How Tug With Dogs Should Look Trained Correctly
Look What I Can Do! How Tug With Dogs Should Look Trained Correctly. Jack Russell terrier, Boudicca 3.5 y.o. F, adopted at 8 months, she would have taken your finger off or given you a good bite if you tried to take anything away from her. The dog with the prong collar on is a house guest, I normally do not recommend these collars.
Dominance – is it appropriate to explain social relationships between dogs and humans?
Who's dominating who?????
Who’s dominating who? Is there really this much conflict and whose fault is it, man or dog?
Originally published June 16, 2009
Joyce D. Kesling, CDBC
Science Daily reported, “Using dominance to explain dog behavior is old hat.” One of their references included an article from JVB (2009) “Dominance in domestic dogs – useful construct or bad habit?” The paper is much broader than implied by Science Daily; the following will make clear some of their conclusions.
Associative Learning Theory
The paper suggests stable relationships between dogs can be explained using the “principles of associative learning theory” stating relationships develop over time through repeated encounters with individuals. During these encounters communicative cues from each individual is recognized and becomes predictive of negative and positive responses over a range of differing contexts. These encounters are not as simplified as one might think. The behavior and cues during each encounter is decided based on each individual’s physiological and emotional states at the time the encounter takes place and context. For example, when introducing a new dog into a household with an already stressed animal will greatly influence how the resident animal responds to the “outsider” and those responses set the stage for how the relationship between these two individuals will play out over the course of time.
Dominance, the presence of dominance, hierarchies, stable and unstable environments
The authors suggest pups raised in stable pup-adult environments gain advantages when they develop social skills with the help of mature canine adults. This allows a young pup to “learn consistently that competition with adults is unsuccessful” and appeasement behavior avoids conflicts, allowing more tolerance and availability to resources. The authors suggest these behaviors continue as they develop into adults and maintained as a “dominance relationship” between youngsters and adults until prior expectancies regarding each other’s behavior changes.
The authors suggest an “apparent presence” that hierarchies do develop through social interactions in “stable” dog breeding groups. However, they say, hierarchies do not develop in dog groups often undergoing changes and/or including introducing outside individuals. This can explain why introductions of new dogs in already established households can be problematic and what puppies experience when transferring from a stable breeding environment to human households!
Using a comparative wolf analogy, dominance hierarchies do not exist in non-captive wolf packs usually comprised of kin and occasional outsiders. Contrarily, captive wolf situations are most often comprised of individuals without kinship relations; agonistic behavior between individuals does exist and in some instances, individuals are unable to disperse, they are captives of their situation. This may explain why captive groups of wolves are carefully placed in packs to avoid as much conflict as possible.
The analogy to captive wolves can be used to explain dog behavior once introduced to human home environments. Introducing new dogs into a dysfunctional environment that may include permissive and/or absent owners, lack of rules, boundaries, and training will definitely set a dog up to fail.
Communication between dogs
When companion dogs meet for the first time there are no previous expectations regarding each other’s behavior. The relationship between any two individuals is established based on current environmental conditions, contextual relationships, each individual’s physiological condition, and each individual’s prior experiences within other dog dyads (pairs) during previous encounters. One can conclude using the “learning-based model” there is no need to use dominance to explain the social interaction between two individuals.
Personal experience based on dog-dog social interaction
This seems to correlate with what I have learned through boarding as part of my business. Since offering dog-dog socialization, grouping individuals has to be carefully decided and small dog versus large dog grouping requires careful supervision. However, I have concluded allowing socialization between small dogs, large dogs, mixed breeds, purebreds, mixed sexes, intact, and neutered dogs under close supervision is beneficial.
When observing social deficits, I often attribute the deficit to lacking sufficient adult dog encounters during the early socialization and subsequent juvenile periods. Based on the JVB article, dogs benefit from opportunities to learn how to behave from well-socialized adult dogs. Instances where dogs appear to lack sufficient communicative ability with other dogs, could suggest their behavior is dependent on how well socialization opportunities were provided, what they learned from those encounters and in what contexts they took place.
I have further concluded that because we seem at times to haphazardly introduce dogs into social environments and dog-human encounters we are probably causing most of the social problems some of our dogs have learned and internalized. I seriously doubt dog parks are a good idea for owners who have little knowledge of dog behavior and this paper reinforces this conclusion. I might also suggest dogs attending highly reactive, non-structured puppy classes would also be a mistake. This further emphasizes that owners be very selective where they take their puppies and adolescent dogs for socialization, and considering who they are introducing them to, and the context and environment where these introductions are taking place.
How does this play out when introducing new dogs to human homes?
Applying the same learning process based strictly on communication one-step further, we can understand why dominance has no place in training and/or establishing our relationship with dogs. If the authors suggest pups in stable breeding groups learn from adult canine parents, then using a “parental role model” based on these same principles could be applied when communication is taking place.
Using a “parental role response” means, we need to act as canine adult parents would. This does not imply “dominance” is necessary in establishing rules, boundaries and training methods. Rather, if you apply the same “associative learning theory” used in explaining how dogs learn to communicate with each other the same rules will apply. When we provide clear positive responses to what our dogs are doing right, while ignoring mistakes and/or providing clear and acceptable negative consequences for undesirable and/or dangerous behavior, our dogs learn because we are providing them control over their environment through positive and negative responses.
Where owners get into trouble communicating with dogs occurs when using forceful communication signals like “alpha rolls” while erroneously perceiving and/or attempting to thwart their dog’s attempt to dominate them! If dogs perceive communication simply as positives and negatives, then it makes sense that reacting to undesirable dog behavior using negative communication will set your dog up to view you as a threat rather than a friend. When dogs use appeasement, avoidance, and aggression in those contexts, where you have used confrontational and negative communicative methods would explain any reactive and/or aggressive behavior. When dogs are forced beyond their threshold and resort to aggression it’s not dominance aggression as is often referred and/or described. Rather I prefer what Lindsay (2006) proposes as an alternative explanation that dogs are using “anti-predatory” and/or “auto-protective aggression” in response to what they perceive as human aggression.
This could be briefly explained using the captive wolf analogy I mentioned earlier. Wolves are predators, when we introduce captive wolves to non-kin wolves; agonistic behavior is more likely to occur. These occurrences are affected by age, reproductive status, nutritional condition, aversive experiences, and disputes over resources according to the JVB (2009).
