Dogs behaving badly

[Thermalpants]

Did anyone watch last night’s episode? The guy taking the Labrador’s food away was making me so mad. I honestly don’t know why anyone would think removing a dog’s food bowl when they’re eating would be a good idea. If someone repeatedly removed my dinner plate from under my nose, I’d be pretty pissed off too!

That's definitely not current advice and hasn't been advice for a good 5-10 years now, if not longer
And? In 5 years time, it's likely that the advice you are advocating yourself will be considered outdated and wrong!

I too like Graham. Its TV so of course hugely edited and I doubt all the dogs' behaviours are changed for good just through his very brief interactions but he does give food for thought.

I too agree that the common issue is owners being too soft. Then again, it's the same with kids.

He has a gentle but assertive approach which I think is good. Ultimately, in the vast majority of cases, his approach is very much the same 'iwner us the boss/parent, insert discipline, give boundaries, reward good behaviour, the same approach that works best with kids.

Personally, I find rigid adherence to any one school of parenting/ dog-training unhelpful. It's one of the reasons I don't spend much time on the dog threads, despite being a dog person
Just read this and totally agree. I'm bombarded with behavourist/trainers video on Facebook selling their methods and all come across as patronising and condescending, in a cheerful way to mask it.

In the end, what matters is the end result and you can change the behaviour of dogs 8n different ways that as do with children.

I totally agree that the show is misguiding through and make it look much easier and more importantly easier than it really is, but it does give good tips to people dealing with dogs with mild issues.

But his techniques have the potential to be very dangerous. I think if anyone was putting lives at risk at work everyday, they would expect to get pulled up on it
Except that's an opinion rather than fact!

He has a gentle but assertive approach which I think is good. Ultimately, in the vast majority of cases, his approach is very much the same 'owner is the boss/parent, insert discipline, give boundaries, reward good behaviour, the same approach that works best with kids
I would agree in principle, except, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the safe use of tools eg the early episode of a Great Dane receiving corrections on a head halter.

He seems to miss subtle body language signs like tensing and hard eyes and corrects only for the aggression so the dog is learning growling gets punished but it’s still deeply uncomfortable, it’s not learning to be friendly or how to choose an alternative behaviour to refuse to interact, it is just learning not to show warning eg the spaniel and dachshund fighting, you could see the spaniel hard staring the Dachshund who responded by growling but only the Dachshund was corrected.
At the end it was clear that both dogs were tense, but they were described as ‘calm’

The celebrity staffy episode I found particularly horrifying.
The dog had run out and viciously attacked another dog.
I don’t mean lunged at them barking, the dog literally swung from the other dogs neck.
That same dog was then introduced to a line up of dog after dog, no muzzle, for enough seconds to see tensing.

Twenty years ago or so the advice was to dominate your dog, supposedly to stop them dominating you. So the things to do were standing in your dog’s bed and removing their food etc. People aren’t necessarily au fair with current training methods and may be taking advice from older friends/relatives who believed these older ways are quite acceptable.

At the other end of the scale dh had a row with the woman who ran the positive training classes we took Dog to. Her method was distraction. Now, this is ok up to a point, but it never deals with the root (unwanted) behaviour. A dog must know that, eg, he is not to counter surf; if you just distract him with a treat every time that, imo, is worthless. If, otoh, he is told a gentle “no” and then is rewarded for complying, that is much better. If you don’t want a child to touch something hot, you don’t just distract - they have to know that No is an instant command.

MN Doghouse is sometimes a horrible place. Some posters are terribly superior and, as a pp observed, a mixture of training is fine and it also depends on the dog. My Dog would have happily shared his dinner and loved to have someone get in his bed for a cuddle.

At the other end of the scale dh had a row with the woman who ran the positive training classes we took Dog to. Her method was distraction. Now, this is ok up to a point, but it never deals with the root (unwanted) behaviour. A dog must know that, eg, he is not to counter surf; if you just distract him with a treat every time that, imo, is worthless. If, otoh, he is told a gentle “no” and then is rewarded for complying, that is much better. If you don’t want a child to touch something hot, you don’t just distract - they have to know that No is an instant command
It’s quite a black and white way of looking at things though.

I absolutely do tell my dog off and I agree they should know what is acceptable and what isn’t, but at the same time it is important to note that different dogs have different personalities.
I know my dog wouldn’t but there are dogs out there who will bite you if you discipline them.

I wouldn’t personally keep a dog I felt would bite me if told off but people do and those people need a way of handling the dog that reduces the risk of a bite, distraction does that.

@dontdisturbmenow

But his techniques have the potential to be very dangerous. I think if anyone was putting lives at risk at work everyday, they would expect to get pulled up on it Except that's an opinion rather than fact!

