Great article though - the sort that leaves me feeling relieved that I don't have to say anything because it's been said for me (not that I've seen it but there are plenty of horse trainers I could say the same stuff for!) Apologies for the formatting, that's just how it came and I don't have time to tidy it up.....
WITH a compelling personal story as the illegal immigrant made good
because of his uncanny ability to understand dogs, Cesar Millan has taken
the world of canine behavior
or rather misbehavior
by storm. He has the top-rated program,
Dog Whisperer,
on the National Geographic Channel, a best-selling book and a devoted
following, and he has been the subject of several glowing magazine
articles.
He is even preparing to release his own
Illusion
collar and leash set, named for his wife and designed to better allow
people to walk their dogs the
Cesar way
at close heel, under strict control.
Essentially, National Geographic and Cesar Millan have cleverly repackaged
and promoted a simplistic view of the dog
s social structure and constructed around it a one-size-fits-all,
cookie-cutter approach to dog training. In Mr. Millan
s world, dog behavioral problems result from a failure of the human to be
the
pack leader,
to dominate the dog (a wolf by any other name) completely.
While Mr. Millan rejects hitting and yelling at dogs during training, his
confrontational methods include physical and psychological intimidation,
like finger jabs, choke collars, extended sessions on a treadmill and what
is called flooding, or overwhelming the animal with the thing it fears.
Compared with some training devices still in use
whips and cattle prods, for example
these are mild, but combined with a lack of positive reinforcement or
rewards, they place Mr. Millan firmly in a long tradition of punitive dog
trainers.
Mr. Millan brings his pastiche of animal behaviorism and pop psychology
into millions of homes a week. He
s a charming, one-man wrecking ball directed at 40 years of progress in
understanding and shaping dog behavior and in developing nonpunitive,
reward-based training programs, which have led to seeing each dog as an
individual, to understand what motivates it, what frightens it and what
its talents and limitations are. Building on strengths and working around
and through weaknesses, these trainers and specialists in animal behavior
often work wonders with their dogs, but it takes time.
Mr. Millan supposedly delivers fast results. His mantra is
exercise, discipline, affection,
where discipline means
rules, boundaries, limitations.
Rewards are absent and praise scarce, presumably because they will upset
the state of calm submission Mr. Millan wants in his dogs. Corrections
abound as animals are forced to submit or face their fear, even if doing
so panics them.
Mr. Millan builds his philosophy from a simplistic conception of the dog
s
natural
pack, controlled by a dominant alpha animal (usually male). In his
scheme, that leader is the human, which leads to the conclusion that all
behavior problems in dogs derive from the failure of the owner or owners
to dominate. (Conveniently, by this logic, if Mr. Millan
s intervention doesn
t produce lasting results, it is the owner
s fault.)
Women are the worst offenders in his world. In one of the outtakes
included in the four-DVD set of the first season of
Dog Whisperer,
Mr. Millan explains that a woman is
the only species that is wired different from the rest.
And a
woman always applies affection before discipline,
he says.
Man applies discipline then affection, so we
re more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders;
they don
t follow lovable leaders.
Mr. Millan
s sexism is laughable; his ethology is outdated.
The notion of the
alpha pack leader
dominating all other pack members is derived from studies of captive
packs of unrelated wolves and thus bears no relationship to the social
structure of natural packs, according to L. David Mech, one of the world
s leading wolf experts. In the wild, the alpha wolves are merely the
breeding pair, and the pack is generally comprised of their juvenile
offspring and pups.
The typical wolf pack,
Dr. Mech wrote in The Canadian Journal of Zoology in 1999,
is a family, with the adult parents guiding the activities of a group in a
division-of-labor system.
In a natural wolf pack,
dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all,
he writes.
That
s a far cry from the dominance model that Mr. Millan attributes to the
innate need of dogs by way of wolves.
Unlike their wolf forebears, dogs exist in human society. They have been
selectively bred for 15,000 or more years to live with people. Studies
have shown that almost from birth they are attentive to people, and that
most are eager to please, given proper instruction and encouragement.
But sometimes the relationship goes very wrong, and it is time to call on
a professional.
Aggression is perhaps the most significant of the behavioral problems that
may afflict more than 20 percent of the nation
s 65 million dogs, because it can lead to injury and death. Mr. Millan
often treats aggression by forcing the dog to exercise extensively on a
treadmill, by asserting his authority over the dog by rolling it on its
back in the
alpha rollover,
and through other forms of intimidation, including exposure to his pack
of dogs.
Forcefully rolling a big dog on its back was once recommended as a way to
establish dominance, but it is now recognized as a good way to get bitten.
People are advised not to try it. In fact, many animal behaviorists
believe that in the long run meeting aggression with aggression breeds
more aggression.
More important, aggression often has underlying medical causes that might
not be readily apparent
hip dysplasia or some other hidden physical ailment that causes the dog
to bite out of pain; hereditary forms of sudden rage that require a
medical history and genealogy to diagnose; inadequate blood flow to the
brain or a congenital brain malformation that produces aggression and can
only be uncovered through a medical examination. Veterinary behaviorists,
having found that many aggressive dogs suffer from low levels of
serotonin, have had success in treating such dogs with fluoxetine (the
drug better known as Prozac).
Properly treating aggression, phobias, anxiety and fears from the start
can literally save time and money. Mr. Millan
s quick fix might make for good television and might even produce lasting
results in some cases. But it flies in the face of what professional
animal behaviorists
either trained and certified veterinarians or ethologists
have learned about normal and abnormal behavior in dogs.
Mark Derr is the author of
A Dog
s History of America: How Our Best Friend Explored, Conquered and Settled
a Continent.
Yeah, great article - good that it's in the NY Times too instead of in some obscure magazine. So women are not only wired differently but a different species, eh? Hmmmm...it would be laughable if it wasn't so frustrating.
I often wonder how many of the dogs (and horses) trained by such methods end up turning on their owners. I'd guess quite a lot, but of course then the proponents of such methods can then say it must have been the trainer's fault for not applying the methods properly. I also wonder whether that's why a lot of trainers who espouse such methods for horses seem to be paranoid about stallions - it's much more difficult to train stallions by using dominance-based methods than it is a mare or a gelding, because many of them just won't back down, which of course leads to an escalation of conflict and, all too often, injury to the human. Then we get the bleat that 'Stallions should only be handled by professionals' - yeah, right. I don't think so.