In normal wolf packs, wolves have the ability to disperse, move on, start their own families; in captive wolf packs, members don’t often have this choice. These captive wolves are forced to live with other captive members without choice and ability to disperse and/or avoid an aversive environment. The same could be said for dogs who find they are living in dysfunctional environments, with owners providing little or no training, little or no health care, neglectful, and abusive corrections, and/or treatment. Often these dogs end up in shelters and/or euthanized because they failed to adapt to these conditions though no fault of their own.
It is for this reason that I find it inappropriate for dog owners, those running shelters and/or rescues to rely on methods using punishment in working with dogs who are reactive toward other dogs and/or humans. In addition, this applies to dogs who are fearful in specific situations and/or contexts where confidence building is more appropriate than punishment. In both situations, offensively and defensively reactive dogs are not signs of dominance but rather lack of confidence and trust. Animals lacking confidence are more likely to be reactive, animals who don’t trust owners are likely to be reactive and aggressive.
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Certified Dog Behavior Consultant
Dog Trainer, Dog Behavior Specialist
Sarasota, FL
Dog Aggression – Is it predictable? How do humans contribute to dog aggression? Are we responsible? Part One
- These teeth are dogs defensive weapons…they use them to prevent aggressive human behavior!
October 23, 2009
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Dog Aggression – Is it predictable? How do humans contribute to dog aggression? Are we responsible? Part One
Fighting between dogs is common and often normal dog behavior; however, we should be concerned how successfully we socialize our dogs, as well as consider the contextual environment and quality of where and how social interactions take place. I previously discussed, if using dominance as a construct was useful in intraspecific (dog-dog) and interspecific (dog-human) relationships see Dominance – is it appropriate to explain social relationships between dogs and humans?
The focus was how dogs learn to communicate with each other, the importance of contextual cues available to them in the environment, the physiological and mental states of each individual participant and their earlier social experience. These elements set the tone for each individual dog’s future communicative abilities, their confidence, and adaptability in changing environments and social situations.
Applying this same associative learning principle to developing dog-human relationships, this paper discusses how owners contribute to their dog’s behavior and how predictable an individual dogs’ future behavior develops based on our decisions and behavior.
Introduction
“It is every behaviorist’s hope to see a dog that they would like to own or have as a neighbor – a dog that can socialize with other dogs, cope with the stresses of modern living, behave in a way that is acceptable to the wider community – and an owner that is fully informed about responsible dog ownership” (Judson 1995).
The preceding quote underscores the importance for being an educated responsible dog owner. Dog owners’ benefit by having a satisfying dog-human relationship and bond, when they fail, in most instances, the dog pays the greatest price! This is no laughing matter, “behavior problems are one of the major reasons behind dog abandonment, disposal, and euthanasia” (Arkow & Dow, 1984; Scarlett et al., 2002; Landsberg, 1991; Overall, 1997).
It begins first with breed selection
Breed choice made by owners in many instances determines success or failure. Some breeds need more skill and handling for an average dog owner, do not set yourself and dog up to fail because you have selected a dog above your training ability. Guarding dogs and large breeds in general can be more difficult to handle than small dogs, however, all dogs need training. The differences between large and small dogs is size, weight, genetics, breed function, and your ability to give enough training to manage large dogs, otherwise large dogs present more risks and liability issues when unexpected things go wrong.
The first thing owners should consider is their experience with dogs. Second is one’s familiarity with specific breeds and or size dogs. Third how much time do you have for training, what is your skill level and how much do you know about dog behavior. The fourth consideration is picking a dog that fits your lifestyle not a choice based on magazine pictures, TV shows, movies, last winning dog at Westminster, and immediately available at local pet shops that you should be steering clear of in the first place!
Mismatched owners and dogs!
According to research, “mismatched” owners cause serious problems for dogs. So serious they suggest owners inability to respond appropriately to dogs, the quality and timing delivering cues and how well their dog understands what’s being communicated not only affects training new behaviors but also maintaining trained behavior!
The researchers (Yamamoto et al., 2009) speculated three factors decreased future performance, 1.) delayed reward/punishment 2.) delayed presentation of commands, delivery quality, and poor attention 3.) leaves the dog confused. The authors suggest a “negative psychological effect” of feeling awkward, already demonstrated in humans, and possible that dog’s experience this same “negative psychological effect” leading to the confused state. An animal can’t sufficiently learn and support trained behaviors in a state of confusion. This emphasizes clear, consistent communication from both ends of the leash, this means respecting what your dog is communicating to you!
Professional dog trainers already know how important delivery of commands affects performance and training. We recognize dogs’ attention is important when delivering cues, verbal and visual, and how timing of reinforcement and/or punishment effects successful training.
The purpose for this research was to look at how owner responses and delayed timing affected their dogs overall performance. Their results suggest an overall importance of timing when training new behaviors as well as maintaining already trained behaviors in everyday life.
The consequences of your choice and “mismatch” and ignoring these factors causes “stress, frustration, and anxiety in dogs” emphasizing the importance that owners need to understand how their action’s influence their dog’s behavior (Yamamoto et al., 2009).
Owner knowledge and ability
An owner’s relationship and ability to manage and train their dog is critical to dogs succeeding in adapting to differing human environments. According to a study (Kass 1998), there are differences between people who relinquish pets to shelters and those who do not. There were occasions when loss of job, change in income, and/or changes in family was given as a reason; however, the majority was young, poor, and less educated. Many had a poor understanding what it means to own pets, vaccination schedules, neutering, basic training, and knowledge of animal behavior.
Dog-owner bond, it’s important to avoid creating conflicts
Because a dogs behavior affects its relationship and attachment with its owners, its later behavior has profound effects on their perception of the dog. This is why behavior problems and/or preventive measure need addressed during the socialization and juvenile period. This means training and socialization begins the day owners bring the new puppy home and throughout the rest of their lives! Developmental phases vary according to breed, individual dog and generally, toy breeds mature faster.
It’s recommended owners understand normal canine behavior, their developmental periods, what is expected behaviorally, how to effectively use reinforcement and/or appropriate punishment, and recognize how to change problem behavior before it gets worse. Seek professional help early and not later if necessary, behavior problems have a better chance for successful resolution when owners are proactive.
According to Pageat (1999), what puppies learn during the socialization period will affect their behavior for the rest of their life. He suggests behaviors necessary for successful adaptation should include learning self-control, intra and interspecific communication (dog and human), rules and social hierarchies, detachment, confidence in exploring their environment and socialization skills with humans.
Success means, you need the right help
Professional dog trainers help you; we develop the skill and art through education and hands-on-learning. Like any skill, it takes time to learn, we don’t expect owners to have this skill. However, owners benefit when they choose good trainers. We help you prevent behavior problems preserving quality of life for your dog. Trainers with a background in dog behavior would be one’s wisest choice.
