|
FoxStrats posted:Except raising them with routine, positive-reinforcement, and proper diagnostics of stimulus for dog-aggression and prey drive triggers is raising them well, and that's how you prevent unfavorable behaviors from developing or, in other words, from getting worse The dog's innate level of aggression is really, really important to take into consideration when you're trying to get a handle on it. Literally anyone with two braincells to rub together should care A LOT about what level of aggression their dog is capable of, especially if their dog has already murdered some things. Extrapolating that the dog was raised poorly from the fact a hunting mix wanted to kill some prey animals is loving asinine. There are plenty of dogs out there who literally will never be safe around prey animals and no amount of ~raisin them right~ is gonna change that. You're never going to raise a genetically DA as hell dog or one with insane prey drive well enough to keep ""unfavorable behaviors from developing"" when those undesirable behaviors are literally what they were bred to do. Can you improve their response to prey via training? Sure. But you're kidding yourself if you think you can keep it from ever surfacing in some dogs or that all dogs can be trained to be ok around prey animals. You keep making these mouthsounds that kinda almost sound like you have an idea of what you're talking about but then totally poo poo the bed, it kinda owns. tbh it reads suspiciously like you've just read a book or two about positive reinforcement but have zero hands on experience working with highly prey driven or DA dogs
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
look if a dogs raised right it won't be aggressive ok god loving learn how to train a dog
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
pi is the one place on sa where it's safe to assume anyone you're talking to is a womanSneakyFrog posted:but you just have to somehow become pack alpha  dogs aren't pack animals, dominance theory is dumb bullshit that lovely trainers keep yelling about even though the scientific community discredited it literal decades ago gdi
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
SneakyFrog posted:never said i was an expert and stuff in terms and thingies. I aint saying hump your dog. just the healthy respect thing. sorry, its just one of those just so stories about dogs that is really frustrating because the idea of being alpha is so pervasive thanks to lovely trainers even though it was disproven ages ago. basically dominance theory is that wolves (and by extension dogs) are constantly competing with each other for social status within their pack and are held in check by the alpha male and female. It arose from two separate studies: Schenkels 1948 wolf behavior study and L. David Mech's 1968 book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species". There are a number of problems with both studies, the biggest being that both were done by studying captive packs of unrelated animals. These packs DID display intense competition for dominance for a very simple reason: wild wolf packs do not consist of unrelated members and pack members rarely stay together for more than a couple of years. The unnatural composition of the packs in these studies caused the wolves to behave in a manner not seen in nature - namely intense, often violent competition and a strict but shifting hierarchy of alphas, betas, omegas etc. Mech eventually did a 10 year study of wild wolves (which was confirmed by other biologists) and discovered that wolf packs consist of a breeding pair and their puppies. As the pups reach sexual maturity, they leave to find a mate and form their own packs so typically the only consistent members of any pack is the breeding pair. This type of pack composition eliminates the need for social competition between members and vying for social dominance is basically non-existent. Mech's original book was so incredibly wrong that he's been pleading with the publisher to remove it from print but so far they've refused. Then trainers for some baffling reason took his terrible theory and ran with it, attributing everything from dogs sitting on the couch to walking in front of their owners to attacking children to being ~dominant~. If dominance theory is totally wrong when it comes to wolves, why should it be true for dogs? Dogs aren't wolves and extrapolating dog's social behavior from that of wolves isn't terribly useful . Studies of feral and village dog populations show a social structure that greatly differs from that of the grey wolf. Feral dogs tend to be social but largely solitary, only coming together to breed and at large foraging sites like garbage dumps. Little evidence of steady pack behavior has been seen and there's a good deal of evidence that the modern domestic dog did not evolve directly from the grey wolf. The two species diverged in the late Pleistocene era and current research suggests that by the time humans started directly interacting with canids, they were already dogs. Rather than the mythological idea of early man stealing wolf pups and making dogs out of them, there's evidence that wolves self-domesticated by foraging at paleolithic trash sites. To effectively forage around human populations wolves probably self selected for low flight distance, a trait that has been linked to the retention of juvenile traits found in dogs. There's a really good book by ethologists Ray and Lorna Coppinger about the domestication, evolution, and social behavior of the dog that's definitely worth picking up if you're even vaguely interested in the subject. aanyways thats a lot of  to basically say stop using the term alpha and stop using wolf behavior to make assumptions about dog behavior because its super outdated science
Ausrotten fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 18:10
|
|
my bad.
