Trust, Fear And Dogs

[corvus]

C: Oh my, K9. Sounds like I piss you off. Must be doing something right, then.

K9: lol I am not pissed off, lol you can still type....

Maybe I am just harder to please than a wild Hare?

Was that a challenge?? That bloody hare.... Probably not speaking to me because I've been out all week. Think you can compete with the 3 day cold shoulder? Not even dried strawberries will bring him out. I'm guessing dried strawberries don't do it for you, either...?

Shell, something tells me you don't think fear did Zero any favours... For what it's worth, I think your relationship with Zero is amazing. You'll hate me, but I see comparisons with my hare. It's not really so different. You echo many of my own thoughts. Even Zero's reactions aren't dissimilar to Kit's. Raise a hand and Kit will often take off, too. Only that's his natural state.

[~*Shell*~]

Steve can attest to the fact that when Zero is being lunged at aggressively (i'll try to find the photo), instead of trying to deal with it himself, he looks to me. I think that shows complete trust in me. He's not fearful of the other dog, he just trusts that I'll protect him.

Which is fine. If I understand what you've done with Zero correctly, I imagine that he looks to you because he's been taught that it solves his problems. Penny looks to me if she has a problem, too. But if she knows what to do she does it. When she sees a dog behaving aggressively she knows what to do. There is no problem. Of all the ways I've let her down that is the least of it. I think she would have benefitted from your approach at one time, but we're past that now. She is happier if she sorts it out because she knows how to. I started this way with Kivi, but soon gave up. It just didn't seem necessary for him. He is outgoing and at the time we were still bonding. He trusts me more now than he did back then despite letting him sort out his problems a lot of the time. Anyway, I discovered soon after I gave up on it that he absolutely needs me sometimes and is quite capable of finding me when he does.

I did actually point out that this was all based on one particular dog, guys. This is what I learnt from Penny. It does not necessarily apply to any other dog in the world, but it's not a mistake I intend to make again. So can your silly "you need more experience" remarks. This is not about all dogs! It's about one dog. One lesson. This is also not about corrective training. What's a withdrawal for Penny is not necessarily a withdrawal for every other dog in the world.

At one time, Zero would've been happier to sort it out by himself too but where's the leadership? I don't want him to feel like he has to sort it out, even if he does know how - that's why I'm there. Since I started showing him that leadership, he's so much happier. He would've been happy to sort things out on his own, but since learning that he doesn't have to, he's not on edge anymore and you can see how calm he is because he doesn't constantly have to be on the lookout.

What do you mean when you say you're past that? I'm trying and completely failing to see the problem (it's been a long week ).

If you'd seen Zero when i got him, you'd know why i don't think fear ever does a dog good. The difference between Zero and Kit is that Zero's fear was learned because he felt fear from a lot of different things - a lot of Kit's fear will be engrained in the hare genetics. He was a very very different dog when I got him - afraid of everything. Obviously he hadn't had a bad experience with everything, but fear from one thing had transferred onto other things and he was very mentally unstable. For example - when i was putting his bed together, i dropped one of the metal pieces onto the concrete and it made a very loud noise. Zero took off and cowered. He'd never been afraid of slamming doors before but suddenly it became a massive fear for him - if it happened, he would run and cower. That became a fear of doors moving because he anticipated the sound, and eventually he was so fearful that for about 6 weeks, he refused to walk through a door, a gate or a archway and would growl when he went near it. Fear is just too unstable a teacher for me because you can never tell how badly it's going to affect the dog.

Edited May 1, 2009 by ~*Shell*~

[Miranda]

I did actually point out that this was all based on one particular dog, guys. This is what I learnt from Penny. It does not necessarily apply to any other dog in the world, but it's not a mistake I intend to make again. So can your silly "you need more experience" remarks. This is not about all dogs! It's about one dog. One lesson. This is also not about corrective training. What's a withdrawal for Penny is not necessarily a withdrawal for every other dog in the world.

