Male Lab Chasing Stock

[j. taylor]

I thought e-collars were illegal in most States.

You could try desenitisation, walk him close to stock and feed while good walk away and don't feed while bad. Would take longer to work but might be better than ending up with a stressed dog through injudicious use. Whatever you do you need to do it ASAP for the dog and other animals safety.

Good luck, keep us informed.

[Erny]

I thought e-collars were illegal in most States.

Not banned. Restricted though. Can be used with consent of Vet AND supervision of qualified dog trainer. At least, this is how it is in Victoria and I think NSW too.

Given the high quality self-reinforcement the dog has already received and would continue to receive for this activity I wouldn't have any faith in the "desensitisation" (not really the term I would use - more appropriately "negative punishment") as you suggest it, having any effect. The aversive must weigh heavier than the reward for it to even part way be successful. Apart from that it does not preclude the activity when the owners are not in sight.

Whatever you do you need to do it ASAP for the dog and other animals safety.

Agreed.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

Hi Lou. Thanks for the link. Good info. I more often than not work in similar manner under these circumstances. It's a way of teaching the dog what response is required to turn off the stimulus, as well as a way of maintaining control of the situation to a lower and calmer intensity so that the owner has better opportunity to teach it that it is about IT showing interest in the (in this case) stock animal and not about the stock animal itself.

Do you find that there is a 'quantum leap' to be overcome for when training reaches the stage when the owner is eventually not in sight?

[Staranais]

Given the high quality self-reinforcement the dog has already received and would continue to receive for this activity I wouldn't have any faith in the "desensitisation" (not really the term I would use - more appropriately "negative punishment") as you suggest it, having any effect. The aversive must weigh heavier than the reward for it to even part way be successful.

That makes sense to me Erny, but in that case why does the crittering protocol work? Since from what I've read, the stim used is very mild, so the aversive shouldn't weigh heavier than the very potent reward of stock chasing.

Or is that too simplistic a way of looking at it?

[Tonymc]

A Dog that stock chasing has become an entrenched behaviour is past breaking the behaviour with Food and walking on the Lead.

I could take a Stock chasing Dog out on a lead and get him to ignore the Stock for sure.But the Dog ignoring the Stock depends on me being there and him being leashed.I could show somebody how on the lead he was ignoring Stock but is the pattern broken?No not at all.

Let him wonder off himself around Stock and the Chasing will soon start again.

The Dog that is an entrenched stock chaser places much greater value on the chase rather than Food.

I agree an E-Collar is a good way to go in the right hands as timing is crictical to sucess.

tony

[Erny]

Hi Am. I see what you mean but I think the big difference here is that withholding of food treat is a negative punishment whereas the "crittering", (whilst conducted at a low but "working" level it is also in a low intensity situation) remains a positive punishment. I see "crittering" as a calmer way of teaching the dog what TO DO to turn the stim off, making it easier for both dog to learn and handler to co-ordinate. I stand to be corrected by Lou on this - he would have far more experience than I in this field of behaviour problem solving.

Hunger, or wanting a food treat, is more easily forgotten/ignored when its attention is taken by something more interesting. Have you ever missed a meal (eg lunch) because you were so engrossed in something that you enjoyed? I doubt that I would be as easily able to ignore a sufficiently annoying stimulation that didn't stop until I ceased my activity.

I would enjoy hearing back from Lou though to my question about "quantum leap" (ie owner's presence/owner's absence).

[Lou Castle]

I thought e-collars were illegal in most States.

They're illegal in a few states, not most. In at least one, all it takes to use an Ecollar is a letter from a vet. I'm told that they're easy to get.

You could try desenitisation, walk him close to stock and feed while good walk away and don't feed while bad.

This makes use of reinforcement of the desired behavior and extinction of the undesired behavior. Extinction doesn't work if the behavior is self rewarding, and in this case it is. Only punishment tells a dog, "Don't do that again."

[Lou Castle]

Do you find that there is a 'quantum leap' to be overcome for when training reaches the stage when the owner is eventually not in sight?

No I don't. I recommend that the protocol be run every other day for three days and that a refresher be done a week later. Most people find that's all they need.

The protocol isn't perfect. I've found that many dogs will generalize to animals in the same size range as the one that's used in the training. Only one dog generalized to all prey animals in the 200 or so that I've done this with. Some dogs need to be "crittered" off every animal that they want to chase. That's a nuisance but only difficult, not impossible.

[Lou Castle]

why does the crittering protocol work?

The desensitization doesn't work because it doesn't address the self-rewarding nature of chasing stock. It merely reinforces not chasing. That doesn't stop the chasing. And when the treats aren't present, the fun of the chase is.

