Quickasyoucan

Yes I understand that, but if you don't create the high value in the first place then you wouldn't have to rein in the enthusiasm through training. I think the problem also lies in the word "neutralisation" Steve has said it himself, but he wanted to differentiate between that and what is commonly perceived as socialisation. I quite like PF's controlled socialisation term.

I don't consider public dog parks to be a place where its possible to do controlled socialisation.. I avoid them too. Yeah I mentioned it because the OP did. I get my goat up also when people try to force "socialisation" on their dogs, do they not get it that some dogs just don't really want to play with others, I just don't think it is the be all and end all of life, though I think for some people it is an excuse to let them off the hook for interacting with the dog themselves. This is not directed at people here btw but just some people I have come across.

If you have a good recall, it shouldn't be a problem. Dogs are just one distraction that you need to proof for. Even if your dog regarded dogs as uninteresting, there would be other highly motivating distractions that could create issues. I know all about kangaroos in that department. Controlled socialisation should incorporate using recalls and rewards to obtain focus, as well as obtaining focus before allowing socialisation to occur. Methinks many of the issues owners encounter with socialisation is about how its done. I'm talking about pets here though, not working dogs. Yeah I know all about skateboards in that department. :cool: The way I look at it, every time I go to a busy dog park there is some kind of incident that I witness, be it minor scuffles to full on fights. I try not to go there but if I do I would rather have a dog that finds me more interesting than other dogs, as other dogs can be such a risk factor unfortunately and sometimes their owners see nothing wrong in their behaviour :p ETA: as Huski has already said, we are not talking about assigning a value of zero to other dogs, just that they are not as interesting as you are. And I also don't think it precludes you being able to take your dog anywhere and everywhere. After all who would you rather have sitting next to you at a cafe, a well behaved calm dog who finds others only mildly interesting or a dog that barks and jumps up at every passer by, dog or human, because they are desparate to say hi! I value having a calm, well-behaved dog in (almost) all situations.

But have his response times to commands improved though ??? :D Or is he still not proofed under distractions?

K9: in all cases but a few the dog is weaned off the collar, meaning no stim will be needed once the dog is solid on each command under distraction, in my experience the dogs not weaned off comply anyway. K9: The weaning protocol removes the stim being needed or the collar being needed. Thanks

Just bumping this up because I was thinking of something on the way to work, it might be simplistic, but if the stim becomes a cue that something is about to happen, say if you were using it for recall, you would stim, command, comply stim off, is there a danger that the stim then becomes so paired with the command so that if you need to use the recall command and the dog doesn't have the collar on, because there is no "heads up" and the sequence is not followed compliance with the command alone may not be 100%? Also what happens using this method if you want to wean the dog of the collar?

Predominantly, I have used "training in drive" to establish his obedience skills. However, I could tell from body language when out and about on the lead that it was unlikely this would sufficiently compete with certain other distractions in the environment. Because I am training in drive, I preferred to use a tool in such a way that was not only 'kind' (e-collars have the benefit of no other collar in that there is absolutely NO influence on the dog's muscular or skeletal structure) but would not be deleterious to the drive that I had built. I have not ever put my dog in a situation where I was unable to enforce the recall command, so no, I have had no prior learnt issues with that. If we're talking an 'ideal world' I would have more people using them than not. But expense; dedication to training; goals in training; willingness to be tutored in training; and all those other factors vary from one person to another. Sometimes people's goals is just to not have their dog pull on the lead and in everything else, they are happy. So for those, whilst the e-collar would still work perfectly (and if done properly, IMO more kindly for the dog .... ) the e-collar is more than what they need (financially speaking) and satisfaction of State Laws make it the more onerous (and fair enough - I would like ANY training tool to come with some cautionary controls) - so the more readily available conventional training tools and methods are used. Thanks Erny for such a comprehensive answer as usual I'm with you about the training tools, pity people look at some as "evil" and others which have the potential to cause harm if used wrongly are sold to any old Joe in the supermarket or pet superstore these days.

Thanks Erny, it is much clearer now. Can I ask did you choose to use the e-collar for recall from the get go with your boy? Or did he already have issues with recall. I am just trying to explore (for future dogs!), the best way to teach a really really reliable recall... Sometimes I think that really those of us who don't have perfect recall do play russian roulette when we have dogs off leash, obviously you try to minimise the risks, but it would be nice not to have to worry about them. And I suppose I am trying to understand the place for e-collars in training, are they something that you ideally wouldn't use, but give you that extra bit of control, or are they something that you would incorporate into training because they are so effective???

