Aidan

I was going to bring this up. L-Tryptophan is an amino acid, one of the building blocks of protein. L-Tryptophan is present in most foods that contain protein (even small amounts), and is essential for the manufacture of serotonin. You need serotonin, it lets you feel happy, people who suffer depression or anxiety sometimes take drugs to increase serotonin in the brain. It also makes you less impulsive, less likely to BITE someone who pisses you off! Or less likely to break their legs if they step foot on your property... So a diet with sufficient levels of Tryptophan is important for all mammals, so that means getting enough protein. However, some of the OTHER aminos can fill up the receptors ahead of Tryptophan (my knowledge starts to fall apart here, apologies if this is inaccurate, it is definitely incomplete). Too much protein can be a problem in itself. By having some carbohydrates, you raise insulin, and this shuttles those larger aminos off the different parts of the body, building muscle etc leaving plenty of room for the brain to make serotonin from Tryptophan (there are steps along the way, but I'm keeping it simple for MY sake). Unfortunately this has been very poorly studied in dogs, and the whole range of factors is not understand in other mammals either. How we adapt to changes in diet, what we (as individuals) need, how we utilise these aminos - all that, doesn't seem to be well understood. Why do some people get depression and others don't? Why do dogs diagnosed with "dominance aggression" frequently respond well to drugs that increase the amount of serotonin in their brain? What studies have been done (and this is relevant to this thread) suggest that dogs who appear to be deficient in serotonin may respond to some of the following measures: 1. Decrease dietary protein to around 18% 2. Provide supplementary tryptophan (e.g "Behave", "Pro-Quiet", "Good as Gold") 3. Manipulate carbs and protein so that a carbohydrate meal (with tryptophan) is given in the morning, protein in the evening So certainly if you had a dog who was displaying symptoms of serotonin deficiency, an ALL raw meaty bones diet may not be ideal. That is not to say you have to feed commercial food though, and in fact most commercial foods will not fit the bill on their own. Commercial foods with a high percentage of protein coming from corn are an absolute disaster in some dogs, as corn is very low in tryptophan. Another factor, which to my knowledge has not been studied at all in dogs and I can find very few anecdotal reports, is the role of LIGHT in all this. Your body doesn't start converting tryptophan to serotonin until you wake up and get some light into your eyes. This is [partly] why some people suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder, and why nearly all of us feel better waking up on a bright, sunny morning (unless we drank too much rum watching the Storm blow away the Eels the night before...)

Technically this example is positive punishment. It is a punishing consequence (suppresses behaviour), not a reinforcing consequence (increases or maintains behaviour). I bring this up because if the OP is going to use a check chain or prong then the difference between +P and -R should be well understood first, particularly if dealing with a reactive dog. A good example of negative reinforcement happening naturally is a typical reactive dog. The dog experiences some stress or anxiety upon seeing another dog, barks, and the other dog goes away OR the handler takes them away from the situation. Either way barking at other dogs (or lunging etc) is reinforced. Of course this raises the question - what might be the effect of attempting to correct this with a punisher? It pays to be aware of all possible outcomes, then you at least have a shot at throwing the odds in your favour: 1. you might punish barking and lunging, mission accomplished 2. you might further increase stress (classical conditioning), mission failed 3. it might have no effect, the negative reinforcement of the other dog leaving might overshadow the attempted correction, mission failed 4. you might use the tool incorrectly and increase reactive behaviour, mission failed You are advocating the right approach though, and that is to seek competent help in a supportive environment. I'm not condemning the use of check chains, but I don't buy this argument. As we all discover the first time we try to train a dog, they don't understand english very well. They do understand reward and punishment pretty well though, and if you're going to use the latter, don't pretend you didn't make the choice to do so and blame the dog. If you put a check chain on a dog, YOU alone are responsible for what happens next.

