Lunging At Passers-by When Walking

[Black Bronson]

Black Bronson, nobody has suggested distraction as a training technique. What has been suggested is counter conditioning, and training alternate behavior (calmness and focus on the owner) using a high rate of reinforcement (which I guess could be misinterperated as distraction). In my case there were times where we did cross Berri's threshold (along footpaths running between two yards with dogs in them, for example) when I used distraction as a last resort until I could get past the situation - It was not a part of the training so much as a way to get through (ideally I shouldn't have been walking up that path, but towards the end of the first week I no longer had to use the distraction because he knew to look at me for reinforcement anyway).

It's a fine line between teaching a distraction exercise to correct a behaviour and counter conditioning to create a behaviour when faced with a particular trigger. One recently I recall where a handler trained a beautiful competition heel past another dog with his very dog aggressive dog and worked perfectly. However, without commanding a heal and distracting the dogs attention away from the other dog, the dog would still lunge and misbehave left to it's own devices. The handler did very well to be able to gain the dogs attention in the presence of another dog, but that was only part of the correction process completed. Ultimately we needed to be able to just walk casually past another dog without commands and distractions and for the dog to remain in a neutral state.

[Aidan]

One recently I recall where a handler trained a beautiful competition heel past another dog with his very dog aggressive dog and worked perfectly. However, without commanding a heal and distracting the dogs attention away from the other dog, the dog would still lunge and misbehave left to it's own devices.

Yup, that's what happens. I'm not sure it's such a fine-line but rather a misapplication, a fairly minor one at that and not at all difficult to re-train correctly. In my classes we use the other dog as the cue, not the handler saying "heel".

The same discriminating stimuli operate when you use corrections also, had the handler taught the dog to heel using collar corrections and pairing the behaviour with the verbal cue, the same problem would have likely resulted. If you teach a dog to do something on command (or with food in your hand or whatever), that command needs to be there.

So let's say the handler teaches the dog to heel with strong distractions using +R. They realise that the food and the command to "heel" needs to be there but they want to generalise so they seek advice. The trainer advises them to walk past the other dog, no command, no food, then issue a swift correction just as the dog begins to lunge. The handler walks away thinking the correction was necessary but in reality all that happened was he re-trained it without the antecedents. He could have just as easily done the same thing with +R only, either from the start or in the proofing phase.

[Prydenjoy]

There is I agree, a better saftey margin in positive reinforcement dealing with aggression, however it may not always corrrect the behaviour and serve to suppress the behaviour which just depends on the dog.

But punishment would correct the behavior rather than supress it? I'm not sure how that would work?

The dog you mention seems to have been proofed against distractions, this is different to counter conditioning where the dogs emotional state has been altered, the dog associating the feared object with good things instead of bad things. Berri used to be fear aggressive to children (I know I've mentioned this before), now he actually SEEKS them out, he even went up and gave a toddler a lick the other day. I still wouldn't trust him alone with a strange kid, but I no longer freak out about how he's going to react when I see a kid, rather I see it as yet another opportunity for reinforcement.

[Black Bronson]

One recently I recall where a handler trained a beautiful competition heel past another dog with his very dog aggressive dog and worked perfectly. However, without commanding a heal and distracting the dogs attention away from the other dog, the dog would still lunge and misbehave left to it's own devices.

Yup, that's what happens. I'm not sure it's such a fine-line but rather a misapplication, a fairly minor one at that and not at all difficult to re-train correctly. In my classes we use the other dog as the cue, not the handler saying "heel".

The same discriminating stimuli operate when you use corrections also, had the handler taught the dog to heel using collar corrections and pairing the behaviour with the verbal cue, the same problem would have likely resulted. If you teach a dog to do something on command (or with food in your hand or whatever), that command needs to be there.

So let's say the handler teaches the dog to heel with strong distractions using +R. They realise that the food and the command to "heel" needs to be there but they want to generalise so they seek advice. The trainer advises them to walk past the other dog, no command, no food, then issue a swift correction just as the dog begins to lunge. The handler walks away thinking the correction was necessary but in reality all that happened was he re-trained it without the antecedents. He could have just as easily done the same thing with +R only, either from the start or in the proofing phase.

To simply walk past another dog and issue a leash correction when it's about to lunge is wrong and unfair on the dog I think. A correction IMO should be used for disobeying a command. When you get a feel for a particular dog's behaviour, you learn what triggers the dog to lunge. Be it a friendly play, a dog aggressive stimuli whatever, is where my 'leave it" command comes in that I like to condition in the dog which works in any situation.

[Black Bronson]

There is I agree, a better saftey margin in positive reinforcement dealing with aggression, however it may not always corrrect the behaviour and serve to suppress the behaviour which just depends on the dog.

But punishment would correct the behavior rather than supress it? I'm not sure how that would work?

