Erny

Hi Daccies. I think this topic started because the OP wanted to hear of success stories from others who have or had worked with fear aggressive dogs. There are a variety of ways (the e-collar being one of them) but as to which way is right completely depends on the dog and the owner. Each is taken on its own merits and a plan devised and tailored to suit. Hence I doubt you'll find here any talk of exactly what to do and in what steps here, if that's what you might be looking for. Especially for behavioural issues relating to aggression, it is always recommended that you engage a behaviourist to see and assess your dog and work directly with you. Is that where you are at? IE Does your own dog have fear aggression issues? If you let us know where you are located we might be able to help more by recommending someone to you.

I tried. Again - I asked you to return to your first post in the other thread and mine which followed. I made no assumptions on me having any great knowledge or understanding of electricity and become especially lost when 'electrical jargon' is used when it is being spoken of. (I do know that the stimulation from an electric fence is felt with much more unpleasantry than that of an e-collar though.) Then study your followed response ..... that's where your aggression and personal attacks began. And I know so little about it as to not being able to ascertain that you are as good as you continuously profess to be. If you are so good and know such much though, how come you are so defensive and aggressive when someone doesn't merely accept what you say? Were you waiting for the :D emoticon? They don't come unless you've earnt them. So where's the apology? Not only for your personal attacks on others in that 'other' thread, but also here, where you've created a special thread to falsely accuse others of the 'crime' that you yourself committed. And how come you have multiple identities? Is this your standard closing?

There's been a few quirky things happening in relation to quotes, or at least when quotes are involved, I notice. With one of my posts I returned to "edit", changed my mind and cancelled the "edit" and noticed that a few para's had been changed to italics. Went back in to "edit", cancelled again without making any changes ..... and text was back to its normal and original state. Gremlins? :D

Actually, if you are "Lab and Poodles" or "Lab & Poodle" (and by references in your posts it seems highly likely), then you've been around for considerably longer than you're lending people to believe. The thing is PP, if you have a read of your first post in the thread you refer to, you will see where my response contained no personal attack nor reference to you on that level. All my responses to those parts of your post were made on a discussional level. Your response to that was reactionary and you might see where you were the one who began references to people being "silly", "unimpressive", "stupid" and the like ................. (the least to mention, just to top it off, your own frequent reference to how good you think you are.) You also made allogations of others saying things they did not, in fact, say .... yet you belittled them for it and did not withdraw when your errors were pointed out. Then starting a new thread to call for being hard-done by? Sin-bin? If that's what you want then if you give honest and objective retrospect, you are the one who needs to go to the 'naughty corner'. Before you look and blame others for the "disgust" you feel, please take a hard, close, study at your own handywork .... you might then identify why and how it is that you feel as you now do.

