Voodoo Options

[juliepoudrier]

As far as the "Experts" she took the dog to, they all told her the dog is traumatised and she should be gentle and use lots of cookies!!

I think this is just a reflection on the approach of society at large toward behavior issues, whether they be human or other animal.

I sure hope someone points out to the girl that if the second dog is becoming like the first, then maybe she should look into her own management and rearing activities at home!

My behaviorist helped me gain the expertise I needed. Would a sheepdog trainer also have been able to fix Buddy's behavior? I'm pretty sure, yes - but if the guy I met was any indication, I'm pretty sure that a sheepdog trainer would have written him off as not worth the effort in the first place.

I think that depends on the sheepdog trainer. I've got a fear aggressive dog I've had for 10 years (and he has more issues than fear aggression to be sure). I didn't write him off (as a stockdog yes), but neither would I have ever passed him on (i.e., pushed his problems off on someone else). As with anything, some people like a challenge and will rise to it trainingwise; others will simply pass. Neither is a wrong choice, because....

I wonder how much bad behavior has to do with the personality of the owner? Or how much of it is simply a bad combination between owner and dog.

...I think the above plays a big role in dog behavior. I don't know how many times I've seen dogs that I just knew would be *completely different* in the hands of someone else. Obviously these are not dogs with an organic problem that results in behavior issues (i.e., the dogs who truly need a vet behaviorist), but rather dogs who are just poorly matched with their owners. It may not be as obvious in day-to-day at-home activities, but put the pair in a training situation and the disconnect can become quite dramatic. This is why some trainers (sheepdog or otherwise) might decline to work with a particular dog. If you can't change the human half of the equation, then it will be might difficult to change the dog half.

J.

[Debbie Meier]

In the good ol days such dogs (ones with genetically derived behavioral problems) might have been immediately destroyed which one could argue would go against "do no harm".

Just depends on your perspective of "do no harm", personally from a breeders standpoint I would rather see the genetically defective dog destroyed so that it will in no way effect the gene pool or the reputation of the breed, even altering them and placing them in a pet home effects reputation. Sacrafice the one for the whole.

I guess I consider training as one of the big tests of our dogs, if they need intervention or medical support in order to handle training they are no better then the dog that lacks drive or instinct. It's part of the whole dog, focus on the whole rather then the parts. In some cases some are focusing so hard on working ability they are losing trainability, others are focusing so hard on trainability that they are losing working ability.

One of the issues with those that are breeding dogs that have not been tested to a high level of work is that they have also not been tested to a high level of training. To much of the selection process is relying on raw ability, but what good is raw ability if it can not be harnessed and directed? Yes, there are homes for those dogs, they may make great pets, but many are kidding themselves when they say that if they had the right opportunities that the dog would have made it.


Anyway, if a novice handler that wants to participate in herding has a dog with "behaivoral issues" imo they should be sent to a stock dog trainer, if the behaivor can not be dealt with via training of both the dog and the handler then the Novice can decide where to go from there with their pet.

Deb

[njnovice]

A nice young lady I know is into 'Freestyle Dancing" with her Aussie bitch who is about 6 by now. The dog has serious issues with dog aggression. She has taken the dog to every "Behaviorist" in all of our surounding staates it seems. To no avail. She has been ask to leave obedience and rally classes. While giving a "Dancing" Demo at a local festival her dog left the ring and attacked another dog who was laying on the sidelines minding his own business. Yet she insists on competing with this dog. She also has a new puppy - about 7 month now who is starting down the same road!
As far as the "Experts" she took the dog to, they all told her the dog is traumatised and she should be gentle and use lots of cookies!!

Personally, I think a lot of dogs that are dog aggressive can't really have it trained out of them. They just plain don't like other dogs. Training might help them ignore other dogs, but they're still going to hate other dogs. Sometimes, it can be trauma, sometimes not. I worked with a woman (at a kennel) who had a mean chow chow PUPPY. The dog would try to bite anyone that went near it. We were supposed to give him treats for this to help him associate people with good things. Now, I'm not one for putting a dog down without serious consideration, but any dog that is aggressively biting people at four months has some serious wires crossed. And she was planning on BREEDING her.

As for "freestyle," I just find it very embarassing for the dog.

[njnovice]

I wonder how much bad behavior has to do with the personality of the owner? Or how much of it is simply a bad combination between owner and dog. A hard headed dog who ends up with a softie for an owner. Or some poor soft little dog that ends up with a hard headed owner.

I think you're right on this one. Mick is very hard-headed and he will take every inch that he can. I'm much tougher on him than I am on Sinead, who basically responds to me just looking at her sternly. You put Mick is a room full of people and he will immediately find the person that will let him act as annoyingly OCD as possible.

