SkySoaringMagpie

I don't know about Western Australia, but I have certainly been told here in the Eastern States that I should not obedience train my dog under any circumstances because that means it will sit in the ring. Note I said "some show people" - there are other show people here who win Dunbar medals and who are fine with people doing obedience and show at the same time. (I actually think show training is a form of obedience training anyway!!) Anita

I have been wondering if language has been tripping up some of the discussion. When I use the word punishment it's in this context: Positive reinforcement - the dog gets something good for doing the right thing (treat when dogs sits) Positive punishment - the dog gets something it dislikes for doing the wrong thing (chain correction for not sitting) Negative punishment - take away something good from the dog when it does the wrong thing (give the dog a timeout from the pack when he acts out) Negative reinforcement - take away something bad for doing the right thing (eg, stop ear pinching when dog takes dumb-bell)

I disagree here. It's not like they are saying "this is good when you know how to do it". It is more like they are saying that there is no place for "force". And to sell their own theory, they project the assumption that trainers who use force ONLY use force. I think you have a good point. I would rather see people mount the kinds of arguments I have made around use of force than alleging that people who train with correction never bother showing their dogs what they want. However, there is a good proportion of people who do use correction without doing anything else to show the dog what they want. I see them at shows, in obedience classes and in free running areas all the time. Perhaps the solution is a website that says that once you have your dog's attention (appropriately), you had better show it what you want in a way it understands. Unfortunately, I see more heavy handed corrections where I see corrections than I see light ones. I have no doubt from what you've written that you're a careful trainer, but out there in dog world are a lot of heavy handed people. If I use the word "reef" I mean "reef". If I use the word correction, I'm more likely to be talking about a properly administered correction. Yep, I think I agreed with you on that one. By the way Erny, I really like what you write and I always read your posts.

I really think this is a judgment call in a way that is very hard to prove one way or another. My personal test is mostly about whether the person administering the punishment is doing so calmly and professionally, or whether they are angry/frustrated/disappointed and taking it out on the dog. How can you prove that? This is somewhat topical for me because I saw something at a show a couple of months ago that people tell me I should have reported - it was a person training their dog to keep their tail down by whacking the tail hard with a leather strap. At the time I was too shocked to do anything much, but like you, I also wondered where the line was. After all, while this was over the line, people train using basically the same technique with less force all the time. What was over the line in the sense of community values was the amount of force and instrument used to administer the punishment, not the correction itself.

Just so we're clear, I agree with you. If my dogs push it, I use negative punishment. I take something away that they want - usually just taking them away from the pack and isolating them in a boring room for 5 minutes does the trick. I will send them back if they try it again, but nearly always once is enough to produce a more well mannered demeanor. I also think that NILIF deals with boundary pushing very effectively. And as to the pack, they act up amongst themselves sometimes but I have never had any issues taking bones or toys off them, or getting them to move from furniture. Neither has my partner. That says to me that whether we are seen as those crazy human overlords, or whether we are seen as alpha, they recognise that we're boss. To be fair, our dogs are sighthounds. Historically sighthounds have not done well on correction-based training and are also fairly sensitive. I am not going to attempt to speak for the more robust guarding and working breeds. OTOH, sighthounds are certainly independent and pigheaded (in a good way!!)

I am getting show titles on ours first but that is due to limited time available to attend obedience classes and shows not a question of whether you can train both together. I still do basic obedience with our guys at home. Some show people will be horrified by it but it's fine as long as you keep your cues very clean. A dog can understand the difference between gaiting and heeling if you cue them separately. For example, use "show" as a cue to gait and "heel" as a cue to heel. The other thing we did was to try and work on stand as a default behaviour. Unfortunately that didn't stick, but I figure the odd bum down in the show ring is nothing to worry about provided you can cue them into a stand right away and I can. Usually my dogs don't offer a sit in the show ring anyway and if they do it's a good sign I need to chill out Plus most judges will recognise and not penalise an obedience trained dog

