PetSitters

Some dog owners can be a bit silly with child interactions and can remember a couple of incidents over the years I have grabbed a dog's leash from an owner seeing a bit of insecure body language arising with a child meeting a dog, like wow!!, the dog is stressing here and the owner was oblivious as to why I leaned in and grabbed the leash suddenly, as the dog was about to lunge and snap at the child's face and with the owner only holding the handle of the leash, they had no chance of preventing a lunge and snap. My parents always told us when were little that we have our own dog to pat and don't need to be patting other people's dogs and to leave them alone which kept us safe as kids.

What the OP requires is exactly what a professional pet sitting service offers, to stand in for the pet owner when they are unable to provide the level of care and management they desire for their pets. Like with all services, there are some really good sitters and some really bad one's and the one's who do it on the side with cheap rates, no insurance and limited experience so it pays to check out the credentials and experience levels of potential sitters to find someone best suitable for your needs in a service industry that is unregulated.

I can imagine some breeds could potentially create problems with pups sold on mains and left entire, but having said that, I have a working line GSD entire on mains, and there is very little chance a working line breeder would stud my dog without health testing and proof of working ability even offered without a stud fee to do a registered breeding. I also wouldn't stud my dog if he met breeding criteria to any bitch unless the bitch also met health standards and had something to offer the breed. I think also asking the right questions of a potential buyer can provide a good indication of their intentions, but I have also been interviewed by breeders who I felt treated me as a potential crook with imposing restrictions and really didn't want to deal with them and walked away myself by preference. Funnily with the GSD's I found, the most restrictive breeders had dogs of the least proven lines in show and work from my experiences for some reason and were ultra protective of a line that hadn't achieved anything

I am so glad he's on the mend and I can imagine what a horrible experience it must have been when away from home. Although things can happen out of the blue like this with the best of intentions to appropriately manage multiple pets, many house/pet sitters have little experience in dog behaviour or have an insight into situations that can trigger aggression or pick up on potential risks escalating to act accordingly to prevent episodes of aggression arising. No to say by any means this is the case here, but I have seen sitters experience this type of thing often to understand it can take more than being a kind hearted animal lover to care for and manage other people's dogs effectively without incident.

I don't see a whole lot of difficulty being responsible for a child's saftey to avoid a leashed dog, if the dog was off leash roaming, that's a different story. But if the kid has been allowed to run at the dog as they do sometimes and the dog has snapped, I don't see that as irresponsible dog ownership where everyone deserves some personal space respected when walking down the street. My point was that you're talking about who's in the wrong when there's no information on it. People have been bitten by dogs passing them on the footpath. I know there were little details of the situation and we don't really know what happened, my point is if I was responsible for a child's safety on the street I would not allow the child to be within the leash range of a strange dog and divert around the dog walker a bit or at least have my body between the child and the dog walker if passing, to me is common sense from a safety aspect. The same walking dogs and passing people, I automatically shorten up the leash or get off to the side of the footpath especially with kids passing?.

I don't see a whole lot of difficulty being responsible for a child's saftey to avoid a leashed dog, if the dog was off leash roaming, that's a different story. But if the kid has been allowed to run at the dog as they do sometimes and the dog has snapped, I don't see that as irresponsible dog ownership where everyone deserves some personal space respected when walking down the street.

