sidoney

I don't disagree here, but I also don't recall that the original statement specified conditions under which injury might occur. I would also suggest that it would not have to be extensive use, but that the studies were done in such a way that the measurements were after prolonged use. That would be a fault of the research method. I would suggest that improper use of a chain can injure within a short time period. This is probably a semantic difference. I would suggest that a situation that allows the dog to lunge or makes it more than a small likelihood would be an improper use of the tool. I also suggest that it is possible to set up this tool in such a way that the head turn is limited (eg. acting on nose to a certain extent and then taken up by collar). However I understand that this is not how they are promoted. I think that they are incorrectly promoted in many instances. Sorry, but it is. That is a layperson's way of expressing it, but people do develop preferences, esp. for what is familiar, and then may make attributions in order to justify their preferences, or regard them as if they are not personal preferences but attributes of the thing they have a greater or lesser preference for. There is more to it than that but those are some bare bones of the matter. I agree with this statement. And this is not a problem confined to one tool only.

I completely agree with this statement!!! Using a potentially powerful tool (whatever it is) with no understanding is definitely problematic.

IMO it's only naughty if it creates or is a part of an overall problem.

Hard to keep up with everything here but I have a couple of things to add. It would be more accurate here to state "some dog trainers". It has already been established in this thread that some dog trainers do use them at times. Also some general dog owners have also stated their opposition to them. Hm. In balance I don't think that the dichotomy is there. This was not aimed at you, as I have found that you tend to make balanced statements and/or back up what you say. I rarely find I need to disagree with you but have to on this point. Firstly, check chains can injure necks. That is established. Secondly, a different tool used improperly or a handler that can't control a dog can result in a dog squished by a car or attacking or attacked by another dog (or whatever). Thirdly, I don't think that used properly there is a large risk. Again, these are at risk of being used improperly. I have never suggested that they are a mild tool. Some of the statements made about them, esp. in advertising blurbs, suggesting that they are mild are inaccurate. I would suggest that they have the potential to be severe and this can be useful with some dogs ... like wearing spurs on a horse can be useful. "R - E - S - P - E - C - T" *sings* Most, yes, but not all. I reread the thread before I posted suggesting any implications in order to ensure that the concrete evidence was there. I would be surprised if a pro trainer could not get the results they wanted from a number of methods. However any trainer is going to develop a set of tools that they will have a preference for. That is human nature. And no trainer, not even one that spends a lifetime learning/teaching/training, will be equally competent in every area.

I think much of what Anne says has been fair enough. I've read people on this thread saying that they have used a halter and why and how and what they get out of it. We've had people come on the thread and say that they are no good and that they can train without one and have better results but have offered little or no evidence other than "because I say so". Or making a blanket "they are bad" statement based on isolated examples. There have been implications in some posts that people only use them if they have some kind of incompetence. Making categorical and inflexible statements and making these kinds of judgments don't help in allowing an open and informative discussion. As far as I am concerned they are a tool and they can be used well or badly, as can other tools. Some tools suit some better than others - handlers and/or dogs. If some people can use them safely and effectively, why should the implication be made that it is only used because there is some lack or deficiency?

Yes we do. For so many of the DOL regulars, our doggies are our family ... no wonder we worry about them. I rang on Friday morning and was there on Friday arvo for draining of the haematoma but no news then. Got it this morning.

We've been to the vet this arvo and it should all go down to little or nothing in the end. Currently she has a haematoma there on her neck - it's been drained twice now including today. I'm assured it won't worry her for the herding weekend or be irritated. Probable cause is whacking into something with her neck, some separation of cartilage from larynx, and more cartilaginous tissue being laid down. Will be good when it's all settled down. I hope there isn't a lump there after all this but am expecting maybe a small one.

Righto that is simple. BTW what does "S&N" stand for?

Yes, I would agree with that. Less pressure on the handler's part for more pressure on the dog. Why handlers of any high pressure tool need to be sensitive to the dog. Similar to different kinds of bits on horses - some give more pressure/pain to the horse for less pressure from the rider. And hence need to be used with sensitivity. Have found that quite quickly this dog is responding to very light pressure on the halter as she learns what I want. So the high pressure situation is not sustained but available if needed. Have found "reducing drive" to be useful at times as she's obviously chased quite a few birds in the past. But yesterday was able to walk past some with just pricked ears and she kept position - big improvement. (BTW I have dog on left OR right as I do agility. )

I'm interested to learn about the transition between stim - command, and command with no prior stim. Although I am sure there is more for me to learn between now and that. I'd better buy that ecollar training book eh?

