Bringing Back the Barbara Woodhouse Era

While taking a leisurely walk along my local seaside promenade the other day, my wife and I came upon an exasperated woman yelling at her dog and pulling back violently whenever it got more than an inch close to her. After several attempts she eventually pulled the poor animal away so hard she nearly took its head off, lifting it from the ground even though it was large dog breed.

Once we decided enough was enough, we walked over and tried to discipline her (not always an effective approach), only for her to turn on us by insisting she had done nothing wrong and her dog behaviourist had suggested this behavior. When my wife made a passing comment about Barbara Woodhouse being long gone from our lives (but perhaps they’re not), Barbara quickly returned fire claiming there had been nothing but good days since. I asked what happened between these incidents as well as my reply which suggested not having another word with him at this time but suggested it would help. My wife made a statement suggesting this interaction before, though neither one of us gave her their opinion as to who really had control.

Barbara Woodhouse was a much-revered dog trainer during the 70s and 80s worldwide, receiving TV programs, books and documentaries about her methods. Although many viewers saw her eccentricities as good TV material, many owners with misbehaving dogs saw her as their saviour, while some thought her methods heavy handed and cruel.

Dog training is a lucrative business. Unfortunately, history often repeats itself and there has recently been much discussion and some controversy regarding an American trainer named Jeff Gellman attending a seminar in Scotland. He is accused of hitting dogs with a rolled up towel and using prong collars and remote control shock collars as instruments of torture – popular practices in North America that can easily be found online in the U.K. Dog trainer Andrew Hallsworth has become another viral YouTube star with millions watching his videos and owners queuing to pay PS750 per session with him. But the Scottish SPCA were not pleased about his visit or methods and there is even an online petition against him on Change.org. Dog training is big business with no oversight regulation.

However, his methods illustrate a critical gap that still remains after decades of research and debate regarding the best and most humane way to train a dog to fit with modern lifestyles. Every self-proclaimed trainer or behaviourist has their own opinions or picks one of the latest trendy approaches; everyone claims to be an expert when it comes to canines!

Negative Reinforcement.
Experts differ on whether “aversive” or “negative reinforcement” training (such as by Mr Gellman and Barbara Woodhouse) should be considered cruel or counter productive for dogs as it can use forceful methods like using force to discipline. By contrast, “positive reinforcement” employs treats as rewards to reward their dogs when following directions and encourage compliance from them.

Studies conducted by the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour indicated that when trained using “aversive” or “negative reinforcement” methods – including punishment – 65% of dogs showed signs of stress such as mouth licking, shaking and whining compared with only 8% for those trained using positive methods such as reward and praise. While this data might not hold scientific merit, common sense dictates that hitting, yanking and electrocuting dogs is probably not the most humane course of action.

Human nature seems to dictate that we complicate problems, and so we have developed an entirely new science: animal behaviour studies, where professionals, graduates, diplomas and degrees, letters behind their names, research conducted, research papers written arguing over points not directly addressed and papers written can all lead nowhere conclusively or tangible – the world now includes dog behaviorists, clinical animal behaviorists, psychiatrists counsellors as well as trainers all dedicated to making dogs compliant and content in our modern lifestyles.

One side of the argument contends that positive reinforcement leads to spoilt dogs who entrench bad behavior; those against punishment believe it causes mental trauma and shortens long-term welfare. Realistically, any method used to force compliance with our demands constitutes dominance over their welfare; for many owners like that exasperated lady on the promenade who was clearly fed up, any solution that works no matter how cruel is acceptable.

Lifestyle choices play a large part in contributing to behavioral and mental health problems in individuals.
But we ourselves are often the source of their mental health and behavioral issues through misunderstanding their needs. Over the last 20 years, our world and attitudes towards dog management and care have dramatically evolved, so they need to remain under our constant supervision 24/7 and our hectic lives mean they end up alone for extended periods, not getting their daily walks as expected, not receiving proper attention, etc. In essence we’ve confused them to the point they don’t recognize their place in our lives, leading us down an avenue that’s upsetting them; trying to change our dogs behavior when this would actually help guide us towards more considerate and responsible dog ownership practices? Perhaps an educational program dedicated to responsible dog ownership would provide guidance into becoming thoughtful, responsible owners ourselves?

I sometimes wonder if we read too much into dog training. While my personal experience may differ from others’, my preference has always been to tolerate any quirky habits my dogs may exhibit and find ways around potential problems by finding solutions rather than breaking their will and individual personality down completely – although this approach doesn’t promise success either!