Erny

I've only just recently had two BC's in for B&T. I used lure and sometimes 'Guide Show Place' to teach a skill and once learnt, an e-collar (VERY low stim and R-) to enhance reliability and further the training that I'd begun. I used a check chain predominantly as the training tool when working to teach not to pull on the lead, but also did find it of use for a later training phase of drop and sit. I only needed to check them a handful of times over all. These two dogs were immensely sensitive and very low on confidence when they first came in. I began with positive reinforcement only and even then they would shut down on me. They were both problematic this way (litter sisters, so similar temperament) but one was worse than the other. They didn't like to look at me and were excessively submissive. By the time they left they were far more confident in their ability; had learnt to learn; were doing 50 metre sit and drop stays with distraction (with their ears pricked, looking at me and awaiting keenly for the next command); were not pulling on the lead but happily walking next to me; were doing fast, strong and straight-in recalls; were doing sit, drop and 'drop on the move'; 'drop to sit'; "touch"; and "weave" (through legs). Most of my work past the teaching phase of the skill was with the use of the e-collar (in the method mentioned beforehand); drive training and R+ (for one) and use of the e-collar (in the method mentioned beforehand) and R+ for the other, but they each did at the appropriate time and with appropriate intensity, receive a correction at some time or other, but they did not shut down on me because of it. It is all about knowing what level of P+ to apply. If ANY dog shuts down regardless of breed, IMO it would be because the punishment was beyond what suited its temperament; poorly timed; combined with poor training methodology and/or due to prior such experiences, not because the dog received a punishment at all.

It could be 'frightened' of losing its right to the bed; frightened of losing status, therefore needing to express it. What point do you think they want to prove, and why do you think they want or feel the need to prove it? I agree with Kelpie-i. Generally the answer harks back to 'fear'. Even if it is fear of loss of status or fear that the status is not observed or perceived by another.

Except Kelpie-i keeps standing on their fins in the quick step . ETA: Are you using the TOT training in drive technique, K-i?

I don't think I can - meaning, I don't think I'm expert enough to give the differences along with the scientific explanation of which one is what and the differences. I'm expecting someone to arrive soon and have to nick up to the shops before that, so I'm going a bit off the top of my head. I know that out here we do the T4 and TSH. With my boy I had the "THYROID ANTIBODY PROFILE + THYROGLOBULIN AUTOANTIBODY" done which they now call Thyroid 5 + T3AA and T4AA. I'm pretty sure the thyroid antibody profile includes the T4, T3, T4aa and T3aa. I get confused with it all. You would understand it better than I. I'm trying to get a link up to Dr. Jean Dodds forms. They've moved and updated their forms but I'm having trouble with it. That might make more sense than what I've given here. Stand by. ETA: HERE's the link. It lists the testing they do in respect to thyroid. Don't forget that they analyse it differently too. Through their studies they've managed to differentiate not only between small, medium and large dogs, but also by dog breed and by dog age. That's something that we don't do out here - it seems to just be a standard "small, medium and large dog" scale without age and breed being taken into account.

I think you misunderstand. The test out here in Australia is not as thorough as the one in the USA. Whether you are testing for thyroid due to skin issues or behaviour or some other symptom, the one in the USA is the more thorough and where the one in Australia might show negative that's not to say that thryoid is not an issue. The test in the USA is more likely to show it up if in fact thyroid is the issue.

Signed. What a revolting waste of space he is.

Sadly, you're right Kelpie-i. I spoke to one of the testing laboratories out here about it and it boils down to Australia not having the population density to make it worth their while to test more thoroughly than what they presently do. So it isn't likely to change too soon. We do have some great Vets out here, so not to tar all with the same brush but it does disappoint me when Vets, even if they don't know something, don't seem excited/enthusiastic enough to even want to research it up to learn more. If it can't be fixed with an antibiotic or cortisone injection ...... I don't know that much about Hyperkinesis, but I do know that you studied up on it because of a dog you were working with, so you'd know more on it than I. But it is disheartening when you do as much research as you can and then it falls on deaf or uninterested ears. When I took my boy to see Dr. Bruce Syme (2 hour each-way trip for me - worthwhile) due to his health issues, he looked at his history, in which were the results of the thyroid tests I'd had done by Dr. Dodds. Dr. Bruce nodded and smiled whilst he was reading the results of it and said "I see you've had them done properly". Bless him for not making me feel as though I am some pedantic nutter.

