# Playful off the leash, but vicious on it



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

When I walk my 3 year old GSD on the lease, he lunges at other dogs, barking viciously with his tail up, ears back, teeth showing like he wants to fight. If he isn't on the leash, he runs up to the dog and they just play. It is embarrassing and very hard to hold him (85 pounds) when he pulls me. They don't believe me that he is friendly either.

Also, when he is off leash on trails in the woods, he runs as fast as he can towards the other dog, barking loudly (when he gets there, he just smells it and licks it) Other dogs seem to stay near their owners but he will run up to another dog and bother it

He is very well trained in the house and does a great heel without other dogs around. I just thought that GSD's are supposed to be aloof and not interested in other dogs. But he is OBSESSED and completely ignores me when another dog is around.

Thanks


----------



## Steffanie (Oct 1, 2005)

Sounds like leash reactivity, others who are more experienced can give you much better advice than I ever could on how to manage that.

I mainly wanted to post to address this...


> Originally Posted By: gmmathersAlso, when he is off leash on trails in the woods, he runs as fast as he can towards the other dog, barking loudly (when he gets there, he just smells it and licks it) Other dogs seem to stay near their owners but he will run up to another dog and bother it


Please do not let your dog do this! You should keep your dog on leash always if he acts like this and ignores you when other dogs are around. Just because you know he's not going to attack it does not make it okay, he makes a bad impression for dogs on hiking trails and on German Shepherds as a breed. He could easily be labeled aggressive because of this.
And what if the other dog is not friendly? His behavior is very rude to dogs and him approaching random dogs without you having control of him is just asking for a fight. Again another thing that could get him a dangerous dog label.

I don't mean to come off as rude if it sounded that way, I just hike a lot and I HATE when people let their dogs run up on us, I always leash mine whenever dogs are anywhere near even though mine don't run up to others.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I agree with Steffanie, this is not a behavior you should let happen. The other dog could also be in an imprinting stage, where it could do mental harm and the owner will have to deal with fixing it. 
Bring high value treats and redirect your dog before he begins to show reactivity. Clicker training works good for this as well. 
Get into a class for reactive dogs. 
The book Control Unleashed http://controlunleashed.net by Leslie McDevitt is a great starting point, you can manage it on your own if you follow the guidelines in the book. If you cannot handle your dog, I would wait on the public outings(or at least populated areas) until you have better control over him.


----------



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

I completely agree that it's rude and bad behavior so I don't let him off leash anymore, for that reason. Also, it would make my chances of training him worse.

I walk him on the leash and when we come near other dogs I keep making turns and try to get his attention. It works if I do it correctly...if I see the dog far away and do a few quick turns back and forth, when the dog comes, then he is still paying attention to me. But if I don't see it coming, once he starts pulling the leash, it's harder to calm him down.

I can always control him on the leash, but when he sees another dog he does pull hard and it is embarrassing. When no dogs are around, I have him healing without ever touching the edge of the leash ( I never even feel him). That's why this has been such an issue because all of the sudden he forgets everything he knows.

I just don't really understand it. He doesn't want to fight them, but then why does he growl and bark and look so menacing? He is a big scary dog so people are like "oh my god" and then I feel bad. But when he does meet dogs he just licks their mouths.

But most dogs just look at him once and move on...I don't get it why he needs to get in their faces so much.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

He is showing reactions our of fear, he is on leash and cannot get away(flight) so his fight instincts kick in. He wants the threat to go away and shows aggression. 
He is licking their mouths submissively. Another great book about body language/communication is by
Turid Rugaas _On talking terms with dogs: Calming signals_ http://www.canis.no/rugaas/ it is a nice short read
and worth the $.
What type collar are you using on him? A prong will ramp up his reactiveness more, maybe go with a front clip harness. This one is great: http://www.softouchconcepts.com/products/sense_ible_harness.php You will have less control than a prong, but he will be redirected back to you instead of pulling you towards the dog. I still recommend the book CU, it is what I used when Onyx showed this behavior. I was lucky enough to have a local class based on the book and that really helped me and her. The October issue of Whole Dog Journal has a great article on this subject as well.