Certified members of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants need to meet 5 Core Areas of Expertise. They require completion of 30 CEU’s (continuing education units) every two years. You should qualify dog trainers and dog behaviorists. Ask to see their resume, where they obtained their certifications and credentials.
Your purpose is deciding between dog trainers educated in current scientifically sound training practices from those that do not. Your choice should be dog trainers and/or behavior consultants that use positive reinforcement, understand dog communication and use correction only if necessary using the least amount of force, sometimes called LIMA least intrusive minimally aversive.
According to research (Gazzano et al., 2008) it is common belief that information provided by skilled professionals has a positive effect on the bond between dogs and humans, how dogs interact with others, and how well they adapt to living with us. The authors suggest aside from medical problems, owners contribute to behavior problems in three ways 1.) lack of knowledge about a dogs biological and socio-psychological needs, 2.) incorrect expectations either projected on dogs from owners at the species’ level and/or at the individual level, 3.) and improper interactive behavior with one’s pet!
For more information on research mentioned in the preceding paragraph see “The prevention of undesirable behaviors in dogs: effectiveness of veterinary behaviorists’ advice given to puppy owners” Journal Veterinary Behavior (2008), Vol. 3, No. 3 May/June.
If you have a serious behavior problem you may want to consult with a board certified veterinary behaviorist (ACVB or AVSAB) or certified applied behaviorist (ABS). However, there are limited numbers of these professionals. The purpose of IAABC provides access to professionally trained dog behavior specialists. Many members not only train dogs, but also give preventative behavioral advice, puppy selection help, referrals to qualified breeders, qualified shelters/rescues, and specialized classes for specific problems e.g. “feisty fido.”
Understanding punishment and its effect on training and future behavior
“The aggressor always had a purpose behind his attack; he wanted something to be done, some object to be surrendered by the defender.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
First, let us define aggression so we understand how inappropriate harsh punishment and forceful training sets dogs up as victims often using aggression to protect themselves, leaving us wondering what happened; given the myth dogs love us unconditionally. In current veterinary literature, many definitions as well as categories for aggression are proposed. According to Reisner (1998), “aggression is a harmful stimulus directed toward a subject, with evidence of intent and arousal, and toward which the target responds aversively.” Others conclude dogs are predators, thus it is necessary to include agonistic behavior in their entire repertoire. According to scientists, canine aggression is a normal behavior and according to Beaver (1999), “…represents a normal expression of distance-increasing vocal and postural communication.” E.O. Wilson says (1975, 2000), aggression is a “physical act or threat of action by one individual that reduces the freedom or genetic fitness of another.”
I’m in full agreement with Beaver’s definition, when we define aggression and accept it as normal canine behavior, our responsibility should be to understand, appreciate and respect dogs and what they are communicating to us. Wilson’s definition suggests aggression can affect the genetic fitness of another individual, one could use captive wolves as an example. See Dominance – is it appropriate to explain social relationships between dogs and humans?
Reisner’s definition, states, “…aggression is a harmful stimulus,” the “target” of aggression can be expected to respond “aversively.” Dogs are predators, according to leading canine researchers and veterinarians, agonistic (aggression) behavior is acceptable as part of their signaling repertoire and considered normal. Humans are technically classified as predators, both species have recognized aggressive behavior, as well as appeasement (submissive) therefore, when humans forcefully interact with dogs, we can and should not be surprised when they retaliate using aggressive responses. We set our dogs up to fail when we choose aversive methods of training and correcting unwanted canine behavior.
Influence or indifference of television trainers!
The influence coming from television related training has created a paradox for dog professionals. One popular dog training program promotes a person who admittedly has no education in professional dog training and definitely, no formal education in normal dog behavior described in scientific literature and taught at universities. On the other hand, this “dog whisperer” has brought to the public’s attention dog behavior problems are resolvable, but that is as far as credit will go.
What is often observed on the “dog whisperer” could and is described as manhandling and often includes physical punishment and provoking the dog. According to Lindsay (2005), canine dominance aggression (CDA) is handled as a “damage-limiting option” and not a “routine aspect of the behavior-therapy process.” He further emphasizes working with already established aggressors that punishment should be limited but ONLY after “basic control” is established using reward-based training! This is in direct conflict with what can be observed on the National Geographic program.
Manhandling dogs was commonly recommended for controlling aggression, but this was over 50 years ago, we’ve come a long way culturally and professionally and this type of dog training is highly questionable and poses many risks. Even someone like the “dog whisperer” who often manhandles dogs successfully e.g. lifting them off their front feet, forcing them to the ground, choking them to the point of submission, does not generalize the dog’s behavior toward others. Rather it will cause very risky situations for family members, especially children, visitors, and strangers that come in contact with that dog.
The types of punishment often viewed and condemned is at best only suppressing threat displays with no change in emotional response to the conflicts occurring between owner and dog. The dog often subjected to these methods is often the dog described as biting without warning and supposed provocation!
According to Lindsay (2005), manhandling causes the following dangerous situations.
- Inexperienced owners are at significant and unnecessary risk of being bitten
- Manhandling does little to change the causes of domestic aggression and it may actually increase the dogs aggression
- Manhandling may suppress early warning signs of aggression thus making it less predictable and more dangerous
Professional dog trainers are expected as part of their professional obligation to help owners with aggressive dogs; however, this help should be carried out using appropriate restraint while avoiding provoking circumstances that necessitate methods of intimidation for self-defense. Unavoidable mistakes may occur, professional dog trainers should be prepared to handle these kinds of situations using a variety of restraint methods; however, these emergency procedures should never be confused with training!
With all the educational programs given the professional dog training industry, there is no excuse for mistreatment and manhandling dogs, especially when used as examples of training! Instead, dog trainers and owners should look to “more thoughtful, creative, experimental, playful, friendly” ways to train ultimately forming a trusting bond essential for the control and avoidance of canine domestic aggression (Lindsay, 2005).
Dogs are individuals
The problems between owners and dogs often begin when dogs aren’t recognized as individuals with individual needs. This is one reason it is problematic to buy and/or adopt siblings. It would be unfair and incorrect to assume that both dogs in spite of being siblings, growing up in the same environment convey they both have the same needs. Each dog needs individual attention, training, and socialization. This is time intensive for an average dog owner who only wants a companion dog. In addition, raising siblings is ill-advised because often one puppy succeeds while the other fails to achieve its full potential. San Rafael, a Guide Dog organization identified two key problems, raising siblings in the same home was one but did not occur when two puppies from different litters were raised together (Lindsay 2000). One could suggest raising two siblings together raises quality of life issues for one of the dogs!
