Part Four: Practical Modal Education Applications

MODAL THEORY

Part Four: Practical Modal Education Applications

Introduction

Optimum learning performance requires a degree of motivation as well as clearly understood communication between pupil and teacher. O'Farrell, 1992, suggests that a dog does not have to be in a particular learning frame of mind to learn. This is correct as a dog is capable of learning in a wide variety of circumstances and emotional states, but also consider the work of Eysenk 1999, which puts forward the role of motivation and its positive effect on learning performance in humans. Such a position, improved learning performance being associated with a greater degree of motivation, would also be strongly supported by the work of Fox 1978, in dogs and other canids. This theory in its most basic form provides as a system of education. It utilizes the social needs of the dog to establish and maintain control; it utilizes the innate prey drives of the dog in an infantile form of prey play, Fox 1978, as the primary motivator/reinforcement. Within such a system optimum learning performance can be achieved, as communication is specific and easily comprehended, rewards and punishment if necessary are also clear and concise.

The purpose of this section is therefore to give details on how in practice the trainer can best supply information to the dog, motivate and reward the dog and where necessary punish the dog. All three areas interplay to facilitate learning.

Dog training is mainly completed using the learning theory of operant conditioning. Whilst this is the aim in practice a dog can learn in a classical conditioning sense and this if available to the dog will override the operant conditioning exercise attempting to be taught. This point must be clearly understood by the handler so that they will recognize when the training objective may be misunderstood by the dog and lead to the dog learning a totally different behaviour which may be undesirable. This will be covered in great detail in the first part of this section. It is also very likely, considering the observational learning achieved in wild canids, which domestic canines are capable of learning from observationally. If this is the case then many objectives (trained behaviours) could be taught to the pups simply by allowing the pup to observe an adult dog exhibiting the desired behaviours. This factor is still to be borne out by research but as such it is a highly credible field of future research.

The use of punishment in dog training is probably the most misused educational tool the trainer has. Trainers need to understand when to punish and the means of punishment which concisely let the dog know that it has done wrong but does not invoke an anxiety or fear response. In this section methods to correct the dog will be discussed as well as visual clues the dog will display to indicate a state of fear or anxiety.

Communication of Training Objectives

To consider the impact of the Modal theory on how we approach the training of the dog we should consider what mode the dog must be in to comply with what we have asked of it. We then must also accept as fact that since the purpose of the mode is to priorities events relative to the dog’s needs it would be impossible for the dog to operate in two modes simultaneously. As a result we can theorize that a dog is able to rapidly switch from one mode to another and back again as is required to best priorities the situation, relative to its emotional reactions to obtain the highest degree of success for the activity the dog is engaged in.

An example of this would be that handler control is achieved through the social mode. A handler is using its higher position in the hierarchy to control the subordinate dog as previously stated. As the required action will impact on the dog’s security within the pack (its acceptance, position etc), the dog will switch from either prey or defense to the social mode to comply as the priority in this mode will give issues relative to the dog’s security within its social system greater importance than the other two modes would. This is of course subject to the dog a) recognizing the handlers superiority within the pack, and b) the dog perceiving that disobedience to the command of a superior will have an effect on its (the dog’s) security within the pack. It should be noted very clearly that this is one area where force can have a very negative effect. If the dog reacts through fear he is not in social mode he is in defense. Whilst the dog may comply out of fear of retribution it has not necessarily accepted the higher position of the handler. This is why force is not a valid way to ensure domination of a dog. If the threshold switching process is considered we must make sure that the dog does understand that obedience to the handlers’ requests must be its highest priority. This is where most handlers fail.

