Why This Surliness Towards Clickers (and other great questions)

luvmyswissy

I hired a behaviorist to help with this issue and some others.  His cure for resource guarding was simple.  Open bowl feed him and let him eat to his heart is content!  He explained that the first 3 three days he will gorge himself, but to keep filling the bowl regardless.  So we did exactly that.  That night we filled Rivers bowl and before he could empty it we were instructed to add more and keep it full.  The first night we did this he ate 9 cups of food!!! 

  That sort of thing has been known to led to bloat in some dogs - very stupid advice on the part of the "behaviorist" IMO. Any time I hear a student of mine is free feeding, I strongly suggest they stop for so many reasons. I am finding it a bit hard to believe that people think scavenging is abnormal for dogs LOL Do you also feel chasing prey is something "well fed" dogs just don't do? In my house the dogs are fed the same, trained the same but don't have the same level of food drive or desire to scavenge. One fun game for all of them though is for me to toss handfuls of kibble into the yard for them to...scavenge for, of all things ;)

luvmyswissy

Dogs who are well fed and do not have any medical conditions or internal parasites would have no reason to scavenge or counter-surf. I often board many of the dogs I've trained. Have done so for years. And yet with one exception (a very anxious beagle) none of them have ever felt the need to scavenge or counter-surf.

 

I have to agree with this one.  When River was 10 months old his resource guarding was getting dangerous, to the point that he would start to growl at us when we entered a room where his food bowl was or walked past his crate.  He has always been a garbage, counter surfer (give his size, he was self rewarded early on by having access), etc.  VERY FOOD MOTIVATED

I hired a behaviorist to help with this issue and some others.  His cure for resource guarding was simple.  Open bowl feed him and let him eat to his heart is content!  He explained that the first 3 three days he will gorge himself, but to keep filling the bowl regardless.  So we did exactly that.  That night we filled Rivers bowl and before he could empty it we were instructed to add more and keep it full.  The first night we did this he ate 9 cups of food!!! 

I would measured how much food a bowl held and I would measure what was left when he walked away so I could judge.  We went to bed with a full bowl of food.  When we woke up in the morning he had eaten another 2 cups during the night (the bowl held 6 cups).  I filled it again, and again the third day River cut back to a consistent 5 cups a day.  I was feeding him 4 cups, twice a day.  We did this for 2 months and he remained pretty consistent to 5 cups in a 24 hour period.  Amazingly his bowl guarding STOPPED, his Counter Surfing STOPPED, his garbage raiding STOPPED!  But he started to gain a lot of weight and I had to stop with the protocol.  Reverted back to hand feeding meals and his resource guarding came back a little but not terribly but his counter surfing came back and so did his garbage raiding.

I know a lot people hate open bowl feeding but I did that with my previous dog all his life and he never got, fat, guarded or raided anything.

How did I miss this post?  Really interesting, food for thought for me!   (Didja see what I did there?!!!)

Is this not a slightly dangerous approach?  Does not allowing the dog to gorge increase the risk of bloat?  How can you structure his exercise around his feeding times to minimize the risk if he eats willy nilly?  

Looking at it from the other angle - does this suggest that if the dog is eating the correct diet, can you allow him to eat as much as he wants without him gaining weight?  Did you try switching foods, or maybe try raw?

Taking that thought further - are some kibbles keeping dogs hungry and that's contributing to the scavenging behaviours?

Hmmm.... thank you! 

Dog_ma

Lee Charles Kelley

sillysally

Proof?

 

The proof is in my previous post. Perhaps it went over your head, or you didn't take the time to read it: To form a mental association -- "if can opening, then possible external reward" -- requires the use of language and logic, abilities that dogs don't have.

Looked at from an energy theory of behavior, the behavior still makes total sense, yet there's no need for higher dognitive functions. 