Well, they want to stop people who aren't pro trainers attempting the kinds of things Cesar Milan does without the benefits of his speed, confidence and experience and I can understand that. I do think that physical and verbal correction is rarely correctly applied in the way you describe, and that when it is not correctly applied, the likelihood that learning for dog or handler will happen is pretty minimal. Plus what people who are clueless do to their dogs can be truly Orwellian, and if the harm can be minimised by suggesting alternative approaches I'm all for it. Unfortunately you're not going to minimise harm by saying to novices "you're unlikely to be competent enough to do correctional training effectively, so do this instead where it will matter less when you inevitably stuff it up" Yes, it is also true that if someone doles out treats to their dog without any reason and gives a mix of confusing signals, the dog will not learn either. That can be dangerous in some situations, but generally speaking I think there is a higher risk of escalating conflict or damage if you use force incorrectly than if you use rewards and praise incorrectly. Personally, and this is where I get, if not "new-age", then at least martial arts woo-woo, I think that whenever I use force or physical punishment against another living being I need to be careful of the effect on myself, as well as the effect on the subject of the force. The exceptions to that are things like training in a boxing or martial arts class where everyone is an adult and agrees they're going to be hitting each other and is happy to cop it. For most people, correction is also reinforcing to the corrector, not just the subject of their correction. Why do serial naggers do what they do? Not because it works well and helps build relationships, that's for sure. I have seen stuff on the show circuit that would put anyone off using a leash correction for life and lot of it is about the ugly side of unconscious self-reinforcement in humans. Some of it is people demonstrating to all watching that they are a tough trainer in control of their big utility group dog which is hilarious in a sad kind of way, because if the dog had some respect for them, they wouldn't need to yank it around like a hero. Some of it is nerves (popping dogs in the ring who are gaiting fine). Some of it is venting spleen, like people who reef a dog who doesn't win. Some of it I find impossible to explain, like a woman who was reefing her dog over and over and repeating "heel" over and over. If she had bothered to take a look, she'd have seen it was desperately heeling beautifully hoping she'd notice and stop yanking the chain. So, from my point of view, while I agree that it is possible to do it correctly, I think that in many people (NB - not all!!) there is a high risk that dishing out positive punishment on an ongoing basis reinforces unpleasant and/or unproductive human behaviours. It doesn't mean I'll never do it, but it does mean when I do I've decided that this is the only thing that will work and I'm being mindful that I'm dishing out a correction to an animal that doesn't have a choice about whether to stay or go. I have also noticed that I generally only consider using verbal and physical corrections when I am low on energy or frustrated or angry. When I'm not, I'll always opt for positive reinforcement or occasionally, negative punishment like a time out for truly undesirable behaviour. Asking myself if I have the necessary frame of mind to dish out a positive punishment mindfully and calmly is usually enough to give me cause for pause.

I hope I get the formatting right with this, if I don't - I'll try and fix it! I'm also going to break it up into a couple of separate posts because otherwise it gets awful long! Sounds all good and logical when you first read, but I think something has been missed here .... IE : It tries to compare "calm-assertion" and "dominant aggression" to evident hypocrasy when in fact the correllation comparison should be "dominance aggression" with (the dog's perception of) "insubordination". Afterall, in the dog pack the leader will only exert/exhibit aggression after calm-assertive 'energy' has not been appropriately observed. I'm not going to defend the article there because while I think there is a great deal to be gained in learning to "speak dog" with one's posture, movements and actions, ultimately I'm still of the school that I'm a human. So arguments about what dogs would and wouldn't do as a way to convince me what I should do have their limitations. Individual dogs have different escalation ranges and different tolerances for a start quite apart from the fact that I don't intend to pee on our dominant dog's favourite tree outside! Also a dog and I don't solve problems in the same way, something for which I'm sure my staff are very grateful. Sure, if I want to solve problems with a dog, I need to give very clear signals, and it helps if those signals are signals the dog already understands. Where I do agree with the article, and perhaps this is because of the breeds I own, is that I still fail to see where the human needs to escalate to more aggressive tactics. The heaviest punishment ours get is a time out and that happens rarely. Our dogs are sighthounds and none of them have mounted a serious challenge to either of us - perhaps it's the breed, perhaps it's how they were raised, maybe a bit of both. They do the "toe over the line" thing from time to time - eg, bobbing sits and leash pulling, but we've found that being very fussy about what we choose to positively reinforce means we don't have to take more aggressive measures to get them back in their boxes.

