training methods and aggression

[KP]

Just a question...

At one point in my experience of training a dog out of aggression I came acrossed a purely positive trainer that said/(boasted) they were able to train "true aggression" cases out of their aggression using solely purely positive methods...This interests me....

Just wondering other people's opinion on this....

[Horsefeathers!]

I'll be really interested in this, too. In dealing with one of my own recently, we tried purely positive and it resulted in someone getting bitten. Putting the smackdown (figuratively speaking) on him, however, worked wonderfully. Keep in mind, I am talking about handling aggression and not any kind of obedience ("Sit, or I'll whack ya!!").

(Disclaimer) I'm no professional, but I do believe that nothing is perfect for every dog and while some may do well with purely positive, I believe that cause/effect, action/consequences have their place in dealing with aggression. With mine, it took severe consequences of his lashing out to reassert his position within our home. Severe meaning he was swiftly "apprehended" by sweeping his feet out from under him and pinning him down on his back. No beating, smacking or any of that. I realize that this may be a stupid thing to do with a severely aggressive dog, or with a really dominant breed, but it worked for our Standard Poodle. He has only been here four months and came from a rescue. I reckon he'd decided it was time to crown himself king of this castle.

To be honest, I was really uncomfortable with having to put the smackdown on him (again, figuratively), so I am really interested in seeing how others deal with aggression using purely positive methods. Mine had to be "punished" to get it.

[KP]

There is a large difference between dominance and true aggression although they can coincide and many dogs can have both...I strongly feel that purely positive training would NOT have the ability to truely overcome either of these problems reguardless of what is being displayed on either subject. I'm sorry but I just don't believe it.

I agree, I feel that dogs especially certain breeds have to know right from wrong and dogs with these problems sometimes need a firmer side in training than purely positive can offer.

Then again it is amazing what some people have a gift or talent for in some cases what others cannot achieve reguardless of the training...but I'd be interested in seeing this in person...

[DogPaddle]

I like the idea of purely positive training but I just don't think it works with all dogs in all cases. HF, I think you did right, try the purely positive first and if it doesn't work, move on from there with caution. If anyone can do it all with purely positive then awsome, I'd like to see it too.

[Black GSD]

Horsefeathers! napisał(a):

Severe meaning he was swiftly "apprehended" by sweeping his feet out from under him and pinning him down on his back. I realize that this may be a stupid thing to do with a severely aggressive dog, or with a really dominant breed,

That is the thing. If you were to do this with a dog that is TRUELY dominant. You WILL get bitten. (Afterall you HAVE to let them up eventually.) It is one thing if the dog is just being a "butt head" and another thing all together if it as a very hard, dominant dog.

There are dogs that you CANNOT get physical with or they WILL bite you.
Doesn't mean that they are a "bad" dog. Just that they have their own idea of what is and is not "acceptable" behaviour. And to them, a person getting physical (whether that is jerking the heck out of the choke or pinch collar, or physically trying to get them to do something, like the old "pull UP on the collar and puch DOWN on their rear" to get them to sit.) is NOT something that they accept. But this same dog may very well be a GREAT dog as long as positive methods are used. Once this dog is taught with positive methods, a QUICK correction on the collar (when they "refuse" a command) can be given and they will "get the picture".

I don't necessarily agree that you can "train them out of aggression".
You can train the dog using positive methods. But if anyone ever resorts back to the "old methods" the aggression will come back.

[KP]

Black GSD napisał(a):

Horsefeathers! napisał(a):

Severe meaning he was swiftly "apprehended" by sweeping his feet out from under him and pinning him down on his back. I realize that this may be a stupid thing to do with a severely aggressive dog, or with a really dominant breed,

That is the thing. If you were to do this with a dog that is TRUELY dominant. You WILL get bitten.

I completely agree with this... I can't count how many times I have heard of a trainer or a person getting bitten attempting this. To me this technique is like driving down the road blind folded. You can't forsee the outcome. You are taking a large bargain using this on any dog willing to challenge you. For that reason I rarely ever attempt alpha rolling dogs. Especially aggression or strong dominance cases just because you take a super huge chance on getting your face and/or extremities bitten to shreds but thats just my humble opinion.... :P :D

I believe that each dog is different in how they can be trained. I don't believe that every dog can be trained by purely positive anymore than I would believe that every dog should wear a pinch collar and don't even get me started on choke collars...

I would agree that aggressive dogs can possibly be trained in purely positive obedience but I just can't buy the "purely positive can train out of aggression" theory.

[Horsefeathers!]

