Aidan3

Overall is a very big name in small animal behavioural pharmacology so it would be hard to find a paper that didn't cite her work, but here are some references I've found that are available on the internet: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2007&Category=&PID=18202&O=Generic http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-3862.2008.tb00529.x/abstract This one refers to air-transport, the basic message is the same, the dog is sedated but still shows the physiological signs of anxiety: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12146895 Aiden these are excellent articles relating to noise phobia pharmacology - do you have any similar links dealing with separation anxiety? At this stage I think it's a case of trialling modern anxiolytics to see which one works best for your dog, and a lot of vets seem to be fairly well informed on those and the trial periods to employ. Which behaviour modification strategy to use is more contentious, with very little empirical support for some of the frequently suggested strategies. It's something I refer to veterinary behaviourists, so I'm not very up to date on this, sorry.

Overall is a very big name in small animal behavioural pharmacology so it would be hard to find a paper that didn't cite her work, but here are some references I've found that are available on the internet: http://www.vin.com/proceedings/Proceedings.plx?CID=WSAVA2007&Category=&PID=18202&O=Generic http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-3862.2008.tb00529.x/abstract This one refers to air-transport, the basic message is the same, the dog is sedated but still shows the physiological signs of anxiety: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12146895

ACE is not normally recommended for storm phobic dogs. From my understanding it relaxes the dog but it may still be mentally alert and distressed by the storm but unable to react which can stress the dog even more. Valium is the drug that is usually recommended for storm phobia. Although it is an idea to try it first because in some dogs (as humans) they can become more amped up. I would like to know where you get this information from. I have heard this before, but have not found a reliable source indicating that this is true. Most of the vets I speak with disagree on this point. It is a drug that is specifically and regularly prescribed for anxiety issues.

I'm fostering a dog at the moment and the previous owner left a heart-felt public message about how much she loved him and how much it saddened her to see such a wonderful dog go, but she just couldn't keep him. What she forgot to mention was the she kept him on a chain, and replaced him literally within a week of surrendering him. These sorts of stories often don't add up, and sometimes I wonder if their owners even realise that they are incongruent (i.e they genuinely believe their own stories, but lack insight).

I'm in Hobart and can recommend others, what sort of issues would you like to address? PM if preferred.

I was talking about that example, but every well designed experiment has shown that to be the case also so I think it could be taken generally. If someone comes up with a well designed experiment that demonstrates efficacy, I'm willing to reconsider that opinion. You may not be a scientist, but you are a critical thinker so your contribution in these discussions is always illuminating, even if we don't agree :) I don't think I sent that message. I said that every day I hear about dogs on medication they don't need, and others not getting medication they do need. My considered opinion is that medicating where behaviour modification might be sufficient is the lesser evil compared to not medicating when behaviour modification is not sufficient.

That's true, but save for when it's an immediate and urgent danger of irreversible harm, isn't a homeopathic remedy such as Rescue Remedy better to try first, rather than reaching for the drug cabinet? See no results in the very short term if not immediately, then move on to the 'big guns' so to speak? The most observable signs of anxiety can't go on forever, most dogs calm down outwardly fairly quickly if left to their own devices. So you can give a dog RR, the dog finds somewhere quiet to lay down, then eventually settles down and the RR gets some credit. The truth is it did nothing whatsoever, and whatever caused the anxious behaviour is still there, unaddressed, until next time. Incidentally, the same thing happens with disease and injuries. My knees hurt, it gets worse, then worse until I am motivated to seek treatment, so I go to the chemist and the sales assistant recommends the Arnica cream that her sister had great success with. My knee pain goes away, I'm happy. Until my knees start to ache again. I could repeat that cycle for years. Actually, I went to the doctor last week about a hernia that I'd first reported two years ago. Every time it hurt enough to go to the doctor the pain would go away before I'd made the appointment. Did a little googling this time, found out it could kill me. That spurred me on to make the appointment! It seems every day I hear about dogs that are on psychotropic medications they don't need, and others that aren't getting medication they definitely do need. This usually has something to do with the owner's ability to provide it, and their opinions on behaviour and medication. BTW, I'm less concerned about a dog who is getting medication without behaviour modification than a dog who is getting behaviour modification that really needs medication. There is evidence that medication can help in the long-term, even after medication has been discontinued, without prescribed behaviour modification. Dogs are always learning, if they are in a good place (biochemically) they will learn good things. Better if we can help it along, though, which is why we do what we do.

