Aidan3

Yes, sorry about that. I should just get rid of one account but it suits me to have the email notifications come through to different places when I am in different places (work vs home or uni).

Yet that is exactly what you did do. No Aidan, I didn't name you or anyone else as inferior trainers and don't intend to. I said that trainers who use halti's and harnessess and refuse to perform a physical correction training working breeds make a difference to the dog's behavior and some not too bad, but the best I have seen, (bearing in mind, I haven't seen them all as you haven't seen all of them trained in opposing methods), haven't resulted in a behaviour I would call reliable. Everyone as I mentioned before will have a different definition of reliability. What you may define as wonderful behaviour for me may be mediocre and vice versa. When ultimate reliability is required in a working dog, very few if any are trained on halti's, harnessess without ever experiencing a physical correction. Regardless of what you had said earlier, I agree with the above. Very reliable behaviour can be obtained without corrections but rarely is for pragmatic reasons. Also, I believe there is a difference between how the dog performs in working situations vs how the dog responds to other dogs, people etc. I do not spend a great deal of time with clients building anything more than acceptable leash manners, solid recalls, and long downs (often with a tether). Apart from the recall, I require none of these to approach a competitive standard. However, the focus is on having the dog comfortable around other dogs/people rather than simply being under control (not that being under control is anything to be scoffed at). For various reasons I prefer this approach, for a start there are no surprises, for another these are not sporting dogs and their owners would like them to be able to relax and maybe even walk off-leash with other dogs (which we do achieve in many cases even with quite seriously aggressive dogs who have previously caused damage). I had one client, now a good friend, whose dog was terrified of children and had a bite history with adult men, drugged and muzzled in public. She now has two children of her own (plus nieces and nephews) and her dog is able to co-exist with them without any concerns. Whilst I'm sure that having reliable behaviour in all circumstances would help this situation, I don't consider it to be enough. There is no confidence to be gained from feigned civility. I like to be sure that the dog is actually comfortable, not just acting out of avoidance. Dogs can learn to be comfortable through avoidance, but there is no basis for objective measurement there that I know of (and I do know rather a lot about objective measurement of affective states). I hope that makes sense and illustrates some of the differences in our approaches. Please note that I have not been critical of your approach, only some of the assertions made about it (a handler cannot be bitten while hanging a dog, all young GSDs need it if they demonstrate inappropriate aggressive behaviour etc)

You could be forgiven for believing that. But I wouldn't worry too much, they never left and they never stopped contributing. People can say anything about their identity, whereabouts and experience. SchH is a very small sport in Australia and many competitors are here or are known personally by DOLers.

Yet that is exactly what you did do.

Gentle Leaders can definitely come off and should always be coupled. They do provide good leverage but can also increase frustration, if you feel this may be the case then a front-attaching harness might be useful (I couple these too, using a double-ended leash or coupler attached to a martingale or well fitted flat collar). See what the behaviourist says. Muzzles can sometimes be necessary but my preference is that you pretend your dog isn't wearing one; i.e you don't do anything you wouldn't do without the muzzle. Potential problems can arise when people try to do things they wouldn't do if the dog was not muzzled, e.g letting their dog greet dogs they aren't sure about because they don't think anything can really go wrong.

I didn't interpret it the same way so I wasn't sure what you were up in arms about. Depending on the condition, my understanding is that WL are generally better which is probably related to the low numbers of BYBers, but I know mine has had more than her fair share of health issues. Her hips are brilliant though, an orthopaedic specialist got all excited when he saw her x-rays.

It's one of the reasons I like socialisation experiences to be "on the move". When you're moving somewhere you're doing something and you're less likely to react. There are possibly some biological reasons (parasympathetic nervous system if walking calmly) and adaptive, evolutionary reasons (moving with the group). There might be some other learning going on, misinterpreted handler cues for e.g. My guess would be reactive dog who is well trained to walk on leash, hence nothing obvious while moving. An alternative way to look at it would be calm dog who has learned to be reactive when still (for whatever reason). It's all "just behaviour". You might find you can quite quickly teach calm, stationary behaviours if you make that your focus and set her up for success, starting from scratch. The "Look At That" game would be one avenue. If you think it's genuine aggression, you know the drill... professional help and all that...

I'm currently writing an essay on the Buddhist concept of "self as a convenient designator". Their argument that "self" doesn't exist is quite compelling, even with my distaste for ontological arguments. I don't even know if anything but a bag of meat and neurons is typing this right now, but whatever the great bluesmen call "soul" definitely exists and my dogs have plenty of that.

I've seen dogs go from "bad" to "ticking time-bomb" in experienced hands, but more frighteningly, "bad" to "freaking insane" and the trainer had no idea they had made matters worse and actually believed they had done a good job. No personal insight at all.

Yes.....sad lot aren't they ! What they fail to see is life itself , all animals and this beautiful planet are miracles. You don't need to believe in God or supernatural miracles to see the miracles of life, or to be happy. So what is your definition of "soul"? Is it related to consciousness, or personal identity?

