Guarding Resource

[Guest]

Some of you may remember me as the person who adopted a pound pooch at 18 months old and had some significant behavioural problems as the poor pooch had been neglected (not in the sense that he was starved to death, more like left in the yard to his own devises and by his behaviour was a stray for some time). Over the past months and lots of work I have managed to modify his behaviour and he has become quite well behaved and is obedient 85% of the time, I still have a way to go, but with love, patience and persistence I’m sure I’ll get there.

I have used the clicker for most of his training (targeting, etc) and reward the good behaviour and ignore the bad. The only reprimand I use is a firm “ah-ah” which he responds to quite well. The only other thing that I use is a quick pop on his lead to make sure his focus is on me and not what’s going on around him. I also use the NILF for everthing he gets or wants, so he always defers to me before he does anything.

He has quite a dominant personality so I had to make sure he knew that I was pack leader before starting to get anywhere. We have the triangle of temptation down to a tee (I can be out of the room and he still will not break the stay), he allows me to go through doorways first and he walks on a loose leash 95% of the time. He used to try and challenge me nearly every day for dominance, now he tries much less regularly. I have had an animal beviouralist come to the house much earlier to give me advice on changing unacceptable behaviour, which I used and it worked well, but at that time I didn't realise he had claimed the bed as his own.

I have one problem that I hope someone can give me advice on. When Micky first came to live with us, my mum insisted he sleep on her bed at night. I would have had him sleep in his own bed, but she was insistent. After about 6 months one night my mum went to get into bed and Micky was asleep, she just pushed him from the back end and he turned round and went for her. I heard the commotion and went in the room, by this time my mum had become very upset and had raised her voice at him telling him to get off the bed. He was not going anywhere. I knew I had to get him off, so I spoke calmly to him and put my hand out the get hold of the short lease attached to his collar, I could see by his body language that he was not happy, but I had to get him off. He went for me also, but I got him off the bed and calmly ushered him out of the room and set his bed up for him. Since then he has not been allowed to sleep on the bed at all, but he still regards it (the bed) as his resource. On the odd time I’ve caught him in there and on the bed, he usually gets off if I say “Off”.

Unfortunately while mum got up to go to the loo in the night, she did not shut the door and he was in like a shot. I could hear from my room when mum came back and asked him to get off, with no success. So she went to grab his collar under his chin and he snapped at her, breaking the skin. She again told him off only the second he did get off and scooted out of the room. Mum was quite upset about it (she thinks dogs think like people). I tried to explain to her about guarding his resource, though it is not an excuse; it’s a reason why he does it. In every other part of the house he is the gentlest dog I’ve ever encountered; it is only when he is lying on that bed.

I now have a treat with me if and when he does get on the bed to lure him off, but there are times when a treat is not at hand. Is there anything I can train/teach him to not feel that the bed belongs to him?

P.S. I have had him for 9 months now and his breed is Lhasa Apso/Cross

Micky Moo

[sheree_e4]

Probably the safest thing to do would be to put up a baby gate so he does not have access to the bedrooms, otherwise Id crate him so I knew where he was at all times.

I have had great success with a vibrate collar to get rid of unwanted behaviour in my dogs, some dogs it will not work on but its worth a try, basically it means no one touches him but he gets a vibrate when he is doing unwanted behaviour - on the bed etc. I do not say anything when I give my dogs a vibrate then they do not see it as me doing it....

VIBRATE COLLAR this is the one I have

[55chevy]

Dogs don't challenge the pack leader with aggression, so although he works for reward and distraction exercises and appears to respect you, he doesn't. The dog needs some punishment to learn the boundaries IMHO. A vibrating collars sounds good turned up a bit a higher for a good zap.

[poodlefan]

The first thing I'd advise you and your mum is NOT to try and move him with a collar grab. That's virtually guaranteed to get an aggressive response from some dogs - it can be a defensive move from them.

The second thing I'd do is ask the behaviourist to return. This is resource guarding behaviour and you need strategies to manage it. I say manage because I honestly don't think you'll cure it.

I"d be sleeping him in the room but in a crate. Crate training would be a good thing to do. Teach him the crate, not the bed, is his place.

