Natural Dog Training

[christinepi]

I've come across the Natural Dog Training approach, started by Kevin Behan, also promoted by Lee Charles Kelley, a few times on the internet now. Has anybody used this with greyhounds on this forum, and if so, what was the outcome? I'm just curious. I hadn't heard of it before, but I'm always interested in different approaches.

[Guest DragonflyDM]

Do you have any links?

[christinepi]

There's this: http://leecharleskelleysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/pushing-exercise.html

 

And: http://www.naturaldogblog.com/blog/2011/10/dog-fancy-magazine-neil-sattin-kevin-behan-natural-dog-training-pushing/

[JJNg]

I have no experience with this training method, and had hadn't heard of until now. But from reading about the "pushing exercise" on the site, I have to say that I don't see how this method is natural at all, and I'm not really following the logic of the dog 'pushing past emotional barriers'. I also don't agree with the comment that "hunger is nature's way of curing fear" nor do I believe in using hunger in the way they suggest to aid in training.

 

I'm personally not a fan of most of the 'named' training techniques as many are just marketing ploys. If you want truly natural dog training, you mostly just need observation, common sense, and a willingness to learn canine body language and communication. Out of all the books, authors, and speakers I've come across, I've found Turid Rugaas to be the most enlightening.

[Batmom]

Nonsensical.

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

Just looking at the idea, I believe what is actually going on is by hand-feeding (which I recommend for a multitude of issues as well), you are establishing trust, as well as your leadership role on an instinctual level. I don't really think the "push" game really has much to do with the results, its really a trust/bonding thing going on by hand-feeding. They have just attached a "gimmick" to the exercise.

 

Chad

Edited February 28, 2012 by Greyt_dog_lover

[christinepi]

It sure sounds way too New Agey for my taste, and this whole "energy" business seems silly to me; however, I feel what harm could there be in trying this to see whether it actually might have benefits, for whatever reason? The worst thing would be the dog getting fat. My grey has issues with keeping his attention on me when he crosses threshold outdoors, and he crosses threshold very easily. I've seen some progress with counter conditioning, but it's not consistent and slow going. That's why I was wondering about the pushing and wanted to hear whether anybody here has tried this.

 

Here's an interesting discussion of this method on a dog forum: http://www.dogwise.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=15&threadid=4850

 

Mind you, I'm not promoting this. Just curious.

Edited February 28, 2012 by christinepi

[Guest DragonflyDM]

It sure sounds way too New Agey for my taste, and this whole "energy" business seems silly to me; however, I feel what harm could there be in trying this to see whether it actually might have benefits, for whatever reason? The worst thing would be the dog getting fat. My grey has issues with keeping his attention on me when he crosses threshold outdoors, and he crosses threshold very easily. I've seen some progress with counter conditioning, but it's not consistent and slow going. That's why I was wondering about the pushing and wanted to hear whether anybody here has tried this.

 

Here's an interesting discussion of this method on a dog forum: http://www.dogwise.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=15&threadid=4850

 

Mind you, I'm not promoting this. Just curious.

 

Knowing nothing about the practice other than those articles, I could certainly share my suspicions. Nevertheless, the concept of "energy" may seem new-agey, but it is valid in behavioral health counseling. What is fatigue but a draining of energy. What is stress but blocked energy? What is depression but a depletion of energy? Haven't you ever talked with someone who just seems to sap every bit of energy from you until they exhaust you?

 

Doesn't seeing your grey when you walk in through the door wag his tail and push against you asking to be petted fill you with renewed energy? Doesn't holding hands with someone you love make you burst with energy?

 

I think they are using energy as analagous to bonding, invigorating, and shared communicating.

 

But natural training implies that dogs naturally want human-like codes of behavior. Animals like heirarchy, and there are species behaviors that each pack uses to communicate the rules of the pack-- but usually they are done by establishing an strong confident alpha and letting everyone trust his judgement.

 

Life for an animal is really about the first three Maslow's Heirarchy of needs: physical needs, safety needs, and belonging. I can gleen from the articles they are trying to establish some rapport for safety and belonging-- but I don't see how that will translate into molding behavior and codes of conduct. I would have to see it to understand it better.

[Guest mariah]

I think Kevin Behan is kinda phoney. His dad was one of the forefathers of "dominance theory" as we understand it today. He claims to have parted ways with that school of thought himself, but everything I've read of his seems to simply advocate "traditional" dog training methods, only dressed up with new age phraseology. I would be skeptical of anyone who claimed to be a follower of his, personally.

