Kommetjie Canine College

20/11/2024

We often talk about the importance of Bite Inhibition and this video demonstrates what it is beautifully.

My friend and colleague at Paws On Point took this lovely slow motion video today of Primrose and her Labrador Olaf having a play session. Olaf is two and Primrose is 2 and 1/2 - they have been firm friends since Olaf was only a few months old and their friendship has remained strong, because they have such similar play styles. Unlike their more "herdy" or mature type friends who like to chase a lot, their style is very much puppy-like wrestling and mouthing. They're really good at regulating themselves and we seldom have to interrupt them (only usually for their own safety if they're not looking where they're going 🙈).

Puppies learn bite inhibition (using jaws gently or inhibited force biting) in the litter and through play with other dogs as they develop through the socialisation period and beyond. This is another reason why we should not exclude dog-dog play during the socialisation period for dogs.

For adult dogs that love to play and have suitable play partners, this type of rough and tumble play can help to keep bite inhibition strong.

The slow motion of this video really allows you to watch the jaws and where the teeth go and how all the crazy activity is actually very well controlled and avoids causing any harm. I could watch this all day 🐾💚🤎

19/11/2024

Want your dog to live its best life possible?

Then you should sign up for the Decoding Your Canine December 2024 Summit: Discover the secrets to having the pawfect dog. The Masterclass Series covering training, health and well-being.

My friend Ness Jones has brought together 21+ top experts and influencers for this complimentary training series on all things dog.

You will hear from some amazing trainers & behaviourists, as well as get information on canine health and keeping your dog fit and well.

Not just that … you will also hear from yours truly talking about one of the most common issues that dog owners ask me about, “So you have a reactive dog, now what?”

To learn more, sign up by clicking the following link https://summit.decodingyourcanine.com/taryn

16/11/2024

With the posts doing the rounds at the moment on the importance of socialisation before the completion of vaccinations, I am once again finding it utterly bizarre to see that 90% of the comments end up being along the lines that "socialisation isn't about interacting with other dogs anyway".

Well, as a behaviourist with 25 years experience working with puppies (and seeing most of them through to adulthood) I am still of the firm belief that interacting (and also playing) with other appropriate dogs/puppies is a vital part of socialisation and important for raising an adult that is comfortable and savvy with dog-dog encounters.

Can it be overdone? Yes, possibly in settings like dog parks or day care or uncontrolled free for all puppy parties, but honestly, dogs that have positive experiences playing in puppy classes and meeting other dogs on walks regularly, seldom end up with social problems. Most healthy dogs naturally become less playful and more self contained as they mature, without us having to decide to hugely restrict their ability to have fun and learn from encounters with their own kind in puppyhood. This obsession with neutrality and restricting social interactions to a small percentage of experiences (I saw 6% suggested somewhere 🙄)has no concrete foundation and I really don't know where it has come from.

In my own personal experience, my dogs that have had the opportunity to have plenty of interactions with other puppies and dogs from the beginning, have ended up incredibly savvy with other dogs and wonderfully tolerant. My two who were restricted in their interactions (not by choice, but due to health issues) did not reach that level of competence.

There may have been other factors as well, but if I think about Primrose, who has many friends who she adores, plays well with and can also ignore in close proximity when necessary, the reality is that due to her being restricted in meeting lots of unknown dogs when young, because of an early developmental issue that required surgery and a fairly long recovery, she is not a dog I can just leave off lead when hiking or on the beach to pass or meet other dogs - I've had to teach her to ignore dogs she doesn't know for the most part, because she simply doesn't have the necessary skills I believe she may have gained with more appropriate interactions at the right time. I would give anything for her to not have had that early set back and to not have been denied opportunity and would never waste it with any other dog.

Primrose is an awesome dog, we absolutely adore her and she has a great social life with her friends, but she will likely never be an "off lead meeting everyone" kind of dog, which is a limitation in comparison to my other dogs who had vast early social experiences with other dogs.

The “Neutral” Dog

On just about every post concerning puppy socialisation these days, you will find comments or advice such as, “remember that socialisation means teaching your dog to be neutral about people and dogs – it doesn’t mean encouraging them to interact.”

