Kippy

Nowhere did I say that corrections are not necessary at all. In most of my posts I even stated that. The trainer most people have referred the OP to (K9Pro) does use corrections where appropriate.

The only trainer I referenced here that does not use corrections is the video of SG's recall with her puppy Swagger. SG can train like this due to her foundation work which concentrates on both drive and self control/impulse control. This does not mean that there are no consequences for incorrect choices her dogs make - there are. Positive does not mean permissive.

As far as I know the other trainers (Michael Ellis, Ivan Balabanov) do use corrections at times.

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

Who is talking about training entirely without corrections? Michael Ellis certainly isn't.

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?

Impressive dog

1) The people who have seen me do attention heeling at the shops or on walks (nowhere near that good!) have been impressed with my dog. Only time I got weird looks was when I was doing the food spitting technique outlined in an earlier Leerburg video lol.

2) No I would not think Michael Ellis would walk his dog in attention heel on a casual walk to the shops. He would probably do loose leash walking - there is no need to use Koehler for LLW - there are many rewards based methods (withor without corrections) that can be used to teach this.

3) I think the average dog owner is quite capable of using rewards based methods to teach whatever level of obedience they wish to achieve. If they don't wish to train attention heeling they don't have to - they are more than welcome to train a casual LLW. I am not currently training up a dog for competition obedience (my ob prospect has health issues)so am not training attention heeling atm, but mine can LLW fine. Sometimes they offer attention heeling (including the one who has never been taught attention heeling ever - sometimes for quite a distance too ) which I will pay.

4) I don't know how long the dog in the video can keep focus without reward - it is only a puppy. That is certainly the tricky part of competition obedience - it is quite a long time for them to work well. You would build up duration. It would depend on the training and on the dog and handler. Since I have seen some great vids of dogs, esp SchH dogs, with great attention during the whole routine, it can be done

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?

Let's say we train a dog to do an obedience routine. We use a few well-timed corrections and he turns out wonderful routine after wonderful routine in training. Then we get to trial day, and he barely passes. The situation is different, none of the same cues are there, and his performance falls apart.

Not such a big deal in an obedience trial. A really big deal when it's a child's face.

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.

Dog lunges at kids. Dog gets corrected - that hurts. Dog stops lunging period

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?

When you add aggression into the mix it gets even more complicated. Dog hates kids. Dog reacts at kids. Dog gets correction - that hurts. Dog realises that kids = bad things happen to me = dog hates kids more. That, or in the more dangerous scenario, dog still hates kids but learns not to give a warning bark. Owner thinks dog is cured, dogs stays silent while kids approach. With no warning, dog bites kid.

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.

When you add aggression into the mix it gets even more complicated. Dog hates kids. Dog reacts at kids. Dog gets correction - that hurts. Dog realises that kids = bad things happen to me = dog hates kids more. That, or in the more dangerous scenario, dog still hates kids but learns not to give a warning bark. Owner thinks dog is cured, dogs stays silent while kids approach. With no warning, dog bites kid.

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.

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 ;)

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.

Maybe as part of your research , arrange to meet up with some trainers, and see what they can do? The more practical info you have under your belt, the more likely you are to choose the best training method for this little pup

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 ;)

Maybe as part of your research , arrange to meet up with some trainers, and see what they can do? The more practical info you have under your belt, the more likely you are to choose the best training method for this little pup

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.

Do you ever correct your dog? If yes - how?

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?

A dog's welfare is more important than "getting results".

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

itsadogslife do you have any video you can show us of your dogs or other dogs working using Koehler methods that you think are good and displays the benefits of the method?

Genuinely interested as I haven't really seen any dogs trained exclusively with Koehler methods.

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

(((I would like to see the attack stats for ANKC papered pure breeds purchased from registered breeders, anyone have those statistics on hand?)))

It so strange how similar this poster sounds to the once upon a time BORDO, unfortunately many in the ANKC still do, it seems there are still some people who are so deluded as to think that being a pure breed “makes them safe”. Or do they really believe this nonsence? This being the case, WHY are so many breeders of the ANKC and rightly so, worried about who obtains their breed to the point of near paranoia? Do they really believe this?

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.

Kelpie-i, it wasn't the aggression in its pure sense. Let me give you an example. She would run after a jogger or a cyclist and bite their hands. She would jump at cars passing by. She could not normally play with other dogs: the intensity was the same with small poodles as it was with staffies or German Sheppards. She was pulling on the leash (including the Gentle Leader), so that after every walk my left shoulder was hrobbing. She was a rather large American Bulldog and could cause considerable damage. The last straw was her going after a person carrying a small poodle, biting him on the hand. Thankfully, the person turned out to be a dog coach (and his wife a dog behaviorist) and was very understanding. After this episode we eventually decided to put her down, which was very traumatic. Her behavior was attributed to anxiety.

I am not exclusively blaming coaches and the behaviorist working with her, as the dog probably had problems all along. My problem is that - in my opinion - not all possible methods were used with her. From what I have read e-collar could solve some of the problems. I am not going to the opposite extreme and be nasty to my dog (which I adore), I just want to find a coach who uses all modalities of training. I am not aiming at winning obedience competitions with my Bull Terrier, I want her to reliably perform important commands, so that I can take her for a walk and not be paranoid all the time that she will scare a child or chase a cat across a busy road.

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?

I am not exclusively blaming coaches and the behaviorist working with her, as the dog probably had problems all along. My problem is that - in my opinion - not all possible methods were used with her. From what I have read e-collar could solve some of the problems. I am not going to the opposite extreme and be nasty to my dog (which I adore), I just want to find a coach who uses all modalities of training. I am not aiming at winning obedience competitions with my Bull Terrier, I want her to reliably perform important commands, so that I can take her for a walk and not be paranoid all the time that she will scare a child or chase a cat across a busy road.