----------



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

Great, I will check that out. Thank you.

Did you ever get to a point where a new dog can walk right by and your dog isn't interested?

I switch between a prong and a slip collar. They have worked very well for obedience and heeling.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

I have had Onyx in agility class with other dogs running around her. That was the next class we took after we finished the CU class.
She has some reactiveness still to the sheltie/collie types(all those breeds are agility dogs) but she is nowhere near what she was before we took the class. I still have to manage it, but the clicker/treat look at me game does work wonders, it becomes automatic to the dog when they focus on you, clik/treat.


----------



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

I would be interested to see if the treat thing worked for him. In the house he will do anything for a treat but outside he could care less. Much rather watch a squirrle or sniff the ground than eat a treat.

I was very successful training him with corrections (I was advised against trying to bribe good behavior with food. I read that if they are not hungry, they have no motivation to behave. They should behave, rather, because they have to.) If he put his paws on the couch, I just said "no," gave a quick pop with the leash, and then said gooood boy after. If he walked ahead of me on a heel, I did a 180 degree turn and he caught the end of the leash. Those methods worked very well. Now I just say "no." I haven't corrected him in a long time. Maybe since I don't need to correct him anymore I will look into that other leash.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Don't feed him before training for a while to get this behavoir under control. He will be motivated for food if he is hungry. I am all about positive training methods for a reactive dog. 
Compulsion doesn't go far for this situation. You need to build up his confidence. You may see it as aggression, but I believe it is a fear based type and building the dogs confidence goes along way to reducing the fear.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: gmmathersI was very successful training him with corrections (I was advised against trying to bribe good behavior with food. I read that if they are not hungry, they have no motivation to behave. They should behave, rather, because they have to.)


Good behavior should be because they *want to* not becuase they *have to*

I have a friend who trains his dog by the method he calls 'The Hand of God'. Great dog, kinda spooky though and he cowers when his master raises a hand in the air.

What I try to do is a method a member here coined as 'A come to Jesus meeting'. Never thought about it that way until she said it but that's how I've always trained my dogs. I'm a 106lbs, that's up from 98lbs before I had 3 kids. I'm not going to *make* my dogs do anything. They have to want to do it for me. 

We have terrible trouble heeling when there's 3 little kids that my 16 month old working line pup wants to run and jump and play with. Drop the kids at school, he gets complements about how well schooled he is. Go figure, eh?


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Well that no food stuff is archaic in dog training. Be sure not to believe everything you read and hear. 

Of course you need basic leadership skills but food and marker training is an excellent way to communicate with a dog. 

A pinch collar and a reactive dog can be as bad combo if done incorrectly. I have seen it many times.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: SambaWell that no food stuff is archaic in dog training. Be sure not to believe everything you read and hear.


 If this is in response to my post, I should have made myself more clear. I didn't mean to withhold food, but train when the dog is hungry(before a meal, use the meal during training) I agree withholding food is not right. I posted it as gmmathers said the dog was not interested in treats when outside, so a hungry dog would be more motivated for food, therefore more willing to focus. Sorry for the misunderstanding...


----------



## littledmc17 (Apr 9, 2008)

can I ask what kind of obiedence training you did with him when he was younger??
just curious 

I agree with all of the above


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: gmmathers*I was very successful training him with corrections* (I was advised against trying to bribe good behavior with food. I read that if they are not hungry, they have no motivation to behave. They should behave, rather, because they have to.)


Well, not so much because you're still having this problem.







(Jane, I think this is what Samba was referring to.) For one thing, using food in training is not bribery, and anyone who has told you different doesn't understand reward based training, plain and simple. If they think that using food means you always have to have food on you or your dog won't obey that's the first clue that they don't get the concept, because it just ain't so. And the idea that a dog should behave because they have to - is that really what you want? A dog that only obeys because they have to? What happens when you can't actually enforce a command and he no longer "has to" obey you? Wouldn't it be better if he WANTED to obey you? Personally I'll always take a dog that willingly, happily complies over a dog that obeys commands because they fear the "or else" that happens if they don't. 

