corvus

So, what, you can't have a preferred quadrant because you have to fix other people's dog problems? That doesn't make sense. I can happily list the quadrants in order of my personal preference, which has hardly any bearing on what I actually decide to use except that where several will work I'll use my favourite. Oh noes, I have a favourite?? Who doesn't love rewarding dogs? To me it says "pick a trainer that uses primarily positive reinforcement". Seems like good advice to me. I use primarily positive reinforcement. Lots of people do. I don't think they are saying "always" or "never". I think they are saying as a general rule. Eh, we get fed biased information ALL THE TIME. Because if you want to pass on a message you keep it very simple and ignore a lot of exceptions and caveats. I don't think that "positive is good!" is a bad message to send to the masses at all. So what if they start frowning at prongs and e-collars? If they really need them, they won't care about image. I'd rather people went into any training venture being cautious of punishments.

Hoover's formed a foot singularity! One of the cutest things a four-legged creature can do. Here's one of Erik's, doubly cute for occurring in Kivi's tail.

I can, and I just did. Since when does 'preferable' mean that all owners should go for positive reinforcement first? There's no sense doing something that's not going to work simply because it's a preference. I prefer positive reinforcement, but the only time I'm going to try it first if I don't think I will have success with it is if trying if first and having it fail won't make things worse. They do? I could only find this: "Seeking the help of a qualified trainer who uses reward-based training techniques". It doesn't say "a qualified trainer who uses only reward-based training techniques". In the summary it says reward-based training should be the primary method used. Who doesn't use rewards more than anything else?

Well, to be fair, all they have really said is that positive reinforcement is a preferable training technique to positive punishment or negative reinforcement. Does anyone seriously disagree with that? I don't think there's any evidence that they don't understand punishment. On the contrary, they provide a pretty good summary of what can go wrong with using punishment and why they prefer positive reinforcement. They even added a few references for what it's worth. I don't see why this has to be a big deal. We are all adults with the ability to handle shades of grey and the ability to make our own ethical decisions. Why can't we prefer positive reinforcement and still use other quadrants where we see fit? We know what works practically and what works theoretically. Surely we can marry those two and achieve humane and efficient training without having to resort to a back and forth argument using examples of individuals that don't fit the mould for whatever reason. As for drugs, I have no idea why it's stigmatised to use drugs in a behavioural modification protocol. Sometimes a dog has got themselves so worked up and anxious that trying to change that without taking the edge off the anxiety and arousal with drugs just makes it a whole lot harder to make any headway.

Kivi Tarro, Finnish Lapphund Erik the Tall, Swedish Vallhund They are BFF.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159111003005

Does anyone know why some dogs do this? My dog seems to have that too, though to a lesser degree. He will always prefer to have something in his mouth when he first sees me after work or something. In his case, he will only pick up his own toys, and if he can't find anything within like 5-10 seconds he gives up and runs back to say hello with nothing. But the first thing he does when someone he really likes (it's really only me and my OH) arrives is look quickly around for a toy to hold. I believe it is excitement displacement. I think dogs have different thresholds where they will need to do something to manage their internal state, and different things they will do as a result. The more excited they get the more they revert to instinctive behaviours. My dog that does this has always been mouthy. I guess that excitement for him tends to come out in mouthy behaviour. It's socially unacceptable to mouth people as a general rule, so he carries something around instead. What amuses me is that he walks while he does it, like Roova's bull mastiff. When Erik is excited he runs and jumps, but Kivi is much better at containing his excitement. He'll run where he has the room, but he's perfectly happy walking in circles. The more excited he is the longer he walks around holding something.

Erik spied a large, empty plastic container balanced somewhat precariously on another plastic container this afternoon and gave it a poke, then was forced to flee inside as it crashed down. Nice one, Erik. He just couldn't resist, could he? ETA Erik seems to think a comfortable way to travel in the car is to flop over the edge of the backseat hammock so that the legs on one side are dangling free, then he rests his chin on the top edge of the hammock and assumes this odd, partially suspended U-shaped position that looks anything but comfortable. Whenever Kivi gets excited to see someone he has to pick something up and walk around in circles with it in his mouth and his ears pinned flat so he looks earless. He prefers to carry socks, but in the absence of socks, I have found him with receipts, bottle lids, tiny pieces of cardboard, shoes, large empty cereal boxes, hats, gloves, newsletters and so on.

