Patricia McConnell Re-Homes One of Her Dogs

LCK, in regards to the snippish thing, then it is my turn to look foolish. I apologize.

As to the efficacy of the +R and whether or not the conditioning held or not, I think a point is being missed, here. Dogs do generalize, from time to time, but not always in the ways or the extent that humans expect them to do. A dog could be quite well socialized through conditioning and have absolutely no problem with a number of situations over the years. And run into a new context, a new situation and the old training, in the dog's mind, as it were, does not apply.

Some breeds are known for it, such as the Akita. A one-human dog and can co-exist with a number of other pets, some of them dogs. But once it has a grudge against another dog, the grudge is forever and their memory becomes elephantine. They could be in a crowd of dogs and still go after just the one dog they don't like. I personally know of case of that happening. This one Akita, at an adoption event didn't like this on Springer Spaniel. And tussled with it. The ACO's broke it up. Mind you, this is in a large portable kennel with a few other big dogs in it. Later, the Akita again went after the Spaniel, ignoring the other dogs. At the end, there was blood, though it was the Akita's. There comes a time when the best thing to do is forgo the "tssst", or even, for the moment, re-conditioning through positive reinforcement in order to bring things down a notch. And even if, at some point, the soft method of re-conditioning doesn't work, it is still better than the scruff and pin which builds resentment at worst, or reinforcement at the least. A dog raised to wrestle will view a scruff and pin as play, a reinforcer. The shelter used the third option, the "Green Mile," the last walk, that afternoon.

 Anyone, other than maybe someone such as you, has said, what idiot puts an Akita in general population without evaluation? Why, because many people know this tendency of Akitas, regardless of what training method they follow and know that management is necessary. And, by the way, it doesn't matter if you are pack leader, that doesn't always stop dogs from hassling each other, especially out of eye-shot and ear-shot.

I also disagree with your opinion (and that's what I think it is) that creatures don't learn through operant conditioning. Even if hunger is a stress and we learn something that brings us food, I don't think it's just a reduction of stress, though that certainly fits in with your predilection toward the non-linear dog theory. I think it is primally rewarding because it leads to survival. That is, it isn't all just wants, it's also needs. And the ability to hunt and catch prey requires intelligence, not just the luck of a blind hog finding an acorn, once in a while. To prove falsification of a theory, you actually need evidence to support that contention, not just a competing theory. And I don't say that because I have invested time and energy in operant conditioning. OC works, whether you happen to like that, or not. Even those you use corrections training are using OC, as it is based upon the precept that a creature avoids negative stimuli and may change a behavior to avoid the negative stimuli. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I taught myself to play guitar. Because it is rewarding, not because I had a stressor requiring me to play guitar to ease that stress. By the way, it was a sore time for the fingers before I built calluses. I am enjoying learning to play golf, though my forearms and right bicep are sore. Because the game is rewarding. Otherwise, why would I put up with the stress of physical discomfort to learn something?

I mean, I get the point that the dog wants something and there is the stress of wanting it and when the thing is attained, some stress is reduced. I can see that perspective but I don't think it's the most accurate. It's like saying that Nike shoes makes one physically fit when, in actuality, a number of professional athletes, who are fit, happen to wear Nikes. The other perspective is that what you would call stress is work to achieve a goal. In either case, aren't we both applying a human perspective? That is, you may see conditioning as a dog's path to eliminate stress but that doesn't make it so, just because you say so. In addition, your opinion neglects to consider the decades of research, most notably that of Karen Pryor in the field of operant conditioning and behaviorism.

Dogs have tool use. Digging to make a cool spot, get at a worm, or, in the case of my dog, to eat a grass root. Hunting, sometimes, in groups, which doesn't have to do with emotion and has to do with strategy, i.e., a minimal state of intelligence, to say the least. To borrow from Occam's razor (I use Gillette, myself) the simplest and most obvious hypothesis is often the correct one. Not that such a pattern has been proven but for most intents and purposes, it works. Just as Einstein's General Relativity tried to answer some questions about gravity that Newton's Principia Mechanica left unaddressed and QM has yet to answer fully, newtonian gravity works well enough for what we do, day to day. An apple will fall to Earth. Describe it however you want to, it hasn't changed the fact that Newton got beaned on the head with a fruit.

