Dogs rock

Ok: Even in your initial training phase with the dog near the device, how can you guarantee that the dog will be looking at it when they bark to associate the visual cue with the auditory one, and then the consequence? I would also think that sun position would have an effect on the intensity of the visual cue (as an example, have you ever come across a traffic light where the sun is hitting it at just the wrong angle and you can't tell which light is on?) For a dog with normal hearing, yes, they COULD hear it, but a dog that is barking (particularly one in 'full-on bark mode') would be just as likely not to hear it, or not take any notice of it as it is irrelevant at the time. With regards to the interval of treat delivery, you can't 'hope' that the dog will be able to cope with a (lets be honest) dramatic increase in interval between treats in a short space of time, and working to get to this point is labour intensive for the owner (I know, they should care, but lets be honest, owner compliance is a big problem in fixing behaviour 'problems' in dogs). Is negative punishment less aversive than positive punishment? Well, wouldn't that depend on my emotional state and the value that I place on the behaviours and consequences involved? It is very anthropomorphic to think it is intuitive to assume what a dog would prefer based on our own feelings (which is a big problem in the dog training industry, for example the belief that 'shock' collars are 'nasty' because people think of electrocution not mild stimulation). I know that it is not the case in your device, but 'time out' is an example of negative punishment and I believe that there are dogs that would prefer a quick 'no' than being isolated from their social group. I realise that your 'why on earth would you buy an anti-bark device for a dog with different behaviour problems' comment is tongue-in-cheek, but if my hypothetical dog was being problematic due to boredom, then it is quite possible that he both barks AND digs holes (but I'm not going to get in trouble with the council for the digging so I address the barking). But you are correct, it may not associate the treat with the digging, but the provision of the treat in this form will do nothing to help with the digging, whereas providing treats in a treatball/Kong etc will be far more likely to be effective in treating both the digging AND the barking. However, if my dog either barks or digs (e.g. barks for a bit, then digs for a bit) then it is possible that the positive 'you're not barking tone' will occur when my dog is digging, thus reinforcing the behaviour.

I also can't see this working. On the Quirky page you mention that the visual cue indicates to the dog that the device is inactive - how will the dog pair this visual cue with their barking? It may work if the dog is barking AT the device (or standing close to it and orientated towards it) but if the dog is at the other end of the yard then I can't see how the dog would make the connection. Granted, you do mention that there will be an audible tone to indicate when the device is inactivated, however if the dog is not looking at the device then how does it pair the tone with the light with the lack of food treats? Also, if the dog was barking excessively at the other end of the yard then it is quite possible it wouldn't even hear the tone unless you made it quite loud, which would be an added annoyance to your neighbour (and let's face it, the tone also has the potential to stimulate the dog to bark). You also state in one of your answers that initially the treats would be dispensed at quite a rapid rate, with only a few seconds between each treat. Now, even for the largest dog, you are going to get through their daily food quota pretty quickly, and for small dogs I suspect you wouldn't even make it to 30 minutes (and that's being very VERY conservative - based on the general size of dog kibble and the daily portion of food for a small dog). Also, you say that it is based on negative punishment - how do you know that negative punishment is less aversive than positive punishment? Are there studies on this? Punishment is punishment - that is, it is an undesirable consequence that weakens a behaviour. How can you say which is preferable to the dog? Have you done preference tests? Another problem I foresee with this is that the treats are dispensed regardless of any other behaviour other than barking. You asked "why do you not want a dog to get treats all day long if it is being good?" (sorry, don't know how to quote as I very rarely write on DOL - I'm more of a reader than a contributor). What if I have a quiet dog that spends all day digging? Is it not possible (and in fact I would suggest likely) that your device would inadvertently reinforce other 'problem' behaviours in my dog? (Hypothetical dog, btw, so don't give me solutions on solving digging, its just an example). I do like that you are trying to think of other ways to deal with barking, as it is by far my most hated behaviour problem to have to treat. However as it is, I can't see it working.

Does the aversive have to be instantaneous? If not, perhaps you could have the same food in both choices, but perhaps use some ipecac syrup on the 'aversive' choice (ipecac syrup can be used to induce vomitting). Of course, I understand this may be tricky with ethics, but if you could perhaps find out how much ipecac to use to induce nausea but not vomitting they might accept it. I don't know much about the syrup myself, so of course you'd have to look into it to check all of the effects it has etc, or else perhaps there is something else that can induce short-term nausea. Then you would just need to have something 'different' about the two choices for the dog to make the association (such as a bucket present next to one but not the other, as a random example). Is the choice offered simultaneously (eg Y-maze) or separately? (This is not at all relevant to finding something aversive, I'm just curious). How many training trials? How many 'real' trials? I think generally it would be hard to find anything that is universally aversive that doesn't work on the dog's natural instincts and how they relate to survival. Particularly if you are using pet dogs (ie from different backgrounds), the amount of variation in aversiveness of sprays, sounds, odours, tastes etc would no doubt be vast. However, if you use something that relates directly to survival (eg 'makes me feel sick, not going there again') I think you are more likely to find a 'universal' aversive. Maybe...