55Chevy:

Dogs don't challenge the pack leader with aggression

Rubbish. Even the lowest rank dogs will resource guard under the right circumstances. Dominance is not the be all and end all of reasons for dog behaviour. "Punishing" aggression can lead to nasty consequences - let the professionals deal with this. Lets not forget that this situation was in part created by people. The dogs' just doing what comes naturally.

Edited November 16, 2010 by poodlefan

[corvus]

It is a fair bit more complicated than a dog that doesn't respect you, as you can probably guess. PF beat me to the "rubbish" comment. I trust that you are not silly enough to punish a dog that is on the defensive.

A habit of deference is always a good thing to instil in a dog, but some dogs just don't generalise this well. For all we know your mum may have been passively handling the dog so that it looked like she was deferring to him when he was on the bed. For example, she comes in to get something, he gives her "the look" and she leaves, having found what she was looking for. She may not have even noticed him, but to him she deferred to his 'ownership' of the bed at that moment. So one day she tries to physically move him and he deeply dislikes it. To him, she has broken a mutual agreement. It DOES NOT have to be dominance. It could be more like the rules of engagement for a harmonious household. Just like he defers to her for many things, he thinks she defers to him on this one thing because that has been the history.

That's just one interpretation. Obviously no one can tell exactly what's going on without seeing it.

Anyway, it seems like a good idea to just keep him off the bed for now. I think I would teach him to target and use it to teach him to get on and off all sorts of things on cue. If you make it into a targeting exercise that always pays for him, he's likely to get quite cheerful about it. To me, it's when dogs do things like this that it's time to employ your skills of subtlety. You are smarter than him and you can manipulate him into changing his behaviour without him realising you are getting your own way. If you turn whatever you want him to do into something that he thinks he wants to do, then problems may well evaporate. Look at it from a behavioural aspect. Break down what you ultimately want him to do instead of guarding things down into small steps, teach him those steps in a safe environment away from treasured resources, then generalise it gradually into other areas, under distraction, in new places with new objects and basically just slip it quietly into everyday life just like NILIF. We have done this for a few things my little guy felt quite strongly about and he kind of goes "Well, you should have said there would be roast chicken involved." Or "Oh, targeting, I can do that." The more you practice it and reward it (with something decent), the more willing he will be to do it when you really need him to.

That's not a solution to your current problem so much as a general approach that might help to avoid similar problems in the future.

[55chevy]

The first thing I'd advise you and your mum is NOT to try and move him with a collar grab. That's virtually guaranteed to get an aggressive response from some dogs - it can be a defensive move from them.

The second thing I'd do is ask the behaviourist to return. This is resource guarding behaviour and you need strategies to manage it. I say manage because I honestly don't think you'll cure it.

I"d be sleeping him in the room but in a crate. Crate training would be a good thing to do. Teach him the crate, not the bed, is his place.

55Chevy:

Dogs don't challenge the pack leader with aggression

Rubbish. Even the lowest rank dogs will resource guard under the right circumstances. Dominance is not the be all and end all of reasons for dog behaviour. "Punishing" aggression can lead to nasty consequences - let the professionals deal with this. Lets not forget that this situation was in part created by people. The dogs' just doing what comes naturally.

I have heard all that before Poodlefan, the standard political correct answer to everything aggression related and sorry I don't agree. I don't think it matters what caused the reaction, resource guarding to a reaction from trying to move the dog into another area whatever, the point is, the dog is learning to become aggressive towards the owners to get it's own way and the aggression is what needs to be dealt with before it escalates into a serious bite and the dog really hurts someone. Too many people IMHO tippy toe around a snappy dog to avoid a reaction which I think is wrong only managing the problem not fixing it or teaching the dog what behaviours are acceptable and what is not, and the consequences of behaving in a dangerous manner.

Punishing aggression is not a task to be taken on board by the inexperienced and I totally agree on that point and done incorrectly can have nasty consequences which is very true, but done properly 99.9% of the time will fix the problem when the dog learns that an aggressive response has a consequence far worse than obeying what was asked of the dog to do intitially, as in the OP's example, getting off the bed.

