Staranais

Yes IMO people "should" desex their non breeding dogs, unless they are: * 100% able to ensure their dog doesn't mate accidentally, and * they have enough money put aside to fix a pyometra or treat mammary cancer (both much, much more prevalent in entire bitches). If they are 100% able to ensure their dog doesn't breed accidentally, and can afford vet visits for a sick entire bitch, then they should do what they please with their dogs. I'm not sure I would want the government to get involved though, and force pet owners to desex. I'm not a fan of too much legislation.

Abigail your use of this language suggests that you may be anthropomorphising these dogs, they are dogs acting on instinct they aren't making a concious decision to murder much loved pets, it's important to recognise the difference because protracted consequences mean nothing to dogs they don't think the same way humans do. I agree WnH, total anthropomorphising going on here! My dog has killed possums and bats that have come into our yard over the years, some of the possums are probably bigger than a little chi, it does not make him a "murderer" or mean that he has consciously decided to murder another creature and should "pay the consequences". It's prey drive, simple instinct, it does not make him a bad dog. You really should not be taking me literally. I am not stipulating that dogs actually plan a rampage; of course they act on instinct but to have the innate instinct to want to kill does indeed make them a bad dog and when that entails someone else's beloved pet - well that's a no no. And I understand that they are fueled by their prey drive and that is what presents a problem in the very 1st place. So, my girl is not a bad girl if she kills feral mice, or bunnies, or feral cats. But she is a bad dog if she kills someone's "beloved" pet mouse or rabbit or cat? I'm afraid she is unable to tell the difference. If she killed pets rather than feral animals, then that would be me being a bad owner, not her being a bad dog. Prey drive isn't actually a "problem", either. Many working dogs like search and rescue dogs, police dogs, hunting dogs, and most customs dogs all need very high prey drives as this is how they are motivated to do their jobs. If we breed dogs for low prey drives, we will have very few working dogs left. The problem with high prey drive dogs is if the owner mismanages the dog. It's not the dog themselves.

Well, I can't imagine any situation you'd need to know the dance (or the component receptors) to train a dog. Prescribing medicines - well, perhaps I'll just do the dance in my head instead of actually in front of my clients when I'm deciding what to give the dog. They may lose faith in their veterinarian... :p Seriously though, I'm not sure how useful it is to analyse dog training at the level of neurology. Seems kind of like analysing baking at the level of chemistry, or car mechanics at the level of atomic physics. You can do it, perhaps it's sometimes useful, but you know, going into that much detail often just muddies the discussion (or ends up with the science being oversimplified to the point where it verges on untruth).

Well, by definition, anything involving the ANS either involves the sympathetic or parasympathetic nervous systems (these are the two component arms of the CNS), and these necessarily involve the release of catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline) and/or acetylcholine. If classical conditioning always involves the ANS, then it must always involve either catecholamine or acetylcholine release, and their action at certain receptor types on certain nerves in the periphery. (Incidentally, to lighten the mood, I should mention that I can do a dance describing all of these receptor subtypes - oh the joys of vet school!) So perhaps I'm taking a black and white view, but it's also true that those neurological terms refer to fairly specific, well defined, black and white phenomena. No, I agree it's not, and sorry if I lead you to believe I thought it was. The only part I think is classically conditioned is the orienting. Yes, that's basically saying the same thing in different terms. Smooth muscle and glands are innervated by the ANS. Although respondent/classical conditioning must necessarily also affect the CNS as well as the ANS.

Hmmm, read the link, but still not convinced that the distinction is real sorry Aidan. And that link is sort of wrong, no offence, but the ANS isn't the part of the nervous system responsible for emotions. The sympathetic branch controls the release of adrenaline & noradrenaline, yes, & the CNS may interpret the body's reactions to these hormones as fear or stress, but that's as close as the ANS comes to getting involved in emotion. I believe the limbic system and frontal cortex (both CNS) process emotion. An increase in sympathetic tone (ANS) is probably involved with the orienting response, I buy that. But the two divisions of the ANS are working at all times in any mammal. And I doubt any change in ANS tone is strictly necessary for classical conditioning to occur - adrenaline release and classical conditioning need not go hand and hand. And the CNS will also be involved as an integral part of classical conditioning - it must be, or else all you would get would be a reflex arc, no learning. The behavioural response in operant conditioning will obviously involve the CNS, but also must involve the somatic peripheral division (voluntary motor control), as well as generally have ANS peripheral involvement (if the dog runs back to you in a recall, the symp ANS is involved. If it anticipates the food reward, the parasymp will ramp up. etc etc). Sorry, but just makes no sense to me. I'm not always 100% with behaviourist lingo, but I do know a little mammalian neuroscience. The only difference I can see between the two in terms of the peripheral nervous system is that an operant response must generally (always?) involve somatic peripheral system, whereas a classically conditioned response need not.