LCK 

 

Not at all. And that is a really odd assertion. Associative learning is not dependent upon advanced cognition, self-awareness, or any of that. There are many examples in people. One that happens to many people including me: before the flash of a camera, red eye prevention systems flash a tiny light. It is too fast to think about, but some people "learn" to blink in anticipation of the brighter flash.

In one of Oliver Sack's books, he talks about a patient with brain damage who could no longer encode short term memory into long term memory. At all. Every day he met his doctors for the first time. A doctor hid a pin in his hand one day, causing a jab of pain when they shook hands. Next day, man had no memory of this. When the same doctor tried to shake his hand the next day, the man refused. He couldn't explain why, he just didn't want to. On a level that was not consciously available, he had an association.

Here's a nifty little wiki on Hebbian learning - http://wd320pc2.cs.memphis.edu/cogsci-wiki/Hebbian_Learning_in_Simple_Invertebrates

I'm not sure what you mean by "mental association," LCK. If you mean conscious association, then no, that is not how classical conditioning works in dogs or people. The brain is an amazing and complex organ - even in dogs. There are so many kinds of learning that don't depend on conscious awareness.

"Energy theory" of behavior is not science. It is magical thinking. I don't see why we'd need to go for something as out there as that when the neurobiology of learning is a hot field. 

I LOVE this.  Thank you!  That's twice in one thread that I wished for a "rate individual posts function".  Or at least the applause smiley, or SOMETHING.  Kudos. 

AgileGSD

That sort of thing has been known to led to bloat in some dogs

Ah, you beat me to it!  Never mind.

AgileGSD

I am finding it a bit hard to believe that people think scavenging is abnormal for dogs LOL Do you also feel chasing prey is something "well fed" dogs just don't do?

I agree with you there.

AgileGSD

One fun game for all of them though is for me to toss handfuls of kibble into the yard for them to...scavenge for, of all things ;)

We do this too.  (Scatter food for them outside - not scavenge in the yard ourselves).

They love it.  Far more than eating from a bowl I might add.  Also love kongs, and would probably get a kick out of other puzzle feeders as well.  I wonder why?  Surely if it's just food they want, the delivery wouldn't matter?  But no, the act of scavenging appears to be rewarding in and of itself.  I think dogs are opportunistic feeders and are usually "switched on" at some level to be on the look out for food... but this thread has certainly made me think...

AgileGSD

 I am finding it a bit hard to believe that people think scavenging is abnormal for dogs LOL Do you also feel chasing prey is something "well fed" dogs just don't do? In my house the dogs are fed the same, trained the same but don't have the same level of food drive or desire to scavenge. One fun game for all of them though is for me to toss handfuls of kibble into the yard for them to...scavenge for, of all things ;)

I don't think its a matter of abnormal or normal in the dog's behavior but what is acceptable behavior in the human's home.  I think its a matter of the dog's need.  If there is a need then the dog will scavenge.  If the need is fulfilled, then there is no scavenging and that need doesn't necessarily mean the dog's normal food.  From my observation and sometimes I see, chasing prey does not necessarily mean a meal and again has a lot to do with acceptable behavior in the human's house.

My home may be different from most because I bring in fosters and I my focus is on social activity.  In the beginning I would not toss handfuls of kibble into the yard to encourage scavenge.  To me that creates competition for food and may lead to resource guarding...but that particular game is probably fine where the owner has had a lot of time to get to know their dogs and pretty much knows how the dog would behavior.

Chuffy

luvmyswissy

Dogs who are well fed and do not have any medical conditions or internal parasites would have no reason to scavenge or counter-surf. I often board many of the dogs I've trained. Have done so for years. And yet with one exception (a very anxious beagle) none of them have ever felt the need to scavenge or counter-surf.