[poodlefan]

I have heard all that before Poodlefan, the standard political correct answer to everything aggression related and sorry I don't agree. I don't think it matters what caused the reaction, resource guarding to a reaction from trying to move the dog into another area whatever, the point is, the dog is learning to become aggressive towards the owners to get it's own way and the aggression is what needs to be dealt with before it escalates into a serious bite and the dog really hurts someone. Too many people IMHO tippy toe around a snappy dog to avoid a reaction which I think is wrong only managing the problem not fixing it or teaching the dog what behaviours are acceptable and what is not, and the consequences of behaving in a dangerous manner.

Punishing aggression is not a task to be taken on board by the inexperienced and I totally agree on that point and done incorrectly can have nasty consequences which is very true, but done properly 99.9% of the time will fix the problem when the dog learns that an aggressive response has a consequence far worse than obeying what was asked of the dog to do intitially, as in the OP's example, getting off the bed.

It's not the politically correct answer - its based on observation. The Omega dog in my pack (a bitch) will not surrender food to the alpha - she'll take it and she'll defend it. Pack dynamics are not a straight hierarchical model - those notions went out the window decades ago. So spare me the accusations of political correctness and do your homework.

Of course it matters what causes the reaction - its a primary determinant of how you deal with the issue. Meeting aggression head on is the fast track to escalating it, to provoking the dog into preemptive defence strikes AND to seeing owners get hurt.

Many behaviorists regard resource guarding as a perfectly natural canine response - just not a desirable one. Like many natural canine behaviours, we manage what we cannot remove. This is instinct at work.

We got the supposedly bigger brain for a reason. Your approach sees people bitten - and there's the lesson we never want a dog to learn - biting stops unwanted human behaviour. I prefer not to confront and to leave the serious issues to the professionals to resolve.

I suggest you do the same. Your advice is potentially dangerous whether you realise it or not. You gave it to inexperienced dog owners - something you acknowledge is unsafe.

Edited November 17, 2010 by poodlefan

[55chevy]

It is a fair bit more complicated than a dog that doesn't respect you, as you can probably guess. PF beat me to the "rubbish" comment. I trust that you are not silly enough to punish a dog that is on the defensive.

A habit of deference is always a good thing to instil in a dog, but some dogs just don't generalise this well. For all we know your mum may have been passively handling the dog so that it looked like she was deferring to him when he was on the bed. For example, she comes in to get something, he gives her "the look" and she leaves, having found what she was looking for. She may not have even noticed him, but to him she deferred to his 'ownership' of the bed at that moment. So one day she tries to physically move him and he deeply dislikes it. To him, she has broken a mutual agreement. It DOES NOT have to be dominance. It could be more like the rules of engagement for a harmonious household. Just like he defers to her for many things, he thinks she defers to him on this one thing because that has been the history.

That's just one interpretation. Obviously no one can tell exactly what's going on without seeing it.

Anyway, it seems like a good idea to just keep him off the bed for now. I think I would teach him to target and use it to teach him to get on and off all sorts of things on cue. If you make it into a targeting exercise that always pays for him, he's likely to get quite cheerful about it. To me, it's when dogs do things like this that it's time to employ your skills of subtlety. You are smarter than him and you can manipulate him into changing his behaviour without him realising you are getting your own way. If you turn whatever you want him to do into something that he thinks he wants to do, then problems may well evaporate. Look at it from a behavioural aspect. Break down what you ultimately want him to do instead of guarding things down into small steps, teach him those steps in a safe environment away from treasured resources, then generalise it gradually into other areas, under distraction, in new places with new objects and basically just slip it quietly into everyday life just like NILIF. We have done this for a few things my little guy felt quite strongly about and he kind of goes "Well, you should have said there would be roast chicken involved." Or "Oh, targeting, I can do that." The more you practice it and reward it (with something decent), the more willing he will be to do it when you really need him to.

That's not a solution to your current problem so much as a general approach that might help to avoid similar problems in the future.

Yes, that system will work resource guarding the bed I agree in the generalisation, but how will that system teach the dog that snapping and biting is not an acceptable behaviour when he gets a shitty on about the next thing that doesn't please him and reverts back to snapping to get his own way in a new situation???. In that model Corvus, you may need to address and condition 20 different scenarios where the dog is know to become aggressive, or you can address the aggression problem it's self which is the primary issue with the dog that really needs behaviour modification.

