corvus

The highest possible level of control doesn't always come cheaply, though. That's what I'm saying. There is more to it than the result. I didn't say they did. And I made no comment whatsoever on what may or may not be aversive to different dogs under different conditions after different experiences. I commented only on what I believe my dogs would find very aversive. I highly doubt I could ever build my dogs up to the point where they will keep doing something I have taught them to do while someone is being violent towards them. Heck, not every potential police dog in training can be. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as you are realistic about what is fair to your dog. But I wasn't arguing about that. I was arguing that police dog training methods should not be held up as the golden standard we all strive for because they are not suited to very many dogs in the first place. You know, I find that quite insulting to my and your intelligence. It's argument for the sake of argument, don't you think? Once again: Stressing an animal a small amount tends to help them more than hinder them, from what I have read and experienced. I certainly take opportunities that present themselves to push my dogs a teensy bit out of their comfort zone. I believe it boosts their confidence and helps them develop problem-solving skills. Every time they are stressed and cope with it quickly they are a little more relaxed about a stressful situation the next time. They get a dopamine hit from it, I believe. Yeah because obviously they're evil fiends who beat dogs to make them comply. Or maybe they just know how to use both correction and rewards effectively. I would be much happier if every dog was reliable and under effective control. Police dog training methods are not suited to very many dogs. Not because it is physical or correction-based (which it's not afaik) but because we are talking about big, drivey, aggressive dogs that may not even notice if you check them on a check chain half the time. I don't have one of those, so I don't think those training methods are right for me. It has nothing at all to do with having an ordinary pet dog reliable and under effective control. You don't need corrections for that. I know plenty of people that have achieved it without any corrections. Many of them are on this forum. With police dog training methods?? Because that's the only thing that's relevant to the discussion at hand. It's not a challenge I've issued, it's a "I would genuinely like to see it", because I don't really think that those training methods are suited to... well, a lot of dogs. Basenjis are just the stock standard difficult dog.

Hope your right, 'cause I was pretty freaking horrified by that!

Yes that seems like the ultimate challenge. I have seen a Basenji trained by a police dog handler to indicate on TNT - Primer Cord - C-4 - Ammonium Nitrate- Black and smokeless powders and different form of water gels but I did not notice whether this dog had the level of training to perform a nice heel. That would be cool to see. It is a hound with a good nose on it, so it's kind of beside the point, though, isn't it?

I'm interested in this, can you share more? Are you talking about extreme levels of deprivation? Yes, extreme levels of food deprivation. Knock the dog's weight back by 80% and they work for every morsel. If their performance is not up to scratch they get nothing to eat. One of the problems I understand are faced by trainers of any dog that works pretty much all the time is keeping them motivated. Lindsay was talking about dogs that were expected to work some 800m from their handlers for hours and hours as scouts.

Sorry for taking this thread off topic, but I thought that was a really good point. The problem to me is not so much the use of corrections or aversives in training as when they are used. Animals learn aversive consequences very well, but that is a big responsibility to anyone deliberately introducing aversives into an animal's life. I am extremely cautious about doing it and am unlikely to do it if I can't be sure that the level will be right, the timing will be right, I can be 100% consistent, and the animal won't be able to associate it with much else in the environment, particularly me. I have never punished a failed recall because I cannot guarantee the timing will be right, and I certainly can't be 100% consistent about it. The last thing I want is for my clever dog to realise that now is a good time to run away from me rather than recall.

Why should those dogs be the standard we all look to? Not many folks need a dog that damn reliable, and I don't know anyone who needs a dog that can do even half of what a working dog needs to do. Why shouldn't they be the standard? I see the standard as the best, and as far as level of training and control goes, they're the best. Well, it depends on what you mean by "the best". The methods used to train military, police and detection dogs are geared towards a particular type of dog. You cannot take an ordinary everyday pet dog and train them the way that police dogs are trained and just expect that to produce a dog that is as reliable as a police dog. And by "reliable" we are talking about carrying out their training when someone is trying to beat the crap out of them. Would you put your dogs through that? I wouldn't. It'd break them. It's precisely the reason why they spend so much money trying to figure out how to select dogs that will actually make it through the training. Most don't. I think it's ridiculous to look to a standard that is designed and suited to a kind of dog that most pet owners don't actually own and never will. They are not the "best". They are just the ones that can do it. No it's not like that at all. There's a difference between looking at the pinnacle and admiring it and trying to get there. Getting there takes more than just the right training. You have to have the raw ability to get there first. Because your dog isn't suited to it! It is cruel to put an animal through training that is inherently stressful if they cannot cope with it, doubly so if it isn't even necessary. I wouldn't be, because I have some vague idea of what goes into making them like that. See, this is what I don't get. So what if Delta trainers can't train military dogs? No one is asking them to. They only have to train pet dogs. Whether they do that well or not or even positively or not is up for debate, but beside the point. Everyone here only has to train pet dogs. The percentage of dogs in the world that can even DO military or police work in the first place is tiny. The percentage of breeds suited to it is tiny and the percentage of individuals within the breeds that can do it is tiny. So it seems like a ridiculous standard to apply to the whole of dogdom to me, and I often wonder why dog trainers are so obsessed with police and military dogs. I'd like to see a police dog trainer get a reliable heel out of a Basenji. Steven Lindsay at the NDTF conference shared what it took to train a military dog with positive methods only, and it wasn't very nice. He didn't really offer an alternative, though. Just kinda vaguely said that positive methods aren't always very good for dogs.

