Management - how much is too much?

Kim_MacMillan

- using a kennel or leash to prevent food stealing and mugging from other dogs/people when not you are not able to teach, while teaching the dog to leave others alone (dogs and people) while eating during normal times.
- using a baby gate to separate two dogs while introducing them through the gate slowly, and to prevent unwanted encounters, and then eventually without the gate.

Kim_MacMillan

it has somehow become "the solution" for all things. But really, the dog doesn't end up getting help at all, and the same behaviours that are lacking in skill that you "manage" end up coming out in other ways, until we get reactive dogs because they just don't know how to cope with the world around them, because everything was "managed" or "prevented" rather than having some of those things addressed.

My brain is too groggy to offer a full response, but my immediate reaction is to quote a tag line from a trainer I know.

Something like "Restrained is not trained."

This is a great thread, Kim! I do permanently manage certain things. I confine the dogs when I'm not home. You just never know, and if there were an emergency, crates would be removed, but they likley wouldn't be hunted for. I also permanently attach a leash to them, when we're in areas of high (foot or motor) traffic. They're taught to walk beside me with or without it, and that saved Emma, once (when her collar just... broke and fell off, and she stayed right there). It's just there for a safety measure.

When it comes to management because of potential safety issues to humans and dogs (or other animals), I'm OK with using management as a crutch.  My personal examples include:

• No interaction between Kenya and kids younger than six.
• Coke is on a tie-out even though we have a fenced yard.
• All dogs are crated if we are gone longer than a few hours, if I don't have time to completely "proof" the house of odd items they could chew and choke on or get a blockage. 
• Nikon doesn't go to the dog park.
• Right now my cats live in the basement and there is no interaction between cats and dogs, they come out when the dogs are outside or in my room sleeping.
  

There are a few other management tools I use as a crutch which don't represent safety concerns but my personal priorities as far as how my dogs are trained.  For example, if DH wants to jog Nikon and Coke, they both wear a prong collar or some other no-pull tool.  The dogs pulling isn't really a safety issue, but the priority is exercise for DH and the dogs, so control is more important than actually training the dogs to run without pulling.  Even though I do some pretty strict obedience training for sport and performance, I'm more relaxed when it comes to just walking dogs or taking them on a run.  Also, when DH jogs Kenya she wears a 2" martingale collar.  They don't have the same relationship as her and I, and with him she would be more likely to spook and take off.  I can walk her on a flat collar or slip collar (without actually choking or correcting her) but with him I use a martingale for safety, but a thick one that is fit so the choke is limited and comfortable for her to pull into.

There are also common management techniques I don't use:

• I'll leave Coke and Kenya out together while we're gone if only for an hour or so.
• All three of my dogs are out together in the house or yard when we're home but not always closely supervised.
• I have toys all over the house and yard.
• I usually feed my dogs by spreading their kibble all over the house or yard so it slows them down and they use some energy hunting it, but they never fight over it.
• When Nikon was a puppy he was never on a leash outside unless we were going for a walk, and we didn't have a fence then. 
• My dog food bag sits on top of a crate with the top open, but the dogs never raid it and I didn't have to train them not to.
  

Interesting, thanks so far for everyone's input. I do agree there are situations that require more "permanent" management, especially when it comes to severe behavioural issues that may put somebody else (or the dog in question) at a known risk. I wouldn't question that, ever.

I'll share some of my own here as well that are permanent things:
- The dogs are all in the bedroom when I am not home. Shimmer, though, is the only one in the kennel, as she has experiences anxieties on occasion that cause her to chew inedible objects. The risks to her own health and safety are too high (she could go months without touching a thing, but then one day eat something - it's not predictable in any manner. The last thing she ate, two years ago, was a lamp with the glass bulb, requiring time at the evet) so she is kennelled when I am not home. But in general it's not so much for management for the other two as that I rest more comfortably knowing where they are in case anything happens.
- Gaci and Shimmer do not stop to "say hi" on walks. This is partly management, partly for training though. Generally when they are out and about in busy public spaces it is for training purposes.
- Gaci is always on a long line when we go on hikes. I would say on an everyday scale she is 85%-90% reliable on her recalls, but for me that's not enough to risk letting her run loose. She has far too much prey drive for her own safety. Zipper and Shimmer both have earned off-leash status in just about anywhere they are allowed.
- Walking each dog individually, they are pretty much always on a normal collar. But if I decide to walk the three together myself, I will sometimes use a head halter. They won't necessarily need it, but it does make me feel better to have control if the need ever arose (strange dog approaches, if there is potential for aggressive outburst, etc). But you'll generally only see them on when they travel together.

