So what did they do before choke / pinch / e-collars???
Something I hear a lot, especially from those who "work" their dogs [ PP, Hunting, Police Work, etc. ] is that certain things cannot be trained without the use of a pinch / choke / & especially, e-collar.
...domestic dogs have been around forever [ ok, close to forever
] clearly they've been here for at least a couple thousand years...working alongside humans...hunting, herding, etc.
So...how exactly did people train their dogs BEFORE e-collars, choke chains, etc. were created? As far as I know, esp. the e-collar, has only been around since we've had new[er] technology.
So what'd they use to do without these training "tools?" How'd they train their dogs? Anyone know? [ genuine question here lol ] ~
...domestic dogs have been around forever [ ok, close to forever
] clearly they've been here for at least a couple thousand years...working alongside humans...hunting, herding, etc.So...how exactly did people train their dogs BEFORE e-collars, choke chains, etc. were created? As far as I know, esp. the e-collar, has only been around since we've had new[er] technology.
So what'd they use to do without these training "tools?" How'd they train their dogs? Anyone know? [ genuine question here lol ] ~
Comments
Trainers had to make sure the dog doesn't see the throw from the trainer, or else it starts an association with the wrong thing. The idea is to for the dog to think "If I don't obey, an invisible bogey man is going to get me." There was a range limitation that you don't get with e-collars though, which of course was how far the trainer could throw accurately. You don't mean to hit the dog, but you still need to be close enough to get a good startle out of it. The trainer my friend went to about 10 yrs ago used only underhanded throws when using the throw chain. Her more recent trainers use e-collars for more range and accuracy.
If a dog went after livestock with no owner known, the dog was killed/shot. If the owner was known or witnessed it, then maybe the dog gets a chance with a beating within an inch of its life for the first instance. For the second instance, the dog was killed/shot.
Anyway, if you read on other parts of his website where he talks about breeding and puppies for sale, he refers a lot to the dogs' "nerves." Once you've read enough of his site, you realize that a dog with "good nerves" is one that can be trained with painful collars and not completely lose it and become a nervous wreck. I think his training methods would just ruin most dogs. I don't think his dogs come out unscathed, either, but he seems to be satisfied.
So, in other words, he chose abusive training methods and then selectively bred dogs that would tolerate them. Seems a tad inefficient, don't you think? Not to mention unkind.
Anyway, I think a lot of domestication and selective breeding is picking the dogs that are compatible with our lifestyle and views. No one's ever figured out how to make a wolf do SAR, they just spent thousands of years domesticating them and then gave it a go. :oP
He said, since he had so many dogs, and he was not a dog trainer, that "any given dog was gonna get his/her ass kicked around here at some point". He said that this female Anatolian was a good guard but when he "gave her an ass kick'n" she never recovered 100% from it. He said "she was never 'alright' again" after that.
I found this conversation to be super interesting...
I personally wouldn't treat my dogs like that, and I value my training knowledge and tend to look down on people who go to such violent extremes to manage their dogs (just being honest here), but, I felt like this conversation was like looking back in time (at breeding) or something. It kinda made me feel like I was having a conversation with a farmer 100 years ago, before there was a strong understanding of animal behavior and learning theory or even before the alpha/dominance crap came about.
I mean, here was this guy that was getting pretty good results (he produces some really nice dogs) from a very organic measuring system. If he kicked his dog's ass and he/she bounced back then he/she had strong nerves - done. If he kicked their ass and they didn't bounce back, then they were a cull - done. Its like he had devised a simple temperament test that each dog eventually had to pass.
It got me thinking about the temperament of dogs these days, and it made me wonder if maybe some of that "ass kick'n" was needed in today's world to help weed out the fear-biters. There does seem to be an overwhelming number of weak-nerved, scared, dogs these days...
Now, please understand, I am not saying we should "kick our dog's asses" - not at all. I certainly believe that positive training methods and a true understanding of dog behavior can lead a breeder to producing better dogs than have been produced in the past - I think knowledge is king and you cannot have too much of it.
So, I guess I am just wondering, in the hands of breeders, are positive training methods + a lack of understanding of learning theory and dog behavior =(ing) the production of weak-nerved fearful dogs?
I mean, if the breeders that don't understand learning theory and dog behavior feel (cornered and) pushed to use positive methods (and therefore aren't "kick'n their dogs asses") couldn't that be doing more damage to their breeding selection than the breeders who don't at all feel obligated to use positive methods and therefore result to the types of methods I mentioned above (the "ass kicking" methods)?
