Reactive Humans? If you aren't open-minded, don't read...

dgriego

If more owners had a higher measure of respect for what their large and/or bully breed dogs are capable of perhaps we would have less news reports of attacks. I have yet to see a news report on the "aggressive Chihuahua savages _______ " although I have on one occasion been savaged by a Chihuahua, but I cannot count the times over the years where I have heard news reports, or spoken to friends and family who are amazed that their dog attacked, and in some cases killed a person or another dog. There are breeds that really, truly need the owners to be respectful of what their dog could do given the right situation. Dobermans, Rotts, Filas, Dogos, Akitas, Pits, are just a few.

I couldn't agree with this more!!!!!!  Thank you!

Just to show you how very scary Hektor can be:

(please note: comment is meant to be funny and is not meant  in any sarcastic or mean spirited manner)

dgriego

Just to show you how very scary Hektor can be

Looks like he's waiting for a scary belly rub.

I have a found that dogs have a way of acting toward each other, regardless of size. The BC's diagonal from me don't care who or what you are, they are going to herd you. Shadow will bow and lay down next to the Dachshund next door. He will play with cats. At the same time, while on his hind legs, he could put his paws on DW's shoulders (she's 5' 5 1/2";), and he's 26 inches to the shoulders.

I do agree that we have often allowed small pets to do things that we do not allow in large pets because of the damage that they can do. Nor is it a bad thing that we can differentiate that. And I find that all dogs learn the same. And that a little dog can be "leader" and a big dog can be "follower. " And that those roles can change with different groups, and in different contexts within the same group.

To me, the off-leash reference is more about how willing we are to look at things in a different perspective once we are not guided by a particular notion or mindset. I am one of the people that used to think that you had to handle a big dog differently, primarily in re the damage a large dog could do. But realizing that dogs are dogs, regardless of size, was a key note in changing my way of thinking in regards to training. All dogs should be trained. And the same training process can be applied, regardless of size. And, you can use the same method with a 12 lb JRT, as with a 65 lb Sibe, a 90 lb GSD, or a 1,500 lb horse.

As for use of force, on might call it force that I use harness and leash in public, rather than let him walk off leash. That would be respect for his breed and temperment. There was a Sibe that won off-leash obedience awards and he ran off the first time something of more interest suited him. Not to mention leash laws, etc.

But since, at times, size does matter, yes, it is certainly important that I have certain obedience for Shadow that one might not consider for a JRT. A JRT can jump on you and it's "cute." Shadow can jump on you and knock you down. He once knocked down DW and it was simply out of a desire to lick her face, no malice intended, and he caught her at just the right time. But there's nothing that says I can't train "off" the same way for him as I might with a JRT. Or train a side-step with a Tennessee Walker.

And for me, thinking "off-leash" allowed me to show how +P doesn't work very well or in all circumstances and to drop it as a means of training. Could I still use +P? Possibly and it would only be as effective as it has always been, stopping a behavior at that moment, but not necessarily training a different response, or changing a behavior permanently.

And yes, humans can react without forethought. Many times, we do react defensively, even if our actions look offensive.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question correctly, but here are some of my observations.

I see a lot of dogs lunging and bouncing at the end of their leads whenever we walk past with our three. If it's a tiny dog, it swings off the end of the lead and lunges crazily, but due to its size, its owner has no need to pit their strength against that of their dog and let the dog do its crazy dance. However, if it's a large dog, the simple act of making the same lunge at the end of the lead pulls the owner off balance. To counteract this, or protect against it, they brace themselves and pull back. Often, they'll keep the dog reined in tight and close pre-emptively, knowing the dog is going to lunge and they'll have a fight on their hands to stay balanced. Of course, this just makes it worse. Our dogs have always been allowed to meet other dogs they see during their walks and none of them gets silly on the lead in the presence of other dogs. I propose that the behaviour of the dogs is the same regardless of size, but larger dogs require a stronger response in order to maintain balance. If the dogs were just taught properly as pups, none of them would be bouncing around at the end of leashes. All of ours just got over it on their own, even the reactive one.

