corvus

Whoa. You certainly can. Results are all in the interpretation, especially when we're talking about a "problem" behaviour. Incidentally, ever tried a clicker to "break thro" a dog's state of mind? I love it especially because it puts them right into training mode in an instant.

IMO the key thing with a puppy is to keep them on leash so they can't bolt. Chances are they will want to at some point. I like to crouch with them on a short leash somewhere reasonably quiet and let other dogs approach. If they come on too strong, the puppy can shelter under my legs and it's not hard to hold the other dog at bay. And if it becomes necessary to lift the puppy up, you can pull them up into your lap and stand up and that's unlikely to trigger one of those dogs that gets all over excited when you pick up a dog in front of them. I would keep it short and sweet at first.

I didn't, and haven't said I did. I know about EOs now. But it's beside the point. You can't claim that someone should know better just because they know some background stuff. As people keep telling me, there is a difference between book smarts and actual experience. If I've never looked for a trainer before, but learnt some great stuff from trainers online, why would I think there was anything to ask about? I just cared that the trainer used positive methods. Which turned out not to be true anyway. So am I to take it that you think it shouldn't be so hard to find a professional trainer that knows about things like establishing operations and Premack? I would so love to hear that. It might just make my bright, idealistic face light up again. I find this discussion quite bizarre. Why can't I be someone that simultaneously knows some learning theory and yet has very little experience with trainers? I've got better at picking them, but each time I pick a trainer, I know more theory than I did last time, so it is hard to keep track of what is a reasonable expectation. Why shouldn't I expect professional trainers to know more than I do? They are the ones with the formal education in it. Why can't I be a normal dog owner just with a special interest in training? Why can't the average professional trainer cater for that kind of dog owner?

There used to be a 3-legged Boxer that lived a few doors down from my parents. It was sometimes contained, but it could jump 6ft fences with ease, so basically it went where it wanted to. If someone happened to walk down the street out front of its house it would come roaring out and jump up aggressively on the person and bite them as it chased them across the road. I assume it wasn't biting seriously because no one ever got hurt that I know of, but that dog scared the bejesus out of me. I saw it attacking a couple one day and no way in hell was I going to help them. I had my own little dog with me and was scared stiff this dog was going to come after her with twice the ferocity. He was too big and fast for me to hope to fend off if he went for my dog. The couple shook him off once they got to the other side of the road and were shaken up, but none the worse for wear. They were ahead of us, so then we had to run the gauntlet. Thankfully the dog wasn't triggered by anyone walking on the other side of the road. The dog is long gone, but to this day I always walk the dogs past that house on the far side of the road just in case. *shudder*

Wolves ain't dogs! Google David Mech. He's the guy that coined the phrase "alpha wolf". He is trying very hard to get everyone to hear him say he was wrong. There is a video on YouTube, I think, of him explaining why he was wrong. I have never seen a dog force another dog to the ground. I've often seen a "pin", but when you look closely and watch the balance of weight in each dog, you'll see the dog underneath goes down on their own. In early episodes of The Dog Whisperer Cesar was doing the same thing. He was intimidating the dog to the point where they would go down on their own. It was not hard for him. Most of the dogs were used to getting their own way and as soon as they realised it wasn't going to work with this guy they went over on their own. But not every dog does and so Cesar, knowing what he wanted, just forced the dogs.

Corvus thats just so not true...sorry mate but I couldn't let that one go!! *clunk* That was the sound of my bright, idealistic little face falling, nay, crashing to the ground. I've been lucky on that front so far, then. I had a club a good hour drive away recommended and have found them to be wonderful. I ran into my instructor at the APDT conference last year, and they go to the more specialised, training-centric ones I don't go to. It's been really enjoyable and has restored my faith in training classes.

They can't "get away with" not responding correctly if they didn't know what the correct response was. Just because they can do it in a handful of situations does not mean they know the behaviour in a brand new situation. As Temple Grandin says, animals are masters of detail, whereas humans are masters of general patterns. That's why we have to make sure a dog generalises a cue, which means we have to make sure they know it means the same thing regardless of where they are, what is going on around them, how aroused they are, how far from you they are and so on and so on. I love the look of surprise on my dogs' faces when I ask them to do a "known" behaviour in a whole new way or new surroundings. It's like "Wha...? Oh! This!" If I've done my job right. If I haven't, it's like "Wha...? How about this? No? This? No? I don't get it!" A win for the dog is getting rewarded. If you don't reward an incorrect response and the dog isn't free to find his own reward, then the dog hasn't won. Eventually we get to the point (if we have done it correctly) where the dog is allowed to do whatever it wishes because it will reliably wish to do what has historically been very rewarding. I very rarely force my dogs to repond. They do what they wish for the most part. And for the most part they wish to snatch any and every opportunity to earn rewards from us. It becomes a bit of a compulsion.

