Does this really make a difference?

[Wilkie]

I observed a training session at the same place I have been visiting just to see what they were like. They make the dogs wait for the people to enter the doors first. Do these trainers really believe that a dog wants to build a small kingdom within the house?! I don't see how making a dog wait while you take your sweet time going through a doorway is helpful.

I don't know about anyone else, but negative based dog training seems really self-centered, like it's the people who think they rule the world and everyone else is beneath them. They don't want to accept that the dog isn't really the problem and there is no dominance issue on the dog's part, but it's the human who has the dominance issue. These trainers support the use of pronged collars and I saw one dog being fitted and trained with it. The dog wore it as a regular collar!! I was told that it does hurt them. I even heard that a shock collar doesn’t hurt the dog and that they had to use it to teach boundaries.

Don’t worry. I refuse to bring any dog there. Unfortunately, I have to see it daily. I feel horrible for these poor dogs. They would rather just be dogs instead of being forced to do this. Sadly, these trainers work with rescued dogs in order for the dogs to be adopted out.

[Erica]

The only reason to have a dog wait at a doorway is safety: not tripping humans, or slipping out without a leash/fence/whatever. But no, it doesn't make your dog listen to you more just because you walk out of the door first (well, the more you cue/reward > the better bond you have > the more likely the dog will listen to you...but you could ask your dog to spin a circle before leaving a door and it'd have the same effect, I think).

Self-centered is a very good way to describe it, and it fits all the dominance trainers I've met.

[emmabeth]

I am often baffled as to what goes on in the minds of trainers like that, in some of them I think there is a DEEP psychological problem, in that they need to dominate something/someone else, to rigidly control their life, get a kick out of being the dominant, bully..

Weird.

As for whether things like going through doors first makes a difference - it might make a difference to manners.. for example, having a rule about going through doorways might well mean you don't get swept off your feet when you have your hands full.. Though actually, I prefer wherever possible to send my dogs through FIRST, that way they are not crowding behind me, same for going up and down the stairs, I would rather they are in front where I can see them.

Having a sensible set of rules, boundaries etc, that are practical, understood by everyone (canine and human), and realistic is a good idea and it makes for a happier household - it won't mean your dogs think you are some sort of two legged god though, it won't mean they suddenly have the capacity to understand that you earn the money, pay the tax, pay the mortgage and bought the car..

When it comes to prong collars and shock collars - to my mind they are a clear demonstration of a trainers inability to think their way round the problem and address it from the correct angle.

A common example is that trainers who think like this, start from the middle of a problem, ie, they start WHEN the dog is chasing cyclists, WHEN the dog is freaking out reacting at another dog, WHEN the dog is pulling on the leash, or stealing the trash... They have little or no thought to what happened BEFORE all that and that you can start there! So their training always starts negatively in that they wait, or set the dog up to get something wrong, make a mistake, fail... and then they 'correct' it.

With positive training, I am not going to wait for the dog to mess up, I am going to start from ground we understand, BEFORE the problem occurs, and aim wherever possible to NOT have the problem behaviour occur at all, but to replace it with the right behaviour.

It means teaching a dog that walking beside the handler is correct (not waiting for the dog to pull), marking that split second as you come through the door and the dogs paws are still all on the floor because THAT is correct.. not waiting for the dog to leap up, rewarding the dog for seeing another dog when its 100ft away and the dog hasn't yet reacted...

This concept does seem to be pretty difficult for trainers who use punishment and I actually t hink one of the worst things about punishment based training, is what it does to the HANDLERS brain - it stops them thinking positively!

[Tauni]

I could see waiting at the door as a safety measure with some dogs. I'm guessing large, boisterous dogs. I seldom open the front door without Jack on a leash, so I don't really care that he goes out first. He also goes up the stairs first, which is also fine by me because I am really slow on stairs. Him running up the stairs keeps him from possibly tripping me.