Just showed it to him and he knew what to do with it. If you have doubts your dog will know what to do with it, I'd play with him with just the tire until he got the idea of grabbing it and tugging, before hanging it from the tree.

Well by low to the ground I mean his back feet can still just touch the ground, should be OK to hang it so he's standing on two legs and can tug like that. Yeah, car wreckers should have one for you. Can't remember where I got mine, was a few years back.

For my old boy I just used an old car inner tube hung by rope from a strong branch. He loved it, and dead cheap. Make sure the metal valve is at the top so they can't cut their mouth on it. Recommend you hang close to ground since his growth plates aren't closed yet (or at any age, if you're planning on letting him use it unsupervised).

The brother to mine went to NZ I will get some more photos of her as she has grown so much Oh interesting! Can I ask what's he doing in NZ, and what lines was he from?

From my understanding, the CNS would by definition be involved in any learning experience, classical or operant or whatever. Whereas the ANS is merely peripheral like the rest of the PNS. Not really sure what you're getting at with the neuroscience?

I resent your comment that I am making my dog fat, quite frankly I'm a little offended that you assumed I "blamed" her. Of course I agree that it is no one's fault but ours for potentially feeding her incorrectly - hence why I began this post looking for some advice. That being said, it was our vet himself who advised that keeping her weight down will always be a problem due to her breed, not my own opinion. I'm simply looking for some advice! Currently we feed her a home recipe including mince, veggies and rice or pasta that was given to me by a friend who's vet recommended it. We add Dr. Bruce's all natural health booster to it and supplement with raw bones about once a fortnight for her teeth. she gets 1/3cup in the morning and 1/3 cup in the evening and wolfs it down in less than 30 secs! she is currently 10.9kg and believe she should probably be around 9, as she is actually a little bigger than a pure bred pug and back when she was 9kg our vet said that she was at a great weight. If she were mine I'd probably give her raw bones at least every few days, not once a fortnight, if there is no calcium source in the diet you're feeding.

You're more up on the terminology than I am, Aidan, but my understanding of was that the conditioned response was involuntary response, as opposed to operant where it's a voluntary response. In a good recall, I think the initial orienting response to the owner is involuntary - just like orienting to a loud or squeaky or (conditioned) clicker noise is involuntary. Actually turning around and returning to the owner is operant. I could be using the terms incorrectly. However, I do think those stages (orienting and actually deciding to return) are different, and once you have the automatic orienting down, your recall is more than halfway to being reliable.

I suspect, from what I have observed, the dog turning towards you as soon as it hears the recall signal is a classically conditioned response, an automatic reflex that the dog just can't help, as long as you've taught it correctly. But after that initial orienting response, there's plenty of time for the dog to weigh up whether or not he wishes to return - and whether he comes back depends on what he thinks you might do to him to reward or punish him, compared to the value of the distraction & his chances of getting it.

And I think that's a really good point, Corvus. I feel every type of collar will have at least some dogs or some situations that might benefit from it. I think a good trainer should know how to use almost every tool, or at least have enough knowledge that they know when it might be beneficial, rather than deciding any tool is "bad". Even though we regular dog owners might pick and choose which tools we prefer to use with our own dogs based merely on personal preferences, a good trainer should IMO be up to date about them all. And that goes for head collars just as much as it does prong collars or e collars. It's just as silly to decide that head collars are universally useless or cruel, as to declare pinch collars or e collars universally useless or cruel. I personally would not ever want to use a halti on my girl, but then again, I'm trying to avoid using a check or prong on her too. My aversive of first choice would actually be an e collar. But I wouldn't condemn anyone for using a head collar appropriately, any more than I'd want someone to judge me on my appropriate use of an e collar. Slightly off topic, sorry. But I kind of think this thread might have been more useful if it was discussing good/bad ways or appropriate/inappropriate situations in which to use a halti, rather than us discussing whether a halti is "bad" or not. No offense to the OP intended.

I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't take food from a basket that a human was carrying in their mouth either, though. Call me fussy! But just seems a bit gross.

They're certainly pretty dogs. Nearly as pretty as the mallies. Don't think we have any in NZ yet.

If the dog's not worried about wearing it, then I see nothing wrong with it. But please don't let her use it with a long line or a flexi leash - you don't need to be a canine chiropractor to know that hitting the end of a long line and spinning around with your neck as a fulcrum is bad news.

Depends on the dog. Some dogs find their owners very motivating. But I'd guess that few dogs find the mere presence of their owner to be the most motivating thing in the world. You get the best recall (IMO) by using the best rewards, and the dog gets to pick what the best rewards are. So if your dog likes biting toys more than just your mere presence, for example, I'd be using the toys to build the recall.