Or maybe I just hit a brick wall because of what the trainers were expecting from me? I almost never talk about learning theory to people's faces. If someone struck up a conversation with me about learning theory, I would let them lead it and assume they knew nothing they didn't bring up themselves. Occasionally I have asked if they have heard of something I think is very relevant to the conversation and introduce it that way. I tend to go into training classes with my head down and trying to say as little as possible. IME trainers don't like it when I ask a theoretical question or question whether something they have directed me to do is rewarding like they tell me it is. I imagine they are used to dumbing it down in the extreme and assuming no one knows more about theory than they do. If I ask a theoretical question quietly after class, they may well assume that I have read a couple of books or websites and think I know it all but am still leagues behind them and won't understand a technical answer, leaving me feeling like I've wasted my time. I am definitely still trying to figure out how to talk to trainers. I do a lot of pussyfooting, carefully dropping in terms and trying to gauge if I've lost them or if they think I'm being patronising. They are professionals after all, and I am not. This time 'round it has been easier. I think having enthusiastic trainers that enjoy talking about theory helps a lot. And maybe I'm getting better at artfully letting them know I'm on top of the theory without sounding like I'm questioning their professional integrity.

Paid instructor. I didn't. During the course of the class I discovered my puppy thought "down" meant "sit, then down" or something like that. I was like "Look at that! A behaviour chain! Now what?" Instructor was like "Yes, a behaviour chain! Well, just keep doing what you're doing." Do you think it's unrealistic to expect a professional trainer to know what to do about an unwanted behaviour chain? Or any similar problem that might come up in class? I've paid three different professional trainers for classes over the last few years and found I couldn't talk on equal terms with any of them. I didn't want to discuss behaviour problems, just things like what's a reward and what's a punishment and what quadrant we're using. Volunteer instructors at my current club are a different matter. But that's agility. I gather agility kind of demands a pretty good understanding of learning theory and motivation.

If a dog whines until they get fed, all it means is they have learnt whining sometimes results in dinner. It doesn't mean they think they are the boss. It is completely natural for any animal to try to control the things that happen to them. Control is what brings them a sense of security. Every animal wants that. Erik grumbles at me when I sit down with a bowl of ice cream. He adores ice cream, but almost never gets any. He can grumble all he likes, but it won't get him anywhere. I don't care what noises he wants to make. I like the grumbling. It makes me laugh. He tries it when he thinks we should get out of bed and take him for a walk as well. He often tries to dictate to us. That is fine. Doesn't mean we have to do what he wants.

Similar or the same? If its not the same then the point it not valid. You're the CM fan, you tell me. I've only seen half a dozen episodes. It's never going to be a valid comparison because we can't make one on two dogs with two separate histories, different genetics, and different levels of stress reactivity or boldness/timidity. But that doesn't mean it's worthless to look at the reactions of both dogs to the training methods and how quick and effective each was. Especially if the behaviours were the same, or the triggers were the same. Or both.

Unless there is a lot of affiliative behaviour in the pack. Packs with pack members that take time out to groom each other and touch in positive ways are more cohesive and don't fall apart the moment something upsetting happens in the environment. Packs where there is more posturing and aggressive behaviour between pack members fall apart at the drop of a hat. I take it you read the Bonanni paper that came out on it last year? It's very interesting. Before I got my Lapphund I thought that aggression was all a dog really had at their disposal to control another dog's behaviour. Not a very compelling reason to use it ourselves, IMO. But watch a socially adept dog with a very high threshold and it turns out there are lots of non-aggressive means for a dog to handle poor behaviour from another dog. So, yeah, go and watch a group of dogs interacting. Watch carefully and I think those that say dogs correct each other physically all the time will be surprised. A lot goes on before it ever gets to aggression.

There are so many assumptions, there. Off the top of my head: a) The dog "knows" it b) The dog perceived the cue c) Food is a reward in this situation d) The reward history is strong enough e) The dog is under threshold f) The behaviour is comfortable and does not cause pain g) The cue for the behaviour is the most salient stimuli h) The cue to the dog is what the handler thinks it is If you do apply P+ or P- as a consequence for not doing the behaviour cued, are you decreasing the incidence of "not doing as asked" or are you decreasing the incidence of whatever the dog was doing instead? Dogs are always behaving. I'd say use R- if you feel you must do something. I wouldn't bother, though.

Look up Dr Sophia Yin. She has some nice demonstrative videos around. Not "extreme" dogs, but definitely dogs with reactions similar to those of many dogs I've seen on The Dog Whisperer. I'm very much with Aidan. I just would like people to think hard about what they are doing and what they want. Contrary to what some people on this forum seem to think, I will absolutely use punishments and escape training where it is suitable. But you can bet I think very carefully whether it's suitable or not and plan it carefully as well. I used to punish whatever I didn't like, but now I find if I take a moment to think about it in terms of whether I want to suppress the behaviour and what I want my dog to be doing instead, I find I rarely do want to suppress it. I think we should have some idea how we expect the training to go so we can decide whether it's as effective as we expect it to be. Personally, I think it helps me be more objective, and I really value objectivity in my training.