In that case I haven't explained myself very well It's not that the effect is miniscule, it's that it's difficult to attribute problems the dog may have to something that you have caused. It could be a very large effect, but you might blame genetics ("weak nerve"), for e.g, or "low drive", or a critical period - not realising that it was something you did in training or behaviour modification. It happens every single day. There are literally thousands of reactive dogs out there who, while having some genetic predisposition, were made that way through handling. Even more dogs who lag, forge, become over-excited, lose focus easily or whatever - because they have been made that way. That's fallout too. Or you might simply miss the problem. I watched a person make a dog aggressive under instruction using corrections. Both instructor and handler were convinced that they were doing the right thing, but to anyone watching it was an astounding display of abuse through incompetence. They were seeing what they were looking for and missing everything else (see the YouTube video I posted for a remarkable demonstration of missing obvious things when we're focusing on other things). The point about the laboratory was that only under true experimental conditions can we say with any confidence that we are correctly attributing cause and effect, but if you can't really see what I'm on about with cause and effect, that's OK, it's not a big deal. We attribute effect to cause intuitively all the time, it's human nature, but we're frequently wrong. We blame genetics, drive, nerve, critical periods, focus, softness, sharpness etc when we don't really know for sure that those things are responsible. I do understand Aidan exactly what you describe, and of course the big question, are these behaviours made which is possible for sure. but I guess to what extent is the essesnce. Aggression can be triggered and escalated in some dogs from corrections and own one like that myself, but having said that, he is highly food and toy motivated and biddable and to date have never found a reason to consider a physical correction with this dog

I definitely wouldn't accept that diagnosis and treatment recommendation from a general vet and would seek a specialist opinion. I believe there is also a skill required to lay the dog out to obtain a correct hip xray image, definitely a job for complete competence in this area I think.

What is your definition of "fallout", Petsitters? This is not a judgment on you, but on all of us, I would be very surprised if you were able to identify most fallout, much less link it to training. It's just not that simple. If you develop some negative emotionality, avoidance, disinterest, loss of focus, "low drive" or ambivalence in a dog, how do we link that to single events, or worse, to recurring patterns of action by a dog owner over time? It is extraordinarily difficult outside the lab. In the lab we can compare samples and hold all other variables constant. In the lab we can attribute effect to cause, in the real world we can rarely do that (although intuitively, we do it all the time, mostly incorrectly). In the real world there are too many factors, we make inferences where there are none, we see the things we are conditioned to see and miss the things we are unaware of. No doubt everyone has seen this awareness test on YouTube? If you haven't, take a moment to watch, if you have, you will know what I am talking about (those who have seen it - NO SPOILERS!) My interpretation of fallout beyond most people's immediate response I would imagine to be a damaging bond between handler and dog, fallout to me is anything suppressing desired behaviour as a side effect of training errors. I think fallout that can only be determined in a lab environment unseen by the naked eye is getting a bit over techo and too miniscule to be overly concerned about in general obedience training IMHO.

Ohhhh, owned by people not dedicated enough to follow motivational routines. Well that's quite specific, isn't it? Why didn't you say! I am still not convinced that this a methodology problem rather than a trainer skill problem. I have zillions of anecdotes about dogs that would actually manage to get out of the yard if their owners would stop smacking them every time they growled at another dog. Methods and tools are just things we pick up to help us train a dog. They can be used and misused by anyone. I don't think stories about a PP trainer that couldn't do this or a correctional trainer that couldn't do that is very indicative of the effectiveness or lack thereof of one method compared to another. I think it's fair to expect that a good trainer will be able to achieve good results with the minimum side effects regardless of what method they use. I don't think the individual dog and the owners situation is taken into account enough sometimes when a trainer decides what training approach/methods to apply to reshape the behaviour the owner requires. A good trainer in my opinion should be open to all methods with a personal inspiration to gain the skill of determining which training method is best suited to a particular situation and dog and with forethought to believe the owner is capable of conducting the chosen routines to achieve the desired results. Method peddling either purely positive or compulsion applied to every dog and situation is an error in the making as not every dog has the same temperament and drives. Purely positive trainers and the example given of the guy in New Zealand to me are "method peddlers" given a dog to train that doesn't respond well to the methods they pedal are more likey to stuff it up. I much prefer the concepts of Steve Courtney, Mark Singer and others who don't method pedal and operate with a tool box full of tricks to suit the widest varity of dogs and situations. I don't think there is any place for a commercial trainer apsiring to be a good one should rule out methods to make their training concepts "religion" based

