Amax-1

This in inexcusable and more to the point, what's the purpose of the breeding in the first place??

But in flooding you maintained an aversive isn't applied, so what's the concept you quoted in regard to Learned Helplessness from continual aversion for which there is no escape path? I don't see a relationship with flooding unless the flooding itself is considered the aversive?

Yeah, nothing bad happens except for their air supply being cut off. Why are you talking about learned helplessness in this context? We were specifically discussing learned helplessness in the context of flooding. I didn't even make the claim that learned helplessness was likely, unless certain other conditions were met so I'm not sure where you're going with any of this? You said this: Learned helplessness is a response to aversives that cannot be escaped or avoided, repeatedly. In the context of this discussion, putting a reactive dog in front of another dog at close proximity with no simple opportunity to escape or adapt favourably. I am responding to the context in which you raised it. No, you're not. You're talking about choking dogs, and dogs who have learned to fight to relieve their anxiety and therefore cannot be flooded (in your opinion, which I disagree with) without an aversive restraint. That is categorically different to the context in which I raised it. In fact, you're actively seeking examples where a dog couldn't learn helplessness (in your opinion, which I disagree with), citing that they are given an opportunity to learn to be calm instead. That would be a "simple opportunity to escape or adapt favourably" (unless you are using "escape" in the literal sense of the word, and not as a technical term which anyone who has used a prong, e-collar, check chain, or slip collar should be familiar with). I have provided a reference for learned helplessness. It might benefit the discussion if you read up on it and try to understand it, rather than just trying to prove a point which doesn't even reflect the context of the discussion or address the claims I have made. Learned helplessness occurs when an animal is repeatedly subjected to an aversive stimulus that it cannot escape. Eventually, the animal will stop trying to avoid the stimulus and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation. Even when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness will prevent any action. When in training is a dog subject to repeated aversive stimulus that it cannot escape when the escape from the aversive is the dog offering an alternate behaviour where the aversive stops......this isn't even relevant to dog training in aversive methods at all?. The dog learns to avoid the stimulus when offering the desired behaviour and is never placed in a position where it's helpless to change the situation in any form of aversive training system unless conducted by a complete drongo. The likelihood of a dog developing Learned Helplessness trained in an aversive system is ZERO when conducted by anyone with only basic knowledge in aversive systems. I am referring to what Cesar Milan does when taking the leash (his leash which is a slip leash)from the owner of a reactive dog and walks this dog without reaction in face of another dog. What he is doing to correct the reactivity is air blocking the dog which is a strong aversive. The air block is released as the dog calms and kept off unless the dog re-engages in reactivity and within minutes of air blocking the dog learns fast to remain calm in order to breath. The escape path is calm and the air block stops so even an aversive as strong as the air block is impossible to create Learned Helplessness otherwise in your example of repeated subjectivity the dog would be dead. Now we have established under the most severe of aversives (the air block)that Learned Helplessness cannot occur whilst the dog remains alive, it's not a factor of consideration in dog training to be concerned about IMHO.

Yeah, nothing bad happens except for their air supply being cut off. Why are you talking about learned helplessness in this context? We were specifically discussing learned helplessness in the context of flooding. I didn't even make the claim that learned helplessness was likely, unless certain other conditions were met so I'm not sure where you're going with any of this? You said this: Learned helplessness is a response to aversives that cannot be escaped or avoided, repeatedly. In the context of this discussion, putting a reactive dog in front of another dog at close proximity with no simple opportunity to escape or adapt favourably. I am responding to the context in which you raised it.

