Dog Grrl

09/21/2024

BEYOND CESAR MILLAN

20 YEARS LATER.....The following review was submitted to National Geographic by Dr. Andrew Luescher, DVM, Ph.D, DACVB (board-certified veterinary behaviorist).

Dr. Luescher, former director of the Purdue University Veterinary Behavior Clinic was asked to provide feedback on "Dog Whisperer" tapes prior to the show's airing.

In this letter to National Geographic (date unknown), Dr. Luescher writes,

"I think this series, if aired, would be a major embarrassment for National Geographic. It is not stimulating or thought-provoking, since none of the presented techniques are new. They are outdated and have long been abandoned by most responsible trainers, let alone behaviorists, as inappropriate and cruel. I very much hope National Geographic will pull the plug on this program."

Please read the entire letter (It's not long.) and share: http://beyondcesarmillan.weebly.com/andrew-luescher.html

This program and trainers who have mimicked the behavior seen in this program have done so much damage to the dog training industry, dogs, and the human-animal bond.

I have met and spoken to Dr. Luescher personally, and I share his sentiments, as do all other trainers in the evidence-based, best practice camp. Meanwhile, much of the unsuspecting public still looks to National Geographic as an authority and has no idea it has thrown science to the wind, at least in terms of dog behavior and training.

Cindy Ludwig, MA, BS, RN, KPA-CTP, CPDT-KA
Canine Connection LLC
Willard, MO

Image copyright Valder Beebe Show, CC BY 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Cesar_Millan_Mar_2018.png

09/16/2024

As a trainer/teacher, my dedication to the well-being of dogs is unwavering. I firmly believe in training methods that prioritize kindness and compassion over pain and fear. It is concerning to see some individuals in the industry prioritize their own interests at the expense of the dogs they claim to care for.

The extensive body of research clearly demonstrates the negative impact of forceful training methods such as shock collars and prong collars on dogs. Despite this overwhelming evidence, there are those who are resistant to transitioning to more humane-based training approaches. Instead of embracing methods that prioritize the dog's welfare, they choose to prioritize quick results and financial gain, which is both unethical and harmful.

As a trainer/teacher, I stand by my commitment to training dogs in a way that respects their well-being and fosters a positive relationship between human and canine. I believe that every dog deserves to be trained with respect, patience, and understanding, and I will continue to advocate for humane training practices in the industry.

Photo my sweet boy Harry🫶🏼

09/15/2024

Public Letter to Ivan Balabanov

Dear Mr. Balabanov,

I am writing on behalf of many in the modern dog training community to address serious concerns regarding your participation and professional conduct in the study titled “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.”

The study revealed that 100% of the dogs in the shock collar group yelped in pain when shocked. The study notes, “We did not observe negative welfare impacts in the dogs trained with e-collars beyond presumably pain-induced yelps in immediate response to the electric shocks.” This confirms immediate distress caused by the shocks with 8 dogs in your custody.

Even more troubling is that 25% of the dogs in the shock collar group were removed because they exceeded the 20 shocks allowed, yet those attempts still failed to suppress their chasing behavior.

The details of the study indicate not only the infliction of pain but also ineffectiveness in a significant number of cases - even under controlled conditions led by “experts” like yourself. And somehow it was the two dogs who were shocked more than 20x in a session who were disqualified, and not the trainers who continued to shock the dogs until they reached the 20x threshold.

Your involvement in both shock collar training and the so-called “positive reinforcement” training groups in the study further raises concerns especially since the methods presented for positive reinforcement were not representative of established, humane training practices.

A modern approach involves marking a desirable behavior and reinforcing it consistently across different contexts, not merely “calling” a dog back with food.

The study's design misleads the public into believing positive reinforcement is ineffective by setting it up to fail without proper proofing and controlled settings. As a figure in the aversive training community, your participation in this study and its promotion raise ethical questions, especially given your awareness of the broader scientific consensus against aversive methods.

It is concerning that your involvement could mislead the public and dog guardians into believing shock collars are an appropriate and humane training tool.

The modern dog training community requests that you cease all public education efforts that promote pain, fear, and intimidation-based methods which are holding our industry back and which put the public at risk. Our understanding is that you have scheduled a workshop overseas, where based on your history you are likely to advocate for these outdated techniques. These methods contradict the ethical standards for dog welfare, especially in countries like the United Kingdom.

As a practitioner of dog training, we urge you to reconsider your approach and align your practices with scientifically supported, humane training methods, consistent with the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and their international counterparts.

The modern dog training community stands ready to escalate public discourse and scrutiny if these unethical practices persist in the interest of public health and safety.

Zak George

We also acknowledge the involvement of Dr. Clive Wynne from Arizona State University as a co-author of this study. While Dr. Wynne’s academic standing is now under scrutiny due to his endorsement of research methods that caused 100% of the shock collar group dogs to yelp in pain, we remain focused on addressing the immediate welfare concerns this study raises.

