|
Post by sibemom on Sept 22, 2006 6:48:29 GMT -5
You know this is the first discussion that we have had about PP methods for fear, aggresion etc... that has gone in a direction which truely makes me smile I think Kaos even though I do not agree with all of your methods you have been more than fair to try and explain it to those of us who tend to use the traditional methods and actually I do read in your posts that maybe you would use some of the things that we Loey and I do if it was warrented Thank you for that. We have had so many others who basicly would just tell us we were HORRIABLE because we choose to be a bit more direct or forceful in our approach when in essence we were just trying to show what we all have come to agree on and that is there is more than one method that works. I am like Loey if there is a more gentle cure of TRUE AGGRESION, someone needs to show me what that is, unfortunatly I have not seen it. Fear aggresion well I suppose there are many ways to address that and fix the problem. I just use what has worked for me in the shortest amount of time, because I really want that behavior STOPPED ASAP. Fear aggresion can be a very dangerous behavior because with some dogs you never know exactly what is going to trigger it. TRUE AGGRESION towards other dogs or people or BOTH that is a sticky issue and can get a dog PTS faster than anything, and thus the reason I pull out the BIG GUNS. I think the hardest part though is being able to tell which one the dog is displaying I will never say that any of my dogs are extremly dog freindly and you know I am not sure I want them to be. Out of the three I will say Willow would be my bet for getting along with strange dogs, and that is because I probably have worked the hardest with her to get her out of being a NERVE BAG I LOVE THAT LABEL NICKI Brody has an indifference towards other dogs now and he has NEVER been afraid of anything, Raven WHO KNOWS but like Brody she has taken my lead and ignores other dogs, sometimes she hackles up but in excietment not aggresion. Fortunatly I have been lucky and have not owned a truely aggresive dog for a long time. THANK YOU LORD ;D The treat issue well I am not saying either that I never use them I just do everything I can NOT TO. To me that is just another problem I am going to have to fix later, like weaning them off the treats, and I do not like creating situations that will have to be modified at a later date. I have worked with dogs that no matter what I have tried I did eventually have to use treats, but only after I exhausted every other means possible I think this debate has been very eye opening and like I said this is why this forum is so different then others, heck on some of the others we would would have been shut down after the first page and that's wrong. I want to understand why some people use some methods as opposed to others that is very important to me. You never know someday I might come across that VERY SOFT DOG, that would respond better to a more PP approach. It has not happened yet but it could so to know as much as I can and the theory behind that way of thinking gives me more balance. Loey and I even went out and got ourselves Clickers awhile ago and we tried BELIEVE ME WE TRIED but I guess we both felt it was not for us BUT WE DID TRY This is where I am going to bring up Cesar again See he does not train dogs, and he accepts what ever collar the owners are all ready using and shows them how to get controll of their dog with that in place. He is not out there promoting one collar over another he is working with what ever they already have. He is not training the dog he is helping the owner get controll to prepare the dog for training. In fact some of those dogs have already been through extensive OB training, but something was lost along the way. That is what I like about him, he keeps things simple, he addressed the issues head on, and he not only rehabilitates the dog but the humans as well. We needed someone like him to come forward and not be afraid of what some would veiw as cruel or harsh. This was a great debate and I must say was mentaly exhausting for me but like I said my brain REALLY NEEDED THE WORKOUT
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 22, 2006 10:01:20 GMT -5
Kaos, , actually I don't have any experience with actually hands on, so to speak, rehabilitation of aggressive dogs and I am sorry if I gave that impression. I personally, have never had an aggressive dog and I have had quite a few dogs in my lifetime. I always joke that I was never seriously hurt in all my years of working with horses, so I quit while I was ahead. Maybe that is what I should do with the dogs. ;D Most of the experience I have is from being in several breed rescues and seeing how aggressive dogs were dealt with. Not that the rescue's take in aggressive dogs, but often by mismanagement of the foster home or people who adopted a dog, (no rules, boundaries and limitations), and by ignoring or not seeing the signs that a dog had the tendency to become aggressive, the dog would become aggressive. One of the things I noted was that in about 99.9% of the cases where dogs became aggressive, as I said, there were no rules, boundaries and limitations and the foster home and/or new owner's allowed the dogs up on the beds and furniture. In other words, the dogs controlled the household, or as we refer to