Why Dogs Bark and Lunge on the Leash

If I’d dig up all my clients’ files from the last 15 years, I bet half my dog book collection that on-leash aggression was the single most problem behavior owners hired me to help them with. On-leash aggression, or rather reactivity, is very common.
The typical explanation most laypeople, and some trainers, offer for the kind of barking and lunging that makes everyone’s head turn, frightens the targeted individual, and embarrasses the owner, is that the dog is protective, dominant, thinks he is in charge. It seems plausible: after all, the dog is moving forward, toward the target, and he is loud and threatening. However, “This is my space/mom/kid” - fill in the blanks – “get lost” is typically not the motivation that drives leash reactivity, and more enlightened dog pros know this.
If not dominance, what are the reasons for a dog flipping out? Well, there are several, rooted in following underlying emotions: fear, distress, excitement, frustration.

Failure to socialize, meaning that the pup didn't have enough exposure to a variety of environmental stimuli during the critical developmental stages, is generally blamed when a dog is fearful. Like the dominance angle, it makes a lot of sense to people and indeed, puppies raised in a bubble or in isolation can become neophobic: will fear and react to anything new. That is compounded when the odd novel encounter was unpleasant, and if the pup felt alone - didn't have a safe refuge zone and the loyalty of his owner.
But it is not just the unfamiliar that can cause dogs to overreact. Things known, but associated with discomfort, can provoke an undesired response as well.
Dogs make a blink assessment, based on their life experience, when presented with a stimulus.
Is it familiar?
Depending on the dog, if it is unfamiliar it is automatically perceived as a threat.
If it is familiar, does it announce: Pleasure? Or Discomfort? It is safe? Or not?
Whenever a dog anticipates discomfort, the stimulus is perceived as a threat; a threat to his safety, and that always causes distress. The barking, lunging and growling are the expressions, the symptoms of it.
Familiar stimuli are cues that predict a consequence, and dogs react to cues.

One might expect that dogs perceive other dogs generally as familiar. Shouldn’t a pooch identify another as a conspecific being? Innately “know” a dog as a dog?
Not necessarily: We have a vast variety of breeds that differ in structure and behavior, and if the pup only experienced his own, he might not recognize others as familiar, but as threats.
The other aspect to consider is that dogs to each other are providers: initially food, then entertainment, but also resource competitors. Dog-dog relationships can be complex, with each unfamiliar one a potential rival, and a familiar one a known rival, unless experienced otherwise. In my professional world, lunging and barking directed at dogs is more common than toward humans.

When a fearful dog barks and lunges, his motivation is to increase the distance, to drive the perceived threat away. Yet, many owners report that their pooch relaxes once he gets close enough to get a good sniff in. Why the obvious contradiction of wanting distance, but behaving better when it decreases? There is an explanation: Information reduces anxiety because it makes the unknown more familiar and predictable, and dogs’ preferred way to gather intelligence is through the nose. When there is no information forthcoming from the owner - information that, from the dog’s point of view, provides a copout, he has no choice but to get it from the other dog, and so he’ll attempt to get closer even though emotionally he wants him to disappear.

It is not always fear, though, why a dog acts out. Frustration plays a big role, and there are several reasons why a dog can be frustrated. One, again, has to do with information seeking.
Greeting rituals exist to find out more about a stranger while preventing and defusing potential conflict meetings. That is true with humans and dogs. When we shake hands, smile, bow or curtsy, and introduce ourselves, perhaps hand over a business card, the other understands that we don’t wish confrontation. Socially normal dogs first communicate from a distance: might raise or lower their bodies, lean back or forward, open their mouths or close it, lay back their ears, orient to the opponent directly or avert their eyes, and hold or wag their tails a certain way. Depending on the back-and-forth signals, at one point they might agree to sniff each other, typically in the head and/or anogenital region, to gather detailed information. Out-of-control barking, of course, isn’t part of normal greetings, but neither is being restricted from it. When the rather dense dude at the loop end of the leash prevents his pooch from behaving normally, perhaps even from communicating properly when he manipulates him with a head halter, frustration and its expressions result.
Fear is added to frustration if the dog is choke, prong, or worst of all, shock collar punished when he reacts; when he experiences pain for being curious, for wanting to communicate, for attempting to greet in a, for his species, appropriate way. In short, if a dog’s normal social behaviors and emotions are stifled with force, the stimulus, a dog or person, becomes a cue that triggers a stress response. Even if the consequence only happens sometimes, the dog will respond accordingly all the time.
Not only that, any detail that is part of an unpleasant event can become a cue, for example: the leash, the collar, the person who dished out the punishment, and the area where it happened.
When the leash in itself is an issue, the dog is already tense before the trigger even appears. Frenetic pulling and sniffing, and completely disconnecting from his person once outside, are common signs that the dog is distressed by virtue of being on the leash and/or outdoors.

Anything in a dog’s life that has a big impact leaves a big impression and provokes a big reaction in the future. If it is other dogs that were relevant events in the pooch’s history, he'll react whenever he sees/hears/smells another dog. Big deal suggests pressure and discomfort, but that is not always the case.
Dogs who repeatedly experience other dogs as primary facilitators of physical and mental entertainment, the ones who go to daycare or are chauffeured to the dog park and let loose once a day come to mind, have a certain expectation when they encounter a dog - any dog: fun and romping begins. If it doesn’t manifest because of the leash, or not quickly enough because the person who holds it is a slow-footed creature, the pooch, you guessed it, becomes frustrated, and the outburst can look very similar to the fearful dog’s, especially to a layperson.
And by the way, that kind of frustration, when something that’s expected doesn’t happen, is not reserved to people and dogs. During a “leave” exercise, a 12-week-old beagle pup soulfully bayed at me because he couldn’t access the treat I had tossed.

There is one more aspect that falls in the frustration compartment, and it is not fear or information seeking, and also not exactly play-motivated.
Some dogs, typically ones belonging to the herding group, have a heightened sensitivity to motion combined with an innate urge to control anything that moves. Steve White calls them: “Born with a badge on their chest”. These dogs have a strong natural drive to bring order back into the perceived chaos of animated dogs – or children, and become mighty agitated when the leash prevents them from doing their self-appointed job, but also often behave improperly when off the leash, at least from others’ point of view. Even though at times jokingly referred to as “fun police”,  some dogs and most humans have little tolerance for a pooch who stalks and chases; is locked, loaded and controlling. The bossy dog also doesn’t have much fun: He is easily overstimulated when presented with ongoing commotion in a busy dog park or daycare center, and overwhelmed with the task to organize and tone everyone down a few notches. A trained herding dog knows what to do and has the guidance of his handler - and is successful. A dog who has the drive but no training, the instinct but no clue, let loose on uncooperative other dogs and trailed by a yelling, irate owner, is not successful - and distressed as a result, and reactive on, but also off the leash.
On a little side note, the serious always-on-the-job dog can also be short-fused when another butts in while they work. In that context, the ball fetching Border collie who snaps at a space-encroaching retriever is not resource guarding, but annoyed by the interruption. I recently had an Australian cattle dog client where that was clearly the case. Believed to be dominant and aggressive, she was simply so focused on her human and what he had in his hand, and if he might throw it, that anybody who'd pop in her face got a sharp and clear: "Buzz Off!" Unfortunately, in an dog park or off-leash trail, it is exactly that kind of focus that gets other dogs' attention and provokes them to "check out what that dog is so interested in".

Frustrating situations make dogs irritable and pumped, and when confronted regularly with the triggers, the cues, they become sensitized: have a heightened sensitivity to predictors, motion and sound, probably also scent, and act more and more out of control from greater and greater distances. The collar and leash, because of the restraint and discomfort they represents, amplify the problem.
The question one must ask when a dog barks and lunges is what he expects to happen next. Play? A job? Emotional discomfort? Physical pain? That expectation is based on the dog’s experience, and is what dictates future behavior. Expectation dictates behavior.
I bet what you all want to know next is what to do about it. I will tell you – in the next post, but I’ll give you a hint right now: neither clipping the leash off, nor allowing yourself being pulled closer to the trigger, is it. Oh, and commanding the dog in a sit position and coercing him to watch you isn’t it either.

