corvus

That's fine, I don't mind the Lab talk. Erik is a master at ambushes. It annoys the crap out of me because it's so damn hard to beat! He'll be waiting in a sit and he's not meant to move his feet at all, and he won't... until the food is about 1cm from his mouth and then he jumps up and grabs it. Argh! And he'll snatch treats on their way to Kivi's mouth at the last moment. I never see him coming! I call him the landshark. He'll also spring one on me when I've got one of his toys. He bloody knows that lying down is the best way to get a toy, but that doesn't stop him from suddenly jumping up and snatching just when you least expect it. Because he always gets me when I'm not ready for him he always gets rewarded for it. Grr. We were doing a sit-stay exercise today and while Erik is bouncing up or shuffling or jumping at the last moment for his treats, Kivi is in a sit-stay and hasn't moved a muscle the whole time. I eventually notice him and pop him a treat. He is incredibly patient. Erik is very impatient.

That puppies tend to be frightened of new things, regardless of whether they came from a responsible breeder or not. ETA Thanks for that, Steve.

I would say pushy towards you or other people rather than other dogs. What I think of as pushy behaviour is demanding, controlling behaviour like sharply nudging, pawing, nipping, jumping the gun just to see if they can snatch what they want, barking at you, jumping up and that kind of thing. Just as examples. I've mostly got the attitude that they can be as pushy and demanding as they like but if they actually want something they will need to do what they are asked and be calm and well-mannered. Mostly. Erik will honestly try anything. Some things he dreams up are wildly obnoxious. I love that he will try all sorts of outrageously rude things, but I have to be careful sometimes. It's easy to accidentally reward him if I'm not paying attention. I discovered this week that passive handling errors can result in accidentally rewarding things you would never in a million years deliberately reward. I'll say this for pushy, opportunistic dogs: they teach you to pay attention and act fast!

I'm not really sure why I'm starting this thread or what I expect to get out of it. I guess I've just been thinking about pushy behaviour in dogs and the options for handling it and what is necessary and what isn't. Having one dog that kind of sees everything as an opportunity to swing things his way and one dog that is pretty laid back it occurs to me that they both have their pushy behaviours and I deal with them quite differently. I deal with different kinds of pushy behaviours differently, and I take into account a lot of things that may contribute to the behaviour being expressed. What do you consider pushy behaviour, how do you handle it, and why?

Meant to say I think shaping is also a whole lot of awesome fun. My dogs seem to think so as well.

But you can only do so much with a puppy that isn't fully vaccinated. I know one of the toughest things for me to handle when bringing home a new puppy has been handling the fear of unexpected things. I don't know what the puppy has seen and what they haven't. All I can do is assume that it's going to be scared of just about everything. I've seen plenty of new puppy owners dismayed and bewildered because their puppy is apparently afraid of the world.

My boys aren't wild about fetch, either. Erik likes to invite himself to other dogs' games of fetch and chase the doggies. They will both play tug, though, and I like that one way better. It's really fun. Playing tug and chase games are good for the dog-owner bond if you believe the likes of Pat Miller and Patricia McConnell, and I reckon they know what they're on about. Any kind of play is fun, active, and social. Great bonding for owners and dogs. I would certainly happily dedicate heaps of time to coaxing it out of a dog. I've spent 6 months on it already with Kivi, and he works beautifully for food and only tugs when he feels in the mood. After 6 months he's starting to be in the mood more often. I definitely think it's worth spending loads of time on.

Here's another cool study that may be of interest, particularly to breeders. It's available from Applied Animal Behaviour Science, but it's not free.

Even a small Grey is kind of a big dog... What about a Dachshund? Personally, I'd go a corgi. They are very adaptable. And if a 13 year old can raise one I imagine anyone can. Or maybe a Tibbie?

To me, it sounds like she is being asked more than she can do. Have you tried putting her to bed with a Kong to calm her and take her mind off being left alone?

No, the "positive brigade" has offered a tool that is not as potentially damaging or aversive and more effective than check chains. Don't tell me you think the problem of skipping training is a direct result of the introduction of a tool that actually allows people to walk their dog without getting their arms pulled off and without any training skills. No, before no-pull harnesses and head collars the dogs didn't get walked, or they were corrected up and down the street on a check chain, which did nothing but occasionally make the dog choke a little. There will ALWAYS be people that are only looking for a band aid. It will always be the majority of the dog-owning population. I'd rather give them a band aid that works and allows the dog to get a daily walk. Maybe if they spend more time with their dog and get some smiles happening they'll be inspired to train further. But the fact of the matter is that training is actually not required. Walk a dog on a harness or head collar for the rest of their life and most will do exactly as their owners want them to: walk on a loose leash. I'm not denying that there would be some dogs that would learn to pull on anything, but personally, I see a lot more dogs that don't pull because they wear a no-pull harness or head collar. From the perspective of most owners, if you can manage it, why train it so you no longer need to manage it? That is a valid perspective. As far as I'm concerned it is personal preference alone that has me training LLW rather than managing it. I like training. I don't trust things that tighten with pressure anywhere on my dogs unless I can control it directly. That's just me, folks. I'm not standing on a moral high ground or something.

