Blog Archives

Positiveness is powerful

19/3/2018

Positive training methods have been widely adopted by many trainers around the world in the past years. This is partly because pets have gained a more important role in families and the demand of humane training methods is growing, but also because newest studies show positive methods have a striking effect on how fast and how eager the dog, or the human for that matter, is to learn.

Let's play a mind game. Imagine a leash around your neck, held by a massive creature that's as high as your house, speaking in odd tongue. There is no way for you to understand what the creature is saying, but it clearly wants something from you.

That's how it is for your dog. It is living in a world made for that big odd creature and the creature is expecting behavior that isn't always natural for the dog. Therefore the creature must teach the dog to behave like it wants it to behave.

I have talked about the process of learning earlier, and about how fear blocks learning. Therefore we don't go more into that, but talk about why positive methods are simply better and why certain tools and methods widely used in training based on negative reinforcement are not beneficial nor do they teach anything.

Learning doesn't happen on it's own

Just a quick example once more to show you the problem with training by negative reinforcement only.

The most common negative reinforcement we all have probably come across and even used is teaching the dog not to pull on the leash by pulling the leash.

Even writing that is contradictory.

How do you make the dog walk nicely by pulling and tugging on the leash? Why does the method ”work”? Well, the basic idea is pulling on the leash leads to nasty tugging and it learns to avoid pulling because it feels bad. It doesn't learn to walk nicely on the leash. Instead of learning to walk good because it knows it is expected to walk calmly on the leash, it only learns to avoid certain behavior, in this case pulling. This means for example that teaching it to work with you in canicross later can be terribly hard, because pulling has been a negative thing in the past. And if you teach the dog it is OK to pull in canicross, it may start to pull during normal walks, too, because it learns pulling, that has once led to nasty things, doesn't lead to them anymore.

Only that it does.

”Wait a minute. Why can I pull sometimes, and sometimes I can't?”

The idea of modern positive training is to train the dog to do the right thing, and this means the dog has to understand what is expected. It can't learn a behavior if it is not taught the behavior. Because of this methods like above are not encouraged, because they don't teach the dog any new way of behaving, they only simply try to make it avoid certain action. Obviously this method leads to a similar behavior with positive methods; the dog doesn't pull. It just doesn't really learn anything new either, and the negative stigma of pulling can interfere with possible future hobbies.

I admit I have taught my older dogs to walk on the leash by tugging the leash. This is exactly why I know it is a bad method. Teaching them to work with me in canicross was hard, because pulling had a terribly negative image in their head. I had to teach them to walk nicely with me again, with positive methods, only so that I could encourage them to pull while we do canicross. I had skipped training them to walk nicely on leash, I had only taught them that pulling leads to nasty tugging.

With my girls I used stopping when they pulled. I called them beside me or gently tugged the leash to get their attention, and we continued while they had returned to my side. This way they learned that fun stops when they pull, but also that fun continues when they walk nicely. They got treats for getting back to me, and they were far more eager to return to my side when I stopped than my boys had been in the past.

I admit I still did tug on the leash several times because the wrong way is imprinted in my brain. I did it no matter I knew it was wrong. Teaching myself to be more positive has been as hard as correcting the twisted behavior I caused with negative training in the past, because unfortunately many of the negative methods lead to results. They just do it in a way that is not beneficial for any later learning process nor to our relationship with the dog.

It takes time

It took you months to potty train and it takes us the total of several YEARS to learn the basics of what a human being must learn to function in this society. Just remember that when you start teaching the dog something and expect it to master it in a week.

Many times people justify their usage or harmful tools by saying they lead to fast results. That is right, but only partially; dogs learn to avoid things pretty quickly. It is a trait any animal, even us, have. We try to save ourselves from nasty and painful things, and electric shocks or pinches on our throat or squishing our trachea are all to be considered not so pleasant things to feel. However, they also learn to connect the nasty thing with the tool and many dogs that have been forced to use E-collar or choke chains or prong collars need to wear the tool every time when they are to be under 100% control. Otherwise they would not act trustworthy. This alone proves that they have not exactly learned to behave in certain way, they have only learned that while wearing the tool they need to avoid certain behavior, because then the tool does not hurt them.

They have learned no new behavior. They have not been trained. And if they are trained, then the usage of those tools is completely in vain. They are not needed. What is needed is time, because learning takes time. We can't justify unpleasant feelings or pain or danger with our own will to have the dog behave correctly fast.

Learning to learn

Teaching the dog to continuoisly avoid things to save it from unpleasant things leads to apathy.