It is very easy to use our superior strength to obtain a desired behaviour but it is highly doubtful that in such instances much has been learned by the dog, or at least nothing greatly beneficial, it will however have learnt that its superior is stronger than it and prone to aggressive out bursts. This is a fair indication of the situation the dog perceives. Chances are that the dog did not fully understand what was asked of it; and, when its inaction or wrong action caused through confusion resulted in rage from its superior, it has learnt through classical conditioning that when it is confused the handler will get angry and forceful. Not an ideal situation. Handlers should strive to attain dominance using minimal force. This is attained by putting into practice the modal theory applications. If security is the primary emotional trigger for a switch to social mode then we must insure that the dog clearly understands that being in close contact with us is a privilege and not a right like food and water. The author is aware that some trainers use the basics of life, food and water, as a training tool this practice is inhumane and should not be encouraged.

This is most simply achieved by removing the dog from your presence or ignoring its presence whenever it fails to obey a KNOWN command. The emphasis is on known for if the dog is being taught a new exercise then there is little to be gained from punishing a wrong action. The simple facts are that the dog was not disobedient it simply doesn’t know what you want; this simplification clearly shows that punishment in such instances is unwarranted. Does this not call into question the older style training methodologies which required lead corrections whilst teaching heeling right from the very start? In such circumstances we surely have not taught the dog anything of value other than we, as a race are prone to violent outbursts and use physical force to obtain what we want from subordinates.

A practical example of a switch to social mode triggered by issues of security in a training sense is the call off from attack as practiced in the French and/or Belgian Ringsport. (The dog is required to chase down a fleeing man and when commanded by the handlers just prior to coming in contact with the man, break off the attack and return to the handler at the same speed with which it had originally departed) A dog chasing a fleeing decoy is in prey mode as it nears the decoy switches to defense mode to attack; when the handler calls it off, it must switch back to social mode to comply with the wishes of its superior for the same reasons stated above. Fear of the handler has nothing to do with it and could not be used to obtain the result, at best what you would get would be a dog which will bite and then let go only if the handler was close enough to intervene. This again is not the dog acknowledging a higher authority rather the dog giving way to superior force. (Avoidance).

Such low thresholds are firmly established by handling methods which promote the bond between the dog and handler and then use the handler’s abstinence or lack of attention as a potential punishment. Consider that a person has a special person in their lives, this person is always there to share the fun times, is so consistent in their affirmation of the friendship, has provided support and encouragement through difficult times and actively participated in the celebration of the others success. You have here a fairly accurate description of what the dogs would perceive to be the perfect relationship with a social superior. Now consider the effect, emotionally, on the subject, if through the subjects own actions, this person suddenly removed all this emotional support and became aloof or indifferent to the subject or in a worst case scenario left the subject alone. The subject’s world has effectively been turned upside down, no force has been used and the only fear generated is that of hurting the other feelings or a loss of security.

In human terms we would consider that if a person felt such a deep sense of loss that they were psychologically ill, they would be termed co dependant. But to a dog this is exactly the effect a normal emotionally healthy subject would feel. They are emotionally different to humans and require a far higher degree of cohesion between the pack members for the pack to operate at maximum efficiency. They are in effect co dependant on each other to maintain their respective positions within the pack structure and as a result their very survival as individuals is tied to the pack’s cohesion. Thus the effect on the canine subject to such an action from a social superior is to try to make back the ground they lost, to save face so to speak and redeem themselves in their superiors eyes. In dogs trained under this methodology we see in practice and increased effort on the dog’s part to obey the handler’s instructions to make sure they avoid that feeling of isolation. In doing so they often preempt commands, try several different behavioural responses, all of which is done at an increased pace. When the dog is exhibiting this kind of a response a good social superior lessens the dog’s state of anxiety through calming directives and when the desired behaviour has been achieved honestly expressed their appreciation for the subjects effort. Thus the subject is no longer removed from their security and is clearly shown that no resentment remains as a result of their actions. Another positive effect is that in the dogs eyes this increased praise and attention from the social superior increases, in its perception the dogs position within the pack Arguably of greater importance to the field of education is that there is no lingering anxiety as a result, the dog knows that provided the wishes of the social superior are carried out there will be re occurrence. This should not imply that a dog treated in this manner will never again disobey, they will and it would be foolish to consider otherwise. The benefit of this approach is that disobedience can be corrected effectively in a clearly comprehended manner that all parties clearly understand without having to resort to the use of physical force. This is the primary objective of any handler wanting to exercise control over their dog.

