Erny

I have read and heard this also Cosmolo ..... enough times to have lost count. IMO, its use is supposedly to support argument and is implied as though doing things easy is lazy. "Easy" is good for the dog too ..... some tend to forget that.

LukeW .... I have some links to Victorian Govt Act (along with some directions as to how to navigate through it along with the 'notes' that go with it - typically Govt, not so easy to find your way through it) that I have yet to investigate in relation to this. Supposedly it more clearly shows that the intention of the Act is NOT to prohibit or penalise the game of "tug" - but that's what I've been informed, I need to check it out to confirm. Christmas and the forthcoming New Year's celebrations haven't seen me with enough clarity of head to get into it, however was only thinking last night about it so will attempt to apply myself towards it soon. Perhaps it will clarify ......... but then again as I have found from the stepping stones that lead to one section of an Act to another section of an Act, perhaps it will serve to confuse even more! . I'll be back to this as soon as I can be, if that's of any assistance. But have appointments to attend to for the better part of today.

..... actually, I think for the average "Joe", "lets go for a walk" becomes a trigger for out of control excitement. It is usually said well before the lead is even on .... often said when the thought of a walk has just entered the owner's mind and before he/she has even gone to get the lead from wherever it is kept. On your theory MonElite and in this scenario, that would be the equivalent of saying "drop" to the dog, but expecting that the dog comply with the command some minutes later. I think you would find that for those people who do say "let's go for a walk" with dogs who don't pull on the lead throughout the walk, even if they didn't say it their dogs would most likely exhibit the same behaviour as they normally would. IMO, achieving a dog who doesn't pull on the lead is generally about 'conditioning' as opposed to 'command'. Oh .... and I agree with Midol. I personally have a preference to other training tools, however that being said I have and do use the check chain where it is appropriate and have achieved as well as seen a lot of good results from its use. Would rather use the PPCollar over a check chain ...... but alas they are banned from use in Victoria. For the record - for young pups I prefer to not use correctional tools.

Ok. Except that your earlier post which sweepingly claimed them (PPCollars & Check Chains) as being "gimmicky tools" that arent 'training' in my eyes they are just a temporary solution that dont 'fix' anything" seems contradictory to that and gives the impression that you don't understand the concept of how these tools are used in "training". I'm presuming now that was unintentional.

Double post.

Don't you think 'service' dogs are neutralised? I mean, by the mere fact they are around humans etc. etc. but with no interaction from which to attain a 'value' ..... there's a degree of neutralisation in that, don't you think? Just that it is done as a matter of course, not especially strived for - they don't need to as their regime naturally accounts for it. Unlike family 'pet-dogs' who are either isolated from other dogs/unfamiliar people, or permitted/encouraged interaction with them. Don't know what thread you made reference in Kelpie-i. I must have missed that one.

The way I see it, simply attaching the lead should be the "command" for not pulling. The only time IMO that you would need a verbal command would be to differentiate between when the dog can pull, and when he can't (or you can use different equipment to 'cue' this). But most 'pet-dog' people simply don't want the dog to pull on the lead. Period. I generally don't train loose lead walking with a command either. I use the combination between 'check' and encouragement and reward to pave the way for the dog to make the decision of where its own advantage lays.

My previous dog (my avatar girl, bless her cotton socks) did something similar with my ex. This dog was timid of other people and when they entered the house the visitor would walk ahead of me down the hallway, with my girl bringing up the rear (ie behind me) - more than happy to not be near the other person, but not so shy as to preferring to be out of the room altogether. On the occasion of my ex making a visit, the same thing - he first, me following, dog behind me. On this day, to my disbelief, Kal trotted quite calmly and relaxed past me. When she reached my ex (who was still walking) she calmly and purposefully took his fingers in her mouth and closed on them - not a bite; no aggression, then let go. Second time, she did the same to his ankle. I took her hint - the second time was the last time I saw him . In my case, although I wasn't conscious of it, I guess there must have been an air of tension from me which she picked up on and consequently in her own sweet and meaningful way, stepped up to the plate as well, in what I consider the most appropriate way. Neither before then nor after then did she show anything other than deference to my leadership and always looked to me to sort out anything that she considered worrisome, and to protect her.

As per what Cosmolo has said. They are not "gimmick training tools" - if they were they would not have lasted the decades that they have. It seems to me that those who are decrying the tools are regarding the tool as an item in exclusion and perhaps are unaware of how they are used and/or in conjunction with training. Also, without intending to flame, it seems that those who have decried the tools here have BC's, Aussie Shep and Tollers. Biddable dogs. Not all the the same. And as Cosmolo has pointed out ..... trainers are often called upon when the owner is having difficulties. Prior learning and experience plays a big part and there are enough times when some additional assistance is required to help with that dog's training away from unwanted behaviour.