[rushdoggie]

It's an easy answer in my head but difficult to put to words. I think because in today's world people are caught up in the "don't hurt their self esteem" or "specialists know it all" whereas good ole common sense just isn't common anymore.

I am so taken aback by the idea that referring someone to a dog behaviorist somehow equates with "not hurting their self esteem." Whose self esteem, the owner asking for help or the dog who has problems?

And, while I might agree that a dog with behavior issues should not be bred, if the dog is managed and prevented from breeding (by spay/neuter or other means) what has that got to do with getting help for a serious behavior problem? Should we now recommend to every owner if they can't handle their dog they should have it destroyed?

[Debbie Meier]

I am so taken aback by the idea that referring someone to a dog behaviorist somehow equates with "not hurting their self esteem." Whose self esteem, the owner asking for help or the dog who has problems?

In some cases, not all, the owners need to make the changes, the dog is just being a dog and reacting to their enviroment based on how they are wired. It's not a matter of issuing a fix for the dog, it's a matter of getting the owner to look to themselves and many do not want to look in the mirror. By sending people to a behaivorist your just continuing to put the focus on the dog, which in many cases is not where the problem lies.

[bcnewe2]

I am so taken aback by the idea that referring someone to a dog behaviorist somehow equates with "not hurting their self esteem." Whose self esteem, the owner asking for help or the dog who has problems?

I think this is being taken out of content.
Ex: I walk in a friends house. She has a bratty dog. The dog insists on lunging at my dogs, jumping on me and generaly being a brat. Does this dog need to be put down or taken to a behaviorist? Probably not, but doG forbid I give it a stern correction or worse yet, Mick who has no tolerance for hyper inconsiderate dogs does his own form of correction. Now who's got the problem dog? Me? Mick may be a jerk but he's a well trained very controled jerk. I am very aware where I take him to keep ourselves out of trouble.
No, that dog doesn't need to be put down, it needs a swift kick (not literitaly except probably true) in the butt of it's self control. If you can't tell the difference then I guess you need to go to a behavorist to get a true diagnoisis.
Unless you are Kristine (or someone with the same patience and knowledge) all the cookies in the world are not going to fix jerkness. At least IMO.

These are to different kinds of issues we're discussing here. One is owner issue. The other is serious mental health issues.

The cancer analogy seems way off to me. If my dog needs surgury so be it, not going to slouch on that one. But how many mental health issues are looked at as just bad behaviors and the person or dog should buck up. I think about half is buck up and the other half is in need of serious help. Any amature dog owner who finds himself it the middle of owning a mentally disturbed dog is going to have a rough ride. One that might not end in a manner that we all hope for. And consulting a behaviorist is not a be all end all. Sometimes there is worse than PTS a dog. I feel for the amature owner not able to spend the money or have the knowledge to help a dog they might own with serious issues.
Totally different than the senario I described above. How does a behavorist tell the owner of a bratty misbehaved dog, it's them not the dog and stay in business?

And yes, I would recommend destroying dogs that are seriously mentally messed up. Least something happen where the dogs gets put down anyway and someone gets hurt. I am not all fluffy about saving all animals. sometimes things don't go the way we all would wish.

[Carlasl]

In some cases, not all, the owners need to make the changes, the dog is just being a dog and reacting to their enviroment based on how they are wired. It's not a matter of issuing a fix for the dog, it's a matter of getting the owner to look to themselves and many do not want to look in the mirror. By sending people to a behaivorist your just continuing to put the focus on the dog, which in many cases is not where the problem lies.

I am going to have to disagree with this......Behaviorist primary goal is to teach the owners how to better manage their dog, how is that focusing on the dogs problems? The medications and things used often are to get the dog to a point where the owner can actually get through to them and desensitize them and counter condition them to their triggers.

Whether or not someone actually follows through with the behavorist training protocol is the thing....they may go to a behavorist thinking I have got to find someone to "fix" this dog, but I guarantee that it is NOT the dog that is getting the lessons it is the owner. Medications only go so far, it takes a lot of work by the owner to truly rehabilitate a dog.

[Liz P]

And Liz, I'm not knocking vets or true behaviorists just saying there are some things that are being sent your way that really just need good common sense! Where do you send someone to learn that???
Some might say a good trainer, but how to tell the good from the bad when you know nothing...I guess we're right back to the licensed behaviorist as at least we know they have been accredited in the appropriate manner.

