Aidan3

Are there any bald authority figures in your life?

I think this is why Kathy Sdao brought it up. A reinforcer is a stimulus that maintains or increases responding. If your pen ran out of ink and it was the only pen you had, you would stop using it. Actually you'd probably keep trying to get some ink out of it for a little while, scribble it back and forth really hard (extinction burst), then chuck it in the bin. Unless ink comes out of the pen, you don't bother to write with it. In other words, you only write with a pen if it puts ink on the paper. Mind you, I won't write with a pen that leaves big blobs of ink on the page. I find that really punishing.

They have a history of getting models naked for their cause. IMHO, it's the only value PETA serve to society. (just kidding!) (sort of...)

Yes, writing with a pen is writing with a pen. Writing with a pencil is writing with a pencil. Ink flowing does not reinforce writing with a pencil.

Every living creature in the history of evolution has had to do something to earn food. The exception is Paris Hilton, and look how that ended.

My aunt, a solicitor, had no idea about it when I asked her. I suspect you may be right. It doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Sorry, I don't know even for Tassie. I do know that if my dog were to bite someone through a fence, it would be an offence.

Apparently it depends on the state or territory. When I enquired I was told that if the bite was on my property behind an adequate fence then it was not an offence. I made this enquiry after a former neighbour told a police officer that jumping our fence in pursuit of a burglar would be suicide. Of course, if that were true, then the burglar wouldn't have jumped our fence in the first place (or if he did, he wasn't going anywhere), but it was enough to cause a bit of trouble...

My preferred approach is to click and treat a small amount of barking (say 5-6 barks), then while the dog is eating (if he isn't too wound up to eat), click and treat the quiet behaviour. You can gradually extend the period of quiet after the initial barking. What you will find with things like this is that it's hard to set it up for training, so you do it with door knocks and other things that cause barking first.

I keep my gates locked. My dogs don't need a sign to be noticed if you try to come in, but a child might not see them or understand, particularly if they are friendly with them outside my yard. Of course, there are all those self-proclaimed "dog whisperers" out there too.

Can you explain why, in your opinion, it would make a difference? It's not my experience that dominant dogs are more likely to fight, but let's say for the sake of the discussion that they are, why would it make a difference? It doesn't make any practical difference to the outcome but the OP is asking about dog aggression specifically which is why I suggested there could be another reason why dogs fight or ''attack'' Dominant dog approached in a threatening, non-respectful way by another dog and it won't fight? Not in my world The wonderful thing about truly dominant dogs is that they are so rarely approached in a threatening, non-respectful way by another dog and even more rarely need to do anything other than ritualised aggression to end it, but I get your point. Yes, there are many reasons for dog (and human, and cat, and bird, and ...) aggression. In my opinion every animal has the right to reasonable self-defence, and normal dogs are very reasonable in self-defence. The law doesn't necessarily agree, though.

Can you explain why, in your opinion, it would make a difference? It's not my experience that dominant dogs are more likely to fight, but let's say for the sake of the discussion that they are, why would it make a difference?

You're both right. You don't deny a dog fair assessment because it is of a particular breed, that ignores individual differences and perhaps more importantly, circumstances. On the other hand you don't pretend that a population (in this case, a breed) doesn't have a "typical" phenotype, thus ignoring the mean for the population, e.g we don't use GSDs as gun-dogs, but no doubt there are some GSDs who would make reasonable gundogs and some labs who would make terrible gundogs.

What are the points? That a GR is capable of attack/defending its owner? Well, yes that is a point, a couple more to ponder: 1. this dog responded to stimuli which threatened his existence by using aggression 2. this dog is now many more times likely to attack another human being if threatened because it worked, and because he is more sensitive to those stimuli

I must be missing something. Pretty much everyone agrees that breed shouldn't matter, and that pitbulls should get the same assessment that Goldens do. Why wouldn't you agree with that? I think it matters in sofar as in "If you have a breed that is programmed to attack ie. strong fighting instincts you are forwarned that an attack has a higher likelihood of occurring than a more placid breed would, so you have odds stacked in your favour or against depending on certain breeds and hopefully you have chosen a breed that is within the confines of your ability and situation as a family and as a dog trainer/handler. In that respect breed does well and truly come into it. Sure, I think the argument was concerning events after the fact though. Media portrayal etc

I must be missing something. Pretty much everyone agrees that breed shouldn't matter, and that pitbulls should get the same assessment that Goldens do. Why wouldn't you agree with that?

