Fair enough, Lisa, but I'd disagree that "no one knows how dogs think."

It may be that we have little or no scientific knowledge of canine thought processes (in the Popperian sense of falsifiable hypotheses), at least not at the cognitive level (as opposed to the instinctual level, e.g., research like Pavlov's), but we do have a great deal of implicit knowledge encapsulated in the experience of dog trainers. In other words, we do know what works and what doesn't work, and that implies, esp. in the best trainers, a deep understanding of canine thinking.

And tapping into that implicit understanding is one reason I hang out on this board!

(You might want to check out a book called "Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name," by Judith Hearn. I've posted about it here and here. There's a lot of interesting stuff about how useless--even counterproductive--most "scientific" knowledge about dogs is when training them.)

Like I said, there are two ways I would respond to the article-I'm glad I included both.

I'll grant that it's not a total hippy-dipathon, but I think what originally got my hackles up (the front ones, not the back) was in the intro, when the author said that dogs can "think circles around their owners" because the owners hadn't learned to "think like dogs". I still consider that off base, mainly because the canine mind has not yet advanced to the hypothetical implications raised by the "Alex, two cold Stroh's" commercials. If your dog is "thinking" circles around you, you aren't really thinking.

People might visualize certain things in a manner similar to dogs, but you aren't thinking like a dog-you are anticipating behavior, either correct or otherwise, and applying reward or correction accordingly.

I also agree that the "imaging" concept might be useful, if only it had been more developed or supported by research less than 30 years old. What we're left with is Dave's correct interpretation that this and other similar information will probably be counterproductive when applied to dog training where the rubber meets the road. (See? I'm thinking visually! Hey! I'm a dog!)

Dave, fair enough right back atcha! But keep in mind that this article was written toward pet dog owners, specifically addressing the issue of destructive chewing when home alone. The misconception that dogs do this "out of spite" and "know they did wrong" because they "act guilty" just won't die, and explaining to pet dog owners how off base that thinking really is sometimes takes Herculean effort. Otherwise, I agree with you. I'll see if my library has the book you've mentioned.

Iain, you're right, if your dog is outthinking you, then you've got a problem.....again, this article was written with pet dog owners in mind, many of whom are out-thunk by their dogs on a regular basis. This is hardly a scientific work; if you take it in the spirit with which it was intended, to explain to pet dog owners why punishment after the fact does not work, then I think it has value.

Now I have a question for the panel:

In the article, the author suggests that sometimes when a dog acts out destructively in order to relieve the stress/anxiety associated with being left home alone, the dog will choose an item that has its master's scent on it, or an item that reminds the dog of its missing master. I always kinda doubted this, and figured that most dogs under the circumstances will pick something that's convenient or has a texture that they like to chew.

Here's the question: I have a 4yo Lab who has proven himself trustworthy uncrated when home alone (provided that there is no food left out, and that the garbage can is locked securely where he cannot access it; being a Lab, he has a weakness for the edibles <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ). One day, about a year and a half ago, I bought a brand new bicycle helmet. This was when I was bicycle commuting. Anyway, I brought the helmet home, put it on my head, adjusted the straps, then took it off and set it on the 42 inch high counter (dog is 22" at the withers). I then left the house to run an errand. I was only gone for about 30 minutes max, but when I returned home, I found the helmet on the living room floor, with identifiable Labrador teethmarks on it, and a Lab sized pile of poop right next to it. There was no Lab to be seen.
So, why did he choose the helmet of all things? He would have had to stand up on his hind legs and use his front legs to pull the helmet off the counter. In other words, it took effort; he specifically targeted this particular item. He could have chewed couch pillows. He could have chewed chair legs or table legs. He could have chewed books or video cassettes. But, he chose the helmet; the last thing I had handled before I left. When I set it on the counter, it would have been out of his line of sight. He had to have consciously chosen it. Why? Does this not show a thought process of sorts?

Keep in mind that this is a dog trained to locate specific individuals by following their scent.

OK, OK, I'll bite.

Given that your lab is trained in scenting, I propose that you look at what the helmet had that everything else in your house didn't: someone else's scent, maybe? That of another dog, transferred to the object by its owner (i.e. employee at bike shop, etc.)?. While I'm sure your dog is capable of discriminating the age of your scent on different articles, I'd be surprised if he targeted one based on that discrimination.

As an aside, you gotta admire his style: I don't like it, therefore I bite it and poop on it!

What I was suggesting is that it sounds like marking, not "thinking".

It's possible....but the helmet came in a sealed cardboard package. I took it out of the package when I got home.

...and he didn't touch the package, which was also left on the counter.

But you also touched the package, right? Curioser and curioser. I think that this question should be answered by someone who knows a whole lot more about scenting than I do. (This, by the way, is not a tall order). I just can't see why the dog would chew and/or mark one item with your scent while leaving the others. It just seems to me like he was responding to another odor.

Another possibility is that he wasn't responding to odor at all, but rather, the "forbidden ball-shaped object". The poop could have just been coincidence; he couldn't hold it, and nobody was home to let him out. I guess it's just not possible to get into the dog's mind and know exactly what was going on. But by the same token, I don't think it's possible to rule out some sort of thought process.