New BAT theory

[Noobs]

I've finally caught up with this thread and had a chance to sit down and write a response.

May I be so bold as to say I don't think a watch me is helpful at all. In just asking the dog to watch you, you are not attempting to change the way he views the world around him. Only with a oh look at the person, click treat, oh look at the doggie click treat (for your dog looking at the trigger at a safe distance) can you actually begin to reassociate bad things with good things....

I disagree. When I first started using "Watch me" with Murphy (this was, oh wow, two years ago!), it became his default action for a while. He was really bad with people approaching us especially, and since we're in the city we mostly had narrow sidewalks to walk on. Many times we had the option of ducking between parked cars and walking on non-busy streets, but we did our best on the sidewalks. We started out from quite a far distance, a distance I absolutely knew was safe for him, and I asked him for a sit and watch me when a person walked toward us. His treat was beef flavored baby food in a jar, so he got constant reinforcement as I would hold the jar to his mouth and he would lick and watch the person walk by at the same time. In a few weeks he got to the point where he automatically did the sit/watch me when he saw a person approaching. It was only in the last 2-3 months, after seeing videos of Patricia McConnell doing "Where's the dog?" that I started to use "Who's that?" and "Where's the dog?" to get him to look at the person or dog at a closer distance and then look at me for a treat. I personally prefer the words "Who's that?" and "Where's the dog?" as the cue phrases instead of "Look at that" because I say them more naturally. No more baby food jars, these days I carry a container with something smelly like cut-up pieces of chicken, hot dog, or cheese, mixed with some of his kibble so that I don't give him a cup of cheese in one walk, but the kibble was still reinforcing enough since it smelled like the better stuff. He's been very good about looking at the person/dog and then looking up at me, and I'm perfectly happy with that.

If he wants to increase distance from his triggers (which is the idea behind BAT), he is quite clear about it and either walks in an arc himself without any prompting from me, or he will sniff the ground and look away. When he looks away or sniffs the ground, I don't walk him away from the trigger; rather I stand closer to him so that I'm between him and the trigger as the trigger passes. I hope I'm right in surmising that having me stand closer to him makes him feel safe - he only *started* to lunge at a person once a few months ago and I saw "the look" soon enough and was able to intervene by putting my leg in front of him and body-blocking. But since then this method seems to be working for us - he sniffs until the person/trigger passes, and I stand closely. After the trigger is gone, he resumes walking. I figure letting him go ahead and sniff is better than pulling him away from the trigger.

Now, I have become an expert at reading my dog, which is why this is all working, regardless of what you call it or what the mechanics of the training are. As soon as he sees a person/dog I can tell within a second if I can do "Who's that?" or if I need to remove him. I really think that if you're working with your dog, then learning and knowing how to read him is far more important than whether you do BAT, LAT, Where's the Dog?, "Watch Me," "Sit," whatever.

The only thing that seems to make sense to me about BAT is MAYBE the look away/fiddle about/sniff/shake ie I'm not bothered by this trigger any more is what you actually want to reward and not the looking at the trigger.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but those signals - look away, sniff ground, shake-off - are NOT signals of not being bothered by the trigger, but rather calming signals, ie "I am not comfortable and this is my coping mechanism." That is why you want to reward that. Because they are using their signals to tell you they're not comfortable rather than using the bark/lunge right off the bat.

I am not sure that sniffing, turning heads away or shaking IS always a sign of being relaxed. Sniffing and looking away are classic calming signals, which would indicate stress. I know several dogs (including mine) who shake when they are anxious about doing something they are being asked. So this would need to be considered when using BAT.

I agree with you on this one and it would be interesting to challenge BAT on that basis.

It is not necessary to challenge BAT on that basis, though. If I'm not mistaken, BAT teaches the dog that he can show stress signals that are far less intense than the bark/lunge, i.e. "Mom, can we leave, I don't like this," vs. "OMG OMG OMG I have to get out of herrrrrrre RARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"

I STILL don't get the point about moving away as being the reward though!!

Moving away is the reward IF that's what the dog wants. Just imagine why a dog would bark/lunge in the first place when it is below threshold: it's because the trigger has come too close and the dog is unable to cope. So makes a huge display of aggression to make the trigger go away. That's why in BAT you reward by walking away showing the dog that it can succeed in making the scary thing go away by not showing aggression.