Sometimes, with some dogs. But not always. You've only mentioned PPCollars and Check Chains here. Do you use other equipment as a training aid TO? On what and how many dogs? I'm not setting up a challenge here (or at least, I'm not intending to), but I'm curious to understand more clearly where you are coming from. Is it just the named training tool items that you are opposed to, or others as well? This is your opinion, TO, and I acknowledge that. Although I'm surprised .... you don't have to agree with their use but I thought you knew more to know that it is the combination of the equipment (which is an "aid") and the training method. It's the use of the equipment by the handler that determines the item's efficiency in training. They often are not a "temporary solution". The training tool that gives you even that "temporary" lull in the dog's unwanted behaviour can at least be enough of a window to be able to use your training method. In this way, the dog learns what is required of him more easily. "Minimum to obtain maximum" is IMO a good determining factor as to which tool to use with which dog.

I'm not aware of any, Cosmolo. I wish there were, as the box units are somewhat cumbersome - especially for the little dogs.

Merry Christmas BD! With the information I've been pursuing and gathering, I tend to agree with you. FCI (not sure what the initials stand for) is the main body over in Germany and my understanding is that ANKC is affiliated with that group. So wouldn't that mean that the certain of the breeds recognised in this sport ARE bound to the Codes of the FCI? As I understand it certain "opposition club/person/s" would prefer to see Sch out of the way so they don't have to achieve Sch status to achieve the Champion "fit for breeding" status you speak of? How 'correct' that is I don't yet know, but if it is right, and if that 'group' has been behind the push to eliminate Sch Training, it's a pretty low and cheap act. Yes - Groups need to group, not divide. They divide only in their own blindness to their own demise. Competition should be healthy, not disease ridden.

Kelpie-i ..... absolutely no flaming from my pov. What you've written of Ray's thoughts/comments/ideas is thought provoking. I remember when I read of his thoughts on this topic, being quite convinced of what he was saying as when he gives all the details/arguments to support his theory, it is quite convincing. As you know I would have looooved the opportunity that you have had by visiting with him and meeting the wolf pack and I would imagine that in Ray's presence I would have been too blown away with his knowledge to have thought to ask questions there and then! LOL I don't think anyone here is flaming you either - although it might feel as though it is. You've put up a thread and informed us of what Ray's theory is. I think it is great to hear of new and novel ideas and thoughts and these things do take a bit of digesting ...... and what better way than to put it up against what one already believes in. Kind of like kneading bread, I think. Gotta push and pull at it until it feels soft and comfortable, so to speak . Hope you have a great Christmas day tomorrow, and a wonderful New Year. And hope to catch up with you soon after, if not sooner .

Hi Kelpie-i I know it was mentioned in your earlier (probably your opening) post, but I'm finding it difficult to comprehend that it 'matters' whether the dogs are hunting for actual survival (which, amongst our domestic dogs they generally don't need to do) or hunting as a 'pack' because of some ancient instinct. For example, many years ago when I lived with my folks on a 'hobby farm' sized property, which was boardered by numerous other larger rural allotments, we were informed by a 'neighbour' who bred and trained race horses that there had been sighted a 'pack' of dogs (comprising from memory a group of about 3 or 4) that had been 'worrying' the horses on his property. He'd seen them once or twice, but never close enough or at an opportune time for him to do anything much about containing them. This 'pack' of dogs re-visited his property one more time but this time, together they took down a fairly new spring foal and killed it. Now I'm not sure these dogs actually ate any of the foal they killed (it wasn't a question I asked at the time) so for the purpose of this thread I will assume not. But I do know from the neighbour's description that it was apparent this 'pack' of dogs were domesticated pets and I believe the neighbour tracked one of the dog's owners down (not sure of the outcome of that) and that dog did not 'belong' with the other dogs as a 'family'. Which meant that these same dogs 'grouped' and 're-grouped' when they had the opportunity to do so. So to me it seemed that their 'pack' behaviour amplified when they grouped themselves together. That they didn't have to kill and eat their kill for survival ..... well, isn't that simply a matter of circumstance? Just because they weren't reliant on doing so for their immediate survival doesn't mean the instinct to do so isn't there, don't you think?

This thread brought to my attention due to another thread in 'General'. Any news from the owners of the two dogs who had this procedure done, CavsRcute?

And depending on your own personal interpretation of wording? John Paul Scott wrote : "The behaviour of one individual effects that of others and these interactions lead to social organisation, a special part of which is the process of communication." Whether this was about the 'hunt'; about procreation; about survival; about harmonious living; ........ it really is all about "pack" as we understand it, don't you think?

