SkySoaringMagpie

This is my view too. With respect to the losing teeth issue, I think it's important to do a bit of tai chi style "push hands" when you're tugging (or leash training, or just about anything really). That is, be aware of the force between the tug toy and the dog - with a lot of dogs you don't need to exert any real pressure yourself, just be solidly grounded and let the dog do the tugging. And if your dog isn't good at self-limiting (god knows I have one of those...), make sure you do the limiting for him or her.

For me, a martingale is what you use on a dog that has a smaller head than neck, and you use it to have greater assurance that it will not back out of its collar when it sees a cat off to its right. So, it's the first option for most sighthounds. That said, at least one of our guys has backed out of a martingale - they're not foolproof (heh) but they are better than a flat collar for the smaller headed beasties. I would not recommend them as an anti-pull device. Pulling is one of those things that is very simple, but terribly complex at the same time. If I were selling something in a shop to stop pulling, it would probably be a book that explains that you should reward the behaviour you want to see, and not reward the behaviour you don't want to see. That is, pulling = no walking, no exciting sniffing, no fun. Loose lead = lots of nice sniffs, free walking and fun.

In the "Trainers debate with the RSPCA" thread, there has been some some suggestion that people who promote positive only training use stereotyped and extreme examples of correction/aversives to illustrate their point. An extreme technique would be alpha rolling, hanging a dog off a choke chain or sitting on the dog. So, for those who use corrections/aversives in their training, what do you consider to be ethical and/or effective options? For example, I think a voice correction like "uh-uh" or "No!" is a perfectly ethical correction. I'm not persuaded that it's always an effective option, and I think no-reward markers are an under-used option, but it's obviously no reason to call the RSPCA. What other examples are there?

Yeah, the main thing that surprised me about that story was that the tradies were actually prepared to get close enough to tie up a Dobe when its owners were not on the property. The OH and I both work full time and we never give tradies the opportunity to do the wrong thing with the dogs. Sometimes it annoys said tradies, but I've heard of too many situations where dogs have been let loose with hardly a thought despite clear instructions not to. Also I have some sympathy for the tradies - it's a pain in the arse for people lugging tools and equipment to have to keep shutting gates and doors to keep a client's speedy labradoodle from scooting out onto the road. I think dogs should be in a confined area away from the work, or with friends, or kenneled. In this case it was good that a confined area had been arranged, but not so good that it was left to the tradies to organise. If I don't personally know someone, I can't know if I can trust them.

All the best for 2008 Tony and the training gang! I know I have some little dreams up my sleeve for next year, may everyone else have a good shot at their dreams too!

I hate this time of year.

Troy has kindly given me permission to post this PSA. John Martin is a canine muscle manipulator from Wagga Wagga who is now coming down regularly to Canberra every 3 or 4 weeks. He's good at what he does, he works on dogs and horses. If you would like him to see your dog/s and would like to be kept informed about times, locations etc PM me your email addy and I'll get you on the contact list.

You asked us whether we still held our POV against the background of the RSPCA euthanasing dogs that might be turned around with correctional training. So that's what I responded to. If you're asking us what we think about their influence as an opinion leader, well, I have much bigger issues with them over their support of breed bans than I do over them not supporting correctional training. But ultimately the RSPCA is not the opinion leader that scares me, PETA are far more of a direct risk to dog owners and trainers than the RSPCA. The RSPCA, despite its many faults, should not be held accountable for the vast swamp of human stupidity and incompetence anymore than any other organisation should be. Dogs end up dead and in shelters primarily because humans are not required to prove their capacity to manage a dog before they are allowed to acquire one. I am concerned that this subject takes on the trappings of a religious war sometimes. I have never claimed that correction is never appropriate. I have made my views known about areas I have some knowledge of (training sighthounds) but that is not the same thing. If you find yourself in in Canberra, PM me and I'll buy you a coffee (that goes for you too Tony).

OK there goes that theory!

Rusky is from WA and you are from Melbourne by the looks of things. In the past there have been state by state differences between the different RSPCA branches. Our local RSPCA has been more progressive on a range of issues than some other state RSPCAs for example including on the subject of breed bans. It would not surprise me if training programs have been different across the country too.

It's a separate issue and a slippery slope as an argument. All kill shelters have to prioritise for reasons that are morally difficult because there are more dogs than homes and resources. At least the RSPCA where we are has a colour coding system on the cages. One colour for "easy" dogs for first time owners, one colour for dogs for experienced dog owners, and one colour for challenging dogs for experienced dog trainers only. So it at least acknowledges that some have specific training needs and tries to rehome them. Ultimately tho', the dog with more challenging behaviours is in the same camp as the large black mixed breed, the old dogs, the 'ugly' dogs, the dogs who need ongoing medication etc etc. As far as some AR people are concerned, I am already responsible for the deaths of shelter dogs purely because I bought mine from a registered breeder instead of adopting from a shelter. I think the suggestion that a failure to use correction is responsible for the deaths of shelter dogs is similarly indefensible. There are many dogs that are PTS that could have been turned around (with a range of training tools and the right home) but there is always another unwanted dog or three to take their place in the cage and there are not enough suitable homes and that is the true nature of the problem. I could definitely get behind a correction based program for BYB's and puppy millers. The people that is, not the dogs.