My Answers to Brad Pattison's Interview with PetLife Magazine

Okay, I said I wasn’t going to post anything in August, but a recent PetLife Magazine interview with dog trainer Brad Pattison urged me to put my fingers to the laptop and share what was going through my mind as I read it.
In case you don’t know, Brad Pattison is the actor of a TV show called “At the End of my Leash”, and  someone who also trains and certifies others. So, he is one of media darlings who influences many: mostly layowners, but also people who wanna be trainers and sign up for his 6-week course.
Unless you find reading what Brad says a waste of your time, which could be a strong possibility, here is the interview.
http://petslifemagazine.ca/petslife-interview-with-dog-trainer-brad-pattison/

And here is how I would have answered, had PetLife interviewed me.
Q = question and My A = My Answer – in case you’re wondering.
Here is goes.

Q: Did you grow up with animals?
My A: No, at least not with dogs. But I always wanted one, always felt a certain kinship with dogs. In lieu of it, I pretended to be a dog when I played “house”, and made books my friends.

Q: What inspired you to become a dog trainer?
My A: Yes, my love for dogs, but more so because when finally was able to have one, I made a total mess of it. I did some research into breeds and breeders, but certainly not enough and we ended up with the wrong breed from the wrong breeder. When problems became obvious, we sought help and got exactly the kind of advice Brad Pattison gives, and implementing it made matters worse, things escalated and eventually we had our first dog Cedric euthanized. I never wanted that to ever happen again, so I began to learn about dogs; learned lots from a variety of people, and many dogs, before I let myself loose to work with other people’s pooches. But I also wasn’t broke and needed to make money, so there was no pressure to rush things.

Q: Did you have a teacher or a mentor you learned from or apprenticed with?
My A: My first volunteer job that had to do with dogs was with the Calgary Humane Society, and they offered many learning opportunities I took full advantage of. After that I attended numerous seminars and workshops, attended classes with my own dogs, did field research, read books, watched DVDs, it’s all posted on my website. By the way, to a lesser extent I still learn from others. Learning never stops.

Q: Are there other trainers out there that you admire?
My A: Yes! But not Cesar Millan. The big names for me include Suzanne Clothier, Patricia McConnell, Steve White, but there are many others, including local people I admire for their superb handling skills, or expertise in dog sports, or how they breed. I agree with Pattison that not one single person is the best. I don’t think, though, that Cesar Millan could teach him something, but I think that Victoria Stillwell could, rather than the other way around.

Q: Were there any books that you read that helped you along the way?
My A: I read too many books to list, including body language books and books that are about behavior, but not specifically dogs. You can find some on my webpage http://www.voice4dogs.com/dog-books.html, but it hasn’t been updated for some time, so there are many I read since. The latest ones are BAT by Grisha Stewart, and Insight of a Dog by Alexandra Horowitz, and Never in Anger by Jean L. Briggs is the next one on my shelf to read. That one is not about dogs, but about an anthropologist who had an insight scoop of the daily life and behavioral patterns of the Utku Eskimos in the Arctic, and their way of treating their children and how they handle deviations from desired behaviors.
So yes, learning never stops.
By the way, I also read Cesar Millan’s three books and watched four complete seasons of Dog Whisperer, so that I know what I am talking about. Except excerpts, I never read Pattison’s stuff, but I seen some of his At the End of My Leash episodes.

Q: How did you become a behaviorist, and do you consider yourself a dog behaviorist?
My A: Like Brad Pattison, I don’t have a degree in any of the behavioral sciences, so I omit the ‘ist, even though legally I could get away with it as long as I don’t call myself a “Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist”, but I respect people that do have a degree.
I like to call myself a Dog Behavior Expert, and if someone, like a veterinarian, refers to me as a behaviorist, I ask them not to.

Q: Have you taken any classes or courses on animal behavior?
My A: See my webpage http://www.voice4dogs.com/behavior-expert.html

Q: What classes did you take with your own dogs on your road to becoming a dog trainer?
My A:  I took: puppy, obedience, Rally O’, Freestyle, herding. Unlike Pattison, I never got kicked out of class, but I left on my own account because I was unwilling to hit my dog under the chin with a flat hand for wanting to come to me.

Q: What led you to creating your own training certification?
My A: I don’t have that. Right now, in an unregulated industry, each school and organization can come up with its own certification program, so it doesn’t really mean much – or at least is no guaranty that the trainer is top notch and able to help you.

Q: How would you describe your training method?
My A: It’s an easy question to answer, and has nothing to do with titles, as he claims.
I just talked about my methods in my last posts: positive reinforcement/negative punishment, emphasis on relationship, management to decrease fear/anxiety and set the dog up for success, conditioning and counterconditioning, distance threshold, functional rewards, managing. No clicker. No force. It is really humane and recommended by the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.
Who are the pet industry professionals that recommend his methods?
If he allows dogs to be dogs, why does he correct many of their natural behaviors?

The next question is N/A because I don’t have a course where I certify others.

Q: Do you have any credentials and certifications?
My A: I’ll answer that question the same way Pattison does, minus the CTE certification. I would never attend his course, nor would I let someone he certified even look at my dog, let alone hand over the leash.

Q: Do you have a preferred breed to work with?
My A: I work with any breed and mixed breed, any age, and love it, but admit that I have an affinity for herding dogs.

Q: Why do you have such a preference to the Martingale collar?
My A: Well, I don’t. Not that it is an awful tool, and yes, it can be the safest one to use for canine Houdinis, but my favorites are the Freedom Harness at www.wiggleswagswhiskers.com and the Sense-Ation Harness at www.softouchconcepts.com.
In any case, the Martingale collar is NOT meant to lift a dog’s front paws off the ground to make him sit, like you see him do in the first video clip.

Q: What about the other training methods you did disagree with?
My A: Of course dogs understand the “language” of rewards – all animals do. And they also understand human words – or let’s say they can learn the meaning of a word if people teach it. Has Pattison ever met a dog in his longtime professional career who goes ape when he hears the word: walky, leash, carride, ball. Ball is a big one for many dogs. People have to spell it, and spell it backwards, and the dog still understands. What about come, sit, down. Mommy. Daddy. Dogs can detect relevant words in a sentence of several irrelevant ones.
Dogs understand words when we teach them, but also when we use them consistently. He should try that sometime.

Q: Have you heard of Chicken Camp? What are your thoughts on this?
My A: Yes, of course, but I am not surprised that Pattison never heard of it. It is great for learning technical skills. Although I have never attended one, it is absolutely applicable in the dog industry. Behavioral laws are universal to all species. The fact that Pattison never heard of chicken camp indicates to me that he isn’t really that interested in behavior, but rather in control and mindless obedience.

Q: Would you be willing to attend a chicken camp?
My A: Sure.

Q: Have you ever trained an animal other than a dog?
My A: A little bit – our neighbor’s cat. And what a surprise (sarcastic): positive reinforcement worked with him too.

Q: Was that anything like training dogs?
My A: The kitty had a shorter attention span.

Q: Tell us about your experiences doing canine rescue operations with your CTEs.
My A: Although I volunteered for humane societies and helped rescue consistently throughout my career, I never did anything that got such media attention.

Q: How did the TV shows come about?
My A: I don’t have a TV show, but I am on CBC Radio One about every second month to answer call-in questions. CBC called me for an opinion on something dog related in the province I live in, and it evolved from there.
I know for sure though that I would be myself if I had a TV show, not someone my friends wouldn’t want to watch. Perhaps that’s why I don’t have a TV show – what you see is what you get, and that’s obviously not good enough to reel in big ratings, which is the only thing media really cares about – not credentials, not certification, not the welfare of dogs.

Q: Tell us about your time with the show. Was it a positive experience?
My A: I have a lot of fun with CBC Radio One. I get to help owners, and with the methods I recommend, it makes life better for the dogs, too.

