Last updated Feb 2, 2004

HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE THIS STATEMENT?

"It's all just behavior to the dog"

HERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS!!
GREAT JOB, GUYS!!!

First to answer - Dana !!!!!

"It's all just behavior to the dog"

A person might look at a tiger devouring a lamb and say "Oh my god! That's terrible for that tiger to ravage a poor little lamb and rip it to shreds like that!"

It's all just food to the tiger.

And Kim !!!

- Okay, here is my go at it..... Webster's Dictionary defines Behave as "1, conduct oneself or itself; act or operate. 2, comport oneself properly." and Behavior as "manner of behaving; deportment; habits or tendencies." Another definition for Behavior is "The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli."

So I guess you could say "It's all just behavior to the dog" is dogs being dogs doing what dogs do.

It does not matter what "it" is. "It" is whatever we teach the dogs or what they do naturally. They are cause and effect creatures. They have no moral or sentimental attachment to things. They simply do what works, what gets them what they need/want. So if behavior, or how they do life, is always sitting and waiting for an okay for dinner or acting like a wild man the end result is still the same....dinner. It is just how they get there. It is how they behave.

Since behavior is reactions to external stimuli, how WE behave influences how our dogs behave. Since they are pack animals and we are a part of that pack, if we do not provide clear consistent leadership, that is utter chaos translated into "dog speak". So, it is no wonder that no leadership = "ill behaved" dogs. However they are not "ill behaved", they are behaving appropriately, chaos begets chaos.

I just cant think further. So many of these questions would be great as a "round table" type thing. Bouncing ideas and thoughts off of one another. Oh, well...

And Lisaaaaaaaaaa !!

It's all just behavior to the dog. Translation: Dogs do what works. Behavior is shaped by consequences. Every single behavior the dog does is a result of the consequences of doing that behavior. For example, dog sits -- dog get a treat; dog barks at the mailman -- mailman goes away; dog guards his foodbowl -- people and/or dogs leave his food bowl alone; dog jumps up/owners says "get down" -- dog gets attention.

Dogs are not motivated by morals or abstract thinking. They do not spend time in the past or contemplating the future.

Dogs learn almost exclusively through operant and classical conditioning. Humans also learn through operant and classical conditioning, however, we, unlike dogs, are also masterful at learning through observation and insight. We internalize values taught to us through reward and punishment, most of us developing qualities like compassion and a conscience, a sense of right and wrong. Behaving congruently with our values gives us self-esteem, a feeling of integrity. By comparison, the extreme likelihood is that dogs learn almost exclusively through operant and classical conditioning. Lisa

And Teri !!

Hmmm! is this a Jeopardy question? =) Don't know a simple answer so go more with defining what I think the "it's" refers to in this statement.

Not being blessed with a written language (or is it a blessing???) dogs communicate mostly by behavior. And the grand thing is that all breeds of dogs know that language and for the most part communicate very well with each other. Dogs try to use the same behavioral method of communication with humans but find it difficult at best.

The nice thing about training is that it provides the dog with a means of communicating with it's owner, especially if the training is consistent. The dog figures out that the garble coming from our mouth and our actions (behavior) actually means something. AND he can apply what he has learned to other aspects of his relationship with us. ie if I sit here very quietly it will make my human very happy and she/he may even give me some food or play with me and tell me how wonderful I am. Or when I have to go pee, if I stand by the door and whine a bit, my human will open the door for me and may even come too and tell me how wonderful I am. So the dog can respond with a positive behavior (a sit) to a human behavior (a verbal and/or hand signal request to sit) which will cause a very positive behavior from the human. (providing treats, praise, toy etc) It's all just behavior.

So, back to Jeopardy....... I guess I would say communication (training) is all just behavior to the dog. Teri

And Cathyyyyyyy !!!

It's quite a simple statement actually, but one that could be debated and talked about for hours. How I would define it is that dogs don't come ready packaged knowing how to "behave" or "misbehave". It's all the same to them. Behavior is just that. They really aren't out to irritate us by jumping up on our clothes or anger us by stealing something that belongs to us. Both of those actions are behaviors that the dog can learn to not do -- do "this behavior" instead of "that" one.

