snapping dog

[LeBFG]

First time posting here! Our rehomed dog is pretty good in general. We've had him 3 years now. Apart from an initial habit of chasing cats, he is fine in many ways and good with children. But he gets really defensive over bones and growls us off. If we insist on taking the bone away (if he's stolen it!) he'll snap and snarl and once attacked DH's boot. This was OK, as I reasoned the bone protection thing is a pretty deeply ingrained behaviour response and it was just as easy to avoid these situations.

The problem has gone up a level though. Yesterday DH wanted Jack out of the car - Jack refused. DH went to grab his scruff - Jack bit him! I'm still in shock as I write this. DH kicked him out after this and off we went on our family outing.... What can we do? Up until now I've trusted him with 14mo DS. Now not so sure. Any ideas/similar stories/solutions would be most welcome.

And this idea that anytime you physically correct the dog is somehow abuse, is laughable. I think the advice on giving dog space and letting it growl and resource guard is dangerous. Dogs need to know their boundaries and that calms them and removes stress. This has been my experience anyway, and we have three very affectionate dogs who adore hanging out with us.

Anyway, good luck op.

Sorry but that's bunkum.

You constantly sneer at what you view as "stuffing your dog with treats", and yet, what, you expect a dog to eschew chasing a rabbit because it's thinking "Aww, no, I don't think I'll chase that rabbit because it does please her so when I don't. I just love the pleased look on her face when I do as I'm told"??

ROFL at Flatbread.

Ok today (if you really want to know can't beleive you do!) I have seen 8 clients, I am off to a dog behavioural session this evening and yes I am meant to be typing up assessments for a dog cruelty legal case right now hence why I am getting sidetracked by MN. Don't love paper work to be honest! Would you like to see my client list for tomorrow? it starts with a puppy class clients one to ones in the day then finishes at 10.30 in the evening with a demonstration for people working with assistant dogs.

I will say this slowly again so that you can understand. I am not sure why you are getting at me Skinner and the behaviourist movement has been around a while now I didn't invent it The dog repeats the behaviour as it is rewarding so as long as you find the right reward the dog will repeat the behaviour. It will not get bored or used to the reward because it is the best thing ever!!!!!!!If it does you change to a another reward so no big deal anyway.

SO, if I give Jack a treat for not sniffing kitten, he will (eventually) link the behaviour (not sniffing) with the treat - the treat eventually becoming superfluous because the learning has become hardwired, so to speak.

If I smack Jack on the nose for the same behaviour, he will associate the deterent with the behaviour - eventually, no smacking required.

I'm confused as to the difference in learning - they are both associative. I see the argument that a side effect is arguably a dog that's more likely to snap back eventually. But the learning is the same, isn't it?

clamity, my dog come back to me every single time because she knows that if she does, I am pleased and she gets a caress. She also knows that if she doesn't come back when I call, I will take her home right away and her outing is over.

This approach has been around for millennia and is called the carrot and stick approach. it works for humans and dogs.

I obviously think that there is a place for treats and we praise and give our dogs all kinds of goodies. But I am a bit tired of the dogma in the doghouse that there is only one way to train a dog, and that is by stuffing it with treats

I think the whole "wanting to please" thing is a huge red herring, too.

How can a dog possibly know, let alone care, about the inner workings of a human mind?? "Being Pleased" is such a vague concept. Dogs don't really care what mood you're in - what they care about is WHAT THAT MOOD MEANS TO THEM. Good mood is more likely to mean nice things, whether that means a treat or an ear rub.

People who use punitive methods often brag that their dog doesn't need treats and that it works to please them. Rubbish. A dog who has been trained with punishment - even if that punishment is as "mild" as a harsh voice - is working to AVOID something, just like a positive trained one is working FOR something. Neither care about pleasing the owner, beyond what it means for them.

LeBFG no you give your dog another behaviour to do when he sees the kitten rather than chase it or damage it. The new behaviour will be much more rewarding than damaging the kitten. The dog can come to you, can go to its bed can have a game, whatever you decide but the reward will mean the dog willl prefer to do this.

