corvus

Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. Keep them coming. :) Cortisol is considered one of the most reliable measures of stress in animals that we have. There are plenty of studies that show it returning measures that make sense. The biggest problem with it (apart from how fiddly and expensive it is to do it right) is that it measures arousal, but not necessarily emotional state. Most of the time it's a good surrogate if controls are used. I know a research group that are just tying up a 3-year study on indicators of emotional state in dogs in shelters. They were looking at a suite, matching up behavioural indicators with physiological indicators. I'm working on one method of measuring emotional state. It's pretty exciting stuff, but probably years off being useful to dog owners. Cortisol isn't much use to dog owners and shelter managers, either. Behavioural indicators IMO can be deceptive. Sometimes a dog will appear perfectly happy until you put the tiniest bit of social pressure on them, and then they fall apart spectacularly. It's fascinating and a little disturbing. Also, there's this here about dogs in cafes in Australia: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/puppy-love-finds-acceptance-in-cafes/story-e6frg6nf-1226443431235 And this might be of interest: http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/10012/20120523/dogs-aggressiveness-psychology.htm

Simple question. What does the average DOLer want out of science? If you could make a wish list of the 5 things you would most like to see more research done on in dogs, what would they be?

It might have to do with how aroused the dogs you've tried it on are. We usually find with Erik it works wonders in fairly specific circumstances and is not real effective in others. It works best when his arousal is higher than usual, but there's a point where it gets too high and it won't do much. We don't use it so much anymore, but when we do it is, I think, more effective now than it was to begin with. Not sure why. I asked the company if there was any research into why or how it works and I gather from their response that there isn't. I think it really depends on the dog and the handler and what they have at their disposal and what they want. I use LAT with Erik with dogs, but Erik is most of the time quite good with other dogs. He gets intense when he sees them playing fetch. I use LAT because I don't want him running over to them and doing his heeler thing around them, which most dogs HATE. And it's such a high arousal situation with a fast-moving, unpredictable trigger that I don't think it really suits the careful approach of BAT. But if you can get a dog and handler on board to help you, BAT for dog-reactive dogs can work, and lots of people have had success with it (and CAT). You have to consider how many dogs you can get, though. It's unlikely just one will be enough. You might also be able to use it in controlled situations like fenced dog parks if you stay outside the fence. If your dog is very sensitive something like a fenced dog park will probably be too busy, even from a distance. I think that for reactivity towards something in particular, you have to consider why the dog is reactive. If they only have one or two triggers, it might be they are just plum scared and some classical conditioning will solve the problem. If they are emotionally reactive by nature, you're looking at ongoing management. Erik is a pro at CU stuff like LAT. He's turned around and run 10m back to me to start offering LAT before without a word from me because something is bothering him. It's very powerful if used consistently, but part of its power comes from the handler viewing it as a conversation. Erik uses LAT to tell me when something is approaching too much for him to handle, and I use it to tell him he can handle something that is bothering him using this rule structure, or to warn him that something bothersome is coming so he isn't surprised. If I don't listen to him when he's doing LAT and respond to what he's telling me, it will lose a lot of its meaning. It's not just a system for treating reactivity. It's a system for management and opening a channel by which you can communicate to each other as well. There's certainly an exchange in BAT as well, but it's more about treating a specific problem than establishing rule structures that can help you for a variety of problems. That's my view, anyway. As for whether the dog is going to interact with other dogs or not... That's your call. Some dogs don't want to interact, and that's why they are reactive. I think if they don't want to they should have that choice honoured and be allowed to stay well clear of other dogs. There may be exceptions, though.