The dog you mention seems to have been proofed against distractions, this is different to counter conditioning where the dogs emotional state has been altered, the dog associating the feared object with good things instead of bad things. Berri used to be fear aggressive to children (I know I've mentioned this before), now he actually SEEKS them out, he even went up and gave a toddler a lick the other day. I still wouldn't trust him alone with a strange kid, but I no longer freak out about how he's going to react when I see a kid, rather I see it as yet another opportunity for reinforcement.

Jeanne, fear aggression does my head in as there are so many theories about it and the reactions caused by it, unless the dog is backing away tail between it's legs in an obvious fearful state, I simply don't get involved in thinking about it and just work through the aggression problem itself as it stands.

[HugUrPup]

Just a tip - you've got to be thinking "reinforcement" and not "bribery". Think "am I reinforcing this calm behaviour? Or just distracting him?"

If you get enough distance between yourself and the other dog there will be something to click. I don't even pay too much attention or work too hard to get it, I wait for something. I tell people to keep the hand loaded with food but get your dog used to that, you should be able to leave your hand by your side without your dog trying to get to it or thinking it is for him (Doggy Zen exercises teach this).

The behaviour should be cued by the other dog (eventually), so no noises, cues, don't say his name etc Just set him up for success by getting enough distance and let it happen, being ready to mark it with your clicker when it does (and it will, if you've set him up for success). Use a high rate of reinforcement. Don't let him get out to the end of the leash after he has the first treat, click before that happens.

You're really just teaching "heel" and providing a distraction. That's all this is.

It would be sooo cool if you demonstrated this and upload to youtube :)

[Prydenjoy]

Jeanne, fear aggression does my head in as there are so many theories about it and the reactions caused by it, unless the dog is backing away tail between it's legs in an obvious fearful state, I simply don't get involved in thinking about it and just work through the aggression problem itself as it stands.

OK, so a dog that is lunging and yapping its head off and deficates on itself when made to "face it's fears" (I hate to admit it, but before I came back in touch with my positive roots I did try to "correct" Berri's behavior, and this is what happened - Got me back to training positive in no time and I'm still kicking myself putting him through this), ears back, tail down (not between his legs, down toward the ground), would just be a plain aggression issue and warrent leash corrections to teach the dog that you call the shots, not it? I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, yes I deal with the problem as it stands but think it a much better option to "err on the side of caution" and remain positive with the dog, because you're right, you never do know what is going through its head and what seems a "friendly" lunge may even be a dog protecting its space because of an underlying fear.

[Aidan]

To simply walk past another dog and issue a leash correction when it's about to lunge is wrong and unfair on the dog I think. A correction IMO should be used for disobeying a command.

If they have disobeyed the command they were not under stimulus control, so it is functionally the same thing whether you give the command or not. The difference is that if you do give the command, you are teaching the dog to comply with the command which is counter to the aims expressed earlier of having the dog walk past the other dog at heel without being commanded.

Either way, +R only or with the addition of a correction, you're going to have to take the command out of the picture and get this behaviour to generalise or become paired with the other dog regardless of the command. A correction has no advantage here specifically over using +R to meet this aim.

[Aidan]

It would be sooo cool if you demonstrated this and upload to youtube

Does this help? http://www.positivepetzine.com/loose_leash_youtube

The camera-person has a Toy Poodle by her side as a distraction. Don't use this as a direct example, working a little further away would get much better results but I wanted to demonstrate what to do when the dog DOES pull and had I been a little further away there wouldn't have been as much pulling.

It is not obvious from this video, Tess appears to quite like the poodle, but Tess is reactive and had been involved in a fairly serious incident with a neighbour's dog.

For you, you would use controlled set-ups with people walking past at an effective distance for control, then bring them in closer.

[macka]

One recently I recall where a handler trained a beautiful competition heel past another dog with his very dog aggressive dog and worked perfectly. However, without commanding a heal and distracting the dogs attention away from the other dog, the dog would still lunge and misbehave left to it's own devices.

Yup, that's what happens. I'm not sure it's such a fine-line but rather a misapplication, a fairly minor one at that and not at all difficult to re-train correctly. In my classes we use the other dog as the cue, not the handler saying "heel".

The same discriminating stimuli operate when you use corrections also, had the handler taught the dog to heel using collar corrections and pairing the behaviour with the verbal cue, the same problem would have likely resulted. If you teach a dog to do something on command (or with food in your hand or whatever), that command needs to be there.

So let's say the handler teaches the dog to heel with strong distractions using +R. They realise that the food and the command to "heel" needs to be there but they want to generalise so they seek advice. The trainer advises them to walk past the other dog, no command, no food, then issue a swift correction just as the dog begins to lunge. The handler walks away thinking the correction was necessary but in reality all that happened was he re-trained it without the antecedents. He could have just as easily done the same thing with +R only, either from the start or in the proofing phase.

