Erny

Sorry about that, Jesomil :cool: I edited it out because I thought it had the potential to offend some, but to whom the sentence was NOT directed.

Without having specific details and circumstances available to me, my "in general" answer to this would have to be "yes". But each case would need to be considered on its own merits. Provided it is humane to do so and where it is possible and measureably safe to do so, I always err on the side of rehabilitation rather than death.

Hi LP Thought provoking thread, but I think to a big degree the answer to your question is subjective. I need to ask what you mean (in this instance) by "trainable". Trainable to a manageable level? Trainable to a "cure"? As you refer to aggression as the hypothetical situation, Steve (K9 Force) answered this well in another thread -: K9 Force : So I guess the answer to your question depends on the dog's current situation at the time and boils back down to how willing and how well the owners are able to handle and manage the behaviour during behaviour modification (which is likely to be ongoing). ETA: I have met with a dog whose owners wanted to re-home. The dog is human aggressive. I believe the dog could improve with time and training by those owners. But I could not comfortably or ethically suggest the dog is suitable for re-homing. I also know of a very good trainer who told of a dog he met that he regarded as untrainable. As I understand it, the dog's fear levels were SO VERY VERY EXTREME that there was no circumstance where the dog wasn't afraid in the extreme sense of the word.

:cool: Who is worried about "image" over "safety" ????? I think a worse image would be conjured in the event of an injurious event. In fact, if "image" is their concern then one that projects "responsibility" should be their priority. Actually, I can't. Dead right . IMO THAT is far more responsible than vanity concerns. Even if I felt that a dog did not require a muzzle, if the handler is really worried about this the dog will pick up on that tension. This escalates the potential for aggression - especially in a dog with known issues. For the sake of behaviour modification ALONE (let alone 'safety issues' as discussed) I would agree to the dog wearing a muzzle if this brought comfort to the handler. Naturally, the muzzle should be a 'cage' type to allow the dog to breath and pant sufficiently.

Helen ........... I'm really sorry to read of this . I know how much you worked hard to give Oscar as much quality in life as you could, and to keep him as well as possible. Sending you at this time. StaffyLuv - glad to hear Ollie's still doing ok. You should have called him "Berger" (as in 'Berger Paints'). Keeps on keeping on. Not without your hard work either, though. Bless you both.

Don't you know?.................. present the food, give him 10 seconds and if he hasn't eaten it, remove his plate and voila!!! No more until the next day.

Oh my goodness. You DON'T share him? Ooops. :p .......................................... No - only joking. ;)

Agreed, RedMal ..... We humans are usually the cause, but we don't want to change what we do so that the cause may be removed. Nor do we want to make the effort to undo the behaviours we have instilled in our pet. Yet we want the dog to behave differently. Calling all trainers .................... magic wands at the ready. Sorry LL. Have really taken your thread . I will refrain. If I can. Hopefully. ETA: I speak generally. There are a good number of my clients and clients of others' whom I know, who want to and do make a tremendous effort to rehabilitate their dogs.

Not arguing with the statement above, but to add balance to it - there are times when a 'quicker fix' than what 'positive only' methods would provide IS required. For the owners' sake and relative safety. For the community's sake and relative safety. And often times for the dog's sake and relative safety.

Do you think so, Kelpie-i? I'm beginning to identify that more people are opening their eyes and minds to the benefits of a 'balanced' form of training. IE Positive where positive will work efficiently and economically and Negative where required depending on what's required and why. But then my contact or opportunity to view the trends of people is a minority to the whole, so I might not be getting the true picture. Sorry ..... this thread is weaving off-topic somewhat.

Red Mal ...... I think you'll find it is the trainers who emit "leadership" through every pore of their body who are the ones who are recognised as successful. Naturally, that - coupled with a stack of methods in their tool box. When it comes to understanding why TV programs chose certain trainers? In some cases, it might be about the sensationalism the trainers provide. In some other cases, it's about the "touchy feely" aspect that people enjoy and so the ratings are good, although I agree that these ones do seem to be short-lived. And of course there are other cases where the 'Star' carries some sex appeal (and going by some of the reactions I've read here on DOL, this seems to be the case for the little Mexican ). Remember that, from a TV's pov, they want to target as many people as they can - not necessarily just those who sport an interest in dogs. So their rationale is likely to come from "entertainment" pov rather than intentionally focussed on real and good education - although when there is some of that contained in the segment, it does have the potential to be helpful. There are many fantastic and successful trainers who are not on the TV screen. I don't use their appearance (or not) on "TV" to measure their success, capabilities or qualities.