Haven't seen the programme but, once again, I am amazed that these people continue to get away with what they're doing and make loads of money doing it when, as Mark Berr says, there's been 40 years of progress. AND, there are many trainers out there having huge success, and also making money, with the positive approach, including members of the other species like Karen Pryor and Kay Lawrence Yes, Catherine, "aaargh!" indeed.
This topic has been on my mind recently as I'm reading Temple Grandin's book "Animals in Translation", which I was enjoying until I got to the chapter on animal aggression in which she talks a lot about dominance, particularly in respect of dogs. Disappointingly, she shares the view of Millan, Fennell, et al. Worryingly, she has studied the science of behaviour and is an associate professor of animal sciences.
With some of the professionals writing books advocating the dominance-based approach to dogs (and horses) and the modern desire for a low-input quick-fix, what can be done to make those seeking guidance realise that these people are neither operating in the animals' best interests nor satisfying the modern desire?
I've tried the public challenge of a dominance-based trainer, but that got me precisely nowhere except looking a fool to a large audience, not to mention the poor horse being dragged back into the ring!
I'd like to see a TV programme which compared the two approaches to training side by side. If possible and done well that might help a bit if it reached a wide enough audience? Does anybody have any views on this idea?
Great idea about the TV programme, Jan - I'd love to see something like that. There was something similar a good few years ago which showed a group of modern cowboys breaking their horses using the usual dominance methods while Lucy Rees took the non-confrontational approach - and guess who was riding her horse around while the cowboys were still struggling with theirs?
It amazes me how blinkered people can become when committed to the idea of dominance. I recently read a paper by a well-known and respected animal behaviour scientist. Writing about dominance hierarchies in horses, she cited in support of her ideas another paper, which is well-known to me. I was astonished to see that she derived conclusions from this paper which were exactly the opposite of what the paper's actual findings were - so much for scientific rigour!
The Lucy Rees programme apart, I think the problem is that the dominance-based approach can give quick albeit superficial results - which is of course why so many people swear by it. The hidden costs of such an approach are of course just that - hidden - so the audience doesn't see them and doesn't know what the fallout is likely to be. The exception would be if a horse - or a dog - were to turn on the trainer (I wish, sometimes) but then of course it would be the animal's fault, of course, not the trainer's (grrr!!)and the the poor thing would probably be branded dangerous and beyond redemption...
when, when will we see the end of this wretched hierarchy model?
September 9 2006, 10:46 PM
I couldn't have wished to write a first message to the forum on a topic more near to my heart................I do so agree with those who have had their say so far.
It's extraordinary how people frame what they see in these terms so constantly - leadership, hierarchy, control - concepts which in human society have all sorts of qualitative baggage and don't say anything very useful about the social arrangements of other species. It may be handy to use these terms as a sort of shorthand, but we end up taking them au pied de la lettre, and I can't see that we learn much in the process.
Any worthwhile tome on equine behaviour points out that, whilst in groups of feral equines (in itself a social order we hardly ever see) that whilst some members eat first, drink first or whatever, it's not an A,B,C, order, rather that in some circumstances it's A-C, othersC-B and so on - this in purely practical terms - and let's not forget that, for humans, words (I too was disappointed by Temple Grandin's comments here,) are laden with associations - (our specific reactions to/feelings about/connections with words,- a personal verbal history) to which other species are not subject. Whilst our behaviour is mediated in part by these associations,theirs is not - i.e. how horses arrange theselves in their groups or with other species , like dogs or humans is just that - their own way of doing things. Applying our own value-laden terms (respect, leadership, obedience ....... )is helpful for us to label our aims and behaviours, but doesn't tell us much about how the horse (or dog) in question is representing the situation to him/herself.....
Hmmm I really respect Lesley’s books (as she knows) and I feel Catherine B has been a real help in my learning and I thank her for that. From American connections I have heard that the Cesar dog training is horrible so I don’t align myself with him, but I think the majority of you guys on here would put me with the Alpha training group (just by my email address!) It would be good if a proper and fair study is done – it doesn’t need to be done on television first of all surely? What I’m offering is if you could set up matching situations – hmm to prove what? I would genuinely play the ‘bad guy’ against you good guys to see what we could all learn………..
As an NLP master practitioner I use goal setting a lot with people and some of the principles may shed some light on what may be occurring during dominance reduction training ie alpha/leadership/pressure release training and what are generally known as positive/reward based methods.
In goal setting we consider two principles are pertinent, away from motivation and toward motivation. In away from motivation a person wishes to escape from/turn off pressure/discomfort/something perceived as bad for them. In toward motivation a person has a goal to which they are orientated towards which they work toward progressively.
In away from goals once a person has reached the goal (turned off the pressure) motivation to do anything else ceases as the unconcious mind considers the goal has been acheived. If I were stood in a pile of poo my motivation may well be to get out of it, once I'd jumped forwards, backwards or sideways I'd stop jumpinmg as the unconcious mind would think "mission accomplished". I wouldn't keep jumping.
What's happening physiologically is that once the pressures removed dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin are no longer secreted. The opposite happens in towards motivation as the closer and closer you get to your goal the more of these hormones are secreted, which combine to maintain your direction toward the goal and your enthusiasm.We can probably all relate to having felt like this at times. The unconcious mind much prefers "towards goals" as they are more psychologically robust.
Therefore if I apply this logic to animal training postive reinforcement training using shaping plans would seem to have the edge over any kind of pressure release training.
I would just like to say that I spend a good deal of time undoing the damage that some dominance and force based techniques have created. By using positive reinforcement methods you create the feel good factor and resulting motivation. The animal wants to work with you and is rewarded for doing so. A partnership is entered into based on mutual trust. I would never force a horse into a trailer using a pressure halter for example, for me that would be betraying that trust. Far better to use a simple shaping plan that will result in a horse going voluntarily into a trailer when asked. The trailer is seen as a good place as it's been paired with rewards, rather than somewhere the horse has to go to escape pressure.
I don't think any of us like being forced to do things, and when we are, there is a general resentment towards the enforcer and a lack of enthusiasm for the task. I think animals probably feel the same way!
Janet, this is an analogy I use often as well. When I was investigating human learning while at the same time looking more closely at animal learning this analogy came as a lightbulb moment.
