# From Children to Dogs



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

In our IAABC forum we had a spirited debate on shock collars . And this brought out two comments by Rise VanFleet. I thought her views on this were inspiring and with her permission I am cross posting . It is in two parts because it is a little too long for the forum limits here. I love her anology between child rearing and dog training. Here is part one. 

This is the type of dialog we all need to be having with each other, and within ourselves. I'm not going to do a point by point here, as I think it makes sense for all of us to read the various ideas and to thoughtfully consider them. Ultimately, it comes down to our thinking about things carefully and making decisions for ourselves, and of course, each dog situation presents unique challenges.
I'm sure my thoughts and decisions are influenced by a similar issue in my primary field with regard to child rearing (I'm a child/family psychologist and play therapist). Does a swat on the behind, delivered skillfully and infrequently, really injure the child physically or psychologically? Probably not (if just a tap and rarely done). Something over 50% of American families still use physical punishment. (Although a long-term Harvard/Brandeis study is showing physical punishment to be one of the strongest predictors of aggression and rebellion in teens.). Regardless, there are laws in most states now that prohibit teachers from hitting children in any way, and I would never suggest (or agree to) to a parent to use this approach, formally or informally. I actually use Filial Therapy (building stronger relationships through the use of specialized therapeutic parent-child play sessions) to build the relationship stronger, and invariably the behavioral problems go away. This method combines empathy, child choices during the play, and consequences (ultimately, end of play session), and all aspects of this work together (and it has very strong research showing its effectiveness on many dimensions). In many years of doing this, only a handful of parents have even had to end their play sessions - the other elements address the emotional, behavioral, and relationship issues that are at work. (And in our practice, we work with really seriously disturbed kids with trauma/attachment problems and really serious behavioral acting out.) Spanking and any type of physical hitting is completely off the table in the work I do. I can live with that. With it being off the table, I HAVE to find other things that work. In Wales, shock collars are off the table. And trainers are still finding ways to work with dogs. Perhaps that's another question to ponder: What if X,Y, or Z were off the table? 
Finally, it seems to me that we are sometimes limiting ourselves as trainers if we focus rather exclusively on behaviorism. (By the way, Fred Skinner and I share the same childhood hometown - Susquehanna, PA - and some of my childhood (adult)neighbors and teachers were his classmates and friends growing up!). Behaviorism is only part of the answer, albeit a valuable part. I started out life as a behaviorist (human), but found my work increasingly informed by what was happening in cognitive therapy and emotion-focused therapies (including play therapy for kids). Ultimately, I landed in a place that is first and foremost a relationship-oriented way of working with humans. 
Now, I find myself going through the same route, but more quickly, in my work with dogs, horses, and other species. For example, I am completely fascinated by the whole idea of social facilitation between nonhuman animals, especially as it is mediated by play. And the neuroscience research, especially the affective (emotions) neuroscience field (including things like oxytocin production between people and dogs; mirror neurons, and the like) will help us all find better ways--more humane, more effective, more practical.

All that is to say that there is more to dog training, and there will ALWAYS be more, as the field grows. To me, it's about continuous learning and improvement. We are learning vastly more about who and what dogs are, and that needs to inform what we do. It's a great time to be in the field of dog training/consultation.


