talking dog

the blog must be a few years old as he refers to 1.2 M dogs euthanized. Recent ASPCA figures show 670,000 - the link in the blog actually still works and gives the right figure (670,000). I would expect that coming from 2.6 m down to 670,000 would have balanced the figures wrt certain breeds. Thus, if a breed is not popular and doesn't get picked up, the overall population number of this breed would degrease (eradication via euthanasia). In the blog the author highlights the popularity of the breed as the reason why they are found in such high numbers in shelters - that's IMO contradictive, either they are popular and get picked from the shelters, or they are not popular and then the population numbers would have declined over the last 4 years. The blog states: Then again, if Labs rank number one in popularity and number three in shelter intake – and Pits rank number one in shelter intake and somewhere lower than number one in popularity – there has to be more at work here than mere demand. and than he argues that BSLs are the reason why they end up in shelters and get euthanized? It is all a little bit too inconclusive for me - it all might have some merits, but I can't recognize them. The most cited reasons for surrendering a dog in all sources I screened so far have been personal problems, no time and allergies. Couldn't find a source till now that listed breed specific reasons as the big issue.

@PANDI-GIRL: could you provide a link to this other thread about the same topic?

you sure know what a theory is? And believe me, in some circles it is well accepted to draw conclusions based on scientific evidence from multiple, other studies put in context. And when one day an institution decides to follow up a theory by sponsoring a scientific study, the theory might be proven correct or gets rebutted. For now, I apologize for not being in the position right now for delivering a scientific study that would verify or rebut my theories. I must have missed that this is mandatory here in this forum. Eta: Btw, if you think that none of my theories are valid for your dog's behaviour, and that there are no medical /digestive conditions whatsoever, and if the behaviour is unwanted, than there is a simple remedy that would solve it: training. (It actually works and is scientifically proven).

670,000 pit bull type dogs? from where they are coming from? No matter how bad the situation is in PR - regarding the statistics no dog's life is saved by rescuing it into the USA. Those crises are just used to address the emotional state of people to keep the business going. You don't safe life from fire by dragging someone into a burning house. Eta: and of course the ones that are euthanized are the ones no one wants - today it might be a higher fraction of pit bulls, tomorrow it is another type. People have a choice, here he mutt rescued from Europe, there the terrier rescued from PR. It won't change anything wrt that over 600,000 have to be euthanized in the end.

more stories to cheer for: ...bound for California: https://cwob.org/rescue.html ...and then the ones "saved" from California: http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/yvr-airport-rescue-dogs-november-2016 These dogs were hand-picked from high-kill shelters in the Los Angeles area, where overpopulation means facilities are overwhelmed by homeless canines, and — unfortunately – hundreds are euthanized each week. it's trafficking, it's business under the disguise of animal welfare.

http://www.thedogplace.org/SHELTERS/Shelter-Imports_Witouski-102.asp

I don't know whether my theory is correct - I never had the chance to conduct a comprehensive study about this, however, the 2 studies I cited (and many others) indicate that this can be a plausible explanation for some dogs eating poo. Obesity, respectively hunger in dogs can definitely change behaviour, can increase aggression and will let them eat things that they wouldn't without this underlying hunger feeling. Same for humans - our selection of food wrt quality and health is heavily impaired if we are feeling very hungry (I remember when my wife was pregnant). In addition, dogs don't have this yuk, ew, bah attitude when it comes to food - they don't see poo as yuk, it is just something else that might be eatable. And if it still smells somehow like the food they get anyway from their owner: why not trying it. Of course, my and your observations are just anecdotal, they aren't verifying anything. Wrt nutrient deficiencies: of course, it is not the same thing as increased appetite. What I meant is that when dogs are fed with kibble, beside that this might cause nutrient deficiency due to the indigestible lysine, some ingredients will come out the other end still being what they were before. The dogs olfactory sense is superior, it is meant to draw the dog to food sources. So if they smell something they have been fed with before they might test it. IMO it is a combination of hunger / food drive and conditioning. Another of my theories is linked to territorial behaviour. If two wolf packs are in competition for a territory, they might try to remove any markings of their competitors. Urine markings get sprayed over with own urine, and poo, well, they normally don't carry poo bags with them. So for dogs eating poo it might also be linked to a buried old instinct that had some value for their ancestors. Eta: just had another idea regarding other parameters that can give poo a higher value, independent from whether it comes from a raw or kibble fed dog: I always found that the use of ABs here in Australia is shocking high. ABs will certainly render the digestive systems of dogs less effective, thus leaving more nutrients in the poo making it more attractive for other hunger driven dogs.

https://www.parsemus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Zwida-and-Kutzler-2016.pdf if you want to do more googleling for this topic: use also the term lutropin, that's another term for LH repectively Luteinizing hormone.

it might well be conditioned. When dogs are young, their digesting system is not so efficient, so their poo might have some valuable nutrients left and are attractive for them. And then they might grow into the habit. If you have an obsessive guzzler (which is more likely when the dog is de-sexed due to the LH level), then it is obviously more challenging to eradicate this habit. As long as the smell of the ingredients reminds them of their usual food they will go for it. They have actually less taste buts than humans (why would they have more, they don't chew like we do), so the decisive criteria is always the smell. All entire dogs fed raw that I know grew out of it once they got their real teeth.

