Erny

Bozthepup ..... perhaps I'm wrong, but it sounds to me as though you expect that each one or more of the things you've tried will effectively have 'ceased' the behaviour your pup is showing at the moment? It is often helpful to get an opinion from someone experienced and who is able to watch your pup in action, but please be aware that your pup is 'learning'. Couple that 'learning' with the natural inquisitive behaviour of pups (and the fact they have an attention span of a gnat), IME it is normal for the pup to continue to 'try' out what it can do. Provided (a) the method you use does cause the pup to cease and (b) that it appears that the behaviour is at least abating, then generally speaking you may find you're on the right track. And you don't have to stick with only one method. Use whatever is convenient/suits at the time. The aim is to get the message across to the pup that it won't achieve its goal (whatever that is .... often it's attention and often its simply 'fun') and that there are other (better) ways to achieve this. I'm guessing you've only had pup for 2 weeks? Depending on the dog (some are softer/easier than others) this is not a very long stretch of time. Remember to be persistent and consistent. If you are not, pup will be recognising this and your behaviour training either won't work (and could result in the behaviour becoming worse, more ingrained and more difficult to resolve even when you do decide to become consistent) or it will work more inefficiently than it should. I've dealt with fiesty pups where for the owner it seems the pup isn't 'getting it' and never will, but then it does. I've dealt with 'soft' pups who catch on really quickly because they may not be as determined as the fiesty ones. My current pup is in the 'fiesty' category, and I swear I thought I would never be able to walk normally and unimpeded down my hallway without him latching onto the bottom of my jeans. I thought I'd never be able to get through one whole day without my shoe-laces becoming untied by "little Man". I thought I'd never be able to dress in the mornings without him wanting to latch on to whatever I was trying to dress in (eg. socks, knickers). I thought I would never be able to remove my dressing gown without him thinking I was waving around some sort of "drive" toy . And I felt as though it was going to be an age and a half before I never had at least one puppy tooth mark/tear to my skin on at least one of my hands. Of course, this is all in amongst me thinking there'd never be a time when I would be able to trust him to go outside to the toilet too. I reflect back on those days - they weren't so long ago, and now I laugh. Well, I laughed back then too, because I really didn't think it would all "never" improve, but it just felt like it would take a long time. But it didn't. It just seems to dissolve into better behaviour and before you know it you're marveling at how much your pup has learnt and how far along your pup has come with his behaviour training. You just get this feeling that you're coming to understand your pup and he's coming to understand you and what is required of him. I hope this has given you the hope and spirit to be determined to be persistent and consistent in what you do. Don't forget to communicate to your pup when he's doing the right thing too. This makes it all more easy to understand for your pup. But if you're not certain as to whether your application of the methods that are all options to use depending on the circumstance/situation at the time, then get someone in to check and if necessary adjust what you're doing. Pups are fun

Gosh RussRen ..... Bakari looks so much like Mandela - especially in the third picture (which I've copied/pasted here also). He shares the same hates as Bakari (although he's getting better with a bit of patience) and of course shares the love of zoomies, sleeping, cuddles and food :rolleyes: ............ oh, and drive training ).

Sorry. Experience dictates that I have to disagree strongly with the above protocol.

I'm not sure Rhaps. HR might be able to come in with some of his ideas, but I'm thinking a rough sketch plan would involve : Collating written and video information well explaining Sch training activities and goals. Writing to ANKC and asking on what basis (the current regulations aside) it disapproves of the Sch Sport (assuming that it does) Writing to the Govt (including the supportive written & video info) and explaining why the Regulation is wrong; the impact of the Regulation; and why it should be changed. Arranging a petition to indicate the level of support the Sch sport has. I think all of this needs to be 'headed' by someone who is capable of demonstrating good PR skills and who possesses a good level of understanding of the sport, consideration to the concerns (founded or not) of others and an absence of bias, or at least a sense of fairness. Being able to acknowledge other pov's (that's not to say having to completely agree with them) is also important.

I know what you're talking about - for years I've ridden in dressage, eventing etc. I've always thought of it in terms of "yielding" and "acceptance". When it comes to horses though I just never thought of it in terms of "submission". Not saying you're wrong and it's just a matter of semantics and perception I guess :rolleyes:.