Learning is based on offering new behavior and being praised about the right one. This is exactly the same with people and with dogs. In school we praise the children from doing the right thing, managing to find the result to a problem, not scold them from making a mistake that leads to a wrong answer.

Think about it; would you rather try to learn what the building-tall creature wants you to do when it gave you rewards, or when it punishes you if you accidentally offer the wrong behavior? Wouldn't the latter lead to sitting completely still, because while not getting rewarded, at least you don't get punished from doing wrong either? That is what happens with dogs. Dogs that are trained with punishment are not good at learning, because learning is a skill that gets the better the more you work on it. Dogs, as well as people, can learn to learn. While many people use both punsihment from the wrong and praise from the right action, the fear of punishment can interfere with the learning even if the right kind of behavior means rewards.

When the fear is let out, we as trainers are still in need of motivation for our student. Something to kickstart the will to learn now that it is made safe and offering new behavior only leads to positive outcome.

Some dogs are harder to motivate than others. The key is to find what motivates the individual the best. While fear blocks learning, reward encourages it. For us people the salary we get from our work motivates us to work. If we do things for free, the reward is not material but emotional. Either way, we work and in general we do things to benefit from it. Once more, dogs are exactly the same. While we are motivated by the change of buying a new car or a nice new pair of Phantom Of The Opera shoes (I'd do wonders to get one of those), dogs are usually easier and most are happy with a treat or a toy.

Some individuals, like many afghans, might need you to work harder to find their non-existent motivation. It is pretty safe to say, however, that every dog is motivated by something.

A success story

In the end I'd like to share with you a success story that hopefully helps to understand the power of positive training as well as shows that all negative things mentioned above caused by punishment really are true.

I have talked with this one young trainer I met in a web community we both belong to. She has been struggling in the past to find a proper trainer to help training her young, strong, energetic dog, and during her journey she came across many different styles of training.

”We told her our situation that [the dog] barks, lunges at every single moving thing, and that we cant take her to walks anymore, so she said I have to 'dominate' [the dog] and to show her her place.. we were never allowed toy rewards, just treats. The trainer suggested many people to use choke chains. She even said that they're better than prongs. So, whenever [the dog] tugged on leash, she said to pull her hard back with the chain and use strict tone.”

The person told me that they were told to use excessive force, and the trainer they went to even made the dog yelp by tugging her leash so hard. She said it felt bad to see, but since this person was said to be a professional trainer, they continued training their dog with the given instructions.

”This method damaged [the dog] heel so bad she saw ''heel'' command as a very negative thing, meaning whenever she doesn't do what humans want, she gets a hard pull on her neck.”

This is sadly a very common outcome with punishment. Dogs that have been trained with violence and force tend to act very tense and submissive when they perform, due to the negative impact the punishing has on the command. They don't work out from eager to be rewarded, but out from fear, and this often leads to stiff and untrustworthy performance.

”Since then we found the new trainer. The first times we only had individual sessions, as [the dog] couldn't focus at all around people and dogs. She (the trainer) immediatly saw our situation and what made [the dog] nerveous. She needed time to get used to the new training place, and even when we first met, [the dog] barked and snapped at the trainer, seeing her as a threat. So, she gave us many useful tips. Our previous trainer didn't even teach how to hold a treat in hand properly.
The trainer knew we had to fix our damaged heel command. We had to completely train [the dog] from the start, the new command being ''fus''. I was so happy now, because soon we stopped using the choke collar and only had positive training with treats and lots of play.” - ”We went to her many times and she gave us constant homework we had to do at home. Now that we used treats and toys and no choke collar, [the dog] didn't ignore me as she did before. We had more walks and she was looking at me more than before, because correct behavior meant big reward coming. She was happy to work with me since I didn't cause her any pain.

We have worked with positive training to the point I don't have to hold the leash anymore when we're walking. She has great recall, we can even pass people and bikes calmly without her snapping or barking because there was no tension on the leash. She is now free of the pulling and pain, which before seemed almost impossible, really. I didnt know that only such simple things can make her this happy to work with me and respond quickly.

Now, after a year since we went to the positive trainer, we can work in group sessions with many other people and dogs.

And really, all we needed was patience, time and effort.”

Inspirational, don't you think?

Do you have any positive success stories? Share yours in comments and pass the kindness on!

Mr. Hyperactivity likes happy and positive things. Be like him.

0 Comments

Violence is not training

18/3/2018

0 Comments

There are several reasons on why hitting your dog is not only unnecessary but also just plain dumb. Even so, many people admit doing so. In most cases it is used as a punishment for some action already passed, like launching on the leash or disobeying a command. Sometimes people explain hitting is necessary if the dog acts uncontrolled, to show ”who's the boss”.