now...they are or think they are "The Alpha". I would also venture to say, that in 99.9% of the cases, the dog would be put down, because once aggression rears its ugly head, it is very hard to reverse. Manage it, yes. With a knowledgable owner sometimes a dog with aggression can be managed, but that is by having control of the dog on a 24/7 basis, which is not only exhausting, but almost impossible. In most cases an "accident" would happen and the dog would bite some one badly or injure another dog and it would be put down. In all my years of being in breed rescues, I know of only one case where a dog was successfully rehabilitated. It was when I was in the Lab rescue. The lab attacked the lady who started the rescue (y'all remember Cathy ;D) and what she did to that dog would have animal activists and PP people calling for her head, but Cathy knew you could not fool around with a big powerful aggressive Lab, so she grabbed him on both sides of his neck, body slammed him to the floor and literally dragged him to the door and put him out on the porch. That dog never, ever tried that again, and was good with all people after that, BUT, Cathy ended up keeping the dog just as Cesar keeps the dogs who cannot be trusted to go to other homes and I feel that too is 99.9% of the time once aggression appears. There were dogs in the rescues who were fine when with Cathy, but if she would try to put them into a foster home or adopt them out, they always returned to her 100% of the time and by then she could no longer control them either and they had to be put down. I know in the BC rescues I volunteered with several of the dogs who became aggressive after being in a foster home or going to a new owner went to, who is considered the best dog psychologist in our state and who is known nation wide. She is PP and her advise always was: "He/she cannot be rehabilitated. Put him/her down." In one such case a new owner was referred to me by the president of the rescue after being told by Patricia McConnell to put the dog down, and I told her what I would do. Number one was to "get 4 on the floor", meaning no furniture/bed privledges and start NILIF immediately. As far as I know, that dog turned out o.k., but I would be the first to admit that that is actually a rare success story. We recently heard from a former member of our group who is a professional trainer. For years she has lived with a very aggressive, unpredictable dog. He had attacked her several times without warning and bit her very badly, but she could not bring herself to put him down, and even though it had been years since he had attacked her, she did not trust him and when she became pregnant, for fear of what "could" happen to their child, she had the dog put down. My heart broke for her, but I also applaud her for being realistic enough to look ahead at what "could" happen and putting the safety of her child ahead of her love for the dog. So, as you can see I am only going on what I have personally seen and experienced in my lifetime, and the conclusion I have come to is that prevention is the only thing that works, and even then it isn't a 100% guarantee either.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 22, 2006 10:20:41 GMT -5
EXCELLENT LOEY I think that is the main thing to keep in mind, the saftey of humans. The dogs that I dealt with like you said STAYED WITH US. But you know like you we never really had that many. I have had some situations like Cathy did and you bet. PETA would have been at my door calling for my HEAD if they would have known what I did to STOP the dog and preserve mine and my families saftey. I can't say I have not advised owners who when I worked with their dogs and was seeing that the dog would be fine with me, or someone like me to rehome the dog OR PTS, again my valu of human life over animal is much greater. That is why it is so important to be able to distinguish if this is fear based, dominance, or REAL AGGRESION. Yeah I thought that way to when I had horses only ;D I DID GET BROKE UP A BIT not bad, it happens That is why the way they temp test a dog at a shelter just really gets under my skin. In the first place this poor dog is TERRIFIED because of the enviorment, then they throw all this crap at them, like STICKING A RUBBER HAND IN THEIR FOOD I do not think any of my dogs ???Well maybe Raven would tolerate that and my dogs are NOT food aggresive with humans, with each other , yeah sometimes , but NEVER WITH A HUMAN. Then again I have seen, and I only going by the shelters I have had hands on with, they allow a HIDIEOUSLY PEOPLE AGGRESIVE DOG to live because they think they are PRETTY SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES I am also of the belief that no you can not save them all, and I think even Cesar admits that, but unless you give it a darn good college try sometimes I think very good dogs are being PTS for no reason just because they were not started right from the beggining. VERY SAD
|
|
|
Post by espencer85 on Sept 22, 2006 11:12:14 GMT -5
