corvus

It might be worth making yourself known to the dog and human health node through the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney. http://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2015/08/31/health-benefits-of-dog-ownership-explored-in-new-research-node.html Most of the researchers are in human health, but they share a common belief that dogs could be viewed as preventative medicine in some ways, and they are all interested in providing evidence that may help drive positive policy changes for dogs and their people. Some of the researchers involved in the node would like to see dogs allowed on public transport at least. There is a precedent. They are allowed on Sydney ferries, for example.

Study that looked at the incidence of upper respiratory tract disorders in brachycephalic breeds: http://cgejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40575-015-0023-8 Another one that looks at the relationship between muzzle length and Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS): http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137496

Willem, you made a broad comment about leash pressure's role in negative reinforcement. All I am saying is that is too broad. Sometimes leash pressure is not aversive. This is one example where that is the case. What's the point in making an enormous production so you can ultimately agree with me? And yes, I did forcefully remove the dogs from the appetitive stimulus. That is precisely how they learned to either go hard or go home. Do you see what I'm saying? Attempting to apply the negative punishment you are telling me I forgot to apply is actually itself how I ended up with this problem. If I'd just focused on leave-it with positive reinforcement instead of relying on my physical strength, I wouldn't have dogs that play the "Cat poo treasure hunt! GOGOGO BEFORE SHE STOPS US!" game. So, either I get their full and willing cooperation (i.e. sufficient practice with "leave it") or I sigh and accept lots of defeats.

Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. And here I was thinking you played chess with chickens... of course not, silly :) Corvus uses pigeons, 'cos of the magnets in their heads ! I'm a bit of a Columbid devotee, and I've never been very good at chess. :D It's possible a chicken may actually beat me at chess even as it's scattering the pieces and soiling the board.

You can't have a peeing contest with Willem. Willem would shit on it and then argue how it was pee all along. It is only trying to stay sane with some people. I would be lucky if I ever named a quadrant to a client. They don't need to know jargon, but trainers do. It is fascinating that the author of the article in the original post spends an enormous amount of time listing qualifications and then promptly demonstrates a poor understanding of learning theory anyway. That IS an issue IMO. Quadrants are our bread and butter. We should be able to correctly identify what they are actually useful for. Quadrant-based ethics and broad statements about what quadrant what falls in are worse than useless. We can only tell what quadrant is in play by observing the effect on behaviour. This gives us a tool we can use to figure out the function of behaviours, and test our predictions. Once you miss that critical point, what are you even using operant conditioning for?

Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons. ...the subtile irony here is that you provided a pretty good example for what can happen when self-absorbed people forget to apply negative punishment when it's needed - you got what you asked for: positive reinforcement... No, I think the irony was not subtle and was quite lost on you. I was trying not to engage, because that always seems to be an exercise in frustration with you. Seems not engaging is even more frustrating than engaging. As it happens, you put the cart before the horse again, which is exactly why I brought up this example in the first place (hence, screaming irony lost on Willem). You assumed I avoided negative punishment. I don't even know what exactly I should have been removing, but I can say the whole reason why the dogs move so fast and pull in those circumstances is BECAUSE they have a history of me stopping them from obtaining the things they really want to obtain by using the leash. If they can move faster than I can, they get the goodies. If they can pull me a step or two unawares, they get the goodies. It's not just that they happened to pull and get rewarded because I somehow failed to... what? Remove the reward they actually had not obtained yet? Remove their ability to go forwards? They only got rewarded when they pulled as hard as they could, because that's the only way they could get to the goodies before I could stop them. Imagine that, pulling HARD has been reinforced - ergo, pressure is not negatively reinforcing IN THIS SCENARIO. Ergo, Corvus' point withstands. It's neither here nor there how this might or might not have been prevented with negative punishment. The point is pressure is not necessarily aversive. We should not make these assumptions, because they are too broad. For the record, I teach clients to train LLW with negative reinforcement. Leash pressure means we stop. Slack means we go. Dogs should move into the leash pressure to create slack. My older dogs were taught with treats and moving forwards but no leash pressure. Mostly I control them with my voice and the leashes are gathered into my hand so we don't all trip over them, and our walks are very easy and pleasant and there's little difference between on leash and off leash. We could easily argue there were aspects of negative punishment to their training and in the way I now teach this, but what would be the point? It would be difficult to tease the quadrants apart and I'm not sure what we would gain from it except to wave our butts in the faces of other trainers. Lots of people struggle with LLW. If pressure was always aversive, this struggle would be vastly easier to overcome.

