Patricia McConnell Re-Homes One of Her Dogs

I think it seems a little harsh to say she "gives up on one of her dogs". I actually read the article and it seems like a really well-thought piece on how even though you may love your dog, your dog may not love your home. I'm not sure why you think a better solution would be to keep both dogs in a household where they are clearly unhappy together just for...what? the sake of being able to say you did so? The re-homed dog appears to have found a great home where he gets along with everyone and the other dog has bounced back to the more self-assured dog he was in the first place... to me, this is a success story of putting your animals' feelings first even though it may be heartbreaking to let one of them go somewhere else. Just my opinion..

I don't see how rehoming a dog FOR THE WELL BEING OF THE DOG is a failure. Rehoming that dog resulted in both dogs being much happier, IMO that's more of a success than a failure.

Obviously those dogs were a bad match. Yes, a lot of training may have helped... but I don't think any amount of training can make two dogs like that live happily in the same home. I don't think it's fair to expect even the friendliest of dogs to get along with EVERY single other dog they encounter.

If I ever got added another dog to the family that ended up being a bad match, I would not hesitate to rehome or return the dog. As much as I hate the thought of having to rehome a dog, I don't think it's fair to force two dogs to live together when they clearly make eachother miserable.

I will never EVER in a country where divorce is as prevalent as it is, understand how **PEOPLE** (who never get along with ANYONE all of the time and who get divorced, quit jobs, and quit everything else in this life cos they can't get along wit someone) actually always expect all dogs to 'get along' all of the time!!!

It's unbelievable. 

to say that mere training is the answer to everything simply says that dogs are nothing more than the sum of their trained behaviors.  Apparently that means they are not individuals capable of emotion or sentient thot -- cos all you have to do is "train" that behavior and they'll work out???

It's utter nonsense.  obviously some folks give up way too early (can se say the same for some marriages?) but sometimes it's jjust not a match.  I honestly think it's degrades a dog's intelligence to simply assume you can 'train them out of' anything at all and make them all get along all of the time. 

I'm not being anthropomorphic here -- they are individuals.  It doesn't mean you have to part with blood -- but sometimes it's just going to make everyone happier to be apart.

 Lee, as much as you may not like behavioral science, this is not an example of how behavioral science is failing our dogs. Behavioral techniques rarely work overnight. We can't say it wouldn't have worked with more time.

Why is it sad?  Both dogs are happier and therefore the owner is happier.  I find your comment sad on several levels.

Dogs are the most social animal on the planet. They are genetically engineered to be able to get along with any and all other dogs they meet, anywhere they go. When dogs don't get along, something's wrong, either with the dogs' upbringing, or with their training.

For everyday people who bring home their dogs from a shelter, and can 't figure out how to undo the negative impact that their dogs' past mistreatment has had on their temperament and behavior, that's one thing. Since such people aren't in a position to know any better, or do any better, then making the decision to find one of those dogs a new home, as hard as that may be, is probably the best option.

McConnell's dogs came from a reputable breeder. They were raised personally by one of the top +R dog training experts in the country. This is a very different set of conditions. This should not have happened. So why did it?

Here's the timeline (taken directly from her blog post, "Life Is One Continuous Mistake";):

- Deciding to get a puppy 4 years ago ... because a litter related to my soul mate dog, Luke, became available

- Choosing Willie from the litter

- Keeping Willie after it became clear that he had a myriad of serious problems

- Deciding to get another dog after Lassie died because Willie loves to play with other dogs and I’d like more than one myself.

- Deciding to buy a puppy from a breeder rather than getting a dog from rescue

- Choosing the puppy Mick out of the litter

- Deciding to take Mick back to the breeder after some red flags appeared

- Returning home with the puppy Hope because Willie seemed to adore him

- Deciding to work with Hope after it became clear he was not the puppy that both Willie and I thought he was

- Deciding to let Hope go to another home

- Choosing to write about it in public

In a very short period of time McConnell took one dog back to the breeder and "re-homed" a second.