Edited February 28, 2012 by mariah

[christinepi]

I would really like to see this "in action". I couldn't find any youtube videos with examples of "before" and "after" dogs (I'm not saying there aren't any, I just couldn't find any). With positive reinforcement/counter conditioning, you can find oodles of successfully changed dogs. Again, I'm open to this approach in theory because who knows exactly what's going on in dog's brains and emotions at all times. Sometimes it is just mysterious. Maybe, just maybe, pushing might help some canine individuals.

 

I'm very aversive to CM's methods and the whole alpha thing etc etc, no need to start a whole other discussion, but one thing that does amaze me at times is how his presence alone, when he and dog first meet, can really make a dog stop and think. Not saying he's really helping the dog, but rather that there is something there that's being picked up on by the dog that's subtle but strong. So maybe this pushing thing can communicate something subtle but strong also?

 

Ultimately, I'm just saying who knows what works sometimes and why. But that doesn't mean it might be worth a try. From the looks of it, nobody's tried this on this forum, so maybe I'll just try this myself.

[silverfish]

I can't imagine making that work with Jeff, or Jeff benefitting in any way if it did. It would just confuse the heck out of him and make him more nervous, not less.

 

And what if your dog simply isn't motivated by food? Neither of mine would push against my hand for food. Why would they? Certainly, hand-feeding and pleasurable body handling/grooming/trust building exercising will all work in your favour, and in your dog's favour, but quite honestly, both of mine would give up and go without their dinner rather than play the pushing game, and how is that going to benefit you?

 

I can't see there's any connection at all between a greyhound streaking across a field in pursuit of a rabbit and pushing against someone's hand in order to get at their kibble.

[Guest mariah]

I can't imagine making that work with Jeff, or Jeff benefitting in any way if it did. It would just confuse the heck out of him and make him more nervous, not less.

 

And what if your dog simply isn't motivated by food? Neither of mine would push against my hand for food. Why would they? Certainly, hand-feeding and pleasurable body handling/grooming/trust building exercising will all work in your favour, and in your dog's favour, but quite honestly, both of mine would give up and go without their dinner rather than play the pushing game, and how is that going to benefit you?

 

Might be confused, but it sounded to me like the objective was for the owner to physically push the dog, not the other way around?

[christinepi]

I can't imagine making that work with Jeff, or Jeff benefitting in any way if it did. It would just confuse the heck out of him and make him more nervous, not less.

 

And what if your dog simply isn't motivated by food? Neither of mine would push against my hand for food. Why would they? Certainly, hand-feeding and pleasurable body handling/grooming/trust building exercising will all work in your favour, and in your dog's favour, but quite honestly, both of mine would give up and go without their dinner rather than play the pushing game, and how is that going to benefit you?

 

Might be confused, but it sounded to me like the objective was for the owner to physically push the dog, not the other way around?

 

I think the pressure needs to be built up over time. You start really gentle with just putting the hand there, and then it builds from there. It's a two way street, the way I understand it. The human pushes and the dog pushes back.

 

I know the whole thing sounds kind of weird, but having never tried it I wouldn't just totally dismiss it. It may not work with some individuals, and it may work better with certain breeds than others. One thing that's seems necessary in the beginning is to start with a really hungry dog, one that may have to be "starved" for 24 hours (I shudder at that. I just know how I'd feel!!). But this will stop being necessary once the dog gets it.

 

Again, I just thought this was interesting, that's all. I have this ongoing issue with Tracker that he often gets so intense and then doesn't hear me anymore. I'd like to help him more effectively with that. As it is, walking down sidewalks with him when another dog is coming our way is a problem in the sense that he just hollers at the other dog and I have to drag him along.

[silverfish]

Well, if you give it a try, I'd certainly be interested to hear how you get on! Keep us posted.

[NeylasMom]

I can't imagine making that work with Jeff, or Jeff benefitting in any way if it did. It would just confuse the heck out of him and make him more nervous, not less.

 

And what if your dog simply isn't motivated by food? Neither of mine would push against my hand for food. Why would they? Certainly, hand-feeding and pleasurable body handling/grooming/trust building exercising will all work in your favour, and in your dog's favour, but quite honestly, both of mine would give up and go without their dinner rather than play the pushing game, and how is that going to benefit you?