Thank you for the link, Anita. A couple of things that it talks about that I'd like to raise for discussion/thought : It seems to use the following analogy for disproving/refuting "dominance theory". Article : Sounds all good and logical when you first read, but I think something has been missed here .... IE : It tries to compare "calm-assertion" and "dominant aggression" to evident hypocrasy when in fact the correllation comparison should be "dominance aggression" with (the dog's perception of) "insubordination". Afterall, in the dog pack the leader will only exert/exhibit aggression after calm-assertive 'energy' has not been appropriately observed. Article : (Pinnacle - is this what you were alluding to in one of your earlier posts whereby you state that we would avoid real dominance issues in the (approx) 2 year old dog appearing if we don't apply too many limitations beforehand?) What the article has not addressed is how and why the dog was able to attain dominance status in the first place. The simplicity of the article's statement (above) is lost though because it does elsewhere prescribe to the application of non-forced 'limitations'. This is certainly not anything new. Not on the bed; not on the couch; eating before the dog; and such like are all limitations without "force". The article does not look favourably upon use of the "alpha roll" technique, but again, that's not something new and it has been looked upon without favour by many trainer/behaviourist for quite a number of years. The article also makes frowning reference to leash corrections not having a desired effect when it comes to the human re-establishing leadership status. I have always been an advocate of training the dog (won't enter the "leash correction -vs- negative punishment" debate here as it will only serve to lead me and most likely this thread completely off-track .... besides which, effect or affect much depends on the individual dog) as training forms a component of established leadership in that it is a regular measure whereby the human can demonstrate calm-assertion/government (hope no-one objects to those words :wink:). But I have never asserted that obedience training on its own will bring about "leadership". In my view, leadership 'starts at home' and it is commonly unlikely (very generally speaking) that a dog will heed to its owner unless the owner has first earnt the right to govern. Moving on on this point however, the article suggests that "... [leash corrections] puts the [growling] dog ... in problem situations and communicates a lack of control onthe part of the owner rather than leadership." This last part is more an example of faulty training/behaviour modification, IMO. Yet it uses this possible example of faulty handling to support its hypothesis that the "dominance theory" is flawed. I can identify here where the connection they have made between one to the other is inappropriate. The article references further to "force" as including punishment "... such as verbal corrections, corrections with choke chains, prong collars, or shock collars, jerking on the leash or jabbing a dog in the neck with your fingers. ... However, while this may immediately suppress the symptoms of the problem behaviour, the use of force does nothing to positively change the behaviour long-term." Not sure why the many people of 'new-age' advocation so frequently and seemably conveniently omit recognition that many trainer/behaviourists who might well use some element of "force" such as described above, do not use "force" alone nor even agree that "force" is what teaches the dog in problematic situations. Rather, if they read fully they would recognise that it is what other things are done in between the moments that (appropriate) "force" brought about suppression of the undesireable behaviour, that assist in the learning process. Another part of the article that I question is : Article : In essence, I agree with the above. The problem is that the lifestyles of our domesticated dogs generally do not dictate that it exercises to find its food or protect its territory (not to the extent that a dog in unprotected territory might). Nor do the most of our dogs raise young. Consequently I believe that physical exercise for physical sake IS necessary more than people might think. Don't get me wrong - I very much believe in mental exercise too and do not wish to do away with any perception of its importance. But I don't believe that physical exercise should be abandoned for mental exercise (nor for that matter, vice-versa). I have taken up physical exercise to simply "blow away the cob-webs". After exercise I have felt more relaxed and my mind is more clear and replenished with energy to matters of thought. So I would not like people to discount the virtues of straight out physical exercise - but to reiterate and for clarification, the necessity for mental stimulation must also be observed and met. I do agree with the article where it goes on to say "... walking a dog on a short leash, at the owner's pace (which is much slower than the dog's natural pace) and without the ability to sniff and explore the environment, provides the dog with very little in the way of exercise. Even if the dog's primary need were, in fact, exercise, this sort of walk doesn't provide enough to satisfy their needs." Well ..... the above are merely my thoughts on the article that Anita kindly provided link to. I hope the explanations of my thoughts and considerations to elements of the article made sense and I'd welcome anyone else's contribution if they'd care to share here.

Hi Lou. Yes - it was the Schilder one. And in that same thread (was it this one? Yes .... think it might have been) the Schalke study was also referred to. The problems in relation to the report were also discussed. I don't recollect that Pinnacle made any attempt to refute the issues raised about the basis of experiment as described in the report, so I'm not sure of her opinion in this regard. Why is it that when some people post they take it as a personal attack when the content of that post is questioned? Why is it that the common retort by those same people is that those who don't agree (even if they can make statements and provide links to information to support their reasons for not agreeing) "don't want to hear?" With any of your posts Pinnacle, any statements you've made that people have not agreed with have been supported by logical, sound reasoning if not also by recognised studies. How do you figure it is the others who do not want to hear? If people want to debate or counter another person's point of view, be prepared to have done likewise. That's what makes the world go 'round and moreover, improve for the further education it provides. ETA: Pinnacle - 'tis good that you are busy. I think we're all finding it that way.

Although you've made a big effort to do so in almost each of your posts. You can dish it out though? Poodlesplus .... from your opening post to now your closing (?) post, you've spoken with degenerative tone. Although you've fought hard to thrust how good you are, I certainly would turn to Lou for sensible and communicative interaction. Seems to me that when anyone wants to discuss/challenge/debate your POV, rather than being able to support your claims you richochet off with comments pertaining to politicians or political agendas. Lou doesn't need to insult your "degree", you're managing to do that on your own. It might be worth something to you, but unless you can make it worthwhile to others it isn't very useful. That's a very safe comment to make. That would be like me saying "I have some great ideas that would help people with problematic dogs, but I ain't telling." Certainly would add zip to my credibility so don't be surprised if the similar makes no difference to whatever credibility you think you might have achieved here. Just because you say you're good, doesn't make you good.