Well, gee, Willem. You totally nailed it, there, and really burned me in the process. Excuse me while I rethink everything I thought I knew about dog training. I'll be in my ivory tower playing checkers with pigeons.

No, they are not, actually. For that to be true, the behaviour that precedes "no reward" would have to be suppressed. And in fact, "no reward" itself would have to be punishing, which would be challenging, because often the dog doesn't know when that is going to happen. Many of us do not even signal when there will be no reward, and many of us are using variable reinforcement schedules, so the dogs are not especially bothered by "no reward" in any context. What is actually taking place is DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT. i.e. some behaviours are reinforced and some are not. If I reinforce lifting a paw to chin height but I don't reinforce lifting a paw to chest height, then lifting a paw to chest height is not punished. It declines simply because it's not being reinforced as much as higher lifts are. Otherwise, I would have a hard time getting any paw lift, let alone the high ones I am after. Thank you for taking the time to actually write that out as I couldn't be bothered The misinformation rage... So strong... Ironically, I'm not going to back up my assertions with credible sources this time. I'll just pers. comm. my behaviour analyst friends. :D

Only if the leash pull actually influences future behaviour. I think you will find that is a big 'if'. My dogs walk nicely on leash until they detect bread/chicken bones/cat poo nearby, and then they throw themselves in unison towards the ground lollies, creating heaps of leash pressure that I instantly contribute to by pulling them back. Yet, if anything, they do it MORE now than they did a year ago. What does that tell us? It tells us a) in this context pulling is not punishing; and b) in this context, the possibility of accessing the ground lollies is highly reinforcing and they have figured out the most likely behaviour to achieve this. Guys. Quadrants are only confirmed AFTER behaviour change. Declaring anyone uses any quadrant without knowing what the effect on behaviour was is putting the cart before the horse.

I am a bit over arguing about Victoria Stilwell but I can find zero evidence that she was sued by Channel 4. Channel 4 still has her on their website too. There were 7 series so I imagine that there would have been a fair bit of press around about it. She also states that she was working as a trainer prior to the show on all official bios. Thank you. I was going to say that, too, but maybe I shouldn't spend all my time on social media contesting people's comments. Victoria can call herself a dog trainer regardless of her background precisely because it's an unregulated industry. Can we all just grow up and get on with things rather than wasting all this time and energy trying to discredit people, now? If someone is breaking a law, then report them. If you're not going to report them, don't be accusing them and then saying you'll totally stand up in a court of law and back your claims. I don't care. If you think they are criminals, that's your problem. Go do something about it. Quietly. Because that is the professional way of dealing with someone doing something unlawful in your profession.

No, they are not, actually. For that to be true, the behaviour that precedes "no reward" would have to be suppressed. And in fact, "no reward" itself would have to be punishing, which would be challenging, because often the dog doesn't know when that is going to happen. Many of us do not even signal when there will be no reward, and many of us are using variable reinforcement schedules, so the dogs are not especially bothered by "no reward" in any context. What is actually taking place is DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT. i.e. some behaviours are reinforced and some are not. If I reinforce lifting a paw to chin height but I don't reinforce lifting a paw to chest height, then lifting a paw to chest height is not punished. It declines simply because it's not being reinforced as much as higher lifts are. Otherwise, I would have a hard time getting any paw lift, let alone the high ones I am after.

Willem. Lie down before you hurt yourself.

The differences between the RDIs and what was found in the foods is in some cases quite dramatic. You can see for yourselves if you follow the link in the OP. This is my faculty, but I know nothing about this study and the controversy. Reading the paper, I think the journal editor is correct in pointing out that the data are preliminary. It would be premature to name and shame at this point, and it could be quite damaging to the companies involved. If it might be damaging, then we should be very cautious and replicate the study with a larger sample size first. The faculty does have sponsorship deals with pet food companies, which is well known, I think. Why wouldn't they? They are essentially a business after all. If they failed to acknowledge funding, though, they can get in a lot of trouble. It would not be worth it. Pet food companies have their own scientists. They don't fund a lot of external research, but academics depend on their reputation for quality work and honesty.

