corvus

That was a great, succinct summary of drive, Staranais. You only need to characterise what an adrenalised dog looks like.

Dogdude, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I mentioned that not all rewards are equal to an individual dog. I don't think there is a static hierarchy of rewards for all dogs, but I think different rewards mean different thingd to a dog, not just "reward". Huski, you have all the videos, photos and words you need to have a crack at charcterising drive on the internet. Give it a go! Doesn't have to be perfect.

Not quite. I want to know what everyone means when they say they are training "in drive". I've heard a lot of airy fairy definitions along the lines of "Oh, it's clear if you know what you're looking for and have seen dogs training in drive." but how do you know they were training in drive in the first place? Because someone else told you? What do they know? Can they characterise it?? Well if it looks like a lot of other things that could be anything, then it is. My food-trained dog looks the same as most of the dogs "in drive" on this thread as well. It leads me to believe that a dog "in drive" is simply a dog in a state of intense anticipation of a reward that means a lot to them. You can build that using any reward a dog values, which would be why those that see no difference see no difference. There is none. Of course, a reward isn't a reward. Some rewards are big bickies and some are so-so. But if you can teach a dog to anticipate a reward, frustrate them a little, then deliver big when they bring themself under control, you get that look that people are calling a dog "in drive" (that is apparently impossible to characterise). Here's what I said in a discussion on another board: In light of the present discussion and more research since I said that, I would say the only thing I would change is the wording. Different "drives" look different when the rewards are not equal to the dog. A dog "in drive" is a dog anticipating a big reward. I think you can build drive for any reward, as Erik is proving to me. Although I still think you can tell the difference between a dog about to kill an animal and a dog about to play tug by the body language. And I still think prey drive grey areas exist (like modified prey drive) and I'm beginning to think that the reason why they have been bothering me is because once the dog starts working the anticipation goes away, and that's why it looks so different (thanks Woofenpup). I feel pleasantly satisfied with this explanation. Anyone care to shoot a hole in it?

Check out Leslie McDevitt's "Look At That!" game. I love it! I have this social butterfly of a dog who it is working brilliantly with. Everyone who's tried "Look At That!" loves it. Aside from that, lots and lots of conditioning. The more you practice things in low distraction evironments, the easier they are for a dog in more distracting environments.

These things are so quick and easy to deal with when you use a little desensitising. Look, puppy, the collar in my hand *food*, here it is *food*, puppy sniffs it *food*, puppy touches it *food*. You don't even have to get them to touch it for a while. Just present it, feed a treat, present it, feed a treat. It takes hardly any time at all and you don't have a puppy that is sad. I've overcome similar things in five minutes with a handful of ordinary treats. It's just so easy there's no need to make them endure something they don't like.

Firstly, because animals in general rely very heavily on body language. In many cases it's about all they have to communicate. Secondly, because dogs are social animals, this is even more important than usual, so there is a good deal of complexity in what they communicate and how, and furthermore, it makes evolutionary sense for other dogs to notice this, whether it is conscious or not. As an example for why I think it makes evolutionary sense, consider what dogs communicate to each other. Is there anything in the world a dog experiences that would not be useful for another dog to be aware of on some level? If the dog sees a prey animal and goes into stalk mode, that would be beneficial for another dog to know. If a dog goes into play drive (assuming they are different) that would be very beneficial for another dog to know, especially as play aids in social development. Thirdly, body language doesn't lie. Not in humans, not in dogs, not in any other animal on the planet. Animals don't lie. The closest they get is ravens that put an opaque object between themselves and another raven when caching food to prevent the other raven from seeing where the cache is. But nor are animals ever little islands within themselves. Just as humans have trouble mastering the poker face, dogs don't even try. Did you know that people's pupils dilate when they make a decision? Putting a hand on the chin can mean several things, but that doesn't mean it is so random and variable it can't be characterised. Lastly, my hare knows what a dog in drive looks like. He responds by fleeing for his life. He has grown up around a dog that largely ignored him, but the very first time a dog looked at him and saw dinner, he flipped out and went into flight mode. He responds to being stared at, but he does not run when a dog looks at him curiously and tries to sniff him. He doesn't run when a dog stares at him in fear (it has happened) but he does run when a dog stares at him because it wants to chase or bite him. He has been frightened by too many dogs now to be a reliable indicator, but he's about a thousand times better at seeing patterns in behaviour than I am, and I am trained to see it. And he's not even a social animal! By communication I didn't mean that it has to be conscious, or even that it is the purpose of the behaviour. But it is a fact of life when you are a non-verbal animal. If my hare can tell when a dog wants to eat him instinctively, then one would assume that if a dog (or other wild canid) was able to make, say, prey drive so random as to be impossible for a prey animal to characterise, it would have happened by now.

