I've heard of it and seen it used. I guess it never bothered me. I don't use it on my dog, and I imagine it'd hurt the eyes, but I don't think it's any more cruel than people who use citronella sprays.

 

I think it depends on the dog. I would never use it on Cosette, because she is so timid and it's not needed. But I know some dogs that could probably use a spray to get their attention. I don't think it's meant as a punishment. It's meant more as a distraction.

 

If it stops the behavior, technically, it's punishment. And like with many punishers, it may work initially, but the dog gets habituated to it, then you need something more punishing to get the same effect. You know, I know people who use it. It seldom works very well for very long. I never know but what I may need some sort of topical spray for my dog. I'd hate for him to look at is as a punisher.

 

So you were shocked that she did it, but the dog deserved what it got? I don't get it.

Personally I don't see the point of punishment, I rely on management to prevent bad behaviour in the first place, while I work on good behaviours.

 

So you were shocked that she did it, but the dog deserved what it got? I don't get it.

The dog was definitely deserving of a punishment, and a harsh one at that. I just think there's no excuse for something like vinegar in the eyes. I would have let my dog know that I was extremely unhappy (low menacing voice, etc.), but I draw the line at causing physical pain, no matter how brief.

 

There's definitely another way to punish than this, I haven't tried it and I have no plan on trying it as far as my precious dogs are concern. Even if they get extremely disobedient, I'll still find another way than spraying them water+acid.

 

Well as pretty much everybody knows, I am not against proper aversives but lets just go a tad further with this one. Vinegar in eyes depending on the particular dog's eye make up could hurt for an additional time. For conversation sake let's say the dog is in some eye pain 15 minutes after being sprayed. Now never having had vinegar in my eyes I don't know what kind of pain (if any) would occur.

I'm not gonna volunteer my eyes though to find out. If there was pain for 15minutes I just wonder what the dog has learned from that. I'm just sayin'.........

 

Yeah, and also, what if the acid doesn't start stinging until 5 seconds later, when the dog could be doing something completely different? I would prefer a leash pop over acid in eyes any day.

 

I agree with wvasko, I am also not against proper adversives, but I think this is going a little far.

 

I used a water bottle with bella when she was a puppy, I also use it with the cats and the new puppy. I never squirted it in her eyes though Usually it was a means of getting her to stop what she was doing (usually getting in the trash or chasing the cats) from a far distance if I couldn't get to her to stop it immediately. It never had much affect on bella because she loves water.

On the puppy he gets sprayed if he barks at the cats. It's seeming to work quite well with him. Bark, spray and the "No! or ah ah!", and done... he's barking a lot less.

The cats have quickly learned that just seeing the bottle means they're doing something bad so they don't get sprayed much.



Now with vinegar... I don't think that's a good idea at all. I've heard of spraying things down to avoid chewing (sort of like bitter apple spray) but never as an aversive.

 

I cannot take credit for the term punishment callous. It was used in this list:
http://www.smilesandwags.com/Pat Miller's 12 Pitfalls of Positive Punishment.html

I thought it an accurate description.

 

Well, it's interesting you brought this up again. After our first week of classes, I never had to spray her again. Not only because I didn't want to, but I literally went to the instructors and told them everything I would do to help with Kimma's boredom barking. They agreed with what I had planned (redirection, use of a mat like in Control Unleashed, and removal from the class if needed, as Kimma LOVES training class), and she has been fine at class ever since.

Now with Kimma (sort of going back to some points brought up in this thread), she liked plain water. I had tried it on her as a pup, and she grew to enjoy it. So that didn't matter. With the actual vinegar/water (which was what the trainers at this new place suggested STRAIGHT AWAY without knowing ANYTHING about my dog and what we had tried in the past for this problem), all it did for Kimma was to make her afraid of the bottle itself. She still barked. So obviously, it wasn't working properly. She actually started barking AT the bottle.

I have had people suggest a citronella collar/spray for her, but honestly, most of her issues COME from anxiety (though sometimes she is just being a pain), so why would I use an adversive right off the bat? I'm not against use of an adversive altogether, but I'd rather see if I can change the behavior through redirection and other techniques first. And she has gotten SO MUCH BETTER since when she was little. People who have known her for basically her entire life (like the vet, people at the boarding place we use, people at the dog park) are so impressed with what I've done with her. So obviously something I'm doing is working.

