Is There A Point

[Steve K9Pro]

B: Would they realise though? I don't think Bob knows he's not "normal". He just "is".

K9: good point, most behaviours that are not acceptable are highly driven, which also makes them intrinsically rewarding...

Edited July 17, 2007 by K9 Force

[Lablover]

An example being, say with Yo. He dislikes the vacuum cleaner, but had it on, and did a simple retrieve down the hallway with the cleaner laid out. Ignored the noise/cleaner and retrieved with joy.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Lablover

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: No, what I mean is that, driven dogs find the act rewarding in itself, even if it is fear aggression..

What you gave was an example of how a conditioned action that is intrinsically rewarding can over come fear...

Edited July 17, 2007 by K9 Force

[Staranais]

K9: No, what I mean is that, driven dogs find the act rewarding in itself, even if it is fear aggression..

I think I have a dog like this. If given free rein to associate with strange dogs, he'll generally "head hunt" - challenge the other dogs one at a time until one reacts to him, then he'll launch an attack - he start fights with other dogs just for the thrill of it. Or in the past when he was very frustrated in prey drive he has redirected onto other dogs, not interacting with them in any way before the fight, just using them as giant squeaky toys in order to get drive satisfaction.

And of course things like killing small animals = very exciting and rewarding for him. He's now calm round cats, but any other small animals that wander into our yard if I'm out had better watch out!

But he doesn't realise these things are regarded as "bad". He just thinks they're exciting and fun. I guess dogs that chase stock are similar, they're just doing what they find rewarding.

[Erny]

... Or in the past when he was very frustrated in prey drive he has redirected onto other dogs, not interacting with them in any way before the fight, just using them as giant squeaky toys in order to get drive satisfaction.

Sorry Am ...... but loved the way you worded this.

[MonElite]

So did I Am..

So do you belive that there is a hope for his full rehabilitation and cure, to the point that you will be able to take him off lead in a large group of dogs and let him mingle? and lets add a toy amongst this for the difficulty

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: I would like to add that, some peoples goals of un leashing their dogs & letting their dog run over to a large group of un leashed, therefore uncontrolled dogs (in most cases), is something I think needs a big rethink..

More than half of the dog aggression problems have resulted because people tried to do this in the first place & their dogs have been attacked.

Pack order means the Alpha meets the other dogs Alpha first then the other dogs meet...

There are only a select group of dogs that will ever be fine with this..

People are putting their dogs at risk if they attempt this & if they believe that this is the goal to say that they have a cured dog, no one will provide a cure for any dog, ever...

[Staranais]

Sorry Am ...... but loved the way you worded this.

Glad I gave you a laugh. It's really not that funny when you're actually there, though! :p

So do you belive that there is a hope for his full rehabilitation and cure, to the point that you will be able to take him off lead in a large group of dogs and let him mingle? and lets add a toy amongst this for the difficulty

Nope! Not ever! I'd love to say yes, but it's just not going to happen for us, with or without the toy.

Though he does have a few dogfriends that he is safe around, they are without exception very very submissive dogs with great "calming signals". He will never be able to be safely allowed offleash in a bunch of strange dogs, since he simply can't cope with normal canine interaction.

The last few years I have been concentrating on teaching him to ignore other dogs and focus on me instead. We've currently started competitive obedience classes and are doing great working on or offleash, a reasonable distance away from other well controlled dogs, so that strategy seems to be working fine for us. However, his improved focus does not mean he's any safer with strange dogs if I let him freely mingle with them and decide how he wants to behave with them (yes, that's the voice of sad experience talking there...) If he gets an opportunity to start a fight, he normally takes it. To be safe around other dogs, his focus needs to be on me.

My goal is to have him be able to focus on me and work even if we are encountered by slightly rude or pushy dogs (not genuinely threatening dogs, just ones that might normally tempt him to launch an attack, e.g ones that sniff his butt, get close to his face, etc).

Edited July 18, 2007 by Amhailte

[MonElite]

My goal is to have him be able to focus on me and work even if we are encountered by slightly rude or pushy dogs (not genuinely threatening dogs, just ones that might normally tempt him to launch an attack, e.g ones that sniff his butt, get close to his face, etc).

For your goal - so if you walk him and a dog runs up to his face and your dog ignores them, you dont consider this a cure?

[Staranais]

For your goal - so if you walk him and a dog runs up to his face and your dog ignores them, you dont consider this a cure?

No, I don't consider that a cure.

I can't imagine he would ever ignore a strange dog sniffing him or getting near his face if I didn't ask him to focus on me and give him a job to do. And in that situation, if I were to give him the release command (i.e told him that he's not getting a reward from me, and that he's allowed to choose what he does next), then he would still quite likely want to challenge the dog to a fight and then excitedly proceed to injure it.

