After readings Lou's link I have some questions as to wether crittering can be switched out with a dog that is reacting out of fear.
When "crittering" the dog is anticipating a fun chase but if the dogs attittude is fear based it is not anticipating something fun but rather some thing more like self preservation so would the stimulation or even prolonged simulation become a self fullfilling nightmare wich in turn only reinforces the dogs fear and only make the situation more volatile. The point Im trying to understand completely is if your dealing with a dog that is acting out of fear, wich is far and away from a dog that cant waite to get the fun chase on,can you still use the same method and get desirable results.

Nancy there seems to be discussion here. . .so I don't think you need to tell me what I can and can't post. I didn't follow your other thread, and I don't want to wade through it now, NOR is this thread about you and your dog. . .so sit back and chill the -F- out.

Lisa, can you expand on your post?

Does the dog associate the correction it recieves with breaking a command, like any other command where he receives a correction. . .or does the dog associate the correction with the presence of the other dog he is afraid of?

Hmmmm. . .

I will go with what Dennis had to offer by just adding -Fear in a potentially harmful situation is normal and healthy – for survival. Dogs that have not been out much tend to behave in this fashion, With GSD this could be exaggerated by inherited reactivity, by habitation and desensitising most of it can be unlearned, if not unlearned it will become a phobia – anxious behaviour. With females this is normally the case, snapping and snarling at other dogs, it could be protective or defensive in nature. It’s always difficult to go on something called “behaviour” then trying to fix it with a b or c advises on a broad description.

But by firstly identifying the exact causes of fear or Fear/aggression, is the dog reactive to males, females, large, small or all, so its important to establish the trigger, the circumstances that triggers fear or Fear/aggression, then by starting a desensitising program, introducing the threat or trigger at a distance, then closing the distance, rewarding this good behaviour.

Correction not touch, no stroking and patting, this will just re-enforce fear. By habitation and desensitising most of it can be unlearned. I have found that handlers are the cause of a lot of this type of normal negative behaviour.

Originally posted by VanCamp Robert:
Does the dog associate the correction it recieves with breaking a command, like any other command where he receives a correction. . .or does the dog associate the correction with the presence of the other dog he is afraid of?

Hmmmm. . . I think it really depends upon what's going on in the dog's head. If the dog is well socialized and habituated to the presence of other dogs, then I don't see a correction for breaking as being a problem. But if the dog is afraid/feeling threatened by the approach or presence of another dog, then I think s/he will be in an aroused state, and a normal correction that under other circumstances would be understood becomes reinforcement that the other dog really is a threat, and serves to increase the dog's level of arousal.

With regard to my posting and further “under the surface details” of the training.

Enter the fine line of proximity. What Lisa is saying is correct but it is not the correction; it is the proximity and the weaking of defensive fear driven thresholds. The correction is often seen as the culprit but like a bomb waiting to explode anything that breaks the neuorvous system will trigger the aggressive response in such situations.

Now I don’t recommend most of you try to do this but to clarify my point...

******************************************

If you take a dog aggressive dog with the causes for that aggression being fear ( The most fearful dog often attacks first) and move him close enough that the dog is about to break and attack; ANY movement, sound or stimulus will send him over the edge and… game on.

********************************************
This is why you work the dog in a proximity zone known as the Area of Influence. This area is like an invisible but definable line between what the dog interprets as needing to be concerned about. The closer the dog is to the source (in this case another dog) the greater the concern and the stronger the response to that concern. By working in a Mid-level area where signs of concern are showing but no defensive mechanism is triggered you can decrease the level of anxiety and decrease the area of influence as well.

The dog being in this zone of influence is forced to deal with your leadership, his lack of attention to it and your non-tolerance to his behavior. This teaches him to no just extinguish the behavior but to have a new view of the situation all together.

Here is why: The dog must give over to your directive (It has no choice it is attached to the lead) and by slightly forcing the dog to follow you also force the dog to give his backside to the other dog.

Q. What happens to your dog?

A. Assuming you are using a dog that could careless about you and your dog and is not dog aggressive himself…nothing bad happened. Though your dog will be worried about giving his flank to the dog (even at a good distance) you are not close enough for the dog to worry more about it then what you are doing next. From there it learns your next move is PAY DAY with a reward for his behavior it can immediately associate and attach to his “good” but TOTALLY constructed behavior.