Good question. Usually with a dog who has been punished for aggression you will see something eventually. The classic example is the dog who doesn't bark or lunge, but will bite if pressed. An animal with learned helplessness looks depressed and doesn't do anything to change their situation. The punishment for reactivity breaks the drive to attack.....Cesar Milan with his slip leash is subtly air blocking the dog if you watch closely so the dog is more concerned about taking it's next breath than reacting. The dog learns that reacting causes a breathing issue and to avoid that they revise their choice to react and in the process of that, they are exposed to their demons which in face of a calm decoy dog they learn nothing terrible happened by remaining calm themselves. Air blocking is more effective than sharp corrections or prong collars and the like as it doesn't escalate aggression that is air blocking takes the drive out of the dog not increases it. Along with this technique for reactivity, the dog is also rewarded for calm behaviour with treats.......treats are good in monitoring stress levels as stressed dogs won't eat.....if executed properly which not many trainers outside of working dog circles tend to use this technique regularly, dogs when conditioned to accept treats in a calm demeanour in face of other dogs when previously reactive I doubt would be suffering issues of depression or Learned Helplessness as a result. Dogs generally react out of insecurity although a weakness in nerve structure doesn't mean the dog is timid as it will either take a flight or fight path to reduce the stress of feeling insecure. A dog who takes a fight path to reduce stress learns quickly that acting aggressively causes the other dog to back off or run away which makes them feel better and they become confident in fixing these stressful situation with aggression. With praise and encouragement, dogs like this can actually enjoy it in the end which is reflective of the junk yard dog and other forms of protection training where they begin with reactive dogs with a fear component in character. When a dog is conditioned with aggression to drive away stress, they react in forward motion with great confidence they can win any encounter put to them from another dog therefore flight path is completely extinguished with this type of dog until the dog gets nailed by another more aggressive dog which often changes their outlook.

I don't really follow this in all honesty? Is learned Helplessness the response caused by placing the dog in close proximity to another dog or the dog fearing an aversive correction should it attempt to escape? There are no corrections or threats of correction. It's a relatively simple matter to show that this is not the case. Before you can do CAT you need to do something called Functional Analysis which is an evidence gathering and analysis exercise that reveals what the dog is trying to achieve with their behaviour. We expect, based on sound logic, that dogs are reactive because they are anxious or fearful of the other dog and display ritualised aggression to increase the distance between them and the other dog. This is not difficult to verify, you can set up a number of trials and determine whether increasing distance reinforces a target behavioural response or not. In most cases it does, even for dogs who bite or even kill other dogs. If you employ flooding as a strategy, repeatedly putting the dog over threshold and giving them no option for escape, you're walking down the path of learned helplessness. In the extreme case, nothing they do works to provide escape or avoidance. More often, they escalate their behaviour, the trainer relents or something goes wrong, and they learn that escalating the unwanted behaviour is what works (as a side-note, this is how you create a "red-zone" dog for TV). CAT, done properly, gives the dog plenty of opportunities to escape but through pro-social behaviour and without repeatedly putting the dog over threshold. Picking a decoy dog needs to be done carefully, but the whole experience should not be particularly stressful. A reactive dog with the learned behaviour of aggression and attack reduces stress don't seek flight paths as they build the confidence to be invincible in face of another dog and attack with active aggression in forward thrust. You cannot place a dog like this in face of another dog without aversive restraint for it to develop Learned Helplessness. A reactive dog over threshold attacks by default, it doesn't seek escape paths or stand there in a helpless state. The Learned Helplessness concept as I see it would apply more to dogs reactive when cornered not dogs reacting from active aggression who attack solely in forward thrust as occurs in many cases of dog reactivity.

There are little facts provided to establish anything much other than discussion, but don't be pre-conceived with a charade that because a dog causes injury to someone it has no right of defence which it does depending on the circumstances. My view is based solely on the attack not what the hander did or didn't do post incident.

I don't really follow this in all honesty? Is learned Helplessness the response caused by placing the dog in close proximity to another dog or the dog fearing an aversive correction should it attempt to escape? A reactive dog in close proximity to another dog wants to nail the other dog not escape.....wouldn't Learned helplessness be more applicable to the dog who's about to get nailed not the aggressor?

Extender leads don't comply in length in most municipal areas and actually breach the requirements of effective tethering. I have never seen an extender lead of high enough quality to withstand restraint of powerful breeds, that is if you can snap cast alloy leash clamps from a lunging dog on a cheap leash, an extender lead has no chance of meeting the needs of a secure tether. Maybe the fact that this is a dog forum and not a victim support group with dog people who have experienced stupid acts from the public in face of dogs can see outside of the square perhaps?

