corvus

I have a vague question about persistence. Assuming that in behavioural terms a behaviour should go extinct sooner or later if it is not reinforced, what do you make of a dog that persists in a behaviour that is mildly punished? Presumably the behaviour is self-rewarding and the punishment is not as strong as the reward. But do you get dogs that need relatively little reward for a behaviour to persist in it in the face of mild to moderate punishments, or no reinforcement at all? Well, it's not really a question because I know you can get dogs like that. I'm interested to know how people interpret or deal with these dogs. I was talking to someone recently about optimism and used Erik as an example of what I would consider optimism. He will go around poking things around the house quite sharply with his nose and it is not uncommon for them to fall down on him, or beside him, or almost fall and make him skitter backwards because he's had so many things fall around him and he's very wary of this happening. So why does he keep poking things when it's obviously punishing when they fall on him? Why does he keep jabbing things so sharply that they wobble dangerously and make him jump backwards in case they fall? I'm intrigued that poking something could be so inherently rewarding to Erik that he would keep doing it when it had been punished plenty of times and he's obviously savvy to the perils involved in this activity. Does he get a dopamine hit every time it almost falls but doesn't? Do I have a dog that likes taking risks?? So my roundabout question is do you know of or have a dog that seems persistent? Maybe they are easy to train because they just keep at it until they get it? What makes you think they are persistent and how do you adjust your training methods as a result?

That's sort of my point - if it's the paper I'm thinking of, and like I said may be different to the one you're thinking of, she only looked at high stim protocols, but just concluded that e-collars in general were risky. I thought that was either ignorant (she genuinely doesn't know the difference between different protocol types) or misleading (she's unwilling to discuss the difference). If I were writing a paper studying the Koehler "head held under water to discourage digging" technique, and concluded that all use of water in training was risky, I'd be making a similar error. I was talking about this one: Why electric shock is not behavior modification Her main drive is that very little that is claimed about electronic collars is tested or supported by data. Except the bad stuff, really. I was being a bit generous when I said she acknowledged their potential usefulness. She acknowledges the areas in which they are supposed to be useful, but questions if they actually do what it is thought they do. I think the Schilder and van der Borg paper was pretty objective, but obviously it gets criticised for the same thing: only studying the use of high stim shocks. I think a better analogy for that one is to say that if you were studying the "head held under water to discourage digging" technique, you may conclude that holding a dog's head underwater was unnecessarily stressful and it is therefore not recommended that the average owner have a tub of water on hand when training their dog, or even be taught that that method exists. Anyway, I'm quite happy to admit I'm biased on the issue. Overall's concerns about e-collars are basically my concerns. I don't think she was being ignorant or misleading. She discusses low stim and how it is used and raises concerns particular to the R- method. She raises a good point that a lot of what is claimed about e-collars is not tested and is therefore suspect.

I don't think anyone on this forum necessarily advocates banning any training tools, although I could be wrong because if they were I doubt they'd be game to publicly say it! But I think you would find that broom sticks used on dogs, kicking with steel-capped boots and hitting a dog hard enough to injure them would all be considered illegal. It is illegal to injure animals unnecessarily. Although there are always grey areas. If I saw someone hitting a dog with a broomstick you can bet I would report them and I would expect them to be facing animal cruelty convictions. My concern is the misuse of dedicated training tools resulting in cruelty to dogs. I do not think said training tools should be banned, but I do think if we can minimise their capacity to cause harm we should do that. We will never be able to prevent cruelty by banning things that can be used in a cruel manner. However, if we are making purpose-built dog training tools with the capacity to do harm then I think we need to be extremely careful how those get distributed and used. I think we have a responsibility to dogs to protect them from the misuse of such tools where we can.

Well, it depends on what your question is, doesn't it? If it's "What effect do high-stim e-collar protocols have on dogs?" then it's not invalid to only examine high-stim e-collar protocols. How do you make a dog swallow a tablet before checking to see what it is? Is it conditioning, a sense of competition, or optimism?

There's a fellow around here somewhere that has a pair of Beddlington Terriers. He had to pick his jaw up off the ground when I asked him if they were Beddlingtons. It was hard to tell because they had quite long, shaggy coats.

Have a read about Behavioural Adjustment Training (BAT for short). Here's a rundown: http://ahimsadogtraining.com/blog/bat/

That was the time we were there. Would have been a bummer if there was another Vall there at the same time and we somehow didn't see each other! Erik has some Vallhund friends in Wollongong, and he thinks they are the best. I usually fall over backwards if someone knows what breed he is. They are usually from the UK if they know. Interestingly, we've had more people know his breed than Kivi's, though. ETA, I saw Catahoulas in Mexico. They are awesome dogs. I was surprised to discover ACDs were quite popular over there on the ranches, too.