I used it more recently in my first public demonstration of horse training at a barehoof camp near Cardiff back in May. I was going to demo solely clicker training, but I felt that I could show both sides of the coin so to speak. I showed how my mare responded to clicker training - she appeared bright and attentive and was throwing out behaviours (nothing that would cause any danger to myself or those around - more looking for targets and other behaviours such as head loewring I've reinforced a lot). She marched right up to what I hoped would be a hideously scary object because she knew what the game was. She also remembered a trick of passing me a bucket that I'd trained her two and a half years previously and hadn't practised since. All of this was done with light in her eyes, care and deliberation on her part.
Then I showed how negative reinforcement works using light pressure and release to move my mare around. The change in her attitude was instant, no one who was watching failed to see this. My mare became dull and grudging. She did everything asked, and was 'light' in my hands. I then showed how she could be moved around with targetting and she cheered up straight away.
The emotional changes my mare displayed may have been more marked because of the immediate change in contingencies. But even at home she does not like to be moved around using pressure and release, but comes to life when there's a hint that positive reinforcement may be used. This can be praise, face/wither/neck/bottom rubs, food.
As far as more formal experiments go, I am currently cooking up my MSc project so perhaps I will be offering a small contribution to this debate
I'm intrigued that you say you consider yourself to be in the 'Alpha training group'. Reading your books (which I like very much by the way!), I don't particularly get the impression that you consider dominance to be an important (or indeed central) factor in dealing with horses. That's because you don't keep banging on about it as some do! However, I'd be really interested to your thoughts on this. Do you believe horses view us as other horses? What is the relation between dominance and leadership? Is the use of dominant body language just a way to apply pressure, or do you expect/want the relationship to be changed to that of dominant vs subordinate (inasmuch as that is possible)? How beneficial do you think it is to 'assert dominance' for the sake of pressing home the point, e.g. by making a show of withholding food? That kind of thing...
The idea of setting up matching situations got me thinking. Assuming a method works, we might still be left with the question of why it worked. For example, if dominant / driving-away body language was used simply to apply pressure in ways that helped the horse to learn particular ways of behaving in response to the handler's actions, it wouldn't necessarily follow that the way the horse viewed the handler had changed in a fundamentally equine-social way (i.e. to that of dominant-subordinate). In order to prove that had happened, one would need to show that the horse behaved in ways predicted from such a relationship change, but in completely different situations and in response to different actions. That would go a long way to ruling out the simpler (imo) explanation - namely that the horse is simply learning to react to what the handler is doing, and their body-language signals.
Alternatively one could emulate, as faithfully as possible, aspects of an Alpha's behaviour towards other horses in a situation where there *isn't* a set training goal. Once dominance was established, one could look at the extent to which the other benefits claimed for dominance are evident - does the horse follow, trust, like, respect or cooperate with that handler more or less than with another handler who has not established dominance? (Clearly, some of these are harder to measure objectively than others!)
I think a proper scientific investigation into this controversial issue would be very useful. (But I would say that, wouldn't I?!) Given the complexity of the interactions between humans and horses, the variety of possible confounding factors, and the risk of compromising welfare, experiments would need careful design and execution. A lot more thought needs to go into formulating good testable hypotheses than I have devoted to the topic here. Nevertheless, it's an interesting prospect...
Oooooooh, good discussions always come up when work is a nightmare....
Rita, welcome to the THF, great to see you here. (Are you the same Rita who used to post on Andy Beck's email list? If so, I always enjoyed your contributions there and look forward to more here!)
Hmmm, where to start..... I make no apologies for playing devil's advocate a bit here....!
Re dominance, I think this issue is very often a bit of a red herring. I don't think it matters whether the trainer thinks (s)he needs to exert dominance. I think it comes down to whether the animal in question feels dominated. I think those are very different issues. Very often you get long debates on training methods when actually both sides of the argument do pretty much the same thing from the perception of the horse. And that can be the case however well-meaning the trainer is. I've seen some horrible CT where the horse looked well and truly dominated. And I've seen some NH where it didn't so I think we have to be very careful about getting sucked into a "postive = towards motivation = good" and "negative = away from motivation = bad" debate.
So similarly, I would only class Kelly in the Alpha training group if I saw her training a horse in such a way as to make me think the horse felt dominated. As I said above, I have not seen this Cesar person in action at all and haven't seen Kelly work with a horse for a long time. So can't make a fair comment. But based on Monty videos I've seen recently, I'm afraid I do equate choke chains and pressure halters. And similarly join up and extended sessions on a tread-mill. I just don't see any of these as necessary, particularly as part of routine training. Having said that, I do appreciate that there is more to IH than this.
But I also think that the dog community is further along down the positive reinforcement route than the horse community. So anyone still resorting to these sort of methods to train dogs really has no excuse. There are so many other options and so much more scientific research into wolves and dogs showing how flawed the rationale behind these methods really is. With horses we're not quite there yet and still more dependent on opinions.
And the other point is that if we're talking about using coercive methods as a one-off to ellicit/stop a particular behaviour, that's very different from a relationship in which the horse never gets to express an opinion and is generally shut-down, regardless of training method. I might not condone P/-R as a general rule but I couldn't honestly say I don't use them. I just have different criteria for resorting to them compared with other trainers. I've seen such appalling professional "supposed +R" that my current criteria for liking a trainer are honesty, ability to do what they say they do, timing, feel etc. Some of them don't even use -R well so it's a bit much to hope they might be able to use +R well. For now I'll settle for competant -R as a compromise!
As for Kelly/Jan's point about an experiment (as opposed to competition!) Hmmmmm. Who saw that Stick and Carrot documentary that was on a few years ago? That's how misrepresented the "positive" approach can get (meditation, frisbee and all sorts of other hippy stuff I've forgotten). And the "negative" side was really misrepresented as well, since some of the people were clearly highly motivated by the "success through adversity" approach. As always, it depends too much on the individual which makes any scientifically- and statistically-meaningful study totally meaningless to me!
So I would prefer any study to reflect the individuals concerned. So we could randomly assign a selection of horses to whichever trainers participate. We could choose which behaviours to work on. And we could measure whichever physiological measures we wanted and we could see which horses are trained most quickly and which ones retain the lesson one or five years later. And whatever else we wanted to test. But would that tell us anything? I'm really not sure it would. Won't it still depend on the horse? I've done join-ups (long time ago!) on horses who were quite clearly not bothered by doing them. They were just going through the motions for the stupid human who would stop soon. And I've done some pretty lousy CT at times too, upsetting the horse in the process. So I still think that while we can do all of this stuff, whether or not the horse truly benefits from the session will ultimately come down to feel, ability, experience, knowledge, understanding etc of the trainer and not just the method. All things that can't be measured. I think we'd all come away believing what we'd believed to start with.