No, but didn't we get that the first time it was brought up? I think poodlefan summed it up the best.

I hesitate to post this, because I know that for many, the points will be hard to see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ang-attack.html

I love "speak", it is a great party trick! I would be hesitant in teaching it to a problem barker though as barking may have become a self-rewarding behaviour for them. They may learn to chain the behaviour eg. bark to get you to say quiet, if you heavily reward the quiet command. I think its safer just to reward calm behaviour than to teach "speak" and "quiet" to a problem barker. Seems to depend on the trainer more than the dog Barking in response to knocking on the door is "safe", the dog already barks in response to knocking on the door, we're just clicking for 2 or 3 barks, instead of 100 barks. Everyone is scared of rewarding the barking though, which is silly, because it's already being rewarded. It's not going to get worse! We're also changing the reason for barking, the dog is now barking for food instead of safety/excitement/whatever. It's much easier to control food, and thus easier to control how it's earned. Very sneaky...

You're both right! Teaching a dog to bark on cue can be a disaster if you don't get it under stimulus control, but fantastic if you do. That's why I recommend teaching the dog to bark on cue, for a short amount of time, with the cue being a knock on the door. If he's already barking at that, you're not risking anything so you can't really go wrong.

Behavioral assessment of child‐directed canine aggression

An exercise I like because it works and it's simple, but it takes a little bit of practise, is as follows: Stand near your door. Have a clicker (yes, you have to use a clicker) and some yummy treats. Knock on the door, just on the inside of the door. He will see you do it. This doesn't usually matter, but if it does, knock discretely. When he barks, click immediately, toss the treat, while he is eating the treat, click again, and toss another treat. You can practise this over and over, even if he's given up barking, it doesn't matter, but only for a couple of minutes at a time. So what are we doing here? 1. we're clicking and treating for barking in response to the door knock, but only a small amount of barking 2. we're clicking and treating for not barking, while he is eating the treat he isn't barking 3. we're chaining these two behaviours together; bark for a short time, then be quiet for a short time. Progression: 1. knock on door, click immediately for barking, toss the treat, pause half a second, click again, toss another treat. Repeat a few times. 2. knock on door, click immediately for barking, toss the treat, pause a second, click again (if he's still quiet), toss another treat. Repeat a few times. 3. knock on door, click immediately for barking, toss the treat, pause for two seconds, click again (if he's still quiet), toss another treat. Repeat a few times. ...gradually build up the period of silence after the barking, second by second. 4. have a friend come over and knock on the door for you. Do several repetitions. This works like a charm if done according to the instructions. It may seem counter-intuitive to you, I am happy to answer any questions though. Some dogs learn to whine and squeal when wearing an anti-bark collar because the higher-pitched sounds don't trigger some models.

A friend of mine had a welder make one up for her. It has locking doors at the rear so that she can leave the door open for cooling when she is at trials, training etc.

OK, where do you draw the line between a "kick" and a "tap"? You said there is a huge difference between the two, which is a good start, but how do you define the difference? The intent of the trainer, the effect on the dog, physical damage, psychological damage, if it's to elicit a response to correct, is it "necessary" to do it this way or is it even necessary to correct the response? Opinions are fine, examples are better, evidence to support your argument is best if you have it. P.S a lot of these points have been discussed in detail already, I would rather continue from where we already got to unless you require clarification on something that I have said.

If you want to get in on the debate, it's all there for you. Just about everyone has "agreed with some methods" and acknowledged the good so I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise? Not that it should be necessary to be politically correct and avoid stepping on anyone's toes just so you can have an adult discussion of specific issues.