Yes I agree - lots of methods work ' in the toolbox' - but if two conflict, then they shouldn't be perhaps used together. That's all I'm thinking.

I personally don't think programs like LAT, BAT, etc. "conflict," it's just a matter of what works in what situation. You can use one, two, several, or all of any of these types of programs on a single walk. Depends on the environment, what triggers present themselves, what YOUR mood is, what the dog's mood is...etc.

I think the more comfortable one is with each of these methods, the more one can vary which particular method to use at any particular moment without overthinking it.

[GundogGuy]

I am not sure that sniffing, turning heads away or shaking IS always a sign of being relaxed. Sniffing and looking away are classic calming signals, which would indicate stress. I know several dogs (including mine) who shake when they are anxious about doing something they are being asked. So this would need to be considered when using BAT.

I agree with you on this one and it would be interesting to challenge BAT on that basis.

But a dog giving off calming signals is not giving off aggressive or warning signals? I read somewhere of dogs being clicker trained to lick their lips on cue to help with reactiveness... I can't remember now what book it was in but it may have been 'don't shoot the dog'... but don't quote me on that...

I think it was jacksdad who reminded us all that this is just another tool in the box and there is no one tool for any one situation. Personally, I want to learn more about this. I had to hammer a nail in the other week and couldn't find my hammer that is kept in my cupboard full of tools... so i used a steel toecaped boot!

Jacksdad, is that DVD available to buy?

[runlikethewind]

he would lick and watch the person walk by at the same time.

That's a look at the person - not a watch me though....

[runlikethewind]

Ok so with BAT, the dog is held JUST below threshold of lunging/barking (be that whether you think it is a good thing or not) and the marker is doing something other than focussing on the trigger, but the dog CAN still be worried (hence why it may choose to fiddle about/sniff ground etc). That is then marked and rewarded by moving away. So what we are saying is the dog can still be aroused and stressed but not so stressed as to bark/lunge, he will get marked for showing less stressful signs instead or looking away and rewarded by being walked away.

So BAT is carried out at a certain arousal level, still - which I guess some trainers might think odd.

[GundogGuy]

So BAT is carried out at a certain arousal level, still - which I guess some trainers might think odd.

In order to learn to cope with stress, we must first be stressed. Thats how puppy socialisation works, right? Building coping mechanisms through controlled stress?

[Noobs]

he would lick and watch the person walk by at the same time.

That's a look at the person - not a watch me though....

I probably could have been more thorough when describing it but what I did was this: I asked for a sit and then a watch me. Once he gave me that, I let him lick the baby food jar as the person passed. So it's a combination of both. Thus the point that one can use one or several methods in one walk.

Ok so with BAT, the dog is held JUST below threshold of lunging/barking

That goes for all of the methods - LAT, BAT, Watch, Look, Who's that, Where's the Dog, CC, etc etc etc.

[Noobs]

If a dog wants a fight - or to "play" then it isn't scared. So we are on a different subject. Which I can develop if you'd like me to.

Would you mind?

[jacksdad]

Ok so with BAT, the dog is held JUST below threshold of lunging/barking (be that whether you think it is a good thing or not) and the marker is doing something other than focussing on the trigger, but the dog CAN still be worried (hence why it may choose to fiddle about/sniff ground etc). That is then marked and rewarded by moving away. So what we are saying is the dog can still be aroused and stressed but not so stressed as to bark/lunge, he will get marked for showing less stressful signs instead or looking away and rewarded by being walked away.

So BAT is carried out at a certain arousal level, still - which I guess some trainers might think odd.

No, as I understand it, you must work below threshold for any of these methods to be 100% successful. Life ensures we are never 100% below threshold 100% of the time, but that is the ideal. Working below threshold more often not is the ONLY way I can see any of these methods to have any hope of successing. I would submit that if your dog is fiddling about, sniffing the ground, chuffing etc) your are over threshold. You need to back off.

