Aidan

My suggestion was not a possible test for "amicability", it was an example of something that we CAN quantify. We can count the number of times a dog barks in a vet clinic in the first 24 hours. If that information is useful (and I know of several experiments where it has been useful), then we have an objective measure. You still don't know why they are barking, is it fear, stress, seperation anxiety, over excited, etc, all of which should be handled differently or you worsen the problem. I know a lot of people struggle with the notion of dealing with large populations when each dog is an individual, but if you could set up a vet clinic so that barking - on average - was reduced then all those individuals who did reduce their barking were helped and there is more time to help those individuals who were not helped. How do you know if you don't have any data? Maybe it is a waste of time, maybe it isn't? (Just a heads up, there have been actual studies on this...)

Neither can I, I would like to hear Tammie weigh in on this if she is about. But from what KK has suggested, she is not counting the pecks, but finding a way to count them. No doubt there are still some strong arguments as to the validity of this, as you say, a peck is different to what has been described as a "trait". I suppose the problem with finding a way to measure something is that you have to begin with a hypothesis that suggests the "something" that is worth measuring...

Yet thousands do... why is that? In "free-operant shaping" you reinforce successive approximations. You don't wait for the dog to sit. You reinforce the little steps along the way, often tiny little things. It does require a shift in thinking and I think for many people, some good instruction. It's not for everyone, and it's not for teaching just a couple of things with, it becomes more efficient with use.

That is my understanding based on some of the things said in this thread and earlier. It would be good to get some clarification from Tammie herself, though!

But the fact that this is done under the name of "research" implies (to me, at least) that we can (or should be able to) use that information for ....... something. But unless outside factors that influence how many times chickens peck are taken into account, isn't the fact that they peck 100 times or 10 times fairly useless, save that it scientifically proves that chickens peck? I do not know Tammie nor was I at the conference, all I can go off is what I have read here. If the aim is to find a "peck counting method" then what anyone does with information is up to them, it is their responsibility to stick to the scientific process. But until you have a ruler to tell you how long something is, or a beaker to tell you how much liquid it produces, you can't measure it.

But that goes well beyond what KismetKat was suggesting. You CAN make a reliable claim about the number of times a chicken pecks once you have determined a method for counting those pecks. Whether or not that is analogous to what Tammie is proposing is something I can't comment on. That information is meaningless in isolation. You might end up with a mean rate of pecking per hour for that chicken. All you then know is the range and average times that chicken pecks, and if you have enough of a sample size, how many times chickens may peck. But it doesn't say anything about learning, motivation, global influences, interspecifc factors etc. KismetKat's analogy was to come up with a way to measure how many times a chicken pecks. A "peck counting method". If, in future, someone wants to come up with a hypothesis for learning, motivation, global influence - on PECKING - then they will need a "peck counting method" to gather data for their experiment. How that data is used or how an hypothesis is formed is a separate issue.

I think the example was chosen because it was so simple. There was a time when we didn't have units of measure for things like distance, or weight, or volume. Someone had to decide on a unit of measure, then have it accepted as a standard. Not quite so simple as we take for granted now. My suggestion was not a possible test for "amicability", it was an example of something that we CAN quantify. We can count the number of times a dog barks in a vet clinic in the first 24 hours. If that information is useful (and I know of several experiments where it has been useful), then we have an objective measure. It doesn't tell us how each dog got there and it does require an assumption that in-patient presentations to a vet clinic will follow some sort of statistical norm across a large enough population of dogs (e.g an average number of labs, an average number of terriers, an average number of dogs with broken legs, an average number of dogs who are blind etc etc) but we could test a hypothesis that "water spray collars and citronella collars are equally as effective in reducing barking in the veterinary clinic environment over the first 24 hours of admission" or "Classical music decreases barking in a vet clinic over the first 24 hours compared to no music at all" - and because we can objectively measure the behaviour, we can repeat experiments to see if they continue to provide similar results. By comparison, we can't form any useful opinions about 'leadership style' used with "dogs who present to a veterinary behaviourist for dominance aggression" because we don't have a way to measure "leadership style" objectively (certainly not through owner reporting) and "dominance aggression" does not have a definition so we don't actually know if dominance is the cause of aggression, or even if the behaviour was even aggressive behaviour (believe it or not, "aggressive behaviour" doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition!)

But that goes well beyond what KismetKat was suggesting. You CAN make a reliable claim about the number of times a chicken pecks once you have determined a method for counting those pecks. Whether or not that is analogous to what Tammie is proposing is something I can't comment on.

