Aidan3

I wouldn't let them get that far, but that's my preference. Two dogs, both wearing collars, one handler, both remotes to hand... let's say a good blast is enough to break off the fight, then what? Sorry, I just wouldn't attempt it myself so I don't know how it pans out, nor would I want to find out (let alone suggest it to someone else).

You are right, it almost always does. You were worried about your leadership style, and even though a person's behaviour changes outside the home too, it's usually the things the owner is unaware of or thinks is a good thing to do even though it may not be that we look for. Does Steve do video consults? Sign of a good leader, picking up on the subtle stuff and managing it. Look for opportunities to reward polite behaviour from your Rottie, especially respect for your GSD bitch's space.

Good point. Although I suppose it leads back to that "there are no selfless acts" debate. A friend's Maremma attempted to stop her daughter from going out the back door by trying to herd her away from the door. The child continued and opened the door, so the dog pushed past, picking up a snake from the back step. The snake bit the dog and he died. I consider that to be a selfless act, but I can't think of too many others!

Abed, it pays to remember that these dogs must live together day by day for the rest of their lives. If we're getting to the point where we would need to ramp up the stim to stop dogs eyeing each other off then we're doing something wrong and taking some unreasonable (IMHO) risks. You would want to be very confident that any punishments were well understood by the dog (and we don't know what the dog is thinking nor how many times the lesson will need to be repeated) and permanently remembered, or you're heading very fast down a one-way path. Ultimately we're trying to have the dogs comfortable together, and this is difficult to achieve when the only reason they don't fight today is fear of shock. In any case, I was referring to redirected aggression in the course of normal manners training. The sort you would do with low stim. If there is any uncertainty or tension (and there is always some if a dog is receiving a correction), add that to a bit of tension between two or more dogs, and you have a recipe for redirected aggression. So far, the dogs in question have not fought and I think it's best to keep it that way. Classical Conditioning occurs regardless of muzzle or restraint, and for most people is hard to spot until it's too late. To answer your question, on the now rare occasion that I need to break up a dog fight I grab them by the back legs. I've never been in a position where I've had e-collars on two dogs who were fighting because I would have no use for an e-collar in that situation. The opinion I gave was shared by others who have tried this. No doubt it depends on the temperament of the dog but you can be sure that if you say "it may or may not work for you" on an internet forum, someone is going to try it and fail. By then the damage is done.

I liked his "60 minute down stay in beer garden" exercise

As you have some experience with the e-collar I will assume you know that it is used either to reinforce behaviours (via -R, escape or avoidance) or to punish behaviours and what the difference is. I would suggest that if it has a place at all here, then it is as a reinforcer. I would not use it on one dog while in the company of another dog except under professional guidance. Most people are familiar with it's place in Operant Conditioning, but forget about Classical Conditioning. If you build an unpleasant association with another dog, that is a very damaging thing and hard to recover from. Any uncertainty (not exactly sure what to do, not thinking straight) or concern (feels like under threat, sympathetic nervous system response) can lead to re-directed aggression. Where you have another dog in the picture, that's usually where it ends up. "Rank" does not matter (the lowest dog will redirect to the highest and vice-versa). When two dogs commit to a fight, an e-collar is almost completely useless even if both dogs are wearing one. Regardless of one's personal philosophy when it comes to dog training, I would stick with positive reinforcement when training two or more dogs together. The associations formed are positive, and that is a good thing. In fact, I would be very judicious in my use of corrections when training dogs apart. Classical Conditioning is a very basic form of learning, we often overlook it, and it's hard to spot things like "dilated pupils" and other signs that our training has taken a wrong turn somewhere and a cue has become associated with an emotion that won't help the situation. You don't want to bring in baggage that will be amplified under tension when you have dogs together.

It really isn't about who goes through doors first, eats first etc. Consistency is great, controlling resources is great; provided they are things you can and will do consistently. But tell us something else you do that demonstrates leadership? I'm not being confrontational here, it's just that anyone - even a terrible, terrible leader - can follow a handful of rules that don't mean anything at all unless they are in context. For e.g. someone might tell me they never let their dog pull them anywhere on leash. But then I watch them, and the dog pulls and he sniffs something. Sure, the person didn't move, but the pulling still worked to get the dog what he wanted. Let's say we have someone who has read all the old books on dog training, their dog always waits at doorways, eats after them, isn't allowed on the couch or bed, must wait for permission before eating etc etc But their dog has no recall (which is fine), but they take the dog to the beach and he runs with other dogs and then the owner spends half an hour yelling at him while he plays with other dogs. There is an inconsistency there. Both those examples are someone following "rules" that are essentially meaningless because the owner really doesn't get it and the dog finds it really easy to get what he wants in other ways. Make the journey to see someone sooner rather than later, a bit of preventative help now could save you a lot of trouble later. Making sure that "what you say, goes" is really about training; reinforcing the things you like and preventing the things you don't like. If your dog had a poor recall, you wouldn't let it run with other dogs at the beach then yell when he didn't come back. Similarly, if your dogs squabble over who gets attention from you, it wouldn't be sensible to put them in a position where squabbling or posturing is the obvious option (you might teach them to go to their beds and wait turns, as an e.g of a possible solution). I hope that helps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoRa2iFek1M...player_embedded

I follow up with +R, the e-collar stopped the behaviour at it's most dangerous and for a good while but every now and then I still reward.

I wouldn't trust either completely. How many times do you test it? My own dog performed I don't know how many hundreds of successful trials not lunging at bikes, and we're not talking "look at me, look at me" (wave food around) but just walking normally with or without food. Then one day I was tying my laces and she lunged. Same dog was taught not to lunge at cars using an e-collar. That was much quicker (and it needed to be!), but it didn't last forever either, we had to keep following up.