And actually, these "avant garde" theories of yours remind me of the rise of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, when some of the scientists were contemplating particle physics and couldn't fathom the structure, the only thing they could was assign it probability. The problem with math is that you can describe anything with. Rev. Billy Graham tried to prove the nature of the Holy Trinity with the equation 1^3. Well, that also proves polytheism since the general equation would be 1^n. Even Einstein, raised as a Jew and a believer in God his whole life, couldn't fathom random nature. When asked if he believed in evolution as depicted by Darwin, he said, "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe." Which means, according to him, there must be some reason we have human hermaphrodites and to persecute them is an offense against God, for example. So, his Special Theory is bolstered by math from FitzGerald and Lorentz, who's theories revolved around the supposition of an aether. So, the math for Einstein's theories is a mathematical aether, still not proven.

Replacing order with chaos is not advancement of science. And while new and alternate theories expand thinking and investigation, they must still fall under the hard and fast rules of scientific observation.

What if a dog won't walk calmy with treats? So you use an Easy Walk, or Gentle Leader, or even a properly fitted prong. And, nearly in one breath, the dog is a perfect gentleman or lady. Does that mean that +R failed? No. It means that you, the owner, were note communicating well enough before. Since I think dogs are individuals, I can also surmise (my own theory) that they have different neurological threshholds. For some dogs, the pressure of these corrective harness is not a "correction" or a punishment, but a cue. A cue they understand. They are not hurt by it, simply informed by it. Once receiving the information, they act accordingly. And are rewarded with a pleasant walk, which may release some of their energy or "tension." Is not the release of tension a reward? Or have you already proven that there is no such thing as reward? If you "win" this debate, is it a release of tension or a reward? If you like continuing this debate, is it rewarding? If so, then you have just engaged in a behavior that is rewarding when you just said that creatures, including humans don't learn or condition by +R.

Nor do I think you are Mr. Spock. For a few reasons. I'm fairly certain that you are human, not vulcan. Second, the character of Mr. Spock and vulcans in general was dreamed up by Gene Roddenberry, a human with socialist tendencies who used Spock as one of the oldest literary devices, the stranger in the strange land who points out how screwed up we humans are, yet, at the same time, shows us our saving grace, what makes us best, as humans. So poignant was the line in the movie "Wrath of Khan" at Spock's memorial. Admiral Kirk said, "Of all the souls I have known, Spock was the most human." How's that for irony?

I think your perspective is just as human, including the desire to view something as divorced from human input. As Freud might say, "sometimes, a banana is just a banana."

Lee Charles Kelley

However, from my perspective, when one looks at the reality of this particular situation -- where a dog's fear-related behaviors were "conditioned" out of him, but then resurfaced --  one has to consider the fact (or possibility) that the conditioning didn't "take."

Hold your horses. How do you know it didn't "take" in the circumstances in which it was created, but slip when those circumstances changed quite significantly? Although I'm not sure why I'm asking because I think we have a different idea of what conditioning is in the first place. Notice how she often calls it "classical counter conditioning"? Maybe I have it wrong, but as far as I have ever understood it, classical conditioning is a form of associative learning that bypasses operant conditioning. It is automatic and doesn't require a reward structure. When we use food in counter-conditioning we are not trying to teach our dogs to behave in a certain way. We are trying to change their emotional response to a stimuli to be more positive, and their behaviour follows because it is largely driven by the underlying emotional state.

Lee Charles Kelley

c) target the other dog as the cause of the behavior (even though the other dog wasn't around initially,) and remove him from the situation

As it happened, that worked, so one would have to ask oneself why. Could it be that Hope's presence upset Willie's equilibrium? Will is not by anyone's standards an emotionally sound dog in the first place, so it would not be surprising if he was unable to find a way to alleviate the pressure he felt and this pressure came out in negative ways as it had at earlier times in his life. That makes sense on its own to me, and if we remove Hope and discover that Willie's behaviour returns to "normal", I think it's a pretty fair assumption that Hope's presence was the problem. It's not Hope's fault and doesn't make him a bad dog, but Willie comes first.

Lastly, you seem to have glossed over her decision to keep Hope and work on both his and Willie's individual quirks and her assessment of what her chances of success with that option may have been. That was the decision until the perfect home came up for Hope. If he's going to be happier there, and Willie happier without him, then what's the terrible tragedy? To me, the only sad thing is that Trisha was unable to accurately assess a puppy's personality. That is a problem everyone who tries it faces. It has nothing to do with Behaviorism, either. In an earlier post she talked about the puppy tests and how useful (not very) they were and most of it is geared towards assessing a puppy's boldness, their bounceback, and their typical coping strategy. That is all under very strong genetic control at that age, my friend.

