Dog Behaviour: The Copy & Paste Cult
Misinformation & Spin

By Colin Tennant MCFBA MGoDT

One of my colleagues recently said to me: “Here’s yet another spin article on dog behaviour by Paddy Driscoll. “She’s lamenting at how we have it all wrong once again in dog training, behaviour and understanding the dog's mind”. Upon reading the said article, one gets the view that Paddy appears to have been converted to hype and like all converts becomes an unquestioning adherent. Her direct and indirect attacks on current successful behaviour techniques are unacceptable and plain wrong. I have never written attacking training and behaviour reformation methods of others if they get results and are sound and fair for the dog.

Paddy’s article first describes the recent history of the profession of Dog Training clubs, professionals and the advances in the way we treat our pets. That beginning of her article is fine.

Her misinformation begins

From the point she states Vive la revolution it degenerates into copied drivel and regurgitated unproven speculation. Unfortunately, Paddy in her wish to unquestionably jump on yet another belief system, goes array and I will explain why.

Her criticism is about the majority of us who currently help dogs alter their behaviour through accepted leadership programmes via understanding dominant structures and pack psychology. If Paddy really believes that these ramblings by Coppinger and Donaldson (two USA dog people) then that’s fine, I do not object to that. What I and hundreds of other trainers and behaviour practitioners object to strongly, is when her ilk and fellow sheep do not question any of this most dubious unproven dogma, but simply believes and propagates what they have recently clung on to and read which is simply spin on a grand scale and then use those same views and self indoctrination to abuse others who work hard to retrain dogs with serious behaviour problems.

Why she and others who digest this speculative rubbish do not try it out and produce their own results for comparison is a mystery, but simply copy and regurgitate information from a book normally written by a self acclaimed academic, generally from the US. Its simply blind fundamental rhetoric. It's normally accompanied by endless false, pernicious accusations about how current psychology and training methods are all bad, wrong and these new spun ideas are fantastic. I hope the reader gets the gist of what’s about to follow.

The Pack Leader

Her deliberate attacks and sniping at current excellent forward thinking methods on pack/rank reduction psychology can be exampled by her own article in a James Wellbeloved Magazine. One paragraph named the MYTH OF PACK LEADER and the Dominant Dog. She states: “Instead of viewing (That’s Us) the dog as a learning canine with many psychological features in common with human animals the dog was seen only as a domesticated wolf. Dominance theory came along”. Untrue Paddy - your statement is arrant nonsense and we have never thought that – you may have done so. We understand Wolf behaviour is correlated to to dog behaviour with relevant modification.

I and hundreds of other professionals throughout Britain who understand the wolf/dog relationship and corresponding behaviour have never viewed dogs in these narrow ways and not treated dogs as such so why do you need to blandly misrepresent British experts? This is Dricoll's first of many spurious statements of disinformation about our current work in dog behaviour and training. She has simply unquestionably copied and perpetuates unproven ideas by others. Why she needs a self proclaimed expert from the US like Coppinger to sheepishly follow is more of a mystery than the dog behaviour she discusses. I describe her type as the Velcro wannabe experts attaching themselves to somebody's name to gain kudos from the mystery makers. Quite sad really.

Dog trainers and behaviour practitioners patently see dogs as great companions, complex creatures otherwise we would not be able to work so well with them yes and without Coppingger's conjectures interesting as they may be simply are an idea he has - not fact. Her misinformation continues: Owners, she states, “were to see the dog as a pack member in a hierarchy in struggle (her emotive word “struggle” slipped in”) which was in effect the dog pack”. Any person with the most basic understanding can observe the correlations between dog wolf pack behaviour and that is the way it is because a dog is a dog with innate drives that they exhibit in the human environs. We know they are moderated or domesticated wolves - that’s standard knowledge - but we also know that domestication has made them more malleable than a wolf otherwise they would behave identically to a wolf which they don’t. Recent genetics inspection of the wolf dog link has factually proven the link [see this article].