 

I have to agree with this one.  When River was 10 months old his resource guarding was getting dangerous, to the point that he would start to growl at us when we entered a room where his food bowl was or walked past his crate.  He has always been a garbage, counter surfer (give his size, he was self rewarded early on by having access), etc.  VERY FOOD MOTIVATED

I hired a behaviorist to help with this issue and some others.  His cure for resource guarding was simple.  Open bowl feed him and let him eat to his heart is content!  He explained that the first 3 three days he will gorge himself, but to keep filling the bowl regardless.  So we did exactly that.  That night we filled Rivers bowl and before he could empty it we were instructed to add more and keep it full.  The first night we did this he ate 9 cups of food!!! 

I would measured how much food a bowl held and I would measure what was left when he walked away so I could judge.  We went to bed with a full bowl of food.  When we woke up in the morning he had eaten another 2 cups during the night (the bowl held 6 cups).  I filled it again, and again the third day River cut back to a consistent 5 cups a day.  I was feeding him 4 cups, twice a day.  We did this for 2 months and he remained pretty consistent to 5 cups in a 24 hour period.  Amazingly his bowl guarding STOPPED, his Counter Surfing STOPPED, his garbage raiding STOPPED!  But he started to gain a lot of weight and I had to stop with the protocol.  Reverted back to hand feeding meals and his resource guarding came back a little but not terribly but his counter surfing came back and so did his garbage raiding.

I know a lot people hate open bowl feeding but I did that with my previous dog all his life and he never got, fat, guarded or raided anything.

 

How did I miss this post?  Really interesting, food for thought for me!   (Didja see what I did there?!!!)

Is this not a slightly dangerous approach?  Does not allowing the dog to gorge increase the risk of bloat?  How can you structure his exercise around his feeding times to minimize the risk if he eats willy nilly?  

Looking at it from the other angle - does this suggest that if the dog is eating the correct diet, can you allow him to eat as much as he wants without him gaining weight?  Did you try switching foods, or maybe try raw?

Taking that thought further - are some kibbles keeping dogs hungry and that's contributing to the scavenging behaviours?

Hmmm.... thank you! 

No I didn't try other food, I should have.  This can cause bloat so that is why we were careful while he was overeating.  But within 3 days his intake wasn't much more than usual.  In hindsight, I should have tried to adjust his calories or substitute with some green beans but I wasn't very informed back then and just got nervous with the weight gain so stopped. 

luvmyswissy

No I didn't try other food, I should have.  This can cause bloat so that is why we were careful while he was overeating.  But within 3 days his intake wasn't much more than usual.  In hindsight, I should have tried to adjust his calories or substitute with some green beans but I wasn't very informed back then and just got nervous with the weight gain so stopped. 

I got what your behaviorist was trying to accomplish.  My experience with getting a dog satisfied and full have been successful, UNTIL I started modifying the meals for nutrition reasons.  Definitely created an imbalance and a looking for more type of behavior.

This is just a guess on my part, but if the behaviorist advised me to do what you did, I would have kept the normal meal pattern in place and do the extra food in some other container that the dog could get at it.

DPU

luvmyswissy

No I didn't try other food, I should have.  This can cause bloat so that is why we were careful while he was overeating.  But within 3 days his intake wasn't much more than usual.  In hindsight, I should have tried to adjust his calories or substitute with some green beans but I wasn't very informed back then and just got nervous with the weight gain so stopped. 

I got what your behaviorist was trying to accomplish.  My experience with getting a dog satisfied and full have been successful, UNTIL I started modifying the meals for nutrition reasons.  Definitely created an imbalance and a looking for more type of behavior.

This is just a guess on my part, but if the behaviorist advised me to do what you did, I would have kept the normal meal pattern in place and do the extra food in some other container that the dog could get at it.

The idea of the method was that the dog have free access to food, as much as he wants so that food was no longer important to the dog and therefore guarding would diminish.  The counter surfing and garbage rummaging were just extras that I didn't' expect.  Truthfully it worked beautifully.  Once River had full access to eat when ever and what ever he wanted he no longer cared who approached the bowl, it was like..  I'm full, I really don't care if you want it.  There was still some eyeballing in the beginning but the growling and actual guarding almost immediately diminished.  And within 3 days, his intake was normal give or take a cup of what I was giving him.

