Erny

Gemibabe - you are well entitled to your opinion/s, however the problem is that you use these types of media to formulate your opinion on. They are in fact not educational at all. Yes you're right, Gemibabe - it most probably was, because it would not have the incremental fractions that e-collars with more numbers on their dial have. But in addition, this person certainly went way higher than would have been necessary if he had been a dog. So the footage is not a good example of 'real life' and proper use. I could maybe arrange some video footage of people using their dog's flat collar in ways that can cause damage to their dogs. Should that be enough for a person to enter a public forum and assert "I feel this type of training tool should never be allowed on any animal." I'd say "yes", because everyone is entitled to express what they "feel", as you have ..... although would you perhaps think that person might need to receive a bit of education? This is a good example of the argument often used by those opposed to aversives in training. I'm not suggesting that is you, Gemibabe, but just that it carries a common theme by those who oppose certain methodologies and/or training tools. The thing is, not EVERY dog will distract in every circumstance to a clicker. Some not at all. Often this is a point either conveniently and purposefully overlooked for the sake of 'their' argument. Sometimes though it is a point made in innocent ignorance. .... Gemibabe - did you not notice the 'Level 1' stim to which the person on the video clip only gave a small jump and very quickly recovered and readied for the next one at the next level? I've known of dogs who are sensitive to the noise of the clicker and shy away from it. Should that be enough for a person to enter a public forum and assert "I feel this type of training tool should never be allowed on any animal." I'd say "yes", because everyone is entitled to express what they "feel", as you have ..... although would you perhaps think that person might need to receive a bit of education? Apart from which, even if the clicker was successful in distracting, how is the owner to use this when they are at work? Do you suggest arming all the neighbours with a clicker?? What you have watched is a reaction by someone who has taken the stim levels to beyond what he would require or was necessary, if he were a dog. Now - if we want to stretch our imaginations a little and think of that person as though he was a dog with barking issues, then think about a dog who by its behaviour has been, over time, causing nuisance to the neighbourhood. Think of the dog's owners who have received not only the angst from neighbours due to the continued annoying disturbance excessive barking can cause. Think of the owners also having received notice from their Council informing them their dog's barking has been reported and that unless it ceases to continue to be a nuisance, an order for the destruction of the dog will be issued. Think of the owners who have tried alternative methods that have failed. The stim-collar could well be the only thing that stands between the dog living, or dying. Would you still say "I feel this type of training tool should never be allowed on any animal"? Perhaps you would , but I certainly would not agree. If a dog's temperament is suitable for an e-stim collar (and this person, if he were a dog, would probably be that - he was not so fearful as to not be able to learn to understand that his 'barking' caused the collar stim ..... he knew/learnt that to control the stim he only needed to not 'bark') the dog would not persist beyond the 'effective' stim level. Unlike the person in the video clip who persisted simply for the sake of the video clip, not something that would occur if the collar was being demonstrated more realistically for its genuine purpose. As mentioned - you're entitled to your opinion, regardless of whether it is an educated one or not.

I would suggest "uncertainty" was involved.

Whoops! Sorry. Making space now .

Completely agree with Kelpie-i. I have also seen this 'gesturing' occur in adult dogs too (my own avatar girl used to do it on occasion) in circumstances where it was a sign of much uncertainty and/or fear. I would suggest the behaviour is linked with "submissive display" and as Kelpie-i has mentioned, the 'whole story' is absorbed by the registering of the rest of the dog's body posturing and the circumstances the dog is in at the time.

KKK - possibly prey drive and the frustration at not being able to reach the cat? I can't really tell from this side of the internet. As to what to do depends on your dog's relationship with cats.

Why don't you do the "something else" and combine it with your training aims. Might prove to be good motivation for her

That's fine. Keep the praise 'low key'. Also .... if I'm already outside/outfront when dog barks (and where it's pretty obvious that I can see what's going on), I don't praise for the alert barking.

Great - you're welcome. Good. When you're both inside together though, show him that YOU go to the door ..... not him. At the very least, work so that he is behind you. (If he's not already, that is.) Let me know how you get on Cheers! Erny