Some people have said they don't think it's sad. Well it is sad. McConnell even said she cried herself to sleep over it. But what's really and truly sad, in my estimation, is that someone with McConnell's years of experience and high level expertise wasn't able to help any of these 3 dogs except by giving 2 of them up. (We don't know yet if doing that will actually help anybody; remember Will has had serious problems of one kind or another for 4 years, so he's definitely going to relapse, though Hope will probably be fine.)

McConnell had 4 years to "condition" these behavioral problems away, with little or no success. What are those 4 years of data telling her? That sometimes conditioning doesn't work.

Why doesn't it work?

Because it's based on an inaccurate and incomplete model of learning, one that fits perfectly with how rats learn to run through a maze, or how pigeons trapped inside a box learn how to peck a lever to get a piece of food. But in this case, it didn't work to foster a positive social connection between two well-bred dogs, when dogs, as a species, are inherently, with no conditioning needed, the most social animal on earth.

I'm not blaming Patricia McConnell for anything except for a failure to re-consider, re-evaluate, and re-think the validity of behavioral science.

I remember reading somewhere that if something isn't working, Don't Shoot the Dog! Of course McConnell didn't shoot the dogs in this case, but she did give up on them. That's the really sad thing. She won't give up on her belief in her beloved behavioral science -even though that's what the data is telling her -- but she will give up on her dogs.

What's even sadder is that she was so close, she was doing almost everything right -- almost. If she had made a few simple adjustments to what she was doing, and had framed the problem from the perspective of the dogs' internal emotional dynamic (of tension and release), rather than the external dynamic (of which behaviors were or weren't being reinforced), we wouldn't be discussing this now. That's all it would have taken.

Unfortunately, so many people in the +R world are so convinced that their way is better (which it is, in comparison to the dominance paradigm) they've lowered their expectations, and are willing to shrug and say "well, this is probably the best thing for both dogs."

It's fine to eschew punishment (and believe me I wouldn't have spent a single moment of time even raising my voice to either of these dogs), but enough is enough. This is not the 1930s or 40s. The behavioral science bus broke down a long time ago.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-puppy-my-self/200910/mice-and-mutts-why-behavioral-science-is-losing-the-training-wars

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-puppy-my-self/200910/mice-and-mutts-is-behavioral-science-failing-our-dogs

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-puppy-my-self/200911/mice-and-mutts-iii-the-negative-effects-positive-reinforcement

LCK

So you believe that you can put any two dogs together and make them live happily together? That dogs have no personalities of their own? None of your dogs have ever met another dog they didn't like or want to play with? Does this also mean you don't believe in same-sex aggression between dogs either? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I am trying to understand how you can come to this point of view (that you can make dogs live happily together).

You talk about the dog's internal emotional dynamic of tension and release. Can you please explain what that means? Specifically, how would you have made these two dogs get along?

 Dogs are genetically engineered to get along with all other dogs? Seriously? I had NO idea! Is there some information I should be reading, somewhere, that I've missed?

My dogs CERTAINLY don't get along with every dog they ever meet. Every polite, respectful dog, maybe, but not even close to every dog.

To be honest I don't want to own dogs that will openly accept ANY and ALL dogs into our home or pack at any time.  Maybe wild dogs are this way but not my domesticated dogs.  The will accept and like who *I* say so and who is a member of our family (canine or human).  All other dogs can be on their way, nothing to see here.  I don't care who says dogs should always do this or that.  My dogs behave exactly as I want and expect them to, with regard to other dogs.

Fittingly, I've got my B.F. Skinner Tshirt on right now. Lee, I think you do know that it's not a R+ unless the future frequency of the behavior is increased. It's not a failure of R+, but it might be a failure to find a R+.

I've had enough providing social positive reinforcement for your behavior.

spiritdogs

The woman is working in the context of dogs that need to be able to work sheep.  Perhaps you need to go work sheep for a few years to even know what's required in that realm.  So, it doesn't really make sense for you to criticize her for not wanting to subject a dog to an environment where the dog is less than comfortable and perhaps cause it to die young from anxiety.