That's a good point, however I think the exceptions should be noted - where effective treatment is foregone in favour of homeopathy or prayer. Or where risk is increased on an unproven principle (e.g homeopathic "vaccines"). I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Rescue Remedy suggested where a dog might benefit greatly from an anxiolytic or given effective behaviour modification.

Some people will check and release their dog for years. 20 minutes sounds like a pretty good deal to me, if it's true, which it often isn't with that method.

That's a bit harsh, BettyPup. Normal dogs don't do that and normal people don't know what dogs can deal with. No doubt she has learned now, in fact I'd be surprised if she didn't feel some apprehension just seeing a dog in the street now.

I think you are addressing the actual problem there, but perhaps there are other ways to address this sort of problem that give you a bit more control and take some of the confrontation out of it? For e.g, leaning against your legs is a pretty good way to get some attention, so if you ignore it the behaviour soon starts to disappear. Training him to sleep on his bed (or at least to go to it when asked) is a good way to address the doorway issue (and the leaning on you) because you are telling him what you want him to do instead. I couldn't care less if my dogs walked in front of me, so long as they weren't pulling on the leash. It's not a power-play. I'd start here: http://www.sue-eh.ca/page24/page26/page10/ The "Levels" have good instructions for teaching a dog to go to a mat or crate and that's something you can use a lot, for all sorts of things (including breaking up play BEFORE it starts to get too rough, once he gets really good at going to his mat/crate/coming when called). More than many get, and no-one comes knowing what to do already. You have to learn, and asking questions is a good place to start :)

That just tells me he isn't well trained yet :) It becomes unnecessarily difficult to train a dog if you suspect he's challenging you, you stop addressing the actual problem (not listening, jumping up) and chase after the imagined problem (challenging, status-seeking) instead. A spade is a spade.

I liked that last hit Pop down to a Schutzhund club, wantaspuppy, you'll more than likely see both working there and get a better feel for the breeds.

I dare say Robert Ianson might be their best defence if this article is accurate. His claims are so spurious it should be very easy to thoroughly discredit him.

Aidan surely you are just saying this to get a bite....pardon the pun. Nope. Your dog, your responsibility. Assume everyone else in the world knows less about your dog than you do, unless you have a very good reason to trust them. To do anything else is naive, and could cost your dog's life. Obviously people can still do things that are beyond your control or responsibility, but this is not the case here. I don't know the full circumstances but there are a number of questions raised when a dog has been chasing wildlife, without mandatory vaccinations, then gets paraded around the media in a studio filled with bright lights and pointed cameras, while a complete stranger is allowed to molest the dog, the whole time the owner has a nervous death-grip on the leash...

I don't know why we're blaming the anchor, it's the owners job to know the dog and look after it. The anchor is just a normal person who doesn't know much about dogs.

I totally understand where you're coming from. I wouldn't allow my current B&T GSD girl to jump like that, even if she could. Long story ... won't bore you with the details on an open forum. Whites (like Spirit) are really put together very well & their bodies can deal with & absorb the physical demands of jumping like this extremely well. I take my dogs for a massage every week. Have done with all my dogs for about 13 years now. The lady is very qualified & is extremely thorough, so I'm right on top of any potential thing that could flair up & cause problems. :) Good to hear. My GSD was very lean, very athletic, very fit and from working lines (DDR). She had magnificent hips and elbows, but she would work herself to the point of injury and keep going if not stopped. I would expect Whites to be not quite so intense, but I figured if my girl could do the job from the ground she would be less likely to hurt herself. I'm not sure how she injured her cruciate the first time but once it happens, you pretty much expect it to happen again.

Not to make a big deal of it, but I had to teach my late GSD to guard from a standing, or standing up position as she had a few injuries jumping at the fence like that (including a cruciate injury). Better safe than sorry.

Someone told me (here on DOL) that trial organisers apply for special dispensation.

Check out the Retrieving and Field Training thread, most of the activities you can participate in do not involve hunting, although you may be required to fire a shotgun in some. Tracking is also particularly good for most breeds, especially gundogs. You can also do nosework, obedience, agility etc

Dogs got their own site here: http://www.sue-eh.ca/

A method that is based on the principles of behaviorism will more often than not be best explained by those principles. Assuming of course, that the method works. If it doesn't, then it may or may not be appropriate to reconsider one's ideas in regards to the dog's behavior. I think you might need to understand behavioural science a bit more before this sort of discussion can really go anywhere.

