corvus

I'm not sure what the typical way is, but I started incidentally with barriers. I wouldn't open any doors until Erik was in a down on the other side. It stretched naturally so that he was doing downs when I was still on the other side of the room. Then I started challenging him. He downs for his dinner, so each week I practised a new kind of down. It's kind of exponential. Once he got going he picked up new ones quicker and quicker. I tried from a chair and he got it instantly. He will do one when I'm lying on the ground (ah, how handy downs are when you have an excited Vallhund trying to sit on your other dog while you're snuggling on the ground), but not up to doing one facing away from me if I'm on the ground. Turns out his "roll over" is pretty damn fluent as well! OH signalled one yesterday when he was standing on the logs and Erik threw himself into a roll from a run, rolled partially up onto the log, then rolled off and leapt to his feet like "Ta-da!" Cracked me up. He's so cute.

Incidentally, one of my dogs was taught a "teeth" command to prevent him from biting vets when they looked at his teeth. Twice he has got something wedged across the top of his pallette that one of us has had to yank out and both times he went very still as soon as hands went to his mouth even without the cue because he has been so heavily conditioned to do that. I was amazed the training held even when he was obviously in distress. My other dog who has not had this training has also twice got something wedged across the top of his mouth and both times it took pinning him down to get it out. A two man job, preferably. I'm thinking it's a good idea to teach a dog a cue to hold still when their muzzle is handled.

Haha, I kind of alluded to this in the now infamous joke. I read this interesting paper about predatory behaviour in Elkhounds towards sheep and BCs towards sheep. The point was made that Elkhounds were bred to hunt very large animals and so may show more interest in something the size of a sheep than something the size of a mouse, and conversely, a rat terrier is unlikely to be as interested in sheep as they are in rats. There are dog breeds that have also been bred to hunt bears. It makes me wonder about the nature of prey drive in different breeds. I think so. Love Sophia Yin! She knows her stuff. I want her book, but it's too expensive. I have a birthday coming up, though.

Oh really? What's not valid? I'm not trying to be a smart ass or cause trouble. I have difficulties with drive as a concept and it's no secret. That is based on research, pure and simple. And the fact that I seem to spend a lot of time asking people what they mean by drive before we go any further. It is intensely interesting to me and I'm always looking for literature on it and chatting to clever folks about it. I'd be delighted to know if I'm making assumptions that are invalid. I've thought damn hard about this for years. It would suck to be thinking damn hard about something while missing the underlying principles. So he has prey drive, it's just the trigger is obscure or difficult to use on cue. My point was drive isn't always easy to pin down. My intention is to point out that any definition of predatory drift that includes "prey drive" could be interpreted a number of ways. I'm not gonna speculate on my dog's prey drive here. I've learnt my lesson, thanks. Fixed Action Pattern, i.e. instinctive behaviour. The list is SEEKING, RAGE, PANIC, PLAY, LUST, CARE and FEAR. Sorry, I don't have a link. I'm sure there's a paper of his that goes through the first four somewhere on the web for free, but I don't have the paper or a link to it. I seem to remember it's a bit hard to find. He published something last year on FEAR.

I guess my thought is that if in doubt, one can always fall back on whether the behaviour is increasing or decreasing in frequency or staying the same. To me, that is quite a powerfully simple and useful tool and a litmus test for whatever I have decided to do with my animal to affect their behaviour. I can figure out very quickly if it's working or not. I would be quite happy if people approached life in general with their dogs in that way. I figure if I were going to get someone to follow just one piece of advice that would be it. At least then they know when their blanket application of behavioural principles isn't working and can maybe think outside the square for an alternative. Or get professional help, perhaps. But that's in my ideal world. I tend to start with arousal and emotional state and classical conditioning and then work through to learning theory because quite frankly it is the most effective approach I have found. Sometimes I jump forward to OC if it seems like the way to go. I'm yet to find a simple way to explain that to anyone! I think they're on their own. Me too. I think it's quite irresponsible, but that's the media for you. :

