eileenanddogs

Tag: Cesar Millan

Why “Red Zone Dogs” Need Positive Reinforcement Training

Why “Red Zone Dogs” Need Positive Reinforcement Training

Aggressive, dangerous dogs (a.k.a. “Red Zone Dogs”) should be trained with positive reinforcement, desensitization, and counterconditioning. Here’s why.

Training with pain, startle, and intimidation carries huge risks. Decades of science tell us that aggression begets aggression. It’s that simple.

Two of the most common side effects of attempting to use pain or other punishment on an animal are called “operant aggression” and “redirected aggression” (Azrin, Holz, 1966). In operant aggression, the dog attempts to stop the aversive stimulus by aggressing against the individual who is delivering it. For example, you jerk the dog’s collar; the dog bites you. In elicited aggression, the dog aggresses against nearby individuals who may have had nothing to do with the punishment. For example: you jerk the dog’s collar; the dog bites your child.

black and brown dog barking in the snow. Some would call this a Red Zone Dog

When seeking to change aggressive behavior, you shouldn’t use methods known to create aggressive behavior.

So even though it is very tempting to believe we just need to “carry a bigger stick” than the dog and keep him intimidated and subdued, that is neither safe nor sensible. And of course, it’s not humane.

A recent study found a correlation between behavioral euthanasia of dogs and the owners’ use of punishment. 

Dog- and owner-related risk factors for consideration of euthanasia or rehoming before a referral behavioral consultation and for euthanizing or rehoming the dog after the consultation (Siracusa, Provoost, & Reisner, 2017)

I do understand how seductive the “overpower and subdue them” idea is, especially when a dog’s behavior is scary. The approach is imbued in our culture.

Our Typical Response to Aggressive Dogs

Many years back, when I was still new to the dog training world, I audited a workshop. One of the working participants’ dogs was aggressive. His owner and the people in charge of the workshop wanted him to be able to take part but were worried about the safety of other dogs. The person hosting the workshop provided a prong collar and recommended that the owner use it on the dog. The owner did so.

prong collar

Prongs work by poking into the dog’s neck when he moves out of position or when the trainer applies pressure or a jerk. I remember talking to a friend at the workshop. I said I didn’t like the idea of prong collars, but I was glad they put one on that dog “because the prong would keep the rest of the dogs and the humans safe.”

I had it exactly backward. I was caught in one of the biggest misunderstandings about behavior. Using an aversive method can quite likely make a dog more dangerous.

For aggressive dogs, aversive methods often mean putting a prong collar on them and jerking on it whenever they react. For some dogs at some times, this will subdue them. They may shut down and offer very little behavior at all. This is another known result of aversive methods: the reduction of all behavior. To the untrained eye, such dogs may appear calm. But some education about dog body language will show us that such dogs are generally petrified. They have “left the building” in their heads. Unfortunately, that outcome is fine with some aversive trainers. Shutting the dog down is the goal.

But the shut-down response is not guaranteed. The dog, alternatively, might start to aggress. Also, over the long term, the dog will develop a classical association between the target of its aggression and the pain of the correction. The dog will acquire a conditioned negative response. That, also, is exactly what we don’t want. The fear and aggression increase in a vicious circle.

I need to mention that not all use of prongs is so ham-handed. Some trainers use them with more skill and (possibly) less risk. But any use of a prong is aversive. They cause pain or discomfort. They don’t work any other way.

Witnessing the Fallout of Aversives

I don’t know what happened to the dog at the workshop. But let’s fast forward a few years, to another “problem” dog. This time I did see what happened.

I was at another event and had noticed an adolescent corgi. The pup was full of beans and a handful. I didn’t envy the owner, but the pup was a typical feisty teenager and was fun-loving, friendly, and full of life. This dog also received a prong collar and I watched a tragedy unfold. The owner would jerk on the collar, as directed, and the pup first shrieked, then snarled, and by the fourth jerk on the collar, he was biting the owner’s ankles and whatever else he could reach. These weren’t careless puppy bites. The dog started landing repeated, serious bites to get the pain to stop. The owner was advised to escalate. In the course of an evening, the dog had been hurt by the person he trusted, responded in kind, and thereby acquired a bite history. It was a living example of how “Red Zone Dogs” can be created.

Here’s another example of “operant aggression” that happened in my own household. I used to have a very benevolent shepherd mix, and at the same time a feisty rat terrier mix. The terrier, Gabriel, would get in Shadow’s face every day. Shadow was three times Gabriel’s size and weight. When they ran somewhere, Gabriel would leap and snap at Shadow’s neck. Shadow put up with this for years. Then one day he had had enough and bit Gabriel. The bite was inhibited, but it was still serious enough for a vet trip. If the bite had been to a toddler, that might have been the end of Shadow’s life. I always think of Shadow when someone says, “He’s so sweet; he puts up with so much from the other dogs.”

Try to make it so the nice dog doesn’t have to put up with aversive methods from other dogs, either.

