Views on this subject?

(Not sure if in the right section!!)

Dogs Trust article:
http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/_resources/resources/factsheets09/factsheetbehaviouralproblems11.pdf

Response to article:
http://www.cfba.co.uk/leadership9.htm

Forgive me I have just got in from work and my eyes are tired, I will print and read tomorrow

I kind of agree with alot of what is in the dog's trust article, and I can sort of see where the response is coming from, but I don't think the article is as bad as what the response makes out.

Yes, there are a few flaws, and if it's true that the study was done on only neutered male dogs, I can see why that would annoy the responder, but at the same time, basic behaviour is very similar in dogs across the board. How many times have we said on the forum in response to a post 'that's just the way things are with puppies/dogs'.

I think some of what was said in the article was taken out of context by the responder. For instance, saying that the article said that dogs should be able to do what they want when they want is overstated. The article was simply stating the basic needs and motivations of dogs.

I can see where they both are coming from, but I am more swayed to the dogs trust article because it really makes an effort to explain behaviours and motivations and consequences. It could really help dog owners.

I think the Dog's Trust article makes a lot of good points, but I also think it isn't 100% right. For example, it suggests rewarding good behaviour and ignoring unwanted behaviour. That might work when the dog's seeking attention, and if the dog's rewarded for doing something good, it's less likely to do something bad, but generally I think the dog needs to be taught that it's wrong. I mean, siblings will yelp if they're bitten too hard, the mum will get mean with the puppy to tell them off, etc. Ignoring unwanted behaviour will make them think that it's not bad, but doesn't give them anything in return. So I, personally, don't agree with that. I agree with the person's response that dogs will respond fine to being told no and then praised for the right reaction. Obviously, no-one should hit or harm their dog, but a simple word is often enough and I doubt it'd do harm to any dog unless it's had a terrible life. I mean, my dad is the boss of the house, every dog we've ever had acts scared of him even though he's never harmed any of them. Yet they've all absolutely loved his affection and praise.

Also regarding the dominance thing, it might well be outdated and wrong, but I don't think there's much wrong in people trying to be the leaders of their dogs, provided they're not using harsh methods. Cesar Millan followers and etc. will obviously use confrontational methods, whereas some people (including a family I know) will just use tone and body language; their dogs are well-behaved, happy and loved. So that depends on the person, in my opinion. Any training method can go wrong if done the wrong way.

I'm torn.

The Dogs Trust article is way to simplistic - totally unrealistic.

The response is way too negative & only picks out the negative aspects of the article.

Yes, positive reinforcement is certainly the way to train the majority of dogs for the majority of time, but it can't just be positive reinforcement, not in the real world.

Interesting I'm quite new to the dog world and i'm currently studying for my degree in canine behaviour and finding views very conflicting, especially in rescue work where people think with their hearts more than their heads often, but common sense tells me not to agree with the Dog's Trust's views, despite the fact that they do a lot of good in re-homing their dogs..

Caryll wrote:I'm torn.

The Dogs Trust article is way to simplistic - totally unrealistic.

The response is way too negative & only picks out the negative aspects of the article.

Yes, positive reinforcement is certainly the way to train the majority of dogs for the majority of time, but it can't just be positive reinforcement, not in the real world.

Totally agree Caryll, it was actually my tutor that wrote the second article, and a girl that I work with is studying with the dogs trust, so as you can imagine our views are clashing a lot and we're now working separately it's hard to know what's right and I'm totally open to learning new methods but purely rewarding your dog and allowing no consequences for actions isn't something that sits well in my brain? Especially not when working with already aggressive dogs that have a tendency to hand off of my arm at any given moment, am I supposed to just give him treats all of the time that he is not biting me and expect him to learn, but then I can't stop giving him treats because he may get aggressive? Don't want to offend anyone and everyone has a right to believe what seems right to them, but i'm getting more and more confused by the day!

Exactly. I'm not studying canine behaviour or anything, but even with regards to training it would be confusing to see so many different methods of training (especially when you get well-behaved and badly-behaved dogs from all forms of training depending on the trainer). But I definitely think that dogs (like people) need to be told no just as much as they're praised. Being told no isn't the same as harming or punishing a dog. Dogs don't understand punishment, but they understand body language and tone, and it's pretty much what they experience in the dog world, so I can't see that as being harmful.

I think you take what you want from both articles as they both have their own positive and negative points. I don't like to dominate my dog and I prefer positive reinforcement to promote a happy, healthy and well trained dog so I agree more with dogs trust than with the response but both articles have very valid points.

I get very confused whenever I read about the right and wrong ways to train and guide your dogs into the type of positive behaviour you want to see. This is the first time I have owned my own dog as an adult, but I grew up in a small estate during the early eighties, and nearly everyone had a dog - often the dogs were let out of the houses to do their own thing in the street or at the park, which would never be allowed now (i'm not entirely sure if it was allowed then but nobody ever seemed to say anything and as kids we loved having canine friends everywhere) There were also no behaviour experts that we knew of, people told their dogs no, and rolled up newspapers were commonly used (I should add I don't condone that, but it's an example of what was the norm, same with rubbing noses in urine another thing I hate, but it happened) Nobody worried, and dogs had to toe the line too, and as people have said tone etc is more than enough - life can't be all treats, but certainly good behaviour should be reinforced, and dogs should be told a firm no for getting into mischief. They want to love and respect us, and boundaries that are put in place fairly will surely make them feel safe and loved in return.

not sure what to make of this subject as i do correct my dogs with tone and body language, but also reward the good bits with cuddles or food.
little Tess will do almost anything for a cuddle and high pitch praise.
Sam more of a bucket he will work for food better and faster than cuddles.
we did start with just positive training but it didnt stop unwanted things like chewing cables. Firm calm NO and a good frown work wonders. No yelling required.

What these articles never say is what people are they trying to target.

Caryll wrote:I'm torn.

The Dogs Trust article is way to simplistic - totally unrealistic.

The response is way too negative & only picks out the negative aspects of the article.

Yes, positive reinforcement is certainly the way to train the majority of dogs for the majority of time, but it can't just be positive reinforcement, not in the real world.

Like you I found this very simplistic but for someone who doesn't have much knowledge of dogs, how they learn, how to train them and what their needs are it would be a good article. I don't agree with it all but there is a lot of good, easy to understand information.

The second to me seems to be nit picking for the sake of it, they haven't taken into account who the article was aimed at but is picking it to pieces because they have a greater understanding of dogs than the normal dog owner. To me they can do a lot more damage than the article itself.

I can remember a time when some trainers and behaviourists would tell you not to lure your dog into a sit but to wait until he sat then click and reward. When I first saw that I thought it was a joke but then realised that these people were serious. Then there are the trainers who say, "I always use positive training because I always use treats". This is just showing how ignorant them are about positive training.

Nothing can be purely positive just as nothing can be purely negative, we have to find the right balance for ourselves and our dogs, articles like the Dogs Trust one will put more novice and inexperienced owners on the right track but the second one will only cause a lot of confusion to them and in some cases dogs may suffer because of it.