Alert barking isn't always easy to change and I find that it is often a matter of trial and error. Of course the problematic side of this is that it takes times, and due to neighbourhood complaints people often don't have the luxury of that. It is all the more difficult when neighbours won't help out. Your pup is only very young and this does help as it is not as though he's had a great deal of time for this behaviour to become ingrained. What might help, if you can manage it, is to work with your pup in the backyard (ie training) when your neighbour is out gardening. For your pup to recognise that you are neither concerned nor interested in any movement from the neighbour's yard, can assist with him learning that there is nothing to be concerned about by it. Of course, your leadership to your pup needs to be evident - again, this should be fairly easy given his young age. Naturally, all of this goes to when you are there ..... there is the hope though that there could be a 'carry over' effect to when you are not. It all depends on exactly what your pup's goal is at the time. It could be attention seeking and his goal would possibly being met, even if it is merely by your neighbour telling him to pipe down. Taking pup around the neighbourhood can also assist. It helps the pup learn by observation and hearing 'normal' noises within the neighbourhood and where they come from and why. If pup hasn't ventured out yet, he could well be somewhat disconcerted about a 'world' out there that he's not yet learnt about. Building his confidence and understanding about what his territory is and what constitutes an encroachment could also be helpful. Where possible, I don't like to punish for 'alert' barking, because it is what I want (ie I want to be alerted to any 'real' territory trespass). But pup needs to learn what 'real' territory trespass is. When I adopted my adult RR (who, years on, has since passed .... bless her cotton socks) she didn't understand "territory". She would bark at people passing (note : I was confident that it was ONLY 'alert' barking and definitely not ANY form of attention seeking). The point of alert barking by an insubordinate (I was absolute in my certainty of her perception of me as "leader") is to say to the leader and pack ... "hey ... you better come and check this out!". When she barked I would go out to "check". I would say "thank you Kal, it's ok, that's enough" (just my own natural wording .... no rules about what words you use). If Kal ceased barking, she would receive a pat and a "good girl" from me. If Kal barked beyond the word "enough", I would repeat the word "enough" but with a stronger/sharper/more assertive tone. If she barked beyond that, I commanded her to drop (in early days of training, this involved some hands on procedure .... but later became reliable verbal command compliance). The drop position makes it more awkward (note : not impossible) for a dog to bark. It also served the purpose of taking away her freedom and thus a form of punishment, if you will. Provided she settled and ceased the urge to bark, I'd release her. But I didn't go big on the rewards at that point. The other thing I insisted on was that I was the one who first greeted visitors - not my dog (regardless of whether those visitors were at my verandah gate or to my house). This was part of my leadership - after all .... as leader it is up to me to protect her (and for her to perceive that as my dutiable role). IF beyond all of the above an aversive is required to cease the barking (which can remain as a 'symptom' even once everything else has been addressed), then given your pup's age I'd be inclined to try the JetAir collar for those days when you can't be home to supervise or prevent the barking behaviour. Don't know if any of what I've written helps.

I think ROM is away for the weekend. She might get a chance to respond here on Sunday (from where she is, dependant upon internet access), but if not I expect she'll be back in here directly following the weekend.

:p Thanks guys. To everyone : We have approximately 12 weeks to get this "over the line" even though documentation suggests the regulation should not have been allowed to have been passed in the first place. It is now classed as "super urgent" - please don't delay getting the letters out and petitions in.

(My emphasise added.)"Time-out" to me is something that is not a punishment for the dog, but just simply a "settle down" type action. "Sin-bin" is something to me that is perceived by the dog as a punishment for unwanted behaviour. Any punishment delivered to a dog is likely to be paired with the behaviour it exhibited immediately preceding the punishment. From what you've written it sounds to me, Jaxx'sBuddy, that (going by my interpretation explained above) that what you've done is "sin-binned" your dog. Provided the purpose behind the barking is not "attention seeking", sin-binning might work for some dogs .... but not for all or many. The biggest problem I see here, from what you have written, is that your dog is receiving punishment (sin-bin) after you have "told her to come to [you]". Which means that it's more than possible and even quite likely that many dogs will perceive the punishment for "coming" when called and perhaps not for the barking at all. I'm glad this worked for you JB and perhaps there was some luck involved, but I think it deserves to have the potential 'fall-out' explained to those who might read here and follow by example. Oh - and sorry to raise an oldish thread, but stumbled on it in my wanderings - obviously missed it beforehand.

*bump* to bring the thread up near its 'mate'.

Further development to this campaign includes a Letter to MP's Australia-wide. I've done the letter because I know there are many people who are time-poor and/or loathe to letter writing. The link to the letter can be found at doglaws.blogspot.com Please visit this site (which also gives links to petition/s), click the link to bring up the letter. Insert your own details and the name and address of your own local MP. Print off the letter, sign it off and post it (snail mail). Please keep a copy of your letter that you've sent for record's sake. A push has occurred Australia-wide by at least one org expressing its disapproval of this collar - I am sure they would like to see the collar banned in all other States of Australia, so THIS AFFECTS YOU ! Please don't be complacent and think "the next person will do it". Please pass the link address to the blogspot and ask your friends and family who might be interested in signing the letter to do so. You have a voice. This campaign needs you to use it. This is an "Australia-Wide" matter. Not just Victorian. I'll be working on the blogsite further and will try to add in a link to MP addresses. In the meantime, if you're struggling to find yours, please either contact me by email (my PM box is full and I haven't had a chance to clear it) or post up here, so others including myself can help you out . Thanks for the continued support and drive. This IS your campaign . Cheers! Erny ETA : It would be helpful if each and everyone can email me at [email protected] simply informing me that they've sent the letter off and to which MP. Not mandatory, mind .... just helpful

