Donald McCaig on the fight to save the working border collie
By Gina Spadafori
October 4, 2007
Donald McCaig is one of the best writers who has ever given me the pleasure of turning pages.
I first noticed his work in an article for Outside magazine, for an issue that is probably something like 20 years ago by now. A couple years after that, I had volunteered to run a writing contest for the Dog Writers Association of America, and I earnestly sent entry forms to his book publisher, requesting that they forward to him. He entered and won every category his work dropped into, each one with a different set of judges who all knew within a few sentences of starting to read that he was a breed apart.
He was gracious, articulate and utterly charming in a completely self-effacing way when he showed up in Manhattan to accept his awards, a former Montana boy turned New York City adman turned Virginia sheep rancher. He took his new life seriously: His overcoat smelled just a little like damp dog, and I swear (although my memory may be enhancing the image now) that there was a trace of sheep poop on his boots.
The best moment for me was when he pulled me aside at the awards banquet, thanked me for sending him the entry forms and then signed and handed me a paper-bound galley copy (a reviewer’s proof) of what was then his new book, “Nop’s Hope.”
I was completely and utterly floored, and couldn’t have been much more thrilled if Harper Lee had sought me out to hand me a personally autographed copy of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
McCaig has written a great many things — history, novels and “dog stories” both fiction and factual — but his great passion in life is the working border collie.
A great writer writing about his great passion is not something to be missed.
That’s why I was delighted to read on Terrierman’s blog this morning about McCaig’s book, “The Dog Wars,” his writing on the fight to keep working dogs out of the hands of show breeders. From the Terrierman:
Move forward 100 years, and the tale plays out anew, as the Kennel Club bureaucracy circles back to try to round up two popular working dog breeds that somehow (how) slipped out of their sight and off their roles.
“The Border Collie? The Jack Russell Terrier? Oh, we must have them.” Never mind that these dogs had already been pulled onto the Kennel Club roles. By now they were ruined beyond recognition and operating under a different name. Time to do it again!
It is here, at the start of the Second Battle for the Border Collie thatVirginia sheep man and writer Don McCaig begins his tale in “The Dog Wars: How the Border Collie Battled the American Kennel Club.”
In its simplest form, McCaig’s book is a battle between what works and what doesn’t.
On one side you have the American Kennel Club — a 19th Century organization driven by 19th Century genetic theories and an almost Kremlin-like bureaucracy in New York City. These people have the strange notion that all canine breeds can best be judged at a glance while trotting a dog around a ring on a thin string leash.
On the other side, you have a small collection of not-too-sophisticated farmers and sheep dog trialers; the very people who made the working collie what it is. These folks may not own a tuxedo or ball dress, but by God they know two true things; 1) that the show ring has never made a working dog, and; 2) that the mettle of a Border Collie can only be determined on the hill while working cattle, sheep or goats.
The fact that McCaig is a partisan in this war does not mean he has not written a fair book.
In fact, he is more than fair.
To say the very least, Donald McCaig is very much more than fair, in all things. I immediately jumped over and ordered the book, and I simply cannot wait now for it to arrive. Read the more from the Terrierman.
Hey, don’t forget who tipped off Patrick to The Dog Wars and who has written a three part series on the book himself. Hint hint.
Comment by Christopher — October 5, 2007 @ 1:44 am
Gina, as you know, I believe that a breed need not be separated between what appears in the show ring and what appears in the field. I point the finger squarely at breeders for allowing the split to occur. What I wish they would do is just admit that they really are two separate breeds, just like Labs, Goldens, GSDs, Cockers, Setters etc. are.
Trouble is that when you breed for just one thing, whether it’s working ability or appearance and structure, you lose other valuable characteristics. So, IMO, both are on the losing side.
Still, the book sounds intriguing to me in the same way Coppingers’ book was and I’ll probably read it. :-) I also enjoy Terrierman’s blogs, even when I don’t agree.
Comment by Deanna — October 5, 2007 @ 6:53 am
Ah, I see the big point of contention is all about AKC’s closed registries. All one needs to do is look at horses to see what benefit open registries have. Which is to say there’s some really good, and a whole lot of bad and mediocre. It’s still up to breeders to pick the best and some are good at that. Most aren’t or don’t have access to the best.
I agree with many of the points made about AKC. I play the AKC game, but am no fan of the organization. It’s an organization with lots of room for improvement.
Dang, another @!&*% book to read!
