sidoney

It is possible to train outside of a relationship. Chickens, fish, and so on can be trained - little to no social relationship with the trainer. (Also can be trained remotely.) However I wouldn't WANT to train outside of my relationship with my dogs - a great deal of what I do with them seeks to strengthen that relationship - gives me lots more options and also a great deal more enjoyment. pgm, I don't think that anyone is arguing that pure behaviourism is the be all and end all of psychological theories. However I WOULD argue (and have done so, repeatedly) that there is much in it that is useful. Also it gives useful ways of talking about concepts that can be used in training. Even though much of the naming is laden with connotation (eg. reward, punishment) - one has to see beyond the connotations. Actually, thinking about it, maybe there are some that don't see all sides of behaviourism - for anyone who may be in that situation, it's worthwhile finding out about the negatives as well as the positives (about anything).

No you didn't, I am aware of that, that part wasn't meant to look as if it was a response to you - my error. I've not met a dog yet that has an instinctive drive to distinguish between bananas and bras - especially not for periods of time.

pgm, I can't be bothered going point by point through what you are saying. I don't find your arguments very relevant. Since you seem to know so much about it, certainly more than professional scent dog trainers, how about share your wisdom and let us how you are going to do this in the context of a difficult and sustained task that is not tapping into instinctive drives of the dog? Instead of just saying, "it should be so", tell us how it can be so. BTW this is not the case for every dog, and as I said before, to get that extra effort, you have to (in most cases anyway) give them something back for it. My dogs will look for game for hours if they get the chance, but they don't have that same desire for agility, even though they are fast, accurate, and enthusiastic, oh and win a fair bit too, even though I don't trial much.

Oh! Sorry I was unclear there. Dogs that enjoy it for its own sake, esp. if not trained in the foundations, can tend to take things into their own paws, and make up their own course. Also not wait for the handler to start them, etc. Handlers who yell at their dogs for this, or who are harsh in other ways, or who try to suppress their dogs' enjoyment of the activity in order to get "control" (in the early days, handlers of fast dogs were frequently told to "slow the dog down"), can make unpleasant associations with agility and agility equipment for their dogs. Hence the dog learning that agility is NOT fun. I was talking last year at a seminar to a the owner of an older Kelpie that had started out very fast. She had been told to slow her dog down. Her Kelpie lost her enthusiasm and was never as fast again. Most Kelpies, Borders, Coolies, etc. don't have "hard" temperaments. LOL Rusky I just noticed, you and I have almost the same number of posts.

