# old vs. new methods in training - opinions please.



## Dreammom (Jan 14, 2009)

Hi all,

I am fairly new to this forum, and at the risk of getting flamed, would love honest answers to this.

Growing up we always had many dogs, they were all trained in the same way... if they had an accident in the house they were shown it (of course we had to catch them in the act) sternly told no.. you do that outside and immediately taken outside. If they bit, or misbehaved and did not listen they got the one finger tap on the snout, and scolded that that behavior would not be tolerated. NEVER BEATEN and I mean that. All of our dogs were the friendliest, gentlest, most obedient,well behaved dogs.

Fast forward years, and I was on my own and had my own dogs... my first 4 dogs were trained in that same way, that was the only way I knew. They all were also, friendly, loveable, gentle, obedient and very well behaved. Friends and neighbors were always in shock at the way our dogs listened to us. When we got our Sibe almost 2 years ago, after losing our other Sibe, I tried the new fangled (as I call them) "positive reinforcement only" etc. training methods. I can honestly say they have not worked... at almost 2 years old he is still very mouthy, unpredictable, and does not understand the "come" command ( could be because he is a sibe, come and stay are not in their vocab. LOL). Stay has just begun to sink in since we have gotten Layla, and he is not allowed to go out at the same time we take her - so surprisingly he patiently waits at the door.

Now that we have Layla I am struggling as to what to do... I mean so many say if you even tap a dog on it's nose, etc... you create an aggressive dog (although that has never been the case for me). Has anyone else found the old ways of doing things - whatever they may be, a better method for their dogs?
I just don't want to make the same mistakes with Layla that we made with Hurley. Things like screaming ouch, yelping, growling etc, when he bit too aggressively made him bite more. Ignoring him caused him to jump on us etc. We can already tell Layla is a little hellion and going to be a handful (may be self preservation LOL).

Thanks in advance,

Julie


----------



## Oaklys Dad (Dec 28, 2005)

I really think the positive reinforcement methods really do work the best and the crate training really work great for house training and basic obedience. That being said...I think the positive methods do take more training for the dog owner to learn more about what they are reinforcing. It is not always as obvious as the older methods of letting your dog know what you do NOT like.


----------



## Dreammom (Jan 14, 2009)

Thank you for your response... maybe that is it.. I guess I just am not sure how to handle the negative behaviors then. 

I should add, I have not done any obedience schools with any of my dogs. My mother did with her last two dogs, and it has not turned out well for her. Her border collie has been through 2 sessions and private one on one training to no avail. 
I just never felt it necessary and after her experience am not sure I want to even try.

thanks again,

Julie


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

I'm not against the old ways at all. And I am always interested in the new ways . I do what works. 

If tapping your dog on the nose helps him understand, and its worked for you in the past with great behaving dogs, then I'm all for it.

Tapping Lucky on the nose made him worse. 
Yelping made him MUCH WORSE! It was like....he would go for the kill when I yelped. Frankly, yelping MADE lucky more aggressive. Is that crazy? 

And I had the impression that he honestly couldn't help what he was doing. (something wasn't "clicking" up there). I firmly and consistantly did the best I could to get the message across and one day things "clicked". Sometimes I got angry and called him bad names. That really helped for Lucky. Bite inhibition training was a real plus...we laid on the floor and practiced being gentle using treat rewards. Those things worked for Lucky. Puppies aren't made from a cookie cutter.

Use your past experience and dont be afraid to look at other techiques and have confidence....they need your confidence and leadership.

Good luck!!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

I think that if you're trying a new method of training with which you are not familiar (reinforcement training), that it's a great idea to find a qualified, successful trainer who uses those methods who can help you.

If you don't really understand the methods and how to properly use them (and I'm just speaking in general terms here, not finger-pointing at you), then I'd think it would be impossible to get the results you're looking for.

