corvus

Sorry, slightly off topic, but it occurred to me recently that our pet dogs don't need to learn this stuff so they don't unless we teach them, but if they were out in the wilderness they would learn a lot of it on their own. Since I taught my older dog rear end awareness at age 3, he has got so much better at making his way through difficult terrain.

Joe, where this good dog being? You talka da talk, but every dog is wrong dog to you. How you say, maybe Joe hasn't found dog he can train yet, so all dog being not good dog? Just kidding, but seriously, I would love it if you stopped mashing something that is so beautiful. Behaviour is complex and multi-faceted. It's both genetic and adaptive. That's what makes it so elegant and so fascinating. Distilling it down to a clumsy dichotomy is quite horrible to watch.

I like this. I've found it extremely effective for teaching my dogs to tug reliably and strongly, which obviously makes it easier to use as a reward. I tried it with Kivi because he is a very mellow dog and I wanted to see if I could get him tugging reliably for the sake of education more than anything. Kivi will now tug with just about anything I pick up and wave at him. I'm yet to find somewhere he won't tug, but that was never really his problem. It was that he rarely felt like it for very long. Now he seems to be happy to tug more often and for longer and he puts more effort into it as well. I haven't pushed it, but nor have I found his limits by accident yet. Erik's problem was that he wouldn't tug everywhere and he didn't really see it as a reward. Just a reward when he felt like it. That problem seems to be mostly resolved through this as well. I don't have video of him because it was boring. He just dived right into it and never looked back. Problem was 90% solved in about 3 short sessions. Hence my "I can't believe I spent months working on that when I could have fixed it in a couple of weeks!" lament. Anyway, for those interested, I cobbled together a short video of the process from the beginning to where we are currently up to with Kivi. It's not very refined as it was the first time I tried it. Also has an example or two of really awful timing. Just to be clear, this is not drive training. I just wanted more reinforcers and tug is a good one because once they get into it doesn't really need maintenance.

Then why do you need her to wear one?

I don't see much difference. If my dogs are on leash and get bothered, they still do the same thing. If they can't run far they just run in circles until someone rescues them. They're not bolting, just trying to stay out of range. I will drop the leash where it's appropriate to do so (e.g. enormous mastiff with poor social skills and no real sense of his size trying to wrestle with Kivi). I see what you're saying, but I seriously question whether a dog that's known to deliver uninhibited bites is going to be safer without a muzzle. It took my corgi fearing for her life in a fight before she delivered uninhibited bites, and it was the only time she ever did. She wasn't the first one to do it. She responded in kind to what was dished out to her. That's how it got so horrible. Can we be assured that a DA dog with a known history of doing damage is not actually going to exacerbate the situation if it's allowed to deliver uninhibited bites in self defence? Part of this risk assessment is asking how common it is for off leash dogs to attack with the intent to do harm in the first place. Agreed, but I'm a realist. There are always going to be people breaking the rules. We do. You try walking two active dogs on a trail that goes through thick brush and over fallen trees and shrubs and down steep rocky paths and keeping them on leash. If we want our walk to take twice as long while we untangle leashes every few steps, then maybe. Plus it's really hard to keep your balance trying to negotiate steep paths with a dog trying to do the same tethered to you. They just aren't practical in that environment. I used to do long lines, but they tangle on everything. That aside, lots of people have been brought up believing that leashes are optional. It would be nice if the world were perfect, but it's not. What pisses me off about even having to discuss this is reports that in countries where dogs are allowed to be in more places, these problems aren't nearly as common in the first place. Again, it would be nice if the world were perfect. I think that we just need to accept that it's not perfect and handle the situation that is present, not the one we would like to be present. I sympathise, but unfortunately, that's life. I'm not one to rail against it. I just manage it. We have more fun that way.