My Vet didn't is holistic and practical in his approaches.  He agreed that the over eating could cause bloat if he were to be exercised immediately after to much food, this is a concern with his breed normally.  As a matter of fact, we have always been advised by our Vet that River was to not exercise for 1 hour meal times. So he cautioned us to careful with exercise immediately after eating.  River ate an extraordinary amount of food in the first free feeding hours, but he quickly cut himself back even as soon as the second day.  From the 3rd day on he consistently ate 4-5 cups in a 24 hour period.

Dog_ma

That is a really odd assertion. Associative learning is not dependent upon advanced cognition, self-awareness, or any of that. There are many examples in people. One that happens to many people including me: before the flash of a camera, red eye prevention systems flash a tiny light. It is too fast to think about, but some people "learn" to blink in anticipation of the brighter flash.

This isn't the same thing as learning. And while mine may seem an odd assertion for now, you haven't really addressed the question of how dogs associate the sound of the can opener with an external reward. If they DO make such an association, by definition it has to have a simple form of "if, then" logic. That requires the use of language and conscious thought. On the other hand if they're making an emotional association, based solely on the changes that take place within their own flow of emotions, from neutral to attracted to the kitchen, it doesn't require language.

It may seem like a very subtle, or even non-distinction, but I think it's an important one if we want to really understand how dogs experience things in their world. 

Dog_ma

In one of Oliver Sack's books, he talks about a patient with brain damage who could no longer encode short term memory into long term memory. At all. Every day he met his doctors for the first time. A doctor hid a pin in his hand one day, causing a jab of pain when they shook hands. Next day, man had no memory of this. When the same doctor tried to shake his hand the next day, the man refused. He couldn't explain why, he just didn't want to. On a level that was not consciously available, he had an association.

Yes, but not a "mental" association, or he would've been able to explain it. It was a knee-jerk response. As I said in my original post, some behavioral changes happen on the level of reflex. That's not the same thing as making a mental association.

Dog_ma

"Energy theory" of behavior is not science. It is magical thinking. I don't see why we'd need to go for something as out there as that when the neurobiology of learning is a hot field.

Actually it's closer to real science, and less "magical" than Skinnerism. (The "neurobiology of learning" is still based on Skinner, which means it's still based on this basic misunderstanding of how learning takes place.)

Energy is just energy. It always obeys certain laws and operates on certain simple principles, even when applied to behavior. When you take a step back and look at a dog's behavior, any dog in any situation, and try to see it from the pov of pure energy -- attraction and resistance, tension and release -- you'll see what I mean. If you don't take a step back, you won't see it. To paraphrase Proust, it's not a matter of looking at a new landscape it's a matter of having new eyes.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK 

ron2

Lee Charles Kelley

(Karen Pryor, for example, who frankly doesn't know anything about dogs

I would disagree with that statement. She was owning and training dogs before her landmark dolphin study. That study was conducted in the early to mid 60's and published in 1965, originally. Shortly after that and through the early 70's, she and others developed the clicker method for pet animals, such as dogs. So, is it still a "fad" after 35 years? Might as well call Skinner a fad, too. Not that decades of expeience equates to knowledge, per se. But I think she knows quite a bit about dogs.

In my view, anyone who's fond of repeating, "Dogs are only, wonderfully, in it for themselves," has a complete and utter lack of understanding of one of the key features of dogs. Of any species on the planet dogs are the least likely to be "in it for themselves." That quote speaks volumes about Karen Pryor's lack of knowledge about dogs specifically, and too much "knowledge" about behaviorism (which outside of animal training is a dead science).