Dog training should not be about brute force. As SunCzarina pointed out, in a battle of strength the dog always wins, so it's better to find a way to motivate your dog to want to cooperate with you.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: gmmathers*I was very successful training him with corrections* (I was advised against trying to bribe good behavior with food. I read that if they are not hungry, they have no motivation to behave. They should behave, rather, because they have to.)
> ...


I thought so to, but just in case, I wanted to be clear on what my post meant!


----------



## gmmathers (Mar 30, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: SunCzarina
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: gmmathersI was very successful training him with corrections (I was advised against trying to bribe good behavior with food. I read that if they are not hungry, they have no motivation to behave. They should behave, rather, because they have to.)
> ...


So rewarding a dog with treats means the dog wants to obey? Not that he just wants a treat?

You are creating a straw man argument and it isn't working.

If you mean to say that at some point the dog no longer obeys for the treat, but instead learns to obey out of love, that is exactly what training with corrections does. 

You aren't going to make your dog do anything? Dogs should be able to do what they want?

News flash: A lot of times the things that a dog wants to do and the things that you want it to do are mutually exclusive. I am sure your dog "wants" to do all sorts of things that you deem unacceptable.

By the way, you can give positive reinforcement through praise while at the same time correcting negative behaviors. I believe a "good boy" and pat on the head can be more effective than a treat in accomplishing your goal of the dog obeying out of love.


----------



## SunCzarina (Nov 24, 2000)

Hello? You certainly missed my point. [nevermind - the title of your thread speaks volumes, that and your other thread that he pees and poops on your feet when you make him walk 6" from your knee ]


----------



## SuzyE (Apr 22, 2005)

Positive/negative reinforcement worked for Paige. praise for good and correct for bad.My trainers taught me that the origin of the bad behavior did not matter, i.e. fear or aggression. The proof was all I needed. My dog went in there ready to kill those people and in six weeks the trainers were sharing their McDonalds with her.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: gmmathersSo rewarding a dog with treats means the dog wants to obey? Not that he just wants a treat?


You misunderstand the concept. Using food (or toys, whatever floats your dog's boat) is a training tool. Once a dog is trained in a particular skill you don't need training tools anymore unless you want to train a new skill. The dog isn't working for the reward, using a marker (verbal or something like a clicker) and a reward shows your dog that they're doing what you want at that exact moment. Once the dog has _learned_ what the command means, and its relevance, (why he should care), you don't need to constantly reward him for doing it. There are several ways to teach your dog what you want - physically forcing him into a position (pushing down on his butt while pulling up on the leash for a sit), showing him what you want by luring him into position and then rewarding him for it, or correcting him for either not doing what you wanted or doing something other than what you wanted. How many correct responses to the sit command can you think of? I can think of one. How many incorrect responses can you think of? It's practically infinite. If you give the sit command and he doesn't sit, or he lays down, or he scratches his belly, or he turns his head, or he barks at you, or he walks away, and he gets a correction, he's learned that sitting is not laying down or scratching, or barking, or whatever. But he still hasn't learned what sit IS, just what sit IS NOT. And how many times is he going to get corrected for not doing the right thing before he just gives up because he's afraid of guessing wrong, and shuts down? If my dogs guess wrong, they keep trying - willingly, happily, enthusiastically, because they want to earn that reward. They're having fun, and they love to learn. 



> Quote:If you mean to say that at some point the dog no longer obeys for the treat, but instead learns to obey out of love, that is exactly what training with corrections does.


No, yanking on the leash doesn't have anything to do with love. Your dog is obeying you (or not!) because he fears the consequences if he doesn't. Do it or else - that's not exactly conducive to a relationship of trust and respect, and certainly not of love. Once a dog is consistent with a particular command you move to a variable reward system where they are not rewarded for every single repetition, and then gradually rewards are phased out entirely (or not, if you choose) for that command. It's the same concept as a slot machine. People spend hours and hours playing coin after coin after coin because they don't know exactly when that reward will come or how big it will be. Dogs are opportunists - they obey you for two reasons, because good things happen for them if they do, or to avoid bad things happening to them if they don't. As Jean Donaldson put it in her excellent book Culture Clash, her dogs are happy when she comes home from work in a good mood, but it's not because they care whether or not she had a nice day. It's because they know that if she's in a good mood she's more likely to pay attention to them and play with them than if she had a crappy day and comes home in a bad mood. 