Ok had a walk yesterday evening, and I think I am having the same problem as above. He responds well to my distracting him but only if I call out his name for him to look at me.

A couple of times he saw the people and I could see him start to get excited so I said "Archer" and only then did he look back at me and I marked and rewarded. If he is not offering the behaviour on his own does this mean we are still not far enough away from the stimuli? Or that I need to retrain this behaviour without saying his name?

I'm not sure exactly how you go about doing that.

ETA also what should I do if I find myself in a situation where I can't get far enough away from the stimuli? For example yesterday unexpectedly as we were walking past a bus stop a bus pulled up and a man got out and started walking right towards us. I had nowhere to go so I just held the lead very tight and close and tried to distract Archer. It wasn't all that successful.

Edited April 9, 2010 by macka

[Aidan]

Ok had a walk yesterday evening, and I think I am having the same problem as above. He responds well to my distracting him but only if I call out his name for him to look at me.

A couple of times he saw the people and I could see him start to get excited so I said "Archer" and only then did he look back at me and I marked and rewarded. If he is not offering the behaviour on his own does this mean we are still not far enough away from the stimuli? Or that I need to retrain this behaviour without saying his name?

It's not a bad thing to also have this on a verbal cue, but ideally we want it to be default behaviour in the presence of a person regardless of our behaviour. But let's not get too bogged down in that - there are a couple of more important things here:

1. Proximity - getting more distance does make things easier for the dog and the best way to begin is with controlled set-ups, either where you invite someone to help you or you find situations where you can stand back from a regular passage of people and take advantage of the opportunities that arise

2. Splitting - reinforcing approximations towards your end goal. It sounds like you are asking for a big piece of pie when you could be slicing it up. If you think of everything that he might do ranging from "lunging" to "ignoring the passer-by and heeling beside you" you can pick virtually any point (even lunging) and start selectively reinforcing from that point provided you are reliably getting that response. This is where the whole "clicker trainers reward bad behaviour" thing comes from, btw.

I think of behaviour as having a "direction". We just need to get it moving then keep it moving in the direction we want to go. Putting this into practice, when your dog first notices the person and hasn't yet gone to the end of the leash - that is when you click and treat. Then before he gets to the end of the leash, click and treat again.

It doesn't matter if he's winding up to lunge, click THEN, before he lunges. As you start to chip away at the edges you can make the window of opportunity a little bigger - over time. That's when you can start asking for a little more. I actually don't worry about whether the dog is even looking at me or not, I'm not trying to distract him - I'm trying to shape his behaviour.

ETA also what should I do if I find myself in a situation where I can't get far enough away from the stimuli

If you can't turn around and walk the other way (and this happens) then you can use a distraction. But I would be surprised if there was not an opportunity to click and make meaningful progress, you'll just need to get in very early. Keep your wits about you. And don't worry too much, you will get better and better at it. With this method it's OK to make mistakes, hell, people pay me to do it and I make a ton of mistakes. All the really good clicker trainers are looking at the video I posted and counting up all my mistimed clicks as we speak

[HugUrPup]

Aidan you're a champ, I'm getting supplies today and spending the weekend training Miley. I'll let you know how we go.

[HugUrPup]

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=193366

progress

[Black Bronson]

Jeanne, fear aggression does my head in as there are so many theories about it and the reactions caused by it, unless the dog is backing away tail between it's legs in an obvious fearful state, I simply don't get involved in thinking about it and just work through the aggression problem itself as it stands.

OK, so a dog that is lunging and yapping its head off and deficates on itself when made to "face it's fears" (I hate to admit it, but before I came back in touch with my positive roots I did try to "correct" Berri's behavior, and this is what happened - Got me back to training positive in no time and I'm still kicking myself putting him through this), ears back, tail down (not between his legs, down toward the ground), would just be a plain aggression issue and warrent leash corrections to teach the dog that you call the shots, not it? I have to strongly disagree with you on this one, yes I deal with the problem as it stands but think it a much better option to "err on the side of caution" and remain positive with the dog, because you're right, you never do know what is going through its head and what seems a "friendly" lunge may even be a dog protecting its space because of an underlying fear.

That is a serious case of fear if the dog is loosing control of it's bowels and to be honest, I don't have experience with dogs like that and is interesting to learn from people how to deal with that situation best. We don't use dogs with that temperament type for working potential and can imagine that fearful behaviour of that nature would be a handful to condition.

[Black Bronson]

To simply walk past another dog and issue a leash correction when it's about to lunge is wrong and unfair on the dog I think. A correction IMO should be used for disobeying a command.

If they have disobeyed the command they were not under stimulus control, so it is functionally the same thing whether you give the command or not. The difference is that if you do give the command, you are teaching the dog to comply with the command which is counter to the aims expressed earlier of having the dog walk past the other dog at heel without being commanded.

