Les méfaits des méthodes coercitives: articles?

...les méfaits des méthodes coercitives

Bonjour!
Je suis en train de préparer une petite présentation des méthodes positives et je cherche des articles (français et anglais) sur les effets des méthodes coercitives sur la santé, le bien être, la relation ... Pour pouvoir faire des citations ! Genre je ne suis pas la seule à le dire !

Merci de votre aide !

Je ne sais pas si ça peut t'aider mais voilà ma contribution...

Regardes aussi sur le site de la SFC http://www.sfcyno.com/ et sur le site de l'APDT dans cette rubrique: http://www.apdt.com/about/default.aspx

Et en vrac:

http://www.examiner.com/dog-training-in-long-island/blindzilla-how-aversive-training-methods-can-impact-your-dog

Citation :

Blindzilla; How Aversive Training Methods Can Impact Your Dog

Why risk the development of unintended consequence by using aversive methods when training your dog?
John Visconti

The vertical blinds in my home look harmless, in fact, I think they add a lot to the décor.

My dog, Pepper, had a very different view of them. She saw them as a being evil; Blindzilla if you will.

Before telling the story behind the Demon Verticals, a bit of science.

In the field of dog training, there are two ends of the spectrum with regard to training techniques.

Positive punishment (+P) is at one end of the spectrum. +P training is defined as the imposition of something negative or unpleasant on the dog in response to a behavior deemed wrong by the trainer or owner so that the likelihood of the behaving recurring will be decreased. An example of this is, when on a walk, jerking on a choke collar if the dog pulls on the leash. The thinking is that the dog will associate a tight leash with an unpleasant aversive and as a result be less likely to engage in pulling while on leash.

Positive reinforcement (+R) is on the other end of the spectrum. +R is defined as reinforcement though the rewarding of a particular behavior, resulting in the behavior being more likely to be repeated. An example of this is, when on walk, rewarding your dog when he/she is not pulling on the leash. The thinking is that the dog will associate a loose leash as a pleasant activity and consequently be more likely to walk in that manner.

The Demon Vertical Blinds

My pooch, Pepper, is a rescue. I took her home from a shelter where she had lived for almost two years. I learned many new things about her once I got her home.

Pepper was not fond of strangers on our property, which is actually a good trait. But I am not fond of barking and whacky behavior when a squirrel, mailman, landscaper, etc. enter our property. First barks, no problem. But when I cue “quiet” the situation has been deemed un-barkworthy and the barking should stop.

A few weeks after having Pepper home with me, the landscaper arrived. Pepper charged the back door and bumped into the vertical blinds, which collapsed on her. This happened to her on two occasions.

Flawed theory: Something negative (vertical blinds falling) caused an unpleasant experience for her. Therefore, the pairing of the aversive (crashing down of the verticals) and the trigger (the landscaper) should cause the undesired behavior (barking and general craziness at the sight of the landscaper) to be linked to the aversive. As a result, the behavior should be diminished. The Cliff Notes math behind this would be, “charging the back door when I see the landscaper = verticals crashing on me. I guess I won’t do that anymore”

Reality: Pepper became very afraid of the verticals to such a degree that when we played fetch, if the chase and retrieve object was near the vertical blinds, she wouldn’t pick it up and bring it back to me. Worse yet, whenever the landscaper arrived, she would still charge the back door, away from the verticals and go even more bonkers. My hunch is that, in Pepper’s brain, the crashing down of the blinds was somehow paired with the arrival of the landscaper.

Holy BF Skinner, who maintained that positive reinforcement results in lasting behavioral modification, whereas positive punishment modifies behavior only temporarily and presents many detrimental side effects. (such as, Pepper’s vertical blind phobia)

Let’s take this to the next level.

While the crashing down of vertical blinds surely isn’t a pleasant experience, it pales in comparison to a shock administered via shock collar, or a hard “correction” with a prong or choke collar.

Pepper’s association with the vertical blinds was easy to see. But what of the case where an ill-timed aversive is delivered to the dog while his/her focus is on something else that is not so obvious? This can be the cause of quirky “Gee, I have no idea why my dog is so afraid of (fill in the blank)” behaviors.

This is a huge downside to positive punishment training. The dog often associates the aversive with something other than the behavior the trainer/owner wants to diminish, thereby creating unintended consequences.

What if the dog is focused on a child when the aversive is delivered?

As far as the story of my dog Pepper, I spent quite a lot of time providing treats every time the landscaper appeared. New association “Landscaper = treats”

I also spent time systematically desensitizing her to the blinds by placing objects incrementally closer and rewarding her for picking them up.

Pepper’s association with the verticals happened quite by accident. I can’t imagine why anyone would intentionally run the risk of allowing their dog to develop unintended consequences by using positive punishment as a training method.

If you're looking for a dog trainer in Long Island be sure to ask about their methods before hiring.

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/non-aversive-punishment

Citation :

Non-Aversive Punishment
Dr. Ian Dunbar  |  Wed, 08/26/2009 - 20:51

Even though efficient and effective feed-back is binary and comprises rewards and punishments, few trainers punish. Some trainers do not want to punish at all because they think that punishments are unpleasant and inhumane and other trainers use aversive stimuli intended as punishment but all too often, ineffective.

