MARFa Dog Training

Robert Stevens filmed dogfights and imported Japanese dog fight videos. He sold his videos through his business, “Dogs of Velvet and Steel”.  Video titles include, “Catch Dogs and Country Living” and “Pick a Winna”, in which viewers are asked to determine which dog they think will win a fight.  He is a pit bull man and I would love to have a copy of his book, “Dogs of Velvet and Steel: Pit Bulldogs: A Manual For Owners” for review and as an addition to my library. The book is reportedly a wealth of information contributed by various dog men on how to select, condition and medically treat injured fighting dogs.  It is currently priced on Amazon.com from about $300, used to over $500 dollars, collectible.  I won't be buying a copy at those prices.  

In 2003, Mr. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison for three counts of trafficking in animal cruelty under a 1999 law designed primarily to, pardon the pun, squash a plethora of sexual fetish videos that depicted women crushing small, live animals with their feet.  That law, which dealt with trafficking of images, was struck down in 2008 by a federal appeals court on grounds that it violated the First Amendment.  A few days ago, the Supreme Court agreed.  Dog lovers everywhere are outraged at the apparent injustice.  “What will they allow next? Child pornography?” some asked. 

Let me say right up front that I am against animal cruelty and organized dog fighting.  I think that dog fighting and recording or selling dogfight videos is disgusting and odious.  Creepy and bizarre sexual fetishes repulse me, too. But, I’m a HUGE fan of the First Amendment.  The court decided that images of animal cruelty didn't fall into the areas where the government can restrict free speech: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct.  

What’s interesting and unique about the First Amendment, and the broad definitions that might restrict freedom of speech, it is that it can change as our society changes - for better or worse.  The bad guy in this is not the Supreme Court (although I don't deny it can make less than stellar decisions in hindsight). The decisions of the courts are a reflection of the culture and times.

Justice William O. Douglas said that the First Amendment was designed to invite dispute, to induce a condition of unrest, to create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, and even to stir people to anger.  Animal lovers who are dissatisfied with how our government defines animal cruelty or the things that restrict First Amendment rights, might recognize the Supreme Court’s decision as a "call to arms" to work harder to influence social, cultural and legal change. 

“Goatheads” aka Texas sandburs, are the fruit of the puncturevine, Tribulus terrestris L. and are a bane of existence here in the Southwest.  The seeds pods are small, nasty, spiky, thorny, painful things that will puncture your sandals or a tire, not to mention your dog’s paws.  My dog refuses to walk in unfamiliar grass but she’s not safe on pavement, either.  The stickers are blown by the wind and can hitch a ride on the bottom of shoes, pant legs, car tires and animal fur.  There’s always an odd few that turn up on sidewalks.  Puncturevine is not a native species, so kill it with impunity.  Visit www.goatheads.com to learn how to identify the plant and get rid of the little buggers. Your dog will thank you for it.

Back when I taught group Obedience classes, I noticed a difference in attitude between Obedience students and the students in my Tricks classes.  Students in Obedience tended to be more anxious, serious and hypercritical.  Students in Tricks classes were more relaxed, laughed more often and were more forgiving of their dogs’ and their own learning curves.  I began to include optional tricks as homework assignments for Obedience students but, less than half opted to train any tricks. In later classes, I tried turning Obedience training into games.  But, it became apparent to me that many students who were there for “Obedience” were not there for fun and games That was a long time ago and in retrospect, the reason my students were not having fun was in due, in part, to my limited experience as an instructor but also due to semantics.  

Our choice of words is important.  Traditional obedience training trickled down from military dog training and some of us still use military terms. “Obedience” means strict compliance with orders and submission to rules. “Command” means to issue orders, dominate and control.  Those words give us an expectation of immediate, strict compliance and the feeling that we need to dominate our dogs.  No wonder we weren’t having as much fun as the Trick classes!  

There was no pressure to achieve in Tricks class because it was not crucial if the dog could roll over, play dead or play the piano.  But, I think another reason for the attitude was the words we used. In Tricks classes, we didn't command, we gave “cues”.  We didn’t expect obedience.  We wanted “performance”. 

From the dog’s point of view, it’s all tricks.  If you are commanding obedience from your dog, try cueing your dog for performance instead.  And smile! 

Somebody on Twitter asked “How did we train dogs before shock, prong and choke collars?” This was “re-tweeted” a few times, insinuating that dog trainers should never use these tools and suggesting that they are relatively new, torture devices.  At least, that’s the impression I got.  I could be wrong but in any case, I’ve got an answer to the question and a reason to blog. Warning - long blog ahead.

