espinay2

They seem to have their own international register. Not recognised by FCI or any other registry recognised by the ANKC from what I can see (though it appears they are aiming for recognition). It is not recognised by either the AKC or the UKC in the US. From what I can see, the breed club there runs its own shows. What you need to read is the ANKC regs: http://www.ankc.org....ulations-1.aspx Part 6 section 10.2 regarding 'Requirements for the recognition of any breed which is not yet recognised in its Country of Origin or Development'. This provides the steps you will need to take to get the breed recognised here. Basically though, you will need to establish a club for the breed here in Australia, keep records for the breed, and that club and records will need to be in place for 15 years. In that time you will need to run your own shows. If a recognised body such as the FCI recognises the breed before that time is up though you may be able to get it recognised and any imported dogs with FCI registration would then be allowed to compete in ANKC conformation shows and other sporting events. Whether they would recognise dogs already in the country prior to that date is unknown. Currently you can register them in the ANKC Associate register to compete in sporting events run by the ANKC. One drawback to this is that to be registered in the Associate register they have to have proof of sterilisation (spey/neuter). This would be a drawback if you are working to establish the breed as unfortunately you would not be able to compete in any ANKC events with an entire animal. Something to take up with the ANKC perhaps as it does hamstring breeds that are in those initial stages of establishing themselves.

to the OP. I am very glad you got your Nanna's dog back. Wonderful that the system worked and the little dog was able to be got home nice and safe. As for the staff not smiling. Remember they deal with people coming to collect dogs all the time. They don't know you and they don't really know the reason your Nanna's dog was on the loose. From their point of view it may have been your irresponsibility or it may just have been an accident. But they see a lot of irresponsibility and hear a lot of sob stories and it must be hard for them to bite their tounge at times. In the end this was still another dog for them to care for with limited resources and you can't expect them to be too happy about that, even though they may be relieved this is one less out of many for them to deal with. And to protect themselves they may need sometimes to put up those barriers too. IMO just be pleased the system worked and allowed your Nanna to get her much loved dog back safe and well. Regarding breeding and 'taking back' dogs there are many ways to 'take back' a dog without it physically coming to your own premises. It could be organising it to go straight to a new home, or arranging for someone else to mind a dog temporarily, or sending it to kennels for a stay. For example, a breeder located in NSW, who assists an owner of a dog they bred located in WA by arranging the dog to go to a new home in SA. This is still the breeder taking responsibility and 'taking back' the dog. In this type of situation it would make no sense at all for the breeder to ship the dog back to NSW to their own home first. It is all about taking responsibility and this is essentially what 'taking back' means.

Has it been established what level of CO they are using? Argument about low levels is moot if they are ensuring they use sufficiently high ones. While no killing is ever easy it is IMO a much better approach than 1080 (used on every property around mine here) as it is targetted and does not result in native animal and bird deaths when they consume baits as well. I too would like to know if you have an alternative approach in mind.

The role of Bruiser is played by two dogs - Sparrow and Quinn. (my BIL is the official photographer so I get to see lots of photos of the cuties :) )

Louise (Despreaux La Chanteuse) now 5 1/2 months

A recall is a very good example. If the reward is there every time the dog comes to you, there is no incentive to get there quickly - as the reward will still be there when they eventually do. They can therefore do what they want until they are ready to come and get the reward. No that is about criteria. If you only reward fast recalls you will get fast recalls. If you reward anything as long as the dog comes back you will define "come" as come whenever the heck you feel like it. But that is a variable schedule - as you are not rewarding the dog for every time it comes on command, just when it comes fast on command. The variable schedule is used to 'shape' the behaviour.

A recall is a very good example. If the reward is there every time the dog comes to you, there is no incentive to get there quickly - as the reward will still be there when they eventually do. They can therefore do what they want until they are ready to come and get the reward.

Continuous reinforcement does result in the most rapid learning during initial phases and in this respect it is important. But used long term relies on how much the reward is wanted. If it is known that the reward comes every time the behaviour is performed, and they don't really want the reward this time, they know it will be there the next time. A reward may have to be very high value for the behaviour to be consistent every time. And a reward may lose its value over time if it is freely available for every performance of the behaviour. With variable schedule, they are more likely to take the reward when they can, and try harder to make it happen. And this may actually help to increase the value of some rewards.

Fair point, but remember that some people enjoy these sorts of discussions. However, with clients I rarely discuss theory (unless they want to) and usually present some limited "rules" or "methods" that I think will work best for them. For example, I often use the "300 Peck" method for increasing criteria. I don't use differential reinforcement or even variable schedules because it's hard for people to know when to change schedules. :laugh: Yes, I wouldn't go into this with clients! Generally using the 'poker machine analogy' is usually as far as I would ever go with discussing theory :laugh: I DO teach them how to vary rewards once a behaviour is taught. Most don't want to have to carry treats or other rewards around with them all the time to get the dog to respond. I also teach them (where appropriate) that aversives have to be meaningful to the dog or they are not aversives. Discussions on the subject can be interesting though.

