Kippy

Now we have established that, we shouldn't have a problem with Koehler then, case solved :D

The general overview when someone talks about corrections or Koehler for example in this thread, many believe there is another way and corrections are not necessary at all often referring to sporting dogs supposedly trained in purely reward based systems?

I read a post somewhere not long ago where someone put up a video of Alison Kollenberg correcting a dog hard in Sch training from a forged heel which she responded to. Alison is probably the Sch competitor/trainer in the country with the most achievments explained quite openly that you CANNOT train and get reliability in the sport purely in reward based techniques, she went on to say that nobody does even though they don't show it in their training videos, she said that the assumption Sch dogs trialled at high levels are trained without learning consequence from corrections is absolute nonesense?

That happens with dogs trained in reward based methods also same thing except the one's who haven't been corrected have learned no consequence. I can assure you a dog assumed fixed of aggression towards a child would never be close enough under my control to test it.

and altho it still hates kids, it is prevented from lunging ..You haven't taught this dog to see kids in a different light - you've not stopped the aggression, just stopped the action.Dog was corrected for the action, not the thought/feeling And why does the dog hate kids? Probably a fear reaction, insecurity?. The dog avoids a correction and doesn't lunge but then facing kids learns they are not the problem first perceived and begins to relax around them, that can also happen too?

That's a possibility but it can also go like this too: Dog hates kids. Dog lunges at kids. Dog gets corrected - that hurts. Dog stops lunging at kids and behaves it's self. If the training stopped there, that would be wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is dangerous thinking when it comes to dangerous dogs and kids. You would have absolutely no evidence that this dog would be safe. Do you have any evidence of wishful thinking in that scenario or is it just your feeling on the matter? I have a couple of examples, one was a next door neighbours dog years ago who used to chase cars. He was hit by a car coming the other way when focused on another, luckily he went under the car and got a few scrapes injury wise that was all but a decent fright in the process. He never chased a car again or ran onto the road, what happened there? Another was a dog when we were kids used to chase us on our bikes and try to bite our legs. A friends older brother kicked the dog in the head one day when it chased him, the dog never chased bikes again. I am not saying it's a good thing or advocating that hurting a dog is best to gain a desired behaviour but pain or unpleasantness can correct a poor behaviour as in the above examples I have seen for myself, true stories.

That's a possibility but it can also go like this too: Dog hates kids. Dog lunges at kids. Dog gets corrected - that hurts. Dog stops lunging period and behaves it's self.

So it's not ok for trainers to insist on positive only methods, but it IS ok if they want to use correction and punishment and not consider positive? I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about as I am all for the right method for the individual dog. No, I am saying to provide someone with the best opportunity to rehabilitate a dog's behaviour, they need a full set of tools and apply whatever is necessary to help the dog, bearing in mind we are not talking minor behavioural issues in this case the OP has presented was a life or death case, sadly death won, I think that is a terrible predicament to be faced with making such a decision without giving everything possible a red hot go.

That's what she is doing from my interpretation of her post, looking for trainers who do the full monte, not the one's restrictive in methods and tools, she's been there and done that with the worse result possible. The Koehler method is VERY restrictive from what I understand. She is talking about trainers who won't use correction based methods, restrict themselves to non aversive methods only. There is a difference between selecting the most appropriate method for the dogs behaviour than not selecting a method or tools because you don't like it? It's a bit like a tradesman coming out to fix your air conditioner and says you need a new one because he can't remove a screw because he doesn't use screwdrivers since some morons held up the servo attendant with a screwdriver or something equally as stupid........what's sort of tradesman is that?.........same type as a dog trainer who won't use an Ecollar ;)

That's what she is doing from my interpretation of her post, looking for trainers who do the full monte, not the one's restrictive in methods and tools, she's been there and done that with the worse result possible.

For competition obedience behaviours, no, never, ever. I have used a martingale with corrections to teach loose leash walking. Can't think of anything else. I don't have a problem with people using corrections but I don't think it's right to push the line between corrections and abuse. I realise this is different for everyone so I'm fighting a losing battle even posting in this thread. I don't think you are understanding the OP's situation, she had a dog with aggression issues that was under a behaviourist and a couple of trainers, they couldn't fix the dog. The OP obviously was researching for herself understandable given things weren't working for her dog and makes some suggestion about different training tools and they tell her they don't use those tools and the dog ends up PTS. Can you understand the OP wondering if perhaps someone had have fried her dog on an Ecollar a couple of times just maybe it may have improved the behaviour and her dog could be still alive?

You think it's better to PTS than subject the dog to aversion and let live?

Koehlers inspiration was off leash obedience for the general pet, once trained in his method you didn't need to own a leash. I am not sure that his methods were directed towards winning sporting trials as such, but I recall reading about him as a young guy rolling up to a major obedience trial on a bus with his scraggy old dog and no leash wanting to enter the trial. He talked his way into them accepting his entry and he won each division of the trial, the scene was like a kid and a scraggy dog roll up to trial against the best trainers in town and he blitzed them :D

If you examine the types of dogs featuring in attacks, most are crossbreeds and the one's that aren't I would guarantee are unpapered breedings. This is because these types are dogs are too easily attainable and attractive to irresponsible people who shouldn't owns dogs in the first place. I don't believe for a second these same people would have a dog if they had to pay the price for a registered breeding and prove to a responsible breeder they are responsible enough to be sold a dog. It's not that pure breed dogs are safer, the process of obtaining a pure breed dog from a registered breeder safeguards dogs against falling into the hands of the irresponsible better than a freebie crossbreed out of the Trading Post does.

And who's choice was that? Could you not have taken the dog to see someone else?Chasing and biting is prey drive - normal. Pulling on leash (unless the dog has been taught otherwise) is also normal. Playing rough with other dogs is normal too for some dogs and pretty easily fixed - you just don't allow it. I'm not sure which behaviourist you saw but they sound pretty damn useless to me. I think she means that she couldn't find a trainer who would use other methods like Ecollars that type of thing, the "we don't use Ecollars that's cruel" mentality, there are plenty of trainers who have this mentality, it's not about whether an Ecollar may fix the behaviour, it's about an Ecollar breaching the trainer's policy on cruelty?