Erny

Edited because I didn't read properly.

What if the dog enjoys the lower value food as well ..... ANY food for that matter? I am presuming it is a case of the dog not being able to have any of either? ETA: What's the success rate (ie reliability) of this training when: (a) There is no higher value food option available; and/or (b) The food being offered (but which is to be refused) is a high value food?

Food Refusal: Dog refuses (without being told) to eat the food UNLESS it receives the specifically taught instruction. Leave: Dog doesn't refuse food, but does stop from taking it BECAUSE it heard its specifically taught instruction. There is a further difference between 1 and 2 (above). In #1, provided the dog's training has been taken to these higher levels, the handler/owner doesn't need to be around to stop the dog from taking food. In #2 the handler/owner needs to be there to instruct the dog to "leave it".

Must admit, these are two words I commonly use when talking to clients.

Thats what I said earlier as well, what is the difference in your mind Erny? Didn't I explain that in my post?

As a child, one firm word from my Dad and I would come to heel, quick smart. If I did something wrong that I knew my Dad wouldn't approve of, I dreaded receiving his disapproval. I guess in a way it was fear. Fear of being a disappointment. Fear of him not being happy with me. Fear of being in disgrace. But I think all of this only because I respected (and still respect) him so much. I was NEVER fearful of him in any other aspect. NEVER afraid of him being unfair. Never afraid of him failing me as a parent (leader). Never afraid that he wouldn't be there when I needed him. Never afraid of him physically hurting me. In fact, sometimes I think I would have preferred him to smack my butt than to see his face showing disappointment or disapproval. My Mum .... well, I guess we got away with things somewhat more with her. I respected her, certainly (and still do) but didn't have the same reverance as I did and have for Dad. My point here is not to compare human/human relations with dog/human relations or dog/dog relations, but that there is sometimes a fine line between fear and respect.

I know of some people who have recently had the implant ......... well, implanted (in their dog, I mean). Their Vet informed them that when the implant is inserted, the dog's testosterone levels "go through the roof" and to expect some heightened behaviour as a result within the first 7 days. Beyond that the testosterone levels are supposed to settle down and over time, diminish. The owners of this dog confirmed their dog's behaviour did in fact escalate in that first period of time. Curious about this (because in my work I am in contact also with aggressive dogs .... naturally any escalation of aggression would be what I'd want to avoid) I spoke to another well known and respected Vet who suggests the implant does not increase testosterone levels and that even if it did, those levels would not/should not affect the dog's usual behaviour given that the body will only use so much testosterone. In other words, just because there is more available doesn't mean it will be used. These are mostly my words and the best I could put it altogether, but I think it gives you the gist of what was said. My question to those who have dogs and have used and experienced the effect of the implant, is was there any noticeable change in your dog's behaviour - especially inside the first week (give or take) after the implant was inserted? Although I'd appreciate comments on this from everyone who has a dog with the implant, I'd ESPECIALLY like to hear from anyone who has a dog with any form of aggressive behaviours and whether these behaviours noticeably heightened or not.

My understanding of those people who refer to themselves as "positive trainers" won't use any of the above equipment, under any circumstances regardless. Apart from "positive" seminars I've been to, I believe Delta holds this attitude/protocol as well. I have heard of a few clients where the "positive" methods have not served to remedy certain problematic behaviours, and they have been referred on ..................

Because classical conditioning is a mode of learning whereby feelings and involuntary reactions are learnt, I can see why this mode of learning would over-ride that of operant conditioning in times of stress or excitement, which is often where conscious thoughts are driven to the background. We commonly use classical conditioning even when we don't realise it. Eg. Otherwise meaningless words such as "good dog" become meaningful over time because they are commonly paired with something good (like a pat or a treat). Later, when we say "good dog" it can arouse the feelings a dog has when it is receiving something good, even if in the absence of the pat or treat. However, classical conditioning is prone to extinction if the two things (ie conditioned stimulus such as "good dog") is no longer paired with the treat or pat (ie unconditioned stimulus), over a period of time. Operant conditioning, on the otherhand, is not quite as prone to extinction given that it is about reinforcement for a behaviour on an intermittent schedule. The downside is that learning is slower. Hence why many trainers begin training with Instrumental conditioning, which is where every wanted behaviour is reinforced everytime (ie continuous schedule) thereby producing a faster learning curve, then weaned to operant conditioning (ie intermittant schedule of reinforcement).

Hi LL .... long time no catch up. Must fix that. ;) I don't know what you mean by the above. From what I gather, we have agreed. Different training methods suit different dogs. Different training methods suit different applications for which we are training. At least, that's the gist of what I have gleened from the conversation as it stands. LL : I think they do. Although knowing this, we should be able to adjust to suit each individual dog. LL : Again, yes. Which is why different training methods suit different dogs. I am assuming you mean "temperament" in your interpretation of "personality". I would also take into account any prior learning history as well. LL : Referring to my signature quote ie "If you fail to plan you plan to fail. Train with your end goal in mind", I think the answer to this one is yes as well. However, I don't think one can lose sight of the big picture as regardless, the dog's (using your word) "personality" and any other contributing existing behaviours still needs to be taken into account.

I didn't say anything about your terminology, Rhapsodical78. To be honest, I didn't really read it that closely.

I have done the NDTF course .... and I am familiar with the matrix you refer to. I am thinking beyond the basic foundations of what the course teaches though, and I don't believe I am conflicting with it. "Compulsion" training method is what I was referring to in my post above. If you can clarify where you believe that what I am saying conflicts with what NDTF teaches, perhaps I can work out where you don't understand what I am saying. ;)

I'm sorry Leopuppy ..... you've lost me. I interpreted this LP : to mean you were suggesting that the same result can be achieved with every dog regardless of the training method you use but that it is the level the trainer trains to that makes the difference. If that IS your meaning, I disagree. But then, on your last post, it seems we both might be now saying the same thing? It is a matter of working out which method of training that best suits the dog. In some cases, what MOST motivates the dog results in behaviours that are completely intolerable.

