Aidan

"Look at That" game from Leslie McDevitt's book is good for this sort of problem, there should be something on YouTube demonstrating it. It teaches the dog to be able to look at distractions without losing attention on the handler.

They'll do whatever works for them, with a bias towards things that are inbuilt and appropriate for their species or breed.

It would need to be tested in court, but I am almost certain that it would not protect titled dogs coming into Victoria. In fact, I can see this leading to legal issues for ANKC. If a dog bites a person and the prosecution discovered on FCI records that the dog was titled in SchH, the owner might be able to claim ignorance and that ANKC concealed information that, by law (not for any other reason), should have had the dog declared dangerous and subject to those restrictions earlier. Which would put the ANKC in an interesting position of either copping the liability, or defending SchH as not being "attack training"!

We research animal emotion and motivation for many, many reasons, including those you have mentioned. The hole in the skull thing was a joke, it refers to a process known as "Trephination" (which was at one time used to let out evil spirits) which is what we would still be doing if our money wasn't spent on scientific research.

The question was stated "even if they are used out of public view", so I suppose they could get a mention. One study investigated the body language of police dogs exposed to e-collar training, it was not particularly favourable. So it does get a mention in the scientific literature, but not as an isolated causal factor.

Watch it with the sound down first (first 1 min will be enough), then watch it again with the sound on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKdThJ-eGwE

I'll be interested in seeing them develop a 'scientific' way of working this out?? There are confounders, but determining (with statistical significance) whether an animal is experiencing enjoyment or not is not hard. My guess is that it might be the sort of thing they discuss in the seminar? At the most basic level, if the animal repeats something then there was a reinforcing consequence. So we can guess that if they sit, we toss a ball, then they come back and sit in front of you again, maybe they enjoyed chasing the ball? There are other behavioural measures, biological measures including biochemical markers (good indicator of enduring happiness or lack of stress), and we can even look at which part of the brain is most active. If we take a really critical look at all these measures, we have strong evidence that aversion can be used without diminishing "enjoyment" (or causing distress). So any scientific review of whether animals enjoy training or not would not necessarily support some of the claims that the RSPCA has made in the past.

Are they really all GSD, Nekhbet?! That's amazing. They almost look more like a heavy set dutchie or mally, especially the first one. The last two are the same dog aren't they? Hektor was his original name.

There does seem to be a lot of different opinions on why the GSD is angulated though..... The above refers (I'm guessing) to hindquarter angulation, which is what really counts and cannot be too extreme either way. The topline is less important in this regard except that it contributes to the angle at the hip. A really good German judge would be able to explain this really well! Where are they when you need them?

What is ridiculous? The degree of slope currently seen in some GSDs today. Ahh, yes I agree! I thought you might have been on some sort of rampage today

Yes, you're quite right. There are quite a few breeds who did this, but it is quite distinct from the work of Collie type dogs. I believe Belgians used to be heavier also, I'm not sure what they looked like but the distinction (back when the breed clubs were still being formed) was that Belgians were the more square types.

What is ridiculous?

It would be good if someone who knows a lot more about this than I could explain the various parts that influence the top-line visually, and the gait functionally. It is a bit more complicated than just looking at the topline. Hind-quarter angulation is crucial. I have an old book with judges critiques on historically important dogs, and it's really not as simple as looking at the topline. Some of them had sway backs, for e.g, which were criticised, but they had other good attributes.

I'm certainly not an expert, but this is tending: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMw4RxjCIzY There are no fences, flocks are grazed over common land. An existing furrow, or one that the shepherd has created provides a boundary and the dogs are expected to keep the sheep within an area defined (in part) by that furrow and also safe from harm. Of course they also have to gather and drive the flock, but the above video shows tending which is what they spend most of their time doing. Almost certainly, they would be less agile. There are always compromises. Their size would be the biggest problem, an 18kg dog could do the same job, but might have trouble with the livestock guardian aspect of the job. Even HGH trials involve protection work. I think it's a beautiful thing. Imagine that life!

I fell in love with a working-line GSD owned by a friend. Otherwise I would have got another gundog.

That's right, specifically those dogs are from HGH working lines. And they are clearly not Belgians, nor do they have the same slope as showline dogs.

That test would have some construct validity, but the ultimate test for the old shepherds would have been survival. Look it up, "UlfKintzel" on YouTube. Not an excessive slope, not continuous throughout the topline, and the tending style of herding is very different to the work of Collies, Kelpies etc Please note that I'm not making any sort of argument for the purpose of the GSD in the modern age. Just that the original breed standard was based on the best dogs of the day and this was the work they performed. They had significantly flatter toplines than modern showline GSDs, but were not square like Belgians.

Yet Border Collies, Kelpies, Cattle dogs, Belgian Shephers, Collies etc etc etc have nowhere near as much slope as GSDs. Considering that GSDs are rarely used for herding how does this argument stand?? I've never seen these other breeds performing the same style of herding (tending). The standard was set at a time when that's what this breed did, and this was (I believe) the reason given. Why should it change? I have many photos of these old dogs, going back pre-standard, and they are longer than Belgians and have a mild slope that does not cover the entire topline.

I don't know if it's a bad thing or not and I didn't make that judgement. Obviously it would be bad to "throw her in the deep end". And honestly, gentle collar corrections are often not particularly effective so I would usually aim to prevent access to the sniffy stuff (although my dogs are allowed to sniff, just not pull). If you have a dog who is quite responsive and you can just give a little jiggle it's actually more gentle than, say, the "penalty yards" approach of backing up which usually needs to be quite firm.

I was always told it was for better gait efficiency. If you look at "UlfKintzel" 's videos on YouTube the form following function thing becomes quite clear in a herding context, especially if you consider how much energy it takes to do this from sunrise to sunset. I cannot imagine some of the more extreme forms doing this work, even if they had the appropriately balanced drives.

This is one of the issues with "purely positive" training for loose leash walking. The environment will force you to lump, there will be distractions your dog can't handle. There are a few ways around this, you've found one. Dogs are born with the "sniffing is how I find out about the world" program and we want them to understand the "sniffing is OK when I'm off-leash, but when I'm on-leash I've got to do this other thing instead" program. So we're forced to lump. We could take it step-by-step, introduce distractions at a rate they succeed. Or we could stop them every time they tighten up the leash, either by jiggling the leash or taking a step away from the thing they want to get to, or whatever. Does that make sense? Your reply sounded defensive, I'm not sure if you meant it to.

Please don't take my reply as a criticism either, I was merely describing the terms used because the question was raised. A lot of potential is lost because people either won't split effectively, or correct appropriately. Then either the method or the dog gets the blame.

"Lumping" is an animal training term, it describes the process of the trainer asking for more of a response than the animal understands it is supposed to offer. A very obvious example would be to ask a 3 minute sit-stay when the animal has only ever demonstrated a 10 second sit-stay. "Splitting" refers to breaking a behaviour down into pieces so tiny that the dog is able to meet each criterion easily. So, if the dog can perform a 10 second sit-stay, you would then ask for a 12 second sit-stay, then a 15 second sit-stay etc You've broken down the 3 minute sit-stay into smaller pieces so that the dog can succeed and you have something to reinforce. When I started free-shaping behaviours I had a terrible time learning how to split, because I was used to lumping and correcting. This is not a value judgement on lumping or correcting, but if you want the best results from +R training you must learn to split effectively. "Make haste slowly" is the mantra I was given, the fastest progress comes with a bit of patience.

He makes some interesting points. Not sure that I agree with all of them but certainly agree with the basic message. http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/beyond-quantum

Where did PF say that she was totally against a GSD owner doing it? Where did anyone at all say that?