It works for dogs who chase cars,click and treat when you see the car, the dog will start to turn to the owner every time it sees a car coming rather than chase it.

It works with very scared dog who are frightened of other dogs and will lunge and bite give them another behaviour to do and they will learn to do this instead of reacting and over time they will not feel frightened and need to react.

Teach a dog to go to its bed when the door bell rings (visitors will not be mugged) the dogs will be rewarded for going to its bed wither by be allowed to greet the visitor or a reward it prefers.

Same with a dog that chases a post man it is so simple and so effective .

Flatbread can you get this into you head once and for all the doghouse does NOT say to only reward your dogs with TREATS can you not read.................but to REWARD the dog rather than pin to ground or punish.

OP, do you want to hit your dog then? Do you want to use a method of 'training' that risks you getting bitten? You are right, both rewarding the dog for ignoring the cat or hitting him on the nose whenever he gives unwanted attention to the cat are likely to result in him ignoring the cat. However, the latter might result in your dog getting either frightened or pissed off and biting you. It might just result in a miserable dog, but I personally don't want any of those and I don't want my dog to do things because it is trying to avoi dme being physically violent towards it, or administering some other punishment.

Positive reinforcement works . That is why all those dancing dogs, obedience dogs and agility dogs you see at Crufts and on TV are trained using it. Evidence shows us that dogs learn better this way, if they are working for something as opposed to trying to avoid something. Plus, there's the added bonus that the worst thing that is likely to happen is your reward isn't motivating enough, so the dog ignore you or doesn't do as it is asked, you won't get bitten.

Here is a link which excplains very well why aversives are not a good way to train a dog and why dominance or pack theory is flawed.

www.dogwelfarecampaign.org/implications-of-punishment.php

Whilst I think a bit about the other posts: midori, of course I don't want to hit my dog, and if you look at the sum of my posts, I practice and approve of, in general, pos reinforcement. I just wonder if a short, strong response to an extreme behaviour is sometimes OK?

Depends what you mean by OK, doesn't it, really?

If by "OK" you mean "will it work" - well, it might.

If by "is it best practice when positive methods work just as well, if not better" well, no!

Loads of people get away with aversive methods. It's just kinder to use, well, kinder ones, isn't it? Especially when kinder ones have fewer potential risks and are less likely to backfire.

There's also a useful article here by Stanley Coren on why it's not a good idea to use punishment with your dog. Coren is a professor of Psychology at UBC in Vancouver.

OP, I didn't really think you did want to hit your dog, apologies if it appeared that way. It was a rhetorical question I suppose.

In answer to your question, no, I don't think it is ever ok to use physical punishment on a dog and in your case you'd be seriously risking a bite. There are always ways of managing things and dealing with things so that you don't need to be physically violent. Of course, loads of people do use these methods and think they are 'successful' but if you read the last link I posted, you'll see it's not without negative 'side effects' for the dog.

Dog training has moved on. We know more about how dogs learn than we ever have and it's possible to get a well rounded, well behaved and much loved family pet without using physical force or punishment, so why on earth would anyone want to?

The notion of getting a dog to sit instead of chasing the car is powerful of course and I've used with good success. This is not, however, training the dog to not chase the car. It doesn't learn this. It learns to sit on command.

I'm not a dog abuser, so don't get off on hitting them. I think that if you can very quickly respond to a very undesirable behaviour, neg reinforcement can work quickly and well. It certainly did vis-a-vis the cat chasing.

I can't believe people are saying dogs don't do things to please their owners. Dogs are sociable and the worst thing I could do to mine would be to shut him out of the house at night, worse than anything! When it comes to motivation, my dog responds much more quicker and reliably to please me than for any food I could find (and he's well greedy).

oops, x-posted - apology accepted midori

Having read some of these links, especially RedwingWinter's, I can see where the confusion may arise. Dog training programmes using these techniques are just ludicrous.