Some people or in this case dogs need tools and support in place before you push the thresholds. I my mind I see the pushing of the thresholds just a little from time to time as a mini graduation. Ok your good at 10 feet from your trigger, lets see how you do a 9 feet 11 inches. oh a little stressed ok, but you responded...lets do that one more time and call it a day or even just that once and call it a day. then the next day or a day or two later, you try 9 feel 11 inches from the trigger again, maybe this time the dog is even less stress or doesn't show any external stress signs so now you have a new threshold...work at that distance for a while until it's "ho humm my trigger is 9 feet 11 inches away", then push for 9 feel 10 inches.

I think noobs hits on a good point as we each learn our dogs better, we learn more about stress/fear/anxiety in dogs in general, as we learn different tools we then can make a on the fly assessment of what our dogs needs at that moment.

My opinion, we shouldn't be looking at BAT as a replacement. "OH hey there is this new thing call BAT, Watch and Look are now obsolete" isn't how we should be viewing it. Each tool has its purpose, it's strength, weakness, its place. It is up to us to find which works best for our dog at their current point in their "rehabilitation". In my opinion BAT should be looked at as another possible method to help your dog. for some dogs it might be THE starting point. Or maybe it's something to progress too. it all depends on the dog.

Gundog, I have the links at home for the DVDs. will post them later tonight.

[jacksdad]

http://ahimsadogtraining.com/bat/
http://www.dogwise.com/itemdetails.cfm?ID=DTB1164
http://www.dogwise.com/SearchResults.cf ... rch=author

[Mattie]

Hi Mattie = my 2nd to last comment was in response to Nettles.

It didn't look like a reply to someone else, this is a public forum so any member can reply to any post even when you are replying to others. When I am replying to a particular post I use quotes, no that doesn't mean everyone has to use them, but it does make it clearer what you are replying to, it doesn't mean that nobody else can reply to my posts, that is just part of being an open forum.

I have lost track of who said what, but I have two thoughts on this conversation.

I use "watch" a lot, and have done from the very start. It has helped me tremendously to work through many of our issues, as well as being something to fal back on when we get stuck in a situation and have to wait it out - like a strange dog coming towards us that is going to have to pass close by, there are not other options. I spent a very long time making sure that the watch command was very strong, to the point where I could maintain eye contact for 3 minutes or more without breaking, no matter what was going on around us. I know that for us it may be slightly different, because once I have eye contact then Horus is relatively oblivious of what is going on, but surely that should make it harder for him to trust me, when he knows something is behind me but I will keep him safe if he does a watch for me?

You have said it much better than I can Horace's Mum, "Watch me" can help in many situations and can stop a situation from arising. Gracie being the hooligan she was it stopped her from getting into mischief because she was bored, I use it with my other dogs for various things especially when we are out and I want to keep their attention.

I think it is a tremendously important point you make Jacksdad when you remind us that there is more than one way to help the reactive fearful dog. None of the positive methods is more or less "right" than the others of that ilk: we have always to suit the situation and the response to the individual dog.

I find that as my dog improves they move through various stages, I start off standing in front of my dog, they can still see the other dog but my legs are a barrier, to my dog the other dog can't get to them because my legs are in the way. They peep round my legs to watch the other dog. I use "Watch me" in this situation just to get my dog to look at me in short spells so my dog isn't staring at the other dog.

As my dog gets more confident and is trusting me more, he doesn't need to be behind my legs, he can be sitting by the side of me or in front, depending on the other dog and owner, I may or may not use "Watch me", if they are taking a long time to go past I will use it, if they go past quite quickly I don't, I let my dog watch the other dog as long as he is relaxed, any sign of tension then I ask for "Watch me".

I don't need to use "Look" because I don't try to stop my dog from looking at the other dog, I want them to look at the other dog, if you stop a dog from looking he will never learn that other dogs are not scary monsters. I don't tell them to look at another dog either because I don't want to make a big thing about the other dog, I want my dog to think that another dog passing is normal and nothing special.

What I love about postive training is there is no right or wrong way, if it works for the dog and owner it is right for them, if it doesn't work for them then it is wrong for them, it could be right for someone else and their dog.

runlikethewind wrote:
The only thing that seems to make sense to me about BAT is MAYBE the look away/fiddle about/sniff/shake ie I'm not bothered by this trigger any more is what you actually want to reward and not the looking at the trigger.