Q: What are some of the more memorable families?
My A: I don’t have a show, but clients, and many are memorable. Some started as clients and became friends – they are memorable.
My happiest moment is when I see a dog labeled dominant and punished for misdeeds in the past improve, because he was anxious and fearful all along, and his people followed my advice and created an environment that allows him to function better.
Lately, I worked with a wonderful Border collie, an agility competitor, and that is memorable because it gave me a deeper insight into a sport I don’t know too much about.
Complex issues are memorable because they propel me to learn more.
And timid of strangers dogs who choose to be near me – gravitate to me voluntarily, without a leash or a jerk or force, are memorable. A dog wanting to work with me is so much more rewarding than one seeking distance. Another thing I suggest Pattison try sometime.

Q: Has there ever been any follow-up with the families from the show?
My A: Via my clients’ exclusive online forum, the humans I worked with can be in touch with me as often as they like or need, and for the lifetime of the dog. Many take advantage of that.

Q: How do you feel about having such vocal critics?
My A: Since I am not so much in the public eye, I don’t have to deal with critics to the degree Pattison does. The fact that I don’t cause a dog to yelp in front of the camera, and that I actually understand behavior, might have something to do with it as well. That said, of course not everyone agrees with the way I do things, and I am fine with that. Water off a duck's back.

Q: You have said that you would welcome an open conversation with your critics to answer questions and help them understand your methods. Your critics say that you have never given them the opportunity for such a situation and don’t respond to their online requests. What are your thoughts?
My A: Well, this is another one that doesn’t really apply to me because I do answer online requests. I am always, always open to discuss things online, on the phone, or in person. Always! With clients, that is. In fact, I welcome questions and arguments, because it allows me to explain things a bit better, perhaps in a different way. Someone asking a question tells me that they haven’t quite understood yet what I am after, and the onus is on me to clarify the whys and hows.
I also enjoy a healthy discussion with fellow professionals, and can agree to disagree on some things. But I have no time for someone who tries to convince me that dogs can’t be trained without force, compulsion, corrections, or the threat of it, which is intimidation.

Q: The next four questions relate to four video clips you can watch, and then read his explanations and points of view.
My A: Here are mine.
First clip: Regardless what euphemism Pattison chooses to use, what I saw was a dog hit across the nose. For what? From my viewpoint, when he was on his way back to his owner, so for wanting to return to his owner. My hunch is that Pattison lost his cool, patience, and therefore hit the dog. Telling the owner that she annoys him indicates that as well. I never said that to a client. If that were to slip out of my mouth, it’d be a sign that I need to work on self-control. How can he expect impulse control from a dog if he doesn't have it.
By the way, I also don’t believe that a dog must obey every idiot who can hold leash. The dog should pay attention to the owners and that’s it. Owner attention is paramount, but for it to be reliable it must be voluntary. I teach my clients how to get their dog to want to stay connected with them, not because he is jerked back or “nicked”. I work on attention first, and then built in distractions incrementally. That’s is setting owner and dog up for success, and success builds on success.
Second clip: Is much of the same, and yes, the deaf dog is giving fearful signals when he avoids the bicycles. Fear is in my opinion also the reason why he keeps Pattison in check; afraid to make a mistake he’d be corrected for. Alas, he made one anyway by forging ahead, and promptly got yanked back.
Third clip: Is just silly – sad silly. Pattison is running so close by the trees, or changing the direction abruptly, that the dog has no choice but move to the other side of it. Gotta give the dog a chance man. I’d like to try that with him. Put him on a leash, run closely past obstacles not giving him any information what I am about to do, and see what he does to avoid running into them.
Fourth clip: Hm, I never had to put a neighborhood block under lockdown to work with a dog – and I never met a human who is fast enough to catch up with a dog whose intention is to evade or bite.
Oh, and one more thing. Moving away from something is flight, not moving toward it. I actually saw that same mistake in one of the Cesar Millan's episodes when a German shepherd who wanted nothing more but to get away from him was described as an attack dog.
Oh, and another thing. Of course a deaf dog doesn’t hear the sound of a clicker, but one can most certainly train a deaf dog with positive reinforcement. A couple of my friends did: their deaf from birth dog competes in agility and even goes for off leash walks. It’s all about voluntary attention my friend.

Q: Some of your critics claim that you’ve been sued or criminally charged due to your training methods. Have you?
My A: I never have. And I don’t muzzle my clients. They don’t have to sign a contract that they won’t publicly talk about our sessions. Does he?

Q: One of the claims you have made was that clicker training or treat training kills dogs. How did you come to this opinion?
My A: The same claim was made recently in a blog post that circulated on FB. Of course it is not so. I am sure anybody could come up with an anecdotal story of a dog who was NOT clicker and treat trained and was hit by a car. And as far as obesity goes, use part of the dog’s daily ration and have her earn it. Duh. Or reduce the amount of treats from the daily ration. It’s really not that difficult to comprehend.

Q: How do you feel about dogs being cuddled, coming up on couches, or sleeping on the owner’s bed?
My A: It totally can be a daily thing. In my house it is a daily thing. I love having my dogs near me. I feed them, I walk them, I open the door to let them in or out, I facilitate their basic needs. Guess what?  They are already dependent. They are dependent by virtue of being owned by a species who has bank accounts, opposable thumbs, and a more or less well developed cognitive brain.

Q: Do you believe that treats are bad for dogs?
My A: No, but I agree that a dog who has learned how to sit doesn’t need a treat for every sit, but that’s not what positive trainers do. I explained using treats, or rather applying positive reinforcement, in my last three posts.

Q: Why are multiple toys bad for dogs?
My A: They aren’t. Multiple toys, novel toys, food toys, all in an accessible designated place, offer mental stimulation, prevent boredom and anxiety, and is exactly what prevents a dog from chewing up inappropriate things.

Q: Do you think home cooking is best for dogs?
My A: I agree with Pattison. Feeding right is an individual thing and home cooking one of the ways.

Q: The next question, and another one further down, challenges Pattison to define terms commonly used in dog training and behavior circles, for example: operant conditioning, counter-conditioning, LAT, Premack Principle, primary and secondary reinforcer, aversives, calming signals and more.
My A: Defining these terms goes beyond the scope of this post, but I have addressed some in previous posts, and continue to explain others in following ones.
It might not be ignorant to talk over layowners and clients’ heads, but it can be arrogant – I agree with him on that. The thing is though, that when I claim expertise, I have to know what these terms mean, and how to use them as tools in a toolbox full of methods to change and influence behavior. I don’t have to lord them over my clients, but I have to know them, and explain the one or the other, as applicable, in a way they can understand. I think Albert Einstein said that if you can’t explain something in simple terms, you haven’t understood the concept - or something like that.
And by the way, the theories don’t come from dog-dog relationships and interactions, but the rules also apply to dogs.

Q: A lot of critics say your methods go against modern science and peer-reviewed scientific research. What are your thoughts on that?
My A: My methods don’t, but his do, which he admits. I agree that real life doesn’t happen in a Skinner box, but again, knowing how behavior works gives one the tools to influence it. To me, the rank-reduction talk is a sure-tell sign that the person has no clue how behavior works, and to boot, knows little about dogs as a species.

Q: In your new puppy book you advocate pinching a puppy’s ear until he yelps as a training strategy. Why do you believe using this method is preferable to alternative methods that do not cause pain and are scientifically validated?
My A: I would never advocate that regardless if I see it used in the service dog industry. It is archaic, and was used (likely still is) as a way to train field dogs to hold a dumbbell. The ear pinch caused the pup to scream, he opened his mouth, the dumbbell was shoved in and at the same time the pinching stopped, so holding the dumbbell became a good thing for the dog. In operant conditioning it’s called negative reinforcement. There is nothing good about it. Sadly Pattison doesn’t learn from experts who don’t use pain to train. Perhaps he could go to chicken camp.

