I have been quiet on Social Media in regards to the maelstrom that has taken over my industry in the past couple of years, regarding teaching our dogs with methods that make use of aversives (pain, startle, fear, hierarchy reduction, etc.). I have found that getting involved in the conversations on SM is emotionally, mentally and physically draining and leads to burn out and compassion fatigue.
With the release of a recent study that was in part organized and conducted by a scientist I had previously admired greatly for authoring a book not that many years ago called Dog is Love that shared the prolific scientific evidence that dogs are sentient beings and experience emotions such as love, I have been deeply saddened. It has popped my bubble of blind admiration of the world of science and maybe that is a good thing. I know I have seen such amazing individuals such as Dr. Eric Weinstein discuss the human shortcomings of scientific studies, so often influenced by politics and greed.
The results of this study showed that the use of shock (e-collars) can stop predation sequences in dogs. 100% of the dogs involved in the study yelped in pain when they received the shock from the e-collar. The maximum number of shocks each dog could receive was an arbitrary chosen number of 20. Two of the dogs' results had to be excluded from the study because they realized they had actually received more than 20 shocks each by mistake. It was claimed that the dogs showed no signs of stress because their feces showed no signs of increased cortisol. Really? Yelping in pain is not a sign of stress? In whose world? And why use feces? Why not use saliva? My primary question around this study is, what was the point? We already know the use of pain and aversives can stop behaviour in the moment. I don't think anyone questions that. The bigger concern is the huge array of studies that have repeatedly shown the long term fallout the use of pain and aversives in training cause. And why is shocking a dog 20 or more times, that sees them yelp in pain each time, even considered ethical for the sake of research?
In addition to all of these questions, force free trainers have been so amazing in finding magnificent ways to interrupt behaviour with force free methods that do not cause pain and fear, so why are we even considering the use of aversives anymore?
I believe there is something much bigger at play here though. I have said for years that the world of dog training is a microcosm of the bigger macrocosm of what is going on around the world. We are seeing huge rifts and polarity in the political world around the planet. We are seeing out of control egos with the primary goals being control and dominance of others...people and animals, versus those of us who hold ourselves to the ethics of kindness, caring, and loving for all beings, human and animal.
For me, because we know there are effective, kind, and humane ways to teach dogs, the question is not, can the use of pain and aversives stop behaviour, but one of ethics that asks each of us as individuals to take a stand for what we want to put out into the world. Control regardless of method and effect on our learners? Or mutual respect and kindness.
I love who I am and the ethics of kindness and compassion I hold myself to.
One of the people I do respect in the scientific world and whose books have influenced me and who I am as a trainer, is Dr. Marc Bekoff. I love what he shares in this interview.
Comentários