Ian Dunbar

To me the slightest biting, snappy, and lunging is serious because of the damage it could lead to. I will observe the dog and detect the moment the behavior begins and I will act. That act could be a furrowed forehead or a stern NO. Depends on my timing. I then do agree with Ian that once I see the good behavior begin, I reward with praise. I see no difference in this approach and the clicker training that you promote and that I am attempting to learn for a specific dog.

This is precisely what I would do too.  I see Dunbar's work more as an ideological foundation of how I would love to work with dogs if it was just me and the dog in a secluded environment.  Unfortunately, that's not reality.  Most of us have multiple dogs or work at shelters where the dogs are already stressed and anxious and we just don't have time to wait for a good behavior.  However, I don't think it makes Dunbar wrong, I just think there's a difference in his theories and our practical applications.

I just think there's a difference in his theories and our practical applications.

 
There is some credence to the difference between ideal and what actually happens. Hopefully, we can work toward a goal where the difference is minimal.
 

That act could be a furrowed forehead or a stern NO. Depends on my timing.

 
That's certainly the tough part. Timing. And there are things that I might do, such as muzzle when necessary, that might be seen as a corrective or aversive measure, as opposed to truly desensitizing or re-conditioning a response. Not all dogs have read Dunbar.[]

Ron2, I don't understand your response to Liesje and my post.  Do you agree with Ian Dunbar to just ignore and wait out the reactive behavior?  Is that what you practice?

Do you agree with Ian Dunbar to just ignore and wait out the reactive behavior? Is that what you practice?

 
Quite a bit, yes. Sometimes, I may not wait and I will command the incomatible behavior. The point is to not reward the reactive behavior. Reward only the calm and desired behavior, or to  make the behavior you want more rewarding than the self-rewarding behavior they can caome up with.
 
It can also depend on the situation. If we're already walking, I may keep us walking until we're out of reactivity range, or at least range of motion.
 
Anyway, that's why I click when calm in public. More and more, that will become an avaliable reaction and, if I can help it, the most rewarding. And done and rewarded often enough, will be one of the classical responses. As Brookscove would say from her favorite trainer, Make the wrong difficult and the right easy. Sometimes, I just make the right easier by upping the reward.

Ron2, I sense that you are working backyards from the finished behavior.  I am at the beginning dealing with an aggressive dog situation.  I think you consider “not reward” to be neutral where I do not.  When you say “command the incomatible behavior” (sic) is this a correction?  I agree “reward only the calm and desired behavior”.  But I am still left hanging with the dog that is exhibiting aggressive behavior.  Again, Ian says wait.

When you say “command the incomatible behavior” (sic) is this a correction?

 
I wouldn't exactly call it that though, semantically, one might make a case. I am, after all, issuing a command for behavior that is opposite or eve non-sequential to what his reaction might be to a stimulus.
 
As for Dunbar and waiting for good behavior and rewarding that, that's part of trying to extinguish behavior that is undesirable. True, some behavior is self-rewarding, such as a guard dog guarding. And, if that's the case, purely corrections or physical dominance will not, IMHO, dissuade the dog from his self-rewarding guarding responses. If, OTOH, you positively motivate the dog to look at you or assume heel position, you haven't stopped the guarding but you have trained responses to help you manage a situation. That is, you don't get rid of the guarding but shape it towards your ends.
 
Look at K-9s. They get to guard and chase and bite and they will off with a command because they get an even bigger reward for doing so.

You have jumped into the area of attempting to manage, modify, or change a breed instinctual behavior that has been deemed to be a bad behavior.  I always attempt to enhance the breed instinct and make it a positive thing that is workable within a house.  Currently in cue to begin working on one of my fosters, a hound.  The dog is bred to do a job and the dog is happiest when doing that job.  I never attempt to extinguish or change, well because you can't, IMO.

I believe we are talking about a dog problem created by man and thus can be fixed by man.

I don't want to get into a semantic thing.  Either you are addressing the dog's good behavior or you are addressing the bad behavior.  There is no neutral.

It is my experience that the take no action approach does not work with all dogs.  It is a contest of dog patience versus human patience.  The dog will always win.

You have jumped into the area of attempting to manage, modify, or change a breed instinctual behavior that you have deemed to be a bad behavior.

Yes, I have. I dare to go there. Not always bad, it depends. My dog is bred to pull like a freight train. And he has the instinct to do so. And I can make him heel without a collar pop because I make it rewarding to do so. If I have a guard dog and his natural instinct is to tear your head off and crap down your neck, I may not want him to follow his natural instinct. And I'll go right on modifying that breed behavior.

Let me give a personal case-in-point. I give Shadow bits of meat from my plate. He has to sit or down to get it. When the cat would get to close to me, he would go after her, guarding his resource. I could call "here" without touching him and he would recall. Because I know the piece of meat is more important to him than the cat. That is, I used his resource guarding to counter-act his resource guarding. I haven't gotten rid of it in that scenario, I've used it to my advantage to get a response that I want, which is to stay with me. I would venture to say that some resource guarding is involved in treat-based training. They will do what it takes to get that food. Dogs do what works.

I have also used bits of steak working on heel in public and that's one of the reasons I can get him to sublimate his breed instinct to pull like a train, out in front. And I don't always have him heel. I could, though. And I can outwait a dog. It's a natural trait of mine. I could give stubborn lessons to a mule.

Ron2, as I see it, you have successfully identified a higher value reward in Shadow.  But, the breed instinct is still there, not addressed, not released, and unfortunately the trigger is hidden from you, IMO.
 