Thank you for that link, Diva. Good to see that more places are taking interest in the subject. With the dog in question there hasn't been any owner-aggression, which is the thing that initially made me thing it may not be likely to be thyroid related. I've done a bit of reading and research on it, but I'm by no means an expert, however I think when thyroid is an issue and affecting behaviour, aggression is not saved only for members outside of the home. Or perhaps to put a different spin on it, when the aggression (unpredictable and unprovoked) is also directed to family members, I'm inclined to be more confident that thyroid might be a factor. However in this instance, what brought me back to thinking on the possibility of it being thyroid related was the owner's description of how the dog was after the aggressive incident when she piled the dog into the car to drive home. I wasn't there so haven't got the benefit of my own observation but her description sounds to be like that of a dog who has had a seizure and is in that 'after aura' exhausted phase of it. And if it is seizure activity, perhaps the pressure of being in the presence of other people outside of the family members is enough to make the dog anxious enough to trigger an 'episode'. Of course, I could end up being completely wrong but I think it is something very well worthwhile ruling out if that's the case. I'm actually hoping I'm right because if thyroid is the basis of this dog's aggression the medication usually transports excellent results. The dog might need some behaviour modification work to cover the 'learnt' component of its behaviour, although if the aggression is seizure related perhaps the dog will have no memory of it? As to this I will research some more once we know the results.

The Aussie tests won't show thyroid issues unless the thyroid tissue is 70% destroyed. In younger dogs/early onset of thyroid, our tests don't show it up, even though the thyroid issues can affect behaviour. Even for skin issues .... I had my own boy tested with Dr Jean, given his health concerns (including skin issues). If I'd had the tests done here and they proved negative, I would have been wondering if that was an accurate reading or whether it lacked because it isn't as thorough a test. As it turned out his results showed excellent thyroid levels. Not only is how they test more thorough, but Dr Jean also takes into account the dog's age and breed. Over here they have a chart they compare to which only caters for small, medium and large dog. IMO that's a fairly draconian way of reading results.

I know. Except I guess this guy didn't. And I think the guy began to very much doubt that I had any clue about what I was doing or saying, erring on the side of the Vet who was countering my recommendations. I think his Vet had him a bit frightened to follow the medication prescription, given that his own Vet considered the findings in the normal range. I gave him the name of a different Vet who would see differently. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water ..................

All of anything is a possibility at the moment. One step at a time for the moment . The dog is booked in to have bloods taken on the 13th at which time a full physical is being done as well. I expect we'll know results of the thyroid blood test approximately 20th October. Thanks Sas. I hope so too. And I hope it is as simple as thyroid issue. Would also be interested to know if the 2 dogs you refer to had their thyroid bloods tested out here or in the USA. One dog that I suspected had thyroid issues ...... (the one I mentioned earlier in this thread, where the guy copped resistance from his Vet) had levels that came in low (and Dr Dodds suggested low enough to have been able to be the cause of this dog's aggressive behaviour). The dog-owner's Vet out here compared the levels to our charts and told him they were in the normal range. The Vet strongly resisted even trialling the low dose thyroid meds that Dr. Dodds prescribed.

Fair enough. And again I agree that R+ can achieve much in training. However what if on one time one dolphin did not do the job required? Did the military rely on only one dolphin? In the dog world, one wrong thing even by just one dog is sometimes not forgiven by the general public and the law. And of course there's frequency to be taken into account. IE dogs are a part of our lives and therefore their behaviours are encountered on a day to day everyday basis. Consequently the % of times when 'critical' mistakes can occur has to be higher. I'm not meaning to be argumentative, I'm just not sure if you're getting my point (which would be my communication error) or perhaps I'm not getting yours, save that 'this is what R+ can do'? But reliability over a life time by just one animal doesn't seem to be taken into account.

We have more options with dogs, that does not make the Brelands and Baileys a poor model for how to use positive reinforcement though. AusDog's argument that we can't use the training of bears, dolphins etc as a model because they are trained in sterile, controlled environments is invalid when you consider that they were also trained - to the satisfaction of the military - in open environments also. I'm not sure what you're getting at here Aidan. Certainly I'm not comparing positive reinforcement with positive reinforcement nor suggesting positive reinforcement can't achieve much good. I use R+ a lot in my own work with dogs, but I will use any of the remaining 3 quadrants where appropriate. Unless I've lost the plot somewhere along the line, I think the subject of dog training methods (including P+ and R-) came up by another poster who made the comparison with animals such as the dolphin, who of course are trained using only R+ and P-. I'm also not sure what "to the satisfaction of the military" means.