But I do really think that we could move on through more open-minded discussion and showing each other exactly what we mean. I'd like to see more IH work when it doesn't involve pressure halters and join-up and that's my fault for not going out looking for it. I met and had a lovely conversation with one of the RAs recently. I think on paper we'd be saying pretty much the same thing, give or take her hang-up over the use of treats and hand-feeding. Once I'd explained this she was much more open to it. But I suspect that in reality we'd be doing pretty different things because we have such different backgrounds. It would be nice to get more dialogue going and sharing ideas rather than competing. Maybe the Lucy Rees programme worked because the two approaches were so different??
I wonder if the competition type approach would work better for dogs. I don't know why but I rather think it might. Need to think about that. Jan, do you have any thoughts on that? Were you thinking of dogs or horses when you suggested it?
Think that's probably enough from me. I keep re-reading and editing - will just post it now....!
Hi
Yes, the whole day at computer here too so without going into too much depth... Hi Francis - I don't consider myself an Alpha trainer really but my email is Kelly@montyroberts.co.uk so that's why I suggested people would see me as one. Putting things is simple terms though, I do think with horses, children, dogs, getting the tour on the road, even with managing yourself, you do have to show some sort of 'leadership' otherwise everyone looses faith. Of course, 'leadership' is not hurting, bullying, sarcasm, forcing - to me it's more 'this is how we behave around here'. And there are also little 'arranging' stages at the beginning working out where you fit in and what's acceptable and what isn't. My 17.2 hh ex racemare had to learn pretty quickly that it wasn't OK for her to bash me around my head with her head. She soon learned this as I worked round her on the ground wearing a riding hat and she soon worked out then when she bashed me really hard it was uncomfortable for her - I'm not sure how I could have taught this affectively with just positive and I think if I'd have had to feed treats to keep safe I would have felt coerced (I don't think that's actually a word but as I said I'm getting a bit tired......) She has a totally gorgeous temperament but she did have to learn that one thing.
My boy Pie is just a total delight but then I guess many of us are biased towards our own horses and why not?
My cat though says all my theories, in fact everyone's theories, are all utter rubbish and she wants something (different to what she's got) to eat right now. Better go.
Lesley, I’d be very interested to see the Lucy Rees/Cowboys programme – do you know if it’s on video/dvd?
Kelly, I should probably explain more about the television programme idea. The sort I’d like to see would be designed to provoke thought in the audience rather than be a battle of the trainers which ends with a conclusion being drawn. Perhaps it could form part of a proper and fair study (?).
I wouldn’t want to hear the trainers each promoting their preferred approach, I’d want to let the animals (in this case, probably dogs) ‘speak’ for themselves, since the point is that I want to see what their perception is, not that of the trainers. To be able to see the potential hidden costs Lesley mentioned, the programme would have to be followed up with revisiting the animals being trained to look at the longer-term results. I believe it would also have to look at look into all aspects of the animals’ lives too, including if possible it’s prior history, both before and during as well as after the main programme – to see whether any confusion or maybe even damage being caused by the training is coming out in other ways (displaced?), because this is about having happy, motivated animals not about who can train what.
The success of such a programme (I’m aware it might not make good prime time telly) relies heavily upon the audience being able to see the animals’ emotional responses. This might be helped if the trainers are not commentating on their work, but taking only a practical part. I do worry that the behaviours achieved would be more obvious than the emotional state of the animal, as this certainly seems to happen at the demos by ‘alpha’ trainers, where it appears, from the enraptured looks on their faces and hearty applause, they are not seeing that the animal in the ring looks either frightened or defeated. It seems these people are focussing on the animal making all the right moves with their physical responses rather than seeing how the animal is really perceiving the situation. If only they could talk......!
And, in the interests of fairness, I should add that I have also seen a well-respected clicker trainer cause a horse to display its confusion and its subsequent wish to not be involved in a not-so-subtle way, if running for the exit was anything to go by. On this occasion, the trainer was attempting to combine both the dominant/alpha and positive approaches. The poor horse didn’t know whether it was supposed to be coming or going, so it went!
Jenni’s audience is encouraging. I didn’t see it and maybe they were biased – after all, they were there! But, it must be easier to see the animal’s response when there is a direct comparison, as there would be with the TV programme.
I wrote most of this the other day before Frances’s, Catherine’s and Kelly’s (second) posts, but hadn’t got around to finishing it and posting it. So it might be a bit out of date already! Catherine, I agree with you, and I did have dogs in mind whilst writing this, but also have a, less optimistic, hope that it might be possible with horses.
Having read Catherine’s post I’ve thought more about how the whole thing would indeed depend on the animal involved in each case, perhaps there would have to be more than one to each trainer. But, I do also worry that, as Francis indicated, to achieve the comparison might cause the animal to be too compromised.
Francis’s post following on from Kelly’s mention of a fair and proper study led me to think of another problem with a TV programme – editing! It can cause misrepresentation. Perhaps that’s why a TV programme hasn’t been made
Sorry this is a bit waffly – bit of a thoughts dump really, but I thought I’d post it anyway.
How about making it an educational dvd or series of dvds? That way there is complete autonomy over editing and presentation, it would be marketed at the people that really wanted to see it and learn from it?!
SOrry I would love to write more and Francis I know I still owe you a write up on reccommended reading etc, I haven't forgotten, it has just got pushed to the back of the pile, work load is crazy at the moment! Kelly lovely to see you on here, and although philosophically we probably do have differences in the way we work, methods we use etc, I do have a lot of respect for a lot of what you have done- I even put Perfect Manners on my workshop reading list (although with certain caveats!!). I am sure I am repeating what others think in saying please do keep coming back here and joining in debate.
Must dash,
Helen
"How about making it an educational dvd or series of dvds? That way there is complete autonomy over editing and presentation, it would be marketed at the people that really wanted to see it and learn from it?!"
Helen, I had a similar thought after I posted my waffle - about filming the proper scientific research which could be made available as a series. The fact that it would only be seen by those who knew about it or were searching for such things is why I was thinking about television - cos I want everyone who has anything to do with animals to see it!
I guess it would be a 'cop out' if I said 'come and see my horses now and tell me if they're emotionally stressed/showing displacement behaviour' - they're not and I doubt anyone on this DG is going to come up with 'well funny you should say that but my horse does ........'