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Here is her second letter. 
Hi All,I have also appreciated the civility of the discussion,
especially because I know this is a very emotionally-laden topic. I
have separately posted 3 rather well-done studies related to the topic
in a folder in our Files section. While facts certainly don't shift
opinions, especially when those opinions are emotionally-derived, as
canine (and other species) professionals, it behooves us to be aware of
the research whenever possible. As a psychologist, I always appreciated
the scientist-practitioner model, and it's really important when reading
research to have a knowledge of good research design, proper use of
statistics, what can and can't be concluded from a study, etc. Research
is sparse in many areas, although there is more about the impact of
shock on dogs than I think many realized, although not quite so much
specifically about shock collars (but some). It often boils down to the
oft-repeated result that not only timing, but also length of shock makes
for really serious negative outcomes for dogs (and yes, there are some
dogs who are less sensitive than others), and we all know how the great
majority of clients are with their consistency, not to mention their
precision of timing and duration. (And I do agree that we can misuse
any piece of equipment; hence, my desire to replace equipment as much as
possible with really good training and relationships.)
Yes, by definition of the process, electrical devices need to have some
aversive impact. The use of shock, no matter what the intensity, is a
combination of P+ and R- (even though many people often inaccurately
describe it solely as R-). One first applies the aversive stimulus to
stop or interrupt the behavior, then removes it when the dog performs a
more desired behavior, in order to get the reinforcing effect of R-. By
definition, R- refers to the removal of an aversive stimulus in order to
increase the behavior it follows. So, yes, shock needs to be aversive
to the dog in order for it to work as designed. And the studies have
shown (see the handful that I posted here) that in general, shock is
aversive, and even moreso when it is applied with less than precise
timing and duration. (I think I wrote on another post about my
experiences with the wild Alaskan brown bears in Katmai National Park -
in the 80s when I first went there to photograph them, they walked right
through the campground. In more recent years, the Park Service erected
an exceptionally weak electric fence around the campground. I can touch
it and hold it - it's that weak, but still unpleasant. Amazingly to me,
it now keeps the bears out of the campground, even when we're cooking
our meals. The only explanation I can think of is that even at this
very low intensity, it's aversive to them. Otherwise, they could easily
walk right through it and come into the campground as they always used
to!)
But there are other bases on which to consider this debate. As I
mentioned, ethical considerations are key here. We have personal
ethics, and we have professional ethics. As a psychologist, I must
abide by the APA's ethical code, which is a lengthy document that covers
all aspects of how I work with clients, other professionals, etc. I
have found that it works well to work with canine behavior problems in a
manner that is very like the way I work with children and families
(especially as there are so many parallels in terms of brain
development, emotional development, organizing social structures
(family), etc.). I would not apply a method--or even a process--with a
dog that I could not in good conscience and according to ethical
standards and best practices in my primary field apply with a child. I
do not spank children, nor do I give them a (low intensity) swat. 
Punishment-oriented methods have many, many drawbacks, including the
need for increasing intensity over time, and the fact that they tend to
work only when the punisher is present. They are also psychologically
damaging to kids. I DO, however, see the need for boundaries in life
(for all of us), but there are ways to present boundaries and enforce
consequences for broken boundaries that are not painful (or even
potentially painful) or fear-inducing. No homework, no tv. Homework,
tv. We also know that dogs' responses are much like those of a 2 or 3
year old child. And that means that replacing unwanted behaviors with
incompatible alternatives works far better. So with dogs.
The least intrusive method way of thinking is useful, but I think we do
need to have some discussions about what methods are okay and which are
not, as we near the bottom of this list of interventions. That's a hard
one, because as we've seen here, there are very different ways of
thinking about this. But it's a good discussion to have. Personally, I
cannot fathom a time or situation or dog behavior that is so bad that I
would see electrical intervention as needed. There are always
alternatives. On another list, an experienced trainer commented how
whenever she reached a point of desperation, thinking she had exhausted
all the alternatives, she contacted another trainer or someone who had
more experience than even she did. She expressed how she was amazed how
often that other trainer could offer something new. That's a piece that
is missing, perhaps, from LIMA. LIMA for whom? Again, in my primary
profession, supervision and case consultation is a regular part of the
landscape. It's how we learn more and more. I'd like to see this
brought into the dog training/consultation field more frequently. We
ALL have our limitations, driven by our training/education, experiences,
and our own ways of processing information. We need each other to keep
getting better. I would suggest that whenever we find ourselves needing
to dip into a bag full of more aversive, intrusive methods, we stop and
talk with someone who has more experience or a different perspective.
Earlier someone mentioned deaf dogs. For whatever reason, I've ended up
working with a lot of deaf dogs. Now I have one of my own. Some of the
owners had previously used low level shock with their dogs, thinking it
was the only way to get the dog's attention. Now they had a dog who
avoided collars, as well as the owner. Even if that were not the case,
what has that done for the relationship? Instead, I educated myself
(www.deafdogs.org is a great place to start) and then focused on
consistent hand signals, using a thumbs up as the marker (or whatever
hand signal the family decided upon), but even more importantly, we
focused on a series of games and activities that vastly increased the
dogs' and the families' ability to tune into each other regularly -
every 10 seconds. It was all fun, and it worked beautifully, even at a
distance, and we maximized their eye contact, auto check-ins, and
scenting in the context of their relationships. No need for the
vibration collars made specifically for deaf dogs (totally non shock and
quite expensive). It didn't even take that long to reach this point. 
(This was good because several of the deaf dogs I worked with were very
sensitive in sensory areas, which was partly due to their own "wiring"
but also perhaps because they needed their other senses working more
fully.
I also work with severely damaged puppy mill and semi-feral dogs--in
rescue and in families (and one of my own). These are some of the worst
cases I've ever seen anywhere, and yet they respond to only one thing: 
the slow, patient building of positive associations with humans. 
Aggression, when it occurs for them, is based on fear. We cannot treat
fear with fear. (I won't go into that here, but have written about that
elsewhere.). Others of you (e.g., Pam!) have worked with these types of
dogs as well. There's no other route but to build those associations.
Which brings me to my final point (whew! - thanks for hanging in there
with me!)... To me, it's ALL about the relationship. When we can
improve the relationship, we improve the behavior. Relationships have
to be safe, first and foremost, in order to develop. If I am the agent
of something as aversive as shock, I am not helping the relationship to
grow. I can set boundaries, as they are part of any good relationship,
also based on safety. But I can't use shock, even at low intensities,
and expect that it will get me anything in terms of the relationship. I
have always loved Suzanne Clothier's very simple way of thinking about
living with and training dogs (from Bones Would Rain from the Sky): to
continue doing those things that bring out the light in the dog's eyes
and to avoid things that dim that light (paraphrasing). It's the
simplest tool of them all, but it requires that we really focus on the
dog, really get to know the dog, always ask the dog "how is this for
you?", and always search for ways to bring out that light in their eyes.
Rise
Rise VanFleet, PhD, CDBCwww.playfulpooch.org