The dog gets into the "I don't like" mode which may be getting off the bed, someone getting near it's food bowl, getting in the car, going out the back door, etc etc and deals with these "I don't like" situations with aggression and learns that an aggressive reaction works for the dog. The dog needs to learn that an aggressive reaction doesn't work and results in an unpleasant consequence is the angle I am relating to.

A dog does NOT challenge the pack leader with aggression when it doesn't want to do something, it's job is to serve the pack leader and do as it's told. When a dog does challenge the pack leader which happens, it's swiftly reminded of the consequences of doing so which essentially amounts to the laws of the jungle.

Edited November 17, 2010 by 55chevy

[corvus]

Yes, that system will work resource guarding the bed I agree in the generalisation, but how will that system teach the dog that snapping and biting is not an acceptable behaviour when he gets a shitty on about the next thing that doesn't please him and reverts back to snapping to get his own way in a new situation???.

Well, you can punish the aggressive behaviour if you want, but you'd better know how far you can push the dog and have a good idea when he'll fold. Otherwise you could find yourself in a whole world of trouble very easily. What happens if the dog escalates from snapping to biting? What happens if the dog actually tries to hurt you? If you get yourself into that situation, you had better have balls of steel and be able to MAKE SURE that escalation does not result in giving an inch to the dog. If he gets you and it hurts and scares you and you back off as a result, he's just learnt that a more aggressive behaviour worked. Not only do you now have a dog that knows hurting you gets him what he wants, but he will may well escalate further quite readily if you push him again.

I saw this with a wild duck recently, actually. I was running past and it looked like it might come after me (had ducklings). I backed off, not wanting to provoke it, and it just flew straight at me and battered its wings around my head. I'm guessing people have systematically taught this duck to not bother with the threats and go straight for the attack.

The dog gets into the "I don't like" mode which may be getting off the bed, someone getting near it's food bowl, getting in the car, going out the back door, etc etc and deals with these "I don't like" situations with aggression and learns that an aggressive reaction works for the dog. The dog needs to learn that an aggressive reaction doesn't work and results in an unpleasant consequence is the angle I am relating to.

I've heard that argument plenty of times. Maybe with some dogs it's true. IME, it is generally not true. If you set the dog up so that they don't feel the need to be aggressive, you never have to face the problem of what to do when they are. I have found myself with a dog by the scruff of the neck that has decided to hurt me because I didn't pay attention to the "I don't like" language and I would rather just avoid a repeat of that if at all possible.

A dog does NOT challenge the pack leader with aggression when it doesn't want to do something, it's job is to serve the pack leader and do as it's told. When a dog does challenge the pack leader which happens, it's swiftly reminded of the consequences of doing so which essentially amounts to the laws of the jungle.

All right, you clearly know best.

[55chevy]

I have heard all that before Poodlefan, the standard political correct answer to everything aggression related and sorry I don't agree. I don't think it matters what caused the reaction, resource guarding to a reaction from trying to move the dog into another area whatever, the point is, the dog is learning to become aggressive towards the owners to get it's own way and the aggression is what needs to be dealt with before it escalates into a serious bite and the dog really hurts someone. Too many people IMHO tippy toe around a snappy dog to avoid a reaction which I think is wrong only managing the problem not fixing it or teaching the dog what behaviours are acceptable and what is not, and the consequences of behaving in a dangerous manner.

Punishing aggression is not a task to be taken on board by the inexperienced and I totally agree on that point and done incorrectly can have nasty consequences which is very true, but done properly 99.9% of the time will fix the problem when the dog learns that an aggressive response has a consequence far worse than obeying what was asked of the dog to do intitially, as in the OP's example, getting off the bed.

It's not the politically correct answer - its based on observation. The Omega dog in my pack (a bitch) will not surrender food to the alpha - she'll take it and she'll defend it. Pack dynamics are not a straight hierarchical model - those notions went out the window decades ago. So spare me the accusations of political correctness and do your homework.

Of course it matters what causes the reaction - its a primary determinant of how you deal with the issue. Meeting aggression head on is the fast track to escalating it, to provoking the dog into preemptive defence strikes AND to seeing owners get hurt.