I'm pretty sure I see both sides of the argument. Until you have a way to measure "chicken pecks" you can't really prove or disprove any hypothesis regarding why chickens might peck more or less (things like environment, genetics, height of the bird etc) - after all, you can't even identify how many times a bird has pecked. Once you have determined a method for counting the pecks you can use that method in testing any hypothesis you might have as to why the chickens peck as many times as they do. If Tammie is just seeking to first define and then quantify a particular quality (or set of qualities) in dogs, which is what I gather that she is doing (I could be wrong), then that could be a very useful thing provided it is completely objective and not too much is read into it other than what it is. Currently in domestic canine behaviour we tend to look at things like "reported bite statistics" or "reasons to present to a veterinary behaviourist". These are highly subjective. If it's something easy to quantify and the environment is relatively stable, such as "barks per hour in a veterinary clinic in the first 24 hours of admission" then you can test hypotheses reasonably well against that data. If it's something like "owner-reported 'leadership style' in dogs presenting to veterinary behaviourists with dominance aggression" then you can't really use that for anything other wasting time and paper. Obviously, we all have our opinions and concerns about how something like this might be used based on some of the points and suggestions reported from the conference, but in my opinion this seems like a worthwhile pursuit if handled objectively and used responsibly in future (which is not really Tammie's responsibility).

There is a possibility that he has formed an association between food and feeling ill. One approach which can be very effective is outlined here: http://www.dragonflyllama.com/%20DOGS/Writing/TeachEat.html ...best to follow the instructions without modification.

There are lots of breeds already who will happily lounge around all day and appear to require virtually no exercise, companionship or mental stimulation. My personal opinion is that these dogs are not happy, willing participants in this lifestyle. It doesn't matter what you do to change a breed, to change a dog. It is still a dog, you can't change that. It's not a cabbage or a barnacle.

Just to put it into perspective, there are literally thousands of Schutzhund, Ring, security, police and personal protection trained dogs who are also perfectly good family pets. There are also hundreds of cases like this where the owner (or someone else) is bitten by dogs who are not protection trained. There is also a lot of really ugly, ignorant protection training going on. Unfortunately these trainers do sell dogs to people who do not know about the difference or how to spot it. Still, it is not something you hear about very often.

Given that this is probably relevant to the OP I'm sure they won't mind a small "hijack" Target Training: Present your fist or two outstretched fingers (you choose, keep it consistent) in front of your dog's nose. Don't thrust your fist into his face or anything like that, just present it a few inches in front of his nose. If he shows any interest at all - a full touch, a lick, a sniff or even a glance, click and treat. Put your hand away behind your back for a couple of seconds, then repeat the exercise. The aim is to have him "touch" your hand with his nose. Most dogs will just go to touch, get clicked and treated, then repeat. It's easy. Some dogs (usually those who have been trained to wait for a command) will wait and do nothing. For these dogs, don't leave your hand out there. Wait two seconds, then put your hand behind your back and try again. Be prepared to accept a minimum effort at first, just a glance or an air sniff. Don't be tempted to move your hand to your dog's nose. Your dog must make the decision to touch your hand with his nose, don't complete the exercise for him. On the other hand, don't present your hand 3' from your dog and expect him to get the idea to get off his butt and touch your hand. Have it just a few inches in front of his nose so his options are limited. The clicker is useful because it allows you to capture the moment that the nose touches the hand. It also allows you to weed out licks, grabs, or arm-touches if they come up. Once your dog is touching your fist or fingers (whichever you have chosen) with his nose reliably, build it up nice and strong. Then present your fist a little further away, make him actually move to touch it. Get him to follow you from one place to the next using your target. It's very useful for agility, obedience, conformation stacking, getting onto the scales at the vet's (they do this with Rhinos and all sorts of animals at the zoos). I've used it to get dog's to use stairs, to go through tunnels, to approach people that they are afraid of, to walk across wobbly bridges, to get horses into floats, to get cats to stay off the keyboard and sit somewhere else... A verbal cue isn't necessary, but some people like to add one. Presenting your fist or fingers is enough of a cue for most applications.

Sounds like Tango just doesn't want to end his outing ;-) Whereas with the Mal it sounds like something else, maybe he has seen or heard something that has him worried? Fear is not always obvious, hesitation and refusal to move might be the only signs you see and dogs are capable of hearing and seeing things that we don't notice. The fact that he will go in other directions is a clue but I don't know the full story. There is no reason not to use food treats. Every organism on the entire planet in the history of life on earth has had to work for their food, dogs aren't an exception. The problem is when the food treats are a "bribe", or more specifically, when they are an "antecedent" so that the dog will only do what you want when you have food on offer. This is easily remedied. One way to do it is to teach your dog to target your hand. This can be done for a food reward which can be put on a schedule of reinforcement once the behaviour is very strong. Very easy to teach with a clicker which bridges the gap between "behaviour" and "consequence". In the OP's case I would suggest moving in the opposite direction from which you were going that caused your dog to stop, then turn back after 7 or 8 paces. If he hesitates, put your hand out and ask him to "touch" with his nose (PREVIOUSLY TAUGHT at home). Whatever the issue is, particularly if there is any fear, this will get him THINKING rather than responding to his feelings. It doesn't sound like much but I can't tell you how many stubborn, cranky, fearful, or hysterical dogs (and other species) I have "fixed" with this approach.

