Aidan3

Yes to both, and also yes to their opposites. Researchers these days look at what is called "gene x environment interactions".

I make a fairly sharp distinction between things we can control and things we can't control and make decisions based partly on that. The evidence you have presented is confounded in that it's likely that no attempt has been made (by client or positive trainer) to work at graded exposures with cats doing things that are likely to elicit prey drive. That is not to say that corrections would not be expedient where cats are involved, cats are not easily controlled In my experience the correction needs to be fairly severe to stop a cat chaser with any sort of drive. But the confounder is that you don't know that +R wouldn't be equally as effective and reliable at stopping a cat chaser (but probably not as expedient), so again I would argue that it wasn't necessary for learning, strictly speaking. However, in the example being discussed we are able to move away from the other dogs, we can control the environment. I can think of a few good reasons why we would use corrections at this point, I can also think of a few good reasons why we wouldn't (and generally I wouldn't). One benefit to using very mild corrections in low-distraction environments is that if you intend to go into very strongly distracting environments you have a basis for learning through aversion and can usually increase the intensity of the correction and the dog has a pretty good chance of figuring out what the correction was for. However, in this particular situation I'm not convinced that it is necessary, or any faster than +R alone (done well). Even with very reactive dogs we can get them working alongside other dogs very quickly without corrections.

Who or what is "Estes"? Googled but with a quick look all I could find was chemical companies , rockets, hospitals. I'm guessing they weren't what you were referring to This ought to keep you going for a while: http://suppes-corpus.stanford.edu/techreports/IMSSS_123.pdf

This is a perception that interests me as to what the advantages are for not applying a correction, in other words, what do we think is better in the training result between a dog trained with corrections or aversives and a dog that hasn't???. For what purpose should we try to train without corrections in hope of achieving what exactly???. Just trying to understand this philosophy I have a question for you Garry, how do you know that you are achieving anything over and above reward alone by using the correction? Think about it, because I know it sounds stupid to a lot of people when I ask them to think about this. The assumption seems to be that there "needs" to be a consequence for non-compliance, and while I wouldn't disagree that aversive consequences aren't useful at times, I know from experience that there doesn't "need" to be an aversive consequence for non-compliance. So if there doesn't "need" to be one, the only reason for doing it would be to benefit some aspect of learning. Introducing a correction could have two possible effects: 1. it could speed up the learning process by providing a contrast between non-compliance and compliance 2. it could hinder learning by adding mild stress or additional cognitive processing about what, exactly, the correction was for Given that you have moved the dog below the threshold at which a harsh correction is necessary, is there still a nett benefit in introducing the correction? This is, of course, a hypothetical and no answer will be right in every case, and no experiment has been devised thus far that has allowed us to draw any conclusions on this problem (you could have a look at "Estes" if you want some empirical data though) but it is worth consideration, IMHO. By considering the problem, you might also gain some insight into why others make the choices they make not to use a correction in this sort of situation. To benefit your understanding, it might prove to be a more fruitful exercise than getting someone else's opinion on the matter.

Excellent use of a good training opportunity. Just distracting enough to be a challenge, but still successful.

Actually you do, and the reasoning (which is the same as you have stated) is spurious.

Poor Molly, very sad. I would not have worried about snakes there at this time of year so thank you for passing that along. There have traditionally been quite a few snakes along the waterfront in Tranmere during warmer weather, which most people don't believe because it really isn't what you would typically think was "snakey". My boy chased one into the bushes near a storm-water outlet, it had been sunning itself on the gravel footpath. Such a busy track, too.

Concrete reinforcing mesh. It will need to be secured somehow, the best way is to bury it.

That is actually a really good example of the same concept Is it though, considering there are values, historically speaking, that those symbols/flags give meaning to the arrowhead figures? In the first example, there is nothing to ascribe value to either of the triangles or the ball. That's true, definitely not as extreme, but they are still not living creatures. The clip I posted was designed to "tell a story", people have repeated this sort of experiment with totally random, computer-generated nonsense and observers still want to attribute human meaning to it. Completely normal, as Persephone said, it's what we do. I posted the example to demonstrate how easy it is to attribute human characteristics onto other things that are not human, such as dogs. The other reason for posting was for those who would follow the instruction to watch it first with the sound down, then watch it again with the sound up. In all likelihood you would have had a similar, but not the same, interpretation as the person in the video. I participated in a class demonstration (with a different graphic, just two circles and a rectangle) and no two people in the class had even similar stories. One person said "the dot on the left needed to talk to the dot on the right, and it expanded so that it could jump the wall", another person said "one ball was being pumped up, and the other ball got jealous". I said "it was a mating ritual that went horribly wrong", I'm not sure what that says about me though...

That is actually a really good example of the same concept

Why shouldn't they? We only need to drill a tiny little hole in their skull! For many purposes a saliva swab is all that is required, quick and easy. I think I'm starting to see the reason for the suspicion, must be an old DOL meme regarding Dr McGreevy going on. I think I'll stay out of this one!

I must be missing something huge here. If the guy is writing books about training animals and bringing people who work with animals into lectures - then how on earth is anyone drawing the conclusion that he will be advocating that animals should not be trained? Oil - water. Erny's concerns might be valid, I would like to know more about any political views he may have. Maybe the RSPCA are just interested in getting dogs out of the backyard and down to the dog club, or effectively under control so they can be taken to the park? God knows there are thousands upon thousands locked in the back-yard or deemed untrainable because the owner didn't know how to motivate them.

