corvus

We are sitting around tonight watching The Thing. This is entirely because Erik has a small history of alerting us to images on TV we would classify as "unnatural" in some sense and OH wanted to see if The Thing got the same treatment. Sure enough, Erik watched the dog turn itself inside out becoming a monster and leapt off the couch, ran to the TV, and loudly alert barked through most of the scene. He has also alerted at images of a plasticine person with their eyeballs stuck to a mirror, and a grinning, floating, ball-like character from a kid's show. It got me thinking... Presumably he recognises visual representations of things he knows from real life, like people and dogs. I wonder what criteria he uses to tell him when something known becomes something to alert bark about. I'm guessing the reason he's alerting is because it's still recognisable to him as something he knows, but has taken on a worrying edge with characteristics he has never seen before. He alerts, but settles quickly afterwards. I haven't been able to test it, but I'm imagining he would not alert the second time. And that got me thinking about the toy dog in the door of the Indian joint down the road that tricks children and dogs, with both of them treating it like a real dog until they learn it isn't. It's obviously a toy, but there must be something about it that is just like a real dog. The first time I saw it I thought for a moment it was a real dog, too. The first time Erik saw it, his hackles went up and he growled at it. He was only 12 weeks old, so I am guessing it hit the same button as people with eyeballs stuck to mirrors. Something that looks real but also looks wrong in some way? I'd love to hear anyone else's stories about dogs interpreting visual representations of things.

Spoken like a true spitz owner! They use skills like that for evil.

Some fires burn slow. It was a good 6 months before I bonded with my older dog. Even then, it took another 6 months to really blossom, and it continues to grow and change as he gets older. He was a very, very easy puppy and has grown into an easier dog. I adored him, but it was a long time before we really started to matter to each other on a deeper level. It didn't bother me in the slightest. The last baby animal I'd raised was a hare, and it took about 8 months to start seeing him as a creature that could be comprehensible, and several more months before we really started to understand each other. It wasn't until he was about 18 months old that we had made something special together. It took so long to understand him that once I did I fell hard for that animal. I am still wild about him 5 years later, and he pretty much actively avoids me. In contrast, my younger dog is 18 months old and we bonded in a matter of weeks. He was an utter charmer and I found I just got him. He's kinda like me. I think you just give it time. I expect it to take at least 6 months to get to know an animal. I've never not eventually found a connection, though. Sometimes it just takes a long time, and sometimes when I've made that connection I've found the animal doesn't suit me very well, but I've got to learn who they are before I know that.

I've seen the conditioned recall work with a dog that had 6 or 7 years of ignoring recalls behind him and a very strong prey drive. I'm told that when recalled over a short distance he will literally drop a lizard he's caught to whirl and recall. It didn't work so well when he was over a hundred metres away with a dead rabbit, but hey, it was a bit of a leap from dropping a lizard at the other end of the backyard. Just be aware that some dogs need more time and generalising than others. We spend a lot of time maintaining a good recall with our older dog and hardly any time on it with our younger dog. Our older dog's recall deteriorates fast if it's not practised. So when we go out with them we usually take recall treats and practise. It was good after about 12 months, but it does keep improving as time goes on, and he's 2 1/2, now. The other dog we were lazy with because he's never shown any interest in leaving us. He still has a recall that we practise, but we skipped long lines with him, and don't practise as much. The hardest bit is knowing when not to recall, I think. We found distance and obstacles to be the main pitfalls. It was fine if we had one or the other, but if we had both it was risky. Our older dog is known for blowing off recalls when steep slopes or water channels are in his path. Towards the end of an outing he gets tired and loses momentum tackling them.