Hey, I didn't mean that. I said I didn't think claims that building a reward system was too difficult and complicated for some dogs was a reason to not use rewards with them. It's a cop out. I don't think that means there is no reason to not use rewards and I do think it's the owner's call and I don't really care what call they make. But if they think they can't build a reward system because the dog is too hard, I challenge that. I don't know how many times I have to point out that I have used punishments for it to sink in, but I'll point it out again. I find it rare that I really want to suppress a behaviour. I don't think it's conducive to my aims with my dogs to regularly suppress behaviour. I am well aware that that is my personal choice and I do not think that all positive reinforcement trainers should have the same aims. I thought I made it clear that I think it's a personal choice and doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. Corvus, some dogs are extremely difficult to build a reward system strong enough to support distractions and it amounts to how dedicated someone is to achieve this and most are not with difficult dogs so when people want certain behaviours suppressed or extinguished they need to make a choice, often compulsion is the better option for their situation. My point to the discussion is when people hire a trainer who will not apply and teach complusion methods with a difficult dog owned by people not dedicated enough to follow motivational routines to reshape their dogs behaviour, the dog ends up permanently in the back yard and the owners can't be bothered with it other than feeding. The dog may not have suffered a leash correction, but it hasn't been for a walk for 2 years, so which evil is worse, a bit of compulsion training on the leash or a lifetime in the back yard is what I am talking about? A trainer is hired to train a dog in my opinion not pedal a method and I think they should be obliged to assess the big picture to deal with the behaviour effectively and take into account the owners ability to carry out instruction in the best interests of the dog's future and shape the dog's behaviour so the owners receive some pleasure from the dog. In the case of the Rotty on a harness I mentioned as an example was the result of a purely positive trainer who effectively relegated the dog to the back yard as the owner couldn't control it on leash because "they don't believe in prong collars"?. If they used a full box of tools with the ability to assess the situation with this dog and owner properly, they could have trained with a prong as I did in the first place and reunited with this owner the pleasure of walking his dog for some quality companionship and most importantly provide exercise for the dog.

I have seen negative fallout many times between dog and handler, but the dogs have been subject to some heavy abuse and cruel treatment or have been handler sensitive dogs massively over corrected for their temperament level, but personally I think it's an over exaggerated aspect for the marketing of positive training methods for the most part perhaps.

A lot of people I have noticed try to apply training techniques designed for driven dogs upon dogs of low drive or dogs with behavioural issues on the basis of something being a Susan Garrett technique for example assuming it will work, but there is a massive difference how dogs of different drives respond to these techniques. I agree with your previous post Kavik, horses for courses

So you're rewarding the dog by removing an adversive/unpleasant thing when it does what you want? I think Susan Garrett would say that she could find something the dog will work for ie a reward for every dog. She would pay attention to what distracts a dog or what it enjoys doing that and use that as a reward ie Premack - dog must do what trainer wants, so dog can do what dog wants (as long as it's safe). And I think a trainer that decides their dog finds nothing rewarding and therefore needs to force their dog to do what they want (compulsion), probably shouldn't be training dogs. What I like about Susan Garrett besides her excellent knowledge of learning science, is that she is not completely perfect when it comes to reading dogs and timing so her methods are easier for me to use. I don't have to depend on excellent timing and dog reading skills which Steve Courtney has. And while I might make mistakes and accidentally reward my dog for doing something I don't want - I don't kill her enthusiasm for working with me. Where more limiting tools are used like head halters and prong collars, I think the plan should be to get the collar off the dog as soon as possible. Ie you're using the tool to control the dog's environment and possible responses, so you make the right choice easy for the dog to make. I think the prong collar can be helpful but I'd try everything else I know first. I do wonder if you train a dog to come to you (and loose lead walk) to avoid the pressure of the prong collar, that you can't train a dog to do the same for the pleasure of some food or a game or getting to go somewhere fun. I admit I don't know what Susan Garrett would do with a dog that only wants to kill every human it encounters, I would ask for Steve Courtney's help with such a dog. So long as we were sure it wasn't a medical problem (ie brain damage) that was the cause of the problem. You'd have to wonder how the dog got to be like that in the first place. Does Susan Garrett rehabilitate dogs with behavioural issues, like transform low drive fear aggressive dogs into agility champions or she shaping dogs having the genetic traits for agility work to exctract their full potential?