We actually went to a local agility trial last week just to watch/get her used to the environment, and she was PERFECT for the first hour and a half! I had only planned on staying for an hour, but she was fine just sitting and watching, so we stayed longer. Approaching the hour and 45 minute mark she started to get a little barky, so I used redirection, removal, etc., and she was pretty good until we left.

Here's a link to the thread I had started about this, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/93841-spray-bottles-stop-barking.html

 

I have had people suggest a citronella collar/spray for her

Sigh. These things don't fix anything, don't teach anything, don't let the dog know what you want. and can make some dogs much worse.

so why would I use an adversive right off the bat?

Yep!

 

OMG, punishment callous! Why didn't I think of that? You hit the nail right on the head and described this dog to a T.

Puddin', you're right, this dog gives tons of signals before snarking, but they mostly get ignored. As you said, I think the dog is completely over threshold and doesn't belong in public settings (especially where lots of dogs will be present) until these issues are under control.

*Sigh* I'd lend the owner my copy of CU, but I'm thinking that's kinda presumptuous. On the other hand, management and aversives clearly aren't working, so something new should be tried.

 

lol I dunno - if it was attention seeking barking and snapping, I wouldn't put up with it, but that's just me. But I'm assuming this dog has been around lots of people at different events most likely. I don't agree with spraying in the eyes at all because that is a punishment, but vinegar smells bad to dogs and spraying it at a distance, not in the face, maybe the collar or shoulder to break the dog's fixation on whatever it is seems fine to me. I agree with those saying it isn't a long term solution, but what are your alternatives during an event when your dog is excessively barking and snapping at people? You could crate the barking dog, but not much else. Except leaving, I guess, which isn't really fair. If it broke the fixation my parents' dogs have (like when a toad has made it into the garage somewhere) we'd use spray bottles - but it doesn't work anyway, so we don't. To me, it's just a bad smell for the dogs and a wet sensation - nothing cruel about that unless you spray the eyes.

EDIT: and I just thought of an alternative: a watch me with a treat - takes a little bit of preparation, but not more than preparing your spray bottle.

 

lbut vinegar smells bad to dogs

well spraying something that smells bad certainly doesn't physically harm the dog. Yelling doesn't physically harm a dog either but it could hurt your relationship with your dog. It could scare your dog. Additionally, it doesn't make the dog feel better about the other dogs, nor the situation the dog is in.

It's take a lot longer and isn't easier, but desensitizing and counter conditioning works, it makes the dog feel better about other dogs and it doesn't harm the human/dog relationship.

break the dog's fixation on whatever it is seems fine to me.

Teaching a good solid "leave it" long before competiion can also work to break a fixation. Once again, vinegar is easier but it's definately not a BETTER choice.

but what are your alternatives during an event

Well, this is just me. But winning an event isn't important to me. The only reason I would ever go to an event would be because it's something that my dogs would enjoy. If the dog isn't having fun, then why are you there??

BTW, I don't compete in anything. So I don't have any first hand experience in this type of situation. My dogs go to training classes. If they don't enjoy the class, we drop out and we find a teacher or location that we like.
Or we drop back and work on making the dog feel better about the location.*
My dog's happiness is more important to me than me loosing the class fee that I paid.

which isn't really fair.

I don't understand.

nothing cruel

Like cracker says. You might start off not being cruel. But if you continue, then you start getting rougher and rougher. First it's water, then it's vinegar water, etc.. And maybe it is cruel to force your dog to be around other dogs when she isn't comfortable. Especially if there is a better way.

[EDIT: a watch me with a treat - takes a little bit of preparation,

Yes! Non aversives take time and patience and lots of proofing. They teach the dog what you want instead of scaring the dog and harming your relationship.

If this dog is doing this sort of thing often (which appears she does), then I think it's time to step back from competition for a few months and work on some issues.