She then says: “Eating before our dogs, going through doorways first was seen as imitating the Alfa wolf became popular. But much of it was based on incorrect observations.” Surely, Paddy, not by a similar group of overseas experts like the ones you now slavishly promote, yes the same type of pseudo experts that are lecturing us it's all wrong again, but despite that she has no problem believing their current unproven hypothesis. At no time does she provide examples of what these new ideas are or how she has repeatedly found them workable – what a surprise. But I have taken the trouble to and what they have done is re branded and re named the identical pack reduction methods we use. One must be really stupid not to notice that.

Wolf Dog Wolf

She further states dogs are not tamed wolves but a different species. First tame is different to domestication and her confusion in that area again demonstrates a lack of knowledge in distinguishing between words. The main point is that we are expected to abandon the most successful and kind behaviour training and rank reduction programmes on this almost laughable guesswork which simply has not factual basis - and again I reiterate that's fine for her -but don't insult free thinking people who practice with your ramblings.
How a dog originated from the wolf is an open question-the behaviour de ranking programmes we use –WORK! That is the point and clients need results kind, effective and least confrontational. Coppinger may well think dogs do not derive from wolves, this but Sir David Attenborough, Roger Tabor and Dr Desmond Morris and Dr David Mech the world's best known Zoologists, Biologists and The British Natural History Museum experts think they do and that’s good enough for most of us and, unlike Coppinger, are world experts on animals.

She states: “When these methods (rank reduction) did work it (They do work, not, did) it was not because the dog saw you as a pack leader but because simple adaptive behaviour.” Again read carefully. All dog learnt dog behaviour in our company is adaptive and seeing you as a leader is adaptive to your importance in the pack. We know it’s adaptive and adaptive is a part of deferring to you as a leader. Humans do it to – it’s a part of group behaviour in many species. Yes, Paddy, we do realise dogs don’t see us as a dog or a wolf but they can only relate to us as a dog or wolf and what they actually see interpret in our related behaviour is real not imagination. The bottom line is that canine de-ranking behaviour works astoundingly well however they view us and clients want results not speculative ramblings by people who do not work in front line behaviour.

The Real World of Dog Behaviour

She then goes on to regurgitate more bizarre statements and using more critical disparaging mistruths. "And when these techniques did work dogs were more likely to become stressed and confused if not aggressive." Well Paddy I have documented over 3000 recent behaviour problems (of 12,000 dogs seen) where the leadership programmes did work without exception. Do you or your source have the same? And for your information over half of the dogs that came to me were either aggressive or extremely aggressive already, many about to be dumped in dog rescue or re-homed or euthanased (or killed, to be more blunt). The majority of owners were already in severe or critical conflict (your favourite word) and many dogs were at the last chance saloon. Family life for many owners was intolerable and, of course, the pets were often in a dreadfully confused and fearful or aggressive states and YES, STRESSED TO THE LIMIT. And Paddy - a lot more in conflict than watching the owner eat food before them, amazingly.
Within 14 days of us placing dogs on de-ranking, programmes and in virtually all cases the main conflict, trauma, anger, distress of the dog and angst in the owner relationship had dramatically reduced and or been removed. Thereafter, relationships were superb within weeks and the further education and training could commence. And 97% of the dogs were kept and the relationships went from strength to strength. That’s the owners reports back to me, not mine. Not one owner has said the dog became more aggressive contrary to your misrepresentation of fact. These are facts, Paddy, and here in Britain. Many Canine & Feline Behaviour Association members have similar statistics. So why do you desperately need to peddle such inaccuracies? Is it that you lack confidence in yourself – the need to belong. Tell me how many cases have you seen where dogs became aggressive from de-ranking training. Do you have any? Or is it simply more copy and paste.
This information is on my files but I realise you have bought, and want others to buy into, this mindset of babble, speculation and fantasy. The fact is, unlike you and your fundamentalists, I don’t mind what you do but stop arrogantly telling me and others who are successful on a consistent scale that we cause conflict, stress and aggression - which is a lie and you spread these emotive words because you’re peddling your dogma. You are very wrong and stupendously patronising.

Show me your new ideas in action not 3000, show me fifty dogs that have been turned around with your so called new ideology for me to view, allow my researchers to interview your clients and film their answers in the name of research and changing all our minds we would like to learn better ways if they exist or is your premise a MYTH?