It is assumed that all punishments are aversive and that all aversive stimuli are punishing. However, neither of these assumptions is true. Once we realize that “punishment” and “aversive” are not necessarily synonymous, we realize we have four combinations.
1. Non-Aversive and Non-Punishing
2. Aversive and Non-Punishing
3. Aversive and Punishing
4. Non-Aversive and Punishing

1. Non-Aversive and Non-Punishing “feedback” is basically nagging  — very common in dog training and interpersonal relationships. Not necessarily damaging to the dog’s psyche but certainly ineffective at changing behavior.

2. In sharp distinction, Aversive and Non-Punishing stimuli, literally cleave the dog’s brain and dismantle the dog/human relationship. It is assumed that all aversive stimuli are punishing. However, most are not.
A punishment is defined as a stimulus that decreases the frequency of the immediately preceding behavior such that it is less likely to occur in the future. Frequent use of an aversive stimulus is proof that it is not working and therefore, cannot be defined as punishment. Instead, when aversive stimuli are not punishing, depending on their severity, they are either harassment or abuse.
Without a doubt, the majority of reprimands (especially ugly-tone, shouted, non-instructive reprimands) and most aversive stimuli, such as leash-jerks, grabs, smacks and shocks are not punishment. Aversive yes, but not having the desired effect of reducing unwanted behavior, they cannot be defined as punishment. The two biggest clues that aversive stimuli are non-punishing are their frequent and continued use and that the trainer tries to compensate for ineffectiveness by increasing the severity of the aversive.

3. Although many people think that Aversive Punishments are used ubiquitously, it is actually untrue. When a trainer effectively uses aversive punishments, you only get to see the unwanted behavior and the aversive punishment just a couple of times and then the aversive punishment tool is quickly phased out. Punishment is no longer necessary because the dog no longer misbehaves. However, we see this very occasionally. Instead we see an abundance of grabs, smacks, jerks and shocks — aversive stimuli that are non-punishing.

4. Without a doubt, Non-Aversive Punishments are the way to go. Indeed, it is possible to effectively reduce unwanted behavior by using voice-only feedback AND by only using a soft and sweet tone. Gentle insistence is the name of the game.
If a dog does not comply when asked to sit in a play session, for example, simply insist that she does so. Continually, repeat the command in a gentle, insistent voice, “Rover Sit, sit, sit, sit…” and when she eventually sits, say, “Thank you” and now that you have the dog’s attention, ask her to come-fore and sit once more. When the dog sits following a single command, profusely praise, offer a food reward and say, “Go Play”.
The first sit, required five repetitions of the sit-command. However, with each repetition, the number of required commands progressively decreases with each trial until eventually, the dog sits promptly following a single command. The secret to success is to never give up. The dog learns that she has to sit following a single command before being allowed to play once more.
This technique is extremely effective, works surprisingly quickly, and prevents the need for physical restraint or aversive punishment. The dog learns that she has to pay attention and follow our instructions to sit promptly following a single command before being allowed to resume playing. And once you have voice control, your dog can safely enjoy off-leash romps.

http://www.urbandawgs.com/divided_profession.html

Citation :

Talk Softly and Carry a Carrot or a Big Stick?
By Jean Donaldson, Director of The SF/SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers

Dog training is a divided profession. We are not like plumbers, orthodontists or termite exterminators who, if you put six in a room, will pretty much agree on how to do their jobs. Dog training camps are more like Republicans and Democrats, all agreeing that the job needs to be done but wildly differing on how to do it.

The big watershed in dog training is whether or not to include pain and fear as means of motivation. In the last twenty years the pendulum swing has been toward methods that use minimal pain, fear or intimidation - or none at all.

The force-free movement has been partly driven by improved communication from the top. Applied behaviorists, those with advanced degrees in behavior, and veterinary behaviorists, veterinarians who have completed residencies specializing in behavior problems are in greater abundance than in previous decades, and there is much more collaboration between these fields and trainers on the front lines. These two professions are quite unified on the point that the use of physical confrontation and pain is unnecessary, often detrimental and, importantly, unsafe.

On a more grassroots level, trainers have found more benign and sophisticated tools by boning up on applied behavior science themselves. Seminal books like marine mammal trainer Karen Pryor's Don't Shoot the Dog made the case that training and behavior modification can be achieved without any force whatsoever.

But dog training is currently an unregulated profession: there are no laws governing practices. Prosecutions under general anti-cruelty statutes are occasionally successful but greatly hampered by the absence of legal standards pertaining specifically to training practices. Provided it's in the name of training, someone with no formal education or certification can strangle your dog quite literally to death and conceivably get off scot-free.

It's not a complete wilderness: three sets of dog training guidelines exist, one in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) Mission Statement, one published by the Delta Society and one by the American Humane Association (AHA). All state that less invasive (i.e. without pain or force) techniques must be competently tried and exhausted before more invasive techniques attempted. Such guidelines are not yet mandatory but they're a start.

