Question For Owners Of Reactive Dogs

[Aidan]

I know this is a really dumb question......but can someone define "reactive dogs" for me? Sorry to be a pain, but I am still learning all the terms and jargon.

Thanks

That depends who you talk to. Lately it has been common for people to describe aggressive dogs specifically as reactive, while others use it to describe any dog who barks, lunges and generally gets highly aroused by a certain stimuli, whether it be out of aggression or not.

Terranik,

I was afraid the answer to Whippetsmum's question would be just as you have said.

Are dog owners now resorting to an "Emperor-has-no-Clothes" attitude by calling aggressive dogs something else ??????

"Reactive" really means the dog has "over-reactions". So an aggressive dog has what we would regard as an "over-reaction" to normal events compared to other dogs. But not all reactive dogs are going to continue to bark or lunge once they realise that they are not really under threat. And most reactive dogs don't have a bite history. Of course, not all dogs who bite, or bark, or lunge are having an over-reaction to normal events.

When referring to actual dogs I prefer to simply describe what has actually happened, e.g the dog barks at other dogs when they are closer than 6' away, or what is likely to happen, e.g the dog is likely to bark at dogs who approach straining on a leash.

[corvus]

Boo. The internets ate my reply.

Roger Abrantes says a dog can't be "fear aggressive" because fear is characterised by flight or passivity, and aggression is characterised by attack, therefore, if a dog is attacking it can't be simultaneously running away or freezing.

He also says "dominance aggression" is a misleading label because it implies the dog attacks because it is aggressive, but dominance is about controlling another individual in a ritualistic way that does not involve injury or harm, so if a dog attacks, it didn't attack because it is dominant. Its behaviour was driven by aggression alone. I have trouble getting my head around the idea of aggression as a motivator in its own right, to be honest.

[corvus]

Talk to any reputable security/PP/police dog trainer and they will tell you there is a HUGE difference between fear based aggression and the kind of confident aggression that you should see exhibited in a working dog. The two are poles apart and it quite honestly scares me to think you consider them the same thing

Well, some might tell you that, but are they right? A presumably reputable police dog trainer recently told me that the aim in proofing was to trigger the dog into defence or fight drive, whatever you want to call it. I gathered it was a nice way of saying "the dog should be seriously concerned for its wellbeing", because in the line of duty that's exactly what may happen, and they have to know the dog will react in the way that they need it to react. I think we have to be careful not to mix up the emotion behind a behaviour and how the dog reacts to it. Erik is a moderately proactive dog, so when he feels a little pressured he may well behave aggressively, whereas Kivi might feel the same level of pressure and do nothing. That reaction is obviously wildly different between both dogs, but how do we know it's not driven by the same emotional disturbance in both dogs?

Incidentally, I'm sure it was a Ted Turner dvd I was watching that had a nice little flow chart including states that led to aggression. Frustration and rage where in there, I believe. Neither of those are fear-based.

[Souff]

I know this is a really dumb question......but can someone define "reactive dogs" for me? Sorry to be a pain, but I am still learning all the terms and jargon.

Thanks

That depends who you talk to. Lately it has been common for people to describe aggressive dogs specifically as reactive, while others use it to describe any dog who barks, lunges and generally gets highly aroused by a certain stimuli, whether it be out of aggression or not.

Terranik,

I was afraid the answer to Whippetsmum's question would be just as you have said.

Are dog owners now resorting to an "Emperor-has-no-Clothes" attitude by calling aggressive dogs something else ??????

"Reactive" really means the dog has "over-reactions". So an aggressive dog has what we would regard as an "over-reaction" to normal events compared to other dogs. But not all reactive dogs are going to continue to bark or lunge once they realise that they are not really under threat. And most reactive dogs don't have a bite history. Of course, not all dogs who bite, or bark, or lunge are having an over-reaction to normal events.

When referring to actual dogs I prefer to simply describe what has actually happened, e.g the dog barks at other dogs when they are closer than 6' away, or what is likely to happen, e.g the dog is likely to bark at dogs who approach straining on a leash.