I have used it with my Erik. I use LAT more and have a lot of success with it, especially after teaching Erik to take a breath on cue (TAB). TAB is incredible. Nothing calms Erik faster short of a Thundershirt. Erik is a very active dog and he's a heeler by nature, so tends to rush in where other dogs freeze or avoid instead. BAT is HUGELY useful for figuring out what he really wants, distance or proximity. Also very useful in figuring out critical distances. Often he wants information, but needs to be given a chance to calm down and seek it in more appropriate ways. BAT or LAT can give him the rule structure for that, but where LAT is most useful for reassuring a dog that they won't be asked to interact with something, BAT is a way to allow a dog to interact with something in small increments so they don't become overwhelmed. So I would use LAT if I don't think Erik needs or wants to interact with the thing he's bothered by, and switch to BAT if I think he does need or want to interact with it. I'm more inclined to use LAT for triggers he's familiar with and BAT for novel things he's not sure of. There's never an expectation even with BAT that he will interact with the thing he's bothered by, but the nice thing about BAT is it gives you a lot of information to make good decisions about how close you will take them and what they are comfortable with. LAT gives you similar information, but it comes quicker and in smaller doses! Much easier to misinterpret or miss all together. I learnt BAT from Grisha's first dvd. I am a huge fan. It has changed the way I train in a big way. I don't use BAT formally much, but I use functional rewards a lot. I used the concept to teach Erik coping skills with troublesome dogs at the dog park, and even to teach him to swim. :p Grisha is speaking at the APDT conference this year, and I believe is doing a seminar in QLD afterwards. I think that BAT and Control Unleashed exercises are very compatible and I switch between them pretty seamlessly whenever I feel the situation is better suited to one over the other. If you're using BAT in a simple manner, I think it's pretty easy as long as you remember to err on the side of more distance and slower approaches while you watch your dog very carefully. Just tedious. Using it to teach coping skills at the dog park was very effective, but took some skill. But it just goes to show the broad uses the idea of functional rewards can be put to. Well worth learning IMO.

Right. Yay! :) Yeah, maybe it is. But I'm not asking people to emulate me. I just want them to think twice before they assume what they are doing is what they think they are doing. There is always another (or several other) critters involved that don't have a voice. At the end of the day we all have to make a decision and we probably won't know how it's going to turn out until we do it. That's okay, because that's life. We make of it what we will. It's hard to ask our voiceless partners in training what they feel about it all, but that doesn't mean we speak for them. Maybe we just reserve judgement until we can figure out how to hear them. Reserving judgement leaves you open-minded and maybe more likely to see the evidence either way that having made a judgement call might otherwise blind you to. I think that's a fair compromise, and something that everyone can do. I figure decisiveness is for training, analysis for afterwards, and open-mindedness forever.

Right. :) Oh, Erik is a chronic poker. There's usually a background level, but the frequency and what he pokes changes. Generally if the frequency goes up and stays up he's not a happy camper in general. Figure out what his problem is and it goes down again.

Yeah, but the people at least are easy. You can outright ask them if they are happy or feel safe. I would look for similar behavioural indicators in other species as well. It's not hard to find them if you start looking. One of my doves is having a hard time with my other dove at the moment. They are fighting. One is apparently not bothered but the other I assume is. There are obvious indicators like he's vigilant around the other bird, but there are general changes that should be red flags as well. Like he got more flighty. He's easier to startle than he used to be and his flight distance is longer. It's very upsetting. I was going to rehome one, but have decided to try adding a hen instead. Pretty sure my dove is crying inside. I can only assume people whose doves cry probably go to hell. Anyway, cats will do the same sort of things. Flight distance and tendency to bolt are quite telling. I always found it to be so with my hare as well. And recovery time. It's always going to be a balance of a number of factors. That's just good training, and where people find the balance will differ. I think that this is not a problem, which again is why the idea of quadrant-based training annoys me. The problem is not the quadrant, it's judging how it affects the parties involved. Objectively!

