Aidan

Well that is hardly even a sensible test! Our necks don't even come close to approximating a dogs neck. That was kind of my point. Neither do our thighs and there is no way you are going to be able to give yourself the sort of correction that is possible with a prong collar without running to the end of a 6' leash. You can't make the comparison. When a dog yelps when being given a correction, you can safely assume that the dog is feeling pain, and plenty of people give corrections strong enough to make a dog yelp while wearing a prong. There are even instructional materials out there that suggest things like "don't be put off if your dog yelps, that is when you know the correction has been effective because he is demonstrating submission" and other such patently ridiculous nonsense. The other thing about perception of pain is that it is different to, say, the perception of weight. The more weight you lift, the more you need to notice that you are lifting more. With pain, the perception increases disproportionately to the amount of stimulus applied (which is why modern e-collars don't increase stimulus in a straight line). With a prong collar they are merely uncomfortable at normal levels of correction, but it is a fine line between correction and over-correction - particularly if you are on a bike and one of you stops suddenly without choice. Just to be clear, I have not suggested chucking out the tool. I'm just suggesting we are realistic about what they do so that they can be used sensibly. The biggest risk to the legal status of these tools is people going around misusing them. Most people don't misuse tools because they are cruel people, they misuse tools because they have beliefs or conditioning related to the tool and it's effects on the animal. Legislation is to protect animals from abuse, not to protect them from legitimate users.

Put it on your neck, attach one end of a 6' leash to a post then run to the end of the leash. For the record, I am not seriously suggesting you try this. Just be realistic about what the tool does. Imagine you are riding your bike and your dog goes around the wrong side of a pole at speed. It is not what you do in training that is the issue, but what might happen by accident. A double-ended leash attached to a harness might be sensible, or you could use a Springer if they are still available.

Not to single you out SK, as others have said similar, but I think in a thread where people are attempting to clear up unsubstantiated opinions about one tool we should be careful not to start making them about other tools. True Many tools have their place when used correctly. However when it comes down to it I do believe that a halti (unlike a prong, a check chain or a front attaching harness) is a constant aversive to the dog in most cases. Although I tend to recommend front-attaching harnesses now (where useful) I have quite a lot of experience with head halters, either head halters that I have been responsible for introducing or dogs who have come to me on them. It really is a very small minority, and even when used in the worst possible circumstances the dogs habituate very quickly. There have been some studies which support my experience also. I spent about half an hour observing thousands of dogs on the last RSPCA Million Paws Walk and there were very few dogs in head halters who appeared to be uncomfortable, which was in stark contrast to the dogs on check chains. Presumably levels of education in tool use would be about equal here, most of the clubs support the use of check chains.

The cement ones work well for dogs who need to harden up a bit!

Shy behaviours can be learned, even if the dogs are happy to see you (feel happy on seeing you). Search YouTube for "target training". It can work wonders with shy dogs, you teach them to touch something with their nose for reward. Then you have a means of having them "offer" to come to you, touch you etc You aren't forcing them to do anything, they are doing it willingly.

.

I don't deliberately set about to teach them to look at things, they will look anyway so I just click before they react. You need to be quick with the clicker and you need to keep on being quick until you don't have to be quick any more.

Predictable responses in unpredictable environments.

Yep, makes a lot of sense. So how to deal with the initial problem? By satisfying it? Taking him herding or lure coursing? Or will that just reinforce the chase and make him want to do it more? An excellent example. I don't know how Steve would handle this, but Sue Ailsby puts this sort of thing under "doggy zen" - "to get the thing you want (or need), you must first do this instead".

What happens if he is allowed to say hello? How is he off-leash with other dogs?

