Distractions and proofing

corvus

Well, it doesn't really matter because I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about what I've done with my two current dogs. I think what you are suggesting I might do is utterly ridiculous and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is why I thought we were in agreement. It's pretty freaking obvious you wouldn't do the above, isn't it? It doesn't even warrant a serious answer.

If we are only able to converse about your two dogs, that would make the conversation pretty redundant seeing as no-one else has met them, wouldn't it? I'm not suggesting you might do anything, I wouldn't have a clue what you would do in the situations I outlined. I am asking you if there are situations where you think gradually introducing distractions is useful.

I'm differentiating between distracting environments and distracting situations. One is highly controllable and one is highly uncontrollable. Like I said, we don't really have distracting environments. There's the house/yard, then there's the rest of the world. Distracting situations are generally not a training opporunity. I can't exactly go and find somewhere teeming with cats to train my dogs. It would be helpful if you read my other posts on this topic more thoroughly. Maybe then you would be clearer on what I would do seeing as I've already covered it with a real life example.

Assuming your example of giving a reward for the least rewarding scenario is what you are referring to, I am asking what you would do if your dog was too highly aroused to engage with you when the distraction is right there.

huski

Of course whether or not your dogs work well in distracting environments come down to how they have been trained. But what would you do with a dog who hasn't been trained around distractions, and finds places like the park or the beach or being 100 metres from another dog highly distracting? Would you persevere trying to teach them a new behaviour when they were unable to focus and were frustrated and stressed or would you take a few steps back and start in an environment that is less distracting, one where you could get their focus? What about a dog who is dog aggressive and has a low threshold for other dogs - would you start by asking them to focus on you when another dog was a meter away from them and your dog was lunging, growling, doing everything in it's power to rip the other dog to pieces?

This is a strange set of questions, IMO.   Seems like you are looking for something to argue about.  No one with any training knowledge would do what you are saying above. 

JackieG

 

This is a strange set of questions, IMO.   Seems like you are looking for something to argue about.  No one with any training knowledge would do what you are saying above. 

Not looking for an argument. Corvus and I had a discussion on this very subject just recently and I mentioned that I like the training rule of time before distance before distraction... Corvus said it's not something she observes when training her dogs. So I was curious if there are situations where she would observe the 'rule' or if she'd manage it differently. Personally, there are instances where I like to gradually introduce my dogs to distractions such as when I've been training my DA dog - not running before we can walk and all that :)

huski

Personally, there are instances where I like to gradually introduce my dogs to distractions such as when I've been training my DA dog - not running before we can walk and all that :)

That seems obvious to me.

huski, I focus on the motivator and not the distractions.  If I find myself in a situation where the dog is distracted, I go back to square one examining the motivator, not taking a few steps back to a less distracting environment, if that makes sense.  I'm more interested in knowing how the dog responds to the motivation and reward than how the dog responds to the environment.  I have a dog aggressive dog and take him to the dog beach and let him fetch off lead, but that is a function of how he responds to my motivational toy, not because we have gone there 20 times and proofed the concept of being at the dog beach.

huski

If we are only able to converse about your two dogs, that would make the conversation pretty redundant seeing as no-one else has met them, wouldn't it? I'm not suggesting you might do anything, I wouldn't have a clue what you would do in the situations I outlined. I am asking you if there are situations where you think gradually introducing distractions is useful.

Huski, I think you really are missing the point, here. Firstly, talking about what I've done with my two dogs is hardly redundant just because no one else has met them. The principles may apply to any number of other dogs I don't know. Secondly, I can't gradually introduce distractions if there's no gradation of distractions to choose from, can I? That's my situation right now. If you want me to say that if I had a dog that did experience a gradation of distractions are there situations where I would gradually introduce them, the answer is yes, obviously. Anyone would. But it's beside the point, because I haven't had that situation yet, and the reason why I haven't is the whole point of the thread.

huski

Assuming your example of giving a reward for the least rewarding scenario is what you are referring to, I am asking what you would do if your dog was too highly aroused to engage with you when the distraction is right there.