I've never thought of the horse coming up under the saddle and accepting the bit as "submission". Have to think on that one some more.

Hey BM Neat 'play' on words there . I agree that the look of the collar, when first seen, does tend to make one draw breath. I did the same when I was shown one by a trainer, years and years ago. But he got me to hold it, feel it, put it on my leg to test it out, watch him train with it and then coached me in using one myself (before Victoria decided to ban its use here). It's that "first reaction" that makes it so easy for those who decry it, to sound convincing. "Would you put THAT on your dog?!!!" is all they have to say. Neat bit of propaganda and easy to manipulate people into thinking the tool is nothing other than vile. Even though there is no evidence of harm from them.

If you judge a book by its cover you run the risk of passing up the opportunity to read that book and it might be the best one out yet. Yep - the PPCollars look medieval. No one is suggesting you use one on your dog if it's not suitable or if there is a different one that would do as well or better (with all things considered) .... but at least learn about the tool before you draw conclusions through hysterical emotions. Head collars "look" kind and harmless, don't they .......

My highlights. So do I, Cosmolo. I'm only trying to make the point that just because any particular training tool/restraint aid is on, doesn't go to follow that it is being used and does not mean the dog can't or won't perform as well without it. This is an assumption and argument that many use to support their own argument (on both 'sides' of the fence, so to speak) and I think it is a wrong argument to use. There are dogs around that do 'perform' differently when they are wearing or not wearing certain pieces of equipment but that is a matter of the handler having 'conditioned' their dog to it and not working to the opposite end. But even if they have 'conditioned' their dog in this way, it still doesn't mean that the training aid when on, is being used and that the dog is untrained, even though I prefer to train beyond that.

I agree with Settrlvr and others who have suggested to give your new dog a bit of time to settle in to her new environment and to build a bond with you. Could be that balls aren't her 'thing' .... time will tell. One thing that can help is for you not to focus so much on your dog enjoying the ball game, but you simply enjoying the ball game yourself. I have found on numerous occasions that playing ball and pretending that it is not about the dog at all (but playing so that the dog has an opportunity to become interested and a chance to join in) is a good way to encourage this. Avoid making the game to loud/boisterous if she's a sensitive/timid dog. But make it appear you're having a really nice time. If she's going to enjoy a game of ball at all, ever .... she'll come around.

I wouldn't, Sydking. You want something that will not move, even with the most robust of 'trying' moments. Your pup/dog needs something that is not only secure but also as a result is very safe. He/she could jump at the side of a milk crate and tip it over - not good for safety or security reasons. To the OP (who by now has pup?) ..... I did things (eg. socialisation/habituation/play/etc) that, (coupled with the fact that it is dark and is naturally a time for sleep), had puppy really tuckered and ready for sleep come night time. So whilst during the day "crate training" was occurring, during the night all he wanted to do was sleep and he had no problems doing so with the crate door closed, save for every couple of hours for the first couple of nights or so, me getting up and taking him outside to toilet. I had pup in his crate in my room so that he did not feel the immediate "isolation" they commonly (and understandably) feel when they first leave their litter mates and arrive home to a new and unfamiliar environment. In fact, pup (now young dog) still sleeps in my room ..... but I've weaned him from needing the crate and he now sleeps the night through on his cushion on the floor.

Yep - I'd say it is that.

Sounds like TOT ..... except instead of the meal at the end, it's the "meet and greet".

Actually, I don't know of anyone who has ever said "clickers don't work". The clicker is simply a "marker sound". Some of us use a verbal marker. Some use a clicker. Each has its own advantage over the other and what we use depends on what is working for the dog. "Marking" the correct behaviour is extremely common and tmk a 'standard' in training. I don't use a clicker - I find the verbal marking works fine on the whole. Doesn't mean I go around decrying the use of the clicker.