Depends on what you mean by "aggressive". Roger Abrantes, PhD in ethology, says there's no such thing as an aggressive animal, only an animal behaving aggressively. Because they can't behave aggressively all the time. I see his point. I'm happy to share my dog park with pushy dogs, dogs that behave inappropriately, and dogs that are protective of their personal space/toys. My dogs can learn to pick them and how to handle them. I'm not happy to share the dog park with a dog that would attack another dog without plenty of warnings and bite to do damage. One time we were walking down to the river and just before we got there someone called out to us to please wait as their dog (who was off leash) was aggressive to other dogs. We asked them if it was okay if we just walked the boys up the wharf beside the little beach where this dog was playing fetch in the water. They said that was fine, just don't come onto the beach. So we walked along the wharf and a few minutes later the owners of the other dog wrapped up their fetch game, put their dog on leash, and left the beach to us with a wave and a "thanks". It can work with good communication. Mind you, I was pretty on edge until they had left, but it's a public space and they need to exercise their dog. I thought it was responsible choosing a quiet place early in the morning to do it and was happy to give them the space they needed. I have seen dogs that readily start fights in dog parks and am thankful my older dog can pick them well before he gets close enough to trigger them, and chooses to sensibly leave them alone. My younger dog follows his lead and if his curiosity gets the better of him I know to call him back because of what my older dog is doing. I've also seen my older dog go and get him from a tense scene between two other dogs and lead him to safety. He looks out for his little bro. I think I see way more shy dogs that shouldn't be in dog parks than aggressive dogs. If your dog is terrified of other dogs, it's not fair to take them to a dog park when it's teeming with friendly dogs.

Don't fear the fear period. Sometimes I think people get a little overly paranoid about fear periods. I have treated my last two pups as if they were in perpetual fear periods for the first 12 months of their lives. The reason why is because they are seeing new things all the time. You don't know when a fear imprint period might appear or how long it will last or what known objects it might suddenly turn into something to freak out about. So I arm myself with treats at all times so that if I ever do run into a freak out moment regardless of whether it's associated with a fear period or not I can handle it then and there with some emergency counter conditioning. The only avoidance I do is if I'm planning a major, potentially brain-breaking trip to a new and exciting place. I make a judgement call on whether I think they can handle it, have a contingency plan if I decide to risk it and turn out to be wrong, and be prepared to deal with unexpected weirdness. Erik was terrible for about 5 months. If we took him somewhere new he would bark and get wound up and stay up for hours, getting more and more agitated. But each time we took him somewhere new and gave him loads of support, stayed with him, counter-conditioned where opportunities presented themselves, distracted him from hyper-vigilance, and helped him settle, the better he coped with the next new place. It meant that for a few months we took him on holidays, took Kongs and buckets of treats with us everywhere, were prepared to pull out of outings if they became too much for him, and dedicated lots of time to helping him work out how few things in the world he actually had to worry about, but now we have a vigilant little dog that we can take new places and reasonably assume that he won't have a mental breakdown. It will continue to be a work in progress until he's 2 years old, I imagine. Anyway, my point is, it may or may not be a fear period and who cares? Treat what you see. If your dog is unsettled by something, suggest they do something easy with a good reward history and then reward them if they can do it. If they can't, counter-condition until they can. Be mindful that this kind of thing can happen anywhere, and any time in the first 2 years of life, and in relation to things your dog is actually socialised to already. Be sensible about predicting how planned trips or events might affect your pup and err on the side of caution. My older boy randomly started spooking around traffic at about 12 months old. Weird and totally unpredictable. He'd been walking happily past and through traffic his whole life. I don't need to know whether he's in a fear period or not. I just need to counter-condition so he no longer spooks at cars.

One of my dogs is also left-pawed.

Oo, good idea. We have some stuff from the vet that we put on Erik after he got desexed. It must taste heinous, because it certainly deterred him and Kivi from licking the wound. I think it wears off fast, as does the bitter spray you can get. If Kivi smells it he backs off quite hastily. Funny, because Erik doesn't back off, at least, not until he's actually had a quick taste just to make sure it's still disgusting. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in. Dogs that try something risky just in case it turns out to be good. Good to know bitter lime isn't especially universal.

