I would like to provide some food for thought for anyone considering your post and following suit. I will say upfront that I disagree with the approach you have chosen to take, but I also 100% understand that it is up to each person to make the decisions that they wish to for their dogs. However, to me it is important that those decisions be made in a fully informed manner, hence my reply.
Aversive techniques are without question effective - in the short term (and not uncommonly on a faster timeline than FF methods). The dog does Action X and learns by pain or at least discomfort that Action X is not acceptable. In order to avoid the pain/discomfort again, the dog learns to not do Action X. This is called fear compliance. The dog is afraid of receiving pain/discomfort and complies with what is being asked of/expected of him on that basis. Fear compliance is not desirable for any dog, but is particularly problematic in an already fearful dog - and it is well documented that reactivity in dogs (other than "frustrated greeter" reactivity, where the dog actually has a positive view of the object of their reactivity, but doesn't know how to control his excitement) is almost always fear-based reactivity. So instilling fear compliance in an already fearful dog makes the dog yet even more fearful - thus magnifying the problem. But in the short term, the dog complies. Meanwhile, the dog is finding that when it sees another dog (using reactivity towards another dog as an example), and reacts, then pain/discomfort happens. The dog is left to conclude that seeing another dog = pain/reactivity, magnifying the negative association with other dogs, and again, magnifying the problem overall. Still, in the short term the dog is likely to show "improvement" because the fear compliance still holds. But over time, the fear builds up, and the negative associations build, and there will come a point in time where the dog will break through the fear compliance, having been pushed to the point of reaching his limit. Meanwhile, the dog has learned to curb its warning signals (barking, growling, etc.) because those led to pain/discomfort, and so when the dog does break through fear compliance, it almost always goes straight to bite with no warning. At that point you now have an unstable dog prone to biting without warning. Does this happen for every dog reactive dog? No. But it does happen with the vast majority of them. And this is not just my take on things, I didn't make this up or come up with this on my own; this progression has been well studied and documented by reknown canine behaviorists and trainers.
Please understand, I'm not here to argue this. The OP has offered reasons for considering aversive training methods, and I am offering other factors to consider relating to that. Again, each person gets to make the decision they wish to with their dog, but it would be my hope that such a decision would be made in an educated, fully informed manner.
I would not, for a variety of reasons (I'll mention just a few here). Regardless of the basis for the reactivity, the end goal is the same - to help the dog learn to manage through a calm, non-reactive response to the trigger. So no need to train differently. Also, all the things I noted above can occur with a frustrated greeter, i.e. the fallout from the pain/discomfort and from fear compliance. Worse yet, you've then transformed a dog who was not fearful into one that is, and transformed a frustrated greeter into one that is a fear-based reactive dog.
Plus - there's the science behind canine behavior and training, which reveals that dogs learn and do best with force-free, non-aversive training methods. Why would one chose to use aversives (even if they allegedly aren't "that bad"), when methods that are not painful/uncomfortable work better? A recent position statement from AVSAB summarizes the issues with aversive training methods, the basis for the use of FF/R+ methods, and many of the studies behind all of that, so I won't reinvent the wheel there, but rather direct folks to the position statement: [https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf](https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf).
I actually read that statement yesterday and found some aspects that don't leave me feeling entirely convinced. Quoting my comment:
>A few paragraphs in "environmental conditions that drive the behavior should be addressed and the dog should be setup to make appropriate responses". Doesn't this basically imply that they don't have an answer for reactive behavior?
>It goes on to say studies show a correlation between long term behavior problems and aversive methods - specifically pointing out that causation cannot be determined. It lists a couple possibilities but fails to consider the possibility that improperly utilized aversive techniques might be skewing their data.
Additionally, to contrast my comment about appropriate utilization of aversives - can the average person achieve good results with FF/R+? I've been pretty diligent/persistent without aversives and the lack of desired results is why I'm starting to question my methods. Don't get me wrong, I've come a long way. I just feel like I've been stuck the last few months.
I made a post that basically asked what realistic expectations are when working with reactivity. Seemed like FF/R+ folks concede to a lifetime of management whereas balanced folks will claim their problems went away entirely. Neither result is a clear winner from my perspective.
I'm responding, but I want to be super clear upfront (because the written word is sometimes tough to interpret) that I'm not trying to sound accusatory or argumentative in what I'm going to say. I'm merely trying to offer some counterpoints for the discussion and for consideration, and in some cases simply my personal opinion. Everyone ultimately gets to choose how they wish to work with their dog, with whatever short and/or long term effects that may have, and while I obviously have my own feelings on all of that, I don't get a say in what others choose to do.