I have only referred one client to a veterinary behaviorist to date. The rest all had, as you say, common sense problems. I spoke with those clients during the exam or sent them to a local dog training club with a good record. All of these dogs, however, I met first hand and saw how they interacted with their owners. The only dog who I felt had serious issues and needed a behaviorist as opposed to a trainer bit me on the leg, leaving a deep scar. That dog was a 4 month old GSD who had already graduated from a puppy training class with flying colors (according to the owner). The behaviorist was more so that the owner would understand how deadly serious her dog's problem was going to become. This was a PUPPY that already had major aggression issues.

The internet is a dangerous place to ask for advice since we can't see how serious the problem is with the dog/owner pair in question. When giving advice over the internet I think it is best to take a policy of "better safe than sorry" if it sounds like humans or dogs might be put in danger. In other words, if someone asks how to teach their dog to sit/down/stay/come we should send them to a trainer. If someone says their dog is trying to bite I would feel much safer sending them to a behaviorist.

ETA: I don't know what some other behaviorists charge, but I can safely say that the ones I worked with cost less in the long run than private lessons with a trainer. Their initial consult lasted 2 hours. That consult included 6 months of over the phone/e-mail questions and advice. So for about $50 a month the client had a veterinary behaviorist ready and willing to answer all of their questions. Seems like a deal to me.

[Carlasl]

How does a behavorist tell the owner of a bratty misbehaved dog, it's them not the dog and stay in business?

But this IS exactly what they do......I have never been in any class be it a dog trainer or behaviorist and ever had them soley blame the dog....most of them put it point blank if you want ______ to stop then YOU need to stop doing ________ and start doing ______.

[Mark Billadeau]

Just depends on your perspective of "do no harm", personally from a breeders standpoint I would rather see the genetically defective dog destroyed so that it will in no way effect the gene pool or the reputation of the breed, even altering them and placing them in a pet home effects reputation. Sacrafice the one for the whole.

Generally speaking the phrase "do no harm" is applied to individuals not to how that individual may impact the population or a subset of the population.

Where do you draw the line between not genetically defective and defective?

Sound sensitive
Heat intollarance
Too soft for harsh corrections
Too hard for soft corrections
One sided

All of the above are genetically based but can be managed. Do these types of issues make the dog genetically defective and therefore a candidate for destruction (elimination from the gene pool and possibility of impacting breeder reputation) or does being able to manage the issue mean these dogs are not genetically defective?

[rushdoggie]

I think this is being taken out of content.

I sincerely apologize if you feel I took your comment out of context, however I replied to a post that seemed to be replying to teh topic of the thread. It sure seemed like you were saying that the reasons one might suggest that an owner of a dog with a behavior issue might go to a behaviorist were due to not wanting to hurt their dogs self esteem or the owners self esteem.

...all the cookies in the world are not going to fix jerkness. At least IMO.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I guess if you see a behaviorist as a "cookie pusher" its no wonder you don't like them.

The cancer analogy seems way off to me. If my dog needs surgury so be it, not going to slouch on that one. But how many mental health issues are looked at as just bad behaviors and the person or dog should buck up. I think about half is buck up and the other half is in need of serious help.

The cancer analogy was to point out of you had a serious issue that could result in a terrible consequence (and sometimes that is death of a dog), and you didn't know how to fix the issue, that you would choose to go to the person who was most qualified to treat said issue. If I had risk factors for cancer, or were afraid of cancer, I might see a nutritionist or a holistic doc, or even just hang out and take advice from a healthy friend to get ideas and inspiration as to how to prevent my health from deteriorating. However, if already had cancer, I would see an oncologist (and also maybe a nutritionist or holistic doc for a complementary treatment). I would want to treat that tumor with an expert and get all the help I could to resolve the issue.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a simple issue of training manners or housetraining needs to go to a behaviorist, or that every new puppy owner should seek pro help right away, but if you post here that your dog is lunging at people or other animals, or you can't control their behavior in teh car, then its time for professional help to step in.

[Journey]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a simple issue of training manners or housetraining needs to go to a behaviorist, or that every new puppy owner should seek pro help right away, but if you post here that your dog is lunging at people or other animals, or you can't control their behavior in teh car, then its time for professional help to step in.

I do think quite a few are suggesting VB for cases that are pure common sense and manners. Why on earth is a VB needed for the 2 cases you site above?

[Mark Billadeau]

I have to wonder if Donald is finding Highland Co a bit dull right now and wanted to watch (read) a bit of drama.
I know how much Donald enjoys to rush in, stir the pot, and step back to watch the swirling.

[juliepoudrier]

^^ (was thinking the same thing myself earlier today, actually).

J.

[Shetlander]

As far as the "Experts" she took the dog to, they all told her the dog is traumatised and she should be gentle and use lots of cookies!!