It should be obvious from all the previous text that a detailed evaluation of the dog’s emotional reactivity should be done prior to any serious attempts at educating. The Author intends to do further research in this area in future as it is believed that without an uncomplicated system to evaluate the dogs innate thresholds and emotional reactivity it is very difficult to ensure that information is presented in the best possible manner. It is considered that the 16 personality types put forward by Jung, Jung 1932, will provide the best platform from which to classify the various combinations of thresholds and emotional reactivity. This having been said Jung did specifically state that polar variances within each type will occur so even when this research has been completed there will still be a reliance on the handler to identify the dogs own personal thresholds and reactivity potential and adjust any training methods accordingly to best suit the individual concerned.

The concept that the level of the threshold for social mode is an accurate measure of how easily the dog can be controlled has been thoroughly put forward. A dog with a low threshold will easily be controlled by almost anyone the dog feels is superior to it within its pack. This however is not always as beneficial as it might first seem. If the dog with a low threshold also has extreme or very high innate drives within this mode the dog is easily put into an anxious state. The reason is that the dog needs to feel secure within the pack and any thing which jeopardizes that sense of security is anxiety provoking. This is due to extreme rated drives causing an almost pathological need within the dog. Couple this type of dog with inconsistent handling and the result will be a very anxious even fearful dog which will display an avoidance reaction with a possible shift subject to its defense potential and threshold to defense mode. If the innate potential is not as high (moderate or high drives) then the dog remains controllable and yet not quite as prone to anxiety as the fore mentioned dog. An extreme drive (social) dog with a moderate or high threshold will in turn need a stronger (mentally) more dominant handler to effectively trigger the threshold; as a result dogs of this combination are harder to control. Extreme social drive potential with an extreme threshold has not as yet in this research been encountered. It is reasonable to consider though that such a combination would be highly dominant and very difficult to control.

A high social drive dog with an extreme threshold rating would also be very dominant and would require specialized handling as the extreme threshold would be very hard to trigger. The same would be true of a moderate or low social drive dog which still had an extreme threshold. But the three examples just given would still require different approaches. A low social drive dog would not respond as effectively to banishment as a moderate or high social drive dog, the need to be part of the pack is not as high and thus this type of dog would be far more independent. High social drive dogs still need to be part of a pack and would be very social when the threshold had been triggered, a low social drive dog would not. The moderate drive dog would fall in between the two examples given.

It has also been stated that the impact of early experiences is seen on the dog’s threshold levels as is many other interactions seen though out a dog’s life. What has been frequently seen in practical applications is that if stimuli cause a very high level of emotional response in a dog they will tend to default back to their innate threshold levels until such a stimulus is removed. This doe not negate the need to work with the dog to teach it to be able to raise and lower its own thresholds but is yet another variant which needs to be considered by the handler. An example is that if you had an extreme social drive dog which had an innately low threshold you would work with that dog to raise its social threshold in areas of work where control by the handler was not the highest priority, take tracking as an example. A dog with extreme social drives and a low threshold would not be comfortable working at 15m from the handler unless it also had extreme prey drives and a low prey threshold. (The two would be incompatible and such a type has not been seen). To get this dog to track effectively it must be taught to raise its social threshold. But if stimulus was present that had such a profound effect on the dog which brought its security into question then it would, while such stimulus is present revert back to its original low threshold for social. Thus, whilst handlers can and do teach a dog to raise its threshold, we cannot alter the dog’s reactivity to the extent that a low threshold dog can be made into a high or extreme under all circumstances. Thus the innate potential or positioning of the threshold still needs to be taken into consideration when handling a dog or even when breeding from the dog.

