Erny

Perhaps they didn't attend.

IMO I think a person (whether that be trainer or owner-trainer) ONLY feels frustrated when they don't fully understand the dog - why it's doing what it does; what it's thinking; what it's feeling. Understanding this isn't always an easy thing, and that's where having someone who might be able to shed a bit of light on that, can help. And when that's understood, generally speaking the "behaviour modification exercise/s" can be more easily applied. I don't think it's a matter of your dog trying to "test out Steve the trainer". I think it will be simply a matter of your dog applying behaviour that he (the dog) knows and figures 'works'. I do know that Steve will give an assessment and beyond that, work with your dog in such a way as for him (the dog) to learn that "testing out" doesn't achieve any goals. No frustration in that. RL01 .... it isn't about 'beating' the dog (I don't mean in the physical "hitting" sense). It's about teaching him how to make better (read : more acceptable) choices for behaviour. You'll know more once you've seen Steve. Try not to be frustrated in the meantime and keep your dog safe :rolleyes:. When is your appointment?

IMO, "No" to each of the above, RL01. With one that I worked with, results were inhibited due to the 'nature' of the dog at the time (eg. lack of confidence). I had a separate word in that instance so that the owner could work that up, which would enhance the other behaviour modification exercise demonstrated. Good trainers know that frustration will not help, only harm. And understanding the dog at a deeper level ..... usually I don't get frustrated with the dog. If there is any frustration, it would be with myself and not while I am working with the dog. But I don't tend to feel frustrated. If something isn't working I just need to think it out and alter something or change tack completely.

Oh geeeee ..... I thought she was trying to pull the sexy look. I really didn't care ..... I was just hoping the TV Stations would catch on to 'local' talent :D. That will come with my TV contract. :rolleyes:

Someone reported that we'd be discussing training equipment, including the PPCollar. The RSPCA just wanted to know the Victorian Law was being observed (which it was) and that we'd explained what those laws were (which we had). The RSPCA guy was a nice guy. Reasonable and recognised we'd done and were doing nothing wrong. He and I had a nice chat. :rolleyes: And he was impressed with the behaviour of all the dogs who were there . All was good. In fact, I would have enjoyed talking to him for longer :D. Erny wonders if he's married .....

Hey! What are you talking about!! I thought it was more the "Victoria Stillwell" look !!!! :D Dang it .... knew I needed to wear the heels to be able to pull that look off properly. :rolleyes: .................................... and the car

That's ok. I'll hold a 'photo workshop' ........... and he can come .

Hey Steve ...... my pictures are bigger than yours

And you thought YOU were tired ..... Nellie can't even hold her head up! LOL And then there's others who were also 'pooped to pop' (actually, I think members of the energy conservation movement) .......................

I dunno. Demure drive? What do you think?

As you guys know, the RSPCA paid a surprise visit to the workshop. The officer who attended was happy with what he saw and heard and with what was explained to him that had already been covered throughout the weekend. Posts #220 and 221 show some of the dogs out of the group - the whole of which the RSPCA representative who 'popped in' to visit expressed he was most impressed with how they were quiet and calm.

Smarty pants :D No photo's come out great in the pavillion, it seems. I'm told the lighting in there doesn't bode well even for those with fancy cameras. Will look forward to seeing the photo's. And enough cheek from you please, Mary ... umm, Mar ... no .... Sha... oh dear :D Great that you could travel all the way down to attend. Was good having you there with your lovely Toller .......

Glad you guys enjoyed the weekend and found it to be informative - of course, that's the whole idea and both Steve and I would have been very disappointed if this had not been the case. I'd like to say too that I was impressed with the group who came on each day and I enjoyed seeing so many people take an interest in learning more about their dogs. The questions asked were great questions too and showed that you guys were really taking in the info being presented. So thanks from Steve and myself for being such a terrific bunch of people . It was also good to see a great mix of dog breeds there - from the dingo through to Staffies; Bully breed, GSD's, Toller, BC, Rotties, Husky .... right through to Gordon Setter and Saluki. And I managed a quiet smile and a laugh at some of the dog antics. They were all handled well and kept calm, quiet and well behaved during 'talk' time .... and this is IMO a credit to their owners. There was a great sense of "responsible dog ownership and handling" from the group - it's a credit to you all. Well done, and thank you for the nice words. But moreover, pleased that you have been able to take something from the event to help you advance and enhance your dog's training .

