Aidan3

Definitely not failsafe, either. I've never heard of it working! Maybe with good luck. Can you clip the young turkeys and guineas wings? There isn't anything really 100%, especially when you're talking about a group of dogs who have experienced the thrill of killing before. My approach would be to get the dogs used to seeing the other animals as 'part of the family'. This needs to be done carefully, with effective safety provisions. Basically lots of rewards for being calm around those animals, teach them to do tricks (silly tricks, recalls, down-stay etc) around them.

Start off by getting him used to working enthusiastically for food at home. You need to teach him this first, cut his meals in half and use the other half for training. I mostly just use normal food. It is consistent and healthy, and a good barometer for whether they are ready to be working in that environment or not. 'Make haste slowly' was the advice my mentor gave me. There really are no dogs who are not motivated by food (unless they are sick). Evolution knocked all the non-food motivated dogs out thousands of years ago. Aside from a hungry dog are there any other things I can do to increase food motivation? Just take it one step at a time, which is a whole lot faster than taking two steps at a time :) Start in your back yard. Start with silly tricks and simple stuff that they already know. Then move to the front yard. More silly tricks. Work in short, productive bursts with a high rate of reinforcement (reward often for small improvements). Train frequently.

Start off by getting him used to working enthusiastically for food at home. You need to teach him this first, cut his meals in half and use the other half for training. I mostly just use normal food. It is consistent and healthy, and a good barometer for whether they are ready to be working in that environment or not. 'Make haste slowly' was the advice my mentor gave me. There really are no dogs who are not motivated by food (unless they are sick). Evolution knocked all the non-food motivated dogs out thousands of years ago.

The reason that I shun 'interrupt' or 'distract' is because I really want people to be mindful that they are reinforcing something. Plus, it can lead to the "but he's more interested in..." argument. If we teach people what reinforcement really means, we don't get that argument. Suddenly we discover that actually, their dog is interested in food, and it doesn't matter that there are distractions around.

I'm my reactive dog classes I don't have the dogs look back to the handler. They do that anyway, when you click, but we never click for looking at the handler. It's really very simple: Antecedent Behaviour Consequence The Antecedent stays the same, but we change the Behaviour and (and I think people fail to appreciate this aspect) the Consequence. The behaviour changes from stalking/reacting/whatever to something more useful, more calm, more controlled. The consequence changes from chasing/distance/control to food or toy - something we control (later it might be herding, retrieving or whatever the dog will ultimately be doing).

You can do it without a clicker. If you're not in a hurry and don't care what you mark.

No distractors or interruptors; reinforcers only. Mark for controlled engagement with stimulus, then shape the behaviour that you want. The minute you start thinking 'distract' or 'interrupt', you're headed for trouble.

The clicker isn't being used as an interrupter in LAT. what do you think would happen if the owner were 'caught without a clicker'?

During summer the beach I live near is designated off leash at certain times and it gets very busy. The number of incidents are extremely low. They tend to occur with dogs I have never seen. Sometimes you get little spats where people have stopped walking to allow their dogs to play, but I don't recall ever seeing anything serious in the ten years I've lived here.

Ethics are not entirely subjective. They can be subjected to tests of reason and logic, and there are principles that are common to most reasonable people. That does not mean that two breeders will necessarily do the same things in order to be ethical, even against what could be a fairly narrow set of ethical guidelines, so long as the guidelines are actually about ethics and not something else (eg kennel flooring materials, or a staff to dog ratio - either of which could be related to ethical outcomes, but are not ethical properties in themselves).

My OH is rude about my dog all the time. Poor OH...

You should probably get more dogs, it takes a bit for some people to get the message.

I did, many years ago. She was very thorough, explained things well, and made good recommendations.

What opinion would that be? I think you've missed the point of my comment entirely. If people want to criticise others for their choices (without knowing the story), maybe they should check that their reasoning isn't, in fact, self-contradictory.

But how does it reduce the pulling tendency without applying aversive pressure with the potential of pain for the dog to back out from pulling, or is that what it does.........ultimately no diffent than a prong collar except that the aversive action of the device is applied elsewhere on the dog's body to create a 'no pull" result? You should be all for them, then. Why? Allywill is m-sass etc

But how does it reduce the pulling tendency without applying aversive pressure with the potential of pain for the dog to back out from pulling, or is that what it does.........ultimately no diffent than a prong collar except that the aversive action of the device is applied elsewhere on the dog's body to create a 'no pull" result? You should be all for them, then.

It's a small gripe of mine (and it's not just about semantics, but that's a discussion for another thread), but this would be an extinction procedure, not negative punishment.

Thanks Aidan2..could you please give me an example of aversive other than correction collars? Certainly, aversives can be very mild and it's important to remember that it's the dogs experience that counts, not the trainers intention. So an example might be a short, sharp "uh-uh" or a spray from a water bottle. Aversives don't need to be intentional, the dog might get spooked by something falling or a door moving in the breeze. Whether something is aversive or not is distinct from whether it's a punisher or not. An aversive may not have a punishing consequence (i.e might not reduce responding).

An aversive is a stimulus the dog will work to avoid. Positive means a stimulus is added (if it increases responding, it's a reinforcer; if it decreases responding, it's a punisher).

No, Snook did not denigrate another trainer, m-sass. But I'm sure your mate is thrilled that you brought his name into the conversation. Perhaps you should stop digging that hole now? I don't think too many people are going to be fooled by the old "blame the client" routine - particularly when anyone can view Snooks posting history and see exactly how committed she has been to both trainers she has worked with. What you're experiencing right now is called "cognitive dissonance", and predictably, you'll find a way to explain it away so that you can justify your beliefs. It's human nature.

Point is they expect you might produce one at any moment :laugh:

Sounds good, Domandal If Layla will recall in the home, that's a good way to get her off the bed. Obviously you still need to address the fact that she bit, and so seeking advice is a good move. One trick for getting rid of the food is to reinforce, as someone else put it earlier "average or better" responses. Also, don't have the food in your hand. You may need to "fade" it out of the picture gradually at first (let her know you've got it, then keep it hidden in your hand on the next few reps). Surprise her every now and then when she does something easy, produce a treat that she doesn't know you have.

Why does Steve Courtney recommend and use prongs then Aidan.......is he not experienced or competent enough with behaviour modification, particularly positive reinforcement, extinction procedures, functional negative reinforcement, classical conditioning and classical inhibition to have an informed opinion to exclude their use from his training regimes?? Steve and I recommend each other and don't judge each other as incompetent based on our tools of choice. Steve realises something that you seem incapable of understanding - that it's NOT THE TOOL. Our criteria for judging another trainer is ability.

Lack of experience, Jules, unable to make a direct comparison :laugh:

I don't know about in Australia. The videos I've seen online are from America but yes, some of the trainers do this. I'm also thinking that the more dogs that are trained not to go near snakes, the less snakes will be killed or maimed by dogs and killed by people shooting them to protect their dogs so maybe a win win situation for the dogs and the snakes?????? Snakes maintain a territory, so killing them does nothing to protect dogs in the long run, and may in fact worsen the risk (snake who has gotten used to dogs is killed, new snake moves in). Not all trainers tape the snakes mouths.