So is that the method, or the trainer? Keep in mind that I have worked with a lot of dogs like yours, I doubt Rex is a special snow-flake. Getting dogs to a standard where they are enjoyable to take for walks around other dogs is not a long, drawn out process. There is only one like mine Aidan, and you are yet to assess him ;)

It's not fair that I agree with Steve's article regarding his training concepts

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers. Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case? Steve is a respected friend of mine, but I do not agree with some points in that article even though I "have a tool box with many options" and agree with many of the other points he makes. However, your claim was made on the basis of popular opinions from this forum and the history of results from Steve and Mark. This ignores every purely positive trainer who also has a brilliant history of results, the opinions of every other forum in the world, and the fact that sometimes this forum recommends purely positive trainers if they are in the area. It also ignores the fact that Mark and Steve do not agree on many things. So who is right? What is "best" and what does "best" mean? Is there a "best" across the board? What I would like to see is an end to this ridiculous divisiveness in dog training, but I think hell will probably freeze over first. We know that trainers of every persuasion will fail or succeed depending on the dog in front of them and their ability to use those methods with those dogs. This includes purely positive, this includes purely compulsion, and this includes everything in-between. I haven't used a check chain to give a correction in 10 years and haven't needed to. This does not mean that I think every trainer who uses a correction chain is a crap trainer or "wrong" for doing so, although some undoubtedly are. I don't personally use a head halter either, but I have absolutely no problem with trainers and behaviourists such as Dr Overall or Dr Sophia Yin who use them intelligently, although some undoubtedly do not. Who is best? No such thing, I think we need to get over the idea. Every dog is unique, but no dog is a special snowflake. ETA: I do have a problem with abusive training techniques or those that ultimately damage the relationship between the dog and handler, or the relationship between the dog and people in general. Punishment and negative reinforcement do not have to be confrontational or harmful. If what you are doing is confrontational, then you're stepping into dangerous territory as your husband found out and recognised (to his credit) with Bronson. See http://companionanimalsolutions.com/blogs/confrontational-behavior-modification-techniques-and-the-risk-to-owners/ for empirical support for this opinion. If you had to say which was a "better" way to go based on the results of those surveys, which would you pick? (It's a trick question) I think a lot of trainers are too quick to label something as being damaging or abusive on the basis of a tool or quadrant used, which is an over-generalisation. Fall-out is real, I cannot stress this enough, but it is not assumed that harmful or irreversible fallout will occur simply because someone used a correction, or acted to stop dangerous or harmful behaviour. What I disagree with regarding purely positive trainers is limiting resources to train on the one size fits all basis because not two dogs in temperament and drive are the same. Some dogs do respond best with compulsion to extinguish unwanted behaviours and some don't and the skill in training is to have the ability to determine the method and tools most applicable to a particular dog and behaviour and I think there are too many temperament, disposition and drive combinations out there to successfully train every dog effectively with a limited box of tools.

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers. Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case? I think the point Aidan is making is that great trainers are the best because of their talent, not the methods they use. Given the best trainers do not all use the same methods, then the argument that the methods those trainers are using is what creates their success not only appears to be inaccurate, but I think diminishes the skill of those trainers. A method must be used to train a dog and the talent of a trainer is dependant on their ability to determine what to use most appropiately for that particluar dog. Like I mentioned previously, my older GSD is a difficult dog to establish a reward base in distractions with a default behaviour of reactive aggression, so what we needed to fix with my dog was aggressive lunging at strangers and strange dogs and if my dog was a customer dog, the result they want is to stop the dog lunging which I did with compulsion on a stabilisation collar very quickly so we have a result. If I tried to train my particular dog with reward base methods, it would be a very long draw out exercise before the lunging would cease if at all on those methods, so from a customer perspective my talent as a trainer would be dependant upon deminished lunging, so I would need to determine assessing the dog which method would be the most appropriate to best achieve the desired result.