Of course dogs get confused and anxious if they are hit for peeing in the living room. And the thought one might get a dog to back down by staring and growling is just ludicrous. These are things that, IMO, totally uneducated people attempt to do. Apart from being absurd and generating anxious dogs, they just seem pretty ineffectual.

However, as part of a general pos reinforcement programme, using with a well-timed, short smack for a particularly recalcitrant behaviour, works and I can't see the problem.

OP, your dog has bitten your husband and you can't see a problem? Really? Your dog was put in a situation where it was so nervous/anxious/defensive that it felt it's only option was to bite. Dogs will usually do whatever they can to avoid resorting to biting, injurous fighting is not in their nature. The fact you have had this dog for three years before it bit anyone shows this.

The problem with smacking, or using any aversive is the risk that instead of having the desired effect of stopping the behaviour, in this case chasing a cat, it might have the opposite effect, especially if you have to use it more than once (and most people do need to do it more than once) of making the dog hate the cat because it associates the cat with being hit. Or, if you're really unlucky, it might be momentarily focused on your child at the time of the smack and associate the smack with the child and decide it really doesn't like the child. Of course, then there's the other point that it may not work anyway.

As for "The notion of getting a dog to sit instead of chasing the car is powerful of course and I've used with good success. This is not, however, training the dog to not chase the car. It doesn't learn this. It learns to sit on command."

It will eventually teach the dog not to sit on command, but to sit when it sees a car (or a cat!). So, the dog stops the unwanted behaviour and you haven't risked getting bitten in the process. Win win all round I say.

LeBFG, thanks for reading the link. If you looked at the table in Coren's article, one of the things he discusses is 'forced release of item'. Coren has shortened the description to make it fit in the table - it means "physically force the release of an item from the dog's mouth". This was suggested on this thread as a possible way of training a dog, and yet according to that table, 38% of the dog owners who reported trying it found that they got an aggressive response from their dog.

The trouble is that many people are not well educated about dogs and their behaviour/communication and so, many people actually do things like this. You are quite right that it is absurd and ineffectual. But unfortunately some people still do these things.

Anyway, you will get good results if you take a positive reinforcement approach with your dog, and you won't run the risk of getting bitten. The trouble with a well-timed smack is, as other people have said, it often doesn't work in the long run. Also, as your DP found with grabbing the dog's neck, it can have serious consequences in the short term.

Just a thought, but if you have insurance for the dog, it's worth looking at your policy to see if would cover a behaviourist. Then you could get someone in to work with you and the dog. (get one that uses positive reinforcement, obviously).

My dog isn't anxious, he's very rarely been hit. He bit because he wanted to stay in the car and felt defensive in the presence of DH. The fact he hasn't bit previously is testament to the fact he is NOT nervous or anxious, or a 'bitey' dog.

Walloping dogs 2 mins after the offence is useless. I'm not stupid. The fact he very much learned to not chase cats is evidenced by the fact that he now shares the house with four of them, they ambush him and pat his nose regularly and even run to the house together when I drive up the drive. He even distinguishes between our cats and the ferals and chases the ferals when he sees then 50m up the track.

'teach the dog not to sit on command, but to sit when it sees a car' - are you really suggesting the dog sees a car and sits when you aren't present?? He sits because on some level he knows YOU want him to. He hasn't learned to not chase cars. Where's the association?

To reiterate: I'm in no way advocating a neg reinforcement strategy for training a dog. Just can't see why the rare, well-timed use of a neg command cannot play a part in the training of some dogs.

Agree Red about grabbing stuff from a dog's mouth. I would never be so stupid frankly. When I got the stolen bagette from Jack's mouth, I told him to drop it, approached him, repeated the request. He looked me in the eye, guiltily at the bread and I reached for one end as he let is go. I gave him a bit before throwing the rest away.

The car issue is still a puzzle - I'm not sure how things could have been different. We were all off on a trip (I was in another car) and DH had to get the dog out. He wasn't responding to the usual things, but he couldn't stay in the car. What would you suggest? Pulling on a lead would have had the same effect.