..
* About classes for my dogs. Three of my rescue dogs are quite nervous. Some things scare them more than others. I found a non aversive teacher that I like. I want my Lupe to take a class with her, but for some reason, Lupe is afraid of the building. Instead of forcing Lupe into the building, I'm tossing treats on the ground in front of the building.
Eventually I'll get her inside. But I'm not forcing the issue. We'll get there when she is ready. Once she is fairly comfortable with inside the building, we will sign up for class.

Lupe only weighs 35 pounds. I could easily pick her up or drag her inside. But why put her through that.

 

Aaah my whole post didn't make it.

Long story short lol, I figured the dog was spectating while another one of the owner's dogs was showing - you wouldn't want a dog like that showing, I agree 100%. And I think if the dog is distracting, it's the owner's job to handle their dog. I would rather see spray used than the owner doing nothing - but an ideal situation would be a watch me, and socializing your dog of course - but for a short term solution, I don't think it's fair for the owner to have to leave and miss out on events with their other dogs because one is misbehaving.

 

I don't think it's fair for the owner to have to leave and miss out on events with their other dogs because one is misbehaving.

Okay. That would make a lot of sense - the other dogs are fine, the owner needs an immediate solution... but here's the problem: The person LEFT HOME WITH VINEGAR WATER. That tells me that she knew her dog was going to have problems.

That tells me that the show dogs should have went and the other dog should have stayed home. If it was an away competition, then a dog sitter or boarding oe left in the hotel room in a crate or take a friend along to walk her dog or pay someone to show her dogs while she stays were her non show dog at a non stress inducing distance. - something better than actually planning to squirt your dog with a burning substance .

I guess I could be wrong here. Maybe somone loaned her some vinegar water or maybe they sell it at the event IDK

 

Just to clarify a few points...

The dog was snarking at other dogs, but is friendly with people. Any anxiety the dog was feeling was over her space being invaded by other dogs.
The owner brought only one dog (plus the vinegar water) to the event.
The owner obtained the dog from a breeder as an 8wk old puppy. No previous owner to blame it on.

I agree with the idea that if the dog can't have fun cause they're too anxious, then it ruins the experience for everyone else. It ruins the owner's experience because they're too busy being embarrassed and disciplining their dog. It also ruins the experience of others who have friendly, leashed dogs, but still have to worry about where they step in case their dog decides to sniff the snarky dog's butt, or even step within 6ft of them.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that this dog is highly misunderstood by her owner and they do not have a solid relationship. I don't want to discriminate against dogs with space issues, but I think when the issues progress as far as snarking/growling/lunging, the owner should be asking themselves whether events are really worth doing. Then again, I've never had a dog with this issue, so it's hard to say what I'd do in this situation.

 

The thing about punishment is, it doesn't change how the dog feels about something. If the dog has a space issue with other dogs, punishing him for showing it doesn't make him more tolerant of having dogs in his space. It only makes him not show it. You CAN use an aversive to mask the signals and teach the dog to look at you and ignore everything else, but the dog is still anxious/annoyed with having other dogs in his space. This puts a lot of pressure on the handler to always make sure they see the other dog first, and redirect their own dog to look at them. If they don't the dog will probably lash out, with no warning, because warning signals get punished.

With desensitisation, you change how the dog feels about having other dogs in his space. You make him tolerate it, or even enjoy it. Other dogs become a cue to do whatever alternate behaviour the dog has learnt, like looking at the handler, lying down quietly on a mat etc. So the handler doesn't have to constantly watch the dog, because they have created a conditioned response where the cue is another dog entering his space.

 

Well said! I wonder if the owner has ever tried desensitization, or just went straight to the aversives. Hmm.

 

I see no difference between using a spray bottle with some vinegar and water, depending on the amount of vinegar, and citronella collars. Well, I see 2 differences, the vinegar/water combo is cheaper, and it's put in a spray bottle not a collar. And in some situations I don't have a problem with using either of these as an adversive. Oh, and if you get it into your eyes or breathe it in, it's a very short term effect which is not painful, unless someone has gone nuts with the amount of vinegar. It's happened more than once to me, that darn wind LOL

As for the rest, I wasn't there, I don't know the dog, I don't know the situation, so I don't have an opinion on whether her use of it was correct or not.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. You say if you get it in your eyes or breathe it, it's a very short term effect, are you talking from YOUR personal experience? Getting it in YOUR eyes, or breathing it YOURSELF?
If so, that is WAY different than if any of that happens to a dog. Dogs have thousands more scent receptors in their noses than we humans do. They are WAY more sensitive to smells that we are. Something that may seem to YOU to be short term and not painful DOES NOT necessarily seem the same way to dogs.

