Advice needed! My dog attacked my arms last night

[GentleLake]

It always surprises me that the advice to find a trainer or behaviorist is given routinely

 

I wouldn't say that I gave this advice "routinely" in this particular situation.

 

Whether intentional or not, the dog gave a level 3 bite. In the eyes of the law, this is serious. Throughout the US, with the the "one bite rule" (which isn't limited only to bites but to less egregious events) dog owners are liable if they have any foreknowledge that their dogs bit someone (and, at least in some areas, attacked or bit another companion or farm animal). Over half the sates have dog bite statutes that don't require an injured party to prove that the dog owner knew or did anything wrong. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dog-bite-statutes.html) Sometimes a dog owner can counter that there was provocation, but I think that could be difficult to prove in an instance such as the OP described.

 

Some states, including New York where I live, have provisions in their dog laws that can require "evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist, a board certified veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert in the field and completion of training or other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert" (http://www.doglaw.com/dog-bite-injury/new-york-dog-bite-attorney.html), so my suggestion really wasn't unreasonable.

 

Dogs deemed to be dangerous can be confiscated and euthanized in many areas, so anyone who's dog has inflicted a Lever 3 bite (or lower, imo). Unless a person is willing to risk losing their dog like this, it really might not be such a bad idea to seek professional help.

 

[Sue R]

Sounds to me that in some states, if your dog works stock and has ever gripped, no matter how justified, that can count against you as "having foreknowledge that their dog bit ____". Perhaps another example of a law that's meant to do good that can certainly have unintended and unfortunate consequences in the wrong situation.

[Eileen Stein]

I wouldn't say that I gave this advice "routinely" in this particular situation.

 

Whether intentional or not, the dog gave a level 3 bite. In the eyes of the law, this is serious. Throughout the US, with the the "one bite rule" (which isn't limited only to bites but to less egregious events) dog owners are liable if they have any foreknowledge that their dogs bit someone (and, at least in some areas, attacked or bit another companion or farm animal). Over half the sates have dog bite statutes that don't require an injured party to prove that the dog owner knew or did anything wrong. (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dog-bite-statutes.html) Sometimes a dog owner can counter that there was provocation, but I think that could be difficult to prove in an instance such as the OP described.

 

Gentle Lake, I was not referring specifically to you when I used the word "routine." The advice to seek a trainer or behaviorist is routinely given by many folks on this forum whenever behavior problems are mentioned.

 

Neither you nor I know the law in JamieL's jurisdiction. The law can be an ass about dogs, without a doubt, but the "one bite rule" is the more lenient of the two general types of bite laws in the US. Other jurisdictions do not allow for that defense (i.e., that the dog has never bitten before). As you note, those other states "don't require the injured party to prove that the dog owner knew or did anything wrong," thus making a previous bite largely irrelevant. As a practical matter, it's probably irrelevant anyway, in a legal situation, if the owner and the dog are the only ones who know it happened.

 

I gather that "level 3 bite" refers to a classification Ian Dunbar has made up (in which a "level 1 bite" is no bite at all). I think in deciding how to proceed in a case like this it makes much more sense to focus on the circumstances giving rise to the bite than how deeply a canine tooth penetrated. The latter can be largely a matter of bad luck, beyond the dog's control. I know of a case where one dog was startled by another dog coming up beside him from behind and made one quick snap at him. The dog he snapped at was his lifelong friend and housemate, the two were very fond of each other, and the first dog never made a hostile move toward the second dog (or anyone else) before or since. Unfortunately, the second dog's eye was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and vision in that eye was lost. But the snap could have made contact with fur, or with nothing at all. So what sense does it make to assess the correct course to take with the first dog by the chance consequence to the second dog? Does it make the first dog more vicious, or more in need of professional intervention?

 

 

Some states, including New York where I live, have provisions in their dog laws that can require "evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist, a board certified veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert in the field and completion of training or other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert" (http://www.doglaw.co...e-attorney.html), so my suggestion really wasn't unreasonable.