 

Might be confused, but it sounded to me like the objective was for the owner to physically push the dog, not the other way around?

 

I think the pressure needs to be built up over time. You start really gentle with just putting the hand there, and then it builds from there. It's a two way street, the way I understand it. The human pushes and the dog pushes back.

 

I know the whole thing sounds kind of weird, but having never tried it I wouldn't just totally dismiss it. It may not work with some individuals, and it may work better with certain breeds than others. One thing that's seems necessary in the beginning is to start with a really hungry dog, one that may have to be "starved" for 24 hours (I shudder at that. I just know how I'd feel!!). But this will stop being necessary once the dog gets it.

 

Again, I just thought this was interesting, that's all. I have this ongoing issue with Tracker that he often gets so intense and then doesn't hear me anymore. I'd like to help him more effectively with that. As it is, walking down sidewalks with him when another dog is coming our way is a problem in the sense that he just hollers at the other dog and I have to drag him along.

You mentioned using operant conditioning, have you tried classical for the dog reactivity? The training needs to be done at a distance from the other dogs where he can divide his attention between you and the stimulus dog and is not over threshold. Going to a pet store and parking at the end of hte parking lot away from the door is an easy way to control the distance between you and the other dogs. Then, every time he sees a dog, you feed. Feed feed feed, dog disappears, feeding stops. You continue with this until he starts to associate seeing other dogs with food. When he does, he will start to automatically look at you for his treat when he sees the dog, click and treat immediately. When the difficulty increases (the dog is slightly closer, the dog stands there for longer, the dog is more interesting than others - maybe he barks or is jumpy) feed more.

 

The difference between this and operant techniques is that the dog is learning how to respond on his own, without being given a cue from you. Ultimately, it should also change his feelings about seeing other dogs. Outside of training sessions, you need to do everything possible to avoid putting him in situtaions that would push him over threshold as that will only reinforce the behavior. Typically the easiest way to do that is keep your eyes out and when you see a dog approaching, book it the other way, but teaching a "let's go" cue when other dogs aren't around that is highly reinforced can be used when you're surprised by another dog.

 

 

As far as the natural dog training, when I linked to an About NDT page some of hte principles make sense, but I'm not sure of the validity of his methods at all. Still, I'd be interested to hear the results if you try it.

[christinepi]

What I've been doing with Tracker is practically what you've suggested. I've become very good at spotting dogs from far away and knowing when we're far enough away for this to work. So when I see them from far away and he's seen them, too, I say his name, and as soon as he's clearly THINKING about paying attention to me, I click and ply him with treats. Repeat/repeat/repeat. And then walk in a direction away from the dogs. I do avoid like the devil situations when he could cross threshold, but it's not always possible. The click/treat works quite well often, but then it can fall apart completely some other time, even though nothing seems to be different. it just doesn't seem to "stick" permanently. I like your suggestion to practice quick direction changes when no dogs are around, I'll try that, and also the pet store situation (it's difficult there because of the architecture set up there to do this properly, but I'll try it again).

 

Now is that considered operant or conditioned?

 

Another weird thing with Tracker is that he behaves pretty much the same whether he encounters cats, chickens, goats, sheep, alpacas, cows or other dogs. It makes me wonder whether he's just uncertain and wants to figure these other creatures out (albeit in a clumsy manner). He'll bark and play bow at any of the aforementioned creatures, though other dogs certainly rev him up the most. He's never aggressive, just overbearing and loud.

Edited February 29, 2012 by christinepi

[Guest DragonflyDM]

 

Now is that considered operant or conditioned?

 

 

Classical conditioning is pavlov’s dog: You ring a bell every time you feed the dog. Eventually when the bell rings, there is a non-conscious reaction and the dog salivates. You create a reactionary habit.

 

Operant conditioning is where you develop a motivation rather than a habit. You get the dog to choose one behavior over another for the reward. “If I stay here and not move, then my master will love me and give me treats. It is better to sit still than to go and sniff that bush.”

 

So most classical training for animals (and people btw) is to work with some classical conditioning for a primer base (use a treat to get the dog’s attention and make him associate you and possibly a command or noise with a good association). Then you move on to operant conditioning. The dog will want the reward and now is willing to make motivational choices in their attempts to get it.

[Batmom]

For Tracker's problem, might be worth looking up some of Giselle's descriptions and videos of LAT (look at that) training.

