Now, this is what I'm more interested in. How does one go about doing this, as an example? We always here about the "managing way" [ training the dog to ignore the trigger by focusing on you ] but other than early puppy hood socializing...what can be done for older, more fearful dogs? IE: Dogs who immediately react & escalate before coming close to the "trigger?" >> Classical Conditioning...
Simple example, using the cone example above: Take fearful dog and walk him toward the cone, stopping to give him treats. Watch his body language, when he starts to show signs of stress or stops taking treats, you know you have reached his threshold. Make a mark on the floor to indicate his distance threshold. Now, move back away from the object until the stress signs go away, or he starts taking treats again. Make a mark on the floor there, this indicates his "comfort zone". Now, take one step closer to the threshold marker and begin feeding the dog treats. When the dog is taking treats and showing no stress at that new point take another step closer to the threshold marker. If the dog at any time stops taking treats, even when you are not to the threshold marker, then this means you "pushed" too fast (too much pressure), so you need to take a few steps back and start over. The goal is to eventually make it passed the dog's threshold and start shrinking the threshold. Its a slow process, but you are pairing the presence of the fearful object (the cone in this example) with good things (food in this example). A dog cannot be fearful while they are eating, its a physiological impossibility. The part of the brain the processes "happy things" also process "bad things" and so the dog cannot process both things at the same time.
Another option is to use a clicker to capture a "look". Using the same example above, you would take the dog to their threshold around the cone and then click and treat when they look at the cone. As they start to pick up on the idea of looking at the cone = food they start to offer the "look" behavior. Every time they offer a "look" click & treat while simultaneously reducing the space between the cone and the dog until your dog is offering the behavior and touching the cone. I actually prefer this method as it allows the dog to cross their threshold on their own - but this type of thing only works with something like a cone - it would be a disaster to do it using a dog (instead of the cone) with a dog that was aggressive toward other dogs.
I hope that was clear.
The other reason why I was wonder does training = "managing" is because [ using a simple example of the coffee table earlier ] doesn't the dog associate a reward with the human[s] who give it? So if you have successfully trained your dog not to jump on the coffee table using positive reinforcement...is this training limited only to when the owner is around to "enforce" the reward / punishment? >> I think this is where Dave's environmental management comes in - you wouldn't let the dog have access to the coffee table when you are not there. The more the dog practices a behavior (good or bad) the more likely they will offer the behavior. So, limiting how often the dog can get on the coffee table will reduce the behavior on its own.
ANY training method would require that you be there to alter the dogs behavior, unless you devised a way to make the coffee table punish the dog on its own - but that is not something I would recommend because then he would just be fearful of the coffee table.
I've been told that one of the things about training with an e-collar [ mind you, I have no intention of doing so except perhaps for the snake-avoidance training done by a professional as discussed before on the forum ] is that it has become a "goood training tool" [ not my words ] as the dog does not associate the punishment with the handler. [ ie: the dog does not realize the handler is the one pushing the button & causing a shock, vs. a choke chain where the dog clearly knows who is correcting him: the handler ] >> Um, it doesn't really work that way - in clicker training the dog associates the reward with the click, not with the person. Same applies to a shock collar, the dog associates the pain/correction with the collar not the person.
Temple Grandin does a really nice job of explaining how a dog thinks in the video posted in this thread. Have a watch, if you haven't already. She notes that a dog that's been hit by a car doesn't fear cars or the road, it fears the bumper of the car that hit him (because that's what hit him) and that specific part of the road (because he lands on the part of the road). Dog's don't generalize enough to associate you with treats or you with shocks or cars and roads with being hit by a car.
Now, if the dog associates the shock collar with pain, and then sees you putting the collar on them... Well, that may create a negative association with you. I'm not sure tho.
I'm wondering if with Positive Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, Negative Punishment, are these behaviors only happening because the owner is present? What if the owner isn't present, do the dogs, once "taught" what is acceptable, still follow the boundaries set for them even when the source of their reward / punishment isn't there? >> No, I'm pretty sure dogs offer those behaviors when you are around and not when you aren't around. BUT... If they get no reward for doing a behavior you don't want them to do then they will not continue to do that behavior whether you are there or not. And if they do get rewarded for a behavior then I think they are more likely to offer that behavior w/ or w/o you around.
A shock collar may seem like it works that way, but its really just due to the association with the collar - if they have the collar on while you are gone then they will probably not do an unwanted behavior for fear of being shocked by the collar they have on. Remember tho, an ecollar is Positive Punishment - its not some secret special other type of training - its simply "Positive Punishment".
Training a dog to do something doesn't guarantee they will always do that something. There is no guarantee in dog training - anyone that says they have a behavior trained 100% is blowing smoke.
The key to success with dogs is management + training.
Brad,
I certainly hope you you didn't get offended by my comments , that was not my intent, I just wanted to share my personal thoughts. All i was trying to convey to Osy & whoever is that you don't have to have a vast degree of training knowledge to raise a good , well behaved ,balanced dog. Most of the time if you just stick to the simple fundamentals that is often all that is necessary.
For me,.. "bond" and "relationship " is the number one reason I own dogs. Yes , there is no doubt that proper training is very important and goes a long way in achieving that.
It is very obvious that you have a great deal of knowledge on dog training. I guess I tend to see things in a very basic simplistic level, whenever possible. If I came across in an offensive way I apologize.
@Dave S. - No worries, I was not offended by your comments at all and I hope that none of mine comments offended you or anyone else too. I was just surprised that my posts had been read as if I was downplaying the dog-owner relationship and its value.
I do understand that sometimes my posts can be a bit long and/or clinical and therefor may be taken in a way that makes it seem like I view the dog world in a rather cold way, but that is not the case, and it concerned me if it had come across that way - so that is why I made my followup post.
Ok, thanks guys! This has been an excellent discussion. Brad, thanks a ton for the clarifications!
