corvus

Ooo... I have next to no experience here, but I'm very interested in hearing what people say. I'm just starting my PhD on optimism in dogs. We are thinking that some dogs are born being particularly optimistic, as in more likely to try new things, more persistent, perhaps more curious, and possibly it's linked to other personality traits. I'm thinking that if it turns out to be what we think, testing for optimism may help in picking an appropriate puppy. Help, not wholly inform. It's all very "maybe" at the moment. Might turn out that optimism is very prone to environmental influence.

It is.... but it's so much more! I mentioned a vague explanation for why dogs sometimes love to chase other dogs but not play fetch in the same topic in the training section. I've been reading a lot of papers on canine play lately and I have some ideas about this (which are not by any means original).

Steven Lindsay mentioned natural retrieving as a very valuable thing for a dog to have. I think it is more than just prey drive, because why bring it back to a person? Even if the answer is to make the thing move again, that's suggesting that the dog sees you as an integral component of this game. I have a dog that started out as a natural retriever and it seemed to me that he brought the toy back because he was playing a game with me rather than with the toy. These days he doesn't retrieve much anymore as I never made much effort to develop it and his chase instinct is pretty unpredictable. I like tug and wrestles much better, anyway. My other dog I'm sure would be a retriever if he didn't get mugged by my first dog every time he chases a ball or toy. Now that I find really interesting. A dog running after something is such a strong pull, even for a dog that has little interest in chasing whatever the first dog is chasing. ETA I know someone with Salukis that bring her hares and rabbits whenever they catch one. They do this like good hunting dogs, but flatly refuse to chase objects.

Erik has swallowed chicken wings whole a couple of times. For a little 9kg Vallhund pup I found that incredible. Each time he's done it he looked very sorry for himself until he threw it up a minute or so after swallowing it and had another go, this time chewing it first. He hasn't done it in quite some time, now. Hopefully he has learnt! We still keep an eye on him, but he seems to have got a grip and realised there are some things that won't fit in his belly whole. Maybe your pup will learn like Erik did?

This is the reason why I wanted my own dog when I was a kid. My parents got me a Pembroke Corgi. She was mostly fed by my mother, but she was my dog through and through. I spent lots of time with her, trained her, took her for long meanders through the bush, got up early in the mornings to play with her before school, and took her with me everywhere I could. There was never any question whose dog she was, even when I went to uni and left her behind with my parents. She was always happy with them, but if I was there she was always by my feet. My mum had a BC when she was a kid. She played with him all the time, spent hours with him. He was her constant companion, and everyone says they had a special bond. He would lie under the house directly under the kitchen and when he heard her chair scrape against the floor he'd be at the door in seconds waiting for her to come out and play. She did teach him a few things, but mostly they were just pals. I think that dogs bond with whoever spends a lot of quality time with them. I do most of the training in our house, but share the feeding with my OH and we always walk the dogs together. I couldn't say who either dog has bonded to more closely. It's more or less equal. I think I'm very lucky that way.

Sounds like one for a behaviourist. It's tricky when the trigger and the motivation aren't obvious. Might just be that he's reached social maturity, but it sounds like there might be a little leash reactivity in there as well. Best bet IMO is to keep him on leash and not let him practice the dominant behaviour and get an expert to take a look and advise you.

Kiesha, Erik is like that. Train him to be calm? No way. He knows we're training even if I'm using low value rewards, and then he gets all tense and excited. I started Karen Overall's relaxation protocol with him when he was still quite young and it was a disaster. He just got gradually more worked up instead of calmer. So massage, Kongs, and cow hooves are the way we go. I've been thinking of giving the relaxation protocol another go, or get him on his mat and just reward for sleepy eyes and tail down and that kind of thing. I was doing that for a while and we were getting somewhere, just not fast enough for me. :D Thankfully I've got Kivi. The pair are currently lying on the ground playing a gentle game of tug with a piece of vine they found. I quite like the Nina Ottoson toy we have as well. It requires some thinking, so Erik has to calm down a bit to work it out. At the moment. I'm sure it will all fall apart when he perfects his technique.

Yes, Erik was tipping his water out all over the floor and bringing me the bowl. They now have a ceramic bowl, but it holds less water so more refilling. We have a cement one for outdoors that not even a Mal would be able to shift. I can barely lift it.