And so the current professional climate is one laden with some remaining fierce debate. There's an ever-expanding group of trainers that train force-free (ad. literature will be some variation on the theme of "dog-friendly" or "pain-free"), trainers that still train primarily with force (ad literature: "no-nonsense" or "common sense") and trainers that employ liberal use of both force and rewards (ad literature: "balanced" or "eclectic"). From a consumer's standpoint, the choice in methods is wide. You can hire a professional to train your dog pretty much any way that suits your fancy and it's all legal.

The force-free movement gains momentum every year and a sure sign of this is that many trainers in the other camps resort to murkier and murkier euphemisms to disguise their more violent practices and retain their market share. Stressed dogs aren't "shut down," they're "calm." It's not strangling, it's "leading." As a committed devotee of the "dog-friendly" camp, I am therefore, along with my colleagues here at The San Francisco SPCA, somewhat agog at the stunning success of "The Dog Whisperer". This is pretty ferocious stuff by anybody's standards. The National Geographic Channel even runs a disclaimer banner at the bottom of the screen admonishing people to "not try this at home," a warning notably absent on home improvement shows or "Nanny 911". Many have suggested that the cloaking of corporal punishments and hazing in mystical language, promise of instant results, high octane telegenicity of Cesar Milan and lucky connections with Los Angeles celebrity clients are sufficient explanation for the Dog Whisperer phenomenon. The one with the best buzz words wins. But I don't know.

Janis Bradley, my colleague here at The SPCA, sagely points out that the positive reinforcement trend has become a big enough juggernaut to warrant a backlash and Milan represents exactly that. Like the frazzled Los Angelinos in the film "Crash" (which, notably, took Best Picture honors at The Academy Awards last year), people are fed up with having to be politically correct in a chronically frustrating and disconnected world. Couldn't we just "get real" and stop being kind and tolerant all the time?

And here we positive-reinforcement oriented dog trainers are now telling everyone they have to be nice and politically correct to the dog? Well, yes.
(Jean Donaldson's article was first published in The Woofer Times, September 2006)

READ MORE ABOUT CESAR MILLAN:
NEW! - American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior - Letter to Merial
American Humane Association - "Dog Whisperer Training Approach More Harmful Than Helpful"
New York Times/Mark Derr - "Pack of Lies"
Esquire Magazine/Curtis Pesmen - "Misguided Expert of the Year"
Andrew Luescher, DVM, Veterinary Behaviorist, Animal Behavior Clinic, Purdue University
Paul Owens, the Original Dog Whisperer - "A Bone To Pick?"
Michael Linder - "Dog Owners Want To Bury Cesar?"
USA TODAY - "Dog Whisperer" Cesar Millan Sued by TV Producer
Newsday - "A 'Tough Love' Dog Whisperer Spurs Some Yelps"
DailyPress.com/Steve Dale - "Dog Whisperer Makes a Lousy Role-Model For Dog Owners"
The Anti-Cesar Millan -- Ian Dunbar's been succeeding for 25 years with lure-reward dog training; how come he's been usurped by the flashy, aggressive TV host?
IAABC Concerns Regarding Child Safety on National Geographic's Dog Whisperer Show
From the BLOG of RICHARD BELZER: "FIRST DO NO HARM"

QUOTES FROM EXPERTS:
World-renowned dog trainers, behaviorists and veterinarians had all warned National Geographic that Millan’s methods had the potential for disaster. Below are quotes from noted experts:

Dr. Nicholas Dodman - Professor and Head, Section of Animal Behavior
Director of Behavior Clinic, Tufts University - Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine
“Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will be only transitory. His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous, and often inhumane. You would not want to be a dog under his sphere of influence. The sad thing is that the public does not recognize the error of his ways. My college thinks it is a travesty. We’ve written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years.”

Jean Donaldson, The San Francisco SPCA-Director of The Academy for Dog Trainers
“Practices such as physically confronting aggressive dogs and using of choke collars for fearful dogs are outrageous by even the most diluted dog training standards.  A profession that has been making steady gains in its professionalism, technical sophistication and humane standards has been greatly set back.  I have long been deeply troubled by the popularity of Mr. Millan as so many will emulate him.  To co-opt a word like ‘whispering’ for arcane, violent and technically unsound practice is unconscionable.”

Dr. Suzanne Hetts, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist
Co-owner of Animal Behavior Associates, Inc., Littleton, CO
"A number of qualified professionals have voiced concern for the welfare of pet dogs that experience the strong corrections administered by Mr. Millan. My concerns are based on his inappropriateness, inaccurate statements, and complete fabrications of explanations for dog behavior. His ideas, especially those about “dominance”, are completely disconnected from the sciences of ethology and animal learning, which are our best hope for understanding and training our dogs and meeting their behavioral needs. Many of the techniques he encourages the public to try are dangerous, and not good for dogs or our relationships with them ."

