Aidan3

Agree with those who suggest just walking away. If the dog wants to play, it is not the time or place. If the dog is being territorial, you're doing what he had hoped. If he wants a fight, you're less likely to end up with one.

One of the happiest moments I had with this foster was when he started sniffing bums.

Not cool, and I would not invite play with that dog, but no reason to panic either. Staying calm will get you out of that situation more often than not. It sounds like Rosie deals with it fairly well.

Hmmm - if you keep going to a doctor to have your appendix removed, may I suggest that perhaps you need a new doctor! ;) Thankfully they got it out the first time! Whereas if I'd gone to a faith healer...

I'm in the same boat, I have a foster GSD here after losing both of my dogs within a short time. To make matters better/worse (can't decide) he is a lot like my old GSD. Taking him on all the walks I used to take my old dogs on has been difficult, but I think it was something I had to do and at least I can watch Toby enjoying himself, making new friends, experiencing things he seems to have never experienced before.

I have already read and commented on that article. I find it extremely weak at best. And again, you are referring me to a study of typical pet owners. Typical dog owners who sought information from a number of sources, including dog trainers. I am not going to trawl through every journal article I have ever read (most of which neither of us can access off-campus) to prove a point to you that you are clearly not interested in taking. If you expect to find a study that will answer every question you might raise directly, you are either dreaming or deliberately trying to point-score in a pointless argument. You introduced the claim that dog trainers have treated these problems successfully for years. You prove it. You have studied philosophy, you know that it is your responsibility to evidence claims that you introduce. You hold me to a higher standard than you are willing to take yourself. This is the internet, it's not worth upsetting each other over things that we will probably never see eye to eye on.

Just a word of caution, no playing with other dogs while dragging a long line. Can end in tears.

That would be a "lunge line", softer on the hands. A tracking leash is probably the best, but lunge lines from horse supply shops are cheaper.

Went there once, decided he liked it, wants more :laugh: Agree with others re building a stronger recall. If you see a yellow lab, get in first and call him to you before he has a chance. Some dogs will object, not always pretty. He may also decide to broaden his horizons.

Just budget for a Roomba as well :laugh: Or whip around with a 'swiffer' each morning, that doesn't take long and stops the dust bunnies from forming.

I still think it's worth engaging a professional even if you know enough to understand the protocols. It can be a terrible lost opportunity to try something and not quite get it right due to lack of experience, in some cases you burn the chance to use the least invasive method by 'sensitising' the Sorry to go off topic , but can you please expand on this Aidan2? Thanks Sure, imagine your dog is afraid of men with hats. You decide to use a desensitisation protocol utilising classical conditioning. Whenever you see a man in a hat you act all jolly and play with your dog, the idea being that he will associate men in hats with you being playful and happy. The only problem is that the jolly routine, or the way you do it, might not be all that wonderful to your dog. So now every time you do it, your dog is starting to tense up, expecting a man in a hat to appear. Before you realise, all of a sudden every time you get a bit excited about something, he tenses up and waits for the man in the hat to appear. You didn't do anything "wrong" as far as the procedure goes, you just didn't know what to look for to make it work or weren't able to reassess and pick another approach that might be favourable.

Can you please direct me to research which shows widespread misdiagnoses amongst dog trainers. Can you also show me the research that shows learned helplessness to be a widespread outcome of dog trainers interventions. Koehler's suggested treatment for dogs with separation anxiety was to leave, returning unexpectedly when they whine to beat them with a leather strap or belt "until he thinks it's the bitter end". If you google "learned helplessness" I don't think you'll have too much trouble piecing it together. Or you could look at the relationship between punitive training techniques and separation related behaviours reported in this article: http://www.azs.no/artikler/art_training_methods.pdf Unfortunately we can't always find a study that answers specific questions. Sometimes we have to piece together information from different sources (and our own experiences). Whilst this study doesn't answer your questions directly, it does fill in some of the gaps: http://www.friendsofthedog.co.za/uploads/6/0/9/1/6091047/trainingarticle.pdf

