Monthly Archives: November 2011

11/9/11

McGreevy on Punishing Dogs

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Again, this article refers to operant conditioning principles.  I suggest anyone without prior knowledge of operant conditioning to refer to Crystal at Reactive Champion’s post on operant conditioning.

Punishment is anything that reduces the frequency of behaviour.  Positive punishment is when something bad is added (e.g. rattling a can of stones if a dog barks), and negative punishment is when something good is removed (e.g. when your puppy mouths you and you exit the room).

RuthlessPhotos.com

These are both called punishments as they reduce the frequency of behaviour.  Negative reinforcement is related, as this involves removing something bad to act as a reward (e.g. a dog who doesn’t like being confined could be rewarded for calm quite behaviour in that confine by being released from that confine).

However, punishment in dog training is often only referring to an aversive introduced to suppress behaviour.

McGreevy did not advocate the use of punishment when training dogs.  He felt that punishment (or causing dogs to feel threatened, pained, uncomfortable, disappointed, or fearful) was simply ‘not good’ for dogs.  Furthermore, punishments can sometimes have long-term consequences, as dogs are often sensitive.  (He summarised it as, “It’s hard to unteach fear.”)  Dogs can also associate some of their emotions from punishments with people, which can be undesirable.

Punishment, however, is unavoidable.  McGreevy explained that putting a dog on a collar almost always is negative punishment (taking the dog away from good things), but trainers can still seek to use as little punishment as possible.  Punishment does not have to be abusive, it is just feedback to help a dog understand that some behaviour is unproductive.  Mild punishment (like a no reward marker) can be effective in reducing behaviours, but it is also risky as it can lower motivation.

Punishment should be used as little as possible, or else the dog may develop learned helplessness.  He described punishment as being ‘a step towards habituation’.  Punishment, when used, often leads to the need for more punishment.  Additionally, use of positive punishment for anxiety-related behaviours could escalate the animal’s distress.

McGreevy rejected the use of check chains, calling them frustrating, painful, and dangerous.  He congratulated the dog community for largely rejecting their use.

Overall, McGreevy did not have anything revolutionary to saying about punishments, but I hope this still provides some interesting thoughts regarding dog training.

 

Further reading: Ian Dunbar on Punishment

 

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

11/6/11

Breed Specific Legislation FAQ

RuthlessPhotos.com

What is Breed Specific Legislation?

Breed Specific Legislation, commonly known as “BSL”, is legislation that places restrictions upon certain breeds of dogs.

What breeds are affected by BSL in South Australia?

There are 5 prescribed breeds in South Australia, which mirrors legislation in the other States. These breeds are the American Pit Bull Terrier, the Fila Braziliero, the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentina, and the Presa Canario. Additionally, Greyhounds are affected by BSL in South Australia, but are not considered a prescribed breed.

What restrictions are placed upon the prescribed breeds in South Australia?

Prescribed breeds must wear a muzzle or be physically restrained in public, and owners must desex their animal. Prescribed breeds must not be sold or given away.

What restrictions are placed upon greyhounds in South Australia?

Greyhounds must be muzzled or physically restrained in public, except when they are partaking in an organised activity and are under effective control.

What other Australian states have BSL?

All states except the ACT, NT, and Tasmania have some form of BSL. Nationally, restrictions on prescribed breeds often specify where the animal may be kept. For example, in New South Wales, restricted breeds must be kept in a child proof enclosure with warning signs.

What is the motivation behind introducing BSL?

Governments often believe that introducing BSL will decrease dog bites, or the severity of dog bites.

Why doesn’t BSL work?

This legislation incorrectly assumes that some dogs are more dangerous than others. In reality, owners are more responsible for their dog’s behaviour than the genetics of their animal. Furthermore, there are a myriad of enforcement issues with BSL as breeds cannot be confirmed by physically characteristics or DNA. Effectively, BSL is unenforceable and does not target the real cause of dog bites: inappropriate animal management.

How do we know BSL does not work?

BSL has been introduced in several countries globally, yet in no country has this legislation reduced the incidence of dog bites.