Hindsight is a wonderful thing As someone who knows nothing about e-collars but who has a dog with less than perfect recall say 85-90% can you explain to me how long you would use the stim for to obtain a recall. What i am trying to say, and using the apply the stim first method that has been talked about in the other thread on e-collars, would it be: apply stim command "here" (or whatever) release stim when dog arrives. OR apply stim command "here" and release stim when dog starts to recall? Presumably the first but then if you have a dog that is working at some distance say 200 metres away wouldn't that mean a long period of stim? I am just curious. Also as someone already asked, is there a risk that the dog might just blow you off if you have to increase stim in say the case that Midol has just given, or is it that the stim will naturally reduce drive. I am just thinking about those intensely high distraction times when you might have missed the first cue that a dog is going into drive. For example my dog when he was young chased cars on a couple of occasions and it could be nothing to gone in a split second (luckily he has outgrown that)!

Bumping this back up. My Dad's Welsh Springer, George, has been diagnosed with a pseudomonas infection in his ear too. He has had ear problems on and off since he was a pup (he is about 4 now), for one he seems to produce excessive amounts of ear wax, but they are bad again. Just wondering if anyone had any updates on how their dogs were going - Monah? Westielover or anyone else for that matter.

Do they really use chains and water bombs, sounds like something out of "Friday Night Games" on the TV or whatever it used to be called Think of the damage that could do to a dog mentally, and in my case, being a lousy shot, physically. I prefer my dog trainers/behaviourists to use less cartoon capers type of methods. If I were going to look for a trainer besides ones that are recommended on here, I would at least be looking for NDTF qualifications, references from satisfied customers etc etc and be steering clear of franchises... ETA as with anything in life I like to get feedback from people who I trust who have had success with whatever, ie mechanic dentist etc. Also someone told me they charge around $400 (with free lifetime advice)... that seems kinda steep. They also didn't cure that person's issues either.

Bugger we just got on top of Jake's skateboard problem... Maybe I should start slackening off so it gets worse again :rolleyes: No I think Steve would kill me...

Corvus I think one of the problems that people have is that your posts sometimes seem contradictory, in this one you say you think fear diminishes trust, but in the socialisation thread you say exposing your dogs to situations where they might become slightly frightenened by another dog is okay because it will teach them how to behave around dogs On the subject of corrections, I don't see how corrections unless they were really harsh would make a dog fearful, it might make them overly submissive (or not) but that's not the same thing as fear. This is off topic, I have been thinking about fear a bit and some times I think I have been guilty of mistaking fear, ie "he's scared of x because he cowers" as submission. Someone said about a dog the other day, oh he must have been abused because he cowers if you raise your hand, but I think I would cower if you raised a hand to me and you were massive, isn't it partially a natural reaction to show submission if you think you are likely to lose any potential battle??? I think a lot of dogs who haven't been abused would do it instinctively (not that I am suggesting we need to go out and test this theory).

I don't see any problem with what he has to say about APBT's either. After all no one would argue with a working dog person who highlights their dogs natural abilities and needs. Don't forget Daddy now has a sidekick, Junior! I actually can't believe Daddy is 14 years old. He is a bit stiff but apart from that he just looks fine.

Where does the control element come into this? ie if my dog is 100% in drive after a prey item whatever that might be with no input from my part, he wouldn't listen to anything. But if I could get my timing right in drive training I reckon a dog in full drive with focus would have amazing response times and would pretty much do anything for drive satisfaction. I am sure people with more experience can elaborate. SORRY or do you mean a dog with a temperament that is 100% drive etc etc....?

:rolleyes: This is what I was trying to get at in the other thread about socialisation just that you said it soooo much more eloquently than me. I think people who push socialisation as the be all and end all to a dog's happiness seem to be overlooking the whole domestication thing, ie that it includes humans. I don't think it is a coincidence that, although they may differ in their methods of achieving it, successful behaviourists and trainers seem to have one common theme I it is up to us to be the dogs leader, taking the responsibility off their shoulders can solve a whole heap of issues and the dog is happier and more balanced as a result of it. ETA: however, I do think discussion about a topic is interesting, so I will agree with Corvus there, so long as we come to our own conclusions.