I'm coming to this late in the thread, so apologies if someone has posted this already. This website is a useful clearing house of information, and it includes some interesting points on wolf pack theorising. From what I've been able to gather, some leadership things we do (NILIF style stuff for example) is backed up by current theory, and some things aren't (anything about controlling the animal with force for example).

I noticed at one point yesterday he was sticking his nose at the open window (we don't have them open enough for them to stick their heads through). The other dogs usually take the window seats but I'll give this a try!

You could try Rescue Remedy to calm him down before travel. If he isnt vomiting it sounds like he isnt so much motion sick than anxious. Thanks. I'm sure anxiety is playing a role, but he is fine in the car if it's not moving or moving at a slow speed. He isn't scared of the car itself, and will hop in without any issues - in fact he hates to be left behind. People have said to me that because dogs are associative learners, they tend to associate an episode of being sick with the car, and get anxious as a result. However his issues do seem very much related to the things that make humans ill in cars - basically he displays more distress symptoms (drooling, lip licking, shivering) when the car is moving fast, especially on twisty roads. He also is worse in our small diesel hatchback which is a manual, so more prone to stop start motion. He doesn't love our big auto car, but he's better in it. He's only puked in a car once that I know of, but it was a formative moment (he horked up all over my jumper when the breeder was driving us both to the airport terminal for my trip home with him). He has never really enjoyed riding in the car in the whole time I've had him - the others love it.

One of our dogs gets car sick - not to the point of puking but it's distressing him. I've heard people recommend ginger biscuits and ginger supplements? Anything else I should try?

Fair enough as a personal choice, but what about dogs where the sensitivity is a breed characteristic of some kind? The dogs that have some variation on "wary with strangers" or "reserved" in their standards? Dogs have different thresholds after all, and some of that is perfectly resonable. My salukis have remarkable pain tolerance for example, the vets often comment that other dogs would be screaming their heads off while mine sit quietly while the vet fishes a grass seed out. However, they do have a low tolerance for being manhandled by strangers who don't know how to approach sighthounds - some observers have interpreted that as bad temperament or over-sensitivity. I get a bit frustrated by those observations. A saluki that shies away is different to my mind than a labrador that shies away. I think the key is to observe dogs doing what they were bred to do. If they are confident and assured in that environment they might have great breed temperament but that doesn't mean they'll be easy to train in an obedience class. One of the reasons I like our dogs is that they force us to lift our game when it comes to obedience training.

Short answer: a sensitive temperament is a fantastic opportunity to improve your handling accuracy.

Training and leadership isn't a one-off. Most dogs test the boundaries from time to time, even once they are mature. The main thing is to be consistent and make sure that when they do test, you don't buckle. Part of the problem is that she's been allowed to get away with it often enough that it's become self-reinforcing (ie, she's discovered how fun ordinary household objects are to chew). It's much easier if they never get a chance to discover that. I would chuck her in a room like a laundry when you're not around to supervise and put everything up and away behind latchable doors, unplug the appliances, give her a marrow bone etc. Unless you plan to spray your entire house with bitters (and that doesn't work with some dogs anyway) you cannot leave her alone and expect your possessions to be safe.

Train them by walking them separately - totally separately. You walk in one direction with one dog, and your OH in another direction with the other dog. You can arrange to meet up halfway if you like. Walk the other two the next day and keep doing that until they improve. I have found that all our dogs act up more when we try and walk two together. I don't know if they realise I'm more distracted or if they are feeding off each other or what it is. I do know that separate training gets progress. Plus if you're even vaguely worried about keeping up with your partner, you are more likely to allow the dog to pull. If you don't have any constraints like keeping up, you can train at your pace and concentrate on what you're doing. Oddly enough, our dogs also behave better in the morning than in the evening. Again, I don't know if that's about their body clocks, or it's just the fact that I'm a morning person who works full time and usually I'm not as "on to it" in the evenings after work as I am in the mornings.