Well I've not had much experience with pulling dogs - mine don't learn to pull, although the Kelpie has been more challenging than the Vizslas. And she pulled horrendously when I arrived at her best friend's place last Friday and she was yelping with excitement. I can see we have some way to go! I am sorry I was unable to attend your evening seminar (son's B'day). Anyway. I am stopping her by not having pressure on it except when I am repositioning her where I want her to be. So any pressure I put on is brief. I've experimented with a tug back to position and with taps back to position and I think taps are working better. It's as you say, not using so differently to a collar, but as she has learned to ignore the collar and not the halter, it's much easier on me as I can use much less pressure. And I praise her and allow forward motion when she is where I want her to be.

I think the advantage I have found with my foster is that she has learned to lean into collars until she's choking herself. The halter is a different kind of pressure and she's not learned to lean into it. She has tried to lean into it but I'm not letting her and she is responding more quickly and with less pressure than with a collar - which suits me as my joints are not so good as they used to be . I could teach her to not lean into a collar but I think it would take more time and more physical effort. I imagine I would get a similar result (vis not leaning into it) with a prong but I don't own a prong and have not yet used one. Oh, tell us more about this!

Yup, those examples clarify heaps and make it simple to understand. Thanks. This would also be related to what flyball dogs do: get the ball and bring it back for the tug (or whatever the trainer has).

Would you clarify that with an example or 2? Please?

As you suggest, this would be an incorrect use of the tool. I think any dog can pull into anything if it's allowed to/becomes accustomed to it. But people buy these or harnesses or whatever and expect the tool to do the job and not the person. It's not the tool that trains the dog, it's the handler. I've used this tool and others. I still use this one at times. As Anne has pointed out, any tool needs to be have its proper use learned.

Hm, that is interesting. I'll confirm that, in a basic sense, the removal of the stim is the marker for desired behaviour, yes? Basically R-? And would you follow up with R+? Like the prey item? Or is that more separate? I have seen some active dogs become almost whirling dervishes during a clicker sesson. Manageable but challenging to someone with dubious timing. So you find that the low level stim will slow the dog down somewhat? Do you mean by that, it won't throw behaviours at you one after the other? Or more slowly? I do believe that many of these dogs can think fast and that fast behaviour does not necessarily mean not thinking (although sometimes it does). I think I am going to find learning more about this kind of training interesting - always good to widen knowledge in useful ways. I can see I will be seeing more of you over the coming year - planning more workshops?

I think you will meet blinkered people using all kinds of training methods. And also people who are open to learning and experience.

I have results over the phone, will be going up to my vet at N. Richmond this arvo to discuss results and probably to have the site drained again, as there has been some fluid. The lump is "scar tissue" which means that yes, possibly some foreign body, or maybe she ran into something? Anyway I'll be having a chat with Karen (vet) about it later today. So she has to get over the operation (had her spayed as well) but long term, all is OK.

Question to anyone who uses one of these or something similar. Would a dog be able to run an agility course with one on? Would it get in the way or come loose or anything?

IMO a lot of people who use clickers don't understand how to use them properly. Eg., low success rate hence setting up stress, and too much luring, which doesn't actually teach the dog much except to follow the lure. As well as disconnecting from the dog, and other things mentioned here. If I am teaching a new dog with a clicker one of the FIRST things I'll do is free shape a behaviour (target an object, usually), with a high rate of reward, in order to get the dog operant. That is, what it does can make the click happen. From the little I know about ecollar training, observed at Steve's, if I have not got this wrong, this seems to be similar to the early stages of that - set the dog up so that it learns it can turn the collar off by what it does. Obviously I need to know more about this. Anyway, this is not what this thread is about, so I'll leave it there.

I like!! Have just emailed the link to a club chief instructor for consideration.

Are there any updates on the situation?

Is this implying that there are other kinds?

Yes, I know, I've met one or 2, at Steve's. I can see me owning one, one day. However a clicker costs about $3 and a collar much more so that will have to wait until I have $$$. This is from someone who was not keen on the idea when all I knew about them was the tales one hears and not the facts. Anyway I'll go back to lurking I think and see what I can learn.

Amen to that. I'm just learning about training with drives and what I have learned so far has been good for me and for my workin' dawg. But I've not thrown my clicker away, either. It's a communication tool. BTW I try to keep the success rate HIGH not 50% - low success rate switches the dog off. If I know about something, I'll stick my oar in. If I don't, I'll keep my mouth shut (except for questions as many can attest) and my ears open and try to learn as much as possible.