Rom

You're not suspicious about the fact that two or three old threads (anything from 2 months old to 2.5 years old) about Dogtech, John Richardson or the Dog Whisperer have been resurrected in the last few days are you cNr?

Never be afraid to open a can of worms Carloslex....I know that I have on one or two occasions and there were some good lessons in that for me, even if the lessons were not immediately apparent to me Prolly a question best asked in the health/nutrition forum?

I'm not doubting that your Dogtech representative helped you solve your problems Carloslex. As I said in my post above, it is possible that there are individuals within the Dogtech franchise system with genuine knowledge....they have just used the franchise system to help get their business off the ground. But that is not true of all of those representatives of Dogtech and this would have been apparent to a trainer of genuine knowledge when they understood that the training offered by Dogtech consisted of a 2 or 3 week course....they would have to understand, based on that, that there would be representatives of the Dogtech brand whose knowledge was not up to some of the problems they would face. They would have to understand that this could create doubt about the brand in the consumer mind. If I were seeking to go into business, I would not align myself with a brand that had the potential to undermine consumer confidence in the integrity of my business. Its not a risk that I would be willing to take....but some do take that risk and they need to be prepared for the potential of fallout from that.....If they are not aware of that, then they didn't do their homework before they bought into the franchise. Because of that doubt, I stand by my position that I would not recommend Dogtech on a broad scale basis...however, there may be individuals representing the Dogtech brand that I might recommend if their level of knowledge could be ascertained to be genuine. So, in answer to your analogy of the dodgy commodore, no I would not counsel people to not buy commodores....I would instead counsel them to be wary of representatives of the franchise who sold the dodgy commodore. BTW...I am really happy that your Rotty was saved

Just wanting to thank everyone for their input in regards to stress in this thread. Its an area that has been a little grey to me because my knowledge and understanding has been on the change on this subject and with your help I have gained a deeper appreciation of how stress can actually help in behaviour modification. Rusky, I agree that the signals that the dog gives off basically tells us that the dog wants it to stop.....however, if we also show the dog the behaviours that he can engage in to make it stop and reinforce those behaviours, then that puts the dog in control and it returns to confidence. I don't have TV so don't watch Cesar Milan....I can only assume from what is written here that he isn't big on reinforcement/reward....the problem I see with that is that perhaps the dogs he works with are left in a stressed state for too long?

if I do a DOL search will that bring up the posts? (no idea what 'non-ohmic' is/means ) Lab and Poodle or Labs + Poodle or some other name I can't remember. A search should bring up topics under the first name, at least. Poodlesplus??

Pax is on the money. I think that dogs believe that they control/influence their environment by their actions. You see it with so many over the top bouncy dogs that people show them attention while they are behaving like that. If the dogs goal is to get attention, then he comes to believe that if he acts bouncy and over the top, he gets the attention that he wants. Attention is the reinforcer and any behaviour that is reinforced gets stronger. Setting new rules about how and when the dog gets attention is the easy part....getting your visitors or the people that you meet to comply to the rules is a little harder in my experience. You'll find it the hardest to enforce amongst those who are dog lovers, but have little understanding about how the mind of the dog works. But it has to be done to give a consistent message and to be fair on the dog.

Good point about the target Sidoney, it reminded me of something else I did. I also had my girl touch my stomache with her nose before looking at me.

My girl used to do the rock back sit too. There are a few things that I did to help her tidy this up: For the front, I did short recalls with her on lead, but I passed the lead between my legs so that as she come in I could hold her front end close to me and she had to scoot her rear end under to sit. I found that with the lead btn my legs and being held behind my back I could limit unecessary hand movements/signals that may have been confusing her and basically kept my hands right out of her way of getting in nice and close. The other criteria I train for in the front is that the dog has to be looking up at my face in order to earn the reward...so the minute her butt hits the ground and she is looking at me I mark and drop the reward from my mouth (I don't spit cuz my aim is shocking!). I found with my dog that if she was in nice and close and held there and looking up at me then it was almost a natural that her butt scooted in underneath rather than her rocking back into the sit.....if that makes sense? ETA: Picture

Mark, I've read your website and have full confidence that you can come up with a super submission

She is happy to be of assistance cuz she realises not only the exceptional level of commitment that you are affording this endeavour , but also the positive impact to the welfare of dogs that success in this endeavour is aimed at. Happy New Year

Thanks everyone! :rolleyes: Don't know why you thought you'd track me down here Ruger Thanks for thinking of me.