I tried a prong collar with Jack for a while, before I found this site or read any positive training. It worked, but it clearly made him tense. I decided that was not the way I wanted to walk my dog. In the interests of harmony and trust, I ditched it and adjusted my expectations for walks. Now he wears a harness and we use a long lead, and I focus on safety and avoiding things that he's likely to react to. It's working, as he hardly ever notices bicycles anymore. Unless he already saw a dog first and got wound up over that.

People sometimes tell me that Jack is very "dominant" but I don't see him that way. He's sometimes nervous or rude, and guards resources (even something as simple as a stick) from dogs. But we don't go to the dog park much anymore, so when we do he's more likely to have a good time.

To me, it's about relationships. I have had human friends who require more management and effort than my dog does

[Wilkie]

All really interesting and great points!

I was thinking too that average doors were made for one person at a time. A person and an excited dog cannot go through a door at the same time without someone tripping or getting tangled up or having a dog rush through the door instead of walking nicely. I understand that reasoning, but I don't understand why a person always has to enter the door first with the theory that the dog is inferior. It's like inviting someone to your home, but instead of opening the door for them you make them wait outside until you're indoors first. If you did that to someone else than you'd be considered extremely rude. Technically, it was you being rude and not the dog who was already attempting to walk calmly through the door before you pulled them backwards and made them start over a gazillion times. I constantly see that being done. It's chaotic really.

I also hear the dogs barking and howling (separation anxiety from previous homes), they end up getting yelled at over and over again. The dogs don't stop, but the trainers don't see a problem with how they're handling the situation.

[Sarah83]

I insist on my dog sitting and waiting for permission to go through doors to outside. Not because I believe he'll take over the world but because it means he doesn't just charge out and knock me over or frighten anyone who might be passing at the time or get into a fight with another dog etc. Plus it means he's used to never going through the front door without permission so if it's left open he's less likely to just take off. That's not something I trust to to keep him safe but it's nice to have it there as an extra precaution.

To be honest, I don't really treat my dog much differently to my 3 year old nephew. They both have rules I expect to be followed, neither needs to be dominated or hurt for me to get them to do things, both respond well to being rewarded for good behaviour and I do my best to make things fun.

[ClareMarsh]

The going through the door before your dog thing does amuse me when I see people who achieve it by holding the dog back using the lead

Someone posted this a few days ago on another forum I'm on: http://www.balancedtrainers.com/blogger ... ent-killer I found it quite distressing and it conveniently omitted what had caused the dogs to be that out of control in the first instance.

I don't understand the need to be "in-charge" all the time, I just want enough control to keep Ted safe and make our time enjoyable for both of us. Today I saw a springer hit (not hard but hit none the less) with a stick because he was more interested in sniffing round trees with Ted than returning to the owner. The owner could have just popped the lead on him but no, he was hit for ignoring being called. Ted was only a meter away when he did it and came scarpering back to me, if he had so much as touched Ted he would have found out what being hit with a stick is like, and his own stick at that

[jacksdad]

Rules were made to be broken...muwahahhaha

I break everyone one of these type rules. no dog on the bed/couch...broken. dog shouldn't walk in front of you...broken. Dogs should eat after you...broken. humans should go through the door first...broken.

I have zero issue training my dog to do what I want with in "limits" my abilities at a given point in time. The "limits" are constantly changing due to gained experience and new lessons learn and knowledge acquired.

[minkee]

Hah, I have a rule - no dogs on MY side of the bed. I don't like her getting in my way when I'm sleeping but my bf gets sad if the pup doesn't come to snuggle with him in bed! He likes her being there even more than she likes to be there I think

[edit] Clare I just read that post you linked. We're so lucky to have this forum as a haven ;x

[Wilkie]

Rules were made to be broken...muwahahhaha

I break everyone one of these type rules. no dog on the bed/couch...broken. dog shouldn't walk in front of you...broken. Dogs should eat after you...broken. humans should go through the door first...broken.

I have zero issue training my dog to do what I want with in "limits" my abilities at a given point in time. The "limits" are constantly changing due to gained experience and new lessons learn and knowledge acquired.