The dog’s whole modal position or type will impact on how reliable the learnt raised threshold will be. For example, an extreme rated social dog with a low threshold can be taught to raise that threshold enough to complete the work of a tracking dog subject to its prey drive rating and its prey threshold. If the prey drives are low, it is doubtful that the dog would be able to work effectively in tracking; moderate prey drives would enable some tracking to be taught. High drive dogs would be able to perform at a higher level than moderate and extreme dogs higher again. The thresholds for prey mode also have an impact; the lower the threshold the better the dog will likely perform as the likelihood of a switch back to social is reduced. This is to say that the dog with a low prey threshold does not need much motivation to switch to prey mode and thus work; it derives its own pleasure from the work; the higher the threshold the less likely the dog is to be able to retain its learnt threshold for the social drive. Environmental stimulus will thus have a greater effect on such a dog and it will tend to become concerned that it is actually doing the right thing. This triggers the dogs need for security and in turn engages the social threshold and switches the dog to social mode. End result the dog is now in the wrong mode to be able to complete the task, in this case tracking.

The above example can be further built onto by considering the dog’s defense potential and thresholds. If the dog mentioned above had high defense drives with a low threshold, it will also be more likely to be reactive and switch to either social or defense subject to whether the stimulus creates uncertainty or fear emotions. If the dog had low defense drives and a low threshold, it would look to the handler anytime it was unsure or felt fear and thus reverting back to a social position as the dogs has a higher innate potential within this mode. This in effect would cause the fear to trigger a switch to social which is achieved by fear causing a switch to defense mode; the dog has low innate potential in this mode; this creates uncertainty which in turn switches the dog to social. The most likely behavioural action would be avoidance which would most probably be attributed to the dog being fearful and thus the dog would be thought of as being in defense mode. This in turn can lead to other problems; if the handler then tries to switch a dog to social mode to regain control, the dog is already in this mode and any increase in the handler trying to assert their position is only likely to lead to greater avoidance as the dog feels even more unsure of its position.

In short if a dog has low innate thresholds training can teach the dogs to raise their own thresholds. This learnt threshold will only be maintained by the dog provided it is still higher than the thresholds of not only the mode within which it is desired the dog should operate in but the remaining mode as well, and that the innate drives of the mode required for the work at hand is not significantly lower than the innate drives of the mode which has had its threshold raised by learning. This is true across all three modes.

This example tries to point out how imperative it is that the handler of any dog learns to read the dog’s emotional state and without projection recognize the innate potential of the dog and can follow along the switches with objectivity. Dogs are complex animals but humans are very fortunate that the dog is far more visually communicative than we are and handlers need to learn what the dog is expressing through its body and facial expressions. This observable information is then considered against the dogs innate modal positions and an accurate idea of what the dog is feeling can be ascertained. Only in this manner are handlers in a position to ensure that all information is passed onto the dog at the most opportune time and in the most comprehensible manner.

Prey mode is responsible for play in the domesticated dog for reasons explained previously. All play regardless of which mode the participants were in initially is carried out in prey mode. In play with in a social setting, the play bow and other actions elicit a prey response from the recipient. There is also some research currently underway which suggests that the production of hormones also has a part to play through the sense of smell, Vandergeten,( personal communication), but this is most likely going to be unsuccessful as it is more likely that the observers observational skills have failed to notice the minute changes in body or facial expressions. These actions trigger the emotive response so that the recipient is able to undertake the correct behavioral response. Failure to respond to such a trigger could engage the defense trigger and a fight would result. This mode is the primary mode within which we will reward our dogs for correct completion of exercises as the dog cannot whilst in this mode feel anxiety. Anxiety as explained is created through a conflict of the dog not being sure of the actions required, to this end anxiety can only be expressed when the dog is in social mode. Prey mode is still also triggered by food. This is the last remnant of true prey mode left from the domestication process. For some individuals this part of prey is a lot stronger than the desire to chase. It could be still speculated though that as our dogs are well fed, the enjoyment from food used in training is still based on the excitement of the dog pleasing the pack leader and as such still constitutes a modified play behavior. By switching our dogs to prey mode at the completion of an exercise we are displaying in no uncertain terms to the dogs that we are happy with them. This lack of confusion is why dogs trained in this manner are a lot happier in their work and have improved handler bonds over the more institutionalized systems.