Behaviors that a dog does that are undesirable to us, can be changed by teaching a dog to do a different behavior instead. Instead of jumping up behavior when you come home from work, teach the dog to do the sitting behavior instead. The dog doesn't really care either way. He is going to choose to do the one that gets him what he wants. Most probably that is attention. Of course that is a very simplified example. If only getting rid of all undesirable behavior was that easy!! Hey -- what am I saying? I'd be out of a job! But the lowest common denominator is just that. When he does this behavior, teach him to do that one instead. He doesn't care. He's basically doing it to get what he wants. It's all just behavior to the dog. Cathy

AND NANCYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

It's all just behavior to the dog... I think this statement is saying that whatever "action" a dog performs is "If > Then" or "Action > Reaction". Whether it is instinctual or conditional, a dog receives a cue and then responds to that cue. If this is true, then this would indicate that dogs do not have ulterior motives or grand schemes. However, it does not rule out a more complex linear thought process. I think very smart dogs or well-trained dogs have the ability to link several of these "If > Then" components together.

Follow-up from Lisa about Nancy's great answer:

I just saw that Nancy submitted an answer to part one. Is it okay if we go back to that for a day?

I love her answer and to help my brain follow those big words, I was hoping to get some clarification...

Whether it is instinctual or conditional, a dog receives a cue and then responds to that cue.

... Are you saying that a dog receives an instinctual cue or a conditional cue? Thinking outloud..an example of a conditionED cue is a handsignal for "sit" An example of an instinctual cue is ....what? Hunger?

Instinctual would imply that it didn't have to be learned, that it is "built in" behavior for survival - an innate behavior is cued by an environmental trigger - kittens don't have to be taught to chase a string on the floor. Does that make sense? (and Nancy, is this what you meant?) From Nancy: "Yes! Your interpretation was right on! Thanks! Z"

If this is true, then this would indicate that dogs do not have ulterior motives or grand schemes. However, it does not rule out a more complex linear thought process. I think very smart dogs or well-trained dogs have the ability to link several of these "If > Then" components together.

Yes, yes. I get this! *S* Lisa

My reply:
(I always write my answer before I get yours.)

"It's all just behavior to the dog"
................. - a dog behaves without pretense*.
........................ * The act of pretending; a false appearance or action intended to deceive.

"Behavior" is defined as
"The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli."

More specifically in this definition, when working with our students, we should always do our best to advise our students based on OBSERVABLE behavior without assuming anything based on conjecture, speculation or moral interpretation. Anthropomorphizing is out!! What you see is the truth - dogs behave without pretense - dogs do what works. Consequences drive behavior.

Example:
The dog shows active appeasement when approached by a stranger, grovelling with lowered head and tail and eventually going belly up."

All we can know from this description is what we can see. We cannot know what is going on in the animal's head or make any assumptions other than the stimuli - the stranger, his observable demeanor and actions - is causing a stress and appeasement response in the dog. To conclude that the dog had been "abused by a man" or "had been hit before" would be to assume things we cannot know.

We will hear these imagined "reasons" for behavior voiced by our students, but we must avoid taking too much stock in their interpretations or suggested 'reasons' for the dog's behavior.

How many reasons for the following scenario can you imagine?

The handler commands the dog to "down." The dog looks away.
It is likely that the handler will proclaim, "he won't lie down!"

We must presume (take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary) that the dog had no 'ulterior motive' for turning his head - that the dog wasn't thinking "if I turn my head, he'll think I didn't hear him and then I won't have to lie down, cuz I really don't want to / don't respect my handler / don't feel like it / he doesn't have the right to tell me to / the floor's too hard / too cold" ... the dog is stubborn / dominant / blowing the owner off, etc etc".

Why is it vital that we view behavior objectively?
We might theorize that the dog may be avoiding the command - but to conclude that would imply that the dog needs a CORRECTION for refusal. i.e. "Don't let him get away with that!"

Once we've automatically committed ourselves to this all to common, narrow conclusion, we are less likely to be open to other observable facts: that perhaps the owner usually nods his head when he gives a down command and this time he didn't - and he repeated himself louder the second time. The addition of this second piece of important information woud lead us to the more reasonable theory that the dog didn't understand the verbal cue without the "real cue" -the absent head nod- and that the owner's impatient second command caused stress and the calming signal look away.

While it may be true that some dogs do refuse, it is probably more likely in a beginning class situation that the dog is simply confused, distracted, full, tired, thirsty, overstimulated or overwhelmed and is being asked to perform in an environment and at a distraction level that is beyond his or her ability to do so. All too often the owner believes the dog "knows" what they think they have taught them, but in all actuality, the dog is clueless.

To plant the idea or confirm the owner's interpretation that his dog is being willful or stubborn is detrimental to their relationship and the dog's training. It will contribute to impatience and resentment in the trainer. Correcting a full, tired, overwhelmed dog will not improve its response to the "down" command. In fact, it very well might make it worse.