Corvus when I read your posts I think maybe I can kind of see the where you might be coming from. When I grew up with dogs, I didn't have that much to do with training or caring from them, they were Dad's dogs and we got to share sometimes, so I guess I grew up a bit idealistic about letting nature be paramount letting dogs play with other dogs. Our springers weren't particularly reliable in recall but we didn't have dog parks per se in the UK, we took them to the woods to run and dog on dog encounters were kind of sparse. Then I got my own dog here in Australia and reality kind of kicks in, you learn more you experience more. My dog was involved in the few scuffles at the dog park, luckily no one suffered any serious physical damage but I started to realise the potential for what could happen. I saw other full on fights where the protagonists were not so lucky. I met people whose dogs had been mauled by other dogs leading to vet bills and fear issues. I started realise that what my idea of what might be thought to be "natural" for a dog might not be quite right and moreover the need to take into account that the restrictions that society now places on dog ownership have turned dog parks and the like into a concentrated cauldron of dog behaviours, good, bad and downright ugly. I think the responses of many of us have been tempered by our experiences. I don't have a neutralised dog (got him too late for that at 10 months), but his interest in other dogs has largely waned with age with the odd exception, but what I do know is that since I stopped going to the busy dog parks, wandering around chatting, and not paying much attention to what was going on and "letting dogs be dogs", and started training with my dog at less popular off leash areas, the bond between us has grown stronger and he seems more relaxed and content in so many facets of his life. I don't think not playing with other dogs worries him one bit.

K9: there are no effective downsides other than you wont be able to go down to the local park & have other peoples dogs excercise your dog & or entertain it, that will remain your job. Off topic but that is one thing that really irritates me when people say to me you should have 2 dogs so they can play together. Some people seem get a second dog so that they don't have to bother to do any work themselves, ie they believe that by chucking 2 dogs together in a back yard they are relieved of the responsibility of having to entertain the dog as the dogs will entertain themselves. Do that and IMO you can weaken your bond with both dogs not to mention that they can develop nuisance behaviours like barking etc, besides why bother get a dog if you don't want to put the time in to it? If you would rather have a hectic social life than exercise, train your dog, then don't get a dog get a cat. Might sound extreme but that is my opinion.

When I get another dog which may be several years off that is what I will be aiming for too.

I've been following this thread with real interest (pre-puppy research!), and have one question to ask please. I definately understand the benefit of socialising a dog to have a low value for other animals and non-family humans, especially if it's going to be a working or competition dog (which is what I'm after), I don't need to be convinced about that! And I understand the risk that indiscriminate socialisation can pose to a dog's temperament, if it gets attacked or scared by another dog. What I'm wondering about is whether neutralised dogs are as good at coping with interactions with strange dogs as most "socialised" dogs are? From what I've read here, it seems that a conventionally socialised dog may have participated in and seen many more dog-dog interactions than a neutralised dog will have. So will the conventionally socalised dog be more able to de-escalate problems by itself, rather than reacting inappropriately? ie, will the socialised dog be more capable at "talking dog" than the neutralised dog is? I should clarify that I'm not talking about chucking your dog into a dog park and letting the dog sort out any problems by itself (some people may be able to get away with that sort of thing, but one severely dog aggressive dog was enough for me.) I won't be routinely relying on my dog to deal with strange dogs by herself - I know that this is my job as alpha. I'm just talking about the situations during the life of your dog where having your dog around other strange dogs will be unavoidable, or will accidentally occur, even if it's just for a few seconds: e.g. you're out hiking with your dog in the bush, with your dog running 10m ahead of you, and suddenly you run around the corner into another group of hikers with their dog running ahead. Or e.g your dog needs to be transported with other dogs (in the back of a van) on occasion without you being right there. If the other dog is rude or pushy or aggressive towards your dog, will a "socialised" dog be more able to diffuse the situation than a "neutralised" dog, due to having more practice at communicating with other dogs? Is this an issue, or am I over thinking things? I'd welcome answers from both K9 Force and anyone who has done his puppy neutralisation program before. I am sure K9 force will be able to answer this better but 2 things spring to mind: 1. if you follow pack theory you are meant to be the alpha not the dog, therefore it is up to you to diffuse the situation not the dog. The dog would look to you to sort the situation out, you are the leader. Takes the pressure off the dog and it is much more likely to be calm under stress. Same idea as Cesar Milan, step up the leadership - take the pressure off the dog to make decisions - ergo balanced dog... BTW You mention dog being transported in a back of a van without you being there, surely common sense would dictate separate crates, you wouldn't put your child in a car without a harness, same applies for dogs. 2. K9 is talking about a dog that has a value of 0-2 towards other dogs, surely a dog that is disinterested rather than over excited therefore projecting a calmer energy is less likely to provoke a strong reaction from other dogs. Example: when I work at the rescue kennels there is always the dog (and you can learn to pick them), with the excited energy that if you walk past the other kennels all the other dogs will ark up. Then there are the disinterested ones you can walk past the same dogs with only a few dogs taking notice. Anyway that's my non-expert view. I don't think Steve is talking about having dogs that are unaware how to interact with others, merely that they see no value in doing so - big difference.

