corvus

Erik lost his brain at about 7 months and it wasn't until he was about 14 months that he started being a normal dog again. During that 6 months or so or adolescent madness he had the attention span of a flea. Even training him in the house was difficult! So I figured if he could only concentrate for 30 seconds we'd do 20 second training sessions and work up. This was a good idea, but I didn't generalise it enough and consequently a lot of the good work I'd put in when he was a puppy in distracting environments was lost and I had to go back to the beginning, almost. A few things survived from puppyhood. They were self-control exercises, recalls, and default downs whenever he wants something.

Prong collars are a piece of equipment that manages behaviour.

My partner saw a JR type dog fall from a 2nd story balcony and break its leg. It was the second time it had happened. The owners had tried to erect a balcony fence to stop the dog, but obviously it didn't work.

I'm not sure. They are small, oodley things, I think.

My friend has just brought a newborn baby home and one of her two dogs apparently finds the baby intensely exciting. Lots of people are telling her she will have to get rid of the dog(s) or get Bark Busters in or scruff and pin the dog and all sorts of horrifying advice. She doesn't want to rehome the dogs, but is having a hard time coping and is happy to pay for a professional to come and help her with the dogs.

They are pretty clever. Kivi does a bit of that as well. It is pretty obvious where we have been sloppy in his training, and it's where he thinks about it before he does it. Ideally there should be nothing to weigh up. It's just "Oh, that means good stuff!" and they do it before thinking about whether it's worth their while or not. It works better for some dogs than others, though. Erik is extraordinarily optimistic. You could holler his name at the top of your lungs and chances are he would come over to gaze up at you wagging his tail, hoping he's done something to earn a reward of some kind. Kivi on the other hand, he knows what the chances of reward are and he's not doing anything 'just in case'. He does things when he's 90% sure it will be rewarded. I think with some dogs you have to accept that maintaining behaviour takes a bit of work. It certainly does with Kivi.

Does your OH know??? It was his suggestion. He has all my husbands figured out. Ken Ramirez, Bob Bailey, Prince Caspian... The solution is a sure bet. Erik got it into his head at one stage that we can't leave the house if he's in the yard, so when he saw us getting ready to go out he'd run outside and play keep away. I really have better things to do with my time than walk around and around the pool trying to get anywhere near a wily Vallhund. So when we leave he gets a treat, but he has to be inside to get it. He usually dances outside with me while I get the "we're going out" treats and then dances back inside with me and sits waiting for his chew, now, instead of playing silly buggers. Kivi is harder, but his idea of resistance is "forgetting" how to use his legs, so we are sloppy and just push him. I am sure he would come running every time if he thought he was getting steak or roast chicken out of it. He doesn't have to get steak or roast chicken every time, just think he might.

Yeah the little bastard.... Wouldn't you say that its still ignoring though, a known command (Come), basically a STFU to whatever I've said, I'm gonna make you chase me instead yayyy? Does it matter? Ken Ramirez (who I'm going to marry) says an animal is always behaving. Not responding to a cue is a behaviour, and one he even reinforces if the cue wasn't intended for that animal. But the assumption is that the cue not meant for the animal was a stimulus that the animal is responding to by doing nothing (or waiting patiently, if you like). Seeing as you asked, I would say if the cue is given and the dog doesn't respond because the cue was not a stimulus, then the behaviour is not "ignoring the command" so much as "whatever the dog is doing in response to other stimuli". In which case either the dog doesn't understand the cue or the dog didn't hear or see the cue. The alternative is the dog is responding to the cue but in an undesirable way, such as running in the opposite direction and hiding. In that case, the cue is a stimulus and the behavioural response is "running away" rather than "ignoring". It only really matters if you would treat them differently, IMO. One is a problem with the cue (stimulus) and one is a problem with the response, but just going back to basics would solve both. Punishing would not solve both, though, only the latter. Unless you apply punishments until the dog manages to hit on the right behaviour, which I guess turns it into a R- approach.

Google "counter-conditioning". You could theoretically turn people passing the fence into a cue to do something less anti-social, like laying down on a mat, for example. Just takes a lot of consistency and rewards.