Re: training vs communication. As I said earlier, I see all training [ or really, anything you do with your dog ] as a form of communication [ & bonding. ] Totally unrelated example, I've clicker trained the birds. I found that through training, we developed a MUCH closer bond then just "hanging" out with them. The birds actually now come up to us, "expecting" training time. One of the funnest things is seeing them "figure out" what I want them to do. I imagine it's the exact same with dogs. Training gives the trainee & trainer something to do together, a goal to achieve...so I think it's only natural that it is a powerful bonding experience. [ of course, hanging out offers a good bonding experience too, I just think training offers a unique type of experience ]
Re: "common sense." Also, I'm sure a lot of this may seem like common sense, but you'd be surprised at the number of dog owners I met who don't follow anything like this As an example, Bri's uncle has a lab...who jumps up on people. Instead of turning around & ignoring her to get her to stop [ "common sense" ] he smacks her. & guess what? She still jumps up on people. [ we don't like this uncle ]
I have a friend who took 6 months to potty train her dog, until I suggested using a crate, then the dog became potty trained within a week.
I know a lot of this may seem like "general" knowledge," but I'm really not asking about training per say...but trying to figure out how the dog "thinks." I believe that dogs are extremely logical creatures. Humans tend to allow "emotions" to get in the way [ mainly, anthropomorphizing their dogs ] which is where that "common sense" gets lost. We are not as logical as dogs, and never will be, so I'm just trying to find all the "logic" in this. ~
Two items that might be helpful to investigate to clarify thing a bit a book called "learning Theory 101" by Kathy Sdao. "Reaching the animal mind" by Karen Pryor might back up some of it as well.
I disagree that dogs are more logical than humans. Logic cannot override the powerful emotional surge that drives my favorite reactive dog. After reading and consulting and doing classess and training for 4 years, evne with the famousest (sic) people i can find- with reactive dogs you have to create a mixedprogram of environmental management, training where you can and being reasonable with your dogs nature. dogs are not just robots you can program and adjust, the monkey wrench is that they are"people"too. And if you think of people you may have known in life, you may think of some who wanted to change another for whatever reason, but until and unless the person has made up their own mind to change themseleves it can;t really be done. (think addiction, for example)
I am reading about PTSD, and in this book it describes PTSD sufferers as "reactive" actually, and it talks abtou how healing cannot begin, therapy cannot work, until SAFETY is estqablished from the body -outward. So this tells me that all the training techniques you can apply- which are good sound techniques- willnot work until the individual (person/dog/etc) feels secure at the most basic levels. This means environmental management, eliminating exposures, consistency. The best thing that has made themost difference in Sage'slife is a simpler,quieter environment, neqarly eliminating exposures, and supervision/guidance/accompaniament when not in aperfectly secure space.
If Sage feels he must be constantly alert for threats (and the dog decides what the threat is & how scary, not me) at home, in his yard, I can;t expect to desensitize him to a neighbor dog on a walk.it's a waste of training.
the reactive Dog bookshelf tells how you to do the training but gives unfortunate short shrift to foundation security and owner expectations necessary before training. It isunreasonable to expect that you can live as you are and just use training to teach your dog to get over his fear of dogs and someday he will enjoy meeting new friends. It is unfair to look only at the behavior and dismiss the "person'behind that behavior. (Click to Calm- Emma Parsons "It's only behavior..." I know Emma, she knows Sage- and I have come to disagree with this, though it is the foundation of the whole counter conditioning and desensitization strategy.I say there is more beneath it and though it is not provable with hard science, it is the foundation of the reactive dog and must be taken into account to make his life safe and happy for him. It is not "Healing a reactive dog"- thebooks and trainers do not emphasize it enough- he will always be anemotional guy.
Chrystal, those are some really good points. The comparison to PTSD really makes sense to me. Having suffered that, I know that often my behavior, my reactions, weren't rational, but the the fear I felt was overwhelming. and it took years and lots of treatment for me to get past it, and indeed, I had to have a basic level of safety and comfort (and for a long time) before I could even begin to work on it.
It really makes a lot of sense, and this is something I will have to spend more time mulling over. I know at some point in another thread we talked about what if certain dogs just aren't going to be comfortable going lots of places and being social, maybe we shouldn't try to force them into that. Coupled with this conversation, it makes me think again about my female Shiba and her fear of people, and makes me think again that perhaps it's best to accept that she is simply going to be a dog who is a "homebody." I can work with getting her to accept people at home (and in fact she's better about that) but she'll probably never be very comfortable going other places where she doesn't have the security and safety of her own home.
Yes, despite popular dog culture, it is perfectlyokay to understand what your dog iscomfortable doing and not doing and to honor your friend by choosing things for them that fit them. Jessica helped me feel better about realizingone of my dogs is ahomebody and she was right- he isn;t missing out on anything he woudl enjoy. Your girl may be the same way. Somedogs are and it's fine. I think we humans have amuch harder time accepting this fact than the dogs do.
I really value what you wrote, Chrys, and you know that you and I have similar feelings on our reactive dogs. Having written that, I agree and disagree with you on this...
Where I agree is that a dog's emotions play a very big role in their ability to learn and focus - and certainly a dog that is past an "emotional threshold" is incapable of learning. Where I disagree is that I feel that training a behavior, at its purists, is very much like programming.
I think there needs to be clarification as where/when training begins and ends, and where/when conditioning begins and ends. A lot of what the Reactive Dog bookshelf has to offer is conditioning with bits of training thrown in for management purposes.
Whit your issues with Sage and his reactiveness to dog, our ours with Maui, Masha, & Blue, the fail point is that conditioning a reactive dog to other dogs is a very complex and volatile thing to do (when compared to conditioning a fearful dog to an inanimate object). For this to work, one would need to condition their dog to all types of dogs, and it would need to be done in a way where every aspect of the environment is controlled - including the other dog. IMHO, this is really where the Reactive Dog bookshelf fails, as you point out, it doesn't have a realistic view of an owners abilities to control the environment - but, if one did have the ability to control the environment 100%, then the training and conditioning techniques would most certainly work AND would feel some what like "programing" - by programing I mean the way an artist might program a drum-machine and not the way a programmer programs in computer programming.