I don't think I know anyone who has an Afghan or Saluki that will recall under heavy distraction (heavy distraction being a roo or bunny on the run). Their breeding runs directly counter to it. What kind of correction are you suggesting would work in this situation? One Saluki trainer I have spoken to has said that if you want bomb proof sighthound recall it is necessary to ensure from an early age that they never get the opportunity not to recall - to me that's about controlling the dog and the environment, not correction. I have seen a BC that I know has been purely positive trained called off a mob of running roos very accurately, so that also says to me that a bombproof recall can be trained w/out correction in the right breed. Personally, I don't try and recall my guys in high distraction unfenced environments - so they are never off lead in those environments. Not all solutions are training solutions. At the end of a lure coursing run, we combine the basic training with careful positioning on our part, and we don't usually have a problem. And in ordinary low to moderate distraction environments, my guys recall fine and that recall was built on reward and release (not luring). As to obedience routines, my other half has two CCD passes on the Afghan. I would not claim that the Afghan will ever reach the levels of accuracy that a High in Trial UD Border Collie can achieve, but the CCD passes were not achieved with correction. It is true that we had to remove some R+ that was counterproductive but that wasn't food. Believe it or not, we had to learn to poker face and ignore him when he did the Afghan clown thing, instead of reinforcing him by laughing (even tho' it was very funny, the bastard). That is what I mean when I talk about real accuracy and observation - knowing what you are reinforcing is very important and we are still learning. There are show people with these breeds who correct and who (usually) get the in ring performance they want. However, there is no-one that I have observed who uses correction who always gets the compliance they want in the ring, including the big winners. So I am still not persuaded that correction breeds accuracy in these breeds - especially as in the obedience ring you can no more correct than you can reward, and sighthounds are nothing if not ring-wise. They do better when they are outsmarted than when they are corrected in my experience. Edited to add: One thing that has been missing from the debate so far is discussion about what it means for a technique to "work". For some that is about the dog doing what they want. For others, it is about maintaining a certain kind of relationship with the dog. For some it is a mix of both, but in varying quantities/qualities. My definition of a good outcome and someone else's definition of a good outcome will not always be the same.

Yep, that's why I confined my remarks to sighthounds I've talked with rescue and shelter people who have said that in their view, a dog that has ended up in a shelter because the previous owner was unskilled and the dog became unmanageable usually needs a much firmer hand than a dog that was well trained but ended up there because the owner was elderly, or ill. That makes perfect sense to me so I would not say, even leaving breed issues aside, that a person should never ever use correction. My problem tho', is that in attempting to argue the case for including correction in the tool set, people appear to forget that there are some breeds where correction is almost never the right thing to do, especially if you are starting with a new puppy who has not learned to run amuck. I do not think we should sledge purely positive trainers when purely positive techniques are perfect for some dogs (when executed correctly). Setting an example for balance should be about horses for courses, and sometimes that excludes correction.

Without wanting to open the "breed characteristics" can o' worms, for sighthound training I side with the RSPCA based on the two pieces of text that have been quoted. *dons asbestos suit* If you want to train a Saluki, in my experience you get much better results with tools that are considered "soft" providing that they are always used accurately and consistently. Now, few of us are mad enough to try and train a Saluki (or an Afghan, or similar) and that is partly because they are breeds that don't cope well with correction and which demand a high level of accuracy and observation from a trainer. In the Afghan breed thread, some of us helped out a DOLer who was having a difficult time with her Afghan puppy in a standard obedience class which used correction only. Perhaps a GSD could thrive in such a class, but I would never recommend it for an Afghan. The advice we gave was very similar to the advice the RSPCA gave - and our Afghan is perfectly housetrained, he walks on a loose lead, he comes in when I call him, he sits for his dinner and he accepts being brushed, bathed and blow dried. In other words, his house manners are great, and that was all achieved by improving our handling and training technique, not with correction. What worries me is that I see trainers in this forum who I might be quite happy to send a Staffy or GSD to, but to whom I would never recommend a sighthound owner go. I also note that a person can be disciplined with food, and undisciplined with correction. Most of the time it is not the tool, but the baggage associated with the tool that is the problem. Anyone can use a tool badly and attachment to certain disciplinary tools is often more about the human than it is about the dog. Recently my partner and I were having difficulty in the show ring with our young male salukis playing up when being examined. An experienced AB judge picked up what was going on, bless him. We had the lead too tight and the dog was fighting it. We eased off the lead, and voila, the dog has behaved ever since. Not all communication from a dog is the dog being arsey and sometimes the human needs to lay off a bit.

Tick collars and inspection. Friends of ours down at the coast have tick collars on all their border collies. We also have a dog that reacts poorly to those topical flea/tick treatments by the way, and it's one thing that convinced us to stop using the stuff. There are too many weirdo cancers, thyroid and heart problems arising in dogs and cats these days, and I'm sure environment and diet is a big factor, especially for dogs who might already have a genetic predisposition to those problems. Putting poison on my dogs' skin is not something I'm prepared to do while there are less toxic alternatives.