Since from what I've read, the stim used is very mild, so the aversive shouldn't weigh heavier than the very potent reward of stock chasing.

I think that the problem here is that you're thinking of the stim as used as a punishment to stop the chasing and since it's of such a low level, how can it work?

The answer is that it's not used to punish the chasing. It's used to teach the dog that when he feels the first urges to chase, as shown by "the look" he has to turn his head away to make the stim stop. The dog can't chase something he can't look at. It's not merely that the dog is taught an incompatible behavior (such as teaching a dog to sit to stop him from jumping up on people) it's that chasing simply can't be done if the dog can't look at the prey animal. The excitement that the chase brings starts when he sees the stock; but then he turns his head away, and the interest in chasing disappears.

[Lou Castle]

I agree an E-Collar is a good way to go in the right hands as timing is crictical to sucess.

I agree with your points before this one Tony. But the timing isn't any more or less critical than it is with any other method or tool that's used in dog training; especially if my protocol is used. If you're doing aversion training (using high levels of stim to stop a dog from doing something) I'll agree, that timing can be critical.

But using low level stim it's not as critical. If one has good enough timing to use treats or leash corrections to train with, one has good enough timing to use the Ecollar as I advocate. If one has perfect timing (Very rare, even among professionals) learning happens very quickly. If one has only "good timing" learning takes more repetitions. If one has horrible timing, for example, more than four seconds behind the behavior, get a gold fish.

[Lou Castle]

I see "crittering" as a calmer way of teaching the dog what TO DO to turn the stim off, making it easier for both dog to learn and handler to co-ordinate. I stand to be corrected by Lou on this

No need, you got it perfectly.

Hunger, or wanting a food treat, is more easily forgotten/ignored when its attention is taken by something more interesting. Have you ever missed a meal (eg lunch) because you were so engrossed in something that you enjoyed? I doubt that I would be as easily able to ignore a sufficiently annoying stimulation that didn't stop until I ceased my activity.

What a great analogy. Please consider it stolen!

[Staranais]

I think that the problem here is that you're thinking of the stim as used as a punishment to stop the chasing and since it's of such a low level, how can it work?

The answer is that it's not used to punish the chasing. It's used to teach the dog that when he feels the first urges to chase, as shown by "the look" he has to turn his head away to make the stim stop. The dog can't chase something he can't look at.

Thanks Lou & Erny.

I'm not sure if that answers my question or not. I mean, I understand that it's easier to interrupt prey behaviour at the very beginning of the predatory sequence when the dog has just started to feel the urge to chase (before the dog is fully in drive, I guess). I understand that with this protocol the dog learns he had to turn his head to turn off the stim, and I understand that after turning his head he simply can't chase the prey item.

My only confusion is, even if the dog "understands" that turning his head will turn off the annoying stim, why should he care about turning off the stim when the reward is so very potent?

If predatory behaviour is so intensely rewarding to the dog, why doesn't the dog just put up with the mild stim in order to chase the stock? Even if the dog "understands" he can turn the stim off by turning his head, why would he do that, when his other option is to endure the mildly annoying stim but also get the huge reward of stock chasing?

Please note, I'm not trying to argue that your protocol doesn't or can't work, if you've both used it successfully then I'm happy to take your word(s) that it works. I just can't 100% grasp why yet.

[Steve K9Pro]

I'm not sure if that answers my question or not. I mean, I understand that it's easier to interrupt prey behaviour at the very beginning of the predatory sequence when the dog has just started to feel the urge to chase (before the dog is fully in drive, I guess). I understand that with this protocol the dog learns he had to turn his head to turn off the stim, and I understand that after turning his head he simply can't chase the prey item.

My only confusion is, even if the dog "understands" that turning his head will turn off the annoying stim, why should he care about turning off the stim when the reward is so very potent?

K9: Perhaps I can shed some light for you if I may...?

If predatory behaviour is so intensely rewarding to the dog, why doesn't the dog just put up with the mild stim in order to chase the stock? Even if the dog "understands" he can turn the stim off by turning his head, why would he do that, when his other option is to endure the mildly annoying stim but also get the huge reward of stock chasing?

K9: Dogs that have raw prey drive only think about the reward once they have been triggered into that specific drive. By teaching the dog to eliminate the fixed stare, they arent triggered into prey drive & hence dont think about the reward at the end...

Please note, I'm not trying to argue that your protocol doesn't or can't work, if you've both used it successfully then I'm happy to take your word(s) that it works. I just can't 100% grasp why yet.

K9: I can state that Lou's protocol indeed does work & well at that.

Some of the benefits are that it doesnt reduce/eliminate prey drive or raise the threshold to prey drive making training in drive easier later on or at least not interfearing with training in drive methods...