You guys (sorry - tell me your preferred terminology - folk? people?) might know I get the odd TV opportunity but what would do you feel it would be most helpful to show people (remembering I'm a horse person not a dog trainer) I think the Alpha/Leadership question should be another thread as I've already started to hijack this Dog Listening one.
In answer to your question about what I'd like to see on a TV programme aimed at "normal" horse-owners - I'd really not want to go down the route of positive reinforcement. There's too much potential for trouble as loads of people start CT without understanding enough basics and at best get bored because "it doesn't work". At worst they can create dangerous situations.
I'd just like to see a greater awareness of true behaviour. Things like newly-started horses don't intrinsically understand that a boot in the ribs means go and a jab in the mouth means stop. Emphasising that it is the release of pressure on the bit which tells the horse that stopping was the right thing to do. Emphasising that celebrities who ride more aggressively on TV aren't necessarily the better riders! (I didn't see your clip on Only Fools on Horses I'm afraid although I understand you were trying to make this sort of point!). Emphasising that horse have opinions and do things for a reason which makes good sense to them. Reasons which probably relate to our treatment of them and/or the environment we make them live in and that it's not "giving in" if we make some allowances for them.
Certainly great points that I do try to make whenever I get the opportunity. A scary thing has happened today where I have been invited to join BBC 1 racing - not this Saturday next - I'm not sure I'll accept as I haven't watched more than 4 races since I gave up in 1995 - all those whips/egos/describing horses as 'rags' or 'ungenuine' and people actually thinking it funny and informative! So if I get caught out not knowing the winner of last year's St Leger will it get people to think 'she's obviously an idiot not knowing that so all her ideas must be crazy' ?
I'm sleeping on it.
Oh crikey, what a dilemma. I would seriously consider this, though, since there are not many opportunities to get your views across to such a wide audience! Even if people don't initially agree with you, I'm sure you know already that sometimes planting the seed is enough to get the thought processes in action. Let us know when it's aired if you say yes!
Catherine, you say you'd prefer it if normal horse owners didn't go down the route of positive reinforcement. Where does this leave them re training their horses ? The other options availible to them are likely to be what they've learned at the average BHS riding school or them using IH or one of the other Natural Horsemanship approaches. I think that using positive reinforcement is "better" than those options for many reasons. If we make positive reinforcement/CT sound complicated and difficult with the potential for causing problems then do we run the risk of turning people off who would otherwise give it a go ? We don't hear the BHS instructor or IH registered associate telling students their methods can be dangerous, confusing or frustrating for the horse, on the contrary those instructors believe wholeheartedly in what they are teaching. This helps people to feel confident and supported. I'd like to see people who want to use positive reinforcement and CT being encouraged and supported, and so able to develop that same confidence in what they are acheiving.
hmmmm Janet - bit of a generalisation there - I spend a lot of the first morning on the 5 day course explaining when NOT to do join up, it's in the book - if it's not working within 5 minutes - don't go on - 'it's not the horse getting it wrong' look at yourself first. Remember IH doesn't equal Join Up but since we're talking about JU the thing I keep emphasising is 'The join up isn't the point - the relationship with the horse is the point' also for Horse Psychology and with loading we always start with Primum Non Nocere - which of course I don't have to translate for you bods But don't hijack this thread with JU - I just came on here to say that I have decided to do the BBC racing thing which will show next Friday and Saturday afternoons (or that's the plan and I have no idea what time). I wouldn't expect you all to be happy with all I say because I'm completely sure I won't be happy with all I say once I watch it - trouble with life work (actually coming to think of it edited is usually worse!)
I'll do my best on the side of horse though.
K
P.S. You might find I've disappeared for a long period now. It would be bad manners on this site to give the reason!
Kelly, I didn't mention JU, nor was I thinking of it. I have watched yourself and Monty at demos and watched a local RA at work several times. I was paying the compliment of how IH people seem to be good ambassadors for their methods.
Apologies Janet - only I after I read my post did I realise how that sounded 'don't hijack this thread' but I was actually talking to myself - I do that a lot! Also I've put 'life' instead of 'live'. I will endeavour to write with better care in future
I’m coming back into this thread after a few days so sorry if I hark back to replies near the beginning!
Janet & Jenni – I like what you have to say about goal setting and motivation, especially (Janet) re the physiological responses involved.
Kelly – having seen you work with horses on numerous occasions I don’t think anyone could possibly equate you with one of the ‘bad guys’!
Catherine makes a valuable contribution in saying that it comes down to whether the horse feels dominated – this reiterates the principle that the trainer’s actual beliefs/intentions are peripheral to the real issue, which is that it is how the training is perceived by the subject that is important.
However, in contrast to Catherine I think there is ample research into horses which exposes the flaws in the rationale behind the dominance method (e.g. Joel Berger’s 5 year study of the horses of the Granite Range, Telane Greyling’s 10-year + study of the Namib horses etc), Marthe Kiley-Worthington’s 30+ year studies of her own horses). And there are plenty of studies which show that not only does leadership not equate to dominance, but that leadership is unlikely to be a clear-cut issue in equine social organisations. The problem is that the people who use dominance-based methods either don’t read the relevant studies, or they ignore them (some scientists manage to do this too!).
I like Kelly’s concept of leadership – this doesn’t depend on ideas about social dominance but instead adopts a role-model approach – ‘this is how we do things here’.
Going back to the original article, I think Mark Derr hits the nail on the head when he talks about trainers “seeing each dog as an individual, to understand what motivates it, what frightens it and what its talents and limitations are. Building on strengths and working around and through weaknesses…” I think this highlights the limitations inherent in any approach which focuses on the method rather than the subject: what motivates (or de-motivates) one dog or horse (or human!) may be quite different from what affects another – and the motivator (or de-motivator) can vary depending on the individual's state of mind at any given moment. And I like what Derr says about building on strengths and working around and through weaknesses. My Arabian gelding Zareeba has always found certain school exercises such as shoulder-in easy and performs them with what appears to be enthusiasm, but he has a rooted objection to going through puddles (this tends to be a bit of an Araby thing). Many years ago I found that if I ask him for shoulder-in when we approach a puddle (or anything else on the ground that he objects to, such as different-coloured patches on the road, manhole covers etc) he is so focused on performing his favourite exercise that he forgets all about the nasty on the ground and before we know it we’ve gone past/over it, without the need for any kind of confrontation. Similarly, if he’s frightened by something, asking him to focus on performing an exercise seems to calm him. Of course this approach might not work if he was really frightened out of his wits, and it might not work with other horses, but the point is it works with him in most situations. You could argue that it hasn’t cured his dislike of puddles, but so what? His feelings about puddles simply aren’t important enough to us for it to be a big issue. Sometimes I think people get so wound up because their horse does something they don’t want/won’t do something they do want and they see it as a control issue without stopping to think about whether it’s really important anyway. If it doesn’t compromise safety, very often it can be worked through (while of course investigating and dealing with the causes of the lack of co-operation) without making a big “thing” of it, and one day it’s suddenly no longer an issue at all…
Hi Lesley, I might be misunderstanding what you said about adopting a role model approach, but taking the statement as I read it, I don’t see how we can be role models to any other species (or even perhaps even any other culture within our own species).