Best of luck in your training and I applaud you for considering alternative training options.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Truthfully, I used to be devoted to Winifred Strickland and the Monks of New Skete's Art of Raising a Puppy and How To Be Your Dogs Best Friend, modified with personal gentleness and not doing the alpha rolls etc bc IMO goldens dont need it. Then, like you, with last year's new puppies, I read everything from the APDT's huge books of theory articles to a library full of Karen Pryor etc. I took a plethora of different classes like puppy agility, RallyO CGC, and JH with positive trainers. After this, I conclude that the positively trained dogs have an elan and joyfulness in formal obedience my other generation didnt have: they were more duty than joy when it came to heeling, for example. I also think many kinds of training work when the owner has excellent timing. Spot-on timing in giving the dog feedback is key, coupled with a deep connection between dog and human based on trust, fairness, and praise. I personally believe that common sense dictates certain things do require a strong NO- I dont care what the theory of the day is. No dog in my house is going to snarl at a human over food or steal from the trash or counter. Period! Tippykayak wrote a long entry about this a while back that was well-worded, so I wont repeat it. I'd say 98 % of the time, I only use positive training theory, and get a great response from it. But noo dog here gets in the trash, bc the first time they try it as a pup the consequences are swift and dramatic( not in anger, just in drama). I don't personally believe in all the trading- you give me the trash you stole and I'll give you a cookie for it? No way. You snarl at me over a rawhide so I trade you for a pice of steak? No dice. Just like little kids need some common sense boundaries, IMO so do dogs. My dogs have probably each heard a big NO 2 or 3 times with me in their personal space glaring theatrically, and all the goldens I've loved and lived with have been friendly, no aggression, no resources guarding, out in public, excellent recalls , fun and loving. I don't believe a dog should ever be hit, for any reason.


----------



## Dreammom (Jan 14, 2009)

Thanks everyone,

I guess I should have included that my dogs have always gotten lots of positive reinforcement (how could you not gush over them when they do great things). It just seems to me that positive reinforcement only has caused Hurley to be a bit of an unruly brat. Don't get me wrong, I love that monster he is a sweet dog...but my other dogs have all been much better behaved at a younger age. I really don't consider a finger tap on the nose a hit, it is just to stop them and get their attention, so you can tell them that behavior is not acceptable. 

I do use crate training, have from the beginning with my pups...and every single one of them have been housebroken within 3 days. Even Layla with the setback last week due to 40 below zero temps (was told to let her go on paper cause she was sick after her shots) got right back on track Sunday and has been accident free since. They are usually allowed to roam free in the house unsupervised, and sleep with us by about 9 months, if their destructive phase is over LOL.

blessings,

Julie


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

I really think you have a very valid point. Our situation was much the same. I grew up with German Shepherds. They were very loyal, wonderful, obedient dogs. Not to say they were beaten or abused, but they all knew, on no uncertain terms that there were consequences for not doing as they were told. 

I also think back to competitive obedience in that same time frame. There would be several more dogs in the ring for the group exercises, and there were never the incidences of dogs breaking like there are today. And now, there are those that are in favour of removing the stay exercises completely. Dogs were expected to stay and you just didn't enter your dog if there was the slightest possiblity that it would break. 

It was certainly a whole other way of thinking, wasn't it. 

Granted, I think part of it could be that your dog is a Sibe... LOL. My first instructor had a Sibe that she competed in standard obedience with. It blew us all away..... a Sibe competing in obedience? 

I, like you, went to "purely positive" in my training. And, like you, found that the results were not nearly as "good" (for lack of a better term). The dogs "get away with" a lot more and they learn that they dont HAVE TO listen. They CHOOSE if they want to listen or not and I found that they didn't always pick the option I wanted. Not to say it doesn't work, but I find the main problem with it is the ambiguity. 

I've now reverted to a style of training that is neither purely positive, nor exclusively corrective. I dont believe in "fear training", but I do think that if you only tell the dog when it does something correctly and, for lack of a better term, ignore the incorrect responses, the dog only gets 1/2 the information. I think it is unrealistic to raise a child without enforcing boundaries, and I feel the same for my dogs. I want a dog that is happy to work with me and gives me 100% effort when I demand it, and if they make a mistake, so be it. I dont want a dog that is afraid to make mistakes, because we all, dogs included, learn from our mistakes. I dont want this wishy washy, blow you off response either. I dont think there is anything wrong with a leash correction or a stern look or telling them "no" and often times that's all it takes to remind the dog of which response is the correct one. 

