WalandLibby

Sylvia Trkman is well known, and apparently sometimes criticised, for holding the view that short training sessions are fine for young dogs. And she certainly has sound, fast dogs who love agility and Lo has had a long and successful career. Can't give a more specific link to her articles than this... http://www.silvia.trkman.net/ Click on 'our training' and then the articles list at the bottom of the page (Agility is good for dogs, pts 1 and 2). I don't claim to be an expert on this at all, but I can't imagine that ppl are told to stop their children jumping etc until they are fully developed. So I'm unsure why it's necessary for young dogs with normal, athletic build.

When a dog has had a scary experience, it's often better to avoid doing anything that might seem to predict another such experience for them for a while, if you can. Then, when they again are faced with the things that led up to that frightening thing, in a sense (and as much as possible) it makes those things new again, and reduces as much as possible the degree to which they predict the frightening experience. The idea that they should be encouraged to 'get back on the horse' as soon as possible is something of a myth, and more likely to cause their fear to have a long term effect on their behaviour. But other things, such as driving her to the park, playing with her tennis ball, having the chance to play with other dogs will allow her to continue to develop socially and have good experiences in the world outside your house during this time. Because obviously it wouldn't be good for her to stop taking her out in the world. When she freaks out, I wouldn't make her continue in the activity, if you can avoid it. But I would try to avoid letting her get to that point in the first place. With the car eg, I would let her stop and look, if that was what she wanted to do. This will require that you are paying attention to her body language, so that you notice her starting to worry about something before she completely puts the brakes on. I'd be talking pleasantly to her, letting her go at her own pace. In that case, she would probably check it out from a distance for a while, move towards it fairly slowly, and then, once she'd worked it out, be completely uninterested in it. She would also have had confirmed the extremely important message that you are supportive, reliable, and listen to her. This increases the chances that with experience she will realise that she does not need to react strongly to things she fears, because she knows you won't make her deal with situations that are beyond her ability to cope.

I guess if you're after a continuous intense stare into your face, yes, the dog won't maintain that while it eats. But it will probably come back to it very quickly after it finishes the treat. And that is perhaps the most important aspect of this behaviour - that the dog learn to choose to come back to the behaviour when it's attention is briefly distracted elsewhere. Personally first up, I'm just trying to get the dog to recognise that when s/he hears the word, food follows (in other words, the learning that is going on is mainly classical conditioning - like Pavlov and his dogs). The startle and look response to the cue then becomes something like our response to a telephone ringing - so meaningful, because of what it represents, that it's almost impossible not to respond to it. Then I move to developing duration, which requires the cue to become operant (the dog learns to make deliberate choices in order to get the reward) - it tells the dog 'if you look at me, at some point you will get the reward'. But like I said, the attention I'm after and that I reward is not an intense stare, but rather a general state of watching and listening (and wagging. :-)

When I went to a Sports Medicine Vet's workshop 18mths ago, she mentioned that she thought (at least some of) these harnesses could cause muscle injuries, because of how they strap across and rub on the shoulders and chest, an area where there is constant muscle movement as the dog moves. I'm not sure whether she'd seen such injuries, or just thought of them as a theoretic possibility.

Frenchs Forest is open until 11, if that's convenient.