Well, if I may offer an opinion or two, I think the point is that normally quite low drive dogs could experience predatory drift. This is one of the reasons I hate the term "drive", but the fact is there is no broadly accepted definition for it. There's no way most people who "train in drive" on this forum would look at my Lapphund and gather that he has much prey drive. He is mellow and chilled and slow. But I've seen him get that glazed look in his eye and go to la-la land the instant he saw a duck take wing, for example. I am not satisfied with the way drive is talked about. I don't think it is nearly descriptive enough of the various ways a dog may behave when engaging in a FAP or is highly aroused. So my thought is if we're talking about a moment in which the dog is "in drive", then there is no difference, but if we're talking about a dog that is often "in drive", particularly prey drive, then there is a difference. No one much talks about drive outside of dog trainers. There is a huge variety in the types of drives recognised and a huge variety in how those drives are defined. It makes it very hard to talk about it IME. Everyone has their own list. The only definitive list I know of is Jaak Panksepp's list, which is based firmly in neuroscience and doesn't use anything like the above nomenclature. Personally, I think everyone should adopt it and bloody well learn what it's all about, because there is no literature anywhere else that gives a better understanding of behaviour IMHO. And geez it would be nice if everyone was talking about the same thing.

I was cracking a joke. That's why there were winky and laughy emoticons. Did you know that's internet code for "this is funny and tongue in cheek"? And THAT'S me being condescending, which you bloody asked for! I wasn't talking to you because you were determined to take it seriously. :D To me, it's funny on several levels, and I hope there is some dog nerd out there that appreciates it on as many levels as I do. ;) D'ya think we can move on, now? I wasn't trying to shit stir or somehow keep you out of a big secret. I was just being ironic. I know from experience trying to explain anything to you is like giving you a blank piece of paper with my signature on the bottom. You fill in the blanks. (There's that winky again. That means I'm kidding around).

:D Clearly I hardly think I am obliged to answer or I would have the first time. As entertaining as this is for me, perhaps we should move on and actually discuss the topic for everyone else's benefit. I think level of drive has little to do with this issue. That's not to say it shouldn't be considered at all in safe play, but I think we've established that predatory drift is not related to a dog's drive. Last week OH's parents came around with their little MinPin, Alex. Alex at one point started to whine and Erik went from mild interest in the tiny dog to "OMG, I'm gonna CHASE HIM! GO! GO!" in an instant. Thought I'd scoop up the little thing before Erik completely lost it and that was a mistake because it fired Erik up even more and he started jumping up trying to nip Alex. Erik has played with zillions of little dogs before and never shown anything like that behaviour. The only thing I could put it down to was the combination of size and the noise Alex was making. It was very much the look he gets about him when I do anything with the rabbit. He mostly ignores the rabbit, but if I pick her up or put her on the ground he gets the same look. After a couple of days he stopped getting excited by Alex's whiney noises. It's an interesting consideration. I'm sure I heard a trainer say that dogs instinctively know how to chase and capture prey, but they have to learn what is prey and what is not. I believe this in a general sense, but I wonder if it has any bearing on predatory drift. Supposedly not, but then, how can you know you've exposed your dog to every condition that might provoke a predatory response?

Quite true. Which is why I would argue that humanising dogs doesn't necessarily diminish the relationship in the slightest and probably enhances it more than anything. I expect I am being confusing by insisting on calling something what it is even when it's not important that it be called that for the purposes of the discussion. There is a huge difference between a scientist and a casual observer, but that's not to say the scientific definition shouldn't hold for the casual observer as well, whether they know it or not. What do you think?

That's 'cause I wasn't talking to you.

And learn to produce rats, pigeons or rabbits on demand, depending on what kind of dog you have. :D You might have to produce bears on demand for some!