We dont do our dogs any favours by spoiling them. For me, I'm very much a middle ground person and dont tend to like extremes, and that includes in dog training. I think a lot of dogs dont ever reach their full potential (on both sides) because the trainers get into a mindset of one method or the other. 

BJ


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> Truthfully, I used to be devoted to Winifred Strickland and the Monks of New Skete's Art of Raising a Puppy and How To Be Your Dogs Best Friend, modified with personal gentleness and not doing the alpha rolls etc bc IMO goldens dont need it. Then, like you, with last year's new puppies, I read everything from the APDT's huge books of theory articles to a library full of Karen Pryor etc. I took a plethora of different classes like puppy agility, RallyO CGC, and JH with positive trainers. After this, I conclude that the positively trained dogs have an elan and joyfulness in formal obedience my other generation didnt have: they were more duty than joy when it came to heeling, for example. I also think many kinds of training work when the owner has excellent timing. Spot-on timing in giving the dog feedback is key, coupled with a deep connection between dog and human based on trust, fairness, and praise. I personally believe that common sense dictates certain things do require a strong NO- I dont care what the theory of the day is. No dog in my house is going to snarl at a human over food or steal from the trash or counter. Period! Tippykayak wrote a long entry about this a while back that was well-worded, so I wont repeat it. I'd say 98 % of the time, I only use positive training theory, and get a great response from it. But noo dog here gets in the trash, bc the first time they try it as a pup the consequences are swift and dramatic( not in anger, just in drama). I don't personally believe in all the trading- you give me the trash you stole and I'll give you a cookie for it? No way. You snarl at me over a rawhide so I trade you for a pice of steak? No dice. Just like little kids need some common sense boundaries, IMO so do dogs. My dogs have probably each heard a big NO 2 or 3 times with me in their personal space glaring theatrically, and all the goldens I've loved and lived with have been friendly, no aggression, no resources guarding, out in public, excellent recalls , fun and loving. I don't believe a dog should ever be hit, for any reason.


My thoughts exactly! My dogs have no concept of "resource guarding" and when Sydney was attacked by a friends golden a few years ago over a treat she gave her dog and Sydney went to see what she got (she gave him a piece of hot dog right infront of Sydney and didn't give her anything), I was mortified when my friend defended her dogs actions ("he thought she was going to take it" and "she was on top, so it was okay" when the only reason she was "on top" was she was trying to push herself away from him and he kept coming at her). Doesn't fly in my house. BJ


----------



## Bock (Jun 23, 2008)

Very interesting thread. With Tysen, I am 90-95% positive but do use some leash corrections. If he does something I ask he will almost always be rewarded for it, but if he totally blows me off there will generally be a leash correction unless there are special circumstances. Usually all it takes as far as leash corrections is for me to barely move the leash either up for a sit or down for a down.


----------



## JoelSilverman (Oct 21, 2008)

I know you had mentioned old vs new, and I don't know if training using positive reinforcement is such a new thing. That is the way I was taught in the late 70's, and really is the way every dog is pretty much trained on the set. But I do have two questions for the "positive only" trainers:

1. Can you tell me what you define _a correction_ as?
2. If you use "positive only", does that mean you have never _corrected_ your dog before?


----------



## Ardeagold (Feb 26, 2007)

I think that some of the old methods were too harsh. I remember the days of rubbing a pup's nose in *it* if they had an accident in the house. Or hitting with a rolled up newspaper to deter from certain behaviors. These aren't "training methods" you'd use on your baby or toddler, so why would you use them on a puppy?

Those types of "corrections", IMO, are wrong, and unnecessary. Did they work? Pretty generally, yes. But then, dogs were just *dogs* more often than not, and weren't considered part of the family, as a whole.

When you see a pup going potty in the house, it would be natural to say "NO", pick up and run for the door. I'm not so sure *seeing* it makes a difference...you need to catch them in the act. Then when you get out, and puppy goes outside, PRAISE loudly and happily...and even treat when they're very young.

Training a pup to walk on lead is at first, just getting them used to it. I never used corrections when they were tiny. In fact, I'd let them drag the leash around just to get used to the feel of it. When they wanted to *carry* it in their mouths, I let them. Sometimes, I still do. But, when I was training to heel ... that's when I'd start to use the quick leash corrections.