Even if you don't actually have a hand signal for watch, I suspect you have a distinctive way of moving your body when you do it, which is probably a more naturally salient (sorry if I'm slipping into trainer-speak - just means that it is meaningful and noticeable to the dog) than using only a word. I point at my eye, with my hand beside my temple (although I'm not actually concerned whether he looks me in the face, only that he is engaged with me.) But I know that I also, without particularly intending to, look at my dog's face, lean very slightly forward and bend my head forward etc. All these things are noticeable to the dog, and will be part of the cue. If you were aiming for competition such multi-layered signalling would be considered very wrong, but for real-life training, I think all these things help dogs and let owners be a little bit more relaxed. Actually I think it's a good idea to teach dogs to respond to the body language I've described above deliberately.In another post a few days ago I wrote about how in dogs with long narrow heads, their response to movement is difficult for the dog to control (and their close, detail vision is relatively poor). Foxies and Lakies are a classic eg of this - to perceive is to respond, as they say of Foxies. So I would think about using hand signals when you can (although if you try to teach both hand and word signal together, you'll probably find that she hasn't even noticed the word you're trying to teach. I realised after 2 yrs of training Dinky that she had no idea what she should do in response to the verbal cue 'sit'. ). But anyway, Rosie's response will tell you whether she can tell the difference between the 2 cues. I use 'look', which I don't think sounds like anything else particularly. There are about as many different ways to teach most behaviours as there are trainers, so I'm not criticising anyone who does this differently, but this is what I would probably do to get more duration, I'd just keep treating without marking for as long as the dog stays attentive. It's not really going to add anything to the situation to mark here, because she is probably going to stay in the position anyway (and you aren't rewarding when she isn't actually watching you). The marker is most useful when you cannot get the reward to the dog at the 'correct' moment. Soft verbal praise won't do any harm, and it will develop/strengthen praise as a conditioned reinforcer. (One of the goals in training for me is for the dog to think that, regardless of what they understand of it, their owner talking to them is interesting, and to engage with the owner when they do this. This is one important aspect of teaching that.) Once the behaviour is a little more developed, letting the dog look away and get up when it chooses, and then rewarding it when it looks back and re-engages with you (both by asking it to, and by letting it choose to do so itself) is the next stage. At that stage I would mark the looking back, as that is a distinct 'moment' of behaviour that you would like her to repeat. I also believe in rewarding the dog for watching what is going on around them, while staying self-controlled. Obviously they have to be in a state of mind that they can take the reward (and if they aren't, then they probably aren't giving you any behaviour that is particularly rewardable anyway). Again, increasing distance might be needed, but it can usually shortened then pretty quickly, if it is done systematically. (On that, I believe that if a way of teaching is an effective way, then the dog will learn quickly. If you aren't seeing change in behaviour and that the dog is responsive and 'getting it' (you can see when they understand) within a session or 2, I'd stop and re-evaluate. I used to do something similar with my Foxie to what you describe with marking when you think she's about to break. (I've made every mistake in the book.) I realised after quite a long time of training that I was marking her for being disengaged. If she's about to break, let that one go. Only reward while she's really acting interested in you. Otherwise she doesn't have anyway of knowing what you actually want her to do. (I also found with my girl that I used to just try to react too fast, because she moved so fast, and could disengage so quickly, and that meant I was often marking things that I didn't want to, in almost all parts of our training. Bob Bailey (one of the great trainers) gives trainers permission to not reward if they mark incorrectly. Realising that the dog can't 'see' the behaviour if the rewards aren't given according to clear criteria, helped me learn to control my anxiety to mark when I really shouldn't have.) I wonder whether getting Rosie to look away from a food treat, to you, to get the reward might be stressing her out. I think this might not be helping build her 'food drive' (as she's learning to show less interest/attention to the food than she actually wants to).