It is. ;) Well, it doesn't have to be hard, anyway. If you have contingency plans, then you always know what to do when you screw up. First, have an idea of the level of reliability you should have. I usually go for 80% if it's something that we haven't practiced in this environment much, or about 98% or more for something that's already trained and we are just maintaining. If you are dropping below that success rate, you know something is up. You don't have to know what it is to do something about it. Increasing the reward rate is always my first port of call, unless it's something we are still learning, then go back a step or two. Sometimes all it needs is an increased reward rate for a few repetitions and then ease it back down again. I try to keep my training moving so my dogs don't come to expect a certain rate of reinforcement, or a certain type of reinforcement. That way if they act up I can be reasonably confident they are not just messing with me to get a higher reward rate. I have very clever dogs. They do things like that! Second port of call is more practice in easier environments. It's usually pretty clear when this is the problem because increasing the reward rate doesn't increase the success rate. If I know the success rate is usually around 80% or more, I tend to use a LRS (3 seconds of nothing), then ask the same thing a second time because sometimes my dog wasn't watching or didn't catch the cue. That seems to account for a lot of "non-compliance". If that wasn't the problem, or I have my dog staring at me after a cue for a behaviour they absolutely know in this environment, they get a LRS and I ask them for an easier behaviour. If they blow that one off, I walk away. It is very rare that I walk away. They very much want to earn rewards. Sometimes they are just not entirely sure how to do that. Of course, that's the grossly simplified version and it's my version. I think it doesn't matter hugely what you do, but if you have a plan and some solid criteria, it makes it easier to make quick judgment calls and notice quickly when things are going awry. At least, that's been my experience. ;) Keeping a training diary helped, too. I stopped doing it because it was so time consuming, but it did teach me to make important mental notes. ;)

Is that really why she's better behaved? "Non-compliance" needn't be a big deal. In Steve White's words, it just tells you what you get to do more training on. Yay! If you set them up to succeed it's a problem you rarely have to deal with. If that means walking the dog around the park on leash first, or keeping treats on you to reward every correct response for a while, then that's what you do. If the dog doesn't do what they're told, that's your problem. It's your responsibility to assess where you went wrong and how you made it too hard for them to succeed. If you don't know, just take a step or two backwards until compliance is high again and carry on as usual.

I think they can tell the difference by the tone of your voice & your body language. Depends what your history with them is. I have a video somewhere of ending a tug game and turning away from my dog and you can see his little face fall. I have a dismissal cue "Go play" that means they can go be a dog for a bit. Sometimes they would rather play another round of tug. I originally brought in "go play" as an establishing operation that was meant to mean "keep your ear out 'cause I'm going to give you an opportunity to earn a reward any moment". That experiment sort of went sideways, though.

He's not ignoring you if he's running in the opposite direction and playing keep away!

Maybe a Swedish Vallhund or Corgi would suit? They are a bit less full on than a staffy IMO. I like the size. They are tough enough for lots of exercise and rough play, but have a good off switch and are a nice portable size. Because they are both herding breeds they are very biddable and people focused. I think Valls are a little more aloof towards strangers. I have had a Pembroke Corgi and now have a Vallhund. Generally I think the Vallhunds are more work from a training perspective. They are incrediby smart and opportunistic. If you make a mistake it can be hard to correct. I have pet rabbits and the Corgi was perfectly trustworthy with them. The Vall doesn't try to get into their cages, but isn't trusted around them if they are out of their cages. When it comes to playing fetch and the likes, the Corgi was never particularly interested, but the Vall loves to play. The Corgi's idea of escaping was walking out a hole in the fence the size of a wombat and turning up on the front doorstep. The Vall has an urgent need to be with his family as much as possible and has never shown any interest in escaping.

OH and I have talked about this before. We have never come up with a plan. Our boys are also best of friends and splitting them up seems like it would be very hard on them. But having one of us suddenly out of their lives would also be very hard on them. The only consensus we have reached is we hope to hell it will never happen. Sorry can't be of more help.

Whoops. Try that. :D

Kivi likes to lay his chicken wings out next to each other before he decides which one he's going to eat first. When he gets his mince with a dollop of yoghurt, sometimes he manages to eat all the meat and leave the yoghurt until last, and other times he eats it first. I love watching him eat. He always approaches it in a quite measured manner. Erik just devours anything put in front of him. He has been known to swallow chicken wings whole. He always throws them up a few moments later, though, and if dogs can feel regret, I'm pretty sure he does. We ended up switching to chicken necks as a result.

Done. :D

At the recent APDT conference, Ken Ramirez made the point that it's a good idea to treat any reinforcer outside food as a secondary reinforcer to begin with and teach it like a behaviour. By pairing it with a primary reinforcer, it becomes strong and reliable. My dog Erik was already tugging very well, but when I started agility he started having trouble shifting between food and tug rewards. I took him out of classes and started working on that. It wasn't until I used Ramirez' method of introducing a secondary reinforcer that it really took off in leaps and bounds, though. I've got notes describing how to introduce a secondary reinforcer from Ramirez if you're interested.