The thing that bothers me is that the article suggests that trainers that use some sort of pysical punishment use it almost 'willy nilly' without putting conditions on it, and also that they don't use positive reinforcement along with it (which I think someone mentioned before). I know it was mentioned about sweeping generalisations, but I feel that it is a slap in the face to the many trainers out there that DO understand learning theory, and DO use punishment appropriately and with some clear rules for it's application. I think it is important to point out that these many knowledgeable trainers that have an excellent understanding on dog behaviour also spend a fair bit of time educating clients on punishments that ARE inappropriate and unfair. Punishments that Joe Public think are acceptable and start to implement with no actual understanding of the damage that they are doing (like the person who scares the bejesus out of their puppy by roaring at them, dragging them over to a patch of urine on the ground and rubbing their nose in it). There is also quite a bit of talk in the article about punishment being used on dogs with fear issues - any educated dog trainer would surely not actually use punishment in this case, as punishing fear does tend to make it worse, or at least doesn't really help the situation at all (as the punisher compounds the fear, not reduces it). I guess the real issue is that there is no regulation as to what makes a good dog trainer and an average one, so poor Joe Public is stuck with whomever he calls and thinks sounds good on the phone. And without regulation, organisations like the AVSAB do in fact need to be conservative in their views and make sweeping statements because, as I'm sure we all agree, there are also plenty of bad trainers out there too. For the record, in case you couldn't tell, I believe in physical punishment when necessary, but also make very sure that positive reinforcement for correct behaviour goes hand in hand. I don't believe that punishment alone is particularly effective (that IS where you would likely end up with a fearful and/or reactive dog), nor do I believe that just positive reinforcement works for all situations either. I think the key to success is having good AND bad consequences, depending on the behaviour. I feel that this leads to greater understanding in a shorter time period, as the dog can clearly see the results of exhibiting various behaviours. (Provided of course that there is consistency and good timing - something that all us dog trainers are forever hopeful of finding in each and every client). An anecdote to finish off... A couple of months ago I was at an obedience trial with my girl. Someone was admiring her and her work, and said how good it was to see a happy dog with a lovely bond with her owner, that had clearly been trained with positive reinforcement. I had to correct the lady and say yes, she does get plenty of positive reinforcement, but she does also receive punishment (including physical) when necessary. It is often said that the use of punishment (particularly positive punishment of the physical kind) breaks down the bond between dog and owner. I guess my kids missed that memo....

Although I realise this is OT, I would have to disagree here. I was not suggesting that, once conditioned, a treat should never again follow the click, merely that it doesn't need to follow every single time. Of course, if the treat failed to follow the click for an extended period the dog's association between the click and the treat would break down to the point of extinction. In fact, by having the conditioned click on an intermittent schedule it is actually more resistant to extinction. I know that when training my own dogs I can not use their 'yes' for weeks at a time, but the first time I say it to mark a behaviour they almost twitch in recognitition (not in a bad way, I just mean that their body language clearly indicates that they know they have done something right). I respect where you are coming from as you mentioned some very very respectable trainers, however are you positive that they say every single click must be followed by a treat forever? I remember a few years ago being questioned on this point, and a very good trainer friend and I looked in one of Karen Pryor's book (can't remember which one and it wasn't my book so I can't check) and confirmed that she too says that you don't need to treat every single click. I wish I had the book so that I could find the section.... sorry about that.

I don't think it is a crutch. Again, it depends on how you use it, but to me, a release word lets the dog know when an exercise is finished and they can once again do whatever (within reason, eg no chewing my shoes!) So my dogs learnt that "sit" means move into the sitting position and wait until I tell you to stop sitting (which is what their release word does). So the release word is just as important to the exercise as the command word. I think this makes it far easier for the dog to get it right, as the duration of sit is not ambiguous - they know exactly when they can stop doing it. I find even with the word stay there is still room for confusion - does stay mean 30 seconds or 30 minutes? With a release word, the stay command is not even necessary as "sit" means sit until I tell you to stop. Of course, it's all just my opinion - I accept that other methods work too, this is just my preference.

