Can Someone Please Explain To Me All The Training Methods!

[Kelpie-i]

Erny: I don't regard prey drive related behaviour as "aggression"

Agree with Erny. Predatory behaviour is not aggression. Predatory behaviour is a sequence of behaviours used to capture and bring down the prey item. Different breeds have been bred to display various stages of this instinct. A seminar I attended with Prof Ray Coppinger provided a very good table of this 'bred for' instincts in a number of breeds.

Herding breeds rounding up and/or chasing people is not aggression, it's predatory drift... as is nipping ankles and stalking. Schutzhund dogs doing bite work are not aggressively "attacking" the decoy, they are capturing him/her to bring them down as they would prey. This is why the bite needs to be deep in the mouth and the dog usually holds onto one spot and shakes the 'victim', and this is why high drive (not highly aggressive) dogs are chosen for this field.

Aggression, which is used to repel the threat and for self preservation is used when there is an element of fear (or anxiety...call it what you will). This behaviour is extremely different to what you may see in a herding trial and/or the Schutzhund ring. The dog's intentions are to protect itself, bites are normally shallow and are numerous all over the victims body. The dog's aim is to maim/injure and/or repel the threat. The attack normally occurs after a warning growl and body posturing, although the use of heavy corrections sometimes eliminates all warnings and the dog simply lunges out without warning.

Cosmolo: Sorry erny- i meant that not just the dogs body language changes to appear more confident but that the actual thing that drives the behaviour changes from fear to something else.

Cosmolo, I think that's probably all that you are seeing....a dog that has become confident with his behaviour. I don't think he would be less fearful of that which originally caused the fear, rather that his actions work for him (self rewarding) so his confidence level in protecting himself increases.

I don't actually believe in "dominance aggression" since a truly dominant dog doesn't usually need to attack unless defending his status or protecting a resource. I would call it more "middle rank aggression" since it's normally middle management that are trying to work their way up that cause upsets and bully others. These sort of dogs are not natural born leaders and will always "fight" due to their natural lack of confidence. A rank dog is almost always cool, calm and collected, with nothing much to prove.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Kelpie-i

[m-j]

Agree with Erny. Predatory behaviour is not aggression. Predatory behaviour is a sequence of behaviours

I agree also. My understanding is that it is a fixed action pattern which means it is driven by a stimuli that isn't emotional as such but intrinsic ie see a quick moving thing and I must chase. Another example of a FAP is let down ( release of milk into the breasts of lactating animals), 12 mths after i had finished feeding my son I would hear a baby cry and let down, consciously I was thinking what the heck!! yuck babies but a different part of my brain had other ideas (I like kids but I'm not the most maternal person I know).

Athough it is described as predatory aggression, somewhere in Volume 1 of Steven Linsay's books he mentions that the chase and pounce bit of predatory behaviour is the FAP and when the dog is chomping down, tearing etc he has switched drives and it is defense aggression. Well that is my understanding of what I read.

cheers

M-J

[Cosmolo]

This is where it becomes interesting and complicated IMO If a dog (who was fear aggressive) has learned through experience and repetition that aggression results in success and becomes extremely confident in that behaviour- would you still describe the dog as fearful at the time of reacting even though the behaviour may be completely incompatible? ( i think of the example of teaching a dog to snarl and growl on command- and the question could you do it without the associated emotion. i am extending this theory to types of growls, body language etc)

I am really just thinking out loud here so probably not making a great deal of sense. :D I find definitions of things like fear aggression very very interesting and i think it makes for good discussion- like kelpie i's comment for aggressive behaviour always coming through some kind of fear, i think you can make a great case either way. The beauty of dog training.

For Bub- these are the sorts of discussions that have trainer/ behaviourist minds ticking and swirling when i am sure many people think we're nuts!!

ETA agree with the others re the predatory behaviour but i laso understand why some people refer to it as aggression as the end result can be similar. How do you define aggression? Broad definition, not the individual types

Edited October 12, 2009 by Cosmolo

[Erny]

Cosmolo .... have you ever seen a dog who to the unknowing looks, shall we say "dominance aggressive" but when the aggressive behaviour is prevented in the presence of the stimulus that scares it, reverts back to more obvious signs of fear?

