Ok, I am new here, so let me give you a little background information. I have a 14 yo mix dog-Teddy, a 2 year old lab-Brutus, a cat, 3 kids (13 yo son, 9 yo daughter and 8 yo daughter). The lab has always been my gentle guy.

I thought he was fairly well trained. We just want him as a family member, no shows or competitions. So we have taught him to sit, lay down, shake and will speak (sometimes). I have never worried about him being around the kids.

A week ago my 9 yo was putting him to bed for the night, he is crate trained. She said go to bed, he did, she leaned in his crate to pet him and he growled and snapped, he bit her on the chin.

We spent the last week working on his place in the pack. We have been taking turns hand feeding him. I have been putting the kids between me and Brutus.

Again, I was starting to trust him. Then yesterday evening, he was asleep on the kitchen floor, my 8 yo sat down next to him, reach out to pet his chin and he barked and tried to bite, he didnt but he sure looked like he wanted to. I yelled, he jumped up, I told him to go to his crate, he wouldn't. I had to tell him a number of times before he went.

This morning, he barked and growled at my neighbor who came to the door. I had to physically push him into his crate.

I dont understand the change in his behavior. I am scared of what could happen if I cant fix this fast. Does any one have experience with this kind of thing? What do I do to insure the safety of my family?

Sorry this is so long. Thanks for your help

[reeskujo]

The very first thing you need to do is get him to the vet....sudden aggression like that is a lot of times caused by something being physically wrong with the dog...You need to start by having a physical and some blood work done to rule at any health issues.

I agree..I would have him at the Vets office before sundown today!! Unless you know of an incident where one of the children has hurt the dog, and he is reacting out of fear,of which it will take time for him to trust again...But if thats not the case, Get him to the Vet.

Maybe he feels like he's higher on the totem pole than they are. Try making it so that he sees you as pack leader and the rest of his people come before him. Also, he might be biting them in particular because they might have hurt him in some way that he's still offended or scared by.

Ok, I took Brutus to the vet today. All checked out as healthy. I talked to the vet for a long time about why this would have occurred. Just as I worried about, we both think that something bad has happened to him causing him to be afraid of the kids. I am watching very closely and have the kids give him gentle lovin's and treats. I will continue to work with him as he feels comfortable with. He is also scheduled to start obedience training on the 16th.

Now that you've ruled out a physical problem, you are doing the right thing. You HAVE to establish yourself as the pack leader. The kids need to do this as well. Establish rules, boundaries and limitations now. He cannot get away with anything. Not one growl.

Your dog is establishing his role in the pack. They usually start with kids, as they are easy to dominate. Get the kids to make the dog sit before giving a treat. Let the kids eat while your dog watches. This is such a problem that I actually stoped my practice and designed a cheap solution so owners could learn step by step how to end this behavior. I wanted to make sure everyone could afford it because it is so important.

Chad Thompson
Certified Dog Trainer
www.VirtualDogTrainer.com

I'm not so sure the dog is reacting because of something bad that happened. First of all, at 2 he's just becoming an adult, and he's trying to assert his authority over the younger members of the house. Not that this is acceptable, and should be overlooked. It just explains where he's at, mentally.

The first incident happened when your child entered "his" space; his crate. He's viewing that as his own personal territory, and feels he has the right to defend it. It's resource guarding. Again, this is not an excuse. Just an explanation of what's going on from his point of view.

The second incident resulted from him being disturbed while he was asleep. Understandable, even if it's not acceptable. There's a reason for the old saying "Let sleeping dogs be". He was startled, he reacted.

Barking and growling at a guest? He's asserting himself, guarding "his" territory.

Understanding this will help you understand what you have to do. Obedience training is a wonderful idea. Make sure he's getting enough exercise. If he's not neutered, get that done. And start a "Nothing in Life is Free" program.

Hand feeding is OK, but making him work for it first will move things along better. Before he eats he has to work. Make him sit before he gets food. Make him sit, down, sit again before he gets food. Change it up, give him different tasks, but he has to work for his meals. The higher ranking pack members get to decide when he eats, and what he has to do to earn that privilege.

Also, make him work for attention. Don't allow him to demand that you pet him. Make him wait. The pack leader doesn't allow subordinate members to demand anything. If he wants a toy or treat, he has to work for it.

When you take him outside, make him sit and wait while you and the kids go out first. The pack leader goes first. That's why they're called leaders.

Any time you give a command, make it a command, not a suggestion. Don't repeat yourself. If you tell him to go in his crate and he doesn't, get up and put him there. It's not open to debate. He needs to learn that there will be consequences every time he disobeys, without fail. Be consistent. Go means go, sit means sit, down means down, wait means wait, and if you don't, there are consequences. There are ALWAYS consequences.

Dogs need a strong leader. A dog who has rules, knows the rules, and knows the rules will be enforced every time is a happy, confident dog.

