The Use of Aversives in Pet Training

The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior has released a new position statement on the role of aversive training methods in training and behavior modification.

The statement says that aversives are not only ineffective, but are counterproductive.   Positive, rewards-based, training is the most effective method in both animal training and behavior modification.
AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf (ftlbcdn.net)

Winston, Part Two

Continued from Winston:  A Story of Desensitization Winston, a story of desensitization | The Animal Nerd

Keeping in mind the three objectives that we established, I began spending more time with Winston.

Over the next two sessions, Winston’s attachment to me became stronger, as did his social anxiety.  He was able to relax and play when no other people were around but, as soon as other people appeared, he would seek physical contact with me, often positioning himself so that I was between him and other people and avoided looking at them.  This was particularly the case in indoor settings, such as the shelter lobby.  I also noted that he was still not engaging in any self-soothing behavior and that his level of anxiety would slowly increase while in social settings.  On the plus side, the shelter staff has determined that he is well socialized with other dogs; he behaves appropriately and invites play upon meeting new dogs of varying ages and sizes.

He was able to relax and play, and accept more human handlers.

I began by introducing play during both outdoor and indoor sessions.  He enjoyed retrieving tennis balls in our outdoor pen, so I would start the sessions there and let him play until he was in a relaxed state of mind.  Following that, we would have some quiet time, sitting with him and letting him watch the shelter grounds.  After two of these sessions, I found that he would relax during the quiet time and allow some distance between us.  He was also starting to show stress-shedding behaviors, such as yawning and body shakes.

He was also beginning to open up to some of the shelter staff and was showing attachment to them as well as to me.  So, after consulting with the shelter behavior team, I began recruiting experienced volunteers to handle him during walks and play, with the goal of giving him pleasant experiences with new people.  When introducing him to new human friends, we did this in the least stressful way possible, with me leashing him and taking him from his run then starting a walk with the new handler.  After a few minutes I would hand off the leash and accompany them to the play area.  At this point, I would stop reacting to him and have the new person engage in all play and displays of affection.  It never took more than one session for him to accept the new volunteer as a trusted friend.

In indoor settings, I began using the “find it” game (tossing high-value treats within the radius of his leash) whenever he began showing distress or started clinging to me when other people were around. This was successful in getting him to reduce his anxiety level and interact with his surroundings rather than avoid them.  I also encouraged his growing circle of human friends to engage with him when I had him on leash in the shelter lobby.   I continued to disengage from him when other handlers were present, and he has responded to that by engaging with them.  At present, he is able to lie down and relax on the cool lobby floor when new people are present.

Winston is getting close to being adoptable.  The shelter staff will attempt to place him with adopters who already have a well-socialized dog and are willing to commit to a continued management program in order to identify and address any guarding behaviors that may arise as he adjusts to being in a new environment.  From what I can see, his prognosis is good.

Update (8/21/2021):  Winston has been adopted.

 

Winston, a story of desensitization

Last month I was asked to take on another “project dog”.  That’s how I met Winston.

        Affection or insecurity?

He had been returned to the shelter after his adoptive owner experienced problems with him.  Winston had gradually become emotionally dependent on her to the point that he guarded her as a resource and was being aggressive with any visitors to the house.  He was also displaying high levels of anxiety about noises outside the house and was becoming extremely reactive to them.  The owner eventually decided that she couldn’t handle his issues and brought him back.

When I first met him through the glass door to his run, he was extremely reactive.  He was baring his teeth, giving low growls and short, staccato “warning” barks.  I followed my usual initial practice of sitting down on the floor outside his run, facing away at an angle and reading my messages and Facebook feed, while occasionally putting a treat in the run (There are “treat holes” in the glass fronts to the dog runs.  These encourage the dogs to approach visitors and potential adopters.)  I repeated this three times on the first day.

The second day, he was quieter when I approached his run, but still visibly nervous.  This changed when he saw that I was unlocking the run, at which he visibly relaxed. He had come to associate this motion on my part with food and potty breaks, and he was visibly happier and more relaxed.  I was able to leash him up very easily and took him outside.  That’s when I was able to get a good look at him and his behavior.