By flipping over and exposing the belly she is making sure she avoids confrontation. You can call it submission, but it serves a function. If it serves a function, there must be something causing the need for that function... and you would probably guess at anxiety. Whether she still feels the anxiety, or it is something that she felt once, the behaviour worked, so she has continued with it despite the absence of fear, we can't really say without further investigation. In any case, it is helpful to think of behaviours that we describe as dominance or submission as functional behaviours that serve the individual a purpose that isn't necessarily driven by hierarchy, but will result in some position in a hierarchy.

http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4603513 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0t32b7QK5U A quote from an interview with Dr McGreevy “We persistently frustrate our canine companions by ignoring what they truly value – fun, exercise and training.” ... seems fairly pro-training to me! And as a veterinary behaviourist, I would expect so too.

I doubt anyone would hold that a Malinois lacks efficiency or durability, whether or not one is better than the other (on that sort of criteria) I don't know. This discussion (diverging as it does from the original topic) really focuses on the reasons given for the angulations described in the early standards, more so than the validity of those reasons. Von Stephanitz chose Klodo v Boxberg as the sieger in 1925, according to this author, to alter the trend towards "high, square" dogs: http://www.riesashepherds.com/Geman_Shephe..._and_quotes.htm The Fortunate Fields experiments in 1934 aimed to discover correlations between structure and working ability, while maintaining a dog with good conformation. There is no doubt these experiments had a big influence on the breed, although it didn't take long for breeders to start ignoring the actual recommendations made and taking them to extremes. Of interest, the authors concluded that a "fast trot" (e.g dog beside bike) is of little value to a working dog, and that good hind thrust was the most important aspect of gait.

That didn't happen to be Mayo, did it??? Sadly, he was one in a million and I was the luckiest dog owner on earth!!! There will never be another like him. . . . He is my 'heart dog' It was indeed! 1 in 1 million, but so is Sabella in a different way so I'm still happy. If she has Mayo's longevity we'll be in trouble, she'll be as blind as a bat, so hopefully she slows down a bit.

Regarding the pics of Horand, he is not the only old style gsd- the breed was created from various sheep herding/guarding types, some with floppy ears, shaggy coats but in old pictures of those tending dogs and the regional herding types in germany today( probably distantly related to gsd) I do not see a roach or over angulated hindquarters. I suppose it comes down to who you believe then. Looking at the gait of my working line GSD, I do believe her angulation contributes to her effortless gait and that if she had similar hindquarter angulation to, for e.g, my Golden then she would move like.... err, my Golden! For the record, she has what would be considered a flat back compared to even many working line GSDs (for e.g her grand-sire, Hassan v Gruntal), but she is still not proportioned like a Terv, BC or Golden. She also spends an inordinate amount of time trotting along the furrow around my back fence. I wish I had some sheep for her, I'm sure she would be very happy

Targets that don't exist begin as targets that do exist, then you fade them. So you might begin with a towel on the ground, if your dog knows "go to mat" or "crate" it's pretty easy to get them to go to a towel and down. Then you fold the towel in half, then start cutting it down. Directions can be done similarly. You have three targets in a line, send the dog to the middle target, hit the middle target, stop and face you, then follow your hand signal to one or the other. Begin in close range, teach the concepts, then tidy up the cues, add distance, fade the targets, add more distance. If you are very lucky (like me when I taught this to my GSD), your dog will generalise very quickly and you will be able to fade the target very quickly without issues (in fact I didn't fade the target, I just began cueing her early). I would imagine a Mal would solve this little problem fairly easily also.

Total gaga this false notion that the type of structure is needed for herding. Prior to the creation of the gsd, for hundreds of years their descendants herded and protected sheep and they did not require SL type to get the job done. I think you should read what I wrote again. I have not defended the extreme angulation of modern showline dogs anywhere. At all. But the original GSD is described (loosely) like this: withers higher than back, not square in proportion, long, sloping croup, correct hind-quarter angulation, ratio of hind-quarter angulation to front-quarters - all resulting in an easy, efficient, trotting gait. Look at Horand's son, Hektor v Schwaben, and tell me if you disagree. One of those images of Horand makes it look like he has a dippy back, the other does not (they are the same dog). Old GSDs are quite distinct to old Belgians in appearance and gait, or at least the founding clubs of those breeds certainly thought so!

Simulated field trials and working tests are, in many ways, more realistic tests of real work ability than Schutzhund or Ring sports. In any case, simulated field trials, tracking trials and Schutzhund are generally good predictors of working ability.

He sounds fairly normal, some dogs have that way of dealing with others. It can get them/you into trouble though, and it's a signal to hold a bit of space for him.

Hehe, I'll bet you caught a few out with that one! Here is a poodle who really does compete in hunt tests: Lots of field Goldens look like show Goldens, but some of the American and Canadian lines look distinctly different, this one probably too dark for our standard:

If he can walk past other dogs without any problems then your job is simple, don't let them get into his face. None of the things you have mentioned would lead me to conclude that there are any rank issues (dominance), all still looking like fear or anxiety. It doesn't need to be much fear, or much anxiety, but whatever behaviour relieves the pressure, you will see more of. Even if he is just a little uncertain, if barking or growling or whatever relieves that uncertainty, it will be repeated. Does that make sense? So you need to relieve the pressure for him. Don't let unknown dogs get in his face. If he does meet a dog, be it a new dog or an old friend, make sure that it is a fun, pleasant experience for him.

It's certainly excitement for my GSD. If I'm planning a long trip I'll stop somewhere early into the journey, take a quick walk or play some tug, then pop her back in her crate. I guess she thinks we've had our fun, because she settles immediately after that.

My split personalities must be remarkably consistent! If it wasn't such a long drive I would be using Aidan2 to back up things Aidan said and vice-versa, "Yeah, awesome post Aidan2, you really hit the nail on the head!" "Thanks Aidan, I think your posts are brilliant too!"