First of all, let's clear out something. When I talk about hitting, I am not meaning gentle taps on the nose or little slaps on the neck. Small things like this don't hurt nor do they scare the dog (unless it's one of those you can't touch without causing stress. In those cases, even gentle tappings cause negative effects, so they are to be avoided). When I talk about hitting, I talk about using extensive physical force to correct the dog or stop a behavior WITH that force, or punishing the dog from disobeying WITH force. Whenever we use physical force as a main source of punishment, not as a reminder of looking at the handler (”Hey, I am here!”- kind of gentle taps) or holding the dog in place (grabbing a hold when the dog jumps against, for example), we are weakening our position as a trustworthy companion.

Excessive submission is not ”being sorry and asking forgiveness so mommy/daddy is not mad”, it is fear. Unfortunately very many people, even after being explained that, still insist their dog is ”knowing it did wrong”, not being fearful.

Submission after being punished with physical force is not shame. It is fear, and everyone who has studied dogs and their behavior agrees. Whenever dogs correct each other with teeth, they do it WHEN the other dog is acting up, not AFTERWARDS. If dogs correct, if one can say so, afterwards, they are usually tense dogs and nervous dogs that get worked up and remain in aggressive, nervous state. Later, that nervousness erupts as aggressive behavior. We as human beings that have given ourself the right to own a dog should be above primitive stress reactions such as blindly punishing an animal from an action that has already passed. It trains the dog nothing but to fear us. They may work out of fear, true, but stop calling it training. It is violence.

Submissive behavior after being hit often includes extensive tail wagging, lowered posture and ears against the head, possible licking of face or dog's own lips and ”being friendly”. Dogs use these gestures to lower the aggression of the other part and to show they are not a threat. It has nothing to do with being sorry about misbehaving, and therefore hitting is not training. If the dog behaves afterwards, it is not because of training but because of remembering it got attacked by it's owner earlier. In many cases the dog is also getting a completely wrong message; it gets punished when it does the right thing and gets back to it's owner's reach. There is hardly any sense in that.

Not so fun fact is, only dogs that are prone to search human advice and have a will to please submit after being hit. Hard headed dogs that have no will to please often attack back or start to act aggressive and tense themselves. Many people using physical force claim their dogs ”need” that or that their dogs ”can take it”. They take it because they want to work with their owner and they are submissive enough not to fight back. Try that attitude with a strong breed, like a livestock guardian, and you'll lose an arm.

Train your dogs. Violence is a bad option when trying to build a relationship.

0 Comments

Natural or artificial sources of vitamins?

7/3/2018

1 Comment

Rawfeeding has always been like a gold mine to supplement producers. Many rawfeeders believe in the power of vitamin jars and there are claims made to convince people that you can never achieve the required amounts with feeding. Since I disagree to a certain level, I will explain in depth what I feed, how that meets the requirements, and what I need to add from a jar.

When I started raw feeding first time years ago, I was very lenient with ingredients. I went with ”three different meats in a week”, added some veggies to that and liver every now and then, and that's it. When I started again after having a pause because of personal health issues and extremely lowered energy levels, I asked a friend to construct me a diet and then went with that.

I noticed certain changes in dogs that were positive, but there were some issues still I thought I wanted to fix. I started learning the matter more, asked some opinions from people who teach raw feeding, read posts made by self-proclaimed gurus, and finally came up with our current style.

I'm a strong believer in natural ingredients and that no animal is constructed so that it can't get what it needs from it's natural diet. Dogs are carnivore with some omnivore potential, and their genetics are not that different from that of wolves. This is also proven by the fact dogs and wolves can produce offspring that can further breed successfully. Dogs are NOT wolves, neither were they developed from the wolf species living in forests today, but even so many of their dietary requirements are similar.

Needs

As I listed before in a longer post, there are certain needs one needs to keep in mind when constructing a proper raw diet.

The most important vitamins A, D and E, all fat soluble, are ones the dog can't produce itself and it needs from it's diet. From minerals, calcium, if you can't feed bone, is a must, and so are zing and iodine. However iodin is needed in such ridiculously small amounts that feeding seaweed every now and then during a week meets the needs just fine. Therefore we don't list it here, though one has to keep in mind it is a needed supplement, no matter you go far with just 1 gram.