Hi Arya No - IMO this is not correct. And for that matter, it is not correct for most if not all other causes for unwanted behaviour. It is about showing the dog (and that usually involves guidance) what to do that will keep him/her safe from harm. In otherwords, teaching the dog that aggression (which in most cases is not appetative to the dog) is not intrinsic to its survival under those circumstances. Drive work is an excellent 'activity' to engage as it can focus the dog's mind to something else whilst still being in the proximity of what the dog previously perceived as a threat worth reacting towards. It is an exercise in 'desensitisation' and with work can serve to teach the dog that what was once a negative is now a positive. Care does need to be taken into account to ensure that the dog's heightened state (especially in early drive work) cannot/does not carry over to defence drive. Like any desensitisation process, the handler still needs to have some knowledge of what they are doing, when and where. Unfortunately, not all dogs possess the 'drive' necessary to overcome their fear by these methods and that is where other methods of teach, guide and train are required. It's great that you have managed your dog's problem and I know full well of what you speak of when you talk of frequent ongoing exposure to prevent regression of the behaviour issue when genetics and/or critical period issues are a factor. to your efforts. It's such a buzz though, isn't it, when you own a problematic dog and you recognise even the smallest of steps in improved behaviour.

Well - I'd suggest you go back and check what I said. If you can't even make accurate assertions of what someone has said or who said it, why should or would I (or anyone) have any confidence in your self-generated claims for degrees, assertions that you are 100% right because you have things checked or any other sprout you make for how good you supposedly are. Fortunately I don't spend my time here even remotely attempting to impress you nor anyone else. So nothing lost. Except for the time you spend posting, to which I am amazed seeing as you consistently try to impress on us how busy you are, how you don't have time for explanations and how you didn't want to discuss e-collars after your initial contribution of your own knowledge of how the e-stim on e-collars work. (And for that matter, seeing your lack of ability to support your claims, perhaps nothing gained, either). Are you referring to all three of you?

Thank you. That would be appreciated.

TSD - a further query, if you can help answer? TSD: Do you know if there HAVE been any scientifically proven conclusions drawn from the studies in this "movement" that would give rise as to WHY "leadership exercises" as we know and understand them would not be of any good effect?

One would think so. Although I do not believe as intentionally as crude as all that, we have evolved FROM the "shock-collar" which was far more extreme than what we now know, to the modern-day "e-collar" and this, like most/all else, is the result of the experience of use and observation and our never-ending quest for improvement. PS Speaking of observations .... good pick-up Myszka. I seem to recall those earlier conversations you refer to, in another thread. Same reference to "TEMS" made there too, I think. So perhaps all the IEC engineers with the same dog breeds also all go to the same school of spelling?

Ditto, TSD.

I have a set of CD's (audible only - not visual) that make mention of this as well. But until conclusionary study results are revealed then I do not believe that belief in the methodologies used today (in so far as they relate to "pack leadership") should be referred to as "outdated" as if it is a foregone conclusion. Given the theory (Coppinger I believe) that the domestic dog may not be the direct descendant of the Wolf, perhaps this is also a possible cause for the digestive system supposedly being found different. IE Maybe it isn't so much to do with domestication??? But then that would be cause for another topic in a different thread. :D I understand what you've written here ..... but yes, I do feel it is a case of "splitting hairs". But then I'm not a scientist. So I don't have to split hairs. They do, I guess ............. :D Yes please. I'll be on the list for that one too, if you don't mind. Will look out for your thread telling us when it's done. :D

It did make sense (I think ) .... thank you TSD. Certainly a well written and thought provoking contribution. :D But with dictionary definition of "dominance" being : "control; ascendancy" (or "dominant" being : having primary control, authority, or influence; governing; ruling) would scientific proof not be in the 'pudding' by observation of wolf-pack behaviour? IE The ultimate being that the "leader" (whose posturing etc. as well as the deferences of others in the pack to it, would also have been observed) DOES "influence/govern" the pack? Now .... I hope I make sense. :D I could well imagine the mental energy you would need to apply to put aside conscious thought so as to not to super-impose that on what you see. Would be a very interesting study though and I would be very interested in your findings.

Whoooaaa ...... If you don't wish to discuss, then simply don't. You can see that I've attempted to do just that ..... why the heck do you think I know of Stephen Lindsay's writings regarding voltage etc? I have not "proposed" anything electrically. Just brought up what I've read and openly confessed to not properly understanding it. No need for your uncalled for, abrupt and bordering on rude reply. And remind me to let you know about trainers and how they normally "charge" for their services, at anytime should you make use of the advice given for free (and to most people, normally quite willingly and gladly .... because they like to help) by them here on DogzOnLine.

Poodlesplus ...... why did you simply quote my quote as a response/reply? Or was that merely a keyboard error?