Those are some off the top of my head, so I realize we all have our things.

So, so far we can say that people tend to use more permanent management when it comes to things that involve potential serious risks to themselves, or others (human or dog). I am not sure anyone would disagree with this. I do also believe that there are some inherent personality traits that cannot be changed and you have to learn to deal with them to keep all involved safe (and I have at least one dog, possibly two, who fit this bill).

But what about behaviours that are not dangerous, but are either more annoying or just plain rude? 

 I'll be interested in hearing from some others on what they think. I think it could be a great discussion to get to the root of just how much management is appropriate, and how much management may border on excessive.

 I agree that management should be a temporary solution until training is installed, but you have to remember that we are pretty dog savvy on this forum, and interested in training our dogs.  Some people aren't all that in to it, and for them, management is a safety program that should remain in place if they are not willing or able to do the training.  Example - I have an elderly client who is not willing to try to train a polite leash walk because his dog is very large and he is afraid that he will be hurt if something goes wrong.  So, he walks the dog in a Gentle Leader.  The dog is happy, the owner is happy, and I don't necessarily stress over it, even though the optimal solution, to me, might have been to train the dog adequately.  Even had he trained, the dog would probably still have been walked in the GL for safety, so what's the diff really?

We have discussed management as a tool for dealing with aggressive conspecifics, too.  In cases where the owners have neither the expertise, or the money to pay a behaviorist, that works, too.

We can be as self righteous about training the dog as we want, but the general public just wants the problem solved, and most of the time, even when they say that they can follow a training regimen, they aren't really prepared for what that means sometimes.  So, I don't hold it against any of my clients if they want to "manage" - I'm all for keeping everyone safe.  Of course, if they want to train, I'm happier.

spiritdogs

We can be as self righteous about training the dog as we want, but the general public just wants the problem solved, and most of the time, even when they say that they can follow a training regimen, they aren't really prepared for what that means sometimes.

But are we really being self-righteous? That is a bit extreme IMO. I think we need to give "the general public" a little more benefit of the doubt. A lot of people on here are "general public" who happened to find an interesting forum. There are many not on here who found another forum. And many not on there who have found facebook. And many not in any of those places who just like dogs and watch shows and talk to other people.

I think the classification between "us" and "them" is only doing all dog owners a disservice, and unfortunately ends up doing the dogs a disservice if (and this is "if";) the management ends up creating other problems altogether, which is really the idea of this post. I'm not saying we can't recommend management, I think we all do it, and we all need to do it, and we will all have different definitions of what is appropriate for our own dogs. It is indeed a crucial part of living with dogs.

But my question is far more theoretical, almost philosophical, it's really to get people thinking rather than to set labels. Are we possibly doing disservice to our own dogs by the amount of management "sometimes" put in place or recommended? Is is possible that strict management procedures can cause other problems, if the underlying issue is not resolved, or affect a dog's quality of life negatively?

Say you have a dog with poor impulse control and chews inappropriate objects. So you kennel the dog while you eat supper (recommended as management). You kennel the dog while it eats its own supper (also recommended). You kennel it when you shower (as you can't watch it so it won't chew). You of course kennel the dog while you are away at work, to be safe. You kennel the dog at night because you don't want the dog in your bed and it is not trusted outside of the kennel. The dog it lives with also cannot be trusted to share toys together, or high-valued chewies, so they have to be kennelled with those as well. Each one, on its own, seems to be pretty benign. But when you add them up, that dog spends a heck of a lot of time in its kennel! Is that management at all fair? Or do you deal with the impulse control and teach appropriate chewing items, and teach the dog appropriate "places" to lay in,  so that the dog doesn't have to spend the majority of its life in a kennel? Its sounds dandy and a pretty normal routine for a lot of puppies, but what of a 5 year old dog? Does that life seem fair?

spiritdogs

Example - I have an elderly client who is not willing to try to train a polite leash walk because his dog is very large and he is afraid that he will be hurt if something goes wrong.  So, he walks the dog in a Gentle Leader.  The dog is happy, the owner is happy, and I don't necessarily stress over it, even though the optimal solution, to me, might have been to train the dog adequately.  Even had he trained, the dog would probably still have been walked in the GL for safety, so what's the diff really?

spiritdogs

- I'm all for keeping everyone safe. 

 I think everyone has agreed thus far that when it comes to safety, management is crucial. I'm now referring to all those things that are not necessarily about safety, but rather convenience on behalf of the owner, and nothing more.