It doesn't matter, because I'm not the one saying I have picked the best method. I don't know if my method is best! How does anyone know? It's not about how many things you try, it's about accountability. Preferably you only try one thing, but that's why claiming it's best is problematic. Like I said, I'm not digging at you or the method. I'm just trying to show how using a standard such as "best for dog and handler" to settle on a method is problematic. Just because you were the one that is arguing it's perfectly acceptable doesn't mean that I'm attacking you. I'm not demanding that people try a dozen different things to convince themselves they know which is the right one. I'm saying if you're going to use a benchmark it has to be observable and objective. Otherwise there's no accountability. As in, you can say what you like and no one can prove you are right or wrong. I'm not trying to judge because I can't, and that's the point I'm trying to make. I can't judge, you can't judge, no one can. So how do we know we are doing what we say we are doing? This is regardless of method. For example, I use Erik's alert behaviour and his poking frequency as indicators of where he's at emotionally. For Kivi I use his attentiveness to sounds that may or may not indicate I have food, and his responses to barking dogs. I use those behaviours because they are quite variable and they occur independently of training. The variability suggests the behaviours are in response to something other than just one signal, and being outside of training means I'm keeping the immediate effects of reinforcement and punishment out of it as much as possible. I'm not interested in the immediate effects because they are immediately observable. ;) I'm interested in the general effects, because that's how I keep myself accountable beyond the obvious. That's the intensely abbreviated version. This is mostly coming from my research and if I offered the full story we'd be here all day. I bet almost no one has any idea what the heck I'm talking about, so this is the general gist of what I'm getting at: 1) Quadrants are only part of the story. The immediate part, usually. 2) Picking a method based on subjective judgements of a suite of factors (handler skills, dog personality, behaviour to change etc.) is, well, subjective. It's not good enough to me to think I'm doing what's best. I know I'm a biased creature by nature and training dogs is easy and there are many roads to the same destination. How do I know I'm walking a path that adheres to my ethical obligations? The ones that I have defined for myself, which are different to what other people have defined for themselves. 3) The answer is to find indicators of my dogs' feelings of wellbeing or otherwise that are as objective as possible and not strictly immediate in nature. i.e. behavioural responses that occur regularly but are variable - sometimes the dog responds a little, sometimes a lot, sometimes not at all if you do nothing and let it play out. Or with Erik's poking, it's how often he pokes and what he pokes and whether he does it once and moves on or multiple times. Make sense? At all? To anyone? Whenever we make a decision for another being we have a responsibility to do more than just assume we are doing what's right. Humans are hardwired to find evidence that they are right and ignore or even avoid evidence that they are wrong. We ALL do it. If you want to do what's best, you have to know how to objectively judge it or you will end up kidding yourself without knowing it. I imagine that's something they don't teach you at NDTF or Delta. Calm down, huski, you have your evil beagle and I have my problem child. Erik's always getting into trouble, and we wouldn't have him any other way.

Yah, but how do you know when you only tried one thing? What happened to what's best for dog and handler? Now it's just what's best for you? Did Daisy think the e-collar was best? Assuming it was Daisy who was in trouble again. Rhetorical questions and I'm not picking on the method or you in particular, I'm trying to get people to think critically about their training decisions and why they make the ones they do and how they can tell it was a good decision after the fact. We have to be accountable at some point. On management... it's not inherently dangerous. Failed management is dangerous. I'd far rather depend on a leash and harness than a recall, but if the leash snaps I have good recalls to fall back on. Hopefully the leash won't snap! I've had prey animals in the same house as very predatory dogs. I factored in failed management and had two levels of management in place for the times when someone left a door open accidentally. Never had a close call. A couple of months ago Erik swallowed a fish hook attached to a couple of metres of fishing twine on the beach. Can't tell him to leave it if we didn't see him pick it up. The week before he had a tooth extracted after fracturing it on something or other. While we were overseas one of the dogs he was staying with took a piece out of his ear. Stuff happens. Failing to anticipate disaster is not a failure of management. It's just bad luck. Edited 'cause I'm tired and sick of it.