Hiya all Been a bit busy to respond for a bit, but I'd like to pick up on a few threads that have occurred through this conversation now. In the interests of brevity I'll try to keep each to a reasonable length. 1. Theory vs. method I don’t see how one can say you can have theory or method without each other. At its most simple, a theory is an organised set of ideas that attempts to explain or predict something. Method, at its simplest, is an ordered way of doing something. Theory and method go together; theory underlies how the method is organised. Method would be useless without the ability to predict outcomes. Method without theory, faced with something new, has nothing. Theory allows the development of method. On the other hand, theory, without method, has no way of doing anything, and can achieve nothing. Yes one can take a method and apply it without knowing anything of the theory. Most people do this when they use a recipe to bake a cake. They may try to develop new cakes or ways of combining ingredients – trial and error – some will turn out and some won’t. Bakers on the other hand, know how the ingredients combine to give the results (theory), and can then develop new kinds of baked products without the same kind of wastage. As stated above, when faced with a situation that the method doesn’t cover, or when trying to develop something new, without some theory, all would be trial and error – wouldn’t want to do that with my dog. 2. Regarding behaviourism For some reason, pgm seems to have a particular aversion to behaviourism and/or behaviourists. Thankfully others are more open minded. To throw out behaviourism in total is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Certainly Behaviourism as an ideological construct is a product of the time in which it was developed, when Rational Science was thought to be the way to Discover Universal Truths For The Benefit Of Mankind (note gender specific language). Behaviourism is no longer thought of as The Way to explain and predict all behaviours (except perhaps by some minority although I am not aware of them). However, it is still a very useful theory when applied to training animals, and can be (and is) used effectively, with an appreciation of its limitations, by animal trainers from many different fields in achieving their goals. 3. Whether one can know what “goes on in a dog’s mind” I previously stated that I did not know what went on in a dog’s mind as I could not see in there. The response to this was the suggestion that that one can understand what goes on in a dog’s mind, to the same extent as one can understand what goes on in a person’s mind. This was set up as a contradiction to my statement, although I am not sure that it contradicts what I said at all. I categorically reject any idea that one can “know” what goes on in any other creature’s mind, and suggest that one can only guess, and that with dogs, the guesses are less accurate than with people. Even with language, the most complex communication tool, what one person says may be understood in a different way by the person who hears – due to many different factors, including characteristics of language itself. Although dogs do communicate, they have no language. They also have very different sensory systems, physical structures, instincts, and ranges of behaviours to ours. (Note that "instinct" and other psychological descriptions are constructs - they do not represent any "real thing" although such ideas as instinct, memory, personality etc. enter the field of "common sense knowledge" as representing "real things" - this is a whole other topic.) In many ways, despite dogs being the species most closely allied to humans, they are alien to humans, and the best anyone can do, even the most experienced, is to make (more or less) educated guesses as to what may be going on in their minds. I agree with Nat when she says that how a person interprets a dog’s behaviours will vary depending on the training history and beliefs that person has. 4. Whether dogs can make moral judgements It was suggested that dogs are able to have some ability to make judgements of right and wrong. I am not sure the extent of the ethical reasoning that was implied by that statement. While it is common for people to infer moral behaviour in dogs (“he knows he did the wrong thing/he feels guilty, just look at him”), this sets up a dangerous situation for the dogs themselves. They become subjected to similar kinds of (ineffective) procedures of justice to those that are inflicted upon humans. Humans are supposed to know “right” from “wrong” and are punished for doing “wrong”. It is no secret that this is ineffective. Humans that are repeatedly “wrong” are then labelled “bad”. One can see a similar kind of process with dogs. The implications of this process are not good for dogs. Individual dogs or groups of dogs, that have been subjected to inappropriate conditions and experiences, become labelled “bad”. Although the dog is only being a dog, and responding to its environment, the dog is the one that is killed, while the owners decide that was a “bad dog” and go on to get another one that they treat just as inappropriately. When groups of dogs are treated inappropriately, the group of dogs becomes labelled as “bad” (rather than the owners). We can see the fall-out from this in sanctioning laws such as “breed specific legislation”. I am not saying this process is the sole contributing process, but it would certainly have its effect. 5. Regarding “immature” happiness in agility The above is a judgemental statement. If a dog is active and energetic, that is a good thing for agility. Many pet owners want their dog to be a “good dog” and by that, they seem to mean the old “seen and not heard”, “speak when spoken to” and so on that children used to get. A subdued dog as a “good dog”. It sits and lies down and comes when called and doesn’t bark unnecessarily. A dog that is subdued won’t be any good at a sport that requires high speed like agility. Such a dog might make it around the course accurately, but it won’t have the kind of energy and motivation that will make it fast. Some people have dogs for whom the agility itself is the reward, but for most dogs (like my Vizslas), the high level of motivation has to be created externally. For my Vizslas, that is a combination of play and food. I also note that for the dogs that enjoy agility for its own sake, it is not difficult to teach those dogs that agility is not fun at all. The ultimate agility run is like balancing on a knife edge between speed and control – you want the dog at as high a level of arousal as you can manage, while still keeping the dog responding to you. Without that, you won’t get the extra speed that makes the difference between a reasonable run and a great run. I should mention, this kind of high level of motivation is needed for any dog that is asked to do anything that requires particular intensity or duration – see Sam’s post above re the scent dogs – these dogs are required to work for an extended time and may go some long time without finding the scent that brings their reward – they need to be very motivated to sustain that.