Many behaviorists regard resource guarding as a perfectly natural canine response - just not a desirable one. Like many natural canine behaviours, we manage what we cannot remove. This is instinct at work.

We got the supposedly bigger brain for a reason. Your approach sees people bitten - and there's the lesson we never want a dog to learn - biting stops unwanted human behaviour. I prefer not to confront and to leave the serious issues to the professionals to resolve.

I suggest you do the same. Your advice is potentially dangerous whether you realise it or not. You gave it to inexperienced dog owners - something you acknowledge is unsafe.

It's by no means cut and dry across the board as a proven fact in all cases that meeting aggression head on is a fast track to escalating it, in fact that theory is absolute nonesense in reality, but political correctness is the primary reason many run with such a theory in my observation.

Can't see how my comment "punishing aggression is not a task to be taken on board by the inexperienced" could be misconstrude as providing potenially dangerous advice, in fact it's quite the opposite

Edited November 17, 2010 by 55chevy

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Can't see how my comment "punishing aggression is not a task to be taken on board by the inexperienced" could be misconstrude as providing potenially dangerous advice, in fact it's quite the opposite

Inexperienced people often either over-do or under-do punishment. Over doing it and under doing it are both dangerous.

We run a 5 dog household. One is a resource guarder. We feed all the dogs separately with a combination of crates and baby gates. If food/bones are not consumed after 15 minutes they are taken up and thrown away, including from the resource guarder. I think the resource guarder (who is more bonded to me) has tried growling at OH once. He has never tried growling at me. OH did not punish, OH just calmly took the bone away. Punishing this dog would not have worked, what worked was calm leadership.

[Guest]

QUOTE

Dogs ogs don't challdon't challenge the pack leader with aggression

Thanks for your replies

I must clarify; I have worked hard to become the ALPHA and know that I have gained that position because of Micky's behaviour toward me. Though he resource guards my mums bed, he would not bite/snap at me when getting him off the bed, but I never have need to use his collar to drag him off, all I need to say is "OFF" and he get's off. Unfortunately he feels of higher rank than my mother and no matter how much I ask/tell her she needs to be firm with him, she is not consistant. I have now made the concerted effort not to allow him in the room or on the bed.

I would never reprimand any dog (let alone one with Micky dominant personality)with any physical punishment as I m in agreement that aggression breeds aggression.

I will speak with the animal behaviourist about this behaviour, but I feel that I already know the answer; my mum needs to show him that she is above him in the pack hierarchy, but in a calm, firm way.

again, thanks for your input.

Micky Moo

Edited November 17, 2010 by Guest

[Di*]

It's by no means cut and dry across the board as a proven fact in all cases that meeting aggression head on is a fast track to escalating it, in fact that theory is absolute nonesense in reality, but political correctness is the primary reason many run with such a theory in my observation.

[Warning: Rant with apologies to the OP]

I love the way the term 'political correctness' has become virtually meaningless except as a way of disparaging a position someone doesn't agree with. 55chevy, I don't suppose it could possibly be that those advocating a position different from yours could be doing so based on research, experience, or an alternate model/understanding of canine behaviour or human-canine interactions?

How about a coherent, rational, well thought out discussion or argument between those advocating different philosophies and practices of dog training/behaviour management? The alternative, labelling opposing views as merely examples of 'political correctness', appears like intellectual laziness or worse. If you think your approach is vastly superior to an opposing approach, rationally explain why you think so rather than set up a false dichotomy between the 'political correctness' and what is usually represented as 'common' or 'good' sense.

Di

[Rant over]

[55chevy]

Can't see how my comment "punishing aggression is not a task to be taken on board by the inexperienced" could be misconstrude as providing potenially dangerous advice, in fact it's quite the opposite

Inexperienced people often either over-do or under-do punishment. Over doing it and under doing it are both dangerous.

We run a 5 dog household. One is a resource guarder. We feed all the dogs separately with a combination of crates and baby gates. If food/bones are not consumed after 15 minutes they are taken up and thrown away, including from the resource guarder. I think the resource guarder (who is more bonded to me) has tried growling at OH once. He has never tried growling at me. OH did not punish, OH just calmly took the bone away. Punishing this dog would not have worked, what worked was calm leadership.