This brings me to a thought I have had several times - I wonder if dog-dog conditioning would be improved if the head of the other dog (not the dog needing the conditioning) was covered. Like if you put a mesh bag over the head of the other dog - which would obscure the reactive dog's ability to see their eyes and facial features - in an extremely controlled environment, I wonder if this would keep a reactive dog's "emotional thresholds" in check enough to actually do the conditioning and training techniques suggestions in those books (with success)?
I know its a strange concept, but the idea is that, no matter how hard a trainer tries to control the environment, they are probably unable to really control the ques from the other dog that would set-off the reactive dog. I think this would have worked really well for Blue, for example, in his C.A.T. training.
----
Another point on reactive dogs that I wanted to point out - just for general knowledge for anyone that reads this (and Osy) - is that genetics plays a really big role in how a dog relates to their environment (including other dogs). In Blue's case, and maybe Sage's case, he was dog reactive as early as 8 weeks old! I mean, we got him into puppy class at that age and he was already aggressive toward strange dogs - that really young - only 2 weeks into his socialization window. Could something that damaging really of happened to him between 6-8 weeks to make him that aggressive?
When you take a dog out to be socialized, which is critical to do during that 6-16 week period, you need to consider their age. If they are in the socialization window (6-16 weeks of age) then it is critical that minimize negative experiences as much as possible. Any negative experience the dog has during that small window will stick with them from that point on...
This is where genetics plays an important role - if your dog is dog reactive out-of-the-box (genetic) then taking him to a puppy class and letting him socialize with other dogs will be a negative experiences for him - which is what you want to minimize during that socialization window. In a case like this, some believe that your dog will be better off avoiding those negative experiences until they are socially mature (because then the negative response is not reinforced or practiced).
I just wanted to point that out - if anything so that it would reinforce what Chrystal's point - training, socializing, and conditioning a dog is a rather organic thing. Books and trainers can give you tips that will steer you in the "right" direction, but inevitably you have to find what works best for your dog - you need to be your dog's advocate and set them up for success as much as possible.
First, just wanted to point out I was not saying [ or trying to say ] dogs don't have emotions. I think the majority of creatures on this earth with a brain have emotions. [ dogs, birds, cats, whales, apes, etc. etc. etc. ]
I guess what I'm saying is I see dogs as being very rational. "Oh...if I do this....my owner will do xyz." After a while, a dog will learn if he sits, he gets a treat. That is what I see as logical / rational [ or whatever word would be more fitting ]
Likewise, a dog will learn to fear something / someone when something bad happens. For example, dog has a potty accident in the house, 3 hours later when the owner comes home & finds the mess, the owner comes & beats the dog. The dog learns, "When my owner comes home, I get beaten." & thus, the dog is taught to fear his owner.
Does any of that make sense? When I compare this to humans...humans tend to be irrational in most of the things we do. If we were as rational as dogs / cats / birds / etc...I don't think we'd be human.
I guess what I'm saying is...their thought process is logical / rational, but it is fueled by emotions & past experiences.
Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to explain this....let me come back to it & try again later... ~
Here is my take FWIW- Science is showing that not only do animals feel emotions, they may even feel them with greater intensity than humans. I would compare this to a childs reaction vs. an adults. If an adult does not get what they want (say the last cookie for instance) the adult may be disappointed, they may even bitch but the world is by no means over. A child on the other hand may start crying, and having a tantrum. Because at that moment that cookie is the most important thing in the world.
Same with fear. As adults, we can walk into a dark room or a foreign situation and be apprehensive, but know that there are no monsters that are going to eat us. Children however feel anxiety far more intensely. They can experience true terror from something as simple as a dark room.
I feel this is the case with dogs. Ruby is a great example. She is in fact a passionate dog. When she is happy, she literally leaps with joy. When she is scared she shuts down and trembles (she is terrified by yorkies and pomeranians, most small dogs generally-LOL my big tough pit bull). Anything she feels, she feels on 11. Part of it is her youth, but part of it is just who she is. Miko is far more even tempered. She is enthusiastic and has the things she does and does not like, but not with the intensity of Ruby.
Osy- With regard to what you just posted, I think what you are calling logic is actually just more straightforward and direct response to the immediate situation. We as humans are not necessarily illogical, or irrational, but do have a rampant tendency to overthink things and thereby complicate matters to the point of seeming irrational.
This discussion is probably a perfect example of that.
Osy- With regard to what you just posted, I think what you are calling logic is actually just more straightforward and direct response to the immediate situation. We as humans are not necessarily illogical, or irrational, but do have a rampant tendency to overthink things and thereby complicate matters to the point of seeming irrational.
This discussion is probably a perfect example of that.
^^^^ THIS! LOL That's what I was trying to say, just couldn't figure out how. [ overthinking it ] ~
I kept thinking that logic wasn't the right word, but that I understood what you were getting at Osy, but I couldn't quite articulate it either. Yes, I think is a more direct (and uncomplicated....meaning not overly thought) response to something. Totally makes sense.
And Jessica's point totally makes sense too, and animals feeling things MORE....more like kids....that makes a a lot of sense too. Just like someone said further up, we train dog animals to not react to their emotions....wait, that might be in the emotions thread (all this stuff is SO related), but in any case what I was thinking of as adults we are trained not to always act on our emotions. Sometimes that is good and necessary. Sometimes it is not so good, and it's been a way of learning that has been enshrined (for humans at least) in teaching and socializing since the Enlightenment at least....Emotions are thought of as primitive, as the opposite of learning/knowledge....and because that idea has been so enshrined in human learning, it can't help but effect the way we learn to interact with animals. Thankfully that has been shifting for some time now.
And Jess, I love the description of Ruby as a passionate dog....