I would just like to clarify, you can throw the ball and she will chase it and bring it back a couple of times? So will she continue to chase the ball, but just not bring it back, or does she not even chase it in the first place? There are two ways you can go, either teach a formal retrieve, or develop drive using tug: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/727 <this article explains how to start tug off correctly to build drive, and also teach the out. It's not a big step from here to a "play retrieve", you start using something you can toss instead of a rag. Just be careful with the teeth at this age, that can inhibit tugging and also retrieving.

Good idea, although don't just sit! Heel, drop, and recall as well. Get as far away from the other dogs as you need to set Kei up for success. If he is succeeding, you are reinforcing, if you are reinforcing, he will give you more of it. You could do this near an off-leash dog park as well, particularly if it is fenced so the other dogs can't seek you out as you get better and can move in closer.

I have two friends who trained goats, one for contracted weed control, the other for her Delta certification. They told me it was easy! Neither are on here, sorry.

Easy, clicker training using food, they like to eat. Is there anything specific you would like to teach your goat/s?

Without any doubt at all. Differential Reinforcement of Alternative or Incompatible Behaviour is a very powerful and efficient method of changing a response to a stimulus when used correctly. It works with reactive dogs, as well as overly exuberant dogs.

Get friends with dogs you know will play well with Oscar to help you out. Have your friend and dog on leash waiting about 7-8m from you in an area in which they can later play. Approach on a loose leash. If the leash goes tight, stop and slowly start backing up. As soon as the leash is loose again, begin to move forward. When you can make it all the way to your friend, let the dogs play off-leash for a minute or two. You can use food to reinforce loose leash walking, or as a lure to speed up the process in the early stages. When the dogs are playing, find a suitable moment for each of you to encourage your dogs back to you, give them a treat then release them to play again a few times before you put them back on leash so they don't come to think that coming to you means being put back on leash. Do not use your normal recall cue (e.g "come"), just encourage them, e.g kneel down, pat your leg, walk off etc Another approach is to habituate the dogs to each other with a longish on-leash walk before letting them play at the end. You could even do this before the loose leash exercise described above. Again, practise encouraging them to come to you intermittently, then release them to play again. Insist on a loose leash. I use a high rate of reinforcement (with food) combined with not letting pulling on the leash "work" for the dog; i.e dog can never move towards a target if he is pulling. It's like quitting smoking, you allow one drag and they're hooked again!

I wrote a very comprehensive article on this, explaining the most fail-safe way to train this and discussing some of the pitfalls. Oddly, it is one of my most popular articles on this site: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1171 I suggest you only put the bells up when you want your dogs to have the option to let you know they want to go out.

Not wanting to play tug has very little to do with manners, fear or obedience unless conditioned not to perform this activity (intentionally or unintentionally). I have demonstrated to several people how to teach their dog to play tug, many of whom were previously unwilling to play. The problem almost always lies with the handler either not being energetic enough, or inadvertantly moving the tug object towards the dog. In some cases, this can very quickly condition the dog to avoid playing tug.

I'm not sure that most dogs will do it at any level of drive. My Goldie needs a wide open space before he'll consider catching anything, but if the setting is right he is a ball retrieval maniac who will swim himself to exhaustion if allowed. Toss the same ball in our back yard and he will roll over and wait for you to rub his belly. The "small increase in arousal" that you describe is establishing operations for that dog.

Hi Corvus, I'm not sure if you're looking for a solution or an explanation? This falls under "establishing operations" in behaviour analysis.

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/727 - the answer to your question is under the sub-head "getting started" I maintain that nearly every dog can be taught to play tug this way.

^^This is the problem - "enticement". A good recall is conditioned, the dog isn't thinking about it, isn't making a choice. Whether the reward on offer is "better" than rolling in a dead possum carcass or going to play with another dog is irrelevant - they hear the cue, they respond without thinking about it. There are many good programs out there (e.g http://www.shirleychong.com/keepers/Lesson6.html ), each will have stages of progression. Until your dog has a really good recall it is best to avoid putting him into situations where he is likely to fail the recall. You can use a long line, or if you are somewhere safe and have time, wait for him or go and get him. Often walking off (or hiding as suggested previously) can help.

