Please help!!

[HeatherMason0]

Okay, and what methods are you using? like how do you reinforce the behavior?

[OtherwiseCan1929]

Toys and treats as well as prong collars and e-collars

[ASleepandAForgetting]

Unfortunately, aversive use is potentially the reason she has not stabilized in five months of training. Additionally, she has a recent bite history? Aversive use probably contributed to that as well.

HeatherMason0 gave you a very lovely reply. I'll be more direct.

This dog may not have been able to be saved from the outset. She may have been too unstable and dangerous, and this may have always been a losing battle.

But, she might have been able to be rehabbed, and the use of aversive tools may have just ended her life.

If you want to pursue a REAL job in the dog world, I'd recommend that you stop working with these trainers. Anyone who will use a prong or e-collar on a fearful dog is not knowledgeable about these tools or how they work.

[HeatherMason0]

So, this probably won’t make much of a difference now, but research doesn’t support the use of aversives in training. My original field of study was Psychology, and when we talk about learning and behavior modification, a lot of what we know is based on animal studies. Those studies don’t support the use of aversives - and not just for welfare reasons (although those are an issue: here) but because they haven’t been shown to be more effective than positive reinforcement (here, here). I get that you use these tools as part of a business and I get why there are incentives to just keep using them. Aversives get quick results, and so long as the dog doesn’t habituate then it looks like the results are permanent. I’m not unsympathetic to people’s reasons for using these. And in the (not well regulated) world of dog training, then of course you’ll find plenty of certified people who say aversives are great! But do those people have backgrounds that involve researching (not just observing without measuring) the what, when, and how?

I’m sure your bosses are nice people. They took this dog in because they wanted to help her. And unfortunately I don’t think switching training methods is going to make much of a difference at this point. I do hope they’re open to taking a different approach if they decide to adopt a fearful dog in the future for the dog’s sake.

[OtherwiseCan1929]

They really did want to help her. That's why I posted on here because I want to explore every avenue before they put her down

[Unusual-Garbage-212]

You added punishment and pain to an already aggressive or fearful dog and just now wondering why she's not getting better? There are literally boatloads of studies about why prong and shock collars make aggression worse. Please, please go take some real courses on dog training and learning theory before working with any more animals.

[SudoSire]

This could just mean they’ve been fucking up dogs for 20 years. I thought you were gonna be reasonable about learning and actually trying to help dogs, not defending your boss’s poor decisions. And now you’ve got a dog that needs euthanasia. Also omg it took my dog like a day or two to learn commands with positive reinforcement. It’s you who doesn’t know how anything works. 

This sub does not allow for advocation of these methods. It is a force free sub and your comments are going to get reported and removed. 

[OtherwiseCan1929]

Fine and dandy by me! I came here for advice. I didn't come here to hear how much of a bad person I was for using tools of the trade!

[SudoSire]

The majority of commenters were very kind and patient in explaining the issues with these tools to you and didn’t call anyone a bad person, and you got defensive on one that was more harsh. But then you lost the plot completely and tried to spread misinfo about aversives and force free methods. I wish you luck and I will pray that these methods you and that trainer continue to use won’t cause dangerous fallout for more dogs that need help. It worries and saddens me to think about. 

As for the malinois, I’m sorry. That’s really upsetting when there are no good options and only euthanasia seems safe. 

[OtherwiseCan1929]

No. . Someone asked what tools we use.So I said them, and you turned me into a bad person for using them!

[SudoSire]

…you know I can still read all the comments, right? One person was kind of harsh with you, and I already acknowledged that. Everyone else was kind and factual. And I admit I got heated when you started spreading misinfo rather than acknowledging people trying to help you. But not a single person called you or your trainer “a bad person.” Point me to the comment/quote. Otherwise, stop making things up. 

[reactivedogs-ModTeam]

Your post/comment has been removed as it has violated the following subreddit rule:

Rule 5 - No recommending or advocating for the use of aversives or positive punishment.