Socialization and aggression
Another problem occurs when dogs do not stay with the mother long enough to receive enough discipline. Dogs lacking this experience were found over-aggressive with some becoming aggressive when over-socialized with other dogs. Dogs learn easily from other dogs, this includes bad behavior.
Milani (2009) suggests we should not assume because we want to take part in an activity our dogs would naturally enjoy the same activity. For some dogs’ long walks, dog daycare, dog parks, canine sports, and canine competition might be unwelcome, causing anxiety and stress more than enjoyment. Additionally, too much exercise can actually make dog behavior worse. Forcing your dog to take part in activities they do not enjoy causes stress and the activity is associated with the owner. One could suggest unless you recognize your dog enjoys any/all activities you choose to engage, you are jeopardizing your relationship, trust, and the bond between you and your dog. No one likes being forced to do something they do not like or want to do.
These are a few examples of developmentally related problems and failure to recognize individualism, but none the less three examples leading to unwanted behavior; one is related to early developmental considerations, the second highlights mistakes owners make not recognizing dogs as individuals and the third is not recognizing your dog’s temperament and developing personality.
This underscores understanding dog behavior academically is important, dog trainers not sufficiently educated to recognize these kinds of problems are unable to counsel clients sufficiently. Instead, they focus on fixing the dog sometimes using aversive training methods, they are ill-equipped to educate the owner, concerning the dogs motivation for the problem behavior. Owners need to recognize developmentally related problems as well as treat them. It is a welfare and quality of life issue.
Dominance overused and incorrect labeling leads to aggression!
Dominance widely used in academic and popular literature is used to describe dog behavior and certain types of aggression labeled “dominance aggression.” Dominance used correctly describes relationships between individuals and “erroneously used to describe a supposed trait of individual dogs,” with little evidence, this trait exists (Bradshaw, et al. 2009).
The use of dominance to explain a dog’s undesirable behavior and used in dog training is still being used today in spite of research scientists suggesting this is incorrect. Today, most “zoologists agree the wolf pack should be regarded as an extended family” consisting of a breeding pair and offspring. The original confusion came from differences between scientists studying natural wolf packs and their behavior from those studying captive wolves and their behavior. The difference between captive wolf behavior and natural wolf behavior discussed in more detail in Dominance – is it appropriate to explain social relationships between dogs and humans?
Researchers (Mech, 1999, Packard, 2003, Gadbois, 2002) suggested natural wolf packs more closely model a human family, with parents being dominant to offspring. The breeding pair uses both agonistic and affiliative behavior that serves to promote a cooperative family unit. Natural wolf packs form when two young unrelated male and female wolves form a relationship, breed, and produce offspring. The older wolves “share the leadership role” and have the greatest rights in decision-making. The roles of the adults may change depending on the goals of the family, such as, the female wolf may exercise a leading role in parental care, while males take up the role of foraging and protecting territory perimeters.
Packard (2003) argued strongly against the linear hierarchal structure advanced before, suggesting the hierarchy was more flexible, and inter-individual relationships included both agonistic and affiliative behavior that serve to support a peaceful social structure. In addition, Packard (2003) says, dominant behavior toward offspring could be viewed as parental aggression when exercising control over offspring, and exploratory behavior from youngsters viewed as testing the limits of parental indulgence (Miklosi, 2007).
According to Miklosi, (2007), the “family concept does not exclude hierarchical/dominant relationships” older adults simply outrank offspring by physical strength and experience, and by default are leaders. Depending on the size of the pack, lower ranking wolves may provide leadership roles however, this only occurs shortly before their dispersal.
Our spin on canine dominance aggression
The spin on canine aggression is most often viewed from our perspective, which only makes sense, given we humans have a difficult time imagining other animals have different perspectives and behaviors that enable them to adapt to their environment based on their own physiology and mental capacities. We have a bad habit of viewing humans as being superior to other animals, credit most often attributed to language, humans being the only species have what we’ve defined as language, but this doesn’t mean other species lack communicative ability or quality of life issues equal to ours.
Lindsay (2007) suggests there may be a different spin, another hypothesis explaining why dogs bite humans and most often their owners! He says, “…the social dominance hypothesis does not seem to have much value for understanding and treating most intrafamilial and extrafamilial aggression problems.” According to Lindsay, canine dominance aggression conflicts with this hypothesis because these dogs generally lack competence suggesting it is equal to “tossing a pig in the air and claiming pigs can fly.”
When “dominance aggression” is used to describe and/or label a dog’s behavior, we rarely if ever suggest any responsibility on the owner’s part in creating the conflict. Instead, we “demonize” the aggressive dog, assuming only their guilt to justify in some instances using aversive training methods to resolve the dog’s aggressive problem! Most dog owners do not realize confident animals do not waste time and energy; instead, dogs commonly labeled as dominant aggressive appear socially incompetent, insecure, and over-reactive around people.
References
Gazzano et al. (2008). The prevention of undesirable behaviors in dogs: effectiveness of veterinary behaviorists’
advice given puppy owners. J. Vet. Behav. 3, 125-133.
Lindsay, Steven R. (2000). Handbook of applied dog behavior and training. 3 Vols.
Iowa: Blackwell.
Lindsay, Steven R. (2005). Handbook of applied dog behavior and training. 3 Vols.
Iowa: Blackwell.
Miklosi, Adam. (2007). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford University Press. Oxford, NY
Milani, Myrna. (2009). Companion Animal Ethology: Practical insights into behavior, physiology, and the human-animal bond for animal-care professionals.
Yamamoto et al. (2009). Influence of delayed timing of owners’ actions on the behaviors of their dogs, Canis familiaris.
J. Vet. Behav. 4, 11-18.
Dominance – is it appropriate to explain social relationships between dogs and humans?
Responsible Dog and Cat
Training and Behavior Solutions
Combining Art and Science for Training Animals
Joyce D. Kesling, CDBC
P.O. Box 15992
Sarasota, Florida 34277
941-966-1188
http://responsibledog.wordpress.com/
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Mahatma Gandhi 1869 – 1948
Copyright Responsible Dog & Cat 2009
The welfare of dogs and seeing it as a “glass half-full!”
Boudicca ~ Was Shelter Dog
Recently, what got started as a discussion on good breeders and what might define them from puppy millers turned into a debate over how dogs become “homeless.” This actually doesn’t stray (dog) from defining good breeders in an overall discussion concerning the welfare of dogs. But the discussion turned into a debate as to WHY dogs end up in shelters. One person suggested it was due in large part to the current economic crisis and owners’ losing their homes, but this does not explain why dogs and cats [included] have been routinely relinquished to shelters with millions being euthanized over the years! Our housing crisis is current; we were in an economic boom for years. Nevertheless, dogs and cats routinely were sent to shelters.
