Resource guarding? Or not.

spiritdogs

that can be used instead of a "correction" to move the dog. 

 

Just wanted to clarify that you should not move the dog, you move the cat to show the dog that you are stepping up on solving the situation that is making him uncomfortable

 All is well. After a few warning growls from Toots and me physically moving Lemon, Tootsie knows that Lemon is no threat and Lemon keeps his distance. Also, if I feed the kitties their canned first and then feed Toots problem solved.

"Allowing a dog to do do a "warning growl" is like letting a drug addict to get high as long as does not overdose himself, but it only takes once to overdo it and end in the Hospital."  You cannot compare communication between two animals to a drug addict, that's just ridiculous, emotions/responses are not drugs. Bad analogy. We're talking about behavior, not addiction. Animals need to be able to communicate with each-other if they're going to co-exist together. I leave kongs and toys out for the dogs when I am not home to pre-occupy them while I'm away so they have something to concentrate on while I'm gone, same scenario could play out when I'm not home with the toys, it could even be with one of the other dogs instead of a cat, then what pray tell is your solution for that? Avoidance? Sure. That's full proof, but it doesn't have to be that way if you establish everyone correctly. Obviously if the situation escalated past a point of a warning I would've stepped in. The animals in my situation I know well enough to trust that communication is effective between them so that I can leave them alone together when I'm gone. I have very stable tempered dogs. I don't see how constant delegation and contol over the animals emotions/responses is necessary because when I'm not home or around how is it suppose to work? Do I separate everyone? That's absurd if you ask me. Obviously there is a point of intervention, but only if necessary and, again, I would not even attempt this with an animal aggressive, food aggressive, or unstable dog. There is nothing wrong with allowing them to communicate, that's what they're suppose to do. It's what YOU would do in the same situation if a house-mate was trying to nose in on your meal, you'd tell them to back off. Since the animals cannot actually speak they use their own form of communication. It's a very simple concept.  "I have corrected hundreds of growls and not even one dog has gone directly for a bite instead. Dogs are not stupid, they know why they are getting corrected for and thats because the attitude, not because the growl. Dogs could care less if another dog is growling or singing opera, what they do care about is the attitude behind it" Okay so the attitude behind it is "Hey! Leave my meal alone." The dog is not just being a jerk, it's a justified response and you think correcting them is ideal? I'd say you're lucky that you haven't experienced a dog break his threshold with you on that and just snapped. Dogs get frustrated just like we do, imagine if you're trying to tell someone to back off for doing something out of line and you have someone scolding you for it. In the event that you have to delegate every response in a situation like this that would mean you'd have to constantly stand over and supervise each and every interaction and separate everyone when you leave, go ahead and try and sell someone on that. Situations are going to present themselves when you're not around, then you have no control. What then? "Delegating dicipline and letting the dog send "warning growls" shows the dog that the human is not there to step up to enforce the discipline, therefore he can not trust the human to resolve the situation and will have to do it himself. Did the cat backed off this time? Well what would happen if the cat does not next time?, or the cat by accident got too close and the dog thought the cat was not listening and is time for a correction bite." I wouldn't disagree with telling the cat "No." and relocating him, maybe on a positive reinforcement note and giving him something else to focus on (like a treat away from the dogs at feeding time). Cats can be trained to know wrong from right just as well. I still would not punish the dog for telling the cat to back off. Especially considering I can't be in control of delegating every emotion/response when I'm not around.  "This type of situations can become dangerous if we allow them to happen. No aggression should be allowed. Of course eveybody can do or not do what they want with their dogs. It depends on the owner if they want to play with fire or to better be safe than sorry. It depends on the owner if they want to be proactive or lazy" There is nothing lazy about allowing animals to communicate effectively with each other and only stepping in if a boundary is crossed; don't be so close minded. Aggression is such a generalized term when it comes to this situation. Dogs growl when they play and that's not considered aggressive, however a "back off" verbalization is?   I think of it more as assertive response, maybe that's just me, so be it. I allow appropriate communication in my house. I have successfully introduced many foster dogs and cats with minimal issues (it's inevitable that issues with arise) and I currently have my own crew (three dogs, four cats) that all get along very well. Anything is possible, prevention is key, I agree, but not to the point of OCD, sometimes things need to be worked out without human intervention, it doesn't show the dog that you're not in charge, like you said, dogs aren't stupid, my dog in this particular situation has never reacted past a warning verbalization, he knows if he can't get his point across that I will step in, that's just how it works at my house. Maybe I should've avoided the situation to begin with and pre-occupied the cat with something prior to feeding the dogs, then it would've been avoided, I started doing that after the incident where my dog told the cat to back off, I didn't think about it until that scenario actually happened, that was clearly my fault. Everyone is different with how they perceive things. I take a chance and play with fire every day I leave my animals alone, so does everyone else that has a multi-animal house hold, nothing is promised or guaranteed, it never will be unless you separate everyone. I want my animals to co-exist, happily and so far so good.