 

But as you go on to note, some states would provide for confiscation and euthanasia. Does that mean that suggesting euthanasia would not be unreasonable? I would hope we could apply more good sense to an issue like this than the law does, because that is not setting a very high standard.

[rushdoggie]

I wouldn't say that I gave this advice "routinely" in this particular situation.

 

Whether intentional or not, the dog gave a level 3 bite.

My concern when I read this (and I have re-read the OP several times) is I don't think this was an isolated incident. She describes him as showing aggression when he finds food in the past even though he has never bitten before.

 

"I mean there was once that he picked some bone from the ground and showed aggression when my boyfriend tried to remove it. But he didn't really bite. "

 

"But it'd be a different story if he finds the food himself. "

 

Based on the things the OP said I get the feeling the dog has some issues, and the fact that when startled the bite escalated enough to break the skin makes me feel this dog needs some intervention.

 

Because we don't know the OP well, and we can't see the dog, this may in fact be more serious than everyone else seems to think it was. It also might not! But, we already knows the dog will guard objects, we already know that his startle response does not have much bite inhibition.

 

I frankly am kind of surprised by how many people seem to think its no big deal. What happens if someone visiting startles the dog and gets bitten, maybe in the face or some other body part? What happens if the next time he bites harder and there is more damage?

 

Eileen is right that there is a risk of finding a bad trainer, but I think pretty much every time someone posts here looking for help we are all offering to help the poster find appropriate training. I'm pretty sure we can offer that more specific advise again.

[Eileen Stein]

I frankly am kind of surprised by how many people seem to think its no big deal. What happens if someone visiting startles the dog and gets bitten, maybe in the face or some other body part? What happens if the next time he bites harder and there is more damage?

 

Well, that would be bad. But the same might be asked about deciding to get a dog -- what if the dog were to bite when startled, what if someone visiting were to get bitten, what if it was a severe bite? I guess the difference between us is that I don't see that what has been reported here makes those outcomes significantly more likely than they would be with a dog about which we had no information. Especially since the owner is now conscious of the risk and conscious of avoiding a situation like this in the future.

 

I agree that this dog has some issues, chiefly related to other dogs. The OP has had the dog for 1.75 years, with only one prior instance of possible aggression (without biting) toward a human. This is one instance of a startle reaction involving a bite. My overall assessment is based on the impression I have gotten over the course of the thread of the owner's levelheadedness (despite lack of experience), current awareness of the risk, appropriate level of concern, and training efforts.

 

You do realize, when offering to guide the owner in finding appropriate trainers, that she lives in Hong Kong?

[GentleLake]

You do realize, when offering to guide the owner in finding appropriate trainers, that she lives in Hong Kong?

 

Yes, which is why I specified that the information I posted was specific to the US.

 

It would probably be a good idea for the OP to familiarize herself with laws that are applicable to her location.

 

But as you go on to note, some states would provide for confiscation and euthanasia. Does that mean that suggesting euthanasia would not be unreasonable? I would hope we could apply more good sense to an issue like this than the law does, because that is not setting a very high standard.

 

It doesn't mean anything in regard to suggesting (or not) that euthanasia would be reasonable. Reasonable or not, it's the law in some places and therefore quite possibly not going to be subject to arguments of reason. The law can be like that.

 

Again, I think it behooves everyone, especially those who have dogs with a bite or other legally recognized injury history, to be aware of whatever laws, statutes or regulations apply in the jurisdictions where they live.

[Eileen Stein]

 

Eileen Stein: You do realize, when offering to guide the owner in finding appropriate trainers, that she lives in Hong Kong?

 

Yes, which is why I specified that the information I posted was specific to the US.

 

It would probably be a good idea for the OP to familiarize herself with laws that are applicable to her location.

 

My question [emphasis added] was directed at another poster who said that we on the Boards would be offering the OP advice on finding appropriate training.

 

I suppose it's always a good idea for anyone to be familiar with laws that are applicable to their location. Can't really disagree with that. Certainly much more useful than familiarizing themselves with laws that are applicable to a faraway location.