Be sure he's getting enough exercise. Tired dogs don't have as much energy to get into trouble.

Last of all, and I cannot stress this enough, children under the age of 12 and dogs should always be supervised. Dogs are dogs. They are not little people in dog suits. At times even the best trained, most trustworthy dog will act like a dog. Teach your children to respect his space, to respect his sleep, and to understand that dogs can, and sometimes do, bite. An ounce of prevention costs a lot less than a trip to the ER for sutures.

Originally Posted by vetgroomer

First of all, at 2 he's just becoming an adult, and he's trying to assert his authority over the younger members of the house.

There is absolutely no evidence to this statement at all. Your suggestion that this is a rank issue is nothing but hearsay. Nor has it been proven that dogs view people as another member of the "pack". Pack theory is a construct that's weakly supported and proven in valid more times than not.

The first incident happened when your child entered "his" space; his crate. He's viewing that as his own personal territory, and feels he has the right to defend it. It's resource guarding.

I think we're attaching too much resource value on the crate. It's more likely the dog is fearing the novelty of being directed by the child, or the children have teased the dog in a way that would make him fearful of children. These are the most common reasons for dog bites...the dog is pressured into a situation where he feels cornered and reacts. As a resource, the crate has less importance than being cornered.

Barking and growling at a guest? He's asserting himself, guarding "his" territory.

I tend to disagree here too. Very few dogs have a concept of territory. Most dogs live in captivity, therefore and sense of territory is lost to the confinement. Again, he's most likely reacting to the novelty of the guest, not the intrusion of his territory.

The higher ranking pack members get to decide when he eats, and what he has to do to earn that privilege.

This too is a misconception. It has nothing to do with earning privileges. Who would thing eating was a privilege and not a need for survival? This is silly. Who eats first in a natural pack is dependent on priority of survival. Take wolves for instance. If the kill is small, the breeders would eat first, but if it were so small, the pups would eat first. If the kill is large enough everyone eats together regardless of "rank." These are the facts.

The pack leader doesn't allow subordinate members to demand anything. If he wants a toy or treat, he has to work for it.

Again, another misconception. The members of the pack don't stand around waiting for the "alpha" to start or end attention and games. This is just plain silly. Any highly motivated animal can affect the activity of its pack mates. And I find the relationship highly flawed if your animal can't ask for attention or fun. What a sad existence that would be. Why even have a dog?

When you take him outside, make him sit and wait while you and the kids go out first. The pack leader goes first. That's why they're called leaders.

Ah yes because there are doorways all over in nature, right? This too is an erroneous assumption. Dog's have no concept of what a doorway is. They have to be taught what to do at a doorway for their safety and ours, not because it has some meaning in a contrived hierarchy. In the wild do you think the "alpha" wolf leads the pack on a hunt? Wrong! Any wolf may forge ahead because in their culture hunting together is a necessity for survival, so they all know where they are going to hunt and they all know their job by their talents, not by their "rank."

Any time you give a command, make it a command, not a suggestion. Don't repeat yourself. If you tell him to go in his crate and he doesn't, get up and put him there. It's not open to debate. He needs to learn that there will be consequences every time he disobeys, without fail. Be consistent. Go means go, sit means sit, down means down, wait means wait, and if you don't, there are consequences. There are ALWAYS consequences.

Sure, there are always consequences for behavior, however, do they need to be punitive? Absolutely not. When a dog disobeys a cue (not a command), what does that mean? It means the dog doesn't understand the cue. Sure you can reinforce the behavior by punishing him, but how about teaching him the cue first and giving him a learning history rich with positive reinforcement for the desired behavior? This is probably the largest flaw with the dominance hypothesis, if the dog doesn't follow suit, oh he must be trying to take over the world. Silly! How about he just needs to be taught why the behavior is preferential over all others.

Bearded Lady, I couldn't disagree with you more. First of all, dogs are pack animals, whether they view humans as "members of the pack" they do respond with pack mentality. A dog who has reached his maturity will often instinctively try to "move up in rank" over those individuals, be they canine or human, they feel are weaker. That usually includes children in the family.

I don't know where you get the idea that dogs in captivity are not territorial, or wouldn't perceive their crate as a resource to be guarded. Of course dogs, even pet dogs, are territorial. Why do you think they scent mark? Why do you think dogs guard livestock or patrol their property lines? Why are my dogs happy to play with other dogs on neutral territory, but readily drive off strays from their own yard? Why do so many dogs greet strangers happily out on the street, but bark and growl at those same people if they enter the house? Could it be because the yard and house is their turf? Their territory?

Your example of wolf pack behavior isn't quite accurate. Sure, the breeders eat first...the only wolves that breed are the alphas. The leaders. They eat first. If there isn't enough to go around, too bad for the subordinates. The pack leaders decide who eats and who has to wait.