The shelter has a large, very pleasant, outdoor area that includes a large field, a large, enclosed play area and the grounds have shaded areas with benches.  I took Winston on a walk around the entire grounds so that he could have a few good sniffs and relieve himself, then just sat with him on a bench that had a view of the building entrance, to see what he did while people came and went.  I saw that he became alert whenever anyone came into view, but that he didn’t engage in any self-soothing behavior during quiet times.  I also saw that his level of tension was ramping up, and that he was beginning to seek physical contact with me.  I took him around the building to a quiet area in the back of the building, near a wooded area, and he was still unable to relax.  He began to increase his contact-seeking behavior, putting his head and paw on my knee and pressing himself against my leg.

All this inside of 30 -45 minutes (which is the maximum time that I spend with a dog during behavior modification treatment).   In two short sessions, he had gone from giving me teeth-baring distancing signs to extreme contact-seeking behavior.  At this point, I had a pretty good idea of his issues:  He was an extremely anxious dog who had trouble shedding stress and sought contact with a human handler as a means of feeling secure.  It’s very understandable how an owner could mistake this contact-seeking behavior for displays of attachment and affection and encourage it.   Its adorable, but its also the exact opposite of a healthy, relaxed behavior.

So, the job was to increase his confidence regarding people, help him to relax and engage in self-soothing, and help him to tolerate strangers in his space.

To be continued.

Penny, a story of counterconditioning. Part 2

Continued from Penny, a story of counterconditioning | The Animal Nerd

So, with progress made on her overly active greetings, which were affecting the number of shelter volunteers who were allowed to, or willing to, work with her; and with her anxiety at being outdoors reduced to the point that it was no longer apparent, it was time to start work on getting her to tolerate indoor spaces.

I continued taking her to explore outdoor areas and relaxing with her in shady shots where she could watch the comings and goings at the shelter.  And I started experimenting with her behavior indoors.  It soon became apparent that she:  A. Refused to go through any doors except those that were in a direct path the outdoors; B.  Refused to go through any interior corridors; and C. Wouldn’t walk on shiny floors.  She didn’t panic when asked to go to any of these places.  She simply froze in place and refused to move.

All of which would seriously get in the way of getting her adopted.  On the plus side, she was very food motivated, and loves people and other dogs.  So, this gave me something to work with.

In order to get her to tolerate shiny surfaces and being inside a building, I first had to get her to accept going through doors.  I picked an entrance to the shelter that was in a fairly quiet spot and didn’t get a lot of foot traffic, but was near a section of occupied kennels (providing a scent-rich environment).  After she had a nice walk and some down time, I walked her up to the entrance whereupon she balked and froze as soon as the door opened.

Fortunately, I was prepared.  I kept her on leash, propped open the door, sat down and broke out my weapons:  small pieces of sliced of hot dogs, string cheese and the stinkiest training treats that I could buy in my local warehouse store.  I tossed an assortment of them on the ground immediately outside the door and, after some hesitation, she vacuumed them up and got praised.  I repeated this several times, each time tossing the treats closer to the door threshold and praising her every time she stepped closer.  Each time she advanced; I took up some of the slack in the leash without pulling her.  This prevented her from retreating to square one, but also allowed her to establish a new comfort zone.  It also precluded any oppositional pulling.

After several iterations during the following week, I was able to toss the treats inside the door while she stretched inside to get them; then, as I put the treats further inside, she began putting her front paws across the threshold.  And she eventually stepped all the way inside.  Once she was far enough in, I gently closed the door and kept praising her while giving her a good scratch.  That was enough for the first day.  She had earned a good cool down in her run.

The shelter lobby became her favorite place to hang out with her human friends

On the next session, she balked at the door again, but overcame her fear more quickly and with fewer treats.  By the third session, it took half as much time and reinforcement to get her inside.  After that, I was able to get her to stay in the interior corridor without asking to leave, while getting scratches, pets and treats.   I then enlisted some volunteers to join us in the corridor, and she relaxed enough to walk up to each of them and ask for pets.  During the next session we moved further down the corridor and, she willingly entered the main lobby on the following day.

This was the big breakthrough.  After getting her used to being in the lobby of the shelter, I was very quickly able to get her to visit all the public areas in the shelter, and she began to enjoy being around her human friends (e.g., everybody she met).   She willingly used all the building entrances and the shelter lobby became her favorite place.  She was getting very popular with the staff and volunteers, and had lots of positive interaction.