She's fast. That was only up for, like, 2 minutes! I would never presume to tell someone with a biting dog that they and their dog are happy together. Seems unlikely. But how can you possibly judge that one method is "best"? You only tried one, hopefully. If you tried more than one, you have no idea how the history with the first one may have affected the effectiveness of the second one. It's a whole lot of confirmation bias. You pick a method, you apply it, it works, dog is wagging tail whatever, human is happy, you say "See? I chose the best method." How do you know? I'd rather ask the dog. If you're attentive the dog will give you some hints, it's just not always easy to tell if there are side effects damaging to the relationship. It really isn't. Dogs are quite subtle, complicated beings and they don't shout about it when they are not happy like other animals will. They are also under some odd pressures living with people. Their behaviour can be chronically weird and yet accepted as normal because they've "always been like that" or because there are other dogs known to behave similarly. Skill is skill, regardless of the method chosen. You say you don't want "this method is better than that" yet you're claiming that compulsion is quicker. I don't think either is necessarily quicker. It's largely based on timing and clarity and picking an effective consequence. That's independent of quadrants. Maybe if speed was all that mattered and you had a dog with no training history and no interest in people and no way to control the dog's environment you might chose compulsion. Which is why I think people should not be so obsessed with quadrants. That and the fact that my treatment of problems is rarely confined to purely operant approaches. There is so much more to life. And this goes back to my original reasons for joining the discussion. Choosing a training program for yourself based on what the favoured quadrants are at each school is kinda pointless when you realise training is so much more than quadrants. If you want to learn about quadrants in training, learn intensively from the best. People who have trained a lot of animals of a lot of species. The methods don't change for them, just the reinforcers. The rest you pick up as you go along. If I were picking a course I'd go for one that teaches applied behaviour analysis or something similar. It will teach you how to assess a situation so you can decide what is likely to be effective. Not just what quadrant to use and how to use it for common problems. Most of my favourite behaviourists have a multi-level approach. They figure out a program to attack not just the operant side of a behaviour, but the emotional root. The OP probably just wants hands-on experience applying learning theory. So go do a chicken camp or a free flight bird training workshop, or something similar with exotics. That's why chicken camp was created. Chickens are hard! Dogs are dead easy. Incidentally, when I left DOL last year many people still thought of me as this positive nazi. On clicker training lists I always end up getting mired in discussions about negative reinforcement because I actually really like it. In moderation used subtly I have found it boosts confidence quite a bit. People think R- is nasty. It's not. None of the quadrants are nasty. It's up to us to make them nice. It's a lot easier to make positive reinforcement nice than any of the other quadrants in most cases, though. ;)

Imagine that, in the several hours between hitting reply and actually replying a bunch of people said pretty much exactly what I did.

Do you know the name of that course? Can't seem to find it. Try looking around here: http://www.ethology.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2 There are a few available. I have a friend doing one of them because he's self taught well enough that he didn't feel he'd get much out of either the NDTF or Delta courses. I think he was right. I've met plenty of Delta and NDTF graduates and those with knowledge to rival what he's learnt on his own have gained it through ongoing education, self-driven and through conferences and workshops. Weasels, I think the controversy around O'Heare is a little complicated and may have a bit to do with him making money doing some of the kinds of things they do but without the qualifications they worked so long and hard to get. I think it is less about him as a person, but that's just what I've gleaned from daring to mention his name in certain circles. ;) Anyone who has worked long and hard at something doesn't like it when other people waltz in and start doing much the same thing without having been through the 'proper' channels first. It's kind of like a slap in the face. Doesn't mean there aren't gifted people around who do a damn good job of it, and many of them are viewed with respect by the academic community, but only if they prove their worth and don't overstep the boundaries! I imagine O'Heare is probably good at what he does, but if you wanted to drift into academic circles at any point I would stay away from him, or at least build up your own credibility a bit first. Nothing personal to him, just pays to be circumspect when you're at the bottom of the heap.