I have much respect for Monty Tom Roberts - although it was many many years ago that I read his works and this was way before I developed the understanding of animals (mainly dogs) as I do now. I confess that I would need to re-visit his literature to refresh my memory. Jan Fennel - SOME of what she does/says is ok, but I recall reading her book and disagreeing with some aspects. Again - I'd need to re-read to isolate and reference to them here. But like anything - there will always be trainers who have different preferences for different reasons. Learning of these different ways and being able to reference back to them when needed for individual dogs with individual issues is a good thing. Doesn't mean you have to use the method. Doesn't mean the method will be right for a specific dog. But in some cases it might be and you should - provided you understand the dog well enough to safely apply it. As has been mentioned, "flooding" (in its truest sense) can be a precarious technique and not one for the faint-hearted, nor for one who isn't completely certain of the dog or what they are doing. The level of the dog's fear to a stimulus also needs to be measured/taken into account (IMO) before anyone can or should determine whether the flooding technique carries a good liklihood for success. The risk of permanent neurological damage also needs to be taken into account. Desensitisation is slower but safer - less liklihood of grave error and therefore a method that the general dog handler and trainer can apply without the sort of risk that is involved in "flooding". Flooding (in its truest sense) is only one part of behaviour modification. Generally, because most issues dogs develop are the result of what we have done in the past, the first step is changing what we do and the way we do it. Your statement confuses me a little, but if you are suggesting that the successful trainers are those who flood so therefore to be successful one needs to implement the flooding technique, then no, I disagree and I would caution anyone against applying this technique without really knowing and without tonnes of understanding for what they are doing. The term "Flooding" IMO also shouldn't be watered down - if it is, people will use it haphazardly and without the thought, planning, observation and experience that the method requires and deserves. Edited - I'm thinking of Tom Roberts - sorry for the confusion. It is some 35+ years since I read his works. But you remind me it is about time that I return there again. I prefer to 'gentle' an animal at its first introduction to anything foreign.

Hhhhhmmmm ............ now there's another socialisation idea.

Just in case you're mistaken, TonyMc ...... I'm not "excited" over CM in the ways some of the girls have expressed here (and in the general forum). I'd hate for rumours to start .................... His experiences with and knowledge of dogs certainly interest me though. ;)

Moving this to the "health" forum might generate more responses. I agree with Rhapsodical78 .... could be dementia. Or it could be the result of some seizure activity - seizure's can be subtle, although the restlessness that follows is often evident regardless. Are you certain the behaviour only occurs at night time? Could it be that it occurs during the day but, being not so obvious a difference, has gone unnoticed? Are there any other behavioural changes that you might have observed but haven't yet connected to anything? Either way, a Vet check would be adviseable.

Double post ..... obviously, the little Mexican is getting me a bit excited.

I agree - but IMO we need to be mindful that the dog needs to orientate the object of fear for desensitisation to occur. So there is still possibly and likely to be an element of uneasiness involved, but not so much as to provoke a fear response or prevent the dog from learning and exhibiting counter-conditioned responses. Cosmolo - it is possible that mis-managed flooding has occurred to your girl, not that I know nor have seen her. Are you saying there has been no improvement of her behaviour towards men in the period since she has been with you and/or that her fear responses have increased in general?

Have fun badboyz. Let us know what you've done and how you get on. Good to see so many people getting out there and enthusiastically working with their dogs.

This might well have had some flooding aspects to it, but my interpretation of "flooding" in the true dog training sense is where the dog is forced to face its fear head-on (using Amhailte's words) and as a result and with time (albeit within that same session), the anxiety reduces (hopefully). It does not comprise an option where the dog may manage or reduce its anxiety by escaping the fearful stimulus, which I presume your dog had (eg. going to another room; keeping some distance). I would expect that your process involved a greater element of desensitisation. Thanks Cosmolo. Kelpie-i too has recorded the episodes for me .................... seems I'll get to catch up with them one way or the other!!! Thanks guys. Lunch ...... food ..... yumm.

Not to be disparaging towards CM ..... unless I could see unedited versions of what he did I can't comment .... but I agree wholeheartedly with NaturallyWild here. There are versions of Dr. Harry (nice enough guy, but ) which actually took 4 hours to accomplish but which was edited down to fit into a 15 minute time slot. The edited components can comprise steps/reactions that a person contemplating a method would do well to know and understand. Having said that, I still appreciate CM's attitude (for as much as I have read of it, to date).