And regarding the genetics of the dog....yes...I see that. Toby was quite dog reactive at 8 weeks. And I don't think it helped that I took him to a class where he was not allowed to socialize with other dogs, but was isolated from them as "too dominant." In some ways, I wonder if his reactiveness was rewarded: I growl, and everyone sweeps me up and away from the other dogs which I was reacting to. Problem solved, and lesson learned.
Not that I can say that he might have better, necessarily, if I had tried something else. Perhaps his reactiveness is simply so bred into him that I would have had to pursue a long route of counter conditioning to get him to not be reactive (though he has calmed with age and thyroid meds). I don't know. But for me the lesson I learned with my two Shibas is that I really need to ask a lot of questions about temperament and try to do as best as I can in terms of finding puppies from even tempered dogs. I didn't even ASK about temperament when I got Toby. I saw he had health guarantees and champion lines, and I thought, oh, he'll be great. And when he was 8 weeks old and growling and snapping at full grown rotties and other dogs? I just thought it was cute, and thought that was what Shibas were like. Had I known then when I know now, I would have pursued a very different course of training with him....
Just thought I'd add something...I just read Karen Pryor's book "Reaching the Animal Mind" and while I've used positive training before, I haven't done much with the clicker, because I found the noise annoying, I kept forgetting to have it around, etc. But I've read about it before (in her other book esp.) and after reading about training a hermit crab (I mean a HERMIT CRAB!) I thought, heck, let's try this with a dog.
So I took Bel into the sunroom and taught her to target my hand. It took about 15 times for her to get it.
Here's the thing though: you really do need to become adept at clicking at the right moment, because I wanted her to simply touch my hand with her nose. Instead, she's licking my hand. And now she does that everytime! *lol*
so, yeah, I've just taught my dog to lick my hand! Quick, but not quite what I intended!
I'm going to try with Toby later. Maybe I can get the nose rather than the tongue this time!
Science is showing that not only do animals feel emotions, they may even feel them with greater intensity than humans.
I couldn't agree more. Mainly because dogs can't talk themselves down or reason themselves out of feeling such intense emotion like humans can. I like the correlation between children and dogs. I think it makes your example easy to understand. Maymay is like Ruby. She is super passionate and emotional. A little like me. :-)
And Chrystal bravo on the PTSD citing. You are exactly right. So, I'm guessing Sage likes the move?
He loves the new place. It has made such a difference for him that we are weaning himoff his meds, actually.
He is also more closely managed and guided, which has helped,too. He has a big yard but I am out with him, he isnt just left out there to overthink things and take stuff personally (like Mama, like dog).
I think a big hurdle to reactive dog management is letting go of the idea that dogs are happiest free to choose and roam, a-la Merle's door and my childhood dog, Fred. But I was skipping thru Brenda Aloff's book last night and she is perfectly a-ok with crate and rotate, and doesnt expect her dogs to all hang out around the house togather.(she has many fox terriers and a GSD, all high drive, many with possessive aggression and she is ALWAYS working them on impulse control.
it occured to me how distasteful this feels (as i react!) to have dogs so tightly managed and in boxes, but it is how she is able to have all those personalities together.It takes a BIG management circle for her collection of dogs to be at peace. this extra management - we resist it, especially when we /value highly/romanticise the "wild" or"natural" dog/wolf. Some dogs can in somesituations, but not all dogs can in all situations.
My dogs are not in boxes and on schedules, but they are managed to the extent their personalities require. I think if I had to live a highly structured dog-life I would find it not much fun to have any more dogs. thats just me, though. I manage S. more because I love him, but I am not up for a houseful of boxed dogs on activity schedules. Other people may really thrive on that level of organizatiopn.
When Piglet's dementia set in I had to separate all three dogs if I was not actively monitoring their behavior. It was fairly stressful but primarily because my at one time completely reliable iron nerved trained therapy dog was now unpredictable and that was heartbreaking.
Miko and Ruby require no management. And honestly that made us a tad lazy. Now with a third dog we have to manage things a bit more, at least through the integration period. It is turning out to be a blessing big time. Now my little monsters have to blow their steam off in the yard after walks before they come inside. So everyone is calm in the house and gets their silly zoomies out outside. So while it is additional management it has made home life more calm and pleasant.
Diverging from the original topic...... it sounds like somewhere in the process your pooch was reinforced for a lick and so there is a bit of confusion on his part what the criteria is. I would hold out for a more sold nose bump and not click or reward for licks. This takes time and one has to be really patient but eventually your dog will offer it and you should mark it. Be careful to coordinate it so that you are not marking too late or too early.
There is a limit to the books, they can help with the foundation theory and ideas for particular situations, however plain hands on to help with core learning is really important with a qualified training mentor via use o of the clicker tool.
When starting out with a new method or general training there are multiple hurdles for humans to overcome. What appears most difficult for people: the observation and interpretation of actions (their own and that of dog), control of movement (human) actions and timing, self awareness of their current place in terms of the relationship with the dog, and finally conveying or communicating with the dog what is wanted. Each is a separate phase or process that has to be broken down in teaching and that is before we get to the issue of the dog and its own general behavior or personality. Most often none of those skills on the human side are there at first and so it takes a really good trainer to get one or two out of the three or four to help owners to build a foundation.
Thanks Snf....that makes sense. I have noticed the timing is difficult! But what I like is that Bel seems to get this, and she looks like she's having fun (and she's kind of timid, and doesn't offer new behaviors on her own easily). So I think it's really good at instilling confidence for her.
Toby hates it. And watching his reaction, I can see how much of his behavior is based on fear/avoidance of new things. His reaction to the clicker is to back away from it and avoid looking at it, just like he does when he is initially avoiding a dog he doesn't like. It's interesting, because his behavior is how he "reacts" to other dogs before it hits his threshold point...I'm going to have to mull over how to work on this with him. I can try the muffling of the clicker, or I could try a different sound, but I think I'm also simply seeing his caution. He doesn't know what I want, and when his offered behavior (sitting) doesn't work, he becomes nervous and wants to retreat. I've been living with his reactivity for years, of course, but I don't think I saw his cautiousness as clearly before. Guess I'll reread "The Cautious Canine"!