Straw-man argument. The fact that these problems have been treated successfully by experience trainers for years without the use of drugs. False premise. No, we have never treated separation anxiety, noise phobias, or stereotypies with much success without the use of drugs. The fact that we can today is a triumph of the science I so naively put my faith in. It was frequently diagnosed as "submission", or paradoxically, "dominance". In the latter, the symptoms (but not the cause) were suppressed. The dogs were still anxious, sometimes more so, but punished into shutting down the overt behaviours associated with it. Learned helplessness was not an uncommon side-effect, which is an utter tragedy. If the dog was lucky, a bullet ended the problem. If the dog was really lucky, the greedy drug companies would profit from a pentobarbital sale. Who says? Scientists? Now of course scientists could never be self-decieved as to nature of what they are doing could they? They could never be biased in the way in which they conduct their research could they? Of course they can, and are. Science is a process, not an isolated event. The fact that published data is available for scrutiny should speak volumes as to it's honesty. I am as free to criticise as I am to collect data, as are you for that matter. What is better, Dr Seksel meticulously taking data on 200 dogs randomly allocated to groups; or the dog trainer who only has his own opinions and observations to go by and only shares that which they would want you to know? Science is a human practice conducted by real people in the real world. The idea that scientists are less subject to the kind self-deceptions as the rest of us, is I find, rather naïve. Perhaps it is naive of me to go to a doctor when I need my appendix removed, rather than a faith healer? If that is naive, then I'm OK with that.

I still think it's worth engaging a professional even if you know enough to understand the protocols. It can be a terrible lost opportunity to try something and not quite get it right due to lack of experience, in some cases you burn the chance to use the least invasive method by 'sensitising' the dog to it. Despite it's simplicity, I rarely see anyone using classical conditioning in it's most effective form (as an example). One of the worst outcomes is to associate the toy or food with bad things happening, but more often conditioning just doesn't result. Thank you - I take your point. I can only comment on my own experiences - I guess I was looking for something a bit more innovative. We all are :laugh: For most things, the basics done well are best though.

I still think it's worth engaging a professional even if you know enough to understand the protocols. It can be a terrible lost opportunity to try something and not quite get it right due to lack of experience, in some cases you burn the chance to use the least invasive method by 'sensitising' the dog to it. Despite it's simplicity, I rarely see anyone using classical conditioning in it's most effective form (as an example). One of the worst outcomes is to associate the toy or food with bad things happening, but more often conditioning just doesn't result.

Still dodging my questions. Do you have any evidence that veterinary behaviourists are inappropriately medicating dogs, are inexperienced in working with dogs, or that the ten fold increase in medication is indicative of an actual problem? Or are your arguments purely philosophical? The irony here is that you dismissed Dr Seksels academic experience as not being 'hands on' experience in working with dogs. The truth is that science is the most honest firm of actual hands on experience we have. Self deception is rife out in the "real world". Anyone who tells me that dogs are being 'doped up' really shouldn't be passing comment on the use of drugs.

Yep totally agree with - the big pharmaceutical companies trying to make more bucks. Not enough people taking their benzos and anti-depressants, now lets drug our pets. Heaven forbid we should help those in need, so long as those greedy drug companies don't get our money.

Or to the environment? I'm well aware of the effect of the environment on these things, you are dodging the point. Ruling out biology would entail me saying something like, any and all behavioral problems can be solved by training. As I don't say that, I haven't ruled out the role biology plays. Nor do I rule out the benefits of medication where necessary. Ignoring is not ruling out, you are dodging the point. You said that medications treat the symptoms, and not the causes. That suggests that the cause of anxiety is either not biochemical, or that medication does not address this problem. I don't know what you mean by this question. Trainers have been rehabilitating problem dogs for years, everything from anxiety to severe aggression without the use of drugs. We have never had a good track record with separation anxiety or noise phobias. Anyone who tells you otherwise is flat-out lying to gain your business. Only in the mildest cases, and even then we're better at treating the symptoms than the cause. So far the evidence you have shared is one quote, most likely taken out of context, to back up this claim. My experience tells me otherwise. I'll share one of those experiences with you, I consulted a veterinary behaviourist interstate about a specific problem once and she knew who I was because she enjoyed reading my articles on dog training and recognised the name. It was our first meeting. I'll ask again, do you have a pragmatic reason for doubting behaviourists (e.g actual or vicarious experience) or is this purely philosophical?