A person at elevated pace (jogging) towards a dog and handler can alert a dog to threat switching the dog into defence drive is not uncommon. Had the innocent female jogger been a thug intending to assault the handler, the dog did it's job, unfortunately a mere dog may not discriminate against intent and see only someone quickly approaching and act accordingly whether it's genuine threat or not. For all we know the jogger may have been so close to the dog she was only millimetres from making contact herself, or......perhaps she stopped suddenly within millimetres of the dogs nose or ran into the dog who jumped directly upwards who knows? None the less, the dogs were still leashed, they were not at large which IMHO needs some extra scrutiny into how the incident unfolded as leashed dogs don't present highly due to the restraint factor in common attacks. Perhaps the jogger did something completely stupid being the reason the handler didn't offer much compassion and legged it to save his dogs......to me there is something not right or not disclosed regarding this incident with leashed dogs involved in attacks??

Are you saying that a dog refraining from a behaviour after application of an aversive has entered "learned helplessness", that is although the dog ceased the behaviour after application of an aversive, that is the aversive was effective extinguishing the behaviour but undesirable because the dog entered the wrong mindset, that is the dog extinguished the behaviour for the wrong reason? So when puppy tries to eat mum's food, mum quickly growls at puppy snapping puppy on the neck and puppy runs away tail between it's legs adaptively learning by instincts for which a dog is naturally wired to accept such an aversive, that eating mum's food, puppy is going to cop an aversive from mum for inappropriate behaviour and consequently to avoid aversive refrains from eating mum's food, however as trainers, we should avoid the learning curves as wired into dogs by nature as scientific evidence concludes that mum doesn't know the correct methods to chastise,train and set boundaries for her pup?

That's incorrect, there are plenty of defences at hand for leashed dogs involved in attack under provocation......there is no statutory law concluding that a dog involved in attack when leashed in a public place is prosecuted by default......off leash dogs yes, on leash is a different story. In some states, a dog on leash is exempt from prosecution unless it's proven that the handler coaxed the dog to attack. Dogs also have the right of personal space, that is a tethered dog doesn't mean someone can rightfully interact with it incident free where common sense should prevail. It didn't state very much at all raising my interest in how the incident occurred when the dogs were said to be leashed given that in common attacks, the dogs are generally off leash with no handler control.....this incident is a bit different to the norm. People do some stupid stuff around dogs without applying common sense with incidents resulting beyond reasonable handler control. Are you advocating that the dog and handler should pay for public stupidity? I would say more than likely, the dog alerted to the jogger running directly at them taking a lunge catching the handler by surprise.....I doubt Grey's or Dobies what ever breed they are were on extender leads, but anything is possible. Extender leads generally breach the lead length stipulation for effective tethering in most by laws I think?

That's easier said than done in many training factions where aversives are not applied to set consequence for inappropriate reactivity. If owners of reactive dogs are reliant on "look at me" training structures and crap like that to provide reliability in face of other dogs, these situations will only manifest into greater problems. It's difficult to find trainers and clubs these days who can address reactivity properly and actually fix it to a reliable level unfortunately. Justice's reactivity has primarily been addressed with positive training methods involving desensitisation and counter-conditioning and his obedience training was all done with positive reinforcement. We also used low level aversives such as vocal reprimands and being removed from situations etc and that was perfectly sufficient for him. Aversives are not a requirement for behaviour modification and should only be used on a case by case basis, looking at the needs of that individual dog and owner. Justice is a very soft dog and would only become frightened or perhaps even shut down with the use of strong aversives. Aversives also aren't particularly conducive to counter-conditioning, given that you're trying to create a positive association with other dogs. That being said, I do agree that refusal to consider aversives when it comes to behaviour modification and training is just as unhelpful as the attitude that aversives are mandatory for success. Also, from what I have seen and heard, most obedience training centres aren't set up to deal with reactive dogs very well anyway and most owners of these dogs would be much better served by gaining assistance from a good behaviourist, either in conjunction with or instead of obedience training. Dogs generally react out of fear and quickly learn that lighting up drives away the threat and eases stress which becomes a learned behaviour. Sometimes an aversive as in a hard correction to break the reactive drive when in face of another dog, the dog realises that other dogs are not so scary and reaction isn't necessary so what begins as calm behaviour to avoid correction manifests into a less stressful situation with the calm behaviour instead of aggressive lunging which can be further reinforced by rewarding the calm behaviour. Shutting down softer dogs with aversives is a training error, not a fault of the aversive, but the problem is, the more in the modern day era who don't learn aversive methods wanting to model themselves as humane trainers leaves owners of dogs who need aversives for the best chance at behaviour modification all dressed up with nowhere to go other than "watch me" regimes for dogs lacking genetic focus to be properly adaptable. Generally reactive dogs are of weak character....they are not strong dominant dogs where aversives can elevate aggression......those types of dogs have extreme confidence and are not reactive unless heavily provoked and don't need reactivity management. Given that most cases of reactivity is due to weakness, aversives have a greater place in rehabilitation of reactive behaviour as weak dogs respond well to physical dominance as a general rule. Same goes for dogs with genetically high drive and a liking to handler induced reward are rarely reactive as they adapt so easy to handler focus activities to work around reactivity. Most truely reactive dogs are of the same mould IME, lower drive dogs, hard to focus in distraction types as their general character.

