Left, Right, Middle—Is it Political? Yes. This IS about dog training. As in politics, there is a definite divide in dog training, with two camps at opposite ends of the spectrum. So, who are the progressives and liberals in dog training? The fundamentalists, traditionalists and conservatives? What defines and differentiates one from the other? Are there ANY moderates? A defining factor was once, whether or not food was used in training dogs in obedience, and, as working dogs. It may still be a factor for some, mainly those on the right, who deem its use a bribe in spite of the science brought to dog training by the left. Nearly two decades into the progressive movement though, the use of technology and the philosophy behind one's methods is what really fuels the fire in discussions online and elsewhere. Television now offers a look at this divide with the Animal Planet's popular, "It's Me or The Dog!" and National Geographic's trailblazing, "Dog Whisperer". Like much of life and almost always in politics, our values and personal experiences attract us to one or the other. For clarity's sake, all of dog training was 'traditional' before the 'dog friendly dog training' movement began in 1992 when Dr Ian Dunbar and others launched the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT). Since then, many trainers have 'crossed over' to the left while many more have never known anything but the progressive movement, a sort of 'Generation X' of dog trainers. 'Progressive' dog training includes the use of food, flat collars, head halters, harnesses, and clickers, to name a few of the new tools. Many traditional dog trainers also use food to train. The defining difference is that most tend to use either metal chain or prong collars while some also use electronic collars. Tools designed to physically inhibit dogs have the potential to cause fallout when misused. The knowledge and skill of the user of the tool is what is most important. That said, it is the combination of tools, methods and thought process behind the practices that is bothersome to those of us on, or to, the left. While it is no longer common to hear of trainers being abusive to dogs, in the name of training, it is still common that direct analogies to wolves and pack hierarchy and the like. That was yesterday's science, or rather, that of the 1950's. David Mech, still one of the world's authorities on wolf behavior, announced his new findings more than a few years ago. That every wolf has an opportunity to reproduce, if he or she survives long enough. That wolves do not live in extended family units. Instead, they live in nuclear families and function as parents and offspring. That acts of appeasement and deference facilitate peace-keeping for survival rather than to maintain dominance hierarchies. That wolves voluntarily roll over, they are not alpha rolled by another. The most important fact is that dogs are not wolves. In fact, they are quite different. Dogs have a long history of living near and with people, around 14,000 years. Raymond and Lorna Coppinger theorize that people did not domesticate wolves, instead, dogs domesticated themselves as opportunists surviving from refuse left behind by nomadic peoples who later settled into villages. These 'village dogs' are visible in most developing nations today. They are not wolves and tend not to 'pack up' but prefer to scavenge to survive. These are the equivalent of our dogs' ancestors. They share about as much DNA with wolves as we do with chimpanzees. We do not look to chimpanzees to see how to raise our young. Although it seems that dogs chose us, they still are not born knowing how to live with people. In fact, there is a window of opportunity in puppy-hood in which dogs must be exposed to lots of people, places and things in order to prevent fearful responses to the unfamiliar. Progressive trainers are responsible for pushing back the time at which 'formal' training should begin, from the traditional 6 months of age to as early as 8 weeks of age. Knowledgeable breeders, however, start the process of socialization much earlier, coinciding with the eyes opening at three weeks of age. Advocacy of dogs is the hallmark of the progressive movement. Since the early 1990's, dogs have become big business, to the tune of billions of dollars spent each year in the US alone. Spay and neuter campaigns along with no-kill shelters and private rescue groups are what the public sees as advocacy of dogs. What is unseen is the education going on behind the scenes. Dog trainers and behavior consultants spend thousands of dollars on courses and attending seminars and conferences around the country. Trainers from Europe, the UK, Australia and New Zealand travel here to teach and attend these events. And, dozens of 'homegrown' specialists travel abroad sharing what they have learned and written of in their books. My personal library consists of nearly 500 books on dogs, dog behavior, veterinary medicine, psychopharmacology, animal behavior, psychology and more. Organizations, mainly comprised of progressive trainers, are working to set standards for the industry. As consumers looking for professional (paid for) services, dog owners should know that, at present, dog training is not regulated. The television shows mentioned previously represent the stations along the dog training spectrum-- Cesar Milan, to the right, with his strong arm tactics that necessitate a disclaimer, "don't try this at home... there are many methods available...". Though Victoria Stillwell offers a gentler, more positive way, she is not as far to the left as many in dog training. Most people just want a well behaved pet, one that is not bothered by the hustle and bustle of everyday life. To achieve that goal, dog owners must help their dogs to feel safe. Every dog is an individual just as we are and a cookie cutter approach to training does not always yield the same result. Given 'who' dogs are and that people and dogs are different species, progressive training methods tend to help dogs develop better associations with people. Vera E. Wilkinson - written in 2008 |