sidoney

Dogs' self directed behaviour is done for some motivation - to smell a smell, investigate a sound, move into the sun to get warm, sit or lie to rest their legs, and so on. They associate certain cues with actions - tired legs mean sit, fridge opening means go and check it out in case of food, interesting sound means go and investigate the possibility of a chase or bark. All satisfy some desire in the dog. They don't "just do it". Cues from people can also be associated with behaviours - but they don't "just do them" any more than they do their self directed behaviour without some motivation.

How does one form an association between a cue and an action without obtaining the action? That is a fundamental that is missing in this description. Yes, there can be a tendency to over complicate things - part of that is people not understanding what can be simple. But just saying "you can form an association between a cue and an action" is lacking. To form the association is simple classical conditioning. But, how does one get the action? How do you get an action without any incentive for the dog (i.e. reward, punishment, whatever you care to name it)? In what way will a dog "naturally" do "most basic activities" (and what are those basic activities)? Will it do it with no input from the person at all? If we don't give any thought to why a dog does things - the simple idea that there is some motivation there - then we may start to walk down the path of "my dog should do it because he loves me" - and then the average dog owner may punish the dog because he's not doing it. Or something of that ilk.

True, but he's come here asking for input - and he has been receiving it, in various different forms. What he chooses to do with it is up to him. And what he chooses to do will have real consequences.

Don't know how one can make the call on wanting the dog to be fed more without seeing it? If the dog has a good cover but is not in any way fat, that is a good weight for a growing pup. If it gets too lean, give the dog more. If it gets too fat, cut back the quantity or the concentration of food. Going by dog condition and appetite is a good way to assess.

It may be that the OP does want to seek proper assessment and help with this dog, and will put in the effort to solve the problem. If he does, kudos and best wishes to him and the dog. If he does not, then rehoming the dog with someone that WILL work with it may be a more effective option than simply letting the situation ride, particularly since it's the sort of behaviour that CAN end up in PTS.

I think that there is a tangle of cues, motivations and reinforcers, but you may not be seeing it because the situation seems simple and straightforward. Cues - could be a physical movement, could be voice, could be context (getting ready to leave). Could be a mix. Reinforcers - there is a physical placing - could be P+ and R-? There is the approval from you (even if mild) P+. There are varying motivations - Shine has different motivations from dogs that are not so keen to have a relationship with a human, for instance. I remember you saying how Bryte just wants to work for the person, too. For a different dog, one that is not so motivated by human-dog relationship, for example, what you are doing may not achieve the same results. Something may seem straight forward but may not be. Some dogs may respond to what seems straight forward (possibly most) but others won't.

You know her better than anyone. What do you think? Also, is it really possible to sort out a tangle of possibly ambiguous cues/motivations/reinforcers? And is it worthwhile? That is possibly where it's good to have a clear training situation with clearly understood motivators - because the ambiguity in motivation is less. And so the training situation may be more repeatable, in terms of taking it to other contexts and situations. In your case, it was the same behaviour and context each time, from your description, and so possibly it becomes less important to know exactly what were the motivations, reinforcers and so on. Maybe I'm rambling. :D

It might be reasonable to suggest that if something is taught in a simple way with repetition, without juggling rewards and so on, that the repetition and predictability may enhance learning, while inconsistency from, say, trying out several training ideas, might inhibit it.

IMO there ARE external rewards and punishment (or negative reinforcement or whatever) for the things that you are describing, it's just that they are not as obvious as when you think about what you are using. E.g. when you take away the choice, how do you do that, and what kind of effect does that have, in terms of learning theory? Perhaps the question could be rephrased.

Hi kavik. I'm sorry to hear of Belle's passing. She certainly had a long and happy life though.

Very sorry to hear this ... what a difficult decision for you to make. But knowing that you made the decision with Kaeleigh's best interests at heart will help heal the hurt. Eventually. :D

I don't have a digital SLR but for years used my Nikon FE2. (I miss it, it was simple and reliable - still have it but comparatively expensive to run these days.) For the Nikon I have the standard skylight and polarisers, and also a bunch of different Cokin "creative" filters that do various colour and shade and texture things. They were great for creative effects on film, but I wonder whether you can do the same in photoshop now and whether they are somewhat redundant.

Here is a link to a Mackay agility dog club.

I just found this thread. I'm so sorry. I know how much you loved him.

Ah yes and it works too! At least up to three or four years old, they are very similar. Older than that and you have to be less obvious about it.

That gave me a good chuckle! I do that too! I bet there are lots of us that do. Also I get the words mixed up sometimes - getting better at dog/child discrimination, but hopeless with dog/horse discrimination.

One of the Vizslas I bred helps round up the cattle on the cattle property where he lives.

Shaula was diagnosed with a murmur (age related) earlier this year (by a locum), but on checking recently, a different vet said she would not have diagnosed it and her heart sounded fine. I agree with the "get further info" advice.