So that's an alpha roll, huh?
I never even thought about it... :-? At the time, it was the only way to get Pauly under control. Hubby had to virtually lay on top of him until he gave up the lunging and growling.

I'm glad it worked on ours. There's no way I would attempt it on something like an Akita or Chow (though I am admittedly somewhat afraid of these breeds). My dog was simply being a butthead, for sure. Trying to win him over with treats/praise/diversion resulted in my husband getting bitten. Putting the smackdown on the dog (figuratively) made him "see the light."

Then again, we were kind of winging it... :oops:

One reason I don't seek out a trainer in our area is because the ones I've found believe in the ol' choke 'em, yank 'em, smack 'em around, knock 'em down, show 'em who's boss methods of training and I just don't want to do that to a dog who is simply butting heads, but not a real threat (I believe). Flipping him over and diving on top of him was a last resort and, to be honest, was only because my husband didn't want to give him the chance to bite him again. By the time he got off him, he had a leash securely around his neck enough to be able to hold him at a distance if need be, but by then Pauly was virtually saying, "Yes, sir!"

I'm STILL interested in seeing someone come forward with a purely positive method of handling aggressive or somewhat dominant dogs. I prefer to use as humane and positive methods as possible. I've never, ever used any negative training with obedience... it's always positive. There is no punishment for not getting it right; no manhandling, no yanking, no pulling, none of that. However, when trying to bite, it's a whole 'nuther game.

[KP]

Horsefeathers! napisał(a):

I'm STILL interested in seeing someone come forward with a purely positive method of handling aggressive or somewhat dominant dogs. I prefer to use as humane and positive methods as possible. I've never, ever used any negative training with obedience... it's always positive. There is no punishment for not getting it right; no manhandling, no yanking, no pulling, none of that. However, when trying to bite, it's a whole 'nuther game.

ME TOO :) and I agree. A lot of people would have the opinion that because I use a pinch collar I manhandle or bully my dogs and its just not that at all! It replicates how a dog corrects another dog or a mother dog to her pup...with a correction to the neck, a bite or pinch on the neck...doesn't mean it has to be hard. Just enough to say "hey, cut it out or listen and stop day dreaming"

I also only use it when necissary. One of my dogs had to be trained out of aggression (against people and dogs) and has to be reminded where her place is on a dominance level here and there. (I've also found with her that grabbing her scruff and gettin' real with her tends to be more effective than a pinch correction with her)...so I also agree that you have to go with what works.

When she challenged me in aggression the pinch collar correction would make it worse with her....(other dogs don't necissarily work the same way.) With her I've had to grab her. Many times with both hands and give her a vicious verbal correction. How I do it gets through to her pretty well.

Here's the kicker...when we are training she does really well on the pinch collar though...Doesn't mind it a single bit. I don't get a bit of lip and never have when training. Funny when she challenges me, she won't go for it and actually made the aggression worse but its ok in training?? If my dog wasn't happy about it she would let me know. It wouldn't matter when it is. She likes the defined teaching. So I know I'm a good mom and not a barbarian people tend to assume. She actually seems happier once I introduced it. It clearly defines right from wrong in a way which she understands.

I use the collar to proof both of my dogs.... To correct what they already know very well, yet do not do because they are testing me. I love my dogs to death, but with that...I expect a lot from them and I in turn invest a lot of time and work into them. They are rediculously happy so I'm content with how I do things.

I have to say it does burn me when people assume that because some people use a pinch collar that they abuse or mistreat their dogs or any opinion pointing in that direction. Granted there are those people that do but that doesn't make me one of them...no more than all pitbulls are killers...That is a completely ignorant opinion...in my opinion. Those opinions always seem to come from people who know absolutely nothing about pinch training. Yes the prong collar can be abused and misused, of course it can! But so can purely positive training. I've seen some pretty screwed up dogs using purely positive training...

I think there are also a lot of variants in what people tend to believe as purely positive as well. I've known people who believe purely positive is completely ignoring the bad and praising and rewarding the good. (which I think is utterly rediculous and confusing) Others believe that its just using verbal corrections and praising and rewarding the bad.... some use clickers, some don't....

Also, Alpha Roll although its not the safest method does work for some dogs with a degree of dominance. I think you should be comfortable to a point or at least in a position where you know the dog well enough to know what to expect with the dog before you try it though. You should be have enough confidence that you can win or end the fight if one breaks out. You should have an idea of the degree of dominance and age, size and strength of the dog should all be factors well. Always be aware there is a possiblity that you will get bit using this.

A dog should never be dominated without thoroughly consdering the end result.

