poodlefan

Fair enough. My concern would be about desexing so young.. I'd be prepared to bargain to avoid it.

Given that Jap Spitz are sought by puppy farmers, I completely understand your breeders concerns CW. Secret Kei's advice is very good. You might also suggest to you breeder that she could remain a co-owner of your girl or withold her papers until proof of desexing is provided.

I'd be finding a club that did suit my methods if that were possible. The only folk I know who aren't club members have full sets of gear permanently set up and have training sessions with other folk.

Yep, there are. They usually breed for characteristics other than colour too. I don't get your comments, I really don't....of course a 'good' breeder would be breeding for characteristics not just colour....you've pretty much stated that anyone who breeds Chocolates is shonky which is not the case. Please show me where I said that anyone who breeds chocolate labs is shonky. I've said no such thing. What I did say is I'd be wary of a Lab breeder that had references to chocolate in their prefix. Why? Because that to me is indicative that colour is the priority in their breeding program. There are colour breeders amongst Labrador breeders as there among a range of breeds. For the most part, breeding for colour sees a lot of other desireable characteristics given lesser priority. That's hardly a head start in the search to find a good Labrador. The right puppy for a family in a multicoloured litter may not be chocolate. What's more important, the best match for you or a dog with the right colour wrapping? We all have colour preferences. The problem arises when that preference dominates all other important factors AND breeders establish themselves to cater for it at premium costs.

Yep, there are. They usually breed for characteristics other than colour too.

Diva touched on something that stuck a chord with me. I like the fact that when I look at my dogs, I'm looking at living history. They aren't "just a dog" to me. As individuals, they are the living genetic legacy of generations of others that have preceded them. Catherine the Great and Sir Winston Churchill shared their lives with one of my breeds of choice. They've workeds as gundogs, truffle hunters, mascots and circus dogs. Poodles have gone to war, to work, have been popular among taxi drivers and ladies of the night. The story goes that in the USA last century, prostitutes were social pariahs in towns and outside of working had few companions other than each other and their dogs. Poodles were a popular pet for prostitutes and for that reason no respectable woman would be seen with one. That did not change until the 1930's or so when movie stars started to own them. As for Whippets? They were the coal miner's dog. Many a poacher had one too. Kept with the family (and probably fed better than most of them) they'd run on the weekend to earn a few pounds or help find some bunnies for the pot. They lived inside and I would imagine slept in the families beds. Not much has changed in that regard. So much for "snobbery". Both my breeds of choice have good working class connections even if they have been the chosen companions of the rich and wealthy over the years. Of course a lot of people don't give a rats about things like that.

Certainly Choc Labs, which are neither rare or unusual! I certainly would be wary of a breeder with that colour in their prefix.

You might like to contemplate why CW.

HOw long have you had the dog?

Have one installed in the glass of one of the sliding doors. You can always replace the glass.

Found just the thing :

Where is the quoting vet located Centitout. I'm pretty sure you'd not get a spey done many places around here for $300 these days.

No doubt you've seen it but I've seen video of a dog cued to go to his bed (rather than rush to the door barking) when the doorbell was used. Reliability occured VERY quickly.

Is this only happening at night time?

So, I have the treat in my hand, dog expects treat. I lure the dog into a sit but it doesn't. So no treat. Are you saying the dog doesn't interpret that as something being taken away? No, he didn't have the treat so it wasn't taken away. Don't forget, behaviourists make observations and do not make assumptions about things like what a dog might "interpret" (not that it would make any difference in this case). In an extinction procedure the reinforcer is likely always expected (as it is in your example). Dog expects treat, doesn't get it, response goes into extinction, which typically follows a curve and is subject to well-studied phenomena associated with extinction. One of the fastest ways to extinguish a response is to reinforce it continuously first so that the dog expects a reinforcer and figures out quickly that something has changed when there isn't one. Let me see if I'm following this correctly. If the "lure to sit" example I gave is an extinction procedure, the response that will be extinguished is the failure to sit? If I constantly reinforce my dog barking at the front door for some weeks, then stop reinforcing it (and presumably cue a more desireable behaviour), then I should see a decrease in barking?

Aidan: So, I have the treat in my hand, dog expects treat. I lure the dog into a sit but it doesn't. So no treat. Are you saying the dog doesn't interpret that as something being taken away? If the addition of the halti decreases the behaviour, I'm a bit stumped as to how it can't be +P. Consistent aversive effect aside,surely the contingent +P is that the dog feels pressure when it pulls. Pulling = pressure on the face AND potentially failure to progress. Dog pulls, leash tightens (because I allow it to) and dog's progress is thwarted. I'm doing this, not the dog.

So people's lack of understanding of your posts is due to their lack of education? As you will no doubt find out, effective communication is the absolute bedrock of dog training. You can be the best dog trainer in the world but if you cannot explain yourself to handlers, you're next to useless. Having a hissy fit and blaming others for your failure to effectively communicate isn't a recommended response so you might like to start practising avoidance of that. Scratch that bit, Aidan's covered it.

