Erny

Ask him to add you to his email notification list. Then you'll be automatically alerted by email of upcoming seminar/workshops.

As per my earlier post (P1 or P2??), I had been crating my pup in the (sedan) car to begin with. I'm a 'loan driver' and didn't want the worry of a baby pup toppling over or doing cartwheels; worrying over its harness or chewing things it shouldn't, whilst simultaneously getting used to car travel. Being in the crate taught Mandela to sleep when travelling, or at the very least, lay quietly (and I promise you, he initially didn't!!). Of course he began to get too big for the crate and it was also becoming increasingly awkward for me to get him out of it. As I mentioned in my post as my intentions, I purchased a medium sized harness (to suit him at 14 or so weeks of age). I left the crate in the back seat on his first "harness" trip for two reasons : It took up half the seat which didn't give him too much room to try to wander around, if he was going to. Just in case I needed it. Turns out everything was great. He layed in the back seat, enjoying the luxury of stretching out, happily and for the most part quietly chewing and playing with "flea" his most favourite toy and other times sleeping. In the last couple of trips he's experimented with the harness and its limitations (nothing major), but has fast learnt that he's not going anywhere in it and seems to have accepted it. Before the first car trip with it, he wore it around the yard and house (supervised) for short periods a couple of times, with no hassles. In this way, he has only had to learn one thing at a time and not deal with multiple things all at once. Maybe this two step process has been unneccessary. But I think I'd only know that for him if I hadn't tried it and taken a punt that I wasn't doing the wrong thing for him. Every dog is different and where possible and not inhibitive to the pup/dog I prefer to take the long way around to more ensure it is right, than the opposite. Just to let the OP know of our progress and that I'm happy with it.

Thanks for the explanation of your name, KB .... although I recognise I was not entitled to it and you didn't have to give it. Paints a better picture than that which I was originally (and obviously incorrectly) forming in my mind. It is difficult sometimes to know who you're really talking to over the net and whether that person is responsible or not so sometimes I get a bit guarded, especially when I think the outcome for the dog/s could not be favourable. I don't know of any Schutzhund training schools over in the Western suburbs. Have you tried googling? Not sure if they list them given the pressures authorities place on them.

Although faced with the difficulties of this law, I think Schutzhund's representation of what they do is classed as a 'sport' rather than protection. However due to the nature and wording of the laws, I don't think they are completely in the clear and I know that they are targetted by authorities such as Councils etc. There is a law (I speak for Victoria) here that in its wording denounces it being legal for anyone to teach their dogs to bite anything that a person wears or holds. These are not the exact words of the law, but it is in essence what it says. That would cover Schutzhund training, but it would also cover the majority of pet dog owners who play tug or anything similar to tug with their dogs. Go figure. One local Council I have spoken to is taking a dim view of the Schutzhund training and I believe has/is making a point of targetting them. I have asked the Council how many of the Schuthund trained dogs have posed a problem within the community. So far there's been no answer to that.

Agree with Ellz. Puppies learn a huge amount during their developmental period with their littermates. Being a singleton can lead to a dog who has no knowledge of the right way to play or generally interact with and around other dogs. It might for the best part be overcome by a lot of work from the human who would need to arrange for their pup to socialise even far more than what we already need to do now with pups from litters. I have seen some reasonably well balanced 'singletons' .... although there has usually been something evident that sets them apart from those who have had the experience of litter mates. I have also seen some dogs who are really messed up by the lack of this experience. I think genetics would form a basis for how well or not the singleton pup would develop (socially speaking), but much of the work is required by the human.

Ahhh ... thanks Nekhbet. I am completely familiar with that set up. Just never heard of it being called a "ping string" set up. Can see it as an appropriate name now though.

Knucklebuster - not sure where you are located but here in Victoria (and I believe it is the same for NSW) you are by law supposed to have a security licence to train or own a trained protection dog. In addition, if you have a protection trained dog you are supposed to 'declare' them as a 'dangerous dog' (or if someone finds out they can have them declared) and then you and your dog are subject to the 'dangerous dog laws'. Not something I agree with and I also agree with you that a well trained (and I mean 'properly well trained') protection dog is often safer than the general pet dog next door, who has never been taught when NOT to bite. Many people view protection training as "teaching the dog to bite". IMO this is silly. Dogs already know how to bite. Protection training teaches them discrimination of when is right and when is wrong and affords the handler a control switch which can be turned on AND more importantly off in a split second. I think some scrutiny is required though, so that the right dogs don't end up in the wrong hands. Haven't heard of that happening myself - perhaps the people who are dedicated to the right and continuous training protection dogs need are too proud and dedicated to their dogs to do the wrong thing by them. ETA: Off topic and no offense .... or perhaps there is, but it's not intended - I'm not sure about the name "knucklebuster". Makes me think of someone who likes to go around bullying and showing their toughness. I tend to find those who are in the reputable protection training fields don't need or want to do this. But it's just a name and perhaps you have a different reason for it. Edited for grammar.

