How to handle dog when it's gotten into "red zone"

ORIGINAL: DPU

ORIGINAL: DPU

ORIGINAL: nfowler

Absolutely agree, but I also know that obviously enough, not everyone is doing this because, yes, it takes work. It takes a lot of work. It's easier to give a quick leash pop (even a light one) and say, "No," to the dog than it is to manage the situation(s) at all times.

How come saying "No" is such a bad thing?  Aren't you saying to the dog, choose another behavior and isn't that the same as not rewarding in Clicker Training when the dog doesn't offer the right behavior?  Please, draw the distinction for me.

Keep in mind Mudpuppy's comment "only the dog's subsequent behavior can tell you whether your behavior was perceived as a correction, a reward, or "just management" with no impact on subsequent behavior."

What is the entire forum to think when this post is ignored in its entirety.

Um, maybe that no matter how we try to explain any of this, or direct you to people whose work might explain it to you, you persist in "poking" at us, so that you will, presumably, finally get a response that you can agree with.  I think, if you want to understand the theory completely, that you should read, or re-read "Don't Shoot the Dog".

If you teach your dog that No is a no-reward marker go right ahead and use it. Most people don't. Nor do they use No as a no-reward marker, they use it as punishment.
Punishment is a very ineffective way of modifying behavior and can have an adverse impact on the dog's psyche and its relationship with you. If you don't understand why it is a good idea to avoid using punishment, you should indeed read Don't shoot the dog.

I stole it from EP's click to calm.  She taught her dog that tension on the leash didn't always mean bad things.

ORIGINAL: nfowler

That's great, JM. It's like defensive driving--if you're always aware and you have a game plan worked out then, when you need it, you got it and all looks effortless and feels effortless (for our furry friends), too.

I mentioned this in another post but I think it is an important aspect, and the reason why I think most folks give up and take the easier route.

It was months and months of "hard werk" with Zeus.  The focus, the patience, the dedication was more than intense. 

The emotional roller coaster was extreme.

But when I started, I read Scaredy Dog, so I was under no illusion of it being easy. For months and months, she gave up her world and dedicated every minute to rehabbing her dog.

It is a long hard road.

.

That's what I am saying. It's easier to stand there, though, and give corrections, then it is to be finding the other dog first, training where/when you can (before the so-called red zone hits) and changing walking directions/route to avoid getting your dog-aggressive dog all worked up. I hear this a lot: "Well, she needs to learn that I'm the boss" and "I need the walk, too, though." So, what options does that leave the dog-aggressive dog's owner? To sit and try and deal with their dog freaking out on a walk since they didn't go out of their way to ensure their dog didn't see anything to get worked up over.

ORIGINAL: nfowler
They freak out and they're only making themselves sweaty ....

Yes, or drag the dog by it's neck or stand there ready to give up their dog, or continue a downward spiral of self-loathing in their inability to care for their dog, or ....

This is precisely why people who are working with dogs that flip out need to balanace their conditioning work with a back up plan - the crisis management. If you don't give people good management tools, they'll default to their own panic-like behavior, which is generally emotionally laden.

That's why this thread has been so great! [] Most people have really stepped up to the table and generously offered a well-rounded look at training/management issues. I feel grateful that some tough questions have been answered. I appreciate all of you who put finger to keypad to share your personal management style.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

If you teach your dog that No is a no-reward marker go right ahead and use it. Most people don't. Nor do they use No as a no-reward marker, they use it as punishment...

 
I am starting to feel kind of stupid here because I am still not getting the difference between:#%92
 
-    “NO” as a no-reward marker which is a good thing and
-    “NO” as a punishment which is a bad thing.
 
I am pretty sure that I have “Don#%92t shoot the dog” but it might have been one of those books that would make me nod in agreement and not teaching me anything new, no practical experience to relate it to.  Since I am struggling with the Clicker application and applying it on a SA dog, I#%92ll go back to Pryor#%92s books.  I guess this will be my re-treat for now.
 

Hi DPU,

The point is that "NO" is neutral. It's like a clicker, you load it with meaning. If no is always followed by ignoring, the dog will come to expect being ignored when hearing the word no. If the dog is accustomed to getting a tug on the leash when hearing a clicker, he will come to expect that.