From earlier in the thread seeing as you apparently haven't read it:

Today we were at the beach with a bunch of other Vallhunds and Erik was definitely too distracted to try anything harder than a sit or a down. Kivi was all right, but I was just rewarding Erik for checking in.

Liesje

huski, I focus on the motivator and not the distractions.  If I find myself in a situation where the dog is distracted, I go back to square one examining the motivator, not taking a few steps back to a less distracting environment, if that makes sense.  I'm more interested in knowing how the dog responds to the motivation and reward than how the dog responds to the environment.  I have a dog aggressive dog and take him to the dog beach and let him fetch off lead, but that is a function of how he responds to my motivational toy, not because we have gone there 20 times and proofed the concept of being at the dog beach.

I don't think it's really about proofing - when training my DA dog it was about working with his threshold to other dogs. Motivators are all well and good, but if the dog has a long history of aggression towards other dogs, you wouldn't throw them in the deep end and ask them to walk past another dog when you know that aggressing towards another dog is worth more to them than the reward, or in that instance they will be way too stressed to take food or engage in a tug game. I worked with my dog's threshold to other dogs by training him a distance from other dogs where I knew I could still engage with him and get him working well, then slowly decreased that distance until I was able to have him a couple of metres from another dog and have him totally focused on me (and the reward I was offering). I taught him to look to me instead of the other dog and that he had options other than aggressing. I couldn't have done that by immediately placing him next to another dog and expecting that my reward would be enough to overcome a long history of learning other dogs are terrifying and the only way to control the situation was to aggress at them.

Perhaps that was wrong by your definition but it worked well for us :)

huski

you wouldn't throw them in the deep end and ask them to walk past another dog when you know that aggressing towards another dog is worth more to them than the reward, or in that instance they will be way too stressed to take food or engage in a tug game.

The bolded parts illustrate exactly what I'm saying.  In both of those scenarios, my response would be to go back home and work on increasing the drive or finding a new reward.  If aggressing is more valuable, then the motivator/reward is not good enough for me.  If the motivator/reward does not relieve stress, again it's not good enough for me.  I hear a lot "Oh my dog has really high drive!  He loves his toys!" and then the dog shows up at the club and won't touch the tug or interact with the handler.  It's not enough unless that motivator/reward carries the dog through stress and through frustration.  For me it's not really about desensitizing a dog to an environment or stimulus but basically transcending that using the dog's drives.  Then I have the advantage of always being able to control and recall my dog by virtue of the fact that he would jump over a pack of intact male dogs or crash through plate glass just to get to the toy.

As far as the aggression, my take is that my dog is dog aggressive and that won't change.  He's not really reactive, meaning he's not growling, lunging, or barking at other dogs.  But he is a dominant male and doesn't appreciate any dogs other than my own in his personal space.  Where a non-aggressive dog would give a warning nip, flash of teeth, or simply turn away from a pestering dog, my dog would probably hurt the pestering dog.  The temperament is what it is.  Since I don't have to deal with reactivity, it would really be a waste of my time dealing with "threshold" since I'd be working against the dog's temperament, which is the reason I chose to buy this dog to being with.  I could probably squash the dominance and impatience with other dogs but not without this carrying over to other aspects of his work.

Liesje

The bolded parts illustrate exactly what I'm saying.  In both of those scenarios, my response would be to go back home and work on increasing the drive or finding a new reward.  If aggressing is more valuable, then the motivator/reward is not good enough for me.  If the motivator/reward does not relieve stress, again it's not good enough for me.  I hear a lot "Oh my dog has really high drive!  He loves his toys!" and then the dog shows up at the club and won't touch the tug or interact with the handler.  It's not enough unless that motivator/reward carries the dog through stress and through frustration.  For me it's not really about desensitizing a dog to an environment or stimulus but basically transcending that using the dog's drives.  Then I have the advantage of always being able to control and recall my dog by virtue of the fact that he would jump over a pack of intact male dogs or crash through plate glass just to get to the toy.