And while we're at it, there is an alternative theory to learning that Stephen Lindsay likes, and I quite like it as well. That is that no learning occurs until an animal predicts a consequence of their actions (or of a stimulus or whatever) and what occurs does not match the prediction. It sounds on the surface as if using R+ to maintain a behaviour can't work. But, obviously it does. It also sounds on the surface as though jackpotting is only going to be detrimental. But, obviously it is not. That's because there are other brain chemistry systems at work. It would be foolish to discount anticipation, for example. It gets to a point with anticipation that the anticipation of the event is more rewarding than the actual reward. The more I reward my dogs, the more they anticipate that when they complete a particular behaviour they will be rewarded, and the surer of that they are, the more excited and animated they get, and they get a nice dopamine hit when they are cued. Not when they are rewarded! We also know that introducing an element of uncertainty drives this system to new heights of dopamine spritzing, to use Robert Sapolsky's elegant phrase, which ties in nicely with what we know about the effects of variable reward schedules on behaviour.

ron2

As to the efficacy of the +R and whether or not the conditioning held or not, I think a point is being missed, here. Dogs do generalize, from time to time, but not always in the ways or the extent that humans expect them to do. A dog could be quite well socialized through conditioning and have absolutely no problem with a number of situations over the years. And run into a new context, a new situation and the old training, in the dog's mind, as it were, does not apply.

Hi, Ron,

You've given me a lot to cover. (Now I can empathize with those reading my long posts!) So I'll take your points, piecemeal.

I'd say that dogs are capable of cross-contextualizing, not generalizing. But that's just me sticking to Ockham's razor,etc.

You're right, though, in that, what a dog learns in one situation doesn't always carry over to a new one. However, what I found when I began using (or testing) Natural Dog Training, is that there are times when a dog can learn a new behavior, or get rid of an old fear, instantaneously, with no need for repetition. (I actually witnessed this for myself a few times before I ever came across Natural Dog Training, or, in fact, had any interest in becoming a dog trainer myself.) So it's possible for a) a dog to learn something once, in one fell swoop, and never forget it, and b) to erase every negative, fearful association with a particular category of stimuli in the same way. The key is in the intensity of the experience.

What I think happens with a dog like Will (or my dog Freddie) is that early puppyhood experiences, of a repressive or fear-inducing nature -- no matter how small or insignificant they may seem to us, and which may nothing to do with any overt punishment -- create a template that all subsequent experiences get filtered through. If the dog is given enough new experiences, in new situations, to override that initial conditioning, the dog may end up operating, generally speaking, on a more even keel, though new experiences, especially as they relate to changes in the household dynamic -- a move, a divorce, a new person or dog added to the household -- can add enough stress so that the fear resurfaces, and the dog is suddenly afraid of things that didn't bother him before. Unfortunately, it often takes a few weeks to a few months for the fear to resurface, so it's hard for most of us to see the connection between the old bruise and the new behavior.

ron2

I also disagree with your opinion (and that's what I think it is) that creatures don't learn through operant conditioning. Even if hunger is a stress and we learn something that brings us food, I don't think it's just a reduction of stress, though that certainly fits in with your predilection toward the non-linear dog theory. I think it is primally rewarding because it leads to survival.

I taught myself to play guitar. Because it is rewarding, not because I had a stressor requiring me to play guitar to ease that stress. By the way, it was a sore time for the fingers before I built calluses. I am enjoying learning to play golf, though my forearms and right bicep are sore. Because the game is rewarding. Otherwise, why would I put up with the stress of physical discomfort to learn something?

I mean, I get the point that the dog wants something and there is the stress of wanting it and when the thing is attained, some stress is reduced. I can see that perspective but I don't think it's the most accurate. It's like saying that Nike shoes makes one physically fit when, in actuality, a number of professional athletes, who are fit, happen to wear Nikes.

Sorry to point this out, but you've contradicted yourself. Yes, eating has a survival value, but playing guitar doesn't. In Freudian terms learning to play guitar would fall under the category of sublimating the unpleasant feelings associated with an unresolved sex drive. (As Orson Welles said about men, "We invented civilization in order to impress our girlfriends.";) So I would argue that while you're saying that I'm putting the cart before the horse, that's actually what you're doing. Internal tension or stress is what drives all behavior, learned or instinctive.