Wish you and your dog all the best and hope the news and results prove to be what we'd all like to hear. Good luck, RL.

That's not quite what you said earlier Midol. You said that he pulls if he's in a flat collar, so it seems that you have the PPCollar on him so he won't pull. That's different to having it on him as a "in case". Just my opinion, but I like a dog to be able to demonstrate loose lead walking training without reliance on the equipment type. If the dog has the misfortune to have to stay over at the Vet or even at a friend's place, I wouldn't be giving them a training tool to use when I don't know that they'll use it properly. I like to know therefore that the dog can be walked out on an ordinary collar, knowing that this would make it easier for both the person/s the dog was staying with (and ensuring safe, controlled exercise during my absence/inability to be with the dog) as well as for the dog. ETA: For clarification - I don't think there is anything wrong with using a chosen training tool as a "just in case it's needed" as being prepared can enhance training. But I like to know the training tool isn't an absolute necessity all the time. It's a choice, Midol. And if the choice is available, the above is the one I'd make. But again - only expressing my opinion and preference. It doesn't have to be yours or anyone else's .

Sorry GayleK .... I thought the question was a rhetorical one, designed to pose argument in itself. Didn't realise it was genuine - hard to tell sometimes when things are put in writing, so apologies. To answer your question though ..... there is no evidence of harm caused by a PPCollar. Because I see Head-Collars, Check Chains, Martingales and even flat collars used incorrectly (read : with excessive force) I can only assume that there are people out there who might do the same with the PPCollar. There is evidence fairly freely and available in relation to harm caused through the mis-use (usually but possibly not exclusively accidental) of tools such as head-collars and check chains. But I think that there not being any evidentiary harm reported in relation to PPCollars, could be somewhat telling? In otherwords, it doesn't - cause harm, I mean? Either because the 'limited slip' action prevents the prongs exceeding their designed limits and/or because the dog responds so much more efficiently that excessive over correction does not become necessary. This is the only conclusion I can draw. Make sense?

Lisa M - I'm glad you are keeping an open mind and making the decision to check into training equipment (whichever sort) to learn and understand more. We always fear what we don't know or understand, and IME that is the case for many people who oppose the PPCollar. IE - They don't know or understand them. I don't equate the PPCollar to a horse bit though (just as I don't equate a head-collar to a horse halter). They are two different animals with very different neck structure. One is a prey animal and the other is an animal of prey - so there are also different psyches to take into account. Many people IMO wrongly deduce that just because the dog is more responsive to the PPCollar than other collars, the PPCollar must be the more severe. But is it? Severe to what? The muscle? The skeletal structure? No - it achieves responses in dogs where other collars fail because it works differently. It works on the skin - it takes less of a correction to be felt, thereby removing the severity of possible damage to these physical aspects of the dog. And the increased positive response from the dog affords it greater learning potential for more acceptable behaviour, and thus, greater/more frequent rewards. Why wouldn't anyone wish this for their problematic dog? It pertains to dog welfare.

I've modified this quote to read as follows : I don't think more needs to be said as far as that 'line' is concerned (although I'm happy enough to if anyone wants me to ) as I think this makes its own point. .............. Well, actually no - on second thoughts, it doesn't. I think the damage would occur more severely, possibly permanently and more readily, if one gave too strong a correction via a head-collar. Point is that it's not going to be necessary. For a person to have corrected with a check chain so hard that it's lifted the dog off it's feet indicates the possibility that the check chain was an ineffective tool for the dog. It should never have reached that stage and perhaps it wouldn't have had someone been able (or allowed by law) to instruct on the use of a PPCollar it wouldn't have reached that stage. "What if" could be applied to anything. Why isn't is applied to head-collars? Why aren't people enraged about them? Evidence exists of the damage that has been caused by them. Yet more people are enraged about the "what ifs" for PPCollars even in the absence of such evidence. How can this be?

No "howling" from here, Annezelvys. I like challenges. It is where people learn the most. But something IMO you have 'wrong'. The prong collar would be best described as a 'different' tool - not at "stronger" one. It is the ONLY collar that does not work on the dog's muscle - it works on the skin. Not to damage or pierce it, as some opponents to the tool might falsely claim ... but by applying a 'pinch' effect the dog responds to more easily and readily than it might with other collars. And with the ready response comes a more expedient window of opportunity for reward. And the dog learns faster. And that has to be better for the dog .

Seagate - have just emailed you . Erny