When we both worked full-time our dogs would go 10.5 hours without toileting every day. If we got caught up it could be as long as 13 hours on occasion, although I wouldn't do that to them regularly. We never had anything to clean up and there was no particular sense of urgency from either dog to suggest they were distressed in any way. My younger dog has not had to do more than 9 hours, and that is stretching it for him. He seems to tick over at a higher rate than my other dog. If she's had SA before, it could be anxiety related. It is often something a dog is prone to. At any rate, I'd be aiming to set a rock solid routine your dog can use to tell her you're leaving for 12 hours. In this house, before we go out we take the dogs out to toilet, then they are told to go inside and sit and they get a small chew treat to distract them as we leave. When we leave for a day they have the added cues of us getting our gear together. For a dog that is not necessarily comfortable with being left, could you give her something that will keep her busy for a while, like a Kong? SA can be pretty complicated and there can be multiple causes, making it something best handled by a vet behaviourist, but a popular treatment for mild cases is the use of a leaving routine and/or the introduction of a special treat or toy that only comes out when you're leaving them alone. Kongs are popular because they encourage a dog to enjoy time alone, but I guess there are safety concerns leaving them with Kongs unsupervised.

It's totally worth the money.

Oh, I think frustration is generally at least a little bit aversive. I know it always is for me. But that doesn't make it bad or punishing. Personally, I think it's a good thing to teach a dog to cope with frustration, and if they can cope with it it does IME tend to make them more determined and gives them the ability to think through a high level of arousal. But in the video the dog looked to me frustrated with no means of alleviating that frustration and the only thing it was focussing on was the thing that was getting it alpha rolled. What's it meant to do? It's in no state to think of something new that might earn it a break. I think that's terrible training and the kind of thing that might set the trainer up to be bitten with some dogs.

Maybe I'm seeing this all wrong, but to me it doesn't look like the "correction" is for the mouthing. It looks like it's for trying to go at something it is presumably not meant to want to go at. It also looks like the only thing throwing the dog on the ground does is make it intensely frustrated after a while. I am put in mind of a mouthy, noisy puppy at Erik's puppy class that was put in "time out" for 20 seconds everytime she was noisy. She wasn't able to make an association between her noise and getting dragged away from everyone and grew increasingly frustrated. It was sad to watch. Eventually she shut up haphazardly and the trainer declared the method had worked once again. I think frustration is absolutely aversive to an animal. Just because it doesn't suppress behaviour doesn't mean it's not aversive. Extinction bursts can be horrendous. It looks to me that they are basically trying to punish behaviour related to a state of arousal that is the root of the problem? Punishment might lower arousal to the point where the dog is able to learn again, but I don't know that I'd count what that guy was doing as punishment. Didn't seem to lower arousal to me, let alone suppress behaviour.

Maybe they don't know another way to talk? Or maybe it works well enough that they don't need to modify it much? Maybe one of the reasons we have dogs is that we could always 'get' what they were communicating and they can 'get' what we are. I don't think I was looking for another way that they talk so much as a differences in the way they behave towards us compared to the way they behave towards dogs. But you're right, those are all good reasons. Well, they sure don't smell like dogs and we know that much! But if they include a cat into their social structure, and a human, one would assume they would include a cow or a kangaroo if raised with one as well, although I doubt a dog would ever compete much with a cow. I think that social dominance doesn't have to be an intraspecific thing. If there's a contest over resources, someone has to win regardless of what the species is. So I wonder if the argument that a dog doesn't see us as another dog is relevant to how they might behave towards us socially. Sorry, I wasn't very clear in all of this. Some people interested in this topic might enjoy reading this chapter from Sophia Yin's text book that is currently available free online: http://www.lowstresshandling.com/online/ab...ed/chapter2.php. Turn the pages by clicking in the lower right corner. And ethologist Patricia McConnell has some sensible things to say about it as well: http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/the-c...ed-as-dominance

Of course they do. My point was, if they talk to us the same way they talk to dogs, can we say that they see us differently to other dogs? They aren't humans with a theory of mind. If their behaviour doesn't indicate it, what can we conclude? There is research out there that shows that dogs play with people differently than the way they play with dogs, which might support the idea that they see us differently, but if they behave differently, can we say they do so because they see us differently rather than because, say, they learnt different things work with us? My purpose in sharing this was to say I sympathise with the viewpoint, but I'm not sure that the behaviour at a basic level at least supports it. Surface facts are only good for what they tell us about more complex issues. It would be a lot more useful and engaging to comment on that instead.