These comments have started to really bother me, as I don’t think they reflect the reality of how living creatures respond to the world around them and set impossible requirements for dogs, especially for young puppies. I sometimes wonder if people making these comments understand anything about the mammalian brain or what the word neutral even means.

Just like us, dogs are emotionally driven creatures. They respond to the environment around them according to how they feel and how things in the environment make them feel. Feeling is the essence of what it means to be alive and conscious. It is the difference between an animal and a robot.

The term “neutral” means feeling neither positive nor negative about something. It implies feeling nothing. I would ask you to try and think of things in your life that you feel absolutely nothing about. Can you think of any? How many situations in our lives evoke zero emotional response, where we feel absolutely nothing about the environment we are in or about the people we are around? Maybe routine things like eating breakfast or cleaning our teeth in the morning don’t make us feel much on the surface, but if you scratch a little deeper, for most of us eating always involves some small level of pleasurable anticipation and hygiene chores can feel like drudgery or even an annoyance when we may be in a hurry. Driving to work we may feel pleasure listening to a radio station or music, but we may also feel frustration anticipating traffic or anxiety about being late for work. Arriving at work there may be people that we enjoy seeing and who make us feel cheerful and motivated and there may others who make us feel uncomfortable or slightly stressed. Our emotions are likely to fluctuate with every situation – not always extremely – but just little ebbs and flows of feelings throughout the day.

We are seldom, if ever, completely neutral and I believe that it is the same for our dogs. The idea of expecting dogs to ignore people, dogs and situations because they should not have any feelings about them, seems quite ridiculous to me. Dogs are sentient, complex emotional beings – they are not robots. They are going to feel something in all situations and that something is going to tend towards consisting of either positive emotions or negative ones, depending on their predisposition and life experiences.

So, what about habituation? Does that not mean learning that something has no meaning and so ignoring it? Yes, it does – however, this usually refers to learning to ignore simple stimuli in the environment as inconsequential rather than having no feelings about social situations and other living beings. For example, while I am writing this, there are insects creating a constant high-pitched hum in the garden outside on this hot summer day. However, I only become conscious of them, when I stop typing for a second and take a moment to reconnect to my surroundings. I can also hear the distant hum of the sea, but all these sounds are so familiar and constant that my brain habituates to them and almost blocks them out. This is a vastly different situation in comparison to me deciding to go for a walk down to the beach and passing various neighbours or their dogs – while I may be quite used to encountering other people or dogs on walks, having my brain tune them out completely would be completely bizarre and rather inappropriate.

Yet that seems to be exactly what people advocate for and expect from dogs these days. Dogs must be “neutral” and dogs that actually have feelings about other living beings and any desire to engage or interact are “rude” and poorly trained. Of course, dogs cannot always go up and engage with other people and dogs and we do absolutely need to be able to teach them how to cope when it is best to disengage or stay away – but never allowing them to engage at all in the first place as puppies or to have any positive interactions is not going to create a “neutral” dog. It is in fact more likely to create a frustrated or anxious dog that has no idea how to respond if they are approached and engaged with - something that will happen at some point if you live in the real world.

The socialisation period is a time of high social attraction in dogs – they are drawn to interact with others, because by interacting they learn social skills and communication. They also learn associations and whether other people and dogs are safe or unsafe. Puppies may be drawn to want to go up to everyone and everything, but contrary to popular opinion, this does not mean that they will have the same desire to do so as adults, if you allow them to engage and enjoy interactions with other dogs and people as puppies. Again, of course every dog is different and some dogs may remain more social throughout their lives as adults and require a bit more management and training in how to cope when they cannot interact, but for most, the high level of social attraction that makes them want to run to everyone wanes as they mature and they naturally become more reserved.

It really concerns me that people are being encouraged to expect puppies to keep to themselves and never interact with people or dogs when out and about. The idea of a puppy enjoying themselves playing with friends or learning that other people can be friendly, fun and pleasant to be around has become a terrible thing to be avoided at all costs. Heaven forbid that a dog actually develops a liking for other people or dogs and enjoys their company – don’t you know that this leads to all manner of “bad” behaviour and that a “neutral” dog with no feelings towards other dogs and people is a good dog?

