Aidan3

Where did clipandcoach refer to negative reinforcement incorrectly? Looks alright to me. If a behaviour is increased or maintained in order to avoid an aversive, that is negative reinforcement. The aversive in this case is correctly referred to as a reinforcer. I agree that "modern" dog trainers, that is dog trainers today, use more positive reinforcement today than at any time in the recorded history of dog training. What any one individual does or did, I don't care to comment on, but across the board that would certainly be a statement of fact and not a matter of opinion.

The same guy operates "Pets Force Warehouse", see: http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic...?f=6&t=4422

I like where this conversation has gone, I hope it's OK with aussielover, but you're quite right - it does require a definition. This is the problem that many trainers have with drive, and some academics also have (e.g Corvus). The way I see most dog trainers and breeders use the term I believe we are discussing something innate and to some extent, reproduceable in off-spring. There seems to be some consensus on what we are calling prey-drive, pack-drive, defence-drive etc so I think it's useful. It also fits reasonably well with Hull's Drive Reduction Theory, although what we use in the dog world seems to be a derivative of that and has it's own nuances that are independent, poorly defined and pretty much untested. This thread has demonstrated that there is probably not a great deal of consensus on where we might apply the labels "high drive" or "low drive". What are we looking for and how do we test it? How do we compare a Springer Spaniel to a Malinois on prey drive? We really can't, they are completely different expressions (traits) of something we call the same thing in both cases, because we assume they have similar origins in chasing prey. However, as far as testing goes, I think working demands, working tests, and sporting trials do a pretty good job of selecting dogs with the right amount of drive for a particular set of tasks.

They smash the window when waiting patiently at the door doesn't work. They drag a lounge chair in front of the TV you were trying to watch.

double post gremlins

By "very high drive dogs", are we talking about dogs with a high capacity for arousal, that are also easily aroused and highly motivated towards most rewards? Do they tend to have a high baseline level of arousal? If you think of it in terms of Hull's "Drive Reduction Theory" you would say they took more to satisfy; e.g a "normal" Lab might retrieve a ball from the river 20 times in a row, a "high drive" Lab might retrieve a ball from the river 80 times in a row. If you plotted a graph, high drive would be a couple of standard deviations off the mean for whatever activity you were measuring (e.g retrieves in a single session before resting).

plenty of very high drive dogs have the ability to switch off & relax when they need to I think it's imperative, and it's something that I insist upon. I have a long list of rules about sleeping during the day and night, not fussing in a crate or vehicle, not playing in the house etc but there is a big trade-off in terms of exercise, mental stimulation and consistency that I don't think most people could or would want to provide. If you tried to treat these dogs like other dogs they wouldn't spend too much time "paused" and most people couldn't live with them comfortably. I don't think my classification method is very fair, obviously there is a large middle ground of dogs most people wouldn't call "low drive" Which makes my statement that 75% of dogs doing obedience and ANKC agility are "low drive" unfair. Maybe 25% high drive, 70% normal and 5% low drive?

I agree. A decent club could sort these issues out. Dogs that get distracted aren't necessarily "high drive" just not motivated enough to do what you're asking of them. Your job is to teach them that self control and obedience to your cues brings reward. You own a breed that routinely wins at the highest level of competition. Don't write your dog off. Apart from that I've seen some video of Shelley and she is like a ball of clay, just waiting to be turned into something!

So are they high-drive dogs, or have they had the best brought out in them? It could be my tendency of lumping dogs into one of two categories, those who don't pause for long (high drive) and those who most people could live with quite comfortably (low drive). On reflection, this thread might be devoted to the lowest 15% or so? In which case I think it would be difficult to be competitive without a lot of patience because training sessions would be painfully short and infrequent.

I suppose it depends on what you call "low drive". I would consider roughly 75% of dogs in obedience and ANKC agility rings to be "low drive" compared to many other working arenas.

Of course, "fitness" is an important factor too.

Some individuals might be very unlucky, but the sorts of illnesses that smoking causes usually take longer to develop than dogs live for. On the other hand, allergies and cardiovascular fitness can be affected relatively quickly.

Ahh, OK. Well to be honest more of them are like that than not like that so I wouldn't write her off just yet! You just need to adjust your training to suit. Start here: http://www.dragonflyllama.com/%20DOGS/Leve...LevelsBook.html and begin with "Go to Mat". If you have to lead her there then you aren't following these instructions Start with just going to the mat, build up the distance you can send her from, worry about how long she stays there later, just click (or use a verbal marker) when she gets to the mat. When you are ready to add duration to staying on the mat, start with 1 second and build up in 1 second increments. From memory, the book explains how to do this. It's not their job and forget about "being dominant" - just show them step by step, inch by inch, second by second what to do. Make it easy, make it rewarding. If they can't do it, change what you're doing, make it easier. I wouldn't worry too much about that, Morgan sounds like a very tolerant dog who doesn't do such a bad job, and Kettle just sounds a little bit socially inept (probably from missing a critical period of socialisation). He might not think he rules the roost but at the moment he does have to look after himself, and it's a bit beyond him. Management, training, keep it simple, keep it clean, step by step and life will get much easier for him.