I speak for myself here .... although I know many other trainers and have read of many other trainers (professional and non-professional) who do the same - having the chain or PPCollar on the dog doesn't mean it is being applied. It is there for instances where it might be required. Beats going "oops, I wish I had the chain/PPCollar on as I could have trained for that situation" .... situations that can crop up unexpectedly in an instant and not even necessarily easily be "set up" to be repeated. A "fail safe", if you like. Doesn't mean the dog cannot go out without the aforesaid equipment and its former training is 'out the window'. In the later stages of her training my previous (avatar) girl (bless her cotton socks) wore a check chain. I couldn't remember in the last 3 years of her wearing it when I'd actually ever applied it. But it was there should I need it. ETA : there were many occasions where she didn't wear her chain and her prior learning wasn't diminished. Do you regularly go out without a collar, lead (laws aside), clicker, toy motivator and/or food? Why not, if the dog is trained?

Haven't found anything (yet) on the explanation to exclude "tug" as ever possibly being taken to task over, but did find this in Victorian Parliamentary Hansard Second Reading - November 2000 ""The bill also addresses guard dogs. Honourable members have all seen guard dogs in places such as wrecking yards. " "Currently those dogs have their own yard or enclosure or pen prescribed, but the outside fence around the yard is not prescribed. That will also be done in the bill. It will be achieved by calling those dogs dangerous dogs, which are already subject to appropriate controls. " "Mr Stoney referred to dogs that rush or chase people. I suspect that more than half the time no damage is done. I have seen dogs gallop up to people and chase them, especially kids, and it is a bit of a game. I used to have a dog called Bob and he used to race up and jump up to be caught. He was a big dog so it was a bit awkward catching him when he ran up. He certainly would not have bitten anyone. However, people can be frightened and the situation can get out of hand. The situation can become worse if a dog has a nip or two at the start of the game, which can lead to more serious activity. " "If the council or the courts become aware of such activity they can declare the dog a menace so that when it is off the owner's premises it needs to be leashed or muzzled. If the dog continues to be a nuisance the rule of 'three strikes and you're out' applies -- that is, two more strikes and the dog can be declared to be dangerous and further restrictions can be imposed. It is a good idea. It is not too restrictive and it is reasonable because it stops the real problem before it gets to the extreme end where it could be dangerous. " "While the bill was between houses the Deputy Leader of the National Party was contacted by a gentleman named David Hynd, the president of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria. The club wanted an amendment to provide exemption for the Victorian Canine Association for imported German Shepherd dogs from some restrictions. " "I understand that these dogs are trained overseas, and the request from the club was that they be exempt from the dangerous dog classification at training grounds and show events to allow the dogs to be unmuzzled and not leashed. " "I noted in the correspondence that with regard to blood line dogs called Schutzhund dogs, all adult breeding stock imported to Australia must obtain a current Schutzhund title in their country of origin prior to export. I am advised that currently there are 10 to 12 of these dogs in Victoria, and 30 in Australia. I understand that there is some dissent from the Victorian Canine Association on this issue resulting from insurance concerns. " "We understand the concern of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria led by Mr Hynd, but the timing makes it impossible for any amendments to be moved now because the lower house has risen. " "The minister has assessed the amendments, and the National Party would be happy to pick up the issues next sessional period for Mr Hynd and his dog club. "

Yeah - perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, and I don't even know if it matters or makes any difference, but ...... We can easily see what Vic Law states. But Sch trains to not attack humans, but to go for the sleeve (please correct me if I'm wrong ..... I'm only part way familiar with Sch). You would have read HR's post where it was shown the dog going for the sleeve (item) and when the decoy slipped it and ran off, the dog paid no attention to the decoy - only the sleeve that was left behind. So by ANKC's words, it doesn't agree with training dogs to attack humans or other dogs. It supports Vic Law that prohibits that (ie the training to attack humans or other dogs). It does not state its stance on the training of dogs to bite something worn or attached to a person. Therefore the way I see it, the ANKC have not expressed their stance on Sch training in their policy. And if they do, I'd like to hear their explanation on the impact to its own "activities" that training a dog to bit an item worn or attached to a human would have. As I said ..... I have no idea whether the small nuance I'm focusing on here makes an iota of difference to the situation or not. I don't see why either.