For Corvus: "Resistance to Extinction Functions in the single organism" by Eliot Hearst http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404040/pdf/jeabehav00197-0049.pdf"For both individual and grouped data, the results of the present experiment indicate a greater resistance to extinction for intermittently reinforced behaviour than for continuously reinforced behaviour. the relation obtained between variable ratio during conditioning and resistance to extinction thus confirms the major findings of Mowrer and Jones (1945) and Boren (1953 who used separate groups ....to obtain each extinction data point" This is what is called the "Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect". Basically, continuous reinforcement works well while you continue to reinforce every single time the behaviour is performed (and if people want to do that then no problem). But if you remove the reward at all, the behaviour is less likely to continue and will not continue for as long as if a variable schedule of reward had been used.

Most definitely! As I have stated previously in this thread, no one method will work for all individuals (dogs OR owners). It really has to be approached on a case by case basis asessment of both dog AND owner.

Some of the basic science for corvus: http://www.carynjgre...onditioning.doc http://www.scottpear...013/Skinner.pdf http://mypages.valdo...!%20TOOO!!!.pdf (starts with classical and then talks about operant. This is a good basic summary. See from p 43 for schedules of reinforcement) http://www.terapiapo...anscientist.pdf Yes, but because you know that it will happen, you only do it when you want the reward. You don't keep turning the kettle on all the time or hop in the car and turn it on except when you need to. And when you don't want or need to, you don't do it. AS a result, your behaviour between when you really want what doing the action will give you, decreases. If, however, the kettle only worked occasionally, you would keep pressing the button until it boiled and you could have your coffee (or throw it out the window and get a new kettle - but that is more likely to happen (i.e. extinction) if the reward is not frequent enough). As another example, if your car happens to NOT start the first time you turn the key, you turn it again. And perhaps again until it starts - thus your performance of the action is increased. If you get no reward (the car doesnt start) you stop turning it. If it does start after a few goes, the next time it does the same thing ("my car doesn't like the cold mornings" etc etc) you will keep turning the key to make it start as you know from previous experience that it generally does after a few goes. If for some reason one morning it decides not to start, if you are used to having several goes to get the 'reward' you will continue a bit longer to try and get it going before your behaviour ceases. In this way the 'variable reward' of the car not starting the first time gets you to perform the action - turning the key - more often than if you got the 'reward' of the car starting the first time you did it.

Susanne clothier's book 'bones will rain from the sky' is another useful read. She deals with just this type of situation and the disastrous consequences of escalation as well as the alternatives. Another useful read is Patricia McConnell's booklet on how to be the leader of the pack (and have your dog love you for it). Glad you are getting some professional assistance. That is definitely the first and right step.

This. Remember too you have an LGD who will act on instinct not necessarily training when older. Something going past your gate at the wrong time may cause the dog to act with possible disasterous consequences. It is about putting safety mechanisms in place. You may not think they are needed, but why keep testing the theory. IMO putting in a tether sounds like a good option if you can not put in a fence or train your OH to put the dog inside etc first. I never risk dogs around a moving vehicle. Even if I am only moving a few feet. And i never risk them with an open gate. This is a human training issue rather than a dog one.

Fwiw too in relaxation to LGD they do maintain a lot more 'primitiveness' (not the right word but as close as I can come at the moment) than breeds such as kelpie. Having owned both I can see where lilli is coming from. The human/animal relationship with these two types of breeds is a slightly different one. Hard to describe and would probably take longer to try and articulate than is warranted in this thread. Also something not easily understood unless experienced.

It is Mech who says he is sorry he coined the word 'alpha' when referring to wolf pack structure as it has been taken put of context in relation to canid behavior. Rather than a lineal approach ( and even then the lineal approach as articulated originally is not a direct one but always involved complex relationships including sex based ones within the pack) he mentions it is a familial one developed by the natural growth of a pack ie father and mother and offspring for several generations. Basically the lead pair are dominant more in the way human parents will be dominant in a household. Relationships change over time, but the family structure guides the overall relationships. Interestingly too it has been held for a long time in relation to wolf pack behavior that it is not the dominant wolf that gets the food but the one that wants it most. Certainly this is something I was taught many years ago when studying wolf behavior in the US and something I have as a result always applied to dog training as the 'leader controls food' thing in relating to resource guarding for example is a recipe for disaster. Escalation will most often result in challenge for the resource no matter who is actually 'leader'/head of household if the dog really wants it. It is interesting too though that mech states the familial type relationship on which the whole theory if pack structure is based may not apply directly to 'artificial' packs which have not grown naturally as a family. So it may not always be possible to apply the theories directly to a domestic dog situation.