Okay, I don't have kids, but I strongly disagree with the above assertion. I love kids and I think they are great. Don't want any, but love interacting with them. I encounter brats that are unsupervised and think it's fun to throw things at or hit animals, and I've been in places where the average kid swears at you if you so much as look at them sideways. But by and large, I meet nice kids with attentive parents. A lot of my friends are wonderful, attentive parents with beautiful, well-balanced children that listen to them. Maybe you live in one of those unfortunate low socio-economic places where the kids learn to behave from parents that are at best negligent and at worse abusive, but I don't, and 99% of the children I know and meet are lovely.

The authors say in the discussion that we should consider which direction we approach animals in potentially stressful situations from, but don't say if they think we should approach a frightened animal from the left to allow them to check quickly what's coming at them or from the right to perhaps provide a less emotional stimuli? I think perhaps the best way to use this knowledge is simply to monitor the directions our dogs are looking in and use that as an indicator of emotional arousal. The study doesn't address which way a dog is biased towards looking for positive emotional stimuli, only negative.

I think if a farmer with any kind of livestock had them in that condition it would be grounds to shut them down. Providing animals with enough food, for example, is one of the bare basics of animal care regardless of the species. Intensively farmed animals might slip through the cracks, but the fact is those industries are very production driven, so in a way they are self-regulated. No one wants a bunch of their chickens compromised in any way. It's a waste of money. I doubt my view will be remotely popular, but the way I see it there's not a lot in the literature on welfare and socialisation that would be much help. Until we have higher standards of welfare for livestock, dogs are in a relatively good position. I say the best way to tackle it is to improve welfare for livestock through legislation. As long as there are battery hens, pigs housed in tiny cages in the dark, and broilers with spongy bones, and mulesing, I think we are going to have trouble changing things for dogs.

I don't think people should be made to feel defensive about turning to a no-pull harness or other device. Use whatever you need to in order to get your dog to walk nicely. No big deal. They are not severely aversive to most dogs and it's not the end of the world if you decide to use them permanently, either. You haven't let your dog down or failed in some way if you opt to use a no-pull harness, even if you opt to use it as a permanent crutch. You do what works for you.

I reckon a Corgi or a Swedish Vallhund. They are small and portable, but pretty tough and easy care. My first dog was a corgi and she was very good with the kiddies. I could let them take her leash and walk her and she'd be her usual angelic self. She would go for long hikes with me and she'd lie under my desk when I worked. Great little dog. Valls are similar, but probably a bit more outgoing and drivey and not as long and low in the body. Having said that, you can get drivey corgis and placid Valls. JRT sounds like a good match, too. They don't always do what they're told, though! Corgis and Valls are herders, so a bit more biddable. Shelties are a good little dog, too, as long as you're careful where you get them. Vet says he's seen a lot of overly nervy Shelties.

My boys are always gnawing on each other's ears. It gets Kivi's fur all tangled up. :D I let them at it. They are good to each other. Over time they both changed their play behaviour to align with what the other likes. I say give it some time and see how it goes, but if the other dog is irritated and trying to get away I'd interrupt the younger dog.