I'd love to meet a PWD. If it was us you would have glimpsed our Finnish Lapphund as well. That's two rare breeds in one hit.

We live in a globalised world. What has been misused elsewhere does impact on the decisions made in other countries. Believe it or don't. I would hope that we can learn from what has occurred in other places and incorporate those lessons into our own decisions. So no, the statement is not categorically "wrong". It is wrong to suggest e-collars have not caused harm. They have the capacity to, so to assume they haven't here is treading thin ice IMO. Yes, other tools are misused. It's the capacity of the tool to do harm and the ease with which it can be misused that most impacts how it is treated IMO. But that's how I see it. I stand by my original statement, but acknowledge that you disagree. Let's please leave it at that for now.

Really? I was there with my Swedish Vallhund briefly. Was it wearing a red vest-like harness? ETA: Like this little vagabond? I get to see Leonbergers at training sometimes. There is a Berner and a Chow that we occasionally see at the park. Otherwise, just a hoard of Labs, BCs and Staffies here.

... unless they are suffering depression, which usually only happens when we shock them and they can't do anything to avoid it. (ETA: several times, not just the once) Ah, exactly. And have you read the one about standard housed rats that show more anticipatory behaviour for a sucrose reward than enriched housed rats? It seems a bit like contrafreeloading. It's a van der Harst paper. I thought it was up there with the Burman paper recently posted on the ABAT list for interesting papers.

It's my thread so I'm allowed to take it off topic a little. ;) I think it's valuable to discuss these issues as future professionals. I've always found Karen Overall to be a very practical and sensible scientist and she has loads of experience treating problem behaviours in dogs and cats as a vet behaviourist. She wrote a paper a few years ago on e-collars I'm sure you've all seen, and her considered conclusion was that while e-collars were very useful for professionals and could actually be not very stressful at all for dogs when used well, when not used well they were the opposite. She went on to judge that the majority of pet owners were not skilled enough to use them well and should therefore not be encouraged to use them at all. She didn't call for a ban on them or damn their use in general, just looked at the evidence and made an informed call on it. I think that there has been a backlash against tools like e-collars largely because of their widespread misuse. Not here so much, but in other places such as the UK and the States. Things that have been badly misused in the past get treatment like this. It's just how it goes. The pendulum swings and all that. I think that common sense will eventually prevail and whatever that turns out to be will reflect the moral standards of that country. So far only Wales has banned them afaik. I think that the UK feeling towards them may be a bit more vehement than ours for various cultural reasons. That's them. I could, yes. Preferably I could find something that was a little aversive to the majority of dogs, but I can hope that I get enough participants that it won't matter if I need to exclude some. The police dog unit has tentatively agreed to allow me access to their 180 odd dogs, so that's quite promising. They are my favourite people right now. I will need other types of dogs for the pilot study at least, though.

Well, not technically, but technically I don't have to use an aversive at all. It's a matter of reducing the training time, though. I think if the aversive is instantaneous I have the advantage of being able to use a milder aversive and probably cutting down on the training time and insuring against the wrong signal being learnt. For example, I wouldn't want them to learn to associate the food that made them feel sick with the apparatus itself instead of the signal, because the apparatus delivers the rewards as well. I plan to offer them separately, in a way. Once they can discriminate between the signal for rewards and the signal for aversives I give them a new signal somewhere in between to see how they interpret it. To be determined by the pilot study. Depends on whether I can solve a couple of problems. Possibly as little as one, but I hope I can solve some habituation/learning problems and make that "as many as you like". Or at least more like half a dozen. I hope to follow some puppies through to adulthood over a period of about 2 1/2 years and retest them several times. With rats they often use citric acid and sugar because no rat likes citric acid and all rats love a sucrose solution. There are tastes that I think would be universally aversive to a dog without making them sick. Like the bitter spray you can buy to deter puppies from chewing items.

