Hi everyone,

I'm curious (and would appreciate) to hear some opinions from people here on this recent article:

http://tinyurl.com/248unun

This was forwarded to me by a local trainer that doesn't believe corrections, for any reason, should be applied in any training / behavior modification system.

Personally, I think this is sending a really dangerous message. In a nutshell: "let a dog growl at kids because it's a good warning sign." Huh? To be fair, there one or two good tips in there as well. I'm asking for opinions here because I am definitely more of a balanced, or "middle-way" trainer. The more trainers / training club members I meet in my area, the more I find I am in the minority in my approach & technique. Not easy bein' green!

The basic rule of thumb for me has been: if I want to know how good a trainer is, start by looking first at their dogs, and second, at their clients' dogs. I am finding more and more that trainers who have a more narrow approach (be it compulsion only or clicker only) really tend to have behaviors in their dogs that are absolutely unacceptable to me. Trainers and handlers that have a more open approach tend to have way more reliability and balance in their dogs. They seem to be few & far between here, but I can spot their dogs a mile away.

I like meeting other trainers, collaborating, being a member of training clubs, and getting my name & dogs out there in the community. But I find it increasingly difficult to state an opinion on articles like this, for fear of being "blackballed" Hollywood style, in my local training community.

My approach has basically been to not waste time engaging in back & forth bickering over techniques, and instead use that time to work with my dogs & fosters. They are my calling card, and ultimate backup for my training philosophy.

Thanks for letting me vent here a bit, thoughts & opinions (mainly on how to manage this seemingly ongoing debate) are welcome.

Craig

Dead link?

Hi Craig,

Your main point of discussion is really on the polarized nature of dog training (purely positive vs. heavy corrections), yes?

Through my extremely limited experience, I agree with you about a middle of the road approach, though that probably has a lot to do with the particular dog I ended up with - his individual temperament and what worked best with him.

What I'm not clear about is how the posted article ties in... Are you insinuating that you would correct a nervous dog for growling in an uncomfortable social situation? Rather than work on limiting exposure to unpleasant (for the dog) stimulus and desensitization?

This is a very specific training situation/opportunity and one that I tend to agree with the article on (from experience). I posted a thread just yesterday about a dog in a similar situation and corrections seem absolutely inappropriate and unproductive for him...

~Natalya

Huh - just tried above, works here. Here is the full URL:

http://www.examiner.com/x-47531-Orlando-Dog-Training-and-Behavior-Examiner~y2010m5d31-Thank-your-dog-for-growling

I didn't see anything in the article that struck me as 'bad'. I tend to agree with most of what I read.

While I tend to see where corrections have a place in dog training, I think of them as something to be used as minimally as possible.

Based on my own experience, using corrections to manage a reactive/aggressive dog is about as effective as punching someone for having a panic attack....it just doesn't help and will ultimately escalate the problem. I'm totally for using positive means to address this.

Growling is a symptom of something bigger that needs to be addressed, not a problem to be eliminated in and of itself imho.

 Quote: natalya zahn

<snip>Are you insinuating that you would correct a nervous dog for growling in an uncomfortable social situation?

Hi Natalya,

"Nervous", no - I'm really more focused on:

1. The article assumes that Dobie was showing fear aggression, or at least that is their only example of the many different types of aggression.

2. The basic message message that any novice dog owner will most likely take away from the article, which is: "growling at kids is ok because my dog is just trying to tell me he's scared".. aka, humanizing the dog's unacceptable & dangerous behavior.

3. And, this statement in particular: "Correcting a growl, snarl, or even a lunge/snap is like putting a bandage on an infected wound."

Fear/discomfort are by far the biggest reasons for the manifestation of aggression. Dominant aggressive dogs are exceedingly rare, which is probably the reason for the blanket statement.

A lot of people like to describe their dogs as dominant, but the reality is that there are very few that truly are.

Growling at the kids isn't okay because it means there is a larger problem to address, not just because the dog is growling. I think the "infected wound" statement is kind of melodramatic, but a decent analogy for the reality of the situation.

There is also this statement below - in which they are using a perfect example of how NOT to correct a dog (tensing up, etc.).

"Not only does correction inhibit the dog's way of communicating his discomfort, the owner's tone and body language exacerbate it. To the dog, the child's approach not only makes him nervous, it causes his owner to tense up and yell."

Does anyone here tense up & yell when applying a correction?

These articles tend to paint a very narrow picture about what a correction actually is - that there is only one type of correction, that all corrections in all dogs will give the same result, that corrections are applied with anger & tension, nothing about timing, intensity, differences in dogs... etc.

 Quote: craig cirelli

... Personally, I think this is sending a really dangerous message. In a nutshell: "let a dog growl at kids because it's a good warning sign."

I didn't read it that way at all.

I read that if the dog is growling, the reason needs to be addressed -- because eliminating the growling with corrections (any kind of corrections) is nothing more than putting a silencer (a potentially very dangerous one) on an audible warning system.

 Quote: Kristel Smart

... Growling at the kids isn't okay because it means there is a larger problem to address, not just because the dog is growling.

Exactly.

 Quote: craig cirelli

2. The basic message message that any novice dog owner will most likely take away from the article, which is: "growling at kids is ok because my dog is just trying to tell me he's scared".. aka, humanizing the dog's unacceptable & dangerous behavior.

That's not quite the way I see it - I think the point of the article isn't to convince owners that their dog's growling is "nothing to worry about", rather that it requires a more sensitive approach than a correction. Whichever side of the training debate you're on, corrections are often a default response for uneducated owners who don't like a particular behavior in their dog - it's reactionary, but in this case, the point is that corrections could potentially worsen the issue at hand.

The article did point out the importance of "reading" the whole dog to pick up on body language cues, in order to head off a situation that was making the dog tense - this is the kind of information that builds better awareness and provides owners with insights they probably hadn't considered before:

 Quote:

Though Dobie appeared to be in no distress, one experienced in reading dog body language would have seen his signals. His head was down, his ears were tensely held close to his head, the whites were showing in his eyes, and his tail was held clamped down.

~Natalya