The dog also learned it did't get hurt by the other dog nor did the oter dog try.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Dennis, I can see what you're saying. What you refer to as the Area of Influence, I think of as the "safe distance". This is the distance from the stimulus at which the dog can be aware of its presence but not in a reactive state. It is at this distance that the counterconditioning program begins. At this distance, the dog is worked in obedience and maybe even a few tricks (because tricks are for no other purpose than fun, and the handler tends to treat tricks very lightly, which lightens the mood and communicates volumes to the dog about just how concerned they should be that there is another dog over there; remember that the handler's emotional state is often a huge contributing factor to the problem) with a huge payoff for the dog, in the form of whatever reward system you prefer; food, play, praise, etc. What this does is it creates a completely different mood in the dog that is incompatible with the fear/aggression. Over time, the "safe distance" can be decreased.

I think the biggest difference between what I am saying and what Dennis is saying is that I tend to focus more on the reward side of this, while Dennis includes corrections. Is that right? Also, Dennis, your lingo is more technical than mine. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Just one correction: The reward system should, obviously, be what your DOG prefers and finds valuable.

Lisa - ‘Dennis, I can see what you're saying. What you refer to as the Area of Influence, I think of as the "safe distance". ‘

Area of influence could be called safe distance if that is what the dog believed. But to the dog it is not safe just not close enough to warrant aggression to protect himself from Mr. Nice Dog.

You are right about the counter conditioning and I hope I made it clear this is what is eventually taking place-taking place. I sue corrections because when you counter condition a dog by simply changing the point of focus it is not enough to change the dog’s outlook. The reason is because this is not a training problem but a behavior problem driven by the dog’s temperament. Though a behavior can be modified the temperament will stay the same.

With this in mind, I really wish it were realistic to control the dog better without the use of a correction; though I don’t find well-timed and appropriate correction abusive in any way shape or form.

It is not for lack of trying to see if it is possible to do but experience and observation of others claiming they can has thought me this:

The dog, though he can be distracted and conditioned from an aggressive response through counter-conditioning as Lisa has posted well, is not changed temperamentally and without the added control that conditions the dog to DEFER to handler/owner your leadership, instead of his instinct, it will fall back on what its temperament dictates his actions be to “stay alive.”

Extinguishing a behavior means the dog defers his judgment to yours and that is always a good thing. If the dog lives without this added factor of handler control (by force and thus leadership) the dog will vacillate between choosing to ignore the stimulus of the other dog or not based on his own feelings of the situation.

Since both paths lead to rewards the dog’s door of opportunity to choose the right decision while avoiding the punishment carries over all a greater influence in keeping his temperament problem in check faster and more reliably.

A say faster and more reliably because not only are we teaching the dog not to worry about the threat of another dog we are also conditioning him not to react and how to avoid the situation altogether while being rewarded for his actions.

Lisa makes some good points in her argument and like all training people should choose the one they are most comfortable with. Like rewarding dogs for behaviors corrections are often misunderstood and just as often misused by people who lack understanding of appropriateness, timing and effectively motivational. Most believe such methods only bring working attitude down and for some it surly will if you don’t have understanding of how it is applied and complimented by a reward based system.

Dogs are social animals with a pack structure based on forced cooperation. Like it or not it is true. It is their predisposition to have good, fair, strong and ultimately benevolent rewarding owners/handlers. It will always, in my strongest opinion, be ok to say no to your dog and back it up with reasons the word no needs to be adhered to.

I enjoyed this debate.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree that leadership is an integral component of any counterconditioning program. Only one point I'd like to make, is that leadership is much more than properly timed/applied corrections. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> You can use corrections as part of the counterconditioning program, and still not be much of a leader in your dog's eyes.......and admittedly, the same can be said for rewards. I think any time you have a fear issue, you must must must establish yourself as leader in no uncertain terms, whether you use corrections as a part of your counterconditioning program or not.

I feel I should qualify my comments so as not to appear to be more knowledgeable than I really am. I'm not a professional dog trainer, and I've said it before, I'm not even a very good trainer. What I have learned about aggression has been out of neccessity, as a pet dog owner.