What is the poo consistency? Is it the same each time or different? Can you take a photo? (Eeeewww)

Good point Lia. I am vastly mostly positive reinforcement. However I do use snippets of other bits when the situation calls for it. Realistically, unless you stick your dog into a lab cage and keep the human and interactive/social aspect out of it as well, how are you going to keep everything to positive reinforcement? Even the act of putting a leash on, if the leash has any pressure on the dog's neck, imposes something other than positive reinforcement. And as pgm has raised, there is more to dogs than acting simply as stimuli processing automata. They have emotion and sociability and lots of other things going on in there - exactly what I cannot know for sure as I can't see inside! I choose my balance to be strongly on the side of positive reinforcement, and I keep my negatives as mild as possible.

to Protexin. I used it with my babies.

If we all recall that the board was almost closed down because of personal behaviour on it ... let's get back to the topic, huh?

Oh dear ... I don't think we need to insult each other or each others' ideas. Can we please keep it to an interesting discussion and not make it personal?

If test last year was negative (was it the antibody test?) then unless you had a false negative (possible but not probable). It would be unlikely he has heartworm now. Plus he's had preventatives since. I wouldn't get too worried about heartworm.

Has he been TESTED for heartworm? Heartworm prevention is not 100% effective, some dogs may get it anyway ... as I found some years back.

A protozoan infection will also give blood in stools. Coccidiosis is pretty common in dogs. Check out this previous thread, especially scroll down for Cordelia's post. If you haven't had him long, there is a good chance that moving to a new home has caused the coccidia to show symptoms. If that's what your dog has, that is.

You have my complete and utter agreement on that one! Part of teaching a dog - and the most important part, in my opinion, is the teaching of the dog "how to learn". I've experienced it with young, unhandled horses and with green dogs too - there is a turning point, where everything up to then is not really doing much, then they understand that their behaviour can control the consequences, then it all happens from there. Oh yes, I should add, the second thing they have to learn is that some environmental stimuli (cues) "open the door" to certain ways of obtaining consequences. This, for verbal cues anyway, can take a little longer.

Yup. It's a behaviour chain. He has previously learned to come to you when he sees people, by whatever method you taught him. He has the habit of it, and the anticipation of some consequences (perhaps not every time, but enough to keep it going) for the behaviour, of whatever ilk. He's looking for the reward, at the end of the chain - the release. And I would also say, for your approval - of course dogs are relationship oriented. Behaviourism gives training tools that allow one to gain predictable results, but it's not everything - dogs and other animals are not emotionless automata. My dogs often offer previously learned behaviour, because they are looking for the consequences. And yes, some of those consequences are coming from me and from our relationship. Makes them much easier to live with, doesn't it? <VBG> Many dogs have to be self directed in this way. You bet! And if you train with rewards, once the dog understands the behaviour, and when you have developed a great relationship with your dog, the reward can be positive attention from you, as well as such things as the opportunity to run free, to get into the car, etc. That is all positive reinforcement. My puppy, now - I consciously train her with extra rewards, as we are establishing behaviours and building relationship. Later, I won't need to for the day to day stuff - the rewards will be more relationship focused. When I am asking for an extra special effort that is difficult for the dog/s, then I use extra rewards - that would include for my dogs, doing an agility course accurately and FAST - they will do it for me anyway but to get the extra effort I need to give them extra motivation. That is the Vizslas. They are not self rewarded by the course - not enough anyway to give their all. The Kelpie - well, she's young, we'll see. Also I train the dogs in new things with appropriate and highly desired rewards; that helps them to focus through the learning process and to keep trying even if it's hard.

That's actually quite an easy question to respond to, only I and others will do it mindful of what we are doing. The release, ie. the opportunity to run around again, is the reward.

pgm, are you ascribing to dogs the same cognitive capabilities, and abilities to make moral and ethical judgements as children develop as they grow up? That is what your statement sounds like.