Seemed like a good time to compare notes re. tug toys. I seem to have a lot. Plaited polar fleece - both dogs are happy to tug on these Crash Test Toys custom tug - it's plaited fun fur with two sections that have sheepskin wrapped around and a bungee handle. It's pretty much the favourite. CTT makes very tough tugs. I love the bungee, because Erik will throw himself at it and swing off it. The bungee makes it a bit smoother for that kind of activity. CTT road hocky ball tug - this one was a dud for us. The balls are a wee bit too large for Erik's mouth and Kivi wasn't very interested. Rocket ring - a fleecey ring. Erik loves rings. He seems to like being able to chomp down and pull directly back rather than have the pressure on one side. Rope rings - 2 rope rings linked together so I hold one and Erik the other. He loves that thing, too. Likes me trying to drag him around the house by it. Moo tug - this one is fascinating. It's a milking cup on a rope. Both dogs love to chew it, but they seem so fascinated by the texture they would rather lie down and chew it slowly than tug on it. Knotty tug - I don't much like this one as it's a loose braid and I worry a tooth is gonna get caught. It has two handles. Both dogs like to chase it and tug on it, but it took Kivi a bit of warming to it. It's not one of the favourites. Pocket Sheepy tug on a ribbon - Erik loves this thing and I keep it in my walking bag. He is a bit over the softness, though. It was good when he was a puppy, but now he just wants to bite the handle rather than the sheepskin. Giant monkey puppet - this is the all time favourite of both dogs. Kivi dug it out of a pile of junk during roadside cleanup and promptly lay down on the side of the road to chew on it. I figured no one wanted it so they may as well have it and the boys argued over who got to carry it home until I took it off them. Then they argued over who got to walk closest to it. It comes out occasionally. They love to tug on the floppy legs and bite the furry body. They have already pulled one leg off, so I don't think it will last long.

I dunno if it's a factor of where I live, but it is very rare for children to touch my dogs without asking first. The kids around here are awesome. If they are very young their parents tell them to ask us if they can pat our dog, or they ask us themselves, and if the kids are on their own or old enough they do the asking. I always tell them what they can do to which dog. "Cuddle that one, he likes it." and "That one doesn't like strangers so much, but if you leave him alone he'll come and talk to you when he's ready." They do crazy things sometimes, so I watch them and tell them if they are being too weird for my dogs that have no kids in their lives. I guess we're lucky to have a lot of kids around that have been well educated about dogs, and a lot of parents that are as eager to socialise their kids to dogs and teach them how to behave as we are to socialise our dogs to kids.

Okay, that's a fair call. I just don't really think it fits into the paradigm of deprivation as I understand it. Because the ultimate question is, does the dog have a "hunger" for play with you? What they want and what they like are two different things. Wants are all about appetite and returning to homeostasis and likes are about what makes an animal feel good. The latter is regulated by shifts in what they find rewarding so that an animal doesn't overdo it. The former is regulated by satiation. There are all sorts of potential confounding factors. For example, both my dogs are social contact maniacs. I think it's an opponent-process thing. The more contact they get the more disrupted they feel when they're not getting as much contact as usual. Erik is a bit that way with training. If I saw no change or an increase in motivation for playing, I wouldn't know if it was an O-P situation or if it was just a whole lot of anticipation. And if he worked less hard, then how would I know whether he was working less hard because he was sated or because he was just fatigued (mentally, emotionally, or physically)? Anyway, it doesn't matter, as regardless of whether you (I) are creating an EO through deprivation or through anticipation of rewards you're (I'm) still creating an EO, which is what increases the motivation. The effects are comparable. As I said, it doesn't mean much to argue these finer points.

I think a dog's opportunism is mostly a factor of their roots as scavengers and hunters and possibly most importantly, cachers (if that's a word). IME, herbivores are considerably less opportunistic than even a non-caching carnivore. Their food doesn't move around and try to run away from them. They can take their own sweet time about it. They might have to be more opportunistic about social interactions, or getting the choicest treats, though. Animals like bears and pigs are highly opportunistic because they are omnivorous and take advantage of whatever food they can find. Foxes are also very opportunistic. As far as other domestic animals go, I would be putting chickens after dogs and pigs for opportunism towards food resources. Cats are more a "hunt when I'm hungry" kind of animal, but they can be opportunistic as well. Rats are also omnivorous, so I would expect them to be quite opportunistic as well. Supposedly they will hunt in groups.

Thank you I will keep your advice in mind....so far so good Sorry, that probably sounded condescending. Kivi doesn't cope with frustration very well. He is better, but I just try not to frustrate him much at all if I can help it. That's why I've been target training with him. I certainly think that deprivation is a useful training tool, whether we're talking about what you think deprivation is or what I think it is. It is undoubtedly a useful training tool in either sense. I think it behooves us to understand what we are doing and why it works and how we can use it more efficiently. It's good to know what the options are and what they might do. The only thing that concerns me about deprivation is when it may compromise welfare. For example, social deprivation in a young social animal can do nasty things to their ability to cope with stress later in life. I have no idea whether that can occur to a pet dog, but I'd rather not take my chances. Whether I choose to use it or not in other contexts is just simple personal preference. I have an ethical stance on it, but that doesn't mean I think everyone else should have the same stance. Diversity in opinion and ethical stances is what makes discussion forums interesting.