How could horses understand the concept? Eg, I don’t see how an approach such as Kelly used with the hard had (sorry Kelly, not picking on you, just using the example) is going to teach the horse anything about horse/human interaction rules in general. Am I missing the point?
Sorry, Jan, you’re quite right – I was being a bit incoherent there (thoughts put down in haste without thinking properly about what I was saying – mea culpa)! ‘Sloppy terminology abets sloppy thinking’! (can’t remember who said that – I think it was Steven Rose – but it’s a good saying)
We can’t of course be role models for horses – I think what I was really trying to say was that I like the concept of leadership as setting out models of behaviour, in the sense of teaching the horse about acceptable/desirable behaviour (how we do this is of course another matter).
Sorry am going to throw the cat among the pigeons now. Kelly I take your point that you emphasise importance of when not to use join up etc, and have heard this directly from people who have attended your courses. I do like some of what you do and I get the impresssion from everything that I have read and seen you do that you are motivated do to the best for the horse and that you believe that what you are doing is for the best for the horse. HOWEVER, do you remember the coloured mare you worked with in Northern Ireland two years running (I think this was four years ago?) I have to be honest and say that it was seeing this demonstration that made me absolutely determined that I wanted to educate people about the psychology of horse training and management- to prevent things like this happening again. I wish at the time I had had the confidence to stand up and say something on behalf of the little mare. Do you feel your attitude/ approach has changed since then? I would dearly love the chance to have a chat with you about this, but I still haven't got my computer sorted out so won't be able to email you for a while.
Best wishes,
Helen
Had the pleasure? of watching the Cesar Milan programme on Sky 3
September 22 2006, 5:36 PM
Just going back to the original post. I'd not actually heard of this Cesar Milan character before. And as life would have it I went to see a dog behaviour client last night who saves every dog training/behaviour programme going with the new technology that is Sky plus! The clients showed me a few snippets because they wanted to know my opinion and to better understand what was happening (we were 1 hour into the consultation). They didn't like what they saw, basically a nervous dog with a camera shoved into its face with good old Cesar jabbing it with the choke chain every time it flinched - to make the dog face his fears and get over them! He then proceeded to provoke it into a fight over a bone and get it into the swimming pool it was afraid of. By this time the dog had completely given up protesting. In no way was this man reading the dog's body language correctly or interacting with the dog accordingly.
I'm so glad the New York times writer was less than complementary!
oooo Helen - I can't imagine I'd have improved in 5 (I think) years I do remember the little mare because they ended up calling her Kelly and the owners were pleased with her though I clearly remember the first time I worked with her was NOT my finest hour working to get a headcollar on this totally wild mare with some old Irish farmer slapping her with his cap at the same time. "I was doing the best I knew how to at the time if I'd have known better I'd have done better." She came back a year later though and it came to a happy conclusion in the mare was far better, rideable, had caring owners now. I would blame the fact that at that time I somehow felt I was cheating the public if I didn't take on the most difficult horses offered (that might take a lot of analysis but we're into horses here not people) but don't worry I can handle failure - I thought I'd made massive strides against the use of the whip on BBC racing yesterday but it turns out today it fell on totally deaf ears (if interested go to http://ihdg.proboards91.com/index.cgi?board=Discuss&action=display&thread=1159091481 if Catherine B doesn't mind)
Funny that Ben Hart has the same speech on his website as I do on my office wall (did I send it to him?) I call it 'The Arena' it just reminds me to keep going - maybe you can fail but still make a difference?
'Its not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and the sweat and the blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spend himself in a worthy cause; who at best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.'
I think you summed up George Washington very nicely and succinctly, and were completely realistic about how he had progressed since the 2000Gns (I video taped you especially so I wouldn't miss the programme!).
So despite the fact that some individuals will only see what they want to see, you were a good ambassador for the horse - thank you
Sorry it's taken me so long to answer your question above. I used to agree with you, that some +R is better than none but as I've watched CT become more popular I'm less convinced that the horses whose owners dabble in it are better off.
I don't know if you've ever read the clicker posts on forums like clickryder, EE or IHDG but the thing that becomes apparent is that most people don't use CT in the way taught by trainers like Ben Hart and Heather Simpson. It's more common to for it to be used "piggy-backed" onto other training methods - as indeed we saw at the demo where we first met each other. Do you remember how horrific that was? I've spent I don't know how many hours trying to help people understand the difference between good CT and bad. And trying to explain why using CT in combination with -R/P is not a good idea. And people seem to get it for a little while when they are just learning and only want to play with targets. But they go off and want to do more "useful" behaviours and out come the control and -R/P as well as the CT. At best the +R is meaningless and the horse is just responding to the pressure. At worst you get something like the horse in that demo, walking a psychological knife-edge of wanting to offer a behaviour to get a treat (or because he knows he should) but so scared of getting the wrong behaviour and being punished.
I am all for improving awareness of CT and +R but I don't think a TV programme aimed at the general public is the place to do it. For the short slot you get, I think it is sufficient to promte the attitude that you would have when working with +R but not the actual mechanics.
As soon as you start teaching that click and treat get cooperative horse I think you are opening the door to many more problems than you are solving. With the exception of Ben, I am yet to find a trainer who mentions extinction bursts and their practical implications. If you are going to use CT then you will get extinction bursts - ie behaviour gets worse before it gets better. The reasons for this are quite an advanced concept and even harder to see in action - is the behviour getting worse because of an extinction burst (ie a normal part of learning that will subside if you persist) or because you are doing something wrong? It scares me that some professionals who are merrily teaching CT don't even seem to understand!
The minute you start getting deteriorating behaviour you end up with people who don't understand what is going on and don't have the tools to deal with it. That can be dangerous for the human and confusing/upsetting for the horse. Then it can become unpleasant for the horse when the owner resorts to punishment to solve the "problem".