But you wouldn't call it humanising then, would you. I think we're arguing two different things. I don't think it is humanising a dog to call a dog your friend. You are describing the dog's relevance to you. I do think it's humanising to say a dog loves you, or loves working with you. As I explained, because we don't know that "love" is what the dog is feeling at all. We only know what "love" feels like to a person. Personally, I think it's a weak argument. Love is subjective to humans as well. Panksepp's argument with laughter in rats is if you know all the same neurotransmitters are involved in the same pathways, then it's legitimate to call it the same thing. But still, we are wary of it, because it means something specific to us about how humans feel and behave. To use such a term to describe how an animal feels and behaves still holds that uneasy risk that if you could ask a rat what it felt when it laughed it would be different to what a human would describe. Even if all the neurotransmitters and pathways and even the circumstances in which it is seen are the same between humans and other mammals, we could still argue that the way the other mammals perceive this state is not the same way we perceive it, because we can't deal with that risk at all. We can't find out for certain. So what I'm arguing is that we relate to animals in a way that is uniquely human because we are humans. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact I think it's important that we do. It gives us empathy for the animals in our care, and in the case of some domestic animals, we have actually selectively bred them to respond more strongly to our human way of relating to them. I think that is brilliant and fascinating and a little bit spooky. It also makes perfect sense. Our dogs wouldn't be the good companions they are if we had not been prone to humanising them. But the fact remains: we still do it everyday. It needn't be a universally bad thing.

I largely mould my life around my animals. Not because I think they are people, just because I'm the one that cares for them and so if I don't make their welfare a priority it will be no one's priority and they will not be properly cared for. I do what I can do to make them as comfortable and happy as possible. That is my responsibility to them. I am not a perfect animal owner, but I try to pick animal companions that I will be able to accommodate so I don't have to make choices or let their welfare go by the wayside. That is exactly the reason why we only have four pets. We agreed that we didn't have the time to properly care for any more.

NOT doing something is not a behaviour. What do you want he to do instead? Reward that to buggery. My 3 year old dog has been so heavily rewarded for checking in and hanging about that every couple of minutes when he's off leash he tends to swan back to us and fall in at someone's thigh hoping they will notice how good he's being and give him a treat. These skills can be taught, but to be really effective they have to be maintained. We carry treats all the time so we can maintain the behaviour we like. That includes awesome recall treats. Some days I have to get OH to take the dogs or the recall treats because it's the only way to get the dogs far enough away to practise a recall.

Patricia McConnell was talking about that study on her blog. She said let's not confuse correlation with causation. The study is about correlations alone. If there's plague around, you probably shouldn't sleep with a cat that has fleas is what it comes down to.

Curious - Do you think that extreme Behaviorism is detrimental to dogs? What happens if someone doesn't acknowledge the individual personality, motivation, arousal, and emotional state of a dog, but bases all their interactions with the dog on operant conditioning? Is that just as bad or worse than humanising them in a detrimental way?

Yes, Valls are a rarer breed. I usually have to pick myself off the ground when someone gets the breed right. Although for some reason it happens more often than people getting Kivi's breed right. What's with that? Lapphunds are the most common breed in Finland and are just uncommon everywhere else. Vallhunds are rare everywhere, even in Sweden. Anyway, Erik is a sweetie, too, and he gets into cuddle moods where he just licks a lot. But when he's not cuddling or sleeping he's generally running around throwing himself into any activity that is remotely rewarding. He is tough as old boots and very strong for his size. He plays with the big boys. He is a lot of fun, but at the drivier end of the Vallhund spectrum and thus a handful at times. I call him my point and shoot dog. I tell him what to do, point, and shoot. And off he goes as fast as he can. He's a cutie. ;)

Incidentally, Erik is an awesome watchdog. Nothing happens around our house without him knowing about it and alerting the neighbourhood. He barks a lot, but when he's doing his watchdog thing it's a deep, scary bark. Most people that come to our door are scared of him.

If you like herding breeds but want something smaller with lower exercise requirements, how about a Shetland Sheepdog or a Corgi? My first dog was a Pembroke Corgi and she was everything I could dream of when I was 13 and wanted a dog. It was only when we were both much older that I decided I wanted a more challenging breed. Swedish Vallhunds are another small herder. I call my Vall a kelpie in disguise, but really there's nothing quite like a Vall. They are both challenging and very easy to train. Probably about the cleverest dog I've ever come across, but you can't take them for granted. They don't let you take the easy way out and just push them around. You have to earn their trust and give them reasons to cooperate. When I was deciding on my last breed it was between Vallhunds and Shiba Inus. We went for the Valls partly because I hit it off with Erik's breeder and partly because we were a little bit scared that we wouldn't be able to keep up with a Shiba around the home. They are usually pretty busy. As it turns out, Erik is pretty busy as well and I think we could have handled a Shiba, but there's no way it would have been anywhere near as easy to train as Erik is. E would be a lot more biddable as well, and he's great off leash.

