Tag: dog training

“Fake Conferences” in the Dog Training Industry

Jennifer Berg CPDT-KA, CDBC

The unregulated dog training industry is a breeding ground for fraud and fakery. This has been a major problem for consumers looking for dog training help, but it’s also a major problem for dog trainers who are looking for educational/professional development opportunities — in particular, the problem of “fake” conferences.

What is a “fake” conference?

A “fake” conference has two main elements. Firstly, the purpose of a “fake conference” is to make a profit, and sometimes the organizers try to disguise this by making the conference look like it’s organized by a not-for-profit. To get enough interest for people to pay to attend, the organizers need to get some big names (or people that sound like they are experts). This leads to the second element of a “fake” conference: dubious content. A “fake”conference may a few big names listed as key speakers, who may or may not have agreed to present, or who may have initially agreed to present but then withdrew but their names yet remain on the list of speakers. There may also be presenters whose content lacks high standards of peer review, meaning, the conference organizers did not make the effort to screen the content to any reputable industry standards.

How to spot a “fake” conference?

Certainly, attendees don’t want to waste their money, and professionals who might be targeted to present at a “fake” conference certainly don’t want to damage their reputations by doing so. But how can one identify a “fake” conference before paying the fees, agreeing to present, or arriving at the conference and realizing your mistake?

Look carefully at the conference website. It’s not always the case, but the design of the site can provide clues that it’s not a reputable conference. Some examples of “red flags” include typos or poor grammar/spelling, images that are poor quality or looked stretched, links that don’t work, and contact information that is difficult to find and/or incorrect.

Examine the speaker’s list. Do you recognize any names? Can you find their websites? Do their credentials seem legitimate or do they have exaggerated claims and vanity awards? Why not try to contact them to confirm they are speaking? (Or, in the case of some “fake” conferences, let them know they have been listed as a speaker without their consent.)

What about the name of the conference and the name of the organizer? Do you recognize it as a well-established conference? Is the name of the conference very similar to a popular conference in the field? Does the organizer seem to be a business that arranges a lot of conferences?

Protecting yourself from fraud and fakery isn’t always easy, especially with more sophisticated schemers. Here are some helpful links so you can learn more about the problem of “fake” conferences, how you can avoid them, and how you might help to prevent the growth of this problem in our industry.

Inside a “Fake” Conference: A Journey Into Predatory Science

Predatory Conference Scammers are Getting Smarter

9 Signs a conference is fake

Seven Telltale Signs that a Conference is a Scam

“Fake news. Fake journals. Fake conferences. What we can do”

What to Do About Fake and Predatory Conferences

Proposed Criteria for Identifying Predatory Conferences

(Photo by Charles Deluvio on UnSplash)

For further reading, you might enjoy Deceptive Marketing: Vanity (Fake) Awards

Can E-collars Be Used for Positive Reinforcement Training?

Jennifer Berg CPDT-KA, CDBC

Is it possible?

Can an e-collar be used for positive reinforcement training?

Is it possible to train with an e-collar under these conditions?

  1. the dog is conditioned to have a positive emotional response to the collar (including the sight of the collar and the wearing of the collar even if it’s not activated)
  2. the collar is never used as an interruptor, a warning, a “correction” or to suppress a behaviour (e.g., giving the dog a “stim” as a consequence to doing an undesirable behaviour or stopping the “stim” as a consequence of doing the desired behaviour)
  3. the collar never causes any level of discomfort to the dog. Ever. (The dog gets to decide if the sensation is uncomfortable — physically and emotionally.)

Let’s unpack that.

Conditioning a dog to have a positive emotional response to the e-collar requires several components. Firstly, the collar must be set to deliver a sound or vibration so the dog does not experience any physical or emotional discomfort. The dog is the one who decides if the sound or sensation causes discomfort or anxiety. It doesn’t matter if the human doesn’t think the experience is uncomfortable or worrisome; what matters is the dog’s perspective.

I am not promoting the use of e-collars. This post is to reveal some insights into the claim that some trainers make that e-collars can be used with positive reinforcement.