No, don't worry ..... HERE it is.

bj2circeleb .... if you search this forum using the key word "neutralisation" you should come up with a thread initiated by K9 Force. It's a lengthy thread, from memory, but it will set you on the path for learning more of it. Let me know if you have trouble finding it. Erny

also from the GSDC website. So the ANKC sees Schutzhund as attack dog training and hence it falls under the quote from the the ANKC website: IE we dont know what it is so we wont agree with it. Fabbo. But both of those quotes make reference to "attacking a person or animal". Sch does neither. IMO, the ANKC's policy on it is unclear and they could chose to swing either way. I'd still like to read their actual stance on Schutzhund along with some explanation so that we can see they understand what the training is about. Also their explanation on how the sport impact's the ANKC's "activities".

That's not correct, Kyliegirl. "Negative Reinforcement" means "taking away something the dog doesn't like". So the removal of that "something it doesn't like" is the reinforcement for the behaviour you want. With head collars, the dog pulls, the pressure of the head collar is applied, the dog doesn't like it, the dog stops pulling (even if that be because of some other action the handler has taken to encourage the dog to stop pulling for that moment) and so the pressure of the head collar is released. Now - you can take exactly the same scenario as above but switch the word "head collar" for "e-collar" and it proves exactly the same. With the e-collar training, I have the dog on lead so I can show it how to turn the (low) stimulation off. When the dog (eg) makes a move to come towards me, the (low) stim stops. IOW, the dog has been negatively reinforced for showing the wanted behaviour. The sensation of the stim is not "shock" when used with the method I describe. It is more like an annoying tingle or a flea bite. Positive reinforcement is simply where the animal/dog receives something good for exhibiting the wanted behaviour, therefore causing that behaviour to occur again. Positive reinforcement is commonly used in training methodology regardless of what tool is being utilised. What you describe here is "counter conditioning". They would have used positive reinforcement to achieve it. Quite possibly also negative punishment (which would be the withholding of reward for the wrong behaviour). That isn't right Kyliegirl. You're looking at it from your perception. Not the dogs nor how the equipment and use of the equipment actually works or impacts on the animal. What would be your explanation of the dog that pulls around on the end of the lead whilst out on the walks that it likes to go out on? And what's the point of having a head collar on a dog if you're never to use it? Why would you bother?

My highlights. Wonder what they mean by "not in the best interests of [the ANKC's] activities" ? I'd like to know their reasoning behind this. Are they politically based? Or are they based in some dog-welfare issue? If so, how? How does Sch impact on the ANKC's "activities"? Also - this is the GSDCA's policy. The GSDCA are telling us what the ANKC's stance on it is. I'd like to see in writing the ANKC's stance written in their own words - along with some reasoning for it if indeed it is as expressed by the GSDCA. I'd like to know when the ANKC developed negative policy against Schutzhund and I'd like to be able to read the minutes of their meeting or some other notes they might have which might give their explanation for their stance. Do we have a right to ask for those things?

The 'notes' to the Act I'm referring to might provide answer there. Good point. Sorry - I'm pleading guilty of being lax. I'll see what I can do over the next 24 hours. Not that I'm saying I'm a lawyer or as good as one. Just that I've sat on the "Act" stuff for too long and should have been into it well before now.

I agree - they are. And certainly within the critical period, should be. I think many service dogs are fostered out to homes until they are 12 months old. From that point, 'work' begins and the emphasis on socialisation I expect, is diminished. "Work" becomes "attention" and "meals" and for many dogs I think makes the difference in their focus. I wonder though how many service dogs don't 'make it' due to lack of attention to the job at hand and whether socialisation beyond the critical period and up to adulthood is part of the reason? I reflect back to when I trained at B & T kennels. Even though the dogs there had dogs either side of them, the trainer entering the kennel to take the dog out to work seemed to the dog to be the best thing since sliced bread. Don't know what you're talking about, Kelpie-i ..... :p

Spot on, Midol. And something I and a few others have 'argued' much in another forum. The thing is, 'psychological' is not as tangible and often easily ignored by those who prefer to deem that it doesn't suit their point of view.