So while obviously I want to get +R much more in the public eye, I think you have to be very careful how you do it. It's not just a different method. You are asking the horse to think in a very different way from all other training methods and that puts him in a very vulnerable position which can so easily be abused. I would always much rather see well-timed, effective -R with minimal pressure, than attempted +R which encourages the horse to start offering behaviours which then get punished at a later date. Not everyone wants the reality of the free-thinking, opinionated horse which +R can release. But if you can give me an audience of open-minded people who genuinely want to learn about behaviour in all its guises then of course I would always support teaching them +R.
Hi Catherine
You raise interesting points and I agree with much of what you say. If I think back to the demo Alex Kurland did talk about piggy backing CT onto natural horsemanship methods. The Parelli trained horse in the demo had so little CT going on that its a strong possibility that any postive association from the CT would be overshadowed by the positive and negative punishment of the Parelli method (I have maybe offended Parelli supporters now), therefore rendering the CT of little point. Alternatively, depending on how the owner used the CT, and to what extent, the click could have become a predictor of punishment ie a conditioned punisher because it preceeded something the horse considered uncomfortable/anxiety provoking/threatening etc. We'd have to know how much (the frequency) that CT was used by the owner to be clearer about which of the two types of learning was taking place.
The naive horse used at the demo was being trained to walk over a tarpaulin with a combination of -re and CT. You mention owners using mild -re, I'm not sure how we could quantify mild as I thought the horse was subject to quite intense -re , but again this is my subjective opinion and may not be shared by others. So I think its hard to be sure whether mild -re is better.
Horses are often in conditioned suppression. Novel behaviours, behaviours that are spontaneous, ethological needs which are compromised by management, these are often not forthcoming as the horse has become used to being punished or corrected in some way for these behaviuors. An example is when a horse has his stable door left open and he doesn't walk out. I agree we live in a culture which values the push button horse, so any spontaneity triggered by CT may be unwelcome to an owner. I believe the physical, mental and emotional consequences of conditioned suppression and its partner learned helplessness are underestimated by horse owners. It's possible that a horse attempting to take a role and engagement in a CT session isn't on a psychological knife edge but is improving his wellbeing by attempting to take some control of the situation and resorces in it (Seligman "Helplessness").
A number of factors will affect a CT session and the results the owner gets. Is the arena/school a context the horse views as a punishing environment because of other traing he does in there. Is he already depressed because of the way he is managed. If he is his serotonin levels are likely to be low which means he will have less tolerance to frustration and become aggressive more quickly. He will be less tolerant of an owner who is witholding postive reinforcement, either because they aren't skilled shapers or have a value that horses shouldn't really be fed treats anyway, (and certainly not from the hand) so he will be in a -punishment scenario. So I agree that it's not so simple as one would think.
Perhaps the answer lies in sharing this kind of knowledge with people.
“As soon as you start teaching that click and treat get cooperative horse I think you are opening the door to many more problems than you are solving”
Catherine, excellent points made, you are so right. I’ve come to the conclusion that a TV programme isn’t one of my better ideas.
“With the exception of Ben, I am yet to find a trainer who mentions extinction bursts and their practical implications.”
Why is it that more trainers don’t pick up on extinction bursts and talk about them? It’s in Don’t Shoot The Dog, which a lot of trainers, not only of dogs, have it on their recommended reading lists.
Couldn’t resist a peak at Cesar Millan’s fan club forum. Also couldn’t resist a little post which doesn’t appear to have got past the moderator. I just asked someone why, if she considered her training [as learned from CM] to be effective, did she have to keep repeating it with the same dog.
Hi Janet, I’m not sure I understood all of your last post – will continue to think about it. In the meantime, there were one or two bits I think I understand enough to comment on.
“therefore rendering the CT of little point”
I wonder whether it could be perceived as being of little point by the horse? If the horse has found some value in CT at some point and then been confused by its mix with –R/P, there might be some point to the horse. If there is a point, then the best resulting effect we could hope for has to be a simple loss of value in the CT and the training giving up on its use.
“We'd have to know how much (the frequency) that CT was used by the owner to be clearer about which of the two types of learning was taking place.”
It would be interesting to know about the frequency as well as the duration (from introduction of CT to ‘present’), and to what level, the CT was used. I think to get to any remotely complex level of CT training there would have to be no –R/P training going on simultaneously. This is worrying, because it could mean that horses subjected to ‘piggy-back’ training approaches will suffer emotionally very quickly. To avoid this, we have to rely on those training the horse to realise the potential problems immediately and change what they’re doing. Trouble is, people have a tendency to persevere for whatever reason.
“So I think its hard to be sure whether mild -re is better”
I’m sure Catherine will answer this, but my take on it is that (a) she didn’t mean the demo horse in particular, and (b) I agree that consistent mild –R is better for the horse than bad CT or CT piggy-backed with methods which use a lot of –R and P. At least with the consistent mild –R training, the horse is less confused and so able to learn quicker, so preventing escalation of the –R and potential subsequent introduction of P.
Jan
BTW, how do I format text in posts? Might be helpful to those reading this if I'd been able to make quotes from other posts more obvious.
I agree with you that for that Parelli horse the positive association would have been overshadowed by all the aversives, but I still think there was a big difference between that horse and a "normal" Parelli horse. And I interpret that as there being just enough +R in there to maintain the offering of behaviour (VSR, if you like), rather than allowing the horse to shut down. For that particular horse I feel it would have been happier had it been allowed to shut down - as much as I hate to see horses in conditioned suppression, I actually see it as a protection mechanism. That is why I would never attempt to "open up" a shut down horse with +R (or shiatsu) if I felt there was a lack of support and/or potential for more excessive aversives from the owner.
I agree, it would help if there had been more information about the prior training and/or more horses to see if there is a consistent lack of conditioned suppression amongst CT/Parelli horses. But I also think at some level this comes down to feel and not science. There's a Parelli/CT yahoo email list which I was a member of for some time and one of the reasons people liked incorporating the CT was because it prevented the horses becoming shut down. I've seen other branches of NH which also work to the same end and in all cases I've felt that the shut down Parelli horses are, in many ways, the better off. I hate what they're put through but at last they have the means to protect themselves without people coming along to remove their security.
To use a slightly frivolous analogy - I found a similar thing when I was a bridesmaid for my sister. It was much easier to shut down and go with the flow, whatever I was told to do. Rather than to offer anything and risk causing trouble! At least in my case it was only short-lived.....