Sorry, but I didn't get that impression from your posts, to me your comments came across as applying to all dogs based on your qualifications as a zoologist and the experiences you've had during your thirteen years of dog ownership, although you didn't actually specify exactly how many dogs you've owned during those years. However I must admit that I got rather lost trying to decipher your piggy bank analogy so I may possibly have misconstrued your other posts as well as they all appear to be written in a similar style.

I don't consider my 'you need more experience' remark as silly and I have no intention of 'canning' it, in my opinion you do need a lot more experience and I'm perfectly entitled to say so.

[corvus]

I think what you are saying in this is that you think you were too hard on Penny and this caused problems with her trust in you and you don't want to damage another dog's trust?

Which is fair enough.

But I don't see how letting your dogs sort out interdog issues comes into it.

It doesn't? It came up because I said I didn't want my dogs to be frightened because I think it diminishes trust. I didn't want to go into it on that thread because it would have been off topic and as you can see it's a bit of a can of worms all on its own.

I've suddenly realised I've been pretty vague and unclear lately. And my arguments are seriously crap and don't seem to apply to anything. And here I was feeling frustrated because I didn't feel I was getting my point across. Because apparently I am incoherent this week and my brain is made of fuzz!! Can I blame night work? It's all I've got.

Anyway, what I said now makes no sense to me. I guess I was trying to convince people that I didn't want my dogs to be frightened and that's why I didn't feel like I was taking risks in letting my dogs go to dog parks and learn to talk to dogs. Which also isn't exactly a direct argument. It's hard to sum it all up in one sentence, which is what I was trying to do in the other thread. So let's try point form.

• I believe to incite fear in my dogs is to diminish their trust in me.
  
• It leads on that I am therefore very wary of fear in general, not just what I might create - thus, avoid fear of other dogs.
  
• I am okay with a little tiny bit of fear in some circumstances as it does teach well - thus, allow dogs to be snapped at/growled at (as if I could avoid it with cranky-pants Penny around). I just don't want to be the source of that fear (see first point).
  

Does that make ANY sense? Otherwise I may have to have a sleep and try again tomorrow.

[poodlefan]

Corvus:

I don't want them to be scared of ME. Last time I checked I wasn't a strange dog.

But you do want them to trust you. How can insisting that your dogs deal with any threat from another dog make them do that?

In my experience, trust is built on predictability of behaviour and reliability of safety as much as it is on "niceness". I have a friend with a wildly fear aggressive dog who is loved to death. She hardly disciplines him at all. He is severely on lead aggressive because she provides no leadership and is herself concerned about other dogs. What's "niceness" got to do with that.

I own a dog who is fearful in new and unfamiliar situations. It's got nothing to do with me - that's her nature. Confidence and timidity have a genetic component that is not environment or experientially based. Were you to get another pup with different temperament, your experiences might be very different. If that dog had a tendency towards fear aggression, your practices might exacerbate it.

If Kivi bit another dog hard in play, he'd be getting a pretty severe rebuke. Perhaps his "shock" at being disciplined by your brother was as much about surprise as it was about fear.

You're clearly not a stupid person Corvus and you put a lot of thought into your interactions with your dogs. As you are clearly very interested in canine behaviour, why not spend some time with someone who deals with it for a living? Exposure to a wider range of dog behaviours and responses to every day dog on dog encounters can only enhance your knowledge of these issues.

What I can assure you is that dogs with behavioural challenges are not assisted by simply being nice to them. They need boundaries, predictability and a sense of security that can only come from handler leadership.

[Erny]

We carried on for years and every time I got cross with her when she didn't understand why I made another withdrawal.

You get/got cross? I agree - that was one mistake you made. Glad you recognise it though.

We carried on for years and every time I got cross with her when she didn't understand why I made another withdrawal.

Training should be about making it clear why you are (to use your words even though I don't prescribe to them) "making another withdrawal".