Why should those dogs be the standard we all look to? Not many folks need a dog that damn reliable, and I don't know anyone who needs a dog that can do even half of what a working dog needs to do. As far as Austin goes, some have an ethical issue with him because he's the president of the PIAA, which supports the sale of live animals in pet stores. He didn't strike me as the kind of person that trains with a check chain alone, and I did see him at the NDTF conference talking about using toy rewards and demonstrating what he has done with his own dog. I came back from the NDTF conference sick to death of hearing rubbish sexist banter from him, but that's my problem and has nothing to do with his dog training skills, which I understand are exceptional. The banter wasn't malicious, just misplaced IMO. My mate who knows him (and dogs) said once you get past the bluster he's quite sensible and knowledgable and takes dog welfare very seriously.

Kivi and Erik used to, but now Erik tries to take Kivi's as well and horde everything for himself. If it's a bone that has no meat left on it they often will, though.

Aggressive signals like growling and snapping are normal parts of canine communication. If you don't want to see it, don't put the dog in a situation where they feel a need to communicate their strong dislike of something. Otherwise, it's no big deal. A big deal is if it is inapporpriately strong, like if the dog actually injures another dog.

Sometimes it sucks being the one that cares, Nek. Hope someone takes him. Wish we were closer!

Aren't those bloody things illegal??

Okay, that sounds exactly like Erik. He tells you off. We say he has a potty mouth as well. He swears like a sailor. I always picture one of those obnoxious children that swear at you and kick your shins.

I think that goes for trainers as well as vets.

Well, I think it would be a lack of ability to generalise if it happened first. But it doesn't. It goes like this: I teach him something, say sit. It becomes his favourite thing to do and I ask for sits at the dog park, on walks, before going through doors, before meals, and so on and so on. Several months later when "sit" has been practised in a variety of situations and always results in good things, I might ask him to sit in a situation where he has never been asked to sit before. If it's a situation that doesn't occur often, he sits. But if it's a situation that occurs often and so has a history of its own that does not involve sits, I ask him to sit and he goes "No, I don't have to here." It's not because he's never been asked to sit here before so much as he's done this a million times and sit is not a part of this routine. He gets quite distressed about it. Much nervous lip-licking and averting eyes. Normally if he doesn't know what to do he will just default to a down or he'll poke something. It doesn't bother him much. He really doesn't like breaking a routine, though. Very resistant to it.

It baffles me as well. I'm like, Okay, I get that it's a nice beach for kids as well, but there are heaps of nice beaches for kids you can choose that won't have them screaming and clinging to you every 5 seconds because a dog is walking past. Why would you put your kids through that? How is that a nice outing to the beach for them? I can and do call my dogs in close and my boys are remarkably calm about shrieking children, but I think it's kinda rough on the kids. I've seen parents shout at the kids for screeching. It's like the people that hit their dogs for growling when another dog frightens them. It makes me sad. Why expose them to something that frightens them and then yell at them because they act scared? They have the right to use the beach unmolested by dogs and I make sure my dogs stay clear of them, but I still don't get it. Poor kids.

I've found massaging the throat to work well to stop it. It happens with Erik a bit and he seems to appreciate the throat rub.

We put Kivi's name into the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang song. "Kivi, Kivi Kivi Tarro, Kivi Kivi Tarro we love you." But that's all we know of the song. Both of them get their names put into songs that are in our heads for some reason, but Kivi's much more because it's easier. Although Erik gets put in as Little E sometimes. OH makes up little greeting songs for them when he comes home from work. Comes into the house going "Kivi Tarro and Erik the Tall!" and sometimes sings them a little song.

I dunno, that's why I'm asking you guys! One of my dogs has "spitz moments" where you ask him to do something and he just kinda looks at you like "mmmm, nah. Think I'll go over here instead." I don't really consider it stubbornness because he's just weighing up his options and choosing the one that is most rewarding to him at that moment. It just means I have to build up a stronger reward history for things I want him to do. Then he'll do them no questions asked. On the other hand, my other dog gets very routinised. If I suddenly ask something of him in a situation that occurs often in which he is never asked to do that thing he will get this muleish look on his face and just refuse to do it. I guess I consider that stubbornness because it's hard to jolt him out of that mindset. It doesn't really matter much what the reward history for that behaviour I'm asking for is. He's just like "I don't do that here." He can be quite stubborn about his own rules. He makes rules based on what typically happens, so if I don't want him to make rules for situations that he will later stick to very stubbornly, I should vary what happens after what so he can't get into a routine. If that makes sense.