Looking at ancient Egyptian, Roman and Greek art and artifacts, dog collars have not changed much in form, only in material.   Working dogs wore a strong metal or leather strap around their necks to give handlers control over the animals.  Dogs who guarded flocks, or were used to hunt or fight large, powerful animals (including man), wore leather collars studded with sharp nails on the outside to protect the dogs’ necks during battle. Dogs that that pulled wagons or carried equipment wore harnesses suited to the type of work they performed.  Dogs were restrained with heavy chains and thick leather straps.  Dogs owned by the well-to-do wore fancy collars. 

Modern “traditional” aka compulsive dog training methods trickled down from German military service dog training.  Large numbers of trained dogs were needed quickly during World War I and the fastest way to train them was through the calculated use of pain. In his 1903 book, “Training Dogs A Manual”, 19^th century German military trainer Konrad Most describes humane training equipment as a chain or leather slip collar (aka “choke collar”).  Inhumane was the spike collar, a leather collar lined on the inside with short, sharpened nails that, when used properly, poked bloody holes into the dogs lower neck. Early dog trainers also routinely used short, flexible and non-flexible whips and switches.  The trainer’s foot was also used to kick dogs.

In the 1960’s, Blanche Saunders, a student of German military man Weber, took dog training to the masses and popularized our current AKC obedience trials.  According to Will Judy, early 20^th century trainer, the relatively benign prong collar was disallowed during AKC obedience trials not because it was inhumane, but because it was confused with the inhumane spike collar, still very fresh in the minds of the public at that time.   And so the prong collar, which can be a useful tool, fell into disfavor and remains that way to many trainers.  Had Miss Saunders been a protégé of Weber’s counterpart, Hans Tossutti, history would have been kinder to the prong collar and a different collar would be allowed in AKC trials. He considered the choke chain inhumane. Hans founded the New England School of Dog Training in Boston in 1928.

 Electric collars were brought to the public’s attention in the 1940’s and were as controversial then as they are now.   They were home-made devices consisting of a 6 volt battery fence charger, a collar and 30 yards of sturdy insulated wire.  One end of the wire was attached to the battery; the other, bared end was run through the collar so that it made contact with a dog’s neck. A ground wire was connected to the battery (for safety).  According to a 1949 newspaper article in the Spokane Spokesman-Review written by Spokane dog trainer T.D. Burger, Jr., the devices were effective at stopping dogs from killing chickens, chasing cars or the mailman, fighting with other dogs, excessive barking and tipping over the garbage can.  As a child who accidentally leaned her bare arms against an electric fence while trying to climbing over into my grandparents’ pig pen, I can tell you how effective that amount is at stopping future behavior. It didn’t stop me from getting in the pen with the pigs the next day, but I never used THAT side of the fence again.  To this day I vividly remember the incident and still look for wires and electrodes on all fences.   BTW, I hid in the corn silo for a long time, vibrating from the shock, afraid to ask for help for fear of getting in trouble with my parents.  I also speak from experience when I say that today’s sophisticated electronic collars are a far cry from a 6 volt fence charger and bare wire “shock collar”. 

 In the late 60’s, shock collars were being manufactured and sold to the public.  According to another Spokane Spokesman-Review reader, a cougar and bear guide with a pack of hounds in 1971, there was disparity between these early models – some of “good quality” and “harmless”.   One manufacturer eventually recalled their collars due to a defect that caused burns on dogs’ necks.   A 1983 newspaper article in the Ellensberg, WA Daily Record describes snake proofing with a shock collar by a trainer after an earlier Life Magazine article popularized it.  The trainer had no idea the amount of current used on the dogs because the company marketing the collar “is intentionally secretive about that” (not sure why so much archival material about shock collars is from Washington newspapers).  All trainers who spoke to the reporter insisted that shock collars should not be used by anyone but experienced, professional trainers and are not appropriate for every dog. Electronic collar technology has continued to improve and today’s “good quality” models have a wide range stimulation from a “tickle” that elicits nothing more than an ear flick, a vibration, or a beep in addition to stronger stimulation, making them a more versatile and humane training tool than earlier models.  I am not condoning the use of electronic collars here; I am merely trying to point out that some degree of hysteria over these collars is as much due to the public’s memory of early shock collars as earlier generations was of spike collars.

 The current raging dichotomy between “purely positive reinforcement” and “compulsion” trainers has been going on for centuries.  A look at old dog training texts shows that there has always been a gap between kinder, gentler family dog training that used food rewards and/or praise and compulsive, quick and painful working or military service dog training. IMO, new dog trainers with limited experience, would benefit from learning about the history of dog training, the evolution of training tools and why some are considered unacceptable.  Then, they should judge for themselves how inhumane – or not - they are.  The answer to "how did we train before choke, prong and shock collars"?  We used spikes, sticks, fists and kicks.  And we used tidbits of meat, with or without the beatings.