[courtnek]

So that's an alpha roll, huh?

absolutely! in this case, may I define this for the others HF?

Pauly is like 8 months old. He is not a hardcore dominance issue, I believe he was just "testing the waters". In a pack, a "young whipper-snapper" would be alpha rolled exactly the same way, the Alpha saying "try it again and see what happens..." because he would know this is a pup entering adulthood, and not a truly dominant aggressive adult. He would be treated like a teenager who had overstepped his boundaries. Had it been an adult
wolf, the punishment might range from the alpha roll to an all-out fight.
The Pack lead can usually determine, by eye contact, stance and tail,
how the other wolf will respond. If he doesnt think at that point that the alpha roll will work, he will show teeth, snarl, hackles up, and keep continual eye contact with the offender. If that doesnt back him down, he will attack and bite. Although VERY rare, there have been instances of a pack lead killing a pack member who wouldnt back down. Normally, it never gets that far. There is a fight, one or the other wins, and the one
who lost loses everything. In these cases, the dog that wouldnt accept the
authority of the alpha loses all rank, and is demoted, literally, to the bottom of the pile. he becomes Omega. Outcast, ostracized. That's why in most cases it doesnt happen. Unless the alpha is old and weak, most challengers will give it up when they realize they cant win.

But HF a valid point was made. In a TRULY dominant dog, one who believes he is now Alpha, and isnt just testing, the Alpha rolll is a dangerous move, and has gotten people bitten more than once. We dont have their teeth and their speed, and a dog can bite five times faster than you can move your hand. In a dog like that, a lead is your best bet.

Can dominance/aggression be trained out wiht only "positive" tactics?
Depends on what caused the aggression. A dog that is nasty because he
has been abused could very well be trained using only positive tactics.
He is now seeing the other side of the coin; when you take fear out of the equation the kindness works. With a dog that stole the alpha position and wont give it up? Probably not. There is a sterness necessary, and by no means do I mean hitting or smacking, but a level of sterness that the dog must understand means YOU ARE THE BOSS. If that means a continual lead, a muzzle or isolation ("complete" demotion, no interaction with
the family at all; Omega) than so be it. I have always demoted using pack rules, and never had an issue, but I dont put my arms and hands in harms way, either.

[Horsefeathers!]

[quote name='courtnek']
Pauly is like 8 months old.

Actually, Pauly is 4 years old, having only been with us for 4 months. I don't know if it matters, but sorry if I said it wrong somewhere. :oops:

Also, I recently came across this (not so) little tidbit on another forum. Great. Now I discover I've ruined my dog's psyche :cry: !! Seriously, the more I'm reading and learning, the more overwhelmed I am. I've never had the problems I've had in the past year. My dogs have always excelled in obedience and we've never had any of our dogs buck up on us until recently. I'm just about ready to hand over their leashes and bowls to someone more fit!! :cry: :cry:

Anyway, here's the not-so-little something I was referring to. It deals with dominance issues and positive training and the like. I've always preferred to take a benevolent leader approach and it's always worked well... until recently (even though it wasn't me having problems with Pauly).
======================================


The History and Misconceptions of Dominance Theory

Note: The information in the following article came from an interview with Dr. Ian Dunbar, who spent nine years studying the social behavior of dogs during the study mentioned below. In an earlier version of this article, Dr. L. David Mech was credited with the 30-year study. This was a mistake. The researcher who conducted the study was Dr. Frank Beach. An effort has been made to correct this error. However, if you know of a place where the original article was published, please notify the editor and request a correction.

The original alpha/dominance model was born out of short-term studies of wolf packs done in the 1940s. These were the first studies of their kind. These studies were a good start, but later research has essentially disproved most of the findings. There were three major flaws in these studies:

These were short-term studies, so the researchers concentrated on the most obvious, overt parts of wolf life, such as hunting. The studies are therefore unrepresentative -- drawing conclusions about "wolf behavior" based on about 1% of wolf life.
The studies observed what are now known to be ritualistic displays and misinterpreted them. Unfortunately, this is where the bulk of the "dominance model" comes from, and though the information has been soundly disproved, it still thrives in the dog training mythos.

For example, alpha rolls. The early researchers saw this behavior and concluded that the higher-ranking wolf was forcibly rolling the subordinate to exert his dominance. Well, not exactly. This is actually an "appeasement ritual" instigated by the SUBORDINATE wolf. The subordinate offers his muzzle, and when the higher-ranking wolf "pins" it, the lower-ranking wolf voluntarily rolls and presents his belly. There is NO force. It is all entirely voluntary.

