Great videos on behavior by Dunbar, Donaldson and others

spiritdogs

... ... regardless of the fact that the dog in question could easily have pulled her over, is a shelter dog, not a pet (critical to get the behavior under control or maybe the dog ends up in a dead bin, not a living room).  ... ...Remember we are dealing here with a shelter dog -

I don't mean to start an argument or get off topic, I just feel it's worth mentioning that shelter dog does not = biting dog. There is no "law" stating that rescues, pound puppys, strays, etc are biters. I'd encourage that each dog be seen as an individual, and suggest that support be provided based on the particulars of each dog's personality, temperment and capacity.

Unfortunately, many times shelter dogs are NOT given the opportunity to "prove" themselves.  One little misstep and they end up in the dead bin.  This is a very sad fact of life at many shelters.

espencer

Chuffy

She speaks in a high pitched voice to the dog to PRAISE it.

 

I know the point of it, she can still praise with affection or even with the same words WITHOUT the high pitch, is not why she does it but how, thats what is not helping the dog to be relaxed 

Sorry - what I should have said was, she is speaking like that to reward or reinforce the dog.  Another dog may well find neutral tones rewarding.  That particular dog may find neutral tones rewarding from someone she has bonded closely with.  There is not a lot of point in using neutral tones if that does not reinforce the dog and motivate her to repeat the desired behaviour.  So yeah, I can agree with what she is doing there and no I don't think it would confuse the dog that much. 

For example, our youngest dog someitmes gets overexcited when visitors come over.  When she messes up, she is taken from the room.  When she is calm she is brought back.  It used to be, the first time she set paw in the room she went nuts again.  So back out she went.  Until she sees that only calm behaviour is tolerated.  I am certainly not going to leave her out of the room where she is calm, just to avoid getting her excited again or "confusing" her, because being in the room with us and receiving attention is the reward she gets for controlling herself.  As was pointed out in the videos there.... you need an opportunity for contrast.  The starker the contrast, the less confusing for the dog IMO.

i think it would be best to sit down with jean donaldson, and while watching the video side-by-side, ask her what the high pitch voice was all about ----- whether it was indeed, a reinforcement, or whether it was a natural emotional reaction in a reactive situation (ya know, what most humans do by instinct) ----- everyone slips up, so what's the big deal..... so it was caught on video and brings her off this "pious" status and into the real of being human who's not as perfect as some people make her out to be ------ aren't all of us?

I think she's using the high pitch to reward the dog. I think it's a mistake as I believe it serves to "excite" the dog in an already excited situation. I think the food reward would suffice for the dog. I don't think dogs learn well in an excited environment and I don't think they see excitement as a reward. I think they see it as excitement and respond in kind.

Just my take on the voice thing. I'm constantly telling my husband to calm his voice and it works amazingly well.  

lostcoyote

everyone slips up, so what's the big deal..... so it was caught on video and brings her off this "pious" status and into the real of being human who's not as perfect as some people make her out to be ------ aren't all of us?

While I still haven't seen the video, I agree that no one is perfect and should not be put up on a perch of perfection. No one.

If anyone knows imperfection, it's me. I make mistakes all the time. I made one in this thread, analyzing something based on someone else's viewpoint, at least for the sake of a theoretical point.

Personally, I wouldn't rush the timetable of the dog in question. Indeterminate time to acclimate to the equipment, indeterminate time to reward calmness in stages successively closer to the stimilus or stimuli. Then again, I don't use any headgear which, perhaps, shaped how I did approach it. But what if I were a trainer and had a time limit to effect a change? The owners don't have gobs of money and I need to help the dog in the quickest way that is the least invasive or traumatic. And suits that particular dog. And I probably would have more gear than just a GL or a slipknot.

So, would we criticize Donaldson because she did something we don't like, or because the application and technique was wrong, or because it's her turn in the hot seat? I think certain trainers are strong in certain areas. For example, Donaldson might be more controlling and more apt to use lure/reward. Dunbar might be more social in allowing dogs to work it out, as well as stressing socialization of puppies at the earliest possible time.

In any case, it is refreshing to read the various viewpoints.