I made withdrawals when I was unpredictable ...

This would be one very good reason (amongst the others mentioned above) why you didn't achieve the success you wanted with your methodology.

... when she was trying to tell me she was frightened and I ignored her, whenever I punished her ...

You saying you punished her for being frightened?

I didn't know that any of this had diminished my trust balance with her ...

If your application and timing was good, it should not have affected her trust in you.

Anyway, I have made up a lot of lost ground with Penny in the last 5 or 6 years since I started working with wild animals and absently applied all the rules with them to Pen.

Reflecting on your posts in the other thread though .... you do seem to consider your dog to the exclusion of others. IOW, if it's ok by you and by Penny, then it's ok.

I think someone has already said (I certainly have in the past, as has K9 Force more recently) that you'd do well to concentrate more on your dog training than rabbit, bunny or hare training.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Erny

[corvus]

At one time, Zero would've been happier to sort it out by himself too but where's the leadership?

Well, that's what Penny was asking herself, no doubt. With Kivi, he doesn't seem to be looking for it or needing it. He's a lot more laid back then Penny and he thinks rolling on his back solves all problems. It usually does, to be honest.

What do you mean when you say you're past that? I'm trying and completely failing to see the problem (it's been a long week ).

I know what you mean! Penny is a bit different to Zero. She figured out a way to handle her problems with other dogs in a pretty benign way. She mostly just glares at them these days and they stay away. If they come too close and she thinks it'll work she snaps at them. It's not exactly ideal, but she's confident that she can handle it and knows exactly how so it's not particularly stressful for her anymore. What I'm saying is I missed my opportunity for that approach and so Penny found another solution. It works and now if I try to get in her way she looks uncomfortable. She'd rather know where the dog is and have a clear view of what it's doing. Not so good now she's going blind, but she is much less bothered these days than she was before.

For example - when i was putting his bed together, i dropped one of the metal pieces onto the concrete and it made a very loud noise. Zero took off and cowered. He'd never been afraid of slamming doors before but suddenly it became a massive fear for him - if it happened, he would run and cower. That became a fear of doors moving because he anticipated the sound, and eventually he was so fearful that for about 6 weeks, he refused to walk through a door, a gate or a archway and would growl when he went near it. Fear is just too unstable a teacher for me because you can never tell how badly it's going to affect the dog.

Yep, that's what Kit does, minus the growling, obviously (although he does grunt sometimes). In the other thread I was talking about behaviour loops escalating. That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about! It's like dominoes. The more things set him off the more things are added to his list of things to be scared of. And if you don't do something fast you're looking at months of patiently desensitising. You have to identify the triggers and change the routine surrounding them. Even then it's taken months before with Kit if he had a good scare. He's still antsy about strangers crouching near him years after someone bent down to pat him. What I LOVE about dogs is that usually they don't do silly things like that, so it really is heartbreaking if they do.

But low level fear is a natural way for animals to learn. I can't believe I started this topic about how I think fear is so awful and now I'm apparently saying that low level fear is good. It's not good, it's just something that well-adjusted animals should be able to cope with because it's a natural occurrence. Even Kit can handle a fair bit of low-level fear before he forms an association. Good thing, because he would experience low-level fear several times a day. I got good at reading him so I wouldn't push him too far. In a way it's harder to learn that with dogs because they don't show it as clearly as a hare does, but then, they have great body language. You just have to remember to look.

[poodlefan]

Corvus:

But low level fear is a natural way for animals to learn.

Its a fabulous method of learning avoidance or aggression, not trust. Dogs have three fear responses as far as I can figure... fight, flight or shutdown. None of those are something I wish to encourage in my dog.. EVER.

[corvus]

But you do want them to trust you. How can insisting that your dogs deal with any threat from another dog make them do that?