Lee Charles Kelley

And the dog actually has to work harder to learn things than he would if he were energized during the training process.

ron2

I beg to differ again. I tried to teach my dog to fetch, just for the "joy" of fetching. Because of his breed temperment, his idea of fetch was to get the ball and take off at 30 mph and you chase him and then play tug. That's his enjoyment. The only way I could teach fetch was with the clicker. Then, he could see the value in returning the ball to me. It resulted in treats and another run and fetch and some more treats. And clicking the completed behavior let him know exactly how to do it. That's "harder"? I'm not getting it, I guess.

The only way you could teach him fetch, as you put it, was not based on reading and using his energy. That's why you had problems with it. If you had been reading his energy you would have been able to teach him to fetch in less than five minutes. In saying this I'm assuming he didn't come into the training situation with a lot of emotional baggage from being abused by previous owners, etc. Because if he did, you have to overcome those hurdles first before he'd be able to feel comfortable "sharing" his prey drive with you. You have to kind of tease it to the surface.

Lee Charles Kelley

ignoring the fact that every dog who ever lived was born wanting to learn and obey.

ron2

Unless you own a sled dog or an Akita. Or Chihuahua. Or Dogo de Argentino.

When you talk about what different dogs were bred for you're only talking about the degree to which this natural desire most easily manifests. It's more obvious in Labs, granted. But it's there in all breeds. Again, it's a matter of knowing how to tease it to the surface.

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

 When you take a step back and look at a dog's behavior, any dog in any situation, and try to see it from the pov of pure energy -- attraction and resistance, tension and release -- you'll see what I mean. If you don't take a step back, you won't see it. To paraphrase Proust, it's not a matter of looking at a new landscape it's a matter of having new eyes.

No, I get what you're saying. I'm just hostile to the ideas. Hey, I majored in theology and I've never believed in a god. Looking at things from different  POV's is something I do very well. But I don't see the value, for me, in your landscape. It doesn't offer explanations or suggestions that make my understanding of, or relationship to, my dogs any better.

Energy is energy - but what interests me is the SPECIFICS. What happens at the synaptic level, for example. Electrical impulses travel down neurons (energy) leading to the release of a neurotransmitter (energy) leading to activation on the other side of the gap and another electrical impulse. And the thing about energy is that it doesn't always follow the same rules. There is no grand unified theory of physics. We don't know how to make the "energy" of various theories and disciplines follow the same rules.

Hebbian learning is based on the idea that "neurons that fire together, wire together." In other words, when neurons repeatedly fire together, or fire together with strong electrical impulses, they form connections. This is on a physiological level. And that is what is happening with the can opener. Sound of can opener + yummy smells, sound of can opener + yummy smells .... eventually sound of can opener triggers the yummy smells neurons. Sasha barks when someone knocks on the door. Knock + stranger, knock + stranger ..... We can be standing outside, coming in. Me and Sasha, by ourselves. If I knock on that front door, she barks. The knock triggers an alert bark.

I am not sure what your problem with Skinner is, but classical conditioning in not a conscious process that involves mental images or logic. Funny thing about humans - we often react first, and come up with explanations later. It is too fast to notice except in a laboratory setting. We have a bias towards consciousness and over value its role. Small and amusing example - in studies where researchers poke the brain with little electrical charges to see what happens in what area, people will react and come up with explanations. Poke the funny bone in the brain, and the subject will start LOLing and claim that the researchers are just SO darn funny, sitting there. The subject believes this.

And jumping around with your post, about the neurobiology of learning being less magical that the Grand Theory of Energy ... I dunno. On a practical level my experience is barely experience - one neuroscience class with a lab - but I've done baby science work with the neurobiology of learning and it seemed pretty science-y to me.

dogs don't have the capacity to use and understand language

I would argue that they certainly do, just not VERBAL language.  Do you think that body language is just some sort of primal dance that serves no current function?  Just because we don't always understand, doesn't mean another being isn't trying to tell us something. 

Also, re Ron's experience with the retrieve, could you elaborate on just how you would have elicited that behavior?  When you use phrases like "tease it to the surface", I don't think that tells anyone who might be interested in trying your theories out exactly how they would do that. 