Comment by Deanna — October 5, 2007 @ 7:14 am
just a quick note - I’ve forgotten the specifics now, but Russia has a system where the dogs have to be equally skilled at working as they are beautiful in order to win at a show. (herders must herd - retrievers must retrieve, etc.)
I don’t know how much difference it’s made, but I think you would have to be serious about a breed before deciding to show.
Comment by deej — October 5, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Germany has long had a system where GSDs must have, among other requirements, a breed-club specified working title and a conformation show title in order to be eligible to be bred to produce registered GSDs.
Sounds good, and this system prevented the GSD breed in Germany from losing its working abilities like the American population did.
But the system did not prevent a pronounced show/working split in the GSD breed in Germany. It did not prevent the showline GSD population there from having its working abilities gradually diminish over time, with fewer and fewer being suitable for work with each generation. It did not prevent the German showline GSD from developing an exaggerated cookie cutter form, though not as exaggerated as the American showline GSD. It did not prevent the working faction of the breed from having its structure compromised into something less athletic and agile than it once was, though not as degraded as in the German showlines. It did not prevent the primary breed working test, schutzhund, from getting watered down to accommodate the reduction in athleticism and working abilities in the breed, on average. It did not prevent these changes because selection for the traits favored in the conformation show ring caused these changes.
McCaig is right. High performance working dog populations are best maintained without any conformation show selection, at all. If one tries to serve two masters… work and show… the work will suffer, on average. To quote one working GSD breeder, the “golden middle” is a “golden puddle”.
The main issue isn’t closed registries versus open registries. The main issue is what one selects for, and doesn’t select for, in breeding.
Comment by Laura — October 5, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
The sad fact is that due to human ambition, pride and greed, nearly any human-designed system will be corrupted by some human, somewhere - no matter how idealistic the goals.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 5, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
I love Donald McCaig’s writing about dogs. Nop’s Trials and Nop’s Hope are both thrilling. Eminent Dogs, Dangerous Men is one of the best narrative non-fiction books I’ve ever read. And McCaig’s piece for Smithsonian magazine years ago about the Dog Genome project was totally engrossing (even for this non-scientist). The man is a writing god, as far as I’m concerned.
That said, I’m no longer a Donald McCaig fan —and it’s not just because he crapped all over an article I wrote for The Washington Post. It was the implications of that, um, crapping.
I had written a piece for the Post on how to find a dog trainer. In the article, I quoted someone who said that it’s important to know what a trainer’s philosophy is before selecting that trainer. IOW, a trainer who got results from shock collars and coercive techniques (hello, Cesar Millan ???) was to be avoided. Mr. McCaig sent a letter to the Post that was published a few days after the article ran. In that letter, he said:
> If you need a philosophy instructor this is a pertinent question; if you need a dog trainer it is not.
>
> A more useful first question might be: What successes have you or students had with dogs? Have you or they earned advanced obedience or agility titles?
>
> Next, ask the trainer to demonstrate his or her own dog’s skills.
>
> Few pleasures are greater than a dog you can take anywhere.
>
> That dog is your goal.
>
> If the prospective trainer has no recent training achievements and his or her trained dogs don’t impress you, the trainer’s philosophical beliefs are inconsequential.
>
> — Donald McCaig
> Williamsville, Va.
>
I’m fine with people disagreeing with what I write. But the implications of Mr. McCaig’s letter — that the end justifies the means — sickens me.
Susan
Comment by Susan — October 5, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Susan, I’m not so sure McCaig was “crapping” over your article. He seems more practical than philosophical — the key, at least to me was “his or her trained dogs don’t impress you” — if you’re looking at someone’s dogs and they seem afraid — why the heck are you bothering with that trainer? It doesn’t really matter if they are afraid because they had shock collars or because they were pushed in a way that maybe just wasn’t right for that dog — there’s no reason to trust YOUR dog to them if you don’t see results that you like.
The key — and I heard this from Pepper’s trainer, who is the Professor of Canine Behavoir at the Penn Vet School — is that you want a dog that you can take anywhere. If you aren’t seeing joy in a trainer’s dogs, why bother?
Last Saturday, it was raining at the Farmers’ Market, so I had to balance my umbrella as well as my purchases until I could get back to my cart, which was on the other side of the Market. Since I didn’t have the spare hand for it, I was able to drop the leash and Pepper followed me through the entire Market until we got to our cart and I could unload my purchases, then go out to get more. Everyone (except those who knew what it took to get there — 10 months of PAIN IN THE BUTT “teenage” Border Collie! ;-)) and exclaiming about how “obedient” Pepper was.