She was still occasionally snapping at the stump of her tail occasionally.  Often when food was provided or she became excited.  I began responding to this by giving her scratches on her butt and  hips whenever she did this.  She initially reacted to my doing this, but after a few repetitions, she began to accept this as a pleasant stimulus and relaxed and leaned into me while I was doing it.  I enlisted other handlers and volunteers to do the same thing, and her self-harming reduced over the next several days as she accepted that activity along  her flanks hindquarters was a good thing.

At this point, we had reduced her fear of being outside her run, had reduced her tendency to self-harm, she was greeting her handlers in a calm and friendly manner and her tendency to self-harm was greatly reduced.  Our staff decided to place her in a foster home to continue her treatment and acclimate her to a home environment outside the shelter, and I felt that she was well on the way.

And that’s when the wheels came off the cart.

To be continued.

Penny, a story of counterconditioning

Part One

So, in late May I was at the shelter, and the Behavior Services manager asked me if I would like to have a “project dog”.  That’s how I met Penny.

She is a 3-year-old, 50 lb mixed breed with a short brindle coat, natural ears and a docked tail.  It turns out that her tail had been docked at the shelter because she was habitually attacking it whenever she had certain stimuli – such as every single meal – and had seriously injured it.

Aside from the compulsive self-harming whenever she was eating or overly excited, Penny showed signs of extreme anxiety.  Her kennel was in a quiet area of the shelter that was closed off to visitors.  Whenever she was taken outside, she would immediately head for the door to relieve herself and then continually try to lead her handler back inside to the safety of her kennel.  She refused to use any door other than the one nearest to her kennel and she would refuse to use any part of the shelter interior beyond the minimum distance between her run and that door.  On the plus side, she was friendly to every person on staff and gave exuberant greetings to her human friends – sometimes so exuberant that it was difficult to handle her – leading to her harness being kept on her at all times.  In her current state, she was a sweet and friendly dog who was completely unadoptable.

She had been held by other shelters and fosters prior to arriving at ours.  And the somewhat sketchy history that came along with her indicated that these were long-standing behavior problems – particularly her tendency to attack and injure her tail.  At this point, she had been in the shelter for almost two months, between her initial quarantine, her surgery and recovery, there hadn’t been much work done on addressing her behavior problems.   After getting the initial run-down of her (many) issues, I worked out a set of priorities with our behavior staff.

  • First:  We needed to reduce the anxiety she had being outdoors.
  • Second:  We needed her to be able to use doors and interior spaces outside the “safe space” of her kennel.
  • Third:  We needed to reduce her tendency to attack her own body parts – even with her tail docked, she was still showing a tendency to snap at her own flank and hip when food was present or she was overly stimulated.
  • Fourth:  We needed to help her control her overly-excited greetings, particularly with new people.

So…I got to work.

First things first:  Getting her to at least tolerate being outdoors.

I took her out of her run as quietly and matter-of-factly as possible.  I found that the usual method of quieting a jumping dog (negative reinforcement – removing the response to jumping, turning my back and standing still) worked very well.  I then stayed to one side of her while attaching the leash to her martingale collar and easy-walk harness.

I then took her outside by her usual route.  She was in a hurry to “do her business” and then wanted to return to her indoors kennel.  By changing direction a few times, I was able to get her to walk at oblique angles to her initial route back to her safe place, and get her to spend some time outside.  I noticed that when she was actively sniffing a new scent, she relaxed.  Her ears went back, her tail went up, her back relaxed, and she forgot to be afraid.   I could work with that.  I found a bench in a shady spot and sat with her for a while, not interacting with her unless she solicited any touching or petting, and just let her experience the day.  She never really relaxed on that first day, but she didn’t try to escape or go back inside until I brought her back indoors.

For the next two weeks, I took her outside and made a point of walking her on the shelter grounds in areas that other dogs frequented and along the tree lines where rabbits and other local wildlife were common.  Basically, anywhere that was a scent-rich environment.  This was a positive experience for her; and within those two-weeks she completely lost her anxiety about being outdoors and enjoyed experiencing the entire area that our shelter encompasses, several acres of open land.