Everything else was a non-touching positive training method. Sit, stay, wait, down, back, off, (and even "stack/stand" for my show dogs) were all trained via treats and hand signals - and often also using a leash for correction.

Sometimes, for mouthing, you can use *Mr. Lemon*. Get a bottle of lemon juice, the ones that squirt (or put it in a squirt bottle) and when they do that, squirt some directly in the mouth and say "No Bite". Works for excessive barking too, but you have to catch them IN THE ACT. Ours learned to stop immediately when we'd say "Do you want Mr Lemon???" They'd say "No thanks", by stopping immediately.

We also used/use vinegar and water in a squirt bottle for things like counter surfing, or just getting out of control (playing) in the house. We don't allow them to run, romp and roll in the house. (They are allowed to play pulley and have "mouth wars" in the house, tho). All I have to do is pick up the bottle...and tell them to lie down. They do. Haven't squirted it in almost a year. LOL

I have no problem with people using electronic collars, either ... but that's for grown dogs who KNOW the commands already, *aren't puppies*, yet are choosing to ignore you. However, to use one, a qualified trainer needs to work with you so that you know how to use it correctly, when to use it, and when NOT to use it. You can ruin a good dog by using it incorrectly.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I feel clicker training is far and away the best, fastest, and in some cases only useful way to teach many unique behaviors (like the moves used in freestyle dancing) and other complex tricks. 

However, in daily life, I absolutely tell my dogs NO and so forth when necessary.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I strongly agree with Jill and BJ. 
I think sometimes the disagreement comes in over what is a "correction". To me, it depends on the dog. It's the minimum amount of negative feedback that will get the dog's attention so that it realizes its behavior is NOT acceptable. For my Toby or my Tito, a stern "uh uh" is all it will take or at worst a gentle tug on a regular buckle collar. Does that make me positive only? I don't think so. For my Tiny, a sharp jerk on a prong collar barely gets her attention. She's hard headed. My boys are not. So I don't think I'm a positive only trainer.
One of the better known (older) trainers says in her book (I'm sorry, her name escapes me at the moment, my bad) that there are 4 reasons a dog "disobeys" you:
1. dog doesn't know the behavior at all
2. dog is not confident in his/her carrying out the behavior
3. dog is distracted
4. dog chose not to obey
In the first 2 situations, you would never, ever correct the dog even with a minor correction. That's where the positive training and reinforcement come in.
In the 3rd one, you need to get the dog's attention back onto you. That's the one where people tend to differ the most on whether this should be done in a positive or negative way.
In the 4th one, I think a lot of people would agree, a correction is in order. If my dogs know what I want, and do something else BY CHOICE, I'm sorry they are not going to get a piece of steak for giving me the piece of whatever I just told them not to take. Now remember, this is because my dogs already know better. They are not just learning "drop it" or "leave it". They've made a conscious choice to disobey me, and there will be very serious consequences for doing it.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

A further comment....something I've observed over the years...
It's much easier to teach a dog TO DO something than to NOT DO something. It's much easier to teach a dog to sit than to not jump. It's easier to teach a dog to come than to not run away.
Just a very basic concept of training that I think tends to get overlooked.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I agree, a correction varies.

Francine is super obedient and a light tug on a leash or an "ah ah" is all she needs on a walk to stop her doing anything annoying (which she rarely does- she never goes to people without my okay, never jumps, doesn't pull, ignores other dogs, etc). However, she's a PIG and she needs a pretty hard correction if she's focused on food (like the trash). So it depends on the situation with her.

Rig can be stopped doing anything with a simple "Hey" in a normal voice... any anger in my tone shatters him.