Prey mode has a lot more to offer the trainer than simply a means of reward. Prey can be used to motivate a dog to complete an action, it can be used as a means of reducing anxiety and a means by which other thresholds can be raised, thus this mode is of great importance when considering how to effectively communicate the training objective to the dog. As such a handler should take great care to evaluate their dogs prey potential and innate threshold for this mode.

A dog with extreme prey drives and a low threshold will take very little to want to engage the handler in prey play, chase a ball or take a food treat. They will also be easy to teach tracking, retrieval and will have a natural desire to chase livestock but usually will be very hard to control in obedience or to keep quiet and calm. If that same dog also has a high social drive with an innately low threshold it will frequently be subject to anxiety reactions. This is due to both modes having a low threshold and the need this dog has as a result to please its superior. Such reactions are easily overcome by ensuring the dog understands that the handler does want to play. Tracking with a dog of this type does require careful handling as if the handler allows the lead to suddenly become taunt (tension shock) the dog will begin to experience anxiety as its experiences a conflict between wanting to complete the prey behaviour (tracking) and the desire to please the handler (tension shock being interpreted as a lead correction). In this situation the handler must work to increase the social trigger by rewarding the dog for remaining focused in prey mode. If we add a high defense drive and a low threshold we again see a multi facetted problem occurring from the same tension shock, if the handler is particularly dominant and the dog receives a tension shock it is possible that the dog will switch from prey mode to defense as it becomes fearful. This situation requires careful handling as the handler must ensure that the fearful response is not rewarded. In this situation the handler should quietly encourage the dog to resume the tracking and make no attempt to physically comfort the dog.

If a dog presents itself for training and has a moderate or low prey drive, it will require a particularly skillful and patient handler to bring out the working abilities of this dog. For the average handler the dog needs to have whatever threshold it has for prey lowered and this threshold must remain lower than the other two modes. A handler of such as this would usually begin the dog in a social mode exercise like obedience and then reward with free play. This is usually accomplished by allowing the dog to run free in an enclosed area and encouraging the dog to chase you by running away. If there are some objects in the area where the handler can hide all the better as the ability to search is a prey modal behaviour. After several sessions of this the dogs usually begin to exhibit play bows and other prey behaviours such as scenting. If this dog has a high social drive with a low threshold the handler will have little difficulty controlling the dog off lead provided they are not too forceful and incite and anxiety response. The higher the social threshold the harder it will be to control the dog but conversely in practice we have found that the higher the threshold for social the faster we see a take up of the lower prey threshold. This having been said, the author has trained several dogs of high social potential and low prey potential. This is done by using social contact as the ultimate reward for the dog, but it does require very quick reactions and succinct timing to obtain the same results as that achieved through the use of prey behaviours as a reward. Anxiety is still usually quite an issue with dogs of this type and could be responsible for the blocking of the dogs prey potential.

Again the defense mode will play a part; if this mode has a low threshold coupled with high innate potential then fear reactions are also common occurrences in the early part of prey training. These reactions must not be rewarded and largely ignored by the handler continuing the chase-me game. If the handler was chasing the dog and a fear reaction resulted, the handler should immediately reverse the roles and get the dog to chase him; this switches the dog back to prey and the game continues. Care should of course be taken to avoid as much as is possible a switch to defense when playing but if the dog has a low defense threshold they will occur. It is important to note that just because a fear reaction occurs a handler should not stop chasing the dog, rather simply tone it down a little by being less vigorous in the approach and quickly reverse the roles at the first sign of fear. This will over time increase the defense threshold as the dog begins to understand that its fear is unwarranted.