Rest assured that his plumbing is working just fine . As I mentioned, I don't think he was pretending to pee. More that he was hoping his posturing would earn him a treat. I guess much like they do when they offer their latest trick you've just taught them. Proven by the fact that shortly after he did this he let go a pee where he wasn't supposed to, LOL. My mistake!!! ;) I too think the work with parrots and their latest revelation of what they are capable of is very interesting, amazing and delightful. ETA : Sorry Isiss. Seems I have hi-jacked your thread, or at least taken it outwards and beyond your intended topic. How are you going with little pup?

Thanks for the explanation, WL. This is similar to the NDTF distance learning, it seems, as the students for that do a couple of 2 week block practical learning as well. They just don't call it "residentials". I understand they can bring their own dogs too and I can see for some that is an advantage as they might not have the luxury of having someone mind their dogs for them whilst down here in Melbourne. Regardless of the possible stress factors - and of course that would be dependent on the dog and its earlier experiences/socialisation etc as some may not be phased at all by the process and might even be the type who stress more in the absence of their owners, I think it is good for students to take the opportunity to gain as much hands on experience with different dogs rather than with the ones they know. It is an opportunity that doesn't come along too often. I also agree with you that having your own dog with you can prove a distraction away from your own learning. I have found that when I go to workshops/seminars, although I enjoy my dog to be with me, I concentrate far less on the content.

I haven't taken a moment to check the link out yet, but yes, I believe there is a "pretend/deceive" element that our animals learn. Although I think often-times it is not pretence necessarily .... I think it is that it is their perception that they have been rewarded for that very action. After all, wouldn't we be likely to act very quickly when we see any of our animals 'about' to chew on a (eg) power cord? Just the same as my 4 mo pup has worked out that he gets a reward for toileting outside. He occasionally tries it on for showing the 'posture' position of a toilet squat without needing to empty anything. There is a current thread in puppy forum which shows this is not uncommon. Although I'm obviously not in puppy's head to know his precise thoughts, I do not believe it is about 'deception' but about his belief in the possibility that maybe he will get a reward for the posturing alone. Perhaps I've even inadvertently rewarded him on one ocassion for it .... thinking he'd gone to the toilet or perhaps offering the reward too early.

What are the "residentials" about, and why is it good if they've stopped dogs attending? I did the NDTF course moons ago, not the Delta, so am unfamiliar with Delta's terminology or precisely how they work (although I have some idea from things I have heard from others). Just curious.

Sorry, it seems I misunderstood your point. I thought you were making a blanket statement in relation to dog training across the board. I agree that in your specific case of your hare and your dog, and the double door system you've created is a good and sensible thing to do, as management does break down and we can only do our best to try to work so that there is a safety net for human error or even for things that occur that are out of our control, and hope/trust that these things will be sufficient. I also misunderstood the overall 'flavour' of your post, as it sounded to me as though you were indicating P+ had no place in dog training (across the board) because you've proven to yourself it doesn't work with your hares. I guess my mind was working to cover all instances of life to which our dogs are subject to in the human world and that there are some things where "management" is not sufficient nor acceptable within the community. Perhaps my mind's wanderings were exceeding the realms for which this thread was created. I'm glad you haven't sworn off the use of aversives completely and that you would use them if you found it to be necessary and in the long term best interests of the dog. It is more than once that I have come across others who seemed to have taken some sort of personal vow that this would never be the case, and where owners have come to me desperate, because it's been recommended to them their dog be pts because the methods excluding P+ have not worked on their dog's problematic behaviour. I agree that working with different animals adds a depth of knowledge and experience to our understanding of animals, but it should also bring it clearer to us the differences between them as well. Your comparison example has been your hare and your dog. And all too often the comparison is between dolphins and dogs with the view that +R and -P training works for the dolphins hence we should use it with dogs to the exclusion of all else. The difference in psych between the two is often ignored, along with the fact that dolphins are not in and around the community as dogs are, nor do they share our lives as dogs do, so often it doesn't really matter that animals such as dolphins, who are confined to their watery world, do not perform the behaviours they are taught simply because their preferences for not doing so exceed their preference for +R at the time. ETA: I don't consciously break down the four quadrants of learning (ie +P; -P; +R; -R) during active training with animals, Corvus, although I am subconsciously aware of them ... just as you would be in your training, given your conscious recognition of how you 'manage' your hare and carrying that over to compare to your dog. But it is necessary or even more succinct to do so when speaking of it .... especially in the written word.

