Aidan3

Good question. Usually with a dog who has been punished for aggression you will see something eventually. The classic example is the dog who doesn't bark or lunge, but will bite if pressed. An animal with learned helplessness looks depressed and doesn't do anything to change their situation.

http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm

I don't really follow this in all honesty? Is learned Helplessness the response caused by placing the dog in close proximity to another dog or the dog fearing an aversive correction should it attempt to escape? There are no corrections or threats of correction. It's a relatively simple matter to show that this is not the case. Before you can do CAT you need to do something called Functional Analysis which is an evidence gathering and analysis exercise that reveals what the dog is trying to achieve with their behaviour. We expect, based on sound logic, that dogs are reactive because they are anxious or fearful of the other dog and display ritualised aggression to increase the distance between them and the other dog. This is not difficult to verify, you can set up a number of trials and determine whether increasing distance reinforces a target behavioural response or not. In most cases it does, even for dogs who bite or even kill other dogs. If you employ flooding as a strategy, repeatedly putting the dog over threshold and giving them no option for escape, you're walking down the path of learned helplessness. In the extreme case, nothing they do works to provide escape or avoidance. More often, they escalate their behaviour, the trainer relents or something goes wrong, and they learn that escalating the unwanted behaviour is what works (as a side-note, this is how you create a "red-zone" dog for TV). CAT, done properly, gives the dog plenty of opportunities to escape but through pro-social behaviour and without repeatedly putting the dog over threshold. Picking a decoy dog needs to be done carefully, but the whole experience should not be particularly stressful.

Learned helplessness is a response to aversives that cannot be escaped or avoided, repeatedly. In the context of this discussion, putting a reactive dog in front of another dog at close proximity with no simple opportunity to escape or adapt favourably. Do you know what "evidence" is, A-max?

No, that's an entirely incorrect interpretation of what I wrote. Have you been following the discussion?

Sure, I don't mind at all. Learned helplessness looks like depression in humans. The dog doesn't respond adaptively to aversive stimuli, they just give up. Any steps towards that state on the continuum from "normal" to "learned helplessness" is undesirable. I'll dig up an article or two for you when I'm at a computer.

Learned responses always have some innate component and vice-versa, but if you try flooding with a dog genetically predisposed to fear of that stimulus you're risking learned helplessness.

Just a point, if you're doing it in stages then it's either systematic desensitisation or habituation. Agree that flooding is not necessarily a bad thing, though. It depends a bit on whether the dog is likely to cope and adapt favourably or not.

It's a furphy. There are many aversives that trainers can use. The issue is that many trainers (of all types) are trying to train dogs that have problems above their ability to train them.

So dealing with the OP's question, you never trained out an unwanted behaviour. Rather, you trained in the one you wanted. Best possible approach but not what the OPs question is asking. How would you have dealt with an experienced sheep chaser? I think it's important to note that punishment doesn't suppress sheep-chasing indefinitely. I would suggest that it should be followed up with training calm, affiliative behaviours around sheep. I suspect the main failure of differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviours for stock-chasers is that the trainer is always in the picture. The dog fails when the trainer isn't there. There's nothing magical about aversives or reinforcers that makes them better or worse at training out unwanted behaviours in the long run. Lots of small reinforcers, applied with skill, will beat a big one - it doesn't matter if it's a positive reinforcer or a negative reinforcer, this result holds true. The benefit of the e-collar in this situation is that you can make it a really big reinforcer (and you don't need to be in the picture), thus negating the need to use lots of small reinforcers. This, of course, must be weighed up in an "ends justifies the means" ethical consideration. There will be fall-out.

Just to clear something up, being well acquainted with CAT, you really don't just put the dog in front of another dog and ignore the carry on. It might happen by accident, but it shouldn't happen by design. Going well over threshold doesn't give you much to work with and carries a risk of the strategy back-firing in the same way that flooding can back-fire.

The "Baskerville" is easier to get food treats into. I cut holes in the sides of the Jafco, just be careful not to leave a sharp corner or the plastic could tear. From memory (it's been a while) I just cut between a few of the existing holes.

I've not knocked anyone back, he's welcome to contact me. None of the clubs here are suitable for a dog like that.

Hi AngryTardis, I'm in Hobart and I'm sure I can help. He sounds untrained and anxious from your description. PM me if you'd like to discuss. I run classes for reactive, anxious and aggressive dogs on Saturday mornings in Rosny.

Streets ahead of NDTF.

With some dogs you can use it as an aid in a behaviour modification program that will see you taper the medication eventually. For some dogs the problem simply isn't learned or amenable to behaviour modification alone, and they will need to stay on it forever. I don't know how to judge which category any particular dog will be in, I'm often surprised.

I don't know what Level 5 refers to except with regard to actual bites, but it must be a strictly no kill organisation if that's what it refers to.

The only way to get through to them is to call them over to you, then give them a good thumping. Then walk off, and call them to you again. When they don't come say "and that's why your dog doesn't come when called!"

Poor reporting, poor understanding of statistics in the media and the general public. Most things can do you damage, drinking too much water can kill you.

*sigh* the more we learn, the worse it gets .... like with humans ..everything can increase our chances of cancer .... I guess it is possible , given the positioning of the thyroid... are there any figures of the probability ....? I didn't find any. You want to avoid inflammation, spinal damage etc but the Dobias article that everyone seems to be citing (including kikopup) is just out and out nonsense.

I love kikopup, but this article is way off the mark. The clue is in the reference to really, really bad articles. I think the best way to research is to begin your search on Google Scholar.

I can't imagine any of my dogs not bringing down something we could eat.

"Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes" "Handlers’ beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts. Human more than dog influences affected alert locations. This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments."

Just get a double-ended leash and attach the other end to a flat collar. Condition your dog to the head collar thoroughly first, lots of treats for putting their nose willingly through the loop, then when you do it up, undo it straight away the first dozen or so times and another treat. Funny rule, makes you wonder...

Raineth's advice was spot on, the definitely can learn by observation. That said, overwhelmingly I find that for clients with more than one dog in the house, they usually only have one reactive dog. I think you should walk them separately every so often if for no other reason than to work on their leash manners and obedience without distraction.