Twasn't Tess...Twas me. It is my understanding that you can't get a -R without first applying a +P apologies to Tess so? did you fall asleep? No...I was awake enough to remember her talking about the acclimatisation pens. Before wolves are released into Yellowstone they are kept in acclimatisation pens. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that it was impossible to capture a whole pack when wolves were being gathered to repopulate Yellowstone. Secondly they found that if they did release wolves from different packs, they wouldn't readily form a new pack and they had to do that to protect genetic diversity, but also so that there were sufficient numbers in a pack to hunt successfully. So they opted for a soft release....the wolves were put into acclimatisation pens and they had a pack structure sorted out within 24hrs usually but they were kept there for at least a month. Interestingly enough, the wolves were only fed once a week while they were in the acclimatisation pens (if I remember correctly, these pens around an acre or two in size). Sometimes for different reasons, the free wolves are captured and put back into these pens. I believe that the only way that Jan Fennel could have studied the wolves in Yellowstone is in these acclimatisation pens...she mentioned them herself....in captivity and reliant on humans bringing in food once a week. I remember reading a report from Yellowstone that was a celebration that for the last 1000 days there was one reported wolf siting a day....from the hundreds of visitors to Yellowstone each day of those wolves that are not in captivity. Most of the observation of the wolves that are not in captivity by the staff involved with management/study is done by either helicopter, where the wolves are sedated with a dart gun if they need to get closer, or by studying the reported kills on livestock in the surrounding farmlands.

Twasn't Tess...Twas me. It is my understanding that you can't get a -R without first applying a +P

oh Tess come on, the lady spends weeks and months studying the animals on location, studying tapes, talking to the people who have become personal friends who spend their entire lives studying wolf behaviour... I think that puts her out in front... in front of Mark too I guess My original Jan Fennel comment was directed at Mark who said Jan Fennel does use a lifestyle with dogs completely adapted from wolf behaviour. Yes of course dogs are pack animals but a pack can be 2... you and your dog. I didn't realise that the 80% was a figure but I knew they shared 97% DNA. I can't see any reason for positive punishment. I have read all there is to read... I even read some of the stuff posted on DOL Back tracking just a little From what I recall, Jan Fennels work with/study of wolves was conducted at zoos or some other form of captivity. So perhaps some of the results/observations made there about what does and doesn't work is based on similar flaws as what Mark points out in the below?: After reading one or two of Jan Fennels books and learning that she was inspired to do what she does with dog after attending some Monty Roberts workshops with horses, I decided to read some of Monty Roberts books. The keystone of a lot of what Monty Roberts does with horses is what he calls the 'join up' process. On the face of it, the 'join up' process seems to be very benign and doesn't seem to be dishing any punishers onto the horse. Thats what Jan Fennel has latched onto and it has inspired her methods. At a workshop of hers that I attended, she referred to the 'join up' process as just 'shoo-shooing' the horse away. In his book "Shy Boy-the horse that come in from the wild", Monty Roberts goes into this join up process in depth and describes the psychological fear (or terror, depending on the the extremes to which the point is pushed) that the join up process can induce in a horse. The book "Shy Boy" is the result of a challenge that Monty Roberts set himself to cut a mustang from a wild herd, and all by himself tame it, saddle it and ride it home. All this was done out in the wilderness. While he was successful in doing this, the mustang was subjected to the join up process for more than 24hrs straight, from what I remember. So, was the mustang subjected to +P? Absolutely it was because as Monty Roberts states, the join up process mimicks a disciplinary action that is frequently used in herds.....The punisher is the threat of being at greater risk of predation by being separated from or forced out of the herd. ETA: The best thing I got out of the Jan Fennel seminar that I attended was this saying: "The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open." I often pull myself up cuz I still need practice on this :rolleyes:

I'd also like to add that if you wish to add comment to their blogs now, the comment is submitted directly to moderators who decide whether or not your comment will see light of day!