Sorry RedMal .... re-reading I realise I omitted the explanation of what "flooding" is about. Amhailte's given a good example of it. So that you (and other interested readers) might have some further and deeper understanding of its potential psychological affects I'd like to offer further explanation, although I'll try to not make it too complicated. The hippocampus (part of the brain) performs a regulatory function over the expression of fear. Under conditions of repeated or prolonged stress, the hippocampus may undergo degenerative changes that alter its ability to perform these functions. On the other hand, the amygdala, which forms part of the Limbic System in the brain, is involved in the switching on of the fear response behaviour. It plays a central role in emotional learning and initiates some survival responses and appears to function more efficiently under stress. Over time, with the impairment of the hippocampal regulation, the strength of amygdala may be increased, with the appearance of excessive fear. A dog doesn't change colour as and when its stress levels rise nor to indicate whether function of the hippocampus is being unacceptably impeded, so we really can't tell with certainty what is occurring to its brain during periods of stress. Flooding is stressful and as its success relies on the dog remaining in confrontation with its fears UNTIL it has calmed down, we have no idea of how long the stress is likely to occur. Furthermore, if you're in the middle of a flooding technique and realise the dog is becoming too stressed for too long a period and you therefore quit the process, you have ended the session when its current trauma may well have even escalated its initial fears. Not only does flooding have the damaging potential as explained here, but IF flooding is ever to be attempted, it MUST be in a controlled environment. For example, a dog frightened of unfamiliar people. Owner takes dog into crowds at shopping Centre. The process of flooding is incomplete, but due to shopping hours/trends, the crowds leave.

Hi RedMal. I haven't had opportunity to watch Cesar Millan (I don't have Foxtel) and only recently have been reading his book, but I understand from others I've spoken to that he does use quite a lot of "flooding" technique in his training/rehabilitation. Flooding is something that, IMO, is not for the novice and given that we can't see the affect of the stress that flooding causes during rehabilitation, can be deletorious for the dog ..... not to mention result in permanent psychological damage. Most of us at some stage or other use flooding in very small doses and in many of these cases, the term "flooding" would be a fairly loose term to describe it. But to use "flooding" in its true intent and meaning (as far as dog training terminology is concerned) is something that must be done with great care and only by those who understand what they are doing and how the dog can be affected. Flooding can produce some miraculously great results, but it also has the potential for the opposite. Erring on the side of caution, I don't recommend it to the general dog-owner in the normal course of my own work and very rarely even use it myself. It is certainly not something I would recommend be a component of something such as a TV show - I don't think I need to explain or mention how many people watch these shows and figure that because they've seen it they can safely apply it to their own dogs. As I mentioned - I haven't had opportunity to watch CM's shows, so I'm not sure to what exent he applies the technique of "flooding". So far as I have read, I like and agree with his attitude towards how we should perceive our dogs and their relationship with us, and also agree that many of the issues we see today are as a result of the human inaptitude for recognising that dogs are dogs, not people.

And good for you ............... love your enthusiasm guys. Keep it up! Your dogs will love you for it.

I think the writer was suggesting that we often interpret excitement (eg jumping up; bouncing around; etc. on greeting us) with true happiness, when it could be (and in my experience is often) the dog's expression of 'relief' of its anxiety that it had felt when the owner (ITS pack) was absent. But you're right, Sidoney - "interpretation" of what is written there is the key and is often mis-construed in the absence of additional explanation.

My line of thought, when I had read this, was in agreement with what I have previously found - ie the earlier in the dog's behaviour that you apply a correction, the less a correction needs to be, to be as equally effective. For an "obedience" example - dog in a down-stay. A verbal correction for it bringing its elbows off the ground. The verbal correction is less likely to be as effective if the owner's timing waits until the dog is fully up. For a "behaviour" example - dog just becoming "still" in the presence of another dog. A verbal correction may well be sufficient whereas an owner waiting for the dog to eye-ball and then even progress into its reaction, the verbal is quite possibly not going to be enough for the dog to quit its behaviour or to even take it on board as a negative to the behaviour. (Disclaimer: Not a good example, as I won't necessarily use a correction for this behavioural response - much depends on the dog and whether it sports 'issues'.) This is the way I read Cesar's comment about corrections and if I am reading it correctly, then it is something I agree with. Although I probably would have worded it differently. I usually say that the earlier you correct a dog through the course of its unwanted behaviour, the less the correction needs to be to be effective. I am now wondering if that's what he meant though. ETA: IMO, Cesar was referencing to "effective" corrections, not "nagging" (ie ineffective) corrections. Although I would have thought that for a correction to be effective, it would need to be slightly higher than the intent of the dog's behaviour for it to think twice the next time around. So my next question would be how does Cesar measure a dog's intensity of behaviour and equate that to "same" intensity of correction?