I don't understand why someone would say that their dog should eat AFTER they do. I bet those who practice this take their sweet time to enjoy their food, while the dog sits there with a growling stomach because it hasn't eaten anything in a while. What about water? Do these idiots actually make their dog wait until they are done eating in order to allow the dog to drink water? How would these people feel if they were treated this way? I think they would hate it.

What if the dog hasn't gone to the bathroom in a while? Why constantly shove the dog back and make him/her keep trying to calmly go through the door before they are allowed to go out? That's ridiculous. I'd be rushing too if I really had to go.

I would rather have the dog walking in front of me because I can see where they are and what's happening. If the dog were walking behind me, I wouldn't be able to anticipate what might occur. If the dog were walking next to me, I'd trip or step on the dog if I had to make a quick decision. It's just easier having the dog walk calmly in front of me.

[JudyN]

Do these idiots actually make their dog wait until they are done eating in order to allow the dog to drink water?

They're not idiots, though. Back before the days of the internet, you couldn't keep up with all the latest insights into training, and relied on what other dog owners told you or what the one or two dog training books in the local library told you. The wolf studies we now know were flawed, but we didn't know that then and based on them, the dominance theory did make sense, which was why it was almost universally accepted. And we should also not equate making the dog follow you through the door or eating after you with using prong collars and so on. Most people who make a point of feeding the dog after them probably eat as fast as they can because they don't like to see his pleading eyes but think it's important. Either that, or they're slipping him treats under the table. Generally, they're not on some power trip.

I often hear 'The dog did that once, I roared at him, and he never did it again.' Much of the time, with a dog who has a good bond with their owner and a generally positive relationship, this can teach the required behaviour very quickly with no apparent negative consequences, so the owners feel that this approach works. The problem is, of course, is that there may well be undesired consequences, but the owner may not connect these with their approach.

In Claire's link, the trainer made the point that some people would rather have their animal euthanased than use aversives. If I was in that position, having tried every alternatives, I'd be down the pet shop and buying some sort of shock collar in an instant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in the positive camp and every time I've ever been tempted to consider aversives, I've come up with plenty of reasons why they aren't right and won't work for my dog. But I think it's dangerous to begin to regard a training approach as a dogma, a religion, particularly when it makes us think less of people who aren't members of our religion.

[jacksdad]

Judy is correct. we need to be very careful about labeling someone an "idiot". Most people just want to fix 1 or two things and get back to enjoying their dog. Completely understandable. Most people don't get a kick out of "project dogs". they want a "lassie". I would also caution reading into people motives for following some of the bad advice out there. Not everyone jumps on the dog eat last, walk through door last etc rules because they are control freaks or have huge ego trips. The are simply following the advice they bought from an expert or got from a trusted source. Reserve the contempt for those who call them self a trainer and should know better, but don't.

The one thing I am finding I disagree with more and more, is the concept that there are somethings that can only be achieved through aversive. The more I learn, the less I believe that to be true.

There are 3 things driving this "feeling"

1. we don't put shock collars on killer whales or wolfs. yet we can train these animals. And if we can train wild animals without them, why do we need such a device on domesticated and amenable animals?

2. many of today's "leaders" and "poster children" for positive training...are former users of aversive training. they questioned and observed and found a better way.

3. the more I learn, the less I see the value in these devices. I am finding that actually teaching what I want and making that the default behavior is much, much more powerful than always fighting to stop a behavior. Just like the proponents of positive methods said it would be.

[Wilkie]

The idea that dogs should be below the owners is smeared all over dominance based training material. It has been said many times that those methods are cruel, abusive, and outdated. People who practice dominance were warned that it's wrong. They know it's wrong and yet they do it anyway. Therefore, they really are idiots and no, they did not exhaust all of their resources. I'm willing to bet that they were too lazy to research training because they felt that being an ignorant, self-centered, control freak is way more effective when training animals. Dogs are living things that need a teacher, not an owner (dogs aren't slaves). They also aren't toys because that is a dangerous way of thinking and it could cost you, someone else and the dog its life. Positive training methods are all over the place, but there are a lot of people who never want to change because it will make them look bad. Most people hate being told that they're wrong. It's so much easier taking short cuts than it is to take the long route and gain more knowledge.

