Smile RWbeagles! Stopping behaviors.

  think it's more productive to refrain from emotionalizing. To consider that aversives like noise making or spray bottles leave scars implies a kind of  a neurotic component is over-anthropomorphizing, IMO. Furthermore, I don't believe that a dog would equate spray bottle water with swimming water ... I don't believe there's much reason to think a dog can recognize the concept of "water" that transmutes into such different forms.

this is not "anthropomorphizing", it's basic learning. If dogs can't make basic associations about experiences, they can't learn. Take the clicker- that noise means nothing to a dog at first. Some dogs are actually scared of it. But you can condition the dog to believe "click predicts food" quite easily. You can easily condition a dog to believe the sound of his choke chain rattling predicts pain, and many people state that they can then just use the sound as a punisher, no need to actually apply the pain. Many people accidently create dog-aggressive dogs by delivering pain to dog when dog sees another dog; dog becomes conditioned to believe the appearance of another dog predicts bad things, so he pre-emptively attacks the other dog.  The verbal NO is meaningless to dogs unless you teach them that NO predicts some kind of bad event for dog.

Since I personally have conditioned several dogs to believe that being sprayed in the face with water, whether from a hose or squirt bottle, predicts good stuff, and that loud noises of any kind predict fun and good stuff, I fully believe that dogs can be accidently conditioned to believe the opposite- that being sprayed with water is bad, that all loud noises are bad. Mental associations in the mind. I'm not talking about neurotic behaviors, just basic learning-- you taught the puppy from an early age that you applying water to puppy means puppy was bad; why would  you be surprised the adult dog is difficult to bathe? he has learned what you taught him.

snownose

Chuffy

I don't see why a recall is not enough.  I mean, we teach that ANYWAY.  So when the dog is about to do something - recall and praise/reward.  Why can't it be: Get to mum, soemthing great is about to happen!  Instead of:  Stop that or something dreadful will happen!  Especially if the "something dreadful" will be associated with you anyway.

I don't know if you have brought rescues to your home and had cats at the same time....all I can tell you is that when the dog is fixated on chasing a cat ( remember dog has never been trained to leave cats alone) a recall won't do......especially, a Husky straight from the pound.

 It's great that you have a way to stop this potentially lethal behaviour, and if ever I find myself caught out (because I have not managed the dog's environment sufficiently, because I haven't got a rock solid recall yet, because the dog is a tricky individual with problems from rescue, etc) then I am sure your words will echo in my ears and I may well use this technique to save the cats life.  But I wouldn't rely on it to teach the dog.  I just prefer to use other ways, that's all.

snownose

the dogs that have been trained with noise aversion are not scared of general noises, even gunshots.....I live out in the boonies, it is hunting season, and my dogs are not affected by gunshot noises....now, if some person decided to walk through the woods banging on a metal drinking bowl, it might be different....lol

It's definately an individual thing.  With some sensitive dogs, your statement would be totally incorrect.  "Sound aversion" can completely ruin some dogs.  Perhaps your view is coloured by dealing with mostly "harder" types?

I did ask a direct question earlier, did you miss it?  I would be interested to hear more how your pack interacts, particularly about how and when the elder dog corrects others.  And specifically whether it stops them transgressing IN FUTURE or just now, this minute.   

Chuffy

I did ask a direct question earlier, did you miss it?  I would be interested to hear more how your pack interacts, particularly about how and when the elder dog corrects others.  And specifically whether it stops them transgressing IN FUTURE or just now, this minute.

I think you might be missing the point that my pack changes pretty frequently......this summer I had six, now, I am down to four, so,when things are in transition my oldest/ packleader works a little harder to keep things in line....when there is peace, like right now....all are relaxed and know their position.....so, at this point I have a well working pack.

Is your situation close to mine?

Nowhere close, hence the questions.  I was just wondering if the way the dog corrects others has an impact on future behaviour but it seems your pack chances too frequently to be able to tell that...(?) 

Chuffy

I was just wondering if the way the dog corrects others has an impact on future behaviour but it seems your pack chances too frequently to be able to tell that...(?) 

My pack doesn't change and the corrections Cara doles out most definitely have an impact on future behavior. But ONLY if she's there. I've seen B'asia start to attack Jaia and look over at Cara's bed and see her there and then just go lie down. I've also observed her starting to get rowdy and look over at Cara's bed only to find it empty, then she goes after Jaia. LOL  

snownose

the dogs that have been trained with noise aversion are not scared of general noises, even gunshots.....I live out in the boonies, it is hunting season, and my dogs are not affected by gunshot noises....now, if some person decided to walk through the woods banging on a metal drinking bowl, it might be different

That was the point I was making. My example was gun dogs or hunting dogs getting use to the sound of gunfire and being fine with it but perhaps being sensitive to another noise that they would identify as a punisher, whether you linked it with a punishment or they just didn't like that particular noise, such as your musical dinnerware. To be fair though, others' misgivings do have credence. If a sound aversion only takes place during your presence, then your presence is part of the antecedent. The reason for environmental booby-traps that do not require your presence is that your presence is no longer part of the antecedent or initial conditions. Which is not to say that your training was not successful. But it is also possible that not every dog will generalize sound aversion in your presence also requires not doing the unwanted behavior away from your presence or immediate sound aversives.

ron2

Which is not to say that your training was not successful. But it is also possible that not every dog will generalize sound aversion in your presence also requires not doing the unwanted behavior away from your presence or immediate sound aversives.