[Kelpie-i]

Hi Bonnie, there are some really good suggestions given to you regarding your problem, but I have another suggestion you may wish to consider and something that owners of "stock chasing" dogs, don't often think about - as long as he is not 'going in for the kill' with the stock, I think it would be a possibility......

It certainly sounds as though your dog has a strong instinct to chase therefore I wouldn't go past the option of perhaps taking him to some herding lessons where at least his instinct can be channelled into herding rather than just chasing stock. His chase instinct will be placed under control and his movements branded which then become commands thereby giving you a lot more control over him compared to what you have at the moment. What's more important though, is that through herding, you teach your dog to stop on command regardless of where they are and what they're doing. If this can be done with Kelpies and BC, there is no reason why it can't be done with other breeds. In fact, we have worked with Labs, Rotties and Dalmations... and just today we worked a Standard Poodle whom we taught to stop on cue whilst herding.

Who knows, it could turn into a sport that you can both enjoy??

Just a suggestion....:D

Edited April 4, 2007 by Kelpie-i

[Lou Castle]

My only confusion is, even if the dog "understands" that turning his head will turn off the annoying stim, why should he care about turning off the stim when the reward is so very potent?

The head turns happens before the reward get "potent." It happens while the reward is very mild. The training is best done over the course of three days with a "refresher" done about a week later. By that time the dog is habituated to turning his head away from the prey animal.

One SAR worker told me that after she'd done the protocol her dog, who used to chase deer, walked up on a deer who had frozen, instead of bolting. The dog nearly stepped on the deer before he ran. The dog watched him run off and then went back to work.

If predatory behaviour is so intensely rewarding to the dog, why doesn't the dog just put up with the mild stim in order to chase the stock?

By the time he's put back into a situation where chasing might occur, he's habituated to turning his head away.

Even if the dog "understands" he can turn the stim off by turning his head, why would he do that, when his other option is to endure the mildly annoying stim but also get the huge reward of stock chasing?

The "huge reward" never comes because as soon as the "pleasure of the chase" begins to rise, it's over-ridden by the stim. It never rises to a high enough level to make it worthwhile for the dog to chase.

[Lou Castle]

Dogs that have raw prey drive only think about the reward once they have been triggered into that specific drive. By teaching the dog to eliminate the fixed stare, they arent triggered into prey drive & hence dont think about the reward at the end.

Well said Steve.

I can state that Lou's protocol indeed does work & well at that.

Thanks for the kind words.

Some of the benefits are that it doesnt reduce/eliminate prey drive or raise the threshold to prey drive making training in drive easier later on or at least not interfearing with training in drive methods.

Good points. This makes it possible to use on dogs that need prey drive in other areas of their work, such as detector dogs, SAR dog and police patrol dogs. I originally devised the protocol to stop police dogs from chasing cats during urban searches. Later it was applied to SAR dogs to stop them from chasing game during searches and found out by accident that it worked for stopping some types of dog-to-dog aggression.

[Rom]

found out by accident that it worked for stopping some types of dog-to-dog aggression.

Hi Lou, (Sorry to go off topic here )

I have read your crittering protocol in the past and had wondered if it would work on dog to dog aggression....what types?

[Lou Castle]

I have read your crittering protocol in the past and had wondered if it would work on dog to dog aggression....what types?

It doesn't seem to work on true aggression as in a "bully" dog. (That's not a bull breed, it's one that must dominate every other dog in his environment.) It works on fear based aggression and fortunately that's the most common kind of aggression. Most aggression is based on a "stay away from me" mindset. It occurs when the "other dog" gets too close and the fearful dog thinks that he must give a "pre-emptive strike" to keep the other dog from harming him.

Many people use an Ecollar in a way that can make the problem much worse. They press the button, usually at a fairly high level of stim, when the dogs shows aggression towards other dogs. They think that they're punishing the aggression. Usually they're punishing the display of aggression, not the aggression itself. And so the dog stops giving the display of aggression; the barking, the lunging, the lip curling, the "showing hair." The problem here is now that this has been done, you can't tell if the dog is feeling aggression and so you may get a dog that goes from a completely calm appearance to murder, without warning. I've seen this result a number of times and heard of it happening many more times.

Stopping fear-aggression works best if the Crittering protocol and two OB movements, the recall and the sit are taught. There are two articles I suggest you read, both deal with aggressive dogs who's lives were threatened by their fear-based aggression. Both of whom were saved by dedicated people (neither of whom had much prior experience) with the Ecollar.

http://loucastle.com/roma.htm and

http://loucastle.com/simon.htm

[Staranais]

Thanks heaps, Steve & Lou.

[Rom]

Cheers for that Lou.

K9, nice to see you posting again