The Netherlands is a key example. A ban was implemented on the American Pitbull Terrier in 1993, and on the Rottweiler in 2000. The breed ban was repealed in 2008 after no decrease in dog bites was seen in the 15 year period. Similarly, the Dangerous Animals Act in Spain, 2000, was seen to have no significant difference in the number of dog bites.

In 1997, the United Kingdom banned the American Pit Bull Terrier and three other breeds, and their crossbreeds. However, dog bites incidents have increased by 50% in the period from 1997-2007. That is, 10 years after the ban, dog bites have actually increased. An increase in dog bites was also seen in Denmark in 2010 following the banning of 14 dog breeds. In the 12 months following the breed bans, there was a 60% increase in dog bites.

What welfare concerns are associated with South Australian BSL?

BSL means that animals that are prescribed breeds cannot be rehomed. This means that any prescribed breed entering shelters must be destroyed. Furthermore, individuals who wish to rehome their dog due to change of circumstances cannot legally do so if their dog is a prescribed breed.

What welfare concerns arise with changes to legislation in Victoria?

Recently, the Victorian government has made changes adding a standard that describes an American Pitbull Terrier. Effective from the 30th of September 2011, dogs that meet the description in the standard have to be registered as a restricted breed. As Amercian Pitbull Terriers cannot be effectively identified by appearance, it is likely that many dogs that are bull breed mixed breeds will be deemed as a prescribed breeds. Owners that fail to register their dog as a prescribed breed are at risk of having their dog seized and destroyed by councils.

What is the alternative to BSL in addressing dog bites?

Legislation needs to be introduced that recognises that any dog is capable of biting, and that it is up to owners to effectively manage their dog of choice to ensure dog bites do not occur. Any changes in legislation need to not cause further burden to those who responsibly own their dog, but seek to punish those who are irresponsible.

Existing legislation already requires dogs to be effectively contained in yards, on a lead or under verbal control when in public. All dogs must also be registered. Councils need further resources to ensure that individuals are responsibly housing their animals.

Education is also a vital part of the picture. Dog bites involve a dog owner, and the dog bite victim. With education, humans interact with dogs more responsibly and so bites are reduced. Education should also be targeted at to-be-dog-owners, to ensure that they are making appropriate and responsible decisions in choosing their pets and also in socialising their animal.

How do we know that these alternatives work?

Calgary, Alberta, Canada, is seen to be the key model of reducing dog bites. In Calgary, they have found that increased education and regulation has seen a decrease in dog bites. This education has targeted children specifically in grades 2 and 3, and seen an 80% reduction in dog attacks. Calgary has also focused on strengthening enforcement and regulation of current laws, and implementing tougher penalties for irresponsible dog ownership. Calgary has also provided low cost desexing options, as it is known that undesexed animals are more frequently represented in dog bite statistics.

11/2/11

McGreevy on Operant Conditioning

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

Please note: This article assumes some prior knowledge of operant or instrumental conditioning, as it mostly focuses on McGreevy’s comments on operant and instrumental conditioning, rather than on explaining these terms itself. If you are lacking a comprehensive understanding of Operant Conditioning, then I suggest this page from Crystal at Reactive Champion blog.  If you already have some idea of operant conditioning, come on in.  This may be confusing, but we can only hope it may add to your understanding.

Operant conditioning, also called instrumental conditioning, is when the animal’s voluntary response is instrumental (i.e. important) in establishing the consequence (i.e. reinforcement or punishment).  (By voluntary, we mean responses that the animal has control over.  Involuntary would be things like salivating or growing hair.)

McGreevy used the diagram below to consider operant conditioning.

Here, the ‘x’ marks the spot of neutral stimuli that does not modify behaviours.  That is, a neutral experience.  From here, stimuli can either be reinforcing and increase the probability of behaviours, or they can be punishing, and decrease the animal’s responses in question.  The purple arrows indicate negative punishment (-P) and negative reinforcement (-R).  Negative punishments use the removal of attractive stimuli to make a response less probable.  Negative reinforcements uses the removal of adverse stimuli to make a response more probable. Continue reading →