Perhaps not surprisingly - the evidence is elsewhere abroad and cannot be verified as usual, so we are to back to your belief system alone like. How you have the cheek to use the word science in your article is a mystery to me. You article further stated – “It was not recognised that it is more likely when a dog is more fearful or feeling threatened it can become aggressive and this is our lack of canine understanding motivation”. Now Paddy claims to have been in dogs thirty years and never known that dogs that are fearful can become aggressive is incomprehensible. I knew that at 16 years of age working with 70 large breeds at training establishment. No wonder she needs to read. She then goes on to say and referring to Dominance Rank reduction that “dogs were subject to strange rituals such as watching us eat before them which served no purpose except to perpetuate the myth that our relationship with dogs can only be one of conflict” How eating before a dog has ever produced conflict is strange. So why does she use more emotive words? Simply to disparage the excellent methods in leadership programmes which she does not like. Well fine, Paddy, don't use them – I will not attack you for that.

When I eat before my dog which is three times a day then according to her my dog has 3 conflicts a day. No - the truth is my dogs see me eating and they cannot touch my food. As leader I have control over food and they receive theirs when I am ready. It’s that simple, Paddy and good manners for a dog to learn. Dog trainers, owners and breeders have been doing it for years, long before pack theory came along – it is called dog training. There is no conflict I lead and do. I own happy character-led dogs with fantastic personalities who are cheeky, flamboyant and fun to own and be with. All are trained and like well-schooled children are content and self-assured, contrary to your absurd rambling statements.

Dogs execute the same food resource behaviour each day with each other when kept in groups. Are they in perpetual conflict? NO. They establish rank and then peace and harmony is maintained that is the opposite of conflict. Have you never watched your own dogs? Ask any breeder the same question, they know which dog is boss. It’s not a mystery. And yes, when we walk through a door before our dogs it's making a point and training, we know dogs/wolves don’t have doors in the wild Paddy. But doors also lead to roads and they to traffic accidents - were not all as stupid as you think, one wonders whether they have ever owned a dog.

Informed or Misinformed

She then states that informed trainers like Fisher, Rogerson and Hunter came along with reward-based ideas for training and that and they promoted positive training. Yes they and many others did, but trainers had already learnt that reward training worked a long time ago and before all these named trainers. You cannot compel a dog to track a person and dogs have been tracking for centuries the reward is the natural instinctive fun and drive, experience and scenting a retrieve object or track. Skinner (another American Theorist) did not discover rewards. Dog trainers did. He simply wrote about them, as academics are prone to. Rewards were not new they were simply acknowledged and written about more which was progressive. Moreover, Fisher and Rogerson both promoted the Alfa Dog, pack behaviour and you the owner as leader. Rogerson made a video THE DOMINANT DOG and a book called the same which promotes all that Paddy claims is harmful and causes conflict. Strange that Paddy does not mention those facts which fully contradict her using them as ammunition. I interviewed John Fisher on video at my house before he unfortunately died. He stated clearly and unequivocally that Dog Training & Behaviour was the way forward, and that rank reduction training worked wonders.

Verify Information & Methods

I say clearly to any professional who is reading this. Do not allow overseas self-marketing people to propagate spurious unsubstantiated methods through their British sycophants in dog behaviour wrapped up as New, Modern, Revolutionary, generally it's simple re-naming, re-inventing the wheel with a jargon-coated, fanciful rhetoric which when examined, falls to pieces. Question their ideas and most of all use your own excellent work as a standard guide.

Remember to ask to see examples of dogs in action, ask can you investigate and test the theoretical suggestions. Simply don’t change because a biologist on a odd quest and who does not do our work in the real world propagated an academic idea - it might be interesting, it might be thoughtful and it just might and often is totally wrong. In another ten years the likes of Driscoll will be telling you that it was all a mistake, wrong observations and we need to change again because another book has just been published on re inventing the dog's mind.

There seems to be an ever-increasing number of pseudo academic course writers who are very much inexperienced but who wish to teach others about dog behaviour and training and do not have even basic experience to see through tosh in books. It is that serious flaw that allows them to mistakenly copy and paste more misinformation and then back it up with the comment “Oh they were well-respected.” By who? It’s simply babble - but how can you possibly know this without the counter knowledge of experience and professionalism and skill.