Dogs in a human environment are not wolves. If we are trying to enforce leadership, sometimes we have to impress on them that as leaders they have to wait until we decide they can eat. Anyone who has implemented a Nothing in Life is Free program will tell you that it causes a swift change in the dog's attitude. We are not trying to be wolves or dogs, we are teaching an adaptable animal to live by human rules. And it works.

There is also a huge difference between a dog who's asking for attention and play, and one who is demanding it. It's the difference between a child who asks for a drink of water and one that demands you stop everything and give them everything they want. Now! The former gets a drink of water. The later should be put on restrictions until they learn some manners. Dogs are no different. Polite dogs get attention and play. Demanding dogs have to earn it by learning manners.

Of course there are no doorways in nature. I never said anything like that. Again, we are teaching a dog to respect human rules by establishing ourselves as their leaders. Wolves may forage freely, but have you ever witnessed a well trained sled team? Does the wheel dog try to forge ahead of the lead dog? No. Do any of the dogs on the team deviate from where the leader is leading? No. Do all of the dogs follow the lead of the human who is in control? Yes. If we want to impress upon our dogs that we are leaders, we lead them. We do not follow them. We do not allow them to bolt out the door, because it's rude, and it can be dangerous. Another situation where dogs have to learn good manners, and adapt to human rules.

You misunderstand the meaning of positive and negative reinforcement, and seem to assume that negative reinforcement means punishment. It does not. There is also a difference between positive and negative correction. Quite simply, in either case, positive means adding a stimulus, negative means removing one. A positive stimulus can be a treat and praise, but it can also be a tap on the behind or a stern NO!

Quite frankly, I see a lot of dogs who never receive anything but treats and praise, and they aren't all that pleasant to deal with. They have no manners, are pushy, and are pretty demanding, because no one has ever enforced NO. Some of them are down right obnoxious.

A dog who already know what he's to do when you tell him to go into his crate, but refuses to do so, isn't missing a cue, and he doesn't need to be taught what it means. He's being disobedient. What a shock! Dogs can be disobedient! When he's disobedient, he needs to be shown the error of his ways. Whether you add a stimulus or remove one, his disobedience should not be ignored.

Have you ever watched a mother dog discipline a pup? Does she leave any doubt in his mind that what he did isn't allowed? Does she have to teach the lesson more than two or three times before he gets it? Mother knows best! She is not tentative. She makes sure the pup knows she disapproves of his actions. She's fair, but she's definite. She's giving a lot of positive reinforcement, but it isn't a treat or praise. She's telling him NO.

Originally Posted by vetgroomer

First of all, dogs are pack animals, whether they view humans as "members of the pack" they do respond with pack mentality. A dog who has reached his maturity will often instinctively try to "move up in rank" over those individuals, be they canine or human, they feel are weaker. That usually includes children in the family.

I did not say dogs were not social creatures. We are all social creatures. My contention is with your assumption that dogs follow or need a pecking order, they don't. So any assertion that a dog's motives are due to rank is only as strong as the construct itself, which has not been proven with any packing animal on the planet, including wolves (where this nonsense is contrived). So your invalid construct leads you to invalid training protocols. This is my contention.

I don't know where you get the idea that dogs in captivity are not territorial, or wouldn't perceive their crate as a resource to be guarded. Of course dogs, even pet dogs, are territorial. Why do you think they scent mark?

Dogs scent mark to familiarize an area. Have you never seen one dog mark a pole only to have another dog follow right behind him to mark the same pole? If it were a territorial issue, why bother marking the pole and fight right then and there? Have you never heard the term "pee mail"? Scent marking if for communication purposes only, not to stake some claim on an object that has no value to the dog.

Why do you think dogs guard livestock or patrol their property lines?

They don't control property lines. They are bred to react to novelty.

Why are my dogs happy to play with other dogs on neutral territory, but readily drive off strays from their own yard?

Dogs do not generalize well, so it begs the question, how often have you allowed other dogs to enter your home in a training environment? How early did you socialize your dog around other dogs inside your home? This, not to mention barrier frustration as a result of confinement, and the reaction a dog can have to a dog on the other side of the barrier.

Why do so many dogs greet strangers happily out on the street, but bark and growl at those same people if they enter the house? Could it be because the yard and house is their turf? Their territory?

Again, dogs do not generalize very well so researching the dog's learning history in said situation is more prudent than asserting a useless construct.

Your example of wolf pack behavior isn't quite accurate. Sure, the breeders eat first...the only wolves that breed are the alphas. The leaders. They eat first. If there isn't enough to go around, too bad for the subordinates. The pack leaders decide who eats and who has to wait.

I'm sorry, no, your example is completely wrong and I suggest you read a book or two from David L. Mech, world renown wolf expert. My example is a direct summary from his work, and he has over 30 years of experience studying wolves...how about you?