You have managed the situation responsibly and avoided aggressive situations unfolding which is a good thing in the household, but you haven't addressed the real issue is what I am saying. Take the crates and baby gates away, feed them all together and it's likely the resource guarding still remains and the offending dog hasn't learned anything towards the culling of aggressive behaviour. As an alternative measure, you could fit the offending dog with a E collar and zap it when acting aggressively obviously under professional supervison and teach the dog clear boundaries and consequences of aggressive behaviour.

Aversive methods work extremely well to cure aggression, but the skill is administering the correct level of aversion to suit the particular dog which requires professional consultation being generally too much for the average owner to apply.

[55chevy]

It's by no means cut and dry across the board as a proven fact in all cases that meeting aggression head on is a fast track to escalating it, in fact that theory is absolute nonesense in reality, but political correctness is the primary reason many run with such a theory in my observation.

[Warning: Rant with apologies to the OP]

I love the way the term 'political correctness' has become virtually meaningless except as a way of disparaging a position someone doesn't agree with. 55chevy, I don't suppose it could possibly be that those advocating a position different from yours could be doing so based on research, experience, or an alternate model/understanding of canine behaviour or human-canine interactions?

How about a coherent, rational, well thought out discussion or argument between those advocating different philosophies and practices of dog training/behaviour management? The alternative, labelling opposing views as merely examples of 'political correctness', appears like intellectual laziness or worse. If you think your approach is vastly superior to an opposing approach, rationally explain why you think so rather than set up a false dichotomy between the 'political correctness' and what is usually represented as 'common' or 'good' sense.

Di

[Rant over]

Sure Di, one of the renown trainers of aggression rehibilitation was William Koehler, but the mention of Koehler's name in modern society places many people hand in face with disgust...........why..........because Koehler couldn't fix the dog???, no, Koehler fixed the dog alright and stopped the aggression forthwith, but some people didn't like the way he did it in the vein of humanity and what if's leading to the aspect of political correctness of dog training. It's not a whole lot different nowdays with the anti Cesar Milan group who often pride themselves more on they have trained without an aversive as a priority over what they have actually fixed.

As an example, a person had a highly driven working line GSD that used to go nuts when seeing the leash anticpating a walk. She would jump at the owner, bark, snap and carry on like a nucklehead in this situation. What the owner was taught to do was use a tug toy in drive to make the dog behave through the initial period of excitement on a command and release for reward basis which worked extremely well until the day he leashed the dog up forgetting the tug toy and she ramped up and bit the owner on the upper arm causing 27 stitches in a hospital admission. The dog's behaviour was managed by an alternative behaviour applied with the command and release for reward method, but was never taught that jumping and snapping at the owner in prey driven arousal was not acceptable behaviour. The dog later was retrained and conditioned with an E Collar aversively to correct the behaviour which could have been done in the first place and the owner avoided the trauma of being bitten by his dog if the behaviour was tackled head on instead of creating diversion exercises to merely manage the problem not fix it.

[poodlefan]

Sure Di, one of the renown trainers of aggression rehibilitation was William Koehler, but the mention of Koehler's name in modern society places many people hand in face with disgust...........why..........because Koehler couldn't fix the dog???, no, Koehler fixed the dog alright and stopped the aggression forthwith, but some people didn't like the way he did it in the vein of humanity and what if's leading to the aspect of political correctness of dog training. It's not a whole lot different nowdays with the anti Cesar Milan group who often pride themselves more on they have trained without an aversive as a priority over what they have actually fixed.

As an example, a person had a highly driven working line GSD that used to go nuts when seeing the leash anticpating a walk. She would jump at the owner, bark, snap and carry on like a nucklehead in this situation. What the owner was taught to do was use a tug toy in drive to make the dog behave through the initial period of excitement on a command and release for reward basis which worked extremely well until the day he leashed the dog up forgetting the tug toy and she ramped up and bit the owner on the upper arm causing 27 stitches in a hospital admission. The dog's behaviour was managed by an alternative behaviour applied with the command and release for reward method, but was never taught that jumping and snapping at the owner in prey driven arousal was not acceptable behaviour. The dog later was retrained and conditioned with an E Collar aversively to correct the behaviour which could have been done in the first place and the owner avoided the trauma of being bitten by his dog if the behaviour was tackled head on instead of creating diversion exercises to merely manage the problem not fix it.