Many years ago I did a thesis on "Avoidance Motivated Aggression". With what I learnt I stopped using the term "fear aggression" because in my research and in my experience, I learnt that beneath all aggression lays an anxiety. Another term I read of someone else was "Control Motivated Aggression". Using the term "Fear Aggression" to me implies that there is an opposite - IE "Dominance Aggression", which leads the listener/reader to believe that with the latter, the dog is not concerned about anything, that it is just aggressive for aggressive sake.

The trouble is that so many people didn't understand what I meant when I referred to those terms (ie AMA or CMA) and I'd end up in hour long conversations (which I don't mind if time is permitting) explaining what I meant and why. So I frequently revert back to the term "fear aggression".

A dog can learn to become confident about its tactics working. And so it becomes confident that it will win and survive each time it shows it in the presence of the stimuli that bothers it. If the dog had become confident about the stimuli and no longer feared it, the dog would have no need of the exhibition of aggression. Aggression is not an appetitive behaviour.

I say all of this on the assumption of course that the dog is a healthy specimen and that there is no underlying medical reason for its behaviour. But I presume we are all talking on that same assumption.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

Great post Erny and yes i have so that makes quite alot of sense. However i have seen others where that does not happen and yet there is every reason to suggest the initial behavioural response was created through obvious fear but that no longer remains. The latter not as common as the former IME.

I find these sorts of discussions challenging and interesting because you can ponder thoughts and then get nice clear posts like your last one erny.

Here is another question though- for those dogs that have the aggression blocked in the presence of the stimulus and then revert to more obvious fearful body language and behaviour- how do we know to attribute that to the stimulus and not the act of blocking the aggressive response- which may create fear and or anxiety in itself?

[corvus]

Do you have a problem with changing your methods if you don't see progress very quickly, MonElite?

You or anyone else can go see Kivi's recall for yourself if you like. I posted a video a few months ago. In fact, I'll make it easy for you.

I don't have any recent ones, but he has improved since then by my reckoning. To keep on topic, Kivi was the first dog I tried Leslie Neslon's Really Reliable Recall method on, and I really liked it. What I liked about it was the fact that it conditions your dog to respond without wondering if the reward is going to be better than what they are doing right now. It's a good example of what I was saying before about how your reward doesn't have to trump rewards available elsewhere in the environment.

[Erny]

Here is another question though- for those dogs that have the aggression blocked in the presence of the stimulus and then revert to more obvious fearful body language and behaviour- how do we know to attribute that to the stimulus and not the act of blocking the aggressive response- which may create fear and or anxiety in itself?

Generally you can get an idea by observing the direction of focus from the dog.

However, I'm not suggesting that the dog should be placed in a position where it is so uncomfortable that the anxiety levels are that high. The example I gave above was only given in support of the explanation relating to 'confidence in tactic' -vs- 'fear of stimulus', if you know what I mean.

[Diablo]

Kelpie-i' date='12th Oct 2009 - 06:36 PM' post='4042201

I don't actually believe in "dominance aggression" since a truly dominant dog doesn't usually need to attack unless defending his status or protecting a resource. I would call it more "middle rank aggression" since it's normally middle management that are trying to work their way up that cause upsets and bully others. These sort of dogs are not natural born leaders and will always "fight" due to their natural lack of confidence. A rank dog is almost always cool, calm and collected, with nothing much to prove.

Dominance aggression is the same as "social aggression" which is a dogs desire to gain a higher ranking status, generally a male trait. It is"'middle rank aggression" in younger dogs in their climb to the top. They don't lack confidence but are over confident in their abilty to win and is a sought after trait in protection dogs and police K9's. There is no flight counterpart in social aggression as in defence aggression where in a life or death situation a dog high in social aggression traits is the temperament most likey bring on the fight first.

Dogs too high in social aggression are difficult to handle and want to bite everyone and everything outside of it's pack because it's outside of their pack and dogs of this nature especially in the GSD are only successfully trained with methods of punishment to correct unwanted effects. Dogs high in social aggression respect and submit to handlers that the dog knows can overpower them. They will 'try it on" becoming worse with wins, and corrected with losses. It's a trait of extreme liability in the hands of an inexperienced owner.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Diablo

[Staranais]

Erny: I don't regard prey drive related behaviour as "aggression"

.

Herding breeds rounding up and/or chasing people is not aggression, it's predatory drift... as is nipping ankles and stalking. Schutzhund dogs doing bite work are not aggressively "attacking" the decoy, they are capturing him/her to bring them down as they would prey. This is why the bite needs to be deep in the mouth and the dog usually holds onto one spot and shakes the 'victim', and this is why high drive (not highly aggressive) dogs are chosen for this field.