> Quote:You aren't going to make your dog do anything? Dogs should be able to do what they want?


Again, you're missing the point - nobody said that. You're confusing positive with permissive, and they are certainly not the same thing. I make my dogs down until I release them to eat with their food bowls right in front of them. They can get up and try to eat before I say they can but they know if they try it I'll pick up the bowl and they're going to wait a while until I offer it again. They have to sit until released before we'll throw the ball for them, and they know that if they don't, or if they break the sit before we release them, the ball doesn't get thrown. If they don't sit calmly while I take down the leash and hook them up, they don't go for a walk. So yes, they can certainly choose to disobey me and do what they want, but they've _learned_ that there are consequences if they do so. And that if they cooperate with me and do what I ask them to do they get what they want - food, play, attention, affection. Because I'm fair consistent and reasonable, they trust me, and by controlling the things that are important to them, they respect my leadership. And all without yanking them about by the neck.











> Quote:News flash: A lot of times the things that a dog wants to do and the things that you want it to do are mutually exclusive. I am sure your dog "wants" to do all sorts of things that you deem unacceptable.


Ah, now THERE'S a straw man argument! Sorry, not a news flash for anyone on here. 



> Quote:By the way, you can give positive reinforcement through praise while at the same time correcting negative behaviors. I believe a "good boy" and pat on the head can be more effective than a treat in accomplishing your goal of the dog obeying out of love.


Most people who use positive reinforcement training DO correct negative behaviors. I use mostly verbal corrections, which serve to impart information to the dog that they need to try again. But for something like chasing the cats I have no problem grabbing the dog by the scruff and letting them know in no uncertain terms that harming my cats will not be allowed. In addition to that I train them to "watch" me, not stare at the cats, and to respond to a "leave it" command. If you have a dog that lives for physical affection and is not at all food motivated, perhaps he will do better without food rewards. I have EXTREMELY food motivated dogs. They also love attention and affection, but they live to eat. Some people have dogs that will stand on their heads and do backflips for a toy. Why wouldn't you use whatever motivates your dog most as a training tool? It just doesn't make sense not to.







I agree that praise and affection should go right along with any other rewards you're using, and as you start phasing out food rewards, the praise and affection should continue.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Interesting discussion here! A key might be found in the expression "positive reinforcement training" - that is , is there an "only" in there somewhere? If so, then it is a ridiculous approach to dog training IMO. How does a dog know that he/she did something wrong if they are never corrected when they do it? Do we leave it to their doggy mind to figure it out?

On the other hand, a "correction" does not mean punishment or pain to a dog. A verbal correction is still a correction BUT only works if the dog has learned that the "NO" or the "UN UN" is actually telling it that he did something wrong. How would the dog learn that if not for a physical correction?

How would you have liked to learn to drive a car by positive only method? Wonder how many things you might have hit during learning? Would you have learned, maybe but you might have been to old by then to drive.

I don't think my dog gets emotionally upset with a little leash correction and a verbal command , esp. if it followed most quickly by a "Good boy" when the behavior is fixed.

My approach is Show the dog what you want, teach him the behavior by repetition and patience while he is learning (with much praise on success), and the Proof under distractions (this is really the only place where corrections are really used.

Anyway, some thoughts!

One last one is "Always match your training approach to the individual dog you are working with". Some dogs need a harder approach and some need a very soft approach. no one size fits all!

Also depends on what behavior you are trying to modify - I wouldn't use the same correction for teaching "Roll Over" or other trick as I would if my dog was lunging at a child with obvious bad intention. I actually wonder how a Pos Rein Only trainer would address the latter behavior?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: codmasterInteresting discussion here! A key might be found in the expression "positive reinforcement training" - that is , is there an "only" in there somewhere?