Midori, I don't understand why all your focus on training of a dog is centred around not getting bitten. Are you really that scared of your dogs!

If a dog bites an adult owner, it is because it doesn't understand its place and boundaries within the family.

You bet my dogs get scared of dh when he is is in a temper, they slink of to a safe place (usually under our bed), they would never dream of biting him. It just wouldn't happen.

A nervous bitey dog is an unbalanced dog. Correcting a dog when appropriate, helps sets boundaries and de-stresses the dog, they know someone is in charge and making decisions, so they can relax.

If I tell my dog to sit or put a finger on her bum, she knows that both mean sit. If I say bad dog in a stern voice or swift smack, it means all the same, she knows I am unhappy. One thing is not more abusive to her than the other, what matters to her and makes her sad is that I am not pleased with her and she does the cutest head on my lap, 'I am sorry' look.

If your notion of training a dog means teaching it to dance, by all means use treats. But when it comes to really important stuff, like resource guarding and recall, it requires a calibrated approach of praise and corrections to guide behaviour, depending on the nature of the dog.

My experience is that negative behaviours with regard to important things, such as food (e.g., growling at humans, stealing) are best dealt swiftly with a correction, and they do not become an issue. And once they display the appropriate behaviour, they 'earn' the bone or meal. Our dogs are relaxed about us touching their food, feeding them, giving/ taking bones.

Things like recall work with a combination of praise/treats and correction. Treat or praise when dog comes back on her own. If you have to go and get the dog, a consistent punishment (depending on what the dog values, in our case it is going home, so outing is over) till you get the right behaviour. Recall is really not a problem with our dog at all now, and it is important as we live in farmland and we would be in big trouble if she chased cattle or ran off after sheep.

If training a dog to dance (!) or do tricks, by all means use treats and it is of little importance whether they do a pirouette or decide not to do it.

Red, do you guys not check your dogs teeth, or massage its gums? Why is the dog fearful of having your hand in it's mouth? I have been doing that with my dogs since they were puppies (started by rubbing butter on my finger so they loved my finger in their mouth). But I also do it with my neighbour's dog. It is part of the grooming ritual, comb, check for ticks including bum area, wash bum if dirty, check mouth, teeth and gums, give a little massage to see if any pain or discomfort. Release, give a cuddle and a nice stick throw/fetch.

If your own dog bites you because you put your hand in its mouth, you probably should have spent more time getting it used to your touch rather than throwing treats.

And if needs to resource guard against you, then it a bigger problem of leadership in the family.

leBFG, you say your dog isn't nervous or anxious, but is defensive. The fact he hasn't bitten before doesn't show anything except that, like most dogs, they have to be utterly, utterly pushed to the limit to bite. Maybe your dog isn't that anxious or nervous all the time, but the fact is, he has felt the need to bite a person and that shouldn't happen. Had you only ever used positive/reward based methods then the dog wouldn't have felt the need to bite anyone.

Had your dog had a lead on when in the boot of the car, th eobvious difference is that if you needed to you could encourage the dog to get out of the car without a) having to reach over the dog's head and b) without being close enough to get bitten.

Using a 'negative command' is different to applying a physical punishment. It is something most of us do, from saying the word 'no' or 'ahah', even to putting on a lead and restricting a dog's freedom. I don't and will never agree that physically hitting a dog is acceptable. Especially when it is perfectly possible to get the same effect without needing to. Plus, of course, there's the risk that some dogs will react adversely and in some cases that will result in them being put to sleep. I have a rescue dog here. If I hit him he'd probably tolerate it, as much as because he was suprised if nothing else. If anyone else hit him (or tried to pull him somewhere by his collar) I have no doubt he would bite them and he would almost certainly do considerable damage as he's a powerful dog. A marked improvement on the initial situation where he would have bitten anyone he didn't know on site though. The point is, hitting one dog might not provoke much of a reaction, hitting another might prove fatal. Surely that's one good reason not to do it?

BTW, the way you have dealt with the resource guarding so far is fairly sensible IMO. It's pretty normal behaviour for a dog until they learn otherwise.