You may think so, but it's an "opinion" that's backed up by huge amounts of research. Like it or not, dominance training does have the potential to be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing and try and "dominate" the wrong dog.

I'm sure there are dogs out there who respond to this kind of training - I don't doubt that for a second, but in my opinion, it's highly irresponsible to teach those techniques to people who have no underlying knowledge of dog behaviour, body language or the ladder of aggression.

As a PP said, there's an episode where Graeme was pleased with the behaviour of two dogs (because they were quiet and not barking at each other) but the body language of both dogs was the opposite of calm. Both dogs were tense, had their ears back and were "hard staring" at the other. All signs of fear and the beginning of aggression. If those signals are ignored (as they were on the show), dogs feel they have no choice but to escalate to a growl, then again to a snap and a bite.

Graeme's techniques may work well for dogs with minor behavioural problems and no underlying fear or anxiety, but try those techniques on, say, a nervous rescue with a history of violence, and you could end up on the receiving end of a very nasty bite.

*You may think so, but it's an "opinion" that's backed up by huge amounts of research"
That means nothing. We're bombarded with 'research', few meet the standards to be considered reliable.

Graeme was pleased with the behaviour of two dogs (because they were quiet and not barking at each other) but the body language of both dogs was the opposite of calm
It's a TV programme, largely edited for viewings. We don't know what happened afterwards. Maybe he tackled their distress next, but ultimately, getting them not to bark any longer and therefore maybe restore very bad relationship with the neighbours and their own sanity us certainly a very positive first step.

Graeme's techniques may work well for dogs with minor behavioural problems and no underlying fear or anxiety
Indeed, so that doesn't mean his technique is wrong if he only applies them in mild cases.

Graeme was pleased with the behaviour of two dogs (because they were quiet and not barking at each other) but the body language of both dogs was the opposite of calm
It's a TV programme, largely edited for viewings. We don't know what happened afterwards. Maybe he tackled their distress next, but ultimately, getting them not to bark any longer and therefore maybe restore very bad relationship with the neighbours and their own sanity us certainly a very positive first step
You need to watch the episode.
It’s clear from what you’ve said you haven’t watched it.

The two dogs hated each other and tried to kill each other on sight.
Not handbags or posturing, real aggression with intent.
The two bitches even fought through closed doors, fences etc.

Graeme corrected the Dachshund bitch for growling but the direct, hard stares from the cocker (which the Dachshund growled in response to) went uncorrected.
At the end, the brought the two dogs into the room together, you could immediately see tension and staring from the cocker and stress signals from the Dachshund but apparently the two bitches were ‘calm’.

Entertainment or not the show is dangerous.
It gives the impression a stern telling off/leash pop is all that is needed to fix even very severe aggression and that is both false and dangerous.
People will inevitably copy what they see.

To add, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if in future the two bitches end up launching an apparently unprovoked attack after however many days/weeks/months of apparent peace that ultimately kills one or the other.
Because while they have been punished for showing aggression the two dogs still hate each other and are still deeply uncomfortable around each other.
Sooner or later the chances are high that one or the other will explode imo.

“That means nothing. We're bombarded with 'research', few meet the standards to be considered reliable.”

“Modern” dog training methods are behavioural science led - so actually there’s lots of reliable research.
I say “modern” because it’s been about 30 years...

I really don’t think it’s clear enough that it’s an entertainment programme tbh. That’s my issue with it, it does make it look like there are quick fixes for hard issues when in fact the entire programme is set up to make it possible to fit the resolution into a quick time frame.

It's a TV programme, largely edited for viewings. We don't know what happened afterwards. Maybe he tackled their distress next, but ultimately, getting them not to bark any longer and therefore maybe restore very bad relationship with the neighbours and their own sanity us certainly a very positive first step.

Perhaps he did.

But if that's the case, only airing the bit they did was highly irresponsible. Neither bitch was happy OR calm, despite Graeme praising them for being so. They weren't barking or lunging at each other, but they certainly weren't calm, relaxed, happy dogs, which he tried to claim they were.

People on here may know it's entertainment, but lots of "normal" dog owners will have no clue about stress signals or body language, and will think things are going well when they're clearly not.

He really is very good and clearly loves dogs. Brilliant guy

I totally agree with u, chuffed I found other people who like what he does, started wondering what I’m not seeing. I think he’s amazing 🤩

@13doggo

I totally agree with u, chuffed I found other people who like what he does, started wondering what I’m not seeing. I think he’s amazing 🤩

Amazing number of qualified dog experts on this thread! I think his methods are sympathetic, and he uses positive reinforcement. Yes he does correct behaviour but he positively reinforces. So many people seem scared to say no to their dogs or give them healthy boundaries, its good to see someone like Graeme introducing common sense! I do wonder where they find these owners from though!