 

I completely agree with cracker - it sounds like a training issue. Dog are 'non-human' animals after all and can be unpredictable. To me it is an issue of owner control. We as dog owners need to be able to control our dogs or get the proper training on how to do so, especially if they are a large breed.

 

I'm sure some people/dogs getting sprayed in eyes etc with vinegar mixture would have no problem. With any pain aversive you will have people/dogs with high/low pain thresholds. The whole idea on DF is to just let owners know of possible problems. OP said trainer did the spraying and he/she hopefully would have some expertise with the spray. A newbie trying same action could have results that could cause a problem.

 

I have two barky dogs. I've tried a few different things to stop the barking; one I wish I hadn't. I tried plain water but it didn't curb the barking. Maybe vinegar mixed with it would have worked but I'll pass, thanks. I use it to clean my bird cages, not to spray my dogs in the face.

 

Sigh
For Ten Thousand years we have supposedly had a relationship with dogs. When/where did it all go so wrong? How is it that after so long, we still don't understand dogs even a little bit?

A dog defends himself and he is called "dominant" or "aggressive"

A scared and nervous dog is accused of being "stubborn"

A dog who doesn't yelp or cry or fight back has a "high threshold for pain" and therefore it's okay to hurt her.

We "train" dogs by hurting them, scaring them, making them uncomfortable.

Instead of showing/teaching dogs what we want, we wait for them to break a rule (that is known only to us) then we punish them.
Instead of rewarding good behavior, we punish behavior we don't like - even though we never presented the dog with an alternative behavior.

Ian Dunbar says that Dogs are easy to abuse because they are so forgiving.

In the Book, "Fight!.." Author, Jean Donaldson says, "Amazingly, in 2004, there is still discussion in some professional cirlces about the advisability of hurting dogs to train them. It's not suprising then that the public is lagging even further behind". (written 7 years ago of course)

Wouldn't it be nice if arguments were about timing of the clicker; use of "yesss!" versus "good boy!"; a fading schedule for treats; how to lure, etc..?
..Instead of whether or not caustic substances in a dog's face burns for 2 seconds or 10 minutes; whether or not shock collars are "safe", etc..

A Dog's Negative Reinforcement Anthem​

:fear:

Added:
To the last poster who had barky dogs, I suggest "Barking: The Sound of a Language" by Turid Rugaas: http://amzn.to/fa6NGY

For dogs who get upset in close proximity to other dogs, I suggest
"Scardey Dog" by Ali Brown - http://amzn.to/hLcuOf

A more technical book on this subject is Fight! by Jean Donaldson. Written more for experienced trainers. http://amzn.to/hDh1PG

My video on Desensitization and Counter Conditioning. This is condensed. The books contain way more details:
http://www.youtube.com/k9dogtraining#p/a/u/0/4WOFKPshhYQ

 

Sigh
For Ten Thousand years we have supposedly had a relationship with dogs. When/where did it all go so wrong? How is it that after so long, we still don't understand dogs even a little bit?

So the cavemen that lived with dogs trained with only positive reinforcement and never used adversives? Or even the people who trained dogs 100 years ago? Or 50 years ago? I think the use of adversives has been going on as long as people have been having a relationship with canines.

A dog defends himself and he is called "dominant" or "aggressive"

Sometimes they are

A scared and nervous dog is accused of being "stubborn"

Only if the person in question doesn't know how to read dogs. But not all misbehaviour can be written off with the excuse that the dog is scared or nervous either. Sometimes the dog simply isn't motivated to do what the owner wants.

A dog who doesn't yelp or cry or fight back has a "high threshold for pain" and therefore it's okay to hurt her.