From my experience, as the owner of a dog who has behaved in a similar fashion, it is behave that can easily escalate into something more serious. I used to think the same thing too Corvus, when other dogs pinned Micha to the ground when he was young (and when he eventually did it to other dogs) - 'it's ok because they aren't physically hurt'. Unfortunately there is more to it than physical injury, a dog might be physically fine but mentally scarred instead. Not only that, Huski as you mention above there is picking up bad habits. When I first took my dog to the offleash there was one particular dog that used to grab the collar in play, didn't take long for my dog to pick that up as an effective means of getting control over a bigger dog. Took me ages and ages to to stop that particular behaviour and it doesn't make you popular with other owners when your dog makes a bee-line for the neck. They think your dog is trying to kill theirs not pull its collar. As I said before, and with the benefit of hindsight, I now question why do we want our dogs to play with strangers? We don't encourage our children to play with strangers (anthropomorphising here I know). Why, because the variables are too great, how do you know what that person is going to be like? Same applies to strange dogs, as far as I am concerned? There are already too many variables in this world, if you can take control of a few why not? The problem with dog parks is that they are not controlled environments, everyone's interpretation of "effective control" is different and a lot of people couldn't give a stuff if their dog plays too rough with your nervous dog, because they are "just dogs". Personally I prefer to mind my own business and my dog's these days, saves a whole world of trouble.

Huski it made me anxious too, I've seen my dog exhibit similar behaviour towards dogs who are bigger than him off lead like that when he was younger and I knew no better, he would go up with the "sabre tail" and basically start stalking them, usually it would be an undesexed male he just became particularly obssessed with. It happened rarely as usually he is not that interested in other dogs but it did happen. Luckly for me it never progressed to a fight or pinning, but the potential was definitely there and it was indeed probably only luck that it didn't. I have also seen the the rush of dogs over to where a fight is happening, all of a sudden the energy buzz goes up and a dog-on dog fight becomes a pack brawl. I have also seen high level play suddenly turn into a scuffle, staffords play rough and there is an edge to it. I think most of us have probably been guilty in letting our dogs play too rough, hindsight is a beautiful thing, but I do hope that I didn't cause any dogs any psychological damage and it's certainly something I am wary of now. You live and learn...

The other thing that occurs to me when people say I "love to watch my dog play, I think it is unnatural not to let"them is some dogs just don't really value play as they get older. I sort of wonder where the concept of they must play to be fulfilled comes from? Canis familiaris (or is it canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated dog, domesticated to humans, not other dogs. My own dog, who was adopted at 10 months or so having grown up in who knows what environment, showed interest in playing with other dogs maybe for the first year I had him, now really, it would have to be an odd day when he showed signs of wanting to play with other dogs, he's just not that interested. I have never attempted to actively discourage him from playing, he just prefers to do something else, in his case chase the ball or some other form of activity with me, he likes to "work" to satisfy his drive, not play. I actually feel sad when I see people trying to force "play" between an obviously scared puppy and another dog.

Corvus, what about your dog annoying the crap out of others though. Not everyone wants a dog, even a friendly one, running up to their dog or their kid? A lot of dogs, as they get older, don't want a boisterous "friendly" puppy bouncing around in their face. I personally don't like being jumped all over by "friendly" large dogs, I love dogs, but I don't love the scars on my legs from their nails as they jump up, nor my ball being snatched from my hand, my nephew is scared of dogs because of being licked as a baby by an over friendly dog, not an aggressive one. I also don't understand how you would be prepared to let your dog run the risk of being attacked, so that is could learn a lesson that "not all dogs are friendly"??? What happens if he doesn't read a dog well and it kills him? You are supposed to be responsible for your dogs well being, how does that fit in with this?

I find these ones are easier for the dog to grip than the fire hose material (is that what you mean), but that's not to say the fire hose material ones aren't great for many dogs with high drive and grip. Measuring across (width) with a straight ruler, they are about 6cm in width. The complete circumference is about 19cm. So take a 19cm piece of string and put it in a circle and that'll give you an idea of the size. The stuffing is full, yet it is soft, so it flattens out a bit under bite grip. The long tug is about 33cm long (great for early training where dog is just learning not to accidentally bite the handler's hands but aren't quite precise yet) and the smaller length one is about 20cm long. Thanks Erny, Yes I am talking about the fire hose material, it is quite smooth and poor old "stumpy" can't get a firm grip. Lesson learnt about tennis balls, my next dog will never play with them.