Ok, I think there is some very confused thinking here. 1.- Being a strong leader categorically does not cure all dog problems or in itself prevent fear developing or cure it in severe cases. If this were the case no traditional trainers would ever own a dog aggressive dog, or encounter a training problem which we know is not the case. This is just way too simplistic. 2.- The answer to ever single dog issue is not 'be more alpha with your dog'. 3.- In the toddler with matches analogy (see I am not the only one that brings in human analogies) I would not punish the child who is not able to understand the danger. I would manage the situation to ensure that matches were not left at toddler height again, and I would take the matches away and replace them with a more appropriate toy. No different to a puppy who can be redirected into a more appropriate activity. 4.- Dog, I think you are really not understanding the principles of positive training. You do not need to and obviously choose not to train this way, which is fine, but if you are going to intelligently debate the pros and cons I would recommend you do some reading outside of the dog whisperer in order to be fully informed. Sorry if i have numbers before any of the things you said but it will be easier for me to respond to all of your points that way ;D 1.- Even if you are a certified traditional trainer that does not mean that you are a "strong" leader, for the dog you may be only a guy who gives food to him for doing tricks but not his leader, i'm not saying that is YOUR case but the dogs are smarter than some people think and they learn to manipulate people to get food, please dont mistake "manipulating" with and evil dog planning his next move, the dog will just know that if he wants to get food he just need to do the trick but does not mean the dog respects or see the trainer as leader 2.- Well we never said thats the answer for every single dog, however a kid without parents who teach discipline wont be the best human being as an adult, the dog wont respect everybody because knows he wont have repercusions for bad behavior 3.- Just like a dog, if a kid does not the difference between right and wrong and you only redirect to another toy you have big chances that the kid finds in the future matches again (maybe not in your house) and cause an accident, he will still have curiosity about why you put them away, instead if you teach him is wrong to play with that then the kid (or the dog) will know that you will get mad if he does that again (repercutions to bad behavior) 4.- I choose to go for behavior training, even if i've never seen Cesar before i would still choose that way, since existed before he was even in this country, teh only difference is that he is one of the best in the area and everybody knows him, besides he explains the behavior training better than i do so if i want to prove a point i will use him more than with my own words but that does not mean i havent try it myself and see it really works lol - yes happy I am not the only one making human comparisons now I am sure you are aware that I am not a great believer in needing to imitate the way dogs or wolves react towards each other. Why to act against nature? I will give you an example, let's turn the things around, let's say we live in a dog's world, let's say that they bite us in the neck if we are doing something wrong, let's say that is only one leader and you have to do what he says, let's say that the leader is the only one who can procreate; what would you say? i bet you would be like "HEY!!! stop right there!!! i am a human, not a dog, if you want me to do things dont bite me, talk to me, also why cant we vote for the leader?" You understand what i mean? why should dogs in that situation should fight against human nature? why we would change the way they learn even since they were getting together with humans? why to fight against mother nature? because we think "our" way to teach is better? are we dogs to know that human way is better than dog's way? did we ask them? we cant!!! and since we can't then the behaviorists do what they see they do, that way we know we are not doing wrong since thats what they do to eachother, they dont give food to eachother because they are trying to redirect bad behavior, they dont let the followers be in front of the leader, etc. why we are trying to chage them? what would you say to a dog if he sees you going to the supermarket and says " dude, what the hell you are doing? why arent you hunting for you own food, hunting gives you character" im sure you would be like "because i'm human, not a dog, if a dog likes to hunt good, but that does not mean that since you think it better then is good for me" Behaviorists handle dogs situations as a dog would do it, they dont handle situations as a human would do it
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Sept 23, 2006 17:41:15 GMT -5
Ok, Juan just to be clear you were addressing your comments to the lowest common denominator of people who don't understand dogs are dogs. And not anyone on this board.
When you make sweeping broad outrageous statements such as you make it pretty clear that your comments on behaviorally-based positive reinforcement training are not based on experience.
Sibemom posted a good point.
We've all seen highly obedient dogs who when put under pressure had no control at all. And many basic behavior problems can be solved simply by following the rules of how dogs think and treating the dog like a dog. Both parts are important. The control, the leadership platform and the training need to work together. The control needs to be there first as the framework for the relationship, but the training needs to be laid on top to complete the relationship.