William Koehler knew a hell of a lot more about dogs than to:

* ever provide advice on dealing with aggressive behaviours in a dog he'd never met

* suggest that a one size fits all approach would work just as well on high drive working GSDs as all other dogs

* dispense advice to inexperienced dog owners dealing with aggression to "tackle the issue head on" on an internet forum.

If you want to make Koehler your role model best you keep that in mind. You might also bear in mind that its not "political correctness" to attempt to deal with issues without confrontation. Cesar Milan may be willing to take a dog on and risk a bite but the likely outcome for a pet that does it to its owner is a needle. You might also note that he advises pet owners not to try his methods themselves.

Few members of this forum oppose the use of physical or other corections in appropriate circumstances. They just don't see them as always the first tool out of the toolbox. Save the sermons on political correctness for another day.

Edited November 17, 2010 by poodlefan

[corvus]

It's by no means cut and dry across the board as a proven fact in all cases that meeting aggression head on is a fast track to escalating it, in fact that theory is absolute nonesense in reality, but political correctness is the primary reason many run with such a theory in my observation.

I think you are mistaken. While it is true that meeting aggression with aggression does not always result in the dog's aggression quickly escalating, the fact that it occurs sometimes should be enough to give anyone pause. Political correctness is not the primary reason these warnings are made. Safety is.

And as it happens, the theory is not nonsense. A few months ago I was reading a paper in which they looked at aggressive behaviour in *gasp* working line GSDs in response to punishment. I don't remember the exact figures, but there were dogs growling and mouthing the handlers even in response to a leash pop or harsh tone. It doesn't pay to take the risk IMO.

[Nekhbet]

I m in agreement that aggression breeds aggression.

Not always. This is not a cut and dry thing and I am frankly as sick of hearing this as I am of hearing that hands off cures all dogs. I deal with mostly aggression problems and I do use punishment to fix SOME not ALL. It comes down to the individual dog.

A few months ago I was reading a paper in which they looked at aggressive behaviour in *gasp* working line GSDs in response to punishment. I don't remember the exact figures, but there were dogs growling and mouthing the handlers even in response to a leash pop or harsh tone. It doesn't pay to take the risk IMO.

having dealt with enough of them I dont think backing down if its what will fix the dog is the way to go. I know a few working GSDs where handler aggression is genetic. Sometimes you do have to take the risk to fix the dog BUT you have to know what the hell you're doing unless you want to end up with stitches. I have had a couple of dogs redirect on me and I can tell you they changed their minds about after I was done with them - and the redirection was from frustration at not being able to tear their target into a million pieces not because I corrected them.

55chev I know where you are coming from. But not every human is capable of being firm. You have to choose a way that lets the dog know what is right and wrong but at the same time I would never put a client in harms way. I deal with a BIG bull arab once and he was a pure bully, having attacked 2 out of 3 members of the house and possessing the daughters bedroom. He was fixed in a hands off manner because I can tell you, if you want to start a physical fight you better be capable of finishing it with a dog that has learned to bite its intended target.

The OP needs to get a behaviourist in, not ask advice off the internet. Aggression + advice from people who dont know what is actually happening is quite dangerous.

[55chevy]

Sure Di, one of the renown trainers of aggression rehibilitation was William Koehler, but the mention of Koehler's name in modern society places many people hand in face with disgust...........why..........because Koehler couldn't fix the dog???, no, Koehler fixed the dog alright and stopped the aggression forthwith, but some people didn't like the way he did it in the vein of humanity and what if's leading to the aspect of political correctness of dog training. It's not a whole lot different nowdays with the anti Cesar Milan group who often pride themselves more on they have trained without an aversive as a priority over what they have actually fixed.

