Aidan3

That's exactly what I mean by using the food as a reward rather than a distraction. It's training an alternative behaviour (or behaviours in this case, he has to keep his attention on you).

My dog is quite good at barking with her mouth full of tennis ball... There are always some who are a bit more special :laugh:

That would be a good thing, at least you would know what was maintaining the barking so you could make something else work (e.g heeling) to earn the treats! The trick with treats is not to distract, but to reward. The presence of food shouldn't be a cue in and of itself. I would hesitate to recommend anything without seeing your dog, but here are a list of things you could try: 1. bark and shush on cue 2. incompatible behaviour (e.g carry something in the mouth) 3. long duration behaviours where the over-arching criterion is "silence" (e.g heeling, where the most important thing is that it is done without barking).

I'm sure the actual tree-hugging greenies are probably wondering how they got dragged into this also?

Cool, my backpack arrived today. Can't wait to use it, even though my current dog's idea of being reactive is to play-bow at inappropriate moments (bless him).

That sounds quite sensible, Crisovar. A more transparent process could have achieved a better outcome without the hysterics.

Same here, even if I wasn't worried about people with malicious intent, human error makes it worthwhile.

One thing that isn't mentioned often, probably due to a lack of research, is the possibility of Seasonal Affective Disorder in dogs. There is really no reason why susceptible dogs wouldn't suffer from this in the same way susceptible humans do, although last time I checked there wasn't much literature on it. Also, vitamin D deficiency is another possibility if dogs are kept inside for long periods without much sun exposure. I have some anecdotal evidence for SAD in dogs, but nothing more objective.

I love going out in the mud and rain with the dogs.

No. Stray dogs sometimes hold territory, but more often share it with other strays if they are about. Resources come into it. There are a number of good studies of stray domestic dogs which are worth searching for, one thing that might surprise you is the variance in reports of what stray dogs will do when it comes to social behaviours. Sometimes they form loose packs, other times they don't. Their range is quite variable too.

Thanks for the tips, TessnSean. In future when someone makes a deeply offensive accusation of me, I'll be sure to keep this definition mind. Lol

Excuse me? Where did I treat you like a fool? I commented explicitly that your arguments were stronger than those of the article that you shared. If you feel like a fool because I pointed out how nonsensical that article was and you agree, then there's not much I can do about that. I gave an honest opinion on the article, and I said I thought your arguments were stronger. If you don't want to attract other's opinions (or refuse to take them as they are), don't post. If you are insinuating that I use an alias, either produce some evidence or an apology. It is deeply offensive to suggest that I would use a second account to support my opinions. I'm one of the few people who post here with my real name and despite all the impassioned debates I've been involved with, and the repeated personal attacks by a couple of well known trolls here, I've never had a single warning. This is a personal attack. You have no idea how informed I am, or is just anyone who shares a slightly different opinion "uninformed" in your eyes? I have no part to play in your being treated as a fool, nor am I responsible for BSL or docking. I explicitly stated that I think AR do have something to do with this. If you can't be bothered comprehending what I have to say, don't complain that you think I am treating you like a fool. I asked if you think I or TW are 'animal rights nutters'? We're most emphatically not, yet we think there is some merit to having judges exposed to scrutiny from veterinarians given their occasional history of putting up dogs with outwardly apparent health issues. Personally, I think Crufts got it wrong, though. No transparency, it was always going to bite them on the bum.

It's a little disturbing that people concerned about the health and function of pedigree dogs are being labelled animal rights nutters. I'm not convinced that's what is happening here, but I do think that some are dismissing this as an 'animal rights' issue so that they can ignore the more conservative claims of purebred dog enthusiasts. I also think if you ignore reasonable people who you share common ground with, your cause has no hope at all. ETA: just to clarify the distinction, I think there really are a minority of vocal 'animal rights nutters' involved with this, but they are not the only party involved.

No need to worry about the 'animal rights zealots', the purebred dog world will do itself in. There are some serious problems with this new scheme, but many of the opinions I see written on it seems to rely on digs at 'animal rights zealots', the slippery slope fallacy, then dies it's death (usually early on) by Godwin's Law. Your own arguments are much stronger, Jed. Let's have a dispassionate and open-minded look at the facts. Zackly. Although it is animal rights. I copped a hiding about BSL and docking but it all came to pass. This will too. Go Peke!! You good thing you People seem to say I am saying there is nothing wrong with purebred dogs. Incorrect. I am saying - get the proof. Not of a couple of crook dogs, we know that, but of a whole breed, or of a good percentage. I have no idea why people fail to believe that AR has anything to do with this. At every point, they are telling us what they are doing, yet we are not hearing. Am I an "animal rights nutter"? Or is Telida Whippets an "animal rights nutter"?

