corvus

I assume that was in response to my riding lesson and so therefore will clarify that the horse I rode was not wantonly disobedient and I didn't have to pull or kick him. The misbehaviour I mentioned was much more subtle. He just drifted. Paul said if I was consistent he would figure out what was expected of him and behave accordingly. Given my riding experience consists of 2 hours in the saddle, if I think he was easy to ride, he was easy to ride.

Ooo, great ideas. From a chair! I think that'll trick him. He's a bit leery of water, but he'll do them on wet sand and I had him hold one as a wave was rushing in towards him once. He's such a good boy. He always runs away from those waves, but he held it until I could release him and got clear just in time. He will do it in shallow water if the water is still. OH thinks it's hilarious to take Kivi into the river and tell him to sit. It's the favoured way to wash his butt.

I've been messing around with Erik, working on his fluency for "down" and "sit". I've been having fun finding ways to ask for these behaviours that challenge him. So far he's mastered down facing away from me, facing away from his dinner, out of sight of me and his dinner, side on to his dinner, while he's walking beside me, while he's running beside me, stationary from a distance when he's facing me, when he's walking slightly in front of me facing ahead of me, while other dogs are bouncing around him at the beach, in any sequence of behaviours I could think of, for any reward he's ever wanted, and today I managed to find a new one: downing while balancing on the top of a log. I've got moving away from me and while moving at a distance from me lined up, but I'm not wildly creative about these things. Has anyone tricked their dogs by dropping a cue into an unexpected situation that I haven't mentioned? I wanna steal your ideas.

Play the "Give Me A Break" game from Control Unleashed. Release the dog to do what they like after a few moments of training. If they can only concentrate for 10 seconds, train for 5. If they can concentrate for a minute, train for 30 seconds. Then release and wait for the dog to come back to you. I think that's how that game goes. You should probably check, though! After that it comes down to fluency.

I got a riding lesson from Paul recently. That was an eye-opener. He made me ride his "beginners" horse, and pointed out all the misbehaviour that poor riders have trained into him. He also told me all the things I did that were sending conflicting messages to the horse. I've learnt stacks about horses from working under him! I've also learnt that the horse world is about ten times more petty and vicious than the dog world.

Thanks for the update, raineth. I was sitting on my fingers trying to keep from bumping the thread to see how you were going. Well, that's cool that it looks like it made a difference to Delta's arousal level throughout the day. I'm not surprised that she didn't play when she had it on. I think that play generally only occurs at higher arousal. I tend to think of it as critical tipping points. A while back I started making a table with arousal levels and the behaviours I see in my dogs at that level and in what context I see them. I got distracted and didn't finish it, but I think maybe I should finish it. Good as a kind of reference sheet to remind me when I should expect certain behaviours. I am quite happy. With a little help here and there I can maintain Erik's daytime arousal at the lower level I like even when out of the ordinary things happen. I've decided that the new rule is I just don't let him get himself riled up so he has trouble settling again. He is going to get upset about things regardless, but I'm not going to let him linger up once the exciting stuff is all over. I've been doing something similar with my pet hare, actually. He gets startled and that's all very aversive to him, so I've been conditioning him that he gets startled and then when he stops running I give him a safety signal and wait until he'll take food from me again. That way I don't leave when he's still rattled. It seems to be working. He gets startled and now he runs less before he stops, and doesn't need as much time after he stops before he'll take food again. I'm trying to teach him he gets startled and then he gets a treat. I can't stop him from being startled, but I can reduce the recovery time, maybe. I think it reduces his fear in general.

Why does this give me the heeby jeebys Well, I could take a guess.... Don't jump to conclusions. Asking the question is important IMO. It doesn't mean anyone is going to declare the answer is "no" and set about trying to prevent anyone from making animals work for them. If we don't ask, we aren't the best animal custodians we could be. Most of the time these sorts of questions are posed to make society in general think more carefully about our values and how we treat animals. IMO that is always a valuable exercise and one that should come up every decade or so as society changes.

Is it really such a big deal if I say my dogs are happy, like having fun, sulk when they're told off, pine when I go on holidays? NO! And that's my point. It is NOT a big deal. It's only a big deal if you're a scientist in the field. I am, and you don't see me using the accepted terminology on this forum. My whole point is that it is impractical NOT to humanise your dog because otherwise communication about their behaviour becomes difficult unless you're talking to someone who knows all the terminology. I humanise my dogs all the time and I am cool with this. Before I make any decisions that regard them I do a reality check and drop the humanising. Once again, I would rather accept that I do it so I can do my reality checks than pretend I don't do it. Everyone does it. Including those who think they don't. The important thing is knowing that you're doing it so you know when to drop it. I leave it at the door any time I do training with my dogs or try to interpret their behaviour, but it comes back again the moment I want to talk about either to anyone that isn't an animal behaviour scientist.