I think it is also a salient point that these are shelter dogs (and Donaldson is employed by a shelter) and it is a bit different of a situation than with a pet dog. This video would be very instructive I think for the many shelters across the country that do use head collars for their dogs. The thing with a shelter situation is this: these dogs have got to be walked. The less they are walked, the more crazy they get, the less likely they are to be adopted. But they're also spending 23 hours in kennels in a very stressful situation and the people walking them are different every day, and are volunteers usually. I volunteered for a year at a shelter and walking those dogs is hard work. A lot of shelters are turning to head collars and no-pull harnesses (which I do prefer, most definitely) to make it easier to deal with these dogs who are mostly untrained large breed adolescents who are then stressed to the nth degree by their situation. The trainers in shelters are not in an ideal situation and I don't fault shelters even who use slip collars or prongs or anything to get these dogs out of their cages without dislocating their volunteer handlers' arms and to make at least some small bit of progress on the issues that affect their adoptability. But would I want to see a not-so-dog-savvy person attempt what she's doing with in the reactive dog videos with their pet dog just after watching her do it for 3 minutes? No way.

Ron, I really wish you had a chance to view these videos....I would hardly call them the least invasive or traumatic methods.....

lostcoyote

i think it would be best to sit down with jean donaldson, and while watching the video side-by-side, ask her what the high pitch voice was all about ----- whether it was indeed, a reinforcement, or whether it was a natural emotional reaction in a reactive situation

I do think it was praise.  How many times have people here been told to literally "throw a party" when the dog pees outdoors??  And how many people here have said "my neighbours must think I'm nuts!!"  ??  We don't naturally get excited about wee, especially not when its in the middle of winter and you're still in your PJs and the little beast is being especially choosy about The Spot this morning.  Its laid on for the benefit of the dog.  I really dont think most people get like that naturally.  Especially in a stressful situation.  Most of us have to work oursleves up to it, at least initially.  The amount of people in our training class who got told by the trainer that, to the dog, their praise didn;t sound THAT different from the command, or even a reprimand - how is the dog supposed to know he did it right?  My ex used to say in a stern/exasperated tone: "Thank you!" but it still sounded like a telling off.

I don't think shes pious.  I tell you something, I think the yanking on the GL was a slip up, a human error.  I am reasonably sure she knows that is not how the GL is meant to be used and that it is potentially painful and damaging and that THAT was an instinctive response which she should have repressed.  But the praise.... yes, she did the right thing IMO.  If she did NOT praise, then the poor dog wouldn't have known what TO do to avoid further negative reinforcement and you could well have ended up with a much unhappier, even shut down dog by the end of the session.

snownose

Ron, I really wish you had a chance to view these videos....I would hardly call them the least invasive or traumatic methods.....

How do you judge what is traumatic or invasive?  Is it what makes you wince and turn away?  If so, I'm with you there becuase I winced as well.  I didn't see an unhappy dog however and I think that's how each method ought to be judged.  Mind you, the clips were heavily edited.  So its almost impossible to judge anything really.

I liked watching the clips.  I liked the honesty of the trainers.  They were pretty upfront about the method they were using.  And I liked seeing the GL being used (except when it was jerked on) because frankly I have never seen one used like that before.  In fact, I suspect I have never seen one really used properly before.  So that was eductaional for me.

Yeah she COULD have used food.  But the point is to use something that is motivating for the dog, not necessarily what is most convenient to us.  Thats what "positive reinforcement" IS.  A lot of dogs just aren't bothered by food or toys when they have another dog standing just a few feet away and are going nuts over it.  Waiting until the situation calmed down considerably enabled her to give the dog a high value reward for REALLY good behaviour (calm when right next to the other dog) and also ensured that the dog was actually in a frame of mind to see the food as a high value reward in the first place. 

Another point - don't dog parks ban treats because of the potential for fights?  Maybe that why food was used minimally.... because it could have got the other dog worked up even more which would have exacerbated the whole problem and made it harder for the dog being worked with?  Just a thought.

snownose

Ron, I really wish you had a chance to view these videos

I downloaded a flash player and it still wouldn't do it.

Yeah, I figured it out. On the pic that shows the video, I right button click and then choose open link in new window and it gives me a playable version.

So, allow me to be unpopular again. I do not like the way that she did it. I understand the principle of -R. When the dog quits straining, the noose relaxes. That is, the good sitting behavior is reinforced because tension is released. But Spencer is right and she is holding the front legs off of the ground to "maintain pressure" on the noose. In that moment, it has become +P, in my opinion. With the other dog (the tan one) she is helicoptering. Granted, the dog is leaping herself off of the ground but Donaldson is picking that moment to pull backwards, spinning the dog in midair. That is +P. That is not how I would do it. It would have remained -R if she did nothing and allowed the dog to realize that staying at heel or sitting would release the pressure, on her own. With the first reactive tug back or the holding of the the leash so that the dog's feet remain off the ground, it has transitioned to an action brought in to stop a behavior. +P.

Now, was the excercise effective? It would appear so. So, IMHO, Donaldson has shown that -R, +P, and +R can affect a change. Is it a permanent change? I don't know. May that dog always have to wear a GL? Maybe. Is that so bad? Not necessarily. If the equipment helps the dog stay relaxed and focused on the human, is it not humane?