There you go again! How do you know? I didn't say that .....

Really? Says who? I just keep hitting that channel button on my television remote control, regardless of the fact it seems to result in the channel changing every time. Skinner for one ;) It changes the channel, but I am betting not every show on the box you get when you do is a reward! That is why you keep hitting it.

It is important to remember that a big part of reward based training is randomising the reward once a behavior is learnt. Failing to do this means the training is incomplete. There is no need, once the dog has learnt behaviors using food rewards, to take them with you every or even most times the dog goes out. The reward may only need to be given VERY randomly as a 'jackpot' for very good performance of the behavior once the behavior is established. It is a very basic principle of operant conditioning that continuing to reward a dog each time will weaken/make erratitic the required behaviour just as never rewarding will eventually eliminate it, and random rewards will strengthen it. Just like a poker machine. Same principle. IMO that a 'treat trained' dog will need an owner to always carry treats with them is one of the biggest 'myths' perpetuated about reward based training, usually by those who don't understand the underlying principles on which the training is based.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

There is a titre testing thread in the health forum (on my phone do can't post the link) where people who are testing are posting results etc. you may find it interesting. A lot of people Are doing titres these days.

That's bullshit. Lack of socialisation is the excuse given by breeders of especially guardian breeds for producing fear biters. A genetically stable dog of sound nerve doesn't need socialising. Dogs that react aggressively in non threatening passive environments are spooks. The one's who can't get over a bad experience and react from a learned behaviour are genetically weak in nerve strength. An unsocialsed dog will project it's true character unmasked by the effects of socialisation. There should be more breeders not socialising some of their breeding stock to be better informed of what they are actually producing in raw character and temperament IMHO. Id agree with that . me too. Me three Group thinking sheep. Denying a pack animal the opportunity to socialise is moronic and cruel. I think it really depends what you mean by socialisation, or lack of it. Dogs that experience a range of sights and sounds and are taught to discriminate as well as subjected to basic handling by its owners and the vet, taught to walk on a lead and travel in a vehicle on occasion (such as in a farm situaiton where they see other dogs, other animals etc but don't often leave the farm) may be considered by modern standards to be 'unsocialised'. And yet a dog with a firm temperament will still take new experiences in its stride (such as being brought down from its farm in the Pyrenees in France to attend a show once a year). I have seen this in my breed where you will have dogs that are shy and do not handle new experiences or change well (and will not pass or grade well in the obligatory Temperament Test at the French show because of their reactiveness), and others that naturally take everything in their stride. I even see some differences in the dogs I own too. Some needed more careful handling when young and were more reactive through the fear periods while others naturally accepted anything and everything in their stride without issue, and don't need to be 'taught' about every little thing. These traits appear definitely linked to specific lines as upbringing until 8 weeks of age was basically the same for all. And I definitely know which type of temperament I prefer! I do feel too that 'over' socialisation - particularly during fear periods, can be just as damaging as not enough in some situations. The idea of socialisation is to give the dog good experiences so they learn to accept and ignore things about them and to discriminate about what is a threat and what is not. Pushing a dog to 'face' its fears can actually cause a dog to have more fear! IMO making sure a dogs experiences remain positive can mean keeping a dog at home and AWAY from things for a time.

I think most people forget that a reward is not what YOU think the dog will find rewarding, but what the DOG actually DOES find rewarding. Treats are used mostly in class situations as they will work as a reward to some level for MOST dogs (though not all) and are the easiest to manage as a reward in a class situation (as opposed to throwing balls, squeaky toys etc etc which may be better used at home when they will not distract other class members) I always encourage people to work out what rewards work for THEIR dogs - and use that.

How much time does she spend outside? If she spends a lot of time inside during the day it may be worth getting her outside more and/or making sure your lightbulbs are full spectrum ('daylight') bulbs so they get 8 to 12 hours of direct light. Myra Savant Harris (see her book "Advanced Canine Reproduction and Puppy Care" for example) has a lot to say on the role of sunlight when it comes to moderating seasons and affecting fertility.

The place I was living at before here, the cleaners has a rescue Greyhound who they used to bring with them as she was very timid around strangers. They said she won't take food or treats off anyone but the owners, as that's what they are taught when they are racing, in case of baiting. It took all of 5 minutes for her to come up to me & take a treat, they were shocked & said I broke their dog. I had this happen with a grooming client - who told me their COCKER SPANIEL had been trained not to take food from strangers...as the dog sat in front of me eagerly looking at the treat in my hand and salivating! :laugh: