corvus

I am still bewildered about this idea that you CAN instantly bond with an animal. I never have. They always seem like a little slice of chaos to me for a number of months. I don't really 'bond' with them until I understand them, and I don't understand them until I've got to know them, and it takes me several months to get to know them, at least. I just let it happen at its own pace. It's not like I don't love them in the meantime. I love forging that connection and finding ways to bridge the species divide. There is nothing sweeter than an animal that has just worked out they can communicate with you. I LOVE that moment a puppy learns they can sit and you will give them what they want. They just light up, as if they are saying "What, I can TALK to humans?? This just gets better and better!" I think maybe it would help to remember that puppies are a bit chaotic to begin with. It takes time to learn to predict them and find ways to communicate with them and basically come into alignment together.

Lots of people have achieved this. It's just conditioning. ;) Consistency is the key. Don't forget to reward him when he does look at you instead. Using food could change his emotional state and make him feel more calm.

Good news.

Oh, I saw a Standard Schnauzer. And several OES.

Clearly I become lamington deficient on a regular basis. ;)

Dr Billinghurst claims that feeding a 'balanced' diet at every meal (i.e. commercial diet) introduces a variety of problems such as de-activation of vitamins, production of insoluble compounds that are difficult to digest, and consistent excess of protein, phosphorous, sodium and calcium. He goes on to claim that a raw diet can have a higher amount of protein in it than a commercial diet, but because meals are quite different day to day, the kidneys can cope with the high protein because they then get a rest period. He says that separating starchy meals and protein-rich meals seems to result in better digestion, but acknowledges that no one really knows why. That was a while back when he wrote "Give Your Dog A Bone", though. I'm interested that he has his BARF patties that are pretty much exactly what he warns against several times in his book. :p He says that an all-kibble diet may cause kidney problems. It's hard to prove because obviously not every animal on an all-kibble diet gets kidney problems, and if they occur in old age who can say why?

My mother washes one of her dogs every week because otherwise his skin gets itchy and his coat gets grimy. My dogs get washed maybe every 3 months or so. Usually because they are getting a bit stinky from playing in the swamp and so forth. ETA the dog I grew up with almost never got washed, but she had a soft, gleaming coat. She swam in the lake regularly and played under the hose. No one ever shampooed her.

RS, sometimes old dogs become incontinent. Penny would soil her bedding fairly regularly, but the vet gave us some pills to control it and it did the trick. She only needed a low dose. Penny's old yard mate from our sharehouse days who was the same age as her just this week went downhill and is no longer eating. I don't know what's sadder, that he's nearing the end or that my ex-housemate is going to loose her best pal. The world won't be the same place without him.

At the Sydney one we saw some Leonbergers, a Pyr, a black chow (and a gold one), 2 Shibas, some Irish Wolfhounds, 2 Akitas, and 3 Irish Setters.

I think you just have to try to accommodate them. They are annoying sometimes, and it's easy to get frustrated with them, but it's probably not going to get any better. When we were going through all this with Penny her vet was very sympathetic and told us how often the dogs will start vocalising a lot because they don't really know what's going on. Penny would just stand there and shake and look increasingly anxious. She became grumpy and a wee bit volatile and would startle if you cast a shadow over her of a sudden. We just did our best to accommodate it. Someone suggested to me when her eyesight started to go that we teach her scent signals to help her get around. But then, if they start to get dementia they can't necessarily smell very well anymore, either. At the end, I just wished I taught Penny touch cues. Maybe it wouldn't have helped, though. She was sore, so a bit angsty about being touched along with everything else.

Seriously, I think many dogs think this. My dogs are very well socialised and act as though it would be unthinkable to not introduce themselves to whatever dogs are in their vicinity. I've noticed that dogs that don't come over to greet are usually nervous around strange dogs. Personally, I want my dogs to accept that we don't greet every single dog we see, but I'm happy to let them greet most. I know some people that don't allow greetings on leash period because they are always more tense than greetings off leash. I appreciate that perspective.