That's the thing about all this "sciencey" stuff. Science stuff is kinda neutral, it's us humans that fill it up with meaning and drive its outcome.

People tend to dislike "no", because it is often used as a thoughtless bit of self expression on the part of a handler, as if the dog ought to know what it means. The word is often uttered, or screamed, in frustration, or from a lack of knowing what to do. The word isn't the problem, it's the "not knowing what to do" that's the problem.

But amongst a thoughtful group like this, "no" will mean whatever we teach our dog it means.

“NO” as a no-reward marker which is a good thing and
- “NO” as a punishment which is a bad thing.

 
it's a different mind-set and approach to dogs. Punishment is not bad per se, it's just rarely the most effective way to train a dog.
 
You don't want your dog to get on the couch, so when you see him get on the couch you say NO. When he gets off the couch, you reward him. You're in react mode, your waiting for the dog to do bad-things and then you do something about it. You may also have shot yourself in the foot-- he may now think if he wants to get attention, he should climb on the couch. Dogs like attention. He may also have learned that he should only get on the couch when you're not there to punish him. If he thinks the softness of the couch outweighs the aversive quality of being told NO he may continue to get up there even when you are present.
 
 
You don't want your dog to get on the couch, so often when you see him on the floor near the couch you say YES and reward. He gets attention for being on the floor. He goes to climb on the couch and you give your no-reward marker No. So he tries a different behavior, that of being on the floor, and gets rewarded. Since you have often rewarded him for being on the floor without first getting on the couch, you're in no danger of him learning the best way to get attention is to climb on the couch. He may still get on the couch when you aren't there to reward him for being on the floor unless you cleverly don't allow him unsupervised time with the couch until he is habitually remaining on the floor.
 
No is meaningless to most dogs, and is a pretty weak secondary punisher. To be effective, a punishment has to be aversive enough to stop the behavior forever in only one or two applications. Otherwise you're just nagging at your dog.
 
An effective use of aversives to keep your dog off the couch is to put a scat mat or similar object on the couch. The dog thinks the couch is unpleasant, whether or not you are present. This is actually negative reinforcement because the dog can instantly stop the aversive by changing his behavior, i.e. jump off the couch.

"NO” as a punishment (NO-P)
Dog is lying on floor.  Dog goes on couch.  Dog gets owner's attention.  Owner says NO.  Dog gets off of couch.  Owner rewards dog. 

"NO” as a no reward marker (NO-M)
Dog is lying on floor.  Dog gets owner attention.  Owner says YES and gives reward.  Dog goes on couch.  Dog gets owner's attention.  Owner says NO.  Dog sings the blues.  Owner says NO.  Dog lies on floor.  Owner rewards dog.

My understanding is that NO-P is ok provided the aversion (NO) is understood by the dog without having an emotional effect (shutdown, fear, etc) on the dog.  Extinction of behavior should eventually take place.  The risk is if the dog sees the string of dog and human behavior as a means of getting attention and reward and it outweighs the aversion, the dog will repeat the string of behaviors.  Likewise if the dog interprets the aversion as a no reward marker, the dog will continue the string to get the reward, provided the dog is not satiated with rewards. 

My understanding of the NO-M is better because you teach the dog the good behavior before the bad behavior starts and the dog understands no-reward marker to mean do another behavior.  When the bad behavior starts, the dog is given a no-reward marker NO and then the dog lies on the floor and gets rewarded.  The only risk I see here is the assumption the dog will always do another behavior and the dog is not satiated with rewards. 

Right Mudpuppy?

From JM: But when I started, I read Scaredy Dog, so I was under no illusion of it being easy. For months and months, she gave up her world and dedicated every minute to rehabbing her dog.

 
Dennison does a nice job detailing her exhausting road to rehabbing her aggressive BC. My word. Anyway, it's a good read, too. I can PM it to you.
 
Thanks for sharing--having been on that road before, you and I know what we're talking about here!

To be effective, a punishment has to be aversive enough to stop the behavior forever in only one or two applications. Otherwise you're just nagging at your dog.