Firstly, I'm no electrician and have scant knowledge on the technicalities of electricity and neither to the 'jargon' used in relation to associated terms. So the following responses to part of your post I have taken as direct quotes from Stephen Lindsay's "Applied Dog Behaviour and Training" Volume 3. Because there are so many quotes I have highlighted references to Poodlesplus' statements in RED. Quotes taken from Stephen Lindsay's book are highlighted in BLUE. And mine are in BLACK. Erny : First, an exerpt from his aforementioned book in some basic explanation of terminology : SL : "Specifically, the term "electrical stimulus" (or stim) "has been selected to replace the word shock. ... There are several reasons for this decision. First, at low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effects produced by electronic training collars, since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin. Second, the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsive spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses." PP : The normal open circuit voltage, current, vary enormously between manufacturers. SL : "Because e-collars are designed to limit arcing, both electrodes of the stimulator need to make close contact with the skin to establish a closed circuit." Erny : It would seem from this then, that an open circuit would be achieved only when the collar is fitted incorrectly, and I would catagorise this occurrence as "mis-use" of the tool in question. SL : "When discussing the effects of ES, some care should be exercised not to confuse electrical categories or phenomena. A common error is to equate voltage with current. Electrical potential or voltage is relative and depends on the electromotive difference between two points, whereas current refers to the amount of electrical charge or amperes flowing between those points over some period." Erny : I don't think I could begin to explain in layman's terms the correlation and effect of voltage as to current so I won't begin. But it does appear from the above that there is more to the value of "voltage" than what the ordinary person would first think and that "current" often is not even considered by many when debating or considering the real effect/affect of the e-collar. Stephen also writes about "pulse" and "waveform" which also has a bearing in the energy that makes up the "stim". PP : "Low stim" is no magic either, it is just a lower setting that you might or might not use on your dog. Erny : I don't think anyone claimed "low stim" as magic ..... you're right, it is as it says. But for those unfamiliar it does to imagine "low stims" as often barely detectable and might be as mild as to cause the dog to blink. The debate in relation to e-collars, apart from them not being the treacherous tool some might otherwise think, is that used properly (as ALL equipment and tools - both physical and emotionally applied should be) it can be seen as being kinder to the dog both in a physical and emotional sense compared with other tools and I would argue, even some methodologies particularly favoured by "purely positive" (loose term) trainers in lieu of P+ by way of physical means. PP : The level of percieved shock is extremely variable, and needs to be adjusted according to the humidity, dog's excercise level, callous formation around the shock application sites to name just a few variables. Erny : This is why knowing the dog's 'working level' of stim is important, as well as whether the coat is wet etc. etc. PP : A shock itself is not neccessarily a big deal, but it is important to realise that shocks are adversives. Dogs might or might not percieve them as a greater or less adversives than humans as they have no knowledge of electric shock. Erny : This was an interesting thought. But then I don't think I was unduley distressed as a very young child when I received my first ever electric "shock" when closing a car door one day. Can't say I understood "electric shocks" at that very early age and whilst I might have been more surprised by it than I would be now, to my knowledge it has not left me with any permanent 'mis-givings'. Also not forgetting the principals of learning which are simply about consequences in correllation with the behaviour occuring immediately beforehand. PP : It is likely that a behavourist perspecitive might give some insight. I.E think of another paralell adversive that could produce the same change in behavior and make your decisons accordingly. I sometimes suggest that if it stops a chronic behaviour in a dog, it might be equivalent to knocking a "mature age" male of his bar stool while drinking an ale. Erny : Actually, the e-collar has the great advantage of exactly the opposite. IE Used properly, the dog will pair the e-collar stim directly to the behaviour being exhibited at the time of delivery, rather than pairing the same to the human. Learning is therefore very quick and there is less liklihood of possible break-down of the bond between dog and handler. If someone knocked me (btw, I'm not a 'male' and wish I could ascribe to not being of a "mature age" :D) off my bar stool, I would not correlate it with me drinking an ale or sitting on the stool, but I would correlate it with the person who knocked me. The other advantage of the e-collar stim compared with other traditional punishments is that the force of the latter may be poorly regulated and that its timing can be even more difficult to establish. PP : Here are some inaccuracies that come up time and time again. "The current goes from one terminal to the next " no it doesn't, it goes everywhere!!! The basic realtionship is that I=V/R. well the R changes gradually as you draw arcs away from the terminals. Can it involve the brain? I don't know. It depends on what the restivity of a path through the brain is compared to a path through muscle and skin tissue. SL : "... Kouwenhoven and Milnor (1958) demonstrated that exremely brief low-energy (-.0001 to 2.4J) high voltage shocks of 40,000 V in anestheetised dogs could not induce ventricular fibrillation, cardiac arrest, or "any other untoward effect" ". (If I am understanding what is written, I think 2.4J is twice the amount of peak 'voltage' from the e-collar, but don't quote me on that, because I'm confused by all this e-speak :D.) PP : "Some how electric fences give a worse kind of shock because the dog is standing on "Mother earth", and the shock travels through the central nervous system" ... It is interesting to note that if a dog makes contact with an electric fence, a couple of different things do happen. The first is that generally the shock path is of much higher resistance than an e collar becuase of the pads of the paws.(They are generally hard and calloused) So that the shock current per volts is much lower. Erny : I don't have the technical knowledge to discuss this. But I will say that I have had the experience of knowing the difference between catching a 'shock' from an electric fence and a 'stim' from an e-collar. I know which one I'd prefer ....... you can have the electric fence. :D PP : No, just not true. What happens is that the path of the shock is the least resistance path. This is generally through muscle tissue. Erny : But from what I read, the current, voltage, pulse and waveform all need to be taken into account? Used properly and with sensitivity towards the dog, I doubt the stim levels reach muscle depth. Instead they travel from one contact point through the skin to the other. To my understanding, anyway. PP : The second is that the shock pulse is very narrow, and the dog has plenty of "let go" time, and thirdly the dog controls the release of the shock from the fence by moving. It is generallaly apparent to the dog where the shock comes from. Erny : This is covered above, where mention of the "pairing affect" is discussed. PP : And that brings me to three key issues. It is very easy to give an e collar shock to a dog. It is very easy to get the timing wrong, and hence the dog loses controllability. Like any adversive, it can have unintended side effects. Erny : As can any punishment be that a physical or emotional one. With the e-collar however, the dog-owner does not require as much co-ordination skill and with that said, I can imagine it easier to achieve more accurate timing than otherwise. Of course, like with any aversive application (or for that matter, positive reinforcement where good timing is also required), tuition for the dog-owner is always a recommendation. Furthermore, it is the training that provides the pathway to the dog understanding that it does have "controllability". PP : I really don't want to comment any further on e collars. What I have said technically is correct, and I have used correct language, stating what are facts and what are not. It would be great if others could do the same. I have no desire to take part in a politician type battle, just a sane calm discussion based on fact. Erny :