The three basic responses to stress or anxiety that we normally see in dogs are: 1. Flight 2. Fight 3. Frolic What you are seeing is "Frolic", which isn't always caused by stress or anxiety (sometimes it is caused by happiness), but can be caused by these.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, they generally have quite solid temperaments and plenty of energy and that has to come from somewhere up the line. Many breeds have working lines, particularly in Europe - Boxers, Airedales, Giant Schnauzers etc

Sleep? I've only seen Sabella (GSD) do that a couple of times in nearly eight years. I saw it last night, I'm hoping it was the Tryptophan supplement I've recently started giving her. She will normally only sleep when she's sure I am sleeping too, or not home.

I guess Vanilla Ice had to do something useful with his dance skills after his music career ended.

As someone who uses functional analysis on reactive and aggressive dogs I agree. It forms the basis of some planned protection training as well. It is learning by negative reinforcement, the 'bad guy' is removed contingent upon the response of aggression. It can happen with any breed, but the level of natural confidence and thresholds differ considerably between breeds (as a general rule).

Actually no that still wouldn't have helped An unsocialised working Anatolian is not even relevant for the comparison - as with any unsocialised dog you'd more than likely ellicit a fear response. I can understand your loyalty to the breed and concern for it's reputation, but don't blow this out of proportion or take it out of context. Livestock guardians were being mentioned as dogs who had a capacity for personal protection, what's more, without training for it. I was discussing the liability aspects and why it is best to choose a dog who is bred for this sort of work and train it specifically for the purpose if you want a personal protection dog to take into public. There is nothing more to read into it. It could have been any breed, but LGDs were being discussed. In fact I would rather see an untrained, unsocialised Anatolian running around my local park than an untrained, unsocialised working-line GSD (if I had to make the choice).

Isn't that assumed to apply to ANY breed? Yes, but LGDs were being suggested.

The probability is that it would be more of a liability than an asset from the perspective of personal safety. Some probable examples of why this might be: 1. the protection might be unwarranted 2. the protection might be excessive, landing both of you in trouble (better than not being protected, but better again if you can call the dog off when the job is done) 3. you might have a false sense of security, leading you to make bad decisions for your personal safety All of these points have been made in this thread already, perhaps having them listed here together might make it clearer? I didn't say "any untrained dog is a liability", I am talking about probabilities. Of course, this does not mean that they cannot be an asset in other circumstances from the perspective of personal safety. Some would-be attackers might be turned off by the fact that you have a dog. No-one chooses their attacker, unfortunately. Otherwise I would have chosen Gandhi to attack me instead of the 15 street-kids with weapons who did attack me when I was sixteen years old and making bad personal safety decisions. If you genuinely want a personal protection dog then your probabilities are greatly improved by training, improved further by breed selection, and improved further still by line selection. The OP has expressed a desire not to train her dog in personal protection, and expressed a desire to own a breed that would be naturally protective. In my opinion, and you may disagree, the odds of her personal safety being improved are not great taking this approach and I think "which breed for protection" is a moot point until other factors are considered.

Yes mum...

Yes. If I were training a PP dog this is what I would have them do, exactly the same as if I were with a mate and a deranged lunatic with a cricket bat came at us. He can't strike both of us at the same time and he knows it. I would also give the deranged lunatic an escape option.

There is nothing wrong with my standard of reply. If you want to critique my replies, then perhaps you should do so more specifically rather than just saying 'your replies suck' because that simply reflects poorly on you. I was very specific, I asked you to be more accurate. I did not say 'your replies suck', this is another example of you inaccuracy and misrepresentation. How very over-simplified and vague. I have neither the time or the inclination to repeat myself to someone who has no interest in reading and comprehending what I have to say. Those are all good points, and I have never argued against them. You wouldn't know that because taking the time to comprehend my posts would cut into your time spent trying to argue with me because you didn't comprehend my posts.