 

It doesn't mean anything in regard to suggesting (or not) that euthanasia would be reasonable. Reasonable or not, it's the law in some places and therefore quite possibly not going to be subject to arguments of reason. The law can be like that.

 

Again, I think it behooves everyone, especially those who have dogs with a bite or other legally recognized injury history, to be aware of whatever laws, statutes or regulations apply in the jurisdictions where they live.

 

I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that because some jurisdictions (e.g., New York) can require evaluation by a behaviorist or other expert in situations like this, your suggestion to consult a behaviorist was reasonable. I therefore asked whether, by the same reasoning, the fact that some jurisdictions can require euthanasia in situations like this would mean that a suggestion to euthanize would be reasonable. But perhaps my question/comment was too convoluted. Yes, definitely, awareness of the laws that apply in the jurisdiction where one lives is a good thing, and had that been what you said, I would not have disagreed.

[rushdoggie]

You do realize, when offering to guide the owner in finding appropriate trainers, that she lives in Hong Kong?

 

And I am certain there are behavioral consultants available in Hong Kong with credentials as there would be in Canada or the UK who could be utilized.

[Eileen Stein]

Could be, and I gather you think that someone's having the appropriate credentials (whatever they might be in Hong Kong) ensures that s/he will be "good" and therefore will certainly result in a better outcome than if s/he had not been engaged. That is the part that I have trouble understanding -- the apparent failure to recognize that some "behavioral consultants," even credentialed ones, do not invariably improve the situation but can sometimes make it worse. Hiring unknown experts is not always better than DIY. And IMO this is a situation that doesn't call for more than DIY measures, from what we know at this point.

 

But certainly you should feel free to offer her specific advice on how to find the right person to hire.

[CMP]

I don't believe I "own" any part of my dogs' bodies. Regardless of the legal standing of our relationship and my duties under it, I do not extend this to the belief that I have a right to treat them disrespectfully in any way.

 

If they don't like their tails touched, for instance (I have one like this), I don't touch them and if they get injured or need cleaning, the vet or the groomer does that and I am fine with this scenario.

 

I don't think you ought to do anything to an animal that is essentially a predator to purposefully arouse a startle reflex - such as clapping hands loudly behind them when they are clearly hyper-focused on something else. Take the three steps and get in front of them and demand their attention. It takes more time to work out a "way we will be" agreement with your dog, but it is SO well worth it. If you startle and humiliate them too often, you *will* alter how they face the world - and that doesn't seem likely to be a positive change.

 

Sometimes, someone has to be boss and have the hammer. Of course, I get that. I am always the boss and it is never in question - or not for long. But between those moments when someone has to decide how things will be getting done, I prefer it that we have a working arrangement that suits us both. I'm not fussy about things like where they sleep or how they guard their bones and I don't expect instant response to every command unless we are working and even then I trust they will have a reason to delay and I should hate to think an over-insistence on absolute obedience would alter the way they worked.

 

I know some people are very alarmed by the touching of canine teeth to sacred human skin - but sometimes they just revert, instinctively to being what they are and we all have to accept that when we welcome them into our lives. Not to say we should encourage biting, but I think we generally make too much of situations such as this one that appears to make a case in point for "sometimes the dog just comes out".

 

In fact, I do not see the biting of the arm as being related to the other aggression issues - and I think we are too quick to call things "aggression" and then label all aggression as bad. It's not and it's a valuable quality in a working dog, actually. But instinctive reponses such as startle biting over food are not aggressive - they are, in fact, entirely protective.

[rushdoggie]

Could be, and I gather you think that someone's having the appropriate credentials (whatever they might be in Hong Kong) ensures that s/he will be "good" and therefore will certainly result in a better outcome than if s/he had not been engaged. That is the part that I have trouble understanding -- the apparent failure to recognize that some "behavioral consultants," even credentialed ones, do not invariably improve the situation but can sometimes make it worse.

 

Yes, I do not have such a negative viewpoint. If a person has certain credentials (for example through the IIABC who has a set of core competencies that you can see here http://iaabc.org/downloads/IAABC_CCs_2_2013.pdf) I will feel more comfortable that they have the skills to help someone through difficult issues.