|
FoxStrats posted:I'll admit that I gave myself more etymological wiggle room than I probably needed, but calling me a "twat"? Really? I honestly don't know how given the content of both of our posts you could come to the conclusion that we're saying the same thing. You said a dog's actual level of prey drive is irrelevant, I think that's loving ridiculous and short sighted. The dog's inherent level of prey drive is precisely what dictates what training measures you need to take and the level of management you need to engage in to keep a bloodbath from happening. You stated that because the dog killed prey animals, he was raised poorly. That's loving nonsense - there are a number of dogs who will never be safe around prey animals even if their owners pour literal years into training. Sighthounds, primitive breeds, and hunting dogs often fall into this category and by telling owners that all dogs have the ability to coexist with prey animals if they're raised around them and raised well, you're creating an unrealistic and frankly dangerous expectation. It's fine to hope they will but given the level of aggression the OP's dog has shown it seems extremely unrealistic to expect that it will be ok in a townhouse with kittens. Given the age the OP acquired the dog and the fact that it is essentially a catchdog, it's very unlikely that what he's seeing is just a result of poor ownership. When you see very high levels of hunt and prey drive at a young age, especially in dogs bred for that specific purpose the likelihood that it's instinctual is very high. OP's dog sounds like he has the potential to be a great hunting dog but doesn't sound like a super appropriate dog for living in a townhouse with small animals. When you say things like by raising dogs right you can prevent undesirable behaviors from surfacing it does in fact sound exactly like you're saying you can prevent the drive to kill animals from surfacing as long as you're a good owner. That apparently is not what you meant but you communicated that extremely poorly. So far every time someone's pointed out that you're wrong about something you've back pedaled or attenuated your statements so much that they barely resemble your initial posts and it's both super transparent and super frustrating. I mean you're even equating prey drive and human aggression by saying it's untrustworthy around children so l o l (i'm sure of course that isn't ACTUALLY what you meant of course  )this tho FoxStrats posted:I understand that farmhands and hicks have some inflated ego is the most hilarious thing i've read all day so thank you for that. What would a bunch of people raising murderdogs around livestock and wildlife know about dealing with prey drive and livestock compared to some dude with his first prey driven dog in the city?? Fluffy Bunnies posted:What kind of mastiff is it? Because that's sincerely important. also this
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
FoxStrats posted:If you want your dog to become more volatile and direct his/her stress at you, I agree - dominate them. Also, who said don't hump your dog? I'm sure your pup would love a little bit of affection! when you say dominate them, what precisely do you mean
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
holy poo poo this idiot thinks super knows even one single thing about g u a r d d o g s because she has gamebred shitbulls aaaahaahhahahaha buddy its poo poo like this that makes people assume youre an ignorant as gently caress pet dog owner
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
im the paper thin veil of pseudo intellectual smugness thrown over a stunningly deep well of ignorance and stupidity
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Maybe if you change your av to a border collie he'll decide that you're his intellectual equal worthy of conversation. now i'm just a simple hillperson but yeah, pretty much. there are things you can do to nurture drives, there are things you can do to dampen them but the drive is still there. what exactly that means varies from dog to dog based on a combination of genetics, training, and environmental influences but ultimately it's the dog's genetics that determine whether or not it will ever be safe around prey animals. 'drive' isn't a scientific term by any means but the dog community tends to use it to refer to instinctual survival impulses (fight, gently caress, hunt) that we've heavily modified in dogs according to their working purposes. Most working dog behavior is a result of emphasizing aspects of the predatory sequence (scan, eye, orient, stalk, chase, grab-bite, kill-bite, dissect) and truncating or eliminating others. this is where talking about "prey drive" gets really ambiguous - border collies, german shepherds, and terriers all tend to be high prey drive breeds but how that manifests varies greatly between breeds. A high prey drive collie will do a lot of orienting, stalking, and chasing but grab-biting and kill-biting a sheep will get a working collie shot. A high prey german shepherd will do a lot of chasing, grab-biting, and occasionally kill-biting but little to no stalking because those behaviors make good protection dogs. High prey terriers and sighthounds will complete the entire predatory sequence they're expected to take down and kill prey/pests. The OP's dog also falls into this last category which is why a number of us were heavily emphasizing the genetic nature of it's behavior. A mix that's bred to chase and take down large prey isn't murdering kangaroos because it was raised or trained poorly, it's doing it because we've genetically programmed it to. A high prey drive collie or lab is (in most cases) going to be easier to train not murder your housecat than a breed who's been selectively bred to execute the entire predatory sequence and loooooove doing it. Ausrotten fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
 there are no bad dogs, only bad owners
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Tamarillo posted:Excuse me, as you are clearly just a beer-swilling bearded ruffian in a shower cap with in fact no dog in your avatar I do not know why you feel you are well placed to comment on this topic. You should listen to me on this because I have no avatar and therefore have no earthly body so I am probably your conscience speaking. excuse you, its a bonnet Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Real talk, I know two guys who worked with K-9 units who had to put down their personal Rottweilers due to them suddenly becoming uncontrollably aggressive towards everyone. health problems, genetic problems, training problems, trauma. take your pick
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 16:40
|
|