Ron, I don't know what else to say to you.....at this time there are four dogs loose while I am gone, access to the whole house and fenced in area outside......the cats are completely safe.....when I get back from being gone the cats are snoozing on the bed, the couch, in computer chairs.....and other various places.....when I tell you at this point my dogs just walk by the cats and don't even pay attention to the cats, which means I don't even have to address the issue, would you say my method is successful ?

snownose

which means I don't even have to address the issue, would you say my method is successful ?

Yes.

You misunderstood my intent. There are chances for other dogs and other people to fail in that scenario. I was not doubting your success or effectiveness.

ron2

You misunderstood my intent. There are chances for other dogs and other people to fail in that scenario. I was not doubting your success or effectiveness.

Not a problem.......I can only speak for the dogs I own and have dealt with, of course, I can NOT speak for all dogs in this world

I kind of mentally divide training methods up into "safe" and "not safe". "Safe" methods have little to no potential to cause unintended problems. "not safe" methods may work really well,  but they have the potential to cause serious unintended problems. Like your "bang on the metal bowl" method- sure, might work; most dogs won't develop "baggage" from the method; but with some dogs you may create potentially serious noise-aversion problems using this method (just curious- have you ever tried to train these dogs to do a noisy metal agility teeter? how do they react when the garbage gets picked up?). Thus I would not recommend it as a general training method. Other examples: punishing a dog for guarding food. Some dogs will stop guarding food if you do this. Others will escalate their guarding to dangerous levels. Thus almost no one recommends punishing a dog for food-guarding, even though it may work to fix the problem, because of possible unintended bad consequences. Most punishment-based training methods are "unsafe" because they carry this potential of bad unintended consequences.

Mudpuppy, correct, that was my point ... dogs make basic associations with experiences. The neurotic emotionalizing is a human projection. But, I still don’t get how you rationalize the idea that a dog has the conceptual ability to recognize various forms of water (spray, bath, ice, mist, hose). Plenty of dogs hate baths, yet love to swim.

RE: safe/unsafe. Many people use aversives and corrections precisely because they are MORE safe. You, yourself use a shock collar to perfect your dogs' recall, I assume that’s because you consider the reliability of 100% recall to be more safe. I went to a trainer to have Ixa snake-proofed using a shock collar, because it’s the surest way to keep her safe from that harm.

I’m happy to use clickers and treats to teach my dog to walk “around“, or to do other things, but when it comes to entering the street, I want her to be convinced that the asphalt will eat her alive if she steps forward without an ”okay“ from me, because her life depends on it .... so I used corrections to achieve that.

Ultimately, I think we all have our preferred methods of handling various tasks with our dogs, and we're all clever enough to rationalize and justify our own logic. So, from where I sit, I agree with (who was it, Dog_ma, others, too perhaps?) who talk about "starting behaviors" and "stopping behaviors" as being quite different tasks, and perhaps worthy of distinct approaches ... at least for some of us.

mudpuppy, did you read all my posts?

I deal with rescues straight out of the pound at times....I just want to make sure you realize what is is going on......

I am not going into the details of training.....as far as I can see, if I can train a dog not to kill a cat or a smaller animal, isn't that worth something????

It might put a dent into the mind of a crazed cat killer.........TJA................so, what....

how about natural dog training?

lostcoyote

how about natural dog training?

Lost....that doesn't fit into the regular clicker deal....ya know....lol

lostcoyote

how about natural dog training?

That was my point in an earlier post.  A lot of these weenie behavior problems like jumping, chewing, housebreaking, barking, etc. will disappear in time and with increase socialization with other dogs.  I think we do a disservice in advising a mechanical approach in addressing these problems where fulfillin the dog's needs is the answer.

Leash reactivity is a good example.  I don't think I have read on this forum of any successes except for one.  And that was achieved by exposing the dog to more and more natural social situations.  Advising based on what you read is not the same as the advice given because of experience and being successful in influencing the behavior.  Hearsay advise tends to be exaggerated, cleaned up, and sometimes self serving.

Another example is jumping on the human.  In between structured main meals, there is snack time in my house where I dispense treats and ask for no specific behavior in return except calm and patience.  The new foster, Paganini is jumping all over me and interferring with the other dogs' snack.  I am not going to ruin this very important social event by stopping the treat dispensing, turning away and ignoring the behavior at the expense of the other dogs' enjoyment.  I just continue in the situation and the other dogs take care of Paganini with head butts.  The other dogs are not viaing for their treats but recognize the behavior as disruptive to their pleasure and they do something about it.

Behavior problems such as cat chasing, SA, DA, food resource guardng, leash reactivity, and others requires urgent immediate action that counts.  For safety reasons, it has to be done that way.