Vitamin A : dog needs 25 mcg / kg
Vitamin E: dog needs 0,5 mg / kg
Vitamin D: dog needs 0,3 mcg / kg

Calcium : dog needs 60 mcg / kg
Zinc : dog needs 1 mg / kg (optimum is often said to be 2 mg / kg)

We will use Ms. Dominance as an example here, because she eats about 500 to 600 grams a day depending on how much we are exercising. During winters 500 g seems to be enough, during our most active summer months I give her more if she seems like she's needing it. Let's now go with 500 grams, just for the simplicity. Also to be noted here, we have "different diet" days about twice or thrice a week, where I may boost some ingredients and tone down the others. These boost days are to balance out the overall diet, mainly the vitamin A and vitamin D.

We now know Ms. Dominance, using our numbers above and calculated by her weight, needs:

Vitamin A: 600 mcg
Vitamin E: 12 mg
Vitamin D: 7,2 mcg
Zinc: 24 mg
Calcium: about 1,4 grams

Her current daily diet consists of 250 grams of pork/beef minced meat that has 5% of liver in it, 125 grams of grounded whole salmon, 125 grams of turkey and about 20 – 30 grams of vegetables. Weekly she eats about two whole eggs, and also during two days the total of 100 grams of herrin fillets. She gets added 15 ml of sunflower oil a day, along with 5 ml of rapeseed oil also served daily.

In 250 grams of pork/beef minced meat there is

Vitamin A: 42,25 mcg
Vitamin E: 1mg
Vitamin D: 0,75 mg
Zinc: 9 mg

In 125 grams of minced turkey there is

Vitamin A: 16,25 mcg
Vitamin E: 0,875 mg
Vitamin D: 0,875 mcg
Zinc: 3,25 mcg

In 125 grams of grounded whole salmon there is

Vitamin A: 3,875 mcg
Vitamin E: 1,75 mg
Vitamin D: 6,5 mcg (minimum)
Zinc: 0,375 mcg

In 12,5 grams of pork liver there is

Vitamin A: 1900 mcg
Vitamin E: 0,06 mg
Vitamin D: 0,11 mcg
Zinc; 0,9 mcg

From oils she gets

Vitamin E: 9,33 mg + 2,8 mg

Let's do some maths and add the numbers from all our ingredients together and compare them to the minimum needs of the day.

Total of 1962 mcg of vitamin A. Requirements are more than met.
Total of 15,8 mg of vitamin E. Requirements are met.
Total of 8,2 mcg of vitamin D. Requirements are met.
Total of 13,525 mg of zinc. Requiremens are NOT met.

So, by far we have succesfully debunked the myth of natural ingredients being unable to meet the needed vitamin requirements. Now, of course one needs to remember minimum is not the same thing as optimal, but maximum is not the same as optimal either. More is not more, necessarily, when it comes to vitamins. Fat soluble vitamins also gather in the body, so it's not necessary to meet the needs daily, as long as the longer over all picture is balanced. I tend to fill the minimum needs every day, but during some days we might skip some ingredient just for the change. When the over all diet is in balance, changes like this don't affect the dog in any negative way.

Vitamin E is a vitamin that is needed in greater amounts the more fat there is in the food and the more the dog exercises, so it's the only vitamin that could be given as a supplement. However, some studies show that vitamin E supplements have been linked to cancer. Adding vitamin E from natural sources is safer than adding it from the bottle. In supplements, should one need to add them to the diet, natural sources are a must. Artificial vitamin E does not work or absorb as well. I have not added any extra vitamin E till this day, but if it seems that some of the dogs would need it, I shall try a supplement with natural vitamin E.

Hobby dogs, as well as very active people, need more than us ”regular folks”.

With vitamins A and D requirements are easily met in a balanced diet. Herrin fillets work as a boost for vitamin D twice a week, vitamin A is high enough not to need any boosting at all. Dogs are able to discharge up to 60% of vitamin A they eat, and therefore from any commercial kibble, for example, you get far more than the required amount of vitamin A. It is often used as a preservative, mostly because it's relatively harmless even in big amounts (to dogs at least). Even so, I tend to keep one or two days completely free from liver a week, just to even things out. As said earlier, with fat soluble vitamins this is possible.

Zinc, by far, is the only mineral needing a boost. Calcium amounts are more than met if you use products with bone, but as I do not and the salmon grounded with bones is just and just there, I usually add a touch of calcium powder just to be extra sure.

Since the amount of zinc is lower than the minimum is, I use two tablets of good quality zinc product for pets, adding the total of 30 mgs of zinc. This means the total amount of zinc will raise from about 13,5 mg to 43,5 mg. That is pretty much exact the optimal. The reason why most sources recommend zinc to be added in relatively high amounts when raw feeding is because zinc doesn't absorb so well and it absorbs even less the more fiber there is in the diet.