My understanding is that affiliated clubs can't host Schutzhund trials, I'm not sure what other sanctions may apply.

I'm not sure if it will be obvious why this is relevant to the discussion at hand, Corvus, but you might appreciate this article by Bob Bailey: http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2002b/attention.htm The scenario you have raised is an "establishing operation" and it may help you to look at it in that context.

No I wouldn't expect my dogs to do security work - and I certainly wouldn't expect it without training - but we are talking about protective pets here. That was kind of my point In the interests of this thread, I'll tell the story about my Goldie. He was only a pup at the time, and used to sleep just outside the bedroom door. One night I felt him nudge me with his nose, I woke up and heard noises outside. There had been a spate of home invasions in the area at the time, mostly elderly people in the area who couldn't defend themselves. I could hear them at the front door, so Django and I crept down the hall very quietly. There were stained glass panes in the door and side-lights, and I could make out a person about to jemmy the door open. Django let out the most vicious growling and barking I'd ever heard from him or heard since, I yelled, and the would-be intruders took off. Luckily they couldn't see him. Golden Retriever puppies are not very intimidating looking but I've learned that they can sound intimidating if pressed. The thing that amazed me was his presence of mind to wake me by nudging me, presumably so that I could hear what was going on. If he had been barking I probably would have just told him to shut up. Then he kept quiet as we went down the hall, once the situation was assessed, he leaped into action. Had this been a couple of years later, with my other dog, well - I probably would have just woken to a bare patch of dirt on the lawn and an empty bag of lime...

You can have yer fancy iClicks. They are too soft and there is no chance of cutting a finger off. Wonder Woman ftw!!!!

There's nothing "wrong" with it, if that's how you are most comfortable then go with it. There is something to be said for learning how to become a really good free-operant shaping trainer though, both for dog and handler. You shouldn't be spending too much time sitting there waiting for things to happen, things are always happening but sometimes we wait for too much to happen before we click. Aim to click and treat about every 2-3 seconds in the early stages of shaping a new trick, if you're not able to do that then lower your criteria.

I don't agree with the premise that dogs from working lines are "generally unsafe in companion situations". Also, I think there is a bit of confusion in this thread. Obviously, lots of family pets will "step up" to a point and have proven to do so. I would not suggest it advisable that their owners would then be encouraged to go into potentially dangerous or risky situations relying upon those same dogs (as a security guard on patrol may do), even if they have shown good nerve and willingness to protect in other situations. e.g my Golden helped me dispatch two intruders who were attempting to break into my house during a time when there was a spate of home invasions in the area in which we lived at the time. Although he has "proven" himself in some capacity, I do not take him with me so that I can confront intruders when the alarm at work goes off, thinking that he will protect me.

Most of the on-line pet supply places in Australia have them, and many of the bricks and mortar pet shops. They are pretty common now. When I started using them I got a "Wonder Woman" clicker from a party supplies shop. They didn't have anything manlier than that...

I don't really know why one is more readily accepted than the other but I can tell you that in my experience, repeated over and over, fearful or anxious animals (not just dogs) will follow a target more readily than a lure; e.g floating a horse, taking a dog across an unstable surface, putting a cat in a crate etc

Some universities offer "Bachelor of Behavioural Science" degrees, which are very broad but you can major in animal behaviour.

My vet thinks I'm wealthy. I can understand how they have come to that conclusion. I think my vet is wealthy for the same reason. But seriously, if you don't have pet insurance - self-insure. Put something away somewhere safe and do not touch it even to get the power re-connected or to fix your broken down car. Assume that one day your dog will get sick and will need emergency care and that it will cost you about $2000. That's the amount I just gave my vet last week for emergency surgery, for the third time in this dog's life. If it isn't emergency surgery, it will be something else, like long-term medication.

Given what you have reported as the cause of barking, surely a trial separation is logically the most sensible thing you can do? Rather than speculate about what might happen, it won't do any harm to try. I don't want to cause alarm, but JRT housemates have a higher probability of fighting each other than the average across all breeds. This is not so much of a concern on it's own (there are lots of JRTs who live together and don't fight), but they are also littermates which increases the probability again. It wouldn't be a bad idea to get them used to the idea of being separated while you are out, if not every day then at least with some regularity. Just a safeguard so that if there is any tension between them in future you aren't changing the picture too drastically if you need to separate them for any period. If my dogs were playing this sort of "control game" with each other I would be teaching them to defer to each other and to me. Things like having one play tug while the other waits politely, tethered or crated if necessary, then swap - that sort of thing. If you came to me I would be looking at things like politeness around food treats ("doggy zen") and little things like that.