Someone with German Spitzes recommended them to me one time, when I was looking for a dog that would be a little independent, but still want to play games like tug and frisbee with me. I ended up getting a Swedish Vallhund instead, because my OH didn't like the degree of fluffyness a GS possesses. I don't think I'd ever want a JS. They seem a bit reactive to me. It may be that GS are the same and I just wasn't aware of it. I've met a few and they seemed noisy, but friendly. Maybe it was just the context I saw them in? I like my Vall, he's fiesty and tough, but he's full of self-confidence as well. He likes to chase things, but it's not hard to distract him from chasing animals, usually. I find him to be very biddable, but impossible to take for granted. The moment he doesn't want to do something he lets me know about it. I adore my Lappie's big coat, but it's a lot of work. The Vall's coat is dead easy. He goes weak at the knees for a brushing, but he doesn't need one, really.

Wow, you'd think he was the RNZSPCA's answer to Cesar Milan. If his marketing were any less subtle I'd be in hospital. I don't know. I wouldn't put much store in any "endorsement" of trainers, really. It's like Brand Power, helping you buy better.... by telling you what brands to buy. The ones that paid them, presumably. Now endorsement by an independent third party I might pay attention to. If the CHOICE of dog training recommended this guy, I'd go to him regardless of the bludgeoning marketing. Well, maybe. I'd at least consider it seriously. So the question is, is RNZSPCA an independent third party?

I'm not sure if I've already tossed it by your definition or not! I get that every stressor has a different stress response and that fight and flight often aren't involved. But in this particular case that I'm interested in these proactive animals are jumping in to fight when they don't really need to and other animals are not doing either and coping with the same stressor in a perfectly satisfactory manner. I'm not talking about fight and flight in the traditional binomial kind of sense. I'm talking about it in the sense that some individuals do it more than others even when they don't need to. go back and pick up your physiology textbook first and have a good read about sympathetic and parasympathetic. Actually have a quick read of this http://www.medicinenet.com/stress/page5.htm some more on the next pages about the affect of hormones and HPA axis on emotion and behaviour, not complete but it gives you a start. I never bought the textbook, which is possibly why I wasn't very good at it. Thanks for the link. I read through it, but didn't find it answered any of my questions. I know what they all DO and the basics of how they do it and the anatomy involved, but what does it mean in relation to having two animals, one stressor, and two wildly different stress responses - one characterised by sympathetic reactivity and low HPA-axis reactivity and the other by parasympathetic reactivity and high HPA-axis reactivity. I feel like I'm not making a lot of sense, but don't know how to phrase what I want to know so that it makes more sense. What does high reactivity or low reactivity mean in this context? Does it mean the system is more sensitive? Does it mean the stress response is stronger or more prolonged? I've got the behavioural facts I know in one part of my mind, and the related neuroendocrine facts in another part of my mind, but I can't quite marry them so I understand what the full picture is and why these things are apparently linked.

Erik has always been interested in the tv. He watches it less now than he used to, but he's always aware if something interesting comes on, like animals or a funny-looking person. He's good at picking the bad guys in dramas. He barks at them. He also goes mental if there's something abnormal on the tv. He doesn't like spooky kid shows, like the one with the floating red ball that smiles and talks. Apparently red balls should not float, smile and talk. He also got very upset when the plasticine boy got his eyeballs stuck to the bathroom mirror. And let's not get started on The Thing. At least we know if a dog ever splits open to reveal a horrible monster underneath, Erik will definitely let us know about it. Kivi only watches the tv if there's a dog on it, and only if the dog is making noise. I think it's an awareness thing. Erik is aware of everything that goes on around him. Every little detail is processed and stored away. Anything new gets explored in case it can be exploited. Kivi has his head in the clouds most of the time. He just doesn't care about a lot of things. Life will happen to him. Erik is not content to merely sit around letting things happen. He has to know what it's all for!

What does it matter if she gave them all good homes? It's not like she's in it for the money.

I did physiology in undergrad, but wasn't very good at it. I know about feedback systems, though. More recently I read Sapolsky's book on stress, which gives a nice background on glucocorticoids and what happens to the body during chronic stress. Well, I don't think I should in this case, because I think it's important. I'm looking at the difference between proactive coping styles and reactive coping styles. Proactive animals are the ones that actually seem to do fight or flight sometimes. Their behaviour is characterised by aggression, low attack latencies, and inflexibility. They form routines and then largely ignore environmental stimuli. They explore new areas quickly, but superficially. Reactive animals tend to have low aggression, high attack latencies and behavioural flexibility. When they have a problem, they could try a number of solutions first as opposed to the proactive animals that tend to try aggression first. Reactive animals usually freeze when frightened. They explore new areas slowly, but thoroughly, and tend to not act until changes in the environment make it necessary to act. I'm trying to tie this in with what is known about their neuroendocrine systems. Proactive animals have low HPA-axis (HPA stands for hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal for those that were wondering) reactivity and high sympathetic reactivity during a stress response. Reactive animals have high HPA-axis reactivity and high parasympathetic reactivity during a stress response. What does it mean to have high or low HPA-axis reactivity? How do the behaviour and the neuroendocrine system relate to each other?