And if you have a dog who isn't particularly high drive? I've met dogs like live stock guardians who have practically nothing in terms of food, prey or even pack drive because that's how they've been bred.

I know with my dog, aggression became a habit, a response to a stimuli, when he is aggressing towards other dogs he is in drive, just a negative one. It wasn't just about teaching him that what I have is 1000 better than aggressing at the dog that's over there but that he has other options than aggression when he is feeling threatened by other dogs. The further away he was from other dogs, the easier it was to get him working nicely and it gave me an opportunity to teach him that he had options other than aggression. Even if, in the beginning, I shoved another dog in his face and got him working in drive it wouldn't have worked the same way - why, because when he's working in a positive drive (like prey or food) he, like my youngest dog, is switched off to everything else around him. If you have the dog working in drive they don't notice the dog standing next to them. I wanted to be able to walk him past another dog without having to put him in drive. To do that, I had to teach him how to act when other dogs walked by without him being in drive.

I know dogs who can be fear aggressive and are very uncomfortable if another dog approaches them, but when working in drive can heel right past another dog without even noticing them - it doesn't change the fact they have trouble with other dogs if they aren't in drive... not sure if I am making sense??  LOL :)

As far as the aggression, my take is that my dog is dog aggressive and that won't change.  He's not really reactive, meaning he's not growling, lunging, or barking at other dogs.  But he is a dominant male and doesn't appreciate any dogs other than my own in his personal space.  Where a non-aggressive dog would give a warning nip, flash of teeth, or simply turn away from a pestering dog, my dog would probably hurt the pestering dog.  The temperament is what it is.  Since I don't have to deal with reactivity, it would really be a waste of my time dealing with "threshold" since I'd be working against the dog's temperament, which is the reason I chose to buy this dog to being with.  I could probably squash the dominance and impatience with other dogs but not without this carrying over to other aspects of his work.

My dog isn't aggressive because that's his temperament or that's how he was born/bred. He is fear aggressive because he was attacked as a young dog on several occasions. If he gets in a scruff with a strange dog he will urinate all over himself in fear, and he would be reactive to other dogs he saw even at a distance if they were big, excitable or intimidating. If he knows the dog he is wonderful. I'm not saying that all aggressive dogs should be trained with the same method I used but it worked for us and many other fear aggressive dogs I know who have been trained the same way :)

huski

And if you have a dog who isn't particularly high drive?

Management, I suppose.  To be honest I can't imagine owning such a dog, but I don't believe all methods work for all dogs so this type of dog probably needs a different method than Corvus and I are using.

huski

Even if, in the beginning, I shoved another dog in his face and got him working in drive it wouldn't have worked the same way - why, because when he's working in a positive drive (like prey or food) he, like my youngest dog, is switched off to everything else around him. If you have the dog working in drive they don't notice the dog standing next to them. I wanted to be able to walk him past another dog without having to put him in drive. To do that, I had to teach him how to act when other dogs walked by without him being in drive.

Makes sense.  So far for us, the result has been doing the initial work with the right reward has yielded the result of the dog being able to work without drive or just be there (not working) without reacting to the other dogs.  Part of that is probably because my dog isn't reactive aggressive or fear aggressive.  He was insanely reactive when he was younger but that has faded, either because of training or maturity, or both, I'm not really sure.  Last night we did group long downs, talk about blah training without using drive, lol.  The dogs just lay there.  Also we carpool to training so my friend's dog who is also an intact male rides in our van and our dogs lick each other through the crates (wire crates that are touching).  But to me, aggression is a temperament trait (see other thread somewhere in this forum), not just a label slapped on how a dog reacts to something.  My friend and I both have dogs that bring real aggression into their protection work, and my dog is dog-aggressive, yet we don't have trouble with them riding side by side, walking together, doing long downs a few feet from each other, etc and don't need the dogs to be in drive or lured by the reward in these scenarios. 