Having a dog one can trust anywhere really IS one of life’s greatest pleasures.
Comment by Dorene — October 5, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
I don’t see McCaig’s letter as “crapping” over your article for the Washington Post, nor any endorsement of “the ends justify the means”. It reads to me like a pragmatic suggestion, that a trainer for hire have a track record of success.
I happen to agree that anyone who is hiring out their services as a dog trainer ought to have some significant dog training accomplishments to show for it first. If the trainer claims to have expertise in dealing with common pet dog issues, their own pet dogs ought to be very well-behaved, and they should have examples of other pet dogs they’ve successfully worked with. If someone claims to be able to deal with aggression cases, it’s fair to ask what aggression cases they’ve already worked, and what the outcomes were (and if they parrot the latest PCism that dominance aggression doesn’t exist, run, don’t walk to the nearest exit). If they claim to be able to help coach handlers in agility, what agility titles have their own dogs or their clients’ dogs earned? Ask for references.
Classes and seminars and accreditations are nice, but are no substitute for hands on accomplishments helping people with their dogs.
There are legions of people out there with a philosophy of dog training I can agree with. Many aren’t sufficiently accomplished to be hiring themselves out.
Incidentally, IMO anyone who in this day calls electronic training collars “shock collars” lacks an understanding of the tool.
Comment by Laura — October 5, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
It’s possible to reach a destination by many roads. Different people will find different roads acceptable, desireable, or even distasteful. Some people don’t care about the road - only about the destination. While for others, knowing - and agreeing with - the choice of road is at LEAST as important as reaching that “all-important” destination.
So what the heck does all of this have to do with finding a dog trainer?
The fact is, you can teach a dog by giving him a reward when he does what you want him to do, or by withholding it when he doesn’t. You can teach a dog by punishing (correcting) him when he does something you DON’T want him to do or by withholding that punishment when he gives you the desired behavior. No matter which of these “roads” you elect to use, if you do it well, the end “destination” can be a well-trained happy dog (because dogs like to know what the “rules’ are in their Universe - once they get that figured out, they can relax and be happy).
It used to be that people cared only about the “destination” - the well-trained dog. That is no longer the case - especially now that people are becoming so much more aware of the different “roads” that can be taken to get there, and that they - as the owner and advocate for their dog - have something to say about that. People DO care about more than just whether or not you got the end result. They care about HOW you got it, and that’s where the trainer’s philosophy comes in. That’s why it’s not only okay - but *essential* - to find out if the trainer you’re considering is using a training philosophy that you can live with.
Asking for a track record of success is fine. But so is asking to know something more about just what *track* was used to get there. Each one of us - as dog owners - has the right - and even the responsibility - to be asking these kinds of questions.
Same destination - a well-trained dog. But different roads to get there. As a responsible dog owner, I want to know ahead of time what that road will be. That question is ALL about a trainer’s philosophy, and there is NOTHING inconsequential about that!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 7:32 am
I think it’s safe to say that most of us here have a better-than-average understanding of canine behavior. But better-than-average implies that a good many other people don’t have that level of understanding. They may not be able to tell whether a dog is merely compliant or is truly frightened. Knowledge of a trainer’s philosophy can make up for that lack of understanding and allow any dog owner to make an informed decision about who should or should not train that dog.
As for the proper terminology for a collar that emits electrical impulses — well, we probably should just agree to disagree.
Comment by Susan — October 6, 2007 @ 7:34 am
Comment by Susan — October 6, 2007 @ 7:34 am
“As for the proper terminology for a collar that emits electrical impulses—well, we probably should just agree to disagree.”
And prong collars are just “power steering for dogs”.
Sigh . . . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 7:46 am
I would want to see the methods (as distinct from hearing the philosophy) of any trainer I was considering using, but I’d have to read Susan’s article to decide whether McCaig’s comments were unwarranted. I know him, and I’m quite sure he has never used a shock collar, but I also know he believes in balanced training. If a trainer waxes lyrical about her “all positive” philosophy yet can’t train a dog to a level where it can be taken anywhere, I’d agree with McCaig that that trainer’s philosophy should not be a basis for choosing her. Similarly, I would not rule out a trainer because her philosopny encompassed what behaviorists term punishment, if that punishment was well-timed, mild and fair. That may be all McCaig was trying to say.