I think it's a case here of human preference rather than canine preference. I stand by what I said before regarding training ethics. The greatest variation is in the people themselves, who differ in both their training preferences and their openness to alternative ideas and opinions. One can end up with a dog that is well trained by a number of routes. I don't see the point in trying to proselytise. I know what works for me and what I prefer, as do others, and they might go a different path. So long as it is, as I said, ethical and effective, I don't have a problem. People who come to train with me do so because they want to learn what and how I train. It's my job to ensure that they learn to do it effectively. It's the person's job to decide whether my approach suits them. The dog doesn't really enter into it, as if the person is effective, the dog will learn and enjoy learning, and end up reliable and all that. Some are more challenging than others, but I find that is largely down to past history and handler skill and consistency, and less down to the dog itself. If it's just down to the dog (sans history and handler), it comes out more to variations on a theme. That has been my experience. Which is not so great as the experience of some, but more than many.

Cat not running is good. That means, when you have the dog accepting of the cat, the cat won't be triggering a prey instinct in the dog by running. Much harder to stop dogs harassing cats that run. My young Kelpie barks at my cat and would like her to run, but she gives her a "you have to be kidding" look and stands her ground - puppy is getting used to the cat. If my cat ran, I'd have a cat chasing dog in no time. Does your dog tether? Could be an idea to look at setting up a tether point inside - without cat around at first - risk with this could be that some dogs are more aggressive on a tether (but most are not). Crate still looks like the best option to me. Safest all around. You might be able to pick one up cheaper second hand. Check out Ebay, etc. I note that Aphra's Neo took 2 months, not 2 years, to become accustomed to her cat/s. Your situation sounds like it could be similar, with the dog seeing cat as interloper rather than as co-resident.

I wouldn't use this. Firstly they can cause permanent damage to your dog's neck. Secondly if you give an aversive to the dog near the cat (eg. with the choke chain), it could associate the bad experience with the cat, and that could make any problem you have worse. Better would be to teach the dog to give you attention using high value rewards, with distractions, then come closer to the cat while you do that. Teach the dog that being near the cat, but giving you attention rather than the cat, is a good thing. Then you could allow it to look at the cat, while staying calm, and reward that. If you keep rewarding being near the cat and being calm, that's what you'll see more of. Does the cat run when it sees the dog? Cats that run make it more difficult. I would be putting the DOG in the crate and allow it to see the cat wandering around in the house, and interacting with you. Reward all calm behaviour.

This topic is so perennial. What it boils down to FOR ME, is this: Dogs are capable of learning by many approaches. Any approach that is used must be consistent and, to be ethical, not harm the dog mentally or physically, rather it should be rewarding and enjoyable for the dog - and handler! People are capable of training by many approaches and what suits one trainer will not necessarily suit another. Also, trainers may vary in their ability, no matter what approach they use. If you have a training approach that is effective and ethical, that suits you, then great. It won't suit everyone. But then, nothing suits everyone. If your training approach isn't effective, ethical, or suitable, then either you need to get better at what you are doing, or you need to consider switching to something else. And if someone has a different training approach to you, that doesn't work for you, but it meets all the criteria (effective, ethical, suitable for them), then good luck to them.

Thanks for that poodlefan - I'll chase that up. :rolleyes:

Heya poodlefan, is what he recommended in "Give your dog a bone" updated then? I've read a pre 1996 GYDAB and that's what I based the raw foods puppy diet on but not anything post 1996. I have a puppy guide in both online html and printable pdf formats and I may need to update the raw diet in it. I do also discuss good quality commercial food and raw meaty bones as a diet - which is what I've been raising pups on lately. (Actually I have to update some of the training info too.)

I second poodlefan's advice - that's what I give to my puppy buyers - and what I feed to my own puppies. :rolleyes:

Hi Gibbo, Wilbur is lovely! Sounds like you are getting things sorted out, well done!