Hiring unknown experts is not always better than DIY. And IMO this is a situation that doesn't call for more than DIY measures, from what we know at this point.

And on this you and I will have to disagree. I would always much rather err on the side of too much help than too little, especially considering the possible consequences.

But certainly you should feel free to offer her specific advice on how to find the right person to hire.

And if the OP asks I am certain she will find help here.

 

I do not see the biting of the arm as being related to the other aggression issues - and I think we are too quick to call things "aggression" and then label all aggression as bad. It's not and it's a valuable quality in a working dog, actually. But instinctive reponses such as startle biting over food are not aggressive - they are, in fact, entirely protective.

 

I see the biting of the arm as possibly being related to the resource guarding, and possibly not. But its something that should be investigated, I think. Without actually seeing the dog and incident, I don't think we can say. And as I have said, while DIY may be appropriate here, I don't think based on what I have read that is the case.

[Blackdawgs]

I would chose a credentialed behaviorist over a bunch of strangers on the interet. FWIW

 

There is a veterinary behaviorist in Hong Kong. I found a name after a 15 second Google search.

 

i don't know if this dog needs a veterinary behaviorist, but I think that its behavior should be observed by someone who knows what they are doing. i agree that if the incident happened in isolation, it may not be a big deal (although I have grabbed my dogs' body parts to pull them off the fence, etc and have never been bitten). The OP says that there are other issues and in the first paragraph, the OP wrote:

 

"He can be triggered by something and suddenly changes into a ferocious dog" This in addition to what sounds like resource guarding

 

Hong Kong is a very crowded place and it is possible that this dog is being walked amongst a lot of people in situations where it can be accidently bumped or get into a tiff with a kid over a dropped icecream cone....based on the information, we have, we just don't know the dog's lifestyle and we haven't personally observed the dog's behavior...we just don't know.

 

So, why not err on the side of safety and recommend that the OP seek professional guidence from someone who can actually see the dog in person?

[Eileen Stein]

"Why not err on the side of safety and vaccinate your dog annually for rabies rather than every three years? He might not need it, but he might. That's what our Board of Veterinary Examiners recommends here in ____________________, and they have more credentials than you do." I bet that's something Kris Christine has heard a time or two.

 

My point is that it's not really erring on the side of safety if the course you're proposing is not necessary and might lead someone down a path they will end up regretting they took. As I said, if you think the benefits of hiring a veterinary behaviorist, or a behavioral consultant, or a trainer, or a whatever, always outweigh the costs and risks of doing so, then you will continue to be one of the "bunch of strangers on the internet" who tells people they should call in a VB or a BC or a T for issues which you think may or may not be a big deal -- you just don't know. And I'll continue to be surprised by it, but I won't continue expressing my view, since it's not likely I can say it any better than I have already.

[GentleLake]

I'm curious, Eileen. What is it you have against veterinary behaviorists and other behavioral consultants?

 

Why do you think their education and expertise, is, well, bogus and that they're less qualified to offer advice about behavior issues than the average pet owner who might attempt a DIY fix without having much knowledge about behavior/training/etc.?

 

And why do you think that such consultants would make matters worse?

[dsmbc]

JamieL, I can imagine how you feel. I hope you are alright. It might be a good idea to have your dog checked out just to rule out pain, injury or illness. it is not always easy to tell if you dog is hurting, but uncharacteristic snapping or biting could be an indication that something is physically wrong, as Donald mentioned.

 

if you are able to rule out illness, injury or pain, it is good to try to figure out if it was just a reaction to being startled or resource guarding or something else. Desensitizing and added training is a good idea. If you feel like you would like help, advice or guidance, there is nothing wrong with seeking out a knowledgable trainer and there are plenty of online resources for help as well. The "it's yer choice" game that was mentioned earlier is a really good training game. Good luck and keep us posted.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Roxanne asks Eileen: "What is it you have against veterinary behaviorists and other behavioral consultants?