... you try to put yourself in Victoria's shoes (yeah, these VS dog training boots look awesome :D ), but at the same time you admit that you have not much experience with police dogs while she still tries to sell herself as the expert for dog training, no matter what realm it is...that's the difference. Where has she said she is an expert in working dog training of any sort? She is interested in police dog training and has been in discussion with local units. I've never seen her say she is an expert in this field. In fact, she says in the blog post about the incident: "I was honored and excited to attend, and, as is the case with a lot of my involvement in this field, I was mostly there to watch and observe." Furthermore, it's a moot point. Even an expert may indeed follow the directions of a dog's handlers. It is the polite thing to do, and it's usually a good way to keep safe. You might work in protection on a daily basis, but it's still someone else's dog and someone else's training and you don't know what the triggers might be. So listen to the handler. As has been said several times already, hang around these dogs long enough and you will probably get bitten. It's got little to do with who you are or how skilled or experienced you say you are. It happens.

I'm an expert in dog behaviour, and dog bite prevention is an area of academic interest to me and I recently wrote a text book chapter about it. But that doesn't mean I think I know how to stop a police dog from chomping on me in error. In fact, I know next to nothing about keeping myself safe around a police dog, which is why if put in Victoria's shoes, I would have done what I was told to do, much like it appears she did. I would trust the handlers knew what they were doing and follow their directions, even if a part of me was thinking "Errrrr.... are you sure this is a good idea?". Trainers don't really like outsiders questioning them. It's wise IMO to keep your head down and let them run their own show. I would also assume this may not keep me safe. These dogs do make mistakes sometimes, and they are supposed to be fast and damaging. Handler's can't anticipate everything. Probably they should have anticipated this, but they are only human, and they would not be the first or last humans to fail to anticipate something that seems kind of obvious in retrospect.

I would not consider this "normal" puppy behaviour. He is suddenly dysfunctional both in and out of his home environment. Fear periods can make a dog a bit jumpy and skittish, even around things they have encountered before, but a few treats and time to investigate at their own pace if relevant should see them through. Being so scared you are constantly looking for the danger and trying to hide is not fun, and nor could it be considered adaptive in any way. I would be suspicious there is something more serious going on and get a VB to see him. It sounds to me like something has happened that has really rattled him deeply. Such a dramatic behaviour change in a short period is cause for concern IMO.

It's hard. I have just introduced a pup to my household with great trepidation, much planning, and a couple of fallback positions if it starts going south. The issue is my 6.5yo anxious dog that is also on medication and not terribly fond of puppies. We have for that reason held off bringing pup home until she's a bit older and has learned a bit about dogs from dogs other than our boy. I am confident my dog would not injure her, but he is frankly not getting the opportunity at this point. There are barriers between them all the time. The aim is to accumulate as many days with zero snarks in a row as possible while gradually increasing their exposure to one another. We are guarding against a significant and lasting emotional impact on either him or the new dog. There will be a time when the older dog will be allowed to snark at the younger dog to tell her something important, but at this early stage, that could lead to her living in fear of him or him feeling like he has to watch her like a hawk and jump in to discipline at the slightest imagined transgression. It will be another few weeks I expect before I will be considering letting them interact more directly. I'm waiting for him to stop shooting her the odd intense look. It would all be a lot harder if she wasn't a wee little dog that could easily be exercised in the small yard if necessary. As far as social skills go, I don't think it's terribly uncommon for dogs to ignore one another. It takes time for them to develop a relationship, especially if they don't really care for each other in the first place. You can teach dogs to attend to the signals of other dogs, but you need to be extremely observant and have a pretty reliable call-away. Keeping arousal low and making sure there are lots of breaks where both dogs can shake off and calm themselves is very important. Ultimately, though, dogs mostly learn how to respond to the signals of others through consequences. If we don't want the other dog to have to provide all the consequences and thus get increasingly grumpy about it all, we don't have to. We can teach them when you see a dog turn away from you, you run back to your owner for a treat. We can shape low key interactions by rewarding them before they increase in intensity. I don't think I'd want to be doing this with an anxious dog as the teacher dog, though. There's a possibility I will have to in a little while when some of the barriers come down, and if so, I will be leaning heavily on a good call-away at the slightest hint of conflict from my other dog.