And so forth


----------



## my4goldens (Jan 21, 2009)

I train for obedience competition and I use a combination of old and new. I have been to many training seminars, given by people who use old school methods, all positive and a mix of both. If you keep an open mind you can always learn something that helps you in your training. I have also seen some obedience people use methods that make me cringe. The methods work, but at what cost. And it also depends on what works for you and your dog. I think the bottom line is if it doesn't feel right, don't do it. I am not against corrections, but never in anger and only to make sure the dog knows he made a wrong choice. When you are training for the precision of obedience exercises, there is always corrections, whether they be an "uh uh", a get straight command, a frown or a collar correction. You can usually tell the dog who has been corrected to the point of intimidation, they perform expertly but don't work with joy and abandon, slinking around the ring. Maybe a perfect performance but not one that I wish to have. I think I would rather have my prancing, exuberant boy with the forge and lose the points.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I think a lot of the negative reinforcement that gets done is applied improperly, so you don't get the upside (change in behavior), but you do get the downside (anxiety, aggression, or sadness). This goes 100% for dragging a dog back to a housebreaking mess. You upset and confuse the dog with no resulting understanding about where to pee.

Catching the peeing _as it happens_ is a great moment for negative correction. I come flying at the dog, hollering "NO," grab him by the scruff, and carry him outside. The intensity of that would very based on the pup's attitude. A "softer" dog would get less strength of correction. Once we're out the door, the correction is over, forgotten, and when he pees in the right spot, it's a party. 

As LJilly said, it's _crucial_ that corrections have no actual anger in them whatsoever, because negative reinforcement has to be carefully controlled. Dramatically surprising the dog and scooping him up lets him know that peeing indoors has unpleasant consequences, but being actually angry would be unhelpful because it makes it difficult to give the appropriate strength of correction. Correcting too hard overwhelms the situation with fear, which is bad for the dog and makes it hard for him to form solid associations.

As far as tapping on the nose for biting, I bet that works for lots of dogs, probably even the majority of dogs. For some dogs, though, it activates an aggressive and confrontational instinct, which is the practical reason why I don't think striking a dog in any way makes good training sense (there are of course many other reasons not to hit in any way). It may work for some dogs, but it's not clear communication, and it may backfire in making a dog anxious or aggressive.

I believe in corrections, but I believe in using them sparingly. I tend to correct housebreaking and failed recall fairly strongly, in both cases by grabbing the dog and saying "no" loudly. Even though that only happens a handful of times, they learn a permanent association between my "no" and my ability to enforce it. After that, I can correct with very quiet "no's," used very sparingly. After basic obedience, I would estimate that 99.9% of my commands and feedback are positive.

I think 100% positive training is the goal, but that having that real "no" in your back pocket as an unpleasant sound is incredibly useful. With Comet, I think I have a nice balance going. He's 100% eager and joyful at work, but if he's distracted by another dog or a squirrel, I can give a fairly low-key "no" as a consequence for failing to listen to a command and it both interrupts him and corrects his behavior.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

I can say in all my fairly vast experience handling all kinds of dogs and rescues of many breeds, I haven't ever seen or experienced a dog snarling, biting, or becoming aggressive because of a correction. I would think it would have to be constant, unrelenting, outright abuse/beating to get that type of response?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I can say in all my fairly vast experience handling all kinds of dogs and rescues of many breeds, I haven't ever seen or experienced a dog snarling, biting, or becoming aggressive because of a correction. I would think it would have to be constant, unrelenting, outright abuse/beating to get that type of response?


It depends how you define "abuse." A lot of what people (probably not GRF people, but people in general) define as "punishment" would be way past the bounds of what you'd consider correction. Lots of people will will slap a dog on the nose or butt or beat them with the loose end of the leash for bad walking behavior.

People can misuse e-collars to create the same effect. I was bitten by a dog that was fear-aggressive because of an e-collar.

I'm defining a fear-aggressive dog as a dog who is generally submissive but feels truly threatened in certain situations and will bite to defend itself. In a lot of ways, that's much more dangerous than a dominant dog who nips at an owner in frustration.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Yeah, I will agree with that. I was thinking more in terms of what I have experienced, but, I would never use a correction on a dog that was like that, which might drive it to defensive behavior. Sometimes its hard for me to fathom what some people actually do.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I can say in all my fairly vast experience handling all kinds of dogs and rescues of many breeds, I haven't ever seen or experienced a dog snarling, biting, or becoming aggressive because of a correction. I would think it would have to be constant, unrelenting, outright abuse/beating to get that type of response?


