Staranais

Yeah, but... She probably did approach the dog incorrectly, I've seen Animates staff do dumb things dogs many times before. But I think the owner needs to take some responsibility too. I've had Animates staff attempt to do dumb things to my dogs before too, but if I thought that there was any chance that my dogs would bite them for being dumb, then my dogs would NOT have been in the store at all. It is the owner's job to know the temperament of their dog and to keep the dog out of situations where it may feel compelled to defend itself. It is also the owner's job to intervene when the dog is looking uncomfortable, and tell the staff to back off. Oh sorry, just saw your second post. I am very unobservant today!

Testosterone takes many months to leave the dogs system. Rule of thumb is around 5 months before any changes, if any, will be seen due to lack of testosterone. I would say your dog simply responded to something else during that week. There is no way desexing would make a difference that quickly. I have seen dogs that have very big changes within two weeks. While it takes a while for habits to break, and testosterone to levels to fall right back down, I think castration immediately stops the surges of more testosterone that may have an effect on mood. With all the adult males we had going through foster care, that were desexed at some stage over the first month, the most effective training seemed to happen after the castration. I have also. The half life of testosterone in the body is only a matter of hours I believe, so I don't see why it would take weeks to see an effect.

I'm in northern vic and my vet recommends yearly vacs as he said they see a lot of parvo up here, but he said it's entirely up to me but said u dont see a lot of parvo in the melb suburbs so the 3 year would be ok. Studies have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of dogs still have an acceptable antibody titre in their blood at 3 years post vaccine (i.e., they're still as immune as they can possibly be), hence the AVA's position. So the prevalence of parvo in the population doesn't really come into it.

If this was the "BITSA" dog breed identification test, then the american pitbull terrier isn't one of the breeds it is able to identify. So it's no surprise if the dogs didn't come back as pitbull. They wouldn't have done so even if they were pure pit! Lucky for these dogs that the council didn't look too closely at the test's fine print. apparently an Amstaff is an APBT on the Gold Coast now and they do identify an amstaff so ergo..... Oh I see. So if the test identified them as Amstaff, then they would have been in the poo? I still think they're lucky dogs though.

If this was the "BITSA" dog breed identification test, then the american pitbull terrier isn't one of the breeds it is able to identify. So it's no surprise if the dogs didn't come back as pitbull. They wouldn't have done so even if they were pure pit! Lucky for these dogs that the council didn't look too closely at the test's fine print.

Lots of reasons. Because the research is contradictory & we're not yet sure exactly what early desexing does in many cases (some effects are known, but others are just conjecture at this stage). Because some vets left vet school a long time ago and aren't necessarily up with the latest research (hence they may not know about the issues associated with early desexing, the same way that some vets are apparently still unaware of the risks of vaccination). Because different people put different values on the known pluses and minuses of early desexing (e.g., rescue organisations often encourage people to desex as soon as possible, since they see far too many "oops" litters). If it were my own personal dog, I'd do him after 12 - 18 months, if at all. If I were desexing a female, I'd probably leave it as long as I could before her first heat (as far as you can guess) - as far as I have researched, this timing is IMO the best compromise between increasing risk of mammary cancer & decreased risk of spay incontinence, which are the two most common negative side effects connected with early desexing in bitches. In rotties & other breeds very predisposed to osteosarcoma, I think you can make a good case for leaving it even later. Unless I learn more between now & then, this is what I will most often be advising my smart looking clients to do when I graduate (you know, the clients who look like they are going to be able to prevent their dog breeding willy nilly. The clients who look like they won't make any effort to prevent unwanted puppies might just get advised to desex their dogs a little earlier...) ETA: oh, I just saw your decision. Didn't realise this thread was an old one!

Oh dear. Bad for the breed, bad for the dog, and bad for the poor girl. I wonder what the whole story behind the incident is? Obviously a dog that will do this shouldn't be out in public unmuzzled, full stop. On the other hand I have seen some very clueless behaviour from Animates staff before - I wonder if this girl didn't notice, or couldn't understand, the dog's defensive or aggressive body language as she leaned over it. In which case, the owner should have noticed how uncomfortable the dog was, and intervened and stopped the encounter before the dog decided to defend itself. Whatever happened, this is a sad story.

If that were the case, then sex wouldn't be a primary reinforcer either? You can live without it. But I can think of few more powerful primary motivators! I've always been taught that a PR is simply something that is reinforcing without being conditioned.

I don't get this thread at all. Some RSPCA CEO finally has the balls to stand up on a public forum and say that he doesn't support BSL, and that a "pitbull" attack could actually have been perpetrated by any number of similar looking breeds or crossbreeds, and he gets attacked for saying so? Sad, very sad. Surely we should all be shaking the man's hand & buying him a beer?

