Flight versus fight

Liesje

But see your questions appear to be misinformed.  Becca has already explained how "fight or flight" is a physiological response coming from a specific area of the brain, not a choice.  So you keep discussing this as if it's a choice the dog is making, part of a thinking process, when in fact it is not.  There is no "degree", there is simple a threshold whereby the dog is so threatened and fearful that it's body reacts with a fight or flight response.  Anything below that is not "fight or flight".

My question is not misinformed and I believe I am exploring new ground.  Your one underlying assumption is fragile based on what I see from a variety of different sizes, types, and temperaments of dogs.  In one home example, Paganini, a known DA dog, when she met 700lbs of dogs, she chose flight and then when cornered, chose submission.  When she met a 55lbs dog, she chose fight.  The situation and Paganini's prediction of the outcome dictated her response.

Just to anyone "listening in" - it is a grave mistake to try to influence behavior in a dog aroused to the point of true fight or flight response.  One's answer to this can only be defuse and retrain the dog so that the trigger for fight-or-flight does not happen.  My way is described above (previous page). 

Again fight-or-flight is a technical term.  I've lifted a summary from Wikipedia (with citations) of what happens below.  What the OP keeps describing as if it were fight-or-flight, is in fact various behaviors which emanate from higher response centers of the brain, in response to something novel in a state of normal stimulus. 

Withdrawal and appeasement are part of a dog's social language, while unprovoked aggression or escalation indicates a problem.  If I saw the first and then the latter, I would be greatly encouraged, however.  Truly pathological dogs would have taken on the whole pack at once.  Obviously this dog possesses natural impulse control.  The key would be to get such a dog to tap that in any novel situation.  Again, I've described in a previous post how I do that.

If a stimulus is perceived as a threat, a more intense and prolonged discharge of the locus ceruleus activates the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (Thase & Howland, 1995). This activation is associated with specific physiological actions in the system, both directly and indirectly through the release of epinephrine (adrenaline) and to a lesser extent norepinephrine from the medulla of the adrenal glands. The release is triggered by acetylcholine released from preganglionic sympathetic nerves. The other major factor in the acute stress response is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (Sternberg 2001).

A response controlled by the sympathetic nervous system cannot, by definition, be controlled.  These primitive brain functions will make the choice for a dog what action to take - in a normal dog, escape will be the first choice as it is for most animals.  Escape may manifest as physically removing oneself from the scene, employing defensive maneuvers (armored and quilled creatures), employing camoflage or techniques to look less of a target (piloeretion), or in humans it can manifest, sadly, as the use of controlled supstances, alcohol, or other other attempt to remain in a "thoughtless" state. 

My use of dogs to move livestock daily, toys on the edge of the fight-or-flight bubble.  One's job is constantly to keep the sheep, in my case, or ducks, outside that realm so that what they do is a matter of choice, not fear.  Once they've broken the bubble, livestock become unpredictable and sometimes dangerous.  Even a duck wing can do some damage on a dog, much less a 350 pound ram whose lower brain has selected "fight" as his option.

DPU

Liesje

But see your questions appear to be misinformed.  Becca has already explained how "fight or flight" is a physiological response coming from a specific area of the brain, not a choice.  So you keep discussing this as if it's a choice the dog is making, part of a thinking process, when in fact it is not.  There is no "degree", there is simple a threshold whereby the dog is so threatened and fearful that it's body reacts with a fight or flight response.  Anything below that is not "fight or flight".

My question is not misinformed and I believe I am exploring new ground.  Your one underlying assumption is fragile based on what I see from a variety of different sizes, types, and temperaments of dogs.  In one home example, Paganini, a known DA dog, when she met 700lbs of dogs, she chose flight and then when cornered, chose submission.  When she met a 55lbs dog, she chose fight.  The situation and Paganini's prediction of the outcome dictated her response.

But your example is dog aggression.  If a dog is already aggressive towards other dogs, how can you be sure she is not the instigator and assume that in these situations she is terrified for her life?  Also, how are you sure she actually "chose" flight in on situation and fight in another, assuming she was actually terrified enough for a "fight or flight" response?

I've observed a lot of dogs at our clubs, dog shows, doing temperament tests, etc. and to date I think the *only* time I've ever seen a true "fight or flight" situation was with Kenya very early on.  For example when I first got her she was scared of everyone and especially scared of noises.  I dropped a HUGE book on a counter top where she was standing underneath.  She absolutely panicked.  Another time I tripped over her, made a loud noise, she got so scared she peed and ran.  I've seen a lot of fearful, aggressive, reactive, neutral, etc responses but only one or two from Kenya that I believe actually reached the threshold for a "fight or flight" response (and I do believe it is a response, not a choice, especially since the word "choice" seems to infer that one is better than the other, and I don't believe that is true either).  Come to think of it, Kenya ended up with me because of a "fight or flight" situation that she is STILL recovering from.  I don't think these are everyday occurrences, unless the dog is exceptionally nervy.