Determining if a dog is experiencing physical or emotional distress can be very difficult, and in many cases very experienced trainers often miss the signs, even with their own dogs.*  The human MUST be extremely good at reading the very subtle changes in the dog’s body language (e.g. nose licks, yawning, look aways, tightness around the mouth, dilated pupils, slowing down of movement). Dogs have been known to hide their pain, and dogs can show pain or emotional distress in ways that humans misinterpret as “obedience” or “good manners.” For example, dogs that are stressed can shut down emotionally and even “freeze” (Fight/Freeze/Flight response), and dogs in pain can appear more quiet, calm, or still, and some may appear more alert.

If the dog’s experience of the stimulus of the e-collar (the sound or vibration) is not negative in any way, then pairing it with a reinforcer like food (or a conditioned reinforcer) can condition the dog to have a positive emotional response to it. The sound/vibration would then be used as a marker for a desired behaviour, and with correct timing of the human with the remote, will communicate to the dog that the behaviour “correct.”

BUT, if the e-collar’s sound/vibration is later used in a way or in a context that causes the dog any physical or emotional discomfort, the dog’s positive emotional response will quickly degrade. Even after one experience. Instead, the dog will develop a negative emotional response to the sound/vibration (and possibly to the sight of the collar), as well as any other associations the dog may have connected to the experience, including the location, the trainer, the activity.

Cognitive Dissonance Can Make Us Blind to Logic

I just finished listening to a podcast where the two hosts discuss how e-collars work. They clearly state that the device causes enough discomfort to cause the dog to stop a behaviour (or to avoid doing a behaviour) because that’s how aversive tools work, but they insist that they are not causing their dogs physical pain when they use it. Huh? Their defence is that they (the hosts) don’t register it as painful when they give themselves a “stim,” and they don’t see any evidence in their dog’s behaviour to indicate it’s painful.  (Emotional distress is not acknowledged as a consideration. And I would argue that the fact that a behaviour is being suppressed after the delivery of the “stim” is clear evidence that the sensation caused discomfort; that’s how it works: the sensation has caused the dog to stop the behaviour at that moment. Why? Because the dog wanted the sensation to stop. Why? Because it did not feel good.)

The hosts spend a fair amount of time pointing out that one person’s experience of the “stim” of an e-collar can be very different from another person’s experience of the same level of intensity. They acknowledge that the anticipation that the device will cause pain: “An e-collar has the value you give it. If you go into it thinking that the e-collar is a pain tool, it’s gonna deliver you pain no matter what comes out of it. Even if it’s nothing.” Now read that substituting the word “dog” for the word “you.” They recognize from the human end that the anticipation of pain/discomfort can result in actually feeling it, but they do not acknowledge that this can happen from the dog’s viewpoint, as well.  (Note: the anticipation of pain/discomfort is also called “fear“.)

As studies on dogs advance, especially with advances in neuroimaging and functional MRIs, perhaps we’ll have more science-based information on how dogs experience emotional and physical “pressure” when aversive training methods and tools are used, rather than relying on the opinions of dog trainers who insist the dogs are not feeling any physical or emotional distress. But ethics are unlikely to allow this kind of experiment. Why? Because the aversive tools and methods cause the animal emotional and physical discomfort. But wouldn’t the results be worth it — to prove to aversive trainers and advocates of aversive methods and tools? It’s unlikely to change their minds because of cognitive dissonance.

*I remember seeing a video a “balanced” trainer posted online trying to demonstrate how gentle a prong collar was to a dog. (This trainer also promoted the use of shock collars, but not in this particular video. The video isn’t up anymore.) It was obvious to me the dog was showing signs of stress (head hanging low, appeasement behaviours). This same trainer attended a dog class with me — her dog was in a flat collar for the class — and I noticed her dog never really looked happy in the class. Except when the owner asked me to hold onto her dog’s leash while she left the area to use the washroom. That’s when the dog visibly relaxed. My heart broke for this dog and I wondered if the owner even realized how her aversive methods affected her dog, even when the dog was not wearing an aversive collar. I’m sure she loves her dog and would find it very distressing to know that her aversive methods could be causing her dog distress and ruining their bond and relationship. 

The average dog owner is bound to make a lot of training mistakes, even under the guidance of the best dog trainer in the world; this is a big reason why e-collars should not be sold without a licence, but that is a topic for another day.

Why do some people continue to use an e-collar, even after all the evidence that proves they cause discomfort? This leads to another related topic: how using punishment can be reinforcing to the punisher.