I then took her to our outdoor exercise area, which is a large open grassy area inside a six-foot fence.  The first time I unclipped her leash inside it, she immediately ran to the gate and started leaping at it, trying to escape.  I leashed her back up and walked her around the inside perimeter of the exercise pen, letting her stop and sniff whenever she wanted, before taking her back outside for some quiet time.  After that, I made a point of taking her to the exercise area immediately after some other dogs had been there, creating a scent-rich environment.  Over the next week, she became interested in investigating the scents and was able to enjoy being there and relaxing off-leash.

Step One done. After three weeks, she was no longer anxious about being outdoors, and was associating outdoor time with interesting nose work and relaxation.  And we had made progress made on Step Four.   This was going so easily, I was feeling pretty optimistic.

To be continued.

Do Thundershirts® Work?

In a dog’s world, fireworks and thunderstorms are very similar.  Both involve sudden flashes of light, loud and low-level noises, new scents (ozone from a thunderstorm and gunpowder from fireworks).  Dogs can become very fearful of these experiences, sometimes to the point of developing extreme fear responses or phobias.  Much of this varies according to the dog’s experiences with sudden noises, its early exposure to these stimuli and the dog’s general personality (Blackwell, Bradshaw & Casey, 2013).  In these cases, many owners have attempted to relieve their dogs’ fear by means of a pressure wrap, sometimes marketed under Thundershirt®.

Dogs have a variety of fear-related reactions to thunder or fireworks, including hiding.

Anxiety wraps have been used to treat behavioral issues in autism patients and to aid in reducing fear and stress.  Deep pressure, such as firm hugs and muscle massage has been shown to release endorphins that can relieve pain and provide a sense of well-being in the short term (McKenzie, 2011).  However, the question remains whether a light sense of pressure, such as provided by an anxiety-wrap, can provide the deep endorphin-releasing stimulus that a massage provides; and, if so, whether wearing a wrap for the duration of a fireworks display or thunderstorm is effective.

So, do they work?  Possibly.  But there’s very little evidence to support the claims made by manufacturers and marketers of these products.

First off, much of the evidence presented to support the claims of effectiveness are in the form of testimonials or product endorsements.  This sort of claim should always be taken with a pinch of salt, as they are often simply invented by sales staffs.
The majority of the other claims of effectiveness are anecdotal reports by laypersons, based on their observations of their own pets.  This sort of reporting is generally unreliable, simply because of the strong possibility of unintentional confirmation bias on the part of the dog owner.  That, and the possibility of a sort of placebo effect on the owners’ part, in which they see improvement that may not actually be present.

With regard to clinical evidence, there is very little.  The one quality study that I could find shows that pressure wraps do nothing to affect the physical symptoms of fear and anxiety (measured heart rate) but did result in some changes in the dogs’ anxiety-related behaviors.  Which indicates that the dogs’ fear wasn’t reduced, but their behavior in expressing that fear was affected (King, Buffington, Smith & Grandin, 2014).   This begs the question as to whether the pressure wrap is actually helping the dog.  The dog may appear calmer, but is simply staying still because he feels inhibited in his movements (Buzhardt, nd).   A review of related studies published in 2018 indicated that most studies were based on owners’ subjective assessments of their dogs’ emotional states and concluded that the vests may have small positive effects but that owners should have no expectation or any benefits from using them (Buckley, 2018).

As a behavior consultant, I am skeptical of the anecdotal claims made regarding these products.  As stated above, a fair number of them are dubious in nature (this is the internet, after all) and may simply be cases of “astroturfing”.  And, as discussed above, claims made by individual dog owners can’t be considered reliable, no matter how well-intentioned.  They are not disinterested parties and are not making controlled studies.   Also, the vast majority of owners do not have the training to accurately diagnose dogs’ behaviors, and do not have the facilities to measure heartrate, blood pressure and cortisol levels associated with severe anxiety.
I am also somewhat concerned about the use of these products without the involvement of behavior professionals:   Incorrectly used, a dog may come to associate the vest with unpleasant stimuli that it is intended to alleviate, making the fear response worse.  Also, if worn for extended periods, the dog may become habituated to the vest, making it ineffective.   And, if a dog is overwhelmed by the noise, sight and smells going on around him, adding the stimulus of touch may be the worst thing that an owner can do.