Muzzle up then Corvus. You don't own the smallest dogs in the community. The chances of your dogs doing more damange to a small dog (eg. <10kg) than they receive is high if there's a scuffle. And I know plenty of dogs that have been on the receiving end of aggression from them. :rolleyes: Why does this have to be outrageous? I thought I was being clear, but I think something's been lost in the course of this discussion. * I was initially responding to comments that said a dog that was dog aggressive didn't need to be muzzled because it was the other dog's fault for approaching off leash in an on leash area. * I suggested that if the dog was known to do damage, it should be muzzled regardless. * Enter various arguments against. * I still believe if the dog is known to do damage, it should be muzzled in public. My criterion stemmed from that general train of thought. I thought it was clear, but maybe just clear in my head to me. I'm not talking about potential to do harm because you have to take into account the dog's response under extreme pressure, and I don't know what that is for my dogs. Nor do I know the likelihood of them being put under extreme pressure. Hasn't happened yet. I'm talking about what you have experienced with your dog. That's all. On a day-to-day basis, is it more likely your dog will do harm or be harmed? All things being equal. In my case, I can only say that they are more likely to be harmed, because we have had a few misses where I was quite scared, but my boys have never been in a serious fight and have never harmed a dog or human, despite having been in scuffles and been on the receiving end of aggressive behaviour from dogs under 10kg (usual response: "Arg! It bites! Run away!"). If we only include incidents that have involved harm one way or another, which would be fair, the jury is out and so it's not something I need to make a decision about at this point. But if one of my dogs ever injured another, I would be thinking hard about that risk assessment. If one of my dogs had injured a strange dog in public, I would have to consider the circumstances and the risk of those circumstances being repeated. Is that clearer?

Well, I am. So we're talking about different things. My criterion was clear. If there is a greater chance of my dog doing damage than my dog taking damage, I would muzzle. If tomorrow Erik gets into a real nasty blue and does damage, I would have to think very carefully and weigh up my assessment of the risks. When my corgi was having her war of attrition with our whippet cross, there was a very nasty fight where we think she bit someone's hand quite badly. I never muzzled her because those circumstances were highly specific and unusual. She had never injured any other person or dog before then and never did again for the rest of her life, even when she was old and grumpy. There was no reason to believe she was likely to injure a strange dog or person in public just because she had got into a very serious fight with a housemate intent on doing harm. That's how Erik gets into fights. And that's why he doesn't get to play with staffy mixes for very long unless he knows them well. He's actually beautifully clear and always tries non-aggressive means first, but some dogs don't notice.

Have your dogs been injured because they were wearing a muzzle? How do you know it was because of the muzzle? Have they been in fights without the muzzle and fared better? Was it the same kind of fight as the ones with the muzzle? Sorry folks, I stand by this. I don't think I could take a dog out in public that I knew might injure another dog or person without a muzzle. Aside from the fact that I couldn't handle how vigilant I would need to be, I couldn't live with myself if the dog seriously injured someone or another dog. Not just so I can rest assured that if a dog as bad as or worse than mine comes along my dog might be less screwed. Particularly when I don't even know if my dog would be less screwed. Sorry, but I value the safety of all dogs and people, not just me and mine. If there's a greater chance that my dog will cause damage than that my dog will take damage, I would muzzle. My dogs are not more important than everyone else's.

Holy cr@p! Yes! Thank you! The others would do, too. Thanks guys!

My mum has these awesome leashes I really like. They are about 6ft long and are round and nylon, I think. Both ends have a snap hook and both ends have a ring attached about 30cm down the leash so you can attach leashes together for longer length and if you want to tether the dog to something momentarily you just have to unhook the snap at the handle end, wrap the leash around the anchor, then snap the hook back on the ring you took it off. These things are genius. I want some, but mum doesn't know who the manufacturer is. She bought them years ago from Petbarn in Fyshwick before it was a chain. Never seen them anywhere since. Anyone know if they or something like them still exist?

Yes, and that's about where it all fell apart. Before then he'd pick and choose about tug, but he would do it with a lot of gusto when he did. After the pestering he started actively avoiding me whenever I whipped one out. It worked briefly, but everything came tumbling down not long after I started (under the instruction of the same club?). I spent months slowly building it up again, then tried shaping tug with food and he went forward in leaps and bounds. I couldn't believe I'd been messing around trying to coax it out of him all that time when the solution was so quick and easy and obvious.