One evening I had roo shanks and chicken thawed for the dog's dinner for the next two nights. I offered them both to him and let him choose. It was so cool I did it a few times to work out his choice preferences. What a fun experiment, and useful when you're picking rewards! It's got crap all to do with humanising. Don't shoot the messenger. When I'm writing papers or sections for my thesis I sure as hell don't ever write "happy". I write "rewarding" or "positive affective state" because that is what is accepted. "Pleasure" is sometimes used. I don't set the standards, but I follow them. If I wrote "happy" I would be accused of humanising and I would have to have some evidence to back myself up for it to be swallowed at all, and it wouldn't be swallowed by everyone all the same.

Yes, you can, but you have to be more careful with your words than anyone on this forum is. I didn't say dogs could not experience or express emotions; I said we don't know if what they experience when we think they look happy is the same as what we experience when we say we are happy. Therefore, to say a dog is happy is to give it human characteristics, because "happy" is a word that describes a HUMAN feeling. There is no way to ask a dog if it feels the same as what we feel, so therefore, it is humanising. That's why scientists don't write things like "the rats were happier in the enriched environment than in the unenriched environment", but "thus the rats' behaviour indicated a positive affective state when in the enriched environment" instead. It is a scientific standard. Panksepp made a lot of people very upset when he claimed his rats were laughing. No one denied that the vocalisations were an indication of a positive affective state, but "laugh" describes a human response that is closely tied to a human emotion, and not many people were comfortable attributing it to rats regardless of the fact that Panksepp had shown that the same brain pathways light up in rats when they "laugh" as the ones that light up in humans when they laugh. I think it's enough evidence to say they are the same thing, but others don't. As for "happiness", I don't know of any studies that consider it in animals because it is too imprecise. We use "positive affective state" instead. Incidentally, "fun" is also a word we don't use to describe animal emotions. See how hard it is to have a conversation with a normal person about your animals without humanising them?? Even scientists in the field don't drop it entirely when talking to one another, but it's important to drop it eventually.

I think it helps to see videos. You can figure out what the person is clicking for, or if it's a good video, they'll tell you. Kikopup on YouTube is very popular for good reason.

Now THAT is a compliment! Ha! I missed that one. I'll take THAT as a compliment, too.

Do you ever say your dogs are happy? Because technically that is anthropomorphising given we don't know whether dogs experience "happiness" the way we do.

Is it this one by Miklosi's group? Animal Behaviour 79 (2010) 917–925. Beckoff's book is next on my list of books to buy.

Yes, they work as both. It's like the dog saying "Everything I do next is pretend", but the other dog has the option to respond before the dog does anything more. I guess I don't generally think of it as an invitation because mostly when I see it the invitation is secondary. Like someone cracking a joke as an icebreaker is not just a joke, but also an invitation to engage. The invitation is secondary because it's assumed. Either you laugh at the joke, thus signalling your willingness to engage, or you don't laugh, signalling your unwillingness to engage. Maybe a bit of a far-fetched analogy, but it's one that seems to fit to me. Like an icebreaker joke, I most often see play bows where the receiver is a wee bit tense or uncertain, but still showing interest in engaging, and when a situation almost got too serious for everyone's comfort, and when "kidding around" behaviour is being acted out with more seriousness than usual, and to gloss over a faux pas, and of course as an invitation to engage in a friendly interaction. Here's Kivi using it as an appeasement gesture: He's like "I was just kiddin' around, Pen." He would certainly play with her if it had been interpreted by her as a play invitation. He also uses head tosses as both appeasement signals and play invitations. In this photo he'd tried a head toss first to invite play and Penny responded with the "Don't." look. Then he play bowed and she lifted her lip at him. At that point he cut his losses and backed out with another head toss or two. Smart puppy. ETA Actually, I think he wasn't inviting play with the first head toss. Penny didn't like being crowded when going through a small space like the baby gate. Now that I think about it I seem to remember he came through the gate with her with bouncy puppy enthusiasm and when he saw she was looking like she might snark at him he did the head toss.

Look, here's a photo of my two boys playing a rough wrestling game. Look at Kivi's face, in particular his mouth. His mouth is so soft and relaxed you can barely see his teeth. Erik is more serious in his play and seems to be doing a snarly face, but it's hard to tell he's playing from that angle!