This is a very interesting thread!  It has made me think quite a bit, as management became a bigger tool in my box once we added a second dog.

When we got Sammy, he was crated during the day, and we continued to bring Harry to work with us as we always did.  But the ultimate goal was to be able to leave them both home.  So we managed the situation at first, working up to the ideal.  Same went for breakfast & dinner.  Initially both dogs were fed separately (Sammy in the garage, Harry in the kitchen), and we worked to be able to feed them both in the kitchen together, without worrying about any guarding issues.  So I would say, we did use management as a tool to make the household safe for both dogs, while working towards our ultimate goals.

One example of me just using management only is taking Harry to the vet.  He gets very nervous in the waiting room, so we always come inside to check in for just a minute, then I tell the receptionist that we'll be waiting outside for them to come get us when they're ready.  To me, we go so infrequently that I don't care to spend a lot of time right now trying to fix the situation; I'd rather just manage it and spend my time working on other things that I think are more important.  I could certainly try and find time to take him there and desensitize him, but really, I don't place much value in that right now, since it's only the waiting room that stresses him.  Once he's in an exam room, he's very calm and just wants to greet the vet & techs.

Since every situation is different, I think the main things people should think about are:

1-What do I want my ultimate goal to be and is it realistic?
2-Am I seriously willing to put the time, effort, and money into working towards that goal?
3-Do I know how to work towards this goal, or am I open to bringing in outside professional help to achieve it?

I think you can see example situations in pretty much every episode of Its Me or the Dog.  The owners on that show often discuss with Stillwell what they have been doing with their dogs' issues (almost always just managing the situation), but she gives them the tools they need to work toward extinguishing the undesirable behavior in favor of reaching their ultimate goal.

Kim_MacMillan

 I think everyone has agreed thus far that when it comes to safety, management is crucial. I'm now referring to all those things that are not necessarily about safety, but rather convenience on behalf of the owner, and nothing more.

Here's an example of a management situation for a safety issue (the dog was hurting himself) that became a detriment to the dog and severe "inconvenience" to the owner until another choice of action was taken - actually training the dog with effective methods.

Friends of ours bought a dog to be a companion to another dog.  An unfortunate accident occurred in his pupphood that led to a major surgery on his hind leg, which led to a lot of crate rest and separation from the other dog in order to manage his recovery and healing.  This came as a detriment to his socialization because of the age when it occurred - somewhere around 6 mos old if my memory is correct. As the dog healed and grew up, it became clear that he and his companion did not want anything to do with eachother, so the family initiated a split household with kennel/out/play/living room rotation.  Meanwhile, his separation from the only other companions in his life - the humans - caused such severe distress that he would severely injure himself when they left him home alone.  His owners consulted with a well-known behaviorist for weeks who prescribed medications and eventually told them to "never leave him alone in the house" ever again because nothing else they tried was working.  They followed this advice, becoming prisoners to the home because of the dog - one would always have to stay home, even if just for a run to the grocery store. 

This type of environment caused unusual stress on the humans who thought they'd never be able to vacation or leave the home together for the next 10 years.  They were fortunate in that one member did not work, and actually COULD stay home during the day with the dogs, but it became overwhelming to feel trapped.  Recognizing the credentials of this behaviorist, they still chose to continue looking for answers and found a trainer who actually trained the dog and owners.  It changed everything.  The dog built confidence and resilience so that he was able to be left alone for the first time in a long time without destroying himself.  Not long after this training committment began with effective methods, they were able to leave him loose in the house without incidents of self-destruction or other unwanted behavior.

So, "management" of medications and "never leave him home alone" was a serious detriment to the dog and owners.

aerial1313

When we got Sammy, he was crated during the day, and we continued to bring Harry to work with us as we always did.  But the ultimate goal was to be able to leave them both home.  So we managed the situation at first, working up to the ideal.  Same went for breakfast & dinner.  Initially both dogs were fed separately (Sammy in the garage, Harry in the kitchen), and we worked to be able to feed them both in the kitchen together, without worrying about any guarding issues.  So I would say, we did use management as a tool to make the household safe for both dogs, while working towards our ultimate goals.

This is a great example of what I consider a good use of management - preventing unwanted behaviours while building up the desired behaviours. Allowing the dogs to be successful while controlling what goes on, and working at the dogs' pace, and not allowing them to rehearse things you don't want them to rehearse.

miranadobe

Recognizing the credentials of this behaviorist, they still chose to continue looking for answers and found a trainer who actually trained the dog and owners.  It changed everything.  The dog built confidence and resilience so that he was able to be left alone for the first time in a long time without destroying himself.  Not long after this training committment began with effective methods, they were able to leave him loose in the house without incidents of self-destruction or other unwanted behavior.