Tiffy, I'm glad your kiddos have worked everything out.  Good job!  Oh, and, um, more Lemon pics, please.   I'm a total sucker for orange tabbies.

I'm another one who doesn't correct a warning growl or lip curl.  If that's all it is, and the "offending party" responds by backing off, then all is well in my book.  But I do watch closely to ensure things don't escalate. 

espencer

spiritdogs

that can be used instead of a "correction" to move the dog. 

 

Just wanted to clarify that you should not move the dog, you move the cat to show the dog that you are stepping up on solving the situation that is making him uncomfortable

 

It's just preposterous to suggest that on the one hand it's fine to "correct" a dog, but not fine to use cues to get him to voluntarily remove himself from a situation that you don't want him to be in at that moment.    That implies that you sit around waiting for mistakes just so you can correct, but do nothing to train the dog so that you won't always have to be correcting him.  I just don't get that reasoning.  I've had my new dog exactly a week, but he already knows not to grab Sequoyah's frisbee.  He learned from a combination of her growling at him and giving him stink eye for thinking about doing it, and me redirecting him by asking him to do something else that he could get a reward for.

FeraeNaturae

Obviously if the situation escalated past a point of a warning I would've stepped in.

 

aerial1313

But I do watch closely to ensure things don't escalate.

 

Is really funny to see that somebody would think a human is remotely quick enough to avoid an "escalation". The owner could have the dog on a leash while the dog eats and if the cat gets too close the dog still would have the time to be able to get a hold of the cat and make 2 pretty holes in his body (that is if he does not decide to just hold the cat and shake him instead) The human still would be too "slow" to react on time to avoid an injury by pulling the dog away with the leash. But of course no body has their dog on a leash while eating so imagine how late that means the human will react.

A warning growl is already an escalation, the dog already did 2 or 3 other things before that which indicated he is uneasy with the cat getting closer. If a human thinks that a dog needs to make a "sound" to communicate a cat what he wants then the human still has a lot to learn about body language.

Not encountering a dog that skips the growling to go directly for the bite has nothing to do with luck, has to do with knowing dog psychology. Do you know it by experience or are you just assuming?

spiritdogs

but do nothing to train the dog so that you won't always have to be correcting him.

 

But what makes you think I "always" have to correct him? If that was true then clearly the dog would not be getting the message every time.

All those new posters coming with new threads about  their dogs not getting along, how do you think the problem starts? I'm not saying that happens every single time but under the "correct" circumstances a dog can feel that has the "right" to tell the other animal that he can do or not do other stuff as well. Then it comes a moment when the other dog just decides that he has had enough, the first dog thinks "well if you did it before why are you stopping now?" so he will then escalate even more the communication with his teeth.

Then the posters will say "i recommend you to separate them or look a new house for one of them". Well what about not letting aggression to surface whatsoever in the first place?

It's funny that you assume any of us are incapable of noticing body language signals.  Give us a little more credit, ok?  I don't have my eyes on my dogs 100% of the time.  Sometimes I'm looking elsewhere... 

If I'm sitting on the couch reading a book, and Harry's laying next to me, no, I'm not looking at him the entire time; I'm looking at my book.  But I sure do hear his growl if he's trying to tell Sammy to back off because he wants his space at that moment.  And since I'm right there, yes, I am perfectly able to intercede to remove one or both dogs from the situation.