Thanks Lablover. Drive threads are only awful when you're the one getting consistently hammered, I suspect. :D Steven Lindsay said play was the best thing a dog could be into, as it was easiest to manipulate the level of arousal in that state, and play is where the most variation in behaviour occurs. I had read that in a paper about play one time, although I can't remember whose paper, now. Or it might have been that book "The Genesis of Animal Play: Testing the Limits". Good book, by the way. ;) He said if a dog naturally retrieved and played tug with people it was going to be a great dog with loads of potential. Something else Lindsay said that made me rethink was that he thought we had too many terms and detail for things in dog training and behaviour. Like all those labels for types of aggression. It surprised me, because categorising things is how we make sense of them. It's a human impulse, really. But then, aggression is aggression and if you have a bunch of labels you could potentially use on it there's always the danger of categorising it incorrectly and letting that dictate how you treat it rather than the behaviour itself. Made me wonder about what level of detail is most helpful in different situations.

For those interested in Steve Austin's work with fox and cat trackers, there's a fellow in New Zealand who has trained dogs to find bat roosts. It was aimed at finding nursery caves of threatened species if I remember correctly. I would also like to thank NDTF for their sponsorship. Can't speak for the others that got sponsored, but I wouldn't have gone otherwise. Out of my price range. Or at least, Vienna would have been my choice! Does anyone want to discuss anything specific? Prepulse Inhibition? Control expectancies? The inadequacies of Behaviorism? I'm dying, here! Is there anything people disagreed with?

I'm curious to know what you have been thinking about that you are now confident is on the right track, Herr? I shared mine. :D

I started and then got distracted. I do that a lot. But I do think they are great!

For those that didn't go, it's not just thinking in terms of gain and loss instead of reinforcement and punishment, but in terms of "better" and "worse" in relation to what their experiences have already taught them. He was saying that dogs learn when what they expect to happen as a result of their actions is different to what does happen (better or worse). He said that this is the only time that dogs learn, but I'm not sure if he meant just within an instrumental learning framework (like operant conditioning) or in general. I take it it's the former, because I can't see how classical conditioning can be incorporated into that theory, and that one is undeniable. Did people understand what he was talking about with those control expectancies? I thought it was really good stuff. And the idea that trying to reward outside of the dog's current mode can even be a bit of a punishment. I was talking to OH about that this morning and he didn't agree with it. But then, he's used to Kivi, who doesn't often get fixed in modes the way more drivey dogs do. I think my understanding of Establishing Operations in dog training is a lot better, now. I started playing around with that a few months ago at the dog park by popping a treat before I release the dogs. I wasn't even sure if it was an EO at the time. Just guessing. Great for Kivi, but doesn't do much for Erik. I suspect it isn't the right reward for Erik at that moment.

Someone was videoing it, yes. I heard the same complaint from a lot of people, melzawelza. I can understand what he was driving at as ethics does underpin pretty much the whole of the cynopraxic training philosophy and I don't think we do think carefully enough about what we are doing with our dogs (or any other animals, really). Just because you can doesn't mean you should, and just because it's convenient and what you want doesn't mean that's the only consideration. We all know that on the surface of it, but who has thought of crating a dog or leashing a dog or penning a dog or even fencing a dog in a yard as a behaviour suppressant and therefore a punisher? Not to say you shouldn't do it, but I think it is valuable to acknowledge it for what it is and what it takes from your dog. But by this morning, even I was getting bored with ethics and I have a really high tolerance for it. I was astonished that the only reason he talked about shaping was because someone asked a question at the very end of today. And then he's like "Oh, this is such a great thing to do and it really epitomises good cynopraxic training." I thought it might have been nice to talk about that when everyone was there... I do think his alternatives to behaviourism are very interesting and worth more attention and explanation than they got. But maybe that's just me. I felt like it was much clearer in his books and I wouldn't have understood much of what he said about it if I hadn't read it beforehand. What do other people think?

For those interested in what Lindsay said today about tracking, there were some pretty strong shades of Panksepp in that as well. I think I mentioned recently in one of those awful drive "discussions" that I thought scenting ought to be called "Seeking drive" if you really wanted to put it in a drive category based on the reward. Lindsay really explained the thinking behind that comment beautifully today - much better than I ever could. For more information, there's a nice little section on Panksepp's SEEK mode here.