Will she target an object with her nose or paw, Lhok?

What sort of training have you attempted to show Kettle what he should do instead of resource guarding and giving Morgan the $#ts? Can he go to a mat and stay there on cue? I would definitely ramp up the management strategies for now. They don't seem to be solving their own problems and there is a good chance things will escalate. They need to know what to do around food and when visitors come to the door, and these things sound like the obvious priorities, but until you can do that in controlled settings - keep them separated unless you can confidently supervise and control them. There are several good threads on breaking up dog fights here, familiarise yourself with them in case something goes badly wrong one day. Have a plan in place, just in case. It's a good idea anyway, accidents happen and not necessarily amongst your own dogs. I have a client with a similar problem at the moment. We just started with each of her dogs individually and taught them exactly what we want them to do in response to a knock on the door. I would suggest you teach them (using positive reinforcement) to go to a mat or crate and stay there in response to a knock on the door. You can do the door knocks at first, then enlist a helper later in the proofing stage. If they can't be trusted with any food together then separate them somehow (tether, baby gate) and get them used to waiting their turn to take a treat from you. Only reward good manners and deference. These things are good leadership - you take control. It's not Morgan's job, and although he seems to have done a reasonable job so far, it's not his responsibility and if it comes to any sort of conclusion, you probably won't like his choices! But it won't be his fault. I'm guessing Kettle was about 12-14 weeks when you got him and missed a hugely important critical period for socialisation? That's a real shame. Not his fault either.

My daughter says we have a Goldematriever, and a "big scary wolf" (GSD).

Here's hoping your dog doesn't have $6000 worth of veterinary costs every nine months though! One of my dogs has incurred more costs than premiums over the last 9 years. Between both my dogs I'm well in front by self-insuring. That would be a difficult strategy for many, though.

I had some concerns that the loop would wear but two years on and it's showing no signs of weakness. Sabella wears hers as a regular collar, adjusted appropriately. I don't think they would be very good as a correction collar, no sound.

I don't know why I didn't think of that http://www.allnaturalpetcare.com/Animal_Nu...ne_Behavior.pdf

Is that your opinion? Or is it an accepted fact? You don't believe reliability can be increased by consequences for disobeying? Corvus was quite specific that it was "weak conditioning" and I would agree with that. Conditioning does not equal "positive reinforcement", in the same way that reliability does not equal "negative consequences". Punishment can be a part of building a reliable behaviour through stronger conditioning, but it isn't a prerequisite.

You would think so, wouldn't you? But...

I'm not sure exactly how you're teaching this, but I probably wouldn't have started with active indication. It sounds like he has learned to scratch at boxes until you either take him away or reinforce him on a schedule. That's alright if you want a dog who scratches boxes, but unfortunately it isn't scent detection Someone more familiar with your course curriculum (Nekhbet?) might offer a suggestion that fits better, but I would be doing thousands of trials of passive indication, at first just rewarding when he accidentally sniffs the correct box, then (after a LOT of trials) expecting him to sniff a little longer on the boxes with the target scent, as if he is wondering why I haven't clicked yet because he knows he's definitely got the box that makes me click. Active indication can be put in later when he understands what he is looking for and it can't cause any issues. I would want my dog "trying again" as soon as possible so that he can figure out what makes the reward happen. I was really asking the question just to get you thinking about jackpots, and possibly to avoid losing points in an assessment if that's the sort of detail they look for. Small pieces of food are usually enough and we don't want them to seem like a disappointment if the dog is used to getting larger rewards. Jackpots are a double-edged sword. I have people swear and declare that jackpots work, but with a bit of probing you start to suspect their assessment of what works is a bit deceptive. We want the dog to be keen and motivated every trial, not just the ones immediately after a jackpot then falling back below whatever level would have been there if a jackpot hadn't been used. If jackpots or frequent corrections are necessary then something is wrong, always worth looking a bit deeper if you find yourself using one or the other. In this case I think you've just moved a bit fast and skipped over the foundations.

Did you access this on campus by any chance? I can't seem to access it from my home computer. Did they mention anything about tryptophan deficiencies in dogs fed corn as the primary protein source?

http://doggonesafe.blogspot.com/2011/02/st...o-not-know.html "Some Key Risk Factors Identified in this Study Children considering themselves to be the highest authority over the dog Children walking the dog without adult supervision Ignorance of dog body language signals - considered by the authors to be the main bite risk factor"