Comment by Grace — October 6, 2007 @ 9:37 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat:
>
Not in my book: I think you and I are on the same page here. But as you pointed out so beautifully a couple of posts back, different people take different routes to the same destination.
Comment by Susan — October 6, 2007 @ 9:38 am
My thing - and this fits right in with what you wrote earlier - is that trainers must *understand* the learning theory behind the choices they are making. So when it comes to - say - prong collars - if a trainer chooses to use that for training, then let’s be clear that this is a device which works because it provides an unpleasant consequence to the dog when the dog pulls. A less PC way to word that is to say that when the dog pulls, a prong collar *hurts*, so the dog decides that pulling is not a good idea!
When a trainer chooses to use a tool - ANY tool - they are duty-bound to understand - in a real and pragmatic way - how and why that tool works. I’ve gotten into major disagreements with trainers who seem unwilling to acknowledge that - for example - a prong collar works through the application of pain (and no - I’m not talking about huge, excruciating amounts of pain here - but it IS pain.). They know the collar works, but they don’t care to think about *why*. They just want to call it “power steering for dogs”. Which is dangerous in my book.
A trainer who is selling his or her services should understand at least the basics of learning theory. They should understand how the practices they follow fit into that. They should be able to explain the reason why any tool they employ is effective, as well as understand the difference between using a tool to *train* behaviors v.s. using a tool to *manage* behaviors. And they should be honest with themselves about the choices they make, and then extend that honesty to any clients who are considering purchasing their services.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 9:55 am
“A trainer who is selling his or her services should understand at least the basics of learning theory.”
Which learning theory? Skinner’s Operant Conditioning learning theory? Are you aware that many ethologists (animal behavior scientists) discarded OC learning theory 30 odd years ago, in favor of cognitive ethology and animal cognitive psychology?
I used to think that OC at least provided a useful shorthand to help us communicate. But I’ve noticed that most of the people who insist that we need to understand OC learning theory in order to best train a dog lack even a basic understanding of OC, and misuse the terms. For example, many refer to “negative punishment” when the correct OC term for what was described is “positive punishment”. So instead of facilitating communications, the use of OC jargon seems to more often have the opposite effect.
I’ve explained the 4 OC quadrants to people numerous times over the years. I’ve given up. OC terminology is sufficiently un-intuitive to most people that it’s apparent that it is not worth the effort. People can be taught just fine how to handle a dog, and how to use training tools, without OC jargon.
Many dog trainers have found that “reward”, “withhold reward”, “correction”, etc. provide a more intuitive and effective framework for communication and understanding than OC jargon.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Modern e-collar training is mostly low stim training. It is something that wasn’t even possible with the “shock collars” of old, since “shock collars” could not be turned down low enough or adjusted with such precision. Conversely, most modern e-collars used by pet dog trainers cannot be turned up as high as pro-line (expensive) e-collars, which in turn cannot be turned up as high as the old “shock collars” could go. “Shock collars” are obsolete. While some still hang onto the label when referring to e-collars, a modern e-collar is a different tool than what the old “shock collars” were.
The stims from low stim e-collar training cannot be accurately described as “shocks”. They are not “shocks” anymore than a light tap of one’s hand on another’s shoulder is a “punch”.
Another increasingly common use of modern e-collars is the vibrating pager, which also involve no “shocks”. For example, dog trainers are finding that many dogs prone to working themselves into fits of stressful hysterics can be calmed more effectively and humanely with the vibrating pager than by other means.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
“Many dog trainers have found that ‘reward, ‘withhold reward’, ‘correction’, etc. provide a more intuitive and effective framework for communication and understanding than OC jargon.’
Which is one reason why I did my best to avoid using “OC jargon”, but instead used essentially the same terminology in my post as you used in yours.
None of which detracts from the importance of a trainer understanding how the “stims” you speak of work when used in training a dog, and being able to accurately convey that information to any client contemplating purchasing their training services.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
I agree people should have a basic understanding of the dog training tools they use.
IMO, anyone who is using an e-collar should put the thing on their hand and stim themselves over a wide range of settings, so they know what it feels like.
Likewise, IMO anyone using a prong collar should put the thing on their own leg and feel what pops on the collar feel like [it’s quite different than what one imagines when looking at them].