Cesar loves to brainwash people into thinking that his methods are pure and innocent. I don't know any intelligent person who watches that man throw dogs to the ground, pin them, push and shove them and think that it all makes perfect sense. He teaches people that we need to be pack leaders. I don't know about any of you, but I'm not a dog or a wolf and I am very certain that my dog doesn't look at me and think I am a dog too. That's like that post I was reading where it said that the author tells people to smear poop on the walls to insert dominance. Really?! You HAVE to be an idiot to think that you should smear poop on the wall and think that it's telling your dog that you are indeed the ruler of the kingdom. It isn't just the trainers who make stupid decisions; it's the people who actually believe that nonsense as well. You are what you eat.

[Wilkie]

Judy is correct. we need to be very careful about labeling someone an "idiot". Most people just want to fix 1 or two things and get back to enjoying their dog. Completely understandable. Most people don't get a kick out of "project dogs". they want a "lassie". I would also caution reading into people motives for following some of the bad advice out there. Not everyone jumps on the dog eat last, walk through door last etc rules because they are control freaks or have huge ego trips. The are simply following the advice they bought from an expert or got from a trusted source. Reserve the contempt for those who call them self a trainer and should know better, but don't.

The one thing I am finding I disagree with more and more, is the concept that there are somethings that can only be achieved through aversive. The more I learn, the less I believe that to be true.

There are 3 things driving this "feeling"

1. we don't put shock collars on killer whales or wolfs. yet we can train these animals. And if we can train wild animals without them, why do we need such a device on domesticated and amenable animals?

2. many of today's "leaders" and "poster children" for positive training...are former users of aversive training. they questioned and observed and found a better way.

3. the more I learn, the less I see the value in these devices. I am finding that actually teaching what I want and making that the default behavior is much, much more powerful than always fighting to stop a behavior. Just like the proponents of positive methods said it would be.

Yes, some people use positive training on wild animals, but it covers up the fact that they are actually being cruel by forcing these animals into doing things they just don't do naturally. The same goes for animals in TV/films. They're forced to train in order to entertain the public. Yes, some trainers use very cruel methods, but even the positive trainers are cruel in this case. You cannot domesticate wild animals no matter what type of training methods you use. Are these positive trainers really positive or are they wolves in sheep’s clothing?

[Nettle]

Devil's Advocate here - because all good discussions need one

When people 'train' wild creatures eg cetacians, they are not actually training - they are combining a natural action with a reward, then creating a cue for that action and following the action with the reward. So - the animal does that action as a part of its normal behaviour and all the trainer does is contain that action within a cue-and-reward. If he blows a whistle and I jump, I get a fish. Crucially, if the cetacian doesn't want a fish or doesn't want to jump that particular time, the world does not end. No harm is done.

But with dogs (and horses) we expect a whole range of UNnatural behaviours. Don't pee there, don't run away, don't chase cats, don't eat the food I've left where you can reach it so easily, don't bite that child that's just poked you in the eye, don't bark, accept being left alone all day, let those strangers wipe their hands all over you etc ad inf. The dog would rarely naturally and of its own volition produce the behaviours most humans demand as a protocol of living with us. If they do not comply, however, harm may be done and their world DOES end.

Therefore people use aversives, the message being: If you do that, it's gonna hurt. Dog/horse matches the reward of the behaviour with the fear of the punishment, and mostly complies with the human trainer. Not always.

It's relatively new, and a huge jump in attitude for people to change that to: don't do that - do THIS - I'll make it worth your while.

And like it or not, there are a very few behaviours so rewarding in themselves that you can never make it worthwhile enough for your dog to avoid them.

Therefore we manage them instead - put the dog on the lead, close the door, don't exercise there.

But that looks like a cop-out to the old-style trainers, who through punishment COULD get a dog that would do as they wished, and look with scorn at those of us who reward or avoid our way out of trouble.

It's as much about human psychology as dog behaviour.