It just doesn't seem very productive to address dog aggression as if it's a fight or flight situation.  If Paganini was that scared of dogs I think you would have had a LOT more trouble on your hands and it would not have been at all health or fair to immediately put her in with a pack.

Well hold on here, maybe DPU is onto something.

I don't know if I believe that various circumstances can't influence whether an animal flees or fights when pushed over the edge. As I said in an earlier post, I have seen my hare choose fight when he felt that flight wasn't a viable option. I saw this most strikingly after he broke his leg and had a cast on. He didn't want the cat he is normally friends with to get too close.  Presumably he felt vulnerable because he couldn't run and so when the cat got too close for comfort he jumped on her and tried to bite her. I haven't seen him go that way since his cast came off. I have also seen my hare reel himself back from the brink of a flight or fight response, and I've seen him learn to not run blindly like every cell in his body is telling him to do. I think that possibly the length or intensity of the panic could influence the choice. For example, I could totally imagine my hare deciding to fight rather than flee if an animal smaller than him was the thing tipping him over, and I would imagine that to open up fight as a response in more situations than say, if he only ever encountered big animals that could eat him up. But he's a hare and he has to be able to make these decisions without actually thinking. And I have no proof that he could be influenced, just a gut feeling.

As for trust and compromise, I never said trust wasn't involved. I think it's hard to compromise without trust, personally, but maybe that's just me. In a lot of cases, I think dogs are just thrown together with individuals they may or may not have chosen for themselves. Sometimes compromises are great for making those relationships into something more. "You can play your favourite game of chomping on my hand provided you don't chomp hard" is a surpisingly powerful trust and affection builder in my pup. As is "you can bite the brush and wrestle with me if you let me brush you unmolested for a minute". It seems to work a lot better than "No you can't bite the brush ever, grooming is not a game!" which is what I'd prefer to be enforcing, and would probably lead to my whiney, sensitive puppy running away when he saw the brush rather than leaping into my arms.

DPU

In one home example, Paganini, a known DA dog, when she met 700lbs of dogs, she chose flight and then when cornered, chose submission.  When she met a 55lbs dog, she chose fight.  The situation and Paganini's prediction of the outcome dictated her response.

But is it a conscious decision or yet another reaction based on environment? It seems a self-perservation thing to not take on too many dogs at one time, i.e., don't write a check your body can't cash.

Also, if Pags is truly diagnosed as DA, how much of her behavior and experience can be applied to dogs that are not DA? How much of her behavior would be idiosyncratic to just her?

I do believe you that she would cool around a whole group of dogs that could kick her butt but ramp it up around one dog that she could intimidate. Which makes me wonder about the whole need for dog aggression. How can she cool it around a group and not be cool around one dog, unless there was something to be gained by either behavior in certain circumstances. I still don't know if it's a choice but more likely a "gut reaction" if you will based on the scenario.

Quickly because I have to go to a dog showing.  Lesjie makes a excellent point of how does the human know the dog is in the flight/fight zone.  But she makes the assumption that the only path to that zone is fear.  It is said fear leads to anger and anger leads to aggression and aggression leads to a fight.  Is fear the only path to the zone.  Can't a dog start off with just being angry.  The source of freeze/flight/fight zone is stress and the resulting chemicals that are released in the body.  The brain does react but I don't think it is always the same resulting behavior.  Notice the order I put the reaction.....freeze, flight, fight.  From my observations this is the normal order but it is not the order all the me.  If a bookcase is toppling over onto to the dog, the dog will freeze, then if it continues toward the dog, the dog will flight.  If the dog has no place to go, you think the dog is going to attack the bookcase? 

What I am starting to believe is that going into the 3 F zone is not a snap thing that happens.  If the dog has been in that zone before then the dog will remember.  There has to be some indication within the dog that this is where the situation is leading and therefore the dog performs the learned behavior to try and get out of the situation.  My residence dogs when confronted with a situation will freeze, turn their head away from the dog giving escalating warning, and when the situation is diffused, will then walk away.  This has to be a learned proven behavior that keeps my residence dogs out of the 3 F's zone. 

DPU

 

What I am starting to believe is that going into the 3 F zone is not a snap thing that happens.  If the dog has been in that zone before then the dog will remember.  There has to be some indication within the dog that this is where the situation is leading and therefore the dog performs the learned behavior to try and get out of the situation.  My residence dogs when confronted with a situation will freeze, turn their head away from the dog giving escalating warning, and when the situation is diffused, will then walk away.  This has to be a learned proven behavior that keeps my residence dogs out of the 3 F's zone. 