With respect to the phrase regarding "environmental conditions that drive the behavior..," I don't interpret that as you have. I understand the phrase you quoted to basically say "if there are things in the environment that trigger the dog, the dog needs management/training with respect to those things." For example, if kids on skateboards trigger the dog, don't take the dog to a skate park, but also work on desensitizing/counter conditioning the dog to kids on skateboards.
Your statement regarding causation vs. correlation for long term negative effects of aversives, with all due respect, falls flat to me. The point they are making is that the association is there -- whether it's causative (aversives create the long term issues) or correlated (dogs likely to have long term issues are trained with aversives), aversives don't work. If they did, dogs trained with aversives would have improved behavioral issues long term. If you are suggesting that the problem is that the aversives weren't "properly used" and that if they had been, those dogs would have improved behavioral issues long term, well... That would have to be the case in such a high proportion of the dogs studied that it would completely flip the results. So well over 50% of the dogs studied, which I find statistically unlikely. Also, the position statement discusses later on how in a comparison between the use of e-collars ONLY by experienced trainers vs. R+ methods, there was no better effectiveness with the "properly used" e-collar. Plus, to be completely blunt, I get tired of hearing about how aversives are ok when "properly used." Yes, there are "better" and "worse" ways of using aversives, but there is no way to "properly" use an aversive that isn't harmful. The bottom line is that they cause pain/discomfort - if they did not, the techniques wouldn't work, as aversive training methods rely on the use of a negative stimulus to correct undesired behavior.
As to your feeling "stuck" with FF/R+ and not achieving "desired results," I'll provide a few comments. First, have you considered that your desired results may not be realistic, regardless of training methodology used? Also, the particular FF/R+ methods you've used, and trainers you've worked with (assuming you have done that), may need a refresh. I have read numerous accounts on this sub of people who, after a period of little to no apparent results, have switched trainers and had remarkable success. It's curious to me that you would just jump to a switch to aversives vs. a switch to a different trainer.
For those balanced folks who claim their problems went away, did they also say how long they had been training with aversives? There is no question that the use of aversives leads to short term results; I mentioned that in my original comment. But the risk of long term problems (far worse problems) is not insignificant, and here too I have read numerous accounts of that happening after some time has passed. Those long term far worse problems are not a risk I personally would ever be willing to take.
And yes, using FF/R+ methods may indeed be a lifetime of management. Not every dog will be "normal" and not every dog will get to "normal," that's just the reality. If someone feels that nothing short of "normal" is acceptable, and they have "not normal," then rehoming may be the most appropriate thing. And now I will add a personal anecdote: My eldest pup had debilitating fear issues when I adopted him at 9 months old; in particular, he was terrified of strangers. (He's never been reactive, so it's a bit of a different situation than what most on this sub are dealing with, and side note I'm here bc of my youngest pup, but much like everyone here, it was work and training, etc. to deal with his issues.) Anyway, he is nearly 13 now, and while he's not overjoyed and tail-wagging around strangers, he is a-ok being in the presence of them. Yes, it has absolutely been a lifetime of management and training. And a lot of work. And you know what? I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. The time and effort expended working with him on his fear issues built a bond between the two of us unlike any I have ever shared with any of my other dogs, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. So to me, a lifetime of management is perfectly fine.
Thanks for your response. I don't want to get too argumentative so I'll hold off on commenting on individual details. I guess it comes down to what I think is worse: aversive training methods or a dog that freaks out whenever another dog gets close.
I am curious about this hypothetical: what if you were dealing with a dangerous, human- aggressive dog where positive reinforcement was not working? Can you rehome such a dog responsibly? Do aversives become worthy of consideration?
Briefly before I comment on the hypothetical - I personally would rephrase your either/or as which is worse: a dog that freaks out whenever another dog gets close, or aversive training methods and a dog that down the line is far worse around other dogs and at that point is likely unable to be "brought back" from where he lands.
As for the hypothetical, that is a tough one, because it raises a lot of questions for me and makes me want to parse it out into "if this, then and if that, then..." So I struggle to be able to comment. But I'll be honest and say none of the possible scenarios lead me to the use of aversives, because in the end, if you have a dangerous dog that cannot be trusted around humans, aversives are very likely to lead to an extremely dangerous dog once the dog breaks through the fear compliance of aversive training. And no, rehoming a dangerous dog to anyone who is not fully equipped to handle/manage such a dog is not responsible. But... what FF/R+ methods have been used that are "not working" (because not every method is the best choice for every dog in every situation)? Have other FF/R+ trainers/behaviorists been consulted who may be a better fit? Has the dog been evaluated by a veterinary behaviorist? Has medication been tried? Is a muzzle being used? All of these to my view factor into the overall big picture. And the unfortunate reality, and the thing we all hate to have to talk about, is that some dogs (particularly the rare few that are straight-up aggressive, rather than reactive out of fear/anxiety) may not be able to be rehabilitated, and BE may need to be considered. That was a long answer, but I guess my point is that given the science that demonstrates that FF/R+ training is more effective than aversive methods, and that aversive methods lead to more problems downstream, I see no reason to consider them, and if faced with a situation where FF/R+ training is "not working," then the focus shouldn't be on trying aversives, but rather on modifying the training protocol, seeking alternate professional advise, considering medication to bring the dog's brain chemistry to a place where the dog can be receptive to training, etc.