Bearing in mind that I am not your instructor but just some random stranger on the internet... There is a difference between loose lead walking, and the formal heeling exercise. Loose lead walking is the dog walking at any position, providing the lead is loose, and the dog is responsive to your directions. It's your basic good doggie manners training. Heeling is a formal obedience exercise with the dog right by your side, paying attention only to you and your next command. For loose lead walking what you are doing is good but I would try and lose the treats. If he's ignoring treats in class, it's because his immediate environment is more rewarding than the treats. I think the better method is to make sure he understands that a loose lead is a condition of moving forward and that you control his access to the environmental rewards. So what does that mean? There are plenty of rewards on a walk that you can use instead of treats. Does he want to sniff the light pole? He has to have a loose lead and he isn't allowed to pull towards the light pole. If he does, you stop until he looks at you with a loose lead and don't let him sniff that light pole until he does! If you have to wait 5 minutes, wait. If you only get 20 metres in your first walk, fine. The object is not to cover a lot of distance but to teach the dog the rules of walking. Your dog only gets to sniff/play with other dogs/run when he does as you ask. Be clear about what your rules are, and be consistent (if you give in sometimes, he will push for those sometimes all the time) If he's just forging ahead try the "be a tree" method. If he pulls, stop. Don't yank the leash back, just stop. Don't move until the leash slackens and he looks at you. As soon as you get a loose lead and a "c'mon mum!!!" look from him, praise him for looking at you and move. If he pulls again, stop. If he pulls again, turn around and walk 50 metres in the opposite direction. The key message for your dog to get is that you decide where you go and how fast, not him. If you haven't got the stubborn streak to train this way, consider a prong collar until he's a bit older and a bit more settled down. If it's the formal heel exercise, that will take longer than a post here to explain. I had to reteach heel to my bitch because I had poisoned the "heel" cue by waving treats in front of her nose and giving her a mixture of confusing sit and walk signals. Essentially heel is a position right next to your leg. Teach the position first, and the rest follows. As for classes vs the backyard, you are the most interesting thing in the backyard, you are not the most interesting thing in class. If he's good in the backyard, try the exercise on the footpath outside your house next. When he gets that right, then try in a local park. Slowly increase the levels of distraction so you're not asking him to go from performing in the boring backyard to performing in a super exciting dog class full of dogs and lots of interesting smells. By the way, dog classes are for learning techniques that you then practice at home. They are not for trying to impress the instructor and other students with your l33t doggie skillz!

I have heard a trainer I really respect say that with some forms of SA, the dog suffers so much with the stress that if the SA can't be reduced or managed so the dog has quality of life, the better thing to do is end its suffering. Basically she was saying that severe mental damage or illness should be taken very seriously, not just for the aggravation to humans who have to put up with the manifestation of it, but out of concern for the dog. Speaking for myself, it must be grim to be a dog with severe SA. If I couldn't help that dog, and couldn't find anyone who could, I think that would be a point where I would end it.

We opted for a single tank with a heater for shampoo and got a hydrobath that gets its rinse water from the main house supply. We had a hot tap installed outside (easy, and cheap to do), and the bath mixes the hot and cold like a washing machine, so you get lots of clean warm water to rinse with. If you're just going to have a bath at home, I reckon that's the best way. I think the two heated tanks thing is really something for people who have mobile bath businesses who don't have a reliable hot water supply. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have got the heater for the shampoo tank either. We never use it because the water stays warm long enough. The fixed rinse option is handy not just for rinsing out the shampoo, but for rinsing out the dog before shampooing. Also, we opted for a separate blow dryer. That way I can keep bathing the dogs while my partner starts blow drying! You'll always have loose hair, but if you use a rubber bath brush as well as giving the coat a good go with the hydrobath probably the dryer won't add much? I my hydrobath, it makes so many things easier, and the fixed rinsing is genius. The one at the vet that we used to have didn't have fixed rinsing, and the dogs were never as clean. Mind you, a pointer is probably less of an issue in that respect than an Afghan