Good question! I don't know. I have wondered, though. I have a few embryonic ideas, but nothing ready for public consumption. :p

I'm confused. Are we trying to create a higher value for dumbell retrieve for the sake of argument, or do we have a dog that inherently has a higher value for dumbell retrieve than anything I can offer? What exactly have I said about effectiveness or reliability? The question wasn't whether or not you can fix the behaviour but why train it in the first place when teaching your dog to value an item like a dumbell more than anything you have to offer is something that can present a lot of issues. Why not train it in a way that means those issues won't become issues in the first place? That's more or less what I meant. If you train it by backchaining, are you going to have any issues? You trained the end first and built on that. One would hope the base of the behaviour is nice and strong. I'm just throwing it out there, though. I have no idea. I think maybe you're just looking at it from a different perspective. Why does it have to be a release and disengagement from you? Why can't it be you're the gatekeeper and you've taught the dog that this is not a disengagement, but allowed access? If you set it up right, I don't think it need be a release per se.

Depends what kind of fight. I've seen 'fights' with no or very little teeth contact. Not a scratch on any dogs involved. Everyone has heard stories. But have you seen it? I haven't. I've never even seen a muzzled dog except a friend's grey. Er, I didn't say I thought I could protect a leashed and muzzled dog. I said I thought I'd be in a good position to break up a fight. I was talking about all fights, not just the ones involving off leash dogs that intend to do harm. In fact, one of my points was how common is a dog fight where a dog intends to do harm? Really? I've seen it... rarely. I've tried to protect a dog on leash from an aggressive dog charging... successfully. Small dog and I am quick and lucky. Owner was nearby on two accounts and a tree was nearby on the third. I have broken up fights and then carted one off to the vet for stitches. It was not a melee of movement and teeth because one was in the jaws of the other. I have broken up fights that were a melee of teeth and movement and no one got hurt because none of the dogs involved intended to do harm. I've also broken up a fight blind because it was going on in a prickly bush. Shall I go on, or have I established my fight experience sufficiently? There is more. What's your sample size? How much worse than two unmuzzled dogs fighting? How many dog fights between unmuzzled dogs when one is known dog aggressive end at the vets or worse? For which dog? Forget about bait dogs as we're not talking about pit fighting. It's not, obviously. :rolleyes: I wouldn't want to see my dog do damage, though. I've been there and done that and somehow muzzles don't seem so bad in comparison.

Have you seen a fight involving a muzzled dog? I haven't, so I'm guessing, but as I said before, I wonder if a muzzled dog in a fight is in any more danger than an unmuzzled dog. How are they going to defend themselves? By doing damage with their teeth? Is that going to make it safer for them? Is the other dog going to even notice? If they do, are they going to back down, or go in harder? If I have a leashed and muzzled dog fighting, I am in a pretty good position for breaking it up quickly, and there's one less set of teeth to dodge. What are the chances of the dog that starts the fight delivering uninhibited bites in the first place? It's not that common IME. And I go to dog parks everyday. I've seen a few fights, and usually everyone comes out of it upset, but with not a scratch on them. I'm just saying, I would rather have a 'defenceless' dog than one with its teeth burried in another dog or someone's arm. As for whether they behave worse with a muzzle on... Presumably they have to learn that they can't defend themselves before they get worse, which means you've already had incidents where other dogs might have been in danger if it hadn't been for the muzzle, which kind of supports my opinion that it's not a bad idea to use one in the first place? It's just my opinion, though. No one need get defensive.

Foundation work! Oh, wait, I'm not supposed to comment on trial-related things. Backchaining?

Granted. I did think of that, but didn't feel confident to comment on the finer points. :p It was more of a general comment on value vs control. Agility was a poor example. Incidentally, I found out I couldn't reward Erik by tossing him a toy because he only thought toys were fun if they were in my hands or he was facing me ready to catch them on the full. I ended up teaching him to target toys first. I mention it because I guess sometimes we can get too carried away making sure we are where it's all at for our dogs and forget that sometimes we want to reward them away from us as well.

Well, there's "should" and then there's what is. I'm not saying people with dogs that might do damage should keep them muzzled in public, but I think I would. The reason why I would be the one to take further steps is because I figure if I have an animal that is likely to cause harm in certain circumstances, it is my responsibility to make sure I prevent that. Just doing my bit by leashing my dog is ignoring the fact that some people do the wrong thing and I would consider that a breach of my responsibility to prevent my dog harming others. Muzzle the dog, then everyone is safe no matter what happens, who is the idiot, or which dogs are owned by idiots. It's not the dog's fault they aren't being kept on leash, so why should they have to pay? What's more, if your dog is muzzled, I bet you people will try harder to keep their dogs away from yours in the first place. It's a clear signal of potential danger.

