Category Archives: Dog Behaviour

02/1/12

Select, Select, Select

For too long we’ve cried “socialise, socialise, socialise”.  I vote for a new slogan: “select, select, select”.

Ultimately, to bring a confident, happy, sound, enjoyable new puppy into the household, three critical selections need to be made:

We need people to select an appropriate breed. They need to know what characteristics fit in with their family or lifestyle. Genetics hugely determine the behaviours of dogs.  There are countless resources explaining how to consider the breed most suitable to you.  This includes practical appearance criteria, like “how big?” and physically appealing charactertisitcs.  Then, nitty gritty criteria regarding owner energy compared to the dog’s, and willingness to groom.  An understanding of the breed’s original purpose and how that original purpose might be annoying (e.g. a breed bred to retrieve likes to use their mouth, a breed bred to herd may nip and herd people, a breed bred to kill vermin often are indiscriminate with pocket pets).  In short, new owners need to research breeds and work out what breed would love to live and thrive in their household– not a breed that they could ‘make work’.

Golden retriever puppy

Kari with a puppy from Savaneta Golden Retrievers from South Australia.

Puppy buyers need to select a breeder with care. By that I mean: a breeder that cares. Cares about where their puppies end up, about the pedigrees of their dogs, about choosing pups suitable to the individual’s lifestyle. A good breeder may say no to some households, because they only want the best for their puppies. A good breeder probably doesn’t have a puppy available right now. Good breeders take steps to ensure their animal never ends up in a shelter, and will live a happy and full life in a loving home.  A good breeder knows some puppies are not perfectly normal, and will not let them go to any home.

And the pedigree of the dog, including the parents, need to be considered. This is in terms of temperament and in terms of health.  Nervous dogs, or aggressive dogs, should not be bred from, and should not be in the pedigree.  Buyers should insist on meeting at least the mother of the puppy, and any other relatives possible.  The pedigree should, however, include healthy dogs – especially dogs that are old and healthy.  Certificates of health should be presented for the parents, including any relevant scores (e.g. hip, eye, etc) for the particular breed.  Knowing the background of the puppy provides some security and confidence in what the puppy may grow to be.

I’m sure if people went through all these steps, or even half of these steps, we’d have less dog problems than we see today. There would be no impulse buys, if people were selecting the right breed, and going through a responsible breeder. If people considered pedigrees and parents more often, there would be more healthy and stable dogs.

Selecting the right breed, from the right breeder, from the right pedigree, would right a lot of wrongs. … We can dream, can’t we?

 

Further reading: Can breeders breed better?

01/30/12

Socialisation: Not Everything

For so long, the message has been “socialise, socialise, socialise“. The idea has been that, regardless of the puppy you select, you should be able to socialise it into a happy, normal, well adjusted pup.

Markable Curly Coated Retriever puppies, socialising with some cows.

Markable Curly Coated Retriever puppies, socialising with some cows.

The more I learn about dogs, the more I am inclined to disagree.  I think we have hugely overlooked the role of genetics in determining many behaviours. While I will always advocate socialisation to get the best out of a dog, I think some dogs are genetically wired to be confident despite their socialisation experiences.

I have some anecdotal evidence to share with you.

I used to work in boarding kennels.  We had a pretty extensive questionnaire we’d ask new clients and, sometimes, owners would admit: “We didn’t really socialise her.”  Considering these admissions, most of these dogs were actually quite okay.  I can recall very few cases when these dogs were outwardly aggressive to people, and most were okay with dogs, too.  What kind of explanation supports this evidence?  To me, it suggests that these dogs were either genetically ‘good’ dogs, solid and confident, or genetically ‘mostly good’ dogs, which needed minimal socialisation to complete an adequate behaviour code.

Another example with my own girl, Winona.  Winona came into my household at a difficult time and got relatively little socialisation compared to other puppies that have come through my house.  However, she is a very confident dog.  She is tolerant of all handling, she likes all people, and though she is sometimes ‘overwhelmed’ by large dogs when she first meets them, she recovers well and interacts appropriately.  It’s clear that Winona is supposed to be a confident, happy, non-aggressive dog. Socialisation had, at most, very little to do with her as an adult dog.  Considering the confident, non-aggressive dispositions of her parents, I am not surprised.  Winona is genetically confident.