Mm, good question. I don't insist. It's hard to explain. I watch them. If they don't look comfortable, I come over. If it doesn't improve, I step in. But usually they are tense and then they relax within seconds once they have made their greetings. If they don't look comfortable before the dog has even got to them I stand in front of them. They can walk around me if they want or stay put. If they want to stay behind me I'd block the dog coming on. But that's all pretty hypothetical. It doesn't happen much. 98% of the time the tension vanishes within seconds. The other 2% of the time Penny is telling me she wants no part of it and I'm agreeing with her and we never get as far as contact.

In my experience, trust is built on predictability of behaviour and reliability of safety as much as it is on "niceness".

Yeah! And that is SO how I built trust with the hare. When I said good things I was encompassing that into it. There are so many things an animal can find good that I didn't list them. With wild animals, or scared animals, predictability pretty much equals safety and it's way higher on the list of good things than treats or pats or other things like that. Glad you brought that up.

I have a friend with a wildly fear aggressive dog who is loved to death. She hardly disciplines him at all. He is severely on lead aggressive because she provides no leadership and is herself concerned about other dogs. What's "niceness" got to do with that.

Yeah, nothing. One of the things I learnt to do with Kit was get into habits of my own so every time I did anything around him I turned it into a routine thing. That's where the trust came from. One of my biggest failings with Penny was being unpredictable. The leash corrections were part of that. I wasn't taught how to do it properly and it was unpredictable to her.

Were you to get another pup with different temperament, your experiences might be very different. If that dog had a tendency towards fear aggression, your practices might exacerbate it.

But like I've said several times, I wouldn't raise a fearful dog the same way I raised Kivi and I wouldn't raise any dog the way I raised Penny. I'll repeat the story about a pup my mum had. He found puppy preschool terrifying and they made him get into it and play, which made him more afraid of it. Things just went downhill from there and he ended up biting people. He was fine with those he knew, but not good with strangers BECAUSE of what was recommended about socialisation. It wasn't right for him. I would know another puppy like that pretty early. I would be outrageously cautious with it. It was heartbreaking seeing what happened to this other pup. Poor boy was always scared.

As you are clearly very interested in canine behaviour, why not spend some time with someone who deals with it for a living? Exposure to a wider range of dog behaviours and responses to every day dog on dog encounters can only enhance your knowledge of these issues.

What I can assure you is that dogs with behavioural challenges are not assisted by simply being nice to them. They need boundaries, predictability and a sense of security that can only come from handler leadership.

I agree. I just consider that "nice stuff". I'd love to spend more time with someone who deals with canine behaviour for a living, but I don't think I could handle the politics. Zoologists are allowed to draw comparisons between wildly different animals whenever they like and don't make people cross in the process. I just keep doing it!

[poodlefan]

I agree. I just consider that "nice stuff". I'd love to spend more time with someone who deals with canine behaviour for a living, but I don't think I could handle the politics. Zoologists are allowed to draw comparisons between wildly different animals whenever they like and don't make people cross in the process. I just keep doing it!

Where's the politics in self education?

[Are You Serious Jo]

I agree. I just consider that "nice stuff". I'd love to spend more time with someone who deals with canine behaviour for a living, but I don't think I could handle the politics. Zoologists are allowed to draw comparisons between wildly different animals whenever they like and don't make people cross in the process. I just keep doing it!

Could be because you don't know where the line is between species and what a general learning concept is. The zoologists I know who do cross species comparisons always understand the severe limitations of using principles applied broadly. As I do comparative work I am acutely aware of the issues that arise when looking at the same topics across species. You could learn a lot by forgetting what you think you know and listening to K9 force.

Edited to add for those who listen. Domestic dogs have exchanged a lot of their ability to solve problems with the opportunity to live closely with humans. Wolves will never look back to a human during experiments when confronted with a difficult problem. Dogs will try, then look back to the owner to fix it. Domestic dogs have co-evolved with humans, they think differently to wild animals and do not have the same skills their wild ancestors have. It is unfair to them to expect them to perform the way wolves do. They look to us to protect them, it is what they are now.