We are in a similar situation. Our dogs are inside for 10 hours plus on their own every day. We walk them before we go to work, leave them with a Kong (although by "them" I really mean "Erik" because he hoardes and Kivi lets him) and when I get home they have a play together in the yard, then I play with them, and/or so some training, and some days we take them to the dog park for a run in the evening. Love summer! We barely go anywhere without the dogs on the weekend. They are a big part of our lives. On the independent thing, I honestly think that Erik is less independent than Kivi, in that he's much more attached to us, but Kivi doesn't cope as well with being without us as Erik does. Kivi is not unhappy with the way things are, but I don't think he's as happy as he could be, either. When I started working from home he became a big sook and spent nearly every minute with me. He has coped well with me going back to work, but to begin with he was a hopeless snuglebug when I got home, just needing lots of reassuring cuddles. He has settled down now, but I do wonder what impact it has on them.

Akitas are kind of known as a dog that doesn't take any crap from anyone - dog or human. I've met a few dogs that grumble a lot. Especially when asked to do something they don't want to do. If my dogs don't want to do something, I generally try to figure out why. Could be that I'm asking too much of them, could be they are just being obnoxious. It's not something to ignore, but nor is it necessarily a threat. Some dogs would just like you to know that they are not keen on this thing you have told them to do, although they'll do it anyway. Have you spoken to his breeder? I've found the few Akita breeders I've met to be very sensible about their dogs' tendancy to be more than a handful in some circumstances. I was told by a few that it's all in the way you react and that problematic Akitas are usually being handled by nervous people. If you are confident, they will be confident and you're unlikely to get any trouble. That's what I was told.

I thought that article was very valuable, bedazzled. It articulates what I was suggesting more clearly:

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. The last thread would have been the perfect moment but no one did. Bizarre. Anyway, I suggest that what you are seeing is a transition from anticipation of a reward to that instinctive herding focus that Kelpies and other herding breeds have. The problem with that is that it doesn't make evolutionary sense. What is body language for if it doesn't communicate reliably? It doesn't mean that it has to be exactly the same for every dog, but it does mean that it has to be characterisable (is that a word?). In other words, if we can't characterise the behaviour through context and body language, then how can we say we are seeing something definitive in the first place? If there's no pattern, you can't characterise it and it essentially doesn't exist. At least until you can find a pattern that can characterise it. Might be that to dogs there is a very clear pattern, but if we can't see it then it may as well not be there. "Energy" is not quantifiable; body language is. But body language is a reflection of the energy. At some point there has to be a pattern. It might mean that you have to look at a wider picture and take in context. You certainly would for more complex social interactions, and it gets so complex there that a lot of people think it's not worth even trying. Drive is pretty basic in comparison, but as you've pointed out, there are grey areas that don't quite fit the pattern. Which is why I said in the other thread that I would very much like to classify those grey bits as something else so they can fit in their own pattern. If it doesn't fit in the pattern then either the pattern is false or the behaviour doesn't belong in it. I'm leaning towards the behaviour not belonging there, because I can't find a pattern that comfortably incorporates both the play we use to train and the more serious "work" look of modified prey drive like herding or flushing game without being so broad as to be meaningless. If someone can find one, I'd happily do an about turn on my argument that they are all different! I hope that makes some kind of sense. I do like PAX's incredibly succinct definition, though. ETA, actually, I think energy is quantifiable, but nowhere near as easily as body language. Unless someone can think of an easy way...

One has to wonder just how punishing "corrections" are to these dogs. Especially if it happens many times. Maybe it's a NRM. Although I do agree that what is punishing to one dog is not so much to another. And if the dog has become over-aroused where he just wants so badly to do something that everything around him fades to grey, you'll have a hard time being noticed without something punishing or doing a lot of conditioning and management for a while. Prevention is better than cure, though. If you pace your training sensibly, you can build drive and control at the same time. I'm discovering this for myself.

For the record, I have spoken to McGreevy face-to-face about pedigrees and he made it clear that he was guided by welfare concerns and actually praised breeders, knowing nothing about my reasons for bringing it up and with no prompting or prior knowledge of my stance. I didn't even ask a question. I made a leading comment and he replied, presumably honestly because he had no reason to lie to me. I'm yet to meet someone who loves dogs so much they try to make them a part of their livelihood that wants to simultaneously prevent people from having pet dogs. They are mutually exclusive scenarios!

Kivi likes any dog that will run and wrestle with him. It usually ends up being staffies and labs, but he's a social butterfly. Anyone will do. He prefers bigger dogs, but only because he can let loose with them. Erik used to pick the biggest dog in the dog park to run up to and greet as a long lost friend, but over Christmas he discovered the joys of playing with a dog his size and now he goes bananas whenever he sees a little dog. Erik is yet to realise that he's quite a bit stronger than most other dogs his size...