Yes, I cringed. I think the bit about the tone of her voice for praise is a side-issue and doesn't amount to much. What is important to me, is the transition from -R to +P, which can easily happen. But I'm not a shelter worker trying to get a dog behaving well enough to adopt in a week, either.

And if such is the case, are physical methods really that bad? If a method does not qualify as physical abuse but is truly a corrective or boundary measure? Can it help? So, it would seem.

Does this sway me off of the +R, -P method to incorporate more corrections or corrective equipment? Not by a longshot and I will still recommend my method for those who can take value from it. And I will always choose it first.

And hopefully this is a learning experience for everyone.

FourIsCompany

In the "On-Leash Aggression" video, she actually yanks the dog with the "gentle leader"  at 2:28. I can't abide by that and I'm also very uncomfortable with the way she handles the dogs in general. She's seems very rough. I'm really kind of surprised.

Just catching up on this thread and I watched this video and the "handling a dog reactive dog".

Without naming the product and thus avoid inadvertently "advertising" the commercial product, I would use the contraption only on a calm dog.  It appeared in the video that the excited, out of control dog could really get hurt.  I definitely saw leash popping.  JD says do not introduce PUNISHMENT in this training but clearly there is corrections and punishments shown.  JD also uses the phrase "you got to be vigilant" as some kind of sugar coated punishment.  I give her credit that her method was shown on this video to work.  Aggressive and rough at the beginning and once the dog learns how to behavior then the "gentle" part comes into play.  I also feel the video was staged and the roast beef in pouches was the real training tool. 

houndlove

But would I want to see a not-so-dog-savvy person attempt what she's doing with in the reactive dog videos with their pet dog just after watching her do it for 3 minutes? No way.

Did I miss the disclaimer?

I'm sorry, but I could not pass that up! LOL You gotta admit, that's funny!

Chuffy

How many times have people here been told to literally "throw a party" when the dog pees outdoors??  And how many people here have said "my neighbours must think I'm nuts!!"  ??

A dog getting excited because she has just peed is a good thing. A dog getting excited when on-leash aggression is the problem is NOT a good thing. Excitement feeds the issue.

Chuffy

If she did NOT praise, then the poor dog wouldn't have known what TO do to avoid further negative reinforcement and you could well have ended up with a much unhappier, even shut down dog by the end of the session.

I don't think there's anything wrong with praise, it's just those times when she adds the excitement energy that I object to. I believe she was using the excited praise as a marker (in conjunction with stopping the tension). I would much rather hear a calm, "good boy" as a marker instead of the high pitch.

Chuffy

I am reasonably sure she knows that is not how the GL is meant to be used and that it is potentially painful and damaging and that THAT was an instinctive response which she should have repressed.

Then why was it included in the video and posted on the Internet? She did it 10 times and called it "pulling". She said that's how the thing is supposed to be used. Did I not see that right? 

I noticed, as did someone else, that the GL seems to be the solution in the sampel videos.

One that really bothered me is the one with Dunbar and his dog, Claude. I'm not discrediting the GL and I respect his opinion that it made an immediate difference. What disturbed me is that he said he wouldn't bother with further walking manners training. Why bother when the GL is so easy? I stipulate that some dogs simply may do better because the physical cue of the equipment accomplishes what English, German, or Spanish does not seem to do.

Granted, my perspective may be skewed. I walk Shadow in a standard walking harness, which is barrel shaped with the top and bottom looking like an I. So, I also call it an I-back, as opposed to an x-back, which is a sled racing harness. So, I didn't do collar corrections and don't use corrective equipment. And I may have the luck of the Irish, having what seems to me to be a soft dog who responds to gentleness and subtlety (oh shut up and give me that piece of steak). But I would like to think that it is a tool to help in the intermediate time to speed up the process of a heel or LLW or aversive to leash aggression. Also, I wonder, in the case of the dogs with Jean, are they aggressive off leash? And does this equipment help in that or is it primarily for better manners on leash? I think the latter.

But to rely on equipment rather than training is disturbing to me.  Or, we can quit busting chops on people who use corrective equipment, though I will continue to offer my methods, if it helps. And who's to say that you can't use corrective equipment for a while and transition later to only +R, depending on the dog? I say that because it would appear that there are some special dogs who, at least in the time being, haven't built the trust or watch me or ability to listen to a human with just rewards, or any number of factors.

That being said, I would not think ill of a person I see using a GL or Easy Walk, or muzzle, or prong, etc. I would see that as being responsible.