If my dog was giving those signals I would consider I was too close to the other dog because to me they are calming signals, I don't want my dog to just cope with another dog passing, I want them to be relaxed, happy and feel safe. I may be wrong but I don't reward relaxed behaviour, I expect it, if my dog is not feeling safe and relaxed then I am failing him and move him until he is. It is only when my dog is feeling safe and relaxed that I can teach him that other dogs are not scary monsters, if he is giving me calming signals then he isn't learning but concentrating on what he is frightened of, the other dog. I do reward my dog for turning their attention to me whether I ask for it or my dog volunteers it.

It is not necessary to challenge BAT on that basis, though. If I'm not mistaken, BAT teaches the dog that he can show stress signals that are far less intense than the bark/lunge, i.e. "Mom, can we leave, I don't like this," vs. "OMG OMG OMG I have to get out of herrrrrrre RARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!"

To me if a dog needs to do this they are not learning anything, they are starting to stress out.

I personally don't think programs like LAT, BAT, etc. "conflict," it's just a matter of what works in what situation. You can use one, two, several, or all of any of these types of programs on a single walk. Depends on the environment, what triggers present themselves, what YOUR mood is, what the dog's mood is...etc.

I think the more comfortable one is with each of these methods, the more one can vary which particular method to use at any particular moment without overthinking it.

Different ways will suit different dogs and owners, as a dog improves we also need to adapt what we are doing to help them continue to improve which can mean changing to a different method or mixing them together.

My opinion, we shouldn't be looking at BAT as a replacement. "OH hey there is this new thing call BAT, Watch and Look are now obsolete" isn't how we should be viewing it. Each tool has its purpose, it's strength, weakness, its place. It is up to us to find which works best for our dog at their current point in their "rehabilitation". In my opinion BAT should be looked at as another possible method to help your dog. for some dogs it might be THE starting point. Or maybe it's something to progress too. it all depends on the dog.

I agree, it is another tool we can use to help our dogs along with all the other tools we have already learnt. The more we know the better it is for our dogs and us. Our dogs keep testing our knowledge so we can help them, not only do they test our knowledge they also make us use our brains to expand our knowledge, we have to change our thinking and keep changing it so we can help them.

We sometimes overthink things, this then causes us to be confused, we are thinking then as humans and not dogs and we need to get back to trying to think like a dog.

Our dogs are our teachers, it doesn't matter how much we read, if it doesn't work for the dog we have then we need to find something that does work for the dog we have. The more dogs we deal with the more we learn of different ways. This forum is very good for us to read and learn because it is about people's experiences with their dogs, they are all different even when the information on helping the dogs is the same, they are adapted to suit the dog and owner who then update their threads so we all learn.

I shocked a good trainer once by the way I used a clicker, after 4 years of trying to get him to come back to me because his previous owner had beaten him, I was told to try a clicker. I used the clicker to tell Joe it was safe when he heard it, withing 10 days his recall was 95%. The flexibilty of positive training is incredible.

[runlikethewind]

Hi

I raised the BAT theory thread in discussion - I hope it's been worthwhile. I think it's good to discuss new ideas (I know someone said it's not new but you know what I mean). I don't see it as over complicating things and it's good to break it down and understand these things. In discussing these behaviour modification methods, previously, the only element of BAT that I was confused about was rewarding walking away. Now in discussing this, I can see that to learn to cope with stress, there has to be an element of stress in the first place and this is why BAT probably works. The dog is still stressed (ie just below threshold, like all methods but probably more so with BAT) and then he learns that an alternative calming/less stressful sign can be appropriate instread of barking/lunging and the reward is walking away which is what the dog wants anyway. I also realise this is direct contradiction to some trainers here advocating 'I will always protect you from all worries'

I don't really feel that comfortable with it just yet. I like LAT a lot more at the mo because surely you want to get to a position where you don't have to walk away, just look at the person walking past, click treat. I have been using this, and my dog is starting to wag her tail (a tail wag of I'm interested in you; not I'm about to attack you) at strangers then look to me for a treat. I do then walk off I guess so I'm mixing a bit of both! I've been taking her to the butchers where I get some meat for them. One step further. I say look at the person and he throws little bits of meat to her out of the doorway. I see this counter conditioning as being easier to implement in real life situations than BAT.

The only thing I know I think you should be aware of is creating internal conflict when you involve others in your plans. ie You set the dog up to want to come forward but is it ready to. Clearly, that's up to you to read whether your dog is ready for the next level.