[NeylasMom]

What I've been doing with Tracker is practically what you've suggested. I've become very good at spotting dogs from far away and knowing when we're far enough away for this to work. So when I see them from far away and he's seen them, too, I say his name, and as soon as he's clearly THINKING about paying attention to me, I click and ply him with treats. Repeat/repeat/repeat. And then walk in a direction away from the dogs. I do avoid like the devil situations when he could cross threshold, but it's not always possible. The click/treat works quite well often, but then it can fall apart completely some other time, even though nothing seems to be different. it just doesn't seem to "stick" permanently. I like your suggestion to practice quick direction changes when no dogs are around, I'll try that, and also the pet store situation (it's difficult there because of the architecture set up there to do this properly, but I'll try it again).

 

Now is that considered operant or conditioned?

 

Another weird thing with Tracker is that he behaves pretty much the same whether he encounters cats, chickens, goats, sheep, alpacas, cows or other dogs. It makes me wonder whether he's just uncertain and wants to figure these other creatures out (albeit in a clumsy manner). He'll bark and play bow at any of the aforementioned creatures, though other dogs certainly rev him up the most. He's never aggressive, just overbearing and loud.

That's operant conditioning because you're giving a cue to get his attention. While a seemingly small difference, it's totally different. Classical as I described it gets him to associate the dog with food, therefore what was once scary is now good because it means good things (really high value treats in this case, emphasis on the high value )are coming. You can apply it in any of those situations too. It also teaches the dog what to do on his own, versus needing to wait for your cue (which may be too late).

 

Initially you may need to shove the food right under his nose to get him to notice it, but that will change with time and eventually he'll start looking at you automatically when you see another dog.

 

I've taught a lot of people this technique, but Violet is the first dog of my own I've ever needed it with. We started working on it more consistently in early January and unless we've got a really hyper white fluffy on top of us, she's reliable.

 

Give it a shot and see if he gets it faster. Either way though, this type of training does take time. Click to Calm by Emma Parsons is a great resource if you don't already have it.

[JJNg]

But natural training implies that dogs naturally want human-like codes of behavior. Animals like heirarchy, and there are species behaviors that each pack uses to communicate the rules of the pack-- but usually they are done by establishing an strong confident alpha and letting everyone trust his judgement.

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make with this statement? Natural dog training should be natural from the dog's point of view, implying an understanding of normal canine body language, communication, and needs. It shouldn't be about human codes of behavior.

 

I also question whether the concept of hierarchy and alpha are a part of natural dog behavior, or more an application of human interpretations and assumptions. The social interactions and organization of feral dog populations do not necessarily involve hierarchy and are often based more on independent, opportunistic behavior. If you're interested in considering alternative interpretations of dog social behavior, Alexandra Semyonova's site has some interesting concepts.

[christinepi]

I read everything on her page. What was a shocking eye opener to me was that Konrad Lorenz developed this whole dominance myth during Nazi times when support for this kind of thinking was huge, and what's worse, that he was a Nazi himself. Dogs have paid the price for this myth ever since by being kept from trusting their humans or worse, living with anxiety or fear around them at all times (and being beaten, in many cases).

 

As to operant/classical conditioning: do I have it right when I say that classical conditioning makes treats rain miraculously from the sky (f.e. when the dog sees another dog), and it's operant when I put his behavior on a cue by f.e. saying his name when we see a dog, he responds by looking at me, and then he gets a treat?

[NeylasMom]

 

As to operant/classical conditioning: do I have it right when I say that classical conditioning makes treats rain miraculously from the sky (f.e. when the dog sees another dog), and it's operant when I put his behavior on a cue by f.e. saying his name when we see a dog, he responds by looking at me, and then he gets a treat?

Yes, you have it exactly right, except that the treats don't rain from the sky, they rain from you.

 

You know, I will admit I didn't read everything all that closely, but I didn't have time to type out all of my thoughts on this technique earlier and have been thinking about it. First off, I am always hesitant about any training method that advertises a quick fix, which in some ways it seems this guy does. By doing this one pushing exercise (which admittedly he does say will take some time) you are going to see these magical results in how your dog views you and wants to work with you. Sounds like BS to me.

