Aidan

So do I. The evidence tells me it doesn't matter.

There is no doubt at all. Your average Golden is not your average Borzoi. Skinner suggested that genetics will provide variance in responses to different reinforcers, which is the simplest, most reasonable explanation that I have seen. I'd guess that he was more sensitive to discrimination, whereas Erik readily generalises.

Ah, OK. Yes, once you have the automatic orienting down you've got possibly the most important bit. Orienting can be a reflex (unconditioned response via the autonomic nervous system), and there are respondents involved in the example under discussion, but we are describing an operant (via the central nervous system) which has been conditioned using the 3-term contingency of operant conditioning: Antecedent > Behaviour > Consequence. The terms "voluntary" and "involuntary" could be a bit misleading here, we are really talking about ANS vs CNS, whether the hippocampus is involved or not. Things like blood pressure, heart rate, salivation, neurotransmitters etc are respondents and things like head turning, running, barking etc are operants. The early textbooks will tell you that respondents cannot be conditioned using consequences (operant conditioning) but bio-feedback disproved that (to some extent) and there is a lot of cross-over and multiple things going on at once within a complex organism such as a dog. Does a dog weigh up whether he will recall or not? Possibly, but it's not that simple. We do know that, done correctly, we can condition a dog to come back for a schedule of reinforcement using very ordinary reinforcers. Does this mean that we have made ourselves "more interesting than a kangaroo" - I highly doubt that. If the dog isn't conditioned to recall then the best we can hope for is to bribe him back, in which case he WILL weigh it up and we will need to be more interesting (valuable?) than the kangaroo. If we've been through a process of graded exposure and generalised the response we can get a very high probability of compliance even for trials where no reinforcer is available.

I hear this described as a classically conditioned response fairly often, I'm not sure where that began and there is some truth behind it (there are some respondents conditioned in a recall) but turning your head is an operant. That said, operant conditioning can be an entirely subconscious process even for humans, the most cognitive creature on the planet. If a dog is still weighing up the consequences of chasing the bunny as opposed to the consequences of returning, this is not a fluent behaviour under these stimulus conditions.

Most dogs have already been conditioned to a collar, and the first time you attach a leash to a flat collar you often get a very similar reaction. The head halter doesn't hurt so there is no penalty for trying to take it off. The process of counter-conditioning isn't that big a deal, you just have to actually do it and I see that many people lack the competence. Then there are some dogs who just clearly don't like them, and part of that aforementioned competence is recognising that very small percentage. I do prefer front-attaching harnesses for the general public - they are utterly fool-proof, though not quite as effective where someone might be injured by any amount of pulling. Prong collars are not available in Tasmania and also require a higher level of skill, although for the simple task of getting a dog to walk on a loose leash they are pretty much automatic (but that's not the only thing the dog is learning on a walk).

Sure, someone might use an e-collar in an escape procedure, for e.g So they press the button, call, then release the button when the dog starts to come. There is no appetitive at all (which is why I used the example). I guess we could say that we are weighing up aversives vs appetitives in this example, though, so other +R examples need to be considered. My dogs figure out pretty quickly whether I have a reinforcer on me or not. I don't bother trying to trick them any more (although I used to), they have been around long enough to know if I've opened the freezer or fridge or whatever. Yet they still come when I call even when they know I don't have anything to give them. I'm not denying that this would not eventually extinguish, but I don't need to have something "better" on me and I doubt I ever have had something better or even if the accumulated reinforcement history would sum up as something "better" or more "interesting" than chasing wallabies. Another interesting observation - I can walk one section of some hills I regularly walk and call them off wallabies reliably, yet if we pass through a different section where they have different learning histories they have very poor recalls. Behavioural science accounts for this, it's not a mystery, but I mention it because it's relevant to this discussion and quite a nice illustration, I think, of stimulus control and learning histories.

Zero. Why do you ask? You might want to read my post again for some clarification. My thinking is that to get a conditioned response in the required circumstance is that to train the response, you have to be at least as interesting as the competing stimuli. Define "interesting"? I take it to mean what behaviourists call "appetitive" and I don't think that is true. Reliable recalls have been trained with -R, for e.g. I have called my working line GSD off a live rabbit when she knew that all I had was some stable kibble, I doubt that would be as interesting as a live rabbit to her. I doubt any reinforcer that I ever gave her was more interesting than a live rabbit. But if you take "interesting" to mean "a noticeable feature in the field of perception" then I would agree with you.

Zero. Why do you ask? You might want to read my post again for some clarification.

How would such a response overcome an instinctive response hard wired into the dog, triggered by movement and selectively bred for for generations. That's what you're up against trying to call a sighthound off prey. I will never be more interesting than a hare to Howard, no matter how hard it is for him to catch one. I've heard all the stuff about "you have to be the most interesting thing there" - try matching a fleeing kangaroo for "interest". This is the problem that Mrs RB hit the nail on the head with - it's NOT about being "more interesting" than the kangaroo. It's about a conditioned response. The dog doesn't weigh up the options, either he is conditioned to respond under those stimulus conditions or he isn't. How you go about achieving that in a practical manner without devoting your life to it is another matter entirely! If you want a naturalistic observation, when wild canids hunt in packs they are still very attuned to what their pack mates are doing; i.e 100% of their field of perception is not devoted to the prey and it's pursuit.