Lee Charles Kelley

Again, it's a matter of knowing how to tease it to the surface.

Call me Mrs Stupid, but I don't know what this means.  Could you elaborate?

Dog_ma

I am not sure what your problem with Skinner is, but classical conditioning in not a conscious process that involves mental images or logic. 

And jumping around with your post, about the neurobiology of learning being less magical that the Grand Theory of Energy ... I dunno. On a practical level my experience is barely experience - one neuroscience class with a lab - but I've done baby science work with the neurobiology of learning and it seemed pretty science-y to me.

I don't think I said that neurobiology isn't a science. I said that behaviorism isn't, or that it isn't as scientifically based as this new energy theory of behavior is. As for Skinner, it's quite maddening because the principles are so dead-on accurate enough of the time (85%?) to give one the illusion that Skinner's theories are based on something quite real, which prevents us from looking into those areas where they fall flat. In physics, on the other hand, the minute one object fell up instead of down, we'd be re-examining or rewriting the entire theory of gravity.

Some here have said they're musicians. Well, on a musical level, there's a saying among guitar players when tuning up, "It's close enough for jazz." (Or rock or folk.) Meaning that while the instrument isn't fully tuned, no one will really notice. That's how I see behaviorism: until something better comes along (which it kind of has, in my experience), Skinner is "close enough for jazz." Me, I like to use a more finely-tuned instrument. (UnfortunatelyI had to sell my Gibson F-45 years ago, and now I'm making do with a Takamine.)

You also have to take into account that there's a huge amount of difference between the kind of "learning" that takes place inside a Skinner box, in a laboratory, and the kind that takes place at a puppy class, for example. To think you can just randomly add dozens, if not thousands, of unknown variables to the equation and come up with the exact same thing as in a lab is naive at best. I suppose this is one of the lures clicker training: has; it gives one the illusion that you're in control of, or can somehow exclude, more of these unknowable variables.

And finally, going back to my 85%-of-the-credit-belongs-to-the-dog argument, anytime you're training obedience behaviors (except maybe the sit), whether you realize it or not, you're actually tapping into a dog's predatory motor patterns, which are directly inherited from the prey drive of the wolf. So you can click all you want but if you're training for obedience the dog's DNA is still doing most of the work. You're just riding the coat tails.

Anyway, that's how I see it,

LCK 

luvmyswissy

My Vet didn't is holistic and practical in his approaches.  He agreed that the over eating could cause bloat if he were to be exercised immediately after to much food, this is a concern with his breed normally.  As a matter of fact, we have always been advised by our Vet that River was to not exercise for 1 hour meal times. So he cautioned us to careful with exercise immediately after eating. 

 Dogs can and do bloat even with "normal" meals, even if all the precautions are taken. I have personally known two dogs who have bloated due to gorging on kibble and in both cases the dogs were not exercises afterwards. Suggesting an unknowing owner allow their dog to gorge on kibble as a remedy to a problem behavior is just plain irresponsible on the "behaviorist's" part.

 Oddly one of the most common behavioral solutions for resource guarding is to hand feed meals. I have never actually heard free feeding suggested for the problem until this thread. Another is to reward the dog for leaving their food bowl by offering a high value reward (better than their food) every time they do. With my young puppies who try it, simple correction is usually enough to get the point across that it isn't acceptable behavior. When I worked at a daycare the dogs loved to play "hide and seek" (aka scavenging) with treats, all enjoyed it no matter if they were free fed, on quality kibble, grocvery store kibble, canned food, raw food or whatever. 

 Not to mention I have seen far too many fat to obese dogs to be able to believe that dogs who scavenge are just hungry and need to eat more. I agree that free fed dogs often lose interest in food (although i've known some fat ones) but to me, that is abnormal. Many free fed dogs are picky, poor eaters. I also feel that free feeding is bad from a leadership view and because dogs are not meant to "graze".