Edited May 1, 2009 by jdavis

[corvus]

I've read that paper, jdavis. I think your interpretation is a little bit of a leap. In my opinion, it shows that dogs have evolved alongside humans to the degree that they naturally look to humans to solve their problems. That is not the same thing as looking to humans for protection. Case in point, my dog looks to me if she doesn't know what to do about a dog, but doesn't bother if she does regardless of the level of threat involved. Fair enough, my dog ain't a particularly good example, but Kivi does the same thing and I did actually make an effort with him to be his protector. My mother's dogs have all been the same (I think she's had 7 in my lifetime). If they know what to do they do it. If they don't know they go find a person to tell them. She has one dog now that is not nearly as independent in nature as most of her other dogs have been, and she looks to people a whole lot more than the others do. She is pretty shy, so she looks to my mother often when strange people or dogs approach her. Different to my dogs, and my mother's other dogs that are very confident when other dogs approach. My sister has a dog that is even more shy. That dog needs a lot more direction and reassurance from people than mine do. She gets nervous every time a strange dog comes near her and is not very good at reading the situation like my gorgeous Penny girl. She is begging for someone to tell her what she should do. Put a hand on her and tell her it's okay and she is ever so much happier.

Incidentally, my hare looks to me to solve his problems, too. He's a better problem-solver than any of my domestic pets even though he's nowhere near as smart as my dogs, because he's wild. I think that's pretty neat, but I'm not stupid enough to confuse what he can learn with what dogs do naturally. I have learnt that he does a lot of things that domestic animals would never do. It's been a real adventure in discovery comparing wild animals with domestic animals. Having a domestic rabbit as well has been good fun. Life would be pretty boring if the whole world expected me to keep a lid on the thoughts this situation has provoked simply because it's not a proper experiment. Ever heard of anecdotal evidence? I based a thesis on it. Observations are always interesting, and it's my nature to cobble them together to form theories. I run with my theories until they are blown out of the water. Sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't. It doesn't look like it, but I'm a critical thinker. I'd far rather have my own theories blown out of the water than run around with my fingers in my ears and my eyes shut crowing "I'm right!" So go ahead, blow my theories out of the water. If it's a good argument you will have achieved what dozens before you tried to do but failed. I'm yet to see you put forth an argument beyond "You know nothing; these unproven theories are fact". It's a great shame. I love debates with other scientists.

Eh, if I were actually doing a study I wouldn't make the broad, sweeping statements I do, but as I'm not, I don't see any problem with throwing broad, sweeping statements out there for thought. None of my zoologist friends mind when I do, but they all know me and know the way I think. If I start getting a little too tenuous with my links they pull me up. Broad sweeping statements are the basis for good debate. If you like, pick an aspect and we'll discuss that. Is there a particular reason why you think frightening dogs doesn't diminish their trust in you?

This thread has been quite exciting for me. It adds evidence to support the similarities and differences I see between wild animals and dogs. I do see differences, by the way. I love the differences as much as the similarities. I only emphasise the similarities because I get tired of people treating dogs as if they are some kind of special animal that's not really an animal.

[Staranais]

[*]I believe to incite fear in my dogs is to diminish their trust in me.

[*]It leads on that I am therefore very wary of fear in general, not just what I might create - thus, avoid fear of other dogs.

[*]I am okay with a little tiny bit of fear in some circumstances as it does teach well - thus, allow dogs to be snapped at/growled at (as if I could avoid it with cranky-pants Penny around). I just don't want to be the source of that fear (see first point).

If that works for you, I'm happy for you. My only concern is that you can't control the level of fear that your dog is subjected to by other dogs. If the other dog decides to maul Penny, then you may be in trouble trying to get it off before it does her severe damage.

I know it hasn't happened so far, and I hope it never will. But my point is just that it could - some dogs do attack even submissive dogs without warning.