And I think I'll look for a clicker class, too, so I can learn how to handle this better. Bel's so scared of other dogs and new people, though, that I don't think she's a good candidate for a class (she's just shut down), and Toby's very reactive, so it might be something I have to wait to do until there is another dog.
To begin in class we practice clicking human to human before applying to the dog.
Not all dogs will happily accept the sound of a clicker. To some it is like nails to a chalk board. You could alternatively use a word marker such as "yes" in place of the click.
As far as trainers maybe having someone come to the house for an hr or possibly you could schedule a private session at a center outside of instructor class time for an individual session with no other dogs around.
With shy dogs you have to be flexible and patient..... there is usually more than one way to approach confidence building.
If you choose to have a consult I would seek someone from the trulydogfriendly.com site who is kind enough to really consider your dogs and their threshold level.
@Lisa - Did you "charge" the clicker before you started working your dogs with it? Charging the clicker is what builds a positive association with the "click". that's very important.
I did, and that's as far as I've gotten with Toby is charging it....and he's still super suspicious, but I think he was a bit more interested tonight.
And while I was doing it with him in the sunroom, Bel raced over to the sunroom door and watched us through the glass....it was clear she DOES have a positive association with the clicker already!
Since you are having an issue with "charging" right from the git go, I would look up Karen Pryor at clickertraining.com and do a search on “fear of clicker”. I know at the center here they use a key fob/pen light for deaf dogs. Karen suggests this for sound sensitive dogs as well. Rather than being caught in semantics, her site will be able to provide the concepts much better than I know I could. The best bet is getting hands on help since we really can not see the interactions between, with, and among your dogs etc.. I would not want to send anyone in the wrong direction by hazarding a guess. I know this can be over come. Some folks apply tape to the clicker to muffle the sound. There are different brands of clicker some that can be adjusted to be dimmed down.
Comments
Now, this is what I'm more interested in. How does one go about doing this, as an example? We always here about the "managing way" [ training the dog to ignore the trigger by focusing on you ] but other than early puppy hood socializing...what can be done for older, more fearful dogs? IE: Dogs who immediately react & escalate before coming close to the "trigger?"
>> Classical Conditioning...
Simple example, using the cone example above: Take fearful dog and walk him toward the cone, stopping to give him treats. Watch his body language, when he starts to show signs of stress or stops taking treats, you know you have reached his threshold. Make a mark on the floor to indicate his distance threshold. Now, move back away from the object until the stress signs go away, or he starts taking treats again. Make a mark on the floor there, this indicates his "comfort zone". Now, take one step closer to the threshold marker and begin feeding the dog treats. When the dog is taking treats and showing no stress at that new point take another step closer to the threshold marker. If the dog at any time stops taking treats, even when you are not to the threshold marker, then this means you "pushed" too fast (too much pressure), so you need to take a few steps back and start over. The goal is to eventually make it passed the dog's threshold and start shrinking the threshold. Its a slow process, but you are pairing the presence of the fearful object (the cone in this example) with good things (food in this example). A dog cannot be fearful while they are eating, its a physiological impossibility. The part of the brain the processes "happy things" also process "bad things" and so the dog cannot process both things at the same time.
Another option is to use a clicker to capture a "look". Using the same example above, you would take the dog to their threshold around the cone and then click and treat when they look at the cone. As they start to pick up on the idea of looking at the cone = food they start to offer the "look" behavior. Every time they offer a "look" click & treat while simultaneously reducing the space between the cone and the dog until your dog is offering the behavior and touching the cone. I actually prefer this method as it allows the dog to cross their threshold on their own - but this type of thing only works with something like a cone - it would be a disaster to do it using a dog (instead of the cone) with a dog that was aggressive toward other dogs.
I hope that was clear.
The other reason why I was wonder does training = "managing" is because [ using a simple example of the coffee table earlier ] doesn't the dog associate a reward with the human[s] who give it? So if you have successfully trained your dog not to jump on the coffee table using positive reinforcement...is this training limited only to when the owner is around to "enforce" the reward / punishment?
>> I think this is where Dave's environmental management comes in - you wouldn't let the dog have access to the coffee table when you are not there. The more the dog practices a behavior (good or bad) the more likely they will offer the behavior. So, limiting how often the dog can get on the coffee table will reduce the behavior on its own.
ANY training method would require that you be there to alter the dogs behavior, unless you devised a way to make the coffee table punish the dog on its own - but that is not something I would recommend because then he would just be fearful of the coffee table.
I've been told that one of the things about training with an e-collar [ mind you, I have no intention of doing so except perhaps for the snake-avoidance training done by a professional as discussed before on the forum ] is that it has become a "goood training tool" [ not my words ] as the dog does not associate the punishment with the handler. [ ie: the dog does not realize the handler is the one pushing the button & causing a shock, vs. a choke chain where the dog clearly knows who is correcting him: the handler ]
>> Um, it doesn't really work that way - in clicker training the dog associates the reward with the click, not with the person. Same applies to a shock collar, the dog associates the pain/correction with the collar not the person.
Temple Grandin does a really nice job of explaining how a dog thinks in the video posted in this thread. Have a watch, if you haven't already. She notes that a dog that's been hit by a car doesn't fear cars or the road, it fears the bumper of the car that hit him (because that's what hit him) and that specific part of the road (because he lands on the part of the road). Dog's don't generalize enough to associate you with treats or you with shocks or cars and roads with being hit by a car.
Now, if the dog associates the shock collar with pain, and then sees you putting the collar on them... Well, that may create a negative association with you. I'm not sure tho.
I'm wondering if with Positive Reinforcement, Positive Punishment, Negative Punishment, are these behaviors only happening because the owner is present? What if the owner isn't present, do the dogs, once "taught" what is acceptable, still follow the boundaries set for them even when the source of their reward / punishment isn't there?