Mooch the Norwegian Elkhound

Mooch the Norwegian Elkhound – with us for 2 months due to her severe fear issues.

And then let’s consider Mooch.  Mooch was a foster dog we had last year for 2 months.  She was an incredibly fearful dog.  It took two weeks before my partner could touch her.  Once she was on my lap when a stranger approach, and she expelled her anal glands in terror (I didn’t even know this was possible).  From her history, it seems she was (almost) kept exclusively in a house for 2 years, being tended by immediate family, with few visitors and few outings.

It took very little effort to bring Mooch around to a near-normal dog.  She will never be perfect, but she didn’t take huge efforts or time to get her to be a decent dog. I took her out to tracking training with me a few times, and this is a very busy house – you need to get used to seeing a lot of people fairly quick!  You would think, from her history, Mooch would be impossible to restore to confidence.  I think Mooch was never meant to be a fearful dog –  I met Mooch’s parents and I have met few dogs as beautifully confident and contented.  I think Mooch was a genetically confident dog, with a hugely neglected socialisation period, that meant she displayed fearful behaviours.

Now, again, I believe  the environments and the genetics work together to produce the dog. I’d like to emphasise that I think socialisation is important, but not the ‘be-and-end-all’ of dog behaviour.  To me, the message of “socialise, socialise, socialise” is outdated.

I vote for a new slogan: “select, select, select”. I’ll explain in my next post.

 

01/6/12

Do dogs want to communicate?

Say there is a dog without a tail (a natural bobtail or a docked breed).  People often say, “He can’t tell other dogs how he’s feeling without a tail.”

Let’s think about that comment.  With that exclamation, there are two inherent suggestions.  Firstly, the notion that dogs are consciously manipulating their body and, secondly, they are doing so with the intention to communicate.

Is it a colloquial slip of the tongue, or is that genuinely what we believe?

Two dogs playing

Photos © Ruthless Photos

Let’s think about dogs manipulating their body.  Clearly, we can train dogs to consciously manipulate their body.  We can train tail wags, lip licking, head turning, paw lifting, and many other complex behaviours that dogs would do naturally.  There is no doubt when dogs perform behaviours on cue, they are doing so consciously and so consciously manipulating their body.

However, when they are interacting with other dogs, are they consciously changing their body to reflect their emotions?  To me, I think this is a big fat no.  Do you consciously decide to put your grumpy face on when you’re feeling unhappy? Or do you consciously smile when you see a puppy?

Now let’s consider a dog having the intention to communicate.  From Googling definitions, it seems communication is defined as ‘passing on information’.  While this may seem simple, in reality, it’s quite a complex proposal.  It suggests dogs have theory of the mind.  That is, it suggests that dogs are aware that other dogs are aware – that they understand that other dogs are psychologically capable of understanding their emotions.

Though it’s nice and succinct to describe dogs as ‘wanting to show how they’re feeling’, in reality, they are probably not thinking much about it.  In all likelihood, their level of arousal and psychological state is changing their body physiologically, without their conscious thought, and other animals have learnt to interpret these.  At the most, dogs may have learnt to display some behaviours in order to elicit a desired response from another dog.  (For example, a dog may learn that snarling makes other dogs go away, or a dog performing a play bow make decrease the distance between themselves and another dog.)

Are you guilty of framing dog behaviour is communication terms? E.g. “He is telling us how he’s feeling.”

I admit that I do use it a lot, but mostly in classroom contexts. I do work talking to young children, from 4 years to 12 years, about dog behaviour and avoiding dog bites.  The succinctness of talking about a dog’s feelings is beneficial in this context.  However, with adults (particularly dog-savvy adults), I’d pick my words more carefully.

12/21/11

McGreevy: General Dog Training Thoughts

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

McGreevy described animal training as “a bit of an art and a bit of a science”. ‘Training’ animals means changing the frequency to which animals show certain behaviours. Learning theory is a universal language that clarifies the nature of training, explaining what will work and will not work, and its general principles apply regardless of the species being trained.

Training often seeks to establish connections between two or more events, and does so by using operant conditioning (i.e. rewards and punishments) and classical conditioning, and often these two work together.  ‘Conditioning’ is any relatively permanent response that occurs as a result of exercise (that is, any responses formed by maturation or debility are not from conditioning).