Vyolet Michaels, CTC, CPDT (Certified Dog Trainer and Behavior Counselor)
Owner of Urban Dawgs, LLC of Red Bank, NJ
"Cesar Millan employs outdated methods that are dangerous and inhumane. Using a choke chain and treadmill to treat fear of strangers and dogs is completely inappropriate. Hopefully the National Geographic Channel will listen to the scientific community and discontinue production of The Dog Whisperer."

Janis Bradley, Instructor at The San Franciso SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers
Author of the book, "Dogs Bite"
"On his TV show, the main method Millan uses for aggression is aversives (leash jerks, kicks, snaps of the hand against the neck, and restraint, among others) applied non contingently. The aversives are non contingent because they are so frequent that they're not connected to any particular behavior on the part of the dog—the dog gets popped pretty much constantly. This results in a state called learned helplessness, which means the animal hunkers down and tries to do as little as possible. This is what Millan calls "calm submission." It's exactly the same thing you see in a rat in a Skinner box that is subjected to intermittent shocks it can do nothing to avoid. This can happen quite fast, by the way, shall we say in ten minutes? The dangers to the dog are obvious, ranging from chronic stress to exacerbating the aggression, i.e., some dogs fight back when attacked. This latter is the simplest reason that aversives are a bad idea in treating aggression. Even used technically correctly as positive punishment for specific behaviors like growling and snarling, aversives do nothing to change the underlying fear or hostility, so the best you can hope for, in the words of famed vet and behaviorist, Ian Dunbar, is "removing the ticker from the time bomb." Thus such methods substantially increase the risk to humans of getting bitten."

Excerpt of letter from Lisa Laney, Dip. DTBC, CPDT, CBC
to National Geographic before airing “The Dog Whisperer”:
“The intended program depicts aversive and abusive training methods - treatment for some serious anxiety and fear based issues - being administered by an individual with no formal education whatsoever in canine behavioral sciences. The "results" that are shown are more than likely not long lasting changes, but the result of learned helplessness, or fatigue, neither of which impact behavior to any significant long term degree - at least not in a good way. For those of us who are pioneering the effort to end the ignorance that drives the cruel treatment administered upon our canine companions, it is disappointing to see that this programming will reach the masses - especially on the NG Channel. The ignorance that this program perpetuates will give equally ignorant people the green light to subject their dogs to abuse. In turn these dogs will react even more defensively, will bite more people - and end up dead.”

Steve Dale
"I have serious concerns because his methods are often intimidating rather than motivating. On TV, the dogs do comply but often they're being forced to - you can tell by their body language: tail down, mouth closed, ears back, eyes dilated... I argue that motivating leadership is far more effective than leading through intimidation."
Steve Dale is the author of the twice weekly syndicated newspaper column “My Pet World” (Tribune Media Services). He’s also the host of syndicated radio programs Steve Dale’s Pet World, The Pet Minute with Steve Dale; and Pet Central, at WGN Radio, Chicago. Steve is a contributing editor at USA Weekend, special correspondent/columnist Dog World and editor-in-chief of PawPrints (a newsletter for veterinarians). His books include “American Zoos” and “DogGone Chicago.” Steve’s appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show; National Geographic Explorer; Pets Part of the Family on PBS; several Animal Planet Shows; Fox News Channel, and Balance TV (Canada). He was a regular on WGN-TV Chicago. Touted as reaching more pet owners than any other pet journalist, Steve’s a frequent guest expert on radio shows all over America and Canada; he’s been quoted in dozens of newspaper and magazine stories, including the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Redbook.  He's certified as a Behavior Consultant by the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, and the recipient of many awards including the prestigious AVMA Humane Award.

http://www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/implications-of-punishment.php

Citation :

What are the Implications of Using Training Techniques Which Induce Fear or Pain in Dogs?

If a dog shows a behaviour which results in a perceived positive outcome, he or she is more likely to show the behaviour again on subsequent occasions – this is known as reinforcement. If a behaviour results in a perceived negative outcome, the dog is less likely to show the behaviour again – this is punishment. Simplistically, in order to change a behaviour, one could either punish an undesired behaviour or reinforce the desired one.

‘Punishment’ tends to be an emotive word, but scientifically this just means a reduced chance of a behaviour occurring again. Hence, depending on the characteristics and experience of the animal, and the choices of the trainer, a ‘punisher’ could vary from a mild ‘no’ to a very aversive stimulus such as a tightened prong collar around a dog’s neck. Punishment has been used in animal training since animals have lived in close proximity with people. However, just because training techniques based on the induction of fear or pain have been used for a long time, does not necessarily mean that they are the best option in terms of efficacy or animal welfare. In fact, training a dog using such techniques carries a number of risks.

These are:

   Increasing the dogs fear or anxiety about the situation in which it is used
   Decrease the dog’s ability to learn
   Associate other, coincidental events with a fear provoking event
   Inhibit behaviour, but leave the underlying emotional response unchanged increasing the chance of future problems
   Induce an new avoidance, or aggressive response
   Cause confusion as to which behaviour is required
   Cause physical injury

In addition, since training techniques are widely used that do not require the use of severe punishment, there is no need to use techniques which impact negatively on the welfare of dogs. The relative safety and effectiveness of using reward based or punitive training techniques must also be taken into consideration.