Aidan, thanks for that. I think that labelling a dog "reactive" is a misnomer and does dogs a huge injustice. I like dogs that are reactive, I don't particularly like dogs that are so laid back that you need to check if they are awake. Reactive dogs to me are KEEN and ALERT dogs, not missing anything that is going on around them and ready for action.

And it is up to me to control their reactions, not use it is another bluddy label.

I have just been sitting watching two male dogs discussing who was going to be boss for the day .... hackles up, lips curled, ready to tell the world that they are ready to take on whatever happens.

Souff says "SETTLE" ... and the hackles go down again. Lips are put back in place. "Oh buggar, we have to share again and behave ourselves" is the look on their faces. Ho hum.

Out in the street when the hackles go up, the same command is issued.

Sometimes you will hear some low grumbling growls of objection, like, ("I really wanted to rip his guts out here and now but you wont let me!) but the command IS obeyed and we continue the walk without incident.

Souff warns people to stay away from the evil one who does not like other people or dogs once she has a lead on and is out walking. She has a past and probably doesnt deserve a future, but I really dont want to deal with any more victims.

Would I call her "reactive"?

Nah, that doesn't give people fair enough warning. She is just an aggressive little sh*t once she has a lead on her and it is up to ME to ensure that she is kept under control at all times,

as is required by law for ALL dogs

Come on peeples, stop trying to use more and more labels on dogs.

If your dog is having a bad hair day and wants to kill another dog, there is not much point in pondering the whys and the wherefores, because at the end of the day you still have an aggressive dog and you still are responsible for that dog.

Your dog is either aggressive or it is not.

Learn the triggers, learn how to manage your dog, and stop calling it something else.

Souff

[Staranais]

Bad internets!

Boo. The internets ate my reply.

Roger Abrantes says a dog can't be "fear aggressive" because fear is characterised by flight or passivity, and aggression is characterised by attack, therefore, if a dog is attacking it can't be simultaneously running away or freezing.

I haven't read any of his works, or even heard of him. But seems to me that fear is an emotion, aggression is a behaviour. So fear aggression isn't a contradiction to me. It's merely aggressive behaviour (biting, fighting) that is caused by the feeling of fear.

You might think that it is natural for a fearful dog to run away or freeze and not fight. But if a dog has somehow learned in the past that attacking a threat is the best response when it is scared, and that running or freezing are unsafe options, then the dog will learn to attack things when it feels fearful. Even when it can flee from a situation, if it has already learned that attacking the threat is the best or only way to get the fear to go away, it will continue to attack and not run when it is scared. Dogs do what works.

This is what I have observed, anyway.

A long time ago I met a pitbull who was trained to be a "guard dog" by this method. She was a sweet and smoochy dog in the house, but if you chained her in her yard, she would do her best to eat any stranger who approached her, since she learned she had to get people before they got her. Freezing or fleeing when people appeared had only ever gotten her beaten, biting was the only thing that worked to get them to leave her alone. So she was very proactive about eating strange people (especially men) who entered her yard. It wasn't pretty.

[corvus]

I haven't read any of his works, or even heard of him. But seems to me that fear is an emotion, aggression is a behaviour. So fear aggression isn't a contradiction to me. It's merely aggressive behaviour (biting, fighting) that is caused by the feeling of fear.

Yeah, I agree. Abrantes has a lot of sensible things to say. He wrote a couple of books on canine behaviour and is very pedantic about his use of terms. I can see where he's coming from, but his reasoning really relies on aggression being a potential motivator, and to me it's a description of behaviour. He lumps fear into the same category, but it has its own meaning to me and if someone said they felt fear, I would understand that. If someone said they felt aggression, it's still valid, but you would assume there was some underlying emotion that provoked that aggression, like rage, for example. To me, fear can exist as an emotion independently.