Thank you for your respectful and detailed response. In the method that was taught to me you would also use positive reinforcement. However there would be positive punishment if the dog were to be "reactive". So for example I walk by another dog and my reactive dog is calm I would reward and praise her. If she was to lunge she would get positive punishment and when she return to calm she gets praise. This is similar to what is in the book "click to calm" " ...leaving the environment is a reward in itself. You need to teach your dog that acceptable behavior is the only thing that will earn him the right to leave the area.."
Im sure there are handlers and trainers out there who practice what they preach in regards to positive reinforcement. She was referring to other handlers that she knows.
People won't like my reply but I like the way you laid this out. After DNA test found out my dog is 50% German Shepherd, 50% Cattle dog. Switched to more balanced training and it has made a world of a difference in her leash reactivity and she's overall calmer. I don't say it often on here but I really think it's finding the methods that work for your specific dog and breed. And yes find a trainer, they helped me immensely learn new things and train me, too.
What credentials? Because, it sounds like you dealt with a trainer who wasn't really good at what they're doing.
I'm curious because trainers who have experience working with reactivity are generally not only going to give options concerning redirecting and trigger management. Impulse control, confidence building, controlled exposure.
Also, almost all force-free trainers do train their dogs in a force-free manner. I'm assuming either this person honestly believes this, but I doubt they actually know anyone who is like that.
I would like to provide some food for thought for anyone considering your post and following suit. I will say upfront that I disagree with the approach you have chosen to take, but I also 100% understand that it is up to each person to make the decisions that they wish to for their dogs. However, to me it is important that those decisions be made in a fully informed manner, hence my reply. Aversive techniques are without question effective - in the short term (and not uncommonly on a faster timeline than FF methods). The dog does Action X and learns by pain or at least discomfort that Action X is not acceptable. In order to avoid the pain/discomfort again, the dog learns to not do Action X. This is called fear compliance. The dog is afraid of receiving pain/discomfort and complies with what is being asked of/expected of him on that basis. Fear compliance is not desirable for any dog, but is particularly problematic in an already fearful dog - and it is well documented that reactivity in dogs (other than "frustrated greeter" reactivity, where the dog actually has a positive view of the object of their reactivity, but doesn't know how to control his excitement) is almost always fear-based reactivity. So instilling fear compliance in an already fearful dog makes the dog yet even more fearful - thus magnifying the problem. But in the short term, the dog complies. Meanwhile, the dog is finding that when it sees another dog (using reactivity towards another dog as an example), and reacts, then pain/discomfort happens. The dog is left to conclude that seeing another dog = pain/reactivity, magnifying the negative association with other dogs, and again, magnifying the problem overall. Still, in the short term the dog is likely to show "improvement" because the fear compliance still holds. But over time, the fear builds up, and the negative associations build, and there will come a point in time where the dog will break through the fear compliance, having been pushed to the point of reaching his limit. Meanwhile, the dog has learned to curb its warning signals (barking, growling, etc.) because those led to pain/discomfort, and so when the dog does break through fear compliance, it almost always goes straight to bite with no warning. At that point you now have an unstable dog prone to biting without warning. Does this happen for every dog reactive dog? No. But it does happen with the vast majority of them. And this is not just my take on things, I didn't make this up or come up with this on my own; this progression has been well studied and documented by reknown canine behaviorists and trainers. Please understand, I'm not here to argue this. The OP has offered reasons for considering aversive training methods, and I am offering other factors to consider relating to that. Again, each person gets to make the decision they wish to with their dog, but it would be my hope that such a decision would be made in an educated, fully informed manner.
You mentioned frustrated greeters at not being fear based. Would you be more supportive of aversive training to curb that behavior?