I'd love to know, Diva. I keep looking for them, but dammit, I just can't find any. To the OP, just be aware that increasing distance between your dog and a distraction they want to get closer to may increase their frustration, which I always find to be quite detrimental and avoid almost as much as I avoid punishments. A frustrated dog can get more aroused, and that just makes it harder to get their attention. I think it's personal preference, but I tend to prefer to wait them out. My dogs have nice default behaviours. Usually if they want to go somewhere and they aren't getting there they'll offer a sit or down within about 20 seconds. It's much easier to get their attention, then, and I'd heel them back some with lots of rewards for paying attention and heeling. For us this is mostly for surprises, like the cat that jumps out of a bush and dashes across the road or something like that. Setups I try to keep really easy. If they are too distracted I'd wait for the default behaviour and get them farther away again and reassess whether this was in their capabilities or not. I figure if I ask them to do something in a situation they are not practised at doing it in, I'm essentially asking for something almost brand new. I also like the rapid fire treats. At agility training if we're not working our dogs they are to lie down at our feet. It wasn't easy for my Erik to begin with as he just wanted to get up and do stuff, but a high reward rate convinced him to stay put and over time I lowered the reward rate. We bumble along.

I used to think that. Earlier in the year I was given the task to build the basics of an ethogram for behaviour dogs use in communication with other dogs and whether they do the same to us. I was quite surprised to discover that when I looked at it strictly from a behaviour by behaviour perspective, dogs direct heaps of body language they use to communicate with other dogs to us as well. I think maybe I was wrong. I guess I would say tentatively that dogs don't see us as other dogs per se, but they do communicate to us as if we were another dog, and adjust their behaviour to best suit us. I think it's good to remember that most behaviour is learnt. However a dog may treat us to begin with, over time it will drift to behaviours that have a history of working. As far as pack structure goes, I find the more I look at it the more it seems like learnt behaviour. Consider human groups as an example. Each group has different dynamics, but we learn who the people that will always fight to have their own way are, and we learn how to avoid conflicts with different people. Sometimes we avoid conflicts by making a show of backing off whenever they get that look in their eye, or sometimes we might avoid conflict by giving the look ourselves. And always in the background is the weighting of getting into conflict against not getting our own way. I question why it would be any different in dogs. However, like in humans, I expect we get bold personalities in dogs. Take my Erik for example. He's not content to just accept that he doesn't get what he wants this time. He will try to find a way to get his way. He is bold and proactive and persistent. Chances are he'll eventually try threats and aggression if he gets thwarted a lot, even though he's a well socialised dog and he knows that threats and aggression are risky. Kivi avoids those risks like the plague, but Erik doesn't. If I were to let him push and then get his way, and then again, and then I suddenly noticed what was happening and next time he pushed I didn't give way, I could be in trouble. Not because he's a dominant dog so much as because he is a fast learner and he's very persistant and his assessment is that the risk in this scenario is low. Chances are, he will push back at me harder than ever in an extinction burst. If I get freaked out and give way again, then he's learnt that now he has to push harder. He's only dominant in that he's winning access to a contested resource. That's the definition of socially dominant. If I gradually change the rules, say I get him sitting for something else he wants that he doesn't push for, and then start generalising it to other things, then bring it into the scenario where he pushed in the first place, then it takes the contest out of the situation. Suddenly both of us are getting what we want. There's no contest, so there's no social dominance in that interaction. So I think it's personality and learnt behaviours. Different personalities tend to produce different behaviours, and different social groups allow for the perpetuation or proliferation of different social behaviours. Some dogs care more about getting what they want than others. When dogs live together they get a history of interactions to help them predict how they should behave in the next interaction. I don't call it pack structure because to me it's not very structured. It seems much more fluid to me than structured.