Here’s my standard reminder about anecdotes. I only relate anecdotes that are solid examples of highly accepted science. The ones above could be textbook cases. My goal is not to “prove” a point. Anecdotes can’t do that. My goal is to show “this is what that well-understood principle looks like in real life.”

Are “Red Zone Dogs” a Thing?

No, they are not really a thing. The term “Red Zone Dog” was made up by a TV personality to describe aggressive or reactive dogs, usually big strong ones. “Red Zone” implies danger. The term propagates the false myth that “some dogs are qualitatively different and need forceful training.” I wouldn’t give the “Red Zone” phrase any screen time except that people use it as a search term and I want them to get good information. 

The word is already spreading. If you search on “Red Zone Dogs,” many of the links listed on the first page of Google are from positive reinforcement-based trainers who are pushing back against the term.

This number includes Debbie Jacobs, a Certified Professional Dog Trainer who specializes in fearful dog behavior cases. She has a great post about “Red Zone Dogs.”

How Do We Use Positive Reinforcement-Based Training on Aggression?

That’s a good question. If we are not going to subdue the dog with force, what are we going to do instead?

Here’s what it looks like. A qualified behavior consultant will first observe the dog in person or via a camera interface and possibly interact with it if she’s there in person. She will perform a functional assessment, which has as its goals the determination of the function and antecedents of the aggressive behavior. When does it happen and what does the dog get out of it? She will almost never need to see or provoke the actual aggression to treat it. Unlike aversive trainers who need the dog to perform the aggressive behavior so they can punish it, evidence-based trainers prevent the dog from practicing (and perfecting) aggressive responses.

The behavior consultant will make recommendations for keeping the dog and its family safe. She will recommend a training plan that depends on the function of the dog’s aggression.

In the case of fear aggression, she may recommend a visit to a vet who specializes in behavior to ask about possible medications. She will create a training plan that centers around counterconditioning, either classical or operant, to address the dog’s fear. That’s right. The plan aims at the root cause of the aggression and doesn’t merely suppress the symptoms.

What Do The Experts Say About Fear and Aggression?

Fear and aggression are more intertwined than most of us realize.

Ethologist Dr. John Archer argues in his classic paper that the same kinds of situations are capable of evoking either escape or aggressive responses and that those fearful and aggressive responses are closely intertwined (Archer, 1976).

Veterinary behaviorist Dr. Karen Overall lists 13 distinct varieties of canine aggression (Overall, 2013, p. 223-224). It’s no surprise that none of the varieties is called “Red Zone.” Aggression in response to fear and pain are two of the most common. We don’t immediately think of great big threatening dogs as being fear aggressive, but it is not uncommon.

She spells out what a bad idea it is to punish a dog for fear aggression:

Physical punishment/discipline has no role in the treatment of an aggressive dog, but it is particularly awful for dogs with fear aggression. Fearfully aggressive dogs become worse when punished/disciplined and may have no recourse except to bite.

Dr. Karen Overall, Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Cats and Dogs (Overall, 2013, p. 185)

Veterinary behaviorist Dr. Ilana Reisner says something similar in her scholarly and practical article about aggression in dogs (Reisner, 2003):

Punishment of any kind should be avoided, including hitting, leash corrections, ‘‘hanging’’ by holding up the leash, holding the dog by the scruff, shocking the dog at the moment of aggression (using an electric shock device), rolling the dog onto its back, and other misguided actions. Any of these can increase anxiety and is almost certain to result in further biting. Reacting to an anxious or fearful dog with such a display also guarantees increased aggression at the next exposure to whatever situation sparked the aggression in the first place.

Dr. Ilana Reisner, “Differential diagnosis and management of human-directed aggression in dogs”

Do you think I’m cherry-picking these quotations? I’m not. You’d be hard-pressed to find a doctoral-level behavior professional who recommends punitive treatment for aggression. The science about aversives and aggression has been well known and based in evidence for decades. This is why people who focus their dog training on punishers have to resort to cults of personality, claims of magical energy, or misplaced talk of dominance to justify their training. Most avoid science like the plague.

If Your Dog Is Aggressive…

Find a behavior professional from the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, the Certification Council of Pet Dog Trainers, or the Pet Professional Guild.

Even with these well-credentialed professionals, make sure you understand and agree with the methods they will use. Demand transparency from any trainer you consider. Don’t accept euphemisms. You could be risking your dog’s life if the trainer uses painful methods, no matter what terms they use and what arguments they make.

Seek a remote consultation if you can’t find a qualified behavior consultant in your area. Even before the pandemic, more and more qualified trainers started offering consultations via Skype, Facetime, and online meeting programs.

Get the right kind of help for your “Red Zone Dog.”

Copyright 2019 Eileen Anderson

References

Archer, J. (1976). The organization of aggression and fear in vertebrates. In Perspectives in ethology (pp. 231-298). Springer, Boston, MA.