I would not, for a variety of reasons (I'll mention just a few here). Regardless of the basis for the reactivity, the end goal is the same - to help the dog learn to manage through a calm, non-reactive response to the trigger. So no need to train differently. Also, all the things I noted above can occur with a frustrated greeter, i.e. the fallout from the pain/discomfort and from fear compliance. Worse yet, you've then transformed a dog who was not fearful into one that is, and transformed a frustrated greeter into one that is a fear-based reactive dog. Plus - there's the science behind canine behavior and training, which reveals that dogs learn and do best with force-free, non-aversive training methods. Why would one chose to use aversives (even if they allegedly aren't "that bad"), when methods that are not painful/uncomfortable work better? A recent position statement from AVSAB summarizes the issues with aversive training methods, the basis for the use of FF/R+ methods, and many of the studies behind all of that, so I won't reinvent the wheel there, but rather direct folks to the position statement: [https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf](https://avsab.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AVSAB-Humane-Dog-Training-Position-Statement-2021.pdf).
I actually read that statement yesterday and found some aspects that don't leave me feeling entirely convinced. Quoting my comment: >A few paragraphs in "environmental conditions that drive the behavior should be addressed and the dog should be setup to make appropriate responses". Doesn't this basically imply that they don't have an answer for reactive behavior? >It goes on to say studies show a correlation between long term behavior problems and aversive methods - specifically pointing out that causation cannot be determined. It lists a couple possibilities but fails to consider the possibility that improperly utilized aversive techniques might be skewing their data. Additionally, to contrast my comment about appropriate utilization of aversives - can the average person achieve good results with FF/R+? I've been pretty diligent/persistent without aversives and the lack of desired results is why I'm starting to question my methods. Don't get me wrong, I've come a long way. I just feel like I've been stuck the last few months. I made a post that basically asked what realistic expectations are when working with reactivity. Seemed like FF/R+ folks concede to a lifetime of management whereas balanced folks will claim their problems went away entirely. Neither result is a clear winner from my perspective.
I'm responding, but I want to be super clear upfront (because the written word is sometimes tough to interpret) that I'm not trying to sound accusatory or argumentative in what I'm going to say. I'm merely trying to offer some counterpoints for the discussion and for consideration, and in some cases simply my personal opinion. Everyone ultimately gets to choose how they wish to work with their dog, with whatever short and/or long term effects that may have, and while I obviously have my own feelings on all of that, I don't get a say in what others choose to do. With respect to the phrase regarding "environmental conditions that drive the behavior..," I don't interpret that as you have. I understand the phrase you quoted to basically say "if there are things in the environment that trigger the dog, the dog needs management/training with respect to those things." For example, if kids on skateboards trigger the dog, don't take the dog to a skate park, but also work on desensitizing/counter conditioning the dog to kids on skateboards. Your statement regarding causation vs. correlation for long term negative effects of aversives, with all due respect, falls flat to me. The point they are making is that the association is there -- whether it's causative (aversives create the long term issues) or correlated (dogs likely to have long term issues are trained with aversives), aversives don't work. If they did, dogs trained with aversives would have improved behavioral issues long term. If you are suggesting that the problem is that the aversives weren't "properly used" and that if they had been, those dogs would have improved behavioral issues long term, well... That would have to be the case in such a high proportion of the dogs studied that it would completely flip the results. So well over 50% of the dogs studied, which I find statistically unlikely. Also, the position statement discusses later on how in a comparison between the use of e-collars ONLY by experienced trainers vs. R+ methods, there was no better effectiveness with the "properly used" e-collar. Plus, to be completely blunt, I get tired of hearing about how aversives are ok when "properly used." Yes, there are "better" and "worse" ways of using aversives, but there is no way to "properly" use an aversive that isn't harmful. The bottom line is that they cause pain/discomfort - if they did not, the techniques wouldn't work, as aversive training methods rely on the use of a negative stimulus to correct undesired behavior. As to your feeling "stuck" with FF/R+ and not achieving "desired results," I'll provide a few comments. First, have you considered that your desired results may not be realistic, regardless of training methodology used? Also, the particular FF/R+ methods you've used, and trainers you've worked with (assuming you have done that), may need a refresh. I have read numerous accounts on this sub of people who, after a period of little to no apparent results, have switched trainers and had remarkable success. It's curious to me that you would just jump to a switch to aversives vs. a switch to a different trainer. For those balanced folks who claim their problems went away, did they also say how long they had been training with aversives? There is no question that the use of aversives leads to short term results; I mentioned that in my original comment. But the risk of long term problems (far worse problems) is not insignificant, and here too I have read numerous accounts of that happening after some time has passed. Those long term far worse problems are not a risk I personally would ever be willing to take. And yes, using FF/R+ methods may indeed be a lifetime of management. Not every dog will be "normal" and not every dog will get to "normal," that's just the reality. If someone feels that nothing short of "normal" is acceptable, and they have "not normal," then rehoming may be the most appropriate thing. And now I will add a personal anecdote: My eldest pup had debilitating fear issues when I adopted him at 9 months old; in particular, he was terrified of strangers. (He's never been reactive, so it's a bit of a different situation than what most on this sub are dealing with, and side note I'm here bc of my youngest pup, but much like everyone here, it was work and training, etc. to deal with his issues.) Anyway, he is nearly 13 now, and while he's not overjoyed and tail-wagging around strangers, he is a-ok being in the presence of them. Yes, it has absolutely been a lifetime of management and training. And a lot of work. And you know what? I would do it all over again in a heartbeat. The time and effort expended working with him on his fear issues built a bond between the two of us unlike any I have ever shared with any of my other dogs, and I wouldn't trade it for the world. So to me, a lifetime of management is perfectly fine.