So, with all above it is pretty safe in my mind to say that you CAN meet the dietary requirements with a proper diet. The fact we often can't fill the need of zinc is that we give meat and maybe bone, but not the whole animal. In whole prey there would be a lot more zinc, too. However, adding zinc is usually very beneficial for any dog, and as long as one doesn't go over the recommendations mentioned in the jar, it is also safe. The same can't be said with fat soluble vitamins. You can't really cause an overdose with feeding, unless you feed terrible amounts of liver a day, but you can pretty easily cause problems with careless use of supplements.

More is not more. More is dangerous if you don't know what you are doing.

Why to construct a proper, diverse diet rather than lean on supplements only?

As said above, it is safer. You can't poison your animal with proper diverse diet unless you feed your dog terrible amounts of liver daily. It is very easy, however, to cause poisoning with supplements.

As said before, some studies have linked vitamin E supplements to cancer. Whether or not one thinks the dog needs some vitamin E boost, always consult your vet if you are unsure. Same goes with vitamin D. Vitamin D is, indeed, very important for any dog, but something to remember is the symptoms of vitamin D poisoning are very severe and highly similar with those of a dog poisoned with ratsbane. There is a reason for that; the poison causes critical vitamin D overdose. So, it's not really a supplement to play with. If you are not 100% sure your dog needs a supplement like that, I'd suggest constructing a diverse diet or feeding 50 / 50 rather than just buying a jar of supplement and throwing some pills in the food.

No matter most people choosing to prepare their dog's meals themselves try their best to build a good diet, some rawfeeders have adopted a very simply way of doing things. I have heard and ever read that many people choose minced pork/beef and just add supplements to that, and to me it breaks the basic idea of constructing a natural diet. There is hardly any natural to add pills from many different jars or feeding the one and the same meat with the excuse of ”I add all the dog needs from bottles”. This might be true, but the diet itself is not that much more natural and organic than feeding kibble. It's just changing the dry ingredients to a meat bough from a trusted source. The added artificial stuff is still there.

This is obviously my own opinion and in no way I am educated enough to tell anyone they are feeding their dogs WRONG. I am simply challenging the idea of being lazy and choosing to use chemicals rather than paying some attention in the ingredients because I think going as natural as possible with as many good quality products as possible is the basic idea of constructing your dog's diet yourself. Whether or not you cook the meat or give it raw, feeding balanced, diverse diet prepared from quality natural ingredients is healthy and tasty, and you can't accidentally cause any lethal overdose.

I used to go about saying even the simplest raw diet is better than commercial kibble. I don't think like that anymore, but I highly recommend thinking about preparing your dog's food yourself. If you can't go all the way full custom mode, prepare one meal a day. If you choose to go all for it, remember to consult some professionals and be critical. The information is out there, and most raw feeders are eager to tell how they do their thing.

OK. So what are those quality ingredients, then?

Excellent question.

In Finland our meat producers are very controlled, meats are often free from salmonella or other sorts of malicious bacteria and it's relatively easy to find good sources for preparing a proper diet. However, I am aware in many countries this is far more difficult. I'd suggest always asking the source of the meat or buying straight from the butchers you know to handle their animals and products properly. You can also buy products meant for people, if their quality is better regulated.

When searching for the right meat, stay away from leftovers. Specially with salmon it is fairly common to ground only the heads, fins and bones, the leftover parts in other words, after the precious meat has been removed. Unfortunately the meat is exactly the thing that has all the good stuff! Grounded bones and heads have little to no vitamin D and they are good mainly for adding calcium and adding some oil, as products like this can sometimes be rather oily. I suggest going for grounded whole salmon, meaning the whole fish was used, meat and bone alike. This way all the good stuff is there.

Minced meats should always have meat in them. If the product consists mainly of lungs and trachea, it doesn't really include anything. Make sure the meat you use has meat, not only leftover parts. The more, the merrier.

The last thing I want to mention are oils. If possible, use cold pressed oils. They are darker in color and also have more vitamin E left. You need less to achieve the same results. Using oils rich in vitamin E, like sunflower oil and the way more expensive but excellent wheat germ oil, is more beneficial than using large amounts of lighter oils since this also means you need more E as there is more fat.

1 Comment

Positiveness is powerful

Learning doesn't happen on it's own

It takes time

Learning to learn

A success story

Violence is not training

Natural or artificial sources of vitamins?

Needs

Why to construct a proper, diverse diet rather than lean on supplements only?

OK. So what are those quality ingredients, then?

Mistä on kyse?

Historia

Kategoriat