Tiffy, Good job with Lemon. I did that same thing with Crombie when he decided Maze's food was more interesting then his. A warning growl from Maze and I removed Crombie when he didn't listen.

Now as for humans not being fast enough to intrupt a situation, I am fast enough as I have done it before. Maze is a resource guarder. Because I forgot one bone one day, I fractured my foot stepping inbetween her and another dog. If I hadn't of punished her warning growl to the point where she STOPPED offering it, I would have had more warning that something was going to happen. Maze's body language is so subtle that if you don't know her, you wouldn't see it. Sandy has a louder body language so she's easy to read. Maze is also soft so it took me a long time to get her to trust me again to feel comfortable enough to give warning instead of going to an all out attack.

Just today, my fear aggressive, resource guarding dog shared her tennis ball with a strange dog who was bigger then her while on leash... She was able to do that because I built the trust up in her that if she gave a warning, I'd be there to back her up and help remove the threat.

Yes my methods are different then yours, however my two dogs and one senior cat have a open communication system that WORKS

espencer

Is really funny to see that somebody would think a human is remotely quick enough to avoid an "escalation". The owner could have the dog on a leash while the dog eats and if the cat gets too close the dog still would have the time to be able to get a hold of the cat and make 2 pretty holes in his body (that is if he does not decide to just hold the cat and shake him instead) The human still would be too "slow" to react on time to avoid an injury by pulling the dog away with the leash. But of course no body has their dog on a leash while eating so imagine how late that means the human will react.

A warning growl is already an escalation, the dog already did 2 or 3 other things before that which indicated he is uneasy with the cat getting closer. If a human thinks that a dog needs to make a "sound" to communicate a cat what he wants then the human still has a lot to learn about body language.

Not encountering a dog that skips the growling to go directly for the bite has nothing to do with luck, has to do with knowing dog psychology. Do you know it by experience or are you just assuming?

I guess it really all depends on your perception of an "escalation". It's all a matter of opinion. In my mind an escalation is past a point of an appropriate or tolerable behavior. A warning growl doesn't fit this bill, IMO. What are you going to tell the new owner who just got a puppy that is completely out of line when the existing resident decides to tell him off? Sure you can distract puppy with something to make the puppy AVOID the existing resident, but that's not going to get the two dogs established... Do you correct the existing resident? Do you teach him to tolerate this behavior? Do you keep puppy isolated until he's better trained? Most of the time the existing resident is bigger than the pup and can do some damage or worse... Maybe you could give me some insight on this, I'm always looking for alternative forms of correction, training, and approaches to given situations.

There are risks in any given situation dealing with all animals, peroid; there always will be, regardless of how "proactive" you are with corrections, training, approaches, etc.

You could very well be creating an anxiety or problem by correcting a dog for a "warning growl". Not only is the dog already stressed about the trigger but now it's even MORE stressed that you're telling him "NO! Don't express that emotion!" I'd freak out too, especially if everytime I was stressed about something before YOU saw it coming, how am I going to tell you? Going to keep your eyes glued on me 24/7 to watch my body language? I've watched dogs silently lip curl while owners were standing by for fear that the growl verbalization would cause the owner to react and correct but the dog is still wanting to get his point across to whatever it is that is causing the issue. You can't take that out of the dog, it's an emotional response, you can possibly make the dog more comfortable about certain situations whenever you're nearby, but what is the dogs response going to be when you're not there to delegate what is "appropriate"? Obviously in this situation, if the dog is silently lip curling, the owner is not watching the situation unfold, but sometimes you aren't, that's why it's important that the animals learn to communicate effectively if you're going to have them together on a consistent basis, you can't be on your A game 24/7 when you have animals that co-exist together, you just can't; you could seperate them but that just defeats the whole purpose of having everyone together in the first place. That's not going to happen in my household, and it's absurd to tell me if I don't want to be labeled as "lazy" I'd have to sleep with one eye open. Not gonna happen. And keep in mind we're talking about TYPICAL canine responses to situations with STABLE tempered dogs.