The dog is still a dog and nobody has told it that is has suddenly changed. If more trainers and specialists in behaviour and training objected and challenged these interlopers who use dubious research and unaccountable experts then they would soon shut up and try another occupation. The problems is our profession has too many sheep who sycophantically are too willing to defer to those they deem academic and by jumping on the bandwagon wished to be seen as agreeable and evolving. Blind followers are not evolving they are simply lost.

I return to my original point: I am content that there are people - even the ones like Paddy Driscol - who wish to follow a mantra of the unquantifiable. However when she directly attacks with emotive language thousands of professional dog trainers and behaviour practitioners with untruths and attempts to infer that those who work with most of Britain’s dogs humanely are causing conflict and stressing the dogs just so she can sell or promote her new image or appear progressive – she is about as progressive as lemmings following other lemmings over the cliff.

She also needs to look in the dictionary and understand the difference between the word revolutionary and re-packaging and realise that her ilk's sniping at others' excellent work is simple antagonist and damaging and if your alternate behaviour thoughts (copied or otherwise) are so superior why don’t you allow the professionals to decide what methods they wish to follow based on their success and not misrepresentation of the current (leadership) psychology we successfully practise in Britain today.

The Deluded

We also have the same whining pretentious group who say “we don’t agree with any aversion or discipline methods” . . . really? What riles me here is that all have used and still do use aversion techniques at times but don't understand that they do. They like to point the finger like the ever admonishing nanny. Have these people never walked with a client and badly behaved dog in a street that’s jumping, yapping and bringing all pedestrian attention to the owner. Why don’t they show us on camera how they deal with this without some compulsion /aversion techniques. They are very good at telling the owner WHAT NOT to do but seem to be absent on application. No, they simply tell owner how they have to follow a set of lovely rules which do not relate to her lifestyle, time and real situation she is in. These owner/dog problem situations exist wrongly or rightly - that’s reality. Not in some empty training field hall where all is under control with agreeable helpers and dog handlers. Many people simply cannot attend, do not have a partner to look after the kids, do not have a car to travel in, and that’s the way it is and yes, irrelevant of what we advise, will keep a dog that's dear to their family as they know it. Yes, and still I and hundreds of others successfully work alongside these people and when we need to use equipment that abruptly stops or reduces the aberrant dog behaviour, that’s a fact of life. And because we help and get results not fantasy wishing, we can more often than not teach the now listening owner into the general dog training scheme using as much reward and intelligent dog training as is possible and or alongside equipment use.

Our aim is and always has been to have little or no corrective methods, just commands and rewards, changing a dog as quickly and as fairly as we can.
Over 30 years in dogs I am of all people open to innovative ideas, but not fantastical belief systems based on skewed unsubstantiated ideas. Below is the Policy of the Cambridge Institute of Dog Behaviour & Training which I am the Principal of, it describes our open policy on Training & Behaviour.

Open Access to all Canine Behaviour & Training ideas.

New ideas and practical methods are often buzz words banded about. Gadgets and other devices abound a bit like the slimming industry relentlessly wishing to sell us what we want to hear, NEW, Fantastic, really works and so on. In fact most new workable ideas in dog training and behaviour are simply re-examining what we already do and making adjustments to produce training programmes that work even more effectively.

The greater majority of that is the ability to work, motivate and communicate your knowledge and skills to the clients. It certainly has produced the most overwhelmingly good results in the pet owning society of Britain today.

At our Soham Institute base in Cambridgeshire we have an open-minded policy to any student, trainer showing us a training or behaviour technique that will help people practise and, more importantly, train dogs effectively. We have an open invitation to any organisation or individual who feel they have training skills which we don’t employ but feel are effective in dog training to come along and demonstrate such skills to our students and tutors. Any idea that produces good results and is humane we will consider placing in our future course modules.

Well Paddy - come along, we will give you lunch and observe your remarkable abilities to solve the behaviour problems our clients will present to you using your new progressive ideas. And if I and my fellow experts have got it wrong we will gladly change. Now if you really wish to help dogs through your belief system come and change us and by default you will change tens of thousands of dogs through our training instructors. We await your appearance. Dogs await your magical touch!