I agree that +R is great to use when it is what works best for the dog and situation. But comparing a rabbit or hare with a puppy is not, IMO, the best comparison to make. I mean, you might be happy to "manage" your hare's ...... ummm, shall we say "issue", but hares or rabbits are not thrust into and amongst society as dogs are. In addition, rabbits and hares are animals of prey - with a different psychic to dogs who are hunters of prey. At some stage, "management" breaks down through sheer human error; misjudgement; or whatever. It might take a while, but it does. Consequently some behaviours that you might think are ok to merely be "managed" could in fact end up being disasterous for the dog, or other people or other dogs etc. etc. etc. So I disagree with what you've said above in (my) highlights. There is something wrong with deciding to manage some behaviours when in fact the application of an aversive could well prove to thwart an escalation of behaviour to more serious levels. Whether that be serious for the dog or serious for other animals (including people). I haven't "crossed over". My mind is open to using any one or all of the four quadrants of learning. Which one I use depends on what best befits the dog and the situation. "Crossing over" in the context you've used it only means that you have denied yourself being able to use one of those quadrants (ie P+) even though there might be an instance and a dog for which this might prove the most beneficial and in the end the most congeniel to the dog's long term welfare. This IMO poses a problem for those who profess to have "crossed over". It precludes them from applying that 'missing' learning principal even though it might be the best, most efficient and only way to curb a behaviour from becoming serious and injurious to others. Isis - I say good for you for going the positive track. I prefer to work (especially) pups this way as I like to teach a dog what TO do (preferably) before I must show him/her what NOT to do. But I won't preclude myself from using +P if else fails or is not efficient enough for everyone's sakes. Hope little puppy is doing well. Do we have some photos? You know they are a must and I don't remember seeing any here . There are many times I have seen injurious behaviours from dogs simply because their owners did what "they felt better" about doing. IMO we need to think it from a dog's learning perspective and not necessarily always what makes us feel better.

Similar here. Another thing mine (also 4 months) does - if he's piddled but doesn't realise I am watching, he semi-holds the 'squat position' until he knows I've seen him .... then he rushes up to me for all the praise and reward that he now knows will follow. I agree. It is funny.

... What's a "ping string" type fence?

In addition to what Nekhbet has said, I have seen dogs catch their teeth in the links of chain leads. ETA : Oh .... and deepheat or denkorub works on the lead too. Remember that whatever you use, you will need to re-load frequently so that each time your dog tries to grab the lead he will be convinced it is not a good idea. Test whatever you use first - some dogs like hot tasting food. I haven't met a dog yet though, that likes DeepHeat. You'll need to wipe it off your hands after application though.

This might often be the case, Zeping. But with some dogs, unless the early phases are worked around/dealt with, the dog can begin to anticipate that it will feel awful (and vomit) when in the car. So then the anxiety begins to rise even earlier .... and this is where 'fear of car rides' can stem from. Then what began as car sickness becomes illness due to the anxiety it feels. I have heard (as others here have also attested) that ginger is very good and helpful. If the ginger nut biscuits are not sufficient, you can purchase ginger tabs either from the chemist/health food store or ones specifically labelled for dogs from some dog stores.

As she only pees on the sofa and not when crated, keep her crated at night times. Work on the day time stuff first and get that happening right.

I know what you mean. I have the same shuddering thoughts and feelings when it comes to Head Collars - all the more so because they are portrayed to and received by the public as being "kind", so they often don't have a clue to the damage they can cause their dogs.

Glad that your dog has gained the benefits from the use of e-collar training, Kazzie. It is great to be able to permit them to run free off-lead knowing you retain control when control is needed. But I wouldn't agree with your wording of "most" that I've highlighted in the sentence above. I'm not sure what method you're using for your e-collar training, but using -R at low stim levels ("low" is measured by the dog's reaction but is also generally pretty much what it means via the dial) in my experience the e-collar is suitable for most dogs, although not for some. ETA: But apologies to Cosmolo as it seems this is straying off topic just a tad. I don't really qualify to give a proper answer to this thread, as it calls for those who WOULD use a head collar but WOULDN'T use an e-collar, to comment.