Q: The next question is about “nicking” the dog’s nose, and I already addressed that – and him confusing flight with fight/chase.
The question after that asks about pinning a dog, and he answers it with benefits of rank reduction. My answer: There are no benefits, but plenty of side effects, including biting hands.

Q: What is your view on BSL?
My A: I am against BSL, but agree that there are dogs that shouldn’t be in a pet home, and those dogs can be found in any breed. So, am against BSL, but not entirely a supporter of No-Kill.

Q: The next question deals with a statement by the Ontario SPCA what to look for in a dog trainer, and follows it with his methods not fitting the bill.
My A: All SPCAs, rescue groups, and veterinarians should follow such a statement, and many do. Nowadays, there shouldn’t be any professional who recommends someone who intentionally inflicts pain as a consequence of a behavior, or to elicit one. Should isn’t reality though. There are a number of local vets who send their clients to see the shock collar trainer, and some rescue folks who work with punitive trainers, or punitive trainers who rescue.
On the other hand, our provincial SPCA is committed to modern, stress-free techniques, and of course some veterinarians and rescue groups are as well.

Q: The next question challenges Pattison to a training competition, and he said he’d be up for it but questions who decides the rules and if treats are used.
My A: Who cares? If the clicker trainer is more successful that’d be proof, wouldn’t it? That said, I, personally, would not participate and for sure not downtown Vancouver. A competition like that could put a lot of pressure on the dog, and fear of punishment can be a powerful motivator, so Pattison, to the untrained eye, might actually look better in that moment. A shutdown dog also can look well behaved to an untrained eye. A competition would have to unfold over a period of time and a number of things must be evaluated to determine who is more successful in the long run, for example if the dog is self-directed in his good behavior, or if he behaves for all family members and not just for the effective punisher.

Q: Do you think your methods use positive punishment?
My A: Mine don’t, but his do, even though he doesn’t think so. But then he also didn’t define operant conditioning, did he?

Q: A reader explains that her dog can’t be on a collar – any collar, because of a past injury, and asks what to do in that case.
My A: We’ll work on a body harness. That simple. I often work with a body harness like the Sense-Ation or Freedom Harness anyway. I am neither clicker nor collar dependent.

Q: The next two questions deal with certification and government regulation, and I already answered that earlier. Some uniformed regulation in a now unregulated industry would be great. I’d like to see that.

Q: This one deals with an excerpt of his book Synergy, in which he describes the up to one-hour pinning exercise and the expressions a dog can display.
My A: Advice like that creates aggression, anxiety, avoidance and a number of behavioral problems that weren’t there before. In my opinion, it is abuse. I feel sad for every dog whose owners deliberately, and repeatedly, cause him shriek, thrash, bite, urinate and defecate. Imagine doing that to a person? To a child?
When a dog defecates and urinates, whines, avoids, tries to get away, it is fear. Damn well it is fear, which answers the next question.
And no, fear body language is not different in every dog. Can he tell when a person is fearful? When one screams and cries, avoids and voids, retreats and runs, hyperventilates, breaks out in sweat. Are those fear – panic really, expressions universal to all people? Of course. Why would it be any different with dogs? Stating that is ludicrous, especially coming from someone who claims to have studied dogs for, how long?

Enough of it. People that criticize punitive trainers are often accused of being envious of their fame and money. I can’t speak for others, but that is so not why I am critical. I have nothing against him personally, but the methods he uses, in my opinion, hurt dogs, harm and destroy the relationship with their humans, create side-effects including aggression, and yes, are inhumane. I feel sorry for every dog who is unlucky enough to fall into his hands, or one of his CTEs.

If You Punish Your Dog, Make it Negative

My chosen method how I train and relate with dogs is positive reinforcement/negative punishment combination (plus plenty of other things that are in a positive trainer’s toolbox). Trainers worth their money know exactly what I mean, but laypeople often don’t. Folks that follow my writings regularly  might even be a bit puzzled that I put the word “punishment” in my mouth.
Behaviorally speaking, punishment isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It means that a behavior decreases in frequency and intensity, eventually ceases. And negative means that something is removed. Applied, we remove something the dog wants to make a behavior we don’t want disappear.
World-renowned veterinarian, behaviorist and puppy guru Ian Dunbar illustrates negative punishment wonderfully: Whenever he plays with a pup, and the babe is too rough with his teeth, Dunbar steps out of the exercise pen. By removing himself, he also removes what the puppy seeks – social interaction. The removing part is the “negative” aspect, and the goal that the pup won’t bite down that hard the next time, the “punishment” one. Since the pup is still learning, he will get another chance momentarily, and if he blows it the person steps out again, and so on.
Ian Dunbar uses the same approach to stop his dogs from making a ruckus in the house. When their roughhousing becomes annoying, he yells “outside” – threatening them with being figuratively kicked in the yard, and because his dogs rather stay inside with him, they tone it down.
Negative punishment is effective if indeed, in the future, the undesired behavior decreases, and is replaced with a better one: the pup becoming softer and more self-controlled in play, the rowdy dogs toning it down a bit inside the house.
Although in real life negative punishment works, one must use it wisely. Let’s say your dog is hogging the place next to you on the couch and growls when his canine cohabitant wants in on the loving. Intuition dictates that the grump should lose his favorite spot as a consequence for behaving undesirably, but in that scenario there is a drawback: If punished, the already competitively feeling pooch will dislike his furry companion even more and will increasingly become more suspicious. And not just regarding the couch or bed, but in other situations as well, and from a greater distance. Although the growling might stop, the anxiety and/or aggression is still there, and if you confirm to the offending dog that the other’s appearance is indeed bad news, true animosity can form. Punishment, negative and positive = inflicting pain, although intuitive, would be counterproductive.

Equally counterintuitive to not punishing a growling dog is, for many owners, the advice to ignore a bad behavior. And there are situation where ignoring is also counterproductive, despite the operant conditioning law that states that behaviors ignored become extinct.
The problem is that life with a dog doesn’t happen in the controlled conditions of a laboratory. In real life, just because you ignore a behavior doesn’t mean that it is ignored. Something or someone in the environment might reinforce it, plus there are natural drives that are intrinsically reinforcing.
Let me explain that. When I teach “leave-it”, I have the dog leashed so that he can’t access the treat I tossed out. There is only one way he can get it, or an even better reward: he has to completely disengage from the loot on the floor and connect with me. I don’t help, don’t give the dog any clues. He has to come up with the solution, and I can wait until he does exactly because I control the situation, and therefore can ignore any pulling, barking or staring at the treat – any and all behaviors I don’t want when I say “leave-it”. Don’t worry: it is not as mean an exercise as it sounds - it takes most dogs only about 20 seconds to figure it out.
It is a different story when a dog barks out the window at a passerby. That I can’t ignore, because the person’s natural moving along is reinforcing if the dog wishes distance. In addition, barking itself feels good to some dogs, beagles and Shelties come to mind; it is in their genes, intrinsically reinforcing. The result of me ignoring the barking in that situation is that the barking will worsen.
In that case, and any other one when the dog’s undesired behavior is reinforced by something that is beyond my control, my choice of action is to interrupt the behavior I don’t want and direct the pooch into one I do want.
The interrupter is verbal, for the obvious reason that a dog focused on something else but me will not see my hand signal.  “Oops” is the word many trainers use. My dogs understand “ah”,  “knock it” and “oh yoohoo”.  Whatever word it is, it should never be a warning sound that announces your wrath, but information for the dog that he’s strutting the wrong trail, and that he should pay attention. Once he does, I guide him into a behavior I like better, and he likes a whole lot too. That the new, better behavior feels good is important, because then it will become the one the dog will choose in the future.
That’s the plan anyway, and typically it works - other than that the very clever pooch, when bored, might deliberately use the undesired behavior to elicit an “oops” and the followed treat or game. Our Aussie Davie mastered that. On an off leash walk, whenever she felt snubbed, she’d find some deer poop to sniff, eyeballing me from the corner of her eye, checking if I see her and interrupt her behavior, so that she could obey and reap the reward of fetching the ball or finding tossed treats.
Thinking dogs amuse me, and so I never minded, but it can be a problem if such brilliance involves another animal. One of my clients has a sweet-natured collie/retriever cross who “mauls” the cat to get his owner’s attention. Never aggressively, he holds her with his paws and gums with his mouth, and although the kitty doesn’t struggle or vocalize in distress, my client feels that she is not always a willing participant, and so she stops the pooch with a “no”, and he promptly releases, gets a treat, just to catch the cat again to elicit another. In that case, I would not wait till he has the cat in his mouth, but condition a new response when he sees her.