I draw the line at tasting my dog’s liver treats ;-)
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
“Likewise, IMO anyone using a prong collar should put the thing on their own leg and feel what pops on the collar feel like [it’s quite different than what one imagines when looking at them].”
Actually, the test I keep suggesting that prong collar proponents use would involve putting a prong (sized proportionately to reflect real-world use - no microprongs on 250 pound men, please!) around their own neck - positioned high as you would on a dog - and then having a friend take hold of a lead attached to it. Then begin walking at a brisk pace ahead of the lead-holding friend with instructions to said friend to stop unexpectedly at some point so that the person is brought up with their full weight coming to bear on the prongs.
Funny thing - no one that I’m aware of has ever taken me up on it . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Since you are an advocate of the use of theory in training…
Many dominant dogs correct misbehaving subordinates by gripping the neck of the subordinate. Dogs instinctively understand, and respect, what this means. Pinch collars come closer to simulating this… one of the most common corrections dogs administer to each other… than any other tool I’m aware of. Dogs are designed for this. Humans are not. I question whether what you “keep suggesting” is even safe for humans.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
I’d put an open thread up on training techniques except the weather is too nice here to stay inside and moderate the mayhem.
Prong collars are, in my book, better than the more common slip collar, since most non-trainers (i.e. average dog-owners) can’t even put a slip collar on properly, much less master the timing of it.
However, I personally don’t like prong collars for the same reason I don’t like head halters — they make a dog look ugly and mean. My dogs are beautiful and kind, and I want them too look that way.
I ALWAYS recommend front-clip harnesses to people who are having problems with pulling. Dog-owners don’t have to understand learning theory or master timing. The darn things just plain work, and quickly, with no problems to anyone on either end of the leash.
As for e-collars, I do field training, so I have one. You can’t clicker-train a high-drive retriever who wants to blow you off at 300 yards. That said, I can’t even remember the last time I “nicked” my dogs — and even then, I’ve never gone above the lowest setting, which is like a mild carpet shock (or it seemed that way on my arm). It ain’t a tap on the shoulder, but it’s not a Tazer, either.
For my retrievers, just seeing the e-collar delights them. It means they’re going to do something they love.
That said, I do not recommend e-collars to anyone who isn’t going to put in the time with a professional trainer and learn how collars work and how to use them. (And I never, ever recommend electronic containment systems, for a whole variety of additional reasons.)
I also clicker-train, and enjoy it. Right now I’m sort of kind of trying to get everyone (including the cat, who loves clicker work) to raise a right paw on request for a “team picture.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 6, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
The whole training discussion reminds me of that old saying, “Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.”
Good dogs do go everywhere, and if there is a heaven, I know they’re there, too. (Otherwise, wouldn’t be heaven, would it?)
This morning, my nearly 11-year-old retriever (Heather) went to a high school football game. La-de-da far as she was concerned, and she was as perfect as could be. Well-trained and well-socialized, she has gone everywhere with me, and in all her years the only thing I could not train her to stop doing was swimming with the dolphins when we lived on the beach south of Tallahassee.
I don’t think I’d listen to anyone who wanted me to stop swimming with dolphins, either.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 6, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
“Dogs are designed for this. Humans are not. I question whether what you ‘keep suggesting’ is even safe for humans.”
I’m not sure I understand you here. The scenario I suggest would create a sudden - and fairly significant - force on the front of the neck - where the trachea is located. Since both human beings and dogs have tracheas, and the recommended placement of a prong collar puts the prongs right over it, I guess I don’t understand why that’s more okay for a dog than for a person.
But at an even more basic level, the point I’m making is that I’ve encountered many, many prong collar users who flat-out refuse to acknowledge that the prong works through the application of an aversive. They tell that to themself, and they tell that to others, and it’s that kind of behavior that puts dogs at risk.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 6, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
“I ALWAYS recommend front-clip harnesses to people who are having problems with pulling. Dog-owners don’t have to understand learning theory or master timing. The darn things just plain work, and quickly, with no problems to anyone on either end of the leash.”
Of course, used in this fashion, it becomes a *management* tool rather than a *training* tool. Which doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with using it, other than that folks who choose to use it this way must understand that they do *NOT* now have a dog who has “learned” not to pull. Put the dog back on a buckle collar, and in all likelihood, the pulling will return.