I didn't say you would want it. I just said maybe some people have to handle it anyway and do so successfully. In a stockdog you would want it. How else are you going to get them to do what you need them to do? There is so much emphasis put on reward value and so little on methods of controlling reward access and conditioning. I don't think we need to be afraid of our dogs coming to love something more than us. We just have to be sensible about how we manage their access to those things. Having a dog that loves to run agility courses more than they love, say, a game of tug is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Failing to control their access to equipment so that it's not contingent on the desired behaviour is. In contrast, I find it highy unlikely that I'll ever be able to sufficiently control access to, say, wallabies. So dogs are on leash around wallabies. She says, hopefully. Either that or I get some e-collars.

Huski, isn't that what stockdog handlers have to face everyday? I understand that it comes with its own special problems. To some degree, maybe those problems exist in agilty for certain dogs as well.

I don't know, I haven't asked them to definitively rate them! They don't seem put out if they get tug rather than food and happily pounce on it and tug. Why would I limit myself to one reinforcer if I don't have to? More reinforcers = greater flexibility. That's it. Clearly I'm going to have to find some video of early work with Kivi teaching him to tug for food. I think I have some. I kid you not, he would tug a little, I'd mark and present food, and from that moment on he would not even look at the tug. In fact, he avoided it. I just stuck at it and shaped it, starting with marking for just looking at the tug. It honestly did not take long. Maybe 3 very short sessions. It's not about what he prefers, it's about teaching him that tug can be a reward. If your dog already loves the chase and tug game but would prefer to work for food, I am pretty confident this would get her working for tug at least as happily. Although, she is a lab... The value of a reward is anything but static. It changes from moment to moment. I think the only thing holding you back is how you use a reward. As ness and kiesha said, any secondary reinforcer should be at least as rewarding as the primary reinforcer you used to create it. If it's not, the association isn't strong enough and you need to pair it with the primary reinforcer more often. There are a few behaviours Kivi and Erik have been rewarded for so many times that a cue for those behaviours is as rewarding as food because to them it means food. It's a delicate thing, though. The reinforcement rate has to stay high, particularly for Kivi who has a short extinction curve. Tug is a little different, though. IME, once they realise they are getting food for tugging, they throw themselves into it and start enjoying the tug in its own right. You can then start marking for harder tugs and longer tugs and jumping for the tug and so on. I still drop them food quite often, but sometimes it's a surprise for them because they had forgotten all about food while they were having fun tugging.

I did say "with uninhibited bites". I didn't want to speculate on this particular case as I wasn't sure what happened. My comment was a general one. I don't think it's fair on other dogs to walk a dog that is likely to cause injury without a muzzle. By injury, I mean stitches or extensive bruising. It's a personal perspective, though. I wouldn't want to witness any dog being injured, regardless of whether their owners are doing the right thing or not.

Your choice. In my LGA dogs can be seized and euthanised if they attack another dog or person. I have no idea how it would play out if the dog was on leash at the time. I wouldn't want to test it is all. Honestly, I can't imagine a dog being in more danger in a dog fight if it was muzzled, particularly if it was liable to lock on and take no prisoners. The ugliest fights I have seen turned ugly when someone didn't win in the first few moments. But I've never seen a muzzled dog in a fight. If I had to break one up I'd be happy if one dog was muzzled. It would make my job easier. If it was mine that was at least I would be assured that if there were any disputes about damage they could be laid firmly to rest.

I told you, Dju, he's a very lean Vallhund! He still makes most dogs his height look like a bunch of twigs, though.

What a ridiculous comment - the dog was under control and was (in its mind) rushed by an out of control rude little dog. That is not a friendly advance. As the OP has already pointed out the right thing to do would have been to have her dog under control in the first place. Well, I don't know, in the interests of avoiding injury I think if I had a dog that was likely to respond to being approached with uninhibited bites, I would muzzle it in public. I don't need another dog or human being injured on my conscience, thanks, regardless of whether I was the one in the right or not. Snapping is another matter. If a dog doesn't intend to cause damage they won't.