Given our economic times, it’s not difficult to understand why many pets are finding themselves “homeless” due to the economic crisis. However, without being clear about the circumstances explaining their “homeless” condition, we are not being fully honest with the public and ourselves. So it might be good to start at the beginning of the problem. Raising behaviorally and structurally sound puppies begin with breeders. So, I’m going to begin at the breeding level.
It’s clearly defined in oodles of (poodles) literature that dogs benefit from the exposure they receive from birth until the day they leave their birthing (caged versus home) environment and the day they end up in your home.
A dog’s potential and behavior is greatly influenced by genes and their biological expression. This process is further guided and modified through the animal’s experiences with its environment. The effects of the dog’s environment provide either potential for constructive learning and adaptation or the reverse, especially during the critical weeks spent in the breeding environment.
If the breeding environment lacks sufficient and adequate experience, encouraging proper development for the dog’s specific behavioral systems, those innate behavioral patterns expressed within those systems will weaken and those behaviors associated will develop abnormally.
Even though dogs retain a certain amount of behavioral variability and adaptability, they still have limited biological constraints. The behavioral organization of dogs is built on a behavioral system supporting other systems; therefore, early experiences are influential in developing a healthy and behaviorally sound dog. Those puppies lacking proper socialization and deprived of environmental exposure often develop lifelong deficits and dysfunctional behaviors (Lindsay, 2001).
During these first critical weeks if puppies are isolated from contact with other puppies and humans, they will fail at establishing satisfying social contact with their own species and humans. Not only will they have social deficits they will have cognitive disabilities, exhibit poor learning, poor problem solving skills, extremely hyperactive, rigidly inhibited, emotionally over-reactive and displaying fearful and avoidance behavior in both novel and social situations. This happens in extreme cases and rarely observed outside a laboratory. The result is every behavioral system is adversely affected leaving what Lindsay (2001,) describes as “an autistic shell of fear, insular despair, and perpetual confusion.” Does this sound at all familiar?
The glass half-full perspective, means most puppies aren’t exposed to such environmental deprivation, but many are, especially those bred in “careless conditions” equated to breeding “livestock,” often these are your “irresponsible and ignorant breeders” according to Lindsay (2001). These are your puppy millers and you should avoid like a virus.
The glass half-empty perspective happens when a puppy reared in these conditions enters the homes of families expecting to have a positive companion dog experience. Instead, the family may face “extreme hyperactivity, intense precocious aggressiveness, [and] fearfulness toward humans and other dogs.” In addition, according to Lindsay (2001) they are “prone to separation anxiety, orally fixated [personal items and hands], coprophagous” and in some situations difficult to housetrain.
A new puppy and/or adopted dog in this situation can cause a lot of anxiety for new pet owners now faced with unexpected training, and behavior modification costs to repair the damage. These undertakings can be costly depending on the severity of the problem and the family’s ability to take on these challenges. It will also affect the bond. The bond between the family and dog can grow through acceptance of the dog while the family accepts the challenging responsibilities and getting immediate help from the right sources.
According to a recent study conducted by Phillip Kass, an epidemiologist and member of the School of Veterinary Medicine faculty and Center for Companion Animal Health, worked with hundreds of veterinarians collecting scientific data for solving problems. The study results showed an important difference between people who relinquish pets and those who do not. The study concluded once someone had relinquished a pet, that person was more likely to repeat. The reasons given for relinquishment was job loss, moving and divorce, but generally, the problem seemed to be “younger, poorer, and less educated” individuals. The study indicated a general lack of understanding the responsibilities required in pet ownership. They had little understanding about vaccinations, neutering, animal behavior, and training techniques. The most glaring result was pets living inside versus outside had stronger bonds with owners, and were less likely to relinquish pets.
The glass half-full perspective, means if these dogs can get the support they need through behavior modification, remedial socialization, graded environmental exposure and a lot of patience from their owners these dogs do have a chance to develop into “reasonably well-adjusted” companion dogs. Here’s the potential problem though, this often requires a huge investment in not just patience, but owner time and expense. Depending on the severity of the problem, an owners experience with dogs, whether or not they seek training and/or behavioral advice immediately determines in many cases if the dog remains in the home.
This underscores the importance of where one purchases puppies and why we need to think before we buy and/or adopt in some instances. If you’re not prepared for unexpected costs i.e., training, behavior problems, physiological problems, you’re in for a big surprise leading to a lot of heartache.
I just finished reading, chapters 8-15 from “The Pit Bull Placebo” and given my occupation involves training dogs, solving behavior problems and understanding how all this affects the bond between us and our dogs, I found Karen Delise’s distinction between “family dog versus resident dog” (2007) classification very interesting.
Her emphasis on understanding the motivation behind a dog’s behavior was inspiring. Her book covers the historical beginnings of specific breeds and functions, especially those related to dogs now faced with breed specific legislation in many areas of the United States and abroad.
The book is chock full of interesting dog bite cases, but it’s what she brings to the story line that makes this book unique, she underscores the importance of not just looking at the incident as another dog attack and targeting a specific breed. Instead, she emphasizes the motivation and environment that contributes to an individual dog’s behavior. The behavior and environmental background information on dog bite cases are rarely if at all reported in today’s media. She did a great job assessing the situation many dogs face, not just Pit Bulls! I shall not digress any further in writing a book review. However, the distinction she makes between “family dogs” and “resident dogs” can be used to explain why many dogs end up in shelters.
Family Dog versus Resident Dog
A family dog could be described as actually living in the family home and member of the family. This means the family is providing the dogs need for food, water, shelter, protection, and social opportunities. The family dog is often bought for the purposes of a companion dog and there exists a certain amount of bond between dogs and members of the household. The type of bond between owners and dogs often determines their welfare if/when problems arise between the family and dog.
However, this should not include irresponsibly or unwittingly delegating the dog to territorial guarding behavior. This is applicable to all dogs, not just guarding type dogs, all dogs need to feel safe and secure in both their territory and mental space. If you aren’t providing this in meaningful ways, then you can bet your dog will take on the responsibility, because in the dog’s world someone has to.
A recent study published in Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances (2009), “Factors Linked to Territorial Aggression in Dogs,” concluded owners were most responsible for aggressive behavior linked to territorial priorities.