Perhaps he finds it easier to 'select' his fav parts of the food (whether that be the kibble or the sardine). Perhaps try a larger food bowl and see what he does with that. Ceramic ones are the better ones for not tipping them over (I prefer the concept of eating from these rather than from metal or plastic) or try one of those metal bowls that aren't so easily 'tippable'. If you go for ceramic - go for a good quality pet one as I recall some talk about certain 'glazes' that should be avoided.

(My emphasis) ..... that part of your sentence made me I have trouble completely believing Ray Coppinger's concept as well, whether dogs be in a confined area or not, as well, even though I do respect his thoughts and ideas and find them very thought provoking. I don't believe that only the "hunt & kill" process is the only denominator upon which to determine whether social hierarchy/structure exists. Look at dogs in the dog park ..... why the displays of 'dominance' which often occurs between dogs who are developing relationships? I don't think I'm holding on to "the world is flat" ideals ..... but too much of what I see indicates to me that there is structure and order amongst dogs, and the way I understand it, "structure and order" IS what "pack" means.

Thanks, Madbout .... just checking as I otherwise wasn't certain about how to interpret what you had written. I agree with allowing pups to develop and that those early weeks should be about socialising to the world without placing great amounts of pressure on them. Like Midol, I don't want my youngster to 'learn' that he doesn't have to respond to my recall command, so I don't use it unless I'm absolutely certain he WILL recall. And I place both myself and himself (off-lead) only in environments where I am confident that if I want to recall him, this will happen. If I'm not confident, he remains on long-line. He's not ready for high distraction work, although I am recognising signs that his drive is becoming stronger than it was when he was merely a baby pup as he is more easily focussed on his drive toy now, even in the face of low intensity distractions - the same or even lesser distractions that used to draw him away from his drive toy. My focus was and remains at the moment, building drive and although some obedience training is occurring (and doing well) it isn't my main focus and it doesn't comprise of the bulk of our 'drive' fun. ETA: Just a brag. My boy is a bit 'noise' skittish. First exposure to fireworks sound tonight (close by). I was outside, he scooted inside (quite startled with the noise and I expect, the flashing), but I whipped out the drive toy and gave the magic words and he was back out like a shot and into the 'drive' game. Not so long ago, getting him to recover and respond positively wouldn't have been so easy. Admittedly, the fireworks were short lived. I'm planning up to be 'ready' for the next lot - only hope there aren't any unscheduled ones that I can't be prepared for. New Year's Eve for me is going to be a "training night". I won't be going anywhere . Sorry - I'm swinging OT.

Midol - but using the "low-stim" method which is the method both Steve and I use with it, requires training with it first (to teach the dog how to move away from the annoyance it causes). Not waiting for the moment that you HAVE to use it because your dog didn't respond to command. You might be prepared to use it, but have you prepared your dog for it? (ETA: I'm not suggesting you use the e-collar or any correctional tool on a pup.) Curious - how has "bonded too closely" affected what you do/want to do with him?

The above indicating that you believe an e-collar is the worse thing by comparison to a check or Pressure Point Collar (PPCollar) aka 'prong' collar? Why do you think that? ETA: Emphasis of my question is not about whether they should be used on pups - I haven't used any of them on my youngster either - but merely on your expression of the aforementioned equipment.

That's what I am saying, and what Kelpie-i has clarified, Nekhbet, just in case you were directing this to Kelpie-i and me thinking you misunderstood her post??

No worries Kelpie-i ..... I wasn't sure. Because when speaking in terms of dogs, unlike many others who have for quite a number of years decried the word, I do not think of "bullying" when I use or hear the word "dominance". :D Cheers! Erny

I've read Ray Coppinger's theory on "pack" and I agree that the gentleman gives much food for thought - I love things that counter with good reasoning and argument what we tend to have thought of as fact as it very much makes you think and re-think. There's also the theory that not all of our domesticated dogs evolved from wolves (although I do like to think so as I much prefer wolves to other of the canid species, but that's just sentimental personal preference on my part :D) - that some of them evolved from other of the lines .... the lines that were more scavengers and worked individually than they were 'pack'. Was that still Ray Coppinger? I need to think on where I have read on that and refresh my memory.

Kelpie-i .... are you using the term "dominating" in the dog-technical sense? Or is it only coincidence that you've used the term "dominating boss" as we humans know it to occur amongst ourselves? Just querying because I'm not sure if you are saying that dominance does not comprise part of what is commonly only referred to as "leadership" (because people became disapproving of the term "dominance").