I understand what you mean, like who cares if a trainer sleeps well because they didn't have to use an Ecollar upholding their personal protocol whilst you cry yourself to sleep over you poor dog that was PTS without given every chance of rehabilitation.

You don't have to be rude to people, just tell them he's a police dog pup has to be trained a particular way and blame the boss or something. If he is a decent GSD genetically it won't matter anyway if he gets a few unwanted pats one way or they other IMHO.

So these breeds go. What's the stop these people (because you're acknowledging it's the people creating these weapons) from going out and buying another breed and raising it tough?

Why do we assume these dogs are raised tough, hasn't anyone seen a crap dog before with reactive aggression for no good reason? You can buy a tough GSD with a predisposition for courage and aggression and can be trained to fight, but by default they don't randomly bite people unprovoked, neither will a well bred Rotty, dogs of balanced traits and stable temperament don't feature in unprovoked bite statistics, why do we need to protect crap dogs so they can be reproduced?

?? Well bred Pit Bulls don't bite people unprovoked. In fact they're one of the breeds least likely to do so due to being specifically selected against human aggression.

I loathe to draw comparisons to other breeds but you statements that GSD and Rottweiler's do not feature in bite stats is completely incorrect. Both feature very highly. That's not to say they're bad dogs (I love both), but they are also a breed targeted by bad breeders and worse owners.

What I am talking about is the assumption a dog has attacked because it's been raised to attack, hit with sticks, chained up etc all that stuff?. My point is regardless of breed, some individual dogs are bad dogs, their default behaviour is to attack without any influence on the owners part other than allowing the dog to find it's way onto the street. I know a few dogs like this with great owners who have worked hard at trying to improve their dog's behaviour, but if they left the gate open one day by accident, the dog would bite someone for sure, but they were not rasied tough at all,it's just how they are aggressive nasty dogs?

There are GSD and Rotties like this too, but these are not good examples of the breed and definitely don't need to be bred for more of the same temperaments. I don't go with assumption that dogs who have attacked are lovely dogs turned bad by the owners, I think in most cases the owners failed by containing their bad dogs effectively and they have gotten out to strut their stuff.

So these breeds go. What's the stop these people (because you're acknowledging it's the people creating these weapons) from going out and buying another breed and raising it tough?

Why do we assume these dogs are raised tough, hasn't anyone seen a crap dog before with reactive aggression for no good reason? You can buy a tough GSD with a predisposition for courage and aggression and can be trained to fight, but by default they don't randomly bite people unprovoked, neither will a well bred Rotty, dogs of balanced traits and stable temperament don't feature in unprovoked bite statistics, why do we need to protect crap dogs so they can be reproduced?

I think most dogs that are found it shelters and pounds are crosses, particularly indistinguishable crosses. These types of dogs are usually given away as a puppy because they can not be sold. So someone gets offered a free puppy and without giving it much thought they say yes, why not. It has cost them nothing and they were never planning to get a dog so they take the puppy on IMPULSE. Once the puppy grows up the same irresponsible person who took the puppy dumps it. This is just my opinion. Of course what we need is to conduct a study to prove where MOST of these dogs actually come from. Unfortunately certain Animal Rights groups are using figures of dogs being put to sleep to mislead the public into supporting their own agenda.

Yes, I agree.

I also think the best way to reduce the amount of surplus dogs is regulate breeding practices, require a licence to breed dogs, make unlicenced random breedings an offence. The 2 dog per household rules work fairly well not that it's well policed but most people are cautious of it, even people who do sneak in a 3rd without a permit are pretty careful in management not to draw attention to themselves and get away with it, but the irresponsible over subscribed generally get caught from complaints about their dogs etc and the council catch up with them, breeding without a permit/licence I think would follow a similar pattern and be self regulating to large extent.

At the moment, anyone can breed dogs openly, but start restricting this practice I think would be a good start and step in the right direction?

Hi.

I'm looking for some news articles.

I remember reading about a dog that was PTS by a vet because it met the description of a pittie. The vet's account was posted on Facebook and is spread like nothing else, and she spoke at a rally (?) about it. Can you please link me to anything about this story?

I also remember reading about many dogs being released onto the streets as the amnesty ended. Though I have little faith this actually occured, I would love to have the article linked.

I am writing BSL letters again, so if there's anything that has happened in Victoria since Ayen Chol's tragic death, that you think may be relevant, please link here.

Dr Karen Davies has described how “for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job” euthanasing a sweet natured dog that unfortunately met the current description of a ‘pit bull’.

So, why didn't the vet declare that the dog wasn't a restricted breed and saved his life when the legislation accepts breed identification from a vet?

Not all of the attacks I linked are bully breeds.

My point is, despite changing legislation, attacks are still happening. It proves lack of reinforcement and the uselessness of BSL.

How many of the 6 attacks linked are Bully breed types may I ask?

I am looking for news stories on dog attacks in Victoria since Ayen Chol and the resulting legislation.

These are the only two I've been able to find:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/dogs-attack-and-kill-family-pets-at-attwood/story-fn7x8me2-1226204725723

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/dog-mauls-tot-good-samaritan-in-burnside-attack-in-melbournes-west/story-e6frfkp9-1226197871647

Would love any more that exist.

I don't understand the angle here? Aren't most of the attacks since poor little Ayen of the Bull x breed type only confirming attacks are still occuring by the breed types they are after? I think they look at it in a way if any dogs who attacked are of the Bull x Pitbull type, it would be one less if that dog didn't exist so in their eyes the BSL does work?

I had the impression from something I read somehwere, that councils can only restrict the breeds restricted under the Customs Act. I didn't think councils can just restrict breeds as they wish?