Sounds like you guys are having quite similar issues. I'm not sure either. But it's probably better than isolating her from other dogs during this important time of her life. There are moments in every reward trainer's life (imo) where it comes down to 'it might be more effective to punish my dog at this time, but do I really want to do it to her?' and only the individual can answer that for themself. But having been there myself, I'd say little terriers are not easy to correct successfully. And if they're not paying attention to you when you haven't got a history of correcting them, they are more likely to be actively avoiding and trying to block you out if you start correcting them. I think it really undermines their trust and respect in you. Fortunately I think they are pretty forgiving dogs. But there is no point in offering food again and again to a dog who is telling you it isn't rewarding for her at that time. Your instructor must know how to reward with other things. If you're worried about ball obsession, only use it as a reward. When you use it to get her attention, do you then let her play with it? (It's not quite clear from the post.) Sounds like this might be the best reward you have available to use with her, and I'd make full use of it - it's a wonderful reward although not quite so convenient to use as food. My Dinky wasn't especially into balls (I taught her to play with them by using food rewards once she was adult, but there was no hint of obsession). So it wasn't an especially powerful reward for her, but my younger dog (Koolie) had that potential. I have rarely if ever thrown a toy more than 3 times in succession for him to make sure that he didn't get too obnoxious in his demands to play. We bulk out games with tug and catch me (all of which can also be used as rewards). No, perfectly normal. I guess this is because you've practised it with the food bowl and in the place/s where you feed her more than other places. And have spent more time working on duration - 'you only get the food when you've watched me for x duration'. Duration is best built through gradual withholding of reward for longer and through multiple rewards - one go, then another, so a dog learns that reward is not a cue to disengage. Interesting, she would only be doing this for food if she actually liked and wanted the food - she's working for it in this context. I'm guessing that you are using hand signals of some kind with watch and touch? If so she's probably responding to them rather than to the words.

The principles according to which dogs learn are close to universal, regardless of life-stage. Basically, what is punished occurs less frequently in future, and what is rewarded occurs more frequently. The challenge is that what we think about whether we are rewarding or punishing is not important - the dog gets to tell us whether particular behaviours have been rewarded or punished. And it is not only us that rewards and punishes behaviour - the environment also does this. So anyway, the challenge with dogs, like terriers, who are very passionate about (and consequently highly rewarded by) things in the environment, is to find things that are more powerful rewards than those things (usually better food), and to find ways (and it can require creativity and a fair bit of thought) to use those things in the environment that interest your dog as rewards. If they are things that you cannot humanely and with no drama or stress prevent your dog accessing, then I wouldn't do this (getting into an argument with the dog will be quite counter-productive and really bad for your relationship, both in terms of how you feel about your dog, and how she feels about you). Back to practical training - I'd focus on attention almost exclusively for the time being - for me this is far and away the most important thing, and almost all the basic management type things that are important for a dog can be developed from it. When you are about to let her off the lead, ask her to look at you first, then let her go when she does. When she wants to go through a (closed) door, do the same. Actually, any time (within reason) she asks you for something by making eye contact, reward her by giving her permission to do it. The goal is to teach her that by engaging with you and asking nicely, she can have what she wants. That she works well for you at home is great. Keep it up. Shear bulk of good responses to cues which are then rewarded, wherever they were done, tend to generalise. Increasing the distance between you and something she finds so interesting she forgets about you is also really important. When she engages with you perhaps you will be able to let her back to the other thing as her reward. You've chosen a terrier breed, so I guess you don't expect her to think that you are the only interesting thing in her world. I think terriers are good for our souls, mine certainly taught me to value what animals think and what they need from their lives, and that this was just as important in our relationship as what I wanted. I'd also suggest that you think of her adolescence as a time when she is learning so much about the world that it takes up a lot of her attention, rather than focussing on the fact that she is ignoring you.

Their vision in low light is better than ours, consequently they have less need for colour vision than we do (as it isn't much use in low light). This low light vision is vision that recognises movement. It's pretty normal for dogs to startle when they see their owners in the dark, and not be able to id them. And to have to search a bit for toys in the grass. There are also differences in how dogs with different shaped heads see. I'm not sure about the Border specifically. They have a mesocephalic (medium shaped head) structure, but it's getting towards the brachycephalic type (short muzzled dogs). (My Koolie for eg is also mesocephalic, but his head is much closer to the canine average than a BT's). Anyway, the longer, narrower a dog's head, the more response to movement appears to be hard-wired and difficult for the dog to choose to ignore, and the less close vision the dog has, and the shorter the muzzle, the more a dog's vision seems to be like ours, with increased awareness of detail and less automated response to movement. So I would expect a Border to show reasonably good close, detailed vision, as far as dog's go. There are lots of conditions that can affect dog's eyesight. If you're worried about talk to your vet. To test his vision (in a very general way) try dropping a cotton ball at various points in his range of vision.