It's not trivial, Zeping. Even professional dog trainers who train all sorts of different dogs every day still get that 'buzz' when a dog performs what we have been seeking to teach. It is great and I hope you will continue to enjoy those moments (and even the frustrating ones that are sometimes sent to try you) for the rest of your doggy interactive life .

Have you had this girl since a pup? Asking just to get some idea as to whether you know her full history. In relation to the section of your post that I have quoted above, I am wondering how (assuming you have had her from a pup) you went about cleaning up her accidents when they did occur. If you cleaned up in her presence it is possible that she has recognised that as some sort of attention and sees the regime as 'she pees, you come over and clean up' ... perhaps hence why she is peeing and then letting you know about it (so you'll do what she is used to you doing). Instead, clean up in her absence (ie put her in another room, or outside). In this way you are removing any 'value' she might be gaining from you cleaning up after her. She is peeing where she sleeps? (ie the sofa). Is she peeing there in her sleep? Have you had her checked for any medical condition (eg incontinence)? If this is the case, then she can't help doing what she is doing and needs some medical intervention to assist her. I crossed out this part, given that she is not wetting when she is in her crate. What have you cleaned the sofa with? It may be that there remains the smell of urine (which encourages her to return to that spot) and/or the cleaning agent you have used is perhaps ammonia based (which does the same thing). Is it only the sofa that this wetting over night occurs? What about aiming to have her recognise her crate as her sleeping place, so that she will then volunteer to go there even though eventually the door may be left open. Graduate from there to her own special bed and preventing her from using the sofa/couch for that. As for alerting you as a signal to want to go out. If she barks at all, you could try teaching her the "bark/quiet" trick. Once she has learnt to bark on command, you add that command in every time before she is let out to go to the toilet. Naturally, big party when the whole process is successful, even if it was/is with your prompting. An alternative to barking (if your dog is simply not that 'type') is to teach the trick of pulling on some elastic rope (to which you have some bells), as her signal to go out. I would also suggest you stop "asking" her every few hours if she wants to go out. Instead, use your vigilance, keeping a close eye on her. Watch for those 'toilet' signals (eg. sniffing; circling; etc). Each dog may be different, so there are no particular 'ways' for every dog. Don't say anything - clip her on lead or take her by the collar and merely go outside with her (take her off the lead once outside) and once she toilets, big party. I would be inclined to suggest that she is toilet trained (in her own way and to a degree), but that she's been mixing up your well intended signals. What I mean is that she has not learnt to volunteer to go outside - rather, she's learnt that she goes outside when you say "do you want to go outside". Try doing it the 'silent' way, to encourage her to learn to make that decision and volunteer it.

I agree with the other of your comments in your post, Rusky. I have seen similar in relation to head-collar use .... although never with chain, HC and harness all attached together simultaneously. I have seen and where needed have used HC's with a CC .... but in these instances I fit the CC larger than would normally be required so that it is not activated when the lead is applied. The CC is only there in case the head collar 'gives'. In relation to the above comment - as far as it relates to the e-collar - the dog can still wear the collar without it having or needing to be used, so it needn't be specifically removed (save for the usual prescribed periods) for any great benefit to the dog. Naturally, the objective is that the dog 'train' so that the stimulation is used and needed less and less until not at all. One example springs to mind for me and that is a client I have assisted with problematic prey drive that was being exhibited by her dog towards other dogs. For 6 months before I saw her she had been unable to permit her dog free run off-lead. We met up for a beach walk with our dogs the other day. Her dog was off lead and wore the e-collar but its use was unnecessary .... and that was even with other off lead (and somewhat rude) dogs being there. In fact she laughingly commented that she was glad she didn't need to apply a stim as it had been so long since she had that she was concerned she'd be a bit 'rusty' on it. Her dog is happy and jaunty; doesn't bother with other dogs and recalls reliably, willingly and with pleasure. It was great to see. She continues with the wearing of the e-collar in certain places/areas where she is not completely certain it won't be needed - just as a fail safe, so to speak.

Diva - assuming you know, or if you don't, that you were taught, how to use the e-collar utilising the principals of negative reinforcement at low stim level, is there a particular reason why you would prefer to avoid the use of an e-collar? Genuine question. :D

There is +P that comes with the use of the HC as well.