I saw this more about increasing genetic diversity and boosting population numbers than hybrid vigour. We all know that increased genetic variation makes for healthier populations as a general rule. The heart problem was not the only one that was showing up from what I heard. I seem to remember stories about kinky tails and other such things. The only way I know of to fix inbreeding depression is to increase genetic variation at the population level, i.e. introduce new blood. Whether it's the same subspecies or not anymore is a red herring of a question if you ask me. We were never sure that they were different in the first place, and the only thing naming species is good for is making sure we're all talking about the same critter. It provides a snapshot and nothing more. Populations are extremely dynamic and evolution of new species is occurring right in front of our eyes. You could spend a lifetime testing and retesting subspecies and changing their name and status to best reflect what seems to be happening at that moment. I think when it comes to panthers it's most helpful to look at them in terms of populations rather than subspecies, but that's just my opinion.

That depends completely on what you want to do with your training skills. Folks that are just starting out might benefit equally well from really getting to thoroughly know one approach. It's amazing what can be achieved with a solid knowledge of "just one or two quadrants". It may be worth asking yourself what kind of training you want to do and what the market is like in your local area. A lot of potential clients might prefer a dog trainer that "pretends two quadrants don't exist". I saw an article in Dog's Life magazine today that suggested the most important thing in selecting a trainer was that they use positive methods. Whether it's bollocks or not is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is what people are being told to look for in a trainer. I'd be seriously taking that into consideration if it were me.

I don't really discriminate between "trick" training and any other training. I use the same methods, my dogs enjoy it just as well, and sitting on cue is no more natural to them than walking backwards on cue or targeting a body part, really. It's all just behaviour. As long as my dogs are enjoying it why should I care whether it's cute or funny or makes people smile? They don't. I teach "tricks" both to hone my training skills and my dogs'. I improve my timing and reward delivery and learn more about how my dogs learn, and they exercise their creativity and their ability to think through excitement and problem solve. I think it improves their confidence to try new things and get rewarded for it. And we both have fun. Training is a favourite activity for my dogs. Erik especially just adores free shaping. We have fun both working towards the same goal. We get those little magical moments where it's almost as if the clicker and the food fade into the background and we're just jamming together.

Corgis are great, dependable family dogs IMO. Most I've met have not been the types to chase rabbits. My old corgi had zero interest in chasing rabbits. I raised a baby hare in my bedroom where she spent most of her time and the extent of her interest was to try to make him leave her alone, mostly. She occasionally ran at him to watch him bound away, but never actually chased him. She was a Pembroke. I don't know much about Cardigans, but I understand they are more calm and steady in temperament. My corgi was absolutely the kind of dog that would sit around in an unfenced yard waiting for people to come out of the house. She had a pretty good recall that I didn't train at all. Just a naturally easy dog. Kivi, my Lapphund, is also a naturally easy dog, but I wouldn't call his coat low maintenance. It takes a bit of time to keep him looking gorgeous. I also have a Swedish Vallhund, Erik. He is a lot of fun, but hasn't been particularly easy. He needs more exercise than the Lappie. He's the coolest little dog ever, brimming with confidence and very tough and game. He loves to chase balls and do other big dog things. He's outrageously smart, though. If I don't keep him entertained he'll find his own fun, and that rarely goes down well. I don't think they are a shoe-in for first time owners as they can be a bit quirky. Maybe it's just my experiences, but sometimes I think you need to be a bit unconventional to appreciate them. Or at least reasonably confident with dogs. And prepared to give them something to do with their minds. Erik NEEDS puzzles and problem-solving challenges.

I recently saw that diagram in New Scientist, I think it was. It's a bit hard to read! I hadn't seen that Science Daily article, though. I want a Canaan Dog. CD breeder told me that CDs whisper. Their body language is more subtle than most dogs, and they are known for being a bit aggressive with other dogs. The breeder suggested it wasn't so much they were aggressive as they talked in whispers and most dogs didn't notice. I found that interesting, in that I think wolves have a much more complex and subtle language than domestic dogs.

I would never get a show line Siberian Husky because they just don't float my boat, but man, those working line huskies are very easy on the eyes as far as I'm concerned! And they look so happy sledding.