Anyone who has implemented a Nothing in Life is Free program will tell you that it causes a swift change in the dog's attitude. We are not trying to be wolves or dogs, we are teaching an adaptable animal to live by human rules. And it works.

Your first mistake is assuming that NILIF is a protocol justified by the pack hypothesis, it's not. It's derived from learning theory and one of the first rules of applied learning theory is to maintain priority access over resources. This is the essence of NILIF, not to evoke authority or rank over the dog.

There is also a huge difference between a dog who's asking for attention and play, and one who is demanding it.

And the difference is the dog's learning history. A dog with a rough or short learning history will appear to those who don't know any better as a dog that is demanding attention. To those who do know better, the dog simply hasn't learned the desired behavior to your expected criteria, so more work is needed to reinforce said behavior. If you can't see this difference, or course you're going to evoke your rank and reach for punitive measures when a different learning history is warranted. Flawed!

It's the difference between a child who asks for a drink of water and one that demands you stop everything and give them everything they want. Now! The former gets a drink of water. The later should be put on restrictions until they learn some manners.

Ahh, so they do need to learn some manners, do they? And you think by punishing the bad behavior they'll learn the appropriate behavior? Flawed! How about teaching the desired behavior first, and using punishment later that are instructive!

Wolves may forage freely, but have you ever witnessed a well trained sled team? Does the wheel dog try to forge ahead of the lead dog? No. Do any of the dogs on the team deviate from where the leader is leading? No. Do all of the dogs follow the lead of the human who is in control? Yes. If we want to impress upon our dogs that we are leaders, we lead them. We do not follow them. We do not allow them to bolt out the door, because it's rude, and it can be dangerous. Another situation where dogs have to learn good manners, and adapt to human rules.

Your sled dog example is ridiculous. Their harness does not allow for one dog to forge ahead of another, so this physical test cannot even be conducted.

Doorways have no meaning to dogs, so your definition of rude also has no meaning to dogs. I agree the dog should sit for safety reasons, however the dog must be shown why waiting patiently at the door is rewarding. Now my dog cues me for a walk by sitting at the door, I oblige because she's that "polite". If she's cuing me with a patient sit upon grabbing her leash, does that mean my dog wants to be alpha? Or does she sit simply because I've shown her why it's rewarding? It's a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious to those who truly are "leaders".

You misunderstand the meaning of positive and negative reinforcement, and seem to assume that negative reinforcement means punishment. It does not. There is also a difference between positive and negative correction. Quite simply, in either case, positive means adding a stimulus, negative means removing one. A positive stimulus can be a treat and praise, but it can also be a tap on the behind or a stern NO!

I appreciate your feeble attempt to explain the four quadrants, but I think I need to be the teacher here.

A treat for a cued sit is positive reinforcement.
A tap on the rump for disobedience is positive punishment.
Repetitive leash jerks when demanding a sit is negative reinforcement.
Removing the dog from a play session for bullying behavior is negative punishment.

So before you lecture me on the terms of learning theory perhaps you should understand them correctly.

Quite frankly, I see a lot of dogs who never receive anything but treats and praise, and they aren't all that pleasant to deal with. They have no manners, are pushy, and are pretty demanding, because no one has ever enforced NO. Some of them are down right obnoxious.

This is called Reductio ad absurdium. To assume positive reinforcement comes with an absence of structure and criteria is to assume incorrectly. All you've described are the results of poor training execution, this is not dependent on methodology, nor have you described innate flaws in learning theory.

A dog who already know what he's to do when you tell him to go into his crate, but refuses to do so, isn't missing a cue, and he doesn't need to be taught what it means. He's being disobedient. What a shock! Dogs can be disobedient! When he's disobedient, he needs to be shown the error of his ways. Whether you add a stimulus or remove one, his disobedience should not be ignored.

No one is saying it should be ignored, there are just better ways of addressing the problem than constructing fantasies in your mind about a dominance hierarchy. Nor is it a stretch of the imagination to conclude the OP's child may not have a long training history with this dog as most children don't, or that the child knows which punishments are appropriate.

Have you ever watched a mother dog discipline a pup? Does she leave any doubt in his mind that what he did isn't allowed? Does she have to teach the lesson more than two or three times before he gets it? Mother knows best! She is not tentative. She makes sure the pup knows she disapproves of his actions. She's fair, but she's definite. She's giving a lot of positive reinforcement, but it isn't a treat or praise. She's telling him NO.

I find the need to be lycanthropic amusing around Halloween but not so much around dogs. There's no way you can mimic or duplicate the communication mama dog can give, you're human after all, nor do you need to. You can be a smart human and train your dog in a civilized way that also allows your dog to be a dog, and not some calculating creature spawned from evil.