I agree with Kelpie-i here. These methods are used to show the dog what behaviour we expect of them ..... what will achieve them things they like. In general practice, these methods are used so that the dog can build word association with the commands we attach to the actions. Once this is accomplished, we generally work towards weaning off from having to induce or physically compell the dog. Having said this, there is one fine line I'd like to contribute my thoughts towards and that relates to the "guide, show, place" method of training. In this (apart from showing the dog what WILL achieve it something it would like), the dog's freedom to do anything other than what we want is removed. When the dog complies, freedom is restored (ie dog is released). So we have a situation here that is a negative reinforcement (keeping dog in position until there is no resistance) OR a positive reward (releasing the dog because there is no resistance), depending on which way you wish to look at it. But then, if the dog IS resisting, the compulsion remains or increases. I can see here where this then can be perceived as a positive punishment. But again ............. it's a very fine line.

I don't agree with this (highlighted section). It does come down to the "method used" - it much depends on the dog and whether it sees a greater value in "disobeying" than "obeying" and what method best creates that balance. Of course, the "level" of training contributes in all factors. But the method for one might not be sufficient for another.

Leopuppy .... it sounds to me as if you are discussing "reliability" and the level each individual requires of their dog? You are saying you are happy with what you achieve in your way, but recognise that others have reasons for achieving more reliability in the same/similar skills? ETA: I work to avoid giving corrections unless I know the dog has an understanding of what behaviour is required.

I have shared the same thoughts as Cosmolo here. Giving a well-timed and sufficiently effective correction to a dog is not about making it fearful. It is about showing it that it has a choice and that it is in control of that choice. The choice to behave in a certain way, or another. It is the dog understanding that choice and knowing it is in control of it that actually produces confidence that it knows what to do that will be to its advantage. I will use a somewhat extreme analogy here - extreme because I do not suggest by any stretch of imagination that the level of pain in this example is what signifies an "effective correction"................ We all know that if we put our hand on a hot stove top will cause major injury. But do we walk around the stove top in fear? I don't, because I have learnt that I am in control of whether I can avoid that correction or not. I simply need to not put my hand on it. This example, as I say, is extreme. There are many examples of other and more mild aversives many of us experience in life that might serve as examples of effective corrections. Eg. I consistently receive a 'shock' after having alighted from my car (when I'm wearing rubber soled shoes) when I go to shut the door. I commonly end up swinging it shut but using my sleeved forearm. I'm not scared of my car, though. I am in control as to whether I receive a correction from it, or not. An effective correction is one that delivers a level of unpleasantness necessary for the dog to want to avoid the behaviour it was corrected for, the next time. This can be as mild as a verbal correction, or simply the unpleansant (but not painful) sensation of an e-collar. A mix of reward for the dog performing a behaviour that is "wanted" further serves to make it clearer to the dog which behaviour is the most advantageous to it.

Here's a LINK to an older thread that touched on this subject as far as it relates to comparison of training dogs -vs- marine mammals. Actually, the thread isn't about that, although it did wander off track (as threads do ) towards that topic. I'm being completely lazy by simply copying and pasting my response to a similar (although not same) comment made by another poster in relation to how other animals (in this case, a "Killer Whales" are trained). Erny:

If he is barking/whining to get your attention, the mere fact that you go outside to bring him in will serve as a reinforcer - probably one that is more valuable than any toilet can undo.

Oh? I understood it as some offer of 'solution' to the aggro problem so that Pearl wouldn't respond to Bear's aggro facial expressions . Aren't these the two dogs who are the topic of this thread? Or is that where I've become confused? Anyway .... no matter if I've gotten confused with who's talking about what in relation to which dog.

I confess to being somewhat lost in this thread with regards to who did what to who etc., but I'd caution against having one dog muzzled freely interacting amongst any one or more other dogs. Regardless of facial expressions indicating aggression (and don't forget, eyes are part of this), there are many other postures which contribute, so a muzzle isn't going to do too much to detract from that. In any event, the muzzled dog would have no means of protecting itself, regardless of whether it was his/her other body posturing which provoked the attack or not.

Not at all, Husky87. Thank you for the kind words. If Lamanna would care to contact me (website link is also at the foot of each of my posts) I'd be happy to have a chat with her and sort something out. Lamanna - as you're already aware, you have some issues here that are going to escalate into more serious behaviour unless they are specifically addressed. Shiba Inu's are great dogs but are willful little characters - some one-on-one home advice I'm certain is going to set you on the path to righting your dog's behaviour and setting a more harmonious relationship that you can BOTH enjoy.

Tilly - I might use "bed" as a 'time-out' (ie not in trouble but settle down) but never as a punishment (ie "sin-bin"). IMO Bed should reflect a safe-haven type environment, the same as crates for those dogs who are crate-trained. The garage could work - provided there is little there to amuse them, if you a seeking a high-level isolation punishment. Be careful there's no nasties such as "anti-freeze" that they can get their mouths onto.

Toilet. It is more exclusionary than simply out in the back yard. Make sure lid is down and toilet roll (and brush etc.) is out of reach. When you have decided there has been sufficient "sin-bin time", allow the dog out but don't make a fuss or pay attention for a while. Oh - and only one dog at a time in the toilet. Do you have two toilets? ;)

Well written response, Anita. I work and think similarly.