Hey .... don't beat yourself up over this. It was a mistake and we're only human. Mostly, dogs don't like to soil their own sleeping and eating areas so it is likely that only one error is not going to result in your pup now doing so for the rest of all time. Just be vigilant in your house training and knowing when puppy has poo'd last (so you know whether to expect another or not) and take her out to give her opportunity to not poop in the crate. This will help avoid pooping in the crate becoming habitual. :D

From the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (Victoria) :- 7E. Use of certain electronic collars prohibited (1) A person must not use an electronic dog training collar that can impart an electric shock on a dog or any other animal except in the circumstances in sub-regulation (2). Penalty: 5 penalty units. (2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to a person who uses an electronic dog training collar on a dog— (a) if a veterinary practitioner has examined the physical health and temperament of the dog and reasonably believes that the dog is suitable to have an electronic dog training collar used on it; and (b) the person is— (i) a veterinary practitioner; or (ii) acting on the instructions of a veterinary practitioner; or (iii) a qualified dog trainer (within the meaning of regulation 13(2) of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Regulations 1996 ); or (iv) acting under the supervision of a qualified dog trainer (within the meaning of regulation 13(2) of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Regulations 1996). So, in a word Brooke - yes, use of e-collars in Victoria are permitted by law. Although there are conditions (as above) attached to it being lawfully used. Having said this, the VCA (or DogsVic) disapprove of and prohibit the use of these collars regardless. In a recent formal announcement, the VCA claims that the ANKC carry the same view and policy.

Hey Julieanna ..... to finish off quotations, you need to ensure the code "" (excluding the " symbols) is added to the end of the section you're quoting. :wink:

This commonly occurs if prior corrections have been ineffective, thereby desensitising to them. I don't view changing collars (eg. to something like the PPCollar) as an "up" in correction. Rather, it's a "different" correction and often achieves the desired responses so that rewards can be delivered more frequently. But in the case of corrections (and this applies to verbal corrections as well) I agree, whichever collar is used, the correction should be so that it is effective, using minimum impact for maximum behaviour change. If frequent corrections are required for the same behaviour, something is wrong and the first thing I check on is the handler's lead handling skill. Sometimes though, some dogs don't perceive certain corrections from certain other collars sufficiently enough - even when well and appropriately delivered, and a change of collar to something effective may serve in the dog's bests interests.

Jessca .... by the sounds of it to me you need to work on 'obedience' and 'agility' separately. When you are certain your dog understands lead manners and the other obedience skills, you could gradually increase distractions until the distraction of the agility environment is appropriate. If your dog goes to pull you to and on the equipment, quit him. IE Avoid permitting him to negotiate the obstacle if he has been 'rude' enough to ignore your prior training. Let NOT doing agility be a punishment in itself, seeing as he loves it so much. You can leave the arena and wait it out for a bit, then try the same obstacle again. If he pulls you toward it, repeat the process one more time, if you wish. But do not permit him to reach HIS goal when he 'breaks the rules/guidelines/training' you've clearly set for him. If you're consistent, he should get the drift of it soon enough. We often don't use the 'punishment' of not doing agility (or whichever other chosen activity) in these circumstances, simply because we figure we've made the effort to be there and want to do it ourselves. So OUR desire to satisfy ourselves becomes a reinforcer to our dogs' undesirable behaviour. PS - I agree that correctional collars should not be worn for agility, for the safety reasons mentioned by other/s.

Thanks Shekhina and Jessca. If you each email me once they've been mailed off, I'll know to look out for them. Every single signature counts :D.

Haven - as I understand it, 'tickets' are on sale and that it is a 'pay to secure your ticket' situation. You thinking of going? Bringing baby? Aunty Erny gets to have a hold ....... and give back at will :wink: :D

Julie - going by what you've written it sounds to me like she is "in drive" when she is tracking the wallabies, but not so when she is performing a constructed tracking exercise. Have you tried working her up to her tracking routine "in drive"? I'm sure there is a somewhat lengthy but very informative thread on "drive work" in the training forum .... by K9 Force. Possible worth your while reading if you're not sure how to go about building drive and training in drive to suit your (and your dog's) needs. There is a difference between "food exchange" and "drive".