No.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: codmasterA verbal correction is still a correction BUT only works if the dog has learned that the "NO" or the "UN UN" is actually telling it that he did something wrong. How would the dog learn that if not for a physical correction?


I agree with your first sentence - that would be where relevance comes in. I do not agree with your second sentence. You can teach your dog a lot without touching them at all. For example, NILIF is completely hands off. Controlling access to valued resources will teach your dog when he's doing something right or wrong.


----------



## SuzyE (Apr 22, 2005)

OMG these dogs do not need to be coddled. It's pretty black and white. My dog has been known to take a full size tree down to a toothpick-a correction is like a mosquito bite to her. Just for amusement I would love to take her to a positive reinforcement trainer and watch her manipulate the whole situation .


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Again, nobody is talking about NO corrections. Nobody is talking about coddling their dogs.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

Here are some threads the OP might be interested in: 

Want to understand and become a better pack leader 

How do you define "being alpha" 

Establishing dominance


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: SuzyEPositive/negative reinforcement worked for Paige. praise for good and correct for bad.


Firstly, this is incorrect. Positive reinforcement is giving something good. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something good. Corrections are positive punishment.

Secondly, it's silly to say that clicker/positive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it training doesn't work on dogs who are leash reactive. I not only know many people who have rehabbed their dogs using clickers and treats, I own a leash reactive dog. And she's gone from putting up quite a show just upon seeing another dog to walking calmly past other dogs. She can even greet other dogs while on leash without reacting and has quite a few doggy friends. All done without collar corrections.

I also would like to address the notion that a dog should work just to please a handler. Dogs are selfish creatures; they do what works for them. And, much like us, a dog wants a paycheck. I doubt you could find too many humans who would be willing to work for their boss for no paycheck! Why should our dogs have to work for free?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Murphy-Elperroguapo
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: SuzyEPositive/negative reinforcement worked for Paige. praise for good and correct for bad.
> ...


A simple matter of word terms - easy to understand what they are saying, isn't it?

{quote}
Secondly, it's silly to say that clicker/positive/whatever-you-want-to-call-it training doesn't work on dogs who are leash reactive. I not only know many people who have rehabbed their dogs using clickers and treats, I own a leash reactive dog. And she's gone from putting up quite a show just upon seeing another dog to walking calmly past other dogs. She can even greet other dogs while on leash without reacting and has quite a few doggy friends. All done without collar corrections. [/quote]

Great for you if it works! The true professional trainer will adjust their methods/approach to the needs of the individual dog.



> Quote:
> I also would like to address the notion that a dog should work just to please a handler. Dogs are selfish creatures; they do what works for them. And, much like us, a dog wants a paycheck. I doubt you could find too many humans who would be willing to work for their boss for no paycheck! Why should our dogs have to work for free?


Very true - but you have just described the logic behind using corrections of a suitable level for a dog who is not obeying a command thet they know. They will obey in order to avoid a correction and also to earn a reward - praise or a treat and/or avoidance of a correction.


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

Actually, it's not a simple matter of different terminology. Those terms are a part of learning theory and have very specific definitions. 

Avoidance of a correction is not the same as getting a reward. Sorry. 

I will not deny that corrections do work. But they can often have unintended consequences. I have experienced the fallout of using physical corrections on my dog. Yes, I do still utilize corrections on occasion though only verbal--no collar pops here. Though, I've noticed I only use them when I've failed to manage a situation properly and I always follow them with a cue of what TO do. That way my dog knows what I'd like her to do instead of what I just told her not to do.

With a dog who is reacting on leash due to fear, corrections should NOT be used. They can often exacerbate the problem making it even more difficult to fix your dog's behavior. Been there. Done that.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Murphy-ElperroguapoActually, it's not a simple matter of different terminology. Those terms are a part of learning theory and have very specific definitions.


*Very true of you but not everyone understands the very academic definitions. 

But most of us do understand what a correction is as well as what a reward is, and the fact that we can use them almost together - i.e. a slight correction to change incorrect behavior (getting up from a down-stay, for example and then a quick timely reward when the dog is down again). 