I bring it up from a breeder's perspective because of the mention of Leerburg's breeding program (I am not a fan of his training or behavioral understanding).
I've talked to a number of breeders in the sport/working world who are also trainers, and I have found that most of their views on the temperament of a dog is grossly misguided. There are so many that preach that "dominant" and "submissive" dog crap but really have no idea what they are really seeing.
For example - I've had conversations with a breeder/trainer about a dog that was very aggressive toward other dogs, so aggressive that the dog is a major liability. I told the trainer/breeder that I felt the dog was aggressive toward other dogs due to fear - he fears other dogs - and the trainer/breeder laughed at me and told me "I needed to learn a little something about dogs before I go judging his dogs" and that "[his dog is] aggressive toward other dogs because he is a 'dominant male' and will not tolerate other dogs in his territory"... (which I guess means that dog thinks everything on earth is his territory... but whatever) I passed on continuing the argument with him, but needless to say I disagree with his view...
And this is my point, that trainer claims to like "dominant" dogs, and so he likes the dog we were discussing - because he "has that 'dominant' attitude" - and so he will continue to strive to produce that type of temperament. To me, as a breeder, I see a breeder striving to produce fearful dog-reactive dogs - I see a big liability. That's two breeders looking at one dog and seeing two totally different temperaments.
Ok, I've gone off a little here... sorry... the Leerburg thing just made me think of all this.
I leave it with this - In my opinion, not only has the alpha/dominance crap done damage to the training/behavior community (and not to mentions all the dogs that have been miss-treated by wannabe "pack leaders"), but it has done HUGE DAMAGE to the temperament quality of the dogs being produced by many of the breeders today.
I almost wonder if breeders dropped the alpha/dominance bullshit and went back to "ass kicking", like they did 100 years ago, if dogs in general would be in a better place than they are now.
----
@ramps - Don't kid yourself, a prong collar is designed to inflict pain. The user has the ability to control the amount of pain the collar gives by adjusting the "correction", but the collar itself is specifically designed to cause discomfort (i.e. to hurt) - that's why it has prongs. Why else would the collar have prongs? If a prong collar doesn't hurt then why use it? Why not use a typical flat collar?
----
@ayk - I get your point, but do you think a prong collar does much to increase a dog's ability to take pressure? I've never thought of using a prong collar for that... I would think an e-collar would be a much more efficient tool for that task - especially since the e-collar can be used for "pain loading" - the shock is applied the entire time the pressure from the decoy is "on" and then turned off when the dog bites (and therefore the pressure is "off") - a prong collar doesn't really have the same use in "hardening" (conditioning) a protection dog.
Maybe that's not your point at all tho - it just triggered that thought in my head.
----
About nerves: I think it's important for dogs that have good nerves, and I didn't mean that the general definition of a dog with good nerves was one who could take abuse, but that seems to be Ed Frawley's (the Leerburg guy) definition.
And, along the lines of what Brad is saying, I think one of the major problems with Frawley's methods is that he plays all these mind games, rather than just having a straight-forward, logical relationship with them. I think his relationship with his dogs is characterized by his own neurosis about being alpha. Whereas, if you take the example of the guy who gives his dogs a whooping, that's something he does in reaction to something the dog does, not day-to-day nonsensical abuse. We can imagine being in a relationship like that with another person - you might have a fight with someone, and still be their friend and still be able to trust them, but if they abuse you as their primary mode of communication, it's obviously quite different.
@hondru, in the old days, high drive dogs that repeatedly get self-injured instead of animal-injured before breeding age would be a cull from a breeding program. A "brave" or "gutsy" dog might get kept and bred, but a "clumsy" or "lame" dog would not. People may not know why the dog was injured (ie. bad hips, bad knees, not thriving on poor nutrition, etc.), but if it required vet work now, it was a non-recoverable injury then.
I guess I don't like the running assumption here that prong collars, choke collars, and e-collars are automatically painful or abusive. They're not, but they are very much user-based and dog-based. And because of this, people really need to be trained properly in their use and when/where it's appropriate to use them. But people don't have the patience to learn this or acquire the timing skills to be effective. For instance, people don't seem to realize that there's a marking and priming step involved with the sound of the slipping choke collars. Jerks or tugs hard enough to throw off a dog's sit or walk don't become necessary. But CM doesn't teach it so it's not needed right? (being flippant there)
Food based rewards training, in contrast, allows room for human mess ups. It usually won't ruin the dog or end up with a bitten person and so that's a big plus in its favor, and I do recommend it for rescue dogs.