Of course, there is a balance to strike. Of course, we can’t allow our dogs to run up to everyone and everything all the time. Of course, we need to protect them from bad experiences by choosing who is appropriate and isn’t appropriate to meet and greet and of course we need to teach them to handle not being able to engage or approach with minimum frustration or disappointment – but these are training issues which we can work on throughout our dogs’ lives and not an excuse to skip socialisation altogether.

At the end of the day, I would rather have a dog that was a little too friendly, than a dog that was uncomfortable in social situations due to lack of positive experiences. A dog that is uncertain is far more likely to become defensive than a dog who has positive feelings. Regardless of what we aim for though, our dogs will have all sorts of emotions, some positive and some negative – just like us. That is what it means to be alive. It is our job to understand and help them, not to try and isolate them into becoming robots.

14/11/2024

💯💯💯I can't find the words to adequately endorse this message.

We currently have some vets in our area advising clients not to allow their puppies to leave the property until they have had not only three parvo/distemper etc combination vaccinations (which means not until 16-18 weeks of age), but even rabies vaccinations 🙈 on top of this we have vets advising clients to give their puppies FIVE parvo/distemper vaccines.

I'm really not sure where this insanity is coming from and how after so many decades too many vets are still not recognising the importance of socialisation during the critical period.

Yes, parvo and distemper are real and they are horrible viruses. Yes, we do need to be mindful of risks and follow through with timely immunisation (although over vaccination is also a very real issue that few vets acknowledge) - but for goodness sake, there needs to be sensible advice given around socialisation during the early months of a puppy's life and less fear mongering.

MYTH: "Don’t take your puppy anywhere until they're fully vaccinated."

FACT: "The primary and most important time for puppy socialization is the first three months of life. For this reason, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior believes that it should be the *standard of care* for puppies to receive such socialization before they are fully vaccinated. Behavioral issues, not infectious diseases, are the number one cause of death for dogs under three years of age." (AVSAB Position Statement on Puppy Socialization)

FACT: If you wait until your puppy is full vaccinated, you've missed their critical socialization period.

Vets, rescues and breeders who are clinging to the outdated belief that dogs should be prevented from socialization until fully vaccinated are not keeping up with the current research, literature and recommendations from behavior professionals.

02/11/2024

I just came across this post and the timing is quite appropriate, as I have been thinking a lot recently about all the completely unqualified trainers popping up in our area 🤔😔

It is very common for people to ask for referrals for a dog trainer or behaviourist on community groups and increasingly the responses I'm seeing are recommendations (often self-recommendations) for people who have not studied dog behaviour or any related field a day in their lives.

Usually they are men, they are extremely self-confident (read delusions of grandeur), they happily use aversive methods, they talk a lot of utter nonsense with authority, they work alone, belong to no associations, have no plans to enrol in any type of education to begin with, never mind CPD, they have no actual achievements to their names, they often prey on breeds considered "tough" or powerful (or rescue dogs), they float around often using public places to work (illegally) and they'll offer some kind of freebie or low prices to hook people (although a few will also charge ludicrously inflated fees).

One thing I can guarantee in these cases: we (those of us who are qualified and certified and charge a living wage) end up being the ones having to sort out the mess afterwards 🤦‍♀️

Dog industry is broken ...

It's the only industry where clients are happy to pay for BIG EGOS, but not for extensive qualifications, accredited knowledge or verified expertise. We expect so little from those who provide services to our pets... Often no checks are done on those who we entrust with our (best) furry friends....

Why is that?

You won't pay a lot of money to have a manicure done by someone who has never done it before.

You won't have your teeth fixed by someone who is not a qualified dentist.

You won't go to physio who isn't qualified.

You would not have surgery done by someone who may have watched all episodes of Grey's Anatomy, but isn't a board certified surgeon.

You wouldn't have even have a facial from an unqualified beautician ....

Then why are we happy to pay a LOT of money for people who are claiming to be dog professionals, yet who hold zero qualifications in dog training / behaviour ?

The industry is unregulated, which is a big problem. I don't know whether that will ever change, but I remain hopeful. But perhaps that would change sooner if we all started to expect more from dog professionals?