How very condescending of you Jeanne. However it seems the concept continues to elude you. You fail once again to grasp that "positive" trainers do use "punishment" according to the terms used to describe the quadrants of operant conditioning. Go have another read.

Formerly horsey JulesP.. .and frankly I think any dog trainer who likes bullying as a method needs to meet a horse like my old boy who'd put a few farriers into walls when they hit him. Kick a horse in the guts for mucking up while you're riding it and you may end up being tossed over its head. That's positive punishment equine style. 1500kg animals don't get forced to do much they really don't want to do by methods other than use of force. So you learn to show them how doing what you want profits them, as you say. A very very good starting point for dog training. Personally I think there are significant differences between training predatory and prey animals. But starting with the big guys teaches you to use your head because in a match of push and shove, you're the one who's going down.

.......whoosh..... that's the tongue in cheek bit flying over my head. There's a really good horse training website that stresses that the use of the terms "positive" "negative", "reinforcement" and "punishment" in the OP quadrants aren't about being "nice" or "nasty".. I honestly wonder how many folk truly grasp that sometimes. That's why, like you, I don't use it in classes at all. While useful for people who understand it, the language is very counter-intuitive for the uninitiated. Being even less sophisticated I talk about "good stuff for dogs" and "bad stuff for dogs" because the other thing people don't grasp all that well is that what a dog experiences as rewarding or aversive may not be what a human thinks is rewarding or aversive. Damn, I thought that said. "that's why I like you".. Yep, if the folk you are training can't grasp the concepts, you need to simplify.

Hooks and latches for the doors the clever dog can handle. Lots of boxes (eg. shoe boxes) and other storage containers for the rest. Scatter plush toys around more. If you're leaving it when the dog can access it, you're going to keep getting what you've got. Some dogs are just treasure hunters. I have one of these.

.......whoosh..... that's the tongue in cheek bit flying over my head. There's a really good horse training website that stresses that the use of the terms "positive" "negative", "reinforcement" and "punishment" in the OP quadrants aren't about being "nice" or "nasty".. I honestly wonder how many folk truly grasp that sometimes.

Totally agree with this bit. And heaven help anyone that says anything against prongs, e collars etc. Why? Haven't used either. Don't intend to use either. Have WORN both .. and agree that they can be abused, but not that all use is not abusive. Wanna know something.. I feel the same way about Haltis. (except I havent' worn one ) None of these tools are what I see as the first and best option for community dog trainers to advocate. If anyone wants to flame me for that so be it. I don't confuse the majority view with the "correct" view on a lot of issues. A voice in the wildnerness may be the voice of reason. Can't debate anything without opposing views and its via debates on this forum that I have learned a heap of stuff about dogs. I'm not into "group think". But one person or a bunch of folk who think one thing shouldn't mean others can't express a contrary view. Frankly I think most of the hyenas on this forum are in the imagination of the DOLer who gets views they don't like expressed on their posts.

because a purely positive trainer by defenition would use positive punishment and not negative reinforcement. (if we're talking about using methods with the prefix "+ve" .......I dislike what i consider to be harsh aversives, but the misuse of the term "purely positive" annoys me too.....it makes it look like the trainers who use the term don't understand what they're talking about. I think the term "trainaing without harsh aversives" would be a better term. I think there's a fair bit of confusion about what sorts of training method fit into which quadrant of operational conditioning and what PP really means. It sure confuses the hell out of me at times. I summarise it thus: Positive reinforcement (+R) - something a trainer does that increases the frequency of the behaviour Negative reinforcement (-R) - something a trainer doesn't do that increases the frequency of the behaviour (and a common reason for increases in unwanted self rewarding behaviours IMO) Positive punishment (+P)- something a trainer does that decreases the frequency of the behaviour Negative punishment (-P) - something a trainer doesn't do that decreases the frequency of the behaviour To me a PP trainer only uses +R and -P. Some folk say they only use +R but I find they generally do "no reward" and that's -P. And that readers, is using "punishers". Of course, start using any of this language around most trainee handlers, and you'll lose them. I tend to talk about the WIFM (what's in it for me) principle.. reward what you want from a dog and he'll generally want to do that more. That's the basic method our club uses. That's my Whippet's philosophy, that's for sure. By the way, I see the use of Haltis as +P. You put it on, the dog stops pulling.. voila - positive punishment. This is one of my objections to Delta advertising themselves as PP - they ain't. They just can't see it.

Nicely said HR there are some breeds of dogs I'd probably not own because I consider myself to "soft" to handle one. Your breed of choice (despite my admiration for it) is one. Yep, there are some tough Poodles and Whippets around and some marshmallow Rotties. But statistically, my chances of getting a Rott that wants to push the envelope should be greater. However in the real world lots of folk end up with the wrong dogs for their personalities. Finding how to get those dog/handler combinations to work I expect is what keeps many a trainer tossing and turning at night, regardless of their avowed training style. One I find particular frustrating is the sparky dog that thrives on verbal praise and has a handler that's about as exciting as an undertaker at a stamp auction (apologies to stamp collectors and undertakers).