TNT - Some dogs are that way inclined - although they don't normally enjoy it when they don't get opportunity to 'play' with it. But maybe you could use your squirt bottle as a reward in release time (after an exercise has been executed) for a job well done! Especially in the hot weather :D.

Hi Vicki. What are the things you refer to that "are just now becoming the only way"? If PDTS would never use a deterrent/punishment such as a squirt of water from a water bottle (which is one of the most mildest forms of punishment) what punisher would she find acceptable? I think this is why Kelpie-i asked if PDTS was of the "purely positive" (loose term) doctrine. Most of the good trainers/behaviourist I know accurately assess each individual situation and tailor behaviour modification programs to suit the individual dog and person. That's not a new or even novel thing - although that's not to say they are necessarily a dime a dozen either. There are some instances where I might not use (eg) water squirt bottle (for whatever reason). But that's not to say I'd never use it. (Note: Using the squirt bottle as only one of a number of other possible examples.) ETA: That PDTS has confused/entangled "punishment" activities with what can be regarded as "leadership" exercises (which pertain to setting boundaries/limitations) has served to confuse me, which is also probably why I can't identify where she is coming from. As Vicki you have attested, PDTS has achieved good results with the problem you had with your own dog/s, so I do not intend to be discrediting PDTS here. Simply :D by what she sometimes writes.

How did you know!!! Yes - as the initial step to set up for the next stage.

Glad Bondi is improving. What is the cause of her health issues? Does the Vet know? Is it a secondary condition to a virus or something?

Any news Boxagirl? Hope the last couple of days have seen some improvement for Bondi.

Deelee2 .................. has your dog school instructor given you advice in relation to your training for a loose lead walk? Generally speaking it's not too difficult with the knowledge of the right strategy.

Thanks Peibe ...... but we may only get so far. I am loathe to train via the internet and will only take methods to a point given that I don't have the luxury of supervising - especially where aggression is involved. If the dog were older than it is, I would probably refrain from even suggesting anything other than a behaviour consultation. Of course, it's a little too far to travel for me, as much as I'd love to visit WA having never been there before. I have given Varicool some basic beginnings and have a couple more non-confrontational steps to follow through with a bit later - these will be described by telephone after the carers describe to me the progress being made. I am only hoping that, as the pup is so young, they may do the trick. Much will rely on the carer's consistency and dedication over the next couple of weeks or so though.......