Oh, I see. I agree in principle, with the caveat that by "praise" we mean any sort of social reward. However I do think that you could have plenty of value there but have a dog that won't work for a social reward purely because they have never been asked to before. So what? Just teach 'em if you want them to work for a social reward. Doesn't necessarily mean they don't care about you. Then I think we are on the same page. If the dog would be quite prepared to work for the social reward, except that you have just never asked them to do so, I think that is different to a dog that wouldn't work for the social reward even though he understood what you wanted. I would however very much disagree with the idea that social rewards are secondary reinforcers. To a pack drive animal, interaction with the pack/family is a primary reinforcer. A particular form of praise (such as the words "good dog") may well be a secondary reinforcer, but the desire for social interaction itself is primary - it does not need to be conditioned in order for it to have value. (I mean, think about it - if social interaction was only a secondary reinforcer, then the dog would not value it in and of itself, so placing the dog in complete social deprivation would not be cruel). Some dogs may show very little interest in social interaction unless it is paired with a primary reinforcer, but IMO this is simply because they are constantly given attention for free. A dog free fed kibble all day is unlikely to work very hard for kibble, either. Doesn't mean that food isn't a primary reinforcer. Both my cats have a super recall for the same reason. The malligator's isn't quite 100% yet, but that is a topic for another thread...

If this were my dog, I would be looking at adding in a correction on a pinch collar for going into drive inappropriately, under the guidance of a good behaviourist if you have not done this before. I would also make sure you are giving him a suitable outlet for his drives.

I don't think a healthy dog-human relationship is that hard to pick. You can't ask the dog how it feels, but you can look at the behaviour. The dog will act like it respects the owner, trusts the owner, and values interacting with the owner as an end in itself. I think it is also telling that we can agree that there is a dog-human relationship. That's why my dog is a companion first, and a piece of work equipment second. If I didn't think she valued our relationship, if I thought she only actually worked for the food and had no real desire for my company, then I'd honestly have no interest in having her in the house - she'd be a piece of work equipment, nothing more. She'd live in her run full time, and get taken out when I wanted to exercise or work her. After all, why would I bother giving a dog any social attention if the dog didn't value that attention? That, to me, counts as praise/attention. It is a social reward. Perhaps I should rephrase, since I am obviously not being clear enough. I don't think that a low distraction environment is a different environment with special rules, I think it is a minimum standard to show the dog at least minimally values you. If your dog won't perform simple behaviours for praise or attention in a low distraction environment, as a minimum, then I think there is a relationship issue - the dog obviously doesn't value your attention or praise, as it won't work for it even when there are no competing distractions. It might not worry some people, but that is a problem I would want to fix, if it was going on with my dogs. If the dog happens to find your attention valuable enough that they will work for it in a high distraction environment, even better.

I've taught with praise alone, but don't mind teaching with food since I feel that the focus required in learning is asking a lot of the dog & they deserved an extrinsic reward, and it's not a major hassle for me to carry food to a training session. So... if you had to periodically reward your boyfriend or child with cash to do things for you around the house, since praise (etc) from you wasn't enough, would that be a healthy relationship? I would feel there was something missing. Now, granted dogs are obviously not human (had to get that in before someone saw this thread & jumped in and accused me of the "a-word"), but I feel the principle is similar. If your praise or attention has no value for the other party, then to me, that's a relationship that needs work. If you stop rewarding your dogs with food and only praise them for compliance, will they keep performing the cue to a satisfactory standard indefinitely? I thought you were indicating they wouldn't, and needed regular reinforcement with food to keep performing. If you get the same results without food, then why use food, since you are getting the same results without it? Can't have it both ways, either you need the food, or you don't.

Mine was crated until she had an operation & had to wear a giant cone, then I felt so sorry for her that she's been granted bed privileges. She goes to bed whenever I go, and gets up whenever I get up. Most nights, that's probably 8 hours, but can be up to 10 or even 12 on occasion. She copes with it just fine, and doesn't get up until I start to show signs of life (although she then gets up very, very rapidly - she's given me a bleeding nose by landing on my head more than once ). A healthy adult dog shouldn't need bathroom trips in the middle of the night. She has woken me up before when she needed to go out, not deliberately I don't think, just by being fidgety & walking all over me. She's leashed to the corner of the bed, so can't run off and wreck things in the middle of the night. I don't think I'd like her loose in the house at night time. God knows what I'd wake up to.

I taught my last dog to co-exist peacefully with cats. He had killed a cat before I got him. So it is definitely possible. But, I was also lucky in that my last cat didn't usually run away from dogs. I think it would be far harder to desensitise a dog to a cat that ran and triggered prey drive, than with a cat that tended to stand still. I'm sure it's still possible, but you might need to be a bit clever with how you go about it.

At the moment, either a pinch collar, or a flat collar, depending on what I can find when it's walk time.

I like that. Lovemesideways, when the dog is initially learning what the clicker means, I believe that is classical conditioning. The dog is forming an association between two things (in this case, between the sound and the reward). When you are using the clicker to teach behaviours, then that is operant conditioning. The dog is learning what to do to cause the click/reward.

Some of my best rewards are saved for recalls. I don't think it's possible to reinforce a recall too much. Make sure you call her regularly (not just when she's already found something interesting to do), & reward her big time, every time. The training you put in now conditioning the recall will pay off big time in a few months, when your pup starts to be a bit more independent & less inclined to stick to you like glue.