No need to worry about the 'animal rights zealots', the purebred dog world will do itself in. There are some serious problems with this new scheme, but many of the opinions I see written on it seems to rely on digs at 'animal rights zealots', the slippery slope fallacy, then dies it's death (usually early on) by Godwin's Law. Your own arguments are much stronger, Jed. Let's have a dispassionate and open-minded look at the facts.

I think you're probably guilty of projecting your own values onto dogs here. I see a lot of dogs with owners who are actively seeking a solution to their dogs aggressive behaviours, they all learn how to manage their dogs but they don't all end up with lovely, sociable dogs who wouldn't hurt a puppy.

Distance, distance, distance... stack the deck in your favour. There is nothing wrong with doing desensitisation and counter-conditioning the old fashioned way, working well below threshold. It works. A verbal marker is fine for most of what I have described.

It means your dog is in a high state of arousal.. that's all. Doesn't necessarily relate to aggression but your dog's responses (in whatever manner she responds) will be triggered more easily in that state. This big GSD I'm fostering has his hackles up greeting other dogs, it scares a few owners but he's a big sweetie and very considerate of other dogs :laugh: As he's got used to meeting other dogs he's doing it less and less.

"Abstract Components of rat pups' ingestive responses to orally infused milk came to be elicited by a novel odor conditioned stimulus (cedar) that had been repeatedly paired with milk infusions (Experiment I). Pups responded specifically to one odor, and they did not generalize their conditioned responding to either another odor or an unscented airstream (Experiment II). Ingestive responses could also be conditioned to a vibrotactile CS paired with milk, although levels of conditioned responding were lower than were obtained with an odor CS (Experiment III). Pups' internal state determined the effectiveness of training, in that pups that were removed from their dam for 24 hr showed reliable conditioned responding, while nondeprived pups and dehydrated pups did not (Experiment IV). Finally, pups showed retention of conditioned responding for at least several days after training (Experiment V)." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dev.420170404/abstract

I think this is where the misperception comes from, it's partly true. But it doesn't mean that no dog will ever attack a puppy, and in nature there are many examples across different species.

Just a word of caution, some dogs find the vibration to be more aversive than low-level electrical stimulation, so there would be some ethical concerns. I realise that this is an informal experiment, but at the very least I would be seeking informed consent from the dog's owners. I would use a stimulus other than the clicker, some of the dogs may have had prior exposure to the clicker. The next problem to solve would be how to measure the association that you are trying to form? You would need to untangle any reinforcement effects from the vibro-tactile stimulation, either as an aversive or as a primary positive reinforcer (sans food). Physiological measures might be the most appropriate (e.g salivation, if you are using food). A search of previous literature (which does exist) might point you in the right direction, or even answer your question directly. Luckily these days a lot of this literature (particularly from the behaviourist era) is readily available and can be found using Google Scholar.

I would just work on counter-conditioning him to those things. For e.g, if your sister's kids can cooperate, have them walk past quickly without making much noise (have dog on leash). Click and treat for calm behaviour. Gradually increase the strength of the stimulus, have them run a little faster, start introducing a bit of noise. If you know when they will make the noise, click immediately, before he has had a chance to react. You can do something similar with the blowing raspberries. If he is reactive to other dogs, start working with him at a distance. Click and treat calm behaviour. I think that's as simple as it needs to be. If you were an experienced clicker trainer and the problem was really bad you could do what's known as "Differential Reinforcement of Least Intense Response", whereby you click the least intense responses and shape those responses down to calm responses over time. There is always a way.

Well said. This is not simply protecting livestock as many people seem to think, and dog-owner accepts the fate of dogs who harass livestock. The vindictiveness from the farmer is hurtful, totally unnecessary and shows a complete lack of empathy. No wonder the town is divided, we do not want this sort of person living in our community. Dogs are destroyed in defence of livestock regularly, we don't usually hear about it and it doesn't divide communities.

Dog-owner is clearly well aware of the problems that roaming dogs can cause and is not against a farmers right to humanely protect livestock. I am astounded that some of you still feel the need to drive this point home for several pages. Particularly when this person has only just lost their dogs in this way. It might be a necessary part of livestock care, that doesn't make it any less heart-breaking for the dog owner if they care about their dogs, so show a bit of tact. This is not simply a case of a farmer protecting livestock, either.

Dogs are social animals with social rules, but it's very rare that I ever see a dog who I imagine is trying to overthrow anyone. The owner needing to take control of the situation, on the other hand, is usually the reason they have sought help.