The cultural problem is not medication. Medication is simply the means in which we use to treat the symptom rather than the underlying cause. How so? What are the causes of a neurotransmitter imbalance? Do you realise how sensitive our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are to our biochemistry? Does it work the other way? Can we "train out" chemical imbalances? What are the factors that determine success in the short term? Or the long term? All tricky questions which many don't consider, or flippantly assume they know the answers to. To say that medication treats the symptoms rather than the cause certainly ignores the role of biology in behaviour to a large extent. Either that or you just don't know what the medications in question actually do. Which is certainly not uncommon. If a dog trainer said to me that in the last ten years her prescribing drugs had increased ten-fold in treating problem behaviors in dogs I would start running in the opposite direction. You seem to be comfortable with this development, I am not. In the last ten years there has been more than a ten-fold increase in the use of smart-phones and the internet, too. Why would that be? Perhaps you might ponder the multitude of reasons why Dr Stevenson might prescribe more medication than ten years ago. You might also consider the cultural changes that see us putting more effort into dogs that would otherwise have been knocked on the head ten years ago. Tell me, are you denying that veterinary behaviourists have success with the dogs they treat? Is there a pragmatic reason for "running in the opposite direction", or is it purely philosophical?

I don't know, but having read her biography http://www.sabs.com.au/staff_profiles.htm I can't see what I would call considerable hands on working experience with dogs. She has devoted her life to working with dogs and has probably worked with more dogs than you or I have had hot dinners. Dr Seksel is one of Australia's most highly regarded veterinary behaviourists and she did not get that reputation without working successfully with a LOT of dogs. I wouldn't expect to see her instructing at the local obedience club or putting it on her CV if she did. The amount of dogs abandoned to shelters and pounds suggests that lack of proper leadership, training and exercise happens far too often. That's a different argument and this has been a problem long before one could even specialise in veterinary behavioural medicine. What does that have to do with medication? What is the cultural problem that you identified specifically concerning medication? So do you have any evidence to suggest that there are more poor veterinary behaviourists out there than poor trainers? I would suggest that the chances of finding a poor trainer are significantly higher.

A large body of research also informs the medical profession, but as I live with a doctor I know that drugs are too often not prescribed in what you might call an informed manner. With doctors it is often simply easier to proscribe than having to deal with highly unpleasant, aggressive patients etc. The high (and increasing) rate of drugs prescribed to dogs is a cultural problem, not a medical problem. I would have much more faith in veterinary behaviorists ability to properly diagnose behavioral problems if said vets also had considerable training experience. But then I suspect many dog owners have neither the time or inclination to train. Drugs provide a very easy option. And of course, provide no harm to the pockets of behaviorists. What is the "cultural problem" that you have identified (in relation to dogs)? Are you suggesting that Dr Seksel (for example, as she is the main veterinary behaviourist interviewed in the article) does not have considerable training experience? Or that the dogs in the article have been misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly? I would suggest we live in a better world with drugs than without, although it may contribute to the pet overpopulation problem as previously these dogs lived mercifully short lives. If people stop training and exercising their dogs in preference to medication, then I think we would have a serious cultural problem; and that does happen, but not as often as suggested. Most people who fork out for veterinary behaviourist services and drugs (which are very expensive, not being subsidised by the PBS) have a genuine need. For the dogs who are prescribed drugs, but do not strictly "need" them, the medication offers little benefit. SSRIs and TCAs are not tranquilizers or sedatives and in fact, may have the opposite effect. Their owners are unlikely to see improvement, and hopefully will take different measures in light of this information.

Do you know of any cases where benzos have been prescribed for long-term, regular use?

All medicines, including anxiolytics, should be carefully prescribed. Thankfully a large body of research informs trained professionals when, where and how they should be used to benefit dogs and what the risks are.

It's all a conspiracy by big pharma who sponsor all the so-called research. Poor drugged out puppies lost in a purple haze.

OK thanks - I have not found the behaviour modification strategies recommended by behaviourists effective at all. Its either the medication or the collar now. Meds and DAP both have a good track record for separation anxiety. It's not a nice problem to treat, but there are options at least. Good luck with it.