huski

My dog isn't aggressive because that's his temperament or that's how he was born/bred. He is fear aggressive because he was attacked as a young dog on several occasions. If he gets in a scruff with a strange dog he will urinate all over himself in fear, and he would be reactive to other dogs he saw even at a distance if they were big, excitable or intimidating. If he knows the dog he is wonderful. I'm not saying that all aggressive dogs should be trained with the same method I used but it worked for us and many other fear aggressive dogs I know who have been trained the same way :)

I think it just proves my point in the other thread, that everyone has their own definition of aggression and how to deal with or "treat" it.  To me a dog that becomes fear aggressive is a totally different concept than a dog that has an aggressive temperament.  In our case, the dog behaves exactly how I expected (and want) and it's not something I need to change, it's not a hindrance for us in training or just being able to do normal "dog" things like go to the pet store or dog beach.

I really don't know what your point is, Huski. Yeah, thresholds and distance are useful in handling fearful dogs. We all know that and it's beside the point. My dogs aren't fearful and I don't have to ever think "Where should I try this behaviour next?" because it simply won't matter. What will matter is whether they know the behaviour well enough to try it anywhere new. They have both been training in the dog park around off leash dogs since they were 12 weeks old, they are both confident dogs that have been extensively socialised and they are equally at ease at a busy dog park as they are at home. I love that. It makes life very easy. What's more, one of them is a low drive dog and one is a high drive dog, but it doesn't matter at all, either. Just doesn't enter into the considerations. There is a slight difference in how I handle them, but it's down to the rewards. Tug is a rewarding behaviour for Erik and marker training is a rewarding behaviour for Kivi.

corvus

I was just noting that some people seemed to think I was insane for doing what I'd done and seeing if anyone else thought it was silly. 

The way you worded what you do here is quite different to the way you've worded in other discussions. That's why I imagine the responses you've had here are different to the ones you've had elsewhere. Not one person gave 'gasps of shock' or accused you of setting your dogs up to fail because you proof things in environments like the park. That's not even remotely reflective of the conversation that was had or what you actually said.

You were the the one who disagreed with those of us who like to train new behaviours in lower levels of distraction first, rather than in an environment the dog finds highly distracting. I don't like to train my dogs in an environment where I know there is a high chance of failure, pretty simple :)

ETA: You were the one who said you don't consider distances/thresholds when training dogs, I was simply trying to understand if there are instances where you would consider them useful.

huski

That's not even remotely reflective of the conversation that was had or what you actually said.

What is your problem? Go ahead and start a topic on it somewhere else if you want to argue about what I have said on other forums. If you think I'm dishonestly representing myself, here's the thread in question for others: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=188929

I don't like to train my dogs in an environment where I know there is a high chance of failure, pretty simple :)

Yeah, I know. I pay attention to what people say. You've already said that several times and I haven't once disagreed with you. It's so boring this is the last time I'm going to acknowledge it.

I can only assume you still don't quite understand the point I have been making over and over, which is that practising something somewhere like the dog park with my dogs does not set them up for even a high chance of failure. Pretty simple.

corvus

 

huski

That's not even remotely reflective of the conversation that was had or what you actually said.

What is your problem? Go ahead and start a topic on it somewhere else if you want to argue about what I have said on other forums. If you think I'm dishonestly representing myself, here's the thread in question for others: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=188929

You were the one who first bought up what others apparently said about you and your methods.

I can only assume you still don't quite understand the point I have been making over and over, which is that practising something somewhere like the dog park with my dogs does not set them up for even a high chance of failure. Pretty simple.

It might be alright by your standards to have your dogs ignore or fail to comply with a command you give, if you can then ask them to do something super simple instead. To me, if my dogs fail to comply with a command I give I don't really care if they can give me something simple instead. That's beside the point. I can get my dog to sit and look at me anywhere, but if I've asked for a nice formal heel round or a stand for exam and she isn't able to do it, that she can then sit and look at me would still be, IMO, failure.