Repetition creates a new habit, and the stimulus that once triggered a bad behavior can become the cue for the new one. Anything is possible. The sight of a deer became Davie’s cue to play a chase game with me, and not the deer.
Especially during the learning stages, and depending on the dog’s degree of motivation, you want to redirect into a prolonged activity. With a dog who’s fixated on the Sunday dinner ham, an “oops” followed by a piece of kibble when he stops ogling it, won’t cut it. If the redirected interaction is too brief, the dog will be left in a mental “now what?” vacuum, and return to the last behavior, or stimulus, he found important.
The prolonged alternate activity can be anything the dog likes, and is not limited to food, but can include food. Should include food. Don’t be afraid to use food. It is handy, and most dogs are motivated by something they can devour or gnaw on. There is nothing worse that a work-driven dog not motivated by food in a pet home. He will forever pester you to be on task together: to play Frisbee, or train, or locate birds, and you can’t even redirect him into quietly emptying a Kong or finding “hidden” kibble or cookies.

So, if you catch your dog doing something you dislike, instead of: “no” ignore, punish or even click and treat when he stops his behavior, try: don’t do this, but do that instead.
Ensure that the dog receives a lot of social attention when he redirects and behaves desirably.
Interrupting and redirecting is also your best shot with a dog that is compulsive. I don’t mean to trivialize a complex issue; of course stereotypies have many facets that need to be considered and addressed, but studies with people locked in a behavior showed promising success when they are redirected into a different activity. Not just any activity – it had to be one they liked.

Disciplining someone for wrongdoings is deeply ingrained in our culture. It is intuitive and emotional, and regarding dogs there are two contributing factors: we expect that they are grateful for the care we provide, and we have an innate fear of teeth and worry that the pooch might harm us if we slack off. Not surprising then that people find it easy to follow the “rewarding the good behaviors” part of training, but have difficulty not disciplining him for his misdeeds. But withholding access to something the dog wants until he pleases you, and removing something the dog cherishes as a consequence of unwanted behaviors, should be your dog’s worst punishment. Humans don’t have to correct. Really.
Neither negative punishment nor interrupting a behavior is oppressive, but constructive. It effectively influences behavior and has a great impact on the dog without the risk of instilling or increasing fear, anxiety or avoidance. It fosters social cooperative bonding, learning, and voluntary attention and obedience. Don’t correct, but redirect. It is absolutely possible to have a well-mannered dog who has never been corrected.

I'll be focusing on other dog stuff in August, so the next post won’t be published till September. It'll deal with a problem so many owners are struggling with: barking and lunging on the leash.

Common Mistakes that can Delay Training Success

The idea behind positive reinforcement is to cause dogs to repeat actions humans desire, and in time have a repertoire of behaviors that make them good companions and canine citizens. It is a realistically achievable goal. In theory, positive reinforcement is as effective as positive punishment, which in operant conditioning is the delivery of something unpleasant to stop an unwanted action from recurring. More importantly, positive reinforcement strengthens the relationship between dog and owner, dog and his social group, and generally dog and the environment, while positive punishment comes with a high probability of ruining it. I argue that one cannot have true companionship with a dog if one chooses to train with force and pain. In addition, punitive training suffocates the dog’s welfare and potentially leads to side effects like aggression, anxiety and avoidance. It is well documented, and I talked about that in the past.
In laboratory settings and scientific studies, positive reinforcement leads to reliable and self-directed  behavior quickly, but dog owners aren’t scientists or savvy trainers. Dog owners come with diverse levels of experience, skill and know-how, and some are completely new to dogs and reward-based training. Even though neither is very complicated, they make mistakes, like anybody new to anything would. The good news is that with positive reinforcement mistakes won’t have long-lasting or irreparable negative consequences, but it can delay progress and cause enough frustration in the impatient person to give up on the concept altogether.
Here are the most common errors I see people, including some trainers, make.

Your intended reward is the dog’s punishment.
Not only can a pooch feel “Meh” about a reward, but it can be perceived as an aversive, and when that happens you get the exact opposite of what you’re aiming for: when your reward is the dog’s punishment, the behavior you meant to happen again actually decreases. A perfect example is taps on the head or hearty pats along the ribcage. Most dogs don’t like it and shy away.
If your dog avoids or refuses a reward, it isn’t a reward in his mind and won’t reinforce the behavior you are after. Don’t offer it again if he doesn’t want it. And that can include food. Don’t shove a treat into your dog’s mouth if he wants distance to a worrisome trigger, or play ball, or read peemail.
Not long ago I had a cattle dog client who perfectly demonstrated that: he brought the ball right back into the owner’s hand, who promptly gave him a pat on the head, with the result that the dog first snapped at the hand, and then refused to bring the ball all the way in the next time. The dog was labeled aggressive and erratic, when in fact he just acted that way as a result of being “punished” for bringing the ball back. When we “rewarded” him with throwing the ball again without delay, he stopped snapping and eagerly retrieved the toy all the way in.
The reverse also happens in many households: your punishment is the dog’s reward. The best example for that is the inadvertent reinforcement when the jumping dog is pushed off. That is attention, and from the dog’s point of view perhaps even an invitation for a wrestling game, and exactly what he wanted. Jumping is reinforced and therefore will happen again.
So, the take-away message is that a reward is what the dog wants, or it won’t reinforce the behavior you are after. Be creative. You don’t always have to be elaborate, although sometimes your pizzazz can greatly impress your dog, but know what he wants and use it to your advantage.
Right now, on walks, Will wants me to get rid of the pesky deer flies that bury themselves in her coat. I comply and pluck them off, but each time before I do I say “halt”, which in our world means don’t move and wait till I get to you. Her halting on command is powerfully reinforced with me killing the insects, plus we have many naturally occurring opportunities to practice, and because of both I can use the command in situations when it matters to me that Will stops in her tracks.


Your timing is off.
It means that your dog doesn’t form an association between behavior and reward. Especially for fleeting moments, a reward marker, for example a clicker, helps because it bridges action and reinforcement and clarifies to the dog exactly which behavior made the reward happen.
Along that train of thought, holding a grudge, although understandably human, is counterproductive.
If you are still upset about the dug-up flowerbed and gruff when your dog comes straight away when you called him out of the planters, you punish a perfect recall and he might not be so keen to return to you in the future.
It is the last action that counts, and if it is one you like, reinforce it. There is a hitch though: when a bad and a good behavior are lumped together, so when two actions occur very close in time with the first being undesired, but the second reinforced, there is a risk that the dog connects both and will always perform them in sequence. The best example is a dog who lovingly celebrates your homecoming with jumping, but a flash-moment later is sitting – either self-corrected or obeyed your command. Of course you want to reinforce the sit, but not the jump/sit combination. I deal with that by keeping the dog mentally engaged for a few seconds while she is in a sit, followed by asking her to do something else desirable, which I then reinforce. In other words, I give the sit some attention, but then invite the dog into a short, fun, interaction I like and that is rewarding, and/or rewarded. After that I inform the pooch with the “all-done” word and hand signal that I’m about to disengage and that she’s on her own for entertainment for a while.