From this it looks like Spongey has been reinforced for growling by his owner. No wonder Rocky has been escalating his attempts to feel safe around Spongey. Does Rocky behave like this around other dogs? My guess is that he doesn't, because there is actually nothing wrong with him other than he has learned that the only way to get Spongey to back off is to give him a warning he will remember. It IS possible that this will begin to transfer to other dogs soon (if it hasn't already), and it IS possible that he will actually begin to hurt Spongey soon if you don't get professional help. I don't think you will get far without addressing Spongey's problems first. You might shut down Rocky, but would it be reliable? Possibly, but unlikely unless something changes with Spongey, or you really shut Rocky down but that way lies "learned helplessness".

Don't worry about it, every single one of us will make a mistake unintentionally sometime soon, and that is what will save us from going to hell.

My extrime rage just turned suddenly to effection.

Have you been doing too much healing with your white sheppard? I'm a behaviouralist, can I help? I promise not to use any adversives.

Suffice to say that is not my motivation.

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years. Are you saying Aidan, that the use of a check chain prevented the light's coming on with the dog you mentioned as an example, or did you feel that using an alternate tool or method would achieve a better result...........just interested to hear you thoughts on this. I personally haven't used a check chain for a while either and prefer a prong if a flat collar is ineffective. Fiona The check chain did nothing on it's own, and I'm sure a more competent trainer could use one effectively. It is not where my competence lies, however.

I haven't used a check chain for 9 years.

So that trainer was "incompetent"? OK, so we're in agreement. So why would you draw conclusions about what training method is best or what anyone else should do based on an example of an incompetent trainer? That would be like me saying "check chains are bad, I had a client who was using a check chain under instruction from someone else for months and got nowhere and in the first lesson with me it was like a light-switch went on" (and for the record, I have examples like quite regularly). Just so we're clear, I'm not replying for your benefit but for anyone who might be reading this. I know we've already had this discussion "Fiona"

In that case the examples you used did not fit your definition either. How do you know that other methods are slower? And slower at what exactly? Achieving something in the first 5 minutes, or over the life of the dog?

No, the "otherwise" teaches the dog what to do instead. If the dog is no longer making unwanted choices, why on earth would it matter if he isn't punished for making them? Whether getting smacked was a bigger reinforcer than losing lollies or not is not something you can tell by which one you remember more, lol. I would imagine you do remember getting smacked, but it would be a bit pointless to take two unrelated events and compare them like that then try to draw a conclusion.

Regardless of who Cosmolo is or how good the standard of training is at a local obedience club, $400 is not a big investment for your life together if it's good training and you (and pup) learn some good habits early on. Thankfully only a very small percentage of dogs end up with serious problems, but it's also nice to know you might have prevented them by getting started on the right foot.

What theory is that? The theory that a fearful dog subject to an avervise training method will shut down, increase or agititate it's aggression level, cause anxiety and handler mistrust etc etc. In extreme cases with aversives administered incorrectly for the particular dog, it is a possibility that a dog could suffer negative side effects, but for the most part, I think the above theories are blown out of all proportion and the purely positive trainers who refuse to use an aversive when circumstances require it should re-assess their training options to a wider range of methods. Fiona I'm not sure that I've ever heard a competent purely positive trainer state that any of these things will inevitably happen. I think that's the difference, whether someone is competent or not. Method then becomes a moot point. If you're competent, you're competent; if you're not, you refer and get your ego out of it. If I'm "purely positive" (not that I make this claim, although in many eyes I would be) and get consistently good results with the dogs that I work with, what basis would I have to choose a "wider range of methods"? Similarly, what basis would someone have to tell Steve Courtenay that he shouldn't have used a prong with the dog in this thread? As for the theory, the actual theory - which is not something that "purely positive" trainers came up with - is sound. Aversives do have fall-out, they do come with risk. The severity of the correction is just one factor. One of the most insidious problems caused by aversive conditioning, learned helplessness, can be caused by the use of very mild aversives and can be hard to identify or even to link with the events that caused it. But mostly we're just dealing with classical conditioning, which is certainly not limited to extreme cases. Competent trainers have evolved different methods of avoiding the fall-out of aversives in dog training and behaviour modification, whether one method is any better than another is not a debate I care to enter into here. Suffice to say there is more than one method that works and avoids serious problems.

I bought one of those because I just wanted a vibration (pager) collar. The stim is utterly useless though, it says it has 99 levels, but in reality it has 1 level that pulses at 99 different rates. At anything up to about level 30 the pulse is so slow that you couldn't possibly time the correction accurately, what's more it finishes the next pulse after you take your finger off the button so it keeps correcting while your dog is doing the right thing. So even a dog owner with naturally quite good timing might not realise that they are confusing the hell out of their dog with poorly timed corrections.

Hehe, I think you answered your own question there. Even if you are 100% consistent when walking both dogs individually, they might just learn that being walked together means they can pull. One solution is to invest in front-attaching harnesses. These offer an advantage in that dogs pull much less into them, so if you really just want to get somewhere, you can do that fairly painlessly. The suggestion I make is that, at some point on your walk, you stop and clip the leash to the flat collar and spend some time practising disciplined, consistent loose leash walking. You would begin this with each dog separately at first. Build up the time you spend practising loose leash walking on the flat collar, and start making these sessions earlier into your walk (when your dogs are more excited). This is an easy transition to loose leash walking on a flat collar that allows you some freedom to actually get out and take your dogs somewhere you need to go in the mean-time.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'm guessing Corvus and Staranais might find this interesting: http://statisticallysignificantscience.wor.../03/barley-mow/