Remember, the idea of positive reinforcement was based on Freud's pleasure principle. But Freud said (and quite rightly, I think) that pleasure is defined as often (or perhaps more often) by the reduction of an internal state of tension as it is by an overtly pleasurable experience. If a squirrel-chasing dog, for example, is offered a treat to lure him away from chasing a squirrel, and he prefers to chase the squirrel instead of eating the treat, is he acting on his survival instincts or his prey drive? Seeing the squirrel creates an unpleasant feeling of compulsion in such a dog. So he gives chase, time after time, after time. And no matter how many times he fails to reach his "goal," he still persists in the behavior. True, behavioral scientists call that self-reinforcing. But why is self-reinforcing? Because it releases excess drive energy.

So even when the survival instinct is active, it's always tension or stress that actually drives behavior.

ron2

Dogs have tool use. Digging to make a cool spot, get at a worm, or, in the case of my dog, to eat a grass root. Hunting, sometimes, in groups, which doesn't have to do with emotion and has to do with strategy, i.e., a minimal state of intelligence, to say the least.

Paws are not tools. If dogs were to dig using sticks, that would constitute tool use.

And hunting in a group had everything to do with emotion, and very little to do with strategy as we think of it. Since wolves hunt large prey, and since large prey animals can easily kill or maim an individual wolf, it feels safer to work as a group because the feeling of danger is diffused across the entire pack, rather than being focused on each individual member. Also, absent the ability to use some sort of mental planning or strategy (which would use up more time and energy than would be economical, or beneficial to the process), the only way a wolf could engage in the kinds of sophisticated shifts in "strategy," we see when they hunt, is through an ability to feel the shifts in emotional energy in each other and in the prey.

Wolves also target the weakest member of a herd. Something that's not always discernible from observing an animals' behavior. How do they do that unless they can sense the weakness in that animal's energy states?

This goes directly back to Will, b/c hunting large prey requires emotional and behavioral flexibility. And fear is very inflexible.

ron2

Even Einstein, raised as a Jew and a believer in God his whole life, couldn't fathom random nature. When asked if he believed in evolution as depicted by Darwin, he said, "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe."

Right. And Spinoza said "Nothing in nature is random." But the genesis of behavioral science is based on the proposition that animals act in a random manner, and only "learn" things when a random behavior produces a "reward."

ron2

What if a dog won't walk calmy with treats? So you use an Easy Walk, or Gentle Leader, or even a properly fitted prong. And, nearly in one breath, the dog is a perfect gentleman or lady. Does that mean that +R failed? No. It means that you, the owner, were note communicating well enough before. Since I think dogs are individuals, I can also surmise (my own theory) that they have different neurological thresholds. 

Right. Which brings us back to Will (and my dog Freddie), and the problem of bringing the dog back to the threshold of the same emotional intensity that caused his phobias to become set in place. That's why I keep saying that Hope was not the problem, and keep predicting that while Will is, to all intents and purposes, perfectly happy now, that's probably going to change within the next few months, and he'll revert back to his old behaviors and phobias. There are some things you can't condition into a dog, and that you can't condition out of them.

Let's hope I'm wrong. (That won't be too hard for some of you to do!)

LCK

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

Lee Charles Kelley

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

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

Lee Charles Kelley

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

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

As I have always said "The worst enemy for a dog's rehabilitation is the human mind"

The problem is easily explained in 2 simple words: "Close minded". She was not willing to use something that she has never agreed with even when that could have helped the dogs. Oh human ego why are you such a b**ch?

Will, the resident dog, STILL has behavioral issues. She has a PhD in Zoology with experience of more than 20 years in dog behavior, who sells books and charges for seminars and DVDs regarding the issue. I dont know if i want to spend my money on someone who cant rehabilitate her own dog (and frankly is like a slap in the face for all her clients)

The resident dog has issues and still she thought about including a new one. Ok she is Patricia McConnell, that would not be a problem right? Well it seems that it actually was. 

Then of course the puppy feeds himself from the resident dog's issues, who should she work on more?

Those are rookie mistakes that should not be expected from a top trainer. I think her resident dog is 4 now, his issues should have not lasted this long for Patricia McConnell, why do they do? Well obviously they are not working, should she try a different approach? Hell no!!, she would die first before trying some of the approaches she trashes about from other people, even if that means Will has to keep living under the shadow of his behavioral problems

When you have a dog with aggression issues or something else serious, it usually just takes much too long with a positive method to resolve the problem.  So, you either rehome the dog or manage the behavior. 

espencer, I think you missed a few pieces of the story. Trisha refers to Willie as a dog that needed her 20 years of experience to ever hope to live a normal or happy life. And that's what happened. He was living a normal life in a multi-dog household. He was comfortable greeting and playing with strange dogs. He was not entirely comfortable with them being in his house and he was prone to anxiety, especially due to loud noises. That was the extent of his "issues" as far as I could make out. Then her other dogs died and she felt he would be happier with a canine pal again, because he likes playing with other dogs. We only know what she has told us. We have no place judging whether it was a good decision or not because we don't have all the facts.