Just like the post above me I do not constantly have my eyes on my animals. I have too many to look at, it's impossible. That being said, my dogs do not always have their eyes on everything that's going on around them either, sometimes they just react, especially if caught by surprise, whether it's negative or positive. While I agree that SOMETIMES a dog will give off a couple different signs that he'd like whatever is bothering him to stop prior to growling this is not ALWAYS the case; you're dealing with a broad spectrum of temperments, different dogs can tolerate an unfavorable stimulus for some peroid of time where others will not.

FeraeNaturae

Do you correct the existing resident? Do you teach him to tolerate this behavior? Do you keep puppy isolated until he's better trained? Most of the time the existing resident is bigger than the pup and can do some damage or worse... Maybe you could give me some insight on this

I already did with my first advice to the poster

FeraeNaturae

You could very well be creating an anxiety or problem by correcting a dog for a "warning growl". Not only is the dog already stressed about the trigger but now it's even MORE stressed that you're telling him "NO! Don't express that emotion!" I'd freak out too, especially if everytime I was stressed about something before YOU saw it coming, how am I going to tell you?

You could create stress IF you dont remove the other dog. If you dont remove the other dog you are telling the growling dog "well though life, i dont care what you feel" but if you do remove the other dog then is "you dont have to get stressed, i got this for you" AND teach the other dog to mind his own business and not to get closer to the other dog's food.

If you dont like it that way then i guess a "general voice correction" towards the situation and not the growling dog directly just to avoid an escalation (which can happen in less than a second) will give the owner enough time to remove the other dog out of the way.

Well according to experts with actual credentials and a whole lot of experience and no tv show, a growl is a warning sound prepratory to further engagement. It is used by canids who are actually avoiding a bite or full on fight. Most any dog that desired to fight jumped in fast, no warning growl.

It also depends on what is a warning growl. Shadow has learned to vocalize and has an "inside" voice. Since he still hasn't master the Queen's English, it sounds like little growls and grumbles and whines and short, small "barks." And it would be godawful stupid of me to think these were warning growls. But it is him communicating with me. So, why wouldn't he communicate with another animal with a warning growl?

Yes, I will resolve the situation if so that he doesn't have to. And I've had him break off chase in mid-stride, break off a confrontation with another dog in mid-snarl, with the word, "off," trained with treats. That word builds trust that I will handle the situation. Just as I trust his warning growl is a desire to avoid confrontation by having the other person or animal go another way.

Dogs give out warning signs prepratory to engaging in action. How does Cesar know when to "tsst"? Because he is watching for signs the dog show before they leap into action. My point is what are the signs for? They communicate the state of the dog, which is another way of saying "go away right now, I'm not in a good emotional state right now." So, when Cesar corrects, he is not correcting the growl, he is correcting the desire to handle the situation that is warned by the growl, right?

ron2

My point is what are the signs for? They communicate the state of the dog, which is another way of saying "go away right now, I'm not in a good emotional state right now." So, when Cesar corrects, he is not correcting the growl, he is correcting the desire to handle the situation that is warned by the growl, right?

 

Correct. In the dog's mind the dog does not think that is the sound what the human does not like (and therefore just not make the sound next time and bit directly instead) the dog knows is the attitude they are expressing what the human does not agree with.

Now before anybody says something I'm not saying that a dog does not have the right to be upset because another animal seems to be getting to close to his food BUT thats the difference between removing the other animal right away or just correct and do nothing (letting the other animal to get even closer). That's clear communication

I used to correct Chuck for getting fixated on wild rabbits to avoid the desire of start chasing them and rip my arm off in the process. At the moment i could see his ears moving forward towards the rabbit thats when i applied the correction. At that moment i was able to "bring him back" to a calm state of mind that would not get fixated. If i was waiting 2 seconds more to correct then the hunting drive kicked in and it would be 10 times harder to control him.

My point is that, not because i was correcting him at the moment his ears were moving forward that meant that he thought that i just didnt like his ears moving that way, and therefore next time he will start chasing the rabbits without doing the ears movement first. He knew it was his attitude towards the rabbit what i was not agreeing with, not a simple ear action.