I guess in your view that we should do what?? -How do you tell the dog that they can not get up from a down stay - just put them down again? or do we wait till they decide that they should go down and THEN we treat them?*



> Originally Posted By: Murphy-ElperroguapoAvoidance of a correction is not the same as getting a reward. Sorry. {/quote}
> 
> *I wonder what you are sorry about?
> 
> ...


----------



## Deux (Aug 16, 2009)

You know..... a rolled up newspaper banging everything *BUT* the dog for a few seconds, combined with a growl does wonders. I used to take a rolled up newspaper on walks, when my dogs got all worked up I just showed them the newspaper, banged the paper on a tree and they settled down. I have squeezed a few beaks but that is all for corporal punishment. I have the best behaved sheppys on the planet! 

They really do hate the paper boy though!


----------



## Brightelf (Sep 5, 2001)




----------



## Raziel (Sep 29, 2009)

OH OH!
My dog gets MEAN when he is on the leash on HIS PROPERTY. Out on walks the Prong collar worked great! Verbal corrections without a collar..NOT HAPPENING! He TOTALLY IGNORED ME!
I guess it depends on the dog you are working with.
They learn different ways...like children.


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

I know the terminology is, at times, confusing. I still sometimes have trouble thinking of examples of negative punishment. But I think it's important to make sure everyone is on the same page regarding the definitions.

One of the main ways positive training differs is that it focuses on what the dog is doing 'right' rather than what it does 'wrong.' We'll use the down/stay as an example. Initially, I train a down/stay in a quiet, boring room. I'm sure you did too.







Once I've got the behavior I want, I slowly increase one of the 3 Ds (distance, duration, distraction). I only add an increase in one at a time. If my dog successfully does the behavior I asked, click/treat. If at any point she breaks, I just approach her and ask for the down/stay again giving her another chance to earn her reward. Her only penalty for breaking the stay is she lost an opportunity for her paycheck (treat). If I find she is repeatedly breaking her down/stays, I need to look at what I'm asking of her. Did I increase one of the Ds too quickly? Or is it something else? I may have to go back to the previous step where she was successful before and then try making it tougher later.

Sure, any training can be done incorrectly and produce poor results. I've seen it. But I think the potential fallout from a mistimed click is, generally, less than the potential for fallout if you mistime a correction. Knowing first hand that collar corrections on my dog made her MORE afraid of other dogs and less trusting of me makes me very cautious about recommending the same to others. Especially on a board where we do not know the dog of which we're speaking of firsthand (someone mentioned this on another board and I think it fits so I'm paraphrasing it here). One can only make so many judgments and conclusions based on the information shared by a poster. Anyone's best bet, if they're having behavioral problems with their dog, is to consult a trainer or a behaviorist. 

As for my verbal correction, I use "eh eh!" It's more of an interrupter, but it's still a correction (it stops behavior). And, in much the same way you utilize a collar correction, I follow it up with what behavior I DO want my dog to do so that I can reward that. 

In your example of the child rushing up to my dog, it's unlikely that would happen. My dog is afraid of children and I do my best to keep them away from her and her away from them. It's management to keep my dog feeling safe. She has never lunged or snapped at a child. But, seeing as I don't have access to trustworthy kids (who will follow instructions), I cannot work on desensitizing her to their presence. Therefore, it is MY JOB (and one I take very seriously) to keep kids at bay even if it requires me being rude about them approaching my dog.







Also, if I had to, Ris is small enough I can pick her up and get us out of there if the child wouldn't listen.

If, however, she did lunge at a child, I would get her out of that situation immediately (and then go home and beat myself on the head with a newspaper for not watching her for signs that she was uncomfortable and getting her out of the situation sooner). It's obvious that that interaction is just too much for her and it's unfair of me to put her in a spot where she felt the need to defend herself. I know full-well that situations like what you mentioned are certainly possible despite my best efforts to avoid them. But correcting her in that situation would not do any good. It would likely make her more frightened of approaching children. I'd much rather have the child slowly approach her and toss her a few treats instead.









Are their some dogs that might need a correction in a situation like you described? Maybe. It's hard for me to know and it would depend on the dog's intention. If it were out of fear, I would never recommend a correction. Just a training plan involving desensitization to the scary stimulus. If the dog were doing it out of aggression--then I would be seeking the help of a qualified behaviorist.