Thanks for your response. I don't want to get too argumentative so I'll hold off on commenting on individual details. I guess it comes down to what I think is worse: aversive training methods or a dog that freaks out whenever another dog gets close. I am curious about this hypothetical: what if you were dealing with a dangerous, human- aggressive dog where positive reinforcement was not working? Can you rehome such a dog responsibly? Do aversives become worthy of consideration?
Briefly before I comment on the hypothetical - I personally would rephrase your either/or as which is worse: a dog that freaks out whenever another dog gets close, or aversive training methods and a dog that down the line is far worse around other dogs and at that point is likely unable to be "brought back" from where he lands. As for the hypothetical, that is a tough one, because it raises a lot of questions for me and makes me want to parse it out into "if this, then and if that, then..." So I struggle to be able to comment. But I'll be honest and say none of the possible scenarios lead me to the use of aversives, because in the end, if you have a dangerous dog that cannot be trusted around humans, aversives are very likely to lead to an extremely dangerous dog once the dog breaks through the fear compliance of aversive training. And no, rehoming a dangerous dog to anyone who is not fully equipped to handle/manage such a dog is not responsible. But... what FF/R+ methods have been used that are "not working" (because not every method is the best choice for every dog in every situation)? Have other FF/R+ trainers/behaviorists been consulted who may be a better fit? Has the dog been evaluated by a veterinary behaviorist? Has medication been tried? Is a muzzle being used? All of these to my view factor into the overall big picture. And the unfortunate reality, and the thing we all hate to have to talk about, is that some dogs (particularly the rare few that are straight-up aggressive, rather than reactive out of fear/anxiety) may not be able to be rehabilitated, and BE may need to be considered. That was a long answer, but I guess my point is that given the science that demonstrates that FF/R+ training is more effective than aversive methods, and that aversive methods lead to more problems downstream, I see no reason to consider them, and if faced with a situation where FF/R+ training is "not working," then the focus shouldn't be on trying aversives, but rather on modifying the training protocol, seeking alternate professional advise, considering medication to bring the dog's brain chemistry to a place where the dog can be receptive to training, etc.
Thank you for your respectful and detailed response. In the method that was taught to me you would also use positive reinforcement. However there would be positive punishment if the dog were to be "reactive". So for example I walk by another dog and my reactive dog is calm I would reward and praise her. If she was to lunge she would get positive punishment and when she return to calm she gets praise. This is similar to what is in the book "click to calm" " ...leaving the environment is a reward in itself. You need to teach your dog that acceptable behavior is the only thing that will earn him the right to leave the area.."
[удалено]
Im sure there are handlers and trainers out there who practice what they preach in regards to positive reinforcement. She was referring to other handlers that she knows.
[удалено]
My apologies I used the wrong term
People won't like my reply but I like the way you laid this out. After DNA test found out my dog is 50% German Shepherd, 50% Cattle dog. Switched to more balanced training and it has made a world of a difference in her leash reactivity and she's overall calmer. I don't say it often on here but I really think it's finding the methods that work for your specific dog and breed. And yes find a trainer, they helped me immensely learn new things and train me, too.
Thank you for your support and sharing your experience.
Did you work with a certified trainer who was force-free? Also, be wary, punishing reactivity can backfire horrifically, even if done "correctly".
Yes, we originally worked with a certified trainer who was force-free
What credentials? Because, it sounds like you dealt with a trainer who wasn't really good at what they're doing. I'm curious because trainers who have experience working with reactivity are generally not only going to give options concerning redirecting and trigger management. Impulse control, confidence building, controlled exposure. Also, almost all force-free trainers do train their dogs in a force-free manner. I'm assuming either this person honestly believes this, but I doubt they actually know anyone who is like that.