But I still believe there exists the rare truly dominant dog who can't be trained with food rewards. For instance, the dog that will approach you and growl at you (or worse, don't growl at you but bites) because you're holding food. Dogs like these are usually put down because they require specialized owners with very good dog reading skills who are willing to try measures that would be considered drastic by today's standards.
But would you say the dogs still need to be tested under pressure for a breeding program? If not by the breeder then by an outside force? Or else their qualities become watered down?
I have read simillar way of creating huntable dogs in europe, middle east, and africa. I guess many of these dogs have even mingled with the wolf population.
Ahi is a dog with great nerves, but I have seen her a bit freaked out in some pet stores due to all the stimuli. Looking at her in that one specific situation I would question her nerves, but looking at her nerves over the course of her whole life (she's 4 now, as of the 8th), and what she has been through and how she has developed, there is no question for me that she has breeding-quality nerves. The same Ahi that might get a bit freaked out in a pet store can be taken from the our remote home on the Mesa into downtown Santa Fe, with all the arts and crafts and tourists around (its really an amazingly busy place) and be completely unaffected by it all - greeting kids and people with crazy Ahi love while chasing birds and squires.
Point is...
Those temperament tests are great and do, IMHO, to some extent, quantify a dog's "nerves". BUT, only if they are done by someone who really knows dog behavior and on a dog that has had NO TRAINING or has been trained by someone who truly understands learning theory and/or dog behavior.
The issue I have with the tests is that I have seen a situation where a dog passes ATTS or CGC but is unable to be in the same room with another dog w/o their handler being present. Essentially, I have seen to many "broken" dogs - "broken" by CM wannabes that over-pressure and over-correct their dogs to the point that they are too scared to react in their natural honest way due to fear of being abused by their handler. That same dog may have loads of temperament issues, but they know to sit there and not react to anything or their handler will hurt them.
To me, that situation is more dangerous to the dog breeding community than a dog that is never tested at all and just simply selected based on how they handled life (the "ass-whoopin" way). The dog described above will probably be over-bred on his TT merits when in reality the dog should have never been bred at all. The other dog, the one who was never tested but selected based on how they do in "life" (like Ahi, for example), will probably be bred a few times (or not at all) due to lack of merit but should probably be bred more.
And so, the tests fail in that example.
----
I think this thread is starting to touch on the realities of breeding... Maybe I will start a thread about that, it could be a good one. (if we can all remain cool)
----
I think Heidi ( @hondru ) make a great point about the mind games so many dog owners/handlers play and how destructive they are.
----
"The issue I have with the tests is that I have seen a situation where a dog passes ATTS or CGC but is unable to be in the same room with another dog w/o their handler being present. Essentially, I have seen to many "broken" dogs - "broken" by CM wannabes that over-pressure and over-correct their dogs to the point that they are too scared to react in their natural honest way due to fear of being abused by their handler. That same dog may have loads of temperament issues, but they know to sit there and not react to anything or their handler will hurt them"
Very good point, and if you read on the Leerburg site, you'll find that Ed Frawley doesn't think that strangers should be able to pet your dog or that your dog should be able to get along with other dogs. He thinks that all dogs are just fights and bites waiting to happen, and that it requires some kind of super genius to make two dogs get along. Well, not really, his dogs just have a real complex over it because of how they've been trained.
Anyway, I'm still mulling all this over. If you start a breeding thread on this issue, Brad, I'll go over there too...
@ayk, about the prong collars/slip collars etc. I think it's often that people simply disagree. I understand how the collars don't have to be TERRIBLY painful, and I certainly understand the marking effect of the training collar (ie. the sound) as it is how I trained my GSD. The whole point of them IS to cause "discomfort" as an aversive, so they are meant to be at least a bit painful or they wouldn't work. So it's not that I don't understand some people will use them more responsibly/with less pain, etc. It's just that I personally find them objectionable, even when people are trying to use them in the "right" way. So I think it's one of those things we just have to disagree on: I do find them abusive, or at least they have a strong potential for that, and others do not. We simply disagree.