Azrin, N.H, Holz, W.C., “Punishment” from Honig, W. (1966) Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application, 380-447.

Overall, K. (2013). Manual of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Dogs and Cats. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Reisner, I. R. (2003). Differential diagnosis and management of human-directed aggression in dogs. The Veterinary clinics of North America. Small animal practice33(2), 303-320.

Siracusa, C., Provoost, L., & Reisner, I. R. (2017). Dog-and owner-related risk factors for consideration of euthanasia or rehoming before a referral behavioral consultation and for euthanizing or rehoming the dog after the consultation. Journal of veterinary behavior22, 46-56.

Photo credits: prong collar, copyright Eileen Anderson. Standing dog courtesy of CanStock Photo. Snarling dog on couch copyright Eileen Anderson (and thank you to the anonymous friend whose dog is pictured. Astute observers may have guessed that this is likely not a dangerous dog, and they’d be correct.)

Haters

Haters

A black and white cartoon of an angry looking man shaking his fist
Photo Credit–Wikimedia Commons

We interrupt this dog blog for a rant about rhetoric and civil discourse. 

Here is why I plan never to call anyone a “hater” or refer to them as such.

History: Haters Gonna Hate

It’s a good bet that the contemporary use of the term “hater” was taken from the song lyric, “Haters gonna hate” from the song “Playas Gon’ Play.”  A  history of the phrase is here on the Know Your Meme site. The “Haters gonna hate” phrase came to be a call for people to disregard hostile criticism. It supports strength, individualism, and in the early usages, being true to romantic love. Most current usages are similar to the older phrase,  “Don’t let the bastards get you down.” It gave rise to some cool artistic applications (do an image search on the term if you are interested).

So far so good. I’ve got no problem with that as an inspirational meme, especially for a downtrodden individual or group. I do have a real problem with extracting the word “hater” and aiming it at one’s opponents in a discussion or argument.

Reviewing the Dictionary Definitions

Here’s the traditional dictionary definition:

A person who hates.

Here’s a transitional one from Dictionary.com:

1. a grudging or spiteful person, esp one who disparages others: “a woman-hater”; “a cop-hater”; “Don’t let the haters get you down”

a. someone who hates a specified person or thing: “a passionate hater of tyranny”

Here’s the one from Urban dictionary.com, which is said to be the earliest version of the “comtemporary” definition:

A person that simply cannot be happy for another person’s success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.

Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesnt really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hater wants to knock someone else down a notch.

And finally from Wikipedia:

A derogatory term in reference to critics of a person or object. Associated with jealousy/envy. 

And the Online Slang Dictionary:

A person who disapproves of something; a person who is jealous; a person who criticizes something.

Here’s Why I Won’t Use the Word Myself

1. Traditional Definition

First, by the traditional definition, I am a hater. I hate racism, sexism, animal abuse, bullying and plenty of other attitudes and behaviors. I’m human so sometimes I hate the people who do those things. I have hated people who have wronged me or ones I love. I don’t think it’s wholesome to dwell in hatred, and hating can make a terrible motivation to action. It easily becomes infected and unwholesome. But I think it can be a natural reaction to a horrifying act. I won’t pretend to be immune to it.  And I believe that there are worse things than being honest about hating something or someone. Waaaaay worse things.

2. All the Other Definitions

Second, every single one of the other definitions, when used in argument, are ad hominem attacks, or even plain old name calling. The worst sorts of arguments in civil discourse. They are basically insults that try to discredit one’s opponent in discussion (or behind their back) rather than address their points. And I think they are particularly insidious because they have a Polyanna quality of characterizing oneself as innocent and wounded, while one is actually slinging an insult. It’s an attempt at claiming the moral high ground and simultaneously throwing a cheap shot. And incidentally failing at rational argument.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement--credit Wikimedia Commons
Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement–credit Wikimedia Commons

Calling someone a “hater” is calling someone a name while pretending you’re not. It’s an insult, like “jerk” or “asshole.” I’m not fond of name-calling, but I admit to a preference for someone who calls another person a jerk over calling them a hater.

Some people actually accuse others of being divisive of a community and call them haters. But to me, calling someone a “hater” is the epitome of divisive. It is “otherizing” someone. Calling someone an asshole comes across pretty much as your opinion. There are lots of different “asshole” qualities. Calling someone a “hater” attempts to put them deliberately in an inferior group and dismiss whatever they say.

Like all name calling, it goes circular very fast. “No, YOU are the hater!” “No YOU are the hater!” This gets a discussion nowhere.

Finally, to me it often comes across as juvenile. I admit to some bias here, since the first place I heard the term was by fans of Cesar Millan, who often have an instantaneous defensive reaction of the slightest criticism of Millan’s techniques.  They cry, “You are haters; you’re just jealous of his success and all the money he makes!”

That’s a great way to avoid arguing actual issues.

Coming up:

Eileenanddogs on YouTube

Theme: Overlay by Kaira Extra Text
Cape Town, South Africa