You might think that it is natural for a fearful dog to run away or freeze and not fight. But if a dog has somehow learned in the past that attacking a threat is the best response when it is scared, and that running or freezing are unsafe options, then the dog will learn to attack things when it feels fearful. Even when it can flee from a situation, if it has already learned that attacking the threat is the best or only way to get the fear to go away, it will continue to attack and not run when it is scared. Dogs do what works.

Well, as PF said, leashes are the perfect situation for that learning to occur.

Or you might have a proactive dog that tends to respond to stress with aggression in the first place. I knew a little dog like this. Terrified of the world in general, but he wasn't about to sit back and let it have at him at its own leisure. He was going to get it before it could get him. He rarely looked scared unless you looked past the aggressive bluster. He was not a reactive dog at all.

[poodlefan]

Roger Abrantes says a dog can't be "fear aggressive" because fear is characterised by flight or passivity, and aggression is characterised by attack, therefore, if a dog is attacking it can't be simultaneously running away or freezing.

It can sure as hell still be frightened though.

Clearly Mr Abrantes has never met a fear biter. My guess is a month or so's work as a pound ranger would alter his view. Picking up or grabbing at frightened dog might give him a very rude shock.

[Souff]

PF, this is my point about labels. Dogs are too complex to have such sweeping labels attached to them.

The snapping snarling twisting body of a fearful cornered dog is hardly frozen, nor is it passive, nor has it taken flight.

It is there to fight off the one intent on capture, and will use as many teeth as it can to get you to release your grip. It is defensive.

Fight or flight? The pound rangers know that some choose to fight, but at the end of the day the human has to get control.

Souff

[poodlefan]

PF, this is my point about labels. Dogs are too complex to have such sweeping labels attached to them.

The snapping snarling twisting body of a fearful cornered dog is hardly frozen, nor is it passive, nor has it taken flight.

It is there to fight off the one intent on capture, and will use as many teeth as it can to get you to release your grip. It is defensive.

Fight or flight? The pound rangers know that some choose to fight, but at the end of the day the human has to get control.

Souff

I made the same point earlier. God invented catch poles for a reason - they take a bite far better than a hand or arm.

[corvus]

Clearly Mr Abrantes has never met a fear biter.

Oh, I think he has. He says this about it:

However, it is my opinion that this classification of dog behavior is meaningless and damaging. For instance, saying that a dog is a fear-biter, i.e. shows fear-aggression, is equivalent to saying that the dog does not behave purposefully and is showing pathological behavior. By rephrasing the verdict and saying that the dog shows submissive-aggression, we simultaneously answer the question of how to solve the problem. The dog is submissive, which means reacting to a threat by another, giving in, surrendering. It only becomes aggressive because its behavior does not have the desired effect. The dog is then under threat and ready to react by flight or immobility. If flight is not possible, it may freeze. Some do and die. Others resort to their last defense, they attack, and then the drive of aggression takes over. This situation is easily avoided by accepting the dog’s submission or allowing it to flee.

I said more about this in the reply that the internets ate, but the way I see it he's just breaking down the behaviour into smaller units. The dog can be fearful, but when it attacks it is being aggressive. It switches from one to the other, but isn't both. It's a good way to look at it if you're interested in the sequences of behaviour, which I think anyone who wants to predict behaviour should be. I bet as that dog bites, though, its little heart is still pounding in terror, and that's where it's hard to accept Abrantes' point of view.

Here is a little bit more about him: http://www.ethology.eu/index.php?option=co...19&Itemid=7

[Aidan]

I think that labelling a dog "reactive" is a misnomer and does dogs a huge injustice. I like dogs that are reactive, I don't particularly like dogs that are so laid back that you need to check if they are awake. Reactive dogs to me are KEEN and ALERT dogs, not missing anything that is going on around them and ready for action.

And it is up to me to control their reactions, not use it is another bluddy label.