Well....you haven't upset me! ;) Great article Mark, thanks for posting

LL, an example of what type of dog might fail the RSPCA temp test: Lab gets second chance Would the results have been different if the RSPCA accepted balanced training? I haven't read the whole thread again, but if I remember correctly the dog in the thread was at the Fairfield Shelter in Brisbane and they have their own training classes and behaviourist on staff. To me that says something about their belief as to what kind of cases the type of training they promote can fix? When I was with the RSPCA, while I was involved with rescue, foster and rehome, it was in an unofficial capacity because even though their was a fundraising committee and thrift shop in town, there was no official shelter. Each case was judged on an individual basis by a local trainer. No set system was used for temp testing.

I have no objections to the thread wandering Sometimes I learn something unexpected when that happens.

Curiously enough Kelpi-i, I was reading some banter on another forum about the laws in the US in regards to punishment in training. A bloke called Fowler was charged with animal abuse for dunking his dogs head in a hole full of water and spanking it. The case against him was initially successful but got over turned on appeal because he was prevented from submitting evidence that showed he was actually trying to train his dog, he was doing so under the guidance of a pro trainer and the methods being used were last ditch attempts after a long line of trying other methods before putting the dog down. The charges against him were quashed...or whatever that word is that means cancelled in legal terms. The pro trainer was William Koehler. The basically court upheld that if its done in the name of training, then its not abuse. I believe that there is a similar effect here in that even though the RSPCA don't promote or condone punishment in training, you don't see them hanging around those training fields where punishment is accepted waiting to jump on people who use punishment in training. Why aren't they going after what would seem to be such easy targets? Because the burden of proof is on them to be able to prove abuse.....and they can't do it.

The RSPCA also keep dogs that are statistically less likely to be rehomed because of market trends and euthanase more popular breeds who have modifiable behavioural problems .

I have a story that illustrates your point Tony. When I was working in rescue, a young girl came in to surrender her dog. The dog was well cared for and obviously adored its owner. The young girls story was that her mother had kicked out of home because her mothers new 'boyfriend' didn't like having her around. The young girl had found youth accomodation but wasn't allowed to have her dog there and she didn't trust leaving the dog at her mothers place because she didn't believe it would get looked after. The dogs confidence and temperament seemed fine until its young owner left sobbing in tears. It was almost like flicking a switch....all of a sudden, the dog started stress panting and shying away from things that just 5 minutes before it was fine about. I rehomed this dog to a lady that was to become a friend of mine and she was fully advised of the history of the dog as we knew it. Soon after we were at a doggy event and my friend had her adopted dog there. I over heard her tell a few people that the dog had been abused.....that was obvious because of the way the dog was stressing and shying away. I pulled her aside and re-iterated the dogs history and told her that it hadn't been abused, and that it was totally calm, confident and happy until its young owner left. My friend kind of vaguely looked through me, walked away and started telling someone else how she had adopted this dog because it had been abused......... In my opinion, the dog just had not reached a level of confidence about its new life yet.

Exactly Erny, that's why I put this part in bold: RSPCA: Basically, where their food rewards and 'passive punishment' don't work they restrict the dog (and often also the dogs owners) by limiting the dogs opportuntities to misbehave. RSPCA: I also believe from my own experience that the above statement is at least misleading in that the RSPCA do temp test and euthanase dogs that don't pass that temp test......have they made a judgement call that reflects an opinion that their own methods would not modify the behaviours of those dogs that fail the temp test?