Your reinforcement schedule is off.
Without getting too technical, reinforcements have to happen in rapid succession, right away, when the dog learns something new.
When the dog gets it, connects the dots between cue and a certain action – a good rule of thumb is the dog complying instantly and correctly 9 out of 10 times when prompted, but also deliberately offering the behavior to elicit a reward - you have two options: If it is the end goal behavior, continue to reinforce randomly, without a fixed pattern. That cements the behavior. An end behavior would be reliably coming when called. It doesn’t get any better than a dog returning to you enthusiastically. You should always acknowledge him for being so accommodating, but you don’t have to toss a handful of treats his way each time.
If it is an approximation, so just a step toward your goal, stop reinforcing altogether and raise the bar by a small increment. For example, if you shape a lie down on a mat, glancing at the mat, or having one paw on it, is not the final behavior, but you must reinforce each step constantly until the dog gets it, and once he does, so once you have the 9 out of 10 times reliability or he seeks out the mat when he is bored and proudly puts one paw on it, stop reinforcing that step and raise the criteria to bring you closer to your end goal, and then you reinforce that constantly until he gets it, and raise the bar again, and so on.

You are not orchestrating enough opportunities for your dog to earn a reward.
In other words, you are not practicing enough. If you can’t find reward-worthy behaviors often, lower your criteria and/or change the situation for the dog so that he can succeed.
The more you do it, the more the action you are training becomes a habit, and then your dog has one more good one up his sleeve. Habit means that the behavior learned with the help of operant conditioning becomes classical conditioned. Steve White, one of my favorite dog gurus, says: “ Anytime you use operant conditioning, Pavlov is sitting on your shoulder. And that is one dude you really want on your team.”

Not managing the dog wisely before a behavior is solid, thus setting him up for failure.
Don’t put your dog’s favorite bed near the picture window when barking at passersby is a problem. Their moving along is reinforcing for your dog and maintains barking at the window. If he has opportunity to do that all day long,  the little bit of “quiet” practice you do when you are home won’t have much of an effect.

Communicating unclearly.
For example using the same command for two behaviors, or not enforcing a command.
In that category also falls making unreasonable requests and raising the bar too quickly – in other words, being impatient and asking for more than the dog can do, but also chaining behaviors together before each one is solidly learned separately. If you work on a position stay, reinforce when the dog is still in position. If you call him out of position and reward him when he comes to you, you are practicing come, not the position stay. I will write more about command clarity sometime in the future, but for now remember that dogs are brilliant, but not mind readers. Say what you mean and reinforce when your dog does what you say. If you can’t enforce what you say, don’t say it.

Taking good behaviors for granted. Dogs offer behaviors we like all the time: don’t ignore, but capture and reinforce them. Don’t ignore the dog calmly chewing a bone on his blanket, and give attention when he steals your leather Italian pump.

If you made mistakes, don’t beat yourself up. The beauty of force and punitive free training is that you can’t really mess things up too badly. Positive reinforcement can be adjusted without creating unwanted and unexpected fallout. But if you can avoid making those common errors in the future, you’ll accelerate your training success and reach your goal faster.
When I see clients, positive reinforcement is a big part of the consultation, and the humans receive all the information they need to do it effectively. Just about everyone I meet gets it. It makes sense to them and is aligned with how they feel: most people don’t want to hurt their dog.  Yet, at times and typically after a prolonged pause, I hear the question: “Yes - but how do I correct my dog when he misbehaves?” Indeed, how do we punish? Or should we?
That, I will sort out for you in the next post. Look for it the end of July.

Positive Reinforcement: The Fasted Route to a Well-Behaved Dog

I am glad that I know a thing or two about dogs for two reasons: I get to work with my favorite species almost daily, and that constant overflow of, often contradictory, information how to successfully live with dogs doesn’t confuse me.
Dog owners must be puzzled these days. Thanks to TV and social media everyone is a dog expert and has an opinion not shy to share with anybody who wants to hear it – or not. As a result, there are many misconceptions circulating, and one is that positive reinforcement doesn’t work, or only with mild dogs.
Positive reinforcement is one of the four quadrants of operant conditioning, and it states that reinforcement creates behavior. In operant conditioning positive is not a judgment label, but simply means that a consequence is added after an action. Law means that it is not an opinion, but a scientifically studied, proven and documented fact. Positive reinforcement is my preferred method to train and treat dogs. Let me explain why.

An organism’s actions are driven by motivation: simplified, to access something that feels good or avoid something that feels bad. The dog is no exception. Newsflash! Dogs function like every other animal, including humans. They want and seek pleasure. It’s a fact, but one that clashes with humans’ infantile belief that a dog’s nature is to love unconditionally regardless how we treat him. Wishful thinking. Relationships between humans are conditional, and dogs behave in the same normal mammalian fashion.
Owners that refuse to facilitate pleasure have to inflict pain to get obedience. It is either-or, and in both cases it has to impress the dog or it won’t work. A lame “good dog” is just as ineffective in increasing a wanted behavior as a limp choke collar correction is in curbing an unwanted one. There is an analogy floating around for a long time that illustrates that brilliantly: The speeding ticket one.

People who exceed the posted speed limit are fined, but we all know that that punishment doesn’t deter folks to drive faster than permitted in the future. They might slow down for the moment, perhaps even for a little while, but the good behavior doesn’t last. Fines only teach people to be vigilantly on the lookout for cops to avoid getting caught again.
If fines don’t work, what might be a more effective solution? Well, we could manufacture cars that won’t drive faster than 100 clicks an hour - the dog equivalent is lifelong micromanaging. That is indeed the method some trainers choose: They advise to snap on a control tool, for example a shock collar, as soon as the dog is released out of his crate, and to take it off as the last thing before he’s put back in. I am not making this up.
How appealing is a preset slow car to you? A dog always controlled unless contained? Personally, I don’t want either, and thankfully, there is another way.
Let’s hypothesize what would happen if, instead of fining speeders, drivers who obey traffic laws received a reward. If cops were to randomly hand over 50-dollar bills, would lead foot ease up on the gas pedal? It depends if he needed the money and why he was driving too fast. A millionaire, or someone who is late for an important job interview, likely wouldn't, but I bet that overall rewarding good drivers instead of punishing bad ones would be more successful. In addition, that approach has two really great side effects: people would seek out law enforcement and not avoid it - that underlying queasy feeling when we see a cop car would disappear, and doing the speed limit would become a self-directed behavior, independent of surveillance. We’d try hard to comply not to miss out on the loot that might be lurking around the corner.

When we punish a dog, we are like the traffic cop. The dog might behave when we’re in the vicinity, for the moment, and only if the punishment we inflict overrides his drive to act. On the other hand, if we reinforce behaviors we like, we build a whole repertoire our dog will offer again, and again…
Are dogs really able to self-direct, to reliably act in ways that we desire but might be against their impulse? I say yes, but believe it is only achievable with positive reinforcement, and it must be applied correctly. There are two key aspects to remember: reinforcement happens after the behavior, and a reward is what matters to your dog - not what you think should be good enough.
The first one is straightforward. Don’t wave your cookie in the air and say come, but call your dog and when he comes the party begins. If the behavior doesn’t happen, neither will the reward. Self-explanatory, I hope, is that during the learning stages the dog must be managed wisely to prevent that he has opportunities to act in ways we don’t want but are externally, or intrinsically, reinforced. In other words, the dog should not be able to misbehave, because if it feels good to him, he’ll misbehave again.
The second point isn’t complicated either if you keep in mind that a reward is only a reinforcement if the behavior you are after happens again. Think back to the 50 bucks for doing the speed limit. That amount of money means nothing to a CEO who is regularly showered with huge perks, so it wouldn’t do much to keep him in line on the road. But it means a lot to someone like me who straddles the middle class, and even more to someone on a low income.
Similarly, the reward you offer your dog must mean something to him, or it will not reinforce the good behavior. When I see an obedient pooch patted on the head combined with verbal “good boy”, I wonder if his person schleps to the office each day for glass marbles and a bear hug from the boss. Even if they love their job and verbal approval, it is generally not enough. The big motivator is hard cash.
For a dog, the big motivator can be food, but isn’t always food. I could hardly impress Will with a milkbone shoved in her mouth when a hare pops out of the bushes in front of her. When she chooses to stay connected with me and ignore the bunny, she is working hard – and I hand out a bonus check. I reinforce with a chase game that might include me, or a special ball, or I might engage her in a seeking game and throw a handful of extra yummy treats for her to nose out.
You have to find your dog’s currency before you can put him on a payroll, and I’ll give you a tip: daily kibble isn’t it for most dogs. Don’t use kibble on the first day of the group obedience class, when distractions are high and your pooch has to work hard. Use chicken or garlic roast beef. People food. Good people food, not hot dogs.