As an example, a person had a highly driven working line GSD that used to go nuts when seeing the leash anticpating a walk. She would jump at the owner, bark, snap and carry on like a nucklehead in this situation. What the owner was taught to do was use a tug toy in drive to make the dog behave through the initial period of excitement on a command and release for reward basis which worked extremely well until the day he leashed the dog up forgetting the tug toy and she ramped up and bit the owner on the upper arm causing 27 stitches in a hospital admission. The dog's behaviour was managed by an alternative behaviour applied with the command and release for reward method, but was never taught that jumping and snapping at the owner in prey driven arousal was not acceptable behaviour. The dog later was retrained and conditioned with an E Collar aversively to correct the behaviour which could have been done in the first place and the owner avoided the trauma of being bitten by his dog if the behaviour was tackled head on instead of creating diversion exercises to merely manage the problem not fix it.

William Koehler knew a hell of a lot more about dogs than to:

* ever provide advice on dealing with aggressive behaviours in a dog he'd never met

* suggest that a one size fits all approach would work just as well on high drive working GSDs as all other dogs

* dispense advice to inexperienced dog owners dealing with aggression to "tackle the issue head on" on an internet forum.

If you want to make Koehler your role model best you keep that in mind. You might also bear in mind that its not "political correctness" to attempt to deal with issues without confrontation. Cesar Milan may be willing to take a dog on and risk a bite but the likely outcome for a pet that does it to its owner is a needle. You might also note that he advises pet owners not to try his methods themselves.

Few members of this forum oppose the use of physical or other corections in appropriate circumstances. They just don't see them as always the first tool out of the toolbox. Save the sermons on political correctness for another day.

I am sorry Poodlefan, your response is difficult for me to understand Are you saying in your key points that Koehler "didn't" do the things mentioned???..........he wrote books on exactly how to administer corrections, one size did fit all, and advice from him was dispensed to anyone who purchased his publications which mystifies me as to what your debate is actually about???. There were no qulaifications of experience required for eligibility to purchase Koehler's books and give his methods a try, so please elaborate upon the statements you have made, as I really don't get your angle???.

This is three times now that I have clearly stated that: PROFESSIONAL ADVICE NEEDS TO BE SOUGHT, and for last time, I will repeat, I have NOT advised an inexperienced owner to undertake corrective measures of aversive exercises themselves, that we DO agree on :D

There are PLENTY of trainers and behaviourists who's marketing approach is the basis of anti aversive methods and are highly critical of any tools of the trade that misused may harm a dog which is used as an angle of political correctness because to the average pet owner, non aversive training sounds better than applying an E Collar or a prong. But the point I ask, is what's more important, the ability to use a particular training method, or the ability to rehabilitate the dog???.

Edited November 18, 2010 by 55chevy

[55chevy]

I m in agreement that aggression breeds aggression.

Not always. This is not a cut and dry thing and I am frankly as sick of hearing this as I am of hearing that hands off cures all dogs. I deal with mostly aggression problems and I do use punishment to fix SOME not ALL. It comes down to the individual dog.

A few months ago I was reading a paper in which they looked at aggressive behaviour in *gasp* working line GSDs in response to punishment. I don't remember the exact figures, but there were dogs growling and mouthing the handlers even in response to a leash pop or harsh tone. It doesn't pay to take the risk IMO.

having dealt with enough of them I dont think backing down if its what will fix the dog is the way to go. I know a few working GSDs where handler aggression is genetic. Sometimes you do have to take the risk to fix the dog BUT you have to know what the hell you're doing unless you want to end up with stitches. I have had a couple of dogs redirect on me and I can tell you they changed their minds about after I was done with them - and the redirection was from frustration at not being able to tear their target into a million pieces not because I corrected them.

55chev I know where you are coming from. But not every human is capable of being firm. You have to choose a way that lets the dog know what is right and wrong but at the same time I would never put a client in harms way. I deal with a BIG bull arab once and he was a pure bully, having attacked 2 out of 3 members of the house and possessing the daughters bedroom. He was fixed in a hands off manner because I can tell you, if you want to start a physical fight you better be capable of finishing it with a dog that has learned to bite its intended target.

The OP needs to get a behaviourist in, not ask advice off the internet. Aggression + advice from people who dont know what is actually happening is quite dangerous.

The Bull Arab spoken of is one dog you would hope which ever method used taught some clear boundaries.........wouldn't be pretty for a dog like that to forget the rules

Seroiusly though Nekhbet, was the hand's off approach used as the safest option, I sincerely understand if it was in the circumstances, or was a hand's off approach really the best method for the particular dog's rehabilitation success???, just interested :D