You'd be surprised! I've seen lots of dogs who become far worse food guarders from owners using the snatch-the-bowl-and-roll-the-dog technique when the dog growls over the food bowl or bone. I've also seen the tap on the nose for mouthing turn mouthing into actual biting with intent. And I've seen it happen with many dogs, over many breeds.


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

tippykayak said:


> I'm defining a fear-aggressive dog as a dog who is generally submissive but feels truly threatened in certain situations and will bite to defend itself.


I would add to that, a dog who lacks traditional coping skills. Otherwise, the reality to me is that ANY dog who feels truly threatened in certain situations can bite to defend itself.

Oddly enough, I'd much rather work with a fear-biting dog. That's the dog who is most likely going to give me lots of warning signs when I'm making him uncomfortable (unless the warning has been previously corrected out of the dog). It's the dogs who are confident in their ability to use aggression that are often harder to work with.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> I would add to that, a dog who lacks traditional coping skills. Otherwise, the reality to me is that ANY dog who feels truly threatened in certain situations can bite to defend itself.
> 
> Oddly enough, I'd much rather work with a fear-biting dog. That's the dog who is most likely going to give me lots of warning signs when I'm making him uncomfortable (unless the warning has been previously corrected out of the dog). It's the dogs who are confident in their ability to use aggression that are often harder to work with.


That's a good clarification. Most dogs will bite under enough pressure, but a fear-aggressive dog is one who will use the bite preemptively or who otherwise can be triggered easily to bite. They tend to bite viciously though, when they do, whereas aggressive dogs will often just use enough force to get what they want.

Still, neither is fun and both call for radically different solutions.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Yeah, I had fear biting rescue Salukis that were god awful. But, I NEVER corrected the behavior. I simply ignored it and proceeded as if the dog was not snapping or growling. I got bitten a lot... but only once by each dog! They quickly realized I was going to pet, feed, and walk them whether they liked it or not! And biting didn't work on me... so they stopped. And, in a few weeks, they learned to not only tolerate, but to LOVE being walked, petted, and fed treats by hand. 

I can't IMAGINE the damage these poor souls would have had if someone had beaten, hit, rolled, or dominated them.


----------



## Lucky's mom (Nov 4, 2005)

FlyingQuizini said:


> You'd be surprised! I've seen lots of dogs who become far worse food guarders from owners using the snatch-the-bowl-and-roll-the-dog technique when the dog growls over the food bowl or bone. I've also seen the tap on the nose for mouthing turn mouthing into actual biting with intent. And I've seen it happen with many dogs, over many breeds.


Well, see that sounds like Lucky. The tap on the nose made the imediate bite after the tap an "intent". Frankly, I'm not sure he he always knew when he was biting. But when you tapped him on the nose he reacted with a bite where "knew" he was biting..though it was more dominent "play" then aggressive(maybe).

So...tapping on the nose was a very short-lived technique in our house.


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

When Penny needs to be corrected, I use an "ack ack" or whistle or say her name. And then I tell what she SHOULD be doing.

I hate it when people just keep saying "Fido, NO, Fido NO" That doesn't tell Fido ANYTHING.

I think the dog gets much more out of "Ackack, Fido: leave it." Or come. Or (fill in the blank). To constantly be saying NO doesn't teach the dog anything.

Tippy, I love your description of catching the peeing. That's just what I did with Penny. She had learned to go when she was out but not to not go when she was in. So, one day, I followed her around until she squatted and then did just what you did only I grabbed her around the body. She was so thunderstruck by being swooped up from behind that she never went in the house again!


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

FlyingQuizini said:


> Oddly enough, I'd much rather work with a fear-biting dog. That's the dog who is most likely going to give me lots of warning signs when I'm making him uncomfortable (unless the warning has been previously corrected out of the dog). It's the dogs who are confident in their ability to use aggression that are often harder to work with.