Generally any kind of cooked or raw meat. The less processed the better. Mine are fed on raw, so they are total snobs when it comes to treats. They'll do regular training for the low value stuff, but for recalls they have to go nuts for it, so good old meat. Leftovers from roasts are favourites.

I think we've got the whole bag, now. True, although there are some obviously very driven dogs in some photos on this thread.

Does everyone agree that every dog in this thread is "in drive"? I was kind of aiming for a thread in which we had pictures of dogs working "in drive" so folks knew what TID was all about, plus a few in drive but not working level drive for comparison, but it went a bit bananas....

Somewhere in my internet travels someone posted a link to this site: http://www.pathcom.com/~crasher/ I love the looks of those toys. Has anyone got any?

I remember saying a similar thing to you not too long ago (that it's not how the dog gets there, drive is drive, it's the same process) and you vehemently disagreed with me No, I vehemently disagreed that food drive was the same as prey or play drive. However, how they got there is a moot point when all you are trying to do is identify whether they are "in drive" or not. It's NOT a moot point if you care about which drive you are training in/using as a reward. Which you should, because as we know, not all drives were created equal. Eating a meal ain't the same as playing with a friend. That was what I was so vehement about, and why I was arguing that it did matter which drive you were using even if you were at the same "level" of motivation or arousal. But there's no point discussing anything with you because you routinely ignore what I say and substitute my points with the points you think I'd make and argue against those instead. It makes me very angry and mean-spirited. Bedazzled, I think one of my dogs is currently in "cooling fan" drive. The other one is in "comfy bed" drive. They just work so hard for what they want. Edited to delete a broad assumption. Oops.

You correct a dog for disobeying a command that has been previously learned that the dog knows. The stress of correction is the consequence of disobeying a leaned command. The positive reward is the pleasantness of obeying. Dogs are not good generalisers. We know this. Assuming that a command known in one situation equates to a command known in all situations is a false assumption. Now, I assume you know this and what you're doing is proofing. Have you considered that the command may as well be new in a situation in which that command has never been issued before? If you have to correct each time... Are you aware that you can proof just as well without setting the dog up to fail and then correcting it? I've found that for the most part if you have it solid enough in the low distraction environment and do a suitably small step to a higher distraction environment the dog hardly ever fails to respond to the known command. It's just a matter of teaching them to expect to hear it in all sorts of situations and receive all sorts of rewards for it each time. I love watching Erik when I ask him to do something unexpected in a situation he's never done it in before. He looks surprised, then you can practically see him sorting through his repertoire looking for the right behaviour. Sometimes he gets it wrong and I just wait patiently for him to try again. Sometimes he needs another signal to remind him. Erik is still only a pup, but he downs on command pretty much anywhere, in pretty much any state of arousal and I didn't correct him for not doing it once. There were plenty of times when he didn't because he's not as steady and predictable as Kivi, but the consequence here for not obeying a command is that you don't get a reward. If they want the treat and know the behaviour, they'll do it. If they want the treat but don't know the behaviour they'll try something they do know. Or stare blankly/whine at me. It doesn't get them the treat, but it does tell me we need to practice some more and I ask them something easy so they can get their treat for choosing to work with me even when it's confusing or stressful. So yes, it is possible to do what you're doing without compulsion/punishment/force/negative corrections or whatever you want to call them.

I think people have unrealistic ideas of dog parks. Like any other public place in the country, they are frequented by average people who all have different ideas of what is polite and what is not. We do loads of training in the dog park because there's a lot more space there and it's something we can do with the dogs that we all enjoy. So what? We get the odd blow-in that wants to say hi, but we're dog lovers and we are in the park because we have well socialised dogs that like the park, and so we don't care. Our dogs are generally too focused on us to care as well. We like to play with toys with our dogs in the dog park for the same reasons we like to train in the dog park. We are careful about this and keep an eye on the other dogs, but most of the time it's fine. When it's not, we put the toys away until our visitor gives up. I'm careful about what toys we take and we don't play with any that are outrageously attractive to dogs unless there are no other dogs there. Some people bring dogs that shouldn't be in the dog park. It's a fact of life. If it's a dog that seems overly aroused we leave. No big deal. If it's a dog that is afraid, we keep our dogs from harrassing them and let the fraidy dog approach in its own time if it wants to. Our dogs are allowed to take treats from strangers and we occasionally hand out treats to dogs we don't really know if their owners say we can. No big deal. Never had a fight break out and never been mobbed or had any kind of distressing problem arise from it. Our dogs are most receptive to our recalls when they are getting food (because we always have something better). We take roast meat to the dog park and don't have any problems with other dogs. You just have to use your common sense. If in doubt, just leave, or put the food/toys away. We carry treat pouches that can be closed and the toys fit in the waist bag I carry. Most dogs are friendly, but if in doubt call your dog away. Don't go to small parks that are fenced, stay away from parks that have a lot of dog poo on the ground, if you're nervous don't go at busy times. Take your lead from the other people in the park. Accept that people do things you don't agree with.