The thing about conformation is that the dogs that excel in their original activity generally will have the conformation necessary to do it. And the health. Look at racing greyhounds for an excellent example. Now I do think standards are useful, if limited, but to state that they ensure a dog can do its original job is incorrect.

As a breeder (occasional), I would welcome someone to refer buyers to. I think that's a good suggestion and one that responsible breeders are likely to take up. It would be possible to approach breed clubs as a first point of contact. I supply my buyers with the usual stuff and also fairly extensive puppy guide that includes a section on behaviour and training, because I know it's important - it's not as good as face to face training though. The majority of my puppy buyers do end up going to puppy classes, at least - I make it very clear to them that I expect the puppy to have training as it grows up. Enough to make it pleasant to be around, if no more - the basic behaviours that pet dogs should have.

My dogs love going in the car no matter where we are going. It's the variable ratio reinforcement schedule - sometimes they just go for a drive, sometimes they get to go to a park or (more often) the horse paddock (lots of area and birds and water and bunnies and horse poo to roll in and eat and stuff). When younger, Cedar used to feel sick and vomit when in the car, and she didn't want to get in at all. What worked for us what lots of getting in and out for rewards, lots of going for very short trips (this helped with the feeling sick, meant she could go in the car, and go fun places, and arrive before feeling sick). I think feeling sick was made worse by anxiety over feeling sick. Once she was less anxious about car rides, she was able to go further without being sick. He doesn't drool or anything when in the car? That can mean he's feeling a bit sick. Anyway, assuming that you don't have our problem, of your dog feeling sick, I'd be doing lots of getting into the car without going anywhere. Say ten in and out in one session, once a day. Then you could take him for a drive on the eighth, or the sixth, or the tenth, or the first, and so on. He doesn't know just when he's going for a drive. Drive him to the dog park for a while - give him a fun destination - won't take him long to associate the car with going places. Also my lot like the window down just a bit, so they can smell the smells as they go along. Makes it more interesting for them.

IMO breed standards are fine for their purpose, dog showing. It gives the judge a benchmark with which to compare the dog. But to really believe that a breed standard will fit a dog for its original purpose, without actually using the dog/s for the original purpose and seeing how good they are, is like believing in the tooth fairy. I think it's a myth that has been legitimated in dog show circles - at least amongst some people - perhaps in order to give historical relevance to the dogs that are being bred now.

I think the approach of Dr House in the TV show is pretty good: "People lie. Work with what you see." (Or words to that effect.) That's not to discount the value of an accurate historical account, if one is available.

I do think that often more attention is given to the tool than to understanding the dog, and that it would be better if it was the other way around. That people are after the five minute fix. However, I see this as a part of wider social phenomena. We as dog trainers would like to see people spend more time training their dog, at least to some minimum standard that sees the dog achieve some level of competence for living in a judgmental human society. However, we know that when compared to the number of dogs that are owned, proportionally very few end up being taken by their owners to any kind of training, whether puppy class, obedience class, private trainers, whatever. This can not be surprising in a society where we see parents complaining that schools don't do enough to discipline their kids, and people associated with schools responding that it's not the school's place to teach discipline, but parents'. As to what the balance SHOULD be, I don't know. But I do know that if there are people who appear to leave discipline to schools, and presumably parents have a great deal invested in their children, how do we expect people who get a dog as an afterthought, something to go with the house and kids because that's what people do, to invest time and interest in their pet? As to why people buy a particular type of dog. I would be surprised to find that the majority of people who don't want to spend time training their pet put much thought into purchasing it. There are all sorts of reasons why people buy things, and very few are rational, as advertisers well know. Humans are NOT rational beings. Not as much as we would like to think. Just look at the stock market as an example. Here is a place where billions of dollars are made and lost, but we find "panic sell offs" and other irrational behaviours there. Much of what we buy, we buy to enhance self image. Or else we don't put more than minimum thought into it and buy what worked before or worked for a friend or what others around are getting. With people who do want the five minute fix, then perhaps it's best to give it to them, if the alternative is discarding the dog. The question becomes, what is the five minute fix that people will persist with, and which will do the least amount of harm for the greatest amount of desired effect?

I made a solid jump with two tread-in electric fence poles, a white horse feed bag, two tomato stakes (trimmed to length), and some wire. The poles trod into the ground. Bent wire to make jump cups, on the poles. Feed bag has a stake down each long side, and one of the stakes put into the wire "jump cups" - the pole can be displaced if struck by the dog (safety feature). Feed bag looks like a solid white jump. Stake on the other long side is now on the ground and stabilises the bag - bag can be rolled around it to the right height. Sounds dodgy but it worked for me and my doggie, who got her CDX pass without much problem. Edit: I didn't have much money in those days to was looking for cheap alternatives. Oh yeah and the bar jump can be the same thing without the bag on. I made a broad jump too, by cutting planks to the right length and cutting the end bits, then screwing the end bits onto the horizontal bits. It was all very cheap but it worked.