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

Great posts, Dave. And so close to my heart after a weekend of trialing. There are obedience dogs trained with shock collars, and MANY more trained with pinch collars and choke chains. But if I had to use those methods to get Kodi to perform, I wouldn't do it at all.

What I LOVE is going into the ring, looking down at that smiling little face and "playing" around the course. Everyone watching him enjoys him, because it's so obvious that he's having fun. The day we're not BOTH enjoying it will be the day you won't find us in the ring any more.

... And he's learned everything he knows with cookies and clickers.(not necessarily in that order)


----------



## Luciledodd (Sep 5, 2009)

I can't imagine using a shock collar on a little dog, nor can I imagine spanking a baby. But large dogs, especially those being trained for protection...I don't know about. What I do know is that when my son was in Irag he left his lab mix with us. She never listened to anything and while a playful dog and good with children etc, she would take off and not come back given any chance at all. My husband and GSon were working in the back yard and had the gate open. They didn't intentionally do it, just happened. The dog took that chance to excape and ran across the highway. Have you ever scraped (yeah scraped) a beloved pet off a highway?

Well when my second son left his purebred yellow lab here for me to keep, I really worked with that dog, every day. She was perfect on a leash, knew all the commands, etc. Yet, she would climb up the 6-foot wooden fence and escape. I have posted before, the electric wire along the top of the fence fixed the problem and she lived a long life. The electric wire didn't change her in any way. She stayed the same sweet lovable dog, she just couldn't get out and get run over.

I spanked my children and still occasionally a grandchild. Actually I don't have to any more, the older children told the younger ones and they are really well behaved here--not with their parents though. And they beg to stay with me, I have had at least one and sometime more all summer since I have been having grandchildren. My thoughts on spanking is that we can't spank our children anymore, but we can let them go to jail and horrible things happen in jail to teenagers. 