Mainly, I am reluctant to recommend these products simply because they do nothing to reduce the dog’s fears.  They do not address the underlying causes of the extreme anxiety and stress that the dog is experiencing.

The way to alleviate dogs’ (and peoples’) fear of objects or situations is to change their emotional state through desensitization and counterconditioning.   These involve treating the dog’s sensitivity to the event that is causing the fear reaction, by gradually increasing the dog’s tolerance to it and/or by introducing a positive experience that the dog can come to associate with the anxiety-causing event (Todd, 2018).  The goal is to help the dog by reducing the amount of fear and anxiety that he experiences in response to certain stimuli, in this case thunder or fireworks.  The goal of a behaviorist is to help a patient be less afraid, instead of outwardly seeming less fearful.
In some cases, veterinary assistance may be needed.  At the risk of introducing an anecdote, I have been involved in a case in which a dog was left alone in a house during a particularly violent thunderstorm and developed an extreme fear to them.  This was treated by a veterinary behaviorist, who prescribed a low dose of valium to be taken when thunderstorms were imminent.  After a few treatments, the dog “learned” that she was not fearful during the thunderstorms and her reactions to the storms were greatly lessened.

What’s the takeaway?

As stated by King et al, “This pressure wrap can be used adjunctively in a treatment program for dogs with these specific anxiety diagnoses, but should not replace current treatment options (behavior modification and medication) for canine Separation Anxiety and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Caution must be practiced if using the ThunderShirt for dogs with phobic reactions to loud noises or thunderstorms, as this had not been studied with the canine anxiety diagnoses.”

I suggest that they may be used as part of a treatment program that employs science-based behavior assessment and modification techniques to reduce the fear that dogs associate with thunderstorms or fireworks; but should not be relied upon by pet owners as a stand-alone treatment that is administered at home.

References

Blackwell, E. J., Bradshaw, J. W. S. and Casey, R A. (2013).  Fear Responses to Noises in Domestic Dogs:  Prevalence, Risk Factors and Co-Occurance with Other Fear Related Behaviour.  Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145 (1-2).  15 – 25.  doi:  10.1016/j.applanim.2012.12.004

Buckley, L. A. (2018).  Are Pressure Vests Beneficial at Reducing Stress in Anxious and Fearful Dogs?  Veterinary Evidence, 3 (1). doi:  10.18849/VE.V311.152

Buzhardt, L.  (nd). Anxiety Vests for Dogs.  Retrieved from Anxiety Vests for Dogs | VCA Animal Hospital (vcahospitals.com)

King, C., Buffington, L., Smith, T. J. and Grandin, T. (2014).  The Effect of a Pressure Wrap (Thundershirt®) on Heart Rate and Behavior in Canines Diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder.  Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 9 (5). 215-221.  Doi:  10.1016/j.jveb.2014.06.007

McKenzie, B. (2011) Pressure Wraps for Anxiety in Dogs.  Retrieved from Pressure Wraps for Anxiety in Dogs | (skeptvet.com)

Todd, Z. (2018).  What is Desensitization and Counter-Conditioning in Dog Training?  Retrieved from What is Desensitization and Counter-Conditioning in Dog Training? (companionanimalpsychology.com)

Dog Training with “Aversives” or Punishment

When you examine the various advertisements for dog trainers or behaviorists, you will find a number of them describe the approach they use in training as “balanced”, or will indicate that they follow the “Koehler Method” or some other methodology such as the use of “e-collars”.  You should take the time to research what is meant by that terminology.   In general, these training approaches incorporate the use of “aversives” or punishment as part of the dog’s training.

What is an “aversive”?  Why are they used?

Essentially, an aversive is something that the training does to the dog when that dog does something undesirable.  They can take the form of an electric shock, an unpleasant spray to the face, throwing an object at the dog, making a sudden startling sound, jerking the dog’s collar, jerking on a prong collar or choke chain, or physically punishing the dog by hanging or choking.  In short, an aversive is an action on the trainer’s part to make the dog afraid of not obeying, or afraid to do something other than what the trainer wants.  The use of punishment in dog training is closely associated with the dominance or “pack” theory, in which trainers physically correct dogs with unpleasant outcomes for their actions.  This theory of behavior will be addressed in more detail in a later article.