Anyone who tells you you have to use all four quadrants to be an effective trainer doesn't understand what the quadrants are all about. They are merely a description of how different consequences affect the frequency/duration/intensity of behaviour WHERE IT IS DRIVEN BY REINFORCEMENT OR PUNISHMENT, which is not all of the time, and often in real life reinforcers and punishers can be quite surprising. And things can change from a reinforcer to a punisher from moment to moment. So quadrant-based training of any kind is going to do your head in sooner or later. And sooner or later if you stick to quadrant-based training you will find yourself severely limited because the quadrants are only a small part of the whole story. Where operant conditioning is an appropriate solution, you can usually find effective ways to use reinforcement rather than punishment if that's what you want to do. There are plenty of reasons to avoid using punishments and you usually can avoid it. If you are a psychology student I expect you will learn the theory (which is an essential foundation to training dogs) anyway, or at least will know where you can follow up on it and get a more detailed understanding. I think you would get a lot more out of a short, intensive workshop with someone world-renowned for their knowledge of applying operant conditioning to train a variety of animals than you would out of a long and tedious dog training certificate. Bob Bailey is retiring, I think, but Ken Ramirez is doing workshops in operant conditioning out of his aquarium in the States, and Terry Ryan was in Australia recently running a couple of chicken camps that were very popular. Hopefully she will come again in the future, because I missed out this year! I practise my shaping on a couple of doves I have, and I can attest to the fact that they are a lot harder than dogs and keep me much sharper than the dogs do. There's also Grisha Stewart, who will really open your mind to how flexible operant conditioning can be. She is coming to the APDT conference this year, and I think doing a talk in QLD, perhaps? Ramirez will be in the country later this year as well, brought out by the Hills District Kennel and Training Club. Good way to get a taste of them. Volunteering would get you much better hands-on experience than a certificate. Nothing like volunteering with shelter dogs to turn your training assumptions on their head. Organisations like Assistance Dogs Australia also have a volunteer program. I have been working with ADA in southern Sydney and their trainers are excellent. Incidentally, they do not as a rule use compulsion. They use a lot of counter-conditioning, management, and reinforcement. They train all-access service dogs and companion dogs with varying suites of service dog skills. They are just about to start a diabetes detection dog program. Volunteering with them gives you the opportunity to see how they train and you have to handle the dogs to be consistent with what the trainers are doing. I cannot say enough good things about ADA. Finally, if you still want to do a course on dog training, I'd consider Roger Abrantes' online course. He is practical and methodical and communicates very clearly. I know some folks doing the Kay Laurence online course. I'm not a huge Kay Laurence fan myself, but the course seems quite good, although intensive. I've always thought the CASI courses look good, but there's some controversy in the academic world around the president, James O'Heare, just so you know. I've just got home from Europe where I was at a canine science conference and there was a presentation or two on animal assisted therapy, particularly with autistic children. I believe the results were encouraging. I can look up who was doing it if you like. It's good to know where the work you're interested in is being done. I have a feeling it was actually almost local, but I'm jet lagged and could be making that up.

Erik is almost 3 years old. He is currently chewing on a large leg bone and has been for over an hour. When they are fresh he will spend 2-4 hours a day chewing on them. He's a very busy, mentally active dog and chewing is a huge part of keeping him content. He gets all his food either frozen in Kongs or in bone form. That usually amounts to about 2 hours of chewing a day. He broke a tooth a couple of months ago and without the chewing he was very restless and difficult and prone to anxiety. This dog gets 90 minutes of physical exercise a day, which includes plenty of trick training, but he's that bright and active that he really needs 4 hours of stuff to do every day. He doesn't always get it because I'm pretty busy, but we all suffer if he misses out a couple of days in a row. He's like a child, roaming the house poking things, knocking things over, getting things out and dragging them around, standing in the middle of the kitchen and barking loudly for several minutes in the hopes that someone will play with him... He's a lot of fun, but can be very trying when you're trying to concentrate on work. When he was a puppy he was moderately destructive. We lost a lot of shoes. The key for us has been legal chew items available at all times. We use cow hooves, bones, Kongs, cardboard boxes, and we used to use Nylabones as well. Lots of exercise and mental stimulation, and keeping things that might tempt him behind closed doors. He's never been into the furniture, but our other dog has and bitter spray solved the problem. He's pretty good these days. Sticks to his legal chew items, but I'm not dumb enough to leave anything smelling of food around where he might be able to reach it.

I was asked to share this call for applications for a dog behaviour and genetics PhD scholarship. These things are pretty rare in dog research, so if you want to do a PhD in this field and you're in a position to apply, then you should probably not mess around thinking about it. It's specifically on working dogs and is in association with the Working Kelpie Council of Australia and some other bodies as well. Further information is here: http://agile2.ucc.usyd.edu.au/ro/opportunities/scholarships/1097 I expect both my supervisors are heavily involved, so feel free to ask me about likely supervisors if you're serious. Probably best to send an email, though. Applications close 31st May.