A wolf would flip another wolf against his will ONLY if he were planning to kill it. Can you imagine what a forced alpha roll does to the psyche of our dogs?
.
Finally, after the studies, the researchers made cavalier extrapolations from wolf-dog, dog-dog, and dog-human based on their "findings." Unfortunately, this nonsense still abounds.
So what's the truth? The truth is dogs aren't wolves. Honestly, when you take into account the number of generations past, saying "I want to learn how to interact with my dog so I'll learn from the wolves" makes about as much sense as saying, "I want to improve my parenting -- let's see how the chimps do it!"

Dr. Frank Beach performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. Nineteen years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.) Some of his findings:

Male dogs have a rigid hierarchy.
Female dogs have a hierarchy, but it's more variable.
When you mix the sexes, the rules get mixed up. Males try to follow their constitution, but the females have "amendments."
Young puppies have what's called "puppy license." Basically, that license to do most anything. Bitches are more tolerant of puppy license than males are.
The puppy license is revoked at approximately four months of age. At that time, the older middle-ranked dogs literally give the puppy hell -- psychologically torturing it until it offers all of the appropriate appeasement behaviors and takes its place at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The top-ranked dogs ignore the whole thing.
There is NO physical domination. Everything is accomplished through psychological harassment. It's all ritualistic.
A small minority of "alpha" dogs assumed their position by bullying and force. Those that did were quickly deposed. No one likes a dictator.
The vast majority of alpha dogs rule benevolently. They are confident in their position. They do not stoop to squabbling to prove their point. To do so would lower their status because...
Middle-ranked animals squabble. They are insecure in their positions and want to advance over other middle-ranked animals.
Low-ranked animals do not squabble. They know they would lose. They know their position, and they accept it.
"Alpha" does not mean physically dominant. It means "in control of resources." Many, many alpha dogs are too small or too physically frail to physically dominate. But they have earned the right to control the valued resources. An individual dog determines which resources he considers important. Thus an alpha dog may give up a prime sleeping place because he simply couldn't care less.
So what does this mean for the dog-human relationship?

Using physical force of any kind reduces your "rank." Only middle-ranked animals insecure in their place squabble.
To be "alpha," control the resources. I don't mean hokey stuff like not allowing dogs on beds or preceding them through doorways. I mean making resources contingent on behavior. Does the dog want to be fed. Great -- ask him to sit first. Does the dog want to go outside? Sit first. Dog want to greet people? Sit first. Want to play a game? Sit first. Or whatever. If you are proactive enough to control the things your dogs want, *you* are alpha by definition.
Train your dog. This is the dog-human equivalent of the "revoking of puppy license" phase in dog development. Children, women, elderly people, handicapped people -- all are capable of training a dog. Very few people are capable of physical domination.
Reward deferential behavior, rather than pushy behavior. I have two dogs. If one pushes in front of the other, the other gets the attention, the food, whatever the first dog wanted. The first dog to sit gets treated. Pulling on lead goes nowhere. Doors don't open until dogs are seated and I say they may go out. Reward pushy, and you get pushy.
Your job is to be a leader, not a boss, not a dictator. Leadership is a huge responsibility. Your job is to provide for all of your dog's needs... food, water, vet care, social needs, security, etc. If you fail to provide what your dog needs, your dog will try to satisfy those needs on his own.

In a recent article in the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) newsletter, Dr. Ray Coppinger -- a biology professor at Hampshire College, co-founder of the Livestock Guarding Dog Project, author of several books including Dogs : A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution; and an extremely well-respected member of the dog training community -- says in regards to the dominance model (and alpha rolling)...

"I cannot think of many learning situations where I want my learning dogs responding with fear and lack of motion. I never want my animals to be thinking social hierarchy. Once they do, they will be spending their time trying to figure out how to move up in the hierarchy."

That pretty much sums it up, don't you think?

Melissa Alexander

[courtnek]

yea it does..and while they might not want to admit it, it still fits in perfectly with pack rules...train the puppies, teach the pack who's boss...

it all comes down to "I RULE - DEAL WITH IT"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[KP]

I think thats a great article... Pretty much nothin I wouldn't agree with in it. Thanks for sharing....it does sum up a lot.