And like most things in the human animal relationship: The dogs are easy, it's the people that are hard.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 24, 2006 16:15:57 GMT -5
Willow, I am actually in agreement with a majority of your last post, in that is why my interest lies in helping people to train their dogs and manage their relationship pro-actively. I do believe most aggression problems can be avoided at this early stage and this is far far better than 'treating' a seriously aggressive dog at a later stage. Of course not everyone has this option with some rescues etc so there will always be a place for those who specialise in aggression. I think one of the common misconceptions with treating aggression using positive methods is that it means go home, be nice to the dog and feed it treats. Not so. Any positive solution to aggression, as Am outlined, is actually a very difficult and intensive training process which is likely to require a good trainer or handler with a clear understanding of the process, and take several months. In the meantime obviously the dog must be managed 100% of the time to prevent them from being in a situation where they get to practice the aggressive behaviour. It would be pointless to work on a dog-aggressive dog with painstaking desensitisation using stooge dogs at a safe distance, then allow the dog to encounter a dog too close on a walk and practice the barking and lunging. In all honesty I suspect that owner buy in for such a regime required to turn around a badly aggressive dog would be very unlikely and therefore the scheme is likely to fail. Many trainers with a passion for this field have managed to improve their own rescued dogs to a stage where they are non-reactive, but advising a client may be a whole different ballgame for the reasons stated. I don't aggree that classical conditioning won't work for dog aggression that is not fear based. I think it often will, to the point where they can safely be in public on a lead, but again will require a large amount of owner ability and cooperation. I agree with Sibermom that it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish whether aggression is fear based or not (and other times very obviously fear based). Yup, prevention is definitely better than cure. I have absolutely no problem with your 4 on the floor no bed or furniture privileges - I don't have my dogs on furniture or beds either. Sibemom, I don't agree that it is only very soft dogs that respond better to positive methods. I am just reading 'so your dogs not Lassie' - I forget who it is by. Anyway, author has taken several bulldogs through obedience titles and specialises in independent or difficult to train breeds. She clearly describes how she discovered positive reinforcement (although I wouldn't call her technically purely positive) due to the failure of other methods with her own dogs. I do agree clickers are not for everyone. I find mine invaluable, but I think you are far from alone in not liking that particular method. Good on you for giving it a try though I have never owned an aggressive dog either personally.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 24, 2006 16:41:14 GMT -5
Sorry if i have numbers before any of the things you said but it will be easier for me to respond to all of your points that way ;D 1.- Even if you are a certified traditional trainer that does not mean that you are a "strong" leader, for the dog you may be only a guy who gives food to him for doing tricks but not his leader, i'm not saying that is YOUR case but the dogs are smarter than some people think and they learn to manipulate people to get food, please dont mistake "manipulating" with and evil dog planning his next move, the dog will just know that if he wants to get food he just need to do the trick but does not mean the dog respects or see the trainer as leader 2.- Well we never said thats the answer for every single dog, however a kid without parents who teach discipline wont be the best human being as an adult, the dog wont respect everybody because knows he wont have repercusions for bad behavior 3.- Just like a dog, if a kid does not the difference between right and wrong and you only redirect to another toy you have big chances that the kid finds in the future matches again (maybe not in your house) and cause an accident, he will still have curiosity about why you put them away, instead if you teach him is wrong to play with that then the kid (or the dog) will know that you will get mad if he does that again (repercutions to bad behavior) 4.- I choose to go for behavior training, even if i've never seen Cesar before i would still choose that way, since existed before he was even in this country, teh only difference is that he is one of the best in the area and everybody knows him, besides he explains the behavior training better than i do so if i want to prove a point i will use him more than with my own words but that does not mean i havent try it myself and see it really works lol - yes happy I am not the only one making human comparisons now I am sure you are aware that I am not a great believer in needing to imitate the way dogs or wolves react towards each other. Why to act against nature? I will give you an example, let's turn the things around, let's say we live in a dog's world, let's say that they bite us in the neck if we are doing something wrong, let's say that is only one leader and you have to do what he says, let's say that the leader is the only one who can procreate; what would you say? i bet you would be like "HEY!!! stop right there!!! i am a human, not a dog, if you want me to do things dont bite me, talk to me, also why cant we vote for the leader?" You understand what i mean? why should dogs in that situation should fight against human nature? why we would change the way they learn even since they were getting together with humans? why to fight against mother nature? because we think "our" way to teach is better? are we dogs to know that human way is better than dog's way? did we ask them? we cant!!! and since we can't then the behaviorists do what they see they do, that way we know we are not doing wrong since thats what they do to eachother, they dont give food to eachother because they are trying to redirect bad behavior, they dont let the followers be in front of the leader, etc. why we are trying to chage them? what would you say to a dog if he sees you going to the supermarket and says " dude, what the hell you are doing? why arent you hunting for you own food, hunting gives you character" im sure you would be like "because i'm human, not a dog, if a dog likes to hunt good, but that does not mean that since you think it better then is good for me" Behaviorists handle dogs situations as a dog would do it, they dont handle situations as a human would do it 1) Actually some PEOPLE are smarter than you think, and learn to manipulate dogs by using food. This creates in my experience a happy, respectful, obedient dog who understands the house rules and owner expectations without conflict. And yes, for the 50th time, my dogs will work without food. 2) Discipline and obedience need not have anything to do with pack rank theory and imitating wolves. Consequences for undesirable behaviour in domestic dogs need not be bites, snarls and alpha roles. My dogs have clear and effective consequences for their actions. 3) Hmm, I would like to see you explain the concept of matches being dangerous to a one year old child. The young child is not being 'bad' - the irresponsible adult failed to supervise the child sufficiently. Obviously a much older child is capable of understanding that he may not play with matches. I prefer to teach my dogs what I expect from them rather than wait for them to break a rule they didn't know existed and then punish them. 4) I don't have a problem with you quoting Cesar, but your comments on positive training methods seem misinformed. It is not a good idea to comment on other methods without a clear understanding of those methods.