The glass half-empty occurs when the family dog develops a behavior problem often ignored in the beginning until it gets worse or unmanageable. In some instances, the behavior problem is treated inappropriately, causing the problem to worsen making the dog even more vulnerable. Often owners have insufficiently trained these dogs, or they were ill prepared for the responsibilities of dog ownership and/or lack sufficient education and resources.
The glass half-full represents owners who can and do take responsibility for their pets as family members and seek out appropriate help avoiding giving up their pets.
The resident dog represents a glass half-empty and describes a dog living outside for multiple reasons. In some instances, the dog wasn’t successfully housetrained and/or was destructive. In many cases, owners give up, because they lack sufficient resources, knowledge, and education about dog behavior and don’t get help. Therefore, their first option is relegating the dog to live in the yard.
This presents problems because dogs are social animals and will seek to satisfy their unmet needs in inappropriate ways. These dogs often dig or climb their way out of fenced properties, roam the neighborhood often a nuisance or become nuisance barkers. The worse that could happen is for an unsuspecting person to enter your yard or your roaming dog attacks a person or other animal while roaming the neighborhood. This happens even with family members who expect the dog to behave the same as a dog living inside a home.
Dogs relegated to living outside away from social contact will look for alternative ways to satisfy their needs. Dog needs include protecting territory, finding food and water [if deprived], sexual behavior when dogs are intact and as a means of expending energy. Providing this type of environment will be the first in failing the dog. These problems coupled with nuisance complaints cause many of these resident dogs to end up in shelters. Many of these dogs were never family dogs, they never bonded to living with humans, they never knew what it meant to be part of a family, society failed them, and we are to blame.
So, you ask, how do I feel about the problem. I’m going to try to look at the situation as the glass being half-full. I’m going to believe we as humans will strive to do a better job at meeting the needs of our dogs. We will not abandon them when they fail us, instead we will find and provide viable options to repair any damage done to them, because it was no fault of their own. We will educate owners, dogs are like us, they need companionship, and they need to know their needs will be met; they need to know you are there for them and that you love them.
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Certified Dog Behavior Consultant
Dog Trainer, Dog Behavior Specialist
Sarasota, FL
Dogs are Tired of Human Excuses for Neglect and Poor Choices
Dogs are Tired of Human Excuses for Neglect and Poor Choices
Meeting Black Standard Poodle Island Park 022110
Meeting Black Standard Poodle Island Park 022110
Responsible Dog Training and Behavior Solutions
Friendly meeting out of town guest, discussion covered groomer recommendation, nail trimming (dremel), cropping ears, using a Gentle Leader, positive reinforcement, marking desirable behavior!
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Certified Dog Behavior (IAABC)
Professional Dog Trainer (APDT)
www.responsibledog.wordpress.com
941-966-1188
Sarasota Florida
Dog Training Darwin Heel, Stay, Handler Running Away 021710
Dog Training ~ First time working with Darwin from Heel, Stay, Handler (me) Running Away
Darwin Stay Recall Feb 11, 2010
Just practicing stay and recall at Island Park Sarasota Florida on a nice cool 50 degree sunny day! Sometimes it’s nice living in Florida 8-)
Darwin ignoring dog, meets Precious F Pitbull 10 mo February 11, 2010
Darwin ignoring dog, meets Precious F Pitbull 10 mo February 11, 2010
Darwin meets Precious Island Park Sarasota FL
Darwin meets Precious a F, 10 month Pitbull, at Island Park Sarasota Florida on 02.11.10. He’s quite tolerant of her adolescent behavior, YIPPEE 8-)
Darwin checking out the fountain Island Park Sarasota FL
Darwin just checking out the fountain at Island Park, Sarasota Florida. First time he’s actually looked into the fountain…he’s getting so confident…wondering if he’ll get in once it’s in the 90’s!
Speak…Up with Dogs!!!!!!
Watch this funny video, except it’s not really funny for dogs when they are trained using shock collars 8-)
Dog Training Ladder Climbing Vs Climbing Stairs! Is it any different?
Dog Training Ladder Climbing Vs Climbing Stairs! Is it any different?
I recently watched a short video clip of Cesar Millan, the so-called “Dog Whisperer” working with a huge Great Dane. The Great Dane was afraid to go up and down stairs, a common fear and if not introduced to stairs as puppies, it would not be unusual at all for an older dog to be afraid. Cesar Millan demonstrated using a flooding method and other behavior associated with climbing stairs that might influence the overall behavior, example running starts!!!!!
Here’s an example teaching my Jack Russell to climb a 6 ft ladder actually even more difficult (!), simple lure and reward and/or combined with shaping works fine for all dogs. What Millan did was no different from someone throwing a frightened child into a swimming pool and telling them to sink or swim!
After all that running trying to force the scared dog up stairs Cesar Millan wasted a lot of energy. Energy expenditure is costly, animals take this into consideration while trying to earn a living. Additionally, a confident animal doesn’t waste energy, this seems contrary to good leadership skills!
Give the dog a break, using a little positive reinforcement up front makes the experience much more pleasurable for any animal.
“Nature Rewards Behaviors That Promote Evolution” (Balcombe, 2006)\
“…the most persuasive argument for pleasure in animals is that it is adaptive (Balcombe, 2006)
“Pleasure is nature’s way of rewarding good behavior (Balcombe, 2006)…this also helps to reinforce that same behavior the next time it is performed (Bradbury, 2006).”
Why consider the use of Shock Collars (E-Stimulus, E-Touch) carefully
Dog outsmarts Pavlov and some humans!
January 30, 2010
Why consider the use of Shock Collars (E-Stimulus, E-Touch) carefully
This is a bit technical but brief overview on this issue. I will do my best to make it easy for everyone to understand. In the JVB (2007) Overall evaluated the molecular and cellular use of shock on the learning process. She suggested, “we may be changing other behaviors or processes” with these collars technically called E-Stimulus Devices.
Overall (2007) uses what she describes as “a landmark study” by Schilder and van der Borg published in Applied Animal Behavior (2004). Schilder and van der Borg noticed dogs exhibiting more stress related behavior when using these types of devices. Stress related behavior continued with the control group, during free time in the handlers presence while at parks, when dogs should be relaxed. Stress behaviors and/or conflict resolution behaviors is extensively defined in recent dog literature.
The authors, Schilder and van der Borg (2004), concluded three negative effects from the use of e-stimulus devices (shock collars). They are as follows:
- This type of training is stressful
- Dogs are feeling pain
- Dogs learn to associate the collar with shock and presence of the handler/owner!