Humans rely too much in verbal communication but the same rules dont apply to dogs. If i tell an angry screaming human to shut up then the angry screaming human will think that i dont agree with him screaming but i dont care if he is still angry or not, unless i also verbaly communicate to him that i dont agree with the attitude as well. Then i would have to say shut up and calm down to correctly communicate what i want from him.

With dogs is different, verbal communication falls lower in their "communication priority". Dogs address attitude first sound later, with humans is the opposite

My dog still moves his ears forward to pay attention to me or a sound he heard on the distance, this is a clear proof that he knew exactly what i wanted to communicate on our walks and what was exactly what i was correcting before

Well, Espencer, you kind of prove my point even though you started out saying the opposite. Even you are not correcting a growl, like you thought you should or had stated earlier. You are correcting the attention from something else to you. By the way, I don't think you so much as correct Chuck as you re-directed his attention to you. He's close to 30 inches at the shoulder and 120 lbs of sled pulling dog, right? Whatever collar pop you do is not likely to feel like a punishment or cause discomfort. It is probably somewhat like DeGriego's finger jabs on the neck of her Dogo de Argentino. A physical cue. You might view it as macho and in control but I think the dog sees it as a cue, even if the overall effect is what you were wanting, which is re-direction to you. If he really wanted after that rabbit, your going along for a ride. A Mal can pull over 4 times his weight. And I bet you don't weigh much more than him, if that. No, he has a trust in you and redirects his attention to you because it is worth his while.

I used to correct Chuck for getting fixated on wild rabbits to avoid the desire of start chasing them and rip my arm off in the process. At the moment i could see his ears moving forward towards the rabbit thats when i applied the correction. At that moment i was able to "bring him back" to a calm state of mind that would not get fixated. If i was waiting 2 seconds more to correct then the hunting drive kicked in and it would be 10 times harder to control him.

Well, here's where we fundamentally differ.  I taught Sequoyah to "leave it" and to "come," and proofed those behaviors with gradually escalating distractions, BEFORE allowing her free access to things she might wish to chase.   As a result, she has never had a "correction" but she certainly can, and will, interrupt a chase to come back to me.  The only thing we agree on is that I issue the cue in the same time frame that you choose to issue a correction.  The difference is that my dog doesn't interrupt the chase because she knows that if she doesn't she will get popped, she does it because every time she has done so in the past something incredibly good has been forthcoming from me.  No one has ever said that correction doesn't work - it's still operant conditioning.  What I have said is that if you proactively teach a dog what behavior is expected, and you make it worth their while to comply, not only do they do so, they do so reliably, and you haven't had to be unpleasant to your dog to get the same result.

One of the first things I teach any of my dogs is to turn their head and look at me when I say their name.  I work at close range first, saying the name from behind and C/T as they turn toward me.  I usually have something like meatballs or liverwurst in store for them as a reinforcement.  As a result, the conditioned response becomes like the salivation response that Pavlov elicited by ringing a bell.  The instant the dog hears their name, they turn.  The object is to be able to get the dog to look at you instantly, because that becomes the basis for the next step - teaching them to come.  In just two weeks, Quanah has gotten so good at it that he is coming to me just on his name alone, even in a room full of loose dogs.  I can already get him to stop chasing Sequoyah and return on his own - and he loves to chase Sequoyah:

http://www.youtube.com/user/sequoyahbean?feature=mhum

Good point, Anne. And I think that Espencer is redirecting his dog with a cue, even if Espencer thinks it's a "correction." The dog redirects to him because he wants to, for whatever reason that is. Which means, it must be somehow rewarding to do so, even if that reward is to play chase with him, like in the one video he uploaded when Chuck was still a small puppy. From the beginning, as a law of the universe, Chuck new that playing with Espencer is so rewarding. So that, later in life, when Espencer gets his attention with a "correction," Chuck still sees it as a cue because Espencer has good times ahead. Sorry Spence, I'm kind of sorry to take away your thunder. But Chuck is listening to you because he wants to do so. If not, seriously, you would feel like what a sled feels like. Chuck learned early that you are the key to good things in life. And Chuck is not a mindless automaton. He is a 120 lbs of Espencer's best friend. And that is a testament to your caring and love for him. Face it, your a nice guy. Sorry to ruin your tough guy image.