Size really does matter, the story of two black eyes and an overgrown puppy

This week’s blog is brought to you via the power of ice packs (to reduce the swelling so I can open both eyes) and pain killers (because ouch!).

 The new boy (Laird, a huge German Wirehaired Pointer) is gradually settling into the mad house, and prompting me to practice lots of essential training strategies. Sadly there have also been a few casualties, mostly toys but this week I’ve ended up with two black eyes!

Laird might be just 16 months old, but he weighs over 40kg with very little spatial awareness.

I wouldn’t say he’s much clumsier than any of my previous dogs, but Laird is significantly bigger and heavier. That means it is even more important that he doesn’t pull on his collar, can stop and wait when asked and will be able to give things up.

Small dogs can sometimes get away with “naughty” behaviours like rushing up, barking, stealing things or refusing to move off a chair. 

I don’t personally think size should make that much difference to house rules, but it does give a whole new perspective to how we interact with our dogs when you really can’t “make” them do anything.

This week despite the black eyes and bruises, we’ve also had several calm sofa snuggles. There’s been just one attempted humping episode, and several lovely moments with the collie girls.

Integration is an ongoing process, and because of Laird’s size I have to intervene immediately if anything inappropriate might happen. 

So if Laird is being a little rude in his play invitations, I clap my hands to call him over for a treat. When Laird grabs the sofa or thinks about humping (usually when he is over tired), I need to pop him calmly into his crate (and be quicker to notice the signs tomorrow).

There’s no room for dilly-dallying or second chances. While I absolutely do reward EVERYTHING that I like, it’s just as important to make sure the other stuff has consequences too.

I don’t just “ignore the bad behaviour”. It’s not practical to “ignore” Laird trying to play tug with the curtains. And I’m not going to leave the girls to fend for themselves in the middle of enormous GWP zoomies.

Consequences does NOT mean I shout at Laird or tell him off. Even if I wanted to (and I don’t because it won’t build our relationship), Freya would find it very stressful. She hates it when other dogs break the house rules….

Consequences DO mean that I make sure the stuff I don’t like doesn’t end up being fun for Laird.

The result is within three weeks Laird is much calmer in the house. Relationships are building nicely with the girls, and they know how to come to me if they need a break too. Laird isn’t stealing or grabbing things as much, and we’re snuggling together more.

And to make sure we’re having structured fun together, I’ve just signed up for the next block of Sniffing School (Level 1 for Laird, Level 2 for Freya)! So I’m looking forward to seeing you in class in July.

The next term of classes starts in July – the email with all the booking links is on the way to our subscribers and current students - let us know if it hasn't arrived.

Have a wonderful weekend, and don't forget to send us your pics if you are heading to York Pride with your dog too!

Morag, the collie girls and the big yin

PS for anyone who was worried, Laird is fine – he didn’t even notice!

PPS  If you're already canicrossing with your dog, don't miss our social run on Saturday 16th June

Grab your space here!

Aversive training methods and why they might work

This is a place holder - based on some experiences at Crufts 2011 and reading "remote collar training" websites (i.e. shock collars) I've been doing some thinking about why these methods can appear to help, and why sometimes they do. This does NOT mean I advocate their use!

I'll be back to write more shortly, but one of the key concepts that keeps popping up for me is that we have selectively bred animals that are pretty darn forgiving of us no matter what we do to them. Its really not that surprising that dogs continue to seek out affection despite abuse, or obey handlers who use aversive methods - while we might think it demonstrates blind loyalty, or the ability to forgive, these are characteristics we have selected for. The dog that responded to violence with teeth will rarely have been bred from...so in many cases we get away with our behaviour because we have set the situation up in this way.

That doesn't mean its the morally right thing to do, and just because it 'works' doesn't always make it okay either. Sometimes I wish the dogs I see would respond more obviously when they dislike something, so the owners can't tell me "oh he doesn't really mind when I smack him over the nose"....

Thoughts on training methods/philosophies

I'm sort of starting this thread because I've been thinking a lot about it recently. From ending up in a discussion about choke chains with a woman who attended a clicker training workshop (she thought 'check chains' were really good if you knew how to use them properly) and then following up comments/discussions online about using e-collars and the like, I feel like my brain is going round in circles.

Some of the issues I find swimming around in my head:

1. there are several straight forward laws of learning, which describe how pretty much anything with a nervous system and brain makes associations, learns to perform or not perform behaviours, and connects consequences or emotions i.e. classical and operant conditioning which give us precise terms such as positive/negative/reinforcer/punisher
2. there are some behaviours that certain people consider to be 'pack' related or 'dominance' related and therefore are not about training or lack of, but should be prevented from occurring, or gotten rid of via aversives
3. its difficult to choose between training methods based purely on the apparent outcome of training as we have no insight into the dog's mental state (assuming you believe such an insight would be useful or relevant)
4. 'calming signals' as a term has become more and more accepted, but even for these behaviours there are multiple possible explanations for them, we are making assumptions about internal states based on our observations.
5. some people have moral positions on whether it is appropriate to use aversives when teaching; for children, dogs, any other adult too! This seems to lead to very emotional discussions, and of course exactly what defines an aversive may well vary between person/dog/etc
6. and sometimes we might have philosophical principles which guide how we interact with the world and people/animals
7. almost any tool can be used as an aversive in training, but some are inherently designed to do so.
8. Humans often get very caught up in and emotional about their training relationships, taking things very personally which increases stress levels - possibly leading to punishment in the normal sense of the word, seeing it as confrontational?

Like I said I've been reading and watching clips about folks that train with 'remote collars' - and mostly I'm left just not understanding why these methods would be a first, second or even a last choice? They claim, and appear to show that in some cases the stimulation level is very low, more of a vibration than anything. So presumably its acting as an interruptor? Fair enough, but still not convinced its needed! But once these things move onto higher levels....why train with pain?

I have used

• flat collar
• limited slip collar (not too tight though)
• various harnesses
• headcollars, various
• vibe collar - well we're trying it anyway for my deaf dog

While the headcollars were useful when Finn was really reactive in terms of being able to hold onto him, and we did loads of work to get him happy wearing it, I don't particularly like using them. Essentially except when they are used as backup control for a very strong dog, they work IMHO by being aversive. i.e. dog pulls, headcollar tightens and pressure on face is uncomfortable, dog stops pulling, pressure releases and all is good??

I don't think I ever 'make' my dogs do anything. I only ask them to do things that they are capable of, and when I know I have successfully helped them understand the cue. If Finn didn't happen to recall straight away in a new park, I would assume that I have not yet taught a strong enough recall in the position of very exciting distractions. By thinking of that as 'disobediance' or 'stubborness' I'd be setting up a confrontational situation and presuming that Finn had made some kind of a choice?

Do I use 'no'?? Yes, actually I do, but I'm careful to make sure that 'no' means "don't do that, or even think about it, look at me to see what to do instead".

I guess I have underlying principles about trying not to use force/coercion on anything or anyone, about being non-confrontational, trying to communicate clearly and compassionately, building relationships and co-operation, being willing to listen to the other side.....so I find it hard to understand where someone is coming from when they think it is appropriate to use choke chains, prong collars, leash pops, e-collars, harsh voices, physical intervention/violence. But does that mean its wrong for them to be using methods that fit with their principles and philosophy???

I am very aware that I'm posting this on a motivational, rewards-based type forum :laugh: but its helpful for me to type it all out! And no I'm not planning to 'convert' to any of the more aversive methods, but teaching beginners classes is forcing me to think very hard about all this!!