That's easier said than done in many training factions where aversives are not applied to set consequence for inappropriate reactivity. If owners of reactive dogs are reliant on "look at me" training structures and crap like that to provide reliability in face of other dogs, these situations will only manifest into greater problems. It's difficult to find trainers and clubs these days who can address reactivity properly and actually fix it to a reliable level unfortunately. Ahh, I was actually agreeing with what you were saying until this post, especially the bolded part. There is science to back up building positive associations and teaching alternative responses for reactive dogs and I could name plenty of dogs who have responded well to "that crap". If you're going to ask people to understand and acknowledge that your chosen methods of training can work you might want to open your mind to the fact that other methods can be effective too. Teaching alternative responses motivationally works well with dogs who have the drive levels to adapt to handler focus activities, but not all dogs do have that in trait therefore teaching alternative behaviour in some dogs requires aversives where the best rehabilitation method is dependant on the dog's character, not the method preference of the trainer. It's no good correcting a dog with aversives who has adaptive response to focus activities any more than it's no good trying to focus a dog who doesn't have any to avoid an aversive. A very opened mind to training methods and tools needs to employed in the "successful" treatment of reactive aggression, not one method fits all.

Have you never seen an inept handler being pulled along by a leashed dog, or in this case, two leashed dogs? edited to fix quote. Yes, it happened to me with 2 GSD's in defence drive and I couldn't restrained them easily and since then I have never walked 2 large dogs together for that reason. With knowledge of that, I tend to give 2 dog handlers greater distance on approach. In which case I don't get why you asked the above quoted question. I don't know that the dogs dragging the handler was the case in this matter was it? Whilst it may have been the case, it may also have been that the handler had them by the collar and the jogger was so close to the dogs the handler was unable to prevent contact which makes a difference as to who's at fault.

Have you never seen an inept handler being pulled along by a leashed dog, or in this case, two leashed dogs? edited to fix quote. Yes, it happened to me with 2 GSD's in defence drive and I couldn't restrained them easily and since then I have never walked 2 large dogs together for that reason. With knowledge of that, I tend to give 2 dog handlers greater distance on approach.

That's easier said than done in many training factions where aversives are not applied to set consequence for inappropriate reactivity. If owners of reactive dogs are reliant on "look at me" training structures and crap like that to provide reliability in face of other dogs, these situations will only manifest into greater problems. It's difficult to find trainers and clubs these days who can address reactivity properly and actually fix it to a reliable level unfortunately.

It's the responsibility of all dog owners to respect the personal space of other dogs IMHO, that is you don't allow your dog to approach another dog in an uncontrolled manner as fault is irrelevant if an attack occurs, that is laying blame doesn't ease the pain for the effected dog or bring back a dead dog that a larger reactive dog may have killed, so common sense needs to prevail on the balance of prevention is better than cure. We need to remember that reactive dogs are genetically structured that way and are a handful to manage in comparison to dogs who are not genetically structured with reactive aggression and a complete drongo can manage a non reactive dog well. Often the handler of a reactive dog although not perfect can be a super handler in comparison to the drongo with a better dog. Too often in training clubs, handlers of reactive dogs are condemned because of their dog's reactivity without thought given that handling reactive dogs isn't an easy task and is a harder task to train the reactivity out of them if that is ever possible.