My "Calming Yo Yo" exercise is like the steroid-enhanced version of that, found here: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/1556

Not a new DOL member, check the phase of the moon

I have no idea who Dr Hazel is or if she even works with pet dogs, but the info given was from the University of Adelaide website, so it was an academic CV.

10/10

Mark Singer is well within his rights to call himself a behaviourist, he has plenty of experience dealing with behaviour problems. With all due respect I'm not sure that I follow Jeff's reasoning. Comparing someone's academic achievements with someone's K9 handling experience is comparing apples with oranges. How do we know that Dr Hazel hasn't also worked with thousands of GSDs? Mr X: Mr X began training working dogs in 1980 in xxxxx , when he became involved in German-style sport training and joined the Xxxxx Schutzhund Club, where he soon became the Training Director. Shortly thereafter he became a professional dog trainer, and established a reputation as an authority on agitation and man-work for both sport dogs and police service dogs. In the mid-1980's he was one of the first Americans to import working-bred Belgian Malinois to the United States, and he traveled widely in Western Europe studying Malinois breeding and the training disciplines of French Ring, Belgian Ring, and KNPV. He was the founder and first president of the American Ring Federation, the first F.C.I.-sanctioned organization for French Ring Sport in the U.S. , and he was the first American to receive his Selection (certification) in France as a French Ring Trial Decoy. He has taught working dog training seminars for sport clubs and law enforcement agencies all over the United States, and also been invited to teach in Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Montreal, Canada. Mr X is now Chief of the Military Working Dog Course, and Chief of Military Working Dog Evaluations with the 341 st Training Squadron at Xxxxx Air Force Base, Xxxx . In this capacity, he directs the basic training and evaluation of most of the patrol and substance detector dogs supplied to all branches of the U. S. armed forces; he consults on Military Working dog Training and behavioral problems; and he carries out original research on substance detector dog performance and aptitude testing of working dogs. Dr Y: In 1983, Dr Y received his B.A. in psychology, and in 1990 he moved to Austin , Texas to enter Graduate School at the University of Texas at Austin , where he studied animal behavior and learning. He is the author of a number of scientific papers in reputable psychological journals, and in 1997 he received his Ph.D in Behavioral Neuroscience. Which one would you hire for a GSD behaviour problem, Mr X or Dr Y?

I'm Tas-may-nee-an and they are very lonnnng boooks. The 38 CD box-set will be available for Christmas. If you play them backwards, you can hear Koehler reading his favourite Christmas cake recipe.

This bloke was joking, but there are actually genuine cases of people falling into romantic love with animals, and even inanimate objects (such as the Eiffel Tower). People are endlessly interesting.

Speaking from personal experience, I agree. House bricks are also off the list. Don't ask...

So what are they actually doing between catching and returning the ball? I'm intrigued! Are they coming straight back to you, or sitting down and having a gnaw? My GSD has a very hard mouth, but I don't have this problem. I'm wondering if maybe there is a training angle you could take, rather than having to buy special balls?

Well yes, we just about were, and then Aiden2 tiptoed back in ... ;) Green? Nice touch. Good luck with your battle. I think it's more than evident that I'm not worried about upsetting people, but I don't do it for kicks, there has to be a valid reason. Tell me Souff, why are you trying so hard to upset me? Do you have a valid reason, or are you just doing it for kicks? You don't seem to be putting any argument forward. Sorry to the legitimate posters for my contribution to the derailment of this thread. I'd like to think it wasn't in vein, but I suspect it was.

I'm not sure why you think I'm worried about the politicians? That's not even close! There are a large number of people using these forums, and each will have their own unique perspective. Writing deliberately inflammatory, misleading, and needlessly political views based on a gross distortion of the truth is offensive to anyone who has a different view (or anyone who values integrity). How do you think Greens supporters, or vegetarians feel when they see this? Or Labour party supporters? Should this be a Country Alliance or Liberal only forum? The last time I checked it was a forum for purebred dog owners. If a political party proposes a bill that affects purebred dog owners, let's discuss it - sensibly. Let's not use the opportunity to bash or belittle others with nonsensical, paranoid rubbish. If you think the Greens have put forward a bill that stinks, of course that's fine to say. That's not "needless politicising" nor is it inflammatory, misleading or a gross distortion. Shortstep has a valid point, you just have to look very hard to find it.

No-one has got a problem with shortstep making honest criticism, kept in perspective. The extra rubbish that has been added and the attack on Mita were out of line. Aidan, I asked what was wrong with giving the publicity ... I never suggested that Shortstep was making "honest criticism". You asked what the problem was, I told you. The publicity is fine. I'm not aware of any elections coming up soon, I just don't have a problem calling out people for talking rubbish. If I couldn't stand the heat I wouldn't do it, obviously. To depart from my admonishment of needless politicising, I have good friends in forestry. One of them is a professional shooter, at that. I run a small business in a state that relies on forestry and this has now come to an abrupt end. I think I have a right to hold an opinion on the greens, but I will limit my criticism to things they have actually done and policies they actually have. Making up rubbish is not constructive and usually leads to more lies, more distortions and more confusion about the issues.

Finally, some constructive discussion.

No-one has got a problem with shortstep making honest criticism, kept in perspective. The extra rubbish that has been added and the attack on Mita were out of line.

ALL behaviour is a choice. A "better" reward is sufficient, but not necessary to influence a choice. Prevent the alternative response, put the response you want on a higher rate of reinforcement until it is conditioned.