W
hen counterconditioning dogs on leash, it is a series of fluid events that are ever shifting - not only in the moment, but also each day is different. I work with many dogs on leash, and virtually all dogs at some point, during some event or other, need counterconditioning. Some need it more than others, but it is a process that everyone who walks a dog would do well to become, at the very least, adequate at. In fact, I would go as far to say that, for the love of the dog, it would be even better if people became great at it, even just with their own dog, as it can add so much to their lives in terms of stress reduction and expanding their social circle. It is my belief that, as long as someone is capable of physically executing whatever needs to be implemented, then they will have success with just about any dog. Read that again, and really think about the work you do with bona fide reactive dogs and why you may or may not be having success. In my opinion, it is all mechanics and timing in the end. Problems often begin when owners who walk their reactive dogs are not able to implement the proper protocols. For instance, some people refuse to carry food, some people cannot or will not bend, twist, move, stop, look, grab a treat, or use a marker. Sometimes people just do not “do the work.” That does not mean the process is not working, but that the humans are not working. In my opinion, counterconditioning dogs on leash to experience less stress and stay under threshold is an achievable goal. In no uncertain terms, counterconditioning works when it is applied properly, but it takes time and effort, especially for the extremely reactive dog that has lots of triggers. At the same time, there are a number of misconceptions surrounding the process, which I will attempt to dispel here. Misconception #1: Feeding a dog when he is barking or fearful reinforces the fear This is absolutely not true. Fear is an emotion, not a behavior. You can only cause more fear by causing more anxiety or pain. Fear trumps food, so if a dog is accepting a treat, then he is – most likely – not that fearful. In addition, the food is not the focus of the on-leash event. Rather, the impending, approaching or sudden stimulus is the focus. This is not the same as, say, a food bowl that gets kicked repeatedly while the dog is eating, or a dog that is attacked by other dogs over food, and the dog starts to associate the food as a fearful part of the chain and stops eating. Could food be associated with fear with on-leash counterconditioning? Most definitely, but only if the handler starts to scold the dog or cause him to experience some form of fear and pain and then tries to pad the event with food. If the dog is already fearful of traffic, fearful or frustrated by dogs or humans, or in general feels stress when on leash, the food will not have a negative association unless it is an extreme case and the human is causing him fear or pain. On leash, then, the handler should be looking to “pay” the dog while the dog is under threshold upon the first orientation of the stimulus. If, however, the dog is paid after a bark or lunge, the food is not reinforcing the dog being under threshold. What needs to be determined is the emotional component of the dog.
COVER STORY Is he fearful or frustrated? This is a huge factor in determining what is occurring with the dog’s associations. It is also a good window as to what is the main reinforcer and how to rearrange the events. As we trainers often like to say, “Pavlov is always on our shoulder,” so feeding now and then after the dog reacts is not reinforcing the reactivity. What reinforces the reactivity, be it barking or lunging of some kind, is the proximity to the stimulus. Furthermore, what that stimulus is and how the dog associates to it will be crucial for determining the protocols for your counterconditioning. Barking and lunging to some extent can actually help the process as they can help a dog release stress. Of course, we do not want our dogs to bark and lunge chronically or to the point of being overly stressed. Consider, though, the dog that barks at a sound outside the home who is asked to “leave it” and is then paid a food reward when he stops barking. That dog will bark a few times then look for a food reward as opposed to continuing to bark. This is because the food will trump the barking as the reinforcer if the human is consistent in their delivery and then redirects the dog onto something else. On leash, a “touch” for hand targeting is a good way to get the dog away from the stimulus or event and redirect him to a better distance. As such, the dog may bark once or twice, which is acceptable, but will eventually learn that leaving the stimulus and disengaging is more reinforcing. We can always trump peripheral stimulus and main event stimulus with high value food, scent and the contiguous sequences of proper counterconditioning. If a dog is scolded or made to feel pain and, as a consequence, stops a behavior, this is being maintained with negative reinforcement, i.e. the threat of a punisher, which will elicit negative associations to the context as well as stress. In terms of being on leash, punishments or flooding will make the antecedents of the sequence fearful. As environmental stimuli will often add up until, at some point, they become “too much,” spontaneous recovery will kick in, and the dog will react or shut down. At the same time, he will have less chance of a fast bounce back, as he will not have been processing his stress hormones (glucocorticoids) efficiently through conditioning and training. My advice would be to not sweat the reactivity. Either pay through it, or don’t, but stay more aware and get better distances the next time. In reality, it is the distance that keeps the dog under threshold and not necessarily the food reward. Ultimately, it is both proper distances and high value food rewards coupled with efficiently orchestrated sequences and contiguous reinforcements that get the job done. All dogs will have their own signature disengagement pathologies that are based on the parameters of the event. Just like they develop reactivity pathologies, dogs develop disengagement pathologies, and the better you understand them the easier time you will have counterconditioning.
Hebbian Theory
Introduced by Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb in 1949, Hebbian theory attempts to explain associative, or Hebbian, learning, in which simultaneous activation of cells leads to pronounced inBARKS from the Guild/September 2017
23