After all, I am not a professional dog trainer, nor do I claim to be.







Something that serious I would not likely try to handle by myself.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Hi Murphy! Appreciate the reply

I think a key to your difference in approach is the difference in the dogs! 

Mine is a very hardheaded personality and is NOT cowed by a correction - in fact when we tried the herding instinct test the tester actually used a long flexible stick to tap him on the muzzle when he got a little too enthusiastic in herding the sheep. It stopped him and slowed him down but did not have any lasting impact nor did it discourage him at all (unlike a few other GSD's in the same test).

In my question of the child, Of course, you wouldn't put your dog in that position, but if he were in that position wouldn't you use the leash to stop him from lunging? I personally would not care what the reason the dog had for lunging, he/she would get one [heck] of a correction to stop that aggresive behavior and prevent a dog bite. Afterward I would think about why and how to address the behavior.

The "good" that you are doing with a leash correction is of course saving a child from a dog bite and saving a dog from making a BIG mistake. BTW, it would have to be a VERY well trained dog to listen to a verbal only correction in the heat of the moment. Most dogs i know would not pass that test!

Sometimes corrections (reasonable ones) are very effective in training.

The key to all training is knowing the dog and what is effective with the individual dog and what you are trying to teach him/her.


----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

Yes, I would use the leash to stop my dog. Of course! That's part of the 'getting the heck out of there.'







However, it would not be a leash pop. It would be a drag-her-outta-there!

The only problem with a leash correction during an aggressive moment (no matter the cause) is that it doesn't teach the dog anything. When a dog is in fight or flight, they are not thinking. They're just reacting. So whether collar pop or click, they're incapable of learning anything in that moment. That's why you have to work your dog below threshold so that they CAN learn--no matter which method you employ.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: Murphy-ElperroguapoYes, I would use the leash to stop my dog. Of course! That's part of the 'getting the heck out of there.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree - it's not a "correction", it's removing the dog from the situation, for the safety of everyone, a drag by the leash or a grab by the collar. If I had a dog who was not comfortable around children I'd be doing my darndest to counter-condition and desensitize him/her to being around kids by creating positive associations with their presence, OR I would not bring them around kids in the first place if I didn't have a good place to work on that kind of training. As Jamie pointed out, this is a management issue, and it's our responsibility as owners to not put our dogs in situations where they feel the need to defend themselves. 

I wanted to go back to this for a minute:



> Originally Posted By: codmasterWhat is a "verbal correction" and how does a dog know that it is being corrected if they have never learned to associate anything with your "verbal correction"? *I don't think a dog would know the word "No" for example unless they have been shown what it means sometime in the past, do you?*


Of course not! But your assumption seems to be that the only way to teach a dog what "no" (or whatever words you want to use as your verbal correction) means is physical. That's simply not the case. The dog DOES learn to associate a verbal correction with consequences, but those consequences don't have to be painful they can simply be that the dog does not get a reward. The reward is not always food, often it's a real life reward. If I require my dogs to sit and look at me before I open the door for them and they break the sit and rush the door as I reach for it, I'll give a verbal correction, pull my hand back, and wait for the sit again. I did not touch the dogs at all, and the dogs are not on leash so a leash correction would be impossible, (almost all of my training at home is off leash) but if I do this a few times, they do learn that what they want (to go outside, to come inside, to go for a walk) isn't happening until they obey my rules. If they break their sit or down and start eating their meals before I tell them they can, I pick it up and they have to wait longer to eat. If they break their sit before we release them at the park, the ball doesn't get thrown so they don't get to play. I praise and reward when they do what I want, they get nothing when they don't. But when they were brand new puppies I could have said "ah ah" until I was blue in the face with no results because they had not yet learned what that meant. Now they know, and often I don't even need to use a verbal correction because they "get" the concept that I am in charge and I control the good stuff. 

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there are times when I will use a physical correction, but NEVER in a situation where there's fear/stress/anxiety going on. Just being a butthead? Sure.


----------