I don't necessarily think that JQP is more likely to use management or a tool or "crutch" than more experienced trainers.  Take Schutzhund for example, I know some really good trainers, helpers, and handlers that keep their dogs in kennels.  They never have had to train being in a crate, potty training, basic household manners and not tearing the house apart, and getting along with the other dogs.  Same thing with some conformation breeders and/or handlers.  The dogs are basically kenneled unless being shown or roadworked for conditioning before being shown.  The best show dog or the High in Trial Schutzhund dog might be a dog that comes into a house for the first time and shows aggression towards the other dogs, rips apart anything within reach, and jumps up on the counter.

My friend that runs our all-breed training club sometimes refers people with GSDs that have questions to me.  Some of the things they describe are stuff I have very little concern about with my own dogs.  I think there are plenty of JQP type pet owners that really are concerned for their pets.  Many of them end up with dogs better socialized and trained than some competition dogs out of the ring.

For me personally, training and working my dogs takes so much time and energy, not just from myself but from the dogs, that I do prioritize.  For example I really am not concerned with the concept of loose leash walking.  When I walk my dogs is just to get out and get some air, I don't really use walks for exercise or for training, so as long as I have control over my dogs I don't care what they are doing or if they are even pulling a bit.  If I'm walking all three I probably have a prong collar on Nikon.  He works very hard in training, when we're out and about he can just be a dog without me micro-managing every aspect of his life.

Kim_MacMillan

 I think everyone has agreed thus far that when it comes to safety, management is crucial. I'm now referring to all those things that are not necessarily about safety, but rather convenience on behalf of the owner, and nothing more.

Well, you certainly went off on me about what I said, even though I think we both agree on management being important for safety.  I certainly didn't mean to imply "us versus them".  You said that.  I merely said that some clients of mine prefer to manage, and that I don't think it's awful.  Sure, it may be only for convenience, but the fact still remains that there will always be people who are not interested in dogs on quite the same level as some of us are, despite the fact that they do love their dogs.  And, they certainly shouldn't be made to feel badly about that, especially if they ARE managing.  After all, there are always the people who don't even do that.

Liesje

I don't necessarily think that JQP is more likely to use management or a tool or "crutch" than more experienced trainers.  Take Schutzhund for example, I know some really good trainers, helpers, and handlers that keep their dogs in kennels. 

 I don't understand.  Do you think these SchH trainers/handlers/helpers keep their dogs in kennels as a management tool for house manners?  I think we're talking about management protocols in response to exibited problem behaviors - ie, if the dog had no manners, they'd move the dog to the kennel to keep him from trashing the house.  SchH trainers who start off with the dogs in kennels aren't using them as management tools for problem behavior in the house.  My understanding from the SchH trainers I worked with was they found they got better results from dogs who were deliberately kept out of the house (ie, in a kennel) and only taken out for work.  It's a pretty common practice with working dogs on that level to limit human interactions in order to maintain or rev up certain behaviors or drives in the dog, where the "willingness to work with the handler" is enhanced because the mere fact of being with the handler is a selective reward in itself.  I've heard them reco the same technique for dogs on less demanding levels for lack of performance in specific sports.  Therefore, I see that as a training protocol, not a management tool in the context being discussed here.  Perhaps I've misunderstood this example?

Kim_MacMillan

 I think everyone has agreed thus far that when it comes to safety, management is crucial. I'm now referring to all those things that are not necessarily about safety, but rather convenience on behalf of the owner, and nothing more

Here's an example of me being lazy and managing a situation versus fixing it.  In DH's office the garbage can is up on the file cabinet.  Bugsy loves paper in an unnatural way and an office bin is always full of paper. He doesn't go in any other bin and he only goes in this one when the mood strikes ie he is bored and I/we are busy (I work at home). We worked on it for a while and he got better but even if we went months without him going in it eventually he'd be back in it again. So we put it back up and there it stays.

It just doesn't feel like a big deal and it saves us from the mischief (well this example of mischief LOL)

Bugsy is almost always on a long line when swimming, hiking, doing field work.  When he gets a scent he is unreliable, in fact darn near un-contactable. We've worked our butt off on this one but his eyes glaze over and he is in some other world - at least I am not having to hold the long line all the time now ha ha