I gave up doing this. As stated in another thread recently, people looked at me like I was a loony, always said yes even when I thought they maybe should have said no, and then looked surprised when their dog snapped at mine. I still ask if the owner appears hesitant and I think their dog will be all right, but otherwise I don't bother. I watch the dog and the owner and make a decision based on their combined body language. Haven't got any filthy looks or been shouted at yet. Everyone here already does that as far as I can make out. I think that we get frustrated when people appear to refuse to accept the reality of sharing spaces with people that don't have the same background in dogs that they do. It's not that hard to be polite to people and tolerant of the fact they may not view dog ownership the same way as you do. I take up the slack for other owners all the time. As a dog park user that knows what I'm doing, my responsibility is to my dogs first, but it doesn't end there. I also take the lion's share of the responsibility for ensuring interactions between my dogs and others and between me and other dog owners are positive ones. I pick up the slack because that's what being part of a community is about. I like to think that people learn from it, but it doesn't matter if they don't because I'm watching out for them in my way and they watch out for me in theirs in return. They let us know when aggressive dogs have visited the park and what they look like, and when dogs have got injured on hazards we didn't know about (park benches are dog foot traps!) and other similar handy tidbits of information.

Me too. If you want to get through life without kicking dogs I think you can find a way and still keep your dog safe. Sometimes terrible things happen and you might find yourself in an emergency situation where you will need to act aggressively to protect your dog. I am a little gobsmacked that a friendly if somewhat rude dog approaching yours could be considered an emergency situation. If it was for me, I don't think I'd be out and about with that particular dog at times when I was likely to meet other dogs. I don't think I could handle the stress. If I were lilli I would not be depending on council dog park rules. If something did happen, I doubt everyone's accounts of it would match. If there was contention, I imagine that the final decision would be unlikely to be in favour of the dog that caused injury. I guess that the council has a responsibility to public safety. If they let the dog off the hook and it injured another dog or person...

I have had my dog attacked and still manage to protect my dogs in dog parks without resorting to violence or other anti-social behaviour. That is my choice because I prefer making friends over enemies. If you would rather make enemies than friends, that's your prerogative. I don't care other than that I feel sorry for the dogs that get hit with a stick because their owners committed the cardinal sin of not being as dog savvy as you, or not being particularly effective trainers. I don't think they or their owners deserve that. Erik has been in a grand total of 3 fights in dog parks his whole life. None of them serious. I love how my sympathising with people that have similar problems and sharing that I've been there equates to Erik getting into lots of fights because I have mistaken unfriendly dogs for friendly ones when they are approaching. That's a spectacularly long bow you have there! The safety and wellbeing of your dogs when out of their yard is naturally of paramount importance, but I don't think indiscriminate exclusion is the only way to achieve that. It is a way, perhaps, but I would hate for people to think it is the only option available to them. You can shape the responses you want if you don't have them already. I did, and I'm a terribly inexperienced trainer. ;)

Well, it's usually pretty obvious, I find. Friendly dogs are loose with tongues flapping around and ears back while they run. Unfriendly charging dogs have ears forward, tail stiff, hackles up, often teeth showing and growling or roaring. I think they carry their heads lower. I don't often see unfriendly dogs charging. I don't agree. In my experience polite dogs dont run up to strange dogs period. I said friendly, not polite. ;) I agree, but when it's happening to me I don't do anything if the dog appears friendly. A polite dog would adjust their angle so they are not coming head on, or slow down, and most do that so there's no need for me to do anything. I'm not sure if people on this thread differentiate. Regardless of politeness, I've never had a friendly dog approach and turn unfriendly without further interactions prompting the unfriendliness, so I wouldn't lump it in as part of an approach. I do not think 'alpha true dominant' individuals are particularly common in suburban dog parks. We've had bullies and dogs that have something to prove and entire males are another matter again. Some desexed males behave like entire males. I appreciate that some dogs are magnets for trouble for whatever reason. There are always going to be exceptions to any general rule of behaviour. I maintain that it's pretty obvious when you're being approached by a friendly or unfriendly dog at a run. I got it wrong once when a dog flew across 70m of mudflat with his teeth showing, hair bristling, everything stiff, and roaring. I thought we were dead, but he pulled up short, had a tense sniff, then invited my dog to play. Whatever! Never mistaken an unfriendly dog for a friendly one. Well, not since I was 12, anyway.