I think when I have rehabilitated a dog like Willie, then I will comment on how long it should take and what changes to his behaviour can be expected. I also think until I know Will personally I would not consider him living under the shadow of his behavioural problems. To comment on either would seem to me to be both arrogant and ignorant. But hey, this is the internet. Experts abound.

Hey, Corvus. The Lindsay quote about learning does not occur until an animal makes a prediction and the results of what happens doesn't match the prediction struck me as funny. It was quite similar to the "definition" of insanity, doing something more than once and expecting different results each time.

And the whole thing vaguely read like something the late Douglas Adams would come up with (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.)

Ron, don't go on my explanation. I condensed several pages of Lindsay's book into a couple of sentences, which doesn't do it justice. You can find a better explanation by looking up "expectancy learning", or the relevant section in Lindsay's book is available online here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=T5ylLv5xUDQC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=expectancy+learning+steven+lindsay&source=bl&ots=Ji8hqVROh-&sig=7z0lSBTjX2_4J5RpBrxMfde5Xn0&hl=en&ei=wWWHTOS4NYPevQPcqKG6Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's about predictions, confirmation/disconfirmation and control.

Also, just because Patricia is for +R training does not mean she is against punishment or correction, but she is against mis-timed and ill-fitted uses of that in behavior mod.

I agree, LCK, that dogs are contextual, and this is precisely why they don't generalize as we do, which is why it is possible for a dog to be fine in many different situations, even for years, and not be fine with a new one, because the context is different, even in a subtle way. And I don't think it counts as a failure, either. There was a chance for one of the dogs to live somewhere else that was different, contextually, and with apparently a successful transition and a return of balance, rather than keep the dog and "try to prove" her worth.

Nor am I particularly a follower of Freud, per se, I just like the banana line, though he probably didn't say that. Among other things, Freud was also a drug addict. But, was he a drug addict like Dr. House on the tv show, munching vicodin to dull chronic pain, or like many other addicts, using because it feels just a little more soothing than not using? And does this usage inform his opinion about tension and release?

But what we say about dogs can sometimes be said about humans. Wherein a person can be fine in several situations throughout their lives but not be fine in one because, in reality, each scenario was contextual and they found the one context that felt bad. So, there are times when I value your quest for the sans-human approach because who are humans to judge other animals?

We are, as I have pointed out, primates and primates, in general, are a violent and aggressive family of species. So, we express what we see of dogs in terms of our primate behavior. And we are arrogant. We think we are the only ones who think. That we are somehow not animal or above animal or outside of animal. Even though we have technically come out of the trees, are we still not, in a way, beating our chests and barking and howling?

Granted, learning to play guitar is not required for survival as a great ape. The actions involved can be similar to things one would do in the daily scratch for survival. Maybe I overstepped in not assuming that tool use only involves use of external objects from the environment. But I also remember a case of a dog that had several toys and used them in various ways. Displayed in ways that showed a depiction of human relationships. Displayed in ways to show various geometric shapes. And what was the meaning of that? It was not necessary for survival. So, what was the dog trying to communicate with such patterns? And those were objects external to the dog. And, it seemed he was trying to communicate, which is quite a "human"-like use of tool use. More than just using a stick to get ants out of an anthill. Humans seem quite adept at tool use for communication purposes.

And I'm running out of time and must get to work.

espencer

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

 

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

 

Lee Charles Kelley

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

 

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

 

Lee Charles Kelley

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

  (emphasis added)

 

Lee Charles Kelley

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.

Dang!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some of the best statements I've heard in a while around here. I agree with you 1,000%

As I have always said "The worst enemy for a dog's rehabilitation is the human mind"

The problem is easily explained in 2 simple words: "Close minded". She was not willing to use something that she has never agreed with even when that could have helped the dogs. Oh human ego why are you such a b**ch?