I wrote out something and then I realised I'm talking about something slightly different to you. If Kivi didn't work when there wasn't food present, then I would consider that a problem with my cues rather than a problem with our relationship. He does what I teach him. If I teach him that he needn't do anything unless he knows I'm going to give him a treat then how is that a relationship issue? It's a training issue, surely. I'm not talking about having food physically present before your dog obeys your command, obviously - I hope that's clear, although from your post above I'm now not sure if it is. I'm talking about needing to regularly reinforce the dog with food to keep it performing simple, well known tasks around the house, since the animal will not work for attention or praise or life rewards. To me, having to do this is unacceptable. I would not personally be satisfied having the type of training relationship with my dogs where the animal needed to be regularly reinforced with food in order to do simple jobs around the home. If the animal will not work at all for attention or praise from me, then this indicates that my attention and praise is not valued at all by the animal. If the animal will not work for life rewards, it suggests to me that the animal feels I am irrelevant (or worse, an impediment) when it is trying to access rewards. To me, these are both huge relationship issues that need to be fixed.

That is great to hear.

Well, in my defence, I did say only mildly repugnant. As in, you know, slightly offensive. And I honestly do feel like that, I'm not just saying it to wind you up, Corvus (not that I would ever do that). ;) I think praise (including non-toy play) and life rewards are the best reward for casual day-to-day obedience for several reasons. You can never forget it, & it doesn't stink up your back pocket. IMO, working on making yourself interesting enough that you can reward the dog just with yourself makes you a better trainer. Plus, if you can save your big gun rewards (food, toys) up for when you really need them instead of using them fifty times a day, I think they have more impact when you do actually use them. But mostly, I refuse to constantly use food at home for simple, well known every-day behaviours simply because I feel it's offensive. I really do. If my dog's not willing to do anything for me if I don't regularly hand over treats, then I think there is a problem in our relationship. Either I'm being boring, or the dog doesn't respect me. Either way, I feel that food would just be a quick fix that didn't cure the underlying issue. As an aside, I've always been very pro-praise, but have probably gotten even more so since attending a couple of search dog camps last year & having them critique our praise & play (yes, they called us up in front of the whole group, made us praise our dogs & play with them, and then ripped us to shreds). Watching grown men shamelessly squeal and dance around like they have just won lotto is rather amusing, but I was amazed how well the dogs responded to the attention and the energy.

The idea of neutralisation is that you're trying to raise a dog that is happy & comfortable in different situations & around different people, but doesn't go bananas anticipating attention or play whenever it sees another dog or a stranger. Basically, you still intro the pup to anything and everything, but if he is already confident with strangers & strange dogs, then you don't let him have too much fun with strange people or strange dogs - you try to only introduce him to boring dogs, and people that will pretty much ignore him. On the other hand, if the pup is a bit nervous around strange people or strange dogs, you want to give him good experiences with them until he gets more confident. I tried it with my current girl, but she still ended up an attention hussy. Mind you, she may have been worse if I'd socialised conventionally.

Oh, get over yourself corvus, please do. I worded that as carefully as I could to explain how I feel about it, without trying to insinuate that you or anyone else had to feel the same way. If you insist on taking offence regardless, that's really not my problem. You know what they say about assumptions? My last dog was not a working breed, and I felt just the same about my relationship with him. As you say, dogs are social animals. If your dog doesn't feel that your attention or praise is at all reinforcing, then I would question your ability to praise effectively. "A good word" doesn't cut it as praise, as far as I'm concerned. I have met few dogs that did not like excited physical & verbal praise - I have, however, met lots of owners that praise ineffectively and non contingently. I know that dogs that can't be made to give a crap about their owners do exist, but suspect this is rarer than people think. I have also never met a dog that will not show basic house manners in return for life rewards. Even my cats will show basic manners in return for life rewards. However, when praise and life rewards doesn't cut the mustard, I prefer to correct a dog than become a constant treat dispenser for basic house manners. Once again, in case you missed it, this is how I feel about my dogs. If you're happy to organise your life so you carry treats on you constantly and never have to correct, why would I criticise?

Oh ouch, poor you. Almost as bad as the story someone told me about the time they peed on the electric fence... ;)

Perhaps it depends what you're training for? I feel that work/competition training is very different to just around-the-house type basic manners. My girl gets good stuff when we're training specific behaviours where I want a very high level of reliability, attention, speed, focus or drive. There is always a bite toy at the end of the track. She gets food (usually lots of it) or play every obedience or trick training session. I try to reward every outdoor recall with something super. Because I want her to do these things with enthusiasm. But for simple, well known commands around the house? I certainly don't give her a food treat for those. I personally find the idea a little repugnant. Things like go to your bed, be quiet, don't pull on your leash, come over here - once she knows these things, she does not get food for doing them. She gets praise, attention, or a life reward for doing them (and sometimes a mild correction or loss of the life reward if she doesn't). Each to their own - if someone has a well trained dog, I would not criticise the way they do things. But for us, I feel there would be something missing in our relationship if she needed a food reward to do every simple little thing I asked. To me, it would be just the same as if I had a son or daughter or partner who demanded money up front before they did anything I requested. I'd just feel there was something missing there, even if the other person did the required tasks reliably.