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Sept 24, 2006 16:59:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by willow on Sept 24, 2006 17:51:29 GMT -5
Willow, I am actually in agreement with a majority of your last post, in that is why my interest lies in helping people to train their dogs and manage their relationship pro-actively. I do believe most aggression problems can be avoided at this early stage and this is far far better than 'treating' a seriously aggressive dog at a later stage. I agree with you, and there are a couple of reasons I never had the desire to work with aggressive dogs. I didn't feel I needed the "challenge" of rehabilitating an aggressive dog and aggressive dogs scare me to death and I have no problem admitting that. When people came to my classes with an aggressive dog, I had them work by themselves at a distance from the other dogs so as not to put the other dogs in danger. I felt it was unfair that the other dogs/owners had to try to work with an aggressive dogs barking/lunging at them!!! I also always told the owner to please take their dog to a person qualified in helping them with their dogs aggression issues. I agree that treating aggression by any method takes time and management. I just question if a PP trained aggressive dog can ever be managed as well as one who knows there are consequences for the behavior. Again, I agree with you, but I also question if any dog, no matter what rehabilitation method is used, who has shown serious aggression can ever be rehabilitated to the point of being considered "cured", or if the owner will have to settle on just being able to manage the dogs aggression. Back to the "training the owner" thing. You are the first clicker trainer I have ever heard of who does not. That's one of the reasons I gave up on the clicker...my dogs were eyeing MY bed and MY chair and I would have to resort to violance if they tried to take them.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 24, 2006 20:27:49 GMT -5
lol - I just don't like dog hair in my bed, just my personal choice. Can assure you that it is safe to own a clicker without having to fight for your bed.
Nope, I probably wouldn't use the word cure in a serious aggression case. The degree to which the dog could be trusted would probably be dependent on many different factors, and when giving a prognosis for possible treatment regime you would need to take into account the owner expectations and lifestyle choices. Are they happy never to let dog off lead in public or to use a muzzle etc.
Yes, I do think the positively managed dog has potential to be as reliable (or better) than one treated with punishment as I believe that the positive solution can work to actually change the dogs emotional response around other dogs, as opposed to just supressing the symptoms which can be risky as the dog may simply learn to leave out the warning stage. The major disadvantage I believe with the positive method (and again I am no expert) is that the amount of intensive work involved in changing the dogs reaction is often beyond that which the average owner would be prepared or in some cases able to undertake. Without 100% owner cooperation and understanding for a prolonged period I think the method would fail, which accounts for the fact that many trainers have documented excellent results with their own remedial dogs and yet often in 'real life' the same effect is frequently not observed.
I wonder in some cases whether the positive trainer has recommended destruction because following an assessment with dog and owner it has become evident that the owner would not be willing or able to follow through on the tough rehabilitation regime? The question is often not would it be possible to rehabilitate the dog, but what is the likely outcome for the dog in it's current situation with its current owners.
Possibly a non-positive method may take effect with fewer sessions or less effort? I am not sure but I do believe there are serious disadvantages here too.
I totally agree that it is not appropriate to attempt to treat serious aggression in a standard training group situation.