Either way, +R only or with the addition of a correction, you're going to have to take the command out of the picture and get this behaviour to generalise or become paired with the other dog regardless of the command. A correction has no advantage here specifically over using +R to meet this aim.

What I work on is the "leave it" command intially, and will correct the dog when disobeying which will depend upon the level of distraction if the dog reacts or not. What becomes conditioned in the dog when teaching the "leave it" command when applying the command in repetition to the reactive stimulus, the dog learns to "leave" those those situations alone and relax. What results is the dog ignors the stimulus that previously set off a lunging reaction.

I took my wife's GSD for nice long walk and a few routines this afternoon thinking about this situation with this thread in mind. He is an aggressive lunger by nature and we encountered an off leash dog charging towards us barking and growling and commanded "leave it" the moment his ears went forward. My dog obeyed and stood still for me to shoo away the offending dog and for kids with the off leash little rascal to gather it up. This situation for my wife's boy is a major distraction to stimulate defence and fighting drive in this particular dog but trained in this method, he responded perfectly as I expected from him and the finished product is reliable.

There may be other training methods that would achieve the same thing, and the beauty of these discussions is to share methodology where we can all learn something new and improve upon what we already know

[Black Bronson]

One recently I recall where a handler trained a beautiful competition heel past another dog with his very dog aggressive dog and worked perfectly. However, without commanding a heal and distracting the dogs attention away from the other dog, the dog would still lunge and misbehave left to it's own devices.

Yup, that's what happens. I'm not sure it's such a fine-line but rather a misapplication, a fairly minor one at that and not at all difficult to re-train correctly. In my classes we use the other dog as the cue, not the handler saying "heel".

The same discriminating stimuli operate when you use corrections also, had the handler taught the dog to heel using collar corrections and pairing the behaviour with the verbal cue, the same problem would have likely resulted. If you teach a dog to do something on command (or with food in your hand or whatever), that command needs to be there.

So let's say the handler teaches the dog to heel with strong distractions using +R. They realise that the food and the command to "heel" needs to be there but they want to generalise so they seek advice. The trainer advises them to walk past the other dog, no command, no food, then issue a swift correction just as the dog begins to lunge. The handler walks away thinking the correction was necessary but in reality all that happened was he re-trained it without the antecedents. He could have just as easily done the same thing with +R only, either from the start or in the proofing phase.

Ok had a walk yesterday evening, and I think I am having the same problem as above. He responds well to my distracting him but only if I call out his name for him to look at me.

A couple of times he saw the people and I could see him start to get excited so I said "Archer" and only then did he look back at me and I marked and rewarded. If he is not offering the behaviour on his own does this mean we are still not far enough away from the stimuli? Or that I need to retrain this behaviour without saying his name?

I'm not sure exactly how you go about doing that.

ETA also what should I do if I find myself in a situation where I can't get far enough away from the stimuli? For example yesterday unexpectedly as we were walking past a bus stop a bus pulled up and a man got out and started walking right towards us. I had nowhere to go so I just held the lead very tight and close and tried to distract Archer. It wasn't all that successful.

When Archer looked back at you after calling his name, marking and rewarding, what did he do then, behave completely or regain his focus and excitement on the other person once the mark and reward was over???.

What I would work at is not teaching the dog to do something specific like a heel, but teach the dog to do nothing in the presence of a distraction, just mind it's business and keep walking and following your lead. I don't believe as a handler you need to alert the dog to a situation and make an issue of it and is the reason I don't like distracting the dog away from a stimulus that causes the dog to react. I don't want any automatic responses from the dog other than to ignor the stimulus as if it wasn't present and didn't happen as an end result.

I use positive reinforcement to motivate a dog to do something and negative reinforcement to stop a dog from misbehaviour as a general rule and lunging is a behaviour you are trying to stop which I would teach the dog that there is a negative to that response. I like a choker chain, prong collar or dominant dog collar to eliminate that behaviour with a command and leash correction if the dog disobeys. I use a "leave it" command but you can say Aggghhhh, NO anything really as long as the command is the same word and consistant, commanded the "moment" that the dog pulls towards the person followed by a leash correction of the dog doesn't respond to the command and behave.

You start off with distance between you and the stimulus that sets the dog off, walking around shopping centres is a good place out on the footpath to begin with where the dog can see plenty of people and provides a great opportunity to train and proof the right behaviour, then move in closer as the dog improves until you can stand at the main enterance of the shops and the dog ignors everyone and everything and only respond to you.

Getting caught with someone getting off a bus in front of you with nowhere to go is when I would implement the "emergency brake" and lift the dogs front feet off the ground slowly lifting the leash straight up and holding until the dog regains it's composure then praise like hell when the dog settles. IMHO, the dog needs to learn that lunging behaviour has a consequence and the correct behaviour will be rewarded