What "First do no harm" really means

Looking for no force methods is not a bad thing. It is in my experience that those who claim people who claim it's a bad thing are a bit uneasy about the fact that you CAN do anything you imagine, without the use of corrections, and without doing any harm to your animal. Paired with the fact that most correction-based trainers are still sadly in the realm of "alpha", and the mythical part of dominance that lies only in the eyes of the human. A lot of these trainers still cannot tell the difference between leadership (controlling the resources) and dominance (getting your way by force, by making the door feel "lower", it's a power trip, not a relationship). I still see so much balogne about "don't let your dogs go through doors first!!!!" and the rest of those similar quotes that make people feel like dogs are waiting up at night while we sleep, deciding on how to plot their take-over of human-kind. The more we continue to dispel most of those dominance myths, and promote a view of the DOG, and DOG behaviour (NOT wolf behaviour!......do you study apes to learn more about your fellow humans? Why not study dogs then, to learn about dogs?), then we can continue making headway.

It's not a bad thing, I just think that there is an essense of uneasiness, even perhaps guilt in some people, that perhaps there is a better way, and even that some can't possibly admit it, so they find ways to try and make another's methods look inferior, to try to regain a bit of composure in the fact that they are using methods that are not based on relationship or teamwork but on fear, intimidation, pain, or force. Of course not all people feel guilty about it, and those are the ones I'm more worried about. At least the ones who do feel uneasy about the possibility that dogs can be trained in totally pain-free, fear-free, force-free ways, are the people who are giving other methods a second thought and they aren't totally disregarding it.

Kim MacMillan

Depends on what kind of "harm" we are talking about.
 
Bad timing and inappropriate use of any training method can cause "harm".
 
There is physical "harm" and then there is psychological "harm"
 
There is the "harm" which can come to other living beings which come in contact with a bratty, out of control dog, because the owner has been told they can't even tell their dog "no" or set a boundary by the trainer they trust.
 
There is the "harm" of a dog suffering in insecurity and confusion because the owner is no leader. Or the owner is flip-flopping between acting dominant one minute, and subordinant the next.
 
There is the "harm" of a dog living in stress for months while someone is busily shaping and manipulating their behavior, rather than communicating with the dog.
 
And then there is the ultimate "harm" of putting a dog down because one trainer can't help a dog who is beyond their skill level and/or preferred method, and refuses to send the owner and dog to a trainer who can.
 
I also studied with a trainer who thought Koehler was the right way to go. I have since learned a better way.
 
"Harm" is in the eye of the beholder.

so where does your post differ from mine?

do you study apes to learn more about your fellow humans?

My answer to that is yes, we do study apes to learn more about our species. Nobody would study apes to see how humans do everything, but we do have a lot in common... how we behave in stressful situations, how we learn, etc.

Why not study dogs then, to learn about dogs?

Why not? I think we need to. Yes, dogs are not wolves, maybe they came from scavenging dogs, etc. - wherever they came from, it's good to study their behavior - they're the same species after all; it will broaden our understanding of them.

The real questions is - where drawing conclusions is appropriate and when not. And that's where our brains come in.

I am not writing this to suggest punitive/corrective methods, but I really don't like this quote... Was it I.Dunbar?

First do no harm comes from the Hypocratic oath taken by doctors.

well, there is "temporary" harm and more severe harms. Dogs who are bratty and out of control because their owners aren't using +R training properly aren't really harmed; you can bring them around in a matter of days. Dogs who are brutalized in the name of "dominance" often never fully recover, psychologically. A single overally severe correction, especially during puppyhood, can permanently scar a dog's mind. 
 

Depends on what kind of "harm" we are talking about.

Bad timing and inappropriate use of any training method can cause "harm".

There is physical "harm" and then there is psychological "harm"

There is the "harm" which can come to other living beings which come in contact with a bratty, out of control dog, because the owner has been told they can't even tell their dog "no" or set a boundary by the trainer they trust.

There is the "harm" of a dog suffering in insecurity and confusion because the owner is no leader. Or the owner is flip-flopping between acting dominant one minute, and subordinant the next.

There is the "harm" of a dog living in stress for months while someone is busily shaping and manipulating their behavior, rather than communicating with the dog.

And then there is the ultimate "harm" of putting a dog down because one trainer can't help a dog who is beyond their skill level and/or preferred method, and refuses to send the owner and dog to a trainer who can.

I also studied with a trainer who thought Koehler was the right way to go. I have since learned a better way.

"Harm" is in the eye of the beholder.

 
 
Funny, I wonder all of these examples are issues that have to do with non-force-based training. What a coincidence!
 
What about the "harm", psychological, and physical, that occurs as a result of e-collar use? Even WITH "correctly" used ones?

