by Cage Cleaner » Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:39 pm
I'll clarify.
What I meant was that when an animal (not a bird, as stated above, obviously) acts out of line, the first and initial reaction would be to react back aggressively, and send a clear message that that kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. However, as soon as the animal knocks it off (sometimes they don't, immediately), you reward them with petting/treats/praise, etc.
I work with horses on a daily basis. Some of these horses are young and going through the phase where they try to dominate -everyone-. That is what they do in the wild at this age. They challenge the lead stallion. When a horse bites or kicks or acts aggressively (it's happened... many times) you smack him back, hard, tell him 'NO" very clearly, and act big. If he keeps at it, you might kick him. If it still keeps going on, you leave, get the whip out, and quickly come back so that he doesn't perceive it as a victory, and then carry on until it gets the message. A misbehaving horse is not a pretty picture.
This situation applies for when the horse is acting dominantly, not out of fear, obviously. I just say it so that bleeding hearts don't bring it up as a counter argument, heh. That is a whole different situation. There are other times, when one wishes to fix smaller bad habits (nudging, pawing, removing saddle pad from self) where one would just ignore it. The idea is that any attention is attention. However, this doesn't apply for when the horse attacks you.
As SOON as the horse calms down and displays signs of submission, you immediately let off and reward him. Both by stopping the negative reinforcement, as well as by giving pets, kisses, treats, whatever, etc. So, the point in my previous post was that you do use strong negative reinforcement to correct behavior immediately, but what was left unstated was that it's also backed up by positive reinforcement.
I wouldn't know about the aquatic animals, although I have been interested in that, lately.