Not me! It's the fear biters that do the damage and you're much more likely to be hurt in the process. After a seminar I attended a year ago on dog aggression, I'd take a dominant aggressive dog over a fear aggressive dog anyday. The information I received at the seminar was actually the exact opposite of what you've said. Dominant aggressive dogs are easier to read and you know exactly what you're getting into. A dominant aggressive dog will only attack if he feels he is not in charge of the situation and needs to regain control. With a fear aggressive dog, you never know what is making them afraid and they will often back themselves into a corner, leaving them no other option than to bite. A dominant aggressive dog is the one that will give you the warning (growling, snapping, etc) and will do just about anything to not have to bite. They see themselves as having other options to instill cohersion rather than simply attacking and to bite, for them, means they have lost control and need to get it back. BJ


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

Kohanagold said:


> With a fear aggressive dog, you never know what is making them afraid and they will often back themselves into a corner, leaving them no other option than to bite.


That's where I disagree. I think it's generally pretty easy to discover what's driving the fear in a fearful dog. Then the objective is to keep the dog sub-threshold and pay attention to the signals so that the dog isn't backed into a corner and feeling the need to bite.

Not that I'm saying working either type of dog is "easy" -- but I do see a difference between a dog that is already confident in his ability to use aggression to get his way vs. one who is really fearful and would much rather issue threats than have to actually act on them. If you stay sub threshold and pay attention to what the threats are telling you, you can avoid a bite.

Just curious - who was the seminar by?


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

Dr Stanley Coren. He has a few books out there. He was a professor in psychology (I believe) at UBC and our group had him come and speak at a conference last spring. 

I'm not saying that you cant "read" a fear biter, but I thought much the same. I almost felt sorry for the dog that was afraid and bites... you can almost rationalize it. But then I realized that a dog living in fear of anything that feels the need to bite, for whatever reason, isn't a dog I'd want to live with. Fear is okay, in and of itself, but to feel the need to attack out of fear is not. Fear is very unpredictable. A dog that uses "aggression" to get its way (and there are very very few of these types of dogs, relatively, and most people wouldn't know the difference) does not take its use lightly. They seem to recognize that they've lost control of the very ones they wish to lead, and that in itself is not a good thing. When dealing with pack animals, the "pack" tend to frown upon a leader that loses control. They'd much rather use other means and that is when you get the true warning signs (the snapping, etc). A fear biter doesn't have time to warn you, in their mindset. Their main priority is to get rid of whatever it is that is making them afraid, FAST. And in their fear, they tend to lose the concept of bite inhibition. 

One of my rescues is a fearful dog, but not a fear biter. The potential is there, but often times a fear is an irrational response. Their main objective is to escape the situation and not to deal with it. There is no rationalizing and there is very little "getting over it". Its extremely difficult to micromanage dogs with fear aggression because you cant control external circumstances (the weather, the public and what sex they are, or what they wear). You can, however, fairly easily prevent a dominant aggressive dog from being put into a situation where it feels the need to bite. Just my relatively "new found" way of looking at it. BJ


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

This is a really healthy discussion right now, and I'm learning a lot. 

Is it fair to say that fear biters can be particularly dangerous because their bites are desperate and uninhibited?

I think the big difference between the descriptions you're all making of fear biters is in how easy they are to read. I think some fearful dogs communicate their fear through body posture, moving away from the source of fear, etc. Those dogs are probably easier and safer to rehabilitate, even though their bites are very dangerous.

There are dogs, however, who are fearful and lack almost any coping skill or ability to communicate their fear. They act normally or even confidently. They look headstrong or seem to be bad listeners until their fear is triggered. That's probably the most dangerous kind of fearful dog. Just as likely to bite savagely, but not able to communicate well.

I'd take a dog who communicates a little over one who's a bad communicator. Whether dominant/aggressive or fear/aggressive, if the dog will communicate what it feels or wants, it's easier to work with. A dog who shuts down or otherwise is challenging to read is the one that's more dangerous.