 

Why do you think their education and expertise, is, well, bogus and that they're less qualified to offer advice about behavior issues than the average pet owner who might attempt a DIY fix without having much knowledge about behavior/training/etc.? "

 

Roxanne's comparison in brief: person with university degree in animal behavior or sans degree but certified by an organization of those who agree with the behaviorist model vs. Joe (or Molly).

 

Well, er, I dunno. I have met some highly credentialed behaviorists I wouldn't let walk my dog and as many I would recommend. Professionally they spout a lot of bogus but behaviorism's the only MA/Phd presently offered in "animal science" and I know a couple good trainers who swallowed the bogus to get that degree after their name.

 

Joe and Molly are all over the lot. They may accept cultural bogus: "unconditional love", "fur babies" and the like. They may never have read Mr. Milan, Dr. Donaldson, Mr. Koehler or Ms. Pryor.

 

What's the odds? Joe and Molly are very much cheaper and some might find their boguses/ bogusi (pl?), more appealing than the 4 quadrants. Odds of Joe and Molly offering real help with a maybe/maybe not troubled dog? Even though some dog problems vanish simply because the owner (and Joe and Molly) are talking and thinking about them, the odds aren't good. 1 in 10?

 

The certified behaviorist will have studied animal behavior in laboratory conditions, read a lot in a narrow range and probably is deeply interested in dogs. Despite the guff he/she inhaled to get that degree probably some skill survived his education and, hopefully there's been real world experience afterwards. Roxanne's right: the odds are better: 50/50?

 

If the dog owner wants certification, dog trainers' orgs NADOI and IACP offer professional certificates which, unlike the behaviorist certs, demonstrate actual training skills rather than a degree and/or commitment to bogus.

 

Those odds are better: 80/20?

 

But the important trainer isn't Joe, Molly, the behaviorist or the NADOI profesional with a string of OTCH placements. The real trainer is the Owner and he/she must find a trainer/behaviorist/Joe he can hear and use to understand what it is his dog is doing, why, and what he must do to make that behavior acceptable or at least manageable.

 

Trainer/owner can be as intimate as therapist/patient. The best way to assess a person offering to help you with your dog is to look at their dog and other dogs she/he has trained. Really look at them. If you'd like to own those dogs and can imagine that owner/dog relationship for you, go for it. Like pedigrees, certificates are paper. You and your dog live together in the real world.

 

Donald McCaig

[CMP]

I guess I am old school.

 

I believe that an outside trainer or behaviourist is a third party inside what is inherently a two person party. Much like a child psychologist is to a parent/child.

 

If one is necessary, one is necessary. But I do think maybe our bar of "necessary" has been lowered artificially by the sheer popularity of dogs as pets and the growing number of first time and novice pet owners, many of whom are trying to do some fairly non-novice things with their dogs.

 

In my view it would be better to "muddle" along with "wrong" things that you and your dog understand but can live with as opposed to setting up a whole other relationship dynamic and having to adjust inside of it.

 

Again, if you need one, you need one - but ... meh ... the few I have met have been a mixed bag with one or two earning my respect and the rest ... not so much. Give me an experienced dog person with years of raising dogs behind them any day of the week.

[Shetlander]

I feel like I am pretty dog savvy and over the decades have trained my dogs in basic and competition obedience, agility and tricks. I have worked with them on a variety of behavioral issues and quirks. If one of my dogs bit me hard enough to draw blood because of being startled, I would be consulting *someone*, starting with my vet to rule out a health issue.

 

A few years back, tensions between Quinn and the Lhasa were getting worse, to the point I was concerned. One of my vets recommended a trainer who came to my house. She was younger than me and later admitted she was worried that with my experience level, I wouldn't find her helpful. A couple of friends were astonished that I was paying good money for the consultation and asked what she could possibly tell me that I didn't already know. I said I obviously didn't know how to keep better peace between the meathead boys and I'm sure other things as well, LOL.

 

The trainer was incredibly helpful in giving me a plan and a very effective, calm, gentle correction I hadn't heard of before. Order was restored to my little pack and I also had a great time "talking dogs" with someone who had good information to share. I am not even sure of her credentials other than my vet thought well of her work. When making the appointment, I did check that she wasn't into a lot of punishment or dominance training, however.