When evaluating a dog for prey potential and thresholds the handler must realize that the dogs innate potential can and often is blocked by either or both a fear or anxiety reaction. If a dog is clearly demonstrating anxiety when a handler attempts to engage the dog in play and shows no indication that it understands or has any interest in prey behaviours, the mostly likely reason is the dog has high to extreme social drives and a low social threshold. This may be the result of the dog’s early experience (in the case of an adult) or its innate type. Either way the method described above will reduce the anxiety and allow for a detailed evaluation of the prey potential to be seen, but it is a long term process and will not even under intensive training rapidly rectify the problem. This resistance to prey behaviours is frequently seen in adult dogs which have changed home; obviously they have to bond with the handler before they will feel secure and until this is completed they will be more subject to security based issues. If the situation continues and the dog is still not displaying prey behaviours, there will frequently have been a learnt response involved.

An example of this is an adult dog which has been run with a number of dogs and then later rehomed into a home where it is the only dog. This dog has most likely been well down the pack hierarchy and has adopted omega dog or beta dog behaviours (omega dogs are the lowest of the pack with no aspirations of leadership, the beta dog is a dog which has not been able to attain leadership but does have the dominance to assume such a role). Beta dogs recover very quickly as they are natural leaders which have been suppressed; they tend not to have too low a social threshold which steadily increases over a reasonably short period of time. The omega dog usually does have a low social threshold and high drives in this mode; they will suffer a great deal of anxiety when faced with a beta position (they are the sole dog responsible to the owners). Time will remedy most of this anxiety but handlers must be careful not to try to do too much too soon.

Agility training has been found to assist low social threshold dogs of high drives get over their anxiety as they must conquer their anxiety to master the apparatus and then as they increase in speed it does in effect become play which allows for a switch to prey mode. It is also an area where handlers are very succinct in what it is they are asking of the dog and tend to show the dog what they want rather than simply order it to be done. Once in prey mode they can be built up in confidence not only of themselves but their relationship with the handler. Handlers should maintain a forward motion when handling an anxious dog on an agility course. If a handler stops moving to rectify a problem, the dogs tend to react with increased anxiety as the dog perceives the directed attention of the handler being intimidating. In practice the use of continual motion has had extremely promising results with highly anxious dog; as to whether this is the dog using its prey potential to reduce its anxiety or simply that the superior is allowing the subordinate to follow without rejection is unknown at this time.

Important to note is that whilst a dog can only operate in a single mode at a time, the influences on a dog in one mode can affect the threshold of another mode by means of the dog regulating its own threshold position. This does not imply that one mode or another is consistently more important to the dog, rather that a dog controls the thresholds of each mode to suit the individual circumstances it is currently in and its innate potential. In obedience heeling exercises we use the social mode to increase the threshold of triggering the prey response. The dog is in social because the handler has obtained obedient responses to its requests of the dog. The objective for the dog is to complete each action requested by its superior knowing that successful competition will be prey or a food treat. This allows us to hold the dogs focus on the task at hand until we release it at the completion of the desired exercise. If a prey object such as a retrieval toy is used as the motivator for the dog to respond, we use the social mode that is our position with relation to the dog in the hierarchy to stop the dog from switching to prey mode and trying to play until we release the dog by throwing the article for it. In such circumstances the dog must raise the threshold to achieve the results desired by a superior prior to being able to switch over to prey mode and play with the prey object the way it desires. This is copying the method used by pack superiors in wolf packs to hold younger, lower ranked dogs from spoiling a planned stalk.

This is as close to setting the thresholds as we can come, but it is still a judgment call from the dog, which actually sets the threshold. We show our disappointment if they get it wrong by withholding the reward and making the dog go through the exercise again. This way the dog soon learns to wait until it is allowed to switch; this is true control. We've all seen dogs that have low thresholds unable to complete the scenario given. The handler is unable to switch the dog to social mode where by he can control the dog. In such cases the handler must look to ways which he can maintain the dog in social mode when the prey object is in sight. This is achieved very gradually by withholding the reward from the dog until he has remained in social mode (displayed calm and correct behavioural responses) for gradually increasing periods of time. The dog learns to heighten its threshold or the reward will not be made available. Again this principal is identical to that of a wild dog attempting to elicit play with a superior of the pack; it must observe all the correct social forms so as not to infer a challenge to the superior and evoke a corrective/aggressive response from him.