 
Good point. When I scruffed Shadow before, for jumping on people or being too reactive in situations, I was most careful that it wasn't painful. In fact, he would usually lower himself and roll. When I released, he would do the behavior again, either immediately or 6 months from then. Point being, my punishment wasn't strong enough to accomplish in one or two sessions. And I'm not willing to hurt him. And I don't have the right equipment to bite his neck hard enough to make an impression, outside of using a prong collar, which causes pressure, rather than a bite. OTOH, marking and treating while calm around other dogs has worked wonders. And, thanks to his thinking that a doorbell on t.v. is our doorbell, I can train an alternate chain. He barks at the door, I say here, he recalls, and then he's quiet. The recall was trained with treats.

ORIGINAL: JM

I am sure that he felt like he was getting a correction and somehow blaming (connecting it) it on the dog.

No, dogs are not stupid, they dont blame the other dog for the correction they KNOW is YOU the one doing it

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

Let's say your afraid, for obvious reasons, of scary men carrying knives. You've reviously encountered these men before, but you couldn't run away because Mom, obviously also frightened, firmly grasped your hand and kept towing you along. In your terror you screamed and yelled and threatened the man, and he didn't kill you as Mom ulled you on by. Ha! you say, I can save me and Mom by threatening loudly, so you do ever more loudly and yes! you and mom never once get killed by these scary men.
So now Mom, whenever she sees you starting to yell at scary men with knives, she now pulls you to the ground and sits on you as the scary men approach. You seriously think this is going to make you LESS afraid of scary men with knives approaching you?????  Maybe you freeze in terror and just hope the scary man won' t notice you pinned helpless on the ground. Mom is pleased.

Right there is where people has the error "Mom" can NOT be also frightened, "Mom" is the one who needs to be CALM, if "Mom" is calm then the dog will look at her first before doing anything, the dog will se "Mom" is calm and then the dog will not do anything since is clearly "Mom" does not sense that as a danger. IF "Mom is frightened the dog will defenitly do something about it since hi leader is "nervous"

ORIGINAL: glenmar

When I walk my dogs in town I am ALWAYS scanning, always watching and I do NOT "relax" and enjoy the walk.  I am not tense....

How come can you not be relax and not tense at the same time? If you anticipate something that something is going to happen

ORIGINAL: JM

One of the things I do with Zeus, is practice some of the "get away" techniques that I would do if a  loose dog was around... so he doesn't always associate these maneuvers with a dog coming at him and go on red alert.

For no reason at all, I will break into a jog or a run, or just pick up the pace.
Zip around and quickly cross the street.
Turn abruptly and go the other way.
run for the truck and kennel up

At first he would continously glance around and look for a dog. No dog in sight.

Thats what really is when people say: "You have bandaged up the symptom, rather than addressing the underlying problem" thats exactly what it is

This is the way i would do it

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qq4a9JS7X-A

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan


Well, I can tell you why I will not use corrections, and most especially not with aggressive dogs. I can't speak on behalf of others (it's another one of those things where I'm dropping the labels, so instead of referring to a group, I refer to what I do []).

1. There is a 99% chance (yes, this a non-statistic statistic made by me, the point being that there is a VERY high probability of this occurring) that if your dog is truly in limbic mode (and this refers to any emotionally-based reaction - fear, anger, etc), your dog will not even notice the correction. Therefore, your dog will not learn from the correction, and since "corrections" are meant to change behaviour, you are not "correcting" anything. And corrections that don't "correct" becomes manhandling, nothing more.

 

Corrections need to match the level of the behavior, if the dog is barking and you simple correct with a lousy "stop" then the dog indeed wont listen

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan

2. A correction, even well-timed, can make situations much worse, not in the learning sense, but in the physiological sense. A quick jerk on the collar, yelling, forcing the dog to do something when it is reacting, can all aid sufficiently in the production of adrenaline (epinepherine). The more adrenaline that is going on in that dog, the less control it has, the less able it will be to listen to you at that point. Also, the more stress you add to a situation, the more glucocorticoids that will be released into the blood stream. Glucocorticoids are also known as the "stress hormones", and they stay in the body and just generally cause other problems and make problems worse.