Trainers often have exquisite timing, and have the ability to self reflect on their progress.

 

 

Photos © Ruthless Photos

“Life coaches”

McGreevy prefers to use the term ‘life coach’ to describe the relationship between a dog and a person.  Life coaches have opportunities for the dog to have success, but also rules.  (The concept of ‘alpha’ asks for people to adopt an unrealistic, pseudo dog role that is not very useful for dog training.)  How dogs and people interact is relevant to the dog’s success.  The handler of a dog needs to be relevant to the dog – a boring or passive life coach is irrelevant for the dog, and the dog will not work.  Dogs will form a bond with their owners, and a trust, but this trust is not generalisable to all situations or to different people.

‘Trust’, itself, is an interesting concept.  It is difficult to measure, and is built on consistency.  During training, trust is built be trainers being caregivers and companions rather than ‘leaders’ or ‘dominant’.

Generally in dog training, we seek dogs that will respond to cues (e.g. the word ‘sit’) with appropriate behaviours.  It is an ongoing process that requires maintenance in many contexts and environments.

 

Dog social order

Dogs with one another have a social order, but it’s not so much a hierarchy. Dog social order is built on difference, not dominance.  This ‘difference’ is a different desire for different resources, meaning some dogs are more inclined to seek some resources than others.  The ideas of social order shouldn’t be ‘thrown out’ with dominance theory.  In short, dogs have evolved to compete with one another.  Excellent coaches tap into the resources that dogs compete over, and use them in training (as rewards).

 

This concludes our section on training dogs, but we will continue to investigate more McGreevy topics in posts to come.

 

In the meantime, I wonder:

What do you think are the ‘art’ and the ‘science’ bits of dog training?

How does your self-reflection as a trainer go?

How would you measure trust with your dogs?

 

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

12/9/11

McGreevy on Classical Conditioning

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.

 

This is a short summary on Classical Conditioning, as mentioned at Paul McGreevy’s recent seminar.  For a more inclusive approach, please see this post from the Reactive Champion blog or Roger Abrantes’ post on “Unveiling the myth of reinforcers and punishers“.

Classical conditioning is also called Pavlovian conditioning.  In classical conditioning, an association is made between two things.  That is, when I hear the letterbox clang, I associate this with getting mail.  When I walk past a bakery, I associate the smell with the taste of bread.  When I see dark grey clouds, I think about the forthcoming rain.  Sounds, colours, smells, pretty much anything, can be associated with other things.

Puppies are more likely to experience novel events and form strong associations. (Picture courtesy of Yorke Peninsula Puppy Rescue.)

Simply, classical conditioning makes the world predictable with “X goes with Y”, where ‘X’ could be anything and ‘Y’ could be anything else.

The more closely X is followed by Y, the more likely the association will be made.

When an animal makes an association (i.e. “X goes with Y”), and it forms an involuntary response, it is has said to be classically conditioned.  Often, trainers feed dog-reactive-dogs in the presence of other dogs in order to have them associate ‘dogs with food’ and, involuntarily, feel more comfortable in the presence of other dogs.

When this association is novel, then the association is more rapidly acquired because there are no ‘undoings’ to be done.  For dogs, puppies that are attacked by a particular breed may associate that breed (appearance, smell, colouration, body language) with being attacked, and have a fearful response as a result of this classical conditioning.  A single bad experience, if novel enough, can elicit a fearful response for life (this is also true of operant conditioning).

Sometimes, dogs may make associations based on slight cues in the environment.  This can lead to them responding in ways that can confuse human counterparts.  Indeed, during any training and any interactions, classical conditioning may occur.  Some are simple: The dog may associate the car with fun.  Some are more complex: The dog associates your brother with thunderstorms, because that was the context on first meeting.

McGreevy provided some insights into other animals and the classical conditioning that is typical in their species.  He described how stallions used at stud often associate particular bridle gear with sex, and so become aroused and otherwise agitated when that bridle gear is brought out.  (My stud dog associates ‘new little wirey dog’ in the house with sex, which is not always great when it’s actually a male foster dog!)  McGreevy also mentioned how dairy cows associate the sound of the vacuum with releasing milk, and sometimes release milk prematurely upon hearing that sound.

Further reading: Ian Dunbar on Classical Conditioning 

 

This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.