on high dose prednisone until a couple of days ago, when he started going downhill, chewing an old wound on his leg very badly, and was starting to rattle a bit when he breathed. The vet agreed that all we would do by keeping him going was prolong the misery, so he was quietly put to sleep this morning.
Ch Pandemonium Falstaff ("Slug") was born on 7 May 1997, one of a litter of 8, and was the son of my beloved Emily (Sharbara Elemi), and Ch Sharbara Cotton Baron ("Baron"), from whom he inherited his glorious movement. Slug was his litter name, because he was the biggest and most vigorous pup, and would drink himself to a standstill very quickly and then fall asleep on his side next to the pigrail, looking for all the world like a large garden slug!
I had originally intended to keep a different pup, but Slug decided that he was staying, so I tried to start calling him Falstaff, his registered name – but somehow, Slug had stuck, and Slug he stayed!
This would have been fine if he’d been a pet and nothing else, but Sharlene Sutherland, my great dog-breeding friend and the person who bred all my dogs, got me to show him.
In March 1998, when Slug was 9 months and 3 weeks, he and I went into the ring together – the first time for both of us! – and promptly took the Challenge Certificate (cc). No Open shows required! In Port Elizabeth a couple of months later at the Easter Shows, when he was a couple of weeks away from his 1st birthday and only just eligible for Puppy Class, he took Best Puppy, Puppy Working Group and Best Puppy on Show on the Friday show, bombed on Saturday, and then went Best Puppy and took the Puppy Working Group again on the Sunday.
In his Junior innings, at Grahamstown he went CC, Reserve Best of Breed, Best Reserve in Working Group and Second in the Mini-Grand. In October at Hottentots Holland KC, he went CC, Best of Breed and 3rd in Working Group, thus qualifying for Top Dog (which we couldn’t attend because I had moved out to McGregor and was working in the United Kingdom for a couple of months.)
Because of his Best Puppy In Show at Port Elizabeth, he had also qualified to take part in KUSA National Puppy and the extremely prestigious Supreme Puppy tournament. Sharlene showed him through to 3rd place in KUSA National Puppy, but was unable to show him in Supreme Puppy because she and Barbara had a joint 50th birthday party on that evening, so it was up to me to do the honours.
Supreme Puppy is terrifying. The entrance qualification is a Best Puppy in Show at an All Breeds Championship Show in the preceding season, so the standard is formidably high, and many of the pups have matured as a result of having taken their show early in the season (Slug was almost 2 when he competed.)
It’s very ritzy, with huge prizes and sponsorship, big audiences, a PA system for the ring steward, a special ring, and a huge rosette with a number just for making it into the competition.
All these marvellous dogs are herded into a ring with an international guest judge, shown once, and then the handshaking starts. The judge comes up to you, shakes your hand and thanks you for taking part, and then you may leave the ring. You’re out.
The first cut reduces the total number of dogs to 16, the next to 8, then to 4 and finally down to the 2 winners. We made the first cut – I could hardly believe it!
We showed – and showed – and ran – and stacked – and showed. Then the handshaking started again. We made the 2nd cut too! 8 dogs in the ring.
More showing and stacking, and running, and showing, and we made the 3rd cut! 4 dogs left in the ring. I was almost beside myself with terror by now, noticed a foot out of position, bent down to adjust it, and heard the ring steward saying: "Ladies and Gentlemen, there are now two dogs left in the ring!"
Gosh, I thought, I’d better get out of here. Then I realised that we were still in.
And so we ended up with Reserve Supreme Puppy – pipped to the post by a Toy Poodle! But it was a wonderful win, and certainly my most exciting experience in the show ring!
Slug finished his Championship with a surprise CC and Best of Breed in Port Elizabeth again – always a lucky ground for him. I travelled at the last minute – I had intended to send Jessie up with Sharlene and then decided to go along when Sharlene’s driving companion fell through. Slug was entered and came along because I couldn’t find a dog sitter at short notice, and so I showed him, and he came up trumps!
But Sluggy was much more than a show dog. He was a dear and much loved pet, and a grouchy teenager who got me to change my thinking about dog handling (because whatever I was doing, it wasn’t working!), and he was ultimately responsible for my taking up clicker training and getting into animal behaviour professionally. You will find many references to him in the training articles on this site – he taught me lots!
One of my most challenging training exercises was teaching Slug to retrieve, because in spite of being a Dobermann, he didn’t have much prey drive, and so we had to shape the exercise from scratch, starting by clicking him for looking at the dumbbell. He ended up with a perfect retrieve and lots of other behaviours too.
And most of what I will remember and miss is his utter faithfulness. He wasn’t the bravest, cleverest or even the most beautiful Dobermann around. But he slept under my duvet every night of his life, and whenever I came home, no matter how cold or wet the weather, he would be at the garage door to say hello. He had a real ear-to-rear grin – he waggled his whole body when he was happy, which was most of the time. And even at the end, when he was getting tired, slow and uncertain on his feet, he insisted on doing his retrieve and getting his treat, like a good dog.
Bye-bye, SluggyBug. Sleep well.
Q. My dog is dominant and has growled at me a few times when I try to kick him off the couch. I’ve been told that I ought to alpha-roll him to prove that I’m dominant, but I’m scared he’ll bite me. What should I do?
A. The wolf-pack theory of dog behaviour is so prevalent amongst dog trainers and people who write articles about dogs that it has become taken for granted. Articles on how to deal with “dominant” dogs abound. It is assumed without question that social status and rank is important to dogs. “Dominance” aggression toward owners is one of the most frequently reported problems behaviourists have to deal with. So it would be nice to know first of all how much truth there is in the idea.
Early research into dog behaviour suggested that the dog evolved from the wolf with his patterns of social behaviour pretty much unchanged. Wolves are highly social, hunt in packs and form fairly fluid linear dominance hierarchies in their packs, with the highest-ranking wolf called the Alpha. The wolf-pack theory of dog behaviour thus suggests that the dog regards his human as another dog and that it is very important for the human to treat the dog as an Alpha Wolf would. In particular, if the dog misbehaves or shows aggression toward the human, the human is called upon to demonstrate his Alpha-ness by “alpha-rolling” the dog – hurling him to the ground on his back, pinning him by the throat and growling at him. The more devoted aficionados of the theory hold that this will “put the dog in his place” and apparently resolve a variety of training and behavioural problems at the same time.
It’ll certainly frighten the dog, or alternatively provoke him to even worse excesses of aggression, but whether it will make any difference to the dog’s perception of his social rank is highly doubtful, and it certainly won’t compensate for undertraining – the most common reason for misbehaviour.
There are several things wrong with the wolf-pack view of dog behaviour. The first is that dogs (or wolves, for that matter) don’t alpha-roll each other. An animal which is already low in rank may voluntarily roll over and display its stomach to an animal higher in rank, but this is a deferential behaviour on the part of the low-ranking animal, not an attempt on the part of the higher ranking animal to “put the other one in its place”!
The second is that dog social behaviour is not actually all that similar to wolf social behaviour. Dogs seldom hunt in packs, their social structure is much looser, and they probably don’t have an exact equivalent of the Alpha wolf. Observations of domestic dogs which have gone feral and of village dogs in primitive communities make this very clear.
The third thing wrong with the idea is that dogs almost certainly do not perceive their human companions as other dogs. The relationship, especially when it is a good one, is far closer to that of parent-child than of alpha-subordinate.
The fourth problem is the idea that dogs are continually jockeying for status. Dogs almost certainly don’t even have a concept of social rank as being something desirable as such, and it’s certainly not something that they would put themselves at physical risk for by fighting. What they will fight over is access to resources – the best food, space, the best place to sleep – and the dog who tends to win these encounters will emerge as dominant with respect to the other dog or dogs, sometimes in very specific situations. It is not uncommon for one dog to be dominant over another with respect to food, while the situation may be reversed with respect to sleeping space, for example. Once a dog has won the bulk of a series of encounters, he will expect the other dog to defer to him over access to resources, but whether he actually cares about his ‘rank’ as such is highly doubtful.