Uni is what you make of it. You can swan through and learn the theory or you can learn the theory and take every opportunity for practical experience. But if you are really only interested in dog behaviour, I wouldn't bother. I would look at the CASI courses online. They seem like they have a really thorough course content. Personally, I think a good background in theory is priceless. It helps me everyday and I just keep building and building on it. Every new piece of information fits into that framework and makes sense on a broader scale as well. But it's not really a prerequisite to being a good trainer. If you want to be a behaviourist I think you should do a uni degree. But you might want to consider psychology rather than animal science. I'm not sure what they teach in animal science, but I did zoology and never even heard of learning theory until I left uni and got interested in training. I'm now doing a PhD through the vet science faculty and my project involves a lot of learning theory. My learning theory is almost entirely self-taught and I still know enough to have made up for what I would have been taught if I'd done vet science and then some. Anyway, the main point in doing a degree for becoming a behaviourist is not so much the subject matter as the general skills. Uni teaches you how to learn and sets you up with the skills to judge your information sources critically and apply what you have learnt to everyday situations. It teaches you how to work out what's going on.

The power of counter-conditioning.

You will all probably be able to hear Erik. ;) He doesn't like standing still and usually feels compelled to tell us loudly that he is bored and would like to be entertained. We were planning to get there around 9:30 as well. If we hover around the entrance we should be able to spot folks we know. Once a few of us are together with the spitzies we should be pretty obvious. :p OH says we need to spruce Kivi up for maximum cuddliness, but he says this is my job because he's a man.

Sometimes friendly dogs get frustrated when they are on leash and can't greet another dog they want to greet. Frustration may lead to genuine aggression. I had this happen with my very friendly dog when he was younger. He would see another dog and start bouncing on leash and lunging and barking, although he never sounded or looked very aggressive. Off leash he greeted and interacted with other dogs very appropriately. For a while I was waiting for him to calm down enough to offer a sit, which is his default behaviour. Once he did that he would become responsive and I would call him into heel and reward him and we'd go forwards. It was working, but then I learnt about Leslie McDevitt's Look At That game in her book Control Unleashed. My dog was already experienced with the clicker, and I found this method was a short cut to a very responsive dog. The problem disappeared very quickly. He still has a strong compulsion to greet other dogs, which I'm fine with, because he can cope with not greeting them as well. He will happily sit in front of me and do whatever he is asked and ignore the other dog. Usually. :D He is a male spitz, after all. ;)

Oh geez, you caught me. I was really trying to undermine everything that has ever been said by you in particular. :p I was just picking out a few examples. If there is conflicting information from various experts, then it's hearsay to me until someone can produce something that is more concrete than "I saw it myself" or "I have tried it and it worked", and that goes for both sides. Sorry, nothing personal. The folks on the other side of the argument don't seem to mind, so I don't see why you should.

Ahem. I do not discount anything that doesn't have figures to back it up. I'm not writing anything off as hearsay, I'm just saying it is. There is a difference. My point is that it should be treated with caution. Not ignored, but not accepted unequivocably as fact, either. It was indeed a general comment, thanks Aidan. As for results, I'm sure you have noticed that interpreting behaviour can be very subjective. "Results" could mean anything. There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat. Just because the method one person uses works doesn't mean that it is the only method that would work, or that "work" didn't include a whole lot of other side effects, or that "work" meant it was very effective or faster than other methods. Confirmation bias is another thing that is rife in the dog world. Discounting anything is rather short-sighted and hasn't been my way for a long time, now. Being cautious of 'facts' is. Drives my OH crazy. "Okay, are you stating that because you know it or because you guess it? How do you know it? Well that's not knowing, is it, that's guessing. Uh-huh, well when you're proven right I'll believe you then. Yes, I will say I was wrong and I will make sure the world knows how clever and attractive you are." I treat everything written with scientific figures to back it with caution as well. It's been drummed into me. Some of it is very convincing, though. ETA Saying there's no evidence for it is not denouncing it. If there is one thing I wish people with dogs would do it's question what they are told. I know plenty of people who learnt that the hard way, and their dogs suffered for it. That includes me and my first dog.