In order to minimise anxiety or arousal with corrections it is absolutely imperative that the dog learns quickly exactly how to avoid the correction, otherwise you just make things worse (as you have seen). Every aversive event that doesn't get the intended message across will add to confusion, anxiety and arousal so it's a slippery slope. "Control" is key here. The dog must feel in control of the consequences. Think of it as a finely balanced scale where "perceived lack of control" tips the scale into anxiety and reactivity, and "perceived control" tips the scale the other way into calm. Every event is a weight that sits on either side of that scale. Punishing warning signals (such as barking, lunging etc) is also a slippery slope, there is not much point in getting rid of stuff that is actually quite useful in avoiding actual aggression if you don't also treat the cause of the anxiety. In my classes we set the dogs up for success then drill them until they can go out into the big wide world and still succeed, those that rush ahead can expect to come unstuck. I would only physically hit a dog to avoid an impending disaster, so I'm glad you didn't listen to your breeder on that one. Is there any reason you don't use a front-attaching harness? They work very well to give you back control. They don't stop lunging, barking etc but they will give you leverage, which seems to me would make your journey much easier.

Some of the examples of classical conditioning given so far also include some operant conditioning. A hint (if you want to try and tease them apart for your own satisfaction), the operants are the stuff you can probably see, that aren't reflexes.

Don't let your dogs pull you over to the post or bush. If they go there on a loose leash then begin to mark, and you think they've done quite enough marking along that stretch, keep walking.

I don't think the general public would mistake, say, an Afghan or a Maltese for a pitbull. They might mistake a Stafford or a cross-breed though. I don't think Mr Linke would have quite got the point (about misreporting due to breed misidentification) across had he chosen Afghans or Maltese as a comparison.

I very rarely have food on me. I teach just about everything with food. My dogs are better than most pets. One way or another, without actually going into too much technical guff, I think it helps if we can give good instruction in the absolute basics of learning theory along the way.

A reinforcer is defined by it's effect on behaviour - if it doesn't increase or maintain a response, it is not a reinforcer. Under most conditions food will be a reinforcer, it is a basic biological need and that need cannot be escaped for long. But if the dog is satiated (does not have a biological need for more food at that moment) or the sympathetic nervous system is excited and has inhibited the digestive system, food will (usually) not increase or maintain behaviour.

I would definitely have the father do the "calming yo yo", it will set the dog up to learn that the father can go out of sight without too much concern. Often there is a "tipping point" at which the dog learns that it doesn't matter how long the person is away for, they always come back. If that happens, your problem is solved. The "300 Peck" method for raising criteria should be followed exactly. Plan for a long session for each common situation the dog might be in, for e.g, crated, or in the back yard while the father comes inside, or left in the house while the father leaves via the front door.

It was always nonsense anyway, the vast majority of pet owners do not need a full tool chest and even many professional trainers do quite well without stepping outside their area of expertise.

I don't blame you either, I'm just saying that your dog IS food motivated or she would be dead. It's a simple fact of life and it's why I use food in classes by default. There are many roads to Rome and I hope you have found a fit. Yes, which from what I can gather is true of his group obedience classes by default.

A couple of old pallets, nail the top one to the bottom one. Very agricultural.

Yes it does. When the finger is being pointed at a sector of the community by another sector of the community for political reasons, without evidence, that is a great social injustice. To find out that some of the academic community are also jumping on board quite frankly appalls me (no reflection on Corvus, she was just reporting what she had been told).

You definitely did the right thing Ellz, and the odds are high that you actually saw one. I actually reported a sighting a few years ago. I didn't get as good a look as I would have liked but that's not the point.

Your dog could be dominant and do any or none of those things. The people who write those sorts of articles lead the rest of us up the garden path I'm afraid. It's far better to look at actual behaviours and decide whether any of those are going to be a problem for you. Obviously if your pup isn't paying attention to you unless you have food in your hand (for e.g) that is going to be a problem. But it's not a problem that only dominant dogs have, any dog of any rank could have this problem. I could teach any dog to do this in the same way that I could teach any dog not to do this. I would recommend you learn more about operant and classical conditioning and revisit social hierarchies when the nuts and bolts of behaviour are second nature to you. P.S from reading your posts you sound sensible enough to make your own mind up about what you've been told anyway!

Given the feeling that the mere mention of foxes can evoke here (Tas, not DOL, yet) I'm actually glad it went this way and not down the path it could have gone.

You probably heard them correctly. I have an opinion on why you were told that but I can't substantiate it so I'll not share it.