What about the "harm" that comes from choke chains? Even when used correctly? That dog was just corrected for pulling on leash with a sharp jerk on the leash. Guess what? Your dog was JUST looking at a child when that happened. Congratulations, your dog is now fearful of children.

What about the "harm" that comes from prong collars? Even when used correctly?

What about the "harm" that comes from water pistols? The dog that now is terrified of baths, hoses, and all forms of running water, which can generalize to being terrified of an entire room?
 
What about the "harm" suffered by many dogs whose owners think they need to "alpha", stemming from ignorance about dog behaviour?
 
What about the "harm" suffered by dogs whose owners scruff shake, ear pinch, and flip them on their backs?

What about the "harm" that occurs when dogs are told "no" for about 14 different definitions?
 
What about the "harm" that comes to dogs when their humans treat them as if they are wolves, instead of the dogs that they are?
 
What about the "harm" that comes to dogs when their owners do horrible things to their dogs, in the guise of "training", just to extend it's life a little longer to try to "fix" serioud problems?
 
See the pattern here? One can easily take a biased approach if they wish, and turn something into something that it's not.
 
Regardless, I do think the quote is quite fitting myself.
 
Kim MacMillan

I'd much rather see a happy, confident dog that has some poor behaviors such as leash pulling than a fearful dog that has no apparent bad behaviors.

I, too, would rather see that Stacita.  I hate to look down at a beautiful dog only to find fear on it's face and no life in it's eyes.

Why would  it be considered/implied, that looking for no force methods first would be a bad thing?

Closed mindedness would be a first guess, I think what goes on here is basically a matter of people being to set in their comfort zone and that disables them from try to learn beyond what they already know, or what they think they know. While I don't agree that using a correction of some sort every now and then turns you into a spawn of satan, which is they sense I get from a lot of people, I think that convincing rather than coercing is always the best way to start. Dog ownership is a right, when it should be a privilege.

When I think of what's happening in the dog world as far as training and behaviour science is concerned, I think about what is going on in my business. It used to be that the people that do what I do were a small bunch, with access to very expensive equipment, and a few friends in the right places, a really closed group. These days anyone can get themselves a $1000 computer, a $500 video camera and call themselves "Video Producers". The same applies to the dog world: TV shows, web forums such as these, and other byproducts of the age we live in, put information in the hands of whoever wants it. So, all of the sudden, you read a couple of posts, watch a few shows on TV, maybe read a book or two, you learn a few catch phrases, and voila, not only you are ready to train your dog, but you can solve all your dog problems, and moreover, give advice to others. So that "we're going backwards" feeling that professionals get, is not so much that we are actually going backwards (although in some cases we are), is that we're wating for everybody else to catch up and go thru the same evolution process you describe in the original post.

With each passing day, in EVERY SINGLE FIELD, the phrase "consult a professional" looses meaning. The fact that information is readily available and that we can LEARN about something that used to be somewhat privileged, does not mean that we instantly become our own professionals.

My aim in life is to see the joy in my dogs' eyes when they greet me at the door.
I never want to see the same look some dogs have when their owners come home because of the ten previous scoldings they got for acting like dogs (pee on the floor, rip up the newspaper, chew the wallpaper) when their owners were the ones who left them unsupervised and alone during the "chewing stage".
My aim is that all dogs stay in their forever homes for 15+ years.
I don't want to see adolescent pups in kill shelters because their humans muzzle-grabbed them for puppy nipping and the pup finally bit back.
I want dogs to fly joyously to their owners when they hear the word "come", as if being near their person is the best thing since sliced bread.
I don't want to see the pain in the eyes of a dog who gets hit by a car because his human thought that the way to teach "come" was just to say the word, and scold the dog into next week if he doesn't.
FIRST, DO NO HARM.

I think that training a dog can bring up some pretty deep control issues in a lot of people. I have been there myself, when I first got my dog especially. The whole point, after all, is trying to shape the behavior of another living creature. But that creature has its own agenda, its own free will, and is often at odds with you about the proper way to do... oh, everything. [] So it becomes easy to feel like you don't have total control (because, of course, you don't!)... and then you have some people & trainers & books out there fanning the flames of that fear of losing control by telling you "You can't let your dog get away with that!" A lot of correction-based methods give you an immediate sense of control and power, and I think that is a big part of their appeal. PR methods ask you to be patient and give your dog some control of his own behavior, and that is not always easy, in fact it can be downright frightening if not being in control frightens you.

"Harm" is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that's true, but ultimately the beholder should be looking from the dog's perspective. (And yes, coexisting peacefully in human society is included in that.)

Wow jones, just.....wow. You completely just crystalized my thoughts on this issue. Will you marry me? []