Overall (2007) suggests, though some guard type dogs are successfully trained using these devices, other concerns i.e. “heightened uncertainty and reactivity” were reported. She says, president of a regional detection dog group in the US believed “any handler who hits the streets with a dog wearing a shock collar did not have a well-trained or reliably trained dog.”
As said earlier, I am attempting to offer only an overview on the use of e-stimulus devices, aka shock collars, not an in-depth study or research paper. There appears a growing number of dog trainers schooled to use these devices as standard training equipment. One such school is located in Florida. Their slogan “We do this quickly, effectively and lovingly. Plus we GUARANTEE our E- Touch approach and dog training for the life of your dog.”
Guaranteeing results is a very questionable practice in the discipline of behavior and often advised against in literature when selecting a dog trainer or behavior specialist. Not even a human therapist will guarantee your results. This is purely marketing, and when their system fails, because they have not correctly identified any underlying problems associated with a behavior complaint, the owner will either seek other counsel or worse, surrender the dog to an unknown fate at a shelter.
A legitimate concern exists for newly introduced dog trainers, veterinarians, dog owners/handlers, dog-related businesses, and dog owners who are unaware of these findings and literature on the subject is sorely lacking.
The following statement and review comes from a “Letter to the Editor” in response to Overall’s (2007) editorial cited earlier. The response appeared in the JVB (2008) published by a “representative” from Radio Systems Corporation, the world’s leading manufacturer of e-stimulus devices which they refer to as “static stimulation.” The brands represented included Invisible Fence, PetSafe, Innotek, SportDOG, and Guardian Brands.
The author, in the first paragraph says, “We are in complete agreement with Overall…decisions to use such equipment should not be made lightly,” and states their literature includes warnings. I am purposely omitting the author’s reasoning for suggesting e-stimulus devices as a “legitimate means of behavior modification” that would need discussion on learning theory, highly technical and lengthy paper. The intended target audience is to bring attention to dog-related business’s, shelter and rescue personnel, foster parents, veterinarians, groomers, daycare owners, and dog owners.
Before making an informed decision using dog-related equipment for purposes of behavior modification, a complete behavior history and medical workup should be completed. This gathering information about the dog, family, and dog’s environment, help the behavior consultant identify the problem and informed choices how to approach modifying the dog’s behavior.
Additionally, any medical reasons sometimes masquerading and/or contributing to a behavior problem need eliminated first by a veterinarian.
Once these two requirements are completed, any medical problems eliminated, the consultant can begin offering solutions including training, modifying the owner’s behavior, and any necessary management. If the case involves a dog who has already bitten, a risk assessment is necessary. The owner/handler, rescue organization, or foster care person is apprised of any risks and recommendations keeping in mind the public’s safety and anyone coming into contact with the dog.
If a certified behavior consultant (IAABC), board certified veterinarian (ACVB), ABS and/or AVSAB member were to decide the use of an e-stimulus device is warranted, then according to the representative the following must be taken into consideration.
The choice of the targeted stimulation is important, and since instrumental behavior (learned) is usually rewarded by its consequences, “not all behaviors are equally likely to be associated with certain consequences.” They state, “researchers discovered that certain responses can be exceedingly difficult to establish” using shock avoidance!
Here’s the kicker… they admit animals are not ‘biologically prepared’ to associate a negative event when faced with danger. I’m including any type of fearful stimulus. It is widely known animals have choices when faced with threatening situations. They can freeze, flee, defend themselves offensively or offer appeasement behavior (tend-befriend). The author says, “if a trainer attempts to punish defensive aggression in an already frightened dog, the aggression is likely to escalate,” not diminish. Aggression, except predatory, is always associated with fear and unless you change the emotional response, you cannot change the dog’s perspective toward that fear.
The author suggests behavior “targeted for suppression” using e-stimulus devices include roaming, chasing vehicles, prey drive and “other high-arousal behaviors far removed from stress.” The bolded phrase is concerning since “high-arousal” behavior can manifest in a myriad of ways and reasons and often already associated with stress! An example of “high-arousal” behavior could be jumping, barking, or zooming around the house to release energy! All of these suggested behaviors, often undesirable “high-arousal” behavior are always associated with the owner, not the dog.
The dog is often responding using normal dog behavior, often perceived negatively by their owners. Many of these dogs are living in dysfunctional environments. A dysfunctional environment often does not include clear rules and boundaries associated with the dog’s behavior, and in most cases, owner reinforcement is often present. So punishing the dog for owner-reinforced behavior, inconsistency, lack of enough outlets for energy expenditure, and generally not meeting a dog’s needs seem rather cruel.
The following statement made by the author needs understood, especially by dog owners considering these devices for training and/or behavior modification. The author states, “experienced trainers acknowledge…motivating learning through aversive control” is only effective if the trainer concentrates on “one response at a time” and “intermixing behaviors only when performance” of the first target response is “fluent” (reliably trained).
Most problem behavior consists of chained behavior. For example, dog hears owner’s car arrive home, dog begins to get aroused, owner walks in, dog jumps all over owner. If they suggest the correct way to use these devices means, the owner/dog trainer must stop the behavior before it gets started, when the dog hears the car! All other points in the entire chain of behavior must be “fluent” (reliably trained) first, before proceeding to the next! I have to ask, how many of these trainers are training reliably each sequence in a chain of undesirable behavior with the owners? This is exactly how positive trainers shape desirable behavior, but without using punishment.
The author’s argument that other punitive procedures, i.e. time out, are ineffective, citing “electrical stimulation is potentially superior to and safer” than other aversive punishment, i.e. spray bottles, restraint, and noxious tastes, is unsubstantiated. This suggestion is weak lacking any research or quantification.
I purposely left time out from their list; time out, used effectively and consistently, with rules, timing and proper social settings can/is very effective, given the dog wants to stay in the social environment. If the dog’s social environment lacks rewarding opportunities and training an incompatible behavior, sending them to time out will have no effect at all, in some instances, it may offer the dog relief. Therefore, the author’s statement is weak and appears to lack understanding correct time out rules and when/where its use is effective.
The author further justifies using electrical stimulation by comparing it to human cases of “self-injurious behaviors,” i.e. head banging. Dog owners commonly complain about barking, running away and jumping, these common dog behavior problems don’t come remotely close to “head banging” but aversive punishment is commonly recommended. A recent study, on territorial aggression suggested owners are most responsible for their dog’s behavior. See related blog post, “Spoiling dogs, is it really good for them? .” Until owners step up to the plate, take responsibility for contributing to their dog’s behavior… after all, it was their choice to adopt or buy a dog… We will continue to debate this issue as well as how many dogs are euthanized every day and yearly because of unresolved behavior problems.