So why did you hire them in the first place Corvus? No due diligence? It's hard for the average punter to sort the wheat from the chaff, but it shouldn't be hard for any afficienado of training to find what suits them just by asking a few questions of the trainer in question. The average punter who is sold a load of codswallop I feel sorry for, but how come you didn't know better? It's very disillusioning for me that some who claims to know so much hired such a trainer. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the bit where I was born a training afficionado with an accurate sense of what the average trainer knows. It's not me that thinks highly of myself, I see, but others that think too highly of me! That, I will laugh at. Never fear, I can, I think, assuage your feelings of disheartenment. I actually WAS the average punter when I first went looking for a trainer. I'd just got my first puppy on my own and naively expected that I could walk into any professional trainer's classroom and they'd be able to help me with things like unwanted behaviour chains. I was very sad when I found out this was not the case, even if one picks an accredited trainer. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect any professional trainer to know more than I did 3 years ago. Now, I don't know. I don't think so, but apparently using my knowledge as the "bare minimum" yardstick is a claim to "know so much". I will assume that means I know too much and just burst someone's bubble. Hopefully only one, because the day is only half finished and I had plans for the other one. ;)

I don't think there IS a "correct type" or "enough" theory so much as I think training should be guided by recent science and there ought to be some sort of minimum. I disagree that a better understanding of theory is unlikely to help. I disagree because it sure as hell has helped me. Just like having a wild hare has helped me, and having a degree in zoology has helped me. It's disheartening to me when I have paid for the services of a trainer who tells me a load of codswallop I KNOW is untrue because science says it's untrue, and gives me a blank look when I start talking about reward frequency, emotional conditioning, the potential aversives of delivering the wrong reward, establishing operations, and Premack. I mean, come on. If I have zero formal training and I'm paying them, is it too much to ask that they know more about it than I do?? I usually just talk to some hobbyists I know who will have heard of what I'm talking about and will have a different point of view on it than me.

I get on with nearly everyone in person. But I often find this place frustrating. I've learnt not to share everything I know, suspect or have heard. People would prefer me not to burst their bubbles, so I limit it to two a day in the interests of public relations.

Well, I used to be able to tell myself before I went to sleep at night what time to wake up in the morning and sure enough I would wake up within 2 minutes of that time next morning. Of course, I was never game enough to depend on it. But I think bodies have pretty good internal clocks. What's more, I've noticed with Erik that he very much follows habits of arousal and down time like the article points out.

Have you trained a certified sniffer/search and rescue dog, police dog, guide dog for the visually disabled, Australian customs dog? There are a lot of poor human teachers, social workers, psychiatrists. (Look at some of their children). So, I take it that means you think trainers should have Bachelor degrees at least?

That's very kind of you, but alas, the whole forum is not as tolerant. I can't be ranting here because apparently I'm already an arrogant know-it-all who refuses to listen to people that know better than I do. And that was when I was being restrained, open-minded and fair! Probably best not to let them see how arrogant I really am.

Never mind. Clearly I'm in a caustic mood today and should ban myself from forums for 24 hours.

No one's making you give up your dog. If you can't be at ease walking your dog in your own suburb drive to one where you can. My parents have a dog behind a large colorbond fence alongside the top part of their driveway. I assume it can't get out, but it scares the hell out of one of my dogs. He gets very upset, and normally he is extremely mellow and easy going. So when I'm there with them I just load them in the car and literally drive up the 200m driveway and park across the road, then take them out of the car and walk them. Where there's a will there's a way. Perhaps it would help you to get a book or dvd on dog body language. If you know what they are likely to do they are less scary.

Err how do you know that trainers don't have a strong background in theory? All the trainers I know do. Even I did weeks and weeks of theory before being unleashed as a volunteer trainer. I didn't say all trainers. I'm talking about muddybear's unsuccessful trainers. Nonetheless, I've been fed a lot of incorrect information by trainers. When they tell me something I know is patently untrue I have to question if they know their theory. When they persist with a method that to me is clearly not working, I have to question if they know their theory. Let's say I'm wrong and they do have a strong background in theory... No, I'd rather not contemplate that one, actually. God help the world if every trainer needs to do a PhD to be properly qualified. It's not that hard!

Well... What if said dog is quite small? I think it's erroneous to completely disregard relative size. I've met some little dogs that have things well in hand, but I've never met one that can do it with a look. My last dog, Penny, got close, but she knew it wouldn't work on every dog.

There have been some recent papers that suggest some animals may have episodic memory and supposedly some species can mentally time travel. If I remember correctly it was focused on caching species like squirrels and corvids. Erik is very attuned to imminent meal cues. He doesn't need an internal clock to know it's dinner time. There was an interesting discussion about this on Patricia McConnell's blog recently, www.theotherendoftheleash.com