He has, technically, but that doesn't diminish his relationship with the dog in the slightest in my view. Humanising is an integral part of the human-dog bond IMO. Yes, it can go too far, but let's not confuse "humanising" that has a detrimental effect on dogs and "humanising" that doesn't have a detrimental effect. As others have said, it's when dogs are attributed with reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable that humanising becomes a serious issue and something that we should work hard to avoid. My dog is not being "disobedient". He is not giving me the finger, he does not necessarily know the command, he probably doesn't know what he did wrong, he does not need a cupcake every day, he isn't trying to spite me, he is not angry with me because I left him alone all day, he is most likely not acting in third-order intentionality, he is unlikely to make a connection between two events that occurred more than 10 seconds apart, he doesn't lie and he's not trying to trick me or even train me. He just does what tends to work for him.

Ha. If your friend could be held accountable than the registered breeder that bred my mother's dog that is riddled with health problems and doesn't even approach the breed standard could be held accountable for his permanent and ongoing reduction in quality of life. I wish.

I guess it's controversial because some people don't believe their dog could ever kill another dog, or because some folks think that dogs know what another dog is and wouldn't treat one like a prey animal. Personally, I think that there are a lot of variables to take into account and I do not believe that every dog is a potential dog killer. Some dogs don't seem to know how to kill things. Having said that, there are times when I have very quickly put my own dogs back on leash because they are getting over-excited during play and looking more serious than I am comfortable with. Do I think they would kill another dog? No - I they are not very accomplished hunters so far. We have one almost accidental mouse kill after hours and hours of hunting. However, I'm not taking chances. I sure as hell do not want my dogs to carry through and actually kill a sizeable animal. It seems far more sensible to me to assume they could do it than to blithely believe they wouldn't.

It's an accepted theory as far as I know.

See, that's what I think happens! When people have a dog they love, they are quick to tell anyone who cares to listen what breed they have and where they got it from and say how perfectly it has all worked out. I have spoken to several people at the park about their crossbreed dogs. Most came from shelters, but a few are DD and if I ask them why they got one they usually tell me the temperament of the dog they wanted, and that this cross was recommended to them by people that had them and also wanted that temperament, and that their dog has been just what they were after. You can't argue with that. They did research of a sort and got a dog that was everything they wanted. They don't know they could have got it in a purebred and if you told them they probably wouldn't believe you.

I think it's hard for people to accept that dogs could be unhealthy considering they see so many dogs that seem perfectly healthy. Until you know someone who has a dog that needs ongoing medical care or management or have experienced it for yourself, it's hard to imagine it could happen to you. I have a sneaking suspicion there are lots of dogs out there that seem healthy from an outsider's view, but aren't. When I got my first dog, my family and I couldn't afford the initial outlay of a dog with papers and so I got a backyard bred corgi and even that stretched the budget. We knew that the breed was prone to back problems, but it always seemed like a shadow of a threat and one we couldn't do much about. Personally, when people ask me about crossbreeds I say I don't know very much about them except that I've heard they can have health problems. I'm more comfortable discussing purebreeds and would just quietly steer the conversation back to breeds I can talk about with fondness and enthusiasm. I've never preached to anyone about dogs. If they won't listen to me carefully offering a very abbreviated selection of facts amounting to maybe three sentences they have asked me for on the basis that I'm doing a PhD on dogs, then they aren't going to want to hear the full story. :rolleyes: Softly softly. I find people are more willing to listen to positive things than negative things. If I can gush about something my enthusiasm is catching, but if I can't say anything nice, my dislike is not catching. It's uncomfortable to people. They don't want to know what makes me cross.