A “balanced trainer” typically follows the training philosophy that punishments should be part of the trainers’ toolkits, along with incentives.  This is a carrot and stick approach.  Some of them claim that it is a science-based approach and point to the four quadrants of operant conditioning as justification for this thinking. Proponents of the Koehler method will state that dogs are being given freedom of choice about their actions and are learning to not make certain choices because of the pain or discomfort that they receive afterwards.

William Koehler (1914 – 1993) was a well-known, celebrity dog trainer and his book The Koehler Method of Dog Training was for many years considered to be the bible for dog trainers.  Like many trainers of the last century, he used extreme methods of punishing dogs for disobedience or for perceived “defiance”.  These methods included hanging a dog by a choke lead until he ceases moving and is unconscious, as well as the use of a weighted hose to discipline a rebellious dog by beating him.  In Koehler’s view, allowing a dog to be untrained or disobedient was more inhumane than using harsh methods to instill obedience in the dog (Koehler, 1962).    Koehler’s methods are still practiced by a number of trainers today, notably some of the trainers involved in the training of police or military K-9s.

In addition to the beating described above, trainers who incorporate aversives in their programs may use a wide range of tools, including but not limited to prong collars, shock collars, choke chains, thrown objects, loud noise makers and unpleasant sprays.  They can also use personal corrections, such as swinging the

Bull Terrier with prong collar

dog on its leash, hanging the dog by its collar, choking the dog, striking them, yelling at them, or a number of other physical punishments.

Why use aversives?

The use of aversive measures in dog training is based on the belief that the dog is intentionally and willfully being disobedient and that he needs to learn that this deliberate behavior leads to punishment.  Alternatively, these methods are used to form such unpleasant associations with certain behaviors so as to make the dog avoid performing them.  This second aspect is why these methods are sometimes called “scientific” by the trainers using them, as they involve some form of reflexive or Pavlovian behavior modification.

So what’s the problem?

The simple fact is that the use of physical punishment, intimidation and aversive measures in dog training isn’t necessary, or any more effective than positive training methods (Ziv, 2017).  In fact, the use of harsh corrections in training has been found to be counterproductive and actually increases behavior problems.  Studies have shown that punishment-based training not only increases a dog’s fear of his owners, it affects the dog’s social behaviors and overall trust of humans; the dogs actually become more resistant to training (Rooney & Cowan, 2011).     The use of aversives in dog training has been shown to be no more effective than positive training, and will actually increase serious behavioral problems (Hiby, Rooney and Bradshaw, 2004; Blackwell, Twells, Seawright & and Casey, 2008).  As mentioned above, dogs trained in an environment that incorporates aversives will actually be more stressed in training and resist taking part in it, due to their anticipation of physical pain and discomfort.  Their stress levels and anxiety during training are notably higher than dogs’ who are trained with positive methods.  In fact, dogs trained with punishments tend to avoid their owners and be less attentive to them than dogs trained with positive reinforcements (Deidalle and Gaunet, 2014).  These methods kill the dogs’ motivation to learn.

Studies have shown that the use of aversives and punishment in training are closely associated with increases in aggression and biting, due to the stress and strain associated with those training methods (Herron, Shofer and Reisner, 2009).  Such training methods actually endanger both the physical and mental heath of the dogs involved (Ziv, 2017).  The use of aversives actually causes dogs to be fearful and can create unintended negative associations for them – damaging their relationship with their owners and humans in general (Todd, 2018).

For these reasons, animal welfare organizations such as the RSPCA, the ASPCA, the HSUS, the AAHA and the AVMA have issued statements supporting positive training methods and condemning the use of aversives in pet training.  According to the AVMA “Aversive training has been associated with detrimental effects on the human–animal bond, problem-solving ability, and the physical and behavioral health of the patient. It causes problem behaviors in normal animals and hastens progression of behavioral disorders in distressed animals.” (AVMA, 2015).  The Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the International Association of Animal Behaviorists and the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers have all established the Least Intrusive Minimally Aversive  (LIMA) protocol, which emphasizes the use of positive training methods with an absolute minimum of any aversive measures.

Summary

The bottom line is that we have learned a lot about animal behavior and learning in the 60 years since Koehler published his training method, and have found that punishment and aversives are not only cruel, they are harmful to animals’ welfare, and result in behavior problems and fear-based aggression.  Further, they don’t get any better results that positive methods.  In spite of this, although many trainers and owners are resistant to positive-only training, citing their own expertise and questionable authorities.