Even though food is practical, think outside the box and be creative. The smarter the dog, the more creative the owner has to be. Be attuned. Attuned is the magic “a” word, not assertive. Understand what your dog wants at the moment, and whatever that is, is the reinforcement that will cause your dog to repeat the behavior that you are teaching. Examples of functional rewards are: riding in the car, a game of fetch or catch-me-if-you-can, distance to a stimulus the dog is fearful of, or the opposite: permission to greet and play.
An interesting walk is high on the wanna-do list for many dogs. Studies with rats showed that when given the choice to navigate through two mazes, with only one resulting in a food reward at the end, they alternated between both. Curiosity and avoiding boredom are powerful motivators for actions, and permission to explore a powerful reward for your dog after he’s paid attention to you, or walked nicely on the leash.
When you join your dog in investigative fun, perhaps even point out where you think interesting scents are, you are creating a deep bond. In the wintertime, we follow animal tracks we spot in the snow, and in the summer we pick berries together on hikes. When you do stuff like that, your dog will want to be with you, and is less and less inclined to seek stimulation away from you, and all training becomes much easier.

Whatever floats my dogs’ boat is what they’ll get when I want to reinforce a behavior I particularly love and want to see again. That makes me mighty powerful in their eyes. My dogs become addicted to me. The skeptics’ warning that reward-based training leads to a dog that behaves for rewards, not the owner, doesn’t hold true if you use positive reinforcement to establish that bond between you.
Yes, ultimately your involvement should matter most to your dog, but you only get that if he experiences that being with you feels better than anything else, and providing material things is a crucial part of it, especially with a new dog and before you meshed together. The dog first has to understand that you own all kinds of amazing assets, then you can put them under your control and make access contingent on behavior. If you orchestrate many opportunities for him to earn feel-good moments, he will try hard to please you. Please you to be released to what pleases him, and hopefully that includes you somehow as well. Trust me, that IS the fasted route to reliable obedience, a well-behaved dog, and a relationship with your canine friend envied by others.
Oh – one more thing: Because every dog wants something, obviously positive reinforcement does work with every dog.

NILIF

NILIF is an acronym for: Nothing in Life is Free. Notice that the emphasis is on nothing, which means that in its purest form the dog must work for everything: food, treats, toys, affection, freedom to sniff and play, to be let in or out, and so on. It is a widespread concept you likely have heard about one time or another - and regardless to which side of the training philosophy spectrum you belong. That a dog can’t possibly be well behaved if he has resource autonomy is the rare occasion where traditional trainers and positive reinforcement ones seem to be on the same page. NILIF is, actually, rather popular with the positive crowd, because it is perceived as a non-confrontational way to show yer dog who is boss.
Well, I don’t like it - for several reasons.
For starters, I object to the notion that we can’t have a harmonious and cooperative relationship with our companion canine unless we make a show of our absolute control over everything he wants and needs several times a day, and for life. On an ideological level, NILIF is not any different than the alpha pack dominance crap, except it is kinder – more humane. Instead of dishing out an unpleasant consequence to curb an unwanted behavior, it withholds something pleasant until a prompted action is obeyed.  And only a prompted behavior counts. Offered ones, even if desired, don’t, because responding when the dog makes the first move would put him in charge, and that is a no-no with pack leaders and some NILIFers. The latter, if they aim for companionship, typically don’t deprive the pooch of attention, but still ensure that he can’t ask for theirs, while they can demand his whenever they like. I have a problem with that.
Snubbing someone who attempts to talk to us is socially rude, including if it’s just the dog. It leaves the other confused and frustrated, and decreases his confidence in his social group members, and his own ability to communicate successfully. In addition and regarding our dogs, it rarely can be followed consistently. Think about it: if the human is supposed to call all the shots and ignore the dog’s requests, he should also not respond to “gotta go pee” barks or whines. Yet, I never met an owner who does that. Of course the person heeds to the dog’s “open the door” signals, because he doesn’t want a puddle on the rug. What does the dog learn? That politely soliciting for social contact is ignored, while barking gets him what he wants.
The micromanaging aspect of NILIF; the demanding that the dog must perform as told before he gains access to things he needs, including getting permission to live out intrinsic behaviors, causes stress - as it would in every being, and even more so in one who is innately self-governing. Albeit social, dogs in nature, even when they belong to a loose group, don’t have an overbearing alpha. They can walk and rest when they want, sniff and mark without restrictions, seek food and eat what they find. Many of our owned dogs are already anxious. That, not dominance, is the underlying cause of many problem behaviors. Adding more pressure is counterproductive.
And it’s not only the dog who is feeling the stress. NILIF can be difficult for owners as well. Recent clients of mine, guardians of two toy terriers, illustrated that perfectly. Their previous trainer advised the Nothing in Life is Free protocol to modify one of the dog’s fear reactivity toward strangers. Because nothing means exactly that, she recommended that the dogs’ social interactions with each other be structured as well, and permission for play and snuggle time only be granted after they performed obedience commands or tricks. My clients couldn’t stand the thought of segregating the very bonded pair all day while they are at work, and therefore didn’t follow through with that part, but also questioned other suggestions the trainer forwarded.
Above all, for me NILIF presents a moral conflict. When a person makes a conscious and deliberate decision to bring a dog into his life, it is his obligation to provide what the pooch needs to have good welfare. To turn this around, a dog, because of his absolute dependency once owned, has the right, albeit sadly not a legal one in most jurisdictions, to certain things for free: food, water, shelter and safety, a certain amount of physical and mental stimulation, and social inclusion, which includes being acknowledged when he communicates that he needs something. It is that foundation, provision and protection, that makes you important to your dog and sets the relationship in which he is willing to take his cues from you.
NILIF, in it’s worst form, is deprivation and abuse and falls in the same category as withholding food and social togetherness to get better performances. There was an agility trainer and competitor a few years ago in Alberta, where I used to live, who purchased littermate Australian shepherds he kept in separate crates and only released when they trained. Both dogs eventually faltered under pressure and did not perform to the owner’s expectations, and subsequently were surrendered to the local humane society in a complete socially inept state; just like some show dogs are who never learn or experience anything else but to stand pretty for the judge.

The thing is that the majority of dogs, including ones with behavioral problems, don’t need to be treated the NILIF way. Dogs inherently know that you belong to that fabulous, big-brained species who owns all the assets. They know that we have the anatomical tools to open the food can and car door, and yet many must jump through figurative hoops to receive 2 for 1 on-sale kibble, and some can't even enjoy that in peace because their person, so insecure about his status, removes the food a couple of times while they eat. Granted, taking a dog’s food away is not part of the NILIF practice, but I frequently meet owners who do it anyway.
I also periodically meet people who respectfully leave the room while the dog eats in fear of being attacked, and others who surrender the food even though boisterous Brutus impatiently bowls into them. That’s not it either. I am not suggesting to reinforce aggression or unruliness. No doubt, polite manners is what we want and no, don’t toss the treat when the pooch behaves badly, but understand that pushiness is not necessarily indicative of dominance. Perhaps the dog has never learned how to communicate appropriately with humans, or maybe he was ignored for prior subtle attempts to get attention. So, teach him to ask politely.
I am also not suggesting letting the dog run loose, giving him complete autonomy. That is not possible in our society, but we don’t have to warily ensure that we’re always the ones who begin an interaction. A dog can solicit, but should understand and heed your “later” signal, and accept when the interaction is over and not pester you further. That, too, can be taught.