I know, I've owned one. Yeah, and years ago I even took him to public dogs parks before I knew better. I had very little experience of aggressive dogs, had just adopted a severely dog aggressive adult dog, and it took me a few nasty dog park incidents to work out that he really wasn't a good dog park candidate. (Hey, in my defence, my obedience school instructors were telling me to "socialise" him with as many other dogs as I could to fix his problems!)

I guess when you've only owned a couple of dogs (and I include myself in that category), you tend to base your knowledge of dog behaviour on what you've seen. I'm now very wary of dog parks because I've seen some really nasty things. You're not, because you haven't.

This is an interesting thread, though. I appreciate your different persepective on dog behaviour etc. I just don't think it's very universal (and to be fair, you have just admitted that yourself).

[Kavik]

Lots of the differences I see are in what we expect of animals. You would never expect a social wild animal to be able to mingle with strange members of a group they didn't know. You wouldn't expect a wild animal to perform in the way we expect dogs to perform in sports and in jobs. You wouldn't expect a wild animal to tolerate the city life and people patting it, kids hugging it etc the way you expect a dog to.

So with training and learning, while you can draw some parallels, there are some things which are very different.

[Tonymc]

Corvus.I find it rather strange that a so called Zoologist continually try's to make points by comparing species totally unrelated.Dogs are predators and hares a prey animal.No comparison at all.

Using your logic,I will explore the dynamics of Equine behaviour by making points about Water Buffalo.Would it shed any light on Equine behaviour and lead me to any truth?Of course not. Tony

[poodlefan]

Corvus:

It's been a real adventure in discovery comparing wild animals with domestic animals. Having a domestic rabbit as well has been good fun. Life would be pretty boring if the whole world expected me to keep a lid on the thoughts this situation has provoked simply because it's not a proper experiment. Ever heard of anecdotal evidence?

Corvus, the difficulty I've had from the beginning with your posts is that you state them in a manner that sounds non-theoretical. You make assertions and debate issues with highly experienced, professional dog trainers that, coupled with the word "zoologist" under your avatar, lends them a tone of authority that might make a dog person here use them.

You've already backpedalled a considerable distance from your bold assertion that you didn't have to protect your dogs in encounters with strange dogs because as dogs, they had the skills to diffuse any newcomer they had to deal with. That cheers me considerably. As I said before, you're clearly not stupid.

Whilst most posters here (myself included) do not have the academic training in zoology you have, many of us have trained mulitple species (dogs and horses for me) and know that their responses and motivations are dissimilar. I suppose to some degree what you learn from one experience you do bring to another but only from a broader perspective. I tend to want to encourage, rather than force, my dogs to do things because I learned with horses that you can't force a 1500kg animal to do anything it really doesn't want to do.. positive motivation works better. Operant conditioning does have some universal application but what motivates and rewards animals will differ. I think that is where you and I part company on a theoretical level.

I recall reading one book on horse training from one of the early 'natural' horseman. His view was that in some cases, the best reward for a lesson well learned was to stop training.. get off the horse and leave it alone. I'm not sure how you'd apply that dog training other than not to drill what has been already offerred to the standard you require.. you don't reward a dog by putting it back in its kennel for the most part. Play works better. So you'd unsaddle brush down and turn your horse loose for a roll but you'd play with your dog.. both end the lesson but differently.

The domestic dog has been selectively bred for generations to seek the company of humans and, to a greater or lesser degree, to seek direction from them. Cats, on the other hand, don't give a damn about pleasing you - they do only what they consider brings reward. Hounds can be a bit like that. As a first time hound owner I'm finding differences in training Howard from any of my poodles. I don't think a 'one size fits all' approach to training works even within a species, let alone between them.