The dogs were leashed not running free at large, so why was she so close to the dogs for them to make contact?. The dog handler was initially compliant by having them leashed and what happened from there is what holds my interest given that leashed dogs are technically community safe?. No they are not. Just because a dog is leashed doesn't mean an attack can't happen and be prosecuted/actioned. Section 13 of the Act in NSW (Which covers dogs being leashed in public) also has this note: "Note. Just because a dog is not on a lead in an off-leash area, or is secured in a cage or vehicle or is tethered to a fixed object or structure, does not mean that an offence under section 16 is not committed if the dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused." So even if a dog is tethered somewhere, if it bites someone it is still an attack. Could you explain to me how a leashed dog can make contact with someone beyond the range of the leash and furthermore, if someone remains outside of the dog's leash range, how can they be attacked by a restrained dog who can't reach them? The rationale behind the leash is to prevent the nuisance or attack potential of an unrestrained dog at large, that is placing oneself within leash range of a restrained dog contradicts the purpose of restraint when restraint provides the means to allow avoidance of contact with the dog. Exercising GSD's in public for an excess of 30 years, I have had people cross the road to avoid them and had people brush past them and people approach them purposely to pat them when on leash, so I am interested what happened in this incident for a leashed dogs to make contact being the reason I asked the question. Personally when approaching leashed dogs, I keep out of their leash range not knowing their reactivity level to strangers or the control the handler has of their dogs purely for avoidance of the injuries like this woman sustained. It would be a foolish assumption to think that entering the leash range of a restrained dog by default will result in no consequence don't you think?? That's a possibility and account for the close proximity perhaps. I have a had a couple of good stable dogs by history take a lunge at someone unexpectedly causing a fast leash action for further restraint.....one was a 4 year old with great exposure to people I thought was bullet proof prior to the lunge....it can happen.

The dogs were leashed not running free at large, so why was she so close to the dogs for them to make contact?. The dog handler was initially compliant by having them leashed and what happened from there is what holds my interest given that leashed dogs are technically community safe?.

Sorry, double post.

She is the only victim in this story and it was not her fault. When an owner knows they can't control their dogs, they are the ones who should be taking these 'preventative measures' you speak of. Expecting people to run in wide circles around every dog they pass just in case they get bitten is ridiculous. Hazywal, I was wondering the same thing myself. Unfortunately not being at fault doesn't mend the wounds and ease the pain does it? The point is, you can't afford to assume that someone approaching with two large dogs can handle them effectively and they are not reactive.

Training out unwanted behaviour with positive methods works ok with dogs who have inherent drives in the right place, that is dogs who lend themselves well to handler focus regimes, dogs of high drive who are easily adapted to handler induced reward which includes many of the agility champion's training techniques used on the right dogs is sensational but on the wrong dogs is next to useless where aversives need to come into play. Unfortunately in the modern training era where factions are at work banning equipment like prong and Ecollars, thus trainers are not learning the benefits of this equipment and how to use them which are so much further advanced than a check chain ever was and far easier to use in customising the right level of aversive for the given application, I can only see training out unwanted behaviour proving more difficult as time evolves with dogs who's drive levels don't support the modern era approach.

The facts are this regarding dogs IMHO: Given that you can't predict the handler's control or the dog's reactivity levels on approach, my advise for anyone to avoid the pain of a possible attack is to steer around leash range of the dogs in question. Regardless whether or not this dog handler is caught and prosecuted doesn't ease the pain the woman has suffered to her eye and face, but jogging around the dog's leash range would have saved her more than likely. We know that dogs shouldn't be lunging and we know that handler's should have effective control, but if they don't and you don't take preventative measures yourself, these incidents will sadly continue. Having said that, I can't restrain two GSD's in defence mode effectively, so one person walking two large dogs if something was to happen greatly increases the physical control required to maintain safety.

If the dogs were on leash, the woman must have jogged extremely close to the dogs for them to make contact. Could she not have given them more space when passing? I don't see much reason to be in leash range of peoples dogs in an open space quite frankly?