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

I think too that not all fearful dogs are fear biters. I have one myself. The potential is always there (they are dogs, afterall) but a dog that is able to communicate fear is often (IMO) not a "fear biter". The ones that bite out of fear are in a despirate state, and yes, are inhibited. Mine is a husky/GSD and it took a LONG time for her to trust us, but she has NEVER attempted to bite. Dogs that get to that "stage" of biting are in a completely different mental state and it is very difficult to "pull them back". Its like a human, in a full out panic attack. There are people that have never experienced that kind of panic, but for those that have, its a nightmare, and very difficult to be pulled back into a calm state (and we, as humans, have the ability to communicate at a higher level, so immagine what the dog goes through... that's how I think of it). In a panic attack, though, often the ability to communicate is hindered (for both dog and human). The only communication the dog has, really, is to bite and nothing you can do at the time is going to help them. Dont get me wrong, I still feel sorry for them. No animal (human included) deserves to live a life of fear and panic, but what alternative do they have? It breaks my heart that they feel there is no other option, but to bite, but to "rehabilitate" that is difficult at best and I personally think that oftentimes there is a medical "crisis" behind it (hormone imbalance, tumors, etc). Its not been proven by any means, but its not normal, healthy, or safe in my opinion and you're working against a lot of uncontrollable and unknown "forces". 

I think a "fearful" dog is quite easily read, until it is pushed into the realm of "fear biting". Another way to think about it is in terms of the dog. The goal is to surprise and startle you so that your attention is elsewhere and the dog can escape the situation. The only way out of the situation, as they see it, is to take the focus away from them and they can bolt. 

Fear biting is a survival mechanism, but what can you do, other than shelter the dog away from men, people with hats, thunder, kids, elderly, etc. etc. Even if you do have a method of rehabilitating, its not going to work in the short term, so there is a need to micromanage the situation. I think its about the ability to control the situation that the dog is in where it feels the need to bite and there are too many unknowns with a fear biter to control. Its often not just one trigger, but many different ones, and the only way you know that something is a trigger is by the dog biting. Again, just my thoughts. BJ


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

tippykayak said:


> This is a really healthy discussion right now, and I'm learning a lot.
> 
> Is it fair to say that fear biters can be particularly dangerous because their bites are desperate and uninhibited?
> 
> ...


I personally don't think it's correct to catagorize fear-biting dogs as dogs who lack bite inhibition. I've seen plenty of inhibited bites from fearful dogs. I also think that even a fearful dog who lacks subtle communication skills is still communicating with you -- if you're able to read the communication. Sue Sternberg has a great lecture called something like, "I'm telling you I'm going to bite you" and it's all about the many ways in which a dog will communicate w/ you before actually biting. I've never, ever seen a dog - fearful or confident - go from just sitting there to biting. (And I think the only dogs that really, honestly do that would be suffering from something like an idiopathic aggression.) Sometimes the steps in between are more subtle than others, and sometimes they happen so quick, it's easy to think there wasn't any warning, but I truly believe that as masters of body language, all dogs are communicating their pre-bite discomfort. 

A friend of mine worked with a dog who had basically had the "warning signs" corrected out of him. He no longer gave the more obvious signs such as the hard eye, freeze, lip curl, growl, etc. What he DID do, she discovered, was display a bristling of his whiskers that sorta looked like goose bumps. I'm sure he'd been doing that all along, it was just previously overlooked in favor of the more salient stuff that he was being punished for. The Goose Bump face remained and THAT'S what they were ultimately able to "read". It was a Golden Retriever, in fact!


----------



## FlyingQuizini (Oct 24, 2006)

BTW - I'm familar with Stanley Coren's work. His book How to Speak Dog was one of the first "dog books" I read when I was starting out as a trainer. I still have it - all highlighted with notes in the margins!


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

My Duffy (Golden/Sheltie) is a fearful dog when it comes to children. He has never bitten, he has snapped as a warning. In general terms though, he has great bite inhibition. I have done things to him that he really does not like, his response is only to cuddle up to me to get me to stop.

In terms of the original question, old-methods vs new-methods, I would like to add my thoughts. In terms of training, I believe in positive reinforcement techniques. I have found the old techniques (which I had trained with when I was young) do not work as well especially with Selli, but also with my previous Golden Dexy. Selli is soft and advoidant. If I use corrections during training she removes herself from the situation where she got the correction, i.e. if I give a leash correction during heeling, she moves away from me. If she gets a correction, or is forced into a down, she moves away the next time I move in to get her to go down. Luckily, we started serious training in agility, where MOST trainers use ONLY positive reinforcement. She blossomed in that setting. Now we are going back into formal obedience training and I am making sure that I carry over the techniques and spirit of agility to obedience and Selli is much happier about the whole thing. 

I would go on.........but I have to wash a doodle!


----------