Depends on what you consider "suffer", and how much he has come to expect the rewards, and how much he likes them. My guess would be at the most a couple of days of feeling a bit down until he got used to the new regime. Here's an example: If you teach a rat to run to a cup full of treats on a signal, and you normally give the rat 12 food pellets as a reward, and then you suddenly give the rat 1 pellet as a reward, the rat is gonna be bummed for a little while. It'll be aversive to him because hey, what's this 1 pellet thing? He normally gets way more than that. He'll get slow on his run to his cup of rewards. But, after a few days of the new regime he'll get over it and start running to the cup as fast as he did when he was getting 12 pellets. How bummed he gets about the reduction in rewards isn't set in stone. Maybe he's being picked on by the other rats, or his cage is boring, or he's lonely, or he doesn't have a wheel to run in. All those little details might make him feel this reduction in reward more keenly and mean that he's bummed for longer. Inevitably, though, he'll perk up and get back to running as fast as he did before. That's all based on rats, who have nothing better in their lives than running to a cup with treats in it. It's all together possible that you wouldn't see any effect in your dog at all. Maybe he doesn't anticipate the treats, just accepts them as they come. Maybe he wasn't thoroughly wild about the treats and could take them or leave them. Or maybe there's a lot of other awesome stuff going on in his life that means he's not feeling that he's missing out on anything. Maybe you start teaching him how he can control the dispensing of treats and the anticipation of being able to control the treats easily overcomes any negativity he might be feeling from not getting them for free. So, it's not straight forward, but it's not going to be a big deal to him even if you just suddenly dumped treats from the diet completely and gave him no opportunity to earn any. He'd get used to it pretty quickly. I'm pretty freaking conservative about doing anything aversive to my animals, and I would do it. Sometimes they need a little change to show them how much more fun it can be than it is at the moment. The reason why I persist with my hare is because I know he has enjoyed interacting with me in the past and if I can just remind him that he liked it we'll both be happier. It's worth it. Sorry, longest answer ever to a straight-forward question.

Yes!! This is how it seems to work for me too. My problem with that reasoning is that it assumes the dog is in a state of "hunger" for interaction with you whenever you are not playing tug with them. Now, don't get me wrong. Erik certainly has ways of telling me he would badly like to play tug now, please. But it's related to arousal levels and expectations. He's not perpetually trying to get me to play with him. Only when he's aroused and has nothing constructive to do with his energy.

Ah, this is a bit more complex than it appears, I think. Are you increasing appetite through deprivation or are you increasing appetite through value and expectation? I think the latter, because you say that it is the sight of the toy that increases the appetite. How could you say that 5 seconds of deprivation has a stronger effect than the promise of imminent reward? I predict if you got that toy out and didn't habitually allow your dog to have it once she'd seen it, then you would not see that increase in motivation. UNLESS she badly wanted it for its value alone and your teasing served to frustrate the heck out of her. Frustration is a dicey thing, though. If you frustrate them too much their motivation plummets. They have to believe they can win to put in more effort. Would you agree? Well, in my field we call it affective state so that no one thinks we're anthropomorphising and saying that animals are capable of consciously identifying an emotion. I say emotional state because affective state sounds wanky and unintuitive, like practically everything psychologists come up with. There was an interesting study done by Burman et al. in 2008 on sensitivity to reward loss as an indicator of negative affective state in rats. It's a bias. They have to have an expectation of what they will get to feel they have missed out. And they feel the loss more keenly when they are in the pits. Again, how can you say that is the deprivation and not the anticipation of reward that is creating that effect? You would have to start from scratch with something that has no conditioned value in surroundings that are neutral and an activity that has no history of reward to tease them apart. That anticipatory effect is very powerful. It can overcome the effects of chronic stress and depression. The theory is sound by my way of thinking, Vickie, I just think you're more likely describing a conditioned EO related to anticipation rather than the unconditioned EO of deprivation. If I condition my dogs well enough with a solid reward history I would expect them to perform equally well with or without dangling a motivator in front of them. But if we were talking about dogs that haven't been conditioned that way I think the theory would hold. I don't think there is any sense arguing whether delaying a reward is deprivation or not. By my way of thinking, it's neither here nor there, as when people talk about deprivation in training they are not talking about delaying a reward for a few seconds, or only delivering dinner if the behaviour meets criteria. At least, not the discussions I've seen on DOL. I don't think there's much point arguing whether starving a dog for 24 hours has the same appetite increasing effect as delaying a treat for 5 seconds. If it did, no one would ever starve their dog for 24 hours.