This leads to a much more sensible view of dominance, and one which fits in much better with the scientifically observed facts. Firstly, dominance is an attribute of a relationship, not of an individual dog, and secondly, it is a result, not a cause. Let’s elaborate:
Spot and Curly get into several fights over who gets the best bone. Spot wins most of them. Eventually he has only to glare at Curly and Curly will leave a bone and allow Spot to take it. Over time, then, we can say that Spot emerges as dominant, or higher in rank, with respect to Curly. Fido, on the other hand, may be able to take food off Spot every time, so Spot’s dominance is an attribute of his relationship with Curly, and not something intrinsic to Spot. We can say that Spot is dominant with respect to Curly, but it is not accurate to say that Spot is a “dominant dog”, period.
Furthermore, Spot doesn’t fight with Curly because he wants to be higher in rank than Curly. He fights with him to get the best bone. His higher rank is a result of the outcomes of several fights.
Some dogs, of course, are physically big and strong, and have a low threshold for offensive aggression, and possibly a high pain threshold as well, which means that they are likely to emerge the victor in most of their squabbles, and thus to become dominant. Such dogs often learn that they can defeat most opponents, and the more winning they do, the more confident and threatening their behaviour becomes when meeting a strange dog. But this is still an outcome of physical ability coupled with a history of winning. The dog doesn’t set out to “pull rank”.
So how does this relate to the situation where a dog is showing signs of aggression toward his owner? Is there such a thing as “dominance aggression” toward the owner?
The condition which behaviourists loosely call “dominance aggression” certainly exists, but has relatively little to do with rank at least in its early stages. It’s more likely to exist in a dog which wants to attain control of various resources and is socially inept. It’s only when the owner has inadvertently backed down to the dog a few times that rank may come into it, or that the dog may perceive itself as “higher-ranking” insofar as it expects the owner to give way to it.
Prevention, as always, is better than cure, and the best way to ensure that the problem never develops is to maintain control of access to all goodies and dole them out in exchange for obedience from the get-go, so the dog is never in doubt either about who controls the goodies or about how to get them. This has two benefits: first, the dog is never in doubt about its position in the household, and second, the dog’s environment is highly predictable and controllable, which reduces anxiety and frustration and has the effect of making it easier for a socially anxious dog to negotiate his role.
Where the problem has already developed, do not confront the dog or alpha-roll it. This is an excellent way to get severely bitten. Be particularly careful if there are children in the household as these are easy targets for a dog who has learned that aggression works.
Depending on the level of aggression, it may be possible to deal with this without professional help. If the dog has not actually bitten, then the first thing to do is to sit down and make a list of all the things which trigger growling or snarling. The next thing is to use management techniques to ensure that the dog has no access whatsoever to theses triggers (and they are usually quite specific). So a dog who growls over access to the couch must be kept off the couch, and this usually means keeping him out of the room containing the couch, or confining him by crating him or tying him out when he is in that particular room.
Thereafter, desensitization protocols should be followed for each trigger. In the case of a dog refusing to get off the couch, teach him a cue for getting off and follow up with a high quality food reward. Initially the dog should be lured off (and on) with a tasty treat so that he focuses on the treat rather than the fact that he is being asked to get off the couch. Once he is doing this quite willingly, the cue can be added and the lure faded, to be exchanged for a treat once he has actually done as asked and gotten off. If he refuses at any stage, turn round and leave the room, preferably shutting him in, and take the food with you. Try again a few minutes later.
In the case of a dog who is growly over toys or food (which need not have anything to do with dominance), start an object exchange protocol where he learns to give up an object in return for a treat and the return of the object. To start with, any high-quality items like rawhide chews, fresh bones and favourite toys need to be eliminated from the environment. Starting with a fairly boring toy is a good approach. Say a cue such as “leave it”, and offer the treat. As soon as the dog drops the toy, say “good dog” (or click if you have started clicker training), give the treat, and return the toy. Again, fade the lure until the dog will drop the toy happily on cue, and then gets rewarded. Then a slightly more interesting toy can be used, or another variation is to have two toys and swap them each time the dog is cued.
In general, the approach to a dog like this should be one of giving him many opportunities to earn small rewards in exchange for obedience: sit if he wants to go out, sit for dinner, lie down to have his lead put on for a walk, sit for attention and patting, and so on. Obviously he needs to know a few basic commands, and these should be taught using reward-based techniques, a) because using a punitive approach is dangerous with an aggressive dog, and b) because reward-based techniques give him an opportunity to get control over sources of reward. Usually, greater consistency and patience on the part of the owner will reap results.
If the dog has become seriously aggressive (biting and drawing blood), I would recommend calling in a behaviourist unless you know a great deal about learning theory. Avoid anyone who recommends aversives, alpha-rolling or the use of e-collars straight away. You are looking for someone who can identify behavioural triggers and construct the safest possible desensitization hierarchies, and also someone who has a working knowledge of behavioural pharmacology and will be able to recommend medication, at least during the process of behaviour modification.
Whether you deal with the problem yourself or call in a professional, the dog should never be regarded as cured. Managing his behaviour will mean that you will have to make changes in your behaviour which will have to last for the rest of the dog’s life.
Using food in dog training is a no-brainer to most modern, motivational trainers. Dogs
are highly motivated by food (they’re predators, after all!), it’s easy to use food
lures to manipulate them into various positions, the dog generally enjoys the training
more so is more motivated to work, the human finds it easier so is more inclined to
persevere, and over time the association between food goodies and the owner becomes
very strong so the dog/owner relationship tends to improve. (Dogs like people who give
them treats. People often like other people who give them chocolate!)
But many traditional trainers still object to the use of food in training. Nine times
out of ten, the reason for this is that they have only ever seen food being mis-used in
training. (And of course, a few still cling to the quaint notion that the dog should
do it “for love”. As Jean Donaldson points out in The Culture Clash, these are usually
trainers who are heavily reliant on some or other form of collar correction; in fact,
the dog’s primary motivation for working is avoiding pain. A few dogs will work
exclusively for praise and bonding, but most won’t. You may like your employer and
spend time outside of work with him or her, but that doesn’t mean you’re prepared to
work for free! Nothing strange here.)
Why are there still so many misconceptions around about how to train using food?
First of all, many people confuse the training process with the end result. The other
day, a friend of mine said she would prefer to use the Koehler method for teaching a
reliable drop at a distance “because you might not have your clicker handy and the dog
might be about to run under a bus, so how would you get his attention?” (Of course,
she might not have her choke or prong collar handy, either, particularly if the dog is
off the lead!)
There are two problems with her statement. Firstly, the clicker (or any other
conditioned reinforcer) is not an attention-getting device. It’s an event marker which
tells the dog he has just done something right, and that a treat, a game or some other
primary reinforcer is on its way.
And secondly, the clicker is a training tool like any other. Eventually, for any given
behaviour, the dog has to become independent of the training device, i.e. the drop at a
distance should be obeyed even if there isn’t a clicker (or a prong collar) within a
The training progression for training a drop at a distance might look a bit like this
1) train the dog to lie down, either by luring or capturing downs, and then clicking
and treating every time the dog does. (In the early stages of teaching something new,
we use a continuous schedule of reinforcement, which just means that the dog gets
reinforced every time it does the right thing.)
2) Depending on your requirements, you might use shaping techniques to get the dog
downing faster, straighter, folding back or sitting first. If you used a food lure,
you would also start fading this so the dog doesn’t need to see the food up front.
3) Once you’ve got the dog reliably offering you downs, you add the voice cue, e.g.
“down!” just as the dog starts to lie down. Gradually start saying “down!” earlier and
earlier. You would also stop clicking for downs which the dog offered without the cue.
4) Once the dog is doing the down the way you want it and it is pretty reliably on cue,
you would move to an intermittent schedule of reinforcement. We usually use a variable
ratio schedule, which simply means that you click and treat some of the time, but not
all of the time, and never in a pattern which the dog can work out. (N.B. Whenever you
click, you follow up with a treat – that’s the deal. But you don’t always click.)
Once you’ve reached this stage, the dog now knows that the voice cue “down!” means: if
I lie down, there’s a good chance that I’ll get a treat. He also knows that the
presence of the clicker and treats doesn’t guarantee a treat. What he still needs to
learn is that the absence of the clicker and treats doesn’t necessarily mean he won’t
get a treat, either. Some clicker trainers accomplish this by hiding clickers and
bowls of treats around the house so they can get to them quickly if the dog does
something they like or obeys a cue. My housekeeping isn’t up to this; if I hid some
bits of sausage in my CD drawer, I probably wouldn’t discover them again until they got
up and climbed out by themselves!