I agree with you that the dog should come looking for more work, pats or a game after their release word, whether they get a release for every single behaviour as mine do or at the end of the session like yours do. I think that as long as the dog has a good understanding that the release means you can finish THAT behaviour but doesn't mean to bugger off then you can use it as often as you like. I think the problem comes when the dog hasn't necessarily made a good connection with their release word (not that they dislike it, but rather they have learnt that it means that they can bugger off and do whatever they like). To me, the dog's release means that they are free to be a dog and have fun, pats, treats, sniff, play etc etc, but I ALWAYS expect my dogs to be attentive to me so that as soon as I give them another command, they are back working again. To help with this I actually play the command release game, where we may run and jump around together, then I throw in a quick command, and the quicker they respond, the quicker they get released and we can go back to jumping around. I find the motivation of a lot of dogs to increase with this high energy training game, as the reward is high and they spend far more time running than they do working (best for static exercises - sit, stand and drop). This could also be a way of decreasing dependence on food as the game is so much fun that the dog finds it rewarding enough without the food (of course, not all dogs find this game fun, but most dogs that like to run with you are pretty good at it).

I agree that the clicker or mark word should not indicate the release of the behaviour, but also think it should be pointed out that a treat does not always have to follow every single click. If you have truly classically conditioned the click (which is at least the original idea behind the clicker), then over time (after x number of repetitions) the click means food to the dog. That is, the dog 'feels' the same as if it got the food. If you think about Pavlov's dogs, they would salivate at the sound of the bell after it had been paired with their dinner. They reached a point where the presentation of the food was not required to elicit the exact same response to the bell from the dog. So JuleP's sequence of sit mark stand mark drop mark release is entirely plausible (for a dog that is new to the exercise or the pairing of the exercises - I would not use the markers for an experienced dog unless it was having trouble and/or was confused). The trouble with treating before the release is that if you always treat and then release, what's to stop the dog anticipating the release (if you usually immediately follow the release with the food). I personally think that you can treat before OR after the release, but in order for it to be successful the dog must have a clear understanding that the release word is the end of the exercise, and regardless of what I do it must wait for that word before ending the behaviour. (For this reason, I only reward after the release for beginner dogs). The problem that I see is that if you do treat the dog before the release, why would they wait? Where is the value in the release word? (Unless of course you primarily follow your release word with a game or other reward, in which case there is value however if you did it all the time you would effectively be double-rewarding every behaviour.) Luke W, in regards to your heeling, I'm just wondering whether you always follow the sequence Heel Sit Release Reward The reason I ask is, if you always ask for the sit before releasing, the dog is getting rewarded for sitting, not heeling. Remember, dogs pair consequences (good or bad) with the last behaviour that they exhibited, so it may be that your dog doesn't see heeling as rewarding (but probably has a pretty good sit). If you don't already do it, I would try asking for a very short heel (one or two steps if that's all Barkly can manage) and releasing him while he is in a good heeling position. Don't worry about turns, but just focus on getting what we call a 'happy heel'. You can lure if you want, but I would be giving the treat AFTER the release, otherwise the dog will only concentrate on the food for the entire exercise, and is unlikely to think about any of the words that you say. You could even try luring with one treat, but when you release, reward him with a treat from the other hand, which can sometimes help to break down the dependence on the lure. If the dependence is purely on food rewards (and not lures as suggested), then I would maybe go about teaching the intermittent schedule differently. I understood your post to mean that you are linking behaviours together and then rewarding at the end, and this is what the dog is struggling with. Can the dog do single behaviours, eg: sit, release on an intermittent schedule? If not, I would be working on this before trying to chain behaviours together. So maybe: sit treat sit treat sit NO treat sit treat (with releases after each sit of course) When advising clients about switching from a continuous to intermittent reinforcement schedule, I usually suggest following every 'no treat' behaviour with a treat the next time. That way, the dog learns the pattern that "if I didn't get it this time, I know I'll get it next time". Then start bringing the 'no treat' occurences closer together (might be starting one in eight 'no treats', then down to one in two or three 'no treats' - keeping it random all of the time), before throwing in a double 'no treat' (followed by a treat on the third one). I would then do this double every now and then, amongst a number of single 'no treat' behaviours. You do need to progress through the stages fairly rapidly - as soon as the dog gets it I would move on so that the new pattern isn't too ingrained (and therefore harder to progress from). Does that make sense? It's harder to explain in writing because I can't check that you're understanding as I go - if you're confused let me know and I'll see if I can clarify.