We can note, based on our knowledge of OBSERVABLE dog behavior, that most dogs when under stress from a handler's looming presence or pressure to perform when stressed are inclined to offer a 'calming signal' (look away). From there, our job is to identify the stressor, relieve it, clarify the command, and put the dog in the position of success. We must not make quick assumptions based on anthropomorphizing human traits to dogs, but rather on an objective study of behavior as it is presented. It's ALL just behavior to the dog!

Another important point to this discussion:
When our dogs observe US, all they see is behavior. Humans have a tendency to take things personally. "He doesn't like me." "He's doing it to get back at me because I ..." "He sneaks off down the hall to pee on the rug because he doesn't want to ask to go outside" ... "He won't do it unless I have the food" ...

Here again, to imagine that the dog is refusing because the handler isn't going to give him food makes the handler feel like the dog is in control, like he's being held hostage by the food. When in all actuality, to the dog, the food has become part of the cue, much like the head bob on the down. It's how we've taught it over and over again. The dog isn't saying "no foodie, no workie" he's saying "no food, no recognizeable CUE."

FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS:

From Cathy:
Carol, And that is why you are our benevolent leader. Good Answer! I loved the explanation you gave about having food and it becoming part of the cue. Maybe we should stress in the beginning classes how important it is to get the food out of your hand more quickly -- morphing the hand signals with the food in the hand to without the food in the hand -- but still using food as the reward. I see in the Prep and even more advanced classes people with food in their hands the whole class time. Isn't that what the clicker is for -- to be used as a bridge to get the food out of your hands. Maybe not in the very beginning, but as they get better and have more understanding of the use of the clicker. What are your thoughts on that? Cathy

I agree TOTALLY!
Encouraging students to get the food out of their hands and into pockets or treat totes is step two, and into a dish across the room is step three in Prep and Finishing School and beyond.

Step ONE is getting the food out of the lure hand and into the OTHER hand, making the hand signal a true CUE and not a lure in Puppy and Headstart classes. The faster we can get them to stop luring and start cueing, the less food dependent the HUMANS will become and the more actual learning the dog will accomplish.

Luring can get a dog to sit, but it doesn't TEACH him to sit. The verbal marker "YES!" in beginning classes and "click" in Prep is what gives the dog the essential information. As long as they are consumed by "where'd the food go, where'd the food go, where'd the food go" they are not making an association between "I do this, and I can make food happen" and the next realization " when they do that, they want me to do this, and then food happens." Learning happens when the dog makes the association between his behavior and the predictable consequences. Simply following his nose is not enough.

Thank you, Cathy, for taking this RIGHT where I wanted it to go! There is a hand-out in your students' first week folder called "Silence is Golden". Read it. Point it out to your students on first week and refer to it as you demonstrate luring, morphing, cueing week one and as you trouble shoot the exercise with them week 2.

From Lisa:
This is a follow-up to Cathy's comment about fading the dependence upon food in training a behavior. In my presentation to the Deer Park vet clinic I was in a group of anti-food trainers. After two hours and well into a pizza as people got more comfortable the food issue came up. I said, "it is important to teach students how to remove the food from the behavior cue quickly..." and I proceeded to tell them step, by step, how to go about doing it.

At the end of my explanation, Dr. McGaffey sat back on the couch and said with a big light-bulb over his head, "Fascinating" This is a guy who trains with alpha rolls and E-Collars.

In my never to be too humble opinion, it is imperative that we talk about fading off of the food in the very first session. I never got that and it wasn't until I started teaching that I figured it out. I needed someone to say, "This is the goal, and this is how you do it and these are the pitfalls to look for." This will set us light years apart from other trainers who use food. Lisa.

More from Lisa:
At the shelter today we had a group of students from Centennial Middle School. There were hoards of them *G* I took 8 students in to the garage with 8 dogs. Sixteen critters I had never met before. I had 50 minutes with them. Before we got their dogs, we sat in a circle and I talked about one basic principle....Dogs do what works. And I gave them examples about rewarding what we want and how we often reward what we don't want.

So, after they got their dogs and were seated in a big circle learning how to keep their dogs quiet using food, I noticed one young lady with a rather large mix of some sort. The dog was sitting quiet and attentive. As I got near she said to me, "Do you know what I've been doing? I've been waiting for him to sit when other dogs walk by and I give him a treat for that."

I was dumbfounded. She generalized my teaching in a very effective, creative way. It was easy for her, because I explained action and consequences. It wasn't muddied up with human interpretations of the dog's behavior. Lisa

Wow. *G*