How do you know the dog is being hurt? Like others mentioned, and I think even you, different dogs have different thresholds. So if a dog doesn't react to an adversive, it's just as possible the dog isn't being hurt, as that it's being hurt and hiding it. A spray bottle of just water is an adversive to some dogs, are people going to argue that is now also hurting the dog?

We "train" dogs by hurting them, scaring them, making them uncomfortable.

Or we train dogs by teaching them in a positive manner what we want, and then balance with proper motivation and applying appropriate corrections when they know what is being required of them, but do not do it.

Instead of showing/teaching dogs what we want, we wait for them to break a rule (that is known only to us) then we punish them.
Instead of rewarding good behavior, we punish behavior we don't like - even though we never presented the dog with an alternative behavior.

That would be your assumption, I personally don't know any trainers that train that way.

Wouldn't it be nice if arguments were about timing of the clicker; use of "yesss!" versus "good boy!"; a fading schedule for treats; how to lure, etc..?
..Instead of whether or not caustic substances in a dog's face burns for 2 seconds or 10 minutes; whether or not shock collars are "safe", etc..

I think those would be pretty shallow arguments that only scratched the surface. There is a much wider range of training techniques out there, and things people are training dogs for, personally I'm interesting in knowing as much as I can about all of them.

I do not suggest citronella for the same reason I do not suggest water/vinegar.
And, as, wvasko said, different people/dogs have different pain thresholds. I have seen many dogs with severe negative reactions to citronella collars, that lasted quite awhile, and seemed quite painful and upsetting.

And I have seen the opposite, dogs who barely even acknowledge the citronella, other than to maybe sneeze once or twice. Some even seemed to like it. Others it had the desired reaction, it stopped the behaviour without stressing or otherwise upsetting the dogs.

Frankly though I didn't chime in on this discussion to get into a long drawn out argument over whether using either vinegar/water or citronella was abusive or not, the OP asked about it and asked about comparison to citronella, I responded that IMO they are very similar. And made it clear I don't know the dog in question, the situation, etc so I don't have an opinion on if it was the right choice for this dog/situation.

And, that would be defeating the purpose, right? A dog that was having an extremely unpleasant reaction, whether actually painful or not, is no longer thinking about WHY they got sprayed, just that it sucks.

And, as some posts mentioned, if a dog has a bad reaction, be it vinegar/water, citronella, or any aversive, it can become even more anxious than it was to begin with, and redirecting or management is kind of lost on that dog.

Sure, if the dog has that bad of a reaction. But not all dogs do, actually I can't think of a dog offhand who I have met who had the type of bad reaction people here are talking about.

I don't believe that just because an animal isn't SHOWING pain, it always means that he's not FEELING it.

I don't believe I said that.

Of course there are instances where a dog is very driven and is super amped up, and therefore doesn't notice pain (much like a human would if they were pumped up with adrenaline), however, hiding pain is a defense mechanism for many animals. For instance, birds are obviously very fragile animals, but if a bird is hurt or injured, it does it's absolute best to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it. Its survival depends on not expressing its pain and revealing its vulnerability. If a bird were to go around limping and crying in pain, it would be like having a giant neon sign reading "All you can eat buffet" pointing at it for all of the predators to see.

It's been a long time since my dogs lived in the wild and had to worry about being eaten by a predator if they showed weakness. Although this may still be part of their natural instincts, I think it's long been modified by selective breeding. Otherwise we'd be seeing temperaments in our dogs a lot more like wild canines, where most behaviours or survival motivated.

Long story short, no one can say that a dog has a high pain tolerance, or isn't perceiving any pain, because it's very likely that the dog could be hiding its pain. Especially if the dog is already feeling anxious and vulnerable and its survival instincts are kicking in. Of course a dog will never be able to truly express exactly how much pain it is feeling, but there is one thing we DO know, which is that several of a dog's senses are much, much more sensitive than the senses of a human.

No, but at the same time I don't think we can say that the dogs pain sensors are more sensitive than a humans either.

The whole idea on DF is to just let owners know of possible problems.

And I'm all for that, but the general theme I'm picking up from this thread is that anyone who would consider using the vinegar/water idea is an abusive person who enjoys inflicting pain on their dog in the name of "training".