 

Oh, please.  This is such crap.  First of all, if Patricia was looking for a pet, she might have handled things differently.  These are working dogs - and it sucks having to spend time managing or training for behavior issues when the dog should be working instead, and cooperatively, with other dogs.  Did you ever have a job where you didn't like a co-worker?  It isn't that you can't be forced to be nice, or do your job, but wouldn't you be happier if you did like the co-worker?  That is the situation we have here.  Most of you have probably not spent the last 7 years of your life watching dog play groups.  If you had, you would realize that, left to their own devices, dogs pick their own friends, just like we do.  And, sometimes, things you didn't expect will happen.  Just one example - I have two clients who purchased GSD littermates.  The dogs live in separate households, and both have good socialization histories, played well with each other during classes and play groups, and lo and behold, decided one day to hate one another.  They can't be in the same room without a fight breaking out between them.  Did I say they hate one another?   Yet, they still play well with most other dogs.  Then, there's our chocolate Lab who's a hale fellow well met - in nine years, I've seen him take issue with only one dog, an intact Akita who started a row with him.  So there are super friendly dogs, and not so friendly dogs, anxious dogs and confident dogs.  The one thing that folks who think they know it all cannot change is that dogs are sentient beings with preferences.  Can we force them to co-exist?  Sure, if the preferences aren't that strong (which will give humans the feeling that they can force dogs into relationships whenever they want --- how do say arrogance?), and maybe even if they are (although who wants to take the chance on a dog killing another dog if we're wrong?)  But, the real question is should we?  I, for one, want my dogs to live with dogs they like and can cooperate with.  I want to live with people I like (which is why I chose Mike, and didn't choose some others).  The human ego is a b**ch, but it's also a b**ch to think you know it all, when you are pet trainers and the subject at hand is a working dog. 

As to positive trainers "giving up" I think that's not an accurate term, it's just another euphemism for those who want to think that they can force dogs to do whatever they want and tell themselves that slavery is acceptable.  What I think is accurate is that people "give up" on dogs all the time, but if it's in the dog's best interest, then what's the problem?  No one euthanized this dog, she simply is going to a home that will make her *happier* - what the heck is wrong with that???  (Nothing, and, espencer, your own god, Cesar Millan, has taken dogs into care that didn't go back to their owners either. Remember the woman who got a different dog from him and let him keep her dog?)  Would the ACD that I helped bail into a trainer's home be better off with his original family who let him get alpha rolled by an intimidating and boorish son in law?  Also, if you have done this professionally for any length of time, you begin to realize that pet owners give up on their animals long before we do - and that sometimes, the best thing to do is to help them re-home the dog before they end up dumping it at the open admission shelter rather than do the one more thing that you have suggested. BTW, I didn't just "shrug" this dog off, and I find it exceedingly disgusting that someone would suggest that I would do so because I am a "positive" trainer (it's probably more accurate to say science-based, but I'm not unhappy with the label itself).   

Nothing on this planet will make my Sequoyah like a dog she doesn't like.  Can I get her to stay still and let it sniff her butt, and can I make her "leave it" instead of going over and beating its a&&?  YES.  Do I think she should have to work with a dog she hates on a daily basis?  Nope.  Is it worth making her anxious, fearful, angry, sullen, or whatever, to force her to do it?  NO.  BTW, just for the record, I would work with Ron any day, but you guys would make me head for the water cooler.

And I don't understand some people's obsession with forcing dogs to co-exists with dogs they don't get along with.  Talk about ego tripping, IMO.

If you want multiple dogs, just get ones that get along!

This is not ONLY about 2 dogs getting along and trying to force them to live together. She did way so many other mistakes. The resident dog Will has been presenting these issues since 4 years ago!!! Way more time than the needed for one of the "top trainers" in USA to resolve the issue.

Resident dog with issues and STILL she thinks about bringing a new puppy to the mix!!! Is dog behavior 101, you do NOT bring a new dog if your current dog has issues.

If a regular person had to re home a dog its kind of expected. They dont have a PhD in Zoology with experience of more than 20 years in dog behavior, who sells books and charges for seminars and DVDs regarding the issue. But of course, she goes around and talks trash about dog specialists she does not agree with, would that be karma or hypocrisy?

By the way, from another post on her blog:

Look at all the choice points involved in my decisions related to Hope:
- Deciding to get a puppy 4 years ago when I had 3 very old dogs 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


(emphasis added)


Dude!!!! Or she has REALLY bad luck with puppies or she does not know what she is doing. Will, Mick and Hope (all of them) have come with issues. I dont think this is coincidence. She is Patricia "effin" McConnell!! The dogs could not have ended in better hands than hers (or at least that is what we thought before). Does not she know how to deal with Willie, Mick and Hope issues? She clearly does not.


It's incredible that she has the nerve to take money away from people for her services and products

hapnthatch

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..

Agree....