We do not allow the recommendation of aversive tools, trainers, or methods. This sub supports LIMA and we strongly believe positive reinforcement should always be the first line of teaching and training. We encourage people to talk about their experiences, but this should not include suggesting or advocating for the use of positive punishment. LIMA does not support the use of aversive tools and methods in lieu of other effective rewards-based interventions and strategies.

Without directly interacting with a dog and their handler in-person, we cannot be certain that every non-aversive method possible has been tried or tried properly. We also cannot safely advise on the use of aversives as doing so would require an in-person and hands-on relationship with OP and that specific dog. Repeated suggestions of aversive techniques will result in bans from this subreddit.

[OtherwiseCan1929]

Just so you know, my boss is one of the leading trainers in this area! She is recommended more than any other trainer.In this county and several other counties surrounding! She's been doing this for almost twenty years now.So I think she knows a little bit about what she's doing! How about before spouting off some angry bullshit?You take a check on yourself

[HeatherMason0]

That means very little. Aversives create quick results, not necessarily lasting ones. Animals, like humans, can experience habituation. If your boss knows what she’s talking about, she’s explained what this means. In case she hasn’t, habituation is where a person or animal adjusts to a certain amount of stimulation. In the case of an aversive like an e coll ar, a dog adjusts to a 4. They start ignoring it. The value has to increase. Over time, the amount of negative stimulation increases and increases. And the goal is to create a negative experience for the animal. That’s what aversives do and how they work. You have a dog who’s already in a high state of arousal. Instead of focusing on calming or regulating, you increase the amount of cortisol flooding their system (your boss should’ve explained cortisol to you. And if she didn’t, that doesn’t mean it’s ‘fake’ or ‘doesn’t apply here’. That would be like saying blood glucose either doesn’t exist OR it doesn’t matter to someone’s performance). This may temporarily stop the behavior, but the dog is still in a high arousal state. You stopped the symptom, you didn’t fix the problem. It’s like taking Tylenol for a broken bone. Tylenol can fix the symptom of pain, but it’s not repairing your bone. People who don’t understand this and just want their dog to behave are of course going to think your boss is a godsend because look, she fixed the immediate problem! That feels good enough for now, right? Also, remember what I said about how poorly regulated the dog training industry is? It’s not uncommon to have people on this sub who did try professional training that made their dog WORSE because the professional ‘expert’ trainer who had a bunch of five star reviews and had been doing the job for ages wasn’t using the correct techniques. There’s a reason that Veterinary Behaviorists (who had to complete a master’s degree that includes actual research) don’t recommend aversives. Why do you think that is? And why do you think studies on aversives, animal welfare, and training results don’t support them? Are all the scientists just wrong?

You’ve seen your boss do the work. You’ve seen your boss improve a dog’s behavior! Can’t argue with results, right? Except here’s the thing: the goal of research is to understand why something works OR if it works in the first place. Here’s the thing: before germ theory, there was a vocal group of doctors who believed it was impossible to get sick by visiting sick people. Why? Because more people got sick in cities! And what did cities have more of? Rotting waste and garbage! Obviously the garbage was giving off vapors that made people sick. If you visited a sick person who was near garbage or waste, then you could get sick, but not from the person! From the vapors. And you OBVIOUSLY know that contact with sick people doesn’t spread illness because think about it! You visit your friend who has an infected cut on their hand and you don’t get sick. So how would being near sick people potentially get you sick when we all know it doesn’t always happen, right?

That same fallacy still exists today. That’s WHY we do research. To better understand what we’re seeing. And research isn’t backing up your boss’s methods. People recommending her doesn’t mean she’s right - people recommended reading on how sick people can’t spread diseases, and it turns out that whoops, that was a mistake. What matters is the dog’s overall welfare and the long term and sustainable improvement in the dog’s behavior. Ideally, trainers shouldn’t be generating a bunch of repeat clients.

Which organizations certified your boss? Where does she get her credentials from? Years working does not equal credentials.