Again, on a little dog I am firmly against shocking them, but an outside dog if it will save their lives then put up an electric fence. By the way the invisible fences deliver a pretty mild shock. I know because I have tried them. Now the electric fence that keeps my steer in delivers a pretty bad shock.


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

Luciledodd said:


> I can't imagine using a shock collar on a little dog, nor can I imagine spanking a baby. But large dogs, especially those being trained for protection...I don't know about. What I do know is that when my son was in Irag he left his lab mix with us. She never listened to anything and while a playful dog and good with children etc, she would take off and not come back given any chance at all. My husband and GSon were working in the back yard and had the gate open. They didn't intentionally do it, just happened. The dog took that chance to excape and ran across the highway. Have you ever scraped (yeah scraped) a beloved pet off a highway?
> 
> Well when my second son left his purebred yellow lab here for me to keep, I really worked with that dog, every day. She was perfect on a leash, knew all the commands, etc. Yet, she would climb up the 6-foot wooden fence and escape. I have posted before, the electric wire along the top of the fence fixed the problem and she lived a long life. The electric wire didn't change her in any way. She stayed the same sweet lovable dog, she just couldn't get out and get run over.
> 
> ...


Hi Lucile, I'm not a fan of electric fences just for convenience, and as an alternative to proper training, which is the way all too many people use them. In a case like yours, where you are having to manage a large dog, whose training YOU didn't do (and was probably minimal), I agree completely that an electric fence, ESPECIALLY in conjunction with a solid fence, is WAY better than seeing that animal dead on the road.

But I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of shock collar being discussed (for the most part) in this article. The original author is talking about the shock collars where the handler holds the controller and chooses when, and for what duration to shock the dog. Most people don't have the experience, powers of observation or timing to get this kind of training right. The result is, at very least, a lessening of the bond between the dog and handler, at worst, it can make a dog so highly anxious that they become a fear biter, when they may not have started out that way. This is particularly true when dogs can be taught the same things with positive training methods, and BUILD a stronger bond with their handler at the same time.

There are a lot of reason NOT to use an electric fence, especially with small dogs, and we've talked about them before. But I certainly understand your reasons for using it, and can't say that it wasn't a reasonable alternative, considering the circumstances. But in THAT case, the "punishment" is a direct consequence of the dog's choices, not something administered by a handler, who may or may not get the timing right.

I am a STRONG believer in positive training practices for all animals, but you'd better believe that every one of our paddock fences is strung with electric wire. Not only does it save the fences from the horses (close kin to beavers:biggrin1 but it keeps the horses HOME where we know they are safe. Is it aversive? YEs. But the learning period is VERY short. Most horses won't touch the fence by mistake more than once, and from that point on, they have the choice. Leave the fence alone and enjoy their large, grassy, tree lined paddocks, or get stung on the nose by the fence.


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

As far as electric fences goes , I agree with you Karen . Many things can go wrong. One of which is malfunction where the system gets stuck on or gives more than the set shock level. The articles are more related to owner controlled training collars. With our organization the vast majority of trainers don't use them at all. There are a few , and a very small few that will defend their use for cases where they have tried all other methods. I don't agree with them nor do a lot of others . And here is where the passions come in. And the ones that want to use them on rare occasions are excellent and experienced trainers. It is EXTREMELY difficult for the average person to use them "properly" . And for that reason they are rejected by many trainers. Much of the research points to abuse and fear in dogs that are trained with them. I don't think it's fair to differentiate between large and small dogs. They all learn the same way and they all react the same way to aversive. Shock collars are being banned in certain countries and I think they should be banned here too. I've listened to some very good trainers try to justify them, but ,they've never convinced me that they should be out there for the general public. I like Rise's analogy. If you wouldn't' use it on a human , why use it on a dog.


----------



## Luciledodd (Sep 5, 2009)

Now Dave, I have seen some humans that I would use it on.


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Luciledodd said:


> Now Dave, I have seen some humans that I would use it on.


yeah , we'll put one on you if you decide to smoke again. And zap the hell out of you if you even think about it. ound:


----------