Appeasement gestures, or calming signals, or submissive. It's all pretty much the same, I think. This is why my last dog and I were not all that good together sometimes. If I got cross she'd do much the same thing, and invariably get underfoot and make me crosser. She would go to her bed to begin with, but would sneak out to try to tell me how terribly stressful she found it all. Now I have dogs that don't care much when you get cross with them. Much better. :rolleyes: The E eventually saunters away from things when told "Erik, would you leave it alone!" and puts his ears and tail down, but he doesn't come over. That's the way I like it.

I very much like his take on rewards and aversives as being things that are the result of either successful predictions or unsuccessful predictions. I've been tossing the idea that behaviour is largely driven by the desire to control for a while, but hadn't taken the concept so far. It's nice to see a much more elegant and detailed explanation. I was also happy to see him give a good nod to Panksepp when he mentioned drive theory. I love Panksepp's explanations of emotional states and behaviour. It makes profound good sense to me as a behavioural ecologist. I was fascinated by the prepulse inhibition he mentioned today. Gonna visit Google University about that one. :rolleyes: It's refreshing to have someone just wipe away all of the mystification around dog behaviour and training and get to the facts. The other speakers have also been good, mostly. I especially liked Robert Holmes. What a cool guy. He's just so likeable and engaging.

Day 1 in Sydney was very interesting, although I was glad I'd read some of his work beforehand. It took him a little bit of meandering to really settle in to what he wanted to say. He spoke a little about competence bringing about confidence in dogs and people, which was quite tantalisingly close to the optimism stuff I've just started reading up on for my studies. He also touched on what we perceive as rewards for a behaviour are only rewards for that behaviour if they were what the dog was wanting, and the idea that behaviour arises from predictions of outcomes. If an expected reward is not received, that is an aversive. What I thought was really cool was that pleasant surprises where the reward, or positive control factor, or whatever you want to call it, is greater than expected result in kind of an intensified affirmation. That lesson is learnt faster and retained longer. It works the same way when what happens is strongly disappointing because it falls short of the expectation. He mentioned Bayes' Theorem! He's my hero!

Funnel Webs are one of the few spiders I'm not afraid of. When I was going through uni there was a fellow doing his honours project on Funnel Webs, but an undescribed species that lives in rotting logs, not Sydney FWs. I volunteered to help him catch some, thinking it was good to face your fears. It did mostly cure my fear of Funnel Webs, but not any other spider! They aren't very scary when it comes down to it. They are slow and they can't climb and they have primitive lungs so they have to stop to pump air into themselves all the time. They are pretty shy and their fangs are so long they have to be rearing to stick you with them. Once they are all reared up it's easy to catch them as they can't move much. Mind you, those fangs are scary. I saw one strike a twig and the fang went right through it. My mother got bitten a couple of years ago by a Funnel Web that was hiding under the collar of a shirt she was putting in the wash. It bit her through the shirt. She did not go to the hospital and was fine. Only 13 people have died of bites and none since the anti-venom was introduced.

PM me if you still need a bed.

No. I'm saying that my dogs obeying me around distractions they value more than me is conditioning. Rewards are a fairly integral part of attractive conditioning, so I must be rewarding to my dogs. I've been so rewarding in such a variety of situations that they don't even think about whether it would be a good idea for them to come and hang out with me when I call them. They just do it. Conditioning and "value" for a reward are not the same thing. No need to get dramatic. I didn't say anything about needs or visiting dog parks every single day. You said you failed to see the benefit and I told you what I thought the benefit was. Whether you think that benefit is worth the risk or not is up to you. I have access to a lot of good dog parks and off leash beaches, so my risk assessment is going to be different to others'. Some people seem to think that their dog must be able to play with any strange dog. I think that is an unhealthy view, because it ignores the individual personality of your dog and forcing a dog to socialise when they don't want to is cruel and counter-productive. On the other hand, I know people that think along those lines because of the environments their dogs spend the most time in. If they regularly are thrown in with a lot of strange dogs, then yeah, it's a really good idea that they should find playing with dogs rewarding, or at least be able to politely tell another dog that they do or don't want to play. Otherwise, I think dogs should be given the opportunity to learn to like playing with dogs, the same way I think my dogs ought to be encouraged to learn to like swimming. There are benefits if your dog likes it. If your dog doesn't, then IMO it's often not worth trying to teach them to like it. Like the OP, I'm a bit mystified with the notion that a dog must enjoy playing with other dogs. Maybe they think that playing is the epitome of happiness and if their dog won't play he's not happy.