 

Sometimes it is invaluable to have other eyes and a fresh perspective on the situation. In my book, it is at least worth a try. But my first step would be a visit to the vet.

[CMP]

^^

 

Perfect example of two reasonable opinions that disagree but share the same basic tenet: if a situation is beyond the owner's ability to handle then help SHOULD be sought.

 

Maybe it's having grown up in a dog culture - I just phone uncle Tim who has trained a gabillion sheepdogs or my brother Alex who is a vet or ask my mother who lived with my father long enough that she knows stuff she does not even know she knows

 

My point was not that help was bad, but that the reaching out for it seems to be on a hair trigger.

[Maxi]

but when CMP and Shetlander had an issue they both approached someone they trusted to help find a way to sort the problem... whether they were 'officially' called a dog behaviourist or not.

 

I guess that one of Donald McCaig's points in post 41 (to paraphrase) is that paper qualifications on their own do not necessarily make someone sufficiently experienced in hands-on management of dog problems.

[CMP]

^^ Yes. This.

 

A relationship with a dog is based on a philosophy - which philosophy changes from owner/dog to owner/dog - and which must be considered when dealing with third parties.

 

Whether it's a certified trainer or behaviourist or Uncle Joe or your friend Betty whom you trust, getting advice and help is definitely part of the dog owning journey.

 

Too many cooks in the kitchen can spoil the broth. It can also make the soup better, if done properly. I suppose I just have concerns that with so many people calling themselves trainers and behaviourists - it's easy to make a mess of things if not cautious.

 

That said, Uncle Tim might well give lousy/wrong advice :/

 

Just be prepared to be optimistically cynical, I suppose

[Eileen Stein]

I'm curious, Eileen. What is it you have against veterinary behaviorists and other behavioral consultants?

 

Why do you think their education and expertise, is, well, bogus and that they're less qualified to offer advice about behavior issues than the average pet owner who might attempt a DIY fix without having much knowledge about behavior/training/etc.?

 

And why do you think that such consultants would make matters worse?

 

I have nothing against veterinary behaviorists and other behavioral consultants, and I regret that by saying the same thing over and over I may have seemed to give that impression. I don't have blind faith in them, I don't think they should always be the first option, but there have certainly been threads here where I thought the facts presented were serious enough that I've totally agreed with the advice given to consult one.

 

My problem is with overprescription -- the knee-jerk recommendation, anytime someone posts that their dog "showed aggression," that a professional behaviorist should be brought in. It's almost like "You say you've coughed three times in the last three months? It could be nothing, but it could be lung cancer, there's no way to know via the internet, and it's better to err on the side of caution and therefore you should find a pulmonologist and have a chest x-ray and a complete workup." (And even that advice is less problematic, because if the pulmonologist finds nothing wrong after the unnecessary testing he won't continue on.) If the facts presented are within normal limits, I think it makes much better sense for a first step to be helping the person address the issue themselves and see how the dog responds. See CMP's excellent post #42, with which I totally agree.

 

As for thinking their education and expertise is bogus and "they're less qualified to offer advice about behavior issues than the average pet owner," I don't think that either, and I don't think I ever said anything to indicate that. I am not as impressed with their education and expertise in the abstract as some are, but I'm sure nearly all are more qualified to offer advice than the average pet owner. However, I have direct knowledge of M.D.s who have, through incompetence or serving their own financial interests, left their patients worse off than if they'd never consulted them. Ditto for lawyers, ditto for accountants, ditto for vets. I'm sure we could all agree that there are dog trainers who fall into this category. Why should the same not be true of behavioral consultants? That doesn't mean you should never consult a doctor or a lawyer or a trainer or a veterinary behaviorist. It just means that there are risks in doing so, and it's foolish to do so when there's no apparent need. (And I might add that even though doctors and lawyers are licensed and highly credentialed, I would NEVER recommend that someone choose a doctor or a lawyer from a Bar Association or hospital referral list with no other knowledge than that about them. Still less would I make that recommendation to someone in a distant country that I know little or nothing about.)