If you're not there to supervise and it's being provoked, my advice would be to forget trying to train him out of it. Making sure he has something to do is important so that he doesn't just bark to entertain himself, but if he's being provoked to bark, a kong probably won't help. Consider whether you can prevent him getting the stimulation from them. Is it possible to put a kennel run down the side of your house furthest away from the noisy neighbours? Can you do anything more to screen them from you visually and aurally? A higher fence, plant some fast growing hedge, put shadecloth over the front gates, etc? I'm a bit old fashioned when it comes to devices that are not activated by the handler, including citronella collars. I think they impose an unnecessary amount of stress on the dog and I'm not keen on the idea of imposing a correction I am not around to supervise. Basically, dogs bark. Barky breeds bark more. Living in suburbia means living right next door to people who are rude and/or intolerant. Not every problem of this kind can be solved, but I hope you find something that works for you.

wonderful post. Agreed, that was excellent. Going to print it for my personal training scrapbook.

I think forum advice only becomes dangerous when the advice givers don't recognise the limitations of a forum. After all, "go and see a qualified behaviourist about your dog's aggression" is advice, and it's good advice usually. To be honest, plenty of face to face trainers don't pay enough attention to handler capability, timing and dog body language either. I have learned a lot from trainers, but I have also learned a lot from books, email advice and videos.

If your OH is quiet and has good calm energy I would suggest he move slowly and totally ignore the dog for a bit. I've heard it explained like this: If you were at a party and a large scary swamp monster walked through the front door, you'd be most comfortable if the scary swamp monster did not look at you or try and get you to interact with them. You'd want the large scary swamp monster not to notice you. After a while, if the scary swamp monster seemed mostly harmless, you'd get used to the idea of having him around and you might even attempt an interaction. There are schools of thought that say when dogs are afraid of the males in the house it's a good idea to get the males to feed them etc. I don't know, I'd be more inclined to leave advice like that to a behaviourist who has had a chance to observe what is going on. In the meantime, benign neglect and not forcing the issue (while being careful not to play up to the dog's fears) is probably the way to go. Good luck, and good on you for taking on a pup with special needs.

I work with difficult independent breed dogs, so I have to be very sharp about what I'm doing to get a result. I am not a natural, so I have had to break stuff down to learn it, and can usually empathise with others who are not naturals and work out how to explain it to them. I am pretty friendly, and non-threatening, and while I am far more interested in dogs than people, I still make an effort to be socially acceptable and I don't treat people like they are morons. I am not claiming saint status, it's just that I've learned how to hide what I'm really thinking in order to get a result that is better for the dog.

We were vegging out in front of the Lifestyle channel this evening and I finally caught an episode of Supernanny. I think she is a very sharp trainer - I noticed that many of the methods she uses with kids are methods people use with dogs (ie, don't negotiate, timeouts for acting up, positive rewards, give them useful tasks to engage them etc). I also wondered how much of her success on camera is due to editing (as with Dr Harry and Cesar Millan)? Whether you agree with her methods is a separate question I guess, but it got me pondering, what have you learned from observing trainers in other disciplines?

Is he an only dog?

I have successfully dealt with this one, and much as I dislike Cesar Millan, I can see why Jennifer had success with his techniques in this situation. If a dog is doing this, it may be because somehow or another you have given it the impression that it will be handling interactions with strange dogs and making decisions about what to do. Whereas the handler should have the situation under control, and the dog convinced that the situation is under control. It's a mix of body language and overall leadership training, and it's probably worth reading some dog behaviour books. However, some things I do in addition to what the others suggested: - My dogs don't get to initiate play with dogs they meet on walks. I do let them play sometimes, but only if I have okayed it. As far as possible, other dogs don't get to get in their faces either, although not even the most assertive owner can stop some idiot who is determined to share their "friendly" dog with the world. - My dogs are never off-leash because their recall is not bomb-proof. Because their recall is not bomb-proof, I cannot control the situation if I let them off. The more times they get to ignore me, the more likely it is my dog will take over managing interactions with other dogs. - I make sure my body language conveys leadership, and that I am between my dog and the source of the distraction. Key message: "I have this under control and you can trust me, follow me" - I don't allow flipping around on the end of the lead (it's bad for your shoulder anyway!). I am not someone who thinks dogs should walk at heel on a neighborhood walk, but the minute they show signs of over-reacting to another dog, they are brought in close. - Don't accidentally lift your dog up into an aggressive posture with its collar or lead when trying to get it to settle down. - If I see I am going to be sharing a very narrow walkway with a strange dog and its owner, and I can see it's going to be a challenge, I either put my dog in a sit and wait, or I take another route.

Thanks Lilli, and thank-you for finding this thread. I read through the LGD thread, and found what you had to say very educational. Part of the reason I didn't follow up is that having had another class a couple of days ago, I don't think it is an LGD mix. I think it's a Bernese mix, and I don't think they are considered LGDs?

Haven't PMd her yet, or posted into the breed thread. The big fluffies thread people suggested I go there. Basically I've been distracted by other disasters on the home front and totally forgot.