In your personal case-in-point, you have now jumped to behavioral issues as a result of basic survival instinct.  I have just finished rehabbing one of my fosters for this very thing.   To address the issue I work to let the dog know there is plenty of food and there will be plenty of food in the future.  Teaching the dog there is no reason to resource guard.  The technique I apply for when a situation arises is the same as I have stated-stopping the behavior and rewarding for the good behavior.
 
So you have met a mule, have you?

whoa, now, reactivity is not true aggression although it may lead to aggressive acts. I rehabbed ONE truly "red zone" aggressive dog, and at one point just telling her "NO" would have been truly dangerous. She'd been man-handled in the name of "dominance", frequently and firmly informed of "when she was wrong", and she decided her best approach was to "get you before you could get her". Any sign that you were not pleased with her was a possible trigger to a violent attack-- not a dog in a reactive out of her own control frenzy, a dog calmly and deliberately deciding to attack. 120 pound dog. She responded quite well to +R and NILIF. She was never told when she was wrong, but she never got what she wanted unless she was right.
There is no way this dog could EVER have been rehabbed by punishment, she'd been made this way by ever-escalating punishment.

Yes, Mudpuppy I believe you are correct and would now do exactly as you would do.  Unfortunately, when this type of dog was in my house, my home was not equipped to handle this and I was not experienced enough.  It was a failure on my part.

I see it differently. I like to see people recieve a full set of tools that are designed to be most beautiful, efficient and respectful. If people are given partial toolsets, then they can only do a partial job. When they fail, they throw up their hands, they get frustrated and do worse (slap, yell, drag, euthanize, rehome) in a swirl of emotional response.

 
Unfortunately, most people "fail" because they do it wrong, not because they don't have the correct "tools". The most efficient way to deal with rescue dogs with baggage is a strict NILIF program and some clicker training, and possibly desensitization programs, depending on what the dog's issues are. These are simply the best way to rehab a dog. They take time. They take dedication and effort. If you tell people it's ok to sometimes correct the dog, guess what they do. They don't stick with the "best tools", they get frustrated and default to corrections.
There are very few occasions where applying a correction is the most effective training tool.

But, the breed instinct is still there, not addressed, not released, and unfortunately the trigger is hidden from you, IMO.

In your personal case-in-point, you have now jumped to behavioral issues as a result of basic survival instinct

 
If you know all this stuff, why is it that you seem to know nothing of Dunbar, et al?
 
Some breeds have particular traits and dogs, in general, have survival mechanisms, as you point out. And yes, I did mix the two in my previous post and I will probably do it, again.
 
Here's another example of breed trait. A man once owned a Siberian Husky that had won off-leash obedience awards. One day, the dog smelled something interesting and took off at about 30 mph and he never saw his dog again. Hence, credence to the old saw about never walking a Husky off-leash. The training did not fail, but the human failed to account for breed trait.
 
As for resource guarding, it is always there. You can train responses so that, for example, you can remove or give to your dog whatever you want, but it is still there. People with multiple dogs or pets have specific feeding protocols to avoid problems, such as NILIF, separate feeding bowls, and -P for a dog that breaks the protocol. I can get Shadow to drop whatever for a treat. His desire to get that treat makes him biddable. Why is that treat so important? It's food, his primary resource.
 
Another example of working with a breed trait to achieve what you want is to train a response to an unannounced visitor. The dog barks, which is a natural thing to do. We can then train a follow-up, such as sit and be quiet or turn in right-hand circles, or whatever. So, we haven't ended the guarding but the training helps us manage it.
 
If you use corrective measures on your dog, rather than a concentrated +R approach, do you expect future adoptive families to continue your style after the fostering has ended? For example, the GD that learned manners from other dogs? How would another family know how to handle a dog that doesn't have standard obedience? How would they get that dog to sit, down, whatever, on or off leash and, say, not run into the street? And how would the other dogs teach him recall, should that happen?

Ron2, so now you switch back to breed traits.  I am glad you keep switching and providing examples because it is important to identify the need associated with the perceived inappropriate behavior.  I think it is important but often missed when developing the rehab solution.

Sorry, resource guarding doesn't exist in my house.  I get rid of it and the dog wants to get rid of it too.  Remember dogs are always on the pleasure side.  Of course if the resources become scarce and there is competition, it comes back.  It's most likely a survival instinct need but it can also be social.  It's the same for humans too, so what's your point?

No if, I do use corrective measures on my dogs and fosters.  A furrowed brow and a stern NO is the extent.  Its kind of silly because it is redundant because a dog reads body language first and then voice.  I will have to teach myself not to say no.  I do have an exception and that is the hound Marvin where I have committed to pure positive training.  Unfortunately, during Clicker Training, Marvin exhibits behavior representing frustration when he does not offer the right behavior right away.  I guess I am going to have learn to change my body language from saying the nonverbalized NO.  That's a hard one, I must say.  Any suggestions?

The fosters go to adoptive families as a well mannered dog.  Once a dog is trained and meets my expectations, training stops and we then live our lives together.  No sense in the adoptive family training a dog to come or sit if the dog already knows it.  The family can choose a training method of their choice to add on to what I have done. Most of the adoptive families keep in touch with me.  Since I put on public foster dog show events, many come visit me there.  We do encourage/recommend professional training classes to accelerate and strengthen bonding.

As for Petro the GD who is a very well mannered dog that picks up good or go along behavior from the other dogs, I have special plans for him.  I want to train him using the most effective training methods available.  So far I have not found that training method.  As I stated in that other thread, I did train Petro the 'come' command.  This is the most important command for all dogs to know.