Whatever happened to using what your dog values as training rewards? I assume you've heard of Premack. This argument bugs me because in my mind it is defunct. Kivi would certainly rather play with other dogs than me, to the point where as soon as he starts enjoying a game he diverts to another dog if there is one handy. It isn't inconvenient at all, because while he'd rather play with other dogs, there are loads of things he likes doing with me. I am not an experienced trainer and Kivi is not really a naturally obedient dog, yet he is more than happy to come and hang out with me even when there are wild games going on around him. I don't have any trouble holding his attention around other dogs. I haven't had to devalue them for him somehow. It's just plain old boring conditioning. He likes to periodically come and walk next to me in the hopes I will tell him to do something and he can earn a treat. That is not a matter of my training being better to him than dogs. It's just conditioning. For a while I thought it would be much harder if he was more drivey, but then I got Erik and he's actually much easier and more reliable. He is going through a social phase and gets hysterical about going to the dog park, but he sits before he's allowed to go play, and he turns on a dime if someone recalls him. He's more reliable than Kivi is. This morning I was teaching him to walk along one of the logs at the dog park while his 5 best canine pals were playing with Kivi nearby. For an 8 month old terror with the attention span of a gnat, it's pretty impressive. And it's just conditioning. If I can do it, anyone can. We all know dogs don't stop learning when they become adults. If Temple Grandin is correct, they learn details, and to generalise is to gather an accumulation of details. About a month ago Kivi met his first Bulldog. He was totally weirded out by its play style and the noises it made. I guess that the behaviours, the noises, and the sight of this scenario got added to everything he already knows about dogs. My last dog was a master at dog language. She was beautiful to watch and she taught me heaps about dog body language. She didn't get that good by getting to know a handful of dogs, and she wasn't that good at 3 years old. That was a lifetime of accumulated skill. That is the benefit of continued exposure to strange dogs throughout a dog's life. Not only are they less likely to run into behaviour or styles they are unfamiliar with, but they are, I think, better able to cope with unfamiliar behaviour, and they bounce back well if they do have a bad experience.

I used to say my last dog was too much like me. We would get annoyed by the same sorts of things and it seemed to me that sometimes we were just no good for each other. I did come to understand her quite well, but it didn't make it any easier to deal with the personality quirks she had that were rather too much like those I have. Kivi is not much like me. Erik is more like me. We share a similar optimistic outlook on life, and need to be engaged in something most of the time, and that tendency to respond to a little adversity with more energy and determination. OH says he's like Erik in that he's sometimes a little anxious and just wants to control everything. ;) Kivi is basically like Ghandi. :D We call him the doglomat.

As the owner of two well socialised dogs that visit the dog park several times a week, there's a lot to be said for having dogs that are just good at dealing with the unpredictability and occasional scariness of unknown dogs. They weren't born that way. They had to learn over time that sometimes crazy things happen and they actually can deal with it and even turn it into a positive outcome. My older boy is just coming up to 2 years and I am finally starting to trust his judgement more than mine about other dogs. It is a beautiful thing to watch when he just knows what to do. He loves to play and is a total social butterfly. It has been encouraged, but he still has a good recall thanks to a lot of practise. My other boy is not as naturally social and can be intimidated by other dogs, but once he realises they aren't going to eat him he's as outgoing as a little dog could be. He is 8 months and has only recently discovered how much fun dogs other than Kivi can be. I am fine with this, and I was fine with it when he didn't want to play with the other dogs. I'm fine with whatever makes him happy. I think that social play is a great way for dogs to develop a good understanding of their own kind, and therefore reduce anxiety around other dogs. I also think it's great exercise, and some researchers have suggested that it is very important to the development of young animals, particularly social animals. I don't want my dogs to do anything they don't naturally enjoy, but I love that I can take them to a brand new park and just walk them around once on leash to assess the situation before I'm ready to let them off. They never start anything, they always keep out of trouble, and they usually make friends and have a great time.

Just a cautionary note, long lines at the dog park do come with a few potential dangers. I've had dogs try to tie people up with them, and I've had dogs pick up the trailing end of the long line and run off with it. Not cool if you have a 5 month old puppy on the other end! They are a great tool and I wouldn't be without them in those early stages (and adolescent stages, sometimes), but it pays to keep a sharp eye on them.