You're missing the same point MonElite is missing, Diablo. You can't teach a dog what a red light is without letting them run it and work it out for themselves from the consequences. That is how animals learn, but if you deliver positive consequences instead of negative consequences than at least they don't have to deal with the stress of trying to make the negative consequences stop without knowing what will make them stop.

I can't keep up with this thread anymore! Yes, but we can't "see" what the dog is thinking, or see what conditioning has gone into a dog to want the prey item so badly. You could of course make an educated guess,based on previous experiences training with other methods, but without knowing anything about how it was trained, then a guess is all it would be. Maybe if you grab a Balabanov dvd or something, you may see a difference in the dogs mindset A guess is all it ever can be, but the beauty of body language is that it's largely universal. PF makes a good point about breed differences, but the essentials are still there, as you can see in each picture or video. The ears are always up and forward, even when they can't physically do up, the eyes are always very focused and you can totally see a correlation between how focused and tight the face is and how fast the dog moves. The tail is generally up, and I fancy you can see how serious/aroused the dog is by how stiff their tail is. And the body, always tensed, but to varying degrees depending on how serious or aroused the dog is. I think it's a moot point how a dog got to where it's at with drive. What you see is true. It's going to be somewhere on the continuum and it's not rocket science to know what a dog at the bottom looks like and what a dog at the top looks like. It's the combination of arousal and self control that is important, and that's pretty obvious in the way the dog moves and how intense they are. I loved Diva's photos of her dogs coursing. That first shot especially really shows how intense a dog can get. Not only in the body but the face. Keshwar's contributions were also particularly nice. Not sure about MonElite's "drive intiation". Looks like a relaxed dog to me. Nekhbet's tricky medium drive was interesting. Dog looked alert to me, the body was not as relaxed as Kivi in his alert-but-at-ease photo.

Oh, I've got you figured out. *adds another notch* The thing is, for some reason Diablo thinks this thread is about purely positive trainers - none of which are on this board (or if they are they are too smart to make themselves known) and hey, the topic is actually the effective use of punishment - and has responded by attacking said trainers. Presumably if Diablo is so supportive of punishments they might have something useful to say about Steve White's Rules of Punishment and whether they agree with them all or not and why. Several people have pointed out the rules that have led them to NOT using punishments. That is relevant and I am glad they contributed. This dissing of trainers that are either hypothetical or not on the board to defend themselves is really drifting from the original topic. M-J has pointed out that even following the rules to the letter can result in an ineffective punishment. M-J, I can't speak for Steve White, but I would suggest that your case may have been an exception to the rule. I agree that 100% is a tall order for anything in the real world, but I still agree with the rule because I think in the vast majority of cases it is key to the effectiveness of that punishment. I know that from experience.

Okay, but you can't "tell" a dog that he's going to get a correction if he does something without giving him a correction for doing it, or at least creating a conditioned punisher. Two years ago I would have agreed with you. But now I say "why does a dog need to know what is 'wrong' or 'bad' at all? Why can't he just learn what is rewarding and what is not rewarding? This is the attitude I went in with when I got Erik. Erik is easy to train, but very busy, very smart, and very opportunistic. He always tries something once just to see if it's a good thing for him to do. He's pushy, demanding, and unlike Kivi, he certainly does let you know all about it if he doesn't like something. If I waited around for him to do everything I didn't want him to do once so I could correct him for it I'd spend most of my life correcting him for his latest 'trick' and he would not be nearly so fun to free shape. Erny, I hear what you are saying, but don't really see how it relates to the discussion except as another scenario in which you might need corrections. This thead is about whether you can do it WITHOUT corrections. Like I said, Erik is rather enterprising and overly confident, yet I've had him since he was 10 weeks old and he's now 6 months old and I have only had to resort to punishment once, and that was because I didn't appreciate at the time that he was a dog that gets so "into" doing something sometimes that he gets a bit lost in it. There was plenty of opportunity for me to do something with rewards if I'd made a proper effort, but instead I inadvertently made it all a good deal more rewarding for him. Whoops. Anyway, the point is, if I'd been more experienced with dogs like Erik I should have seen that one coming a mile away and done something about it and then I wouldn't have needed punishment.

The "little bit" was what I was trying to illustrate, if you read my post. This isn't really meant to be an instructional thread about drive so much as a "this is what it looks like" thread, and my purpose in posting Kivi in low level drive was to illustrate low level drive. I wasn't actually looking for criticism, but there you go. Erik is much more fun. His latest favourite is to leap at the toy when I'm least expecting it (like, walking along with toy tucked in arm pit). He has a way to go yet, but we're having fun getting there.