My Finnish Lapphund puppy was a walk in the park. They make fantastic family dogs. Laid back, active enough to appreciate a play and a walk, but will be happy with low levels of exercise. Can be a little vocal, but mine just likes to rooroo when we get home sometimes and barks periodically if he's outside to make sure I'm still alive and available for cuddles should he need one. ;) Affectionate, gentle, very friendly, but always a darling. Everyone adores him. The coat might be an issue, though. It's thick and moderately long. I don't find the shedding very bad at all given most shed hair stays in his coat until it's brushed or combed out. But he does have a lot of coat. I usually do Kivi in sections and do a quarter of him every few days, or I try to. Sometimes it's once a week. He hasn't been bathed in months and still looks and smells clean somehow. Spitz breeds have magic coats. The coat is a wee bit of work, but worth it for the sweetest temperament known to dogkind.

Here's a report on an upcoming paper looking at behavioural problems in dogs from puppy mills compared to dogs not from puppy mills. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pets/dogs/story/2011-10-11/Puppy-mills-leave-lasting-emotional-scars-study-finds/50722874/1

So, what, "positive reinforcement" is a comprehensive training method, now?

Kivi's not far off CCD, either. Still a little polishing to do, but I decided I didn't want to trial until I'm satisfied his ring legal secondary reinforcers are enough to carry him. He's very easily put off. Plenty of time to polish while I'm sorting that out.

I have actually been working, so I'm sorry if I couldn't answer everyone's questions instantly. Most of the questions I used in the survey have been validated by previous studies with a couple of methods. It's about as sound as survey questions in animal behaviour get. Which is not to say that it's sound. Where were you all when my survey link was posted here if you are all the ones with sighthounds most representative of good sighthound temperament? If you did the survey, your good sighthound temperaments are in the dataset where they can do the most good. If you didn't, then talk to the hand, people. Greytmate, I suggest you go back to page 1 or 2. I didn't answer your question because I had already answered it when you asked it. Even when you do go back and check, you will still not know what my perception of bold is because I have deliberately not told anyone. It's not a discussion I want to be involved in at this point and I won't be dragged into it. No, I do not need your opinions, although it was nice to get them. If you are bored or annoyed, then go away. I don't feel that I have an obligation to entertain you. I'm bowing out now, folks. Thanks again for the ideas.

It is, and I should have said 'shy', but actually somehow thought 'timid' was practically the same thing and might be easier to swallow. Oops!

I wasn't trying to communicate my intent in the OP. I was trying to open the way for sighthound people to comment without leading them. I am happy with how people responded and continue to respond. It gave me the different perspective I was seeking. If I had data that showed gundogs were more often overweight than other breed groups, I think "Why are gundogs fat?" would be a good question. It gives people the opportunity to say "They're not if fed properly" or "they do seem to have a tendency to get fat easily" and an opportunity to offer explanations for why it might appear that they are, which is basically what I got from the sighthound people. If some gundog people get offended along the way, well, that's a shame because I wasn't saying their gundogs were fat. However, I would like to point out once again that there's nothing wrong with being shy or "less-bold". There is something wrong with being fat. As far as statistics is concerned, we like to pretend that our samples are representative of the population, but I think realistically that is highly unlikely. In my view, there will be skews. It doesn't mean the research is codswallop. It just means there are pieces missing and I get to try to guess what they are and how to fill them in, which is uber fun and challenging. From here I hit the literature again and try to find support for some of the things people here have said. If I find it, it goes into the paper and I get to discuss it. If I don't find it, it's difficult to justify discussing it. Journals don't like a lot of speculation.

Incidentally, the star of my first pilot study was a greyhound. I'm still in awe of how thoroughly he mastered that task. No dog I've done since could hold a candle to him. He was something else.

