Aidan3

But the Koehler method is reward based. How else can you teach a dog to do something (as opposed to stop doing something) and then keep doing it, unless it is rewarding? Surely the science alone must tell you that? Behaviour does not have a tendency to repeat unless it is reinforcing in some way or another. Have you learned about 'negative reinforcement', itsadogslife? Or you may have heard of it under other names, escape or avoidance conditioning?

When my bitch was that age she managed 3.6km. But we didn't walk down the street like that

That happens with dogs trained in reward based methods also same thing except the one's who haven't been corrected have learned no consequence. I can assure you a dog assumed fixed of aggression towards a child would never be close enough under my control to test it. Righto, so now we're roughly on the same page. We cannot guarantee behaviour in any animal so we need to be responsible with all dogs, but especially dogs who have a history. With many, many caveats I do put dogs with histories back into homes with kids. These are dogs who have learned to be comfortable around kids and the many unpredictable things kids do, and we can see that not just by their obvious behaviour but their whole physiology. You can't teach that stuff directly using corrections, but you can using classical conditioning and reward.

Do you have any evidence of wishful thinking in that scenario or is it just your feeling on the matter? The logic behind that question is absent, but you don't have to be in the business too long to hear the stories of dogs that "just snap one day out of the blue" and the history behind those dogs. Let's say we train a dog to do an obedience routine. We use a few well-timed corrections and he turns out wonderful routine after wonderful routine in training. Then we get to trial day, and he barely passes. The situation is different, none of the same cues are there, and his performance falls apart. Not such a big deal in an obedience trial. A really big deal when it's a child's face. Punishment can be permanent. Do you know exactly which factors result in the permanent absence of unwanted behaviour so that you can reliably correct a dog for lunging at a child and guarantee that it will be safe until the day it dies of old age? I don't. And in any case, you're talking about punishing a dog for lunging. A dog doesn't have to lunge to bite a child.

Interesting! I didn't think we had full HGH lines here, I'm filing this knowledge away for a later date...

That's a possibility but it can also go like this too: Dog hates kids. Dog lunges at kids. Dog gets corrected - that hurts. Dog stops lunging at kids and behaves it's self. If the training stopped there, that would be wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous thinking when it comes to dangerous dogs and kids. You would have absolutely no evidence that this dog would be safe.

Using punishment in the same situation leads to the same outcome. He will behave as long as he gets what he wants, to avoid the punishment. If you think rewards should be used that way, you will have a very poor outcome and punishment will be your only option. Kids and dogs can be fairly creative at solving problems, finding ways to get what they want and avoiding punishment is like a sport to some of them. Rewards, used correctly, bring it all to the front under your terms. The phrase in bold doesn't make any sense: the purpose of punishment is to get him to behave while not getting what he wants. Do you mind to illustrate how would you use rewards in my example? You mentioned "blackmail", I think you probably meant "bribery" but it doesn't matter too much. The implication was that he was only behaving to get what he wants. Well, the only reason anyone ever does anything is to get what they want or need, whether that is to obtain something or avoid something else. I turn up to work each day to obtain money, which I only need to avoid starvation and homelessness. By using punishment you take the "blackmail" analogy even further, he only behaves to avoid punishment. I don't see how this is better than only behaving to get what he wants? Is it more reliable, more flexible, a better experience for the child? What is it that appeals? If you wait until the kid has the tantrum to use rewards, you've missed the boat. The rewards are supposed to come for good behaviour, not to bribe them out of behaviour you don't like. For that matter, the only reason kids use a tantrum is because it gets rewarded in some way. It's hard to ignore a tantrum, it's embarrassing to the parent so every so often they'll do something to respond to the tantrum. My child is rewarded for being good. It starts with easily achievable things, staying close, making good choices, earning the things they want. Same with my dogs and my client's dogs, we don't wait until the dog has a 'tantrum'.

Using punishment in the same situation leads to the same outcome. He will behave as long as he gets what he wants, to avoid the punishment. If you think rewards should be used that way, you will have a very poor outcome and punishment will be your only option. Kids and dogs can be fairly creative at solving problems, finding ways to get what they want and avoiding punishment is like a sport to some of them. Rewards, used correctly, bring it all to the front under your terms.

Interesting thread. It will be hard to have an open and frank discussion on the Koehler method with no agreement on what constitutes a reward or a correction. The heart-warming anecdotes about Koehler's success might also require some verification. Very early on I met a Koehler trained instructor, he had already started to move on. This is not just a matter of times changing, but changing for a reason. What was considered success in the obedience ring back then would be cringe-worthy today.

I use and recommend "Good as Gold" which you can buy from specialty horse suppliers. I'm not sure what the dosage in Behave is, but if you give me the numbers I can calculate how much Good as Gold you would need per dose. I would also supplement with a B-complex. Good as Gold + B complex will reduce costs considerably. You may also find with the addition of some carbohydrates (e.g a small amount of porridge) you can reduce the amount of tryptophan given. Premium foods are some of the worst offenders for filling dogs up with corn. The tryptophan (aka l-tryptophan) in corn has very poor bioavailability. In some studies, protein from corn has been used to deplete serotonin in animals and humans. This is only normally a concern if corn is the main source of protein in a dog's diet. For some dogs, taking them off a corn-based food can make the difference. Eggs are a very good source of tryptophan for dogs, provided they are cooked (doesn't need to be much, soft boiled is fine). The mechanisms for getting serotonin (from tryptophan) into the brain are complex, and many factors can be involved including ratio of tryptophan to other amino acids, exercise, insulin response to carbohydrates, and even exposure (and timing of exposure) to sun.