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 24, 2006 20:51:46 GMT -5
Yes, I do think the positively managed dog has potential to be as reliable (or better) than one treated with punishment as I believe that the positive solution can work to actually change the dogs emotional response around other dogs, as opposed to just supressing the symptoms which can be risky as the dog may simply learn to leave out the warning stage. I can see how this works with fear aggressive dogs. Dog is scared of other dogs so is aggressive towards them - trainer gradually shows dog that other dogs aren't scary, in fact can be sources of yummy food treats - dog is no longer scared of other dogs - dog isn't aggressive to other dogs any more. That makes perfect sense to me, though I can see it would take a lot of work. If the dog is no longer scared of other dogs, then I understand that he won't be aggressive towards them. But how does that work for dogs that are motivated by dominance, or dogs that for some reason like to fight humans or other dogs? It would be no use trying to show this dog that you're not scary, because he's not scared; and NILIF will sometimes only go so far in controlling a dog's behaviour. How would a PP trainer handle that?
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 24, 2006 21:21:16 GMT -5
I think a dog-aggressive dog that is not motivated by fear but by dominance also has an emotional response to another dog ie something like adrenalin rush excitement. I think you can alter this state of arousal triggered at sight of another dog and they can also become desensitised to passing another dog on a lead.
Human aggression I think is a different ballgame, and a much more rare occurrence. I think it is hard to generalise as there can be so many different triggers but it seems to me that something has gone badly wrong for a dog to become aggressive towards people. I would really want to discuss on a case-by-case basis. I assume you mean hypothetically that a dog has bitten an owner due to dominant type behaviour on the dogs part and NILIF is not enough to prevent further bites? I would suggest that the owner administering any kind of physical punishment towards that dog at that point could potentially be extremely dangerous and may well provoke a further attack. I would immediately advise a full assessment by a behaviourist. Factors they would need to consider would be the history, the exact circumstances for the bite, the lifestyle and training of the dog, age and breeding of dog, owners circumstances and preferences, and the degree of damage that was inflicted (ie does the dog have any bite inhibition at all?).
|
|
|
Post by Am on Sept 24, 2006 21:26:56 GMT -5
Interesting, thanks. So you'd try to replace the adrenaline rush with a feeling of calm around other dogs? Have you seen that work before, Kaos? I'm not sure if I can see that working with a dog that has a long term history of fighting (i.e strong history of reinforcement from the adrenaline rush), but I wouldn't care to judge before I'd tried it, and it sounds interesting. How would you go about doing this? Do you feel it would be necessary to provide the dog with an alternative "outlet"? Like, other ways to get that adrenaline rush that are acceptable, such as particular games or play activities? Or don't you think that would be an issue, and the dog would gradually forget about the rush he got from fighting?
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 24, 2006 21:47:28 GMT -5
So you'd try to replace the adrenaline rush with a feeling of calm around other dogs? Exactly (although I would only work on my own dog if he had this sort of issue, would send others to someone with more experience of aggression than me) Yes, to the extent of being able to pass other dogs without reacting. I would still describe him as dog-aggressive and in need of careful management. Pretty much the same way as fear aggression - important points would be to start far enough away that the dog was non-reactive, and manage his environment so he couldn't practice the undesirable reaction whilst on walks or whatever inbetween sessions. Other people will start with dog on lead standing still and have a stooge dog walk past at a distance but the dog does react. They will walk the same dog past many times until eventually the aggressive dog tires of reacting but this method is less appealing to me in theory. I would also say I think there are individual dogs who won't respond to this method. There are several possible explanations for this failure from genetics to autism, but it's really anybody's guess. I can't imagine the dog every 'forgetting' about fighting, but not being put in a situation he is not ready to cope with will prevent rehearsing the undesirable behaviour which will weaken the behaviour just as every instance of barking and lunging will strenghten the behaviour. Adrenalin does build up in a dogs system and can take several days to completely disappear which definitely won't help your cause. For some aggressive dogs that may make activities like agility undesirable but I wouldn't want to generalise. I certainly think structured exercise and mental stimulation would make handling and training any dog easier.
|
|
|
Post by kaos on Sept 24, 2006 21:51:42 GMT -5
Forgot to add, Ian Dunbar believes that the more fights a dog has been in the better the chance of rehabilitating it. His reason for that is that the dog obviously has reasonable bite inhibition otherwise the owner would have had the dog put down or sought help earlier (ie if the dog had killed the other dog in it's first fight).
I am not sure I would completely agree with this but the degree of damage inflicted on the other dogs is definitely a point worth contemplating in regard to the prognosis for a dog-aggressive dog.
|
|