You might be interested to hear that the Brelands and Baileys were training a wide range of species in open environments using +R; e.g dolphins in the open ocean, cats in urban environments. When I went to Sea World some time back, the person explaining to the crowds how they train the dolphins mentioned that there are some days the dolphins just don't want to co-operate and instead would deep dive. That's not a problem for the dolphins as they are limited to their watery world anyway. So one of them didn't jump up through the hoop ..... big deal. Dogs are far more interactive in our human civilised world and it is necessary for them to perform and respond to commands regardless of whatever else they would want or prefer to be doing at that moment. We often can't just shrug it off with an "oh well". What do the Brelands and Baileys do when the species they are training decide they aren't 'into it' at the time or moment? I agree with AusDog that using these other animals and their training regime is not a good comparison.

From what I can gather, this dog seemed quite relaxed. Then the next moment, extreme fear, tail flashed under its belly, eyes wide, and aggression. Again, from what I can gather, that's the 'thought' that the owner has read through the USA website. IE That there are some Malinois who show this behaviour. Apparently there is only a small snippet of comment to it without much detail or information and it suggested these Malinois should be 'culled'. Perhaps it will end up being right, but I had not heard of this 'condition' affecting the Malinois in particular and am not sure if they are suggesting there is a defect that is hard-wired or whether there has been any specific research as to an underlying medical cause - perhaps one that can be treated. (I have my own thoughts that surely the matter would have been looked into beyond the basic, but I have no information on that either ..... ) Which is why the blood work-up and neurological exam recommendation. And this dog might not be one of the others. Perhaps there is something that just might be treatable. The owner accepts this might not be the case and understands the expense might not achieve anything of help. She knows it is a "rule it in or rule it out" step. After the latest incident, the owner packed her dog up in the car and left the venue where she was at. Normally the dog (very active, vigilent) would sit up in the car looking out the window with alert interest. She reported that her dog was instead stress-panting and layed prostrate in the car for a full 20 minutes. Her description was "comatose" - although not accurate from the literal sense, it gives you an idea of, to the owner, how unusual this behaviour in the car, was. It is the latter which gave me the sense that perhaps the aggression was seizure like activity. Which is why I think it may be worthwhile having at least the thyroid checked out. But yes - that it is possible that something is somehow mis-wired in this dog is not being dismissed. The dog's breeder has been contacted and the breeder has informed the owner that he/she knows of no similar behaviours that have affected his/her line. I don't know the breeder and of course it is only his/her own word. I'd like to think that the breeder is a reputable and ethical one and so from that point it is necessary to believe him/her and take it on face value. My thoughts (apart from the above) are that I hope the dog comes back with results below the normal ranges as this would be (to my knowledge) the simplist and easiest to treat and generally bears good results with treatment. My thoughts are that this owner clearly adores her dog and has worked hard and carefully at giving it the right socialisation experiences and has dedicated herself to its training, with high hopes of competing and that whilst money isn't growing on trees she would not be happy within herself to let the dog go (ie pts) wondering if there could have been potential for remedy and not trying at least as much as she is capable of within the reasonable. I think the thyroid test is the least that can be done as a first step. I've given this owner a plan of action - something she didn't have when she first communicated with me and as a consequence was lost. I don't know how the plan or the results from it will pan out, but it basically comprises of three things at this stage : Blood test for thyroid Blood work-up/neurological exam Behaviour Consultation Whether one thing leads to the next depends on the results as each one is addressed.

Rather than listening to stories, why don't you go and look yourself. That way you can make an educated and more informed opinion of the school, rather than being scared of it due to what could potentially be chinese whispers or someone else's misinterpretation. Or is it referred to as "crank and yank" simply because it utilises check chains/martingales/collar corrections? I know of some people who oppose collar corrections and refer to any school which adopts them in use, with this derogative term. Another good reason to check things out for yourself, beforehand. Listen to what the instructors are teaching, and how they describe and show the use of their methodology. Then form a decision. That's good. If it works for you and your dogs, stick with it. Whatever that might be.