Pax, the confusion is probably down to my clumsy wording. Sorry . I was hesitant to use the word punishment when referring to the two scenarios because in operant theory its only punishment if it changes the behaviour....and there are many reasons why the stimulus the dog was feeling in the first scenario would not actually change the behaviour on its own. Often the two words are interchangeable and by definition and as I understand it a correction is an aversive to the dog, but it doesn't necessarily change the behaviour outside of that one repetition where you catch the dog doing something wrong. For a stimulus to be classified as a punisher it must weaken a behaviour or reduce the intensity or regularity of it with the intention of the behaviour going through extinction. But you can't define what is a correction or what is a punisher based on the stimulus..... It is not really the handler that decides what is a correction and what is a punisher.....its the effect that the stimulus has on the behaviour of the dog that tells us which it is. Which it is can vary from dog to dog and change with circumstances. Eg. If a dog likes chasing cats when you go for a walk if every time your dog sees a cat you have to go 'ah', then you are correcting the dog. On the other hand, if the first time your dog sees a cat and makes to chase it and you go 'ah' and your dog never ever looks at another cat, then you have effectively punished the behaviour. I agree with the intent of the above in that I would prefer to be pro-active and teach what I want using a high rate of reinforcement before I put punishment on a dog for misbehaviour, I want the dog to know exactly what it is that he and can do and have confidence in the actions that he can take to avoid the punisher....however, I can help guide the dog through the learning process using a correction.........if that makes sense.

Another thought on this topic and a scenario that I think that most can relate to......just to clarify my own thoughts on the punishment issue and hopefully learn something. The scenario I'm using is one that I see a lot of at the local training club. Handler 1 has a dog who he/she believes will not handle punishment well and they opt for reward based training alone or they are at a club that only promotes reward based training. In the initial training the dog is full of beans, acting the clown and is way over stimulated by the environment. During the course of this, the dog frequently hits the end of the lead at force. Handler 2 has a dog of similar temperament but is open to the use of punishers. The punisher that he uses is of similar intensity to the stimulus that the dog in the above felt when it hit the end of the lead. Why is it that a dog can deliver that level of correction to itself and get over it...sometimes to the point that it continues the behaviour and yet if the handler delivers that level of correction, many see and I've seen it myself, that the dog shuts down? Its a case in point with my own dog and the truth is that both of the above examples could have been us at some point in time or another. But the thing is, I can deliver a correction to my dog now if it is needed and she doesn't shut down and through study and practice, I can take a totally strange dog and put a correction on them and not shut them down, ....the major thing that has changed, I believe is my knowledge about punishers and how and when to apply them while also working to protect the dogs anticipation of reinforcement.....and that I think is the difference with the first dog....he anticipated some reward from the environment that was not perhaps the reward that the owner was planning on. So, he had a different perception of the level of correction he put on himself and some dogs think that the level of correction that they put on themselves is a worthwhile inconvenience to be tolerated in the persuit of percieved reward.....but, if you show them how to avoid the correction and still get a reward, they do change their behaviour. Another thing is that in the early days, I was frightened of putting a correction on my dog and tried to avoid it....if a correction was delivered at all it came when I felt so pushed that I was angry and frustrated....and I did shut my dog down, then I would go through an attack of the guilts because of it. I believe now that the corrections were shutting my dog down not just because she got a correction, but because there was an extreme pattern of inconsistency.....she could never predict what actions would attract a correction so she couldn't learn to avoid those actions. The other important thing that I believe is that I was delivering the correction in a way that the dog could pair it with me and my mood, rather than its own actions and behaviours because of shyte timing and my emotional, physical and vocal involvement in the correction because I was pushed to the point where I felt angry and frustrated. Since I've overcome my fear of applying a correction I've learned that if I prevent the dog from pairing the correction with both me and the training tools and if I move the dog quickly past the correction into a reinforcing situation, then the correction does not shut the dog down. Was I so different to the average dog owner? Is average human nature that different to mine? Is it possible that the above pattern is being repeated out there between thousands of dogs and their owners who are persisting with reward based training alone because its politically correct and there are large animal welfare organisations promoting it as the 'only' humane way to train a dog? Is the real evil here not that punishments are used, but that there is a lack of education about how to use them because of policies of welfare organisations. The dog in the first example is still getting the same intensity of correction and is at the same risk of injury. How is it that that is acceptable by welfare organisations, but using that stimulus in a manner that will actually help the dog learn is not? When the policies alone do not prevent or protect the dog from delivering that level of correction to itself?