Okay... 1. That most of the sighthounds in my survey were ex-racers is a massive assumption and one that can't be supported. 2. Age was looked at, but not within breeds or breed groups. Not enough numbers. 3. Socialisation is not quantifiable when it was done by a thousand different people in a thousand different places and is not even known in many cases. 4. I did not ask about predatory behaviour because NOTHING is shy when in predatory drive. 5. It was a loaded question and for that I apologise, but it is much more useful to give as little information as possible and then cherry pick broad concepts to follow up on in the literature. Not that there is much scientific support for breed or breed group temperaments. I'm sorry if people felt offended. I won't ask any more loaded questions if it upsets people. 6. I found that Blackwell paper very interesting.

Well, it all boils down to approach/avoidance, really. We're talking about very big, sweeping generalisations. It has been validated, though. I'm not trying to create a description of sighthound temperament from the results. I'm not going to give a definition because I haven't published it yet! Most of the sighthounds in my survey were greyhounds. It's not a negative box at all. There is no need to be offended. Extreme boldness isn't exactly the bees knees. I'm not actually going to label anything 'timid' in the writeup, but don't feel like you want your dogs to be bold and if they aren't up there with the rotties they don't measure up somehow. Different dogs just have different styles. Obviously whatever they are doing has worked for them for a long time, so there's really no need to feel miffed. If it makes you feel any better, sighthounds as a group are far from extremely shy. It's a continuum rather than two catagories.

Ooo, a Koolhaas article? *is a slight Koolhaas groupie* :D You are quite right, the labels we use can be limiting. I'm calling it boldness because that's what other people have called roughly what I'm describing. It's a hard call because it's not exactly the same, but I think the last thing the personality literature needs is another term! Anyway, I was hoping to add to the current understanding of boldness in dogs by bringing in some 'bold' tendencies from other species, but it didn't work out that way. Might be that whatever we're describing in dogs is not the same supertrait as what other people are discribing in other species. Dogs are about the only ones we can ask such detailed questions about because people are living with them. It's maybe both a good thing and a bad thing.

Bribe with something truly delicious. Like boiled heart or roast meat.

It's kind of complicated. I did a principal components analysis, which basically is a way to objectively work out what exactly my survey was asking about and reducing the 50 odd questions down to more general concepts. It does it mathematically so that I'm not the one that decides which questions relate to which concepts. Then I extracted the most meaningful component, looked at the questions that it was most strongly related to, compared that to previous studies, and gave it a name (boldness). Then I extracted boldness scores for every dog in the study and fitted a straight line between those boldness scores and various different factors I thought might affect the boldness scores. Then I tested the significance of the regression, and built a linear mixed model one term at a time as I tested their significance and yadda yadda. End result: Sighthounds have a lower boldness score as a group than most other groups. I can't really say if the results are right or wrong. I mean, we're talking about pesonality. All I can do is try to interpret the results accurately. TSD: Public-owned dogs. Dogs' origins were not significant.

Hmm, I have an idea. Thanks everyone!

I'm classifying according to UKC groups, so yes, by guardian I mean mastiffs, rotties, dobes etc. Danes are in that group as well. I was wondering about that. I could believe that fine bones and a short, unprotective coat might lead an animal to be a little more risk averse than, say, a heavy animal with a thick, protective coat. Risk averse if we're ignoring how an individual might assess risk in the first place, that is. ETA I think Iggies went into the companion group with the toy breeds.

It's a huge generalisation, but it's a significant one according to my survey results. I'd rather not debate whether they are timid or not. Obviously there are timid and bold individuals as there are in any breed group. But my data indicates sighthounds in general are more timid than many other breed groups, and that's what I'm left with at the end of the day. The most timid group is toy breeds. That kinda makes sense to me because they are very small and aren't really expected to handle much pressure. The boldest group is guardian breeds, which makes sense to me because they are very large and you would think guardian breeds would do better if they were more bold than timid. But sighthounds... Not sure about that one. Most were large breeds.

Thinking of you.