I'm simply pointing out an opposing viewpoint, that I don't think it's any worse than a citronella collar. And that like many other methods, when used correctly, I don't believe it's abusive.

 

I agree with one aspect of what puddins has said, I have a dog that will defend herself against I'll treatment & I believe that she should be able to without being quarantined or euthed & her head sent to test for rabies.

 

Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals. Modern humans aren't comfortable with that, so we make excuses, say it's "motivation" or "correction" or whatever. But really it's human nature, just caveman instinct.

Although I will say that I don't think the "cavemen" who were around when dogs first domesticated actually trained the dogs, using aversives or not. I believe it's thought to have been more of a mutually tolerant relationship than an actual master type relationship.

 

Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals. Modern humans aren't comfortable with that, so we make excuses, say it's "motivation" or "correction" or whatever. But really it's human nature, just caveman instinct.

Interesting. But so sad. A a little scary. Have your read this somewhere or is this an opinion based what you have observed. Just curious. Not disagreeing or anything. I know that Pat Miller and some others say that using aversives is reinforcing to the handler, but don't remember any further details on that.

I believe it's thought to have been more of a mutually tolerant relationship than an actual master type relationship.

Yes, I remember reading that and that make sense. I don't think training came into being until urbanization and industrialization (another wildly uneducated guess). Then the leash was invented and things probably went downhill from there (not that I'm against leashes). But I really am curious about the rise of choke collars, shock collars, yanking, alpha rolls, yelling, scolding, etc.. It's like we went backwards in our relationship at some point.

 

http://www.livescience.com/2231-humans-crave-violence-sex.html

 

Or we train dogs by teaching them in a positive manner what we want, and then balance with proper motivation and applying appropriate corrections when they know what is being required of them, but do not do it.

Yes on the above.

Humans, in general, DO like inflicting pain upon beings smaller than they are. We don't like to admit it, but causing pain/discomfort to other living beings is an incredibly reinforcing behavior. It makes us feel big and tough to have another being show fear of us, it gives us a flush of "feel-good" brain chemicals.

Whoa now, sadists yes. I hope that most of us aren't on that shelf.

You are correct in that the collar delivers the spray. And there are two types, the no-bark ones which trigger from the dogs barking, and the remote type which are triggered by the handler using a remote. But then the theory behind it comes into play, some people I know that use collars want the dog to believe it's the "hand of God" causing the correction (ie the dog has no idea where it's coming from, just that it happened). Other's want the dog to understand that they control the correction, and it comes from them. So in the first case there is less effect on the canine/handler relationship, in the latter case more effect. Wether it's wrecking the relationship or not IMO depends on the dog and handler, their personalities, etc.

I want dogs that I train to know who's doing what to who. I will take care of the relationship problem by being in charge of the reading of the dog whose relationship I am molding/changing etc. I believe a dog living in the world that thinks doG can reach down and smite him at any time for anything would/could possibly end up a mental wreck. That being said, this is only the way that I work my dogs.

 

Whoa now, sadists yes. I hope that most of us aren't on that shel.

*shrug* the studies show humans do get a rush of endorphins from aggressive behavior. Not sure that can be helped. We might feel bad because we've been taught that aggression is wrong, but that doesn't change the rewarding brain chemicals. People must find it reinforcing or they wouldn't do it.

 

I'm reading some very strikingly true points here from several members, and at the same time, learning from those. I'd be a reader for now.

 

The neurochemical released in our brains from aggression is dopamine. This is why when you finally tell someone off that you've been steaming about, it feels so damn good. But the real reinforcing thing for the use of corrections is that, applied forcefully enough and with the RIGHT timing, they do work...it suppresses or changes the behaviour, we are rewarded by THAT and so it is used again because it worked before. It's learning theory applied to the handler.

This does not of course take into account the long term effects on the dog.

Punishment is part of the learning quadrants because it works. Whether it is appropriate? That is a different ball of wax.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114103723.htm

This is also a great indicator of why it is so important through management and prevention to keep the dog (or human) under threshold while teaching a new behaviour or new response to a trigger. Since it is neurochemically self rewarding, keeping a organism under threshold prevents them from practicing (ie learning) the wiring in the brain that cements the process. Neurons that fire together, wire together.