That is if the dog faces the problem over and over without any imporvement, if you do it right the first time there are really good chances you dont need to do it again

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
3. If, for example, the dog is growling at somebody (a human or other dog), and you correct the behaviour. What have you sufficiently punished? The growling. You have bandaged up the symptom, rather than addressing the underlying problem, which of course is the dog's discomfort in the situation that is ongoing.

First of all you are not punishing, you are correcting, now, what have you sufficiently corrected? not the growling, the dog does NOT links the correction with the sound he is making (growling), the dog will always link the correction with the behavior, therefore the correction is indeed addressing the underlying problem and that is the "feelings" the dog is having at that moment towards the reason of that behavior

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
By correcting the growling you have not at all solved the problem, and in a lot of cases you have made this worse. Why? Because very soon the dog stops growling, but is still uncomfortable, the problem is still there. Eventually they will be pushed to the limit and eventually bite. So you have effectively created a dog that will bite "without warning", so to speak. Dogs that will inevitably stop giving off signals of discomfort because they have been corrected for displaying normal dog behaviour, and simply do what gets the message across - biting. This is the classic case of the inevitable dog that bites without warning phenomenon.

 "displaying normal dog behavior" or "displaying undesirable dog behavior"? which is different, like i said, the correction does not correct the sound but the entire behavior itself, the only ones that dont bark and just go for the bite are the leaders of the pack, according to McConnell, not barking is a sign of leadership. I will always correct a growl since i'm correcting the behavior behind it, the dog will NOT have the same behavior and just "not showing it"

 

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
So if your dog is alert barking at the boy next door because he's fearful of the boy, and you correct it, it is SO easy for that dog to learn to associate the boy with the correction. The same goes for being afraid of bikes, or skateboarders, or children, or all of those things that dogs can aggress towards.

Wrong again, like i said to JM, the dog knows is you applying the correction and the dog relates the correction with his behavior, dogs are not stupid, dogs know that something can not correct them if that "something" is at the other side of the street therefore they dont blame that "something"

ORIGINAL: Kim_MacMillan
The happy-go-lucky Labrador is on a walk and desperately wants to go visit that man on the bench! WHAM, goes a collar pop, while dog is anxiously trying to get to the man. The dog starts, a little confused, but continues walking on, showing calming signals and a bit anxious. You continue your walk, and you come across another man walking by. The Labrador exuberantly tries to visit on the way by, WHAM, goes another collar pop, while the dog is looking towards the man. It's very easy for this dog to soon make the assocation (even though it's not the association you intend to make) that "these men cause pain to happen in my neck.". Hence troubles with men appear.

WHAM? talking about adding drama to the picture, but again  "there man cause pain to happen in my neck" is wrong, is more like  "if i get closer to these men i get corrected = not getting closer to thse men to avoid corrections" it even sounds more logical

If you dont use corrections i can see why you have all this misunderstandings which is normal, when you apply corrections is because you know when and how to apply them as well as what you are going to achieve and stop with them, with 90% of these corrections you dont have to use more force than the one you use to close a door normally, so are you using "force" to close a door? of course, could you hurt somebody with that amount of "force" probably not

Yikes.  I hope you never have to train any hound.

but find that a marker word works just as well for me and I can't drop my mouth....as easily.

 
That brought a funny image to mind. Thanks, Glenda.[]
 
One of the major things I did was to quit walking Shadow where lots of loose, aggressive, untrained dogs are. That means driving to somewhere else, sometimes. Though we've recently had some walks in town that were uneventful.
 
Secondly, I've worked on his reaction to other dogs in general in public by clicking and treating for obedience in the presence of these other dogs and for being calm around them. One time, in the presence of another dog in a store, Shadow downed. Immediate click and treat.
 
So, two things, reducing the likelihood of a confrontation, and training to avoid confrontation, which sometimes requires working through various ranges of reactivity. Patience, timing, observation, and a pocket of treats, sometimes steak or pork. I reward what I want and strive to not reward what I don't want. In the event of a reactive situation, the odds are higher now that he will listen to me.