Does it really matter? isn't the most important thing that we all, including myself and my friend in LA, cheering those stories and supporting those activities for the sake of dogs? In 2011, 2.7 million dogs (that's more than half of Australian's dog population) had to be euthanized in the USA - surely not enough takers. The number is now down to approx. 670,000 dogs euthanized per year. Still a huge number. The main reason: not enough takers. So what happens with dogs "rescued" from other countries without importing takers, or increasing the numbers of takers in the USA at the same time? If one of the dogs rescued from a foreign country will find a taker in the USA, that's just the death penalty for another dog in the shelters. If you "import" e.g. 1,000 dogs, you can add 1,000 dogs straight to the 670,000 that have to be euthanized as the numbers of takers won't increase automatically. That's simple math and doesn't make a good story, so let's call it rescue - sounds so much better, although it is just spending money for increasing the death toll.

A friend of mine in LA had to pay US$ 2,000 till now in fines because he refused to neuter his 2 dogs - LA County thought neutering is the silver bullet regarding overpopulation. He just loves those stories and is, naturally, a great supporter when it comes to flying dogs from other countries (the further the better) into the USA. Eta: I forgot to mention that the fines came also with 200 hours of community service (piled up over time). As a dog lover, naturally he spent all the time in the local shelters. He loved the dogs and working there. And the staff love those "volunteers". Once they found out why he was here, they let him clean out the kennels from the dogs they had to euthanize (not enough takers) - pretty boring job if you have to do it for nearly 200 hours.

yeah, good to see. Keep the refugees out but let the dogs in. Means more food, amenities and recourses for the dogs in the US, and consequently more food, amenities and recourses for refugees in Europe and the rest of the world. Good to see that America is really becoming great again and getting their priorities right.

@TtD: if you want to make your garden safer, you might want to consider also this: The worst case scenario is a snake with dogs in a plain garden where the snake can't hide and get cornered. All the snakes I found till now in our garden (eastern brown, red bellie, tiger) tried to get away to hide somewhere. You obviously want that they hide in a spot where they can't be reached by a dog, hence laying out and securing PVC pipes, e.g. along the fence, provides safety for the snake and for the dog. This hiding spots alone won't attract snakes as long as they are kept clean from food that otherwise would attract mice and rats (the prey the snakes are after). The pipes, e.g. 50 - 80 mm dia, 1.5 - 3 meters long) have also the advantage that they can be easily inspected and cleaned, and if you really find a snake one day in one of them, just close the ends with 2 pipe caps and call the snake buster. Edit to add disclaimer: I just checked - in NSW (and it might be similar in other states) it is actually illegal catching a snake without a licence! Even in your own yard! You have to call a licensed snake catcher - the last time I called one I had to wait 3 hours before he came to pick up the snake! Although illegal, I felt much safer regarding dogs, pets and kids, with the snake (red bellie) safely in the bucket and the lid closed.

@ alpha bet: I found it more likely to be an issue if you are an ambitious trainer and let's say you trained the dog 2 days in row, 3 sessions a day, and all the food are given via treats (I use raw, or hand made raw treats processed in a food dryer). So that's a little bit an unhealthy feeding pattern, bits and bits over a whole day leading to 2-3 small poos. So the third day I might feed all in one chunk, and might ad a bone / brisket in the evening. That solves the problem (if there would be one) normally for me.

https://clickertraining.com/node/988 It is good to see that more and more trainers / schools with a "purely positive" reputation are trying to get the jinn back into the bottle.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255690889_The_Maillard_reaction_and_pet_food_processing_Effects_on_nutritive_value_and_pet_health For me it is pretty obvious - just compare the weight of kibble you have to feed with raw: although raw contains 70% - 80% water, while the kibble has only 10%, you still feed the same or even higher kibble mass. The only positive side effect with kibble is that - assuming it doesn't create a running poo - the poo is bigger thus helping to empty the anal glands (if it is firm enough). If you really rely on kibble, add eggs or sardines as they have a high lysine content. If your dog has issues with the anal glands due to small poos while fed with raw, feed only once a day or sometimes even only every second day and of course enough bones for a firm poo. Edit to add: the crude protein count is not a good criteria - a lot of companies advertise with a high meat / protein percentage, ignoring that halve of it might be rendered indigestible for the dog.