So folks who choose to use management tools simply have to understand that - in the absence of actual training - they need to continue to use them to get the desired behavior.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Pat, dear, you’ve been to too many seminars. :::teasing grin:::
Most people flat-out don’t give a darn about the why. They just want for their shoulder sockets to remain intact when they walk their dogs. And I’m happy to suggest something that works without problems for person or pet.
They don’t *have* to understand anything. Understanding learning theory isn’t a prerequisite for owning a dog, living happily with a dog or having a happy dog. Many of us are delighted to learn everything we can, sucking it all up like vacuums, and that’s great. But that’s not for everyone.
People can just go and be happy, walking a happy dog. My job as a pet-care columnist is to get people from A to B with a minimum of fuss and bother while always remembering that they advice I give needs to be good for both pet and person.
So that’s what I do. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 6, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
And now I’m off to be happy outside with my happy happy dogs. So be kind to each other while I’m gone, OK?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 6, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
If I recall the history right, the old “shock collars” were invented for high drive field-bred retrievers and other bird dogs. They are physically harder [higher pain tolerance] than most other breeds, especially when they are high in drive. What feels to me like a faint tingle… the low stim “working level” for most pet dogs… might not even be noticed by them. So I don’t doubt that e-collar stims used in retriever field trial work are higher than most other dog training venues, and feel like a mild carpet shock. Dogs vary a lot as individuals though, even within breeds.
Pinch collars have a much wider variety of applications than just stopping a dog from pulling on a leash when going for a walk. A front-clip harness may be suitable for the latter, but AFAIK they cannot replace all uses of pinch collars.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
“I’m not sure I understand you here. The scenario I suggest would create a sudden – and fairly significant – force on the front of the neck – where the trachea is located. Since both human beings and dogs have tracheas, and the recommended placement of a prong collar puts the prongs right over it, I guess I don’t understand why that’s more okay for a dog than for a person.”
A correction from a properly sized and fitted pinch (prong) collar creates a pinching sensation around the entire circumference of the collar… not just the trachea.
My concern about what you are suggesting people do with a pinch collar on themselves is not what it might do to the trachea, but rather what the strong jerking motion might do to the person’s spine. I’m not a medical doctor, so I cannot say. I suggest that you clear this with some MDs before recommending that people try it.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
I agree that pet owners don’t have to understand learning theory. But pet owners do have a right - when deciding whether to purchase the services of a dog trainer who has well-trained dogs - to ask that trainer how those dogs got that way, and whether that method/philosophy is okay with them. (The “asking” can be done via the observation of ongoing training classes - whatever serves to provide adequate information to the potential client on how the trainer operates to help them make their decision).
And the main reason I think a user of a no-pull harness (or similar device) should understand that they haven’t *trained* their dog is so that - for example - they don’t decide it’s okay to walk their dog along a busy street on a day when all they have with them is a flat buckle collar.
What I’m suggesting is no more complicated than that.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
“My concern about what you are suggesting people do with a pinch collar on themselves is not what it might do to the trachea, but rather what the strong jerking motion might do to the person’s spine. I’m not a medical doctor, so I cannot say. I suggest that you clear this with some MDs before recommending that people try it.”
But Laura - this is exactly the way people are directed to teach a dog to walk on a loose lead. Just let the dog run out to the end of the leash and then “self correct” when he gets pulled up short.
I’m not sure why it’s any more okay for a dog to have this happen to him than it is for a person.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
“I’m not sure why it’s any more okay for a dog to have this happen to him than it is for a person.”
Dogs are not built like humans. I have watched dogs voluntarily and with great enthusiasm [i.e. There’s Nothing Better in the World kind of enthusiasm] do things in protection training and trials that would break a person’s neck were they to attempt the same thing. It would break a person’s teeth too, but that’s another story.
I’ve seen dogs do these things tens of thousands of times, without injury. Around the world, it happens thousands of times a day, without injury.
Have you ever seen a handler play tug vigorously with their dog, and swing the dog around in the air, dog attached to tug? Besides lacking the teeth for it, we don’t have the spine for it either.
My fear is that your suggestion might turn a person into a quadriplegic.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
And my fear is people who use training tools they don’t understand.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
According to the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, 96% of dogs relinquished to animal shelters have had not have any obedience training. I am a lot more concerned about the widespread lack of training among pet dogs than whether their owners understand how training tools work.