The study in question: Johnson, A.C., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2024). “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.” Animals, 14(18), 2632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632

09/13/2024

Do shock collars induce pain? 🤔 New science is in!

“We did not observe negative welfare impacts in the dogs trained with e-collars beyond presumably pain-induced yelps in immediate response to the electric shocks…”

The recent study titled “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs” is being circulated by proponents of aversive dog training methods as justification for the use of pain and fear in dog training.

It’s important to review new data, and we must critically assess the context in which it is presented, especially when there are potential red flags related to conflicts of interest and study design.

This study was funded by the Wexner Family Charitable Fund, a private foundation with no direct connection to the scientific community or dog welfare research. It also acknowledges support from Ivan Balabanov and Dog Training of Tampa Bay, both well-known for advocating shock collars and aversive training methods. These associations raise concerns about potential biases that may have shaped the study's design and interpretations.

Regardless, we should still consider their findings:

The study reports “presumably pain-induced” yelps from ALL dogs in the shock collar group. This raises significant questions about whether the observed behavior change is due to real learning or merely suppression driven by fear.

Normalizing such signs of distress as "acceptable" in a scientific context is troubling and raises ethical concerns about how we treat animals in training.

Here are a few key issues with this study:

1. While the study suggests that e-collars stopped dogs from chasing a lure quickly, this is more likely a result of behavioral suppression due to the pain or fear from the shock, rather than true learning of an alternative behavior. This is not a sustainable or humane approach to training.

2. The study lasted only five days, with testing on a sixth, and used f***l cortisol levels as a limited measure of stress. The small sample size and lack of long-term follow-up make it impossible to determine the broader welfare implications, such as the development of anxiety, fear, or aggression in dogs trained with shock collars. As acknowledged by the authors of the study, “it is difficult to know the long-lasting impacts of these experiences” based on the design of this study.

3. Every single dog who received e-collar shocks yelped, and the authors agree that these are “presumably pain-induced yelps” which is “consistent with Schilder and van der Borg’s claim that e-collar-shocked dogs experience some level of pain”. In contrast, only scarce occurrences of yelping occurred in the other groups. This blatantly underscores the immediate potential harm caused by aversive training.

4. Organizations like the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) and British Veterinary Association (BVA) have firm, evidence-based positions which advocate for positive reinforcement and force-free training methods as the most ethical and effective ways to train dogs in all cases. These methods avoid the risks associated with pain-based tools like e-collars. In fact, not one behavior science organization related to our field endorses the use of shock collars.

5. Future studies must use comprehensive welfare assessments over extended periods and in real-world settings to evaluate training methods' true effectiveness and welfare impacts. It is crucial that scientific inquiry focuses on ethical practices that prioritize dog welfare.

To conclude…

This study is being used to justify shock collar use based on short-term results under controlled conditions. However, it fails to address long-term welfare concerns and ignores the ethical implications of inducing pain.

There are effective, humane ways to train dogs without causing distress, and these should always be the first choice of legitimate dog training professionals.

Now, for those wondering how to teach dogs not to chase things without using fear or “pain-inducing” methods, I have plenty of resources to share. Below is one of my lessons on teaching dogs to stay at a front door without running out and chasing after things. This is just one example, and like all training, success comes with consistency, repetition, and practice—just 10 seconds at a time. Enjoy the video! https://youtu.be/6yw_l3Ci_Q0

Johnson, A.C., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2024). “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.” Animals, 14(18), 2632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632

09/10/2024

The distress and fear in these dogs' are evident. Training methods should never induce such fear and trauma. Let's raise our voices for these dogs, as we must never condone any form of abuse.
Please educate instead of dominate for the love of Dog🫶🏼

09/10/2024

09/07/2024

“OK Zak, but why do you always have to call people out and create this tension? 🤬 What’s the point?”

When it comes to creating spaces of growth and inclusion, two concepts often arise: “calling out” and “calling in”.

Both are essential tools for addressing harmful behavior or ideas, but they serve different purposes depending on the situation.

“Calling out” is about publicly addressing harmful words or actions in an effort to halt their negative impact immediately. It’s often necessary when the harm is ongoing, egregious, or when previous efforts to address the issue privately have failed.

Calling out is a way to stand up, create a boundary, and make it clear that certain behaviors or perspectives are not acceptable within a community or professional setting.

“Calling in” is an invitation to a private, hopefully constructive conversation to bring attention to harmful words or behaviors. It’s about nurturing a space where there is a genuine opportunity to educate, correct, and encourage understanding.

Neither calling in nor calling out is about attacking someone’s character; they are about addressing behavior, words, or actions that cause harm.

It’s important to note that calling out and calling in are not mutually exclusive strategies, and both can coexist to create meaningful change.

However, for calling in to be effective, the person being called in has to have demonstrated an openness and commitment to learning and growing in the areas being discussed.

When attempts to call in are unsuccessful, that is often when a call out is necessary in order to try to prevent further harm.