Lastly, using the author’s own words the use of e-stimulus devices “should never be considered in isolation from positive reinforcement” when used to correct unwanted behavior. My answer is: if more owners were properly educated in the use of positive reinforcement and life rewards, there would be limited need for these devices.
The only consideration for the use of an e-stimulus device might be to control prey drive. However, this requires your presence, a dog allowed to roam freely will still be able to kill. A dog diagnosed with prey drive is a danger to the community and based on a risk assessment, should be remanded to its property, and if taken out in public should wear a muzzle to protect the public and other animals.
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Certified Dog Behavior Consultant (IAABC)
Professional Dog Trainer (APDT)
Sarasota, FL
Dog Training with Darwin
Dog Training practice heeling and/or walking nicely on lead exercise with Darwin at new location Mote Marine Sarasota Florida on 01.27.10
Dog Training Recalls with Darwin
Dog Training, practicing recalls with Darwin in a new location (Mote Marine), trying to keep the training relaxed and fun.
Playing Fetch and Retrieve with Darwin and Boudicca
It’s pretty obvious both dogs compete for my attention…this causes anxiety and frustration, watch! This is one reason WHY one should choose carefully breed and/or if you are ready to train and play with two active dogs. Both are fun and interesting, two completely different dogs with their own personalities, I wouldn’t give them up for anything!
Dog Training Mote Marine Sarasota Florida
Just a fun day dog training by Mote Marine in Sarasota Florida. Darwin is doing Up, Off, on a table and bench with a graded see through surface, using lure and reward.
Darwin & Dallas Playing Island Park Sarasota 012410
Great play session between Darwin & Dallas (m Husky). I didn’t get their initial play session on video, this session was after Dallas got distracted (dogs!) and ran off to the water, probably to cool off. His owner was concerned about having him loose, that’s why she’s holding his lead now, but doing a nice job of keeping it loose. She liked the idea using a long-line, she was not familiar with how useful they are in teaching off lead control. It was a great play session for Darwin and Dallas. My purpose was a relaxed time out without serious obedience work.
How selective breeding is impacting the welfare of dogs
Isn't she cute!!!!!
How selective breeding is impacting the welfare of dogs
According to a recent report done in the UK selective breeding practices are associated with “exaggerated anatomical features and inherited disease.”
Breed standards contribute to the problem by focusing more on physical attributes rather than “health, temperament, welfare and functionality.” These standards trickle down to the average pet population.
Most significantly reported are anatomical features that directly result in disability, behavior problems or pain, resulting in unnecessary suffering, high rates of disease with hereditary causes.
An extreme example are those breeds with heads so large natural birthing is impossible, their faces are so flat breathing and exercise is limited and/or include risks of early heart disease or cancer. These limitations affect quality of life and according to the report, “Society has become ‘desensitized to [these] welfare issues.”
The UK Kennel Club acknowledges breeding for “extreme morphology” is a danger and continuing to follow current breed standards presents a “matter of continued urgency.”
According to this report, “most dog breeding is a hobby conducted by ‘dog lovers’, rather than utilitarian.” The suffering which some pedigree dogs endure could be avoidable with revised breeding practices” and suggests society has a “strong moral obligation” for solving the problem.
The experts who participated in this study suggest current breeding practices, efforts by breed societies and kennel clubs are ineffective and are not protecting the welfare of many breeds. They consider it so serious suggesting “drastic measures” are needed and that all members of society especially those who benefit from dogs have a “moral and ethical obligation” to take every action to rectify this problem to protect the health and welfare of future generations of pedigree dogs.
The recommendation is this will take a concerted effort for all involved and that all groups who benefit from dogs “buy into the process” as well as fully support the actions necessary. This in my long standing opinion is the challenge we should be concentrating our energy and resources toward. This is contrary to the current road where we find ourselves. We are being reactive rather than proactive, filling the voids with bandaid solutions while continuing by ignoring the bigger picture!
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Certified Dog Behavior Consultant
Dog Trainer, Dog Behavior Specialist
http://www.responsibledog.net/
Dog meeting, Stay Dog Distraction, Boxer Behavior Unknown
This is meant to be an educational video demonstrating meeting a strange dog and dog whose handler when asked was uncertain about the dog’s behavior. Based on what I observed and lack of knowledge concerning the dog’s behavior, i would not allow my dog to meet. This was also additional training for my dog to stay, wait for permission, and just be Darwin!
Dog training, relaxed sniffing, recall, stay, weird guy distraction
I’m purposely allowing relaxed sniffing before we work stay and distractions with other dogs and people. Several weeks ago, I noticed Darwin would take off without permission to meet another dog, this IS a problem. We’ve been working on listening/attention, stay, either in sit and/or down position. To date, since beginning to correct this identified problem, he has not broken a stay cue! He is learning to wait for permission, including in heel position. I had identified at times when prevented from arbitrarily meeting dogs, he was getting aggressive. There were/are times when I DO NOT want him to meet a particular dog and/or person. I make this decision, not Darwin! This is improving. The point is, he may be slow responding during these couple of recalls, but sniffing for Darwin and/or any other dog for that matter is serious business. It would have been helpful gaining his attention using my whistle and/or squeaker, but my purpose was allowing him to casually sniff, not obey commands strictly. Finally, my overall point is, considering the environment, my relaxed intention, Darwin was adequately responsive, everything else he did was perfect, and I did not have to use any heavy-handed corrections or e-stimulus (shock collar) to get the kind of behavior I want.
Responsible Dog ~ It’s All About Dogs
Joyce Kesling, CDBC, Author
It’s all about Dogs!
It’s all about dogs is for moments when I have a fresh thought or idea about dogs, dog behavior, dog training or other thoughts concerning dogs welfare, and quality of life. I hope to pass these thoughts on to everyone who loves and keeps dogs but most of all to those who want to understand them better.
Understanding dogs from their perspective has potential for providing a much more interesting view of your relationship and bond with them.
I’ll be posting thoughts concerning dogs, sometimes using studies, sometimes using my own perspective, observation and views.
visit me
Responsible Dog and Cat
Training and Behavior Solutions
Combining Art and Science for Training Animals
Joyce D. Kesling, CDBC
Certified Dog Behaviorist
Professional Dog Trainer
P.O. Box 15992
Sarasota, Florida 34277
941-966-1188
http://responsibledog.wordpress.com/
-
Responsible Dog
Responsible Dog on Face Book
-
Recent Comments
Responsible Dog
Joyce Kesling, CDBC
Professional Dog Trainer, Certified Dog Behaviorist, Personal Gravatar-
Responsible Dog Flickr Photos
More Photos