Not a challenge, but I'm genuinely curious. Have you or anyone else ever seen that happen? I know a couple of adult mouthers and they do it very occasionally, very gently, and only to people they know very well. Kivi is one of them. He is unbelievably gentle when he does it, and it's usually coupled with near social ecstasy. Given there's only a couple of people in the world he adores enough to be ecstatic to see on occasion and they feel the same way about him, I never saw a need to stop it. I've never seen him mouth a stranger since he grew out of puppy behaviour. He licks strangers, but that's it. I know another dog that is about 6 years old that is the same. A very different temperament, but mouths extremely gently when in social ecstasy, and the only ones that get that treatment are the immediate family. I know a poodle cross thing at the dog park that mouths strangers in play. She's not especially gentle. I was quite surprised when she did it to me. I'd never seen anything like it before. I'd be interested to know how common it is.

I mean behaviourally. I was reading Karen Pryor's latest book and in the first chapter there's an account of a quick training session with a wolf. She describes a moment when the wolf stops and gives her a very direct, long stare, apparently assessing whether she was in or out of this game she'd been playing with him. It really resonated with me. I saw some wolves at an American zoo a few years ago and there was something in them that just wasn't dog by any stretch of the imagination. The way they moved and regarded their environment was quite different. I wonder if there are dogs that are like that, or more like that perhaps than other dogs. Thanks for the info, Mita.

I was guessing primitive breeds as well. I guess Lappies and Vallhunds are an old breed, but they are so not "grown up" breeds. They act like juveniles. I like the way I look at a wolf and see a serious, self-contained, independent animal. Humans are not something very special to them like they are to most dogs. I think that wolves are very different to dogs. I've always like Akitas and LG breeds because they look serious and self-contained.

I've heard it said that wolves are grown up dogs. Are there dog breeds that are more grown up than the average domestic dog?

So sorry to hear this. My thoughts with Vicsta and her family.

pups carry on at the drop of a hat. Terrorising is causing permanent psychological harm, a pup whinging for a bit or throwing a tantrum is nothing to be avoided. They do it with other dogs, their mother or the vet trying to give them a needle because they dont know how to just accept handling. :rolleyes: I avoid provoking puppies to throw a tantrum and have found it to be not very difficult and appears to have had no ill effects. I figure, why provoke one if you don't have to? They learn just as well without the tantrums and I don't have to find a way to protect my skin from raging puppy tanty. As a game? Isn't the point that it's aversive? How can you tell whether the puppy bites harder because he thinks it's fun or because he is responding aggressively to an aversive stimulus? A lot of people don't like Dunbar's method, and a lot of people do. It probably is mostly about how much you're willing to tolerate from your dog. As it happens, though, shaping is pretty effective and gentle way to teach or modify behaviour in dogs. I'm less interested in fast and more interested in gentle, especially with puppies, but that's my preference. I find shaping to be pretty effective and quick once I got the hang of it. I'd never recommend this. If you're happy with this fine but this can backfire majorly. I'm not happy with this and that's why I don't do it. That's the point. I think confrontational methods are playing with fire for this exact reason. I don't want to accidentally teach a dog that if they want their own way they just have to keep escalating and eventually they will get it.

How do you figure that's a nice method that doesn't terrorise puppies when you say yourself that they'll carry on and another poster recently had this method result in the puppy biting harder? If I choose a confrontational method, I had better make sure I'm ready to escalate it further than the puppy is. It's a slippery slope IMO. If the puppy hurts me enough to make me withdraw reflexively I've taught my pup that if it doesn't like something it need only bite hard enough to make it stop. We had success with our biter asking for sits before he got a chance to latch on, then asking for a slow heel to the nearest toy. He would try very hard to do exactly as he was asked. It gave us an opportunity to reward him for following directions and save our ankles in the process. AFAIK puppies learn most of their bite inhibition while still with their litter mates. I like Dunbar's method of finishing it off with shaping. It works IME. As long as the criteria keeps changing so pup doesn't get settled with one level of jaw pressure.