So sorry.

I remember reading a site where there was a big celebration if a dog was alive 1 yr after diagnosis. That was a bit depressing. My girl was 12 when she got it, and her recovery was steady and unremarkable, apart from the worst case of ringworm from the pred (and apart from me falling down on my knees regularly to thank our vet ;-). She lived 2 more yrs, and was then diagnosed with a lung tumour, and died from complications after surgery to remove it. Hope your boy recovers as well.

Haemolytic anaemia? My girl (now deceased, but at a reasonably age and from another condition) recovered really well from this.

If your breeder, Rosie FT, has never seen it in their family of dogs, that's wonderful. In this breed there is a strong dichotomy in behaviour depending on whether the dog is show-bred or farm-bred (as mine was). My girl was not good with dogs outside our family, and when she got sick as an old dog, she also got really really bad with her brother - for 2 yrs I mostly kept them apart, which wasn't fun. I don't know whether there is much difference in rates of aggression in male and female Foxies. Female-female fighting within a household is often very scary and resistant to treatment. Have you read any of Brenda Aloff's stuff about her Foxie girls? Not pretty at all. I don't think of this as a breed that is any more prone than the average to resource guarding (although it's always wise, imo, to be prepared for this). When I look back, it was obvious that my girl was nervy and intolerant from puppyhood, and she had very little contact with other dogs until about 4 yrs, and as I've said elsewhere, I tried to use punishment, very ineffectively, and managed to convince her that dogs=mum being mean and made it so much worse. When I realised what I was doing, when she was getting close to the end of her life, I learned to build positive associations for being around other dogs, so that she could, for eg, be in a vet waiting room with causing a scene. But by that stage her skills for interacting with other dogs were not able to develop. There seems to be a fairly narrow window of development for these skills. If an owner can recognise risky behaviours that the pup is showing they can sometimes minimise them. Behaviours I'm thinking off include - intolerance of handling, lack of friendly behaviour to ppl or dogs as well as more strongly negative behaviour like stiffening when in contact with ppl or dogs, guarding behaviour. I think it's wise for puppy owners to read up on body language so that can be aware of what their pup is telling them it doesn't like. It's also important to keep 'socialising' a dog at least throughout it's adolescence, and ideally forever. Just like in us, their social skills require constant honing. (By socialising I don't mean crazy, ill-mannered play, of course).

Kay Laurence has info in her basic book (is it novice?) about presentation of treats. Presenting treats on the flat of the hand (takes some practice to get the action smooth) makes as big difference for some dogs.

Personality is a very fluid thing, and as dogs develop, their personality develops too. There is also a complex interaction going on all through a dog's life between genetic/physical factors that contribute to personality/behaviour and things that they learn. We can after all only see 'personality' through behaviour, and there is no doubt that much behaviour is modified in response to experience. Behaviour problems including aggressive behaviour are often noticed between 18mths and 3 yrs, which is when dogs are considered to become socially mature (obviously they are physically mature much earlier than that in most cases, but physical and social/emotional development are not perfectly in step). My view is, though, that if owners had know what to look for earlier, they would usually have seen that such problems were quite likely to develop in their dog. The proportion of ppl who believe that their young dog has no risk factors far exceeds the proportion of ppl with older dogs who think their dogs have no behaviour problems, in my observation. Adolescence is also a time when ppl often struggle with their dog. Although I believe that good, kind, respectful training that does not put pressure on the pup averts most of those problems (I don't believe that adolescence is a time of their deliberately challenging their owner, only of trying to work out the world, and if the owner makes that difficult, then the pup will appear to be misbehaving). Personally I have found that watching my dog's personalities develop throughout their lifetimes has been really rewarding, and I have got much closer to them as they have got older. Our relationships with them are no more static than those we have with ppl in our lives.