I ask myself why do they show a dog on leash in the picture when promoting positive reinforcement only training? can't be to apply force and pull the dog away from the snake, or even jerk the leash a little bit if the dog approaches the snake? By all means, they state that it works, so why don't they train their dogs off-leash? Fact is that 99.9% of the dog owners use aversives and force all the time, but we are so brainwashed (classical conditioning works not only for dogs) that we ignore it (today aversives and dogs equals BIG NO NO). All the four quadrants are used effectively by mother nature for thousands of years, and your dog encounters them anyway: first bee sting (o.k., let's take this humming creatures from the fun list), patches of bindis (better avoid this spot the next time), getting shaken in the crate in a car (bloody hell, next time I want to walk) and so on. However, because it is too "painful" for us putting us into a position where we are responsible for inflicted pain in our beloved creatures, we just don't want to know about it. IMO, responsible dog owners will use aversive and positive and negative punishments, and negative reinforcement, for the sake of the animal if this is the shortest and most efficient way. Those scenarios are rare, and 99% of the active training can be done with focus on positive reinforcement, but the other scenarios still exist. Wrt e-collar: e-collars are actually a really good tool in the box for snake avoidance training as they not only inflict pain (doesn't have to be big) like jerking or pulling a leash, but also renders the muscles uncontrollable for the dog. If you pull, or jerk or let the dog pull: here is actually a far bigger risk that this kind of training gets pear-shaped (and we see it all the time!) as the dog can still use the muscles and all he learns is that if he pulls harder fighting the aversive he wins. If you zap a dog while he is approaching a snake, for a fraction of the second he feels a) the inflicted pain, and b) loss of muscle control - even if he wants to redirect his aggression caused by the pain towards the snake, he just can't do it. Hence it is very effective, short and if done properly the dog will never link it to the owner, but only to the scenario with the snake. All other aversives, shouting, tension in leash, jerking, are linked to the owner. So if you really want to do snake avoidance training just by positive reinforcement without any aversives, please do it off leash, otherwise you are just another hypocrite.

being picky: the products of those companies are not intended to treat any diseases - their T&Cs make this very clear. There might be the vague, not scientifically verified possibility that they assist somehow. Works sometimes if the drug is taken by people who believe in it (believe is a very strong immunity booster), but dogs don't believe in drugs / medication. So if money is tight, spending it on a tested drug might give more bang for the buck. @OP: it depends on what causes the disease, Trilostane works for pituitary and adrenal malfunction (cushings disease and cushings syndrome), hence it is widely used. Other drugs, e.g. Lysodren (Mitotane) works only for pituitary malfunctions (cushing's disease). So if your dog has really cushing's disease (pituitary malfunction) Lysodren might be an option. However, this is really best discussed with vets (or better vets specialist in the field of adrenal and pituitary disorders) as these diseases require careful monitoring. Have a talk to another vet if your current vet isn't forthcoming addressing the cost issue. Edit: quote from here wrt Trilostane: A recent study reported that twice daily administration permitted a reduction in the total daily dose in dogs with PDH, which may have a large impact on total drug costs over time.4 So this might be a very effective approach to decrease your costs - but talk to your vet.

I guess the fact that LH levels in de-sexed dogs can be 30 time higher (due to lack of feedback from the gonads) rendering them to guzzling eaters, in combination with kibble where the production process renders important amino acids indigestible for dogs (google Maillard reaction), is a more plausible explanation. For de-sexed dog used to kibble, poo from another dog fed with kibble is still kibble, so why wouldn't they eat it.

the attached "review" highlights exactly why there is so much heated debates out there about using punishment for training: the reviewer condemns the use of punishment and aversives, and in the next sentence a longline becomes the perfect tool for recall training ! So how does he/she makes use of the longline for changing behaviour (dog not running off) at the end without applying any stimuli via the longline (and the stimuli would be force = aversives)? But hey, the reviewer is a qualified dog trainier and behaviourist and might use a fine twine as a longline which he/she is able to use without applying any tension. "From chasing its prey when he sees it, to sitting and looking at you. at which point you become way more fun than the prey item by providing food, attention and games." ha, ha, that would be a pretty useless dog for sheep and cattle herding ...the biggest fun I can give my dog is to allow her to work sheep, and no, she doesn't do it to please me, however she obeys my cues because she knows if she doesn't the fun would be over.