Increasing Fear and Anxiety

Most problematic behaviours, including aggression, develop because the dog learns to show an effective response to a perceived threat. Causing further anxiety to the dog by applying a punishment will not achieve the aim of making the dog less worried about whatever it is responding to: in fact it will almost inevitably make it more fearful in that context.

When a dog shows aggression to something that is perceived as a threat, it is possible to do something to it which is even more aversive (e.g. by pinning to the floor with your foot on its throat, or blasting an air-horn in its face), that may inhibit its expected behaviour temporarily. Because people often look for ‘instant fixes’ this approach may look like a cure, and appear impressive on TV, but it does not resolve the cause of the original behaviour. Because the dog remains fearful of the original perceived threat, and indeed will often be more anxious because they are now worried about the original threat and what their owner will do to them in that context, the behaviour will often recur, or different behavioural responses to avoid the threat may develop. This makes sense if you think about it from a human perspective. For example, if you are scared of spiders, you will respond to this fear by trying to avoid close contact with them. Now imagine that someone dragged you up to a spider by pulling you up to a spider by the neck-tie so that it was choking you, and held you there until you stopped struggling – would you feel any different about spiders? Or would you now be worried about spiders and by the presence of the person who tried to ‘cure’ you?

Stress and Learning

Using harsh punishment based techniques to change behaviour is frequently counterproductive. There is a complex relationship between physiological stress responses and learning ability, but in general mild stress tends to enhance learning, but higher or more chronic levels of stress actually inhibit the ability of animals to learn, and particularly to consolidate and retrieve memories (Joels et al. 2006; Mendl, 1999). Research suggests that high levels of stress may influence a dog’s ability to learn (Walker et al.,1997), therefore the application of severe punishers may also result in a stress response that impedes learning.
Risk of the Dog Associating the Punishment with Something Else

Anxious and fearful responses appear to particularly occur where the punishment is poorly synchronised with the action of the animal (Schalke et al., 2005), in other words when the punishment is poorly timed. After a significant event, such as the application of pressure from a choke chain, the dog will try to identify what events might have predicted this occurrence, either related to its own activity, or things happening in the environment. This means that although the trainer may intend the dog to associate pulling on the lead with the pressure on the neck, the dog may associate the latter with something completely different. Quite often, for example, dogs will associate the pressure from a choke chain with the word ‘heel’, but not with their pulling. So, when they hear ‘heel’ they tense up and brace themselves for the anticipated pressure. In practice, anything else present when the punishment is used may serve as a discriminative stimulus for the punishment (Polsky, 1994). In other words there is a real danger of an unwanted association being made between the unpleasant punishment and some coincidental stimuli, such as the presence of a person or other animal.

Even when a dog is ‘caught in the act’ and punished, he or she may still not associate the punishment with the undesirable behaviour. This is commonly seen, for example, when puppies are smacked by owners for toileting indoors: they don’t associate this with where they are peeing, but instead with the presence of the owner, so simply find a place to pee away from the owner rather than learning to go outside. In addition inappropriate levels of punishment may result in an intense fear and avoidance of the location e.g. the back garden.

Of course unintended associations, due to poor trainer timing, or the chance association with another, random, stimulus, occurs as frequently with reward based training as it does with punishment techniques. For example, if an owner recalls their dog, but takes a while getting the toy out of their pocket when he or she returns, they may end up throwing the toy when the dog happens to be turning in a circle, resulting in a dog that comes back and then turns a circle for its reward. However, the long term consequences of these ‘reward mistakes’ is much less serious than when punishers are associated with unintended stimuli. Avoidance response to things that are perceived as aversive are likely to be long lasting and resistant to change compared to those occurring as a result of positive reinforcement (Brush, 1957; Solomon et al., 1953). The difficulty in correcting errors when using aversive methods is significant considering the opportunities for unintended associations, and the potential development of fear.

Increasing Aggression and Risk to Owners

Another drawback of the use of harsh punishment in training dogs is the risk of eliciting or worsening aggression. For example, puppies that are trained using punishment based approaches will have an increased risk of being fearful of hand movement as adults, and have an increased risk of biting (Hunthausen 2009). Although some authors have advocated the use of punishment in the treatment of certain types of aggression in dogs, as pain is a primary cause of aggression (Johnson, 1972), it is clear that the potential exists for a dog to respond aggressively to a nearby person or animal on application of a painful stimulus. The misplaced belief in ‘dominance theory’ can lead to owners using punitive types of training which predisposes to aggression (De Keuster and Jung 2009). Reisner et al. (2007), for example, found that 59% of dog bites happened as a consequence of owners attempting to discipline their dogs.

Owners should be particularly cautious of using confrontational or punitive techniques with dogs that have an established aggressive response. Aggression develops as a response to perceived threat either to itself or a valued resource. However, once established, dogs will often have a strong expectation that their aggressive behaviour will be successful to avoid the perceived threat. Trying to stop or interrupt such a response has a high risk that the dog will show an increased level of aggression.

Confusion as to Which Behaviour is Required

Imagine that you needed to learn a new behaviour as a new employee, but in order to teach you this behaviour, your new colleagues only shouted at you when you did the wrong thing. You might try a whole range of different possible responses, but may never identify the exact thing that they wanted you to do. Where owners rely mainly on punishment for inappropriate behaviours, it is very difficult for a dog to work out what it is supposed to do. As would also happen to you in your work-place, dogs will tend to either end up becoming very frustrated and showing one of the behavioural consequence of this emotion, such as aggression, or give up entirely and stop trying any behaviours at all.
Risk of Physical Injury

There is also an increased risk of physical injury to the dog where harsh handling is used. Choke/check chains and prong collars can result in laryngeal, esophageal, thyroidal, and tracheal damage (Brammeier et al. 2006).

Efficacy of Different Training Approaches

In order for any form of training to be successful, it is important that the reinforcer or punisher is applied very quickly after the animal’s action, in order for the animal to make an association between its own behaviour and the consequence of it. In addition, the reinforcer or punisher must be applied at such a level that it either increases or decreases subsequent displays of the behaviour. In the case of positive reinforcement, this requires the reward to be something that the animal values, and which creates a positive emotional response. Where punishment is used, it must be aversive enough to create a negative emotional response.

A further problem with the use of aversive stimuli, therefore, lies in the trainer’s ability to achieve the optimum level of pain/discomfort required to suppress the target behaviour. Understandably, owners tend to begin with a low level of punishment and gradually increase the level of punishment to find the level required to stop the behaviour. This is unlikely to be effective as animals can habituate to aversive stimuli when they are incrementally increased.

In order to effectively suppress a behaviour, the initial level of punishment needs to be of sufficient severity to suppress the behaviour and avoid immediate reappearance. There are ethical concerns and practical problems that arise from this as there is no way of knowing in advance how intense the initial punishment should be for each individual animal, due to large individual differences between dogs. Even within a single breed, dogs have been shown to have a variable capacity for coping with aversive stimuli (Vincent & Mitchell, 1996). This leads to the problem of determining and administering an appropriate level of punishment (high enough to suppress the behaviour, but not so high that it causes a prolonged fear or anxiety response) for each individual dog.

Research also suggests that training using positive reinforcement based methods is more likely to be successful than those based on punishment (Hiby et al., 2004). The study also found that the use of punishment techniques in the training of dogs was associated with an increase in the incidence of problem behaviours.

Conclusions

Accurately determining the underlying motivation for a behaviour requires specialist expertise, as does assessing the risk that an aversive experience might actually increase the severity of a problem behaviour or induce new ones. Because of the serious risks of using punishment based techniques, even when applied ‘accurately’, most professional behavioural clinicians very rarely advocate the use of any punishment based training techniques in the modification of dog behaviour. As owners, trainers or clinical behaviourists, we all share a responsibility to the welfare our dogs to use the least aversive methods available to us to change our dog’s behaviour without the need for pain or fear.
References;

Brammeier et al. (2006) Good trainers: How to identify one and why this is important to your practice of veterinary medicine. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 1, 47-52.

Brush, F.R. (1957) Effects of shock intensity on the acquisition and extinction of an avoidance response in dogs. Journal of Comp Physiol Psychol 50, 547-552

De Keuster, T. and Jung, H. (2009). Aggression towards familiar people and animals. In Horwitz, D.F. and Mills, D.S. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. 2nd ed. 182-210.

Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS (2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13 (1): 63-69

Hunthausen, W. (2009). Preventative behavioural medicine for dogs. In Horwitz, D.F. and Mills, D.S. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behavioural Medicine. 2nd ed. 65-74

Joels, M., Pu, Z., Wiegart, O. et al. (2006). Learning under stress: how does it work? Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 152-158.

Johnson, R.L. (1972) Aggression in man and animals, Saunders, Philadelphia.

Mendl, M., (1999). Performing under pressure: stress and cognitive function. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 221-244

Polsky RH (1994). Electronic shock collars – are they worth the risks? Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 30 (5), 463-468

Reisner, I.R., Shofer F.S., Nance, M.L., (2007) Behavioral assessment of child-directed canine aggression, Injury Prevention, 13, 348-351

Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J. and Jones-Baade, R. (2005) Stress symptoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs (Canis Familiaris) in everyday life situations.Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioural Medicine: Papers presentedat the 5th International Veterinary Behaviour meeting. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Solomon R. L., Kamin, L.J. and Wynne L. C. (1953) Traumatic avoidance learning: The outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 48 (2), 291-302

Vincent I.C and Mitchell A.R. (1996) Relationship between blood pressure and stress prone temperament in dogs. Physiol Behav 60, 135-138.

Walker, R., Fisher, J. and Neville, P. (1997). The treatment of phobias in the dog. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 52, 275–289.

The following books are good sources of information on training techniques and their application:

Excel-elerated Learning by Pamela Reid.

How Dogs Learn by Mary Burch and Jon Bailey

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm

Citation :

If You're Aggressive, Your Dog Will Be Too, Says Veterinary Study

Date:     February 18, 2009
Source:     University of Pennsylvania
Summary:    In a new, year-long survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.

Aggressive behavior. Many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses, according to authors of a new study.

In a new, year-long University of Pennsylvania survey of dog owners who use confrontational or aversive methods to train aggressive pets, veterinary researchers have found that most of these animals will continue to be aggressive unless training techniques are modified.

The study, published in the current issue of Applied Animal Behavior Science, also showed that using non-aversive or neutral training methods such as additional exercise or rewards elicited very few aggressive responses.

“Nationwide, the No. 1 reason why dog owners take their pet to a veterinary behaviorist is to manage aggressive behavior,” Meghan E. Herron, lead author of the study, said. “Our study demonstrated that many confrontational training methods, whether staring down dogs, striking them or intimidating them with physical manipulation does little to correct improper behavior and can elicit aggressive responses.”

The team from the School of Veterinary Medicine at Penn suggest that primary-care veterinarians advise owners of the risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems. Herron, Frances S. Shofer and Ilana R. Reisner, veterinarians with the Department of Clinical Studies at Penn Vet, produced a 30-item survey for dog owners who made behavioral service appointments at Penn Vet. In the questionnaire, dog owners were asked how they had previously treated aggressive behavior, whether there was a positive, negative or neutral effect on the dogs’ behavior and whether aggressive responses resulted from the method they used. Owners were also asked where they learned of the training technique they employed.

Of the 140 surveys completed, the most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers.” Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43 percent), “growl at dog” (41 percent), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39 percent), “alpha roll”physically -- rolling the dog onto its back and holding it (31 percent), “stare at or stare down” (30 percent), “dominance down” —- physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29 percent) and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26 percent) elicited an aggressive response from at least 25 percent of the dogs on which they were attempted. In addition, dogs brought to the hospital for aggressive behavior towards familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to some confrontational techniques than dogs brought in for other behavioral reasons.

“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”

Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist, many dog owners attempt behavior-modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include the aversive-training techniques listed in the survey, all of which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. Their common use may have grown from the idea that canine aggression is rooted in the need for social dominance or to a lack of dominance displayed by the owner. Advocates of this theory therefore suggest owners establish an “alpha” or pack-leader role.

The purpose of the Penn Vet study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Pennsylvania. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

   Herron et al. Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2009; 117 (1-2): 47 DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011

Génial PowerUser !!
Je savais que je pouvais compter sur toi !!
Merci !

You're welcome

Sorry if it is only in english but I guess you'll find few articles about this subject in french.

Probably because in France, aversive techniques in dog training are still widely accepted and taught mostly because of the belief in dominance-hierarchy and the comparison with wolves!

I'd like to see your work when it's done!

C'est pour ça que j'avais bien précisée français et anglais!
Je ne le parle pas mais j'arrive à le comprendre avec un dico à côté ça passe!

Si tu veux je pourrais te montrer ce que j'ai fait (en message privé). J'en suis qu'au début! Là je regroupe des infos, prépare mon plan ... Mais si ça t’intéresse avec plaisir!

poweruser a écrit:

I'd like to see your work when it's done!

Me too me too !
Quand-même...on devrait pouvoir trouver 2-3 choses en langue française...?

moi aussi ça m intéresse Lucile....
D'ailleurs je suis en débat sur le fofo du RR concernant le collier électrique, je leur expliquais les soucis d une mauvaise association. Comme celle qui demandait si il existait un ce télécommandé car son chien court après son chat... Je lui ai donc répondu en gros que malheureusement ce genre d objet de torture existe, et que le chien arretera certainement sa course à la première décharge. Mais par contre il faudra pas se plaindre si un jour elle retrouve son chat tué car le pauvre chien aura fait une mauvaise association.........

J ai donc dit il existe des mêthodes efficaces et moins dangereuse comme l apprentissage du tu laisses.... Et là je suis mal habitué car j attend l intervention de poweruser et dune super explication mais poweruser n intervient pas sur ce fofo snif snif snif... Plzzzzz Miss L., leave the shadow and come on show them the light............. LooOl

Bon et pour celles qui regrettent de ne pas avoir mieux bossé leur anglais à l'école elles auront droit à une version in french Lucile ? lol !
Slater tu veux qu'on débarque en force sur ton fofo ?!! hihi

YES Dewey!!!!! Everybody come on

En majorité ils sont contre mais certains cas pour eux excuses l utilisation de la torture....

Slater met sur ton fofo de RR la photo qui tourne en ce moment sur Facebook du chien avec la blessure affreuse dû au collier électrique.
Des images chocs des fois ça aide à faire comprendre aux lents d'esprit !!! humhum ...

Pas de souci là je suis en train de décortiquer tous les liens de PowerUser et je vous ferez part de ce que j'en ai sortie! Que du bon!

ah c'est super !!
moi aussi ça m'interesse ma Lucile !!

lucile a écrit:

Slater met sur ton fofo de RR la photo qui tourne en ce moment sur Facebook du chien avec la blessure affreuse dû au collier électrique.
Des images chocs des fois ça aide à faire comprendre aux lents d'esprit !!! humhum ...

Ben justement, le pire c'est que le débat est parti de cette photo qu'une utilisatrice a mis......... :-S

C'est une super initiative Lucile en tout cas merci d'avance !!

slater a écrit:

Ben justement, le pire c'est que le débat est parti de cette photo qu'une utilisatrice a mis......... :-S

ah oui je vois ...


Merci PowerUser je lis des trucs géniales! ça m'aide bien pour ma présentation!

Par contre m'aiderais-tu à traduire: je compris rien à cette histoire d'aveugle vertical????

The vertical blinds in my home look harmless, in fact, I think they add a lot to the décor.
My dog, Pepper, had a very different view of them. She saw them as a being evil; Blindzilla if you will.
Before telling the story behind the Demon Verticals, a bit of science.

oui oui suis très interressée aussi
Je vais regarder ce que j'ai dans mes articles en Français

Il m'est "facile" de trouver et de lire des articles intéressants mais les traduire et les compiler, je n'ai pas le courage! Cette année, pour moi, c'est une année changement, bordel, rangement, choix, réflexion, etc... et j'avoue ne pas arriver à me lancer dans certaines tâches donc ravie que d'autres s'y attèlent!!

Alors si je peux quand même aider un tout p'tit peu, why not?

Sinon, pour info, j'ai aussi une étude scientifique nommée "Training dogs with help of the shock collar:
short and long term behavioural effects" par Matthijs B.H. Schilder et Joanne A.M. van der Borg du Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, University of Utrecht (Hollande) paru en 2003 dans Applied Animal Behavior Science mais c'est un .pdf

Slater, désolée de ne pas venir t'aider sur le forum RR mais je ne m'en sens pas la force. Je crois que ce que j'ai vécut, vu et entendu ces dernières années en club canin, en compétition, auprès d'éleveurs ou de personnes qui sont dans le monde canin m'ont épuisée... Bref, je n'ai plus envie de me battre...

Lucile, les "vertical blinds" ce sont des stores à lamelles verticales:

http://www.simplyblinding.co.uk/images/content%20images/vertical/vertical-rigid--large.jpg

Citation :

Sinon, pour info, j'ai aussi une étude scientifique nommée "Training dogs with help of the shock collar:
short
and long term behavioural effects" par Matthijs B.H. Schilder et Joanne
A.M. van der Borg du Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion
Animals, University of Utrecht (Hollande) paru en 2003 dans Applied
Animal Behavior Science mais c'est un .pdf

oh la moi ça m'interesse énormément cet article, je le veux bien, si tu peux me l'envoyer en mail tu serai un amour ! ^^

Pareil je la veux bien aussi !

slater cet article là est assez grrrrr http://www.mauvaisoeil.com/2009/11/un-collier-electrique-pour-chien.html

Personnellement, je n'aime pas critiquer les autres méthodes ou les dénigrer. Je pense que cela sert à apporter de l'eau au moulin : les amateurs des méthodes tradi ne changeront pas grâce à un article qui les dénigre.

Je préfère annoncer comment je travaille, faire des articles dans les bulletins du club de race sur des choses de base, me balader en concours avec mon clicker.. Les gens sont intriqués en viennent parler. Les autres ne viennent pas mais mine de rien, écoute de loin ^^.

Récemment mon dernier défi, monter entièrement mon petit lab de beauté en field. Et histoire d'annoncer la couleur il s'appelle : Geek of Clic !

je cherche pas à critiquer pour critiquer.
Je cherche des revus scientifiques, des articles et des publications de recherches sur les conséquences des méthodes punitives.
Les anglo-saxons font des expérience, ils se basent sur des vrais recherches! pas des critiques à tout va!

Charlotte, je t'envoies ça tout de suite.

Lucile, je ferais volontiers de même si j'avais ton adresse mail (tu peux me la faire parvenir par MP)!

Katia, je ne voudrais pas m'avancer, mais je ne crois aucunement que je but du travail de Lucile soit de dénigrer une méthode sinon, elle ne "se casserait pas le fessier" à lire ce que moi ou d'autres lui faisons parvenir!

Je suppose que son but est de démontrer, en se basant sur des réalités scientifiques notamment, quelles sont les conséquences néfastes de l'utilisation de méthodes et d'outils coercitifs et de proposer une alternative via l'utilisation d'une approche positive et amicale de l'éducation canine.

Dénigrer, c'est facile, ça ne demande aucune interrogation, aucune recherche, aucune lecture, aucun sens de l'auto-critique, aucune auto-censure, aucune considération, aucun recul, aucune subtilité et je ne crois définitivement pas que c'est ce que Lucile a envisagé de faire.

Merci Power !! Tu dis les choses tellement mieux que moi !

Mitee, l'article sur ''Sultan un jeune chiot indicipliné'' paru sur le site MauvaisOeil est une critique sociale en Québecois pur et dur. Ce site commente l'actualité de la belle province par le biais de la satire.