>> No, I'm pretty sure dogs offer those behaviors when you are around and not when you aren't around. BUT... If they get no reward for doing a behavior you don't want them to do then they will not continue to do that behavior whether you are there or not. And if they do get rewarded for a behavior then I think they are more likely to offer that behavior w/ or w/o you around.
A shock collar may seem like it works that way, but its really just due to the association with the collar - if they have the collar on while you are gone then they will probably not do an unwanted behavior for fear of being shocked by the collar they have on. Remember tho, an ecollar is Positive Punishment - its not some secret special other type of training - its simply "Positive Punishment".
Training a dog to do something doesn't guarantee they will always do that something. There is no guarantee in dog training - anyone that says they have a behavior trained 100% is blowing smoke.
The key to success with dogs is management + training.
----
I certainly hope you you didn't get offended by my comments , that was not my intent, I just wanted to share my personal thoughts. All i was trying to convey to Osy & whoever is that you don't have to have a vast degree of training knowledge to raise a good , well behaved ,balanced dog. Most of the time if you just stick to the simple fundamentals that is often all that is necessary.
For me,.. "bond" and "relationship " is the number one reason I own dogs. Yes , there is no doubt that proper training is very important and goes a long way in achieving that.
It is very obvious that you have a great deal of knowledge on dog training. I guess I tend to see things in a very basic simplistic level, whenever possible. If I came across in an offensive way I apologize.
I do understand that sometimes my posts can be a bit long and/or clinical and therefor may be taken in a way that makes it seem like I view the dog world in a rather cold way, but that is not the case, and it concerned me if it had come across that way - so that is why I made my followup post.
----
Re: training vs communication. As I said earlier, I see all training [ or really, anything you do with your dog ] as a form of communication [ & bonding. ] Totally unrelated example, I've clicker trained the birds. I found that through training, we developed a MUCH closer bond then just "hanging" out with them. The birds actually now come up to us, "expecting" training time. One of the funnest things is seeing them "figure out" what I want them to do. I imagine it's the exact same with dogs. Training gives the trainee & trainer something to do together, a goal to achieve...so I think it's only natural that it is a powerful bonding experience. [ of course, hanging out offers a good bonding experience too, I just think training offers a unique type of experience ]
Re: "common sense." Also, I'm sure a lot of this may seem like common sense, but you'd be surprised at the number of dog owners I met who don't follow anything like this
I have a friend who took 6 months to potty train her dog, until I suggested using a crate, then the dog became potty trained within a week.
I know a lot of this may seem like "general" knowledge," but I'm really not asking about training per say...but trying to figure out how the dog "thinks." I believe that dogs are extremely logical creatures. Humans tend to allow "emotions" to get in the way [ mainly, anthropomorphizing their dogs ] which is where that "common sense" gets lost. We are not as logical as dogs, and never will be, so I'm just trying to find all the "logic" in this.
I wanted to add some helpful links to this thread tho...
Non-aversive Punishment: http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/non-aversive-punishment
Classical Conditioning: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/classical-conditioning
The Three D's: http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/three-d’s-dog-training-and-why-you-need-know-about-them
Continuous Reinforcement and Variable Reinforcement (aka "Gambling"): http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/reinforcement-schedules
Using a lure: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/lure-reward-training
Good read on the different training methods that are popular nowadays: http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/purely-positive-balanced-another-perspective
Hope that helps!
----
Thanks for the links! Got some nice reading material ahead of me now
Snf
I am reading about PTSD, and in this book it describes PTSD sufferers as "reactive" actually, and it talks abtou how healing cannot begin, therapy cannot work, until SAFETY is estqablished from the body -outward. So this tells me that all the training techniques you can apply- which are good sound techniques- willnot work until the individual (person/dog/etc) feels secure at the most basic levels. This means environmental management, eliminating exposures, consistency. The best thing that has made themost difference in Sage'slife is a simpler,quieter environment, neqarly eliminating exposures, and supervision/guidance/accompaniament when not in aperfectly secure space.
If Sage feels he must be constantly alert for threats (and the dog decides what the threat is & how scary, not me) at home, in his yard, I can;t expect to desensitize him to a neighbor dog on a walk.it's a waste of training.
the reactive Dog bookshelf tells how you to do the training but gives unfortunate short shrift to foundation security and owner expectations necessary before training. It isunreasonable to expect that you can live as you are and just use training to teach your dog to get over his fear of dogs and someday he will enjoy meeting new friends. It is unfair to look only at the behavior and dismiss the "person'behind that behavior. (Click to Calm- Emma Parsons "It's only behavior..." I know Emma, she knows Sage- and I have come to disagree with this, though it is the foundation of the whole counter conditioning and desensitization strategy.I say there is more beneath it and though it is not provable with hard science, it is the foundation of the reactive dog and must be taken into account to make his life safe and happy for him. It is not "Healing a reactive dog"- thebooks and trainers do not emphasize it enough- he will always be anemotional guy.
It really makes a lot of sense, and this is something I will have to spend more time mulling over. I know at some point in another thread we talked about what if certain dogs just aren't going to be comfortable going lots of places and being social, maybe we shouldn't try to force them into that. Coupled with this conversation, it makes me think again about my female Shiba and her fear of people, and makes me think again that perhaps it's best to accept that she is simply going to be a dog who is a "homebody." I can work with getting her to accept people at home (and in fact she's better about that) but she'll probably never be very comfortable going other places where she doesn't have the security and safety of her own home.
Where I agree is that a dog's emotions play a very big role in their ability to learn and focus - and certainly a dog that is past an "emotional threshold" is incapable of learning. Where I disagree is that I feel that training a behavior, at its purists, is very much like programming.
I think there needs to be clarification as where/when training begins and ends, and where/when conditioning begins and ends. A lot of what the Reactive Dog bookshelf has to offer is conditioning with bits of training thrown in for management purposes.