I can, and so can my dogs. It is pretty easy. One has a stupid grin on their face and has more air with each bound than they need and the other has their head low and no excess movement. The really hard distinction to make is between the dogs that are bluffing and will pull up at the last moment and the dogs that are not bluffing. My dogs pick bluffers more successfully than I do, but you can bet they have a good shake off when it's all over. They are not confident everything is going to be okay. We have fortunately never faced a non-bluffer off leash that I know of, but there are some dogs that provoke my dogs to hide behind my legs rather than stand their ground. I don't know if they are real non-bluffers, but I'm not gonna find out. Nonetheless, whatever the dog's intentions, it's not very considerate. As you note, not everyone can tell the difference, and even a rolling lope with plastered stupid grin can be interpreted as threatening by a dog that is not experienced. In fact, it is considered threatening by my experienced vallhund who does not like to be buffeted by big, boisterous, friendly dogs. It's also probably one of the hardest things for the average dog owner to train out of their dog, especially if they are regular dog park goers. You have to understand the dog's motivations and the function of their behaviour and role of arousal, and it helps a lot to understand learning theory pretty well. I actually have never met a pei that doesn't have a hair trigger, but there you go.

My 13kg vallhund who looks like a cute little wolf-corgi puts the fear of god into anyone that has to come to the front door. I think if they bark reliably and sound like they mean business, that is a powerful deterrent. Everyone nearby knows there's something going on at our house. Size does matter. He's a great size for snuggling with, and a good lap warmer. He's also not very fast and is more a sprinter than a long-distance runner. Never underestimate the blessing of a dog that actually doesn't cover that much ground when they take off. ;)

There are some less traditional dog sports around these days that don't have that intense competitive nature, or the time sinks from waiting around so much. You can title your dog in tricks by submitting videos (Kyra Sundance's Trick Dog). There is dog parkour, now, which you can also get titles in by submitting videos. If you like to test your training but don't like everyone else watching it, that is one way of doing it. There is also nose work and tracking, which are not quite as intense. I love to train, but have next to no interest in trialling. Sometimes people seem to think that makes me less of a dog owner, or it means I don't know that much about training. *shrug* Good thing I don't live my life to please them.

A Podengo. :D She is a full sister of Ping. I am so ridiculously excited. I have been waiting so patiently since she was born, and I'm not sure how I'm not already dead of suppressed excitement.

It's quite doable with positive reinforcement only, but ideally you can use distance to help you, and yes, a controlled environment is a big help. That is why I run classes for these dogs. It gives them a controlled environment where we can get some practice with new coping behaviours while it's easy.

Hehe, I'm pre-puppy shopping as well. On the list is: Crash-tested pet carrier for the car - she is little! A long line Light leash about 2m long Bowl Puppy play pen I will grab a harness for her when she arrives as not sure what she will fit into at this point I am adamant I am buying a little backpack to pop her into. I've never had a dog small enough to carry in a backpack before, so dammit, she's going to learn this is fun! Preventative meds for teensy dog (heartworm, worming, fleas, ticks) Already have a crate, baby gates, Kongs, and other activity feeders and toys and bedding and grooming stuff. She is an older puppy and will be about 6 months when she comes home in a month or so.

I have a lapphund rather than a keeshond, but from my experience, all those fluffy medium spitze seem pretty similar. I say that you have to have a good sense of humour and like surprises to enjoy a spitz breed. My lappie is definitely more work on the obedience front than a working breed, but he is very responsive and has a great recall. Most of the time. Occasionally he has a "spitz moment" and blows me off, but he does it with such guileless joy that it's really hard to be annoyed about it. The lappies, sammies and keesies are all sunny, easy going, sociable dogs IME. If you don't mind the coat care and can laugh about it when the dog inevitably picks the worst moment to blow off a recall and disappear into the swamp and find a dead possum to roll in, then go for it. My lappie is a special dog, and sometimes I feel kind of guilty that he doesn't live in a big, bustling family, because he is one of those rare dogs that would thrive in it. The more the merrier as far as he is concerned. Apart from the odd spitz moment, he is an easy dog to live with.

I think temperament matters. And opportunities to socialise outside of puppy classes. My puppy is with her breeder, who is socialising for me. The puppy is bold as brass. I'm not too worried about it all being done exactly right (according to me). As long as she gets out and about regularly, I'm confident she will be fine. If it were a puppy more on the risk averse side or very alert, I might be keen for any opportunities, and I'd be very particular about making sure the puppy goes at her own pace and gets lots of positive experiences. I also love to find out what dogs are attracted to! It is so fun finding out who they are and what they like. :D Fortunately, I don't have to choose between having their full focus whenever I want it and letting them discover joy wherever they will, because I'm not sure which I would choose if I had to. Watching my dogs enjoying their environment, other dogs, people, always puts a big smile on my face, but they are happy to abandon everything to come jam with me, and that puts a bit smile on my face as well.