Aggression, which is used to repel the threat and for self preservation is used when there is an element of fear (or anxiety...call it what you will). This behaviour is extremely different to what you may see in a herding trial and/or the Schutzhund ring.

Then how does "fight drive" fit into this, Kelpie-i? I'm far from an expert in schutzhund or PP, I've never trained for either. But some of the schutzhund and security people I've talked to are adamant that adding some defence into the dog's training after they've been worked extensively in prey drive makes the fight "real" to the dog, no longer just a prey game, and makes the dog more trustworthy on the street as well as giving a better "performance" on the schuzhund field. Are these schutzhund and security dogs now displaying "true" aggression, in your opinion? Or are they still just "predatory"?

I've myself seen the difference between predatory and "true" defensive aggression. But watch a dog who has learned to get prey drive satisfaction from biting his own species, or even humans, the same way that some dogs learn to attack stock. You'd still have a bugger of a time convincing most people that the dog isn't being aggressive, since to most people (and I think legally in most places) aggression is generally defined as any behaviour that involves attacking and biting, no matter if the motivation behind it is predatory or defensive.

Get what I'm saying? Perhaps I'm not being particularly clear today. It's known to happen around exam time...

[Nekhbet]

'fight' drive or defense is more used in PP then schutzhund. Some Sch/IPO dogs never come out of prey and spend their whole careers in it, that is possible to title like this.

Prey drive is just that, prey. You want to hear the difference where the dog goes from 'gimme the sleeve!! *yip yip yip*' to 'make a move and I'll take that damn sleeve from you.' and you will notice a deeper, larger bark. Defense teaches a dog to up the ante - if someone does not move in a predictable manner the dog won't think 'oh shite I barked and he's still walking towards me ... errr ... eep!'. A dog in defense - don't get the result you want? More reaction, really work that target to warn it what will happen if it doesnt listen to you. These dogs will also not prance around carrying a sleeve when the decoy drops it, but spit it out and go straight back for the decoy, usually staring them in the face and challenging them to make a move. These dogs also can be braver and not limit themselves to where they will bite. This is through training as well but there is a different confidence in there. This drive is part of the genetics of a dog, and comes with age. A young dog should never be pushed into fight/defense unless its lines show it that early or you can just break the dog. My dogue started at 18 months, nice natural defence without aggression. My Malinois took AGES she is primarily prey driven (and prey can shut her down believe it or not) but now I worked with her a bit myself and she works more in defense (anyone who has walked past my car would have heard her )

[Aidan]

Then how does "fight drive" fit into this, Kelpie-i? I'm far from an expert in schutzhund or PP, I've never trained for either. But some of the schutzhund and security people I've talked to are adamant that adding some defence into the dog's training after they've been worked extensively in prey drive makes the fight "real" to the dog, no longer just a prey game

Working in prey (which is often enough for sport) is where the behaviours are built quite easily. Adding some threat increases fear which in turn increases aggression, if you get the first part right the dog will continue to play by the rules you built whilst working in prey.

[m-j]

Prey drive is just that, prey. You want to hear the difference where the dog goes from 'gimme the sleeve!! *yip yip yip*' to 'make a move and I'll take that damn sleeve from you.' and you will notice a deeper, larger bark.

I agree, from working with the greyhounds while teaching them to chase (a toy) and when they catch ,don't let go. Some growl when they have caught the toy and it is trying get away, whereas they never ever vocalise when chasing (the others that are spectating do the yip yip) but with those that don't vocalise after the catch, there is a difference in their demeanor especially after they have caught onto the idea of don't let go.

cheers

M-J

[luvsablue]

Why is it that a question about all the training methods seemed to produce answers which mainly were about curing problems, aggression, fear biting, attacking other

dogs in parks? Or at least that's the impression I get.

I have training friends in VCA and in schutzhund. We just train the behaviours we want, whether for competition work, or everyday living. The nasty stuff isn't an

issue. We use a mixture of + methods and reprimands, but more rewards than reprimands. Ivan Balabanov is my favourite trainer, his methods are relevant to any

branch of obedience training.

I know that remedial training is important, but anyone reading the topic would get the impression that most training is remedial and dealing with nasty behavioural

issues. Whereas most training is about dogs with good temperaments learning to improve their lives, and having fun. Or is it? Should it be? I think so.

from

luvsablue

[Kelpie-i]

luvsablue, welcome to the world of dog training forums