In recent years, a faction of the dog training community has been vilifying traditional and humane dog training methods and tools, even those that have played a key part in the formation of tens of millions of happy handler-dog relationships. IMO, this vilification campaign has scared many dog owners into becoming overly permissive, by brainwashing them into thinking they are “inhumane” and “cruel” if they deliver any kind of “punishment” to their dog. IMO, this has harmed far more dogs than it has helped.
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
I should have been more clear. My fear is *trainers* who teach their clients the use of training tools which the trainers themselves don’t understand .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Here’s the report by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy
http://www.petpopulation.org/RELINQ207-223.pdf
Comment by Laura — October 6, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Not sure why this won’t post. Let’s try this:
h t t p://www.clickertraining.com/node/988
(take out the spaces)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
“I’m fine with people disagreeing with what I write. But the implications of Mr. McCaig’s letter—that the end justifies the means—sickens me.”
I don’t think those are the implications of his letter at all. I think the implications of his letter are that many people can talk a good game, but results are a better measure of their worth.
Comment by Grace — October 7, 2007 @ 10:45 am
I think “results are a better measure of their worth” only when a person can determine whether the dog is performing out of fear or out of a more positive feeling. For those who can’t make that determination due to a lack of knowledge of canine behavior and body language, knowing a trainer’s philosophy can be invaluable. To me (and to my source, who was quite upset over the letter), Mr. McCaig appeared to be discounting the value of that information.
Comment by Susan — October 7, 2007 @ 11:40 am
“I think the implications of his letter are that many people can talk a good game, but results are a better measure of their worth.”
Yup, well said.
Comment by Laura — October 7, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
And HOW they got those results still matters.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 7, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
I read that article in the Washington Post, and Mr. McCaig’s letter. I had written a responding letter myself, which was not published — Mr. McCaig’s was, typically, much more elegant and parsimonious. I thank Ms. McCullough for reprinting it.
I’d never heard of the writer of the article on “how to choose a dog trainer,” but it certainly read like the work of someone with an agenda to advance, not a piece of helpful and well-researched journalism. Now I get it.
In that article, as I recall, Ms. McCullough did not advise people to find a trainer whose philosophy and methods aligned with their own. She told them which philosophies and methods and tools were the correct ones, and how to find a “trainer” who would parrot those back. Nevermind the wee detail of whether the dog gets trained. Nevermind whether the Emperor has any clothes, in the person of a well-trained personal dog or six. Are we convincing ourselves that we are having “fun?”
As a results-oriented trainer who does not share Ms. McCullough’s favored “philosophy,” has little use for warmed-over Skinnerian “learning theory,” refuses to join the “professional” organization she endorses, and is not a slave to any method or tool, perhaps I could be justifiably counted among the injured parties. But the boilerplate article was not important enough to dwell on. It’s sad that readers are being fed the same old same old, instead of solid advice, but most of us grownups are resigned to seeing more mediocrity than substance, and we move on, doing our best to provide the latter.
I find it telling that, four years on, Ms. McCullough is still nursing the hurt of having been unceremoniously alpha rolled (Oh — is that not PC? Dogs don’t *do* that?) by a better writer who also happens to understand dogs, and those who train them.
I find that a lot, though — creatures who live without the benefit of correction are awfully sulky when they finally receive one from the world.
(Full disclosure. I consider Mr. McCaig a friend. He did not win my professional admiration or personal esteem by praising me or cutting me any slack. Quite the opposite.)
Comment by Heather Houlahan — October 8, 2007 @ 8:23 am
So setting aside for the moment the specifics of what Susan McCullough may have written in the original article, can we at least agree that the potential purchaser of a trainer’s services has the right to know whether or not that trainer’s philosophy/methodology is something they are okay with? Regardless of the individual philosophies/methodologies under discussion?
Used to be there was only one way, but that’s no longer the case. It’s really no different from the fact that I want to know what’s in the food I buy for my dog so I can make my OWN decision as an informed consumer. When it comes to deciding whose training services I am going to buy, I also want to know what a trainer is going to be doing with me and my dog so that I can make my own decision as an informed consumer. (Again - leaving aside whatever might have been said in Ms. McCullough’s article - which I have not read - and commenting only on the consumer’s right to know that choices exist for them to make.)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 8, 2007 @ 9:33 am
There has never been “only one way” to train a dog, and there are a lot more than two ways now.
Comment by Laura — October 8, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Good. Let’s be honest with consumers that they have a choice, and have trainers be upfront about where they stand in that “choice spectrum”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 8, 2007 @ 10:20 am