Unfortunately with some different head/neck sizes, if you fit the GL to specification it can have the affect of bringing the metal double-D ring in and down too close to the dog's trachea, so you have to watch that. But yes - any compromise that you might make for one (good) reason is going to have a 'down-side' compromise. Eg. Loosening the neck strap for the sake of the trachea is going to have the affect of the head collar slipping through use and that can result in the nose strap coming up towards and into the eye. The Halti and the Black Dog Wear (standard) head collars are designed to fit firm/snug. Sorry - this is in response to the side-shoot mention to head collars which are NOT to be confused with muzzles.

But what would be the point if none of the Vets (or anyone, for that matter) are going to be there anyway? Personally, I'd rather have my dog back home with me where I can keep an eye on him. ETA: Just read Stormie's post and I can see the point in that. I agree that some people aren't as dog savvy as people on DOL might be, but I also don't think the majority of people are that dumb that it can't be explained to them. But yes, 'some mothers do have'em' and there can be one in the pile. I still would have my own dog back with me though. I think being at home would be less stressful and that's got to be good for healing and GA recovery.

Ahhh ... I think I know who you mean. She was a bit beside herself and was going to drive down from SA to have her dog B&T with me. But I didn't think that (ie Boarding & Training) was going to be the best thing for her dog under the circumstances, nor was I certain that it would be necessary. Enter Mark :rolleyes:. That one? I'm sure you'll be able to help her out. Let me know how you go, if you can .

:rolleyes: Hello Mark. Haven't spoken in a long time. Hope all is well .

No, because some of them don't have that sort of imagination. They already know their weapon of choice, they don't need to think about it. I can't answer for how many of them (some, or many) do this - at least not on an individual basis. Some obedience schools do though (perhaps 'many'). I'm often enough asked what method/s and what training tool I use for training. My answer is always that this depends on the dog, the owner and the circumstances. And I go on to explain that I am versed in many differing methods, that I will use positive where that works, but that I will recommend the use of an aversive if the situation and moment deserves. You've said this on more than one occasion, Aidan. Do you mean the "tide is turning" to the more positive side of things, or do you mean the "tide is turning" to the more balanced side of things. There was a time when it felt rife that everyone was into the "we mustn't punish our dogs" mode (and that anyone who did was cruel). IMO people have gone from that to realising that punishment does have its place, so in that respect yes, I believe the tide is turning and I've mentioned that to numerous over the past 12 months or so. If you're suggesting the tide is turning from too much punishment to reward, that IMO has already been in place for quite a long period of time.

No - that's not what I meant. I told you I wasn't writing well today. Sorry. What I meant was that if one isn't "balanced" (in the sense that aversives will also be used along with R+) then perhaps some think that means they fall into the "imbalanced" (or is that "unbalanced") category, and don't like the sound of that. I wasn't talking about how they perceive themselves but perhaps how they would not like to be perceived. Anyway .... it still probably isn't very helpful. :rolleyes:

Only because you chose to in the face of all the explanations here. Balance : "Harmony in the parts of a whole". "To compose or arrange so as to create a state of harmony". Strike a balance : "To make a compromise". Balanced : (of a discussion) "Presenting opposing points of view fairly and without bias" So "balance" doesn't have to mean 50/50. But unless you can accept and see the explanations given, you'll not ever understand that perhaps? When a new client rings me I don't merely say "I am a balanced trainer". I don't expect them to know. I explain it and then might throw in the term if it is appropriate to the conversation. Generally, once it is explained, the person understands what is meant. You too could ask for explanation so that you are clear. But if you're suggesting I have to write it down for you every single time I post here on related subjects, then you're asking for paragraphs when single lines will do for the purpose.

You need to become a member, but other than that, yes it is an open forum. I haven't been on there for ages. I know I only had to so much as whisper "e-collar" and I would be accused as having a mental disorder. And that I might use a check chain or *shudder* (facetious emoticon needed here) a PPCollar is just to ghastly for words. If I use a head-collar though, that's ok because the RSPCA and APDT recommend them. Given the time I spend on chat sites (ie DOL) ... (facebook confuses me), perhaps I have got a mental disorder !!

There's a UK Chat site ..... you see (ie read) much of it there - to the EXTREME, in fact. I would class that as "balanced". I also take into account efficiency of training. So in a given situation where the unwanted behaviour needed to be extinguished very quickly and where positive may well work but in a slower fashion, I would be inclined to use the aversive provided I felt the dog could cope with it. Sometimes that's kinder on the dog too - as learning in itself is stressful and if we can make the message black and white so the dog can learn faster, we can reduce the duration of the learning stress. We probably are. When did that issue become predominant? Perhaps when there was a 'split' by faction groups?