Dog Lovers Come Through for Retired Police K9

A cure for cancer.

It's a bit like kids, they can ask but if you say no, they need to learn to accept that too. No big deal really unless you're the sort of person who will cave when they keep asking.

Yup, one of the many things I like about my dogs. They like a lot of the same stuff I like. If it were ever a problem (e.g excessively bringing a ball, resource guarding the couch), then I would train the appropriate boundaries.

All complete and utter nonsense; so stop worrying about it, train your dog, set appropriate boundaries, and enjoy your cuddly, playful Rotty!

I guess I'm having trouble understanding at exactly what point the "again" comes into effect. I would imagine most would consider the process of teaching a dog 'apropriate' behavours just that a process which, takes time and on ocassions the process stalls or goes backward, no matter the methods chosen. For positive punishment to be fair, it should work very quickly. Much faster than positive reinforcement. Some trainers have suggested no more than 3 repetitions (with caveats). Positive reinforcement should also work very quickly, but the difference is that we are building a more complex response with a lot of factors. This is very different to stopping something that the dog already knows how to do in detail and already wants to do. So that "again" should come into effect very quickly when using punishment. That requires excellent timing, an excellent understanding of the behaviour and it's motivation, and an excellent understanding of the dog.

I think we need to be careful with this sort of argument, Huski didn't ask that question of you. She asked if it worked, and raised the matter of what does "it worked" mean to different people. Reasonable questions. Huski has a professional involvement with one of Australia's most respected behaviourists, so no doubt she has seen the same sorts of things I have seen as a dog trainer. People don't always see the same thing everyone else sees. A small tap or swat that doesn't cause any surprise or pain probably also doesn't have much effect on the behaviour. It may even just excite the dog or actually reinforce unwanted behaviour. Other factors will often intervene, tone of voice etc but the owner will attribute the change in behaviour to the tap or swat. But more common is the owner who seems oblivious to their dog's misbehaviour (or anxiety). In their mind they are dealing with the problem and think they have it under control. But they will plug away, sometimes for years, making the same mistakes and really just interrupting unwanted behaviour when they are there to deal with it. Often, a more lasting or effective intervention can be employed, but breaking an old habit is hard. I think we can all relate to that

I had a client's dog who would froth at the mouth if she saw a plastic bag blowing across the other end of a sports ground, and offering food was almost pointless. Within a few weeks we had her working with focus around other reactive dogs within 20'. Not that I'm suggesting every dog comes along so quickly or that everyone should be able to do this (I've had plenty of practise!), but to show you that it works. Start with whatever distance/distraction-free environment you need for success. If your dog isn't succeeding, you have nothing to reinforce. Always set your dog up for success; always, always, always. It sounds silly to work with a cardboard dot on the wall at home, but if that's what it takes to get success, then that's where you begin. Personally, I'd be teeing up some more sessions with Underdog as soon as you are able.

Simple solution, look after an adolescent high-drive working dog for a week. If flatmate still thinks smacking is useful, they are oblivious. Without making any comment on the ethics of the situation, it's a sure way to get a lively one going!

How was she responding to this? If she was relaxed, then you came back - that is good. If she was starting to panic, then you came back - that is bad. Here is an article I wrote: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1556 There is an exercise at the end called "The Calming Yo-Yo" which I think you should try. Just follow the instructions exactly, they are deceptively simple.

I've seen a few studies which have looked at this, mixed results.

My late Golden began formal retrieving at an advanced age, 9.5 years. He would certainly chase a ball very enthusiastically but I wouldn't say he was high drive relative to some of the field-bred dogs I've seen. He was also an absolute couch potato at home. My GSD would chase a ball all day, still does if given the chance, even though she can no longer jump into the car on her own. But of the two, for retrieving, Golden won hands down. I didn't have to teach him to mark the fall, carry with a soft mouth, or to use his nose to sniff out a blind retrieve. Those are all the things that would be really hard to teach from scratch, no matter how much drive. I guess what I'm trying to say is, you have to look at the whole package, whether you are a breeder or a puppy buyer. Drive alone isn't enough.

Yes, the term 'drive' is used loosely, the qualifier 'high drive' is used even more loosely. In behavioural science it is used differently than in dog training, and amongst dog trainers there seems to be some agreement on what it means but no common, agreed upon definition. In different circles (breeds, sports) most people within those circles seem to have a pretty good idea what they are referring to and it is very useful within these circles. We would generally agree that prey drive takes different forms depending on the breed or purpose of dog (e.g prey drive could refer to flushing and retrieving in a spaniel, tracking in a bloodhound, or herding in a kelpie). Whether drive is "high" or not seems to be mostly relative to those circles also. Sometimes we see dogs referred to as "high drive" but even with a dedicated, skilled handler they would not do well in a working or sporting arena. Sometimes 'high drive' is used to excuse inconsistent or unclear handling or poor management. In it's worst form, 'high drive' is used to explain away undesirable traits that are not particularly useful (i.e they cannot be harnessed for a purpose even with skilled handling).

Excellent, that's the info I was missing, thanks!

How long are they baked for and at what temperature? I'm guessing they are fully dehydrated to be able to last without preservatives?