Building the reward system is the problem with some dogs which can be a very complex drawn out exercise and if this can't be established well, even Susan Garrett acknowledges in her presentations that results in her methods will be limited without this foundation. If the particular dog responds better with complusion than it does establishing a reward system, it would be silly not to use some compulsion if it is getting results. The point is, dogs like this in the hands of positive trainers who refuse to use complusion from dedication to a method as their priority in training is detrimental to the dog and the owner in my opinion.

Steve is a brilliant trainer, but how does this support your argument that "in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods works best"? You are comparing a rare talent against a lowest common denominator, and using the opinion of this forum (one of thousands around the world, and not a representative sample) to support your claim. Some forums recommend Cesar Millan, others recommend Susan Garrett, others recommend Uta Bindels. It depends on what people are training for, and who is the brilliant trainer closest to them. For example, if you ask on this forum who to see in WA, you will more than likely get the recommendation of one of several no-compulsion trainers. Steve's link I posted supports my argument Adian, so Steve is wrong in that case?

I found some training concept literature and am thinking WOW!!!, this is exactly my feelings on balanced training and then I found who wrote it, Steve Courtney from K9Pro http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages.php?pageid=54 Steve's concepts are on very similar lines to one of Adelaide's most respected trainers Mark Singer who both come highly recommended on DOL regularly with problem behaviour with pet dogs having a proven history in behaviour rehabilitation. Interstingly I don't see recommendations for Delta trainers who practice purely positive concepts in preference to these guys, so wouldn't it be fair to say given the history of results provided by trainers like Steve and Mark in the pet dog training market that a balanced combination of all training methods work best? Here is another interesting article by Steve on head collars:http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages.php?pageid=31

I have never trained with this trainer, but have talked at length (and trained alongside) someone who claimed to have trained extensively with him. I got the impression that this person was aiming to train the dog basically by creating really strong habits, plus a belief in the dog that it would never get away with not obeying so it might as well obey. He used physical placement to teach, check chains & a degree of social isolation to create motivation, but most of I think his method was absolute consistency (never ever letting the dog get away with not obeying a command). I don't know how accurately this mirrors how his trainer trained. The trainer might have some great skills, I have no idea. You can be very closed minded and still good at what you do, after all. I just reference his site to point out that, it's not just positive trainers that are very black and white about dog training. Not by a long shot. That sounds like a spin off from Koehler especially the social isolation was one of Koehler's specialities prior to a training session on the "make the dog really excited to be with you concept" after a few hours of isolation. Koehler had some really silly and aversive behaviour problem techniques that ruined his credibility somewhat, but his leash training techniques and ability to transform that into off leash obedience was his forte and leash training in Koehler methods by the book will produce excellent off leash obedience which is probably what this guy's training is modelled on and how he gives performance guarantees?