I think it is naive of us to assume that just because the true form of packing (to hunt to survive) is not essential to a dog's life anymore (because they scavenge) means that there is no longer any need for the behaviours related to this, including the necessity to form a social hierarchy. Prey drive originated from hunting behaviour, however we still clearly see it today. Yes, the goal of the behaviour may be slightly different (expressing an instinct now as opposed to needing to eat to survive before), but the behaviour still exists. So isn't it possible that although the survival aspect of hierarchy is no longer necessary, the instictive behaviours of forming such a hierarchy still exist in the dog? There seems to be a big assumption that the two MUST be linked - that you can't have one without another. Granted, they may have been co-dependent initially, but couldn't they have become mutually exclusive at some point along the way? Surely if they had to still be linked, then prey drive and packing would also have to be linked (for consistency of theory), and we therefore wouldn't see prey drive today. Theories are great, but it is important to remember that they can be correct, incorrect OR partially correct (thus making them theories and not proven fact). I think there is a big difference between the 'world is flat' people and the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people - the 'world is flat' people had only ever seen a flat world (they were the non-explorers who never saw any evidence to prove otherwise), whereas the 'dogs have a hierarchy' people see evidence to support their belief every single day. I agree that some multi-dog households are fluid in regards to who controls which resource when, but I have also seen a number of households where one dog controls ALL resources ALL of the the time. Control freak or dominant dog, it doesn't matter what you label them as it is the same thing. However, if there is a dominating or controlling dog, then there must be a non-dominating (or submissive) dog also. And with these two 'types' living together, this is a form of heirarchy. Is it essential for the survival of the dog? Not necessarily. But does it exist? Yes, in my opinion, it does.

Thanks kelpie-i. Sounds like it would have been a great seminar to attend. Are you organising his visit to Australia? Of course, I do realise that it is also entirely possible for the entire species to be wiped out - it all comes down to numbers in the end I guess. I love this topic! However I've only just started contributing to this forum and it's already kept me up past my bedtime... Not good.

I think it is hard to speculate as to whether disease would wipe out the entire population of dogs - surely that would depend on how many 'savvy' ones survive in the first place. Taking into consideration that most dogs can reproduce twice a year, if a reasonable number survive initially then it is entirely possible that there would be enough genetic diversity for the species to survive. Yes, there are diseases out there, but remember that we are talking about a species that will now be allowed to evolve without human interaction. Your point on becoming the hunted is entirely valid, however there are some parts of the world that I feel that the dogs would be fairly safe, at least in the short term (Australia, for example, as we don't have anything really nasty out there). Without humans, of course other species would potentially evolve too, however history shows us that evolution is a fluid process with cause and effect. For example, giraffe ancestors with longer necks survive as they can reach the food on the taller trees, the (even) taller trees survive as they haven't been eaten, then the tallest of the tall survive because they can reach..... etc etc.

Do you really think that all of the dogs would die if all the humans did? For the sake of argument (as who really knows unless it actually happened, and then we wouldn't be around for it anyway), I have no doubt that lots (maybe most - particularly the indulged ones!) of the dogs would die, however I think that there would still remain some savvy canines out there that could get by. Yes, they would be scavenging initially, but if they can scavenge from other sources (dead animals for example), and catch a few animals (rabbits, birds etc) then I think there is a chance that some would survive. If there were no humans then the dogs would be roaming free, and so the non-desexed (for the first generation) dogs could mate with whomever they came across, which would allow the species to continue. Granted, we would then lose a lot of dogs in the reproduction process due to the structure of a number of breeds, but the more stream-lined, street like dogs would be likely to continue. I guess then it would be a matter of statistics as to whether the species thrived or disappeared altogether. The dog as it is today would be gone, yes, but there would be an evolved form still around. I think. Maybe?

Ooooohhhh... Interesting topic. Long time reader, first time poster on DOL so please excuse me if I make any hideous mistakes. In regards to the street dogs becoming packs point, I would presume that it would be evolutionarily possible for dogs to re-adapt to true pack behaviour if it was necessary. That is, as kelpie-i said, they have truly exhausted all scavenging options, and have once again started to hunt. Although initially this is more a community-based behaviour rather than a true 'packing', if there were no opportunities to scavenge over a period of time (generations of dogs), then hunting for the survival for the pack (and therefore the species) would probably re-emerge. So I think that re-adapting to true pack behaviour is possible in theory, however I can't think of any situations where the opportunity to scavenge was eliminated for any great length of time (it would make a great research project wouldn't it?!?!)

Forgive me if I stuff this up - first post! I thinks its important to be aware that, from what I understand, the Delta course is a Cert IV in Companion Animal Services - not actually in dog training. The NDTF course is officially the Certificate III in Dog Behaviour and Training. Yes, the Delta course is dog training focussed, but the certificate at the end is not actually in dog training. That's not to say that it isn't a good course, just something worth knowing.