As for the -R - Jan was right in that I was thinking generally rather than that particular demo horse. But in that case, I didn't think it was mild -R and I didn't think it was even clear to the horse what it was supposed to do. There wasn't really any shaping involved, she was just trying to drag the horse onto a small car mat which I wasn't convinced the horse could even see! If she'd used a folded strip of tarpaulin or carpet to walk over she could have done a really nice example of -R and shaping, but sadly no.... But yes, I agree with Jan - most people are going to use -R with their horses for the majority of the time. So let's teach them to use it properly. Sometimes you look at videos of "behaviour professionals" and the timing of the pressure/release is so appalling it would be laughable were it not so serious. Yet this is what everyone uses. I went to watch Arthur Kottas last year and he was using pressure/release to teach a young horse to piaffe in hand. It was the most beautiful piece of -R training I have even seen - there was more aversive than I would have liked but the timing was exquisite, the horse learnt the lesson because it was clear and consistent. If people's timing is so poor when using -R as they use all the time, then is it any wonder that people get into trouble when they try to use +R?! Let's shape the people's learning too!
Hi Jan
Regarding extinction bursts - I have no idea! I think most people don't realise their significance. In fact they probably don't realise the significance of extinction because they think they "only use +R", which of course tends to be rubbish. Or maybe they understand the theory but can't recognise them in practice, which admittedly is hard. Dunno! I also think some people are too busy teaching workshops to actually bother doing much background reading.... Sigh...!
No big surprise that I got no response from the Cesar Milan group. I even tried a proper post, explaining (vaguely!) who I was and that I was interested in animal behaviour and so all the different training styles, but I think I’d already been blacklisted.
Jan
PS thanks for the thread on how to post quotes from other posts.
Thanks for your nice comments re. 'George Washington' Jenny. The next day a racing journalist said it was ridiculous as there 'is no such thing as horse psychology as psychology is the study of the human brain'. It was a bit discouraging - but since a top jockey has booked up on all the courses and says it's crazy that the kids going into racing are not taught anything about how horses might think, feel, act etc. at the start of their racing careers.
I was about to suggest the journalist was talking rubbish but (luckily!) checked the OED and it appears 'tis true. But it also mentions comparative psychology so maybe we'll have to call it equine comparative psychology from now on. Awww, bugger! Or maybe if we just keep using the term equine psychology long enough we'll be able to convince the OED to allow it into their dictionary!
Catherine
1. a. The science of the nature, functions, and phenomena of the human mind (formerly also of the soul).
comparative psychology, the study of mind or intelligence as developed in man and animals.
Good point. When I did my psych degree the animal stuff was all covered in modules called 'Animal Behaviour', 'Psychobiology' 'Comparative Cognition' and 'Neuropsychology', the psychobiology and neuropsychology modules only mentioned animals in that research had been done on neurotransmitters etc. It was the comparative cognition module that covered all the stuff on learning, communication, homing instincts etc. Animal behaviour looked at welfare, language development, ethology etc.
I don't tend to call myself an equine psychologist, more often equine behaviourist or equine behaviour consultant or counsellor, depending what mood I'm in!! Definitely not horse doctor as that would really confuse people!! It's bad enough getting asked about peoples ailments and then haveing to explain I am not that kind of doctor, and is surprising how often people assume I am a vet, though I am very quick to discourage any of these ideas! It is more often other people that call me equine psychologist as it is a term they identify with, oh, that and horse whisperer!! (Something I used to be at great pains to deny but have got to the point now when I say, well kind of like that but not really at all!!) I generally find it is easiest to just let the work explain itself.
Very sad that that journalist had that attitude, since whether the term is technically correct or not, we all of us know that there is a need for us to do the work we do and to understand the ethology, behaviour etc of the horse and the good old psychological theories that can be applied to animals, ie learning theory etc.
Kelly I am sorry I missed your stuff, I am sure you have had more of an impact that you think, it takes time for things to filter back.
Helen
Caught the last 10 minutes of the Cesar Milan show the other night. If it wasn't so upsetting to watch the dog and to think about how many people believe in him, it would have been laughable.
The dog, a young boxer, gets a 20 minute lead walk on tarmac 4 times a week, otherwise kept in the house and small yard. No other dogs in the family. The dog ran from CM when he tried to put a lead on it, so the owner caught him and gave him to CM. The dog was struggling to escape, so CM held on till he stopped. The owner spotted that the dog looked scared, but CM assured owner that dog was trying to be dominant and when it stopped it was then submissive.
Didn't catch what actual problem CM was brought in to solve (seemed the dog was a nightmare on the lead amongst other things) but, whatever it was, a lack of exercise and stimulation was going to be a big factor. CM did at least mention that the dog might require more exercise, but his solution was to fit the dog with a backpack which was then loaded with bottles of water. The idea being that the short, boring walk would use more energy with the extra weight to carry. It was hideous to watch the poor dog struggling along. It's posture was badly affected and future structural problems are surely inevitable with continued backpacking. A fabric choke lead was used at the same time, so there was nothing the poor thing could do about it's probably painful situation. I wonder how long it'll be before doggie will resist having the backpack put on, if he has any resistance left in him. Everyone was happy and praising CM at the end. No one noticed the poor dog looked completely defeated.
And, if that isn't bad enough, try watching Dog Borstal. The same dominate-your-dog general approach at what I'd guess is a made-for-tv training centre. The place looks like a concentration camp with staff dressed up in military-style clothing and the owners (even the one genuinely frightened of nocturnal wildlife visits) forced to sleep outside in tents. The worst 'trainer' imo was the macho guy with an ego the size of Russia. He even refused to work with the chihuahua who apparently didn't fit his image and wasn't fit to share the air he breathed (not a direct quote, but close!). He didn't like the owner either, I think because she questioned him too much (boot camp hadn't had the desired effect on her!). At the end of the programme, all the dogs were judged (the "perfect pet test") by an independent 'expert trainer'. Completely pointless as all he did was use whatever score the resident trainer suggested. In all three cases covered in the programme I saw the owners and their dogs were still struggling during their tests, but all were awarded certificates of distinction - I guess to make sure the trainers can still say they promise results within one week! The website features the "Canine Hall of Shame". Shame on the trainers more like, and the BBC.
I hadn't heard of Dog Borstal but did a quick websearch which reveals various comments on various forums which I can't be bothered to wade through but I'm sure you can guess the nature of the debates.
Yes, Catherine, "aaargh!" indeed.