Perhaps hearsay to those who don't have the experience of them. So, what, it's okay to just make up facts if you have experience in the matter? Are those with experience exempt from providing sound reasoning that holds up to critical scrutiny? That is exactly how hearsay comes about. If I had a dollar for every time someone said something that is erroneous about dogs that they had heard from someone more experienced with dogs than they are, then I could fund my own research. You don't need experience in something to recognise hearsay. You just need the ability to type something into Google and start nosing around.

I think you should just get professional help. It's hard to tell what's going on without knowing how you've been working with her so far and without seeing what she's doing. It could be quite dangerous for all we on the internet know.

Buster Cube and Kong Wobbler are big winners here for keeping a dog entertained for a while. We also have a Harvey Rabbit that is very popular. Their favourite toy of all time is a monkey puppet they found on the side of the road during one roadside cleanup. It's a foream length, fuzzy monkey with a squeaker in the mouth and long arms and legs. Kivi dug it out of a pile of junk and lay down where he was with it and refused to move. I figured they may as well have it seeing as it was just going to the tip anyway. The boys argued all the way home who got to walk next to the hand holding the monkey. I only get it out on occasion, but their eyes light up every time they see it. ETA, Oh, the plush Leo Genius toy is also a big favourite. They love the little toys that come out of it. Kivi's been carrying around the steak all week.

I know a few Boxers that aren't good with dogs. But I know a lot of dogs that aren't good with Boxers.. I think their facial shape and eye shape makes them difficult to read for a lot of dogs. A standard Boxer expression looks like a hard stare to other dogs. They seem to draw a lot of aggressive responses. And they tend to play with their feet from what I've seen. Some dogs find that a bit intense. Others love it. My parents have a Boxer cross that plays like a Boxer, only she's smaller and lighter on her feet. Kivi is a fan of contact sports. He'll play with her for hours.

What about a Boxer? I'm not sure what their temperament is like wrt dogs and kids. Every one I've met has been very friendly to both, but very boisterous.

Never mind. I am pretty sure I'm not going to be understood.

Incidentally, there have been a few papers come out that looked at how different personality types learn operative tasks. (Over-)Reactivity is yet to be classified as a personality trait on its own, and the relationships between stress reactivity and personality are not well understood as far as I've been able to make out. Anyway, the results were a good deal more subtle than how much of an aversive/reward are required. Long extinction curves (persistence) and impulsivity seems to be where it's at. Definitely something that should be considered in training, but not something that can yet be related to stress reactivity.

By me. ;) Let's not get confused between motivators and reinforcement. They might be the same or they might not. Whatever the case, the effect a reward has on behaviour is not dependent on the animal's personality, even if that animal may be acting under a personality-specific internal motivator (say, exploration for example). There is no question in my mind that personality affects dog behaviour, and there is evidence to support it. However, evidence that those personality affects are genetic is pretty thin on the ground, despite studies in other animals that have involved selectively bred personality types. There is plenty of evidence that personality expression (through behaviours) can spontaneously change to suit environmental changes, and is not hugely stable over time. I think everyone assumes there is a genetic component, but AFAIK no one much knows what it is beyond it possibly has something to do with dopamine and/or serotonin receptors. When someone can tell me the method by which 'weak nerve' is entirely genetic, then I'll believe them. Until then, I think it's unfair to declare a dog's behaviour cannot be changed on the grounds that it is a result of the dog's 'weak nerve'. MOST dogs will get defensive if they get frightened, and I have met very few dogs that haven't been frightened at some stage. I know dogs that have learnt to be reactive about something in particular. If it works for one thing, it's not a stretch of the imagination for the dog to start trying it for other anxiety-inducing situations as well. This is not necessarily genetic, and even if it is, we don't know to what extent. I think it's an excellent idea to avoid breeding from lines of dogs that seem perpetually nervous, but I think it's a terrible idea to explain broad swathes of behaviour in a single dog with a declaration that it's genetic and therefore can't be altered.