I'd think that, despite appearances, the drive may not be as fully engaged as high as it is in sighthounds. Perhaps the drive has been modified to some degree by breeding as it has in herding breeds. After all, a shepherd breed that wants to kill everything that runs is going to be liability. Definitely would be a liability - but then again, you've got to teach them what is, and what isn't, appropriate for biting. My little girl didn't want to kill everything when she arrived, but she sure did want to chase and bite everything that moved. Little kids, joggers, bikes, skateboards, cats, rodents, birds, toys, bunnies, cars, possums, and any people that were silly enough to move quickly or lift their arms around her or heaven forbid run away from her... all got her going. I'm not sure if I'd agree that prey drive isn't as engaged in a good bitework dog as in a good sighthound, but someone that knows far more about bitework than I do would have to comment. Yes, it is very interesting, and I agree that dogs bred to hunt without human guidance do seem to be harder to train than breds who have traditionally satisfied their prey drive with human assistance.

My guess is that how prey drive is harnessed and the routines associated with it would make a difference. Herding, bitework, coursing.. all involve prey drive. Two involve handling, practice and routines. Herding usually involves watching the handler for cues. Coursing is just the dog/s and the prey. They make the kill (real or pseudo) alone and without direction. So you think that non-sighthound high-prey-drive dogs (what a mouthful!) are more likely to hear their handler while in high drive, since they're more used to seeing their handler as a "guide" to achieving drive satisfaction, rather than something to be ignored? Is that training, though, or is it breeding? From what I understand it's very much easier to train a recall in a high prey dog that has never learned that ignoring the handler can give drive satisfaction.

But then noone would be able to recall a high preydrive dog off live prey, poodlefan? Or recall a high prey drive police dog/sport dog off a bite it was committed to? If you think about what a Sighthound is doing closing on a hare or gazelle while running at 60kph on uneven ground, twisting and turning, I'd say its entirely possible that they won't register that you are calling them. I'd say the only way to get them back might be to reduce or turn off the drive. Can't speak for bitework. However I'd expect that working under the direction of a handler, the dog would be anticipating further commands and perhaps this makes a difference? I think you're right, but I don't think it's the whole story. Certainly, it's easier to recall a dog who is already working under your direction, since they already have an ear out for your commands. But in the future I hope to be able to recall my girl even after she's already running screaming after live prey. Of course, I'm happy to devalue the prey for her using aversives, so that my prey reward looks better in comparison. Which is not something you'd want to do with a racing greyhound. So perhaps that's another difference?

But then noone would be able to recall a high preydrive dog off live prey, poodlefan? Or recall a high prey drive police dog/sport dog off a bite it was committed to?

Yes, like I said I can't comment on the difficulty or otherwise of teaching recall to sighthounds, since I've never owned one. I believe it's hard, though, since most sighthound owners tell me so. I just seriously doubt that it's only a prey drive issue. My girl has a high (high high high) prey drive, as do most working line mallies, and also a very good recall - it's getting better all the time, and we're aiming for 100%. So the difference can't just be an intense prey drive. There must be something else going on with the sighthounds that makes them harder to teach recall to? Are they less biddable? Less pack driven? More inclined to look to their handler for prey drive reward? Or is it simply that we tend to imprint shepherd type puppies on toys that we're holding - rather than imprinting them on a lure off in the distance?

Those statistics are completely meaningless unless they include how many dogs of each breed are actually present in the population. e.g., if staffy type dogs are 40% of the dog population, and are responsible for 40% of the bites, then they're not the "main offenders" at all, they're biting exactly as often as you'd expect them to just by random chance. If they're 20% of the population and doing 40% of the bites, then you could argue that there is a problem with the breed type - or more likely, a problem with the type of owners that staffy-looking dogs tend to attract.

High prey drive can give a good recall though, in some dogs. I have a working line malinois - I'd imagine her prey drive is a similar intensity to that of any sighthound - and I use prey drive to reward her recall. The idea is trying to teach her that focusing on me, rather than ignoring me & chasing after random other things, is the best way to satisfy her prey drive. I think you are talking about a different sort/intensity of prey drive. Sighthounds have been bred to do one thing and one thing only - chase down moving prey. This drive IME overwhelms all other training. This is the reason that you will hear sighthound folk talk about never letting their dogs off lead unless it is in a fully fenced/secure/safe area. I've never trained a sighthound before, so I can't talk about sighthounds recalls with any authority. But I can confidently state that having a huge prey drive doesn't necessarily rule out a great recall. I'd be very suprised if sighthounds had more intense prey drive than a good working line mally. So if sighthounds almost invariably have bad recalls, then it can't be just the huge prey drive that's causing it. Must be something else. Different "type" of prey drive I'd buy - the idea that the sight dog has less of a natural tendancy to bite tug toys/people/anything that moves, and more of a natural tendancy to want to channel their drive towards small live prey. But I believe that how a dog learns to channel its prey drive can be affected by experience and training also. Don't racing greys chase an artificial lure, not live prey, these days anyway?