Whit your issues with Sage and his reactiveness to dog, our ours with Maui, Masha, & Blue, the fail point is that conditioning a reactive dog to other dogs is a very complex and volatile thing to do (when compared to conditioning a fearful dog to an inanimate object). For this to work, one would need to condition their dog to all types of dogs, and it would need to be done in a way where every aspect of the environment is controlled - including the other dog. IMHO, this is really where the Reactive Dog bookshelf fails, as you point out, it doesn't have a realistic view of an owners abilities to control the environment - but, if one did have the ability to control the environment 100%, then the training and conditioning techniques would most certainly work AND would feel some what like "programing" - by programing I mean the way an artist might program a drum-machine and not the way a programmer programs in computer programming.
This brings me to a thought I have had several times - I wonder if dog-dog conditioning would be improved if the head of the other dog (not the dog needing the conditioning) was covered. Like if you put a mesh bag over the head of the other dog - which would obscure the reactive dog's ability to see their eyes and facial features - in an extremely controlled environment, I wonder if this would keep a reactive dog's "emotional thresholds" in check enough to actually do the conditioning and training techniques suggestions in those books (with success)?
I know its a strange concept, but the idea is that, no matter how hard a trainer tries to control the environment, they are probably unable to really control the ques from the other dog that would set-off the reactive dog. I think this would have worked really well for Blue, for example, in his C.A.T. training.
----
Another point on reactive dogs that I wanted to point out - just for general knowledge for anyone that reads this (and Osy) - is that genetics plays a really big role in how a dog relates to their environment (including other dogs). In Blue's case, and maybe Sage's case, he was dog reactive as early as 8 weeks old! I mean, we got him into puppy class at that age and he was already aggressive toward strange dogs - that really young - only 2 weeks into his socialization window. Could something that damaging really of happened to him between 6-8 weeks to make him that aggressive?
When you take a dog out to be socialized, which is critical to do during that 6-16 week period, you need to consider their age. If they are in the socialization window (6-16 weeks of age) then it is critical that minimize negative experiences as much as possible. Any negative experience the dog has during that small window will stick with them from that point on...
This is where genetics plays an important role - if your dog is dog reactive out-of-the-box (genetic) then taking him to a puppy class and letting him socialize with other dogs will be a negative experiences for him - which is what you want to minimize during that socialization window. In a case like this, some believe that your dog will be better off avoiding those negative experiences until they are socially mature (because then the negative response is not reinforced or practiced).
I just wanted to point that out - if anything so that it would reinforce what Chrystal's point - training, socializing, and conditioning a dog is a rather organic thing. Books and trainers can give you tips that will steer you in the "right" direction, but inevitably you have to find what works best for your dog - you need to be your dog's advocate and set them up for success as much as possible.
----
First, just wanted to point out I was not saying [ or trying to say ] dogs don't have emotions. I think the majority of creatures on this earth with a brain have emotions. [ dogs, birds, cats, whales, apes, etc. etc. etc. ]
I guess what I'm saying is I see dogs as being very rational. "Oh...if I do this....my owner will do xyz." After a while, a dog will learn if he sits, he gets a treat. That is what I see as logical / rational [ or whatever word would be more fitting ]
Likewise, a dog will learn to fear something / someone when something bad happens. For example, dog has a potty accident in the house, 3 hours later when the owner comes home & finds the mess, the owner comes & beats the dog. The dog learns, "When my owner comes home, I get beaten." & thus, the dog is taught to fear his owner.
Does any of that make sense? When I compare this to humans...humans tend to be irrational in most of the things we do. If we were as rational as dogs / cats / birds / etc...I don't think we'd be human.
I guess what I'm saying is...their thought process is logical / rational, but it is fueled by emotions & past experiences.
Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to explain this....let me come back to it & try again later...
Same with fear. As adults, we can walk into a dark room or a foreign situation and be apprehensive, but know that there are no monsters that are going to eat us. Children however feel anxiety far more intensely. They can experience true terror from something as simple as a dark room.
I feel this is the case with dogs. Ruby is a great example. She is in fact a passionate dog. When she is happy, she literally leaps with joy. When she is scared she shuts down and trembles (she is terrified by yorkies and pomeranians, most small dogs generally-LOL my big tough pit bull). Anything she feels, she feels on 11. Part of it is her youth, but part of it is just who she is. Miko is far more even tempered. She is enthusiastic and has the things she does and does not like, but not with the intensity of Ruby.
Osy- With regard to what you just posted, I think what you are calling logic is actually just more straightforward and direct response to the immediate situation. We as humans are not necessarily illogical, or irrational, but do have a rampant tendency to overthink things and thereby complicate matters to the point of seeming irrational.
This discussion is probably a perfect example of that.
This discussion is probably a perfect example of that.
^^^^ THIS! LOL That's what I was trying to say, just couldn't figure out how. [ overthinking it ]
And Jessica's point totally makes sense too, and animals feeling things MORE....more like kids....that makes a a lot of sense too. Just like someone said further up, we train dog animals to not react to their emotions....wait, that might be in the emotions thread (all this stuff is SO related), but in any case what I was thinking of as adults we are trained not to always act on our emotions. Sometimes that is good and necessary. Sometimes it is not so good, and it's been a way of learning that has been enshrined (for humans at least) in teaching and socializing since the Enlightenment at least....Emotions are thought of as primitive, as the opposite of learning/knowledge....and because that idea has been so enshrined in human learning, it can't help but effect the way we learn to interact with animals. Thankfully that has been shifting for some time now.
And Jess, I love the description of Ruby as a passionate dog....
And regarding the genetics of the dog....yes...I see that. Toby was quite dog reactive at 8 weeks. And I don't think it helped that I took him to a class where he was not allowed to socialize with other dogs, but was isolated from them as "too dominant." In some ways, I wonder if his reactiveness was rewarded: I growl, and everyone sweeps me up and away from the other dogs which I was reacting to. Problem solved, and lesson learned.