The dog park may not be a highly distracting place for your dogs, but as I said earlier in this thread, it can be for many others. I trained my dog to work in drive before I took her out to somewhere that was relatively distracting for her, like the park. Doing the training before that made it pretty easy to 'proof' her around distractions, for the reasons Liesje outlined earlier.  Once I had the basic foundation there the rest was easy.

huski

It might be alright by your standards to have your dogs ignore or fail to comply with a command you give, if you can then ask them to do something super simple instead. To me, if my dogs fail to comply with a command I give I don't really care if they can give me something simple instead. That's beside the point. I can get my dog to sit and look at me anywhere, but if I've asked for a nice formal heel round or a stand for exam and she isn't able to do it, that she can then sit and look at me would still be, IMO, failure.

Oh, I see. You think I routinely ask my dogs to do things they can't and then just ask them to do something less instead? That's damage control, not regular practice. More important than whether they get the behaviour right is that they are interested in working at all. I keep my reward rates high. If I've accidentally set us up for a lower reward rate than I want, I have to find a way to get it higher precisely so there is no sense of failure in my dog. Working with me is always rewarding, even if you get confused. The reason why this doesn't matter is because I don't routinely go into damage control and have to find ways to raise my reward rate. For every time I've asked for something simpler so I can reward something at all, the right behaviour gets practiced and rewarded dozens of times. We're talking about a net effect. Maybe you need a more detailed explanation:

Erik is currently learning to walk backwards around my leg and Kivi is learning to hip target. Kivi hip targets in the dog park, at the beach, down at the river, wherever I ask him and has been since the second training session on this behaviour, and it's not perfected yet. We just work for a half a minute here and there on where he's up to with it. He has never failed to perform this as well as he can at home. Erik's behaviour is harder and I had to reteach it almost from scratch outside the house. First time I asked for it he didn't know what he should do and rolled over instead. I asked for him to get into the heel position and he did, reward, do a few paces of heeling, reward, inside pivot, reward, sit, reward and then release. Practice the circle at home for another session or two. Then back at the dog park, start luring him backwards, reward, reward, reward, release. Ten minutes later, call him back to the heel position, reward, start luring backwards, reward, reward, reward, reward. Back to heel position, start to lure and Erik suddenly realises what we're doing and scoots around as good as he can at home. Much praise and food. He does it another two times just because he's so excited he gets it. More effusive praise. Another couple of sessions at home. We're out at the river and I start luring and he perfoms beautifully, so we do it again and I add a visual cue. Ask again with a more refined cue. Practice one more time and release. So it's more like we continue previous training sessions outside the house. I add things, shape things some more, refine things, whatever it is I'm working on is just as likely to come up out in the park than at home. It just depends on where the dog is up to, really. If it's particularly distracting, like there are three Vallhunds oozing confidence that want to play with Erik constantly and he's intimidated, obviously I don't act as if that's not happening. I stick to massively easy things that he's not going to have any trouble with at all. If I have a really exciting toy with me, we do some really short tug sessions and just practice engaging when asked and dismissing before he gets distracted again.

The dog park may not be a highly distracting place for your dogs, but as I said earlier in this thread, it can be for many others. I trained my dog to work in drive before I took her out to somewhere that was relatively distracting for her, like the park. Doing the training before that made it pretty easy to 'proof' her around distractions, for the reasons Liesje outlined earlier.  Once I had the basic foundation there the rest was easy.

How many times do I have to say I agree with you before you will realise it? How many ways can I say "Yeah, but it doesn't matter because I'm talking about the reason why dog parks aren't distracting to my dogs, not whether they are distracting to other dogs or not."? Good on you for training your dog in drive before taking her out, Huski. I did much the same thing, only I rendered the distracting places non-distracting before asking my dogs to do things there. I did much the same thing, just in a different order.