Mikey T

While that would be flooding as well "flooding is also simply preventing the dog from leaving in the presence of the leaf. So say on a walk the dog shows fear of a leaf and one were to stop moving and prevent the dog from leaving until it calms that is flooding. Also repeating the process until the dogs act calm passing the leaf is flooding. The point is "preventing", restaining the dog, if the dog voluntarily stay then it is not flooding. See the definition I Provide in my second post.

I don't recall offering any approach. I would be interested in knowing what you believe my approach to be because it would help me in the future perhaps in being more consise.

.

Admittedly my spelling and grammer can be awful which lead to people not comprehending my intended meaning But I thought it is was very clear. I never imply you said " to look at your dog, touch your dog, or talk to your dog" quite the oposite. I include links to articles on techniques for dealing with fear that include those techniques as counter balance to your claim doing so only reinforces fear.

I also provide links on claming signal specifcally the signal of yawning and how dogs interpret the signal which is not as boardom as a human might but rather, calm down there is nothing to be scared/agitated about depending on context. Which is exactly what people try to do when talking to the dog abet calming signal is more effective means of communication.

Quote:

to take a simple place a harness on the dog walk away from the door and out don't look, don't talk, don't touch.

I believe there was more to it than that . "I had to force Lolly to face her fear" implys physical force either by restaining the dog or actually confronting the dog. and that is what the majority of people reading it are going to believe.

" Same with bicycles kids etc.. walk past them keep on going no stopping no talking, once your past a ways turn around and go back past them again"

May be flooding or may not be based on the reaction of the dog. If the dog is not being fearfull then it is not flood but If it is then it is certainly flooding. If the dog get all scared/pulling away the harness is there to prevent them from escaping and they are forced to pass again this is flooding. And not good a good application of flooding at that. When you mentioned using a harness instead of a collar it was so the dog "can't back out of it". One is going to assume the dog is being placed atleas some time in a situation that they are trying to get away but can't ie they are being phsycally retrained in face of fear without an outlet, flooding.

On the other hand if it is done at a distance from the bicyclist and the dog does not react. This is a densentization. If a reward is given when the bicyclist approaches it is counter conditioning. Simple classical conditioning, like pavolvs dogs, creating an asociation in the dogs mind between bicyclist and good things treat coming. So they look forward to a bicyclist insead of dreading it. Combind it is called Desenitization and Counter conditioning and it the basis of most behavior modification programs to correct fear based behavioral issues.

Now if this is what you meant by your posting I apologise for making the wrong inferences but given the lack critical information this will happen now and again. I do think It is important that when one some else read a post and obviously mis-interprets what you intent was instead of immeadeately assuming the worse intent by that individual re-examine the what you actual wrote and in the context of that being the only information provide. There have been many time that I was intially angered by what some-one posted in regard to one of mind but way more often than not when I reexamined what I posted I could understand where they were coming from because I was not a clear and as consise as I should of been and left out pertainent information. At that point one is left with the choice of Ignoring the post or posting a more consise new version correcting what was misinterpreted by other. I general find in the vast majority of case people do not post with malicious intent. If I find that as a motivation for another post I reexamine my interpretation and general find there could be a more more benign motivation as well and proceed on that basis.

here are some examples " I did indeed tell you I had a great room, (living room, dining room, kitchen, with a music room off the kitchen and an open sun porch beyond the dining room. I did also tell you I was in the kitchen 20 feet away" I have yet to see that in any previous post but then again I am blind some times.

then there is this "baby gate in a hallway 5 rooms on this side of the house to choose" vs " I did put up a baby gate and not let her flee the room or the situation. So, if I dropped something or set a pan down on the counter she wasn't allowed to panic and leave the room." which lead to two very different interpretations, I am not inplying that it was your intent to be misleading or are changing the story as you go along etc simple that because of space and time considertion thinks have to be left out. Inevitably when that happens people will have to infer the missing info based on what is included that there will be mistakes. If those mistakes are material to the arguement simply correct them but don't assume malice on the person that made them


I use quotes of others for one simple reason. so others now what I am speak about is in reference to. But it is reference to the strickest meaning of the quote and not the rest of the post. I understand other will mis-interpret this but I have not found a better way that does not added another 500 words to my already exhaustive tomes. I also know that some see it as a personal attack but to do so does take some infering on their part but I acknowledge that is a limitation of the techniques and don't get bent out of shape. when some then goes on to make such attacks it going to happen. It is just one of the risks

In the interest of clarity I intial posted on a possible cause of the sudden out of the ordinary fears in a 6 month old puppy.

commented and posted reference on the theory that it is possible to "reinforce fear:" I did not say by follow the course that as intial laid out not talk to etc, that harm would come to the dog. Simply that the evidence is clear that simply talking to or otherwise claming a dog is not going to reinforce fear it already has. I include links to two prominate behaviorist's article so those that read them can make their own judgements. I would also strongly suggest that those that believe otherwise provide a compling research, studies despuiting the finds I linked to. I also present information on flooding and the dangers of flooding but did not dispute that it can be effective just the oposite.

and lastly I posted on Counter-conditioning and desenitization as being the preferred method for treating most fear based behaviors.

LuciaB

Cannoli is head long and heedless into every situation, maybe if we combine your dog and mine we'd have something in the middle that was perfect

__________________
~Lucia~