References

American Veterinary Medical Association (2015). AAHA Releases New Canine and Feline Behavior Guidelines.   Retrieved from AAHA releases new canine and feline behavior guidelines | American Veterinary Medical Association (avma.org)

Blackwell, E. J., Twells, C., Seawright, A. and Casey, R. A. (2008).  The Relationship Between Training Methods and the Occurrence of Behavior Problems, as Reported by Owners, in a Population of Domestic Dogs.  Journal of Veterinary Behavior 3 (5). 207 – 217. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2007.10.008

Deidalle, S. and Gaunet, F. (2014).  Effects of 2 Training Methods on Stress-Related Behaviors of the Dog (canis familiaris) and the dog-owner relationship.  Journal of Veterinary Behavior (9) 2. 58 -65.  Doi 10.1016/J.veb.2013.11.004

Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S. and Reisner I. R. (2009).  Survey of the Use and Outcome of Confrontational and Non-Confrontational Training Methods in Client-Owned Dogs Showing Undesirable Behaviors.  Applied Animal Behavior Science 117 (1-2). 47 – 54.  doi:  10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011

Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J. and Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004).  Dog Training Methods:  Their Use, Effectiveness and Interaction with Behavior and Welfare.  Animal Welfare 13 (2004).  63-69.

Koehler, W. R. (1962).  The Koehler Method of Dog Training, Kindle Edition.  Retrieved from Amazon.com

Rooney, N. J. and Cowan, S. (2011). Training Methods and owner-dog interactions:  Links with dog behavior and learning ability.  Applied Animal Behavior Science 132 (2011). 169-177.  doi:  10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.007

Todd, Z. (2018).  Barriers to the Adoption of Humane Training Methods.  Journal of Veterinary Behavior 25 (2018), 28 – 34.  doi:  10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.004

Ziv, G. (2016).  The Effects of Using Aversive Training Methods in Dogs – a Review.  Journal of Veterinary Behavior 19 (2017). 50 – 60.  doi:  10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004

Stages of puppy development

A friend of mine recently expressed some exasperation that her 10 month-old puppy suddenly seemed to forget everything he had learned and was actively resisting training.  I asked her what she was like when she was an adolescent.  My friend’s dog is somewhere in the adolescent or juvenile stage, and is being a brat.  Its just a good thing he’s cute.

Like us, dogs go through stages of emotional and physical development, and their behavior changes during those phases.  Here’s an excellent brief on the subject, courtesy of the Arizona Humane Society.

Developmental-Stages-of-a-Dog

Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA)

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned the Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA) approach to training and behavior.  So, what is it?  The latest training fad?  Hardly.

LIMA is an approach that has been adopted by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) and the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) as a humane and ethical practice of dog training and behavior modification.1  Although this approach was developed for canines, it can be applied to all living creatures.  LIMA incorporates a systematic hierarchy of procedures that should be followed in all cases.

Hierarchy of Procedures for Humane and Effective Practice

Source:  m.iaabc.org/about/lima/hierarchy/

  1. Health, nutritional, and physical factors: Ensure that any indicators for possible medical, nutritional, or health factors are addressed by a licensed veterinarian. The consultant should also address potential factors in the physical environment.
  2. Antecedents: Redesign setting events, change motivations, and add or remove discriminative stimuli (cues) for the problem behavior.
  3. Positive Reinforcement: Employ approaches that contingently deliver a consequence to increase the probability that the desired behavior will occur.
  4. Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior: Reinforce an acceptable replacement behavior and remove the maintaining reinforcer for the problem behavior.
  5. Negative Punishment, Negative Reinforcement, or Extinction (these are not listed in any order of preference):
    1. Negative Punishment – Contingently withdraw a positive reinforcer to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.
    2. Negative Reinforcement – Contingently withdraw an aversive antecedent stimulus to increase the probability that the right behavior will occur.
    3. Extinction – Permanently remove the maintaining reinforcer to suppress the behavior or reduce it to baseline levels.
  6. Positive Punishment: Contingently deliver an aversive consequence to reduce the probability that the problem behavior will occur.2

 

As seen above, a humane and ethical trainer/behaviorist will first determine if a behavior is caused by a medical or physiological issue.  Often, they will have their clients consult a veterinarian to determine whether such an issue if contributing to the behavior.  Once this first step is eliminated, they will then attempt to simply remove or modify any conditions or stimuli that are causing the behavior:

Example:  Fluffy stands at the window and barks at passers-by, even though they are a reasonable distance from the house.  Assuming that no medical conditions are involved, a behaviorist may recommend installing shutters or blinds that can cut off her view of the street during times that barking is an issue – like when the baby is taking a nap.

