|
|
I spend a lot of time thinking about training, about what we consider training, and many other things related to training.
This is where I'll ramble on about things. A couple of words of warning - most of my questions are open ended, I don't
necessarily agree or disagree with everything said.
-sassie
Having Fun
I've noticed a trend, mostly in agility, but also sometimes
in conformation and obedience, of people feeling that the main reason to do anything is to 'have fun' and that anyone who
is involved in dog sports for any other reason must somehow be wrong. Most often it comes as an accusation - 'ever since
so and so got so competitive he/she doesn't have fun anymore' and sometimes as a sort of warning - 'remember, the main reason
we do (agility, obedience, tracking, etc.) is to have fun with our dogs'. Which, of course, sounds really good on the
surface. Interestingly, not a single one of the main organizing bodies for agility (AKC, NADAC, USDAA, or UKC) lists
'fun' in their purpose or mission statement. Words like teamwork, partnership and usefulness are emphasised.
Perhaps what irks me isn't the emphasis on fun, but the interpretation of it.
Not having fun is a charge most commonly levied against top competitors who take their training very seriously and set out
to win. Somehow, in this day and age it has become a terrible thing, among certain groups of people, to want to excel.
Here's an example I've heard time and time again. 'Geez, did you see that?! John Doe's dog had a really nice run
except for missing the weave entry, and he's upset. If that was my dog I'd be thrilled. Some people just think
the Q is the only important thing. My dog missed the contact, knocked a bar, and missed the weave entry, but I'm happy,
it's still an improvement over his last trial. Some people are too competitive!!'
What the speaker perhaps hasn't realized is that for John Doe, missing a weave entry is a rare an
unexpected occurence, about as frequent as for the speaker's dog to poop in the ring. John Doe's dog is at a different
level, therefore he might get upset at different things.
What I've noticed about top competitors, watching them and taking lessons with them, is that they have
a lot of fun. Let's face it, winning IS fun. Training and handling are fun too, especially when you've worked
really hard at it and are pretty secure about your performance. I made a point of watching the top competitors at the
trial this weekend (that included world team members, top ranked national competitors etc.) . Being less
stressed than the more novice competitors, they spent much more time playing with their dogs. They all can be a bit
short with people who are trying to talk to them in the hour leading up to their run, but that's because their focus is elsewhere.
They are the ones who play with their dog until they get into the ring, handle the dog smoothly and clearly (much more fun
for the dog), and play again when they get out of the ring. They are also the ones who then watch the video replay over
and over, trying to figure out where they went wrong and what they could do differently, analyzing each step, each motion.
Maybe that doesn't seem fun, it's pretty intense, but it is more than paid back in the knowledge the trainer gains which makes
the actual training sessions less frustrating for the trainer and more fun for the dog.
Humane Training
Humane training seems to be a popular buzz-word these days, and one that I find rather offensive.
The implication of those who call themselves 'humane trainers' is that trainers who train using different methods are not
humane. In most cases people who call themselves humane trainers are clicker trainers or other trainers who use predominantly
positive reinforcement. Although the word positive can be used as a rough synonym for the word good (therefore, by stretching
it a little, kind and humane), that is not the technical meaning of the word as it is used in positive reinforcement.
Positive, in that context, means 'added'. Positive reinforcement is something added to the equation that reinforces
the desired behavior.
There is a notion that it's unkind to train dogs without treats because 'after all, I wouldn't work
for free, why should my dog?'. Kind of makes sense, except that I love my job and would work for free if I didn't
need to support myself. Also, I would never want my dog to feel as negatively about working with me as some people who
only work for their paycheck feel about their job. Basically, paying the dog in food is requiring the dog to work to
eat, whereas a dog who works due to other motivation (toys, praise, petting, even, to some extent, the avoidance of mild corrections)
is a dog who is working out of choice. Obviously this is a gross over-simplification of a complicated process.
Very few people would actually starve their dog if he didn't work, but the fact is that we do need to remove the food we use
for training treats from the dog's regular rations or we'll end up with a fat dog.
I use food as a reinforcer in training as well as a number of other things. I also train leash-free
and correction free for the most part. It works very effectively for me, and I can see that my animals are enjoying
themselves. HOWEVER, I would never take that to mean that someone else, who trains in a very different way, is any less
humane than I am simply because of their chosen method of training. In the end results are what need to be judged.
If the dog is a happy working animal with a clear attachment to his trainer, then the method is probably sound enough.
Another ponderable situation -
An intact male dog in training (obedience, agility, whatever) who has serious sniffing and marking issues.
The owner is considering using a prong collar or an electric collar to correct the dog for these problems as he feels he's
exhausted all the more 'positive' ways of dealing with it. The dog is not a conformation or breeding prospect.
What to do?
The most frequent reply is 'how dare you consider shocking the poor dog! Do you have any
idea how painful it is? Any kind of punishment is bound to damage your relationship. Since you're not showing
or breeding him why not just have him neutered, that will solve the problems much more humanely.'
Before I get into my thoughts on the matter I need to mention that I am not against neutering.
I prefer to keep my males intact, but if there is a reason to neuter I won't hesitate to do it. I currently have one
neutered male and one intact male in the house.
Clearing your mind of any pre-conceived notions consider this: the dog is not aware that one thing
is a punishment and the other is a medical proceedure. Here are the two choices again
- give the dog an uncomfortable electrical stimulation (if set and used
correctly the sensation from an electric collar is akin to a static shock, just as surprising, unpleasant, and short
lasting, with no permanent physical effects) for sniffing or marking inapropriately.
- give the dog a mildly painful poke with a sharp object (a shot), anesthetize the dog with the slight
but possible health risks involved, amputate a portion of the dog's anatomy, stitch up. Neutering is a very simple proceedure,
with a low incidence of bad outcomes, but it is still surgery. The dog still experiences waking up disoriented and uncomfortable
in the veterinary hospital, and feels some pain, probably not a huge amount, from the incision site and the subsequent healing.
Because we view one choice as medical and the other as punishment we tend to view the use of an electric
collar as cruel while viewing neutering as a sign of a responsible pet owner. Dogs are not privy to our way of seeing
things and probably don't feel the same way at all.
Neutering is a valid and reasonable choice for most dog owners, and there are many reasons to choose
to neuter. Above all, if one chooses not to neuter, one should not take that as an invitation to breed, or to allow
ones dog to wander the neighborhood searching for bitches in season. Neutered or intact, is not the issue, the pet over-population
problem is the issue. Even the most careful and conscienscious breeders sometimes discover that dogs of their breeding
are abandoned to shelters. Every dog you bring into the world is your responsibility for its entire life. Don't
be DUMB!
This is not meant to be against neutering, but rather to give people who across the board call other
trainers cruel for the techniques they use something to think about.
|
|
|