Freedom entails the risk of error. Reward would have no meaning in a world where there was no punishment. Why is it that one of the most common complaints we hear on these kind of forums is that the rewards one is using are no longer motivating to the dog? And why is it, that often the most commonly given advise is to increase the quality of rewards? I don't know, are people using crappy rewards? My advice is usually to back up a bit and make it easier for the dog, if the reward has lost power you've jumped ahead too many steps. I have no qualms about conditioning the dog, this is your philosophical argument and I'm underwhelmed in your attempts to convince me that what you're doing anything differently, except for the lack of any sort of positive reinforcement. I wonder why it is that you don’t understand the principle of the long line. I am not doing anything, I am not talking to the dog, I am not engaging the dog, I am not correcting nor rewarding the dog. I am trying to stay out of picture as much as it is possible, so that the dog may reward or correct himself through the choices he makes. I hear this argument a lot from Koehler style trainers and I find it particularly disingenuous. Who put the corrective collar on the dog, who attached a line to it, who holds the end of the line, and who changes direction frequently? Truly take yourself out of the picture and see what the dog learns, absolutely nothing until the line gets tangled. Even if you really do believe your own argument, how do you evidence your claim that the dog rewards or corrects 'himself'?

What a dog, or anyone finds reinforcing in any given situation depends on the situation. Any and all situations come with constraints of one kind or another. When we move from one situation to another, we are simply moving from one set of constraints to another. I know perfectly well (as you do) what will happen or not happen in the above scenario. Why do you find this significant? If I put my dog in an open field with lots of distractions and offer him a treat, should I then conclude when said dog ignores the treat for something more interesting that treats are therefore not rewarding? Yes, you absolutely should conclude that. If you're going to say something, attribute it to me, then call it stupid then you can find someone else to play with. Does that sound fair? Treats may or may not be rewarding in this situation. I'm not making any unfounded conclusions about what is or isn't rewarding, but you are. You are rejecting the notion of negative reinforcement completely in favour of a theory that you cannot support with evidence. You might as well put a crystal in your pocket and tell us the crystal is a vehicle for your dog's holy guardian angel. Sure, that sounds less plausible, but it offers the same degree of objective support. Now, maybe you're 100% correct but the onus is on you to offer evidence to support your claim. You know this because your field is philosophy, and philosophy has quite a lot to say about this. The dog can exercise his agency to avoid the correction. No doubt you've considered the old "if someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something, do you have a choice?" Of course you have a choice... Aversive conditioning is teaching. You need to somehow prove to me that it's not aversive or that we don't need aversion to formulate a coherent theory of learning. This is what you are failing to do, and worse, asking me to accept with blind faith. Do you see the problem here? Would you accept the same deal from me? I hope not. OK, lift your argument up a notch and tell me what happens if the dog chooses not to pay attention to the handler? Explain to me how this exemplifies his "freedom" and "empowerment". Avoiding the correction is reinforcing, I asked how it was preferable to giving opportunities to earn rewards they will work for? I have no idea of what you mean by this, other than the suspicion that you are once again trading on the idea of constraint versus the absence of constraint. Are you saying for instance, that bitches never correct their pups? Or are you saying that bitches ought not correct their pups? That they ought to simply allow their pups to follow whatever blind impulse their biological impulses bid them to do? Do you really think that wild animals just blindly follow their biological impulses? You do realise that many wild apes of the male gender never get to procreate? You don’t think they want to? You're obfuscating the argument. I didn't say bitches don't correct their pups or that every male gets to procreate or that animals blindly follow biological impulses. I questioned why you would only correct and never offer positive reinforcement.

I am not familar with the tenets of psychological behaviorism. As my background is in philosophy I tend to take a philosophical perspective, but I am not referring to any particular philosophical position other than my own. Not sure if that helps. Yes it does help, thank you. You're going to have to put aside philosophical behaviourism, there are very few radical behaviourists in psychology. I have seen nothing to suggest that Skinner was even a radical behaviourist. I could mount a fairly convincing (although not complete) argument that behaviourism in psychology is closer to functionalism in philosophy. My assertion remains that behaviourism (in psychology) is simply a method of objective observation. Psychology had come from a period where Freudian theories were popular. The behaviourists took the view that we couldn't measure what was going on in the mind, so they wanted to investigate what actually happened - overt behaviours (or "operants"). This could be measured quite accurately. It was revolutionary, and freed us from the tyranny of unfounded opinions in psychodynamic theories. No student of psychology is schooled in behaviourism to the exclusion of all other theories, but the methods (and the most robust findings) are taught to this day.