So what I do is install a second marker, or conditioned reinforcer, this one verbal.
(I call this phase ‘fooling the dog’.) I use a word/pronounciation combination that
I’m not likely to use in normal conversation, in my case, an eldritch screech of
“treeeeeeet!” I condition this slightly differently from the clicker: I chop up some
treats and hide them in the fridge (safest place!), and then while I have both dogs in
the kitchen I screech “treeeeeeet!” and then race to the fridge, open it and then give
them each a treeeeeeet, I mean a treat. I repeat this several times until they clearly
understand that “treeeeeeet!” means “race to the fridge and get a treat”, and then I
move around the house, into the garden and so on, screech “treeeeeeet!” and race for
the kitchen. Of course I could condition both dogs separately as well, and probably
should have, as when one does something deserving of a treat, the other one expects one
I can now use my verbal reinforcer to mark good behaviours. I normally only use this
with behaviours that are already partially trained and on cue, so in the case of a
down, I would say “down!” at random moments, and if I get a down, I screech
“treeeeeeet!” and race for the kitchen…well, you get the picture.
And then I start putting randomly cued behaviours on an intermittent schedule as well.
The net result is that the dog becomes a gambler. If I say “down!”, he knows that
there is a pretty good chance of him getting a treat if he complies, whether or not
there is a clicker and treats around. And variable ratio schedules have been shown to
be extremely successful in maintaining behaviour; the more care I put into this phase,
the more likely the dog is to persist in downing on cue, even in the absence of a
5) I then generalize, or proof, the dog’s down by asking him to down under
circumstances of increasingly high distraction – in the garden, in the street when it’s
quiet, in the street with another dog at a distance, in the street with another dog a
bit closer, and so on. At this stage, I expect his down to fall apart a bit, and I
simply re-teach under the new conditions. While I’m re-teaching, I go back to the
clicker and a continuous schedule (every correct down gets a click and treat) and as
soon as he’s got it, I go back to intermittent reinforcement at that level of
distraction. This might sound laborious, and it is at first, but the more the dog
learns and the more different conditions you proof under, the faster the proofing goes.
Each successive situation is easier, and so is each new behaviour!
6) I’m now in a position to start adding distance and time (which both simply involve
delaying the click until I have the distance and duration that I want). I might start
by putting the dog on a lead, doing some downs close to me, then taking a step back and
doing some more, then taking another step back and doing a few more, and so on (it
helps a lot if your dog can sit and stand on cue as well!) Again, this is something
new to the dog, so I go back to clicking and treating for every correct response, and
only move to intermittent reinforcement when the dog is reliable at a particular
I increase the distance little by little, and as I start working at fairly long
distances, I might use a tie-out and attach the dog to a fence-post or pillar. For
each correct down I would click and throw the treat within reach.
Eventually I would move to doing this off the lead, and again, I would go back to a
short distance and increase it gradually. I would also need to teach the dog to down
The end result – the fully-trained behaviour – would be a drop at a distance which I
would only need to reinforce the dog for occasionally, and which would be pretty
reliable regardless of whether I had a clicker handy, assuming I had done a good job.
Now I’m not trying to suggest that this is an easy or basic behaviour to train – far
from it. It’s one of the more difficult things in the dog trainer’s repertoire. And
I’m also not suggesting that you allow your dog to wander around without a leash in
potentially dangerous situations! But the point here was that one shouldn’t confuse
the training process with the end result, and this is something that critics of reward
-based training often do. (They also often take shortcuts and end up punishing the dog
for non-compliance at a level he hasn’t been proofed at yet, but that’ll have to wait
for another article!).
So to rephrase what we’ve said so far: when teaching the dog to do something new, you
use treats almost constantly. As the dog’s knowledge and experience increases, the
food rewards become intermittent and ultimately it shouldn’t be necessary for you to
have a clicker and treats on you in order to get compliance.
You should, of course, continue to reinforce occasionally even for well-known
Another area of confusion is the difference between a lure/bribe and a reinforcer. We
often use food lures to teach the dog something new or to get him into a new position,
but we make a point of fading (gradually getting rid of) these as soon as possible.
Why is that?
Well, luring really does make the dog dependent on seeing the food up front. I’ll sit
if you wave a treat over my head so my nose goes in the air, but if you don’t show me
the treat first, then no way!
The problem with a lure is that it comes before the behaviour we want. First the dog
sees the lure and then he does the sit. And for many people who experiment with food
when teaching their dogs tricks, that’s as far as it gets. (And for many conventional
trainers, that’s the extent of their experience in using food to train!)
A reinforcer, on the other hand comes after the behaviour we want. First you sit and
then I give you the treat. In other words, by the time the food is produced, the dog
has already done what you wanted him to. A totally different training bargain – and
the one on which all operant training techniques are based.
A third area of dispute is the idea that if you use food in training, your dog will be
more inclined to beg at table or when you’re eating. Well, if you give him food from
the table or when you’re eating, yes, of course he will, but this is a training
problem, not a failing of food training. If you don’t want the dog to beg, then never,
and I mean never feed him from the table, and never share your snacks with him. In
fact, if he learns that he gets treats when you’re training him, but never when you’re
eating, he will if anything be less likely to beg (dogs are great at making this sort
of distinction). You get what you reinforce. If you don’t want your dog to beg, don’t
reinforce him for begging.
A fourth, and final ‘problem’ with food training is that the treats are bad for your
dog and he might get fat. This is the only one which actually has any validity, but
it’s certainly not insurmountable. Most of us, myself included, just don’t get to
spend enough time training to make this a serious issue, but if your dog has a tendency
to pick up weight, then go for high-taste, low-fat treats (baked liver treats are
good), and cut down his meal rations. There’s a very good case to be made for getting
the dog to work for at least half his food. Vary the treats as much as possible so he
doesn’t get an overdose (or underdose) of any particular ingredient. Cut your treats
up as small as possible and give one (not a handful) when you click. And never give
your dog chocolate, especially expensive chocolate. It contains theobromine, which is
toxic to dogs and can be fatal.
Until next time, all the best, and above all, have fun!
It started with the words of dog trainer Konrad Most, writing in 1910:
In a pack of young dogs fierce fights take place to decide how they are to rank within the pack. And in a pack composed of men and dogs, canine competition for importance in the eyes of the trainer is keen. If this state of affairs is not countered by methods which the canine mind can comprehend, it frequently ends in such animals attacking and seriously injuring not only their trainers, but also other people. As in a pack of dogs, the order of hierarchy in a man and dog combination can only be established by physical force that is, by an actual struggle in which the man is instantaneously victorious. Such a result can only be brought about by convincing the dog of the absolute physical superiority of the man.
This highly influential theory has permeated to all levels of the dog world, and has resulted in dog abuse on the grand scale, culminating in atrocities such as the Koehler method, with its horrific recommendations such as beating dogs with rubber hoses and half-drowning them to prevent digging. Even trainers who do not themselves espouse the more violent methods beloved of Koehler and his disciples generally accept the dominance model of canine social behaviour without question. Dogs who are routinely beaten or hung by their owners, and who finally retaliate in self-defence, are written off, over and over again, as dominant because they decline to submit peacefully to appalling levels of physical punishment. And the solution offered by most trainers, even today, is more punishment, and still more, until the dog has to be put down because its temperament has been irrevocably ruined.
Its only in the last decade, with its explosion of interest in the field of canine behaviour and cognition, that anyone has seriously questioned the appropriateness of pretending to be a wolf when interacting with your dog! And the results of this somewhat more rigorous and scientific approach to the subject have been surprising indeed. Here is the truth behind some of the most cherished myths of dogdom:
Myth: Some dogs are naturally dominant, while others are naturally submissive.
Fact: Dominance is an attribute of a relationship, not of an individual. If Rover and Fido have had several fights of which Rover has won the bulk, Fido will start trying to appease Rover whenever Rover threatens him. We can then say that Rover is dominant and that Fido is submissive, but only in the context of Fido and Rovers relationship. Fido may well be the dominant partner in his relationship with Curly, while Rover may well be the submissive partner in his relationship with Spot. In this way, loose dominance hierarchies develop.