 

On the other hand, there's probably *something* to the pushing exercise he suggests. Definitely what someone already said, that simply hand feeding meals to your dogs would have a positive effect. I also think that many dogs aren't used to being handled in certain ways - certainly Zuri would find it odd if I started pushing on his chest. So I also see this as a simple training exercise to teach your dog to tolerate or even eventually enjoy what might otherwise be considered a strange touch. It would make your dog more comfortable with you and like any positive reward-based training exercise increase the bond between you and your dog.

 

The latter isn't anything new really. It's a training exercise we did for instance with a foster dog who finds strangers petting her aversive. The only difference was that the touching that she was rewarded for wasn't on her chest, it was more focused on head petting because that was when we had seen her get reactive and is also what strangers are more likely to just do.

 

So basically while there may be some validity to this pushing exercise, the way he's promoting it and publicizing it seems gimmicky and not based totally in reality.

 

That said, I still want to hear the results if you try it.

[Guest DragonflyDM]

But natural training implies that dogs naturally want human-like codes of behavior. Animals like heirarchy, and there are species behaviors that each pack uses to communicate the rules of the pack-- but usually they are done by establishing an strong confident alpha and letting everyone trust his judgement.

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make with this statement? Natural dog training should be natural from the dog's point of view, implying an understanding of normal canine body language, communication, and needs. It shouldn't be about human codes of behavior.

 

I also question whether the concept of hierarchy and alpha are a part of natural dog behavior, or more an application of human interpretations and assumptions. The social interactions and organization of feral dog populations do not necessarily involve hierarchy and are often based more on independent, opportunistic behavior. If you're interested in considering alternative interpretations of dog social behavior, Alexandra Semyonova's site has some interesting concepts.

 

What I mean is.. sit, heel, stay, fetch, don't pee till daddy comes home-- these are not natural to a canine. They are what is easily trained in a domestic animal, but not natural to one. Let a dog loose and it will establish a pack and do as it likes (within reason of the pack).

 

The Alpha concept is pretty common in the wild and fairly well established as behavior in our four-legged family's untamed cousins. But being alpha doesn't mean being a tyrant or dictating rules beyond who naturally leads the direction of the pack and who east first. However, an alpha (especially in domesticated dogs) gives a sense of confidence to the dog-- just as a good friend going out in the world has that support you need to face challenges.

 

So as you train your dog and spend time with your dog AND UNDERSTAND your dog... there is a relationship that is created that makes training so much easier and more of a partnership. This relatoinship is so much richer if it isn't founded on deficit training (aka punishment/reward) and focused on strengths-based positive training (building on what your dog is good at and redirect bad behavior to good instead of punishing).

 

Again, I have never seen this training first hand-- so I can't tell you if it is good or not-- just share my "feeling" about how it was described and what I believe about dog education.

[christinepi]

While I personally disagree with the alpha theory and the pack idea, I completely agree in substance with what you wrote. Dogs are happiest within a frame work and when they know what the rules are and what's expected of them. And knowing your dog is so so important, and dog behavior/body language in general. What gave me goose bumps recently was watching a youtube video that had as its title something about two dogs meeting for the first time and being "aggressive", establishing "dominance". To me it was blatantly obvious that what they were doing was finding out, in a very playful, ritualized way, who the other was and what made him tick. There was no aggression, and plenty of happy play.

 

It's amazing to me how many people totally misread their dogs, to the dogs' detriment. On the other hand, I think things are slowly getting better, what with all the new dog behavior books coming out and generally increasing awareness.

 

And back to Natural Dog Training: I agree it sounds mighty foo foo. And I think at first my grey would be totally stumped by my pushing his chest. In this case, though, at least there couldn't be any more damage than a puzzled dog.

[Guest DragonflyDM]

What I find challenging and rewarding is developing my relationship with my grey. I always had some sort of Lab, Collie or Shepherd mix. They are incredibly easy to train and they almost naturally look to you for structure. My grey is almost 5 years old and he has never had any of that and never developed the human-dog socialization to want to. Nevertheless, with some time, patients and love-- I have been slowly learning his cues. I don’t necessarily train a dog but instead we work out our relationship with each other. I know what he wants and what he is thinking (mostly) and we come to an understanding. As our relationship grows, so will his training.

 

But my theory is/and always has been/ that proper behavior of a dog comes from spending time with the dog as a patient and loving owner. The more you invest-- the faster and better returns you get.

 

So I have NEVER needed the C Milan side kick, or deficit training. It is taking longer with my grey than my previous dogs, but it all works out in the end.