No, MRB is correct AFAIK. Play bows are to put behaviour in context. Like a wink or a friendly nudge to let a friend know you are just kidding around. If you watch a pair of dogs that know each other really well play, it's common to see far fewer play bows than if the dogs don't know each other well. This is thought to be because when dogs know each other they don't need the "I'm just kidding around" signals because they know each other's behaviour and a lot of signals get abbreviated. You might even see half play bows or bounces that are like momentary play bows. My boys have it down to an exchanged glance. If I watch carefully I can pick it up. Kivi usually instigates and he may just glance at Erik, then glance ahead and back to Erik as if he's saying "Wanna go?" Erik springs after him and it's on. Why don't you try breaking down play into individual behaviours and then think about whether those behaviours occur in other contexts? For example, wrestling. What else does it look like? Does it occur outside of play? What movements are incorporated and in what other contexts might they occur? How do dogs start or stop a wrestling match? Do THOSE behaviours occur in other circumstances outside of play? Stick to the common and obvious behaviours and in short order you'll have a nice ethogram of dog play you can use to nut out the purposes of common behaviours seen during play. Think about what a dog in the wild without human contact would use those behaviours for in day-to-day survival. Or is that getting too detailed? :D

Incidentally, have you ever actually "asked" what your dog wants for dinner? Some of them have preferences! I think that is so damn cool. IMO "humanising" an animal is as simple and common as saying your dog is happy. Or your dog loves X, Y and Z. Or your dog growls when he feels his personal space is being invaded. The thing is, it's hard to explain or even describe dog behaviour without humanising.

Believe it or not, scientists aren't entirely sure what the purpose of play is. Common theories are rehearsal for predatory and social behaviour, as well as body conditioning for the activities the animal will need to be good at when they are adults. Some studies suggest that play is far more important than we realise and helps teach animals (and people) coping skills. I have a pile of papers on play in canids in particular, but it might help to look up Panksepp on the neurology of play. I seem to remember there is quite a good book in Google Books online that has a section on play that gives a really good rundown of the theories and the work that has been done.

Exactly. I sure as hell humanise my pets, and I have 5 years of tertiary training in animal behaviour research. It's not easy to know when you're doing it. It goes well beyond the obvious. Take "disobedience" for example. I don't think it even exists in the animal world, but man, when your animal doesn't do what you tell them to, it is very hard to remember all the things animals do that look like "disobedience". Anyone who says they don't humanise their dog either doesn't realise they're doing it or don't even interact with their dogs. I would go one further and bet anyone who interacts with their dog humanises it to some extent. I would far rather assume I'm doing it and look for it in every decision I make than live in denial. I am human, therefore I humanise.

Because we're human and it's the only way we know how to relate to the world.

I think it's clear pretty quickly. IME dogs only need, like, maybe 3-5 reps of a simple association (noise=food) to figure out what it means. Clickers are inherently startling and so grab a dog's attention. This morning I was just using "good" and this flakey basket case of a dog that apparently can't be taught anything seemed to be catching on. I don't really see why you need to charge the clicker if it does the job without being charged. What's the worst that can happen? The dog doesn't realise for a while that the clicker means they did the right thing? They'll figure it out soon enough. I am constantly accidentally using the wrong marker with my dogs. I have about 3 or 4 different ones I use for different animals/behaviours. It doesn't seem to make a difference. They know what training looks like. The clicker works best, though.

We had almost the exact same thing happen to us with OH's brother. Our dogs were fine, but OH's brother's dogs and his SIL's dog were not at all comfortable with our boys being there, despite us being assured beforehand that they would be fine with it. They have invited the dogs since then and if we have the option we just say no. When asked why we say it is too much hassle and the boys don't really enjoy it. If they don't know dog behaviour well enough to see their own dogs don't enjoy it, they aren't going to be able to tell if our dogs do! Incidentally, going for a walk together does IME tend to alleviate a lot of the tension, but IME it's hard to get people to agree to that. They want all the fun and doggy social dates but don't want to actually put in the effort to make sure it works. They just think their dog needs to do more of it to "get used to it".

If he already knows stuff, I wouldn't bother charging it. I'd just start clicking for behaviour he knows and following it up with a treat. I started marker training with a 12 year old, anxious Mini Pin this morning, just to see if I could get anywhere seeing as this dog is not really trained and his owners spend a lot of time shouting at him and making him more anxious. He is a classic case of a dog shut down and I've never been able to get him to work for anything in the past. It turns out he will work for boiled heart. Anyway, point is, I didn't charge my marker at all. "Sit" is the only thing he knows how to do, so I started with that and marked and rewarded for sits, then lured a "touch" with food in a fist and he was doing that right away. As long as it is a sudden kind of sound, my experience is that it does the job and doesn't need much charging. My dogs gather that any blip of a sound I make is probably a marker. Having said that, I am marker training my wild hare and I did "charge" that one kind of. Just making my marker sound and giving him a treat whenever he looked at me. But he's a wild animal and had to be taught to want to interact with me in the first place.

This is the thread I was talking about: http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=213687