And you're entitled to your strong feelings. However, you might check that your strong feelings are well founded. Good quality anti-bark static collars come with a range of settings these days so that you can set it to the minimum aversion for maximum behavioural effect (ie to cease the bark behaviour). The stimulation from the e-collar/satic anti-bark is an "instant" ..... it does not keep stimulating once the bark has stopped, it ceases in a split second. So your analogy of a battery on the tongue "and holding it there" is not equivocal. In addition, moisture from the tongue increases the sensation you describe, so this would also not equate to the stim received by the dog from the collar. You say you use a citronella spray collar? The smell of the citronella is an aversive to the dog (in fact citronella is toxic and for some dogs sensitive to it, it can be fatal) yet the smell of the citronella that remains on the dog's coat (and builds up with spray after spray) continues to be an aversive even after the dog has ceased the unwanted barking behaviour. Hardly what I would regard as "humane". And you cannot adjust the level of aversion of citronella to suit the dog as you can a static collar. I agree to using positive methods where positive methods work. In this instance, prey drive is being engaged and unless something efficient and effective is used the problem is likely to escalate. Later down the track this becomes a bigger problem to the owner due to neighbourhood disgruntlement and possible Council action as a result. This in turn can become a grave problem to the dog. If the OP is able to discourage the barking behaviour via positive methodology then I would recommend this. But if this is not effective, I disagree that use of a static collar is inhumane. If the OP is not certain as to whether his/her dog is suitable of temperament for a static anti-bark collar, I'd recommend seeking a visit from a professional behaviourist/trainer. Having said this - there is the JetAir spray collar. It shoots a shot of cold compressed air (similar to but instead of citronella) and for some dogs this is perceived by the dog as sufficiently aversive to discourage barking. It does not have the % success that static anti-bark collars have, but for the more sensitive (and sometimes for the younger) dogs, it does the trick. I can hire out a JetAir collar if you wish, Siobhan. If the barking persists though (in which case it is possible if not likely that it is not working) the refill cans can prove expensive over time. I have also found that some dogs learn to push the collar around to the side to avoid the shot of cold air (this can also occur with the citronella collars). Sometimes the collar will operate if the dog wearing the collar knocks the sensor on something. However, I have clients who have had success with this collar. ETA: I had a loan-car recently, whilst my own car was in for service. The loan-car persistently gave off static shocks after I had driven it, to the point where I really didn't want to touch the door or any part of the car when I exited. (I learned to shut the door with my clothed arm.) The static that I received was unpleasant enough that it put me off wanting to shut the door once I had alighted. So much so that even though I have had my own car back (which doesn't stimulate static as much as the loan-car did) for a week, I still habitually hesitate and use my clothed arm to shut the door. The static stimulation was unpleasant, but hardly what I would call painful and certainly not inhumane. I guess if it was I would be able to take the car manufacturer to task for the damage it had caused me. The point of this story is to show that my behaviour was altered as a result of the unpleasant static stimulation (which is what the OP seeks in relation to her dog's barking behaviour). But it did not cause me to fear the car, nor was I physically harmed by the sensation.

CWN - thank you for your contribution to this thread. In all fairness though, I would like to point out to readers that the "Halti" is a brand name of head collar, rather than a generic name. I don't think "Halti" should be denounced, but rather, if there have been unpleasant experiences with them that people would like to draw reference to, "Head Collar" or "Head Halter" should be the choice of words, unless of course the subject is intended to be hyper-specific. Each different brand name of head-collar comes with advantages and disadvantages over the other, depending on the dog (shape, size, circumstance) to which it is fitted. But each is used with the same principal in mind - consequently general problems which can be associated with the use of a head collar should not be specifically associated to a specific brand name in isolation. I write this only to be fair on the manufacturers of each brand name and style of head-collar. It is a common error that we make, CWN, as we do tend to refer to a head-collar by brand name when we ourselves have associated our experiences to that particular brand, so I trust you'll forgive me for raising this awareness. You're not alone in this error, to be sure. I completely agree with you in relation to the referenced comparison of "Head Collars" to dogs as "Head Halters" to horses. Each animal is so vastly different not only in terms of anatomic structure, but also in terms of psychology, it is, IMO a very silly analogy to make and is fraught with problems that can be a detriment to the dogs we use this style of equipment on.

Yes thanks, Shekhina - to that address. Even one signature to the page is one more extra . Unfortunately I don't think the Government would take kindly to Kovu's signature . More's the pity, though. Make sure you print off the petition relative to where you live (ie either in Victoria, or Interstate)