[imported_Cassie]

I trained my Dominant/aggressive Rottweiler with positive training ...she is now the sweetest dog which I can do any thing to. When I first adopted her at 1 year of age she was so dominant you could not even reach over her head with out her trying to attack, our first couple of walks where I let her loose in a ball field resulted in her stalking then attacking me, she ripped my leather jacket and tore the arm open. I was petrified of this dog and was in the process of giving her to a Rottweiler rescue...in the mean time, I enrolled in an obedience class...oh yeah, she is also dog aggressive...when I first stepped into the room and she started going beserk and aggressive my first action was to pin her to the floor until she calmed down which resulted in my getting attacked...the obedience trainer got upset and asked why would any one do some thing as stupid as pinning a dog down and trying to do an "Alpha roll"??? she worked with me, and we used the "nothing is free" policy...which basically is just any thing she gets she has to earn...go out the door, sit first then I will let you go out...I don't always walk out first, but, I make her do some thing before hand, she sleeps with me, but, she will jump out of bed if I ask her to, she has to sit before getting fed as well, I do this training with all 5 well, now 6 of my dogs, people are very impressed when I can feed all of my dogs in one room side by side, make them all sit first and then place down their dishes, no food aggresssion (of course they always start out with food aggression) and they will even share bones, my youngest Newf. which is now 2 years can come over to my Rottie and take a bone, they end up playing tug-o-war in a friendly manner, this shocked me at first..I never thought I would see the day my dominant Rottie would be sharing items :o ...when playing, she sits before play starts, then I trained her "off" and "take it" so when I am tired of playing I tell her "off" which means drop the ball and I will put it away. I also used "off" and "take it" when she tryed to put her mouth on my arm on day...I told her "off" she let go very quickly. It has been so long ago..about 4 years that I first took her in, but, she was a really hard case...I can't remember every thing we went through....but, once I started positive training and sutle leadership training she came along way from that horrible beast I first took in...she has been never been forced or thrown to the ground ever again after the first time I tryed it...she has been given wonderful belly rubs which puts her in a submissive position....she loves belly rubs so much now that she will fall down and roll on her back for every body in hopes they will pat her.
I completely trained her and guided her towards correct behavior with positive training...she is a lovely dog. I feel with the right person who has lots of patience, does not loose their cool....I have trained all of my dogs with positive only training...they are more apt to learn new things and like to learn...a dog which is forced to learn obedience or basic house rules becomes a dog which is afraid to learn new things, and frightened of doing the wrong thing. I reward the good, and bad behavior receives no reward or yelling or hitting....ignoring the dog is bad enough! :lol:
We bring these dogs into our homes to live...what we find to be normal behavior for humans is not normal doggy behavior...so instead of forcing our dogs to behave and follow our rules...show them the behavior you want....just think if you were stranded on a desert island and no one spoke a language you understood...every time you did some thing against their wishes they hit you or locked you in a hut....you would be getting more confused by the day...how can you automatically know their rules and laws? our dogs don't understand our rules and laws either.

[kendalyn]

HF, I don't think you need to worry so much. You haven't ruined your dog's psyche. The way you handled Pauly's aggression worked. That is really the main point. There is always more than one right way to do something and your approach was fine in my opinion. What your husband did was not cruel or abusive and it taught Pauly that you and he would not tolerate such behavior. Good job!

[KP]

kendalyn napisał(a):

HF, I don't think you need to worry so much. You haven't ruined your dog's psyche. The way you handled Pauly's aggression worked. That is really the main point. There is always more than one right way to do something and your approach was fine in my opinion. What your husband did was not cruel or abusive and it taught Pauly that you and he would not tolerate such behavior. Good job!

I completely agree. When you are challenged you have to do what you have to do...If you were challenging the dog it would be a different situation. THEN I could see where it would be a bad thing but if you let it go it will turn out worse. What you did worked. Don't second guess it. You did good.

[Horsefeathers!]

[quote name='Cassie']why would any one do some thing as stupid as pinning a dog down and trying to do an "Alpha roll"???

:oops:

[Horsefeathers!]

Seriously, I know it may not have been the "right" thing to do and heaven knows I'll probably never do (or rather suggest) it again. I've never led my dogs by force. I've always been more of the benvolent leader.

Fortunately, our situation has worked out well. Pauly and hubby are bonding and Pauly seems none the worse for wear. I swear, I probably would have slashed my own wrists if that dog had come out of this a nervous wreck, or had "shut down" and I'm so glad he didn't (whew, SO glad). No, he is back to his bouncy, fun self without the challenging and without the head butting. What's weird is that he no longer seems uncomfortable around my husband and happily bounces behind him, eagerly awaiting his "chore" (he's still in boot camp and earns every privilege or morsel of food). Wazzup wit' dat? Hubby putting smackdown (figuratively) = happy dog. Oh well... :-?