So I think in some cases people do get more physical with larger dogs, but I don't necessarily believe that it's a matter of fear and control so much as the owners finding it harder to handle a bigger dog. My opinion of large breeds is that you should train them like you would a horse or cow. A large animal like will just knock you to the ground and step over you (if you're lucky!) should you pit your strength against its. There are better ways to get good behaviour that don't involve loosing a battle of physical strength.
 

 I would clarify that the methods used are the same regardless of size. The need for the training is greater the larger the dog, although I think all dogs would benefit by being trained.

Mind you when I say methods I am speaking about the entire tool box which of course could include training tools such as a pinch collar, physical touch and minor leash corrections which many here are opposed to.

 Physical force does not have to be greater with a large dog as opposed to a small one during the training process, but receiving a very large dog as a rescue that has had nothing done might require some physical force (to clarify I am not suggesting hanging the dog or yanking him off his feet) in order to control said dog until he understands what is being requested.

lol - my dog, jasper sleeps the same way sometimes

mudpuppy

I've seen some people treat their dogs harshly because they were embarrassed-- didn't want other people to see that THEIR dog acting that way.

I'll hold my hand up and admit to having been one of these people once or twice. 

For me, who has a reactive dog, there are times that I find myself using +P out of urgency and some level of fear - I wish it wasn't the case, but I am not sure that there is another alternative ... 

99.9% of the time, we have no problem - I know what causes a reaction (in our case a combo of lunging and air snapping), Wesley is within my control at all times when we are out and about and I protect him from people reaching toward and over him.  But, when someone doesn't listen to me and comes at Wesley and I see him start to react by lunging toward the person, I do yank back - thus issuing a "leash correction" which would certainly count at +P because it is definitely not comfortable for him.  The other option would be to let him lunge at the person - not really an option with a dog his size. 

For us this now happens extremely rarely because we have done a ton of work desensitizing Wesley to being approached by strangers (using mostly +R), but I have a 50ish pound dog who I am not going to let lunge at someone, so, I prevent when I can, I use other means to lessen the likelihood of a reaction and then and only then, in the rare case that everything is working against me and the reaction starts, I do "punish" the reaction, followed immediately by an instruction as to what appropriate behavior is and rewards for the appropriate behavior. 

For us, once corrected, Wesley will stop the behavior, look to me for direction and can be very easily steered toward more appropriate behavior.  I can then explain to the "offending" person that when I said that Wesley is not friendly (which is what I say to people coming at him to pet him to make sure they stop before I launch into my explanation), what I meant is that he is reactive to that type of approach and we are working on it...  By having me stand there and continue talking to the person with Wesley in a "sit" or "down" the lesson is continued - the implication being that I am fine with the person being near us, I am in control of the situation, and if he keeps doing what I told him to do, he will get more treats...

Would I rather never have to use +P to stop a behavior - absolutely (and usually I don't have to, when people coming near us heed the warning and I can give Wesley instruction before the person reaches).  But sometimes that isn't possible, and IMO, in come cases, a quick, effective +P correction is the only and best option, even if it is issued out of fear, so long as it is immediate, there is no anger an it is followed by instruction and reward for appropriate behavior...

kelliope

I don't know what the +P -Rs mean, but I can tell you this.  I now have a leash reactive Chi.  It never occured to me that it would be a problem for her to meet other dogs.  But after having her nearly attacked by other out of control dogs she is now leash reactive.  People now try to tell me she is leash reactive because I now pick her up when we see a super-interested dog (be it big or small), but I know for a fact I didn't have that worry until AFTER the leash reactivity started.  In fact, I had been eager for her to "meet" other dogs - something she is not particularly interested in doing.  So I for one don't really believe in the whole "tight leash" thing causing leash reactivity.  I think leash reactivity is caused by fear, aggression or frustration on the part of the dog itself - not the handler.

 I don't know if big dogs and small dogs learn differently, but I do believe there are certain breeds that respond better to certain training methods/props.  One example is that when I am training my Chi to sit or lay down I do so on a soft surface or pad.  I wouldn't worry about that with a Husky or Lab, but my Chi is far more likely to respond initially if he is on soft surfaces.  Then I move out to the yard/grass and he will do it there too.  But if I started there I'd probably never get him to sit.