I still disagree.  See Becca's posts.  It's not a learned behavior, it's not something that they choose or that they remember, it's an uncontrollable physiological response based on a trigger in a certain area of the brain.  Anything else and you are talking about a different type of reaction, which is fine, but there is plenty of study on Fight or Flight already and I don't see how throwing out a few examples from your dogs disproves it.

Involuntary actions leave behind impressions in the higher learning/cognitive centers of the brain.  This is the complex knot that those who deal with post traumatic stress disorder deal with.  But you'd no more tell them that they way they react to fear triggers once they've begun, than you could redirect F/F once it has begun.

It's tupping season here.  That's the sheep version of rut.  I've got three very sweet gentle rams - I don't trust any ram but at any other time I don't need my old "ram whackers" around these guys.

That lower brain center that controls fight or flight is the same one that also dictates the urges to MOUNT IT, EAT IT, NURSE IT.  When the rams smell that lovely smell, they go into a series of ritual behaviors to ensure the readiness of the female.  The behaviors also alert the other rams and THEIR brains give the FIGHT IT signal.  There's no thought involved.

It's like the computer thingie in some cars that adjusts torque depending on different conditions.  Different "triggers" are processed, resulting in various possible output signals to the drive train, but the thing in the middle, the computer, can't be said to be making choices that are modifiable.  If you didn't want a certain outcome, you'd just have to avoid triggering the computer under those circumstances.

Two of the rams are still under a year old and they get the leavings from my 350 pound ram.  His version of "fight" is to nudge the other ram (75 pounds) aside.  The other two get into hilarious standoffs where the larger of the two (my pick baby ram) sneaks around and mounts, then gets slammed in the butt in the act.  If the other ram tries to mount, however, the first, bigger ram is quicker and has better aim and can knock him off couse before he connects.  Sheep get the job done in mere fractions of a second so I've no doubt I'll have 90% lambs from the oldest, 10% from my pick, and none at all from the smallest ram.

Without the FIGHT reflex, in the wild there'd be no way to sort out the highest quality animals for breeding, in a herd situation.  They have no choice in the matter.  I'd no more try to ask a dog to "pick" flight over fight, than I'd ask the rams to sort out their differences nicely please.  Nor will I fail to use extreme caution when working with them during this season (Always. Bring. A. Dog.).

To those who wonder what rams have to do with dogs - it's precisely, as I've said, the same mechanism located in the same part of their brains.  It's not guesswork.  The finest minds in neurology have mapped this stuff out, and it's been proven true for a long time.  Saying it's not true is akin to claiming the moonwalk was staged in Hollywood.  Yeah, no one MAKES you believe this stuff but the world of real behavioral science will march right on without those who accept the foundational facts. 

brookcove

Involuntary actions leave behind impressions in the higher learning/cognitive centers of the brain.  This is the complex knot that those who deal with post traumatic stress disorder deal with.  But you'd no more tell them that they way they react to fear triggers once they've begun, than you could redirect F/F once it has begun.

Ah, that's kind of what I wanted to say. Kit certainly learns from going into a F/F response, but he learns what triggered it and next time he sees it he may well go F/F far earlier. I think once he does go into F/F, that's it and he can't learn or choose to do anything consciously.

Incidentally, I really don't think freezing is part of the F/F response. Kit freezes a dozen times a day or more, but as long as he hasn't gone one way or the other, he can still think and learn. In fact, freezing is what animals do when they are assessing a situation and are ready to go into F/F. The more Kit freezes, the less likely he is to explode into blind panic. Freezing serves two purposes. It makes him nearly invisible to a predator and it gives him a moment to ready himself if he does need to flee or fight. It seems to me like something he does to avoid a F/F response, which is clearly something he doesn't enjoy regardless of how good he is at it or how often he is there. Kit freezes whenever he senses potential danger, which to a hare is every time someone or something walks past. I've seen Penny freeze when she has decided she had better not do anything until the tension in the situation drains away in case it provokes a fight. I've also seen her freeze reflexively when faced with an aggressive charge.  

Liesje

I still disagree.  ......It's not a learned behavior, it's not something that they choose or that they remember, it's an uncontrollable physiological response based on a trigger in a certain area of the brain. 

Blinking is an uncontrollable physiological response to a stimulus but yet when the involuntary action is triggered it can be somewhat controlled.  It may or maynot be a learned behavior but certainly can be influenced by learned behavior leading up to and after.  The dog must have awareness of what is happening and therefore a memory.  And, in what I read, the response is either flight or fight but it never mentions for an individual dog, the flight will always be flight or always be fight.  That supports my observations of seeing the response interchange.  Now what makes the interchange?

DPU

That supports my observations of seeing the response interchange.  Now what makes the interchange?