Hi, SpiritDogs,

Thanks for the comment. I really appreciate your feedback.

I'm not suggesting that anyone force a dog to live in an unpleasant environment. What I am suggesting, or stating outright, is that if the dog isn't able to handle stress, if he's spooked by things that didn't used to trouble him in the least in the past, then it's the trainer's or owner's responsibility to increase his ability to do just that. You can't do that through desensitization or conditioning. You can only do it through understanding the source of the dog's internal tension and giving him a satisfying and socially-acceptable way to release it.

I'm aware of the fact that Will is meant to be a working sheep dog. That's what makes this whole thing even more unbelievable. If he has the right stuff for herding, then he shouldn't be thrown off-balance by the things that have been spooking him recently. (This is why I've said that the problem wasn't Hope, and that sooner or later Will is going to have a relapse, probably within the next 2 - 3 months.)

Perhaps I am being arrogant, by saying these things. I don't know. I just know that if McConnell is talking about flower essences and homeopathy, which are not scientifically-accepted protocols for changing behavioral tendencies, why isn't she questioning the validity of an outdated form of psychology that's more relevant to rats running through mazes than dogs running through pastures?

And of course she's heartsick about her decision. And of course she's a genuine dog lover, and warm-hearted person. I'm not sure if it was here or somewhere else that I made the comment that the reason McConnell has a higher success rate in solving behavioral problems than Nicholas Dodman does (or she used to) is primarily because she genuinely likes -- strike that -- loves dogs, and he doesn't.

At any rate, I already made a clear position statement on what I think the data and the dogs are telling us in this case. That has nothing to do with personalities, hers, mine or yours. (Strike that; it might have something to do with hers, but that's a whole 'nother discussion which involves Emotional GPS.) It just is what it is. Those dogs could have gotten along beautifully given the right approach to solving their problems.

Also (though this doesn't relate to your post, but to several others), I'm genuinely surprised to find out that so many people here believe that  dogs aren't inherently capable of getting along with any other dog they meet, especially if given enough time and space to work things out on their own. I live in New York City. And sure, sometimes I'll have to board a dog that lacks this ability due to past mistreatment. But guess, what? Within a few days or sometimes a few weeks of staying with me, and hanging out with the other dogs, they always become more and more social until they're the first ones to initiate play where before they were hiding in the closet or barking their heads off if anyone moved. (And no, this wasn't especially stressful for the other dogs; they always seemed kind of amused by the poor, troubled doggie's tantrums.)

DOGS CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES! THEY CAN'T PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM MAKING FRIENDS WHEREVER POSSIBLE!

So by saying, "Oh, that's just my dog's personality," we're imposing our sensibilities onto the dog's persona, when in fact, if left to their own devices, nearly all dogs (except those who are really badly damaged), are capable of getting along with all other dogs. Read Alexandra Semyonova's paper, "The Social Organization of the Domestic Dog," if you don't believe me.

This doesn't mean I think, or I'm saying a dog should be forced to do anything he doesn't want to do. (Well, sometimes he should, like going to the vet, etc.) What I'm saying is that underneath whatever personality your dogs have (not you, personally, that's a general you), is an irrepressible desire to be in social harmony whenever and wherever, and with whomever, possible. That's the most prominent feature of the canine character. It surprises me that so there are people here who don't seem to get that.

Finally, someone asked me what the "tension-and-release" method I wrote about is. If anyone is interested, you can read all about it in "My Training Philosophy."

And look, if behavioral science works for you and your dogs, I'm glad. But it certainly failed Will and Hope. Big time.

LCK

spiritdogs

So, then, why don't you tell me the "right approach" and I'll email it to Trish.  I'm sure she'd be interested in your perspective.

Hi, SpiritDogs,

That's very generous of you. I'm not sure it would be that easy to communicate the information through a second party, though. I'd be happy to talk to her on the phone, or via e-mail, if she's interested.

If she is, you can e-mail me directly and I'll give you my home telephone number, and the best times to reach me.

LCK