Is that based on what the nice young lady says? Without being in the room hearing what the "experts" actually said, I'd think it would be hard to know just what they did recommend she do. People often hear what they want to hear or jumble up the instructions or are simply poor trainers/handlers. Without knowing anything about the dog beyond what you describe, the owner obviously has placed the dog in situations where it is way over threshold, not feeling safe and no doubt unable to learn anything even if the owner has any ability to train it. If she followed recommendations of so many experts, she did so poorly and/or did not go at a pace that worked for the dog. That doesn't make VB's, experts, gentleness or cookies the problem here.

Whatever the dog brought to the mix, the owner is unable to deal with it correctly. How many classes does she need to be asked to leave or how many incidents need to occur before she figures out the dog is at the very least not ready to be in certain situations, such as competition? She can't figure out something as basic as that, but the "experts" are the ones who gave her bad advice?

[Shetlander]

I have to wonder if Donald is finding Highland Co a bit dull right now and wanted to watch (read) a bit of drama.
I know how much Donald enjoys to rush in, stir the pot, and step back to watch the swirling.

And we rise so predictably to the bait!

[Debbie Meier]

Generally speaking the phrase "do no harm" is applied to individuals not to how that individual may impact the population or a subset of the population.

Where do you draw the line between not genetically defective and defective?

Sound sensitive
Heat intollarance
Too soft for harsh corrections
Too hard for soft corrections
One sided

All of the above are genetically based but can be managed. Do these types of issues make the dog genetically defective and therefore a candidate for destruction (elimination from the gene pool and possibility of impacting breeder reputation) or does being able to manage the issue mean these dogs are not genetically defective?

To some yes, it would be a candidate for destruction, others would just cull by placing them into a pet home or into a home that has a lower acceptance thresh hold. Problem is, are the pet homes going to continue to accept them? Or are some of the conditions unmanagable for a laymen and no longer acceptable as "pet quality"? Where as previously the dogs would have been fine as pets, pets are expected to do more now then they were in previous generations prior to dog parks, agility classes, doggy day care, etc.

[rushdoggie]

I do think quite a few are suggesting VB for cases that are pure common sense and manners. Why on earth is a VB needed for the 2 cases you site above?

On one hand you are absolutely right.

If a dog is lunging aggressively at humans or other animals, (and I should clarify that I don't mean just a dog with no leash manners straining to get to someone or something they want, I mean a dog showing a threat display, growling, or attempting to bite) I am going to suggest a behaviorist, not a trainer. Why?

Training a dog to stop lunging is possible...you can correct a dog until he learns that lunging toward said object. However, it won't stop him from being aggressive necessarily. Lets say that your dog tries to snark out and bite men wearing hats. You can train him that if he lunges at a man wearinga hat he will be corrected and he will stop. What then happens when the leash is off or the man with the hat comes around the corner and startles the dog and he can reach the man and take a bite without straining on his leash? How about if teh owners kid takes teh dog out and the dog knows teh kid won't correct a lunge?

What I would want to do is find out why the man with a hat elicits an aggressive display. Is it fear based? is it resource guarding? if it is fear is it a vision probelm or a lack of socialization? Rather than correct the lunge I would want to figure out why it happens and teach the dog men with hats are not scary and that he can trust his owner.

Now, this *is* common sense to me, because I don't assume my dog is being s "jerk" if he does something I don't like...maybe it is to you too. If I had my shingle hung out as a trainer and I got a dog like that, thats how I would address it.

But for many people its not common sense, and they would simply punish the dog for doing what dogs do when they are afraid, instead of helping the dog see men with hats are not something to be afraid of. I have seen time and time again dogs punished for growling who then learn not to growl...they go straight to biting! I have seen owners told their dogs are trying to be "alpha" so they must "dominate" the dog, so the owner acts aggressive and intimidating to a dog who is already terrified of something. I have seen some scary sh*t advised by "trainers" in the world...

I am not going to see that in a certified dog behaviorist.

If I know a good trainer with skills in an area I will cetainly suggest that particular trainer vs a behaviorist. But I only know a few people in a few places and we get posts from all over the country. Hence, the suggestion to see a behaviorist.

In addition, I know from experience that sometimes what gets described here in a post is a less than 360 picture, because the owners who post are sometimes not very dog savvy and also because there is a lot lost in a 2D written post. I would hate to see anyone get hurt or a dog escalate to an actual bite and get killed because of advise I may have given because I couldn't see how serious a situation was.

Does that make sense?

[Debbie Meier]

What I would want to do is find out why the man with a hat elicits an aggressive display. Is it fear based? is it resource guarding? if it is fear is it a vision probelm or a lack of socialization? Rather than correct the lunge I would want to figure out why it happens and teach the dog men with hats are not scary and that he can trust his owner.

Two words....culture clash.