 The circumstances, I believe. Like you say, some situations are better dealt with by fleeing rather than fighting and vice versa. If an animal were to always fight, they are going to be in trouble if they can't adapt when fighting may mean death or being badly hurt. I still think the best way you could influence it is to always supply obvious escape routes. I find that most animals would rather run away if the opportunity is there. Having somewhere safe to run to is surely another way to make fleeing seem a more sensible option at the time. I think that possibly animals may be more likely to fight with close proximity to the stimulus. Close and sudden. I think your body knows better than you do what to do in these situations. I have found myself reacting to danger before I have actually consciously registered the danger. I would react differently in different situations, but my brain knows what to initiate for each situation from experience. I have hurt myself in the past reflexively grabbing at a sharp object I have dropped, but I have also found myself snatching my hand away from a falling sharp object after cutting myself once before. These things aren't flight of fight, but they are things that bypass the usual thought processes.

So my thought is that if you want to make flight the default response rather than fight, I would do a few things. I'd make sure there were obvious escape routes and somewhere known to be a safe place easily accessed. I'd also try to put distance between the animal and where I would expect the trigger to be. And I'd try to avoid very sudden triggers. And finally, I'd put barriers up to physically stop the fight response short. That's a lot to do for a response I would be doing my utmost to avoid in the first place.
 

corvus

DPU

That supports my observations of seeing the response interchange.  Now what makes the interchange?

 

 The circumstances, I believe. Like you say, some situations are better dealt with by fleeing rather than fighting and vice versa. If an animal were to always fight, they are going to be in trouble if they can't adapt when fighting may mean death or being badly hurt. I still think the best way you could influence it is to always supply obvious escape routes. I find that most animals would rather run away if the opportunity is there. Having somewhere safe to run to is surely another way to make fleeing seem a more sensible option at the time.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  I believe that when raising dogs and kids together, the dog should always be given at least one "safe" place that he always has access to and he knows children will not encroach upon, and children should be taught not to pester the dog or corner him.... this is when tragedies will happen.  Same with dogs and cats.... the cats should always have somewhere safe they can go where the dog is unable to follow.

Perhaps another way to help change the response is to make Fight less possible, as well as making Flight MORE possible.  Perhaps a muzzle for example?  Or, as in DPUs experience of a DA dog, having the dog live with MANY dogs, where Fight is less fo aviable option? 

 Having the dog live with many dogs doesn't fix or manage dog aggression.  There's various underlying types of dog aggressive behavior - some dogs are what we would call bullies - social climbers who are opportunistic.  These will bide their time - most of these will suppress behavior when in a new pack situation.  Some are fear aggressive.  Fear aggression should be treated by gradually desensitizing the dog to the triggers, NOT with immersion.  Some dogs are pathological, and these dogs will make you very unhappy that you flung them in with any dogs you care for, regardless of how many there are or how stable the pack environment.  This last group is rare, thankfully.

 This does make a lot of sense.  A fearful dog is going to be way too stressed out to deal wit that situation.  A TRULY aggro dog would be a disaster and a tragedy.  And there are some dogs who, as you say, will only learn to choose FL over F in certain circumstances. 

I think being around many dogs at once helped to tip the balance with one of my dogs. He used to be reactive on lead and very aggressive towards some dogs whether on lead or not.  When I started to truly understand his problem and help him with it by desensitising, I also taught  him an alternate, desirable behaviour as well... Because I find teaching TO DO is easier than teaching NOT TO DO and also because I find it helps the dog to calm himself if he has a set thing he does in that circumstance.  He can concentrate on accomplishing that instead of the fear or anxiety that is gripping him, and so not lose control.

We took him to the game fair one year and I found it an invaluable opportunity.... there were plenty of dogs about and he sensibly chose to ignore them - tehre were "too many to take on" I suppose!  So I could reward the behaviour of "ignoring" - partly with high value food but also with distance whenever possible.  I believe this helped get him over a "hump" in his training, because he learned that he could create distance between him and the other dog in a way OTHER than an aggressive front or all out attack.  If he stayed calm and LISTENED to me, I would get him away as quickly and calmly as possible.  It engendered trust between us, where previously that had been lacking... and it made it possible to reward the behaviour I wanted and show him a safe way to cope.

I think you have to be a bit careful not to classify something as a flight or fight response when it's not. I believe some aggressive dogs may strike out through fear, but that doesn't mean they were just pushed over the edge and couldn't help their response. Perhaps they have found that aggression buys them space so they use it a lot whenever they feel the slightest bit of anxiety. I think in these cases teaching the dog that there are other ways to buy space like in Chuffy's example will help more than if you assumed it was a F/F response. My hare would NEVER come 'round if he were flooded like that. It would be too much for him and his anxiety would climb sky high. Hares and other highly strung animals have been known to have heart attacks in extremely stressful situations. I don't think dogs ever get that way, but there would surely be times when exposing them to triggers would be a very bad idea.