23/10/2024

A few months ago, the horse world exploded during the Olympics when a well-known rider was caught whipping an obviously distressed horse. While I have a horse of my own, I do not follow any horse related sports, as I find them completely out of line with how I believe horses deserve to be treated. This story, however, was hard to avoid. At the time my first thought was more about the hypocrisy of the reactions, when the reality is that 99% horse sport activities involve a fair amount of physical force and intimidation – crops, spurs, kicking, whipping and goodness knows what else is pretty much standard and even “horse whispering” is nothing more than a pretty euphemism for extreme psychological pressure.

Nevertheless, I was shocked when a friend mentioned to me how many horse people in our community had defended the rider as having done what was necessary for the high-pressure situation she was in. Apparently, many horse people turned around and said to those who called out the blatant abuse: “You don’t know what it is like to ride a horse of that type at that level of competition”.

Sadly enough, this echoes a common line we hear from sports dog trainers who use aversive methods – the dog world too has a habit of justifying aversive tools and what I would consider physical or psychological abuse, by stating that those who use positive reinforcement “don’t know what it is like to compete at high levels with a high drive working dog”. Us Plebs apparently have no clue about how to train “real” dogs, because we are not competing at world championships or with dogs that can’t function without frequent bursts of electricity pulsing through their necks.

I have sometimes found this argument rather amusing, as most of the people who have said this to me in real life hadn’t achieved very much with their dogs anyway and after years of “training” still had to manage their dogs like they were living with some kind of wild beast in order to avoid getting sued. But let’s put the wannabees aside for a moment and look at the argument from those who actually do seem to achieve “great things” with their dogs.

If it is necessary to shoot electricity through a dog (or have prongs digging into their necks or cut off their air supply) to win a sport, what kind of a sport is that and what kind of psychopath do you need to be to enjoy it? Yes, I am being extremely blunt, but come on – really? The spurious argument that applying force or pressure could be necessary to save a dog’s life IF these sorts of methods actually helped to resolve aggression (which they absolutely do not), at least has some “for the greater good” merit, but routinely (or ever) using these tools and methods on a dog just so that you can win a trophy and a title is just plain twisted.

There will of course be people who will say that high drive “working dogs” need to work and participating in dog sports fulfils a need. I would agree that certain dog sports do provide an outlet for specific behaviour patterns and using their brains is important enrichment for dogs – after all, I am a dog trainer by profession, I work with my dogs all the time and I have clients who continue attending classes for years on end, not because their dogs aren’t “trained”, but because attending classes and continuing to build a repertoire of behaviours is fantastic mental simulation and quality together-time for dog-canine partners. However, our training is strictly positive reinforcement based and dogs are NEVER forced to do anything they don’t want to do. The training is for the benefit of the dog, not the fame of the human – and perhaps that is why it is so enjoyable and our classes are happy, safe, RELAXED spaces for all.

We really need to take a long hard look at the world of dog sports (and horse sports) and re-evaluate what and who they are for – and what sort of behaviour and attitudes they are feeding and reinforcing. Just the other day I happened to catch a video of an agility competitor, who had just won a title, totally ignoring her dog while she soaked up congratulations from her teammates and the crowd. As her dog completed the final jump, she turned away from him without a second thought to enjoy the victory with the crowd and her human friends. I was told not to judge her on those few seconds but I cannot unsee what I saw - on what planet do you just win a title and then turn your back on your partner without a second glance, walking away from him and leaving someone else to go and get him and see that he is okay. How can it not be your first instinct to show your dog love and appreciation? Turning away from your dog – your supposed partner - without a second glance at such a moment speaks volumes as to who competing is for.

I am not against all dog sports or any particular dog sports. I love working with my dogs and have achieved many titles in various disciplines over the years. However, I have increasingly gravitated towards those activities which lend themselves to ensuring that the dogs are actually having a good time and that their emotional welfare is prioritised. Any sport or activity that elevates our achievements over having a healthy relationship with our dogs or subjugates their welfare (physical or emotional) to winning should not be celebrated or revered. Whether it is obedience, IGP, Freestyle, Agility or even people competing in America’s Got Talent, we need to look at things more carefully and clearly and not take for granted that someone winning or doing well means what they are doing is good. We should not automatically join in the mass adulation whenever there is some great act or achievement involving animals and humans. We are too gullible by far and animals are paying the price for it.