A tight leash doesn't always cause leash reactivity, but it certainly doesn't help after the dog is already reactive.  The handler's tension goes right down that leash to the dog.  Picking your dog up may make you feel better, and it may help her not become someone's lunch, but the way you do it is important, and you should still be prepared to fend off another dog that might decide to take a hunk out of you to get to her...

You are quite right about the soft surface being an enticement for some dogs to be more willing to sit or lie on.  Also, for some smaller dogs, just elevating them a bit onto a platform, like a grooming table, can make all the difference, too.  But, it isn't only small dogs that benefit from the first lessons on a soft surface.  Other short coated breeds, like Boxers, Whippets, etc. seem to appreciate not having to practice "lie down" on a cold, hard floor.
 

dgriego

 Physical force does not have to be greater with a large dog as opposed to a small one during the training process, but receiving a very large dog as a rescue that has had nothing done might require some physical force (to clarify I am not suggesting hanging the dog or yanking him off his feet) in order to control said dog until he understands what is being requested.

That's kinda what I was trying to get across. When a large dog lunges, you have to use your weight and lean back to balance and prevent from being pulled over, but when a small dog lunges you can ignore it and not respond at all. Doesn't mean you should do either, it's just the reality of controlling a dog that doesn't know it's doing something wrong. I think this simple matter of physics and weight often perpetuates the troubles, putting people in a position where they feel compelled to pull before the lunging happens in order to avoid having to struggle to keep on their feet. 

I really can't agree with the above statement regarding large breed rescues.

I had two youngsters who had been kennel raised with no training, no socialization and no manners.  Leash training?  Yeah, right.  I worked with these boys like I would a small pup.  Within a few weeks they could walk on a leash as nicely as any of my own dogs.   I used nothing more than a long line, my voice, my fascinating personality (to them anyway) and the occassional liver treat, as well as a couple of my own dogs as canine teachers.

I'm not a trainer, I have no special knowledge and absolutely no training to train........but I used that basics that have worked with my own gsds and they worked nicely with the fosters.  I truly believe that working dogs on a long line or even off leash gets them so completely accustomed to LISTENING that once you put a regular lead on them, they listen first and act later.

glenmar

I used that basics that have worked with my own gsds and they worked nicely with the fosters.  I truly believe that working dogs on a long line or even off leash gets them so completely accustomed to LISTENING that once you put a regular lead on them, they listen first and act later.

I like that. And you could use that method for Chihuahuas, too.

Another important reason to train dogs regardless of size is that some of the smaller breeds (Not anyone here, of course)  are allowed to have bad manners because they are "so cute." And the dogs will cause other dogs to have reactions to their bad manners. And sometimes, any dog could be lacking some socialization around other pets, such as larger dogs. I've seen a few cases where Shadow's size and stance has scared another dog or they reacted because he carries his tail up. Or the other dog may simply have an issue.

Ron, this falls in the category of "if I'd known then what I know now"........remember, I'm the lady who was quite literally dragged down the street on her fanny by Thor!

I might set a foot behind me to steady myself if I need to take a large dog in hand and don't know how hard he might pull, but I don't pull back.  I set my hand in a fist on my navel and just do nothing.  The dog then has to use me as a large snubbing post LOL.  That way, he doesn't get rewarded for pulling, I don't get knocked off my feet, but I don't engage his oppositional reflex.  I then make myself very interesting, as Glenda suggested, and begin immediately to train the dog.  I have found that if you start from the moment you meet the dog, and he learns that YOU are not like all the other humans that he could use his strength to manipulate, it is much easier to train the dog to respect you as his handler. 

ron makes a stunningly simple, but excellent point, about the small dogs that are unsocialized and untrained, and then wrongly perceived as victims of the larger dogs that they incite.   

glenmar

Hmmmmm, interesting.

I won't say that I work differently with small dogs, or that I think they learn any differently, but I work HARDER with big dogs, not because I find them big and scarey but because OTHERS often do.  So I expect greater obedience, greater compliance and to achieve that, I do put in more time.  Does that make ANY sense?

Yes, makes sense......I feel the same way....

I do feel that folks who own small dogs take the easy way out at times......I have a friend who owns an Australian Terrier, when something goes wrong she picks up the dog, and the problem is over in her eyes.....people like me who can't just pick up our dogs are stuck with working harder and with more intensity.