I'm sure she's not doomed, hang in there Don't give Vitamin C tho', wait until you talk to the vet. If Ellie is a large breed and is in a growth spurt, an excess of calcium might be exactly the wrong thing for her. The best bet with large breed pups is not to feed any of the commercial puppy formulas and keep their diet pretty low key while they are growing. If the vet can't locate any specific problem, try a canine chiropractor. Let us know how she goes and what the vet says

I don't agree that a training tool set that consists almost entirely of flooding and punishment is worth promoting. Why do you think his critics don't understand dogs?

I agree Some of his methods are alright but over all i dont like him much. I think his methods are total overkill. I think Jean Donaldson (The Culture Clash) sums it up pretty well in the Wikipedia article on him: Jean Donaldson, The San Francisco SPCA Director of Academy for Dog Trainers states, “Practices such as physically confronting aggressive dogs and using of choke collars for fearful dogs are outrageous by even the most diluted dog training standards. A profession that has been making steady gains in its professionalism, technical sophistication and humane standards has been greatly set back. I have long been deeply troubled by the popularity of Mr. Millan as so many will emulate him. To co-opt a word like ‘whispering’ for arcane, violent and technically unsound practice is unconscionable.” Basically when people ask me about him I say that he has a few things going for him. He's fast. He's confident. He has an editor who can leave all his mistakes on the cutting room floor. Your average dog owner has none of these advantages.

There is a bit of debate over whether it's good for dogs to have a routine, or whether it's good to mix it up a bit. I have a dog that does the "Yo bitch! Pay attention to me! Now!!" thing, and with her I mix up her routine because of that. The key message I want to give her is that I decide what happens, and there are no "entitlements". With your dog, I bet he's not thinking "OK, those are the rules" he's thinking "alright, how do I get more of what I want?" That's not a bad thing, it's just how smart dogs think and act - you just need to be smarter I have another dog who is much more biddable and inclined to be a bit insecure. With him, as he does not "Yo! Bitch!" me, I do give him a reliable routine. It sounds from what you've written that your dog is usually an outside dog. Is this so? That will affect the kind of advice people give you - for example, we have a fence runner and if he barks, he is called inside immediately. He doesn't get attention, instead it's a negative because he doesn't get the fun of sassing the bull arab over the fence. If a dog is an outside dog and fence running at nothing, the treatment will be different.

He's a terrier. He's found out that killing chickens really is as fun as it looks and he's got years of breeding behind him that means he's more likely to have a go. That is not a bad thing, that's just life. All unwanted dog behaviour whether in terriers, mutts or whatever is reinforcing to the dog in some way, that's why they keep doing it. They don't do it because they've been blooded or because they have bad character or whatever. They do it because it means "good stuff for dogs" and they have no concept of morality. Entertainment, food, security, relief of stress, prey drive - that's what motivates them. I've got dogs that are wired to behave in certain ways. One I am 99 per cent sure would never ever chase or kill a cat, but because he's a sighthound, I never leave him alone with our cat. The other three, they've shown enough behaviours for me to believe they would do it if they were unsupervised long enough, so they definitely never get to be unsupervised with the cat. It's not that they've been blooded (they haven't), it's just common sense given what they were bred for. Basically you've got a choice: a) Prevent the dog from seeing or getting access to the chooks b) Rehome the dog Your 12 month old daughter, likewise. She should never be left unsupervised with a dog whether it kills chooks or not.

One of the reasons we got together the cash to buy our own hydrobath is that the self-service one we used to use at the vet was often left really dirty by previous users who could not even be bothered to rinse the thing out. Black hair and soap scum all over it and in the filter, etc etc. As I could see that kind of crap, I wondered what else i couldn't see - like dirty water being left in the pump festering away. If the place is clean, I'd go for it. If not, maybe a mobile groomer might be worth investigating. There really is nothing like a hydrobath to get into the coat properly.