It thus does not make sense to say that Rover is a dominant dog, nor does it make sense to say that dominance is an inherited characteristic. What can be inherited are traits such as large body size and a low threshold for offensive aggression, which will make a dog more likely to succeed in disputes, and thus to become dominant. Dominance is learned, not inherited.
Myth: Dogs, like wolves, have a rigid and linear pack structure.
Fact: Both dogs and wolves have a fairly fluid pack structure. There will generally be separate male and female hierarchies, so a pack will thus have an alpha female as well as an alpha male. Within those hierarchies, however, there is a lot of movement, and most dominance behaviour seems to be situational, with the same dog being, for example, dominant with respect to food resources and submissive with respect to social space.
Myth: Dominance can be tested for and detected in puppies as early as seven weeks.
Fact: At seven weeks, dominance is as fluid as any other temperament characteristic. There is in fact no correlation between social dominance test scores at seven weeks and at sixteen weeks.
Myth: Dominance can be maintained only by physical force.
Fact: Dominance may be established by physical force, but is maintained by, at most, the use of stereotypical threat-appeasement displays. In fact, many canine dominance hierarchies are established and maintained without any force whatsoever, and furthermore, these hierarchies are far more stable and likely to last than those established by means of force.
In fact, it is more accurate to refer to dominance hierarchies as deference hierarchies as they are maintained by the affection and deference of the submissive members toward the alpha rather than by threat displays and violence from the alpha toward the submissive members of the hierarchy. What is important is that the flow of attention and affection should move up the hierarchy rather than down it.
Myth: If your dog jumps up at you, he is trying to dominate you.
Fact: If your dog jumps up at you, he is trying to lick your chin, an act of active submission which developed from the puppy behaviour of licking the mothers chin to get her to regurgitate food! Next time he jumps up at you, watch his ear position. Chances are, his ears will be pinned back!
Myth: Your dog sees you as another dog and it is essential that you should be perceived as the alpha.
Fact: The relationship between you and your dog is far more complex than a dominance hierarchy can explain. There is a surprising amount of evidence to suggest that humans are a supernormal object of affection to dogs, i.e. that dogs love their humans much more than other dogs and relate to them more deeply than they are capable of relating to other dogs. And the reverse may also be true, which might explain why were so crazy about our dogs! Certainly it is true to say that your dog probably does not regard himself either as particularly dominant or as particularly submissive in his relationship to you. Where competition between human and dog emerges, it is more likely to be pseudodominance (or obnoxious submission) than true, status-related dominance.
No training today – Mother-person is doing something to the website and has been glued to the laptop all day. I’m bored!
Well, there’s lots for me to do. Pulling books off the bookshelf is great fun and chewing them is even better! I’ve gotten hold of a thick animal behaviour textbook. It’s fascinating stuff – something I can really get my teeth into. And she’s concentrating so hard she hasn’t even noticed!
Then there’s the wicker dressing table drawer. Great stuff, wicker! You can shred it, tear it, gnaw on it and yank on hard enough to open the drawer – and there are all kinds of goodies inside.
And when I get tired of that, there are loads of plants in the garden for me to chew, dig up and generally mutilate.
Maybe tomorrow she’ll let me train her some more!
No-one knows exactly when the wolf came in from the cold and cautiously approached the fire. No-one knows when he started scavenging for scraps around the settlements of men. When did man first start feeding him? When did they first hunt together? When did the wolf, trembling and snarling, first allow the hand of the human to rest on his head, to stroke him, to tug gently at his ears? When did he start to welcome these caresses?
Estimates vary from 7000 to 14000 years ago, and possibly much longer ago. Archaeologists Davis and Valla, working in Israel in 1978, uncovered the poignant skeletal remains, dated at 12000 years ago, of a human being buried holding the skeleton of a small dog. Perhaps the dog truly became domesticated when fear turned to comfort, comfort turned to pleasure, and pleasure turned at last to love.
From these ancient beginnings sprang a cross-species relationship of trust, affection and commitment that is unequalled anywhere else in nature. Companion, guard and comforter, the dog is truly man’s best friend.
Over the centuries, the domestic dog, with man as the main selector, has evolved into a great variety of breeds, some of which date from antiquity while others are more modern. The distinctions between breeds originated with the discovery that some dogs were better at certain tasks than others. Some dogs herd, some dogs track, some dogs hunt with their owners, some dogs are guards and protectors – and some dogs are just for fun!
And with the evolution of the various breeds of dogs and their specialised capabilities came the evolution of training methods.
Dog training has been going on for almost as long as the dog has existed, but we’ll look specifically at the last century or so.
One of the best and worst developments in the dog world came with the discovery that the dog is in fact a genetically modified wolf. Yes, your Maltese Poodle is a wolf under the fluff! This discovery has taught us a great deal about the nature of the dog and how he interacts socially, but has also had huge disadvantages for the dog because findings in lupine behaviour have been extrapolated unchanged and unquestioned to the canine world.
Perhaps the most pernicious of these notions has been the one that a human needs to behave under all circumstances like a dominant, or ‘Alpha’, wolf toward his dog, and that doing this will miraculously solve all behavioural and training problems. This notion is faulty for a couple of reasons. In the first place, wolf pack theory has been badly misunderstood by most trainers, and in the second place, the social behaviour of the dog is now understood to be a fragmented and incomplete version of wolf social behaviour, with many differences, so that applying the ‘principles’ of wolf social behaviour directly to the dog is simply not appropriate.
Nevertheless, entire training philosophies have been developed based on the idea of dominance, and on the very dubious idea that your dog perceives you as another dog, and unfortunately, most of these methods rely on severe physical punishment to get their ideas across.
These methods probably reached their nadir with the publication of The Koehler Method of Dog Training, by William Koehler. First published in 1962, this book contains some of the most revolting examples of animal abuse ever to make it into print. Coupled with an almost total ignorance of the basic principles of learning theory, it is a primer on how to terrify and brutalise your dog into unthinking obedience. Sadly, Koehler’s methods are still popular with many trainers today.
But things are getting better…
It would be great if I could wave a magic wand and make all my problems – and all my dogs’ problems – just disappear. But I can’t. And neither can anybody else, whatever they may promise.
There are many dog training sites and dog books out there which promise exactly that, though – quick, one-stop treatment for deep-seated, difficult-to-handle behaviour problems such as fear-based aggression or anxiety. Their "treatment" is almost always a severe punishment, usually administered by means of some or other strangulation device. If that doesn’t work, they graduate to an electric shock collar, and if that doesn’t work, they shrug, say the dog’s temperament is faulty and recommend euthanasia.
Now let’s be clear here: there is occasionally a case for a judiciously applied, well-timed punishment, and the clicker training movement is done more harm than good by well-meaning individuals who swear off punishment completely because it’s "wrong". But what these "quick-fix" trainers are recommending is in nearly every case not punishment, but abuse. If applying physical pain to the dog is your only means of dealing with his problems, and if your only solution if that doesn’t work is to escalate the severity of the punishment, something somewhere has gone sadly wrong. And the worst part of it is that not only do these methods fail to improve existing problems, but they also worsen the current problem and often introduce many new ones. Coercion, as Murray Sidman would say, has fallout.
This is what one of these "trainers" wrote when I challenged him about his opinion of clicker training (excuse the language!):
"You have a GSD that is extremely dog aggressive. Someone accidentally lets your 11 year old Lab out and the GSD takes her to the ground by the neck and will not stop the attack no matter how loud your secretaries scream and cry. What would you do – click your little clicker until the Lab is dead? This happened last week at my kennel and I had to hit my stud dog over the head as hard as I could with a heavy shit shovel 10 to 12 times before he let her go. You people have your head up your ass. Your methods work fine for soft trainable dogs – don’t ever think you can use a clicker on dogs like I work with."