19/10/2024

Play time in puppy class this morning: About halfway through the lesson we always give the pups a break from "working" and a chance to interact. What this looks like depends very much on the specific puppies in each class. Sometimes we may start off just having a sniffy walk together on lead and give the pups a chance to just be around each other more casually and mingle gradually, so that we can work out which pups are more outgoing and which are more reserved. We will often separate pups into two groups so that the more confident or boisterous pups can play more enthusiastically and the shyer, quieter pups can mix at their own pace.

Today we started off in two separate groups, but pretty soon they all wanted to be together and had a lovely time. The two Rottie girls very much gravitate towards each other, as they love a good wrestle and chew session, while most of the other pups were less "full contact" but happily playing around the two happy Rotties. All in all it was a lovely play time today 🐾💕

28/09/2024

Our advanced dogs know how to have fun - here are a few of them from last week doing the pickpocket exercise - although they're so sweet that some of them give what they've "stolen" back to mom or dad 😄🐾💕

22/09/2024

I wrote this post originally in 2021, but it seems to be even more relevant today as the war over training methods continues. Much of what I have read and observed this week has confirmed for me that not everyone working with dogs loves or even likes dogs. No amount of evidence or rational argument will convince certain people to change how they interact with dogs, because deep down they have no real empathy or compassion - it is something a lot darker and more tragic which motivates them to pursue using pain and fear and seeking to control and dominate. We have to stop pretending that there is no evil in this world and that all can be fixed with a good rational argument and a bit of "science".

Those who choose to do harm....

I had a weak moment yesterday and found myself doing something I should know better than to do - I commented on a dog training advert on Facebook that really upset me. I knew it was a lost cause and would only invite pointless arguments, but my filter failed and instead of scrolling on, I said something.

The post featured a burly trainer walking a Labrador on a slip lead. The dog was walking next to him (but not too close) avoiding eye contact, tail down, subdued and with frequent lip-licking and quick glances behind him (hypervigilance). The dog was clearly stressed and anxious and not having a good time at all. The trainer in the video spoke at length about how well-behaved his dog was and how anyone could get their dog to be the same by following his methods and training courses.

The look on that dog’s face upset me so much, that I threw common sense out the window and expressed my concern about the dog’s demeanour and what training methods had been used to get this level of “obedience”. I knew I was asking for it and sure enough I got several responses I could have written myself, from past experience with the balanced training brigade:

“I have never seen him do anything horrible to a dog”
“He is only using a slip lead high up on the dog’s neck and no nasty tools”
“He has a massive YouTube following – what do you have?”
“He rehabilitates aggressive dogs and saves them from being put down – how many dogs have you saved”
“Dogs can’t just do what they like – they have to listen to us”
“He always starts with positive reinforcement and only uses corrections when that doesn’t work”

As I had already stuck my neck out, I did try to address these objections to my comment. I pointed out that a dog’s emotional state, as reflected by their body language, does not lie. If a dog is clearly anxious and unhappy working with this trainer, then clearly what he is doing is making the dog feel that way – even if he does not intend to make the dog miserable, any half-decent trainer would recognise that there was something going seriously wrong and would not use a video like that as an advert! I explained that a slip collar high up behind the ears is in fact an aversive tool, designed to cause pain and choke the dog. I contested the misconception that rehabilitation requires pain and suffering on the part of the dog, when we have so many successful humane and science-based alternatives today.

Of course, I got nowhere. I was mocked and derided as I fully expected to be. But it made me think of something which I have occasionally discussed with colleagues. Something which we don’t often talk about publicly, because it is unsettling to acknowledge, but something which we perhaps need to admit to prevent us wasting our time and energy trying to win arguments with people who will never listen.
What I am referring to is the simple fact that some people like hurting dogs. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you present, how much you try to educate or how many scientific studies back up using force free, dog-friendly training methods, the reality is that there is a subset of trainers and dog owners who actually get satisfaction from frightening, subduing, punishing and hurting dogs (or whatever animals they may work with). Whether it is a feeling of power, control, dominance (yes, humans are the ones with dominance issues, not dogs) or something even more disturbing, we cannot pretend that everyone who uses aversive methods only does so, because they don’t know better. There are certain people who can be shown all the evidence in the world, yet will never be moved, because it is not about evidence or what is right and wrong – it is about the feelings that they get from what they are doing, which powerfully reinforce their behaviour.