Only when these two first steps have been considered will the behaviorist try behavior modification techniques, emphasizing the positive reinforcement of desired behaviors.  In all cases, a trainer should ask “What do you want the animal to do?”

By emphasizing reinforcement of desired behaviors, and minimizing any aversive measures, a trainer or behaviorist can humanely teach an animal alternative reaction to a stimulus.  Using the above example, the trainer may prompt Fluffy to sit quietly when people walk past the house, or may help Fluffy’s owners desensitize her so that she only reacts when strangers come closer to the house.  However, a trainer who ascribes to the LIMA approach will only use aversive measures, such as a bark collar, only when all other options have been ruled out.  IAABC and ADPT sites for detailed position statements on the use of punishment during training and the use of “training aids” such as shock collars.

1 apdt.com/about/about-lima/

2 m.iaabc.org/about/lima/hierarchy/

Finding a Canine Behaviorist

So, your puppy is growing up, or your rescued dog has been in your home for a while, and your best buddy is turning into a terrible roommate.  Your dog is incessantly barking, or chewing everything in sight, or aggressively charging other dogs, or doing something else that is making you miserable.  You’ve taken the first step and decided that you need help.  Who do you turn to that can transform your problem pet back into the sweet companion that you brought home?

This is the difference between a dog trainer and a canine behaviorist.  A behaviorist is a professional who addresses a problem behavior – namely something the dog does either too often or not often enoughto the extent that it cannot be ignored.  All you need to do is figure out who’s the right behaviorist to help you.  How can you tell whether a behaviorist is reputable?

Like many pet-related professions, this is an unregulated business.  Literally anyone can put up a website, print some business cards, and call himself a behaviorist.  Let’s discuss how you can find one who’s actually put in the time and effort to learn this profession, abides by professional standards and ethics and knows what he’s doing.

First off, a good behaviorist will not:

  1. Start off by saying that he’s dealt with situations like this and knows exactly what to do.
  2. Immediately tell you what’s causing the dog’s behavior and how he’ll fix it.
  3. Guarantee results.
  4. Say that he’ll take the dog to his facility for treatment, and bring it back completely fixed.
  5. Advocate the use of aversive methods or punishments as a standard approach.
  6. Disparage other professionals or their methods.

On the other hand, a good behaviorist will:

  1. Tell you that he will have to determine exactly what triggers and reinforces the problem behavior by careful observation of the dog before, during and after that behavior occurs.
  2. Involve you in identifying the causes of the behavior and implementing a treatment.
  3. Be credentialled by the ABS, IAABC, CCPDT or other reputable body.
  4. Not guarantee results.
  5. Collect data on the effectiveness of the treatment being applied and change the behavior modification program, as needed, based on that data.
  6. Provide you with feedback and progress reports.
  7. Abide by the ethical practices of this profession.

See the difference?  A knowledgeable and ethical behaviorist will implement a program of Applied Behavioral Analysis, which is a structured methodology for changing a problem behavior by modifying the events or conditions that happen before and after the behavior takes place.    He might ask you make video recordings of your dog, keep a record of the behavioral incidents – in other words, take an active role in the treatment.

By maintaining a professional certification, your behaviorist is demonstrating that he is continuing his education and keeping knowledgeable of developments in this field, and abiding by stringent ethical standards.  Most importantly, he will abide by the Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive (LIMA) protocols for behavior modification.  I’ll get into the details of what this means in my next post, but for our purposes today it means that he will be primarily concerned with your dog’s physical, mental and emotional welfare.

Next:  What is LIMA?

  1. Chance, Paul.  (2006).  First Course in Applied Behavioral Analysis.  Long Grove, IL., Waveland Press