 

In this case, we know a few facts about the dog. The owner has had him for 1.75 years. He has "a history of being aggressive to dogs," which the owner said they are working on, and she is able to call him away from other dogs to prevent a fight. Once in the past he showed aggression to the owner's boyfriend when he tried to take a bone the dog had found away from him, but didn't bite. She sought help from a trainer, who "said our dog's EQ is too low." On the occasion that prompted the owner to post, the dog's attention was focused intently on a grasshopper when his owner came up behind him and grabbed him by his lower back, which is a sensitive area for him. He spun around and bit her arm, breaking the skin. Stopped immediately when he realized who he'd bitten, and went to his crate.

 

Some dogs would not have snapped/bitten in this situation, some dogs would have. It seems to me it's within the normal range of canine behavior. I see a few obvious ways for the owner to address this:

 

--Don't grab the dog's lower back when he's focused intently on something

--Accustom him to having his lower back touched, grasped lightly, and ultimately grabbed, in a rewarding situation

--Accustom him to having desirable objects taken from him and given back or replaced

--In the meantime, don't allow other people to do things like grabbing him or taking food from him

--Assess whether his behavior is improving, deteriorating or staying the same

 

From the owner's posts, I get the impression this is exactly how she is addressing it, as well as adopting training ideas from a video that was posted.

 

I just can't see why she should be advised to embark on a veterinary behaviorist or a behavioral consultant without first trying this approach and seeing whether it works. It seems like overkill to me in this situation. I said so. But that's just my opinion, and y'all are free to post telling her to go the heavier, more costly route. Hopefully, she won't be put off by this difference of opinion, and hopefully she'll read both views and take the advice that will turn out best for her.

[rushdoggie]

FWIW: Maybe its just where I live, but a consult with the vet behaviorist which is a couple of hours and includes several months of follow up on the phone and email (and because he is a vet covers health concerns and a physical) actually costs a little less overall than some trainers initial packages.

 

So, I don't think its quite as overkill cost wise as many suggest.

[Root Beer]

Personally, I wouldn't just trust the on-paper qualifications of any trainer or behaviorist, but I don't consider solid qualifications to be a strike against a trainer, either.

 

You can always request to watch the trainer/behaviorist work with other clients. You can ask for names of current or former clients who will offer a first hand perspective on what the trainer/behaviorist does and on the strengths and weaknesses of that professional's work.

 

You can schedule an initial consult where the professional will not work with your dog directly, but will take a look and see what is going on with the dog, and then you could discuss what his or her plan would be to deal with the issues.

 

If the person were not open to such preliminary measures, then I would continue to look around.

 

I would do a double take if any professional trainer or behaviorist referred to my dog as a "fur baby" in a professional context or said that he or she had a plan to help the dog through "unconditional love", and I would want to know exactly what proactive plan of action that person had in mind before going any further.

 

If you don't live in an area where you have a network to reliably seek out a high quality professional who works with dogs in keeping with your chosen training standards, then credentials and degrees and on-paper qualifications are a great place to start.

 

But, by all means, don't stop there!

[Maxi]

BTW, I'm not familiar with the term EQ -- what does it mean?

 

In this case, we know a few facts about the dog. The owner ....sought help from a trainer, who "said our dog's EQ is too low."

 

I too did not know what the term EQ meant.. but a quick google search came up with 2 separate definitions

 

1. If you can believe wikipedia this defines it as the "Encephalization_quotient. This is calculated from the ratio between the size of the brain relative to the body. Some claim that this ratio can be used to measure the relative intelligence of one species against another. However, I would be surprised if you could use this to determine the relative intelligence of one dog compared to another.

 

2. the other definition seems to be "emotional quotient". which is a measure of an individual to be able "to read, understand and empathize with the emotions of others". (something that in my experience, dogs do much better than humans)

 

Now the trainer the OP used may be excellent at dealing with the practical aspects of a behavioural issue. But, personally, IMO if someone told me that the problem with my dog was his low EQ level then I think I'd run a mile because it sounds too much like psychobable and as if someone is trying to find an excuse in advance as to why they may not be able to sort the underlying problem.

 

YMMV