Although veterinarian behaviorists and animal behavior organizations have come out repeatedly with position statements advising pet owners to avoid dominance-based, aversive training methods, the people who produce the popular TV show starring That Guy in Hollywood (you know who I mean) continue to market to a gullible TV audience.  Make no mistake, the program is about ENTERTAINMENT.   Here are some excerpts from their website. 

“A television show wouldn't get very far without its team of producers paving the way,”

“We're partners in a joint venture with MPH Entertainment. MPH/Emery/Sumner Productions.”

“I called Sheila and suggested that Cesar's ideas would make a good television show.”

“Most of the time we can tell pretty quickly whether or not the story is one we're looking for, and whether the case would make a good episode.”

“People need to understand that they're submitting to be on television, and we will need to use their audition video in the episode.”

“In the beginning we were always on set. But as things progressed, there's much more to do now with CMI and all the products, and we've become much more involved in that side of things. But we're still very involved in finding new stories. And it's become difficult, because a lot of our submissions are the same five bad behaviors over and over.”

I agree.  Seeing the 5 most common behavior problems that trainers and behaviorists see over and over does not make for good drama.  And, watching real behavior modification can be pretty boring.

So, in their quest for new, exciting episodes, the producers are currently seeking audition tapes from owners of wolf-dog hybrids.   These hybrids are illegal in some states and for good reasons.  They do not make good pets.  They present unique behavior challenges and most owners cannot afford to provide what it takes to keep them (and children) safe in captivity.  

Good television requires lots of action and the producers are likely to get more intense action with episodes featuring wolf-dog hybrids than with Fluffy the fear-aggressive toy breed.   Controversy also makes for good TV viewing and ownership of these animals is as controversial as That Guy’s training methods.

Arguably, what makes America great is our ability to choose to watch whatever lame-brained reality TV show we want.   I won’t ask anyone to not watch That Guy’s TV show.  

As P.T. Barnum once said of the pre-television circus business, “There’s a sucker born every minute”.   Don’t be one. Read Wolf Park’s position statement regarding wolf hybrids here:  http://www.wolfpark.org/wolfdogs/position.html   And their guidelines for responsible management of these animals: http://www.wolfpark.org/wolfdogs/guidelines.html

President Obama's family dog trainer, Dawn Sylia-Stasiewicz, is a fellow IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultant and Professional Member of the APDT.  She has done more to get the word out about positive training in just a few weeks than any of us has been able to do in years.  Thank you, Dawn!  

This year's conference of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) featured Behavior Analyst, Dr. Susan Friedman and Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, Dr. Pamela Reid along with several IAABC member-speakers, including yours truly.  The conference was held at the Doubletree in Houston, TX and sponsored by Premier Pet Prodcucts, Comfort Zone, Kong, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Karen Pryor Academy for Dog Trainers and Austin Cotton.

Susan Friedman is a psychology professor at Utah State University. Over the last decade, she has helped pioneer efforts to apply to animals the scientifically sound teaching technology and ethical standard of Applied Behavior Analysis that is so effective with human learners. Susan is a core member of the US Fish & Wildlife Service's California Condor Recovery Team and has been nominated for the Media Award, given by the International Association of Behavior Analysis, for her efforts to disseminate to pet owners, veterinarians, animal trainers and zookeepers the essential tools they need to empower and enrich the lives of all learners.  Susan presented twice at the IAABC conference.  Her keynote address, "Beyond Classical and Operant Conditioning - Are There Other Ways Animals Learn" set the tone for the 3-day educational conference.  Her second presentation was "A Protocol for the Functional Assessment of Behavior Problems and Intervention Design"  I began using Susan's functional assessment model a few years ago after attending one of her talks.  I find it extremely valuable in assessing problem behaviors in dogs.  It helps me to design an effective behavior-change plan that also fits in with each clients' individual needs, environment and skills. But enough about me.

Pamela Reid is the Vice President of the ASPCA's national Animal Behavior Center in Urbana, IL and author of the book, "Excel-erated Learning". She has consulted with the US Department of Defense for several years on the use of dogs for narcotics and explosives detection and has served on committees for APDT, Delta Society, American Humane Association, PetsMart, Humane Society of the US, Animal Behavior Society, and the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers. Pam spoke about "Dominance Theory".  Dogs with behavior problems are often called "dominant" and regardless of the nature of the behavior problem owners are advised that they need to be the "Alpha" and follow irrelevant or abusive practices.  This popular misconception has led to a faction of dog trainers who have rejected the concept of dominance altogether. Pam argued that both positions are misguided and called for more research in order to gain a scientifically valid understanding of how groups of dogs enforce social rules.  Pam Reid's book "Excel-erated Learning" was instrumental in helping me wade through the sometimes subtle nuances of operant and classical conditioning to earn my CPDT certification.