Once again, "consequence" can be rewards. There is no such thing as training without consequence. It's part of the ABCs of training. Personally, I was heartbroken when I finally saw the fallout I had caused in my previous dog with corrections. Absolutely devastated. It took me nine years to realise and I only did because I raised an animal without much compulsion at all and saw the difference. I tried to fix it and I couldn't. Old habits die hard. I don't consider it a scare campaign to try to communicate to others just how horrible it was when I realised what I'd done. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That dog worshipped the ground I walked on and no one but me could see what I was so upset about, but that didn't help me at all. It can be very subtle and insidious. Absolutely agree Corvus, my young GSD fit's into modern training like a duck to water AND complusion ramps up aggression with this boy and I am sure if I prong collared him hard he's likely to bite me, BUT my older boy is dead opposite in his personality, handler submissive and responds to compulsion where reward has no value to him whatsover in distraction. My young guy getting his attention with a ball or tug under any distraction will recall in an instant, where my older boy will look up and tell me "so what" I will come when I have finished sniffing if I want to, is the difference in attitude between the two dogs both GSD's though? My Golden Retriever is a soft dog, a bit nervy and won't eat on the street and has no food drive when feeling insecure from distrations, but responds to very mild aversion on the collar but it's about using the right level of aversion to suit his personality. If I corrected him at the level my older GSD needs, he would shut down and flop on the ground in fear submission, so in my lot alone, I have 3 entirely different personalities who respond to different methods and levels of correction/motivation to gain obedience. What I am saying in my belief of dog training, you cannot afford to shut yourself down to any methods or tools that can potentially best achieve an obedience result for a particular candidate. If I feel a prong collar or an Ecollar will provide the result we need on a particular dog, I will use it in the same fashion if think motivational training is best suited to a particular dog, I will use that too or a combination of both. I don't use choke chains by the way, a prong leaves choke chains dead and buried I think? My point is that I do come across dogs with a personality like my older GSD under the instruction of positive only trainers who refuse to use compuslion on a dog that needs it which results in the dog being left in the backyard and not walked and exercised because it's a pain in the butt on leash for the owner to manage which I feel is not fair on the dog. If I can fix that dog on a prong collar so the owner can walk and exercise the dog with the obedience they require to manage the dog effectively and enjoy their walks together I think is an excellent result and have certainly had no owner complaints from doing so, in fact it's the exact opposite when new lease on life has been re-established with their dog. :D

I have met many people like that, I'm afraid. They are slowly becoming fewer in number, but they are still out there. One of our local professional trainers is very vocal in proclaiming that he won't use a clicker or food treats to train dogs. On his website, he calls positive reward training the "Bullshit Industry of the Century". You can't get much more black and white than that! http://www.paulhutton.co.nz/industry/index.html I have also talked to more than one professional trainer who didn't know what a clicker/marker was actually for, as well as several people over the years who have been convinced that all dogs need corrections or they won't be reliable. Look at Ed Frawley, he openly admits that he used to trash-talk clicker training only because he was closed minded and didn't understand what it was about. Now, he is a convert. People on both sides of the argument can be arrogant and closed minded and unwilling to learn. Wow!!! interesting website, thanks for the link. A lot of what he is saying is true and one thing especially that rarely comes into the equasion now days is off leash control given the dog laws that restrict the practice. The early training principals when I first began as a teenager was all about off leash control being the proving ground to obedience and the "good" trainers or instructors then never used a leash and always had their own dog at class as a testament of their training ability for everyone to see. Unleashed control now days in pet dog obedience is rarely tested or trained to achieve, but years ago it was the essence of obedience to take your dog anywhere off leash with recall under the most severe of distractions being the training highlight of success?. We don't train for off leash obedience much anymore in the pet dog and neither do we practice off leash handling in daily life. We don't pop into the corner deli letting an unleashed dog out of the car to stretch it's legs and command a sit at the shop doorway whilst going in to buy some stuff. So, now days the test of obedience has changed dramatically in terms of what is considered an obedient dog and what this guy here is saying is take an average modern trained pet dog off leash in daily circumstances as see how good it is which would be an intersting test indeed ;)

You must have had some outstanding obedience clubs in Adelaide 20 years ago. Is Adelaide particularly progressive in the move to positive training methods these days? My friends in SA tell me that more traditional style classes are still the norm over there. I know that the move has been gradual down here, and the standard is perhaps not as high as it could be. Clubs were training with traditional methods since the post-war period, so they had a long time to perfect their methods. Most clubs are now changing from those methods to positive methods for a variety of reasons, I don't think politics plays much of a part because they certainly made it very difficult for the "dissenters" who wanted to see more positive methods allowed in classes. The GSD club is one still using traditional methods, but there are quite a few obedience classes operating along with the Delta classes with collar restrictions in place and anti compulsion policy and private training organisations operating in a similar fashion. Club dogs I haven't experienced any major issues with and are generally the better behaved as a rule.