Erny, it's not quite as you have painted it. From a purely scientific standpoint I might say "Gee, it's a shame we can't use shock because it would be perfect", but as far as I'm concerned it would be foolish to approach it from a purely scientific standpoint because I don't live and operate in a vacuum. This is why we have ethics committees, and it's why they have to include scientists, veterinarians, lay people, and welfare representatives. Personally, I would not want to conduct behavioural research that was not considered ethical by any one of those groups of people. It would be damaging to my scientific standing, and as a scientist that's about all you've got. This is where we are at now and it's more important that my methods are ethically acceptable to the majoriy of society RIGHT NOW than that I use the easiest form of aversive. As for academics in the field, I think that they know very well how useful something like an e-collar may be, but that doesn't change the fact that they are essentially the face of science when working with the public and their dogs. I certainly wouldn't want to be seen to be advocating the use of e-collars whether they are useful or not, because what is useful for a trained professional can be downright cruel in the hands of the average dog owner. The issue is certainly political, but it's not as simple as not liking a tool and therefore frowning at anyone who wants to use it. IMO, as long as I'm wearing the hat of an expert I have a responsibility to consider what my every word and action might mean for the welfare of dogs in general. I'm never going to lie, but boy am I going to be careful about directly or indirectly supporting methods or tools that I believe require a careful and knowledgeable approach. Aidan, I haven't put in for approval yet, but I believe there are people we can ask before submitting the forms who can tell us if it's likely to be accepted and give us suggestions. Otherwise it gets knocked back with comments and we adjust the protocol and re-submit. The former is much less time consuming, though! Orange juice might work. If any dog will like it Erik will, seeing as he's a fiend for fruit and vegies, so I can try him. I'm not so sure about water spray, as I can imagine it being considerably more aversive to some dogs than others.

We were unexpectedly in the neighbourhood and dropped in. Saw Connor, but didn't know t'was a DOLer. Didn't see Rover and Riddick.

I'd sit there and go "click treat" to feed her about 30 treats. Seems like maybe she needs more conditioning to the sound.

We moved to liquid rewards because they are easier to manipulate and standardise in relation to the weight of the dog. Oo, maybe parrafin oil or something like that. Although dogs will lap up parrafin because it doesn't taste bad, just not at all.

I think mild anxiety would be ideal because it's unlikely to deteriorate over time and would induce the dog to avoid the station rather than come over just to see if something good came out. The tricky thing is I'm trying to measure a bias that is adaptive. So the consequence for an incorrect judgement should be a tiny bit bad. If it's neutral, then the dog can afford to be optimistic because it can only be good or neutral. But having said that, in emotional terms it's possible that "neutral" is sometimes negative. E.g. a neutral expression on another animal might be bad news. ETA The original idea was food versus, say, a rock or piece of metal. Something that is entirely disappointing could be aversive enough.

Fair enough, I don't see any ethical issue myself, I think e-collar can be one of the gentlest & most controllable aversives, but I imagine the cost would be prohibitive if you couldn't borrow one. It's for a scientific study, so it has to be approved by an ethics committee, which means I would have to explain why I haven't tried a less controversial aversive. And then people have to agree to let me put them on their dogs. And then I have to teach the dogs not to be collar wise. And on top of all that, I'm then in the dubious position of being a dog welfare researcher using e-collars, which is not going to go down well with the people that will be peer reviewing my work. Anyway, it's a bit complicated and I would need a bunch of collars, which I can't afford. Ultimately, the signal for "something bad" is supposed to be something of a conditioned punisher. The dog should see/hear the signal and go "that means something bad - I'm gonna avoid the place where the bad stuff comes from." I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible because an extra layer of training means more time with the dog, longer to reach criteria for testing, and another possible confounding factor. ETA I should point out that the place where bad stuff comes from is the same as the place where good stuff comes from. The dog has to make the choice whether to approach that station depending on whether they think it will result in good stuff or bad stuff.

E-collar is out for various reasons such as cost and ethics. The problem is a curly one. I need to be able to teach any dog that one stimuli means good stuff and another means bad stuff. There are several twists. The "good" and "bad" has to be pretty standard so it will be experienced much the same by all dogs. The "good" and "bad" need to be delivered automatically so we take variable timing out of the equation. I suspect it has to be something that has no other cues associated with it. I don't want dogs to be able to back out of the "bad" before experiencing it because they are using a more reliable cue than the signal I give them. This is my problem with bitter food. I feel like the dogs are going to learn they can trigger the "bad" but avoid experiencing it because they will be able to smell if it's going to taste yuck and back out. Unless I can find something to spike it with that tastes bad but doesn't have much of a smell. A jet of air will probably not be standard enough. I'm concerned that a loud noise or bad smell would be habituated too quite quickly. I could possibly use something that tastes SO revolting that after the first taste the smell itself becomes quite aversive....

I need a brainstorm. You should all be excited, because this is about the only time I'm ever going to ask for punishment ideas! I need something that is universally aversive, but only mildly so. Enough to create a very mild avoidance reaction, but one that is resistant to extinction/habituation. It has to be environmental, as in can't be associated with the handler. Tall order. As an example, something that tastes bitter.