Truth is that successful dog ownership is more fluid and dynamic than NILIF. The balance to aim for is giving the dog enough freedom and choice to prevent anxiety, and controlling the right resources at the right time to cement that humans indeed are the ones with opposable thumbs and bank accounts. It is nonsensical to make a NILIF, or alpha, point when something isn’t important to the dog at the moment, so pay attention in what context the pooch is misbehaving. If he impatiently tries to snatch the ball in your hand, making him perform 15 tricks for his kibble is silly, but waiting for a sit before you throw the ball is not. Would my clients’ little reactive terrier stopped barking at visitors just because her humans suddenly controlled social closeness with her buddy? I don’t think so.
I don't feel as strongly about NILIF as I do about pinning and shock collars, but I think it is categorically a bad idea. That said, I also concede that the rare pooch, the very confident and at the same time very unruly, determined and persistently obnoxious one, needs to learn that he lives with people and not the other way around, and in that case the Nothing in Life is Free concept is indeed a non-confrontational, acceptable and effective way to teach that lesson.
For every other dog though, understanding what is important to him at the moment, and making access to whatever that is contingent on behavior, is more effective.
Granted, it might take a little more effort to know your dog’s motivators than applying a blanket NILIF rule, but trust me, it’s worth it.

Puppies, Breeders, and Why I Stopped Writing Columns

Regarding dogs, two things I will never support: shock collars and commercial breeding operations.
The latter is the reason why, after three years or so of bi-weekly anchoring the Plymouth Review’s pet page, I quit yesterday. A reader alerted me to the fact that one of the advertisers, found on the same page as my columns, is a puppy-mill-type facility. The reader personally visited the Pretty Penny Kennel, but also forwarded me this visual – and don’t click on it if you can picture what a place run by someone whose primary, likely only, focus is to make many pretty pennies on the back of dogs, looks like.
Typically, I don’t publish disturbing footage of animal abuse. To the contrary, I blocked Facebook contacts in the past because they forwarded stuff that haunted, and rendered me useless, for the rest of the day, but in this context, I felt I needed to.
Just to be clear, Pretty Penny Kennels has been checked out by government officials and, to the best of my knowledge, the local SPCA, and was deemed to meet legal requirements, and that makes it legally impossible for the Review to deny advertising opportunities.
Well, Pretty Penny Kennel doesn’t meet my moral requirements, and it angers and saddens me to think that inadvertently, indirectly, I might have contributed to the dogs’ suffering. If just one person believed it to be a good place to shop since my articles were featured next to their ads – a reasonable enough possibility – then that, in my opinion sub-human, breeder and broker benefitted from me. What a disgusting irony. Well, not anymore. I quit.
Of course, anyone whose primary income is breeding and brokering dogs with no regard for their wellbeing would be out of business if people stopped getting their pups from them. Such commercial breeders are rather easy to spot.
The first clue is that they don’t investigate buyers. Obviously, they are not frank about their carelessness. Who in their right mind would even approach someone who advertises: “Sell my puppies to anyone who opens their wallet. No references or qualifications needed, because I don’t give a rat’s tail about the pup’s future living conditions, or your intent and capabilities. I just want your cash, and all the future problems I created with my greed and negligence are going to be your problems”.
They don’t advertise like that, but that is exactly what they do.
Commercial breeders often have a variety of breeds, many flavor-of-the-day ones, and always a steady  supply – and do advertise that: All colors - All sizes, is a hint.
The puppies are sold too young. The younger, the cuter, but there is another reason: Female dogs that are a commodity are bred as often as nature allows, and get the cheapest crap to eat that keeps them alive. Worn out and malnourished, mom-dog is not able to nurse her brood as long as she should, and puppies not taken care of by their dams are an inconvenience for unconscionable breeders.
The dogs and puppies live in filth, in tiny cages and kennels, often outside in every temperature, or stacked away in a barn. Some breeders and brokers conceal that and meet the buyer at a mall parking lot or on the side of the road, but others boldly broadcast it, and people get a pup anyway because they pity the pooch.
Commercial breeders don’t provide a contract, or if it is a lousy one guaranteeing neither temperament nor health.
Don’t think for a second that commercial breeders can’t be found in the show circuit. Particularly toy dogs, even if born to registered and titled parents, can come from large-scale operations that borderline mills. You might get a contract then, but everything else is the same – the living conditions, the lack of care, and the indifference placing the pup with the right owners.

Fortunately, reputable breeders are equally easy to spot. For starters, they are approachable at any point of the dog’s life, provide support and are willing, in fact insist, to take the pooch back, or help with rehoming, if the owner is unable to provide care any longer.
Reputable breeders have fewer dogs, and don’t always have puppies readily available. The interested person, provided he qualifies, is put on a waiting list. To qualify, he has to fill out a questionnaire, meet certain criteria and give references.
Reputable breeders provide opportunities to visit with mom-dog and sire if he is on the premises, and of course the puppies; will have the litter in the house, and gently handle and socialize; will vet-check and inoculate the puppies, and will not release them until they are 8-10 weeks old; will not force the female to mate by holding and muzzling her, and will not breed her more than once a year – at the most. The best breeders have the pups started on crate, house and leash training.

It is really not that difficult to separate the good from the bad, and one might expect that intelligent humans would choose the good ones. But there is a problem. Humans – some anyway, have empathy, and that makes puppy acquiring less of a brainy and more of an emotional endeavor. That includes rescue organizations, by the way. Millers and brokers who go under or are unable to sell their surplus  typically find some charitable group who picks up those dogs, painstakingly rehabilitates and then adopts them out. What else can they do? Turn their backs? Nobody who loves animals could do that. But the flipside is that the good news stories and photos of pauper dogs landing in paradise; the “all’s well that ends well” perception, is what sticks in Jane Public’s mind. I wonder what were to happen if, instead of happy endings, the public would be plastered with headlines like: “Joe Puppyseller (photo attached so that everyone can see what he looks like) of 195 Barklane Road, Wooftown USA/ Canada, busted. 45 dogs and 150 puppies destroyed. Although some were salvageable, we decided to kill them all, because we refuse to bail someone out who caused years of suffering to countless living and feeling beings.”
Yes, in theory every person should decide to shop only at reputable places. In reality, many will continue to save that one pup from its unscrupulous person. It is human nature, yet it perpetuates the problem because leaving the skinny pooch who lives in her own crap behind, thus denying the commercial breeder financial means, is the only way to stop such practices.
We surely can’t rely on our lawmakers to create change. Other countries have laws. In Sweden, for example and according to an article published in Bark Magazine Sept/Oct. 2009, a breeder is obligated to pay for all medical expenses for the first three years of a dog’s life. That would put an end to large-scale operations. To be fair, sometimes there are attempts in North America. For instance, Pennsylvania proposed regulations that would require anybody to leash walk each dog in their care for 20 minutes per day. That, too, would prevent millers and brokers from legally carrying on with their dirty trade. I don’t know what came of it though. My hunch is nothing, because in the land of the free and vocal focus groups, common-sense proposals rarely make it into law.
And we also can’t rely on printed media and for-profit online sites to promote animal welfare. They back up whoever has money, and provide the opportunities for commercial breeders to advertise their wares. So for now and likely some time to come, I fear that mega puppy-producing businesses will continue thrive, unabated and with impunity.

At least I did my part yesterday. I quit writing for the Plymouth Review. I, of course, won’t stop writing posts on this here, ad-free on purpose, blog site. Perhaps a few of my column readers I invited will join us. In the next few posts I’ll discuss NILIF, positive reinforcement, and barking and lunging on the leash. Stay tuned.
We did our part again when we chose an awesome, incredible, local breeder for our next puppy. Yeah, that’s right. It is a well-known secret around here that we are waiting for an Aussie baby, hopefully to be born in the fall. Not having a deadline isn’t such a bad thing when one has a pup. And right now it frees up diddling time I can spend in the backyard yelling names out loud to get a feel what rolls nicely off the tongue. The mom’s name is Denim, and our frontrunner, provided we’ll get a blue merle, is Indie – for Indigo, Denim’s Blue Wonder. But we are open for suggestions.