Of course, there are people who are using aversive methods because they don’t know better, because someone has convinced them that it is necessary to keep their dog safe or because they are desperate and don’t know what else to do. But those people will change as soon as better information comes their way. I have often encountered clients like this, who are so relieved that they want to cry, when they find out that the horrible things some trainer told them to do, which they knew on some level were completely wrong, they don’t have to do anymore. Clients who become the biggest and most vocal “converts” when they find out that they can be kind to their dogs while addressing training issues.

But sadly, not everyone is like this. Some people will reject all information that undermines their right to frighten, hurt and control their dogs and their clients’ dogs. It is simply who they are. Perhaps one day they will change. Perhaps they have deep trauma and struggles they need to overcome in order to find better ways to feel satisfaction and pleasure than hurting others, but until that happens, we are unlikely to reach them.

As for me, I will keep trying to reach those who would do better, if only they knew better. Those who deep down, just want their dogs to be happy and safe and need to be shown how to achieve that.

19/09/2024

The Infamous Shock Collar Study - what can one say?

The only thing this "shocker" of a study has revealed is that shock collar trainers apparently know nothing about operant conditioning and think that dogs yelping in pain is not a welfare concern - oh and shock collars do indeed HURT dogs.

I am sharing Karolina Westlund's comprehensive review of the study, but I have summarised my own thoughts as well below:

⚠️Welfare concerns:

1. All dogs in the shock collar group yelped in pain when they were shocked
2. Two dogs in the shock collar group were removed from the study after being shocked 20 times in 2 minutes (this was the arbitrary number of times it was determined that that they could shock a dog before stopping the training process with that dog – however, they only removed the dogs from the results in retrospect, so it seems that at the time they simply continued to shock the dogs during the training session – who knows how many times?)
3. The authors claim that the dogs showed no signs of distress, however, they did not evaluate body language or stress signals by their own admittance and the cortisol faecal tests carried out were useless, as they did not have enough samples and did not control for any other variables during the days on which training occurred.

⚠️This was NOT positive reinforcement:

1. Proper timing of the reward or punishment is a necessary requirement for learning to take place – The punishment group had clear use of the word banana prior to the shock being administered, contingent on the dog chasing the lure. The timing of the supposed reward in the R+ appears arbitrary and in no relation to a behaviour that was intended to be reinforced (recall).
2. There is no indication of whether the food used in the positive group was actually high value or even relevant to the dog in the situation – we don’t even know whether the dogs wanted the food at all or ate the food in the training situation.
3. In the shock group, the level of shock was increased at the trainer’s discretion – there was no increase in the value of the reward in the R+ group and no consideration as to whether this was necessary. The authors admit that opportunity to chase something else might have been better than food – yet they didn’t bother to try this.
4. At no time was any desirable behaviour reinforced. The initial part of the training seems to be some vague classical conditioning of the word banana with food being thrown into a bowl. The dogs weren’t required to do anything to gain the food. Therefore, there was no operant conditioning and only a vague attempt at classically conditioning the word banana as a marker or secondary reinforcer, predicting food. The dogs were later given the marker word while they were engaged in the undesirable behaviour i.e. chasing – so essentially the trainers reinforced the chasing behaviour!
5. The dogs were given multiple opportunities to chase the lure, so not only were they positively reinforced with the marker word and food for doing so, but they were also allowed to engage in an inherently reinforcing behaviour repeatedly.

The expectation that there was any reason for the dogs to stop chasing under such conditions is utterly ludicrous and detached from reality. Either the trainers knew this and they were being deliberately disingenuous or they are completely uneducated and incompetent.

⚠️Conflict of Interest:

1. The two trainers involved in the study are shock collar trainers – the one is the mentor of the other.
2. The one trainer is currently involved in very vocal advocacy of shock collars and other aversives in dog training.
3. The dogs recruited for the study were all found via “balanced” trainers’ social media pages.
⚠️
Apparently, none of this presents any conflict of interest, despite the glaringly obvious agenda of the trainers involved. Why the authors of the paper decided to stoop to the level of this study is more of a mystery.

... and why it shouldn't have been published