I do know that 'taming' an animal and 'training' one are not the same and that 'taming' does not change an animals instintive responses in the manner that selective breeding can do. Taming encourages tolerance. Training encourages obedience. That point alone is why I find your comparisons between a domesticated, selectively bred animal and a tamed feral animal less than convincing. I can accustom a lion or tiger to tolerate human interaction, but as the repeated tragedies involving exotic pets demonstrate, you do not necessarily engender obedience, nor do you take the predator out of the big cat, EVER. You also have to keep in mind that a hare, unless you give it no option, will never be a threat to you. You can't say that about any prey species (domesticated or not) large enough to take us on.

All animals have a basic hierarchy of needs - food, safety, reproduction etc. No news to you I'm sure. My view is that "taming' fuflills basic needs but 'training' must reach further up ithe hierarchy to succeed. Satisfying the food needs of a wild predator never takes the hunter out of the animal. Similarly providing safety to a prey species doesn't remove prey responses. Startle a horse and you'll see what I mean.

Perhaps if you make it plainer when you are observing or theorising, rather than asserting, much of the 'crossness' you have encountered will dissipate.

Edited May 2, 2009 by poodlefan

[Are You Serious Jo]

I've read that paper, jdavis. I think your interpretation is a little bit of a leap.

What I posted is based on all the comparative and evolution literature on dogs, not just one paper, I read about the topic extensively when I was working on dog cognition and lecturing on it. It is the general consensus of the people in this field, based on some very good evidence. Sorry, can't comment on the rest of your posts, I find it hard to understand them

[Are You Serious Jo]

Ever heard of anecdotal evidence? I based a thesis on it.

Whoa there Nelly, please tell me you are joking. Anecdotes are useful to generate ideas for testable hypotheses, but never can be used as evidence to support an argument. You can't seriously expect other scientists to take anecdotes seriously, they are the reason we have strictly controlled experiments, because anecdotes are useless. I am fanatical about methods, and right now my brain is hurting. Glad I didn't get my degree at your uni. :shakehead:

[Monah]

I've read that paper, jdavis. I think your interpretation is a little bit of a leap.

What I posted is based on all the comparative and evolution literature on dogs, not just one paper, I read about the topic extensively when I was working on dog cognition and lecturing on it. It is the general consensus of the people in this field, based on some very good evidence. Sorry, can't comment on the rest of your posts, I find it hard to understand them :cool:

Me too. I am trying to understand, but, I don't!

I protect my dogs.

Corvus, did you say one of your dogs has 'fixed' her situation by staring and snapping at other dogs???? If so, I desperately hope you never come across a dog who will retaliate. I have a dog who is slightly fearful (genetically), but who was VERY fearful , and thanks to a wonderful behavourist and also to K9's seminar, we have come a very long way, so far in fact, that she is now too friendly (thanks guys )

Rather than experimenting with different dogs (and hares) it may be better all round to just ask the experts first. On another note, have you seen the bunnies doing agility??? incredible.

[Quickasyoucan]

Edited to add for those who listen. Domestic dogs have exchanged a lot of their ability to solve problems with the opportunity to live closely with humans. Wolves will never look back to a human during experiments when confronted with a difficult problem. Dogs will try, then look back to the owner to fix it. Domestic dogs have co-evolved with humans, they think differently to wild animals and do not have the same skills their wild ancestors have. It is unfair to them to expect them to perform the way wolves do. They look to us to protect them, it is what they are now.

:rolleyes: This is what I was trying to get at in the other thread about socialisation just that you said it soooo much more eloquently than me.

I think people who push socialisation as the be all and end all to a dog's happiness seem to be overlooking the whole domestication thing, ie that it includes humans.

I don't think it is a coincidence that, although they may differ in their methods of achieving it, successful behaviourists and trainers seem to have one common theme I it is up to us to be the dogs leader, taking the responsibility off their shoulders can solve a whole heap of issues and the dog is happier and more balanced as a result of it.

ETA: however, I do think discussion about a topic is interesting, so I will agree with Corvus there, so long as we come to our own conclusions.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Quickasyoucan