In the dog training community, there is often tension when we speak up — especially when we are seen as “calling out” those perpetuating harmful or outdated practices. Some might label us as firebrands or troublemakers, even when we stick strictly to the topic at hand. But what we’re really doing is holding our industry to the most basic ethical standards.

We are not here to shame; we are here to shine a light. When we call out outdated, harmful practices, it is because the industry lacks regulation, and therefore, the responsibility to safeguard the well-being of dogs and the public falls on us, the trainers and educators.

When methods that cause pain or discomfort continue to be advocated — despite overwhelming evidence against them — public accountability becomes essential.

However, we don’t stop there. We also call in — often privately — those who may have a genuine interest in understanding why and how the field has evolved. Many skilled trainers want to grow and do better when given the right information in a compassionate setting.

This is why we regularly invite dialogue and share free resources to help encourage self education. The aim is always to create a more humane and informed approach that prioritizes the emotional well-being of dogs and thereby a better life for the people who love and live with them.

Calling out does not make us divisive; it makes us principled.

Some of these “call outs” are revealing discomfort in people who are not yet ready to face the reality of what the science shows.

This discomfort often results in “tone policing” as a response - whether the person realizes it or not.

Tone policing is a silencing tactic where someone derails a discussion by critiquing the “emotionality” or tone of the message, instead of the message itself. Basically, focusing on HOW someone says something instead of WHAT they’re saying.

Tone policing suggests that the only productive conversation is a calm conversation, and that all conversations are “debates” with multiple sides presented neutrally (even though some topics do not have two “equal sides”).

I’ll have a great breakdown of tone policing linked at the end of this post too. As stated in that article, “a key part of tone policing is that it allows privileged people to define the terms of a conversation about oppression in order for that conversation to continue.”

Tone policing is a natural response to the discomfort of having your views or actions challenged. It’s a way for a person to try to regain control over a conversation by reframing the speaker as unreasonable or overly emotional (even though in our case, for example, we faithfully stay on topic with our criticisms and make sure to avoid character assassination of individuals).

Even though it’s not always a conscious decision, when we respond to criticism by tone policing our critic, we effectively avoid facing the actual consequences and fallout of our actions, and worse, we often silence those who are actually experiencing or fighting against injustice.

To those who view the tone of our message as contentious: Please remember that it’s a privileged position to dictate the tone of a conversation instead of engaging with its substance.

Our criticisms do not attack individuals; they confront the perpetuation of harmful ideas that no longer serve this field or the dogs we all care for.

It’s about raising the standard and ensuring that every dog is trained with methods that are ethical, evidence-based, effective, and kind.

Sometimes, the truth disrupts our comfort zones. But change isn’t born from comfort — it’s born from challenging the status quo and pushing for progress.

More on calling out vs calling in:https://edib.harvard.edu/files/dib/files/calling_in_and_calling_out_guide_v4.pdf

Here’s a great breakdown of tone policing: https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/

09/04/2024

Charles Schultz and the original Snoopy🫶🏼

09/03/2024

Before diving in, it’s important to note that this discussion is not about criticizing any individual trainers personally; it’s about challenging outdated and potentially harmful ideas that still persist in the dog training field. The goal is to encourage a shift towards methods that are supported by modern science and prioritize the welfare and well-being of dogs.

Recently, Ivan Balabanov publicly stated that punishment is required to stop behavior. This statement highlights a significant gap in his understanding of current, science-backed methods in dog training. I’m not pointing this out to embarrass him or his supporters but to emphasize the importance of being aware when prominent voices in our field promote outdated views that don’t align with modern animal welfare standards.

There are effective, humane alternatives to punishment, such as differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior (DRA) Don’t be scared of the jargon it’s actually very easy. DRA focuses on reinforcing a positive behavior that you want to see instead of punishing the unwanted behavior. For example, if a dog jumps on guests, instead of punishing the dog, you would teach and reward it for sitting calmly when guests arrive. This not only addresses the problem but does so in a way that builds trust and encourages dogs to choose positive behaviors because they are rewarding, not because they are afraid.

Shay Kelly has done an excellent job of highlighting the dangers and ethical issues surrounding aversive training methods. It’s crucial that we support efforts that promote humane, evidence-based practices that prioritize the well-being of dogs and foster positive relationships between dogs and their guardians.

Our mission is not to attack any individual but to advocate for the highest standards of care and ethics in dog training. The goal is to help dogs thrive without fear or pain, which we believe should be a universal priority in this field.

Take a listen to Shay’s response to Ivan if you are interested in hearing a modern perspective on the issue.

We will place sources in the comments.

Zak

04/25/2024

Have a wonderful day🫶🏼

04/25/2024

When different breeds come together to play, it's like watching a beautiful dance unfold. From the energetic herding breeds to the playful retrievers, each dog brings their own flair to the game. Encouraging positive interactions and teaching appropriate play behaviors can help create a safe and enjoyable environment for all furry friends involved.