Once you get clicker training, I find I'm concentrating on details too much to talk anyway. Just clicks, no verbalising.

Isn't everyone trying to do that? But what I think is 'safe' is not the same as what other people think is 'safe'. That will depend on previous experience, mostly. The right, yes, the expectation, no. If you go into a dog park expecting that your right to use it unmolested from other dogs will be upheld, you're going to end up cross. The control people are expecting others to have over their dogs is not easy to achieve. Off leash control in a stimulating environment is about as hard as it gets from a training perspective. People will struggle with it, and most will never really achieve it, particularly those with very friendly dogs. I don't think that should mean their dogs miss out on their exercise. I am a good enough trainer that I can keep my own dogs under control and manage other people's wayward dogs at the same time. Picking up the slack is not that hard. You only need a good down or sit, and maybe a good heel or equivalent for exiting. Or just a hand with which you can take hold of another dog's collar and merely wait until the owner comes and gets the dog. That'll do it.

Sorry, I must have somehow misunderstood "How do I know if they are friendly or not?"

I do about 95% of my training in the dog park or other places where off leash dogs are a pretty regular occurrence. Given my dogs are quite social, it was initially difficult to manage my training sessions when other dogs were coming to visit all the time and my dogs were off leash so they could ditch me abruptly at any moment. But it wasn't impossible and I worked at it and now my dogs do pretty well training through and around dogs visiting dogs. A lot of people apologise for their dogs disrupting my training. I always shrug it off. If I had a problem with their dogs interrupting my training sessions, I'd train somewhere else. It's my responsibility to manage my training sessions so my dogs are set up to win. Loose dogs are an environmental variable I have to manage, just like ducks and herons and children kicking balls and people with kite surfing gear and model aeroplanes and chicken bones on the ground and so on. Like Weasels, to me they are training opportunities. Even the dogs that hang around trying to get their head into my treat bag and can't be called away. It's embarassing for the owners. If it gets really annoying and the owner isn't doing anything and my dogs still want to train, I just start rewarding the dog for holding a sit-stay while I train around them.

Not in my experience. It's variable. Often they pull up and cover the last few metres at a more sedate pace and then perform a lovely appropriate greeting and move on. Other times they run past and loop back around at a trot to greet appropriately. I've never had much trouble with dogs rushing us. The boys usually know what their intention is. The one time someone got body slammed it was me. The dogs ducked out of the way! That was a very rude dog. I have difficulty with the notion that someone could have never been approached by a friendly dog. Happens to me several times a day. Happens to me wherever I take my dogs. I could count the times we've been approached by an unfriendly dog on one hand. Am I living in a different world? Often greetings are tense because dogs don't know who this dog is and what they might do. A tense dog is not an unfriendly dog. I have seen countless tense greetings dissolve into more relaxed interactions once the dogs have established that no one wants to start something. It's worse on the street where the dogs you meet are on leash or may be in their home territory, but even then.

Do you ever find it stressful? Short answer, not really, or I wouldn't love them! I rarely feel like I'm helpless. We have halt and exit strategies and the boys are quite responsive if we need to call them away. I don't sit around and watch a scene play out if I think it's going to have a less then stellar ending. If one of my dogs is uncomfortable I usually use it as a training opportunity to prompt them how they can handle this. R- is a very powerful tool. I think it's worth taking a small risk to take advantage of it. The more time I spend in dog parks the less stressful they are. Fewer surprises. I like playing prediction games. It helps that my dogs are good at staying out of trouble and read other dogs well.