Haha, kinda. I'm putting together a survey as a lead-in to my PhD. I struggle a bit with wording and am sometimes unsure how a question will be interpreted. I'm not asking the questions themselves here, but trying to gauge better which words to use. Plus, it gives me an idea of the variation in personality traits and what might be driving it so I can ask more pertinent questions. And I just like hearing what kind of dogs people are living with.

Hehe, Erik is anything but passive. I love having two very different dogs. It really makes me wonder about dog personalities and the variation you can get. Do you like having two very different dogs, Aussie3?

Do you have a passive dog that only really acts when they have to? Kivi is very passive. It makes him easy to live with because he is happy to loaf around doing not much. He is active in that he likes to run and play and explore, but passive in that when something is happening to him or around him he is one to sit and watch rather than investigate, bark, or get upset or excited.

You know, it just gets really annoying that you can't say "If you are really committed to it you can usually have success with positive methods" or something similar without then getting pounced on and somehow have that comment translated to "If you are committed enough you never need punish any dog ever". They are two very different things and while I am perfectly happy saying the former over and over again, I would never say the latter. And I'm not going to sit around listing every possible case in which a positive approach might not cut it. It's kind of obvious, isn't it? My observation is simply that since I have become more committed to finding positive ways of handling things I have found it easier and easier to achieve. Erik is frankly difficult sometimes and if I didn't give him a lot of structure he would walk all over me just through the sheer motivation and energy he applies to everything he does. He thinks the world is his oyster and is irritatingly prone to developing routines that take some lateral thinking and dedication to change. It is all too tempting to deal with the problems his personality presents by hitting out at the behaviour I don't like. Especially when it can be so difficult to counter a self-rewarding activity and take such persistence from me to change a habit. But when I hit on the right reward, the right signal, and the right timing, it becomes remarkably easy by comparison. I would like to say I can always find the right combination of reward, signal and timing, but I'm just not that good. I've made mistakes and had to resort to punishment and I've learnt from them and avoided the same mistake the next time. If I thought that punishment needn't be avoided I wouldn't have tried and found that it was possible. Lilli, I would love to board your dog for the experience alone, but I have nothing to prove and no interest in bringing a dog that is undoubtedly unsuited to my small suburban yard with its pet rabbits and overly friendly dogs home just to rise to a challenge issued by someone who apparently does have something to prove and thinks this will prove it. Besides which, my dogs will be with my parents in October because we are going to be driving from Adelaide to Darwin that month.

I didn't say it was. But who said we are talking about something life threatening? If I said always I'd be lying because I'm not that good a trainer and it's hard to control the environment of a dog. My point was not that when "usually" isn't good enough I just let the dog put itself in danger. That is ridiculous. When we're facing an exception to the rule we act in UNusual ways.

Yet, you can impose boundaries and structure without using all four of the quadrants. I think what you choose is more a reflection of your own values as a trainer than your dog's temperament. I value a positive approach much more than I my right to use aversives if I deem it necessary. I have two very different dogs, one of them laid back and gentle and the other very drivey, bold and outspoken. I certainly do approach training them differently when I choose my rewards and how to structure my training sessions and everyday activities with them and what I teach them, but I still rarely use aversives, compulsion or negative reinforcement. My bold little guy is not especially easy. He is persistent, determined, and pushy. He will try anything once, and usually he'll try it several times. If I'd got him a few years ago he'd be punished a lot more than he has been. But discovering that it is possible to have a well-mannered, well-trained, reliable dog without much in the way of aversives fuelled me to find ways to achieve it with other dogs as well, and improve on my positive techniques so I need even fewer aversives. I am not the only positive trainer I know who finds that if you are committed to it you can usually find a way to handle a dog without aversives.

Like this? Balls and cuddles are like apples and oranges. Erik loves them both! Which he loves more depends on the situation. He loves nothing more than snuggling in bed with us of a morning, or cuddling up to OH when he comes home from work, or leaping into my arms when I come home. But when we are at the park he has no time for cuddles. Too busy running around. Just the way we like it. He does like cuddle games, though. I pick him up and put him on his back and pretend to eat his belly. He squirms and kicks, but if I let him go he's trying to climb into my lap. The moment I put my hands on him he throws himself backwards and I have to catch him and put him down on his back again for more belly tickles. He has thrown himself backwards a few times when no one was ready to catch him. Apparently he has a hard head. It's like having a child. Sometimes he's too busy for cuddles, but sometimes it's his favourite thing. He's a lot of fun to play with, but can be a pest when you can't play with him right now. If he gets bored we have to find him something to do or he gets up to mischief. He gives you these cute, bright looks when he thinks he's done something good, and barks incessantly when he thinks he needs more attention. Most Valls I've met have been pretty cuddly with their own family. OH often says "What will we do when we don't have Erik cuddles anymore? We will surely never find another dog as cuddly as Erik. I've never met one. Have you? Having had the cuddliest dog in the world early, we will be disappointed for the rest of our lives." You come to love whatever dog you get, I think.