[Mattie]

Hi

I raised the BAT theory thread in discussion - I hope it's been worthwhile. I think it's good to discuss new ideas (I know someone said it's not new but you know what I mean). I don't see it as over complicating things and it's good to break it down and understand these things. In discussing these behaviour modification methods, previously, the only element of BAT that I was confused about was rewarding walking away. Now in discussing this, I can see that to learn to cope with stress, there has to be an element of stress in the first place and this is why BAT probably works. The dog is still stressed (ie just below threshold, like all methods but probably more so with BAT) and then he learns that an alternative calming/less stressful sign can be appropriate instread of barking/lunging and the reward is walking away which is what the dog wants anyway. I also realise this is direct contradiction to some trainers here advocating 'I will always protect you from all worries'

It is always good to discuss other ideas.

Some dogs, mainly rescues, can't take any stress, both Joe and Merlin couldn't cope with stress when I first got them, putting them into a position were they are even slightly stressed wouldn't work, both these 2 dogs had to feel safe and protected.

By protecting your dog you do get into a position were you don't have to walk away, if fact, if I can avoid walking away I will avoid it, I only walk away when there isn't any other choice. I don't deliberately tell my dog to look at something but they have the choice, they can look at it if they want, and they do, the more secure they feel the more they look. With my dogs it isn't the people they had problems with but other dogs. If I am walking only 1 dog which is rare, I can play with them as the people go past but as I often have 2, 3 or 4 dogs, I can't so they have to sit and "Watch me".

You can only work with what you have got, you can only work within your dog's and your capabilities, some will respond better to somethings but not others, it is up to us to find out what our dogs will respond and improve with. If it works, use it, if it doesn't work change it.

[Nettle]

Thinking on this, I thought we should remember what the dog would do if we weren't there holding it on a lead.

MOST dogs would run away. Not far far far away but away enough that the scary thing wasn't so scary.

Then they'd look at it to see if it was going to run after them. And if it was going to burst into flames/disgorge a busload of people/emit a jet of water/loud scream/anything else scary.

In their own time, such dogs would self-habituate to the scary thing, increasing or decreasing their reaction distance according to how they felt, what other stresses they'd had, if the scary thing acted oddly.

So - really - whatever we do and whatever we call it, that is what MOST dogs would do, and we are replicating it in a controlled situation.

By confining dogs on a lead, we prevent them from their natural response to fear. Flight is way ahead of Fight, Freeze or Fiddle About.


So - as Mattie says - we are maybe guilty of thinking too much instead of listening to the simple straightforward dog

[Nettle]

If a dog wants a fight - or to "play" then it isn't scared. So we are on a different subject. Which I can develop if you'd like me to.

Would you mind?

I'll start a new thread so it doesn't mess up this one

[runlikethewind]

Regarding dogs who want to flee, some don't - some reactive collies for example I have seen want the trigger to move away, by barking, even off lead. They seem to show no initial desire to flee and show their fear by barking and not running off (instinct)

I understand we have to listen to our dogs and protect, keep from harms way etc. but it takes us back to my original idea that maybe posters who come here asking for help with fearful dogs should be explained to that there are two stages. First, do this then next here are your options of programmes to help the dog. I think it gives something of substance for posters to work on.

I just cannot see how avoiding the triggers will somehow make the scary thing less scary in the long term. I cannot see how that is enough. Take me for example. I suffer from emetophobia.... I actually haven't been sick for ages (touch wood) and I do all sorts of OCD things to avoid being at risk. However, that is has not diminished my fear at all. In fact, I'm more panicky because if I ever feel slightly odd... I think oh gosh it's been ages, I'm going to be sick now, I'm not used to it, I'm scared. If I was perhaps exposed more often, then I'd get used to it oh it's not that bad... That is an extreme example but you see what I mean.

These programmes help the dog move on. Perhaps I am not choosing the words properly. I think what these programmes help with is showing the dog - look, it's not that bad. You looked at a man with a beard then, here is your yummy treat for doign so and great you're fine, let's run off over here!! I can see it working. Clearly, if someone is going to do something really out of the ordinary which then scares your dog, then that's not great but two steps forward, one step back?