We'd hopefully be talking about dogs who over-react to normal things, but it does seem to be an over-used term. "Over-reaction" is open to interpretation, but "keen" and "alert" are not usually over-reactions. Most young Border Collies, for e.g, are extremely keen and alert and maybe they over-react to certain stimuli but it's not problematic behaviour and perhaps more importantly, a normal person who has owned a dog before and understands their needs would be able to handle any problematic behaviour that arose out of these traits. So I think it would be a mistake to put a label on this sort of dog.

Then again, sometimes people need a label or a diagnosis to get off their bum and start taking things such as walking and training the dog every day seriously, and if they haven't been doing that then they probably are experiencing problematic behaviour.

Would I call her "reactive"?

Nah, that doesn't give people fair enough warning.

I agree, if your dog is likely to hurt someone then it's better to over-state the case in no uncertain terms than to take a risk on a pop-psychology term that people will probably only learn in dog training class (if they've been recently) or hanging out on forums like this. I also agree that you are responsible for that dog.

[Aidan]

I can see where he's coming from, but his reasoning really relies on aggression being a potential motivator, and to me it's a description of behaviour.

Can it be both? I think so. Abrantes is an ethologist so he would have his own bias. Freud said sex and aggression were the two primary drivers of behaviour. Mind you he was talking about humans, and specifically the repressed, middle-class women who made up his clientele. Presumably they found hunger and thirst fairly easy to satisfy.

[poodlefan]

Clearly Mr Abrantes has never met a fear biter.

Oh, I think he has. He says this about it:

However, it is my opinion that this classification of dog behavior is meaningless and damaging. For instance, saying that a dog is a fear-biter, i.e. shows fear-aggression, is equivalent to saying that the dog does not behave purposefully and is showing pathological behavior. By rephrasing the verdict and saying that the dog shows submissive-aggression, we simultaneously answer the question of how to solve the problem. The dog is submissive, which means reacting to a threat by another, giving in, surrendering. It only becomes aggressive because its behavior does not have the desired effect. The dog is then under threat and ready to react by flight or immobility. If flight is not possible, it may freeze. Some do and die. Others resort to their last defense, they attack, and then the drive of aggression takes over. This situation is easily avoided by accepting the dog’s submission or allowing it to flee.

I said more about this in the reply that the internets ate, but the way I see it he's just breaking down the behaviour into smaller units. The dog can be fearful, but when it attacks it is being aggressive. It switches from one to the other, but isn't both. It's a good way to look at it if you're interested in the sequences of behaviour, which I think anyone who wants to predict behaviour should be.

Here is a little bit more about him: http://www.ethology.eu/index.php?option=co...19&Itemid=7

I think Mr Abrantes is splitting hairs and playing with words. The motivation behind the aggession he describes is not "submission" but self defence (as indeed he intentifies). The dog will bite to stop the encounter, not to submit to it.

Aggression is a behaviour with a range of triggers, a range of motivations and therefore a range of treatments.

Labelling a dog "aggressive" tells us only that it can be dangerous and nothing about how to manage or treat it IMO.

I bet as that dog bites, though, its little heart is still pounding in terror, and that's where it's hard to accept Abrantes' point of view.

Couldn't agree more.

Edited August 31, 2010 by poodlefan

[Souff]

They certainly do switch from fear to attack, but the fear is still there along with the aggression.

I agree, if you could monitor the heart of a dog that attacked because of fear, you would find them pounding. Adrenalin does not get rid of the fear.

More labels = more complexities.

Dogs do not need extra labels in today's dog-phobic society - it is up to us as owners to KNOW and MANAGE our dogs with as few labels as possible.

Souff

[corvus]

Then again, sometimes people need a label or a diagnosis to get off their bum and start taking things such as walking and training the dog every day seriously, and if they haven't been doing that then they probably are experiencing problematic behaviour.

And it gives them a term to Google.

Incidentally, "reactive" is often used as a description of a coping style. In that context (which does apply to dogs), it is neither a good thing nor a bad thing particularly. It just describes how an individual tends to cope with stress. A reactive animal (or human) tends to do nothing until they have to. They react to their environment. The opposite is a proactive individual, which tends to act more independently of the environment. Different strategies are more useful in different situations.