Not that I can say that he might have better, necessarily, if I had tried something else. Perhaps his reactiveness is simply so bred into him that I would have had to pursue a long route of counter conditioning to get him to not be reactive (though he has calmed with age and thyroid meds). I don't know. But for me the lesson I learned with my two Shibas is that I really need to ask a lot of questions about temperament and try to do as best as I can in terms of finding puppies from even tempered dogs. I didn't even ASK about temperament when I got Toby. I saw he had health guarantees and champion lines, and I thought, oh, he'll be great. And when he was 8 weeks old and growling and snapping at full grown rotties and other dogs? I just thought it was cute, and thought that was what Shibas were like. Had I known then when I know now, I would have pursued a very different course of training with him....
When it comes to dogs, I have a hard time communicating what i'm trying to say without getting lost in all the terminology &/or semantics.
---
I think the genetics & reactiveness aspect needs it's own thread... ~
@Jess - Over-thinking? What are you talking about? Chrys and I would NEVER do that! :oP
----
I just prefer to act sane over the interwebs
So I took Bel into the sunroom and taught her to target my hand. It took about 15 times for her to get it.
Here's the thing though: you really do need to become adept at clicking at the right moment, because I wanted her to simply touch my hand with her nose. Instead, she's licking my hand. And now she does that everytime! *lol*
so, yeah, I've just taught my dog to lick my hand! Quick, but not quite what I intended!
I'm going to try with Toby later. Maybe I can get the nose rather than the tongue this time!
I couldn't agree more. Mainly because dogs can't talk themselves down or reason themselves out of feeling such intense emotion like humans can. I like the correlation between children and dogs. I think it makes your example easy to understand. Maymay is like Ruby. She is super passionate and emotional. A little like me. :-)
And Chrystal bravo on the PTSD citing. You are exactly right. So, I'm guessing Sage likes the move?
He is also more closely managed and guided, which has helped,too. He has a big yard but I am out with him, he isnt just left out there to overthink things and take stuff personally (like Mama, like dog).
I think a big hurdle to reactive dog management is letting go of the idea that dogs are happiest free to choose and roam, a-la Merle's door and my childhood dog, Fred. But I was skipping thru Brenda Aloff's book last night and she is perfectly a-ok with crate and rotate, and doesnt expect her dogs to all hang out around the house togather.(she has many fox terriers and a GSD, all high drive, many with possessive aggression and she is ALWAYS working them on impulse control.
it occured to me how distasteful this feels (as i react!) to have dogs so tightly managed and in boxes, but it is how she is able to have all those personalities together.It takes a BIG management circle for her collection of dogs to be at peace. this extra management - we resist it, especially when we /value highly/romanticise the "wild" or"natural" dog/wolf. Some dogs can in somesituations, but not all dogs can in all situations.
My dogs are not in boxes and on schedules, but they are managed to the extent their personalities require. I think if I had to live a highly structured dog-life I would find it not much fun to have any more dogs. thats just me, though. I manage S. more because I love him, but I am not up for a houseful of boxed dogs on activity schedules. Other people may really thrive on that level of organizatiopn.
Miko and Ruby require no management. And honestly that made us a tad lazy. Now with a third dog we have to manage things a bit more, at least through the integration period. It is turning out to be a blessing big time. Now my little monsters have to blow their steam off in the yard after walks before they come inside. So everyone is calm in the house and gets their silly zoomies out outside. So while it is additional management it has made home life more calm and pleasant.
Diverging from the original topic...... it sounds like somewhere in the process your pooch was reinforced for a lick and so there is a bit of confusion on his part what the criteria is. I would hold out for a more sold nose bump and not click or reward for licks. This takes time and one has to be really patient but eventually your dog will offer it and you should mark it. Be careful to coordinate it so that you are not marking too late or too early.
There is a limit to the books, they can help with the foundation theory and ideas for particular situations, however plain hands on to help with core learning is really important with a qualified training mentor via use o of the clicker tool.
When starting out with a new method or general training there are multiple hurdles for humans to overcome. What appears most difficult for people: the observation and interpretation of actions (their own and that of dog), control of movement (human) actions and timing, self awareness of their current place in terms of the relationship with the dog, and finally conveying or communicating with the dog what is wanted. Each is a separate phase or process that has to be broken down in teaching and that is before we get to the issue of the dog and its own general behavior or personality. Most often none of those skills on the human side are there at first and so it takes a really good trainer to get one or two out of the three or four to help owners to build a foundation.
Snf
Toby hates it. And watching his reaction, I can see how much of his behavior is based on fear/avoidance of new things. His reaction to the clicker is to back away from it and avoid looking at it, just like he does when he is initially avoiding a dog he doesn't like. It's interesting, because his behavior is how he "reacts" to other dogs before it hits his threshold point...I'm going to have to mull over how to work on this with him. I can try the muffling of the clicker, or I could try a different sound, but I think I'm also simply seeing his caution. He doesn't know what I want, and when his offered behavior (sitting) doesn't work, he becomes nervous and wants to retreat. I've been living with his reactivity for years, of course, but I don't think I saw his cautiousness as clearly before. Guess I'll reread "The Cautious Canine"!
And I think I'll look for a clicker class, too, so I can learn how to handle this better. Bel's so scared of other dogs and new people, though, that I don't think she's a good candidate for a class (she's just shut down), and Toby's very reactive, so it might be something I have to wait to do until there is another dog.
Not all dogs will happily accept the sound of a clicker. To some it is like nails to a chalk board. You could alternatively use a word marker such as "yes" in place of the click.
As far as trainers maybe having someone come to the house for an hr or possibly you could schedule a private session at a center outside of instructor class time for an individual session with no other dogs around.
With shy dogs you have to be flexible and patient..... there is usually more than one way to approach confidence building.
If you choose to have a consult I would seek someone from the trulydogfriendly.com site who is kind enough to really consider your dogs and their threshold level.
Snf
And while I was doing it with him in the sunroom, Bel raced over to the sunroom door and watched us through the glass....it was clear she DOES have a positive association with the clicker already!
Good luck
Snf