If your cousin has physical limitations that would put her or her dog in danger then a head halter is a useful, responsible tool to gain leverage. You must spend some time initially counter-conditioning any adverse reaction the dog may have to the head halter. I teach dogs to put their nose through the loop voluntarily (using clicker training) before I do the clip up, then work on brief, positive exposures. I strongly recommend a double-ended (aka "balance") leash. The light clip is attached to the head halter, the heavier end attached to a flat collar. That way the dog is being walked on the flat collar, but the head halter is immediately accessible if required. Used this way, there is very little for the dog to protest about, after all there is rarely any pressure on the head collar. If fitted correctly (nose loop quite loose but not able to come off, head loop very tight so that it doesn't move about) it should be very comfortable and all the dog really has to get used to is having "something" there. This approach does require the dog to be trained to walk on a flat collar, and the sooner the better. Professional help is a good idea. I have seen no data confirming any risks associated with head collar use. A veterinary chiropractor wrote an article that listed no evidence but proposed a theoretical risk.

That's right, if there is a cognitive process it probably doesn't involve weighing up the options.

Controlled set-ups that build nurturing, "pack-drive" related behaviours. I don't know what that means! Suffice to say, it can be done I'd probably have to demonstrate. Basically you want the dog and the cat to be hanging out calmly together, various forms of restraint or protection could be used so long as they were used ethically. Both animals can be clicker trained.

100% of what? The issue is that we don't always get to define the scope.

There are certainly physiological behaviours associated with chasing prey but it's a myth that they "can't" hear you. They just need to be conditioned to respond in that situation. Genetics contributes here, gundogs are at the relatively easy end despite having very high prey drive, sighthounds and terriers are at the more difficult end.

Controlled set-ups that build nurturing, "pack-drive" related behaviours.

Apparently Flex Wheeler has been tested and is missing the myostatin gene, naturally occurring. I suppose in dogs we could selectively breed for it, as has been done with Belgian Blue and Piedmontese cattle. Steroid use is not unheard of amongst some dog breeders, not limited to racing greyhounds.

She would be double muscled, I would assume? They had a program on the ABC a while back that featured double muscled cattle - its a genetic mutation from memory - quite freaky looking! Not uncommon amongst professional body-builders either. Their bodies literally don't know when to attenuate muscle growth.

Does that necessarily suggest a strict linear system though? Define 'strict'. "Strict" is probably redundant but I put it in there for emphasis. Linear implies that the hierarchy is fixed, does not change. So if you were to make longitudinal observations over the life-cycle of all pack members would they always be in their relative position? At all times? Would this be universally consistent amongst all groups of CAOs? Amongst other breeds? It certainly isn't true of non-captive wolves, but I wouldn't expect those observations to hold true for domestic dogs in a variety of pet, working or breeding situations. Because they are better fighters?

Does that necessarily suggest a strict linear system though?

We have a VZ Acclaim Wagon, still a big, rolling lump of Commodore and not particularly fuel efficient but it will fit a large dog crate for the GSD and still leaves plenty of room for the Goldie, about a dozen retrieving dummies, balls, kids scooter and a pair of muddy footy boots.

I have the same problem, SK. I'm the same with televisions that are on stand-by. Mouse traps are your best bet. Peanut butter makes a very effective bait. A friend of mine gets 20 a day at the moment just by putting 5 traps around the man-hole in the ceiling and clearing them 4x a day. I reckon he needs to stop feeding his cat.

The trick with crate training, if you can take the time to do this, is to get them to be able to relax in the crate with the door open first, before you ever shut the door. When you do finally shut the door, you just close it very briefly and build up the duration. It won't solve your immediate problem, but it might be a good contingency for the future. Let me know if you would like more detailed instructions.

I don't use STFU, but I often use the WTF? command.

Another vote for walking her separately. Put the others somewhere secure inside and just let them howl, hopefully your house is relatively sound-proof. They will get over it eventually. See someone about teaching her to walk on a loose leash and also the resource guarding. Everything here is a bit out of whack to be honest. If she is howling at the door, she's not getting a walk. You can work on this in graded steps, this is one method that is easy to figure out: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1262 with this method you ask yourself "how calm is her behaviour right now?" then if it's as good as or better than the grade you have been working at, she gets to go for a walk. I'm not sure how you will go with that in practice without some instruction, but it's food for thought if nothing else.

You got the "automatic" part right but I had actually described how to teach the dog to bark just a couple of times instead of continuously. Some people like their dog to bark at the door, just not until their ears bleed.