Prey mode is frequently used in the treatment of dogs having a behavioural disorder. Prey is as stated a stress free mode; it allows for fun interactions between dog and handler; it usually involves high levels of activity either mental or physical or a combination of both which is used to relieve boredom or correct displacement activities; it is also used to control fear and anxiety responses in dogs as described earlier. It should therefore be that every breeder should do their utmost to ensure that the prey potential of their dogs is fully attained. Sadly this is not the case and the author would attribute this breeder failure to the destruction of many dogs for behavioural based reasons.

In defense of the breeders, it is true that a dog with high or extreme prey drives and low thresholds are difficult to handle especially in the conformation show ring; but it is a simple matter of these breeders improving their handling skills and learning to create a balanced dog and the situation would be rectified without the causation of many of the behavioural problems all too frequently seen in modern dogs. It is also true that to maintain this balance when the breeder has 10 to 20 dogs or more would be a full time job all by itself, but it was the breeder’s choice to have so many dogs and thus they should accept the responsibility for the mental welfare of all their charges. Refusing to allow the dog to reduce its own stress level can hardly be considered to be ethical and not providing a stimulating environment with ample opportunity for prey behaviours is exactly that. This point could well be one of the major causes of the significant increase in dogs taken to specialists for behavioural therapy as could the ever increasing differences between working lines and show lines of the same breeds. Over time breeders in the show ring have selectively bred for a low prey drive dog for ease of handling, but in doing so have created a innately unbalanced dog. It is also true that highly specialized working kennels have created the opposite imbalance where if the dog is not constantly at work (in a world where opportunities for such are reducing rapidly) they are also highly subject to behavioural disturbances. It is not the intention of this paper to say which of the polar extremes is right or wrong, rather that as the breeders have specialized their dogs specifically for their own desires that the resulting unbalanced dog does on average make a very poor family pet. The key for the breeders is to achieve a balanced dog and to ensure that they are actually the right people to own the particular breed in question.

Modern husbandry practices have earlier in this paper come in for a fair degree of criticism, particularly in the area of exposure of young stock to stressors. One area which should be made use of though is the manufacturing of prey based toys which are unfortunately usually only used when the dog’s behaviour has already slipped beyond the normal. Toys which are self rewarding (classical conditioning) do have a lot to offer the breeder. A number of such devices have an ability to hold food and release such food as the dog plays with the toy in small and gradual doses. These are ideal for stress relief and also provide in at least a marginal way a means by which breeders can ensure that the pups they produce do develop reasonable prey drives and maintain the lowest innate threshold. As the toy is intermittently rewarding the dogs behaviour towards the toy is highly resistant to extinction. It is doubtful that such equipment would replace a well structure early learning program but when incorporated as part of such a program, i.e. continuation of prey drive stimulation when the breeder is unable to engage the pups in prey play, they would appear to have highly positive benefits to the dog and its developing prey drives.

Dogs of an innately low social threshold and subject to anxiety should always be kenneled with a means to reduce that anxiety themselves. This may be one of the mentioned toys or it may be a dog, preferably of a lower social ranking, with which they can engage in play. Anxious dogs which are kenneled by themselves and no real means in moderating their own anxiety position tend to exhibit widely fluctuation responses to the handler approaching the kennel, ranging from extremely happy to skulking away at the furthest point subject to their anxiety level at the time of the approach. Practical usage of the toys mentioned resulted in a far more even range of behavioural responses to the owners approach and thus are considered to further illustrate the point that anxiety/stress self reduction is best achieved through the prey mode.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Return Home