He (B.B.) must getting old and forgetful , here another quote from him: Mind you, out of the many thousands of animals we have trained during many hundreds of training programs, we punished about a dozen times. The fact that I would do this at all disqualifies me from the ranks of what people call "clicker trainers." I don't mind. I have a clear conscience. I believe I did the best for animal and human kind. Wrt nipping and punishment: the challenge here is that usually it is a wanted trait, for cattle anyway, and for sheep sometimes. When you look for herding dogs, they are actually advertised as nippers and not-nippers. And heelers are called so for a reason. So you actually don't want to extinguish it totally, you just want to control it.

wrt Bob Baily, he also said in an interview about clicker training: "I'm not a clicker trainer. I have used a clicker, and quite successfully......In the modern use of the name Clicker Trainer, punishment, especially positive punishment, is disallowed. I allow myself to use punishment if I believe it is necessary to accomplish the task and the task merits the use of punishment. I rarely have need of punishment." That's pretty much I would describe my approach. @ ness: I presume your dogs are not bred as nippers? it makes training much more enjoyable if you don't have to be on the watch to prevent nipping.

wrt "quadrants" respectively discussions about it: IMO it doesn't matter how we call it, or how different people class it; what really matters IMO is a) whether it works, and b) whether it is beneficial for the dog and its environment. My goal is not the employment of a specific method for the sake of whatever, my goal is the best outcome for the individual dog and the associated environment. wrt "splitting complex behaviours into tiny parts": that's the challenging and interesting part in herding - I don't think it is possible. While working sheep I can try to take the steam out by letting the dog taking a holding position (drop, stand, hold, etc., ) putting everything "on hold", and despite that it might be a perfect balance, nothing moves: it won't get the dog into a thinking space or to a lower arousal level. She still listens to me, yes, she follows my cues, yes, but compared to agility it is like talking to someone who's mind is far, far away. If the dog has a high drive, you won't get the dog out of this hunting / herding mode if the sheep are still in "striking" distance. In agility I just ask her to drop and she switches from working mode in resting mode in the flick of a second. We can raise or lower the bars, change the course, she might watch, but doesn't bother, till I fire her up again. Wrt knocking bars (happens rarely): it is not a failure for me; I know she always tries to clear it, so if it happens it doesn't matter to me and I never try to correct it. If it happens it is mostly my mistake anyway as I asked her to do it from an impossible angle or confused her with unclear hand signals.

@TSD: first let me tell you I really wish they had come up with different terms when they described operant conditioning - reinforcement is o.k., but using "positive", "negative" and "punishment" is just a recipe for confusion, heated debates and frustration. Wrt NRM: technically (please take it with a pinch of salt) if employed it represents a stimuli, and if you use it, and the outcome is a decreased unwanted behaviour, well, it is technically positive punishment. Some dogs doesn't like working with NRMs (understandable, you just signalized them that they missed the chance for a juicy treat), some dogs take it neutral or even appreciate the guidance it provides. So whether it is really positive punishment or something else depends actually on the dog. My dog is too fast, respectively I'm too old or too fat for agility, so the only way to guide her around is by cues. I don't use a clinical NRM, but she knows from my changing voice wether she aims for the right or wrong obstacle, or does the right or wrong turn. Iiii, ahhh, no, uhhh. oooohhh etc. gives all the same result - she knows it is the wrong obstacle, listens, and picks (mostly) the right one. If she is unsure, she appreciates my guidance, and even looks for me to ask for it - if I'm too slow with my cue and have to correct her while she is already close to an obstacle she is actually pissed off. With sheep herding it is totally different. You could argue that the noodle is nothing else than a NRM, my dog doesn't bother, it just a reminder that nipping is the wrong choice. She won't take any treats, on a scale from 1-10 the treats she normally (obedience, agility) works for has a value of less than 1 while working with sheep would be 10 or even higher. It all depends on the individual dog, his drives and instincts, the bond between the dog and his handler and the task. Knowing as much as possible about multiple trainings tools and behaviour science helps of course, but I will never settle on a certain approach assuming that this is the silver bullet for all trainings scenarios.

The "whack" is more a friendly reminder that all the fun still has to comply with the T&Cs of the handler. You can do distance work with those herding dogs as much as you want and play with the trigger zones, but there is the time where you have to let the dog in "striking" distance to the sheep. Outside this zone the dog is the most well behaved dog, but inside this zone the nipping instinct can kick in overwriting all the other behaviour you trained before. The noodle helps the dog to find the balance between complying with the T&Cs and following his instincts. At the start the dog doesn't know that the nipping is wrong (or only wanted if the handler ask for it). However, you can't tell the dog when he is zoned into his instincts that this is wrong, he won't hear you. If you just walk away from the sheep with the dog (negative punishment) he can't differentiate which of his behaviours was wrong: too close? the nip? wrong sheep? too fast approach? The handler has to anticipate the strike for the perfect correction - perfect timing is the key. Later, when the communication line into the dogs own world is established, he will follow your cues even in such a high aroused state. And no, you don't lose any trust of the dog - working the sheep is so rewarding for these herding dogs (even without nipping) that you always will have a very happy and balanced dog after.