What this trainer failed to realise was that the problem with the GSD was largely of his own making! Abusive physical punishment (this trainer recommends punishments in increasing levels of severity as his sole intervention in behavioural problems) causes fear and anger, and often results in:
- increased levels of aggression, especially in a dominant dog
- the ‘only my husband can handle the dog’ syndrome, where the dog is too afraid to attack the person he perceives as dominant, but goes after lower-ranking members of the hierarchy whenever he gets the chance – this is quite possibly part of, but not all of, what this trainer saw with his labrador bitch
- lack of warning signals because the dog has been harshly punished for them in the past, so he now attacks without warning
The goal of training and rehabilitation in a case like this would be to get the GSD to a point where he could control his own behaviour if inadvertently let out. The chances of success would depend on how badly traumatised the dog is, but many dog-aggressive dogs can learn to overcome the anxiety associated with the sight of another dog, and thus their behaviour. Needless to say, this trainer would not recognise that the dog requires rehabilitation.
An extremely illuminating case history sent to this particular trainer goes something like this:
"Thank you so much for all the advice in your training video. I trained my dog (a male GSD) according to your method and can report a great improvement in his obedience and discipline.
Lately, though, he has started developing an aggression problem and has bitten a couple of people who have visited the house. Please can you help?"
Well, surprise, surprise. Aggression breeds aggression – and this trainer’s methods are extremely aggressive!
I am not trying to suggest that all behaviour problems are the handler’s fault – far from it. A dog’s temperament is a complex, unpredictable mix of genetic and environmental influences. Under the same circumstances, in the same home, one dog may turn out as mild-mannered as you could wish for while another one may become dangerously aggressive.
But without a doubt, aggressive, abusive handling techniques will only make fear and aggression worse, not better, and may even create an aggression problem where none existed before.
Modification of problem behaviours is a slow, gentle, careful business which involves identifying and working with emotional, behavioural and sometimes medical problems. It’s not a quick fix, and clicker training is just one of the many tools in our arsenal. But going through this work with your dog, discovering your own reserves of patience and dedication, and seeing your relationship with your dog blossom, is truly magic.
"He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
You can’t buy loyalty, they say
I bought it though, the other day;
You can’t buy friendship, tried and true,
Well just the same, I bought that too.
I made my bid, and on the spot
Bought love and faith and a whole job lot
Of happiness, so all in all
The purchase price was pretty small.
I bought a single trusting heart,
That gave devotion from the start.
If you think these things are not for sale,
Buy a brown-eyed puppy with a stump for a tail.
— author unknown —
Puppy socialisation has been a buzzword for a few years now. Is it really as important as people make it out to be, if so, why, and what should you be doing with your puppy to socialise him correctly?
Early puppyhood is regarded as one of the most important periods in a dogÙs life. Just like little children, young puppies absorb impressions like a sponge, and sometimes they retain things we would rather they forgot.
The brain of a dog (and of a human) is both specific and plastic. Specificity refers to those brain characteristics which are absolutely hard-wired and unchangeable. Plasticity refers to those aspects of brain structure which are pliable and subject to environmental influences. Generally speaking, the higher up the evolutionary tree an animal is, the higher its brain plasticity will be.
Although the temperament of a dog is partly genetic, puppies come into the world with highly plastic brains; in other words, they are extremely susceptible to environmental influences. This window of susceptibility closes at around 16 weeks (although it may take until 5 months to close completely), by which time the brain has more or less completed its development. After this, although the dog can still learn, he will not be as adaptable and susceptible as in those early weeks. The impressions created in those first few weeks literally affect the way the brain develops, and are extremely difficult to eradicate later.
Negative impressions in those early weeks can affect the puppy for the rest of its life; similarly, positive impressions bear fruit for years to come.
Puppies at this stage are said to be imprintable; the first encounter with a particular stimulus will be difficult to eradicate. So, for example, if a Dobe puppy is bitten by an adult Siberian the first time he meets one, he may develop a lifelong fear and dislike of Siberians, or of furry dogs in general, even if his subsequent encounters with them are positive.
Maternal imprinting takes place within the first 24 hours of life. The puppy bonds with his mother and learns to recognise her by smell. The mother accepts and recognises her puppies; breeders have plenty of anecdotes about bitches who can count and know when even one puppy is missing from the litter!
Fraternal imprinting takes place between 3 and about 8 weeks. This is the period during which the puppy learns to interact with other members of its species. Older puppies will teach one another bite inhibition, play behaviour and the beginnings of sexual imprinting (learning the behaviour appropriate to oneÙs own and the opposite sex.) For this reason, it is important not to remove a puppy from the litter too early, otherwise it may have lifelong difficulty in getting along with other dogs. Around 7 or 8 weeks is usually a good time, but if the puppy is left with the litter for longer, then the breeder needs to begin socialisation to people, strange dogs, cats etc so that further social imprinting can take place.
Between about 8 and 10 weeks of age, a puppy is especially susceptible to fear-producing experiences, which may have a lasting effect.
What should you be doing as a new puppy owner to ensure that the puppyÙs socialisation continues on a positive note?
Join a puppy class: Good dog training schools usually operate a puppy class for puppies of 8 weeks and older. The most important thing the puppies do here is play! They spend time with other puppies, have a ball, overcome their shyness, get told off by other puppies if they get too boisterous, and generally learn the basics of dog manners. They also learn that meeting other dogs is fun, and this does wonders for preventing dog aggression in later life.
Meet people: Expose your puppy to people of all shapes, sizes, sexes and colours from an early age. Dogs discriminate extremely well, and many dogs are undersocialised to certain groups; for example, dogs belonging to single women are often wary of or aggressive toward men. ItÙs particularly important to introduce your puppy to children – but supervise the situation and donÙt allow the puppy to be mauled or bullied. Get people to feed him high-quality treats; remember the power of classical conditioning and try to make his socialisation positive rather than neutral! Older children can also feed the puppy.
Go for walks: Take your puppy into all sorts of neighbourhoods – the noisier the better. Get him used to traffic, sudden noises, crowds, shopping centres. Two words of warning here: your puppy is not fully immunised until he has had his third vaccination, so try to avoid places where he might be exposed to disease. Also, make sure that your puppy is not becoming stressed by his surroundings. If he seems to be struggling, take him out for shorter periods and feed him treats while heÙs out and about. Remember, you want to create a positive experience, not a negative one!
Go to the vet: Take your puppy to the vet a few times just for a visit. (ItÙs a good idea to wait until after the 2nd shot to do this.) Ask if you can take the puppy into the surgery for a few moments, and ask the vet to feed him a couple of treats. This will make your life much easier later on, when those visits may mean injections or other painful treatments.
Handle the puppy: Go through a grooming routine with your puppy every day. Examine his ears, teeth and feet. Trim his toenails if you can. Feed him treats while you do this. Ask other people to do the same.
Practise object exchanges: Teach your puppy to give up toys and other objects easily by giving another toy or a treat in exchange. Do this with his food as well; pick up the bowl while heÙs eating, add a couple of treats to it and give it back. If your puppy objects to you removing his food, feed him from your hand for a couple of days. This will go a long way toward establishing you as dominant and preventing resource guarding in the adult dog.
Carry on teaching bite inhibition: Puppies who have been left with the litter for long enough usually have quite good bite inhibition, but you can help. Whenever the puppyÙs teeth close down too hard on your hand, yelp in a high-pitched voice until the puppy lets go, and then withdraw your attention for a moment. You can gradually shape the puppyÙs bite to a point where he barely touches you.
Introduce your puppy to adult dogs: Your pup needs to meet older dogs, and needs to learn to treat them with respect. Find out how the older dog usually behaves with puppies before attempting an introduction; you donÙt want your puppy to be bullied or even injured. Most adult dogs are very tolerant of puppies, but will sometimes discipline them by giving them a quick shake and a growl if they get out of line; this is not a cause for alarm and is in fact often beneficial, particularly with a boisterous puppy who may otherwise get himself into some nasty fights as an adolescent. Make sure that the bulk of the puppyÙs experiences are positive, however, and avoid the occasional adult who is really ugly with puppies. In particular, if you have other dogs of your own, try to intervene as little as possible if they decide to discipline the puppy. You should take action only if there is serious bullying going on. It is critical that your pup learns to understand that he is at the bottom of the pack. If you incessantly defend the puppy, he may decide to challenge your older dog when he reaches adolescence. The older dogÙs response to a puppy will usually be nothing more severe than a growl or a nip, but in the case of an adolescent this may develop into a full-scale fight with severe injuries to one or both dogs.
Reward recalls: Call the puppy over and over again and give him a treat or a cuddle every time he comes to you, no matter what heÙs been up to. Never, ever, ever call him and then punish him (this is the Number One New Dog OwnersÙ Mistake!). He will associate the punishment with coming when called, and not with whatever he was doing before you called him, and you will end up with a dog who is resistant to coming on command. You want to condition your puppy to believe that coming to you is the best thing in the whole world; this will stand you in good stead when you start doing serious obedience work later on.
Keep the volume high: The more positive experiences your puppy has and the greater the variety of situations you can introduce him to, the better. Ten good experiences are better than one, and fifty are better than ten.
What happens if your puppy does have a bad experience? Suppose your neighbour comes to visit with two small children who bully the puppy and frighten it badly?
All is not lost, as your pup is still highly imprintable. What matters now is that you try to create a large number of positive experiences with children. One good experience wonÙt undo the damage; twenty or thirty might well. Find a doggy friend who has a child who is well-behaved around dogs. Introduce the child to your puppy and ask him or her just to feed treats at first. If the puppy wonÙt go near the child, donÙt force the issue. Try feeding the puppy some really high-quality treats yourself while the child is in the same room. Gradually bring the child nearer and nearer while you feed, until the puppy will tolerate him or her quite close by. After a while, the child should be able to feed the puppy, and then to stroke it while he feeds it, and eventually to cuddle it and handle it. It is extremely important to go at the puppyÙs pace; at the first sign of nervousness the child should back off, but as soon as he or she has left the room you should also stop feeding the treat. The puppy will learn that the treat is associated with the child, and that if he wants to go on getting the treat, heÙs going to have to tolerate the child near him.
If you can find a child who can sit still for long enough, another very useful technique is to lay a trail of treats up to the child and scatter a few on the childÙs body. Let the puppy find the treats and approach at his own pace; this helps him to overcome his fear. This is also useful with older dogs who are afraid of people.
Repeat this with as many different children as possible, as many times as possible. If your puppy has a nervous temperament, it may take some time and patience on your part. If heÙs a more confident, resilient puppy he will probably bounce back without too much trouble.
The objective of puppy socialisation is not to stress your puppy out by flooding him with too many stimuli to handle at once, but neither is it to cushion him to the point where he never has to deal with any fear. A puppy who is startled by something but then plucks up his courage and approaches it with positive results is developing what Jean Donaldson calls bounce-back. Multiple opportunities to overcome spookiness develop resilience and a better temperament overall; and at this age, even supposedly genetic characteristics such as social dominance are remarkably plastic. Assessing your puppyÙs inherited temperament and then working hard to correct any nervousness will reap benefits for years to come.
Puppy socialisation, properly done, is an investment in your future – and your dogÙs. DonÙt leave it to chance.
How do you get paid?
Does your boss stagger into your office groaning under the weight of fourteen cabbages, a lemon, six rolls of toilet paper, a jar of coffee, a few cans of petrol and twenty kilos of dog food?
When you pay your bond, do you deliver three chickens, a pair of shoes and ten metres of fencing to the bank manager?
I doubt it.
I would love to deliver a cow, four goats, six snoek and a ton of good-quality, well-rotted manure to the Receiver of Revenue to pay my taxes.
But somehow I dont think it would work.
So how do you get paid?
You probably get given a piece of paper. Or possibly a lot of pieces of paper. You work your butt off for an entire month, and you get a piece of paper in exchange. And you keep on doing it! Are you nuts?
The piece of paper may be a cheque, or notification of a bank transfer, or you may be paid in cash, but whichever way you are paid, the piece of paper you receive represents the goods you can buy with it. This is the function of money in our society. It is a medium of exchange with which we can purchase the goods and services we require.
Why are you satisfied to receive money and not the actual goods and services you have earned? Because you trust money as a medium of exchange. Why do you trust it? Because you have always been able to exchange it for what you wanted in the past. In psycho-speak, you have been classically conditioned to form an association between money and the things you can buy with it.
Classical conditioning as a means of learning owes its discovery and terminology to the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1848-1936). Pavlov performed extensive studies on the basic reflexes of animals and in particular, the salivary reflex in dogs. In his experiments, he would place food in a dogs mouth and observe the salivary response.
One day, he noticed that his dogs started salivating at the sight of food. This observation led him to formulate his famous bell-ringing experiment, in which he discovered the process of classical conditioning. It goes something like this:
First, Pavlov noted that salivation was a basic reflex (as opposed to a learned behaviour). He then noted that no learning (conditioning) needed to take place for food to cause salivation. He therefore called the food the unconditioned stimulus (US) and the salivary response the unconditioned response (UR).
(A stimulus is simply something external which acts as a signal to an animal, and a response is what the animal does after experiencing the stimulus. For example, if you stick a pin (stimulus) into someones arm, he will flinch (response). The pain response is another example of a reflex, or unconditioned response; you dont have to learn that having a pin stuck in your arm is painful. It just is.)
In psychology textbooks, which are all nearly unreadable, this is usually written as follows:
US ————————-> UR
In English, the unconditioned stimulus (e.g. food) causes the unconditioned response (e.g. salivation).
Pavlov then added a stimulus, or signal, which meant nothing to the animal, so he called it a neutral stimulus (NS). In his experiments, he used a bell.
To start with, he rang the bell and the dog, quite sensibly, didnt salivate. This showed him that the bell was in fact neutral (scientists have an obsession with proving things that are obvious to everyone else). In psycho-speak:
NS ————————–> no observable response.
Next, he rang the bell and gave the dog the food at the same time (in fact, the bell was rung immediately before the food was presented). He did this several times. Each time, the dog salivated. Schematically:
NS + US ——————–> UR
The next bit is the interesting bit. Once Pavlov had paired the bell with the food a few times, he rang the bell without presenting the food and observed the dog and the dog salivated. The dog had made the association that the bell meant that food would surely follow. The bell had thus become a conditioned stimulus (CS) and the salivary response had become a conditioned response (CR):
CS —————————–> CR
Pavlov called salivation in response to the sound of a bell a conditioned response because the dog had to learn (or be conditioned) that the bell was associated with food.
Only a dog, you may be thinking, would be stupid enough to learn to drool at the sound of a bell. Indeed. It goes without saying that you, of course, have never felt even the slightest twinge of pleasure at the sight of a $100.00 bill which is, after all, only a piece of paper!
Classical conditioning is an extremely powerful phenomenon which is at the heart of many of our instinctive emotional reactions, irrational fears and superstitions. Properly understood and applied, though, it is also a very powerful therapeutic tool, as it tackles the gut reaction underlying many problem behaviours. It is particularly successful in the rehabilitation of aggressive dogs and aggressive people!
But how do we apply it to training?
One of the characteristics of the conditioned stimulus, e.g. the bell, is that the dog appears to perceive it as a cue that the unconditioned stimulus, e.g. the food will soon appear. After very little conditioning, if the dog hears the conditioned stimulus, he will prick his ears up and look for the unconditioned stimulus.
Try it. Do you have a ballpoint pen of the kind that has a nib which clicks up and down? (A Parker jotter or similar pen will do very well). Line up 20 treats on the counter in your kitchen (a frank cut into small pieces should work.) Click the pen and immediately give your dog a treat. Repeat this click, treat, click, treat, click, treat – until youve used up 10 of your treats. Remember to click first and then treat.
Now click once, but dont give the treat immediately. What does your dog do?
In all probability, he pricks up his ears, looks at you and says: wheres my treat, then? You have just classically conditioned a ballpoint pen as a conditioned stimulus. To strengthen the association, carry on clicking and treating until youve used up all the treats.
Now remember that a positive reinforcer is anything which makes it more likely that a behaviour will be repeated (See Training without Pain on this site). In other words, if the dog is reinforced after performing a behaviour you want, such as a sit, its more likely that he will sit again in the future. Reinforcers such as food, water or sex constitute primary reinforcers because they meet a basic physiological need.
Because you have conditioned the ballpoint pen as a conditioned stimulus which means treat coming, you can now ask, lure or coax Fido to sit, click the pen and then treat, and Fido will understand perfectly well when he hears the click that he is being reinforced for sitting, and that the treat (the primary reinforcer) is on its way. The pen has become a secondary, or conditioned reinforcer (CR).
The most powerful conditioned reinforcer in our own lives is, of course, money. People have been known to kill for it. The association between money and reward is so strong for us that we work quite happily for money without ever thinking about precisely which primary reinforcer we are going to translate it into.
With persistence, the click takes on the same sort of meaning to the dog that money has for us, and develops tremendous reinforcing power in its own right. It is important in training to maintain that association, and we do that by honouring the promise made by the click and treating every time we click. After all, how would you feel if you walked into a shop and they refused to take your $100.00 bill?
In practice, we dont use a ballpoint pen. We use a clicker, which is basically a strengthened version of a childs metal cockroach, but in fact we could use anything a light, a bell, a whistle (deaf dogs can in fact be trained very successfully using a flash of light as a conditioned reinforcer). There is no magic at all in the clicker; it does, however, have the advantages of
- producing a sound which is dissimilar to most other sounds in the dogs environment (take this one with a pinch of salt; Slug turns up looking for a treat every time I try to clip my toenails!)
- producing the same sound every time
- producing a sound which is clearly audible to the dog at quite a distance
- being quick and easy to operate (a reflex click will come out a lot faster than good boy will)
These characteristics are important if the dog is not to become confused, and are the reasons for the clicker taking off as the conditioned reinforcer of choice in modern dog training. It is also the reason that training using operant conditioning has, somewhat unfortunately, become known as clicker training. I repeat: there is nothing magic about the clicker, and adding a clicker to your normal training repertoire will buy you little or nothing. Using the clicker correctly as part of a training system based on operant conditioning will, however, bring about astonishing levels of speed and accuracy, as well as improving your dogs mental health (and his relationship with you) out of recognition.
At this point you may be wondering why anyone would bother with a conditioned reinforcer when it has to be paired with a food treat (primary reinforcer) anyway. Why not just give the treat and have done with it?
If there are three things that are critical to successful training, they are: timing, timing and timing. And there are three reasons for using a conditioned reinforcer (CR) such as a clicker: timing, timing and timing.
Although the concepts of operant conditioning were discovered in the laboratory by B. F. Skinner and his students, one of the first major applications in the real world was in the training of dolphins in aquaria. Its difficult to punish a dolphin if he does something you dont like; he just swims away from you. Choke chains dont work on dolphins.
Furthermore, if a dolphin does something the trainer does want, such as a jump or a splash, by the time the trainer manages to get the treat (usually a fish) to him, he will probably have done several other things in between and may not even associate the reward with whatever it was the trainer liked. He may eventually learn through trial and error that jumping will earn him a fish, but fine points like jump high and to the left will be impossible to train.
The use of conditioned reinforcers (a high-pitched whistle in this case) revolutionized dolphin training and made possible the almost unbelievably precise exhibitions we have come to expect from them. The desired behaviour could be precisely marked using the CR at the moment it occurred, and because the dolphin had been conditioned to the whistle, he knew that he had been rewarded, and that the fish would follow; the likelihood of him repeating that behaviour thus increased.
Yes, thats all very well, you may be saying, but my dog isnt swimming around under water when I train him; hes right here next to me. I beg to disagree. First of all, any training which goes beyond the most basic involves some distance work. Secondly, even when youre right next to your dog, you have very little time to respond to a behaviour before he produces the next one; dogs move fast. Studies show that for a dog to associate a reinforcer with a particular behaviour, the reinforcer needs to follow the behaviour within one second, and preferably within four-tenths of a second. By the time youve mumbled good boy and grabbed for the cheese, Fido could be over the hills and far away!
This becomes particularly important when shaping fine distinctions in behaviour; you might want to reinforce Fido for having a foot in a certain position, or being halfway into a sit. Being able to mark the correct behaviour at the precise instant it occurs is probably the biggest advantage offered by a CR.
The clicker thus has two very important functions in its role as conditioned reinforcer:
- as a cue that the treat is on its way, and
- as an event marker which marks the instant the desired behaviour occurred
The latter usage is critical when shaping behaviours you may wish to mark a slightly straighter sit, a slightly faster trot, a raised head, pricked ears, you name it. With the clicker, you can mark anything the dog is physically capable of doing, and this is what gives clicker training its astonishing accuracy and precision.
Can your dog chase his tail on command? If not, try this. (Tricks are a good place to start clicker training so you can hone your skills without adding some unwanted um variations to your obedience exercises!)
Get out plenty of treats. Decide which way you want your dog to spin left or right. Lets assume youve chosen the left.
Say nothing. I repeat, say nothing. This is not command-based training. Your tone of voice is irrelevant. In fact, you dont even need a voice!
Start by clicking and treating (C/T) every time the dog looks to the left. An eye movement is enough. Keep going until hes looking to the left at least 8 times out of every 10 trials.
Up the criteria slightly. Now you want him to turn his head slightly. C/T for a slight head turn, dont C/T for just an eye movement. Count the number of successes and failures. If hes getting less than 2 out of 10 right, youve raised the criteria too sharply and he doesnt know what to do go back a step. If hes getting between 2 and 8 out of 10 right, hes learning, but he hasnt got it yet. Keep going at this level. If hes getting more than 8 out of 10 right, he knows what you want and you can up the criteria again. Perhaps you can C/T for a slightly sharper turn of the head.
Build your steps up gradually, asking for a sharper and sharper head turn, then a paw movement, then both paws, then a body bend and so on. Itll probably take a while and will seem quite slow compared to conventional training; but the important thing is that true learning is taking place. There will be a point where your dog realizes that what he does influences whether you C/T or not; this is really exciting and you can expect to be jumped all over, several times. His behaviours have now become truly operant; he deliberately operates on his environment in order to obtain a benefit. Suddenly, your dog is training you, and just how intelligent he really is becomes astoundingly obvious!
Once hes spinning away like a top, you can put the behaviour under stimulus control. Add a verbal cue (we dont call it a command any more) such as Spin just before you C/T. Gradually introduce the cue earlier and earlier. The dog will associate it with the reward and will start offering the spinning behaviour whenever you say Spin. Once this is completely reliable (at least 9 out of 10 successes in several trials), you can stop rewarding freely offered spins. The dog will learn that you only C/T if he spins after you have given the cue, and that offering spins without the cue is pointless. The spin cue has become a discriminatory stimulus. OK, you can call it a command if you really, really want to.
Clicker training seems slow and painstaking at the beginning, but speeds up dramatically as the dog gets the idea. Watching someone free-shape an experienced clicker dog is quite an experience; the dog starts experimenting freely to find the desired behaviour, and new exercises emerge with remarkable speed and are remembered! Morgan Spector, author of Clicker Training for Obedience, estimates that it takes about a third as long to put a clicker-trained dog through its obedience titles as it does a conventionally trained dog.
The clicker training movement is busy revolutionizing the dog training world. Suddenly it is possible to train accurate, reliable behaviours with no punishment or coercion; in fact, the training is done entirely hands-free, and the lead has become obsolete except as a safety measure. The biggest operant conditioning success story comes straight from Skinners labs: Robert Bailey and Marion Breland Bailey, two of Skinners most influential students, formed a company called Animal Behaviour Enterprises which over the last forty years has trained something like fifteen thousand animals of every species from cockroaches to elephants, including many dogs. To improve your training skills, they offer a chicken training camp where the objective is to train a chicken to play a four-note tune on a xylophone and believe me, it can be done. In all their vast experience, they estimate that they have used punishment between six and nine times, and then only because their clients (who include the United States Department of Defence) insisted on it. It raises some uncomfortable ethical questions about our obsession with punishment-based training, doesnt it?
The clicker dog training movement was pioneered by Karen Pryor, a marine biologist and dolphin trainer who recognized that the principles of operant conditioning could be applied to dogs as easily as to any other species. Her book, Dont Shoot The Dog!, is a must-read for anybody wanting more information. Amongst other things, she points out that dolphin trainers, who are accustomed to using positive reinforcement correctly every day, usually have exceptionally nice, well-behaved children!
Clicker training has a very sound basis in scientific theory and uses a lot of scientific terminology, which may seem daunting to some people; yes, it is important to understand at least the basic concepts of operant conditioning. It doesnt really mix with traditional methods, and requires you to abandon much of what you have done in the past.
But once begun, clicker training, an art, a science and a sport, is a journey which is so enjoyable and rewarding for both you and your dog that I have never heard of anyone turning back!
(Note: this article was written for a magazine called Dobe Capers during a period when I was the consulting behaviourist for the Dobermann Club of the Cape, so it refers a lot to problems training Dobermanns. The theory which it attempts to explain is, however, completely relevant to other breeds, and in fact other species!)
If you are reading this article, you have probably trained (or tried to train) a Dobermann at some stage in your life. Perhaps it was easy and enjoyable. On the other hand, perhaps it was a constant battle of wills, a battle between you and a powerful, intelligent, strong-willed animal who loved you, but did not particularly want to do what you wanted him to, and resisted all (or most) of your efforts to make him. Anyone who has been towed along by a Dobe supposedly obeying the command to heel will, I think, recognise himself or herself in this description.
Perhaps you have a dog who is loving and affectionate at home, but bored and resistant in class. Perhaps he avoids you when its time for practice. If he gets bored and resistant enough, perhaps you eventually lose your temper with him, shout at him, and try to force him to respond. He becomes even more resistant, and has to be physically hauled into any posture you want him to adopt, which he abandons as soon as you let him go. If youve gotten tough enough with him, you may even have been bitten.
Perhaps youve tried to do competition obedience with a Dobermann, and have watched your (naturally!) superior animal being easily outstripped by Border Collies, GSDs and other, well, nice dogs. Frustrating, isnt it.
Training like this can quickly become an unpleasant and distressing task, which is easily abandoned. (Any trainer can tell you what the dropout rate from obedience classes is like). When your dog loves you and is so affectionate at home, why go through the misery of fighting with him week after week? Its much easier to find an excuse not to go to class. The fact that you end up with an unreliable and disobedient dog from a guarding breed with a high potential for aggression is just the cross you have to bear. Dobermanns are difficult, and thats all there is to it.
If this has been your experience, dont feel alone. There are many others like you. I have vivid and embarassing memories of…er…training my first Dobermann, a rather plain but fortunately extremely good-natured chap called Billy. I was young at the time (this was 30 years ago) and Billy was very intelligent indeed; he certainly outwitted me every time he tried! I did basic and advanced obedience, tracking, agility (which in those days was aptly named obstacle work) and eventually manwork with him. It was uphill most of the way. He learned everything under considerable duress, except the odd exercise which he enjoyed; those he learned quickly and happily.
At the end of his training, Billy was like the little girl in the nursery rhyme; when he was good, he was very, very good, and when he was bad, he was worse than horrid. When he was good, he would work on hand signals from 100 metres. When he was bad, he wouldnt walk at heel. When I did a right turn, he would do a U-turn and go and lie down somewhere comfortable. He was trained, but he certainly wasnt obedient. Ring any bells?
Will power, stubbornness and resilience to punishment are characteristics of the Dobermann. If its superb intelligence can be harnessed, it is capable of being an outstanding working dog one of the best in the world but it is by no means an easy dog to train, and this has led to the German Shepherd being preferred as a police dog in many countries, including South Africa. In 1956, the New Zealand Police Dog Unit was established, using German Shepherds as the dog of choice. Its founder and Chief Trainer, Inspector Frank Riley, actually kept two Dobermanns as pets (clearly a man of taste), but had this to say about their use as police dogs, having worked with them in the UK:
This dog makes an excellent police dog, but matures slowly and for the best results needs an experienced handler who may have to experiment a little in his training methods.
(from: Born to Obey, by Valerie and Colin Salt, Collins, 1972)
Ring any bells?
Top Cape Town obedience trainer Sandy Lombard says that the Dobermann is far more resilient to punishment than the GSD. A Dobermann will stubbornly resist a series of harsh corrections which would permanently traumatise a GSD, and come bouncing back for more. This determination and hardness of temperament is a wonderful characteristic for a police dog to have, but is offset by the difficulty of training such a dog.
Although individual Dobermanns have performed exceptionally well at obedience, the breed does not dominate in the competitive obedience world, largely because of its stubbornness. Dogs such as GSDs and Border Collies are far easier to get results with, and are thus often the choice of competitive handlers.
Dobermanns can be managed after a fashion. As I have grown older, I have become more authoritative, and am better able to persuade my dogs that I mean what I say. They listen a bit better. But I have to admit that I dont really enjoy doing obedience work with them. I dont like speaking forcefully, correcting sharply, being in any way harsh with my lovely, affectionate dogs. In fact, Im really rather half-hearted about practicing obedience with Slug (my current male), and so is he. Its a frustrating state of affairs, because I really love my dogs and enjoy spending time with them. Wouldnt it be wonderful, wouldnt it be marvellous, I have often thought wistfully, if Dobermanns were like Border Collies, always looking for work, always waiting for the next command, always eager to do what you ask them to?
Well, actually, they are.
Actually, it is easy to harness all that will power, determination and superb intelligence and persuade your Dobermann (yes, that stubborn, recalcitrant you-know-what) to apply it in looking for work, working out what you want him to do, and doing it eagerly, just like a Border Collie, and with no harsh corrections whatsoever.
Does your dog have a reliable sit? By a reliable sit, I mean that the dog is commanded to sit, sits promptly and does not move until given the next command, no matter what the distraction.
Slug doesnt have a reliable sit. He sits when told, but moves as soon as something distracts him. As hes extremely affectionate, if I tell him hes a good dog in a pleased, excited tone of voice, he leaps around me in great excitement, trying to hurl himself into my arms and lick my face. So I decided to teach him to sit until released. As I have a fairly strong background in psychology, I designed the exercise myself.
Within three minutes of starting the exercise, he was sitting, while I praised him, told him what a good boy he was, how clever he was, sending him dilly with delight. His entire bottom was waggling, his eyes were shining, his ears were up – and he was quivering with the effort of holding himself in the sit! Being a Dobermann, of course, with all that intelligence, will power and stubbornness, he succeeded. I used no correction at all. In fact, he didnt have his lead on, and I didnt touch him once during the exercise, except to praise. For the next 15 minutes, he followed me around begging for the next command! Even one of his archenemies barking in the road outside my house failed to distract him. I could not believe my eyes!
Just like a Border Collie? Streets ahead!
At this juncture, you are possibly harbouring a suspicion that I was under the influence of some or other interesting substance while writing this article. Not at all.
The method used to achieve this happy state of affairs is called operant conditioning, and has been used by animal trainers for centuries. You have probably heard the term positive reinforcement somewhere along the line. It is a term used extremely loosely and casually, but applied in its strictest sense as a training method in conjunction with the other concepts of operant conditioning, it gets results that seem little short of miraculous.
Needless to say, I am by no means the first person to have thought of training a dog this way. (In fact, it took rather a long time for the penny to drop with me.) Dr C.W. Meisterfeld, an American canine psychoanalyst who is the first dog psychologist to have been certified as an expert witness by the US judiciary, has been developing a dog training method based on positive reinforcement since 1944. In 1957 he entered the competitive world of American Kennel Club obedience to prove that these principles could be successful in training a German Shorthaired Pointer which others considered (at that time) a breed that was far too stubborn (ring any bells?) for competitive obedience. On November 10, 1957 at the Southern Michigan Obedience Training Club show, Meisterfeld’s bitch "Baroness Meisterfeld" received her third leg and the Canine Distinction Award for AKC obedience for earning an average score of 196-1/2 at three consecutive shows inside of seven days. In 1962 "Baroness Meisterfeld C.D.X." won the National German Shorthair Pointer Retriever Championship with a (considered impossible) perfect score of 500 points. She retained the championship for 1963 and 1964 where she also won the 1964 National All German Pointing Breeds Championship.
And using similar methods, other trainers have achieved such titles and awards as:
- Delta Society National Service Dog of the Year
- Australian Police Dog of the Year
- Americas Most Versatile Collie
- World Record for Speed Weave Poles (set right here in South Africa!)
and many more.
Beyond belief? Not at all.
End of part one. For a discussion of how the method works, see the next issue of Dobe Capers, which will appear in about three months time, or possibly later, depending on how busy the committee are .