[Souff]

Then again, sometimes people need a label or a diagnosis to get off their bum and start taking things such as walking and training the dog every day seriously, and if they haven't been doing that then they probably are experiencing problematic behaviour.

You have validated my concerns about extra labels. Labels such as "reactive" are being used for the convenience or egos of humans.

I have no problems with diagnosing a behaviour, it is likely to be caused by this or that, etc.... but I do have a serious concern with labels such as "reactive".

I think I will now go and take one of my unlabelled dogs for a walk ... it is a beautiful day ... I just hope they don't feel psychologically deprived because they are just dogs.

Souff

[poodlefan]

I think I will now go and take one of my unlabelled dogs for a walk ... it is a beautiful day ... I just hope they don't feel psychologically deprived because they are just dogs.

Souff

Names are labels Souffie.

[corvus]

I can see where he's coming from, but his reasoning really relies on aggression being a potential motivator, and to me it's a description of behaviour.

Can it be both? I think so. Abrantes is an ethologist so he would have his own bias. Freud said sex and aggression were the two primary drivers of behaviour. Mind you he was talking about humans, and specifically the repressed, middle-class women who made up his clientele. Presumably they found hunger and thirst fairly easy to satisfy.

Well, one would presume so, at least to Abrantes. Fear can certainly be both. My problem with accepting that is that aggression doesn't feel like the root of the behaviour. If I broke behaviour down into small enough units and ignored the precursors, I guess it could be a motivator, but then if I look at the sequence of behaviours, it seems like aggression is never really going to be at the start of everything the way that fear or frustration is.

But that's just my obsession for hunting down the root of all causes coming out. If I hit "aggression" on my hunt, I would keep looking at what came before that. Somewhere, there's a driving force for the entire sequence. This is why I seem to spend a lot of time trying to understand things that are only vaguely relevant to what I'm researching.

[malsrock]

A dog that has the courage and chooses to engage a fight where the option to run away exists, is not fear aggression in the true definition I don't think???.

Dogs that have a low threshold to reacting aggressively towards a real or imagined threat they call "sharpness" in working dog terms. The same dog could also be diagnosed as fear aggressive, but if the dog has the courage to engage a fight, is called "civil aggression" which are essential traits sought after for training dogs in K9 security work. We could say that a dog with security/protection work potential is ultimately just a fear biter, but is that the correct diagnosis of those traits and that type of behaviour

I agree with everything Staranais has said but to give another example...

I have seen many fear aggressive dogs choose to exhibit aggression when they could just high tail it out of there. My own dog is one of these. He learnt that aggression is the appropriate and best reaction in a situation driven by fear... there are a huge range of reasons that can lead a dog toward thinking aggression is the way to win.

Talk to any reputable security/PP/police dog trainer and they will tell you there is a HUGE difference between fear based aggression and the kind of confident aggression that you should see exhibited in a working dog. The two are poles apart and it quite honestly scares me to think you consider them the same thing

What the security trainers are talking about is the courage the dog has to engage a fight, not the reason why the dog reacts which has no relevence really. The dog will either instinctively engage or it will retreat under pressure. The engaging dog could be as fearful as the one who retreats, but engaging gets the job done and will be the one selected as having the required traits.

Edited August 31, 2010 by malsrock

[Souff]

I think I will now go and take one of my unlabelled dogs for a walk ... it is a beautiful day ... I just hope they don't feel psychologically deprived because they are just dogs.

Souff

Names are labels Souffie.

True. And names like Fatso, Wombat and Slug could be emotionally very damaging so have made a mental note to use their full registered names when calling them next time.

On our walk the evil one looked warningly at a babe in arms, told off a Lab who was becoming far too fresh for his own good, and then she fell in love with a handsome GSD who didnt even know she existed. It makes walks interesting when you psycho-analyse everything your dog is doing ... but as a direct result of all that psycho-watching Souff stepped in a pile of dog poo!!! Yukky!