So no, even if I achieve my goal, I would not regard him as cured. Just as more obedient. I've made the mistake of confusing those two things before with scary consequences, and won't be doing it again. It's tempting to think: "my dog is so obedient and calm around the other dogs when I am working him, he must be getting less aggressive!" but at least for us, it's not necessarily the truth.

But this is kind of off topic.

[MonElite]

kinda is but kinda isnt

Imagine that the dog is human agressive - Im wondering if people would persue training to get to the manageable happy level and consider this a cure? Would that be a cure?

[Pippi]

kinda is but kinda isnt

Imagine that the dog is human agressive - Im wondering if people would persue training to get to the manageable happy level and consider this a cure? Would that be a cure?

I might consider persuing training to get to a 'manageable happy level', but manageable is the operative word here. If I am managing the behaviour then it most certainly is not cured, I would always be managing a dog that could never be safely allowed in the company of humans.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: It is hard to say how someone elses shoes feel without trying them on. Many people have a dog that cannot be walked down the street with out it going off at a person or dog aggressively.

For those people, there initial goals are to just be able to walk the dog down the street, to them that is all that is needed & that is exactly what should be focussed on by their trainer or behaviourist.

It isnt so much about a cure, being total rehabilitation, its about listening to the goals the clients have, considering how possible these goals are & then setting about trying to achieve them.

Aiming at the sky when people want ground level results often demotivates people...

[MonElite]

Someone I spoke to recently said - why bother saving a dog with serious issues like human agression, put it to sleep and get one with no issues.

Apart from the emotional problem the owner might have what do you people think about this statement?

[Cosmolo]

I think the statement might make logical sense but not practical sense- you can't dismiss the emotion involved. AND, if the owner has caused or contributed to the issues the dog currently has and doesn't educate themselves with that dog, what's to stop the next dog having behavioural issues as well? Where do you draw the line?

To give another example, i once agisted with a girl who had a lovely horse who she did not ride properly. The horse developed a hard mouth and leant on the bit and she wanted to do dressage and eventing. She sold him on and got another horse without those problems. In 6 months the new horse had similar problems plus a few more! All because her skills/ knowledge/ management had not changed.

As for the original topic- I have had 3 people i know euthanase dogs with aggression issues- While i wouldn't say untrainable, 2 of those dogs had serious, dangerous issues and an impaired ability for learning IMO ie, due to the nature of their issues (and the inability for any person, not just these owners, to practically control EVERY situation consistently) they learnt VERY slowly.

Both dogs were ticking time bombs and it was only luck that had prevented serious injury up until this point. One dog was an ex shelter dog and one had been with the current owners since a pup. The third dog could have been trained but the owners in question (with young children in the home) were not the people to do it and another suitable home could not be found. They had a difficult decision to make and i for one, do not judge them for it.

I don't think untrainable is a good word to use because in theory all dogs can be trained unless there is a physiological disfunction. Just because a dog is capable of learning/ being trained- that doesn't necesarily mean that it is practical or reasonable to do so. And this is where lies the grey area- what is reasonable and practical for one person will not be so for another.

[Lablover]

Someone I spoke to recently said - why bother saving a dog with serious issues like human agression, put it to sleep and get one with no issues.

Apart from the emotional problem the owner might have what do you people think about this statement?

I agree. Mind you, I have never been placed in that situation. In my late teens, I rescued a dog, who had terrible anxiety. He settled well and was eventually rehomed to a friend.

[MonElite]

LL - and if its dog agression?

[Lablover]

I had no idea of this dog's history and for how long he had issues, but he was aggressive to other dogs.

As he was the only dog I had at the time, I spent many hours, getting him out and about.

[MonElite]

going off topic on this. What would you say if a dog had a medical condition? A serious one. PTS or give it some kind of life?

I guess Im asking as my friends boxer bitch that is 4yo has had a cacerous lump removed and they are waiting for results, but the vet said if its "bad" she might need chemotherapy.

[jaybeece]

Someone I spoke to recently said - why bother saving a dog with serious issues like human agression, put it to sleep and get one with no issues.

Apart from the emotional problem the owner might have what do you people think about this statement?

My dog's not aggressive towards people (just a little warey sometimes), but I had a lady at the dog park ask what the point of owning a dog is if he can't be safely around other dogs. She didn't mean any harm, but it hurt a lot to think about it that way and I burst into tears on the walk home.

So I don't think saying that kind of thing is constructive at all. There's no such thing as a perfect dog so it's not up to someone else to judge if it's "worth" putting up with an issue as everyone has different levels of tolerance for different things. I'd love my dog to not be aggressive, but since he doesn't pull clothes off the line, bark much, hump things, get anxiety, cause problems at the vet or chew my shoes I figure he's not all bad!

It does no good at all to focus on the negatives as it gives you less motivation to work towards positives.

EDIT: to answer the original question, I'd draw the line at aggression towards humans, me in particular. I know I just don't have the skills or knowledge to deal with that and can't imagine rehoming would be a possibility.

Edited July 18, 2007 by jaybeece