Why I don’t like invoking the science
I spend a lot of time on social media, probably too much. Part of the reason is that there are a great deal of really interesting discussions happening all over the web about dog training, new techniques, and lots, and I mean lots of discussions on “traditional” dog training methods. A frequent aphorism that gets thrown around is “The science says” and I really dislike this as a rhetorical strategy. The reason is I don’t think many people practically care about what the science says. At least in terms of challenging behavior problems. For my dog trainer friends, how many times has a client spent months, trying to deal with a behavior or skill challenge at home before finally being willing to reach out to a trainer to work through the issue? Times are hard right now and for many people dog training isn’t an expense people can spare. Add to this a dog doing something dangerous, digging through the trash or escaping out the front door. Solving the problem through aversive sure sounds easy.
This is something I think in the Force Free world, we really need to contend with. I very often see people attacking “traditional methods” for not working or not being effective. Which, is frankly wrong. We know these methods work, learning theory (the science says) shows how this works, and the animal training industry as a whole was built on the backs of beaten and broken animals. What’s more, I think the perception that traditional methods are so much easier to apply. Working with clients, we have to teach them how to speak to their dog, how to reinforce, the basics of learning theory, and the how, why, and when to reinforce. On the other side, press the zap button until the dog stops doing the bad thing. Pull up on the leash until they stop. Intuitively this sounds so easy, and with the marketing of a fleet of stoic German Shepherds and Belgian Malinois, it can be hard to not be impressed. Herein lies the trap though. Just because it looks good, and it might work, doesn’t mean this is the best practice, nor one that meets a basic ethical framework.
We have to sell our clients on realistic goals, and understanding. We hold ourselves to really high standards, between certification, continuing education, re-certification, and all of the reading. We aren’t content with what we know now, our hunger for the most humane and effective interactions with our dogs can never be sated. When I read, or go to a conference I am always hungry for more. And for me this is the thing that is so disappointing about traditional trainers. As an outsider, it looks like to them they have already found all the answers and they have stopped looking for more. How many different ways are there to push the receiver on a shock collar? I could never accept this state of affairs. There must be more we can do, there must be another way, another technique. Modern dog trainers refuse this, and we must, this state of affairs. We cannot be so vain as to believe we have learned everything about our dogs our how we interact with them.
I accept that in many ways I am making a purely semantic argument. That I am focusing on how we critique less than on what we critique. There is a reason for this and it is coming. As the world learns more about the inner lives of dogs the world is waking up to the fact that so much of what we used to do to dogs (and many other domesticated species) is frankly abuse. There will be people reading this thinking I am bending over backward trying to defend the use of abusive methods. I hope it is very clear my feelings on using aversive methods in dog training. The reason I want to focus less on the phrase “the science says” is because I don’t think most people are going to go out and read the science. I can tell you all of zero of my clients have tried or showed interest in reading journal articles. There only verification that the science says what I say it says, is trust.
This is not to say that science is not important. Our understanding of the canine world is critical to our continued success. We are very lucky to find ourselves in an era in the field of dog science is exploding. Authors like Alexandra Horowitz, Marc Bekoff, Brian Hare, and so many more are constantly giving us new insights. We in the force-free world are pioneers, explorers pushing the boundaries of the human-dog relationship. We have the distinct honor to share with people what their relationship with their dog could be. When I want to show people how effective force-free methods are, I don’t pull out my The Domestic Dogedited by James Serpell. I have my 140 pounds rescue Great Dane Trapper John, walk in a perfect heel, stop on a dime when I ask, and come bounding towards me when I ask. We get to be interpreters of the science. When I read a new paper, I get to incorporate that into my training and grow a garden of happy dogs, and content families. We get to a new body of proof, so next time you are stuck in the trenches of a Facebook lobby, you don’t need to say “The science says” Upload a video of the great things you have done with your dog without hurting them.